During a trip to Chicago in the late 1990s, my then teen-aged sister became very amused by a very large sign over a very small ATM in a little iconic slice of a shop, a cigs and lottery type shop, a sort of gas-less gas station. "Gas-less gas station" is an oxymoron, but the sign, which read, "ATM Machine", was not. It's similar to an oxymoron. Like an oxymoron, it's silly, but unlike an oxymoron, it includes redundant information. An oxymoron such as "wireless cable" conveys specific information efficiently, even if it seems to contradict itself at first glance. "ATM" is of course an acronym for, "Automatic [or Automated] Teller Machine". "ATM Machine" thus expands into, "Automatic Teller Machine Machine". I still recall the look on the clerk's face as she snapped the picture...

When Steve Miller recently used the term, "Godless atheist", I couldn't help but reenact both facial expressions. First that of my sister, then that of the somewhat annoyed and confused salesperson. What is the purpose of such a statement? Like the above example, it conveys redundant information. It is an inefficient way to express something. What a strange Christ-believing Christian this Steve Miller is. I hope this author who writes didn't mean to imply some negative negativity towards atheists ;) Who is this mysterious alias with a pen name?

I haven't been what one would call a "UK regular" in recent times, but it seems that Miller popped on the scene at about the same time many others left. Could this be Hurley? If so, can ya write us up some funny articles, Steve-Pat? Your many articles about UK writers seem to attack writers for attacking writers.

Having said that, Fred remains a free-speech nut. Tom is free to attack anyone in whatever manner he pleases, as far as Fred is concerned (and other writers are free to return the favor in kind, as many do and have done, myself included). Many of the "nicer" writers at the site have, when sufficiently angered, also written "heated" pieces. Pat Hurley, Brooks Mick, Tim Stelly and others who usually refrain from this kind of thing are a few examples. Tom seems to get angry more than most, but that's his right. I realize that most UK writers disagree with me on this point, but I'm a skeptic. The only evidence that I've ever seen about why UK was dropped from Google/Yahoo News had to do with the preponderance of Conservative-slanted articles at the site, often screaming like a loony Right-wing propaganda machine. So with all due respect to the many fine writers who disagree with me on this point, I say, with some provisos, "let the insults fly". Besides, many people enjoy reading colorful, heated, articles.

Is the editor lax in terms of what's allowed on the site? Sometimes, we writers perform an editor-like task for each other after the fact. It's reasonable to me that in exchange for what basically amounts to a guarantee of having your article posted, no matter the content, no matter the quality, we should expect some criticism, even the harsh variety. I recently tried my hand at a short fiction story. I've posted this at my so called blog because it was rejected by this site,  [our own Brian Barbeito had some of his work accepted there]. It wasn't good enough, or, it didn't fit into the mold of the site well enough (well, that's what their rejection letter said anyway). The point is, it was excluded - that's life in the big city. Both systems have value, IMO.

One goal of the forum was to allow folks to express their often heated views while helping to keep the number of main-page back and forth debate articles to a minimum. This was the great compromise during the UK transition phase. The problem with the forum is quite simply that we have too many chiefs and not enough Indians. In an attempt to keep the place fair and balanced, a Fox "News" like approach was adopted. The result isn't balance, but false parity, sort of like inviting members of the Flat Earth Society into the "is Pluto a real planet" debate. There are more moderators than regular contributors! There are alliances which form and break, followed by vanishing articles. I once attempted to push for a set of rules, but this idea was shot down by other influential forum folk. "Rules don't work" was one common utterance from a writer who ended up leaving over the ensuing chaos. I simply wanted a stated set of rules for each section, such that a moderator could delete a post and then be required to cite a specific reason for the deletion. I also wanted at least one "nearly anything goes" section.

My humble suggestion now would be to keep the current mods in a mod-pool, but have only two at a time watch each section. Those two should be active members, and they must state their reasons for action/deletion publicly. If articles vanish without a stated reason, BOTH will be placed back into the mod pool, and two new pigs will be selected.

Fred may soon die. Fred is taking part in a medical experiment and there is a very slim risk of injury as a result. Actually, it's a very benign trial and I may write about it after it's over. For four months, I have to take a daily dose of a certain substance in an attempt to help establish if it keeps cold or flu symptoms at bay. I've taken the stuff for one month and currently have a cold. I'm certain that I do not have the placebo, and the reason for knowing this disturbs me a little bit - I may write about this as well.

My 7 year old first grade daughter was recommended for the local magnet school for gifted children by her teacher. I took her to get tested along with 76 other kids bound for the second grade; during the test, the adults where shown a slide-show about the program. Depressingly, I found out that only ten would be accepted. Although she did very well in the test, she isn't a super-genius so the odds are a bit stacked against her.

The Conservative vs. Liberal debate seems to remain a hot topic at UK, so, here's Fred's take on the underlying philosophy of Conservatism, mainly social-conservatism. I once wrote an article with a similar theme.  Conservatives, quite simply, champion what is, and what was. They value tradition for the sake of tradition. Liberals, ideally, value experimentation and what might be, or, what might be better, and value traditions if they make sense or add value and improvement to society. This experimentation, testing and evaluation are roughly akin to the scientific process.

Conservatives during the early 20th century supported keeping the rights, or lack thereof, of women the same. Today they champion keeping the rights of gays, or lack thereof, the same. During the civil rights movement, conservatives championed keeping the rights of blacks, or the lack thereof, the same. Conservatives in Iran want to keep Iran as it is now, with women covered and Islamic tradition in play in both public and private life. Conservatives in the USSR during the Cold War wanted to project Russian power throughout the world and balked at nice gestures towards the USA.

Note that Conservative/Liberal does not always match Republican/Democrat; the party's have flipped on various issues over the years so please, no emails reminding me of racist Democrats ;)

There is no evidence that Conservative types are nicer, more decent or "better" people. Very generally speaking, Conservatives may indeed be more law abiding, but are the current set of laws the pinnacle of human achievement? Do we have them all correct? During prohibition, conservatives wanted, of course, to keep prohibition going despite negative side effects such as the strengthening of organized crime. England had a period further back where they tried to ban gin - naturally, this backfired. Today, conservatives want to keep harmless drugs such as pot illegal, despite the demonstrable negative side effects, such as the increase in gang violence and prison populations. Study after study after study has shown that pot is not a so called "gateway drug". Tobacco, however, is indeed a gateway drug. The answer to any reasonable skeptic should be, in the context of legislation, to criminalize tobacco and decriminalize pot. I don't care one little bit if this goes against accepted norms, traditions, groups with powerful political connections, and so called, "common sense" - this is the essence of what liberalism means to me. Common sense itself needs to change as new evidence comes down the pipe. I'd much rather share the road with a pothead than an alcoholic, folks; where is the consistency? If we want to ban substances, why does tradition play the most significant role?

Using some common silly stereotypes, I'd honestly rather have a society of pot smoking, scantily clad [where is the evidence that more skin equals anything measurably bad? Is there any at all?!], tattooed, pierced folk with shaved heads that give honest consideration to issues as they change in real time based on new information, than well-dressed, cigarette smoking, neat, prim, speed-limit-obeying types who protect broken laws and scoff at current research. Going just on measurable, quantifiable facts, the most liberal countries in the world, overall, do the best. Be it low crime rates (despite stronger Miranda-like rights in some cases which arguably makes police work more difficult, despite more lax drug laws, despite shorter prison sentences), much lower incidence of teen pregnancy (despite their easier access to smut, better and earlier sex-education and fewer taboos related to sex and nudity), higher prevalence of secondary education, better infrastructure (despite, on average, a lower per capita income), longer and healthier lives with lower infant mortality rates (despite socialized medicine), and all the rest of it. World-wide, the US is also considered a liberal country, all things considered - likely part of the reason we remain in the top 20 (albeit near the bottom) on many of these positive indicator lists. When someone points out a nation where Conservative religious values mixed with free market radicalism yield measurable, better, positive, results, I'll reconsider my view of liberalism. Conservanirvanastan is a magical Utopian conservative nation-state on the continent of Atlantis, folks. It doesn't exist, nor has it ever existed as described.

 In general, liberals aren't indecent immoral folk. If anything, in general, they are merely non-traditional when a non-traditional view is warranted. Luckily, liberalism is a tendency that crops up in free cultures. Had we left it to Conservatives, Ken Hughes would be wearing a curly white wig over his white-powdered face, tights and buckle shoes and attacking others for wearing sweaters.

Fred is a liberal, but Fred doesn't smoke pot or do any illegal drugs. Fred has never been in prison or even jail. Fred has no tattoos nor plans to get tattoos in the future, nor does Fred have any piercings. Fred doesn't physically stand out in the crowd in any way, as a matter of fact. Fred isn't gay, though Fred does remember one homo-erotic dream

[which means I've likely had more that I don't remember] in college - no actual physical encounters though [for what it's worth, Fred subscribes to the "we're all bisexuals" theory and would likely place in the high 90s on the hetero side]. Fred is shacked up, however  - Fred isn't married. Fred, like most of humanity, including married folk, including the Puritans, had, and will continue to have, sex before marriage.  Fred is honest, in other words. A very large part of modern American social conservatism is based on pandering to religious groups with a healthy dose of real ignorance, willful ignorance and outright self-delusion, but that's for another article; this book, along with this one, spell some of these political connections out in more detail.

Fred, alas, finds it easier to criticize than praise articles, often nodding in agreement after reading an article but forgetting to send the author a comment or post a positive entry in the rebuttal forum. Fred's telepathic messages of approval often don't seem to find their intended target.

Fred's going to be a Conservative and not change despite knowing better:  Jack writes many articles that Fred enjoys reading and agrees with wholeheartedly. But recently, Jack included secularism in a list of religions. This is wrong, Jack. There is no religion of secularism. It's a mistake to label everything and anything a religion. Some philosophies have similarities with some aspects of traditional religions. Confucianism and humanism, for example, share SOME similarities,  though neither are really religions; one could, however, depending heavily on context, overlook having them included on such a list. Strict-constructionism, secularism, socialism, libertarianism or free-trade advocacy, along with other similar governmental or government-related philosophies, do not religions make, however. Was this a bone to Conservatives in an attempt to appear moderate, or was this an error? Either way, Fred didn't like this small flaw in an otherwise wonderful article.

Finally, Fred knows that Global Warming has arrived in a political sense when the libertarians stoop to attacking Gore's house. I've heard spokespeople for these guys, and I can tell, they can do better. They can't actually attack the science itself in this case, so they stoop to using what essentially boils down to a Straw man argument. Gore doesn't advocate that we all live in thatched roofed mud huts. Neither does Thomas Friedman, who writes about the positive economic potential of a "green" economy. There are already viable alternatives for generating electricity, namely wind power. If wind power got the same government help that the nuclear and oil industry get, we could have most of our juice from wind within 20 years assuming a moderate pace, faster if we really wanted to spend a heck of a lot (but far, far less than the cost of this war). Anything we need as far as plastics and rubber we can already make from veggies, give or take, the remaining issues are scale-related. We've certainly become the "can't do it! Nope! Too tough!" country when it comes to the inevitable. What happened to the country that

first invented micro-computers just so we could get to the moon??  What happened is that big-oil harpooned fat Elephants.  Oil imports from other nations have no tariffs, yet ethanol imports from Brazil have a 100% tariff. How ironic to have socialist-like government interference, supported by Republicans, to protect our leader's chosen industry, and, we get to help fund terrorism at the same time - woo-hoo!

 The bigger someone's house is, the more energy it will use. However, I'd bet that, per cubic foot,  Gore's house uses far less energy than this old house I'm living in. As a matter of fact, I bet many of these newfangled mansions use less energy if we adjust for scale. Further, the Gore house uses solar panels which offsets some of the power from their local grid and they pay for carbon offsets. That is, the Gore family buys the right to emit a certain amount of carbon; the money may go to programs to introduce compact florescent lights [I have quite a few of these] in third world countries that can't afford them, or for various other programs meant to offset the total carbon footprint/environmental damage.  I wonder why that libertarian think-tank forgot to mention that?

Finally, the impact that Gore alone has had on the American sense of this issue more than pays for his "damage" to the environment, me thinks. If his various travels cause entire nations to adjust their laws, the net result will make the fuel used for his trips seem irrelevant.

Call me when you have a real issue, anti-Global Warming loons ;)

	Web useless-knowledge.com