Never Censored

E-stripsearching at the airport

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 02:43:16 -0600

It's been a while since the last blog, but I genuinely felt this needs to be said quite clearly: if 30% of Americans will at some point travel by air this year, 30% of Americans (~75,000,000 people) will be being strip-searched at the airport--without probable cause--if we allow backscatter machines to become permanent fixtures in the security line.

I have no idea what makes people somehow think that the magic of technology somehow mitigates such a brazen violation of several constitutional rights by treating the 30% of the entire American population that travels by air each year like criminals.

By the way, in case some of you out there somehow think that this will make things safer, know this: a terrorist doesn't expect to survive the flight, so he'll have no problem filling his large intestine with explosives or downing a few sealed baggies of his explosive of choice. Drug smugglers already do it with every drug imaginable, so I don't think it's beyond wide-eyed fundamentalists to do the same thing with explosives.

Keeping that in mind, my fellow 30% of America, when this e-strip-searching fails to prevent the next once-in-a-decade attack that apparently only kills a few thousand people (0.002% of Americans), be sure to think of me and how right I was when 30% of us are getting...what? I dunno? What's next? Maybe...e-fingers-in-the-asses by some robot. After all, it's not strip searching en masse when it's done electronically, so surely it's not a cavity search when it's also done electronically.

Go ahead. Laugh at the idea of an airport anal probe. I know I did. I mean, it's absurd to even think it'll happen. The thought of a robot with a finger in my ass at the airport is hilarious, and since this is the internet, someone out there probably finds the idea not only hilarious but exciting. :P

I suppose, though, that if a few decades ago you'd told me 30% of everyone in the country and 100% of all air travel passengers would be getting strip-searched annually, without probable cause, well, I would have probably laughed just as hard.

By the way, if any historians in the future happen to read my tiny, insignificant blog on the outskirts of the internet, know this: this is how the most successful empires fall. It's neither lead-lined aquifers nor disease nor invasion nor over-expansion; instead, it's paranoia. Dopamine-fueled paranoia that something, somewhere, somehow... will get us or our children--that evil and danger lurks in our own shadows and must therefore be eradicated before the boogeymen get us. It doesn't matter if the threat is insignificant, justified, or non-existent. If it's insignificant, we think it can be eliminated; if it's justified, then we'll claim ourselves infallible to it; if it's if it's non-existent, then we'll invent it.

When our last real enemy gave up, we panicked when there were no more. We turned on ourselves and decided that if the evil isn't just out there any more, it must be right here instead. It's because of this paranoia that we end up stripping away everything that has allowed the ~~empire~~...~~republic~~...once-democratic nation to flourish in the first place. All of our principles, including freedom itself, are sequentially being seen as weaknesses that are being exploited in a seemingly perfectible curtain of allegedly impervious iron--and those weaknesses must be patched for our curtain to remain strong.

Of course, as history has shown us, it's a detrimental, ineffective curtain that's fated to fall. No matter how high it's built or how wide it extends, it can never be anything other than a huge, expensive hunk of metal we use to keep ourselves thinking we're locking bad guys out when we're really just locking ourselves in, becoming a nation of idle shut-ins content in our baseless, self-determined notion of perfection.

The curtain always falls, and it doesn't fall lightly. It crashes down with a rippling thud, crushing the poor souls desperate enough to erect it in the first place--all to protect the putrid corpse of the past. We'd do anything to get back to the irrationally-idealized "good" ol' days, obsessing in our quest with some bastardized notion that for us, the ends can somehow morally justify the means.

Somehow the anal-probing robot fits into the metaphor, but I'm not sure how. I have to admit, though, I like the mental image of it "inspecting" the very minions constructing the wall. That'd be hilarious...

... Hilarious, but shockingly accurate to the metaphor.

To wrap it all up, I've got this to say: what...the...fuck are you people thinking? Did it never occur to you, somewhere along the way of Nixon, Bush, and the Patriot Act that maybe we should quit fag-bashing and stand up for something noble...something peaceful...something...actually good? Is it even worth trying to fix it any more? I'm starting to think that everyone's just content with letting it all fall to the ground because the charismatic men on TV with fire in their souls, aesthetic crosses on their necks, and cookie-cutter stickers on their cars sit and tell you some missing white girl or some jerk burning a flag or some dude getting married to a dude is somehow more important than 30% of Americans being e-strip-searched without probable cause.

That said, I make a fuss, but in all honesty I really don't give a flying fuck. Nowadays I'm so far outside the freak show that I can only look on and watch in awe. A part of me still wants to join in--to fit in--but thank god I've so far been able to bitch slap that part of me down. :P

It's lonely out here, though. There are few lights, and what lights there are lie far off in the distance, polluted by the fluorescent decadence of a once candle-lit hope for tomorrow. I must admit, though, that I quite like the darkness that everyone's afraid of, because there's nothing to be afraid of once you step outside the light of our noisy cave. I mean, you expect some monster to come get you, and you kind of want one to gobble you whole when you find out the monsters never existed in the first place, or if they did, they're back the way you just came.

I also like the fact that the dark's one of the last places where you can still find balance, and, most of all, freedom.

That said, darkness is a bit depressing at times, and it's a bit of a bitch trying to find the rare kindred spirits wandering around in a night that's almost as black as pitch.... :\ On the upside, though, pot grows like a weed out here, and stress is nonexistent. No wonder they tell everyone there are monsters out here--the whole system would collapse if people knew they actually had a shot at happiness if they stepped out of their caves.

Imagine if we all stopped listening to the cacophonous din of a rock star nation that's been convinced by its businessmen to dump its instruments and ignore its band mates; a pop star nation that now wonders why it struggles to find a harmony or even carry a tune after having carved out its own heart; a bright star nation so desperate to satisfy its addiction to an inflated bottom line that it will steal the very shoes from under the feet of others if it yields more fuel to burn.

That's all it is--a sadistic symphony where everyone screams pointless nothings, dances out of rhythm, and flails aimless delusions in perfect self-confidence that unlike the mechanical music monkeys they so frequently resemble, they remain differentiated from both primitive simians and robotic mechanizations by a far greater, decidedly unique purpose: to repetitively clap for a bass-less cymbal of happiness.

Kellogg donates Phelps-labeled cereal to food bank; I launch Potheads 4 Hunger

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:39:27 -0500

In case you missed it, Michael Phelps smoked some weed and people went crazy over it. As part of the fallout, Kellogg axed their deal with him. Now, here's the kicker: they're donating the boxes with him on it to a food bank:

San Francisco Food Bank officials say they're thrilled about a recent donation by Kellogg Co. of thousands of boxes of breakfast cereal.

And they're intrigued to note the boxes have Olympic athlete Michael Phelps' face on the front.

Apparently the only way to get billion-dollar food corporations to donate to the starving poor is for celebrities they endorse to smoke weed and publicly admit to doing so. Sounds like a good plan to me.

If it means that Kellogg will donate more food to homeless shelters and food banks (for once), then I think it's a good plan. As a result, I am now officially calling upon all current and future Kellogg-sponsored celebrities to smoke weed for the poor. I call it: "Potheads 4 Hunger."

Sure, we all know that weed tends to bring on the munchies, but isn't it paradoxically poetic that in the pangs of drug-induced hunger, we'd be curing real-world hunger? It doesn't harm the pot-smokers in the slightest (remember, it's impossible to overdose on weed), and it would result in helping to end world hunger. Plus, I actually like munching on Frosted Flakes when I'm stoned, so I'd be helping to offset the lost profits of Kellogg "donating" the celebrity pot smoker boxes to charity. It's win-win!

So I say to all celebrities: smoke pot while being endorsed by Kellogg, and you're doing your part to cure world hunger. Join Potheads 4 Hunger today!

High school play banned for sex and drugs to go on at local college

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:09:37 -0600

A bunch of parents with sand in their vages banned a Steve Martin play about the nature of creativity, intelligence, commercialism, and art from being performed at the high school (with a 4-3 vote by the school board), because the play contained allusions to alcohol and sex. So, a local college stepped in and said the students could perform it there. Kickass.

From the article:

The La Grande School District Superintendent got a complaint from a parent and a petition signed by 137 people and banned the play, which has references to sex and drinking, features the characters of Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso meeting in a Paris bar in 1904, as both were on the verge of breakthrough work. It deals with themes of artistry, genius and the nature of the 20th century.

Since when is an allusion to either sex or drinking a problem in performace? Seriously.

It's not because they're "children." They're highschoolers. Teenagers. They're a couple of years away from 100% unfiltered reality and being free'n'able to blow someone's head off in war, but sex and alcohol is too much for them to handle? Up until the 80s they were able to buy and drink alcohol, and it was outlawed only due to the now-proven-incorrect belief it would end teenage drunk driving, so their knowledge of it or alleged glorifying of it is immaterial, since they're clearly not going to be possessing it, drinking it, or driving during the course of the play.

The country supported outlawing it solely to prevent them from harming others-- not due to the alcohol, the consumption of alcohol, the idea of alcohol, or the glorification thereof. We tried that nearly a century ago with extremely poor results; organized crime and violence significantly increased until prohibition was repealed, at which point violence and crime levels returned to pre-prohibition rates. We don't want to re-live the first part of that, right?

The second half of this is sex. Again, they're not kids. Their metaphorical (and in half of them, literal) balls have dropped, and sex is totally natural. Everyone living is the result of it.

For the parents to assume their children don't already know about sex is truly frightening, because it means they've completely failed as parents, and even worse, they don't give a crap enough about their kid to inform them (or are too ball-less to do so), while at the same time disallowing a play to do the job for them. More shocking is that the parents are assuming that their kids aren't already having sex and don't already talk about it between friends— that's mind-bogglingly ignorant.

So, I guess the only reason for forbidding the play is due to the artistic tastes of parents. That, too, is also immaterial. If a parent doesn't like the art his kid enjoys, then the parent needs to shut the hell up and remember how rock'n'roll, jazz, nudism, and pretty much every new art form on the face of the planet spurred significant negative criticism by "parents" during their respective periods. Then again, I guess they would have been reminded of that once they had seen the play that their kids would have performed (that's part of the content of the play) but instead the parents essentially ban themselves from seeing it, plugging their ears and drowning out reason with their baseless screams.

In the end, if the goal is to shield your kid from the world until the second they've been thrust head-first into it, or if your goal is to stagnate art, halt progress, hasten the collapse of creativity, and force the country to fall behind as the rest of the world develops on, then by all means, ban the play and everything else you don't like. Good luck. All I ask is that you simply come up front and say that instead of masking it as a problem of an artistic work referencing drugs, alcohol, sex, harsh language, or some other vague, arbitrary and unfounded crap about "the children."

Really, I should be thanking the parents. As a result of their actions, I'm willing to bet that countless high schools across the country will be performing the play in the near future. People are like that. Censor something, and it's seen by everyone. I guess it means that the world isn't completely mindless...

...yet.

What makes a poem good

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:05:11 -0600

Someone posted a question on Yahoo answers that they didn't know the difference between a good and a bad poem and was asking others advice on how to tell what a good poem is. I wrote this in response:

For a poem to be good
At least as I have understood...
Undefined.

There is nothing—
Nothing to describe—
Only feeling.

Ignore what others say it should be,
For they are the ones
Who've never understood
That which makes
A poem good

Even if "they" say it could be
in some essence
in evanescence
in scripted hurry
in useless words...

They'll have said
What must make it good
And I'll weep:

They'll never hear the music—
Only tones.
They'll never sing the lyrics—
Only chant.
Yet still tell a poet
That he doesn't belong.

What makes it good?
The flow?
Prosodic plateau?
Love, itself, in tow?

I don't know.
I hope one day
That none will know,
For on that day
Our souls,
Risen from below,
Will ascend to that far better place,
Flying through our own hazes—
Of dark and bright—
Of black and white—
Of wrong and right—
And with hindsight in our rear view mirror,
And everything suddenly clearer,
Our next stop, nearer:
Nirvana.

Michael Phelps is not a role model, so quit treating him like one

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:21:00 -0600

Turns out Michael Phelps got suspended for hitting off of a bong. From the article:

...we decided to send a strong message to Michael because he disappointed so many people, particularly the hundreds of thousands of USA Swimming member kids who look up to him as a role model and a hero...

What? A role model and a hero? Are you serious?!!? More importantly, are you high? If you want your kid to take after a guy who's spending 6 hours a day swimming in a pool (since he was in his teens), eating like a fiend, and selling his soul to advertisers as his day job (i.e., "he's a role model"), well, perhaps you're stupid enough to believe he should be punished because he took a hit off a bong after "work."
Continue reading "Michael Phelps is not a role model, so quit treating him like one"

DNA evidence clears guy convicted of rape in 1985 who died in jail

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:46:18 -0600

From zee article:

The Legislature took on a somber tone Wednesday as lawmakers honored the family of a man who died in prison, only to have DNA testing show years later that he did not commit the rape he was convicted of. Tim Cole and his relatives for years claimed he was innocent in the rape of a Texas Tech University student in 1985. But until DNA from the crime scene was tested last year, no one else believed them.

Rape sucks, but one person's word against another should be avoided at all costs. Two reasons:

1. The accuser's word always outweighs the defendant's by default. See also: Duke lacrosse thing. Despite multiple people and substantial evidence to contrary, people still sided with the accuser by default.

2. The human mind is more likely to make mistakes in picking out the actual rapist out of fear of not picking one at all. It's kind of like how when a kid shoots up a school, the everyone frantically searches for a causal reason or something to blame-- even if it's incorrect, because not having a "root cause" is considerably scarier for everyone than blaming an arbitrary thing. I think the same thing frequently happens in rape: out of fear of not finding the attacker, the mind is more okay with finding the wrong one than finding none at all.

Think about it: if you're a rape victim, you really want to find the bastard and make him pay. The problem is that walking away empty-handed is, to make an understatement, less appealing than finding the guy that really did it. I mean, who wants to look over one's shoulder every night worried that "he's still out there?" As a result, I'd argue that it's more likely for a victim to make an honest mistake during a line-up by merely picking someone who looks close enough for their brain to be certain (for its own sake) that that's the person— even though it's not. Combined with the overall unreliability of eyewitness testimony, as a whole, and I'm sure this poor guy isn't the only one to have been wrongly convicted.

That said, it probably would have helped not to have been black in Lubbock, Texas in 1985. :P

Death of a House

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:33:01 -0600

"Death of a House"

On the horizon, darkened clouds
Across the windows, darkened shrouds
Boarded exits, darkened rooms;
Tension in silence; darkness looms.

No thing lives in this darkened space—
Not even those that built this place
And blocked the doors in perfect fear
Of what should but ne'er did appear

In perfect darkness in its perfect still
And a stagnant silence on its perfect hill
Its builders wanted a perfect life;
Sliced out their strife with a perfect knife

Then perfect wallpaper faded,
And perfect paint degraded,
Then, perfectly unaided,
Nature invaded.

Blockaded, degraded, and bladed
Then all held back cascaded—
Unaided—
Because our souls we traded.

Ann Coulter's mouth wired shut. I now believe in god again.

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:57:47 -0600

God really does work in mysterious ways, doesn't he? Apparently Ann Coulter broke her jaw and has, as a result, had to have it wired shut. Change truly has come. :P

Seriously, though, I wonder what she'll do in the interim. Consider: her job consists, essentially, of pissing on anyone either not in the majority or not big business; so, losing her voice reduces her ability to work by half. No doubt in the meantime she'll write a book or two ostracizing gays, atheists, and/or democrats, while complaining that Christians are somehow persecuted despite being in the overwhelming majority. Nevertheless, she'll still make ends meet (and then some).

Still, I'm not the type to take glee in other people's misery, but I have to admit, this is very poetic nonetheless—someone who makes a living trading bigoted prose for a paycheck gets her mouth wired shut. But, at the end of the day, despite many people hating her guts, I still have to wish her a speedy and safe recovery. As much as liberals and many conservatives alike would like to see her locked up in some insane asylum, hyper-polarized, inherently wrong people are, believe it or not, valuable.

From psychotic PETA members spouting nonsense like "no animal experimentation" to psychotic evangelicals spouting nonsense like "god hates fags," viewpoints in the polar extremes serve a valuable purpose: to the rational among us, their faults help to emphasize why rational discourse and compromise truly is the best option. Idiots provide us with a frame of reference to making informed, rational choices, because they can be relied upon to give us the wrong answer the vast majority of the time. From there, the right answer is a lot easier to derive. Silencing Ann Coulter would be a great loss to us, because without knowing what's inherently wrong (i.e., the opposite of what she says is "right"), it becomes a lot more difficult to know what's actually right.

So on behalf of all the rational, sane people out there, Ann Coulter: get well soon. We need you to tell us what you think is wrong so that we know what's truly right.

Cheers. :P

How to fix the economy and why the election is so important

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:22:49 -0500

Since it looks like the market's spiraling out of control, I figure I'll offer up some advice on how to fix it, since I can't actually fix it myself. It's not like the right people are going to be reading this anyway, but I figure I might as well write it out so that I can get it out of my system.

First, how to fix the economy: in short, elect Obama. It sounds goofy, partisan, and overly simplistic, but let me explain in business and historical terms. First, please read up on the quick history of the first Great Depression in the United States. You'll notice by the graph that things literally did not begin to turn around until the labor-appeasing, labeled-a-socialist Democrat was elected to office.

Why did the turnaround happen? Simple: he increased government spending to benefit the working class significantly. He increased regulations on business and the free market, founded the SEC, and did a bunch of other things that made him the ire of the upper class. Why did he do this? He realized that the only reason the depression happened in the first place was due to the overpowering business-oriented government from the prior several decades.

... is this starting to sound familiar? And remember, the GDP began to climb pretty much the second the liberal took office and started screwing over big business. Because of that, the GDP continued to rise substantially over the remainder of his 3 terms in office. McCain is claiming that he'd do the exact opposite and freeze government spending, give more tax breaks, and basically take the path of Hoover. Moreover, McCain has been very clear in pointing out that Obama favors significantly increased government spending-- something that Roosevelt not only endorsed but clearly engaged in. And, look at where it got us: out of the depression.

So the choice this November is simple. If you want 4 more years of things getting worse, vote McCain. If you want 4 years of things getting better, vote Obama.

...and I assure you that I'm right. It just sucks that, like always, I've gotta sit in the backseat and let people decide their own path. Either way, it should make for an interesting show. :P

Cheers.

How the war could have been avoided-- really easily.

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:00:03 -0500

The total cost of the Iraq War has now exceeded $845 billion dollars. It occurs to me that if we are willing to spend $845 billion dollars and thousands of lives, for much less we could have solved the problem without bloodshed.

Before the start of the war (when Saddam was still alive), we could have simply bribed him to do whatever we wanted. In fact, we could have sent him yearly checks for $1 billion dollars and he'd have recorded 2girls1cup if we asked him to. No, he'd have even played the part of the cup. More importantly, it would have only cost us, at maximum, around $35 billion dollars to keep it up for the worst-case duration of his natural life (he was 65ish before the war). Since he was a dictator, and since he had a natural power over his people, we could have simply made the stipulation that the only way he can keep receiving the money is if truly made steps to convert the nation to a democracy, and, obviously, it would be important to allow us free access to the country for inspections.

It's a pretty simple idea, and, it would have worked. Think of it: no bloodshed, no terrorism, no economic collapse, and, most importantly, $0.99/gallon gas. Best of all, it'd only be 35 easy payments of $1 billion a year (and inflation would be on our side). Instead, we've got this debacle, which has cost us 5 easy payments of $169 billion dollars a year.

I'm just trying to plan for next time.

Cheers.

Conservapedia's database crashes

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:04:58 -0500

So it looks like Conservapedia suffered a database crash. Guess it was because they were kind and tolerant of homosex— ermm... wait no. Maybe it was because God hates liberal— oh wait... no.... Perhaps it was because they supported evolu— hmm.

I guess that's what happens when computer "science" teaches both sides of the issue, because clearly constant data backups aren't needed, as God will watch over your data.

Let us not forget, though, that when data corruption happens and/or hard drives fail, it's only God testing your sysadmins...

... riiiight.

Is Scientology a church or a business?

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Sun, 11 May 2008 20:05:22 -0500

I was recently skimming over the Wikipedia article on Scientology controversies and came across a particularly interesting bit of text:

The Church maintains strict control over the use of its symbols, names and religious texts. It holds copyright and trademark ownership over its cross and has taken legal action against individuals and organizations who have quoted short paragraphs of Scientology texts in print or on Web sites, in some cases asserting their scriptures constitute "trade secrets." Individuals or groups who practice Scientology without affiliation with the Church have been sued for violation of copyright and trademark law.

I thought this was kind of interesting. Arguably, the point of copyright law is to protect businesses (including sole proprietorships) from other businesses trying to make pure profit off of the former. That is, copyright law is there so that should Joe Schmoe want to create a book called Joe Schmoe's Guide to Modern Cults, another profiteer by the name of Jane Doe couldn't come along and copy, verbatim, Joe's Guide to Modern Cults and claim it as her own work while making pure profit.

So, when I see Scientology trying to delve into laws made to protect businesses, a red flag is raised in my head: they're a church— not a business. By definition, they're technically a 501(c)(3) non-profit religious organization. Therefore, I have but one question: why should they be covered by copyright law if the fundamental goal of the organization, legally, is not to turn a profit, but instead to benefit mankind? More importantly, is it valid to use patent/trademark law in matters of religion to begin with?

Above all, if the legal protections designed to protect profit-oriented activities of businesses and individuals are allowed to be applied to churches, then how, exactly, could you even legally distinguish a religion from a business? This one's fairly intriguing, because if the only method for doing so are the tax reporting and exemption statuses delegated by the IRS/states, then we have, in effect, created the largest loophole to a tax code ever known by man. Not only is a religious organization tax-exempt, but unlike every other non-profit organization, it also does not have to report its income to the IRS. Therefore, if religious organizations like Scientology are afforded the same luxury protections as businesses, they are essentially tax-free/tax-reporting-free businesses.

Now, can you imagine how profitable (and dangerous) a business would be if: it never had to pay taxes; it never had to tell the IRS where it's getting its money from; it never had to tell the IRS how it's spending its money; and, it could sue anyone who said anything bad about them? Yikes.

If religious organizations are allowed to be covered by copyright law, and they're allowed to trademark their religion's name, and, on top of that, they can actively bring suit against people who use the name when the religion doesn't want them to, then they are demonstrating business behavior. Essentially, they sue in order to "protect" the corporate image of their "brand name." That makes them even more indistinguishable from businesses. Using the power of the government, they can proactively suppress political dissent, preying directly upon the financial disparity between them, a multi-million dollar organization, and their target, a multi-hundred dollar citizen.

Continue reading "Is Scientology a church or a business?"

God agrees: Christian rock sucks

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:28:15 -0500

As a followup to my blog on why Christian rock sucks, it appears that God agrees:

More than 40 people were taken to hospital — three with serious injuries — after the floor caved in at a packed concert in an Abbotsford, B.C, church late Friday night.
...
The sold-out event featured contemporary Christian rock band Starfield. A couple of warm-up bands were playing their music when the accident happened, Thiessen said.

Glad to know the big guy shares my opinions. Sucks people had to get injured in the process. If only they had read my blog, this whole thing could have been averted.

Okay, so I joke. Realistically, God didn't do it because even if he exists, he certainly wouldn't give a shit about some crap music and some silly teenagers— regardless of their faith. I suppose, though, that it's really more the end result of putting too little faith in science. Oh well. Perhaps this serves as a warning against future mindlessness.

... or not. After all, chances are they'll simply say it was "God testing them" or something, but the next time a gay soldier dies, they'll say it's because God hates him. Funny how they get to have it both ways. Funny— but mainly just plain pathetic.

Cheers.

Zappy the clownbattery

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:30:07 -0500

I think that it's time that as a society we sit down and agree of one phrase that says succinctly the following:

Trust me, I know exactly what I want, or at least have a good idea, and judging by the way this is going, don't ask why, don't take it personally, but you and I would never work out. It's not you, and it's not me— it's the fact that if we were both in the same equation, it would perpetually be imbalanced, and we would waste a year of our lives trying to rebalance it, only to fail miserably. You're nice, but you've got issues with which simply I won't be able to reconcile. There's someone out there for you, but it's not me. Sorry. You might be a good friend, but it would never be more than that. Ever.

Simple as that. Just one phrase. It needs to be unambiguous and simple to recognize. Perhaps "Zappy the clownbattery" would work. It just sucks when someone tries to talk to you, and makes really shitty small talk to the point where you know, definitely, that the person is either too stupid or too simplistic to ever be able to tolerate for more than 30 minutes— much less date. On top of that, you know with certainty that they'd never be able to tolerate you. So, the only way to convey that is to invoke the Zappy clause.

And, it sucks, because people take it personally and wonder how they can "change" and whatnot, when in all reality they can't. Even if there were some magic personality changing device, it's unlikely that it would have any effect on the already-formed opinions by one person on another.

Anyway, we just need to leave it at that. Someone says hi, someone else detects that you might be hitting on them by the sharp pain in their stomach and the wincing of their eye. Subsequently, they say "Zappy the clownbattery," and then it's mutually understood that that's as far as it goes. No awkward pause or silence; no backstabbing; just pure and simple. Think of all of the broken hearts that would be prevented.

Cheers. :P

Wikimedia hits ten million articles. We kick ass.

nospam@example.com (Kurt) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:20:55 -0500

Yep, that's right, Wikimedia has hit its 10 millionth article across all 250 languages. Apparently, it was an article about Nicholas Hilliard, an Elizabethan era portrait painter, on the Hungarian language Wikipedia. Pretty cool, eh?

Not only do we have articles about various historical people— we also have them in lots of languages. From alexa's rankings, the various Wikipedias are in the top 10 visited sites for 14 countries, and in the top 20 for 9 more on top of that. And, only around 15% of our users come from the United States. To give even more perspective, our daily reach exceeds MySpace, Facebook, and blows Britannica out of the water. That means that on a daily basis, more people will make their way to Wikipedia than any of the other sites listed. Eat that, Britannica. Of course, google is still kicking our ass, but their time will come... muahahahah.

Wanna jump on the bandwagon? Go make an account on the English Wikipedia... or don't. It's totally up to you. After all, we don't require you to create an account to edit, but if you want credit for your work, it's easier to keep track of it by making one.

Some little-known niches of Wikipedia:

The reference desk — have a question in need of someone who knows a certain topic well? Ask there and you'll likely have a response within a couple of hours or less.

Commons — Need pictures or other media but don't wanna pay for it? Look no further. Commons hosts royal-free, free-to-use-and-modify content, so instead of paying ridiculous sums for stock photos, look on commons first. Simply looking for a new wallpaper? Check out the quality images category and you won't be disappointed. I never am. :P

How we pwn Britannica — We maintain a running list of things that Encyclopedia Britannica screwed up and we've since corrected. Unlike other encyclopedias, we actually respond to our readers' complaints, and, if we don't, we invite them to fix it themselves :P

Anyway. yay us. I'll be the one celebrating, dancing naked on our admin chat channel on IRC if anyone needs me. ;)

Cheers. :P