Wm Norman Grigg writes brilliantly about the increasingly intrusive child welfare industry, one of my pet subjects and a source of many a rant. It is truly frightening when folks argue that children belong to the state or to “society” because this forms the predicate for the most tyrannical intrusions and extractions. Even otherwise decent people of my acquaintance may be heard to argue that everyone in society benefits from or is affected by the education and rearing of children and that this creates an obligation, enforceable by violence, to fund public education and child welfare. After all, these children are going to be funding our retirements some day, so we had better make sure they are healthy and well reared. Children are, in essence, slaves to be trained and fattened for a life of labor in support of the state.
What is not widely understood is that the child welfare and educational apparatus cannot achieve the grandiose results that its proponents and constituents promise. Even if you embedded a social worker in every household, enough of them would be sufficiently incompetent or apathetic to defeat the plans of the agencies to transform families in accordance with the central planners’ model. Even if every child had his own individual teacher a quarter or more of the children would still turn out to be stupid. They would be “left behind” so to speak.
The Secretary of Education was on The Daily Show repeat last night, and she discussed “No Child Left Behind”. She did not suggest that NCLB was “working” or had shown results, but she seemed to believe in its underlying premise, i.e. that every child is equally educable so that the failure of any child is due to bad teachers or inadequate funding of schools. Teachers have long claimed that better teachers make for better students and that throwing more money at teachers is the way to go. Now they have been taken at their word, and those teachers unlucky enough to work in poorer districts are going to be blamed for test results over which, truth be told, they have almost no influence.
So in the end we get tyrannical programs without any of the intended results. And when the programs fail, their advocates proclaim that they were inadequately funded so that failure is rewarded with more resources and more power. This cycle goes on and on because nobody will admit that the underlying premise of the programs is insane.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Countdown Has Two Fewer Viewers
Mrs Vache Folle and I used to be fans of Keith Olbermann’s Countdown on MSNBC, and we would watch the second half of that show after the repeat of The Daily Show. Then he did one of those Nancy Grace-like pit bull stories yesterday and lost us forever. You are dead to us, Keith.
Abandon Hope
Reading blogs today has depressed me. BW Richardson’s post on how the Supreme Court just flushed the Fourth Amendment down the toilet started the spiral into despair. Then Daily Kos hit me with the Democrats’ folding on a withdrawal timetable for Iraq. Neither of these things should have surprised me, but I had allowed myself the luxury of hope. Note to self: there is no hope.
I was at one time an avid fan of the Seattle Mariners, and I attended, watched, or listened to every single inning of every game that I possibly could. My mood vacillated with the team’s fortunes, and I began to feel as if the players were my friends and that, if I just believed hard enough, I could influence games with sheer mind power. To make a long story short, I was losing my mind. It’s the same with politics. I don’t have an iota of influence over anything political. No politician is my friend, and attending to politics does nothing but harsh my mellow.
I still follow baseball, but I no longer care about any of the teams. I never could get attached to the Yankees or Mets. Somehow, baseball is better this way, and I can watch any game with pleasure and enjoy it no matter who is playing or who wins or loses. I’ve got to learn to treat politics the same way.
From now on, I’m going to stay informed so I’ll know best how to protect myself, but I am going to try harder not to give a rat’s ass. Every day that I am not hauled away to a concentration camp or summarily executed is a good day as far as politics go.
I’m not saying that my heart will no longer be broken by evil and cruelty. It is and will be for the foreseeable future, but I am not going to invest any hope that politicians will be other than evil and cruel.
I was at one time an avid fan of the Seattle Mariners, and I attended, watched, or listened to every single inning of every game that I possibly could. My mood vacillated with the team’s fortunes, and I began to feel as if the players were my friends and that, if I just believed hard enough, I could influence games with sheer mind power. To make a long story short, I was losing my mind. It’s the same with politics. I don’t have an iota of influence over anything political. No politician is my friend, and attending to politics does nothing but harsh my mellow.
I still follow baseball, but I no longer care about any of the teams. I never could get attached to the Yankees or Mets. Somehow, baseball is better this way, and I can watch any game with pleasure and enjoy it no matter who is playing or who wins or loses. I’ve got to learn to treat politics the same way.
From now on, I’m going to stay informed so I’ll know best how to protect myself, but I am going to try harder not to give a rat’s ass. Every day that I am not hauled away to a concentration camp or summarily executed is a good day as far as politics go.
I’m not saying that my heart will no longer be broken by evil and cruelty. It is and will be for the foreseeable future, but I am not going to invest any hope that politicians will be other than evil and cruel.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Ron Paul is Not Funny
Anthony Gregory is disappointed that The Daily Show didn’t mock Ron Paul when it covered the Republican debates. Note to Anthony: The Daily Show isn’t really the news, although it’s a better source of information than any of the news channels on TV. I think they gave Ron Paul a pass because he was not funny. The rest of the candidates are great fodder for mockery, but Ron Paul came off as too sincere and respectable to poke fun at.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Is Prosperity Bad for America?
Last week, Brink Lindsey, author of
The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed America's Politics and Culture , appeared on The Daily Show. He argues that unprecedented prosperity in the late 20th Century freed people up to think beyond their immediate material needs and to examine cultural and ideological assumptions. This has fed the current “Culture War” where some righties are unhappy with some of the cultural changes and some lefties are unhappy with some of the economic changes.
Prosperity does weaken the family. We don’t live in extended families or rely on our relatives as much as we used to because we don’t have to. We don’t stay in unhappy marriages because we can afford to get divorced. We aren’t as dependent on authorities as we once were so we don’t have to follow them as faithfully or starve in the hedgerows.
Could it be that the GOP really is trying to give the religious right its desires by putting an end to widespread prosperity? If they can drain the economy with stupid wars and other corporate welfare programs, we who are not at the trough will be less and less prosperous and will eventually have to live with our parents and cousins and what have you. We’ll have to stick together in clans just to survive. That’s the Christianists’ dream. Keep people busy trying to fulfill their basic needs so that they can’t question authority.
Maybe Bushian incompetence is really part of a cunning plan to restore the world to a feudal paradise.
The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed America's Politics and Culture , appeared on The Daily Show. He argues that unprecedented prosperity in the late 20th Century freed people up to think beyond their immediate material needs and to examine cultural and ideological assumptions. This has fed the current “Culture War” where some righties are unhappy with some of the cultural changes and some lefties are unhappy with some of the economic changes.
Prosperity does weaken the family. We don’t live in extended families or rely on our relatives as much as we used to because we don’t have to. We don’t stay in unhappy marriages because we can afford to get divorced. We aren’t as dependent on authorities as we once were so we don’t have to follow them as faithfully or starve in the hedgerows.
Could it be that the GOP really is trying to give the religious right its desires by putting an end to widespread prosperity? If they can drain the economy with stupid wars and other corporate welfare programs, we who are not at the trough will be less and less prosperous and will eventually have to live with our parents and cousins and what have you. We’ll have to stick together in clans just to survive. That’s the Christianists’ dream. Keep people busy trying to fulfill their basic needs so that they can’t question authority.
Maybe Bushian incompetence is really part of a cunning plan to restore the world to a feudal paradise.
Are You a "Mainstream Libertarian"?
Could I be considered a Mainstream Libertarian? Let’s find out by comparing my views to the official Mainstream Libertarian’s views.
Lower Taxes!
Federal income tax rate reductions, as well as cutting back on all state and local taxes. Making federal income tax rate reductions permanent. Scaling back of capital gains taxes, and an immediate end to estate taxes.
I can live with lower taxes, but what’s up with the priorities on tax cuts here? I would prefer to dismantle the federal government altogether, but if I had to cut taxes gradually, I wouldn’t necessarily start with the estate tax, for crying out loud. Or the capital gains tax. I’d start by eliminating taxes on lower income workers and make my way up the socioeconomic scale. There’s nothing particularly “libertarian” about favoring rich people over poor people in the tax cutting scheme. Given some of the other positions we’ll get to later, it doesn’t look like the tax cuts we’re talking about here amount to much since the government will still need lots of money for the massive Mainstream Libertarian government programs.
Stop the Over Spending
Balanced Federal Budget through spending cuts, not increased taxes. Broad cuts in rates of spending increases for all federal, state and local governmental programs. Reform of Medicare, Social Security and other entitlement programs through greater reliance on private alternatives.
Cuts in the rate of spending increases? Are you kidding me? Balancing the budget? What about slashing the budget? What the hell is “libertarian” about this?
Growing the American Economy
Getting the Government off the backs of small business, and corporations by scaling back OSHA, the EPA and other restrictive Federal Agencies. Right to Work legislation that protects workers and spurs economic growth. Workers' comp. reform that protects small businesses against huge lawsuits and endless litigation.
What does the government have to do with growing the economy? Just get the government out of the way, and watch the economy grow. And some of the other Mainstream Libertarian programs are going to be a huge drag on the economy. The first thing I would do would not be to scale back OSHA and at the same time reduce the remedies of injured workers and their ability to organize! Workers Comp already protects employers from lawsuits, so I don’t know where this is coming from. A libertarian who advocates legislation that favors business owners over workers?
Pro Independence Energy Policy
More self-reliance. Lower gas prices through increased refining capacity and allowance for drilling for oil in Alaska and Coastlines.
WTF is “libertarian” about this? Why would I support government’s tinkering with gas prices and refinery capacity? Are Mainstream Libertarians really Libertarians for Central Planning?
Property Rights
Absolute opposition to Eminent Domain laws when used by local governments to transfer lands from one private entity to another.
That’s it? That’s the Mainstream Libertarian position on property rights? This should be one of the biggest planks in the platform.
Choice in Education
School vouchers and tuition tax credits. Greater emphasis on private and home schooling as an alternative to failing public schools. Opposition to affirmative action laws, and minority preferences.
This is just more government schooling via contractors instead of getting government out of the business of schooling. I’m still getting robbed and mooched off of in this scheme. Minority preferences would be up to the private schools in my libertarian world.
Individual Liberties
An end to petty laws that harass Americans such as restrictions on free speech, bans on religious expression, unreasonable regulations of sexual lifestyles for consenting adults, clogging up our court systems with low level marijuana cases, smoking bans in restaurants/bars, and ticketing law-abiding safe drivers for not wearing seat belts. Also, no federal mandates for speed limits or drinking age laws. Repeal gambling restrictions such as internet gaming ban.
Again, that’s it for civil liberties? “Petty” laws? What about big laws? Only “unreasonable” regulation of sexual lifestyles is of concern? What would a Mainstream Libertarian see as “reasonable” regulation? “Low level marijuana cases” are the only aspects of the war on drugs that bother a Mainstream Libertarian? In a nutshell, the Mainstream Libertarian supports legalization of stuff he likes to do like not buckle up, light up at a bar, have a few bong hits, and gamble. Otherwise, he is all for regulating stuff.
Gun Rights & Supporting Sportsmen
Full rights and protections to keep and bear arms. Protecting rights of hunters and anglers. Lessening of licensing fees. More access for off-road recreational vehicles and other sports enthusiasts on public lands.
Seriously, why would a libertarian want the government to favor “sportsmen” over any other subjects of the state? Open the public lands to homesteading! Lower licensing fees? I dispute the legitimacy of the whole licensing scam! If the Mainstream Libertarian were an avid bird watcher, would he advocate bans on off road vehicles because they disturb the birds?
Strong Defense
Defending our borders, and maintaining a strong and well-equipped Military to protect our nation from any terrorist or foreign state. Using the Military to fight terrorists overseas, when necessary, rather than here at home. Support for the All-Volunteer Armed Forces.
Support for a massive national security apparatus well beyond what is reasonably required for national defense and which is itself a threat to freedom became “libertarian” when? Foreign adventurism? This is why the budget can’t be slashed and why working people have to be taxed out the wazoo. The national security apparatus is a greater threat to my freedom than any of the terrorists in the world. Paying for it keeps me in bondage, and militarism and nationalism make my fellow subjects stupid enough to throw away what freedom we still have.
Humanitarianism
A foreign policy of diplomacy, cooperation and free trade to promote democratic ideals and freedoms around the world. Assisting with the liberation of repressed peoples from the tyranny of fascist and socialist dictators.
This would be fine if the Mainstream Libertarian wanted to volunteer to liberate some oppressed people or to lend his financial support to promoting democratic ideals and freedom. If the democratic ideals he is talking about involve majoritarian tyranny, count me out. But no, the Mainstream Libertarian is talking about stealing money from his fellow subjects by force and using it to advance his agenda abroad, presumably through violence if necessary.
Balanced Immigration Policy & Protecting our Borders
Protecting our Borders from Illegal Immigration through beefed up enforcement, more Border Patrol and fencing. Allowing for a Guest Worker Program for Mexicans who wish to work temporarily in the U.S., with a criminal background check. Citizenship only for those who learn English. Strict measures to stop terrorists from entering the U.S.
This is not one of my peeves. In a perfect world, peacable folks would move freely across borders. Again, it is odd to see a “libertarian” advocating more government spending and restrictions on whom we can hire to do work. Also, it is curious to see support for a kind of permanent second class subject status. Why would a libertarian care what the official language was? He wouldn’t. He’d let the linguistic marketplace do its work.
I reckon I’m not a Mainstream Libertarian. No secret decoder ring for Vache Folle. I also reckon that Mainstream Libertarians are not libertarian. They’re just run of the mill right wingers who like to indulge in assorted vices. They have apparently decided that some aspects of libertarianism aren't "mainstream" enough, like the "liberty" part. The "arian" part they have kept.
Libertarian is being sucked dry of any meaning. The Mainstream Libertarian lists both Jon Stewart and Neil Cavuto as famous libertarians. He also has Tucker Carlson as a libertarian. It’s a bit like being a Christian and having the Westboro Baptist Church also calling itself Christian or the authoritarians on the religious right calling themselves Christians. I like the neologism “Christianist” to distinguish them from actual followers of Jesus. Maybe I should start using “libertarianist” to describe folks, such as the Mainstream Libertarian, who use the term in a twisted way in order to benefit from its positive associations without actually adhering to any of its principles.
Lower Taxes!
Federal income tax rate reductions, as well as cutting back on all state and local taxes. Making federal income tax rate reductions permanent. Scaling back of capital gains taxes, and an immediate end to estate taxes.
I can live with lower taxes, but what’s up with the priorities on tax cuts here? I would prefer to dismantle the federal government altogether, but if I had to cut taxes gradually, I wouldn’t necessarily start with the estate tax, for crying out loud. Or the capital gains tax. I’d start by eliminating taxes on lower income workers and make my way up the socioeconomic scale. There’s nothing particularly “libertarian” about favoring rich people over poor people in the tax cutting scheme. Given some of the other positions we’ll get to later, it doesn’t look like the tax cuts we’re talking about here amount to much since the government will still need lots of money for the massive Mainstream Libertarian government programs.
Stop the Over Spending
Balanced Federal Budget through spending cuts, not increased taxes. Broad cuts in rates of spending increases for all federal, state and local governmental programs. Reform of Medicare, Social Security and other entitlement programs through greater reliance on private alternatives.
Cuts in the rate of spending increases? Are you kidding me? Balancing the budget? What about slashing the budget? What the hell is “libertarian” about this?
Growing the American Economy
Getting the Government off the backs of small business, and corporations by scaling back OSHA, the EPA and other restrictive Federal Agencies. Right to Work legislation that protects workers and spurs economic growth. Workers' comp. reform that protects small businesses against huge lawsuits and endless litigation.
What does the government have to do with growing the economy? Just get the government out of the way, and watch the economy grow. And some of the other Mainstream Libertarian programs are going to be a huge drag on the economy. The first thing I would do would not be to scale back OSHA and at the same time reduce the remedies of injured workers and their ability to organize! Workers Comp already protects employers from lawsuits, so I don’t know where this is coming from. A libertarian who advocates legislation that favors business owners over workers?
Pro Independence Energy Policy
More self-reliance. Lower gas prices through increased refining capacity and allowance for drilling for oil in Alaska and Coastlines.
WTF is “libertarian” about this? Why would I support government’s tinkering with gas prices and refinery capacity? Are Mainstream Libertarians really Libertarians for Central Planning?
Property Rights
Absolute opposition to Eminent Domain laws when used by local governments to transfer lands from one private entity to another.
That’s it? That’s the Mainstream Libertarian position on property rights? This should be one of the biggest planks in the platform.
Choice in Education
School vouchers and tuition tax credits. Greater emphasis on private and home schooling as an alternative to failing public schools. Opposition to affirmative action laws, and minority preferences.
This is just more government schooling via contractors instead of getting government out of the business of schooling. I’m still getting robbed and mooched off of in this scheme. Minority preferences would be up to the private schools in my libertarian world.
Individual Liberties
An end to petty laws that harass Americans such as restrictions on free speech, bans on religious expression, unreasonable regulations of sexual lifestyles for consenting adults, clogging up our court systems with low level marijuana cases, smoking bans in restaurants/bars, and ticketing law-abiding safe drivers for not wearing seat belts. Also, no federal mandates for speed limits or drinking age laws. Repeal gambling restrictions such as internet gaming ban.
Again, that’s it for civil liberties? “Petty” laws? What about big laws? Only “unreasonable” regulation of sexual lifestyles is of concern? What would a Mainstream Libertarian see as “reasonable” regulation? “Low level marijuana cases” are the only aspects of the war on drugs that bother a Mainstream Libertarian? In a nutshell, the Mainstream Libertarian supports legalization of stuff he likes to do like not buckle up, light up at a bar, have a few bong hits, and gamble. Otherwise, he is all for regulating stuff.
Gun Rights & Supporting Sportsmen
Full rights and protections to keep and bear arms. Protecting rights of hunters and anglers. Lessening of licensing fees. More access for off-road recreational vehicles and other sports enthusiasts on public lands.
Seriously, why would a libertarian want the government to favor “sportsmen” over any other subjects of the state? Open the public lands to homesteading! Lower licensing fees? I dispute the legitimacy of the whole licensing scam! If the Mainstream Libertarian were an avid bird watcher, would he advocate bans on off road vehicles because they disturb the birds?
Strong Defense
Defending our borders, and maintaining a strong and well-equipped Military to protect our nation from any terrorist or foreign state. Using the Military to fight terrorists overseas, when necessary, rather than here at home. Support for the All-Volunteer Armed Forces.
Support for a massive national security apparatus well beyond what is reasonably required for national defense and which is itself a threat to freedom became “libertarian” when? Foreign adventurism? This is why the budget can’t be slashed and why working people have to be taxed out the wazoo. The national security apparatus is a greater threat to my freedom than any of the terrorists in the world. Paying for it keeps me in bondage, and militarism and nationalism make my fellow subjects stupid enough to throw away what freedom we still have.
Humanitarianism
A foreign policy of diplomacy, cooperation and free trade to promote democratic ideals and freedoms around the world. Assisting with the liberation of repressed peoples from the tyranny of fascist and socialist dictators.
This would be fine if the Mainstream Libertarian wanted to volunteer to liberate some oppressed people or to lend his financial support to promoting democratic ideals and freedom. If the democratic ideals he is talking about involve majoritarian tyranny, count me out. But no, the Mainstream Libertarian is talking about stealing money from his fellow subjects by force and using it to advance his agenda abroad, presumably through violence if necessary.
Balanced Immigration Policy & Protecting our Borders
Protecting our Borders from Illegal Immigration through beefed up enforcement, more Border Patrol and fencing. Allowing for a Guest Worker Program for Mexicans who wish to work temporarily in the U.S., with a criminal background check. Citizenship only for those who learn English. Strict measures to stop terrorists from entering the U.S.
This is not one of my peeves. In a perfect world, peacable folks would move freely across borders. Again, it is odd to see a “libertarian” advocating more government spending and restrictions on whom we can hire to do work. Also, it is curious to see support for a kind of permanent second class subject status. Why would a libertarian care what the official language was? He wouldn’t. He’d let the linguistic marketplace do its work.
I reckon I’m not a Mainstream Libertarian. No secret decoder ring for Vache Folle. I also reckon that Mainstream Libertarians are not libertarian. They’re just run of the mill right wingers who like to indulge in assorted vices. They have apparently decided that some aspects of libertarianism aren't "mainstream" enough, like the "liberty" part. The "arian" part they have kept.
Libertarian is being sucked dry of any meaning. The Mainstream Libertarian lists both Jon Stewart and Neil Cavuto as famous libertarians. He also has Tucker Carlson as a libertarian. It’s a bit like being a Christian and having the Westboro Baptist Church also calling itself Christian or the authoritarians on the religious right calling themselves Christians. I like the neologism “Christianist” to distinguish them from actual followers of Jesus. Maybe I should start using “libertarianist” to describe folks, such as the Mainstream Libertarian, who use the term in a twisted way in order to benefit from its positive associations without actually adhering to any of its principles.
I Was Wrong About Rudy
In my earlier post about Res Ipsa Loquitor’s discussion of the difference between a douchebag and an asshole, I failed to pick up on the concept that the two descriptors are not mutually exclusive. You can have a douchebag who is not an asshole (a vanilla douchebag, let’s call him), a douchebag who is also an asshole (a douchebag with a swirl), or just an asshole.
The key characteristics of a douchebag are a high degree of cluelessness and an inflated sense of self importance. The clueless egomaniac can also be malevolent and qualify for classification as an asshole. GW Bush, for example, is a douchebag with a swirl.
This follow up post was inspired by some discussions I had over the weekend about the appropriate classification of Rudy Guiliani. I had him down as a straight asshole, archetypal even, but some long time New Yorkers have convinced me that he is not as smart as his boosters suggest and that he is among the most egomaniacal of politicians. He probably believes the fascistic claptrap that he spews forth and is, therefore, a douchebag with a swirl. I stand corrected.
The key characteristics of a douchebag are a high degree of cluelessness and an inflated sense of self importance. The clueless egomaniac can also be malevolent and qualify for classification as an asshole. GW Bush, for example, is a douchebag with a swirl.
This follow up post was inspired by some discussions I had over the weekend about the appropriate classification of Rudy Guiliani. I had him down as a straight asshole, archetypal even, but some long time New Yorkers have convinced me that he is not as smart as his boosters suggest and that he is among the most egomaniacal of politicians. He probably believes the fascistic claptrap that he spews forth and is, therefore, a douchebag with a swirl. I stand corrected.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Why I'll Never be President
Among the reasons that I am never going to be elected to public office, up at the top would be that I inhaled. Often. Deeply. I liked it and I would inhale again if the right opportunity presented itself. If elected, I would do everything in my power to make inhaling legal, and I will inhale in the halls of power even if it’s not legal.
Another reason would be that I don’t think that I could claim to be a “hunter” with a straight face. I don’t enjoy killing animals. I hate it when I run over anything, even a frog. I don’t even like to kill bugs. You have to be microscopic before I will cease having scruples about killing you. Hunters seem more than a little creepy to me, especially the ones who shoot at fenced in animals released conveniently to be shot. I don’t advocate restrictions on hunting and hunters. I just don’t want any part of it, and I wouldn’t be able to don an orange vest and pretend that I was a hunter to score points with some slack jawed yahoos who reckon that you have to be a sadist to get their votes.
Maybe the hunting claims are back door ways of signaling support for the Second Amendment. “I not only support the right to bear arms: I exercise it on bunnies!” I support the Second Amendment. Period. I choose not to own firearms or to hunt, but I uphold the rights of others to own weapons and to hunt. I don’t have to plead the Fifth Amendment to show that I uphold it, so why should the Second Amendment be any different?
Or maybe the hunting claims are signals that the candidate is not a sissy boy. If so, it’s misguided. Some of the most dandified fops I have ever known were aficionados of the chase or avid fishermen. I would put my manliness up against the manliness of any man. I don’t need to kill a quail with clipped wings to show that I am masculine. If you’re so masculine, Shooty McQuailkiller, why don’t you strangle the quail and bite off its head? Sure, I’m squeamish about killing things and am afraid of some stuff, like spiders, and I wouldn’t get very far on Fear Factor, but that should in no way detract from my manliness and fitness for office. Alas, it does. That’s just the way it is. I am safe from having public office forced upon me.
Of course, if Mitt Romney can call himself a “hunter” based on his taking a few potshots at some vermin back in the day, then I am a “hunter” as well. The thing is, Mitt Romney is not, in fact, a “hunter” and neither am I. Neither is Dick Cheney.
Another reason would be that I don’t think that I could claim to be a “hunter” with a straight face. I don’t enjoy killing animals. I hate it when I run over anything, even a frog. I don’t even like to kill bugs. You have to be microscopic before I will cease having scruples about killing you. Hunters seem more than a little creepy to me, especially the ones who shoot at fenced in animals released conveniently to be shot. I don’t advocate restrictions on hunting and hunters. I just don’t want any part of it, and I wouldn’t be able to don an orange vest and pretend that I was a hunter to score points with some slack jawed yahoos who reckon that you have to be a sadist to get their votes.
Maybe the hunting claims are back door ways of signaling support for the Second Amendment. “I not only support the right to bear arms: I exercise it on bunnies!” I support the Second Amendment. Period. I choose not to own firearms or to hunt, but I uphold the rights of others to own weapons and to hunt. I don’t have to plead the Fifth Amendment to show that I uphold it, so why should the Second Amendment be any different?
Or maybe the hunting claims are signals that the candidate is not a sissy boy. If so, it’s misguided. Some of the most dandified fops I have ever known were aficionados of the chase or avid fishermen. I would put my manliness up against the manliness of any man. I don’t need to kill a quail with clipped wings to show that I am masculine. If you’re so masculine, Shooty McQuailkiller, why don’t you strangle the quail and bite off its head? Sure, I’m squeamish about killing things and am afraid of some stuff, like spiders, and I wouldn’t get very far on Fear Factor, but that should in no way detract from my manliness and fitness for office. Alas, it does. That’s just the way it is. I am safe from having public office forced upon me.
Of course, if Mitt Romney can call himself a “hunter” based on his taking a few potshots at some vermin back in the day, then I am a “hunter” as well. The thing is, Mitt Romney is not, in fact, a “hunter” and neither am I. Neither is Dick Cheney.
Canned Spaghetti and Sugary Cereal Helped Me Reach My Biological Potential
When I was a bairn in the late 60s, the only Italian food I ever ate came in cans. Even the macaroni served at school came in enormous drums. At home, we ate canned spaghetti and raviolis from Franco American or Chef Boyardee. I was a fan of beefaghetti, and I sided with the cartoon dragon who claimed that the “most scrumptious food in the whole wide world” was beefaghetti and not its sister product beefaroni. Although I longed for the taste of old San Francisco, we never had ricearoni. Even when I visited San Francisco many years later, I didn’t see ricearoni on any of the menus in the restaurants.
The turning point in canned pasta technology was the discovery of spaghettio’s, “the neat round spaghetti you can eat with a spoon”, also known as “the greatest invention since the napkin”. At long last, we could eat canned pasta without the risk posed by fork tines. It wasn’t long before space buggies, canned noodles shaped vaguely like flying saucers, were discovered. One of my roommates in college had a can of space buggies for dinner every night. Seriously, he ate the same thing every single day. Fruity Pebbles for breakfast, a Whopper for lunch, and a can of space buggies. And some jolly ranchers.
I was in high school before I ever tasted pasta that had not been precooked and sealed into a can. My first introduction to high falutin’ dried pasta was some Kraft macaroni and cheese and then some dried spaghetti with a jar of Ragu. These became the base of my diet in college. You could get ten boxes of store brand mac and cheese for a buck at the A&P in Spring Valley. You could put anything in it (ground beef, tuna fish, mushrooms, onions, sausages) and have a complete hearty meal. If we were getting fancy, it was spaghetti with a jar of sauce and maybe some ground meat.
You can imagine what a treat it was for me to discover Belmont, the “Little Italy of the Bronx”, where you could get fresh pasta made before your very eyes. Now I don’t think I could even eat a can of spaghetti. What I once loved is now dead to me.
The same goes for breakfast cereal. The ten year old Vache Folle delighted in Quisp, Honeycomb, Sugar Corn Pops and Kap’n Krunch. I couldn’t get enough of it. Later in college, I moved to corn flakes, raisin bran and rice chex with the occasional heaping bowl of Kap’n Krunch. Then I got all health conscious and started eating muesli and various colon cleansing high fiber concoctions that tasted like twigs and gravel. Then I became carb averse and swore off cereal altogether, not a big sacrifice considering that I had grown to hate the stuff. I bet Kap’n Krunch is still pretty good, though. Note to self: buy a box of KK this weekend. Is it me or has Honeycomb cereal gotten smaller?
The turning point in canned pasta technology was the discovery of spaghettio’s, “the neat round spaghetti you can eat with a spoon”, also known as “the greatest invention since the napkin”. At long last, we could eat canned pasta without the risk posed by fork tines. It wasn’t long before space buggies, canned noodles shaped vaguely like flying saucers, were discovered. One of my roommates in college had a can of space buggies for dinner every night. Seriously, he ate the same thing every single day. Fruity Pebbles for breakfast, a Whopper for lunch, and a can of space buggies. And some jolly ranchers.
I was in high school before I ever tasted pasta that had not been precooked and sealed into a can. My first introduction to high falutin’ dried pasta was some Kraft macaroni and cheese and then some dried spaghetti with a jar of Ragu. These became the base of my diet in college. You could get ten boxes of store brand mac and cheese for a buck at the A&P in Spring Valley. You could put anything in it (ground beef, tuna fish, mushrooms, onions, sausages) and have a complete hearty meal. If we were getting fancy, it was spaghetti with a jar of sauce and maybe some ground meat.
You can imagine what a treat it was for me to discover Belmont, the “Little Italy of the Bronx”, where you could get fresh pasta made before your very eyes. Now I don’t think I could even eat a can of spaghetti. What I once loved is now dead to me.
The same goes for breakfast cereal. The ten year old Vache Folle delighted in Quisp, Honeycomb, Sugar Corn Pops and Kap’n Krunch. I couldn’t get enough of it. Later in college, I moved to corn flakes, raisin bran and rice chex with the occasional heaping bowl of Kap’n Krunch. Then I got all health conscious and started eating muesli and various colon cleansing high fiber concoctions that tasted like twigs and gravel. Then I became carb averse and swore off cereal altogether, not a big sacrifice considering that I had grown to hate the stuff. I bet Kap’n Krunch is still pretty good, though. Note to self: buy a box of KK this weekend. Is it me or has Honeycomb cereal gotten smaller?
Douchebags and Assholes
For language geeks, Res Ipsa Loquitor at Rising Hegemon has an enlightening discussion on the distinction between a douchebag and an asshole. The main distinguishing factor seems to be intelligence. A douchebag has less of it than an asshole. A douchebag might not even be malevolent and could still be a douchebag. RIL’s example is that Bush is a douchebag while Cheney is an asshole. Mitt Romney seems to be a douchebag in contrast to Guiliani, the archetypal asshole.
Evidently, per RIL, a douche and a douchebag are not the same thing, but I don’t know the difference. South Park had an episode in which the cold reader Jon Edwards was crowned Biggest Douche in the Universe by some space aliens. And another episode’s moral was that every election is always between a douche and a turd sandwich. South Park’s writers seem to treat douche and douchebag as synonyms as I have always done.
Evidently, per RIL, a douche and a douchebag are not the same thing, but I don’t know the difference. South Park had an episode in which the cold reader Jon Edwards was crowned Biggest Douche in the Universe by some space aliens. And another episode’s moral was that every election is always between a douche and a turd sandwich. South Park’s writers seem to treat douche and douchebag as synonyms as I have always done.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Children's Rights Discussed at Sunni's Place
There was an interesting thread over at Sunni’s Salon concerning the rights of children in a free society. It was inspired by an article in which the author argued that children are born with complete human rights and that mothers undertake an obligation to take care of their children as a kind of one sided contract that the child can later sign on to or repudiate. The author also argues that children would be free to change parents if they were unhappy with their treatment.
My own take on this is informed by my experience as part of the child welfare apparatus. Traditionally, parental rights in children were akin to property rights, but there has been a trend over the years to looking at parenting in terms of the “best interests of the child” with less regard for parental prerogatives. In a real sense, the state has become the owner of all children and simply lets parents keep them on good behavior.
Some rights in children don’t mean much any more. Your right to the services and earnings of your children is generally valueless in today’s society, especially since they aren’t even allowed to work (I would have had kids if they could pay their own way). And the nature of the parent child relationship is quite different in the 21st century than just a century ago. Children are by and large an act of consumption of entertainment. They are an expensive hobby not unlike having an unusually long-lived and destructive pet. Most parents reckon that they are entitled to the companionship of their children and to enjoy them without let or hindrance from anyone else, even the state. Besides the sense of satisfaction and amusement to be gotten from kids, parents have no reasonable expectation of gain from having children. They have every natural incentive, therefore, to be solicitous and loving in order to induce their children to be pleasant and to maintain contact with them. No amount of enforcement of contracts or rights is going to make your kid like you.
If the concept of the “best interests of the child” inured to the benefit of the child instead of empowering the state, I could get behind it. Let’s recognize children as free people with full human rights from the get go. They are not chattels of their parents or of the state. They have the right to be free from aggression, but they don’t have any right to anything from their parents. Care will be provided in most cases gratuitously and in the spirit of love without the need for a fictive contract or parental rights enforced by the state. In some cases, there will be abuse or neglect, but a free society will develop mechanisms for dealing with this issue, such as allowing any person to petition for custody of any child.
As the libertarian sage Donald Rumsfeld once remarked, “Freedom is messy.” A free society will not be free of social ills such as child abuse and neglect, but at least there will be no monstrous intrusive child welfare apparatus coupled with the abuse and neglect it is ostensibly briefed to remedy.
UPDATE: Sunni pointed out in a comment that the item referred to was not at the Salon but at Sunni and the Conspirators, the link to which is http://www.sunnimaravillosa.com/node/1119.
My own take on this is informed by my experience as part of the child welfare apparatus. Traditionally, parental rights in children were akin to property rights, but there has been a trend over the years to looking at parenting in terms of the “best interests of the child” with less regard for parental prerogatives. In a real sense, the state has become the owner of all children and simply lets parents keep them on good behavior.
Some rights in children don’t mean much any more. Your right to the services and earnings of your children is generally valueless in today’s society, especially since they aren’t even allowed to work (I would have had kids if they could pay their own way). And the nature of the parent child relationship is quite different in the 21st century than just a century ago. Children are by and large an act of consumption of entertainment. They are an expensive hobby not unlike having an unusually long-lived and destructive pet. Most parents reckon that they are entitled to the companionship of their children and to enjoy them without let or hindrance from anyone else, even the state. Besides the sense of satisfaction and amusement to be gotten from kids, parents have no reasonable expectation of gain from having children. They have every natural incentive, therefore, to be solicitous and loving in order to induce their children to be pleasant and to maintain contact with them. No amount of enforcement of contracts or rights is going to make your kid like you.
If the concept of the “best interests of the child” inured to the benefit of the child instead of empowering the state, I could get behind it. Let’s recognize children as free people with full human rights from the get go. They are not chattels of their parents or of the state. They have the right to be free from aggression, but they don’t have any right to anything from their parents. Care will be provided in most cases gratuitously and in the spirit of love without the need for a fictive contract or parental rights enforced by the state. In some cases, there will be abuse or neglect, but a free society will develop mechanisms for dealing with this issue, such as allowing any person to petition for custody of any child.
As the libertarian sage Donald Rumsfeld once remarked, “Freedom is messy.” A free society will not be free of social ills such as child abuse and neglect, but at least there will be no monstrous intrusive child welfare apparatus coupled with the abuse and neglect it is ostensibly briefed to remedy.
UPDATE: Sunni pointed out in a comment that the item referred to was not at the Salon but at Sunni and the Conspirators, the link to which is http://www.sunnimaravillosa.com/node/1119.
Some Questions for the GOP Candidates in their Next "Debate"
Do you support an immediate repeal of the 13th amendment or a phased repeal?
If you could eradicate any ethnic category in America, which category would you kill or exile?
If you could abolish the Bill of Rights but could only take away one amendment per year, which amendments would you abolish in your first term?
What is your plan for making concentration camps operate efficiently so the deficit won’t be unduly enlarged by them?
It has been said that execution by stoning is cruel but not unusual and so permitted under the constitution. Do you disagree?
What is your government continuity plan in case you are raptured while in office?
It is said by some that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, that woman’s sister, and the handmaidens of the first two wives. Or between a man and his half sister and her maid. Or between a man and a woman and his dead brother’s widow. What is your view of the role of the federal government in promoting such traditional marriages?
Who will be the first 10 Americans to be disappeared when you take office under your unfettered executive powers?
As commander in chief, what sort of uniform will you wear while in office? Will you have really big epaulets?
If you could eradicate any ethnic category in America, which category would you kill or exile?
If you could abolish the Bill of Rights but could only take away one amendment per year, which amendments would you abolish in your first term?
What is your plan for making concentration camps operate efficiently so the deficit won’t be unduly enlarged by them?
It has been said that execution by stoning is cruel but not unusual and so permitted under the constitution. Do you disagree?
What is your government continuity plan in case you are raptured while in office?
It is said by some that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman, that woman’s sister, and the handmaidens of the first two wives. Or between a man and his half sister and her maid. Or between a man and a woman and his dead brother’s widow. What is your view of the role of the federal government in promoting such traditional marriages?
Who will be the first 10 Americans to be disappeared when you take office under your unfettered executive powers?
As commander in chief, what sort of uniform will you wear while in office? Will you have really big epaulets?
A Better Way to Pick the President
We watched Lewis Black on HBO on demand last night. Among other amusing observations, he had a suggestion for a better way to select the president than the one we use now. The winner of American Idol throws a dart at a map. A monkey is flown to the location represented on the map where the dart ended up. The monkey parachutes to the ground, and the first person he touches is the new president.
There has got to be a better way to pick presidents. That we could have ended up with two terms of the idiot king or that there is even a remote chance that Rudy Giuliani could become president are manifestations of a profoundly flawed system.
Black’s idea should be given a try. His approach takes ambition out of the picture. Anyone who wants to be president is probably not qualified and presents a danger to the Republic. Such men are generally wanting in character and principles other than self aggrandizement. Accordingly, the selection process should be designed so that self selected candidates are not favored over others. The field of GOP candidates with the exception of Ron Paul all manifested their unfitness for the office in their “debates” each trying to “outfascist” the others. The Democrats are not as obviously repulsive but, except for Mike Gravel, are an unsatisfying lot. Sadly, the system is rigged so that the relatively happy choice of Paul versus Gravel could never be presented to us.
In addition to random selection, more qualifications and disqualifying factors should be considered so that the random selectee will be less likely to be Bushlike or Giulianiesque. For example, the selectee’s name can’t end in the letter “i”. I propose that anyone who has spent more than 25% of his career on any government payroll or as a government contractor or on the government dole should be disqualified. Anyone who has ever expressed any interest in becoming president would be disqualified. Anyone who travels to the vicinity where the monkey is slated to land is disqualified unless it is part of his ordinary routine. If you don’t flee from the monkey, you are disqualified
This system has everything. It’s got public participation via the American Idol balloting. I see a series of dart tosses at progressively more detailed maps until you get down to a neighborhood, but this location will not be revealed until the monkey has been thrown off the plane. The whole world will watch the video from the monkey-cam as the simian seeks out the next president of the US. Finally, the selectee will be vetted for disqualifications, and if need be the whole thing will be done over until a qualified individual is tagged by the monkey.
There has got to be a better way to pick presidents. That we could have ended up with two terms of the idiot king or that there is even a remote chance that Rudy Giuliani could become president are manifestations of a profoundly flawed system.
Black’s idea should be given a try. His approach takes ambition out of the picture. Anyone who wants to be president is probably not qualified and presents a danger to the Republic. Such men are generally wanting in character and principles other than self aggrandizement. Accordingly, the selection process should be designed so that self selected candidates are not favored over others. The field of GOP candidates with the exception of Ron Paul all manifested their unfitness for the office in their “debates” each trying to “outfascist” the others. The Democrats are not as obviously repulsive but, except for Mike Gravel, are an unsatisfying lot. Sadly, the system is rigged so that the relatively happy choice of Paul versus Gravel could never be presented to us.
In addition to random selection, more qualifications and disqualifying factors should be considered so that the random selectee will be less likely to be Bushlike or Giulianiesque. For example, the selectee’s name can’t end in the letter “i”. I propose that anyone who has spent more than 25% of his career on any government payroll or as a government contractor or on the government dole should be disqualified. Anyone who has ever expressed any interest in becoming president would be disqualified. Anyone who travels to the vicinity where the monkey is slated to land is disqualified unless it is part of his ordinary routine. If you don’t flee from the monkey, you are disqualified
This system has everything. It’s got public participation via the American Idol balloting. I see a series of dart tosses at progressively more detailed maps until you get down to a neighborhood, but this location will not be revealed until the monkey has been thrown off the plane. The whole world will watch the video from the monkey-cam as the simian seeks out the next president of the US. Finally, the selectee will be vetted for disqualifications, and if need be the whole thing will be done over until a qualified individual is tagged by the monkey.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Mocking the Mocker
I usually agree with Steve Scott, but I just can’t seem to work up any indignation over people’s glorying in the death of Jerry Falwell. Jerry gloried in the deaths of the victims of the US government in Iraq and Afghanistan and had the temerity to claim that they were being killed in the “name of the Lord”. People dying from AIDS? God’s glorious wrath for a society’s toleration of homosexuality, per Falwell. People killed in the World Trade Center? More glorious divine wrath because of the gays. Jerry seemed to take great pleasure in death and destruction and was always quick to give God the credit and to enlighten us on God’s reasons. If anyone deserves to be mocked in death, Jerry is a prime candidate for such mockery.
Of course, we’re no better off for Jerry’s being dead. Another like minded preacher will doubtless step into his shoes and continue the message that Jesus loves us (unless we’re gay or Democrats) and is going to kill us (especially if we’re gay or Democrats).
Of course, we’re no better off for Jerry’s being dead. Another like minded preacher will doubtless step into his shoes and continue the message that Jesus loves us (unless we’re gay or Democrats) and is going to kill us (especially if we’re gay or Democrats).
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The Moochers and Parasites in the Carmel Central School District Are Voting to Rob Me More Today
I probably should vote in the school district election today even though it is really inconvenient for me to do so. If the budget passes by one vote, I’ll kick myself for not voting against it. Then again, most of the voters are going to be the parasites who work for the schools or mooching parents who think nothing of shaking down their neighbors for the benefit of their offspring. The budget will pass, and a bunch of hacks will be elected to the school board whether I vote or not. Maybe I should eschew voting as an expression of my contempt for the district and its thieving constituents. I wish that I could convince myself that I get something out of the school system that I am coerced into paying for, but so far I can’t think of many benefits that inure to me.
It is true that the kids can’t be vandalizing my property while they are in school, so that’s a plus. It’s not worth thousands of dollars a year, though. For a few hundred dollars, I could set traps to deter kids from trespassing.
People who are poorer than me will be driven out of the district by the higher taxes, so I won’t have to live among as many poor folks. This is worth nothing to me since I like poor folks just fine, but a lot of folks see this as a benefit.
My house will be more valuable as the school system excels. My taxes will be higher, too, to offset the paper gains. Also, I don’t plan on moving, so the value of my house is not transmutable into wealth for me.
I still reckon that 99.9999999999999% of the benefit of the school system goes to the mooching parents of the pupils and the tax eating faculty and staff.
It is true that the kids can’t be vandalizing my property while they are in school, so that’s a plus. It’s not worth thousands of dollars a year, though. For a few hundred dollars, I could set traps to deter kids from trespassing.
People who are poorer than me will be driven out of the district by the higher taxes, so I won’t have to live among as many poor folks. This is worth nothing to me since I like poor folks just fine, but a lot of folks see this as a benefit.
My house will be more valuable as the school system excels. My taxes will be higher, too, to offset the paper gains. Also, I don’t plan on moving, so the value of my house is not transmutable into wealth for me.
I still reckon that 99.9999999999999% of the benefit of the school system goes to the mooching parents of the pupils and the tax eating faculty and staff.
Monday, May 14, 2007
My Name is Not Really Vache Folle
WaPo opines that all web sites should require commenters and posters to use their real names. This, it is written, will keep the “hatemongers” at bay. An example of a “hatemonger” is given of a pseudonymous speaker at a school board meeting who advocates for less bureaucracy.
“In any community in America, if Mr. anticrat424 [the pseudonymous speaker] refused to identify himself, he would be ignored and frozen out of the civic problem-solving process.” So says the editorialist.
I, Vache Folle, disagree. Pseudonymous pamphleteers have a long and important history, and they have not been ignored. I use a pseudonym in blogging, and I am unashamed of doing so. I don’t reckon Mr anticrat424’s hypothetical activities were hateful, unless you count a dislike of bureaucrats as hateful. Secondly, there might be very good reasons to conceal one’s true identity other than covering yourself as a hater. Thirdly, the validity of one’s statements should not be affected by one’s identity. If you are telling the truth, it is still the truth even if you don’t give your name.
Why do I go by the moniker of Vache Folle instead of using my real name? I don’t want my employer to know all my opinions on things. I have a stuffy job and some unorthodox views, and these might not mix all that well. I also want to be able to report on the attitudes and opinions of my coworkers without their knowing that I am doing so. I also want to write about religious issues without my coreligionists’ being able to identify me and brand me a heretic. That’s the extent of it. Not too creepy, is it?
Bite me, WaPo. I didn’t want to comment on your web sites anyway.
“In any community in America, if Mr. anticrat424 [the pseudonymous speaker] refused to identify himself, he would be ignored and frozen out of the civic problem-solving process.” So says the editorialist.
I, Vache Folle, disagree. Pseudonymous pamphleteers have a long and important history, and they have not been ignored. I use a pseudonym in blogging, and I am unashamed of doing so. I don’t reckon Mr anticrat424’s hypothetical activities were hateful, unless you count a dislike of bureaucrats as hateful. Secondly, there might be very good reasons to conceal one’s true identity other than covering yourself as a hater. Thirdly, the validity of one’s statements should not be affected by one’s identity. If you are telling the truth, it is still the truth even if you don’t give your name.
Why do I go by the moniker of Vache Folle instead of using my real name? I don’t want my employer to know all my opinions on things. I have a stuffy job and some unorthodox views, and these might not mix all that well. I also want to be able to report on the attitudes and opinions of my coworkers without their knowing that I am doing so. I also want to write about religious issues without my coreligionists’ being able to identify me and brand me a heretic. That’s the extent of it. Not too creepy, is it?
Bite me, WaPo. I didn’t want to comment on your web sites anyway.
Something Ate the Comets
Something ate all my larger comets last week. We introduced 100 orange comets into the pond last summer. About 18 of these grew to 6 inches or more in length by the end of the summer. Fourteen of them survived the winter and the pond’s freezing over. Ten of them made it through the Flood of Naught Seven. But not one of them managed to evade the comet eater, whatever it was. I reckon it was that Great Blue Heron that sneaks in from time to time. He came in by day when the dogs were inside and couldn’t run him off. One of my friends reckons it was the neighborhood bear. I’ll probably never know.
There are still as many as a hundred smaller fish, descendants of the original comets, but most of them are not orange. Orange coloration seems to put the fish at a reproductive disadvantage. The surviving fish are hard to see, so they are not as entertaining as the orange guys, but they are probably less likely to get eaten.
We spotted our resident hummingbird on Friday, two days later than last year. We were visited by an indigo bunting on Saturday, a species that is new to our property. The Baltimore orioles and the grosbeaks are back at the feeders, and the juncos are all gone. Spring is officially arrived in the Middle Hudson Valley.
Brad and Janet, our resident water snakes, were back on their basking rock this weekend, and I spotted Suri or Shiloh, one of their offspring, as well. I took the largest water lily, the one that had escaped from its pot and divided it into four pots which I spread around the pond more widely. When these come in, this should provide some shelter for the pond critters. We also added a half dozen water hyacinth, and these should multiply like crazy. I have been faithfully removing silt, and I hope to restore the pond to its usual depth by the end of the month, and this too should make it harder for trespassing birds to treat the pond as their personal smorgasbord.
There are still as many as a hundred smaller fish, descendants of the original comets, but most of them are not orange. Orange coloration seems to put the fish at a reproductive disadvantage. The surviving fish are hard to see, so they are not as entertaining as the orange guys, but they are probably less likely to get eaten.
We spotted our resident hummingbird on Friday, two days later than last year. We were visited by an indigo bunting on Saturday, a species that is new to our property. The Baltimore orioles and the grosbeaks are back at the feeders, and the juncos are all gone. Spring is officially arrived in the Middle Hudson Valley.
Brad and Janet, our resident water snakes, were back on their basking rock this weekend, and I spotted Suri or Shiloh, one of their offspring, as well. I took the largest water lily, the one that had escaped from its pot and divided it into four pots which I spread around the pond more widely. When these come in, this should provide some shelter for the pond critters. We also added a half dozen water hyacinth, and these should multiply like crazy. I have been faithfully removing silt, and I hope to restore the pond to its usual depth by the end of the month, and this too should make it harder for trespassing birds to treat the pond as their personal smorgasbord.
Friday, May 11, 2007
The God Particle
I slogged through Leon Lederman’s “The God Particle; If the Universe is the Answer, What is the Question?” It may be possible to make particle physics seem less interesting, but right now I don’t see how. On the other hand, the book is refreshing in that it is written by an actual particle physicist, albeit and experimentalist, a Nobel laureate no less, who avoids waxing mystical about the hidden meaning of the universe revealed in the dance of the quarks and leptons yadda yadda yadda.
My main beef with the book is that you work your way to the end for the big payoff, the so-called “God particle”, the Higgs boson, only to have your hopes dashed. It hadn’t been found yet.
Another disappointment to me is the seemingly endless proliferation of particles and families of particles. I want the universe to have an elegant unitary explanation that physicists can explain to me with a few simple metaphors. This you won’t get from Lederman. You will get a Tom Clancyesque exposition of the technical details of particle accelerators and cloud chambers.
Lederman is supposedly the Jerry Seinfeld of particle physicists, and he interjects humor into the narrative. He’s actually pretty funny for a scientist. Not hilarious, but funny.
To be fair, this was my “bathroom book”, the one I read in short intervals while I’m seated on my throne, and it is possible that the choppy way I read the book influenced my attitude about it. Maybe I should stick to magazines in that situation.
My main beef with the book is that you work your way to the end for the big payoff, the so-called “God particle”, the Higgs boson, only to have your hopes dashed. It hadn’t been found yet.
Another disappointment to me is the seemingly endless proliferation of particles and families of particles. I want the universe to have an elegant unitary explanation that physicists can explain to me with a few simple metaphors. This you won’t get from Lederman. You will get a Tom Clancyesque exposition of the technical details of particle accelerators and cloud chambers.
Lederman is supposedly the Jerry Seinfeld of particle physicists, and he interjects humor into the narrative. He’s actually pretty funny for a scientist. Not hilarious, but funny.
To be fair, this was my “bathroom book”, the one I read in short intervals while I’m seated on my throne, and it is possible that the choppy way I read the book influenced my attitude about it. Maybe I should stick to magazines in that situation.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
I Wish I Had Learned to Like Superheroes
Both Wally Conger and BW Richardson wrote this week about their childhood introductions to Spiderman and their love of superhero comics. I reckon that I’m about the same age as those guys, but I seem to have missed out on superhero comics altogether. I just never got into them. I watched the old Superman series on TV which even a fan of the Man of Steel has got to admit was pretty lame. And the campy Batman TV series was my introduction to Gotham City’s caped vigilante. I suppose it’s no surprise then that I greeted both those superheroes with an “eh”. Underdog and Mighty Mouse were more entertaining to me.
I grew up out in the country and we went into town to trade every other Saturday. When I was in the third or fourth grade, we began to make stops at the Ace newsstand owned and operated by one of our closest neighbors “Sarge” Miller. I would spend what little money I had on paperbacks, especially the Magnum Easy Eye editions of classics by Poe, HG Wells, Stevenson, H Rider Haggard, Arthur Conan Doyle, etc. When I finally discovered comics, I gravitated to Warren’s Eerie, Creepy and Famous Monsters. I was really into science fiction, horror, and such like. I was, I suppose in retrospect, disturbed. I secretly wished that I were a vampire so I could bite girls on the neck. Had I been born 20 years later I might have been a Goth!
At about the same period in history, there was an afternoon Soap Opera called “Dark Shadows” that featured vampires, werewolves and other aspects of the gothic horror genre. We’d get home from school, watch parts of my grandmother’s “stories” General Hospital and Days of Our Lives, have an ice cold Coca Cola, and enjoy the adventures of the vampire Barnabas Collins and the eldritch goings on at Collinwood. Looking back, Days of Our Lives was creepier.
Another outlet for me was mythology. Hercules, Ulysses and Jason were my heroes, and I loved the stories of the old gods. If Superman had landed on Earth at the time of Homer, would he have been viewed as a god or demigod?
I have since read Michael Chabon’s “Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Klay” http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2000/09/28/chabon/index.html which features the fictional fictional superhero “The Escapist” and I have read everything ever written by Joseph Campbell, including “The Hero With a Thousand Faces”, so I think I understand the attraction of the superhero and how superheroes resonate with boys and men. I just missed the window of exposure at the right age.
One observation and a query. Why are so many supervillians disabled or handicapped, eg the Joker, the Penguin? Like Richard III, they are given some disability that twists them and makes them evil or which is a manifestation of their inner evil. Is this a reflection of a cultural bias against disabled people?
I grew up out in the country and we went into town to trade every other Saturday. When I was in the third or fourth grade, we began to make stops at the Ace newsstand owned and operated by one of our closest neighbors “Sarge” Miller. I would spend what little money I had on paperbacks, especially the Magnum Easy Eye editions of classics by Poe, HG Wells, Stevenson, H Rider Haggard, Arthur Conan Doyle, etc. When I finally discovered comics, I gravitated to Warren’s Eerie, Creepy and Famous Monsters. I was really into science fiction, horror, and such like. I was, I suppose in retrospect, disturbed. I secretly wished that I were a vampire so I could bite girls on the neck. Had I been born 20 years later I might have been a Goth!
At about the same period in history, there was an afternoon Soap Opera called “Dark Shadows” that featured vampires, werewolves and other aspects of the gothic horror genre. We’d get home from school, watch parts of my grandmother’s “stories” General Hospital and Days of Our Lives, have an ice cold Coca Cola, and enjoy the adventures of the vampire Barnabas Collins and the eldritch goings on at Collinwood. Looking back, Days of Our Lives was creepier.
Another outlet for me was mythology. Hercules, Ulysses and Jason were my heroes, and I loved the stories of the old gods. If Superman had landed on Earth at the time of Homer, would he have been viewed as a god or demigod?
I have since read Michael Chabon’s “Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Klay” http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2000/09/28/chabon/index.html which features the fictional fictional superhero “The Escapist” and I have read everything ever written by Joseph Campbell, including “The Hero With a Thousand Faces”, so I think I understand the attraction of the superhero and how superheroes resonate with boys and men. I just missed the window of exposure at the right age.
One observation and a query. Why are so many supervillians disabled or handicapped, eg the Joker, the Penguin? Like Richard III, they are given some disability that twists them and makes them evil or which is a manifestation of their inner evil. Is this a reflection of a cultural bias against disabled people?
Let's Go to Mars!
I was really into the space program when I was a kid. I knew the payloads and specs of every rocket and followed the plans of NASA and the Soviets like an avid sports fan. Back then the space program as exciting. There was a goal: man on the moon. And NASA was pushing the envelope to accomplish this feat with 1960s technology. Guys with slide rules and computers far less powerful than the one I am typing at now managed to get men to and from the moon several times and all within less than 20 years from initial space launch to final Apollo mission.
Then the Space Shuttle program came, and space exploration became about as exciting as watching planes at the airport. Nobody paid much attention to missions unless they blew up. The problem, as I see it, is that NASA has no big, challenging goal. Everything is 50 years out when, it is hoped, some technological breakthrough will make space travel safer and more affordable. Ho freaking hum. Call me when you’re going somewhere cool.
Of course, now I feel differently about having taxpayers subsidize my entertainment or even my perspective on the manifest necessity for humans to colonize space and bring life to the lifeless void.
Last night on one of the brainiac channels on the TV, there was a show titled “Mars Underground”. It was basically about the vision of an engineer form Martin to launch a manned mission to Mars with currently available technology. This guy shared my views about NASA and its recent tendency to over-engineer everything it touches and to defer anything spectacular to the remote future. The NASA Mars program involved a plethora of stages such as building an orbital rocket factory and a staging area on the Moon. The projected cost: 500 billion bucks or thereabouts. Meanwhile, the guys from Martin came up with a mission design that could be done within ten years and for a cost of only 55 billion dollars over a decade. We could have had men on Mars by 1999!
The idea is to send three unmanned spacecraft to Mars: a habitat, a launcher to get astronauts off of Mars complete with its own plant to make rocket fuel from the Martian atmosphere, and an orbiting spacecraft for the return to Earth. After these systems are tested, a manned craft, a second habitat, and a second launcher for a later mission would meet up with the prepositioned habitat and launcher. The astronauts would live on Mars for 18 months using Martian resources as much as possible to keep payloads down.
Some elegant aspects of the mission design are the use of payloads as shields against the radiation from solar flares (astronauts would sit solar storms out in a central buffered shelter) and the creation of artificial gravity en route by having the craft rotate in two parts on a tether.
The best part of the plan, in my view, is that it could be accomplished by private individuals with a commercial or academic interest in spacefaring. If you got to Mars and settled it, I reckon you would own it. I would invest in the settlement and terraforming of Mars or, if the technology becomes available, the refitting of humans to survive on Mars. How about it, Sir Richard?
Then the Space Shuttle program came, and space exploration became about as exciting as watching planes at the airport. Nobody paid much attention to missions unless they blew up. The problem, as I see it, is that NASA has no big, challenging goal. Everything is 50 years out when, it is hoped, some technological breakthrough will make space travel safer and more affordable. Ho freaking hum. Call me when you’re going somewhere cool.
Of course, now I feel differently about having taxpayers subsidize my entertainment or even my perspective on the manifest necessity for humans to colonize space and bring life to the lifeless void.
Last night on one of the brainiac channels on the TV, there was a show titled “Mars Underground”. It was basically about the vision of an engineer form Martin to launch a manned mission to Mars with currently available technology. This guy shared my views about NASA and its recent tendency to over-engineer everything it touches and to defer anything spectacular to the remote future. The NASA Mars program involved a plethora of stages such as building an orbital rocket factory and a staging area on the Moon. The projected cost: 500 billion bucks or thereabouts. Meanwhile, the guys from Martin came up with a mission design that could be done within ten years and for a cost of only 55 billion dollars over a decade. We could have had men on Mars by 1999!
The idea is to send three unmanned spacecraft to Mars: a habitat, a launcher to get astronauts off of Mars complete with its own plant to make rocket fuel from the Martian atmosphere, and an orbiting spacecraft for the return to Earth. After these systems are tested, a manned craft, a second habitat, and a second launcher for a later mission would meet up with the prepositioned habitat and launcher. The astronauts would live on Mars for 18 months using Martian resources as much as possible to keep payloads down.
Some elegant aspects of the mission design are the use of payloads as shields against the radiation from solar flares (astronauts would sit solar storms out in a central buffered shelter) and the creation of artificial gravity en route by having the craft rotate in two parts on a tether.
The best part of the plan, in my view, is that it could be accomplished by private individuals with a commercial or academic interest in spacefaring. If you got to Mars and settled it, I reckon you would own it. I would invest in the settlement and terraforming of Mars or, if the technology becomes available, the refitting of humans to survive on Mars. How about it, Sir Richard?
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Our New Poulan Pro Lawn Mower
We’re kind of broke, what with sinking so much into the house, so we have to retrench and economize. We fired the lawn guy and bought a mower, and we mowed our own lawn for the first time in 8 years since we moved to New York. We have about an acre and a half or more in “grass”, where by grass we mean grasslike vegetation mixed with assorted species of indigenous wild plants. The yard is uneven and features areas where rocks jut up from the subsurface and other areas that are marshy. It took longer to mow than I expected, especially since we bought a self propelled push mower instead of a tractor. I didn’t think a tractor would be safe or that we could use it in a lot of areas. I hope that part of the difficulty is that mowing was overdue and that the length of the grass made it more difficult than it will be when we mow on a regular schedule.
There are some good things about mowing our own grass. We can be on the lookout for wildlife and avoid killing any animals with the mower better than the lawn guy did. We can choose to leave parts of the yard to grow as meadow, something we were never able to get across to the lawn guy that we wanted to do. He constantly mowed down my wildflower plantings. We can make sure to mow just in advance of entertaining guests. Mowing is exercise. I have always liked to mow ever since I was a wee bairn. It was one of the chores I minded least. We should save about $1500 bucks net of the cost of the mower.
We’re not fanatics about the lawn being a monoculture. Frankly, we don’t care what species of plants comprise the lawn as long as poison ivy or poison oak is not among them. Dandelions? No problem. They are attractive when they bloom, and the greens are edible (I hear). We don’t water the lawn except for new areas that have just been planted, and we rely on natural selection to cause the lawn to be comprised of plants that can hack the climate without any human intervention. We don’t fertilize it or use herbicides or insecticides. We just mow it, and we think it looks fine. If it weren’t for wanting space to play ball with Jasper, we might let a goodly portion turn to meadow.
In general, we are not out to control the garden, even the perennial beds. We let things follow their own course and try to maintain a natural look. It’s not that we’re lazy. We put a lot of work into the garden. We just like the “cup garden” concept.
There are some good things about mowing our own grass. We can be on the lookout for wildlife and avoid killing any animals with the mower better than the lawn guy did. We can choose to leave parts of the yard to grow as meadow, something we were never able to get across to the lawn guy that we wanted to do. He constantly mowed down my wildflower plantings. We can make sure to mow just in advance of entertaining guests. Mowing is exercise. I have always liked to mow ever since I was a wee bairn. It was one of the chores I minded least. We should save about $1500 bucks net of the cost of the mower.
We’re not fanatics about the lawn being a monoculture. Frankly, we don’t care what species of plants comprise the lawn as long as poison ivy or poison oak is not among them. Dandelions? No problem. They are attractive when they bloom, and the greens are edible (I hear). We don’t water the lawn except for new areas that have just been planted, and we rely on natural selection to cause the lawn to be comprised of plants that can hack the climate without any human intervention. We don’t fertilize it or use herbicides or insecticides. We just mow it, and we think it looks fine. If it weren’t for wanting space to play ball with Jasper, we might let a goodly portion turn to meadow.
In general, we are not out to control the garden, even the perennial beds. We let things follow their own course and try to maintain a natural look. It’s not that we’re lazy. We put a lot of work into the garden. We just like the “cup garden” concept.
Second Worst State in the Union
Which state, other than Texas, is the worst state in the union? I’m talking the one state you would just as soon kick out of the country if it won’t secede willingly. I’ve never been to Kansas or Oklahoma, so I can’t really opine on their merits, but I think a good case can be made that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is the second worst state. It’s Philly on the right, Steel City on the Left, and Mississippi in the middle.
What’s wrong with Pennsylvania, you ask? It would be easier to list what is right about Pennsylvania: the Amish and the landscape.
Pennsylvania gave us Rick Santorum, and even though they booted him out of office last year, that they would have elected a medieval style authoritarian in the first place speaks volumes about the people of the Commonwealth. That’s just an example of the depravity of Pennsylvanians. Another is the insistence of the people of Erie on spelling “diner” as “dinor”. And what passes for cuisine is barbaric. Pittsburgh style steak is just raw meat waved over a flame for a few seconds. And cheesesteaks are really not all that unless you’re high, in which case they are perfectly edible. The number one tourist attraction? A bell with a crack in it that someone forgot to return under the warranty.
Pennsylvania claims to have ski resorts. It’s a lie, unless by skiing you mean sliding down patches of ice until you slam into some fixed object. Deer hunting? What state doesn’t have deer hunting? You don’t need to go to Pennsylvania to hang out in the woods with hundreds of heavily armed drunks.
I am open to suggestions for second worst state, but my money is on Pennsyltucky.
What’s wrong with Pennsylvania, you ask? It would be easier to list what is right about Pennsylvania: the Amish and the landscape.
Pennsylvania gave us Rick Santorum, and even though they booted him out of office last year, that they would have elected a medieval style authoritarian in the first place speaks volumes about the people of the Commonwealth. That’s just an example of the depravity of Pennsylvanians. Another is the insistence of the people of Erie on spelling “diner” as “dinor”. And what passes for cuisine is barbaric. Pittsburgh style steak is just raw meat waved over a flame for a few seconds. And cheesesteaks are really not all that unless you’re high, in which case they are perfectly edible. The number one tourist attraction? A bell with a crack in it that someone forgot to return under the warranty.
Pennsylvania claims to have ski resorts. It’s a lie, unless by skiing you mean sliding down patches of ice until you slam into some fixed object. Deer hunting? What state doesn’t have deer hunting? You don’t need to go to Pennsylvania to hang out in the woods with hundreds of heavily armed drunks.
I am open to suggestions for second worst state, but my money is on Pennsyltucky.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Why It Took So Long for Europeans to Take Over the Americas
It always puzzled me that when the Vikings discovered North America more Europeans didn’t take an interest in the New World. Heck, the Vikings weren’t all that keen on their discoveries, either, and they seem never to have gotten a foothold much further than the Maritimes.
I have since learned that the Vikings themselves put up serious obstacles to new settlers among their own kind and that getting to the New World and starting a homestead was beyond the reach of most Norsemen. There were closer environs with rich farmland that could be plundered and settled far more easily.
As for the rest of feudal Europe, those with resources to mount a colonization venture would hardly have been interested in doing so. Feudal warlords weren’t interested so much in land per se, but land that was being worked by compliant peasants. If you transported boatloads of peasants to pre-Columbian New Jersey, it would have been difficult to keep them on the manor. The threat of hostile aborigines might not be enough to keep the peasants from going off on their own and starting farms outside your sphere of influence. My native state of Georgia was originally granted to a would-be feudal lord who aimed to set up the Margravate of Azilia. He had to rely on volunteers to be villeins in his realm, and there were just no takers. England had not yet hit on the idea of transporting prisoners to far off places.
The peasants, who might very well have liked to establish homesteads as free farmers in the New World, lacked the means to do so even if they had been aware of the existence of North America. And the noble parasites who depended on them weren’t likely to let them go in any event.
It was, I reckon, the discovery of populous civilizations in Meso-America that made conquest of the New World profitable. The Aztecs and the Mayas and the Incas had a ready supply of serfs to support the Conquistadores and make it worth their while to come over. It was another century before the wilds of North America became remotely attractive for settlement by farmers and before the economic structures of European countries provided the means and the motive to finance such ventures.
I have since learned that the Vikings themselves put up serious obstacles to new settlers among their own kind and that getting to the New World and starting a homestead was beyond the reach of most Norsemen. There were closer environs with rich farmland that could be plundered and settled far more easily.
As for the rest of feudal Europe, those with resources to mount a colonization venture would hardly have been interested in doing so. Feudal warlords weren’t interested so much in land per se, but land that was being worked by compliant peasants. If you transported boatloads of peasants to pre-Columbian New Jersey, it would have been difficult to keep them on the manor. The threat of hostile aborigines might not be enough to keep the peasants from going off on their own and starting farms outside your sphere of influence. My native state of Georgia was originally granted to a would-be feudal lord who aimed to set up the Margravate of Azilia. He had to rely on volunteers to be villeins in his realm, and there were just no takers. England had not yet hit on the idea of transporting prisoners to far off places.
The peasants, who might very well have liked to establish homesteads as free farmers in the New World, lacked the means to do so even if they had been aware of the existence of North America. And the noble parasites who depended on them weren’t likely to let them go in any event.
It was, I reckon, the discovery of populous civilizations in Meso-America that made conquest of the New World profitable. The Aztecs and the Mayas and the Incas had a ready supply of serfs to support the Conquistadores and make it worth their while to come over. It was another century before the wilds of North America became remotely attractive for settlement by farmers and before the economic structures of European countries provided the means and the motive to finance such ventures.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Hate Speech
It seems to me that just about anything that is not praise might be characterized as hate speech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech. Then again, if you laud a category, that is engage in “love speech”, that is often seen as reprehensible as well. If I say that Jews are smart or Africans are athletic, I’m going to get into trouble almost as much as if I say that Jews are cheap or that Africans are lazy.
Saying that Jews or Africans as categories are anything is usually incorrect or irrelevant. Knowing that someone is a Jew or an African isn’t going to allow you to predict much at all about that person, unless you are interested in genetic markers and differential susceptibility to diseases or some such thing. You need to know a lot more about the individual than a few arbitrary categories that he can be classified by. Prejudice is irrational but pervasive, and we probably should cut each other a little slack.
It is a cultural fact is that when a member of a category makes jokes or statements about that category, even if they are demeaning or promote negative stereotypes, that’s NOT hate speech. I’m a person of altitude, so I can crack wise about hillbillies to my heart’s content as long as I don’t go so far as to seem like a self-hating cracker, in which case I am still not as bad as a non-cracker who denigrates my category. I am reminded of Krusty the Clown who, on discovering that he was not technically Jewish, realized that instead of being a self-hating Jew, he was just anti-Semitic, a far worse thing to be.
Another cultural fact is that the weak can criticize in pretty hateful terms the powerful more readily than the powerful can criticize the weak however gently and patronizingly. Accordingly, a black comedian can skewer upper middle class whites with impunity, but an upper middle class white businessman had better not say anything bad about black people (or anything good for that matter).
These cultural facts aren’t necessarily fair or reasonable. They are what they are, though, and it is wise to take them into account. You can argue that they ought to be different, but that won’t make them so until there is a cultural sea change. My favorite radio hosts, Opie and Anthony, can whine all they want about how times are tough for folks who like to make fun of people and be mean for a living (which I enjoy as much as the next guy), but cultural change will not come quickly nor will it become fair or reasonable or rational.
I was surprised that demeaning persons who hold particular political views was included as hate speech in the Wikipedia definition. If that’s the case, I’m guilty of hate speech when it comes to Nazis and other fascists, Stalinists and neocons, just to name a few. If you put yourself in such a category, you have already demeaned yourself, and anything I say will just be pointing out the facts. Your politics are way different from your race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or such like categories. The same goes for religion. Criticizing a religious category is more akin to criticizing the belief system or doctrine than criticizing the adherents themselves. If the Church of Moloch teaches some reprehensible things, then pointing this out is entirely different than slamming someone because of some arbitrary, largely immutable trait. Crazy Bill Donohoe, for example, plays the hate speech card entirely improperly in his smears of critics of Catholicism. Eventually, the concept will become so overworked by Donohoe and his ilk that it will lose its meaning.
Saying that Jews or Africans as categories are anything is usually incorrect or irrelevant. Knowing that someone is a Jew or an African isn’t going to allow you to predict much at all about that person, unless you are interested in genetic markers and differential susceptibility to diseases or some such thing. You need to know a lot more about the individual than a few arbitrary categories that he can be classified by. Prejudice is irrational but pervasive, and we probably should cut each other a little slack.
It is a cultural fact is that when a member of a category makes jokes or statements about that category, even if they are demeaning or promote negative stereotypes, that’s NOT hate speech. I’m a person of altitude, so I can crack wise about hillbillies to my heart’s content as long as I don’t go so far as to seem like a self-hating cracker, in which case I am still not as bad as a non-cracker who denigrates my category. I am reminded of Krusty the Clown who, on discovering that he was not technically Jewish, realized that instead of being a self-hating Jew, he was just anti-Semitic, a far worse thing to be.
Another cultural fact is that the weak can criticize in pretty hateful terms the powerful more readily than the powerful can criticize the weak however gently and patronizingly. Accordingly, a black comedian can skewer upper middle class whites with impunity, but an upper middle class white businessman had better not say anything bad about black people (or anything good for that matter).
These cultural facts aren’t necessarily fair or reasonable. They are what they are, though, and it is wise to take them into account. You can argue that they ought to be different, but that won’t make them so until there is a cultural sea change. My favorite radio hosts, Opie and Anthony, can whine all they want about how times are tough for folks who like to make fun of people and be mean for a living (which I enjoy as much as the next guy), but cultural change will not come quickly nor will it become fair or reasonable or rational.
I was surprised that demeaning persons who hold particular political views was included as hate speech in the Wikipedia definition. If that’s the case, I’m guilty of hate speech when it comes to Nazis and other fascists, Stalinists and neocons, just to name a few. If you put yourself in such a category, you have already demeaned yourself, and anything I say will just be pointing out the facts. Your politics are way different from your race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or such like categories. The same goes for religion. Criticizing a religious category is more akin to criticizing the belief system or doctrine than criticizing the adherents themselves. If the Church of Moloch teaches some reprehensible things, then pointing this out is entirely different than slamming someone because of some arbitrary, largely immutable trait. Crazy Bill Donohoe, for example, plays the hate speech card entirely improperly in his smears of critics of Catholicism. Eventually, the concept will become so overworked by Donohoe and his ilk that it will lose its meaning.
I Read the Hate Crime Legislation
I read the text of the new federal hate crimes bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1592
The bill is limited in its applicability to crimes that involve interstate travel, facilities of interstate communication, or that otherwise have an impact on interstate commerce. This is laughable in view of the Supreme Court’s determination that there is no activity whatsoever that does not have an impact on interstate commerce. All Congress has to do to assert federal jurisdiction is to recite some mumbo jumbo about interstate commerce.
The bill permits the Department of “Justice” to assist local jurisdictions or to prosecute as federal crimes any violent crimes motivated by the victim’s race, creed, etc. This is restrained (irony alert) to some extent by consideration of the impact of such a prosecution or lack of prosecution on the “federal interest” in stamping out bias motivated crime.
I was greatly comforted by the last section:
“Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.”
The federales have written themselves a reminder that the First Amendment still pertains. What a relief!
I oppose this bill, not because I don’t think that hate crimes are bad things, but because I oppose all expansions of federal authority. I would have been more comfortable with a bill that limited federal jurisdiction to cases where the local law enforcement and prosecutorial apparatus declined to act, as when a local cop commits a hate crime or when local politics preclude prosecution. Also, I would like to have seen a prohibition on prosecuting cases where a local prosecution had been undertaken.
It should be easy to distinguish a genuine hate crime from a crime that happens to be committed against a member of one of the protected categories but is motivated by ordinary criminal motivations. Of course, that won’t stop zealous prosecutors from pushing the envelope. God only knows how this bill will be abused, but you can bet that it will be.
Bush aims to veto the bill. I reckon he is motivated by his homophobic constituency in the religious right who rejoice in the beatings and murders of gays. Relax, wingnuts, you still get to advocate violence against gays.
The bill is limited in its applicability to crimes that involve interstate travel, facilities of interstate communication, or that otherwise have an impact on interstate commerce. This is laughable in view of the Supreme Court’s determination that there is no activity whatsoever that does not have an impact on interstate commerce. All Congress has to do to assert federal jurisdiction is to recite some mumbo jumbo about interstate commerce.
The bill permits the Department of “Justice” to assist local jurisdictions or to prosecute as federal crimes any violent crimes motivated by the victim’s race, creed, etc. This is restrained (irony alert) to some extent by consideration of the impact of such a prosecution or lack of prosecution on the “federal interest” in stamping out bias motivated crime.
I was greatly comforted by the last section:
“Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.”
The federales have written themselves a reminder that the First Amendment still pertains. What a relief!
I oppose this bill, not because I don’t think that hate crimes are bad things, but because I oppose all expansions of federal authority. I would have been more comfortable with a bill that limited federal jurisdiction to cases where the local law enforcement and prosecutorial apparatus declined to act, as when a local cop commits a hate crime or when local politics preclude prosecution. Also, I would like to have seen a prohibition on prosecuting cases where a local prosecution had been undertaken.
It should be easy to distinguish a genuine hate crime from a crime that happens to be committed against a member of one of the protected categories but is motivated by ordinary criminal motivations. Of course, that won’t stop zealous prosecutors from pushing the envelope. God only knows how this bill will be abused, but you can bet that it will be.
Bush aims to veto the bill. I reckon he is motivated by his homophobic constituency in the religious right who rejoice in the beatings and murders of gays. Relax, wingnuts, you still get to advocate violence against gays.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Economies of Scale, Schmeconomies of Scale
Kevin Carson gives us a preview of two chapters of his book on organization theory. He takes a critical look at the concept of “economies of scale”. The chapters are interesting, and I never thought I would say that about a book on organization.
I’m a tool in a monstrous global conglomerate, and in my experience economies of scale are rare. They exist, as when combined purchasing power means more bargaining power, but these gains are netted out by the additional costs associated with bigness. The added bureaucracy alone eats up profits like crazy. And upper management gets its information filtered through so many functionaries that they make decisions based on meaningless and inaccurate reports. We spend so much time reporting to our superiors that we barely have time left to do any actual work.
We do best when we allow the operating entities to function more or less independently, when they are encouraged to be entrepreneurial. This means structuring incentives to reward productivity while restraining the urge to control from HQ. This is hard to sustain, however, because upper management in conglomerates are often control freaks who reckon that they know best how to run things centrally.
Another secret I have learned as a tool is that bringing functions in house is rarely cheaper than hiring outside firms. The outsiders can be retained on an ad hoc basis when needed, and they cost nothing when not needed. Insiders find a way to keep busy all the time and expand their work and increase the size of their departments until any savings realized are netted out by increased costs. And you still end up hiring outsiders.
I’m a tool in a monstrous global conglomerate, and in my experience economies of scale are rare. They exist, as when combined purchasing power means more bargaining power, but these gains are netted out by the additional costs associated with bigness. The added bureaucracy alone eats up profits like crazy. And upper management gets its information filtered through so many functionaries that they make decisions based on meaningless and inaccurate reports. We spend so much time reporting to our superiors that we barely have time left to do any actual work.
We do best when we allow the operating entities to function more or less independently, when they are encouraged to be entrepreneurial. This means structuring incentives to reward productivity while restraining the urge to control from HQ. This is hard to sustain, however, because upper management in conglomerates are often control freaks who reckon that they know best how to run things centrally.
Another secret I have learned as a tool is that bringing functions in house is rarely cheaper than hiring outside firms. The outsiders can be retained on an ad hoc basis when needed, and they cost nothing when not needed. Insiders find a way to keep busy all the time and expand their work and increase the size of their departments until any savings realized are netted out by increased costs. And you still end up hiring outsiders.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Giving New Life to Lawyer and Ethnic Jokes
People love to tell me lawyer jokes, and I don’t mind hearing them. Nobody is more contemptuous of the profession than I am. When I was sworn in to the Maryland bar back in 1985, the Chief Judge urged us to be intolerant of lawyer jokes. He said that we should claim to be offended by them and to scold the joke tellers and set them straight about lawyers. I heeded him not. Lawyers deserve all the contempt heaped upon them and then some. We’re lucky it’s jokes and not rocks that are used to express the public’s disregard for us.
Anyway, I like lawyer jokes. I even tell them sometimes. One thing I like to do is to change them up by changing the profession to that of the listener. For example, if I’m telling a lawyer joke to a female physical anthropologist it might go something like this: “What do you call a thousand female physical anthropologists at the bottom of the Hudson River? A start.” It’s even funnier, isn’t it? “What’s the difference between a dead snake in the road and a dead dentist? There are skid marks in front of the snake.” “How can you tell when an actuary is lying? His lips are moving.” Try it yourself. The less contemptible the profession, the funnier the joke is in my opinion. “What’s the definition of a shame? When a bus full of hospice workers goes over a cliff and there’s two empty seats.” See what I mean?
And you can tell ethnic jokes all you want as long as you pick a really obscure ethnic category or a fictitious one or an extinct one or one that makes no sense. “This Romanian walks into a bar with a parrot on his shoulder. The bartender says, ‘Hey, that’s neat. Where did you get it?’ The parrot replies, ‘In Romania, they run wild over there.’” “A Klingon, an Orc and a Sentient Duck like in Duck Tales are traveling through the country when their car breaks down. A farmer allows them to sleep in his barn but warns them to stay away from his beautiful daughter. The Klingon sneaks in, ravishes the daughter and is sneaking back when the farmer, who has been keeping vigil, calls ‘Who’s there?’ The Klingon thinks quick and lets out a ‘Meow’ so that the farmer is not alarmed. The Sentient Duck does the same thing and answers the challenge of the farmer with a ‘Meow’. The Orc does the same thing and when the farmer calls out, he replies ‘It’s the cat!’” ” “Why did the Etruscan eat dynamite? So his hair would grow out in bangs.”
Another way to go is to take a category other than ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation and make that category the butt of the joke. “How many cat fanciers does it take to screw in a light bulb? One; is that supposed to be funny!?”
One of my favorite lawyer jokes is about four good friends and golfing buddies. They are a doctor, a minister, a lawyer and a businessman. One day in the clubhouse the businessman reveals that he is dying of cancer and that his dying wish is to take his wealth with him into the grave. He gives each of his friends a third of his money and makes them swear that they will put it in his casket just before it is lowered into the ground. At the graveside, they each put a sack in the casket. A year later, the minister confesses to the other two that he had not, in fact, put the money in the coffin. He figured that their friend had not been thinking straight and would have really wanted the minister to give the money to a charity that helped people with cancer. And that’s what he had done with the two million bucks he had been given. The doctor replied that he was relieved to hear it and that he had put his share of the money in a foundation to research a cure for the cancer that had killed their friend. The lawyer was appalled that they had broken their oath and defied the dying wish of their dear friend. His conscience was clear because he had put in the casket his personal check for two million dollars.
Anyway, I like lawyer jokes. I even tell them sometimes. One thing I like to do is to change them up by changing the profession to that of the listener. For example, if I’m telling a lawyer joke to a female physical anthropologist it might go something like this: “What do you call a thousand female physical anthropologists at the bottom of the Hudson River? A start.” It’s even funnier, isn’t it? “What’s the difference between a dead snake in the road and a dead dentist? There are skid marks in front of the snake.” “How can you tell when an actuary is lying? His lips are moving.” Try it yourself. The less contemptible the profession, the funnier the joke is in my opinion. “What’s the definition of a shame? When a bus full of hospice workers goes over a cliff and there’s two empty seats.” See what I mean?
And you can tell ethnic jokes all you want as long as you pick a really obscure ethnic category or a fictitious one or an extinct one or one that makes no sense. “This Romanian walks into a bar with a parrot on his shoulder. The bartender says, ‘Hey, that’s neat. Where did you get it?’ The parrot replies, ‘In Romania, they run wild over there.’” “A Klingon, an Orc and a Sentient Duck like in Duck Tales are traveling through the country when their car breaks down. A farmer allows them to sleep in his barn but warns them to stay away from his beautiful daughter. The Klingon sneaks in, ravishes the daughter and is sneaking back when the farmer, who has been keeping vigil, calls ‘Who’s there?’ The Klingon thinks quick and lets out a ‘Meow’ so that the farmer is not alarmed. The Sentient Duck does the same thing and answers the challenge of the farmer with a ‘Meow’. The Orc does the same thing and when the farmer calls out, he replies ‘It’s the cat!’” ” “Why did the Etruscan eat dynamite? So his hair would grow out in bangs.”
Another way to go is to take a category other than ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation and make that category the butt of the joke. “How many cat fanciers does it take to screw in a light bulb? One; is that supposed to be funny!?”
One of my favorite lawyer jokes is about four good friends and golfing buddies. They are a doctor, a minister, a lawyer and a businessman. One day in the clubhouse the businessman reveals that he is dying of cancer and that his dying wish is to take his wealth with him into the grave. He gives each of his friends a third of his money and makes them swear that they will put it in his casket just before it is lowered into the ground. At the graveside, they each put a sack in the casket. A year later, the minister confesses to the other two that he had not, in fact, put the money in the coffin. He figured that their friend had not been thinking straight and would have really wanted the minister to give the money to a charity that helped people with cancer. And that’s what he had done with the two million bucks he had been given. The doctor replied that he was relieved to hear it and that he had put his share of the money in a foundation to research a cure for the cancer that had killed their friend. The lawyer was appalled that they had broken their oath and defied the dying wish of their dear friend. His conscience was clear because he had put in the casket his personal check for two million dollars.
Reflections on Voir Dire
When I was undergoing voir dire for potential jury duty the other day, I was asked if I could apply the law as given to me by the judge even if I disagreed with it. I said that I could as long as it wasn’t patently unjust or offensive. The lawyer rephrased the question to ask if I believed in the “rule of law”. I indicated that I did but that I probably had a different idea of the meaning of the expression. She was using it to cover the statutes enacted by a majoritarian tyranny. I don’t acknowledge the legitimacy of such legislation. It was unlikely to be an issue in a dental malpractice case, but I felt that I had to be honest (and it’s a good way to stay off of a jury).
If it had been a criminal matter, I might have concealed my views on jury nullification to have a chance to mess with the system. I would never convict anyone of a drug “crime” or any other vice related charge.
In orientation for jury duty, we watched a video that harkened back to the days of trial by ordeal, and the narrator implied that the jury system was all that stood in the way of a return to such barbaric practices. (I wonder if trial by combat or trial by ordeal is still technically available). I suppose our jury system will one day be looked upon as barbaric and irrational, especially nowadays when the jury has been reduced to a cipher in most cases.
A joke some lawyers like to tell is that we wouldn’t want our fate decided by people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty. Unless juries are also triers of the law as well as triers of fact, the system is not as valuable as it could be. In some cases, juries have been the last bastion of the common man against the powerful. In southern West Virginia back in the mine owner/miner conflicts, juries were the only part of the apparatus of the state that the mine operators had not suborned. The mine owners tried to curtail the right to trial by jury in the legislature, but the legislators from the rest of the state wouldn’t go along with it. They couldn’t get convictions of agitators. They finally resorted to assassination, but they never got control of the “legitimate” criminal justice process.
If it had been a criminal matter, I might have concealed my views on jury nullification to have a chance to mess with the system. I would never convict anyone of a drug “crime” or any other vice related charge.
In orientation for jury duty, we watched a video that harkened back to the days of trial by ordeal, and the narrator implied that the jury system was all that stood in the way of a return to such barbaric practices. (I wonder if trial by combat or trial by ordeal is still technically available). I suppose our jury system will one day be looked upon as barbaric and irrational, especially nowadays when the jury has been reduced to a cipher in most cases.
A joke some lawyers like to tell is that we wouldn’t want our fate decided by people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty. Unless juries are also triers of the law as well as triers of fact, the system is not as valuable as it could be. In some cases, juries have been the last bastion of the common man against the powerful. In southern West Virginia back in the mine owner/miner conflicts, juries were the only part of the apparatus of the state that the mine operators had not suborned. The mine owners tried to curtail the right to trial by jury in the legislature, but the legislators from the rest of the state wouldn’t go along with it. They couldn’t get convictions of agitators. They finally resorted to assassination, but they never got control of the “legitimate” criminal justice process.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
The Aristocrats!
A reworking of "The Aristocrats" with the GOP as the main attraction: http://www.thenewsblog.net/2007/04/driftglass-aristocrats.html.
What Did We Expect When We Elected a White Male as President?
Mrs Vache Folle remarked last night that if a president who was female or black failed as miserably as GW Bush, folks would carry on about how they never should have elected a woman or a black. GW Bush hasn’t just lowered the bar for white male presidents, he has buried it, says Mrs VF. We will know when we have gender and racial equality when women and minorities can screw up as much as GW Bush and nobody remarks on how it figures that a woman or a minority would fail.
It figures that electing a white male as president would be a fiasco. After all, every white male president has been bad in some way, many spectacularly so. I am beginning to see a pattern: elect a white male president, get a bigger government and less freedom.
It figures that electing a white male as president would be a fiasco. After all, every white male president has been bad in some way, many spectacularly so. I am beginning to see a pattern: elect a white male president, get a bigger government and less freedom.
Chris Hitchens Gets Something Right
Christopher Hitchens was on The Daily Show repeat last night plugging his book about how bad religion is. He made a good point that the characterization of someone as a “person of faith” shouldn’t really be considered a compliment. Calling someone a “person of faith” means that you think that the person has some irrational beliefs unsupported by evidence. Why would we necessarily consider that a good thing?
I am a “person of faith” in that I believe, without resort to any evidence or to reason, in God’s grace as expressed through Jesus Christ. I can’t prove the truth of my beliefs in this regard. They are simply not susceptible to proof. My beliefs are irrational as are all such religious beliefs. I have no reason to boast, and in acknowledging that I am a “person of faith” I don’t expect to be lauded or given any special consideration.
In my opinion, whether being a “person of faith” is a good thing or a bad thing depends entirely on just what irrational beliefs the individual holds. I might be uncomfortable with a follower of Ramtha, the prehistoric warrior channeled by a woman out west, or a Scientologist or a Mormon. I’m not even all that comfortable with Catholics to be completely honest about it because of their acceptance of a top down hierarchy and authoritarian streak. I am way uncomfortable with fundamentalists of any creed. Their irrational beliefs may well inspire conduct that is aggressive and coercive, as the religious right’s warmongering in the name of the Prince of Peace attests.
I don’t see the secularization of society as problematic, and I don’t blame secularization for contemporary social ills. Inculcating irrational beliefs isn’t necessarily going to solve our problems. Quite the contrary, it is just as likely to compound them or to create new ones. I have known a few “people of faith” who reckon that religion is important to keep people from killing each other and to make them behave. On the other hand, a compliant and gullible population is apt to be led to kill and to misbehave. Others have argued that religion gives life meaning and without it we would collapse under the weight of existential meaninglessness and become a world of nihilists. On the other hand, having a prepackaged meaning delivered to you might prevent you from finding the true meaning of your life. In my view, even if my life is meaningless, it is still a marvelous thing in and of itself and a gift beyond measure, and I would be an ingrate to bitch about it.
My faith isn’t about controlling other people or endowing their lives with a meaning that works for me. Frankly, I would rather other people were a bit more ungovernable, and if their particular form of faith turns them into slaves I don’t approve. And speaking of nihilists, the crazy left behinders reckon that the world is about to end soon anyhow, so why bother with making it better?
I am a “person of faith” in that I believe, without resort to any evidence or to reason, in God’s grace as expressed through Jesus Christ. I can’t prove the truth of my beliefs in this regard. They are simply not susceptible to proof. My beliefs are irrational as are all such religious beliefs. I have no reason to boast, and in acknowledging that I am a “person of faith” I don’t expect to be lauded or given any special consideration.
In my opinion, whether being a “person of faith” is a good thing or a bad thing depends entirely on just what irrational beliefs the individual holds. I might be uncomfortable with a follower of Ramtha, the prehistoric warrior channeled by a woman out west, or a Scientologist or a Mormon. I’m not even all that comfortable with Catholics to be completely honest about it because of their acceptance of a top down hierarchy and authoritarian streak. I am way uncomfortable with fundamentalists of any creed. Their irrational beliefs may well inspire conduct that is aggressive and coercive, as the religious right’s warmongering in the name of the Prince of Peace attests.
I don’t see the secularization of society as problematic, and I don’t blame secularization for contemporary social ills. Inculcating irrational beliefs isn’t necessarily going to solve our problems. Quite the contrary, it is just as likely to compound them or to create new ones. I have known a few “people of faith” who reckon that religion is important to keep people from killing each other and to make them behave. On the other hand, a compliant and gullible population is apt to be led to kill and to misbehave. Others have argued that religion gives life meaning and without it we would collapse under the weight of existential meaninglessness and become a world of nihilists. On the other hand, having a prepackaged meaning delivered to you might prevent you from finding the true meaning of your life. In my view, even if my life is meaningless, it is still a marvelous thing in and of itself and a gift beyond measure, and I would be an ingrate to bitch about it.
My faith isn’t about controlling other people or endowing their lives with a meaning that works for me. Frankly, I would rather other people were a bit more ungovernable, and if their particular form of faith turns them into slaves I don’t approve. And speaking of nihilists, the crazy left behinders reckon that the world is about to end soon anyhow, so why bother with making it better?
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
More This and That
It turns out that my knee injury isn’t as bad as I had feared. I have a cyst by the lateral collateral ligament and some “degradation” of the meniscus. I’m to try a course of physical therapy to see if surgery might be avoided. Meanwhile, the NSAID is working its magic, and I can do just about anything but run.
The juncos have moved on, and the cowbirds and goldfinches have arrived in force. The hummingbirds aren’t back yet, but we put out some nectar just in case and for any of them that might be passing through on the way to points north. We put out the deck furniture and have been cooking out whenever we can.
We planted some shrubs in the part of the pond by the weir that had washed out. I filled up the gully with silt from the pond and reinforced the rock wall with a patch of pond liner. I also lowered the weir to reduce the chance of overflow in all but the biggest storms. Take that, Mother Nature!
Every day that I can, I am digging out silt and detritus from the pond little by little and putting it in low spots in the yard. I aim to build up a couple of swampy spots by about 18 inches, and the storms provided me with enough silt to do the job.
The forsythia burst into bloom overnight the other day, and the front yard is festooned with yellow. It is quite cheery. A lot of folks on the road have forsythia hedges, and it looks really nice this time of year. The return of color is helping to relieve my winter blues.
Jasper is active despite his recent leg injury and chases the fish now as well as the frogs. Some wood ducks visit the pond from time to time, but Jasper chases them away. He hates him some ducks and squirrels.
The juncos have moved on, and the cowbirds and goldfinches have arrived in force. The hummingbirds aren’t back yet, but we put out some nectar just in case and for any of them that might be passing through on the way to points north. We put out the deck furniture and have been cooking out whenever we can.
We planted some shrubs in the part of the pond by the weir that had washed out. I filled up the gully with silt from the pond and reinforced the rock wall with a patch of pond liner. I also lowered the weir to reduce the chance of overflow in all but the biggest storms. Take that, Mother Nature!
Every day that I can, I am digging out silt and detritus from the pond little by little and putting it in low spots in the yard. I aim to build up a couple of swampy spots by about 18 inches, and the storms provided me with enough silt to do the job.
The forsythia burst into bloom overnight the other day, and the front yard is festooned with yellow. It is quite cheery. A lot of folks on the road have forsythia hedges, and it looks really nice this time of year. The return of color is helping to relieve my winter blues.
Jasper is active despite his recent leg injury and chases the fish now as well as the frogs. Some wood ducks visit the pond from time to time, but Jasper chases them away. He hates him some ducks and squirrels.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Me and Celebrities
I used to work as relief manager at a couple of movie theaters in DC back in the early 1980s. One day, Jack Valenti came in to the Tenley Circle theater and asked to be comped. He showed me his credentials (he was with the AFI or some such thing at the time) and asked if I knew who he was. I had seen him on the Oscars many times and recognized him. But inasmuch as my masters had not left word to comp him, I declined to do so and made him pay for his ticket. I could have comped him, but I didn’t want to for some reason. Now he’s dead, and I regret that I made him pay. Sorry about that, Jack.
I comped Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver at the opening of one of the Rocky movies (the one with Mr T) at the Avalon by Chevy Chase Circle. They claimed to be friends with the owners of the chain, and I reckoned that they probably were. He was huge but not as tall as I had expected. They were the only famous people I ever comped just for being famous. Amy Carter came in a few times with her little friends and a team of Secret Service Agents, but they always paid for their tickets.
I lived in DC and its environs for over ten years, and I rarely saw anyone famous. I met Barry Goldwater on M Street once when I was in college. I went to church with President Carter. I attended a few events at the White House (Gorbachev’s visit being the coolest), and Warren Burger gave a speech in Lafayette Park once while I was hanging around. That’s about it. Oh, Wayne Newton sang on the mall in 1983. And the Pope came in 1979 or thereabouts.
I’ve seen more celebrities in New York and environs than I ever saw in DC. For example, Mia Farrow asked me where the pet store was outside of Danbury. We were standing in front of it, so I was able to help her easily. I sat across from Tim Conway at a play on Broadway. I saw Jesse Jackson get out of a limo. Well, you get the picture.
I comped Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver at the opening of one of the Rocky movies (the one with Mr T) at the Avalon by Chevy Chase Circle. They claimed to be friends with the owners of the chain, and I reckoned that they probably were. He was huge but not as tall as I had expected. They were the only famous people I ever comped just for being famous. Amy Carter came in a few times with her little friends and a team of Secret Service Agents, but they always paid for their tickets.
I lived in DC and its environs for over ten years, and I rarely saw anyone famous. I met Barry Goldwater on M Street once when I was in college. I went to church with President Carter. I attended a few events at the White House (Gorbachev’s visit being the coolest), and Warren Burger gave a speech in Lafayette Park once while I was hanging around. That’s about it. Oh, Wayne Newton sang on the mall in 1983. And the Pope came in 1979 or thereabouts.
I’ve seen more celebrities in New York and environs than I ever saw in DC. For example, Mia Farrow asked me where the pet store was outside of Danbury. We were standing in front of it, so I was able to help her easily. I sat across from Tim Conway at a play on Broadway. I saw Jesse Jackson get out of a limo. Well, you get the picture.
See "Hot Fuzz"
I was not disappointed in “Hot Fuzz” which I saw Saturday in Hyde Park. Pegg and Wright, the geniuses behind “Shaun of the Dead”, have teamed up to make an homage/parody of the buddy cop genre. Pegg plays Nicholas Angel, a London police officer transferred to a quaint village in Gloucester because he made the other cops look bad due to his skill and efficiency.
Angel is partnered with Danny, an inept constable and son of the local police inspector. Danny is obsessed with American cop movies and has a massive collection of videos. I don’t want to spoil any of the film, so I won’t say more than to trust me, it’s great. This is no campy “Airplane” or “Naked Gun”. The characters play the whole thing straight, and it works in large part because of the juxtaposition of setting and genre. It’s also far from Tarentinoesque in that Pegg and Wright didn’t set out to masturbate to the genre.
Angel is partnered with Danny, an inept constable and son of the local police inspector. Danny is obsessed with American cop movies and has a massive collection of videos. I don’t want to spoil any of the film, so I won’t say more than to trust me, it’s great. This is no campy “Airplane” or “Naked Gun”. The characters play the whole thing straight, and it works in large part because of the juxtaposition of setting and genre. It’s also far from Tarentinoesque in that Pegg and Wright didn’t set out to masturbate to the genre.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Listen to Your Body
I didn't listen to my body. It was telling me that something was wrong with my left knee and that maybe I shouldn't keep running and cranking out reps on the leg machines. I was determined to work through the pain and ignore it until it went away. It didn't go away. It got worse. My body started screaming at me. The swelled up, and I could hardly walk. Then I fell down the hill and injured the other side of the same knee.
The orthopod, who might just be the worst doctor I have ever consulted in terms of communicating with patients, reckons I have injured the collateral ligaments. He didn't tell me this. I had to look up the diagnostic code on the internets. I had an MRI last week, and in a couple of hours I will get the results. Meanwhile, I have been on this excellent NSAID meloxicam and can walk pretty well and even muck around in the pond moving silt. I can't run a lick, though.
I hope I don't want surgery what with being a huge physical coward and all. Needless to say, this injury has been a setback in my hunkification program. I suppose I'm lucky that I made it this far without a serious knee injury.
The orthopod, who might just be the worst doctor I have ever consulted in terms of communicating with patients, reckons I have injured the collateral ligaments. He didn't tell me this. I had to look up the diagnostic code on the internets. I had an MRI last week, and in a couple of hours I will get the results. Meanwhile, I have been on this excellent NSAID meloxicam and can walk pretty well and even muck around in the pond moving silt. I can't run a lick, though.
I hope I don't want surgery what with being a huge physical coward and all. Needless to say, this injury has been a setback in my hunkification program. I suppose I'm lucky that I made it this far without a serious knee injury.
Bad Generals
Attaturk links to an article in the Armed Forces Journal wherein a field grade commander calls the general officer corps to task for its moral and professional failures. It’s worth a look.
Any general with any sense knew that stabilizing Iraq would take hundreds of thousand of soldiers, but few of them were willing to say so. Why didn't the administration marshall the resources required? I propose several contributing factors:
Any general with any sense knew that stabilizing Iraq would take hundreds of thousand of soldiers, but few of them were willing to say so. Why didn't the administration marshall the resources required? I propose several contributing factors:
- The regime is populated by incompetents.
- The regime has no grasp of reality.
- The regime didn't think it could sell a war involving so many troops and such tremendous costs.
- The regime isn't looking to stabilize Iraq and just wants perpetual war and the gnarly extra powers that come with it.
Seriously, if the consequences of failure in Iraq will be catastrophic, as so many warmongers claim these days, why aren't they suggesting troop levels of 400,000 or more? It's because the warmongers are pulling our cranks and don't really believe what they're saying.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
This and That and the Other
Steve Scott had a good suggestion for how chickenhawks can support the war they love so much. Let them serve as mercenary volunteers. Heck, let them form regiments of volunteers. Jonah Goldberg’s New Rough Riders would strike fear in the hearts of… Well, let’s just say there would be fear in some hearts and loads in some pants.
One good thing about the Bush administration is that it made me realize that my incompetence and lack of character should not bar me from high office. If Gonzo can be AG, I could be, too. If Brownie could run FEMA, so could I. If Bush can be CinC, there’s no reason I couldn’t be. What I’d like to be is VPOTUS. I’d just draw my pay, live in my mansion, and show up at the Senate on occasion. Otherwise, I’d be in my usual undisclosed location.
Wm Norman Grigg has nailed it again with his defense of the Second Amendment. Sure, some gun toting individual crazies have killed some folks over the years, but it’s gun toting, bomb wielding crazies working for governments that have killed tens of millions in just the last century. If you were going to disarm someone to save lives, you should disarm governments.
About a mile and a half down the road, one of the property owners has an appeal before the planning board to allow him to operate a beagle kennel on his property. The immediate neighbors have put up yard signs in opposition: “No Dog Kennel on Miller Hill”, “Stop the Dog Kennel”, “This Is Not Kennel Country”. I’d hate to be mixed up in a fight with my neighbors over their use of their property. I’d hate to live next to a bunch of beagles, but I don’t think I would use force against my neighbor by setting the planning board goons on them.
The nephews might visit weekend after next. I would like to put them to work in the garden, but they are lazy and useless. They’ll work for about 30 minutes and then start whining. They have helped me over the years to maintain my commitment to a child-free lifestyle. Whenever we started musing about the possibility of having kids, a visit with the nephews would drive any such notions right out of our minds. For that I am grateful to them.
Yankee fans are the most fickle fans around. A-Rod is belting homers like crazy, so the fans love him and claim they always loved him. Last year, he was a bum. And he’ll be a bum again as soon as he slumps. I have followed A-Rod since he was a Tacoma Rainier. He’s basically a good guy, and it has to be hard on him to deal with New Yorkers. After all, he played in Seattle, the land of the bland and ultra nice for many years, and coming to New York must have been a shock.
I finally figured out how to do a hyperlink. If I could only figure out how to do a blogroll, I'd be in business.
One good thing about the Bush administration is that it made me realize that my incompetence and lack of character should not bar me from high office. If Gonzo can be AG, I could be, too. If Brownie could run FEMA, so could I. If Bush can be CinC, there’s no reason I couldn’t be. What I’d like to be is VPOTUS. I’d just draw my pay, live in my mansion, and show up at the Senate on occasion. Otherwise, I’d be in my usual undisclosed location.
Wm Norman Grigg has nailed it again with his defense of the Second Amendment. Sure, some gun toting individual crazies have killed some folks over the years, but it’s gun toting, bomb wielding crazies working for governments that have killed tens of millions in just the last century. If you were going to disarm someone to save lives, you should disarm governments.
About a mile and a half down the road, one of the property owners has an appeal before the planning board to allow him to operate a beagle kennel on his property. The immediate neighbors have put up yard signs in opposition: “No Dog Kennel on Miller Hill”, “Stop the Dog Kennel”, “This Is Not Kennel Country”. I’d hate to be mixed up in a fight with my neighbors over their use of their property. I’d hate to live next to a bunch of beagles, but I don’t think I would use force against my neighbor by setting the planning board goons on them.
The nephews might visit weekend after next. I would like to put them to work in the garden, but they are lazy and useless. They’ll work for about 30 minutes and then start whining. They have helped me over the years to maintain my commitment to a child-free lifestyle. Whenever we started musing about the possibility of having kids, a visit with the nephews would drive any such notions right out of our minds. For that I am grateful to them.
Yankee fans are the most fickle fans around. A-Rod is belting homers like crazy, so the fans love him and claim they always loved him. Last year, he was a bum. And he’ll be a bum again as soon as he slumps. I have followed A-Rod since he was a Tacoma Rainier. He’s basically a good guy, and it has to be hard on him to deal with New Yorkers. After all, he played in Seattle, the land of the bland and ultra nice for many years, and coming to New York must have been a shock.
I finally figured out how to do a hyperlink. If I could only figure out how to do a blogroll, I'd be in business.
If I Were Alec Baldwin...
If I were Alec Baldwin and I had a daughter who was a rude, thoughtless little pig and whose affections for me had been substantially alienated by my shrewish ex-wife, I’d just give up on calling her or visiting her. I’d let it be known that I was available any time she needed me. I’d send a card and gift on birthdays and for Christmas and other occasions, but I’d just quit trying to have a relationship under the conditions imposed by the ex-wife. If your ex-spouse is the custodial parent and aims to alienate the affections of the child from you, there’s nothing you can do about it. The child will be alienated, at least until she grows up and realizes that her mom was to blame. Then you’ll be the favorite parent, and you won’t have had to go through all that parenting crap during adolescence.
I’ve seen this scenario played out hundreds of times. It happened to me as a child. My mother alienated us from our father and made visitation a hellish experience. Eventually the old man just gave up and started a new family. It was probably for the best. Most guys go through the motions of trying to be with their kids after a divorce mainly because of social pressure to be a good father. If it becomes too much of a hassle and it looks as if the kids are suffering because of it, that’s a perfect excuse to stop visiting.
I’ve worked on lots of cases where the mother obstructed visitation just for spite, and I could see how the fathers might get worn down and give up. Some mothers went so far as to make false accusations of sexual abuse, and that really threw a wrench into the fathers’ relationship with the kids. They had to prove they were not child molesters all the while the mothers had the kids full time and could work on them so they would start to think their dads were molesters. It’s usually better for kids to have a relationship with their father, but the benefits can be outweighed by a mother intent on alienating the children from their dad.
I’ve seen this scenario played out hundreds of times. It happened to me as a child. My mother alienated us from our father and made visitation a hellish experience. Eventually the old man just gave up and started a new family. It was probably for the best. Most guys go through the motions of trying to be with their kids after a divorce mainly because of social pressure to be a good father. If it becomes too much of a hassle and it looks as if the kids are suffering because of it, that’s a perfect excuse to stop visiting.
I’ve worked on lots of cases where the mother obstructed visitation just for spite, and I could see how the fathers might get worn down and give up. Some mothers went so far as to make false accusations of sexual abuse, and that really threw a wrench into the fathers’ relationship with the kids. They had to prove they were not child molesters all the while the mothers had the kids full time and could work on them so they would start to think their dads were molesters. It’s usually better for kids to have a relationship with their father, but the benefits can be outweighed by a mother intent on alienating the children from their dad.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Draft the Chickenhawks!
My hero Wm Norman Grigg explains how a true patriot should hope for the defeat of the US government in Iraq: http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-regime-must-lose-in-iraq.html
For one thing, if the government does not lose, it will be emboldened to embark on even more adventures.
I have read from time to time wingnut complaints about how opponents of war seem to them to sympathize with the “enemy” or to delight in the deaths of US forces. One need not sympathize with the foes of the US government to regard defeat in an ill conceived war of aggression as the best thing for one’s country and for one’s own interests. One need not wish for casualties or delight in them. In fact, I know of no opponent of the war who actually wishes soldiers to come to harm.
In fact, most opponents of war want the soldiers out of harm’s way immediately. The warmongers want them to continue to risk life and limb. Which side has the soldiers’ interests at heart?
The “chickenhawk” argument really resonates with me, and Grigg reports that it was used to good effect by Edmund Burke. I reckon that it is perfectly fair to challenge promoters of war, who claim that it is necessary for the common good, on why they do not enlist or why they have not encouraged their children to enlist in the military. If it is so damned important for the country as they say and if they are as patriotic as they claim to be, they should sign up right now and volunteer for duty in Iraq. If they are not fit for duty, because they are doughy pantloads, for example, they should make themselves fit or volunteer to serve in Iraq in some civilian position.
Tbogg points out that Mitt Romney has five sons, all of whom are of an age to serve, but that Romney has not encouraged any of them to enlist, despite Romney’s support for the war: thttp://tbogg.blogspot.com/2007/04/five-not-for-fighting-willard-mitt.html Seriously, Romney should be made to explain himself.
And warmongering Nebraska AG Jon Bruning who wants to unseat Chuck Hagel because of Hagel’s opposition to the war, is only 38 years old and eligible to serve: http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2007/04/innocents-not-abroad-but-dog-would-miss.html If he thinks the war is so important, why doesn’t he fight in it?
Chickenhawks are not fit for office. Bush and Cheney, chickenhawks extraordinaire, are prime examples.
For one thing, if the government does not lose, it will be emboldened to embark on even more adventures.
I have read from time to time wingnut complaints about how opponents of war seem to them to sympathize with the “enemy” or to delight in the deaths of US forces. One need not sympathize with the foes of the US government to regard defeat in an ill conceived war of aggression as the best thing for one’s country and for one’s own interests. One need not wish for casualties or delight in them. In fact, I know of no opponent of the war who actually wishes soldiers to come to harm.
In fact, most opponents of war want the soldiers out of harm’s way immediately. The warmongers want them to continue to risk life and limb. Which side has the soldiers’ interests at heart?
The “chickenhawk” argument really resonates with me, and Grigg reports that it was used to good effect by Edmund Burke. I reckon that it is perfectly fair to challenge promoters of war, who claim that it is necessary for the common good, on why they do not enlist or why they have not encouraged their children to enlist in the military. If it is so damned important for the country as they say and if they are as patriotic as they claim to be, they should sign up right now and volunteer for duty in Iraq. If they are not fit for duty, because they are doughy pantloads, for example, they should make themselves fit or volunteer to serve in Iraq in some civilian position.
Tbogg points out that Mitt Romney has five sons, all of whom are of an age to serve, but that Romney has not encouraged any of them to enlist, despite Romney’s support for the war: thttp://tbogg.blogspot.com/2007/04/five-not-for-fighting-willard-mitt.html Seriously, Romney should be made to explain himself.
And warmongering Nebraska AG Jon Bruning who wants to unseat Chuck Hagel because of Hagel’s opposition to the war, is only 38 years old and eligible to serve: http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2007/04/innocents-not-abroad-but-dog-would-miss.html If he thinks the war is so important, why doesn’t he fight in it?
Chickenhawks are not fit for office. Bush and Cheney, chickenhawks extraordinaire, are prime examples.
Limbo Closes Shop
The Roman Catholic Church has finally decided to close limbo, or so I have heard from some of my Catholic conspecifics. What are they going to do with all those un-baptized babies and fetuses, including I presume blastocysts miscarried during the subclinical phase of pregnancies? I have heard that the authorities aren’t entirely sure about what happens to them and have kept their options open. I recommend that a form of indulgence be sold to permit the living to buy dead babies and fetuses tickets to heaven. This preserves the hierarchy’s monopoly as gatekeepers of salvation, enriches the organization, and gives comfort to those of the living who can’t abide the idea of an innocent fetus or infant in Hell. Everybody wins.
If fetuses and infants are resurrected at the end of days, will they be resurrected in the state in which they died or will they be endowed with fully matured bodies and minds, albeit lacking any memories? If they are Hell bound, will they be tormented as infants or fetuses or endowed with an even greater capacity for suffering before being cast into the pit? If such potential human beings are raised up as what they might have become, then why wouldn’t everyone be raised up to their potential?
I don’t really know what characteristics a creature must have to count as a person who will be raised at the end of days. It’s not really up to me, of course, and I don’t see what difference my opinion on the matter makes in how I live and treat others. If a grieving mother takes comfort in the idea that she will see her lost child again in the hereafter, it would not be very loving of me to gainsay her.
It seems to me that it’s rarely a good idea to think about the mechanics of supernatural events. My thought processes and imagination are informed by modernity, however, so I find it hard to think about the supernatural and divine in ways that are appropriate to those spheres. Modernistic thinking about these things often leads to some absurd conundrum such as that posed by un-baptized infants and fetuses.
If fetuses and infants are resurrected at the end of days, will they be resurrected in the state in which they died or will they be endowed with fully matured bodies and minds, albeit lacking any memories? If they are Hell bound, will they be tormented as infants or fetuses or endowed with an even greater capacity for suffering before being cast into the pit? If such potential human beings are raised up as what they might have become, then why wouldn’t everyone be raised up to their potential?
I don’t really know what characteristics a creature must have to count as a person who will be raised at the end of days. It’s not really up to me, of course, and I don’t see what difference my opinion on the matter makes in how I live and treat others. If a grieving mother takes comfort in the idea that she will see her lost child again in the hereafter, it would not be very loving of me to gainsay her.
It seems to me that it’s rarely a good idea to think about the mechanics of supernatural events. My thought processes and imagination are informed by modernity, however, so I find it hard to think about the supernatural and divine in ways that are appropriate to those spheres. Modernistic thinking about these things often leads to some absurd conundrum such as that posed by un-baptized infants and fetuses.
Monday, April 23, 2007
A Copy of Me is Still Me, Unless it Isn't
bk marcus had a thought provoking post on teleportation: http://bkmarcus.com/blog/2007/04/teleportation-in-the-bible It turns out that he did his college thesis on the philosophical implications of teleportation and the concept of identity, and he even posts a link to the thesis. I wish I had written anything worth saving in college.
The young bk came to what I reckon is the right conclusion, that identity is a construct. When we speak of identity, we do so for a purpose, and the requirements for establishing identity may differ according to context. I have exchanged every molecule in my body several times over, and I have had periods of unconsciousness every day of my life; however, for most purposes I am still considered the same person as I was several iterations ago.
In “The Physics of Immortality”, Tipler asserts that an exact copy of a person would, in fact, be that person. That is, I suppose the idea that allows Star Fleet personnel to allow themselves to be disintegrated and reintegrated routinely. I have always suspected that when you enter the transporter, you are killed. The individual who appears at the destination is just a copy of you that thinks he is you. Then again, what is it that is you? If it’s the pattern, then the copy would be the person.
I believe in the resurrection of the body at the end of days, but I try not to think too much about the mechanics of this. What version of me will be resurrected? The young know-it-all or the more humble middle aged guy or the demented old codger? Will I perhaps be some sort of amalgam of my various selves over my lifetime? Then again, it probably doesn’t matter since the ephemera of my life will be forgotten during an eternity of further personal development and the accumulation of memories in the afterlife. Also, I will be free of all defects and, therefore, will have to be transformed significantly. I probably wouldn’t recognize myself.
The young bk came to what I reckon is the right conclusion, that identity is a construct. When we speak of identity, we do so for a purpose, and the requirements for establishing identity may differ according to context. I have exchanged every molecule in my body several times over, and I have had periods of unconsciousness every day of my life; however, for most purposes I am still considered the same person as I was several iterations ago.
In “The Physics of Immortality”, Tipler asserts that an exact copy of a person would, in fact, be that person. That is, I suppose the idea that allows Star Fleet personnel to allow themselves to be disintegrated and reintegrated routinely. I have always suspected that when you enter the transporter, you are killed. The individual who appears at the destination is just a copy of you that thinks he is you. Then again, what is it that is you? If it’s the pattern, then the copy would be the person.
I believe in the resurrection of the body at the end of days, but I try not to think too much about the mechanics of this. What version of me will be resurrected? The young know-it-all or the more humble middle aged guy or the demented old codger? Will I perhaps be some sort of amalgam of my various selves over my lifetime? Then again, it probably doesn’t matter since the ephemera of my life will be forgotten during an eternity of further personal development and the accumulation of memories in the afterlife. Also, I will be free of all defects and, therefore, will have to be transformed significantly. I probably wouldn’t recognize myself.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Read Kevin Carson
Kevin Carson doesn’t post as often as he used to, but when he does, it’s something special. The latest is brilliant: http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2007/04/media-print-projection-embossed-body.html
I like the way Carson critiques vulgar libertarians and their position on the struggle of labor. They vigorously defend price gouging by oil companies, but when a working stiff tries to work less for his pay or get more for his work, they’re all over him as a lazy good for nothing. That would make a pretty good topic for the “They’ll Do It Every Time” comic strip.
The most interesting aspect of the piece to me was that workers should get out of the box that the labor laws have put them in and be creative in their resistance to the bosses. I have some suggestions based on my experience as a corporate tool.
When you are in resistance mode, start doing exactly what your boss tells you just the way he tells you. Don’t tell him the flaws in his directives, and don’t cover for him. Don’t suggest improvements. Don’t pass on that crucial piece of information that would change everything.
Start asking your boss for approval to do almost anything, even stuff that you already do on your own now anyway. Ask your boss to assign a priority level to your assignments. This will slow things down, and it won’t be your fault.
Follow every policy and procedure to the letter. I keep a book of management memos and quote from them whenever I can.
Set up lots of conference calls and have your boss participate in them, especially when he doesn’t know anything about the issues to be discussed. Ask your boss to proofread and edit lots of documents that you produce. The idea is that you will pretty much be making work for your boss so that he will be too busy to pester you.
But won’t this piss off a good manager? Of course, but you won’t be engaging in this kind of resistance if you have a good manager. Your basic crappy manager will think his dreams are coming true and won’t realize that you are exploiting his tendency to micromanage and his barely concealed contempt for his subordinates.
I like the way Carson critiques vulgar libertarians and their position on the struggle of labor. They vigorously defend price gouging by oil companies, but when a working stiff tries to work less for his pay or get more for his work, they’re all over him as a lazy good for nothing. That would make a pretty good topic for the “They’ll Do It Every Time” comic strip.
The most interesting aspect of the piece to me was that workers should get out of the box that the labor laws have put them in and be creative in their resistance to the bosses. I have some suggestions based on my experience as a corporate tool.
When you are in resistance mode, start doing exactly what your boss tells you just the way he tells you. Don’t tell him the flaws in his directives, and don’t cover for him. Don’t suggest improvements. Don’t pass on that crucial piece of information that would change everything.
Start asking your boss for approval to do almost anything, even stuff that you already do on your own now anyway. Ask your boss to assign a priority level to your assignments. This will slow things down, and it won’t be your fault.
Follow every policy and procedure to the letter. I keep a book of management memos and quote from them whenever I can.
Set up lots of conference calls and have your boss participate in them, especially when he doesn’t know anything about the issues to be discussed. Ask your boss to proofread and edit lots of documents that you produce. The idea is that you will pretty much be making work for your boss so that he will be too busy to pester you.
But won’t this piss off a good manager? Of course, but you won’t be engaging in this kind of resistance if you have a good manager. Your basic crappy manager will think his dreams are coming true and won’t realize that you are exploiting his tendency to micromanage and his barely concealed contempt for his subordinates.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
I'm Just a Caveman When It Comes to Gun Control Talk
Lots of folks are talking about gun control nowadays. I have to confess that I am ambivalent about guns. On the one hand, I don’t approve of government’s disarming the populace leaving only government thugs and non-governmental criminals with arms. On the other hand, I don’t much want to live in an armed camp all the time. I have known too many volatile yahoos who, had they been armed at the time, would probably have killed someone over some perceived slight.
The right to bear arms isn’t absolute, is it? For instance, if my neighbor possessed a thermonuclear device for personal defense, that would make me really nervous. I don’t think he should be allowed to have such a thing as nothing good can possibly come of it. I don’t think the 2d Amendment contemplated rocket propelled grenades or nerve gas for home use. There may be a point where insisting on the right to bear sophisticated and powerful arms becomes a little crazy, but I am not sure where to draw the line. Frankly, I don’t know all that much about firearms.
I used to think that the 2d Amendment should be interpreted as acknowledging a right to bear such arms as existed in 1789. It’s hard to go on a spree with a musket. But then, only law-abiding folks would limit themselves to musketry. Cops and other criminals would doubtless have modern weaponry. Also, if you look at the 2d Amendment as protecting the populace from the government itself, shouldn’t the populace be allowed to have any weapon that the government has in its arsenal? My brain hurts.
It seems to me that having a firearm in the home for personal defense rarely results in a homeowner’s thwarting a crook. More often, the homeowner gets wasted by home invading cops, he kills or is killed by a member of his own household, or a youngster accidentally kills someone or himself while playing with the weapon. Then again, who am I to tell folks in another household what risks they should tolerate? Also, why should all the firearm owners who don’t kill themselves or their loved ones be inconvenienced because of the minority who are irresponsible or unfortunate? These are things to consider in deciding whether to have firearms in my home and what precautions to take, not whether I should restrict others from making decisions about firearm ownership and handling.
How likely is it that Mrs Vache Folle would get so riled at me that having a firearm handy would put me at risk? I don’t aim to find out.
When I was in high school, I was an Explorer Scout and participated in competitive shooting. I had a single shot 22 rifle that I used in competition and practice, and I sometimes had to bring it to school and keep it in my locker. Nobody cared. They knew I wasn’t going to shoot anyone. Of course, that was back in the day when melancholy adolescents just killed themselves instead of taking others with them.
The right to bear arms isn’t absolute, is it? For instance, if my neighbor possessed a thermonuclear device for personal defense, that would make me really nervous. I don’t think he should be allowed to have such a thing as nothing good can possibly come of it. I don’t think the 2d Amendment contemplated rocket propelled grenades or nerve gas for home use. There may be a point where insisting on the right to bear sophisticated and powerful arms becomes a little crazy, but I am not sure where to draw the line. Frankly, I don’t know all that much about firearms.
I used to think that the 2d Amendment should be interpreted as acknowledging a right to bear such arms as existed in 1789. It’s hard to go on a spree with a musket. But then, only law-abiding folks would limit themselves to musketry. Cops and other criminals would doubtless have modern weaponry. Also, if you look at the 2d Amendment as protecting the populace from the government itself, shouldn’t the populace be allowed to have any weapon that the government has in its arsenal? My brain hurts.
It seems to me that having a firearm in the home for personal defense rarely results in a homeowner’s thwarting a crook. More often, the homeowner gets wasted by home invading cops, he kills or is killed by a member of his own household, or a youngster accidentally kills someone or himself while playing with the weapon. Then again, who am I to tell folks in another household what risks they should tolerate? Also, why should all the firearm owners who don’t kill themselves or their loved ones be inconvenienced because of the minority who are irresponsible or unfortunate? These are things to consider in deciding whether to have firearms in my home and what precautions to take, not whether I should restrict others from making decisions about firearm ownership and handling.
How likely is it that Mrs Vache Folle would get so riled at me that having a firearm handy would put me at risk? I don’t aim to find out.
When I was in high school, I was an Explorer Scout and participated in competitive shooting. I had a single shot 22 rifle that I used in competition and practice, and I sometimes had to bring it to school and keep it in my locker. Nobody cared. They knew I wasn’t going to shoot anyone. Of course, that was back in the day when melancholy adolescents just killed themselves instead of taking others with them.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
I Loved "Shaun of the Dead"
Zombie movies give me nightmares, so it was with some reluctance that I watched “Shaun of the Dead” the other day. I have to tell you that this was one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. I will certainly go to see “Hot Fuzz” made by the same people.
In “Shaun of the Dead”, the appearance of the living dead is a backdrop to the troubles of Shaun who is going nowhere in life and whose girlfriend is breaking up with him. He and his best mate Ed want nothing more than to hang out in their favorite pub. Shaun and Ed are too involved in their own lives to notice the looming zombie problem for much of the film. He skips through the news alerts on TV and is oblivious to the living dead he passes by on the street.
When Shaun and Ed realize that something is awry, Shaun says that he prefers not to use the “Zed-word”. Armed with a cricket bat and some other whacking instrument, Shaun and Ed set out to rescue Shaun’s girlfriend and mother and hole up at the pub. They don’t have the usual paralyzing terror of the living dead that you see in the genre, and they move about fairly freely due to the living dead people’s slowness and vulnerability to blows to the head.
I won’t reveal more lest I spoil the fun.
I enjoyed the movie, and I am less afraid of the “Zed-word” now.
In “Shaun of the Dead”, the appearance of the living dead is a backdrop to the troubles of Shaun who is going nowhere in life and whose girlfriend is breaking up with him. He and his best mate Ed want nothing more than to hang out in their favorite pub. Shaun and Ed are too involved in their own lives to notice the looming zombie problem for much of the film. He skips through the news alerts on TV and is oblivious to the living dead he passes by on the street.
When Shaun and Ed realize that something is awry, Shaun says that he prefers not to use the “Zed-word”. Armed with a cricket bat and some other whacking instrument, Shaun and Ed set out to rescue Shaun’s girlfriend and mother and hole up at the pub. They don’t have the usual paralyzing terror of the living dead that you see in the genre, and they move about fairly freely due to the living dead people’s slowness and vulnerability to blows to the head.
I won’t reveal more lest I spoil the fun.
I enjoyed the movie, and I am less afraid of the “Zed-word” now.
It's Not the Fault of the Campus Cops
This guy reckons that the President and Police Chief at VT should resign or be fired for not taking responsibility for the murders there: http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/009583.php
Based on my experience as one time campus cop, I can tell you that there is no way that the police would have suspected that the shooter from the dormitory would then go on a rampage across campus. It looked as if a demented boyfriend had killed his girlfriend and her RA. Under those circumstances, nobody is going to cancel classes across the campus because you would have to be psychic to know what the shooter was going to do. If there’s a robbery in the bookstore, calculus class across campus is going to be called off.
And what if the first shooting had occurred just off campus? Would you cancel classes then? What if it had occurred on the other side of Blacksburg?
The campus police and the administration had no reason to shut the campus down based on the first shooting. This tragedy is not their fault. It’s the shooter’s fault. Oh, and violent video games and food additives.
Based on my experience as one time campus cop, I can tell you that there is no way that the police would have suspected that the shooter from the dormitory would then go on a rampage across campus. It looked as if a demented boyfriend had killed his girlfriend and her RA. Under those circumstances, nobody is going to cancel classes across the campus because you would have to be psychic to know what the shooter was going to do. If there’s a robbery in the bookstore, calculus class across campus is going to be called off.
And what if the first shooting had occurred just off campus? Would you cancel classes then? What if it had occurred on the other side of Blacksburg?
The campus police and the administration had no reason to shut the campus down based on the first shooting. This tragedy is not their fault. It’s the shooter’s fault. Oh, and violent video games and food additives.
The FDA is a Scam
Here’s a guy who blames “conservatism” for the rash of E coli and other contamination in the food supply: http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/e_coli_conservatives
The gravamen of the piece is that the FDA has been defanged so much that it can’t do the job of protecting the food supply. Oh, and voluntary inspections don’t work. That’s what comes of smaller government: food poisoning.
In my opinion, the unholy alliance of government and big corporations has created a situation in which the food supply is particularly vulnerable. We get our food from God knows where, handled by God knows whom, and treated with God knows how little care. It is difficult to trace the origin of food borne pathogens or toxins, and nobody much remembers what entity was responsible for the last outbreak. The FDA exists to make us more comfortable with buying food from strangers, but it doesn’t really have the capability to protect us. It’s a con.
In a free society, where there were no subsidies for long distance transport and no state granted advantages to big corporations, we would likely get our food from more local, less anonymous sources. There would be more diversity of supply and less vulnerability to contamination. Moreover, this would mean suppliers would be more accountable to their customers and would more directly suffer the consequences of sloppy practices.
Without the FDA, we would all have to take more responsibility for the safety of our food. But we should be doing do that now because the FDA is unreliable and always has been. That we haven’t seen even bigger outbreaks is a function of luck and the operation of market incentives that make food providers try not to kill their customers. Throwing more money at the FDA and giving it more power as a reward for its ineffectiveness will serve only to make the public more complacent and more vulnerable.
The gravamen of the piece is that the FDA has been defanged so much that it can’t do the job of protecting the food supply. Oh, and voluntary inspections don’t work. That’s what comes of smaller government: food poisoning.
In my opinion, the unholy alliance of government and big corporations has created a situation in which the food supply is particularly vulnerable. We get our food from God knows where, handled by God knows whom, and treated with God knows how little care. It is difficult to trace the origin of food borne pathogens or toxins, and nobody much remembers what entity was responsible for the last outbreak. The FDA exists to make us more comfortable with buying food from strangers, but it doesn’t really have the capability to protect us. It’s a con.
In a free society, where there were no subsidies for long distance transport and no state granted advantages to big corporations, we would likely get our food from more local, less anonymous sources. There would be more diversity of supply and less vulnerability to contamination. Moreover, this would mean suppliers would be more accountable to their customers and would more directly suffer the consequences of sloppy practices.
Without the FDA, we would all have to take more responsibility for the safety of our food. But we should be doing do that now because the FDA is unreliable and always has been. That we haven’t seen even bigger outbreaks is a function of luck and the operation of market incentives that make food providers try not to kill their customers. Throwing more money at the FDA and giving it more power as a reward for its ineffectiveness will serve only to make the public more complacent and more vulnerable.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The Morality of Cheating on Your Taxes
On the way to jury duty yesterday I heard on the radio that 79% of Americans polled believed that it was morally wrong to underreport your income to the IRS. Unless they are just trying to avoid being marked as a potential tax evader and are lying, shame on them.
Is it immoral to hide your property from a thief to prevent his stealing it? Is it immoral to fail to tell a mugger about your secret money belt?
I pay my taxes because I don’t want to be kidnapped or killed by government thugs. I have no moral duty to do so. In fact, you might consider my payment of taxes an act of deplorable cowardice in view of the immoral uses to which the money is put. But I liken it to payment of protection money to mobsters. What good is it to get yourself killed to make a point? Would I be seen as a martyr to my moral principles or, given the poll results cited above, just a crazy tax cheat and a cautionary example to others who might resist?
Is it immoral to hide your property from a thief to prevent his stealing it? Is it immoral to fail to tell a mugger about your secret money belt?
I pay my taxes because I don’t want to be kidnapped or killed by government thugs. I have no moral duty to do so. In fact, you might consider my payment of taxes an act of deplorable cowardice in view of the immoral uses to which the money is put. But I liken it to payment of protection money to mobsters. What good is it to get yourself killed to make a point? Would I be seen as a martyr to my moral principles or, given the poll results cited above, just a crazy tax cheat and a cautionary example to others who might resist?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)