Letters to the Editor
-
@Fraud Guy
"undisclosed bunker in R'yleh"
Awesome. Best laugh I've had all day. Thanks.
-
KB4Hire...
I've been struggling to keep up with comments this week, but had the same reaction you did about voting for Bush in 2004, as well as distinguishing between "informed" votes for him vs those that were subject to Fox and cable news propaganda...
In fact, in 2004, I really thought that the true "swing" voters would be disaffected Republicans. I'm still not sure I was wrong. Given the irregularities...
LWM wrote: Holly was too busy catfighting with Michelle. Women.
I was barely able to keep up with reading the comments... no time left for commenting, but I did notice. (see above) And I really don't like either the cat fights or the Libertarian Wars. So, I end up lurking more than not...
-
LWM has said...
nasty words to the ladies.
-
Another reaction to O'Hanlon & Pollack...
from Phillip Carter at Slate (via Salon's Blog Report):
Irrelevant Exuberance
Why the latest good news from Iraq doesn't matter.
He begins:
In 1975, Army Col. Harry Summers went to Hanoi as chief of the U.S. delegation's negotiation team for the four-party military talks that followed the collapse of the South Vietnamese government. While there, he spent some time chatting with his North Vietnamese counterpart, Col. Tu, an old soldier who had fought against the United States and lived to tell his tale. With a tinge of bitterness about the war's outcome, Summers told Tu, "You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield." Tu replied, in a phrase that perfectly captured the American misunderstanding of the Vietnam War, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."
http://www.slate.com/id/2171510/
-
KB4Hire and titles
"re: Bucko's defense of the indefensible ..."(KB4Hire)
I was under the impression that "re:" meant that one was responding to a subject title, and not making one up new. It seems a little disingenuous to make it look like I made up the title and you only responded to it. Do you not think so?
Second, I read all your words and yet found no place where I defended the indefensible; unless you think a call against ad hominem is indefensible. Do you?
On the other hand, if it is just baiting --- it says more about you than you realize. Was it?
-
re: Infrastructure - digital
After leaving the engineering business, since I had a background in CADD, I changed and went into the IT end of our wonderful, high-powered capitalist business world.
Things weren't any better. Where previously knowledge and experience ruled the roost within IT departments, now with the advent of Windows and its GUI driven paradigm many many workers were simply what I call "button-clickers" and really didn't know shit about the underlining systems they were managing.
Even on the desktop end. Instead of troubleshooting situations properly, more often than not it was ordered that we just rebuild the box. Which in some cases is the best thing to do, but other times understanding what was really happening and coming up with a solid, quick, painless fix that could be applied across the board to 100's of users would have been the best way to approach the problem.
But once again, everything turned from doing proper, intelligent work. To instead covering your ass, satisfying the procedures and the metrics and the numerous minor managers and supervisors that sprang up like weeds. People always talked about how IT became legit and a proper business function. I always thought to myself, "Bullshit, it's become a sinkhole where millions and millions of dollars get thrown at a so-called business sub-system just for the sake of keeping the gravy train going on endless software and hardware updates ..."
Last week was System Administrator's Day and there was a cool article about how people don't realize just what it really takes to keep the whole artifice running. Us in the biz were called Morlocks - kept underground in small airless rooms doing what we do to present the appearance of seamless operation.
Well, we know better.
Kind of like making sausage, you don't really want to see it up close and personal.
-
bucky1 & Labels
I really only believe in one thing politically, and all else flows from that axiom. It is never morally permissible to use force, fraud, or coercion against another --- except possibly in self defence. What does that make me?
Seems to me that labels are important in helping to identify and classify. Often, I do not have time to read everything about someone. For example, you ask what you are? Certainly you are your history; but I have not got time to read every letter you have posted here to figure that out -- and that would only be one small aspect of who you are anyway. So, I need some sort of help in understanding your perspective/frame; and a label seems to help me at least (and I try not to use it as a club).
For example, it can not be enough that your only and final political principle is: "It is never morally permissible to use force, fraud, or coercion against another --- except possibly in self defence.". What about the use of force to defend a child (one's or otherwise)? Is a parking ticket "force" or "coercion"? We could go on all day right? So, there must be more .... how do I find out what it is without some sort of short-cut like a label?
-
re: morality and the law (czrpb00)
Thanks - unfortunately, the comments section doesn't allow links except in your signature.
For things like the environment and other instances where the consequences seem truly opaque, I'll sign on to the Precautionary Principle.
When discussing murder or running red lights, that is easy. (I was just thinking about that this morning on my way to work.) What is the value of something unique? It could be of (literally) incalculable value (e.g. the original copy of the Magna Carta, if it existed), or it could be worthless (a single snowflake).
(No, bebop-o, I am not referring to its poetic value - the human mind could go insane thinking of all the unique, unstudied, irretrievable, beautiful snowflakes that have ever been and ever will be. Now you made me cry.)
So what is the value of a human life? Hard to say - but we have to assume it is highly valuable in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Therefore, we protect it to a reasonable extent.
How about some less extreme example? How about speeding? That was brought up a while back. I personally would like to see a graduated license. After all, some people aren't safe drivers at the current speed limits, and others (*cough*me*cough*) are safe at 15 or 20 mph faster than these arbitrary limits. That is unrealistic, so we pick a speed that seems to bring the rate of accidents to a tolerable level. One can argue "tolerability" from a moral standpoint and get nowhere. Practically, once you've lowered it to the point where any further drop doesn't affect the rate of fatalities, there is no point in lowering it further.
Let's talk prostitution for a moment. In some moral/ethical systems, it is defined as "bad." I disagree - but for the moment let's accept that. How much money is spent on anti-prostitution law enforcement? I don't know, but it seems like a lot. What is the ultimate effectiveness of this effort? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Women are pimped, abused, and enslaved in spite of this expense. Famous "moral" crusaders are regularly caught patronizing prostitutes. Cops typically ignore prostitution and often use the threat of arrest and prosecution to obtain information on more heinous crimes. So, from a practical standpoint, what would be the effect of decriminalization? Prostitution would be like selling fast food. There would be licensing (to pay for health code enforcement), health codes, established places of business, and a lot more resources (money, court time, manpower etc.) to enforce other laws - like those against violence.
Granted, there are some arguably moral choices involved (is it better to spend $100K on vice or on the homicide unit?) but if you are talking about laws in a way that emphasized the moral over the practical, you can be bogged down forever in subtle gradations of "bad" since everyone has a slightly different take on that. However, $100K will buy a certain amount of resources. You can study how much enforcement/reduction in lawbreaking you can get for your money, and decide from there what is worth it.
I would argue that many (most?) of our decisions ultimately have some moral/ethical judgments involved. That being the case, why not attempt to argue the practicality first, which is easier to get a grip on? Then if there is still disagreement, dig deeper and determine the moral background of the issue.
In an attempt to come up with an analogy, I found it easier to come up with analogies that support your position (start with the moral/ethical first) than mine, so I'm convincible. :-)