Rejected addition to the Blowfish Ordering FAQ.
Dear adulterers of either sex,
Blowfish is nothing if non-judgmental. Therefore, the fact that you are cheating on your spouse is of no concern to us. Conversely, we are not specifically set up to make cheating easy and convenient.
Thus, we would like to offer you some tips on making your adultery experience much more enjoyable in the long-term:
We hope you have found these instructions informative. Once you are divorced, we have a wide selection of toys suitable for masturbation, for both sexes. Let us know your new address, so we can keep sending you our catalog.
Second candidate! This one hails from a unnamed country which, for purposes of this entry, we'll refer to as "France."
First step: The customer orders products from us, which we ship, which arrive. However, said customer is just horrified that he must pay both VAT and customs duties on an import, thus being, in all likelihood, the absolute last person in France to realize this. His reaction? He wishes to return the products, even though this means that he will have to pay:
Well, OK, fine, who are we to stand in the way of principle? He returns the products, we issue the credit (satisfaction returns are for store credit only), and he places another order. We ship this one on September 2nd.
Now, today is what? September 13th. Let us count US working days between then and now: Six. So, what do we receive today? An angry missive from him demanding a full refund because his order hasn't been received. For crying out loud, orders shipped on the 2nd are just arriving in the East Coast of the US today. He also threatens us (don't they all?) with unspecified horrible, awful bad publicity. What-the-fuck-ever.
Relax, Monsieur. Your order will arrive soon. Sang froid and all that.
First candidate . . .
We have an option by which the customer does not receive item details in their confirmation emails. This particular customer wrote in asking that item details be turned off, which we did. The acknowledgment we sent back had our slogan, "Good Products for Great Sex" in the .sig line (just like all of our confirmation emails do). In reply, we receive this charming missive (James is the CS manager who sent the first email):
James you idiot: I sent y'all an email asking to exclude item details, for really obvious reasons such as privacy and discreteness. So you felt it necessary to send me an email that includes "Good Products for Great Sex." Surely if you just put your mind to it, you can come up with something even more obvious and entertaining for the two people with whom I share this computer at work. Would you like for me to give you their telephone numbers, so you can call them directly and tell them all about it? And it ain't like an entity named "Blowfish" isn't unusual or strange, in and of itself. So by all means, send me as many unnecessary emails as possible, until someone here gets curious enough to google "Blowfish."
And here is how I felt like replying . . .
Dear Moron,
Let me get this straight: You use a work email that you share with two other people to order sex products from us, and then you complain that we're not doing enough to keep your conversation private? When free email addresses are available by the wheelbarrow-load? And, then, you complain that someone might search for "Blowfish"? What, precisely, should we do? Get a fucking Hotmail account just to send you, personally, email? Maybe we could come up with our own personal little code to tell you about your order. Or maybe Pig Latin. Ouryay ugehay analway ildoday orfay ammingray upway ouryay atherray izablesay assholeway ashay ippedshay, oronmay.
Get a grip, please. And please remember that, among human beings, opening a conversation with "You idiot" is considered the sign of an idiot, you idiot.
Love and kisses,
Christophe,
President,
The Blowfish Corporation
So, instead, I called him, told him that I didn't appreciate my staff being addressed that way, and that I was canceling his order and we would not do business with him. He sounded flabbergasted. I felt much better.
One of the key criticisms tossed over at Intelligent Design is that it is not "falsifiable." Needless to say, this results in a considerable amount of hairsplitting over exactly what "falsifiable" means and why it is important. This usually gets tangled up in a big hairball over experimental sciences vs field-work sciences, etc., etc.
But it's really not that complicated.
The core questions that one must ask about any theory, of any kind, that is proposing to offer a view of the world are:
For example, general relativity has proven exceptionally resistant to being tossed out the door by those criteria. It predicted gravitational lensing; gravitational lensing was dutifully found. Experiments were constructed that would falsify general relativity; those experiments did not come back with data that indicated that general relativity was false.
The problem with Intelligent Design is that the answers to those questions are, respectively, "Anything we find proves it" and "there is nothing that could possibly be found that would prove that it is not true, because it is." Thus, claiming that it is science (or, indeed, investigation at all) is absurd. If my theory is that the world is made up of some wonderful substance called Splorg, and every single fact that has or ever will exist demonstrates that the world is, indeed, made up of Splorg because that's the way I say it is . . . well, as a professor of mine once said, "Now that you know that, what do you know?"
As Simon Blackburn points out in his wonderful book Truth, one of the ways we know something is "true" is that it gives us purchase over the world. We know the germ theory of disease is true, in part, because assuming the truth of it has given us near-miraculous weapons against disease. We know that electrons are "true" because assuming that such things as electrons has given us astonishing ability to control electricity. And we know evolution is "true" because it has allowed us to explain things that were simply inexplicable before.
It's impossible to decouple religion from Intelligent Design not because we're all trying to paint people who believe it in as some kind of religious weirdos, but because the argument is, in essence, a faith-based argument: It's true because I believe it to be true, and nothing will ever shake me of this belief, because I know it in my heart to be true.
That's a statement of faith, not science. Anyone who says that a theory must be true and nothing could possibly show otherwise isn't doing science.
Ah, screw it. I'm just going to link to all of the posts on Legal Fiction, like this one on what the Bush administration has done to political discourse in the country. It will save me tons of time.
Over at this post, I found this commentary about Intelligent Design:
Suppose Fred and Barney find a funny-shaped rock and Fred says that the rock is natural while Barney says that it is man-made. Fred can't just end the argument by saying, "I'm sorry, the theory that the rock is man-made is not falsifiable so that is not a scientific theory."Is that right? If Fred does say that, is that science?
And by the way, do I have to be a raging fundamentalist Xtian to even pose the question?
While I'm sure that the illustration was well-intended, it doesn't really capture the argument in favor of Intelligent Design.
Allow me.
Fred and Barney, two associate professors of geology, are walking along the Giant's Causeway, looking at the amazing polygonal basalt pillars. Barney points out that so many exactly regular pillars must have an intelligent designer, because that kind of regularity is traditionally associated with man-made objects. Fred replies that while it is true that regular polygons are often made by humans, they can also be formed by processes that are entirely unintelligent, and in fact the mechanism by which these pillars formed into regular polygons is well understood. Fred goes on to point out that just because something "looks like it should be designed" doesn't mean that it must be.
Barney points to a particular column that has seven sides, instead of the usual six, and demands to know, then, why this particular pillar has seven sides instead of six, if a well-understood natural process created them. Fred says that he doesn't know why this particular pillar has seven sides, but the process by which the sides vary is not the least bit unusual.
Barney cries out in triumph! "Well, there's a huge gap in your theory, my friend! You can't explain why this pillar has seven sides, so your entire theory about crystalizing lava is full of holes, and isn't the least bit scientific! It's just dogma!" Fred, a very patient man, points out that even if this was an example of a gap in understanding, which it really isn't, a gap in knowledge is not the same thing as clear contradictory data, and that it would be absurd to throw out all of vulcanology because of a gap in data.
Further, Fred explains, even if a truly contradictory data point is discovered, it is rarely the case that such data requires an entire scentific theory to be discarded in its entirety, as Barney is proposing.
"Well, there's at least a controversy, and I demand that you teach the controversy!" Barney says. Fred points out that the only reason the "controversy" exists because Barney has created it, and that's not the same as an honest dispute between opposing theories. If every single possible supposition, no matter how, ah, non-standard was taught in school, science class wouldn't get beyond whether or not to do your exams in pen or pencil.
"You're just being blind and dogmatic!" Barney cries out, and races off to publish papers about how the pillars were clearly designed by intelligence because they look like they should be. Barney is denied tenure and the papers aren't published, because they don't add anything to the science of geology. Barney claims that this is a clear example of the dogmatic anti-Christianity of the scentific establishment, even though he's the one who brought up the whole Christian thing and he claims that his theory isn't the least bit Christian, anyway.
Barney does, however, go on Fox, where the interviewer pats him on the head and tells him how horrible it was that he was denied tenure because of anti-Christian bias, even though later in the same program the interviewer complains about "moonbat" professors that can't be gotten rid of because of the stupid system of "tenure."
The Missouri Board of Education passes a regulation requiring that both views of how the Giant's Causeway was created be taught in school. The Board claims this has absolutely nothing to do with religion, even though they have never expressed any interest whatsoever in any other scientific "controversy," real or imagined, and they kept trying to get the "God Created the Giant's Causeway" hypothesis taught before the Supreme Court slapped them down.
Fred, tired of spending his time explaining to reporters why there is no real controversy among scentists instead of actually doing research, moves to France. "Good riddance!" cry the Intelligent Designers. The USGS closes down its earthquake prediction programs due to lack of qualified geologists, and Missouri is devastated by an 9.0 earthquake on the New Madrid fault.
Scientsts everywhere, reading about this earthquake, wonder if there might be something to this intelligent design stuff, after all.
So, we're all a-twitter over here in California because Arnie vetoed a bill which would have created same-sex marriage in California. (And thanks to Miss Atilla for linking to a post that got me riled up enough to write about it. Isn't the blogosphere great?)
First, sadly, Arnie kind of has a point here (and I'm no fan of Arnie). The bill as written flatly contradicts a voter initiative (Proposition 22) defining marriage as only between a man and a woman (of course, it doesn't define those terms, so TGs may have an interesting court case to bring). The argument that the initiative only applied to out-of-state marriages is, in the precise legal term, silly.
Second, yes, of course this was done (in part) to put Arnie between a rock and a hard place: veto it, and look like a bigot, or sign it, and enrage the Neanderthals in the California Republican Party (motto: "Death before election victory!"). That's realpolitik. Boo-hoo, Arnie, that's what being a politician in this state is all about. Cope.
Third, there are no good arguments against allowing same-sex couples to marry. None. We've been over this before.
Fourth, we're well into the blaming-the-victim stage of this particular part of the civil rights evolution. "If those darn activists would just shut up and accept the second-class rights we've given them, none of this would have happened." I must admit that I do not find that particular patronization a compelling argument.
Lastly, what is so great about these voter initiatives prohibiting gay marriage is that they allow the (quite bigoted, let's not mince words) anti-gay-marriage types to sidestep the issue. Rather than actually talk about why gay marriage isn't a good idea, and actually display their bigotry live on stage, they get to defer to the vast wisdom of the electorate.
"My opinion on gay marriage doesn't matter! It's the voters! They've spoken, and we all must completely obey their view in all things! No matter what! In the entire history of the United States, the voters have never once ever done anything with which I disagree. Please, let's not talk about it anymore."
Proposition 22 was a bad law, and I don't care if every straight person in California voted for it. It's still a bad law. Gay activists have every right to try to find a way around it. Whether Leno was clever or craven in introducing the bill from a realpolitik perspective, he was utterly and completely right to do so from a moral perspective, and hats off to him for doing so.
Bush to lead inquiry into Katrina.
No doubt we can look forward to a speedy resolution. In other news . . .
Oh, right. So, Blowfish now has a once-every-two-weeks podcast. We've done two of them so far, and they've been a blast.
One of the things I love more than anything else is learning about new technology. One of the things I love least about learning about new technology is learning the ways in which new technology is broken. For example:
For whatever reason, the iTunes Music Store hasn't listed us. Bastards. You can listen anyway, though.
Back in the day when I had an honest job, I worked for a dot com consultancy in London.
Our largest project, by far, was for one of the largest retail chain in the UK. We were, of course, fighting the clock to get this huge new site launched for them. It was getting close to Christmas, and the infrastructure melted down. I don't remember the details (I wasn't actually on the project at the time), but the infrastructure team was working around the clock trying to get it going again.
And where was the team leader, the architect responsible for the infrastructure? Oh, up north, hanging out, smoozing with the client. He didn't want to come down. The trains weren't very safe, you know. It was the holidays. Anyway, the team could handle it.
Now, let us talk about what "leadership" is. The claim was made that the architect really couldn't do much to fix the problem, and that was perhaps true (which, of course, is an interesting observation all in itself). But this person also had pretenses of being a leader of men, a manager, and that is a different job that requires different behavior than just poking at boxes with blinking lights.
In particular, leadership requires leading, and leading requires a presence. It didn't matter if he could have personally participated in fixing the problem. Show up. Make tea. Demonstrate to the team that you care for them, that they are not alone, that they will pull through this and you have faith in them. That's what a leader does.
Now, let's talk about what a leader doesn't do.
We move on to the Secretary of State of the United States, Condi Rice. What has she being doing during the greatest disaster in this country since 9/11?
Now, the Bush Administration excuse machine is in high gear, and I'm sure we'll be treated to a litany of them. "The Secretary of State doesn't handle domestic matters." "Everything was under control." "She had important business at the UN."
Which might all be true, and which is all completely, utterly unimportant and irrelevant.
No, New Orleans did not require Condi Rice to show up to fly a helicopter. There are people to do that. What a situation like this does require is a leader to show up, and show that she cares. That she'll do everything in her power to help. That she's out calling embassies, getting allies to make promises.
That she cares. That the team is not alone. The team, in this case, being the population of a major American city that has just been devastated.
That's what leaders do. It doesn't matter if she was the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Education or the Secretary of the Office of No Relevance to a Crisis whatsoever. The Secretary of State, the most senior position of the cabinet, is part of the leadership of this country, and when there is a crisis, leaders lead.
They don't shop.
Just for a moment, the mask slipped.
This administration has tried very hard to construct an image of being compassionate and competent. It is neither, of course, but the construction of an image has been masterful.
Then, Katrina hit New Orleans, and just for a moment, the mask slipped. We were treated to the image of the President flying the opposite direction, for no apparent reason. We had the Secretary of State shopping for shoes. We had the Vice President being completely invisible. We had pundits saying that the only reason people stayed behind was to loot. We had it pointed out that the head of FEMA was a partisan hack who got fired from his last job of managing horse shows.
Of course, the fax machines started grinding into speed and suddenly, the pundits were changing their tone and Bush was visiting. But just for a brief moment, the fact that this administration is both profoundly incompetent and utterly detached from any possible kind of compassion for the real lives of real people in this country was clear for all to see. It was put into stark relief that the fundamental function of this administration is to deliver wealth to those who are wealthy, and that it does not really have the time for anything else.
The mask was slapped back into place fast enough, but with luck, everyone will remember seeing the skull under it.