Archives » 2003 » March

Native Who Now?

One thing I like about having a Swiss professor: she doesn’t care if I write a paper about smallpox and refer to the descendants of the original inhabitants of this country as “American Indians.” She won’t even suggest an alternative moniker. Although I do not argue that American Indians are indeed “native Americans,” I must also point out that I am a native American, although I do not have an ounce of Indian blood in me. Native: Being one’s own because of the place or circumstances of one’s birth. So as soon as the first non-red man was born in America, “native American” no longer was a term that could be used to refer exclusively to American Indians. The only people in American who are not “native Americans” are visitors, or immigrants. So really, the moment that some white guy in some “sue people who call you a name that formerly was the only acceptable way of referring to you without being sued” organization came up with the term “native American” to refer to American Indians… it was too late. “Native American Indian” is also correct, but it is redundant. There are no American Indians who are not native to America. So: “American Indian,” Indian (when it’s obvious you are not referring to people from India), and “the people whose ancestors were the original inhabitants of this country” are all acceptable. “Native American” is imprecise, and “Injun” is derogatory slang. “Red man,” or “Redskin,” are considered by some to be derogatory. It is possible that in the past the terms were meant as a put-down, but today, they are about as offensive as “white man,” or “white man.” However, caveat dictor.

Posted by Mark | March 26th, 2003 @ 5:39 AM | "Rants"
Permalink | Add a comment

It’s Little!

It never ceases to amaze me that despite the continuing miniaturization of electronics worldwide, there are certain things that refuse to change, and to my chagrin, remain large, and bulky. Take credit cards, for instance. Credit cards are HUGE, at 0.189468125 cubic inches. How long have we been encumbered by these horrific burdens? Introducing: the very very slightly smaller credit card. at 0.086614 cubic inches, it is a full 54 percent smaller than before. Can you imagine? A credit card that takes up half the space! And it has a HOLE so you can put it on your key ring! You certainly couldn’t do that before, what with the lack of hole punches in our country.

Okay… so I’m making fun of it. But I’m very attached to it. I… just want to stroke it lovingly, and call it… precious. My precious.

Posted by Mark | March 25th, 2003 @ 6:44 AM | "Personal"
Permalink | Add a comment

Ethan’s Story

So, back in Feb, I told you how my Managerial Accounting professor is the Crazy Wicked Witch of the Whatever Direction. This just proves it. So my class, on the first few days of class, broke up into groups of three. People who were not there for the first few days of class were assigned to other people. This one kid came up to Ethan (guy who does non-UF affiliated reviews) and told him that he missed the first few days of class and needed to know who his other two members were. Apparently they don’t go to class, and they didn’t give their e-mail addresses to the group co-ordinator (in charge of keeping e-mail addresses for 12 groups of 3 people), so he has NO way of communicating with them. So he asked her who was in his group, or if she knew a way of contacting them. She patted him on the back and said “You’re a manager now. Manage! You’ll figure it out.”

You have no idea how characteristic this is of her. Her big thing is that “<we> are managers now,” and so she creates this whole dumb class structure so that if we have problems, we can rely on other people in the class. And she makes the material gappy and hard so that we have to rely on this structure. This is the equivalent of teaching a class on non-verbal communication, teaching half the necessary material, and miming at you when you ask questions. Ugh.

Posted by Mark | March 24th, 2003 @ 11:14 AM | "Humor"
Permalink | Add a comment

Muslim-American

Today at around 4:30am Iraq time, an American soldier threw grenades into a U.S. officer’s tent. 16 people were injured, but none killed. The soldier was a Muslim. This begs the question: How can you throw three grenades into a tent full of people and not kill ANY of them?! Maybe if Allah isn’t on your side.

Edit: So as it turns out, one of the injured soldiers died later of his wounds.

Posted by Mark | March 22nd, 2003 @ 9:15 AM | "News"
Permalink | Add a comment

Icons

Is anyone else amused by the fact that icons or symbols on computers often depict the outdated real-world counterpart of the electronic program or task? An e-mail program doesn’t use envelopes, or a metal mailbox with a red flag, but you’d never know it by looking at the icons for popular e-mail programs. Word processing programs don’t use pens or pencils, but many of their icons would have you think so. The Windows desktop is a place for files and shortcuts, not for papers that you write on with a pencil, and hold in plastic cornerfolds like the Windows desktop icon shows. Sun Microsystems produces a (crappy) product called Java. The icon is a steaming cup of coffee. Now not all icons are this backwards. An icon for a wireless link will show radio waves emulating from a laptop, not ET causing juvenile telepathic inebriation. An instant message program will feature a little person, representing the people you are talking to, and will not usually show Paul Revere making his midnight ride, shouting to some friend of a 14 year old illiterate: “The french R stupid lol.” But I think it should be one or the other. I say you either change “envelope” icons into @ symbols. Or better yet, change it the other way: change the front of anti-virus programs’ boxes to a picture of a computer puking all over a hospital floor as a nurse inserts a thermometer into its printer port. Let’s change the icon for TweakUI (a MS program for changing Windows settings) into a picture of a University of Idaho student with erect nipples. Let’s create viruses that wipe your hard drive, complete with an icon featuring a hard drive staining a roll of toilet paper a fantastic shade of raw umber. Just whatever you do, take that stupid MS Office paperclip and force him to do slave labor. I hate that guy. And he’s way too happy.

Posted by Mark | March 22nd, 2003 @ 5:02 AM | "Humor"
Permalink | Add a comment

Only on MTV

I heard this on MTV:

Black MTV “VJ”: “How do you feel about the war in Iraq?”
Black girl: “I think it isn’t important to black people.”

“VJ”: “And why is that?”

Girl: “Because most congressmen are old and white, and black people don’t care about things like oil”

That just made me laugh

Now check out the quote below:

Gideon Yago: “The military that is invading Iraq is the most diverse in U.S. history. Nearly double the number of Latinos since the first Gulf War, and African-Americans (12% of the general population) making up 22% of the armed forces.”

Someone should tell him what diversity means. Contrary to common belief, diversity does not mean increasing numbers of minority “members.” It means that the group in question is heterogeneous in regards to the point in question (diversity has nothing to do with race specifically… this is another common misconception. Diversity can refer to any type of heterogeneity such as age, gender, or religion). But if you ARE talking about racial diversity, changing the ratios has no effect on diversity. Assuming that each race is represented by at least one person (as is the case in the army), there is still the same amount of differentiable races being represented. Increasing the amount of one race (and decreasing another inevitably) does NOT change the racial diversity. I think what Gideon was referring to was proportionality in comparison to the proportionality in the general public. But this is also a silly point to make. Increasing the proportionality of black soldiers past their proportionality in the general public means nothing. And if you are going to note this change, why look at the increase? Why not look at the requisite decrease in the proportion of the other races? Proportions only matter in the following scenario:

1. Applicants are racially proportional to the general public
2. Each race has the same percentage of qualified candidates

In this case, any significant disproportionality would likely signal racism. If the applicants are racially proportional to the general public (for example: 12% black, 88% other) and the same percentage of applicants from each race are qualified (let’s say 50% are qualified) then the unbiased result is that 6% of the applicants are black and accepted, and 44% of the applicants are other and accepted. The resulting proportionality exactly matches that of the general public.

But this situation never happens. Only in a draft would number 1 be satisfied, but we don’t have a draft, and people join the armed forces for various reasons, which means that the proportionality is already off. And even in a situation where the applicants are proportional racially, it is highly unlikely that each race will have the same percentage of qualified applicants. People of certain races are more skilled in some areas for both genetic and social reasons.

So, why are there more blacks proportionally in the armed forces? Blacks are, on average, poorer than whites. The free college money given for service in the armed forces is very tempting. And secondly, blacks are, on average, quicker, and more muscular than whites, so they are more physically qualified to be soldiers. This is, of course, a simplification, but if gives you an idea of why this is happening.

Posted by Mark | March 21st, 2003 @ 3:38 AM | "Commentary"
Permalink | Add a comment

So It Begins…

Well, it has begun. No matter what side you’re on (pro-military action, anti-military action, or war-is-peace-if-you-don’t-start-it), I think we can all collectively hope and pray that it doesn’t last any longer than it needs to.

Posted by Mark | March 20th, 2003 @ 12:21 PM | "News"
Permalink | Add a comment

France is Disturbed and No One Cares

Fox News: France is “deeply disturbed” about the attacks against Iraq.

Sean: France is “deeply disturbed” by our strikes. LoL Big f***ing whoop.
Sean: They’re like, “NOOOO! OUR OIL!”
Sean: What’re they gonna do? Be assholes to Americans and all foreigners? Oh wait…

Posted by Mark | March 20th, 2003 @ 2:46 AM | "Humor"
Permalink | Add a comment

I’m a Slacker

Yeah, I fell behind. And then Spring Break started and I was too busy being lazy to log on to the internet over my parents’ stone age 56k modem. My apologies. I am now resuming my blog! So. Saddam has 48 hours to leave the country. Is anyone taking bets on this? Someone should be. I think he sees the temptation of leaving… there are many countries that would have him. But I also think he’s too proud to give in. So my money is on him staying.

Posted by Mark | March 18th, 2003 @ 12:56 PM | "Site Announcements"
Permalink | Add a comment

France’s Military History

Got this in the mail (thanks Sean).

I present it unedited… so just for the record, I don’t think Joan of Arc was schizophrenic.

The Complete Military History of France

• Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.
• Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare: “France’s armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman.”
• Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.
• Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.
• Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.
• War of Devolution - Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.
• The Dutch War - Tied
• War of the Augsburg League/King William’s War/French and Indian War Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.
• War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.
• American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as “de Gaulle Syndrome”, and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: “France only wins when America does most of the fighting.”
• French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.
• The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.
• The Franco-Prussian War - Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France’s ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.
• World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it’s like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn’t call her “Fraulein.” Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.
• World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.
• War in Indochina - Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu.
• Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: “We can always beat the French.” This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
• War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fails after he takes refuge in a McDonald’s.
• Add in their current incursion in the Ivory Coast where they are getting their butts kicked. The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be “Can we count on the French?”, but rather “How long until France collapses?”

Posted by Mark | March 18th, 2003 @ 1:27 AM | "Humor"
Permalink | Add a comment