On The Third Hand
A Proud member of the Brigade of Bellicose WomenThe liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. — Samuel Adams
| On The Third HandA Proud member of the Brigade of Bellicose WomenThe liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. — Samuel Adams |
| Old Articles by week 03 Mar - 09 Mar 24 Feb - 02 Mar 17 Feb - 23 Feb 10 Feb - 16 Feb 03 Feb - 09 Feb 27 Jan - 02 Feb 20 Jan - 26 Jan 13 Jan - 19 Jan 06 Jan - 12 Jan 30 Dec - 05 Jan 23 Dec - 29 Dec 16 Dec - 22 Dec 09 Dec - 15 Dec 02 Dec - 08 Dec 25 Nov - 01 Dec 18 Nov - 24 Nov 11 Nov - 17 Nov 04 Nov - 10 Nov My comments are my opinions. Links are my choice, but do not necessarily reflect my opinion. I often link to articles, sites and blogs with which I disagree. I try to look at all sides, but the fact that I'm human makes it impossible for me to view anything completely objectively. | Warblog ArchivesSaturday, 23 Feb 2002It's all the fault of the US [permalink]It appears that Liberia is having some problems. This article explains those problems. For some reason, the author (or maybe editor) feels obliged to spend the first nine paragraphs explaining that Liberia was founded by freed slaves from the US, and how it still has some US-like ideas (it was officially recognized as an independent country by Abraham Lincoln). I've got a thought. The US was once a British colony. So.... From now on, let it be known that everything any of the rest of the world doesn't like about us is officially the fault of the British Empire. Let Tony Blair deal with it. I'm not a very nice person [permalink]After reading a number of articles about Daniel Pearl's murder, it has occurred to me that if one of his murderers were to crawl up to my door, wounded and in pain... that my first instinct would be to tie him up and drag him over on top of the nearest fire-ant hill. Then I'd wander slowly into the house and call the CIA. Don't let them give you to the women. I will uphold the Constitution? [permalink]"I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it."--George W. Bush, October 15, 2000, on Ft. Hood military base allowing Wiccan rituals as well as other faiths' rituals "No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith."--George W. Bush, September 14, 2001 I wonder what he thinks of Hindus and Buddhists? [To those who may be wondering... no, I am not Wiccan -- I just support the US Constitution] Friday, 22 Feb 2002Animals again [permalink]It appears that I owe Kevin Holtsberry an apology. He has explained his take on humans and animals, and it is one with which I will not argue, so... Kevin, I apologize for assuming that your statement meant what I thought it did -- and for not asking for clarification. I don't necessarily agree with your post, Kevin, but I will not argue unprovables (such as religious beliefs) unless they show an almost complete denial of physical reality. I will; however, note that not all religions believe that other animals do not have souls. I could argue, if I wished to do so, from a religious standpoint that says we are "just" animals, even if "higher" animals. I would actually find it harder to argue "merely animals" from a purely physical point of view, since we do differ in some significant ways. We have an enhanced ability to pass knowledge from one generation to the next, build on that knowledge, and pass the greater knowledge on. We have the ability to override our instincts with our reason (and I don't see it as a bad thing to do that). If we were once, on a purely physical level, just animals... we are now animals plus that passed down knowledge (including also our technology). So even on a material level, I would not argue that we are "merely animals". Oh... and I'm still stewing, but I've decided to change my mind and dignify some arrant nonsense with a few comments, if not a real reply. By the way...The given (belief) to which I was referring can be found in this statement and in this statement. There are lots more, you can just google "humans are not animals". Unofficial Blog Watch [permalink]
humor break... Human Animals - clarification [permalink]
If you want to say we are animals with immortal souls, I won't argue -- I'd be delighted, in fact, if you could prove it. If you want to say we are better than other animals, because we have a moral sense or reasoning ability (or whatever), I won't argue that either. If you want to say we are not animals at all, I'd like to know what you think we are. Bacteria? Plants? Single-celled organisms? Fungi? [update] I don't have any objections to the idea that we are "animals +". I am only arguing with the idea that we are not animals at all. Nor do I think it is the "Christian worldview" that people are not animals. The Christianity I was brought up in had the "animal nature + spiritual nature" idea. Most "worldviews" include some sort of animal plus for humans.Even humanists take the stance that we are animals + (reason rather than soul). Being human myself, I do think humans are superior to other animals (yep, I'm speciesist too). But that does not mean we are NOT animals. Daniel Pearl 1963-2002 [permalink]I was afraid Daniel Pearl was no longer alive and I'm very unhappy that I was correct. Requiescat in pace. Thursday, 21 Feb 2002Incompatible metacontext [permalink]I've at times called myself called myself a 'cultural chameleon' -- that being the best description I can come up with for someone who delights in changing her own cultural assumptions into someone else's for a while. In order to do that; however, I must know my own worldview, my 'metacontexts', so that I can suspend belief in them long enough to try out others. I've also got to be able to get enough of an idea of the other's metacontexts to suspend disbelief long enough to look at the world through their eyes. I've never been completely successful at this, but I'm better than many. I was rather delighted to find Perry's post on 'The metacontext of state-is-society' yesterday, because it gave me a nice new vocabulary. I'd been lacking a word for what he calls 'metacontext'. What he calls 'givens' are what I'd been thinking of as basic assumptions -- the 'little things' that one learns at one's mother's knee -- things that never are questioned. I'll use his terminology and create a hierarchy of terms, with 'givens' being the basic assumptions, 'metacontext' being a group of related 'givens' and 'worldview' being all of an individual's metacontexts. A culture (and a society) is made up of a number of people with worldviews containing a certain minimum number of metacontexts in common. A subculture is group with the basic metacontexts of a culture, plus other metacontexts unique to them, but not common throughout the culture. Please note that I'm not a multiculturalist, at least in the commonly accepted definition of the term. I do judge cultures. Unlike many anti-multiculturalists, I do not think that you can accurately judge a culture without having some understanding of it. I find the automatic 'my culture is the only right one' stance to be just as alien to me as the 'all cultures are equally good (except for America's)' stance. Yeah... that last was a cheap shot -- but deserved. I'm sure I've got a few eyes crossing by now -- and one or two wondering if I have a personality disorder that makes me enjoy this sort of mental twisting. I think of it as being similar to immersing oneself in a good SF or Fantasy novel. You suspend disbelief for a while, and live in that world, but then you come back to your own reality and think: "wow, I'd like to live in that world" or "let's hope that never comes to pass" or even "well, I didn't like most of it, but there was that one really good idea". And where am I going with this? Grab a drink and read on (there's quite a lot yet to be said). This does have something to do with my general bellicosity. Honest! Since September, I've been trying to get into the mindset of the Islamic fundamentalists. (One should understand the enemy -- it gives an advantage.) I've been completely unsuccessful. I can understand Islam reasonably well, and have never had a problem getting along with those in that religion. But I had problems with fundamentalists. And there is the point... it's not just Islamic fundamentalists I had problems with. I had the same problem with Christian, Jewish, and Hindu fundamentalists. But I have had a breakthrough -- at least with Christians, and that gives me hope. Kevin Holtsberry said something in my forum about a week ago (14th Feb), in a discussion on (I hate to use the word in here again) pornography. What he said (in reply to another post) was: "If you define people as "human type animals" than the discussing of sex is pointless." I stared at that post until my eyes crossed. I honestly could not figure out what he meant by that. After my eyes uncrossed (a day later), I asked a friend. My friend said :"He believes humans aren't animals." My eyes recrossed (Someone should have taken a picture.) I googled "Humans are not animals". I came up with a lot. Mostly fundamentalist Christian sites. Very educational stuff -- if you believe in magic. Humans, it seems, are not animals -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- because a book says they were directly created by G-d. Ok... said I... is there any proof of this? "The bible says so," said my research. Oh. Ok... now that is a really interesting proposition. Humans, despite the fact that they live and die, that their bodies decompose, that they are EDIBLE, that they breed, that they eat, that they do every single thing that other animals do, are not animals. Ok, Kevin. You got one of my 'givens' right in the keester. Knocked me for a loop. I delight in that. I enjoy it. So I took your "humans are not animals" idea (which you kindly reinforced yesterday) and did one of my little exercises with it -- and all the other 'givens' of the Christian right. That was my "missing link" into the mindset of the Christian fundamentalists. Adding that one unquestioned assumption into the equation makes the whole metacontext of the Christian fundamentalists fall right into place. Thank you. I have now been enlightened. I have long been puzzled by the Christian fundamentalist metacontext. I could never understand how they could reject all evidence of evolution, how they could consider a book that mentioned "the four corners of the earth" inerrant, how they could be convinced beyond all doubt that their views are the right ones. It all follows if I add in that one assumption -- and it goes in a nice circle that says "If I believe that humans are animals, the bible is not inerrant, therefore we are not animals, and we cannot be descended from animals, and the bible is inerrant." Without the "humans are not animals", denial, it would be easy to discard biblical inerrancy -- but if you have the unquestioned given that 'humans are not animals', the only thing that backs you up is the idea that the bible is to be taken literally. Even if everything you see is in contradiction to that statement. Kevin is right about the futility of discussion. So I shall never again argue sex with any of the religious right because: "If you deny people are "human type animals" than the discussion of sex (or almost anything else depending on physical reality) is pointless." And I shall go back to trying to understand Islamic fundamentalists, with the understanding that this universe's physical reality may not apply to their metacontext. Wednesday, 20 Feb 2002Rude, crude and socially unacceptable [permalink]I have been, to the best of my ability, ignoring the Olympics. I may be a bit behind on this; I had heard and Australian had won the speed skating. I had heard he'd avoided a pile-up, and come from behind and won. I had heard some booed him. What I had not heard was that most of the Americans booed, nor had I realised that there are writers who are still booing (Bob Ryan, Boston Globe) I've also been a bit behind on blog-reading (especially of those blogs on the blogspot yo-yo), so I didn't catch Tim Blair's posts on the matter until today [most other links are via Tim]. Having read more about the matter, I am totally appalled, and I agree with Christopher Johnson's comment of "Sometimes it's really embarrassing to live in this country" (he referenced the above article by Ryan). One columnist got it right, and wrote a great piece about Steven Bradbury, the Australian gold medal winner. Yes, ladies and gents, the man won that gold fair and square. Racing of any sort is a combination of speed, determination, skill, balance, tactics, and luck. Steven Bradbury might not have had the speed (though he obviously had enough to qualify), but he certainly had the rest of it. A race is not a dance, where "pretty" counts for points. In a race, the first one across the finish line wins. Steven was first across the finish line. He won. Our guy got the silver by essentially crawling over the finish line. He won the silver. Deal with it. I know the US guy was the gold 'favorite', I know some people in the US are disappointed that he didn't win. But quit acting like a bunch of whining five year olds who have just been told they have to share a toy with a friend. Especially when that friend is fighting by our side, and taking losses too. To Australians only:...on a cheerier note: Two golds so far! Good on ya, mates! Short stuff [permalink]
Tuesday, 19 Feb 2002Baht beats Euro! [permalink]Not, unfortunately, on the exchange rate. I was amused by the reports that the Ten Baht (Thai) coin could be used in place of the Two Euro coin in some vending machines. I was further amused when I heard reports that the centers fall out of some of the Euro coins when they are chilled, because the centers are a different metal and shrink at a faster rate when cooled. I don't have any Euro coins around, but I have plenty of Ten Baht coins, which also have a different metal in the center. I did an experiment. I set my coins all around the refrigerator, in various areas with different temperatures. I put a couple more in the freezer. I propped each up by the edges, in order to let any wayward centers drop easily. Not one did. I still have a bunch of Ten Baht coins with the centers still in the center. Perhaps the European Union should hire the Thais to make their coinage. Virus alert.... [permalink]German virus poses as anti-virus program. At present, it has been found mostly in Germany and the UK, and the letter is in German. The executable attached is called yawsetup.exe. I suspect the letter will be translated into English soon enough, it's already a 'medium' risk. It also does lots of damage. There's more information on anti-virus sites such as Symantec. Monday, 18 Feb 2002It was up just a while ago [permalink] As the Bishop said to the actress. You who are on blogspot should seriously consider moving (it's down again). Once or twice a day... that is just too much. Oh bradi oh brada... [permalink]Yes... yes... I know that's not how the song goes. It's just that I've been watching the latest 'blog wars', started by Megan's beautifully written "A Modest Proposal". Having read an essay by that title at a young age -- and loved it, I have a (probably deplorable) liking for parody, satire, irony and such. I read the article, chuckled madly... and went on. I honestly did not expect it to spread all over the blogosphere. Since I am also endowed with two abundant natural resources, I have never felt a need to object to Natalije's exploitation of hers. Since I also have a year or two on her, I suspect she'll see the downside to such things soon enough (gravity seems to get stronger the older one is). So I've been mainly amused by the periodic spikes in L. Samizdata's bandwidth. However; I must object to this constant posting of lovely women -- on the grounds that hetero women (and gay men) should have equal rights. We in the blogosphere who appreciate the male form are being left out. We are being deprived of pictures. For every bit of cheesecake posted, we who like men should get some beefcake! We demand a female Unablogger. We also believe that many more pictures of men with big guns should be immediately posted on Libertarian Samizdata. There ought to be a law against this blatant preference for female pictures! I'm being deprived. Where's the beefcake? Sunday, 17 Feb 2002Israel and India [permalink] Israel over the Indian Ocean - III. Our Kolkata Libertarian has just crafted a fascinating essay on Jews and India: past, present and future. It comes complete with maps that have circles and arrows and notations and it looks like it belongs in a glossy magazine. If I were editor of a history or political magazine, I'd buy that piece on the spot. Highly recommended if you have any interest at all in the subject. Even if you don't -- go admire a damned fine piece of work. Iraq Sanctions [permalink] Matt Welch has done a well written, well balanced piece on Iraq sanctions. He's done his damnedest to get through the hyperbole on both sides to the facts. Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, it's a must read -- and certainly food for thought. Go feed your brain. Update for blog addicts [permalink]Just a heads up. In my continuing attempt to give people no good excuse to visit the Unablogger, I've added more blogs. You gents (and a few ladies) are sooner or later going to be forced to admit that you visit the anonymous one just for the pictures. I've also added some spaces in the links -- they have no meaning, they are just to make it a bit easier to read. As usual, the new links have an asterisk next to them. In case you don't have enough to read yet, or even if you do, Will Vehrs' TV Pundit Watch is up. Short Stuff [permalink]
| |
