Geeks in the Pre-Geek World

Today geeks have practically become mainstream and nearly everyone is familiar with some of the different varieties - computer geeks, anime geeks, film geeks, video game geeks, etc.

But before the internet, before computers, before D&D and Star Trek did these types still exist? And if so, what uncool things were they into back in the day?

Well Gilligan at Retrospace has a nice retrospective on the origins and early history of geeks and nerds here.

First a bit of terminology:

Nerds are simply intelligent, industrious individuals who lack some social skills. Geeks, according to the modern definition, are those with a high level of interest and enthusiasm for a certain subject, whether it be baseball or horror movies. “Nerd” has become much more pejorative than “geek” because it carries a negative connotation on your place in society; whereas, there is now “geek chic”.

And what were the nerds into back then? Well I'm going to guess that it was mostly ham radio, rockets, and science fiction.

And lest you snicker - just remember that it's thanks to them and their nerdly efforts that kids today can finally watch pr0n from around the world at home on their computing machines x-boxes. The dream - achieved at last.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:57 PM | Comments (668)
Post contains 1295 words, total size 11 kb.

There's a dumb site called Conservative In New Jersey that's claiming Christie is a liberal on a host of issues. I see it cited from time to time.

I want to talk about how stupid it is.

Now, on a couple of issues, I know Christie has taken a position I don't like. I already know about three -- he didn't sign on to the ObamaCare lawsuit (he claims he wanted to spare NJ taxpayers the cost of it and just free-ride the benefits, which is a b.s. answer, but it's b.s. in the right direction), he gave a vague answer on the Ground Zero Mosque, and he's said he didn't like Arizona's border control law.

Fine. But we do we need to make up crap? Here's Christie's answer when asked about global warming, which "Conservative in New Jersey" finds fault with:

Asked by a man attending the event whether he thought mankind was responsible for global warming, Christie says heÂ’s seen evidence on both sides of the argument but thinks it hasnÂ’t been proven one way or another.

Christie says “more science” is needed to convince him.

What? That is a good answer. That is the right answer, really, politically. Well, the real right answer is closer to James Inhofe's -- it ain't real -- but saying you're not convinced?

That's a great solid conservative answer. And, by the way, Sarah Palin said about the same thing, when she was running for public office:

"I will not pretend to have all the answers," Palin said about global warming, according to the Anchorage Daily News. Her spokesman clarified at the time that "she's not totally convinced one way or the other. Science will tell us ... She thinks the jury's still out."

And I loved that answer then. Look, when you're facing down religious zealots who own the media, "I'm just saying, we don't know yet" is a terrific (and solidly conservative) answer.

It's called "reading between the lines." Look into it, Conservative in New Jersey.

Sarah Palin has since then gotten even more right on the issue, but she's also not holding public office any longer, nor, at the moment, running for it, and there is a certain liberating quality in that.

But this guy is even dumber than that. He presents the below video about the RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) that NJ was signed into by former Governor Corzine, a multistate cap & trade scheme. That is, not a national one, just most of the Northeastern hippy-dippy states.

This is what people keep claiming on this site when they claim that Christie "supports cap & trade."

Right, right... you can tell he supports this, by the fact that he... opposes it.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:33 PM | Comments (459)
Post contains 1042 words, total size 7 kb.

This cat does, in fact, seem to be howling "I'm wet." more...

Posted by: Ace at 03:10 PM | Comments (151)
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

But... I guess I'm confused because I thought we already knew this. I mean, yes, 3/5ths for fiscal measures; I don't see a law about collective bargaining being fiscal in nature. I'd be surprised if anyone argued it were.

I thought they were just avoiding doing this because they're either not serious or they're waiting for the unions and Democrats to take a bad step that embarrasses them, giving them temporary cover to do this.

But maybe I was wrong about this being widely accepted.

the Wisconsin Constitution requires a three-fifths quorum only for statutes that are fiscal, that is, statutes that actually appropriate money, impose taxes, create a debt, or release a claim owed to the state. Even then, these categories have consistently been interpreted in the most limited form conceivable.

For example, in State v. Stitt (1983), the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that the issuance of short-term debt was not debt under Article VIII of the constitution and thus was not “fiscal” so as to trigger the three-fifths quorum and roll call requirements.

The Wisconsin attorney general in 1971 gave a formal opinion to the legislature that a bill that changed collective bargaining rights substantially was not fiscal in nature and was not subject to the three-fifths super quorum provision. Because collective bargaining rights and that very statutory chapter (ch. 111) are at the heart of the proposed Senate Bill 11, the most controversial portions of the bill could be passed constitutionally with just a simple majority of elected members present, without a three-fifths quorum.

The whole bill can't be passed without the quorum, because much of it is plainly fiscal. But those parts can be separated out and the non-fiscal parts passed ASAP.

Posted by: Ace at 02:21 PM | Comments (177)
Post contains 304 words, total size 2 kb.

The president is bravely, bravely not defending it in court, because it's unconstitutional and illegal and unfair, but he also wants you to know he "struggles" with the issue of gay marriage.

This happens in government -- the executive refuses to defend a law it doesn't like. Courts, however, will allow other parties to step in to fill this vacuum as intervening parties to defend the law themselves.

Boehner says he'll be doing that.

“DOMA is the law of the land,” Boehner told Van Susteren. “It passed overwhelming in the House and the Senate. And I think it's outrageous for the president to say, 'Well, we're not going to enforce it.' It's the law of the land. It's the job of the Justice Department to defend the work of our government. And I just think it's outrageous. We're looking at our options, what's available to us to intervene. The short – the long and the short of this is that we are going to intervene. The question is how do we do it.”

He says he'll be making a statement tomorrow.

Posted by: Ace at 02:10 PM | Comments (48)
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

In other celebrity news, Bieber's hair clippings sell for more than $40K

"NEW YORK —
Justin Bieber's hair is officially the stuff of legend: His hair clippings have sold for more than $40,000 on eBay.

After the 17-year-old pop sensation chopped off some of his famous locks, he brought the clippings to the "Ellen" show. Host Ellen DeGeneres put them on eBay.

For a good cause and all of that nonsense.

Probably best that Beiber's clippings never interact with Sheen's fragrance since that could possibly rend the fabric of space/time awesomeness.

Posted by: Genghis at 01:15 PM | Comments (79)
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.

Like we needed a vote for that.

Sounds good, but honestly, it sounds to me like this just a paper threat. I am not seeing a lot of desire for actual action here.

Republicans in the state Senate ordered Democrats on Thursday to return to the chamber by 4 p.m. or be found in contempt of the Senate - a move that means Democrats could be taken into custody.

"We simply cannot have democracy be held hostage because the minority wants to prove a point," said Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau).

Senate Democrats have been out of the state since Feb. 17 to prevent passage of GOP Gov. Scott Walker's budget-repair bill, which would eliminate most collective bargaining for public employee unions. At least 20 senators must be present to pass the bill, but Republicans hold just 19 seats.

The Senate adopted the resolution to find Democrats in contempt on a 19-0 vote. It says they are violating a Senate rule that requires senators to receive a leave of absence before being absent for a day.

Fitzgerald said that Republicans were initially "nervous" about taking such a step but that Democrats have created a "constitutional crisis."

I assumed when this began that this would be a win. Now I'm not sure. While the Democrats offer what are almost certainly fake concessions, one Republican is sounding like he's ready, willing, and eager to cave:

Also Thursday, Walker told reporters and editors of the Journal Sentinel that Democratic senators had offered a concession Thursday, and he wanted to hear what that offer was.

"My hope is that we will have some good news for you," Walker said.

Walker also said that he has been working through Fitzgerald to negotiate with the Democrats.

...

Sen. Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center) is so far the only Republican seeking to amend the bill. Schultz, who has served in the state Senate for 20 years, criticized the bill earlier this week with interviewer Scott Thompson on WEKZ-AM (1260) in Monroe.

"All I know is, we're not talking. We're wasting valuable time about collective bargaining, which I don't ever remember being a part of the last election whatsoever. But most of all, you know, to me, this just looks like the classic overreach we see every two years," Schultz said.

The article says that it is suspected that the Fleebaggers are in fact returning to the state, periodically, for errands or just to visit their mistresses and/or gay prostitutes. That means -- if you see something, say something.

It just might turn out that this crisis is resolved by a citizen following one of these jagoffs around while calling the Sergeant at Arms to come pick him up.

Posted by: Ace at 01:15 PM | Comments (50)
Post contains 467 words, total size 3 kb.

Allah's been following this for the last couple of days. In an interview, Huckabee alluded to Obama growing up in Kenya; he apparently mixed up Obama's complicated richly textured tapestry of nuanced diversity lineage and background, and misspoke.

He immediately clarified that he had misspoke.

The media attempted to gin this up into a major story: Huckabee Sounds Racist Dog-Whistles to Crazy Birthers.

There's a big problem with that claim. When someone "dog-whistles," the idea is that they insinuate at belief in a position that, because it's socially unacceptable, they dare not express openly. But the key to a successful dog-whistle is that you have to keep on dog-whistling. By which I mean, you must keep your beliefs ambiguous, so that the people you want to hear the dog whistle hear it, but you maintaing plausible deniability as regards everyone else.

So, a racist candidate will dog-whistle some racist belief, alluding to it rather than stating it. When challenged, he'll say he did not mean anything of the sort, but he will not then go on to endorse the idea that blacks are equal to whites. Because that last part defeats the whole idea of the dog-whistle. You say "that's not what I meant" but you certainly don't affirmatively endorse the exact opposite idea.

If you go on record vigorously affirming the equality of the races -- well, the racists you just tried to dog-whistle heard that, too, didn't they?

Ron Paul is King of the Dog Whistles. He dog-whistled to the Truthers by suggesting 9/11 was a some kind of a staged event like the Gulf of Tonkin incident (which, FYI, was not a staged event either), and when called on this, doesn't refute his own dog-whistle, but merely says he wants "more investigations" or whatever. He "clarifies" by saying he only meant a lesser, more acceptable version of what he implied. He doesn't take it all back.

(Ron Paul, in his newsletters, also used to dog-whistle racist and anti-semitic tropes, too, so he's got a lot of experience at this game.)

My point is if Huckabee was dog-whistling, he seems to be doing it wrong, as he immediately issued statements that he meant no such thing and in fact goes further than I would in saying " I don't believe there is an issue with Barack Obama's birth certificate."

Now, if this were a planned dog-whistle, I'd expect him to have a cutesy non-denial denial at the ready. That's how the dog-whistle is done. But he didn't have a non-denial denial ready. He had nothing ready. He scrambled to knock the story down and did so by issuing an actual denial.

I have a weird take on the Birth Certificate Conspiracy Theory. Few share it. On one hand, I do not believe in it, at all. I disbelieve it for cosmological reasons, for one thing -- that Obama could be evicted from office due to this strikes me as such a Magic Button Happy Ending that I would almost be forced to confess the active hand of an Intelligent Designer in our political disputes, which I strongly doubt -- and for more specific reasons, there is evidence of his Hawaiian birth (notices in newspapers) that seems so fortuitous to seem just too unlikely to be credited.

On the other hand, those who reject such conspiracy theories tend to be convinced that the whole fooferall is political poison and will convince the world that we are nothing but crazy cranks.

I don't believe that last part. I believe this conspiracy theory is wrong (and often dumb) but politically pretty harmless. I base this on an imaginary conversation I have with a hypothetical, low-information, low-partisan-leaning independent voter I imagine in my head:

ME: Hey, how about those Crazy Birthers, huh?

HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT: Oh, I don't know. What about them?

ME: Oh, they have this outlandish theory that Obama was born overseas.

HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT: Where was he born?

ME: Hawaii.

HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT: That is overseas.

ME: No, but I mean in a foreign country.

HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT: Why do they think that?

ME: Oh, it's crazy. They think that because he won't release his long-form birth certificate.

HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT: Oh. Um... why won't he release it?

ME: I don't know. No one knows. In fact, the White House never actually says why he won't release it. In fact, no reporter even ever asks the exact reason for refusing to release it. But it's crazy that the Birthers think this, huh?

HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT: Wait, I'm confused, why doesn't he just release it?

ME: That's not the point. Aren't the Birthers insane?

HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT: Yeah, probably, sure. I assume most people who have passionate political views are insane, usually. That's why I'm not into politics. But let's go back one step -- you have no idea why he refuses to release the birth certificate?

ME: None at all! It's a mystery. But put that out of mind -- aren't these Birthers nuts for asking about it?

HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT: Um, maybe. Have other presidents refused to release their birth certificates?

ME: None, ever, that we know of, at least since such bureaucratic records were kept! But you're missing the point -- aren't the Birthers batshit bugfuck nuts to ask what the big mystery is?

HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT: Um, I'm starting to wonder.

ME: Oh, that's crazy.

HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT: If what you're telling me is right, there is a dispute, and it's within his power to resolve the dispute, but he won't resolve it. Is that right?

ME: Yep. 100% right.

HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT: So why is that crazy?

ME: Because the Birthers rely on a dubious chain of coincidence and collusion to postulate a theory about the reasons for why he's withholding it.

HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT: Okay, right, but still -- why doesn't he release it?

ME: No idea! He just won't!

HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT: What's the big problem?

ME: No one knows! No one even asks!

HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT: I don't see what the problem is in releasing your birth certificate.

ME: Because it's crazy to even think this way.

HYPOTHETICAL INDEPENDENT: Um.... okay. Why doesn't he release it, again?

Sorry to waste your time with all that, but I do think that is why this whole Birth Certificate Conspiracy Theory has not, in fact, harmed conservatives, despite the media attempting to harm conservatives with it at every turn.

It's just that anyone who hears all this is going to ask, as my Hypothetical Independent kept asking, "Okay, I accept this is all crazy... but... why won't he release it?"

There's no answer to that. No one ever says why this is so outrageous a request. No one offers any plausible justification for withholding it.

No one ever asks the President. No one. Ever.

We have a secret, and we don't even have the courtesy of a cover story to explain the secret away.

If you act secretively, it is not crazy to imagine you have secrets.

This is Obama's problem. It is Obama's choice to withhold this document. That's a decision he made -- why? No idea. The White House won't even offer a cover story to explain why such a benign record must be guarded like Area 51.

It is not the problem of Obama's opponents to prop him up and explain away his decision. It is not our duty to make excuses for him, or to postulate reasons why he's withholding a trivial birth record.

It's the guy with the secret who has the problem.

And this is what annoys me in the media coverage of this: They demand that Republicans swear on a stack of Bibles to affirm facts they have no knowledge of while steadfastly refusing to ask the guy actually concealing the records which would end the controversy why, The Hell, he is continuing to conceal them.

I have to stress: There is not even a White House statement on this. Not even a "If we give in to this request, the floodgates will open" blah blah blah. (And even if they said that -- um, really? Floodgates will open? Over a birth certificate?)

This is Obama's choice and Obama's problem. Some have speculated that he keeps it secret precisely in order to make the opposition start inventing explanations about the secret. Well, fine then -- but you can hardly blame people then for doing what Obama intended they would do.

I, personally, am sick to death of hearing media sycophants demand that John Boehner affirm that Obama was born in Hawaii while not asking that Obama do the same.

Boehner doesn't know. Wasn't there. Doesn't have the bleeding records. Obama does, and yet the media refuses to ask the one guy in a position to settle this a damn thing.

We're all just supposed to vouch for facts not within our competency in order to spare President Douchetool the duty to answer questions himself.

Speaking of douchetools, Chris Matthews. Now that Matthews has begun to suspect, I think, that there is something politically unhelpful on the birth certificate (Religion: Muslim has been proposed as a possible solution this mystery), he pounds the desk damning "the lie that won't die."

But that's Matthews now, now that he's realized that under no circumstances will Obama ever release the birth certificate, and thus it's incumbent upon him to play country lawyer and pound the table wailing that such questions are out of bounds.

But just a couple of months ago Matthews, presumably, did expect Obama to release the birth certificate and settle the controversy once and for all. And what was his position then?

Well, when he thought it was likely Obama would release it, he asked, "Why doesn't he just release it?" His panel of super-liberals David Corn and Clarence Page agreed -- he should release it. And they expressed confusion themselves as to why he hadn't.

Was Matthews propagating the lie that won't die then? Or was he asking a rather obvious question -- if this is in dispute, and the release of a simple document would remove all dispute, then why, in the hell, is he continuing to refuse to do so?

This is Obama's problem. Not Boehner's, not Huckabee's. Not even Chris Matthews'. There is one person in the entire world who is legally permitted to release the document in question. And that's not me, not John Boehner, and not Mike Huckabee.

Obama won't release it. He's decided that it's better to have people speculate about the reasons for his refusal to release basic documents about himself than to release those documents and dispel all speculation.

That's his choice. And if his word is that it is worse for him to release it than it is for him to not release it, I take him at his word.

And it's not my goddamn job or anyone else's to continuing spinning in support of his secrecy on the matter.

Posted by: Ace at 11:29 AM | Comments (548)
Post contains 1857 words, total size 11 kb.

District Court Judge Roger Vinson has issued his ruling on the Obama Administration's "motion to clarify" (see previous post) his order striking the entirety of ObamaCare as unconstitutional.

The 20-page order (PDF) says that the judge has had enough pussyfooting around, it's time to shit or git. To that end, (1) he meant it when he said that ObamaCare was unconstitutional, (2) it was unlawful of the Obama Administration to continue implementation despite his order, and (3) as an act of judicial grace, he'll construe this bullshit motion as a request for a stay, but only on the condition that the Administration files an expedited appeal within seven days: more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:52 AM | Comments (176)
Post contains 1599 words, total size 10 kb.

From CDR M in the sidebar.

I saw the headline and imagined she'd be a bit of a beast as exhibitionist women usually are. (That's a link to a picture of Professor Muffy McDildoCooch at Northwestern.)

But she's not. This story is not really interesting or even all that political -- I really don't have an opinion on it, and can't pretend I do -- so I guess I'm just linking it because she's cute and strips down to her skivvies in the video interview on the NY Daily News site.

Oh, I guess there is an angle: See, no one had to pay $60,000 a year to see this. Nor did I have to put on a professor's cap and "instruct" anyone on how to watch a cute girl strip to her underpants.

See? All of that happened without any formal pedagogy behind it.

Weird but true: People are interested enough in sex (and any number of pleasurable activities, like watching, no judgments, Survivor: Redemption Island) that we really do not have to issue academic credits for this.

Posted by: Ace at 10:03 AM | Comments (120)
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.