Pakistani nanny government

So what I assume is a translation or English version of the Pakistani SMS censorship list is going around. You'd like to send a text? You won't be able to get these words through.

No "backdoor man"? Aww, that's like my favorite Howlin' Wolf song ever.

Also; 'Bazongas'. Wow, these guys are more hip than most censors. But "GOT JESUS'? 'HOSTAGE'? I don't understand those. Also they apparently don't want to admit the existence of famous serial killers?

One of the more interesting terms is "YELLOW MAN" or "YELLOMAN" (at the very bottom). I had no idea what this way, but according to Urban Dictionary, it has an Asian-aimed racist connotation. Why would the Pakistani government/military agency responsible for this list censor an anti-Asian racial slur? Important or developing allies?

The is all a lot of vague hand waving and gesturing on my part, but it doesn't seem an excessively detailed list, so the number of people submitting words for censorship probably wasn't that massive. A significant portion of the terms are sexual or defamatory words that aren't racial. I haven't read the whole thing, so please point out if there is additional Politically Incorrect material.

Another Drunken Political Comment on BoingBoing

Thread I'm responding to here. Sometimes you just need to let go.

The gist of the post is that Obama has the same set of policies as Bush jr.

"

It's so cute when BoingBoing commenters (or posters for that matter) think they understand politics at all! It's like they've never sat down and read a single book about the powers of the POTUS, or put a single news article in context in the last forever!

Serious people, grow up. No Obama isn't a gorram panacea. Yes he's light-years better than Bush. Honestly McCain would have been light-years better than Bush, but who's counting. It really boils down to this; people like

heavystarch

can bitch all they want; their critiques are in most ways entirely justified. But the change that they would require before supporting a given president would require a Jesus+ Mohammed^Moses level of miraculous paradigm change, pure and simple. I'll just use one example because it's the most egregrious: the deficit. Due to demographics (people becoming old) and rising medical costs (free market + the best medicine money can buy = $$$$$$$) we are going to be hugely in debt. We wouldn't have had this problem for another decade if SOMEONE HADN"T STARTED TWO UNNECESSARY WARS. No Libya doesn't count; it was under half a percent of either war so stfu. Libya, in fact, is a beautiful example of how you /can/ run foreign intervention well; in the most obvious of circumstances with lots of allies + international support + limited engagement + clear victory path. I didn't support it at first, but hey so far the damn thing is going well, although you wouldn't know it from the tin-foil-wearing libertarian parrots around here.

ANYWAY I'm rambling. The deficit is massive, and there's no possible way to fix it without A) large cuts in entitlements (medicare, ss, etc) which are incredibly political unpopular and therefor cannot be done without broad bipartisan agreement since anyone doing so unilaterally will be crucified by the resulting attack ads B) cut almost ALL discretionary spending which would very literally cause a much worse depression C) Raise taxes which last time I checked the vast majority of the house (read: the psychotic f#*%ing republicans) has vowed on pain of death not to raise or D) some combination of the above developed by massive political compromise that has to happen in CONGRESS and not, has, the PRESIDENCY which last time I checked was the post Obama has, instead of a super-majority in congress which would be necessary to fix this bs.

TL;DR Obama has been a very successful president from any of the following view points; conservative, liberal, pragmatic, sensible, responsible, reasonable, not-wanting-things-to-fucking-explode-ist. Feel free to tell me how I'm wrong and I will show you the same courtesy.

"

Polar Bear Paradise

Obama's meek yet seemingly competent sub-department for Wildlife, Parks and the Interior has designated a large chuck of frozen land as 'critical habitat' for polar bears. Green Peace says it will be totally ineffective, so the Republicans will probably call it a huge Overreaction, and say that more study is needed and global warming is probably a Communist Plot. But they won't care for more than a few news cycles.

On a more specific level, if AP's statistic that 96% of the area is arctic sea ice, is even vaguely similar to the truth, I don't see why this should be more than a couple sentences of national debate. The Guardian article has the bobble-head response from an industry lobbyist. Now republicans can do their thing and worry about jobs, and they can also recognize a "duh" situation like this (most of them) and work with Obama to streamline regulations. Simple but well defined rules can be cost effective, especially if we started to put monetary values on things like "the existence of a major mammalian species".

Now I doubt this will happen. More likely is that more right-wing politicians with connections to industry and libertarian ideologies will snipe at this action like they do at almost every action Obama takes. If anything seems to stick in the public's mind, Rush Limbaugh will say it and it will go down in infamy like every other GPTP (Generic Republican Talking Point). If none of the strafing hits, the measure or executive order will probably go through, with industry groups fighting it to the bitter end.

A Second Birth!

I'm going to try a new strategy, follow Andrew Sullivan's model, and keep my posts mostly short, well thought out and concise. Time will tell if this can be successful. The title, in addition to its original simple meaning, also refers one of my common strategies for learning which is to break up a concept into pieces and learn about them by breaking up those into additional little pieces. I'm not sure if this exactly makes sense, hence the title again.

And it Was Good

This begins my first foray into blogging; a step that has been postponed far too often and for far too long. Trying Sense will be a conduit for the more interesting, thought out, and important opinions and ideas I have about the world, from politics to media to life.

I will strive at all times to be rational, to be considerate of all views, and to try and make sense out of this otherwise crazy world. I will openly admit that many of my view-points have a strong liberal bias: this is just how my political sensibility has evolved. I strongly believe that no side has a monopoly on truth, nor does any perspective have any more value than what it allows the viewer to understand and accomplish.

I ask any readers to at all times to uphold the following guidelines, and I will work to do the same:
1. If you can't be civil be honest and rational.
2. Back up your opinions with some level of proof greater than the easily disprovable.
3. Don't use absolutes or generalize when "the majority of" is more appropriate.
4. Work to learn rather than win at debate Anyone can point out hypocrisy, irrationality and deceit, and while doing so is important, often it is more important to understand what a rational opponent has to say over a dogmatic or partisan opponent.
5. Be cool.

Other rules and considerations will be made as needed.