Dude, go out RIGHT NOW, get some nice flowers, and just start saying "I'm sorry, honey I'm sorry, look, I'm sorry." Do NOT wait to find out what "the matter" is. Go. Et bon chance...
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Note to Anonyman: Anonywife Is NOT Pleased....
Anonyman was passing the sink, there in lovely Anonytown. And noticed this:
Dude, go out RIGHT NOW, get some nice flowers, and just start saying "I'm sorry, honey I'm sorry, look, I'm sorry." Do NOT wait to find out what "the matter" is. Go. Et bon chance...
Dude, go out RIGHT NOW, get some nice flowers, and just start saying "I'm sorry, honey I'm sorry, look, I'm sorry." Do NOT wait to find out what "the matter" is. Go. Et bon chance...
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
The Culture that is Singapore
The Boston Globe breaks it down for us:
"More than 80% of Singapore's population lives in public housing, in buildings designed to government specifications. And Singapore's government ensures that every apartment building mirrors the country's ethnic mix, with Chinese, Malays, and Indians living as neighbors in proportion to their share of the population - 77%, 14%, and 8% respectively."
"More than 80% of Singapore's population lives in public housing, in buildings designed to government specifications. And Singapore's government ensures that every apartment building mirrors the country's ethnic mix, with Chinese, Malays, and Indians living as neighbors in proportion to their share of the population - 77%, 14%, and 8% respectively."
Lets see here, Singapore's population is around 5 million, so 80% of that is 4 million. Shall we assume 1000 persons per building? So 4,000 government owned, government designed buildings each with 770 Chinese, 140 Malays and 80 Indians (somehow I lost 10 people!)?
That's just plain crazy, innit? Keep it in mind the next time you hear someone comparing some other country unfavorably to Singapore. The Singapore model has a lot of unsavory trappings.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Force Bad, Persuasion Good. Guns Rule Out Force.
One of those internet sensations going around. Still, worth thinking about.
The Gun is Civilization
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society.
A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.
The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
The Gun is Civilization
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society.
A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.
The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Dinosaurs walk the earth!
While everyone has seemingly gone miniature and digital, there are still a lot of folks out there keepin' it real. Here, courtesy of the WSJ is one of them:
The article in the journal is unintentionally funny as it sets up a weird dichotomy between "$1 songs and $100 players" and "$20 CDs and $1,000 stereo systems".
People, if you are planning to spend $1000 on your home stereo, I'd suggest sticking to your iPod. Even going the used route, that is just not going to cut it. I built most of my stereo myself and even that won't get you there for $1000.
The article also implies that mp3 is the state of the art for portable digital recording which is far from the truth.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Oral Arguments Today
Oral arguments today in Munger, et al. v. State, et al.
On Monday, October 26th, Bob Orr and Jeanette Doran will present oral arguments before the N.C. Court of Appeals about whether Plaintiffs have standing to challenge, under the Uniformity Clause of the N.C. State Constitution, a special tax break given to Google.
More info.
I have noticed that my gmail account has been really slow lately. Could someone at the big big Googley eye be mad at me?
On Monday, October 26th, Bob Orr and Jeanette Doran will present oral arguments before the N.C. Court of Appeals about whether Plaintiffs have standing to challenge, under the Uniformity Clause of the N.C. State Constitution, a special tax break given to Google.
More info.
I have noticed that my gmail account has been really slow lately. Could someone at the big big Googley eye be mad at me?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Obesity: Public Health Problem or Basic Human Right?
We all know about the health issues that come with obesity. Increased risk of diabetes, cardiac issues, some cancers, liver and gall bladder problems among others.
What I did not know until today is that there is a publication called "The International Journal of Obesity", and it publishes articles about things like the problem of weight discrimination (of course it also publishes articles like "Effect of dairy and non-dairy calcium on fecal fat excretion in lactose digester and maldigester obese adults", but that doesn't get picked up by NPR)!
I certainly am not in favor of discrimination, but I guess I have enough Puritan/Calvinist DNA still running through me to worry about a slippery slope here.
On the public health side of things, we want to get out the message that obesity is bad, but we somehow still need to treat obese individuals with respect and fairness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)