http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,426485,00.html
Please read the article and see if you can point out the massive flaws in testing.
"MALINTENT, the brainchild of the cutting-edge Human Factors division in Homeland Security's directorate for Science and Technology, searches your body for non-verbal cues that predict whether you mean harm to your fellow passengers."
"If you're rushed or stressed, you may send out signals of anxiety, but FAST isn't fooled. It's already good enough to tell the difference between a harried traveler and a terrorist. Even if you sweat heavily by nature, FAST won't mistake you for a baddie."
"While the 144 test subjects thought they were merely passing through an entrance way, they actually passed through a series of sensors that screened them for bad intentions.
Homeland Security also selected a group of 23 attendees to be civilian "accomplices" in their test. They were each given a "disruptive device" to carry through the portal — and, unlike the other attendees, were conscious that they were on a mission.""
"While FAST's batting average is classified, Undersecretary for Science and Technology Adm. Jay Cohen declared the experiment a "home run.""
So, it can tell whether or not you are stressed or mean actual harm. So why did they declare it a success on people WHO DID NOT MEAN ACTUAL HARM?!
No I get it, it's difficult to find a test on those who mean harm. But wait, aren't there prisons in every state in the union? Violence happens there all the time, they can run the machine and correlate with violent incidents following the testing.
It doesn't just take engineers to build a machine like this, it takes psychiatrists to determine if your testing has any validity. Maybe they did, I don't know, but if I can spot such a clear flaw, I hate to think what actual terrorists might think.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Adventures in Houston, The World's Biggest Small Town
A few weeks ago, my father shared with me an article featuring Houston, declaring it to be on the fast track to becoming one of the world's great cities.
Inspired, I have since made journeys into America's third largest city, Rice Village, the Museum District, Main Street, even the Spanish Renaissance style Houston Public Library.
If Houston wants to be a great city it will have to create a compelling reason for people to go out of their way to visit.
Now, if you live here, it is nice and has places to go. The Art museum is worthy and I've been all around the world, the Museum of Natural History is a fine way to spend the afternoon, Memorial park is beautiful, the Houston Public Library is lovely.
However, the city doesn't have much of a flavor aesthetically. I mean, Nacgodoches has more flavor, and that's not a slam on Nacgodoches. Also, it is spread out. Like, really spread out, this is not a walker's city and the public transportation consists of buses and a toy train (a very nice toy train, mind you, just doesn't go super far, there's only one line).
Point being, this city is not very distinctive. There are highlights of originality, but they are few. It is the world's biggest small town. Like most small towns in America, it is clean, safe, more or less upright, and there are a thousand more just like it.
It will take more than a rah rah attitude to make people want to see Houston. On a side note, boasting of a thriving night life doesn't mean a tinker's curse, all you need for a night life is liquor, women, and music, and, last time I checked, you can find all three pretty much worldwide.
All of that being said, Houston does have something that the only three cities in America bigger than it have. A future. New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago are expensive and socialist, and are driving business away. People are draining from these cities to places like Houston, where the price of a tiny house or apartment in NY, LA, or Chicago can buy a big house with land around it, or a luxury apartment with more than one room that costs less than $2600 a month. If you want to know the future you can ask Austin, and even San Antonio.
The future of America is working towards the center and the south. Factories are opening there, here. Industry is thriving and the cost of living is fantastic. What we lack in distinctiveness we possess in abundance of the necessities of life, work that creates value, and the economic freedom to make that possible.
Inspired, I have since made journeys into America's third largest city, Rice Village, the Museum District, Main Street, even the Spanish Renaissance style Houston Public Library.
If Houston wants to be a great city it will have to create a compelling reason for people to go out of their way to visit.
Now, if you live here, it is nice and has places to go. The Art museum is worthy and I've been all around the world, the Museum of Natural History is a fine way to spend the afternoon, Memorial park is beautiful, the Houston Public Library is lovely.
However, the city doesn't have much of a flavor aesthetically. I mean, Nacgodoches has more flavor, and that's not a slam on Nacgodoches. Also, it is spread out. Like, really spread out, this is not a walker's city and the public transportation consists of buses and a toy train (a very nice toy train, mind you, just doesn't go super far, there's only one line).
Point being, this city is not very distinctive. There are highlights of originality, but they are few. It is the world's biggest small town. Like most small towns in America, it is clean, safe, more or less upright, and there are a thousand more just like it.
It will take more than a rah rah attitude to make people want to see Houston. On a side note, boasting of a thriving night life doesn't mean a tinker's curse, all you need for a night life is liquor, women, and music, and, last time I checked, you can find all three pretty much worldwide.
All of that being said, Houston does have something that the only three cities in America bigger than it have. A future. New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago are expensive and socialist, and are driving business away. People are draining from these cities to places like Houston, where the price of a tiny house or apartment in NY, LA, or Chicago can buy a big house with land around it, or a luxury apartment with more than one room that costs less than $2600 a month. If you want to know the future you can ask Austin, and even San Antonio.
The future of America is working towards the center and the south. Factories are opening there, here. Industry is thriving and the cost of living is fantastic. What we lack in distinctiveness we possess in abundance of the necessities of life, work that creates value, and the economic freedom to make that possible.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
A Most Unusual Economics Class: First Day
I am taking a macroeconomics class in order to fulfill a prerequisite for my Masters in Business Education degree.
Little did I suspect what a delightful cherry taking a macroeconomics class at a large Texas community college could be. The names, locations, and events have been slightly fictionalized.
"Paying full price for a textbook, sheeyit....", our professor intoned in his Texas country black accent, before informing us that buying the required textbook was unnecessary, any economics book would do, "this shit hasn't changed since the eighteenth century."
A graduate of Texas Lutheran and the University of Texas at San Antonio, our professor owned his arrogance, "you'd be arrogant if you was smart too."
We received the assignment for the final almost immediately. He requested that we watch a total of ten free documentaries one can find online, and write a report of four pages. I suspect libertarian sympathies, due to a combination of what looks like conspiratorially minded recommended movies and a pro free market bias.
He also appeared to be socially intelligent, in that a discussion class with about thirty people does not usually work, however the vibe was relaxed enough that a discussion did happen. I found particularly poignant his response to the statement, "I never use the automatic tellers at Kroger because they take away jobs."
Pause,
Response: "Who here wants to be a checker at Kroger? Show of hands?"
Needless to say, no hands raised, we're awfully charitable about ensuring people stay in jobs we would never want to do personally.
Another student also raised the excellent point that those machines represent jobs as well, manufacturing, maintenance, and so forth.
It set me thinking, the point of labor is to add value to other human beings, if the job adds no value it is, pardon the term, masturbatory. It is infertile, with no more meaning than digging a hole and filling it in.
We must avoid the Luddite deviancy, we think we are preserving human dignity while we are in process of destroying it.
It puts me in mind of a film I saw listed on Netflix, where a group of workers take over a factory in Argentina in the hopes of reopening it and "restoring their dignity". If the factory wasn't making money, it is because it was not providing what consumers needed. If no one needs what you are making, forcing them to give you money for it is identical to the definition of thievery, providing no value and yet receiving value yourself.
No one in their right mind is immune to empathy for the suffering of someone out of work, but are we doing them any favor by depriving their lives of meaning? A rejoinder is that it is better them having them starve. But is anyone truly starving in America? And why not just feed them instead of demanding they perform meaningless work for their wages?
Little did I suspect what a delightful cherry taking a macroeconomics class at a large Texas community college could be. The names, locations, and events have been slightly fictionalized.
"Paying full price for a textbook, sheeyit....", our professor intoned in his Texas country black accent, before informing us that buying the required textbook was unnecessary, any economics book would do, "this shit hasn't changed since the eighteenth century."
A graduate of Texas Lutheran and the University of Texas at San Antonio, our professor owned his arrogance, "you'd be arrogant if you was smart too."
We received the assignment for the final almost immediately. He requested that we watch a total of ten free documentaries one can find online, and write a report of four pages. I suspect libertarian sympathies, due to a combination of what looks like conspiratorially minded recommended movies and a pro free market bias.
He also appeared to be socially intelligent, in that a discussion class with about thirty people does not usually work, however the vibe was relaxed enough that a discussion did happen. I found particularly poignant his response to the statement, "I never use the automatic tellers at Kroger because they take away jobs."
Pause,
Response: "Who here wants to be a checker at Kroger? Show of hands?"
Needless to say, no hands raised, we're awfully charitable about ensuring people stay in jobs we would never want to do personally.
Another student also raised the excellent point that those machines represent jobs as well, manufacturing, maintenance, and so forth.
It set me thinking, the point of labor is to add value to other human beings, if the job adds no value it is, pardon the term, masturbatory. It is infertile, with no more meaning than digging a hole and filling it in.
We must avoid the Luddite deviancy, we think we are preserving human dignity while we are in process of destroying it.
It puts me in mind of a film I saw listed on Netflix, where a group of workers take over a factory in Argentina in the hopes of reopening it and "restoring their dignity". If the factory wasn't making money, it is because it was not providing what consumers needed. If no one needs what you are making, forcing them to give you money for it is identical to the definition of thievery, providing no value and yet receiving value yourself.
No one in their right mind is immune to empathy for the suffering of someone out of work, but are we doing them any favor by depriving their lives of meaning? A rejoinder is that it is better them having them starve. But is anyone truly starving in America? And why not just feed them instead of demanding they perform meaningless work for their wages?
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The Vatican, The Guggenheim, Art, and Communication
Thanks to my mother and my background of her home-schooling me, I received contact with and an understanding of art at a young age. Art is fundamentally communication, especially the communication of emotion. So it must be judged two ways, technically, and philosophically.
The technical side, is clearly, the "technique" of communication, the actual method and presentation. The technique is good if it makes the communication of the idea clear or striking, which is the philosophical side. The philosophical side is to be judged on the greatness of the idea.
As an example of good art, the Vatican is almost universally fantastic, the art is clear enough that pilgrims worldwide experience the power of the Christian idea in a way that is clear enough to be understood by men from every conceivable ethnic background, level of education, and economic status without explanation. The primary idea, in my mind, is one grandeur, majesty.
On these criteria, the Guggenheim and everything I saw there was a monumental failure. Most of the artworks failed to communicate without explanation and the ideas behind them suffered from an extreme poverty. Poorly packaged savage misandry mostly, it seemed.
Whence the success? Self appointed elites qualified by their own hubris. Great art is understood by both great and mean, albeit on differing levels. Great art is not contingent on a lack of understanding by the unwashed, breathing in the rarefied air of "true understanding".
This emperor has no clothes.
The technical side, is clearly, the "technique" of communication, the actual method and presentation. The technique is good if it makes the communication of the idea clear or striking, which is the philosophical side. The philosophical side is to be judged on the greatness of the idea.
As an example of good art, the Vatican is almost universally fantastic, the art is clear enough that pilgrims worldwide experience the power of the Christian idea in a way that is clear enough to be understood by men from every conceivable ethnic background, level of education, and economic status without explanation. The primary idea, in my mind, is one grandeur, majesty.
On these criteria, the Guggenheim and everything I saw there was a monumental failure. Most of the artworks failed to communicate without explanation and the ideas behind them suffered from an extreme poverty. Poorly packaged savage misandry mostly, it seemed.
Whence the success? Self appointed elites qualified by their own hubris. Great art is understood by both great and mean, albeit on differing levels. Great art is not contingent on a lack of understanding by the unwashed, breathing in the rarefied air of "true understanding".
This emperor has no clothes.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Hungary, the Sudetenland, Fiume, and Georgia
I believe that the best parallel for the Russo-Georgian conflict is not the Soviet invasion of Hungary or even the German seizing of the Sudetenland.
It is my understanding that in Western political philosophy, in order to be considered the legitimate government, that government must provide the services of government, primarily security against agressive neighbors and internal criminals. Georgia has not done so in South Ossetia or Abkhazia for years. These were de facto independent countries, as I'm sure you are aware. Their peace was interrupted by Georgia for the sake of a kind of irrendentism.
This is more like d'Annunzio's occuption of Fiume in the twenties. Not a perfect analogy, but I have failed to see any concrete good provided by either the occupation of Fiume or the Georgian attempted occupation of South Ossetia.
The way I see it, the Georgians took a gamble that Russia would not get involved and lost, the same way d'Annunzio assumed that the Allies would not get involved and that Italy would annex Fiume.
The Russians are not pure as the driven snow, but the Georgians knew that Russia had assumed obligations to South Ossetia and Abkhazia prior to the conflict, and have no right to be surprised by the Russian response. Awaiting further information, I also believe the Russians are within their rights to defend these satellite states, having undertaken security obligations to these countries beforehand.
It is my understanding that in Western political philosophy, in order to be considered the legitimate government, that government must provide the services of government, primarily security against agressive neighbors and internal criminals. Georgia has not done so in South Ossetia or Abkhazia for years. These were de facto independent countries, as I'm sure you are aware. Their peace was interrupted by Georgia for the sake of a kind of irrendentism.
This is more like d'Annunzio's occuption of Fiume in the twenties. Not a perfect analogy, but I have failed to see any concrete good provided by either the occupation of Fiume or the Georgian attempted occupation of South Ossetia.
The way I see it, the Georgians took a gamble that Russia would not get involved and lost, the same way d'Annunzio assumed that the Allies would not get involved and that Italy would annex Fiume.
The Russians are not pure as the driven snow, but the Georgians knew that Russia had assumed obligations to South Ossetia and Abkhazia prior to the conflict, and have no right to be surprised by the Russian response. Awaiting further information, I also believe the Russians are within their rights to defend these satellite states, having undertaken security obligations to these countries beforehand.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Joss Whedon: Merchant of Death
Warning: Contains spoilers
Just got through watching Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog again, check it out on fancast.com.
Apparently it ain't Whedon until somebody beloved dies.
Buffy, Angel, Firefly (you had to kill Wash, sure, the one guy that don't have it comin', can't have him walking around), and even this latest wonderful entry in his spreadsheet of excellence.
Watch it, love it, hate it, watch it again.
Just got through watching Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog again, check it out on fancast.com.
Apparently it ain't Whedon until somebody beloved dies.
Buffy, Angel, Firefly (you had to kill Wash, sure, the one guy that don't have it comin', can't have him walking around), and even this latest wonderful entry in his spreadsheet of excellence.
Watch it, love it, hate it, watch it again.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Bobby Jindal, Corporal Punishment, and Prison
" [J]ustice without cruelty pleases people more than remiss mercy." -Gracian, A Pocket Mirror for Heroes, Currency/Doubleday 1996, p. 28
"The only thing that prisons demonstrably cure is heterosexuality." -John D. MacDonald, The Long Lavender Look
Recently read that the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal has signed a bill mandating chemical castration (and allowing for physical castration in some instances) for certain categories sex offenders, in addition to their prison sentences.
How is it that the death penalty is cruel and unusual, but castration is just fine? And on that note, why is flogging so cruel and unusual, but years of confinement with all the horrors that that entails in America and most other countries is seen as humane?
Instead of sending someone to face years of abuse, malnutrition, lost time, and corrupting company, why not offer criminals, at least in some categories (non violent offenders like thieves for example), the option of receiving their penalty through corporal punishment? It will hurt strongly enough to make an impression, and yet, after a recovery period that probably won't exceed two months, a man can go back to work and not be separated from family and other institutions that might provide him a measure of healthy support in remaking his life.
And, if someone has committed a crime of sufficient gravity that trusting him in the world at large is not reasonably feasible, like the future castrates of Louisiana, keeping them in a much reduced prison population might have more beneficent effects. Of course the death penalty might be more just and, in the end, merciful, but since that is not an option, I believe that confinement is obviously more reasonable in those cases.
In response to the criticism that corrections is not about retribution, but rehabilitating the criminal to socially acceptable behavior, do you think prisons are doing that now?
"The only thing that prisons demonstrably cure is heterosexuality." -John D. MacDonald, The Long Lavender Look
Recently read that the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal has signed a bill mandating chemical castration (and allowing for physical castration in some instances) for certain categories sex offenders, in addition to their prison sentences.
How is it that the death penalty is cruel and unusual, but castration is just fine? And on that note, why is flogging so cruel and unusual, but years of confinement with all the horrors that that entails in America and most other countries is seen as humane?
Instead of sending someone to face years of abuse, malnutrition, lost time, and corrupting company, why not offer criminals, at least in some categories (non violent offenders like thieves for example), the option of receiving their penalty through corporal punishment? It will hurt strongly enough to make an impression, and yet, after a recovery period that probably won't exceed two months, a man can go back to work and not be separated from family and other institutions that might provide him a measure of healthy support in remaking his life.
And, if someone has committed a crime of sufficient gravity that trusting him in the world at large is not reasonably feasible, like the future castrates of Louisiana, keeping them in a much reduced prison population might have more beneficent effects. Of course the death penalty might be more just and, in the end, merciful, but since that is not an option, I believe that confinement is obviously more reasonable in those cases.
In response to the criticism that corrections is not about retribution, but rehabilitating the criminal to socially acceptable behavior, do you think prisons are doing that now?
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Great Moments in Practical Philosophy: Friendship
"If we speak of the happiness of this life, the happy man needs friends, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 9), not, indeed, to make use of them, since he suffices himself; nor to delight in them, since he possesses perfect delight in the operation of virtue; but for the purpose of a good operation, viz. that he may do good to them; that he may delight in seeing them do good; and again that he may be helped by them in his good work. For in order that man may do well, whether in the works of the active life, or in those of the contemplative life, he needs the fellowship of friends." -St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Prima Secundæ Partis 4:8
Although the writing is rather dense and academic, this quote from Aquinas is extremely powerful. The idea is that we do not need friends or companions to be happy, we are perfectly capable of being happy without them, but instead that we may do good to them, rejoice in the good we see in them, and make use of their help in performing a good work.
On whether we can be happy without friends, we all know this is the case, because we have all experienced happiness when we are alone and separated from friends and family. If you were capable of experiencing happiness in isolation before, you are capable now. For an extreme example, witness the ordeal of Admiral Stockdale in solitary confinement during his time as a prisoner of war, where in spite of great suffering and isolation, he says that he found a way to be happy even there. He like Aquinas says, found that he "sufficed himself". Perhaps there is no more exciting prospect than the knowledge that you can draw happiness out of yourself without having to rely on anything else.
Part of the reason we love our friends and enjoy their company is because we rejoice in the good that is in them. Whether good conversation, revealing beauty of mind, or the physical beauty of a woman (an exciting subset of friendship), we rejoice in the good we see in them, it brings us pleasure. However it is also a pleasure we know we can live without. I believe this brings an excellent facet to friendship. Instead of using your friends as a tool to make yourself feel good, you rejoice in them more as complete human beings. This eliminates neediness, a quality which is extremely repulsive, both in yourself and in others.
Finally, friendship is useful in expanding your own personal freedom through "good works". Friends can help you do a variety of wonderful things, from studying, to drinking wine, to expanding your knowledge, and the more corporeal aspects of the aformentioned exciting subset of friendship.
These truths can help you be happier in your friendships, driving away false friends, attracting new ones, and deepening your relationships with the old.
Although the writing is rather dense and academic, this quote from Aquinas is extremely powerful. The idea is that we do not need friends or companions to be happy, we are perfectly capable of being happy without them, but instead that we may do good to them, rejoice in the good we see in them, and make use of their help in performing a good work.
On whether we can be happy without friends, we all know this is the case, because we have all experienced happiness when we are alone and separated from friends and family. If you were capable of experiencing happiness in isolation before, you are capable now. For an extreme example, witness the ordeal of Admiral Stockdale in solitary confinement during his time as a prisoner of war, where in spite of great suffering and isolation, he says that he found a way to be happy even there. He like Aquinas says, found that he "sufficed himself". Perhaps there is no more exciting prospect than the knowledge that you can draw happiness out of yourself without having to rely on anything else.
Part of the reason we love our friends and enjoy their company is because we rejoice in the good that is in them. Whether good conversation, revealing beauty of mind, or the physical beauty of a woman (an exciting subset of friendship), we rejoice in the good we see in them, it brings us pleasure. However it is also a pleasure we know we can live without. I believe this brings an excellent facet to friendship. Instead of using your friends as a tool to make yourself feel good, you rejoice in them more as complete human beings. This eliminates neediness, a quality which is extremely repulsive, both in yourself and in others.
Finally, friendship is useful in expanding your own personal freedom through "good works". Friends can help you do a variety of wonderful things, from studying, to drinking wine, to expanding your knowledge, and the more corporeal aspects of the aformentioned exciting subset of friendship.
These truths can help you be happier in your friendships, driving away false friends, attracting new ones, and deepening your relationships with the old.
Great Moments in Practical Philosophy: Impressions
“It is only in isolationthat we gain, almost automatically, a certain discrimination in ideas, desires, longings,that we learn which are ours, and which are anonymous, floating in the air, falling onus like dust in the street." — José Ortega y Gasset, España Invertebrada
“Be not swept off your feet by the vividness of the impression, but say, ‘Impression, wait for me a little. Let me see what you are and what you represent. Let me try you.’” --Epictetus, Book II, ch. 18
"We all have monkey brains. We think terrible things sometimes. Quitting, abandoning something important to us. But don't let that disturb you too much, because it happens to everyone. Really, who you are is your second or even third thought."—Master Chief Will Guild, 27 year veteran of the Navy SEAL Teams, Men’s Health magazine, June 2008
In all of self-improvement, there is no more important principle than recognizing the principle of and acting upon the belief that we have a choice in the opinion we hold of things. If our opinion is that work, losing weight, or any other task we desire is truly out of our reach than we have lost the battle before it has begun. This is simple. This is obvious. This is also something that we ignore every day to our everlasting detriment.
If we all know that we can do something we want to do, what holds us back? I believe the answer that history teaches us is that we fail to manage our impressions correctly.
Read the above quotes again, please. These three men, a Spanish political writer from the thirties, an ancient Roman philosopher, and a modern day Navy SEAL have all looked at the human mind and perceived a single truth. Ideas present themselves in our mind, which are not of us and harmful. Then, the truth is also that we have a choice about where to place our focus. No matter how strident an impression is upon our minds, and no matter how severe our initial reactions to it are, we experience a moment of choice where we can assent to the impression, or we can redirect our minds to the object where we truly desire it to be.
“Be not swept off your feet by the vividness of the impression, but say, ‘Impression, wait for me a little. Let me see what you are and what you represent. Let me try you.’” --Epictetus, Book II, ch. 18
"We all have monkey brains. We think terrible things sometimes. Quitting, abandoning something important to us. But don't let that disturb you too much, because it happens to everyone. Really, who you are is your second or even third thought."—Master Chief Will Guild, 27 year veteran of the Navy SEAL Teams, Men’s Health magazine, June 2008
In all of self-improvement, there is no more important principle than recognizing the principle of and acting upon the belief that we have a choice in the opinion we hold of things. If our opinion is that work, losing weight, or any other task we desire is truly out of our reach than we have lost the battle before it has begun. This is simple. This is obvious. This is also something that we ignore every day to our everlasting detriment.
If we all know that we can do something we want to do, what holds us back? I believe the answer that history teaches us is that we fail to manage our impressions correctly.
Read the above quotes again, please. These three men, a Spanish political writer from the thirties, an ancient Roman philosopher, and a modern day Navy SEAL have all looked at the human mind and perceived a single truth. Ideas present themselves in our mind, which are not of us and harmful. Then, the truth is also that we have a choice about where to place our focus. No matter how strident an impression is upon our minds, and no matter how severe our initial reactions to it are, we experience a moment of choice where we can assent to the impression, or we can redirect our minds to the object where we truly desire it to be.
Philosophy is either a tool or a toy
“[Philosophy] is always one of two things; it is either a tool or a toy.” –GK Chesterton, modified
The original quote was speaking of science, but I think nearly every field of human study can be divided so. Doesn't experience teach us this? Everything we studied in school or elsewhere has either a practical lesson we can apply in our daily lives or it doesn't. This is not to denigrate that which doesn't, toys are often a lot of fun.
A lot of modern self improvement literature focuses on fulfilling desires that are universal among humanity, and it is comforting to know that our ancestors also had strategies and beliefs that helped them to navigate these oceans of desire. When you study the history of "practical" philosophy you find that every thirst in the human heart has been addressed by our ancestors, and that their strategies have a track record of success that spans centuries. You'll find answers that have more depth than most self improvement out there and can make you happier, stronger, and of better character.
The original quote was speaking of science, but I think nearly every field of human study can be divided so. Doesn't experience teach us this? Everything we studied in school or elsewhere has either a practical lesson we can apply in our daily lives or it doesn't. This is not to denigrate that which doesn't, toys are often a lot of fun.
A lot of modern self improvement literature focuses on fulfilling desires that are universal among humanity, and it is comforting to know that our ancestors also had strategies and beliefs that helped them to navigate these oceans of desire. When you study the history of "practical" philosophy you find that every thirst in the human heart has been addressed by our ancestors, and that their strategies have a track record of success that spans centuries. You'll find answers that have more depth than most self improvement out there and can make you happier, stronger, and of better character.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Ori Hofmekler is a Genius
As an extreme conservative archliberal (no irony, by the way), I think looking to tradition for information on all areas of life is extremely important. Ori Hofmekler has done some real research into how ancient warriors really ate and lived, unlike a lot of products who use the image of the ancient warrior as a theme with no real connection. According to historical sources, not mythology, the endurance of the ancient warrior, from rowing triremes to marching in running with a lot of heavy equipment, to the physical effort involved in having to use a spear for hours at a time was truly incredible and a lot of men managed to get to this level without everybody getting injured and dying from overexertion.
The basic themes of his book The Warrior Diet, and it's excellent companion The Anti-Estrogenic Diet, call on these sources and connects them to modern research. You change not only what you eat, but when you eat, and I know from personal experience that this is a sustainable and enjoyable diet when combined with the correct attitude, I have lost 30lbs on this diet, with no sign of slowing down.
You also receive information on what legendary strength coach Marty Gallagher calls "3rd Way Cardio", a unique combination of strength and endurance that provides you with both more muscle and greater leanness, assuming you are, like I was, an untrained individual.
It is radical, enjoyable, sustainable, and a pretty damn manly way to eat and work out. It has made a severe difference in my physical well being.
The basic themes of his book The Warrior Diet, and it's excellent companion The Anti-Estrogenic Diet, call on these sources and connects them to modern research. You change not only what you eat, but when you eat, and I know from personal experience that this is a sustainable and enjoyable diet when combined with the correct attitude, I have lost 30lbs on this diet, with no sign of slowing down.
You also receive information on what legendary strength coach Marty Gallagher calls "3rd Way Cardio", a unique combination of strength and endurance that provides you with both more muscle and greater leanness, assuming you are, like I was, an untrained individual.
It is radical, enjoyable, sustainable, and a pretty damn manly way to eat and work out. It has made a severe difference in my physical well being.
A Conflict of Visions and Why Conservatism Needs Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Thomas Sowell's Conflict of Visions is on track to be one of the great classics of Conservatism and rightly so. I can think of no more clear and distinct exposition of the concept of "constrained vision". Perhaps no other single concept, that man's ability to predict the consequences of his actions is limited, is more blindingly obvious yet unapplied in politics. Simultaneously, it provides one of the most compelling reasons to look to tradition for truth, since real tradition is merely accumulated experience of what works and what doesn't.
The greatness of this book is crippled however, by it's own fundamentally secular worldview. Ultimately it leaves the reader with a kind of dark Stoicism, that a dark fate for mankind is fundamentally inevitable because man will always seek to create Heaven on earth and his fumbling attempts to do so will result in unleashing Hell. It's depressing because any attempt to explain the world without God is depressing.
This is where Leftism Revisited, and indeed most works by the forgotten greatest conservative mind of the twentieth century, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, comes through in spades. EVKL was the first writer that really introduced me to the concept of the constrained vision, however his treatment of the subject is foundationally different. That difference being, EVKL acts and writes as though Christianity is actually true.
My sister, studying Medieval Philosophy at Notre Dame by the way, once told me that one of the defining shifts in Western philosophy occured when the focus moved towards giving purely secular reasons for Western ideas of morality, previously justified by the Christian religion. The idea being, since non-Christians don't accept our fundamental premises, alternative lines of argument must be used to encourage cooperation towards various goals. Not a bad idea, surely, however we pretty much chucked using anything but secular arguments.
This shift has not produced the most sanguine effects for Western Conservatives. As my own conservatism grew deeper, I developed a deep distaste for much popular conservatism, seeing it as infected by a kind of mechanical and inhuman stiffness in discourse, often bolstered by disingenuous claims of secularism. While Sowell's book clearly does not fall in this category, he makes the same fundamental mistake as those who do.
EVKL's works are less Christian books and more books written by a Christian. They aren't secular philosophy with a Bible verse tacked on, but show how the most powerful, individualistic, and free civilization the world has ever produced became so through the application of Christian principles. You don't even have to be a Christian to accept this, witness Charles Maurras (albeit a rather grim example).
EVKL acts as though God actually exists and shows how the constrained vision ensures the greatest spiritual and material good for mankind, and ends with the certain hope of a better future, albeit not one that man may create. A perfect blend of hope and reality, and an approach that does not leave this blogger cold.
The greatness of this book is crippled however, by it's own fundamentally secular worldview. Ultimately it leaves the reader with a kind of dark Stoicism, that a dark fate for mankind is fundamentally inevitable because man will always seek to create Heaven on earth and his fumbling attempts to do so will result in unleashing Hell. It's depressing because any attempt to explain the world without God is depressing.
This is where Leftism Revisited, and indeed most works by the forgotten greatest conservative mind of the twentieth century, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, comes through in spades. EVKL was the first writer that really introduced me to the concept of the constrained vision, however his treatment of the subject is foundationally different. That difference being, EVKL acts and writes as though Christianity is actually true.
My sister, studying Medieval Philosophy at Notre Dame by the way, once told me that one of the defining shifts in Western philosophy occured when the focus moved towards giving purely secular reasons for Western ideas of morality, previously justified by the Christian religion. The idea being, since non-Christians don't accept our fundamental premises, alternative lines of argument must be used to encourage cooperation towards various goals. Not a bad idea, surely, however we pretty much chucked using anything but secular arguments.
This shift has not produced the most sanguine effects for Western Conservatives. As my own conservatism grew deeper, I developed a deep distaste for much popular conservatism, seeing it as infected by a kind of mechanical and inhuman stiffness in discourse, often bolstered by disingenuous claims of secularism. While Sowell's book clearly does not fall in this category, he makes the same fundamental mistake as those who do.
EVKL's works are less Christian books and more books written by a Christian. They aren't secular philosophy with a Bible verse tacked on, but show how the most powerful, individualistic, and free civilization the world has ever produced became so through the application of Christian principles. You don't even have to be a Christian to accept this, witness Charles Maurras (albeit a rather grim example).
EVKL acts as though God actually exists and shows how the constrained vision ensures the greatest spiritual and material good for mankind, and ends with the certain hope of a better future, albeit not one that man may create. A perfect blend of hope and reality, and an approach that does not leave this blogger cold.
Monday, July 21, 2008
The Blueprint for Success
Barack Obama's Blue Manifesto
Has anyone actually read this?
I'll tell you what I see.
-Preventing employers from permanently replacing striking workers
-Raising the minimum wage
-No privatization of Social Security
-Invest over $150 billion in green technologies
-Insuring "fair prices" for family owned farms
-Requiring employers to provide seven paid sick leave days
-Opposing any constitutional amendment banning abortion
-Promoting economic growth in Mexico
-Increase the supply of affordable housing
-Including Iran and Syria in discussions for the ensuring the stability of Iraq (Note, less than a page later it says that Iran supports terrorism in the region)
-A "Nuclear Free World", although he will "maintain a detterent" as long nuclear weapons exist
What I see? A destruction of economic freedom. By reducing the options employers have to ensure the continued profitability of their company, the entire enterprise endures greater risk, including company failure, and a stagnation in new, now more expensive, hires. The money for supplying homes (usually the most expensive item the average human being purchases), "green technologies" that may or may not be economically viable, and promoting economic growth in a massively corrupt society has to come from somewhere. I'm guessing you and me, but I don't know for sure. Maybe the green technologies no sane investor is putting money in will pay for it all. I also question the wisdom of inviting a state that you admit sponsors terrorism to talks about the stability of it's neighbors. A "Nuclear Free World"? Shockingingly innocent view of human nature.
Has anyone actually read this?
I'll tell you what I see.
-Preventing employers from permanently replacing striking workers
-Raising the minimum wage
-No privatization of Social Security
-Invest over $150 billion in green technologies
-Insuring "fair prices" for family owned farms
-Requiring employers to provide seven paid sick leave days
-Opposing any constitutional amendment banning abortion
-Promoting economic growth in Mexico
-Increase the supply of affordable housing
-Including Iran and Syria in discussions for the ensuring the stability of Iraq (Note, less than a page later it says that Iran supports terrorism in the region)
-A "Nuclear Free World", although he will "maintain a detterent" as long nuclear weapons exist
What I see? A destruction of economic freedom. By reducing the options employers have to ensure the continued profitability of their company, the entire enterprise endures greater risk, including company failure, and a stagnation in new, now more expensive, hires. The money for supplying homes (usually the most expensive item the average human being purchases), "green technologies" that may or may not be economically viable, and promoting economic growth in a massively corrupt society has to come from somewhere. I'm guessing you and me, but I don't know for sure. Maybe the green technologies no sane investor is putting money in will pay for it all. I also question the wisdom of inviting a state that you admit sponsors terrorism to talks about the stability of it's neighbors. A "Nuclear Free World"? Shockingingly innocent view of human nature.
A Truly Audacious Hope
"If the Communists win Europe and a large part of the world it will not be because they know how to stir up discontent or how to infect people with hatred, but because they know how to preach hope." -Eric Hoffer
Barack Obama was a United States Senator for less than a year before he decided to run for President. On paper, he was a longshot, however here we sit, less than six months from an election and he is on deck to become the most powerful man in the world.
Ultimately there is only one key element for power, and that is that other people should believe that you ought to have it. A compelling reason must be presented, and no one should be shocked at Obama's success because he has remembered this one basic rule and one other, that the greatest propulsion to action is hope, even greater than fear.
Fear provides us with motivation to do the bare minimum to evade the fearful thing, however truly heroic efforts are nearly always elicited by hope of some great good. No one acheives greatness by merely surviving.
The strength of Barack Obama really is his message. He has painted a picture of a shining new era, and so the greatest of efforts have been exerted by his staff and supporters. Whether this hope is built on a foundation of sand or not is immaterial in any inquiry as to his success, although it is the greatest matter in any sensible appraisal of his chances of success as a chief executive, success being defined as a greater America.
Mankind, especially when acting in groups, is easily led astray by false hope, as any gambling addict could tell you. The only question to ask is "Do we have any reason to believe that his proposed policies will have the desired result, and if so, how can we know?"
Barack Obama was a United States Senator for less than a year before he decided to run for President. On paper, he was a longshot, however here we sit, less than six months from an election and he is on deck to become the most powerful man in the world.
Ultimately there is only one key element for power, and that is that other people should believe that you ought to have it. A compelling reason must be presented, and no one should be shocked at Obama's success because he has remembered this one basic rule and one other, that the greatest propulsion to action is hope, even greater than fear.
Fear provides us with motivation to do the bare minimum to evade the fearful thing, however truly heroic efforts are nearly always elicited by hope of some great good. No one acheives greatness by merely surviving.
The strength of Barack Obama really is his message. He has painted a picture of a shining new era, and so the greatest of efforts have been exerted by his staff and supporters. Whether this hope is built on a foundation of sand or not is immaterial in any inquiry as to his success, although it is the greatest matter in any sensible appraisal of his chances of success as a chief executive, success being defined as a greater America.
Mankind, especially when acting in groups, is easily led astray by false hope, as any gambling addict could tell you. The only question to ask is "Do we have any reason to believe that his proposed policies will have the desired result, and if so, how can we know?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)