Art Machine
Just another former infatuation junkie

Eh, call me old fashioned, but I prefer net quizzes that don’t try to tell you something about how you should think about the world or tell you something about how you should live your life.

I prefer quizzes that are just out-and-out fun.

Like these – the first of which was stolen from the Mistress of all things quiz-related, Rin.

You represent… desire.
You sure are motivated. You have a definite knack
for getting what you want. You always put your
own interests before those of others, and you
almost always find youself being satisfied.
Though you have determination, try some
compassion. Putting others first occassionally
can get you even more satisfying relationships.


What feeling do you represent?
brought to you by Quizilla

And, unfortunately, I can’t blame Rin for these – I found these all by myself….

You are The Oracle, from “The Matrix.”
Wise, kind, honest- is there anything slightly
negative about you? You are genuinely
supportive of others. Careful not to let people
take advantage of you, though.


What Matrix Persona Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

You’re An Intellectual!
You can always be found reading or on the computer.
People always come to you when they need
information. You don’t really care about love
at this point, your only goal is to improve
your mind. After all, knowledge is power!


What Type Of Anime Character Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

You are Gambit!You are a fierce fighter and a good friend to have.
Your preference for solitude and your
attractiveness make you very intriguing to
those you meet. Unfortunately, close
relationships are few and far between for you
because you often have trouble opening up to
others.


Which X-Men character are you most like?
brought to you by Quizilla

See? Now, didn’t that teach us a lot about ourselves? And oh, how we laughed….

Caution: What follows is very long, and probably very twisty.

I took the Battleground God quiz and got the following results:

Congratulations!

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Of course, I have issues with the “direct hit” that I suffered. Naturally.

You’ve just taken a direct hit!

Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one’s beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it’s justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That’s a flagrant contradiction!

Oh, no! A flagrant contradiction? How could I?

Well, I guess it would have something to do with questions 7 and 17 – the points where the contradiction leading to my “direct hit” seems to have appeared.

7: It is justifiable to base one’s beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of these convictions.

Answer: False

17: It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no external evidence that God exists.

Answer: True

Oh, no! They’re right! A blatant contradiction!

Of course, they failed to ask me if I believe the absence of evidence to mean anything. As a matter of fact, one of my bullets was not a contradiction, but merely a chiding for being foolish enough to state that the lack of evidence for something does not disprove the existence of that thing. I believe the words that “bullet” ended up with were as follows:

But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?

Maybe I would.

Excuse me, but I’ve been taught my entire life that you cannot disprove anything – you can only prove it. You cannot seek evidence to disprove the existence of a gene that makes people susceptible to spontaneous combustion. You can only point out that such a gene has yet to be found.

The closest you can come to disproving something is to prove an opposing theory. To follow the previous example, if I prove that spontaneous combustion is caused by the introduction of a deadly cocktail of hormones into the bloodstream, I might take weight away from the idea of a genetic predisposition to spontaneous combustion. This, however, is not a solid disproving – the a genetic predisposition may still exist.

You can prove the existence. You can find a lack of proof for the existence. You cannot prove a non-existence.

The question that follows panting immediately after is, “But doesn’t the lack of proof mean that it doesn’t exist?”

No, it doesn’t. We have only recently found the proof that Black Holes exist as theorized – that does not mean that prior to the finding of such proof, Black Holes did not exist. They existed – they just hadn’t been proven. Scientists managed to find the top quark – a particle they had only theorized about without any hard evidence that it existed. Following the logic that lack of evidence disproves a theory, the top quark should never have existed to be found.

But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre.

You mean, for instance, that the world might conceivably be round? Or that the atom can be split? Or that the so-called “primitive savages” of Africa had a language and a culture when they were being rounded up for the slavers’ ships? Or, perhaps, the concept of heavier-than-air flying ships? Or lighter than air, for that matter?

You can prove that life as we know it could not survive on the Moon – life as we know it requires certain things to survive that the Moon has in short supply. An atmosphere, for one thing. However, as Carl Sagan was fond of pointing out, this was not solid proof that life could not exist on the Moon, merely that life as we know it would not be found there. It was Sagan’s contention that we would never be able to know the absolute truth of the matter until we were able to pick the Moon apart, grain by grain. Why?

Because you cannot disprove something, only prove an opposing theory – which, frequently, doesn’t rule out the theory you were trying to disprove.

The Battleground God quiz requires you to accept a mainstream, illogical idea as logical – the idea that lack of proof serves to disprove a theory. It’s mainstreaming of the worst sort – the mainstreaming of ideas and beliefs.

“You wouldn’t want to be like one of those loonies who believes in UFO’s and ghosts, would you?”

Maybe I would.

Lauren Marinelli and C. Glen Williams are fine as Raina’s often confused parents, each having individual pretentions and artifices.

It’s amazing! It’s fantastic! It’s four years worth of hard work and study all justified in a single sentence!

A random Google search on my name brought up this review of a production of Arms and the Man that I did at Virginia Tech back in 2000. Yes, three years later, I actually get to read my reviews.

I’ll encourage you to go read it, but the fact is – the only mention you’ll find of me is in the sentence quoted above. It’s also the only mention you’ll find of the splendid Ms. Marinelli, my many-times partner in crime.

But I got into the paper. I got into the paper!

Wheeeee!

I’m long overdue for stealing another quiz from Rin…

What rating is your journal?
brought to you by Quizilla

I suppose I could be upset about my rating not coming out higher, but I never set out to be specifically offensive, anyway. Besides, as extreme as the situations on that Quiz get to be, I’m not sure I want an ‘R’ rating….

From China Daily comes this story on Kong Quan’s (spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry) response to a recent US State Department report on human rights.

The report details human rights abuses in 90 different countries and regions across the world, with China featured prominently.

Needless to say, Kong Quan is… less than pleased.

For its part, China advises the United States to devote more attention to problems of its own, including the improvement of its human rights record, and to refrain from intervening in the domestic affairs of others under the pretext of human rights, said Kong.

I think it’s safe to say at this point that the majority of Americans believe that there are, in fact, human rights violations in China (still a proud recipient of Most Favored Nation status). I think it’s safe to say that we have some concept that there are unfair labor practices in China, as well as unfair police activity and an oppressive slant to the government. So a denial of such abuses is, to say the very least, suspect.

However, Kong raises a very interesting point. Namely, the question of walking the walk.

The United States has always held itself out as a bastion of civil rights. We have fair trial by jury, due process of law, and Constitutional protection of our rights. We have a freely-elected government that answers to the people with regular elections, and we have a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that no branch of government can ever begin abusing its power without being immediately checked by the other branches.

(On a side note – that last line gave me an image of a linebacker in judge’s robes body-checking George W. “Dubya” Bush into the shrubbery. I don’t know why.)

But in recent years as the current administration has aggressively waged its Wars on Nouns^TM, it’s becoming increasingly clear that we do need to look to our own house. With announcements from the DOJ every day that legal aliens do not have legal rights in the United States, that Americans of Arabic descent are being rounded up for questioning or “protection”, or more talk about military tribunals, you begin to wonder if we’re living in the same United States that holds due process up as a model for other nations. As for worker relations, we have the current administration’s woeful record of blaming our societal ills on the labor unions, their shoddy treatment of all but the most wealthy, and now an initiative to do away with restrictions against requiring overtime, and an initiative to do away with requirements to pay overtime wages.

Kong Quan is half right. America does need to look to its own house. But looking to our own house does not mean that we should ignore the human rights violations of others, nor does it mean we should excuse them. If we truly wish to be the champions of human and civil rights, it is vital that we call attention to all instances of abuse – both inside and outside of our own boundaries.

In other news, The Moscow Times reports that Britain is now making nice with Russia because – by Tony Blair’s own admission – Britain may have to depend completely on Russia for its oil and gas by the end of the decade. Which means that Bush might have just a little bit of a problem finding a “coalition of the willing” for his next little skirmish….

I heard today that Strom Thurmond died.

Now, I know that you’re not supposed to speak ill of the dead, and anybody’s death should not be considered a cause for celebration – after all, as Donne tells us, no man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of a continent, a part of the main, etc. etc. etc.

However – many, many possible responses came to mind when I heard the news. The kindest of which was, “You’re kidding? He could die?” The second-kindest of which was, “Who held the stake?”

They just went downhill from there.

But one should let the dead rest, right? One should just let it go. They’re dead, so let’s think fondly of them for the surviving family’s sake (I know you want to say it, but ignore the straight line) and send them off in style.

Frankly, though, I think that death is no cause to consider re-writing history. We saw plenty of that happen when Richard Milhouse “I am not a convicted crook” Nixon started pushing up the daisies.

Let it be known far and wide. Strom Thurmond was no genteel statesman. He was a vicious, bitter man. He was a pro-segregation red-baiting sexist anti-education dixiecrat. The man was a conservative bulldog, as evidenced by statements like, “I don’t know of any right-wing extremists, as I define them, bringing harm to the government. Left-wingers have.”

Am I happy that Thurmond is dead? No. I do not celebrate anybody’s passing. The man served his country well in the military. He was the first South Carolina legislator to employ a black man in his office (Thomas Moss as head of the Voter Education Project). He adhered to a strict personal code – he never smoked, he never drank. Into his old age, he was the picture of health and energy.

But the man opposed Civil Rights legislation, he opposed legislation that favored public schools (and supported legislation that hindered it), was known for “fondling” female interns in elevators, opposed fair treatment of laborers, and is largely considered to be the reason that Nixon picked Henry Kissinger as his running mate (Thurmond pressured Nixon constantly to pick a running mate who was “not a Northern liberal”).

Let the dead rest? Yes – but don’t let history rest along with them.

Thurmond’s obituary in the New York Times can be found here.

It’s been a pretty amazing week for watching the government throw money and regulations around.

First of all, there’s the latest “No Child Left Behind ^TM” bill (as featured in this article from our friends at NYT) which insists that all teachers must have at least a bachelor’s degree in each subject they teach.

Sounds like it makes sense, right? I mean, it holds teachers to a higher standard, which is only good for students in the end, right?

Well, not exactly. Although you probably had that conclusion already figured out, otherwise I wouldn’t be talking about it right now.

First of all, the job market for teachers is already a bit tough. While the schools need teachers badly, they don’t have the money to pay those teachers anywhere near what they’re worth. When you start requiring the teachers to have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in every single subject they teach, you take the majority of qualified teachers and up the ante on them. Suddenly, they are no longer able to take the jobs that are available, because in order to do so they will have to spend money and time on additional college courses. Money that they can’t afford, and time that they kind of need to teach the classes they’ve been hired to handle.

And then there’s the matter of what this means for smaller school districts and districts in rural areas. As these districts are forced into compliance, they’ll lose the teachers they’ve managed to scrape up through special initiatives designed to make their district attractive. Suddenly, they won’t be able to compete with cities that will pay the same salary to a teacher for teaching one subject that they can offer for teaching two or three.

No child left behind? Tell that to the students who have just had their schools closed down, and whose districts can’t afford to have them bussed to the schools that can afford to follow the new guidelines.

The problem with this legislation is the same problem that followed most of the new regulations on security given to the states. They represent mandates without funding – strict guidelines laid down without the funding put behind them to make them work.

But that’s good, right? That’s turning more power over to the states and reducing the role of federal government, right?

Well, not exactly. If you look at the arrangement, it puts responsibility on the states without giving them the power to carry it out. These unfunded mandates force the states to dance to the federal government’s tune, while the federal government dangles the purse strings just out of reach. While billions of dollars go to the private oil and coal companies to research hydrogen fuel cells (another subject for another time), the states receive no funding to improve their security. While billions of dollars go out in corporate welfare to the airlines, the states receive no funding to comply with the new mandates concerning education. Why?

Because, according to the Republican Lege, there’s just no money.

Ah, yes. No money.

Which brings me around to what I happened to catch on television yesterday.

If you’re a freak like me, then you occasionally get the idea that it would be amusing to watch C-Span’s coverage of the houses of legislature in all its unedited glory.

And what I caught yesterday was the lege sitting around (or standing, as the case may be) and discussing the new bill that is supposed to help senior citizens with their prescription medication. Specifically, they were discussing a new, bi-partisan amendment. Or, at least, bi-partisan in name. While it was being called bi-partisan, the Democrats I heard speaking about it seemed to be pretty angry.

Apparently, a few members of the Lege were poking around one night and found 12 billion dollars (those were their words – they “found” 12 billion dollars) that the government apparently didn’t even know it had.

I’ve heard of finding change behind the cushions, but that’s a lot of Sacagaweas.

This is great, right? I mean, more money in the government’s hands at the time they’re discussing prescription medication for seniors. They’re surely going to turn right around and funnel the funding into that problem, right?

Well, not exactly.

The amendment takes 6 billion of the 12 they found and puts it toward various purposes within Medicaire, that’s true. But then it turns around and gives 6 billion directly to the HMO’s and insurance companies. That’s 6 billion dollars of government money going into private, corporate hands at a time when the government is running a serious deficit. 6 billion that could go to Medicaire, that could go to education, that could go to anything that the Right has been telling us they think of as priorities. but, instead, it’s going to go to private companies.

Why?

So the private companies can find better ways to compete with Medicaire.

All right – excuse me? Why are we spending money on corporations that we know don’t have the people’s best interests at heart so they can work on taking away the government’s lifeline for senior citizens and the needy?

The Republican response on C-Span was, of course, that the federal government is “in the business of providing health care” and that the business is not being run profitably.

That’s funny.

I thought that the federal government was in the business of establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defence, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Ah, well.

I’m beginning to think that there may be something wrong with my taste in movies. I couldn’t stand Waking Life – which art film fans generally love – and I loved Nemesis – which Star Trek fans generally hated.

Stop me before I review again.

Must… avoid… spoilers.

Really, people. Is it that much to ask that I be allowed at least one week to get through the book before you start discussing major plot points without spoiler warnings?

Those who leave spoilers in their comments will be hunted down and maimed.

So, I’m plowing my way through Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix.

Just thought I’d share that.

Also, if you’re wondering where the updates for Sunday or today are for 404, they’re up. Technical difficulties prevented the updates from happening as they should have this weekend, but the problem is solved now.

And everybody should go check out Sluggy Freelance this week while Phil Foglio does a series of guest strips.