« December 2002 | Main | February 2003 »

January 2003 Archives

January 10, 2003

New House

We're all moved in to the new house. Hooray! Ellie keeps getting lost (she'll wander around looking for the stairs that lead to her bedroom). She's also terribly excited by the loft that overlooks the front entrance -- for some reason this feature is a 2-year olds dream come true. Still plenty of work to be done with unpacking and I still need to get some additional pictures up.. Stand by for those.. In the mean time, I've got a picture of the outside of the house here. If you're interested in the technical details, it's a 4 bed, 4 bath house w/ about 3800 sq ft (100% finished) on .80 acres. Come visit!

January 15, 2003

Worlds Most Unartistic Person

... Actually, that's a bit harsh -- I'm not that bad. But I'm definitely in the bottom 2 billion. Maybe the bottom 3 billion a good day. Just to be fair and keep my ego from getting too banged up, let's just say I'm better than my mom and leave it at that. So I'm surfing the 'net reading other people's blogs (most are even more boring than this one -- if you can imagine) realizing that a tiny handful of these these people are surprisingly funny -- and the ones that are funny have some REALLY good design that's gone into the logo and site in general.. Some even have cooler merchandise than me!! For example, one person is offering a t-shirt that says "I play violent video games. I could snap at any minute" (For those of you with no sense of humor, this is pretty funny). I'm pro-funny. If anybody ever ran for president on the platform of "pro-funny" they would probably get my vote. Maybe I should run? I would definitely vote for me.

January 17, 2003

New Blog Title?

I think I'm going to title this blog "The Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about". Although it seems kind of long. The more I read other blogs the more I realize I need some clever catchline to make people think there's porn here or nobody's going to read it. Thoughts?



Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not even sure about the universe. --Albert Einstein

January 23, 2003

Kevin Mitnick

It's sad how uneducated our government and legal system can be when it comes to technology. Their fear of the subject causes them to overreact in ways my high-school computer science teacher (guilty of the same thing) could ever dream of.

I'm excited and happy that the probationary state for Kevin Mitnick is over and he can finally use the internet again. How can our country expect to make progress when the most brilliant minds are locked away in prison and, once they get out, are forbidden from using their talents? Fortunately, a federal court has since ruled that it's too severe of a punishment to prevent someone from using the internet anymore (claiming that being without it is as bad as being without a phone). Still, there are those in the federal court systems that are now terrified that Mitnick is back. Get a life -- the guy did very little wrong in the first place. The federal government attempted to make an example of him and ended up making him a martyr. They should have chosen someone truly guilty of what they were being prosecuted for.

Welcome back to the real world Kevin.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I found his girlfriends blog somewhat intriguing, and it contains lots of excellent links of this topic.

January 25, 2003

Google knows everything

How many seconds until I can find a story about a grown man who peed his pants on an airplane? Ready... GO!

15 seconds... plenty of stories about kids peeing their pants on airplanes.. not quite..

35 seconds.. Found doctors talking about the problem of urniation on airplanes..

62 seconds.. DING!! Found a story on a medical website about a guy who was constantly wetting himself on flights.

Stay tuned for next week's episode when we ask google whether I should go to bed or stay up for an extra hour eating snacks. A little pre-emptive research says this will probably lean towards "snacks".

January 27, 2003

Uncle Jerry and long distance

"I remember how my Great Uncle Jerry would sit on the porch and whittle all day long. Once he whittled me a toy boat out of a larger toy boat I had. It was almost as good as the first one, except now it had bumpy whittle marks all over it. And no paint, because he had whittled off the paint." -- Jack Handey
In other news... So I get the call from the long distance company (you know the call)
Good afternoon sir, could I interest you in some long distance savings?
umm.. no thanks. I'm rich as hell.
*pause* How much do you pay for your long distance?
5.9 cents a minute
*another long pause* Is that a promotion?
No.
Uh.. thanksforyourtime*click*

January 29, 2003

Grow up, America

What gives us the right, as Americans, to tell another sovereign nation they can't have something (in this case, a nuclear weapon) based on the sole argument that "they might use it!". Please understand that I hate nukes as much as the next guy, but only one country in the entire history of the world has ever used a nuclear weapon. Those of you who went to elementary school should know the answer to this... That's right, it's the United States. Remember when we dropped two of them on Japan? Hey, Iraq, we know we have hundreds of these warheads.. Russia has some, Pakistan's got them, India has them, and China is loaded with them -- but we've all talked about it, and you guys can't be in the club. Oh, and don't give us that face when we tell you that we want full access to every facility and document in your country. That only proves you're guilty of..... having weapons like ours.

If another country went to the UN and said "We need to form an inspections team to go into the United States because we have substantial evidence that they're planning on building a device capable of killing 10x as many people as their current nuclear arsenal is capable" they would get laughed out of the room. We, as a sovereign nation, would never allow anyone to enter our borders for the sole purpose of investigating our top secret defense programs, REGARDLESS of how much merit there was to their claim. In fact, the very attempt to do so would likely be considered an act of war -- but gosh darnit, don't give us any crap if we want to do it to you! What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine!

Scenario: Let's say you live in a quiet neighborhood and you have lots of nice things (you've got the big screen TV, the leather couches, and a porsche in the driveway. You've worked hard for these things.) but you found out your neighbor MIGHT have a can of gasoline in his basement and he MIGHT want to use that gasoline to come over to your house when you're not looking and light your porsche on fire. Your first reaction, of course, should be to call the police and demand they break into his home, look for anything your neighbor might own that could damage your stuff (forks, knives, hammers, and especially the gasoline you've heard so many rumors about) and not only demand they take it away, but put your neighbor in jail for owning such things. Granted, you have the same things -- but you're civilized.

Obviously, this would go against all of the democratic ideals and constitutional rights we hold dear. What makes it right for you to justify your actions based solely on rumors -- even worse, how can your actions be justified on "historical characteristics" about your neighbor? Oh, you've heard he's into things like that. You've heard he's evil. You've heard he cheated on the MCAT. Then there was the incident several years ago when you and your neighbor got into a fight over something and you punched him in the face. You're sure he's out to get you now because you REALLY made him mad. Should those things make it right for you to break into his home and strip him of his right to own anything that could be used to harm you? Not only would that be cowardly, but hopefully you enjoy your OWN freedoms more than that. Hopefully you recognize that your rights are equally as important as his and that unless he actually attacks you, he's done nothing wrong.

Are we to begin prosecuting people for what we think they MIGHT do if they maybe had the tools to do it? "Throw Jim in the slammer.. if he had a stick, he'd probably start beating people with it. Oh.. break into his home.. make sure he doesn't have any sticks. Yes, yes.. I know, we don't know for sure he's got any sticks -- and heaven knows he's never used one on anybody (we did though, remember that? Boy, I'm sure glad we still have our stick!) but just the same, he just LOOKS like the kind of guy who might have one, or worse, use one! Don't you hate those kind of people? Oh, and if he tries to stop you from breaking into his house, kill him."

Grow up, America. Iraq has done nothing wrong. Even if the UN inspectors FIND NUCLEAR WEAPONS, Iraq has done nothing wrong. We have no case against them until they USE THEM. People will die if they do and it will be very sad. It might even be Americans that die if they do. That's just the way it is. We look like hypocritical fools when we don't stand by the very ideals that define our own rights. Are we the only people in the world entitled to these basic protections of our freedoms?

Many are using the argument that Saddam is an evil dictator who is guilty of multiple human rights violations and, that for the security of the world, a man like that should never be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction. To that I would first like to point out that MOST of the allegations that Saddam has killed and tortured his own people are unsubstantiated (and probably false). However, there are proven cases where this has happened. Let's keep in mind, however, that if we, as a world, are going to make a policy of keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of countries guilty of human rights violations and killing their own people, we had better be prepared to wage war on China -- the country with the largest military in the world. So much for using Saddam's history of human rights violations as an excuse for military intervention.

Another interesting development in this scenario is that ever since Bush's popularity rating on the Iraq invasion has plummeted, suddenly he's presenting new evidence that Iraq is involved with Al-Queda. Almost as if he's grasping at straws -- anything to get people to listen to him. If they are linked, why wasn't this brought to our attention before? Your timing is impeccable, Mr. Bush. Take your propaganda elsewhere.

Grow up, America. It's time to mind our own business and start treating other people (read: countries) the way we (read: us) expect to be treated. There are dangerous people in this world -- it's not our job to kill them so much as learn to treat them with the respect they deserve so that they don't harm us. Why is it that 99% of Americans have NO IDEA why most of the Middle Eastern countries hate America so bad? It's time for us to come out from under our rocks and realize that the way we treat people in this world has consequences.

About January 2003

This page contains all entries posted to Brian's Brain in January 2003. They are listed from oldest to newest.

December 2002 is the previous archive.

February 2003 is the next archive.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.34