Statistics without context are worthless.
Furious Squirrells would be an excellent name for a rock band. As would Attack Beavers.
Occasionally, the numbers do lie.
You are defined by what you do when it counts. The rest of the time, it's just practice.
My child will have access to more information then the human mind can handle. My only job is to make sure he has the mental nimbleness to know what is bull$hit and what isn't. Pray for me. Pray for him.
The most unsatisfying part about most conspiracy theories, generally, is their answer to the question, "Why?"
The scariest thing about computers is not what they can do, but rather, how little we know about what they can do. And the gap is widening by the minute.
God has a terrible sense of humor.
Nothing is done for one individual that is not of some benefit to the other-- the sooner you internalize this, the sooner you will truly understand what motivates people.
Well-supported opinion is too often paraded around as "empirical fact." The difference between the two is huge, but few people can tell them apart.
Cheddar cheese tastes best on french bread. A little butter is allowed.
It's OK to lose, but never OK to be beaten. Think about it.
Take a second and think about how little you know about anything. It puts the universe in perspective.
Everyone loves the expansive power of government, until someone they don't like is in charge.
Pet a dog. Even if it doesn't make you feel better, it'll be good for the dog.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
To Punish a Pope
I can't honestly say I support very much that any Pope (or Imam or Rabbi or whatever) does on a day to day basis. The response of the Islamic world to some remarks that the Pope made in a scholarly lecture of reason and religion has led me to believe the the Islamic faith has lost it's minds collectively.
I thought that the whole cartoon thing was bad enough, but then I see Christians protest ugly and unfunny cartoons and art all the time-- no one wants to see their religion, their faith, made the butt of a childish joke, after all. But to respond to an historical quote made in the middle of a (very) long speech about the reconciliation of reason reason and faith, and how one cannot stand without the other, (rather then the prevailing secular attitude that neither can stand with the other,) with death threats and comparisons to Hitler-- that's just unreasonable (which was the point of the Pope's speech.)
Religion without reason is anarchy. A reasonless God cannot be a moral compass, nor can a reasonless God be followed with any faith (if you can't trust God to be reasonable, who can you trust, after all.) Islam has proven itself to be reasonless by responding to a speech about reason with unreasoning fury. Rather then accepting the debate openly and discussing the fusion of religion and reason, Muslims have chosen to do what they always do: protest, bluster, name call and threaten. This is no religion of peace; this is a religion of the bully, one that cannot stand up to the slightest blow, yet uses its size to intimidate those around it.
I may laugh at Christians who espouse the "Intelligent Design" theory and deny the very evolution that their own DNA proclaims, but they do not threaten me for it-- they try, in their own way, with reason to debate me and to try to change my mind. They cling to the veneer of science, even if they reject some of it's central findings. In the end, with neither side convincing the other, we learn a little something more about ourselves. No blood need be shed, no apologies issued.
I leave you with another quote from Pope Benedict XVI's speech, in which he is again quoting one of the last Roman emporers:
"God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."
God couldn't have said it better himself (I hope.)
I thought that the whole cartoon thing was bad enough, but then I see Christians protest ugly and unfunny cartoons and art all the time-- no one wants to see their religion, their faith, made the butt of a childish joke, after all. But to respond to an historical quote made in the middle of a (very) long speech about the reconciliation of reason reason and faith, and how one cannot stand without the other, (rather then the prevailing secular attitude that neither can stand with the other,) with death threats and comparisons to Hitler-- that's just unreasonable (which was the point of the Pope's speech.)
Religion without reason is anarchy. A reasonless God cannot be a moral compass, nor can a reasonless God be followed with any faith (if you can't trust God to be reasonable, who can you trust, after all.) Islam has proven itself to be reasonless by responding to a speech about reason with unreasoning fury. Rather then accepting the debate openly and discussing the fusion of religion and reason, Muslims have chosen to do what they always do: protest, bluster, name call and threaten. This is no religion of peace; this is a religion of the bully, one that cannot stand up to the slightest blow, yet uses its size to intimidate those around it.
I may laugh at Christians who espouse the "Intelligent Design" theory and deny the very evolution that their own DNA proclaims, but they do not threaten me for it-- they try, in their own way, with reason to debate me and to try to change my mind. They cling to the veneer of science, even if they reject some of it's central findings. In the end, with neither side convincing the other, we learn a little something more about ourselves. No blood need be shed, no apologies issued.
I leave you with another quote from Pope Benedict XVI's speech, in which he is again quoting one of the last Roman emporers:
"God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."
God couldn't have said it better himself (I hope.)
Friday, September 15, 2006
Are We At War?
Seems like a simple question, but one that doesn't seem to have a ready answer. I mean, if you ask the President, he'd say, "Yes, of course we are!" but then he readily accepts the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision, which clearly allows the Court and the Congress to set limits not specified in the Constitution the President's powers as Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. So, the president believes we are at war, but not enough to actually defend his Constitutional right and duty to prosecute a war as he sees fit. Bush see the threat, knows how to fight it, but refuses to make the case.
The loyal opposition seems to think that we are at war, but only in a "War on Poverty" or "War on Drugs" sense of the thing-- we should throw more money at it, and make more speeches about it, but not actually, like, fight, like in a war or anything. To them, the War on Terror should be fought as was the Cold War, politically, covertly and legally when possible. The loyal opposition sees the threat, misidentifies it (willingly or unwillingly, I don't know) and thinks that if we just do it the way we did for 50 years, there will be peace... uneasy, punctuated by violence, but peace, nonetheless.
If we are at war, then everything from the TSP to the PATRIOT Act is completely legal; the editorial board of the New York Times needs to be arrested and charged with espionage at the least, treason at the worst. Politicians who decry the war publicly should be ostracized at the very least, and possibly charged with aiding and abetting in some extreme cases.
If we are not at war, then the president and most of his administration needs to be impeached and removed. The TSP must be terminated immediately. Troops must begin an immediate withdrawl from Iraq and our Afghanistan mission must be scaled back to encompass merely the capture of those responsible for 9-11-01.
Under the Constitution, only the United States Congress can declare war. The President of the United States has interpreted the Authorization for the Use of Force passed by Congress in October of 2002 as a de facto declaration of war. It would be a good thing for Congress to clarify this, one way or the other, either by disputing the claim of the President and completely de-funding the Iraq war or by clarifying the resolution and solidifying the President's position. This would require, in either case, tough leadership and hard decisions from those elected to represent the People of the United States of America.
I'm not holding my breath.
The loyal opposition seems to think that we are at war, but only in a "War on Poverty" or "War on Drugs" sense of the thing-- we should throw more money at it, and make more speeches about it, but not actually, like, fight, like in a war or anything. To them, the War on Terror should be fought as was the Cold War, politically, covertly and legally when possible. The loyal opposition sees the threat, misidentifies it (willingly or unwillingly, I don't know) and thinks that if we just do it the way we did for 50 years, there will be peace... uneasy, punctuated by violence, but peace, nonetheless.
If we are at war, then everything from the TSP to the PATRIOT Act is completely legal; the editorial board of the New York Times needs to be arrested and charged with espionage at the least, treason at the worst. Politicians who decry the war publicly should be ostracized at the very least, and possibly charged with aiding and abetting in some extreme cases.
If we are not at war, then the president and most of his administration needs to be impeached and removed. The TSP must be terminated immediately. Troops must begin an immediate withdrawl from Iraq and our Afghanistan mission must be scaled back to encompass merely the capture of those responsible for 9-11-01.
Under the Constitution, only the United States Congress can declare war. The President of the United States has interpreted the Authorization for the Use of Force passed by Congress in October of 2002 as a de facto declaration of war. It would be a good thing for Congress to clarify this, one way or the other, either by disputing the claim of the President and completely de-funding the Iraq war or by clarifying the resolution and solidifying the President's position. This would require, in either case, tough leadership and hard decisions from those elected to represent the People of the United States of America.
I'm not holding my breath.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Dark, Satanic (Degree) Mills.
I have recently decided to continue (after a pause of four years) my pursuit of a higher education. To that end, I have enrolled in a local state college, which, for the sake of my grades and academic standing, shall go unnamed here. (I don't think it matters if I name it or not, as I assume that this post probably applies to state colleges across the board. I could be wrong.)
Imagine my disappointment when I came to the slow realization that state colleges do not exist to give the student an education-- rather, they exist to allow the student the chance to get a degree, the main function of which is to get a job. Hence, the most frequently asked question in any one of my classes is "Is this going to be on the test?" Sadly, the instructor never replies to the questions with a terse "Everything I say may be on the test," or a longer, less subtle "Everything I say is going to be on the test, and I will ask for exact quotes, so take really good notes and shut up!" No, the fact is that the instructor usually says "No, this is just general information," which means everyone immediately tunes the hapless instructor (I hesitate to say "professor," as I doubt any one of my instructors has a degree more advanced then a Masters and, indeed, I'm almost positive one of my instructors is younger then I am-- I kid you not, last night, one of her stories included a punchline to the effect that her best friend had "double-D" breasts) out completely or, if the answer is affirmative, the poor monkey in front of the class is bombarded by requests of "Can you repeat that?" and "How is that spelled?" and "Will this be on the review?" And yes, there will always be a review and, usually, the mid term and final exams are not comprehensive but rather are steroided versions of chapter tests.
I thank God I have never asked my mother to pay for my higher education-- I would've felt, in hindsight, that I was robbing an old lady at gunpoint. As it is, by paying for it myself, I feel as if I am robbing Peter to pay Paul. State Colleges have, for the most part, become very expensive High Schools-- there is no competition, there is no feeling of being elite or top-tier and there is absolutely NO feeling of education, other then in the sense of learning a trade, which we used to be able to do for free, with an apprenticeship. There are the same "cliques" (I suppose they are called "Crews" now, or whatever people who wear baggy pants are calling it nowadays) the same conversations (although, to be honest, we're generally talking about our kid's childhood rather than our own-- night class ages tend to skew a bit higher) and the same attitude.
I hear people exclaim heartily that colleges and universities indoctrinate people in one political direction or another, when the sad truth is that I would kill for conversation or instruction intelligent enough to be called "indoctrination"-- although I suppose it's hard to seed young impressionable minds when the only question you are asked is "Can you repeat that?" No, the true indoctrination comes from making us mindless test-taking robots; beings devoid of any thought other than "Is this going to be on the next test?" Humanoids almost completely incapable of critical thought-- we don't care if it's right or wrong, if it's on the test, we remember it, if it's not, well-- what were we talking about again? That way, when a politician starts talking about WMDs in Iraq or tax cuts for the rich, we glance up, startled and ask "Is that going to be on the test?!?!?!" Then our instructors calmly inform us that, yes, it is, but there will be a review-- right after the practical labs, and we go back to our degrees and our jobs, thankful that we won't have to remember that again...
And after all this ranting and raving, what am I going to do about it? Well, other than rant and rave, nothing, because I have a wife and a kid and a mortgage and a car payment and, according to statistics, that college degree is worth an extra 4-10,000 dollars to my personal bottom line.
No, that's not going to be on the test.
Imagine my disappointment when I came to the slow realization that state colleges do not exist to give the student an education-- rather, they exist to allow the student the chance to get a degree, the main function of which is to get a job. Hence, the most frequently asked question in any one of my classes is "Is this going to be on the test?" Sadly, the instructor never replies to the questions with a terse "Everything I say may be on the test," or a longer, less subtle "Everything I say is going to be on the test, and I will ask for exact quotes, so take really good notes and shut up!" No, the fact is that the instructor usually says "No, this is just general information," which means everyone immediately tunes the hapless instructor (I hesitate to say "professor," as I doubt any one of my instructors has a degree more advanced then a Masters and, indeed, I'm almost positive one of my instructors is younger then I am-- I kid you not, last night, one of her stories included a punchline to the effect that her best friend had "double-D" breasts) out completely or, if the answer is affirmative, the poor monkey in front of the class is bombarded by requests of "Can you repeat that?" and "How is that spelled?" and "Will this be on the review?" And yes, there will always be a review and, usually, the mid term and final exams are not comprehensive but rather are steroided versions of chapter tests.
I thank God I have never asked my mother to pay for my higher education-- I would've felt, in hindsight, that I was robbing an old lady at gunpoint. As it is, by paying for it myself, I feel as if I am robbing Peter to pay Paul. State Colleges have, for the most part, become very expensive High Schools-- there is no competition, there is no feeling of being elite or top-tier and there is absolutely NO feeling of education, other then in the sense of learning a trade, which we used to be able to do for free, with an apprenticeship. There are the same "cliques" (I suppose they are called "Crews" now, or whatever people who wear baggy pants are calling it nowadays) the same conversations (although, to be honest, we're generally talking about our kid's childhood rather than our own-- night class ages tend to skew a bit higher) and the same attitude.
I hear people exclaim heartily that colleges and universities indoctrinate people in one political direction or another, when the sad truth is that I would kill for conversation or instruction intelligent enough to be called "indoctrination"-- although I suppose it's hard to seed young impressionable minds when the only question you are asked is "Can you repeat that?" No, the true indoctrination comes from making us mindless test-taking robots; beings devoid of any thought other than "Is this going to be on the next test?" Humanoids almost completely incapable of critical thought-- we don't care if it's right or wrong, if it's on the test, we remember it, if it's not, well-- what were we talking about again? That way, when a politician starts talking about WMDs in Iraq or tax cuts for the rich, we glance up, startled and ask "Is that going to be on the test?!?!?!" Then our instructors calmly inform us that, yes, it is, but there will be a review-- right after the practical labs, and we go back to our degrees and our jobs, thankful that we won't have to remember that again...
And after all this ranting and raving, what am I going to do about it? Well, other than rant and rave, nothing, because I have a wife and a kid and a mortgage and a car payment and, according to statistics, that college degree is worth an extra 4-10,000 dollars to my personal bottom line.
No, that's not going to be on the test.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
My first blog post
As usual, I'm old, slow and crotchety. Blogging is probably passe' now, and once again I have dived headfirst into obselescence.
Having said that, having a place to vent about various things will be therapeutic, at the least. I don't know what it would be at the best. Don't care. Read, enjoy (or don't)-- it's not for you anyways.
Having said that, having a place to vent about various things will be therapeutic, at the least. I don't know what it would be at the best. Don't care. Read, enjoy (or don't)-- it's not for you anyways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
