Internal Syndication

Who Hates the Homeless the Most?

2011-12-17T22:25:00.000-05:00

There are people in America who genuinely need a hand. These people are mentally unstable, physically incapable of work, have a debilitating addiction which is ruining their life, or through fate have been dealt a bad hand and just need a little help to lift themselves up and out of their current situation. People run from abusive relationships with no friends or relatives. People run away from home because of abuse or their own foolish pride. People get hit with the one two punch of losing a job and having a serious health problem. All of these people genuinely need help, either by being committed to mental instiutions, rehab facilities, or self-development programs to give them the resources to exchange their work for food, shelter, or education.

There are people though, who deserve a red-hot poker in the eye because they are conning well-meaning people into giving them money. People are using others' sense of good-will and stealing money from them. These fake homeless, free-loading vagabonds, and homeless criminals are hardening peoples hearts to those who genuinely need help. They're causing well-meaning politicians to make terrible policies based on the terrible plight of the "hundreds of thousands of homeless in America". We need to quit giving away free money to anyone who has their hand out, and at the same time expect a higher level of personal-responsibility from those who do genuinely need outside assistance.

These videos should enrage anyone who actually gives a shit about helping people. Sadly though, every single one of my own experiences in talking with homeless people falls so close to these video descriptions it's disheartening. I want to help, but I sure as shit never want my money to ever go to these cons.

John Stossel doing a report on homeless people:

In San Diego I took some evenings and talked with the homeless on the beaches. I only spoke to 6-8 homeless people, but they were eerily similar:

terrible hygeine (despite very accessible public showers)
constant, excessive drinking (24 oz. cans of Bud Ice seemed to be most common)
abusing nearby homeless resources to maintain their lifestyle of just floating around with no responsibilities
not even attempting to locate any kind of employment

I feel genuinely bad for those who, through no fault of their own have had hard luck hit them again and again. As a society we need to make available a safety net for those who need help, if for no other reason than to appease the vast majority of the public who need to believe that America is a good place. This help must be decentralized and community oriented. This will allow individuals to monitor people's progress and determine whether the resources being given are being exploited or not.

Anyone who is entirely capable of work and responsibility, but is opting out for their own reasons, will never get any pity from me, I just see way too much opportunity in this country for me to feel bad for someone.

If Mexican immigrants can come into this country with nothing, and make a life for themselves and their families, any physically capable and mentally stable homeless person has no excuse.

I'm back...

2010-12-07T10:39:00.000-05:00

What follows is going to be a little different. Gotta study for USMLE Step 1, gotta keep the Missus & Munchkin happy, and I have to stay sane. If I treat this blog as a relief valve, maybe it'll help me.

I've been making terrible choices lately regarding time management, and personal development. Had a 2 weeks stretch where I was studying terrifically, but I've fallen off the wagon. Classwork is accumulating, and I have to tough out a week and a half before break begins. I can do this.

Remove...

Choose...

Do insurance companies scrape too much off the top?

2009-09-02T18:30:00.002-04:00

Mark Perry over at Carpe Diem makes it known that insurance companies are making an average of 3.3% profit. Removing that 3.3% equates to roughly $150-250 in personal/family rate savings per policy? Removing all insurance profit is not a panacea.

Also, as a matter of point we should consider that insurance is insurance, not a universal payment system for which everyone always benefits (paying less in premiums than they consume in medical services).

An insurance company is essentially betting individuals. The company bets that premiums will be larger than the cost of healthcare services rendered. Why should a company "bet" a sick individual that $300, $500, or more a month will cover their expenses for, let's say, dialysis. That company is not evil for not charging $300 a month when it knows it'll be paying out $1000-$2000 a month.

The country needs social safety nets, and for catastrophic care I fully support an expansion of medicaid. We must pay for it though. Increase taxes (and not just on the evil rich).

Healthcare is expensive not only because medical technology marches forward providing services not imagined 20-30 years ago, but because reimbursement happens through a 3rd party (whose financial interest is at odds with both provider and consumer of care). When this is coupled with the fact that individuals could care less how much a doctor's visit "costs" because, well "insurance" covers it. How much does a physical cost? Doesn't matter, I'll pay my co-pay and it'll get done. Should I bring my mildly feverish child to the ER? I'll pay my co-pay and the rest will be insurance. People must be aware and make their health care decisions based on efficiency, cost, and their own personal situation. Again, I support an expansion of medicaid, but make the cost 100% known and up-front with an increase in taxes.

Doctor's, hospitals, and individuals are not awash with money. Insurance companies make billions because of the sheer volume of care that they oversee. To weed out health fraud, rules are thought up and sometimes seem draconian. So the evil billions they make, and the evil decisions they make, are made as a matter of fiduciary responsibility, of which you mentioned.

John Stossel on health care costs.

Another take on breaking down how the insurance companies are at odds with both providers and consumers.

This last link is super quick to distill the information presented...

Sorry for the book. I hate seeing individuals or groups of individuals demonized for making choices which are in their own self-interest.

Why Get Into Politics?

2009-04-20T19:52:00.004-04:00

North Korea is dark...

The only thing keeping the population of North Korea back is politics. The difference between North Korea and South Korea could not be more stark. I was just reminded of this by a slideshow of North Korea at Foreign Policy. Sad...

Be sure to check out one of North Korea's arcades too!

Innocent Pastor Beaten to Fight Drugs/Illegal Immigrants

2009-04-20T18:54:00.002-04:00

This is disturbing stuff. Hat tip Classically Liberal.

Another video I watched just recently of someone else being harassed at an internal border checkpoint. This guy sounds incredibly annoying, but isn't doing anything illegal. Luckily this guy gets away without being beaten and his car getting trashed.

Rationalistic / Atheistic Video

2009-04-15T22:04:00.001-04:00

Entertaining. 10min. long. Hat tip to The Macho Response.

The End of Empathy

2009-04-12T14:05:00.000-04:00

Since when do we have to care about everything and everyone. Is it possible and even desireable. How functional would you be if you had infinite sensitivity to every perceived ill in the world? The link is to an article to a seemingly left-leaning author who is worried about his own ambivalence towards violence halfway across the world. Maybe ambivalence isn't the right word. Rather, he's concerned that he can still function day to day in America, with terrible ills happening to others.

I think humans are wired to naturally care most strongly about immediate family for evolutionary reasons. To me, it seems counter-productive to rock back and forth in the fetal position if Kim Jong-Il continues to violently oppress his own people. I think it's terrible, I'm not sure if we need to act militarily because of it, but ultimately I'll still go out and water my flowers all the same.

George Carlin on Environmentalism

2009-04-12T13:53:00.004-04:00

There's a good stuff here. I'm surprised I haven't seen this one before.

Not surprised...

2008-11-19T10:14:00.004-05:00

Interviewing some Obama voters:

Here's an interview with www.fivethirtyeight.com (left leaning election tracking website) regarding this video. This was done back in Nov.

I'm not surprised by this selection of Obama supporters, but I'm not exactly convinced the republican side would be considerably better. I'm sure you could easily get many seemingly well spoken, outgoing, McCain voters who would say equally dumb stuff.

Though this will be fun to watch play itself out, I'm sure it'll end up like this in the media:
- Republicans are calling Democratic voters retarted
- Republicans aren't willing to be as hard on their own just as ill-informed voters
- Republicans hate Obama and aren't willing to accept the will of the people
blah blah blah

I'm excited to see what the next few years holds. I don't think the world is crumbling all around me, but I really wish the liberal side wasn't chosen this time around. I'm most excited to see how race politics will evolve in the next 4,8,12 or so years. I've already heard people predict Bobby Jindall for the Rep. ticket next go round (either 4 or 8 years potentially).

Was October the Coldest October Ever, Ever???

2008-11-17T09:47:00.002-05:00

Apparently not. There's also something called the Climate Audit. It may be worth checking it out sometime.

I couldn't resist posting this...

2008-11-14T12:33:00.003-05:00

I'd like to think I'm an open minded fair observer of politics (through staunch libertarian glasses), but I just can't help but laugh at this.

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Scarily close to the truth...

2008-11-14T12:29:00.001-05:00

In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?

Do you support Obama's view on...

2008-10-31T13:10:00.004-04:00

Check out this Howard Stern bit. He goes to random people in Harlem and asks them why they support Obama. Very funny stuff.

Don't touch my flashlight...

2008-10-31T12:20:00.000-04:00

Freakin' awesome!

The Truth About ANWR

2008-08-27T13:44:00.003-04:00

I don't own stocks in oil companies. Take a look at the information presented by snopes.com before you try to tell me that this will destroy all the poor pitiful woodland (or tundra) creatures.

Penn & Teller's Take on World Peace

2008-08-27T13:38:00.003-04:00

Penn & Teller Bullshit: World Peace

I freakin' love this show...

Each part is under 10 minutes, with the whole episode being near 1/2 hour. Enjoy.

Part 1

Part2

Part3

Why It'll Be a Long Time Before Openly Atheistic Politicians

2008-08-27T11:31:00.004-04:00

Religion has its place. Children need structure and guidance. Parents can fall back on this social institution that has the answers to their questions, and gives them authority to say something is right and other things are wrong. When religion is treated as a system of inclusion and guidance towards what is inherently good with people, it can be a terrific institution. When religion is used to as a method of dividing up the populace into the righteousness and the damned, quite often it sounds terribly bigoted and closed minded.

There's nothing wrong with having beliefs regarding what's right and what's wrong. If you ran around the world today with only a nebulous belief of right and wrong, you can easily go down the path of self destruction.

Where I live, there are a tremendous amount of church stations. I enjoy listening to preachers because they're often arguing for people to better themselves. I like listening to their style and rhetoric. These people are skilled orators, or else they wouldn't be on the radio. The other day though, I was sicked by what I heard. Remember that this is all spoken over the radio by a preacher trying to show people right and wrong.

start quote:

Now I'm talking to a troubled parishioner and I'll ask him: So tell me about your best friend.

And he says: Oh, well, Fred he's my bowling buddy. He's crazy, and boy can he drink like a fish. We've been bowling together for years now.

And I'll ask: Have you shared the word of God with him?

(Parishioner): Well no I haven't.

(Preacher): Why not! You've been bowling for years with this man, and you're telling me that bowling is the most important thing in your life? What about God! Where does God fit in? The righteous cannot fraternize with the un-righteous! It just doesn't work! Why doesn't Jesus hang out with the Devil? It's disgusting to even think it! etc. etc. etc. etc...

end quote:

I could go on and on and on about the bigoted views of this preacher. Anyone who is not "saved" is inherently not someone you should associate yourself with because first and foremost in all interactions, Jesus must be there. This peels back a little bit of the veneer of religious tolerance that is publicly extolled by most religious leaders. Maybe this preacher is a terrible preacher. Maybe this isn't the views of his congregation, or of religious people at large.

From my small-minded viewpoint though, if your religious beliefs are right enough to dedicate your life to, then by definition everyone else must be mistaken somehow; and damned for all eternity (if that's the consequences of non-believing in your religion). How does this jive with tolerance of other religions? How can you respect other people if you refuse to socialize with them based on the fact that they haven't been saved?

Hearing that radio show was disheartening, because I'm trying my hardest to be respectful of other viewpoints. If certain religious leaders are trying their hardest to keep their congregation from respecting and associating with me due to my non-believing views, why should I try at all to respect their views? With fervent believers it is the surface level acceptance of other religious views with a deep felt contempt for anyone who is not on the same path to righteousness that disturbs me most. In many of the most religious peoples' eyes, an atheist is almost the definition of un-righteousness. If this contempt were based on race, ethnicity, physical disability, or sexual orientation it would be exposed and denigrated for the closed-minded bigotry it is.

I know this is slightly off topic, but why should I respect modern day religion more than Zaroastrianism(arguably the oldest "religion")? I'm supposed to believe these prophets and not believe those prophets? Why? Oh, because these prophets were spoken to by the true god. Always keep in mind that religions of old were clung to just as fervently and considered just as true as today. Why should we consider the miraculous stories of the religions of today but look down on the simple-minded miraculous stories of yesterday (think the resurrection of Jesus versus the birth of Zeus).

Ah, Zaroastrians...
Dr. Evil: ...At the age of 12 I received my first scribe. At 14 a Zaroastrian named Wilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There is nothing quite like a shorn scrotum. It's breath-taking I suggest you try it...

What Are You Saying?!

2008-08-27T11:29:00.001-04:00

If you haven't heard yet, the latest Batman movie is great. Go see it, and then watch and laugh at this video. Terrifically done!

Oh the opportunities...

2008-08-21T13:28:00.001-04:00

There is an anti-capitalism club at Purdue. Wanna join?

The Entire Internets Is Going to Hell

2008-07-21T08:35:00.003-04:00

If you have any doubt that the internet is nothing but a festering sore of rude, stupid, terribly atheistic, yet funny ass-holes, one need go no further than fark.com. Drink, read, and be merry.

If this level of ridiculous discussion existed somewhere in real life, I would never leave that place (and probably die from laughter)...

Despite how much I hate Bill Maher, this does look to be pretty funny. I know, I know, I'm a terrible person. Here's a trailer for "Religulous" a documentary by Bill Maher on religion.

Eye Opening,..

2008-07-14T14:22:00.002-04:00

I want to believe in the inherent goodness of man. For me to be true to this I have to always second guess my understanding of not only myself, but society and what I consider right. Everyone has been shaped by their (or lack of) family, community, and associated belief systems. Understanding that everyone has their own unique viewpoint is refreshing, but also problematic. Not all truths are relative. The holocaust happened. 9/11 happened. America and its people, as a whole, is a force of good and a source of inherent human decency. People who kill innocent human beings, purposefully and without remorse, deserve no sympathy when their actions are judged incompatible with modern society and they are hunted down for their crimes.*

Please watch the trailer for "Karachi Kids". These kids were normal. They were systematically broken down and built back up to reflect exactly what their teachers desired.

There is no room for moral relativism with regards to terrorism, even when it tries to cloak itself under the protective umbrella of religeon.

Am I a Terrible Person Because of This?

2008-06-26T16:10:00.004-04:00

Many colleges have t-shirts made which not only let you know what college the wearer wants to be associated with, but usually some other identifier with which you're supposed to glean some worthwhile information. T-shirts that I have seen include (Duke is just used as a random university): Duke Rugby, Duke Engineering, Duke Liberal Arts, etc. etc.

I think this is the first time I have seen a shirt, and had a serious negative reaction towards it. A girl was wearing a shirt that said , "Duke Latina".

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy some seriously wrong shirts:
Baby's shirt says: "Daddy drinks because I cry."
Shirt Says: "What Would Jesus Do For a Klondike Bar?"
Shirt Says in different colored bubbles: "Fuck the Colorblind"
Shirt with an outline of a guy that looks like he's dancing: "I'm not getting jiggy wit' it. I have parkinsons..."

These are seriously insensitive shirts. I love them. I am seriously repulsed by this racial shirt though. I don't really know why. Is it because I could be socially ostracized for wearing a shirt saying: "Duke Caucasian"? Maybe I'm over-compensating for the fact that I'm not supposed to be proud of being white. I don't know. I'm going to have to do some serious introspection though.
Some of the things that are bouncing around in my head though relate to some of the things I've been taught:

It's not right for me to think of race as a distinguishing factor in anyone's ability to get ahead.
I should love everyone else's differences, and applaude their "diversity".
By saying that I'm for diversity, I should have a wonderful feelings just explode in my head, akin to a "morals-gasm" of overflowing love for everyone else and their differences.
Because I'm a white male, there is nothing about me that could ever be considered different or diverse.
I should feel an underlying guilt behind every positive thing that ever happens to me (because I'm a white male).

Maybe I should follow along and "stay true to my roots". Ah, shit. Can't do that either. Thanks Hitler...

* Duke is just used as an anonymous identifier.

Caffeine Test

2008-06-26T11:24:00.001-04:00

Created by OnePlusYou

I usually don't put these through, but this one hits a little close to home...

They're Taking Our Jorbs!

2008-06-25T12:40:00.003-04:00

Reason.com has a video out now about free trade and how our jobs are being shipped out of this country. They think it's a good thing. I think it's a good thing. If we were as concerned with utilizing more efficient forms of labor, why don't we wring our hands and decry the advent of robots? Give the video a watch, it's about 8 mins long; well worth your time.

Hurley from Squidbillies: I don't care to consort with those of the robot race!

The Entire Internets is Going to Hell

2008-06-13T12:30:00.002-04:00

If you have any doubt that the internet is nothing but a festering sore of rude, stupid, terribly atheistic, yet funny ass-holes, one need go no further than fark.com. Drink, read, and be merry.

If this level of intelligent banter existed in a public forum somewhere in real life, I don't think I would ever leave that bastion of stupidity. The forums can be especially ridiculous / insightful. Put on your hip-waders though, you don't want it touching your skin...

The History of Computers

2008-06-13T12:02:00.004-04:00

Over at Mentalfloss.com there is an awesome documentary on the history of computers. Say goodbye to an hour of you life. I'm a sucker for informational stuff like this.

Lies We Tell Kids

2008-06-13T09:43:00.002-04:00

Paul Graham has a terrific article up about the reasons why parents lie to their children. Only after reading the above article was I able to step back and question my motives for lying to kids. I feel entirely competent in digesting honest facts and opinions, divorced from emotion. When it comes to my (future) kids, however I feel it perfectly fine, for the sake of maintaining innocence or optimism, to lie to his/her pudgy face.

Very rarely do I sit back and think about it, but sometimes this topic really gets me going. Recently I heard an episode of NPR's "To the Best of Our Knowledge" and it was overwhelming to me how brutal (albeit well intentioned) honesty to children can be:

Paraphrased from NPR interviewee:
Because I believe so strongly in the message of global warming, I decided to show Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" to my children. Everything was fine until we got to point on polar bears drowning, at which point my 10 year old stands up and yells, "If Al Gore thinks the world's so terrible, why doesn't he just go commit suicide!" He stormed off upstairs and refused to come back down.

I disagree strongly with the idea that the Earth's is irreparably damaged. Leaving that aside, I even more strongly disagree with scaring the shit out of children with environmental alarmism that just changes flavor every 1-2 decades. We're telling kids that the world is coming down all around them, when in fact I would be surprised if the sea rose more than 1 foot in the next 50 years. Read the IPCC report. Read it and tell me how the worst case scenario of 20" of sea rise in 100 years is going to be an insurmountable catastrophe for human kind?

We don't need to be making our children shit their pants at night, fearing that they won't wake up, because Global Warming will kill them in their sleep and rape their parents. We need to give them the information when they're capable to interpreting it themselves, and acting upon it in an intelligent fashion.

Ohmigad! Can't Breathe...

2008-05-10T12:45:00.003-04:00

Video evidence of Hillary realizing her place in the Democratic Primary race. Too funny to pass up.

Who Hates the Homeless the Most?

2008-05-10T11:02:00.003-04:00

There are people in America who genuinely need a hand. These people are mentally unstable, physically incapable of work, have a debilitating addiction which is ruining their life, or through fate have been dealt a bad hand and just need a little help to lift themselves up and out of their current situation. People run from abusive relationships with no friends or relatives. People run away from home because of abuse or their own foolish pride. People get hit with the one two punch of losing a job and having a serious health problem. All of these people genuinely need help, either by being committed to mental instiutions, rehab facilities, or self-development programs to give them the resources to exchange their work for food, shelter, or education.

There are people though, who deserve a red-hot poker in the eye because they are conning well-meaning people into giving them money. People are using others' sense of good-will and stealing money from them. These fake homeless, free-loading vagabonds, and homeless criminals are hardening peoples hearts to those who genuinely need help. They're causing well-meaning politicians to make terrible policies based on the terrible plight of the "hundreds of thousands of homeless in America". We need to quit giving away free money to anyone who has their hand out, and at the same time expect a higher level of personal-responsibility from those who do genuinely need outside assistance.

These videos should enrage anyone who actually gives a shit about helping people. Sadly though, every single one of my own experiences in talking with homeless people falls so close to these video descriptions it's disheartening. I want to help, but I sure as shit never want my money to ever go to these cons.

A local news crew in Utah doing a report on homeless people:

John Stossel doing a report on homeless people:

In San Diego I took some evenings and talked with the homeless on the beaches. I only spoke to 6-8 homeless people, but they were eerily similar:

terrible hygeine (despite very accessible public showers)
constant, excessive drinking (24 oz. cans of Bud Ice seemed to be most common)
abusing nearby homeless resources to maintain their lifestyle of just floating around with no responsibilities
not even attempting to locate any kind of employment

I feel genuinely bad for those who, through no fault of their own have had hard luck hit them again and again. As a society we need to make available a safety net for those who need help, if for no other reason than to appease the vast majority of the public who need to believe that America is a good place. This help must be decentralized and community oriented. This will allow individuals to monitor people's progress and determine whether the resources being given are being exploited or not. It'll also let the community use more resources on those who're most in need.

Anyone who is entirely capable of work and responsibility, but is opting out for their own reasons, will never get any pity from me, I just see way too much opportunity in this country for me to feel bad for someone.

If Mexican immigrants can come into this country with nothing, and make a life for themselves and their families, any physically capable and mentally stable homeless person has no excuse.

Evil Republicans / Homeless

2008-05-10T10:37:00.002-04:00

Thomas Sowell has written: Most people on the right have no problem understanding people on the left because many, if not most, were on the left themselves when they were younger. But many, if not most, people on the left find it inexplicable how any decent and intelligent person could be on the right.

I really enjoy having conversations with those who have a different view point than me. It challenges me to look at my own beliefs from another viewpoint and see if they will continue to hold up to scrutiny. I also love poking at the beliefs of others to see exactly where someone stands and for what reasons they have that stand. In my experience, liberals want to feel good about their decisions, but rarely will they go through to thinking about the ramifications of a certain course of action. I am more than willing to say that I am wrong, but you had better have all of your ducks in a row if you think my beliefs make me a bad person.

One of the most entertaining episodes involved a trip to Australia in which I was caught smack dab in the middle of a close-knit group of liberals who had never been challenged before.

Discussion I had in Australia with two young-ish (25-29) deer-eyed liberals, of course I bring up politics.

Australian Liberal 1: I can't believe what America is doing now (it's Fall of 2005, just a couple of years into Iraq). How is it possible that it's being supported. I've never even met a republican!

Me: You have now.

Aus. Lib. 1: Oh, my God. What? This is so weird.

Me: This whole day our group has been talking as you show us around Sydney, have I done anything to make you think I'm a bad person? Do I seem like a person who feeds the carcasses of the homeless to my pets? Republicans are people too, they don't rape and pillage people or third world countries for fun... often...

Aus. Lib. 2: Whatever! That's ridiculous. Republicans are cold hearted, they don't care about anything. They just think about business and don't even think about the homeless for instance.

Me: I would argue that I care more about the homeless than your typical Democrat. More than anything I want homeless people to get off of the street. I want them to sustain themselves with a job though, if at all possible. I don't want them to feel like they have to rely on handouts to survive in the long-term.

Hear me out. How do you most help a poor person on the street? Do you give them money for a meal, or do you help them out of their situation by encouraging them to be self sufficient. Which method keep the person from being poor a day, a week, or a year from now. Plus, if republicans care so much about money, who's going to buy our stuff, people with money or people living on the street? A person concerned about selling things is better off it more of the population can buy their crap. There is no benefit to keeping poor people poor. Plus, how do you do that? How do influence a person to not go to work every day? How do you influence them to not develope their skills? The conspiracy to keep poor people poor makes no sense, and it's impossible to even try to implement. Plus, who has enough power or influence to be able to do that?

Aus. Lib. 2: That's a cold hearted thing to do, just leaving someone in the street to fend for themselves. You're just blaming the victim.

Me: I'm not saying you let them go hungry, just make sure that you don't give it to them without some semblance of responsibility attached to it. Make them feel like they've earned it. For you to make money, you have to do something productive. For you to be self sustaining, you must be productive at some level. But remember there will always be the case of the truly downtrodden which must be helped. We can't let the truly handi-capped or infirm rot on the steet, republicans are in fact human in that regard.

Aus. Lib. 1: I've never thought about it that way.

Me: So am I still evil?

Reluctantly, these people conceded that I was, in fact, not entirely evil. They thought this at least until later that night when I started breaking out the "Dead Baby Jokes" (prepare to be seriously, seriously, offended/disgusted).

My overall point is this: from my perspective some major points for someone to feel content they need to feel secure, needed, and productive. Working hard at a job will almost always contribute to all of those points. There is so much more to life than just work (like epileptic, nursing home G-G-MILF porn). From this point of view giving a no-strings-attached handuot will not make someone better off in the long term. If you can attach a bit of self development with that handout, however, everyone wins.

How about mandating certain levels of work in exchange for government assistance? What would happen if college students with government subsidized loans had to put in 15-20 hours of work a month? What if anyone receiving food stamps or welfare had to work 10-20 hours a month? This work could be cleaning up ditches, maintaining government property, stuffing envelopes for the county, answering phones for a state/government agency, building/maintaining low income housing, or churning butter. Mmmmmm, socialist butter......

Bias, and My Incredibly Closed Minded Take On It

2008-05-02T15:19:00.005-04:00

There's an article recently posted on Scientific American online "Buried Prejudice: The Bigot in Your Brain". This seems like pretty disturbing stuff, but at the same time I feel like I've kind of already known this.

People, it seems, are very judgemental and categorize things simplistically. This is necessary, however, for people to easily interact and predict reactions in the world they live in. One of the steps in the development of a childs mind which make the leap from arbitrary shapes to existence of "things". The child then quickly rationalizes cause and effect with everything they can do and experience. According to psychologists at Harvard and UC Merced, children commonly develop their racial biases around 4-6 years of age. The extent of their biases are influenced, it seems, by parents. Though simplistic categorization is an entirely natural developmental process, the irrational race based assumptions may very well be galvanized in someone's mind by the time they enter kindergarten.

Now, I have to raise my hand and ask, is this bias thing something that is inherent in humans as a whole, or are we seeing some social construct which is imparted on someone. To this question, it seems the article's answer is "Both".

There is something fundamental in the understanding of 'we' and 'them'. There is an obvious pro 'us' bias and a negative 'them' bias. If a person identifies themself very solidly in a racial or ethnic community, there is certainly a chance for them having this arbitrary group bias. You can see something similar by looking at any rabid (*insert local sports team here*) fan and tell them that their favorite star player can go eat shit. Go up to a French person, and tell them to stick their stinky cheese where the sun doesn't shine. The reaction you'd get to this line of discussion is a pretty clear indication that people, generally like, associate with, and will defend many of their arbitrary associations.

Florida Spring break trip many moons ago (roughly 4am):
College Age Mississippi Douchebag (MSDB): Woooooooooooo! Ain't no party like a Mississippi party!
Me (DB): Why won't these bastards go to sleep! I need to get up early tomorrow to drink.
MSDB: Woooooooooooo! Who wants to fight a Mississippi boy! Who wants to?!
(*5 minutes later police arrive*)

It's obviously stupid, but had this kid been born in Tennessee he'd probably be saying the same stupid shit just about Tennessee instead of Mississippi.

This desire to associate with a like group, and to ascribe positive attributes to this group, I would argue, must be nature based because of its obvious benefits to tribal, nomadic, and BDSM societies. Believing that people have a desire to group does not mean we have to live with racist bias forever. Eventually we could get to a point, due to inter-racial marriage, we'll slowly bring society to a middle ground in which race is less of an issue. This could be due in no small part to the fact that the idea of race will become more muddled and less cut and dry. I think people will be less able to judge based on appearance alone because there will be too much middle ground. Any perceived differentiations of race will soften and overlap.

So, if we as human beings have this fundamental desire to experience, divide, and judge based on our simplistic distinctions, is that a bad thing? In my opinion it is bad in that negative stereotypes can be perpetuated, they're more difficult to overcome if it's what's expected of you. On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that positive stereotypes are a benefit. There are immigrant societies in America that seem to have a culture of hard work because that is who they are, and they won't accept anything less from themselves or their children. From what I see, communities that parent well, expect the best from their kids, and delineate good/bad repercussions to those kids' actions, in general beat the shit out of the statistical "rest of society".

So what's the freakin' point. What am I trying to get at? Stereotypes in and of themselves are what they are: (many times) irrational impulses which must be subverted and overcome based on rational judgement and what is expected of polite society today (sorry Nazis). These impulses can be seen in the same context as sexual urges after commiting yourself to a monogamous relationship; they'll exist, but you can conciously decide against them. To be a respected member of society today, judgements and actions must be based on moral and rational grounds, not irrational emotions and biases.

This brings me to an even bigger point to which I confuse myself on. So, let's say that media as a whole is a giant circle-jerk perpetuating and encouraging these arbitrary distinctions on what it means to be cool, connected, loved, a part of society, or what it means to be a true (*insert ethniticy/community here*) person. On one side of the coin I say we should never put down ridiculous media like hip-hop or death metal, because I love it for the ridiculousness of it. Anyone wanting to ban Eminem or Rammstein will have to pry it out of my cold dead fingers. It's just too entertaining to me. But it's truly disturbing when people take their social cues from this stuff. When people decide and interact based on their interpretations of these media caricatures, those people have a problem.

We need to look in the mirror and realize that, like this article in Scientific American states, we each have our own irrational biases. We must face these biases for what they are, and push everyone to be the best they can be regardless of arbitrary skin tone, distinctions. We cannot hold back constructive criticism for fear we will offend someone, we must push, help, celebrate people for what is out there for anyone to achieve.

We, as a people, need to cock-punch in the face those who are acting based on bias, but at the same time renounce anyone who holds themselves back based on bias. In America, in 2008, there is no racial, ethnic, or socio-economic reason for laziness, apathy, or rotting your brain behind a TV for hours every day.

People should rot their brain like me, by looking at engadget.com, fark.com, monster-a-day, digg.com, reason.com/blog, and a million other things that make me just as bad as the laziest of lazies. Well, I better go grab the windex, it looks like my glass house needs some cleaning.

Sunshine, Lollipops, Rainbows, and Oh, yeah, Fuck Religion

2008-04-28T20:58:00.004-04:00

Alright everyone. It's time. I apologize in advance. I'm going to use poo-poo words to talk about religion. If you give a shit, please don't read this. I'm pretty surprised I stayed away from this topic for this long. Let's talk religion (sorry Jeebus).

To get a good feel for what religion is, we need to talk about what people are and what people need. Many people need to feel like there's order in their life. People need to feel continuity in things that they don't understand and at the same time people need to feel important and unique. Ratinoally, it's tough to square this desire of uniqueness with the thought that you're just one of untold billions of pieces of crap, circling space, waiting to be flushed down the toilet of eternity. In revealing that cosmic truth to someone, many people think you're insulting them. A child can look into the night and imagine, even viscerally feel, a world full of unseen and unimaginable horrors, that is unless a spiderman nightlight gives them a bit of reassurance. Lots of people shit their pants because of the always present spectre of bad things happening, that is unless they have the adult nightlight "religion". If we just say that bad things like Dave Coullier, Dancing with the stars, and puppies getting explosive diarrhea is all part of God's plan, well people feel better because at least we're not being tortured by these awful things arbitrarily.

Why do we think that in the year 2008 we are any more intelligent that all the golden calf worshiping heathens 2000 years ago.

Present Day Religious Person: "Worshiping Thor is stupid and unintelligent, but let me tell you about Scientology and how Xenu imprisoned billions of souls via a giant electro-magnetic cage."

Sure, it's incredible what we have at hand with technology now-a-days, but you have to remember that individual intellect is no more advanced than those living a thousand years ago. Scientific advances have brought society light-years ahead of where we were, but we're still reverting to that desire to say that someone in the clouds is pulling the strings. Many say this invisible cop is why the sun comes up every morning, and why I don't murder people for fun.

Why, though, did God get off his lazy-ass 2000 years ago, and not 3000 years ago? He could have "saved" untolds millions more people. Why weren't Asians, or African cultures in on this little secret called salvation? Why does God love Jews so much?

Why didn't God start saving people in pre-historic times? What happened to cavemen souls after they got done selling auto insurance? It's no fault of their own that God hated them, and forced them to live in a world of sleeping on rocks and eating wooly-mammoth turds to stay alive. Why the hell are certain people chosen to receive the word of God? I thought He loved everyone equally. What about other religions/people? Is their form of worship kosher just as long as they're mono-theistic? Saying only mono-theism is alright pretty much fucks native americans, tribal societies, Greeks, and environmentalists who simultaneously worship Al Gore and Obama.

For the sake of argument let's accept that it's perfectly fine for anyone to worship in their own way. Everyone should be able to get to heaven so long as they're a good person, right? That is, unless, you agree that God chose caucasians and says, "Fuck the yellows/darkies! I like BMW's and bratwursts. Europe! Fuck yeah!" Well what the fuck!

So just because my great-great-great-great-great grandparents received the story of Christ and his ressurection, and I can't claim ignorance, I have to live by a whole bunch of rules and self-loathe weekly to get into heaven? What about tribal people! It's not their fault they weren't taught that meat on Fridays during Lent, tattoos, and droopy-boobs are enough to relegate someone to pits of hell forever.

We had better decide that of all the religions out there in the world there is one right religion, or we must decide that they are all crocks of shit. If every religion is equally valid, every religion is equally invalid. If every maintstream religion is acceptable then there's nothing unique or correct about anyone's personal take on religion. Either every religion is wrong or there's one particular sect who's getting it just right, in which case 99% of the population had better get used the idea of spending a gajillion, bajillion years of having red hot coals shoved up their ass for eternity because we're all going to hell (me especially).

Which is it?

I do understand that religion encourages positive traits. I do understand that children need guidance and by telling them these biblical stories we seem to get the message through to them. People need a sense of community, and in the world today there are very few ways that people can connect with each other. Churches do contribute positively to society. Who else is going to do the dirty work of seriously reach out to the poor, give old people something to look forward to every morning, and rape little boys? NAMBLA only has one of those bases covered, so there is obviously a need.

It seems like society needs a way of connecting citizens together and feeling like they're part of something bigger than themselves. We need ways of teaching our children what is expected of them, and what society will not accept in terms of behavior. I just wish there was a less self-congratulatory, hypocritical, guilt-ridden, ivory-tower sitting, anal sex not having way of going about it.

Sorry for the ridiculousness of this post, but I would like to think I'm a very good person. I try to practice all of the virtues extolled in the bible (without quite so much Jew-violence though). Patience, virtue, humility, temperence, blah, blah, blah. It's all something to strive for and I am the first to admit that I fail every day in developing these virtues in myself. With all of this said, just please don't tell me to be something I'm not because some string-puller upstairs is watching me whenever I kick kittens.

The Internets and It's Incredible Sensitivity

2008-04-16T06:20:00.001-04:00

*Disclaimer* This entire post is about insensitive, vulgar, but mostly true internet babble that I get a kick out of. Feel free to skip this post if you like catching weiners with your mouth...

There's a soft place in my heart for people who talk bluntly. Never mind sugar-coating it, these people say what they mean and mean what they say. The fact that someone is honest though does not preclude them from being wrong as well. If people and programs were judged based on facts, not emotions our society would be much better off.

This applies to government just as much as it does to people.

I know I'm a sucker for this kind of stuff, but Neal Boortz wrote a terrific commencement speech that has not been used yet. By his speaking style you will see why he is not looked to for inspiration by any typical teacher/professor.

As long as we're being cynical and insensitive, let's take a look at a blog I found recently; notdirtywriter.net

I have no idea why I love this stuff so much, but I do. Despite the fact that there are posts which blatantly contradict themselves (i.e. What Being Certain Says About You, and The Nature of Opinions, and They are Always Wrong). Getting beyond a few of those though, you get terrific nuggets like:

There's plenty to disagree with, but that's not the point. Internet ass-hattery has never been so blatantly, and entertainingly, presented. Well, except maybe for Maddox and a few of his enlightned articles:

In case you haven't noticed my sense of humor is incredibly sophisticated.

The Smartest / Dumbest Bouncer in the World

2008-04-11T07:35:00.002-04:00

Christopher Langan

It's claimed that this guy has a testable IQ of between 190-210, which puts him in the running for highest testable IQ in the world. He seems reasonable enough, until the points of his thoughts on the world come up. I like to say crazy things sometimes, and I definitely enjoy pushing the limits or reasonable debate, but this guy in crazy talking and in fighting could beat the shit out of me.

Check out the three part video series on him at the bottom. If you have 1/2 hour to burn, it's worth it. It gives you the distinct understanding that a high IQ does not mean you have to be a reasonable person. His views just don't seem to fit with our values and mores as a society. In the video series he's asked how he would change the world. Just to give you a taste it could involve such fun as forced sterilization for members of society deemed unfit for procreation, freedom being earned not considered inherent, and if he could he would be perfectly willing to train everyone on how to use their freedom properly (these points are mostly from the third video aroun 1:20 in).

This series is incredible to watch, but terribly distressing that someone can be so competent in cognitive ability, but so lacking in humanistic consideration. Maybe that's just my incredibly inadequate mind not comprehending his genius though.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Multi-Tasking and It's Effect on Decision Making

2008-04-09T08:19:00.002-04:00

Via digg.com, I found this article from Newsweek about multi-tasking, over-stimulation and the problems it could cause you mentally.

When you get down to brass tacks, effortful thinking requires energy (blood glucose). Your brain is essentially an energy user much like a muscle. If you are exercising and begin to run low on blood glucose you will not be able to exert yourself as much and exercise will become less efficient. If you were to correlate this to cognition, it's easy to make the leap that over-extending yourself mentally will result in poorer performance and decision making (confirmed in part in the article above). So if you're constantly running your concentration down by mentally taxing exercises (reading a bazillion blogs, inundating yourself with media, trying to multi-task as much as possible) you're likely to be doing yourself a disservice by making concentration and decision making more difficult than it should be.

There is a lot to be said about simplifying one's life. I am very guilty of trying to do everything at all times, but I am starting to see the the other side of the coin. I've said to myself after reading fark.com or digg.com for an hour or more, "Am I any smarter for having read this stuff? Am I really going to remember any of this in a day? What benefit has this given me?" I'm usually pretty disgusted with my answers to those questions.

Here is one suggestion that I feel is pretty helpful.

Isolate yourself from distractions while working. Turn the cell-phone to vibrate, turn off e-mail notification, turn off all instant messaging, shut down your internet browser and work uninterrupted for xx minutes. It could be 10 for those who are terribly frazzled, it could be an hour and a half for those who are more disciplined. But the big kick here, is celebrate a job well done and take a few minute break. Relaxe, recharge, check out what those distractions were (check e-mail or phone) and then refocus on the job at hand. If you find your mind wandering, notice the distraction for what it is and let it pass. You will have time to deal with whatever it is later.

In a real job this is difficult to do as there are floor problems that need addressed immediately, in the hospital there are codes which need addressed now, and in the porn industry there's always a midget just waiting around the corner ready to throw a wrench (sometimes literally throw a wrench) into your well crafted S&M scene.

It always feels like I need more time for things. I don't need more time. I need more simplification. I need more discipline. I need to go read digg for another half an hour before I get back to work...

Pretentious quote of the day:
Dost thou love life? Then do not waste time, for that is the stuff life is made of.
- Benjamin Franklin -

Maybe Everyone Isn't a Helicopter Parent

2008-04-04T18:48:00.008-04:00

How is this kind of a story worthy of news? I love the moral of the story, and Lenore Skenazy is right on, but what the fuck! Is it that amazing that a 9 year old can understand what a train map is, what a bus map is and then successfully not fall off the face of the Earth?!

Here is a Daily Mail (British newspaper) article contrasting the area a great-grandfather, grandfather, mother, and son were allowed to roam unattended in their hometown growing up. When this type of anecdotal information is mapped out, it seems quite disturbing. There is something fundamentally wrong with saying "The newest generation is going to hell because of:

overprotective parents
internet (myspace / facebook)
violent video games
grunge music
crack cocaine
disco
drugs
free-love
rock and roll
women wearing pants
the horseless carriage

I try my hardest to always temper over-excitement by saying "The kids are alright." I still have the urge to tell how I was allowed to walk to school 50 miles, over broken glass, naked, with my older brothers on my back. In all honesty though, I was allowed to pretty much ride my bike wherever I wanted to by the time I was in 4-5th grade (max of about 20 mile radius due to exhaustion).

There's someone close to me that doesn't do well with driving or directions by himself because, "What if I get lost?" Something tells me his parents didn't encourage experiences like Leonore Skenazy does.

Our media saturation of tragedies has skewed our understanding of reasonable risk. Individually my future children are no more likely to be abducted / molested than to be mauled by a opera singing, hairlipped, eskimo. I know that's not entirely true, but we have to understand that our world today is very nearly as safe as it was in the "good old days".

Well, on second thought, there may be good reason for at least a little paranoia...

Stuff White People Like: Free Healthcare

2008-04-04T18:44:00.002-04:00

It seems like I've been on a binge of healthcare related articles recently and I couldn't help but notice this article from Stuff White People Like.

Personally I think they overlooked a large part of what the allure of Free Healthcare is: Knowing What's Best for Poor People.

Anti Government Hippies, and Government Healthcare

2008-03-27T10:56:00.007-04:00

If you read Reason's Hit and Run blog you will see the vast majority of what gets me hot and bothered. It's a libertarian think tank that has a similar distaste for statists (read: socialists) and paternalists (read staunch conservatives). They never fail to please, especially with this.

What is it with anti-war protester's and thinking that government as an entity can do nothing right. Hippies should not be saying this, because they're making me agree with them! That cannot be right. At the same time though, before dreadlocks come to rest from their epileptic description of genocide for oil, if asked about universal healthcare, you'll hear about a bunch of mindless drivel about how awesome the government could be if only it had the power to regulate everything healthcare related!

I say government, by the simple fact that they have to manage over 300 million people are incapable of developing, let alone maintaining, a system that is fair (by my standards) and doesn't cause more problems than already exist. The US government is not inherently evil; I would have the same reservations if this system were to be managed by the most benevolent and competent organization in the world.

What is great though, is that the one girl is willing to say that she doesn't fully understand how she hate's government because of war, but looks to the government for all the answers regarding healthcare. She's willing to say she isn't entirely informed. That's awesome! If we are reasonable creatures we have to be willing to acknowledge our lack of knowledge sometimes. I like to think I'd be willing to say I'm wrong (if it ever ends up happening).

Government Managed Healthcare: How Do You Decide What's Covered?

2008-03-27T10:45:00.009-04:00

What kind of system needs to be in place to determine what is and what is not covered by Universal Health Care Dollars: British style.

Article by Maggie Mahar on the NICE system in Brittain. NICE is used to evaluate technologies and procedures based on the effectiveness per dollar. Basically if there is a technology out there which is A-OK but there is one that comes out which is twice as expensive, but a little better, the NICE system publishes this and basically decides that the new technology will not be covered by the national system's dollars. This is all well and good, but it brings forth a question of what people are allowed to pay for. This makes very reasonable sense if you have a large, over-arching system which is in charge of everyone's care (and the associated cost there-of).

Reason does a terrific job of bringing to light some problems with this type of system:
Reason:
"
Debbie Hirst, a woman with metastasized breast cancer, wanted to take Avastin, a drug that, per The New York Times, is "widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such cancers at bay." The NHS refused to pay for it, saying it was too expensive. That much is par for the course in a system that holds down costs by rationing care according to standards set by a single central authority. But then Hirst, with the support of her oncologist, decided to raise the $120,000 she'd need to pay for the drug on her own, mainly by selling her house. The NHS said she was perfectly free to do that, but then she would have to pay for all of her care out of pocket, a financial burden that was far beyond her means.
"

NY Times article on the woman will breast cancer in Brittain:
"
Officials said that allowing Mrs. Hirst and others like her to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the health service by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones. Patients "cannot, in one episode of treatment, be treated on the N.H.S. and then allowed, as part of the same episode and the same treatment, to pay money for more drugs," the health secretary, Alan Johnson, told Parliament. "That way lies the end of the founding principles of the N.H.S.," Mr. Johnson said.
"
There are many moral hurdles which must be crossed when we start down this path. Having an independent agency which reviews technologies for effectiveness for dollar is perfectly reasonable for a universal coverage system. There must, however, be the option of utilizing your own money for getting the best possible treatment at any cost. We must realize the following:

There will (and should) be a two-tiered system

People should be arguing for universal coverage, not equality in all things healthcare

There will be points at which a bureaucrat says, "Nope, you've spent too much, you can't get that surgery" Or, "Well, it may extend your life, but there's only a 10% chance, we're not willing to spend $xxx,xxx of tax-payer dollars for this" Or, "Well, since you've smoked your life away, we will not pay for a lung transplant".

We need to seriously look at the incentives currently in place for primary care doctors

Right now, there is a bias towards specialization that very well may cause a shortage of primary care docs. Just generalizing here, but specialists (orthopaedics, cardiologists, and the like) get paid 3+ times more than a primary care doc. Since the baby-boomers will be needing more consistent care here soon, and if there is a flood of millions upon millions of newly insured individuals, there will be a massive shortage of primary care docs to understand and manage a patient's health situation.

So what's to be concluded from all of this? Well, I don't think there's any way of us not having universal health-care in the future. It just makes people feel better about themselves when we can say, "Everyone has a right to live healthy." By that logic, everyone deserves to have a job, everyone deserves to feel like they're treated justly (let's take more money away from the rich so the poorer feel less down-trodden comparatively). I don't like where we're going, but we have to be honest about the ramifications and what we can do to make the best of the situation. We need to poke and prod the ideas being put forward, as well as the ideas in practice in Brittain, France, Canada, etc. etc.

Stuff White People Like

2008-03-21T08:51:00.003-04:00

Yes! I have found a new favorite blog! It's a blog explaining to the world what white people like and why they like them. The best that I can tell, "White people" actually means "white, urban, liberal, yuppies who are (or more accurately: feel) morally superior to their white brethren because of a complex system of having minority friends, hating corporations, studying abroad, and having an arts degree". Sadly there's a few that hit a little too close to home for me:

There are so many though that I just can't get enough of:

#82 Hating Corporations
#41 Indie Music
#62 Knowing What's Best for Poor People (hint* it definitely isn't their choices / lack of responsibility*
#7 Diversity

Please, take a few minutes and check this site out, it is freakin' hilarious. I know it's stupidly ironic that I feel morally superior because I believe I'm more honest or more of a man than to feel like I need to bow to other's sensibilities of political correctness. Just humor me and make fun of them (them this week, means yuppie douchebags).

Undeniable Global Warming

2008-03-20T08:25:00.002-04:00

To the Enlightened of This Age: Our Lord and Savior...

Am I really unbiased, or do I purposefully go out of my way to find these kinds of stories? I try to keep an open mind, but I am just way too skeptical that we have to drastically change our way of living because we're all going to boil to death.

The oil-shill that is NPR has had something to say recently about Global Warming. You know what they say? We don't fucking know what's going on with the Ocean's temperature. Scientists have expected the below surface temperatures to have increased the past 4 years, but they have not (if they're interpreting data right). What this means is that there's a whole bunch of heat energy that no one knows where it went. One of the suggestions in the article was that the excess heat could have been expelled into space. Whelp, I had better go buy a Prius so the entire Universe doesn't overheat...

Obama's Speech on Race

2008-03-19T15:45:00.006-04:00

Yes, I will admit this guy has brains. I am certainly not an Obama supporter, but this guy is able to garner a large portion of popular support while not having to defend or talk about his voting record (easily on of the most liberal in the Senate). His talk of uniting (as his is incredibly partisan in voting) is not all that terribly truthful, but the way in which he chooses his words seem uncommonly heartfelt and straightforward.

Obama took the opportunity Tuesday at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia Pennsylvania to discuss his thoughts on race, what his connections to the Reverand Jeremiah Wright mean, whether he will agree to disavow his preacher's stances, and throw in some specifics on what he wants to do with the presidency.

(*full length clip: over 9 minutes long, transcript is here*)

I almost shit my pants when I realized that not only was he expounding on the views of many blacks in America, but he also brought their counterpoint forward as well. He spoke of his connections with the outspoken (and really freakin' crazy) Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and told why he couldn't throw his preacher under the bus (politically). I believe this speech Obama gave will easily be considered historic. I believe that Obama as a man is genuine, but with regards to where he wants to take this country, genuinely wrong. Read the transcript, or watch the speech for yourself, you will certainly gain something from it. My views on race and race relations have not changed one bit, but I am heartened by the fact that someone at the national level understands some of the most difficult nuance on this subject and is willing to talk to the nation about it.

I wish more people were willing to step up to a podium and lay bare their views like this. I wish also that people would judge those thoughts on their merit and not based on some arbitrary and harmful standards which political correctness forces on this debate.

Unbelievable Robots

2008-03-18T14:12:00.005-04:00

I absolutely love how systems and controls can be used to make sci-fi looking stuff a reality.

This "robot-dog/horse" thing is incredible.

Here's a different implementation of this technology, but towards the exo-skeleton side. This is a military implementation. It's a bit hokey, but amazing none-the-less.

This Japanese prototype looks much more refined, but with less emphasis put on sheer strength.

This is a semi-autonomous RC plane which takes off and lands vertically on a wall. This is not an Osprey type plane with propellers which transition to helicopter like orientation. It is a regular single prop RC plane, with fully autonomous transitions from vertical take-off to level flight and back to vertical landing.

This stuff is awesome.

Affirmative Action

2008-03-18T14:07:00.001-04:00

Affirmative Action:

I personally believe that Affirmative Action must be totally abolished and exposed for what it is through public discussion.

Let's get a few things out of the way right quick. Black is a term used in Canada and Brittain with no connotation of ill-will. African-American means as little to me as German-American means to everyone else. There is no color of lazy, morally corrupt leech that is any worse than any other color (except taupe, I fucking hate taupe).

In the past, American blacks have been given the shaft. Slavery, later being held to different standards constitutionally, and most recently Jim Crow laws all were dispicable excuses for a morally flawed system of consistent degredation and morally corrupt thinking. Other minorities have also faced severe discrimination, but for ease of discussion I will be using the moniker black. Within the discussion of Affirmative Action remember that women, hispanics, indians (woo-woo-woo, not dot), and even eskimoes reap benefits from this system.

Any system which includes/excludes based on the color of one's skin is inherently wrong. If we are striving for a world in which opportunity to succeed/fail is open to anyone we cannot continue an institution which by its very definition favors one to the detriment of another based solely on color.

One very pertinent argument is that having a level playing field is all well and good if everyone starts at the same place. Meaning, if there are 10 runners and each's lane is free from hurdles, yet one gets a 50 yard headstart, the race is still inherently unfair. Historical racism favored whites and held back blacks. If the world were perfectly equal (which I will argue is still not perfectly true) many argue that there will still be inherent inequality due to the head start that families of whites give their now quite well off children. I would be willing to partake in this line of thinking if every white family was successful and every black family were not. Seeing whereas this is not the case, I think I am quite justified in calling Affirmative Action "Bullshit".

For the sake of argument should the child of Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Oprah, Colin Powell, or George Foreman deserve any extra advantage over white children who may have been born to dirt poor white trash? There are still instances of racial prejudice which persist in this world. I will not admit however that the color of one's skin truly holds any individual back in this day and age. Opportunities are absolutely boundless. If, America as a people, prefers to help those who were born to disadvantaged families, we must say that. Don't insult my intelligence by saying that every single black person (woman, hispanic, or Baldwin) automatically has the cards stacked against them, and there is no opportunity for success.

Statistically blacks are the most likely group to be born out of wedlock, in a single parent home, in poverty, or any combination thereof. This family situation is infinitely more detrimental to the child's future than the color of their skin is. In a similar environment a white child has no greater chance of making it in life.

Kids, parents, and society as a whole must be shown again and again how personal decisions can affect their (and their children's) lot in life. Statistically there is no socio-economic level in which hard work is not rewarded with an improving quality of life. Leading a mindless life, disregarding long term consequences, and persuing empty stimulation every second of one's life is equally destructive to those with or without large amount of melanin in one's skin.

If, as a country, we still believe it necessary to help those less well off, we can do so, but leave race the fuck out of it! There are few things I believe as ardently as this: work ethic and self improvement will trump a million times over nearly any stumbling blocks put in one's way.

Brittain is wrestling with this issue as we speak.

"Over The Top" Finally Gets It's Due

2008-03-18T12:00:00.008-04:00

If there is one weakness that I have acquired in my years on this earth it's ridiculous action/macho movies. An arm-wrestling trucker teaching his estranged son the ways of the world most definitely fits into this category.

The cinematic wonder is best explained by I-Mockery.com I've seen this movie probably 6+ times and it just gets better and better.

My meager collectoin includes: Rocky I-VI, Robocop I-III, Rambo I-III, Predator, and Terminator I & II, as well as some others I'm not thinking of right now. Soon I'm going to branch off into buying Steven Seagal movies. He's a giant douchebag, but I'll be damned if I don't laugh at his serious face every freakin' time.

Cringe-worthy politics.

2008-03-12T09:40:00.002-04:00

Gah! I just can't watch this without feeling embarassed for humanity!

In the past two days, I have seen quite a few surgical procedures, some from less than a foot away. I observed a double knee replacement, a hip replacement, ACL reconstruction, rotator cuff repair, numerous knee scopes, and a carpel tunnel repair. The past two days were pretty easy on me. I thought this was because I had a rock solid stomache, but that is most definitely not the case because of the video above. I don't think I've cringed this hard since Tom Cruise went full blown crazy on Oprah.

The Poor Poor Middle Class

2008-03-09T12:24:00.002-04:00

Reason does a terrific job telling you just how bad the middle class has it!

*edit* Sorry the size sucks...

Housing Crisis

2008-03-09T12:16:00.006-04:00

Like always, I'm sure that I'm oversimplifying this difficult issue, but here is how I see this currently situation.

We have a certain portion of the population that has, until recently, never been able to buy a house. Lenders have historically shied away from people with bankruptcies, terrible credit, or just entering the workforce (no monetary history and no money behind them). Well magically, these institutions started modifying their risk assessment practices and started lending to this higher risk population. Lenders were able to justify their risk and entice people to borrow from them via sub-prime loans (loans at interest rates higher than prime rates), adjustable rate loans, or multiple mortgages to cover very low (or no) down-payments. If the borrow is already strapped in making payments, what happens when they get laid off, get sick, their beloved Dodge Neon up and dies, or magically they now have crotch-spawn to take care of? Should we claim that these borrowers have no way of understanding numbers and that predatory lenders were skulking around just looking for someone's life to shit on?

There's another portion of the population that is just living beyond their means. Let's call these people "older douchebags" (OD-Bags), but we should be calling them "should-fucking-know-better-bags". OD-Bags ostensibly do understand numbers, but they are either overly optimistic or willing to assume some risk to live better than they should. When other people in the real estate market are making money, OD-Bags just have to jump in. Some use higher home prices to refinances; using the money to send their little snowflakes to some $50k/yr college day-care or maybe they just use it to buy themselves a Truck-boat-truck.

Things get especially hairy if that extra money is put towards buying other houses/property with little or nothing down with a sub-prime, interest only, or adjustable rate loan. Some OD-Bags justify buying at an increased prices because someone in the future is bound to pay even more. I'll give you one guess as to what happens when housing prices for a certain market begin to tank.

What is especially distressing though, is that a lot of the above is avoidable by making reasonable monetary decisions. I get pretty worked up though, when dumb decisions are talked about as if it isn't their own fault. Articles are written making a call for action that "something must be done" about this unjust situation. Bullshit. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks this way. These are definitely worth reading.

Linda Keenan, on who's really at fault. She also talks about "victims" of predatory lending (1, 2, 3). She does a good job pointing out and skewering the bad decision makers that we trotted out by the New York Times as sob stories. Definitely worth taking a look at.

People all too often forget that as these people file bankruptcy, those unconscionable lenders are hurt also. Many no longer exist because of their bad business decisions. Things aren't all black and white though, because this is also disrupting the stock market. As financial institutions have all of this lent money making them money, they also use their holdings as something people can invest in. A lot of investment funds have certain portions of their portfolios dedicated directly or indirectly to betting that these mortgages will continue to gain them money. When these seemingly solid loans are actually junk, a lot more people get hurt by causing stock values to plummet.

Maybe I'm callous, but people should think long and hard about their financial situation before jumping headlong into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. On top of this though, I think that fund managers and heads of lending institutions should take this lesson to heart and quit gambling with their shareholder's money; looking for easy money to pad their earnings is and always will bite you a business in the ass. Only good business practices and reasonable financial decisions will pull people's attitudes out of the gutter and put the market back on solid footing again.

Oh, and don't shit your pants that international markets will pull the rug out of under the U.S. anytime soon. Remember, this is a global economy and if the U.S.'s market tanks, many others will fall as well. It is in everyone's interest to get this figured out and going forward in a direction that benefits everyone.

Wahoo drugs!

2008-03-03T19:36:00.007-05:00

Reason's Radley Balko has an article that got me worked up about drugs again. His article brings up the point that there are many people out there who are against drugs, to be against drugs. They're not rallying against drugs because fighting them will make life as a whole easier from people no all sides, but rather they're fighting drugs, because they are inherently wrong. I get worked up over this stuff because I can be single with no family, sitting home alone, put something in my mouth, and I become a criminal. I can be locked in a cement box for wanting to put things that I grow / buy in my mouth.

Now, let's get this out of the way, I personally do not take recreational drugs. That is, unless you count drowning your brain in alcohol as ingesting a conciousness altering substance. Well, er, I guess by definition alcohol is just that isn't it? Well, at least it's not like you can kill yourself or others while under the effects of drugs right? Ooh, right. You can. Shit. Well, I maintain my high horse position because, well, "Drugs are bad, mmkay!" (thank you Mr. Mackey).

The drug war today has many parallels to the prohibition attempted from 1920-1933 via the 18th Amendment. Proponents of prohibition made the point that alcohol was a detriment to society. The non-desirable effects resonated through all races, classes, and social structures. We are better off banning it to minimize these ill-effects. Once instituted, to the great surprise of everyone, a black market arose. Institutional corruption became a large problem as many authorities were soon bribed by or were complicit in the tacit approval of bootleggers. The black market thrived because a demand will be satiated by someone willing to make a (now quite large) profit. Alcohol related deaths were not uncommon and violence associated with bootleggers was widespread. We repealed the 18th amendment, not because we suddenly found out alcohol was a magical substance that did no harm. Prohibition was dropped because the cure was worse than the disease. Good people just wanted a drink now and then, and were willing to break the law to deal with people willing to indulge them.

If you replace alcohol with drugs and bootlegger with drug-dealer I see only one glaring difference between then and today. In the past the authorities in the U.S. swept across the nation trying to stamp out alcohol use. Today drug-warriors span the globe attempting to push back the tide of drug production and smuggling.

Well why don't you just legalize murder then? Because all people are going to do is run around raping, stealing, and murdering! The law is still the law. Murder is till murder. Theft is still theft. This is not an argument. I'm not afraid of some craze pot smoker running me down. I will grant you that the ill-effects of drugs like crack and meth are devestating not only to the people using, but to their families as well. That argument is bullet-proof because I can honestly think of no other situations in which the way someone lives is detrimental to anyone outside of themselves.

We need to be treating the ill-effects of drug use because that is the true problem. People desire to alter their conciousness. Alcohol and nicotine are exceptions but not because they're intrinsically safe. They're exceptions because we accept them as a society. We all need to get off our high horse and make rational decisions as to what we will and will not accept. With these decisions we must be intelectually consistent across the board, and we must face the reality of the consequences we bring to society.

I think it's a travesty that we have so many non-violent drug offenders behind bars. Supposedly 1 in 100 people are incarcerated in the US. We need to incarcerate the people who we are punishing for doing wrong, and let go those we're just pissed at doing something voluntarily (gambling, drug use, I would argue prostitution as well, but that's another post). Once these people have "paid their debt to society", good luck finding a job, any kind of federally subsidized student loan, or any number of other social benefits to help them turn their life back around.

Let's say you got this far, and you're all like, "But, but, but, the children! We need to protect them!" I can accept that, but what kind of reasoning is there for relatively safe adult drug use? This doctor isn't shitting himself when a father brings in his 19 year old on acid, so why should we as a society, collectively shit our pants when someone wants to do acid? Let's just say it's morally acceptable to ~~strip search a child for ibuprofen~~ randomly drug-test kids just for the sake of drug-testing kids. I will accept that line of thinking as soon as we randomly test anyone holding any public office in the United States. If you don't know why this is not currently the case, you are ridiculously naive.

Thank you for tuning into another episode of, "The wonders of the internet tubes!!1"

Global Warming or Nuclear Apocalypse? Why Not Both?!

2008-02-23T08:18:00.004-05:00

Nuclear Apocalypse or Global Warming? Why not Both?!

An article in the Guardian says that global warming is so bad that in just over 10 years we're going to have massive flooding, incredible droughts, and so much upheaval that the world is going to turn to nuclear weapons. Oh, and England's going to be in a Siberian climate. This is all from a supposed secret report given to the president from the Pentagon. The Guardian claims to have this report in their possession.

I'm wondering if this was a worst, worst, worst case scenario that the Pentagon is trying to be ready for? What % of probability is required before the Pentagon writes a report and tries to setup a system minimizing the risk to the U.S.? I'm hoping it is a vanishingly small %, and this report is proven quite wrong.

Should things like this start to come to pass, I will be the first person to say that I was wrong. No, wait, I'll just blame it on Bush. I'll say he lied to me so that I can complain like a child proven wrong but not able to admit his/her mistake. This way I can maintain my impeccable sense of moral superiority.

Global Warming and Me

2008-02-22T15:20:00.008-05:00

Call me a freakin' idiot. Say I have my head in the sand. Call me a shill for oil interests. I do not sit awake at night worrying about global warming...

There, I said it. Why would an otherwise intelligent person say that global warming is anything less than the most serious issue man has ever faced? I say it because people are freakin' stupid. And by stupid people, I purposefully include scientists who have dedicated their lives to the study of science. Hypotheses tested time and again is what gives us the ability to predict and act on those predictions. So far with global scale weather systems we've coerced massaged data into looking like what we've experienced in the past, we have no definitive ability to predict future weather. Don't get me wrong, I have great admiration for science, it is what has transformed man from prehistoric cave dwellers to enlightened pioneers, probing every aspect of the natural world, trying to gain an understanding of the beauty around us.

I try to keep an open mind as much as I possibly can, and I honestly believe that human action is, at least in part, causing a warming of the world. I do not think it's catastrophic, and I'm not entirely convinced that what we are experiencing is any worse than some of the weather changes which have occurred in man's history. There is only one universal constant, change. The Earth's climate is and always will be changing. We can and will deal with it.

What really gets my goat though is people blaming anything and everything on global warming.

Please check all bad things that are caused/exacerbated by global warming:

Droughts...CHECK!
Floods...CHECK!
Stronger Hurricanes...CHECK!
Weaker Hurricanes...CHECK!
More Hurricanes...CHECK!
Fewer Hurricanes...CHECK!
Unmanagably catastrophic sea level rise...CHECK!
Very modest sea level rise...CHECK!
Polar caps irreparably melting...CHECK!
Polar caps thickening...CHECK!
Increased global inequality...CHECK!
Kitten stomping...CHECK!
Britney Hilton's inability to wear underwear...CHECK!
Guilt for anything/everything...CHECK!

I have not read the International Panel on Climate Change Report in its entirety, but I'm not arguing against the science. I'm sure whatever analysis were used do indeed point to us being (at very least a component of) the problem. From the report: since 1850 global water level rose less than 20cm (7.9") and global mean temperature increased less than 1 deg. Celsius (less than 1.8 deg. F). If we shut everything in the world down, and emit no more greenhouse gases (everyone holding their breathe included, as that's a source of CO2), we would still increase in temperature 1 deg. C in the next 100 years (not 150 years like stated above). If we were to be draconian ni our crack down on GHG (greenhouse gas), temperatures could still increase (according to the IPCC) by 2 deg C with the top range of that scenario being at 3 deg C. Worst case looks like 4 deg. C increase with the top range being 6 deg. C (this worst case involves tripling greenhouse gas emissions in the next 50 years, seems a stretch to me). There is no definitive evidence what the increase in water level would be at best case scenario, but at worst they're estimating just over 20". So if GHG emissions triple in 50 years, in 100 years we could see the water go about about 1 and 1/3 foot. I had better go buy oceanfront property in Kansas...

So if absolute best case involves a moderate level of warming, and unbelievably high emissions may cause about double that level of warming over 100 years, I'd say we're fighting a losing battle already. It will not be possible to have everyone trade in their cars for bicycles (and semis for really big bicycles). So if, according to this report, warming is to be expected, then what problems could we be up against? I try to keep abreast of global warming news, and I especially liked this website's take on what would could be positive and what could be negative from Global Warming. Remember, though, this site is seriously dedicated to fighting Global Warming.

Top 5 bad things that could happen from Global Warming
5. Disease carrying insects will migrate further north
I'm not worried one bit from this. Other countries maybe, me no.

4. Warmer waters / more (and more intense) hurricanes
Intense hurricanes suck. On my list of worries, hurricanes and loss of life.

3. Increased probability and intensity of droughts / heat waves
Increased heat waves also suck. List of worries, food shortages from adverse weather.

2. Economic consequences of dealing with the effects
Worry: Paying out money to help those who're having problems growing food and those dealing with hurricanes.

1. Polar Ice Caps melting
Wait a second, IPCC said it's not that bad (20"+ at worst). Not a worry...

Top 5 Good things that could happen from Global Warming
5. Arctic ocean being clear year round means economic benefits of increased trade
Economic worry not all that bad, in fact there could be positives...

4. Fewer Hurricanes
What? Fewer? That's awesome. Hurricane worries off my list.

3. More Summer Fun (it'll stay hotter longer)
I don't think they're trying very hard. I guess summer's fun, no affect to worry list.

2. More Food due to better growing environments
So wait. We'll get more food. Okay, I'll scratch food shortages off my worry list.

1. Less dead people due to less intense winters
So the impact to human life will be a net positive, as fewer people will die from cold. I'll check dying off my worry list.

So people fighting Global Warming can't even get their consequences straight. Economic consequences are +/-, weather intensity could increase/decrease, we'll have more/less food, more people will die/live. What am I supposed to believe here? I guess I should just get back to my storm cellar guns cache. I really should just focus on protecting myself from holes in the ozone layer, acid rain, global population bomb / world-wide mass starvation, and let's not forget the ramifications of the crack-baby generation of the 80's.

"Wait," you say, "Don't hide out in your cellar yet. None of those things ever ended up being as bad as everyone thought..."

Sweatshops, How I Love Thee (Not Really, But Let's Argue)...

2008-02-22T09:21:00.003-05:00

Let it be known, that I am disgusted by this picture. How can those people be smiling! The evil rich are taking advantage of them, and they think they're happy! Well we (upper-middle class guilty progressive) know better. We should force the evil rich (and by extension these smiling workers) out in the freaking gutter!

Why am I such a bastard when it comes to sweatshops? I see a group of people, going to a place of their own volition, and selling someone else their time. As long as these people are not intimidated from quitting, and are choosing to work (as opposed to being forced: slave labor), then I find it hard to fault anyone. Someone is holding out some money, someone else has time and skills. Both exchange what they have, and both (from my point of view) go home at night better off for their decision. Am I looking at this too simplistically?

I have heard it said that we have no moral right to impose our political will on another people. Is this the exception to the rule for the sole reason that in this instance we really know what's best for them (even if they don't know it themselves)? If a person wants to work in a "sweatshop", but cannot, what is their alternative? My guess is that they won't just find a McDonalds or cushy office to work at.

Have I been mislead into believing something inherently evil? Am I a sadistic elitist, wanting nothing more out of life than for the great unwashed masses to do my bidding?

Why don't we force them (those evil foreigners) to pay our equivalent of minimum wage? If not that amount, should we adjust it according to exchange rates, or should we take into account cost of living? People argue that child labor is something that we should rail against as well, because kids get taken advantage of, but I believe that's another article.

Does everyone hate me yet?

Immigration Debate

2008-02-21T10:58:00.004-05:00

There's an article that appeared today in UCLA's student newspaper. It's a story of a girl going through life absolutely unaware that she was an illegal immigrant. Her parents told her of her status after 18 years of misleading her (it's assumed this was near or as she was graduating high school). She moved out of the house after high school and went out on her own. She's worked odd jobs and took college classes at UCLA whenever she could afford to. She is nearing graduation, but her future is uncertain. What kind of job can she expect given her status?

This story is an obvious heartstring puller. My take is a little different though, because I would feel the same if she knew her whole life that she was illegal. She's hardworking and is doing nearly anything in her power to better herself. We need this type of person in our country. We need to get motivated people here and encourage them to no end.

The recent attempt at immigration reform (S. 1348, The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007) was roundly rejected by staunch conservatives. Conservative talk radio lambasted the idea from all sides (except Michael Medved). The current situation we have is not good, and for some reason has recently dropped off of everyone's radar. Building a fence is great, we should enforce our border with unabashed strictness, however we need to open our doors much wider. I cannot think of any good reason why we don't want to encourage intelligent, motivated, (sometimes quite educated) immigrants to come to the U.S., the land of opportunity.

I am disheartened by the stories (as well as my person experiences) of laziness and general malaise for anything not popular culture. I shudder from the fact that we make laws, but don't enforce them. If we believe the laws are unjust, repeal them. If we believe they are just, enforce them. As a people we need to "man-up" and realize that our healthcare system is being strapped by our inability to deny care to anyone at any time. People are being taken advantage of through lower than minimum wages and unsafe work environments because they don't dare to report their employer (for fear of deportation).

My over simplistic course of action involves the following...

We need to make it known far and wide that we are going to make immigration reform a priority (and then do so!). We must increased enforcement and re-evaluation of our laws). Illegal immigrants must know that they cannot continue as they are, but they must have hope for someday becoming a true U.S. citizen. With no hope they will continue hiding, trying to just mind their own business.
We must force them to pay a penalty for the fact that they have indeed broken U.S. law (as well as paying any necessary back taxes for a period). There are plenty of laws that, when broken, incur no prison time, but require a fine as a penalty, I see this as a very valid application of such punishment.
They must go through a legal immigration process that doesn't reward their illegal status (i.e. putting them at the head of the line). This would only encourage others to come illegally just to become a citizen faster than they could normally.
We must help and encourage people to go through this process. This will relieve their burden and society's burden form the fact that they're living outside the system, and thus illegally. This is an extremely important point, because I certainly don't believe everyone wants things to just keep going as they are.

I know I am thinking too simplistically, but I think no action is a terrible thing. The process sucks right now, and we cannot continue to tacitly allow 12-14 million (some say 7-20million) to continue living in violation of established law.

I empathise for illegals, but to me that means nothing. I believe emotion greatly skews decision making (quite often with terrible unintended consequences). I see illegals' motivation to better their lives as a force that will do nothing if not help the U.S.

2008-02-19T19:26:00.005-05:00

Comic From: WeTheRobots

I like this comic a lot. We should never teach our kids to do things just for the sake of doing them. I say this without having any kids of my own yet.

Anecdotally we hear that the kids causing the most trouble in school are the ones who are either way ahead and bored out of their gourd, or are way behind and feel like acting out is a way of sidestepping their supposed shortcomings. There are serious issues with our education system nowadays, and I think one of them is age stratification.

A child's mind goes through various developmental steps, beginning with basic tracking skills, understanding that the shapes they're seeing are "things", and understanding that when something is out of view it does indeed continue to exist. Another important step for a child is learning how to speak and converse. Looking back at the development of a child it does not atter one bit, at exactly what age these skills are masters (within reason obviously). If we are not in argument on this point, how are we to say that all children who will turn 7 between August 30, 2008 and August 30, 2009 must learn all of their shapes, numbers, and letters by May 5, 2009? This same line of logic goes for reading, mathematical, and memorization skills.

The Montessori method of teaching is not easy because it flies in the face of most everything we've been spoonfed growing up (at least if you went to a "traditional" school). From what I gather kids learn at their own pace and pursue areas of study agreed upon by student and teacher. Of course there will be subjects students may want to shy away from, but that is to be expected when dealing with true individuals.

This sounds great on paper, and I'm sure there are homeschooled people who would advocate such a system, but I wonder how difficult it is to run a school with this type of mentality? Would it require a tremendous increase in the teaching staff, or would the teachers be there to guide and not spoonfeed the information? There's a Montessori school nearby, I may have to stop by sometime to ask questions.

The Onion News Network

2008-02-19T18:53:00.004-05:00

The Onion has always been a good standby for ridiculous newspaper style stories. Now they're also putting videos online under the name The Onion News Network. I have one word for you, "funny-as-hell".

Representative to Rid Congress of Gang Members:

The Onion: Live From Congress-The Skull Fucking Bill Of 2007

I love politics...

Are We Still Guilty if There's No Free Will?

2008-02-19T18:19:00.007-05:00

Ruminations on the Reason Article (by Ronald Bailey: If There Is No Free Will, Is Everything Permitted?

Ronald Bailey discusses an article in the New York Times, by Eric Nagourney, which brings to light a study published in Psychological Science which posits a potential link between determinism (simply: no free will) and the propensity for study subjects to cheat.

I think this study quite plainly shows that determinism or free-will people cheat more when they think they can get away with it. I would argue also that there is the potential that a statement like, "Smart people say that free will is an illusion, " and, "It's not okay to cheat, but people cheat every day regardless," could have arguably the same result. Both seem to be a tacit approval of cheating behavior, this will be accentuated even more when people believe they can really get away with it (which was a definite part of the experiment). If it is through fate or if it is free-will that causes people cheat less when there are negative consequences and policing of cheating behavior, then it all works to the same end doesn't it? No, we're not let off the hook if we're just piles of predictable chemical reactions.

But let's talk about determinism some more, it's intriguing.

Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) is well known for espousing the idea that we're just moist robots. He believes that quantum matter/interactions could end up being quite orderly (we just don't understand how yet). If quantum interactions are predictable and solely based on physical laws and causal relationships it could be inferred that all chemical and electrical interactions should be predictable as well. If you follow that line of thinking, our brains are just giant globs of chemical reactions and electrical impulses, whose end result is no more alterable than gravity itself. Given this extreme, we have no free will, as the end is already predetermined (so to speak).

The idea blows my mind. Everything in the world is indescribably complex and interconnected, yet when you get down to brass tacks, most everything behaves reasonably. There's no reason to believe that suddenly in 2008 we've hit the brick wall and nothing else will be figured out in the world of quantum mechanics. This general optimism leads me to believe that we'll uncover heretofore unimaginable complexities of matter that, in my opinion, will eventually be determined as orderly.

What's really cool about this idea is that, since the big bang, I have been destined to write this post. You have been destined to read this post. And I am destined to bang your mom tonight...

Making it in America

2008-02-19T15:45:00.006-05:00

Building a Life on $25 and a Gym Bag a story of how Adam Shepard does in fact show that hard work alone can lead to a sustainable lifestyle regardless of starting with no money, no car, no job skills, and no house/apartment.

This recent college grad's success flies in the face of a book I was forced to read in college: Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. In this book, Barbara Ehrenreich's posits that people cannot pull themselves out of the middle/lower class as easily as one might think. Her book is about her living the life of a lower class working person, and trying to make due (similarly to Adam's experiment, only she started with $1300 and a car). She also did not rely on her academic background or job skills, working generally menial labor type positions.

This is a popular book in lower level sociology classes (I had to read in college), and my guess is that professors are trying to expose their well-off students to the dark dingy world of the lower class via required reading. With my near obsessive bias towards self reliance, I saw this book as a masturbatory exercise in pity, defeat, and self-loathing. She was never able to make a sustainable living despite the fact that she started her project with her car and $1300 in savings.

Thank Xenu that someone finally took a dump on "Nickel and Dimed". I have been complaining about this book to a number of my friends for some time. I hate the idea that there is absolutely nothing someone can do to improve their lot in life. Despite the fact that everyone is born with different skills, I argue that everyone has the ability to work hard and gradually increase their standard of living. Granted, on minimum wage I doubt you'll have your own apartment with cable and internet, but given the right mindset and reasonable spending habits, there is no reason why nearly anyone (short of serious medical debilitation) should be able to be self sufficient.

Tell me what you think. Did Adam prove a decent point in working up from nothing decent living in 10 months? Is Barbara right in thinking that there is no help for the lower class beyond increasing minimum wages out of our sense of good will? Is it good or bad for a society to have a system ni which someone can live comfortably and not work?