tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67825125169911719162024-03-13T14:26:36.641-07:00The Way I See ItWeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-65348041733545926522012-11-18T15:00:00.000-08:002012-11-18T15:00:35.934-08:00Cool It: A Book Review
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
</style>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
First, I apologize for any grammar or
spelling mistakes. My main computer is still broken so I have to type
this up while using a projector on a white wall. Which mans
proofreading basically consists of the auto-proofreader because it's
near impossible to see text.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So I recently had – got – to read
the book <i>Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global
Warming</i><span style="font-style: normal;">. The book is essentially
this:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<ol>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">Climate
change is man-made (anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic. Literally
every time from my first misuse of the phrase in an Environmental
Ethics course I consistently confuse the 2).</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">Climate
change has mostly negative effects (but they aren't as bad as most
people believe)</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">The
most effective solution is a slight carbon tax along with extremely
heavy investment into R&D for new low-carbon sources of energy.</span></div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">The
book has a lot of great points and it is interesting. It's more or
less what I read one reviewer said: if you're going to read one book
about climate change, don't make it be this one; if you're going to
read 10 books about climate change then you should include this one.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">The
book has a lot of good points although I don't completely agree with
it. For example, because the average income of a person is projected
to rise, the author concludes that the income in all countries will
rise. I don't think that's a safe assumption but that assumption is
what goes into some of his arguments.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">For
example, malaria infection rates increase when the temperature
increases. Hence, global warming means more areas are susceptible to
malaria infections. But the author concludes that because average
income will go up that that people everywhere will get the ability to
prevent and treat malaria infections. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">It's a
similar thing with the idea behind coping with rising sea levels. He
argues that 1`) sea levels have risen a foot – the expected rise
over the next century or so – and that there were no calamities as
a result. Rising income means rising technological progress and
capacity to build things like coastal defenses. So he argues that
rising sea levels will be mitigated through increased income. But,
again, the problem is that increased average income doesn't mean
everyone experiences a rise in outcome.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">He
also tends to downplay the fact that these changes are permanent.
That a rise in, for example, ocean levels means there will always be
people having to deal with higher levels. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">Another
one of his arguments is that it's more effective to use social policy
in a lot instances. So, in what I'm learning is apparently the go-to
example for a lot of environment economists, he argues that we should
stop subsidizing coastal flood insurance. He has a point of course:
tax subsidies encourage people to do more of an activity, if the
activity is living somewhere you'll get flooded then we would expect
more people to do that.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">But
approaching that issue from the macro standpoint isn't enough.
Because some people will be unable, financially, to leave their homes
and move inland. So if we remove those subsidies then we get a good
macro response but only at the expensive of the lives of the people
who stay behind and can't afford flood insurance. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">That
seems to be what rubs me the wrong way about a lot of the book. Or to
put another way: in the trade off between equity and fairness he
falls more into the equity side while I fall farther in the fairness
side. It's still an interesting book that's informative. But I tend
to disagree a bit with the conclusions. </span>
</div>
Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-78544220513439101812012-10-12T12:48:00.002-07:002012-10-12T12:58:34.181-07:00More Romney/Ryan and talk about reality, opinions, and assumptions. Very long, but it has a summary!<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="status-msg error"><tbody>
<tr class="top"><td class="corner"><br /></td><td class="msgcolor stretch"><br /></td><td class="corner"><br /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="msgcolor"><br /></td><td class="msgcolor" id="main-error"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Note: this was meant to be a reply to a comment. But it's about 3 times over the size limit for the comment section so I had to post it this way. Here's the comment, originally from <a href="http://aliberalsview.blogspot.com/2012/10/romney-ryan-tsa-reality-pbs.html" target="_blank">the post immediately before this one.</a>:<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
"have made a strategic choice to ignore one reality and substitute their
own. That's frustrating because A) it's so obviously wrong, and B) so
many people appear to think that's a good idea. It's baffling"<br />
<br />
Obama
has been doing this for years and is doing his best to down grade
America to the same level as third world countries, but you're more
concerned about Romeny messing up the percentage of money that PBS gets.
That's what baffles me.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Well, I think you're wrong. I'll try to
explain why and you can tell me what you think.
Also, this went way
longer than I intended, so there's a summary at the end. There are 2 basic methods for
advocating political issues. 1 method is to disagree over something
using a shared reality. So, for example, one could say: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I think: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
1. Obama's healthcare reform (PPACA)
represents an inappropriate overreach of the federal government.
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
2. While the health insurance market
currently (pre-PPACA) is bad, PPACA is not the best way to go about
fixing it and in fact is an undesirable thing overall. </div>
</blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And that's fine. I think the above
statement is wrong but it's dealing with facts. It's a situation
where there are real things we agree on and differing opinions based
on those things everyone acknowledges are real. But there's a second
way to say things, I'll use a similar example
from the above argument, this one has the crucial differences that I'm trying to elucidate:
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I think:</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
1. Obama's healthcare reform (PPACA)
represents a government takeover of healthcare.</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
2. PPACA is a socialist program.</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
3. It creates a death panel: a board of
bureaucrats who will be rationing health care (a situation which does
not exist now). </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
4. The healthcare market is fine
pre-PPACA. We have great healthcare! In fact, no one dies from lack
of health insurance (note: I'll talk more about this one in a bit).</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
That argument deviates from reality.
It's no longer opinions based on real things, it has become opinions
based on falsehoods. The government is not taking over healthcare,
it's not a socialist program, while literally everything is rationed
(i.e., there is only so much "stuff" in the world and
health care is no exception) the idea of a death panel is false
(although that doesn't mean the opposite is true: there will be
unlimited care), and the healthcare in the US pre-PPACA produced
horrible results for much higher amounts of money than similar
countries. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
When someone puts forward and argument
of the second sort then the conversation is already over. There's no
way to disagree and yet become better informed, or better understand
their position, or even - gasp - examine the beliefs we hold going
into the conversation (I'm talking more about this in the blog post
I'm writing at the moment, specifically Romney/Ryan vs talking with
extremely conservative Econ professors). In other words, when someone
uses an argument of the 2nd sort then they're not showing interest in
having an honest conversation whereby each side fairly examines the
issues at hand. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The assumptions behind some of the
opinions are falsehoods, that's what I mean when I refer to not
abiding in a shared reality. To go back to the last point in the
second argument: Mitt Romney two days ago suggested that no one in
the US dies from lack of health insurance as part of an argument
against PPACA. The actual number is between 45,000 and 48,000 per
year. In other words, Mitt Romney is claiming that 45,000 to 48,000
is 0. And he's hoping other people allow themselves to believe it! </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
That's a perfect example of what's so
soul-grating about Romney/Ryan. It's not that they have opinions
different from mine, it goes beyond that. It's not that Romney is
against PPACA, it's that one of the assumptions that's built into his
opinion is that 45,000 to 48,000 is equal to 0. When someone expresses an opinion which
is based on a clearly false assumption then it's frustrating to me.
And when people are persuaded to hold opinions based on assumptions
like 45,000 to 48,000 is 0 then it's even more perplexing</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
That's why, for example, I think your
comment shows both types of opinions. You say that Obama has been
doing what I'm accusing Romney of doing. Well, that's fine. I think
you're wrong but that's an opinion based on actual performance. It's
your opinion based on real assumptions (e.g., Obama is President,
Obama has a performance record, you're aware of his record, etc). </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But the second part is clearly false.
It's bizarre to claim the President has spent his time in office
trying to turn the United States into a 3rd world country. I mean,
for starters he could have just allowed the financial sector (and
thus the world's financial sector) to implode and allowed us to enter
into a depression. He wouldn't even have had to do anything! He could
have simply allowed the consequence of what his Republican
predecessor had done. I mean, it's just obviously totally wrong to
claim that Obama has been actively trying to make the United States a
3rd world country. And what's frustrating isn't that I think that
opinion is wrong, I think plenty of opinions in the world are wrong
and that doesn't bother me, it's that the assumptions built into the
opinion are clearly false. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In other words, to break it down a
bit:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
1. Obama did XYZ
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
2. XYZ are actions one would take if one
wanted to turn the United States into a 3rd would country
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
-------------
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
3. So, Obama is trying to turn the United
States into a 3rd world country. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The conclusion isn't the precise thing which frustrates me,
it's the premises. It's believing that he's done things which he
hasn't, and not believing he's done things which he has. We can break
down the Romney healthcare argument as well: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
1. 0 people die from lack of health care
in the United States
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
2. If 0 people die from lack of health
care then it's not a major problem
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
3. If it's not a major problem then PPACA
was bad
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
--------------------
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
4. Therefore, PPACA was bad. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Again, it's not the conclusion which is
frustrating. It's the assumption that 0 people die when the number is
45,000 to 48,000 in the United States per year. It's clearly a false
assumption and therefore shouldn't be held or espoused to be true. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Finally - I know... - that's the sort
of thing I refer to when I say we don't share a common reality. I
guess reality in this context could mean something like "reality
is a set of shared assumptions upon which we all form differing
opinions". From the extremely basic (e.g., the Earth is more or
less round, the sky looks blue, gravity is real, etc) to the more
complex (a study done by Harvard on the number of people who die in
the United States each year from lack of health insurance is
reflective of the correct number). With the really basic there are no
problems aside from people taking Intro to Philosophy and thinking
getting high and saying "dude, is the world, like, real?"
is philosophy. But with the latter there have been a lot of problems. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And, I'm sorry, but the problems have
been overwhelmingly on the Republican side. They "don't let
[their] campaign be run by fact-checkers". They claim 45,000 to
48,000 is 0. They claim their budget is "too complex to run
through the numbers right now" and when basic addition and
subtraction says it doesn't add up then they claim they'll hammer out
the details later. They insinuate that going after something which is
.00012% of the federal budget is an effective way to cut spending.
They've left the arena of having differing opinions on real things
and instead created their one reality, one where 45,000 to 48,000 is
0 because that helps their argument, one where addition and
subtraction can be overcome by getting elected, one where .00012% is
actually 1-5% or even over 50%. I just don't see that from the other
side. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Well, to be fair, I do see it in the
various clips which inevitably get shared - but only by white
conservatives, which is weird - of a black person saying he supports
Obama because the President is giving him something. Those are always
accompanied by comments along the lines of "see! this is why
people support Obama! lazy black people looking for a handout from
me" and probably an anecdote like "I was at the store and
saw someone use SNAP and then get into an expensive care - SNAP is
broken and a waste". And always a few self-congratulatory "all
people would be conservative if only they were hardworking,
hardnosed, realistic people - the proof is this video of a lazy
[black] person saying that he's voting for Obama because he wants
free things". I think it's safe to say that the people in the
"Obama's giving me a car; I'm giving him my vote" have
pretty effectively left reality (or, base their opinions on obviously
untrue assumptions). </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But that's different from, for
example, the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates centering their
campaign around the same reality-eschewing methodology. And that's
just not something I see happening when it comes to Democrats in
general or Obama specifically. One could try to make the case that they do, but I'm pretty skeptical that one could make a decent case and I'm near certain that no one could make a good case that they do it with equal fervour.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
-------------------- </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I know I said finally already. It
probably gave you false hope. But really, this is the appropriate
place for finally! </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I believe I told you, but it may have
been a long time ago, that I use StatCounter. I have a sensitive ego
and I like to know people are reading what I write. Anyway,
StatCounter shows me the city, state, computer OS, browser type,
time, etc, of everyone who loads any page on my blog. It also usually
shows any referral link, for example Facebook or Google or whatever
which is pretty cool IMO. I say all this because I originally
couldn't figure out how precisely to get my point across. For
example, my first attempt at a reply was just over 500 words and this
one is clocking in at near 2200. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I say all that because I saw that you
were frequently checking back to see if I had replied, so I felt an
obligation to make my best attempt at clarifying why A) I think
you're wrong and B) why the gist from what I was trying to say wasn't
simply that Romney was saying something untrue. It goes a lot deeper
and wider than that, but I think that's a good starting point or
example. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
----------------------------- </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Summary </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I define reality, in this context, as
something like: "a set of shared assumptions about the nature of
the world". The Earth is more or less round, the Sun gives off
heat, gravity is pulling us down, etc. Then there are more complex
assumptions: studies done by Harvard are generally accurate, the role
of the government should be limited to property rights and national
defense and contract enforcement, the Obama administration's handling
of Mubarak leaving Egypt prevented unnecessary bloodshed in an
inevitable revolution, etc. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
We of course base our opinions on all
of these sorts of assumptions. And assumptions on assumptions on
assumptions and so on. There are 2 ways of disagreeing: 1 is to have
differing opinions on the same basic assumptions, the other is to
have differing opinions based on wildly different basic assumptions
(i.e., one opinion is necessarily based on a false assumption and is
therefore the wrong opinion). </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The Romney/Ryan campaign is a great
example of the second sort of opinions. They've based their campaign
on obvious falsehoods. For example, saying that 0 people die per year
from lack of health care in the United States and using that
assumption as part of an argument against PPACA. The actual number -
the assumption based in reality - is 45,000 - 48,000 per year. So
that's an example of abandoning reality and making up their own
reality (one in which 45,000 to 48,000 is sometimes 0). </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It's that abandoning of reality that's
frustrating. It's not holding opinions different from mine, it's not
the conclusion of the argument (PPPACA is bad). I disagree with the
conclusions and opinions of Romney/Ryan, but hey I disagree with a
lot of opinions. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj7spLBfMHY" target="_blank">To paraphrase Rick Perry</a>: "that's an opinion
that's out there, and its got some gaps in it". But differing
opinions don't frustrate me - loads of people abandoning reality and
basing opinions on clearly false assumptions does. I fundamentally
don't get why they don't see reality for what it is. And I also don't
get why the care so little about what reality actually is. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
22 million people think .00012% is
greater than 50%. Because they haven't bothered to find out the first
number, they just sort of feel in their gut that it's bigger than
50%. That's an abhorrent opinion to hold! When I see Romney
insinuating that the unknown number is significant then I see Romney
furthering a clearly wrong opinion based on obviously false
assumptions. Everyone should see that and I can't figure out why they
don't. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And Romney/Ryan do this all the time
and millions of people are OK with it. Heck, they welcome it with
open arms! They embrace a false reality and yet continue to abide in
this one. They hold obviously wrong opinions (e.g., 45,000 to 48,000
is 0, .00012% is greater than 50%, basic rules of arithmetic can be
overcome by electing Romney/Ryan, etc) and I can't figure out how or
why.</div>
Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-33420208731069913542012-10-10T07:54:00.003-07:002012-10-10T07:54:41.851-07:00Romney, Ryan, TSA, Reality, PBSThis is going to be brief (edit: should have been brief), I have to leave for class pretty much immediately.<br /><br />I ran across this article on Gawker while eating breakfast (well, if ramen noodles and coffee counts as breakfast). The takeaway is that the TSA did some bad things to a woman dying of cancer. Specifically, they treated her poorly, punctured a saline bag, and generally were as invasive as possible while completely ignoring the idea of privacy or dignity. Then the A TSA spokesperson sent out an email that said:<br /><br />"We work to make our screening procedures as minimally invasive as possible while still proving the level of security that the American people want and deserve,"<br /><br />And it's a glaring ballsy example of completely ignoring reality and just saying what you want people to think is real. It feels like they skipped the traditional step of trying to persuade people of something (e.g., adding something like "out of X million passengers we only have Y complaints" or "we have extensive training for handling how to deal with cancer patients, if it was mishandled then the fault is of the local supervisor and we will deal with it appropriately" or whatever). Instead, they've skipped right to the "X happened? Nope, X doesn't happen" stage. They've gone past trying to convince people of something and instead just straight up skipped to flatly denying the obvious truth which prompted the whole thing in the first place.<br /><br />It seems like that's happening more and more. And people seem to be accepting of it as if it were normal. As if the idea of honesty, or more precisely the idea that reality is non-subjective, is unnecessary. A great current example is Mitt Romney. For example, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/?mobile=nc" target="_blank">here</a> is a link to an article showing 27 lies Romney said during the latest Presidential debate. And yet Romney "won" the debate. Again, it seems like the idea that reality is non-subjective has gone out the window.<br /><br />That might not bother me so much if so many people weren't stupid, but more accurately weren't just wrong. Because if we accept the idea that truth is relative, that one can simply boldly lie and that's accepted because the truth aspect of words are superfluous, then we lose something valuable. Another example: there was a poll taken about what Americans think the share of the federal budget that CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) receives.<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Forty percent of those polled believe funding the CPB receives takes up 1 to 5 percent of the budget, 30 percent believe public broadcasting takes up 5 percent or more of the budget and 7 percent of respondents believe the non-profit receives 50 percent or more of the federal budget.</blockquote>
<br />And you know Romney is aware of that. Around 22 million people think that CPB receives half or more of the federal budget. That's mind-bogglingly stupid! The number is around .00014 of the budget. And we have the Presidential candidate for the Republican party capitalizing on that stupidity, ignorance, and an unbelievable level of apathy, by telling bold faced lies and "winning" the debate as a result. There's something wrong when that happens. <br /><br />Or when Paul Ryan spends years trying to redefine rape as "forcible rape". He's on the record, it wasn't some sort of mistake, he spent years advocating for that change. It's not hard to figure out why: it's insinuation that non-forcible (whatever that's supposed to mean) rape isn't "real" rape. It's a pretty shitty stance to take. But recently he flatly denies precisely what he's spent years advocating! He doesn't deny it in the sense that "I was wrong; my views have evolved" rather he simply changes the subject and says "rape is rape, that's the end of the story". This isn't a unique example. Rather, it's indicative of a trend particularly among Romney and Ryan and the Republican party as a whole, it's frustrating when vast amounts of people manipulate or allow themselves to be duped into thinking their reality is something entirely different from how it is.<br /><br />It's incredibly obvious that both Romney and Ryan, and increasingly society as a whole (see TSA), have made a strategic choice to ignore one reality and substitute their own. That's frustrating because A) it's so obviously wrong, and B) so many people appear to think that's a good idea. It's baffling - and I'm now late for class.Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-32091797505917571312012-09-19T17:18:00.001-07:002012-09-19T17:18:09.709-07:00Childish Gambino and the ClassroomIf you've never listened to Childish Gambino then I highly recommend giving him a listen. It's Donald Glover's stage name, he also plays Troy Barnes on Community. There's one particular song that's struck me lately: That Power. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZKAo-DfNxM" target="_blank">A YouTube link.</a> Also, <a href="http://www.elyrics.net/read/c/childish-gambino-lyrics/that-power-lyrics.html" target="_blank">a link to the lyrics.</a><br /><br />The whole song is wonderful but one part in particular seemed relevant for something that I realized today:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[T]his is a story about how I learned something and I'm not saying this thing is true or not, I'm just saying it's what I learned. I told you something. It was just for you and you told everybody. So I learned cut out the middle man, make it all for everybody, always. Everybody can't turn around and tell everybody, everybody already knows, I told them.</blockquote>
<br />I realized I was slowly adopting a related sentiment in the classroom, particularly in the Spanish classroom. There are people in there who speak Spanish much better than I do. My writing is better than my speaking since the Internet enables one to write anything to any audience at any time. Anyhow, I try to take every chance I get to volunteer to do things like read even though that then gets critiqued. Similarly in another classroom, when the professor asks a question and everyone is silent then I'll volunteer an educated guess if I have one. I've noticed that we all know the people who have no idea what's going on. It's sort of like a perversion of Abraham Lincoln's (?) maxim:<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"</blockquote>
<br />Fellow students seem to think that if they're silent then they're perceived as being wise. But that's not the truth - we're all pretty much aware of how much material each person knows. Particularly in the Spanish classroom! When one is called upon to read the word "ciudad" (roughly: see-yoo-dth-a-dth) and they pronounce it "key-ooh-dad" it's pretty freaking obvious their Spanish speaking skills need a lot of work. And they won't get better by keeping silent.<br />
<br />
So I've realized that's better to make my Spanish failures "for everybody, always" because A) that's how we actually get better and B) "then everybody already knows, I told them". I didn't intentionally decide on this strategy, rather I think the song helped me subconsciously choose it. Either way, I care for it and for the music of Silvio Rodriguez.<br />Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-12534328468992034652012-08-11T11:59:00.000-07:002012-08-11T11:59:04.601-07:00A story in Spanish<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
A:link { so-language: zxx }
-->
</style>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
We had an assignment in Spanish, we received it the day before the final exam. Something like "write about Daniel and Sandra, they meet on vacation and fall in love then leave and go back to their respective cities". The resulting story I produced amused me greatly. The translation, at least the translation I meant, can be found after the story. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Also, it sounds much more clever in Spanish. Not just because writing it itself feels like an accomplishment, but also because of things like Vazquez meaning shepherd. And there were a list of several phrases I had to use and a number of different tenses I had to use so, alas, I couldn't maintain full creative control. Does that make me brethren with Dan Harmon? Not for me to say, so I won't say no.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Daniel no está in ese cuento, pero
Rodrigo Rodriguez está aqui. Sandra es Sandra Vazquez. Rodrigo
Rodriguez es de David, Panamá. Sandra Vazquez es de Santa Marta,
Colombia. Ellos son en un vacacional in España. Momentos, ellos en
un oscuridad bar de humo. Se habla español. Se hablan.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Hola chica. Me
llamo Rodrigo Rodriguez. Mi apodo es "Hot Rod". ¿Qué
pasa?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "Hola. Mi nombre
es Sandra Vazquez. Ese es un nombre ironico porque soy un pastora."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "¿Hablas con
personas sobre Jesus Cristo?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "No. Tú eres
estúpido. Soy una pastora ni una clériga. ¿Hablas español?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Sí, pero
estoy burracho. ¿Y tú?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "No."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "¡Debe!"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "¡No puedo! Se
hablan."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Lo siento. Por
favor, bebe."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
(Después de treinta minutos.)
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "¿De dónde
eres?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "Soy de Santa
Marta. Santa Marta es en Colombia. Tambien, me gusta divertirse."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "¿Quien no les
gusta divertirse?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "¿Y tú? ¿De
dónde eres?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Soy de David,
Panamá."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "¿El nombre de tu
papá es David y tú es de Panamá?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "No. Tú eres
estúpida. Soy de la ciudad David; el nombre de la ciudad es David.
El nombre de mi papá es Rodrigo. ¿Hablas español muchacha?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "Sí, pero estoy
burracha. No es la primera vez. Caminé a la baño a las diez de la
noche, y ahora es las diez y medio de la noche. En aquel momento
necesito caminar otra vez."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Sal al baño."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
(Después de treinta minutos.)
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "¿Qué pasa?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Pensando a año
pasado. Tenía un empleo de la Servicio Nacional Aeronaval en Panamá.
Estaba piloto."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "¿Qué ocurrió?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "A dame. Lo
siento, hablo inglés y español. Una chica; su nombre es Brigid
O'Shaughness. Ella estaba bonita y peligrosa. Ella fue muy
peligrosa."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "Y... ¿Qué
ocurrió?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Ella disparó
a mi. Ella robió de mi."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "¿Y entonces?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "¡Entonces
corría!"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "Necesito dormir.
¿Desee tu mañana?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Sí. ¿Ojalá
a las diez de la noche?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "Sí."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
(Mañana, Sandra Vazquez y Rodrigo
Rodriguez se reunen.)
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "Te amo."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "¿Por qué?"
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "Porque tu eres un
chico mal."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Es la verdad.
Soy un chico mal. O in inglés: "I'm a bad boy". Pero
necesito voy a mi casa mañana."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "No necesitas vas
hoy."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
(Nota del editor: inapropiado.)
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Un mes en futuro, Rodrigo Rodriguez
hablando con Sandra Vazquez. Se miran por la cámara web. Este es la
última ves se hablan.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Tengo un
novio. Estoy homosexual."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Sandra Vazquez: "Tengo una novia.
Estoy lesbiana."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Ambos: "Adios. Vaya con Dios
pecador."</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Daniel is not in this tale, but Rodrigo Rodriguez is here. Sandra is Sandra Vazquez. Rodrigo Rodriguez is from David, Panama. Sandra Vazquez is from Santa Marta, Colombia. They are in a beach vacation resort in Spain. At this moment, they are in an obscure smoky bar. Spanish is spoken in the bar. They (Sandra and Rodrigo) are speaking to each other.<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Hello girl. My name is Rodrigo Rodriguez. My nickname is "Hot Rod". What's up?"<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "Hello. My name is Sandra Vazquez. It's an ironic name because my job is to be a shepherd.<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "You talk with people concerning Jesus Christ?"<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "No. You're stupid. I'm a shepherd, I'm not a member of the clergy. Do you speak Spanish?"<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Yes, but I'm drunk. What about you?"<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "No."<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "You should!"<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "I'm unable to! We're talking with each other."<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "I'm sorry. Please, drink."<br /><br />(After 30 minutes.)<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Where are you from?"<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "I'm from Santa Marta. Santa Marta is in Colombia. Also, I like to have fun. [note; not part of translating: we had to include the phrase "me gusta divertirse" which is roughly "I like to have fun".]<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Who doesn't like having fun?"<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "And you? Where are you from?"<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "I'm from David, Panama."<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "Your father's name is David and you're from Panama?"<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "No. You're stupid. I'm from the city David; the name of the city is David. The name of my father is Rodrigo. Do you speak spanish girl?<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "Yes, but I'm drunk. It isn't the first time. I walked to the bathroom at 10pm and now it's 10:30pm. In another moment I'll have to walk again."<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Leave to go to the bathroom"<br /><br />(After 30 minutes.)<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "What's up?"<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "I'm thinking about last year. I was employed at the National Sea and Air Service in Panama. I was a pilot."<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "What happened?"<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "A dame. Sorry, I speak english and spanish. A chick; her name es Brigid O'Shaughness. She was pretty dangerous. She was very dangerous."<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "And... what happened?"<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "She shot at me. She injured me."<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "And afterwards?"<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Afterwards I ran!"<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "I need to sleep. I wish to, will I see you?<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Yes. God's will permitting at 10pm?<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "Yes."<br /><br />(Tomorrow, they meet up.)<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "I love you."<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "Why?"<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "Because you're a bad boy."<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "That's the truth. I'm a bad boy. Or in english: "I'm a bad boy". But I need to go to my house tomorrow."<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "You don't need to go today."<br /><br />(Editor's note: inappropriate.)<br /><br />One month in the future, Rodrigo Rodriguez is talking with Sandra Vazquez. They are looking at each other through a webcam. This is the last time they will speak to each other.<br /><br />Rodrigo Rodriguez: "I have a boyfriend. I'm gay."<br /><br />Sandra Vazquez: "I have a girlfriend. I'm gay."<br /><br />Both: "Goodbye. Go with God sinner." </div>Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-32997804994902537002012-08-06T03:44:00.001-07:002012-08-06T03:44:41.722-07:00I just don't get it.There's something wrong with the world and I don't know what it is. Perhaps I simply shouldn't turn on HBO and see se7en when I can't sleep.<br /><br />I don't know the word I need. Triviality? Banality? Evanescence? That emotion evoked when looking at a photo album of someone's vacation and while you couldn't care about the fish they caught using a special fishing rod in Jamaica but you nod and feign interest.<br /><br />Somehow most people have figured out how to be content thinking:<br /><br />At work I prepare chicken sandwiches which usually isn't hard but sometimes if the wrong manager - Dave, man he's so horrible, you know he only got the promotion because he's related to someone? - is working then sometimes it's hard but that's not because preparing the chicken sandwiches have become more difficult rather it's harder to because harder to work when someone is suuuuch a micromanager and doesn't just let you do your job, I mean I've been preparing chicken sandwiches for almost a year now which might seem like a short time but really it's a long time because all the contents come pre-packaged and there's even timers and everything, the key is to keep rotating the oil otherwise the chicken sandwiches will be soggy and who wants a soggy chicken sandwich? plus even the good manager - Dan, he's so awesome like he "gets it" he knows that letting me just do my freaking job is the way to manage - will get mad at you if you let the chicken sandwiches get soggy, most people wouldn't care but I really love my job because of the people - the people is what makes a job worthwhile if you ask me, I once worked at Whataburger and the people there were just terrible, worst job ever - but they also care about making sure the chicken sandwiches aren't soggy in fact I once had a woman bring back her chicken sandwich because it was soggy and she said she would never buy from us again although we all know she will because the chicken sandwiches are almost never soggy thanks to me.<br /><br />It's like everyone is caught up in a system where 95% of the thoughts expressed are nonsense thoughts that everyone expresses. The triviality is just shocking. I mean, I had someone once suggest that we get rid of NASA because "the cold war is over". We're sentient animals trapped on a rock in a tiny corner of the galaxy and they're content to say "hmm, I better not let this chicken sandwich get soggy" before heading home and doing it all over again. I had another one suggest that "we should never question the right thing to do because we should already know it". The lack of caring about anything meaningful is flabbergasting.<br /><br />I just can't understand the fascination with trivialities while ignoring everything that (should) matter. It fundamentally doesn't make sense. Although, again, maybe my perspective at 5:40am is different from one later in the day.Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-2814990296223968642012-08-01T03:56:00.000-07:002012-08-01T03:56:08.111-07:00Chick-fil-A; Living in TexasChick-fil-A is still, thankfully, in the news. As such it's one of the things that people talk about while waiting for class to begin. But because that means shortly after sunrise at 7:45am, I rarely have the energy to bother to argue with 20 people who disagree. <br /><br /><br />1. This isn't new news<br />2. This isn't discrimination<br />3. People have the right to say what they want<br />4. I don't care; their chicken taste good in mouth<br /><br />These seem like very curious responses. Inscrutably curious indeed.<br /><br />At first I agreed with response 1. I thought it was a sort of statement on how odd it is that certain things tend to rise into the collective consciousness when the underlying issue had been there all along. It wasn't until later that I realized it was intended to mean "this issue has been there for a long time, therefore there's no need to address it". Which is just... an odd response once you think about it. One thing does not follow from the other.<br /><br />Or take response 2. It generally takes the form of "they still sell their products to gay people so what's the fuss?" I don't understand what prompts that either. It's possible for a business to engage in bigotry while selling products to the people they're supporting discrimination against. No one ever claimed that Chick-fil-A refuses to serve people based on their sexual orientation (although why that's a metric that comes into many people's mind is somewhat troubling). The issue is that they influence the government to prohibit marriage equality. That is the discrimination referred to. The odd state of affairs where the government is prepared to grant marriage licenses, then stops to check to make sure their sexual orientations are opposite. "Would you like to start a family and marry your loved one? Oh, sorry, one of you needs a wang otherwise we just can't do it :/".<br /><br />Response 3 is just plain weird. It seems very obvious that, yes, people have the right to have opinions even when those opinions are bigoted and discriminatory. I'm glad we have that right. But there's an apparent difference between "the government can't take away my right to free speech" and "no one is allowed to disagree with me because Free Speech". It's a tactic that's more often in Internet forums that in college hallways. And yet that distinction appears lost to, well, almost everyone I've talked with or overhead. Just because someone is legally allowed to express an opinion, or to influence the government to discriminate against people, doesn't mean that everyone needs to say "well, it's legal, so really we legally can't consider the content of their speech".<br /><br />To be honest, response 4 is the worst. It's the Britta of responses. Being wrong is one thing, choosing to life your life in such a way that you don't care about the rights of others is another thing. It's exemplified by the fact that someone said "can you believe that it's mostly straight people disagreeing with Chick-fil-A?" Followed by collective astonishment. That people only care about the rights which affect them is rather depressing. It wasn't too long ago that I wouldn't be expected to share a water fountain with some of my classmates, the fact that it's expected I would say "well, I've got the good water fountain so really it's fine" is just depressing.<br /><br />Apparently my local Chick-fil-A has to schedule a lot of people for double shifts because they've been swamped. Which is the meta story for all of this: a member of the 80% of the population complains about being victimized by the 20%; they take a "brave" stand for what the law already is; they claim they're willing to suffer the consequences; they actively push for the government to enforce bigotry; members of the 80% celebrate the government enforcing bigotry by buying more from the business; the right wing complains they're being victimized further.<br /><br />I just don't get it. And now I'm 10 minutes behind in my morning schedule. But hey at least I'm slightly more centered mentally.Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-10569243657049921932012-07-29T12:34:00.001-07:002012-07-29T12:34:51.733-07:00Chick-fil-A; Marriage Equality; Critical Thinking<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
</style>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
With Chick-fil-A and the general rise
of gay/human rights, it often seems like people are talking past each
other rather than being clear. When we do that, we get bizarre
spectacles like people cheering the fact that Sarah Palin posed in a
picture with a bag from Chick-fil-A. We get words like tolerance,
rights, equality, all thrown around without taking a step back and
asking what those words really mean. Because if we misuse them then,
again, rather than a constructive dialogue we see people talking past
each other and that's sort of distasteful.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In life, we have a marketplace of
ideas. Everyone has the right to enter the marketplace with any idea
they like. Everyone does not, however, have the right to have their
idea "bought" by others. So, for example, I have the right
to say that I don't care for Justin Bieber or his music. Other people
disagree with me, hence Justin Bieber becomes a celebrity. Or, I have
the right to argue that the Democratic party is better than the
Republican party. That isn't the same as saying that I have the right
for everyone to agree with me. We have the right to enter the
marketplace but not the right to have everyone else agree with us.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
We choose our ideas from the
marketplace. We pick which ideas we want and which ideas we don't
want. That can be framed positively (i.e., the Democratic party is
better than the Republican party) or negatively (i.e., the Republican
party is worse than the Democratic party). By picking one idea over
the other, we are effectively discriminating against the ideas we
dismiss. (Note that discrimination in this sense is very different
from discrimination against people.
)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Side note: we can either have our minds
and reason do the picking or we can allow some authority to limit the
ideas we're exposed to. I very firmly believe that we should trust
our own reasoning. We should allow, for example, arguments to be made
that deny the Holocaust. We air those arguments, see that they don't
up to reason, and dismiss the idea. That's how we maintain freedom
and autonomy. We don't ask for the government to protect us from
being forced to think about new things - reason is the gatekeeper
rather than government censorship
. We should welcome unpopular ideas
that make us think. Holding a consistent set of beliefs throughout
one's life is, at least according to the Christian Bible in 1
Corinthians 13:11, sub-par.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
At any rate, we the people pick winners
and losers in the marketplace of ideas. We can't have all winners by
definition, that would leave us with nonsense ideas like "marriage
equality is good and marriage equality is not good" or "Justin
Bieber is a good singer and Justin Bieber is not a good singer".
We all pick from the marketplace which ideas we choose to hold, the
idea is to use reason to pick the correct beliefs.
The process is
just like any other marketplace. We examine the goods presented and
choose which to possess.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Throughout most of the 20th century in
the United States, the marketplace has said that we should not have
marriage equality Therefore the people who believe we should not
have marriage equality have had their opinion “winning”. They've
been content that the set of beliefs they've chosen from the
marketplace are a popular set of beliefs.
When this happens you
aren't forced to examine your beliefs. For example, I believe slavery
is wrong. I've also never seriously sat down and tried to read
arguments for and against slavery. That's an example of a belief
which is widespread thus I've never had to confront the dissenting
idea.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Lately, the idea that marriage equality
is wrong has been losing ground in the marketplace. More and more
people (including myself, given that my first post was against
marriage equality) are choosing pro-marriage equality. This means
they're "discriminating" against the idea of being against
marriage equality. We could use the same language to say that
throughout most of the 20th century people were choosing the idea of
anti-marriage equality were "discriminating" against the
idea of being for marriage equality. Because the nature of a
marketplace of ideas means that some will win while others are
"discriminated" against and lose.
This process of
competition – embracing some ideas while dismissing others – is
how we reach any and every belief.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
When someone is used to holding a
popular set of beliefs then they can forget all of this and believe
that their ideas are inherently worthy of being chosen as correct.
Again, back to my example of slavery. Another reason I haven't
seriously looked into it is because it genuinely seems self-evidently
the proper belief. I can't (completely and honestly) set aside my
belief that slavery is wrong and examine the issue.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
That's a flaw. Because thinking that
some ideas are above examination is erroneous. It simply isn't the
case. All ideas are competing against each other - we argue for ideas
based on their merit which produces winners and losers.
Just because
someone happens to be living in a place and time when some beliefs
are widespread doesn't change the principle of examining our beliefs.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Lately, and thankfully, marriage
equality is an idea that's been winning a lot. It's been fascinating
to watch the response! The people who disagree with the idea have
gone from:
</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Not needing to argue for the idea
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Arguing for their idea based on
its (alleged) merits (i.e., "marriage equality will tear apart
the United States)
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Arguing for their idea based on
taboo evidence (i.e., the idea is supported by a religious text
therefore you can't argue with it)
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Arguing against the idea by saying
that if their idea doesn't win then they're suffering
discrimination.
</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It's fairly easy to see why the third
one comes last, as well as why it's so appealing. The idea of
marriage equality hinges on what discrimination means. When one has
no arguments left then one can claim that they deserve to be right,
or else their being discriminated against. Cue "tolerance"
"discrimination" "bigotry" all misused. If
someone can make the case that disagreement is off the table, then by
default they've won. I don't think that strategy has a very long
shelf life, but it's definitely re-emerged since Chick-fil-A made
their case (using step 2: wrapping their idea in the out of bounds
arena of religious belief).
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The idea of anti-marriage equality is
still competing in the marketplace. I don't begrudge the people who
agree with it. I think they're wrong *<i>but this is what it means to
participate in that marketplace</i>*. Taken strictly, the idea of
being against marriage equality is discrimination in the sense that
all ideas entail discrimination, that is: *<i>discrimination against
other ideas</i>*.
But we can't stop there, we have to look at what
the idea in practice will entail.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
What makes things like anti-marriage
equality different is that when the idea is practiced it means
*<i>discrimination against people</i>*. Just like, for example, the
idea of prohibiting racial marriage equality. Taken in one sense the
idea entails as much discrimination as the idea of allowing racial
marriage equality. Both ideas mean discriminating against the other
idea. But, again, what makes the idea different is that in practice,
prohibiting racial marriage equality means *<i>discriminating against
people</i>*.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
This is why we can't refer to
discrimination in one sense (i.e., in the marketplace of ideas) and
say it's the same as discrimination in another sense (i.e.,
possessing fewer rights as a person). To spell it out a bit, we can't
say:
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Person 1: I think the idea of
prohibiting marriage equality is correct
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Person 2: I disagree, I think the idea
when put into practice means discrimination against people
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Person 1: Aha, you just discriminated
against my idea! So I guess the score board is even and my idea isn't
discriminatory.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It makes no sense. But I think it stems
from using the word discrimination inaccurately and being used to
your ideas being accepted as right at large. So when you have to
defend those ideas you feel like you're under unfair attack in the
marketplace of ideas, when in reality everyone is always under attack
because that's how reasoning works. When you're used to winning then
losing makes you feel like you're a victim. When there's a gap
between "I believe XYZ" and "most people believe not
XYZ" then you search for an explanation. An easy one is that
you're a victim - most people would believe XYZ like you if only
[liberal media, stupidity, brainwashing, Obama's speech giving skill,
etc] wasn't unduly influencing them.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
All of which, I think, lead us to
absurd conclusions like cheering Sarah Palin for buying a sandwich at
Chick-fil-A. We see Chick-fil-A support an idea (marriage equality is
wrong) and we conclude that anyone who doesn't support that idea is
discriminating against Chick-fil-A. As if everyone has an obligation
to buy a product and believe an idea or else they're discriminating.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Well, the idea (marriage equality is
wrong) in this case is incorrect. (Read: this statement is
discrimination against an idea which is inherent and necessary in
every idea.) And the idea that marriage equality is wrong is
discriminatory. (Read: the idea, when practiced, prohibits people
from practicing their rights which is a bad thing.) As such, I can
argue for my idea and include the fact that the other idea is
discriminatory. Because it plainly is.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So let's continue to have a national
discussion on marriage equality. Let's continue to discuss the issue
on its merits, as we should all issues. But let's not say that having
that discussion constitutes discrimination against people. Because,
and this is the wonderful news, you can't forever stop people from
having that discussion.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
(Begin rambling.)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Well, I suppose the Texas Republican
Party is doing their best to stop people participating in the
marketplace of ideas. It turns out that if you educate kids
incorrectly then you can keep them from thinking for themselves. To
quote from their (since changed) platform:
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
"Knowledge-Based Education – We
oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values
clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that
are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery
learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose
of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental
authority."
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
If we teach abstinence only then we can
ensure that many young people get pregnant. If we can take away their
legal right to abortion then we can ensure that many low-income young
women become single mothers - bonus points for shaming them. If we
can keep from giving them aid or health care then we can ensure that
they stay poor their entire lives. If we can teach kids that they
should have "fixed beliefs" and that challenging those
"fixed beliefs" is dangerous then we can ensure they'll be
unable to think. If we teach kids that science should be denied based
on a collection of ancient scrolls then we can ensure they won't ever
find the joy of scientific discovery. If we teach kids that evolution
is "just a theory" then we can ensure they'll distrust
science. If we can import low wage jobs then we can ensure the poor
stay poor. The overall key is to start early and remove the tools
that allow people to function in a marketplace of ideas. That way
they'll accept what they're told; they'll effectively censor
themselves.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
To think a former politician purchasing
a chicken sandwich with the intent of keeping people from getting
married is... is even a thing. It takes a lot, but we can produce
people who simply say "I believe what I'm told because I know
I'm right" and be OK with that. To intellectually neuter a
generation of people. To teach them that examining their beliefs is a
scary thing the government needs to protect them from. To be
comfortable that not only is an unexamined life worth living, but
rather only an unexamined life is worth living. That's scarier than a
Dalek because it takes away the only tool we have in life: our
reason. Anyway, clearly I've rambled.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
If no one gets anything else out of
this, don't confuse discrimination in the marketplace of ideas (a
necessary tool to be a thinking person) with discrimination against
people. The words may be the same but they refer to very different
things and using the ideas interchangeably is not reasoning clearly,
for the people purposely misusing the words it's not reasoning
honestly.</div>Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-12715487259296847912012-07-21T10:14:00.000-07:002012-07-21T10:14:18.119-07:00Louie Gohmert: separation of church and state responsible for movie theater shooting in Colorado<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
-->
</style>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Hero terror-baby fighting news now: Congressman Louie Gohmert makes strong bid for Moronic Imbecile of
July.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Congressman Louie Gohmert had some remarks about the recent shooting in a movie theater in Colorado. Per the course, prep the crazy:<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
“You know what really gets me, as
a Christian, is to see the ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian
beliefs, and then some senseless crazy act of a derelict takes
place,” Gohmert said.
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
“Some of us happen to believe
that when our founders talked about guarding our virtue and freedom,
that that was important,” he said. </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
“Whether it’s John Adams
saying our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people
… Ben Franklin, only a virtuous people are capable of freedom, as
nations become corrupt and vicious they have more need of masters. We
have been at war with the very pillars, the very foundation of this
country.”
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Ernest Istook, the host of the show
and a former Oklahoma congressman, jumped in to clarify that nobody
knows the motivation of the alleged Aurora gunman. Gohmert said that
may be true, but suggested the shootings were still “a terrorist
act” that could have been avoided if the country placed a higher
value on God.
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
“People say … where was God in
all of this?” Gohmert said. “We’ve threatened high school
graduation participations, if they use God’s name, they’re going
to be jailed … I mean that kind of stuff. Where was God? What have
we done with God? We don’t want him around. I kind of like his
protective hand being present.”
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The people who wrote the constitution
<i>really</i> screwed the pooch on this one. If only they had realized that
allowing religious freedom would result in a mentally unstable person
shooting people 224 years later! They were so close to producing a
good document, it's a shame they lacked the acumen that Louie
"terror-baby fighter" Gohmert has</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
It's hard to know where to start other
than just generally mocking him. Consequently, I've come up with some
appropriate monikers: </div>
<ul>
<li>Louie "the superman of schizoid"
Gohmert
</li>
<li>Louie "the advocate of asinine"
Gohmert
</li>
<li>Louie "the bastion of batty"
Gohmert
</li>
<li>Louie "the keeper of the kook"
Gohmert
</li>
<li>Louie "the congressman of
cretinous” Gohmert</li>
<li>Louie "the vindicator of vacuous"
Gohmert
</li>
<li>Louie "the warrior of wacky"
Gohmert</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
We have something like 350,000
Christian churches in the United States. There's somewhere around 242
million Christians (78% of the population) in the United States.
Evidently, 78% of us are being persecuted by being unable to use the
government to impose beliefs on others - the worst kind of
persecution! I genuinely don't get a lot of things, and I don't
understand how someone can look at that and conclude: </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
God's sitting up there (apparently he
isn't omnipresent, and leaves) ready to intervene and prevent all
tragedy. However, He isn't doing that because the United States isn't
a theocracy. He has left the United States, presumably during the
rosy fictional past when there was no violence, and would really like
to intervene but, really, it's our fault He isn't. He only listens if the government uses force to make everyone practice a certain denomination of a certain religion in a certain way. [Thankfully, Louie "the benefactor of bonkers" Gohmert is ready to tell you how, pro-tip: be a wealthy white male.]</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Therefore, the solution to all of our
problems is to turn the United States into a theocracy. Because a
quick glance at the history books tells us that violence is
non-existent in theocracies.
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I don't understand that. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I's an incredibly scary set of
beliefs. It's also a set of puerile and absurd beliefs, but scary
nonetheless. It doesn't even make sense. It's sort of like when I try
to listen to someone speaking a foreign language. I know it makes
sense to them, but it's just a disconnected series of sounds to me.
(With the difference being that foreign languages actually make
sense, Louie "the sympathizer of simple" Gohmert doesn't
actually make sense.) </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Beyond that, the principle of religious freedom is a
good principle. The problem that Louie "the medalist of
meaningless" Gohmert has is understanding that principles
actually have significance. You don't hold on to principles until you
realize you dislike the outcome and then discard them. Well, I mean
Louie "the accomplice of absurd" Gohmert does, but people
shouldn't. Principles have significance</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
We stand by principles even when they
occasionally produce an undesirable outcome. We don't use the word to
mean "whatever gets me what I want". This seems to be lost
on so many people, particularly conservative politicians. This is why we allow the KKK to have a parade. Not because we endorse the KKK, but the principle of free speech is valuable and deserves to be protected.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Even if
Louie "the paladin of the preposterous" Gohmert wishes that
the United States become a theocracy, surely he should be able to see
that abandoning the principle of religious freedom is harmful.
Opening the door to the government telling people which religion to
practice - and how they should practice it - is a very dangerous
gambit that wouldn't end well. It would take away your freedom rather
than expanding it. Again, I'm befuddled why this isn't obvious.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Incidentally, religious freedom is
(it's hypothesized, probably, many think) the reason why Christianity
is so widespread and alive in the United States compared to Europe.
Europe took the route of establishing state churches and endorsing a
particular religion. Those religions became stagnant because there
was no evolutionary pressure on them to change. Whereas in the United
States anyone could form any religion which caused religions to
compete for members. When competition happens, you see the final
product which is more desirable to whatever the intent (in this case:
active membership) of the thing is. It's sort of ironic. Who would have thought that separation of church and state and evolutionary mechanisms would have created something like the situation we have now.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Anyway, the founding fathers were so close to
allowing the United States to be magically violence free. I just wish
Louie "the sponsor of screwy" Gohmert could go back in
time. Seriously, I wish other people had to deal with him.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I loathe him; I yearn for someone to beat him in the upcoming election.</div>Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-53153805210995785472012-07-15T09:04:00.000-07:002012-07-15T09:04:35.925-07:00CNN Sucks; The Truth Isn't a Consensus GameI made the mistake of watching CNN this morning. Usually that only means being made aware that an international news agency is choosing to report on some inane thing like a cat show or a new yoga pose. Suffice it to say that I miss their old morning show American Morning which was actually occasionally informative (the wikipedia page says "American Morning focused on the news more than many U.S. morning shows" which I suppose explains A, it being watchable <i>on a news channel</i> and B, CNN ending it). I digress; typically watching CNN merely means bemoaning the degradation and painful dumbing down of CNN, as if they're appealing to children and they've decided to treat their channel like a grocery story checkout line magazine: cheap, disposable, able to digest while comatose with Cheeto fingers.<br /><br />Today, however, is Sunday. Which means they try to bring out their big boy shows. Forget inane things like new yoga poses, they say, we're taking an objective look at serious news! Huzzah! The problem is that they don't only fail, they also do so much damage that in the end it would literally be better if the TV screen was merely blank (as you can be assured mine currently is).<br /><br />CNN has this odd idea that objective journalism means having two sides of a story state their claim. I can understand why someone who doesn't think about what journalism or objectivity means might read that and think it's a good tactic. But that tactic is essentially saying that every issue has two sides and we're free to choose what the truth is. It's transforming the truth into whatever people say the truth is.<br /><br />Some things are true and some things are false. This claim doesn't seem like it should require a defender. And yet it does. You absolutely cannot create a culture whereby truth is determined by what people say the truth is. That's some sort of foreign garbage world that strips away everything that's valuable about the search for any truth.<br /><br />Either anthropogenic climate change is happening or it isn't. Either evolution is real or it isn't. Either the Big Bang happened or it didn't. Either President Obama was born in Hawaii or he wasn't. (Thanks to the Law of the Excluded Middle, which incidentally is integral to the problem of future contingents which addresses/attacks the idea of free will.)<br /><br />Truths about our world do not rely on people affirming them. The truth couldn't care less whether no one knows, some people know, or a lot of people know. It's entirely irrelevant - it doesn't matter how many people deny the truth; sounds made by <i>Homo sapiens</i> while on a small rock spinning around a star doesn't actually change the truth.<br /><br />When we try to discover what the truth is we can be aided by what other people say the truth is. But please, please, don't think that the truth is true because people say it. That's not the way it works outside of dystopian novels. Please don't confuse an aid for our mammalian brain with truths. CNN, please stop actively eroding the critical thinking skills of people who make the mistake of watching your show. Please stop pretending the truth is whatever people say the truth is. It's damaging, and I find the idea personally offensive.<br /><br />Finally, a quote from Christopher Hitchens:<br /><br />"My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass."Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-87401152382031863142012-06-16T11:18:00.000-07:002012-06-16T11:18:05.330-07:00Time-Locked Into the Human Condition<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left;">
I wrote this for a class recently. The prompt was along the lines of discussing time through stories.</div>
<div align="CENTER" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> The
human condition is marked by deficiencies. We have a psychological
need for understanding our place within the context of how we
naturally perceive time as flowing. That is: the past once was but is
no longer, the present is, the future is not yet but will be. We live
with the decisions we have made and anticipate future decisions which
have not been made. Thus both the past and the future are treated as
pseudo-existing in some way which is less real than the present.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> The
true nature of time may not be this way. There is a movement among
physicists that time is more properly perceived as part of a “block
universe”. This view suggests that the past is just as real as the
present is just as real as the future – there is no “flow” of
time. This is the “eternalism” view of time (Dowden pp. 150). But
whatever the true nature of time, humans are doomed to experience it
as a flow. That experience leaves us with needs.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> There
are two facets to our needs in this regard. The first is the social
aspect addressing the issue from the perspective of society, and the
second is the psychological aspect addressing the issue from the
perspective of an individual person. We can glean insight from
analyzing humanity through how we act as a group as well as how we
act as distinct persons within a group.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> In
the social aspect, stories largely satisfy this need by providing
role models for individuals to emulate. Stories have served this
function since ancient times through examples like “the perfect
husband” in the Bhagavad Gita, a Hindu holy text. Ancient mythology
is often still used as a source of role models for many people in
contemporary society. When one speaks of Job, the listener is
probably already aware of the story of suffering. When one wears a
“What Would Jesus Do” bracelet, there is no confusion about the
distinction meant between a Hispanic person named Jesus and Jesus of
Nazareth as depicted in Christian mythology. Humans have formed
groups and created stories for the individuals throughout all of
human history. </span>
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;">
There is no need to limit the focus to ancient mythology; stories are
still being created which provide role models to emulate. For
example: the rate of people wanting to join the Navy as Naval
Aviators rose 500 percent after the film Top Gun was released. Top
Gun provided the role model of Maverick as an ideal of bravery,
courage and confidence. Because people were presented with those
ideals they changed their course of action in an effort to live up to
those ideals.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> The
second way of looking at the need is from the psychological
standpoint, from the perspective of an individual person. We need to
learn how to attain meaning in a life which has an end. Because this
need is part of the human condition we have many stories to show us
comfort and wisdom.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> Sometimes
they tell us that our life doesn’t end – these are largely
religious stories. The need can also be satisfied through stories
which show us characters which face the end of time and work to
prevent that end, symbolizing our own secret desire to beat death. Or
stories which show us characters which have somehow lost the
meaningfulness of time and the experience serves to show us just how
valuable time is.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> There
is a common thread throughout these sorts of stories. They generally
take what’s first perceived as a weakness – life is futile,
fleeting and meaningless – and turn it on it’s head to produce a
story which tells us that it’s very fleeting nature of time which
makes it so incredibly valuable.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> In
the television show Angel, the main character says it thus:</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="line-height: 200%;">If there is no great glorious end
to all this, if - nothing we do matters, - then all that matters is
what we do. 'cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today. I
fought for so long. For redemption, for a reward - finally just to
beat the other guy, but... I never got it.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black;">The
theme in this excerpt, and in the stories we </span><span style="color: black;">are
examining generally, is that by accepting the frailty of life we are
able to truly value life.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> To
get a better understanding of precisely how stories do this, and how
it relates to the role of stories in our culture, the role of time,
and the role of humanity coping with the human condition, we’re
going to be examining 4 stories. First, it is important to understand
that when stories are referred to as mythological it is not a
pejorative term. A mythological story is one which is spiritually or
psychologically meaningful, the term does not pass judgment on the
truth value of the story. The stories are:</span></div>
<ul>
<li><div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;">The
mythological stories in the Christian Bible as understood by the
Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS)</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;">The
mythological stories in the Christian Bible as understood by the
Jehovah's Witnesses (JW)</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;">The
fictional story explained in the film Groundhog Day.</span></div>
</li>
<li><div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;">The
fictional story explained in the television show Doctor Who,
specifically the two-part episode “The End of Time”</span></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> The
first is a religious story. It’s the understanding of the LCMS
based on the Christian Bible. It’s an amillennialist position,
meaning that the portions of the Christian Bible which refer to
Christ having a literal 1,000 year reign on Earth is properly
interpreted as symbolic. The reign is introduced in the Christian
Bible in Revelations 20 (NIV)</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black;">They
[martyrs] came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>
</b></span></span><span style="color: black;">(The
rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were
ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those
who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power
over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will
reign with him for a thousand years.</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black;">They
believe that the reign is a spiritual reign rather than a physical
reign. Thus they embrace the idea of eternal existence in a form
similar to this existence but also different from this existence.
They also do not believe that how we spend our time on Earth (when it
comes to behaving morally) is enough to guarantee an eternal life of
bliss. They teach that while everyone has an eternal existence, not
every eternal existence is desirable.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1in; margin-right: 1in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6782512516991171916" name="en-NIV-31043"></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> The
LCMS does adopt the basics of general Christian eschatological (“</span><span style="color: black;">a
belief concerning death, the end of the world, or the ultimate
destiny of humankind”) beliefs. This is to say that the Christian
God (properly conceived as part of the Trinity) will bring all true
Christian believers into Heaven where they will live in bliss for
eternity. And an adverse fate awaits people who are not true
believers: they will suffer an eternity of conscious torment in Hell.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> LCMS
has formed their beliefs on the state of persons after biological
death based closely on the Christian Bible. One of the key verses is
Mark 16:16 (NIV): “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,
but whoever does not believe will be condemned”. The word “saved”
in this context refers to God saving a person from Hell. As Romans
6:23 (NIV) says: “the wages of sin is death”. Death in this
context does not refer to biological death, rather it refers to death
meaning Hell. This is clarified in Revelation 21:8 (NIV):</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black;"> “<span style="font-size: small;">But the cowardly, the
unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who
practice magic arts, the idolaters and the liars – they will be
consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second
death.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">This idea that the default destination is Hell is
reinforced in Revelation 20:15 (ESV): “And if anyone's name was not
found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of
fire”. So the LCMS believe that persons are inherently deserving
of leaving this reality and entering into one where, according to
Revelation 20:10 (NIV), “They will be tormented day and night for
ever and ever”.</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> The
other side of this belief is that those who follow the necessary
steps are destined for Heaven. The idea is clarified in Psalm
16:10-11 (NIV):</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black;">because you will not abandon me to
the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful one see decay.
You make known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in
your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black;">Keeping
in mind that death in the following context refers to a second death
(i.e., existing in Hell), the idea is further clarified in 1
Corinthians 15:26 (NIV): “The last enemy to be destroyed is death”.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> Interpreting
the Christian Bible in this way leads to an overarching story that
the best way for humans to cope with experiencing time is to realize
that this existence is only temporary. That the moral rules of
nature, given to us by the moral law-maker (the Christian God), are
set up in such a way that persons deserve eternal punishment without
the law-maker intervening on their behalf. This means that the common
notion that biological death means an end to experiencing time is
false. We can escape the second death (Hell) but only through
following the proper steps. This leads to an interpretation of John
3:16 (NIV) that when it says “whoever believes in [God] shall not
perish but have eternal life” that while not everyone will have
eternal life (i.e., not everyone will experience time in Heaven for
eternity) that everyone will have eternal life (i.e., continue to
experience time for all of eternity).</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> By
contrast, the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) consider themselves to be
millennialists. They base their beliefs on the Christian Bible, but
they interpret it very differently from how the LCMS interprets it.
JW believes that Christ returned in October 1914, but that Christ
returned invisibly. They chose that date based on Christian Biblical
chronology, specifically Daniel 4.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> Because
JW and LCMS are based on the same book they’ll share many
characteristics. For example, both believe in the Christian God. They
have different perceptions of God, however. LCMS theology teaches
that God is properly understood as part of the Trinity (that is: God
is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) while JW theology
teaches that God is properly understood as one being. LCMS teaches
that God is omnipresent (present everywhere) and omniscient
(all-knowing) while JW theology teaches that God is one being who is
not omnipresent and not omniscient.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;">
They also differ in their eschatological beliefs. JW theology teaches
that 144,000 people will ascend to Heaven to live in bliss for
eternity, that practicing JW believers who aren’t chosen to be
among those 144,000 will spend eternity on a Paradise Earth, while
people who haven’t been chosen to ascend to Heaven or experience a
Paradise Earth will simply cease to exist. By contrast, LCMS teaches
that all who have accepted Christ will be saved. They clarify by
saying in the </span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Doctrinal
Issues – Salvation </i></span></span><span style="color: black;">portion
of their website</span><span style="color: black;">:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black;">Paul is not contradicting his
continual emphasis in all his writings, including Romans, that a
person is saved not by what he does, but by faith in what Christ does
for him. Rather, he is discussing the principle of judgment according
to deeds. Judgment will be rendered according to one's deeds in the
sense that the good works of the</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">believer give evidence that he
has faith. Good works, which are seen, give evidence of faith, which
is</span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">unseen.</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black;"> So
religious stories, at least the ones this paper will be addressing,
tend to meet the psychological need by believing that the end of time
– whether viewed through the perspective of an individual as a
coherent biological being or through the perspective of ongoing human
experience – is not necessarily the genuine end of an individual
experiencing time. The individual suffers biological death and yet
the soul persists. Ongoing human experience now takes place in a
place of bliss rather than strife, but it still continues in a
different sort of way.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> The
idea that we as persons persist after our biological death stands in
sharp contrast with a materialist perspective. The materialist
perspective is that “</span><span style="color: black;">Everything
that actually exists is material, or physical”</span><span style="color: black;">
which means that souls do not exist, God does not exist, the phrase
“life after death” is self-contradictory, and so on. While the
term religion can be notoriously difficult to precisely define, most
religions reject a materialist worldview. They usually accept that
material physical objects exist, but also that the spiritual exists.
As an extension of this, they treat a materialist conception of time,
and understanding time, as being being a less-than-full accounting of
the nature of time in relation to persons experiencing time.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> Religious
stories about vary in their details but they overwhelmingly have a
theme of accepting that our biological bodies and their existence are
real but that something like a soul exists in addition. By inserting
the concept of something in addition to the physical body they are
opening the door to an individual experiencing biological death
without experiencing true death of the self. They introduce a new
twist: time doesn’t end; whether that’s desirable for you as an
individual depends on how closely you’re following the rules.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> They
also help people learn how to behave. By codifying a set of laws and
adding an addendum that the reward for following the rules is eternal
life, and that the punishment for not following the rules is eternal
punishment, they become very powerful tools when shaping people's
behavior.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> Interestingly,
they can shape people's behavior even if the person is not a believer
but merely has been exposed to these stories. For example, one study
suggests that when voters are near churches that they are more likely
to profess a belief in God and more likely to give conservative
opinions (ABC News). The link between stories and human psychology
appears to be a fundamental link that significantly affects us. More
importantly, these stories change the concept of time in order to
change how people view time and consequently how to use time.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;">The
third story is the film Groundhog Day. This story is different in
that rather than a divine intervention warning of a future event, the
key revelation in our comprehension of time comes without warning and
without any description. Humanity doesn’t ascend to another level
of reality, nor does time reach an end. The story describes the
protagonist as a shallow person who isn’t appreciative of the gift
of time. Perhaps the best way to illustrate this quickly is to say
that the protagonist holds the opposite of the perspective advocated
by the character Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek: Generations:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black;">Someone once told me that time was
a predator that stalked us all our lives, but I rather believe that
time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to
cherish every moment because they'll never come again. What we leave
behind is not as important as how we've lived. After all, Number One,
we're only mortal.</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black;">The
protagonist of Groundhog Day rather views time as a background in
which one operates egotistically.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> Groundhog
Day eliminates the invisible privilege that we, and the protagonist,
experience. The film forces the character to relive the same day
constantly, some estimates have put the time experienced as long as
10,000 years! So it takes away the meaningfulness of time for the
main character.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> Instead
of presenting time in the traditional linear fashion, it presents
time in a very cyclical fashion. It highlights the mundane uses of
time which we take for granted and makes it so that the very
mundaneness becomes the most significant thing in the world. It is a
way of demonstrating meaningfulness in life by changing how we
perceive time.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> This
is different from the religious stories in that they essentially say
“this life is meaningless</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> The
End of Time is a two part episode from the television show Doctor
Who. It is epic and expansive, but I want to focus on one episode. In
the Doctor Who universe there are alien races. One of those races
are called the Time Lords. They are very similar to humans (i.e.,
they are persons, they appear in a human body, they eat and drink,
etc) but also different (i.e., they are near immortal, they have two
hearts, etc). The show exploits those differences to shine new light
on human experiences. For example, the Time Lords can regenerate
under most circumstances. This is an incredibly helpful device for
the mechanics of producing a show about one person which first aired
in 1963. More than that, it is helpful because it presents death in a
similar light as many of the religious stories. Which is to say that
death occurs but that the common notion of death as ending life is
incorrect.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> When
a Time Lord is set on the course of events that would traditionally
result in death (i.e., fatal but with the clarification that it is
not necessarily going to be fatal) they engage in a process of
rebirth or regeneration. Their physical body is transformed into a
new adult physical body and yet the Time Lord retains his or her
essence. The Time Lord, for example, retains memories and yet adopts
a new personality. One of the recurring lines in the show
demonstrates that they have no control about choosing their new body
when the Doctor announces “I'm still not ginger!”.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> This
is similar to the religious stories because the person (not human,
but person) experiences the end of his or her biological death –
what traditionally means the end of experiencing time – and yet his
or her essence exists after biological death. It is different in that
the religious stories rest on the idea of humans moving to a new
reality, while the Time Lords stay in their reality. There are small
comparisons to changing reality since one's reality is largely
determined by how one perceives reality (i.e., a person with a happy
personality will perceive reality in a more positive light, a tall
person will perceive reality from a slightly higher position, and so
on) but the essential notion of transitioning to a new reality is
lost.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> There
is also a comparison between Ecclesiastes 1 and one of the general
themes of Doctor Who. The exact age of The Doctor is unclear but he
has said that he has lived several thousands years and on another
occasion 953 years. His experiences during those years –
specifically his losses – have given him a wise and often tragic
perspective. This is mirrored in Ecclesiastes 1:16-18 (NIV):</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black;">I said to myself, “Look, I have
increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem
before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” Then I
applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness
and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.
For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more
grief</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black;">There
is a parallel between the two stories in that they both include
figures who have experienced time – and not merely passively
experienced it, but rather fully lived it – and accordingly have
wise perspectives on the meaningfulness or meaningless of this
existence. The religious stories conclude that the wise perspective
is that this life is without meaning, or at least that this life
derives meaning from another life. Doctor Who concludes that while
life can be tragic, and existence absurd, that striving to make life
better for others is the most meaningful way of using one's time.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> In
the episode we are focusing on, almost the entire Time Lord race is
trapped inside a “time bubble”. They are unable to come out of it
and into the world except through ending time. They exist, but in a
different dimension where they are unable to interact with the rest
of reality outside their bubble. They are “time-locked” into
their own existence. </span>
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> They
find a loophole and find that they are able to interact with the
outside reality through a subconscious message with one of the only
two Time Lords who are not trapped in the time bubble. The problem is
that by breaking out of the time bubble they will be destroying
Earth and its inhabitants thereby ending time from the perspective of
humanity. </span>
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> The
protagonist of the show, known simply as “The Doctor”, is faced
with the choice of bringing his race back into existence from the
time bubble and ending the ability of humans to experience time, or
allowing his race to be sentenced to an eternity of being trapped.
One of the common themes throughout the show is the loneliness of The
Doctor so the idea of having his race back is very attractive. But,
in the end, he chooses to send his race back into the time bubble and
thus preserving the ability of humans to experience time.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> All
of the stories take different approaches to highlighting the
necessity of humans spending their time wisely. The religious stories
call attention to the fleeting nature of time (as experienced by an
individual) by contrasting it with the idea of eternity. Groundhog
Day accomplishes the same thing by taking away what is significant
about time: our ignorance of future events and ability to make
choices changing the future. The End of Time does it by presenting
The Doctor with something he deeply needs but can only achieve at the
expense of the ability of humans to experience time. </span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> The
stories have a recurring theme of demonstrating some sort of
impending doom: being sentenced on Judgment Day, brought about by
biological death; being forced to relive the same day eternally; the
end of humanity brought about by inaction on behalf of The Doctor.
And then they demonstrate how this doom can be averted: following the
proper steps; becoming a better person; sending the Time Lords back
into their time bubble. It is a combination of first demonstrating
some need and then providing a way for individuals to meet that need.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> What
allows an individual to use a story to meet that need is the ability
to draw a correlation from the story into a need that is already
present. This requires a slight qualification in that the religious
stories present themselves as literally true while the other two
stories present themselves as fiction. But what gives meaning to a
mythological story is that it is meaningful to humans sharing this
existence not whether its claims are ultimately true. So in one sense
mythological stories are meaningful because they provide instructions
relevant for the next life, but in the sense I am using the word they
are meaningful because they give meaning to humans in this life.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> Religious
stories provide insight into the nature of the cosmos, ethics, the
meaning of the concept death and generally providing guidance and
comfort – or fear, but that is just as consequential – to humans.
We have an innate need to understand what causes things to happen.
This specific need manifests itself both in the how and the why. For
example: how do tornadoes work (i.e., what is the description of the
natural process) as well as why a tornado struck one house and not
the other (i.e., why did the natural process behave that way instead
of another?). So while humans do not have an innate need for, say,
the name of God, they do have an innate need which is satisfied by
religious stories which include details like the name of God. They
create a need to satisfy in the sense that they create the proper
steps one needs to take to avoid Hell. But in the course of
satisfying the need they have created, they satisfy other needs
inherent in the human condition.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> The
same applies to the fictional stories. In Groundhog Day they create
the need for the protagonist to break out of the cycle of repeating
the same day, and they satisfy that need by having the protagonist
become a better person. This is meaningful because humans already
have an inherent need to deal with repeating days (that is:
existence) and an innate need to understand how one should behave
towards others. The film makes a comparison between the need created
and the need inherent, and then provides the solution to both needs:
existence isn't futile, and we should treat people with kindness.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> In
Doctor Who they create the need of saving humanity at great cost to
The Doctor. It presents the choice of fulfilling the ultimate desire
at great cost to other persons, or to act selflessly and deny one's
own desires in order to benefit other persons. This ties into the
human need to understand selfishness and whether time is best spent
helping others or fulfilling our own selfish desires. In addition to
the general theme of the episode, a portion of dialogue between The
Doctor and a human named Wilfred. Wilfred chose to enter into a small
radiation chamber which is about to be filled with radiation. The
only way out is if The Doctor enters the adjoining radiation chamber
and locks himself inside. The Doctor has a choice of allowing Wilfred
to be killed by the imminent flood of radiation or absorb it himself,
but if he absorbs it himself then he will have to regenerate. While
he won't lose his essence, he will lose his personality which is a
large part of his identity.</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black;">WILF</span><span style="color: black;">RED:
Look, just leave me.</span><span style="color: black;">DOCTOR:
Okay, right then, I will. Because you had to go in there, didn't you?
You had to go and get stuck, oh yes. Because that's who you are,
Wilfred. You were always this. Waiting for me all this time.</span><span style="color: black;">WILFRED:
No really, just leave me. I'm an old man, Doctor. I've had my
time.</span><span style="color: black;">DOCTOR:
Well, exactly. Look at you. Not remotely important. But me? I could
do so much more. So much more! But this is what I get. My reward. And
it's not fair! Oh. Oh. I've lived too long.</span><span style="color: black;">WILFRED:
No. No, no, please, please don't. No, don't! Please don't!
Please!</span><span style="color: black;">DOCTOR:
Wilfred, it's my honour. Better be quick. Three, two, one.</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black;">The
Doctor has faced the larger issue of sacrifice and now is presented
with a smaller scale reward. Wilfred is old, he chose to enter the
chamber, he is a human. The Doctor just saved the human race; he
deserves a reward not death.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> So
while Doctor Who has created a need in the sense of impending doom of
humanity and then the death of Wilfred, that need is mirrored in the
pre-existing human need of learning about selflessness. In both
instances The Doctor freely chooses to sacrifice – both the return
of his race and then his identity – on behalf of others. The
ultimate desire is shown not to be fulfilling a selfish desire,
rather the ultimate desire is to freely sacrifice on behalf of
others. It is only through sacrifice that we can achieve meaning in
life. This satisfies the inherent need of humans to learn how to
achieve meaning in life.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> There
is also a more general need innate in humanity: the need for life
having significance. Religious stories tell us that this life is
significant because how behavior and beliefs will influence ourselves
after we undergo biological death. The details vary, to be sure, but
that is the gist. This is particularly present in the theology of the
JW. They emphasize evangelizing based on Matthew 28:19-20, when Jesus
of Nazareth said:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black;">“</span><span style="color: black;">Therefore
go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>
</b></span></span><span style="color: black;">and
teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I
am with you always, to the very end of the age.”</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black;">They
emphasize that using time meaningfully means, to a large degree,
spreading their religion.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 1in; margin-right: 1in;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6782512516991171916" name="en-NIV-24215"></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> Groundhog
Day satisfies this need pointing out that being able to experience
time is a privilege. By taking away that privilege it uses contrast
to demonstrate the significance of experiencing time. We see the
transformation of the character from egotistical and unable to
appreciate life, to egotistical and still unable to appreciate life
(once he is in the loop), to selfless and finally able to appreciate
the gift of time's apparent flow. It directly addresses the
difficulty of finding meaning in a finite life by showing how
undesirable an infinite life is.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> The
End of Time illustrates the same need by setting up a scenario in
which a powerful moral person is forced to choose between humans
experiencing time and something he needs. It is a bit different in
that the protagonist is not strictly speaking human, but it is fairly
obvious that The Doctor is meant to represent humans. By making his
choice and sacrificing so much he is able to help others appreciate
the gift of time. </span>
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> The
other common thread is that these stories generally rely on
privileged information. This takes the form of privileged
experiences. In the religious stories the privileged experiences are
caused by the divine, and the authors of the Bible are privy to the
information. By sharing that information with people who lacked the
experience, they are able to help them learn what is important about
life and how we spend it.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> The
fictional stories also rely on privileged information. In The End of
Time, The Doctor is the one who has access to special information.
The sort of privileged experience is a bit different in form,
however. Rather than being told something from an outside source the
privileged experience comes from a combination of his wisdom from
living for such a long time as well as his capability. He is not told
some sort of information per se, he is able to form an informed
judgment based on his uniqueness as compared to humans. In Groundhog
day the main character clearly has access to information that the
other characters lack. Specifically, he is able to know what will
happen during the day that he is reliving as a loop.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"> The
stories differ in their methodology and intention. But they all
highlight something intrinsic to humanity – we experience time as
flowing, filtered through our ignorant mammalian brains – and use
it as a way question how we should view time in the context of
experiencing time. Although we only examined this phenomenon through
4 stories, it is present in many stories. It is a unique way in which
humans produce material to help ourselves deal with the absurdity of
the human condition: deficiencies and the need to address those
deficiencies. To quote Christopher Hitchens:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black;">"I know what's coming, I know
no one beats these odds. It's a matter of getting used to that,
growing up and realising that you're expelled from your mother's
uterus as if shot from a cannon, towards a barn door studded with old
nail files and rusty hooks. It's a matter of how you use up the
intervening time in an intelligent and ironic way. And try not to do
anything dastardly to your fellow creatures."</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: black;">Even
though everyone can not be right simultaneously on precisely how we
should appreciate the gift of experiencing time – or if the “barn
door studded with old nail files and rusty hooks” even exists! -
it appears to be a timeless fact that every thinking person will
spend time struggling to find an answer if not The Answer.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-77798092597706343612012-05-01T15:04:00.000-07:002012-05-01T15:04:16.689-07:00Orwellian Freedom Tower. Or: there is a tale that the island people tell...<br />
I turned CNN on the other morning. The people who tend to adopt the viewpoint that "MSNBC is left-wing, FOX is right-wing, therefore objectively reporting means listening to both sides and declaring it a tie". And the other morning they had extensive reporting on "Octomom". I'll save you some time:<br />
<br />
1) Her mortgage is in trouble. But that's OK, because "a lot of people are in [this sort of] trouble now". So don't let the latest update on the status of her mortgage bother you.<br />
<br />
2) Some people criticize her for having so many children.<br />
<br />
3) She "defends herself" against such accusations. She does not appreciate them one bit because they don't know her!<br />
<br />
4) There was spilled paint. This paint was spilled by one of her sons, and is not indicative of disrepair which is contrary to what some people said. People need to get off her back because they don't know her!<br />
<br />
So, you know, important stuff.<br />
<br />
Then they talked to great length about the fact that some people were offended by a speech in a high school. It's all very important and not transitory drama at all. Journalism is alive and well.<br />
<br />
Anyway:<br />
<br />
They also mentioned the "Freedom Tower". It's the tower that was erected in response to the 9/11 attacks, the wikipedia page tells me that its real name is "One World Trade Center" and that Freedom Tower was its previous name. That's all just background detail, I want to focus on the rationale behind naming it and referring to it as the Freedom Tower even if its official name has been changed.<br />
<br />
It bothered me. It took me awhile to figure out exactly why. Then it hit me: they're implying that the 9/11 attacks were attacks on the concept of freedom. Put another way: the 9/11 attacks were motivated by a hatred of freedom. Well, OK, I knew that realization still bothered me but I couldn't figure out exactly why.<br />
<br />
What's wrong with characterizing the terror attacks that way? Doesn't Al-Qaeda want to restrict freedom? Aren't they opposed to many of the things that the United States enjoys? Democracy, a secular government (contrary to a wonderfully ignorant poster I saw the other idea which used the ceremonials deist phrase "One Nation Under God" as an argument that *of course* America is a Christian nation designed to be governed according my denomination's interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament of the Christian Bible except for the bits I don't like, but definitely include the bits we do, and let's add some more and pretend it has some passages about the relations of particular clumps of cells to the concept of personhood - *it's so self evident that our money says so!* But, sigh, I digress), free speech (including both words and actions), and so on. Clearly Al-Qaeda is against all these things, and hates freedom!<br />
<br />
Well, if you pay attention to my off-topic rants then you can see where I'm going with this. Al-Qaeda hates freedom, sure. But that isn't what drives religious (using that term instead of the more specific Islamic or Fundamental Islamic helps highlight what I'm trying to say) terrorism is righteousness. A love for righteousness and a desire to please God. Their search for righteousness leads them to believe that the best way to show your devotion to God is to use the government to force everyone adheres to the rules God has given us.<br />
<br />
That understanding is somewhat unsettling. But, like so many things, it's the only conclusion I can reach which doesn't leave me with unbearable cognitive dissonance.<br />
<br />
That's why it bothered me to hear CNN refer to the Freedom Tower more than it bothered me to hear them report on inane drama-inducing pop culture trivia. I can hear the latter all day long and let it go in one ear and out the other. But when I heard the former something struck in my head, like a mental reflex. I didn't know the precise cause but I knew there was one.<br />
<br />
By naming it the Freedom Tower we're using Orwellian language to misrepresent reality. We're framing the issue as something which is easy to swallow: foreign garbed people following a bizarre religion with bizarre customs (AKA outsiders) hate our freedom! In reality, the problem is much closer to our culture. People are willing to hurt others in their search for righteousness. They're willing to do this in ways that seem bizarre to outside observers. It can take the form of blowing up a building. It can take the general form of misrepresentation and ignorance and dogmatic belief concerning abortion or contraception. It can take the specific form of the Catholic Church lying to ignorant Africans and instructing them that condom use increases AIDS transmission. It can take the specific form of a recent Arizona law declaring that every woman who is potentially pregnant (that is: not menstruating or what normal people call "pregnant") will be retroactively declared pregnant.<br />
<br />
It takes all sorts of forms. But whether we like it or not, whether we hear all of this and think "well, yeah, because their theology is wrong - that's the problem!" the same thing that motivated the 9/11 attacks is alive and prosperous in our own society. As I said, that can be a bit unsettling. It's certainly more difficult than thinking "9/11 happened because The Outsiders hate freedom!", but I think it's true. And unless we acknowledge this fundamental fact then we'll never be able to have a constructive discussion on how to move on from 9/11.<br />
<br />
It's easy to be right in hindsight, but I think this misunderstanding was one of the many factors leading to invading and occupying two predominantly Muslim countries. We as a nation were forced to hold two beliefs: Muslims were responsible for 9/11 because the Quran advocates it, and also Muslims were not responsible for 9/11 because the Quran doesn't advocate it. Many people took the former belief because it's easier. But the truth is neither of those things; the truth is more complicated.<br />
<br />
I think it deserves an honest discussion which we can't have as long as we do things like have Freedom Towers. Using that Orwellian language obfuscates (Yes Franklin and Bash, it is a real word) the issue and renders honest conversation impossible. That bothers me.<br />Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-79821884448283557542012-04-28T12:45:00.000-07:002012-04-28T12:46:50.736-07:00Europe, Austerity, Interest Rates.<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I think it's oversimplified to say that
Europe has instituted austerity measures and they've failed. I don't
think they've been successful but it's complicated. Also, all of the
numbers I'm using I'm completely making up without regard to scale.
That being said:
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A government can raise money through
taxes or by borrowing ("debt-financing"). There are (IMO)
legitimate reasons to borrow money to pay for things, and there are
(IMO) illegitimate reasons for a government to borrow money. But the
bottom line is that governments in Europe often borrowed a lot of
money.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A note about interest rates: they could
borrow the money cheaply. Which means low interest rates. A low
interest rate: borrowing $1,000 for a year and at the end of the year
paying back $1,001. A high interest rate: borrowing $1,000 for a year
and at the end of the year paying back $1,500. Low-risk borrowers get
low interest rates. High-risk borrowers get high interest rate.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Think about loaning to someone you
trust versus someone you don't trust. You're willing to loan money to
someone you know will pay you back, it's a very safe investment.
You're very unwilling to loan money to someone you think will never
pay you back. As a way of compensating for this, people charge a lot
of money when they're worried they might not get it back, and people
charge very little money when they know they'll be paid back.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Example of high-risk borrowers versus
low-risk borrowers in real life, using real numbers:
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/us/" target="_blank">A source for the numbers if you wantto see themyourself</a>,
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payday_loan" target="_blank">an article on paydayloans</a> and <a href="http://ago.mo.gov/cgi-bin/ConsumerCorner/calculators/payday.cgi" target="_blank">a payday loancalculator</a><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
An <b>extremely safe loan</b> is loaning
to the US federal government. You can loan them money for a year and
earn about .18% interest. Meaning:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<ul>
<li>Loan them $100</li>
<li>In a year you get paid back $100.18</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Or from the point of view of the
borrower (the US federal government):
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<ul>
<li>Borrow $100</li>
<li>In a year pay back $100.18</li>
<li>Pay an annual interest rate of
<b>.18%</b></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A <b>slightly riskier, but still very
safe, loan</b> is loaning to a city or county in the US. You can loan
them money for a year and earn about .208% interest. Meaning:
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<ul>
<li>Loan them $100</li>
<li>In a year you get paid back $100.208</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Or from the point of view of the
borrower (a city or county in the US)
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<ul>
<li>Borrow $100</li>
<li>In a year pay back $100.208</li>
<li>Pay an annual interest rate of
<b>.208%</b></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
An <b>extremely risky loan</b> is loaning
to someone as a payday loan. Interest rates vary, but let's assume a
common interest rate of 15.5%, a loan of $100, and *instead of a
year* the loan is only for 2 weeks. Meaning:
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<ul>
<li>Loan them $100</li>
<li>In two weeks you get paid back
$115.50</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Or from the point of view of the
borrower (the person getting a payday loan)
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<ul>
<li>Borrow $100</li>
<li>In two weeks pay back $115.50</li>
<li>Pay an annual interest rate of
<b>403%</b> (yes: four hundred and 3; it's not a typo)</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So you can see how some people can
borrow money easily, only having to pay a little for it. And how some
people have difficulty borrowing money, and have to pay out the ass
for it.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A government is usually seen as really
stable. Meaning you can lend them money without worrying that they'll
go bankrupt, and you know they can always pay you back by raising
taxes. So the governments in Europe borrowed a lot of money and they
borrowed it cheaply and easily.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So a simplified hypothetical budget:
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Revenue</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
$5,000 through taxation</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
$3,000 through borrowing</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Expenses</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
$7,500 spending</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
$500 paying loans</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Total</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Balanced ($0)</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Then the financial crisis hit. Suddenly
1) they have to pay more for the money they've borrowed 2) they have
to pay more to borrow additional money 3) citizens have less money to
pay in taxes 4) more citizens need more support (unemployment,
welfare, food stamps, etc)
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Now their budget looks like:
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Revenue</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
$4,000 through taxation
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
$2,000 through borrowing
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Expenses</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
$8,000 spending
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
$1,000 paying loans
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Total</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Non-balanced: $3,000 gap</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
They're taking in $6,000 and spending
$9,000. <b>You can't do that!</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Which leaves 3 options:
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
1) Raise taxes. That's unpopular, and
it takes money out of the economy at the precise time your economy
needs more money. So that's not a good call.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
2) Austerity measures. This means
spending less. Which means that at the precise time your citizens
need help and your economy needs increased spending, you're spending
less. So that's not a good call.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
3) Borrow more. This will put you
farther in debt. The more you borrow, the riskier you become, and the
more it costs to borrow. So that's not a good call.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So a lot of governments chose austerity
measures. Remember when I mentioned the whole "your economy
needs increased spending, you're spending less" problem? Yeah,
it's a serious problem.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
People spending money is what keeps the
economy going. Think of it as lube in an engine that keeps the whole
thing running smoothly. You spending money one place gives that
person money to spend another place which gives that person money to
give you, and so on. It's a giant circle, a smoothly running machine,
a well lubed engine.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
Simplified example:</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Imagine a household composed of two
people: Mother Mary and Daughter Diane. The mother owns a lumber yard
and the daughter goes to school. Now imagine a business, an ice cream
shop owned by Ian.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Mary earns money, she gives $5 to Diane
every week. Diane spends $5 at the ice cream shop. That $5 is now
Ian's $5. Ian turns it into $6. Ian then spends $6 at the lumber
yard. Now Mary has $6.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<ul>
<li>Mary has $5</li>
<li>She "spends" it by giving
$5 it to Diane</li>
<li>Diane spends it by giving $5 it to
Ian</li>
<li>Ian spends it by giving $6 it to
Mary</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
AKA <i>it's all good</i>. $5 has become $6.
Rinse, repeat, keep churning out the dough.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Because of some CDO swap gone bad by a banker in London who complains about his annual $5,000,000 bonus turning into a mere $4,500,000, lumber becomes more expensive. Mary can
only afford to give Diane $3. Diane spends $3 at the ice cream shop.
That $3 is now Ian's $3. Ian turns it into $3.50. Ian then spends
$3.50 at the lumber yard. Now Mary has $3.50.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<ul>
<li>Mary has $3</li>
<li>She "spends" it by giving
$3 to Diane</li>
<li>Diane spends it by giving $3 to Ian</li>
<li>Ian spends it by giving $3.50 to
Mary</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Well, that's still good. $3 has become
$3.50
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But now Mary has less money to spend.
So she stops giving Diane anything. (OK, her love, but no
allowance.)
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<ul>
<li>Mary has $0</li>
<li>She doesn't give anything to Diane</li>
<li>Diane doesn't give anything Ian</li>
<li>Ian doesn't give anything to Mary</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And now we have a serious problem. No
one is earning money because no one is spending money.
<br />
<br />
Keep in mind this situation wasn't brought about a cabal in Geneva. No one bribed a politician to manipulate the economy in such a way that non-rich people get the short end of the stick.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
When people stop spending money the
engine stops running well. So you know the problem that governments
faced by the financial crisis? That gap of $3,000? When people stop
spending money it places further pressure on that gap. It exacerbates
the problem. Revenue goes down (no money, how can someone pay taxes
when they don't have money?) and the need for spending goes up (more
unemployed people, more need for assistance, etc).
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So how do we fix this?
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Austrian economics says that it's
better to let the system sort itself out. Yes, there's short term
pain. But that pain is necessary. Like ripping off a bandage: it's
better to do it quickly and painfully and move on. This means
austerity measures. Not surprisingly, advocates of this view are often wealthy or motivated by resentment (i.e., LOOK AT THE DEBT, IT'S TRIPLED BECAUSE THE MEXICANS GET WELFARE AND ABORTIONS).<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Keynesian economics says that it's
better for the government to intervene. So you have things like
stimulus packages (even though about 40% of that was tax cuts...) and
TARP. Intervening by borrowing money which increases the debt in the
short term. Wait a minute, you might say, doesn't borrowing money
make it more expensive and turn into a spiral?
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Remember those incredibly low interest
rates for the US federal government? They're an incredible blessing!
The US federal government can borrow money for a year at 0.18% while,
for example, Greece can do the same thing at 14%. US treasury bonds
are about the safest investment, while Greek bonds are incredibly
risky. The economy of the United States is growing at 2.2%, Greece is
shrinking at -5%. That's the fundamental difference between the
general case and the specific case.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But back to the austerity. When the
government cuts back on spending it takes more money out of the
economy. Remember the above example with the Mary to Diane to Ian to Mary loop? It's broken in a bad economy. You have to
remember that it's not just her link with Ian, it's her link with
many people and their subsequent link. As an aside, President Bush
wasn't wrong when he told people to go shopping after 9/11. Anyway,
given austerity measures we might see things like:
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
<ul>
<li>The police force has been scaled
back, Mary's business is now in a more dangerous neighborhood
requiring more money for insurance</li>
<li>The roads aren't maintained as well
leading to a higher cost for auto maintenance</li>
<li>Her child's school stops offering
subsidized lunches, leading to a higher cost for Mary</li>
<li>The post office closed, now Mary has
to drive across town daily. Leading to increased transportation
costs</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And so on.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I wasn't being entirely accurate when I
said Mary's link with everyone was broken. It was damaged. And all of
these things caused by austerity measures damages it further, leading
to a feedback loop of economic failure. As fewer people participate in the economy, it then necessarily causes fewer people to participate which then necessarily causes fewer people to participate, and so on.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So when the governments in Europe
instituted austerity measures they helped increase the intensity of
that loop. And by doing so they found themselves in the exact same
budget gap problem they had before, only now it's worse. They have to
figure a way out of it and there's no easy answer.<br />
<br />
So when someone says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Look at how the debt has gone up recently! Gosh darn high debt is bad therefore Obama is mismanaging our money by wasting it on welfare queens and illegals. I'm not bigoted or resentful, that's just the only frame of reference I have for thinking about the government or taxes.</blockquote>
Don't be misled.</div>Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-1337367720024836232012-04-24T17:44:00.001-07:002012-04-24T17:44:28.586-07:00Mocking Don McLeroy: an examination of ignorance<br />
<a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/mon-april-23-2012-don-mcleroy">http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/mon-april-23-2012-don-mcleroy</a><br />
<br />
The whole episode was amazing, as usual. But I particularly enjoyed Colbert interviewing of Don McLeroy. He's the former head of the Texas State Board of Education which was responsible for using the government to teach children all sorts of inaccuracies and misrepresentation. It's not particularly surprising that he shows unforgivable ignorance and stupidity. It's kind of scary. A few take aways:<br />
<br />
1) Scientific truths aren't unearthed by the hunches of poorly educated dentists. Believe it or not, some people actually make their living by what the layman might refer to as "doing science". It consists of a lot more than getting a puzzled look and concluding magic is a better explanation.<br />
<br />
2) Scientific truths aren't voted on. We're free people who are free to believe anything we like. Perhaps someone thinks that flipping a light switch is casting a magical spell which happens to turn lights on. That's fine, but don't teach children that. You're intellectually crippling them when you act as if truth is dependent on a vote.<br />
<br />
3) Evolution is not "random". The barest and most simple Internet search dispels this myth. If someone claims the right to teach children that evolution (AKA "So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words") is false... It's extremely disappointing to see them so completely and unforgivably ignorant.<br />
<br />
4) A university is not a left-wing seminary. I suppose if one considered reality to be left-wing then it might be, but I doubt if Dr. McLeroy would accept that definition. It's entirely disingenuous, misleading, and false to claim that because educated people largely hold different opinions than uneducated people that both beliefs require an equivalency and both were brought about by indoctrination. Learning how the world works isn't something that should be feared.<br />
<br />
5) The so-called experts are so called because they are experts. I'm not sure how pointing out how widespread acceptance evolution is - how all real scientists accept it as fact - is evidence that it's untrue. But I suppose I'm using so-called reasoning to reach that conclusion.<br />
<br />
6) "Somebodies got to stand up to experts". Well, yeah. Like other scientists. That's how a self-correcting processing works. We don't gain better understandings of the world by asking the uninformed and purposely dense for their input under the guise that's "standing up to experts". And we certainly don't then claim "well, some people say this, some people say that, who can know?"<br />
<br />
There's a reason I don't march into the astronomy lab of my university and announce that I'm standing up to them by teaching their children that the theory of heliocentrism is false. There's nothing particularly admirable about being ignorant and attempting to ensure the schools keep children ignorant.<br />
<br />
7) "Evolutionists". Again, he's trying to create a false equivalence of evolution and creationism. Hey, both are called theories and grammar allows us to identify those who advocate them by adding "ists", so who can know which is more likely to be real? Evolution is a fact and a theory (there's literally an entire Wikipedia article on it). Calling someone an evolutionist is akin to calling someone a gravityist or a bacteriaist or a germist. It's misleading and dishonest.<br />
<br />
8) <i>Homo sapiens</i> didn't walk with dinosaurs. One doesn't get to call it a "personal scientific view", any more than I have a "personal scientific view" that France is fictional place or a "personal scientific view" that instead of the Sun it's actually an illusion brought about by vampires on the Andromeda Galaxy. We don't get respect for "personal scientific views" that are incorrect by placing the word person (i.e., a preface announcing that courtesy demands respect of whatever idea follows) at the beginning of the sentence.<br />
<br />
9) "Jonathan Edwards said that nothing is what a sleeping rock dreams of". The quote is originally attributed to Aristotle, and the quote is "nothing is what rocks dream about". It muddles the metaphor to refer to the rock as sleeping, since that's the entire point: rocks don't sleep neither do they dream.<br />
<br />
Of course, I'm trusting the so-called experts to have translated that correctly, so Aristotle may have really said "about rocks? Nothing dreams of that!". The point is, we can't trust the experts except when we can. What can we trust? That ignorant hunches are a better source of scientific truth than so-called science conducted over hundreds of years by so-called scientists who have made so-called paradigm theories for their so-called scientific fields, like the so-called biology.<br />
<br />
That's all I am: just a fellow traveler looking to reconfirm what I was taught as a child. Reality sometimes gets in the way - :( - that's why I'm a skeptic!<br />Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-6436468249743220392012-01-28T17:30:00.000-08:002012-01-28T17:30:15.598-08:00Spiders are scary... or are they?<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I read this today: "people tend to develop phobias for evolutionarily relevant threats (like snakes and spiders) rather than for things that are far more likely to kill them (like automobiles and electrical sockets)". So I got these 4 pictures and if you're anything like me you'll find that 2 of the objects appear benign, while two appear sinister to the point of causing discomfort. </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.imgur.com/hbKB7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="251" src="http://i.imgur.com/hbKB7.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.imgur.com/spVdc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="230" src="http://i.imgur.com/spVdc.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.imgur.com/BM6Yw.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://i.imgur.com/BM6Yw.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.imgur.com/7346R.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://i.imgur.com/7346R.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Then it struck me that, once one understands evolution, this should have been incredibly obvious. One shouldn't find out something so simple and experience a feeling of enlightenment. Especially someone like me who considers themselves relatively intelligent and (accounting for age) relatively well-educated. This apparent paradox frustrated me, so naturally its been on my mind since I first read the original sentence. </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The more I thought about it, the more I realized how <b>utterly fantastic</b> it is that we're able to experience such frustrations. There are 2 main reasons: we exist in a time where we can have the knowledge of something like that, and what the actual knowledge means. </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">We can compare time from the earliest life to 2012 by using a calendar. I calculated the calendar by scratch using a yellow pad and Wikipedia, so feel free to verify. There are of course some limitations to any such representation, but the underlying theme is well established fact. I set the start date of the calendar to January 1 at midnight, and the end date is December 31 at 11:59:59, and I'm using the calendar of the year 2012: </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">January 1st: Primordial ooze beings to exist </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">May 16, 9:00 pm: The great oxygenation event </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">September 12, noon: Sexual reproduction arises </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">November 6, 6:00 am: The first multi-cellular creatures arrive </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">November 10, 7:30 pm: The earliest brain appears via a flatworm. And these are still around! So consider that before defining *Homo sapiens* as the pinnacle of evolution. </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">November 14, 10:03 pm: The first vertebrate appears </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">November 27, 4:39 pm: The first recognizable limbs begin to appear </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">November 30, 10:12 pm: The first mammals appear </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">December 21, 9:00 pm: At this point there's a common ancestor of mice and men </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">December 27, 8:24 am: Primates diverge into subgroups </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">December 28, 5:15 pm: Old World Monkeys diverge from apes </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">December 29, 7:13 pm: The common ancestor of humans and great apes is alive </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">December 30, 2:08:44 pm: Very early hominin genus, they had brains 1/5 the size of modern humans </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">December 30, 5:25:48 pm: Loss of body hair, full bipedalism </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">December 30, 8:01:09 pm: <i>Homo erectus</i> is thrust into the world </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">December 30, 8:42:54 pm: We learn to control fire </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">December 30, 11:13:11 pm: The earliest anatomically modern humans </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">December 30, 11:50:19: pm: Behavioral modernity (e.g. using tools, symbolic thought, cooking food) </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">December 30, 11:52:02 pm: We leave Africa and interbreed with Neanderthals </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">December 30, 11:58:25 pm: Europeans develop light skin, <i>Homo sapiens</i> become the last living species of the genus<i> Homo </i></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">This isn't comparing, say, from the Big Bang or even from the Earth's creation. This is just our ancestry! For the "first 364.99" days every living creature was incapable of anything much more complicated than fishing or drawing crude pictures. Even once <i>Homo sapiens</i> emerged, our first ~100,000 years we lived to around 25 and if we were lucky enough to avoid a brutal violent death our teeth would kill us. For emphasis from Jared Diamond: "the actual percentage of the population that died violently was on the average higher in traditional pre-state societies than it was even in Poland during the Second World War or Cambodia under Pol Pot."</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">And yet here we sit! The beneficiaries of a previously inconceivable explosion of safety and progress. We can reliably bet that we won't be murdered, we won't be robbed, and we can freaking download Wikipedia on a handheld device. We're so powerful our contraptions will render the Earth largely uninhabitable unless we purposely change our behavior. We're capable of walking on the moon, or investigating quantum mechanics. We're capable of studying human brains and behavior and the Universe in general and learning <b>so much more</b> than has ever even been conceived by previous generations! We're capable of recognizing the common link between spiders and ourselves, recognizing why we behave a certain way when we see one, and easily disseminating that information to anyone with access to books, the Internet or other people who know. Just think about that for a moment. Throughout almost all of time there has never been a creature capable of anything even remotely comparable to what we can do. Unless of course one wanted to define "greatness" as longevity in which case I think we'll have to hand that trophy to trees and flatworms. </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Which brings me to the second reason my frustration, once reflected upon, became utterly fantastic. Think about everything that happened that led to the feeling of discomfort when looking at a spider. Untold generations of our ancestors had to get hurt by spiders - entire lineages dying out because of one interaction with one small spider - before we learned to instinctively recognize that a spider is dangerous. That feeling of discomfort are the genes of your ancestors crying out to you! The states of your brain today are being influenced by the interactions your ancestors had in the Pleistocene era. The lessons they learned by watching their neighbors die were learned so well that we can sit in our AC, drink tea imported from Japan, watch a video from Syria, eat fruit imported from South America, discuss the finer points of philosophy, and yet just the sight of an insect is enough for our ancestors to cry out so strongly it changes our brains. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson's stardust quote, that's a whole new level of connectivity we share with the world.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I think it's pretty cool.</div>Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-60334808037225292202012-01-27T20:20:00.001-08:002012-01-27T20:20:47.581-08:00Corporations are people my friend!<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: 1.5em;">http://prometheefeu.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/mankiw-is-right-buffet-is-wrong/</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">I read the above article this morning and its been bothering me since. It's a well-written informed opinion piece with a conclusion I disagree with. God knows it's a pleasant diversion from "Newt Gingrich's adultery is *actually* an indication he should be president" style drivel. I couldn't help but feel something was off about the argument but until just now I couldn't translate my gut feeling into words.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">A corporation is more than a group of people (eg shareholders) who have pooled their money. I'm not up on my financial lingo but entities exist to fulfill that role: partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability corporations and the like. The U.S. tax code has provisions for people who want to pool their money and have the resulting entity basically be "a group of individuals".</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">(My understanding of) the reason people form corporations is precisely because they want to form an entity separate from the people involved. They want an entity that can go bankrupt, for example, without the shareholders as individuals go bankrupt. They want an entity that the Supreme Court can rule - ಠ_ಠ - as having freedom of speech. Again, my knowledge limits me, but I hope the point is accepted: people form corporations <em>precisely to create an entity apart from the shareholders</em>.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">Which is why, once we keep that in mind, it's bizarre to argue that corporations should be independent entities in every way except when it comes to calculating tax burdens. I don't want to blame someone for arguing for something that benefits them (although that sentence alone speaks volume about society) but it's transparent that the argument only holds water if one is a shareholder themselves. I can't see any justification for arguing that corporations are people when it comes to tax burdens but very much aren't people when it comes to everything else.</div>Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-8123308951046022172012-01-23T10:50:00.000-08:002012-01-27T20:21:02.015-08:00A quick thought on those who demonize SNAPI was having a conversation with some friends, and it just hit me what I dislike about the attitude that leads to demonizing people who receive food stamps. I'm on my lunch break, so I'll be brief. Although I do officially recommend trying Seitan, I just had it for the first time and it's pretty great. It's the resentful attitude of "us vs them" that attacks those who often can't defend themselves.<br />
<br />
Obviously when it comes to SNAP recipients this resentment is often drawn along racial lines, but I think it's entirely possible to draw lines using some other method. But it's the attitude that while every government service we use is justified, a black person receiving money from the government for groceries is over the line. Proponents have to admit that everything they use: clean air, clean water, education, knowledge that the ER has to take them (absent freaking universal healthcare), education of workers, police, fire, safe products, the justice system, everything they use is a normal and accepted government function. They have to argue that there's something unique about SNAP, and I think that argument is always fueled by A) racism or B) an "us vs them" mentality.<br />
<br />
It's really clear when you pay attention to some of the language. The theme is always something like "they're spending our money" or "I, as a taxpayer, shouldn't have to give them money". It's unique in that this attitude is never applied to, for example, the mortgage interest deduction or occupying two countries. There's criticism of those things - and a lot more! - but this "us vs them" attitude seems to only rear its head when talking about welfare or SNAP. It's not acceptable in society to demand that someone claiming the mortgage interest deduction has to humble themselves before you, there are no chain emails discussing how Social Security recipients should "get rid of their flatscreen and 20's if they want our money".<br />
<br />
It's used to A) serve as a scapegoat for real problems, which means it's also a false solution (AKA the country's budget would be in shape if it weren't for lazy unemployed black welfare recipients) and B) it serves the *really important* function of defining groups. It's our money; they're taking it. We work hard; they don't. We're employed; they aren't. We don't waste money on flatscreen TVs and 20's; they do. I don't think this is a good function! But in the context of the conservative "every man for himself, let the chips land where they will" demonizing SNAP is extremely effective. It's divisive, its claims are untrue, it's resentful, it's irrational, but it's really freaking effective.Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-89128001764149794172012-01-15T13:24:00.000-08:002012-01-15T13:25:44.922-08:00Follow up on Occupy<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px;"></span><br />
<div style="line-height: 1.5em;">This (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hhPdH3wE0_Y#t=469s" target="_blank">video</a>) and the aftermath is a perfect example of the sort of behavior that I was trying to characterize in my previous post. The message that was spread after this incident was basically "police officers needlessly pepper spray innocent protestors". That message is inaccurate, or at best shows poor judgment with all the facts (of course my conclusion is also assuming I have all the facts!) available</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">The videos released, the pictures accompanying the news articles, all the evidence seemed to indicate that the police acted inappropriately, to put it very mildly. The Google personalizes results so it's anecdotal evidence, but when I typed in "uc" "uc davis pepper spray" was the 6th suggestion, and when searching "uc davis" the bottom half of the first page of results were all related to the pepper spray incident. Some of the police officers involved were put on leave, and I just realized anyone who cares enough to read a blog post about the UC Davis pepper spray incident probably knows the basic message about what happened and the aftermath.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">That's why this more complete video of what actually happened is so important. IANAL, but it appears that a crowd of protestors surrounded a group of police officers, refused to let them leave, were pepper sprayed, then the police were allowed to leave. I've never been involved in a protest but it seems like refusing to comply with the police results in the police giving up or being arrested. And the police action should be reasonable because police brutality is something I take very seriously. The right to legally protest is something I take very seriously.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">I always understood protests - civil disobedience - is when one is saying "I'm protesting by breaking the law with the understanding that while my stand is morally justified in my mind, it's illegal and I refuse to stop until I'm forced to by police". And what happens is some variation of:</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">1) Police/Law: What you're doing is illegal so stop doing it</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">2) Protestors: No it isn't! Or, it's illegal but I'm publicly going to continue doing it to raise awareness of my cause or somehow change society</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">3) Police/Law: We get that. It's still illegal and you still need to stop doing it</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">4) Protestors: No, we can continue. It's so important that we're willing to risk arrest</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">5) Police/Law: Seriously guys, we will arrest you and physically make you stop.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">6) Protestors: That's the price of taking an ethical stand</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">7) Police/Law: We're *this* close to making you stop. We've told you repeatedly, we told you yesterday, and now we're standing in front of you literally shaking the pepper spray can. It's about to happen.</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">8) Protestors: (they literally said this) Don't shoot children!</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">And then the police used pepper spray. And guess what? The protestors were forced to comply without the police using unreasonable force. On top of that, the police didn't even force them to comply with what had been ordered the day before. The police settled for just being allowed to walk away. </div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">Occupy's response? Label it police brutality, and release edited video and pictures that seemed to prove that it was police brutality. I just can't sympathize with a group or with people whose mentality is that the truth is less important than furthering their goals. That isn't to discount the distaste for their general mentality that I find easier to describe rather than justify. Screaming don't shoot children? Believing they have a right to civil disobedience without repercussion? They consistently adopt all sorts of ideas that I take very seriously and ruthlessly cheapen and exploit them. The best parallel I can think of is the phenomenon of adding "-gate" to the end of everything, but of course Occupy does this in a much more directed purposeful way. </div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;"><br />
</div><div style="line-height: 1.5em;">I agree with a lot of their goals but I can't support using lies and misrepresentations as evidence or cheapening serious ideas. TBH, I think my distaste for the movement stems from how close they are to something I would love to support and yet they're also so far away.</div>Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-17623069817521093862011-11-10T17:32:00.000-08:002011-11-10T17:33:34.643-08:00The Occupy movement<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">I've been back and forth on the Occupy movement. On the one hand I sympathize with their goals, as a liberal agree with many of the typical liberal stances. I see the people making 53% pictures bragging about working two jobs without having healthcare as if that's something that's desired. As if one needs to work 60 hours in order to be a hard worker, or one needs to go without healthcare in order to demonstrate self-reliance. These are horrible ideas, and it's a shame people genuinely are duped into believing them, and being proud of those beliefs. My sympathies overwhelmingly lie with the 99%/Occupy folks. But I have very serious misgivings about everything beyond their general goals, and any brevity in the objections I list below is more likely due to tiredness rather than running out of objections.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<ul><li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">They've taken the admirable goal of equality and gone too far trying to achieve it</span></span></div><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span></li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">They try to obtain false meaningfulness using cheap tricks</span></span></div><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span></li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">They abandon facts-based reality when it suits their message</span></span></div><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span></li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Everything has a pathological need to be recognized as smart/clever/original/valuable running through it</span></span></div><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span></li>
</ul><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">To begin with, they've taken a healthy fear of leadership co-opting the movement thereby not truly reflecting the interests of the participants and turned it into something plain silly. Any group has to express common things (otherwise why band together?) and they've constructed an elaborate system of working groups, spokes councils, and assemblies with participation via hand signals. As can be expected, some people have split and formed their own councils, groups, and assemblies. There are no leaders, there is no method to ensure cooperation, decisions can be reversed immediately, and no individual is accountable. They've taken a desire for equality to such an extreme that their decision-making process resembles a dysfunctional sociological classroom experiment.</span></div></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">The Guy Fawkes masks. I guess they feel that wearing them automatically renders one cool, or that by putting a piece of plastic on your face your message is automatically transformed into something deep and respectable. A person merely speaking? Rubbish! A person speaking while wearing a piece of plastic covering their face? They're transforming the nature of society! It makes no sense to me, it's a cheap ploy designed to carry the false impression of serious meaning and being an important person. It's an attempt to get something important without working for it, and that's the opposite of their overall message.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Pretending they're innocent bystanders being brutally attacked by Big [anything] via police officers. I get that police brutality exists, I get that we've given police officers special authority and they should be held to a higher standard, I get that some police officers abuse that authority. These are all things we agree on. But... they take that reality and exaggerate it beyond the facts. The Occupy movement often pretends that when you physically assault a police officer they won't protect themselves. There's a line as to how aggressive you should be able to get with the police. That isn't advocating that Statist Jack-Booted Thugs should be able to beat citizens – it's the reality of what a police force is. </span> </span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Even if we dismiss all false allegations of police brutality, I still have issues with their legitimate allegations of police misconduct. The perfect example is the YouTube video where several female protesters were sprayed with mace. In my opinion, they shouldn't have been sprayed. They have my sympathy and support at that point. But... the protesters then drop to their knees and cry out with hands outstretched, they put on a performance. The non-protesters appear unaffected, the police officers appear unaffected, the only people suddenly putting on a false performance of agony are the people trying to spread the message of police brutality. Only the protesters were directly sprayed, but considering how close everyone else was – it was a crowd – it seems like a dishonest performance. It's that moment when they leave reality and begin twisting it to fit their ends that we disagree. Perhaps it's a personal shortcoming, but I believe in a facts-based reality. We can only have constructive discussions about the world if we agree on a facts-based reality, leaving that behind means constructive discussion is no longer possible.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">The fact that any police officer or veteran who does or says something positive about Occupy is immediately held up as heroic. Either A) the action of being a police officer or veteran supporting Occupy is heroic, or B) it's a false assertion of heroism. Obviously A isn't true, so we should ask why B is true. My personal opinion is that it fits perfectly into the overall theme of cheaply trying to obtain a false status of being meaningful and important. One can either work to sway the opinions of police officers and veterans, or one can hold a handful up as a token symbol.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Admittedly the next one is somewhat an indictment of my generational peers, but it's particularly relevant to the Occupy movement. There is a pathological need to constantly demonstrate how clever, smart, and worthy of praise they are, and it manifests itself in childish displays. Wearing a mask popularized by a film is one aspect of it, but it's in everything they do. For example, the Denver mayor wanted representatives of the Occupy Denver movement to talk to city and state officials. One would think this is normal – we've developed a system of representatives for negotiations and discussions because you can't have a meaningful conversation with several hundred people at once. It's remarkably basic, and it's how groups can communicate effectively.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">But representatives aren't very clever or original, so Occupy Denver elected a border collie to be their leader and claimed “[the dog] is closer to a person than any corporation: She can bleed, she can breed, and she can show emotion. Either Shelby is a person, or corporations aren’t people”. It's utterly stupid. It's misstating the concept of corporate personhood, it's not engaging in dialogue with the people who can do what you want, and it's referring to a statement that's actually true! When Mitt Romney used the phrase “corporations are people” he was making the point that raising taxes on corporations is effectively raising taxes on the shareholders because they will have less money coming in. Whatever the corporate tax rates are, whether we should raise or lower them, it is a factual statement describing reality. Leaving reality behind in an attempt to demonstrate how clever and right one is... it's stupid, and not something I can support.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Basically: I like the goals of the movement, but the movement is trying to reach those goals as if they were children unable to operate in an adult world. Until they begin behaving in an adult way I don't see any similarities between Occupy and myself.</span></div>Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-75813866020777047342011-11-04T10:32:00.001-07:002011-11-04T10:33:36.727-07:00Kidneys!I was recently part of a discussion about whether kidneys should be legally bought and sold in the US. It's worth noting that the discussion usually concerns body parts we can't readily notice rather than eyes, ears, hands, etc. The simple act of changing one word for another "should there be a market for the poor to have their eyes gouged out?" can shed light on the answer. But for the sake of argument, we can pretend the same people who want to buy kidneys have no interest whatsoever in buying anything else.<br />
<br />
One of the main problems with allowing organs to be bought and sold is that the seller often can't afford not to sell - it's rarely a voluntary choice. Selling the kidney could mean: the difference between sending a child to a decent school or a poor one; the difference between healthcare or not; the difference between having a car to drive to a better job or staying at an old one; the difference between trying to find space in a homeless shelter or getting an apartment; the difference between eating that week or not. This is a market designed solely to exploit the poorest and most vulnerable members of our community - and it's designed so only the wealthy can benefit. Applying the typical "people behave towards their own self-interest and everyone benefits from voluntary choice" model does not work in a market like this. It produces an efficient market, but it produces a deeply unjust market. Exploiting the most vulnerable members of society should never be respected, and it certainly should never be allowed to masquerade as moral.<br />
<br />
All men are created equal. When we take by coercion the bodies of the most vulnerable, we forget this basic tenant of humanity. We turn the most vulnerable into the least equal. When we take the poor and transform their bodies into commodities to be bought and sold, they lose their dignity and we lose our humanity.Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-82079931443057453662011-10-30T13:42:00.000-07:002011-10-30T13:42:13.262-07:00Observations and Examples<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">So my economics professor has a tendency to run little social experiments on the class in an effort to get us to more fully understand the material. Like equating grades on an exam with wages earned, time spent studying with effort spent working, and talking about how a more equal distribution of grades results in less over all effort because of diminishing marginal returns (ie I'm not going to spend an additional 2 hours studying if the “reward” is going to someone else). And it's a neat way to connect the material with real life, so hopefully we understand the concepts in the class better.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">There's a clique (about 1/3 of the class) who has all the same classes, all sit together, all economic majors, all really conservative, all homogeneous with their opinions on these experiments. Obviously I can't claim to know the political leanings of everyone in class, but for clarity I'll refer to this group as “the conservatives”. Their opinions are generally along the lines of “personal responsibility! I bear no duty to help others, in fact it's virtuous if there are no rules making us help each other. The rules are what they are, we all have an equal opportunity to do well”. </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">So in the “grades are wages” example, the professor used hypotheticals like “what if a student is a single parent, their child is sick, and they can't study?” or “what if a student is forced by his or her boss to work all night before the exam?” or other examples generally trying to say that sometimes doing poorly on an exam isn't indicative of laziness, it's indicative of chance or being exploited by an employer. So he was suggesting that the fair thing might be to re-appropriate the grades somehow (upper/lower limit, average, grading curves, etc). And the response from “the conservatives” was positive, until they realized it might mean they would have a lower grade with the re-appropriation than without it. At which point they took up the banner of personal responsibility: maybe he shouldn't be in school, maybe he's just using an excuse to be lazy, life isn't fair, it's an incentive for people to be lazy and that's bad, maybe he should just study sooner, etc. The gist was “it's not my problem, changing the rules to benefit someone else is unfair to everyone”.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">We also had a discussion when “the conservatives” asked the professor to post the class notes online before class. The professor said that he was hesitant to because people would stop coming to class until right before the exam, they would do poorly, the entire vibe of the class would diminish. There would be less learning and lower grades. So he turned it into a class wide discussion, and the end result was “the conservatives” picking up their personal responsibility banner once more. They used arguments like “those people wouldn't learn anyway; those people wouldn't study anyway; we aren't forcing them to do anything; those people would do poorly anyway”. And because “the conservatives” felt that having the slides posted online before class would help them, they were advocating changing the rules to benefit them in a way that would hurt others – and they rationalized it by stereotyping, de-humanizing language, and absolute personal responsibility.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Nothing particularly eye-opening so far, but recently the date of an upcoming exam was close to another exam “the conservatives” had. So they loudly objected, and the professor ran another experiment asking the class if we should change the date of the exam. Personally, I couldn't care less. But some people wanted to keep the date the same, and about ¼ of the class wasn't in class. Those that were there said they had already formed their schedule around the date set, one said moving the exam to a Tuesday would mean two exams in one day, another said she works Sunday and Monday so a Thursday exam is really preferable to a Tuesday exam, etc.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">But, and this is key, every objection raised by an individual in favor of keeping the exam date was met by “the conservatives” as a group explaining why that objection wasn't valid. <b>Even when it was literally the </b><b>word-for-word </b><b>objection they were using </b><b>themselves. </b><span style="font-style: normal;">They used this sort of bullying tactic of having an individual say “I don't want that” and then the group of ~10 people all loudly say why that individual is wrong. They used the same tactics as before: the people who disagree with us have invalid objections because they're lazy, </span><span style="font-style: normal;">the best thing for everyone is whatever is best for “the conservatives”</span><span style="font-style: normal;">, </span><span style="font-style: normal;">And it all led to advocating a change in the rules to benefit them </span><span style="font-style: normal;">at the expense of everyone else.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-style: normal;">There's a clear pattern they've been showing all semester, and I think it's indicative of the pattern of behavior conservatives in general have been exhibiting:</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
<ol><li>When a proposed change to the rules would benefit someone else: claim the others want the change so they can be lazy</li>
<li>Claim personal responsibility is the best policy for everyone, changing the rules to benefit one group at the expense of another group isn't the role of [the government, the professor, etc]</li>
<li>Therefore the proposed change designed to benefit someone (while appearing to be fair) is actually unfair to everyone</li>
<li>Keep the original rules that benefit them, and claim we all have equal opportunity to succeed</li>
</ol></div><ol><ol><ol></ol></ol></ol><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-style: normal;">vs</span><br />
<ol><li>When a proposed change to the rules would benefit them: claim they want the change so the rules are fair</li>
<li>Claim fair rules are the best policy for everyone, changing the rules to benefit one group at the expense of the other is just making fair rules</li>
<li>Therefore the proposed change designed to benefit just them (while appearing to be unfair) is actually fair to everyone</li>
<li>Change the rules to benefit them, and claim we all have equal opportunity to succeed</li>
</ol></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-style: normal;">It's possible, in the future, that they might claim a rule that's detrimental to them is fair, and a rule that benefits them is unfair. It's possible, in the future, that they use a metric other than self-interest to determine fairness and unfairness.</span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-style: normal;">It's unfair and untrue to claim that every conservative person uses the selfish metric for ethical claims. But that doesn't mean we can't study and judge their behavior as a group. Hopefully I've given an accurate example of how the meme of “personal responsibility and fair rules with equal chance at success” is often code for “I have no duty to help others, the rules should be set up to benefit me, any attempt to change </span><span style="font-style: normal;">those beneficial rules is unfair”.</span></div>Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-88279630487169269652011-10-30T11:31:00.001-07:002011-10-30T11:32:00.005-07:00Ron Paul QuoteI overheard this gem on CNN today from Ron Paul: "We got into this mess by spending money, taxing, and printing money. So (heh) how can we get out of it by spending money, taxing, or printing money?"<br />
<br />
Ron Paul 2012 - because the less you know the more confident you need to beWeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-19603295482363095882011-09-23T15:28:00.000-07:002011-09-23T15:30:13.776-07:00UntitledWhat does it say about the Republican Party that killing hundreds of prisoners is met with cheers? That the prospect of people dying without health insurance is met with cheers? There's an irrational bloodlust I can't understand. I'm not suggesting everyone throw flowers in the air and sing Kumbaya... but celebrate, crave, and reward leaders for enacting policies that lead to unnecessary death? I feel like a line has crossed at some point and no one noticed.<br />
<br />
It's seen as a badge of masculinity to enact "ultimate justice" which, by the way, is not only Perry's characterization of state mandated killing but also an actual comic book superhero gang. It's one thing for an ill-educated ignorant person to celebrate death publicly, it's another thing for him to be rewarded for it.<br />
<br />
With all of this, what is Perry criticized for? Allowing a student to pay the same tuition as his neighbor without comparing their parents immigration status. That's where the Republican Party is drawing the line. And that's what I can't understand.Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-91189423153489018952011-06-09T11:21:00.000-07:002011-06-09T11:21:31.420-07:00Texas Republican Platform - 2010I only made it through the first 4 pages before I got too much of a headache too continue. Enjoy<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Page 1:<br />
<br />
“Constitutional Citations on Legislation – We urge that all bills presented in Congress include citations to the authorizing constitutional provision, cost to implement, and impact on the family”<br />
<br />
I honestly don't understand the rationale for this statement. Not that it's a bad idea for laws to be constitutional, but because (SPOILER) laws already need to be constitutional. I know it's difficult to understand constitutional law though, so we should make it really simple by demanding straight citations. Although I'm totally in favor of bills including costs, so I propose we should establish a non-partisan Congressional Budget Office so we have an idea of the “cost to implement. Frankly I'm at a loss to how one summarizes “impact on the family” of every bill, I suspect it's a meaningless phrase that feels kinda nice.<br />
<br />
<br />
Page 2:<br />
<br />
“to eliminate aid to any nation threatening us or aiding terrorists or hostile nations<br />
... and to publicly support other nations fighting terrorists”<br />
<br />
In a nice black and white world, this would be simple. It takes the most very basic understanding of any foreign policy to see that the world, and national relationships with terrorism, to see that the world is not in fact divided among countries with us or countries with terrorism. Off the top of my head, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq all fit into the gray area they ignore. It would be very nice if the world were divided cleanly among allies and enemies, among terrorists and allies, but it's not. It takes remarkable mental gymnastics to think that it does – and urge others that you're right.<br />
<br />
<br />
“to reasonably use profiling to protect us”<br />
<br />
This is unethical, un-American, and impractical. We simply cannot decide that America's policy is to suspect that all non-Christian, non-white people are terrorists. I don't really know how someone can say otherwise, so there's not much left I can say about this.<br />
<br />
<br />
“Elimination of Executive Orders – We demand elimination of presidential authority to issue executive orders and other mandates lacking congressional approval, as well as repeal of all previous executive orders and mandates.”<br />
<br />
There are two possible explanations. One is that a detailed study of constitutional law, effects of executive orders on society and the law in general, and careful considerations of the weight of powers between the President and Congress has led someone to believe that in sum we are better off without Executive Orders, and we should repeal them all. The second explanation is that we don't like the President doing stuff we don't trust, that's bad. Thus everything everrr done like this is bad.<br />
<br />
I've never seen a reasoned argument for eliminating and repealing Executive Orders, and I don't think there is a good one. It is important to keep in mind that if the people who endorse this statement had their way the following have this vision of America:<br />
<br />
Racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination in the defense industry would be OK<br />
<br />
Racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination in the military would be OK<br />
<br />
Discriminating against hiring people based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin would be OK<br />
<br />
Discriminating against people based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, or sexual orientation in the competitive service of the federal civilian workforce would be OK<br />
<br />
Political assassinations would be OK<br />
<br />
FEMA would not exist<br />
<br />
The Executive Department Centers for FaithBased and Community Initiatives would not exist<br />
<br />
The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives would not exist<br />
<br />
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology would not exist<br />
<br />
The Office of Homeland Security would not exist<br />
<br />
Afghanistan and the airspace above would not be designated as a combat zone<br />
<br />
Streamlining intelligence information under Executive Order 13388? No more<br />
<br />
Eminent domain could be used with more latitude<br />
<br />
Torturing would be OK<br />
<br />
No more White House Office of Health Reform<br />
<br />
The PPACA (healthcare reform bill) wouldn't have abortion restrictions<br />
<br />
<br />
Proclaiming that you want all of these things gone, that you want to shake up the balance of Executive and Legislative power that has existed since the 1800's, that's a pretty big deal. And I've never heard an argument in favor of it, at least not one more reasoned or elegant than “it feels like the President shouldn't do that!”.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
“We also urge the Texas Legislature and the United States Congress to enact legislation prohibiting any jurisdiction from allowing any substitute or parallel system of Law, specifically, but not limited to, Sharia Law, to be recognized which is not in accordance with the Constitutions of Texas or of the United States of America.”<br />
<br />
Quite honestly if anyone thinks “Sharia Law” is a threat to America, they haven't read this far so I won't even bother.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Page 3<br />
<br />
<br />
“Free Speech for the Clergy – We urge change of the Internal Revenue Code to allow a religious organization to address issues without fear of losing its tax-exempt status.”<br />
<br />
If an organization wants everyone else to pay their share of taxes, then it needs a good reason. Typically it's because the organization is a non-profit, charity, etc. The taxpayer partially subsidizes the museum down the road, or the homeless shelter, because it benefits all of society. One has to meet a really high bar to claim that others should pay your tax burden for you. When a church says A) you the taxpayer should pay my taxes, and B) we're going to endorse particular politicians and particular political parties, it's fundamentally unfair. If a church wants to pay taxes, then I have no problem with them endorsing any candidates they like, but the moment a church asks me to pay their taxes then they give up the right to endorse political candidates.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
“The state should have no power over licensing or training of clergy. The State should withdraw all imposed regulations”<br />
<br />
Again, a church can't claim they deserve secular government recognition, and yet also claim that secular government has no right to do things like license.<br />
<br />
<br />
“...Single Issue Legislation that prohibits the current practice of inserting into otherwise unrelated legitimate legislation funding for or federal regulations for special interest issues into virtually every piece of legislation”<br />
<br />
First, this has been tried countless times. Do you know why it fails? Because A) it's possible to link just about anything with anything else, and B) politicians are more concerned with whether something passes than whether their particular amendment was attached to a relevant bill. Secondly, the phrase “virtually every piece of legislation” just smacks of immaturity and passive aggressiveness. It's one thing to talk like that informally, but if you put out the platform for the entire Republican Party of Texas... one would think they'd avoid jabs that sound more at home in a school cafeteria.<br />
<br />
<br />
“Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) – We oppose this act through which the federal government would coerce religious business owners and employees to violate their own beliefs and principles by affirming what they consider to be sinful and sexually immoral behavior.”<br />
<br />
If one of your beliefs is that the employer should approve when, where, and with whom the employee has sex... If one of your principles is that the employer should determine which sexual positions the employee uses... It's ridiculous. A person has every right to hate blacks, Jews, women, gays, anybody you can possibly imagine! But you don't have a right to discriminate against them in hiring. I'm sorry this is still contentious in 2011. I'm more sorry every person supporting this Republican platform doesn't understand this very simple concept.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Page 4:<br />
<br />
“Further, we urge Congress to withhold Supreme Court jurisdiction in cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and the Bill of Rights”<br />
<br />
Am I missing something? This seems so incredibly idiotic, I'm embarrassed for anyone (OK, anyone over 13 years old) who agrees with that statement.<br />
<br />
<br />
Some of these are totally idiotic, some confusing (and more to come), but the fact that this is an actual platform is truly vexing.Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6782512516991171916.post-25522421488032025692011-05-10T10:58:00.000-07:002011-05-10T10:58:25.385-07:00Texas "Loser Pays" bill.http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/09/loser-pays-lawsuits/<br />
<br />
This bill would discourage frivolous lawsuits, which everybody on earth agrees is good, but it accomplishes that goal by making it impossible for some people to seek justice in the legal system. There are already systems set in place where you can sue someone and if you lose, have to pay their attorney fees. If this passes, fewer people (specifically fewer poor people) will be able to sue.<br />
<br />
For example, say you're hit by a Microsoft employee driving a Microsoft company car during the course of his duties. It's basically 30 percent your fault and 70 percent his fault. You rack up 100K in repair bills and hospital and surgery costs. So your lawyer can estimate that you'll get 70K from Microsoft (assuming a 60/40 fee for the lawyer, you get 42,000$ after you pay him). Great, but there's a 10% chance you'll get nothing. That's OK, that's why the attorney works on a contingency basis - if you lose you don't pay him. The attorneys for both sides go to court (or settle or w/e) and the legal system provides justice.<br />
<br />
But, if this passes then it plays out this way: same accident, same everything. Except you know Microsoft is willing to spend 40K in their defense costs. Now, you have to wonder if you're willing to take a 10% chance that you'll be out 40K on top of everything else. It's a fact that fewer people will be willing to take that chance, and more people will settle for less. Which has the end result that Microsoft can injure people cheaper, and the poor will receive a less fair outcome since the process is stacked against them from the beginning.<br />
<br />
(not that people at Microsoft sit around a board table and plan to injure people, but they are profit-driven, thus the more expensive something is the more care they take to avoid it)<br />
<br />
There's a delicate balance between the injustice of a frivolous lawsuit damaging an innocent party and the injustice of legislating that fewer people will be allowed to sue, and those that can afford to will be willing to settle for less money.<br />
<br />
The bill fits neatly into the political philosophy (that many conservatives have) that large corporations shouldn't be held as responsible as they are now. They don't have anything against people, or poor people, but they think that society is best served when corporations are unfettered. If that means paying smaller penalties for injuring people, so be it. The bizarre part is that they sell this philosophy using fear to the very people they're injuring under the guise of "smaller government". I suppose that's not totally true, the most bizarre part is that people are allowing themselves to be scared into supporting this philosophy.<br />
<br />
In short, fewer frivolous lawsuits is a good goal, but it shouldn't be accomplished by denying justice to the most vulnerable in society. This bill clearly sacrifices the most vulnerable to "solve" a near non-existent problem by using legislation to pervert justice.Weshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05240328932709250513noreply@blogger.com0