Sunday, October 18, 2015
Minecraft Perler Bead Grid Templates
My daughter has asked for a Minecraft-themed birthday party, and one of the activities we're planning is creating your own Minecraft character face in Perler beads. Here are some png files I created based on the real texturemaps and then tried to simplify the number of colors.
Monday, November 01, 2010
CA 2010 Democratic/Progressive Proposition Guide
Ok, this isn't necessarily a down-the-line Democratic/Progressive proposition guide, it's how I'm voting on the propositions. I'll do my best, however, to explain why I'm voting the way I am, so hopefully it'll end up being pretty transparent.
Prop 19: Legalize Marijuana. Yes.
I've never smoked marijuana, but seriously, come on. Being illegal isn't stopping anyone from getting it. Tax it, quit locking people up, and let's get on with the damn future.
Prop 20: Citizen Panel for Redistricting. Yes.
Previously, voters ok'd a citizen panel to handle redistricting for state offices. this approves a citizen panel for federal offices. Without a citizen panel, you have legislators gerrymandering the place for their individual and party benefit, at the expense of the people. I don't care what your party affiliation is, you gotta believe that everyone's voice should be heard.
Prop 21: $18 Surcharge for State Parks. No.
When the budget crunch came, folks got upset that the state would have to close parks. Thing is, parks hardly cost anything, and the legislators did it to try to get people's attention, which they did. But taking the parks out of the budget so citizens can bury their heads about the hard choices of budgeting? No thanks.
Prop 22: State Can't Borrow Local Funds. No.
It's hard enough as is to get a budget passed, this just makes everything more complicated. Also, there is powerful political pressure to minimize the state taking from local governments already.
Prop 23: Suspend Greenhouse Gas Law until Unemployment below 5.5%. No.
This effectively kills CA's attempts to turn away from fossil fuels and become a center for next-gen energy. Will some companies turn away from CA? They already have. Will new companies with great growth potential arrive? Perhaps not in gross numbers as large, but yes. Mostly, I'm just tired of people throwing up roadblocks for trying to deal with global warming.
Prop 24: Repeal Business Tax Breaks from Legislature. No.
On principle, I'm against propositions. Especially propositions to overturn things the legislature has done. It's not about whether I'm for the tax breaks, the fact is, I don't really know the impact of these tax breaks and I gotta trust my legislators to figure it out. If we would get rid of propositions entirely, I'd be perfectly happy.
Prop 25: Pass a budget with Simple Majority instead of Two-Thirds. Yes.
It's a democracy, folks. The most basic thing -- passing a budget -- and we can't just have a damn majority to take care of it. You may fear the tyrrany of the middle, but that's a lot less of a problem than the tyrrany of the minority.
Prop 26: Fees Require 2/3 approval. No.
This is an attempt to choke off spending. Do we have too much spending? Perhaps. Should we tie our hands to make it impossible to raise taxes? I'm for the process, and this throws a giant wrench in that process.
Prop 27: Put Legislators Back in Charge of Redistricting. No.
This one is the opposite of 20 -- it returns gerrymandering power to legislators. Screw that.
Prop 19: Legalize Marijuana. Yes.
I've never smoked marijuana, but seriously, come on. Being illegal isn't stopping anyone from getting it. Tax it, quit locking people up, and let's get on with the damn future.
Prop 20: Citizen Panel for Redistricting. Yes.
Previously, voters ok'd a citizen panel to handle redistricting for state offices. this approves a citizen panel for federal offices. Without a citizen panel, you have legislators gerrymandering the place for their individual and party benefit, at the expense of the people. I don't care what your party affiliation is, you gotta believe that everyone's voice should be heard.
Prop 21: $18 Surcharge for State Parks. No.
When the budget crunch came, folks got upset that the state would have to close parks. Thing is, parks hardly cost anything, and the legislators did it to try to get people's attention, which they did. But taking the parks out of the budget so citizens can bury their heads about the hard choices of budgeting? No thanks.
Prop 22: State Can't Borrow Local Funds. No.
It's hard enough as is to get a budget passed, this just makes everything more complicated. Also, there is powerful political pressure to minimize the state taking from local governments already.
Prop 23: Suspend Greenhouse Gas Law until Unemployment below 5.5%. No.
This effectively kills CA's attempts to turn away from fossil fuels and become a center for next-gen energy. Will some companies turn away from CA? They already have. Will new companies with great growth potential arrive? Perhaps not in gross numbers as large, but yes. Mostly, I'm just tired of people throwing up roadblocks for trying to deal with global warming.
Prop 24: Repeal Business Tax Breaks from Legislature. No.
On principle, I'm against propositions. Especially propositions to overturn things the legislature has done. It's not about whether I'm for the tax breaks, the fact is, I don't really know the impact of these tax breaks and I gotta trust my legislators to figure it out. If we would get rid of propositions entirely, I'd be perfectly happy.
Prop 25: Pass a budget with Simple Majority instead of Two-Thirds. Yes.
It's a democracy, folks. The most basic thing -- passing a budget -- and we can't just have a damn majority to take care of it. You may fear the tyrrany of the middle, but that's a lot less of a problem than the tyrrany of the minority.
Prop 26: Fees Require 2/3 approval. No.
This is an attempt to choke off spending. Do we have too much spending? Perhaps. Should we tie our hands to make it impossible to raise taxes? I'm for the process, and this throws a giant wrench in that process.
Prop 27: Put Legislators Back in Charge of Redistricting. No.
This one is the opposite of 20 -- it returns gerrymandering power to legislators. Screw that.
Monday, October 25, 2010
CA 2010 Progressive Democratic Voter Guide
I was deciding how to vote in the upcoming California election, and I had a pretty easy time until I got down into the details of some of the lower-profile races. What the hell are all of these judges doing on my ballot?
Basically, the governor appoints judges, who must be approved by the voters. Those that get approved serve 12-year terms and then have to go back on the ballot.
I started hunting around for information about the judges, and the first place I landed was the very helpful www.judgevoterguide.com. It's a conservative site that opposes "actvist" judges and supports "constructionist" judges.
I kept looking around but couldn't find anything that amounted to a progressive/liberal voting guide. I read some other articles on the three Supreme Court judges, but it's pretty slim pickings for the rest. I came to learn that all of the district judges I would be voting on had been appointed by Republican governors. I also came to learn that the GOP has a nationwide effort to get conservative judges in the courts.
So, I don't have infinite time, and I wish I were much better informed. So what am I doing? Voting the opposite of www.judgevoterguide.com. If they rate the judge as a '4' or less, I'm voting for them. Otherwise, I'm voting no.
Perhaps I should just not vote, perhaps that is a more moral thing to do. But I've decided to go all partisan and shit and here goes:
Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Yes. She's a moderate Republican, but no one seems to have a big problem with her. You can also vote 'No' if you think Jerry Brown will win and appoint someone more progressive.
Ming Chin: No. Voted in support of the constitutionality of Prop 8. On the whole, a very conservative judge.
Carlos Moreno: Yes. He's the only identifiably progressive judge on the whole list, and he was in consideration to replace SCOTUS Justice Souter last year.
Kathleen Banke: No
Robert Dondero: No
James Lambden: No (another commenter -- see below -- votes Yes)
Martin Jenkins: No
Peter Siggins: Yes
Timothy Reardon: No
Henry Needham, Jr.: No
Terence Bruiniers: No
Basically, the governor appoints judges, who must be approved by the voters. Those that get approved serve 12-year terms and then have to go back on the ballot.
I started hunting around for information about the judges, and the first place I landed was the very helpful www.judgevoterguide.com. It's a conservative site that opposes "actvist" judges and supports "constructionist" judges.
I kept looking around but couldn't find anything that amounted to a progressive/liberal voting guide. I read some other articles on the three Supreme Court judges, but it's pretty slim pickings for the rest. I came to learn that all of the district judges I would be voting on had been appointed by Republican governors. I also came to learn that the GOP has a nationwide effort to get conservative judges in the courts.
So, I don't have infinite time, and I wish I were much better informed. So what am I doing? Voting the opposite of www.judgevoterguide.com. If they rate the judge as a '4' or less, I'm voting for them. Otherwise, I'm voting no.
Perhaps I should just not vote, perhaps that is a more moral thing to do. But I've decided to go all partisan and shit and here goes:
Tani Cantil-Sakauye: Yes. She's a moderate Republican, but no one seems to have a big problem with her. You can also vote 'No' if you think Jerry Brown will win and appoint someone more progressive.
Ming Chin: No. Voted in support of the constitutionality of Prop 8. On the whole, a very conservative judge.
Carlos Moreno: Yes. He's the only identifiably progressive judge on the whole list, and he was in consideration to replace SCOTUS Justice Souter last year.
Kathleen Banke: No
Robert Dondero: No
James Lambden: No (another commenter -- see below -- votes Yes)
Martin Jenkins: No
Peter Siggins: Yes
Timothy Reardon: No
Henry Needham, Jr.: No
Terence Bruiniers: No
Thursday, April 01, 2010
A Tea Party Test
The issue of financial reform is finally making its way onto the legislature's docket. I think this will make for an interesting test of the fundamental values of the new Tea Party movement.
With financial reform, I expect that the Democrats will put forth a bill that has new regulations intended to minimize the chances of Wall Street triggering another financial panic. I also expect that the Republicans will oppose the bill because it goes too far, fearing that the unintended consequences and market distortions stemming from the regulations will reduce growth and prosperity more than the regulations will protect the economy from a new disaster.
The Tea Party is a populist movement; almost by definition, populist movements don't like the elites who control power. But the finance issue pits two major elites against each other: a distrust of the rich elite (Wall Street) and a distrust of the government elite (the current elites, at least).
Will there be any debate in the Tea Party movement? If the Democratic reform agenda is really just Republican-lite, it will be easy to cast both the Democrats and Republicans as being snugly in bed with Wall Street, in which case, the Tea Partiers would likely side with the Republicans.
I believe that the presence of active debate within the movement will indicate whether the Tea Party is just an element of the Republican party or whether it is a movement unto itself.
With financial reform, I expect that the Democrats will put forth a bill that has new regulations intended to minimize the chances of Wall Street triggering another financial panic. I also expect that the Republicans will oppose the bill because it goes too far, fearing that the unintended consequences and market distortions stemming from the regulations will reduce growth and prosperity more than the regulations will protect the economy from a new disaster.
The Tea Party is a populist movement; almost by definition, populist movements don't like the elites who control power. But the finance issue pits two major elites against each other: a distrust of the rich elite (Wall Street) and a distrust of the government elite (the current elites, at least).
Will there be any debate in the Tea Party movement? If the Democratic reform agenda is really just Republican-lite, it will be easy to cast both the Democrats and Republicans as being snugly in bed with Wall Street, in which case, the Tea Partiers would likely side with the Republicans.
I believe that the presence of active debate within the movement will indicate whether the Tea Party is just an element of the Republican party or whether it is a movement unto itself.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Pro-Life or Pro-Punishment?
Opposition to abortion exists under the title, "Pro-Life." But I think that this slogan, like most slogans, fails to express the full complexity of what it represents.
Taking the slogan at face value, pro-choice believers are often confused by an apparent contradiction: How can someone be "pro-life" yet pro-capital punishment?
I believe this contradiction is an illusion, and the term "pro-life" is the reason for the confusion. Opposing abortion and supporting capital punishment can both stem from a natural philosophy: Protect the innocent, punish the guilty. On this issue of capital punishment, this belief can be very clear -- when someone is guilty of a heinous sin, society metes out the ultimate punishment, death.
How does this same philosophy lead us to oppose abortion? If you believe that pre-marital sex is a sin, then it should be punished. "Protect the innocent, punish the guilty" becomes "Protect the innocent child, punish the guilty mother." As part of the mother's punishment, she must reap what she has sown -- an unintended child.
This philosophical connection exists consciously for some people, though not for everyone. For example, ThePillKills.com, a group strongly opposed to abortion and birth control, offers prayers to "the many uninformed patrons who come asking the staff of Planned Parenthood to provide chemicals, hormones, and sex-education as an answer to their problems with the natural consequences of abuse of sex."
For many who oppose abortion, however, I believe a legacy of this philosophy does exist, though it has largely been buried beneath an acceptance of birth control as a part of modern life, and the debate has shifted from a focus on "punishing the guilty" to "protecting the innocent."
The entire abortion debate cannot simplify down to this one difference in beliefs, but I do believe it is an important part of the philosophical split that exists today. I only hope that in investigating why we believe what we believe, we can better understand those we disagree with.
Taking the slogan at face value, pro-choice believers are often confused by an apparent contradiction: How can someone be "pro-life" yet pro-capital punishment?
I believe this contradiction is an illusion, and the term "pro-life" is the reason for the confusion. Opposing abortion and supporting capital punishment can both stem from a natural philosophy: Protect the innocent, punish the guilty. On this issue of capital punishment, this belief can be very clear -- when someone is guilty of a heinous sin, society metes out the ultimate punishment, death.
How does this same philosophy lead us to oppose abortion? If you believe that pre-marital sex is a sin, then it should be punished. "Protect the innocent, punish the guilty" becomes "Protect the innocent child, punish the guilty mother." As part of the mother's punishment, she must reap what she has sown -- an unintended child.
This philosophical connection exists consciously for some people, though not for everyone. For example, ThePillKills.com, a group strongly opposed to abortion and birth control, offers prayers to "the many uninformed patrons who come asking the staff of Planned Parenthood to provide chemicals, hormones, and sex-education as an answer to their problems with the natural consequences of abuse of sex."
For many who oppose abortion, however, I believe a legacy of this philosophy does exist, though it has largely been buried beneath an acceptance of birth control as a part of modern life, and the debate has shifted from a focus on "punishing the guilty" to "protecting the innocent."
The entire abortion debate cannot simplify down to this one difference in beliefs, but I do believe it is an important part of the philosophical split that exists today. I only hope that in investigating why we believe what we believe, we can better understand those we disagree with.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Movie Review: Slumdog Millionaire
If you aren't familiar with the logline of this movie, I'd summarize it as a dramatic and comic fable of a kid from the Bombay slums whom Fate leads to become an unlikely contestant on India's "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?"
I was blown away by how deftly the director (Danny Boyle, Trainspotting and 28 Days Later) balances levity with gut-wrenching tragedy. It has some scenes so charged that my wife considered leaving the theater. As to life in the Bombay slums, "Just because it's a movie doesn't mean this hasn't actually happened to someone." But the epic journey of the characters, from childhood through adolescence to adulthood (played for each character by three different actors), is an incredible ride.
For at least the first half of the movie, I was in a state of tension -- the music, the moments, everything about the movie, just kept me pulling for these characters, especially as kids. But in comparison, the second half of the movie, though also fantastic, wasn't able to maintain the intensity of the first -- once the characters do grow older, I begin to forgive them less (as one would expect), and their flaws began to make me fall out of love with them just a bit. The epic sweep is part of what makes this movie so amazing, but it also stops it a little short from being a total 5-star movie. The acting is at times transcendental, at times just ok, but it never detracted from the movie for me.
I'd recommend that everyone see this, but be warned that it is a brutal movie.
Babe factor: There's a reason everybody is in love with Latika.
Beer factor: None. Then, afterwards, enjoy some hard alcohol to celebrate/drown your sorrows.
I was blown away by how deftly the director (Danny Boyle, Trainspotting and 28 Days Later) balances levity with gut-wrenching tragedy. It has some scenes so charged that my wife considered leaving the theater. As to life in the Bombay slums, "Just because it's a movie doesn't mean this hasn't actually happened to someone." But the epic journey of the characters, from childhood through adolescence to adulthood (played for each character by three different actors), is an incredible ride.
For at least the first half of the movie, I was in a state of tension -- the music, the moments, everything about the movie, just kept me pulling for these characters, especially as kids. But in comparison, the second half of the movie, though also fantastic, wasn't able to maintain the intensity of the first -- once the characters do grow older, I begin to forgive them less (as one would expect), and their flaws began to make me fall out of love with them just a bit. The epic sweep is part of what makes this movie so amazing, but it also stops it a little short from being a total 5-star movie. The acting is at times transcendental, at times just ok, but it never detracted from the movie for me.
I'd recommend that everyone see this, but be warned that it is a brutal movie.
Babe factor: There's a reason everybody is in love with Latika.
Beer factor: None. Then, afterwards, enjoy some hard alcohol to celebrate/drown your sorrows.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Little Obama
There's a lot of consternation in the liberal community that Barack Obama isn't making the most liberal of choices as he populates his cabinet and plans his inauguration. My friend Lucia has a great article that spawned me to think:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lucia-brawley/is-there-method-to-this-r_b_152189.html
I don't think the concerns are invalid, but I think maybe people need to think differently about their relationship to the President-Elect.
Rather than thinking of him as someone you'd hired to redo your kitchen, and now you're pissed because he put in the wrong tile and scratched up your sink, I think it might be more apt to think about him as your son.
We put our everything into our children, our love, our dreams, our time, but when it is time for them to become grown-ups, we have to let them follow their own path and make their own choices, even if they cause us pain. We can (and should) let them know how we feel, but we have to support them and trust that we did our best and made the right choices in preparing them for the big show.
So feel free to let Obama know how you feel, but maybe try to have a little patience to let him live his life and do what he thinks needs to be done. If you voted for Obama, you gave him a vote of confidence. Let's keep that confidence as long as we can.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lucia-brawley/is-there-method-to-this-r_b_152189.html
I don't think the concerns are invalid, but I think maybe people need to think differently about their relationship to the President-Elect.
Rather than thinking of him as someone you'd hired to redo your kitchen, and now you're pissed because he put in the wrong tile and scratched up your sink, I think it might be more apt to think about him as your son.
We put our everything into our children, our love, our dreams, our time, but when it is time for them to become grown-ups, we have to let them follow their own path and make their own choices, even if they cause us pain. We can (and should) let them know how we feel, but we have to support them and trust that we did our best and made the right choices in preparing them for the big show.
So feel free to let Obama know how you feel, but maybe try to have a little patience to let him live his life and do what he thinks needs to be done. If you voted for Obama, you gave him a vote of confidence. Let's keep that confidence as long as we can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)