| Knowledge vs Practicality |
[Nov. 18th, 2009|03:16 pm] |
We all know the people who are incredibly stupid and yet could come up with ideas that make us go "that's a really good idea". God help them if they wanted to write "Hello World" in any language including English but with three quick hand movements, they can fold a shirt.
Similarly, we've all met the boy-genius that couldn't find their way home with a set of precise instructions, an electronic map that consistently updates them with "you are here" and "your destination is here", and a guide.
Why? Because there is a clear distinction between knowledge and practicality. I could know everything there is to know about math, but if I can't take X * Y = Z <---> Z/Y = X and apply it to velocity * time = distance <---> distance/time = velocity, it doesn't really matter how much I know, I'm never going to be able to put it to use.
As we can see from reality, there seems to be near-no correlation between practicality and knowledge - in fact, there's plenty of reason to argue that there is, occasionally, an inverse correlation. After all, how many people did you know who got a 4.0 GPA in university but God help them when it comes to a real world problem?
So you might be asking why I mention this? Because as I was going through The Daily WTF's archive (it's been a while since I was last reading it), I found one post about a study that found "Neither education, age, sex, previous experience, nor hours of computer use showed a statistically significant correlation with vulnerability to phishing."
While we are mildly surprised but probably fairly accepting of age and sex not having a significant correlation, I think we'd all agree that the rest of the results is considerably surprising....unless you've spoken to me and heard about how some insane percentage of CompSci students fell for a phishing attack. But this post went on with an even more interesting article where an administrator at a University sent an email out to all students telling them to avoid phishing attacks and giving an example of a phishing attack trying to get the username and password of the students. Many students then thought that this admin wanted to know their username and password and happily provided.
At which point the DWTF community (though considering this is a community who's sole point of existence is to ridicule the less skilled, it's not shocking they'd opt for a more elitist tone than I'd like) implied that all students who did that should be thrown out of the University.
Obviously, I'm ranting here because the pansy in me doesn't want to post there (and it's from a year ago so it's not like they're checking), but I'd like to state: there is a difference between Knowledge and Practicality and the University is testing for Knowledge, Phishing is testing for practicality. |
|
|
| Truthers |
[Nov. 10th, 2009|12:41 pm] |
This has been bugging me for a while, and I feel a need to put it to bed:
For the record, I am a truther. There are elements of the 9/11 records that don't make sense to me or seem odd. Perhaps I'm not the same level of extremist as some truthers insofar as I think it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the official record is the truth, but I've certainly read enough history and learnt of enough accounts of sitting governments or agencies either planning or executing a terrorist attack, making it look like it was an attack from a particular entity they want to have much larger reign at dealing with (whether the threat be external like various plans the CIA had to justify war with Cuba or internal like Hitler did to secure power in Germany - note, I'm not calling Bush a Nazi, just pointing out that people in the past have done this and it should really come as no surprise that one of the most notoriously evil person in history was one of those people). For me, it's the fact that the towers collapsed in about 10-11 seconds depending on who's watch you use - only slightly off what gravity says it should take, the fact that the Pentagon got hit in a recently renovated and mostly empty wing, the fact that the elevators in the WTC were undergoing maintenance the weekend before, the fact that NORAD failed so completely AND that they just happened to be running a simulation AND that many novice employees were in positions of key importance, that Bush was in Florida and not in the White House which, supposedly, was the 4th target. On their own, these are incredible coincidences and I fully admit that they are entirely within the realm of possibility of being just coincidences. However, I also know that if I work backwards, these are exactly the factors I'd want in position if I wanted to minimize damage to the American military while minimizing the probability that the attack could be countered.
But what I don't understand is why that makes me an left-wing extremist. I'm not using it as an excuse to leave Afghanistan. From the perspective of "if this is true", it is reasonable to assume we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan, but that isn't quite the same thing - just as "America shouldn't have gone to Iraq" isn't the same thing as "Get out of Iraq now". America thought Saddam had WMDs and if it were true, it is entirely reasonable to believe they should go into Iraq. It's only after we determined that it was not true that it was deemed a dumb idea by the majority.
So why did Van Jones get hung for that? It's a fact of politics that this happens. Its happened in democracies before, it will happen again. |
|
|
| Presidential Quotes |
[Nov. 9th, 2009|12:48 pm] |
It was pointed out in an article on Time that you can often find one quote that pretty much defines a President in the eye of the public (maybe not his Presidency, but certainly him). Of course, this being the 20th Anniversary of the Berlin Wall being brought down, everyone is talking about Reagan's "Mr Gorbachev: tear down this wall!" quote. George HW Bush - at least to me - could probably be defined by "Read my lips, no new taxes". Of course, everyone and his mistress knows Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Going back, I can probably also name Nixon's - "I am not a crook"
But then I run into a small problem. What would be the defining quote for George W Bush. If there was a moment that truly defined him, I'd call it the "Mission Accomplished" photo-op including him piloting a fighter onto the aircraft carrier - all gusto, all claims, and calling the shot before the facts are in. But the reality is, it's still not a quote. Do you remember what he actually said there? Same with Katrina - the event that actually sunk his Presidency. His best quote: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job". Why is that important? Because to everyone not in the White House, "Brownie" was doing an absolutely horrible job. Brown was fired a few months later because of his poor handling of Katrina and years later, they're still finding all of these supplies that were supposed to get to Katrina victims but never got anywhere other than a warehouse.
For a man who gave a quote a week that could be put on a motivational poster - like one that reads: "no matter how dumb you think you are, at least you never said this:", not a single quote really, truly, perfectly stands out as defining GWB. All you end up with is a half dozen "are you a freaking retard" quotes. |
|
|
| The Suicide Pill |
[Oct. 7th, 2009|01:04 pm] |
Over the last few days, there has been (another) renewed push for Obama to get on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Personally, I'm getting tired of it, but I've realized that I haven't actually said here what I've been saying to anyone that'll listen (my wife, really).
BE PATIENT
A) You've got an economic crisis that is bankrupting companies and Americans, putting people out of work, and crashing many people's retirement plans
B) You've got a Health Care crisis that's 50 years overdue that's the #1 cause of bankruptcies when the economy isn't collapsing
C) You've got an emissions crisis that's a decade overdue that the US is way too far behind on resolving (not that Canada can say much...)
D) You've got an education crisis that has some school districts see drop out rates of 50% and will almost certainly lead to the death of the American economy if A-C don't do it first. It's also 50 years overdue
E) You've got two wars - one of which Obama is trying to pull out of, the other of which is getting worse and Obama's trying to ramp up - and might I point out that, on average, more than one soldier is dying each day between them?
In fact, at this very moment, Obama is trying his best to juggle B and E while still devote considerable time to the others. I don't know about you, but I believe that the next generation collapsing the American economy, bankruptcies happening daily, people being put on the streets daily, and people dying daily that the President has to make broad sweeps on and spend considerable time working on are far more important that whether or not 2% (no it's not 10% - the study that said that is heavily questioned on its scientific accuracy) of the population can serve in the military.
And for those that think Obama should be able to squeeze in time to get Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed, I'd like to point out that:
A) It has to be repealed by Congress.
B) Congress is currently spending its effort on Health Care
C) Every minute that Congress spends on Don't Ask, Don't Tell they aren't spending on Health Card
D) Every day that Congress spends on more than 5 minutes on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Republicans will spend the rest of the day on the news programs ranting about Gays in the military
E) That's time they can take out of talking about health care on the news
F) A shocking number of Americans are still very anti-homosexual....
I doubt Don't Ask, Don't Tell will make it in before the mid-terms - conservative Democrats can't go back to red states and say "I voted for gays being allowed to serve with your son" (and you're crazy if you don't think that the Republicans will make them). I'd bet you'll see it tabled in 2011. I don't think the Democrats can do it any other way.
Can you think of a better long term strategy? |
|
|
| Roman Polanski |
[Oct. 1st, 2009|12:04 pm] |
I don't really care who Roman Polanski is. I don't think I've watched any of his movies and I certainly have never really noted the name before. So when I say I don't care that he's famous, it's not because I'm trying to claim something, but because my reaction to his arrest happened far before I found out that he was some famous director.
My reaction was far more based upon what I'd read two paragraphs before, the paragraph that mentioned his rape of a 13 year old girl. It was, actually, one word that struck me: "1977"
Ok, fine, that's not a word, it's a date that if you spelt it out would actually be 6 words (or 3 if you pronounce it as 19-77 - aka: you're normal). But that's beside the point.
Yes, this guy fled the country before he could be sentenced. Yes, it is ridiculous that a man who raped a young girl was able to get away with 0 days of jail time. But at the same time.......the crime was 30 years ago, Polanski has not repeated the incident (indeed, an argument for temporary insanity is not beyond the realm of comprehension), the victim has made her peace and I don't doubt that there's more than a few rape victims who've felt that the experience of having to witness the endless legal process that would happen in a case like this is traumatizing in its own right. Rape is one of the most traumatizing experiences because you relive it and being forced to relive it 30 years afterwards.....can't be pleasant (and she's actually stated just that - there's a reason she's AMONGST the people calling for Polanski's release).
That's not saying Polanski shouldn't do some time in jail - he should go to jail for fleeing custody. However, let's remove the victim from the picture when she doesn't want to be in it any longer. |
|
|
| Are we truly that forgetful? |
[Sep. 24th, 2009|03:25 pm] |
Fine, yes we are, but you have no idea what I'm talking about so let me make my point first.
Anyone who's been following the proceeds of the UN General Assembly know that Israel called upon all nations to boycott the speech by Amedinejad of Iran because of his denial of the holocaust, his threats to wipe Israel from the map, and being a general asshole. Canada, by the way, participated in this boycott.
While the UN is imperfect in many ways and is certainly very poorly suited to be an International governing body, there is an important reason why it exists and why there is this General Assembly meeting every year which many world leaders attend (sadly, Harper has not gone in 3 years): the foundation of all diplomacy requires the parties to actually talk, and the more time they spend in the same room together, the better the chance that they actually will talk. For people to talk, we must listen to what we each have to say, no matter how little we like it.
I accept the alternate argument for not listening to Amedinejad - he's not the legitimate President of Iran due to the rigged election. I accept the point that Amedinejad had a disgusting speech on the UN floor (which is probably a legitimate reason to walk out of it). However, I think when Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel turns around and says that those who listened to Amedinejad, who listened to what he had to say, I don't think the lack shame or dignity but respect for the higher calling the UN was meant to envision: a chance for us to listen to one another, hear what we each have to say so that, as a planet, diplomacy can move forward. Truly, Netanyahu shows that he has less shame than they do - using the UN floor to work against diplomacy, to work against its intended purpose, as he continues to trot out the justification for war with Iran. Truly, an ultimate insult to the institution that is the UN |
|
|
| I just want to say |
[Sep. 24th, 2009|01:02 pm] |
Disclaimer: I am not defending Acorn's actions, prostitution, and certainly not child prostitution
That said, I'd like to point out something.
If you're rich enough, you can pay sufficient to get the legal help required to minimize your tax contribution as far as possible. In fact, it's why the rich are almost never considered the most taxed group - the middle class tend to be. Equally, the rich can get the legal help to do illegal things or advice on how to perform illegal activities without penalty to the lawyers who provide them advice (and, in fact, said lawyers are defended fiercely from prosecution so they can be free to provide honest advice. This fact is protecting, amongst many others, John Yoo, author of the "torture memos" that tried to demonstrate that torture was legal by pretty much throwing out the 4th amendment.)
Now, if the rich can get legal advice that most human beings would consider to be morally abhorrent, why shouldn't the poor be provided a service that would allow them to get similar advice? Yes, it might be tax payer funded and yes, it is somewhat disconcerting to know that tax dollars are funding these people, but it is a method to allow the playing field to be a bit more level.
Just a thought |
|
|
| As I was running around the 'net |
[Sep. 23rd, 2009|11:39 am] |
I spotted this in reference to Obama:
"He escalated troop levels in Afghanistan dramatically.
He expanded the war to Pakistan, and greatly increased the use of killer drones resulting in more civilian casualties.
He has blocked any investigation into torture abuses by Bush Cheney.
He has silently backed the Honduras coup.
He stood by and said nothing when Israel reigned bombs down on Gaza slums for days.
He has strongly supported both the $700 billion bank bailout and the one trillion dollar stimulus swindle in January.
He passed a trillion dollar defense budget.
But for some inexplicable reason he just can't deliver on health care.
This guy is the ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing, a neocon packaged as a liberal. He reminds me of that Iggy dude."
Alright.....from the top:
For someone who is so derisive about "neocons", it's interesting that he supports the total pullout from Afghanistan which would subsequently allow a civil war with the eventual death of Karzai and almost certainly the Taliban - a group so insanely theocratic and backwards, they make the Spanish Inquisition look civilized - reclaiming governorship of Afghanistan (on a side note: the Afghanis do not consider the Taliban to be a legitimate government and certainly far less than Karzai - though they aren't that impressed with Karzai. The Taliban they see as a Pakistani puppet regime though this may not be reasonably true seeing as there is a bit of a schism between the Taliban and Pakistan). But the illogicality of that aside, the question must be asked: "Why is war in Afghanistan bad?"
Taliban Afghanistan was largely agreed to be a terrorist harboring nation including the terrorists who instigated 9/11 (conspiracy theories - including my own - aside). These same terrorists have been linked into an earlier bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, attacks on two American embassies, an attack in Madrid, an attack in London, and at least two major planned attacks (one in Britain that are the reason you can't have water on an airplane anymore) and one that would've made 9/11 look like a mouse (foiled in the mid-90s and basically had all the elements of 9/11 plus attacks on another half-dozen locations and a bunch of bombs on airplanes) not including God knows how many minor plots that have been foiled. That, alone, provides reasonable justification for the war (and, actually, the current estimates are that the Afghanistan/Pakistan arm of Al Queda is now in the hundreds and falling)
On the flip side, due to lack of resources and poor strategy (both of which are now in the process of being remedied), the Taliban control an estimated 85% of Afghanistan and have major influence in two regions of Pakistan. Renewed efforts by Pakistan and the US are attempting to reverse the trend. True, the Karzai government is a corrupt beast, but what is truly incredible is that the new Afghani army is incredibly....not. Getting to this level again could take 100 years.
If your concern is civilian casualties, the reality is that once a war has gone far enough to dethrone the existing ruler (which happened 7 years ago), civilian casualties increases dramatically no matter the outcome. Power change is always bloody, always chaotic and always ugly. As such, it is actually in the best interests for civilian casualties that the government installed by NATO be given a chance to thrive. At some point, the UN should probably enter this conflict and try to use its influence to settle the region down, but neither party is ready for that right now.
So.....yeah. There's pretty good reason to expand the war in Afghanistan.
Obama has NOT expanded the War into Pakistan. If you're referring to the fact that he's using drone attacks, this was done by Bush as well. "Expand" implies that you go and do something that wasn't done before, and Obama has not sent troops into Pakistan. Sure, he's increased the number of drone attacks in Pakistan, but that's not the same thing.
If you're referring to the fact that there is fighting in Pakistan, I'd like to point out that this fighting is between the Taliban and Pakistan, was initiated by the Taliban when they decided to effectively invade other regions of Pakistan, and at worst is a civil war that has nothing to do with America. True, the US supports Pakistan's position, but then, so did thousands of Canadians for the North in the American civil war (look it up). So we picked a side in a civil war that we aren't participating in. Big woop
As for the Predator Drones.....I dispute the claim that there are more civilian casualties.
A) We don't really hear a lot of discussion about the number of civilian casualties that happen in the normal course of fighting. However, on the average day, I'm pretty sure that it is way more than the number killed by drones. The UN reported for 2008 that 2,114 civilians were killed, of which 39% or about 825 people were killed by Coalition forces. On the flip side, the drones killed 317 in the same time period. Yes, this was pegged at 8.81 civilian deaths per drone so per strike, the drones are far more deadly per bomb, but that isn't quite the same as more deadly per kill - the drone attacks are intended for high priority targets and if you don't think that a battle to get to said target, take out his guards, take out all his soldiers to get to him, and then fight him is going to kill, on average, less than 8.81 people total, you're smoking someone. One only needs to look at the Battle of Mogadishu from '93 that claimed the lives of 19 Americans, one Malaysian, over 1000 Somalians and who knows how many civilians for a queue of how difficult this could be otherwise. And if we opt to do neither method to go after these people, it just makes the war go longer.....at 2000 lives a year. And, because these people are in Pakistan where the US is not, the war goes as long as it takes for Pakistan to kill them rather than, as in traditional wars, for the battle lines to reach them.
Yes, it is horrific that the Predator Drones actually have an average civilian casualty rate above 1 let alone 8 (or, as current numbers for this year say, 11). Yes, the Pentagon could put way more effort into determining the number of civilian casualties before making the attack, but it would be false to claim, as a blanket statement, that Predator Drones kill more civilians than other methods.
As for blocking abuses by Bush/Cheney....as ugly as Gitmo was, I'm not positive what you could do. How many Presidents have been prosecuted by subsequent administrations? Zero. Even more importantly, it would be political suicide to prosecute them. They say that the Republicans are at their lowest point of popularity.....since the Lewinski trial when they tried to hang Bill Clinton for his crimes. Do you honestly think that the Democrats wouldn't suffer a similar blow back if they tried to prosecute Bush and Cheney? Yes, we want to make sure it's clear to all future Presidents that America should never torture, that American leaders will be held accountable, but how do you limit this to things like torture and not issues like an illegal nationalization an industry to avoid a strike so that the entire nation doesn't suddenly collapse due to a lack of said product as happened with Truman 60 years ago?
As for Hondorus, where's the evidence? Thus far, Obama has harbored the President, publicly announced his support for the President, imposed sanctions on Hondorus for its ousting of the President, and pretty much done everything within his power to show his support for the President short of invading. So what's your evidence?
He also didn't say anything about the Gaza bombing specifically because HE WASN'T PRESIDENT. It is generally expected that President Elects keep their mouths shut when it comes to foreign policy until they've actually been inaugurated. Aside from that, I'm pretty sure he did speak out about it.....which I believe is a lot more than most sitting Presidents do whenever Israel pulls their little stunts.
The Bank Bailout was necessary to avoid a depression. How do we know that? Because the Great Depression wasn't caused by the stock market collapse in 1929 but rather the stock market collapsed which bankrupt people who'd gotten money as loans to invest in the stock market but their stocks were worth nothing thus they couldn't pay the bank back thus the banks did not have the assets that they actually had so they collapsed left, right and center which bankrupt all the people who had savings there. Replace stocks with "houses and stocks" and replace 1929 with 2008, and you have this round. It wasn't actually as bad as the way I've put it here, but it was pretty bad. As for the stimulus bill, it was very poorly designed and way too overloaded boondoggle but a few hundred billion dollars still was a proper, Keynesian, stimulus - for more information, look up Keynes. For proof that Keynesian economics works, well there's quite a few recessions you could check out. (On a side note, for someone that uses the word "neocon", you're pretty dismissive of left-wing economic theory)
He passed a defense budget that changed by only a couple dozen billion dollars AND he had to fight tooth-and-nail with congress to get a few big-ticket items cut from the budget. I dare you to become President and successfully cut back the Defense budget of the United States by a significant amount. You can bring as many aides as you want, it won't happen.
And if you really want to complain about failing to deliver on Health Care, complain to FDR, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and the hundred of various congressmen and senators who've tried to do something about Health Care for the last FIFTY YEARS. Can't deliver on Health Care, it's a general consensus that if the Democrats drop every objectionable provision in their Health Care bill, they'd STILL would have achieved greater progress than they had achieved in 20 years - and believe me, he'll get more than that. Considering Obama was able to change course on Afghanistan, begin the pull out from Iraq, fix the torture problem as he slowly winds down Gitmo, and stabilize the GLOBAL economy - not just the United States, but the Global economy that was far too intricately tied into US banks - pass a few proper environmental policies and still have enough time and energy for a proper mud wrestling match over Health Care, that's pretty damn impressive. Considering he still has Education and Homosexual rights on the docket at some point...he's not exactly sleeping on the job here.
No, he's not a neocon. He's a guy trying to fix a shattered glass with duct tape and not start by melting it down and starting over again.
|
|
|
| Surplus, Deficits, and Tax Breaks |
[Sep. 19th, 2009|12:00 am] |
Alright, this isn't remotely on topic to anything that we have to worry about right now. In fact, this is more in response to a West Wing episode I saw recently (I own the DVD set, so sue me). In it, Donna was complaining to Josh about how the US Government had a $30 billion surplus and should refund the tax payers. Now, the two haggle over this issue for the entire episode with Josh's argument pretty much coming down to a "screw you".
Obviously, it's a horrible argument and quite frankly, Donna wins because she simply has a point. Problem is, Josh's position is, IMO, correct just his reasoning is stupid. As such, I present a better argument:
As we see today, governments are expected to provide services and if they misestimate the budget, they end up in a deficit. As government around the world are understanding right now, this deficit is in the multi-billions of dollars. In fact,the US Federal deficit right now of 1.1 Trillion far exceeds the amazing $30 billion surplus they talked about in West Wing (which more or less is about the same amount as the actual US surplus that year). In Canada, the situation isn't nearly as bad, but our $6.9 billion surplus in 2004 has shrunk to a deficit of $55.9 billion forecasted this year. I use 2004 in this case because that was when Paul Martin's government wasn't trying to shrink the surplus to razor thin levels. It's also worth pointing out that from 2004-2009, a span of 5 fiscal years which we ran surpluses and our largest, by far, was $6.9 billion, compares with the slightly longer period of 2009-2014 which has a forecasted total (for the 5 fiscal years) of $164 billion. $164 billion. If we'd maintained our $6.9 billion surplus, it would've taken us 24 years to save up enough to handle this recession. Now, instead, we're borrowing it from a bank and paying it back with interest and anyone who's done those interest calculations knows that, over the long run, you're probably paying twice as much as you originally paid.
Ain't that stupid.
What's my point? The Governments of this world are expected to cover their losses in a year where they didn't tax as much as they needed to (whether by necessity or miscalculation). Why shouldn't the governments be expected to use the years where they taxed more than they needed to to balance everything out? Especially when you consider that if you added up all the years of surplus and all the years of deficit (even adjusted for inflation) over the last 30 years, you'd still end up with a negative number.
(It would be a fair counter-argument that the surpluses are on top of scheduled debt payments and thus that's how we are supposedly paying back our loans, but that's beside the point) |
|
|
| Some math to make your brain hurt |
[Sep. 18th, 2009|04:41 pm] |
I'm sure you've heard this:
Women = time X money
Time = money
Women = money^2
money = root(evil)
Women = evil
You may have heard of the rebuttle as well:
Men = time X money X girls X sex
time = money
girls = sex
Men = money^2 X girls ^ 2
girls = women = evil (as proven above)
money = root(evil)
Men = evil ^ 3
And then men reply (curiously)
Men = women ^ 3
which theoretically proves to anyone who doesn't understand math beyond a 6th grade level that men > women (so, y'know, the entirety of America)
Some curious other points:
First, I dispute that men require time, money, girls AND sex. Women require time and money because of the common complaint men have about the girlfriends and wives therefore the women are the one providing that need for men to fulfill. If both of them need it, then the mutual need should, theoretically, cancel each other out thus women need nothing (and girls, do you HONESTLY believe that's true?) while men need women and sex. Realistically, men complain about women needing time and money because their credit card bills are overdrawn by their women and their football games and business meetings are disrupted by their woman feeling he doesn't pay enough attention. Therefore, the argument that men need either is false.
I will also dispute the claim that men need girls. Sure, a bachelor who has no one probably needs girls to fulfill the sex need, but then the woman probably doesn't need time and money from anyone if she's a bachelorette thus making the parallel false. Let's face it, if a need for men that's provided by their loved ones is girls, that means that every man's dream of a filthy 3 way (or more) would be answered on a regular basis. As most men who do fulfill that particular need d so outside of the relationship (yes, those filthy cheating bastards), this need is invalid.
Therefore, men should really only need sex which, when you think about it, sounds about right. Following that logic:
men = sex
women = sex
men = women
Which is pretty much every feminist's dream - we've mathematically proven that men and women are equal. (Obviously, we can then say men are evil and Dick Cheney is doing nothing to disprove that, but that's another discussion for another time)
However, the unfortunate side effect of this point is that we now lose this equation:
men = evil ^ 3
money = root(evil)
men = money^6
Which would explain why we are such greedy bastards. However, when you consider that over the course of a man's life, he actually does need time, money, girls and sex (so completely outside the relationship), it is reasonable to therefore conclude that men do indeed equal to money ^ 6. Equally, since money is power, men = power ^ 6 which pretty much explains all of society today.
So my rambling point is:
societally, men = women ^ 3
in a relationship: men = women
Somehow, that pretty much does explain society.
(On a side note: if a woman's value < 1, men < women. Now, if we assume that a woman is worth less than 1 person as this proof would assume, that would mean men are worth even less.....which actually creates a paradox if we assume the value of the average of all persons is 1. Seriously, work it out!)
(EDIT: it occurs to me that the only way to stabilize and thus not create a paradox of the above point is if men = women = women^3 = 1 thus proving, again, mathematically, that men and women are equal.)
(On a very, very different note, the Saudi's believe that a man = woman X woman, so I guess they must be jumping for joy on hearing that they've got a mathematical reason for giving women even less rights. Those misogynist bastards) |
|
|
| The Republicans need something to lose |
[Sep. 2nd, 2009|10:53 am] |
First off, it should be stated that any democracy benefits when there is an honest opposition - one that questions government and pushes it to have better ideas and work harder to better objectives. This is distinct from obstructionism that the Republicans are conducting right now: obstructionism is where there is no intent to work for the betterment of the nation but instead to stall all work of the nation to meet one's own objectives. So we get to a problem that needs to be solved.
The Democrats have everything to lose right now. They control the House, the Senate (with a super majority....well, once Ted Kennedy's seat is filled again) and the White House and could pretty much do anything they want.
The Republicans have nothing to lose. They control the media (Fox is the #1 station in the world), have a very active base, and can continuously pander to that base. Sickeningly, as a long term strategy, it's working because their control of the message is drawing more and more people to believe their message. As such, they can do whatever they want.
Right now, the Republicans can negotiate as much as they want on any piece of legislation, bring as far to the right as the Democrats would dare, and then still refuse to support it. Blue Dogs might appreciate the extra firepower, but the Liberals must be gnashing their teeth.
So how about this, let's give the Republicans something to lose.
The Democrats can go it alone on any issue, really. They need the odd vote, but for the most part they can go it alone. So instead, how about this: the democrats have a second version of any legislation that they nickname the "Liberal Wet Dream". It is what would be considered a piece of excellent legislation for the more liberal members of the Senate. Then strike a deal with the Blue-dog Democrats that basically goes like this:
"We want to govern from the center. We want to work with Republicans on legislation and pass bipartisan efforts. However, the Republicans have no desire to work with us. We would like your willingness to at least threaten that if the Republicans aren't willing to work with us, you'll support a more Liberal version of the legislation - at least to the point that it can get a floor vote if not actually casting a vote for the legislation itself."
Perhaps the Republicans may not bite the first time or the second. But if Obama can convince the Blue Dogs to work with this a few times, eventually the Republicans are going to have to say "well, either we can say no and get the greater evil or we can work with them to create a lesser evil". They make their own grave, and the Democrats get some sticks to go along with their carrots.
And in the end, America benefits from an actual opposition |
|
|
| Jon Stewart vs Betsy McCaughey |
[Aug. 28th, 2009|03:40 pm] |
While many Liberals declare total victory of Jon Stewart over Betsy McCaughey's in the interesting interview that came along, I think there is something worth stating in McCaughey's defense that isn't getting nearly enough play.
The idea that the Living Will should not be violated in favor of the patient's current requests is, in many ways, ludicrous. The living will is not even looked at unless you are unable to communicate your wishes at that very instant. If that's the case, the entire point is moot and you could easily sign another document saying "Hey, treat this as an update to my living will, save me!" In effect, the application of that line would be specifically to ensure that doctors enforce the living will over, say, their own personal objections or belief's of a better way - in effect, a policy to reward people for doing what is, really, expected of doctors already.
However, there were two elements in that specific section that she quoted and the second part was the rewarding of doctors for getting patients to have a living will. If there are incentives - as McCaughey points out - this will make it in the doctor's personal interest to pressure people to get a living will. This is a valid point. What isn't quite clear is how this effects everything else. The way the Liberals word it suggest that there should be reimbursement for taking the time out of your schedule and discussing end-of-life issues with patients - that I agree with but that doesn't seem to be what is being said.
I would be curious to hear what the response by Democrats would be. If their intention was to incentivize discussing it, I'd suggest that particular line get amended (just the line). If it isn't doing what she claims it has the capability to do so, how is it not doing that?
EDIT: It is worth pointing out, however, that more emphasis of having a "Living Will" does not mean Euthanasia by any stretch of the imagination. Instead, the living will debate is more of a struggle between ensuring a simpiler paper trail when treating the patient (if no Living Will exists, next of kin generally get to decide everything and often aren't positive about the right choices) and the personal opinions and stigmas associated with living wills. For example, many consider the idea of having a will at all is bad luck - is a Doctor right to pressure said person to have one. |
|
|
| The Edward M Kennedy Health Care Act |
[Aug. 27th, 2009|08:10 am] |
|
As incredibly insensitive as it is to think about the advantages of the death of Ted Kennedy, the Democrats NEED to be the first to cite Ted Kennedy's name in regards to the Health Care bill. The absolute worst thing that could happen is if the Republicans find some way to get on all the cable news channels and say "Ted Kennedy would be ashamed of this bill" first.
Rush Limbaugh has already gotten close with his "I predicted it would be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill" crap. |
|
|
| And I thought knowing what you were complaining about was everyone's job |
[Aug. 21st, 2009|10:04 am] |
Found on a sign amongst health care protesters:
"Oh I'm Sorry, We Thought Reading the Bill Was Ur Job"
Ignoring the spelling and grammatical problems (especially considering the person holding it was about 8 years), I think this underlines a lot of the problems.
Your right, reading the bills and getting them passed is the job of the members of congress
Equally, the proper job of the media is to analyze these bills (read them) and to inform people of plausibly questionable issues.
However, when the media's conclusion is different from the congress persons' conclusion, it is the job of the constituent to BECOME INFORMED AND FIND OUT WHAT THE ACTUAL ANSWER IS. The easiest way to do that is to listen to what both sides have to say and use that to figure out what the answer is, but (understandably) you might not trust one of them - or either of them. Problem is, you aren't listening to what they have to say.
However, if you don't believe what someone is saying and they say "Read the bill", it's because the only way to solve the problem of your disagreements is to go to the source material - if in doubt, go to the original facts and draw your own conclusions.
Reading the bill might be the job of the members of congress, but that's no excuse for being wrong about what's in the bill.
|
|
|
| Me and Agnosticism |
[Aug. 19th, 2009|10:35 pm] |
|
An unusual topic, perhaps, but one that is worth considering for a bit:
Why am I agnostic?
I raise this because every so often I read another atheist saying that there is no reason to believe in God, that God was a creation of man to explain the Universe.
In truth, the scientist in me absolutely, 100% agrees
And yet, I remain agnostic.
You might think that this is as much about me being unable to take the ultimate step to commit to the belief (because it does require a degree of faith) that science will explain everything (not yet, but someday) and perhaps your right.
But at the end of the day, I do have a reason.
I don't think Science explains everything, or will explain everything.
To be fair, science would be incapable of proving conclusively that I'm wrong on some of the incidents simply due to the lack of evidence (short of using a time machine), but that's beside the point. The fact of the matter is that, every so often, I hear a story that I don't believe science has a proper answer for.
The ultimate story, however, is Joan of Arc.
Science's best explaination is schizophrenia to explain how she "talked with God". Quite frankly, it's not even the "talks with God" part that I find odd.
The fact is, Joan of Arc was a peasant. Joan of Arc had little or no education. Assuming this particular popular story is true, Joan of Arc first entered the French court and figured out that the man on the throne was not the King. While some scholars dispute this claim, there is considerable evidence that Joan of Arc was a capable tactician. Joan of Arc certainly possessed at least a few traits including, almost certainly, charisma and leadership (indeed, there is evidence that between May 4-7 1429, she defied orders at least twice and delivered 3 very successful victories that completely turned the tide in HER FIRST CAMPAIGN). And, in total, Joan of Arc delivered on what those voices in her head were telling her - she would effectively deliver France victory after a considerable string of defeats.
The best Science can offer is that she, a woman who was a untrained, uneduacated, illiterate, lower class peasant somehow ended up having the skills necessary to turn the tide and know she was turning the tide and be able to sell that she was turning the tide - in fact, if you actually believe she was that capable, schizophrenia is the least logical conclusion of the voices - ACTING is the most logical.
In total, it means she must be more of a prodigy than Relentless Recusant (if you don't know who he is, seriously, look him up).
I find that far too unlikely, and something like that makes me incredibly hesitant to believe that God doesn't exist. |
|
|
| It's not about Self-Defense |
[Jul. 16th, 2009|03:29 pm] |
To quote the 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Let's highlight a few lines: "A well regulated militia" and "security of a free State"
Compare this to a statement recently made by the NRA in reference to Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor: "Sotomayor's judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution,"
It does not guarantee as a fundamental right the right to self-defense. It specifically specifies the "security of a free State" as being the intention and the only right it guarantees is the right to keep and bear arms. We could have an interesting debate about whether it protects the right to bear arms for the sake of self-defense as a consequence of its declaration of the right to bear arms or whether the first half of the clause puts a restriction to the Second Amendment's effect to weapons solely for the sake of national defense, but that's not what the NRA said.
The problem with the Second Amendment is that the guys who hide behind it are the ones who've never really read the full text, just the legendary "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" (which isn't even technically correct but close enough) |
|
|
| Palin: No, this is Not Comparable |
[Jul. 7th, 2009|05:11 pm] |
So Sarah Palin has tried to compare her resignation to Obama's resignation from the Senate last year.
Raise your hands if your bullshit meter just blew.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't valid reasons for her departure from the Governorship (to be honest, the one that I accept the most is the considerable cost to herself for the ethics charges that cropped up over the last year - some $500K of her own money for 8 charges over as many months of which she was convicted on none and is completely non-reimbursable under Alaskan law with possibly many more if she remains as governor - Obama doesn't make that much). On the other hand, excuses like "it's been a tiring 2 and a half years" and "I don't want to be a lame duck" are, in my opinion, not even remotely comparable to Obama and worse, provide an incredibly bad appearance for someone that is expected to run in 2012.
Now, I note, I consider this decision her choice and on its own, I totally respect it. However, each decision you make leading up to a run for the Presidency is what is looked at - and the reasons behind those decisions. Saying that being Governor of ALASKA is tiring after such a short time does not give you good marks for being President for an expected 4 years - you've got to be able to commit to the job and that statement suggests that she wouldn't be able to. Saying that you don't want to be a lame duck is equally ridiculous - you were elected to give your constituents 4 years and even lame ducks can find ways to pass some legislation - perhaps not as successfully as before but certainly some. If you truly are "a fighter, not a quitter", then you'd be fighting for that legislation instead of bailing out just because you were given a handicap.
Regardless, it still is not even remotely comparable to Obama. Obama had been given by those who gave him his original job a promotion that required him to resign his old post sometime within 3 months of being informed of his promotion and he did so. I think most corporations operate with that as being acceptable as a way to move up within the company. You, however, resigned your post without another position available. In Corporations, that's normally called "quitting", BTW. Regardless of the reason, I'm sure you could ask any of your CEO friends and they would agree that departing a company for some odd reason (especially if it isn't an ethical or personell reason) is not viewed nearly as well as if you'd left because you'd gotten another job elsewhere.
So no, Palin, stop trying to go crying about how the Media is mean to you and questions actions you make that a men or Democrats or Presidents or whoever else you're going to blame make because quite frankly, I know I'd question any man for the same charge. |
|
|
| Sad but True |
[Jun. 12th, 2009|10:33 am] |
So, I'm sure most of you have heard about the recent slaying of a black security at the Holocaust museum by a white supremicist. Anyways, it's rather interesting learning some things about him. The best two facts so far?
-He has called the Holocaust a hoax
-He has said that Hitler's biggest mistake was that he didn't gas the Jews
In other words: "Hitler didn't gas the Jews.....but he should have"
When they say lunatic fringe, they aren't kidding |
|
|
| Why North Korea is not a Terrorist State |
[Jun. 9th, 2009|05:52 pm] |
Today, Time's daily poll asked the question: Should the US put North Korea back on the list of countries designated terrorist states?
Respondents were resoundingly in favor of such an action
Personally, I think it's a bad idea for one simple reason: what has North Korea done to promote terrorism?
They are a rogue state. They are the most isolated state. Hell, they even belong on the Axis of Evil. Heck, they're even technically still at war with the world (the Korean War which was declared by the United Nations - thus, the world - against North Korea has never actually had a peace treaty so it is technically still going).
But they are not a designated terrorist state.
Putting someone on that list just because you don't like them when they technically don't meet the criteria of the list removes all meaning from the list. This is a list to single out and isolate nations that actively support terrorism and terrorist activities (for the sake of saving ourselves a lot of grief, we will ignore the fact that arguably the two most terrorism sponsoring nations are Israel and the United States)
So no, Time readers, let's not readd North Korea to the list of designated terrorist states. Instead, let's put them on the list of "states with insane leaders that screw with everyone" right next to Iran and Venezuela |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
forgottenlord's journal
frustrated