I was just talking to a friend in the coffee shop. He asked what I think of Martin Luther King (Jr.) day. I made a gesture with an accompanying noise. Many would think it inappropriate because they wish this day to honor the man. I have no problem with the man. I like what he stood for. I like what he did. I would consider it an honor if I were able to befriend him. Of course, I can’t. It’s the day I have a problem with. I also have a bit of a problem with the people who treat it like a holy day.
My grievances.
Although Mr. King’s political views were visionary and extended far past the problems of black Americans. His efforts, though, were focused there for all but the end of his life. All of his successful efforts were also in this area. Had he lived, had he not been assassinated, those efforts and his successes would almost certainly have broadened. However, that was not the case. Why single out this man for a day, that day being all about him. Many others have had outstanding personal beliefs. Many others have put themselves in mortal danger for the benefit of those oppressed. Many did this without any public recognition. They, in fact, risked everything for no personal benefit other than the good feeling of having done what is right. Mr. King enjoyed notoriety and political clout. His actions were indirect, and the importance of them is due to the enormous quantity of people that acted behind those actions. Had it been Mr. King espousing his beliefs without that backing I dare say he would have been completely ineffectual.
Gandhi was a great figure in the arena of equal rights. Why do we not celebrate MG day? To this question my friend pointed out that that was a global issue, not a national one. For us to have a federal holiday it need to be a national issue. I can see the logic in that, Christmas and Easter aside.
We don’t celebrate the efforts of untold numbers of persons who individually made an impact in the lives of black Americans. Many times that impact was the saving of their lives. Doctor King’s efforts resulted in black to drink from the same fountain I drink from. The efforts of those who operated the underground railroad resulted in blacks being able to breathe the same air that I breathe. The right to life, in the non-abortion related sense, is greater than any other right we enjoy. What we celebrate on this day is the celebrity of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is not a celebration of human rights. This celebration is set around his birthday, although it is adjusted to a Monday so that it’s a long weekend. It’s not to commemorate any other event in the struggle for human rights than the birth of this figurehead in that effort.
My solution.
Prior to the civil rights revolution in the United States an interracial relationship in the south could get both parties killed, again, the right to life being the most supreme of our rights. The defining difference that Dr. King made was in the lives of the post Civil War southern blacks, who were so terribly and unjustifiably oppressed, and that difference is most evident in the freedom of interracial relationships. If you want to celebrate the difference that this man made in America, celebrate it by a public display of affection with a member of another race. A white man (/woman) walking down the street holding hands with a black woman (/man) is the legacy of Martin Luther King. Feel free to do so today.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Various thoughts on IQ
I have noticed in the past several months an interest in IQ, level of knowledge, level of education, correctness, vocational success, life success, etc. all tied together with a mixture of assumptions about what one means to the others. I have fielded questions, I have read questions in forums, I have listened to stories told by friends about what people have asked them recently. I don’t watch much tv but imagine that there is some emphasis put on intelligence this season. Perhaps a lot of people are left feeling dumber than a 5th grader.
Here are my thoughts, far from perfect. People want to measure IQ, but want to do it by measuring knowledge. They are different things. I think IQ has a positive relationship to a cap on knowledge. The average IQ is 100, by definition. So let’s call an average level of knowledge 100. An IQ of 150 is genius, an IQ of 50 is, well, not. The person with an IQ of 150 will have a cap on attainable knowledge higher than the person with an IQ of 50. That is to say, there’s a whole lot that the person at 50 will never be able to learn, a lot that the person at 100 will never be able to learn, and some that the person at 150 will never be able to learn. The relationship isn’t necessarily linear, it may follow Gaussian rules (the bell curve) or it may be exponential. I’m going with time biased Gaussian, and saying that there are different learning characteristics at different IQ levels. So we divide our bell curve into different areas. The lowest represents knowledge that is so rudimentary that it is known by all: pain hurts. The middle part is known knowledge. It graduates from accepted to revolutionary and controversial. Arithmetic is accepted, string theory is revolutionary and controversial. The earth is round and not the center of the universe, these tidbits were revolutionary and controversial, but are now accepted. This is an example of time biasing and I will let that serve as close enough to a definition. The upper end taper is unknown knowledge. It was not known that the earth was not the center of the universe before that known knowledge was revolutionary and controversial. Another example of time bias. This had to be discovered. This bell curve can be used as a rough guideline for the cap on attainable knowledge when it is lined up with the IQ curve. But it has to have wiggle room when we go from theoretical to practical. We would expect that the 150 IQ would have more knowledge than the 50 IQ. We would also expect the 55 IQ to outdo the 50 IQ. In practice we often see a person with a slightly lower IQ posses a slightly higher level of knowledge compared to a counterpart. How do we account for this. And now we get to the meat.
Drive and Opportunity. These make the difference. No matter how hard the 50 tries at the very best schools, he’s never going to understand the things the 150 struggles with in the same classes. There is a marked difference, however, between the level of knowledge actually attained by a 100 who is stranded alone on an island and one who has a burning desire to learn and is at a fantastic school. If we accept that this is, in fact, a marked difference then we must concede that the same marked difference in a 99 will overlap most of the 100’s range. Since we’re using an IQ scale anyway let’s use a Standard Deviation of 15. Disregarding the island scenario, I feel comfortable with the idea that a lazy 100 will achieve the same level of knowledge as a progressive 85. That would give a level of knowledge range of +- 7.5 from nominal. In normal situations there is only so stupid a smart person can ever be. Some of the things the 50 could never understand the 120 can’t help but understand. A 120 will be able to learn a substantial bit that a 100 never could. This must be tempered, of course, by specialization. To this point I have addressed the ability to learn in general terms. If you go to college and pursue a major, you get information in small chunks that you can digest, incorporate into your existing knowledge base and then build on. This is the same as time bias but on a personal level. It is also the technique used by cults to indoctrinate people. Provide false knowledge, drive it in until it’s accepted and trusted then provide more. I’m thinking Scientology in specific terms, but the method is used elsewhere and this blurb has broad application. Remember it is not how many people who endorse it, nor the qualifications of the presenter or originator that make information valid or knowledge correct. These are intrinsic values. Now I’m thinking different Christian churches and can homosexuals be pastors or not, same bible in churches that say yes as in churches that say no, and their leaders are all well qualified. The ultimate truth is true because it’s true. A personal truth is honesty and isn’t always true. That just means that honest people aren’t lying, they’re just sometimes wrong. Now I’m back on Scientology. And now I’m back on track. Discovering new knowledge will be almost exclusively the realm of the upper echelons. Once discovered that knowledge will be absorbed by the many more eager smart people, then disseminated to the average, then to the sub-average. This process of a population assimilating new information will almost always follow this chronology. I think it has to do with language. The brilliant speak a different English than the dull. The average can translate. We all have trouble learning things we don’t believe. It would be very difficult for me to learn that 1 + 1 = an apple. I don’t believe it. Very few can recognize, and so be able to believe. Many can grasp an explanation and believe, often to their detriment when the explanation is false. Others can only decide that everyone else believes it so it must be alright. In this construct the motivated 110 could appear to be a 115 and may seem smarter than a 120.
Mostly so in testing. As I said, we want to measure IQ with level of knowledge. A large part of the flaw in this is that when you learn how to take the test or learn how to figure out the answers you display a higher level of knowledge, even without changing that level. So what is IQ? The ability to learn? The ability to problem solve? The ability to figure out what IQ is? I think yes, kind of. Of importance is the idea that there are multiple intelligences. I am relationally stupid. I know a lot of people who are relational genii. I know people who can only make a pile of books, never a stack. I know people who are incredible engineers. Some people can hunt deer with a sharp stick, some people can’t order off a menu. We mostly recognize the areas from school. We also don’t give much weight to other areas. I’m good at math, engineering, science, etc. but don’t have a lot of traditional fun. I’m not much of a partier. I have a great time sitting in the coffee shop talking with people who “get it.” People who have something to say that isn’t gossip or a synopsis of a movie. These people stimulate my mind and leave me feeling invigorated. Some people are only ever invigorated by who said what about who and did you know he’s sleeping with her behind his girlfriend’s back. That seems to correlate on those curves, too.
Perhaps the most frustrating thing about IQ, intelligence distribution, differing mental capability at different IQ levels and the interpretation of those differing capabilities follows. Most people exist in the middle region. They may not agree with each other but they can understand the thought processes of those near their level. The people in the higher end of the bulge normally rise above those at the low end. So most of the supervisors and managers will be in the 115 area. Lets say that they can at least see the logic, faulty as it may be, within a SD, that’s down to 100, up to 130. This person will know that they have better ideas, and more sense than the low end of normal, that’s 90 – 100, who’s ideas and interpretations just don’t make sense to the 115. those with an IQ between 90 and 100 represent 25% of the population. The next SD away, 75 – 90, accounts for another 20%. Beyond that are people who inspire a sense of pity instead of frustration. That’s almost ½ of the population that doesn’t even make sense to him, and that because they are ‘relatively’ stupid. Now let’s look the other way. That 1st SD that makes some kind of sense goes to 130. The total percentage of population above that is 2%. Nearly that entire amount, all but about 1/10th %, are in the SD of 130 – 145. That top 1/10th % are the revered genii. (I’ve used that twice, hopefully someone gets it.) Here’s the thing. The 115 isn’t equipped to make the distinction between 90 and 140. He simply doesn’t understand the logic of either. So where is that 2% categorized? Approximately 47% of the population doesn’t make sense to this guy and isn’t obviously mentally approximating a rock. (It only sounds disrespectful because it has to for this rant.) When they can’t distinguish the difference there is no distinguishable difference. This means that either they treat that 45% as smarter than they are or the 2% as dumber. How many people in charge remain in charge if they treat the ideas of that 45% as superior to their own? I think none. Even if they own the company, because they go bankrupt. The mentally superior are grouped together with the stupid in the course of day to day life. I have watched businesses unnecessarily falter or fail and will watch a friend die because I am ‘obviously’ stupid. It is unfortunate to see something bad happen to someone you care about, it is sorrowful when you know it could have been avoided, it is frustrating when you saw it coming but your warnings were dismissed.
Then there are pet peeves. Mine, I mean. I try to stay out of public forums. People will spontaneously vomit a post. I was recently lured into an astrophysics board following a news article. I was lured by some brilliant comments by a guy defending a fringe theory that is generally dismissed, but has a lot of merit. I’m familiar with the theories, but don’t understand them. See above 1 + 1 = an apple. There’s just too much weirdness or maybe just not enough preconditioning (keep in mind the cult danger) for me to get it. The article has a picture of a double Einstein ring. It’s pretty. The article is not about it’s aesthetic value. The discussion should not be about it’s aesthetic value. How many posts are about it being pretty? Too many. How many posts aren’t even related as remotely to the subject as how it looks? Too many. I wish people who can’t possibly take part in a conversation just wouldn’t. Barring that, I wish moderators would take out the nonsense. I must admit at this point, this is hard to accomplish in a generalized discussion that wanders through different aspects of different scientific fields to bring up a sentient point, and this one does. By that I mean that how many people know whether a discourse on quantum mechanics and it’s effect on matter-antimatter pairs has anything to do with Einstein rings? It doesn’t directly but some aspects of it transfer laterally into the discussion, so it’s not nonsense. Even if a moderator doesn’t understand it or realize that it is pertinent, at least they should know that it’s scientific and must mean something to the people that are in the real, relative conversation. Hopefully that same moderator would realize that a post about I showed it to my art teacher and they liked it doesn’t belong. Or posts just bashing the guy who wholeheartedly believes in the fringe theory don’t belong, even though they don’t have language that would make a sailor blush. So a pet peeve in this realm – injecting the non-sequitur into a forum. Another is people who don’t care enough about the subject to learn anything about it but want to ask questions. In a discussion about the practical application of the Mandelbrot set questions about what is convergence or how does a derivative work are not valid. Do a Google search, read some introductory material, download podcasts of entire lecture series. Do not hope to start from scratch and get a 4 year degree from a 20 line response to a lame question.
Here are my thoughts, far from perfect. People want to measure IQ, but want to do it by measuring knowledge. They are different things. I think IQ has a positive relationship to a cap on knowledge. The average IQ is 100, by definition. So let’s call an average level of knowledge 100. An IQ of 150 is genius, an IQ of 50 is, well, not. The person with an IQ of 150 will have a cap on attainable knowledge higher than the person with an IQ of 50. That is to say, there’s a whole lot that the person at 50 will never be able to learn, a lot that the person at 100 will never be able to learn, and some that the person at 150 will never be able to learn. The relationship isn’t necessarily linear, it may follow Gaussian rules (the bell curve) or it may be exponential. I’m going with time biased Gaussian, and saying that there are different learning characteristics at different IQ levels. So we divide our bell curve into different areas. The lowest represents knowledge that is so rudimentary that it is known by all: pain hurts. The middle part is known knowledge. It graduates from accepted to revolutionary and controversial. Arithmetic is accepted, string theory is revolutionary and controversial. The earth is round and not the center of the universe, these tidbits were revolutionary and controversial, but are now accepted. This is an example of time biasing and I will let that serve as close enough to a definition. The upper end taper is unknown knowledge. It was not known that the earth was not the center of the universe before that known knowledge was revolutionary and controversial. Another example of time bias. This had to be discovered. This bell curve can be used as a rough guideline for the cap on attainable knowledge when it is lined up with the IQ curve. But it has to have wiggle room when we go from theoretical to practical. We would expect that the 150 IQ would have more knowledge than the 50 IQ. We would also expect the 55 IQ to outdo the 50 IQ. In practice we often see a person with a slightly lower IQ posses a slightly higher level of knowledge compared to a counterpart. How do we account for this. And now we get to the meat.
Drive and Opportunity. These make the difference. No matter how hard the 50 tries at the very best schools, he’s never going to understand the things the 150 struggles with in the same classes. There is a marked difference, however, between the level of knowledge actually attained by a 100 who is stranded alone on an island and one who has a burning desire to learn and is at a fantastic school. If we accept that this is, in fact, a marked difference then we must concede that the same marked difference in a 99 will overlap most of the 100’s range. Since we’re using an IQ scale anyway let’s use a Standard Deviation of 15. Disregarding the island scenario, I feel comfortable with the idea that a lazy 100 will achieve the same level of knowledge as a progressive 85. That would give a level of knowledge range of +- 7.5 from nominal. In normal situations there is only so stupid a smart person can ever be. Some of the things the 50 could never understand the 120 can’t help but understand. A 120 will be able to learn a substantial bit that a 100 never could. This must be tempered, of course, by specialization. To this point I have addressed the ability to learn in general terms. If you go to college and pursue a major, you get information in small chunks that you can digest, incorporate into your existing knowledge base and then build on. This is the same as time bias but on a personal level. It is also the technique used by cults to indoctrinate people. Provide false knowledge, drive it in until it’s accepted and trusted then provide more. I’m thinking Scientology in specific terms, but the method is used elsewhere and this blurb has broad application. Remember it is not how many people who endorse it, nor the qualifications of the presenter or originator that make information valid or knowledge correct. These are intrinsic values. Now I’m thinking different Christian churches and can homosexuals be pastors or not, same bible in churches that say yes as in churches that say no, and their leaders are all well qualified. The ultimate truth is true because it’s true. A personal truth is honesty and isn’t always true. That just means that honest people aren’t lying, they’re just sometimes wrong. Now I’m back on Scientology. And now I’m back on track. Discovering new knowledge will be almost exclusively the realm of the upper echelons. Once discovered that knowledge will be absorbed by the many more eager smart people, then disseminated to the average, then to the sub-average. This process of a population assimilating new information will almost always follow this chronology. I think it has to do with language. The brilliant speak a different English than the dull. The average can translate. We all have trouble learning things we don’t believe. It would be very difficult for me to learn that 1 + 1 = an apple. I don’t believe it. Very few can recognize, and so be able to believe. Many can grasp an explanation and believe, often to their detriment when the explanation is false. Others can only decide that everyone else believes it so it must be alright. In this construct the motivated 110 could appear to be a 115 and may seem smarter than a 120.
Mostly so in testing. As I said, we want to measure IQ with level of knowledge. A large part of the flaw in this is that when you learn how to take the test or learn how to figure out the answers you display a higher level of knowledge, even without changing that level. So what is IQ? The ability to learn? The ability to problem solve? The ability to figure out what IQ is? I think yes, kind of. Of importance is the idea that there are multiple intelligences. I am relationally stupid. I know a lot of people who are relational genii. I know people who can only make a pile of books, never a stack. I know people who are incredible engineers. Some people can hunt deer with a sharp stick, some people can’t order off a menu. We mostly recognize the areas from school. We also don’t give much weight to other areas. I’m good at math, engineering, science, etc. but don’t have a lot of traditional fun. I’m not much of a partier. I have a great time sitting in the coffee shop talking with people who “get it.” People who have something to say that isn’t gossip or a synopsis of a movie. These people stimulate my mind and leave me feeling invigorated. Some people are only ever invigorated by who said what about who and did you know he’s sleeping with her behind his girlfriend’s back. That seems to correlate on those curves, too.
Perhaps the most frustrating thing about IQ, intelligence distribution, differing mental capability at different IQ levels and the interpretation of those differing capabilities follows. Most people exist in the middle region. They may not agree with each other but they can understand the thought processes of those near their level. The people in the higher end of the bulge normally rise above those at the low end. So most of the supervisors and managers will be in the 115 area. Lets say that they can at least see the logic, faulty as it may be, within a SD, that’s down to 100, up to 130. This person will know that they have better ideas, and more sense than the low end of normal, that’s 90 – 100, who’s ideas and interpretations just don’t make sense to the 115. those with an IQ between 90 and 100 represent 25% of the population. The next SD away, 75 – 90, accounts for another 20%. Beyond that are people who inspire a sense of pity instead of frustration. That’s almost ½ of the population that doesn’t even make sense to him, and that because they are ‘relatively’ stupid. Now let’s look the other way. That 1st SD that makes some kind of sense goes to 130. The total percentage of population above that is 2%. Nearly that entire amount, all but about 1/10th %, are in the SD of 130 – 145. That top 1/10th % are the revered genii. (I’ve used that twice, hopefully someone gets it.) Here’s the thing. The 115 isn’t equipped to make the distinction between 90 and 140. He simply doesn’t understand the logic of either. So where is that 2% categorized? Approximately 47% of the population doesn’t make sense to this guy and isn’t obviously mentally approximating a rock. (It only sounds disrespectful because it has to for this rant.) When they can’t distinguish the difference there is no distinguishable difference. This means that either they treat that 45% as smarter than they are or the 2% as dumber. How many people in charge remain in charge if they treat the ideas of that 45% as superior to their own? I think none. Even if they own the company, because they go bankrupt. The mentally superior are grouped together with the stupid in the course of day to day life. I have watched businesses unnecessarily falter or fail and will watch a friend die because I am ‘obviously’ stupid. It is unfortunate to see something bad happen to someone you care about, it is sorrowful when you know it could have been avoided, it is frustrating when you saw it coming but your warnings were dismissed.
Then there are pet peeves. Mine, I mean. I try to stay out of public forums. People will spontaneously vomit a post. I was recently lured into an astrophysics board following a news article. I was lured by some brilliant comments by a guy defending a fringe theory that is generally dismissed, but has a lot of merit. I’m familiar with the theories, but don’t understand them. See above 1 + 1 = an apple. There’s just too much weirdness or maybe just not enough preconditioning (keep in mind the cult danger) for me to get it. The article has a picture of a double Einstein ring. It’s pretty. The article is not about it’s aesthetic value. The discussion should not be about it’s aesthetic value. How many posts are about it being pretty? Too many. How many posts aren’t even related as remotely to the subject as how it looks? Too many. I wish people who can’t possibly take part in a conversation just wouldn’t. Barring that, I wish moderators would take out the nonsense. I must admit at this point, this is hard to accomplish in a generalized discussion that wanders through different aspects of different scientific fields to bring up a sentient point, and this one does. By that I mean that how many people know whether a discourse on quantum mechanics and it’s effect on matter-antimatter pairs has anything to do with Einstein rings? It doesn’t directly but some aspects of it transfer laterally into the discussion, so it’s not nonsense. Even if a moderator doesn’t understand it or realize that it is pertinent, at least they should know that it’s scientific and must mean something to the people that are in the real, relative conversation. Hopefully that same moderator would realize that a post about I showed it to my art teacher and they liked it doesn’t belong. Or posts just bashing the guy who wholeheartedly believes in the fringe theory don’t belong, even though they don’t have language that would make a sailor blush. So a pet peeve in this realm – injecting the non-sequitur into a forum. Another is people who don’t care enough about the subject to learn anything about it but want to ask questions. In a discussion about the practical application of the Mandelbrot set questions about what is convergence or how does a derivative work are not valid. Do a Google search, read some introductory material, download podcasts of entire lecture series. Do not hope to start from scratch and get a 4 year degree from a 20 line response to a lame question.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Holidays -- Christmas
Maybe it's just because I'm not showered in gifts anymore, but I've come to really not like Christmas. What's it all about? "Jesus is the reason for the season." A slogan that used to be plastered all over. But what are we celebrating? It's different with Easter. There's a biblical basis, a command to celebrate, and a timeframe for that celebration. First, because it's easiest, the timeframe. We have no real idea about when Jesus was born. Not only are we completely unable to determine what date, or month -- ours or Jewish, or season -- was he born in spring or the dead of winter or fall, but we can't even determine the year with any certainty. Personally, I have to go with Clement on this one, but I'm partial. On all of the celebrations dictated by God, at least to my knowledge, he tells us when. He also tells us to. Celebrate, that is, he tells us to celebrate, and how. And how to celebrate. There's instruction. Not with Christmas, though. It's no more a spiritual celebration than Thanksgiving. And I'm not knocking Thanksgiving. Now biblical basis. Christ was born. That's about it. But even that isn't so remarkable, at least as births go. Great miracle, conception. If you want to celebrate the power and love of God, it's the conception of Christ you're looking for. We also lack command or time for this one, though. Why not his first miracle or teaching in the temple or calming the storm or being recognized as Messiah in the womb by John, also in the womb or ... Even more importantly, on a Christian basis, Christ says that the current era, what we call the age of grace, began with the time of John the Baptist. Forget Christ being born, the big thing is the transition to the age of grace. That's what's important. John beginning his ministry, and ushering us into this age, celebrate that. It's much more religiously important. Then we wouldn't get so caught up in gifts, and extension of Christ's birth brought to us by three? wise men from Orientar, as the song goes. I can't find Orientar on the ancient maps, though. So what's it all about. Family, good will toward others, stressing out over getting just the right present, or not caring whether it's right or not and just getting something -- after all, it's the thought that counts. And this gift says I gave you a cursory thought. My closing thought on Christmas, the gifts the wise men brought after, probably well after, Jesus' birth had a divine purpose. Those gifts financed the families flight from the authorities. Pull that crap now and yule go to prison.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Religion (5), Miracles
"Those with exceptional ability have exceptional responsiblity." It's a tenet taught in some circles of society. The doctrine of those who can must. It is the people with some special talent or skill or opportunity. It may be nothing for them to do, but impossible for others. For those waiting outside the meeting place in the cold rain and wind the locked door presents an impassable obstacle. The janitor comes with the key, opens the door and lets all inside. He's the hero of the hour, but to him he just did what anybody with the key would do. Mundane, simple, unexciting.
People get excited about miracles. They are things we cannot do. Does God get excited. Is he amazed at what he was able to do. What is to us a miracle is just God acting, God doing. Whenever God acts, whenever he does, there is a miracle. I have mostly noticed two distinct human reactions to this. Some people are amazed at what God can do, like they didn't expect it, can't believe it would really happen. I think to them it's new, novel, weird, out of the ordinary. I don't think they see it a lot. There is another group that sees a miracle and takes it in stride. There reaction is something like, "What do you want to do for lunch?" I think this group considers miracles normal activity for God. Normal because they see it. Often. I think that's an indicator that God is in their life as a matter of routine. If you're around God often you see miracles often and it's the way things are. If you're surprised by miracles the, obviously, it's the way things aren't.
People get excited about miracles. They are things we cannot do. Does God get excited. Is he amazed at what he was able to do. What is to us a miracle is just God acting, God doing. Whenever God acts, whenever he does, there is a miracle. I have mostly noticed two distinct human reactions to this. Some people are amazed at what God can do, like they didn't expect it, can't believe it would really happen. I think to them it's new, novel, weird, out of the ordinary. I don't think they see it a lot. There is another group that sees a miracle and takes it in stride. There reaction is something like, "What do you want to do for lunch?" I think this group considers miracles normal activity for God. Normal because they see it. Often. I think that's an indicator that God is in their life as a matter of routine. If you're around God often you see miracles often and it's the way things are. If you're surprised by miracles the, obviously, it's the way things aren't.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Marion Jones
She retired from the sport she loves, enough to cheat, because of her actions. I wonder which actions. Was it using? Was it lying about using? Was it representing herself as good because she's gifted so she could be a role model, and now a huge let down, to young girls the world over? (Why look up to anyone anyway?) Or was it getting caught in her lie? Well that can't be it, that's not really her action.
It reminds me of a little kid who goes through meticulous effort to repeatedly do bad unnoticed but eventually gets caught. That kids apology, and this one, only mean sorry you found out.
It reminds me of a little kid who goes through meticulous effort to repeatedly do bad unnoticed but eventually gets caught. That kids apology, and this one, only mean sorry you found out.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Vick and dogfighting
Let's talk boxing. A regulated sport. Two well trained opponents who, presumably, like what they're doing step into a ring and brutalize each other. It's not the old bare knuckle bouts, but people liked watching those, and liked fighting in them.
Dogs that dogfight like it. Dogs that don't like it suck at it. I keep hearing the term "animal abuse" thrown around with this case. I have a hard time really calling it abuse, though. A violent sport, yes. Does the occasional participant die, yes. Same in boxing, the gloved, well regulated kind. I think, and this is an offhand estimate, that about 80% of people throwing down the abuse card are referring to the actual dogfight. So, my estimate, about 80% of people are either kind of dumb or speaking in ignorance or, my personal favorite, both.
There has been a lot of animal abuse associated with dogfighting historically. This was directed at the "training" animals. A good episode or so of "Lou Grant" comes to mind. Good regulation of the sport would eliminate that. Dogfighting would be right there with boxing then. Of course, as long as it's a federal crime it will be hard to put together an authoritative commission to decide on acceptable practices.
So, I suppose, continue crying out about animal abuse. Also continue calling the mess in Darfur a genocide, even I've done that.
Dogs that dogfight like it. Dogs that don't like it suck at it. I keep hearing the term "animal abuse" thrown around with this case. I have a hard time really calling it abuse, though. A violent sport, yes. Does the occasional participant die, yes. Same in boxing, the gloved, well regulated kind. I think, and this is an offhand estimate, that about 80% of people throwing down the abuse card are referring to the actual dogfight. So, my estimate, about 80% of people are either kind of dumb or speaking in ignorance or, my personal favorite, both.
There has been a lot of animal abuse associated with dogfighting historically. This was directed at the "training" animals. A good episode or so of "Lou Grant" comes to mind. Good regulation of the sport would eliminate that. Dogfighting would be right there with boxing then. Of course, as long as it's a federal crime it will be hard to put together an authoritative commission to decide on acceptable practices.
So, I suppose, continue crying out about animal abuse. Also continue calling the mess in Darfur a genocide, even I've done that.
Religion (4) God did a good job today!
I've been thinking about what tests our faith, why we abandon the church, and why we abandon God. Some of it has to do with what other Christians do. For a lot of people, that critical moment of testing comes with something that God "does" or, more correctly in many cases, allows. Note on allowing things. If there was a bank robbery today, I allowed it. If there was a murder today, I allowed it. If there was a rape today, I allowed it. If there was a lie today, I allowed it. I allowed all of those things because I didn't stop them. Granted, I didn't know about most of them, and I was probably powerless to stop them had I known. So I'm off the hook. Nobody will write a bad article in the newspaper because I didn't act to stop a theft in London. Nobody is cursing my name because they were raped in Perth. God doesn't get the same break. He knew it all was happening, he even knew it would happen so long ago. He also had the power to stop it, drawback of the whole omnipotence thing, I suppose. So the same way you would blame me if I was babysitting your toddler and just watched him stick his hand in a mousetrap we blame God. (I don't particularly like toddlers, btw, so don't ask me to babysit. Just don't do it.) So we go about our lives thinking that God has it all under control and is doing things "in his timing" until our best friend is killed by a drunk driver, or our spouse gets cancer, or, or, or, ... Then we shake a well deserved fist at heaven and cry out, "Why did you do this?" Again, more correctly, "Why did you let this happen?" I have thoughts on this. They may appear to be random ones, but that's okay here.
I can't speak for rain or floods or drought or hurricanes or tornados, but those drunk drivers, drug addicts, crazed gang members, Enron executives, etc., they all have free will. If God stop the free will actions of those who would, purposefully or not, hurt those whose free will was to worship him could he justly, and remember that justness is one of his character attributes, leave his worshipers with free will. "As long as you choose to do what I want you to do you're free to do whatever you want, because it's what I want. If you choose to do something I don't want you to do then free will is gone for you and I'll take you over and make you do the right thing, it's the good thing about being omnipotent." He could still sort us out, he'd know if it were him or us. I don't think he can play us that way, though. I think he prevents him from doing it. (Character of God.) And what's more ...
I don't think he really cares. Our character and eternity is where his concern rest. The great, Godly plan for most people is that they die. I just don't see where the type of death is in consideration next to the type of life. I also can't see why the Army would really care if you got the dinner you really wanted on the battlefield. The do care that you get fed. Sorry, sir, we're all out of lobster. Hell is for demons, people will go there. It's not why hell was made, but Godly justice demands that some people will end up there. A natural consequence of free will is that some will rebel. A natural consequence of rebellion is suffering. For us to be able to worship meaningfully, and I mean that marionette worship means nothing, it must be done in our free will so ultimately we must face suffering. I have to work to get a paycheck. I wouldn't do it if they didn't pay me. I "suffer" the work for the blessings of my check. I suffer in life for the blessings of an eternal relationship with God. God gives a better return than my boss. I cannot exptect monetary blessings without putting up with the work, and I can even find my way to a thankful heart when payday comes and the bills are due. "Thank you for the work I hated, I hope you have more for me next week." If we recognize the suffering for what it is, an offshoot of our free will relationship with God, we can get to the place Paul was at, and be thankful in persecution.
Hitler rose to power and started what would become a world war and a terrible genocide.
God did a good job that day.
A plague swept over Europe and killed over a quarter of the population.
God did a good job that day.
A tsunami swept through the Indian Ocean and killed thousands.
God did a good job that day.
A hurricane hit the gulf coast and destroyed the entire region.
God did a good job that day.
Terrorist flew planes into buildings on 9/11.
God did a good job that day.
President Bush pushed through unconstitutional provisions that took away our protected rights following 9/11.
God did a good job that day.
My dad's cancer has gotten way worse, he stopped chemo because it's not effective, he can no longer take care of himself, he placed himself on a list for hospice care, he's just waiting to die. I hate today.
God did a good job today.
I can't speak for rain or floods or drought or hurricanes or tornados, but those drunk drivers, drug addicts, crazed gang members, Enron executives, etc., they all have free will. If God stop the free will actions of those who would, purposefully or not, hurt those whose free will was to worship him could he justly, and remember that justness is one of his character attributes, leave his worshipers with free will. "As long as you choose to do what I want you to do you're free to do whatever you want, because it's what I want. If you choose to do something I don't want you to do then free will is gone for you and I'll take you over and make you do the right thing, it's the good thing about being omnipotent." He could still sort us out, he'd know if it were him or us. I don't think he can play us that way, though. I think he prevents him from doing it. (Character of God.) And what's more ...
I don't think he really cares. Our character and eternity is where his concern rest. The great, Godly plan for most people is that they die. I just don't see where the type of death is in consideration next to the type of life. I also can't see why the Army would really care if you got the dinner you really wanted on the battlefield. The do care that you get fed. Sorry, sir, we're all out of lobster. Hell is for demons, people will go there. It's not why hell was made, but Godly justice demands that some people will end up there. A natural consequence of free will is that some will rebel. A natural consequence of rebellion is suffering. For us to be able to worship meaningfully, and I mean that marionette worship means nothing, it must be done in our free will so ultimately we must face suffering. I have to work to get a paycheck. I wouldn't do it if they didn't pay me. I "suffer" the work for the blessings of my check. I suffer in life for the blessings of an eternal relationship with God. God gives a better return than my boss. I cannot exptect monetary blessings without putting up with the work, and I can even find my way to a thankful heart when payday comes and the bills are due. "Thank you for the work I hated, I hope you have more for me next week." If we recognize the suffering for what it is, an offshoot of our free will relationship with God, we can get to the place Paul was at, and be thankful in persecution.
Hitler rose to power and started what would become a world war and a terrible genocide.
God did a good job that day.
A plague swept over Europe and killed over a quarter of the population.
God did a good job that day.
A tsunami swept through the Indian Ocean and killed thousands.
God did a good job that day.
A hurricane hit the gulf coast and destroyed the entire region.
God did a good job that day.
Terrorist flew planes into buildings on 9/11.
God did a good job that day.
President Bush pushed through unconstitutional provisions that took away our protected rights following 9/11.
God did a good job that day.
My dad's cancer has gotten way worse, he stopped chemo because it's not effective, he can no longer take care of himself, he placed himself on a list for hospice care, he's just waiting to die. I hate today.
God did a good job today.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Insurance again
I have a friend currently in the hospital for an extended stay. Sitting by his bed overnight I talked with his wife about insurance in America. They've been through this before without insurance, this time with. Her insight -- without insurance he'd have been home days ago. The hospital, in her experience, will do the minimum treatment they can get away with because they expect most people to file bancruptcy and they won't get paid, but treatment still costs them. If you file bancruptcy with insurance they still get most of the money due them from the insurance company.
I guess the quality of treatment is the difference insurance makes in a major illness / accident. Sad, but substantial.
I guess the quality of treatment is the difference insurance makes in a major illness / accident. Sad, but substantial.
Barry Bonds*
Let's have a bicycle race. Rules are all bikes have to be pedal powered, no cutting corners on the track, no malicious contact. Easy enough. I'll show up in a moped, remember those, pedal powered and, uh, engine assist.
Bonds gots skills. He just knew he wasn't man enough without a little "assist." I say give him the record. When it's all done let's see:
Bonds, 1032*
and at the bottom of the page:
*not man enough without the juice.
Bonds gots skills. He just knew he wasn't man enough without a little "assist." I say give him the record. When it's all done let's see:
Bonds, 1032*
and at the bottom of the page:
*not man enough without the juice.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Health Care / Insurance
So I don't get it. Obviously, the industry has to make money. Premiums, deductibles, etc. have to cover, not just the cost of care, but also the costs of administration and salaries for those pesky insurance salesman. I recently reviewed some old data about health care costs and, assuming that only the rates have changed and not the percentages, have developed some questions that I'd like to find answers to. I may have to print them out the next time I have to sit through an insurance meeting at work.
There is an average dollar figure for actual cost of health care. This is what it would cost if it were just out of pocket. Ignoring the effect of insurance companies contracting lower rates, I'm just looking at what actually gets paid. In other words, I realize that if you walk into a doctor's office you'll pay more than the insurance gets charged, but let's just pretend insurance didn't exist and providers would take the same money.
Approximately 95% of households spend more on insurance every year than the actual health care costs. I personally average hundreds of dollars per year on routine health care, not counting exceptional injury. Insurance premiums alone for an individual are upwards of $4000. That differential is why all the insurance people get paid. Only about 3% of households have health care costs each year that exceed base insurance costs by 10X. Remember that your employer is paying the bulk of the premium, your $60 per month is a pitance.
If you're one of the households exceeding payments by an extreme amount the insurance may be a windfall. An alternative would be getting the premiums your employer pays to someone else. This would leave you at risk, of course, in the event of any major injury or illness. That last statement implies that having insurance alleviates this risk. Does it, though?
What percentage of bankruptcies involve major medical expenses?
Of those, how many had insurance? (Which didn't protect them financially.)
More to the point:
Of households in any given income bracket, say yours, who suffer a major medical problem and have some standard insurance through their employer, what percentage still file for bankruptcy?
Same question for those without insurance.
I found quite a bit of data that looked like any major medical problem was as likely to send you to bankruptcy court whether you were insured or not. New bankruptcy laws now and I have no idea how this will effect things in the future, but financial devistation is devistating whether you can file or not.
Insurance costs thousands of dollars per year. What gets covered and what doesn't on your next potential policy? Even if it gets covered, how? 80/20 split? 20% of $30,000 will still break most households.
I'd rather see a plan where instead of paying my premiums that money would just go into a flex fund. Use it or lose it. Any unused monies to go to a general healthcare fund. It would encourage routine medical because that amount of money is way more than most people would ever spend anyway.
There is an average dollar figure for actual cost of health care. This is what it would cost if it were just out of pocket. Ignoring the effect of insurance companies contracting lower rates, I'm just looking at what actually gets paid. In other words, I realize that if you walk into a doctor's office you'll pay more than the insurance gets charged, but let's just pretend insurance didn't exist and providers would take the same money.
Approximately 95% of households spend more on insurance every year than the actual health care costs. I personally average hundreds of dollars per year on routine health care, not counting exceptional injury. Insurance premiums alone for an individual are upwards of $4000. That differential is why all the insurance people get paid. Only about 3% of households have health care costs each year that exceed base insurance costs by 10X. Remember that your employer is paying the bulk of the premium, your $60 per month is a pitance.
If you're one of the households exceeding payments by an extreme amount the insurance may be a windfall. An alternative would be getting the premiums your employer pays to someone else. This would leave you at risk, of course, in the event of any major injury or illness. That last statement implies that having insurance alleviates this risk. Does it, though?
What percentage of bankruptcies involve major medical expenses?
Of those, how many had insurance? (Which didn't protect them financially.)
More to the point:
Of households in any given income bracket, say yours, who suffer a major medical problem and have some standard insurance through their employer, what percentage still file for bankruptcy?
Same question for those without insurance.
I found quite a bit of data that looked like any major medical problem was as likely to send you to bankruptcy court whether you were insured or not. New bankruptcy laws now and I have no idea how this will effect things in the future, but financial devistation is devistating whether you can file or not.
Insurance costs thousands of dollars per year. What gets covered and what doesn't on your next potential policy? Even if it gets covered, how? 80/20 split? 20% of $30,000 will still break most households.
I'd rather see a plan where instead of paying my premiums that money would just go into a flex fund. Use it or lose it. Any unused monies to go to a general healthcare fund. It would encourage routine medical because that amount of money is way more than most people would ever spend anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)