Love this. Some offensive language, but it can be excused because of the message it's delivering.
Genius.
I saw this because I follow @JeriLRyan on Twitter.
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Constitutionally Speaking
I am a self-identified liberal and a self-identified Democrat. For this reason, people make assumptions about my opinions on issues. This is natural, but sometimes frustrating. In the past couple of days, I've been reminded of the problems with this sort of "pigeon-holing."
If you're paying attention to the U.S. national news you know that the law dubbed "Obama-care" is before the Supreme Court. One of the points at issue is whether or not the Federal Government can require its citizens to purchase health insurance. One of the (many) arguments from its opposition, before it was even passed, was that this provision is "Unconstitutional."
So, yesterday or the day before, posts like this started appearing on Facebook:
So, here's my problem. Sure, I support Health Care Reform. I even support the "Obama-care" law.
BUT!
But I support the Constitution. And support of the Constitution is more fundamental than support of any specific law. In my opinion, one of the (many) excellent aspects of our particular form of democracy is the balance of power, and the reliance on a set of First Principles -- embodied in the Constitution.
I don't know whether "Obama-care" is Unconstitutional or not. Its opponents threatened to bring it to the Supreme Court, and as soon as it was passed, I said "Good; do that."
We need to know whether this law is a Constitutional way to attempt to accomplish one part of reforming a very complex health care system.
So, it's frustrating that I see the Democrats trying to rally some sort of public outcry with the apparent attempt to influence the Court. Now, of course, no Facebook message is actually going to affect the Court. (Anyone think Justice Scalia is out there reading Facebook?) And, if the Court operates as it should, the Court should not declare a law Constitutional unless it is, even if 90% of the nation disagreed. [An amendment would be the way to go, then, but we aren't even close to a super-majority on this issue, so no such amendment would result in this case.]
Personally, I am happy about many parts of the law. I don't know what happens if part of it is declared Unconstitutional. I suspect some aspects of it w]could stay in force -- requiring insurers to allow children to be covered under a parent's policy until age 25, for example, is not a high-cost mandate tied directly to additional premiums, unlike the "pre-existing conditions" requirement -- but even if the whole law were discarded, it's important to understand that we need to keep the balance of government intact. And part of that balance is the ability of the Court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.
If you're paying attention to the U.S. national news you know that the law dubbed "Obama-care" is before the Supreme Court. One of the points at issue is whether or not the Federal Government can require its citizens to purchase health insurance. One of the (many) arguments from its opposition, before it was even passed, was that this provision is "Unconstitutional."
So, yesterday or the day before, posts like this started appearing on Facebook:
So, here's my problem. Sure, I support Health Care Reform. I even support the "Obama-care" law.
BUT!
But I support the Constitution. And support of the Constitution is more fundamental than support of any specific law. In my opinion, one of the (many) excellent aspects of our particular form of democracy is the balance of power, and the reliance on a set of First Principles -- embodied in the Constitution.
I don't know whether "Obama-care" is Unconstitutional or not. Its opponents threatened to bring it to the Supreme Court, and as soon as it was passed, I said "Good; do that."
We need to know whether this law is a Constitutional way to attempt to accomplish one part of reforming a very complex health care system.
So, it's frustrating that I see the Democrats trying to rally some sort of public outcry with the apparent attempt to influence the Court. Now, of course, no Facebook message is actually going to affect the Court. (Anyone think Justice Scalia is out there reading Facebook?) And, if the Court operates as it should, the Court should not declare a law Constitutional unless it is, even if 90% of the nation disagreed. [An amendment would be the way to go, then, but we aren't even close to a super-majority on this issue, so no such amendment would result in this case.]
Personally, I am happy about many parts of the law. I don't know what happens if part of it is declared Unconstitutional. I suspect some aspects of it w]could stay in force -- requiring insurers to allow children to be covered under a parent's policy until age 25, for example, is not a high-cost mandate tied directly to additional premiums, unlike the "pre-existing conditions" requirement -- but even if the whole law were discarded, it's important to understand that we need to keep the balance of government intact. And part of that balance is the ability of the Court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.
Monday, January 9, 2012
D&D's Big Announcement
If you're a "Dungeons and Dragons" (#DnD) player, you probably have an opinion on "Fourth Edition."
Over the decades since #DnD was introduced, it's been revised a few times. Each time, players had to get used to new rules, adapt their characters and their play styles, and of course buy new books and materials. I've been around for all the major transitions after the first (among our group, only Craig had the original rules, as I recall, and we didn't play them.) Being an optimist, I typically thought that each new change was good, the new editions seemed like natural extensions to the existing rules, so I bought the new material pretty quickly. This despite the fact that didn't play for at least a decade. I
Then came "Fourth Edition."
It took me a long time to decide to buy 4th. I've been running #DnD for my "Dude Friends" for years, and now for my "Son Group" for a year or more. I never tried 4th with either group, because of the drastic change which would be required.
But I did buy the books.
And now Wizards of the Coast has announced that they are creating yet another edition! It even made the New York Times.
I'm not upset about the money, to be honest with you. I buy games pretty frequently. Sometimes, they never get played. Most often, I play them, but every once in a while, a game sits on a shelf, having provided me nothing more than a cool thing to read, or the anticipation of fun. 4th Edition #DnD might be just that. I have enjoyed reading it, and I really like a few of the new concepts (Minions -- great idea.)
But now that the creation of "5th" has been announced, I doubt I will ever play 4th.
Amazingly, the designers are asking for input from the gaming community. That should be interesting. For every three #DnD players, there are at least four opinions on how things should work. The consolidation of ideas will get geometrically difficult.
But the motive is good. I bet 4th is not nearly as successful, financially, as they would have liked. Getting customer input sounds like a great idea -- as long as they haven't given up doing innovation of their own. Because, really, we don't need just a warmed over #DnD. We want the excitement of the legacy game, with new ideas that make us say "Wow! Perfect! I want to play that!"
In the meanwhile, my two groups will continue playing the amalgam of 3.0 and 3.5 rules we've grown accustomed to, and we'll continue having a great time imagining our heroics, within the bounds of the game system which has kept us playing for so many years.
[That is, if I can figure out how much trouble Ezekiel, Garthor Armorbellows, Sifla Armorbellows and their group will have getting past Stampede Ford on their way to the big city of Deepwater. So much preparation needed! So little time!]
[Follow up article: I can still use my old rules and play new D&D? That sounds interesting....]
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Rise of the Planet of the Worms
From the BBC - but I bet you can find it other places:
Animal's genetic code redesigned
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14492948
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Sailing
Ever wonder what it would take to sail, solo, around the world?
Two young women (teenagers) are currently on solo sails. I find their stories fascinating.
I first ran across Abby Sunderland's blog. She's very personable, and sounds just like a nice teenage girl (who knows a whole lot about sailing!) when she writes. She has a website, too. From there you can track her progress. She started sailing on January 23, then re-started her round-the-world attempt from Cabo San Lucas on February 6.
Later, I came across the same sort of sites for Jessica Watson, about whom I had read news articles before she started her journey on October 17, 2009. She is amazingly close to her goal.
Fascinating. I would never want to do this, but I am intrigued by the attempts.
Two young women (teenagers) are currently on solo sails. I find their stories fascinating.
I first ran across Abby Sunderland's blog. She's very personable, and sounds just like a nice teenage girl (who knows a whole lot about sailing!) when she writes. She has a website, too. From there you can track her progress. She started sailing on January 23, then re-started her round-the-world attempt from Cabo San Lucas on February 6.
Later, I came across the same sort of sites for Jessica Watson, about whom I had read news articles before she started her journey on October 17, 2009. She is amazingly close to her goal.
Fascinating. I would never want to do this, but I am intrigued by the attempts.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
News That Matters
Things we might have missed: My dad was talking about a landslide that happened just a few days after the Haiti earthquake. He mentioned that the slide was causing a huge lake to build up behind the slide, flooding many people out of homes, and setting up for a huge flood when the water finally breaks through the loose slide. So, I went looking for news. Sad to say, there are quite a few deadly landslides that have been happening in 2010. I still don't think I know which of these was the one Dad was mentioning -- though I think it might be the Pakistan event.
At least 80 dead in Ugandan mudslide – UN
West Java: landslide buries a village, 15 dead and 70 missing
Portugal Landslide Death Toll Rises to 42
'Up to 37 feared dead' in Pakistan avalanche
For those who pray, please consider including the people affected by these disasters, along with the Haitians and Chileans.
For those who would like to do something material, I regret to say I haven't seen information on which organizations, if any, are providing aid.
At least 80 dead in Ugandan mudslide – UN
West Java: landslide buries a village, 15 dead and 70 missing
Portugal Landslide Death Toll Rises to 42
'Up to 37 feared dead' in Pakistan avalanche
For those who pray, please consider including the people affected by these disasters, along with the Haitians and Chileans.
For those who would like to do something material, I regret to say I haven't seen information on which organizations, if any, are providing aid.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Health Care Reform - Comparison Tool and Fallacious Opposition
Ever wonder what the health care proposals really are, and how the various versions compare? Here's a very helpful site.
Side-by-Side Comparison of Major Health Care Reform Proposals - Kaiser Family Foundation
It might be a little out of date if/when President Obama offers a smaller/modified plan, which could occur Wednesday. Another place to get information is here at Reuters, though it does not have the side-by-side comparisons.
I have been referring to these, especially as the opposition claims that the proposed bills create a socialized medicine plan, or that this is a government takeover of health care. By my reading, it's clear that they do not. The world has examples of socialized medicine and government-run health care. These plans are not that.
So, why is the opposition using these words, then, when they argue against the plans? There are a couple of frequently used rhetorical devices which might be at work, but they are both logical fallicies.
Straw Man: They may be creating a Straw Man. This is a fallacious argument where one side creates a characterization of the opponent's position which is easier to argue against, but which is not the opponent's position at all.
Example: If my position is "Puppies are good pets" and you decide to argue against me as if my position is "Puppies don't make messes" you might sound like you're talking about the same thing, but really you've created a straw man. And, since most people know that puppies do make messes, if you can get people to believe that my position is "Puppies don't make messes" then you can convince them to disagree with me, without actually addressing my position.
Slippery Slope: This is a fallacious argument where one side says that the opposition's position will lead, very clearly and inevitably, to an end-state position, so they argue against the end-state.
Back to the puppy example: If my position is "Puppies are good pets" and you believe that the end result of owning a puppy will be ruined carpets and furniture, you might argue that keeping our belongings safe is more important than puppies. Notice that I did not argue that we should have a puppy, nor did I maintain that a puppy would not cause some damage. You took my statement as the first step down a slippery slope.
[Another possibility is this - They're just wrong: The opposition hasn't actually read the opponent's position, but assumes it says one thing when it says another. {The general public probably has too many of this third group, but then again, the general public supporting the plans contains many who don't know the details either. I mean, let's be honest -- this stuff is complicated and good concise information is hard to find. So let's just deal with the people who are arguing from the informed positions, rather than ignorance.}]
When they argue that the plans should not be enacted because we don't want a government takeover of health care, I believe the majority of the politicians arguing this way are doing some combination of Straw Man and Slippery Slope.
By the way, some opponents are trying to stop the plans on more logically consistent grounds. Paul Ryan's comments (most of them) during the Blair House Summit argue against the plans because they increase the deficit. If one believes that the deficit must not go up due to these plans, and if Ryan's numbers are right, then there is a logical argument against the plans. But it's not the argument being used as a talking point or a rallying cry. Even Ryan threw the "government take-over of health care" in at the very end -- around 5:45.
It's hard to sift through the actual counter-proposals from the opposition when the emphasis keeps being placed on aspects of the plan which do not exist.
Side-by-Side Comparison of Major Health Care Reform Proposals - Kaiser Family Foundation
It might be a little out of date if/when President Obama offers a smaller/modified plan, which could occur Wednesday. Another place to get information is here at Reuters, though it does not have the side-by-side comparisons.
I have been referring to these, especially as the opposition claims that the proposed bills create a socialized medicine plan, or that this is a government takeover of health care. By my reading, it's clear that they do not. The world has examples of socialized medicine and government-run health care. These plans are not that.
So, why is the opposition using these words, then, when they argue against the plans? There are a couple of frequently used rhetorical devices which might be at work, but they are both logical fallicies.
Straw Man: They may be creating a Straw Man. This is a fallacious argument where one side creates a characterization of the opponent's position which is easier to argue against, but which is not the opponent's position at all.
Example: If my position is "Puppies are good pets" and you decide to argue against me as if my position is "Puppies don't make messes" you might sound like you're talking about the same thing, but really you've created a straw man. And, since most people know that puppies do make messes, if you can get people to believe that my position is "Puppies don't make messes" then you can convince them to disagree with me, without actually addressing my position.
Slippery Slope: This is a fallacious argument where one side says that the opposition's position will lead, very clearly and inevitably, to an end-state position, so they argue against the end-state.
Back to the puppy example: If my position is "Puppies are good pets" and you believe that the end result of owning a puppy will be ruined carpets and furniture, you might argue that keeping our belongings safe is more important than puppies. Notice that I did not argue that we should have a puppy, nor did I maintain that a puppy would not cause some damage. You took my statement as the first step down a slippery slope.
[Another possibility is this - They're just wrong: The opposition hasn't actually read the opponent's position, but assumes it says one thing when it says another. {The general public probably has too many of this third group, but then again, the general public supporting the plans contains many who don't know the details either. I mean, let's be honest -- this stuff is complicated and good concise information is hard to find. So let's just deal with the people who are arguing from the informed positions, rather than ignorance.}]
When they argue that the plans should not be enacted because we don't want a government takeover of health care, I believe the majority of the politicians arguing this way are doing some combination of Straw Man and Slippery Slope.
By the way, some opponents are trying to stop the plans on more logically consistent grounds. Paul Ryan's comments (most of them) during the Blair House Summit argue against the plans because they increase the deficit. If one believes that the deficit must not go up due to these plans, and if Ryan's numbers are right, then there is a logical argument against the plans. But it's not the argument being used as a talking point or a rallying cry. Even Ryan threw the "government take-over of health care" in at the very end -- around 5:45.
It's hard to sift through the actual counter-proposals from the opposition when the emphasis keeps being placed on aspects of the plan which do not exist.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Conservatives Should Be Glad
Two years ago (more or less) the primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was going on (Super Tuesday was in early February, 2008.)
Now, of course, Republicans didn't want either of those two to win the general election. I think, given the state of the US voting public, though, a Democrat was going to be elected President. The GOP put up the most electable option they had (IMHO) and were still handily beaten.
Sure, there's no guarantee the polarizing Hillary would certainly have won, but for the moment, give me that supposition.
Hillary is a far more experienced politician than Barack Obama. She had a large network of people who would have been able to step in and start advancing her agenda from Day One. Yes, she represented "Same Old Washington" - but it turns out that Washington doesn't stop working in its Same Old Way just because the populace thinks they'd like it to change.
The reason I supported Clinton in the primary was precisely that: I figured she (and her administration) would be more easily able to advance the policies I feel we need. [She was the "well-trained pitcher" in the bullpen, if you read my post from 2008.] She had taken on Health Care Reform once before, and if the Democrats wanted to finally make a big change, she and her team would not have tried to encourage a cross-party coalition for a year, essentially wasting the supermajority power they held.
President Obama, like Organizer Obama before him, has a hopeful view of how people should operate. He wants people to work for compromise. He wants to get everyone to truly believe that working together is better for the public. And, of course, he thinks his views of how to accomplish the greater good can win out in an honest debate. So he asked people in Washington to play nice. It didn't work. The people who voted for him, once he was the nominee, hoped it would work. We hoped that the leadership and vision we were electing would cause a change in Washington. It might still happen (yes, there is still a glimmer of hope in my heart) but it hasn't happened yet, as far as I can tell.
And so, to the title of this little piece: Conservatives should be glad Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination. His hope (and inexperience? and naivete?) gave them the opportunity to stall his agenda (with which they honestly disagree) and then attack him for ineffectiveness. Had they been faced with Clinton Part Deux, the supermajority would have made drastic -- I daresay radical -- changes in the first year.
[Before any special election in Massachusetts could have had the country believing that, somehow, governing was no longer possible unless you have 60 Senators on your side. Which, by the way, is something the Main Stream Media have managed to convince us is true, so the Conservatives should not always bad-mouth the MSM. But that's a topic for another day.]
Has President Obama given up his ideal of working together? Well, on Health Care, it seems he's ready to do so. But he is still trying to make the debt commission bipartisan. Will it work? Or will this be another case where honest (and obstructionist) disagreements will lead to gridlock and be blamed only on the person who tried to get people to work together?
Shall we take bets?
The sure thing: It ain't the way Hillary would have done it.
Now, of course, Republicans didn't want either of those two to win the general election. I think, given the state of the US voting public, though, a Democrat was going to be elected President. The GOP put up the most electable option they had (IMHO) and were still handily beaten.
Sure, there's no guarantee the polarizing Hillary would certainly have won, but for the moment, give me that supposition.
Hillary is a far more experienced politician than Barack Obama. She had a large network of people who would have been able to step in and start advancing her agenda from Day One. Yes, she represented "Same Old Washington" - but it turns out that Washington doesn't stop working in its Same Old Way just because the populace thinks they'd like it to change.
The reason I supported Clinton in the primary was precisely that: I figured she (and her administration) would be more easily able to advance the policies I feel we need. [She was the "well-trained pitcher" in the bullpen, if you read my post from 2008.] She had taken on Health Care Reform once before, and if the Democrats wanted to finally make a big change, she and her team would not have tried to encourage a cross-party coalition for a year, essentially wasting the supermajority power they held.
President Obama, like Organizer Obama before him, has a hopeful view of how people should operate. He wants people to work for compromise. He wants to get everyone to truly believe that working together is better for the public. And, of course, he thinks his views of how to accomplish the greater good can win out in an honest debate. So he asked people in Washington to play nice. It didn't work. The people who voted for him, once he was the nominee, hoped it would work. We hoped that the leadership and vision we were electing would cause a change in Washington. It might still happen (yes, there is still a glimmer of hope in my heart) but it hasn't happened yet, as far as I can tell.
And so, to the title of this little piece: Conservatives should be glad Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination. His hope (and inexperience? and naivete?) gave them the opportunity to stall his agenda (with which they honestly disagree) and then attack him for ineffectiveness. Had they been faced with Clinton Part Deux, the supermajority would have made drastic -- I daresay radical -- changes in the first year.
[Before any special election in Massachusetts could have had the country believing that, somehow, governing was no longer possible unless you have 60 Senators on your side. Which, by the way, is something the Main Stream Media have managed to convince us is true, so the Conservatives should not always bad-mouth the MSM. But that's a topic for another day.]
Has President Obama given up his ideal of working together? Well, on Health Care, it seems he's ready to do so. But he is still trying to make the debt commission bipartisan. Will it work? Or will this be another case where honest (and obstructionist) disagreements will lead to gridlock and be blamed only on the person who tried to get people to work together?
Shall we take bets?
The sure thing: It ain't the way Hillary would have done it.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
2009 - The Year Of...
To wrap up the year, I decided to compile a couple of lists of notable events from 2009. I think I started this in the middle of the year, so some of the key events from the first six months might have escaped my attention. Feel free to comment and tell me what I missed.
In a broad sense, 2009 was the Year of
Happy New Year, everyone!
In a broad sense, 2009 was the Year of
- Twitter (explodes on the national consciousness, becomes part of the news media)
- Barack Obama is inaugurated - and later won the Nobel Peace Prize
- Cash for Clunkers ($1B in a week)
- The Depression that Wasn't
- The End of Jon & Kate
- Cougars -- and I still think they are the invention of middle-aged men, not real life people
- Michael Jackson's death
- Brett Favre as a Viking.
- H1N1 (aka "Swine Flu")
- The downfall of Tiger Woods' image
- "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," "Star Trek" and "Avatar" in the theaters
- Heath-care reform passes both houses of Congress. Now, how will it be perceived in 10 years?
- Great Courses (for me)
- Wii Fit (and then Wii Fit Plus)
- The Prius
- Seeing the space station and space shuttle in the sky over Nordic Fest
- Sarah & Leah both graduate
- Losing Doug
- Joining Mt. Olive
- Opening the time capsule from 1999, and preparing the one for 2019
- Sarah & Troy in Clarion, IA
- Season Tickets to the Vikings with Adam, Lucas & Dad
- My first trip to Japan and China
- Our first trip to Washington DC
- The wedding of Sarah & Troy
- Mannheim Steamroller in concert
- Leah entering NYU and thus...
- The Empty Nest
Happy New Year, everyone!
Sunday, November 15, 2009
The Third Man and other items from the week
Offered for your consideration, articles you would have had the chance to see this week, but if you are focused solely on the Dow Jones Industrial Average, or the NFL, or Health Care Reform, or New Moon, you probably didn't.
The Third Man: Weird and cool.
Melatonin: I hadn't heard about this until last month, and now my friend, my doctor, and a news article all mentioned it.
Giraffes making a comeback: For some good ecological news.
Minn. Woman Brings Doula Care To Uganda Mothers: Shocking statistics about maternal mortalityin Africa in the accompanying video story. If you want to read only happy things, just read the story. If you want to realize how important the story is, watch the video.
The Third Man: Weird and cool.
Melatonin: I hadn't heard about this until last month, and now my friend, my doctor, and a news article all mentioned it.
Giraffes making a comeback: For some good ecological news.
Minn. Woman Brings Doula Care To Uganda Mothers: Shocking statistics about maternal mortalityin Africa in the accompanying video story. If you want to read only happy things, just read the story. If you want to realize how important the story is, watch the video.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Beck Who?
Until last night's edition of the CBS Evening News, I had never heard of Glenn Beck. Yet Katie Couric opened her piece on Beck by stating something like "You can't avoid him."
I saw most of the piece and was surprised that he (who I clearly understood after the first 30 seconds is perceived as a right-wing opinion guy) believes both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are better for the US than McCain would have been (though of the two, he far preferred Hillary.)
Still, from other bits, I see he's a fiscal conservative, and a person who wants the liberal side to recognize that BOTH sides go to extremes when criticizing and vilifying the other.
Anyway, I had not heard of him until September 22, 2009. Now, FiveThirtyEight has a blog entry about him.
I have to decide -- do I read it? Or is he one of those topics that is getting attention now, but soon will fade into the background, only pertinent to those who are listening to him, or those who want to blame him for what his viewers do and think?
With a new TV season opening, and the next elections more than a year away, I'm inclined to ignore him for now.
[And yet, I just gave him attention on my blog.... Hmmm....]
I saw most of the piece and was surprised that he (who I clearly understood after the first 30 seconds is perceived as a right-wing opinion guy) believes both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are better for the US than McCain would have been (though of the two, he far preferred Hillary.)
Still, from other bits, I see he's a fiscal conservative, and a person who wants the liberal side to recognize that BOTH sides go to extremes when criticizing and vilifying the other.
Anyway, I had not heard of him until September 22, 2009. Now, FiveThirtyEight has a blog entry about him.
I have to decide -- do I read it? Or is he one of those topics that is getting attention now, but soon will fade into the background, only pertinent to those who are listening to him, or those who want to blame him for what his viewers do and think?
With a new TV season opening, and the next elections more than a year away, I'm inclined to ignore him for now.
[And yet, I just gave him attention on my blog.... Hmmm....]
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Whence Incivility?
Town hall anger echoed in Congress
Conservative parents oppose President Obama's speech to students
And this came from where? When did people start thinking it's OK to yell at your Commander in Chief during an address to Congress? (Or your congressman during a town hall?) When did people become afraid (convinced, even) that an address by the President to school children would be political propaganda? Who was the architect of this atmosphere of fear and incivility?
Bush adviser Karl Rove coming to Moorhead, Minot
People the world would have been better off without:- Hitler
- Stalin
- bin Laden
- Rove
Sorry. I think the "win at all costs; make people afraid and they'll vote your way; all's fair in politics, even if it's lying" attitude got its start with Rove's advice to Bush Sr.
I hope he lives to see the day when he is reviled by his own party.
I still believe that intelligent, honorable people can have differences of opinion on how government should work. And they can, and should, have civil discussions about those differences, without resorting to personal attacks or assuming that a politician of the opposite party is always wrong, even before hearing what he or she has to say.
Thankfully, I know good people, friends of mine, who prove that this is true. I'm somewhat conservative for a liberal, but I'm a liberal. I have conservative friends who were as frustrated and upset as I was at the uproar about a speech that hadn't been given yet, and I expect will be equally frustrated at the "You lie!" outburst.
I blame Karl Rove, and those who decided to listen to him.
.*.*.*.*.*
For the record, here is the text of the Obama "school children" speech, and here's a link to it.
"And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your
education." Wow. How inflammatory.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Blogs in History
Suppose you had to choose articles to read today, and these two groups were your options:
1) Michael's daughter" "Daddy has been the best;" McNairs weren't planning divorce; Jackson's doctor denies giving dangerous drugs.
2) Boiling emotions in China; Cyber-attack targets White House - North Korea suspected; White House and Hospitals reach agreement on health care.
I'm listening to a Great Course about the "Great Debate" that took place while ratification of our Constitution was being considered. The founders of this nation expected the populace to devote themselves to educated participatory government. I'm pretty sure we all know which set of articles they would want the voters to be reading.
As the lecturer gives both sides of the Great Debate, he quotes frequently and extensively, both from the Federalist Papers and from the Anti-Federalist counterarguments. Striking to me is the articulate, learned language used by all of the authors. Similarly impressive is the depth of knowledge of history possessed by these early statesmen. Take, for example, this quote from Federalist Paper 18:
AMONG the confederacies of antiquity, the most considerable was that of the Grecian republics, associated under the Amphictyonic council. From the best accounts transmitted of this celebrated institution, it bore a very instructive analogy to the present Confederation of the American States.
The people writing these papers were, in one sense, very much like the political bloggers of today: they believed the topic was important, they had a point of view and they espoused it publicly. In another sense, they were very different: they were educated, articulate and meticulous in using source material that could be verified. Certainly, some of the best bloggers are doing this, but many are not.
But, to the primary point I want to make today, they also assumed that the people of the United States would be interested in reading and debating the topic, and that those same readers would consider it a responsibility to remain educated enough to engage in the debate before voting.
Given our society's seeming unquenchable hunger for "news" of the first sort above, I sometimes wonder if we even deserve the nation we've inherited.
And yet, that's one of the unintended and unpredicted results of the genius of our inheritance: we can enjoy the fruits without planting the seeds or tending the trees, as long as enough of "US" are doing the job.
1) Michael's daughter" "Daddy has been the best;" McNairs weren't planning divorce; Jackson's doctor denies giving dangerous drugs.
2) Boiling emotions in China; Cyber-attack targets White House - North Korea suspected; White House and Hospitals reach agreement on health care.
I'm listening to a Great Course about the "Great Debate" that took place while ratification of our Constitution was being considered. The founders of this nation expected the populace to devote themselves to educated participatory government. I'm pretty sure we all know which set of articles they would want the voters to be reading.
As the lecturer gives both sides of the Great Debate, he quotes frequently and extensively, both from the Federalist Papers and from the Anti-Federalist counterarguments. Striking to me is the articulate, learned language used by all of the authors. Similarly impressive is the depth of knowledge of history possessed by these early statesmen. Take, for example, this quote from Federalist Paper 18:
AMONG the confederacies of antiquity, the most considerable was that of the Grecian republics, associated under the Amphictyonic council. From the best accounts transmitted of this celebrated institution, it bore a very instructive analogy to the present Confederation of the American States.
The people writing these papers were, in one sense, very much like the political bloggers of today: they believed the topic was important, they had a point of view and they espoused it publicly. In another sense, they were very different: they were educated, articulate and meticulous in using source material that could be verified. Certainly, some of the best bloggers are doing this, but many are not.
But, to the primary point I want to make today, they also assumed that the people of the United States would be interested in reading and debating the topic, and that those same readers would consider it a responsibility to remain educated enough to engage in the debate before voting.
Given our society's seeming unquenchable hunger for "news" of the first sort above, I sometimes wonder if we even deserve the nation we've inherited.
And yet, that's one of the unintended and unpredicted results of the genius of our inheritance: we can enjoy the fruits without planting the seeds or tending the trees, as long as enough of "US" are doing the job.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Self Control Is Not Natural
My friend Paul sent an e-mail pointing me to an article that describes an experiment. In the experiment, it was shown that self-control, even in others, creates stress.
Makes you wonder -- in this culture of more-than-plenty, does our resistance to self-control represent an evolutionary selector? Where, in the past, over-indulgence helped a human survive, it now leads to obesity and heart disease.
Something to think about.
Also, as I've been learning from my Great Courses books, most cultures consider moderation to be a fundamental good. Socrates taught it. Confucius taught it.
So, perhaps for as long as Man has been aware, we know that our base desire for over-indulgence existed, but was ultimately bad for us.
[Photo my Mark Klotz. Yummy!]
Makes you wonder -- in this culture of more-than-plenty, does our resistance to self-control represent an evolutionary selector? Where, in the past, over-indulgence helped a human survive, it now leads to obesity and heart disease.
Something to think about.
Also, as I've been learning from my Great Courses books, most cultures consider moderation to be a fundamental good. Socrates taught it. Confucius taught it.
So, perhaps for as long as Man has been aware, we know that our base desire for over-indulgence existed, but was ultimately bad for us.
[Photo my Mark Klotz. Yummy!]
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Political Fact Checking
Here's another great example of what the media can do to help the public:
CNN has a "fact check" article that digs into the truth of various claims made during the debates.
I haven't read it all yet, but the first few are very enlightening. It's impossible, in the limited time the candidates have, to fully explain their claims. Having the press examine the claims is excellent. Let's hope enough people read the analysis.
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Yes, my posts are short and intermittent these days. Just a few inches down, you'll see why.
The reunion was really fun, and flew by!
The wedding is three days away.
CNN has a "fact check" article that digs into the truth of various claims made during the debates.
I haven't read it all yet, but the first few are very enlightening. It's impossible, in the limited time the candidates have, to fully explain their claims. Having the press examine the claims is excellent. Let's hope enough people read the analysis.
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Yes, my posts are short and intermittent these days. Just a few inches down, you'll see why.
The reunion was really fun, and flew by!
The wedding is three days away.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Bush Who Cried Wolf
Last Thursday our President went on the air and told people that the government needs to take drastic action. Many people in the country, perceiving this as a bailout for companies that won't help, or even protect, normal taxpayers, are still opposed to it.
Now, one has to wonder this: If this same President hadn't seemed so earnest when he, and his representatives, assured us that we had to go to war because of the existence of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" then we would be more inclined to believe him now.
The media are pushing for the need for the bailout, and trying to educate the public (or at least, trying to spread the word that they're being fed.)
There are those who think that the government should not bail out Wall Street until the government first bails out "normal people." They don't quite get it. Layoffs are mere days away for some large employers. Without credit, the economy grinds to a halt. Should it be that way? Perhaps not. But that's how it is. We need intelligent leadership, and we need it now.
If only we had a President we could believe, and believe in.
Now, one has to wonder this: If this same President hadn't seemed so earnest when he, and his representatives, assured us that we had to go to war because of the existence of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" then we would be more inclined to believe him now.
The media are pushing for the need for the bailout, and trying to educate the public (or at least, trying to spread the word that they're being fed.)
There are those who think that the government should not bail out Wall Street until the government first bails out "normal people." They don't quite get it. Layoffs are mere days away for some large employers. Without credit, the economy grinds to a halt. Should it be that way? Perhaps not. But that's how it is. We need intelligent leadership, and we need it now.
If only we had a President we could believe, and believe in.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Could the Internet Go Bankrupt?
Could the Internet go bankrupt?
Not morally. Not bankrupt of useful content. But could it disappear or get crippled by economics?
Do you know?
It's amazing how many pervasive services in this country are controlled by huge institutions which are little understood by the vast numbers of users of those services.
When the huge lending institutions start crumbling, funds dry up. This affects you immediately if you're trying to get a loan, but otherwise it's just "so what?"
Until you know that your employer needs to borrow money, and if it can't, you are out of a job. Or until you know that your state government needs to issue bonds, but if no one is buying, you won't get that bridge repaired.
So, what institutions would have to become financially troubled in order to put a crimp in the Internet?
Anyone?
You want people in the country to care about this financial crisis? What if we showed them that ESPN.com and Google will not be accessible?
Is that possible? Shoot, I don't know. But all of these bits flying around the world are carried by some company's assets and stored by some other company's assets. And you can bet your monthly ISP-provider bill that your ISP can't keep the whole Internet working.
Isn't it amazing that the financial crisis which is upon us was not the result of terrorism, but rather institutional and cultural greed? There's an irony there.
"Irrational Exuberance" indeed.
Debate tonight: He who wins is he who sounds like he can pull us out of this and ensure it doesn't happen again.
Not morally. Not bankrupt of useful content. But could it disappear or get crippled by economics?
Do you know?
It's amazing how many pervasive services in this country are controlled by huge institutions which are little understood by the vast numbers of users of those services.
When the huge lending institutions start crumbling, funds dry up. This affects you immediately if you're trying to get a loan, but otherwise it's just "so what?"
Until you know that your employer needs to borrow money, and if it can't, you are out of a job. Or until you know that your state government needs to issue bonds, but if no one is buying, you won't get that bridge repaired.
So, what institutions would have to become financially troubled in order to put a crimp in the Internet?
Anyone?
You want people in the country to care about this financial crisis? What if we showed them that ESPN.com and Google will not be accessible?
Is that possible? Shoot, I don't know. But all of these bits flying around the world are carried by some company's assets and stored by some other company's assets. And you can bet your monthly ISP-provider bill that your ISP can't keep the whole Internet working.
Isn't it amazing that the financial crisis which is upon us was not the result of terrorism, but rather institutional and cultural greed? There's an irony there.
"Irrational Exuberance" indeed.
Debate tonight: He who wins is he who sounds like he can pull us out of this and ensure it doesn't happen again.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
What You Should NOT Worry About - And Junk to Concern You
Occasionally, I check out new blogs that Blogger.com lists as "Blogs of Note." Today, the top one on the list was "Cheerful Scoop" which tries to give you a bit of good news every day. Hey, that's a good goal.
I read through the top couple, and they were so-so, but then I got to one I really liked. It pointed us to an article by New York Times science writer John Tierney, who wrote about "10 Things to Scratch from Your Worry List" this summer.
Among them, foods which are high in saturated fat, and plastic bottles containing BPA: the science suggests we're too fearful of both of these things. Read the article -- it's clever and informative.
However, another recent Blog of Note (Junk) points out something that should probably concern us, or at least raise our awareness. It seems that junk -- in particular, plastic -- is everywhere on this planet, even in the middle of the wide Pacific ocean. A couple of guys have built a boat using 15,000 plastic bottles and are sailing it to Hawai'i, collecting plastic refuse as they sail. The entry from August 4 teaches us about "The Gyre," a large area of the Pacific which ends up as the final dumping ground for plastics that find their way into our water.
It may not be the North Pole melting (which Tierney says we don't have to worry about this year -- whew!) but it is another sign of how much humans have made their mark on this world.
I read through the top couple, and they were so-so, but then I got to one I really liked. It pointed us to an article by New York Times science writer John Tierney, who wrote about "10 Things to Scratch from Your Worry List" this summer.
Among them, foods which are high in saturated fat, and plastic bottles containing BPA: the science suggests we're too fearful of both of these things. Read the article -- it's clever and informative.
However, another recent Blog of Note (Junk) points out something that should probably concern us, or at least raise our awareness. It seems that junk -- in particular, plastic -- is everywhere on this planet, even in the middle of the wide Pacific ocean. A couple of guys have built a boat using 15,000 plastic bottles and are sailing it to Hawai'i, collecting plastic refuse as they sail. The entry from August 4 teaches us about "The Gyre," a large area of the Pacific which ends up as the final dumping ground for plastics that find their way into our water.
It may not be the North Pole melting (which Tierney says we don't have to worry about this year -- whew!) but it is another sign of how much humans have made their mark on this world.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
News that affects friends
The headline reads:
Army slow to process injuries
We have a friend, Mike, who is essentially living this, right now. Mike is Adam & Lucas's good friend from the neighborhood. He joined the Army a while back, spent quite a bit of time in Iraq, and is now at an Army facility in Germany doing nothing. Technically, he doesn't have an "injury" but something has left him blind in one eye. This means he cannot perform any typical soldiering, but he has not been discharged, nor has a diagnosis been made, nor a treatment plan developed.
Perhaps, by now, he has received some help from the military medical establishment, but his situation has been going on for months and when we saw him at Adam's wedding a month ago, there was no sign of progress.
I suspect that the extreme under-staffing of the military medical services is causing this, and there may be no quick fix for the situation, but it is disappointing thinking of this good young man being assigned to sit behind a desk with nothing meaningful to do, while no one is working to get his sight back, or to discharge him to civilian life.
This is one data point in thousands. But it's the one that matters to us.
Be well, Mike.
Army slow to process injuries
We have a friend, Mike, who is essentially living this, right now. Mike is Adam & Lucas's good friend from the neighborhood. He joined the Army a while back, spent quite a bit of time in Iraq, and is now at an Army facility in Germany doing nothing. Technically, he doesn't have an "injury" but something has left him blind in one eye. This means he cannot perform any typical soldiering, but he has not been discharged, nor has a diagnosis been made, nor a treatment plan developed.
Perhaps, by now, he has received some help from the military medical establishment, but his situation has been going on for months and when we saw him at Adam's wedding a month ago, there was no sign of progress.
I suspect that the extreme under-staffing of the military medical services is causing this, and there may be no quick fix for the situation, but it is disappointing thinking of this good young man being assigned to sit behind a desk with nothing meaningful to do, while no one is working to get his sight back, or to discharge him to civilian life.
This is one data point in thousands. But it's the one that matters to us.
Be well, Mike.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
What do you want to know today?
Things that caught my attention today:
Great Thinking: Gore challenges country on energy.
Entertainment: Star Wars returns to the big screen.
When Fame Meets Weakness: Andy Dick is in trouble. Again.
But the biggest story in this part of the world: Vikings Tampering with Favre?
Guess which one of these really matters.
I am looking forward to earth-friendly energy. But, to be honest, I'm looking forward to Star Wars: the Clone Wars more intently.
Great Thinking: Gore challenges country on energy.
Entertainment: Star Wars returns to the big screen.
When Fame Meets Weakness: Andy Dick is in trouble. Again.
But the biggest story in this part of the world: Vikings Tampering with Favre?
Guess which one of these really matters.
I am looking forward to earth-friendly energy. But, to be honest, I'm looking forward to Star Wars: the Clone Wars more intently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)