Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Blogger troubles
I am having trouble with Blogger eating my posts. We'll hopefully be back up and running shortly.
Monday, September 17, 2012
DAB 2.0
All I can say is wow. I had a fantastic time throughout, and I hope everyone else had as much fun as I did. I'll have a more full account later, but real life has me swamped at the moment. Too many things I should have been doing this weekend instead of the blogmeet. Oh well. Worth it.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
And We're Back
There was an outbreak of real life there, but I think it's safely contained now.
I've had a few things percolating, but, unfortunately, none of them are quite coalescing into workable posts.
So, it's another hodge podge!
United States Ambassador to Libya murdered by angry crowd. I find this depressing on a huge number of levels, not least of which is that this sort of headline is becoming all too familiar. Add to that the highly unlikely nature of any retaliatory action against this blatant act of war, and it's just... gah.
The other thing that really irks me is our involvement in putting in place the very system whose constituents are now rampaging about murdering our diplomats. I said it then, and I say it now. We have/had NO business interfering in Libya, much less on the side of the rebels. (Nor anywhere else in the "Arab Spring", for that matter.)
Another September 11th has rolled around, and the recognizance has, predictably, decreased dramatically. As with December 7, 1942, time is balm for many wounds, and the nation has collectively moved on.
While I would say that the time for grief is past, I would absolutely not say that the time has come to forget, and, though it is not a very Christian thing of me to say, the time has not come for forgiveness either.
One of the posts I'm working on concerns this. I wanted to have it up for the 11th, but life got in the way.
My rhetoric class has actually been my most interesting course so far this year. I am rather fond of argument and analysis of the same (as some of you may have figured out by now) and it's a fun subject. There is absolutely no career in it I would care for of course, so that's the catch. I like engineering and biology more in any case.
I got a package of joy from the Fed-Ex truck. I am actually starting to get on the point where the dwarf seahorse project is becoming a reality. It is exciting. Pictures will come in due course.
Technology is fantastic.
The Dallas Area Blogmeet/shoot is this Saturday/Sunday. I am ridiculously excited. I don't know if you can still sign up to join us, but head over to BobS to find out.
On Sunday I heard an absolutely fantastic talk by Jeffery Holland, an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I'll link to it once I find the transcript. It's good from a secular or religious perspective.
On that note, I am right now actively exploring my faith, and am shortly going to be baptized into the LDS church. I'm probably not going to talk about matters of faith particularly often or in depth, and I won't be using this space for proselytizing. All I ask is that you all remain respectful. I've never had a problem with an abusive or even rude commenter, and I hope to keep up that record as long as possible.
Thinking about the history of medicine, I have to wonder what the next huge leap will be. Penicillin and other antibiotics were one, and vaccines another (there are lots, of course.) The thing that strikes me though is that the people from before the discovery could never have predicted it. (As is true of any innovation, but the medical ones are particularly interesting to me right now.)
Firefly is a fantastic series, and anyone with access to Netflix should watch it. It doesn't take long.
I think that's enough brain flow for a while.
I've had a few things percolating, but, unfortunately, none of them are quite coalescing into workable posts.
So, it's another hodge podge!
United States Ambassador to Libya murdered by angry crowd. I find this depressing on a huge number of levels, not least of which is that this sort of headline is becoming all too familiar. Add to that the highly unlikely nature of any retaliatory action against this blatant act of war, and it's just... gah.
The other thing that really irks me is our involvement in putting in place the very system whose constituents are now rampaging about murdering our diplomats. I said it then, and I say it now. We have/had NO business interfering in Libya, much less on the side of the rebels. (Nor anywhere else in the "Arab Spring", for that matter.)
Another September 11th has rolled around, and the recognizance has, predictably, decreased dramatically. As with December 7, 1942, time is balm for many wounds, and the nation has collectively moved on.
While I would say that the time for grief is past, I would absolutely not say that the time has come to forget, and, though it is not a very Christian thing of me to say, the time has not come for forgiveness either.
One of the posts I'm working on concerns this. I wanted to have it up for the 11th, but life got in the way.
My rhetoric class has actually been my most interesting course so far this year. I am rather fond of argument and analysis of the same (as some of you may have figured out by now) and it's a fun subject. There is absolutely no career in it I would care for of course, so that's the catch. I like engineering and biology more in any case.
I got a package of joy from the Fed-Ex truck. I am actually starting to get on the point where the dwarf seahorse project is becoming a reality. It is exciting. Pictures will come in due course.
Technology is fantastic.
The Dallas Area Blogmeet/shoot is this Saturday/Sunday. I am ridiculously excited. I don't know if you can still sign up to join us, but head over to BobS to find out.
On Sunday I heard an absolutely fantastic talk by Jeffery Holland, an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I'll link to it once I find the transcript. It's good from a secular or religious perspective.
On that note, I am right now actively exploring my faith, and am shortly going to be baptized into the LDS church. I'm probably not going to talk about matters of faith particularly often or in depth, and I won't be using this space for proselytizing. All I ask is that you all remain respectful. I've never had a problem with an abusive or even rude commenter, and I hope to keep up that record as long as possible.
Thinking about the history of medicine, I have to wonder what the next huge leap will be. Penicillin and other antibiotics were one, and vaccines another (there are lots, of course.) The thing that strikes me though is that the people from before the discovery could never have predicted it. (As is true of any innovation, but the medical ones are particularly interesting to me right now.)
Firefly is a fantastic series, and anyone with access to Netflix should watch it. It doesn't take long.
I think that's enough brain flow for a while.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Political Ethics.... Right
Long time readers will perhaps remember at one point last year I decided to run a weekly feature on political ethics. Similarly, they may also remember that I stopped doing those fairly quickly.
Quite simply, I bit off more than I could chew. Questions of political ethics are exceedingly complicated, in the nature of politics. Political ideals are impossible, as the people in power are still people, and as such have interests of their own, potentially contrary to their political duties. While honorable politicians have, and potentially still do, existed, they are, unfortunately, the minority.
Similarly, the double bind, or lesser of two evils, situation is exceptionally common in political work, and even the most honorable of politicians may find themselves torn between competing ideals.
I came to realize fairly quickly that I just plain don't know enough and am too unqualified to really speak on these things.
I may come back to the topic from time to time (I still want to get through my topic list in some way or another) but making a weekly feature of it isn't feasible. I'm trying to resurrect it in some capacity or another though.
Quite simply, I bit off more than I could chew. Questions of political ethics are exceedingly complicated, in the nature of politics. Political ideals are impossible, as the people in power are still people, and as such have interests of their own, potentially contrary to their political duties. While honorable politicians have, and potentially still do, existed, they are, unfortunately, the minority.
Similarly, the double bind, or lesser of two evils, situation is exceptionally common in political work, and even the most honorable of politicians may find themselves torn between competing ideals.
I came to realize fairly quickly that I just plain don't know enough and am too unqualified to really speak on these things.
I may come back to the topic from time to time (I still want to get through my topic list in some way or another) but making a weekly feature of it isn't feasible. I'm trying to resurrect it in some capacity or another though.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Hey, Nature! Part the second
I touched on this in passing in Hey, Nature!, but I feel it deserves a post of its own.
There's a special breed of arrogance that is endemic to the regulation of nature (and, coincidentally, regulation of most other things, but more on that later.) The science cannot give a full picture, yet regulators and an unfortunately large number of scientists try to make sweeping, grand plans based on incomplete information.
There are two things I want to complain about. First is the arrogance of assuming we can understand a complicated system, and second is the arrogance of assuming we can control that system. The first will be of greater brevity than the second, as I spent most of last post talking about complicated systems.
There are several handy 'insanity tests' that apply here. First off, altered reality testing, being the inability to distinguish reality from fantasy. We can see that as scientists talk about absolute truth, and "settled" science. Any scientist deserving of the title should know the extent of their own ignorance. Those who would regulate do not.
Global warming is an excellent example here. I'm not going to get too much into the actual studies and validity of the claims, because that's a kettle of worms even I'm not crazy enough to open. Head over to Borepatch for that, as he is better informed and better at presenting the information than I am.
Let's just stop and think for a minute about the system. Most claims of global warming are based on a series of computer models. Computers in this day and age are mindbogglingly powerful. (Seriously. Stop for a minute and consider the machine on which you're reading this.) Video games are approaching photo-realism, and mathematical models have come up with answers to age old mathematical puzzles. Silliness like taking the Ackermann function with Graham's number as the arguments is actually computable with modern processing. (I think. Maybe a bad example. That's a really, really big number) Here's the problem. Climate is even bigger.
Quite literally everything that happens on this planet (and on quite a few of our neighbors as well) is capable of altering climate in some manner. While the butterfly effect is rather an extreme case, the fundamental principle is sound. At the very least, every tree, every parking lot, every volcanic bubble, every air conditioner, and every methane spewing cow will have an effect on the system. As you can imagine, tracking all of these variables is essentially impossible.
What you may not imagine is just how difficult even basic tracking is. For instance, one of the most widely quoted studies on global warming disregards a very potent greenhouse gas. Lest you think this gas is just found in such minor quantities as to be irrelevant, it's water vapor, which, last I checked, is rather a major component of weather and climate.
Computer models have their place, don't get me wrong, but the incredible arrogance needed to take their results as gospel is rather irksome. Like it or not, we have an incomplete understanding of our environment, and we likely always will. Attempts to control that which we do not understand is senseless.
The second insanity test that comes to mind is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. While certain measures have been somewhat effective, they tend to be in the direct interaction of humans and the environment. Entertainingly, hunting regulations (the evil hunting which environmentalists decry, by the way) tend to be among the best regulatory actions, as managed deer herds and stocked fishing lakes tend to be healthier and more robust than their wild counterparts. The distinction with those actions though is in the difference between management and regulation.
Management for the point of this exercise is a reactive process. As problems become apparent, such as a deer herd consisting of too many old deer who are unable to produce as many healthy offspring, the management process will make some change to the HUMAN interaction with the environment to counteract the problem, such as killing off only female deer 7 years or older one year. Reactions with a focus on human action and direct acknowledgement of the changing nature of the environment is management.
Regulation meanwhile is a proactive process. As environmentalists realized that spotted owls in California were dying off due to habitat destruction. The management solution would be to simply stop cutting down quite so many trees, if the survival of the spotted owl was deemed an appropriate thing to work on. Instead, the EPA put spotted owls on the endangered species list, there were bans placed on logging and other habitat destruction, they planted a great deal of new forest, and I believe they killed off some predators as well, though I am uncertain on that.
The net effect of this was, indeed, a resurgence in the population of spotted owls, to the point where there are actually too many of them. A non-native species of predatory owl has moved into the areas, and are preying on the spotted owls, as well as on everything else in the area. The solution to this has been to shoot the invading owls. This does not seem an ideal situation to me. By attempting to fix, not just manage, the environment ended up far more disrupted than it otherwise had been.
The best example of this is in the National Parks. Reading their history, particularly in the early days, is like a laundry list of failed practices. Wolves in Yellowstone were completely extirpated, then reintroduced, with massive chaos both times. Attempts to control the environment failed miserably, and pretty consistently made things worse.
It's hard to conceptualize on that sort of scale though, so let's take a smaller approach.
As I have established already, I am an amateur aquarist. I am staring at my 6 gallon nano-reef right now, and I spent a good bit of the evening planning out a species tank for dwarf seahorses. I am still distinctly an amateur, but there are some things I can say about the hobby.
One of the hardest things for people new to the hobby to get into their heads is that it is better for a tank to be stable at less than ideal conditions than to be constantly fluctuating closer to ideal values. The aquarium industry has supplements and equipment and testing material for pretty much every aspect of water chemistry you would care to know, and it would be very easy to spend thousands of dollars on maintenance stuff. For really advanced stuff, some of that can be useful, and it can be useful to correct for the unexpected chemical upsets in your system.
For most people's purposes though, screwing with your water chemistry will stress your inhabitants and kill things. I have known people who were so irritated at their pH being .2 outside of ideal that they spent loads of money to get the balancers and buffers, only for the abrupt change in pH to kill half their tank. Heck, I've done similar things myself (though thankfully not with my reef.)
Quite simply, apart from those things that are necessary by the aquarium's nature as a closed system (energy in, waste out) there are fairly few things that really should be fiddled with, and most of them (strontium, magnesium, calcium and the like) are included in the salt mixes people in the hobby use. It can be frustrating to see that despite your best efforts, your calcium levels are a little out of spec, but it's most often something that is truly well enough left on its own.
The thing to understand is that despite the fact that we as keepers can control most everything that goes into and comes out of our tanks, we do not control the tanks. They are living systems, and it is our job as keepers to maintain equilibrium, rather than create the ideal. Striving for perfection is impossible, and the damage done in the effort is potentially catastrophic.
I just spent perhaps more money than I should have on a new setup. I will be keeping dwarf seahorses, hippocampus zosterae, in a species only setup. Seahorses are generally considered to be difficult to expert only critters to keep, because of both their delicate nature and their specialized diets. They are native to estuaries and grass flats around florida. This is, correspondingly, their ideal environment.
For people who live on the Florida coast, this is a simple thing to recreate, as, well, you don't actually have to replicate anything, as the original is at your disposal. At some point, I want to live in a coastal location and put together a tank in this manner.
For now, though, I am sitting in Texas. Quite simply, I am incapable of replicating precisely Floridian water conditions, and even if I cared to, the water wouldn't keep if I were to order the water directly from Florida. We can, however, get a stable system that is close enough to the ideal for the creatures to thrive.
This is basically the point that I'd make for everything. Close enough in these matters really is good enough. There are too many unknowns to make perfection possible, and considering that the system is imperfect to begin with, it's just silly to try for it. Change is the way of things, and we are not separable from the world in which we live. The distinctions of artificial and natural are, well.... artificial.
Pride is considered a deadly sin for a reason. Environmentalists on the whole really need to take a step back and look at the big picture, and I mean the REALLY big picture. This planet will spin on long after we're gone. Thinking we have the capacity to threaten that is... arrogant. Thinking we can act without changing it is similarly arrogant. Nature has an interesting habit of swatting arrogance, and I'd rather not get swatted, myself.
There's a special breed of arrogance that is endemic to the regulation of nature (and, coincidentally, regulation of most other things, but more on that later.) The science cannot give a full picture, yet regulators and an unfortunately large number of scientists try to make sweeping, grand plans based on incomplete information.
There are two things I want to complain about. First is the arrogance of assuming we can understand a complicated system, and second is the arrogance of assuming we can control that system. The first will be of greater brevity than the second, as I spent most of last post talking about complicated systems.
There are several handy 'insanity tests' that apply here. First off, altered reality testing, being the inability to distinguish reality from fantasy. We can see that as scientists talk about absolute truth, and "settled" science. Any scientist deserving of the title should know the extent of their own ignorance. Those who would regulate do not.
Global warming is an excellent example here. I'm not going to get too much into the actual studies and validity of the claims, because that's a kettle of worms even I'm not crazy enough to open. Head over to Borepatch for that, as he is better informed and better at presenting the information than I am.
Let's just stop and think for a minute about the system. Most claims of global warming are based on a series of computer models. Computers in this day and age are mindbogglingly powerful. (Seriously. Stop for a minute and consider the machine on which you're reading this.) Video games are approaching photo-realism, and mathematical models have come up with answers to age old mathematical puzzles. Silliness like taking the Ackermann function with Graham's number as the arguments is actually computable with modern processing. (I think. Maybe a bad example. That's a really, really big number) Here's the problem. Climate is even bigger.
Quite literally everything that happens on this planet (and on quite a few of our neighbors as well) is capable of altering climate in some manner. While the butterfly effect is rather an extreme case, the fundamental principle is sound. At the very least, every tree, every parking lot, every volcanic bubble, every air conditioner, and every methane spewing cow will have an effect on the system. As you can imagine, tracking all of these variables is essentially impossible.
What you may not imagine is just how difficult even basic tracking is. For instance, one of the most widely quoted studies on global warming disregards a very potent greenhouse gas. Lest you think this gas is just found in such minor quantities as to be irrelevant, it's water vapor, which, last I checked, is rather a major component of weather and climate.
Computer models have their place, don't get me wrong, but the incredible arrogance needed to take their results as gospel is rather irksome. Like it or not, we have an incomplete understanding of our environment, and we likely always will. Attempts to control that which we do not understand is senseless.
The second insanity test that comes to mind is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. While certain measures have been somewhat effective, they tend to be in the direct interaction of humans and the environment. Entertainingly, hunting regulations (the evil hunting which environmentalists decry, by the way) tend to be among the best regulatory actions, as managed deer herds and stocked fishing lakes tend to be healthier and more robust than their wild counterparts. The distinction with those actions though is in the difference between management and regulation.
Management for the point of this exercise is a reactive process. As problems become apparent, such as a deer herd consisting of too many old deer who are unable to produce as many healthy offspring, the management process will make some change to the HUMAN interaction with the environment to counteract the problem, such as killing off only female deer 7 years or older one year. Reactions with a focus on human action and direct acknowledgement of the changing nature of the environment is management.
Regulation meanwhile is a proactive process. As environmentalists realized that spotted owls in California were dying off due to habitat destruction. The management solution would be to simply stop cutting down quite so many trees, if the survival of the spotted owl was deemed an appropriate thing to work on. Instead, the EPA put spotted owls on the endangered species list, there were bans placed on logging and other habitat destruction, they planted a great deal of new forest, and I believe they killed off some predators as well, though I am uncertain on that.
The net effect of this was, indeed, a resurgence in the population of spotted owls, to the point where there are actually too many of them. A non-native species of predatory owl has moved into the areas, and are preying on the spotted owls, as well as on everything else in the area. The solution to this has been to shoot the invading owls. This does not seem an ideal situation to me. By attempting to fix, not just manage, the environment ended up far more disrupted than it otherwise had been.
The best example of this is in the National Parks. Reading their history, particularly in the early days, is like a laundry list of failed practices. Wolves in Yellowstone were completely extirpated, then reintroduced, with massive chaos both times. Attempts to control the environment failed miserably, and pretty consistently made things worse.
It's hard to conceptualize on that sort of scale though, so let's take a smaller approach.
As I have established already, I am an amateur aquarist. I am staring at my 6 gallon nano-reef right now, and I spent a good bit of the evening planning out a species tank for dwarf seahorses. I am still distinctly an amateur, but there are some things I can say about the hobby.
One of the hardest things for people new to the hobby to get into their heads is that it is better for a tank to be stable at less than ideal conditions than to be constantly fluctuating closer to ideal values. The aquarium industry has supplements and equipment and testing material for pretty much every aspect of water chemistry you would care to know, and it would be very easy to spend thousands of dollars on maintenance stuff. For really advanced stuff, some of that can be useful, and it can be useful to correct for the unexpected chemical upsets in your system.
For most people's purposes though, screwing with your water chemistry will stress your inhabitants and kill things. I have known people who were so irritated at their pH being .2 outside of ideal that they spent loads of money to get the balancers and buffers, only for the abrupt change in pH to kill half their tank. Heck, I've done similar things myself (though thankfully not with my reef.)
Quite simply, apart from those things that are necessary by the aquarium's nature as a closed system (energy in, waste out) there are fairly few things that really should be fiddled with, and most of them (strontium, magnesium, calcium and the like) are included in the salt mixes people in the hobby use. It can be frustrating to see that despite your best efforts, your calcium levels are a little out of spec, but it's most often something that is truly well enough left on its own.
The thing to understand is that despite the fact that we as keepers can control most everything that goes into and comes out of our tanks, we do not control the tanks. They are living systems, and it is our job as keepers to maintain equilibrium, rather than create the ideal. Striving for perfection is impossible, and the damage done in the effort is potentially catastrophic.
I just spent perhaps more money than I should have on a new setup. I will be keeping dwarf seahorses, hippocampus zosterae, in a species only setup. Seahorses are generally considered to be difficult to expert only critters to keep, because of both their delicate nature and their specialized diets. They are native to estuaries and grass flats around florida. This is, correspondingly, their ideal environment.
For people who live on the Florida coast, this is a simple thing to recreate, as, well, you don't actually have to replicate anything, as the original is at your disposal. At some point, I want to live in a coastal location and put together a tank in this manner.
For now, though, I am sitting in Texas. Quite simply, I am incapable of replicating precisely Floridian water conditions, and even if I cared to, the water wouldn't keep if I were to order the water directly from Florida. We can, however, get a stable system that is close enough to the ideal for the creatures to thrive.
This is basically the point that I'd make for everything. Close enough in these matters really is good enough. There are too many unknowns to make perfection possible, and considering that the system is imperfect to begin with, it's just silly to try for it. Change is the way of things, and we are not separable from the world in which we live. The distinctions of artificial and natural are, well.... artificial.
Pride is considered a deadly sin for a reason. Environmentalists on the whole really need to take a step back and look at the big picture, and I mean the REALLY big picture. This planet will spin on long after we're gone. Thinking we have the capacity to threaten that is... arrogant. Thinking we can act without changing it is similarly arrogant. Nature has an interesting habit of swatting arrogance, and I'd rather not get swatted, myself.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Content Notice
Hey, Nature! part two is going up hopefully sometime this afternoon or tomorrow. Come back and check then.
(I've been making the effort to keep something new up and going for my readers, so stay tuned. I've actually got things worth saying now. Maybe.)
(I've been making the effort to keep something new up and going for my readers, so stay tuned. I've actually got things worth saying now. Maybe.)
Monday, September 3, 2012
I'm a Foodie
I went grocery shopping today. Sprouts is an easy bike ride away from my apartment, and has good food for cheap prices. Wandering around trying to plot what I'll be eating the next week or so, I came across swordfish steaks for $5.99/lb. "That seems a fair price," says I, so I grabbed a steak and wandered around trying to figure out what to do with it.
When I cook, I don't usually follow a recipe particularly closely. I'll use them as inspiration, but cooking someone else's food wholesale just seems sorta like cheating. 'Sides, so far I've been happier with the stuff I invented. This often means though that I don't really know what I'll be cooking till I start though. Here, I wandered around trying to figure out what sort of sauce I wanted to make as I passed by the jellies. One jar of apricot jelly later and I had my inspiration.
pan seared Swordfish
Swordfish
olive oil
rub:
cayenne
corn meal
pepper
salt
glaze:
apricot jelly
orange juice
grated ginger
butter
honey
lemon juice
All of my measurements are of course hyper-specific, and cannot be deviated from even slightly. Take a dollop (metric) of apricot jelly, a splash (USCS) of orange juice, half a tablespoon butter, juice of half a lemon, and a drizzle and a half of honey, and mix and reduce in a small sauce pan.
Take a handful of corn meal, add a pinch of salt, a smidge of cayenne and a twist or two of black pepper, and rub onto both sides of your swordfish steak.
Sear steak on high heat in olive oil, roughly 2 min on a side for a .5-.75" steak.
Drizzle glaze over and serve with rice.
Serves one teenage boy with a remarkable appetite. YMMV.
This is... remarkable. In future, I would probably up the ginger from what I did, and perhaps the lemon juice as well, and tone down the orange juice. I'd also go with slightly more corn meal for structure. But certainly a good first effort.
It's remarkably easy, even in a dorm setting. From start to end, including rice, the cook time was about 20 minutes. It also is remarkably cheap (assuming that you can find the fish at decent prices) as I fed myself for under 12$ for all ingredients, most of which I still have 50-90% of. I'm pleased.
When I cook, I don't usually follow a recipe particularly closely. I'll use them as inspiration, but cooking someone else's food wholesale just seems sorta like cheating. 'Sides, so far I've been happier with the stuff I invented. This often means though that I don't really know what I'll be cooking till I start though. Here, I wandered around trying to figure out what sort of sauce I wanted to make as I passed by the jellies. One jar of apricot jelly later and I had my inspiration.
pan seared Swordfish
Swordfish
olive oil
rub:
cayenne
corn meal
pepper
salt
glaze:
apricot jelly
orange juice
grated ginger
butter
honey
lemon juice
All of my measurements are of course hyper-specific, and cannot be deviated from even slightly. Take a dollop (metric) of apricot jelly, a splash (USCS) of orange juice, half a tablespoon butter, juice of half a lemon, and a drizzle and a half of honey, and mix and reduce in a small sauce pan.
Take a handful of corn meal, add a pinch of salt, a smidge of cayenne and a twist or two of black pepper, and rub onto both sides of your swordfish steak.
Sear steak on high heat in olive oil, roughly 2 min on a side for a .5-.75" steak.
Drizzle glaze over and serve with rice.
Serves one teenage boy with a remarkable appetite. YMMV.
This is... remarkable. In future, I would probably up the ginger from what I did, and perhaps the lemon juice as well, and tone down the orange juice. I'd also go with slightly more corn meal for structure. But certainly a good first effort.
It's remarkably easy, even in a dorm setting. From start to end, including rice, the cook time was about 20 minutes. It also is remarkably cheap (assuming that you can find the fish at decent prices) as I fed myself for under 12$ for all ingredients, most of which I still have 50-90% of. I'm pleased.
Mercy
This post is of a philosophical bent, and from a perspective I have no authority on. I have never been in a self-defense situation, and, god willing, I never will be.
If I find myself in a self defense situation though, I am going to do my level best to end the threat as quickly and effectively as I am able to. The primary concern is my own safety (or the safety of those I am trying to protect) followed by the safety of everyone else around. Yes, this sounds harsh, to say that the safety of an innocent bystander means less to me than mine or that of those I care about, but accidents happen, and, like the situation outside the Empire State Building, sometimes removal of the threat is more important.
There is another set of concerns though. I don't want the goblin to suffer.
This sounds bizarre. Here I am, prepared to wreak potentially life-ending violence on someone who is threatening me or mine, and I am concerned with their comfort. I think it very important to remember though.
By their actions, in threatening my life, that person has given up their own rights. They have no right to comfort, life, death, or security in the moments of the attack. But it is by granting them a modicum of concern for their comfort that we maintain our humanity, and, in a cynical sense, the moral high ground. Killing another human being is never a good thing, but it can be a necessary evil, one whose blame falls solely on the goblin.
This is a very dangerous line. To cross it is to stoop to their level, such that the abyss might stare back.
This is why I say that guns are merciful. A mechanism as quick as any with good shot placement, they remove the period of suffering, given the assumption that the goblin will die. Considering that there is no real way to guarantee the end of the threat without real risk of that eventuality, it seems only proper to think given that assumption though. If they survive and recover, that is a good thing, as we are not in the business of condemnation. But it isn't possible to guarantee.
Shooting a person in the elbow with a .45 ball is going to really mess up that elbow. Shattered bone, severed ligaments, and probably massive circulatory damage, easily to the point of being life threatening if left untreated. It would also be massively painful, and to boot, it would not guarantee the end of the threat. How then is that a better option than shooting them once in the head?
Anti's often talk about our obsession with the gear we carry. The caliber wars, plastic v steel, 1911 or GLOCK, these discussions can seem highly callous when you consider that these tools are potentially to be used to end someone's life. They lend credence to the anti idea that we are all looking for a fight, and are trying to be as deadly as possible.
We do walk something of a razor's edge on this. It does happen that someone gets a little too into the self-defense mindset, and goes over. We as gun owners and self-defense advocates absolutely need to keep mindful of why we want to carry effective tools, and remember the principles of being merciful to the end. It is a thing of mercy to avoid causing unnecessary suffering. Better tools better allow us to avoid suffering. We are not in the business of punishment. But protecting ourselves sometimes requires the use of force. It is a huge responsibility, and we best live up to that responsibility by using the best tools possible. It's about mercy.
If I find myself in a self defense situation though, I am going to do my level best to end the threat as quickly and effectively as I am able to. The primary concern is my own safety (or the safety of those I am trying to protect) followed by the safety of everyone else around. Yes, this sounds harsh, to say that the safety of an innocent bystander means less to me than mine or that of those I care about, but accidents happen, and, like the situation outside the Empire State Building, sometimes removal of the threat is more important.
There is another set of concerns though. I don't want the goblin to suffer.
This sounds bizarre. Here I am, prepared to wreak potentially life-ending violence on someone who is threatening me or mine, and I am concerned with their comfort. I think it very important to remember though.
By their actions, in threatening my life, that person has given up their own rights. They have no right to comfort, life, death, or security in the moments of the attack. But it is by granting them a modicum of concern for their comfort that we maintain our humanity, and, in a cynical sense, the moral high ground. Killing another human being is never a good thing, but it can be a necessary evil, one whose blame falls solely on the goblin.
This is a very dangerous line. To cross it is to stoop to their level, such that the abyss might stare back.
This is why I say that guns are merciful. A mechanism as quick as any with good shot placement, they remove the period of suffering, given the assumption that the goblin will die. Considering that there is no real way to guarantee the end of the threat without real risk of that eventuality, it seems only proper to think given that assumption though. If they survive and recover, that is a good thing, as we are not in the business of condemnation. But it isn't possible to guarantee.
Shooting a person in the elbow with a .45 ball is going to really mess up that elbow. Shattered bone, severed ligaments, and probably massive circulatory damage, easily to the point of being life threatening if left untreated. It would also be massively painful, and to boot, it would not guarantee the end of the threat. How then is that a better option than shooting them once in the head?
Anti's often talk about our obsession with the gear we carry. The caliber wars, plastic v steel, 1911 or GLOCK, these discussions can seem highly callous when you consider that these tools are potentially to be used to end someone's life. They lend credence to the anti idea that we are all looking for a fight, and are trying to be as deadly as possible.
We do walk something of a razor's edge on this. It does happen that someone gets a little too into the self-defense mindset, and goes over. We as gun owners and self-defense advocates absolutely need to keep mindful of why we want to carry effective tools, and remember the principles of being merciful to the end. It is a thing of mercy to avoid causing unnecessary suffering. Better tools better allow us to avoid suffering. We are not in the business of punishment. But protecting ourselves sometimes requires the use of force. It is a huge responsibility, and we best live up to that responsibility by using the best tools possible. It's about mercy.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Ah, Facebook
I made a mistake. I made a political point on Facebook.
The discussion started out well, until yet another young liberal firebrand got his hands on the thread. The rhetoric and vitriol on display was... fascinating, disturbing, and more than a little frightening.
It started after a friend posted about his distaste for the treatment of Ron Paul and company at the RNC. This friend was unable to support Romney in good faith because of it. I asked him which would be worse, Obama or Romney, and got into a position of having to elucidate my opposition to the man.
The names have been redacted to protect the guilty.
Your feelings towards DADT would be different if you yourself were gay. Try a little empathy.
The massive deficit was in large part caused by: 1. Two unfunded and unnecessary wars; 2. Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit; 3. Bush tax cuts; and 4. TARP, all of which were introduced during the Bush administration.
Taxes have actually been cut during the Obama administration and we are now collecting the lowest amount of taxes since the creation of the income tax.
The majority of fourth amendment violations perpetrated by Obama are continuations of practices introduced during the Bush administration with the introduction of the patriot act. While I agree with you that it's wrong, Obama doesn't deserve all the blame.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any White House involvement in Operation Fast and Furious, and thus far all investigations to try and prove otherwise have been fruitless.
Any immigration plan that doesn't deal with millions of immigrants that are well integrated into our economy and can't simply be sent home is not a serious proposal to deal with a real problem
What I mean by punt is that it doesn't really address the issue. it actually opens the door to abuse. Also, you talk about empathy, but talk to people who have been in the military for a while. It's a complicated issue far beyond homophobia. In unit relationships complicate operations hugely. The same problems can apply to women in the military. The military isn't someplace you go for self-expression. Yu
Look through government spending at some point. No, Bush and earlier presidents are not exempt, but they are not to blame either. TARP yes was introduced under Bush, but guess what. The wildly ineffective and expensive bailouts aren't TARP. You also can't blame medicare costs for the deficit within moments of saying just how awesome government sponsored healthcare is. Internally inconsistent.
The specific "largest tax increase in US history" I was speaking of was the healthcare bill. The SCOTUS ruling of it as a tax means that.
Actually, while the patriot act has major problems, the problems I am speaking of have been entirely de-novo to Obama's tenure. The Patriot Act is problematic, but irrelevant.
There is evidence of at least White House involvement in suppressing Fast and Furious. Obama's one and only executive order (which, by the way, requires executive privilege over the documents, implying involvement) was blocking Issa's investigation. No, the investigation hasn't come to any conclusions, but that isn't a case of their uninvolvement, but the cover-up. The investigation isn't allowed to see all the evidence, so it seems premature to say the evidence doesn't exist.
And civility is straight out the door in an ad hominem blaze of partially informed lunacy. I attempted to return to reasoned discourse, which perhaps was a mistake...
The real shame in it is that he seems like a not unintelligent kid (He's in high school) just hugely mislead. I have no doubts that he is parroting views he has heard elsewhere, considering how much of it parallels the bushwa of northern academia. There were so many points where he flirted with coherence and sensibility. Some of his counterarguments were actually effective, though that is more an effect of me not arguing the full point.
This combination is a very dangerous one, and one I see far too often. (and worry constantly that I'll fall into myself.) A smart kid gets a mentor, teacher, friend, or someone else who teaches them rationalist modes of thinking. They think that they come to full understandings of the issues they see. Someone, perhaps the same mentor, then feeds them the liberal line with an incomplete data set. They are young and impressionable to soak it up, yet independent and arrogant (coming from a system that constantly tells them they are special and unique) enough to be certain in it. They end up being a self-congratulatory pawn for the liberal establishment, and then they go around making more of themselves. It's possible to reason with them, sometimes. I still try at least. It does get frustrating though.
There are few things so dangerous as someone who is convinced they know the truth.
That is where I take solace. I am willing to reevaluate any of my opinions based on contrary evidence. I have done it publicly, and as often as someone has the preponderance of evidence and logic on their side. It frankly doesn't happen very often.
As I mentioned in my last comment above, I wasn't arguing for the sake of him. there came a point where I realized he was beyond convincing. But I know there are other people who will come to read this thread. I hope I maybe at least put my views out coherently. Perhaps someone along the way will read and consider.
The discussion started out well, until yet another young liberal firebrand got his hands on the thread. The rhetoric and vitriol on display was... fascinating, disturbing, and more than a little frightening.
It started after a friend posted about his distaste for the treatment of Ron Paul and company at the RNC. This friend was unable to support Romney in good faith because of it. I asked him which would be worse, Obama or Romney, and got into a position of having to elucidate my opposition to the man.
The names have been redacted to protect the guilty.
Persona A: \Excuse me, but what has Obama done that's so awful? Was it implementing a form of universal health care (which is something, I might add, almost EVERY other developed country has)? Was it allowing gays to serve their country without having to hide who they really are? Or was it finally ending a completely pointless war? If anything Obama's biggest crime is that he hasn't done enough.
Scribbler: The healthcare bill is a completely awful piece of legislation that needs to be stricken from the books. The fact that everyone else has it is irrelevant. 95% of all medical innovation happens in the US for a reason. Ending DADT was basically a punt. More people have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush because of the cripplingly restrictive rules of engagement.
Add to that a massive increase in both debt and deficit, the largest tax increase in US history, the complete suspension of fourth amendment rights (Obama has given himself the power to kill anyone on the 'battlefield' regardless of citizenship in drone strikes. Oh, and by the way, he declared the entire US a battlefield in the 'war on terror') a gunrunning sting that killed hundreds of Mexican civilians and at least one border patrol agent, a lawsuit against a US state for enforcing federal law, a plan to grant amnesty to thousands of illegal aliens, and a whole host of other things that I have neither the time nor inclination to list at the moment and I'd say there's plenty he's done that's objectionable.
Persona A: Medical innovation that is not available to the population at large is irrelevant. If you're underinsured or uninsured the quality of our healthcare system doesn't matter. For the millions of people who get insurance from the law, either be cause they couldn't afford it before or had preexisting conditions, the law is literally a life saver.
Your feelings towards DADT would be different if you yourself were gay. Try a little empathy.
The massive deficit was in large part caused by: 1. Two unfunded and unnecessary wars; 2. Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit; 3. Bush tax cuts; and 4. TARP, all of which were introduced during the Bush administration.
Taxes have actually been cut during the Obama administration and we are now collecting the lowest amount of taxes since the creation of the income tax.
The majority of fourth amendment violations perpetrated by Obama are continuations of practices introduced during the Bush administration with the introduction of the patriot act. While I agree with you that it's wrong, Obama doesn't deserve all the blame.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any White House involvement in Operation Fast and Furious, and thus far all investigations to try and prove otherwise have been fruitless.
Your feelings towards DADT would be different if you yourself were gay. Try a little empathy.
The massive deficit was in large part caused by: 1. Two unfunded and unnecessary wars; 2. Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit; 3. Bush tax cuts; and 4. TARP, all of which were introduced during the Bush administration.
Taxes have actually been cut during the Obama administration and we are now collecting the lowest amount of taxes since the creation of the income tax.
The majority of fourth amendment violations perpetrated by Obama are continuations of practices introduced during the Bush administration with the introduction of the patriot act. While I agree with you that it's wrong, Obama doesn't deserve all the blame.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was any White House involvement in Operation Fast and Furious, and thus far all investigations to try and prove otherwise have been fruitless.
Any immigration plan that doesn't deal with millions of immigrants that are well integrated into our economy and can't simply be sent home is not a serious proposal to deal with a real problem
Scribbler: Medicine is not a right. I'm well familiar with the economics of the medical field and I can tell you this legislation will cripple care in this country. Gold standard to everyone is not the result. Everyone will just get lousy care, if the
y get it at all.
What I mean by punt is that it doesn't really address the issue. it actually opens the door to abuse. Also, you talk about empathy, but talk to people who have been in the military for a while. It's a complicated issue far beyond homophobia. In unit relationships complicate operations hugely. The same problems can apply to women in the military. The military isn't someplace you go for self-expression. Yu
Look through government spending at some point. No, Bush and earlier presidents are not exempt, but they are not to blame either. TARP yes was introduced under Bush, but guess what. The wildly ineffective and expensive bailouts aren't TARP. You also can't blame medicare costs for the deficit within moments of saying just how awesome government sponsored healthcare is. Internally inconsistent.
The specific "largest tax increase in US history" I was speaking of was the healthcare bill. The SCOTUS ruling of it as a tax means that.
Actually, while the patriot act has major problems, the problems I am speaking of have been entirely de-novo to Obama's tenure. The Patriot Act is problematic, but irrelevant.
There is evidence of at least White House involvement in suppressing Fast and Furious. Obama's one and only executive order (which, by the way, requires executive privilege over the documents, implying involvement) was blocking Issa's investigation. No, the investigation hasn't come to any conclusions, but that isn't a case of their uninvolvement, but the cover-up. The investigation isn't allowed to see all the evidence, so it seems premature to say the evidence doesn't exist.
What I mean by punt is that it doesn't really address the issue. it actually opens the door to abuse. Also, you talk about empathy, but talk to people who have been in the military for a while. It's a complicated issue far beyond homophobia. In unit relationships complicate operations hugely. The same problems can apply to women in the military. The military isn't someplace you go for self-expression. Yu
Look through government spending at some point. No, Bush and earlier presidents are not exempt, but they are not to blame either. TARP yes was introduced under Bush, but guess what. The wildly ineffective and expensive bailouts aren't TARP. You also can't blame medicare costs for the deficit within moments of saying just how awesome government sponsored healthcare is. Internally inconsistent.
The specific "largest tax increase in US history" I was speaking of was the healthcare bill. The SCOTUS ruling of it as a tax means that.
Actually, while the patriot act has major problems, the problems I am speaking of have been entirely de-novo to Obama's tenure. The Patriot Act is problematic, but irrelevant.
There is evidence of at least White House involvement in suppressing Fast and Furious. Obama's one and only executive order (which, by the way, requires executive privilege over the documents, implying involvement) was blocking Issa's investigation. No, the investigation hasn't come to any conclusions, but that isn't a case of their uninvolvement, but the cover-up. The investigation isn't allowed to see all the evidence, so it seems premature to say the evidence doesn't exist.
What I mean by punt is that it doesn't really address the issue. it actually opens the door to abuse. Also, you talk about empathy, but talk to people who have been in the military for a while. It's a complicated issue far beyond homophobia. In unit relationships complicate operations hugely. The same problems can apply to women in the military. The military isn't someplace you go for self-expression. Yu
Look through government spending at some point. No, Bush and earlier presidents are not exempt, but they are not to blame either. TARP yes was introduced under Bush, but guess what. The wildly ineffective and expensive bailouts aren't TARP. You also can't blame medicare costs for the deficit within moments of saying just how awesome government sponsored healthcare is. Internally inconsistent.
The specific "largest tax increase in US history" I was speaking of was the healthcare bill. The SCOTUS ruling of it as a tax means that.
Actually, while the patriot act has major problems, the problems I am speaking of have been entirely de-novo to Obama's tenure. The Patriot Act is problematic, but irrelevant.
There is evidence of at least White House involvement in suppressing Fast and Furious. Obama's one and only executive order (which, by the way, requires executive privilege over the documents, implying involvement) was blocking Issa's investigation. No, the investigation hasn't come to any conclusions, but that isn't a case of their uninvolvement, but the cover-up. The investigation isn't allowed to see all the evidence, so it seems premature to say the evidence doesn't exist.
Actually, there are plenty of serious proposals that don't involve sweeping amnesty. Do we need immigration reform? Probably. But we have to start by enforcing the laws already on the books, which this administration has consistently blocked.
*after "military isn't someplace you go for self-expression" should be "You are there to serve your country, not serve yourself."At this point, the discussion was, well, a discussion. Things remained relatively civil. Then Persona B turns up.
Persona B: Scribbler, if you're so familiar with the medical field you would understand why you should slap yourself in the face for speaking like such an idiot. Either way, the legislation doesn't go far enough.
Persona A: I agree persona B. Single Payer or Bust!
Persona B: Well capitalism naturally leans towards collapse so we're just going to be stuck in the management of a system naturally bound to fail. Either way, David, given the fact that you've not tried to hide the fact that you're a classist bigot, I wouldn't really be hugely interested in continuing this conversation except to ask you to justify: ". It's a lesser of two evils thing though. What we really need, badly, is a third party." By which, I mean to say, Mitt Romney, as the lesser of two evils.
I would know for certain except you speak in such a garbled, classist, uninformed way that I'm shocked anyone could agree with you thus far.
Persona A: I agree with you B. While Obama isn't perfect (I myself have a lot of problems with him) he certainly beats out Romney, who just wants to continue the cycles of failure that Bush and others before him began. Anyone who still believes in trickle down economics in this day and age isnt fit to run the country.
Persona B: "95% of all medical innovation happens in the US for a reason." And yet we're leagues behind every other industrialized nation on Earth so far as a quality of care. In addition to this there should not be a field that revolves around making money off of sick people. Obama's crime in that regard was not socializing all of medicine and then taking the CEO's of the health insurance industries and showing them the wall. "the largest tax increase in US history, the complete suspension of fourth amendment rights (Obama has given himself the power to kill anyone on the 'battlefield' regardless of citizenship in drone strikes. Oh, and by the way, he declared the entire US a battlefield in the 'war on terror'" Half true. He changed the definition of enemy combatant to anyone killed in a drone strike, this is, of course, bad. But then again you cannot complain about what Obama has done within the wars while also ignoring the fact that only choice he had regarding Afghanistan was whether or not to invade and he voted, like he voted with Iraq, against such a proposal. History shows as soon as an imperialist army leaves there is genocide. To leave would to cause Rwanda all over again and while it appears you would be perfectly fine with a bunch of dark skinned people killing one another, I am against such a notion. "lawsuit against a US state for enforcing federal law, a plan to grant amnesty to thousands of illegal aliens, and a whole host of other things that I have neither the time nor inclination to list at the moment" - If you wont or refuse to say them then you don't know them. That's the end of the story. Go into detail or else I'll just have to assume, as if there was no evidence yet, that you're an idiotic jackass.
And civility is straight out the door in an ad hominem blaze of partially informed lunacy. I attempted to return to reasoned discourse, which perhaps was a mistake...
Scribbler: Let's suspend the ad hominem, ok? You have no idea who I am. I am well familiar with the medical system, as well as it's failings. Those failings can, in many cases, be traced back to legislative intervention. Other nations who have tried to institute socialized healthcare have had disastrous results. There shouldn't be a field around making money off of sick people? in that case, you are suggesting slavery. Doctors need to eat too. Also, your comment concerning "taking the CEO's of health insurance industries and showing them the wall" is in extremely poor taste and I find it simply sickening.
I don't see how you claim to know me as a classist bigot. I don't think I've said anything against anyone except illegal aliens and this administration. I'm all about individual rights, with absolutely no regard to any delineation other than citizenship.
I don't think we should have gotten involved in either country, nor the four additional countries we've entered into conflicts with under Obama. I tend to think it best for the US to have something of an isolationist foreign policy. As to US imperialism, I don't think that's the right analogy, as for all that we keep getting involved in places we really shouldn't, we aren't seeking to rule.
I don't get where you get off on implying I'm a racist. I think it better for the US to not get involved in other countries wars, regardless of race of the inhabitants of, especially in the absence of treaty or other agreement. But that doesn't equate with not having a problem with people killing people.
You speak of capitalism as a system naturally leaning towards collapse. I would counter that economics is a complicated system, far beyond our capability to regulate or run. A laissez-faire approach has it's problems, major ones at that, but it is a system that is functional given a certain initial set of assumptions about what a good outcome is, as well as the nature of what human rights are. So many of the problems with the trickle-down system and modern American capitalism are traceable to governmental intervention and action.
I call the world as I see it, and the world is an imperfect place. But please refrain from attacking me as a person based on my political views. I am not an idiot, nor do I think I am a jackass. You weaken your argument by the logical fallacies and personal attacks. You bring up some good points in places, but you end up coming across as an angry child if you can't divorce your arguments from your emotions. I am happy to discuss these issues, but I will not continue to attempt to reason in the face of such behavior. Prove yourself reasonable and we can reason. Otherwise, you are not worth my time.
As to the other issues, there are plenty of other people who have summed up the other issues far better than I can, and if you truly want to know about them, I can point you to some good sources. I say I have neither the time nor inclination because quite simply the evidence covers terabytes of data, and facebook comment isn't exactly an ideal venue for such exchanges.
Oh, I never answered your question as to why Romney is the lesser of two evils. He is a RINO of the first order, weak at best and capricious at worst, and has a record that I find hugely objectionable, but he has good business experience, is possessed of principles, (even though I don't agree with all of them) and has a record that I find less damaging than Obama's. The two parties are largely indistinguishable big governmental types, both of which are far too keen on shoving their particular ideologies down my throat. The particular nature of those ideologies is just icing. A third party isn't so much a third party as it is a legitimate second party.
Persona B: Scribbler, let me please suggest you refrain from acting like every other right winger and thinking that objectivity regarding your political opinion is a thing, that end of the spectrum is not based in any sort of analysis. When you talk about separating emotions from arguments it appears awfully hypocritical as the unrounded beliefs of your own ideology make it quite pleasantly clear that right-wing "theoreticians" have no intention of doing this themselves. Nextly, I don't need to know anything about you aside from your beliefs. On top of that, when you say things like "I am well familiar with the medical system" you are providing no evidence. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, what you put forward without evidence can be disproven without evidence. Therefore, I say, you are absolutely wrong. That's not ad homonym, that's me adopting your poor tactic of debate. So far as medical health and capitalism are concerned, as medical health within a capitalist society is based upon profit seeking it is not within the interests of the doctor to cure anybody. Within socialized medicine there is a *goal*. A fantastic example of this is the revolutionary research regarding breast cancer that is all but unavailable to anyone who doesn't go to a private millionaire clinic. Doctors do perfectly well in socialized healthcare systems as well. In England they make well over 100,000 pounds. The same is also true on average for doctors in Switzerland (who have the same health care system we are adopting), Denmark, and Canada "http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-doctors-in-other-countries-make/" On top of all of this, I don't give a fuck whether or not you found what I had to say in bad taste. I agree we should not have gotten involved but to suppose that what we are doing is not imperialistic is foolishly sunny-minded. Our new embassy in Iraq is a 21 building compound on an oil field. And your disregard for the lives of Arabs in the current situation, not in the hypothetical situation where we were never at war, is what makes me call you a racist. It's all fine and dandy to say you're ideological position is one in which the place and time we are in now would never have existed, unfortunately that is just an excuse not to have convictions. " I would counter that economics is a complicated system, far beyond our capability to regulate or run. A laissez-faire approach has it's problems, major ones at that, but it is a system that is functional given a certain initial set of assumptions about what a good outcome is, as well as the nature of what human rights are. So many of the problems with the trickle-down system and modern American capitalism are traceable to governmental intervention and action." You clearly have not done your reading. If you take a look at what happened in, let's take for example, Argentina and Chile, after these policies were adopted, laissez-faire, completely deregulated supply side economics, within a year they had between 320 and 329% inflation.
Scribbler: I have done extensive analysis into economics as well as other complex systems. It's sorta what I do. I am an empiricist. The only emotional aspect to any of this is a desire for people to be accountable for their actions, which, yes, is an unfounded belief. If you can't agree with that, then there's no point in discussion. I am a social liberal of pretty much the utmost degree, by which I mean I believe in the utmost level of personal liberty. So long as it doesn't infringe on other people's fundamental rights, I couldn't care less what people choose to do.
As to my experience with the medical field, both my parents are doctors, and I have worked for a medical office in the billing department, as well as other administrative duties.. I have seen years of insurance pay slips, and I guarantee I am more familiar with the costs of doing business in the medical field than you. Do you find this acceptable? That infographic you sent me is hilariously bad, and not worth addressing. It completely disregards a huge percentage of the factors involved in medicine. I have spoken to doctors in socialist systems. They pretty much universally hate it.
As to imperialism, I am not saying we don't have an interest in being the places we are, merely that we don't seek to rule. Mutual benefit, as opposed to direct exploitation. How much do you know about radical Islam? The fundamental roots of WHY these people are killing each other? I know rather a lot. I've read the Koran, and I've read a large body of varied works on the subject (from both sides of the political spectrum.) Quite simply, these people are going to keep killing each other until one side gets enough power on their own to quell the other side. I don't see the point in spending the lives of our soldiers in someone else's fight. I don't care what race they are. I don't want my money and my friends and fellow countrymen being spent on them. Call me a nationalist if you want, but don't call me a racist.
As to Argentina, you bring up an interesting example. 20 years ago, their government had a platform largely identical to our current administration's, coming into a top 20 economy. Argentina is no longer a top 20 economy, due to their governmental actions. Yes, swinging from socialism to capitalism will change the value distributions at first, but the end result is far more stable and secure. Calling the immediate effects of a change to a system being representative of the net change is fallacious and shortsighted. The system is broken, no doubt, but I don't believe it beyond fixing. A third party has the potential to do just that.
Your comments about these CEO's are intensely disturbing, and show me in no uncertain terms that you are beyond reasoning with. Anyone willing to kill people to further their ideological agenda is not worthy of any consideration.
Basically, none of this is intended for you. I know you are incapable of hearing, much less understanding or appreciating, my arguments. To anyone else reading this though, I hope you've found the discussion edifying.
I am unsubscribing from this post. It's not worth any more of my time or effort. I've made my points known. Anyone who wishes for me to clarify or discuss further can post to my wall or private message.
Persona B: "I am a social liberal of pretty much the utmost degree, by which I mean I believe in the utmost level of personal liberty. So long as it doesn't infringe on other people's fundamental rights, I couldn't care less what people choose to do." This is an absolutely obnoxious belief that is quite prominent amongst liberals and is really one of the flaws of tolerance. Your inability to see it as an ideological category is absolutely appalling. Regarding your parents working as doctors and your job in a billing department, anecdote does not make evidence, which you, as an empiricist should undeniably understand. Just because you have spoken with doctors in "socialist systems" (you clearly have no understanding of what socialism is) does not make it fact. To paraphrase Husserl, experience is not by itself science. On top of that there is no mutual benefit to our being in Iraq, just a side note. My father is a professor of Theology, I too have read the Qur'an multiple times. Just because I have done this does not mean that I am more scientifically estitute regarding Islam. I would think you'd prefer to characterize yourself as a patriot then, because nationalism has always been characterized by social chauvinism and xenophobia. A third party has no potential. The economic epoch in which we live is coming to an end and it's time as revolutionary is over. "Anyone willing to kill people to further their ideological agenda is not worthy of any consideration." - this is in itself an ideological category.Welp. That went well.
The real shame in it is that he seems like a not unintelligent kid (He's in high school) just hugely mislead. I have no doubts that he is parroting views he has heard elsewhere, considering how much of it parallels the bushwa of northern academia. There were so many points where he flirted with coherence and sensibility. Some of his counterarguments were actually effective, though that is more an effect of me not arguing the full point.
This combination is a very dangerous one, and one I see far too often. (and worry constantly that I'll fall into myself.) A smart kid gets a mentor, teacher, friend, or someone else who teaches them rationalist modes of thinking. They think that they come to full understandings of the issues they see. Someone, perhaps the same mentor, then feeds them the liberal line with an incomplete data set. They are young and impressionable to soak it up, yet independent and arrogant (coming from a system that constantly tells them they are special and unique) enough to be certain in it. They end up being a self-congratulatory pawn for the liberal establishment, and then they go around making more of themselves. It's possible to reason with them, sometimes. I still try at least. It does get frustrating though.
There are few things so dangerous as someone who is convinced they know the truth.
That is where I take solace. I am willing to reevaluate any of my opinions based on contrary evidence. I have done it publicly, and as often as someone has the preponderance of evidence and logic on their side. It frankly doesn't happen very often.
As I mentioned in my last comment above, I wasn't arguing for the sake of him. there came a point where I realized he was beyond convincing. But I know there are other people who will come to read this thread. I hope I maybe at least put my views out coherently. Perhaps someone along the way will read and consider.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Security
There are times when I have to wonder how equipped I am to defend myself. Considering that by a combination of state, and federal law and University policy, I am unable to even possess a firearm on campus (and by logical extension, anywhere, since I live on campus) much less carry one, I'm at rather a disadvantage out the door to a person determined to do me harm.
As mentioned in a previous post, I carry a knife among my daily pocket clutter. There's another one living in my bag, along with a mini multi-tool. If I found myself in a situation where I had to, I could use it to help protect me. I have major doubts as to whether I could use it to any particularly great effect. While it is hugely better than nothing, it's still a naught but a 3" bit of steel sharp on one side. Similarly, my capability for home defense (considering my home to be my room of my suite, though it could extend to the commons if need be) is limited to a 4" fixed blade knife I keep at my headboard.
It's not something I think on particularly often. Campus is a fairly low violence environment. I don't know the numbers offhand, but it's lower on campus than off. Now that I'm stopping to think though, I am woefully unprepared should anything happen. I like to think I would fight back if it came to it, but the tools at my disposal are so very limited.
There is a certain weird dichotomy I have noticed. People in the blogosphere and elsewhere talk about the combat mentality as being hugely critical in defense, and how the human mind is in the end the only weapon. I have heard it said that if you have the combat mentality, it doesn't matter what else you have. Simultaneously, we argue about how a 70lb grandmother is not going to be able to stand up to a 240lb, 6'3" mugger. This to me seems to be an obvious case of the middle ground being the real one. Combat mentality alone can't guarantee your safety. The new $12000 micro whizbang plasticool wundernine decked to the gills with defensive features won't save you if you aren't willing to use it.
Those of my readers who have met me in the flesh know that I am of a very slight build. I am 6'1" roundabouts and soaking wet I sometimes hit 140lb. I am stronger than I look, but that's really not saying too much. In a conflict involving physical abilities pitted against each other, I am at a fairly serious disadvantage. Now, give my opponent a gun, as would be the case, God forbid, if a shooter turned up on the UTD campus. I wouldn't go out without a fight, but in that case I see it as all to likely that I would, in fact, go out.
I suppose I am a little too conscious right now of my own vulnerability for comfort. It's not a pleasant feeling, especially as I'm not sure what else I could do to add security to my life without breaking rules and laws.
I actually had an experience recently with the campus police. I won't get into details, but they were called out to deal with some illegal activity. They arrived in a fairly timely manner and behaved with remarkable professionalism and composure, but fairly timely isn't acceptable in a life or death circumstance.
I am honestly unlikely to be at particular risk of violence. But that doesn't serve to change my ability to react should I find myself in that position. I suppose it's just one of those uncomfortable truths to this time of my life.
As mentioned in a previous post, I carry a knife among my daily pocket clutter. There's another one living in my bag, along with a mini multi-tool. If I found myself in a situation where I had to, I could use it to help protect me. I have major doubts as to whether I could use it to any particularly great effect. While it is hugely better than nothing, it's still a naught but a 3" bit of steel sharp on one side. Similarly, my capability for home defense (considering my home to be my room of my suite, though it could extend to the commons if need be) is limited to a 4" fixed blade knife I keep at my headboard.
It's not something I think on particularly often. Campus is a fairly low violence environment. I don't know the numbers offhand, but it's lower on campus than off. Now that I'm stopping to think though, I am woefully unprepared should anything happen. I like to think I would fight back if it came to it, but the tools at my disposal are so very limited.
There is a certain weird dichotomy I have noticed. People in the blogosphere and elsewhere talk about the combat mentality as being hugely critical in defense, and how the human mind is in the end the only weapon. I have heard it said that if you have the combat mentality, it doesn't matter what else you have. Simultaneously, we argue about how a 70lb grandmother is not going to be able to stand up to a 240lb, 6'3" mugger. This to me seems to be an obvious case of the middle ground being the real one. Combat mentality alone can't guarantee your safety. The new $12000 micro whizbang plasticool wundernine decked to the gills with defensive features won't save you if you aren't willing to use it.
Those of my readers who have met me in the flesh know that I am of a very slight build. I am 6'1" roundabouts and soaking wet I sometimes hit 140lb. I am stronger than I look, but that's really not saying too much. In a conflict involving physical abilities pitted against each other, I am at a fairly serious disadvantage. Now, give my opponent a gun, as would be the case, God forbid, if a shooter turned up on the UTD campus. I wouldn't go out without a fight, but in that case I see it as all to likely that I would, in fact, go out.
I suppose I am a little too conscious right now of my own vulnerability for comfort. It's not a pleasant feeling, especially as I'm not sure what else I could do to add security to my life without breaking rules and laws.
I actually had an experience recently with the campus police. I won't get into details, but they were called out to deal with some illegal activity. They arrived in a fairly timely manner and behaved with remarkable professionalism and composure, but fairly timely isn't acceptable in a life or death circumstance.
I am honestly unlikely to be at particular risk of violence. But that doesn't serve to change my ability to react should I find myself in that position. I suppose it's just one of those uncomfortable truths to this time of my life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)