|
|
Clean, Warm and Safe
My machine has been randomly blue-screening recently, plus it has a nasty virus/trojan/worm/whatever that I can't seem to shake. I bought a couple of new hard drives, thinking it might be because one of the drives is corrupt. I got those installed, formatted and up and running, so I decided to take the plunge last night and reinstall Windows XP.
I have to say, it was a pleasant experience. I reformatted one of my drives, popped in the Dell Reinstall disc and had Windows up and running inside an hour, including Avast virus and Firefox, plus my music player pieces.
All I can say is, ahhhhh. I feel like I've finally had a hot shower after weeks in the wilderness: clean, warm and safe.
Now I gotta install SP2 and other updates.
Stupid viruses.
The Iraq War
Okay, I lied.
I'm on the fence about the war itself. If Iraq comes out as a true, tolerant democracy, I think it'd be a great thing.
However, whether you think we should have done it or not, I think the way we got into it was shady. And I think the administration has pretty much ham-handed every aspect of it, from the diplomatic angles to the actual deployment and warfare. I think they had no real idea what they were doing, how to do it, what it would take, and what the consequences would be. And I think the war has been successful, not because of Bush and his cronies, but in spite of them.
I am glad it seems to be turning out well, because it could have very well just all gone to hell. I'm holding my breath that the Iraqi ledaers actually put into a place a government that is tolerant and open, with the right checks and balances to avoid them devolving into a Mullah-led theocracy like Iran in the 70s or Afghanistan. I'd also like to see them get beyond the cultural acceptance of government corruption that seems to pervade every society over there to the west of Germany.
I'll leave casting that response to "Right" or "Wrong" as an exercise for the reader.
What Would Jesus Do?
In a comment post, Zam asked, "Iraq War, right or wrong?" I'm not taking the bait except to say that, in something so complex, to try and label the whole thing right or wrong is silly. Clearly, there are some aspects that are better than others and some that result in bad consequences.
Let me ask a different question though. Let's say that somehow, just pretend, if you killed 10 random people on the street today, we can end hunger in Africa. It just ends.
Assuming this is true beyond doubt (just play along, okay?), would you do it? Discuss.
Who Are You? (2)
Zam posted:"I don't think that simply thinking the issues through puts you in the center, if your positions tend to fall consistently in with the left side of those issues. Again there's nothing wrong with that, but a centrist as I define it is on the perceived left of the majority about half of the time, and right the other times. Maybe talk some more about the issues where you ARE conservative as you claim? I'd be real interested to hear your take on those, honestly."
I think I'm conservative in personal issues. For example, there's nothing conservative in the way the Republicans handled the Terri Schiavo case. In this instance, I think it's none of the federal government's business.
I think the recent Eminent Domain ruling was dangerous, which apparently is a conservative opinion, as I've been told the "liberals" fucked that one up.
I don't mind helping people (left?) but I'm not interested in handouts (right?). Wouldn't that put me in the center?
I'm on the fence about abortion. (Center? Leftist? Murderer?)
I don't think religion belongs in the government. (Conservative. Oh, no, wait, that's liberal. No, wait, liberals want everyone to get along and conservatives want the government to mind its own business... wait...)
The whole right/left thing is stupid, because it clouds honest debate, And then you get shit like "Religion in Government" tacked into "conservative", where it doesn't actually belong. There's nothing conservative about wanting to remake the country as a Christian nation. In fact, that's Radical. I, on the other hand, take the Reactionary stance that we should leave it the way it is and stop fucking around. I believe that's the traditional conservative stance.
Also, it kills me how Liberals love personal welfare, while Conservatives despise it; yet Conservatives love corporate welfare, while liberals despise it.
Anyway. Try me.
As for the compass:Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82
So I'm an economic centrist, but a social libertarian. Okay, I'll buy that, I guess. I mean, I think sex is fine, gays are fine, nudists are fine. Frankly, as long as its between consenting adults and nobody gets injured, I could give a fuck what you do, even if it involves donkeys, Crisco and a vacuum cleaner. Just don't invite me over that night, okay?
Who Are You?
I was recently, in a roundabout way, tagged as a leftist.
First, I'm not a lefty, I'm a centrist. Which means that, if you are an arch-conservative (or even a conservative), from where you're sitting, I'm left of you, so I look lefty. But I'm no tree-hugging, commie pinko, buddy. :) (Why is it those of us who work so hard to preserve our American, constitutionally-endowed freedoms from encroachment by the state are labeled anti-American socialists? That, I'll never understand.)
Also, I'm a more traditional conservative in that I think the government should mostly mind its own fucking business, in just about everything. You'll see that kind of pervades my writing in a subtle, but vaguely paranoic, way.
The only thing I think the government should pay attention to is (1) infrastructure, (2) crime and (3) potential abuses of power, mostly in monopolistic situations (which means I'm bullish on some regulation, or at least watch-dogging).
Second, it was suggested that I'm politically motivated. I'm not. I am, in fact, selfishly motivated, in that I want to be able to read what I want to read, watch what I want to watch and say what I want to say. That it even has to translate into politics is annoying, because I hate politics. I'm miserable bad at it. But I'm good at thinking, so you'll see a lot of thinking-things-through posts here.
I'm also logically motivated, in that I like to find the core axioms and/or rules behind something. I hate hypocrisy (hence my hatred of politics, which I regard as just the advancement of a personal agenda using whatever tools are handy at the time, regardless of logic and reason). So, you might read my blog as anti-religion, but it's not. I'm all for religion (I'm raising my children Catholic after all), but I'm against the hypocrisy that seems to surface in religion and the "moral majority" that would deny the advances of science and rule our lives for us (see point #2a).
So, that's a bit about who I am and where I'm coming from. This was kind of off the cuff, so I reserve the right to update this as I see fit. I do plan to keep growing after all.
Death Penalty
In other news, I see that the Catholic church has started a campaign against the death penalty in the US. I have to say, I applaud this. Nothing drives me crazier than hypocrisy and the way this administration and particularly its executive officer proclaim their desire for a "culture of life" while still supporting the death penalty (and, uh, war) is just hypocrisy in action. So, I'm glad to see that some people are thinking clearly.
I have to say, I'm not morally against the death penalty, per se. I have no problem permanently removing a true threat to society. If there's a spider in my kid's bedroom, I kill it. The spiders were here first, and it's just minding its own business, but I can't take the chance that it might bite them. It poses a threat, and I remove it, with a little remorse, but the choice is clear.
Similarly, if a dog has a history of attacking humans, we put it down. If a tiger develops a taste for human flesh, we kill it. It poses a true threat to society and needs to be removed. You could fly it to Borneo or something, but I don't think we owe it anything.
Now, turn your sights on the BTK killer. Here's a guy who has admitted to 10 tortuous killings. He is clearly a threat to society. We could ship him off to jail and lock him up for the rest of his life, but I don't think we owe him that. I have no problem with putting this guy down.
So, I think it's clear where I stand on the moral issue. But, I'm still opposed to the death penalty as it's exercised in this country. The truth of the matter is, the state has executed innocent people. Well, they may have broken some law somewhere, but they were innocent of the crime for which they were executed, and I can't imagine what it would be like to have your life taken from you simply because of some sort of clerical error, some odd coincidence, some scheming revenge-seeker, some biased witness, some hapless attorney.
And it's not just one. Over and over again we keep seeing these guys who've been on death row for years exonerated by new evidence, DNA evidence that didn't exist when they were tried.
I can't abide by that.
And since it's not likely, given the human condition, that we're going to get better at trying these people, the only solution is to eliminate it all together. At that point, I'd rather keep them all alive than murder another innocent man.
Jingoism
I just ran across this word (I'd seen it before, but forgotten about it), and I have to say, it pretty much captures what this administration is up to. Here's the definition:Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism. Can anyone argue that this doesn't apply to today's adminstration and their fervent supporters? I can see I'm going to have to start using this term more frequently.
And So It Begins
An article by a fellow who used to have Top Secret clearance and who was named one of President Bush's original 1000 points of light, yet who somehow ended up on the TSA's terrorist No-Fly watch list and is about to see his entire public speaking livelihood head down the sewer in the name of National Security. Some of the more important lines:
I'm embarrassed that it took my own ox being gored for me to see the threat posed by the Administration's current restricting of civil liberties. The worst of it is that being put on a list of America's enemies seems to be permanent. ... I'm guilty, says my government, not just until proven innocent or a victim of mistaken identity--but forever. This is why you can't sit around and wonder when people will come to their senses, or assume that they will never come for you. It could be you next caught in the grinding mill of the faceless security machine, and then it'll be too late. We need to diligently protect ourselves from what is truly the greatest threat to our liberties: our own government.
The founding fathers knew this well, which is why they worked so hard to create a system of checks and balances, a system that errs on the side of the individual, a system with the traditional tools of tyranny (religion and police state) removed, and topped it all off with a mission statement that clearly outlines the principles on which the nation was founded.
Big Boy
 Found a guy pretty much exactly like this on our front porch yesterday evening. I caught him in a bucket, showed him to the kids, and then set him free. We've moved to a wooded area and there is much wildlife to be found, including beetles, fireflies, deer, crayfish, spiders, woodpeckers, fish, toads, snakes and so on. I like that we've got that sort of biodiversity you don't get in most cities or even most suburbs. It's pretty neat.
Monte Hall
So, there's this mathematical puzzle called the Monte Hall problem. Here's how it lays out.
There's three doors, and behind one is a car. Monte asks you to choose a door, so you do. Then he says, "Okay, before we reveal the door you've chosen, let me show you a door." He shows you a door that you didn't choose, of course with no car behind it. Then he asks, "Do you want to switch doors?"
What are the odds of your door being the door with the car behind it?
Naturally, your initial reaction is 50/50. But naturally (or else, this would be a boring puzzle), you'd be wrong. The odds are actually 1 in three that you've picked the door with the car. That is, you're actually better off switching.
I know, I know, it makes my brain hurt too. But here's how it breaks down.
You choose a door. If you choose the door with the car, then Monte reveals an empty door. Here if you stay, you win; if you switch you lose.
Now, let's say you choose one of the non-car doors. Monte shows the other non-car door. If you switch, you win; if you stay you lose. But since you are twice as likely to choose a non-car door, it's twice as likely for you to win by switching.
Here's the thing. Let's say you're standing there trying to decide whether or not to switch, and I walk onto the set. You turn and say to me, "Which door should I pick?" At this point, I have a 50/50 chance of choosing the right door.
Yes, we are faced with the same decision, and yet your choosing one door is 2/3rds correct and mine is only 50% correct.
That's just weird.
Obviously, there's some sort of historical information in the entire Monte Hall transaction that gives you different odds than me. I've been struggling to figure out what that is.
Then I realized, there's a problem with the assumptions laid out above. It assumes that at your first choice, choosing either of the two empty doors is a distinct event, giving three possible events. Yet, when Monte shows you a door, if you've already chosen the door with the car, his showing you either of the empty doors is a single event. That is, if it matters for you, it should matter for him. Or vice versa, if it doesn't matter for him, it shouldn't matter for you.
Looking at it this way, we can say: if you chose the door with the car, then there are two paths that Monte can take. He can show you empty door A or empty door B. For each of these, switching loses and staying wins.
That makes it two for and two against, bring the odds back to 50/50. I'd figured it out!
So, I wrote a Java program that runs through the scenario 1,000,000 times. And of course, I found the odds were: 67% for switching.
Yeah. It's actually true. Switching is better for you.
Okay, so I spotted the fault in my logic. I forgot that while there are 2 different events for Monte to take, each of those is actually half as important, because, remember, each is 50% of the original 1/3rd chance of me hitting the car in the first place. So, yeah. My dreams of being the smartest boy in the world were shattered. Again.
We're still left with the paradox that your decision is split 1/3-2/3 and mine is 50/50. What's even weirder is, if you explain the whole thing to me, then ask me if I want to switch or not, I'm in the same place you are, with a 2/3 chance of winning by switching.
So what's the difference? What's the information I have that changes the odds like that?
I still haven't figured it out. If I do, I'll let you know.
Addendum 7/2/05: In doing some reading I came across another way to look at it. When you make your initial choice, the odds were 1 in 3 that the door you chose had the car and 2 in 3 that one of the other doors did. When Monte opens one of those doors, it doesn't change your initial chances. The odds still have to be (have been?) 1 in 3 that your door has the car. Since that's the case, and since all the odds must "add up to 1", the remaining door must have a chance of 2 in 3.
So, if there were 1000 doors and Monte opened 998, the odds of the car being behind the last door that you didn't choose are 999 in 1000.
It makes a little more sense mathematically that way, but it's still freaky-weird.
|
|
|
|
