Rambles from Leora
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
Below are the 23 most recent journal entries recorded in the "Leora" journal:[<< Previous 23 entries]
|
10:55 pm
[Link] |
Gah, I know better!
A moment of stupidity, fortunately not harmful. I just fell for a phish. I wasn't thinking. I was following a link, and it took me to what appeared to be me being logged out on LiveJournal... and like the clueless person I try not to be, I went to log in. One moment later, I realized what I had done. I had just logged in on a page I hadn't specifically opened. I hadn't typed the URL in. And sure enough, when I checked the URL more closely, it wasn't a LiveJournal page. I immediately changed my LJ password, and given that I was able to change my password and now have a new password that I didn't foolishly hand to someone phishing for passwords, I should be okay. I use a unique password at LiveJournal, so they can't use that password at any other site either, and I only use this username at two sites. I now have a new unique password, and I checked for any other sessions, and there don't seem to be any. So, it should be okay. I haven't compromised my account.
But that could easily have gone so very badly. And I'm really annoyed with myself, because I know that one should never do that. Ah well. I shall try to be more careful in future and try to remember that one should not log in to anything while mentally on autopilot, even when sleepy.
Edited: Actually, on further checking, I think I misread the URL, and so it wasn't an attempted phishing. Just a scare on my part. But I still did the wrong thing. It still could have been a phish, and I should know better. The fact that it worked out fine, and it looks like it was a legitimate LJ page isn't really the point. Because it only takes one mistake of this sort to create a mess of problems. But I'm glad that this isn't a problem, because it means this isn't a phish that might catch others. Just my vision playing tricks on me.
Current Mood:  annoyed
Tags: personal
|
03:31 pm
[Link] |
*sighs*
It's not everyday that the American Cancer Society upsets me. Like almost all people, I am anti-cancer. It's not easy to find someone who likes cancer. It's kind of a given that I dislike cancer a whole lot. But from this article, it looks like the American Cancer Society values not being too publicly seen as taking money from atheists more than it values getting money to help against cancer.
I really think most people with cancer would like help, both immediate for their treatment and investment in cancer research for long-term hope of improving humanity's ability to treat or prevent cancer. I really think most people aren't too fussy about where that money comes from, other than wanting it ethically obtained (that is, not having gangs of thugs going around randomly robbing people and then giving the money to cancer research, which while an interesting scenario, could create a less good overall society since gangs of thugs robbing people is generally a negative thing for societies).
I am reminded of a story my mother tells about when her mother was getting medical treatment. One organization would not help, but a church did. My family is not Christian - never has been. And she did specifically mention that neither she nor her mother was Christian, when the offer of help came, but the priest stated that helping people was what he believed the right thing to do was, and it didn't matter the religion of the person who was helped. I feel that is a very good sentiment, and is representative of Christianity when it tends to come across as a positive thing that encourages good action - Christianity at its best, and very in-line with many teachings in the Bible. And my mother didn't really care about the religious beliefs of people willing to help, so much as getting medical help for her mother. That, to me, makes sense. These were people being helpful and decent, regardless of a particular difference in belief that wasn't directly relevant to the issue at hand. It's not like they required a conversion or Christian prayers or anything in order for her to get medical treatment. And it's not like the atheist group was asking anyone who has cancer to give up their beliefs or to stop praying. The difference in religious beliefs between atheists and some people with cancer (since some people with cancer are atheists, but cancer is pretty indiscriminate, and I expect includes people of countless different faiths or lack thereof) is simply not relevant to the issue of can there be help on this issue. And I think it's really sad that people can't set aside religious issues when they aren't relevant to work together for an issue that so clearly is simply pro-humanity. Can't we all agree that we hate cancer and are in this together regardless of our religious beliefs? If we can't unite to be against cancer, it just seems so very disappointing. There are very few issues as clear-cut as human beings dislike cancer and working to treat, cure, or prevent it is a thing that human beings should try to do.
Edited to add: Apparently the ACS has responded. They rejected the offer, because they were worried that accepting it would cost them too much from other donors. Because apparently publicly accepting money from atheists would cause other people to not want to give them money to fight against cancer, because having an organization that doesn't publicly get money from atheists is more important to many people than working against cancer - or so the ACS thinks. Whether they are right or wrong, it makes me sad for humanity that people can be that bigoted and petty and can't come together against cancer. This is just so not a controversial issue. There are issues one can have about the best division of funding to help against medical problems or the best methods of being anti-cancer, but if you otherwise wanted to help the ACS, why would you turn away because you have different beliefs than some of the people who were part of a fundraising program for their organization? I suppose a common enemy just isn't a sufficiently unifying force.
Current Mood:  sad
Tags: beliefs, links, personal, values
|
|
11:41 am
[Link] |
One more thought on Occupy Protests
I was thinking about these protests, and I was thinking about how it doesn't quite surprise me, because it seems so in-character for the younger generation. There are various reasons, certainly as this article alludes to, you're going to get a reaction if you screw over a whole lot of well-educated people. But this also seems like exactly the sort of protest I'd expect from the Millennium generation. They are, in general (obviously individual exceptions will apply) more connected with each other, because they grew up with more technology connecting them. They tend to believe in working together and changing the system from within. They are more politically active for their ages than past generations tended to be and also more likely to volunteer. Occupy protests feel so in-character for their generation.
I was wondering to myself, so what would be the sort of reaction I'd expect from my generation? I'm technically a Generation X-er. Generation X is typically more cynical, more prone to individualistic actions, and more likely to try to change the system from without. And then I thought to myself, Anonymous. I don't actually know how much Gen-X influence is in Anonymous, but Anonymous certainly does sound like the sort of thing Gen-X would do. And it's also a generation with enough computer knowledge to do it.
On a side note, while I don't have problems with individual baby boomers, I really do hate the baby boomer generation as a whole. I try to give any individual the benefit of the doubt, since you can't control when you are born, and I am sure many of them are wonderful people. But the baby boomer generation certainly does seem to have been incredibly greedy and destructive.
It's too soon to say much about the younger generations. And things generally don't look so good for my country. But it's quite possible that we can and will fix things up. It's going to be bad for a while, there's no way around that. But the country recovered from the Great Depression. It's weathered tough times before. So, while it may be horrible for many individuals now, there is hope for the future. Especially if we are willing o go back to not selling the future of our children. And laws like this give me hope that we will not continue to increasingly take from future generations, progressively making it harder and harder for them to succeed. I believe in a social contract where the older generations help the younger ones to grow up, get an education, and get a start on their lives. Perhaps we will continue to make steps towards going back to that.
Current Mood:  thoughtful
Tags: beliefs, links, personal, values
|
11:15 am
[Link] |
Thoughts on Occupy $Location
I suppose I should write about it, since it's a pretty significant thing going on in my country. I do have thoughts about it. First, I am pleased. I have mentioned in person that to me this movement feels like the metaphorical frog trying to jump out of the metaphorical pot. I haven't tested it, but people say that the idea that if you put a frog in a pot of water and very slowly increase the temperature then you can boil the frog without it ever trying to jump out of the pot is false. However, the foot-in-the-door effect is a true effect found on humans, and metaphorically, it does sometimes seem like you can boil metaphorical frogs.
People, very much including other Americans, don't tend to have much hope for the American people. They expect them to be passive and ignorant, and to just let things happen to them. People complain that when Americans are upset with something they loot, rather than trying to do anything political. But now we have Americans trying to be heard in a political way.
I've been annoyed by some commenters on the web (a common problem of reading random comments on the web). I am reminded of the London riots, where people complained that that was not the right way to call attention to a problem and that people should have used non-violent protest. I remember a comment from someone about how they should have gone and sat and made their point, and if they weren't heard, then they should have stayed until they were. And I remarked that if you want people to engage in non-violent protest then you should make a point of teaching successful methods for creating political change in your schools so that when segments of your populace feel they need a method they are aware of them. People were citing all sorts of tactics that worked historically in various places, and I was thinking, and how do you expect the poor and less well educated to be aware of this?
So, now we have a movement that is sitting and staying and trying to non-violently make a point. And what do I see people doing? Objecting that these protesters aren't doing anything useful, and how can they expect this to help create any change?
That really annoys me, but I think it is helpful, because it is getting into the news. It is getting heard. And it is also encouraging people to think politically. That is important, because it might encourage some people to vote. The US has such a horrible turn-out for its elections. It also will likely affect the political conversation. We have a presidential election coming up next year, and we are already having debates and campaigning related to it. If you can make an issue be in the news, then you can increase the likelihood that presidential candidates will have to speak about their take on it. That can be very useful for gaining information about candidates. Also, if you can make it clear that a lot of people want a particular type of change, you make it more likely that politicians will do something toward that. Not necessarily much, but possibly something. Probably more than if you don't do that.
So, I think non-violent protest has a pretty decent historical track record and is a good thing to do. And I'm glad to see that Americans can be pushed far enough to take real effort to object. It's not easy protesting day after day after day. I certainly could not do it. I am glad there are people who can and are willing to.
Current Mood: pensive
Tags: beliefs, personal, values
|
|
03:21 pm
[Link] |
Decency and Intersectionality
Every so often a post happens in a group I belong to that is for people who belong to one minority where the poster's remarks are really inappropriate toward a different minority. This is always a bit depressing, because it'd be nice if people would learn from being part of a minority that it's not okay to be bigoted against others or why these things are so hurtful. Some people do, but lots of people don't. However, what I do find really nice is that in the communities I read, this is usually called out as inappropriate and the vast majority of commenters object. So, it's nice to see that people do learn. Of course, often many of the people commenting belong to both minorities, but some of them don't and simply don't like the bigotry. But it's also important to remember when in a group for X some of those X are also Y.
And I decided to post about it, because I read this rather nice open letter, Brother to Brother: A Letter to Herman Cain, about being Black and gay.
A lot has been said about intersectionality (belonging to multiple minorities) and I don't have anything profound or new to say about it. It's definitely harder than just belonging to one minority, because even groups designed to help you cope with one of your minorities may attack you for a different one. If they are minorities that aren't blatantly obvious and you can pass, you have the question of whether you want to be in the closet about a minority you are a member of even when getting support for issues related to being a minority. That all sucks. And yes, that isn't a profound statement, I know.
But still, I am glad that culturally, I think a lot more people are starting to understand. Even people who really don't, I think may be at a slightly better place than they would have been in the past. It's not improving equally for all minorities, I'm sure, but I think many people are generally getting better at recognizing bigotry, not being okay with it, and speaking up when appropriate. There's a long way to go, but I think we're often moving in the right direction. And I'm glad to see groups dedicated to one issue not allowing bigotry about a different one. Being against bigotry should be about more than just not wanting people to treat you badly or not wanting people to treat people you know badly. You don't need to know any (insert any group here, some examples may be gays, Muslims, Black people, disabled people, transsexuals, Australian people (okay that isn't usually an issue, but I was chatting with some entertaining Australians one night during some insomnia so it's on my mind), etc.) to care about people being treated decently. And it's nice when people can generalize what they learn about (insert something positive toward a minority feminism, anti-racism, anti-ablism, queer rights, etc.) to the broader spectrum of humanity. Bigotry may come in more flavors than ice cream, but at its roots, it's all pretty similar. You dehumanize some group of people while also generalizing things thought to be true of some of them to the larger group of them. And doing better about it is also pretty similar, treat people with respect until they as an individual give you good reason not to, and try to avoid assumptions about what someone is like because of some small aspect of who they are. People are complicated, take some time to learn the details of the one you're interacting with. Oh, and if more than a dozen people are telling you you're wrong about something and you don't have a very good reason not to respect their opinion, it's probably a good idea to at least consider that you might be wrong and double-check your own rightness. You aren't necessarily wrong, but it's an indicator that there is some other viewpoint or belief that might be worth understanding, even if you end up disagreeing with it.
Current Mood: hungry
Tags: beliefs, links, personal, values
|
|
09:28 pm
[Link] |
Lack of News
Random commenters on the internet are transphobic. This revelation should shock and surprise nobody. Some other random commenters on the internet were not. But anyhow, being annoyed by the bigotry, I did the futile thing of responding. In the process, I wanted to re-dig up a link I'd read before. It took some doing, so I thought I'd share it, and possibly more easily find it next time somebody says something so stupid as sex is defined by what chromosomes you have, XX is female and XY is male always.
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/marriage.html
It's a wonderful article about the problems of defining marriage as a male to a female, because of the difficulty of defining male and female. It goes through a wonderfully diverse list of interesting medical differences people can have. It isn't really about transsexuality, but about how even if you ignore transsexuality completely, it is still impossible to define who is male and who is female, because every definition people have tried has counter-examples that clearly break it.
Personally, I wouldn't mind at all if our notion of sex or gender as a simple thing with two categories were to break. I think it's a bad model of reality. I know people like simple models, but simple models do tend to simplify reality. So, if you really want to work with reality, you need to understand when your model is just as much a simplification as assuming a spherical cow is - okay for some things, but not good when you want to get into the nitty gritty and actually make things happen. I get it, I was upset when they made me stop working with the simple ideal gas law and made me work with the more complex how gases actually work, well, closer to it, equation. But if chemical engineers stuck to the beautifully simple ideal gas law, then very bad things would happen. When engineering our society, we similarly need to be willing to go beyond our simple models when they do not accurately represent reality. It's not good to cut corners with our society.
Current Mood: hungry
Tags: beliefs, links, personal, values
|
|
03:48 pm
[Link] |
Links
Here are a few things I've read recently and found to be interesting.
Have some anti-cynicism Violence Vanquished, an article about how there has been a historical trend toward less violence. This is well worth reading.
This I simply found interesting. ;A Look at PolitiFact's Grades for Candidates is an article by Nate Silver about the truth ratings (how often a politician lies versus telling the truth) for the candidates of the Republican primary and also President Obama. I was personally pleased to note that the Republican candidate that I am most okay with also has the best truth rating, although it is worth noting that there is also a small sample size, which can skew things.
And this link simply made me go o.O. Friends in Unusual Places is a notalwaysright that went in a surprising direction. It's kind of sad and heart-warming at the same time.
Oh, and I'll toss in this link too. Fair Trade is simply a Harry Potter fanfic. But I liked it, because it has a better ending than the actual books do. I was not really pleased with book 7, and this short story was more satisfying. It also fits in well with 3 of the other links for a theme of improving things.
Current Mood:  pleased
Tags: links, values
|
|
03:07 pm
[Link] |
Unexpected Bigotry
So, I have been playing a virtual zoo game. It's kind of neat in that it contributes a bit of money to help real animals, and as your virtual zoo is growing you end up finding out about all sorts of animals you probably haven't heard about before, since there are a lot of species in the game. Among the features, you can breed your endangered animals to help create more. You can also release some into the wild (which does involve training them to be able to handle that), and you can rescue endangered animals that are in need. It's all virtual, of course, but those are some of the game mechanics.
So, they added a new animal, but for rescue only. You can't buy it, and you can't breed to create it. They added jaglions, which are a jaguar-lion crossbreed. You can't breed to create them, because they generally aren't something that should be deliberately created, but hybrids do sometimes happen, and they can be in need of rescuing. The example jaglions the game mentioned were created in a zoo where a jaguar and a lion knew each other in kittenhood. Attempts were made to separate them as they grew, but the animals became depressed when apart, and it was seen as better to let them stay together than to separate them. Thus were created a pair of jaglion twins. These things happen.
One of the people who plays commented that she would not rescue any jaglions, because she feels it is unethical and she wouldn't want the reputation of her zoo harmed by people thinking she'd create jaglions. The creator of the game tried to explain that they are rescue-only and that the idea behind that is that whether or not there should be jaglions, they do happen sometimes, and that these animals can be in need of rescuing and good care. He asked if you saw a pure-bred tiger and a liger as sideshow exhibits not being well-cared for, would you rescue only the tiger and leave the liger to suffer? Her response was that she would rescue both and euthanize the liger.
I am kind of appalled. In fact, the game creator responded that he hoped that were that happening in real life organizations would step in to prevent her from euthanizing the liger. She later commented about the importance of keeping the breeding pool of endangered species pure. But that is actually irrelevant for two reasons, first, you can rescue the liger or jaglion, give it a home, and not breed it. And second, the hybrids tend to be sterile anyway, so they're not changing the gene pool of the endangered animals.
Well, she is free to play the game as she chooses, and I'm glad it's just virtual. Plus, you don't get an option to kill any of your animals in the game (it's aiming to be fairly friendly to most ages, so it sacrifices realism by having their be no death. You monitor your releases into the wild to see if they all survive, but they always all survive. Also, animals do not age or die naturally. Given all that, they certainly don't let you kill them). But I'm really disturbed that there is someone who would rather see a healthy animal killed than given a decent home, because she feels that the animal should not have been born in the first place. It's already born, so it just seems so obvious to me that now the right thing to do is to help it. I could sort of see the argument of not helping it and funneling resources to other animals, but to rescue it and then kill it... that's not even a rescue. It's just sad.
Current Mood: surprised
Tags: beliefs, personal, values
|
|
02:58 pm
[Link] |
The world has been busy
I've been mostly having migraines, and while I did that Don't Ask Don't Tell ended and there is this discovery about neutrinos. Clearly, I need to have more migraines.
As to DADT, I am, of course, quite pleased. I agree with the comments I have seen elsewhere that our work is not done. Transsexuals still cannot serve openly in the military. But while there are still many issues to be worked on to improve equality, this is still a big step and one I am quite pleased to celebrate.
As to the neutrinos, I am waiting for more science. That seems to be the popular response from people who understand the issue better than I do. We have a fascinating finding, but people within the field want to see it replicated and better understood. There is definitely something to investigate, but it's a bit premature to say definitively what it means and to draw conclusions.
However, I still stand by my original assessment of the significance of this finding, which is that it's going to cause neutrinos to pop up in all sorts of technobabble explanations throughout science fiction stories for a bit. If the finding holds or turns out to be something else that is different but also really weird, then neutrinos will continue to be a staple of lots of science fiction stories.
I find the idea of a universe without causality quite amusing though, and I really don't have much of a problem with it. This is probably partly because I stopped believing in causality a long time ago anyway when I stopped believing in free will. Although obviously things on the macrolevel are as they are - we've observed things on our scale for a very long time and we know pretty much how such things behave. This finding is not going to change any of that. So, from a day to day perspective, life continues fairly normally.
However, I feel quite safe in asserting that the universe is weird. Regardless of what way this finding works out, the universe is weird. But we already knew that.
Current Mood: pleased
Tags: beliefs, personal, values
|
|
11:17 pm
[Link] |
Shopping is hard - let's do math
Alas, no math, just shopping. So, I realized Halloween is coming up again. I'm trying to avoid chocolates, because a lot of cocoa is acquired through horrible cruelty, including child enslavement. Since the point of Halloween is that I give goodies to kids who drop by to make them happier, I find the idea of supporting the enslavement and torture of children while doing it to be a tad bit counter-productive.
So, I like giving out toys. It also avoids various dietary issues, and I figure the kids are likely to get lots of candy, but not that many toys. I, of course, always preferred toys when I went trick or treating, but they were very rare. But then, by the time I was 10, I never got any candy that I ate when I went trick or treating. It took me a while to realize I'd have a whole basket full of candy I didn't eat, and then I'd give it to my family members, usually my brother closest in age to me who was a bit old for trick or treating. So, he liked it, but I was less pleased. So, toys are good. And I'll get some pixie sticks too, if I can, just to include some candy. They are cheap, you can get a big quantity of them, and one of the kids expressed particular pleasure last year when he noticed that I was giving out pixie sticks. Maybe some lollipops too, although I don't know if the little boy who really liked lollipops at my old house trick or treats at my new house. It's not that far from the old location, but I don't know his trick-or-treating range. So, anyhow, maybe a little candy and mostly toys.
So, I was searching the web for ethical stores from which to acquire cheap, bulk toys. I tried a bunch of different search criteria. It turns out that the first step to acquiring such things is to move to the UK. Seriously, I kept finding store after store that caters to that - in the UK. But the currency conversion fee plus shipping from the UK would not be very practical.
So, I gave up. I decided that giving out nifty, little toys is sufficiently ethical and good for my Halloween acquisitions and I'd stop looking for an ideal store to buy such stuff from within the US. I did find some wonderful cheap party favors from US stores that would be reasonable for a kid's party, but they were still a bit too expensive as items for my to give away for Halloween, where I need to be prepared for a lot of trick-or-treaters. Things like $5 per kit decorate and make your own kite. That's pretty cool, and it'd be great for a child's birthday party, but that really adds up when you need to be prepared for dozens of children on Halloween, so it just wasn't in my price range. I still spent a fair bit, because I really like the idea of giving toys to lots of kids, and it's pretty much the only time I interact with the people in my neighborhood. But not as much as the kite kits would cost. I found stuff and placed my order, so I am mainly prepared for Halloween. I particularly like the mini-coloring books (Halloween themed) and boxes of crayons I got to give away and the dinosaur gliders. They're not fantastic gifts, but I think they're pretty good as Halloween offerings. At least they are things a child can interact with in some way, even though their entertainment value won't last for too long, but then neither does candy.
Current Mood:  accomplished
Tags: personal, social, values
|
|
04:12 pm
[Link] |
As long as I'm web browsing
I know ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2) conuly discusses this sometimes, but I happened to stumble upon this article about someone who is shocked and dismayed that schools do not necessarily still teach cursive. And it is full of how people who can't write in cursive are at a serious disadvantage. Which I find ... laughable. Really ridiculous.
I was taught cursive. We started it in second grade. It was mandatory in third grade. By sixth grade though all of my teachers made it clear that assignments were to be handed in in print.
I have kept over a dozen hand-written journals. Almost all of them were in print. I used cursive only when I wanted a small degree of extra security for my writing, because I knew that it would make it far more unpleasant for anyone to read what I had written, myself included.
I wrote ... I have no idea how many letters - those paper things, with stamps - to people over the years, including love letters. I wrote them in print.
I took notes in college, by hand. I did so in print.
Not writing cursive is not the same thing as not being able to write. I haven't seen anyone suggesting we not teach children how to write. And I haven't seen much of a benefit to cursive. It's no faster than print. It's harder to read. Maybe for some people it isn't. I probably have dysgraphia (it's related to dyslexia, but it's a disorder of output that affects one's ability to write rather than one of input that affects one's ability to read), and that makes writing particularly difficult for me. Print is a problem too, but cursive is definitely worse, because it's connected, so when my hand goes the wrong way, as it inevitably will now and then, it makes it even messier and more illegible. The spacing between letters makes it easier to read print, probably much the same way that a bit of space between spoken words makes it so much easier to understand spoken speech. People without difficulties processing things might not notice the difference.
Anyhow, as print has a few small advantages, and I've never found any advantage to cursive other than that I felt very proud to be learning it in second grade and impressed that one of my classmates already knew how to write her name in cursive before we started studying it, I just don't see the point.
As to signatures, you can invent a signature out of print or out of cursive. Again, we're not discussing not teaching children how to write. And I honestly have trouble believing those stories or if they happened that cursive would have been enough to fix it, because if all the people needed was the ability to write, I doubt they lacked it.
And if we really wanted to spend a lot of time in school teaching a system of writing - and it was a lot of time, daily drills every single school day for years at my school - then maybe we can consider spending the time on something useful like shorthand? I never learned it, but it certainly does seem useful. And it would solve a lot of those problems of people needing to take notes quickly and by hand. Did you know that some alphabets don't even have a print/cursive distinction? It's not like it's inherent that if there is to be writing you need to learn four forms for every letter (since English also has case distinctions, which again not every alphabet does, and then those case distinctions vary between print and cursive). Four forms for every single letter... that really is a lot if you think about it.
Admittedly, my first through third grade teacher found time to have us do it and still have cool assignments like create a self portrait in the style of Modigliani. But as an adult, while I appreciate the way both enriched my education, I've really only used cursive about as much as I've used self portraits in the style of Modigliani. I don't resent the time I spent on it, but if teachers think they could spend the time on something better, I don't mind education adapting to what the world is like now and what it is developing into. I'll save my outrage for those who don't want to teach blind children to read and write at all or those who want to switch over from grade two Braille to grade one Braille. I'm all for literacy - reading and writing - but there's a huge difference between not teaching a particular form of writing and not teaching writing at all.
Current Mood: hungry
Tags: beliefs, links, personal, values
|
03:12 pm
[Link] |
Ah People
Reading notalwaysright and this one caught my notice. I'll copy it under a cut.
( text below )
And I can't help but think that what she should tell her children, if it ever became relevant, is that it's fine to do something completely harmless if that's what makes you happy. How is that not a good example to set for a child? Obviously the customer's complaint is how dare you have a different sense of aesthetics than I do and I haven't really thought this through. Which is a variation on a surprisingly common complaint. But I think if something so simple and harmless makes you happy, then doing it sets a good example. Maybe the complaint is how dare you have fun and seem to enjoy your life? Oh dear, children might learn that life doesn't have to be a dull misery.
Current Mood: amused
Tags: links, personal, values
|
|
10:50 pm
[Link] |
The world is depressing
There are many ways in which I do think the world does get better and that my country does get better, but there are also so many ways in which I see it getting worse.
Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult (his title, not mine), and I suppose that's why I know various people who used to identify as Republican or used to grudgingly settle for Republican as the best fit between the major parties that now do not. I really have wondered how bad they used to be when I wasn't paying attention, but all signs point to the idea that I wasn't that badly mislead, and they really have become a party that stands for something quite different than they used to and than they claim to. Not that Democrats are good, but at least they don't spend as much time actively working to destroy the country and the economy for most of the people in it.
Rick Perry slashed funding for volunteer fire departments by 75%. He claims you can't plan for the sorts of wild fires happening in Texas. There was a record drought going on. Anyone who can't foresee the risk of serious fire during severe drought years is clearly incompetent to manage such protections. Yes, you can't know whether or not it will happen, but you very much can know it's a risk. And while you may not be able to plan your disaster spending in advance, one thing you can do is not cut spending to programs that deal with disasters that are likely to happen in the near future. I suppose the political upside of this is that you get to claim that you reduced spending at one point in time, and then later when you pay for the inevitable fires afterward, you are accounting it separately. And, of course, paying to deal with the fires will be politically popular, everyone recognizes it has to be done. So, you fool people into thinking you saved money when you didn't; you just irresponsibly didn't budget for it in advance. It's like a household that "saves" money by getting rid of its emergency budget when writing up its spending plan. Look, I saved all this money by assuming I wouldn't run into any unexpected household or medical expenses! And then when they do come up, you pay for them anyway without having taken them into consideration. Brilliant idea!
And it'll work, until the GOP gets enough of its way that it starts seriously cutting disaster programs to the point that we can't respond.
I hope Texas is mostly alright. I'm glad lots of people did evacuate, and I hope they assisted people who weren't able to evacuate themselves. I haven't read articles, but I worry that they didn't, since it seems that it's normal during emergencies to not help people who can't evacuate on their own to evacuate - the poor, the disabled, the elderly, people in prisons. I really hope they did evacuate them. There are fires burning.
Current Mood: sad
Tags: beliefs, links, personal, values
|
|
12:25 pm
[Link] |
Final Followup
It occurred to me to call my phone company to check to make sure they represented them, since that was something that I could do. They confirmed that they were working for the company and said it sounded like the people were just not being very professional and they apologized, when I explained that I was confused by their behavior just being a bit off and wanted to make sure that they were with the company. They also explained the purpose of the visit, which was sales/marketing. They were trying to sell us the bundle that the phone company has and keeps trying to push us to switch to, but it includes cable, which we don't even have, so it's kind of pointless for us. So, they probably gave up on even talking to me about the bundle when we said we didn't have cable at all, thus leaving it at a very confusing visit for me.
So, fairly innocuous bad sales people who just really wanted to insist on the existence of a Mrs. for no apparent reason. I didn't ask for the answer to that question, since I wasn't speaking to the same person, and I can't expect the person answering the phone to tell me the mental processes of the person who came to my door. But, at least I know it wasn't anything more bizarre than somebody really being that clueless and unable to switch mental gears to accept the idea that while my housemate does live here there is Mrs. with his last name living here. Which does seem to mean that they had absolutely no good reason to think there was, as what they should have had was the basic info about the house's phone account. And thus ends this chapter in weird human interactions.
Current Mood: contemplative
Tags: personal
|
|
10:37 pm
[Link] |
Hey what do you know
So, I decided to check to see if there were any people with darch's last name floating around. I know it's uncommon, but I figured there must be some. Sure enough, Facebook had about 25. I only checked the females, and unsurprisingly I kept finding that they weren't in the US or didn't list their location. But then I found one who might be married and is in Pennsylvania. So, there may be a Mrs. $his-lastname in Pennsylvania. Another web search turned up a wedding registry with someone proudly announcing she will Mrs. $his-lastname this November, and the event seems to be in Florida. So, I guess I can try to direct people to them when people go around asking after this person. Not that I have contact info or anything. I didn't do any serious searching as that would get creepy. But I can tell people they are probably looking on the wrong coast.
Current Mood: rolls eyes
Tags: personal
|
05:21 pm
[Link] |
2011 - the year is 2011 People
This is not the 1950s people. This is not a difficult concept. I just had what should not have been a difficult conversation with some people.
People knocking at my door, which surprised me, and I'm in a nightgown, which is awkward, but whatever. I haven't felt great today. I get the door. Two people with a clipboard. They ask me for Mrs. $darch's-lastname. I tell them that there is no such person. I'm fairly sure there is no such person, because apparently he has a pretty rare last name. There may be such a person in Germany, and who knows, maybe even in the US, but certainly none I know of. His mother has a different last name. Anyhow, there is certainly nobody by that name who lives in my house.
They ask if they have the right address, which I tell them they do, and they ask about darch by his full name. I say that yes, he does live here. They say, then there must be a Mrs. $his-last-name.
This is where I stare at them in shock. What leap of broken logic came to that conclusion? The existence of a male with a particular last name means that there must be a female Mrs. $his-lastname? Ummm ... really?
I say, no, there is no Mrs. $his-lastname. Although this time slightly annoyed.
They start to get confused, and ask me to repeat that he exists and lives here. I confirm, yes, he lives here. Yes, there is no Mrs. $his-lastname.
They seem to not actually figure that out, but give up on grasping the concept and move on to doing the task at hand, which seemed to be some questions about our phone service, since they work with the company we have a phone line from. And asked some questions about our internet service, which I said we didn't get from them, and TV, which I said we don't use. Then they went away.
I am still shocked that they seemed unable to grasp the concept that he could exist and not have some female living with him going by Mrs. $his-lastname at his house.
I really can't put into text just how confused they seemed by this or how insistent they seemed to be that there must be a Mrs if this was the right address and he lived here. And that they didn't want to believe me when I said there wasn't. So, good job phone company on annoying and offending me. But you also amused me, so umm, points for that.
Current Mood: wtf
Tags: personal
|
|
11:46 pm
[Link] |
I love you too, California
Apparently California has been feeling neglected with the East Coast getting all the attention today, and it gave me a little quake tonight, just to remind me of it. It was pretty small, although really close to where I live. Just a little, hi, I'm here, I'm seismically active, get used to it quake. Maybe it was in tribute to the East Coast? Anyhow, back to what I was doing.
Current Mood: amused
Tags: personal
|
01:50 pm
[Link] |
Hey East Coasters
I hope you're all okay. From what I've read, it seems like people have pretty much been fine. I've heard from various people, so that's good. I hope you're all alright. I know some people who were pretty freaked out though, and I can understand that. It was a reasonable-sized quake and people really weren't expecting it. And I know some people experienced minor property damage. But that is the worst I've heard so far, and I hope that remains the case.
And I'll pass on the link for reporting your experience http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/dyfi/
After you've made sure you and people around you are okay and gotten over the shock of a quake, complete your experience by reporting your experience. And you can give your report if you were in the affected area even if you didn't notice it. They just want to know the experiences of those in the affected areas.
Anyhow, I hope you're all okay and calming down after the experience now.
Current Mood: concerned
Tags: links
|
|
03:17 pm
[Link] |
More on Nymwars
I think this post makes a really good point link
It is discussing what probably will not work and what might. At first, it seemed like explaining the issue might work. That's been done. Now, the question is what can people practically do to try to fix this. And I do think fixing it is important. Google is big. Google is too big for a policy this bad to not be a serious problem. Telling people who have reasons not to use their legal names or who have weird names or who otherwise fall afoul of Google's policy to simply not use Google Plus is going to cause a lot of problems, especially as it helps to validate this model. The way I view it is pretty much along the lines that we are at an early stage in the development of online societies. There have been many online societies, but now they are starting to expand to the masses, and not just a few people who got to play with computers while other people didn't have access for various reasons. Online societies are becoming part of what society is. We are shaping what that will look like.
And we have the question before us: Do we create inclusive or exclusive societies? Do we say that it's okay to tell the people who don't fit in that they can just not be a part of these societies and be left out?
I view it a lot like a world before the ADA where we are deciding how to build buildings, and we have a choice to decide whether ramps will be standard or not, whether grab bars in bathrooms will be a feature. We could tell people that they can make do without grab bars - sure, it's a little more dangerous and difficult, and if they don't like it, they don't have to use these buildings. And if you don't like that your friend can't use this building, you don't have to come in either. Or we could say, we'd like to make this building as usable as possible. We recognize that some people have these needs. We recognize that for some people a ramp is an absolute necessity. We recognize that for some people, they could function without the ramp. Sure, that parent could manage to get that kid and the stroller up the stairs eventually even without a ramp, but it's a lot more effort, and a ramp would certainly be far preferable for such people. So, for some people it's a vital need, for some it's a preference, and for some it's irrelevant. Maybe they don't even like ramps and prefer not being at all tempted to not take the stairs. But making the building usable to everyone makes for a more inclusive society, and we've found that it's far better to build an accessible building from the start than to try to retrofit them later.
Now we are building our virtual communities. And we know that some people need a pseudonym or an autonym for their personal safety. Some people have a strong preference to go by the name of their own choosing. Some people don't care. Some people prefer that everyone around them looks like them, and like how inaccessible buildings and communities keep out the different people. But I think we should be working to encourage inclusiveness. And that link gives good points for what might work.
Unfortunately, I don't really know people outside of geek circles. The closest I have to that is actually things like people I know on LJ... and people who use LJ obviously are people who are comfortable getting to know people who aren't using the names on their government-issued ID cards. So, preaching to the choir. But maybe some of you can help spread the word further. It's not the only important issue out there. It may not be the most important issue out there. But I do think it will affect how online communities develop, and that affects how people interact. I don't want that future to develop as one that has higher costs for minorities. And that's what Google is pushing for, whether they understand it or not.
Current Mood: busy
Tags: beliefs, personal, values
|
|
12:16 am
[Link] |
It'd be nice if people understood statistics
So, I have read a fair bit about how more urban areas tend to pay more in taxes than they get back in taxes and rural areas tend to be the reverse. Urban areas tend to need to support rural areas. Now, I don't think rural areas should be forced to cope with all of their expenses on their own, and I think cutting them off from the rest of the world or decreasing the quality of their education would be a very bad thing, but that isn't what this entry is about.
I wanted to get some stats to back up what I've read. Now, I can find stats on a state by state basis, but that's tedious. I wanted more overall stats for the tendencies of the nation, since I didn't feel like looking up info on each state in the US and doing real research. I was curious to verify what I read, but not really that totally into confirming it. I did find some people citing evidence claiming to disprove this concept, and it made me want to hit them with a statistics book. The claim they were trying to disprove was the idea that urban areas pay more in taxes than they receive. The statistic they used as evidence to "disprove" this is that urban areas receive more tax money per capita than rural areas do.
The problem with this is that it is fully possible for both things to be true. In fact, I would be completely and totally unsurprised if both things were true. Sure, some people were talking about different definitions of "rural" and "urban", but not knowing whether or not it is the case, let's assume for the moment that both are true. That would work quite simply - urban areas would be paying more in taxes per capita, getting more per capita but not as much more as they are paying. If that is the case, then both statistics would be true.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, because I expect higher paying jobs tend to be urban, but the government also runs a lot of services that require using land and paying salaries. The land in urban areas will cost more and the salaries will tend to be higher. So, the government will have higher expenses for many equivalent services, but it will be making money more efficiently, because it will be getting back more of that money. That is, in the rural area you might have to pay your teacher less, In exchange for this though, your teacher is supporting a community that isn't as economically productive overall, and thus is giving the government back a lot less in taxes. Whereas in the city, the teacher needs more money to support the higher housing costs and such, but the teacher is supporting a community of people who are being very economically productive.
Basically, what is relevant is not just how much you spend, but how much you make. This should be a familiar concept to anyone who has had to work out a household budget. If you have a larger income, you can afford more spendings and still have savings. But a smaller amount of spendings will be a serious problem if your income is really small. And people were talking about the difference between taxes in versus federal money gotten.
So, while I still don't have good research on the issue (the downside to being lazy), I am frustrated with people showing a lack of understanding of statistics. Because throwing different statistics into the mix does not help to clear up the issue. And because I so often see people just not understanding stats. It really saddens me the extent to which people tend not to get some basic statistical concepts. I really would like it if schools would teach some of these concepts. It's not so much that this specific issue is one people must understand (I'm too lazy to do the research, after all), but that statistical understanding comes up in so many ways, and being able to understand stats in general is such an important skill. Besides, it's annoying to see people try to argue a point with an unrelated statistic as if it is connected to the point. Study stats and decrease the amount of annoyance in the world.
Current Mood: tired
Tags: beliefs, personal, values
|
|
12:41 pm
[Link] |
*sighs*
I am, of course, upset about the rioting in England. I am worried for the people there. I really hope this is resolved soon and with very little violence.
But now I am being subjected to people talking about the vengeance they want against the rioters. The horrible suffering they feel that should be inflicted upon these people. They are calling out for extreme measures against them and incredibly harsh punishments, which they think would act as a deterrent. I don't see how creating less hope for one's future acts as a deterrent for what seems to be something sparked by a lack of hope for the future.
The rioters are not a homogenous mass. They don't all have the same motives or stories. I don't think they should all be viewed the same way. But even beyond that, I don't like calls for horrific vengeance, and I don't think they help.
I am not trying to say this riot is okay. I am not saying the rioters are right. I just don't think horrific vengeance adds anything good to the mix.
I will continue to hope for a quick and good resolution. To those who are local to the rioting, I hope you stay safe.
Current Mood: sad
Tags: beliefs, personal, values
|
|
10:06 pm
[Link] |
Some links about the LJ Outage
I was asked for some links, and I don't recall if I have posted any of these before, but I'm going to post some here, given that we just had a major outage. This is what we are putting up with outages for.
A simple summary in the NY Times from April
A summary from April in Moscow News
and now for some information about the very likely target of these attacks. His name is Alexey Navalny. Yeah, it's odd, but in a way, they are taking down millions of people to get at one man. Sort of. That is he has encouraged other people to do things as well, so he's more than just one man now, but it's mainly about him. That's kind of weird. But he is a very fascinating person. Read about him...
An in-depth interview that discusses his life and work. I do not know how reliable the source is, but it is utterly fascinating.
A short bit of interview with him about Russia
And Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Navalny
It's so hard to judge what is going on in a country I've never been that primarily uses a language I can't read or speak. But it looks like he's risking his life for a good cause. LiveJournal users are risking outages. Admittedly, he chose this and LJ users didn't really. But still, that seems to be the issue. And I'm glad LJ is staying on the side of freedom of speech here. LJ and Navalny are the underdogs, but I do prefer that people be allowed to speak and that issues be discussed. I just hope LJ can keep weathering the outages.
Current Mood: hopeful
Tags: beliefs, links, personal, values
|
|
10:51 pm
[Link] |
Medicare Fraud
You always hear that there's a lot of fraud in the medicare program, and I wondered, what is that concept based on? Is that true? So, I decided to do some quick research. I found this neat little page by the IRS with examples of healthcare fraud investigations for 2010 link.
Some things you'll notice is that a lot of the examples involve fraud on the part of doctors. There is some fraud on the part of patients, where in one case a fraudulent clinic was established where people with insurance got a cut for signing in and claiming to get expensive care and not getting any treatment. Some of the fraud has to do with getting prescription drugs for re-sale.
What you'll notice is completely absent from any of the examples is people fraudulently getting on medicare. Now, I'm not saying there weren't any examples of that. This is a subset of their total fraud investigations, not the complete list and they were probably mainly using examples that cost a lot. But I think it's interesting that none of the examples are people who got onto medicare and were then shown to not have reason to be on it. Medicare is the form of health insurance people get by being on disability, so it isn't just something people get for being a certain age.
I think when people talk about medicare fraud, there tends to be this notion that it is some of the people on it who are primarily responsible for taking advantage of it. But a lot of the cases seem to show that that isn't necessarily the case. In many situations, I suspect the doctors probably mislead the patients as well or the patients didn't understand the billing. People with disabilities and the elderly are not generally the best group for carefully cross-checking records to make sure everything adds up. And if your doctor is lying to you about whether or not you need a particular diagnostic exam, there isn't really that much you can do about it. Especially when getting a second opinion is neither easy nor free. And if the paperwork lists a similar sounding diagnostic test, it's highly unlikely you'll have any clue it's not the one you actually were given.
Admittedly, the case of writing prescriptions for addicts for a fee does involve the patients as well, but I would consider a doctor enabling an addiction like that rather than trying to help with the medical problem to be more a matter of mistreatment of the patient. Some people might view that one differently.
I also find it sad when people who can make an honest living decide to do harmful and dishonest things. These doctors probably did not need to use fraud to meet their needs. They likely could have managed reasonably well by simply being honest doctors. I have more understanding for people who resort to crime out of necessity. If you can afford to be a decent person, it's really a much better thing to have than a really new, flashy car.
Current Mood: tired
Tags: beliefs, links, personal, values
|
[<< Previous 23 entries] |
