|
|
Why Debate?
We were debating the flag burning amendment issue and the whole subject "Why bother debating?" came up. The assumption was, the other guy has already chosen what he wants to believe and most people aren't interested in learning anything new or changing their minds. Mainly, they're in it to convince you that they are right and you are wrong, a battle of wits in a sense.
I like debate, but not for those reasons. Frankly, unless it's directly affecting my health or well-being (or my family's, etc.etc.), I could care less what you choose to believe. You want to believe the Earth is flat, the CIA killed Kennedy and we didn't actually walk on the moon? Be my guest.
No, I debate for a couple of reasons:
To make my own arguments stronger. Like anything, until you put it through the wringer of public scrutiny, you're not going to see all the discrepencies, problems and holes. Actually laying ou your argument to another human is a really good way to figure out where you stand and why.
Similarly, having someone argue back is a good way to understand just how strong your argument is. I used to say I liked having the table I stand on kicked. That way I know it's strong. If the foundations of my beliefs can't hold up to basic logic, then I'm in trouble and I should rethink some of the stuff I consider truth.
To better understand what I'm arguing about. This is a different facet of the first idea. Again, laying out your argument forces you to understand it. If you are going to present a coherent case, you'll need to comprehend the reasons behind it. I find I learn a lot about science, politics, history and whatever else applies, when I'm working on backing up my words with facts.
To get information out there in a way that is sensible. This is a personal thing for me. I get tired of pointy-headed pundits arguing like sixth-graders about issues that are deep and complex, yet crucial to our culture, like abortion, evolution, constitutional amendments, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, gay rights, "morality", and so on. The sides on most of these issues are so polarized, they immediately fall into labelling and stereotypes, screaming the same idiotic arguments at each other to no avail. I like getting real facts and real feelings together and proposing an argument that takes a little bit longer than 30 seconds to explain. In doing so, I hope to spread compassion, understanding and logic, as well as leave a source of fact and structured argument that folks can draw from in the future.
To understand what the other side is saying. This has two aspects. First, there's the complete possibility that I've misunderstood something, or overlooked some point, and I might find that once I've discussed with someone who knows a little more, or who has a different opinion, that I've changed my mind. It's happened. In fact, there have been times when I've come out with an opinion that states categorically such-and-such is how it is (so there). And yet, when someone chimed in with a different aspect, I softened my stance or even reversed my opinion 180 degrees.
That's not called waffling, or losing, or giving in. That's called learning and growing stronger. I think this is something people overlook when debating.
Second, I think it's important to find out what the other side is saying and why, because if I can do that it helps make my arguments even stronger. I can orient my reasoning towards their exact case, rather than making general statements.
To dissect and disprove the arguments on the other side (if possible). This is the flipside of "making my arguments stronger", in that I also work to make the opponent's case weaker. Partly, this is fun. It's like a puzzle. But also, in cases like evolution, it's part of clearing up misinformation which I think is very important.
To determine the core difference that is causing the debate. If you can find the point where you diverge, you can often choose to agree to disagree on that one point. Then you realize at least why the guy is so adamant about something that seems so wrong. This leads to a better understanding of the human race in general and of "those other people" in particular. It also leads to greater compassion for others, which I think is a good thing.
To exercise my brain and language skills. And my debating skills. I've been able to apply a lot of what I've learned about debate to my own home life and my 14 year old. Plus, I find it fun to think and write critically and logically. It can only improve your life in other ways as well.
Notice that "To convince the other side I'm right" is not on there. That's not my agenda. I'm interested in showing them where I'm coming from and I'm interested in showing them the flaws in their own reasoning, if there are any, which will hopefully at least make them say "Huh" if they are open minded. And I'm interested in finding the core differences between us, if there are any, as that helps me understand and relate to you as a human being.
But to me, debate isn't about winning. In the beginning, it's about discovery, thrashing out the possibilities and understanding what the opposition is trying to say. In the end, it's about making your argument as clear and comprehensive as possible, while showing the pitfalls and problems with your opponents argument.
As an aside, I like debating with people who are not stupid, who are open-minded and who prefer logic over rhetoric, stereotyping and name-calling. And I despise hypocrisy, especially in those who would call one fact or prevailing opinion to support their reasoning, but ignore the same elsewhere when it contradicts their needs. I also hate quitters, those who storm off (or condescendingly withdraw) with claims about how the opponent will "never understand", rather than tactfully agreeing that they might have more thinking to do to shore up their arguments.
In short, I view debate more as a chess match than a duel to the death. I enjoy debating with folks who debate for the same reasons as I do, and have little time, except to lay out solid arguments, straighten out facts and take down faulty counter-arguments, for those who would rather clamor, condemn or convert than have a sensible discussion.
No, Look, Two Plus Two Is Four
Can someone check the math on this for me?
"The 20-gigabyte model can hold about 5,000 songs and costs $299, while the 60-gigabyte version holds 25,000 songs and sells for $399." Let's see... three times as much space; five times as many songs. Man, that Steve Jobs can sure work wonders.
Cheerio
I think if I were a conman, I'd do everything I could to be as British as possible. The more you sound like a befuddled Hugh Grant, the more you can get away with.
"Oh, I'm dreadfully sorry, I seem to have accidentally stabbed your husband to death with an icepick. I'm just so terribly sorry. Would you happen to have a towel I could borrow?"
I'd need to throw in more British-isms, like "flat" and "lorry" and maybe "buggered", but you get the idea.
A good reality show might be "British Guy", just seeing how much crap he could get away with, like shoplifting and whatnot. Or, maybe it'd be a good David Letterman bit. Something like that.
Waiting for the Big One
Shark attacks? Why worry about small time terrors like that when you can fret about the next big quake to hit the midwest? That'll be an interesting day.
Toady Toad
This morning I put my shoe on, and there was a lump of something in there. Maybe paper or mulch. I wasn't sure. I turned the shoe over and shook it and out fell a dead toad, about the size of a key lime.
I don't think it was dead when I put the shoe on. Eck.
Eviction Notice
I always knew we were just renting our property from the government. (What happens if you don't pay your property taxes? You get evicted.) But, this is ridiculous. So now, any place Wal-Mart wants to build a new store and elects to take a few key city council members on golf outings and fact-finding missions to key areas like San Francisco or NYC, they'll get to evict your ass and build their stores wherever the fuck they please.
Really, all it takes is to have your brother be on the board of one of the development companies and already you're making decisions that benefit family at the expense of other poor sods who don't know anyone in the business.
Personally, we just dumped a ton of money into our home landscaping, and it's not officially recognized in the current value of the house. Between that and other upgrades that aren't 'officially included' in the value of the house, we'd stand to lose about 75 thousand dollars with a government buyout. Not that anyone would like to build a store in our little valley, but they might decide to run a golf course through here someday, and we'd have little to no recourse, except to get some new laws passed.
Sigh. I wonder how many abuses of this new ruling we'll have to see before someone does something about it. Fortunately, they're pissing off people who have a little bit of money, not just those who live in 'blight' and are at the mercy of whoever holds the purse strings. We'll see, I suppose.
How Dare You
Since when is burning a flag a crime? Oh, yeah, it's not yet, at least until we get an Amendment to the constitution passed. Why are these people so anxious to make burning a flag a crime? I'm not familiar with the pro arguments, but I think it boils down to:
Burning a flag disrespects America.
Burning a flag is desecration of the flag.
Passing the amendment will show support for the troops overseas.
So what? Nobody but nutjobs want to burn the flag anyway.
It's not speech, it's an action, and so it's not protected under the first amendment anyway.
First, burning a flag disrespects America. This I agree with. In fact, I believe that's the whole point of burning a flag. It's a kind of symbolic bird-flipping to an entire country, their government and their culture. So, we're in agreement there.
So, what this argument says is, dissing America is bad, and should be punishable by law. And, see, that's where I think this argument falls flat. Let's take a look back in history and see if we can dig up some other laws that deal with dissing America. Hmmmm. Oh, here's one: The Sedition Act of 1798.
Under the Sedition Act, it was illegal to "write, print, utter, or publish" anything that criticized the president or Congress. This was, naturally, passed for reasons relating to national security, but it's interesting to note that they were opposed by none other than founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madisom. Historically speaking, it's generally accepted that (a) despite claims to the contrary (national security, etc.), these were primarily a political vehicle for the Federalists to maintain control of the government and squelch the up-and-coming Democratic-Republican party, and (b) they clearly violated the letter and intention of the First Amendment (even though there were never actually ruled on by the courts).
Yes, a mere 22 years into it, the government had already decided that, regardless of the First Amendment, it was tired of the rabble "dissing" it, and was going to do something about it. Fortunately, that's why we have the constitution in the first place, and better heads prevailed.
But that's really what this new amendment is seeking to do. It's trying to make the dissing of America into a crime. So, if burning a flag to thumb your nose at America is a crime, why isn't yelling harsh slogans? Or carrying placards? Or printing nasty editorials? Or wondering aloud in your living room? What about the President? Doesn't he represent America? We can't have people running around our own country willy-nilly, shouting horrible things about him. People might get the wrong idea! What about his policies? What about the vice-president or congress? Or the army? Or the police?
I guess the point here is, there's no crime in disrespecting America. In fact, that's really one of the most beautiful things about us, that makes us so different than Red China or Cuba or the old Soviet state. We are aloud to express our displeasure with the current system as loud and brash as we see fit.
The American flag is a symbol that represents the ability to burn the American flag in anger.
The second one is weirder, in that 'desecrate' makes certain assumptions. Desecration implies by its very name a sort of sacredness, such that befouling it is somehow profaning it. That by its very nature, it's somehow worse to burn a flag than it is to burn a book, a bra or a draft card.
I'm all about freedom and democracy. And I'm all about America, because America, even with its checkered history, its empirial leanings and its partisan politics, is still the best example of how people can (mostly) live together and get on with their lives without the government being a major part of everyday living. So, we all agree, America is good.
The problem I see with the word 'desecration' is that there is some sort of spiritual attachment to America itself, the country and/or government, regardless of the ideals it stands for. It's often amazing to me that people who claim to love this country with all its freedom and democracy get so crazy annoyed when all this stupid freedom gets in the way of them molding America into what they want it to be.
If you read America: The Book, there's a joke in there about how the more 'democratic' names are attached to a country, the higher the totalitarianism reigns. And they use, I think, Congo as an example. It starts out as 'Congo', then becomes the 'Republic of Congo', then 'The People's Republic of Congo' and finally, 'The People's Democratic Republic of Congo', which is pretty much exactly the opposite of what it actually is.
So, I'm all for America, but mostly I'm for freedom and democracy. If America stops being the best place for freedom and democracy, then we've got a problem, and at that point, I'm all for doing something else. America itself isn't the goal, it's the means to the goal. America isn't a wonderful country because God put it here and made it so. It's a wonderful country because it actually works to practice what it preaches (or, at least it tries to), and because the principles on which it was founded have withstood several attacks from many fronts.
So, stop trying to enforce what America stands for by taking away everything it stands for. It's totalitarian (Yes, I think most totalitarian governments ban flag-burning), and really, a little annoying.
The other argument I have against both 1 and 2, is that we need to stop legislating against what we consider "bad behavior". There's no real crime going on when someone burns a flag (unless it's not theirs, but we've got laws for that already). It's just someone doing something we don't like.
Now, if we're going to legislate against something we don't like, why don't we start with, oh, telemarketers. (Oh yeah, first amendment.) Or maybe mimes. Or reality shows. What about cutting in line? Or not shutting up in a movie theatre? Or idiots with head-set cell phones talking to themselves in the grocery store? Or rain on a Sunday?
If we're going to pass laws against things we don't like, there's plenty of other stuff that happens every day that we could legislate, with bipartisan support and support from the American people. But that's not how it works. It's not a crime to be annoying, and when you burn a flag, that's all you are: annoying. There's no victim, just an action. (They can't even use that old fallback, "What about the children?")
"But it's wrong!" you say. Well, let's see what happened last time we passed an amendment to the constitution to handle something somebody saw as a real problem, something that was 'wrong' with the country. Let's see... Oh yeah, here it is: Prohibition.
That really worked out, didn't it? And really, drinking is a problem. It causes accidents and violence. I mean, there are real issues surrounding alcohol. But it turned out that people didn't give a rats ass what the moral folk in our government thought was 'good for them'. They wanted the freedom to get drunk, so they went ahead and did it anyway.
Now, I'm not suggesting that folks will gather in secret clubs to sit around and burn flags, because that's clearly not happening. But the point is the same. Our government isn't very good at mandating what's proper. And it shouldn't be, that's not its job. The people will figure out what's proper and what isn't.
Which of course brings up another point. Most of the flag burnings going on today are in the Middle East. They love a good flag-roast. I'm pretty sure, even with all our bombs, a flag-burning amendment wouldn't slow down that party.
So, who's burning flags over here? Where's the epidemic? Why is this so important?
They aren't, and it isn't. What we have here is a solution looking for a problem. Folks are trying to make a statement by amending the Constitution, the blueprint of our country, to send a message.
Oddly enough, this to me is probably more sacriligious than burning an actual flag. Of the two ways to get attention and get your message across, I'll take the one that doesn't have potential unforeseen political and legal side-effects that might affect generations to come. If you want to be heard, rent a billboard in Times Square or stand on the capitol steps and hand out leaflets. But, dammit, leave my Constitution alone.
As far as showing support for the troops overseas, how exactly is passing an amendment that abridges their rights to free speech and anti-war actions doing that? Isn't that exactly what they are fighting for?
Really, if you are trying to show support for the troops, you don't need to screw around with the Constitution. Try reinstating (or even increasing) some of their benefits. Stop cutting veterans benefits. Try helping out the families that are trying to subsist on a single income while their working National Guard father or mother is overseas fighting for your right to pass idiotic laws. Stop threatening to close schools and day cares on military bases in order to reduce expenses.
That seems like a fine place to start with showing support for our troops. And maybe some magnetic ribbons.
"Well, Bucko, I'm sorry you can't walk, can't get the medicine you need and you're running low on Hot Pockets, but at least Libby can't burn flags any more. So, you got something to be proud of. Go USA!"
Let's see, where are we. Oh, yes, the nutjobs.
Yeah, I agree. I mean, their probably not nutjobs, but they are clearly seeking attention for something or other, and the best way to deal with that is to just ignore it. In fact, when's the last time you heard of a flag-burning in the states? I think only one happened last year, and there may have been a smattering when we actually hit the shores of Iraq in 2003. But it's hardly an epidemic, and, while I'm sure most people say, "No, I don't like it when people burn flags," I don't think it's on the top of their list of worries. (Maybe if the flag-burners were gay or something...)
So, what the heck. Let them ban flag-burning, because, who does it really hurt?
Well, first, the amendment, as proposed, is stupid and full of holes. It uses really vague words like, well, like 'desecrate', which don't really have a formal legal definition. (If I stitch a flag patch onto my uniform, is that desecration? I've speared it with holes...) And loose laws mean lots of opportunities for people to misuse them and arrest people for 'flag desecration' when really they were just being annoying.
And second, it's the beginning of a slippery slope. I won't draw out the picture, because it always sounds ultra-paranoid and ends up with Nazis and stuff, but it's still something to be conscious of. You let someone do something small, take away a bit of your rights, and they slowly chip away until they get to something you do care about, like bitching about the President (hey, for all you pro-Bushies, remember 5 years ago, Clinton was President) or writing government-critical blogs or publishing non-state-sponsored newspapers.
So, it's better to raise the issue and stop it now, even if it's only nutjobs that care.
As for whether it's free 'speech' versus action, all I can say is, there's precedent for it. Donations to political causes and parties is protected by the first amendment as 'free speech' or more broadly, freedom of expression, even though this is clearly an 'action'. And, more recently, telemarketers are still allowed to call you, and one of their main arguments is the First Amendment right to free speech, even though their particular means of speech includes the despicable action of dialing your number on their telephone.
If we start disallowing 'actions' while still allowing free speech, then what prevents us from saying, "You can print a cartoon criticizing the US, you just can't draw one." This circumnavigates the 'freedom of press' issue, but it still prevents you from expressing yourself on matters that are important to you.
This hasn't been explicitly spelled out, but the courts have definitely ruled this way in the past. And I think it makes sense and is within the spirit of the law, if not the exact letter.
Finally, isn't there something better we can concentrate on? I mean, there are so many things that need our attention right now, including the economy, the wars and the perennials like health care, the jobless, the homeless, the working poor, our schools, the environment, etc. Is flag-burning really such a hot national issue that we need to waste our time and money even talking about it, let alone trying to pass laws and alter the Constitution for it? I think not.
Chimp Art
I saw a news story on this auction yesterday morning. I liked the part where they showed random people two pieces of art, one done by a chimp, one a "masterpiece" hanging in a museum, and asked to choose which was the chimp. They almost always chose the human.
But what interested me most about the story on the chimps wasn't that people bought their art. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, you buy what you like. If it was painted by a chimp or a mosquito, a computer or a pretentious young art student, it makes no difference to me.
What interested me the most is that the monkeys actually cared. They weren't just knocking paint onto a canvas and rolling around in it, or casually, unconcernedly making tracks as they wandered across the paper. They were specifically sitting down and using the tools to create. Not that different than a child with a paintbrush, the joy of using as many colors as possible, the experimentation with different types of strokes, the unfinished look of the canvases.
But they key, I think, is that it was all intentional. They took the brush, dipped it in the paint and made marks in places they thought marks needed to be, or places they thought might be interesting with paint on them.
To me, this was a huge revelation. Here is an animal, a primate, engaged in an activity that has nothing to do with surviving, eating or fucking. The chimp was painting simply because she liked the idea of applying paint to a canvas. They even showed, at one point, another chimp walked across the canvas, and the painter flipped the board over and started again.
If I had a grant, I'd be all over this. I've often wondered where our urge for art and music comes from, but if chimps have some sort of drive for abstract expression or abstract appreciation, it's one more link between us. I want to know what it's all about.
My favorite line from the article:
The collection of three tempera paintings - all abstract... Yeah, oddly enough landscapes and portraits weren't his specialty.
Update: Statisitcs
Found it. Ironically enough, there is a lot of bluster about speeding being very dangerous, etc., but no indication, except for a reference to another report that increased speeds may have increased the fatality rate by 35%, that increased speeds is actually a problem. There's a lot of 'concern'. For example, concern that strides made in vehicle safety and DUI crackdowns "might be" offset by speeding.
Of course, we go back to the fact that, per mile driven, fatality rates are at an all time low.
Really, the report is fairly information-free. It's truly a basic survey of speed enforcement practices across the fifty states. All conclusions are, as far as I can tell, in the mind of the beholder.
Statistics
This article from USA Today about traffic safety and speeding is yet another example of how people bend statistics to meet their needs. Let's break this down. First, the allegation. Or, really, the hypothesis.
"Motorists in most states get a free pass from police for driving 5 to 10 mph above posted speed limits, a policy that contributes to 'carnage' on the nation's roadways, an association that represents state highway safety agencies reported Monday."
Boy, they don't waste any time getting right to the meat of the matter do they? Let's see. What they're saying is, letting people drive 5 to 10 miles over the speed limit causes 'carnage'. You would assume that this would mean that they have some sort of causal evidence linking these two events. Read on.
"The number of speeding-related deaths is not declining despite major safety improvements in vehicles in recent years... Speeding is a major factor in about one-third of the 42,000 traffic deaths a year in the USA."
Since I don't know any better, let's assume all the numbers are as they say they are. It's possible they are fudging the numbers or some calculations, but that's okay. We'll give them that and take their stats at face value. So, okay the number hasn't decreased.
But how is this measured? Per capita, or percentage? Or straight numbers? Because if we are just saying that 100 people died 10 years ago and 100 people died last year, that's not apples to apples. In 10 years, the population has increased, and, you'd assume, the number of people driving has also increased. Therefore, we're actually having fewer accidents, per driver. That's a decrease, right?
Additionally, this doesn't take into account any population oddities, like, say, an increase of elderly drivers as the "baby boomer" generation plows headlong into old age and all the accompanying driving foilbles, like not being able to see or control your vehicle or remember who or where you are. That might have an affect. Just supposing.
Also, note the use of the phrase "major factor". Not "cause", but "factor". This means that they aren't even stating that speeding caused these deaths, only that it played a part. Of course, so did people, driving, asphalt, tires and cars. But seriously, if you consider that pretty much everyone who is driving is probably speeding, especially if you are going to consider even 5-10 mph over, I'm surprised the number isn't higher. I mean, if these were highway deaths, you'd figure the number would be like 90%.
So, what is a traffic death? I don't know. And neither do you. It's not spelled out. Does that include pedestrians? Parking lots or just streets? Clearly, it includes city and neighborhood driving, not just highways.
How many is 42000? Is that a lot of deaths considering how often we drive? Let's see. 42000 is 0.014% of the population. More people die of nephritis (I had to look it up; it's some sort of kidney imflammation) or influenza/pneumonia (65000+) than on the highways. That's funny, I never hear about the carnage of influenza. Or even Heart Disease (nearly 700,000).
Look, even one death is a tragedy. Probably. But the fact of the matter is, death is part of the game. If you are willing to get behind the wheel of a car, you are accepting the fact that there may be a little death waiting for you. It can happen and it's the risk we take for getting across town in an hour instead of a day.
In 2003, about 17000 accidents (40%) were alcohol-related (note, that doesn't even include drugs). (Did you know Rhode Island and Hawaii top the charts in DUI deaths, per accident? Crazy.) How many of these included speeding as well? It seems to me that someone who's blazingly drunk and not in control of his vehicle is probably also speeding.
Or, maybe not. But who can say? Without getting the full picture, we're already starting to draw conclusions that may not be warranted.
But enough about the generality of the numbers. Let's continue. Here's the part that kills me.
"The nation's traffic fatality rate last year was a record low of 1.46 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled... But the number of people killed in accidents each year has remained fairly constant as the number of vehicles and miles driven increased."
Don't you see! The number of fatalities isn't decreasing! That constitutes a serious problem! (The spokesman even uses 'carnage' again.) Liar.
Look, blockhead, fatalities did go down. To say otherwise is pure, misleading bullshit. Your statement isn't untrue, but it's completely disingenuous. Considering the amount of time we spend on the road as a culture, we're at a record low for deaths. And this is after the nationwide 55mph speeding restriction was lifted. Figure that one out.
"The safety report found that police in 42 states routinely let drivers exceed speed limits."
Yes, in 42 states, police admitted to not wasting their time ticketing otherwise law-abiding citizens who are merely headed to work to pay their taxes, at 5 to 10 mph over the posted limits (except Atlanta, where, and I speak from experience, 85 is dandy, just don't hit nobody), and are instead concentrating on the morons who rocket their little crackerjack motorcycles between lanes at 100+mph or the cretins who are weaving down the road after spending all evening at Happy Jacks Pub and Grill.
Yes, if the cop is busy on the side of the road writing me a ticket for 68, he's not bagging the teens dragging down the express lane of 271. This is a side argument, so I'll stop there. But you understand what I mean, I'm sure.
So, now to the part where they link those 68'ers and 71'ers to the 'carnage'. Here's where they show that, of the 42000 deaths 38% were caused by folks going 5-10 mph over the speed limit.
""
No? Okay, then here's where they show that, in the states that don't let us scrape by, traffic accidents are fewer.
""
Nothing? Right, nothing. What we have here is a failure to prove our hypothesis. We have, approximately, the following.
42000 people died in 2003 in traffic accidents.
About 1/3rd of these were speeding-related.
Most states don't bother ticketing folks who are barely breaking the speed limit.
Let's see, did I leave anything out? I actually originally put in "Most people drive 5-10mph over the speed limit," but I realized, they didn't even show that. That's just an assumption I made by (a) reading this article and (b) driving.
Oh, yeah, also this one:
Traffic fatalities, on a per mile basis, are at a record low.
So, we loosened the speeding restrictions and the fatalities have gone down. That sorta puts a dent in that hypothesis. I suppose you could still argue that restricting speeding would further reduce fatalities, but I could also point to the era that they were reduced and fatalities were higher than they were right now. So, they'd need to sell that with a pretty good argument.
But they don't have one. We have four facts, none of which are interconnected.
Which is fine, except for this idiotic drive to force a connection. And to what end? I believe that they probably do want to save lives. There's the restrictionist person that believes that more laws are better because they help people control themselves. But we know that just isn't true. And, apparently in this case, I have the numbers to prove it.
But the cynic in me realizes that a major income source for state governments is traffic tickets. Yes, it's an actual income source on the budget, one the states are pretty reliant on. In fact, if the police were to stop giving tickets, they could do serious damage to the economy of that state.
And the cynic would also like to point out that this is not the National Safety Council or something like that putting out the report. It is, in fact, the Governors Highway Safety Association, which, I assume, is something the governors (of actual states) have sponsered. It is not false to say that increasing the number of traffic tickets by ticketing for what is normally considered the 'grace point' on the speedometer would also increase the income to increasingly cash-strapped state governments.
I mean, it just would.
So, where does that leave us? Once again, a specious argument, based on unsound wrangling of mathematics, ostensibly for 'our protection' (isn't it always?), but probably really just about the cash (isn't it always?).
I'd really like to see the report, just to see what it really says, versus what they are taking from it for their own ends.
Exactly
See: schroedinbug.
The funny thing is, it's so, so true.
See also: Heisenbug, Bohr-bug, Mandelbug.
Overheard on the Radio
"Bacon is the crack of meat." So very true. The other night I had some appetizers that were faux-crabmeat wrapped in bacon and fried in oil. My wife asked, "Are they good?" Are they good? I just said, it's bacon and faux-crab, fried in oil. How could they not be good?
I think even the toothpicks were fried.
Yum.
Thurl Ravenscroft
died Friday. That makes me sad. I liked him.
He sang "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" and did a TON of voices for Disney movies and parks over the years. But his main claim to fame was as Tony the Tiger, which I think he did until he died. Sometimes it's weird to think about these people who have had some small effect on your life even though you have no idea who they are.
Plus, his name really was Thurl. How cool is that? If I ever have a pet tiger, I'll name it after him.
Situational Ethics
So, there are some people who are down on Mark Felt because he "broke the trust of his office" and "lied" (when he said he wasn't Deep Throat). Clearly, he committed a small "injustice" because he saw that a bigger injustice was being done. But couldn't you argue that Nixon committed his small injustice because he was afraid, should he lose, a larger injustice would be done to America?
I'm not saying that's true. I think he was just power-hungry and paranoid. But, for arguments sake, let's say that's the case. How do we draw the line such that one injustice is better or worse than the other? That's a tough question.
I'm not being exactly fair because I'm throwing it out for discussion without actually considering it too deeply. But, such is life. In the end, I think history determines the correct party, much the same way we distinguish between revolutionaries and terrorists.
Frankly, I think Felt did the right thing, regardless of his motives. To admonish him for breaking the trust of his office in the face of a dishonest administration would be like admonishing a German soldier because he refused to follow orders at Auschwitz. Perhaps if more folks did the honorable thing by being slightly "dishonorable" at a crucial moment, the world would be a better place.
Whitewash
So, I think our priest lied to us yesterday. Well, I guess he just whitewashed the facts a little. Either that, or he really doesn't have as a good a grasp on world history as a seminary-educated individual should have. He was talking about Pope John-Paul II's new book Memory and Identity and in passing mentioned, as apparently suggested by this book (which I haven't read), that the history, the architecture, the arts, the libraries and the culture of old Europe was due in large part to the efforts of the church, and particularly the Catholic church. (We're Catholic, so we'll allow him to be a little biased.)
Well, that's one way of looking at it. If I remember correctly, almost every major cultural, historical and technical advancement in the last 500 years happened, not because of the church, but in spite of it. Certainly the church did everything they could to halt the progress of science, including denouncing scientists and inventors as heretics and burning them as witches.
Even democracy itself is not a particularly church-y concept. The church is very into God-ordained hierarchies, so monarchy fits it just fine. I think the Catholic church would be fine with the Pope running pretty much everything. The idea that the common man has a voice and can gather together and use it to speak louder than those who would otherwise impose on us their will and ways is not particularly amenable to power structures like the church. Because then you get into sticky discussions on such touchy subjects as stem cell research, abortion, homosexuality, sexual morality, woman's suffrage, slavery, whether the earth goes around the sun or vice versa, and other things that are very clearly ordained by God to be right or wrong.
I mean, what we're really saying with democracy is, if enough folks believe it's okay, then it's okay, regardless of what the Good Book says. So, democracy and theology at their hearts don't mix very well. Now I wonder if that's what were witnessing in this country. It'll be interesting to see who wins, because, really, while many of us love democracy and freedom, our hearts aren't quite as into it as those who love the Lord and believe they are acting on the side of heavenly righteousness. That's tough to beat. (Witness the kamikaze pilots of old and the suicide bombers of today to see where pure righteous zeal can bring you if you're not careful.)
I Want One
 There's something about Tablet PCs that turn my crank. Don't know what it is, but I want one of these. My only concern is that Lenovo might not keep up the amazing quality of the ThinkPads. Not to knock Chinese products, but quality hasn't always been their strong point. I hope they don't sink the brand.
|
|
|
|
