Caught Myself

I am taking a Critical Thinking class, which so far has shown me two important things:

1. There is an assumption (at least at my college) that students have a lot of trouble performing the act of Critical Thinking.
2. I am one of them.

I have performed well in tests and assessments, but I still have a lot of work to do in order to incorporate critical thinking into my life.

On one question, the teacher asked us about a politician's point of view.  We were to choose from a list of statements that supported this politician's point of view.  One of the statements was:

•   The politician believes society has a moral obligation to care for the poor.

Keeping in mind the fact that the politician in question is a devout liberal, I raised my hand and said: "Yes."  Then the teacher raised one eyebrow and asked my if I thought that the statement was only a liberal point of view.

Again, I said "yes."

Then, I was told that the statement spoke of society's obligations, not a government's obligations.

Chagrined, I was.  I jumped to an immediate conclusion that caring for the poor was only liberal belief and not a conservative one.  Furthermore, I assumed that the monikers "liberal" and "conservative" represented a concrete set of beliefs.

Reality says otherwise.  Not all liberals hold the exact same beliefs; nor do all conservatives.

My error in thinking was that I, a left-leaning independent, knew something without questioning where I received that knowledge.  In other words, why did I believe that liberals believe society has a moral obligation to tend to the poor?

This is the question  that I should have asked before I opened my mouth.  Instead of pulling away from my biases and looking at everything objectively, I let an inner sentiment drive me blindly along.  Basically, I just parroted a sound bite that I have heard and read countless times without really thinking about it.

So, I caught myself somewhat after the fact making an improper judgement and leaping to a conclusion without giving my assumptions due thought.

John Kerry Said...What?

Regarding Snowden's decision to hang out in China and Russia whilst hiding from U.S. thugs, John Kerry took a swing at irony, and struck out:

"...I wonder if while he was in either of those countries [China & Russia] he raised the question of Internet freedom since that seems to be what he champions." (emphasis mine)

Please pardon my ignorance here, but, when Snowden issued his leak, did he reveal problems regarding Internet freedom, or privacy?  I thought he was rather more of a champion of Privacy and perhaps also Democracy.

In my opinion, having the capability to listen to and record everyone's phone calls--and then taking action--sounds more like the actions of a police state than a democracy.  Follow that up with weird statements like Kerry's, and you have the makings for another Stalinist Regime.

Really, Kerry?  Internet freedom?

The USA in Decline Like the Roman Empire?

At the height of the Roman Empire, sometime early in the 2nd century, Juvenal wrote Satire X, which in part criticized the Romans' obsession with entertainment.  It was from this work that the term "bread and circuses" arose.  Juvenal essentially complained about the citizenry in his time who sought naught but entertainment and food.  Furthermore, he decried the rulers for placating to the masses.
Obviously, there is are parallels in today's world.  Humans, on the whole, tend to feed upon the things that make them happy, and we apparently have not changed in that aspect during the past 2000 years or so.  We like to eat, and so we become gluttonous and obese.  We like to be entertained, and so we fawn upon our entertainers and live vicariously through their performances.  This is in our nature and not easily conquered.

The question I had recently was this: Because we are essentially the same in nature as we were 2000 years ago, could we, the United States of America and the world's current preeminent power (both militarily and economically), be following in the footsteps of the greatest ancient empire of Rome?

I read a bit of summary data from various theories in an attempt to answer this question.  Apparently, there are literally hundreds of theories that try to explain the fall, and they fall into four general classifications:

• General all-encompassing decay
• Monocausal decay
• Catastrophic collapse
• Transformation

So far, my money is on the economic/military theories in the all-encompassing decay group.  I highly doubt a singular cause would collapse a huge empire, unless of course that catastrophe just happened to take the form of a falling asteroid. Those theories base themselves on the devastating effects of disease, environmental collapse, or lead poisoning--to name a few.  They form some valid arguments, but the critics often make more sense.

I also lean a bit toward the transformation theories, mainly because they mesh so very well with a decaying-society approach and see history as an analogous conglomeration, instead of a sharp delineation of static periods in time. In this viewpoint, Rome didn't actually fall; it merely proceeded along an inevitable course, which continues to this day.

Some may feel that the USA is currently headed toward a destiny similar to the ancient Romans, either perched upon a great precipice or rotted thoroughly from the inside.  Perhaps a few also believe that an outbreak of a devastating disease, a la World War Z or Contagion, may collapse our house-of-cards financial institutions.  One or two people I know think a citizen uprising will oust the old system and herald in the new.

It all sounds like to much noise, these doomsday theories and ill-thought threats.  Are we really headed for a calamitous disaster, or are we just riding the same old rails of inevitability?
Like ours, ancient Rome had a complex economy.  Their wealth relied on conquered territories and tax laws.  Our economy is likewise very complex, and, although we don't necessarily pillage all the lands we now conquer, some of the great drivers of our world economy derive their wealth from resources abroad.  The USA also taxes its citizenry, but one can hardly believe that today's financial realities could ever be compared to ancient Rome's.

Or, can it?

Historians Michael Rostovtzeff and Ludwig von Mises postulate an interesting cause and effect scenario in ancient Rome, eerily similar to our own.  They felt that their market led to artificially low prices of food, which affected trade in such a way that cities suffered from food shortages.  Details of Rostovtzeff's theories can be found in volumes 1 and 2 of The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire.  Overproduction of wine and olive oil led to a large surplus with little demand, as these products were inferior to those in Greece and Spain.  Again, exports fell, causing a huge trade imbalance.

In today's world, the USA also suffers from a trade imbalance.  Because so much production has moved to other nations, we cannot provide enough for ourselves and must import to satisfy demand.

Rome's emperors  increasingly depended upon their armies as the sole source of power, especially when she campaigned to acquire lands and resources far away from Italy.  Armies needed vast amounts of resources (food, weapons, vehicles) for their continued operation.  Larger armies meant the need for more money, military supplies, and food.  The emperors had no choice but to raise taxes.

The United States currently employs the largest military force in the world.  The logistics of maintenance now are different from 100 A.D., but the essentials are the same.  The US needs money, production, and supplies if it wants to keep an active military force.  Because our exports are so low, the government has no choice but to raise taxes.

Current efforts in the legislative branches, in retrospect, call for adjustments to distribution of current tax revenues, but even one-celled organisms can see that any redistribution will only delay the inevitable: higher taxes.  Furthermore, if taxes will continue to lower for our aristocracy, then the increased burden will surely fall upon the middle and lower classes.

Ancient Rome proceeded along a similar path.  Their aristocracy suffered little from taxes, and their laws gave them many avenues to increase their wealth without doing anything illegal.  Their middle class citizenry suffered the worst from taxes, and they too gravitated toward our current 99-1 income ratio.

One happy note can be gleaned, however, from history.  The Roman emperor Hadrian reformed much of Rome's economy and set it on a better footing.  We may yet see our own Hadrian take office in the future.

The fact that several similarities exist only points to our desire to predict the future.  For example, Nostradamus quatrains, while at times seeming to describe future events, could only have done so after the fact.  Any parallels between his writings and historical events were based solely on huge leaps in subjective reasoning.

So it is with ancient Rome and the United States of America.  We have taken instances from centuries of history and applied it to generalizations in current times.  Rome's changes were glacial in progress.

The more reasoned examination of today's situation would lead to a rather boring conclusion.  Change will come gradually, yet on a logical course determined by the constant flow of actions from us all.

The Roman Empire had approximately 147 emperors rule the lands, from 27 B.C. until A.D. 1432--1459 years.  That works out to an average of 10 years per emperor.  Barack Obama is our 44th president, and each of those 44 ruled for an average of 5 years (224 years as a nation divided by 44 presidents).  Clearly, our time spent as a nation--and not always the preeminent nation--pales to the amount of time ancient Rome existed.

But, if you really have to draw parallels, then we can expect taxes to rise, exports to fall, monetary value to plummet, military power to wane, emancipation of conquered lands, and one or two really outrageous presidents. Think: Caligula and Nero...

Brave, Brave Snowden

Those of you who haven't been living under rocks should know who Edward Snowden is and what he has done recently.  To suffer banal repetition, I shall briefly explain the news.

Edward Snowden leaked documents to the Guardian newspaper which described in detail how Verizon and other like companies regularly pass private information about people's communications into the hands of the NSA, without public disclosure or sufficient justification.

Public Disclosure

The government's rote response to privacy invasion is that these things are done in the name of "national security."  They are also quick to claim that the loss of a few privileges keep us safer.

My issue with these arguments is that "national security" is an abstract umbrella for continued abuse of power.  Furthermore, the "keeping us safer" argument has no true justification, because there is no concrete object, person, or event from which we need to become safer.

History shows us that the ruling classes have always had to hide their activities from public scrutiny in order to get away with their bad deeds.  The government of the United States is no different.  Acts are kept secret when they are harmful.

This is the reason we need public disclosure on all of our government's activities.  Even the dimmest of primates understands the harmful nature of lies and secrets.  So, when the government claims it does things for its citizens' interests, we have a right to be told what those things are, and we have to be given the chance of examining these things to decide whether they are or are not for our benefit.

Leaks such as the one Snowden provided do the public a great service by opening our eyes to the bad things the government does when they pull the wool over our eyes.

Sufficient Justification

The only security provided with "national security" is for the government's benefit -- not ours.  A detective following a murder case may have to listen  in on phone calls and such, but they need to be very choosy in who they monitor.  Furthermore, they need to have some evidence of mischievousness before they can violate someone's privacy.

If they say they need to listen to everybody's phone calls, then they obviously have no idea who they are looking for and no evidence that everyone's private conversations would hold any viable clues.  So it goes for the government.  Why listen to everyone's phone calls unless you have no idea how to run a proper investigation?

So, when someone blows the whistle on secret, unjustifiable activities, we the public gain a better understanding of why we distrust our government so much.  And, like the bully in the play yard that they are, our government throws a fit when we discover their nefarious activities, throwing the blame on the one person who acted in the interests of the greater good -- the public welfare.

Sure, Snowden is scared.  Who the hell wouldn't be?  Regardless of his age, he obviously weighed the consequences against the benefits and found what he thought was the correct thing to do.

As it goes, it is also the same thing that I believe was the correct thing to do: tell us what is hidden from us.  We are the public.  We are the country.  We are the United States of America, not the very few individuals who call themselves the government, because those people in the government are also citizens and as such also have the right for this knowledge.  The secrecy and lies hurt all of us.

It is a brave individual who pulls back the wool just a tiny bit, and dares the system to pull it back down.

Blind Water Crystal Experimentation

Dr. Emoto conducted a series of experiments some years back to determine whether or not a person's thoughts could guide the formation of water crystals.  I took a look at the evidence he provided, researched opinions on the matter, and came up with my own conclusion:  Emoto is just another quack.

To begin, we need to visit a site which talks about Emoto's findings: http://www.whatthebleep.com/crystals/.

Upon first read, I thought Emoto was on to something extraordinary.  The idea of someone's thoughts controlling a natural occurrence was (and still is) a bit thrilling.  But then I collected my thoughts and proceeded with some research on my own.

One interesting analysis of Emoto's work can be found here: http://is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com/.

I leave it to the reader to peruse Setchfield's own findings, but I give you a summary of the salient points below.

There are numerous questions which need to be answered before Emoto's work can be considered truly genuine and worthy of future study.  There are some discrepancies in his work, along with a few contradictory situations.  One situation I recall is Emoto's declaration that crystal X was created in an environment at a very low temperature--one that most definitely causes water to form in columns, and not in flat patterns as Emoto shows.  He also does not reveal the entire body of his work, merely cherry-picking a few pictures that support his claims.

Yet, there are a few who tried to give Emoto's work serious consideration.  Take this whitepaper for example: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_22_4_radin.pdf.

It certainly seems like a rational examination of effects upon the formation of water crystals.  The requisite disclaimer in the summary clearly reveals the problems with studies such as this:

"[I]n any experiment involving intention, the intentions of the investigators cannot be cleanly isolated from those of the nominal participants and this in turn constrains how one should properly interpret the results. (Radin & Lund, Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation: A Triple-Blind Replication Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 22, No. 4, p 491)"

The main problem with all emotion- or thought-based experiements is that all aspects of thought cannot be measured in any sense.  What exactly is a "bad" intention?  How do intentions differ between individuals?  Are there differences in "strengths" of thought?  How can these be monitored and measured?

Emoto's and Lund's research efforts contain the same problem with a lot of debunked "research".  There are proper ways to collect data to ensure methods which replicate findings without fail.  In the scientific method, replication of findings is the first step toward a true discovery.  Replication fosters peer review and refinement.  None of this can happen with a study on effects of intention.

Finally can the beauty of objects, which was the measurement used in Lund's classification of the experiment's crystals, be etched on a scale of standards?  Beauty is purely in the eye of the beholder, therefore not objective.  Ergo, Emoto's research is only relevant in the eye of the blinded beholder.

Sugar Free Pains

I like chocolate...no...I adore chocolate.  My love for the dark pheromone-inducing nectar began when I was a wee child, and it has lasted all my life.  Doubtless, it will continue to rule my modicum of common sense until they bury me in the ground.  Over the years, my cultivated tastes quite naturally led to weight problems and, recently discovered, the onset of diabetes.  Oh, the humanity!

My foray into a diabetic life was not met with joy.  I languished for weeks, certain that I would go insane without my most favorite food.  My wife showed the utmost sympathy as I moped around the house, uttering all sorts of gibberish, by showing me the various substitutes for sugar-laden chocolate.  Slowly, I came out of my funk and realized that all was not lost.  I could eat and sometimes truly enjoy sugar-free candies.

Now, I sample just about any sugar-free confection I can find in the store.  Some, like the big-brand varieties (the ones you see around Valentine's day) taste far too sweet.  An overabundance of maltotol or sucralose does not a sugary sweet make.  Others, mostly small-shop brands, tend to cook the chocolate a bit wrong and their candy gets brittle and crystalline far too quickly.

It was during one of my lunchtime foraging campaigns in a local high-priced food store that I found a package of Asher's Sugar Free Caramels.  I thought I'd give them a try, since I also like caramel, and I was in the mood to put something sweet in my mouth.  The 4-oz package contained about 8 pieces and my initial observation concluded that the candy was in a good state--not old or crumbly.

I popped one in my mouth when I got back to the office and sat back to let it melt all over my taste buds.  The caramel, as caramel is wont to do, refused to melt quickly enough, so I began to chew it down.  Anyone who has chewed caramel knows that it is not a hard substance, but rather quite tacky and prone to stick to your teeth.

The caramel had mostly vanished into my stomach, when I suddenly bit down on something hard.  Because I have two implants, both rearmost lower molars, the crunch in my mouth was not very loud.  In fact, I began to worry, thinking something really bad happened.  I ran to the bathroom and spit out the remainder of the caramel in the sink.  Along with the tacky candy, two odd items came out: a small ball bearing, and a bit of porcelain.

The porcelain, I soon realized, was part of my right-hand crown.  The tiny round, metallic object was apparently embedded in the caramel.  I was, to say the least, quite pissed off.  The crown was less than a year old, and very expensive.  The pain I went through to get the implant makes a great horror story that I may tell some other time.  At the moment I looked at the damage in the sink, I knew I was going to spend a lot of money fixing something that should not break.

I wrote Asher's and told them of the metal in their caramel.  They were very nice, but I could never shake the resentment I felt because my tongue kept touching the oddly-shaped tooth

I went to the dentist a few days later and heard the news I expected:  The crown was chipped badly and it had to be replaced.  So, the requisite bucketload of money and pain later, I found myself with a new crown.

At least this one fit better than the last.

You've Been IE7'd

Programmers, like myself, who write code for web applications, knows only too well about the annoying differences between browsers. Rounded-edge borders?  No problem with the modern browsers.  Sizing and positioning DIV elements in web documents?  Totally awesome in Chrome, but just a bit different in IE.

However, IE7 takes the prize for the nastiest browser of all time (for programmers).

Spacing, ordering, and padding rules are different in IE7.  CSS styles have to be customized for the browser, lest you see panels half-way off the browser window or "hidden" text visible on the buttons.

Worse, IE7 will do some things very oddly.

A defect came through a while back and completely stumped the team, until we discovered a really odd behavior in IE7 when creating and loading dates.  When an AJAX call returned with date information, all browsers, except IE7, could convert the raw data -- a number -- into a date.

Not IE7.  No, that browser somehow automatically converted the numbers into the system's default date format.  So when we were expecting a number, we were getting text.

We were IE7'd!

How to Be Blessed or even Blessed Be

People occasionally say to me "be blessed" in farewell.  I don't mind it.  I am of atheistic leaning, so I conclude that the only blessings coming my way will be in the other person's mind.  But, it is a nice gesture, and I just smile away with my lips zipped.

Well, sometimes I do say "thank you."

Now, I have only heard this incantation during the past 10 years or so.  Before then, no one said "be blessed," except when I sneezed and was told "bless you."  This rise in the "be blessed" well-wishing got me to thinking about the phrase.

Etymology is not my strong suit, but I find word and phrase origins very interesting.  A quick search via Google turns up virtually nothing about "be blessed", except for a song by that title by Yolanda Adams, published in 2005.  That could be the origin of the use of the phrase in everyday life, but that is only speculation on my part.

One thing I do notice is that the folks who use the phrase are extremely devout Christians of some ilk.  This suggests either the normal human action of familiar repetition, as if to continually reaffirm their identity to a group, or the efforts of someone or someones who want to combat the usage of another phrase:

"Blessed be"

This phrase is the de facto Wiccan greeting.  You may know these people as witches.  I came to know several witches long ago, when I immersed myself in pagan rituals looking for some meaning to life.

The Hollywood version of witches and Witchcraft is so far off base, it is pathetic.  Wiccan rituals reminded me of the Christian dogma in several ways.  Just to give two examples: (1) Whereas Christianity holds the belief that their God is one and three entities at the same time (Father, Son, & Holy Ghost), the Wiccans hold that their Goddess is one and three entities at the same time (Maiden, Mother, & Crone); (2) Christians hold several days in the year holy including Christmas and Easter, where the Wiccans likewise hold several days (sometimes the same) holy.  As examples, there are Yule and Ostara, celebrated December 21st and March 21st respectively.

One more item: "Magic" in the Wiccan idiom is nothing more than personal enlightenment.

Bill Maher, Where Art Thou?

My wife and I watch only a handful of shows on television -- all but one on the pay cable channels -- and so we make an effort to listen and discuss what we see.  I know several people who watch a lot of TV, yet do little more than laugh at the jokes and comment on the quality of the advertisements.  In other words, my wife and I are highly selective creatures of habit who make time to watch the few shows that we find interesting or entertaining.

We have watched every episode of Real Time with Bill Maher because we found the show both interesting and entertaining.  And until very recently Bill has held a fairly steady course, holding the candle (in his own way) up to the Generally Accepted Lies and Untruths in our society.  This was one of the reasons we dropped our carcasses onto the couch for 60 minutes on a night when we might have better things to do.

Last week, Bill started off the show with the obligatory special guest and quickly set the stage for a point of view that has been simmering in his head for a while.  Too bad he lost it.

Maher said quite clearly that he thought Islam teaches its devout to make war with and lay waste to the rest of the world.  Wow.  He further drove that point home during a roundtable tete-a-tete with Glenn Greenwald.

Bill said Muslims were bad.  Glenn countered with a description of destructive US foreign policies.  Bill said Muslims were bad.  Glenn said the USA was partially responsible for the anger in the region, pointing out the recent Mulsim-friendly targets and the coziness the USA has with anti-Mulsim states (like Israel).  Bill said Muslims were bad.  Glenn said other religions were bad and gave the Crusades as an example.  Bill said Muslims were bad right now and the others were bad long ago, so they don't count.

Now, Bill and I share some of the same opinions on religion, but his jingoistic "Muslims bad!" is so far from the truth, it was painful to watch Bill ignore Glenn's arguments, especially since Bill had been one of those voices who lamented the US foreign policy.

If Bill keeps this up and his shows become an Islam-bashing frenzy, he will lose us as an audience.

The Next Phishing Attack

Friends, I just had a most terrifying epiphany.  I just realized how I could be duped into surrendering my system over to nefarious criminals via a phishing attack.

Check out this doctored email:

It's a standard notice that your credit line was increased and that all things are good.  By replacing the right text with a credit card company (Chase, Discover, etc), You get an email that looks legit.  It probably would for me if it seemed to come from a valid location.

The part that says "...for account number ending with nnnn", just about any number would be fine, because I am not too sure what my card number is anymore.  After all, I use a password tool that can populate forms with credit card information automatically, and my statements are all on line (and I rarely look at them).

I don't think my habits are unique.  On a bell curve, I probably fall right in the middle.

Which means, innocent-looking text in the email--perhaps made bold or colorful--might lead me to a click-through with text like:

You can view our fraud policies by visiting our email security page.

And make sure that "email security page" contains a link.

Better yet, one might add this:

If this email was sent in error, report the issue to our Customer Service department.

And make sure that "Customer Service" contains a link.

But, those links may not work so well, especially if the link preview box in the browser says something like "http://cdfgorzinczy.ru/woeikd".  So, a really devious mind would own their own servers and have the links point to something like "https://creditcardcompany.com:9019/service".

Now, that looks totally official and it would fool the few who think they know a phishing scam when they see one, but aren't aware enough to really examine the email and run a search for "scam bla bla...".

Just wait until someone in Nigeria figures this out and spends the time and money to set something like this up.