Archive for January, 2009

Newer Entries »

Can’t Fire Off Your Roman Candle In Here If You Blast It Off Out There

Thursday, January 1st, 2009

Jawa Report (image behind this link may not be safe for the workplace):

Some women in Naples said they won’t make love if their men shoot off dangerous fireworks on New Year’s Eve. “Se Spari, Niente Sesso” (If you shoot, no sex), as the reported group calls itself, claims to have signed up hundreds of women in the Naples area to combat celebrations that injure or maim hundreds each year.

I have a theory about women bludgeoning men into the correct profile of behavior by restricting sex:

When they stay silent about it, it always works.

When they blab away about it, it never does.

Well…I shouldn’t say “never,” now should I?

Posted in Is It Really a Man's World?, Poisoning Masculinity, Poisoning Strength | 1 Comment »

Predictions for the Obama Presidency

Thursday, January 1st, 2009

Everyone got this printed up and posted somewhere, with both black and red pens next to it for check-marks and cross-outs?

You probably should.

All those demeaning, demonic predictions about the George W. Bush Presidency, really haven’t worked out that well have they? On January 20, 2001 I could’ve driven from California to Maine just telling the state border guards along the way I don’t have liquor or fresh fruit…that’s pretty much the way it works now, even though in the meantime, the nation has suffered the worst attack on its own soil since Pearl Harbor. All these “encroachments on our freedoms” have amounted to a smattering of annoyances like closing down Folsom Dam Road. Yup, there’s your George Bush Police State there. Gotta wing on down to Rainbow Bridge, a mile and a half outta your way, and loop back up. The horror.

Contrasted with…

Look for far-left justices appointed to the Supreme Court, effectively tying up the entire government in a trifecta of liberal humanism, the buzzwords of which remain empty platitudes like “hope and change.”

Military cases of troops being tried and convicted for killing the enemy in combat will continue to rise–and the conviction/plea-bargain rate will stay at nearly 100%, as the government seeks to use the best men and women this country has to offer as sacrifical lambs on the altar of global appeasement.

Look for the slow but steady erosion of rights you have enjoyed for your entire lives–all the while being told it’s “for your own good.” Restrictions on gun ownership, home schooling, encouraged dependence on the ever-growing federal government…Of course, this will be done with feel-good phrases like “death with dignity,” “not wanting to be a burden,” and “merciful release from suffering,” all of which ignore the basic fact that we are killing people without their consent for the “good of the people.”…Also, look for taxes to go up. Yes, they’ll go up.

Time will tell. It certainly is uncharted territory.

My concerns only really spike, though, when the reasons are listed for me to feel good about an Obama Administration. Something to do with being unified, right? One only has to inspect for a little while before one sees this is unification among the 52% of us, or so, who voted for Obama. It doesn’t include, nor does it pretend to include, the other 48%. We can go piss off.

That isn’t unified.

Posted in Obamamania, Poisoning Family, Poisoning Individuality and Reason, Poisoning Justice, Poisoning Strength, Poisoning Western Civilization | No Comments »

Credentials

Thursday, January 1st, 2009

Paul Graham.

Money quote(s):

Before credentials, government positions were obtained mainly by family influence, if not outright bribery. It was a great step forward to judge people by their performance on a test. But by no means a perfect solution. When you judge people that way, you tend to get cram schools—which they did in Ming China and nineteenth century England just as much as in present day South Korea.

What cram schools are, in effect, is leaks in a seal. The use of credentials was an attempt to seal off the direct transmission of power between generations, and cram schools represent that power finding holes in the seal. Cram schools turn wealth in one generation into credentials in the next.
:
History suggests that, all other things being equal, a society prospers in proportion to its ability to prevent parents from influencing their children’s success directly. It’s a fine thing for parents to help their children indirectly—for example, by helping them to become smarter or more disciplined, which then makes them more successful. The problem comes when parents use direct methods: when they are able to use their own wealth or power as a substitute for their children’s qualities.
:
The obvious way to solve the problem is to make credentials better. If the tests a society uses are currently hackable, we can study the way people beat them and try to plug the holes. You can use the cram schools to show you where most of the holes are.
:
By gradually chipping away at the abuse of credentials, you could probably make them more airtight. But what a long fight it would be. Especially when the institutions administering the tests don’t really want them to be airtight.
:
Let’s think about what credentials are for. What they are, functionally, is a way of predicting performance. If you could measure actual performance, you wouldn’t need them.

Perfectly in keeping with what quadropole said in response to me over at Dr. Helen’s place:

I’ve done a fair bit of hiring. Hiring sucks. You are trying to filter through a large pool of applicants, most of whom are not appropriate, and filtering through them by hand is miserable.

So folks do a lot of things to try to improve the ‘hit rate’ on appropriate candidates. Requiring college degrees is one of them. If 10% of the folks you interview with a Masters in CS are even vaguely appropriate for the job you are interviewing for, and only 1% of those without it are, you tell your HR department to only bring you MSCS or equivalent candidates.

It’s a trade off on costs, on the one hand, you might miss out on a *really* good candidate without the credential you list, on the other, you save *enormous* time, energy, and frustration on screening applicants.

I think the essay linked makes it intuitively obvious what is wrong with quad’s logic, but I’ll walk through it anyway.

What’s being advocated is like a lossy image compression algorithm. Reality would be getting a skilled, qualified applicant; the status quo is an image of reality, getting a credentialed applicant. It’s not identical to reality, nor is it intended to be — it’s only supposed to be a close approximation. Something to help save this time.

Trouble is: How close is the image to reality? “Within tolerable limits” is the presumed answer to that. But no one ever checks it. Managers tell their guys to go do something, and as the guy walks out of the office the managers say Where does HR find these people??? Does the frustration find its way back to HR? No, it does not. So the system operates within a vacuum. The deviation from reality is presumed to be within tolerable limits, and is further presumed to be remaining static, not rising.

This is all blind faith. No one tests it.

I have exactly two reasons to be biased against this, one selfish, the other far more practical. First of all, I’m not educated. So I’m the first guy booted out of the process when the hunt goes on for these credentials…from “cram schools”…which are set up to preserve wealth in families…wealth the Freeberg family has never even come close to having.

The second reason, which is far more socially responsible, and boy I can list you some names of people who will give anything not to be able to see the logic in this —

— fields like mine don’t function well this way. People in my line of work have always been “escalation points”; they solve problems that others have tried to solve, and haven’t been able to solve. So in any one of a number of jobs I’ve held for the last few years, if you get hold of some sardine-guy who can be relied upon to do things exactly the same way as any other fish in the can, it really isn’t going to do you an awful lot of good. If the problem could be solved using “typical” methods, it would’ve been solved awhile ago. No, we’re the S.W.A.T. team, here to take out the problem the police couldn’t touch.

The passing-of-tests does something worse than leaving that whole talent area untouched. It credentials in opposition to it. That’s because a test doesn’t necessarily test outcome, it tests methods. It unifies the way people work on things. This is one step forward and three steps back, because you can’t solve a problem by thinking things out the same way as the other guy who tried to solve the problem, and wasn’t able to.

Or, for that matter, like the guy who made the problem.

Posted in Certifikayshuns, Skewels and Kawledges | 2 Comments »

How Have I Changed

Thursday, January 1st, 2009

Plucked from NakedJen. Modified with my own stuff, of course.

1.) How old were you 10 years ago? 32
2.) Where did you go to school? 10 year’s ago? Nowhere
3) Where did you work?: Decline to state
4) Where did you live? Third floor, apartment building, at top of a cliff overlooking the city. Kinda cool.
5.) Where did you hang out? Home
6.) Did you wear glasses? No
7.) Who was your best friend? Decline to state
8.) How many tattoos did you have? 0
9.) How many piercings did you have? 0
10) What car did you drive?: 1989 Toyota Corolla GTS with 250,000 miles on it
11.) Had you been to a real party? Yes
12.) Had you had your heart broken? Decline to state

———–5 years ago———–
1.) How old were you?: 37
2.) Where did you go to school? Nowhere
3.) Where did you work? Decline to state
4.) Where did you live? 500 feet away from where I am right now…interesting story there.
5.) Where did you hang out? Starbucks
6.) Did you wear glasses? No
7.) Who was your best friend? Decline to state
8.) How many piercings? 0
9.) How many tattoos did you have?: 0
10.) Had you been to a real party?: Yes
11.) What car did you drive?: Corolla with 290,000 miles on it
12.) Were you Single/Taken/Married/Divorced?: Divorced

—————-2 years ago——————-
1.) How old were you?: 40
2.) Where did you go to school? Nowhere
3.) Where did you work? Decline to state
4.) Where did you live? In a modest little apartment behind an upscale sushi restaurant
5.) Where did you hang out?: That sushi restaurant
6.) Did you wear glasses? nope
7.) Who was your best friend? Decline to state
8.) How many tattoos did you have?: 0
9.) How many piercings did you have? 0
10.) What car did you drive?: Corolla with 330,000 miles on it
11.) Had your heart been broken? Decline to state
12.) Were you Single/Taken/Married/Divorced? Divorced

——————–Today——————–
1.) How old are you?: 42
2.) Where do you go to school? Nowhere
3.) Where do you work? Decline to state, but it’s not that hard to find if you go looking
4.) Where do you live? Right here
5.) Do you wear glasses? No
6.) Where do you hang out? Wherever she takes me, and it always ends up being my favorite
7.) Do you talk to your old friends? Probably not as much as I should
8.) How many piercings do you have: 0
9.) How many tattoos?: 0
10.) What kind of car do you have? Late-model Honda Civic. Couldn’t push that Toyota any further.
11.) Has your heart been broken? Decline to state
12.) Are you Single/Taken/Married/Divorce? Divorced/very-taken.

There are no instructions to “tag” anyone this, so I’ll just leave this one flappin’ in the breeze.

Posted in About Me and My Blog | 1 Comment »

Child Support Triples… on Autopilot

Thursday, January 1st, 2009

This interests me. Not so much because I’m a single-dad myself, but because of how the law goes about being changed. I think it should interest us all. I’ll explain further below.

Glenn Sacks emailed to let me know about a lawsuit being filed by Fathers and Families, to stop new Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines:

Fathers and Families has filed suit in Federal District Court in Boston to stop the scheduled January 1 implementation of new Child Support Guidelines. The suit seeks a temporary injunction halting the use of the new guidelines until a full hearing can be held. It will be heard before Judge D.P. Woodlock on Monday, January 5 at 10 AM in courtroom 1…..

The new guidelines will cause almost all child support orders to increase substantially — when all factors are considered, middle-class recipients will enjoy a standard of living almost double that of payers who earn about the same amount. In some cases, child support orders will triple, even in cases in which the payer is poor and the child is economically comfortable because the custodial parent earns over $100,000. And in high income cases, the child support order for one child could be nearly $50,000.

Massachusetts is already an expensive place to live; if these new guidelines are passed, it will be harder, mainly for the divorced men in that state. Go take a look here and see what you can do to help. As Dr. Ned Holstein, the executive director of Fathers and Families says, “If you ‘leave it to the other guy,’ it won’t happen.”

I think it’s a mistake to oppose this kind of thing outright. Like many silly ideas, it isn’t exposed as the sham it is, until you take it seriously. So let’s try a different tack here and take it seriously.

There may be an exquisite latin term for this legal concept — perhaps one of the legal-beagles can blossom forward with some useful nuggets of info in the comments below. This concept in which, it is determined at the outset that “it’s impossible to be fair to both parties” involved in the transaction that has come to be known as child support. Obviously, if the momma and the poppa are not living together, and there isn’t enough money to go ’round to support two households, that’s the situation we have. And sure, the kids should win, so there is a glimmer of merit to this argument.

A glimmer.

But — if we are to take that seriously — why the trebling of the child support on autopilot? Isn’t it pretty much a foregone conclusion that such cases would have to be heard on a case-by-case basis? How in the world could they not be?

That leads into another thing…another legal concept, for which there may be another exquisite latin term. It happens at the state level, usually, and here in the Golden State we have a lot of this going on. That thing where the legislators take on the same issue, every twelve months, or every six, over and over again. Picking at it repeatedly, like a little boy scratching away at a scab.

Out here, our thing is child safety seats. “As of July 1, your child will need to be in a seat if he weighs more than…” We should hear this, like, maybe every five years or so? Ten? It’s more like every one or two. How come that iz? If sixty-five pounds is the magic number, our wonderful illustrious legislators should’ve figured that out earlier, or if they didn’t, they, or the researchers who put out the reports they were reading, should be flogged with some kind of discredit or disapproval for producing the wrong numbers in earlier cycles. Human lives are at stake here, after all! Childs’ lives!

But no, it’s just a little game they play. Planned obsolescence. I can understand doing that for the sake of grandstanding. But you’re supposed to be at least play-acting like you’re doing this out of concern for the safety of the Little People, and of course, if that were the case they’d be working extra-extra-extra hard to make these laws extra-extra-extra good. With the right numbers. The right quantity of pounds of a child whose butt has to be in a seat, or the right number of dollars siphoned from the single dad who can’t make the rent for his shitty apartment anymore.

But no. They keep screwing with it and screwing with it.

First time my baby-momma and I compared notes on the “new” law of the day, and found out even the cops didn’t understand what was going on, we were flabbergasted. Since then, we’ve learned to take it in stride. She no longer lives in California. And the kid is too big for any kind of safety seat at all. I think. Until they muck with that law again. At this point, nothing would surprise me.

But let’s stop kidding around. This isn’t about making sure everyone’s comfy and has the adequate child support dollars rolling in. It’s about proving you’re a “Good Peepul” by passing bad laws. Legislators, of all states, tend to be caught in this infinite loop of proving this over and over again…the way all guilty people are. Very much like the guy with the tiny penis driving a racy red-hot car, or an enormous truck. Compensatin’ for somethin’.

Posted in Is It Really a Man's World? | 1 Comment »

Mr. Right Goes Nuts

Thursday, January 1st, 2009

Conservathink opened up the floor to some discussion about who might be the “Douchebag of the Year” for 2008. And Mr. Right commenter #2 (and 3), went stark-raving ballistic.

Dude makes some great points.

The entire MSM for the year-long mass Obama-orgasm masquerading as election coverage. Special mention to all on MSNBC, Keith Olbermoron and Chrissy “Tingle” Matthews in particular! I mean, come on, are they even bothering to pretend anymore???

Andy “Trig Troofer” Sullivan

Rod Blagojevich (Being from Illinois, I am just so, so proud!)

Al Franken, MN Secy of State Mark Ritchie, and anyone even remotely involved in the latest in a long, long line of statistically impossible “recounts” that is, as always, miraculously turning another Dem loss into a Dem win. Gee, what a shock!

Al Gore & the anthropocentric global warming farce brigade. Where’s my global warming, Al? The North Pole will melt in 5 years??? Really? Is that a promise? What drugs is this guy on? Seriously!

Former Ohio Dept of Jobs and Family Services Director Helen Jones-Kelley and everyone else involved in illegally digging for dirt on Joe the Plumber! Welcome to the Soviet Union, Comrade! Guess speaking truth to power is only for liberals attacking Republicans, huh?

Rev. Jeremiah “God D–n, America” Wright

Bill Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn

ACORN

Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and all the Dems who helped Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae destroy the economy by giving loans to people who could never afford to repay them in the name of “fairness” and “social justice,” with a lot of kickbacks and campaign contributions for them and their friends thrown in as an entirely unrelated side-bonus. Oh, and throw in all the fat-cat CEO’s and profiteers that tried to cash in and then fiddled while Wall Street burned.

The big 3 US auto-makers and the a**holes at the UAW. Bail this out, you sub-morons!

Bush and Paulson can get in on this, too, for the trillion dollar kick in the groin of the American taxpayer! Up yours!!!

He promised more as he thought of them, and did indeed come back to deliver a second batch. I thought this first helping was far superior, though.

These nominations associated with the bailout, I’d submit under one big umbrella that I might call “Those Who Purport To Save Capitalism By Destroying It.” Regretfully, under that umbrella, I’d have to include all of us. For any occasion upon which —

a. Our politicians water down capitalism by mixing it in with marxist social programs;
b. Because of the incompatible mixing, people get shafted when they otherwise wouldn’t;
c. Some hotshot left-winger makes a speech or produces a movie, saying capitalism is to blame;
d. We fall for it.

Happens way too often.

The elections are too important to us, and we spend too much time thinking about them. I have this feeling of self-revulsion every time I babble away about them here, at The Blog That Nobody Reads — although, in my defense, by the time things have progressed to that point I have very little choice in the matter. I mean really. What should I pay attention to, a bunch of assholes flushing $700 billion of my money down a toilet? Or a fifty-cent ATM fee? Or that Simon Cowell is a jackass and Paula Abdul can’t string together a coherent sentence? Really, where should my fixation be, logically?

I see 2008 was, in many respects, a stronger reverberation of 2004. Back then we had a liberal democrat with no talent and nothing to offer, campaign to become our next President solely on the qualification that he was not George Bush. That didn’t work out, so in our surreal, illogical universe, the next time at-bat the liberal democrats tried exactly the same strategy. In fact, they discussed even less the seemingly staple topic of what their contender would be able to do once elected, and what he indeed would do. And this time it worked great. Possibly because those liberal democrats who constantly insist state matters should not be intermixed with religion, started offering up the idea that their candidate was some kind of Holy Messiah, incarnated upon this earthly plane to deliver us from evil.

Also in 2004, a bunch of wandering minstrels sought to convince us the earth was heating up to the point where it would no longer be able to support life, and it was all our fault. In 2008 they kept at it, and this time really made a bunch of fools out of themselves as things got downright chilly, from Martin Luther King Day all the way through Christmas. Finally, exasperated, they explained to us that when things get cooler, that’s scientific evidence that things are getting warmer. Those among us who cast votes based on this critical issue, decided, somehow, that that was pretty convincing.

Sarah Palin. Where to begin. All the vile bile that comes her way, if you were just visiting Earth right about now, you’d swear on your alien grandmother’s grave that she must have won.

In all the real life on this little rock in space I’ve been privileged to see over the years — I have never, ever, not once, seen a bunch of sore winners, win so resoundingly at something, and remain so sore. If I could somehow measure it, i think they’ve managed to match up with their December 2000 angst, anger and peevishness; I really do. It is truly a “How The Grinch Stole Christmas” situation. It’s up to those Republican Whos Down In Whoville, to teach that liberal Grinch how to be pleased with something on Christmas morning, even though he just got done stealing all their stuff.

Posted in Deranged Leftists, ManBearPig, Poisoning Science, Poisoning Western Civilization, VPILF | No Comments »

Newer Entries »