Kudos to a Democrat

What a coincidence, the day after a new post complaining about lack of leadership on the Democrat side, one senator steps up and convinces me he actually believes in what he is doing. (Actually, I'll be convinced if he moves in the senate the way he talks on the news - no offense, I have heard enough on both sides of people saying the right thing in public and doing the opposite on the job to be a bit wary)

The person in question is Senator Ron Klink (Dem, Pennsylvania, I think) - and, in brief, here is what he said. I won't include quotes because it isn't a direct quote, but I will capture the idea of what he said:

We have to realize we have the House, Senate, and Presidency. This bill is good for America, and we have to push it through, even if it takes an extreme measure like reconciliation. Even if it costs us politically, it is the right thing to do.

That is the gist of what he said, and I laud him for actually believing in what he is doing. I happen to think that he is dead wrong about what the bill will do, but at least he seems to believe in what he is doing. And of course, it should be no surprise that I believe he is wrong - he is a left-leaning Democrat (and did not shy away from saying so - more kudos in order) and I am a right-leaning Republican. It is just nice to see a person who actually appears to believe in what they are doing, rather than adopting a position that is politically advantageous for them (this applies to the right and the left).

I'll end with something he said that also echoed my sentiments - We have to have the courage to lead, even if it costs us politically. I think that this is an important thought - leading takes courage, and ignoring the political fallout when you are right is a difficult, but important thing to do.

Of course the problem comes up when a leader has courage but has ideas that are not right - as I would argue about health care, the economy, etc., and the Left would argue about George W. Bush. He clearly had the same idea, that it was better to be right than popular, and the Left stridently believes that he was not right, just as I stridently believe this bill is not right. I can respect the Left who take this position - recognizing that a person has the courage of his/her convictions, but that those convictions are incorrect, rather than labelling someone as evil or stupid, etc. I don't think that Ron Klink is stupid, I think he has a fundamentally different belief system then I do, and this is because of his education and experience, just as mine comes from my education and experience.

That's all folks.

I guess I'm back

Well, over the past several months I have been both busy and neglectful. There has been a lot that I have wanted to write about, but I never made the time. Add to that some frustrating conversations and an occasional misinterpretation of my meanderings in the dimmer corners of my mind, and I haven't really felt much like writing, but here goes nothing - today's topic:

The Health Care Bill/Debate.

First and foremost, I am not going to debate the need or lack thereof for the health care reform initiative. Rather, I am going to address some rather specious lines of reasoning that are being touted as to why the bill has to get done, and elucidate on why these tactics make me suspicious of the motives. I am not going to debate the merit or lack thereof of a public option, I am just going to discuss White House and Congressional tactics, principally on the Democrat side. The reason that I am not bothering with the Republican side should be obvious (and no, it is not because I agree with them). The Democrats are driving the debate and have established the criteria of the necessity of this reform. More on that when I talk about the supermajority...

1. We need this bill passed right now. If we don't get it passed by (insert date of choice) then (insert apocryphal saying of choice). Now, this one falls flat on the face of it - if the need is so imperative, why do the benefits not kick in for another four years and the tax increases and medicare cuts happen immediately - this would seem to say that it is imperative, but if people have health issues in the next four years, that is just too bad. A measured approach to any legislation is better - give the legislature a chance to (heaven forfend) actually read the bill so that they know on what they are voting. All of the deadlines are arbitrary and seem to me to stifle debate, making the promise of transparency ring somewhat hollow. If we are going to do this, do it well; do not rush it just to say we got it done. This smacks more of politicking and less of actual concern for the public.
2. We need competition with the private sector - the heath care industry is a "monopoly". I have actually heard the White House press secretary pitch this one - the government needs to provide an alternate to the private sector because the private sector has a monopoly on health care. This just shows misunderstanding of the term monopoly. If the private sector being in charge of an industry is all it takes to have a monopoly, then every industry in which the government does not participate is a monopoly. Why, then, does the government not compete with car insurers, home insurers (in a way, they do), computer manufacturers, video game companies, mom and pop corner stores, etc. The competition angle of the debate is spurious at best - it is simply dressing up the issue to make it palatable to moderates. If the heath care system needs fixing and you believe that your plan will do it, do not make up a phony claim of monopoly - it just makes people suspicious of your motives.
3. The Republicans are a party of "No" - they offer no ideas. and/or The Republicans are putting up roadblocks and we would like them to be part of the process. Neither one of these make a bit of difference. The Democrats have a supermajority. They have the House, Senate, and Presidency. They could pass this without any Republican help. In fact, if I were them, and I really believed that my ideas were good, I would try to pass the laws and make a point that the ideas were all my party's and none of my opposition's. If your ideas are diametrically opposed, and you believe yours are right, state your case, explain why you are doing what you are doing and be willing to take all of the credit and all of the blame. The fact that they are unwilling to do this again makes me think that they do not have a lot of faith in their ideas and they want a "fall guy" if they need it. Again, it looks more like politics and less like they believe in what they are doing.

Honestly, there are many other arguments that I could address, but I don't feel like it right now. In short, all I am trying to say is that if the Democrats want to allay suspicions of the independent voter (they will never convince the far right of the merits of the government option, so they shouldn't try; the reason far right and far left are so... well... far apart, is because their ideas run counter to one another. There is nothing wrong with this and neither side should have to compromise their core principles, they just have to convince a majority that their core principles are correct) they should just come out and say honestly what they believe are the merits of the system they propose - without attacking or making up phony claims. If you believe in it, stand behind it, use it to differentiate yourselves from the Republicans, and you will go a good way toward convincing people that your side is right. The way the process is going, it does not seem like the Democrats are committed to the idea or really feel like it is actually what is best. All of there tactics serve to make people question their motives rather than feel like they are being dealt with in an honest and open fashion.

More on the actual substance of why I personally feel that the bill (and the various iterations that have been proposed) are not actually good economically or for the health care system and my ways that I would reform the system in an upcoming blog.

... Oh yeah, and supergoober, I have reached Level 19 on two player mode of Tetris Friends, and Level 20 (Grand Master) in the 6 player version - top that!

Roman Polanski

Well, they finally got him. I know that this is an unpopular move, and many people have decried it because of the overcrowding in CA jails and the fact that we just signed a law releasing 40,000 criminals (inmates, if that fits your perspective better - assuming they were all captives in an unjust system and victims of an overzealous state - of course, the actual truth is somewhere in the middle) due to budget issues and because the victim has since forgiven him, etc., etc., etc.

Here is the problem that I have. Let's say he wasn't a famous film director, just the creepy Polish dude who lives down the block (irony duly noted, given my heritage and somewhat creepy disposition). Suppose this 44 year old guy invites a 13 year old model for a "photo-shoot", plies her with wine and barbiturates, gets her in a hot tub and has sex with her. He is then arrested, pleas guilty to a statutory rape charge instead of child molestation, and is released until sentencing. This guy then flees the country and spends the next 30+ years evading authorities. Would we have sympathy then?

I would say that most people would not, and given that these were the circumstances as I recall them (I don't know what he actually plead to, but I figured it would be something like statutory rape), I think that his personal issues stand separate from his directorial accomplishments. He is no better or worse than the rest of us. The European mentality stems from both an openness towards sexual mores (which I do not think really apply here, given the coercion) and from the fact that Europe is a classed society, where there is a long history of one class being better than another and getting to flout the law as a result. They are much more comfortable with this double standard because it has been culturally ingrained in them for thousands of years. It is also one of the reasons that we have an equal protection clause in our Constitution and why people are supposed to all be equal under the law. This was a guiding principle in the formation of the government, though it was not always put into practice - and this fundamental difference is what separates us from many other nations. A celebrity should not be free to get away with more stuff than anyone else - Paris Hilton goes to jail for a few days on a drunk driving charge just like anyone else in her situation (and yes, most people receiving a 30 day sentence for a similar charge get out in five days due to overcrowding - she shouldn't be punished any more because she is a celebrity either). Phil Spektor gets convicted of murder when he kills a young aspiring actress.

Obviously, there is some difference, celebs and the wealthy afford better representation, and can pull strings to get away with some stuff, but this should not be encouraged - Michael Skakel could have actually been tried as a juvenile and dealt with his problems after murdering his young neighbor, but the fact that he was part of the Kennedy "royalty" and the local DA was beholden to the Kennedy clan delayed his conviction until after his adulthood, leading him to be sentenced as an adult because of the continuing conspiracy to conceal the crime as an adult. Treating celebrities differently only creates problems in our legal system, and it does nothing to set up the sense of fairness that is supposed to underpin our system. This attitude is fine in Europe, but it cannot be tolerated here. Sorry, Roman, and I do love your movies, but you have to pay the piper. I liked Hemingway to, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a crotchety, depressed, suicidal drunkard. I appreciate Spektor's contribution to the music industry by bringing a number of great bands to the public eye, but he is still a murderer.

I never really liked Aurthur C. Clarke, however, and he is still a child molester, whether I like his work or not (but that brings new meaning to his novel, Childhood's End, now doesn't it?)

Ah, peroxyacetone...

Well, well, well, a terror suspect apprehended buying hair and nail care products - will wonders never cease. Just as a quick note, in case anyone was wondering, he was trying to make peroxyacetone - a highly explosive and none-to-stable compound that is really easy to make. In fact, it's what the train bombers in Britain used a few years back.

I made some in lab this summer for a demonstration in chemistry, and, oh boy, is it ever fun. I had about a 2 gram pile of it on a 4"x4"x0.5" pine board (to protect the lab bench). 2 grams takes up about a half a golf ball sized pile (it is kind of fluffy - you could try to compress it into a smaller container, but I wouldn't risk that after it was dry, it would likely blow up while you were tamping it down). With ear plugs and the class well back, I had a lit match taped to the end of a 2 meter long stick - a touch of the match to the pile and BOOM!
goodbye board, meter stick, filter paper (that the substance was drying on) - the reaction was so energetic, it actually disintegrated most of the filter paper except for the parts that were actually driven into the board (and if you know anything about momentum, you know this takes a lot of force to drive paper into the grain of a pine wood board), the small board was shattered into three pieces, one of which flew 15 feet and landed in a student's lap, and scared the bejeezus out of the entire third floor. I felt the pressure wave (albeit only slightly) from seven feet away. Good times.

But seriously, this is dangerous stuff, and the guy was buying chemicals in quantities to make a lot - at least 100 times what I made, just in the one video purchase that they show on TV. It is really easy to make - mix fairly concentrated hydrogen peroxide and plain old acetone and add a couple of drops of something else, and, Presto! it precipitates out of the solution (no, I am not going to tell you the proportions, or the secret ingredient, or the concentration of H2O2 - if you want to blow yourself or someone else up, F--- Off! somebody else online will help you, but you can be damn well certain it isn't going to be me).

Why am I writing all this? I really don't know - just trying to indicate that almost anything can be made into a weapon if you want it to - ban guns and scary knives and chemicals all you want - bad people still do bad things. And yes, I am calling him bad - he isn't misunderstood or manipulated by his religion - he gravitated to this kind of ideology based on who he is. Most followers of Islam are not bad people, as are most Christians, Jews, Deists, Buddhists, Atheists, etc (I say not bad because it requires effort to actually be good - so I would say most people qualify as basically not bad). Bad ones are drawn to extremism - whether it is bombing the World Trade Center or an abortion clinic. It isn't the religion that causes the violence, it is the people - we could all be secular humanists and I would contend that there would still be violence; in fact, the most wholesale slaughters of the twentieth century were perpetrated by people who ascribed to no particular faith (Mao, Lenin, and Stalin - all of whom said that religion should be done away with). They did away with religion, and managed to wreak more havoc in a shorter time than most major religions ever have over their entire history - even the Crusades did not have the body count that any of the big three above did. (Liberal estimates of the death toll on both sides gets to about 3,000,000 - but most likely these are overestimates, because counting issues at this time were suspect at best)

I don't really know where I am going with this other than to say that humans seem to have a very violent streak - religions and societies at once have a mitigating effect and at other times seem to exacerbate the issue - which is why one cannot blame society or religion. Both of these are constructs created by people (while I do believe in God, spirituality, etc., religions are the human constructs for communal expression of their spiritual nature), and it is the people who are the issue- those suspicious of organizations, corporations, religions, etc seem to often forget that they do not exist independently of people, and that they are just a reflection of the dual nature of humanity. (BTW, if you want more non-religious massacres, I can get them any time - the Hutus massacring hundreds of thousands of Tsutsis, for example, based on tribalism, Pol Pot killing intellectuals, French killing British, British killing French, etc., etc., etc.)

Oh, well, we muddle through as best we can...

First Five Rush Albums Reviewed

So I reviewed my first five Rush albums (not chronologically, I tried to randomly select albums so that I would be less biased by the era in which they were recorded). I will give the overall percentage score that they received, the raw score (straight accumulation of all scores on the album), and a brief overview of my impression of the album after listening to it.





In terms of scoring each song, I tried to listen to them as individual songs, as well as the placement in the album. I will not include notes on each song, but I will give the 1 to 10 score rating each song on the album got. The raw score is important, because sometimes short albums will skew high in the ratings - it is easier to rate high on an album with only 4 songs, compared to an album with 11 songs. I toyed with the idea of actually breaking up the long songs (2112, Hemispheres) and rating the component sub-pieces, but this doesn't fit for me - they wrote them as an individual song, so I should rate them as such.





As a reminder, here is my grade scale:

• 90-100% A


• 85-89 A-


• 80-84 B+


• 75-79 B


• 70-74 B-


• 65-69 C+


• 60-64 C


• 50-59 C-


• 0-49 F

Note that there are no "D"s - either I liked the song enough for it to pass, or it failed - a failure is a song I just don't want to listen to again. Obviously, the scale is totally subjective, but I am looking for how the song feels musically constructed, how interesting it is to me, how much emotional response I have to the song, and how much I would like to listen to the song again. Anything in the A or A- range would be something perfect or near perfect, that I could listen to over and over again. B songs still have a similar impact, but I might need to be in the right mood - "By-Tor and the Snow Dog" for example has good energy and is interesting, but a little long for my tastes, whereas "The Weapon" is a great song, but a bit depressing, and if I am not in the right mood, I won't want to listen to it as much. Nonetheless, I would never skip past a B graded song (+ or - included) if I was listening to an album. A C rated song kind of missed the mark. It still works, is a decent song, but may be misplaced on an album, be too trite for what I like, and I may consider skipping it if listening to an album - this would still be a rare occurrence, as I would still like the song well enough to listen to it, just not enough to go out of my way to find it.

An F is a song that I would skip. End of story, no questions, just don't like it - the varying scores from 0 to 4.5 rate the relative severity of the fail... a zero has nothing I like at all, while a 4.5 is decent through most of it but has something that just rubs me the wrong way. I cannot think of any Rush songs that would fit in this category - that is why they are one of (if not my) favorite bands.

So here goes nothing:

2112

• Raw Score: 50.5 out of 60


• Percentage: 84.17%


• Grade: B+


• Track 1: 2112 - Rating: 10


• Track 2: Passage to Bangkok - Rating: 7; Good song, but doesn't really fit after a song as epic as 2112. Even if you had to flip over the album, a much clearer transition, this song is too trite for Rush lyrically, maybe it fits on an earlier album, but not here.


• Track 3: Twilight Zone - Rating: 7.5; just slightly to long for what it is, but an interesting attempt.


• Track 4: Lessons - Rating: 10


• Track 5: Tears - Rating: 6.5; Decent song, but it is misplaced on the album - it could have fit better as the last song, I think.


• Track 6: Something for Nothing - Rating: 9.5; Near perfect song, this is why Tears could not be the last song... the only thing that hurts it is that the intro is slightly too long for my taste, and the technique of fading out a song is something I generally do not like. The fadeout here still works, however, because it is not just the same riff repeated at the end, but is intricate enough to want to keep listening as it fades.


• OVERALL: With two 10s and a 9.5, this is an album with great songs, including a great epic song in 2112. A few hit and miss songs take this album into the B+ range (just barely), but that would have been my impression without scoring the album.

Power Windows

• Raw Score: 70.5 out of 80


• Percentage: 88.125%


• Grade: A-


• Track 1: The Big Money - Rating: 10; A perfect opening song; great keyboard, guitar, and bass.


• Track 2: Grand Designs - Rating: 10; Great riff, fantastic lyrics, good transitions, great finish to the song.


• Track 3: Manhattan Project - Rating: 9


• Track 4: Marathon - Rating: 9; great bass-lines, good supporting guitar work, great transitions within the song.
  Track 5: Territories - Rating: 7.5; Decent song, but a bit too moody for my taste all the time - that is all that keeps it from an A- is the emotional tone... the song itself is very solid.


• Track 6: Middletown Dreams - Rating: 7.5


• Track 7: Emotion Detector - Rating: 8.5


• Track 8: Mystic Rhythms - Rating: 9


• OVERALL: A really, really good album, bordering on a great album (A, not A-). Starts of strong, near perfect, but dips a little in the latter half and comes back with two really good songs to end - this is a great progressive rock step for Rush, though I know a lot of "hardcore" Rush fans swear by the seventies and early eighties Rush, but for my money, they really hit stride in the eighties with the Prog Rock sound, while the seventies had a great hard rock/early metal sound. It is like comparing Alien to Aliens in quality - they are both great movies, but too different to compare to one another.

Presto

• Raw Score: 102 out of 110


• Percentage: 92.73%


• Grade: A


• Track 1: Show Don't Tell - Rating: 10


• Track 2: Chain Lightning - Rating: 10


• Track 3: The Pass - Rating: 10; One of the best Rush songs ever. Literally. If it is not my favorite, it is in the top 2 (with Cold Fire). If I had a rating higher than 10, I would give it. In fact this song does go to 11.


• Track 4: War Paint - Rating: 10


• Track 5: Scars - Rating: 8.5; The first "dip-down" on the album, the song is slightly less than perfect, but still phenomenal nonetheless.


• Track 6: Presto - Rating: 9.5; Again, near perfect, but can't quite hold up to the first 4 tracks. The fadeout at the end isn't too bad, but takes a bit away from the song. Again it is interesting enough as it fades to want to keep listening, it isn't just the same riff repeated at the end - the worst way to end any rock song. Rush never does that.


• Track 7: Superconductor - Rating: 10; WOW!!!, just when the album seems like it can't attain the perfection of the first 4 tracks, it does, and it is like starting a whole new album.


• Track 8: Anagram (for Mongo) - Rating: 8.5


• Track 9: Red Tide - Rating: 8


• Track 10: Hand over Fist - Rating: 9


• Track 11: The Wind Can Carry - Rating: 8.5


• OVERALL: WOW!!! This is a freakin' great album. I have always thought that, but after reviewing this, I just put the album on again and listened to it in its entirety. 5 songs with a rating of 10, only one that dips into the B+ range, this is a must in any collection. It also has one of my "11" rated special songs that would give it a revised raw score of 103, percentage of 93.63%, but I don't know if I should actually change my score...

Fly By Night

• Raw Score: 66 out of 80
• Percentage: 82.5%
• Grade: B+
• Track 1: Anthem - Rating: 9; Good opening song, lyrically meaningful (based on Ayn Rand's only good novel, Anthem - where allegory is used appropriately and there are no ridiculously didactic diatribes)
• Track 2: Best I Can - Rating: 10
• Track 3: Beneath, Between and Behind - Rating: 9
• Track 4: By-Tor and the Snow Dog - Rating: 7; solid rock'n'roll, with a little D & D flair, it just goes on a bit too long for what it is.
• Track 5: Fly By Night - Rating: 10; might be the best song on the album - good choice for title track.
• Track 6: Making Memories - Rating: 7; fairly standard rock song, but just doesn't meet up to my standards for a Rush song. I know that they were young when they wrote it, and writing a song about touring was probably fun, but it just is not an A song.
• Track 7: Rivendell - Rating: 5; this is probably my least favorite Rush song (barring maybe I Think I'm Going Bald, though that song bothers me less than it used to - I wonder why?). It isn't bad, it just isn't that good either. It isn't that it is slow or acoustic, it just isn't interesting. It still is a passable song, but just barely.
• Track 8: In the End - Rating: 9
• Overall: A very solid album, very good followup effort to their first album, a great debut for Neil Peart's writing skills, just a few less than perfect songs mar the overall album, but still very listenable.

Subdivisions

• Raw Score: 75 out of 80
• Percentage: 93.75%
• Grade: A
• Track 1: Subdivisions - Rating: 9.5; my only complaint is that the guitar could play a more prominent roll.
• Track 2: Analog Kid - Rating: 10
• Track 3: Chemistry - Rating: 10
• Track 4: Digital Man - Rating: 10; how can you go wrong with the contrast between this and Analog Kid. Just as the metal/hard rock sound for Rush transitions to a prog rock sound, this is the perfect picture of their growth as a band.
• Track 5: The Weapon - Rating: 8; good, just not as great as the rest of the album.
• Track 6: New World Man - Rating: 10
• Track 7: Losing It - Rating: 9; one of their best songs in terms of evoking a mood, its only fault being that it is too good at evoking in me the sense of despair, desolation, and desperation. I can't help but being near tears every time I hear it or even when I think about it in retrospect.
• Track 8: Count Down - Rating: 8.5, this is a great counterpoint to the previous song, but I think, for me it suffers from the mood the previous song evokes in me, but still a good capper to the album.
• Overall: A great album, again, this is a requirement in anyone's collection who is a fan of good music. I remember in high school, in the back of Guitar Magazine, everyone who was trying to get a band together seemed to list "Pre-Signals Rush" as an influence. They were are and shall always be idiotic, because Signals is a great achievement! I give half the songs 10s (4 of 'em) and only one dipped into the B+ range, but just barely - Even though this got a higher overall score than Presto (by 1.02 percentage points, or only .12 percentage points if you count The Pass as an 11) it is hard for me to say it's better than Presto (which has more 10s and is a longer album, so more chances to go awry), it is at least as good, which makes it pretty damned fantastic.

There you go, have fun with it, for what it's worth.

Veganism, Healthy Diets, etc.

So, it's been a while since I've posted, mainly because I keep on coming up with tons of things to write about and I never seem to have the time to actually write them (if you haven't noticed, my posts tend to be long, rambling diatribes), but here goes.



A couple of weeks ago, theperfectline came up for a gaming/racing weekend, and spent a good amount of time lecturing us on our diets and obesity, diabetes, etc. While I understand the intent behind his sentiments; he was motivated out of concern for his friends, he was wrong on a number of points. I didn't really want to get into it too much that night, because it would have distracted from the gaming festivities, but what the hell - online I have all the time in the world.



First, people who adopt a vegan lifestyle do not do it for health. It was started as an ethical movement and has since had people try to justify it with health benefits, but there is scant evidence of actual health benefits of veganism. In fact, the only study on longevity and diet has the vegan lifestyle and the high meat diet tied for the lowest lifespan (0.94) and a balanced diet with more fish than meat being the baseline (1.00). Even that study did not actually deal with controlling all the variables, but it is the best one out there right now. There is a study from the 7th Day Adventists that tries to justify the choice to be a vegan, but it is not a scientifically rigorous study because it does not control the other variables involved in life expectancy.



Vegans are very prone to vitamin and mineral deficiency; perfectline, you can look all you want, there are no sufficient non-animal product that produces B12 in sufficient quantities. It is a bacterial byproduct (this is how herbivores generate B12). Vegans also do not get enough DHA (an omega-3 fatty acid), iron, calcium, and iodine. They tend to be more prone to osteoporosis later in life, and if the veganism is imposed to early, the lack of fatty acids can lead to brain impairment and late onset puberty (because the fatty acids are necessary to make testosterone and estrogen).



Veganism is purely an ethical choice (there are a number of papers dedicated to this, but I do not buy the ethical equivalence between humans and animals - that is a purely metaphysical stance and is only a matter of religio/philosophical belief). Health benefits are accrued from a balanced diet, and human beings are naturally omnivorous. We have nutritional requirements that can only be met with animal products.

Here is the crux of my argument. Theperfecline has made a classic mistake in confusing weight with health. My brother, for example, is inordinately skinny, but he still has high cholesterol. My cholesterol levels are well below the dangerous levels and from a blood serum perspective, I am far more healthy than he is. He weighs about 140 lbs and is 6' 1" tall. I am between 6' 2" and 6'3" and weigh about 225. For my frame, this is significantly overweight (though it might not be overweight for others - another common misconception is that there is one ideal weight for all men of a given height and one ideal weight for all women of a given height).

I also raised the issue of the eating disorder, and perfectline immediately poo-pooed that idea, but given his lack of close relationships with the people he claims to be healthy, I would wager that he has no idea who may or may not have an eating disorder. In fact, men and women with eating disorders are notoriously good at concealing these disorders. Approximately 10 million women in the US have an eating disorder (that is "have", not have had - this does not include people who have undergone treatment and recovered). That is about 6% of women in this country, and most experts think that this is a low estimate. Something like 30% of women have or have had an eating disorder, and given the image conscious L.A. area, it is likely that the rates are significantly higher there.

An eating disorder is an characterized by an abnormal emotional response to food, rather than one based on hunger, health, or appropriate body image (appropriate is an important qualifier - most eating disorders actually have a form of body dysmorphic disorder where they feel that they never look good enough, thin enough, or attractive enough). Many young women adopt veganism or other similar diets to mask an eating disorder. Since Veganism (capitalization is important, as it really is a religious belief, not a health-based belief) is a socially acceptable choice (lauded by many, as you have seen, perfectline) it is an easy mask for an eating disorder, and I would warrant that a good percentage of the people you know who are Vegans have an undiagnosed eating disorder that they are either aware or unaware of. Veganism is such a good mask for the eating disorder that it is easy for young men and women to believe that they are doing the right thing and use this to bury the obsession with an emotional imbalance towards food.

In terms of practice, Veganism is quite varied, but at its heart it seeks to end the exploitation of any animal. Oddly enough, within the community of Vegans, there is some debate. Some people say that it is okay to have honey because bees nervous systems are so undeveloped - they make an arbitrary cutoff based on nervous systems of skeletal animals, but then get into trouble, because that would clearly indicate that crab, lobster, etc would be okay to eat. It would also mean that cephalopods would be fine, even though it is demonstrable that they are clearly more intelligent than cows and sheep. It really is ultimately an all-or-nothing argument. If you accept the tenets, then you should also not take diabetes medications (containing animal hormones and using animal research) or many other medications for that matter. You should not use anything containing any animal by-product or product - no honey, fish oils (which are very good for you), no traditionally grown produce (where animals are used to till the fields). I would argue that according to the philosophy against animal exploitation, they should not eat any plants in which animal labor was used. Of course since humans are animals, this precludes the use of human labor as it is inherently exploitative - even if farm workers are paid, they often have little to no choice in their professions - ask migrant farm workers if they can choose another profession. So, really, a true Vegan should only eat wild food that they can collect themselves.

Obviously, this is a ridiculous extension, but it is a logical conclusion of the philosophy to which many Vegans lay claim - some try to say "minimize impact" on animals to get out of this ethical conundrum, but then you admit that your life requires exploitation of other species. Since bacteria are more similar to animals than plants (they do not produce their own food), one could make the case that even the use of your own internal bacteriological systems are exploitative, and that B12 supplements should not be consumed, even though they are required for human health. Again, a tad ludicrous, but not a large logical leap.

And as I sit here watching the Fruit Chan horror film "Dumplings" (laden with very interesting social commentary - I highly recommend it), I recall one of my more vehement oppositions to Veganism. It is not that it equates animals to humans, it is that it elevates them above humans. Vegans are so adamant that animals not be exploited that they do not care if humans are exploited to produce the food that they want. While some will adhere to strictly "organic" food (what the hell that means is debatable, but that is for another blog), even organic farms will use migrant workers for very little pay. They never think of these consequences, however, as Veganism is largely a "feel-good" philosophy - I feel like I am doing something good and just whether I am or not.

Which brings me to a final thought. I wonder how many Vegans are in support of embryonic stem cell research. To my mind, this is a clear violation of there ethics unless humans somehow occupy a lower rung on the animal totem pole. If you won't even eat an egg - an unfertilized chicken ovum, how could you justify the use of fertilized ova in experimentation?

Also, the assumption that we eat like that every day is specious at best. You go out drinking every weekend, are we to assume that this means that you cannot refrain from drinking during the week. Alcohol is far more addictive than food, and I would be more concerned about someone who needed to drink every weekend than someone who had a few donuts on the weekend - and since they are calorically similar, who is really less healthy. Couple this with extremely risky behavior behind the wheel of an automobile, Mr. "I've been in 10 accidents" and tell me who really has a riskier lifestyle. And, yes, because you and supergoober are my friends I am concerned by the way you comport yourselves behind the wheel on the road - not on the track, it is much safer to do it there - not because you are bad drivers, but because not everyone on the road will respond appropriately. A ninety mile per hour collision is much more deadly than a little fried food every weekend. As detective Frank Dreben said, "You take a risk getting up in the morning, crossing the street, or sticking your face in the fan."

Please stop sticking your face in the fan, and remove the plank from your own eye before examining the mote in mine.

The Best Rush Album

I suppose anyone reading this knows that my favorite band of all time is Rush, and I pretty much like to love everything that they have done. I find them musically intriguing (as much as an untalented idiot like myself could appreciate the musical aspect), lyrically compelling, and just overall fantastic. I find myself emotionally and intellectually engaging the music, and I think that this is a sign of the true greatness of the band. I know that there are probably a lot of other people who feel similarly, but I am going to make a bold statement of which album of theirs is my favorite.

The best Rush album (according to me) is ... DRUMROLL, PLEASE ... "Counterparts". Of course, if you read my last few blogs, you would already know that answer. The album is simply wonderful. I am not going to attempt to analyze it from a musical perspective, I can't - I simply have no talent in that direction. But I will say that I love every song on that album and whenever I put it on, I listen to the whole thing - I do not think I have ever skipped a song by clicking forward on the CD. I happened to be talking to a friend about this, and he thought that he would listen to and rate all of the Rush albums. I am going to attempt to do the same thing in the next several days. Again, realize that I will rate a song on the overall impression that it makes on me, encompassing lyrics, music, and emotional reaction - if a sad song makes me feel sad, then it is a successful song (like "Losing It" - second to last song on Subdivisions, eh ntt's brain?)

But then I thought, "How should I rate them?", and I immediately answered myself, "Of course, I'll use the same scale I use to grade math problems at school." Let me explain. I have always hated math problems that are worth 4 points and the teacher takes off a point if you screw up a negative sign or make a trivial copy error. This is not to say that those errors are unimportant, I just would like teachers to know the weight that they give a particular problem. In the aforementioned example, if a kid transcribed the problem wrong and a teacher took of 1 point out of four, the teacher is tacitly sending the message that copying the problem correctly is more important than doing the math correctly. The student has achieved a 75% on that problem, a C in most classes in high school, so that transcription error takes someone from excellent to average. That is appropriate if that is what the teacher wants to emphasize, but I think many teachers do not even think that far ahead (even math teachers, for whom the numbers should make the most sense). To counter this I put together the following scale:

90-100% A
85-89 A-
80-84 B+
75-79 B
70-74 B-
65-69 C+
60-64 C
50-59 C-
0-49 F

Each problem on a test is worth 10 points (on rare occasions 5 if the problem doesn't warrant that much weight in the scope of the overall test), and then when I make a point deduction I am completely cognizant of what grade I am giving. For example, if a problem has a trivial mistake with a minus sign, I might take off half a point or a point, and the student still has an A on that problem (9.5 = 95%, 9 = 90%), however in a problem where that negative means direction or decreasing versus increasing rate of change (topics where understanding the implication of the negative are important) dropping a negative could warrant a much greater penalty, like 3 points - taking that problem score from an A to a B-.

So back to Rush. I am going to listen to every song on every album and attempt to rate them all on this scale of 0 to 10. I will then add up the scores, divide by the number of songs, and multiply by 100 to get a percentage score, then make a list of the albums that I like most to the ones I like least, and have the score with it. I may also post how I rate each song, but I am not sure. Keep in mind that I am a huge Rush fan, so I will be as objective as I can in rating my subjective response (kinda silly thought, huh?), but it is unlikely that many songs will receive below a 5.

Just for reference, here are the 18 albums I will be rating. I will not be dealing with live albums (though these are truly masterpieces as well) or the cover-tune album that they did a few years back (again, good covers of songs they loved as kids, but not in the purview of this list). So here are the albums, in the best chronological order I can muster from memory:

• Rush
• Fly by Night
• Caress of Steel
• 2112
• Farewell to Kings
• Hemispheres
• Permanent Waves
• Moving Pictures
• Signals
• Grace Under Pressure
• Power Windows
• Hold Your Fire
• Presto
• Roll the Bones
• Counterparts
• Test for Echo
• Vapor Trails
• Snakes and Arrows

Should be an interesting undertaking (for me, maybe not for you), but at least you won't have to read about politics today.

PS you may have noticed that I do not include Ds in my grade scale - this is because I don't believe in them. They exist mostly to alleviate a teacher's guilt at not having done enough or to avoid the hassle of giving a failing grade to a student. It is my job and the student's job to make sure that s/he knows enough to pass the course. To get an F, you actually have to prove to me that you deserve it. You have to demonstrate to me that you know nothing of the course and you want to do nothing to pass the course. Since I also allow retakes of tests, there is no reason anyone shouldn't pass my course. (I allow retakes because I don't care when you learn it necessarily, I care that you learn it. Of course, to incentivize learning it earlier, there is a maximum of a 70%, a B-, that you can earn on a retake.)

Does Obama Really Want Cost Control, or Just Government Control?

Don't worry, this will be quick. I just want to highlight one more point of hypocrisy on the part of the Obama-style health care reform. I will address other topics in a later blog, as I am rather busy right now, but I just had a quick thought on which I had to write.

About a year ago, if memory serves, some Republicans tried to put forth a health care reform bill. They had tried several times before with the same style of legislation, but health insurance companies have strong lobbies that influence both Dems and Repubs. The basics of the plan that they proposed, which seem reasonable to anyone I have ever posited them to, was that Americans should be able to purchase health insurance from any provider, rather than just be limited to insurers in state. This would allow actual competition and is generally not favored by states because they have a vested interest in keeping the insurers under state regulation (and in keeping insurance lobbying money flowing to state and federal officials). Incidentally, Obama voted against this.

Even the most ardent liberal cannot fail to see that an expanded availability of competition reduces prices (that is the argument they use to favor a government "option"). This is a very common sense and simple reform that does not gain traction for the aforementioned reasons, even though many health reform organizations and doctor organizations favor this.

Of course, this raises the question, "Why would Obama oppose this if he is in favor of controlling costs?" Simple, he is not about controlling costs as much as he is about a government sponsored and run health care plan. He has shown far left tendencies in virtually every aspect of his governance, and this is no exception. It is no surprise that I do not agree with leftist agendas, and I would not have a problem with it if he had been elected on these agendas, because clearly, the will of the people is for that agenda. But he was elected on a centrist platform, and he is doing little to live up to that.

If you want to read more, just check out old bill's sponsored by Shadegg (I think this is the spelling, I am going from memory). He tried the same thing several years in a row (in a Dem controlled congress - guess they didn't really want Health Care Reform all that bad, did they?)

Dead Snow and Regret

So, I went to the Roxie last night and saw the Norwegian movie "Dead Snow". In truth, I was not exactly sure what to expect - but with the tag line "Ein, Zwie, DIE!", how could I resist. In truth, it was a fun little film in the style of an "Evil Dead II". There were a lot of funny moments and lines, and, all-in-all, I really enjoyed the film. I won't go into too much detail, but I think that I can highly recommend this film. Was it great? No. Was it a fun Nazi-Zombie-Comedy-Gore-Fest? Hell, yes. 'Nuff said.

The day before, we went to the Samurai exhibition at the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco. And here is where the regret comes in. I had a wonderful time at the exhibit - virtually all of the samurai relics were from the Hosokawa dynasty (I believe that these are all from the old Higo province, if my knowledge of Japanese history and Nobunaga's Ambition serves me correctly). It was a fascinating look at an interesting piece of cultural history. What I really liked the most were the older charcoal brush painting and calligraphy. The swords and armor were all well and good, and I did enjoy seeing them, but the artwork is something that has always fascinated me.

Charcoal and water are terribly difficult to work with as a medium. They are completely unforgiving, and any mistake is glaringly obvious. (Trust me, I've tried to do this, and I keep trying - it is tough.) You have to commit fully to each brush stroke and you also have to have in mind exactly what the piece of art should look like before putting brush to page. In essence, the whole picture is contained in the first brush stroke. So as an art form, this is particularly intellectually engaging to me.

But further than this, it is an art form that engages me on an emotional level - in many (not all) cases. I find the intellectual concept of one well-defined, decisive stroke creating an artistic impression to be intensely moving. I do not get this response from many painting styles - either I am incapable of appreciating them, or they are so far out of the scope of my affordability range that I will suppress any emotional response so I do not experience the regret at not being able to get that response by regularly interacting with that piece of art. For me this emotional response is not just limited to visual art, but it is also a way that I interact with some music. For example, I am huge fan of the band, Rush. My favorite rush album is "Counterparts" - an album that came out in 1993 (I know that this I might be the only Rush fan to say that, but for me, this album is intensely moving). I actually get chills just thinking about listening to the album - it does that much to me every time I listen to it.

This is an uncommon phenomenon for me - as a result of lifelong struggles with mood disorders, I have spent years suppressing and managing my emotional responses. It is very difficult for me to get legitimately excited or frightened; this is one of the reasons I gravitate things like the horror genre, thrill rides, rock climbing, combat sports, etc. So when I encounter a piece of art that moves me in this way, I generally will want to purchase it, especially if the art is within my means. The piece that I saw at the museum store had a price tag of $350, well within my price range (I have $400 set aside for blackjack in my upcoming Reno trip, and I would have gladly used this instead of playing blackjack with it). Supergoober and ntt's brain both advised that I sleep on it and having done that for two days, all I am experiencing is regret at not purchasing this piece.

Was it overpriced? Probably... it was for sale at a museum store - the markup was probably 1.5 to 3 times what it would have sold for in a gallery. Would this have been worth it to me? Absolutely. I think, given my normally rational approach to things, my friends simply assumed that I was succumbing to an impulse buy kind of phenomenon. I do not begrudge them this - they clearly had my best interest at heart. That they do not know this about me is, again, my fault. I have not taken the time to discuss these matters with them - it can be difficult to discuss my emotional states as being overly managed because of a tendency of mine to overreact - these are just not topics that come up in everyday conversation. So, first, I would like to apologize for not revealing this aspect of myself, and second, I am going to go back and see if I can get a hold of this piece ... hopefully I do not get more disappointment and regret.

Again, thanks, guys, for looking out for me, and my apologies for not really explaining what was going on.

Sonia Sotomayor - Lacking Judical Temperment?

First, supergoober, re our hour-long conversation that kept you from your darling wife, I will blog on that soon, and apologize again for me - I did not mean to keep you talking quite so long (manic, anyone?). But as for Sotomayor, I have been wanting to blog on this for a month and a half, ever since I first heard her name bandied about as a candidate for the Supreme Court. I vaguely remember her first appointment and some controversy for the 2nd circuit court of appeals, so I did a bit of research, and I do not believe she has the temperament to be any kind of judge (in fact, she would not actually pass the standard to be a juror in most districts in the U.S. - more later).



Here is my problem, in a nutshell. First, the issue with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund is not an issue. I do not care whether she is liberal or conservative personally. The fact that she is liberal is fine, she has that right as an American, and as a liberal lawyer she should take up liberal causes. That is what lawyers do, and even if the Fund is extremely leftist, or whatever, that does not matter. She was a lawyer, and was doing what fit with her conscience and belief system. That is what any person in any job should be doing. The fact that she had a socialist quote in her 1976 college yearbook - so what. How many kids coming out of college are enamored with idealistic ideas, or in love with the social justice aspects of socialism. Again, this is a non-issue. She was even on a board and on a website of an international socialist organization (she has since been removed from that at her own request) - again, a non issue. So what if she is a socialist. Last I checked the country is free and you can have whatever political affiliations that you like. And did anyone really expect Obama to nominate a conservative? Of course not. Whoever he nominates will be, on the political spectrum, decidedly left of center. Politics are politics, and always will be.



But a judge is supposed to be able to take those personal biases and set them aside. This is part of the symbolism of the judicial robes - they are meant to obscure class, race, and all other potential biases. They are currently a symbol of fairness - the person in the robe does not matter, they are supposed to be an impartial arbiter of the law. Compassion and empathy are not supposed to be part of the equation...



Now, before the hue and cry of, "WTF are you talking about?!?!?", hear me out. A judge should be able to find in favor of a plaintiff or defendant that s/he does not like. Sympathy for one party means that you are no longer an impartial arbiter of justice. This was the case a hundred and fifty years ago and is still the case now. If a judge from the 1800s had sympathy for a white man, and antipathy for a minority, justice was not served. This happened far too frequently and was fundamentally unfair. The person of color was not receiving equal justice under the law. When we have sympathy or empathy for one party in a court situation, that is fine, but a judge or a jury cannot afford that luxury. In fact, many judges have said that the cases of which they are the most proud is the ones where they found in favor of someone they did not like. Experiencing these emotions is inevitable - it is what makes us human, but putting them aside in the cause of fairness and justice is what takes us to a more transcendent state of being - a bit dramatic, yes, but I sincerely believe this.



Sotomayor is sorely lacking in this department. Her history of judgements are colored by personal biases. The most recent controversial one is the one about the firefighter who got a high score on an advancement exam - she threw out the exam because too few minorities did well on it. She ignored the fact that the white fireman was a minority (dyslexic - a minority in terms of disability) that was underrepresented as well (not that this matters) who went to great personal expense and effort to prepare for the test because he really wanted to advance as a firefighter. Even other Clinton appointees think that this decision was asinine, and even her supporters give a terrible reason for the decision. I have heard her defenders say that she was concerned that the city would get sued if she found any other way. If this is actually the case, then there is no way she should be a judge. A judge is not supposed to be swayed by the impact of his/her decision - they are supposed to make a judgement on the merit of the case and the law. If a judge can be swayed by outside forces, then the whole idea of jurisprudence is out the window.

And this is where Sotomayor is an abject failure. She has been criticized by both liberal and conservative judges. A BRIEF ASIDE -As much as most conservative pundits love to say this, most liberal judges do not create law, they interpret the law that is there on the books already. Their interpretation may not be as strict as constitutional constructionists think that it should be, but there is a very small minority of judges (on either the left or the right) that simply make up law. Similarly, there are very few excessively conservative judges that simply chuck out precedent and decide against cases that have a long history of case law even if the constitutional justification is a bit fuzzy. In short, most people on both sides get up in arms over very little when it comes to judges, and they really just don't like if they think that a judge won't decide in favor of their side, rather than wanting what the Constitution demands - that is good judicial temperament. All history and protocol demands that this be the thing on which senators decide, but that has not really been the case since Bork (both sides are guilty of this, by the way, but I tend to notice the ones on the left as doing this far more frequently, especially in the Bush administration's appointees). - ASIDE ENDED. Sotomayor is one of those rare judges who seems to have no sense of proportion and makes asinine statements and decisions based not on precedent but on prejudice. By prejudice, I mean the true nature of the word. She seems to have pre-judged her cases - she comes to the conclusion before hearing the facts and either fails to cite precedent, or reaches back to the most obscure precedent available that backs up what she says. Two examples that are worrisome, one you have probably heard of, the other not:

1) The firefighter discrimination suit. People in the court tell of her harassing tone, her bias against the person bringing the suit and her general demeanor throughout the case as seeming like her decision was a forgone conclusion. Her unpublished opinion (this is not an uncommon occurrence, many decisions are not published to the public, so I will not fault her for that) contains, from what I understand, no citation of precedent. She was grilled about this in the senate hearings, and though she responded well to the bit about the opinion being unpublished, that was ancillary to the question. The questioner wanted to know why she did not cite precedent and she refused to answer. This is not the temperament we want from any judge, let alone a supreme court justice. Another judge on the same circuit court of appeals, his name eludes me, but he was a Clinton appointee as well, basically said that he thought her decision and the unpublished opinion that she wrote was one of the worst decisions he had ever seen. Everyone makes a bad judgement now and again, but she has had, in my opinion made many (like deciding that the EPA could not use a cost-benefit analysis in addressing clean water issues - one of the stupidest decisions I have ever read, and another one involving a class action suit which was barred by law, where she just decided to disregard the law - the Supreme Court turned her down 8-0 on that fiasco)

2) The next case ignores a lot of case law and reaches into the early annals of US case law, and this should be troubling to people on both sides of the aisle, as it shows a tendency to judge based on personal opinion rather than on facts and precedent. In a lawsuit on New York gun control laws, she cites precedent that says that the 2nd amendment does not apply to state or local laws, but only to federal restrictions. She cites case law from the 1870s and 1880s for this judgement. Here's the problem, however. For about the first hundred and twenty ish years of our nation's history, the Bill of Rights was deemed to only apply to the Federal Government. That means that states, or even local municipalities or towns could actually establish religions, restrict free speech, ignore due process, pursue cruel and unusual punishment, etc. While she is absolutely correct in her assertion that the two cases she cited did deal with the constitutionality of applying gun control laws on a local rather than federal level, and there is little other case law in any other direction, she has ignored a hundred and twenty plus years of gradual transference of the Constitutional protections of rights protecting us against state encroachments as well. It is this trend that actually removed state sponsored religions (which this nation had - there were states that were Catholic, and others that were Protestant - no state ever adopted Neo-Paganism, sorry acupuncturist), gave us Miranda rights, the right to privacy, the right to due process on a state level, etc. Formerly, all of these protections were only that the Federal Government could not encroach on the rights established in the Constitution. The 14th amendment went a long way to redressing some of the inequities in freedoms, but because it is subject to interpretation, some judges, especially in the late 1800s, tried to circumvent it.

A brief refresher: I have included section 1 of the amendment, below.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Of course, I introduced the bold-faced, red part, because I think that it spells out rather clearly that states cannot take away constitutional rights of citizens. Sotomayor's decision ignores that fact, and she sides with court opinions that were made by Courts that were trying deliberately to limit the power of the 14th Amendment.

Here's why this is worrisome for both sides. If she is willing to violate the 14th Amendment and find obscure case law to validate that, she could do that for any other cause that she espouses. Let's not forget she is a Latin Catholic (most people call 'em Roman Catholics, but what even most Roman Catholics don't know is that we are actually Latin Catholics - the Roman bit is something of an insult handed to us by the Protestants). We do not know where she stands on gay marriage or abortion - she has not made many decisions on these, and if she actually decides that she can flout precedent, she could easily justify the eradication of the so-called "right to privacy". This could lead to an interesting situation on the high court.

Not that I think that one person will overturn abortion or undo gay rights, but it is something that should concern people on the right and the left - she has shown repeatedly her willingness to ignore precedent in favor of her opinion.

And this is not to even mention her speeches, where she has repeatedly said such foolish things as

• a "wise Latina" can make better decisions than a white man
• there are "physiological, emotional, and sociological reasons" that a Latina will make better decisions than a white man
• that appellate courts are "where policy is made" and that judges should essentially be making social policy (this is obviously under the purview of legislators)
• that empathy is an important quality for a judge, and that empathy can and should override logic and adherence to precedent and case law.

There are many more, but I think you can see that she would not even qualify to be a California juror with these opinions. For your edification, the summary of what California jurors are required to do, as well as the jury instructions:

The process of questioning and excusing jurors continues until 12 persons are accepted as jurors for the trial. Alternate jurors may also be selected. The judge and attorneys agree that these jurors are qualified to decide impartially and intelligently the factual issues in the case. When the selection of the jury is completed, the jurors take the following oath:

"Do you, and each of you, understand and agree that you will well and truly try the cause now pending before this court, and a true verdict render according only to the evidence presented to you and to the instructions of the court?"

As a juror you should think seriously about the oath before taking it. The oath means you give your word to reach your verdict upon only the evidence presented in the trial and the court's instructions about the law. You cannot consider any other evidence and instruction other than those given by the court in the case before you. Remember that your role as a juror is as important as the judge's in making sure that justice is done.



(http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/step1.htm)

If she can't even pass the juror qualifications, what makes us think that she can be on the high court of the land. And just to be clear, if I encountered these same qualities in someone who agreed with my positions, I would still oppose that person. (In fact, she may share some of my views on abortion, but I would not approve of her flouting the 14th Amendment to restrict access to abortions.)

How Could I Forget...

... Bisping vs Henderson. I watched the on demand free content on the interviews of these two, and I came up with some interesting conclusions. Henderson, while he is a great fighter is inconsistent and near delusional in his thoughts on training. He maintains that since he has been training wrestling since he was a child that he is clearly a superior wrestler. Bisping does not argue that point, but argues that he has trained to stop takedowns for a long time, and does a good job of it. Henderson then makes the statement that his standup is as good as Bisping's. This is just silly. Just like Henderson has trained wrestling since he was a kid, Bisping has trained in striking since he was a kid.

And here is the real difference. It is pretty easy to stuff a takedown or pop back up after one. The hard part of wrestling is learning to take a guy down and keep him down. Henderson has this in spades. Bisping, however, does have very good takedown defense, and should prevent most of the attempts and probably won't get too roughed up on the ground. It is much harder to get proficient at defending yourself in a striking match. In striking, offense is easy to learn, in wrestling defense is easy to learn. If Henderson thinks that he will be able to stand and bang with Bisping, he is sorely mistaken, and he could get knocked out. Bisping even predicts this (of course). Henderson's camp thinks that this is the height of absurdity, citing that he was not KOed by either Wanderlei Silva or Quentin "Rampage" Jackson. But neither of those men are truly what I would call striking specialists. They are both powerful, but their technique is weak - they make up for this with aggression, and that is why both are exciting fighters; you know that they will beat the crap out of someone and probably get beat around themselves. Look at Machida or Anderson Silva if you want to see real striking specialists - they feint, not with an arm or a leg, but with their bodies. They move at angles, they set up punches with kicks and kicks with punches. They block, counter, and evade. Bisping fights like this as well, and if Henderson does not get inside and try to take him down, he will lose, likely by knockout. Take a look at Nogueira vs Mir. Nogueira had never been knocked out and a life long striker did it with ease. Anderson Silva makes opponents look silly with his striking prowess. Anyone can learn to throw a punch or a kick, but it takes time to learn how to do it well so that you don't get smacked with a counter.

This is where BJJ and wrestling proponents miss the boat. They get a taste of what it feels like to throw a great punch or kick with power, and they think that this makes them a good striker. It takes as much training and technique to be great at striking as it does to be great at BJJ or wrestling. However, any idiot can throw his hand out there, and if it his the hand of a muscular idiot, it can hurt a lot. Try checking way back in the archives - Maurice Smith vs Mark Coleman (UFC 14 or 15 if I recall) - I remember Smith saying that Coleman punched like a girl, and that an experienced kickboxer like him wouldn't even notice those blows. He was right, and won that fight, with ease if I recall. It takes real skill to be a good striker, and that is why you see them starting to dominate the UFC.

The BJJ and wrestling advocates write off the skill level of strikers at their own peril, beacause a good strong striker who learns a bit of takedown defense becomes very dangerous indeed. One need look no farther than Anderson Silva and Lyoto Machida to see this. I am not saying that wreslters and BJJ guys can't be great strikers, or can't beat great strikers, I am saying that they have to recognize that striking is a lot more than throwing an arm or a leg out like you ar swinging a club. There is a reason why boxing has long been referred to as the "Sweet Science".

UFC 100, Legacies and Dynasties in the UFC

WOW - Lesnar vs. Mir II. Honestly, I do not give Mir much of a chance. Brock is evolving into a complete fighter; that coupled with his overwhelming physical presence makes it unlikely that he will be beaten anytime soon. Of course, this is the UFC and anything can happen, but let me outline this for you. If you look at the size of his head and neck, you can see that the chance of a flash knockout from anyone is minimal. His neck and arms are so huge that submissions via choke and arm locks are equally unlikely. His weakness is his legs - he could still fall victim to repeated kicks to the leg or leg locks; however, after falling victim to a leg lock from Mir, I know he has trained extensively to counter this eventuality. In addition, his physical presence enables a "wading in" and punching/wrestling style that leaves very few opportunities to land kicks to the legs. In short, I think Brock could be champ for quite a while.

The more interesting fight is GSP vs Thiago Alves. I like both these fighters, but I would love for Alves to win. The 170 pound division has lots of good fighters, and I like the mix up in the division. I think that this will be a much more exciting fight than the Mir-Lesnar fight, and I hope for a great showing for the American Top Team from Alves. GSP can never be overlooked, so it should be a fantastic fight.

But here is some interesting things about the UFC right now. With the top three weight classes dominated by Anderson Silva, Lyoto Machida, and Brock Lesnar, I do not see much in the way of competition for anyone coming down the pike anytime soon. Lesnar is too huge (and now well-rounded), Machida is too evasive (and well-rounded), and Silva is too potent a striker (and well-rounded) for any of them to be taken out by anything but a total fluke. If you want my prognostication, however, Silva is the most likely to descend back to earth. He is too cocky and, at times, lackadaisical in his approach to his opposition - he could get caught and lose, and it will probably happen long before it happens to Lesnar or Machida (both of whom have extreme focus).

Now, how about some of my dreams - Silva has gone up in weight before - what about a Silva vs Machida fight - absolutely amazing. I don't know if he could move down to fight GSP or Alves, but maybe a catch-weight fight between Silva and GSP or Alves. What about a catch-weight bout between Machida and Lesnar? Machida would be physically vastly over-matched, but could he be elusive enough to actually provide Lesnar with competition? I don't know but I would give my eye-teeth to see any of those fights.

Obama Gets One Right - Kudos an Order

So, as I am sure you all know, I am no fan of the policies our current president is pursuing. For the most part, I believe they are inherently damaging to the economy, the country, and, most importantly, to human dignity and spirit. All those details on my many criticisms can be found in previous and forthcoming blogs. But, as opposed to fundamentalists on either side, I am more than willing to say when he does something that I view as correct. This is a small thing, on its face, but I still believe that it deserves mention, because it means there may be some truth to his advertising himself as a moderate. For me, most of his positions have fallen significantly left of center - if you like that, fine, but I have philosophical oppositions to that (ask theAcupuncturist, I am sure he could detail many of my oppositions, as well as having persuasive counterarguments - not persuasive enough to change my opinion, but cogent and coherent).

So, as I said before, and far be it from me to be a nattering nabob of nascent narcissistic negativism (take that Spiro Agnew, you ain't the only one who can use alliteration!), I would like to say that I have a glimmer of hope when I hear the president talk about another stimulus package. It is no surprise that I felt the initial stimulus was wasteful and near criminal in its lack of addressing economic issues - it was more a Democratic wish list that they had been waiting 8 years to pass. So imagine my surprise when I heard the president's response to the congress's expressed desire to pass another stimulus package. In brief, his response was hold on, wait a minute, let's see how the first one works - let's give it some time to kick in.

Honestly, I don't believe the first one will ever "kick in" (I don't believe Obama ever used any of the words above, I am just paraphrasing while keeping the intent of his statement). Keynesian economics has not ever and will not ever work - details, again, in a forthcoming blog. Let's just say we've tried it, many European nations have tried it, Japan tried it 9 times in it's "lost decade" of the 90s, and it never worked. It didn't work in the Great Depression, and it will not work now. But I still hold cautious optimism that Obama might see that this is not actually the path to economic success. The government cannot make economic success, because it only takes money from the private sector and gives it back in a less efficient manner (using up some in bureaucratic nonsense) - no wealth is generated this way, the government produces nothing. This is not to say that government has no role - it just cannot actual run or create a successful economy. One only need look as far as the socialist democracies of Europe, communism in China and Russia, and the trade protections that the US and Japan has engaged in to see that it is not a long-term recipe for success. In the short run, it can seem to have positive effects, but it is not a long-term strategy. hopefully, Obama will begin to realize this and pull back from his more drastic programs that inhibit success and become more of the moderate that he claimed to be in the campaign.

ADDICTION IS NOT A DISEASE!!!!

Well, now that I have your attention with a title that is almost guaranteed to be controversial, let me explain what I mean. I have seen and heard a number of debates, television programs, etc. all talking about the disease aspects of addiction. I have a number of different problems with this particular definition.



I am not going to say that there is not a physical or genetic component to compulsive behavior, because there clearly is. My problem with the disease definition is that it expiates the need for personal responsibility on the part of the individual. I am not responsible for stealing, my drug addiction pushed me to it. I am not responsible for losing my house, my gambling addiction caused that. I am not responsible for destroying my family, my alcohol addiction caused that.



Now I am not saying that people who have these disorders (characterised by compulsive behavior) are not sad cases, nor am I saying that all addicts make excuses like this - on the contrary, it is the non-addict population who generally makes these kinds of arguments. But notice that I did use the moniker "disorder" rather than disease. For many, this might be pure semantics, but for me it is not. A disease implies no choice - you cannot "will away" the symptoms. Even the physical components of addiction still have a choice involved. Diseases have no choice - once you have them you cannot get rid of them.



Of course, most treatment programs have this as part of their mantra - once I have this disease, I have it forever, I can never have another drink, another pill, or whatever, but to me I still think this is a distinction without a difference. You can still choose to not have the disease. The disease proponents define the cravings as the disease, while I define the cravings as more akin to a mood disorder.



Let me be more specific. If you get cancer, AIDS, Lyme disease, swine flu, or any other physical ailments, you cannot use a cognitive coping skill to stop the symptoms. You cannot just choose not to have cancer. There may have been choice involved in getting the disease - by exposing yourself to risks, but I am talking about the actual disease. You cannot just say, "I don't have AIDS", and then the AIDS is gone. However, you can say that I will not take that next drink, pill, or whatever.



The world of psychological disorders is varied and, in some ways, controversial. (Interestingly enough, Madhouse by Anthrax just started playing on my play list - fun little coincidence). Many psychological problems have psychiatric components, an most illnesses can be treated by a combination of drugs and counseling. But even people in the medical world draw a distinction between mental illness and mood disorder. For example, if I have schizophrenia and hear voices, no amount of choice on my part makes me not here the voices. Even medications are only mediocre at suppressing this, and cognitive coping skills only help alleviate the person's reaction to the auditory hallucinations. Someone with clinical depression (like me, for example) can actually change their symptoms with sufficient cognitive coping skills. I can, essentially, will myself to feel better. While I always have some symptoms of the disorder, I can take positive actions to make it so that I experience less or no symptoms. Since these are within my power, I am responsible for my own state of mind. I am responsible for seeking out help when I need it, or for maintaining my good mental state by good personal habits that reinforce my good state.



"Addiction" is very similar to this. Most addictions should be more properly called compulsions, especially the ones that involve a social behavior - like gambling, for example. Gambling can be compulsive, but it is not an addictive disease. If I have to get in my car, fill it with gas, drive 3 and a half hours to Atlantic City, access my bank account, take out a loan on my home, then lose all my money gambling, why would this be anyone but my fault. I cannot blame my "gambling addiction" or the casino - I am an idiot. Believe it or not, a few years back, some idiot did exactly that and tried suing the casino for not appropriately monitoring his behavior because he had a gambling addiction.

Addiction is much more akin to a mood disorder. By elevating it to the status of disease, we abrogate any responsibility on the part of the abuser. It does not help them to get clean, any more than the "12-step" program of acknowledging you are powerless over your addiction and you need God's help to get through it. (Incidentally, 12 step success rate is about the same as quitting cold-turkey with no assistance, the God thing is just the brainchild of the devotee who created the program. I am not saying faith plays no part in combating addiction, I just don't buy the 12 step idea. If you do, and it works for you, that is great). My problem with that should be obvious - if you do not believe in God, then you cannot recover from your addiction according to this model, and I have severe reservations about sentencing drug/alcohol offenders to these programs - it is a bit too close to state-sponsored religion.

But I have gone rather far afield (this is why I try to write everything in one sitting, rather than starting and coming back later). The fact that we can make rational decisions is one key thing that separates us from animals. We are not slaves to instinctual behavior, we can actually make real choices about behavior. We do not act on every sexual impulse, every hunger, or every desire. We do not mindlessly engage in physical tests to attract mates, nor do we attack anything that encroaches on our territory. While we have an animal nature, there is something different about us. We are not just bundles of incoherent instinct and desire, forced into gratifying our every whim. We are social, rational, emotional, and spiritual - all of these play into what and who each of us are (and while you may not buy the spiritual bit, you would be hard pressed to counter any other of the three). We are capable of self-denial, even to the point of self-destruction. To claim that we have to fall victim to our desires is to deny the noblest part of our nature. If a person can starve himself to death (or near to death) or immolate himself in protest of human rights abuses, if we can subject ourselves to beatings and torture because we believe in a cause that is greater than ourselves (even if the cause may not end up being right) - if we can overcome our very survival instinct, surely it is not to much to ask to overcome addictive tendencies.

Believe me, I have them myself. I could virtually guarantee that I have a huge potential problem with any substance were I to engage in that activity. I even approach prescriptions somewhat warily because I know myself. If I start to feel like I need to do something, that is when I refuse to do it. I have taken heavy-duty narcotic painkillers to deal with pain from injury or oral surgery, and I have had times when I felt like taking a pill or two, even if I didn't really need it, and even though it had no apparent effect on me. This is a trigger for me to stop. I can recognize impulses and stop myself. It is a skill every person has, impulse control (those who have none are not long for civilized life) - we do not say everything or do everything that comes into our head, we self-censor for our own and others well-being. To forgo these qualities is to become ultimately self-centered and narcissistic to the point where only your own appetites matter, and all else becomes secondary - in effect you sacrifice your own humanity and become more of an animal than a person. I believe that we are better than that, and we ought to be careful how we classify a psycho-social problem like addiction/compulsion.

Let me give you another example. All my friends know that I am a gambler. I have a "system" like every gambler, and like every gambler, I believe mine works (I know it works, because I have actually kept track of every dollar I have spent over the last 3 years, and I am well ahead of even), but that notwithstanding, I can still recognize compulsive behavior. I know when to stop because I feel like I have to continue. If I ever get that feeling, I force myself to stop. If I ever think about doing something that I would regret telling my wife or my friends, I stop. I do not lie about my wins or my losses, any temptation to do so is a clear indicator that I am making a poor choice and I should not continue in that course of action.

This is not some unique ability - all it takes is a modicum of self awareness; something that we as a society seem to want to completely stamp out in favor of an all-encompassing nanny state that takes care of us... and I think I'll leave it there, because this goes into my response to SuperGoober's response to my health care blog... I understand that he is detailing some opposition arguments and some of his own, but he has missed some of the point of what I wrote and also used some specious reasoning (a rarity for him, but it is a mistake we all make from time to time). I will try to address everything tomorrow, but I am going to be playing some 40k in the evening, so I don't know if I will be able to blog.

BTW, I am not heading to Reno this weekend. I feel kind of lonely and depressed, and that is never a good combination in a casino, so I am going to be gaming instead. Hopefully, this will bring me out of my funk. The wife came home for two days, but now she is gone away again. It is a weird feeling coming home to an empty home. We've been apart before (my camping trips, etc.), but it is different coming to an empty house that we have been sharing for 11 years. We've been living together for about 15 years, so this is just a weird, depressing couple of months. I don't have any idea how you can do it, ntt's brain. I mean, I am an antisocial loner, and all, and I could adjust to this pretty easily, but I really don't want to go back to being that way...

Wow, that is just too damn depressing, sorry all... I am going to watch the top 10 UFC fights of all time on Spike, that should cheer me up ;)

On A Lighter Note (or maybe a darker one if I join the Sith)

Just purchased a new toy online a couple of nights ago, sort of a birthday present to myself - the Master Replicas Force FX light saber construction kit -super awesome. It comes with an LED lightstrip tube,a bunch of handle pieces, etc, etc - supposedly 800+ combinations available (pretty easy to get this number of combos - just use permutation/combination mathematics - since order of assembly doesn't matter, the combination math is what you use -- n!/(r!(n-r)!) if I recall correctly).

Anyway, the light tube has a switch setting to red, green, or blue, and comes with about 15 pieces for different handle combos, it has different idle hum settings as well, and most are sold out at most places (a bunch had them cheaper than 120 dollars, but everywhere that did had them sold out, and the licence has expired for MR star wars, so they are unsure whether they will get anymore, so I bit the bullet and stimulated the economy on my own). I should get it in a week or so, and I may purchase a second set if they still have them and I like it well enough. My Darth Vader saber is showing signs of wear, however - I let some kids play with it, and the LED strip is not as bright (not a battery issue, I think some of the connections may be damaged in the tube). But whatever, it is still cool, and what good is a toy if you don't play with it and share it with others who will enjoy it - why else would I keep them in my classroom?

I'll try uploading a picture of it when I get it.

A Little News - A Month Late

So, I meant to blog on this a month and a half ago, before the health care debate got into full swing, when one of the proposals coming out of the Obama administration was running directly counter to the idea of "insuring everyone". He proposed making injured vets cover any cost of their injuries out of private insurance if they had it. To me, this is ludicrous. These are men and women who volunteered to help their country, to protect freedom, and to ensure the safety of not just American citizens, but many citizens from many countries. If they are injured in the line of duty, it should be the nation's obligation to take care of them. They were hurt in an endeavor to take care of us. Think about it - if they were injured on the job, their employer would be culpable - this is why certain industries have such high insurance rates and death benefits - because they are so inherently risky. Trying to make these people pay for injuries acquired in the line of duty is just silly.

Not to mention that it is a killer for these men and women when trying to find a job. What employer is going to want the level of liability of caring for a long term injury? The unemployment rate for military personnel returning from duty is already about twice what the national average is, and this will only exacerbate the problem.

So I guess this administration wants to provide health care for everyone... unless you are an injured veteran. I don't think that this is an attempt to "get revenge" on soldiers following the Bush Doctrine, as some paranoid nuts might; rather, it is a cost cutting technique to shave money away from the defense budget to try and cover the massive outlays in spending that are projected over the next several years by the CBO (and by the way, the CBO is non-partisan, but always tends to undershoot spending projections, and overshoot income predictions from raised taxes, so look for the deficit numbers to be much worse than they project). Either way, however, it is a horrible idea, both morally and fiscally.

Basically, they are trying to find any way possible to pay for health care - a segment of our economy that is something like 20% of GDP (not sure on this number, just going from memory - look it up and verify if you want); if the government subsumes this responsibility it will be taking over a huge segment of the national economy, something it is seldom, if ever, successful at.

Speaking of paying for health care, why do you think the carbon tax was actually passed? Everyone on both sides agrees that it will not help the environment (this is borne out by the data coming in from Europe, check it out - carbon emissions haven't declined at all, unless you pick a baseline that is favorable, and even then, that only works with the numbers from Britain). Why do you think he floated the idea of taxing your health care benefits as income? Oh yeah, those are both huge regressive taxes, by the way - the carbon tax is based on consumption of a good that everyone uses, so the poor and middle class bear the brunt of that one (since they are larger segments, they pay more) and it amounts to a greater percentage of their income, and health care benefits again make up a larger portion of the income of the middle class, so who do you think is going to be impacted by this? For example, my employer pays 3/4 of my premium for my insurance, amounting to an expenditure of about $4000 per year - taxed at about 25 or so percent, depending on my deductions and income for the year, just a rough guesstimate there, that would be about $1000 extra in taxes per year, or almost $100 less a month if this were to pass... and guess what, I make well under $250,000 per year (who am I kidding, I don't even make half that), so I guess that whole promise about only taxing the rich was a bit of a stretch, huh? How else do we pay for a trillion plus in extra spending?

More forthcoming, even if you don't want to hear it.

And, yes, I know that the money my employer pays for my health insurance is effectively money paid to me and therefore could be legitimately taxed as income (though I have no choice in how that money is spent) that wasn't the point - it really is just that this is yet another broken promise. Are all you moderates who bought the rhetoric, hook, line, and sinker happy yet? And do you really think that if an employer pays for a government premium, that it would be taxed? If you do I have a bridge to sell you, and that would be even more unfair "competition" for the private sector (like there is any fair competition between public and private sector - the only place this even sort of happens is in education, and that is because public education - no offense to all the good teachers out there - is a bureaucratic nightmare, and people are willing to double pay for education to avoid the public system - once in taxes for the public system, once in tuition for the private system - that is how inept government is at running things. You want you health care run like the VA, the post office, the public school system, and the IRS? You can have it, but that is not my idea of a healthy America).