http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/20/huckabee.iowa/index.html
It may be true that he's gaining ground. But he was flying on an airplane over the weekend and nobody seemed to know who he was. He's not recognizable. I'm not a fan of his stated positions on so-called moral issues (being a fairtax supporter cuts some of the edge off, only some though). But I can imagine his standing on these matters reverberating with some evangelicals during the elections. That thought is somewhat troubling to me. One thing I'm noticing with most of the GOP 08 candidates is that they suffer from a distressing set of inconsistencies. They seem to operate on the assumption of a common value set that is decreed rather than arrived at in the majority of the American population. That value set is beset with any number of logical inconsistencies and even morally slippery reasoning. The number of questions on torture and overly fascist illegal immigration stances during GOP debates for example seem a bit off kilter.
In reading some politics, one thing that stands out is that very few of these candidates seem able to offer anything other than "I'm not going to be Hillary" (this is true even among Democrats, including Hillary herself), which is precisely the thinking that delivered us a Democratic congress that hasn't done anything. It hasn't done anything because it's only agenda was "we're not Bush". I'm not sure that Americans are totally stupid (although I could be wrong), but I don't see them falling for the same trick within the same generational cycle.
In any case, Huckabee is somehow still around even after the infamous 'Do you believe in the theory of evolution" question early on. I think that speaks volumes for the viability of religion and politics and the need to somehow distinguish between the two.
20 November 2007
supremes
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/20/scotus.handguns/index.html
I'm not in the NRA. I don't own a gun. And if I had one, I'd probably have to figure out how to use it before I could kill someone with it. Without indiscriminate random firing into a crowded street anyway. But there's some strange logic here. The idea of handguns being banned and illegal is somehow going to deter criminals from owning one? Criminals. Aren't they the same people who already violate laws? So they're going to automatically observe this one as well? It's a strange logic. I agree in some principle that reducing the number of guns available does reduce violent crime, if only by extension increasing the cost of purchasing illegal weapons for example. That makes some fundamental sense. There are two things that make more sense than an outright ban. First remove the common conditions which inspire criminals to violent activity with weapons to achieve their aims. Easier said then done, but it's considerably cheaper in the long run to offer hope, empowerment, and some changes that inspire prosperity than to continue to suffer the imposed prison sentence of a ghetto lifestyle. Second, provide some deterrence by harshly penalizing people who use guns, and people who provide tolerance for their use (the don't snitch crowd). This works on a few people, smarter crooks figure out ways to make ends meet without packing a piece unless it's really needed. Violence isn't needed in a world with volume internet scams.
To actual gun control advocates, I can and do appreciate the arguments. Hand guns and automatic assault rifles were not around in the late 18th century. Even had they been, the population density was such that they would make little profitable use except in defense of frontier establishments (thus why the Colt revolver did so well in the mid 19th century). But the trouble is that such weapons were designed with a military purpose, that is, solely to kill other human beings. With ruthless mechanized precision in some cases. With our society grown into much more of a mechanized, urbanized system, some levels of restriction on the types of weapons available to the common person seem inevitable. We do not, for example, commonly see someone strolling around with an RPG or a .50 cal heavy machine gun. Hand guns it can be argued provide some levels of basic personal defense, and certainly the perception that a community is armed and willing to defend its place of residence against such trivial attacks as vandalism or theft is likely to have some positive benefits in reducing crime as well. But even so, it's possible that people could simply have shotguns.
But on what grounds is someone claiming a need to defend themselves against the government when there are peaceful means to resist the will of said agency? I don't quite see that argument. I'm not in favor of unlimited gun control and aside from some basic regulations that restrict purchasing access for ex-cons or psych ward types, I'm not sure we need a major push to remove guns from our society. I think we need a major push to remove the desire to use violent measures to exact benefit or other criminal advantages. Without guns, the desire to do murderous things is simply limited to other weapons, or at least guns with a stated and mundane hunting purpose rather than human killing machines. But without some cogent argument in favor of anti-regulation and supporting 2nd amendment rights, the central argument of gun control is steadily going to gain ground and it will not remove the principle issues with their employment.
So to attempt to provide one. There are two elements to it. One is that the defence of one's property and livelihood against physical assault is ultimately up to the individual. The chief ability of police is not to prevent crime but to deter it by detaining and prosecuting those responsible for it. Individuals are already in a fortress mentality in America, but yet curiously seem willing to allow police or other agencies to come to their rescue during times of difficulty. Certainly a fire department is better equipped to put out a fire. A doctor is better equipped to treat a wound or illness. But to prevent careless injuries, most accidental fires, etc, that's a personal stake. It's not the states business to walk into our homes and point out to us every fire hazard or potential death trap. It's our own. The same is true for the deterrence and ultimate prevention of crime. To do this there are a variety of methods, security alarms, cameras, fences, locks, dogs, and if all else fails guns. If a criminal enters a property with the reasonable expectation that he/she may be killed as a result of their acts, they're likelier than not to find somewhere else to go. To me this is really the only reason not to impose a massive sweeping ban on weapons. Some of them the public can do without. But in the environment we've created, sometimes a loaded weapon may be the only thing making someone think about what they're about to do.
The second is more simple, but as the Constitution is the highest law, it does indicate a need for well-regulated militia. The implication, viewed in the historical terms of the day, is in part that the general population would be able to readily use weapons in defence of their homes and be able to do stand to in a collective way if need be. It's hard to see a need for militia what with a massive professional standing army (something not in the Constitution, but sometimes useful in statecraft). This I suppose is the most basic question up for consideration in the court. Does the 2nd amendment mean: regulated guns or regulated militias. It's hard to see the founding fathers arguing that people needed guns to stand up against their own government, as some 'militias' at the present argue. But with the Revolutionary War not far in their history, there was undoubtedly some thought to that problem. In any case, it's easy enough to point to the language of the text and make something approaching a cogent argument that government may be able to regulate and restrict access to purely 'offensive' lethal weapons, but they shouldn't be banning them.
In the aftermath of decisions like Kelo, I'm not encouraged that the Supreme court has taken up cases like these. But if the chief argument against such controls is as sensible as this, I can't say there was no attempt to defend the 2nd amendment.
I'm not in the NRA. I don't own a gun. And if I had one, I'd probably have to figure out how to use it before I could kill someone with it. Without indiscriminate random firing into a crowded street anyway. But there's some strange logic here. The idea of handguns being banned and illegal is somehow going to deter criminals from owning one? Criminals. Aren't they the same people who already violate laws? So they're going to automatically observe this one as well? It's a strange logic. I agree in some principle that reducing the number of guns available does reduce violent crime, if only by extension increasing the cost of purchasing illegal weapons for example. That makes some fundamental sense. There are two things that make more sense than an outright ban. First remove the common conditions which inspire criminals to violent activity with weapons to achieve their aims. Easier said then done, but it's considerably cheaper in the long run to offer hope, empowerment, and some changes that inspire prosperity than to continue to suffer the imposed prison sentence of a ghetto lifestyle. Second, provide some deterrence by harshly penalizing people who use guns, and people who provide tolerance for their use (the don't snitch crowd). This works on a few people, smarter crooks figure out ways to make ends meet without packing a piece unless it's really needed. Violence isn't needed in a world with volume internet scams.
To actual gun control advocates, I can and do appreciate the arguments. Hand guns and automatic assault rifles were not around in the late 18th century. Even had they been, the population density was such that they would make little profitable use except in defense of frontier establishments (thus why the Colt revolver did so well in the mid 19th century). But the trouble is that such weapons were designed with a military purpose, that is, solely to kill other human beings. With ruthless mechanized precision in some cases. With our society grown into much more of a mechanized, urbanized system, some levels of restriction on the types of weapons available to the common person seem inevitable. We do not, for example, commonly see someone strolling around with an RPG or a .50 cal heavy machine gun. Hand guns it can be argued provide some levels of basic personal defense, and certainly the perception that a community is armed and willing to defend its place of residence against such trivial attacks as vandalism or theft is likely to have some positive benefits in reducing crime as well. But even so, it's possible that people could simply have shotguns.
But on what grounds is someone claiming a need to defend themselves against the government when there are peaceful means to resist the will of said agency? I don't quite see that argument. I'm not in favor of unlimited gun control and aside from some basic regulations that restrict purchasing access for ex-cons or psych ward types, I'm not sure we need a major push to remove guns from our society. I think we need a major push to remove the desire to use violent measures to exact benefit or other criminal advantages. Without guns, the desire to do murderous things is simply limited to other weapons, or at least guns with a stated and mundane hunting purpose rather than human killing machines. But without some cogent argument in favor of anti-regulation and supporting 2nd amendment rights, the central argument of gun control is steadily going to gain ground and it will not remove the principle issues with their employment.
So to attempt to provide one. There are two elements to it. One is that the defence of one's property and livelihood against physical assault is ultimately up to the individual. The chief ability of police is not to prevent crime but to deter it by detaining and prosecuting those responsible for it. Individuals are already in a fortress mentality in America, but yet curiously seem willing to allow police or other agencies to come to their rescue during times of difficulty. Certainly a fire department is better equipped to put out a fire. A doctor is better equipped to treat a wound or illness. But to prevent careless injuries, most accidental fires, etc, that's a personal stake. It's not the states business to walk into our homes and point out to us every fire hazard or potential death trap. It's our own. The same is true for the deterrence and ultimate prevention of crime. To do this there are a variety of methods, security alarms, cameras, fences, locks, dogs, and if all else fails guns. If a criminal enters a property with the reasonable expectation that he/she may be killed as a result of their acts, they're likelier than not to find somewhere else to go. To me this is really the only reason not to impose a massive sweeping ban on weapons. Some of them the public can do without. But in the environment we've created, sometimes a loaded weapon may be the only thing making someone think about what they're about to do.
The second is more simple, but as the Constitution is the highest law, it does indicate a need for well-regulated militia. The implication, viewed in the historical terms of the day, is in part that the general population would be able to readily use weapons in defence of their homes and be able to do stand to in a collective way if need be. It's hard to see a need for militia what with a massive professional standing army (something not in the Constitution, but sometimes useful in statecraft). This I suppose is the most basic question up for consideration in the court. Does the 2nd amendment mean: regulated guns or regulated militias. It's hard to see the founding fathers arguing that people needed guns to stand up against their own government, as some 'militias' at the present argue. But with the Revolutionary War not far in their history, there was undoubtedly some thought to that problem. In any case, it's easy enough to point to the language of the text and make something approaching a cogent argument that government may be able to regulate and restrict access to purely 'offensive' lethal weapons, but they shouldn't be banning them.
In the aftermath of decisions like Kelo, I'm not encouraged that the Supreme court has taken up cases like these. But if the chief argument against such controls is as sensible as this, I can't say there was no attempt to defend the 2nd amendment.
mile high grounded
http://www.komotv.com/news/local/11492296.html
Perhaps fooling around on the plane isn't always a good idea. Especially in the present climate on airplanes. Kicking off women with short skirts and now this. Inconveniencing the whole plane because of some concerns over sex.
Perhaps fooling around on the plane isn't always a good idea. Especially in the present climate on airplanes. Kicking off women with short skirts and now this. Inconveniencing the whole plane because of some concerns over sex.
poverty breeds
"The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health has come to the conclusion that poor people have more overweight kids. The health officials are attributing this to the fact that affluent communities have more public parks. Yes. That's right. There are more public parks in wealthier communities around Los Angeles and THIS is why their children are not obese."
As with most things in social order, there are a number of factors. The fact that poor people live in run-down neighborhoods and either have no access to parks or otherwise do not feel a safe inclination towards public exercise (can't imagine why that would be, potholed sidewalks and gunshots maybe?) is undoubtedly one of them. But it's hardly the only one. Public planning commissions don't really put parks in places without money for any number of reasons but one of them being that it costs more to maintain in an crummy neighborhood. Both higher maintenance and frequent patrolling is apt to be more extensive and required. I don't necessarily think this is a bad decision on their part, but I do understand the issue of cheap access to exercise as a problem.
The real issues with poverty and health as a linked concern are much more extensive. Diet is different, almost criminally deficient. Interest in 'dangerous' behaviors such as drinking, smoking, and other intoxications is higher. Teen pregnancy rates are generally higher along with the spread of infectious diseases (like STDs). Garbage or other waste is frequently on lawns or other public displays. Some of these have to do with general ignorance. Most of these issues have to do with the state of mind created by the conditions of having to live in squalor and thus not seeing any reason to give a damn. What we find is that yes, the society around poor people is an influential problem. But the people themselves often then self-destruct.
As with most things in social order, there are a number of factors. The fact that poor people live in run-down neighborhoods and either have no access to parks or otherwise do not feel a safe inclination towards public exercise (can't imagine why that would be, potholed sidewalks and gunshots maybe?) is undoubtedly one of them. But it's hardly the only one. Public planning commissions don't really put parks in places without money for any number of reasons but one of them being that it costs more to maintain in an crummy neighborhood. Both higher maintenance and frequent patrolling is apt to be more extensive and required. I don't necessarily think this is a bad decision on their part, but I do understand the issue of cheap access to exercise as a problem.
The real issues with poverty and health as a linked concern are much more extensive. Diet is different, almost criminally deficient. Interest in 'dangerous' behaviors such as drinking, smoking, and other intoxications is higher. Teen pregnancy rates are generally higher along with the spread of infectious diseases (like STDs). Garbage or other waste is frequently on lawns or other public displays. Some of these have to do with general ignorance. Most of these issues have to do with the state of mind created by the conditions of having to live in squalor and thus not seeing any reason to give a damn. What we find is that yes, the society around poor people is an influential problem. But the people themselves often then self-destruct.
17 November 2007
How about this, punish the victims
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/17/saudi.rape.victim/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
I'm not totally familiar with the Qo'ran's wording, but I'm not quite sure how the victim is to be punished for the actions of others. The attorney for the victim is probably right, that such actions are 'sinful' or 'hateful to God', as rape is one of the few things (maybe the only thing) I'm rather prone to believe is always wrong (although in my case I don't need a fatwa, or a god, to tell me it's a bad idea). The punishment, based on the facts as presented (I'd have to be there at trial for a more thorough and confident judgment), should be death.
Instead the courts amended slightly upward the sentences and increased the punishment for the victim (whose crime was the unrelated charge of meeting with an unrelated male; must be hell to date there). My understanding of Saudi politics has been that their government has made some attempts to appease Western societies with regards to women, albeit very slowly and generally without much domestic fanfare. Evidently some members of their judiciary (which is undoubtedly stacked with Islamist clerics, seeing as the law there is Islam) were not happy with these modest reforms. Thus the contradictory step of punishing the victim.
I'm not totally familiar with the Qo'ran's wording, but I'm not quite sure how the victim is to be punished for the actions of others. The attorney for the victim is probably right, that such actions are 'sinful' or 'hateful to God', as rape is one of the few things (maybe the only thing) I'm rather prone to believe is always wrong (although in my case I don't need a fatwa, or a god, to tell me it's a bad idea). The punishment, based on the facts as presented (I'd have to be there at trial for a more thorough and confident judgment), should be death.
Instead the courts amended slightly upward the sentences and increased the punishment for the victim (whose crime was the unrelated charge of meeting with an unrelated male; must be hell to date there). My understanding of Saudi politics has been that their government has made some attempts to appease Western societies with regards to women, albeit very slowly and generally without much domestic fanfare. Evidently some members of their judiciary (which is undoubtedly stacked with Islamist clerics, seeing as the law there is Islam) were not happy with these modest reforms. Thus the contradictory step of punishing the victim.
16 November 2007
there's a multitude of them
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/education/15teacher.html?ex=1352869200&en=bbe35d2c4ab8c6ea&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Not sure if this plan will work, but kudos for trying something. People who aren't motivated to perform their jobs aren't going to do their jobs. Now I'm not suggesting that fear of losing a job is necessarily a motivating issue. Some people have better options or just don't care. But I am saying that not having it as a viable fear is pretty silly. In any profession, just because someone has been there a long time does not make them the best person for the job. There are some people who become quite skilled and almost invaluable members. And others who are just there for the paycheck. Teachers are usually not there for the paycheck, but after a few years, the pay starts to improve. I can't imagine that a feeling of lazy accomplishment wouldn't set in once tenure is achieved for some.
There are plenty of teachers who are highly motivated to perform the public good or to instill a basic sense of knowledge and learning in their charges. I admire these people, though I can't say I've had or seen a great many of them. Particularly where math and science were concerned. Too many rotes and too much focus on 'showing your work'. Sorry if I just look at a problem and intuitively understand what the answer is.
There are two counter arguments for this proposal. One was quickly addressed and that is that a bad principal or administration would turn the blame on teachers and start axing teachers. That's a valid concern because we see the same tactics in professional sports coaching. Bad year, fire an assistant. That blows out the flames over the off-season and makes people think that an underling is responsible. Sometimes they were. Often times they're not.
The one that is hinted at but unseen is how the issue of competence is achieved. Which is something difficult to study and discern with even supposedly objective and verifiable data to support these claims. It's simply impossible to rationally define what the stable outcome of a teacher's work is supposed to be because the students are a massive unstable variable. And it's unclear whether students are supposed to be able to pass a test or are actually judged to have learned something.
In any case, attacking the pillars of defense that incompetent teachers can hide and benefit behind (tenure, base pay, etc) is necessary to improve the standard bearers of education. I see no reason why bonuses can't be offered. Or a long-standing teacher fired after a brief stretch of uninspired years of teaching (with no attempts to correct this anomaly). What bothers me about this particular plan is that it is requiring a small army of lawyers to execute it instead of a simple agreement between administration and teachers that they should both faithfully execute their respective jobs.
Not sure if this plan will work, but kudos for trying something. People who aren't motivated to perform their jobs aren't going to do their jobs. Now I'm not suggesting that fear of losing a job is necessarily a motivating issue. Some people have better options or just don't care. But I am saying that not having it as a viable fear is pretty silly. In any profession, just because someone has been there a long time does not make them the best person for the job. There are some people who become quite skilled and almost invaluable members. And others who are just there for the paycheck. Teachers are usually not there for the paycheck, but after a few years, the pay starts to improve. I can't imagine that a feeling of lazy accomplishment wouldn't set in once tenure is achieved for some.
There are plenty of teachers who are highly motivated to perform the public good or to instill a basic sense of knowledge and learning in their charges. I admire these people, though I can't say I've had or seen a great many of them. Particularly where math and science were concerned. Too many rotes and too much focus on 'showing your work'. Sorry if I just look at a problem and intuitively understand what the answer is.
There are two counter arguments for this proposal. One was quickly addressed and that is that a bad principal or administration would turn the blame on teachers and start axing teachers. That's a valid concern because we see the same tactics in professional sports coaching. Bad year, fire an assistant. That blows out the flames over the off-season and makes people think that an underling is responsible. Sometimes they were. Often times they're not.
The one that is hinted at but unseen is how the issue of competence is achieved. Which is something difficult to study and discern with even supposedly objective and verifiable data to support these claims. It's simply impossible to rationally define what the stable outcome of a teacher's work is supposed to be because the students are a massive unstable variable. And it's unclear whether students are supposed to be able to pass a test or are actually judged to have learned something.
In any case, attacking the pillars of defense that incompetent teachers can hide and benefit behind (tenure, base pay, etc) is necessary to improve the standard bearers of education. I see no reason why bonuses can't be offered. Or a long-standing teacher fired after a brief stretch of uninspired years of teaching (with no attempts to correct this anomaly). What bothers me about this particular plan is that it is requiring a small army of lawyers to execute it instead of a simple agreement between administration and teachers that they should both faithfully execute their respective jobs.
Bonds
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/16/bonds.feedback.irpt/index.html
Here's the issue. They took about two years too long to come down with the indictment. I don't see this coming down with an actual conviction. It will however end his career. Nice move.
Secondly, the Mitchell Report is supposedly due in about another month. I suspect at that point what we'll find is that a major percentage of players were using some banned substance. That Bonds is to be the scapegoat for an ineffective blind-eye policy toward steroids/HGH in general for both baseball and the government is really quite sad. He's undoubtedly guilty of using a banned/controlled substance to enhance his play and extend his career. And that's a choice that he shouldn't have made. But in the climate around him when this happened, I can't say I blame him totally. If everyone is cheating, the urge to compete is likely to drive many to cheat as well. He didn't really need to though. And that's the sad part of this whole thing. Tragedy is almost always of our own flaws, and so it is.
Here's the issue. They took about two years too long to come down with the indictment. I don't see this coming down with an actual conviction. It will however end his career. Nice move.
Secondly, the Mitchell Report is supposedly due in about another month. I suspect at that point what we'll find is that a major percentage of players were using some banned substance. That Bonds is to be the scapegoat for an ineffective blind-eye policy toward steroids/HGH in general for both baseball and the government is really quite sad. He's undoubtedly guilty of using a banned/controlled substance to enhance his play and extend his career. And that's a choice that he shouldn't have made. But in the climate around him when this happened, I can't say I blame him totally. If everyone is cheating, the urge to compete is likely to drive many to cheat as well. He didn't really need to though. And that's the sad part of this whole thing. Tragedy is almost always of our own flaws, and so it is.
something for the violent fun seeker
"There's so much comedy on television. Does that cause comedy in the streets?"
Oh yeah. Assassin's Creed came out. Something for me to do.
Oh yeah. Assassin's Creed came out. Something for me to do.
'human rights'
A pointless question to pose to politicians, particularly in the present American mindset, but a useful for actual people. Basically when asked when or if 'human rights' trumps security, most of the politicos answered that security comes before rights with Richardson saying no and Obama delivering one of his now patented evasive rhetorics-
"Obama challenged the question, saying "the concepts are not contradictory.""
I was already thinking much the same thing however. Security, or at least the most basic expectation that one's life and property is not under constant undue physical danger, is technically a human right. If we have such things. True liberty demands that a society put aside some expectations for the provision of order, punishment or retribution, and so forth. The types of security we're talking about here are 'is America going to be bombed or attacked in a particularly nasty way again' Which really has very little to do with 'security' because the likelihood of American civilians dying from terrorist activity is dramatically low. On the list of 'preventable death' it's considerably lower than things like AIDS or heart disease. But those things no longer kill Americans in ways that attract headlines. The type of security I'm talking about is achievable. Most people actually would have it if they thought about it for a moment instead of letting the fear machine get to them. Is there danger from terrorism and should our country be active in trying to remove this threat? Sure. I agree. But being afraid of it and allowing it to impose a feeling of insecurity is roughly equal to being afraid of tornadoes. If one happens, yes you are screwed. And yes, if you live somewhere where they're more likely you should have a plan to deal with it, maybe even drill or practice it once in a while. But the likelihood of any one person being killed by a tornado is pretty low. As such, it should not intrude on one's feeling of security. The same is true for Americans and terrorists. Aside from combat troops and diplomats in hostile countries, our people are incomparably safer, and have been even with 9/11 and the various bombings that preceded it, than people all around the globe. If we are talking about 'security' there are communities in America which could use some, but it's not because of terrorism. It's because of the anti-drug war and policy and the subsequent billions of arms sales and human trafficking related to it.
So quit making 'security' an important topic. It is important, and most Americans have it. Leave it alone. Quit imposing this fortress mentality upon Americans, as though we must be a the national equivalent of a gated community for Americans to feel safe. It's overkill. A society which fears it's neighbours does not care for them either and becomes totally reliant on government for the provision of safety. We might want to remember that.
The next problem with this question was 'human rights'. This is another term which is thrown about as though it has equal inherent meaning to all people. I'd like to know what human rights they are referring to, those which do not include a basic sense of security. I'm fairly certain they are outlined in things like the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. But I'd still like to know how 'health care' is a 'human right'. Certainly some protections against tyranny are human rights. Life, the condition of living, and the pursuit of our interests (within basic limits) are human rights. I suspect that health care is loosely related to living, but it's not a requisite. I could very well go the rest of my life without visiting a doctor. It's entirely possible for people to provide basic care for themselves, and to provide more extensive care privately, as a want. Purchasing health care is a want. It becomes a need when there are conditions which directly threaten life, and doctors, hospitals, and some clinics will provide care at those times. The rest of the time basic health care is actually more of a personal maintenance issue than the responsibility of society. Having a doctor provide it to us smacks more of laziness than anything else. Having the government pay for it, that smacks more of stupidity and laziness combined. Those two forces appear to be irrepressible when combined. I can do but little to resist the dark power they call forth. This was the principle retort of HillaryCare towards ObamaCare. That he doesn't cover everyone. Some people don't chose to be covered (I used to be one such person). It's cheaper sometimes to run risks. I'm not supporting Obama here because I'm not in favor of his plans either, but at least when one debates, they're supposed to actually make sense in their attacks toward one another's positions.
Other 'human rights' apparently include 'torture'. Or as it is lately defined, enhanced interrogation. Whatever, politicians apparently feel that changing the terms change the conditions or actions involved. This PC lingo has gone way too far and for the most part dehumanizes the landscape where political issues are concerned as well as creates confusing terms which now have mixed and thoroughly muddled definitions. Like 'human rights'.
Next problem with these debates:
"But it was more than an hour into the two-hour debate before the issue of energy came up." -- Did I miss something or did oil just pass $90/per recently? Aren't people all over the country pissed about gas prices and they're paying something like $5 a gallon in California now. Since they were in Nevada, perhaps this should have been a major issue to talk about. Not something to stuff into the middle as a filler topic. Perhaps instead of expending tremendous energy delivering pre-conceived and carefully studied political talking points and tag lines, we could have an actual debate concerning issues that actually impact American human beings and their lives for a change. 'Security', 'human rights' and mudslinging have little to do with Americans and thus the reason most Americans are dissatisfied with the present political process (and most if not all of the candidates for 08). Even where they do have much to do with American life, few candidates manage to connect them in a way which provides context and meaningful cause for debate. It's very frustrating to recall that a simple Texas yahoo with big ears and a bunch of charts is the closest thing we've had to actually debating anything.
"Obama challenged the question, saying "the concepts are not contradictory.""
I was already thinking much the same thing however. Security, or at least the most basic expectation that one's life and property is not under constant undue physical danger, is technically a human right. If we have such things. True liberty demands that a society put aside some expectations for the provision of order, punishment or retribution, and so forth. The types of security we're talking about here are 'is America going to be bombed or attacked in a particularly nasty way again' Which really has very little to do with 'security' because the likelihood of American civilians dying from terrorist activity is dramatically low. On the list of 'preventable death' it's considerably lower than things like AIDS or heart disease. But those things no longer kill Americans in ways that attract headlines. The type of security I'm talking about is achievable. Most people actually would have it if they thought about it for a moment instead of letting the fear machine get to them. Is there danger from terrorism and should our country be active in trying to remove this threat? Sure. I agree. But being afraid of it and allowing it to impose a feeling of insecurity is roughly equal to being afraid of tornadoes. If one happens, yes you are screwed. And yes, if you live somewhere where they're more likely you should have a plan to deal with it, maybe even drill or practice it once in a while. But the likelihood of any one person being killed by a tornado is pretty low. As such, it should not intrude on one's feeling of security. The same is true for Americans and terrorists. Aside from combat troops and diplomats in hostile countries, our people are incomparably safer, and have been even with 9/11 and the various bombings that preceded it, than people all around the globe. If we are talking about 'security' there are communities in America which could use some, but it's not because of terrorism. It's because of the anti-drug war and policy and the subsequent billions of arms sales and human trafficking related to it.
So quit making 'security' an important topic. It is important, and most Americans have it. Leave it alone. Quit imposing this fortress mentality upon Americans, as though we must be a the national equivalent of a gated community for Americans to feel safe. It's overkill. A society which fears it's neighbours does not care for them either and becomes totally reliant on government for the provision of safety. We might want to remember that.
The next problem with this question was 'human rights'. This is another term which is thrown about as though it has equal inherent meaning to all people. I'd like to know what human rights they are referring to, those which do not include a basic sense of security. I'm fairly certain they are outlined in things like the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. But I'd still like to know how 'health care' is a 'human right'. Certainly some protections against tyranny are human rights. Life, the condition of living, and the pursuit of our interests (within basic limits) are human rights. I suspect that health care is loosely related to living, but it's not a requisite. I could very well go the rest of my life without visiting a doctor. It's entirely possible for people to provide basic care for themselves, and to provide more extensive care privately, as a want. Purchasing health care is a want. It becomes a need when there are conditions which directly threaten life, and doctors, hospitals, and some clinics will provide care at those times. The rest of the time basic health care is actually more of a personal maintenance issue than the responsibility of society. Having a doctor provide it to us smacks more of laziness than anything else. Having the government pay for it, that smacks more of stupidity and laziness combined. Those two forces appear to be irrepressible when combined. I can do but little to resist the dark power they call forth. This was the principle retort of HillaryCare towards ObamaCare. That he doesn't cover everyone. Some people don't chose to be covered (I used to be one such person). It's cheaper sometimes to run risks. I'm not supporting Obama here because I'm not in favor of his plans either, but at least when one debates, they're supposed to actually make sense in their attacks toward one another's positions.
Other 'human rights' apparently include 'torture'. Or as it is lately defined, enhanced interrogation. Whatever, politicians apparently feel that changing the terms change the conditions or actions involved. This PC lingo has gone way too far and for the most part dehumanizes the landscape where political issues are concerned as well as creates confusing terms which now have mixed and thoroughly muddled definitions. Like 'human rights'.
Next problem with these debates:
"But it was more than an hour into the two-hour debate before the issue of energy came up." -- Did I miss something or did oil just pass $90/per recently? Aren't people all over the country pissed about gas prices and they're paying something like $5 a gallon in California now. Since they were in Nevada, perhaps this should have been a major issue to talk about. Not something to stuff into the middle as a filler topic. Perhaps instead of expending tremendous energy delivering pre-conceived and carefully studied political talking points and tag lines, we could have an actual debate concerning issues that actually impact American human beings and their lives for a change. 'Security', 'human rights' and mudslinging have little to do with Americans and thus the reason most Americans are dissatisfied with the present political process (and most if not all of the candidates for 08). Even where they do have much to do with American life, few candidates manage to connect them in a way which provides context and meaningful cause for debate. It's very frustrating to recall that a simple Texas yahoo with big ears and a bunch of charts is the closest thing we've had to actually debating anything.
14 November 2007
procession of topics
http://www.slate.com/id/2177821/fr/rss/
Scroll down to the article on virginity and delinquency. Supposed old wisdom says that sex and delinquency go hand in hand (I suppose it would help if delinquent was defined as a clearly criminal act, rather than simple rebellious behavior such as drinking or smoking). Anyway, the tag line here is classic. "Pop a cherry not a cap". As a bonus, the pot smokers are more likely to be physically active and have 'healthier' friendships than smokers or non-smokers. More fuel for the anti-drug crowd, oh wait..maybe not. Although this might explain why I wasn't very popular in schools, aside from the arrogant genius part.
Also a study which was somewhat widely reported posed the idea that being slightly overweight is healthy. While it is true that being slightly overweight may allow one to potentially live longer, I'm not convinced that living slightly longer is very important. Americans seem to have a quantity fetish. I do not. Quantity of life is less important than quality of life. This is probably why I don't concern myself with murder rates and battle casualties though, so it's best to aim for a middle ground.
It is however a good question if it's okay to eat like a pig if you don't get fat. I might have been interested in that answer except for that it principally dealt with the metabolic problems of people who cannot control their eating. I have the opposite problem. I forget to eat, so when I remember, I eat whatever and I consume a goodly quantity of whatever it was. I suspect this is not the healthiest way to eat, but it's probably better than forgetting to eat altogether. Likewise, in the sex analogy it uses to demonstrate our natural impulses, I don't 'forget' to have sex. But I do seem to have other things on my mind most of the time. Much like the rumbling of my stomach, there are reminders. But I'm pretty adapt at ignoring them without a persistent partner either making me eat something when I forget or seducing me when I'm wrapped up in some esoteric topic. Such as the following.
Interesting ethical question posed later with the detaching animal brains and putting them into robots or otherwise hooking them up to robots. I suspect that engineering is progressing in this manner in some way for humans in the long run anyway. Our bodies are frail and weak really. It's not surprising that it's easier to engineer a body over a brain. A brain has a veritable cornucopia of complex neuro-chemical/electro-chemical processes that would need to be copied or at least bypassed in appropriate manners. A body simply requires electrical stimuli (or some means of coordinating movement) and means of power or locomotion.
More ethical boundaries,
http://www.slate.com/id/2174782/pagenum/2
I'm sure this is a problem that is growing, but a husband having a virtual affair (and I might add, a very involved one at that) in a virtual interactive game is a bit different than watching TV. Added to that that ignoring real life at the cost of virtual one is a bit hazardous. I'm not quite sure why she wouldn't just leave, but that's not necessarily my place here.
Prenatal cures for homosexuality? I'm not sure that a prenatal cure is what we want for this. I believe that a fully formed adult should make the decision to alter their sexual orientation, not some religious wack-job parent. Are there social stigmas and potential problems with being homosexual? Yes there are. Should parents get to choose how to avoid them. No they should not. As with other natural urges and rebellious behaviors that parents seek to repress, rather than control, it would be best if parents have at least some openness to sex as it regards their children and allow the confusion of a teenage homosexual to pass more easily rather than the banishment of the idea of their existence in the first place. And then at some point someone will come along with gene therapy that works in adulthood and allow the repressed and frustrated or harassed adults to choose this strategy then at a responsible time and of their own personal volition.. Presumably it might also work in reverse as well, which may then finally satisfy radical religious claims (and sadly, still the claims of the majority public) that homosexuality is a choice, because then it would be.
Scroll down to the article on virginity and delinquency. Supposed old wisdom says that sex and delinquency go hand in hand (I suppose it would help if delinquent was defined as a clearly criminal act, rather than simple rebellious behavior such as drinking or smoking). Anyway, the tag line here is classic. "Pop a cherry not a cap". As a bonus, the pot smokers are more likely to be physically active and have 'healthier' friendships than smokers or non-smokers. More fuel for the anti-drug crowd, oh wait..maybe not. Although this might explain why I wasn't very popular in schools, aside from the arrogant genius part.
Also a study which was somewhat widely reported posed the idea that being slightly overweight is healthy. While it is true that being slightly overweight may allow one to potentially live longer, I'm not convinced that living slightly longer is very important. Americans seem to have a quantity fetish. I do not. Quantity of life is less important than quality of life. This is probably why I don't concern myself with murder rates and battle casualties though, so it's best to aim for a middle ground.
It is however a good question if it's okay to eat like a pig if you don't get fat. I might have been interested in that answer except for that it principally dealt with the metabolic problems of people who cannot control their eating. I have the opposite problem. I forget to eat, so when I remember, I eat whatever and I consume a goodly quantity of whatever it was. I suspect this is not the healthiest way to eat, but it's probably better than forgetting to eat altogether. Likewise, in the sex analogy it uses to demonstrate our natural impulses, I don't 'forget' to have sex. But I do seem to have other things on my mind most of the time. Much like the rumbling of my stomach, there are reminders. But I'm pretty adapt at ignoring them without a persistent partner either making me eat something when I forget or seducing me when I'm wrapped up in some esoteric topic. Such as the following.
Interesting ethical question posed later with the detaching animal brains and putting them into robots or otherwise hooking them up to robots. I suspect that engineering is progressing in this manner in some way for humans in the long run anyway. Our bodies are frail and weak really. It's not surprising that it's easier to engineer a body over a brain. A brain has a veritable cornucopia of complex neuro-chemical/electro-chemical processes that would need to be copied or at least bypassed in appropriate manners. A body simply requires electrical stimuli (or some means of coordinating movement) and means of power or locomotion.
More ethical boundaries,
http://www.slate.com/id/2174782/pagenum/2
I'm sure this is a problem that is growing, but a husband having a virtual affair (and I might add, a very involved one at that) in a virtual interactive game is a bit different than watching TV. Added to that that ignoring real life at the cost of virtual one is a bit hazardous. I'm not quite sure why she wouldn't just leave, but that's not necessarily my place here.
Prenatal cures for homosexuality? I'm not sure that a prenatal cure is what we want for this. I believe that a fully formed adult should make the decision to alter their sexual orientation, not some religious wack-job parent. Are there social stigmas and potential problems with being homosexual? Yes there are. Should parents get to choose how to avoid them. No they should not. As with other natural urges and rebellious behaviors that parents seek to repress, rather than control, it would be best if parents have at least some openness to sex as it regards their children and allow the confusion of a teenage homosexual to pass more easily rather than the banishment of the idea of their existence in the first place. And then at some point someone will come along with gene therapy that works in adulthood and allow the repressed and frustrated or harassed adults to choose this strategy then at a responsible time and of their own personal volition.. Presumably it might also work in reverse as well, which may then finally satisfy radical religious claims (and sadly, still the claims of the majority public) that homosexuality is a choice, because then it would be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
