REDUX

Steve Jobs' Nefarious Conspiracy...

to the rule the world is revealed at The Applestore of the future.

Thought of the Day

Judgments, judgments of value, concerning life, for it or against it, can, in the end, never be true: they have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of consideration only as symptoms; in themselves such judgments are stupidities. One must by all means stretch out one's fingers and make the attempt to grasp this amazing finesse, that the value of life cannot be estimated. Not by the living, for they are an interested party, even a bone of contention, and not judges; not by the dead, for a different reason. For a philosopher to see a problem in the value of life is thus an objection to him, a question mark concerning his wisdom, an un-wisdom. Indeed? All these great wise men--they were not only decadents but not wise at all?

-- F. Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

(emphasis added)

ESPN.com: Page 2 : The Big Umpire in the skyLife's Greatest Theological Mysteries

Explained, courtesy of Patrick Hruby, ESPN.com's Stump Page 2:

Dear Stump Page 2,

Since both teams participating in a sporting event engage in a pregame prayer, how does God choose who the winner is?

– Name withheld

Depends on how you view the Big Umpire upstairs:

a) If God is eternal and all knowing, He doesn't so much "choose" a winner as allow predetermined victory to unfold;

b) If God is compassionate and just, He's probably more worried about tsunami victims than the outcome of the A's-Royals game;

c) If God works in mysterious ways, then Bucknell upsets Kansas;

d) If God is spiteful and mean, then thaaaaa Yankeeeees win!

When in doubt, go with the team God has action on. He doesn't like to lose, you know.

Which explains the ending to last year's baseball season: once the Red Sox went down three games to none, the odds were just too good to pass up.

Either that or Joe Buck sold his soul for the ratings.

Classy Graphs

Will, of WILLisms, continues his excellent "Trivia Tidbit of the Day" series, with some nifty graphics that explain why Free Trade = Good & Protectionism = Bad.

FDR was scum.

A must read.

In a nutshell:

Social Security is proof positive that tiberal government lies to you for your own good and at the expense of your own soul.

The mechanism involves a government promise that they will pay you back the money they forcibly took from you for all of your adult life, all the while planning that you'll die before you can collect on their I.O.U. for money they've already paid out to somebody else.

And, what's more, it's important that the state continue to do so, because if the government doesn't screw us all equally than nobody will give a shit about the poor.

Of Methodology and Inferiority (Complexes)

Here come the Chinese!

No longer content with their "peaceful rise," it seems that the Chinese are coming up / they want the world to know / they've got to let it show:

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Chinese men have no reason to feel inferior about the size of their penises, according to a Hong Kong study which showed local men measured up to others elsewhere in the world below the belt.

"Our conclusion is that Hong Kong people are no smaller than Western men, where their penises are concerned," said Chan Lung-wai, director of the Urology Center at the Union Hospital, who headed the study.

"There has always been the myth that westerners have bigger penises and their (sexual) ability is better."

I don't know where they're telling that story, but it sounds like it's time to move and take advantage of some great PR! But seriously, I've heard all the baseless smears on this particular subject, and I must say that they are unconscionable, wicked, vile things!

That's why this breakthrough study must come as a relief to Chinese men -- and rhinoceroses and tigers everywhere -- who now have nothing to suspect or fear about the size of their units. This is all thanks to:

A group of scientists in Hong Kong spent five months from October last year measuring 148 ethnic Chinese volunteers aged between 23 and 93.

The average length of their flaccid penises was 3.33 inches, which compared favorably with similar studies on other men overseas.

Germans have average lengths of about 3.4 inches, Israelis 3.27 inches, Turks 3.07 inches and Filippinos 2.89 inches. Italians were the longest at 3.54 inches, and Americans averaged 3.46 inches.

The study did not measure the penises when they were erect.

So there, you see, the-- d'oh!

Let's revist that last sentence again, shall we?

The study did not measure the penises when they were erect.

uh...yeah. *ookay.*

Now, I'm no scientist, but it seems to me that if you were going to conduct an exhaustive study to help educate the world and dispell ignorance about the size of Chinese penises, that you would measure the penis in both flaccid and erect states. It's really quite elementary: in the biology we don't measure the size and morphology of catepillars and exclude data on post-chrysalis butterflies, do we? It's this kind of shoddy science that would lead somebody to think that these Chinese researches are, in fact, hiding something!

Besides the completely self-contained set-up and cheap shot that is this essence of this article, there is some other value to it. It seems that Ian Hemet was right when he blogged:

Furthermore, one aspect of Chinese culture you don't read much about is a nationwide inferiority complex. I don't know what else to call it. There's overcompensation everywhere, from the constant proclomations of how great China and the Chinese people are, to the flogging of this or that achievement--

It's as if th-- (heh-heh, he said "flogging," - ed.)

What the fu-- when did I get an editor?

Where was I?

(such as the first Chinese man in space a few years ago), to how big the population is, to... well, everything. Many of the people protest way too much about how great and wonderful and important China is, and it makes you suspect that they're afraid it's not true.

No shit. Makes you wonder who the genius was that came up with the acronym PRC.

Man, I gotta tell ya, all those numbers on GDP growth are looking awfully shady right about now.

A New Scourge

And now, a word from The Peanut Gallery, courtesy of erik:

!!! BREAD IS DANGEROUS !!!

Research on bread indicates that:

• More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
• Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
• In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.
• More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread. 
• Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
• Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and osteoporosis.
• Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.
• Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.
• Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
• Newborn babies can choke on bread.
• Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute. 
• Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

In light of these frightening statistics, it has been proposed that the following bread restrictions be made:

1. No sale of bread to minors.
2. A nationwide "Just Say No To Toast" campaign, complete celebrity TV spots and bumper stickers.
3. A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.
4. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
5. The establishment of "Bread-free" zones around schools.

This article was written by B.S. Wheatberry in a desert after consuming mass quantities of yeast bread then realizing his canteen was empty. (seriously :P )

Indeed.  The danger that these horrible bread-bakers present to our children is too great!   We must take action, now!

Mysteries of the Queen's English, Revealed

"He was driving his car when the offending item came through his open window and hit him on the nose," the [Essex Ambulance Service] spokesman said.

Oh, so that's why they call 'em "bangers"!

The more things change...

the more TIME's editors desperately want them to stay the same!

On a lark, I thought I'd check out who or was on the cover of TIME Magazine for my birthdate, Mar. 24, 1975.

Compare this with the cover from Jan. 31, 2005.

In complete fairness, it might not be the case that editors at news outlets like TIME (consciously or unconsciously) try to shoehorn every single picture or story into a predetermined formula.  It could be that this kind of repetition only happens once every thirty years. It could be that the experience of the late 1960s - early 1970s informed the sharply ideological worldviews of the current editorial leadership at TIME.  It could be that the space and formatting limitations of the cover (and inherent to the media format) prejudice some kinds of images over others, Then again, it could be all of the above, a... coincidence.

Whatever the reason, what these two covers represent is a stunning lack of imagination.  Although no one will ever admit that news coverage is commercial speech -- or at least commercialized speech-- it would be nice to see "truth in editorial" laws, much as we find in the advertising and marketing world and in other commercial speech.  Ironically, then, maybe then, we might actually get something that more accurately reflects the truth.

But, then again, INTELLECTUALLY LAZY just isn't as catchy as TIME.

Cheap Whiskey

A smile, a chortle, and an epiphany came via e-mail today, courtesy of Jay Cost and the OpinionJournal, who notes that, Hillary Clinton gets way too much credit:

If her political accomplishments are unimpressive, why is she so feared? Why is she seen to be a political genius? The answer to this question eluded me for a long time, perhaps because it is so simple. The plain fact is that Hillary Clinton is actually one of the worst politicians in national politics today. She is feared as a brilliant politician only because she is such an obvious politician, which is actually the key mark of a bad politician.

(snip)

The answer to this question boils down to obviousness. Hillary's movement is a big deal first and foremost because everybody notices her movement. Mr. Frist and others do not get noticed because, while one can identify their political movements through systematic evaluation of their voting records, their positioning is more subtle. But not Hillary's. There is nothing subtle about her strategic positioning. Not a thing. Everybody talks about Hillary's political calculations not because they are brilliant but because they are obvious, because everything about Hillary screams "political calculation." There is nothing organic to her politics; it all seems artificial.

This is the sign of a bad politician. All politicians do the same things. They all change their views. They all move with the political currents. They are all flexible and pragmatic. What differentiates the good politician from the bad one is that you never notice that the good one is pragmatic. A good politician is as smooth as a well-aged single-malt scotch. Hillary is a bad politician. She is like that bottom-shelf blended garbage that sells for $12 a handle.

Ouch.  That's so brutal.  Still, you shouldn't pity Ol' Rot-Gut.  Mr. Cost continues:

Flexibility is a necessary part of a politician's life. Politicians must adapt in order to correspond to the mood of their electorate. All politicians must do this. What matters--what separates the good ones from the bad ones--is the way they adapt. This is their style. Those with good style are those whose political maneuvers you would never really notice. Those with poor style stick out like a sore thumb. This is a sign of a bad politician.

And Hillary Clinton is a bad politician. Ironically, her awfulness as a politician is why people think she is so great. Her political moves are so obvious that everybody discusses how "political" she is. "Oooooh, she is so Machiavellian!" Pundits are in awe of how overtly political she is--and they assume that her overtness is a sign of her excellence. Far from it. As anybody who has read "The Prince" knows, the true Machiavellian is one everybody thinks is a saint.

Or, to quote Kaiser Soze, "The greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." Hillary is no political devil precisely because everybody is convinced that she is.