UPS Holiday Fun!
1. Ordered gift for girlfriend from Amazon. No idea a signature was required but I work from home so generally that might not be a problem.
2. Dec. 23-UPS 'tries' to deliver package even though my girlfriend and I are home all day. She has the hearing of a bat. UPS leaves InfoNotice on door. I sign it and stick it on door thinking they will simply leave the package on their return. My neighbors haven't stolen my packages so I am not too worried, and it's not a big-ticket item.
3. Dec. 23 (evening)-UPS 'tries' to deliver package again. They don't honor the signed InfoNotice and new InfoNotice is in the middle of the walkway (not even on my door). I have a feeling the guy ran in and ran out without even looking at the door.
4. I call UPS after 20 minutes of horrific, looped hold music. UPS agent assures me I can pick it up on Saturday from the Sylmar processing facility between 9a and 5p. I verify that they have correct, complete address and they do.
5. Dec. 24th—I go to UPS. No package. They say package is locked up on a truck and I wait half and hour while they look through it and come back empty-handed. Turns out I have to come back on the 27th to pick it up, and I can't even have them re-deliver and even if they do, I'll probably miss it the way this is going.
6. I buy the gift locally on the way home and submit Amazon request to return original (which I still don't have).
Lesson learned: Signature-requirements suck and are mightily confusing to UPS and drivers in a rush. The agents at the UPS center tried to tell me that somehow signing their own signature form doesn't actually count as a signature, and that I have to be there in person. What is the point of the signature form then if it can't count in lieu of my being there in-person? DERP.
They then tried to tell me that packages that don't require a signature will have delivery people honor the signature form, but packages that don't need a signature are left at the door in the first place, and there'd be no InfoNotice to sign! DERP!
Logic is hard. Signature requirements suck unless *I* want that security. Buyer beware.
--
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
Why I am Against Marriage (And You Should Be Too).
I understand and support marriage-rights for all, but I don't think government should be in the marriage business. As long as they are, I agree, everyone should have equal access. What I am suffering with day to day though is marital status discrimination—like the fact that my girlfriend's company (CBS) won't cover opposite-sex domestic partners (health insurance) but is forced to cover same-sex domestic partners —which is needed, I understand because gay couples still can't legally marry in CA due to the 2008 passing of Prop (H)8. We've been trying to get coverage for me (through her) since 2004 with various H.R. people, and to no avail. There are 4-5 opposite-sex domestic couples *that we know about* that would benefit immediately if CBS would simply stop discriminating. Yes, I am naming names. I see no reason to protect them from their own discriminatory practices.
No company should have an interest in whether I am straight/gay, atheist/theist, single/married, child-free or a father. Why is a California company (or any company) allowed to discriminate on the basis of marriage? This is wrong on any metric, and the solution does not bear simply 'getting married'.
Marriage is not satisfactory because the discrimination inherent to a pro-marriage society attempts to force that very solution to the problem a pro-marriage (and anti-single/cohabiting) society created in the first place. I see the only solution as boycotting marriage and trying to fight to get equal treatment under the law. The pro-marriage status is residue from religiously-inspired edicts against cohabitation or 'living in sin', where only a couple decades ago an unmarried couple could not rent an apartment. or book a hotel room for 'moral' reasons—moreso for those in power who held strong pro-marriage ideals and were basically free to discriminate at-will (until these practices were challenged). Marriage has also been used as a way to discriminate against interracial-unions with miscegenation laws until these were challenged (with success) by Loving vs. Virginia in 1967.
The pro-marriage/anti-single agenda is just the tail-end of a time where being single or in an unmarried relationship is seen as acceptable—but it's not there yet. Even the Republican candidates in 2011 are *still* talking about 'pro-marriage' ideals, and this no-doubt is strongly-inspired by religious ideology.
Unmarried people now outnumber married people in America, but we still get treated quite badly or as if we don't matter. This is due in-part because plenty of progressive-minded people are still getting married, and activists for singles-rights are few and far between. Thankfully, the gay-rights proponents have been unwitting allies for a while now as they fight to get their rights as domestic couples, but opposite-sex domestic couples are still barely recognized. What I should also mention is that companies in CA can choose voluntarily to cover unmarried opposite-sexed domestic couples, but there's no state mandate to do so and other companies (such as CBS) choose to discriminate against us.
If we lived under Jim Crow laws during racial segregation I would not consider 'riding on the back of the bus' a solution either, or simply eating where in the 'white' or 'black' parts of the restaurant. Married couples should not enjoy a 'favored status' in society at all. Even with car insurance, felons in terrible marriages get a discount, where the upstanding non-criminal who chooses to be single suffers a higher rate. This is just wrong, and is probably why Massachusetts and the European Union no longer allow marital-status discrimination with regard to auto-insurance rates. It's also wrong to disallow unmarried domestic partners access to partners in the hospital, where married people are allowed access without question (even if they're in a bitter and contentious separation).
Marital-status discrimination is so endemic that people barely even notice or think about it—but that will change as fewer people validate marriage by getting married. Even the couple who is pro-marriage is still affected by discrimination against opposite-sex domestic partnership...what if they want a long engagement and want to cover a future-spouse on their healthcare plan? Are they simply out of luck? In many states, they are and many companies are still allowed to discriminate based on whether they want to 'encourage' marriage or not (such as CBS). I work in the game industry, and most companies opt to cover unmarried domestic partners—I know because I've checked, so those who don't cover unmarried domestic partners have made a choice to do so, and this discrimination won't stop until *we* who are employed by these companies (or affected by them) take a stand.
Government should not be in the business of recognizing what is basically a sexual relationship, especially while polyamory remains illegal in most states. The Browns featured in the show 'Sister Wives' were basically run out of Utah, a state with an overwhelmingly Mormon majority whose roots lie in polygamy! The hypocrisy is thick here.
Another angle to consider here is that the religious right see healthcare (and other) benefits as a real perk of marriage, and in-promoting marriage over 'living in sin', supporting any individual power to receive quality health-insurance undermines the reasons to get married and indirectly, religion itself.
This is not to put direct blame on people innocently getting married, but the effects are very real, and I refuse to apply a solution (marriage) caused by preferential treatment of one class of people (married) over another (unmarried or gay). My heterosexuality (which I have no control over) allows me to marry legally, but in my view, it's like being white and happily eating at 'white-only' restaurants during the Jim Crow era. I would rather boycott that restaurant entirely and spend my money at the all-inclusive establishments and eat with a clear-conscience.
No government is bigger than the one who invades the bedroom and 'validates' relationships while invalidating others—do you hear that, socially-regressive Republicans? Out best weapon against the injustices of 'marriage' is to simply refuse to participate while continually striving for true equality under the law.
--
No company should have an interest in whether I am straight/gay, atheist/theist, single/married, child-free or a father. Why is a California company (or any company) allowed to discriminate on the basis of marriage? This is wrong on any metric, and the solution does not bear simply 'getting married'.
Marriage is not satisfactory because the discrimination inherent to a pro-marriage society attempts to force that very solution to the problem a pro-marriage (and anti-single/cohabiting) society created in the first place. I see the only solution as boycotting marriage and trying to fight to get equal treatment under the law. The pro-marriage status is residue from religiously-inspired edicts against cohabitation or 'living in sin', where only a couple decades ago an unmarried couple could not rent an apartment. or book a hotel room for 'moral' reasons—moreso for those in power who held strong pro-marriage ideals and were basically free to discriminate at-will (until these practices were challenged). Marriage has also been used as a way to discriminate against interracial-unions with miscegenation laws until these were challenged (with success) by Loving vs. Virginia in 1967.
The pro-marriage/anti-single agenda is just the tail-end of a time where being single or in an unmarried relationship is seen as acceptable—but it's not there yet. Even the Republican candidates in 2011 are *still* talking about 'pro-marriage' ideals, and this no-doubt is strongly-inspired by religious ideology.
Unmarried people now outnumber married people in America, but we still get treated quite badly or as if we don't matter. This is due in-part because plenty of progressive-minded people are still getting married, and activists for singles-rights are few and far between. Thankfully, the gay-rights proponents have been unwitting allies for a while now as they fight to get their rights as domestic couples, but opposite-sex domestic couples are still barely recognized. What I should also mention is that companies in CA can choose voluntarily to cover unmarried opposite-sexed domestic couples, but there's no state mandate to do so and other companies (such as CBS) choose to discriminate against us.
If we lived under Jim Crow laws during racial segregation I would not consider 'riding on the back of the bus' a solution either, or simply eating where in the 'white' or 'black' parts of the restaurant. Married couples should not enjoy a 'favored status' in society at all. Even with car insurance, felons in terrible marriages get a discount, where the upstanding non-criminal who chooses to be single suffers a higher rate. This is just wrong, and is probably why Massachusetts and the European Union no longer allow marital-status discrimination with regard to auto-insurance rates. It's also wrong to disallow unmarried domestic partners access to partners in the hospital, where married people are allowed access without question (even if they're in a bitter and contentious separation).
Marital-status discrimination is so endemic that people barely even notice or think about it—but that will change as fewer people validate marriage by getting married. Even the couple who is pro-marriage is still affected by discrimination against opposite-sex domestic partnership...what if they want a long engagement and want to cover a future-spouse on their healthcare plan? Are they simply out of luck? In many states, they are and many companies are still allowed to discriminate based on whether they want to 'encourage' marriage or not (such as CBS). I work in the game industry, and most companies opt to cover unmarried domestic partners—I know because I've checked, so those who don't cover unmarried domestic partners have made a choice to do so, and this discrimination won't stop until *we* who are employed by these companies (or affected by them) take a stand.
Government should not be in the business of recognizing what is basically a sexual relationship, especially while polyamory remains illegal in most states. The Browns featured in the show 'Sister Wives' were basically run out of Utah, a state with an overwhelmingly Mormon majority whose roots lie in polygamy! The hypocrisy is thick here.
Another angle to consider here is that the religious right see healthcare (and other) benefits as a real perk of marriage, and in-promoting marriage over 'living in sin', supporting any individual power to receive quality health-insurance undermines the reasons to get married and indirectly, religion itself.
This is not to put direct blame on people innocently getting married, but the effects are very real, and I refuse to apply a solution (marriage) caused by preferential treatment of one class of people (married) over another (unmarried or gay). My heterosexuality (which I have no control over) allows me to marry legally, but in my view, it's like being white and happily eating at 'white-only' restaurants during the Jim Crow era. I would rather boycott that restaurant entirely and spend my money at the all-inclusive establishments and eat with a clear-conscience.
No government is bigger than the one who invades the bedroom and 'validates' relationships while invalidating others—do you hear that, socially-regressive Republicans? Out best weapon against the injustices of 'marriage' is to simply refuse to participate while continually striving for true equality under the law.
--
Friday, December 9, 2011
Patti Stanger (The Millionaire Matchmaker) is Still an Idiot!
What's wrong with this woman?
So, readers of this fine blog already know I can't stand Patti Stanger, but I just wanted to recap more of her idiocy.
For one, don't trust a matchmaker who's single. Ok? Nuff said on that.
Second, she insulted the gays recently saying they couldn't be monogamous, and then changed her story saying it was just L.A. gays. Still not true, Patti. Did you want to narrow your search further to an L.A. County suburb, nutbag?
She talks about guys being 'ageists', but did anyone mention that she's anti-atheist? She's so incredibly dippy that she thinks astrology and psychics are real, and she seemingly expects people to be as loopy and spiritual as she is, like it's some kind of benefit. Hint, hint Patti, you don't work for 'God' as you've recently claimed on Andy Cohen's Millionaire Matchmaker Reunion Show (Part 2) because there's no god, but even if you did work for he who spun the Cosmos into being...why is he being so stingy helping you find love? Maybe she's not impressed by your performance.
I still remember the one atheist guy on the show and he was rejected from the dating pool pretty quickly. Listen Patti, not everyone believes crystal healers can 'fix' people or in your spiritual nonsense. A fucking millionaire could be a short, albino atheist and still meet plenty of people without your 'help'. Seems to me that a lot of millionaires simply use Stanger as a madam or they just want to be on TV.
Somehow Patti thinks redheads can't get dates either. Yeah, do you think Nichole Kidman struggles to find men? How about your widely-despised and two-faced New York housewife friend, Jill Zarin? Speaking of Zarin, I am not impressed with the friends Patti keeps, either.
What's with the stupid ass rule on no sex before monogamy? How the Hell is a couple supposed to know if there should be monogamy without knowing how the sex is? How will they even get to the sex if they can't discuss real issues, such as politics or religion? It seems the only one who gets to talk about religion is Patti, as she carefully vets who is Jewish, who's a Shiksa (non-Jewish woman) or a Chupacabra (someone who is Jewish who doesn't appear Jewish, from my understanding). She sure loves to talk about who is Jewish, while one of her rules is that couples can't talk about religion or politics. This is funny, since Patti always seems interested in which of her dating candidates are 'spiritual' as if it's somehow a good thing. One of her worst clients was a devout Christian! I've never seen her hook up an atheist, but I think atheists might be on average too smart to pay a nutjob like Patti to give them bad advice. ;) So, the people who self-select and go to a loudmouth like Patti are probably desperate to begin-with.
Patti is also a height-ist. I've heard her refer to guys of average height (around 5'8") as munchkins or whatever derogatory word her sloppy brain and unfiltered mouth blurts out. Guys are taller than women on average, but they're not wearing heels either. It seems to me that Patti is kind of a tall woman who loves her heels and still wants guys to be taller than her, and her frustration about this is obvious, but so is her superficiality.
It's one thing to get on someone's case for attitude, but for height? One could easily refer to Patti as a loudmouthed, unfeminine moosey-douchebag, but I'll save that for later. ;)
I guess I am guilty of passing judgement too, because Patti Stanger is an idiot and there's probably not much she can do about it.
—
So, readers of this fine blog already know I can't stand Patti Stanger, but I just wanted to recap more of her idiocy.
For one, don't trust a matchmaker who's single. Ok? Nuff said on that.
Second, she insulted the gays recently saying they couldn't be monogamous, and then changed her story saying it was just L.A. gays. Still not true, Patti. Did you want to narrow your search further to an L.A. County suburb, nutbag?
She talks about guys being 'ageists', but did anyone mention that she's anti-atheist? She's so incredibly dippy that she thinks astrology and psychics are real, and she seemingly expects people to be as loopy and spiritual as she is, like it's some kind of benefit. Hint, hint Patti, you don't work for 'God' as you've recently claimed on Andy Cohen's Millionaire Matchmaker Reunion Show (Part 2) because there's no god, but even if you did work for he who spun the Cosmos into being...why is he being so stingy helping you find love? Maybe she's not impressed by your performance.
I still remember the one atheist guy on the show and he was rejected from the dating pool pretty quickly. Listen Patti, not everyone believes crystal healers can 'fix' people or in your spiritual nonsense. A fucking millionaire could be a short, albino atheist and still meet plenty of people without your 'help'. Seems to me that a lot of millionaires simply use Stanger as a madam or they just want to be on TV.
Somehow Patti thinks redheads can't get dates either. Yeah, do you think Nichole Kidman struggles to find men? How about your widely-despised and two-faced New York housewife friend, Jill Zarin? Speaking of Zarin, I am not impressed with the friends Patti keeps, either.
What's with the stupid ass rule on no sex before monogamy? How the Hell is a couple supposed to know if there should be monogamy without knowing how the sex is? How will they even get to the sex if they can't discuss real issues, such as politics or religion? It seems the only one who gets to talk about religion is Patti, as she carefully vets who is Jewish, who's a Shiksa (non-Jewish woman) or a Chupacabra (someone who is Jewish who doesn't appear Jewish, from my understanding). She sure loves to talk about who is Jewish, while one of her rules is that couples can't talk about religion or politics. This is funny, since Patti always seems interested in which of her dating candidates are 'spiritual' as if it's somehow a good thing. One of her worst clients was a devout Christian! I've never seen her hook up an atheist, but I think atheists might be on average too smart to pay a nutjob like Patti to give them bad advice. ;) So, the people who self-select and go to a loudmouth like Patti are probably desperate to begin-with.
Patti is also a height-ist. I've heard her refer to guys of average height (around 5'8") as munchkins or whatever derogatory word her sloppy brain and unfiltered mouth blurts out. Guys are taller than women on average, but they're not wearing heels either. It seems to me that Patti is kind of a tall woman who loves her heels and still wants guys to be taller than her, and her frustration about this is obvious, but so is her superficiality.
It's one thing to get on someone's case for attitude, but for height? One could easily refer to Patti as a loudmouthed, unfeminine moosey-douchebag, but I'll save that for later. ;)
I guess I am guilty of passing judgement too, because Patti Stanger is an idiot and there's probably not much she can do about it.
—
Friday, September 23, 2011
Lady Gaga Wants To Make Bullying Illegal?
I love me some Gaga and appreciate her pro-gay campaigning and her support of Japan in the wake of the recent tsunami. But now she wants to make bullying 'illegal'.
You can't just make 'bullying' illegal, Gaga! What next, make it illegal to 'dis' Justin Bieber or hate on country music? What about religious or political disagreements? Will Palin or Bachmann be able to put Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart in jail for 'bullying' because these TeaBagger wingnuts occasionally receive well-deserved ridicule?
The problem is that the definition of 'bullying' is just too vague, and at a certain point it's already illegal (sexual harassment, hate-crimes, discrimination, stalking, etc.). Actual physical abuse is already illegal.
The sentiment is fine, but trying to 'outlaw' bullying is like trying to outlaw conflict or stupidity, lack of education, bad moods, in-groups/out-groups or dominance struggles, etc.. Why not just better educate kids how to deal with bullies, I mean, aside from killing themselves? The kid who kills himself because of bullying in my view hasn't been made tough *enough*, so making them softer doesn't seem to be the answer.
Filling jails with 'bullies' is not the answer, and jail will only make bullies worse (at taxpayer expense). Who's going to be the judge of this bullying? How are we going to deal with the added court costs? Are we going to put the extra prisons in your neighborhood, and who's going to pay for them? We need *fewer* people in prison to make room for *real* criminals, not bullies.
When I was a kid, I was bullied quite a bit for being one of the shortest kids in my grade. In high school, it was a madhouse the first week or so...at least until I started letting kids know I wasn't an easy target, could humiliate them with my wit or speak loudly with my fists if they got physical. Often, the very act of returning banter was all it took to nullify the bully. Sometimes, the worst thing one can do when 'bullied' is to submit. This is normal dominance behavior in children and we should learn to deal with it, not just make it illegal.
In essence, the bullying I got made me tougher (and I was already a tough kid). Is bullying wrong? Perhaps. Is it human nature? Of course. Can a kid who got bullied end up changing the minds of others? Most definitely—it really depends how we deal with it. We've all had someone we underestimated who came to surprise us and earn our respect, right? I know I have. Is teasing the same as bullying? That's where it gets messy. Who's making the call?
Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment, but education is the key here. We need to start young and let children know that being different is ok, and to realize that there's more to people than outward appearance, sexual orientation, height, etc. More educated children exposed to some early diversity training are going to be less likely to bully in the first place, but we'll never totally eliminate it because it's part of human nature.
You can't just make 'bullying' illegal, Gaga! What next, make it illegal to 'dis' Justin Bieber or hate on country music? What about religious or political disagreements? Will Palin or Bachmann be able to put Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart in jail for 'bullying' because these TeaBagger wingnuts occasionally receive well-deserved ridicule?
The problem is that the definition of 'bullying' is just too vague, and at a certain point it's already illegal (sexual harassment, hate-crimes, discrimination, stalking, etc.). Actual physical abuse is already illegal.
The sentiment is fine, but trying to 'outlaw' bullying is like trying to outlaw conflict or stupidity, lack of education, bad moods, in-groups/out-groups or dominance struggles, etc.. Why not just better educate kids how to deal with bullies, I mean, aside from killing themselves? The kid who kills himself because of bullying in my view hasn't been made tough *enough*, so making them softer doesn't seem to be the answer.
Filling jails with 'bullies' is not the answer, and jail will only make bullies worse (at taxpayer expense). Who's going to be the judge of this bullying? How are we going to deal with the added court costs? Are we going to put the extra prisons in your neighborhood, and who's going to pay for them? We need *fewer* people in prison to make room for *real* criminals, not bullies.
When I was a kid, I was bullied quite a bit for being one of the shortest kids in my grade. In high school, it was a madhouse the first week or so...at least until I started letting kids know I wasn't an easy target, could humiliate them with my wit or speak loudly with my fists if they got physical. Often, the very act of returning banter was all it took to nullify the bully. Sometimes, the worst thing one can do when 'bullied' is to submit. This is normal dominance behavior in children and we should learn to deal with it, not just make it illegal.
In essence, the bullying I got made me tougher (and I was already a tough kid). Is bullying wrong? Perhaps. Is it human nature? Of course. Can a kid who got bullied end up changing the minds of others? Most definitely—it really depends how we deal with it. We've all had someone we underestimated who came to surprise us and earn our respect, right? I know I have. Is teasing the same as bullying? That's where it gets messy. Who's making the call?
Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment, but education is the key here. We need to start young and let children know that being different is ok, and to realize that there's more to people than outward appearance, sexual orientation, height, etc. More educated children exposed to some early diversity training are going to be less likely to bully in the first place, but we'll never totally eliminate it because it's part of human nature.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Max or Maya? Companies: Let the Artist Decide!
In my career field as a game industry artist, we are constantly learning new software. This could be a very complicated 3D program, such as 3D Studio Max or Maya, 2D programs such as Photoshop and Illustrator, high-poly sculpting programs such as ZBrush, UV programs such as UV Layout, and a host of utilities such as TopoGun or 3D Coat and Crazybump. This doesn't even begin to cover all the learning needed to master a particular game engine, such as the Unreal Development Kit, Unity, iPhone development tools, etc.
Learning a 3D modeling software package takes years to master. Eventually, artists get fast enough where the 3D package is 'transparent' and they can create quickly and efficiently without having to 'think' about how to model, or where to click to make a box or delete a face. Time spent modeling in one package guarantees that artists build up a great hotkey list/mouse functions which they memorize and build muscle memory for, they develop, download or pay good money for custom scripts and plugins and hone their 3D tool to work ideally for their modeling style.
Then, some company says, 'Sorry, we don't use *your software*, we use *a different 3D modeling tool*' this basically flushes all that skill and expertise down the drain because of the idea that 'all 3D programs produce the same end result'.
This is like telling Pete Sampras, the tennis star, which racquet he can use even though he won his titles using his preferred racquets. It's like recruiting David Beckham, the soccer star, for your team and then trying to tell him how to kick. It's like hiring a skilled and experienced craftsperson with a great portfolio to build your custom furniture, and then telling him what tools to use. And finally, all cars go from point A to point B, and even though their interfaces are much simpler than a 3D modeling package, we often have strong preference for some cars over others.
With 3D programs, artists can spend years using a particular software tool and still not know all the functions. Switching 3D tools on one's own would be incredibly foolish, as there's no payoff for the investment assuming you can do what's needed in either package. Really, it's a matter of time investment and getting comfortable with the tools you've chosen.
The reality is, models don't care how they got made, and it's easy to deliver them in the correct way for a particular use or game engine using OBJ or FBX formats. So, an artist who is an expert in Modo, Lightwave, Max, Maya, Softimage, etc. can bang out a model using his preferred software and everything ends up the same, except you have a faster, more-skilled and happier artist using the tools he or she has developed expertise in with great time and expense invested.
Furthermore, there's little benefit to the artist to use what a company uses if the 3D tool is not his/her preferred tool, because he or she has already made his/her choice at home. The expertise gained at home can only efficiently benefit a company if the artist gets to choose his/her own tools. This also means that if every company can dictate the modeling package used, the artist is forever switching back and forth and unnecessarily diluting his expertise in one package. In my view, this is callously disrespectful toward the artist who is the one who has to keep switching, and for poor reasons.
The reason most companies choose one software over another has less to do with what is 'better' than reasons unrelated to creating the best art or hiring the best artists. Often the preference is due to the cost of software licenses, a preference of one person (the Art Director), or an engineer may know how to write needed plugins for Max or Maya, and then the artists get forced into one 3D package as a result. If financial objections will cause a company to choose one 3D package over another, how do they expect the individual artist looking for a job to maintain both Maya and Max simply because a company in the future may prefer it, when the artist will clearly have his/her own preference? It's trivial to convert models from Max to Maya or vice-versa, but switching modeling packages with every new company is non-trivial.
The solution is simple, really. Companies should buy a few floating network licenses for the modeling package that isn't the company preferred tool and allow the *experts* to model how they like. The artist bears the responsibility of getting his/her models into the correct format/spec for delivery, a task most would happily undertake to use their preferred 3D tool. Why would a company take a known quantity, X work quality with X workflow, and then ask the artist to change it to Y workflow? Again, the artist should pick the tools, and nobody else.
This practice would also effectively expand a candidate pool, because companies won't be advertising 'Max only' or 'Maya only' and warding off artists who prefer the tool they didn't choose. Smart companies will ask for either Max *or* Maya skill, and make licenses available for both.
Thankfully, more companies these days finally get it, and are asking for Max or Maya artists, something I figured out back in 2005 when I was forced to use Maya for modeling and hated it the more I used it. This motivated me to find a way to work in Max and figure out ways to convert Max models to Maya while preserving quad geometry (easy now, but not as obvious back then). There is a *reason* we artists choose our tools we use at home, and the more of an expert someone is, the more they've developed a specific and honed workflow which gets great results, and the less they want other people mucking around with it for poor reasons.
These software programs cost upwards of $3500 each, not including subscription, plugin or other costs. It would be extremely silly for legitimate owners of these software packages to buy both Max and Maya to learn both, just in case a company wants us to use whatever they prefer. As a legitimate Max user myself, I bought Max back in 1995 for $2000, spent thousands to maintain my subscription and learned Max before Maya was even available. When someone wants to try and force me to use Maya, I tend not to take it well anymore than they would want me to tell them what car to drive to work.
Perhaps it's best not to watch how sausage (or models) are being made. ;)
--
Learning a 3D modeling software package takes years to master. Eventually, artists get fast enough where the 3D package is 'transparent' and they can create quickly and efficiently without having to 'think' about how to model, or where to click to make a box or delete a face. Time spent modeling in one package guarantees that artists build up a great hotkey list/mouse functions which they memorize and build muscle memory for, they develop, download or pay good money for custom scripts and plugins and hone their 3D tool to work ideally for their modeling style.
Then, some company says, 'Sorry, we don't use *your software*, we use *a different 3D modeling tool*' this basically flushes all that skill and expertise down the drain because of the idea that 'all 3D programs produce the same end result'.
This is like telling Pete Sampras, the tennis star, which racquet he can use even though he won his titles using his preferred racquets. It's like recruiting David Beckham, the soccer star, for your team and then trying to tell him how to kick. It's like hiring a skilled and experienced craftsperson with a great portfolio to build your custom furniture, and then telling him what tools to use. And finally, all cars go from point A to point B, and even though their interfaces are much simpler than a 3D modeling package, we often have strong preference for some cars over others.
With 3D programs, artists can spend years using a particular software tool and still not know all the functions. Switching 3D tools on one's own would be incredibly foolish, as there's no payoff for the investment assuming you can do what's needed in either package. Really, it's a matter of time investment and getting comfortable with the tools you've chosen.
The reality is, models don't care how they got made, and it's easy to deliver them in the correct way for a particular use or game engine using OBJ or FBX formats. So, an artist who is an expert in Modo, Lightwave, Max, Maya, Softimage, etc. can bang out a model using his preferred software and everything ends up the same, except you have a faster, more-skilled and happier artist using the tools he or she has developed expertise in with great time and expense invested.
Furthermore, there's little benefit to the artist to use what a company uses if the 3D tool is not his/her preferred tool, because he or she has already made his/her choice at home. The expertise gained at home can only efficiently benefit a company if the artist gets to choose his/her own tools. This also means that if every company can dictate the modeling package used, the artist is forever switching back and forth and unnecessarily diluting his expertise in one package. In my view, this is callously disrespectful toward the artist who is the one who has to keep switching, and for poor reasons.
The reason most companies choose one software over another has less to do with what is 'better' than reasons unrelated to creating the best art or hiring the best artists. Often the preference is due to the cost of software licenses, a preference of one person (the Art Director), or an engineer may know how to write needed plugins for Max or Maya, and then the artists get forced into one 3D package as a result. If financial objections will cause a company to choose one 3D package over another, how do they expect the individual artist looking for a job to maintain both Maya and Max simply because a company in the future may prefer it, when the artist will clearly have his/her own preference? It's trivial to convert models from Max to Maya or vice-versa, but switching modeling packages with every new company is non-trivial.
The solution is simple, really. Companies should buy a few floating network licenses for the modeling package that isn't the company preferred tool and allow the *experts* to model how they like. The artist bears the responsibility of getting his/her models into the correct format/spec for delivery, a task most would happily undertake to use their preferred 3D tool. Why would a company take a known quantity, X work quality with X workflow, and then ask the artist to change it to Y workflow? Again, the artist should pick the tools, and nobody else.
This practice would also effectively expand a candidate pool, because companies won't be advertising 'Max only' or 'Maya only' and warding off artists who prefer the tool they didn't choose. Smart companies will ask for either Max *or* Maya skill, and make licenses available for both.
Thankfully, more companies these days finally get it, and are asking for Max or Maya artists, something I figured out back in 2005 when I was forced to use Maya for modeling and hated it the more I used it. This motivated me to find a way to work in Max and figure out ways to convert Max models to Maya while preserving quad geometry (easy now, but not as obvious back then). There is a *reason* we artists choose our tools we use at home, and the more of an expert someone is, the more they've developed a specific and honed workflow which gets great results, and the less they want other people mucking around with it for poor reasons.
These software programs cost upwards of $3500 each, not including subscription, plugin or other costs. It would be extremely silly for legitimate owners of these software packages to buy both Max and Maya to learn both, just in case a company wants us to use whatever they prefer. As a legitimate Max user myself, I bought Max back in 1995 for $2000, spent thousands to maintain my subscription and learned Max before Maya was even available. When someone wants to try and force me to use Maya, I tend not to take it well anymore than they would want me to tell them what car to drive to work.
Perhaps it's best not to watch how sausage (or models) are being made. ;)
--
Monday, July 4, 2011
The Art of the Pick-Up: Conferences
At a recent atheist conference in Dublin, there was a lot of ruckus at PZ Myers's Pharyngula blog about an atheist speaker, Rebecca Watson, being propositioned for in-room coffee by someone she didn't know at 4am whilst they were both in an elevator.
Here are her words:
'Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and—don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.'
The first thing I can say is that for the guy, this was somewhat of an awkward thing to do since he had no prior interaction with her, however, this *was* an atheist conference and not some random guy asking her this question in a work building or even an apartment building, which would be worse. Conferences tend to put everyone in a different mood, similar to a college dorm, and these kinds of interactions are a bit more common. That doesn't mean some women still won't feel threatened, although some women might accept the offer.
What troubles me is that in the three threads PZ Myers put on his site regarding this incident, there were countless opinions with admonitions regarding 'male privilege', or 'violating a woman's sense of privacy/comfort' or 'potential rapist', 'elevators having no easy escape options' and other silly ruses about 'unwanted advances with possible sexual intent'. Maybe the guy really just wanted to have coffee but was willing to patiently hope for romantic development?
Let's be real here, most men have a poor idea about whether a sexual advance is 'wanted' or not until we make the attempt. Sometimes, we mistake friendliness for sexual interest (and some guys do this way more than others. You know who you are!). Sometimes, women play with our heads, or are genuinely interested in several guys which might include us, etc. Sometimes, persistence pays off or sours the female on wanting further contact. How does one know these things unless one makes some kind of attempt to communicate, lame though it may be?
Some guys would get a strong rebuke in the elevator at 4am with a tired, worn-out female, and some would get laid *right in the fucking elevator*. It really depends on the guy and girl in question, but if we knew you well enough to know what kind of 'sexual advance' was wanted, we'd already know you!
Sometimes sexual advances work, and most of the time (even with a person attracted to you) they won't work on the spot or without some interaction first...but sometimes interaction can get in the way (guys lose their nerve, girls get tired of waiting, etc.). There are times when *not* knowing someone that well is an advantage...especially at conferences where people are on a high and may or may not want some kind of 3-day fling.
Let's turn the tables, if a girl had asked a guy to come to her room for coffee in an elevator after 4am, would he feel threatened? Most guys if they were single and attracted to the female would probably accept, and maybe even ask to skip the coffee. I understand that females are in a different position with respect to vulnerability, but why should we have the pretense of equal rights while women still shrilly whine about 'unwanted sexual advances'? Aren't all sexual advances unwanted, or at least, unsolicited? What should the guy say, 'well she looked at me alluringly' when the female might just say her contacts were blurring up?
Enter George Clooney, Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, etc.. For a lot of women, it's a *wanted* sexual advance, but not for all women (including some who might prefer women). Any of these men could ask a female for coffee at 4am and it would be accepted by quite a few. In fact, there are a number of women who would engage in spontaneous coitus with these men, right in the elevator! Why should we punish the guys for simply being less successful, or being unsuccessful in that instance? I've been hit on by women I don't fancy, or while in a relationship, or by gay men, and I can politely refuse. This doesn't mean I get annoyed with the person for trying because I don't want to breed an attitude where people are afraid to express their feelings in a polite manner (even if it's 4am and I am dead-tired).
We always have the option of saying, 'no', and this assumes non-rapists in all instances. Obviously, even if two people are about to have sex and one declines consent, everything stops, so we're talking about two people simply talking.
The other thing people were complaining about on the Pharyngula threads was the fact that Rebecca Watson was alone in an elevator, and that it was inherently creepy. I agree that there's a bit of creep factor (even though people are on the conference high), but for some people it's titillating (men and women included).
Most guys will always try to isolate a female to ask her out, and few guys want an audience. They may walk you to your car, be driving you home, talk to you somewhere quiet, but few will want to face public rejection asking you with other guys/girls listening (though it does happen). There's even a group dynamic where asking one in a group of girls to dance/go out/have coffee will result in cock-blocking by the jealous/lonely/fugly friends and if there's a straight guy working the patient 'friend/confidante' route, he'll no doubt try to cock block as well. So, most guys will try to isolate females they're interested-in, at least temporarily.
Granted, an elevator at 4a may not be the ideal choice with no-prior interaction, but people were whining about a 'lack of escape' too.
Again, perhaps a bad choice on the part of the guy, but at least he was rejected without an audience. The bad part is, the female has no idea how the male will take rejection, and some people react better or worse when alone than with a crowd, so this is understandable. But, in the case of reasonable adults, a simple 'no' or 'no thank you' will suffice. If it's rape women fear just talking to men, they should probably not go out alone, but most men aren't rapists....but to keep things equal we need to assume all unwanted solicitation for the sake of argument is from non-rapists.
Before any two people get together, there's always 'someone' taking a risk and making a sexual advance, even if it's subtle. Girls do it, guys do it, but if nobody is willing to make a move because we're all worried about offending people, it's only going to get harder for those who already struggle to find relationships. Women will sometimes lament that guys are too shy or not making their move or not moving fast enough, and yet some women want to cry bloody murder when the 'wrong' guy makes a move (as if they're somehow offended) while retaining fantasies of their desired males sweeping them off into the sunset.
It's nothing less than a double standard, and if women want true sexual equality they have to take control of how sexuality works between males and females, and not try to turn men into simpering pussbags because they had a few undesired males take the trouble to get to know them. There's always a risk of offending others with sexual advances but if it were easy then nobody would need those online dating/matchmaking services, right?
I understand Rebecca being slightly creeped-out, but I think she handled the situation well by politely declining the offer (though her boycott of Dawkins due to a flippant comment is over-the-top). I think her advice is generally sound though for some people an elevator is an ideal place to make a pitch (as one might do an elevator movie pitch with a top executive that is otherwise impossible to get a meeting with). Again, people use the isolation tactic all the time. The phrase, 'elevator pitch' is even known to executives who might field these pitches all the time. Most are rejected but some aren't. The same holds true for musicians who find clever and creative ways to give someone their demo CD. So, a verbal solicitation done in a polite way is NOT a big deal.
We can't really stop those who might be attracted to us and who might be unaware of our relationship status. I do think it's better to gently guide someone in the right direction (hints about relationship status work well) than act indignant and offended simply because someone showed interest in an awkward or non-ideal way with a mere verbal inquiry.
I know a guy who asked a girl what time it was, and she responded, 'I have a boyfriend!'. This is exactly the kind of over-reactive nonsense I am talking about, but all it took was a verbal response to shut him down (albeit harshly). ;)
--
Here are her words:
'Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don't do that. You know, I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and—don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.'
The first thing I can say is that for the guy, this was somewhat of an awkward thing to do since he had no prior interaction with her, however, this *was* an atheist conference and not some random guy asking her this question in a work building or even an apartment building, which would be worse. Conferences tend to put everyone in a different mood, similar to a college dorm, and these kinds of interactions are a bit more common. That doesn't mean some women still won't feel threatened, although some women might accept the offer.
What troubles me is that in the three threads PZ Myers put on his site regarding this incident, there were countless opinions with admonitions regarding 'male privilege', or 'violating a woman's sense of privacy/comfort' or 'potential rapist', 'elevators having no easy escape options' and other silly ruses about 'unwanted advances with possible sexual intent'. Maybe the guy really just wanted to have coffee but was willing to patiently hope for romantic development?
Let's be real here, most men have a poor idea about whether a sexual advance is 'wanted' or not until we make the attempt. Sometimes, we mistake friendliness for sexual interest (and some guys do this way more than others. You know who you are!). Sometimes, women play with our heads, or are genuinely interested in several guys which might include us, etc. Sometimes, persistence pays off or sours the female on wanting further contact. How does one know these things unless one makes some kind of attempt to communicate, lame though it may be?
Some guys would get a strong rebuke in the elevator at 4am with a tired, worn-out female, and some would get laid *right in the fucking elevator*. It really depends on the guy and girl in question, but if we knew you well enough to know what kind of 'sexual advance' was wanted, we'd already know you!
Sometimes sexual advances work, and most of the time (even with a person attracted to you) they won't work on the spot or without some interaction first...but sometimes interaction can get in the way (guys lose their nerve, girls get tired of waiting, etc.). There are times when *not* knowing someone that well is an advantage...especially at conferences where people are on a high and may or may not want some kind of 3-day fling.
Let's turn the tables, if a girl had asked a guy to come to her room for coffee in an elevator after 4am, would he feel threatened? Most guys if they were single and attracted to the female would probably accept, and maybe even ask to skip the coffee. I understand that females are in a different position with respect to vulnerability, but why should we have the pretense of equal rights while women still shrilly whine about 'unwanted sexual advances'? Aren't all sexual advances unwanted, or at least, unsolicited? What should the guy say, 'well she looked at me alluringly' when the female might just say her contacts were blurring up?
Enter George Clooney, Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, etc.. For a lot of women, it's a *wanted* sexual advance, but not for all women (including some who might prefer women). Any of these men could ask a female for coffee at 4am and it would be accepted by quite a few. In fact, there are a number of women who would engage in spontaneous coitus with these men, right in the elevator! Why should we punish the guys for simply being less successful, or being unsuccessful in that instance? I've been hit on by women I don't fancy, or while in a relationship, or by gay men, and I can politely refuse. This doesn't mean I get annoyed with the person for trying because I don't want to breed an attitude where people are afraid to express their feelings in a polite manner (even if it's 4am and I am dead-tired).
We always have the option of saying, 'no', and this assumes non-rapists in all instances. Obviously, even if two people are about to have sex and one declines consent, everything stops, so we're talking about two people simply talking.
The other thing people were complaining about on the Pharyngula threads was the fact that Rebecca Watson was alone in an elevator, and that it was inherently creepy. I agree that there's a bit of creep factor (even though people are on the conference high), but for some people it's titillating (men and women included).
Most guys will always try to isolate a female to ask her out, and few guys want an audience. They may walk you to your car, be driving you home, talk to you somewhere quiet, but few will want to face public rejection asking you with other guys/girls listening (though it does happen). There's even a group dynamic where asking one in a group of girls to dance/go out/have coffee will result in cock-blocking by the jealous/lonely/fugly friends and if there's a straight guy working the patient 'friend/confidante' route, he'll no doubt try to cock block as well. So, most guys will try to isolate females they're interested-in, at least temporarily.
Granted, an elevator at 4a may not be the ideal choice with no-prior interaction, but people were whining about a 'lack of escape' too.
Again, perhaps a bad choice on the part of the guy, but at least he was rejected without an audience. The bad part is, the female has no idea how the male will take rejection, and some people react better or worse when alone than with a crowd, so this is understandable. But, in the case of reasonable adults, a simple 'no' or 'no thank you' will suffice. If it's rape women fear just talking to men, they should probably not go out alone, but most men aren't rapists....but to keep things equal we need to assume all unwanted solicitation for the sake of argument is from non-rapists.
Before any two people get together, there's always 'someone' taking a risk and making a sexual advance, even if it's subtle. Girls do it, guys do it, but if nobody is willing to make a move because we're all worried about offending people, it's only going to get harder for those who already struggle to find relationships. Women will sometimes lament that guys are too shy or not making their move or not moving fast enough, and yet some women want to cry bloody murder when the 'wrong' guy makes a move (as if they're somehow offended) while retaining fantasies of their desired males sweeping them off into the sunset.
It's nothing less than a double standard, and if women want true sexual equality they have to take control of how sexuality works between males and females, and not try to turn men into simpering pussbags because they had a few undesired males take the trouble to get to know them. There's always a risk of offending others with sexual advances but if it were easy then nobody would need those online dating/matchmaking services, right?
I understand Rebecca being slightly creeped-out, but I think she handled the situation well by politely declining the offer (though her boycott of Dawkins due to a flippant comment is over-the-top). I think her advice is generally sound though for some people an elevator is an ideal place to make a pitch (as one might do an elevator movie pitch with a top executive that is otherwise impossible to get a meeting with). Again, people use the isolation tactic all the time. The phrase, 'elevator pitch' is even known to executives who might field these pitches all the time. Most are rejected but some aren't. The same holds true for musicians who find clever and creative ways to give someone their demo CD. So, a verbal solicitation done in a polite way is NOT a big deal.
We can't really stop those who might be attracted to us and who might be unaware of our relationship status. I do think it's better to gently guide someone in the right direction (hints about relationship status work well) than act indignant and offended simply because someone showed interest in an awkward or non-ideal way with a mere verbal inquiry.
I know a guy who asked a girl what time it was, and she responded, 'I have a boyfriend!'. This is exactly the kind of over-reactive nonsense I am talking about, but all it took was a verbal response to shut him down (albeit harshly). ;)
--
Saturday, May 21, 2011
The End of the World Was Today!
Again.
Harold Camping of Family Radio had insisted that today was going to be the end of the world 'rapture', since he got it wrong in 1994. Looks like he got it wrong about today too. There have been no major earthquakes, no floating believers, no plagues of locusts and no Rapture (except maybe Blondie's version snarkily linked from various Facebook pages).
This end of the world prediction is yet more terrible public relations for believers, as they were silly enough to make a testable prediction. That prediction failed utterly. Why are those who reject these end of the world predictions so certain that won't happen, and why have they been right since the beginning of time?
Despite the worldwide skepticism of his claims (even from Christians), many 'true-believers' saw fit to spend their life-savings on billboards, ads and other materials to promote the 'end of the world' promoted with slogans such as, 'We Can Know'. Harold Camping himself is rich, sitting on some 70 million dollars...if he really thought the world was ending then why didn't he give away all of his cash before today?
I would like to direct readers to a little site called, 'We Can't Know', run by a group of atheists in Washington. As they say, May 22nd is going to be the beginning of the backpedaling, and it should be hilarity to watch.
The world is going to severely ridicule those who spent so much money, time and effort trying to convince us the world would end today, and that ridicule is well-deserved. Stupid hurts, but sometimes it's just embarrassing.
--
Harold Camping of Family Radio had insisted that today was going to be the end of the world 'rapture', since he got it wrong in 1994. Looks like he got it wrong about today too. There have been no major earthquakes, no floating believers, no plagues of locusts and no Rapture (except maybe Blondie's version snarkily linked from various Facebook pages).
This end of the world prediction is yet more terrible public relations for believers, as they were silly enough to make a testable prediction. That prediction failed utterly. Why are those who reject these end of the world predictions so certain that won't happen, and why have they been right since the beginning of time?
Despite the worldwide skepticism of his claims (even from Christians), many 'true-believers' saw fit to spend their life-savings on billboards, ads and other materials to promote the 'end of the world' promoted with slogans such as, 'We Can Know'. Harold Camping himself is rich, sitting on some 70 million dollars...if he really thought the world was ending then why didn't he give away all of his cash before today?
I would like to direct readers to a little site called, 'We Can't Know', run by a group of atheists in Washington. As they say, May 22nd is going to be the beginning of the backpedaling, and it should be hilarity to watch.
The world is going to severely ridicule those who spent so much money, time and effort trying to convince us the world would end today, and that ridicule is well-deserved. Stupid hurts, but sometimes it's just embarrassing.
--
Friday, May 20, 2011
Everyone Draw Mohammed Day is today.
'Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day' was started on May 20th, 2010 by Molly Norris, as a response to threats against the creators of a South Park episode depicting Mohammed, which was then censored by Comedy Central. The idea was to get enough people to draw Mohammed where action against these people would be untenable.
Unfortunately, Molly Norris is now in hiding due to credible threats to her safety by Muslim extremists.
It is because of the insane reactions to cartoons by some Muslim extremists that we must continue to draw them and not be intimidated into self-censorship because of religious oppression. It's one thing for Muslims to censor themselves, but yet another to not only try to censor the world but to follow it up with threats of bodily harm or death.
Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard was almost killed by a Muslim extremist for just such a cartoon, but he had a safe-room and was able to escape in time. Others who expressed their views about Mohammed or Islam weren't so lucky, such as filmmaker Theo Van Gogh who was shot multiple times and had a Jihadi manifesto stabbed through his chest in the streets of Holland for his movie, 'Submission'. Submission is the true meaning of the word, 'Islam', not peace, and that submission is apparently intended for everyone, like it or not. Submission disguised as 'peace' is the subject of my own cartoon complete with a rendition of Mohammed himself.
--
Unfortunately, Molly Norris is now in hiding due to credible threats to her safety by Muslim extremists.
It is because of the insane reactions to cartoons by some Muslim extremists that we must continue to draw them and not be intimidated into self-censorship because of religious oppression. It's one thing for Muslims to censor themselves, but yet another to not only try to censor the world but to follow it up with threats of bodily harm or death.
Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard was almost killed by a Muslim extremist for just such a cartoon, but he had a safe-room and was able to escape in time. Others who expressed their views about Mohammed or Islam weren't so lucky, such as filmmaker Theo Van Gogh who was shot multiple times and had a Jihadi manifesto stabbed through his chest in the streets of Holland for his movie, 'Submission'. Submission is the true meaning of the word, 'Islam', not peace, and that submission is apparently intended for everyone, like it or not. Submission disguised as 'peace' is the subject of my own cartoon complete with a rendition of Mohammed himself.
--
Friday, February 4, 2011
Oprah's 7-Day Vegan Challenge
There was a recent Oprah show (2-1-11) featuring the benefits of 'leaning toward' Veganism along with a tour through one of Cargill's meat-processing plants. The guests were authors Michael Pollan, author and 'The Veganist' Kathy Freston and a representative from Cargill. 378 of Oprah's Harpo staff also tried a vegan diet for 7 days...meaning no meat/fish, eggs or dairy.
Like many Oprah shows, there's a shocking lack of experts and criticism. Kathy Freston seemed like the Jenny McCarthy of diet, and Michael Pollan, while much more reasonable in his 'reform the meat industry' approach, is a meat-eater himself albeit with discretion.
First, there's a vast divide between an omnivorous, meat-based diet and 'veganism', as this leaves out the more common vegetarianism (which doesn't exclude dairy products). The whole show is somewhat based on an excluded-middle fallacy.
There was no mention of veganism and the potential health-risks to humans who are by nature omnivores, as in, humans evolved as omnivores. This is not a naturalistic fallacy (as some of you might claim), but simply a fact any evolutionary biologist would verify. We already know that there was an offshoot of early-humans (Australopithecus robustus) which was thought to be vegetarian (based on dentition studies), and died off. Our closest living modern relative, the Chimpanzee, craves meat and eats it when possible...and even uses it as a form of currency to curry favor with allies and potential mating partners*.
What we do know about humans is that we are supremely adaptable, and eating a more varied diet (including meat) is objectively superior to having a limited diet (without meat) when a lack of food can mean starvation. Why on Earth would we want to have a specialized diet when we have one of the most adaptable diets of any mammal?
The fact is, humans *are* omnivores, whether individuals choose to be or not. We are here today because of meat, but I am all for the reform of the meat-industry. I am also for reform of vegetable farmers who abuse their staff or hire illegal aliens. ;) Reform against abuse has nothing to do with the argument for or against eating meat.
There are inherent risks with a vegan diet for the unresearched, as no vegetable/nut/seed is a complete protein (and this was not mentioned on the show). All vegetables with protein have to be carefully paired with other vegetable proteins to get 'complete' proteins the body needs, where complete proteins are conveniently found in all meat products. There's a reason why eating meat is healthier for developing children eating solid food, and why they're likely to grow more easily on a meat/fat-based diet. From the health-side of the vegan argument, children can handle a much larger calorie load than adults and calorie-restriction is a non-issue for most. It's shocking to think some parents will deprive their children of nutrition because of their own unresearched ideology applied to diet.
Some intake of fat is also necessary for the human body and especially the brain. How do we know this? There's a phenomenon called 'rabbit starvation' or 'lean starvation', whereas consuming only lean-meats can still have a person starving, which can lead to death in extreme cases. Why? Lack of fat. Some fat is not just healthy, but necessary, and we find fat in meat (and some other foods), which contributes to the flavor meat-eaters enjoy.
Satiety (feeling full/satisfied) is also an important benefit of meat and fat. Some of the staffers at Harpo complained of feeling hungry and irritable, and this is probably due to the lack of satiety triggers in a vegan diet. Of course, sheer quantity of vegetable matter can help, but there's a reason herbivorous animals have to eat *constantly*, such as the gorilla or cow. There's more protein in a rat than a root, and thus, more energy from less mass. There's a reason most professionally-designed diets include a meat-protein in nearly every major meal since meat helps us feel satisfied. Without meat, people would feel hungry and binge-eat, and the diet would fail. The way these diets help people lose weight is through better food choices, satisfying meat/fat and flavor, and portion control.
Evolution was not mentioned on the Oprah show, nor was the fact that humans evolved to be omnivores (even if some modern humans choose other diets). The fact is, our bodies are designed to digest a wide-variety of food, including meat. Our teeth sport sharp incisors and a variety of cutting/grinding tools for a varied (and flesh tearing) diet. We have the binocular forward vision of a predator, instead of the greater field of view of prey animals who need to worry about being a meal (rabbits, cows, horses, etc.).
Most humans generally love the taste of meat with its marbled fat, complete proteins, and efficient calorie-fuel. Evolutionarily-speaking, it's thought that eating meat promoted bipedalism and better supports a modern, calorie-hungry brain (which uses 20% of our total calorie intake all by itself). Since meat is calorie-efficient, it also freed us of lots of time having to eat low-nutrient vegetation constantly and allowed more time to do other things, such as invent, innovate, sleep, mate, talk, etc.
In my view, veganism is a casual dalliance for the privileged (similar to the whole 'organic' food quasi-religious movement). It's easy to talk about ideology when we can waltz into a Whole Foods, buy organic-greens and feel superior to our meat-loving counterparts at a steep cost premium, but what do we do about people starving in India? Wouldn't they be better eating all those cows instead of worshipping them as they wander the streets at will?
Religion arbitrarily screws with people's diets...forcing all kinds of silly restrictions on them and for no good reason: observant Muslims can't eat pork, Hindus avoid beef, Jains are vegan, Jews won't eat pork or mix certain foods, and Catholics eat dead prophets disguised as crackers. There are enough restrictions on diets without being browbeaten by vegetarians/vegans, at least, there should be some solid reasoning behind dietary recommendations.
If vegans of the world were forced to fend for themselves in the wild, instead of living in a world powered by a majority of meat-eaters who create and deliver their vegan products to stores conveniently nearby, how would they fare? Would a vegan in the wild be so quick to forage for greens with incomplete proteins when they could simply kill a few rabbits, roast them up and have energy for hours....hours which could be spent improving survivability?
Let's not forget, all vegetarians/vegans today are riding on the backs of an omnivorous evolution, with our modern bipedalism, calorie-loving brains, efficient digestion and binocular vision. None of us would be here in the form we are today, with highly-evolved brains capable of sending people to the moon, without meat. I am not saying we couldn't have evolved as vegetarians, but evolution already tried that route with humans and it ostensibly failed and we have the fossils to prove it. Again, even our closest-living modern relatives (the chimpanzee) eat meat. Gorillas are vegetarians, but humans are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas.
Here's a little joke I made up a few years back: 'How do you know humans are omnivores? Because wild prey animals run from us'. Indeed, and they run just as fast from vegans as a meat-eating omnivore. Even if we think we're ideologically superior in eschewing meat entirely, prey animals still treat us as the predators we are.
Yes, I've read 'Fast Food Nation' and watched 'Meet Your Meat', and have let vegetarians attempt to convince me to go veggie. I even lived with a vegetarian girlfriend for about a year and tried her diet, and it expanded my taste for hummous, tabouli and other veggie fare. I definitely understand the love for animals and not wanting to hurt them, but I think we can be omnivores and still be humane. As for dietary arguments from vegetarians, I think they're mostly groundless, and a vegetarian diet is risky if not done correctly (anemia, low-energy, lack of satiety and some necessary fat, etc.). I once met a vegetarian who also claimed to be anemic and hadn't considered her diet as a possible cause. That's the first thing I would suspect.
I am all for reform and I am against any mistreatment of animals with regard to suffering, but if an animal has 'a good life and one bad day', as Michael Pollan put it, I can live with that.
Be an omnivore or even a vegetarian or vegan, but, I urge people to stick to the facts, verify all claims, consider the companies you're supporting and their practices and perhaps strive to be a more conscious eater. I believe we can be omnivores (as we evolved to be) and still be humane without starving ourselves (and others) by ideology verging on religion.
--
*Source (book): 'Significant Others: The Ape-Human Continuum and the Quest for Human Nature' by Craig Stanford, Professor of Anthropology and Biological Sciences.
References: Evolution Rx: A Practical Guide to Harnessing Our Innate Capacity for Health and Healing, by Dr. William Meller
--
Like many Oprah shows, there's a shocking lack of experts and criticism. Kathy Freston seemed like the Jenny McCarthy of diet, and Michael Pollan, while much more reasonable in his 'reform the meat industry' approach, is a meat-eater himself albeit with discretion.
First, there's a vast divide between an omnivorous, meat-based diet and 'veganism', as this leaves out the more common vegetarianism (which doesn't exclude dairy products). The whole show is somewhat based on an excluded-middle fallacy.
There was no mention of veganism and the potential health-risks to humans who are by nature omnivores, as in, humans evolved as omnivores. This is not a naturalistic fallacy (as some of you might claim), but simply a fact any evolutionary biologist would verify. We already know that there was an offshoot of early-humans (Australopithecus robustus) which was thought to be vegetarian (based on dentition studies), and died off. Our closest living modern relative, the Chimpanzee, craves meat and eats it when possible...and even uses it as a form of currency to curry favor with allies and potential mating partners*.
What we do know about humans is that we are supremely adaptable, and eating a more varied diet (including meat) is objectively superior to having a limited diet (without meat) when a lack of food can mean starvation. Why on Earth would we want to have a specialized diet when we have one of the most adaptable diets of any mammal?
The fact is, humans *are* omnivores, whether individuals choose to be or not. We are here today because of meat, but I am all for the reform of the meat-industry. I am also for reform of vegetable farmers who abuse their staff or hire illegal aliens. ;) Reform against abuse has nothing to do with the argument for or against eating meat.
There are inherent risks with a vegan diet for the unresearched, as no vegetable/nut/seed is a complete protein (and this was not mentioned on the show). All vegetables with protein have to be carefully paired with other vegetable proteins to get 'complete' proteins the body needs, where complete proteins are conveniently found in all meat products. There's a reason why eating meat is healthier for developing children eating solid food, and why they're likely to grow more easily on a meat/fat-based diet. From the health-side of the vegan argument, children can handle a much larger calorie load than adults and calorie-restriction is a non-issue for most. It's shocking to think some parents will deprive their children of nutrition because of their own unresearched ideology applied to diet.
Some intake of fat is also necessary for the human body and especially the brain. How do we know this? There's a phenomenon called 'rabbit starvation' or 'lean starvation', whereas consuming only lean-meats can still have a person starving, which can lead to death in extreme cases. Why? Lack of fat. Some fat is not just healthy, but necessary, and we find fat in meat (and some other foods), which contributes to the flavor meat-eaters enjoy.
Satiety (feeling full/satisfied) is also an important benefit of meat and fat. Some of the staffers at Harpo complained of feeling hungry and irritable, and this is probably due to the lack of satiety triggers in a vegan diet. Of course, sheer quantity of vegetable matter can help, but there's a reason herbivorous animals have to eat *constantly*, such as the gorilla or cow. There's more protein in a rat than a root, and thus, more energy from less mass. There's a reason most professionally-designed diets include a meat-protein in nearly every major meal since meat helps us feel satisfied. Without meat, people would feel hungry and binge-eat, and the diet would fail. The way these diets help people lose weight is through better food choices, satisfying meat/fat and flavor, and portion control.
Evolution was not mentioned on the Oprah show, nor was the fact that humans evolved to be omnivores (even if some modern humans choose other diets). The fact is, our bodies are designed to digest a wide-variety of food, including meat. Our teeth sport sharp incisors and a variety of cutting/grinding tools for a varied (and flesh tearing) diet. We have the binocular forward vision of a predator, instead of the greater field of view of prey animals who need to worry about being a meal (rabbits, cows, horses, etc.).
Most humans generally love the taste of meat with its marbled fat, complete proteins, and efficient calorie-fuel. Evolutionarily-speaking, it's thought that eating meat promoted bipedalism and better supports a modern, calorie-hungry brain (which uses 20% of our total calorie intake all by itself). Since meat is calorie-efficient, it also freed us of lots of time having to eat low-nutrient vegetation constantly and allowed more time to do other things, such as invent, innovate, sleep, mate, talk, etc.
In my view, veganism is a casual dalliance for the privileged (similar to the whole 'organic' food quasi-religious movement). It's easy to talk about ideology when we can waltz into a Whole Foods, buy organic-greens and feel superior to our meat-loving counterparts at a steep cost premium, but what do we do about people starving in India? Wouldn't they be better eating all those cows instead of worshipping them as they wander the streets at will?
Religion arbitrarily screws with people's diets...forcing all kinds of silly restrictions on them and for no good reason: observant Muslims can't eat pork, Hindus avoid beef, Jains are vegan, Jews won't eat pork or mix certain foods, and Catholics eat dead prophets disguised as crackers. There are enough restrictions on diets without being browbeaten by vegetarians/vegans, at least, there should be some solid reasoning behind dietary recommendations.
If vegans of the world were forced to fend for themselves in the wild, instead of living in a world powered by a majority of meat-eaters who create and deliver their vegan products to stores conveniently nearby, how would they fare? Would a vegan in the wild be so quick to forage for greens with incomplete proteins when they could simply kill a few rabbits, roast them up and have energy for hours....hours which could be spent improving survivability?
Let's not forget, all vegetarians/vegans today are riding on the backs of an omnivorous evolution, with our modern bipedalism, calorie-loving brains, efficient digestion and binocular vision. None of us would be here in the form we are today, with highly-evolved brains capable of sending people to the moon, without meat. I am not saying we couldn't have evolved as vegetarians, but evolution already tried that route with humans and it ostensibly failed and we have the fossils to prove it. Again, even our closest-living modern relatives (the chimpanzee) eat meat. Gorillas are vegetarians, but humans are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas.
Here's a little joke I made up a few years back: 'How do you know humans are omnivores? Because wild prey animals run from us'. Indeed, and they run just as fast from vegans as a meat-eating omnivore. Even if we think we're ideologically superior in eschewing meat entirely, prey animals still treat us as the predators we are.
Yes, I've read 'Fast Food Nation' and watched 'Meet Your Meat', and have let vegetarians attempt to convince me to go veggie. I even lived with a vegetarian girlfriend for about a year and tried her diet, and it expanded my taste for hummous, tabouli and other veggie fare. I definitely understand the love for animals and not wanting to hurt them, but I think we can be omnivores and still be humane. As for dietary arguments from vegetarians, I think they're mostly groundless, and a vegetarian diet is risky if not done correctly (anemia, low-energy, lack of satiety and some necessary fat, etc.). I once met a vegetarian who also claimed to be anemic and hadn't considered her diet as a possible cause. That's the first thing I would suspect.
I am all for reform and I am against any mistreatment of animals with regard to suffering, but if an animal has 'a good life and one bad day', as Michael Pollan put it, I can live with that.
Be an omnivore or even a vegetarian or vegan, but, I urge people to stick to the facts, verify all claims, consider the companies you're supporting and their practices and perhaps strive to be a more conscious eater. I believe we can be omnivores (as we evolved to be) and still be humane without starving ourselves (and others) by ideology verging on religion.
--
*Source (book): 'Significant Others: The Ape-Human Continuum and the Quest for Human Nature' by Craig Stanford, Professor of Anthropology and Biological Sciences.
References: Evolution Rx: A Practical Guide to Harnessing Our Innate Capacity for Health and Healing, by Dr. William Meller
--
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Psychics and their Silly Con Games
Does it even need to be said that psychics as claimed are generally indistinguishable from genuine frauds?
Take Allison DuBois for instance, who recently appeared on 'The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills' at a dinner hosted by Camille Grammer. When asked by Kyle Richards for a reading, she said something to the effect of, 'your husband will never fulfill you' (paraphrased). This is the harm of so-called psychic hucksters....they make these declarative statements about people they don't really know, and there's a chance the gullible person will believe the charlatan friend of the dead and act on it. I am not saying Kyle Richards is naive....she could have been testing and baiting Ms. DuBois in an attempt to expose her as a charlatan.
Meanwhile, the so-called psychic, whose claim lies conveniently in the unspecified future, can simply claim success if it happens, or claim it's still in the future if things go differently. It's nothing less than cold-reading and a confidence game, quite literally. The only way psychics continue to enjoy success is because there are too many people willingly give them undeserved confidence. This is the definition of confidence artist aka, 'con artist'.
I was disappointed with the overall lack of apparently skepticism at the dinner table (at least, whatever made it on the air). Why didn't we hear anyone of the housewives calling out Allison DuFraud as a fake and a charlatan? Sure, Kyle Richards asked for a reading and later said, 'this is all bullshit to me', but that seemed more geared toward the argument than Allison's 'psychic' claims. It could be Bravo (or the housewives) were concerned about lawsuits....but why would a 'real' psychic need to sue anyone who doesn't believe him/her? Just prove you're a freakin' psychic already and shut everyone up. Make some very specific prediction in the near future....do this repeatedly and with unambiguous success...hell, win the James Randi challenge and earn a million bucks for a half-hour's work! Anyone can guess at something, but that doesn't make us psychics when we occasionally get it right.
Here's the thing, if people really could talk to the dead, wildly granting that disembodied dead people with no brain activity can muster a way to communicate, and choose to use electronic-cigarette smoking megabitches as their secretaries.....why wouldn't they be more specific about what they reveal? Why would the so-called secrets of dead people be indistinguishable from some asshat just making it all up using amateur cold-reading techniques like Jon Edwards, Sylvia Browne or Allison DuBois?
Real answers don't come easily. Sometimes the answer isn't clear, or there might be more than one. Expecting answers from someone who claims to have 'supernatural' answers to real-world problems isn't all that different from consulting a magic 8-ball or discerning futures from tea-leaves. Real issues require problem-solving with effort, logic, the support of friends and family (and sometimes their uncomfortable insights).
All a 'psychic' is going to do is take your money and make some guesses, loosely based on what they can gather knowing you for a few minutes (or with Google's help). For the people who follow the crazy advice of some psychics, real harm can result. Some will dissolve relationships, miss opportunities and that's saying nothing about the good money people lose being duped by con-artists.
When anyone dares to call themselves a psychic in mixed-company, they're basically either seriously deluded or think we're naive or incurious enough to believe it. Take them to task, force them to stumble all over their deception, don't be distracted by their offense (because it's usually a cover for insecurity among skeptics) and hopefully fewer people will believe (or claim) this nonsense.
As for Allison Dubois, she's indistinguisable from a genuine fraud, and she made a complete ass out of herself on the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills as a drunken lunatic bitch...probably out fear of being exposed as a charlatan. I am glad her show 'Medium' was canceled. If she keeps up her silly confidence games she'll likely be exposed over and over.
Know that. ;)
--
Take Allison DuBois for instance, who recently appeared on 'The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills' at a dinner hosted by Camille Grammer. When asked by Kyle Richards for a reading, she said something to the effect of, 'your husband will never fulfill you' (paraphrased). This is the harm of so-called psychic hucksters....they make these declarative statements about people they don't really know, and there's a chance the gullible person will believe the charlatan friend of the dead and act on it. I am not saying Kyle Richards is naive....she could have been testing and baiting Ms. DuBois in an attempt to expose her as a charlatan.
Meanwhile, the so-called psychic, whose claim lies conveniently in the unspecified future, can simply claim success if it happens, or claim it's still in the future if things go differently. It's nothing less than cold-reading and a confidence game, quite literally. The only way psychics continue to enjoy success is because there are too many people willingly give them undeserved confidence. This is the definition of confidence artist aka, 'con artist'.
I was disappointed with the overall lack of apparently skepticism at the dinner table (at least, whatever made it on the air). Why didn't we hear anyone of the housewives calling out Allison DuFraud as a fake and a charlatan? Sure, Kyle Richards asked for a reading and later said, 'this is all bullshit to me', but that seemed more geared toward the argument than Allison's 'psychic' claims. It could be Bravo (or the housewives) were concerned about lawsuits....but why would a 'real' psychic need to sue anyone who doesn't believe him/her? Just prove you're a freakin' psychic already and shut everyone up. Make some very specific prediction in the near future....do this repeatedly and with unambiguous success...hell, win the James Randi challenge and earn a million bucks for a half-hour's work! Anyone can guess at something, but that doesn't make us psychics when we occasionally get it right.
Here's the thing, if people really could talk to the dead, wildly granting that disembodied dead people with no brain activity can muster a way to communicate, and choose to use electronic-cigarette smoking megabitches as their secretaries.....why wouldn't they be more specific about what they reveal? Why would the so-called secrets of dead people be indistinguishable from some asshat just making it all up using amateur cold-reading techniques like Jon Edwards, Sylvia Browne or Allison DuBois?
Real answers don't come easily. Sometimes the answer isn't clear, or there might be more than one. Expecting answers from someone who claims to have 'supernatural' answers to real-world problems isn't all that different from consulting a magic 8-ball or discerning futures from tea-leaves. Real issues require problem-solving with effort, logic, the support of friends and family (and sometimes their uncomfortable insights).
All a 'psychic' is going to do is take your money and make some guesses, loosely based on what they can gather knowing you for a few minutes (or with Google's help). For the people who follow the crazy advice of some psychics, real harm can result. Some will dissolve relationships, miss opportunities and that's saying nothing about the good money people lose being duped by con-artists.
When anyone dares to call themselves a psychic in mixed-company, they're basically either seriously deluded or think we're naive or incurious enough to believe it. Take them to task, force them to stumble all over their deception, don't be distracted by their offense (because it's usually a cover for insecurity among skeptics) and hopefully fewer people will believe (or claim) this nonsense.
As for Allison Dubois, she's indistinguisable from a genuine fraud, and she made a complete ass out of herself on the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills as a drunken lunatic bitch...probably out fear of being exposed as a charlatan. I am glad her show 'Medium' was canceled. If she keeps up her silly confidence games she'll likely be exposed over and over.
Know that. ;)
--
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The AZ shootings, Jared Loughner and Politics
As most readers know by now, Jared Loughner gunned down 12 people, killing 6 and critically-injuring AZ Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. One of the dead victims is a 9-year old girl and Federal Judge John Roll.
The irony here is that Giffords, having been plagued by threats and vandalism against her office and threats to her personally had previously called for civility with these foreboding words:
"We're on Sarah Palin's 'targeted' list, but the thing is that the wa...y that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. And when people do that, they've got to realize that there's consequences to that action."
Here's the graphic in question:
Is it me, or is this disturbingly reminscent of the abortion doctor list kept by some anti-abortion Christian fundamentalist groups?
When a radical Christian group keeps a list of abortion doctors they're targeting, and then addstrikethroughs over their names when they're killed, are we to believe there's no connection?
The late George Tiller, one of the few doctors performing legal late-term abortion was gunned down at church by a Christian radical. Likewise, Gabrielle Giffords was gunned down in the wake of Palin's infamous gunsight-graphic which targeted various political leaders egregiously support 'health care reform' for all Americans.
For more on why health-care reform (and Universal healthcare) is a good thing for America, read my blog entry here.
One of the major players in the abortion doctorhitlist name/location campaign is ChristianGallery.com, who maintained their list until February 5th, 1999, and they recently celebrated the assassination of Dr. George Tiller who they describe as 'extreme late term aborted'. Tiller was gunned down by Scott Roeder, a mentally-unstable Christian who reportedly subscribed to 'Prayer and Action News', a magazine that advocated "justifiable homicide" as a way of protesting abortion.
The owners of Christian Gallery were hit with a $107 million dollar judgement against them, and their ISP (Mindspring) booted them off their servers. Think about this dear readers...Palin's gunsight graphic is not *that* different from the Christian Gallery 'abortion doctor list', which makes things all too easy for unstable vigilantes, which I would suspect comprise members of a radical movement which takes such wild offense to such notions as 'health care reform'.
Yes, to Tea Baggers such as Palin (who ironically would receive a form of universal healthcare as a government employee), health care reform and gunsights go together. This shows me that Tea Party is completely lost in their radicalism. If Palin runs in 2012 we can almost guarantee a second term for President Barack Obama. If we thought the Republicans were on the wrong side of many issues, the Tea Baggers are just plain loony.
What's amazing here is it's not like health-care reform includes a mandatory goose-step around a picture of a new communist leader....it's simply the extension of existing universal health care to everyone, which already exists for some: older seniors, the very poor, prisoners, veterans, active military and yes, government employees such as Palin.
Even if the U.S. were to consider Universal healthcare, it's a huge benefit to Americans who need it the most and are least able to buy private health insurance, much less pay for the costs to get emergency treatment without any insurance. Universal healthcare would cover the 45 million uninsured people and have them paying in to the system, and everyone could avoid the red-tape of for-profit insurance-racket which puts more effort into denying and rescinding coverage than covering those who need it most.
In essence, if Tea Baggers understood healthcare and how we *already have universal coverage for some groups*, and how *every first world nation on the planet has universal healthcare* aside from the U.S., they might not be so quick to enjoy to depose (or kill) politicians trying their damnedest to make this happen.
There has been a huge response from the blogosphere with regard to this event. Some want to use this as a platform for gun control, and they make some good arguments. Others want everyone to tone down the rhetoric. My take on it is that this is not the time to abridge our rights but to enforce controls on gun control that already exist. We also need to really close down loopholes that allow the mentally unstable to get guns.
It is possible to have a debate, even a spirited debate, and have both sides not kill each other. That's really what we need.
Why some people feel the need to resort to violence is hard to pinpoint. Perhaps it's the coddling of our children too much with false confidence and a lack of accountability, or a lack of critical thinking instruction with insufficient challenges for silly ideas. Unfortunately, people conflate 'respecting beliefs' with is 'respecting people' too easily. Beliefs do not themselves command respect even if the people who hold them exercise free-speech.
Palin is a good example of how ignorant you can be and still attain political power and somehow not be universally decried as a blithering idiot. I don't know what's worse, Palin's success or the fact that she has followers, but I digress.
I understand being incensed by an argument one finds dishonest or even asinine, but there's no better way to deal with that than to use words and thoughts to undermine bad arguments while being open to improving our own. When one can bring an ideological opponent to reason, that person becomes a voice for others, and so on. This is how change occurs, and why words matter.
Sure, many mentally unstable people fall through the cracks, and some will acquire guns....but maybe if we had universal healthcare (which needs to start with reform), people like Jared Loughner might have gotten the help they needed, and a few more people might be alive today.
Let's hope Giffords pulls through, otherwise the Republican governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, is likely to install a Republican in her place. That would almost be a reward for this assassination to opponents of the progressive-left, and that's truly scary.
Here's my response to Palin's graphic.
The irony here is that Giffords, having been plagued by threats and vandalism against her office and threats to her personally had previously called for civility with these foreboding words:
"We're on Sarah Palin's 'targeted' list, but the thing is that the wa...y that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. And when people do that, they've got to realize that there's consequences to that action."
Here's the graphic in question:
Is it me, or is this disturbingly reminscent of the abortion doctor list kept by some anti-abortion Christian fundamentalist groups?
When a radical Christian group keeps a list of abortion doctors they're targeting, and then add
The late George Tiller, one of the few doctors performing legal late-term abortion was gunned down at church by a Christian radical. Likewise, Gabrielle Giffords was gunned down in the wake of Palin's infamous gunsight-graphic which targeted various political leaders egregiously support 'health care reform' for all Americans.
For more on why health-care reform (and Universal healthcare) is a good thing for America, read my blog entry here.
One of the major players in the abortion doctor
The owners of Christian Gallery were hit with a $107 million dollar judgement against them, and their ISP (Mindspring) booted them off their servers. Think about this dear readers...Palin's gunsight graphic is not *that* different from the Christian Gallery 'abortion doctor list', which makes things all too easy for unstable vigilantes, which I would suspect comprise members of a radical movement which takes such wild offense to such notions as 'health care reform'.
Yes, to Tea Baggers such as Palin (who ironically would receive a form of universal healthcare as a government employee), health care reform and gunsights go together. This shows me that Tea Party is completely lost in their radicalism. If Palin runs in 2012 we can almost guarantee a second term for President Barack Obama. If we thought the Republicans were on the wrong side of many issues, the Tea Baggers are just plain loony.
What's amazing here is it's not like health-care reform includes a mandatory goose-step around a picture of a new communist leader....it's simply the extension of existing universal health care to everyone, which already exists for some: older seniors, the very poor, prisoners, veterans, active military and yes, government employees such as Palin.
Even if the U.S. were to consider Universal healthcare, it's a huge benefit to Americans who need it the most and are least able to buy private health insurance, much less pay for the costs to get emergency treatment without any insurance. Universal healthcare would cover the 45 million uninsured people and have them paying in to the system, and everyone could avoid the red-tape of for-profit insurance-racket which puts more effort into denying and rescinding coverage than covering those who need it most.
In essence, if Tea Baggers understood healthcare and how we *already have universal coverage for some groups*, and how *every first world nation on the planet has universal healthcare* aside from the U.S., they might not be so quick to enjoy to depose (or kill) politicians trying their damnedest to make this happen.
There has been a huge response from the blogosphere with regard to this event. Some want to use this as a platform for gun control, and they make some good arguments. Others want everyone to tone down the rhetoric. My take on it is that this is not the time to abridge our rights but to enforce controls on gun control that already exist. We also need to really close down loopholes that allow the mentally unstable to get guns.
It is possible to have a debate, even a spirited debate, and have both sides not kill each other. That's really what we need.
Why some people feel the need to resort to violence is hard to pinpoint. Perhaps it's the coddling of our children too much with false confidence and a lack of accountability, or a lack of critical thinking instruction with insufficient challenges for silly ideas. Unfortunately, people conflate 'respecting beliefs' with is 'respecting people' too easily. Beliefs do not themselves command respect even if the people who hold them exercise free-speech.
Palin is a good example of how ignorant you can be and still attain political power and somehow not be universally decried as a blithering idiot. I don't know what's worse, Palin's success or the fact that she has followers, but I digress.
I understand being incensed by an argument one finds dishonest or even asinine, but there's no better way to deal with that than to use words and thoughts to undermine bad arguments while being open to improving our own. When one can bring an ideological opponent to reason, that person becomes a voice for others, and so on. This is how change occurs, and why words matter.
Sure, many mentally unstable people fall through the cracks, and some will acquire guns....but maybe if we had universal healthcare (which needs to start with reform), people like Jared Loughner might have gotten the help they needed, and a few more people might be alive today.
Let's hope Giffords pulls through, otherwise the Republican governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, is likely to install a Republican in her place. That would almost be a reward for this assassination to opponents of the progressive-left, and that's truly scary.
Here's my response to Palin's graphic.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Happy New Year and Why I Won't Use 3D Coat Software.
First, Happy New Year to everyone! It's 11. That's right, 11, not 2011. I reject Jesus Christ, God and the Anno Domini dating system employed by Christians, since I would rather not honor any fictional religious myths when I say the year.
Also, the year 2000 marked a time when everyone celebrated the new millenium a year early, meaning we are officially now on a zero through nine dating system. This was actually part of the 'Year Zero' campaign by Alan Dechert in 1999, and something I fully support. Alan Dechert's campaign was to treat the year 2000 as the Year Zero. This would dismiss religious references in our dating system and also change the numbering so that any new year ending in zero would be considered the first year in a new decade, century or millenium rather than the last year of the prior decade. The year 2000 was actually the last year of the 90's on a 1-10 counting system, but changing from 0-9 shifts the zero to the beginning. So, in getting the millenium wrong, we now have it right. ;)
By the way, it's perfectly legal to write the year in a format such as Year 11, 11, Y11 on any government form, according to Dechert. The Christian dating system (Anno Domini) came about via usage, and reverting back to a secular and more sensible dating system can be done in the same manner.
--
In other news, it actually SNOWED here in Stevenson Ranch on 1-2-11! This is unprecedented...well, not since 1987. My girlfriend and I actually went and played in the snow like a couple of kids...not something you see every day in Los Angeles County.
As many of you know, I am a 3D artist. I was looking for a good re-topology tool to get Z-Brush models into a nice low-rez model with good topology or to make details behave better in Z-Brush. I tried out Topogun and looked into 3D Coat. Boy, what a shock when I read through the site at 3D Coat. Here's what they had in the 'Our Voice' section. These are their words, unchanged, off their site. (Note that they aren't native English-speakers).
Making such powerful tool for Artists as 3D-Coat we realize that it could be used for creating beautiful works of art that would inspire people and bring them joy, or works that would produce evil, for example, rouse dissolute thoughts breaking families, popularize hatred and disgrace people. We are Christians. Jesus Christ said, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!” (Luke 17,1-2) God concerns hatred to a murder and lust as adultery. We're highly worried about level of morality in our society when depravity often becomes a norm of life. That's why as the program creators we ask you to consider respect to us and our principles with which, we suppose, may agree not only Christians but also everyone who are worried about society's moral state. Frankly speaking it is from within, out of our heart proceed evil thoughts and sexual immorality. And often we can not control all this stuff with ourselves. We found that Christ really helps us if we are honest and give Him our heart.
As 3D-Coat creators we ask you not to use the program for making pictures which would increase vices, especially pictures that would provoke dissolute thoughts. We all have responsibility before God and before mankind for everything we're doing. Do we make this world better?
We can not (and don't want!) control your activity. That is a request and not a legal demand. We completely realize that many people may dislike the request placed on the official web site and that it may cause less selling. However, our conscience demand is more important for us than our income.
Respectfully yours, Pilgway staff.
What the motherfucking fuck? These guys are talking to 3D TECHNICAL ARTISTS. Do they realize how few fundy Christians exist in this industry, and how many progressive theists and non-theists there are? Apparently, they had Christ right in their End User License Agreement, with restrictions about how you could use their software! This is asinine beyond belief. That's not all, here's what they allegedly wrote to a customer whose art wasn't sufficiently respecting of their space fairy (from their site, posted by the offended party):
Hi Lee Perry-Smith,
thanks for your kind words about 3D-Coat,
...
I just want to tell you that our team consist of people who are christians and it is written under download button such restrictions on the use of 3D-Coat:
The 3D-Coat software should not be used in the production of any lewd or obscene materials, as well as any products which propagandize hatred against people. We understand that we are not able to monitor everything created with 3D Coat, but we remind you about your responsibility before God.
As well it is written in our license.
I saw your gallery and it is my pesonal opinion that it has obscene materials. Frankly speaking I do not judge you but I am sad. Really we do not want 3DC to be used in the production of such materials. God saved me from my corruption and I know that He may save you as well if you wants.
May God bless and help you
LOL! What a bunch of batshit crazy lunatic Christers! Here was the poor guy's response to this insanity (from their own forums). You can almost see the shocked look on the guy's face! This is a potential customer, people. See how batnuts religion can make you? Read his response:
Perhaps somethings got lost in translation but I do not appreciate being preached too or spoken down to because of someone elses beliefs that have nothing to do with me or the software. I can hardly see how the work that I do is pornographic anyway. Are we not all human beings? are we born fully clothed?!
I gathered from this email of course I would not be able to negotiate further but would I even be allowed to buy a single copy? I guess I could because the system is automated but I would only be able to make 'pink fluffy bunnies' perhaps some 'special dinasours' and maybe some 'fruit'? but not the human form as that would be just blasphemous.
Anyway, again I apologize for any annoyance or hurt I may have caused Andrew but perhaps he should choose a bit more wisely who he puts in charge when he goes on vacation. Having your own staff spout any form of religion to customers is a very bad thing to do and will just give you a bad name.
How would you like it if I said no sorry you cant buy " " " " " software from me because you are religious. Total Nonsense!
BTW thanks Stanislav but I do not need any help Feel free to post my reply I sent back to you. Also I was wondering why I got a reply from a 3D Coat Senior Staff Member from his Gmail account? strange....
Bad for business IMHO
Regards
Lee
--
Here's my response to them via email:
Hi there,
I’m a game-industry veteran of 20+ years and I was looking at your site, considering 3D Coat vs. Topogun for re-topology. But, then I noticed your rather overt Christian message which I find rather shocking. Why are you concerned about so-called ‘vice’ conveyed through mere images? Are you concerned about irreverence or blasphemy? While I don’t set out to create irreverent art, it’s messages like yours which I often find myself responding to with irreverence or blasphemy. I wouldn’t need to label myself an atheist if theists weren’t so vocal, right? ;)
I appreciate that you are Christian. I think it’s great that you feel confident about your religious views and naturally you have the right to express those views. However, I feel that having this message on a commercial site which is intended to appeal to 3D artists is going to be a huge turn-off and hurt your product, your income and ultimately, your religious cause. I presume you use some of the income you received to benefit your favorite Christian charities?
Most people in the fields related to 3D Coat are not going to be so vocally Christian, and these rather technical fields are over-represented by progressive theists and non-theists such as myself and many others in the field I know personally. I think it would be far superior a plan to simply omit your references to your particular brand of religion, and simply use your funds to better support whatever religion you hold. The Mormons calls this ‘bleeding the beast’. As an atheist, you can bet I wouldn’t put overt atheism even in the ‘Our Voice’ section of a commercial product that I was trying to sell, even if I think most people in technical fields will probably be sympathetic to my complaints about religion (or more accepting of atheism than your average person). In fact, the mere presence of atheists often offends theists...just read open your Bible to Psalms 14:1. To save time, I will quote it for you here:
1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
This slander against non-believers is in your holy book, or some variant (there are many versions of the Christian Holy Bible, as you’re probably aware).
It’s sad to say that your message discourages me from wanting to buy your software, if nothing else, because theists often directly trample upon the freedoms of other religions and the non-religious alike. In my view, expressing that much Christianity, verging on fundamentalism is a turn-off. In America, the more religious someone is, the more they tend to fall on the wrong side of almost every important issue; from choice to sex-education, birth-control and gay rights and even the teaching of evolution. It’s a constant battle for mind-share, but those who side with fundamentalist Christianity are becoming more and more marginalized. This is why I find it shocking that you would place such a thing on a commercial site.
I respectfully suggest that you re-think your strategy; remove all references to religion from your commercial site and move them to a personal site/blog where they’d be appropriate (and you wouldn’t have to mince words). Then, your product won’t be rejected before it’s even reviewed when people see your message, and you can spend the extra income supporting whatever Christian cause you like. Perhaps there’s a lesson to be learned from the Mormons here. ;)
Sincerely,
Dan Burke
Atheist and former Christian, game-industry veteran and 3D Artist
As you can see, I was polite even though my real feelings on the matter are not so reserved.
The Christnuts at Pilgway have made my decision to go with their competition's software (Topogun) quite easy. I wouldn't be surprised if the people at TopoGun are laughing themselves all the way to the bank.
--
Also, the year 2000 marked a time when everyone celebrated the new millenium a year early, meaning we are officially now on a zero through nine dating system. This was actually part of the 'Year Zero' campaign by Alan Dechert in 1999, and something I fully support. Alan Dechert's campaign was to treat the year 2000 as the Year Zero. This would dismiss religious references in our dating system and also change the numbering so that any new year ending in zero would be considered the first year in a new decade, century or millenium rather than the last year of the prior decade. The year 2000 was actually the last year of the 90's on a 1-10 counting system, but changing from 0-9 shifts the zero to the beginning. So, in getting the millenium wrong, we now have it right. ;)
By the way, it's perfectly legal to write the year in a format such as Year 11, 11, Y11 on any government form, according to Dechert. The Christian dating system (Anno Domini) came about via usage, and reverting back to a secular and more sensible dating system can be done in the same manner.
--
In other news, it actually SNOWED here in Stevenson Ranch on 1-2-11! This is unprecedented...well, not since 1987. My girlfriend and I actually went and played in the snow like a couple of kids...not something you see every day in Los Angeles County.
As many of you know, I am a 3D artist. I was looking for a good re-topology tool to get Z-Brush models into a nice low-rez model with good topology or to make details behave better in Z-Brush. I tried out Topogun and looked into 3D Coat. Boy, what a shock when I read through the site at 3D Coat. Here's what they had in the 'Our Voice' section. These are their words, unchanged, off their site. (Note that they aren't native English-speakers).
Making such powerful tool for Artists as 3D-Coat we realize that it could be used for creating beautiful works of art that would inspire people and bring them joy, or works that would produce evil, for example, rouse dissolute thoughts breaking families, popularize hatred and disgrace people. We are Christians. Jesus Christ said, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!” (Luke 17,1-2) God concerns hatred to a murder and lust as adultery. We're highly worried about level of morality in our society when depravity often becomes a norm of life. That's why as the program creators we ask you to consider respect to us and our principles with which, we suppose, may agree not only Christians but also everyone who are worried about society's moral state. Frankly speaking it is from within, out of our heart proceed evil thoughts and sexual immorality. And often we can not control all this stuff with ourselves. We found that Christ really helps us if we are honest and give Him our heart.
As 3D-Coat creators we ask you not to use the program for making pictures which would increase vices, especially pictures that would provoke dissolute thoughts. We all have responsibility before God and before mankind for everything we're doing. Do we make this world better?
We can not (and don't want!) control your activity. That is a request and not a legal demand. We completely realize that many people may dislike the request placed on the official web site and that it may cause less selling. However, our conscience demand is more important for us than our income.
Respectfully yours, Pilgway staff.
What the motherfucking fuck? These guys are talking to 3D TECHNICAL ARTISTS. Do they realize how few fundy Christians exist in this industry, and how many progressive theists and non-theists there are? Apparently, they had Christ right in their End User License Agreement, with restrictions about how you could use their software! This is asinine beyond belief. That's not all, here's what they allegedly wrote to a customer whose art wasn't sufficiently respecting of their space fairy (from their site, posted by the offended party):
Hi Lee Perry-Smith,
thanks for your kind words about 3D-Coat,
...
I just want to tell you that our team consist of people who are christians and it is written under download button such restrictions on the use of 3D-Coat:
The 3D-Coat software should not be used in the production of any lewd or obscene materials, as well as any products which propagandize hatred against people. We understand that we are not able to monitor everything created with 3D Coat, but we remind you about your responsibility before God.
As well it is written in our license.
I saw your gallery and it is my pesonal opinion that it has obscene materials. Frankly speaking I do not judge you but I am sad. Really we do not want 3DC to be used in the production of such materials. God saved me from my corruption and I know that He may save you as well if you wants.
May God bless and help you
LOL! What a bunch of batshit crazy lunatic Christers! Here was the poor guy's response to this insanity (from their own forums). You can almost see the shocked look on the guy's face! This is a potential customer, people. See how batnuts religion can make you? Read his response:
Perhaps somethings got lost in translation but I do not appreciate being preached too or spoken down to because of someone elses beliefs that have nothing to do with me or the software. I can hardly see how the work that I do is pornographic anyway. Are we not all human beings? are we born fully clothed?!
I gathered from this email of course I would not be able to negotiate further but would I even be allowed to buy a single copy? I guess I could because the system is automated but I would only be able to make 'pink fluffy bunnies' perhaps some 'special dinasours' and maybe some 'fruit'? but not the human form as that would be just blasphemous.
Anyway, again I apologize for any annoyance or hurt I may have caused Andrew but perhaps he should choose a bit more wisely who he puts in charge when he goes on vacation. Having your own staff spout any form of religion to customers is a very bad thing to do and will just give you a bad name.
How would you like it if I said no sorry you cant buy " " " " " software from me because you are religious. Total Nonsense!
BTW thanks Stanislav but I do not need any help Feel free to post my reply I sent back to you. Also I was wondering why I got a reply from a 3D Coat Senior Staff Member from his Gmail account? strange....
Bad for business IMHO
Regards
Lee
--
Here's my response to them via email:
Hi there,
I’m a game-industry veteran of 20+ years and I was looking at your site, considering 3D Coat vs. Topogun for re-topology. But, then I noticed your rather overt Christian message which I find rather shocking. Why are you concerned about so-called ‘vice’ conveyed through mere images? Are you concerned about irreverence or blasphemy? While I don’t set out to create irreverent art, it’s messages like yours which I often find myself responding to with irreverence or blasphemy. I wouldn’t need to label myself an atheist if theists weren’t so vocal, right? ;)
I appreciate that you are Christian. I think it’s great that you feel confident about your religious views and naturally you have the right to express those views. However, I feel that having this message on a commercial site which is intended to appeal to 3D artists is going to be a huge turn-off and hurt your product, your income and ultimately, your religious cause. I presume you use some of the income you received to benefit your favorite Christian charities?
Most people in the fields related to 3D Coat are not going to be so vocally Christian, and these rather technical fields are over-represented by progressive theists and non-theists such as myself and many others in the field I know personally. I think it would be far superior a plan to simply omit your references to your particular brand of religion, and simply use your funds to better support whatever religion you hold. The Mormons calls this ‘bleeding the beast’. As an atheist, you can bet I wouldn’t put overt atheism even in the ‘Our Voice’ section of a commercial product that I was trying to sell, even if I think most people in technical fields will probably be sympathetic to my complaints about religion (or more accepting of atheism than your average person). In fact, the mere presence of atheists often offends theists...just read open your Bible to Psalms 14:1. To save time, I will quote it for you here:
1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
This slander against non-believers is in your holy book, or some variant (there are many versions of the Christian Holy Bible, as you’re probably aware).
It’s sad to say that your message discourages me from wanting to buy your software, if nothing else, because theists often directly trample upon the freedoms of other religions and the non-religious alike. In my view, expressing that much Christianity, verging on fundamentalism is a turn-off. In America, the more religious someone is, the more they tend to fall on the wrong side of almost every important issue; from choice to sex-education, birth-control and gay rights and even the teaching of evolution. It’s a constant battle for mind-share, but those who side with fundamentalist Christianity are becoming more and more marginalized. This is why I find it shocking that you would place such a thing on a commercial site.
I respectfully suggest that you re-think your strategy; remove all references to religion from your commercial site and move them to a personal site/blog where they’d be appropriate (and you wouldn’t have to mince words). Then, your product won’t be rejected before it’s even reviewed when people see your message, and you can spend the extra income supporting whatever Christian cause you like. Perhaps there’s a lesson to be learned from the Mormons here. ;)
Sincerely,
Dan Burke
Atheist and former Christian, game-industry veteran and 3D Artist
As you can see, I was polite even though my real feelings on the matter are not so reserved.
The Christnuts at Pilgway have made my decision to go with their competition's software (Topogun) quite easy. I wouldn't be surprised if the people at TopoGun are laughing themselves all the way to the bank.
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Atheist Angle RSS Feed