Command Prompt Poetry

I got bored today while writing one of two english essays due this week, so I decided to write some poetry. The catch was that it had to be written entirely in command prompt script. So here it is:

Command Prompt Poetry

@echo ON
CLS
::Fire the old writer.

ping -n 6 137.99.125.102 || GOTO nothome
::Knock six times at her door.
IF /i 100 GTR "%PING%" echo hello
CD C:\
IPCONFIG /all > ntwrkstg.txt
DIR C:\DOCUME~1\%USERNAME%\ > filelist.txt
::sift through her medicine cabinet and bills while she isn't looking.
exit
::leave the house.

:nothome
ftp -n 137.99.125.102
user madeline ilikecats
::If she's not there, break in through the window.
mdelete %newboyfriendsname%*.jpg
::smash all the pictures of HIM.
! format C:\
bye
::burn the house down and run.

As you can see, MS DOS lends itself to violent behavior. Oh, and don't try the IP address. It's technically a UConn address, but I don't know if anyone is located at it. It's a random number for sections 3 and 4.

Yeah, the ping request just timed out.

Couldn't have said it better myself

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2019344,00.html

The 101 are dead

So says Eric on the christiefrontdrive.com "boards." It's said news for 101 fans like me, but he claims that his new band sounds more like CFD than any previous effort, which is certainly good news. There were certainly tendencies of that sort on Numbers, and I hope that's indicative that he is still able to do such things well. Demo by summer, supposedly. Here's to hoping all goes well.

Also, on a technical note, my blog was forcibly migrated by the Evil Empire (Google) today, so if there are any technical issues, blame them.

The Euston Manifesto

Self-described "website of a new democratic progressive alliance." The site claims to represent mainly the "socialist Left" but also accepts membership from "egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment." The number of supporting bloggers is near 3000. In other words, it's a load of horseshit, which I became more and more aware of as I read through an increasingly questionable manifesto.

Of particular note is that the phrase "we on the Left" shows up a lot. Not only are they assuming they speak for everyone on "the Left" (an ambiguous term anyway), but they seem to be wearing their politics on their sleeves. And looking at the titles of many of the "supporting blogs," one becomes even more suspicious. What I believe we are looking at is a group of liberals who get kicks out of thinking that they're rebelling against society and changing the world(, man). I ran into a ton of these at the anti-war protest in New York, and it's a very dangerous phenomenon. Because they hold themselves up as "the Socialist left" and declare themselves to be the extreme of political thought. They do not once even acknowledge that there is a huge amount of spectrum to the left of them, rather, the reaching out goes to the right. Maybe anarchists aren't worth talking to?

But on to particulars. It starts out reasonably well, declaring support for human rights, equality, etc. The terms are somewhat ambiguous (Wow! They're "for democracy" and there is "no apology for tyranny!" How original!), but whatever. By part 5 of the Statement of principles, it begins to get worrisome. Here we run into the need for a campaign to "Make Poverty History" (caps theirs). This is never expanded upon or explained later on. They also talk about the need to reform the World Bank, WTO, and IMF so that they're less beholden to the interests of Western nations. They seem to miss the point that since they are run and funded by Western nations, they are controlled by them, and as long as the former continues, the latter will as well.

But yes, Part 6. This is where the fun begins. "Opposing anti-Americanism." Oh, and remember through all this that these people are self-proclaimed "Socialists" with a capital "S." After the obligatory "the US has some problems, yada yada," they go on to say that "The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name." Wow, nothing like nationalist socialists. Isn't that why World War I wasn't stopped in the first place? And after declaring earlier that NO APOLOGIES were to be made for tyranny, they go on to say that it's OK the US did it in the past because we're different now...or we hope so. Maybe.

Part 7 and 8 go together more than one would hope. Part 7 is a very short statement saying, basically, "Israelis and Palestinians be friends plz, k?" Part 8 then goes on to annihilate one side of the argument by comparing arguments against Israel's policies to anti-Semitism. Yes, it doesn't say that, but by putting them in the same sentence, it certainly implies such things. Even with the caveat about "legitimate grievances of the Palestian people."

By Part 10 it starts to get downright freaky. Seeming to disregard all lessons about "humanitarian interventions" in the past (i.e. lots and lots of "liberated" people get killed by the "liberators"), they declare that "if the state itself violates this common life in appalling ways, its claim to sovereignty is forfeited and there is a duty upon the international community of intervention and rescue. Once a threshold of inhumanity has been crossed, there is a 'responsibility to protect'." This is some extremely worrisome shit. I mean, on principle, stopping tyranny is good. But they're declaring that "the international community" (sounds a lot like Bush's "coalition of the willing") has a "responsibility to protect" once a "threshold of inhumanity has been crossed." This is a neo-conservative's wet dream, except here it's being espoused by "Socialists." Not to mention that this "threshold" is very much open to interpretation by those with other agendas it could serve.

In the "Elaborations" section, we see an extremely convoluted defense of the War in Iraq that would make most Republicans cringe. They actually accept the argument that the invasion of Iraq was a liberation, and that any arguments about the validity of the invasion are obstructionist. These words sound very similar to a recent speech by McCain. But they go on, making sure to throw in a defense of "Israel wasn't involved!" and ignoring in full the crimes of the occupiers, instead focusing on the already well-publicized crimes of the insurgents. They end the section by declaring that the left ignores the "real" atrocities, without citing examples. They then go on to criticize Amnesty International for hyperbolic rhetoric, though the points they make are valid regardless. What they fail to see is that when the most powerful country in the world violates human rights, even just a little, it has a far greater impact on humanity than if a crackpot dictator in some far corner runs death squads around killing dissidents. Both are horrid, but declaring the latter worse because you can't face up to the fact the United States is not infallible is not an option.

And through it all, I wondered: Where is the Socialism they so proudly talk about? Solidarity doesn't even get lip service from these folks.

P.S. I might get sued since these busy, busy people haven't found time to put a CC-license on this yet.

Place Nameage

In German class yesterday we got to learn the German names for Italian places. It was this that made me decide to renew my drive to have everyone in the world call everyone else's stuff by what the person who lives there calls it. I know this creates speech issues in some cases, but if people would just learn them instead of the substitute names in the first place, it really wouldn't be an issue.

In most cases (I'll use English for the sake of argument, but I assume the arguments I make can be applied to any language) the English word is not that different from the local name. "Venice" for "Venezia," "Munich" for "München," etc. (it's worth noting that Firefox is telling me that Venezia and München are misspelled). In some cases it is radically different, like with "Finland" for "Suomi." But I think everyone would be the better for it in the end, and it certainly would be easier than learning "Venice," "Venedig," "Venise," and "Venezia."

Consciousness I

Ok, here's a little thought experiment. There'll be more in this "series," but I haven't written them yet so I won't promise any specific topics. Piece starts here.

This is really the true question of existence. Consciousness (I do not believe I am exaggerating) is the most important single thing in the universe. It is more important than religion, politics, society, truth, meaning, and even life; this is because it is what makes all of these. Without consciousness, nothing else matters because there is nothing else. Furthermore, it is not consciousness but our state of consciousness that is so important. It is not the empty consciousness of an insect or the wasted consciousness of the comatose. It is the reasoning, abstract-thinking, and, most importantly, self-aware consciousness. To illustrate what I mean with all this grandiosity, I will sketch a few thought experiments to explain.

1. The Tiger’s consciousness.

To understand what I am saying throughout the rest of this essay, it is important to imagine something. Let us plot on a graph the level of intelligence of organisms, from bacteria on through humans. Though it is not measurable, I would argue that the level of happiness (average, of course) would peak around the higher-level animals (those that are self-aware but do not possess abstract thinking) and decline with humans, creating a bit of an off-center bell curve. The reasoning for this I will explain below.

Let us compare a tiger and a human. Given the choice, I would have to say I would rather be a tiger than a human. The reasoning for this can be summed up in a few short sentences, but requires much more to fully explain.

Basically, the idea is that a human’s combination of abstract thinking and self-awareness will cause great anguish. Self-awareness is a wonderful thing, to be sure; that is why animals with it I consider to be the highest level of happiness achievable. One is able to distinguish oneself from that around them, and is able to therefore experience emotions. Before one begins arguing about instincts, think about a cat sitting on its owner’s lap or an panther lying in the sun; are those instincts? They are pleasurable activities that the animal does solely for enjoyment; no gain can be had by it. I can give examples of human behavior, but everyone can certainly think of some on their own and no one accuses people of acting solely on instincts, so I need not defend anything. Abstract thinking, however, is something that only humans can do. To plan in advance, to imagine, to wish, to fear the future; all those are actions of the abstract. Fine enough on its own, but dangerous when combined with self-consciousness. Because then, it is not “I lay in the sun” or “He will die someday” but rather “I will die someday.” An animal is surrounded by death, but the thought of its own mortality never comes into its mind. An animal does not think it will live forever and it does not think it will die one day; it gives no thought to it’s own future because it does not possess that ability.

Now think of how many times you have worried over something that may happen to you in the future. Worrying does not ever make the situation better; if the event will happen (and with death, it will) it will happen regardless of whether you are aware that it will. Planning out in advance does not truly help one much, because there is much that we do not control in our lives and therefore we are not in control of the outcome. This is a basic tenant of both religious fatalism and secular modernism. And I am not talking about occasional thoughts, for most of everything that causes one to feel fear is an abstract event. It of course differs from person to person, with some being able to cope better with the future and others being veritably debilitated by it.

And now we have the tiger. It has no fear of death because it does not know death in relation to itself. To quote Schopenhauer:

But all this contributes to increase the measure of suffering in human life out of all proportion to its pleasures; and the pains of life are made much worse for man by the fact that death is something very real to him. The brute flies from death instinctively without really knowing what it is, and therefore without ever contemplating it in the way natural to a man, who has this prospect always before his eyes.

One might argue that if one were a tiger, they would be missing out on all the greatness of human existence: music, literature, language, etc. etc. But if one were a tiger, one would not know that it was missing out on something. My cat does not sit around while I listen to an album and think, “Oh, if only I were human I could appreciate these noises!” One cannot miss or mourn what one has never known. And, furthermore, how do we know that tigers do not appreciate things that we as humans do not? The saying “simple pleasures for a simple mind” applies here, I think.

If one were a tiger, one would live a life devoid of fear of the future, a hedonistic life that focuses only on the self in the here and now. When one dies, it is without fear of death and then one is dead and no longer has any fear of anything.

This is quite long. I do apologize. This, in case you couldn’t tell, was a pre-packaged piece saved for when I had nothing else to write. I also apologize for the horrendous formatting issues I think there are going to be. Word does not seem to be very HTML-friendly.