Live.the.Future's Space

Of what use is magical & fantastical thinking?

2006-08-11T01:49:00.000-05:00

[This is an answer I supplied to a question in Yahoo Answers. I thought it was good enough to stand on its own as a separate blog entry.]

The very notion of the supernatural is self-contradictory. If something is supernatural, then it is "beyond nature." But if it can interact with us, with material beings and things, then it must itself be material & natural, a part of our universe. The only alternative would be a god who was completely removed from our universe, never interacting with it. But in that case, its existence becomes a moot point.

Since the first cavemen heard spooky wind blowing and attributed it to spirits, humans have had a bad and annoying tendency to engage in magical thinking, particularly whenever something happened that they couldn't explain. This creates all sorts of problems, especially later on when we ARE able to explain stuff, but the previous mystical belief has solidified into a religious belief that is nearly impossible to dispell, even with tons of evidence against it.

Humans believe all sorts of weird and irrational things. Why? Because WE WANT TO. One of the unfortunate signs that we are still a primitive species is that we have a hard time accepting that our wishful thinking is indeed fantasy and not reality. In the TV show "The X-Files," Fox Mulder had this poster up in his office. It's a picture of a flying saucer with the caption, "I Want To Believe." That sentiment is one of our most self-destructive ideas, and has done more than just about any other idea to retard the process and the maturity of the human species.

Is it really such a cruel, unbearable world if it is completely naturalistic, with nothing supernatural? Does nature brook no wonders of its own? What benefit is there in believing in stuff with no foundation in reality, no evidence to support it, no chance of passing objective scientific scrutiny?

death

2006-08-01T12:13:00.000-05:00

Death sucks.

A couple weeks ago a friend of mine lost his father. The father had been admitted into a hospital for a medical emergency, and passed away while my friend was en route to there.

About a week ago I learned that the cancer my dad had been battling on and off for the past 15 years, was now terminal. He's got a year hopefully, maybe even two or three depending on the effectiveness of the treatments he's getting now, but he won't be recovering from this.

Then just yesterday, I lost an uncle (one of my mom's brothers). He had been in declining condition for a while now with heart problems, but his passing was still rather sudden.

Dammit. I need some Grim Reaper Repellent.

I don't believe in an afterlife. The whole concept never made much sense to me, except as a human invention as a primitive way to teach morals and also as a comforting way of dealing with the grief of death. Me, I find no comfort in this kind of wishful thinking. For the person who dies, death is the end. It is oblivion. It is no more thinking, feeling, remembering, or experiencing.

For those around the deceased, death is a phase transition. When a person is alive, they are in your past, present, and future. Your past as memories of that person, your present as interactions & experiences with that person, and your future as future plans & events with this person. When they die, they are no longer a part of your present or your future, only your past. You will never again have new meetings, events, talks, or experiences with this person. They are forever-more removed from our lives, residing only in the untouchable, unreachable past.

If I'm sounding a bit fatalistic or nihilistic right now, I don't mean to. If anything, death should be a reminder of just how precious our own lives are. We shouldn't squander it with petty worries, or making life unpleasant for others. (If only the politicians would take that to heart!) Life really is a great thing to experience, and the longer you can live, the better. As for myself, I'm hoping to live a nice long time--not so much because I fear death, but because I just love living. I don't want to miss a thing!

A solution for the Mexican election dispute--should also work for the U.S.!

2006-07-11T01:10:00.000-05:00

Mexico's contentious election has been fraught with allegations of voting irregularities & electoral fraud, and the race is so close that neither side is willing to concede defeat without a major legal battle. Whew, it's a good thing we Americans have never had to go through something like that!

Well, I've got a solution for Mexico that should also work for the US: have a poly-presidency. Everyone who votes for the conservative guy, gets ruled by the conservative guy. Everyone who votes for the liberal, gets ruled by the liberal guy. The only catch is, any laws passed by either president only apply to those who voted for him.

If we did that here, every conservative could have a Big Brother camera in every room of their house, and a warrentless tap on every phone (yes, even cell phones!). Each conservative family will have its very own personal gov't spook to monitor their financial transactions, their library records, their bedroom relations, make sure they're attending the "right" church (it's the one gov't will be endorsing), and also ensure that no conservative ever burns a flag, joins an Islamic terror cell (Christian ones are still OK though), or marries someone of the same gender.

Every liberal, in turn, will finally get their own full-fledged universal healthcare--paid for entirely by other liberals. They'll be able to see any doctor the gov't chooses, in as little as 6 months (4 months for critical emergencies). Additional taxes to pay for this new deal should be modest (by liberal standards), costing only about an additional 30 or 40% of your paycheck...assuming no one ever gets sick or injured. Liberals will also have their very own "living wage" rate, set at a nice, comfy $20/hour (about $6/hour after taxes & union dues). Those high taxes will be put to good use supporting the 25%+ of liberals who will become quickly unemployed by that same living wage. Finally, shopping at Wal-Mart and other Evil Capitalist Corporations® will be strictly prohibited, unless a liberal can show proof of residence in a trailer park.

Of course, democracy & politics aren't about choosing what system of gov't you want to live under; it's about choosing what system of gov't you want to force everyone ELSE to live under. A minor technicality, but one which I'm sure could be worked out.

George W. Bush: Worst President in History

2006-07-07T14:59:00.000-05:00

It's official, Dubya is the Emperor Nero of the U.S. So says Rolling Stone, a magazine I normally wouldn't consider for in-depth political commentary, but in this case they make a pretty good argument.

Proving that neocons have little in common with "traditional" conservatives, Bush has abandoned all semblance of fiscal responsibility and small gov't. He entered office with the biggest budget surplus in American history; he's turned it into the biggest deficit in our history.

If one needs further evidence that he is pissing away this country's future, consider this. Every president in the history of this country, thru and including Clinton, has borrowed a sum total of $1.01 trillion for gov't financing. Bush, to date, has borrowed a total of $1.05 trillion--more than all previous presidents combined. This is big, big money that will have to be repaid by all future generations. The yearly interest on it alone will have a noticeable dampening effect on our economy.

Bush fiddles while America burns--and to boot, he's the arsonist.

Good news on China

2006-07-07T12:47:00.000-05:00

Up-and-coming economic superpower China continues its evolution into a market-based economy and away from the stagnation of communism. The above article details two good pieces of news. First, China's move to a market economy is further along than we thought it was. Market reforms are also spreading from the eastern coastal areas inland and to the west.

Second, China's environmental conditions are improving, not degrading, with their increased market capitalism. Furthermore, the best environmental conditions are to be found in the areas with the most private enterprise.

This latter point is not all that surprising to those of us who know a thing or two about economics & environmentalism. It's been well-established for some time now, that the more capitalist a country is, the better its record on environmental issues like pollution. Conversely, the worst environmental degradation can be found in areas with the highest levels of state-owned enterprises.

This is true in the U.S.; the federal gov't creates about three times more pollution than all private industry combined. As the above article points out, it is also true in China; treated waste-water is highest in those areas with the most private industry, lowest in areas with the most state-owned industry. And it's true pretty much everywhere else in the world. The worst environments can be found in places like the former East Germany and former Soviet republics, while the cleanest can be found in the U.S., Japan, Canada, & western Europe.

The reasons for this are twofold. First, being environmentally clean is expensive, and non-capitalist societies often simply can't afford to run cleanly. For-profit, market-based economies have much more (albeit still limited) of a monetary cushion to absorb those extra costs. Second and perhaps more importantly is the issue of personal accountability. While private industries' pollution is constrained both by market forces and by environmental laws, state industries have neither of these constraints. As a function of the gov't they exercise sovereign immunity, meaning that any enviro laws passed simply do not apply to them. Also, as they are usually monopolies, they have no accountability to their customer base. Their customers have no ability to demand green products & manufacturing methods, since the state industry is the only supplier.

But, getting back to China, the above article is good news for all of us. A more economically developed China will be a boon to the world economy as a whole, as they will be demanding more and more products and services from abroad. Increased trade relations have always been good for peace as well; with both sides benefitting greatly from trade, neither will feel inclined to "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs" by starting some silly war.

While China still could use more improvement on the state of their environment, and their communist leaders are still trying to run the country with an iron fist in the civil liberties and human rights areas, overall they have progressed stupendously in the past few years. It was only about 3 decades ago that millions were starving to death under dictator Mao's retarded economic and agricultural fantasies. I think China's progression toward more economic freedom will continue; their current leaders know a good thing when they see it. This, in turn, will be a boon both to the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Why Bush is no friend of the free market

2006-06-23T12:56:00.000-05:00

...and why protectionist trade measures inevitably backfire, doing more harm than good. It's almost frightening to see how many billions of dollars and countless jobs America has lost because the president or some Congress-critter wants to buy a few more votes. To say nothing of the ongoing total destruction of any semblance of US credibility in the world.

The US gov't simply is not acting in the best interests of the country or people it rules over. What, then, are we to do about it?

Your family owes the gov't $510,678 (plus interest)

2006-06-22T15:57:00.000-05:00

Yep, that's what your household owes. You didn't think that all those social programs were free, did ya? That's your share of the $57,800,000,000,000 ($57.8 trillion) in unfunded obligations run up by our esteemed representatives in local, state, & federal gov't.

That amount has gone up about 20% just in the past couple years, and is increasing at the rate of about $25,000 per household, per year. How much does your household make?

As first reported in USA Today and covered in Liberator Online, here's what you're shelling out for:

Program..................................Liability per household

Medicare.................................$263,377
Social Security..........................$133,456
Federal debt.............................$42,538
Military retirement benefits.............$25,443
State-local debt.........................$16,395
Federal employee retirement benefits.....$14,256
State-local retirement benefits..........$13,257
Other federal............................$1,956

Total....................................$510,678 per household

Expect costs for Medicare & SS to balloon even more within the next 5 years as the Baby Boomer generation retires & gets cranky. Sheesh, this gives a whole new meaning to "Baby Boomer"!

This is, needless to say, unsustainable in the long term without some very drastic benefit cuts and/or tax hikes. If we move to a socialized medicine system, as seems at least somewhat likely the next time the Dems are in control, expect things to get that much worse, that much sooner.

We could, of course, cut most of our losses now, by privatizing SS and switching to medical savings accounts (MSA's). Unfortunately, that would require two things that Congress is sorely lacking in: brains and courage.

I was born in 1971, and if I continue to live a fairly healthy life and don't meet an untimely end, I might expect to possibly live to see the year 2050. While I eagerly look forward to the advances in science & technology that should happen in that time frame, I am beginning more and more to fear for the political and economic future of this country. As an optimist though, I have faith in human ingenuity, but we may still be facing much unnecessary pain and hardships in the coming decades. We'll see.

How far we've fallen....

2006-06-21T16:39:00.000-05:00

The brutality and war crimes being perpetrated by the U.S. military are reminiscent of Stalin's USSR, or Hitler's Germany. Anyone involved in these incidents needs to be punished, swiftly and very severely. And that includes command personnel.

One of the worst passages from the above link:

The worst incident that I was privy to was in late November. The prisoners were protesting nightly because of their living conditions. They protested the cold, the lack of clothing, the rotting food that was causing dysentery. And they wanted cigarettes. They tore up pieces of clothing, made banners and signs. One demonstration became intense and got unruly. The prisoners picked up stones, pieces of wood, and threw them at the guards. One of my buddies got hit in the face. He got a bloody nose. But he wasn’t hurt. The guards asked permission to use lethal force. They got it. They opened fire on the prisoners with the machine guns. They shot twelve and killed three. I know because I talked to the guy who did the killing. He showed me these grisly photographs, and he bragged about the results. “Oh,” he said, “I shot this guy in the face. See, his head is split open.” He talked like the Terminator. He shot this guy in the groin, he took three days to bleed to death.” I was shocked. This was the nicest guy you would ever want to meet. He was a family man, a really courteous guy, a devout Christian. I was stunned and said to him: “You shot an unarmed man behind barbed wire for throwing a stone.” He said, “Well, I knelt down. I said a prayer, stood up and gunned them all down.” There was a complete disconnect between what he had done and his own morality.

Come on, you unAmerican thugs posing as soldiers. The U.S. is better than this!!

Addendum: The Pentagon seems to be moving forward with plans to do away with Geneva Convention anti-torture provisions in the Army field manual. Link 1, link 2, link 3.

The Catholic Church as an economic monopoly

2006-06-16T15:19:00.000-05:00

Here is an interesting page which reviews an article comparing the Reformation and Counter-Reformation to economic moves by a new firm trying to break into a monopoly market. There are quite a few things in life that can be viewed in fresh terms from an economic perspective. A religious movement, though, is not typically seen in that light. (Other than perhaps taking a look at televangelists and their fortunes....)

The problem with gov't-funded science

2006-06-14T16:33:00.000-05:00

One of the complaints against leaving science to "the market" is the unreliability of funding, depending on the health of the market or the whims of those who control the purse strings. Another is that privately-funded science funds might be squandered on pet projects, or science that only benefits a select few (i.e. the company that develops it & brings it to market).

Those arguments are, however, mostly meaningless when it becomes apparent that the alternative, gov't-funded science, is at least as bad in those respects. At least privately-funded research can lead to new services or products that are of use to society. One could argue that basic (as opposed to applied) research is also of benefit to society, and perhaps there is a case to be made for gov't funding of basic research.

But with gov't-funded science, as with gov't-funded anything, the purse strings are controlled by Congress, a greedy, demagogic, self-interested, irrational body that acts like a 5-year-old in a candy store with unlimited money. As such, it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one that the funding priorities of Congress might not match up with those of actual scientists & engineers.

Or so you'd think, but apparently it did come as something of a surprise for NASA's top management, who with much wailing and gnashing of teeth are now complaining bitterly to Congress that they must now cut funds on their pet projects to fund Congress'.

While I support much of the genuine science & engineering that NASA does, they need to do a better job of budgeting to account for the inevitable changes in the political wind. They also should do a better job of prioritizing their commitments, keeping in mind that there will always be additional demands being made by their kid-in-a-candy-store overlords.

The xtian right, in a nutshell

2006-06-13T12:54:00.000-05:00

The above link is one of the most succinct summaries of what exactly the Xtian Right is, and what they stand for. Or more precisely, what they stand against. The above article is good because it is a statement of facts, not a teeth-gnashing ad hominem. Give it a read and let me know what you think of it.

How to deal with lawyers

2006-06-13T12:22:00.000-05:00

While I normally frown upon the gov't treating adults like children, here's a judge whom I'll let get away with it, at least in this case. The case involves two bickering lawyers who can't seem to agree on even the most trivial matters. So how did the judge resolve it? Good ol'-fashioned rock-paper-scissors.

Granted, it's not as good as the method sometimes used a couple centuries ago--namely, a gun duel. But they are lawyers, so you have to treat them appropriately.

One small victory for good and freedom:Gay marriage Constitutional amendment defeated

2006-06-07T12:54:00.000-05:00

In a highly unusual instance of doing the right thing, the Senate defeated passage of a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. While I am not gay myself, I have at least two big reasons for being opposed to a gay-marriage ban.

First, while my marriage is heterosexual, it is also interracial. One thing that has been very obvious to me about the gay marriage debate is that the same arguments used in opposition to it are virtually identical to the arguments used in opposition to interracial marriage 40-50 years ago. I suspect that similar arguments were also made against interfaith and interethnic marriages in the more distant past.

The second reason is that this is simply the right thing to do. The bible-thumpers and religious homophobes may disagree (and may not like being called homophobes, but that's exactly what people with those beliefs are), but their sense of good has been overriden by religious dogma--dogma which states ever so emphatically that it is good, that it has a monopoly on morality and defining what's good. But actions always speak louder than words, and the actions of those working to ban gay marriage are screaming with venom, "I hate you!"

Our Constitution was always intended to be a document which protects the rights of the individual while limiting the power of the state. Most of the amendments to it have been to further those goals, with the notable exceptions of Prohibition and the income tax. The former was later repealed, and well, we can see the results of the latter. A Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would be another step in the wrong direction. It would be saying that all Americans are not equal and do not enjoy the same fundamental liberties as others. It would say that a majority sees fit to restrict the freedoms of a minority because they find that minority's actions personally distasteful, even though those actions do no harm to others.

Had this atrocious piece of crap actually passed and become part of our Constitution, do you really think that those who favored its passage would stop there? I don't. Why wouldn't they then want to go on and ban other forms of marriage that they found to be against their personal religious beliefs? Interracial marriages were illegal once, and the reasons cited were the same; why wouldn't these same people push to outlaw it once again? Why not outlaw civil marriages, too? In one stroke, that would eliminate both interfaith marriages, and marriages by anyone who's not religious. Outrageous, you claim? Now, yes. But once the country has acclimated to a ban on one form of marriage, it will be ready for others. And future bans will be much easier, once the precedents have been set.

Repubs and the religious right need to get the hell out of America's bedrooms, and stay out. How consenting adults live and love, is none of their business.

Addendum: This blogger has a funny--and scary--post about what marriage laws would be like if such laws strictly conformed to biblical standards. Yikes!

Happy Devil's Day!

2006-06-06T12:47:00.005-05:00

Feeling a bit fiendish today? Maybe it's because today is Devil's Day--a once-a-century occurence. Today's date, 6/6/6, is the "number of the beast".

Of course, for those of us who choose to live rational lives and regard stuff like this as superstitious nonsense, today is just another day like all the others. I think even many xtians would attach little or no significance to this date. There are, though, some highly superstitious types out there, especially of a more fundamentalist bent, who may regard this date with ominous foreboding. These are probably many of the same people who thought the world was going to end at the turn of the millenium (because don'tcha know, god likes nice round numbers to end worlds on), and who forbid their kids from trick-or-treating because they think Halloween is a satanic holiday.

On the chance that you actually know any such people, give them a devilish grin and be sure to wish them a happy Devil's Day.

Addendum: Look out, Satan has taken over Blogspot! While trying to publish this, I got numerous "connection reset" browser errors, as well as several Blogspot "sorry for the inconvenience" errors. When I finally succeeded, there were six copies of this post. I deleted five of them. I've gotten numerous more errors just trying to edit this post to add this addendum, and this addendum mysteriously disappeared once....

Innocent? Prove it!

2006-06-01T15:19:00.000-05:00

Our airports have, for several years now, been miniature police states, in nearly every sense of the word. One of the hallmarks of a police state is that innocent people are accused of heinous crimes for arbitrary (or no) reasons, using secret evidence (i.e. hearsay) that can not be challenged. As a result, in a reversal of our once-honored "innocent until proven guilty," hapless victims of the Securitate (aka Homeland Security) are presumed guilty, and must prove their innocence. Which, even worse, may still not let them off the hook.

The above article is yet another example of what happens when "national security" is allowed to trump pesky Constitutional concepts such as due process.

What's the difference between a conservative & libertarian?

2006-06-01T14:27:00.000-05:00

It's probably true, though some libertarians feel uneasy admitting it, that among libertarians, there are a bit more former conservatives than former liberals. It's probably easier for a Repub to warm up to cultural liberalism than it is for a Dem to accept free-market economics. Plus, the GOP probably is a bit more egregious at violating their claim of being pro-free market than the Dems are at violating their claim of being pro-civil liberties. So, among those libertarians who were formerly of a different political persuasion, a majority probably come from the conservative side.

Because of libertarians' support for free-market economics, liberals often have a hard time distinguishing between the two. This damning piece should highlight some of the differences.

some ideas for possible LP/libertarian commercials: #1

2006-06-01T12:14:00.000-05:00

This is the first of several occasional ideas for commercials or advertisements for my party of choice, the Libertarian Party. This first one would build on the Advocates' "Operation Politically Homeless" theme. In its entirety it's about 2:45, a bit long for a single commercial, but perhaps it could be shortened or broken into smaller parts.

Middle-aged guy: "For years I've voted Republican. I have strong concerns about the economy, and it's proven knowledge that a gently-regulated free market is the best way to go. I had thought that Republicans also supported the free market. But even with a Republican president and Congress, federal spending has gone through the roof. There's more pork than ever! This is wasteful spending that our kids, and their kids, will be paying for long after we're gone. And corporate cronyism? That's not a part of capitalism!"
20-something guy: "Any way you look at it, the war on drugs is a failure, and has been since its creation. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars on feel-good, 'tough-on-crime' laws that only make the bad effects of drug use worse, while shredding the Constitutional rights of everyday citizens. Support for the drug war I expected from Republicans, but I thought the Democrats would stick up for protecting our rights and for compassionate, sane legislation. Unfortunately, they seem to think it's more important to pander for votes than to stick up for principles."
Black guy: "I grew up in the inner city. All my life I watched businesses flee my neighborhood, leaving unemployment, higher crime, and dependency on welfare in their wake. So I decided to do something about it. I opened up my own business. Then, I found out why the businesses were leaving: political corruption, outrageous taxes, and so much red tape you couldn't hardly run a business. All the while, the same Democratic politicians who created this mess keep preaching about how they support the little guy. It's hypocrisy!"
Woman: "As a practicing member of a minority religion, I always thought I should be voting Republican, because they're the party that's supposed to be concerned with religious liberty. Instead, they've been all but taken over by far-right religious extremists, who want to impose their specific brand of religious belief on the rest of the country, to the exclusion of any others. Their idea of religious liberty just means they want the right to force their particular religion down everyone else's throat!"
Announcer: "Tens of millions of Americans have grown jaded and disillusioned with the two major parties. Tired of corruption, weary of pork-barrel spending, and wanting a party that still stands for something, they find themselves politically homeless. To those Americans, we want you to know that there is a place for you. There's a party that supports both a free economy, and the civil liberties that are our nation's most defining and successful traits. A party that supports and will stick to the principles of freedom--freedom of commerce, and of self. Come home to a party you can feel good about again. We're America's third largest party, and first in principles. Come home, to the Libertarian Party."

Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism

2006-05-30T12:12:00.000-05:00

I finished “Atlas Shrugged” a couple weeks ago and was fairly impressed with it. I have mixed feelings on Objectivism. On the one hand, some of its ideas I find quite attractive, and many of the complaints against it strike me as being sour grapes by people who have decided a priori that they didn’t like Rand because of her political, economic and/or atheistic views.

At the same time, I would not call myself an Objectivist. Their dismissal of altruism, while not meritless, goes overboard I believe, and their idolatry of Saint Rand is just too cultish for me. “Randroids” also have an annoying belief that because they use rationality, then everything they do, say, decide, and believe is not only correct, but is the only correct way. Objectivists I’ve met don’t seem too keen on the concept that two perfectly rational people can still disagree.

One of the things I do find appealing about Objectivism is also one of its most misunderstood aspects. Its appeal to the concept of the Nietzschean “superman” is something I find very empowering. Despite Rand’s frequent division of people into either “supermen” or oblivious “sheeple”, I think her concept of the superman was meant as an inspiration rather than as a class division. While the Nazis used the concept as a divider to proclaim their own superiority, the superman concept in Rand’s literature seems more like a challenge to the reader to do more, think more, be more than they are now. To be in control of your own destiny. And not be bogged down by artificial, meaningless limits placed upon us by society, culture, tradition, religion, or other institutions which impress conformity upon its members.

King George II

2006-05-24T14:17:00.000-05:00

(Alternate link to Advocates coverage of this story is here.)

What do you call the ruler of a country who considers himself to be above the law, able to ignore it whenever it inconveniences him? Conceited, arrogant, and dangerous are some terms. Dictator would be another. If that ruler also thinks his rule comes from divine mandate, then perhaps king might be the most accurate.

The articles linked to above and in the title detail a dangerous new expansion of presidential powers, to the point where Bush has decided that legislative and judicial checks and balances do not apply to him. I've long held that all presidents are more or less roughly equal in political corruptness and incompetence. Bush, however, seems to be setting himself quite apart from previous presidents who, despite their politicking and demagoguery, nevertheless seemed to understand the importance of having a balance of power between the 3 branches of gov't.

The gist of the above articles, is that Bush has been attaching hundreds (750+) of "signing statements" to bills he signs, essentially saying that he retains the right (what right?) to ignore any such law as he sees fit. Gee, can we do that too? Signing a bill into law, and then attaching a signing statement to it, is exactly analogous to a little kid who says "I promise" while keeping his fingers crossed behind his back.

This in itself is a pretty serious thing for a president to do, but the exact types of bills Bush has been doing this with should be a real cause for alarm. Some bills that Bush feels he needn't comply with include:

military rules & regulations, such as how military prisons are operated (secret & otherwise)
protections for nuclear safety whistleblowers
requirements that he inform Congress on immigration service problems
requirements that he inform Congress on how he's putting the Patriot Act to use
requirements that he inform Congress on funding secret military operations
Congressional oversight of presidential actions
a ban on military combat engagement in Colombia
bans against the use of torture
bans against the use of information collected illegally in direct violation of the 4th Amendment

I've remarked previously that many Republicans seem to regard the Constitution as a nuisance, something nice to hold over other nations' heads but otherwise just an impediment to "tough on crime" policies. Bush seems to hold this view quite literally.

The next presidential election is going to be a mess. The Repubs will pick a candidate who is as close to Bush's policies as possible. The Dems, in turn, will not feel obligated to choose a truly qualified candidate either; their slogan will be, "Even a garden slug would make a better president than Bush." Which is probably just what they'll pick as a candidate.

I fear that the next president, Dem or Repub, instead of reversing all the damage that Bush is doing, will decide that they feel just fine with the level of expanded presidential power that Bush has left them. That, I think, is one of the worst parts of all this. The effects of bad presidents don't go away when they leave office; the policy changes, expansions of power, new bills & programs, & new practices have a bad habit of sticking around many years or decades into the future. As a president, Bush will most certainly leave quite a legacy; it's just too bad that the results of that legacy may prove disastrous for this country.

Does working six jobs qualify me as a workaholic?

2006-05-19T16:14:00.000-05:00

Yes, I'm actually holding six jobs right now--sort of. I work for a local ISP from about 11am to 5pm each day. Been doing that for a couple months now.

In the mornings, and if needed right after I get off at 5pm from that ISP job, I also work for a second local ISP. Pretty much the same work--troubleshoots, installs, & handling customers. The two companies were in merger talks at one time, I don't know if that's still on or not.

Job #3 I work from 6-10pm. I score state exams for 5th- & 6th-grade math. Although occasionally entertaining, this job is mostly mind-numbing. It's also given me a real appreciation for just how badly our public schools are utterly failing to do their job--either that, or lead pipes are back in style.

The fourth job is a recent weekend gig. A friend of mine runs an ISP up in northwestern Indiana, and I've been helping him do wireless site surveys, installs, and network infrastructure maintenance & repairs. Some of that work I've been doing for him pro bono, in part because we've been friends since about 5th grade (about 25 years), and partly because it's a real educational opportunity for me.

Then there's some editorial work I'm doing for a local publishing house. It's freelance work, and I can do it in my spare time. My wife actually signed me up for that job, she was working there for some time and now also freelances for them.

My sixth job is with a consulting/temp agency. They get me the occasional one-shot gig doing PC/server deployments, site inventories, POS rollouts, and such. They're one of the many I.T.-oriented temp agencies you can find out there. My work with them isn't very regular, but it gives me a few extra bucks every now and then, plus some more resume-padding.

I'll tell ya, I'm hoping I don't get burned out. The good thing about being as busy as I am, though, is that you don't have time to get burned out. :-) Also, the variety of work I do keeps things from getting too monotonous. There are downsides, of course. I miss sleeping in, I'd like more time to spend with my wife, I'm still not making as much money as I would be with a single good career, and my Tivo's getting piled up with a backlog of programs. But, my current work status certainly isn't going to be permanent. I have some possibilities on the horizon for full-time work at either yet another local ISP (which in turn is also looking to partner with one of the ISP's I currently work for), my friend's ISP up in NW IN, or possibly as a network tech at the local university. It will probably be next month at least before I know anything definite about any of those, though.

What a busy life I'm leading! I'm not feeling any self-pity though; I don't like that emotion in others, and I like it even less in myself. Self-pity is a very disempowering emotion...but that's a subject for a future blog entry. It's almost 5pm as I write this now, and I've got 4 more hours of work plus a two-hour drive ahead of me!

FCC attacks 1st Amendment again, gets laughed out of court

2006-05-16T12:57:00.000-05:00

Finally, a judge with some sense! In yet another grab for power by the FCC at the expense of our freedoms, the FCC this time is trying to force colleges, at huge expense, to make Internet communications more "friendly" to wiretaps. Problem is, there's nothing authorizing them to do so. U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards ridiculed them for this, saying, "Your argument makes no sense. When you go back to the office, have a big chuckle. I'm not missing this. This is ridiculous. Counsel!"

The FCC, among many other federal agencies, is in desperate need of many more such bitch-slappings. It's good to see there are still friends of freedom in the judiciary.

morning energy drink recipe

2006-05-03T14:47:00.000-05:00

This is the first--and possibly only--recipe you'll see on my blog. It's something I came up with on my own. I make this on most mornings to down my vitamins with. Not as nutritious as a fruit smoothie, but it's fast to make, cheap, and you don't need to use (or clean) a blender.

1-Minute, No-Mess Orange-Strawberry Morning Energy Drink

A tall glass of milk, filled to a bit less than an inch from the top
A heaping spoonful of orange-flavored, smooth-texture Metamucil (or store brand) fiber
A good squirt (about 2 tbsp.) of Strawberry Nesquik syrup

Use a spoon to measure the orange-flavored fiber into the glass of milk, and stir it in. Then add some strawberry syrup drink mix and stir. That's it!

OK, so both the orange and strawberry flavors are artificial. Big deal. The point of this recipe is that you don't have to mess with cutting up fruit, blending it in a blender, then washing out the blender. If that's your thing, fine. This is a quick substitute that will give you a quick dose of sugar for now plus fiber and protein for energy later. For those who don't usually eat breakfast, this drink will also postpone that pre-lunch hunger.

I highly recommend the fiber be of the smooth-texture variety, as that stirs in much easier. Similarly, I don't recommend using Strawberry Quik powder, since with the fiber powder it will not mix very well and may settle out in chunks quickly. (Quik-ly?) This recipe if followed should still be drunk soon after you make it, as any fiber powder has a tendency to settle out regardless. That's why I use the smooth-texture fiber and liquid syrup.

Bottoms up, and enjoy!

"America, Right or Wrong"

2006-05-02T14:13:00.000-05:00

This book review is one of the best descriptors I've read of the "American attitude" or, as the reviewed book calls it, the "American Creed." This might be described as "a civil nationalism that promotes values like democracy, liberty, law, egalitarianism, and individualism." While generally perceived by Americans and non-Americans alike as a good thing (and as an "American thing"), these can also have their negative consequences, particularly in the area of foreign relations, when pride in these attributes morphs into a messianic or superiority complex which in turn leads to imperialism and/or nationalistic arrogance. But read the review and you'll see what I mean. Time permitting (har har) I may even try to read the book itself.

As something of an anti-nationalist, I don't particularly care for the phrase "America, right or wrong." The "...or wrong" part is just, well, wrong. Those who agree with this phrase are essentially putting blind faith in the American ideal ahead of recognizing any faults this country has and doing something about them. There is nothing wrong with having faith in the American ideal, just in having blind or unconditional faith. One should not turn a blind eye to America's faults, but should instead strive to correct them. "Germany, right or wrong" was a popular sentiment during the first half of the 20th century among Germans, and we can see how well that turned out.

Neocons nowadays similarly seem to live by the motto, "Bush, right or wrong." They are apologists for Bush, no matter what he does, even when his actions go against what more traditional, "old-style" conservatives believe in. (Bush is certainly no friend of minimal gov't or laissez-faire economics.) They feel a loyalty to him and his administration that seems to transcend (or transgress) rationality, consistency, or principles. They excuse and justify his actions rather than protesting when his actions go badly or go against core conservative beliefs. (Which is not to imply that the Democratic party is any better at sticking to their principles.)

No country, belief, or idea is ever made better by ignoring or covering up its faults. Indeed, one of the great strengths of free speech and democracy are that we can speak out against wrongs, and hopefully take action to correct them. The Soviet Union imploded because wrongs in its economy and in its actions and behaviors were excused and covered up until their cumulative effects caused the collapse of the country. China, on the other hand is experiencing rapid economic growth now that they've embraced capitalism and foreign investment (in practice, even if the Old Guard keeps spouting its communist slogans).

The bottom line is that wrongs should be and need to be corrected. To excuse, attempt to justify, or cover them up is not only a perpetuation of wrongness, but ultimately self-destructive.

Capitalism, atheism, and the meaning of life

2006-04-27T16:21:00.000-05:00

"Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor. Seizing the results of someone's labor is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities." -- Robert Nozick, Harvard philosopher

What do the three items in the title have to do with each other? The above quote is a hint.

The quote from Nozick sums up a common libertarian and capitalist sentiment, and is itself a somewhat radical, but also concrete, concept. It boils down to this: taxation is functionally equivalent to slavery. Do you disagree? Think about it. What is slavery, but one human forced to turn over his life's efforts and the fruits of his labor to another, against his will and under threat of severe punishment? The slave at best owns only part of his life. When he works for his master, the meaning and purpose of his life are subjugated to that of his master's. Taxation is simply another form of slavery. How much of your taxes--income, property, sales, etc. etc. etc.--would you pay if they were 100% optional? Like today, you still wouldn't get to choose how they were spent, just how much you would give. And indeed, much of your taxes would be squandered on pork and other spending you would not agree with. You are, in short, giving up your life's time and labor involuntarily to others for uses that neither benefit you nor are agreeable to you. You may partially benefit from some of the taxes collected, but black slaves also "benefitted" by receiving food and shelter. That certainly doesn't mean slavery was good for them though, because they lacked the freedom to control their own destiny, to create their own meaning and purpose in life. Similarly, taxation means the meaning and purpose of a part of your life are no longer yours to control--no longer your own.

What does this have to do with atheism? Many theists believe (see article linked to in title) that meaning and purpose in life are determined by, or handed down from, god. That we are all a part of "god's plan." Many of these same theists find it hard to imagine how an atheist can have any meaning in their life. "If you don't believe in god or an afterlife, then what's the purpose of living? Why don't you just kill yourself now, since in another 100 years it won't matter anyway?" I have actually been asked that, though I'm paraphrasing. My response, is that meaning and purpose in life are something we each need to create for ourselves. We have to. To have meaning and purpose handed to us from an external source, be it from god or gov't, means that it is not truly our own. Indeed, our lives cannot have true meaning or purpose unless we create it ourselves.

Religious theists, many of whom claim to be of a capitalist bent, should take a lesson from free-market economics. The law of supply & demand states that a finite good is more valuable than an infinite good. Life is like that too. How valuable would--could--life really be, if we knew for a fact that there was an eternal afterlife afterwards? Eternity, it's been said, is a really, really long time. Any finite lifespan is infinitessimal and worthless by comparison; if you had an infinite amount of money, what value would there be in picking up a dollar off the street? What value would a few decades of flesh-and-blood life have compared to an infinitely-long afterlife? Contrary to theist thinking, life is all the more precious when you know that this life is all you have.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to be more individualistic and/or irreligous than conservatives, but many liberal economic policies seem to either ignore or flat-out oppose the laws of supply & demand. They also tend to support many programs requiring high levels of taxation. So there's a bit of learning to be done at the opposite end of the political spectrum as well. How much of our lives and destinies are truly our own when taxation takes nearly half our earnings?

This life is the only one we get, though even if you don't believe that, it's still wise to behave as if you did. We can achieve maximum happiness in life only with the maximum liberty to find and pursue that happiness. Intellectual liberty, civil liberty, and economic liberty. In the end, all three of those are the same. Only within the framework of liberty can we create a meaning and purpose for our lives which is truly our own.

Goodbye Millenium, Hello XP

2006-04-26T15:58:00.000-05:00

Today I moved up in the world of computers. Gone now are the days of running an obsolete operating system, now I'm running a merely soon-to-be-obsolete OS.

I bought Windows Millenium (ME) not long after its release, and have been running it on my computer continuously until just earlier today, when I finally upgraded to XP Home Edition. Despite the shocked looks of horror whenever I tell someone I was running ME on my computer, it's served me well these past 6 years or so. True, it can be unstable at times, but on my computer at least it was unstable in a fairly predictable way. I leave my computer on 24/7, and I averaged maybe a bit over one reboot a week. It helped that I have a gig of RAM in my computer, seldom install new programs (and I uninstall them if they seem to make the system unstable), and also make liberal use of the "winmgmt.exe /kill" command. Winmgmt seems to be a primary cause of memory leaks, and when the system starts acting funny and I do a cntl-alt-del it's often found there. Winmgmt /kill will often restore stability to my system.

I stuck with ME because it worked for me. It was stable enough, ran the programs I used, and didn't consume gobs of RAM or hard drive space. Also, I run a lot of older programs on my computer (mostly games from the early 90's), and I was concerned about compatibility should I upgrade to XP.

As far as network security is concerned, ME is not as advanced as XP, but I keep Windows updated, my computer clean of malware, and I'm behind a NAT firewall. When XP first came out, it was touted as more secure but soon was revealed to be a security swiss-cheese. The Blaster worm and others caused much grief for the ISP I work for, not to mention all the poor souls whose computers got infected sometimes just seconds after going online. So that was another reason to stick with ME.

XP has definitely improved over the years in security, but still I found no real reason to upgrade. But over time, the obsoleteness of ME started to sink in. More and more programs nowadays are XP-only. I also wondered if having an OS built on the more stable 2000 platform might improve my computer's stability even more. So early in 2006 I figured OK, maybe it's time to upgrade to XP, but not if I have to pay full price for it. So I watched for it to go on sale.

A couple times this year it did, but as luck would have it, both those times coincided with some financial stress, so I missed out. Finally though, this week Best Buy put it on sale for $60, with--get this--no mail-in rebates. That's the price you pay at the register! So I finally sprang for XP and got it.

After being sure to back up my important files, I installed it on my computer this morning. The upgrade took a bit over an hour, with about another hour of tweaking it to my preferences, and downloading & installing all the current updates. (Over 50! And 50+ MB, excluding .NET which is another 22MB or so. The install CD was SP2.) I really haven't had a chance to twiddle with it and really check it out, as I had to go to work. When I finish up my third job today at 10pm (yes, I work 3 jobs!), I'm looking forward to converting one or both of my drives from FAT32 to NTFS, and also doing test-runs on my most commonly-run programs to see how they run under XP. A few programs I'll probably uninstall if there's a newer, XP-specific version I can replace them with. (E.g. Adobe Acrobat Reader.)

From the (very) short amount of time I used the new OS this morning, it seems stable, and I'm actually somewhat surprised that the upgrade process went error-free. Still, there are a few, albeit minor disappointments already. First, the Home edition I got does not support NTFS file encryption. That's partly my fault, as I didn't want to splurge to get XP Professional. Second, despite the repeated claim during the setup process, XP doesn't seem to load any faster than ME on my computer, though it doesn't seem much slower either.

My biggest disappointment so far though is its stupendous hard drive requirements. My C: drive used 4.35GB under ME; it now uses nearly 9GB. Where did those 4+ GB go? The package says XP only needs 1.5GB of hard drive space, and the updates, even uncompressed, couldn't be more than 100-200MB more. My C: drive is only 10GB big, so that's a major chunk of it that's gone. Similarly, my D: drive, which used 49 of 60GB under ME, now uses 57GB, an 8GB increase. And Windows is on my C: drive! WTF did it do to take up 8GB extra on my D: drive? I turned off the paging/swap file, so it can't be that. Maybe when I convert to NTFS I'll regain some or all of that, but still, that's a big annoyance.

Well I guess I'll see how XP works out. Hopefully for the better. Windows Vista will be released sometime early next year it looks like. Vista is something that actually looks pretty darned good for a Microsoft product; it may just be their first true "OS done right." Still, I think I may wait at least until they release SP1 for it before upgrading from XP, or better yet, wait a few more years until I can get it on sale for $60. :-)