http://search.deviantart.com/?q=by:OblivionEnigma&section=today deviantART RSS for by:OblivionEnigma en-us Copyright 2009, deviantART.com Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:52:59 PST deviantART.com http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss http://s.deviantart.com/minish/widgets/apple-touch-icon-precomposed.png http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/27724784/ http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/27724784/ Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:52:42 PDT

Really thought he was in India and named Native Americans thus

Brought smallpox to the New World, thereby decimating populations

Okay... Well, I was just thinking about how this seems like two pretty horrid reasons to refuse to celebrate Columbus Day or to make students put Columbus on a mock trial (several schools do this, and invariably find him guilty of crimes ranging from genocide to misrepresenting the Crown. Sentences range from life in prison to execution).
Simple facts.

1. No, he did not "discover" America in the literal sense, since others lived there and in fact other Caucasians had been there centuries before. However, no one knew of this land--at least not in Europe. Albeit accidentally, Columbus brought the New World into the limelight and changed history.
2. While he did not prove his (and other people's) theory that the world is round by sailing all the way to India, his trip did also push forward the debate and appeared to inspire others to try the same.
3. Why is smallpox always held against him? If I accidentally give you a cold because I was carrying it but didn't realize it, am I an evil guy? What about all those people who travel to Mexico, drink water, and become sick? That must mean the Mexicans are evil because their normal flora makes us sick! Just seems ridiculous to blame someone for that, especially considering that smallpox nearly decimated the Caucasian population in America as well, and remained a massive threat until the vaccine allowed us to eradicate it.
4. This is not a response to a complaint, but Columbus's own diary has some interesting parts about how he viewed the native population. He seemed excited to meet them and, while he did discuss possibly converting them to his religion, he did not in any way suggest using force; he felt they would be quite friendly and open-minded. Future explorers were not so kind or understanding (read: conquistadors).

So I guess I am trying to just say that I hate revisionist history. At one point, Columbus was a hero. Now he is an evil man who should not even be mentioned except as the bringer of TEH SMALLPOX OMG! Did he do things that were bad? Oh, I'm sure. Did he screw up some? Of course. Guess what? He was a human, and humans tend to do that kind of thing for some crazy reason. Face it, if it weren't for him, history may have been drastically different, and quite possibly in a bad way. Accept that, and don't go saying he was a totally mean and evil guy.

]]> ~OblivionEnigma http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/27527960/ http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/27527960/ Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:49:07 PDT Swine Flu 1976 This is from 1976, when the first H1N1 scare occurred.

For reference, the swine flu vaccine killed many more people than the actual swine flu did.

To make matters worse, they are intending to institute vaccination for it in grade schools across the country. This is a vaccine with little to no research as to its efficacy. The kids will be becoming essentially beta testers for something that historically killed more people than that which it was supposed to protect against.

Health care practitioners are supposed to get it; some places have threatened to fire those who don't comply. Interestingly, so many healthcare workers are refusing, that if the hospitals and whatnot actually followed through on their threats, they'd pretty much shut down from lack of nurses and doctors.
Think about it... health care professionals... medically trained people... many are refusing to get it, and yet the government and other institutions are pushing to give it to all school children.

I am, incidentally, very much in favor of vaccinations. I think children should be given the regular battery of vaccinations. I believe people at risk should get the regular flu shot. But I am VERY much against this vaccine. It has little supporting safety research, and its predecessors were deadly.

]]> ~OblivionEnigma http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/26886986/ http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/26886986/ Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:26:43 PDT
]]> ~OblivionEnigma http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/26551364/ http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/26551364/ Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:27:47 PDT
Anyway, I don't watch these things just like I never watch the other awards shows, but on reading a few summaries, I thought I'd comment on one person. Miley.
Miley Cyrus, better known as "Hannah Montana," the daughter of Billy Ray Cyrus (of "Achy Breaky Heart" fame), and one of the biggest celebrities Disney has ever produced of course won awards and also performed.

And oh boy did she perform. She wore a rather revealing outfit given her supposedly moral standpoint. There was an ice cream truck there in her dance routine, and she actually did a somewhat racy pole dance on the truck's pole.
Okay, so... in her acceptance speech, she went on a rant about how she thanked God for her being here. And that's where my major problem lies. First, we're talking an audience of 12-19 year olds, and she's basically pretending to be a stripper. This is WONDERFUL encouragement for children. Then, she has the audacity to somehow act holier-than-thou and essentially pray onstage to a God that would probably be rather ticked off at her at this point, assuming he even cares enough to be watching her strut around at the Teen Choice awards.

This is the same girl who, not long ago, had some rather racy nude pictures taken of her (apparently not showing anything, but considering she's not even 18 yet, and she keeps touting God as her personal go-to guy...yeah).
My philosophy is that, if you believe in God, that's fine. If you're a celebrity and you do, that's great too. Heck, I don't even care when someone proselytizes me (I used to have a Moonie friend, so I know all about that) as long as it's done with respect and they take no for an answer. But...Strutting around like a wannabe slut, getting nude photos done, and then announcing happily that you're soooo religious and it's totally God's doing that you're where you are and you and He are really close buddies... Really?

I hate hypocrites.

(p.s. This is not meant to bash on religion in the slightest... just on those who use it so conveniently and publicly in stark contrast to what they actually are like as people)

]]> ~OblivionEnigma http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/26170724/ http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/26170724/ Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:52:50 PDT Some of you may have read that a Harvard professor who was, incidentally, black, was arrested by officers for what amounts to disorderly conduct. Immediately, President Obama condemned the cops' actions and said that they had "acted stupidly" (his words exactly). Publicity has been extremely harsh and calls have been made to see the cops suspended or even fired. Oh, I'm sure you may have guessed that the cops in question are white and that this has been panned as a case of blatant racism. Ultimately, the charges were dropped.

To give you an idea of how this has been so blown out of proportion to where it is no longer about this professor, it is actually a chore to find the arrested individual's name in the news articles about it. He has been made into an African American "Everyman" and the cops into impersonal Straw Men who look for any excuse to lock up 'uppity Negroes' (a phrase used in one news article). For the record, his name is Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

Before you jump on the bandwagon and say that there was no justification for the arrest, I urge you to take a look at the basic facts. Someone saw an individual breaking into property owned by this professor. The cops responded and discovered Gates doing the breaking in and claiming to own the property. The cops naturally asked for identification, but was instead met with hostility. He got verbally abusive, and it is unclear whether he even complied with the request for identification. Insults included such mature comments as "I'll speak with your mama outside," certainly something he learned in the many rhetoric classes he must have attended during his doctoral education.

The cops state that they arrested Gates after a crowd formed. In other words, they put the handcuffs on when he refused identification and then started to abuse them publicly. Keep in mind also that all the cops knew coming into this scene was that someone was breaking into a building convincingly enough to freak out the neighbors, and yet the professor treated it like a personal affront and railed at them for asking for information that would confirm his story.

I fail to see how this is even an issue of race. Someone acted stupidly, got arrested, and got lucky in that the charges were dropped. It annoys me that the entire nation is saying "OMG poor victimized black person" and not looking at the details that seem to show that the cops were not entirely in the wrong. Could it have been handled differently? Perhaps. I wasn't there, nor was anyone else who is going nuts over this story. But it was hardly entirely unjustifiable. It also annoys me that the President decided to jump in on it and essentially call the cops stupid. This is added to other such brilliant things as comparing his bowling skills to the skill level of special olympic athletes and ordering a photo op of Air Force One flying low over New York in spite of warnings that this would cause a panic (which it did with people calling 911 screaming "oh my god it's 9/11 all over again!!!). But I guess that's fodder enough for an entirely new rant sometime.



...seriously, wth... Flying a large plane low over NYC without giving any sort of warning and somehow expecting people to NOT freak out???

]]> ~OblivionEnigma http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/25961069/ http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/25961069/ Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:14:57 PDT
First of all, I hope that by asking me that, you are in fact asking me if there is a law legalizing the use of clotheslines outside for drying clothes. I really hope you aren't asking me if my article is serious or facetious, since I figured the overly misogynistic approach on top of such lines as "fellow upholders of moral one-upmanship" would be a dead giveaway that I am being silly.

So, to answer the first connotation of "am I serious," YES. There is a law that has just recently been passed that has legalized drying clothes outside on a line. Don't ask me the exact context of this law. I can only assume that at some point, somehow, it was illegal to dry clothes outside. Newspapers reported on this new law and editorials were absolutely astounded by the stupidity of such a law...specifically that there was even a need for it in the first place.

To answer the latter connotation of "am I serious," the answer is... only sort of. Like most satire, it's meant to be amusing yet also make a point. The point I was making was how silly this all is. Maine is pretty much on the brink of bankruptcy. Drug and alcohol abuse is at an all-time high. Taxes are some of the highest in the nation. Per capita income is some of the lowest. People grow up to become lobstermen (lobster fishers) or they move away, it seems.
With all this fertile ground for bills and measures to pass, what do they do? They pass bills and bonds essentially increasing taxes, harming businesses, and borrowing money. And they make hanging clothes up on a clothesline legal.
Considering the rather severe situation we're in, the clothesline law is a complete waste of time and resources. At some point, I would like to read the law and see if maybe some porkbarrel spending was involved too.
Either way, I just tried to exaggerate the importance of this law by throwing in a slippery slope, gloom and doom, and all kinds of fun stuff reminiscent of anti-drug campaigners and the like.

Oh yeah, and also don't assume that my irreverent use of their arguments indicates my feelings on drug laws. Their arguments just sound hilarious out of context and with hyperbole

]]> ~OblivionEnigma http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/25903600/ http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/25903600/ Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:54:56 PDT
It seems that in the latest Augusta (Maine) legislative meeting, they passed a law that legalizes the use of clotheslines for drying clothes outside. Now, proponents of this law have been shouting for its passage ever since the filthy Leftists came into power in Maine in the 1960's with all their free love and rock music and beads and Volkswagon vans painted with flowers all over them. To the untrained eye, this law seems like a good idea. After all, you may say, it's not hurting anyone. To each his own, right? WRONG

Sure, it all SOUNDS innocent enough. Now the poor housewives can get out the kitchen (where they belong) and dry their husband's clothes outside. This will lower electricity costs and save the precious ozark level or whatever that thing in the sky is everyone's so worried about.

Well, stop right there. There is no way a drying machine is going to punch a hole in the ozark. So that theory has been properly thwarted.

Next is the notion of legalized drying actually lowering laundry costs. It makes sense in theory. With drying clothes legalized, the women no longer have to sneak about on the streets, looking for a black market clothes dryer. They can dry their clothes right in their own backyards with proper government regulation. The crimes often associated with the shady figures of dark alleys offering to dry clothes will be nullified. Well, dear readers, it is not that simple.

With clotheslines becoming standard fare for every household, we will be seeing a great increase in women outside of the kitchen (where they belong) and no longer baking delicious apple pies for us men. They will be out in the open doing the laundry like some painted harlot. "Rape" and "violence toward women" will increase (because they brought it upon themselves) because they made themselves publicly viewable. It has been scientifically proven that, should a woman be out in public, she will be raped by a man.

Clothesline use in and of itself comes with great peril. It is a slippery slope I fear this nation has not only begun upon, but have dived into like some great water slide. Clotheslines and clothesline paraphernalia such as clothespins will be readily available to anyone, including children. Many children will enter in upon this dangerous activity and ultimately succumb to a lifetime of clothesline usage. One can only guess how many of these poor children will then shuffle off this mortal coil tragically in a fatal laundering accident. My guess is 30 billion.

Suicidal teens will have ready access to a means to end their life. We will have essentially given them a loaded gun and told them to do whatever they need to do.
Slapstick will no longer be amusing as many unwitting victims will actually discover the trauma of running headfirst into a taut clothesline wielding a fat woman's pink polka-dot bloomers. I should know. This has happened to me several times already since the law was passed.

Easily swayed individuals will become morally bankrupt as they gaze upon their next door neighbor's intimate things fluttering seductively in the breeze. They would imagine all the lascivious things that I would do to her over and over again in every room of her 3 bedroom 2 bath house. Especially the pantry.

If these horrifying scenarios are not enough, one must also keep in mind that the clothesline itself has been dubbed a "gateway laundering device" which will lead to more and more dangerous and damning practices. First it's clotheslines. Then it's public nudity while we wait for clothes to dry. World powers will clash in a war of clothes drying ideology. Then lo and behold, it's a nuclear winter; disease, pestilence, and the Swine Flu are rampant; and babies are sold for meat on the streets. And all because we let the Left hijack our governmental system with their "environmental" and "economical" "concerns" and derail our values with this subversive law.

So please, my fellow Upholder of Moral One-Upmanship, help me sever the cobra's head and slay this Leviathon before it can strike. Sign a petition and repeal this law, before our babies get hocked as meat.

]]> ~OblivionEnigma http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/25256974/ http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/25256974/ Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:07:29 PDT
To explain, a pandemic is essentially an illness that has spread over a large area. Often this means more than one continent, though it seems the designation is actually somewhat arbitrary.
Pandemic is NO indication of how SEVERE an illness is. To put it in perspective, the common cold is a pandemic. Many "regular" flu's never achieve higher than epidemic status, and still manage to kill off more people.

So what should you do? Nothing that you don't already know anyway. Wash your hands regularly. Don't roll around in someone else's snot. If you're sick, take it easy, drink lots of fluids... yadda yadda. Everything your mom told you when you were a kid, and nothing more.

]]> ~OblivionEnigma http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/25208155/ http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/25208155/ Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:22:02 PDT There have been many studies which have strongly suggested that this so-called encyclopedia is less than accurate, and less than unbiased. I'm sure everyone knows that articles are created by users who do not necessarily have any expertise or even any knowledge of a subject. While this open forum has some nice advantages, certainly one can see the disadvantages. Most obvious is the fact that people hostile to a particular topic can sabotage articles. I witnessed this personally when, not too long ago, the article on Jack Thompson (an anti-video game attorney) was subtly edited to include so-called quotes by Jack, calling himself a "faggot" and the like.
Less obvious is the fact that the articles often have a bias because the person who edited/created the article did so because of an interest in the subject matter--an interest which may not be grounded in objectivity. Or maybe they're utterly wrong about something.
A good example of bias would be the article on pederasty, which means an adult male having sex with a boy. According to internal Wikipedia communication, the article was written by a professed pedophile, and the article certainly suggests bias, including citing an obscure lecturer's belief that the Bible commends it because it was supported and actually encouraged by Jesus. Quote: "...Jesus' acceptance of, and even collaboration in a pederastic relationship." Needless to say, most theologians and biblical scholars don't exactly believe that is the case, but.. so much for differing opinions, as this article continues with biases, including claims that the church is behind the times by being against this sort of union. In other words, this quiets all dissenting opinions by essentially saying the church is simply not "with it." It also seems to mock modern belief that this arrangement is harmful. Quote: "Though paederasty was once accepted in many cultures, some modern observers have retrospectively labeled it abusive" Okay, you get the idea... apparently pro-pederasty in spite of the site's claim for being unbiased.

Okay... so.. why am I writing about this? Well, I decided to look up information about "Bing," the newly-hyped search engine by Microsoft. Since they're claiming it's the newest thing, and that it compiles information from "a variety trusted and credible sources" I thought I'd get a more objective opinion.

Under the Bing Health article: "Bing Health (previously Live Search Health) is a health-related search service as part of Microsoft's Bing search engine. It is a search engine specifically for health-related information through a variety of trusted and credible sources..." Trusted and credible? That sounds familiar. Okay, well, what is this article's many carefully obtained and researched sources? "Microsoft Press Release: Microsoft Demonstrates Further Commitment to Healthcare Market With Planned Acquisition of Web Search Company" Yes. That is the ONLY source. A press release from Microsoft used to try to garner support and interest in its new product. Of course that's unbiased.

Under Bing News: "Bing News (previously Live Search News) is a part of Microsoft's Bing search engine. It is a search engine and aggregator specifically for news articles through a variety of trusted and credible internet news sources..." ...variety of trusted and credible? There it is again! Take a while guess what its source is. Microsoft's blog. That's it's only source. In other words, essentially another press release from the company essentially selling this product.

I looked at all the sub-articles, and almost every source was from Microsoft or from a press release by Microsoft. Yes, some were from Washington Post, for example, but they were the article that was simply reporting on the new product release.

Where are the sources telling me what the major complaints are? That tell me how this differs from Google? That tell me what the strengths of this product are? That tell me its usage statistics? You get the idea... I don't want to know that it aggregates a "variety of trusted and credited sources." I got that from the commercials.

I guess what bothers me the most is I have tutored people in college, proof-read some massive term paper they're working on, and find that their primary source is Wikipedia. Wikipedia strike me as, at best, a massive term paper in itself, written by countless individuals about a variety of topics. So, these college students are writing their interpretation based on an interpretation someone else made... and often times, if you look at the sources the Wikipedia article cites, they are using someone else's opinion to boot. Don't get me wrong, I think that Wikipedia is a great tool. I use it all the time... ]]> ~OblivionEnigma http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/25160225/ http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/25160225/ Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:16:46 PDT
I am NOT making any promises as far as my submissions to DA. I would like to start submitting again, but I would rather see myself making a come-back at life first. Then we'll see about DA

]]> ~OblivionEnigma http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/24523434/ http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/24523434/ Fri, 01 May 2009 00:05:59 PDT [link]

And to get it directly from the primary source: [link]

So... are the huge numbers a lie, or a mistake?

Oh, and apparently WHO is considering avoiding using the term "swine flu" because countries are needlessly slaughtering pigs thinking that will somehow stop the spread. It's called swine flu because that was the original source of the virus. It has since transferred to humans, so no case is going to be prevented by slaughtering healthy animals. Or sick animals, for that matter. Stupid people :\

Oh, and to qualify what I said before about SARS being an over-hyped nothing too... apparently the death count for that during its heyday was about 680 at the highest estimates. So if that's the "earth-shattering" disease that this flu is being compared to, we may be in luck. Six hundred-something deaths for a pandemic is hardly bad. More people die yearly from the regular flu.

]]> ~OblivionEnigma http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/24468695/ http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/24468695/ Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:06:37 PDT I am so sick and tired of everyone freaking out about this illness. Before jumping on the fear bandwagon, look at the facts. All of the deaths related to this illness occurred in Mexico. Think about the overcrowded conditions in Mexico City. Think of the poor water supply (why do you think they tell you not to drink the water when you visit Mexico?). Considering one of the major components of flu survival is adequate hydration, one can see why these two facts collide. The crowded conditions have caused this to reach an epidemic status, while the poor water and other such factors has led to the deaths.
Okay... So now look at America and the other countries that have it. Who has died? No one. The CDC is freaking out and warning that people "may die from swine flu." Okay... Maybe. But you know what? Every flu season, people die. The fact that there have been 40 documented cases so far, and countless suspected cases in addition to that, and not one single person has died should say something.
People are all saying "OMG it's the next SARS!" I say.. Exactly! SARS was overhyped and turned out to be nothing, too. Don't you remember how they were essentially saying it could be the end of the world, and meanwhile very few people ever died from it? Same thing. OMG it's a pandemic! People are going to die! The world will collapse into chaos. Guaranteed, it only will do so if people let this stupid fear-mongering rule their lives. Stop freaking out over every flu and deal with it.
Countries are apparently talking about prohibiting import of American (and Mexican) pork products because of this pandemic. They don't seem to understand the concept of this. The flu has already passed from swine to humans. It did so ages ago. Now, every subsequent case is purely human-to-human contact. So, these countries are hurting our economy as well as their own because of a misunderstanding of virus vectors.

Oh, and by the way, I agree that this is a pandemic. Pandemic refers solely to the morbidity of an illness, not its mortality or even severity. By the same definition, a cold can be considered pandemic. People are sick, some may die, but it's not the end of the world. Deal with it, stop freaking out, and stop with the silly fear-mongering.

]]> ~OblivionEnigma http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/23963897/ http://OblivionEnigma.deviantart.com/journal/23963897/ Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:17:08 PDT That brings me to my next point of interest. I got involved with a very wonderful girl. Amusingly enough, I met her on Furcadia over seven years ago. If you don't know what Furcadia is, you are probably better off that way. For some reason neither of us can identify, we fell in love practically overnight a few months ago. As I write this, I'm currently staying with her at her college. Hooray for visits!
And finally... People may notice that I have begun writing again! It's been a ridiculously long time since I've submitted anything. I can't promise lots of submissions as my ability to write seems sporadic these days (must be old age), but I will try to get stuff up once in a while.
Anyway, enjoy The Master. I had fun writing it.

]]> ~OblivionEnigma