After my last post, I welcome the opportunity to post something a little more lighthearted. Well, I just saw the new Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic. I like Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. It's definitely one of my favorite webcomics. And there's nothing wrong with the new one. Subnormality just happens to be that awesome. Anyway, this is the new SMBC comic...
...and here is a Subnormality comic on the same theme.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Thoughts
Some stuff I've been thinking about around the time that is now or perhaps in the very recent past...
In The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan, there are sections that seem to outline what one might call the mainstream skeptical views on certain claims (about stuff). I've seen pretty much the same line of reasoning elsewhere too, and the typical skeptical view on UFO's (unidentified flying objects) is that claims about them are the result of various things but that there is not nearly enough evidence, if any really, that these sightings reflect actual space aliens. The sightings can be attributed to hoaxes, hallucinations, simple lies, and misidentifications/embellishments of real events. It's that last one that is given the most weight. People really do see things in the sky. I myself once saw a UFO (it just looked like a big red light up in the sky though). So the idea is that they see these things and their brains play tricks on them or they get confused about the details or simply make extraordinary claims about mundane things. Under this view, sightings might be attributed to weather balloons, satellites, aircraft, the planet Venus, etc. I understand that UFO proponents (believers?) have some counterarguments against this and without really knowing much or bothering to learn much about either camp, I find myself rejecting both with what is practically a "plague a' both your houses" mentality. What do I attribute sightings to? Hallucinations. Sure, there are some known hoaxes and there have probably been some unknown ones too, but they're pretty rare. And yeah, maybe sometimes people see ordinary things and get confused about them, but the actual reports I've seen are hardly ever like that (although my own sighting might very well have been in this category). They're just too extreme. Finally, maybe some of them really do represent sightings of real space aliens. It's possible, I suppose. But I think most of them are hallucinations. It happens. People hallucinate. I hallucinate. I think most people hallucinate. Is it really that crazy to think that there might be circumstances under which a lot of people hallucinate about similar things? In fact, there are some areas where this is well known to be the case. Just ask people who have experience with psychoactive substances: some of them tend to produce the same results for lots of (or even all) people. I've yet to see anyone articulate this stance on UFO's, but it seems more plausible to me than any of the other stuff I've heard.
I doubt I'll be going back to some point in my past with all of my memories intact anytime soon (unless I meet a magic genie with a penchant for that sort of thing), but I think if given the opportunity, I'd take it. And not out of regret: I am more or less happy at the moment and quite optimistic for the future. It's just that if I wasn't going too incredibly far back, I would jump at the chance to see what would happen if I knew then what I know now. What might hold me back would be the prospect of losing what I've already accomplished, but so little of that is tangible. Most of the things that I have now and didn't have in the past that I really appreciate are experiences, and I'd be taking those with me. There are also relationships with people. Even though I would remember them, other people would not. Of course, I could still know and interact with those same people, just with the odd bit about me having some memories of things that, as far as everyone else was concerned, never happened. It's not so simple as only that, though. Other people, having different experiences than they have now, would become different, if only slightly. But if they don't like that, too bad. I'd still be much too curious to abstain from going back. I'd jump at the chance, to a point. I'd probably go back without hesitation if it were to when I was in high school. If it were when I was really young, there would be consequences to being that young and knowing all the things I know now (unless I did a good job of hiding my knowledge) that I'm not sure I'd want to bother with, even if they'd be interesting. This leads me to wonder what the "point of no return" at which I would refuse to go back might be. And will it change as I get older?
I go back to Green River in January. This seems far stranger to think about than it should. I haven't been there since June of last year. But there was a period of time, not sure how long, where the place was like home to me. Seriously, at some level of consciousness I thought of the library in particular (and the science buildings too, but they're torn down now, which is another thing that might make going back weird) as home moreso than my house. But when I was finally getting ready to graduate, I was really looking forward to leaving. I even remarked that I'd never to have to enter a certain building again (and now apparently it turns out that I was wrong about that). It's not that I didn't like going to school there. I think it was that I didn't like working at UPS while I was also going to school there. I didn't like falling asleep all the time because I was incredibly tired from my stupid job and it was too early in the morning. I didn't like certain assignments. I didn't like mistakes I'd made. But overall, I was pretty happy there. Going back though, I don't know. I think the main problem is that the classes I want to take are not available at Green River. I am taking statistics and German. But I want to take more chemistry, dammit. That was the whole point of applying for the University of Washington. So I'm going back to a place I really liked, but I'm going back. I want to move on. I should have moved on already. I was trying to move on. And instead I'm going back. But it's to a place I really liked. And I think the conflict between those emotions is what makes it strange.
I just found out that animals that are active primarily around dawn are "matutinal." That's right, there is a word to describe the infernal behavior of being up and about in the morning. Why any creature would do such a thing, I do not know. Insects and other lower lifeforms I will excuse. They are practically slaves of their own circadian rhythms or whatever. But humans? And it occurs to me that in a little over a month, I will once more join the ranks of the matutinal damned. Well, it would have happened if I got into the University of Washington and it's happening anyway. Sometimes, we must make sacrifices. And sometimes, those sacrifices include being awake when any sane individual would be sleeping. And I am determined not to sleep through my classes. I don't know when I will sleep though. Maybe at night? Can that work? Is that even possible?
Back to the subject of college, I took two years of chemistry (one year of general chemistry and one year of organic chemistry). I guess I actually took three years of chemistry because I also had chemistry all through my junior year of high school, so I've studied it more than any other subject (depending on how you count). And yet it was not until well after I left college that I was able to say that chemistry was what I wanted to do. How was my reaction so delayed? How was I able to go to class that whole time without thinking, "This is so awesome that it is more awesome than anything else"? Am I retarded? Did I wake up one morning and go, "That chemistry stuff that I used to do: I want to do that for the rest of my life"? I really don't get it. I would think that this should be some sort of warning sign, that maybe I am fooling myself somehow. But how?
And speaking of the chemistry I took in high school, I almost forgot about that because it was mostly the same material I covered in Chemistry 140. At the time, I thought of 140 as a review of high school chemistry and was really annoyed by this. But somehow the most significant thing about this to me was that I managed to be annoyed about the college class and that I was needlessly reviewing basics. It adversely affected my attitude and my performance. It might be part of why I didn't realize just how fond of chemistry I was, now that I think about it. What now seems easily more significant than my own petty and quite temporary inconvenience is that 140 lasted one quarter. My high school chemistry covered two semesters. Alright, so high school quarters are different from college quarters. Whatever. They still covered the same material in a quarter in college that they did in a year in high school. And better. So what's the explanation? They went into more detail in high school? No, not really. They did more labs? Well yeah, there was a whole damn year to do them. Proportionally, I don't think they did more labs. The instructors in college were just that much better? Well, they were generally better, but they weren't superhuman. I don't think this accounts for everything. High school students just can't handle the pace that college students can? Bullshit. Green River is full of running start students anyway and I was only a year out of high school at the time and I'm still immature compared to the average high school student anyway. This is even more pronounced with the biology classes. But that gets me thinking about education in general.
And speaking of education in general, I know that my understanding of it now is completely different from when I was in high school. And it's not because I'm more mature or have some adult perspective or something. It's a direct result of going to college (which is sort of the theme for this post apparently, even though I did not plan that). After reading something this year that I wrote back in 2005 (before I'd started at GRCC), I've been thinking ever since that my notions about education and what it should be like were really stupid back then. I've become a bit obsessed with education and what it should be like, really. But I'm sure my perspective is still a bit warped because I've given almost zero thought to, uh, younger ages. That seems odd. I think when most people see or hear the word "education" they think of kids and probably kids in elementary school. That's my impression anyway. I know that when I see or hear the word "education" I think of myself. Vain? Maybe. Anyway, nascent people are people too. Important people, even. Or so I hear. And education has to address them. How? Man, I have no idea. I don't know how to teach kids anything. And this is hilarious, because I know I've complained about the educational system being messed up somehow, but as children go, what needs fixed and how would we go about fixing it? I have no idea. For all I know, it could already be optimal. That makes me complaining about it being messed up seem pretty funny, don't you think? I think so. I mean, I'm pretty sure that at some point not all that long ago I said education was the number one political issue for me, and now here I am admitting that I know nothing whatsoever about it!
Uh, I fully intended for this to pretty much be the replacement for my old Livejournal and I thought the only change was going to be that this is a blogger instead of an LJ. Same old stuff, just a different place. That does not seem to be what happened. I mean, I had some self-deprecating stuff on LJ, but this is different. Or is it? I think so. Probably. Anyway, I have to stop writing this post now. I thought it was going to be contemplative, but it seems that instead I just keep trying to tear my own psyche to shreds. Yeah. Not sure what's up with that. Bye now.
In The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan, there are sections that seem to outline what one might call the mainstream skeptical views on certain claims (about stuff). I've seen pretty much the same line of reasoning elsewhere too, and the typical skeptical view on UFO's (unidentified flying objects) is that claims about them are the result of various things but that there is not nearly enough evidence, if any really, that these sightings reflect actual space aliens. The sightings can be attributed to hoaxes, hallucinations, simple lies, and misidentifications/embellishments of real events. It's that last one that is given the most weight. People really do see things in the sky. I myself once saw a UFO (it just looked like a big red light up in the sky though). So the idea is that they see these things and their brains play tricks on them or they get confused about the details or simply make extraordinary claims about mundane things. Under this view, sightings might be attributed to weather balloons, satellites, aircraft, the planet Venus, etc. I understand that UFO proponents (believers?) have some counterarguments against this and without really knowing much or bothering to learn much about either camp, I find myself rejecting both with what is practically a "plague a' both your houses" mentality. What do I attribute sightings to? Hallucinations. Sure, there are some known hoaxes and there have probably been some unknown ones too, but they're pretty rare. And yeah, maybe sometimes people see ordinary things and get confused about them, but the actual reports I've seen are hardly ever like that (although my own sighting might very well have been in this category). They're just too extreme. Finally, maybe some of them really do represent sightings of real space aliens. It's possible, I suppose. But I think most of them are hallucinations. It happens. People hallucinate. I hallucinate. I think most people hallucinate. Is it really that crazy to think that there might be circumstances under which a lot of people hallucinate about similar things? In fact, there are some areas where this is well known to be the case. Just ask people who have experience with psychoactive substances: some of them tend to produce the same results for lots of (or even all) people. I've yet to see anyone articulate this stance on UFO's, but it seems more plausible to me than any of the other stuff I've heard.
I doubt I'll be going back to some point in my past with all of my memories intact anytime soon (unless I meet a magic genie with a penchant for that sort of thing), but I think if given the opportunity, I'd take it. And not out of regret: I am more or less happy at the moment and quite optimistic for the future. It's just that if I wasn't going too incredibly far back, I would jump at the chance to see what would happen if I knew then what I know now. What might hold me back would be the prospect of losing what I've already accomplished, but so little of that is tangible. Most of the things that I have now and didn't have in the past that I really appreciate are experiences, and I'd be taking those with me. There are also relationships with people. Even though I would remember them, other people would not. Of course, I could still know and interact with those same people, just with the odd bit about me having some memories of things that, as far as everyone else was concerned, never happened. It's not so simple as only that, though. Other people, having different experiences than they have now, would become different, if only slightly. But if they don't like that, too bad. I'd still be much too curious to abstain from going back. I'd jump at the chance, to a point. I'd probably go back without hesitation if it were to when I was in high school. If it were when I was really young, there would be consequences to being that young and knowing all the things I know now (unless I did a good job of hiding my knowledge) that I'm not sure I'd want to bother with, even if they'd be interesting. This leads me to wonder what the "point of no return" at which I would refuse to go back might be. And will it change as I get older?
I go back to Green River in January. This seems far stranger to think about than it should. I haven't been there since June of last year. But there was a period of time, not sure how long, where the place was like home to me. Seriously, at some level of consciousness I thought of the library in particular (and the science buildings too, but they're torn down now, which is another thing that might make going back weird) as home moreso than my house. But when I was finally getting ready to graduate, I was really looking forward to leaving. I even remarked that I'd never to have to enter a certain building again (and now apparently it turns out that I was wrong about that). It's not that I didn't like going to school there. I think it was that I didn't like working at UPS while I was also going to school there. I didn't like falling asleep all the time because I was incredibly tired from my stupid job and it was too early in the morning. I didn't like certain assignments. I didn't like mistakes I'd made. But overall, I was pretty happy there. Going back though, I don't know. I think the main problem is that the classes I want to take are not available at Green River. I am taking statistics and German. But I want to take more chemistry, dammit. That was the whole point of applying for the University of Washington. So I'm going back to a place I really liked, but I'm going back. I want to move on. I should have moved on already. I was trying to move on. And instead I'm going back. But it's to a place I really liked. And I think the conflict between those emotions is what makes it strange.
I just found out that animals that are active primarily around dawn are "matutinal." That's right, there is a word to describe the infernal behavior of being up and about in the morning. Why any creature would do such a thing, I do not know. Insects and other lower lifeforms I will excuse. They are practically slaves of their own circadian rhythms or whatever. But humans? And it occurs to me that in a little over a month, I will once more join the ranks of the matutinal damned. Well, it would have happened if I got into the University of Washington and it's happening anyway. Sometimes, we must make sacrifices. And sometimes, those sacrifices include being awake when any sane individual would be sleeping. And I am determined not to sleep through my classes. I don't know when I will sleep though. Maybe at night? Can that work? Is that even possible?
Back to the subject of college, I took two years of chemistry (one year of general chemistry and one year of organic chemistry). I guess I actually took three years of chemistry because I also had chemistry all through my junior year of high school, so I've studied it more than any other subject (depending on how you count). And yet it was not until well after I left college that I was able to say that chemistry was what I wanted to do. How was my reaction so delayed? How was I able to go to class that whole time without thinking, "This is so awesome that it is more awesome than anything else"? Am I retarded? Did I wake up one morning and go, "That chemistry stuff that I used to do: I want to do that for the rest of my life"? I really don't get it. I would think that this should be some sort of warning sign, that maybe I am fooling myself somehow. But how?
And speaking of the chemistry I took in high school, I almost forgot about that because it was mostly the same material I covered in Chemistry 140. At the time, I thought of 140 as a review of high school chemistry and was really annoyed by this. But somehow the most significant thing about this to me was that I managed to be annoyed about the college class and that I was needlessly reviewing basics. It adversely affected my attitude and my performance. It might be part of why I didn't realize just how fond of chemistry I was, now that I think about it. What now seems easily more significant than my own petty and quite temporary inconvenience is that 140 lasted one quarter. My high school chemistry covered two semesters. Alright, so high school quarters are different from college quarters. Whatever. They still covered the same material in a quarter in college that they did in a year in high school. And better. So what's the explanation? They went into more detail in high school? No, not really. They did more labs? Well yeah, there was a whole damn year to do them. Proportionally, I don't think they did more labs. The instructors in college were just that much better? Well, they were generally better, but they weren't superhuman. I don't think this accounts for everything. High school students just can't handle the pace that college students can? Bullshit. Green River is full of running start students anyway and I was only a year out of high school at the time and I'm still immature compared to the average high school student anyway. This is even more pronounced with the biology classes. But that gets me thinking about education in general.
And speaking of education in general, I know that my understanding of it now is completely different from when I was in high school. And it's not because I'm more mature or have some adult perspective or something. It's a direct result of going to college (which is sort of the theme for this post apparently, even though I did not plan that). After reading something this year that I wrote back in 2005 (before I'd started at GRCC), I've been thinking ever since that my notions about education and what it should be like were really stupid back then. I've become a bit obsessed with education and what it should be like, really. But I'm sure my perspective is still a bit warped because I've given almost zero thought to, uh, younger ages. That seems odd. I think when most people see or hear the word "education" they think of kids and probably kids in elementary school. That's my impression anyway. I know that when I see or hear the word "education" I think of myself. Vain? Maybe. Anyway, nascent people are people too. Important people, even. Or so I hear. And education has to address them. How? Man, I have no idea. I don't know how to teach kids anything. And this is hilarious, because I know I've complained about the educational system being messed up somehow, but as children go, what needs fixed and how would we go about fixing it? I have no idea. For all I know, it could already be optimal. That makes me complaining about it being messed up seem pretty funny, don't you think? I think so. I mean, I'm pretty sure that at some point not all that long ago I said education was the number one political issue for me, and now here I am admitting that I know nothing whatsoever about it!
Uh, I fully intended for this to pretty much be the replacement for my old Livejournal and I thought the only change was going to be that this is a blogger instead of an LJ. Same old stuff, just a different place. That does not seem to be what happened. I mean, I had some self-deprecating stuff on LJ, but this is different. Or is it? I think so. Probably. Anyway, I have to stop writing this post now. I thought it was going to be contemplative, but it seems that instead I just keep trying to tear my own psyche to shreds. Yeah. Not sure what's up with that. Bye now.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Stephen Bahl takes the GOP purity test
I found this thanks to Fesler linking to it on Facebook. The article mocks the proposed resolution and perhaps rightfully so. I don't know. I guess it doesn't matter to me how Republicans run their party. I'm not one of them. But some of my family are. And I agree with my family on some things and disagree with them on others. I think it's kind of nice to have the core tenets of Republicanism laid out for me to measure myself against. This in contrast to the other big party in the U.S. Half the time I don't even know if I agree with the Democrats or not. In fact, I've been noticing that it always seems to happen that just when I think I agree with the Democrats more than I disagree with them, I find some stance they generally have that completely repulses me. Whatever, this isn't about them. I'm going to take this test. Well, it's not really a test. But if it were...
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill: Well now, this is rather sinister. No really. It is. They just said that the way they support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits, and lower taxes is by opposing bills. Get that? They did not say that they support those things and that they oppose bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill. Opposing bills is purportedly the method used to accomplish support for those other things. It isn't just one method of many. It's the only one they list. As far as the stimulus goes, it's a big thing. Surely most people agree with parts of it and disagree with other parts of it. I could give them the benefit of the doubt and say that I oppose the stimulus (I hesitate to flat-out oppose it, but I'm sure there are plenty of things about it for me to dislike). Fine. Maybe I even oppose bills "like" the stimulus. But that is most certainly not a way to have smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits, and lower taxes. I think most Americans would love to have at least three out of those four things (smaller government being a bit of a tricky one semantically and it depends on how you look at it). But none of them can be achieved without sacrificing something else that might also be seen as desirable. For example, I'd certainly like a smaller national debt. I'm with them there. But how? How do we achieve this. Opposing bills isn't going to do a damn thing. This position is stupid, really. Does anyone actually think opposing bills is a way to get things done? I guess this means so far I'm 0 for 1.
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare: This is a blatant straw-man. Firstly, "market-based health care reform" doesn't even mean anything. I get the impression that it's a euphemism for something, but I can't actually figure out what. Maybe I'm wrong. But Obama does not propose government-run healthcare. Do any Democratic leaders? I am not aware of any that do. There are certainly socialists who want government-run healthcare. Democrats though? Really, this comes across as "We are for [gibberish] and oppose [this thing we're saying our enemy wants even though our enemy has not actually called for it]." So basically, they're lying here. Well, I definitely don't agree with that. 0 for 2 apparently.
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation: Seriously? Do we really need to analyze whether opposing legislation accomplishes reform? I really think I am not being pedantic about this. Simply assuming that they mean they do both things is unwarranted here. Every single one of these so far has stated that they support one thing by opposing another. That's not how things work! And what the hell is "market-based reform"? Am I missing something? Is that a thing? It seems almost paradoxical, especially when it comes to energy. How can the market be the basis for reform? I'm not seeing it. I hope I'm not completely missing something here, but for now I have to say I'm 0 for 3.
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check: Well, this one is a bit tricky. I don't know a whole lot about unionization, but even I know that there are some nuances to consider with any proposal. This position sounds sensible, but it all depends on the details of what they actually want to do. Although I don't think these eleven words give me enough information to know if I agree or disagree with Republicans on this, considering that I came down so hard on the previous two statements, I'll grant them this one for the sake of simplifying things, meaning I'm now 1 for 4.
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants: What the fuck? Again? Was this designed to piss me off? Explain to me just how "opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants" does a damn thing to support legal immigration and assimilation into American society? It doesn't. I find it insulting to the intelligence of the reader that whoever wrote this thinks people will seriously consider this a valid position. Do they mean something else? Are they that bad at writing? I hate this so much, I am giving myself -1 on it. I'm now 0 for 5. Actually, at this rate, we need all the help we can get, so I'll just ignore the negative and make it 1 for 5. Reluctantly, though.
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges: This is actually quite funny. It's incompatible with the first statement about supporting smaller government. Troop surges necessarily imply bigger government. Not sure how they plan to do this and lower taxes either. But maybe they have a way. I'm still against this. We're not the world's police and there's no "victory" to be won in Iraq or Afghanistan. I strongly disagree with them here. 1 for 6.
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat: Containment? Within what? Iran is bigger than Alaska. What are you going to put it in? This is impossible. Are they referring to the policy of containment? But that referred to containment of communism. It wasn't containment of countries. The thing supposedly being contained was communism itself. They wanted to halt the spread of it. That was the idea, anyway. Only the cold war is kind of over now. Has been for quite some time. Do they seriously not know this? I find it hard to believe that the entire Republican party is 20 years behind. I am quickly losing patience with this resolution. Well, still 1 for 7 maybe?
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act: And I oppose it. Pretty straightforward. 1 for 8. Or -2 for 8 really, but let's be generous and say 1 for 8.
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion: Who's proposing health care rationing? I've never seen this. Well, I'm with you there. Denial of health care? Well of course that's bad. But opposing things no one is proposing is not a way of protecting anyone. And opposing government funding of abortion is the opposite of protecting vulnerable people because you're restricting the access to abortion of people who cannot afford to pay for it themselves. That's just a big "fuck you" to poor people. Disgusting. I'm now with you for -3 out of 9. I stopped feeling generous.
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership: Fair enough. I'll give you this one. Which brings the final total to -2 out of 10. Well, now I know just how much I agree with the GOP: -20%.
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill: Well now, this is rather sinister. No really. It is. They just said that the way they support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits, and lower taxes is by opposing bills. Get that? They did not say that they support those things and that they oppose bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill. Opposing bills is purportedly the method used to accomplish support for those other things. It isn't just one method of many. It's the only one they list. As far as the stimulus goes, it's a big thing. Surely most people agree with parts of it and disagree with other parts of it. I could give them the benefit of the doubt and say that I oppose the stimulus (I hesitate to flat-out oppose it, but I'm sure there are plenty of things about it for me to dislike). Fine. Maybe I even oppose bills "like" the stimulus. But that is most certainly not a way to have smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits, and lower taxes. I think most Americans would love to have at least three out of those four things (smaller government being a bit of a tricky one semantically and it depends on how you look at it). But none of them can be achieved without sacrificing something else that might also be seen as desirable. For example, I'd certainly like a smaller national debt. I'm with them there. But how? How do we achieve this. Opposing bills isn't going to do a damn thing. This position is stupid, really. Does anyone actually think opposing bills is a way to get things done? I guess this means so far I'm 0 for 1.
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare: This is a blatant straw-man. Firstly, "market-based health care reform" doesn't even mean anything. I get the impression that it's a euphemism for something, but I can't actually figure out what. Maybe I'm wrong. But Obama does not propose government-run healthcare. Do any Democratic leaders? I am not aware of any that do. There are certainly socialists who want government-run healthcare. Democrats though? Really, this comes across as "We are for [gibberish] and oppose [this thing we're saying our enemy wants even though our enemy has not actually called for it]." So basically, they're lying here. Well, I definitely don't agree with that. 0 for 2 apparently.
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation: Seriously? Do we really need to analyze whether opposing legislation accomplishes reform? I really think I am not being pedantic about this. Simply assuming that they mean they do both things is unwarranted here. Every single one of these so far has stated that they support one thing by opposing another. That's not how things work! And what the hell is "market-based reform"? Am I missing something? Is that a thing? It seems almost paradoxical, especially when it comes to energy. How can the market be the basis for reform? I'm not seeing it. I hope I'm not completely missing something here, but for now I have to say I'm 0 for 3.
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check: Well, this one is a bit tricky. I don't know a whole lot about unionization, but even I know that there are some nuances to consider with any proposal. This position sounds sensible, but it all depends on the details of what they actually want to do. Although I don't think these eleven words give me enough information to know if I agree or disagree with Republicans on this, considering that I came down so hard on the previous two statements, I'll grant them this one for the sake of simplifying things, meaning I'm now 1 for 4.
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants: What the fuck? Again? Was this designed to piss me off? Explain to me just how "opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants" does a damn thing to support legal immigration and assimilation into American society? It doesn't. I find it insulting to the intelligence of the reader that whoever wrote this thinks people will seriously consider this a valid position. Do they mean something else? Are they that bad at writing? I hate this so much, I am giving myself -1 on it. I'm now 0 for 5. Actually, at this rate, we need all the help we can get, so I'll just ignore the negative and make it 1 for 5. Reluctantly, though.
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges: This is actually quite funny. It's incompatible with the first statement about supporting smaller government. Troop surges necessarily imply bigger government. Not sure how they plan to do this and lower taxes either. But maybe they have a way. I'm still against this. We're not the world's police and there's no "victory" to be won in Iraq or Afghanistan. I strongly disagree with them here. 1 for 6.
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat: Containment? Within what? Iran is bigger than Alaska. What are you going to put it in? This is impossible. Are they referring to the policy of containment? But that referred to containment of communism. It wasn't containment of countries. The thing supposedly being contained was communism itself. They wanted to halt the spread of it. That was the idea, anyway. Only the cold war is kind of over now. Has been for quite some time. Do they seriously not know this? I find it hard to believe that the entire Republican party is 20 years behind. I am quickly losing patience with this resolution. Well, still 1 for 7 maybe?
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act: And I oppose it. Pretty straightforward. 1 for 8. Or -2 for 8 really, but let's be generous and say 1 for 8.
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion: Who's proposing health care rationing? I've never seen this. Well, I'm with you there. Denial of health care? Well of course that's bad. But opposing things no one is proposing is not a way of protecting anyone. And opposing government funding of abortion is the opposite of protecting vulnerable people because you're restricting the access to abortion of people who cannot afford to pay for it themselves. That's just a big "fuck you" to poor people. Disgusting. I'm now with you for -3 out of 9. I stopped feeling generous.
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership: Fair enough. I'll give you this one. Which brings the final total to -2 out of 10. Well, now I know just how much I agree with the GOP: -20%.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Trading mysticism for futurism
I'm critical of a certain type of labeling. When a person's entire set of political perspectives or methodological frameworks or notions about the nature of reality or even identity as a whole is reduced to a single word, I tend to think the people framing things this way are, at best, very lazy. Simple labels are demonstrably useful for a great many things, but do they accurately describe humans and all their confused inclinations? I think not. However, I am talking in terms of labels now because this is a topic I was thinking of in such terms recently. Hence the title. I think I may have traded mysticism for futurism.
Mysticism is a tricky concept. Maybe there is a better word for what I'm thinking of, but none come to mind. So I'll define mysticism as I am using it here...
Mysticism is a belief that there is some underlying level of reality that, due to its nature, cannot be explained by conventional techniques but that is experienced to some extent by humans.
Of course, what counts as "conventional techniques" I'm not sure. I think of science foremost, but would also include technology, mainstream philosophy (and possibly all philosophy), and so-called "common sense." I've thought about it, and I would not include reason. But that's a topic for another post. "Futurism" might be odd word choice on my part because it can mean several things, but I know exactly what I mean when I use it...
Futurism is a belief that the advancement of scientific knowledge, and with it technology, will accelerate in the near future in a manner that is profoundly beneficial to the human race.
That seems accurate. I thought of some questions one might have about the details while typing that, but again, that's not the topic of this post, and most of it has to deal with perspective, which would obviously be the individual "futurist" (so what counts as beneficial to the human race depends on what sorts of things the individual would consider beneficial).
Now, one thing I notice about these concepts as I have defined them is that they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. That is intentional. From the moment I started thinking of this, I thought of these concepts and my shifts with respect to them not as a movement from one pole to another, but as differing emphasis on concepts (certainly including several others, but these were the two I thought of) over time. Also, there has not been any point in my memory at which I was not, under these definitions, both a mystic and a futurist. And that goes for now as well. I fully believe that there is an underlying level of reality that, do to its nature, cannot be explained by conventional techniques but that people can and do experience. I fully believe that technological progress is and will continue to be awesome.
While I might say now that I fall into both of those schools of thought and have done so for as long as I can remember, I have perhaps not always behaved or spoken as though this is the case. When I was in high school and for some time after that, I thought of things in terms of mysticism quite a lot. But I don't think I usually acknowledged this. I could be remembering things badly, but I think what I did was pretend that I was not thinking this way. Essentially, I was a mystic, but I was pretending that I was not a mystic. As the years went by, I think I might have become less of a mystic, to the point that, as I was finishing up college early last year, I would probably have denied, vehemently, being a mystic (but I still think, under the definition I've presented, that I was one. But by this point, I had become, more than ever before, a futurist. It happened gradually.
Now here's where we come to my point. Well, not now, but shortly. Having thought about this, I conclude that over this decade, I have shifted from mentally placing much emphasis on mysticism to placing very little on it. In that same time period, I have shifted from mentally placing little emphasis on futurism to placing much emphasis on it. I traded one for the other. It may be that there is no relationship between them and that it just so happens that as one fell, the other rose. It may be that my cognitive resources can only accommodate so much of anything and that my decrease in mysticism made room for an increase in futurism. It may be that these seemingly unrelated ideas both fill the same role, that I need or seem to need something to occupy the part of my mind mysticism and futurism have occupied, although they might not be the only things that do or could serve in this regard. I don't know, but I suspect that it's mostly a coincidence.
And here it is. The point. Despite all of this and the fact that everything I have thought of has convinced me that the view I have just described is reasonably accurate, it would not be readily apparent from reading my writing. And that is a startling revelation. No really, it is. I have maintained the Livejournal that this blog is replacing from 2004 to the present. There might be some hints, but nothing overt. And that is crazy. These things have been huge for me. My mysticism used to be perhaps the biggest thing occupying my thoughts and my views about the world. And it was that way for pretty much the first half of this decade (and before that, actually). Likewise, my futurism has been of extreme importance in shaping my perspective for the latter half of the decade. And that whole time, I have presented myself in a way that minimizes or trivializes the things that make me who I am. Not only have I built a facade: it was only yesterday that it dawned on me that I have done this. Why? Why would I do it? What is wrong with me?
Mysticism is a tricky concept. Maybe there is a better word for what I'm thinking of, but none come to mind. So I'll define mysticism as I am using it here...
Mysticism is a belief that there is some underlying level of reality that, due to its nature, cannot be explained by conventional techniques but that is experienced to some extent by humans.
Of course, what counts as "conventional techniques" I'm not sure. I think of science foremost, but would also include technology, mainstream philosophy (and possibly all philosophy), and so-called "common sense." I've thought about it, and I would not include reason. But that's a topic for another post. "Futurism" might be odd word choice on my part because it can mean several things, but I know exactly what I mean when I use it...
Futurism is a belief that the advancement of scientific knowledge, and with it technology, will accelerate in the near future in a manner that is profoundly beneficial to the human race.
That seems accurate. I thought of some questions one might have about the details while typing that, but again, that's not the topic of this post, and most of it has to deal with perspective, which would obviously be the individual "futurist" (so what counts as beneficial to the human race depends on what sorts of things the individual would consider beneficial).
Now, one thing I notice about these concepts as I have defined them is that they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. That is intentional. From the moment I started thinking of this, I thought of these concepts and my shifts with respect to them not as a movement from one pole to another, but as differing emphasis on concepts (certainly including several others, but these were the two I thought of) over time. Also, there has not been any point in my memory at which I was not, under these definitions, both a mystic and a futurist. And that goes for now as well. I fully believe that there is an underlying level of reality that, do to its nature, cannot be explained by conventional techniques but that people can and do experience. I fully believe that technological progress is and will continue to be awesome.
While I might say now that I fall into both of those schools of thought and have done so for as long as I can remember, I have perhaps not always behaved or spoken as though this is the case. When I was in high school and for some time after that, I thought of things in terms of mysticism quite a lot. But I don't think I usually acknowledged this. I could be remembering things badly, but I think what I did was pretend that I was not thinking this way. Essentially, I was a mystic, but I was pretending that I was not a mystic. As the years went by, I think I might have become less of a mystic, to the point that, as I was finishing up college early last year, I would probably have denied, vehemently, being a mystic (but I still think, under the definition I've presented, that I was one. But by this point, I had become, more than ever before, a futurist. It happened gradually.
Now here's where we come to my point. Well, not now, but shortly. Having thought about this, I conclude that over this decade, I have shifted from mentally placing much emphasis on mysticism to placing very little on it. In that same time period, I have shifted from mentally placing little emphasis on futurism to placing much emphasis on it. I traded one for the other. It may be that there is no relationship between them and that it just so happens that as one fell, the other rose. It may be that my cognitive resources can only accommodate so much of anything and that my decrease in mysticism made room for an increase in futurism. It may be that these seemingly unrelated ideas both fill the same role, that I need or seem to need something to occupy the part of my mind mysticism and futurism have occupied, although they might not be the only things that do or could serve in this regard. I don't know, but I suspect that it's mostly a coincidence.
And here it is. The point. Despite all of this and the fact that everything I have thought of has convinced me that the view I have just described is reasonably accurate, it would not be readily apparent from reading my writing. And that is a startling revelation. No really, it is. I have maintained the Livejournal that this blog is replacing from 2004 to the present. There might be some hints, but nothing overt. And that is crazy. These things have been huge for me. My mysticism used to be perhaps the biggest thing occupying my thoughts and my views about the world. And it was that way for pretty much the first half of this decade (and before that, actually). Likewise, my futurism has been of extreme importance in shaping my perspective for the latter half of the decade. And that whole time, I have presented myself in a way that minimizes or trivializes the things that make me who I am. Not only have I built a facade: it was only yesterday that it dawned on me that I have done this. Why? Why would I do it? What is wrong with me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)