Oh look! I'm alive!

I would like to stress that rumors of my untimely demise are greatly exaggerated.

In fact I would like to clarify that while I did end up being blasted out of the pressurized door of Neo-Nazi secret spy plane in atmosphere, I was able to use both the door in question as an air board to scoot over to a pair of large birds negotiated for their assistance with the promise of fish.

Dealing with the shark infested waters I landed in was an entirely different matter however.

But nonetheless with that rather exciting weekend, I am once again safely ensconced within the office, typing away at the laptop and otherwise maintaining my civilian identity when I'm not out saving the world.

I shall endeavor to write more frequently on this blog as I feel a burning shame towards not being able to keep this one updated as much as I ought to.

Yep, still Bad, still Mal

Which Firefly character are you?

You are Captain Malcolm Reynolds, aka. Mal or Captain Tightpants. You saw most of your men die in a war you lost and now you seek solitude with a small crew that you are fiercely devoted to. You have no problems being naked. Take this quiz! Quizilla | Join | Make A Quiz | More Quizzes | Grab Code

Changeling: the Lost

A Game of Beautiful Madness

The protagonists of this modern fairy tale are the changelings, or as they often call themselves, the Lost. Stolen away from their human lives as children or adults, they spent what seemed like years or even centuries in Faerie, chattel to beautiful but inhuman lords and ladies. Fed on faerie food and drink, they gradually became more fae themselves, their bodies shifting slightly to reflect their roles. Some, however, managed to escape. Holding on to their memories of home, they found their way through the winding thorns of the Hedge, the barrier between the mortal world and time-twisted Faerie.

Their return, however, was all too bittersweet. Some came back twenty years after they'd first vanished, even though it had never seemed that long to them in Faerie. Others who had reached adulthood in Arcadia found that they returned only a few hours after their abduction. And almost all found, horribly enough, that they weren't missed. The Fae had been thorough. Left in the stead of each abducted changeling was a replica, a simulacrum, a thing that looked like him or her — but wasn't. Now, with inhuman strangers living their lives and nowhere to go, the Lost must find their own way in the world that was stolen from them.

Changeling deals with the struggles and dreams of people who are no longer what they were, their mortal flesh interwoven with fae magic. An illusion called the Mask obscures their remade physical bodies, allowing them to pass for humans — a word that doesn't apply to them any more. The contrast between the reality of the mortal world and the unreality of Faerie colors their stories, in ways that often express as beauty, madness or both.

The beauty referred to almost goes without saying. Faerie is beautiful. It isn't kindly, or nurturing, or benevolent, but it is wondrously beautiful. The same is true for its children, both those that were born of its unreal matter and those mortals that were abducted and nursed on its magic. Even a hideous Ogre may have some strangely sketched artistry to its asymmetrical features, and even a Darkling of disturbing mien may have an elegantly hypnotic grace or cold, frank sexuality. But as the Lost move among the mortal world, trying to recover their old lives or draw enough Glamour to sustain themselves, they become aware of the beautiful things that mortals often take for granted. To a changeling, there is beauty in the grief hanging over the funeral of a good man, or in the awkward way a young girl twists her hands at a school dance. They see things nobody else does — not simply because they can, but because they try.

The madness inherent to a changeling's existence is also twofold. Part is external. Changelings too often cross paths with things of Faerie and the Hedge — strange, creeping things that should not be, that defy human rationality. The Others themselves can only be described as "mad," for surely they subscribe to no mortal definition of sanity. But an equally great threat comes from within. The threshold between dream and reality, between Faerie and mortality, is easily crossed… and a changeling doesn't always know which side of the threshold she stands on.

-----

Damn, I want this game :D

My Complaint about Jay Steven Anyong

Although the space allotted here can't possibly suffice to elaborate
in detail on the long list of Mr. Jay U. Anyong's Stalinism-oriented
inclinations -- including the haughty, the wretched, the viperine, and
especially the unpleasant -- I'll use what little space I have to free
Jay's mind from the constricting trammels of priggism and the
counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality. To
start, Jay's goombahs have been staggering around like punch-drunk
fighters hit too many times -- stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying
desperately to rationalize Jay's stubborn, perverted personal attacks.
It is not a pretty sight. Jay is bad enough when he's alone, but he is
even worse when he's joined by obstinate scofflaws. I once told him
that he cannot be reformed. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to
curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this
letter, which serves only to show that Jay claims that those of us who
oppose him would rather run than fight. Well, I beg to differ. Is his
head really buried too deep in the sand to know that I don't see why he
wants to open the gates of Hell? My best guess, for what it may be
worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that
his acolytes have decided, behind closed doors and in closed sessions,
to create a regime of slovenly, craven prætorianism. The second, more
telling, observation is that for Jay's gloomy plans to succeed, he
needs to "dumb down" our society. An uninformed populace is easier to
control and manipulate than an educated populace. In a matter of days,
schoolchildren will stop being required to learn the meanings of words
like "tetraiodophenolphthalein" and "formaldehydesulphoxylic". They
will be incapable of comprehending that Jay's cringers are merely
ciphers. Jay is the one who decides whether or not to redefine success
and obscure failure. Jay is the one who gives out the orders to censor
by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype. And Jay is the one
trying to conceal how his adages are complete and total offal. And I
can say that with a clear conscience because if he thinks that we can
change the truth if we don't like it the way it is, then he's sadly
mistaken.

Does Jay do research before he reports things, or does he just guess
and hope he's right? The reason I ask is that we need to look beyond
the most immediate and visible problems with Jay. We need to look at
what is behind these problems and understand that purists may object to
my failure to present specific examples of Jay's pudibund hijinks.
Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The
explanation demands an understanding of how Jay proclaims at every
opportunity that he'd never let paltry, mendacious weirdos serve as our
overlords. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Don't think
we're not at war just because you're not stepping over dead bodies in
the streets. We're at war with Jay's mentally deficient plaints. We're
at war with his lecherous words. And we're at war with his
uncompanionable, unsavory intimations. As in any war, we ought to be
aware of the fact that Jay's hangers-on have learned their scripts well
and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation.

There is no place in this country where we are safe from Jay's
operatives, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack.
Jay is typical of self-serving fugitives in his wild invocations to the
irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his views.
Perhaps you haven't noticed that he files one grievance after another.
Perhaps you haven't noticed that it would be good for the press to
start paying attention to things like this. And perhaps you haven't
noticed that antipluralism is the principal ingredient in the
ideological flypaper he uses to attract daft slumlords into his peuplade.
In response to all three of those possibilities, I need to inform you
that if Jay gets his way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of
militarism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that
everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, "The Naked Aggression of
Jay U. Anyong". In it, I chronicle all of Jay's metanarratives, from
the cold-blooded to the prissy, and conclude that Jay's planning to
exploit issues such as the global economic crisis and the increase in
world terrorism in order to instigate planet-wide chaos. Planet-wide
chaos is his gateway to global tyranny, which will in turn enable him
to exploit other cultures for self-entertainment. On balance, Jay
should be responsible for his own actions. Still, Jay had promised us
liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, he gave us frotteurism,
nihilism, and conformism. I suppose we should have seen that coming,
especially since Jay intends to create a new social class. Pushy
schizophrenics, gruesome, brain-damaged mob bosses, and temperamental
scum will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced
into serving as their backers.

While others have also published information about otiose
paranoiacs, that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or
woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. Notice the
humorless tendency of Jay's principles. Jay shouldn't parlay personal
and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial
empire. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and,
too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium
before the response. Both of those actions make a big deal out of
nothing.

Jay is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not
have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally contemptible
tirades. Now, lest you jump to the conclusion that the worst kinds of
myopic liars and cheats there are are more deserving of honor than our
nation's war heroes, I assure you that while we do nothing, those who
wipe out delicate ecosystems are gloating and smirking. And they will
keep on gloating and smirking until we rise to the challenge of
thwarting his peevish plans. With all due respect, I would like to
comment on Jay's attempt to associate solipsism with nepotism. There is
no association. It has been brought to my attention that
"honorificabilitudinity" is sometimes narrowly defined by antihumanist
dipsomaniacs. While this is certainly true, given the public appetite
for more accountability, Jay can't, for the life of him, understand why
anyone would prefer so much as one minute of solitude to the company of
a sophomoric gang of prurient, mingy dirtbags . What's my problem,
then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: What accounts
for Jay's prodigious criminality and dissipation? That's the big
question. If you knew the answer to that then you'd also know why I've
repeatedly pointed out to Jay that no one need be surprised if our
culture's personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil
assumes the living shape of Jay U. Anyong. That apparently didn't
register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess some reputed -- as opposed
to reputable -- members of Jay's club quite adamantly maintain that
black is white and night is day. I find it rather astonishing that anyone
could aver such a thing, but then again, Jay blames others for his
unrestrained deeds. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more
important issue here: Jay's antisocial actions. I may not believe that
we should avoid personal responsibility, but I definitely do believe
that every so often, you'll see him lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa
for seeking to destroy the heart and fabric of our nation, and vow
never again to be so directionless. Sadly, he always reverts to his old
behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that there are many
roads leading to the defeat of his plans to feed us ever-larger doses
of his lies and crackpot assumptions. I feel that all of these roads
must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to help
young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned
decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse,
democratic society in an interdependent world.

There is no question that morbid oligarchism is Jay's preferred
quick-fix solution to complex cultural problems. This is the flaw in
Jay's flimflams. He doesn't understand that he frequently avers his
support of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look at
what he is doing -- as opposed to what he is saying -- to understand
his true aims.

Jay wants us to believe that repressive marauders have dramatically
lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many
other illnesses than the rest of us. How stupid does he think we are?
The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory
stances that he and his intimates take is that one can see the
blood-lust in his eyes. Yes, he may have some superficial charm, but
Jay's allegations cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're
dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us
that Jay is a martyr for freedom and a victim of particularism.

One can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a
glorious ideology. Jay, however, is more likely to put a muzzy-headed,
reckless spin on important issues. It may be soothing and pleasant for
him to think that the most ungrateful dolts you'll ever see are
inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive, but if he
doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere.

Even though supposedly distancing himself from ignominious
autocrats, Jay has really not changed his spots at all. If he were as
bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that his beliefs (as I would
certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) are based on a
technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". Jay's screeds
have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consist
of intolerant deeds derived from a world view rooted in sexist
exclusionism. My personal safety depends upon your starting to do what
comes naturally, just as your personal safety depends upon my doing the
same. Why? That's easy. What really upsets me is that Jay wants to use
lethal violence as a source of humor. There's nothing controversial
about that view. It's a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact long
before anyone realized that we must learn to celebrate our diversity,
not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because he
has, at times, called me "tasteless" or "fastidious". Such contemptuous
name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but
harmless. It has the capacity to encourage individuals to disregard
other people, to become fully self-absorbed.

I feel no more personal hatred for Jay than I might feel for a herd
of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate
those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. The
best way to push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us
is to perform noble deeds. This is not rhetoric. This is reality. Mr.
Jay U. Anyong's concept of team play is sideline sulking. There, my
ranting is finished.

For more Rants, check out: Scott Pakin's Complaint Generator

Well, this is a surprise...

US Urgest Scientists to Block Out the Sun

As taken from HERE

THE US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.

It
says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or
reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important
insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a
strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the first
part of which is due out on Friday).

The US has also attempted to
steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide
climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. It has
demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of
voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol,
which the US opposes.

The final report, written by experts from
across the world, will underpin international negotiations to devise an
emissions treaty to succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in
2012. World governments were given a draft of the report last year and
invited to comment.

The US response says the idea of interfering
with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the
prominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says:
"Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of
emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of
applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken
out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered."

Scientists
have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per cent of
sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by
all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible
techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of
tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into the
high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption.
The IPCC draft said such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and with
potential unknown side-effects".

The US submission complains the
draft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it wants to include the work of
economists who have reported "the degree to which the Kyoto framework
is found wanting".

It also complains that overall "the report
tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change".
It also wants more emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world.

But
Professor Stephen Schneider, a climate consultant to the US government
for more than 30 years and a key figure in the panel process for more
than a decade, says the world is "playing Russian roulette" with its
future by responding too slowly to climate change.

The panel's
draft report shows projections for average global temperature rise from
1990 to 2100 will expand slightly, with a new range of one to 6.3
degrees. The 2001 report's range was 1.4 to 5.8 degrees.

Professor
Schneider said he was concerned the increase was more likely to be
three degrees or higher, with a 10 per cent chance of a six-degree rise
by the end of the century.

"Hell, we buy fire insurance based on
a 1 per cent chance," he said. "If we're going to be risk averse … we
cannot dismiss the possibility of potentially catastrophic outliers and
that includes Greenland and West Antarctica [ice sheets breaking up],
massive species extinctions, intensified hurricanes and all those
things. "There's at least a 10 per cent chance of that. And that to me
for a society is too high a risk … My value judgement when you're
talking about planetary life support systems is that 10 per cent, my
God, that's Russian roulette with a Luger."

-----

Seriously, WTF

I bet my Math teachers were happy that I don't answer this way