SC Thinker

Mangerial Accounting: End of Course Learning Journal

2009-03-28T10:56:00.002-04:00

I've really enjoyed this class. I have many times made the statement that the only classes I've taken as I've pursued my degree that have actually taught me something relevant to my career that I haven't learned on the job have been my accounting courses. This one was no different. I particularly enjoyed the discussion of the different cost-tracking systems as applied to manufacturing as I will soon be writing systems to do exactly that sort of tracking.

Managerial Accounting: Beginning of Course Learning Journal

2009-03-16T20:24:00.002-04:00

Just got back from Hawaii, and now I'm starting another class. This one is managerial accounting. From what I've seen so far, it looks like this course will focus on tracking internal costs associated with business planning. I'm looking forward to this course because I'd like to gain some objectivity on the cost of my design and development methods. Perhaps I'll learn better how to communicate the benefits of agile software development to managers.

Database Design: End of Course Learning Journal

2009-03-01T16:27:00.000-05:00

I was happy that there was no symbolic set-logic in this course! YAY! Most of the material for the course was things I flat disagreed with or was already familiar with. For instance, I don’t see much necessity for creating ERD’s prior to starting work on a system. While I think it’s important to normalize data, I tend to build database tables and columns in response to needs of the application as it is being built. The normalization rules are things I already understand and use, so there wasn’t much new there.
I did learn one new concept though—that of the global primary key. The idea is that you create an Entity table for your entire database, and every independent entity has a record in that table. Connections between entities use the entity-key. This allows for easier linking of entities without the necessity to create a slew of supporting tables. It does add some complexity to join-queries, and I’d be interested to see the performance implications, but it is an interesting idea.

Structured Systems Analysis and Design: End of Course Learning Journal

2009-03-01T16:26:00.000-05:00

This course was pretty much what I expected. The most valuable thing I got from it was some of the formalism surrounding the decision-making process around choosing which projects to do. I enjoyed thinking about how to approach the subject of whether to implement a project, and whether to build or buy, the resources for that project.
As far as the process of actually implementing a software solution, I found the course material to be weighted on the waterfall side of things, which is what I expected. It did give me ample opportunity to discuss the benefits of a more agile approach to things, as well as help me understand the traditional approach in greater detail. That knowledge will be essential as I go forward in my career.

Structured Systems Analysis And Design: Beginning of Course Learning Journal

2009-01-11T13:15:00.002-05:00

This course is going to cover all aspects of the traditional SDLC. Given that traditional SDLC is waterfall, I expect to find ample opportunity to don my evangelical-agile-software-developer hat during the course. Like other courses that focus on issues dealing with the work I've been doing for the past 8 (almost 9) years, I don't expect to find much in the way of new information. Hopefully some of the information will be a little more structured than the way it's been presented in myriad technical books I've read about quality software development practices.

I don't mean to imply that I don't care about this subject--quite the opposite. I spend a great deal of time reading and continuously improving my ability to develop software. I have put to use much of what has come out of the Agile-practices community to produce better software faster. I guess I'll also be interested to see if or how this course addresses the concerns and improvements wrought by XP.

Database Systems Beginning of Course Learning Journal

2009-01-11T13:04:00.002-05:00

Gah! Another database class! At least this one doesn't look like it's going to bore me with symbolic set logic.
I've been programming against SQL Server since 2002. In that time I've been responsible for all aspects of database management. In my current position we actually have dedicated DBA's, but prior to that I was the DBA for my own servers. Given this experience, I expect this course to be pretty much a cakewalk with a lot of grunt-work.

Information Security: End of Course Learning Journal

2008-12-22T20:23:00.002-05:00

Some of my hopes for this class were realized after all. This Information Security class avoided the Linux bias that I've experienced at other schools. The concepts the class covered were general and applied to all operating systems and companies. There was a lot of overlap between this course and other Information Security classes I've taken. On the whole I wouldn't say that this class added a lot to what I've garnered from other courses.

Business Telecommunications: End of Course Learning Journal

2008-12-22T19:14:00.002-05:00

This class mainly focused on hardware-related issues. Whereas I had hoped that the class would discuss strategies for inter-business communications, instead the course focused on the low-level infrastructure required for organizations to communicate with one another. The class held value as an overview of the underlying complexities of network infrastructure upon which the Internet and B2B communcations is built. Otherwise, the course was far removed from my normal area of concern as a software developer. I don't know how much of the material I'll retain.

Information Security: Beginning of Course Learning Journal

2008-10-30T20:36:00.002-04:00

As I have already taken a class on security at USC Upstate, this class has a high bar to jump in order to teach me something new. My USC Upstate class displayed an all-too-typical Linux bias. While there are many businesses that are using Linux, I doubt many are using RedHat 7.1 as their OS. I'm hoping that this class will be more relevant to the windows-based environments that I prefer to work in. I'd like to understand more about how Active Directory works together with the other networking hardware and software to secure a Domain. Glancing through the table of contents in the textbook leads me to believe that much of the class will be about cryptography. That should be pretty easy for me as I've already covered that material within the last 6 months--but not particularly interesting.

Business Telecommunications: Beginning of Course Learning Journal

2008-10-30T19:11:00.002-04:00

This class is supposed to cover the physical and logical layers of networking and protocols. I'm not sure what to expect from this course. I hope that I will gain insight into the networking and security infrastructure of the .NET Framework. I don't expect that the course will cover the .NET Framework directly, but perhaps I'll be able to merge the concepts from the course with the classes and namespaces in the .NET Framework that pertain to networking and security. I'll report back after the class is over.

E-Commerce End of Course Learning Journal

2008-10-19T20:39:00.001-04:00

The e-commerce course I took was largely a rehashing of concepts I was already familiar with. The history-of-the-internet aspect was kind of amusing as I lived through most of that. The discussion of security was repeated information from the security class I had taken before. The parts of the course that covered the basic technology behind e-commerce web applications are probably very useful to newer students; however, as a software developer that has built and maintained intranet and internet websites, that information was not new. I found myself focusing much more on the project management course.

The information that was new had to do with classifying different forms of communication between businesses and customers, and detailing how e-commerce compared to other forms of sales, such as the walk-in store. As a software developer, the part that was exciting to me was thinking about ways to improve the personalization experience for customers of e-commerce sites. While e-store navigation has gotten easier and the web-user-experience has gotten better, I think there’s still plenty of room for improvement

Project Management End of Course Learning Journal

2008-10-19T00:09:00.002-04:00

At the end of my project management course, I have to post a learning journal for the end of the class. I’m supposed to explain things I actually learned in class, and how it will affect my current and future work.

Taking the project management course has made it apparent that there are many more kinds of information about a project than I had previously thought. The course taught formalization of processes and methods that I had already been using, as well as crystallizing some concepts that I had only been peripherally aware of.

I’m left to wonder how much of what’s in the book is actually being used in the real world. My leeriness of too much structure on the technical side of a project has led me to question the wisdom of very detailed prescriptions for managing projects. That doesn’t mean that many of the concepts in the course aren’t valid; but it does mean that I will have to evaluate them for myself in the real world.

There are specific aspects of the course that I did find valuable for my career now. Project risk management is a formal way of recording and evaluating risk. There is a similar concept in software development: “technical debt.” Technical debt is when a developer deliberately decides to forego implementing a necessary change and “hack” the code to accomplish a goal. Time and cost are the number one reasons for doing this. Like financial debt, technical debt incurs an ongoing cost as long as it is present in the code-base. Ill-designed code is more difficult to understand, harder to debug, and harder to extend. Left unpaid, technical debt will eventually reach a point where it is cheaper to build a new project than it is to pay the “interest” on the technical debt in the existing project. As a technical leader at my company, I plan to begin recording technical debt as a risk to the project, along with recommendations about when and how we should pay it. It is legitimate to make temporary concessions on good software design to meet an important business need or deadline, but it is not legitimate to fail to correct the design.

Given that I understand more clearly all of the responsibilities of my supervisor, I think I can find better ways to communicate with him. Aside from the two accounting courses I took in my early college career, this is the first degree class I’ve taken that I’ve actually found useful in my day to day job.

College Online 001

2008-09-02T19:02:00.002-04:00

So I started taking classes online to finish my degree. Part of the course requirements are that I create blog entries to document my progress. In this first post, I'm supposed to express my sense of what I will and won't learn, and how the courses fit into my life overall.

The two classes I'm taking right now are Project Management and E-Commerce. At a high level, I don't expect to learn very much about project management. Having been a software developer for 8 years, I think I've seen a wide variety of different project management styles. I understand the necessity for good planning and resource management, and I've seen the disasters that occur when such planning is absent. At a more concerte level, I'm sure I'll learn quite a bit. I anticipate that the course will cover different specific techniques and concepts, and possibly add clarity to my existing experiences.

The e-commerce course promises to offer more new material. My software experience consists of ISV and manufacturing environments. Software development values and priorities are different for those two kinds of software. I imagine that e-commerce is a third major category of software development with its own values.

To be honest, I've come to regard college as over-valued. I see its value in certain highly-specialized fields, but so far, I've learned more "on the job" than I ever have in a class-room. To boot, most of what I've learned in the class-room has had little or no relevance to the work I've actually done in the "real world." The only reason I'm going to finish my degree is because of the general level of respect it garners in the business world. I feel like college is more of an exercise in stamina than anything else. That said, I have decided to finish anyway--I don't want my lack of a degree to be the reason that I don't get the job I want.

Omniscience

2008-04-13T11:43:00.001-04:00

Twice in the last 12 hours I've encountered the concept of "omniscience."

In the first case, I was watching the film "The Lives of Others," which is set in East Germany before the Wall fell. The "stasi" had as its stated goal "to know everything." This was not the main theme of the film, but it is one that was highlighted frequently. In one example, the stasi are noticed by a nosy neighbor as they set up surveillance on a citizen. Unflustered, the lead stasi agent knocked on her door, referred to her by name, and threatened her with personalized consequences should she reveal that they had been there.

In the second case, Ayaan Hirsi Ali recounts in her book "Infidel," being criticized by one of her teachers:

We were not true Muslims, Sister Aziza sadly informed the abashed and suddenly silent classroom. Allah did not look on us with delight. He could see into our hearts, and He knew we were not dedicated to him. The goal of prayer was awareness--constant awareness of the presence of God and the angels--and an inward submission to God's will that permeated every thought and action every day.

Sister Aziza reminded us of the angels we had learned about in school in Saudi Arabia, who hovered above each of our shoulders. On the left and the right they recorded our thoughts, intentions, and ideas--bad and good. Even if we did cover ourselves and pray, that was not sufficiently meaningful for God. What counted was the intention. If your mind strayed--if you were doing it for the wrong reasons--God and the angels would look into your heart and know. (pg 80, hardback, emphasis in original)

The idea that struck me upon reading this is that the goal behind the concept of omniscience is the same: the utter subjugation of the individual to the ruling authority.

In the case of religion, omniscience is used as a threat to inculcate guilt for thoughts and feelings, thereby turning the individual into an informant against himself. In a religious context, omniscience is a mystical concept where some outside judges our privy to one's inner thoughts and feelings. One lives one's live in paranoid fear that some unbidden thought will come to mind and that Allah will hear it, and damn you for eternity.

In the case of the Stasi, omniscience is given a kind of metaphysical reality: the State spends enormous sums of money to spy on its citizens, to learn as much as they can about them, so that it can threaten them accordingly. Once again, the citizenry live their lives in paranoid fear that their private conversations might be overheard by a stasi informant. They are not even safe in their own homes, with their own spouses and children. True trusted friendships are impossible in a state where 1/3 of the citizens are informants, and the rest can be threatened into becoming informants.

Coming across these two examples in such close proximity to one another highlighted the way that "omniscience" is used in practice. It's not just an irrational concept--it's an irrational concept with a purpose.

Thought and Action

2008-02-19T17:38:00.002-05:00

I thought about asking which is worse, this article, or the comments beneath it. A buddy of mine that grew up in Iran sent me the link in an email entitled "what a night of drinking and partying will get you in Iran."
There are a few things that deserve mention:
1. The idea of separation of Church and State is absent in Iran.
2. People in Iran gather in great crowds to watch the punishment (I can barely stomach the pictures).
3. The few commenters seem to have no conception of justice beyond simple obedience to authority; and this from people in Western countries.

Then there's this tidbit:

Amnesty International, which said it is "greatly concerned by continuing
human rights abuses in Iran", has highlighted figures revealing 117 people
were executed in 2006 with thousands facing floggings.
They included a woman, who had been forced into prostitution as an eight-year-old, receiving 99 lashes because of "acts contrary to chasity."

Disgusting.

Ayn Rand on The Iraq War

2008-01-01T20:05:00.000-05:00

I was flipping through "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" today looking for some quote. The first thing I read was this:

Observe the terms in which the war in Vietnam is discussed. There are no
stated goals, no intellectual issues. But there are, apparently, two opposing
sides which are designate, not by any specific ideological concepts, but by images, which is appropriate to the primitive epistemology of savages:
the "hawks" and the "doves." But the "hawks" are cooing apologetically, and the
"doves" are snarling heir heads off.

The same groups that coined the term "isolationist" in World War II--to
designate anyone who held that the internal affairs of other countries are not
the responsibility of the United States--these same groups are screaming that
the United States has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of
Vietnam.

Nobody has proposed a goal which, if achieved, would terminate that
war--except President Johnson, who has offered a billion dollars as the price of
piece; not a billion dollars paid to us, but a billion dollars
paid by us for the economic development of Vietname; which means that
we are fighting for the privelage of turning every American taxpayer into a serf
laboring part of his time for the benefit of his Vietnamese masters. But,
demonstrating that irrationality is not a monopoly of the United States, North
Vietnam has rejected that offer.

No, there is no proper solution for the war in Vietnam: it is a war we
should never have entered. To continue it, is senseless--to withdraw from it,
would be one more act of appeasement on our long, shameful record. The ultimate
result of appeasement is a world war, as demonstrated by World War II; in
today's context, it may mean a nuclear world war.

That we let ourselves be trapped into a situation of this kind, is the
consequence of fifty years of a suicidal foreign policy. One cannot correct a
consequence without correcting its cause; if such disasters could be solved
"pragmatically," i.e., out of context, on the spur and range of the moment, a
nation would not need any foreign policy. And this is an example of why
we do need a policy based on long-range principles, i.e., an ideology. But a revision of our foreign policy, from its basic
premises on up, is what today's anti-ideologists dare not contemplate. The
worse its results, the louder our public leaders proclaim that our foreign
policy is bipartisan.

("The Wreckage of the Consensus", Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal, pp 225-226)

This is from a lecture that Ayn Rand gave at Ford Hall Forum in Boston on April 16, 1967.

Everything she said about Vietnam applies equally to Iraq today.

The Dead End of Epistemological Skepticism

2007-11-17T14:35:00.000-05:00

When I first read Christopher Hitchens' "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," I enjoyed the book immensely. It is chock full of interesting information about the history of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, though it focuses mainly on the dogma of the Catholic Church. My basic problem with the book, however, was a quality that I had noted before in Richard Dawkins, and many other modern so-called defenders of reason: epistemological skepticism.

The skeptic begins his criticism of religion with the premise that we must start with a tabula rasa plane of ideas, and that the religionist must demonstrate through logic that there is reason to believe in God. On the surface, this sounds reasonable. After all, what is science if not the process of postulating hypotheses and setting out to prove or disprove them. On this view, the religionist should be required to offer evidence in support of his claim before being taken seriously, right? So what's the problem?

The problem is in the starting point--the Skeptic takes his skepticism as a given, but is unable to support why one should start with skepticism, nor why reason is the method that we should use to discover truth. Further still, underlying phenomenon that the skeptic takes issue with in the religionist is not fundamentally the religionists's mystic fantasies--it is the religionist's sense of certainty. The religionist's sense of certainty does not come from any kind of rational process--it is based on Faith; or in real-world terms, their own conviction that an "I Wish" is better than an "It Is." The modern Skeptic's view of certainty is that "absolute certainty" is impossible to achieve about anything, but as we acquire evidence, we can move asymptotically closer and closer to "the real truth." This opens the Skeptic to the argument that their confidence in reason is itself an article of faith; thus reason fails, and faith is really all we have to go on.

As Henry Petroski puts it in his book, "To Engineer is Human":

A scientific hypothesis is tested by comparing its conclusions with the reality of the world as it is. Yet, no matter how many examples of agreement one may collect, they do not prove the truth of the hypothesis, for it may be argued that one has not tested it in the single case where the theory may fail to agree with reality. On the other hand, just one instance of disagreement between the hypothesis and reality is sufficient to make the hypothesis incontrovertibly false. That honeybees always build their hives with hexagonal cells is a hypothesis that has accumulated so much verification that it is hardly called a hypthesis anymore. It is assumed to be a fact. But let some apiarist discover his bees making octagonal cells, and not only would the hypothesis that bees always use the hexagon be forever smashed, but there would also be quite a bit of excitement among the world of honeybee experts. That the sun rises each morning may also be considered a hypothesis, and our experience that indeed this happens day in and day out serves to confirm--but not prove--the hypothesis. Yet all it would take would be a single "morning" without a sunrise to make the contention that the sun rises every morning categorically false. While it may be behond our comprehension that this could ever be the case, it nevertheless remains true that our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is basically a matter of faith rather than of rigorously established fact.

At this point, the debate ceases to be about reason vs. faith, and becomes one about what kind of world you'd rather live in--one in which nothing is knowable, morality is unjustifiable, and man in merely a mite of dust in the cosmos, or one in which the Truth is revealed, morality is the province of a Just and Loving God, and man is the centerpiece of the universal table.

Since reason has been discredited as just another form of faith, and since the only choice is which "I Wish" you're going to treat as an "It Is," which one do you find more attractive?

As Em and I were listening to Hitchens' book in the car, I pointed out how a competent religionist could completely discredit Hitchens' approach by attacking him through his Skepticism. That's exactly what happened.

On November 1, 2007, I found a Fark headline linking to an oped by Dinesh D'Souza attacking Hitchens on exactly this point. From "What Atheists Can't Refute"

This atheist attack is based on the Fallacy of the Enlightenment. It was pointed out by the great Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant, who erected a sturdy intellectual bulwark against atheism that hasn't been breached since. His defense relies on the only framework that today's atheist proselytizers say is valid: reason.
The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know: reality itself. This view says we can find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover.
In his 1781 Critique of Pure Reason, Kant showed that this premise is false. In fact, he argued, there is a much greater limit to what human beings can know. Kant showed that human knowledge is constrained not merely by the unlimited magnitude of reality but also by a limited sensory apparatus of perception.
Consider a tape recorder. It captures only one mode of reality, sound. Thus all aspects of reality that cannot be captured in sound are beyond its reach. The same, Kant would argue, is true of human beings. The only way we apprehend empirical reality is through our five senses. But why should we believe, Kant asked, that this five-mode instrument is sufficient?
Moreover, the reality we apprehend is not reality in itself. It is merely our experience or "take" on it. Kant's startling claim is that we have no basis for assuming that a material perception of reality ever resembles reality itself. When we equate experience and reality, we are making an unjustified leap.
...
Ours is a world of appearances only, in which we see things in a limited and distorted way - "through a glass, darkly," as the apostle Paul writes in I Corinthians. The spiritual reality constitutes the only permanent reality there is. Christianity teaches that while reason can point to the existence of this higher domain, it cannot on its own fully comprehend that domain.
Thus, when Mr. Hitchens and other atheists routinely dismiss religious claims on the grounds that "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence," they are making what philosophers like to call a category mistake. We learn from Kant that within the domain of experience, human reason is sovereign, but it is in no way unreasonable to believe things on faith that simply cannot be adjudicated by reason.
[emphasis added]

You should really read the whole thing. You need to be able to defeat this argument in order to properly defend reason.

On November 5th, 2007 I found out from the Principles in Practice blog that there had actually been a debate between Hitchens and D'Souza. You can watch the debate on www.youtube.com -- the first part starts here. You should really watch the whole thing in its entirety. D'Souza completely dominates the debate. Every time Hitchens attempts to argue reason vs. faith, D'Souza argues that reason is faith, and redirects the debate toward which side you'd rather have in control. When D'Souza pointed out that more deaths have occurred under atheist regimes (Soviet Union, China) than Christian ones, Hitchens attempted to argue (correctly!) that allegiance to Communist propaganda is itself a form of religion. He was unable to make his case effectively because he was never really able to frame the debate in reason vs. faith terms.

If reason is going to win out over mysticism in our culture, what is needed is for scientists and leading intellectuals to drop epistemological skepticism, and embrace an objective foundation of reason. Nothing less will do.

Good Citizen

2007-11-01T18:24:00.001-04:00

The University of Delaware apparently has a mandatory program on how to be a Good Citizen. This article is well worth reading.

More on Public Education

2007-10-25T22:04:00.000-04:00

I found this article on one person's take on public schools.

I also ordered Kaffir Boy after reading about how it had been banned in a public school. I didn't get very far (less than one page!) into the book when I had to do a little research on apartheid in South Africa. What do you think I found? That South Africa, by way of the Bantu Education Act, used the public school system as a tool of oppression.

Of special note: "The National Party now had the power to employ and train teachers as they saw fit. Black teachers salaries in 1953 were extremely low and resulted in a dramatic drop of trainee teachers. The policy of Bantu (African) education was aimed to direct black or non-white youth to the unskilled labor market, to ensure white control and prosperity."

This is reminiscent of the laws in the Old South that forbade teaching blacks to read and write.

So, if you're following this, a government school banning a book led me to read the book about a government that used the school to oppress its citizens, which in turn reminded me of how the government in this country used its control of education to keep some of its own citizens under the thumb of oppression.

Go look at this

2007-08-29T13:34:00.001-04:00

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjA0MzEzZWU3MGM1ZjZmZTAxNjg0ZTQyNTcyMWU4ZjQ=

Farm subsidies....
In Manhattan...

Follow up on public schools

2007-08-23T16:31:00.000-04:00

It seems that schools are more interested in policing haircuts than in educating students.

The cost of free schools

2007-08-23T10:59:00.000-04:00

Read this article.
Pay attention to this line:
"In 2005, DCPS spent $118 million to send 2,283 special-ed students to private facilities."

Let's see: 118,000,000 / 2283 = $51,686.38 per student, per year.

According to Steven Greenhut by way of the Washington Post, the school district spends on average "$12,979 per pupil each year."

Actually, you would do well to read the entirety of the Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901415.html

That school district has 11,000+ employees, and they teach 55,000 students. That's one employee for every 5 students. When class sizes are approximately 1 teacher to 30+ students, that equates a lot of overhead.

Even the administrators themselves are frustrated by the amount of overhead:

Walking down the hallway recently, Vega stopped and commented: "Hear that
singing? Coming from the gym?" said Vega as a lone voice echoed down the
hallway. "That's my literacy coach." The coach "was given to me" by the central
office, Vega said, adding that the coach does not work with students, and, in
Vega's view, doesn't contribute much to the school. "That person is totally
useless. . . . That $80,000 is something I could have used for my
students."
The coach, Cheryl Mabry, said she has been with the schools for 34
years and has been trained to help teachers work with students who are
struggling to read and write. She said she was sent by the central office to
Powell because, like most D.C. public schools, it did not meet academic
targets.
"As far as what I'm doing, I think I'm making an impact," Mabry
said, but she does not expect to be back next year. "Ms. Vega has other ideas. I
don't think I fit into her plans."

The principal charged with running the school is not allowed to make staffing decisions--which means she has the responsibility of running the school even after being deprived of the most basic authoritative power she should have to do it.

The headline of this article says it all: "Pittsburgh schools drop 'public' from name to boost image"

Charter schools are subject to the same oversight and testing standards that public schools are, and are engaging in the same cheating tactics that public schools are. If government money is involved, you are going to see these same kinds of problems regardless of who administrates the school system.

Part of the problem is the contradictory goals that people have for the school system. Many regard the purpose of public schools to "socialize" the young--which is a euphamism for "make Good Citizens" out of students. For others, Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic are of paramount importance. For still others, it's important to teach "Intelligent Design," so as to preserve a place for religion in public schools. For still others, the purpose of schools is to provide students with the experience of "diversity." For still others, it's purpose is to provide children with a sense of self-esteem. In the founding day sof public schools in Massachussets, it's purpose was to undermine Catholicism by retraining the children of Irish Catholic immigrants as Protestants. In dictatorships, it is often noted that the first thing the dictator does is sieze control of the newspapers; it is not often observed that the second thing he does is sieze control of the schools.

I will do another post later about why this drive toward indoctrination is inherent in the nature of public schools. This post should give you a bit to think about now.

All the best...

More Absurdity from the Drug War

2007-08-20T12:54:00.000-04:00

http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_229223032.html

Just look at the destruction the drug war has wrought in this man's life. When is this culture going to wake up and end the drug war? Jeez, you can't even get decent cold medicine any more.

Hat tip: www.fark.com

Still Chewing on Public Schools

2007-06-29T12:28:00.001-04:00

In my view, the two core issues related to education are content and method: What is taught, and How. This is true when looking at the issue of education through a purely functional lens.

When considering education from a political perspective, there is only one issue for me: am I forced to pay for it (through taxes)? If the answer is yes, then I'm against it. If the answer is no, then I'm for it. That is all--issues of content and method are irrelevant.

In the current culture, the two primary concerns seem to be access and quality, where quality is defined differently by different people. The Progressives (most of the bureaucrats and education faculty) tend to define quality in terms of how well the students are prepared for social and political life; or to use a differnet term, how well the students are "socialized." The rest (mostly parents, election-hungry politicians) tend to define quality in terms of how well students are prepared for work life, usually measured in terms of standardized tests. Neither group seriously challenges whether public school should exist at all. Neither group seriously considers the role of force in education.

Access is nearly a non-issue, since education is not only provided to everyone free of charge, but is also compulsory. However, even though the issue of Access is practically non-controversial, it is still of primary concern to most people. If you don't believe me, simply suggest that we should do away with government controlled schools entirely, and see what kind of reaction you get. Why do people regard Access as such an important value? Because they believe in a right to education. "Everyone has a right to an education."

No they don't--not if they can't pay for it. I certainly agree that you need an education--but needs qua needs do not translate into rights. It is this belief in a right to education (similar to the quasi-Marxist belief in a right to a job) that makes the issue of dismantling the public schools so testy. It's also interesting to note that this "right" is forced on everyone.

Another issue at contest in the realm of education is control over content and pedagogy. In state-run institutions, parents and children have only the amount of control that is granted to them by the state. The teachers usually fight for control as well, on the premise that their expertise in the field entitles them to some decision-making rights. Whether, in a particular district, the parents or teachers have more or less control, it is by permission of the state that they have any at all. The State Giveth, and the State Taketh Away.

Parents and teachers also battle with each other for control over content. Evangelical Christian parents want Creationism taught in schools alongside or instead of evolution. Other parents want a total separation of church and state. Some parents want the Pledge of Allegiance and/or the Ten Commandments taught to school-children. Others want "Under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Ten Commandments to be removed altogether. Still others think that requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance smells too much of blind nationalism and would rather see individuals take such a pledge as adults, after they have understood the meaning and context of the Pledge.

Note that control in either of the above contexts means "control of the power of the State," which means force. Each person desires to impose their own vision of how schools should be run, and what should be taught on everyone else--and no one sees anything wrong with this.

Chewing An Idea

2007-06-26T23:21:00.000-04:00

I've been reading Market Education, which is an excellent book on the history of public education as an institution, and as an idea throughout history. One of the charges that the author levies (and supports) is that the purpose of public schools is not, and indeed has never been, the education of its students. The purpose is to indoctrinate them with the approved State Ideology. Indeed, the history of government schools has been one conflict after another between parents that want to teach their children knowledge and values that will prepare them for leading a happy and productive life vs. the government bereaucrats that see it as their duty to mold the children in their charge into "Good Citizens."

Whether it's converting the children of Irish Catholic Immigrants to Protestantism in the 1840's, or training children in the dogma of Environmentalism in current era, the conflicts have remained the same in their essentials. Whether it's illegal to teach Evolution in science class (as it was in the early 20th Century), or illegal to teach Creationism in sciense class (as it is now), it remains that groups are fighting to use political power to get their particular world view presented to other people's children through the power of the State.

I'm starting to see the issue of public schools in the same light that many in this country already see the issue of the separation of Church and State. The State should not endorse a particular religion, nor should any religious organization wield state power. The individual administrators may themselves adhere to a religion in a personal sense, but not as an agent of State authority. Should the line between church and state be breached, the effect would be a State Religion. Whether this religion is an official State Religion codified into a dogma, or an unofficial hodge-podge of randomly selected ideas doesn't matter. The State simply should not be in the business of approving ideas.

But if the State is going to pay for the education of the nation's children, then it must take an interest in the quality of the education is pay's for. Whether the schools are administered by the State or payed for by vouchers doesn't matter; the State has an obligation to ensure that its money is being spent wisely. This necessarily means that the State must set standards for both the content and method of educational systems. This means that the State must take on the role of approver of ideas.

Who decides what content and methodoligcal approaches should be used in the public school? Castro, in Cuba; whichever political faction happens to have control of the local, State, or National education bereaucracy in the U.S..

Conservatives and Libertarians often advocate vouchers to allow private schools to "compete" with public schools on the premise that "competition" will make public schools better. This is a bastardization of the concept of economic competition, and will only result in the government extending its power over any private schools that accept the vouchers, and destroying any private schools that are left. This will happen, not from any particular malice or conspiracy on the part of government bereaucrats, but as a natural consequence of government money in the realm of education. Further, the next time conservatives get a grip on the education system, they'll drop vouchers and implement their own version of the State Ideology just as they have done in the past; and don't think that they're not trying.

I'm beginning to think that the issue of public education is the single most important domestic issue that this country is facing. I'm struck by how the existence of public schools is so throughly non-controversial in our culture. I'm struck by how many students coming out of public schools, and even colleges without basic critical thinking skills. I'm struck by how difficult it is for people I talk to even imagine an alternative the public school system, or any other politically correct idea. The very concept of political correctness demonstrate what I was talking about earlier--an implied State Ideology; not currently enforced as a matter of law, but certainly taught as a matter of law.

I've got more reading and thinking to do. Thanks for reading.

Global Warming: The Miracle Disaster

2007-06-17T09:47:00.000-04:00

Is there anything it can't do?
Now it's responsible for the fighting in Darfur. Oh that Mother Nature--she's sure a bitch!

To summarize: there was less rain, which obviously is the result of man-made Global Warming since there's never been a such a thing as a draught before, so the black farmers closed in their land to prevent over-grazing from arab herders. "For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out,'' he [UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon] said.

I love that--"Fighting broke out." Just like that--like it's the next logical step in the chain or reasoning. Why? No answer. Why couldn't the people there find other ways to resolve their differences? No answer. This is the quality of thinking in people who supposedly are our World Leaders.

Check out this guy...

2007-06-16T14:07:00.000-04:00

... playing "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" on the ukelele--pretty impressive.

You Must Read This

2007-05-24T22:25:00.000-04:00

First: Read this.

Look at how free individuals and a famous "greedy corporate giant" are working to provide health-care services to people that otherwise could not afford it. My company has an on-site nurse practitioner: because her salary is less than the cost of insurance-covered doctor visits.

Now take special note of this:
"Because health care is largely regulated and licensed at the state level, some states are more friendly than others at having non-physicians deliver care. California requires that clinics be a medical corporation owned by a physician. In Arizona, each site must be licensed, but in most other states, a single license will serve multiple clinics. Illinois is considering legislation to limit the number of nurses a doctor could supervise to two and restrict the clinics' right to advertise."

Are you hearing this? The government is limiting the flexibility of the market to respond to consumer needs. Aren't we hearing from every corner today how we must be protected from greedy profiteers, and only the government can be trusted to provide us with the care we need? This is the same government led by the same politicians that block every market attempt actually provide the services people need; the same politicians that excoriate the people that are actually working to provide those services in the name of convincing you to put them in charge of your medical care. It's analagous to the mafioso that wants you to pay him for "protection" from "anything bad that might happen."

Gaaaahhhh!

Changing my Mind

2007-04-24T21:37:00.000-04:00

I had a recent post on school vouchers in which I discussed the tendency of people (including myself) to shy away from making changes to our political system because said changes would create new problems (read, new opportunities for government intervention). I said that the creation of new problems should be approached as pressure to continue the migration to its logical conclusion (e.g., the problems created by home-schooling and a voucher system should be used as pressure to further dismantle the public education system). At this level, my opinion has not changed.

However, a couple of current events, and a lecture by C. Bradley Thompson have changed my mind on supporting the initiative for school vouchers. In Brad Thompson's lecture on the separation of school and state, he made a (what I believe to be) critical distinction between reformers and abolitionists. To paraphrase, in the 1830's, abolitionists did not begin their quest to abolish slavery by arguing for a shorter workday and better meals for the slaves. No--they argued consistently and on principle that slavery as an institution should be abolished.

Bringing this argument to todays context--my interest is not in school vouchers, but in the replacement of the public education system by a fully private system. I would advocate school vouchers as a migratory means to that end, but otherwise I'm not interested. Further, when considering that the primary advocates of school vouchers are conservatives that want to send their kids to religious schools, and that they do not share my ultimate goal of dismantling the public education system, I cannot ally myself with them on this issue.

I will go a step further and say that conservatives do not actually want school vouchers--but school vouchers represent a pragmatic way for them to use state funds to pay for religious-based schooling for their kids. If conservatives had their way, they would institute religion into the public school system, and it would be the Left that would be clamoring for school vouchers against conservative opposition.

I would usually avoid comparing people to the Nazi's, but I can't resist linking you to a story from Germany. Apparently, a girl their was being home-schooled by her parents, which is illegal in Germany. The girl was diagnosed by a state psychiatrist as having "school phobia" and taken from her family and institutionalized. Home-schooling was banned during Hitler's reign of power.

Quote:
In 1937, the dictator said, "The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing."

The modern ruling on the law reads much the same way:
"Not only the acquisition of knowledge, but also the integration into and first experience with society are important goals in primary school education," the court said. "The German courts found that those objectives cannot be equally met by home education even if it allowed children to acquire the same standard of knowledge as provided for by primary school education. "The (German) Federal Constitutional Court stressed the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society," the ruling said. " (emphasis added)

In other words, the purpose of public education in Germany is to indoctrinate children is to indoctrinate the students of the country with a common set of philosophical ideas and to "socialize" the child into society. I would imagine that the "separate philosophical convictions" referred to are in fact Nazi- or other forms of racism. I cannot plumb the depths of irony that a law passed by Hitler to ensure that all children were educated as Nazis would now be used to curt-tail the same freedom of thought, and ensure that all children were educated as multi-culturalists.

The parents in this case are Christians that are upset at the sex-education in public schools, and don’t want their children exposed to it. I personally would be in favor of sex education for my children (if I had any), but at an appropriate age and with an appropriate level of detail. I wouldn’t want my 6 year old exposed to this, however. These parents are reformers, not abolitionists. I wish them all the best on getting their daughter back, but I am not in any sense a political ally of theirs.

Now imagine that the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine that it was the conservatives that had a grip on the public education system. Imagine that creationism was being taught in science class, and that sex was never mentioned in school at all, except that god hates fags. Imagine all the Leftists clammering for vouchers so that their kids could be taught evolution and multi-culturalism. Can anyone seriously believe that conservatives would be in favor of school vouchers then? I can’t. School vouchers are a pragmatic way for them to get what they want (religious education at state expense) in the current political climate. If they could ask for and get what they really wanted, it would be mandatory religious education at state expense in order to “avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions.”

Lest anyone think that Democrats are any less guilty of trying to legislate ideas, read this article. The FCC is trying to reign in violence on tv shows, even on cable networks. The Federal government has tried to regulate violence before by forcing manufacturers to include “V” chips in television sets, “But many parents don't use V-chip blocking” It’s Democrat Jay Rockefeller that is drafting legislation based on the FCC’s findings.

The article goes on to state that “A key obstacle to any such law has been crafting a definition for violence that could survive a court review.” (emphasis added) What’s the problem? Oh yeah, that pesky First Amendment, and that pesky absolutist, extremist, clear language: “Congress shall make no law…” So much for the pretend-defenders of the First Amendment.

In summary, I could support school vouchers if it was an idea put forth as a migratory first-step toward the privatization of the educational system. However, it is really being put forth as a way to religiously school children at state expense until the conservatives manage to get control of the public education system and change it to suit their wishes. I advocate the principle that school and state should be separate; conservatives do not, therefore we have nothing in common on this issue.

I am an abolitionist on the issue of public education, not a reformer. I will not ally myself with reformers.

Security

2007-04-09T12:50:00.000-04:00

So I went to Carowinds this weekend with B., A., Em, and Em's father. We had a good time, but it was kind of annoying getting into the Park. There was a row of metal detectors before the security gate, and B. had his Swiss-Army knife taken to storage. Now, I ask you--who feels safer because B. didn't have his pocket knife?

Em summed up our general feeling with a single quip: "Freedom has a price: and that price is less freedom!"

Israel Must Fight for its Right to Exist

2007-03-29T16:50:00.000-04:00

My friend Dan wrote this and gave me permission to repost it here.

Israel Must Respond to Militant Islam with Overwhelming Force

On July 12, 2006, Lebanese fighters perpetrated an act of war against Israel when they fired rockets into Israeli territory and kidnapped two IDF soldiers. In the face of such a brazen and unprovoked attack, it is a government's moral responsibility to do whatever is necessary to protect the lives of its citizens. Israel was well within its right to respond militarily and demand the return of its soldiers.

Arabs throughout the Middle East greatly feared the Israeli response. Hezbollah was widely criticized for awakening the sleeping Zionist giant. At first, the Israeli government threatened to respond with overwhelming force. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared the Lebanese action "an act of war," and promised a " very painful and far-reaching response." The head of Israel's Northern Command Udi Adam said, "this affair is between Israel and the state of Lebanon. Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts." As rockets began to streak across the border onto Israel towns, Israeli army radio declared that the army would "totally destroy any village from which missiles are fired toward Israel."

Israel was challenged to follow through on its promises. Hezbollah guerillas embedded themselves in the civilian population, fired rockets from populated areas, and disguised themselves as civilians. In several reported cases, Islamists blocked village exits to prevent residents from leaving combat zones, maximizing civilian death. International pressure began to mount against Israel. On July 20, after a report claimed that 60 civilians were killed in a single attack, Israel agreed to halt air strikes for 48 hours. The United States began to push Israel towards a fast resolution.

Thereafter, even as Hezbollah fired hundreds of rockets across the border, Israeli forces were careful not to inflict significant damage on non-combatants. This hampered Israel's ability to fight the war effectively. The army never followed through on its promise to "totally destroy" villages from which rockets were fired.Israel finally agreed to a cease fire on August 14, even though it had not accomplished its two stated objectives for victory: recovering the kidnapped soldiers, and ejecting Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah was widely regarded as the winner of the conflict. On September 22, thousands of supporters gathered in Beirut to hear Hezbollah leader Nasrallah openly declare his country's "divine and strategic victory" against Israel.

This outcome was worse than if Israel had done nothing, because now supporters of militant Islam have rallied around the victorious Hezbollah. Civilians in Lebanon still must fear the strong arm of militant Islam, but no longer fear the harsh reprisal of Israel. Moderate Lebanese have no incentive to oppose Hezbollah; to do so would mean certain death. Al Queda, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations around the globe now see that the tactic of holding ones own civilian population hostage is effective.

When the United States faced a similar threat during WWII, we achieved victory by convincing the people of Japan that we would destroy their entire country if necessary to defend our own. We settled for nothing less than unconditional surrender. When Japan would not yield, we unleashed a devastating attack on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Though less widely publicized, similar tactics were used against Nazi Germany. Today, US actions in WWII are often criticized, but witness the long term results of this ruthless approach. It is widely conceded that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American lives.

Israel should learn from this example. Islamic Terrorists cannot be reasoned with, and they will not stop until Israel is completely destroyed. Israel must recognize that the only way to stop an enemy aggressor is to respond with overwhelming force. If they are not willing to do so, then Muslims around the world are right: Israel has forfeited its right to exist.

--Dan Edge

I agree completely.
--Chris McKenzie

Ayn Rand Sighting

2007-03-18T11:23:00.000-04:00

There was a scene in the last episode of "Lost" ("Par Avion") in which one of the characters was reading "The Fountainhead" on the beach.

It made me happy.

Follow Up

2007-03-12T17:43:00.000-04:00

Trey Givens was kind enough to respond to my last post on Environmentalism and Epistemology.

With regard to this quotation from my post:
Finally, it is not the case that religion is "more obviously false" than environmentalism. The Primacy of Existence is implicit in every concept, but explicit knowledge of the PoE is conceptually advanced. Once you have knowledge of the PoE, it is easy to dismiss religion (or the supernatural of any variety). The non-cognitive status for the arbitrary is a corollary of the PoE once you recognize that the purpose of reason is to identify reality. Environmentalism violates the PoE the same way that religion does, by asking you to suspend reason and grant cognitive status to arbitrary claims.
Trey writes:
I'm a person with only a nominal amount of information about environmental science and what I know about things that affect the weather doesn't exclude the environmentalists' claims from being plausible given the evidence offered.
What challenges their claim is the fact that the evidence they've offered has so frequently turned out to be false or misapplied to the question, but it is not the case that they don't attempt to offer some relevant information to the question.
This is very much unlike religionists' claims about the supernatural, which by its nature is beyond consideration, examination, and even definition.

I agree with Trey that within the context of his knowledge, religion is more obviously irrational than environmentalism. Trey has explicit knowledge of the Primacy of Existence, and so the mere fact that something is considered to be "supernatural" is enough of a reason for Trey to dismiss the claim. However, although the PoE is axiomatic, and axioms are by definition self-evident, explicit integrated knowledge of the PoE is not automatic. So, for many people, that something is supernatural is not reason enough unto itself to dismiss a claim. I don't think that most people have a clear idea even of what is meant by "supernatural." Many, I believe, simply think of it as "as of yet unexplained phenomena," which carries with it the implication that explanations are plausible. Such people would not say that God's existence is impossible, but neither would they characterize God as "the Magic Man in the Sky," the way that I do.

Trey further writes:
Certainly the environmentalists do want us to resort to faith when it comes to their claims, but they've at least been sneaky enough to obscure this fact by offering up facts and figures about this and that.

Religionists are doing exactly the same thing for the same reason. Their "intelligent design" theory is a pseudo-scientific veneer applied to supernaturalism. However irrational the theory, to the mind that thinks of "supernatural" as meaning simply "as of yet unexplained phenomena," there is nothing in intelligent design that is inherently contradictory. The reason that it is so clearly ridiculous to Trey and me is because we grasp the PoE.

So I contextually agree with Trey. If we are talking about how ridiculous one or the other will seem to somone on the surface, I think these rules apply:
In a layperson's context, neither environmentalism nor religion is necessarily be obviously invalid.
In Trey's context, since he grasp's the PoE, religion is obviously irrational, but environmentalism is not since it has the veneer of science.
In my context, since I grasp the PoE and have discovered that environmentalism isn't backed up by any science, both environmentalism and religion are equally ridiculous to me.

Epistemologically speaking, however, judged on their own merits, religion and environmentalism share the same underlying error in that neither is cognitively related to reality. That's what I meant when I said that one is not more ridiculous than the other.

The 300

2007-03-12T16:02:00.000-04:00

There have been several reviews of the 300 already.

* * * SPOILERS * * *

There's a pretty great one here.

Favorite quote: "Hyper-epic" may accurately characterize the style in which this already exhilarating Frank Miller story was realized on film. From the studio logos to the end credits, every frame of "300" pulsates and flexes as if it were heaving an enormous weight from one shot to the next. The music and sound effects are pushed completely to the forefront, making every pluck of a string, every beat of a drum, every footstep and even every breath carry the dramatic impact of most other films' entire audio tracks. Every shot is picturesque. Every close-up is extreme. Every man is muscle-bound and sculpted. Every woman is elegant and beautiful (even the terribly scarred ones). Every monster is hideous and sickening. Every blow is fatal. Every moment is a moment. Not one second is wasted.

The online muse gushes about it here.

Diana Hsieh discusses its shortcomings here.

Cox & Forkum utilizes it in a wonderful cartoon here. They also link to a nice true history of the battle of Thermpylae, as well as to a History Channel documentary on the subject.

Trey Givens gives his thoughts here.

My take? Basically I agree with everyone here. I think the movie was masterfully executed, wonderfully exciting and dramatic, and not-quite up to par intellectually. I liked the intellectual values that the film tried to uphold, but I don't think those elements were integrated into the rest of the film very well.

My only disagreement is with Diana. She writes: "Leonidas was supposed to be uncompromising. He wasn't swayed by the appeals of Xerxes (and the deformed Ephialtes) to be reasonable by submitting to Persian rule. Yet he compromised from the very start, not just by submitting to the mystical demands of the Ephors, but then by circumventing their demands without directly challenging them. The fact that he did so begrudgingly, as a necessity of Spartan political life, shows him to be open to compromise in the name of necessity. So why not compromise with the Persians too? Just because, I guess."

The way I read it, Leonidas did not think that he could fight Xerxes to defend Sparta (and its way of life) and destroy that way of life at the same time. I didn't read his action as being a compromise, but rather as finding a way to uphold the principles for which he is fighting. Now, one may legitimately criticize the principle's for which he fought (duty, militarism), but in his own context, I think Leonidas stayed true to his ideals.

I wanna' see it again!

Environmentalism and Epistemology

2007-03-12T12:14:00.000-04:00

Trey Givens has a good thread happening on Environmentalism. The most interesting aspect of the discussion for me is the relationship between environmentalism and religion.

Religion, it is noted, begins with claims of the supernatural, and with exhortations of faith. As such, its claims are wholly outside of reality, and can be dismissed out of hand. Everyone in the discussion seems agreed on this point. However, the status of environmentalism is not so clear. "Deep Greens," as they are being called (a term I like and shall keep), use concepts with which we are familiar to make false or unsubstantiated claims. Aren't they on the surface "better" than religionists, since some part of their claims is within reality?

In Trey's words: "I pointed out that there is a fundamental difference between the global climate and the supernatural, one exists and one does not."

I think we should be careful of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy here. One could re-structure Trey's argument to say that "Religionists claims are analytically false, but environmentalists claims are synthetically false," meaning that religionists' claims are essentially non-logical and self-contradiction, but environmentalists' claims require further study.

Environmentalists' claims do not require further study. Once it has been demonstrated that the environmentalist is making claims in an evidentiary vacuum, that is enough of a reason to dismiss the claims. The environmentalists' claims have no cognitive status. They are not "possible," "probable," "certain," "true," or most importantly: "false." If their claims are not backed up by evidence, then their claims have no cognitive content, and therefore bear no relationship to reality.

The fact they the environmentalists' nominally use words that we recognize and have no inherent contradictory status is in-essential and irrelevant. It does not make them any closer to reason than the religionist, nor any more honest. To the extent that their claims are arbitrary, they deserve no consideration.

Now, for the person that has no knowledge of environmentalism, it is proper that they should take the claims seriously enough when they first hear them to ask "why?" "How do we know that Global Warming is happening, and that man is causing it?" But as soon as it becomes apparent that no answer is offered for those questions (other than "the UN said," or "the debate is over"), then it is apparent that environmentalists are another flavor of religionists, and should be treated as such.

Finally, it is not the case that religion is "more obviously false" than environmentalism. The Primacy of Existence is implicit in every concept, but explicit knowledge of the PoE is conceptually advanced. Once you have knowledge of the PoE, it is easy to dismiss religion (or the supernatural of any variety). The non-cognitive status for the arbitrary is a corollary of the PoE once you recognize that the purpose of reason is to identify reality. Environmentalism violates the PoE the same way that religion does, by asking you to suspend reason and grant cognitive status to arbitrary claims.

School Vouchers

2007-03-08T12:42:00.000-05:00

When I first heard about the idea of school vouchers, I was all for it. Then I thought about it some more, and decided that the gov't would use the existence of vouchers as another mechanism to encroach the first amendment. Loathe though I am to say it, Hilary Clinton summarizes that fear quite well in this video:

Still, I think I'm going to have to come down on the side of being for it. I think that there's something wrong with the approach of viewing migratory deregulation as a danger source for the further erosion of rights. The fact is, our rights are being eroded all around us. I think we're better served by advocating controversial acts of deregulation despite the fact that they open new ground for worrying if for no other reason than that we can give the subject of rights the spotlight. Yes, school vouchers does raise first amendment issues--we need to keep rights in the forefront of the American consciousness as much as possible. Our answer to Hilary's question: "Who decides who gets the money?" is "no one." As a first step toward privatizing the educational system in this country, we should offer school vouchers for parents to send their children to any school they want.

Media Center

2007-03-01T19:22:00.002-05:00

So I purchased a Dell E521 system (Vista Home Premium) with a dual tv-tuner to server as a Home Theater PC (HTPC). The first thing that I noticed was that it had no tv out. Hmmm. It appears that whoever designed the tuner card didn't think anyone would want to output the signal to a television. Go figure.

So, a trip to Best Buy and $150 later and I'm back with an NVidia GeForce 7600 GS PCIe card installed and ready to go. I connect to my HDTV and--beautiful... for about two hours that is. Then the video card locked up and I had to reboot--and again every 1 to 2 hours after that.

Much googling and a perusal and even a service request from the NVidia website turned up no helpful information. So, back to Best Buy. Except they didn't have any non-NVidia cards for less than $250 which was a quite a jump in price. So, get a refund.

Circuit City now. Found a card--ATI Radeon X1300 Pro 256Mb PCIe card for $129. Get it home--get it installed--and... eeewwwwwww. My Live TV picture is grainy and just generally shoddy. Check the DVD playback--that's all good. Hmmm... Email to ATI customer support--response in 12 hours. Hmm, guess I know who I'll be buying from next time.

I tried the TV output to a regular monitor, and it still sucked. Then I replaced the video card with another NVidia geforce card from my gaming machine-same sucky picture. Then I remove the video card entirely and just use the onboard VGA port to output to my monitor--same sucky picture. I knew that the picture wasn't that bad with the first card, so I figured that something must have gotten lost in translation when I removed the first video card and replaced it with the second.

Game plan--restore system back to Day 1 using the built-in Restore Point technology in Windows. Set up the Media Center software to talk to my satellite box again and... beautiful!

So the moral of the story is, when everything is fine on your system, and BEFORE you install any new hardware, make sure you create a restore point--otherwise you'll be spending an evening reinstalling updates like me.

More Smoking Hysteria

2007-02-22T09:08:00.000-05:00

Thanks to the Detective for linking to this great analysis of second-hand smoke hysteria. It dovetails nicely with the studies I've found that basically say the same thing. (http://www.fumento.com/disease/smoking.html, another study). Okay, so technically the first link is an article, and the second is the study. You know what I mean--jeez--grammar nazis!

Joke of the Day

2007-02-10T10:59:00.000-05:00

So today's "Joke of the Day" was kind of stupid:

Q. What's the difference between a boy and a girl?
A. A boy is 8 times more likely to be convicted of murder.

The "joke" isn't even funny, but it does serve as a nice spring-board to analyze some things in our culture. Despite the fact that it's true, in the context of today's culture, this joke is a smear on men. Don't believe me? Imagine if the question had been re-written thus: "What's the difference between a black man and a white man?" See the problem? The second version would be considered to be ipso facto racist. The fact that black men are more likely to be convicted of murder would be explained away as being the result of poverty, white oppression, and a slew of other explanations that all serve the same function: to deflect blame away from the individuals actually committing murder. The knee-jerk reaction is to look for explanations of the criminal behavior when it is committed on the part of a minority--and it's even better if the "explanation" lays the blame at the feet of one of the usual suspects: caucasians, males, big business, or the military-industrial complex. The question of other possible non-racist explanations the phenomenon isn't even taken into account.

The Left has so dominated the culture with political correctness that in many circles, even University level academic circles, it is near impossible to be understood to have an intellectual disagreement with the politically correct norm. Failure to subscribe wholesale to the politically correct explanations of why more blacks are in prison or women tend to make less money is immediately labelled racist or sexist. Those labels are warrant enough to dismiss the position of the heretic outright.

For instance, at a recently scheduled debate between Yaron Brook and Carl Braun of the Minutemen, a leftist student group planned a protest which effectively caused the debate to be cancelled due to "security concerns." ("Security Concerns", is the new cover-all term that is used to describe our country's lack of willingness to defend its citizens rights to free speech.) First--what were they going to protest? A debate? Why do you protest a debate? If you believe that one of the debaters is intellectually mistaken, then a debate is the best thing that could of happened. If you believe in open borders (as this student group apparently does), then the best thing that could happen would be if Yaron Brook--an intellectual giant compared to many of the leaders he's debated--solidly trounced the representative of the opposing view in an intellectual cage match in a public forum. If you have any respect at all for ideas--

ahh, there's the rub. The protesters web page exhorts the student body to "Say No to the Hate." See--they can't conceive of a set of intellectual reasons for wanting to stem the flow of immigrants into the US, so any contrary position must be racist. The anti-intellectuality of their protest is further demonstrated by their instructions: "Bring banners, noisemakers, bullhorns, whatever--all are welcome!" They not only don't want to hear what the man has to say (which is their right), but they want to violate the rights of others to hear what the man has to say. They want to use a physical attack (excess noise) to destroy an intellectual discourse.

Further still, "hate," like "security concerns," occupies a curious place in our political culture--it is the adjective used to justify the abrogation of free speech. So the action and the justification are delivered together. The Minutemen's "message of hate" (i.e., contrary position on immigration) must be silenced (by force or otherwise) because it is "hate."

Some of the students did understand the importance of ideas. In a letter to the protesters the organizer of the debate wrote:

Although I understand your passion about this issue--indeed, L.O.G.I.C.'s official position and motivation for hosting this debate is to promote free immigration and open borders--I would advise you to conduct yourselves with respect. Do not misunderstand--L.O.G.I.C. disagrees vehemently with Mr. Braun's position, but the purpose of inviting him to UCLA was not to give his ideas sanction. On the contrary, the purpose is to flesh out the concerns that many people have about immigration as thoroughly as possible, and for our speaker, Dr. Yaron Brook, to show why Mr. Braun is wrong. Our strategy of pitting our position against the strongest opposition can only yield success if the debate is uninterrupted. By disrupting the event--either inside or outside the venue--you will compromise the validity of our position in the minds of observers. You will make the pro-immigration side seem like nothing but a bunch of hooligans. This is unacceptable and intolerable. Be advised--we have police security at the event, and if you cause a disruption, you will be subject to arrest. That having been said, the best that you can do to support free immigration and to show your opposition to Mr. Braun is to respectfully sit in the audience and clap loudly for Dr. Brook. (Booing and jeering when Mr. Braun speaks is not acceptable either.) I hope that you will attend and remain respectful. I don’t want to see my event--and my pro-immigration cause--be compromised by any sort of disruptions.

Of course, it's almost better when the opposition doesn't speak (the organizing student group was L.O.G.I.C.:

Hey white boy. Your club name logic stands for Liberty, objectivity,GREED, individiuality andCAPITALISM????? OK heres the problem. Your club thinks capitalism and greed is best for the Raza? Dude thats how we got where we are in the first place. In case you havn't heard 99% of the Raza believe in collectivism, socialism and communism and anarchism. You think all I want is a good job and a big house for myself? Youre wrong. I want it all for my people!! And Im not sharing nothing with the white invaders. Sooner or later you'll all have to get back on your boats and go back to wherever names like yours got thought up. And take your capitalism with you. we dont need it, you guys are the ones who thought it up to keep the raza down.

So, given all of this hyper-sensitivity, how is it that a joke like the one above could make it onto my google homepage? Because it's okay to bash whites, men, and (big-) businessmen. No one blinks an eye at that. On almost all sitcoms involving a married couple today, the wife is the "smart" one. (That there should be a "smart one', or conversely a "stupid one" in a married couple is itself great fodder for another post.) I don't know who to credit with saying "Men are not just defective women," but the quotation captures exactly the quality of some of the messages my culture sends to me and other men. You won't see me out marching in the streets about it though. I believe in the power of ideas--so as long as the tattered remnants of the 1st Amendment still hold sway in this country, I will rationally argue my position to any willing listener or reader.

Thank you.

Happy Holidays!

2006-12-23T09:41:00.000-05:00

The Pictures and what it took to take them:

Music

2006-12-06T18:03:00.000-05:00

Music is an extremely important value in my life. I like a broad range of musical styles and periods. It's been thisway since I was 14 years old. My first cassettes were Brahsm, Mozart, and Motley Crue. I'm not sure why I'm so passionately interested in music as against the other fine arts, which I appreciate, but can live without. It's such an important value that I couldn't possibly consider a romance with someone that didn't love music as well.

As much as I love music, there is very little of it that I love--does that make sense? What I mean is that I am very judicious with my musical choices, but I spend a great deal of time listening to music I love, and seeking out new music to love. A rare gift is when someone introduces me to an artist that I have not previously heard and I end up liking. This morning a work buddy sent me a link to a performance of a concerto for guitar that is simply beautiful. The composer is Joaquin Rodrigo, and the guitar is played by Narciso Yepes.

In addition, I've recently become very interested in a speed-metal band called Dragon Force. They're probably the fastest, heaviest band I've ever heard--yet they still manage to remain melodic. They're songs have an epic quality reminiscent of Iron Maiden and Helloween--only more so. I've bought all three of their albums and have been listening to them pretty much non-stop for the last few weeks. Good stuff!

When Religion is Funny

2006-12-06T17:58:00.000-05:00

Religion is so absurd. How people can believe in a magic man in the sky is beyond me. That's why I really enjoyed these two gems today. The first is a video of a man that gets so fed up with people knocking on his door proselytizing to him that he flys to Utah and starts knocking on doors proselytizing peope about atheism. Simply classic. The second is a list of Bible verses that you don't hear the fundamentalists trot out very often, as they don't exactly paint a benevolent (or even sensical) picture of their magic man in the sky.

Enjoy!

Environmentalist Intimidation

2006-12-05T08:02:00.000-05:00

A buddy of mine sent me a link to this article detailing intimidation tactics by two US Senators on ExxonMobil to push an environmentalist agenda. Thought you'd be interested.

It never ends ...

2006-11-08T12:48:00.000-05:00

... Yet another expose on the distortions of the eco-terrorists. This one takes on the Hockey Stick graph used by the U.N. to "prove" Global Warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

Hat Tip: Trey Givens

Anti-Homosexuality ban

2006-11-07T23:21:00.000-05:00

I am not pro-gay rights--but I am pissed about the anti-gay marriage vote in SC today. The reason I am not pro gay-rights is because I do not believe that one gains or loses any rights whatever by being (or not being) a member of some group. Thus, not only am I not pro-gay rights, I am also not pro-heterosexual rights. I am beholden to a single political ideal--Individual Rights.

It is obvious to any but the most doltish of the dolts that the only possible justification for being against gay marriage is religious in nature, and thus such a ban has no place in the legal system of a free nation.

Principles and Assertions

2006-11-07T13:31:00.000-05:00

Without the guide of principles, the only alternative is a grab-bag of arbitrary assertions delivered on a case by case basis. The FCC is a case in point. Observe the mental contortions that the FCC has to go through in order to justify its unjustifiable censorship policies. Since the FCC (and the Supreme Court) has abandoned the First Amendment in favor of "community standards," the FCC is left with no objective standard on which to base its decisions.

I'm sure that the neo-cons would be happy to offer a justification though...

Trans-Siberian Orchestra

2006-11-07T12:50:00.000-05:00

I saw TSO last night in Greenville. They rocked! If you're not familiar, they are a rock-oriented band/orchestra that plays classical and Christmas music, but themed with electric guitars and whatnot. The musicians are master players--the music is hard, heavy, and happy--a combination not usually seen. The tone of the performance was one of joy. Qua Christmas-oriented, it contained a lot of religious/altruist imagery. However, I didn't think that those elements detracted from the overall joyous sense of life projected by the performance.

Learning

2006-11-03T12:02:00.000-05:00

The Creating Passionate Users blog has an interesting post about how math, science, engineering are taught vs. what us techies really need.

To which I will add that the focus on "language" is indicative of a concrete-bound mentality.

Happy Halloween!

2006-10-31T14:27:00.001-05:00

Here's a great costume for your enjoyment:
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1719034/

Cheers!

Media Roundup

2006-10-18T19:00:00.000-04:00

I have to second Diana Sieh's recommendation of Veronica Mars: My girfriend and I are 4 episodes into the first season and are already enthralled. The DVD box describes the show as "part Buffy, part Nancy Drew"-- an assessment with which I have to concur. If you have ever watched and enjoyed Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Firefly, I highly suggest this series to you.

In music I've been listening to Liz Phair's latest album, Somebody's Miracle. It lacks some of the in-your-face sexuality that garners her so much attention. I have difficulty with the explicit meaning of some of the songs, even as I like their "sense of life." "Everything to Me," "Closer to You," and "Everything (Between Us)" are all quite lovely, and the album holds together as a catalog of intimate, folksy songs. Also, it has that great pic in the liner notes.

I've been reading the Victor Hugo novel "Toilers of the Sea." I'm about 150 pages into it right now, and the story is just starting to move forward. What I've read has been interesting, and in some places quite beautiful. I'm starting to see where bits of the groundwork that Hugo has put into place are beginning to become relevant to the plot (even though I'm not totally sure what the plot is yet).

Looks like November is going to be a busy month for concerts. I've got the Trans-Siberian Orchestra, Imogen Heap, and Raq lined up. Should be fun!

TTFN!

Heroes

2006-09-27T08:45:00.000-04:00

Heroes is a new show from NBC that has great promise. The simplest way to describe it is to say that it is like X-Men, but before anybody knows anything about mutants. The show takes itself seriously, has just the right amount of humor, and is dramatic. I saw the first episode (which as I write this is available to watch in streaming video on www.nbc.com ) last night, and enjoyed it immensely. I recommend it to anyone with the slightest infection of nerdity.

An Israeli Perspective

2006-09-27T08:36:00.000-04:00

Roy Osherove is sort of famous in the .Net developer community. ~~He is the creator of www.regexlib.com.~~ He doesn't often blog politics, but politics has recently had an impact on his career. In this post, he discusses the impact as well as answers some intellectually sloppy accusations that have been levied against Israel. It's not a perfect response (his allusion to moral grayness for example), but it's still very good.

Update:
I was wrong--He didn't create www.regexlib.com. Woops!

I was wrong...

2006-09-19T10:03:00.000-04:00

... in my first thoughts about the Spinach/E.Coli problem. My first thought when I first heard about it was "It's probably the organic stuff."

Indeed, I was supported in that theory by the picture in this article. The company is denying that its organic products are affected, although the FDA isn't ruling anything out.

So, at this point, nothing is really known. I'll be very interested in the final conclusions if anyone comes across them before I do.

Yay

2006-09-12T19:22:00.000-04:00

Sometimes they get it right. Wikipedia at least is refusing to kowtow to Chinese censorship efforts.
Article here.

Month-iversary

2006-09-06T08:18:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow marks 2 months since I began dating Emily. She contacted me awhile back after reading a lot of my blog; we started talking; one thing led to another; and here we are.
This relationship is already different and better than any of my previous ones. We have a great number of common interests to start with. I can say "Do you wanna' play Battlefield 2?" and the answer I get is usually "Yes!" She loves to read, watch great television shows, play games (video, roleplaying, and board). She has a marvelous sense of humor. She's smart as a lemon drops, and she adores my dogs. The fact that she likes and respects me is something that seems to be easy for her to show. She shows interest in things that I love (programming, philosophy) that she knows little or nothing about--but expresses and shows a desire to learn. She strongly argues with me when she disagrees, but does so in a rational, non-combative manner that doesn't compromise her passion. She has a knowledge and love of music that rivals my own (and with 6-700 CDs in my collection, that's significant!)

In short, she has all of the qualities of personality that I thought would be ideal in a romantic partner.

We've spent an enormous amount of time together since we started dating. Almost half of every week has been spent together. The time has been an orgy of sharing DVD's, CD's, books, and ideas. Mucho fun-do!

So, cheers and celebrations to Emily and me!

Wolfsheim

2006-08-21T10:17:00.000-04:00

My girlfriend introduced me to this German synth-pop group called Wolfsheim. I have no idea what this song is about, but I love it. It reminds me quite a bit of Depeche Mode.

The song is called "Kein Zurück."
Enjoy!

"There are no atheists in foxholes"

2006-08-17T10:42:00.000-04:00

Ummm, beg to differ:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14322117/site/newsweek/

Sex and Ideas in Developing Adults

2006-08-12T10:09:00.000-04:00

When I was a teenager, the biggest fight I had with my mother was over the media I enjoyed. She disapproved of my Stephen King novels, heavy metal cassettes, and choice of movie and television watching. I wasn't allowed to see a movie with a higher than PG rating, and was disallowed from ever entering a friend's house again after seeing a film that contained a half-second of nudity. My mother's argument was that my choice of media would turn me into a bad human being. That view depends on the idea that media causes behavior, and that human choice is so limited as to be practically irrelevant. Apparently she is not alone in that belief.

The Rand Corporation recently released a study claiming that watching television with a high degree of sexual content leads to more and earlier sexual activity amongst adolescents. Studies like this always catch my attention because of my experience with my mother. I didn't believe it when she said it, explaining that demons that live in the music would go into my brain and take over my soul. But this study is "scientific," and I'm a proponent of science, so it deserves more attention.

The first thing that needs to be said is that this information, if true, is presented like it's a huge terrible thing. Hello? Teen-agers have been having sex... FOREVER! As to the lack of negative consequences portrayed on television--it's not the job of TV to educate people; that's the job of SCHOOLS or PARENTS! Further, the contra-dictory standards we hold in this country about sex are abominable. We combine sexual liberation (in both it's legitimate non-guilty form, and it's illegitimate free-love form) with sexual repression. As adults we watch "Sex in the City," and spend a lot of time and money thinking about and pursuing sex. But we tell teen-agers: "Sex is bad, m'kay? Don't have sex, m'kay?"

In the past I have estimated that over half the people I went to high-school with had had sex by the time they were 16 years old. The Rand corporation puts that figure closer to 46%. 15-16 seems to be the time when most people have sex. Maybe someone should do a study of people of all age groups asking when was the first time they had sex--and maybe that study should span countries around the world. I wonder if the answer would be any different. I hypothesize that it would not. The only such study a quick googling was able to find put the average age for first-time sex at 14.8 in California.

A Digression:

My great-great grandmother, Lizzie, was 15 when she got married. She came home (to her mother's) on her wedding night livid, but she would not talk about what had happened. It took 3 days for her mother to pry out of her what had happened. She finally exclaimed "He got fresh with me!"

On the surface, this story is funny. But it also shows the extent to which people were unwilling to discuss sex in my great-great-grandmother's day. She was 16 when my great-grandmother was born. My great-Grandmother was 17 when my grandmother was born. My grandmother was 17 when her first child was born. My mother was 16 when her first child (me) was born. Granted, this is not a scientific study--but it is a series of personal anecdotes spanning 5 generations that at least makes the question of "when do most people have sex" viable.

Making the digression relevant:

Don't we have to know what the normal age is for first-time-sex before we can start positing reasons that adolescents have sex earlier? Isn't the assumption that teens are having sex earlier based on some concept of what is normal?

The Study:

The study was conducted with two waves of phone interviews of 1792 adolescents between 12 and 17 years of age. The phone interviews were conducted a year apart. The interviews sought information from the teens on TV viewing habits, and sexual activity. They found that students that watched higher rates of sexual activity on tv, had more sex more often.

No shit, sherlock.

My first thought upon hearing this was that people who are more interested in having sex will seek out and watch more sex on television. The Rand Corporation responds to that argument thusly: "Relationships between viewing sexual content and advancing sexual behavior were not attributable to the effects of developing sexual behavior on selective viewing of sexual content. Our analyses controlled for adolescents’ level of sexual activity at baseline, rendering an explanation of reverse causality for our findings implausible."

But later they say: "A limitation of this research was our inability to control for adolescent interest in sex or sexual readiness before TV viewing. Youths who are considering coital or noncoital activities that they have not yet enacted may watch more sex on TV (eg, to get information or to satisfy desires). They may subsequently engage in these sexual activities sooner but as a result of their higher levels of interest, not as a result of their TV exposure. It was not possible for us to test for this alternative interpretation of our results with only 2 waves of data. "

I'm no statistician, and I'll admit that there's a lot in this study that I just flat don't understand, but I think the above is pretty damn clear.

Conclusions:

Look people, it's really simple. Teen-agers have sex. Maybe you don't like to think about little-Johnny or Susie in the back seat of a car, but it happens. Instead 0f blaming television, music, books, or whatnot--put the blame where it belongs: on biology and personal choice; or if you're religious--blame GOD since he made you the way you are (joking, there is no god). This study by Rand is just another "demons in your brain" explanation of human behavior. Human beings have the faculty of choice, and do not have to accept by osmosis everything they're exposed to on television. Each person is responsible for their own ideas and their own actions.

Sex isn't bad. Let's drop the puritanical sexual morality most of us have subconsciously adopted and spend more time teaching teen-agers how to have sex in a responsible manner instead of trying to hide it from them. This means sex-education that does mention prophylactics, whether it's in a classroom or at home. Follow-up: in light of the fact that most people (at least in California) are having sex at 14.8, aren't age-of-consent laws lower than 15 just plain stupid?

When Free Speech is under attack...

2006-08-03T19:31:00.000-04:00

... by it's supposed defenders, it just gets stuck in my craw!

Leftists fancy themselves the protectors of free speech--often comparing themselves favorably against conservatives who often wish to censor books, music, video games, and any other source of potentially ideological content that exists in the marketplace. However, environmentalist leftists have recently shown unity with conservatives on an issue of great importance: just as the conservatives are at root against science (consider George Bush's recent veto regarding stem cell research, not to mention the attempts to put religionist-creationist-magic-man-in-the-sky "theories" on par with natural selection), and now several major environmentalist groups are joining with the State of California to "force auto makers to disclose all documents and communications between the companies and the so-called 'climate-skeptics'"

The context of this request filed in federal court is a case in which auto makers are "challenging the state's greenhouse gas emissions limits for new cars." Apparently California believes that climate skeptics play a "major role in spreading disinformation about global warming." Notice that California is not seeking communications between auto-makers and any outside interested party regardless of their stand on global warming--they are singling out a group of people based on a position they take on a controversial issue.

"Free speech" to California and the Sierra Club seems to mean the right only to agree with them on issues of ecology. This motion is only a first step toward establishing a legal precedent for illegalizing "the spread of disinformation"--by which is meant the spreading of any information that amounts to disagreement with the currently entrenched State. Ironic that a movement born of fighting against the Establishment has now become the Establishment; Ironic that a movement claiming the right to speak the truth in opposition to the Party Line now wishes to deprive others of the same right.

I grant that California is not (yet) seeking to penalize or otherwise criminally charge the "climate skeptics"--but one should always take note when the state begins segregating people by their ideas. The fact that California has listed certain very prominent syndicated columnists is scary enough.

I predict that it won't be long before someone invents some new buzzword indicating an emotionally pleasing (to some) but still invalid exemption to the First Amendment. There's already precedent for it on the subject of "Hate Speech." If the eco-terrorists have their way, it will soon become a crime to hurt the "feelings" of the earth-minded just as it is now a crime to hurt the feelings of minority groups. Note too that "Hate Speech" laws are most commonly favored by leftists.

Any takers on what the new buzzword will be? There are rules about this you know--buzzwords have to be easy to say, so "Industrial Speech" is right out. They also have to disguise the thing they're hiding, so "Speech that doesn't agree with eco-terrorists" and "Anti-Green" speech is right out also. Maybe something like "Dangerous Speech"--no, that's too long. But we could shorten it--"Danger Speech?" Maybe it could be done in two stages. Maybe there could first be a campaign against "anthropomorphic values" and then when "anthropomorhpic" is part of the mainstream political vocabulary, the new buzzword could be "Anthro Speech." Nah, sounds too complicated. It's there... somewhere. Some whacko will find it.

I'm not sure--these things are hard to predict. What's not hard to predict is that the assault on the First Amendment will continue from both liberals and conservatives, and that those of use that know what free speech is must stand against them all. Men have only two ways of dealing with one another--persuasion, and force. The First Amendment protects our right to persuade. When it falls, there will be no other way to change things but violence.

So, if you care about the integrity of your own mind, "SPEAK NOW OR YOU WILL FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE!"

We forget so soon...

2006-07-24T22:32:00.000-04:00

Cox and Forkum have a nice reminder of just how much of an enemy Hezbollah really is to us.
Check the July 23 post.
Remember that when you hear people calling for a "proportionate" response.

Cool!

2006-07-19T12:45:00.000-04:00

Star Wars Theme ...
Played on the banjo ....
and not by Bela Fleck.

TOS is hitting them out of the park today.

2006-07-17T12:38:00.000-04:00

This is the clearest discussion of the "net neutrality" issue that I've seen. The whole thing smells strongly of the Tragedy of the Commons (TotC). The problem with the TotC is the "commons." Let all land (or internet bandwidth) be privately owned, and let each person pay for what he uses, and the TotC disappears.

Argh!

A Nice Article from TOS

2006-07-17T12:30:00.000-04:00

The Objective Standard published a nice editorial about our so-called "addiction" to oil. To this I would simply add that I do not accept any part of the premise that American's should have to sacrifice anything at all for the sake of our enemies.

The Hairy Leg Principle

2006-07-05T12:50:00.000-04:00

I have a post on a relationship skill in mind, but it is in part logically dependent upon what I call the Hairy Leg Principle. The Hairy Leg Principle has been a part of my intellectual repertoire long enough that I thought it deserved its own post.

The Hairy Leg Principle Defined: The notion that the value of another's love for you is proportional to how you understand and respect their reason's for loving you.

To place the Hairy Leg Principle in context, consider how love is often described as "unconditional." But is it really? And would you want it to be?

Which would you rather hear: "Although there is nothing about you that I respect and admire, enjoy or otherwise consider to be of value, I love you." Or: "You are a [wo]man of unsurpassed character, intelligence, and wisdom. Because of that, I love you." I think most people would rather hear the second--and would be insulted by the first.

So, the Hairy Leg Principle presumes that love is conditionally based--but it goes further than that. For you to value the other person's love, you must understand and respect their reason's for loving you. This understanding does not necessarily have to be explicit (although I find it much more exciting when it is), but there does have to be understanding nonetheless.

Respect is also a key component. If someone claims to love you for reasons that you find silly or non-essential, their love will have no value to you. In my own case, if someone told me they loved me because I had hairy legs, I would not be able to respect or enjoy their affection at all. The amount of hair I have on my legs is inessential to my hierarchy of values. Thus the named "Hairy Leg Principle." When my grandmother tells me she loves me because I am her grandson, she's basically telling me that she loves me because we happen to share some DNA. Hello? I share 98% of my DNA with a chimpanzee! How irrelevant can you get?! But, when she calls me to tell me about an idea that she heard, that she thought I would appreciate--she doesn't even have to say she loves me--the fact that she recognizes an idea that I would appreciate, and bothers to call me and tell me about it registers that fact far more clearly than "because I'm her grandson." Incidentally, that phone call, which I received several months ago, is the first time in my adult life that I've felt that she had real esteem for me. It was the first time that her actions fit her words.

In my own case, I consider it silly to love me or anyone else for any reason that is beyond their choice. Sure, you may "love" their hair-color, or eye-color or something--but those things are not primaries. That's not to say that don't have their own importance--there is no mind-body dichotomy--attraction is in part physical--but they are not primaries.

So, love me for my rationality, my interest in ideas, or my zest for life. Or love me not.

On this day...

2006-07-04T11:30:00.000-04:00

... let us remember the men and women that pledged their lives and fortunes to the cause of individual rights.

I salute you.

Let us remember all the men and women that fought to protect the security of this country from would-be invaders and oppressors.

I salute you.

Let us remember ourselves--those of us that are pledged to fight for the cause of individual rights in the modern era both at home and abroad.

I salute you.

Happy Independence Day!

Black Horse and a Cherry Tree

2006-07-03T23:03:00.000-04:00

I don't listen to the radio, so I was a little slow coming across this song by K.T. Tunstall. If you haven't heard it, it's quite energetic and fun.
Check it out!

Ice Scribe got a Short Story Published!

2006-07-03T22:23:00.000-04:00

---and it's quite good. She let me read it before, and I enjoyed it very much. Now you can enjoy it too! YAY!

The consequences of an appeasement policy...

2006-07-03T15:04:00.000-04:00

... are that some piss-ant little country with a chip on its shoulder can threaten to start World War III. It is not just obscene that North Korea has so openly threatened us, but even moreso that they obviously expect to do so without repercussions. Get this straight--country's that violate the rights of their own citizens don't care one whit about your rights. Diplomacy for them is a game that they play to gain time to become an actual threat. Appeasment = Death on a massive scale for combatants on both sides of the conflict.

For a country so obviously superior in military terms to allow North Korea to become the threat that they have is unconscionable. I fear that war, and perhaps Nuclear conflict, may be inevitable at this point. It could have been avoided if the US had acted when the threat began, instead of allowing it to blossom. The blame lies squarely on those that refuse to ackowledge history; that appeasement promotes further conflict. If you are truly against war, you should advocate that the US respond to threats with immediate and overwhelming force--to dissuade other would-be attackers from leading us down this road. Indeed we have become the "paper tiger."

For a serious analysis on what is wrong with current American foreign policy, and what has led us to this point, read this article.

"First smiles, then lies. Last comes gunfire."- Roland Deschain, of Gilead, Stephen King, The Dark Tower.

Hear, Hear, Trey!

2006-06-30T14:40:00.000-04:00

Trey has a nice post responding to a victim of the MUP.
Case in point, I'd say.

"State Sponsored Piracy"

2006-06-30T13:21:00.000-04:00

This article is about the French government's own Equalization of Opportunity Bill (spoiler, Em). If Apple does pull their iTunes service out of France, I will buy an iPod instead of the Dell Jukebox I was planning on getting.

--Hat Tip, John for the link, and the relationship to the EOB.

Philosophic Detection: Environmentalism, Religion and the MUP

2006-06-29T12:15:00.000-04:00

The MUP (Malevolent Universe Premise) is the often unstated, emotionally held idea that the universe is inimical to man. In this view, the universe is a dangerous place where any joy is fleeting, to be destroyed by the coming disaster--where pain, despair, and death are the common, and pleasure, happiness, and life are the rare.

On the surface, it's obvious how environmentalists relate to the MUP--they routinely see in every scientific/industrial advance the seeds of the destruction of all humanity. Everything men do to try to better themselves results in more alienation, disease, and death. Their solution (when they're consistent) is to leave industrial society and live like Rousseau's "noble savages" in "harmony" with nature.

But the level of acceptance of the MUP by environmentalists is much deeper, and has more significant cognitive consequences than what I've already alluded to. This was made apparent to me when I was talking to J., a friend of mine who is no longer an environmentalist, but used to be a card-carrying member of the Sierra club. We were discussing the dependency of modern industrial society on oil. He sounded the usual worry of "what are we going to do when we run out of oil?"

"We'll use a new resource," I said.

"What about when we run out of that?"

My response was that there is really only one natural resource: man's mind. It is the task of man's mind to discover, produce, and consume the requirements of his life and happiness. If oil becomes scarce, man will put his mind to the task of discovering a new source of energy. (In fact, we already have one that the environmentalists oppose--nuclear energy.) J. was not able to immediately accept this idea--to my knowledge, he still has not; but I think it's just a matter of time until he does--but he was unable to offer any rational argument against it. His response basically amounted to "I disagree."

I thought about this quite a bit--why is it so hard for him to imagine that man could actually produce the long-term requirements of his life and happiness? That's when it hit me--the MUP. He had accepted the idea that man, through accident or malice, could easily destroy the entire human race through any attempt at progress. He could not accept the idea that man is capable of elevating the entire human race through a process of sustained productive thought.

Environmentalists and other anti-science people often exclaim "what arrogance man has to 'rape' the earth of her natural resources, to think that he can play God." I used to think they did this in an attempt to portray man of small stature. That idea is contradicted by the fact that when it comes to man's destructive power, they portray him as a juggernaut. Get it? When considering man's productive capacity, they say he has none; but when considering his destructive power, suddenly man is a super-villain the likes of which Stan Lee never imagined. It's not that they need to portray man as small--it's that they need to portray industry, productivity, and the reasoning scientific mind as destructive. Since these things are man's means of living, this means that man's life is inherently self-destructive! The universe, to them, is a place where every attempt by man to live and be happy will only rain destruction and punishment. His only option, in their view, is that man must renounce his arrogance (industry, science), and prostrate himself before a more powerful authority (Mother Nature, God), hoping that his life will be merely miserable, instead of an exercise in terror and grief.

In most people, this is not an explicitly held viewpoint--but it exists nonetheless as an emotional color on their thinking. It's easier for them to accept tales of man's self-destructive capacity--they regard it as unfortunate, but common. It's nearly impossible for them to imagine tales of man's heroism--they regard it with suspicion, and sometimes a tinge of fear.

This is part of why philosophy is so important. Philsophy can answer the question "What kind of universe do I live in?" Is the MUP rational? Or is the universe the kind of place where man can live, and be happy? My answer to that question should be obvious, but for the record, I believe in a benevolent universe--not in the sense that the universe is out to help me in some way, but in the sense that it is the kind of place that I can understand, live in, and achieve my happiness.

The cost of convenience

2006-06-25T12:25:00.000-04:00

I wasn't always a white-collar worker earning a decent living. I used to work in fast-food restaurants, factories, and whatnot. During those years, money was hard to come by, and too easy to spend. I would wait in line at the cheaper gas station to save 50 cents, or shop for groceries and clothes at Wal-Mart because the prices were cheaper.

Nowadays, I earn enough money that I don't really have to worry about money too much. I'm still not rolling in it--I can't just go spending hog-wild and expect to have anything left. I'd love to have a couple of 19" flat panel monitors for my computer, but my savings isn't where it's supposed to be right now, so--delayed.

But, without really noticing it, my shopping habits have changed. I go to Target for my basic clothing needs. I buy gas from the pricier place. I buy groceries from Publix. All of these places are a bit more expensive than my former choices, but not by much. The reason I started choosing them was because they are more convenient. I don't have to wait in line for gas at the pricier station. I don't have to work my way through narrow crowded aisles filled with screaming children at Target and Publix. Further, I find that the general quality of items available is better at Target and the Publix Deli. This makes sense of course--Wal Mart's entire business model is devoted to "cheap"--and there was a time when that was of primary importance to me. I'm glad it was there for me when I needed it, but that time is gone now. Between the crowded aisles and the long lines, Wal-Mart literally isn't worth my time.

Lesson: convenience has a cost--it's about 50 cents for gas, and about $5 per person per week at retail/food establishments. Sounds great to me!

Bush's New Executive Order

2006-06-25T12:10:00.000-04:00

Here's the link to "Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People" I'm not sure how this plays out against the recent Supreme Court decision on eminent domain.

"It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken. "

This clause only applies to the Federal Government, so it doesn't do anything about cases where it is the state and county taking private land for private use. Further, I thought that one of the key arguments in the recent Supreme Court case was that taking private land for private use could be considered "public" use if it provided enough "common good" to the community. So, to my friends that have greater legal knowledge than myself I ask the question: "Does this order actually accomplish anything?"

If ever you needed proof...

2006-06-16T20:20:00.000-04:00

... that modern art was intellectually bankrupt:

Knowing what you're talking about

2006-06-16T20:00:00.000-04:00

I can name the 6 major Objectivist virtues off the top of my head. Granted, 6 is 4 less than 10, but you'd still think that someone that's so interested in the 10 commandments would know them. Colbert proves that that just ain't so.

Here's another chisel mark on the First Amendment

2006-06-13T14:31:00.000-04:00

Read about how Oklahoma is trying to regulate the content of video games:
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/712/712144p1.html

Epistemology and Agile Software Development

2006-06-08T00:11:00.000-04:00

Non programmers probably will not get anything out of this post.

Epistemology has long been a favorite subject of mind. I’m fascinated generally with how the mind works, and reading Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology was an electrifying read for me. As a software developer, I continually strive to find better ways to write code. For the last six years, there has not been a single week when I have not looked at code I wrote just a couple of months before and thought, “that’s crap.” About a year and a half ago, thanks to my friend the Philosophical Detective, I read Agile Software Development by Robert C. Martin. It was the Atlas Shrugged of my software development career. Lately, I have been devouring books on design patterns and refactoring. Mostly I’ve been focused on the Martin Fowler related books due to the respect I’ve gained for him while reading his blog. During all this reading, I have been intrigued by the relationship between software design and technical epistemology. I’m going to talk a little about two elements of Agile Software Development, Design Patterns and Test Driven Development, in this blog.

Design Patterns

In his book Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture, Martin Fowler quotes architect Christopher Alexander on what a pattern is: “Each pattern describes a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the core of the solution to that problem, in such a way that you can use the solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way twice.” To rephrase, a pattern is a conceptual solution to a conceptual problem, where both the problem and the solution differ in their particulars from concrete instance to concrete instance. Martin Fowler continues: “a pattern is a chunk of advice, and the art of creating patterns is to divide up many pieces of advice into relatively independent chunks so that you can refer to them and discuss them more or less separately.” Further, “Once you need a pattern, you have to figure out how to apply it to your circumstances. A key thing about patterns is that you can never just apply the solution blindly… you see the same solution many times over, but it’s never exactly the same.” Fowler then emphasizes how important it is to give patterns a name: “patterns create a vocabulary about design, which is why naming is such an important issue.”

Let’s step back for a moment. Software development is an inherently logical and creative process. As developers, we are given some basic tools to work with that are constants in just about every programming language. These are variables, statements, conditional constructs, and loops. In languages such as COBOL, that’s all there is. All variables are global, and processing proceeds in sequence from one instruction to the next. This is great for small programs that just do one thing—but if the program achieves a certain level of complexity, it begins to overload the mind—to bust the crow, so to speak.

In more advanced languages, variables, statements, conditionals, and loops began to be organized into self-contained reusable code constructs called functions. Functions can be called over and over again—they always do the same set of instructions in the same order, but those instructions are only written once. Functions had the advantage of allowing you to consider a single set of instructions as a unit. This had the effect of organizing and clarifying the logic of the code. It had a further side-effect of enabling programmers to write ever more complicated programs: by organizing our logic into functions, we can treat whole pieces of logic as if they were single statements. The relationship to first-level concepts should be clear to any Objectivist.

In OOP Languages, you can go a step further and organize functions into objects. An object in an OOP language is of a higher order of complexity than functions, much as abstractions from abstractions are of a higher order of complexity than first level concepts. There are a few kinds of objects than can be created, and a few ways to create them—but there are millions of programming problems to solve. In my first couple of years as a developer, I thought objects were the conceptual height of software development. I didn’t know about Design Patterns at the time, and had yet to struggle with the decisions of when to use inheritance, or polymorphism. I would have to say, as an aside, that I overused inheritance.

Design Patterns make programming fully conceptual. Patterns focus not only on the abstractions describing programming constructs, but also on abstractions that describe common software problems and solutions. Since patterns are not limited to particular software constructs, they are not limited to any particular programming language, environment, or time. They assume an OOP language as a foundation. This is a requirement since you cannot have a conceptual solution to a problem without a conceptual tool. Patterns have a name, an intent (think definition), and are usually described with an example—much like a dictionary provides you with a sample usage of a word it has just defined for you. The example is a simple one so that the essential idea can be easily seen, but must be adapted to your particular solution. The result for the programmer is a new concept to use to solve development problems. Patterns can themselves be organized into more complex patterns, thus making them open-ended for extension and discovery.

Test Driven Development

Test Driven Development is the practice of writing a unit of code that generates an error because some feature of the program is not present, or does not work correctly. It is important to write the test code prior to attempting to implement the feature. Thus, when you write the test, it will immediately fail. Now that you have a test for the feature, it is time to write the feature. When the test for the new feature passes, and all other tests for all other features also pass, you are still not done. You must now look at your code, isolate similarites to other code, and refactor. A unit test should be no more than a few lines of code (I try to limit myself to 10 lines) so that what is being tested can be easily understood (in other words, don’t bust the crow of the reader).

Since a requirement of unit tests is clarity, you are forced—before you write any code—to think about how the code should look so as to “read” clearly. I actually read the code aloud so that I can hear how it sounds. The code must read almost like English. You have to think carefully about how you name objects, functions, and variables, so that the name itself identifies what it does. Gone are the days when you abbreviate everything--long function and variable names are fine if they're needed to describe what they do. In short, you have to encapsulate a piece of programming functionality in a “unit” of code. This makes every feature of your system executable in only a few lines of code. This requirement alone has huge implications for how you design your class libraries: you must keep your classes small and lightweight, and make interaction between your classes easy and open-ended. Each class should have one responsibility. All of these pressures are in place before you ever write the first line of code! The unit test “defines” how the code will work.

During the implementation phase, you are just trying to get the test to pass. You’re not worried if the code is pretty, if it’s organized, if it’s the best design. You’re just trying to get something together that actually works. This is analogous to “chewing” a concept, in my opinion.

During the refactoring phase, you are looking for ways to more deeply integrate your new code into the existing code base. This may mean breaking your new code into smaller functions or objects, extending existing objects to handle some of the functionality of your new code, etc.. Regardless, the refactoring phase is analogous to integrating the concept after it has been defined and chewed. The refactoring phase could be a tempting one for some programmers to overlook--after all, at this point the code works, so why toy with it? Because software must have integrity. If you cheat your design on this feature, then you'll cheat on your next one. Before you know it, your program will be a mass of repetitive, slightly different, unmanageable spaghetti-code. Refactoring is the principle that keeps your code integrated.

Another benefit of unit testing is automated regression testing. This is the easiest benefit for project managers to see, but I think the further conceptualization of the code is by far the best benefit. I make heavy use of the automated regression testing--but I find that because the code is conceptualized so well before I write it, I rarely have to make large structural changes to the code base. Of course, since all the features of the app are unit-tested, I can make those changes freely when necessary.

Closing Thoughts

One of the most interesting changes that has taken place in the last couple of years, since I started practicing TDD and studying design patterns is how seldom I use inheritance. When I first started programming in OOP languages, I used inheritance to add functionality to existing objects a lot. The result was that I would have an inheritance chain 5 and 10 layers deep. One of the things that TDD and Patterns forced me to learn was when a class has too many responsibilities. I had to learn to create new, smaller classes, and define interaction patterns between them instead of relying on inheritance to solve my problems. I’ve reached a point now where inheritance is pretty near the last solution I reach for when trying to solve a programming problem. I’m not saying that inheritance is bad—I’m just observing that it’s not nearly so great a tool now that I have access to more powerful abstractions to use in my code.

X3 Review

2006-06-03T12:44:00.000-04:00

Overall rating: 2.5 out of 5

Spoiler Warning.

X-3 was a major disappointment to me. When I walked into the theater to see the first X-Men movie, I was expecting just another cheesy superhero flick. The opening scene in German-occupied Poland during WWII destroyed that expectation. It was powerful, emotional, and moving. It set a tone, that as much as this movie was going to be about superhero's, it would also be about people. The second sequence, where Marie nearly kills her boyfriend with a kiss confirmed that feeling. From then on, the film focused on telling the story of some people that have discovered that they are different in fairly serious way from everyone else. It focused on the distrust between normal people and mutants, yet it confirmed the humanity of both. The parallels to racism and homosexual haters was everpresent, but not overstated. Still, the primary conflict of the first film was not mutants vs. people, but mutants vs. other mutants that wanted to launch a pre-emptive strike against the normal people.

The second film continued the tradition of the first. Again, the film was about people. It introduced a couple of new mutants, but showed marvelous restraint in that regard. The new mutants were given the same care and attention to storytelling as were the original cast, and the story of the original cast was extended somewhat. There was more action in the second film, but it also had a lot of story from the first film propping it up.

The first two films were done by Bryan Singer, director of The Usual Suspects (one of the most tightly crafted movies I've ever seen), and producer of House. Singer did not do the third film because he was busy working on Superman Returns. Were I FOX, I would have waited.

The 3rd movie is all-over-the-place. Rumor has it that the script was being re-written daily--and it shows. It's like they couldn't decide what story to tell, but it also looks like that knew exactly what action sequences they were going to shoot. I use the term "story" loosely--there are actually two separate, independent story arcs that were slammed together, but not integrated.

The first story concerns the development of a cure for the Mutant X gene. Of the two, this is the most interesting. A pharmaceutical company has developed a cure and made it available to anyone that wants it. It raises an interesting question: who wants it? If you had the chance to change something fundamental about yourself, would you do it?

The war-mongering mutants see this as a dire threat and warn that the cure will be used as a weapon--which it is--against the attacks of the war-mongering mutants. Magneto's bunch see's any mutant that takes the cure as a "traitor to their kind." This is interesting because now Magneto has become the racist bastard that he's always accusing everyone else of being. The other mutants see it as a matter of personal choice. This is all good fodder for storytelling, so what went wrong?

The story wasn't told. It was used merely as an excuse to get to the next action sequence.

This movie was overloaded with mutants. Whereas Bryan Singer had taken care to introduce new mutants with the attendant screen-time to make them real and human, Brett Ratner just threw them at you right and left. Angel was a couple of minutes of the movie, and as much as I enjoyed Kelsey Grammar's performance as Beast, like Angel, it was wasted screen time. In fact, the Beast story had real potential.

We're given the sense that this movie takes place some time after the first two. There is an a Ministry of Mutant Affairs in the government, headed by a Mutant--Beast. Beast later leaves his post in the presidential cabinent over conscientious objections to the cure being used as a weapon. This could have been really exciting, dramatic storytelling. Instead, it was mentioned as an afterthought, after it had happened.

Even the opening scene displayed what was wrong with the movie. In the first film, we open on Poland. In the second one, we open on an attack on the President by a mutant in the White House. In each of the first two movies, the opening scene was relevant to the plot of the movie. The Poland experience explains why Magneto wants to launch a pre-emptive strike against humans. The attack on the President leads to Presidential authorization of the search at Xavier's school which ---you get the idea. The opening scene in X-3 considered qua action sequence was quite good--but it was unrelated to anything that happened later in the movie.

My final gripe is that all the mutants are now over-powered. I don't remember Storm being able to jump 5 stories in the first two films, or Wolverine for that matter. No attention was paid to making sure that the characters were the same as in the first two films.

I did like the movie--in the same way that I might watch an Arnold Schwarzenegger action flick--as a mindless action story where story is an excuse to watch things blow up. That has its place, but after X1 and X2, I expected more from X3.

Imogen Heap Live in Concert: A Review

2006-06-02T22:24:00.000-04:00

I saw Imogen Heap perform in Atlanta a couple of weeks ago. The venue was the Variety Playhouse. I haven't been there since I went with my buddy D. some 12 years ago to see Sarah McLachlan on the Fumbling Towards Ecstacy tour. It hasn't changed much.

The venue is relatively small--seating exactly 681 people according the fire marshall. This is nice because it means that there isn't really a bad seat in the house.

Zoe Keating opened for Imogen. Zoe is a solo cellist, making use of some modern effects processors. She relied very heavily on a looping machine. She would play something, which would be recorded by the looping machine and replayed over and over. Then she would harmonize against that, slowly building a whole piece of music. It's an interesting idea, but it doesn't really work that well. As you listen, you find yourself waiting for her to have built the actual music so you can enjoy it. She had some interesting musical ideas, but the over-reliance on looping detracted from my ability to enjoy it.

Enter Imogen Heap. First of all, the woman is just downright beautiful. Even through the big-wild hair and crazy make-up and loud clothing, you can tell that there's a beautiful woman on stage. I was a little concerned about going to see her live because she is just a solo performer--and worse she's a solo performer playing as a whole band. I was worried that she would be stuck behind her keyboards and it would be difficult to enjoy the show. Boy was I wrong!

She started the show with an a-cappella version of "Just for Now." Imogen uses a lot of the same looping technology that Zoe Keating did, but in Imogen's hands it never felt contrived. Each pass through the loop enhanced what was already a nice piece of music to start with. Zoe illustrated what the technique was. Imogen illustrated what could be done with it in the hands of a master.

The arrangements to many of the songs she performed were quite different than what you hear on her albums. It's clear that the arrangements were designed with the live show in mind. Imogen would play for a bit, building something that could then be allowed to play on its own for a minute--then she would grab the mic and dance out from behind the keyboards, crooning and wailing where appropriate. I was impressed with how vibrant and active she was on stage--at how this one woman commanded your attention for a full 2 hours. I was shocked at how loud the music was, and at how hard it rocked.

Imogen Heap is a wonderful song-writer and musician in her own right, but that doesn't always translate into a good performer. She is a masterful performer. If you get the chance to see her live, don't miss it. She is amazing.

$

So it's not just guns...

2006-05-25T12:54:00.000-04:00

Interesting...
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2004/11/22133220

Next it'll be clubs. Apparently getting rid of the guns didn't get rid of the crime. Funny that.

On being sick, and other stuff

2006-05-11T00:14:00.000-04:00

Being sick blows. I started feeling a bit wonky yesterday, and it got a bit worse today. My boss suggested that I visit the on-site nurse-practitioner. What a great idea! I had forgotten that my company had hired a full-time nurse to deal with day-to-day health issues of the employees. This is a really great benefit!

She suggested that I get some over-the-counter medication. I did, but after a while, I was still feeling worse. Concentration was simply out of the question, so reluctantly, I came home. I have had a pounding headache all day along with throat irritation, radical temperature changes, and coughing. Sleep has not been restful in the least.

I'm having a bit of lucidity right now, so I figured I'd bitch about being sick to the world!--or at least to the 5 or 6 people that read my blog. :-)

In other news, I'm fascinated by the inspiration that Christians are taking from Muslims. After the Danish cartoon debacle, President Bush's statement that "all religions should be respected" is now being used as an argument to ban the movie version of "The Da Vinci Code." I have not yet read the Da Vinci code. As an atheist, I don't much care if Jesus was married or not. However, I'm given to understand that it's quite the well-written thriller. I intend to read it at some point for that reason.

A year ago, Christians would only have half-heartedly called for "The Da Vinci Code" to be banned. After seeing how the Muslims got their way with the cartoons, they have gotten braver, more insistent. This is a very dangerous trend that must be opposed vehemently. It must be made clear that free speech means the right to disagree: to hold views that do violate the sensibilities of others. Specifically, the sensibilities of others do not matter when considering the issue of the First Amendment. That the president of this country should state otherwise is downright scary.

What little lucidity I had is fading, so I'll sign off now.
$

More on the Bausch & Lomb contact lense issue

2006-05-10T09:33:00.000-04:00

Here is the text of the media release:

For Immediate Release
May 9, 2006
Contact: CDC Media Relations
(404)-639-3286

Fusarium Keratitis Update
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is continuing its investigation on the multi-state outbreak of Fusarium keratitis that may be associated with contact lens use.

As of May 9, 2006, CDC has received reports of 106 confirmed cases, 12 possible cases and 80 cases still under investigation from 32 U.S. states and territories. 69 reports include insufficient evidence to classify them as cases or carry other non-Fusarium diagnoses. States or territories with at least 1 confirmed or possible case include: AR, AZ, CA, CT, FL, GA, IA, IL, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MO, NC, ND, NJ, NY, OH, OK, PA, PR, TN, TX and VT. States where all cases under investigation include: IN, MN, MS, NV, OR and RI.

Not all data are available for all confirmed cases. However, as of May 9, 2006, of the 98 confirmed cases for which CDC has complete data:

5 (5%) did not wear contact lenses (no solution used)
93 (95%) wore contact lenses
59 (63%) reported using any B&L ReNu with MoistureLoc
19 (20%) reported using any B&L ReNu MultiPlus
9 (10%) reported using any unspecified B&L ReNu
3 (3%) reported using any AMO product
4 (4%) reported using any Alcon product
* Some cases reported using more than one type of solution and therefore the solution categories are not mutually exclusive.

(Note: Updated case count numbers will be available on Tuesdays and Fridays. Updated numbers on solution use and other pertinent exposures will be available on Tuesdays.)

Summary and Clarifications
In addition, CDC would like to clarify some of the information that has appeared in a number of recent media stories on the outbreak. The following information is known related to this outbreak:

Since the first report on this outbreak in the April 10, 2006 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), CDC has noted that patients have reported using multiple products, including those manufactured by Bausch & Lomb, Alcon, and Advanced Medical Optics, Inc.
At this point, it is too early in the investigation to say whether a particular product or solution may be responsible for the outbreak.
Throughout the investigation, the proportion of patients who reported using Bausch & Lomb's ReNu with MoistureLoc has remained relatively consistent, at around 50-60 percent of confirmed cases.
Since solution bottles were often not available to investigators, reported solution usually reflects patient recall of specific product used during the 30 days before infection. No inferences about causes of infection should be made until additional analyses are completed.
ReNu with MoistureLoc was used by approximately 2.3 million contact lens wearers in the United States, while MultiPlus was used by nearly 11 million contact lens wearers (branded or private label).
Fusarium keratitis is naturally occurring disease in the United States. It is not a disease that healthcare providers must report so it is unclear how many cases occur each year in the United States.
Disease outbreaks and increased media coverage often raise awareness about particular infections, which, in turn, may 1) increase reports of a disease and 2) result in additional information being identified and collected. Thus, it is possible that some of the cases currently being investigated represent infection which might normally occur and, as a result, are not related to the outbreak.
The risk of getting fungal keratitis from contact lenses remains extremely low. Contact lens wearers who experience unusual redness, pain, tearing, light sensitivity, blurry vision, discharge or swelling should consult their doctor immediately.
CDC is continuing its investigation into identifying whether there are specific factors that may have placed people at risk for developing fungal keratitis, including hygiene practices, overnight contact lens wear and specific solutions used. The CDC will provide more information as it becomes available.

For more information on fungal keratitis and advice to doctors and consumers, please visit http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/fungal_fusariumKeratitis.html or http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/contacts.html.

WAKE UP AMERICA!

2006-04-27T13:26:00.000-04:00

WAKE UP AMERICA!

Goodnight and Go

2006-04-26T22:33:00.000-04:00

Here's the new Imogen Heap video for "Goodnight and Go."

"Goodnight and Go" isn't my favorite song on "Speak for Yourself," but there's not a song on the album I don't like. The video presents a slightly different mix than what's on the album as well. Still, if you're unfamiliar with her music, "Goodnight and Go" is an okay place to start. It's got the ethereal harmonies, the subdued electronica beats, and the catchy melodic and lyrical phrasing that make her distinctive.

I just got her first album in the mail yesterday. I had to order it from Brazil because it's out of print. Apparently some guy in Brazil had 84 unopened copies. Yay Ebay!

Oh what a difference

2006-04-25T15:45:00.000-04:00

a smile makes. I bought Alanis Morissette's "Jagged Little Pill" album when it came out, and I don't regret the purchase. The album is full of interesting musical and lyrical ideas. I hadn't known that she was a fan of Cole Porter, but her cameo in "De-Lovely" made that plain, and then it all made sense. Her lyrics (especially "Ironic") are very Porter-esque.

As much as I have admired Alanis for her lyrical and musical ability, I never really thought she had a great voice, or that she was very attractive. Her appearance in "De-lovely" put the former perception to rest; her appearance in the "Everything" video puts the latter to rest as well. At almost exactly 35 seconds into the video, after her hair is cut, and she is just beginning the second line of the chorus ("You see every part"), her face bursts into this radiant smile. The first time I saw it I was literally stunned. I mean stunned. I couldn't believe it. I have never seen a woman go from "who cares" to "Oh my GOD!" so quickly. I was filled with the emotional equivalent of "I want to the be the cause of that smile"

The whole video is just of her walking down a 2 lane road in the middle of what looks like a desert. People come in and out of the scene, but the camera stays out in front of her as she walks. Later in the video, the sky darkens and she's walking through a thunderstorm. Shortly thereafter, the light returns the sky. But through it all, she never stops walking. Her pace and forward movement are a constant throughout the video.

One gets the sense that the road is her life, and through it all (good times and bad), she kept walking. One has only to listen to "Jagged Little Pill" to know that Alanis has had her bitter moments. That album is filled with one bitterly disappointed and angry story after another (albeit told in a lyrically clever fashion).

On the surface, the song is about unconditional love (the unconditional love that her significant other shows for her). Unconditional love is not an idea I subscribe to, but I also don't usually enjoy a song on a purely surface level either. What I like about the song is the sense of profound enjoyment she takes in being fully understood an appreciated. ("And you've never met anyone, as everything as I am sometimes") That's a sentiment that I can personally get behind in a big way. It's very rare that I feel like someone really "gets" me. So this element really appeals to me. It's enhanced even more by the fact that the song itself is an expression of appreciation for her lover!

The constant movement in the video is something I respond to as well. I have an appreciation of images of undiminished progress, or intransigient forward motion. Pearl Jam has a song called Indifference which contains the following lyric: "I will hold the candle / til it burns up my arm / and I'll keep taking punches / til their will grows tired / I will stare the sun down /until my eyes go blind / and I won't change direction / and I won't change my mind." Mudvayne (the heaviest metal band I've ever loved) has an album cover that features a young boy standing in the midst of a violent tornado. The back cover features the same boy in exactly the same pose standing in bright sunlight. The storm has come and gone, but the boy is still there exactly as he was: constant, unaffected, undamaged. The band King's X has an album with an inner cover that features a vast desert expanse. The foreground focuses on the cobbled clay of a dried riverbed. In the midst of all this inhospitable emptiness, a single brilliantly colored dandelion is growing between the cobbles. Once again, the theme is the same: life succeding in the face of all obstacles.

The tone of "Everything" is generally very upbeat. Even though the song refers to some dark places, it refers to them in the sense of them being in the past and being over with. When Alanis does some vocal soloing at 3:00, it's a sound of unhurried and relaxed triumph. The victory isn't just about having found someone to appreciate her, it's also about achieving the self-confidence and maturity to be able to appreciate and enjoy that, and to trust in it without suspicion or self-doubt. It's very difficult for me to relate the Alanis of "Everything" to the Alanis of "Jagged Little Pill." My congratulations to her for having reached a place where she could write a song such as "Everything."

There's one other thing that this video has highlighted for me. My drastic emotional shock at seing her face transform from ho-hum to radiantly beautiful at 0:35 has got me thinking about my own capacity for smiling. Smiling has always come rather difficult for me; not because I'm not happy; it's just that, as Ice Scribe put it, a frown is my screensaver. It sounds strange to say that I'm going to practice smiling, but that's exactly what I'm going to do. I'm going to try to make it feel more natural, and automatize it as a normal part of my self-expression. I figure my outside needs to match my inside and all that. Besides, maybe some smart, geeky, Objectivist woman will have a reaction to my smile similar to that I had to Alanis'.

$

Fun

2006-04-19T12:57:00.000-04:00

Rube Goldberg machines have always fascinated me. Noodlefood has posted a link to a 13 minute video showing some really great machines.

Here it is.

Food for Thought

2006-04-18T10:09:00.000-04:00

I was reading this article and came across this passage:

“Today, Iran’s army is one of the most powerful armies in the world and it
will powerfully defend the country’s political borders and the nation,”
Ahmadinejad said in a brief speech before troops and missiles took part in an
annual parade.
“It will cut off the hands of any aggressors and will make any
aggressor regret it,” he said.
Ahmadinejad took the salute of thousands of
army, navy and air force troops. Battle tanks were towed past on trucks, while
helicopters and Russian-built warplanes flew in formation overhead. Parachutists
sailed down from the sky.

Why is it that you see all these 2nd and 3rd word countries having political parades that show off their missles? Our parades show of girls in skimpy clothes, happy music, and silly floats! Every now and then there's an air show where the Navy Blue Angels perform, and some other military equipment is shown off; but these are not political occasions paraded through the streets. What kind of politician feels engrandeured by the presence of missles and tanks?

Just something to think about...

Anyone know...

2006-04-17T22:36:00.000-04:00

Where I can find a T-Shirt with the Danish Cartoons on it? I'd like to have one with a caption something like "Freedom of Speech is more important than sensitivity."

An Interesting Short Story by Dan Simmons

2006-04-17T12:06:00.000-04:00

... can be found here.

It deals with the topic of the ever-growing conflict with the Islamic world. It also touches on the topic of how to fight a war, which is a topic covered very well in John Lewis' Defensor Patriae. I credit this lecture with single-handedly cutting through all the propoganda on war I've been bombarded with my entire life.

If you don't know the moral purpose of war, or can't understand why the Geneva Convention and concepts such as a "compassionate war" are self-destructive to any nation, or if the idea dropping a nuclear weapon on an enemy nation first fills you with all sorts of moral trepidation, or if you belive in the concept of "innocent civilians" in an enemy country, you need to listen to this lecture.

--Hat Tip NoodleFood

Bausch & Lomb...

2006-04-15T11:22:00.000-04:00

... has a pretty poor reputation right now. From what I had read in the press before yesterday, it seemed a virtual certainty that Renu had been linked with a fungal eye infection. According to this article the link is based on "reports" of 109 cases of Fusarium keratitis. The FDA has interviewed 30 of those patients, "However, of the 28 who wore soft contact lens, 26 reported using Bausch & Lomb’s ReNu brand contact lens solution or a generic type of solution also made by the Rochester, N.Y., company." I didn't spend a huge amount of time searching, but I couldn't really find a more detailed explanation than that. If someone has one, I'd be interested in reading it.

But about these reports, did they also report wearing a red shirt any time in the last 6 months? This is a very weak link. I'm not saying that we should ignore it, or even that Bausch & Lomb should have acted differently. However, there's not really much evidence of any link yet, so there's no reason to panic. I watched a girl in my class terrify herself into near hysteria because her eye started to itch, and she's "been using that brand in the news."

I have a buddy that works QA at B&L, so when I saw him last night I asked him about the whole affair. Apparently, he's been working very hard recently as the FDA has been investigating the QA process for the last 3 or 4 weeks. They're down to asking what kind of glue was used to put the box together. That doesn't sound to me like they've been able to find anything of any substance to link Renu to these fungal cases.

There is a valid reason to watch the story and to discontinue use of the product. B&L has acted very responsibly so far. But it is far from a certainty that B&L has anything to do with the problem. It's not even very probable at this point. From everything I know on the subject now, I doubt that B&L will be found to be actual source of the problem. Still, it's possible, and I'll be watching to find out if I'm right.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster Strikes Again!

2006-04-13T10:08:00.000-04:00

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/living/education/14331100.htm

A Song by Frou Frou

2006-04-12T22:07:00.000-04:00

Here's a song by Frou Frou called "Breath In."

Video Code provided by VideoCodeZone.Com

Latest Favorite Song

2006-04-12T21:48:00.000-04:00

Last month I heard "Hide and Seek" by Imogen Heap for the first time. I bought her album "Speak for Yourself" and listened to it non-stop for weeks, interrupted only by another album by a band that Imogen Heap was a part of called "Frou Frou." "Hide and Seek" is not representative of Imogen Heap's music, generally. It is a semi-a-capella piece in which she feeds her singing voice through her synthesizer and is able to harmonize with herself in real time.

Video provided by VideoCodeZone.Com

Random

2006-04-11T23:06:00.000-04:00

So that commercial came on tonight-- you know the one--the guy is pulling the girl out into the courtyard. He tells her how much he loves her, and that he thinks he could marry her again, with all these people as witnesses... "Yeah right," she says. Then her parents and friends reveal their faces, previously hidden behind newspapers. He says, "So will you marry me, again?"

Commercial fades with message: "Buy Diamonds!"

So it got me thinking about this whole second marriage to the same person thing. What if you're married to someone, and you ask them to marry you again, and they say "No!" ?

Man, don't you feel stupid.
$

Out of the mouths of babes

2006-04-11T21:35:00.000-04:00

I'm no fan of the DEA, so this video is especially funny to me. There were two things that struck me while watching it: the first is that after the DEA agent shoots himself and reaches for another gun, no adult objected. The second thing is that the children told him to "put it down." Go kids!

Jeez! Now the agent is complaining because his career is ruined, to which I have one comment: to quote Michael Palin in "A Fish Called Wanda," Good!

The Responsibility Argument Against Abortion

2006-04-10T13:03:00.000-04:00

There are two major arguments that the so-called "pro-life" crowd use against abortion. The first is the "fetus is a life" argument, which I will not deal with here except to say it doesn't matter if it is or isn't: it's the mother's body. No one, born or unborn, has the right to tell another adult human being what to do with their own body.

The second is the argument from responsibility and it goes something like: "They knew that pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex, therefore they should take responsibility and have the child."

From wikipedia: "The word responsibility means the obligation to answer for actions. Often this means answering to authority. Responsibility is also loosely used as the recognition that in order to achieve one's purposes, one must act oneself ("take responsibility") rather than expecting others to do something (compare initiative)."

The answer to this argument is simple: having an abortion is taking responsibility. Condemning oneself to raising a child one doesn't want is irresponsible and destructive, both to one's self and to the child!

This is the same argument that is used to tell men that they have to care a for a child they fathered even if they made it clear from the very beginning that they didn't want children. If a woman chooses to have a child when the father has made it clear that he does not want to be responsible for one, then she should be the one responsible for the child's care. If she has the child on the understanding that the father will help raise it (i.e., he is aware she is pregnant, and has committed to helping financially and otherwise) then he does not get to change his mind later. Neither does she for that matter. It's a contract!

In today's legal climate, men don't have any choice in the matter whatever. If they dare to have sex with a woman, they are taking the chance that she will rope them into a lifetime of obligation that they may not want. The only choice we have is to make sure that we trust the rationality of the women we sleep with. There's nothing new there though. Men and women should be doing that anyway.

Kissin' Cousins

2006-02-27T17:24:00.000-05:00

Always on the lookout for something else I've been lied to about, apparently "Kissin' Cousins" ain't so bad after all. I'm not saying I'm running to a family reunion or anything (blech!), but it's always interesting how far from the truth "conventional wisdom" can be.

Given the inaccuracy of "common sense" or "conventional wisdom," I'm frankly surprised that so many people rely on it. Of course, they also rely on "faith," so perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised. Ahh, now I see the common denominator: they are both a means of substituting someone else's thinking for your own; they are both a shortcut to rational thought.

Hmmm.

I think conventional wisdom can be right--but one still has to evaluate it rationally. 40 million frenchmen can be wrong.

On Which Sci-Fi Show Would You Feel Most At Home

2006-02-16T13:59:00.000-05:00

You scored as Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix). You can change the world around you. You have a strong will and a high technical aptitude. Is it possible you are the one? Now if only Agent Smith would quit beating up your friends.

Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix)

100%

Serenity (Firefly)

75%

Moya (Farscape)

75%

Millennium Falcon (Star Wars)

63%

SG-1 (Stargate)

63%

Babylon 5 (Babylon 5)

44%

Enterprise D (Star Trek)

44%

Andromeda Ascendant (Andromeda)

38%

Galactica (Battlestar: Galactica)

31%

Deep Space Nine (Star Trek)

31%

Bebop (Cowboy Bebop)

25%

FBI's X-Files Division (The X-Files)

25%

Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics)
created with QuizFarm.com

In Defense of Mr. Darcy

2006-02-14T23:37:00.000-05:00

For my British Lit class I had to read Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. This has become one of new favorite novels. I did a paper on Mr. Darcy for class which I turned in this evening. I'm posting it here because I like Mr. Darcy, and I like my paper. It does contain spoilers, however; so if you have not read the novel, you should skip this post until you have.

In Defense of Mr. Darcy
In Jane Austen’s novel Pride and Prejudice, the character of Mr. Darcy cannot be correctly understood until late in the story. Austen describes Mr. Darcy almost exclusively through the eyes of Elizabeth Bennet and her circle of friends. This indirect characterization of Mr. Darcy makes the reader complicit in Elizabeth Bennet’s faulty judgment of him. Mr. Darcy is first and foremost a gentleman of character and honor. He suffers from a social shyness and awkwardness that is received by others as rudeness. He undergoes a change in the novel in which he learns to be more polite in social settings. Mr. Darcy is aware that he does not always come across well in social situations, and entreats Elizabeth to “not to sketch my character at the present moment, as there is reason to fear that the performance would reflect no credit” (Austen 54). In keeping with Darcy’s wish, now that time enough has passed to get to know him, his true character will be examined.
The narrator of Pride and Prejudice is unreliable as a source of objective information about Darcy. In the first introduction to Mr. Darcy, the narrator reports “he was discovered to be proud, to be above his company, and above being pleased” (Austen 7). The narrator is not saying this as a fact about Mr. Darcy, but as a fact about what the other people at the dinner party thought about Mr. Darcy. Jane Austen is being somewhat tricky here by allowing the reader to accept as fact what others have judged based on superficial interaction with him. Mrs. Bennet concludes that Mr. Darcy is “a most disagreeable, horrid man, not at all worth pleasing” (Austen 9) and “he is ate up with Pride” (Austen 12). Elizabeth interprets each social failing of Mr. Darcy’s as yet more evidence of his general contempt for others. The narrator does give small clues that perhaps all may not be as it seems with Mr. Darcy such a when Jane says “he never speaks much unless among his intimate acquaintance. With them he is remarkably agreeable” (Austen 12). However, these clues are few and far between, and weak in contrast to the landslide consensus that Mr. Darcy is a proud, disagreeable man, and do little to offer a counter-argument. If the reader should begin to like Darcy as he begins to have feelings for Elizabeth, this emotion is frustrated by Wickham’s tale of mistreatment at Darcy’s hands (Austen 46), and thus Darcy’s character appears to be as bad as his manners. In this manner, Austen deftly prevents the reader from having an objective picture of Darcy’s character.
Mr. Darcy’s true character is far from what the reader is led to believe in the first portion of the novel. He considers himself a gentleman. For him, this means having a ruthless sense of honesty, of personal responsibility, and withstanding moral judgment. Darcy shows how important honesty is to him several times throughout the novel. For Darcy, “disguise of every sort is my abhorrence” (Austen 107). Miss Bingley’s attempts at raising her esteem in Darcy’s eyes by putting Elizabeth down draws harsh criticism from Darcy: “There is meanness in all the arts which ladies sometimes condescend to employ for captivation. Whatever bears affinity to cunning is despicable” (Austen 24). Further, Darcy admits to Bingley that he had kept from him Jane’s presence in London. This could in no way reflect positively on Darcy, but his sense of honor demanded that he be honest (Austen 203).
His sense of personal responsibility is evident in the way that he responds to the crisis brought about my Lydia’s elopement with Wickham. Since he had not made Wickham’s character known to the public before, he felt responsible for what Wickham had done (Austen 175). Out of this sense of responsibility, he paid off Wickham’s debts in order to get Wickham to marry Lydia. No one but Darcy felt he had any role in Wickham’s dishonesty. Another example of Darcy’s personal responsibility is apparent in the way he deals with the relationship with Bingley and Jane. He believes that Jane does not feel much affection for Bingley, and convinces Bingley to quit his pursuit of Jane; but when Elizabeth makes clear to Darcy the depth of Jane’s feelings for Bingley (Austen, 106), he recognizes his mistake and acts to correct it. Joseph Wiesenfarth in “The Errand of For: An Assay of Jane Austen’s Art” observes “he sees to it that Bingley returns to Netherfield and consequently to Jane” (Wiesenfarth).
Darcy’s sense of moral judgment is severe. Once he concludes that he has been morally wronged by someone, his sense of justice will not allow him to “forgive and forget.” Elizabeth challenges him on this point. She wishes to know if he is as cautious in making his judgment as he is severe in keeping it. He affirms that he is, and the reader can see that a few paragraphs later when Elizabeth insults his character on the basis of the lies that Wickham has told her. The narrator, in one of the few insights into Darcy’s internal life, tells the reader of “a tolerable powerful feeling towards her, which soon procured her pardon, and directed all his anger against another” (Austen 54).. Darcy recognizes that Wickham has misled Elizabeth and sees past his immediate anger at her insults and directs it instead toward Wickham.
If Mr. Darcy is in fact a gentleman of such virtue, it remains to be explained why Elizabeth Bennet and others see him as being so proud and disagreeable. In part, this image of Darcy is justified. Darcy himself admits “I was given good principles, but left to follow them in pride and conceit” (Austen 202). Even so, this does not suffice as a full explanation of his initial unpopularity. What then are the other components?
The key to understanding Darcy lies in his social awkwardness. Jane had earlier alluded to his amiability with his close friends; but he appears shy, and unable to express himself well with people he does not know. He is often unable to think of anything to say. At the Nertherfield ball, Darcy asks Elizabeth to dance. His silence is so exasperating to Elizabeth that “after a pause of some minutes” Elizabeth is obliged to comment “It is your turn to say something now, Mr. Darcy” (Austen 52). Elizabeth does not interpret his silence as shyness however. Marcia McClintock Folsom observes in “Pride and Prejudice: Past, Present, Future” that “Her comment is intended as a reproach to him for what she thinks is his failure to meet the requirements of common civility” (Folsom). Darcy’s poor communication skills are also apparent when he attempts to compliment Elizabeth on her enjoyment of reading. He offers as a description of an ideal kind of lady the virtues that he sees in Elizabeth. His comments are so vague and general however, that what Elizabeth hears is a description of such high standards that no one could match them (Austen 28).
Mr. Darcy undergoes a significant change throughout the novel, and his pride is part of what drives the change. He is aware that he does not come across well to many people at first, but he is not aware of how offensive he actually is to other people. Even during his proposal to Elizabeth, while he is insulting her and her family, he fully expects her to accept his proposal (Austen 104-108). His pride in his stature as a gentleman blinds him how others see him. Elizabeth’s rejection is a devastating shock. In particular he is struck by Elizabeth’s statement that he had not “behaved in a … gentleman-like manner” (Austen 107). “She saw him start at this, but he said nothing.” Mr. Darcy’s own statement on this scene bears special attention:
“The recollection of what I then said, of my conduct, my manners, my expressions during the whole of it, is now, and has been [for] many months, inexpressibly painful to me. Your reproof, so well applied, I shall never forget: ‘had you behaved in a more gentleman-like manner.’ Those were your words. You know not, you can scarcely conceive, how they have tortured me” (Austen 201).
Elizabeth’s statement was a slap in the face that awoke him to how egregiously he had betrayed his ideals. He was deeply ashamed. That he had not felt this shame before shows that he had not been aware that people saw him in this light. His desire to be a gentleman—his own sense of virtue and honor—drives him to give full attention to his public manners. The reader first sees this change in him when Elizabeth visits Pemberley. As Dvora Zlicovoci noted in “Reversal in Pride and Prejudice” “The great courtesy, warm hospitality, and attentions showered on Elizabeth and the Gardiners are clear evidence that Darcy has taken to heart Elizabeth's strictures regarding his presumptuous, ungentleman-like behavior” (Zlicovoci).
Mr. Darcy spends the first two-thirds of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice being maligned by practically everyone. To be sure, his own rudeness encourages and justifies some of the criticisms levied against him. However, the conclusion that he is not a gentleman is unfair. His rudeness is largely unknown to him and is in part a consequence of his shyness with people he does not know well. When his collision with Elizabeth Bennet reveals it to him, he sets out immediately to change, and he succeeds. This dichotomy between his actual character and his personal rudeness drives Elizabeth Bennet’s, and the reader’s, prejudice against him. The unreliable narration leaves the reader at the mercy of Elizabeth Bennet’s judgment of Mr. Darcy, thus making the reader complicit in her prejudice. When Darcy’s true character is revealed, the result is that the reader feels some of the shame of misjudging Mr. Darcy, thereby granting emotional reality to part of Jane Austen’s theme.

Works Cited
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 2001.

McClintock, Marcia. “Pride and prejudice: past, present, future.” Persuasions: The Jane Austen Journal 22 (2000); 115. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Spartanburg Technical Coll. Lib. Discus. 6 February 2006.

Wiesenfarth, Joseph. “The Plot of Pride and Prejudice.” The Errand of Form: An Assay of Jane Austen’s Art; 60-85. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Spartanburg Technical Coll. Lib. Discus. 6 February 2006.

Zelicovici, Dvora. “Reversal in Pride and Prejudice.” Studies in the Humanities Journal 12, no. 2; 106-14. Literature Resource Center. Gale. Spartanburg Technical Coll. Lib. Discus. December 1984.

The Closer

2006-02-14T23:16:00.000-05:00

I've been watching a new cop drama called "The Closer" recently. It centers around Deputy Police Chief Brenda Johnson--a Georgia transplant to L.A.. Her speciality is interrogations.

The show is intriguing because very rarely does the viewer have any real idea what she is thinking. It's written in such a way that you see her delegating investigative tasks to other officers, all the while aggregating the results of their investigations. Often the other officers, and the viewers, will have one theory of the crime, and then will discover that Johnson has a completely different theory--one which is revealed over the course of an interrogation.

Most interesting is the interrogations themselves. The episodes often revolve around cases where there is not much in the way of physical evidence. Johnson's task in these cases is to not only solve the crime, but to extract a confession from the murderer. She has to do this while navigating the hamstringing of Miranda. She has to set up the interrogation in such a way that the murderer doesn't want a lawyer, and that the murderer ends up admitting to much more than they plan to. The show is reminiscent of "Columbo" in this way due to its emphasis on verbal chess. It is further reminiscent because of the way that Johnson uses her accent to her advantage, playing "country dumb" to get her suspects to reveal their hands.

Unlike Law & Order, which I also love btw, the focus for Johnson is to get the murderer to admit to what he actually did--as against using legal maneuvering to convince a jury that he did.

Aside from the crime-solving, she also has to deal with the office politics. She is a woman brought in the from the other side of the country to head a division. The police captain under her is resentful because it was a position that he wanted. The detectives that work directly for her are mistrustful because she is an outsider. These elements are not used to tout feminist messages as might first be imagined. Instead, these conflicts are integrated into the rest of what she faces in solving crimes. Over the first season it has been a pleasure to watch as she establishes her authority over the envious police captain, and earns the grudging respect--and then admiration--of her detectives.

So watch it!