Happy Easter

If you celebrate Easter, why are you reading this? Go celebrate with your friends and family!

If you do not celebrate Easter then go find another reason to celebrate with your friends and family.

Isn't that handy!

So I forgot to post anything earlier; just been busy and distracted. Anyway, unless you read this post (and I don't think anyone does) you may not be able to tell I posted it past midnight. Why is that? Because I can set the post date and time apparently.

Pretty handy, isn't it? Is it unethical though? Kind of means you can edit time by posting in the past that which you write in the present… at least as far as an observer who understands our calendar but not our language would be able to tell. Be mindful of editing people! It is very powerful and can quickly turn you into a cynic.

Arguing is an Art

Normally I tend away from political arguments on the Internet because they are never really a good idea to get into. I was compelled to enter one recently though because one person was putting forth just such horrible arguments. Well, it quickly devolved into that person making personal attacks and manufacturing quotes while I continued to criticize his arguments. That criticism though, was never responded to beyond the attacks and false-quotes, which is a real shame because of how much it demonstrates that this one person does not understand that arguing is an art form.

I learned some time ago that arguments are not something you try to win. Instead they are learning experiences, and such learning experiences do not require profanity. Because of this definition of what an argument is, I utterly despise the saying, 'let's agree to disagree'. Such a phrase is used to end an argument; to end a learning experience. That is horrible. The two best ways for an argument to end is with parties forming agreeing opinions or with the opposing opinions intact, but better informed about the other.

Unfortunately it appears that people on the Internet are more obsessed with winning an argument or getting that disgusting sense of satisfaction from insulting their opponents. As the person being insulted though, I found it quite humorous because I, to a degree, agree with that person. His/her arguments were crap and I called him/her on it. He/she was just too dedicated to making this opponent (me) into his/her opposite in order to achieve that disgusting satisfaction than to actually improve and further his/her arguments. Truly sad, this state of modern argument.

Decisions, decisions, decisions…

Have two ideas for this week's post; one negative and one more-or-less neutral. I'll go with the relative-positive one. It also happens to be the shorter.

I had an idea today of an effective analogy for DRM; the TSA. They both are supposed to add a layer of security, but can be gotten around by anyone with dedication. Meant to target the 'bad guys' they actually affect the average person who is doing everything correctly. They are an inconvenience created as a reaction to something that, while important, is not well addressed by the tactics used.

That's it for today. I told you it was a short one.

Did Anyone Seriously Think it would Work?

So the sequester is now law and boy has it ever been amusing to watch the course it has taken. Seriously, the fear it is being abused to create is astoundingly funny! Of course what is even more laughable is that anyone might have thought it would actually work to deal with spending. The easy point to make about that is it is not possible to address a deficit when all you do is reduce the increase in spending. You have to actually decrease spending to decrease spending, instead of spending more, but not as much as you originally planned to do. That however is not the reason I find it humorous.
No, the reason I laugh at the concept of the sequester is it is a horrible negotiation tactic. It was supposed to be a kind of nuclear deterrent that would force talks and compromise, because no one wants the bomb to go off. The problem is that in a negotiation both sides should have a nuclear deterrent that neither want to use. Instead they created a deterrent neither of them could control, which practically promised its use. Everyone can claim, and is claiming, it is not their fault for it happening and is just blaming the other side. At least if it were one side's nuclear deterrent then we would know who set it off, and have their reasoning for why they felt the negotiations were dead and it had to go off. Now we just get equally (ir)responsible people blaming the other guy because 'surely we would never want to do that.'
Really people, be more cynical about this. If nothing else it will show you that Washington is a comedic stage filled with actors too incompetent to even hit each other in the face with a pie. (Maybe that would help the debate; some meringue in the nostrils.)