LiveJournal Project - February 2004

An election year, gonna be a lot of politicking.

Date: 2004-02-03 08:08
Subject: the bigger you are, the shittier you'll ski
hm, ok, maybe not, but i've definitely not been having a good time of it - particularly due to ski boots which hurt like all hell, even before i get off the lift. i realize that it takes time to break in a new pair of boots, but cory and i were back at heavenly this last weekend, and in the time it took me to put my boots on at the rental shop and get in the line to go up the gondola, my feet were already pissed off at me. how is it that i'm supposed to become a better skier and/or break in my boots when i can barely have them on and weighted for 20 minutes before they start to hurt?! i've been doing some reading, and reviews of this particular boot (a rossignol soft 1) say that for those that it fits, it fits really well, but a bunch of people who tried them out had arch and instep pain. guess where my pain is? yep. fuckin' great. i'll be fucking around with my boots and the liner to see if there's any way to make them larger in the places where they need to be larger, but i have a feeling that i'm screwed.

however, all of this foot pain gave me an idea. remember the reebok pump baskeball shoes, that had a little air pump in them to make the shoe more snug against your foot? what if that technology were applied to ski boots - so instead of some semi-firm liner, you had a floppy air bag that you put your foot in, and then fill it with air so that it molds exactly to the contours of your foot and is exactly as tight as you want/need it to be? right now i'm thinking about a multichamber design as well as a single-chamber design - not sure if different parts of the foot would need different amounts of air pressure for this to work. blah, i need to find a way to build a prototype and see if the idea is feasible - the only thing i'm worried about is the plastic bag bursting under pressure - but on the face of it, it seems like a promising idea.
Mood: awake

Time: 15:35
Subject: presidential primaries - or, how my vote doesn't mean shit.
about 30 minutes ago, i wandered over to the lakeshore bible church of god to cast my vote in this year's democratic presidential primary. and while on my way home, i considered the whole mechanics of the primary-election season, and i've come to the conclusion that it's completely broken. if you read any of the news reports discussing this year's field of candidates, you'll see a sense of acceptance that simply because he's won the iowa caucuses and new hampshire primary, that john kerry is the inevitable choice for the democratic party - apparently regardless of the fact that there are still 48 more states waiting to cast ballots. here's a quote, citing some unnamed experts, from our own azcentral.com: "Just weeks ago, Kerry seemed little more than an also-ran in a crowded Democratic field. But now Kerry, buoyed by victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, is on course to practically run the table and achieve the 2,162 delegates needed to secure the nomination at the party's July convention in Boston, experts said." now. i've never been one to give people a lot of credit for being intelligent, but for fuck's sake - are people really voting for kerry solely because he won the first two primaries? it certainly appears so - which means that iowa and new hampshire have an inordinately unfair amount of influence over the presidential nomination process. (which they do - new hampshire is all about being first in the nation as far as primaries go, and i think iowa would probably implode if anyone tried to take their front-runner spot.) in any event, this is completely anathema to the concept of democracy (not that the united states has ever been accused of being a democracy in practice in the first place, but that's another matter).

fuck this multi-day primary bullshit. fuck iowa and new hampshire and their citizens' overgrown sense of their own importance. every state should hold its presidential primaries on the same day. remove the favoritism from two pissant states and let ALL of the people legitimately go to the polls and decide. i think we'd get a better idea of who the members of each party really favor and not some media-blitzed opinion-poll-skewed representation that hardly makes up america as a whole. we'd also get a better look at all the candidates; there wouldn't be any dropping-out due to the loss of one minor race, and candidates would be forced to spend more time getting their messages across. oh yeah, and did i mention that my national-primary plan would put a lot of fucktard media pundits out of a job come election season? instead of endless speculation, spin-doctoring, and subtle vote manipulation spurred on by less than a handful of results (see the above quote), they'd be just as in the dark and helpless as the rest of us until the ballots actually got counted.

iowa, new hampshire, and john kerry can all kiss my fat ass.

Date: 2004-02-05 15:35
Subject: whither the political process?
in general, the 18-30 y/o population has the worst voter turnout of any age group, and politicians generally focus more on the wants and demands of the old folks and their lobbying behemoth, the AARP, because, come election day, the bluehairs are the most likely to get out and cast a ballot. it's not hard to see how this cycle feeds into itself - the organized geriatrics squeak the loudest, they get some grease, and then they squeak more, leading to an endless feedback loop. but it seems to me that not too long ago, there was a considerable emphasis placed on trying to get younger people interested in domestic politics, to get them to the polls, and so on. we had everything from MTV and the "rock the vote" campaign to bill clinton playing his saxophone on national TV. where did all of that go? did the effort to get younger generations to the polls fail so miserably that the powers that be simply gave up on it? or did the younger generations decide that their participation was meaningless, and give up on their own, thus leading back to a second bluehaired revolution? are we just more cynical? or maybe, we just don't care.

cory and i were discussing a lot of this stuff on tuesday night while we watched the cable spin doctors heap loads of praise upon george bush III (john kerry), and we observed that if our generation ever actually got off its ass and got organized, we'd be able to get those fucktards in washington to take notice. i'm sure that plenty of other twenty-somethings have had the same thought, probably every time an election comes around. but it never happens - or, if it does, it fizzles out before it ever had a chance to gain any substantial momentum or following.

anyway, looking forward to the november election... my candidate of choice, wes clark, probably doesn't have a chance in hell of making it to the ballot, and neither does my second choice, howard dean. barring some colossal fuckup on the part of kerry and/or edwards, given the sheeple mentality of the american population and their proclivity for voting for the front-runner because they think that's what everyone else is doing, one of those two fools is going to be running against dubya. and the more i look at them, the more i can't help but feel like the election of 2004 is going to be just like elections in iraq under saddam hussein: no matter who you vote for, you still get dubya - or, with apologies to william shakespeare, a bush by any other name would still smell as foul.

can we start the revolution yet?

oh yeah, and in honor of the 6-y/o girl that got suspended for saying "hell" - i'd like to say that the pittsburgh public school district can go to hell.
Mood: grumbly

Date: 2004-02-06 16:22
Subject: get over it america, it was only a boob!
http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/0206janet-lawsuit06-ON.html

y'all knew it was just a matter of time, right? in a country where saying "hell" in school gets you suspended and where women file police reports over lost lottery tickets that they never purchased in the first place, eventually someone in our overly-litigious society would try to find a way to make some money off of the super bowl breast baring of janet jackson. here's a quote from the article: "The complaint alleges that by being exposed to the “sexually explicit conduct” viewers were caused to “suffer outrage, anger, embarrassment and serious injury.” The entire complaint, which explains how CBS and the halftime show violated FCC regulations is available at TheSmokingGun.com."

now, i realize that the super bowl gave new meaning to the term "boob tube," but fuckin' christ, i don't even know where to begin on this one. there are very few things in this world that render me so flabbergasted as to be speechless, but i think today we've got a winner. i cannot even begin to wrap my brain around the incredible stupidity and anal-retentiveness that the plaintiff in this case is suffering from. with all of the shit that goes on in this country, and all of the blood, guts, and gore on television, it just boggles my mind that someone could actually see the rationality in the above-mentioned course of action.

please, god, if you're out there - it's long past smitin' time.

oh yeah, and if anyone's in the mood to write a "fuck you, you fucking fuck" letter, the address for the shyster law firm that's actually taking this case appears here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/janetsuit8.html
Mood: annoyed

Date: 2004-02-09 21:11
Subject: only through adversity do we grow stronger
so today i got into it with an asshole on a messageboard that i, unfortunately, spend more time on than is healthy for my sanity. the gist of the exchange consisted of me presenting a less-than-glowing review of a party/club night that i attended this last saturday, and said asshole coming back and giving me all kinds of shit for it. now, it's important to note that this fucktard, who calls himself "buddah" (learn to spell, fool), was involved in putting on said event, as a member of the production company and a dj. what's even funnier is that it doesn't seem that assboy even bothered to actually read what i wrote before slinging the shit. hello, fool, if you want to argue with me, at least take the time to rub those braincells together and comprehend what i've written. next time, i'll even try to use shorter sentences and words with less than three syllables; then you won't have any excuse for failing to read.

anyway... i don't understand these nimrods that get so butt-hurt when someone doesn't have an amazing time at their events and then actually has the balls to say something about it. if people really want the electronic music scene (or any other scene) to improve, the only way that's going to happen is if people are honest about their experiences, and if the promoters themselves actually bother to listen and try to make things better. it also baffles me when others go around spouting shit like "be grateful for what we have" as if we're just supposed to be blind, starving sheep that accept any fodder that's tossed our way. sorry, people, but i don't bleat that way. if you're going to throw a free party, then sure, i don't have much reason to complain, but when i'm a paying customer, i have specific expectations. if those expectations are not met, if i didn't get my money's worth, then you can bet your ass i'm going to say something about it.

it really doesn't surprise me anymore that the electronic music (rave, mostly) scene in phoenix has been gradually shrinking over the last few years. the signal-to-noise ratio just keeps going down, down, down. it's that last hopeful bit of idealism in me that continues to stick around; i've had some amazing times at these things in the past, and somehow i think that if i stick it out long enough, there will be more experiences like that in the future. but one can only beat one's head against the wall for so long without cracking one's skull open, too.
Mood: annoyed

Date: 2004-02-12 16:46
Subject: things that don't make sense, part 1 - the gay marriage issue.
although i'm not a gay man, and the issue of same-sex marriage really has no direct bearing on my life, as i look at the arguments being made on both sides of the issue, i've yet to find a convincing argument (or even one that makes sense, hence the title of this post) that same-sex marriages shouldn't be permitted. i've made an attempt to analyze the various claims made by opponents of the issue, and when looked at in a logical fashion, none of them hold water.

1. some folks take the religious point, and they claim that marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and god, and therefore same-sex couples should be denied the right. if we were to accept this as true, however, we'd run into some immediate problems. first, marriage would become a violation of church-state separation as it would constitute the governmental sanction of religious practices. second, it would ignore the empirical fact that secular marriages happen ALL THE TIME. i don't see any fundamentalist ministers calling for those unions to be declared null and void, and the reason is obvious - because their real opposition to same-sex marriage is not based in any kind of holy book, despite their attempts to claim that god really is on their side. the only conclusion we're left with is that the religious argument, while it might be emotionally compelling to those who are absolutely convinced that they gays are condemned to hell, just doesn't stand up under logical scrutiny.
2. others claim that it's not the will of the people; that a majority of americans are opposed to the notion of same-sex marriage. this might be true, but it's irrelevant. a majority of americans, at one point in time, believed that women were second-class citizens, blacks were just above the common gorilla on the evolutionary totem pole, and that the native americans were savages who needed to be civilized for their own good. we (well, most people) look back on these pratices as archaic and barbaric and we wonder how it is that our forefathers were so backwards as to believe that some people inherently deserved more rights than others, but hey, look, what are we doing now? in addition, as much as it's non-demoratic and elitist for me to say this (and i don't care), the masses often hold views which are ignorant and blatantly false: the majority of the world's population once thought that the earth was flat, but their belief did not make it so.
3. arizona assistant attorney general kathleen sweeney has made the claim that neither the state constitution nor the us constitution permits same-sex marriage. various other versions of this argument make the same sort of claim; that the right for gay couples to marry isn't a constitutional right. and since the MA supreme court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, and there's a case pending before the AZ supreme court dealing with the same issue, i think that it's this legal approach that merits the most consideration. when we apply this consideration, we find that the constitution says nothing about marriage at all -- so to claim that it doesn't protect same-sex marriage is simply a strawman. the constitution doesn't protect marriage - period.

however, if ms. sweeney and others do want to make an appeal to constitutional arguments, then i'd like to point them to the 5th and 14th amendments; in particular, the statements which demand that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law, and that all persons are guaranteed equal protection under the law. please note, folks, that the constitution does not say "only people that we like on any given day" are guaranteed these protections, nor does it say that we're allowed to change what we mean by "all people." maybe president clinton couldn't figure out that getting his dick sucked fell under the category of sexual relations, and maybe bill gates had trouble with the word "is" during the microshit antitrust hearings, but there is absolutely no ambiguity in the following: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." so, either the constitutionalists are claiming that gays aren't people, or they don't know how to read the very document that they're citing. there are so many liberty and property and due process arguments available to those arguing for same-sex marriages that it makes the head spin. hopefully they'll actually think of them all when making their case - but there are points to be made in everything from health benefits to inheritance laws. really, though, the most compelling argument is to look at the text of the constitution. hey, justice scalia! that's how you claim to read the document - how 'bout a little intellectual honesty for a change?

as i'm typing this out, another thought comes to mind. people attempt to use religion as a means to deny same-sex marriages, but i think religion, and specifically the free-exercise clause of the first amendment, could be used as another argument in favor of it. the clause i'm referring to notes that congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof (religion)" -- so i'd be curious to see if anyone's tried to claim that such things as ohio's same-sex-marriage ban and the clinton-era "defense of marriage act" would be unconstitutional on a free-exercise ground.

i'm guessing that most, if not all, of you that read these ramblings are probably supporters of same-sex marriage. but if any of you aren't, and you've got some arguments that i've missed, let's hear 'em. logical discourse only, please - support your opinions with rational thought and verifiable fact, not emotive claims which don't mean jack. anyone who makes the mistake of saying something like "i think gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because it's wrong" will be torn to shreds.

next time in "things that don't make sense".... ravyn's view on nuclear proliferation and its relation to global elitism. i know y'all just can't wait. =)
Music: Culture Kultur - Gravity

Date: 2004-02-17 21:18
Subject: because i don't feel like working
from _purpleglitter_:

The Rules are:
Step 1: Open your Winamp or other MP3 player.
Step 2: Put all of your music on random.
Step 3: Write down the first ten songs it plays, no matter how embarrassing.

10975 - Peter Gabriel with Deep Forest - While the Earth Sleeps (3:49)
4588 - Panick - Hollow Se (6:28)
6888 - Svenson & Gielen - Beachbreeze Original Mix (9:37)
8864 - Chemical Brothers - Don't Know (7:54)
9669 - Chris Zippel - When I Felt It - String Mix (7:04)
9659 - K.U.R.O. - Mind Gardens (6:39)
11171 - The Eagles - Hotel California - 112 Unplugged (6:52)
5022 - Total Eclipse - Alternatif (7:58)
630 - Conjure One - Pandora (5:04)
8044 - Clannad - Thios Fa'n Chosta (3:18)

yeah, i have tons of shit to do. y'all can see how enthusiastic i am.

Date: 2004-02-22 09:47
Subject: random commentary on a few different things
so it's been announced that the man who cost al gore the 2000 election (no, not antonin scalia or george w. bush or even jeb bush) is running for president again. that's right, folks, look for a ralph nader candidacy coming to a newsstand near you. how ridiculous. while i agree with nader that the whole two-party system in this nation has become an absolute joke, and that it's next to impossible to tell the difference between a democrat and a republican, i also think that the last thing we need at this point is someone to enter the race that has absolutely no chance of doing anything in november except taking votes away from the democratic candidate and effectively giving them to dubya. i hope nader's campaign goes straight down the shitter - and if we end up with four mour years of bush because this fuckhole (thanks for that word, xianaz) can't understand the meaning of the phrase "there's a time and place for everything," i hope somebody shoots his sorry ass. bleh.

in other news... went raving last night, and despite all the cynicism and naysaying that i'm wont to do, it's apparent that there's still a spark of life in the arizona scene that's trying to catch flame. much respect to the people involved in last night's gathering. and what can i say other than "hell yeah!" to djskott for dropping a psytrance track at the start of his set. and one last thing that i'd like to say in relation to the events and people of last night. i'll leave it to all of you, my happy readers, to figure out who i'm talking about, if you care.

person A: i hope you know what kind of shitstorm you're potentially getting into. hope for the best, but don't think with your dick or you'll be fucked.
person B: fucking with my friends is a good way to incur the wrath of ravyn, and i can assure you that this is something you do not want.
person C: the only word that comes to mind is: pathetic dumbass. ok, so that's two words.
person D: weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

i've got some japanese homework that's calling me, so i'm out.
Music: Bonkers - Antisocial - I'm Ready
Mood: awake

Date: 2004-02-23 06:55
Subject: yeah, nothing better to do at 6:30 in the morning... stolen from femmdraven
yeah, whoever wrote this up for august obviously doesn't know jack. my b'day is towards the end of august, and i think the paragraph for september is a much better fit, so i'm going to break the rules and do the same thing with that one.

RULES:

1. Put your birth month in an entry.
2. Strike out anything that doesn't apply to you.
3. Bold the four that best apply to you.
4. Put all twelve months under a livejournal cut.

AUGUST: Loves to joke. Attractive. Suave and caring. Brave and fearless. Firm and has leadership qualities. Knows how to console others. Too generous and egoistic. Takes high pride of oneself. Thirsty for praises. Extraordinary spirit. Easily angered. Angry when provoked. Easily jealous. Observant. Careful and cautious. Thinks quickly. Independent thoughts. Loves to lead and to be led. Loves to dream. Talented in the arts, music and defense. Sensitive but not petty. Poor resistance against illnesses. Learns to relax. Hasty and trusty. Romantic. Loving and caring. Loves to make friends.

SEPTEMBER: Suave and compromising. Careful, cautious and organized. Likes to point out people's mistakes. Likes to criticize. Stubborn. Quiet but able to talk well. Calm and cool. Kind and sympathetic. Concerned and detailed. Loyal but not always honest. Does work well. Very confident. Sensitive.Thinking generous. Good memory. Clever and knowledgeable. Loves to look for information. Must control oneself when criticizing. Able to motivate oneself. Understanding. Fun to be around. Secretive. Loves sports, leisure and traveling. Hardly shows emotions. Tends to bottle up feelings. Very choosy, especially in relationships. Systematic.
Music: KMFDM - That's All

Time: 08:15
Subject: gah!
random expression of frustration.... i thought that when i bought a 24" monitor, i'd never have any need for more desktop space. how could anyone, i wondered, possibly require more than 1900x1200 resolution to get all his work done? yeah, right. i'm working on converting a website from an old look-and-feel to a new one, and in the two days i've been fucking around with it, i'm reminded over and over again how much it would make my life easier to have a second monitor. unfortunately, samsung no longer makes the 240T, and their current 24" LCD display, the 241MP, generally runs about $4500, almost twice what i paid for the 240T. as much as i really want one, the idea of spending $4500 on a monitor seems, well, absolutely recockulous.
Music: Cocteau Twins (Singles Box Sex) - Aikea-Guinea

Date: 2004-02-24 06:21
Subject: things that don't make sense, part 2 -- nuclear proliferation and global elitism
sometimes i do everything in my power to avoid doing actual work and today so far is no different.

anyone who watches the news with any sort of regularity will often hear bush and his cronies (or virtually any other american leader from the recent past, this isn't just a bush-bash) talk about the dangers of nuclear proliferation. they're concerned both with non-nuclear states undertaking new programs to develop atomic weapons as well as the possibility that a terrorist organization might get its hands on some plutonium and figure out a way to smuggle it into the united states and unleash all manner of hell. now, i have no problem with keeping atomic power out of the hands of people like osama bin laden, but i think there's something a bit odd about the fervor with which governments that have nuclear weapons strive to keep them out of the hands of governments that don't. it's like a little kid that says "i have some ice cream, it's all mine, and you can't have any." remember when india and pakistan tested nuclear devices? the international community condemned both nations, and the united states (and i believe some other nations, but i don't remember for sure) imposed sanctions on both. to me, this smacks more of elitism than it does any kind of concern on the part of the current nuclear powers to maintain world stability.

now, don't get the wrong idea, i have no love for nuclear weapons, but i do believe that their existence and the doctrine of mutually-assured destruction played a large part in keeping the cold war from turning hot. when you and your arch-rival are both sitting on enough destructive force to annihilate every living thing on the planet several times over, you've got a certain interest in making sure that ideological disputes and minor conflicts don't mushroom out of control. look at the current situation between india and pakistan - they've fought several wars during the last century over the disputed kashmir region, but now that they're both armed with the capacity to parking-lot each other's countries, they seem to be toning down the rhetoric and trying to work things out diplomatically.

on a related note, it's interesting that the nations which currently have nuclear weapons aren't taking any active steps to reduce their arsenals. now that the cold war is over, we hear more talk from the white house about building missile shields than we do about getting rid of some of the thousands of warheads floating around. hmm, maybe the reason that states hold fast to their nuclear arsenals (except for ukraine and south africa, both of whom gave up existing nuclear programs) is is because they know that having nuclear weapons is a pretty good guarantee against attacks from hostile states (notice i said states here -- non-state actors are another matter entirely).

anyway, the point here is that from my perspective, the actions of the nuclear-armed nations when dealing with other states that might be pursuing nuclear programs just continue to reinforce an atmosphere of global elitism. it's ok for us to do it, but it's not ok for you, simply because we said so. sounds like the way most parents deal with their kids. =/
Music: Mylene Farmer - L'amour Naissant

Date: 2004-02-25 01:23
Subject: 10 cents to buy a clue?
sometimes i feel that as the blackbird of unhappiness it's my duty to tell people, even if i don't really know them very well, that they're getting fucked up the bunghole with a nice mixture of novocaine and sandpaper(*). other times, i think i'd just rather sit on the sideline with a nice bag of popcorn.

* - for anyone who didn't understand this - it's the concept that you're not feeling the ass-raping now, but when the numbness wears off you're going to wonder "why does my ass hurt so much?"

Time: 09:19
Subject: quote of the day.

Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

bonus points if you can name the source.

Time: 16:21
Subject: and in other news (japanese-capable browser required)
私の日本語をれんしゅうしています｡

一日中日本語を弁居しているので、よかがありません。でも、djskottと_purpleglitter_と昼ごはんを食べました｡ djskottは大きい問題がありますね。

blah, my vocabulary isn't big enough to write this whole entry. i guess that's the way it goes when you're only a second-semester japanese student. =/
Editor's note: I don't know what some of this says. But I do see that djskott and _purpleglitter and I ate lunch._
Mood: geeky

Date: 2004-02-26 15:29
Subject: fuckholes!
want to lose 25 pounds in 2 weeks? yeah, whatever. i get enough spam in my inbox, i don't need this shit coming to my cellphone. however, the fucktard made the mistake of leaving a toll-free number in said spam. hmm, i wonder if i can find a bank of payphones and make a bunch of calls to 800-494-7185 and drive this asshat into bankruptcy....

not that i'd actually do such a thing, of course. snicker

Hm, some lost Japanese ability detected.... I actually think there is a grammatical error in that post, too, but since I'm not sure what that second sentence says, who knows...