The End of the World... Almost

Perhaps you've read my earlier link to Vasilly Archipov, the Russian hero who disobeyed orders and refused to launch a nuclear weapon at the US while in under US bombardment. Apparently, there's a second world hero from Russia named Stanislav Petrov who was forced into retirement after refusing to launch a Nuclear Assault per protocol. Read the story here; it's harrowing.

Then watch this video and feel all better:

Will Obama Lower your Taxes?

Check on this site: http://www.willobamacutmytaxes.com/

Everyone should take the quiz and see, since so many people vote on this retarded issue (instead of, you know, how much skrilla you'll save from improved health care.) The quiz will take you about 4 seconds to take. Click that image for a full chart, by the way (I couldn't display it on this blog properly.)

DNC Protests

"Democracy is not waiting to vote once every four years. Democracy is getting out in the streets," says Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, a 24-year-old member of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) who refused orders to deploy to Iraq this June and now plans to show up to the conventions with IVAW. "They [the politicians] are not gonna do it by themselves. We're gonna force their hand, because that is the nature of democracy."

Things are going swimmingly in Denver as non-violent protests are flamboyantly disobeying the "Free speech zone" ordinances by walking the streets in massed groups. There was some question before this convention started as to whether there would be much protest, given that the protesters would mostly be favoring the Democratic party (albeit reluctantly.) I've had this conversation 1000 times, about the effectiveness of protesting:

Q:"Protesting? Why waste your time like that?"

A: It's hardly a waste of time if you believe in the cause. Certainly it's more effective than simply lining up every few years to select between 2 inflexible options, offering you a take-it-or-leave-it list of policies (at best- often you don't even know what the policies will be.)

Q: "Yeah but it does more harm than good because people get annoyed by protesters"

A: Spoken like a person who's never seen the magical effect of protests. Not only does it assemble and energize diverse activist groups but it inspires serious conversation, forcing issues out into view. These conversations happen all around you at protests. I overheard this conversation from distant bystanders "If this is an anti-war group, why aren't they just protesting the RNC?" Answered with (from another bystander) "Well the congressional Dems authorized the war and have largelt supported it." The sky didn't split open or anything but there's no way that guy #1 finds out that information otherwise, and that's important. Skip to the end of this post for more "effects" talk.

Q: "Okay but that just makes people cynical about the Democrats, and makes them less likely to win opening the door for Mr. "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb Bomb-Bomb Iran""

A: What makes people cynical is you telling them to shut their eyes to reality and trust in "change we can believe in" and then feel betrayed when Obama peddles the same old Clinton-era moderate BS. People know that Obama's policies are better than McCain's, and they know that preventing McCain from taking office is important. Opening their eyes to Obama's actual policies won't change that; if anything it'll shield them from the wave of disappointment and cyncism they'd otherwise experience when they see Obama's real policy toward Iraq (et al.) Make no mistake, Obama's policies are better than McCain's in most every area so how then can the truth hurt?

Q: (sort-of) "Sure so we'll just march in the streets and it'll change nothing as usual then."

A: That's certainly not true, but it's what "they'd" love you to believe. I'm sorry to use such a hoary old cliche as "they" but it gets the point across. Consider the feminist movement and the groundwork laid to change the culture and attitudes around equal rights and sexual harassment. The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill issue would have been completely ignored had it not been for decades of activism and organizing which had a civilizing effect on the culture overall. Of course the activists don't often get thanked but ah well.

If you've got a cause and live close to Denver or St. Paul Minnesota... get involved.

What's the weirdest video you've ever seen?

Prepare for a new answer to that question. This isn't something I'd normally post, but I mean how do I not post this? It's a chimp raping a frog. It's not as bad as it sounds (I mean, it's not violent or anything) but it's a CHIMPANZEE, and that CHIMPANZEE is RAPING a TOAD.

The Smiles are high...

... in the City that's mile-high.



It's a debate that has gone on since at least the time of Greeks: which modern American city has the funniest homeless population? It was said best in the count of monte cristo; "you sire can rob me of my life, but thine canst taketh not mine good humour."

Any observant citizen of Denver, CO can probably tell you that Denver has, without a doubt, the wittiest bums (British people insert "smart ass" joke here). Most everyone by now has seen a homeless sign saying something along the lines of "Why lie? Need cold beer". According to Hamilton Withers' 2005 article in A Bum Life, this slogan not only originated in downtown Denver in 1992, but since then has been used nationally by bums from the bus stops of L.A. all the way to the on-ramps of I-287 in New York/Jersey. The creator of the slogan who went by the name, "Dale" was a disabled Vietnam Vet who only wanted his kids back and as little at 25 cents made a difference to him, God bless. Dale passed away a just one year ago but not before he came up with some other catchy homeless slogans such as the sequel: "Why lie, space ship broke down, need parts."

Dale's cardboard originals are framed and on display at the Denver Rescue Mission, where other hungry patrons have been inspired to make their own creative signs with hopes that they will catch on like Dale's "Why lie?" did, as well as hopes that you'll pass them a spare dollar when at a red light.

Studies have shown that Denver is unique in its subculture of clever homeless in comparison with other metropolitan areas. Below is just a random smattering of the jaw-droppingly witty signs you can see around Denver proper.

Mayor John Hickenlooper: Our city's homeless signs are the pride of Denver.

Ken Blackwell: Our city's hilarious homeless are just one of the many perks of living in Denver.

Allen Iverson: I just take it one game at a time. They played real solid, we're happy to get out with a win.

.





copyright 08 z and stee enterprises

Are you color-blind without knowing it?

Stop me if you've heard this one: What if the "red" of what you'd call a "red rose" appears to you as actually what other people would call "green" and vice versa? Suppose that this is what a rose looks to everyone but you:



Would you know? Maybe not. Immediately you want to say "well I'd know the first time I called a cucumber 'red' and then everyone stared at me." But you wouldn't call the cucumber "red"; you'd call it "green" because that's what you've been taught is the name of that color. Similarly, when you scoffed at that silly-looking "green" rose pictured above, and discussed it with one of your "normal-sighted" friends they'd scoff as well: "A green rose? That's kinda weird..."

It's a philosophical puzzle, yes, but if I posted about every philosophical puzzle I found interesting we'd have no readership and I'd spend all my time navel-gazing. What's interesting is that I recently read a suggestion that this isn't just plausible but in fact likely for a small minority of the population. You could have this specific experience right now and not know it (!)

Here's the somewhat technical-sounding argument from Psychologist Stephen Palmer (who inspired this post):

The argument goes like this. Normal trichromats have three different pigments in their three cone types. Some people, called protanopes, are red-green color blind because they have a gene that causes their long-wavelength (L) cones to have the same pigment as their medium-wavelength (M) cones. Other people, called deuteranopes, have a different form of red-green color blindness because they have a different gene that causes their M-cones to have the same pigment as their L-cones... Now suppose that someone had the genes for both forms of red-green color blindness simultaneously... Such people, would therefore not be red-green color blind at all, but simply red-green reversed trichromats.{5} They should exist. Assuming they do, they are proof that this color transformation is either undetectable or very difficult to detect by purely behavioral means, because nobody has ever managed to identify one.

They "should exist" and you could well be one of them! It raises all sorts of other questions/considerations too. Consider two adjectives: "fiery" and "lush." Does it seem like a red field could be "lush" in the same way that a green field could?



If you're like me, your gut response is "no way." But if we were to see red as the color of grass all of our lives and to identify a saturated bright, deep red with soft grass and rainforests and ferns would it be different? Rationally that sounds possible, but I honestly can't really imagine it. To me "green" seems to have an inherent capacity for "lushness" that red does not. "Fiery" makes the problem even more evident though; doesn't red seem to have an inherent "fiery-ness" to it? It does to me; it seems fiery in a way that green could never seem "fiery." But of course "fiery" is so named because it's the color of fire, and one would suppose that if we saw fire in shades of green the adjective would remain unchanged.



Of course the irony is that me or someone reading/puzzling over this matter may well be a reverse-tritanope (someone who sees green and red reversed.) You may well walk to the stove after reading this and stare at what most of us would call a "green stove coil" trying to wrap your head around how any other color could seem quite as fiery as does this green, hotly glowing through the coil that's boiling your water.



Could you eat this watermelon?




Some fine print:
At root it's an old idea; at least as old as John Locke. The problem was posed by Locke as the problem of the "Inverted Color Spectrum"; Locke imagines a world in which some people saw the opposite color on the color spectrum than others (yellow for blue, etc.) and concluded that they'd likely never know. There's good reason to think that this isn't true: color isn't as simple as hue as any amateur photoshop-tinkerer knows. Intensity (white and black) is important as is brightness and comparing yellow brightness levels to blue in those hypothetically afflicted would result in disproportionate reports of "brightness" (yellow looks brighter than blue at the same intensity.) Yeah don't take my word for it, take psychologist Stephen Palmer's as it's his counter-proof.

Also it's nearly impossible to remain consistent with color terms in a discussion like this without falling all over yourself saying "what you see as red, but what we'd see as green but still call red" every time. I really dropped the gloves in the final image with the coils, but hopefully the idea was clear enough at that point that it was coherent.