I feel relieved that I voted. I went to the election office and just voted. It took me no more than10 minutes.
I feel even better that we can vote early. Where I live we can vote 35 days before a federal election and it is amazing that I need not wait for the first Tue in Nov to be able to vote.
I need not be preoccupied anymore with political debates, polls, or changing position/views mostly as I have made my mind up a few months ago and that was that.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Astounding
Please have a read of this article, Congressman draws fire for calling evolution, Big Bang ‘lies from the pit of hell’, and tell me that this is not absolutely insane.
In this day and age and in this great country of ours, a representative who is supposed to be a luminary evokes -with nonchalance and shallowness- some of the darkest moments in human history. I am talking about ignorance and total abdication of logic.
We are independent beings and we are not being directed to do or not do things by anybody. There can be no supreme being able to tell us what to do or not to do.
According to Gallup and quoted in the article above:
'The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for 30 years. In June, it released its latest findings, which showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.'
Can this be real? 46% of Americans think that we cannot explain our world without a God? I am ashamed of the vastness of people's ignorance and their stubbornness refusal of accepting a world working as it has from the beginning, independent of any gods. This cannot be about education. We spend vast amounts of money and resources on education and we cannot be that wrong. We just cannot.
So, what is the root cause of the vast numbers of Americans who think God is at center of their lives? Perhaps it is human nature and laziness. But perhaps it is our social structure. With faults and fissures that allow human mind to stray away from logic. Far, far away. As far away as the Milky Way.
We are independent beings and we are not being directed to do or not do things by anybody. There can be no supreme being able to tell us what to do or not to do.
According to Gallup and quoted in the article above:
'The Gallup Poll has been tracking Americans' views on creation and evolution for 30 years. In June, it released its latest findings, which showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.'
Can this be real? 46% of Americans think that we cannot explain our world without a God? I am ashamed of the vastness of people's ignorance and their stubbornness refusal of accepting a world working as it has from the beginning, independent of any gods. This cannot be about education. We spend vast amounts of money and resources on education and we cannot be that wrong. We just cannot.
So, what is the root cause of the vast numbers of Americans who think God is at center of their lives? Perhaps it is human nature and laziness. But perhaps it is our social structure. With faults and fissures that allow human mind to stray away from logic. Far, far away. As far away as the Milky Way.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
On social alcohol consumption and tolerance
Elaborating on my previous post, I think that societies that are indifferent (or tolerant) to alcohol consumption are more tolerant than societies that do not.
Examples: Pakistan versus Germany. Or Saudi Arabia versus Romania. Or Egypt versus Italy.
In addition, alcohol consumption can be a proxy for other types of substances, such as marijuana or other mildly attention/focus diverting substances. (To be clear, abuses at individual level are not to be considered relevant for this post.)
Getting back to the idea that alcohol consumption -at society levels- fosters tolerance let's zoom in on some reasons.
1. Creates substitutes for acceptance and, surely, creates a sense of brotherhood. Look at the beer evolution in Belgium or Holland: communities developed a sense of togetherness around monasteries, which then developed very creative beer brewing methods and flavors.
2. Promotes acceptance of different views during social gatherings. If you go to a wedding, say, and discuss -after a few drinks- about politics you get 'black listed' from ever going to weddings so you have an incentive to 'behave'.
3. Removes some opportunities from too much introspection. The results is that you do not need to worry about what you do not think about.
4. Quite possibly, changes perception of what matters at 'the deepest levels'. Young people are very easy to be influenced and the influence of alcohol overtakes the influence of any other indoctrinating thoughts.
5. Promotes the creation of knowledge paths/tracks indifferent to indoctrination. Knowing how to make beer (or whiskey or wine or brandy) and being able to do so can lead to financial independence. Who needs religion when they are self and fully sufficient? Taxation of alcohol has much more to do with -financial and thought- independence than with it being considered a 'vice', for sure.
We cannot discount the thought that alcohol production and consumption in Western societies (Europe) has led to more tolerant people. Alcohol and education, that is...
Examples: Pakistan versus Germany. Or Saudi Arabia versus Romania. Or Egypt versus Italy.
In addition, alcohol consumption can be a proxy for other types of substances, such as marijuana or other mildly attention/focus diverting substances. (To be clear, abuses at individual level are not to be considered relevant for this post.)
Getting back to the idea that alcohol consumption -at society levels- fosters tolerance let's zoom in on some reasons.
1. Creates substitutes for acceptance and, surely, creates a sense of brotherhood. Look at the beer evolution in Belgium or Holland: communities developed a sense of togetherness around monasteries, which then developed very creative beer brewing methods and flavors.
2. Promotes acceptance of different views during social gatherings. If you go to a wedding, say, and discuss -after a few drinks- about politics you get 'black listed' from ever going to weddings so you have an incentive to 'behave'.
3. Removes some opportunities from too much introspection. The results is that you do not need to worry about what you do not think about.
4. Quite possibly, changes perception of what matters at 'the deepest levels'. Young people are very easy to be influenced and the influence of alcohol overtakes the influence of any other indoctrinating thoughts.
5. Promotes the creation of knowledge paths/tracks indifferent to indoctrination. Knowing how to make beer (or whiskey or wine or brandy) and being able to do so can lead to financial independence. Who needs religion when they are self and fully sufficient? Taxation of alcohol has much more to do with -financial and thought- independence than with it being considered a 'vice', for sure.
We cannot discount the thought that alcohol production and consumption in Western societies (Europe) has led to more tolerant people. Alcohol and education, that is...
Sunday, September 30, 2012
On beer consumption per capita (as of 2011)
Beer consumption may be a proxy for social attributes that are very desirable. For instance, it is rare to drink beer all by yourself, just to get trashed. It takes too much beer to be able to get drunk quickly.
We drink beer with friends and family and the theory is that the more beer we drink the more friends and family relationships we possess. In a way, we can use beer consumption per capita as a gauge of social closeness.
Personally, I would not want to live in a country not in the top 20 on the list below...
Chart above can be found at http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-30/beer-reflection-world-economy
We drink beer with friends and family and the theory is that the more beer we drink the more friends and family relationships we possess. In a way, we can use beer consumption per capita as a gauge of social closeness.
Personally, I would not want to live in a country not in the top 20 on the list below...
Chart above can be found at http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-30/beer-reflection-world-economy
Thursday, September 27, 2012
On American constitutional stability (I)
Arguably, the US has had the most stable constitution in the Western hemisphere. Stability should be a good thing when it comes to constitutional concepts.
After all, the constitution is the framework around which all our government institutions functions. Justice, governance, openness, use of force, freedom of expression, and enforcement of rules are all the main foundation on which the institutions of our society function. We want stable institutions, don't we?
Yet, there are a few conflicts between stability and the evolutionary needs of a growing society. We can see the conflicts being played out in at least 2 major directions.
The first is centered around the 2nd Amendment which is interpreted as the unstoppable right of all Americans to have weapons. This is the text of the 2nd Amendment: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
The second conflict relates to the fact that we, as Americans, are under-represented in the Congress.
Since 1910 the number of Federal representative has remained constant across the years while the population has grown dramatically. We have had 435 Congressmen for the past 102 years and 100 Senators. For more details on apportionment, please see this US Census link.
Source: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
As far as the Senate, we have 100 Senators, so the apportionment is not population driven (2 per state).
The US population has evolved as detailed below.
Source: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
...To Be Continued
After all, the constitution is the framework around which all our government institutions functions. Justice, governance, openness, use of force, freedom of expression, and enforcement of rules are all the main foundation on which the institutions of our society function. We want stable institutions, don't we?
Yet, there are a few conflicts between stability and the evolutionary needs of a growing society. We can see the conflicts being played out in at least 2 major directions.
The first is centered around the 2nd Amendment which is interpreted as the unstoppable right of all Americans to have weapons. This is the text of the 2nd Amendment: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
The second conflict relates to the fact that we, as Americans, are under-represented in the Congress.
Since 1910 the number of Federal representative has remained constant across the years while the population has grown dramatically. We have had 435 Congressmen for the past 102 years and 100 Senators. For more details on apportionment, please see this US Census link.
Source: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
As far as the Senate, we have 100 Senators, so the apportionment is not population driven (2 per state).
The US population has evolved as detailed below.
Source: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
...To Be Continued
On Redistribution
We hear many commentators opine that governments should not 'redistribute' wealth from the rich to the poor. According to them, this kind of redistribution is what socialism is all about. I say: 'really'?
NFL takes money from rich team and gives the funds to the poorer teams. So does NHL and MLB, and almost all corporations. GE transfers money from more profitable subsidiaries to less profitable ones every day. Critics would say that corporations can do so as it is 'their money'. It is actually the shareholders' money.
If individuals redistribute funds and have no resources they may ask for a loan. And when that happens they engage yet another set of redistributive processes (where do financial institutions get their money if not from savers or from almighty Fed?).
When you save money to buy a car, a house, or a boat you actually redistribute money from present potential expenditures to future expenditures. When you give lunch money to your child you actually redistribute money from somebody -you- who has money to somebody who does not -your child-, for very legitimate -and moral and noble- reasons.
We are redistributing money every time when we engage in financial transactions. Why should the government not protect the interests of all of us by harnessing the power of redistribution? We, after all, can choose to move to another country with less public redistribution or we can elect representatives who support the notion that private redistribution is more effective than public redistribution. But maybe it is not that simple.
Given the 2007 private banking generated crisis we could successfully argue that the government is the only institution with authority, durability, and credibility to preserve the value of private redistribution over the long term. So, I say, public redistribution is actually more desirable over private redistributive processes, at least on large and public scales.
Long live public redistribution, I say. Private redistribution will always thrive, no matter what the government does, so it can fend for itself just fine.
NFL takes money from rich team and gives the funds to the poorer teams. So does NHL and MLB, and almost all corporations. GE transfers money from more profitable subsidiaries to less profitable ones every day. Critics would say that corporations can do so as it is 'their money'. It is actually the shareholders' money.
If individuals redistribute funds and have no resources they may ask for a loan. And when that happens they engage yet another set of redistributive processes (where do financial institutions get their money if not from savers or from almighty Fed?).
When you save money to buy a car, a house, or a boat you actually redistribute money from present potential expenditures to future expenditures. When you give lunch money to your child you actually redistribute money from somebody -you- who has money to somebody who does not -your child-, for very legitimate -and moral and noble- reasons.
We are redistributing money every time when we engage in financial transactions. Why should the government not protect the interests of all of us by harnessing the power of redistribution? We, after all, can choose to move to another country with less public redistribution or we can elect representatives who support the notion that private redistribution is more effective than public redistribution. But maybe it is not that simple.
Given the 2007 private banking generated crisis we could successfully argue that the government is the only institution with authority, durability, and credibility to preserve the value of private redistribution over the long term. So, I say, public redistribution is actually more desirable over private redistributive processes, at least on large and public scales.
Long live public redistribution, I say. Private redistribution will always thrive, no matter what the government does, so it can fend for itself just fine.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Tony Scott And Rational Decisions
Tony Scott committed suicide a few days ago. He was 68. He was a rather successful movies director and many people will remember his movies forever. I will always remember Top Gun with Tom Cruise.
His suicide is debated by the media and across the blogosphere and some of us wonder whether committing suicide can ever be justified, mostly when you reach a certain age, status, wealth, family, and prestige. I am of the belief that committing suicide can be fully rational under some circumstances regardless of status and age.
Getting old is psychologically painful enough when you are healthy but imagine getting old while you are ill must be exponentially worse. Imagine then that you would have to budget for medical expenses and prescriptions and all you have worked for is just a distant memory. Why would you want to get much older past a certain age?
Everything you stand for is behind you and it feels like hiking up a mountain where the views around you get wider and wider and the details get less and less important. So, when you become old, living day by day gets more and more painful as there are more and more details that you lose. Perspective wins and daily details become pure repetition.
Many retirement planners and tools would tell you to plan to live 40 or 50 years after retirement date but the truth is that you can control precisely how long you are going to live past any arbitrary date. So, why would you plan for something unknown when you can plan for something known and as clear as the law of gravitation?
His suicide is debated by the media and across the blogosphere and some of us wonder whether committing suicide can ever be justified, mostly when you reach a certain age, status, wealth, family, and prestige. I am of the belief that committing suicide can be fully rational under some circumstances regardless of status and age.
Getting old is psychologically painful enough when you are healthy but imagine getting old while you are ill must be exponentially worse. Imagine then that you would have to budget for medical expenses and prescriptions and all you have worked for is just a distant memory. Why would you want to get much older past a certain age?
Everything you stand for is behind you and it feels like hiking up a mountain where the views around you get wider and wider and the details get less and less important. So, when you become old, living day by day gets more and more painful as there are more and more details that you lose. Perspective wins and daily details become pure repetition.
Many retirement planners and tools would tell you to plan to live 40 or 50 years after retirement date but the truth is that you can control precisely how long you are going to live past any arbitrary date. So, why would you plan for something unknown when you can plan for something known and as clear as the law of gravitation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)