Friday, September 30, 2005

Old Apple Software

Apple is offering up for download some ancient and obsolete software, stuff that was made prior to January 1998, on its AppleCare site. This is all legal and free but I can make no promises because Apple does not. The links may not work, the downloads may be imperfect and the programs may not even function at all. The site/list was "created and published on 17-July-2001" and since then "will not be updated with new content, nor will it be maintained (removing links to software no longer available)." If the software causes harm to your existing systems Apple takes no responsibility and offers no assistance.

Again: I make no promises.

Macromedia is Dead To Me

Macromedia released Dreamweaver 8. In fact it has ceased all support and free trial releases for Dreamweaver MX 2004. The problem is that version 8 is only good for Windows 2000 and XP. I have Windows 98SE.

They don't want me to buy their product. If I were to speak with them I would say "up yours".

Microsoft has also all but killed support for Windows 98. My fear is for when they finally kill Windows Update support for Windows 98. The version as installed is not a complete version; it's impossible to have a complete OS package of that version without connecting to the internet (my dial-up modem is currently dysfunctional) so I cannot get a full system right now. Even when I reestablish the Internet I fear for the day when I reformat my hard drive but cannot fully restore my system.

Everyone needs to reformat their systems every three months or so.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Which is Better, Michigan or Michigan State?

This weekend is the long-awaited U of M versus MSU football game. The game this year carries extra interest as this farce of a so-called rivalry actually becomes a real one. Various Spartans over the years have carried with them the impression that there is rivalry between the two teams as there exists betweent the two schools. For decades that's been foolishness and a good deal of the more aware ones know it! There has long been a rivalry between fans of the two teams but to be honest there is no rivalry, let alone arch-rivalry between two teams when of them has a more or less steady record of getting thumped by the other. Michigan State has a terrible record against the Wolverines in football. This year is different; the Spartans are undefeated and the University of Michigan is at a turning point with a 2-2 record. The Spartans are the favorite to win this year, making the entire thing quite legendary. This is also the moment where Michigan decides to be good or actually, geniunely suck.

WZZM 13 out of Kalamazoo and West Michigan has created this website complete with countdown clock and my favorite stuff, juicy polls. Honestly the favorite fight song is a matter of taste and I think MSU's has better lyrics, even if the tune is less catchy and the song is often so ironic when played (not this year, though). I originally voted as to liking U of M's helmets better but then I realized that even though the helmets are less plain and quite prettier they are also vague and could be for any team, given the blue and yellow striped patterns. Heck, the helmet design is described as "wings". What kind of Wolverine has wings?

Go to the site and take part in the polls. Michigan State University and the undefeated Spartans are favored by one and all.... I'm rooting for my team regardless.

Voices in My Head this AM

I can hear my last shred of sanity talking with my sense of self-preservation. One is backing down. I wonder which.

The Doctrine of Preemption

from Imprimis September 2005

George F. Will

George F. Will writes a twice-weekly column that appears in more than 450 newspapers and a biweekly column in Newsweek. He also appears regularly on ABC’s This Week on Sunday mornings. In 1977, he won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary. He has published seven collections of his columns as well as several other books, including Statecraft as Soulcraft: What Government Does and Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball. Mr. Will was educated at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, and at Oxford and Princeton universities, and taught political philosophy at Michigan State and Toronto universities prior to entering journalism.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 23, 2005, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Dallas, Texas.

What I will say tonight about the war on terror draws heavily on my earlier life as a professor and student of political philosophy. A long life in journalism and around Washington, D.C., has taught me not just that ideas have consequences, but that only ideas have large and lasting consequences. We are in a war of terror being waged by people who take ideas with lethal seriousness, and we had better take our own ideas seriously as well.

I think the beginning of understanding the war is to understand what happened on 9/11. What happened was that we as a people were summoned back from a holiday from history that we had understandably taken at the end of the Cold War. History is served up to the American people with uncanny arithmetic precision. Almost exactly sixty years passed from the October 1929 collapse of the stock market to the November 1989 crumbling of the Berlin Wall-sixty years of depression, hot war, and cold war, at the end of which the American people said: "Enough, we are not interested in war anymore." The trouble is, as Trotsky once said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." And this was a war with a new kind of enemy-suicidal, and hence impossible to deter, melding modern science with a kind of religious primitivism. Furthermore, our enemy today has no return address in the way that previous adversaries, be it Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia, had return addresses. When attacks emanated from Germany or Russia, we could respond militarily or we could put in place a structure of deterrence and containment. Not true with this new lot.

Our enemy today refutes an axiom that has governed international relations for nearly 400 years, since the Peace of Westphalia, when the nation-state system began to emerge in Europe. The axiom was that a nation could only be mortally threatened or seriously wounded by another nation-by massed armies and fleets on the seas, and an economic infrastructure to support both. This is no longer true. It is perfectly clear now that one maniac with a small vial of smallpox spores can kill millions of Americans. That is a guess, but an educated guess based on a U.S. government simulated disaster that started in an Oklahoma shopping center. Smallpox is a strange disease; it has a ten-day incubation period when no one knows they have it. We are mobile people, we fly around, we breathe each other's airplane air. The U.S. government, taking this mobility into account, estimated that in just three weeks, one million Americans in 25 states would die from one outbreak like that.

On the other hand, the enemies who attacked us on 9/11 failed to ask themselves the question, "But then what?" That is the question Admiral Yamamoto asked when the Japanese government summoned him in 1940 and asked him to take a fleet stealthily across the North Pacific and deliver a devastating blow against the American navy at Pearl Harbor. Yamamoto said he could do that if his government would design some shallow running torpedoes and a few other things. He said he could run wild in the Pacific for six months, or maybe a year. But he asked his government, "Then what?" Yamamoto knew America, and he loved America. He studied at Harvard and had been back to the U.S. as a diplomat in Washington. He knew that after Pearl Harbor, Japan would have an enraged, united, incandescent, continental superpower on its hands, and that Japan's ultimate defeat would be implicit in its initial victory. Our current enemies will learn the same thing.

Preemption: Necessary but Problematic

Meanwhile we have worries-and these are not new worries. In 1946, Congress held what are today remembered, by the few who remember such things, as the "Screwdriver Hearings." They summoned J. Robert Oppenheimer, head of the Manhattan Project, and asked him if it would be possible to smuggle an atomic device into New York City and detonate it. Oppenheimer replied that of course it would be possible. Congress then asked how it would be possible to detect such a device. Oppenheimer answered: "With a screwdriver." What he meant was that every container that came into the city of New York would have to be opened and inspected.

This year, seven million seaborn shipping containers will pass through our ports. About five percent will be given cursory examination. About 30,000 trucks crossed our international borders today. If this was a normal day, about 21,000 pounds of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin were smuggled into our country. How hard would it be, then, to smuggle in a football-sized lump of highly enriched uranium sufficient to make a ten-kiloton nuclear weapon to make Manhattan uninhabitable for a hundred years?

To enrich uranium is an enormous, complex process that requires scientists and vast physical plants. But once you have it, making a nuclear weapon requires only two or three good physics graduate students. And there is an enormous amount of fissile material floating around the world. In 1993, some officials from the U.S. Energy Department, along with some Russian colleagues, went to a Soviet-era scientific facility outside Moscow and used bolt cutters to snip off the padlock-the sum of all the security at this place. Inside, they found enough highly enriched uranium for 20 nuclear weapons. In 2002, enough fissile material for three weapons was recovered in a laboratory in a Belgrade suburb. And so it goes. The Soviet Union, in its short and deplorable life, deployed about 22,000 nuclear weapons. Who believes they have all been accounted for? The moral of this story is: you cannot fight terrorism at the ports of Long Beach or Newark. You have to go get it. You have to disrupt terrorism at its sources. This is a gray area. It's a shadow war. But it is not a war that we have any choice but to fight.

This leads us directly to the doctrine of preemption, with which there are several problems. First, we do not yet have-as it has been made painfully clear-the intelligence capacity that a doctrine of preemption really requires. The second problem with preemption is encapsulated in Colin Powell's famous "Pottery Barn principle," which Mr. Powell explained to the President before the second war with Iraq began: If you break it, you own it. Iraq is broken; we own it for the moment. And we are therefore engaged in nation building.

This is particularly a problem for conservatives, who understand that societies and nations are complex, organic things-not put together and taken apart like Tinker Toys. The phrase "nation building" sounds to many conservatives much the way the phrase "orchid building" would sound. An orchid is a complex, wonderful, beautiful, natural thing, but it is not something that can be built. Conservatives know it took thirty years in this country to rebuild the south Bronx. And now we have taken on a nation to build.

There are those who say that neoconservatives-and most of my friends are neoconservatives, although I am not quite-have exported the impulse for social engineering that conservatives have so rightly criticized over the years at home. There is, of course, an element in this critique of President Bush's policies that echoes in part the contemporary liberal version of isolationism. The old isolationism of the 1920s and 1930s was a conservative isolationism, and it held that America should not go abroad into the world because America is too good for the world. The contemporary liberal brand of isolationism-the Michael Moore view of the world-is that America should not be deeply involved in the world because the world is too good for America. This is not a serious argument, even though seriously held.

The serious argument over nation building is an argument conducted between conservatives of good will with one another. On the one hand, we have a school broadly called the realist school, and on the other hand, there is a school associated with Woodrow Wilson and his crusading zeal for the export of democracy. President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, two intelligent and very good men, have in them a large share of Wilson's crusading messianic spirit, a spirit that is quite natural to America. Once you enunciate a country founded on principles that have universality written in them, as our Declaration of Independence does-i.e., "all men are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"-a kind of universal eligibility for these rights is postulated. What the realists remind us is that over time, it is the details that matter.

President Bush has said, in a phrase he got from Ronald Reagan, that it is cultural condescension to say that some people are not ready for democracy. Tony Blair, in July 2003, after the fall of Baghdad, came before a joint session of Congress and gave a wonderful, generous, good ally speech, in which he said that it is a "myth" that our values are simply "Western values," or simply a product of our culture. Our principles, he said, are "universal," embraced by all "ordinary people." The problem is that this belief-that every person is at heart a Jeffersonian Democrat, that all the masses of the world are ready for democracy-might lead you not to plan very carefully for post-war nation building. If this is true, then nation building should be a snap, because everyone is ready for democracy.

Realists know better. They know there was a long, 572-year uphill march from Runnymede to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Even more sobering, our Constitutional Convention was followed in less than 75 years by the bloodiest Civil War the world had ever seen, to settle some leftover constitutional questions. We know from our history how difficult regime change is. When the president speaks of regime change, he is using a term from Aristotle. For Aristotle, changing a regime did not mean substituting a few public officials for other public officials. For Aristotle, a regime meant the habits, mores, customs, dispositions, public philosophy, and culture of politics that sustain public institutions. Therefore, regime change is statecraft and soulcraft; it is changing the temperament of a people. It is very complicated.

Major League Baseball managers often say in spring training that they are just two players away from a World Series. Unfortunately, the two players are Ruth and Gehrig. Likewise, Iraq is just four statesmen away from sturdy constitutionalism. All they need is a George Washington, a charismatic figure to unify the nation; a James Madison, a genius of constitutional architecture; an Alexander Hamilton, who can create from whole cloth a functioning economy; and a John Marshall, a jurist who knows how to change a constitution from words on parchment into a breathing, functioning document. Most of all, of course, they need the astonishingly rich social soil of America in the second half of the 18th century from which Washington, Madison, Hamilton and Marshall sprang. All of which is to say that Iraq may not be close to constitutional democracy just yet.

The Miracle of America

I say this not to disparage the Iraqi people but to increase our appreciation of what a miracle the United States is. John Adams said that the American Revolution was accomplished before the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Everyone used to learn-we do not learn these things anymore-Emerson's great poem about the battle of Concord's bridge: "by the rude bridge that arched the flood/their flag to April's breeze unfurled/here once the embattled farmers stood/and fired the shot heard round the world." But before that shot was fired, according to John Adams, independence had already been accomplished, because the spirit of independence was in the hearts and minds of the American people, a people prepared to shed blood in defense of their God-given natural rights.

One of the mistakes our enemies have made-and one of the reasons I wish our enemies would study American history to disabuse themselves of some of their grotesque errors-is their belief that we are squeamish about defending freedom and about the violence of war. They persist in the assumption that we are casualty averse. Osama Bin Laden said as much after the Somalia debacle when President Clinton, after suffering some casualties, immediately withdrew American forces. Whether or not we should have been in Somalia is another matter, but the means by which we left Somalia clearly convinced our enemies that we were paper tigers. People have been making that mistake since General Howe made it in the Battle of Brooklyn Heights in the Revolutionary War. He chased us across the East River and figured that was that. It was said again after the Battle of Shiloh in April 1862-up to that day the bloodiest day in American history. Many observers thought the North would sue for accommodation and, in the words of Horace Greeley, let our erring sisters go in peace. It did not turn out that way.

A few days after Shiloh, some men were seen on the still corpse-strewn fields of northern Maryland, men carrying strange devices. They were from Mathew Brady's photography studio in New York, and they took pictures. Three months later, these photos became an exhibit of devastating impact in Manhattan called "The Dead of Antietam." It was the first time graphic journalism had brought the real face of war to a democratic public. And it raised the question that to this day affects us and troubles political leaders: Does graphic journalism-first photography and then, of course, television-that brings war into our living rooms, in real time, cause nations to crack when they see the real face of battle?

The First World War produced the worst carnage the world had ever seen, but not once during the war did a picture of a dead Brit or dead Frenchman or dead German or dead American soldier appear in a newspaper of any of those countries. In the Second World War, the first picture of an American soldier dead in the surf in the Pacific did not appear in Life magazine until it had been held up in the War Department (as the Pentagon was then known) for nine months. The war in Vietnam produced more anxiety about graphic journalism, where it was suggested that in fact it was television that caused the American will to break. In fact, the American will never broke-but that is another matter. This has been a constant recurring anxiety in America, as Winston Churchill could have told us-and in fact did tell us when he came to North America immediately after Pearl Harbor. Churchill gave a speech in which he said, "We have not journeyed all this way across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar candy." No, we are not. We are much tougher than our enemies understand.

Character and the Power of Ideas

One hundred years ago, people believed not only that war was inevitable, but that war was good for us. Without it, they thought, we would have to look for strenuous domestic challenges that would be the moral equivalent of war- something elevating that would pull us out of ourselves and into great collective endeavors as war does. Tocqueville said, "war almost always enlarges the thought of a people and elevates its heart." Stravinsky, the great composer, said war is "necessary for human progress." All of these men echoed Immanuel Kant, who said "a prolonged peace favors the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy and tends to degrade the character of the nation."

There is much to be said for the commercial spirit, because the commercial spirit is a civilizing spirit. It is a spirit conducive to cooperation among peoples and within a political community. We are today engaged in a great race to see if we can integrate China into the community of nations with less catastrophic violence then that which accompanied the attempt 100 years ago to integrate the newly muscular and buoyant and dynamic nation of Germany into the community of nations. In the 33 years since President Nixon went to China in 1972, Republicans and Democrats alike have followed the same national policy, which holds that if we can only suffuse China with the commercial spirit, it can be tranquilized and made civilized. The reason for believing this is that commerce, entrepreneurship, and all the various elements of capitalism form an enveloping, civilizing culture.

Capitalism requires the diffusion of decision-making and the diffusion of information. Capitalism requires contracts-a culture of promise-keeping enforced by the judicial system. It requires banks to make self-interested, calculated, and rational allocations of wealth and opportunity. It sublimates the troublesome passions of mankind into improving the material well-being of people. It is for this reason that what we want to do with the fever swamps of the Middle East that produce our enemies is to try and drain those swamps and bring to them enterprise cultures. It is altogether right that Paul Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the war against Iraq, is now going to the World Bank where he can try and help the next stage of development, which is to spread the commercial spirit. In some ways, this is the American spirit.

On the other hand, as Tocqueville warned us, if a people is only concerned with material well-being, only concerned with commercialism, they lack something-they lack the heights of nobility and character and aspiration. But first things first: get people into this enveloping culture of capitalism. Nor is this to say that we Americans are a materialist people. The stupidest political slogan I have heard in three-and-a-half decades in Washington was the Clinton slogan in 1992, "It's the economy, stupid." The American people almost never vote their pocketbook as is commonly said, and almost never vote merely on economics. We are a much more morally serious and complicated people than that.

In the 1790s, our party system began to coalesce with, on the one hand, Jefferson advocating a sturdy yeoman republic, a static society of the kind he lived in, and, on the other hand, Hamilton urging a speculative, entrepreneurial society with a system of credit, a dynamic urban society. Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures" was obviously couched in economic terms, but it was not about economics at all. It was about national character and what kind of people we would be. Later, Andrew Jackson defined modern democratic populist politics with his attack on the Bank of the United States. It was not about a bank; it was about morality. He argued that speculators earn their dishonest living through banks. Jackson did not understand much about the modern world or capitalism, but he held that people who earn their living that way are bad people. He thought it was bad for the soul. And throughout our history it has not mattered whether we were arguing about abolitionism, immigration, prohibition or desegregation. All of the great arguments that have roiled American politics over the years have not been pocketbook issues. They have been about the soul of the country and what kind of people we would be.

Well, the kind of people we are is a people who rise to the challenge of the new kind of enemy we have today. Our enemy has ideas. They are vicious, bad, retrograde, medieval, intolerant, and suicidal ideas, but ideas nevertheless. And we oppose them with the great ideas of freedom and democracy, which America has defined better than anyone in the world. And we turn to these people with an energy they could not have counted on. Edward Grey once said, "The United States is like a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it, there is no limit to the power it can generate." And these enemies improvidently lit a fire under us.

We have done this before. In September 1942, General Les McGraw of the Army Corps of Engineers bought for the government about 90,000 acres of Tennessee wilderness. There was nothing there-no roads, no towns, nothing. It was along the Clinch River, in eastern Tennessee, not far from Knoxville. But very soon there were streets and shops and schools and homes and some of the finest physics labs the world had ever seen. And 35 months later, on a desert in New Mexico, there was a flash brighter than a thousand suns and the atomic age began. Thirty-five months from wilderness to Alamogordo. That is what America does when aroused, because, as I say, we are not made of sugar candy.

Today we are the legatees of all the giants on whose shoulders we stand. We live in circumstances our parents did not live in, or our grandparents. We live in a time in which there is no rival model to the American model for how to run a modern industrial commercial society. Socialism is gone. Fascism is gone. Al-Qaeda has no rival model about how to run a modern society. Al-Qaeda has a howl of rage against the idea of modernity. We began in 1945 an astonishingly clear social experiment: We divided the city of Berlin, the country of Germany, the continent of Europe, indeed the whole world, and we had a test. On one side was the socialist model that says that society is best run by edicts, issued from a coterie of experts from above. The American model, on the other hand, called for a maximum dispersal of decision-making and information markets allocating wealth and opportunity. The results are clear: We are here, they are not. The Soviet Union tried for 70 years to plant Marxism with bayonets in Eastern Europe. Today there are more Marxists on the Harvard faculty than there are in Eastern Europe.

We must struggle today with the fact that the doctrine of preemption is necessary, and with the serious problems it entails. But what we must have overall is the confidence that our ideas are right. I grew up in Lincoln country and I am reminded that in 1859, with war clouds lowering over the country, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech at the Wisconsin State Fair. In the course of this speech, Lincoln told the story of an Eastern despot who summoned his wise men and gave them an assignment. Go away and think, he said, and come back and give me a proposition to be carved in stone to be forever in view and forever true. The wise men went away and came back some days later, and the proposition they gave to him was: "And this, too, shall pass away." Lincoln said: perhaps not. If we Americans cultivate our inner lives and our moral selves as industriously and productively as we cultivate the material world around us, he said, then perhaps we of all peoples can long endure. He was right. We have and we shall persevere, in no small measure because of the plucky brand of people, true to these ideas, such as those that have formed around the college we here celebrate tonight.

Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College,

Howard Dean on Nightline Last Night

Former Governor Dean was talking to Ted Koppel last night about the Republican Party's "culture of corruption". Doctor Dean couldn't recognize a good culture if he was viewing it under a microscope.

Monday, September 26, 2005

Knoppix - This Might Save My Files

main page in english


General FAQ

downloading FAQ

BIOS - what to do and look up to make sure Knoppix boots on start-up

Beware, it uses Linux.

Blocking Pop-Ups in Firefox

Look here on the Firefox Forum. I started it with my question and someone else finished it; I hope it works for you and I believed that it worked for me until my OS locked up.

Alias Season Premiere is Thursday

September 29th 8 PM to 9 PM

Night Stalker season premier afterwards....

I only have tape-space for one....

guess which?

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Does Paula Abdul Have New Breasts?

Some people believe that the former singer and dancer has gained new ones. I assume that they're people anyway. I cannot really assume that they were nice people.

Compare this and this to this.

I don't actually want to know the literal answer.

Message Board Profiles

Typically in the profiles or biographies or whatever they ask for during message board registrations I give this
After descending from heaven and destroying thirty pagans in a bloody ritual sacfrice 500 years ago, the minor diety decided that Zeus was getting to be a bit too uppity and went to take a permanent vacation upon Midgard. After awhile he took to right-wing politics like a fish to water and is now attempting to establish his career and pull out of his current rut as a college student.">After descending from heaven and destroying thirty pagans in a bloody ritual sacfrice 500 years ago, the minor diety decided that Zeus was getting to be a bit too uppity and went to take a permanent vacation upon Midgard. After awhile he took to right-wing politics like a fish to water and is now attempting to establish his career and pull out of his current rut as a college student.
I also use an entertaining internet handle. It all works. Here's an example.

Does Christina Ricci Do Anything For You?

I think it's questionable whether Christina Ricci is actually hot, regardless of what she's wearing (if anything) or who is taking the pictures.

How long can the moralists who link to this blog, include this blog in their ideologiclly-inspired Blog Rolls, or read this blog continue those practices as I post stuff like this regardless of my continued loyalty to our shared causes and beliefs.

Searching for a Standard Quality Atlas

I have desired a genuinely useful online geographical reference source and easily-referable resource for some time now. Hopefully this official US-government-hosted National Atlas will suffice.

Friday, September 16, 2005

Constitution Day

Because children are apparently under-educated regarding the United States Constitution (and frankly I think most adults are as well) today was legally declared Constitution Day and all public schools are scheduled to run some program about the Law of the Land and educate the kids.

Here is the National Archives' official Constitution Day page.

Here is on Constitution Day and educational materials.

Here is the United States Constitution as presented by my favorite site dedicated the Constitution, I love the USS Constitution Online. The site actually notes what amendments and articles are affected by other changes to the Constitution. It is a very complete and definitely faithful wording of our public Constitution.

Here is part of my lament that not enough people are informed and educated about some of our legal foundations.


I am aware that I am not among the worst off in this country but quite frankly I'm not exactly well-off myself right now. I keep in mind that I am very fortunate and that I have many advantages and blessings that many do not have; God has blessed me in many ways and fashions that I do not deserve.

August 28th, 2005 my car was effectively destroyed in a collision with a mini-van. The Arndtmobile mk II collided with a larger vehicle and the engine was smashed. There were no fatalities and I only suffered minor injuries. I am officially "at fault" for the accident so my expenses will increase and for the moment I have no automobile at my immediate and convenient means.

I need a car. Without a car I cannot work regular hours and thus cannot draw a regular income thus I cannot make a living. I successfully commute to University by using my mother's automobile but this cannot last for long. I have been blessed in that I have a line on a sedan but I have to wait. What I ask from you, dear reader and possible enemy (hopefully friend) is that you actually donate through PayPal or when you buy something through Amazon, you go through the link on my weblog here.

Also on the Friday of my first week of classes I caused a bug on my computer by interrupting the Pre-Windows Scandisk process during boot-up. Now the laptop, my only internet computer, will not "initialize Windows". My desktop computer is nearly fully functional but the modem has not functioned since May 2004 after a lightning strike. I am internetless at home; this is crippling me professionally and academically. I could simply reformat the laptop's hard drive but then I'd lost four or five months worth of work, records, chat logs, and other data that I'd rather not lose. Backing up the laptop will cost me some serious coin. Fixing my computer problems will cost considerable capital. Feeling any compassion for someone with needs but who is still pretty well off?

My problems are not life or death, but I would still appreciate the help! Thank you.

the Indignities of Googling Chris Arndt

As far as I knew for the longest time googling my name brought you to this blog. The first Chris Arndt in Google was me.

Now, thanks to Rox Wiki my German counterpart (whom I have known of for awhile, might've corresponded with him once, too) is now number one. I hate that. Hopefully that will change.

At least I am not this guy. Please, please do not mistake me for him. I'm mostly healthy.

To be honest I only looked myself up againt out of a natural burst of curiousity. I was googling Scipio Garling to test how how easy it was to find information on him. Frankly I was blogger-stalking because it seems like the more and diverse things you achieve or work in the more information and material is available about you. A dude whom I first thought was smart yet not entirely there (and perhaps even creating an illusion of yet greater intelligence as some have done) is actually quite smart, is an authority in dog-training, and was/is a member of a barber shop quartet. I already knew his opinion on the recent Leslie Thompkins writing, and I suspect that he is of the socio-political right (based on his recognition of good and evil) but I do not want to know for certain. That's correct: do not tell me; I don't care.

I never completed Googling myself. There's more to me than what's in the first search page.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

HST 202 Website

Prof. Rogers' site - History 202 - U.S. History to 1876 -

The only place to get the assignments. I am rather peeved that the syllabus does not have a curriculum schedule!

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Newton Wold Ow

If you want to read anything more about the Newton Wold Universe, or get a more complete link dump regarding the subject and all that, look out in a few MONTHS. I'm tired of the whole deal right now and I have actual academic fiscal business to complete.

As it is the next post you get from me regards Fund-Raising and it's about my car (which was wrecked three Sundays ago, not yet three weeks ago) and my computers.

Yes, I need (not an exageration) to raise more money to meet some of my requirements to live and act professionally and academically. Go buy something on Amazon. Use my link on the sidebar.


While looking for images of Power Girl as in her original appearance, I found this series of articles on Superman, tracing his life biographically throughout several states of canon, and all pretending that there was just one continuity. It starts in the thirties and ends in the nineties, apparently. I discovered it all finding the entry on the 1970s while doing my afore-mentioned search. I figured that there must be more and without a URL hyperlinking mechanism to help me, I found more by playing with the URL in the location-bar.

I still haven't found something in the author's journal mentioning why he did this (despite the Novanotes domain the articles were purposed for a "Speculations" site which does not exist anymore), except that apparently he thought it was fun. These were apparently all created between and within July and August 2001





This one confronts the notion of just what GBS is an analogue of head-on, as well speculates on Superman's attitudes and actions regarding Presidential politics, given the corrupt human nature of two of its more famous (and infamous) office-holders. Obviously the title and an image are what drew my Googling to this spot.

We have the Crisis; Supergirl dies and there are new Kent parents; the new Brainiac and Luthor are the results of the old arch-villains re-inventing themselves on a parallel track; I'm not sure if I care for this particular speculation.

Superman dies, is reborn, gets married, re-joins the Justice League, and gets new powers, and we ask the question on who became President; it certainly could not have been Lex Luthor.

If and when I read the whole thing it could be interesting and perhaps even good. Notice that when Superman meets Spider-Man and the Hulk that there is no need to cross universes.

There are links to within, and influences from, I assume, a Wold Newton Superhero Universe site, an article within that site called "The Reign of the Supermen" and I am ethically required to note that all of this is of course based on and influenced by the Wold Newton Universe created by Phillip Jose Farmer. The World Newton Universe predates the "Expansion" website.

Frankly I think stuff like this can kill a sense of wonder.

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Help the Victims of Hurricane Katrina

I'm bumping up the old post. Help.

Dissecting the Frog (explaining how clever I am) and Gun Ownership Dichotomies

In this post the article I make reference to is entitled "DC Ranks Well in New Gun Report". I spell this out because I have no garguantee that TWOP will keep an archive of this article. I went for the easy irony because the headline explains the bias in a way that a casual reading of the article never could.

Jonah Goldberg explained it well. Despite the high amount of deaths and the success of crime it is overall a good situation because the ideal of low gun existence has been partially realized locally. Incidentily Wyoming scored highest with 33%.

The best way to put it is that an unlocked and loaded gun present within the the house is not what presents the greatest harm to a child. The best way to protect a child is with apropriate knowledge and discipline. While it's best to keep the weapon out of the reach of the kids, it's even better than they know what to do and what not to do in case they do find it within their reach. It's best that children feel compelled to do the right thing and that they know what the right thing is. That sort of situation, even with firearms loaded and kept in an unlocked storage compartment, is preferable than having no mechanisms of defense in the face of evil or in the occurence of a hostile, malevolent, and otherwise dangerous intruder.

That said, if a father does not know how to use a gun he'd be better off with a friggin' baseball bat.

In Washington, DC you are lawfully helpless to own a gun, in whatever condition or state of being, and those who dismiss laws feel no compunction against owning a gun, or using a gun to assist in their other misdeeds which they carry out clearly having already decided to dismiss the law. That means that only arbitrary decisions prevent some criminals from acting against local probably relatively helpless innocents, seeing as how the law itself is not going to dissuadet them. Authority only is persuasive if accompanied by the credible promise of force.

The state of Wyoming has a lower rate of occurence of harm done to innocents, good guys, by criminals with guns than the city of Washington. I wonder why that is.

DC Ranks Poorly In New Gun Report

I present this. Firearms in the hands of the right people (read: benevolent and apropriately learned) are good things and assist in keeping a family and other loved ones safe. On the other hand, it is bad that guns are in the possession of bad guys, criminals, malevolent forces, and people with the intention to do harm to good people (read: innocents and the relatively innocent).

The Associated Press (channelled through WTOP radio) presents that the District of Columbia has the lowest number of homes owning/possessing "loaded and unlocked firearms". Note that this is not neccessarily an unsafe environment if an individual has had the proper instruction and if as a proper parent his children have been given apropriate discipline. The AP story also notes that Washington has a high amount of gun crimes. Washington, DC has suffered harm to its people by criminals using guns; few innocent people possess weapons of their own because of a bann from the local city government.

The difference between me and the Associated Press? The AP thinks that the above situation is a good thing.

hat tip to Jonah Goldber

Saturday, September 03, 2005

Hurricane Katrina Fund-Raising

Click and donate. Now less than ever have I funds to spare but now more than ever to some people in need truly need help from you.

Show a little compassion.

There are no politics that compassion is exclusive to.