There are a lot of hardcore anarchist types out there, but the most irritating have to be the anarcho-capitalists. These guys believe that you can have a functioning economic system without a state to guard people's private property and enforce contracts. Let's assume for a moment that you could. This kind of community is one in which, if you hit hard times, say you end up in a wheelchair, or are otherwise disabled and cannot work, or there is a structural level of unemployment and there is simply no work for you to do, and if you can't find anybody willing to help you out of the kindness of their hearts, you're basically fucked. There's nowhere for you to turn.
Now the anti-statist will say something like, "well if you can't work, and nobody wants to support you, what right do you have to burden the wealthy and productive?" Well, none. But I'm definitely glad I live in a country that is willing to support me if I happen to ever become so unfortunate, and I will support any government that ensures that, at least in the most extreme cases, there's always a safety net.
Now I'm not some hard core leftist that believes that taking from the rich is or should be the solution to the problems of the poor, and I think it should be harder to get welfare than it currently is, but I would still prefer to live in a country in which people who may happen to have had some really bad luck have some to fall back on.
Those who believe all taxation is theft find the idea of taking even the smallest amount from the wealthy and productive, in order to help those who are not able to be as productive absolutely unconscionable. They are sickened by the idea. People this far right basically want to be freed from any responsibility for anyone but themselves.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
FUCK Generation Y
I was born in 1981. I know this only barely qualifies me as being a member of Generation X, if at all, but in spirit, I'm more Gen X than anything else. All the best shit was made for Gen Xers. We had Nirvana, Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson, Alice in Chains, Fight Club, and the first Matrix movie (which was the only good one).
What does Generation Y have to claim as their own? Panic at the Disco. Purity rings. The Jonas Brothers. The Star Wars prequels. Twilight. Harry Potter. What the fuck happened between these two generations?
It's Generation X that's supposed to be nihilistic, but it seems like Generation Y is so nihilistic they can't even be bothered to rebel against their parents anymore. When I was a kid, the things kids did scared the shit out of their parents. Now what do they do? Listen to emo music and wear really tight jeans that make them look like a really pansy version of Patrick Swayze in Road House. What the fuck is wrong with kids today? Why are they so lame all of a sudden? Is it because their parents are Gen X slackers and the only way they can piss them off is to get white collar jobs and do what the nice corporations tell them to do?
Is it because Christians have been running everything for the last eight years? Is it because goths lost their balls and turned emo? Why is there nothing subversive anymore? Why are so many kids so content to consume such saccharine pablum?
What does Generation Y have to claim as their own? Panic at the Disco. Purity rings. The Jonas Brothers. The Star Wars prequels. Twilight. Harry Potter. What the fuck happened between these two generations?
It's Generation X that's supposed to be nihilistic, but it seems like Generation Y is so nihilistic they can't even be bothered to rebel against their parents anymore. When I was a kid, the things kids did scared the shit out of their parents. Now what do they do? Listen to emo music and wear really tight jeans that make them look like a really pansy version of Patrick Swayze in Road House. What the fuck is wrong with kids today? Why are they so lame all of a sudden? Is it because their parents are Gen X slackers and the only way they can piss them off is to get white collar jobs and do what the nice corporations tell them to do?
Is it because Christians have been running everything for the last eight years? Is it because goths lost their balls and turned emo? Why is there nothing subversive anymore? Why are so many kids so content to consume such saccharine pablum?
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Shoe Bomber Two
I'm sure there are a few people who are jumping on this story about the guy who almost blew up that plane from Amsterdam to Detroit as an example of Obama's inability to protect the country and that, although it failed, it should count as a terrorist attack. If that's your standard of failure, then Bush's failure to keep the shoe bomber from getting on a plane should count as a refutation of the belief that Bush is to be credited with "keeping us safe" for so many years.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Truthers
I was watching a "documentary" made by 9/11 Truthers and noticed that they go after Republicans, Democrats and even some pretty anti-Bush congressmen like John Conyers and thought, "Hmm, Chomsky thinks the truthers are full of shit. Why don't you see Alex Jones and his ilk go after him?" It is rather strange that these guys seem to go after everyone who says they think they're crazy (like The Young Turks) but I've never seen any of them say a thing about Chomsky. Is it because they know that if there were ANY evidence that 9/11 was an inside job that could be taken seriously, Chomsky would be all over it? Is it because they know that if there were any reason to think the Bush administration could have anything to do with the commission of 9/11, he'd be the first to point it out?
Here, by the way, is Chomsky's view of why 9/11 happened and who was responsible.
Here, by the way, is Chomsky's view of why 9/11 happened and who was responsible.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Left and Right
I consider myself a left-leaning moderate. Philosophically, I'm a skeptic, so I don't choose my political allegiances based on which position I consider "true" (I don't know if there is such a thing as truth, and, even if there is, I don't know if I would recognize it), rather, since one's politics are, at least in part, an extension of one's moral positions, I base my own politics on what my conscience will allow, and I expect many other people do the same. People far to the left and far to the right differ not so much about matters of fact, but rather have consciences that allow or disallow different and sometimes opposite things.
Ideal Worlds
Here are what I think the ideal communities for those on the most extreme left and right would look like.
The ideal world for a leftist is, I think, perfectly articulated by that John Lennon song. You know the one. Don't make me say it. The one about people not believing in heaven and shit. This song talks about a kind of perfect equality between everyone, "nothing to kill or die for" etcetera. In this kind of world, people get along, they enjoy each other's company, nobody has to put a lot of effort into anything, take orders from anyone or give orders to anyone. There is no competition, so nobody has to worry about losing face or strain themselves trying to get ahead.
There's certainly an appeal to this kind of community. You don't have to deal with people who are arrogant or full of themselves. If you need help, people will be there for you, presumably, and there's nothing to feel jealous about.
The ideal world for people on the right is one in which there is constant activity and effort. There is hierarchy, and, depending on what kind of right winger you are, you can climb the social ladder or you can enjoy your position of high status if you're lucky enough to have it, and you can look upon those above you with awe and appreciation if you're not. It is a world in which there are things of immense value that people devote their lives to achieving or protecting. This kind of community likely has a God to which everyone bows. This God is an object of ultimate value that gives value to everything else, and everything and everyone is judged by their proximity to or from this ideal. All activity is judged by this standard. All things that are not oriented to this standard are worthless and to be shunned and condemned.
This ideal world has its appeal as well. People in this community enjoy an awe that those in the leftest ideal world do not. People have something to look up to and a standard by which value can be measured with certainty.
Both of these ideals also have a pretty grotesque side as well. While the leftist ideal world, is harmonious and comfortable, it is also pretty boring and stifling like a straight jacket. If there is nothing to kill or die for, there's not much to live for if you ask me. The conscience of someone on the far left is severely perturbed by the idea that someone may gain advantage over anyone else, regardless of the effort invested. In fact the very idea that someone would expend effort to place themselves ahead of anyone else seems to be indicative of some kind of pathology to the leftist. Anyone who chooses to do that is seen as selfish and evil. Wanting to better oneself or one's lot in life is only permissible if you can bring everyone else with you. Otherwise it is a despicable vice.
The world of the right winger has an unmistakable glory to it, but is contemptuous of deviants and intolerant of dissent. While in this community, one is not made to feel guilty for wanting to be greater than one is, one is also not made to feel any responsibility or compassion for the lot of others. Everyone is where they are because they either earned it, or happened to be born into a class that entitles them to their fortune or misfortune. No tears are to be shed for the indigent, and nobody in a position of privilege should ever be asked, let alone forced, to ever be inconvenienced in the slightest to provide even the most basic of needs to those who happen to find themselves in a desperate situation. Not for any reason. The conscience of someone on the far right is disgusted by the idea that the great and mighty would ever be called upon to sacrifice any of their wealth for the sake of the lowly.
I obviously fall somewhere in between. Most people fall somewhere between these two extremes, and someone reading this who is far left or far right may accuse me of making a caricature of their political position. Well, for the purposes of illustration, that is exactly what I am doing. I've constructed these extremes not because I think they represent the ideals of most people, but rather because I want to show what each extreme end of the left/right spectrum looks like.
My conscience finds the rejection of all stratification horrendously stifling. There's something contemptible to me about people who are disgusted by the notion that some people may be better than others in at least some respects and deserve more wealth and social status. Some people are better than others and deserve more. This "betterness" is, however, not absolute. No matter how talented or charming you are, you don't get to turn you're back on those who are struggling just to get by while you have more wealth than you know what to do with. Now, I know not every poor person is poor because of factors outside of their control, and yes, there are welfare cheats. Regardless, there are some very hard working people who make all the right decisions in life and still can't get by. To affirm that the wealthy, even the most hard working thereof, are more entitled to their ivory back scratchers than these unfortunate people are to food and medicine is not something my conscience can allow. This, I think, makes me a left-leaning moderate.
Ideal Worlds
Here are what I think the ideal communities for those on the most extreme left and right would look like.
The ideal world for a leftist is, I think, perfectly articulated by that John Lennon song. You know the one. Don't make me say it. The one about people not believing in heaven and shit. This song talks about a kind of perfect equality between everyone, "nothing to kill or die for" etcetera. In this kind of world, people get along, they enjoy each other's company, nobody has to put a lot of effort into anything, take orders from anyone or give orders to anyone. There is no competition, so nobody has to worry about losing face or strain themselves trying to get ahead.
There's certainly an appeal to this kind of community. You don't have to deal with people who are arrogant or full of themselves. If you need help, people will be there for you, presumably, and there's nothing to feel jealous about.
The ideal world for people on the right is one in which there is constant activity and effort. There is hierarchy, and, depending on what kind of right winger you are, you can climb the social ladder or you can enjoy your position of high status if you're lucky enough to have it, and you can look upon those above you with awe and appreciation if you're not. It is a world in which there are things of immense value that people devote their lives to achieving or protecting. This kind of community likely has a God to which everyone bows. This God is an object of ultimate value that gives value to everything else, and everything and everyone is judged by their proximity to or from this ideal. All activity is judged by this standard. All things that are not oriented to this standard are worthless and to be shunned and condemned.
This ideal world has its appeal as well. People in this community enjoy an awe that those in the leftest ideal world do not. People have something to look up to and a standard by which value can be measured with certainty.
Both of these ideals also have a pretty grotesque side as well. While the leftist ideal world, is harmonious and comfortable, it is also pretty boring and stifling like a straight jacket. If there is nothing to kill or die for, there's not much to live for if you ask me. The conscience of someone on the far left is severely perturbed by the idea that someone may gain advantage over anyone else, regardless of the effort invested. In fact the very idea that someone would expend effort to place themselves ahead of anyone else seems to be indicative of some kind of pathology to the leftist. Anyone who chooses to do that is seen as selfish and evil. Wanting to better oneself or one's lot in life is only permissible if you can bring everyone else with you. Otherwise it is a despicable vice.
The world of the right winger has an unmistakable glory to it, but is contemptuous of deviants and intolerant of dissent. While in this community, one is not made to feel guilty for wanting to be greater than one is, one is also not made to feel any responsibility or compassion for the lot of others. Everyone is where they are because they either earned it, or happened to be born into a class that entitles them to their fortune or misfortune. No tears are to be shed for the indigent, and nobody in a position of privilege should ever be asked, let alone forced, to ever be inconvenienced in the slightest to provide even the most basic of needs to those who happen to find themselves in a desperate situation. Not for any reason. The conscience of someone on the far right is disgusted by the idea that the great and mighty would ever be called upon to sacrifice any of their wealth for the sake of the lowly.
I obviously fall somewhere in between. Most people fall somewhere between these two extremes, and someone reading this who is far left or far right may accuse me of making a caricature of their political position. Well, for the purposes of illustration, that is exactly what I am doing. I've constructed these extremes not because I think they represent the ideals of most people, but rather because I want to show what each extreme end of the left/right spectrum looks like.
My conscience finds the rejection of all stratification horrendously stifling. There's something contemptible to me about people who are disgusted by the notion that some people may be better than others in at least some respects and deserve more wealth and social status. Some people are better than others and deserve more. This "betterness" is, however, not absolute. No matter how talented or charming you are, you don't get to turn you're back on those who are struggling just to get by while you have more wealth than you know what to do with. Now, I know not every poor person is poor because of factors outside of their control, and yes, there are welfare cheats. Regardless, there are some very hard working people who make all the right decisions in life and still can't get by. To affirm that the wealthy, even the most hard working thereof, are more entitled to their ivory back scratchers than these unfortunate people are to food and medicine is not something my conscience can allow. This, I think, makes me a left-leaning moderate.
VenomfagX
It looks like he's making videos again. This should be entertaining. I wonder if anyone will even bother with him anymore though. I mean, really, he just keeps repeating the same shit over and over again. No matter how convincing an argument you make against one of his points, he'll throw it back at you in another video like it was something new that he just though up. Is thunderf00t going to want to go over the same points again ad nauseum? Is TJ?
Maybe it'll be entertaining, though. Maybe he'll show more of his dorm room hijinks and Kassie Dill will keep talking about how faggy she thinks he is and we'll all have a good laugh. Maybe he'll embarrass himself even more by false DMCAing yet another set of atheist videos. Maybe he'll get on FOX News like Howtheworldworks did and the whole world will get to see what dink he is.
I suspect it'll just be boring videos and boring responses to his obvious nonsense.
Maybe it'll be entertaining, though. Maybe he'll show more of his dorm room hijinks and Kassie Dill will keep talking about how faggy she thinks he is and we'll all have a good laugh. Maybe he'll embarrass himself even more by false DMCAing yet another set of atheist videos. Maybe he'll get on FOX News like Howtheworldworks did and the whole world will get to see what dink he is.
I suspect it'll just be boring videos and boring responses to his obvious nonsense.
Christmas
I can't really say I go to the effort of boycotting Christmas so much as I refuse to spend any effort on it. I didn't buy anybody any presents, though some probably bought me some. I didn't decorate, and I'm spending the day working. I'm taking the opportunity to be productive.
I cringe at all the people who are able to compartmentalize the excitement over presents and separate it from the ridiculous amount of debt they are in and refuse to connect the two. Only a grinch would point out the inevitable nuisance those Playstations and Xboxes are going to bring when they're being hounded by the credit card company.
People are baffled by the fact that I'm able to pay all my bills while only working 25 hours a week and have never been in debt. "How is this possible in a recession?! How do you do it?!" I don't spend all my money on stupid shit, that's how.
I cringe at all the people who are able to compartmentalize the excitement over presents and separate it from the ridiculous amount of debt they are in and refuse to connect the two. Only a grinch would point out the inevitable nuisance those Playstations and Xboxes are going to bring when they're being hounded by the credit card company.
People are baffled by the fact that I'm able to pay all my bills while only working 25 hours a week and have never been in debt. "How is this possible in a recession?! How do you do it?!" I don't spend all my money on stupid shit, that's how.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Why I Support Sarah Palin
Who is most likely to run against Obama in 2012? A lot of people seem to think Mitt Romney might, and Romney's not unelectable. He might have a decent chance against Obama if the whole Mormon thing doesn't turn off the other Christians who don't think Mormonism is a legitimate religion. Interestingly enough though, while Romney might have a chance against Obama, he clearly isn't as popular as Palin among conservatives, and it looks like she could take the Republican nomination.
And let's all hope she does. What I delightful catastrofuck that would be. If you thought John McCain's campaign was a train wreck, wait 'til you see Palin's. I can't wait for the first debate between Palin and Obama! It'll be like that Kids in the Hall skit when Bruce McCulloch keeps picking a fight with this really huge guy and he knocks him out with one punch and he keeps getting back up again thinking he can really take him the next time around.
But what if she wins? Well, that would be a painful 4 years, but, in the long run, it might be the best possible scenario, because it would destroy the Republican Party forever. There was a time when we all thought that Bush couldn't discredit the Republicans any more than he did, but Palin is a whole new class of stupid. If we survive the nuclear winter that is the Palin presidency, maybe enough people will finally wake up and smell the fallout. Democrats have for too long stood in the way of letting conservatives experience first hand what happens when they get the government they really want.
And let's all hope she does. What I delightful catastrofuck that would be. If you thought John McCain's campaign was a train wreck, wait 'til you see Palin's. I can't wait for the first debate between Palin and Obama! It'll be like that Kids in the Hall skit when Bruce McCulloch keeps picking a fight with this really huge guy and he knocks him out with one punch and he keeps getting back up again thinking he can really take him the next time around.
But what if she wins? Well, that would be a painful 4 years, but, in the long run, it might be the best possible scenario, because it would destroy the Republican Party forever. There was a time when we all thought that Bush couldn't discredit the Republicans any more than he did, but Palin is a whole new class of stupid. If we survive the nuclear winter that is the Palin presidency, maybe enough people will finally wake up and smell the fallout. Democrats have for too long stood in the way of letting conservatives experience first hand what happens when they get the government they really want.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
A Social Technology
While it is clear that people are spending less time with each other than they did before TV and the internet, I've found more people to whom I can relate on YouTube than I ever have in real life.
Why?
I've long wondered, why is it that Alex Jones doesn't quote from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? You'd think that kind of thing would be right up his alley. He's certainly had ideas just as incredible as the Protocols. What keeps these truthers and birthers from drawing the line just before they cross over into the totally unpalatable? It's things like that that make believe that Jones and Glenn Beck may be faking it and they don't really believe the shit they say. If they are faking it, however, they're absolute geniuses, which I don't think is the case.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Kick Ass
Here's a great video about those hacked e-mails and why people who think they're evidence of fraud are too lazy to actually read them and find out the truth of what these quotes mean.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Darnit to Heck!
I missed another day. No worries, freespeechvids.com looks like its doing well since TJ decided to take his frustrations out on Christians again. Check it out. The site's down right now due to the excess traffic, but there's a link to the first of his "pwnage videos".
Also, here's an interview with Charles Johnson about "parting ways" with the right.
Also, here's an interview with Charles Johnson about "parting ways" with the right.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Gror!
I missed a day of posting. Sorry about that. I had a paper due today that I wanted to finish.
Not much going on today. Charles Johnson says he's not right-wing any more. I'm surprised to see that a lot of the first few comments are supportive.
Not much going on today. Charles Johnson says he's not right-wing any more. I'm surprised to see that a lot of the first few comments are supportive.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Desperate People
It just occurred to me that all these 911 truthers and people who follow Alex Jones around are all just really desperate for a metanarrative. These are people who may well be smart enough to know that the things they believe are fucking crazy, but what would they do with their lives then? The feel like they're doing something really important by handing out fliers to people on the subway and protesting at their tea bagger parties. Without that, they'd have to go back to their depressing, pointless lives.
Our Need for a Metanarrative
In the later part of this lecture, Chuck talks about how we don't have a really powerful story that grabs everyone's attention these days. We have no underlying struggle or aim to our culture nowadays. The Cold War is over, too many people think the war on terror is bullshit to really take that seriously and the environmental movement has yet to gain enough strength to inspire that many people. Things may get more interesting if global warming starts to really have some impact, but until a few more major cities are flooded and there are heat waves in Scandinavia, global warming isn't going to get people out of their chairs.
In all likelihood, things will remain painfully boring unless the Singularity hits.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
The Mind of the Anti-Semite
People who hold the view that Jews are untrustworthy, or are part of some conspiracy to control the world, etc. seems to be based in one or another of two beliefs about Jews. Anti-Semites do not believe merely that Jewish culture is bad, or that Judaism as a religion is the problem, but rather that Jews, as an ethnic group, are constantly scheming against gentiles. This implies either a) that Jews are all organized against gentiles, and their organization is well constructed that not one single Jew has ever spilled the beans about it to a non-Jew, and no person of Jewish blood has ever avoided involvement, or b) that Jews are genetically predisposed to behavior that advances the interests of their own ethnic group at the expense of the interest of non-Jews. This seems to be the majority view among anti-Semites (Kevin b. McDonald for example).
What must one believe about genetics in order to base one's anti-Semitism on this second view? One must believe that it is possible to have a genetically endowed, innate understanding of ethnicity. Now, you could argue that we may be genetically inclined to favor people who look or act more like us than those who do not, but is every Jew so disconnected from the gentiles amongst whom they live that this would justify such a claim that all Jews are an inherent danger to gentiles? And what if a Jewish person were raised by gentiles and unaware of his ethnicity? Would he or she be somehow able to magically determine that his parents and friends are gentiles against whom he must constantly be plotting? This is what the most committed anti-Semites would have to believe in order to justify their prejudice.
The claim that Jews are all plotting against gentiles also becomes unfalsifiable when one dismisses the fact that individual Jews will hold vastly differing political and economic views, many of which are even contradictory, by saying they are all methods of advancing their power and undermining non-Jews. It's amazing that in much of the most significant anti-Semitic literature of the 20th century, both capitalism and communism are condemned as Jewish inventions. One wonders what kind of economic system the anti-Semite recommends if it must involve neither a centrally planned economy, nor the use of capital to establish businesses. They also accuse Jews of profiting unfairly from the businesses they run and finance, but also, whenever an economy is doing poorly, of gaining political advantage from destroying the economies which they were accused of exploiting.
I challenge any anti-Semite to describe something a Jew could do that would not be evidence of their supposed scheming against gentiles. Until they can do that, they have to realize that their prejudice makes absolutely no fucking sense.
What must one believe about genetics in order to base one's anti-Semitism on this second view? One must believe that it is possible to have a genetically endowed, innate understanding of ethnicity. Now, you could argue that we may be genetically inclined to favor people who look or act more like us than those who do not, but is every Jew so disconnected from the gentiles amongst whom they live that this would justify such a claim that all Jews are an inherent danger to gentiles? And what if a Jewish person were raised by gentiles and unaware of his ethnicity? Would he or she be somehow able to magically determine that his parents and friends are gentiles against whom he must constantly be plotting? This is what the most committed anti-Semites would have to believe in order to justify their prejudice.
The claim that Jews are all plotting against gentiles also becomes unfalsifiable when one dismisses the fact that individual Jews will hold vastly differing political and economic views, many of which are even contradictory, by saying they are all methods of advancing their power and undermining non-Jews. It's amazing that in much of the most significant anti-Semitic literature of the 20th century, both capitalism and communism are condemned as Jewish inventions. One wonders what kind of economic system the anti-Semite recommends if it must involve neither a centrally planned economy, nor the use of capital to establish businesses. They also accuse Jews of profiting unfairly from the businesses they run and finance, but also, whenever an economy is doing poorly, of gaining political advantage from destroying the economies which they were accused of exploiting.
I challenge any anti-Semite to describe something a Jew could do that would not be evidence of their supposed scheming against gentiles. Until they can do that, they have to realize that their prejudice makes absolutely no fucking sense.
Friday, November 27, 2009
What Is Religion and Why Does It Persist?
I'm not convinced of most of the propositions offered by most religions. I haven't been since I was very young. Although, there's little I can say about why this is the case that hasn't been said by so many others over and over again. There is one element that seems to be missing from most of the arguments against religious dogma, though. What's missing is a rigorous understanding of their psychological bases.
Most apologists for atheism of course understand that there are neurological causes behind religious experiences. There was a good article in h+ Magazine not too long ago that mentioned the part of the brain that is being affected when one feels the intuition of "oneness" that is so commonly spoken of by those professing to have had these experiences. Most atheists also understand that religious belief is based not on being convinced of facts in the way one becomes convinced of every day propositions, but rather on a desire for religious propositions to be true.
Few, if any of them, however, seem to understand the psychological utility of religion. Religion brings comfort and a feeling of salvation or liberation not just by giving people a comforting imaginary friends, but because religious experiences have a profound impact on a person's psychology such that it reorients that person's desires in such a way as to significantly ameliorate a problem that most if not all human beings have, that problem being conflict of will.
The liberation or salvation offered by religion is not just from eternal damnation. Those who are religious merely because they are afraid of going to hell are not getting the best out of their beliefs. The horror from which religion can, in fact, deliver a person is guilt, shame and internal conflict. Now, of course, there are religious communities and governments that, rather than saving a person from these things, in fact make them all the more likely. People who practice their religion in this way are easy targets. They are motivated by hate, shame and disgust. Those who get the best benefit of religion are those who had painfully weak or divided wills but were able to overcome it through religious conversion. It is from oneself that religion offers liberation and salvation. And it is those who don't feel they need such a thing that are most likely to do without religion.
Atheists are right to point out the hypocrisy of so many self-proclaimed religious people. Christianity stands out in that it does not offer salvation in return for being good or doing good things. Being good is instead the consequence of salvation. It is once you have truly "accepted Christ into your heart" that you will naturally have the will to do good things. Any part of your mind that was pulling you away from the way of living you feel is best is supposed to be eliminated by the acceptance of Christ. Billy Graham said that if you're still struggling with sinful desires and occasionally giving in to them "you need to rethink whether you're really a Christian or not".
While religion has done more than enough to reinforce the shame and guilt people feel over desires that may not at all be harmful in many instances, a truly effective response to religion has to address the problem of personal conflict of will. Fortunately, this is a psychological problem, and all religions offer psychological solutions, although dressed up in mystical ideas. The reason secular Westerners gravitate more toward Buddhism is that it offers solutions rooted in psychological principles that can be separated from its mysticism more easily than can the methods of other religions. The most vocal atheists resist religion because religious people often try to impose upon everyone solutions to problems that they may not really have. And even if they do have the problems that religion was created to solve, religious people articulate those problems using metaphorical myths that they expect people to take literally. And of course, in taking them literally, the religious themselves very much miss the point and end up exacerbating the guilt and shame from which their religion was designed to liberate everyone.
Religious irrationalism will not be eliminated until there is a secular way of bringing about the religious experiences that can relieve the internal conflicts that so many people have. Scientologists think L Ron Hubbard formulated one, but that's a whole other story altogether.
Most apologists for atheism of course understand that there are neurological causes behind religious experiences. There was a good article in h+ Magazine not too long ago that mentioned the part of the brain that is being affected when one feels the intuition of "oneness" that is so commonly spoken of by those professing to have had these experiences. Most atheists also understand that religious belief is based not on being convinced of facts in the way one becomes convinced of every day propositions, but rather on a desire for religious propositions to be true.
Few, if any of them, however, seem to understand the psychological utility of religion. Religion brings comfort and a feeling of salvation or liberation not just by giving people a comforting imaginary friends, but because religious experiences have a profound impact on a person's psychology such that it reorients that person's desires in such a way as to significantly ameliorate a problem that most if not all human beings have, that problem being conflict of will.
The liberation or salvation offered by religion is not just from eternal damnation. Those who are religious merely because they are afraid of going to hell are not getting the best out of their beliefs. The horror from which religion can, in fact, deliver a person is guilt, shame and internal conflict. Now, of course, there are religious communities and governments that, rather than saving a person from these things, in fact make them all the more likely. People who practice their religion in this way are easy targets. They are motivated by hate, shame and disgust. Those who get the best benefit of religion are those who had painfully weak or divided wills but were able to overcome it through religious conversion. It is from oneself that religion offers liberation and salvation. And it is those who don't feel they need such a thing that are most likely to do without religion.
Atheists are right to point out the hypocrisy of so many self-proclaimed religious people. Christianity stands out in that it does not offer salvation in return for being good or doing good things. Being good is instead the consequence of salvation. It is once you have truly "accepted Christ into your heart" that you will naturally have the will to do good things. Any part of your mind that was pulling you away from the way of living you feel is best is supposed to be eliminated by the acceptance of Christ. Billy Graham said that if you're still struggling with sinful desires and occasionally giving in to them "you need to rethink whether you're really a Christian or not".
While religion has done more than enough to reinforce the shame and guilt people feel over desires that may not at all be harmful in many instances, a truly effective response to religion has to address the problem of personal conflict of will. Fortunately, this is a psychological problem, and all religions offer psychological solutions, although dressed up in mystical ideas. The reason secular Westerners gravitate more toward Buddhism is that it offers solutions rooted in psychological principles that can be separated from its mysticism more easily than can the methods of other religions. The most vocal atheists resist religion because religious people often try to impose upon everyone solutions to problems that they may not really have. And even if they do have the problems that religion was created to solve, religious people articulate those problems using metaphorical myths that they expect people to take literally. And of course, in taking them literally, the religious themselves very much miss the point and end up exacerbating the guilt and shame from which their religion was designed to liberate everyone.
Religious irrationalism will not be eliminated until there is a secular way of bringing about the religious experiences that can relieve the internal conflicts that so many people have. Scientologists think L Ron Hubbard formulated one, but that's a whole other story altogether.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Senate Reconciliation
I didn't realize, until today, that there was a way to prevent a Senate filibuster. Apparently, if you go into reconciliation, you can "limit debate" which I guess overrides the rule that says nobody can vote until everyone has said what they want to say. If you can tell people to sit down and shut up, they can't keep talking to prevent the vote.
But they say Harry Reid won't go for it. He's still trying to get 60 votes despite the fact that, like, four senators refuse to pass the bill with the public option and a few others won't pass it unless it does have the public option.
But they say Harry Reid won't go for it. He's still trying to get 60 votes despite the fact that, like, four senators refuse to pass the bill with the public option and a few others won't pass it unless it does have the public option.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
This Boring Decade
The thing I miss most about the 90s is that kids listened to music that scared the shit out of their parents. Maybe there wasn't much going on that was all that subversive, but at least the squares thought something scary was going on.
Nowadays, what are parents afraid their kids are doing? The biggest squares are the ones afraid of the government, and the scariest thing one of their kids could do is support the establishment. Is this what we've come to? Were's the moral panic? What concerts are being protested by Christians these days? Have they all just become too jaded?
Nowadays, what are parents afraid their kids are doing? The biggest squares are the ones afraid of the government, and the scariest thing one of their kids could do is support the establishment. Is this what we've come to? Were's the moral panic? What concerts are being protested by Christians these days? Have they all just become too jaded?
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Why Cities Are Greener
A lot of environmentalists have a very knee jerk objection to cities. They see that they are more distant from nature than rural communities and conclude from this that they must be unnatural and hence unhealthy for people and the environment. That cities keep people separate from nature, however, is precisely why they are good for the natural environment.
Here's a great article about cities and their environmental impact.
These are my favorite quotes:
"To most people, big, densely-populated cities look like ecological nightmares, wastelands of concrete and garbage and diesel fumes and traffic jams. But, compared to other inhabited places, cities are models of environmental responsibility. By the most significant measures, the greenest community in the United States is New York City, the only American city that approaches environmental standards set elsewhere in the world."
"Moving people closer together reduces the distances between their daily destinations and limits their opportunities for reckless consumption, as well as forcing the majority to live in some of the most inherently energy-efficient residential structures in the world: apartment buildings."
"New York’s highly concentrated population and comprehensive public transit system enable the majority of residents to live without owning automobiles, an unthinkable deprivation almost anywhere else in the US. Some 82% of employed Manhattanites travel to work by public transit, bicycle, or on foot. That’s 10 times the rate for Americans in general, eight times the rate for workers in Los Angeles County, and 16 times the rate for residents of metropolitan Atlanta."
If you think it's easy to get around without a car in any other city, keep in mind that even David Suzuki owns a car.
"I spoke with one energy expert, who, when I asked him to explain why per-capita energy consumption was so much lower in Europe than in the US, said, 'It’s not a secret, and it’s not the result of some miraculous technological breakthrough. It’s because Europeans are more likely to live in dense cities and less likely to own cars.'"
"Urban families live more compactly, do less damage to fragile ecosystems, burn less fuel, enjoy stronger social ties to larger numbers of people, and, most significantly, produce fewer children, since large families have less economic utility in densely settled areas than they do in marginal agricultural areas."
Here's a great article about cities and their environmental impact.
These are my favorite quotes:
"To most people, big, densely-populated cities look like ecological nightmares, wastelands of concrete and garbage and diesel fumes and traffic jams. But, compared to other inhabited places, cities are models of environmental responsibility. By the most significant measures, the greenest community in the United States is New York City, the only American city that approaches environmental standards set elsewhere in the world."
"Moving people closer together reduces the distances between their daily destinations and limits their opportunities for reckless consumption, as well as forcing the majority to live in some of the most inherently energy-efficient residential structures in the world: apartment buildings."
"New York’s highly concentrated population and comprehensive public transit system enable the majority of residents to live without owning automobiles, an unthinkable deprivation almost anywhere else in the US. Some 82% of employed Manhattanites travel to work by public transit, bicycle, or on foot. That’s 10 times the rate for Americans in general, eight times the rate for workers in Los Angeles County, and 16 times the rate for residents of metropolitan Atlanta."
If you think it's easy to get around without a car in any other city, keep in mind that even David Suzuki owns a car.
"I spoke with one energy expert, who, when I asked him to explain why per-capita energy consumption was so much lower in Europe than in the US, said, 'It’s not a secret, and it’s not the result of some miraculous technological breakthrough. It’s because Europeans are more likely to live in dense cities and less likely to own cars.'"
"Urban families live more compactly, do less damage to fragile ecosystems, burn less fuel, enjoy stronger social ties to larger numbers of people, and, most significantly, produce fewer children, since large families have less economic utility in densely settled areas than they do in marginal agricultural areas."
Monday, November 23, 2009
A Word on Rationing
Here's a blog that thinks it has found proof that the House health care bill will end up rationing care. Here's the quote it cites:
"If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit including reducing benefits, increasing premiums or establishing wait lists. [emphasis added]"
Wow, so if the publicly run health insurance company can't collect enough in premiums to pay for its expenses, it will reduce benefits, increase premiums or establish wait lists. In other words, with the exception of wait lists, it will do exactly what every private insurance company does when dealing with the same problem. The horror.
No matter what system you have not everybody is going to get all the care that they need and you'll have to prioritize. You can do this by triaging people according to need and first come first serve or you can give the most and best care to those who have the most money. If prioritizing based on need is "rationing", than I would gladly have my health care rationed. The above quoted section, however, is not rationing. It's a way of handling costs that's pretty much identical to how private companies handle costs, yet you never hear anyone calling the HMO actuarial deliberations "death panels" do you?
"If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit including reducing benefits, increasing premiums or establishing wait lists. [emphasis added]"
Wow, so if the publicly run health insurance company can't collect enough in premiums to pay for its expenses, it will reduce benefits, increase premiums or establish wait lists. In other words, with the exception of wait lists, it will do exactly what every private insurance company does when dealing with the same problem. The horror.
No matter what system you have not everybody is going to get all the care that they need and you'll have to prioritize. You can do this by triaging people according to need and first come first serve or you can give the most and best care to those who have the most money. If prioritizing based on need is "rationing", than I would gladly have my health care rationed. The above quoted section, however, is not rationing. It's a way of handling costs that's pretty much identical to how private companies handle costs, yet you never hear anyone calling the HMO actuarial deliberations "death panels" do you?
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The Power of Negative Thinking
Writing a self help book is an easy way of making a few bucks, especially if you're a charismatic writer. You don't really need to make sense. Just don't make things too complicated. Oh, and tell people they can use magic to get what they want. Chicks dig it when you tell them you can teach them how to do magic. And that's why The Secret is popular. But even before The Secret there was this law of attraction bullshit, and The Secret seems to be based largely on that.
The gist of the law of attraction is that when you think of shit, it happens. So if you think about bad things, you're making them happen and if you think happy thoughts they come true too. And in The Secret, they tried to say this is all about quantum physics, which of course is a convenient way of giving yourself credibility by referencing something scientific that people are too lazy to look into and too stupid to figure out if they ever try to look into it.
So, yeah, in a nutshell, the really hocus pocus self help stuff is pretty much garbage, but there are some psychological principles behind them that are worth understanding. While you don't "send out waves to the universe that make your thoughts into reality", pessimism does encourage procrastination and discourages effort. You don't need quantum physics to explain that. Every day experience makes that pretty clear. Positive thinking doesn't necessarily ensure that you'll get what you want out of life, but if you're more confident than your actual abilities warrant, and you're good at making others have the same irrational confidence in you, you're going to be more successful than someone who is more talented but less "unrealistic". It's a sad truth, and it's why Michael Bay gets to keep making movies. As long as you're not doing things that are obviously insane, foolish or dangerous, having a bit more confidence than your abilities than your abilities really warrant is an advantage more often than not.
The main thing to remember is that negative thinking will weigh you down more than positive thinking will help you out.
The gist of the law of attraction is that when you think of shit, it happens. So if you think about bad things, you're making them happen and if you think happy thoughts they come true too. And in The Secret, they tried to say this is all about quantum physics, which of course is a convenient way of giving yourself credibility by referencing something scientific that people are too lazy to look into and too stupid to figure out if they ever try to look into it.
So, yeah, in a nutshell, the really hocus pocus self help stuff is pretty much garbage, but there are some psychological principles behind them that are worth understanding. While you don't "send out waves to the universe that make your thoughts into reality", pessimism does encourage procrastination and discourages effort. You don't need quantum physics to explain that. Every day experience makes that pretty clear. Positive thinking doesn't necessarily ensure that you'll get what you want out of life, but if you're more confident than your actual abilities warrant, and you're good at making others have the same irrational confidence in you, you're going to be more successful than someone who is more talented but less "unrealistic". It's a sad truth, and it's why Michael Bay gets to keep making movies. As long as you're not doing things that are obviously insane, foolish or dangerous, having a bit more confidence than your abilities than your abilities really warrant is an advantage more often than not.
The main thing to remember is that negative thinking will weigh you down more than positive thinking will help you out.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Palin and the Republican Nomination
I really, sincerely hope that Sarah Palin runs for president and gets the Republican nomination. Can you imagine Sarah Palin in a debate with Obama? Even she is coached enough to be able to give a bunch of canned answers, it's unlikely that she'll be able to spit those out without fucking them up, like she did in this interview with Sean Hannity.
Sadly, I don't think she'll hold her own in a debate with Mitt Romney either, and doubt she'll get the nomination unless a bunch of bible bangers who don't like Mormons come out in favor of her candidacy.
Sadly, I don't think she'll hold her own in a debate with Mitt Romney either, and doubt she'll get the nomination unless a bunch of bible bangers who don't like Mormons come out in favor of her candidacy.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Popular Support for Gay Marriage
While the setbacks in Maine and California may be disheartening, and the conservatives believe that the 37 popular referenda that have all banned gay marriage are proof that people don't really want gay marriage, or that the trend is moving away from further gay rights in the United States. I feel confident, however, that there's really no reason to panic. If you look at the demographics of who votes for and against gay marriage, it's clear that the people pushing against it are old, decrepit and will all be dead soon. I would go so far as to say that there will be a popular referendum ratifying gay marriage in one or more states within the next ten years, perhaps even the next five.
Here's a chart outlining support for gay marriage broken down by state and age demographic:
Is it possible that all these misguided youngsters could grow up to hate fags just like their grandparents do? Sure, but how many people who grew up favoring civil rights for blacks in a climate that was largely against it eventually grew up to be bigots?
Here's a chart outlining support for gay marriage broken down by state and age demographic:
Is it possible that all these misguided youngsters could grow up to hate fags just like their grandparents do? Sure, but how many people who grew up favoring civil rights for blacks in a climate that was largely against it eventually grew up to be bigots?
Fact Checkers
Some conservatives are all butt-hurt because the AP sent 11 people to fact check Sarah Palin's new book. Apparently a potential presidential candidate is not worthy being scrutinized. 'Cause it's not like conservative journalists went after everything that came out of Obama's mouth from the moment people started speculating that he would run for president, amirite?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Eric Holder's "Conflict of Interest"
Michelle Malkin says that Eric Holder is an example of the "culture of corruption" due to the fact that he's "senior partner with Covington & Burling — the prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm, which represents 17 Yemenis currently held at Gitmo," and is therefore in a conflict of interest.
First of all, the very first sentence of her blog entry is a lie. He's not a partner C&B. He hasn't been since he became Attorney General. And if the fact that he used to work for C&B makes it a conflict of interest, than the fact that Dick Cheney used to work for Halliburton makes his appointment of that company to run Iraq's oil industry is also a conflict of interest.
First of all, the very first sentence of her blog entry is a lie. He's not a partner C&B. He hasn't been since he became Attorney General. And if the fact that he used to work for C&B makes it a conflict of interest, than the fact that Dick Cheney used to work for Halliburton makes his appointment of that company to run Iraq's oil industry is also a conflict of interest.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Clinton in Afghanistan
When there was suspicion of widespread corruption and fraud in the last Afghani election, the consensus seemed to be that, if Karzai does not acknowledge that the election was obviously fraudlent, the Obama administration should withdraw its support. In a sense we got what we wanted; Karzai agreed to a run off election. However, the guy running against him in that election made a few (very reasonable) demands about reforming the election process and throwing out some of the guys who oversaw the elections. When his demands were not met, he withdrew from the race and Karzai was declared the winner.
So while Karzai did, technically, agree to a run off, he set it up in such a way as to prevent anyone running against him from winning, and his opponent, recognizing that, withdrew, and now he's somehow considered a legitimately elected leader. Legitimate enough, at least, to deserve a visit from the Secretary of State at his inauguration.
Now, while I think, at this stage, trying to set up a functioning democracy in Afghanistan is a futile effort, the Obama administration should not be pretending that this is what their goal is, when their goal is obviously just a reasonable degree of stability. Afghanistan is not a democracy, and will not be until they develop a working civil society. They won't develop that until they have a reasonable amount of physical and economic security. So let's drop the pretense, not bother with continued fraudlunet elections for now, and do what needs to be done to lift the people of Afghanistan up to a decent standard of living.
When people have comfort, stability and security, they are more likely to demand and practice democracy.
So while Karzai did, technically, agree to a run off, he set it up in such a way as to prevent anyone running against him from winning, and his opponent, recognizing that, withdrew, and now he's somehow considered a legitimately elected leader. Legitimate enough, at least, to deserve a visit from the Secretary of State at his inauguration.
Now, while I think, at this stage, trying to set up a functioning democracy in Afghanistan is a futile effort, the Obama administration should not be pretending that this is what their goal is, when their goal is obviously just a reasonable degree of stability. Afghanistan is not a democracy, and will not be until they develop a working civil society. They won't develop that until they have a reasonable amount of physical and economic security. So let's drop the pretense, not bother with continued fraudlunet elections for now, and do what needs to be done to lift the people of Afghanistan up to a decent standard of living.
When people have comfort, stability and security, they are more likely to demand and practice democracy.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Heh
Stephen Colbert just reminded me of how conservatives didn't complain when Bush was holding hands and walking through the rose garden with the Saudi prince. Apparently bowing to Al Saud is groveling, but having a quasi-homoerotic experience with him is just fine.
Bowgate
A few months ago, some people pointed out the hypocrisy of conservatives who criticized Obama for bowing to the Saudi prince, while, around the same time, also criticizing Michelle Obama for breaching protocol by hugging Queen Elizabeth. They can't seem to make up their mind about whether the POTUS is supposed to show respect for all the silly little formalities that people commonly go through when they meet with a monarch or not.
The reason for this seems obvious to me. They don't really care about proper protocol. They just want a reason to find fault with Obama.
The people who really hate him, and think that he hates America, see this as further evidence of his contempt for his own country. They see the bowing as an expression of how he sees non-western governments as superior to western ones.
I personally don't think he should have bowed to anyone. I also don't think people should be so upset about Michelle Obama hugging the Queen. Why? Not because I think it shows disrespect for the US, but rather because it looks like pandering to these foreign leaders. He comes off to me as someone who is not trying to show respect, but as someone who is patronizing them. Now, I don't really think that Obama intends to patronize these leaders, but when he tries to behave according to customs he doesn't really seem to understand, he is embarrassing himself AND the leaders to whom he is trying to show respect.
The reason for this seems obvious to me. They don't really care about proper protocol. They just want a reason to find fault with Obama.
The people who really hate him, and think that he hates America, see this as further evidence of his contempt for his own country. They see the bowing as an expression of how he sees non-western governments as superior to western ones.
I personally don't think he should have bowed to anyone. I also don't think people should be so upset about Michelle Obama hugging the Queen. Why? Not because I think it shows disrespect for the US, but rather because it looks like pandering to these foreign leaders. He comes off to me as someone who is not trying to show respect, but as someone who is patronizing them. Now, I don't really think that Obama intends to patronize these leaders, but when he tries to behave according to customs he doesn't really seem to understand, he is embarrassing himself AND the leaders to whom he is trying to show respect.
KSM
Could it be more appropriate to KSM in a military tribunal rather than a civilian court? Perhaps. It is very possible that some of the intelligence that was gathered is sensitive information from sensitive sources that should probably be kept under wraps.
Still, one way or another, this guy has to be tried. The US afforded even the Nazis a fair trial. If the US wants anybody to believe they are carrying out the war on terror in a way even remotely resembling justice, they need to try the people they capture.
As for the fact that he's being tried in New York, what's the problem? Are they worried that he's going to escape and tear down the Empire State Building with his bare hands? Some people are concerned about other Guantanamo detainees being brought to the US because they will attract supporters who will try to break them out of prison, but Zacarias Moussaoui has been in a prison in Colorado for years, and nobody's tried to break him out. He hasn't put the community around the prison in any greater danger than any of the other inmates of that prison.
Still, one way or another, this guy has to be tried. The US afforded even the Nazis a fair trial. If the US wants anybody to believe they are carrying out the war on terror in a way even remotely resembling justice, they need to try the people they capture.
As for the fact that he's being tried in New York, what's the problem? Are they worried that he's going to escape and tear down the Empire State Building with his bare hands? Some people are concerned about other Guantanamo detainees being brought to the US because they will attract supporters who will try to break them out of prison, but Zacarias Moussaoui has been in a prison in Colorado for years, and nobody's tried to break him out. He hasn't put the community around the prison in any greater danger than any of the other inmates of that prison.
Monday, November 16, 2009
A Moderate View of Health Care
As a Canadian, I greatly appreciate that I don't have to worry about going bankrupt paying for medical bills. I think it is in everyone's best interest to have a system in which there is a public source of funds for medical treatment, as it is in everyone's best interest that there be publicly funded education. Everyone gains an advantage from living amongst literate people, and everyone should enjoy the advantage of living amongst healthy people.
That being said, a single payer health care system that does not allow individuals to pay for quicker access is not the best way to tackle the issue. While there are reasonable criticisms of a two tier system, I believe that it is very possible to come up with a way of allowing private health care and taxing it that funnels extra money into the public system, making those who rely on it better off than they would if everybody waited in the same line in the public system rather than draining the public system of the best equipment and doctors.
The threat to the public system is not, however, the only criticism of a two tier system in Canada. People who are opposed to it, are also adverse to the idea of a rich person being able to get better or faster care than a poorer person, even if you could work out a way to improve the care the poorer person would eventually get. It is not unreasonable to ask, "why does a person with more money deserve better or faster care?" A wealthier person is not more deserving of care than a poor person, so I can understand why they would find this repugnant. Nonetheless, I see it a different way.
My question is, why should the public be paying for the health care of Irving family? They're billionaires, but if they get treated in Canada, some of the tax dollars of a person barely above the poverty line goes to pay for that. How is that fair? Why should we have to pay for the health care of those who are perfectly capable of paying for it on their own, especially if we could tax their treatment in a way that adds extra revenue to the treatment the rest of us would get?
That being said, a single payer health care system that does not allow individuals to pay for quicker access is not the best way to tackle the issue. While there are reasonable criticisms of a two tier system, I believe that it is very possible to come up with a way of allowing private health care and taxing it that funnels extra money into the public system, making those who rely on it better off than they would if everybody waited in the same line in the public system rather than draining the public system of the best equipment and doctors.
The threat to the public system is not, however, the only criticism of a two tier system in Canada. People who are opposed to it, are also adverse to the idea of a rich person being able to get better or faster care than a poorer person, even if you could work out a way to improve the care the poorer person would eventually get. It is not unreasonable to ask, "why does a person with more money deserve better or faster care?" A wealthier person is not more deserving of care than a poor person, so I can understand why they would find this repugnant. Nonetheless, I see it a different way.
My question is, why should the public be paying for the health care of Irving family? They're billionaires, but if they get treated in Canada, some of the tax dollars of a person barely above the poverty line goes to pay for that. How is that fair? Why should we have to pay for the health care of those who are perfectly capable of paying for it on their own, especially if we could tax their treatment in a way that adds extra revenue to the treatment the rest of us would get?
The Evolutionary Double Standard
A common criticism of possible or proposed genetic experiments, especially those involving humans, is that many attempts to improve the human genome may result in error, or that we may fuck it up and end up creating human beings worse off than if we had not altered their genes. But how does evolution happen? What is the "natural" process by which organisms adapt to their environments. Trial and error. The "natural" process is not guided at all. There are countless random mutations in random organisms, most of which make no difference or turn out to be harmful to the organism, and sometimes an organism gets lucky and ends up with a gene that gives it an advantage.
Is this how we want to continue to change and adapt to our environment? The "natural" way? A way in which we have to suffer through who knows how many horrid and grotesque mutations until we get lucky and end up with a few beneficial mutations every several generations? Is that really the more humane way to proceed as a species?
Sure, we may make mistakes as we try to guide our own evolution, but at least we'll be pushing it in the direction we want, and changes will be changes we design into ourselves. We will not be randomly rolling the genetic dice and hoping something good comes of it. To continue to subject humanity to that process doesn't sound very humane to me.
Is this how we want to continue to change and adapt to our environment? The "natural" way? A way in which we have to suffer through who knows how many horrid and grotesque mutations until we get lucky and end up with a few beneficial mutations every several generations? Is that really the more humane way to proceed as a species?
Sure, we may make mistakes as we try to guide our own evolution, but at least we'll be pushing it in the direction we want, and changes will be changes we design into ourselves. We will not be randomly rolling the genetic dice and hoping something good comes of it. To continue to subject humanity to that process doesn't sound very humane to me.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Mama T
I just found this great video Christopher Hitchens did about Mother Theresa. Fabulous stuff.
It's amazing how this chick was praised by just about every person who had ever heard about her, when all she did was herd a bunch of dying homeless people into some dumpy old ruin full of cots and proselytized to them until they kicked the bucket. I'll bet most people thought she actually did something to help the sick and dying like providing them with medical treatment, when in fact she did no such thing. Given the millions of dollars she was given by charities and wealthy individuals, she could have filled at least one of those nasty old shacks she "worked" at in the slums of Calcutta with doctors, but did she? No. She used the money to build convents.
It's amazing how this chick was praised by just about every person who had ever heard about her, when all she did was herd a bunch of dying homeless people into some dumpy old ruin full of cots and proselytized to them until they kicked the bucket. I'll bet most people thought she actually did something to help the sick and dying like providing them with medical treatment, when in fact she did no such thing. Given the millions of dollars she was given by charities and wealthy individuals, she could have filled at least one of those nasty old shacks she "worked" at in the slums of Calcutta with doctors, but did she? No. She used the money to build convents.
Obama's Speech
It seemed to me (although others dispute this) that Obama made it pretty clear that he was still going for a public option. Which I think is good news. The only thing that did sound kind of scary is the part about health coverage being mandatory like car insurance. Now, this makes sense if there is a public option. It means more people paying into that program. Without a public option, that could mean trouble.
About the guy who shouted "liar" during the part when Obama said the program would not cover illegals, well, officially it will not cover illegals, so calling Obama a liar is pretty stupid. The trouble is that when applying for the program, some would like more rigorous steps to be taken to identify the immigration status of the applicant. Now, I don't know how easy it would be for an illegal immigrant to sneak through the application process, as it is currently formulated, but I doubt it's just that simple to sign up without showing some kind of citizenship or landed immigrant status. Even if it were that easy, how hard could this possibly be to fix?
About the guy who shouted "liar" during the part when Obama said the program would not cover illegals, well, officially it will not cover illegals, so calling Obama a liar is pretty stupid. The trouble is that when applying for the program, some would like more rigorous steps to be taken to identify the immigration status of the applicant. Now, I don't know how easy it would be for an illegal immigrant to sneak through the application process, as it is currently formulated, but I doubt it's just that simple to sign up without showing some kind of citizenship or landed immigrant status. Even if it were that easy, how hard could this possibly be to fix?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Japanese Election
The Japanese have elected a new party to power for the first time in about 50 years and it looks like the most striking difference is their foreign policy. The New York Times says that the party sees a "need to reorient Japan toward Asia" and that they may even come to terms with Japanese history. A significant obstacle to closer relations with China is Japan's long-standing refusal to make any satisfactory apologies for war crimes committed during their occupation of mainland Asia during WWII. This new party "seeks to reverse Japan’s growing isolation in the region under decades of right-wing Liberal Democratic rule."
Another trend that has stood since the end of the war is Japan's near total reliance on the US for its security. At first this was because the Japanese constitution forbids them to have a military, but after a while the US realized that in order for Japan to be an effective ally, they needed to have some kind of defense forces at least, so that's all they've had (although they were deployed in the Iraq War for a time, pushing the concept of self-defense). This is supposedly a more left wing party, so it's hard to imagine that they would expand their military in order to be more self-reliant, so that may mean they have to get closer to China. The obvious advantage to this is there may be a significant thaw in Sino-Japanese relations. On the downside, this may come at price of further marginalization of Taiwan.
Another trend that has stood since the end of the war is Japan's near total reliance on the US for its security. At first this was because the Japanese constitution forbids them to have a military, but after a while the US realized that in order for Japan to be an effective ally, they needed to have some kind of defense forces at least, so that's all they've had (although they were deployed in the Iraq War for a time, pushing the concept of self-defense). This is supposedly a more left wing party, so it's hard to imagine that they would expand their military in order to be more self-reliant, so that may mean they have to get closer to China. The obvious advantage to this is there may be a significant thaw in Sino-Japanese relations. On the downside, this may come at price of further marginalization of Taiwan.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Everything Is Not as Good as It Used to Be
I had a lot of enthusiasm in high school. Every day it seemed like something new and awesome would happen. Every week there would be some kick ass new album coming out, and it was the Clinton era, so every time you turned on the news you got the sense that there was nothing going on that was more worrisome than Bill's penis, so things must be going pretty well with the world.
This feeling of enthusiasm lasted for a little while into my first few university years, but after a while, I noticed that things slowly began to suck. I used to watch MuchMusic all the time, but then Sook-Yin Lee left, and it lost a lot of its cool. Not too long after George Stroumboloupolos was also gobbled up by the CBC, leaving the station to be hosted by whatever emo-looking dumpster babies they could scrounge up.
The transgressive subersiveness of the 90s was gone. Not that things were really all that subversive, but it seems like you could see things in the broadcast media that you just don't see anymore. You'd never see anything on CBC even close to as bizarre as Kids in the Hall, for example. You don't see any mainstream musicians scaring conservatives like Marilyn Manson anymore. The scariest thing you could hear on the radio in the 21st century is Eminem! A scrawny kid with an ALF t-shirt! And the only thing people found scary about him is that he used the word fag and hung out with black people.
I realized some time ago that a lot of my aspirations since high school have been aimed at recapturing that feeling of enthusiasm that awesome things were happening in art and politics. I still can't decide whether it's just me, and I've just lost my spirit, or whether it's because things really are just not as great as they used to be.
I guess there are some interesting things happening on the margins. Artists and political commentators who couldn't get a voice back then now can. David Firth, for instance, who even in the 90s could never have gotten access to the media is thriving as an artist, and doing amazing and important work. I guess what's missing is a certain feeling of momentum. Although things kinda collapsed and everything went to shit when Bush was elected (and not all because he was elected, it was just that a lot of depressing things happened around that same time), there was a feeling that so many cool things were happening in the mid to late 90s, at least from my perspective, that there was going to be some major turnaround in Western culture. There was optimism. Now all of the most vibrant artistic minds seem to think that things are inevitably doomed, and rather than fighting, seem to be acting more as MCs hosting the Gong Show that is the decline of contemporary culture.
This feeling of enthusiasm lasted for a little while into my first few university years, but after a while, I noticed that things slowly began to suck. I used to watch MuchMusic all the time, but then Sook-Yin Lee left, and it lost a lot of its cool. Not too long after George Stroumboloupolos was also gobbled up by the CBC, leaving the station to be hosted by whatever emo-looking dumpster babies they could scrounge up.
The transgressive subersiveness of the 90s was gone. Not that things were really all that subversive, but it seems like you could see things in the broadcast media that you just don't see anymore. You'd never see anything on CBC even close to as bizarre as Kids in the Hall, for example. You don't see any mainstream musicians scaring conservatives like Marilyn Manson anymore. The scariest thing you could hear on the radio in the 21st century is Eminem! A scrawny kid with an ALF t-shirt! And the only thing people found scary about him is that he used the word fag and hung out with black people.
I realized some time ago that a lot of my aspirations since high school have been aimed at recapturing that feeling of enthusiasm that awesome things were happening in art and politics. I still can't decide whether it's just me, and I've just lost my spirit, or whether it's because things really are just not as great as they used to be.
I guess there are some interesting things happening on the margins. Artists and political commentators who couldn't get a voice back then now can. David Firth, for instance, who even in the 90s could never have gotten access to the media is thriving as an artist, and doing amazing and important work. I guess what's missing is a certain feeling of momentum. Although things kinda collapsed and everything went to shit when Bush was elected (and not all because he was elected, it was just that a lot of depressing things happened around that same time), there was a feeling that so many cool things were happening in the mid to late 90s, at least from my perspective, that there was going to be some major turnaround in Western culture. There was optimism. Now all of the most vibrant artistic minds seem to think that things are inevitably doomed, and rather than fighting, seem to be acting more as MCs hosting the Gong Show that is the decline of contemporary culture.
The Basics of Obamacare
Few people would be surprised to hear that the majority of those who scream the loudest about health care reform in the United States seem to know the least about it. When these people express their fears they speak in platitudes and slogans, almost all of which are either non-sensical or have little to do with what Obama is actually proposing. Those on the right do not have nearly enough of a reason to be afraid as they think they do, and those on the left shouldn't raise their hopes to high. "Obamacare" is actually a very modest proposal. It's nothing like the kind of health care system we have in Canada. In fact, if such a program were proposed by a Canadian politician, it would be considered radically conservative and unjust. While it is still arguably a significant improvement over the current American system, it is still far from a single payer system no matter how much Fox News would like to scare people into thinking it is.
What Is Actually Being Proposed
What is actually being proposed is not universal health care. It is not a system in which the government covers all of everyone's health care costs with taxpayers' money as is done in Canada. What we will see is something like a non-profit, government-run HMO, and it will be optional. In many ways it will be run just like any other health insurance company. People will have to make regular payments like they would any other insurance coverage. The important difference is that these payments will be supported by government funds and be much more affordable than what the regular HMOs are offering. They'll also provide greater coverage and have fewer restrictions based on things like pre-existing conditions.
This system has significant advantages for those who find it difficult to find health care. Lower payments will allow more people access to coverage. Fewer people will end up bankrupted by medical bills. The economic advantages are a bit more ambiguous. It could be less expensive than the current system. Right now, there is a program for people who cannot afford coverage. It's called Medicaid, and like the program Obama is proposing, you have to pay into it. The only catch is you have to be a senior citizen. The public option would expand this to the entire population.
There are a couple of reasons why conservatives are so afraid of this. The first is that this very well could end up costing more than what the government currently spends on health care. The second reason, and the one you hear the most about, is that this will put the private health insurance companies out of business, leaving everyone with no choice but to buy their insurance from the government. There are good reasons to be skeptical of this second assertion. As Obama himself has argued, having a government run post office has not put FedEx and UPS out of business. Indeed, even in Canada we still have private HMOs providing coverage for things that are not covered by our national plan. Ironically, those who supposedly have the most faith in the ingenuity of the free market system seem to have the least confidence that they will be able to compete with a publicly administered program, especially one that they claim is going to be so poorly run.
In order to pay for this program, some of the funding from Medicare (upwards of $500 billion), will be transferred to the public option, and the Republicans are trying to scare people by saying that this will mean that seniors will lose their coverage. Interestingly enough, the Republicans opposed the adoption of Medicare when it first passed, and now their styling themselves as its loyal defenders. In the surreal, double-thinking bizarro world that is the Republican mind, the program is horrible, and never should have been implemented, while at the same time it must be protected from those evil Democrats (who actually want to expand Medicare to the general population, not restrict it).
"Death Panels"
There have been a few buzz words floating around that opponents of the Democrats' proposed health care reforms like to use. The most whimsical of these is "death panels". Part of the health care reforms, they say, is the mandatory consultation with a panel of doctors who are forced to obey the government, and who will decide whether or not your grandma will have the plug pulled on her or not. In fact, what is being proposed is that the government would pay for consultations with one's doctor, which, for the patients, would be entirely voluntary, in which a person's doctor could discuss with them the options available in the event that they end up like Terri Schiavo. This gives patients the opportunity to put in writing what their wishes are in the event that they become unable to speak for themselves. That this scares conservatives is deliciously ironic considering that, if Terri Schiavo had been offered one of these free consultations, she may very well have said that she wanted to be kept on life support, and her brain-dead carcas would still be alive to this day. Another objection is that doctors are incentivized to have these consultations with their patients, and may pressure them into having the discussion about what they want their palliative care to be, but first of all, the patient can always refuse, and secondly, even if they couldn't, all they would have to do is sit patiently throught their doctor's little speech and say "keep me alive at all cost!" And nobody would have to worry about having the plug pulled on them. In fact, if they were, in fact, forced into these consultations, it's actually less likely that they would be taken off life support against their wishes, then if they had not had the consultation. The only real objection is that, in order to get one of these consultations covered, the doctor must read from a list of options that the patient has, including do-not-resuscitate orders, and the discontinuation of life support in the event he or she ends up as a vegetable.
What Is Actually Being Proposed
What is actually being proposed is not universal health care. It is not a system in which the government covers all of everyone's health care costs with taxpayers' money as is done in Canada. What we will see is something like a non-profit, government-run HMO, and it will be optional. In many ways it will be run just like any other health insurance company. People will have to make regular payments like they would any other insurance coverage. The important difference is that these payments will be supported by government funds and be much more affordable than what the regular HMOs are offering. They'll also provide greater coverage and have fewer restrictions based on things like pre-existing conditions.
This system has significant advantages for those who find it difficult to find health care. Lower payments will allow more people access to coverage. Fewer people will end up bankrupted by medical bills. The economic advantages are a bit more ambiguous. It could be less expensive than the current system. Right now, there is a program for people who cannot afford coverage. It's called Medicaid, and like the program Obama is proposing, you have to pay into it. The only catch is you have to be a senior citizen. The public option would expand this to the entire population.
There are a couple of reasons why conservatives are so afraid of this. The first is that this very well could end up costing more than what the government currently spends on health care. The second reason, and the one you hear the most about, is that this will put the private health insurance companies out of business, leaving everyone with no choice but to buy their insurance from the government. There are good reasons to be skeptical of this second assertion. As Obama himself has argued, having a government run post office has not put FedEx and UPS out of business. Indeed, even in Canada we still have private HMOs providing coverage for things that are not covered by our national plan. Ironically, those who supposedly have the most faith in the ingenuity of the free market system seem to have the least confidence that they will be able to compete with a publicly administered program, especially one that they claim is going to be so poorly run.
In order to pay for this program, some of the funding from Medicare (upwards of $500 billion), will be transferred to the public option, and the Republicans are trying to scare people by saying that this will mean that seniors will lose their coverage. Interestingly enough, the Republicans opposed the adoption of Medicare when it first passed, and now their styling themselves as its loyal defenders. In the surreal, double-thinking bizarro world that is the Republican mind, the program is horrible, and never should have been implemented, while at the same time it must be protected from those evil Democrats (who actually want to expand Medicare to the general population, not restrict it).
"Death Panels"
There have been a few buzz words floating around that opponents of the Democrats' proposed health care reforms like to use. The most whimsical of these is "death panels". Part of the health care reforms, they say, is the mandatory consultation with a panel of doctors who are forced to obey the government, and who will decide whether or not your grandma will have the plug pulled on her or not. In fact, what is being proposed is that the government would pay for consultations with one's doctor, which, for the patients, would be entirely voluntary, in which a person's doctor could discuss with them the options available in the event that they end up like Terri Schiavo. This gives patients the opportunity to put in writing what their wishes are in the event that they become unable to speak for themselves. That this scares conservatives is deliciously ironic considering that, if Terri Schiavo had been offered one of these free consultations, she may very well have said that she wanted to be kept on life support, and her brain-dead carcas would still be alive to this day. Another objection is that doctors are incentivized to have these consultations with their patients, and may pressure them into having the discussion about what they want their palliative care to be, but first of all, the patient can always refuse, and secondly, even if they couldn't, all they would have to do is sit patiently throught their doctor's little speech and say "keep me alive at all cost!" And nobody would have to worry about having the plug pulled on them. In fact, if they were, in fact, forced into these consultations, it's actually less likely that they would be taken off life support against their wishes, then if they had not had the consultation. The only real objection is that, in order to get one of these consultations covered, the doctor must read from a list of options that the patient has, including do-not-resuscitate orders, and the discontinuation of life support in the event he or she ends up as a vegetable.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Heh...
I was wondering why it is, if the free market is supposed to be the ultimate arbiter of good ideas, as conservatives tell us is the case, that on the day the Obama revealed his plans for fixing the economy (March 6), the stock market has been climbing and doing so pretty steadily.
Well, according to Ann Coulter, it's because Wall Street is full of commies.
I know that link is a bit old, but I'm on Ann Coulter's mailing list and was sent what was basically an ad for a stock broker who is anti-Obama. The ad took the form of an article written by Ann basically saying the same thing that the above link says.
Well, according to Ann Coulter, it's because Wall Street is full of commies.
I know that link is a bit old, but I'm on Ann Coulter's mailing list and was sent what was basically an ad for a stock broker who is anti-Obama. The ad took the form of an article written by Ann basically saying the same thing that the above link says.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Iran
The consensus seems to be that the Iranian election was rigged, and I hope it was. not because I wanted Ahmadinejad to win, of course, but because if he really did win by like 60% or whatever, we really need to revise our assumptions about the attitudes of the Iranian people. Everyone says they're very pro-Western, so, if that's true, then this thing was likely rigged.
What worries me, however, is that that, and the fact that there were tens of thousands of people risking their lives to protest the election results seem to be the only evidence that the election was rigged. Nobody has any real numbers and the UN wasn't there monitoring the elections, so we have no hard data to support this suspicion.
Also if this election was rigged, then the government has been telling some pretty blatant and audacious lies. Lies that even they should have known nobody would swallow. And if they're going to lie with such daring, then any benefit of the doubt that I was giving Ahmadinejad regarding his claims that the Iranian nuclear program was only for civilian purposes just went out the window.
What worries me, however, is that that, and the fact that there were tens of thousands of people risking their lives to protest the election results seem to be the only evidence that the election was rigged. Nobody has any real numbers and the UN wasn't there monitoring the elections, so we have no hard data to support this suspicion.
Also if this election was rigged, then the government has been telling some pretty blatant and audacious lies. Lies that even they should have known nobody would swallow. And if they're going to lie with such daring, then any benefit of the doubt that I was giving Ahmadinejad regarding his claims that the Iranian nuclear program was only for civilian purposes just went out the window.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Clean Coal
In the absence of a working alternative to fossil fuels, it will become more and more of a necessity to turn to coal for fuel. Unless a renewable form of energy is developed that can power everybody's cars, the industry is going to turn to coal. I'm not advocating this, I'm just pointing out that that's the reality of the situation.
It is for this reason that I advocate research into clean coal technology. Of course at the very mention of this, environmentalists like to point out that there's no such thing, and, sure, the technology, right now, is very sketchy and few of the private companies who are advocating it are actually putting money into developing it. This is, in my opinion, the biggest reason people think clean coal is bullshit. And you what? Maybe it is, but in the absence of viable alternatives, we should at least be open to finding a way to make coal cleaner, because we may be stuck with it.
Fortunately, although private companies don't really want to develop clean coal technology, there are at least a few government programs that do. China, now the world's biggest polluter, has severe air quality problems, but at the same time, needs to continue to develop in order to prevent its collapse and widespread domestic revolt. Realizing that coal is likely their only future form of fuel, but also understanding that the current level of coal use is poisoning their population, is frantically trying to find ways to make coal cleaner.
Will this technology ever be effective? Maybe, maybe not. But if there is a chance that it can, and it looks like there may be? Why not investigate it? Why not research it?
It is for this reason that I advocate research into clean coal technology. Of course at the very mention of this, environmentalists like to point out that there's no such thing, and, sure, the technology, right now, is very sketchy and few of the private companies who are advocating it are actually putting money into developing it. This is, in my opinion, the biggest reason people think clean coal is bullshit. And you what? Maybe it is, but in the absence of viable alternatives, we should at least be open to finding a way to make coal cleaner, because we may be stuck with it.
Fortunately, although private companies don't really want to develop clean coal technology, there are at least a few government programs that do. China, now the world's biggest polluter, has severe air quality problems, but at the same time, needs to continue to develop in order to prevent its collapse and widespread domestic revolt. Realizing that coal is likely their only future form of fuel, but also understanding that the current level of coal use is poisoning their population, is frantically trying to find ways to make coal cleaner.
Will this technology ever be effective? Maybe, maybe not. But if there is a chance that it can, and it looks like there may be? Why not investigate it? Why not research it?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Gay Marriage in New York
Looks like yet another state is about to legalize gay marriage through the legislative process rather than through the courts. After Vermont did this, the homophobes lost one of their favourite talking points about gay marriage in the US: that it was imposed by the courts. Now it's is being voted into law by the people.
The anti-gay groups don't seem organized enough to stop this one. They weren't even able to stop it in Maine and Vermont, and Vermont had a Republican governor who threatened to veto it.
Larry Auster was all butt hurt when Vermont legalized gay marriage, but hasn't made mention of Maine or New York.
The anti-gay groups don't seem organized enough to stop this one. They weren't even able to stop it in Maine and Vermont, and Vermont had a Republican governor who threatened to veto it.
Larry Auster was all butt hurt when Vermont legalized gay marriage, but hasn't made mention of Maine or New York.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The Market Has Spoken!
On Obama's Inauguration Day, the stock market dipped a bit and the crazies all said, "Obama is bad for the economy! The market has spoken!"
You haven't heard much of that recently. Especially not since about March 6th. Since then, the markets have been rising pretty steadily, and March 6th was just after Obama unveiled the details of his plan to revive the economy. If the reaction of the market is a good basis for predicting the outcome of a public policy, why has it been responding so well to Obama's "disastrous" bailout plan?
Of course, the market could tank tomorrow. It's not that predictable, but it has had a steady (although slowing) upward trajectory for the last two months. If Wall Street knows best, why hasn't the market reacted adversely to the Obama administration's plans? Aren't investors supposed to be running in terror from the market now that Obama has shown us his plans for its complete and utter destruction?
You haven't heard much of that recently. Especially not since about March 6th. Since then, the markets have been rising pretty steadily, and March 6th was just after Obama unveiled the details of his plan to revive the economy. If the reaction of the market is a good basis for predicting the outcome of a public policy, why has it been responding so well to Obama's "disastrous" bailout plan?
Of course, the market could tank tomorrow. It's not that predictable, but it has had a steady (although slowing) upward trajectory for the last two months. If Wall Street knows best, why hasn't the market reacted adversely to the Obama administration's plans? Aren't investors supposed to be running in terror from the market now that Obama has shown us his plans for its complete and utter destruction?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)