I love words.
Seriously. I love words. I'm a word nerd.
I love learning the etymologies of words. I find it really interesting to be able to trace the lineage of words from their historical origins right up to modern times. The truth is that words have often walked very strange paths to get to us today.
Today's word is awkward.
"Awk" means back-handed, backward, clumsy, or perverse. "-weard" (now -ward) is a suffix meaning in the direction of.
Awkward.
Friday, October 9, 2015
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Oh, Look. Another Mass Shooting.
A while back, The Onion printed a headline in response to another one of America's trademark mass shootings that read "'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens." I found it to be a humorous and sad summary of the largest health crisis facing Americans right now.
In response to the latest iteration of this strangely American phenomenon (which happened at a small community college in Oregon), President Obama challenged the media to create graphic charts that showed how many Americans were sacrificed at the altar of Second Amendment fetishists. Here are some of the best ones:
We can do better. It is indescribably pathetic that we have allowed weapons manufacturers to create a lobbying group (the NRA) that has duped a cross-section of rubes and psychos into believing that requiring background checks on weapons purchases is the first step towards tyranny. We should not be held hostage by a bunch of well-armed people who run around in tinfoil hats. They are quite literally creating an environment where we are being killed for sport.
Enough. Seriously, enough. This isn't reasonable. This is effing stupid, and I'm tired of it.
In response to the latest iteration of this strangely American phenomenon (which happened at a small community college in Oregon), President Obama challenged the media to create graphic charts that showed how many Americans were sacrificed at the altar of Second Amendment fetishists. Here are some of the best ones:
We can do better. It is indescribably pathetic that we have allowed weapons manufacturers to create a lobbying group (the NRA) that has duped a cross-section of rubes and psychos into believing that requiring background checks on weapons purchases is the first step towards tyranny. We should not be held hostage by a bunch of well-armed people who run around in tinfoil hats. They are quite literally creating an environment where we are being killed for sport.
Enough. Seriously, enough. This isn't reasonable. This is effing stupid, and I'm tired of it.
Friday, October 2, 2015
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Random Thoughts on Boldly Going Where White Supremacy Has Gone Many, Many Times Before
Disclaimer: I am not a Trekkie. I have not seen every Star Trek episode and movie ever made. I cannot quote any dialogue from any installment of the series. I am a casual enjoyer of periodic indulgences in random peeks into the Star Trek universe.
That said, I can't be the only one to notice how racist the Star Trek universe is. The show deals in blatant, nauseating stereotypes in which the alien races that the crew of the Enterprise encounter embody various Earth ethnicities.
Case in point: the Vulcans. They're obviously representations of a caricature of east Asians. Consider that they all have awful bowl haircuts and jet-black hair, their eyebrows are slanted downwards, and they have an infuriating reliance on science, logic, and rational thinking. They're three-for-three on the card of obvious racist stereotypes surrounding east Asians.
Second case in point: the Ferengi. They're just a moderately playful take on Jews. The men wear these bizarre inverse yarmulkes that cover the sides of their heads while leaving the top open and uncovered. They're immoral and greedy bankers and merchants who basically spend their entire existence devising ways to take and hoard other people's money.
I don't know. Even in fictional universes we can't escape our Earth-based bigotry, it seems.
That said, I can't be the only one to notice how racist the Star Trek universe is. The show deals in blatant, nauseating stereotypes in which the alien races that the crew of the Enterprise encounter embody various Earth ethnicities.
Case in point: the Vulcans. They're obviously representations of a caricature of east Asians. Consider that they all have awful bowl haircuts and jet-black hair, their eyebrows are slanted downwards, and they have an infuriating reliance on science, logic, and rational thinking. They're three-for-three on the card of obvious racist stereotypes surrounding east Asians.
Second case in point: the Ferengi. They're just a moderately playful take on Jews. The men wear these bizarre inverse yarmulkes that cover the sides of their heads while leaving the top open and uncovered. They're immoral and greedy bankers and merchants who basically spend their entire existence devising ways to take and hoard other people's money.
I don't know. Even in fictional universes we can't escape our Earth-based bigotry, it seems.
Drone On and On
Ready or not, here come the drones.
There are many reasons to be opposed to the coming ubiquity of these unmanned flying machines: privacy concerns, a healthy distrust of the military and police agencies that will be flying them, and safety concerns.
Let's forgo the first two reasons for opposition for now and focus on the third problem, safety concerns. Since 2001, there have been 47 reported drone crashes within the continental United States. I emphasize the word reported here, because these numbers most certainly do not include drones that have crashed on military bases. The US military has tripled the number of hours it flies these drones within US airspace since 2011, and the air time will only increase in the future. With the passing of a new federal law that will open American airspace to private and corporate drones, the military is planning on operating drone flights from no fewer than 110 bases in 39 states and Puerto Rico. The Defense Department reports that it currently owns some 10,000 drones for use worldwide.
Unsurprisingly, military officers are in full propaganda mode, assuring Americans that there is nothing to be feared from these machines, that they are incredibly safe and will not lead to an increase in aviation accidents. This, of course, is a ridiculous assertion on its face.
In what possible scenario does allowing civilians to operate aerial drones not lead to an increase in aviation accidents? Consider your neighbors. Consider your family. Consider the people that you work with? How many of these people could be trusted with a 300 pound airplane that they control with a joystick? I am in no way suggesting that many people would set out with the intention to do harm to others (although that is obviously a huge concern with a segment of the population), only that flight is an inherently dangerous undertaking and should not be something that the guy with the pickup truck next door should be able to participate in after downing a six-pack of generic beer.
I'll not bore you with the details of the drone crashes that we know about. Look them up yourself if you're interested - the information isn't difficult to find.
There are many reasons to be opposed to the coming ubiquity of these unmanned flying machines: privacy concerns, a healthy distrust of the military and police agencies that will be flying them, and safety concerns.
Let's forgo the first two reasons for opposition for now and focus on the third problem, safety concerns. Since 2001, there have been 47 reported drone crashes within the continental United States. I emphasize the word reported here, because these numbers most certainly do not include drones that have crashed on military bases. The US military has tripled the number of hours it flies these drones within US airspace since 2011, and the air time will only increase in the future. With the passing of a new federal law that will open American airspace to private and corporate drones, the military is planning on operating drone flights from no fewer than 110 bases in 39 states and Puerto Rico. The Defense Department reports that it currently owns some 10,000 drones for use worldwide.
Unsurprisingly, military officers are in full propaganda mode, assuring Americans that there is nothing to be feared from these machines, that they are incredibly safe and will not lead to an increase in aviation accidents. This, of course, is a ridiculous assertion on its face.
In what possible scenario does allowing civilians to operate aerial drones not lead to an increase in aviation accidents? Consider your neighbors. Consider your family. Consider the people that you work with? How many of these people could be trusted with a 300 pound airplane that they control with a joystick? I am in no way suggesting that many people would set out with the intention to do harm to others (although that is obviously a huge concern with a segment of the population), only that flight is an inherently dangerous undertaking and should not be something that the guy with the pickup truck next door should be able to participate in after downing a six-pack of generic beer.
I'll not bore you with the details of the drone crashes that we know about. Look them up yourself if you're interested - the information isn't difficult to find.
More Proof that Tech Developers Are Out to Ruin the World
Have you heard of Peeple?
It's a new app, offered by anti-social visionaries Julia Cordray and Nicole McCullough, that allows people to rate, well, other human beings. You know, like the way we are able to rate restaurants and movies and stores and other non-living entities.
Now, I'm no Luddite, but in what possible way does this app enhance human existence? In what possible scenario is this app not going to be used to actively harm a large number of human beings, many of them teenagers and young people who already have a difficult enough time fitting in?
This is a horrible idea. This is another example of technology superseding basic human decency and empathy, and I hope that it crashes and burns. Have the creators of this app ever even been on the Internet? The Internet is a place where people go to watch porn and to mock other human beings. That's it.
Seriously. This is worse than that stupid app that allows people to send each other a verbal "Yo."
What the hell is wrong with people?
It's a new app, offered by anti-social visionaries Julia Cordray and Nicole McCullough, that allows people to rate, well, other human beings. You know, like the way we are able to rate restaurants and movies and stores and other non-living entities.
Now, I'm no Luddite, but in what possible way does this app enhance human existence? In what possible scenario is this app not going to be used to actively harm a large number of human beings, many of them teenagers and young people who already have a difficult enough time fitting in?
This is a horrible idea. This is another example of technology superseding basic human decency and empathy, and I hope that it crashes and burns. Have the creators of this app ever even been on the Internet? The Internet is a place where people go to watch porn and to mock other human beings. That's it.
Seriously. This is worse than that stupid app that allows people to send each other a verbal "Yo."
What the hell is wrong with people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)