I know a fair number of people who like to think of themselves as being against political parties. These are the kind of people who will consider both Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann to be just partisan hacks, who will say that "both sides" are frequently and/or systemically dishonest, and that the true reasonable solution to most or all problems lies between the "extreme left" and the "extreme right." Ironically, though, I think these are some of the people who most allow the political parties to define their thinking, and here's why.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Quasi-Liveblog
This isn't really a liveblog, since I'm not updating it continuously, but it's just a series of reactions, mainly to idiotic things Republican Congressmen say:
1. These Republicans are funny when they're about to lose. I don't think they're acting differently from usual, but when they're going to lose I can let myself find their antics entertaining.
2. Floor action, hot as it sounds, is pointless and meaningless. When's the last time a Congressman changed their mind during this kind of faux-debate? The only worthwhile part is when they get rowdy, at which point it's just good fun.
3. The government's power is the people's power. That's why they call it a democracy.
4. Yes, the idea that "Washington knows better than the American people" is part of a notion that the bill ought be passed even if the populace narrowly opposes it, or even if they did overwhelmingly oppose it (which they don't). But actually, you know, that idea was one that almost every Founding Father endorsed overwhelmingly: that's why we are a "constitutional republic," as Texas now says, rather than a direct democracy. And, of course, We the People don't particularly oppose it; several recent polls show the very bill at net-popular status.
5. Somebody said that money would be taken from students to pay for health-care reform. Uhhhhmmmmmmm, let me see, of the $68 billion in student-loan savings, $9 billion will be used to pay for HCR. So $59 billion goes to Pell Grants etc. Right. Horrible deal for students. Especially since the bill also lets us students stay on our parents' insurance until the age of 27. (It's actually a bum deal for student-loan corporations, which is pretty epic.)
6. Republicans are literally booing on the House floor. Loudly. They'd be thrown out of any golf tournament for that kind of behavior.
7. If we're so socialist, how would you like it if we did something actually socialist? Theoretically, if it wanted to, the Democratic Party could've whipped up legislation last year to institute genuine national single-payer sometime this year and passed it all by ourselves. That would've been partisan socialism. That isn't what we did.
8. lol @ the guy who, denouncing partisanship, said he had never operated on a "Republican or a Democrat cancer." non-partisan FAIL.
9. Thirty-seven states are proposing legislation to "opt out" of the Obama health-care legislation if it passes. Let me know how many of those bills pass. Also, isn't this kind of like the idea of nullification? I think I remember something about a war on the issue of nullification. Which side won that again?
10. All these people bloviating about how "we're not listening to the American people" are on really shaky factual grounds. Almost every component of the bill polls above 60%, consistently. The bill itself is around a -5% net disadvantage: that's a very narrow margin. Essentially as many people want the bill as don't want it, and vastly more people want what's in the bill than don't. So stop acting all populist. And we'll see in November whether you're right about our forthcoming electoral massacre.
11. Eric Cantor: "We believe that Americans who deeply oppose shouldn't have to pay for it." Hmmmm, why is it that this logic applies for abortion but not for the death penalty or for wars? Can I say I don't want to pay for capital punishment? Or for bombing Pakistani civilians? No? Then why, exactly, do you get to say you don't want to pay for a literally constitutionally-protected procedure?
12. The most prosperous country in the history of the world? These people make ambitious claims. According to one ranking, our current standard of living in this country is the 7th-highest in the world, behind France (France! France is literally number one on this list!), Australia, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand, and Luxembourg. France is kicking our ass, at fucking prosperity!!!!!!!! And a WSJ/Heritage Foundation study puts the US at 5th in Economic Freedom, behind Hong Kong (dirty commies!), Singapore, Ireland, and Australia. And they're wicked conservative.
13. These people are just raising stupid, dilatory points to mess stuff up. Grow up, people. And yes, I would tell the Democrats to grow up if they were in the same position and acting the same way. It's pointless and stupid.
14. You know why the bill doesn't adequately address the rising health-care premiums, Republicans? Because you, and Democrats close to you on the ideological spectrum, would object to the kinds of things that would definitely do that. Like a public option. Or single-payer.
15. Somebody said, earlier, "We could reform health care without setting the groundwork for a move to socialized medicine." Yes, we could, but it would be such a pity.
16. Rob Andrews, D-NJ, whom I believe I may have once proudly voted against, or at least rooted strongly against prior to my 18th birthday, is making a good point. What kind of country are we? Well, we should be a country that guarantees basic health to all our citizens, that's what. It's called common kindness, and it's actually a very convincing moral philosophy.
17. Circular logic: "The bill should be bipartisan. We, the minority party, are deciding to oppose it. Therefore it is not bipartisan, and is therefore bad, and we are therefore opposing it."
18. Criticizing the bill because we're passing first a Senate bill that no one much likes and then amending it immediately, and that therefore we're "passing a bill we all know is flawed," is stupid and simplistic.
19. It is impossible to have gravitas with a name like Boehner. And evidently if you are John Boehner, it is also impossible to have charisma. Or at least it doesn't happen empirically speaking.
20. Burden every job creator in our land? Hmmmmm, isn't the employer-based system kind of doing that? So you would support single-payer, taking the burden off of small businesses, Mr. Boehner? Oh, what's that? You wouldn't support that? Why am I not surprised?
21. Since when is simply saying things that are not true a valid arguing style?
22. Wait, fail. Boehner just said "Have you read the bill? Have you read the reconciliation bill? Have you read the manager's amendment?" and the gallery kept calling out, "YES! YES!". Then Boehner was like, "Hell no you haven't!" Good job, leader of the Silly Party.
23. Speaking of which, fuck John Boehner, I'm watching Python. Also, the Republican Party is henceforth the Silly Party, and the Tea Partiers are, of course, the Very Silly Party. (Python literally has a Wood Party at one point. Seriously.)
24. Pelosi. That's more like it. She's not exactly being the most rousing of speakers, but whatever. We're gonna win. And the rhetoric itself is good, though obviously not going to move a single vote. On the other hand, she's clearly pissed about the "being a woman is a pre-existing condition" thing. As she should be. Sexist bastard insurance companies.
25. Addendum to the earlier point about bipartisanship: if there are really 200 GOP amendments in the bill, then to every Republican who complains about the partisanship: shut the fuck up. Feel free to vote against the bill, although it's still kind of a dick move to amend the bill and then vote against it, but don't complain about having been shut out of the process.
26. Aaaand, here's the vote. Debate's being over, I think I'm probably done having things to say. Obama gets a lot of Accomplishment Points for this. Pelosi jumps way the fuck up my list of Best Speakers Ever; give her another decade of controlling the House and she'll be up there with Rayburn and O'Neill. Agree with Nate Silver that she deserves Person of the Year from Time Magazine. And I don't think Republicans really believe that this passage will hurt the Democrats in November.
1. These Republicans are funny when they're about to lose. I don't think they're acting differently from usual, but when they're going to lose I can let myself find their antics entertaining.
2. Floor action, hot as it sounds, is pointless and meaningless. When's the last time a Congressman changed their mind during this kind of faux-debate? The only worthwhile part is when they get rowdy, at which point it's just good fun.
3. The government's power is the people's power. That's why they call it a democracy.
4. Yes, the idea that "Washington knows better than the American people" is part of a notion that the bill ought be passed even if the populace narrowly opposes it, or even if they did overwhelmingly oppose it (which they don't). But actually, you know, that idea was one that almost every Founding Father endorsed overwhelmingly: that's why we are a "constitutional republic," as Texas now says, rather than a direct democracy. And, of course, We the People don't particularly oppose it; several recent polls show the very bill at net-popular status.
5. Somebody said that money would be taken from students to pay for health-care reform. Uhhhhmmmmmmm, let me see, of the $68 billion in student-loan savings, $9 billion will be used to pay for HCR. So $59 billion goes to Pell Grants etc. Right. Horrible deal for students. Especially since the bill also lets us students stay on our parents' insurance until the age of 27. (It's actually a bum deal for student-loan corporations, which is pretty epic.)
6. Republicans are literally booing on the House floor. Loudly. They'd be thrown out of any golf tournament for that kind of behavior.
7. If we're so socialist, how would you like it if we did something actually socialist? Theoretically, if it wanted to, the Democratic Party could've whipped up legislation last year to institute genuine national single-payer sometime this year and passed it all by ourselves. That would've been partisan socialism. That isn't what we did.
8. lol @ the guy who, denouncing partisanship, said he had never operated on a "Republican or a Democrat cancer." non-partisan FAIL.
9. Thirty-seven states are proposing legislation to "opt out" of the Obama health-care legislation if it passes. Let me know how many of those bills pass. Also, isn't this kind of like the idea of nullification? I think I remember something about a war on the issue of nullification. Which side won that again?
10. All these people bloviating about how "we're not listening to the American people" are on really shaky factual grounds. Almost every component of the bill polls above 60%, consistently. The bill itself is around a -5% net disadvantage: that's a very narrow margin. Essentially as many people want the bill as don't want it, and vastly more people want what's in the bill than don't. So stop acting all populist. And we'll see in November whether you're right about our forthcoming electoral massacre.
11. Eric Cantor: "We believe that Americans who deeply oppose
12. The most prosperous country in the history of the world? These people make ambitious claims. According to one ranking, our current standard of living in this country is the 7th-highest in the world, behind France (France! France is literally number one on this list!), Australia, Switzerland, Germany, New Zealand, and Luxembourg. France is kicking our ass, at fucking prosperity!!!!!!!! And a WSJ/Heritage Foundation study puts the US at 5th in Economic Freedom, behind Hong Kong (dirty commies!), Singapore, Ireland, and Australia. And they're wicked conservative.
13. These people are just raising stupid, dilatory points to mess stuff up. Grow up, people. And yes, I would tell the Democrats to grow up if they were in the same position and acting the same way. It's pointless and stupid.
14. You know why the bill doesn't adequately address the rising health-care premiums, Republicans? Because you, and Democrats close to you on the ideological spectrum, would object to the kinds of things that would definitely do that. Like a public option. Or single-payer.
15. Somebody said, earlier, "We could reform health care without setting the groundwork for a move to socialized medicine." Yes, we could, but it would be such a pity.
16. Rob Andrews, D-NJ, whom I believe I may have once proudly voted against, or at least rooted strongly against prior to my 18th birthday, is making a good point. What kind of country are we? Well, we should be a country that guarantees basic health to all our citizens, that's what. It's called common kindness, and it's actually a very convincing moral philosophy.
17. Circular logic: "The bill should be bipartisan. We, the minority party, are deciding to oppose it. Therefore it is not bipartisan, and is therefore bad, and we are therefore opposing it."
18. Criticizing the bill because we're passing first a Senate bill that no one much likes and then amending it immediately, and that therefore we're "passing a bill we all know is flawed," is stupid and simplistic.
19. It is impossible to have gravitas with a name like Boehner. And evidently if you are John Boehner, it is also impossible to have charisma. Or at least it doesn't happen empirically speaking.
20. Burden every job creator in our land? Hmmmmm, isn't the employer-based system kind of doing that? So you would support single-payer, taking the burden off of small businesses, Mr. Boehner? Oh, what's that? You wouldn't support that? Why am I not surprised?
21. Since when is simply saying things that are not true a valid arguing style?
22. Wait, fail. Boehner just said "Have you read the bill? Have you read the reconciliation bill? Have you read the manager's amendment?" and the gallery kept calling out, "YES! YES!". Then Boehner was like, "Hell no you haven't!" Good job, leader of the Silly Party.
23. Speaking of which, fuck John Boehner, I'm watching Python. Also, the Republican Party is henceforth the Silly Party, and the Tea Partiers are, of course, the Very Silly Party. (Python literally has a Wood Party at one point. Seriously.)
24. Pelosi. That's more like it. She's not exactly being the most rousing of speakers, but whatever. We're gonna win. And the rhetoric itself is good, though obviously not going to move a single vote. On the other hand, she's clearly pissed about the "being a woman is a pre-existing condition" thing. As she should be. Sexist bastard insurance companies.
25. Addendum to the earlier point about bipartisanship: if there are really 200 GOP amendments in the bill, then to every Republican who complains about the partisanship: shut the fuck up. Feel free to vote against the bill, although it's still kind of a dick move to amend the bill and then vote against it, but don't complain about having been shut out of the process.
26. Aaaand, here's the vote. Debate's being over, I think I'm probably done having things to say. Obama gets a lot of Accomplishment Points for this. Pelosi jumps way the fuck up my list of Best Speakers Ever; give her another decade of controlling the House and she'll be up there with Rayburn and O'Neill. Agree with Nate Silver that she deserves Person of the Year from Time Magazine. And I don't think Republicans really believe that this passage will hurt the Democrats in November.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Cop-Outs
This is a much-condensed version of a post I've tried to work on a couple of times and somehow never finished.
In a debate I saw a transcript of between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, Collins tries to argue that the best explanation for the unlikeliness of a life-supporting universe is God. He basically says that since God needs no explanation, he's not unlikely at all. I've heard similar arguments before: God never did 'come into being,' so he needs no explanation for how one could come into being out of nothing. That sort of thing. My math professor today made an off-hand joke along similar lines, talking about how an empty set generates only the zero vector/element/whatever, and saying that "only God can generate something out of nothing." I don't know that he's religious, and I'm certainly not mentioning this to impugn him in any way.
But my point is that I must agree with Richard Dawkins, who calls such an argument "the mother of all cop-outs." Why in the world does God get to be exempt from the rules of science and logic (which are really very similar to one another)? After all, one of the things that characterizes science is that it automatically expands to encompass every question of fact: it is, after all, only a method for acquiring rigorous knowledge and the sum total of all knowledge acquired through that method, and the method is one which wants naturally to take on each and every matter of fact. So if God exists, and by "exists" I mean in a way other than as a sort of emotional quantity or whatever that people can feel inspiring/supporting/whatevering them, then science engulfs him. I don't see how he/she/it can escape this fate without destroying the very definition of science, i.e. that it wishes to explain anything and everything. And if we're allowed to let our God exist with no beginning time and no ending time, why can't we do the same for our universe? (In fact, I've heard a scientific theory along those lines, but I still don't quite get it. Whatever; that's another story.) When my pro-religious interlocutor asks me, why is there something instead of nothing? and I say, I don't know, do you?, he (it's usually a he) will say something like, "because of God!" and then protest when I try to ask why there is God instead of nothing. But what justifies that protest? I don't get it. If God exists as a factual matter, if there is truly some sort of entity with the power to call into being our universe and everything in it, then I think I have a right to ask how the hell it got there.
In a debate I saw a transcript of between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, Collins tries to argue that the best explanation for the unlikeliness of a life-supporting universe is God. He basically says that since God needs no explanation, he's not unlikely at all. I've heard similar arguments before: God never did 'come into being,' so he needs no explanation for how one could come into being out of nothing. That sort of thing. My math professor today made an off-hand joke along similar lines, talking about how an empty set generates only the zero vector/element/whatever, and saying that "only God can generate something out of nothing." I don't know that he's religious, and I'm certainly not mentioning this to impugn him in any way.
But my point is that I must agree with Richard Dawkins, who calls such an argument "the mother of all cop-outs." Why in the world does God get to be exempt from the rules of science and logic (which are really very similar to one another)? After all, one of the things that characterizes science is that it automatically expands to encompass every question of fact: it is, after all, only a method for acquiring rigorous knowledge and the sum total of all knowledge acquired through that method, and the method is one which wants naturally to take on each and every matter of fact. So if God exists, and by "exists" I mean in a way other than as a sort of emotional quantity or whatever that people can feel inspiring/supporting/whatevering them, then science engulfs him. I don't see how he/she/it can escape this fate without destroying the very definition of science, i.e. that it wishes to explain anything and everything. And if we're allowed to let our God exist with no beginning time and no ending time, why can't we do the same for our universe? (In fact, I've heard a scientific theory along those lines, but I still don't quite get it. Whatever; that's another story.) When my pro-religious interlocutor asks me, why is there something instead of nothing? and I say, I don't know, do you?, he (it's usually a he) will say something like, "because of God!" and then protest when I try to ask why there is God instead of nothing. But what justifies that protest? I don't get it. If God exists as a factual matter, if there is truly some sort of entity with the power to call into being our universe and everything in it, then I think I have a right to ask how the hell it got there.
Rationality
The Ancient Greeks were very very into rationality. They meant that in every sense of the word: they wanted to behave rationally and they wanted their numbers to be rational. In fact, they believed that all numbers were rational. Then they discovered that they were wrong about this; most notably the square root of two is not rational. So then they had to admit the existence of these irrational numbers, and eventually there came these "transcendental" numbers that aren't even the roots of any integer-coefficiented polynomial, and then further on these "imaginary" numbers that aren't even on the same effing number line. So the "rationals-only" worldview turned out to be very, very wrong, wrong by several orders of magnitude.
What's my point? It's sort of just a metaphor for an earlier post, also on rationality, in which I suggested that philosophers and their ilk are too caught up on being rational and in doing so tend to undervalue non-rational parts of life, like emotion. It's a slightly simplistic metaphor, but I think the general philosophical enamorment with rationality is probably derived from the Greeks, but of course the fact that not all numbers are rational, and hell, not all numbers are real, hasn't necessarily done much to shake that worldview. Irrational, transcendental, and imaginary things count! That is my point.
What's my point? It's sort of just a metaphor for an earlier post, also on rationality, in which I suggested that philosophers and their ilk are too caught up on being rational and in doing so tend to undervalue non-rational parts of life, like emotion. It's a slightly simplistic metaphor, but I think the general philosophical enamorment with rationality is probably derived from the Greeks, but of course the fact that not all numbers are rational, and hell, not all numbers are real, hasn't necessarily done much to shake that worldview. Irrational, transcendental, and imaginary things count! That is my point.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Legislating Morality
I saw this argument beginning on a Facebook status of mine, and thought I'd expand my thoughts about it in a little more depth.
I posted a link about a referendum in Switzerland this weekend that would create a national system of explicitly animal-rights prosecutors in the nation. I don't think, from reading the article, that it would change the laws in any way, but it would create positions whose sole responsibility was enforcing those laws. Apparently very few animal-abuse cases make it to court because nobody really cares about prosecuting them, except one guy in Zurich who is the star of the piece. Then Will Bertelsen, a friend of mine, commented on my posted link saying "Legislating morality is always a good idea. Just ask the anti-abortion crowd." Christian Drappi, one of my most frequent online debate sparring partners, said that Will had a good point. But there's a problem with that: if one shouldn't legislate morality, what should one legislate?
I posted a link about a referendum in Switzerland this weekend that would create a national system of explicitly animal-rights prosecutors in the nation. I don't think, from reading the article, that it would change the laws in any way, but it would create positions whose sole responsibility was enforcing those laws. Apparently very few animal-abuse cases make it to court because nobody really cares about prosecuting them, except one guy in Zurich who is the star of the piece. Then Will Bertelsen, a friend of mine, commented on my posted link saying "Legislating morality is always a good idea. Just ask the anti-abortion crowd." Christian Drappi, one of my most frequent online debate sparring partners, said that Will had a good point. But there's a problem with that: if one shouldn't legislate morality, what should one legislate?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Mother Of All Cop-Outs
I wrote this post up a while ago and it was accidentally erased before I could post it, significantly dampening my enthusiasm for it. This isn't going to be as long as the original was.
This is basically a response to a debate between Richard Dawkins, a prominent neo-atheist and personal favorite of mine, and Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Science and prominent religious scientist. They're asked by the moderator about the vast improbability of the universe. Dawkins explains by saying that maybe the six physical constants that had to be "just right" for life to exist are somehow tied to each other, reducing the improbability, or maybe we're in a multiverse system that reduces the improbability even more; but in either case, science can respond with a confident, "We don't know yet, but we're working on it." Collins then said that with his god the improbability is removed, because his god needs no explanation. Dawkins responds that that is, in his opinion, the mother of all cop-outs. And I have to agree.
This is basically a response to a debate between Richard Dawkins, a prominent neo-atheist and personal favorite of mine, and Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Science and prominent religious scientist. They're asked by the moderator about the vast improbability of the universe. Dawkins explains by saying that maybe the six physical constants that had to be "just right" for life to exist are somehow tied to each other, reducing the improbability, or maybe we're in a multiverse system that reduces the improbability even more; but in either case, science can respond with a confident, "We don't know yet, but we're working on it." Collins then said that with his god the improbability is removed, because his god needs no explanation. Dawkins responds that that is, in his opinion, the mother of all cop-outs. And I have to agree.
The Fourth Dimension
So, I think I've come up with a way to make a neat, efficient representation of a function of complex numbers. The problem with doing so, of course, is that a complex number is kind of two-dimensional, at least if you are thinking in the reals (which most humans are; they are, of course, one-dimensional "over" the complex numbers themselves). For instance, to represent the complex numbers requires a plane, not just a line. A function would need to relate one plane to another, and just like representing a function between two one-dimensional real numbers requires two dimensions, representing a function between two two-dimensional complex numbers requires four. That's the problem: we don't have four dimensions, right?
Actually, we do.
Actually, we do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)