Ilyeria: and like a baby... holding.. thing... filled with chocolates
Ilyeria: carriage!
Ilyeria: thats it
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Monday, December 13, 2004
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Monday, November 22, 2004
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Monday, November 15, 2004
Friday, November 12, 2004
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
"Unfortunately, with each passing Election Day, too many Americans view elections less as a means to protect freedom, and more as a means to win some government favor or handout at the expense of the liberty and property of other Americans. Our politicians promise, not to protect the basic rights spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution, but to violate the rights of some people in order to benefit others. Today's politicians want subsidies for farmers--by forcing non-farmers to pay for them; prescription drugs for the elderly--by forcing the non-elderly to pay for them; housing for the homeless--by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it. The more "democratic" our government becomes, the more we cannibalize our liberty, ultimately to the detriment of all."
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10385&news_iv_ctrl=1021
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10385&news_iv_ctrl=1021
Monday, November 08, 2004
tallbladeofgrass: cleaning my room > algebra homework
SmthOprtr22: algebra?
tallbladeofgrass: yeah
SmthOprtr22: the linear kind o0
tallbladeofgrass: nope
tallbladeofgrass: the abstract kind
SmthOprtr22: ah ok
SmthOprtr22: for a second i thought they starting classifying scholastic advancement by physical size
SmthOprtr22: algebra?
tallbladeofgrass: yeah
SmthOprtr22: the linear kind o0
tallbladeofgrass: nope
tallbladeofgrass: the abstract kind
SmthOprtr22: ah ok
SmthOprtr22: for a second i thought they starting classifying scholastic advancement by physical size
Thursday, November 04, 2004
“When you felt proud of the rail of the John Galt Line,” said Francisco, the measured rhythm of his voice giving a ruthless clarity to his words, “what sort of men did you think of? Did you want to see that Line used by your equals—by giants of productive energy, such as Ellis Wyatt, whom it would help to reach higher and still higher achievements of their own?”
“Yes,” said Rearden eagerly.
“Did you want to see it used by men who could not equal the power of your mind, but who would equal your moral integrity—men such s Eddie Willers—who could never invent your Metal, but who would do their best, work as hard as you did, live by their own effort, and—riding on your rail—give a moment’s silent thanks to the man who gave them more than he could give him?”
“Yes,” said Rearden gently.
“Did you want to see it used by whining rotters who never rouse themselves to any effort, who do not possess the ability of a filing clerk, but demand the income of a company president, who drift from failure to failure and expect you to pay their bills, who hold their wishing as an equivalent of your work and their need as a higher claim to reward than your effort, who demand that you serve them, who demand that it be the aim of your life to serve them, who demand that your strength be the voiceless, rightless, unpaid, unrewarded slave of their impotence, who proclaim that you are born to serfdom by reason of your genius, while they are born to rule by the grace of incompetence, that yours is only to give, but theirs only to take, that yours is to produce, but theirs to consume, that you are not to be paid, neither in matter nor in spirit, neither by wealth nor by recognition nor by respect nor by gratitude—so that they would ride on your rail and sneer at you and curse you, since they ow you nothing, not even the effort of taking off their hats which you paid for? Would this be what you wanted? Would you feel proud of it?”
“I’d blast that rail first,” said Rearen, his lips white.
“Yes,” said Rearden eagerly.
“Did you want to see it used by men who could not equal the power of your mind, but who would equal your moral integrity—men such s Eddie Willers—who could never invent your Metal, but who would do their best, work as hard as you did, live by their own effort, and—riding on your rail—give a moment’s silent thanks to the man who gave them more than he could give him?”
“Yes,” said Rearden gently.
“Did you want to see it used by whining rotters who never rouse themselves to any effort, who do not possess the ability of a filing clerk, but demand the income of a company president, who drift from failure to failure and expect you to pay their bills, who hold their wishing as an equivalent of your work and their need as a higher claim to reward than your effort, who demand that you serve them, who demand that it be the aim of your life to serve them, who demand that your strength be the voiceless, rightless, unpaid, unrewarded slave of their impotence, who proclaim that you are born to serfdom by reason of your genius, while they are born to rule by the grace of incompetence, that yours is only to give, but theirs only to take, that yours is to produce, but theirs to consume, that you are not to be paid, neither in matter nor in spirit, neither by wealth nor by recognition nor by respect nor by gratitude—so that they would ride on your rail and sneer at you and curse you, since they ow you nothing, not even the effort of taking off their hats which you paid for? Would this be what you wanted? Would you feel proud of it?”
“I’d blast that rail first,” said Rearen, his lips white.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Monday, November 01, 2004
MightyBobX: deadaim is really eating up my memory
tallbladeofgrass: your computer sucks
MightyBobX: my computer sucks because a program is misbehaving?
tallbladeofgrass: it doesn't eat up my memory
MightyBobX: did i say your deadaim is misbehaving?
tallbladeofgrass: well, since it's the same code, i think we can blame it on something else
MightyBobX: like the myriad of different options we might have set?
tallbladeofgrass: oh, did you click the "consume memory" option?
tallbladeofgrass: your computer sucks
MightyBobX: my computer sucks because a program is misbehaving?
tallbladeofgrass: it doesn't eat up my memory
MightyBobX: did i say your deadaim is misbehaving?
tallbladeofgrass: well, since it's the same code, i think we can blame it on something else
MightyBobX: like the myriad of different options we might have set?
tallbladeofgrass: oh, did you click the "consume memory" option?
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Ilyeria: the "old" game
Ilyeria: it was a game we would play when we were kids in the car, like punchbug, except instead of cars, we would punch the person next to us when we saw an old person and depending on how old they were by catagory, we got extra hits
Ilyeria: and you couldnt hit eachother around places that old people hang out: the library, town hall, church, certain restaurants, old folks homes
Ilyeria: the levels always varried, but they were Old, Ancient, Hoary, Australopithecus, Before Man, Before Time
Ilyeria: Before Man requird that they had excellently poor posture
Ilyeria: Before Time required that they looked like the walking dead
Ilyeria: it was a game we would play when we were kids in the car, like punchbug, except instead of cars, we would punch the person next to us when we saw an old person and depending on how old they were by catagory, we got extra hits
Ilyeria: and you couldnt hit eachother around places that old people hang out: the library, town hall, church, certain restaurants, old folks homes
Ilyeria: the levels always varried, but they were Old, Ancient, Hoary, Australopithecus, Before Man, Before Time
Ilyeria: Before Man requird that they had excellently poor posture
Ilyeria: Before Time required that they looked like the walking dead
Monday, October 25, 2004
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Monday, October 04, 2004
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Friday, October 01, 2004
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Thursday, September 23, 2004
You are the grammar Fuhrer. All bow to your
authority. You will crush all the inferior
people under the soles of your jackboots, and
any who question your motives will be
eliminated. Your punishment is being the bane
of every other person's existence, because
you're constantly contradicting stupidity.
Everyone will be gunning for you. Your dreams
of a master race of spellers and grammarians
frighten the masses. You must always watch your
back. If only your power could be used for good
instead of evil.
What is your grammar aptitude?
brought to you by Quizilla
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Friday, September 17, 2004
Monday, September 13, 2004
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Monday, September 06, 2004
Saturday, September 04, 2004
Monday, August 30, 2004
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
fun at the josh groban concert:
sara, talking about the guy who did the fire dance at the luau: chad and i decided we are both leaving each other for him. he's that hot. ha! haHA! get it? hot?!?
sara, speaking about the star and planet-shaped light spots on the amphitheater roof: you might say they're....stellar?
lauren, talking about half-life: that sounds like a chemistry video game...*looks around* badum-ching!
sara, talking about the guy who did the fire dance at the luau: chad and i decided we are both leaving each other for him. he's that hot. ha! haHA! get it? hot?!?
sara, speaking about the star and planet-shaped light spots on the amphitheater roof: you might say they're....stellar?
lauren, talking about half-life: that sounds like a chemistry video game...*looks around* badum-ching!
Sunday, August 22, 2004
i figured i ought to look into the issues surrounding the impending presidential election, since i currently have no idea what is going on. i'm sure my basic assumption -- that everyone is an idiot -- is true, but that does not help me determine who will get my vote come election day. my starting point is Our Plan For America, the book released by Kerry and Edwards detailing the changes they will make if elected.
The book opens with a clever bit of semantics setting up the Bush-Kerry dichotomy.
"President George Bush and Vice President Dick
Cheney believe that more wealth for the most fortunate
will somehow lead to success for everyone else. We
believe that America always does best when all
Americans have the opportunity to do well."
i.e. lowering taxes (the amount of money stolen) from the greatest producers of the country is not a successful policy. How do Kerry and Edwards define "opportunity?" They don't say, but I submit that it would involve stealing what some people have earned and giving it to those who did not earn it.
"They believe
we can make America safe entirely on our own. We
believe that we must never hesitate to defend our people,
but that we can only truly be safe if we lead the world in
a way that rallies support and commands respect."
And what way is that? By sacrificing all of America's vitues? By going to war to defend man's rights only if those who oppose them support such a war? Of what value are the respect and support of nations that follow principles opposed to ours?
"They believe America is on the right course.
We believe it is time for a new direction."
How quaint. A new direction with regards to what? I assume it will be discussed in the body of the book, but I expect this "new direction" to involve a step closer to socialism, as have all "new directions" America has taken since its founding.
"This book is our plan to build an America that is
stronger at home and respected in the world. We offer
this plan because we believe this election should be about
ideas to lift America up, not negative attacks that drag
America down."
Ideas about what? Which attacks? Attacks against the opposing party like the one just given? Attacks against our philosophical enemies to defend individual rights?
"Our plan is rooted in our values: freedom, family,
work; opportunity, equality, responsibility; love of country
and faith."
I hope by "our" they only mean Edwards's and Kerry's. Only some of the above are values--but not in the way Kerry meant them. The rest are non-values. Freedom, work, and responsibility are values. Freedom -- in the form of individual freedom from physical force; work -- in the form of productive pursuits by such free men; responsibility -- which makes every man the master of his own actions, so that he can neither blame others for his mistakes or use others in order to achieve. These are values stemming from the same source -- man's rights -- on which America was founded. The fact that Kerry-Edwards would include both freedom and responsibility here is ironic, since what they really mean by "freedom" is freedom from responsibility for one's own life and livelihood. Equality is also a value, but in a way far different from how Kerry meant it. His version of equality, of course, means robbing the rich and giving to the poor to "even the playing field." The kind of equality that ought to be valued is merely the fact that all individuals have the same right to freedom from the use of force. In this respect, and this respect alone, are all men equal. Family, love of country, and faith are not values. Family is an accident of birth. Family members may be valued for specific reasons, but family qua blood relationship is not a value and should not be held as such. Love of country is certainly not a value. It is a reaction to a country's virtues. If a country is not worthy of love, then "love of country" would be worse than a non-value; it would be a moral error. Faith is the worst by far. While family and love of country can be good things, and valuable in certain cases and respects, faith is always bad. The definition of faith (the only one relevant to this discussion) is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." With respect to man as a rational being, faith is a death sentence. I can only hope Kerry and Edwards didn't mean it.
The next bit gives me more hope:
"[Our plan] reflects certain unshakable principles: that all
Americans deserve an equal chance to rise as high and go
as far as their hard work and God-given talents can take
them; that America’s strength and security depend on
our ability to be true to America’s values—at home and
abroad; that war should be the last resort, not the first,
in the use of American power; and that government has
a limited but essential role in American life, beginning
with the safety of our people."
I doubt that anyone, including Kerry and Edwards, understand how true this last statement is. Americans do deserve and equal chance to rise as high as their hard work can take them. Meaning it is their own responsibility to do so, meaning the products of their labor are theirs to keep, meaning that no laws preventing a man from reaping the products of his labor should be enacted. Translation: property rights and the protection from force. America's strength does depend on its ability to be true to its values. Meaning, its weakness is its refusal to defend its principles on moral grounds, which is the only place they can be defended. Meaning, the present trend of sacrificing the rights of some men for the "good" of others can only lead to the downfall of the nation. Translation: consistency in the protection of man's rights is of the utmost importance. War should be the last resort, reserved for those instances in which the enemy abandons reason and resorts to force. Meaning, the war against terrorists (those who enforce their ideas only at the point of a gun) is justified. Translation: the government's proper role is as a monopolist of force, which may be employed against those enemies who initiate its use. The last sentence is the most true and the least believed as far as what it actually means. I'll repeat it. "government has a limited but essential role in American life, beginning with the safety of our people." The government's limited and essential role in American life is to protect men from the unprovoked initiation of force. That is exactly what "safety of our people" means. This is the cornerstone of a proper government, but seems to have been forgotten by the very people who summon it here.
"We believe in equal opportunity for all, but special
privileges for none."
Bravo. They probably don't mean it.
"We believe the best measure of our nation’s progress
is the condition of America’s great middle class."
I submit that the best measure of a nation's progress is its consistency in upholding individual rights. A good barometer of that would be the condition of America's producers.
"We believe America’s national security requires military
strength, strong alliances, and homeland defense."
Obvious, but at least true.
That's just the introduction. We shall see how the body of the book pans out.
The book opens with a clever bit of semantics setting up the Bush-Kerry dichotomy.
"President George Bush and Vice President Dick
Cheney believe that more wealth for the most fortunate
will somehow lead to success for everyone else. We
believe that America always does best when all
Americans have the opportunity to do well."
i.e. lowering taxes (the amount of money stolen) from the greatest producers of the country is not a successful policy. How do Kerry and Edwards define "opportunity?" They don't say, but I submit that it would involve stealing what some people have earned and giving it to those who did not earn it.
"They believe
we can make America safe entirely on our own. We
believe that we must never hesitate to defend our people,
but that we can only truly be safe if we lead the world in
a way that rallies support and commands respect."
And what way is that? By sacrificing all of America's vitues? By going to war to defend man's rights only if those who oppose them support such a war? Of what value are the respect and support of nations that follow principles opposed to ours?
"They believe America is on the right course.
We believe it is time for a new direction."
How quaint. A new direction with regards to what? I assume it will be discussed in the body of the book, but I expect this "new direction" to involve a step closer to socialism, as have all "new directions" America has taken since its founding.
"This book is our plan to build an America that is
stronger at home and respected in the world. We offer
this plan because we believe this election should be about
ideas to lift America up, not negative attacks that drag
America down."
Ideas about what? Which attacks? Attacks against the opposing party like the one just given? Attacks against our philosophical enemies to defend individual rights?
"Our plan is rooted in our values: freedom, family,
work; opportunity, equality, responsibility; love of country
and faith."
I hope by "our" they only mean Edwards's and Kerry's. Only some of the above are values--but not in the way Kerry meant them. The rest are non-values. Freedom, work, and responsibility are values. Freedom -- in the form of individual freedom from physical force; work -- in the form of productive pursuits by such free men; responsibility -- which makes every man the master of his own actions, so that he can neither blame others for his mistakes or use others in order to achieve. These are values stemming from the same source -- man's rights -- on which America was founded. The fact that Kerry-Edwards would include both freedom and responsibility here is ironic, since what they really mean by "freedom" is freedom from responsibility for one's own life and livelihood. Equality is also a value, but in a way far different from how Kerry meant it. His version of equality, of course, means robbing the rich and giving to the poor to "even the playing field." The kind of equality that ought to be valued is merely the fact that all individuals have the same right to freedom from the use of force. In this respect, and this respect alone, are all men equal. Family, love of country, and faith are not values. Family is an accident of birth. Family members may be valued for specific reasons, but family qua blood relationship is not a value and should not be held as such. Love of country is certainly not a value. It is a reaction to a country's virtues. If a country is not worthy of love, then "love of country" would be worse than a non-value; it would be a moral error. Faith is the worst by far. While family and love of country can be good things, and valuable in certain cases and respects, faith is always bad. The definition of faith (the only one relevant to this discussion) is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." With respect to man as a rational being, faith is a death sentence. I can only hope Kerry and Edwards didn't mean it.
The next bit gives me more hope:
"[Our plan] reflects certain unshakable principles: that all
Americans deserve an equal chance to rise as high and go
as far as their hard work and God-given talents can take
them; that America’s strength and security depend on
our ability to be true to America’s values—at home and
abroad; that war should be the last resort, not the first,
in the use of American power; and that government has
a limited but essential role in American life, beginning
with the safety of our people."
I doubt that anyone, including Kerry and Edwards, understand how true this last statement is. Americans do deserve and equal chance to rise as high as their hard work can take them. Meaning it is their own responsibility to do so, meaning the products of their labor are theirs to keep, meaning that no laws preventing a man from reaping the products of his labor should be enacted. Translation: property rights and the protection from force. America's strength does depend on its ability to be true to its values. Meaning, its weakness is its refusal to defend its principles on moral grounds, which is the only place they can be defended. Meaning, the present trend of sacrificing the rights of some men for the "good" of others can only lead to the downfall of the nation. Translation: consistency in the protection of man's rights is of the utmost importance. War should be the last resort, reserved for those instances in which the enemy abandons reason and resorts to force. Meaning, the war against terrorists (those who enforce their ideas only at the point of a gun) is justified. Translation: the government's proper role is as a monopolist of force, which may be employed against those enemies who initiate its use. The last sentence is the most true and the least believed as far as what it actually means. I'll repeat it. "government has a limited but essential role in American life, beginning with the safety of our people." The government's limited and essential role in American life is to protect men from the unprovoked initiation of force. That is exactly what "safety of our people" means. This is the cornerstone of a proper government, but seems to have been forgotten by the very people who summon it here.
"We believe in equal opportunity for all, but special
privileges for none."
Bravo. They probably don't mean it.
"We believe the best measure of our nation’s progress
is the condition of America’s great middle class."
I submit that the best measure of a nation's progress is its consistency in upholding individual rights. A good barometer of that would be the condition of America's producers.
"We believe America’s national security requires military
strength, strong alliances, and homeland defense."
Obvious, but at least true.
That's just the introduction. We shall see how the body of the book pans out.
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Sunday, August 08, 2004
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Monday, August 02, 2004
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Friday, July 23, 2004
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
"perfect competition" is a market structure in which there are many sellers, each selling an identical product (a buyer has no reason to choose one over the other). In a perfectly competitive market, sellers are price takers and all end up selling at exactly the same price, and each firm can sell as much as it wants at that price. So my question is: if all these sellers are selling exactly the same thing at exactly the same price, by what definition of the word "competition" are they competing? presumably, sellers compete for customers, but if they are all selling as much as they want at a fixed price, and buyers can't distinguish between products, how is that competition?
Friday, July 09, 2004
Thursday, July 08, 2004
According to The Case for Faith, communism is the most powerful form of atheism on earth. Nevermind the fact that communism, blind faith in and subservience to the collective, is exactly the same as christianity--blind faith in and subservience to god. Since only the object of blind devotion (society or god) differs between communism and christianity, any evils of communism will necessarily be evils of christianity as well. But who cares about consistency?
Monday, July 05, 2004
our author, apparently a journalist, starts off chapter 1 with a good, solid, misplaced modifying phrase. good job.
"As an idealistic young reporter fresh out of journalism school, one of my first assignments at the Chicago Tribune was to write a thirty-part series in which i would profile destitute families living in the city."
apparently his first assignment was an idealistic young reporter fresh out of journalism school. kinky.
"As an idealistic young reporter fresh out of journalism school, one of my first assignments at the Chicago Tribune was to write a thirty-part series in which i would profile destitute families living in the city."
apparently his first assignment was an idealistic young reporter fresh out of journalism school. kinky.
In the preface to The Case for Fatih, which i'm sure is a fabulous piece of literature, the following quotes appear.
Christian theism must be rejected by any person which even a shred of respect for reason. - George H. Smith, atheist
Christian faith is not an irrational leap. Examined objectively, the claims of the Bible are rational propositions well supported by reason and evidence. - Charles Colson, Christian (emphasis mine)
let me add my own quote:
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Webster's dictionary.
need i say more?
Christian theism must be rejected by any person which even a shred of respect for reason. - George H. Smith, atheist
Christian faith is not an irrational leap. Examined objectively, the claims of the Bible are rational propositions well supported by reason and evidence. - Charles Colson, Christian (emphasis mine)
let me add my own quote:
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Webster's dictionary.
need i say more?
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Friday, July 02, 2004
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
a song for two people i have loved and lost
If I'd've known the way that this would end
If I'd've read the last page first
If I'd've had the strength to walk away
If I'd've known how this would hurt
I would've loved you anyway
I'd do it all the same
Not a second I would change
Not a touch that I would trade
Had I known my heart would break
I'd've loved you anyway
It's bittersweet to look back now
At memories withered on the vine
Just to hold you close to me
For a moment in time
I would've loved you anyway
I'd do it all the same
Not a second I would change
Not a touch that I would trade
Had I known my heart would break
I'd've loved you anyway
And, even if I'd seen it coming
You'd still've seen me running
Straight into your arms
I would've loved you anyway
I'd do it all the same
Not a second I would change
Not a touch that I would trade
Had I known my heart would break
I'd've loved you anyway~*
love is what you feel for someone who is the embodiment of the things you most value. that is what you were to me.
to the person who taught me how to hold my own life as the highest value, another song...
Never wanna break your heart
Never wanna make you cry
Never wanna give up and die
Even if you can't stand up
Even if you lose your life
I'm a friend by your side
You're never gonna be alone
You can never let down
Never let down
You can never let down
Never let down
Never wanna make mistakes
Never wanna do no wrong
Never have a place to belong
And I'm never gonna leave you out
If you ever lose your way
Not alone or betrayed
I'm always gonna be around
You can never let down
Never let down
You're doing alright
You're doing ok
Just follow your heart
And don't run away
You can never let down
You're doing alright
You're doing ok
Just follow your heart
And don't run away
You can never let down
You're doing alright
You're doing ok
Just follow your heart
And don't run away
Never wanna break your heart
If I'd've known the way that this would end
If I'd've read the last page first
If I'd've had the strength to walk away
If I'd've known how this would hurt
I would've loved you anyway
I'd do it all the same
Not a second I would change
Not a touch that I would trade
Had I known my heart would break
I'd've loved you anyway
It's bittersweet to look back now
At memories withered on the vine
Just to hold you close to me
For a moment in time
I would've loved you anyway
I'd do it all the same
Not a second I would change
Not a touch that I would trade
Had I known my heart would break
I'd've loved you anyway
And, even if I'd seen it coming
You'd still've seen me running
Straight into your arms
I would've loved you anyway
I'd do it all the same
Not a second I would change
Not a touch that I would trade
Had I known my heart would break
I'd've loved you anyway~*
love is what you feel for someone who is the embodiment of the things you most value. that is what you were to me.
to the person who taught me how to hold my own life as the highest value, another song...
Never wanna break your heart
Never wanna make you cry
Never wanna give up and die
Even if you can't stand up
Even if you lose your life
I'm a friend by your side
You're never gonna be alone
You can never let down
Never let down
You can never let down
Never let down
Never wanna make mistakes
Never wanna do no wrong
Never have a place to belong
And I'm never gonna leave you out
If you ever lose your way
Not alone or betrayed
I'm always gonna be around
You can never let down
Never let down
You're doing alright
You're doing ok
Just follow your heart
And don't run away
You can never let down
You're doing alright
You're doing ok
Just follow your heart
And don't run away
You can never let down
You're doing alright
You're doing ok
Just follow your heart
And don't run away
Never wanna break your heart
Monday, June 21, 2004
the author of my econ textbook is a freaking communist: "The communist credo 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' was something the Soviet leaders claimed to follow, and it does have a nice ring to it. But in actuality, theri income distribution system, with its jerry-built structure of wage incentives, bonus payments, and special privileges, was probably no more equitable than our own."
I think Rand might have something to say about THAT.
I think Rand might have something to say about THAT.
Sunday, June 13, 2004
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Monday, June 07, 2004
Sometimes I am ashamed to call myself a Democrat. One of those times was this afternoon, reading more democratic whining about Bush and his tax cuts. It was the usual “tax cuts favor the rich” propaganda that gets thrown around by Bush’s opponents. Clearly, few Americans care to subject this argument to reason, or they would have discarded it long ago.
What is taxation? It is the theft of money from those who have earned it by the government. Whether you earned it by serving food to the homeless or by making porn videos, the point is that the money belongs to you and the government gets to take it from you in any amount it sees fit. For a discussion of the morality of taxation, see my previous post.
One of the pet forms of indignance practiced by those who hate Bush is outrage at his enormous tax cuts. The two components of Bush’s plan attacked (the other four are ignored) are the elimination of the estate tax and the lowering of income tax. Both of these benefit “the wealthiest 2% of Americans” and “do nothing for the poorest citizens” (the fact that income tax for the highest bracket was not lowered is not mentioned). Does this come as any surprise? The poorest citizens pay almost nothing in taxes. Why should they expect to be saving much when the amount they pay is lowered? The estate tax also benefits only the wealthiest (i.e. most successful) among us. Only those assessed to be worth 1.5 million dollars have to pay the estate tax, 45% of every dollar in excess of 1.5 million. Why does the government have a right, after already having taken 50% of a person’s income every year, to take another 45% of the "surplus" of what the rest of his income has acquired? No answer.
It is in the main objection to these tax cuts that the despotic state of the American soul rears its ugly head. This objection is as follows: the government will lose hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue when the cuts are implemented, which would have otherwise paid for services that everyone else needs. Translation: if you stop stealing from rich people, there will be no one left to pay for the services that everyone who doesn’t pay for them wants. By what standard is it acceptable for people who want services to force other people to pay for them? No answer.
In addition to the cuts themselves, Bush used the budget surplus to give out a tax refund. This was equally offensive to the pro-theft rabble, since much more money was given to the wealthy than to the poor. This is a gross example of context-dropping: they conveniently forget that the money given to the rich came from the rich in the first place. They cling to the notion that giving money to rich people instead of to poor people is wrong and ignore the fact that the money being handed out is being given to those who it originally belonged to, not randomly distributed to whomever. (Of course, even if it had not come from the rich and were to be handed out randomly, neither group would have a moral claim on it, so it would not be unfair to give it to the rich. I ignore this for the sake of argument) Apparently, they would prefer that the money stolen from the rich be handed out to the poor, who did not earn it. If this sounds like the story of Robin Hood, make no mistake: it was not against the rich but against the unjust tax collectors that Robin Hood waged his battle. He stole from those who had not earned to give back what had been earned to those who had earned it.
The hatred of Bush’s tax cuts amounts to a hatred of success and a desire for the unearned, and the fact that this hatred is held strongly by all members of the political spectrum is a disgrace to America.
What is taxation? It is the theft of money from those who have earned it by the government. Whether you earned it by serving food to the homeless or by making porn videos, the point is that the money belongs to you and the government gets to take it from you in any amount it sees fit. For a discussion of the morality of taxation, see my previous post.
One of the pet forms of indignance practiced by those who hate Bush is outrage at his enormous tax cuts. The two components of Bush’s plan attacked (the other four are ignored) are the elimination of the estate tax and the lowering of income tax. Both of these benefit “the wealthiest 2% of Americans” and “do nothing for the poorest citizens” (the fact that income tax for the highest bracket was not lowered is not mentioned). Does this come as any surprise? The poorest citizens pay almost nothing in taxes. Why should they expect to be saving much when the amount they pay is lowered? The estate tax also benefits only the wealthiest (i.e. most successful) among us. Only those assessed to be worth 1.5 million dollars have to pay the estate tax, 45% of every dollar in excess of 1.5 million. Why does the government have a right, after already having taken 50% of a person’s income every year, to take another 45% of the "surplus" of what the rest of his income has acquired? No answer.
It is in the main objection to these tax cuts that the despotic state of the American soul rears its ugly head. This objection is as follows: the government will lose hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue when the cuts are implemented, which would have otherwise paid for services that everyone else needs. Translation: if you stop stealing from rich people, there will be no one left to pay for the services that everyone who doesn’t pay for them wants. By what standard is it acceptable for people who want services to force other people to pay for them? No answer.
In addition to the cuts themselves, Bush used the budget surplus to give out a tax refund. This was equally offensive to the pro-theft rabble, since much more money was given to the wealthy than to the poor. This is a gross example of context-dropping: they conveniently forget that the money given to the rich came from the rich in the first place. They cling to the notion that giving money to rich people instead of to poor people is wrong and ignore the fact that the money being handed out is being given to those who it originally belonged to, not randomly distributed to whomever. (Of course, even if it had not come from the rich and were to be handed out randomly, neither group would have a moral claim on it, so it would not be unfair to give it to the rich. I ignore this for the sake of argument) Apparently, they would prefer that the money stolen from the rich be handed out to the poor, who did not earn it. If this sounds like the story of Robin Hood, make no mistake: it was not against the rich but against the unjust tax collectors that Robin Hood waged his battle. He stole from those who had not earned to give back what had been earned to those who had earned it.
The hatred of Bush’s tax cuts amounts to a hatred of success and a desire for the unearned, and the fact that this hatred is held strongly by all members of the political spectrum is a disgrace to America.
Sunday, June 06, 2004
after watching the season finale of gilmore girls and wondering where the implied condom came from, i've been taking a poll. we all know the "condom-in-the-wallet" stereotype, but is it true? stay tuned for the exciting results!
so far:
guys polled: 15
condom-carriers: 1
now, all the guys i know are nerds so we'll see how the numbers change if i get a chance to ask some non-nerds.
*5/19 update*
we have our first condom-carrier! not in the wallet, but in the backpack, which i decided was close enough.
*5/20 update*
thanks to ben for his polling help, bringing our total up to lucky 13!
*6/8 update*
BobTheKillerGoat: one guy has reported that he now carries a condom because of the survey
so far:
guys polled: 15
condom-carriers: 1
now, all the guys i know are nerds so we'll see how the numbers change if i get a chance to ask some non-nerds.
*5/19 update*
we have our first condom-carrier! not in the wallet, but in the backpack, which i decided was close enough.
*5/20 update*
thanks to ben for his polling help, bringing our total up to lucky 13!
*6/8 update*
BobTheKillerGoat: one guy has reported that he now carries a condom because of the survey
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Things I Hate: a sometimes-annotated list-in-progress full of love and sunshine for my own personal enjoyment. (note: many of these items will be "people who (insert stupid thing)." now this doesn't actually mean i hate all people who do this stupid thing. it just means i hate the thing, and it's easier and more colloquial to describe the thing as an action of people. so if you get offended by the fact that i "hate stupid people" because you, yourself are stupid and think i hate you personally, then you are living up to your category on my hate list) (note 2: "hate" really means anywhere from mild irritation to utter loathing, because i only feel like making one list.)
1. Stupid people. (note: at least 75% of the remainder of this list will most likely, at any given time, be reducible to this particular item. stupid people are everywhere and practice stupidity in many different ways)
2. people who think it's okay to steal from other people just because those other people are rich
3. people who walk slow in the mall in front of me and take up the entire walk area so i can't get around them
4. people who stop suddenly in the mall in front of me so i have to do intricate ballet steps to avoid hitting them
5. people who appeal to the constitution or other legal documents to support their claims in cases of morality
6. religion
7. hypocrisy
8. spinach
9. most vegetables, in fact, although i do like carrots and lettuce is acceptable on occasion
10. people who decide to end relationships (romantic or platonic) without informing the other involved parties and then, later, pretend that the end of the relationship was the fault of the other involved parties.
11. fickle people
12. vomitting
13. art history: this is the most pointless, useless subject offered at UCLA, with the exception of culture classes such as "gay/lesbian/transgender perspectives on pop music." it serves absolutely no purpose aside from personal interest.
14. GEs: completely useless. if i am going to be an engineer, there is no reason in the world that i need to know about italian renaissance art. none. Likewise, if i am going to be a curator at a museum, there is no reason in the world that i need to know calculus. GEs are a waste of time, money, patience, effort, tears, sweat, and bacon.
15. when people go crying to their mommies about the fact that a universal tax cut gives more money to rich people than poor people. duh.
16. people responsible for giving me grades who give me specific instructions, grade me down for following those instructions, and then claim never to have given those instructions
17. bigotry
18. the mentality that leads to hispanic californians staging a massive strike and protest because the governor won't give CA drivers' licenses to ILLEGAL immigrants
19. when people demand things that aren't theirs
20. video games with really bad endings, like when they just roll the credits and show pictures of the characters in the background. *cough* WINDWAKER *cough cough*
21. the fingernail on my middle finger on my right hand. it grows funny so it always flakes in this one spot and looks all gimpy. it sucks
22. people who stop being friends with me because i don't like new york city.
23. affirmative action: god forbid people get into college based on MERIT. oh no, we can't have THAT.
24. the fact that i have lost my bruincard THREE times in 5 quarters of school
25. when girls have their thongs hanging out the top of their pants OR when girls sit down and have plumber ass. for god's sake, tuck that back in.
26. when people wear those damn snowboots with skirts short enough to count as belts
27. michael jackson's nose
28. folk music
29. especially mariachi
30. the smell of cigarette smoke
31. altruism
32. conformity and anticonformity. Two sides of the same coin, with the second one being worse. Conformity = doing something because other people do it. anticonformity = doing something because other people don't do it. both of these involve a person allowing the actions or opinions of others to dictate their own. anticonformity is worse because it involves both conformity and hypocrisy. the anticonformists are pretending to be non-conformist by doing what everyone else isn't or avoiding doing what everyone else is.
33. condiments
34. UCLA parking services
35. show-offs
36. people who get mad at me for being better at something than them or smarter than them
37. people who listen to their music way louder than they have to so that i can hear it through the wall in my room and can't listen to my own music
38. people who don't understand to either put their damn subwoofer on the GROUND or else don't have the bass cranked way up. DESKS DO NOT ABSORB BASS.
39. that justin timberlake song from the superbowl
40. all justin timberlake songs.
41. people who think that they somehow have a right to things that aren't theirs.
42. copyright limitations
43. public domain activists
44. feminists
45. blogger support
46. people who made fun of LOTR nerds before the movies came out and then became obsessed with it once the movies came out and act like they are now the supreme authority on the subject and like it wasn't your obsession first. posers.
47. *thanks to kristen for this one* when people put cheese back in the fridge without sealing the bag so it gets all weird and you have to cut off the bad part, and before you know it you're out of cheese.
48. when i am reading or watching tv or drawing or playing video games or otherwise obviously engaged in some kind of sensory activity and someone starts talking at me. it's rude and annoying. at least wait until i pause in my activity and indicate that i want to give you my attention, because if you don't, i guarantee i won't hear a word you're saying.
49. the AARP
50. sororities/fraternities, stereotypically
51. creepy dance instructors
52. 36-year-olds who stalk 19-year-olds
53. phony vapor lock in my car
54. people who use "u" instead of "you" and "r" instead of "are" and other such subsitutions online. even worse is people who use them in real life, such as in essays for school.
55. national guilt
56. that freaking fanta commercial with the song. i hate it.
1. Stupid people. (note: at least 75% of the remainder of this list will most likely, at any given time, be reducible to this particular item. stupid people are everywhere and practice stupidity in many different ways)
2. people who think it's okay to steal from other people just because those other people are rich
3. people who walk slow in the mall in front of me and take up the entire walk area so i can't get around them
4. people who stop suddenly in the mall in front of me so i have to do intricate ballet steps to avoid hitting them
5. people who appeal to the constitution or other legal documents to support their claims in cases of morality
6. religion
7. hypocrisy
8. spinach
9. most vegetables, in fact, although i do like carrots and lettuce is acceptable on occasion
10. people who decide to end relationships (romantic or platonic) without informing the other involved parties and then, later, pretend that the end of the relationship was the fault of the other involved parties.
11. fickle people
12. vomitting
13. art history: this is the most pointless, useless subject offered at UCLA, with the exception of culture classes such as "gay/lesbian/transgender perspectives on pop music." it serves absolutely no purpose aside from personal interest.
14. GEs: completely useless. if i am going to be an engineer, there is no reason in the world that i need to know about italian renaissance art. none. Likewise, if i am going to be a curator at a museum, there is no reason in the world that i need to know calculus. GEs are a waste of time, money, patience, effort, tears, sweat, and bacon.
15. when people go crying to their mommies about the fact that a universal tax cut gives more money to rich people than poor people. duh.
16. people responsible for giving me grades who give me specific instructions, grade me down for following those instructions, and then claim never to have given those instructions
17. bigotry
18. the mentality that leads to hispanic californians staging a massive strike and protest because the governor won't give CA drivers' licenses to ILLEGAL immigrants
19. when people demand things that aren't theirs
20. video games with really bad endings, like when they just roll the credits and show pictures of the characters in the background. *cough* WINDWAKER *cough cough*
21. the fingernail on my middle finger on my right hand. it grows funny so it always flakes in this one spot and looks all gimpy. it sucks
22. people who stop being friends with me because i don't like new york city.
23. affirmative action: god forbid people get into college based on MERIT. oh no, we can't have THAT.
24. the fact that i have lost my bruincard THREE times in 5 quarters of school
25. when girls have their thongs hanging out the top of their pants OR when girls sit down and have plumber ass. for god's sake, tuck that back in.
26. when people wear those damn snowboots with skirts short enough to count as belts
27. michael jackson's nose
28. folk music
29. especially mariachi
30. the smell of cigarette smoke
31. altruism
32. conformity and anticonformity. Two sides of the same coin, with the second one being worse. Conformity = doing something because other people do it. anticonformity = doing something because other people don't do it. both of these involve a person allowing the actions or opinions of others to dictate their own. anticonformity is worse because it involves both conformity and hypocrisy. the anticonformists are pretending to be non-conformist by doing what everyone else isn't or avoiding doing what everyone else is.
33. condiments
34. UCLA parking services
35. show-offs
36. people who get mad at me for being better at something than them or smarter than them
37. people who listen to their music way louder than they have to so that i can hear it through the wall in my room and can't listen to my own music
38. people who don't understand to either put their damn subwoofer on the GROUND or else don't have the bass cranked way up. DESKS DO NOT ABSORB BASS.
39. that justin timberlake song from the superbowl
40. all justin timberlake songs.
41. people who think that they somehow have a right to things that aren't theirs.
42. copyright limitations
43. public domain activists
44. feminists
45. blogger support
46. people who made fun of LOTR nerds before the movies came out and then became obsessed with it once the movies came out and act like they are now the supreme authority on the subject and like it wasn't your obsession first. posers.
47. *thanks to kristen for this one* when people put cheese back in the fridge without sealing the bag so it gets all weird and you have to cut off the bad part, and before you know it you're out of cheese.
48. when i am reading or watching tv or drawing or playing video games or otherwise obviously engaged in some kind of sensory activity and someone starts talking at me. it's rude and annoying. at least wait until i pause in my activity and indicate that i want to give you my attention, because if you don't, i guarantee i won't hear a word you're saying.
49. the AARP
50. sororities/fraternities, stereotypically
51. creepy dance instructors
52. 36-year-olds who stalk 19-year-olds
53. phony vapor lock in my car
54. people who use "u" instead of "you" and "r" instead of "are" and other such subsitutions online. even worse is people who use them in real life, such as in essays for school.
55. national guilt
56. that freaking fanta commercial with the song. i hate it.
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
the first online documentation of my cosplaying at fanime 2004:
http://images.cosplay.com/showphoto.php?photo=141781&password=&sort=1&cat=all&page=2
http://images.cosplay.com/showphoto.php?photo=141781&password=&sort=1&cat=all&page=2
Monday, May 31, 2004
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Monday, May 24, 2004
my description of dragonball z, based on the few episodes i have seen, which, i am told, captures the essence of the whole series:
"i am evil bad man, ph34r my wrath, peons!"
"no! i, goku, will gain ultra-super powers and fight you!"
"begone, foolish child! *shoots light ray and makes large crater*"
"ha, you missed! now i will unleash my hidden destructo firebal of pwnage! *kills bad guy*"
**narator: but have our heroes finally saved the world from evil? can they now complete their quest?**
**new scene of unknown enemy**
"i am evil bad man, ph34r my wrath, peons!"
"no! i, goku, will gain ultra-super powers and fight you!"
"begone, foolish child! *shoots light ray and makes large crater*"
"ha, you missed! now i will unleash my hidden destructo firebal of pwnage! *kills bad guy*"
**narator: but have our heroes finally saved the world from evil? can they now complete their quest?**
**new scene of unknown enemy**
Friday, May 21, 2004
Sunday, May 16, 2004
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Things I Don't Hate: another list to balance out my list of hate. Because, well, i don't hate everything. in fact, i don't hate a lot of things. and i shall list them all here!
1. the "soccer practice" music video. Find it at www.gaypimp.com.
2. kitties
3. puppies
4. other small furry animals, especially cute ones
5. video games
6. j-pop
7. ddr...although you'll never see me play with my feet
8. Atlas Shrugged
9. Lord of the Rings (both the books and the movies)
10. herbal essences products...although, personally, i've never confused "organic" with "orgasmic"
11. guaranteed housing
12. care packages
13. anime
14. witty people
15. pasta with butter and salt
16. cheesecake
17. sleep...mmm...i could use some of that right now
18. star paper
19. drawing
20. classes in school: logic, math, philosophy
21. josh groban
22. burt's beeswax lip balm...yum yum
1. the "soccer practice" music video. Find it at www.gaypimp.com.
2. kitties
3. puppies
4. other small furry animals, especially cute ones
5. video games
6. j-pop
7. ddr...although you'll never see me play with my feet
8. Atlas Shrugged
9. Lord of the Rings (both the books and the movies)
10. herbal essences products...although, personally, i've never confused "organic" with "orgasmic"
11. guaranteed housing
12. care packages
13. anime
14. witty people
15. pasta with butter and salt
16. cheesecake
17. sleep...mmm...i could use some of that right now
18. star paper
19. drawing
20. classes in school: logic, math, philosophy
21. josh groban
22. burt's beeswax lip balm...yum yum
Saturday, May 08, 2004
I was thinking about my hatred of affirmative action the other day, and I came to a realization. The various forms of affirmative action and other minority handouts are based on some form of attonement for sins, past or present. All of the minorities who receive these handouts have been oppressed in some way or another in the past and/or are currently "disadvantaged". By giving them special priviliges, we are supposedly "leveling the playing field" and making up for what "we" did in the past.
Note, however, that no such handouts are given to people of east asian descent. No one is citing forced Chinese labor on the railroad system, Japanese internment camps during WWII, and other such discriminatory and oppressive practices against these people as grounds for handouts. Why? Because the Asian-American population is completely capable of achieving on its own. The majority of the population at UCLA and, indeed, most California schools is Asian. They are stereotyped to be extremely intelligent and studious. All of this somehow happened WITHOUT the handouts given to other minorities, and yet Asian-Americans are far ahead of their minority peers.
This fact reveals the true intent behind minority handouts. The job of affirmative action and other such policies is not to reward the underprivilidged, but to punish the best. Asians and whites alike suffer academic discrimination at the hands of "diversity" activists, while all non-asian minorities reap the benefits. Since these other minority groups can't do it on their own, laws have to be passed to do it FOR them, at the expense of those who have actually earned achievement.
African-Americans and Latinos are stereotyped to live in "ghettos" and less priviliged neighborhoods made up of other minorities. But this is exactly how Chinese and Japanese Americans began their days in America. Where do you think the Chinatowns and Japantowns of large cities came from? These, too, are cultural hubs for minority groups, yet they prosper. They produce able citizens who are somehow able to leave the area of their birth if they so desire. Why such a discrepancy, espcially when countless outreach and handout programs are designed to bring minorities out of the underachievement cycle?
The discrepancy arises from one between the attitudes of the two groups (Asian and non-asian). Asian-Americans have never had handouts. They have never been pittied or condescended to, and have been left to their own to achieve. Other minorities, on the other hand, have. The US government and various organizations within the nation have drastically overcompensated for past offenses. Instead of doing what they SHOULD have done--stopping government discrimination in all its forms--they began the practice of forced reverse discrimination. Instead of giving these groups the opportunity to compete with others, they have seeded the groups at the prize itself. This has left the "underpriviliged" minorities with no incentive to pull themselves out of their initial place in life and up to something better. Instead, members of these minorities can sit back and wait for achievement to come to them, without ever having to achieve. The attitude taken by those who give the handouts has been equally detrimental. These people instill in their beneficiaries a sense of righteous indignance at what the world has done to them. The recievers are told that they have every right to demand as a gift what everyone else has earned as a reward. They come to believe that disproportionate representation in schools and jobs should be remedied by diversity requirements, not by personal effort to do what the best do.
The Asian-American population has never believed this. Its members go about achievement the way they should: by finding out what work needs to be done to earn what reward, not by finding out what handout can be exploited. So, before we implement any more diversity requirements or hold any more pro-minority rallies, perhaps we should stop and examine the minority that has thrived without handouts. Instead of lowering the bar to those who have never been trained to reach it, we should encourage them to train themselves. Instead of giving what some people can earn to those who can't, we should give it only to those who can, so that the rest will learn what is necessary to earn it and act accordingly.
Note, however, that no such handouts are given to people of east asian descent. No one is citing forced Chinese labor on the railroad system, Japanese internment camps during WWII, and other such discriminatory and oppressive practices against these people as grounds for handouts. Why? Because the Asian-American population is completely capable of achieving on its own. The majority of the population at UCLA and, indeed, most California schools is Asian. They are stereotyped to be extremely intelligent and studious. All of this somehow happened WITHOUT the handouts given to other minorities, and yet Asian-Americans are far ahead of their minority peers.
This fact reveals the true intent behind minority handouts. The job of affirmative action and other such policies is not to reward the underprivilidged, but to punish the best. Asians and whites alike suffer academic discrimination at the hands of "diversity" activists, while all non-asian minorities reap the benefits. Since these other minority groups can't do it on their own, laws have to be passed to do it FOR them, at the expense of those who have actually earned achievement.
African-Americans and Latinos are stereotyped to live in "ghettos" and less priviliged neighborhoods made up of other minorities. But this is exactly how Chinese and Japanese Americans began their days in America. Where do you think the Chinatowns and Japantowns of large cities came from? These, too, are cultural hubs for minority groups, yet they prosper. They produce able citizens who are somehow able to leave the area of their birth if they so desire. Why such a discrepancy, espcially when countless outreach and handout programs are designed to bring minorities out of the underachievement cycle?
The discrepancy arises from one between the attitudes of the two groups (Asian and non-asian). Asian-Americans have never had handouts. They have never been pittied or condescended to, and have been left to their own to achieve. Other minorities, on the other hand, have. The US government and various organizations within the nation have drastically overcompensated for past offenses. Instead of doing what they SHOULD have done--stopping government discrimination in all its forms--they began the practice of forced reverse discrimination. Instead of giving these groups the opportunity to compete with others, they have seeded the groups at the prize itself. This has left the "underpriviliged" minorities with no incentive to pull themselves out of their initial place in life and up to something better. Instead, members of these minorities can sit back and wait for achievement to come to them, without ever having to achieve. The attitude taken by those who give the handouts has been equally detrimental. These people instill in their beneficiaries a sense of righteous indignance at what the world has done to them. The recievers are told that they have every right to demand as a gift what everyone else has earned as a reward. They come to believe that disproportionate representation in schools and jobs should be remedied by diversity requirements, not by personal effort to do what the best do.
The Asian-American population has never believed this. Its members go about achievement the way they should: by finding out what work needs to be done to earn what reward, not by finding out what handout can be exploited. So, before we implement any more diversity requirements or hold any more pro-minority rallies, perhaps we should stop and examine the minority that has thrived without handouts. Instead of lowering the bar to those who have never been trained to reach it, we should encourage them to train themselves. Instead of giving what some people can earn to those who can't, we should give it only to those who can, so that the rest will learn what is necessary to earn it and act accordingly.
USAC is full of idiots. No surprises there. Apparently it wants to close taco bell, the second most popular eatery on campus, because tomato pickers in florida don't have "acceptable working conditions" or some crap like that.
Now, what is wrong with this picture? Taco Bell puts tomatoes in its food. Someone grows these tomatoes. That someone hires people to pick the tomatoes for him. Seems simple enough. Not so. According to USAC's stance on the issue, Taco Bell is somehow forcing a low-paying, shitty job onto its tomato pickers. Funny, I wasn't aware that Taco Bell sent busses around, grabbing unskilled workers off the streets of various countries and dragging them, handcuffed, back to Florida to pick tomatoes. I must have thought people CHOSE to work for other people.
"well, the tomato pickers don't get paid enough!"
Why should they be paid more than they are willing to work for? If my elderly neighbor wants to pay me 5 dollars to clean his rain gutters, but i think i should get 10, i have two options. I can either not clean his rain gutters, or i can clean them and realize that 5 dollars is better than no dollars. If he wants to hire a whole gang of people to clean his rain gutters for 5 dollars each, however, all hell breaks loose and USAC starts making him write reports about the horrible working conditions of his gutter cleaners. The tomato pickers have the same option. They are CHOOSING to pick tomatoes, and they are choosing to do so for the amount of pay and under the conditions that their employer is willing to give them.
"but they don't have any other options!"
why not? are they so unskilled that tomato picking calls for the very best of their abilities? i highly doubt it. and if they really do have no other options, then apparently their choice is no money or some money, and i think we all know which choice is better. in addition, the tomato farm owners do not OWE these people jobs. they offer workers money in exchange for work. suppose all the tomato farms in florida suddenly decided to stop growing tomatoes. what then? would USAC force them to grow tomatoes again? if there were no tomato farms, there would be no tomato-picking jobs at all. the employer has no obligations to strangers to give them jobs at all, let alone give them certain pay.
"the working conditions are so bad!"
it's...TOMATO PICKING. what do you expect? tents over the entire tomato fields? sponge baths on the hour? if the work is so terrible, why are people willing to do it?
ultimately, this issue is a private matter between employee and employer. if the employees want more money or better conditions, they can ask for it. if there are enough people willing to work for less, then those people will get the jobs and pay will not be increased. no one is forcing the job upon these people, so if they are choosing to do it of their own free will, USAC has no business getting involved. As long as the owners of these tomato farms are not engaging in the use of force against their employees, they are doing nothing wrong.
so back off, USAC.
Now, what is wrong with this picture? Taco Bell puts tomatoes in its food. Someone grows these tomatoes. That someone hires people to pick the tomatoes for him. Seems simple enough. Not so. According to USAC's stance on the issue, Taco Bell is somehow forcing a low-paying, shitty job onto its tomato pickers. Funny, I wasn't aware that Taco Bell sent busses around, grabbing unskilled workers off the streets of various countries and dragging them, handcuffed, back to Florida to pick tomatoes. I must have thought people CHOSE to work for other people.
"well, the tomato pickers don't get paid enough!"
Why should they be paid more than they are willing to work for? If my elderly neighbor wants to pay me 5 dollars to clean his rain gutters, but i think i should get 10, i have two options. I can either not clean his rain gutters, or i can clean them and realize that 5 dollars is better than no dollars. If he wants to hire a whole gang of people to clean his rain gutters for 5 dollars each, however, all hell breaks loose and USAC starts making him write reports about the horrible working conditions of his gutter cleaners. The tomato pickers have the same option. They are CHOOSING to pick tomatoes, and they are choosing to do so for the amount of pay and under the conditions that their employer is willing to give them.
"but they don't have any other options!"
why not? are they so unskilled that tomato picking calls for the very best of their abilities? i highly doubt it. and if they really do have no other options, then apparently their choice is no money or some money, and i think we all know which choice is better. in addition, the tomato farm owners do not OWE these people jobs. they offer workers money in exchange for work. suppose all the tomato farms in florida suddenly decided to stop growing tomatoes. what then? would USAC force them to grow tomatoes again? if there were no tomato farms, there would be no tomato-picking jobs at all. the employer has no obligations to strangers to give them jobs at all, let alone give them certain pay.
"the working conditions are so bad!"
it's...TOMATO PICKING. what do you expect? tents over the entire tomato fields? sponge baths on the hour? if the work is so terrible, why are people willing to do it?
ultimately, this issue is a private matter between employee and employer. if the employees want more money or better conditions, they can ask for it. if there are enough people willing to work for less, then those people will get the jobs and pay will not be increased. no one is forcing the job upon these people, so if they are choosing to do it of their own free will, USAC has no business getting involved. As long as the owners of these tomato farms are not engaging in the use of force against their employees, they are doing nothing wrong.
so back off, USAC.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Monday, May 03, 2004
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Monday, April 26, 2004
Monday, April 19, 2004
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
there's some demonstration and press conference thing at ucla where students are supposed to tell legislators to stop budget cuts and stop cutting outreach programs. outreach programs help "underrepresented" students get into ucla. the flyer i recieved regarding the event had this nugget of joy written on it: "support the programs that got you here!" my response: "my own merits got me here."
Monday, April 05, 2004
After a recent debate regarding taxes and the moral purpose of government, i was given an article by my opponent about an ex-IRS agent who has decided that income taxes are illegal. Apparently, the 16th amendment may have been improperly ratified by some states, which makes it invalid in the eyes of some tax opponents. This claim has, according to the article, been "debunked" by the IRS and the Supreme Court many times. The article was meant to be a follow-up to our debate, in which i argued that taxation, particularly income taxation, is immoral. I use this anecdote to illustrate a common flaw in many arguments, especially those of a political nature.
My opponent sought to disprove my claim that income taxation is immoral by pointing to the constitution and saying "See! it says it right there! Income taxes ARE legal!" What he doesn't seem to realize, or perhaps chooses to ignore, is that my claim has nothing to do with legality. As many people do, he appealed to the constitution--a legal document--to support his claim of morality. Any grade school child who has lived through black history month or listened to a talk about the holocaust can tell you that what is legal is not the same as what is moral. Man's will does not determine what is moral: man's rights do. My beliefs about income tax do not concern whether it is legal: they concern whether it should be legal in a country whose laws supposedly rest on moral ground. The answer is no.
The philosophy that allows income tax translates to: no man's property is his own; it belongs to the government. Any trades that occur between men occur only by privilege bestowed by the government, so the government can collect any portion of the items in that trade that the majority deems appropriate. This is obviously not the case. Whatever a free man produces belongs to him, as does whatever he acquires by free trade. No entity other than himself--not the majority, not a dictator, not a legislature, not a police officer--can control his property. As such, income taxation is the equivalent of stealing. Men pay income tax under a gun; the government takes property that does not belong to it.
Income tax supporters cling to a shred of reason by justifying income tax as payment for government services. Everyone uses government services, so everyone should pay for them. The weakness in this rationalizing becomes apparent if we apply the same reasoning to a store. Suppose I am minding my own business one day when employees from the local Target show up at my house and demand that I come shop at their store. I decline, but they hold a gun to my back and escort me to Target, where they fill my basket with various items. They then push me and my basket to the checkout counter and demand payment, still at gunpoint. When we leave the store, they remove the items I will not use from the basket and distribute them to other shoppers. Even the most extreme of taxation supporters would not support this string of events, yet this is exactly what taxation entails. The government provides services, and then forces every person to pay for them, regardless of whether every person uses them or wants them. One cannot force services on others and then force payment for those services. The idea is ridiculous.
My opponent sought to disprove my claim that income taxation is immoral by pointing to the constitution and saying "See! it says it right there! Income taxes ARE legal!" What he doesn't seem to realize, or perhaps chooses to ignore, is that my claim has nothing to do with legality. As many people do, he appealed to the constitution--a legal document--to support his claim of morality. Any grade school child who has lived through black history month or listened to a talk about the holocaust can tell you that what is legal is not the same as what is moral. Man's will does not determine what is moral: man's rights do. My beliefs about income tax do not concern whether it is legal: they concern whether it should be legal in a country whose laws supposedly rest on moral ground. The answer is no.
The philosophy that allows income tax translates to: no man's property is his own; it belongs to the government. Any trades that occur between men occur only by privilege bestowed by the government, so the government can collect any portion of the items in that trade that the majority deems appropriate. This is obviously not the case. Whatever a free man produces belongs to him, as does whatever he acquires by free trade. No entity other than himself--not the majority, not a dictator, not a legislature, not a police officer--can control his property. As such, income taxation is the equivalent of stealing. Men pay income tax under a gun; the government takes property that does not belong to it.
Income tax supporters cling to a shred of reason by justifying income tax as payment for government services. Everyone uses government services, so everyone should pay for them. The weakness in this rationalizing becomes apparent if we apply the same reasoning to a store. Suppose I am minding my own business one day when employees from the local Target show up at my house and demand that I come shop at their store. I decline, but they hold a gun to my back and escort me to Target, where they fill my basket with various items. They then push me and my basket to the checkout counter and demand payment, still at gunpoint. When we leave the store, they remove the items I will not use from the basket and distribute them to other shoppers. Even the most extreme of taxation supporters would not support this string of events, yet this is exactly what taxation entails. The government provides services, and then forces every person to pay for them, regardless of whether every person uses them or wants them. One cannot force services on others and then force payment for those services. The idea is ridiculous.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
The Evils of the Mandatory Public Domain
The public domain is the body of works that do not fall under copyright law. Here in "free" America, it is filled with works once copyrighted that are stolen from their owners after a period of time by the public in the name of the common good.
Supporters of the public domain cite its importance in promoting the free movement of ideas and the production of new creative works. Because the public domain is perceived at beneficial to society as a whole, it is deemed good and necessary. The main problem with this attitude, and the reason why a mandatory public domain should not be legally enforced, is that it relies on the idea that creations are only the property of their creators by privilege. That is, no one has a natural right to his own work, but is granted that right by those who did not create it. What this amounts to is that creations belong to anyone and everyone but the person who actually created them. This, however, is diametrically opposed to the workings of a free society. No man can claim ownership of another man’s product (or property) unless he acquires it from the producer (or owner) by trade. To do so would be stealing. No benefit to the “public good” can be morally gained at the expense of man’s rights.
In addition, the supposed necessity of a public domain for creative activities should be apparently false in light of recent decades. The public domain has been relatively stagnant over the past few decades as the copyright term gets longer and longer. Works that should have entered the public domain during this time period did not because their terms were extended before they expired. However, there has been no halt in the production of creative works, nor any drastic social consequences resulting from the inability of people to produce unoriginal works.
In a rational, moral society of free trade, it would seem natural that men would want to exchange values for values and participate in the products of other men by paying for their effort. However, men have gotten used to being able to get things that they have not paid for and to demand things that don’t belong to them. They no longer consider whether it is right to loot the producers; they only know that producers are looted and that if the looting stops the looters will be without many of the resources they have come to expect. It follows, then, that the most adamant proponents of a mandatory public domain will be those who do not produce themselves. Since these people do not produce, they have nothing to trade to the producers for their goods. As a result, the only way they can acquire these goods is by stealing, and so they seek moral and legal sanction for theft. Thus the current copyright law is born, under which a copyrighted work falls out of copyright after the death of the creator plus around 70 years.
"But he's dead! He can't get anything from his creation anymore, so why can't we give it to the public??" Because it's not "ours" to give. If a man dies, we are not allowed to go loot his house. So why should we be able to loot his achievements? Copyrighted works, just like any other piece of property, can be left to an heir or sold to a customer.
more later
The public domain is the body of works that do not fall under copyright law. Here in "free" America, it is filled with works once copyrighted that are stolen from their owners after a period of time by the public in the name of the common good.
Supporters of the public domain cite its importance in promoting the free movement of ideas and the production of new creative works. Because the public domain is perceived at beneficial to society as a whole, it is deemed good and necessary. The main problem with this attitude, and the reason why a mandatory public domain should not be legally enforced, is that it relies on the idea that creations are only the property of their creators by privilege. That is, no one has a natural right to his own work, but is granted that right by those who did not create it. What this amounts to is that creations belong to anyone and everyone but the person who actually created them. This, however, is diametrically opposed to the workings of a free society. No man can claim ownership of another man’s product (or property) unless he acquires it from the producer (or owner) by trade. To do so would be stealing. No benefit to the “public good” can be morally gained at the expense of man’s rights.
In addition, the supposed necessity of a public domain for creative activities should be apparently false in light of recent decades. The public domain has been relatively stagnant over the past few decades as the copyright term gets longer and longer. Works that should have entered the public domain during this time period did not because their terms were extended before they expired. However, there has been no halt in the production of creative works, nor any drastic social consequences resulting from the inability of people to produce unoriginal works.
In a rational, moral society of free trade, it would seem natural that men would want to exchange values for values and participate in the products of other men by paying for their effort. However, men have gotten used to being able to get things that they have not paid for and to demand things that don’t belong to them. They no longer consider whether it is right to loot the producers; they only know that producers are looted and that if the looting stops the looters will be without many of the resources they have come to expect. It follows, then, that the most adamant proponents of a mandatory public domain will be those who do not produce themselves. Since these people do not produce, they have nothing to trade to the producers for their goods. As a result, the only way they can acquire these goods is by stealing, and so they seek moral and legal sanction for theft. Thus the current copyright law is born, under which a copyrighted work falls out of copyright after the death of the creator plus around 70 years.
"But he's dead! He can't get anything from his creation anymore, so why can't we give it to the public??" Because it's not "ours" to give. If a man dies, we are not allowed to go loot his house. So why should we be able to loot his achievements? Copyrighted works, just like any other piece of property, can be left to an heir or sold to a customer.
more later
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Sunday, March 21, 2004
Thursday, March 18, 2004
tallbladeofgrass: oo, or i could download "sailor moon - breast pump hentai"
tallbladeofgrass: that sounds interesting
Kishikaisei13: iv seen that
tallbladeofgrass: why do they call it breast-pump hentai?
Kishikaisei13: because its got sailor moon laying down with pump things on her breasts
Kishikaisei13: its pretty lame...less than half a minute long, and each breast is literally 3 times larger than the width of her body
Kishikaisei13: i measured
tallbladeofgrass: that sounds interesting
Kishikaisei13: iv seen that
tallbladeofgrass: why do they call it breast-pump hentai?
Kishikaisei13: because its got sailor moon laying down with pump things on her breasts
Kishikaisei13: its pretty lame...less than half a minute long, and each breast is literally 3 times larger than the width of her body
Kishikaisei13: i measured
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Monday, March 15, 2004
Humans can detect genetic differences between others and themselves in the scent of the other people. Generally, the more similar one's genetic code to another person's, the less attracted one will be to him or her. This is evolution's way of preventing incest-related mutations.
So, next time you're on a date with someone you don't like, instead of saying "i'm not attracted to you," say "i'm sorry, your genetic code is just too similar to mine."
So, next time you're on a date with someone you don't like, instead of saying "i'm not attracted to you," say "i'm sorry, your genetic code is just too similar to mine."
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Monday, March 08, 2004
The Evils of Affirmative Action
Affirmative action is stupid and wrong. At best it's a misapplication of truth and at worst it's a horrible campaign of reverse discrimination and neglect of truth. It rests on several ideas: 1) racial discrimination against minorities in choosing people for skill-based positions is wrong. 2) the sins of the father should be visited on the son. 3) the ends justify the means. 4) racial discrimination against the majority in choosing people for skill-based positions is right.
These are all outrages against humanity. It's obvious what these sorts of ideas imply, but none of affirmative action's proponents will admit it. The idea behind affirmative action is that "we" must atone for what "we" did to minorities in the first half of the 20th century. Several things wrong with the aforementioned belief. First of all, "we" did not do anything to minorities in the first half of the 20th century. The people under the discrimination boot before the civil rights movement are not the ones looking for jobs and trying to get into college now. This means that the people who are being punished are the children of past offenders: the sins of the father are being visited on the son. Nobody really thinks it's okay to punish people for things they didn't do, but if we sugar-coat it with a lot of platitudes about "evening the playing field" we can pretend that's not what we're really doing. Second of all, how does reversing the discrimination process atone for past discrimination? Now we discriminate against the majority instead of the minority. To translate this phenomena into a more obviously criminal example, imagine a man arrested for robbery. We'll call his victim John. Imagine that his sentence is not jail or community service, but to "atone for his past misdeeds" by stealing from his family and giving what he steals to John. Alternatively, imagine that the court rules that the property of the thief's children should be seized and given to John. No one would say that this is just. Why not? As countless children are reminded by their parents, "two wrongs don't make a right." The fact that Suzie was mean to you doesn't mean you can hit her. Same thing. It is completely immoral to force our thief to steal from his family, or from anyone, in order to pay back what he has taken from John. It is equally immoral to force our thief's children to pay John's debts. Affirmative action is immoral on equal grounds. It seeks to make up for past wrongs by committing the same wrongs against the descendents of the wrongdoers.
Now affirmative action proponents will cry in indignation, "but we are not discriminating against anyone!" Yes, you are. In making sure you accept a certain number of minority citizens into your school or workplace, you are using race to determine eligibility for a position. Whether racial groups are robbed or rewarded based on their members' race, the ideology is the same. It is the belief that skin color or any equally irrelevant quality is an appropriate basis for--or rejection from--acceptance into skill-based positions. Affirmative action discriminates against the skilled and the qualified in favor of the quota. It rejects achievement over diversity, the earned over the accidental.
"But wait!" they shout, "Affirmative action just levels the playing field!!!" What does that even mean? To the affirmative actionists, it means compensating for a person's lack of apparent qualification for a position by accepting him based on something other than qualifications. This is ludicrous. If you ran a soccer league and one team was better than the other because it was richer and had more training, would you make all the members of the better team wear lead weights in their shoes to "even the playing field"? Of course not. If you were a high school teacher and some of your students did poorly on an exam because they have to have an after-school job to help support their family, would you give them As anyway to "even the playing field"? Of course not. It doesn't matter that one team is better because it is rich or that one student is better at math because he has more time to study. The fact is that one team and one student IS better and should be rewarded on that basis. The fact of the matter is, the poor team does not deserve a trophy just because they didn't have the money to get as good as the other team. Likewise, the busy student does not deserve a high grade--the measure of a person's level of understanding or skill in a subject--for a class he does not understand, regardless of why he does not understand it. Rewarding people who haven't earned those rewards is a disservice to both the recipient and others. It robs those who deserve the reward from what they deserve and it propels the recipient through life with a distorted view of what he has achieved. If the busy student should fail math but passes because his teacher feels sorry for him, he will have that much more trouble in the next class. People should not pass classes unless they have mastered the material enough to pass it, and people should not get into college unless they have demonstrated that they have the skill and the intelligence to deserve to be there. If our primary concern is "evening the playing field" in this sense, there should be no playing field at all. What is the point of competitive arena if all the competitors are the same or if the more skilled competitor is put in a cage and the less skilled armed with a pistol? The fact that I am skilled than you because I was more advantaged than you, financially or otherwise, does not change the fact that I am more skilled. If i have a degree in civil engineering and you dropped out of college before you finished yours because you couldn't afford to go there anymore, people should still hire me to build their bridges because I have the skill to do so.
Let's examine the "evening the playing field" metaphor more closely. Imagine two teams--red and blue--who come to a field to play soccer, and find that it is slanted toward the red team's goal. In a literal sense, "evening the playing field" would mean taking dirt from the high side and putting it on the low side so that the resulting field is level. It would not mean having the two teams switch side for half the game, nor would it mean starting red with 4 goals. If affirmative actionists want to use this metaphor, they should use it correctly. To "even the playing field" entails changing the environment of play so that neither team is at an advantage from current environmental situation. It does not entail compensating for one group's lack of skill. If affirmative action were simply a leveling device, it would not involve forced acceptance of certain groups of people into positions that their skill alone could not get them into. It would merely mean that only relevant factors were taken into account when choosing people to fill a position.
I cannot stress enough the irrelevance of the determining factors of a person's skill level. It does not matter WHY you are unfit for a position. If you are unfit, you should not be hired. Likewise, if you did not pass high school, you should not go to college. You are not ready for the job; you are not ready for the school. It is not an attack on anyone's character to say that he is unqualified. It merely means that he needs to take the necessary steps to become qualified or else look for a position for which he IS qualified. If you did poorly in high school because you went to a school with bad teachers so you didn't learn anything, that doesn't mean that you should now get a free ride to a highly competitive university. It means that you should find a school that you are qualified for, based on your skill level, and acquire more knowledge and skill so that you will now be qualified. The same holds for jobs. The acceptance letter, the job, and the trophy should ALWAYS go to the person most qualified to receive it, no matter why the other competitors are not qualified.
Another philosophy which governs affirmative action but which no affirmative actionist will ever admit is "the ends justify the means." Suppose accepting applicants based on race WAS moral, or even the best thing to do. It would still be immoral for anyone to force any institution to practice that policy. Unprovoked force is never moral. "The common good" and other such nonsense is no justification for force. With regards to public education and government employment, affirmative action is still unacceptable because it is not in any institution's rational self-interest to accept unqualified applicants over qualified applicants to its programs. The ends--that minorities or previously disadvantaged people will be compensated for their disadvantages--does not justify the means--forcing institutions to accept applicants based on race.
We can only achieve actual justice in hiring and school acceptance if these processes become colorblind and if the institutionalization of discrimination ceases. Once the goverment stops telling minorities that they have the right to demand things that they haven't earned, stops rewarding disadvantage over qualification, and stops forcing institutions to follow suit, affirmative action and its evils will cease. People will begin to award jobs out of appreciation rather than guilt. Students will no longer feel that they or their fellow-students have not earned the right to be at the institution of their choice. Teachers will no longer have to condescend to their classes in order to make sure that the lowest common denominator is satisfied. Men will be free.
Affirmative action is stupid and wrong. At best it's a misapplication of truth and at worst it's a horrible campaign of reverse discrimination and neglect of truth. It rests on several ideas: 1) racial discrimination against minorities in choosing people for skill-based positions is wrong. 2) the sins of the father should be visited on the son. 3) the ends justify the means. 4) racial discrimination against the majority in choosing people for skill-based positions is right.
These are all outrages against humanity. It's obvious what these sorts of ideas imply, but none of affirmative action's proponents will admit it. The idea behind affirmative action is that "we" must atone for what "we" did to minorities in the first half of the 20th century. Several things wrong with the aforementioned belief. First of all, "we" did not do anything to minorities in the first half of the 20th century. The people under the discrimination boot before the civil rights movement are not the ones looking for jobs and trying to get into college now. This means that the people who are being punished are the children of past offenders: the sins of the father are being visited on the son. Nobody really thinks it's okay to punish people for things they didn't do, but if we sugar-coat it with a lot of platitudes about "evening the playing field" we can pretend that's not what we're really doing. Second of all, how does reversing the discrimination process atone for past discrimination? Now we discriminate against the majority instead of the minority. To translate this phenomena into a more obviously criminal example, imagine a man arrested for robbery. We'll call his victim John. Imagine that his sentence is not jail or community service, but to "atone for his past misdeeds" by stealing from his family and giving what he steals to John. Alternatively, imagine that the court rules that the property of the thief's children should be seized and given to John. No one would say that this is just. Why not? As countless children are reminded by their parents, "two wrongs don't make a right." The fact that Suzie was mean to you doesn't mean you can hit her. Same thing. It is completely immoral to force our thief to steal from his family, or from anyone, in order to pay back what he has taken from John. It is equally immoral to force our thief's children to pay John's debts. Affirmative action is immoral on equal grounds. It seeks to make up for past wrongs by committing the same wrongs against the descendents of the wrongdoers.
Now affirmative action proponents will cry in indignation, "but we are not discriminating against anyone!" Yes, you are. In making sure you accept a certain number of minority citizens into your school or workplace, you are using race to determine eligibility for a position. Whether racial groups are robbed or rewarded based on their members' race, the ideology is the same. It is the belief that skin color or any equally irrelevant quality is an appropriate basis for--or rejection from--acceptance into skill-based positions. Affirmative action discriminates against the skilled and the qualified in favor of the quota. It rejects achievement over diversity, the earned over the accidental.
"But wait!" they shout, "Affirmative action just levels the playing field!!!" What does that even mean? To the affirmative actionists, it means compensating for a person's lack of apparent qualification for a position by accepting him based on something other than qualifications. This is ludicrous. If you ran a soccer league and one team was better than the other because it was richer and had more training, would you make all the members of the better team wear lead weights in their shoes to "even the playing field"? Of course not. If you were a high school teacher and some of your students did poorly on an exam because they have to have an after-school job to help support their family, would you give them As anyway to "even the playing field"? Of course not. It doesn't matter that one team is better because it is rich or that one student is better at math because he has more time to study. The fact is that one team and one student IS better and should be rewarded on that basis. The fact of the matter is, the poor team does not deserve a trophy just because they didn't have the money to get as good as the other team. Likewise, the busy student does not deserve a high grade--the measure of a person's level of understanding or skill in a subject--for a class he does not understand, regardless of why he does not understand it. Rewarding people who haven't earned those rewards is a disservice to both the recipient and others. It robs those who deserve the reward from what they deserve and it propels the recipient through life with a distorted view of what he has achieved. If the busy student should fail math but passes because his teacher feels sorry for him, he will have that much more trouble in the next class. People should not pass classes unless they have mastered the material enough to pass it, and people should not get into college unless they have demonstrated that they have the skill and the intelligence to deserve to be there. If our primary concern is "evening the playing field" in this sense, there should be no playing field at all. What is the point of competitive arena if all the competitors are the same or if the more skilled competitor is put in a cage and the less skilled armed with a pistol? The fact that I am skilled than you because I was more advantaged than you, financially or otherwise, does not change the fact that I am more skilled. If i have a degree in civil engineering and you dropped out of college before you finished yours because you couldn't afford to go there anymore, people should still hire me to build their bridges because I have the skill to do so.
Let's examine the "evening the playing field" metaphor more closely. Imagine two teams--red and blue--who come to a field to play soccer, and find that it is slanted toward the red team's goal. In a literal sense, "evening the playing field" would mean taking dirt from the high side and putting it on the low side so that the resulting field is level. It would not mean having the two teams switch side for half the game, nor would it mean starting red with 4 goals. If affirmative actionists want to use this metaphor, they should use it correctly. To "even the playing field" entails changing the environment of play so that neither team is at an advantage from current environmental situation. It does not entail compensating for one group's lack of skill. If affirmative action were simply a leveling device, it would not involve forced acceptance of certain groups of people into positions that their skill alone could not get them into. It would merely mean that only relevant factors were taken into account when choosing people to fill a position.
I cannot stress enough the irrelevance of the determining factors of a person's skill level. It does not matter WHY you are unfit for a position. If you are unfit, you should not be hired. Likewise, if you did not pass high school, you should not go to college. You are not ready for the job; you are not ready for the school. It is not an attack on anyone's character to say that he is unqualified. It merely means that he needs to take the necessary steps to become qualified or else look for a position for which he IS qualified. If you did poorly in high school because you went to a school with bad teachers so you didn't learn anything, that doesn't mean that you should now get a free ride to a highly competitive university. It means that you should find a school that you are qualified for, based on your skill level, and acquire more knowledge and skill so that you will now be qualified. The same holds for jobs. The acceptance letter, the job, and the trophy should ALWAYS go to the person most qualified to receive it, no matter why the other competitors are not qualified.
Another philosophy which governs affirmative action but which no affirmative actionist will ever admit is "the ends justify the means." Suppose accepting applicants based on race WAS moral, or even the best thing to do. It would still be immoral for anyone to force any institution to practice that policy. Unprovoked force is never moral. "The common good" and other such nonsense is no justification for force. With regards to public education and government employment, affirmative action is still unacceptable because it is not in any institution's rational self-interest to accept unqualified applicants over qualified applicants to its programs. The ends--that minorities or previously disadvantaged people will be compensated for their disadvantages--does not justify the means--forcing institutions to accept applicants based on race.
We can only achieve actual justice in hiring and school acceptance if these processes become colorblind and if the institutionalization of discrimination ceases. Once the goverment stops telling minorities that they have the right to demand things that they haven't earned, stops rewarding disadvantage over qualification, and stops forcing institutions to follow suit, affirmative action and its evils will cease. People will begin to award jobs out of appreciation rather than guilt. Students will no longer feel that they or their fellow-students have not earned the right to be at the institution of their choice. Teachers will no longer have to condescend to their classes in order to make sure that the lowest common denominator is satisfied. Men will be free.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
"We see it in the appalling dictum of 'Hate the sin, but love the sinner'—which would have us condemn death camps but send Hitler a box of Godiva chocolates."
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/valentinesday2004.shtml
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/valentinesday2004.shtml
horrible quotes from a recent reading assignment:
"to understand and be understood is the most basic human right...it is the right upon which all other human rights ultimately come to depend, and it may be show to have always been central, at least in theory, to the functioning of democratic society."
yeah, i mean, as long as you understand why i'm killing you, it's okay for me to kill you!
"it becomes very difficult to speak of inequality in a purely objective way."
...*sigh*...why do people have such a hard time understanding that justice is not subjective?
"Access will be of little benefit to large portions of the pupulation, unless it is accompanied by equipment and training that allow effective use of that access. what we need the ni s a 'right to access' in the broader sence of a 'right to benefit from access'."
apparently now all people have the RIGHT to training on how to use information technologies. why are people such idiots?
"a small but substantial proportion of internet users have become "internet dropouts' ecause they do not find the information online to be useful or interesting. a similar phenomenon has been observed with certain ethnic and language groups, including African-Americans. Research and policy should be directid to identifying what is considered essential information in various communities, and creating conditions that ensure the wide availability of such information."
or maybe these minority groups should provide their OWN content, which will cause other members of their group to have interesting information to look at. or maybe these people think that the internet just appeared there, rather than being produced by real people who were producing things to serve their own interests. by all means, we should surely force people to create content that will interest groups of our choosing, rather than of theirs.
"to understand and be understood is the most basic human right...it is the right upon which all other human rights ultimately come to depend, and it may be show to have always been central, at least in theory, to the functioning of democratic society."
yeah, i mean, as long as you understand why i'm killing you, it's okay for me to kill you!
"it becomes very difficult to speak of inequality in a purely objective way."
...*sigh*...why do people have such a hard time understanding that justice is not subjective?
"Access will be of little benefit to large portions of the pupulation, unless it is accompanied by equipment and training that allow effective use of that access. what we need the ni s a 'right to access' in the broader sence of a 'right to benefit from access'."
apparently now all people have the RIGHT to training on how to use information technologies. why are people such idiots?
"a small but substantial proportion of internet users have become "internet dropouts' ecause they do not find the information online to be useful or interesting. a similar phenomenon has been observed with certain ethnic and language groups, including African-Americans. Research and policy should be directid to identifying what is considered essential information in various communities, and creating conditions that ensure the wide availability of such information."
or maybe these minority groups should provide their OWN content, which will cause other members of their group to have interesting information to look at. or maybe these people think that the internet just appeared there, rather than being produced by real people who were producing things to serve their own interests. by all means, we should surely force people to create content that will interest groups of our choosing, rather than of theirs.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
and sara's anti-technology aura strikes again! apparently everyone else can read my blog just fine, but on my own computer none of the text shows up except for a few punctuation marks here and there. i can highlight it all, but i can't see it. i guess there's nothing to do now except watch gilmore girls!
Monday, March 01, 2004
more quotes from days of not-so-yore:
tallbladeofgrass (9:27:51 PM): stop being online but not there!
Kishikaisei13 (9:29:38 PM): no
Kishikaisei13 (9:29:39 PM): er
Kishikaisei13 (9:29:41 PM): dammit
Kishikaisei13 (10:56:50 PM): ya know...i think that "boo" is a marker of the very close relationship between horror and sexuality. dracula is basically a character representing uncontained human sexual and erotic desire..."boo" is just one 'b' away from "boob"
Kishikaisei13 (12:09:48 AM): booze...duck hunt....all i need is mistletoe and a sister, and it'd be a regular redneck christmas
tallbladeofgrass (9:27:51 PM): stop being online but not there!
Kishikaisei13 (9:29:38 PM): no
Kishikaisei13 (9:29:39 PM): er
Kishikaisei13 (9:29:41 PM): dammit
Kishikaisei13 (10:56:50 PM): ya know...i think that "boo" is a marker of the very close relationship between horror and sexuality. dracula is basically a character representing uncontained human sexual and erotic desire..."boo" is just one 'b' away from "boob"
Kishikaisei13 (12:09:48 AM): booze...duck hunt....all i need is mistletoe and a sister, and it'd be a regular redneck christmas
Quotes from the days of yore:
Prof Dimuro: So if your interpretation was that Hester is really a man, and you went and found all this evidence to back it up--of course, that wouldn’t be a very good interpretation…although, you know, all that business with Dimmesdale and Chillingworth being roommates and so forth and all the penetration imagery…Anyway…
Prof. Dimuro: Nathaniel Hawthorne was quite the looker. I mean when people met him, they were probably intimidated by his sheer beauty. The elegance, the poise, the HYGIENE!....I don't know where this was going...
LeftHandOfFunk: and legolas still kicks ass
LeftHandOfFunk: sigh...he's so dreamy..
tallbladeofgrass: should i be worried?
LeftHandOfFunk: yes. he's mine. step off, bitch *snap snap*
BruinTrav: i earns me livin' with this body, baby
BruinTrav: nobody gets a free ride
BruinTrav: as soon as i have my surgery i'll have bigger breasts, too
BruinTrav: you know you should just rename your profile "A shrine to Travis DeLong"
tallbladeofgrass: i'm enjoying all the japanese school-girl things going on on this page
tallbladeofgrass: you’re very odd, have i been rubbing off on you?
tallbladeofgrass: i also enjoy the fact that i'm not wearing pants
tallbladeofgrass: but the rest of the people listening to the show are lame, so i win with no pants!
SmthOprtr22: you are a giant maurading breast
*note from ben regarding the above quote*
BobTheKillerGoat: pat ninjaed my marauding breast expression
SmthOprtr22: why won't hte perfect girl fall into my lap?
tallbladeofgrass: oh, so you want a lap dance eh?
SmthOprtr22: i said fall, not grind
tallbladeofgrass: gotta crawl before you can walk
SmthOprtr22: it's totally obvious she doesn't have a penis
LeftHandOfFunk: oh! if they made fish taquitos, i could call them faquitos!
Eclipse33k: hmm, i made a list of all the stuff i have to do
Eclipse33k: it's pretty long, but i put talk online on it, so at least i'm getting something done
LeftHandOfFunk: i have made a decision about ddr on the computer...
LeftHandOfFunk: its like sex....soo good...but really exhausting...they need a ddr equivalent of a cigarette after sex...i need to lose my edge right now...
tallbladeofgrass: you want to have my baby don't you
BobTheKillerGoat: why yes i do
Kurushimi13: and i thought legolas was the latest object of woman fancy?
Kurushimi13: or is that just me and lauren?
tallbladeofgrass (just after suggesting that one must be really smart in order to get the scholarship that I have): damn, i just dropped my donut in my milk
Kurushimi13: for some reason, "eat" doesnt seem to go well with "chicken soup"...
Kurushimi13: yea, well i cant wear pants on my neck
BobTheKillerGoat (9:25:09 PM): i woke up an hour ago hehe
Kurushimi13: okay...wtf?!? how long has 'tomorrow' had only one 'm'?!?!
LeftHandOfFunk: 20 free nickels!! thats like....
LeftHandOfFunk: 20 x 30 cents!!
tallbladeofgrass: um, a nickel is worth 5 cents...
LeftHandOfFunk: yes well....i just happen to be have a very quotable something or other witty comment here, etc, etc
tallbladeofgrass: did that make any sense?
Kurushimi13: hmm...should i assume this white powdery stuff in my cereal isnt mold?
Kurushimi13: it doesnt taste bad or wrong...and iv already eaten almost all of it anyways....
Kurushimi13: ill assume its milk krusties and be done with it
Kurushimi13: hehe...i love being told im pretty ^_^
FixAllQueen: jpw
FixAllQueen: I mean
FixAllQueen: hi
Kurushimi13: after you left, all my roommates were like, "woah" and i was like "woah" and they were like "dude" and i was like "seriously" and then we played magic
JoeShamoe: my roommate's actually going to bed now
JoeShamoe: think i'll join him
Kishikaisei13: i get excited easily and speak w/o thinking...
tallbladeofgrass: i need to alter my dress
tallbladeofgrass: but i'm lazy
tallbladeofgrass: do it for me
SmthOprtr22: hehe, sure i'll alter as long as you promise to wear it when i'm done
Kishikaisei13: me and every other 13 year old girl!
Iulia: The damn library is full of books!
tallbladeofgrass: fi dolla!
dallasfan22izzo: wut?
tallbladeofgrass: house chicken free fo you!
dallasfan22izzo: this is why u shouldn't take drugs
"he's gay."
"what? how do you know?"
"it's called gaydar, my dear."
my mom: "what you really need to do is start DRINKING"
Prof Dimuro: So if your interpretation was that Hester is really a man, and you went and found all this evidence to back it up--of course, that wouldn’t be a very good interpretation…although, you know, all that business with Dimmesdale and Chillingworth being roommates and so forth and all the penetration imagery…Anyway…
Prof. Dimuro: Nathaniel Hawthorne was quite the looker. I mean when people met him, they were probably intimidated by his sheer beauty. The elegance, the poise, the HYGIENE!....I don't know where this was going...
LeftHandOfFunk: and legolas still kicks ass
LeftHandOfFunk: sigh...he's so dreamy..
tallbladeofgrass: should i be worried?
LeftHandOfFunk: yes. he's mine. step off, bitch *snap snap*
BruinTrav: i earns me livin' with this body, baby
BruinTrav: nobody gets a free ride
BruinTrav: as soon as i have my surgery i'll have bigger breasts, too
BruinTrav: you know you should just rename your profile "A shrine to Travis DeLong"
tallbladeofgrass: i'm enjoying all the japanese school-girl things going on on this page
tallbladeofgrass: you’re very odd, have i been rubbing off on you?
tallbladeofgrass: i also enjoy the fact that i'm not wearing pants
tallbladeofgrass: but the rest of the people listening to the show are lame, so i win with no pants!
SmthOprtr22: you are a giant maurading breast
*note from ben regarding the above quote*
BobTheKillerGoat: pat ninjaed my marauding breast expression
SmthOprtr22: why won't hte perfect girl fall into my lap?
tallbladeofgrass: oh, so you want a lap dance eh?
SmthOprtr22: i said fall, not grind
tallbladeofgrass: gotta crawl before you can walk
SmthOprtr22: it's totally obvious she doesn't have a penis
LeftHandOfFunk: oh! if they made fish taquitos, i could call them faquitos!
Eclipse33k: hmm, i made a list of all the stuff i have to do
Eclipse33k: it's pretty long, but i put talk online on it, so at least i'm getting something done
LeftHandOfFunk: i have made a decision about ddr on the computer...
LeftHandOfFunk: its like sex....soo good...but really exhausting...they need a ddr equivalent of a cigarette after sex...i need to lose my edge right now...
tallbladeofgrass: you want to have my baby don't you
BobTheKillerGoat: why yes i do
Kurushimi13: and i thought legolas was the latest object of woman fancy?
Kurushimi13: or is that just me and lauren?
tallbladeofgrass (just after suggesting that one must be really smart in order to get the scholarship that I have): damn, i just dropped my donut in my milk
Kurushimi13: for some reason, "eat" doesnt seem to go well with "chicken soup"...
Kurushimi13: yea, well i cant wear pants on my neck
BobTheKillerGoat (9:25:09 PM): i woke up an hour ago hehe
Kurushimi13: okay...wtf?!? how long has 'tomorrow' had only one 'm'?!?!
LeftHandOfFunk: 20 free nickels!! thats like....
LeftHandOfFunk: 20 x 30 cents!!
tallbladeofgrass: um, a nickel is worth 5 cents...
LeftHandOfFunk: yes well....i just happen to be have a very quotable something or other witty comment here, etc, etc
tallbladeofgrass: did that make any sense?
Kurushimi13: hmm...should i assume this white powdery stuff in my cereal isnt mold?
Kurushimi13: it doesnt taste bad or wrong...and iv already eaten almost all of it anyways....
Kurushimi13: ill assume its milk krusties and be done with it
Kurushimi13: hehe...i love being told im pretty ^_^
FixAllQueen: jpw
FixAllQueen: I mean
FixAllQueen: hi
Kurushimi13: after you left, all my roommates were like, "woah" and i was like "woah" and they were like "dude" and i was like "seriously" and then we played magic
JoeShamoe: my roommate's actually going to bed now
JoeShamoe: think i'll join him
Kishikaisei13: i get excited easily and speak w/o thinking...
tallbladeofgrass: i need to alter my dress
tallbladeofgrass: but i'm lazy
tallbladeofgrass: do it for me
SmthOprtr22: hehe, sure i'll alter as long as you promise to wear it when i'm done
Kishikaisei13: me and every other 13 year old girl!
Iulia: The damn library is full of books!
tallbladeofgrass: fi dolla!
dallasfan22izzo: wut?
tallbladeofgrass: house chicken free fo you!
dallasfan22izzo: this is why u shouldn't take drugs
"he's gay."
"what? how do you know?"
"it's called gaydar, my dear."
my mom: "what you really need to do is start DRINKING"
yet another ill-fated solution to my
"me: haha, that's funny, i'm posting it my profile! *paste*
aim: you have pasted too many characters! a maximum of 10 characters is allowed. you have tried to paste something lengthy and meaningful into your profile. we do not allow it! begone, ye overstuffer of aim profiles!
me: dammit...*paste plaintext*
aim: haha, sucker, you actually thought that would help? merely a ploy of ours to lure you into a false sense of security. delete your entire profile or SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES!!!!!!!!!!"
problem.
"me: haha, that's funny, i'm posting it my profile! *paste*
aim: you have pasted too many characters! a maximum of 10 characters is allowed. you have tried to paste something lengthy and meaningful into your profile. we do not allow it! begone, ye overstuffer of aim profiles!
me: dammit...*paste plaintext*
aim: haha, sucker, you actually thought that would help? merely a ploy of ours to lure you into a false sense of security. delete your entire profile or SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES!!!!!!!!!!"
problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)