Checksum Arcanius

Well, the comment spammers finally got to me. They found a way to sneak past WordPress’s built in spam filters, so a nifty little SQL was required to dispatch of the spam comments quickly. However, over the past three days, hundreds of spam comments waiting in moderation queues got to me, and so I decided to take action.

The result of phase I of overt anti-spam actions here at Arcanius is now complete. The goal here is to keep it highly streamlined for commenters yet baffle spammers, for a little while at least.

Wish me luck.

A friend just sent me this link. The lack of real options is somewhat infuriating (its only Kerry vs Bush; it only lists the media-driven “issues”), but it seems to do a pretty good job nonetheless.

I scored Bush 75%, Kerry 31%.

I want to make one of these that doesn’t artificially limit choices, and lets users answer questions with more than a one-axis of differentiation. I’m neither “in favor” or “opposed” to appointing judges that would make abortion illegal, because thats not the real issue for me. I’m in favor of judges that would limit the federal government’s role on that issue, and all other issues as well. This is completely unaccounted for in this test. But hey, give it a shot anyway.

Ironically, the second time I checked my results, both candidates score 0%…

Does that mean I’m like Badnarik 95%, Cobb 5%?

Hrm.

I want to find someone who would otherwise (reluctantly) vote for Kerry to vote for Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President, so that I can vote for Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President as well, instead of Bush, who I would otherwise (reluctantly) vote for.

Why, you probably ask, would I ever vote for Bush? I happened to explain it quite succinctly to a friend a few monents ago. I would vote for him “because his dometstic policy goals are closer (although not much) to my own than the other major candidate (and 3 of the other 4 top candidates), and his Iraq plan needs a chance to work before we sell it short, imho.”

Besides, 9 out of 9 terroists agree – Kerry in 2004.

Ahem, sorry about that. It wasn’t supposed to slip in.

For a while, I have thought that a newspaper, news channel, or another news outlet called something like “The Obfuscated Times” would be a good thing for showing people how much bias can change the outlook on simple facts.

For example, read this commentary on the state of affairs in Iraq. Compare that to what you are used to hearing. And the only difference is a little bias in one direction or another.

The Obfuscated times would put these differing viewpoints on news items side by side, so that you could read them and have a fuller picture of what was actually going on.

A funny comment at Colorless Green Ideas, and some good discussion, led to this, another comment-turned post. Also check out the new post and my comment!)

In response to the above (this comment), you don’t seem to realize that socialism neccesarily requires totalitarianism. It is no coincidence that the Soviets were brutal and totalitarian.

Most people don’t give up what they’ve worked for voluntarily, unless what they are getting in return is worth it to them in their view. Thats why free market capitalism works so well, and why all attempts at widespread socialism fails so miserably.

I’m all for socialism that people enter into consentually. But every proposal of the Greens, for example, require that I support something that I do not believe in, against my will. But thats ok because its for my own good, because, of course, they know better than I what’s good for me.

When you say nobody you knows believes in brutality, what you really mean is that nobody you know understands that socialism requires totalitariansim. And I’m not sure if that is scarier than those that understand this yet still want socialism.

Over at Colorless Green Ideas, Bob transcribed Green party presidential candidate David Cobb’s plan for Iraq. It is interesting and sounds quite convincing upon first reading – although admittedly it would be hard to swallow “reparations” for a war I ultimately supprotted, however conflicted and confused I am on that. But after thinking about it for a while, I think Bob choose the wrong title (“Ending the Destruction In Iraq”). A more fitting title would probably be “Ensuring the Destruction In Iraq”.

Cobb says his plan will work, but coming from someone who thinks high minimum wages somehow don’t lead also to high unemployement; that univeral healthcare increases its quality; that corporations do only evil and government social programs do only good, you may not want to take such a statement at face value.

I try look at most things from an incentives point of view. When you implement a policy, pass a law, or otherwise change the political landscape, you change the incentives people have to make their choices. What would you do if you were power hungry and the most powerful nation on the planet offered whoever the were the “civil leaders” billions of dollars of reparations and control over an oil-rich country with “legitimate” internationally recognized authority? Well, you would do anything in your power to get it, thats what you would do. This would almost certainly lead to complete civil war.

In the event of civil war, the Kurdish element might draw in Turkey, which, thanks to Bob, I understand systematically represses its Kurdish population and is very afraid of an Kurdish nation arising out of the Iraq situation. So Turkey, a Nato “ally” moves in, and then the whole region is royally screwed.

Or his plan works. Just like socialized medicine. And “living wage.”

I guess feel free to take your chances. After all, its not your life you’re gambling with. Or is it?

Scott and Bob both gave me this link to a PI article about the return of members of the Stryker Brigade, stationed at Fort Lewis. The news is both wonderful and surprising – wonderful that he is back safely, and surprising that he apparently has a girlfriend that I’ve never heard about. I’m looking forward to seeing him, and Theo, if you are reading this, consider this an invitation to dinner with guest.