Onyx Raven

The 5th of November

2011-11-05T14:28:00.001-05:00

I just posted my rendition of the famous rhyme on Facebook:

“Remember, remember,
That 'V for Vendetta' (http://bit.ly/sVMFvG)
And the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 (http://bit.ly/tMvLa7)
Are radically different,
Before making assertions
About the 5th of November. (Okay, it's not as catchy as the original)” –Me, 2:02pm CDT, 11/5/2011

I just have a small problem with the modern treatment of this day. I understand the desire to have a powerful symbol, all the better if it is historical, to rally your cause around.

However, one should probably do a little light reading before deciding.

The main issue I have is with the use of the rhyme and the date. The remembrance of the day, historically, is a remembrance of treason. And not the ‘good’ kind of treason (i.e., freedom fighting).

Anyone remember why Guy Fawkes was hanging out in a basement on the morning of November 5th, 1605?

Well, he was there to light the gunpowder stored in the undercroft the conspirators rented, conveniently located directly below the House of Lords. Why did he (and his conspirators) want to blow up the House of Lords while it sat in a session of Parliament?

Largely because the king, King James I, was a protestant, and the conspirators were going to simultaneously kidnap his (9-year-old) daughter, Princess Elizabeth, and install her as a Catholic queen (and presumably their puppet).

The anonymous letter sent to a member of Parliament (4th Baron Monteagle) warning the Catholics to stay away that day, which was dutifully shown to the King, led to the arrest of Guy Fawkes in the basement. (Did you know we call men ‘guys’ because of Guy Fawkes, and that until the term came to America with the colonials it was a derogatory term for sloppily-dressed men?)

Now, as I said, the movie ‘V for Vendetta’ is what we are actually referencing in modern terms, like when Anonymous wears the Guy Fawkes masks made famous by … the movie. Guy Fawkes (the historical person) was distinctly not wearing a mask. He had no reason to. One of his few admirable traits was that, upon arrest, he basically said, “Yeah, I was gonna blow you a**holes up!” So at least he was proud until he jumped off the gallows to avoid more torture.

My point is that is is odd to me to use the symbols without properly referencing the movie. Obviously, the masks are a blatant movie reference, but then the masks themselves reference Guy Fawkes, and then people get all teary-eyed about how he was executed in his attempt to overthrow tyranny even though that is the furthest from the truth.

As someone who, to the everlasting annoyance of my friends, actually cites works when making assertions in conversation, I find the disregard for history unsettling. Use the symbol, reinvent it, but at least understand what you are doing.

The closest comparison I can think of is “Beware the Ides of March,” which is not remembered as ‘overthrow tyranny via assassination,’ but rather, beware treachery.

Which is exactly the message of the old English rhyme.

Personally, I find the anonymous letter writer more heroic, for preventing senseless violence and death.

RTFM.
QED.

- E

The Weakerthans: Sounds Familiar

2011-07-19T21:30:00.001-05:00

I love The Weakerthans for the poetry of their songs, and especially the odd rhythms. Perhaps my favorite songs is off their album Fallow (yes, from 1997... so what?). Here’s how any old lyrics site has the lyrics to the song:

We emerged from youth all wide-eyed like the rest. Shedding skin faster than skin can grow, and armed with hammers, feathers, blunt knives: words, to meet and to define and to... but you must know the same games that we played in dirt, in dusty school yards has found a higher pitch and broader scale than we feared possible, and someone must be picked last, and one must bruise and one must fail. And that still twitching bird was so deceived by a window, so we eulogized fondly, we dug deep and threw its elegant plumage and frantic black eyes in a hole, and rushed out to kill something new, so we could bury that too.
The first chapters of lives almost made us give up altogether. Pushed towards tired forms of self immolation that seemed so original. I must, we must never stop watching the sky with our hands in our pockets, stop peering in windows when we know doors are shut. Stop yelling small stories and bad jokes and sorrows, and my voice will scratch to yell many more, but before I spill the things I mean to hide away, or gouge my eyes with platitudes of sentiment, I'll drown the urge for permanence and certainty; crouch down and scrawl my name with yours in wet cement.

Two paragraphs of prose. Which is fine. It’s interesting to see it written that way. Especially when it sounds like this (he’s singing it faster than the album here, too):

Now perhaps you see how this form of the lyrics is not capturing the poetry of the lyrics. So, here is how I laid out the lyrics. My blog is skinny, so I’ve capitalized and bolded new lines.

We emerged from youth all wide-eyed like the rest.
Shedding skin
Faster than skin can grow,
And armed with hammers, feathers, blunt knives: words, to meet and to define and to...
But you must know
The same games that we played in dirt,
In dusty school yards has found a higher pitch and broader scale
Than we feared possible, and someone must be picked last,
And one must bruise and one must fail.
And that still twitching bird was so
Deceived by a window,
So we eulogized fondly, we dug deep and threw
Its elegant plumage and frantic black eyes in a hole,
Then rushed out to kill something new,
So we could bury that too.
The first chapters of lives almost made us give up altogether.
Pushed towards tired forms of self immolation
That seemed so original. I must,
We must never stop
Watching the sky with our hands in our pockets, stop
Peering in windows when we know doors are shut.
Stop yelling small stories and bad jokes and sorrows, and
My voice will scratch to yell
Many more, but
Before I spill the things I mean to hide away,
Or gouge my eyes with platitudes of sentiment,
I'll drown the urge for permanence and certainty;
Crouch down and scrawl my name with yours in
Wet
Cement.

I feel that is much more satisfying written out that way. And about 100 times more interesting. But really, you need to listen to the recording. Try to follow along with the prose version, then try to follow with my poetry version. Interesting, eh?

The Source of Dirt

2011-07-10T16:55:00.001-05:00

Cleaning the Garage

2011-03-25T20:02:00.001-05:00

We got our dumpster today, which is super exciting. Also, they delivered a 30yd instead of a 20yd, which I guess is an added bonus.

It turned out well, because the crap in the garage took up a lot of space…

I didn’t remember my resolve to take a before picture, as I was super excited to start. Didn’t remember until I was halfway done, so it was moot. However, let me put it this way: a) I’ve made a good dent in a 30 cubic yard dumpster; b) before when you opened the door, all you saw was a sea of trash, couldn’t even walk in.

Here’s some highlights:

Old glass storm windows
The extra pieces for the ‘new’ gutters, including a ton of connectors
The old gutters. And their connectors.
3 lawnmowers and a snowblower.
Old TV.
LP gas heater.
An entire wok set, still in the packaging (I kept that).
Many hockey sticks.
Clothes hangers. This guy had a problem. We find them everywhere. In this case, even attached to the spring for the garage door.
Lots of lumber, the good stuff I’m keeping.
1.5 rear spoilers to an unknown car.
An old windshield wiper, in the new wiper’s box.
A crate that seemed to be purpose built to hold his old paint can lids.
The old garage (?) window.
Empty packaging, empty boxes.
An ice-hole drill thingy for ice fishing.
Lots of little bits of things: tiny pieces of foam insulation (less than 1 sqft), 6inch long pieces of downspout, 1ft long pieces of lumber. What did he expect to do with these things?
6ft long, 1/4”ish thick, 6” wide piece of aluminum. To the scrappers!
Some sort of large pavilion-y tent thing.
And.. a kitchen sink. No joke.

It seems like whoever it was that packed the majority of this shit in there saved the old broken whatever whenever he replaced something. When we first moved in we got rid of an old dishwasher that was in there, and the dishwasher in the kitchen when we moved in was already from the 80s or 90s. That means the ‘old dishwasher’ sat in that garage for probably 25 years, through at least 2 subsequent owners before we got rid of it.

The Right of the People

2011-03-09T21:20:00.001-06:00

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Today, the Wisconsin Senate illegally voted through a bill that removes fundamental rights of the working people.

Today, in Michigan, the Senate passed a bill that allows the governor to declare a state of fiscal emergency (state of emergency law? sound familiar?) that allows the state government to dissolve contracts, dissolve unions, even dissolve town governments, and replace them with a unilateral dictator who can be paid an unlimited salary.

Today, unions (human rights) are under attack in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Idaho, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Illinois, Tennessee, the list goes on.

Today, the fundamental rights of people in this country are under attack.

Today, we must exercise the right of the people to alter or abolish the government. We must do whatever we can, peacefully, to stop what the GOP and their cronies are trying to do. They have shown quite clearly that they will not obey the law. They held their votes tonight illegally. They have violated the state constitution to lock (and weld!) entrances to the capitol, denying constituents entrance.

Today, we must work to recall the republicans that are eligible. We must get out the vote in upcoming elections. We must challenge the illegal actions of the current government in courts of law.

Tomorrow, or the next day, when the Governor signs this bill into law, the public workers of the state of Wisconsin must stage a general strike, and all unions that are able must strike in solidarity, and the people must take to the streets, and we must take our government back.

This is What Class Warfare Looks Like

2011-02-22T01:00:00.001-06:00

“It is time for us all
To decide who we are
Do we fight for the right
To a night at the opera now?
Have you asked of yourselves
What's the price you might pay?
Is it simply a game
For rich young boys to play?
The color of the world
Is changing day by day...
Red - the blood of angry men!
Black - the dark of ages past!
Red - a world about to dawn!
Black - the night that ends at last!”
- Les Miserables

Today’s inspirational quote comes from Les Miserables (the musical), an apt source as you will see.

A favorite chant of protestors against Scott Walker’s attack on unions is “this is what democracy looks like.” This fight is not limited to Wisconsin, it is not limited to public-sector unions, it is an attack on all working people. So I say: this is what class warfare looks like.

In 1789 in France, the First Estate (the clergy), owned 10% of the land, paid no taxes, and comprised .039% of the population. The Second Estate (the nobility), owned 25% of the land, paid no taxes, and comprised 1.5% of the population. Meanwhile, the Third Estate (the peasants) comprised 98% of the population and paid all of the taxes. ¹

In 2007 in the United States, the top 1% of the population owned 42.7% of the wealth, the next 19% owned 50.3% of the wealth, and the bottom 80% of the population owned a meager 7.0% of the wealth. And for a far more stark picture, the bottom 40% of the population own 0.3% of the wealth.² And after the financial collapse of 2008-2009, the poor have only gotten poorer.

Generally speaking, if you ask someone in this country what social class they belong too, they say the middle class.³ In fact, 59% claim to be ‘upper middle class’ or ‘middle class,’ while only 39% consider themselves to be ‘working class.’

I’ll give everyone a hint: it’s very likely that on the larger scale, you are poor.

Meanwhile, corporations, whose profits have increased by 39% in 2010, pay little to no taxes. In Wisconsin, two-thirds of corporations pay no taxes, and part of our current budget hole is due to the $117 million corporate tax cut passed by the Republicans.⁴

Republicans tend to heavily call for the elimination of ‘death tax,’ their hyped-up name for the inheritance tax. The inheritance tax affects only those who received inheritance over $5 million dollars at the federal level, and only 1.6% of Americans receive more than $100,000.⁵

Taxes have continuously been cut for the wealthy and corporations, more than for the middle class and the poor. The bottom 20% pay 16% of their income in taxes, the next 20% pay 20.5%, the next 20% pay 25.3%, the next 20% pay 28.5%. This makes up the bottom 80% of people.⁶

Now it gets interesting. The next 10% (making around $100k/year), pay 30.2%, the next 5% pay 31.2%, the next 4% pay 31.6%, and the top 1% of the population, taking in an average of $1.3 million a year, pay a 30.8% income tax. You will note that in the top 19% of the population the increase in the percent of income taxed is almost flat, and that the top 1% pay about the same amount of tax as those making $100k, less than what those just below them pay.⁷

Why all these numbers? Why the reference to the French Revolution?

To show a few stark realities: ‘trickle down economics’ is a fraudulent policy that aims at consolidating wealth, the United States is driven by capitalism and not democracy, and that the wealthy have been engaging in class warfare for some time already.

The wealthy, including corporations (which according to law and the Supreme Court are people—wait until they have voting rights), are and have been forming a fascist oligarchy. They only care about profit, their wealth, and their power, and they don’t care what happens to the rest of us.

They have waged a war of propaganda, convincing millions of working-class Americans to support them while they strip away rights and increase the financial burden of the poor. They have slowly broken the unions that built this country to limit organized resistance to their advance.

Deregulation led to the current financial collapse, which affects the poor far more than it affects the wealthy. ‘Trickle down economics’ has led to the rich consolidating and becoming richer while the poor become poorer.

With the wide gap in wealth distribution, the demise of unions, the rising price of food⁸, and the vast expenditures to benefit corporations and the wealthy (labeled as ‘tax cuts,’ not spending), the current situation in the United States reminds me rather much of France in 1789.

The wealthy and the conservatives have been fighting this class war already. Meanwhile, union membership has dropped from 45% of workers in 1950 to 7% today.

Those who are complaining about the benefits and wages of union workers, know this: it is not the unions’ fault, it is yours. You have not organized.

The only way to defeat oligarchy is for the people to fight back. The 80% of this country who are downtrodden and poor need to rise up and declare that the people rule this country, not the wealthy and the corporations.

What we have seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, Wisconsin, and elsewhere is the realization of people that they hold the power in the social contract. Many of these battles have just begun, and all are far from over.

The wealthy have been waging class warfare for decades, convincing the people that their best interests were served by the wealthy being wealthier.

Now the people have begun to wake up, and it is time for the people to fight.

¹ http://www.suite101.com/content/the-estates-general-a51288 Retrieved 2011-2-21.
² http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Retrieved 2011-2-21.
³ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/15/less-than-half-of-america_n_498943.html Retrieved 2011-2-21.
⁴ http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/whats-really-at-stake-in.html Retrieved 2011-2-21.
⁵ http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Retrieved 2011-2-21.
⁶ ibid.
⁷ ibid.
⁸ http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm Retrieved 2011-2-22.

“We all have to suffer”

2011-02-16T23:04:00.002-06:00

“First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
-Martin Niemöller¹

I’ve seen many people speak against the protesters and public workers in Wisconsin by saying ‘in this economy we all have to suffer.’

It’s true, we are all suffering. And most public workers (my family included) probably saw the increase in what they pay for their healthcare, pension, and other benefits coming. It was a pretty obvious move for Governor Walker.

This change represents a 7% pay cut for most public employees in Wisconsin². It is a falsehood that public employees have ‘paid nothing’ for their benefits. Generally speaking, public employees work for far lower wages than a private sector counterpart, and part of the exchange is the improved benefits. You can look at what a teacher makes, and decide for yourself.

And this is not necessarily the ‘only option’ that Governor Walker makes it out to be³. Other states have had similar issues and have come up with different solutions⁴.

This, however, is not the real issue. The real issue is the undermining of the basic rights of the citizens of this state.

Article 23, Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
(3). Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4). Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.⁵

It’s true, Scott Walker is not denying the ability to join a union, but he is taking away the fundamental power that a union has—the power of collective bargaining.

Without collective bargaining, a union only has one big option—to walk out, to strike. And this is not the best option for anyone—the state, the workers, or the people. And by law, public employees are prohibited from striking.⁶

And if you think that Scott Walker is only coming after the public employees, or that he’s only coming after the unions, you are mistaken.

¹http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... Retrieved 2011-2-16.
²http://www.nytimes.com/chrome/#/a/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17wisconsin.html Retrieved 2011-2-16.
³ http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/15/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-alternative-state-/ Retrieved 2011-2-16.
4 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021504339.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 Retrieved 2011-2-16.
⁵ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Retrieved 2011-2-16.
⁶ http://host.madison.com/article_194318e4-3a2b-11e0-86bd-001cc4c002e0.html Retrieved 2011-2-16.

Protest Resources–Oust Governor Walker

2011-02-16T19:53:00.002-06:00

Here are some great resources for everyone to use:

You can call the Governor’s office at 608-266-1212. It will say the voice message box is full. Just keep on the line as long as you can and it should go to a live person. Otherwise, keep trying to call back as you have time.
You can call 1-877-753-5578 to get in touch with your state representatives. Many message boxes are also full here, but keep trying!
NotMyWisconsin is largely a way to sign up for action alerts. scottwalkerwatch.com is another good resource, though it seems to be down right now.
There are many Facebook groups, 540,000 To See Scott Walker out of WI, January 2012 and Recall of Governor Scott Walker seem to be good ones.
My.Madison is a great place to get current local news about the situation.
As an alternative to calling (though calling is what we need right now), you can find out who your state legislators are and their contact, including email will be listed. Please write and keep writing!
Many hashtags are floating around out there for Twitter. Mine is #OustGovWalker, others include #NotMyWI, #WIUnion, #SolidarityWI, and #KillTheBill

Solidarity Forever.

Oust Governor Scott Walker

2011-02-16T00:52:00.003-06:00

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all." –Mario Savio¹

Solidarity to all those protesting Dictator Walker. We can't take 4 more years of his unilateral actions against the people of his state.

In 1911, Wisconsin became the very first state to enact workers compensation protections. In 1932 Wisconsin was the first state to enact unemployment compensation. And in 1959, Wisconsin was one of the first to enact a collective bargaining law for public employees.²

“Seven killed were on May 5, 1886 by state militia who fired into a crowd of 1,500 workers marching peacefully on behalf of the eight-hour day toward the Bay View Rolling Mills on Milwaukee’s lakefront.”³

Scott Walker has threatened the peaceful protests against his policies with the Wisconsin National Guard. This would be the first time the National Guard would be ordered against the citizens of this nation since 1968.

Scott Walker is a dictator. He enacts sweeping legislation from the executive branch, in violation of his constitutional mandate. When the people cry out against him, he threatens them with military reprisal.

This must end. We cannot lie down and let Scott Walker destroy everything the people of this state have worked for for the last hundred years.

I call upon the people of this state to sign a Recall Petition to oust Governor Scott Walker. Within 60 days of registering such a petition, we would need to gather at least 533,287 signatures.⁴I think there’s about 175,000 state and public workers who would be with me.

Unfortunately, we must wait until one year after he took office. In January 2012 I trust that such a petition will be circulated.

In the mean time, do what you can to “put your bodies upon the gears and upon the levers.”

And you must write letters, as many as you can, to your state representatives and to the governor’s office stating your views. Email is okay, but I would much rather flood the mail with letters of outrage against this dictator. On Twitter I am using the tag #OustGovWalker, and I encourage everyone to use it as well.

Solidarity Forever.

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Savio Retrieved 2011-02-16.
² http://www.wisconsinlaborhistory.org/?page_id=34 Retrieved 2011-02-16.
³ ibid.
⁴ http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp?docid=11827&locid=47 Retrieved 2011-02-16.

Top Ten Albums – January 2011

2011-01-11T01:33:00.001-06:00

A few months ago I started keeping a mental list of what my favorite albums of all time are. It's a list based on my opinion at the time and also weighted by how often I am listening to that album. It's changed a fair amount over the last few months, and I've thought about how it would be fun to track these trends, especially looking back in the future.

So, both to share what I'm listening to and for my personal historical record, I am starting a new 'feature' on this blog, my top ten albums. Starting with a new year seems like a clean way to go, and installments will be monthly.

Here we go:

A Thousand Suns – Linkin Park
This Is War – 30 Seconds to Mars
Sing the Sorrow – AFI
Fallen – Evanescence
Alchemy Index, Vols. III & IV: Air & Earth – Thrice
Siren Song of the Counter Culture – Rise Against
Infinity on High – Fall Out Boy
21st Century Breakdown – Green Day
American Idiot – Green Day
How to Start a Fire – Further Seems Forever

There were some others in the running for the list, but I had to make my decisions. After #5 it became a little more difficult, since I spend a vast amount of time listening to the top albums on the list.

The Math of Dream Time in "Inception"

2011-01-03T02:35:00.000-06:00

I'm a big fan of Christopher Nolan's newest film "Inception."

I am also a big fan of math. I know that makes me a nerd. (When I was home for Christmas, my family was discussing complicated gift-giving timetables, and getting confused. So I drew a Venn Diagram where the universe was 'my family,' and gift-giving times were shown as color-coded functions describing the relationships between various parts of the family. I thought it cleared everything up nicely, although my family did not entirely agree.)

So, I decided, with the help of a partner, to try to figure out the Real Time to Dream Time conversion from the movie. I figured at first it would be a nice linear function, but alas, no.

Throwing out the off-the-cuff estimations that are made at various points in the movie, I considered my reliable data points to be:

Real Time	1st Dream	2nd Dream	3rd Dream
5	60	?	?
600	10080	259200	5256000

This comes from two scenes. In one, they are teaching Ariadne about the dream world, and they say "Five minutes in the real world gives you one hour in the dream world."

The second comes from when they are planning for the flight. They say that the flight is 10 hours, which gives them 1 week in the first dream, 6 months in the second dream, and 10 years in the third dream.

I have converted everything to minutes as our base unit. Given this information, we plotted the second (more complete) set into a curve to predict the final piece of that set, the time in Limbo. We got y = 26.276e^3.0481x with an R² value of 0.9993.
This gives us a Limbo time value for that set at 109250719, or approximately 39,000 years.

The two data sets don't exactly work together, though. Any equation you find to approximate the relationship does not correctly predict our other given case. This is partly because we are working in 3 dimensions, so we need to define some variables:

x is the dream level, given by 0 for real time, 1 for first dream, etc.
z is the amount of real time, and
y is the amount of dream time.

Then we can say that f(x,z) is the amount of dream time, and we have

f(x, 600) = 26.276e^3.0481x.

We tried very many ways to fit our two data sets together, but we were not finding any good correlations. We are especially interested in the fact that they seem to be able to do the math quickly (or at least estimate quickly) in the movie, and we had not been able to find an elegant equation.

Eventually, we started to think about it another way. What if we graph the amount of real time passed for each minute in dream time, based on the dream level? This gives us a curve approaching zero on the y-axis.

We used our given information to graph this:

Dream Level	Real Time	Dream Time
0	1	1
1	1	600/10080
2	1	600/259200
3	1	600/5256000

Which gave us this relationship: a = 1.0835e^-3.048x

where a is the real time passed for each minute of dream time at dream level x.

I realized that a = z/y, since a is essentially the z per 1y.

So, with some algebra we come up with

f(x,z) = z/(1.0835e^-3.048x)

Now, this is far from perfect, and as an example, in my table below I have a "Real Time" column, which is the real time as predicted by our function. You can see that the accuracy of the real time prediction goes down as real time increases, but that the prediction of dream time values gets more accurate as we approach our base case of 600 minutes real time. Also, "Real Time" is rounded to two decimal places, and the dream time minutes are rounded to the whole number.

You can see, though, that we are still off from our given values:

I am very interested in whether or not someone can come up with a better approximation than ours, and I'd love to see it.

Probably will be more on this to come.

Veggie Stew Recipe

2010-10-08T19:25:00.000-05:00

To celebrate having a new stove and dishwasher, marking the first time we could cook at home for about 2 months, I made some stew. Some of my friends know of this stew. This time, especially after some persuading from others, I have decided to write down a recipe. So here it is.

The measurements may be a little rough, but stew is pretty lenient. Also, it is worth noting that this is my super-easy "semi-home-made" version of this. When I'm feeling up to it, I'll cut up and otherwise prepare a whole bucket o' fresh veggies. However, this is almost as good at about 1/10th the effort.

1 14.5oz can of vegetable broth
1 14.5oz can of sweet corn
1 14.5oz can of peas
1 14.5oz can of sliced carrots
1 14.5oz can of garbanzo beans (chickpeas)
1/2 or 1 can of pinto beans
2 14.5oz cans of 'new/baby' potatoes
1 14.5oz can of diced tomatoes
1 large (30oz?) can of tomato sauce
1 cup frozen (or fresh) mukimame (shelled edamame)
1/2 cup uncooked 'minute' brown rice
1 cup frozen diced onion OR 1 medium white onion
1 tbsp diced garlic (2 large cloves)
1 tsp Mirin
1 dash of 'Italian seasoning'
2 tsp of chili powder
2 tsp or more of cayenne pepper, to taste
1 tsp or more ground black pepper, to taste

*Note: get the reduced salt or no salt canned vegetables whenever possible. Also to avoid: the cheapest can. It's never worth it. Get your green giant or del monte or whatever and enjoy it. You can spare the extra $1.50 total.

Heat a large stockpot on a med-high burner. Once it's warmed up, add about a tablespoon of whatever lubrication you prefer. All I had on hand at the time was seasoned wok oil, which worked great. Olive oil would work great too.
Add the onion, sauté until translucent. Add the garlic as the onions are just starting to turn. You don't want to burn the garlic.
At around the same time as the garlic, add your mukimame. If you are using fresh or thawed, add them a little later. If you're confused about this whole mukimame/edamame thing: soybeans. Soybeans out of the shell. That's what I'm talking about.
You want the mukimame to get just a little bit of brown to some of them. This helps make them a little chewy later, which is delicious. The onions can be a little brown in places, but generally translucent.
Before anything starts to burn (or if it does), add the whole can of veggie broth and stir it up to get any goodies off the bottom of the pot. (Deglazing, sort of)
At this point, add the corn, peas, carrots, garbanzo beans, pinto beans, and potatoes. Make sure to drain each can first. Some bean juice is not just okay but good. For the potatoes, you'll need to cut out any eyes that escaped the machines and slice the potatoes into roughly bite-sized chunks before you add them. One benefit of using canned potatoes is that you can leave larger chunks and they will still cook through, as they are already par-cooked.
Add the spices and the Mirin. Stir thoroughly.
Bring to a low boil, then cover and reduce temperature to simmer. Simmer for 15-20 minutes, stirring occasionally.
Add the rice. Stir. I used about 5 'small handfuls' of rice, so I'm estimating 1/2 to 1 cup, uncooked. Use 'minute' rice.
Add the diced tomatoes and tomato sauce. Stir thoroughly.
Bring back to a simmer. Cover and simmer for 50 minutes, stirring occasionally.
Enjoy!

Wildlife Photography

2010-09-27T18:16:00.000-05:00

Wildlife and nature photography is something I'm interested in, in an amateur fashion. I got a zoom lens (75-300mm) recently and hadn't really used it yet. I started to take a walk in the park the other day and noticed the copious amounts of cool birds in the marsh, so I ran back home, grabbed my camera and gear, and went back.

Now, this was my first real use of my new lens, and I'm still learning the basics of photography to begin with. Also, most of my good pictures so far have been of .. flowers. Because they're pretty, and they don't move too much.

Birds are also pretty, but damn do they move around.

You know all those sayings about how mistakes are really lessons? I learned a lot of lessons. Took a lot of pictures. Only a few of them are good. But I learned a lot of lessons.

Lessons Learned: Day 1

It's true that a zoom lens is hard to keep steady for your picture. A tripod, however, is not an option. I learned this over and over again when things happened and I couldn't get my camera around in time. Folding up some of the legs to make it a monopod was great, I wish I had been doing that from the beginning.
A zoom lens has a really narrow focus field. And so, you should always take at least 3 pictures of a great subject, and adjust the focus a little each time (a little too near, what you think is right, and a little too far). That way you increase your chances of one being right.
It's fairly easy to get close to geese (although they slowly swim away from you), but it's really hard to get close to this guy:
I learned how to recognize (via the sounds they are making) that a group of geese is about to take off from the water. This is crucial if you want to be ready to take a picture of them taking off.
I also learned to recognize the call of a sandhill crane. This happened when three of them flew literally ten feet above my head and I was not ready for them. Perfect shot missed.
It pays to hide. Perhaps I need to invest in some more camouflaged, or at least earth-toned, clothing.
Try not to get fuzzy vegetation in the foreground. You may be zoomed all the way to 300, but you still need to know what's right in front of you. You can only crop out so much.
Ultimately, I'll need an even bigger zoom lens.
A zoom lens is not for taking landscapes with. You cannot get a big enough focal plane.

See all my pictures from day one here.

Lessons Learned: Day 2

So, having learned many things (and more than I listed) on the first day, I returned again this morning in better light and better conditions.

Go on a weekday morning. Nobody else is in the park to scare the animals, the lighting is better, and most of the birds are busy eating, so they don't care as much if you're there.
Stalk slowly. Basically, you are playing a game of red-light-green-light. If they look away, feel free to run to a new spot, quietly. You will be rewarded:
Walk softly. I was clomping my way along to the next spot I was going to take photos from when I saw three turtles slip into the water after I startled them. I could have had some great photographs of them if I had been walking more quietly and paying more attention to my surroundings.
When sneaking up on an animal, don't keep yourself below the brush line and then suddenly appear right next to it. I got close, but if anyone was in the park this morning and wondered why about a hundred birds suddenly took off from the shoreline and went out to the middle of the lake: that was my fault.
Sandhill cranes really don't want to be photographed.
I need a bird identification book. And some binoculars.

Pictures from day two.

I had a lot of fun, and I'm going to keep trying. I'll probably need to pick up some more supplies and check out some books from the library for pointers. If I get some really good shots, or learn some really good lessons, I'll let you know here.

The Car Saga

2010-07-13T20:33:00.000-05:00

Chapter 1: The tale of how the Corolla came to be

So, about 2 years ago I bought my first car. It was during the super gas price days, when it regularly hit $4 a gallon, so finding an economy car was very difficult. I ended up with my swank 1999 Toyota Corolla, which was exactly what I was looking for, so I overlooked some of the minor concerns we had with it. (It has paint issues, it shook on the highway, dent in the hood, looks like it was treated unkindly.) Bought it for about $4500, after we talked them down a grand. The day after I bought the car and happily drove it back to Madison, the check engine light came on. The dealership was good enough to take it back, check it out, and fix whatever it was for free, as I had literally just bought it. It turned out to be a faulty sensor, no big deal. I should have taken it as an omen, though.

In January of 2009, it broke down on one of those days when it was -30 degrees (Fahrenheit), no surprise there. When we got it to the shop (this time, at a nice respectable dealership here in Madison), we had them work on all sorts of things that we knew were wrong. There was a shake, they replaced two wheels. It got a new battery. It got a general 'tune-up.' I think some other bits and pieces. And finally, I had a power issue when I tried to accelerate, which involved me not accelerating. So, they investigated a little and ended up replacing my bad spark plugs. Spent about $1200 total. End of story for a year and a half..

Chapter 2: I f* my brakes and the return of the mysterious power loss

I got an oil change earlier this year, sometime around January, and this time I actually got it at the dealership for some reason. They told me my rear brakes were 1mm. So I proceeded to continually forget to schedule a brake job until June, by which my rear brakes were f*ed. When I finally did schedule it, I had also noticed the return of the mysterious power loss when accelerating. So I scheduled my car for an oil change, rear brakes, and some sort of 'engine tune' thingy that included changing the spark plugs. (Spark plugs fixed it last time, right?) When I dropped it off, we talked about the power loss and he said it simply couldn't be the spark plugs as they had installed 30,000 mile spark plugs and I had only driven 8,000 miles. I said, "That's what fixed it last time." He said if they were bad, it was a symptom of an underlying cause. He said they would look into it.

I get a call later, and my car needs new rotors and whatnot (which I sorta expected/dreaded), a new bearing (ouch), and they found that my transmission fluid was dark so they recommended a transmission fluid flush ($140) which could help my power problem. I said "ok." The bill came to $1070.

I pick it up the next day and proceed to drive out of town. I notice it still has the power issue, although not quite as bad as before. This makes me worry that it might be related to the transmission after all. I keep driving it, and it just gets worse and worse, to the point that I struggled going up hills and I was expecting to stall at any time. The check engine light flashes every time the power drops out. Finally, it stays on. This was in a span of two weeks.

Chapter 3: The not-so-great repair job

Desperate, I drop my car off without an appointment. Unfortunately, this means I cannot have my normal advisor. I explain the situation to my temp. advisor, and I mention the spark plugs at least once during this conversation. He says he doesn't think he'll be able to get to it that day, as they were fully booked. I say fine. This is Thursday.

Friday, I get a call saying they figured out that it had a bad ignition coil. So, they can replace it, but the part is in Chicago so I can't get my car until Saturday. I say fine. I get a ride home from work, as my boyfriend is out of town. I figure I will just walk to the dealership on Saturday and pick it up.

Saturday, I get a call that they replaced the coil but it still isn't working quite right and they can't figure out why. He says they will try to get it done, but probably it won't be done until Monday. I tell him that I read a little about ignition coils and that the technician should be sure to check the spark plugs. Ok. Now I am desperate, so I get a fast online reservation for a rental car from the place down the street and walk over there. Since I am under 25, it costs me double, so it will be $120 for two days. (Instead of $55 if I was one year older.. also, my boyfriend ends up coming back early, so I end up only driving this car 10 miles. Yes, that's $12 a mile. I also got a $30 parking ticket while I had it because my management wasn't in the office to give me a temp pass, and MPD decided to come by in the 4 hours that I had it in the lot. Boo.)

Monday.. I get a call, he says that the problem was.. a loose wire from installing it incorrectly. For serious. Reputable dealer here. Loose wire. WTF. This is what I spent the weekend car-less and spent a ridiculous amount of money on a rental for? He says, "it shakes a little when the a/c is on, and that is probably the compressor going [...] but otherwise it purrs like a kitten [...] so I recommend to ride her, and ride her hard." No joke, that's exactly what he said. So, marginally excited to finally have my car back, I go to pick it up. I pay them $370. Pulling out of the parking lot, it does the exact thing it was before, down to the flashing check engine light. WTF.

Fed up, I decide to take matters into my own hands. [Start timer.] I check the bill. It doesn't say anything about checking the spark plugs. Also, it says the engine code was "Cyl 1 and 4 misfire." Well, I think, that sounds like I should check the spark plugs, since my 30 seconds of Wikipedia research told me that when an ignition coil goes bad it ruins your spark plugs, causing them to misfire. So I go to the auto parts store, buy some spark plugs. Go back home. Change my spark plugs. Old ones don't look horrible, but they show some signs of wear. Then I get to cylinder 1. When I try to stick the socket wrench in, it doesn't go. I look, and part of the wire is still attached to the plug. Hmm.. I wonder why my car isn't working? We go back to the auto parts store with the old plugs and the broken wire. The guy sells me new wires. Looking at my old spark plugs, he notices that they aren't terribly worn, and that they are extremely good quality plugs you can only get at a dealership, and that they should be rated for 60,000 to 80,000 miles. When I tell him they are only a little over a year and 8,000 miles old, though, he is surprised. I get home, install the new wires. Hey presto, the car works perfectly. [Stop timer: elapsed, 30 minutes and $60.]

Now, I don't doubt that the ignition coil was bad. I'm sure it was going bad when I bought the car, which is why it fouled my spark plugs the first time, and why a year and a half later I needed new ones again. But literally about 5 minutes of online research into ignition coils (google "main ignition coil") told me that it fouls the spark plugs, which causes the misfires and the symptoms, and that after the ignition coil is changed you should check the spark plugs because they most likely need to be changed, too. Things I expect a professional technician to know. Also, I'm pretty sure it would have been hard to miss a f*ing broken wire if they actually took the time to check the spark plugs like I asked them to 3 separate times.

Chapter 4: The ancillary tale of the Sunfire

Right before he went out of town, my boyfriend's car started making this whirring noise. I said it sounded a lot like an electric motor with no resistance to it's movement, like a band broke or a fluid is missing. He went out of town, his uncle (or someone) recommended checking power steering fluid. At the auto parts store the first time in the above story, we asked about said whirring noise. A helpful man in the store came out into the parking lot. We revved the engine in neutral, with no whirring, determining it was not the engine directly. He cocked his head and listened as we turned the wheel back and forth, and pronounced confidently that there was no way it was our power steering fluid.

Before going back the second time, we decided to ignore the helpful-man-with-no-credentials. As my boyfriend unscrewed the cap to the power steering fluid, it made a sound like opening a soda bottle, with the last bit of vaporized steering fluid escaping. So we bought a bottle of that at the store as well, poured it in, and hey presto, the car worked perfectly.

Chapter 5: The moral of the story

Become a gearhead. Ignore others, including 'experts,' when you are pretty damned sure you know what the problem is. Do it yourself. Or if you can't, be adamant that you get the service you want.

Chapter 6: The saga continues...

Today my muffler fell off. Oops. I noticed when I walked out to my car from work that it was starting to fall off. I tried to drive carefully back home, but it fell off at a corner anyway. My phone was basically dead. I used the last of the battery to call my father (a must in any crisis situation for me), who recommended finding something, anything to tie the muffler back on long enough to get it the few blocks left to my home.

Luckily, I had a bunch of goodwill stuff in my trunk. I used an old shirt to hold onto the muffler (since it was, you know, a million degrees) and a shoelace to tie the muffler back on (using my box cutter from work to trim the ends). I then proceeded to drive home at 20 miles an hour, after which I got some nice galvanized wire and wired it on until I can get it into the shop.

Aggressive Self-Defense: The Morality of Killing in War

2010-03-07T22:10:00.001-06:00

The following was originally written in an ethics class in 2007, and I have made some minor edits. Enjoy.

War is an oft-discussed topic in America right now. People discuss how many deaths there have been on each side, and how the objectives are progressing (or how they are not), and various other details that interest the citizens of a nation at war—for everyone has a vested interest while their country is at war. Of course, another hot topic for debate is the justification for the current war in Iraq. Various politicians, journalists, and celebrities have weighed in on the political, social, and moral justifications for the war. But one debate about war has been simmering for a long time and lies at the heart of past and present anti-war movements: can war be justified at all? Justification for war can come from many angles, but one must eventually examine the core issue—that of the justness of killing in war. A lot of debate has gone into who it is permissible to kill: combatants, non-combatants, guilty persons, innocent bystanders; and there have been many arguments on just how to define those groups of people. Most of all, people have long debated by what principles killing for god or country can be justified morally. None of these justifications, however, provide a satisfactory moral case for just killing in war, and as such, they are not sufficient to justify war itself.

I have chosen two articles with differing views on the morality of killing in war (though they both think it is morally permissible, the justifications and lines drawn are distinct). The first is Robert K. Fullinwider's War and Innocence¹ and the second is Lawrence A. Alexander's Self-Defense and the Killing of Noncombatants², which is a direct reply to Fullinwider. First I will examine Fullinwider's somewhat simpler argument before diving into Alexander's response, which is a more complex model based on Fullinwider's original. After that, I will give my own reasons for which killing should be (and can be) avoided in general.

First, we must set up the thought experiment on which Fullinwider, Alexander, and I are working. This stars the ubiquitous Smith and Jones, and the basic example is the following:

Jones is walking down a street. Smith steps from behind the corner of a nearby building and begins to fire a gun at Jones, with the appearance of deliberate intent to kill Jones. Surrounded by buildings, Jones is afforded no means of escape. Jones, who is carrying a gun himself, shoots at Smith and kills him.³

Fullinwider then gives various examples of third-parties motivating Smith to kill Jones, such as mob debts or a spurned spouse, but claims that while the Principle of Self-Defense (whose definition is a point of contention) justifies Jones killing Smith, it does not permit Jones to then turn his gun on those who motivated Smith to start shooting. Thus he begins to set up the distinctions between combatants and non-combatants.

Most people in this world agree with the general Principle of Self-Defense—that is, the right to defend your person against attack. Many, even those espousing the categorical imperative "do not kill," support the right to use killing force if that is what is necessary. Usually the default case is that of Smith and Jones—if the attack on your person is deadly (or proportionate to death), then a response of deadly force is morally justified. For example, if Smith had instead punched Jones (presumably without damaging a vital organ), few would support Jones' killing in response to Smith's threat, for this would be viewed as an extreme reaction to a relatively low threat. I do not pretend that, ceteris paribus (and my own actions if in Jones' position aside), I would condemn Jones for his self-defensive action in the given case. Killing and self-defense in war, however, is much more problematic.

First of all, any and all offensive action cannot be justified by the Principle of Self-Defense. Clearly nowhere in our current model of self-defense (with which Alexander disagrees) is Smith justified if he had succeeded in killing Jones. The obvious response is to conclude that belligerent aggressor nations are never justified in starting a war, but the defending nation is justified in defending itself. This is fair conclusion, but that is not the only consequence. Fullinwider says "a nation may justifiably kill in self-defense." ⁴ But this is a problem, for nations do not fight each other directly. Instead, people do, and many common military practices, such as patrols, (tactical) pre-emptive strikes, and even beginning to fire before your enemy does are all unjustified by the Principle of Self-Defense. Jones must wait for Smith to open fire before responding in kind.

Let's suppose, then, that a close friend tipped Jones off to Smith's plan. If Jones decides only to carry his firearm that day, or to let Smith come to him, the situation stays the same. But in war, even those defending their country regularly actively seek out their enemy to kill. So let's say that Jones sets out carrying his weapon, thinking to check the areas that Smith frequents so that he may be able to strike first. As it ostensibly often happens in war, Smith and Jones do happen across each other and both begin firing at roughly the same time—a classic 'fire fight.' For the sake of the argument, let's say that both end up killing each other, and upon arriving at the proverbial Pearly Gates, both claim that they only shot in self-defense. This, as we can see, is largely true. Jones knew that Smith was out to kill him, and further knew that fighting would begin on sight. Smith, as soon as Jones took his first shot, was also in a defensive position. But the classic definition of the Principle of Self-Defense seems to hinge on not only the guilt of the aggressor (for even innocent aggressors such as the mentally deranged are guilty of the attack itself) but the at least relative innocence of the defender. And if both parties are equally guilty or innocent, and if both parties can justifiably claim they were defending their persons, the Principle of Self-Defense cannot justify one party killing the other.

Alexander provides a more complex version of the Principle of Self-Defense that goes into more detail. It is reproduced here:

What I propose as the correct formulation of the Principle of Self-Defense is that X (a person or persons) may be killed in self-defense, regardless of X's moral innocence, if the defender perceives (reasonably) that: (1) there exists the requisite threshold level of danger or greater; (2) killing X will reduce that danger; (3) more desirable courses of action, such as killing fewer or guiltier persons, or not killing at all, will not eliminate condition (1); and (4) more desirable courses of action will not reduce the danger as much as killing X.⁵

Alexander also adds another scenario to the Smith and Jones story. If Smith is being held at gunpoint and told to attack Jones, Jones is now morally allowed to shoot the people holding Smith at gunpoint, and indeed, it would be desirable because it would more fully eliminate the threat. This seems wholly acceptable, but Alexander's self-defense, in part because it does not rely on any relative moral innocence, goes on to justify pre-emptive killing. He says, "One cannot hold the view forbidding intervention before the last choice necessary for the harm as an absolute and at the same time accept the Principle of Self-Defense."⁶ What Alexander means is that the aggressor can still choose to cease hostilities, and yet many acts commonly justified by the Principle of Self-Defense happen before this final choice is made. He continues, "only the likelihood of harm, not the number of choices required to bring it about, is directly relevant."⁷

The likelihood of harm, however, can be a tricky thing. Let's say my neighbor, Mr. Z, is building a pipe bomb in his garage. I know that Mr. Z is building this pipe bomb, and that he is angry with me for mowing my lawn on Sundays. Coming to the reasonable conclusion that Mr. Z is likely building the pipe bomb in order to kill me, I decide that there exists the requisite danger to my life, killing Mr. Z will reduce the danger, and just calling the police will not fully eliminate the danger to my life. As such, one morning I throw a grenade through Mr. Z's kitchen window and kill him (certainly a response proportionate to being killed by his pipe bomb). The problem of using the 'likelihood of harm' is the same problem faced by moral arguments of potentiality: for example, I cannot kill my other neighbor, Mrs. Y, based only on the fact that she has the potential to become a serial killer.

The problem with potentiality (in this case) is proving that the potential, or likelihood as Alexander puts it, is high enough to merit concern. For example, if Mrs. Y has been slowly stockpiling weapons, that evidence surely increases the potential for her to do harm. But we must draw the line at some point, and that line has been traditionally drawn at the point of the first aggressive action taken, or sometimes just before, as in a case of intervention (the bomb squad raiding Mr. Z's house, for example, is a case of intervening before harm is done). Intervention, however, to be justified by the Principle of Self-Defense and yet not fall into the trap of distant potentiality, must occur when the stakes are certain. Thus Jones cannot seek out Smith the morning that Jones hasheard Smith will try to kill him, as Jones cannot yet be sure that Smith will indeed carry out the rumored action. Thus, pre-emptive attacks and patrols are still left unjustified by self-defense, though opening fire on sight of an armed enemy instead of waiting for the enemy to fire first can be sufficiently supported by this Principle of Self-Defense.

Other problems crop up with Alexander's revised self-defense. First, since criterion (1) is equivocal, let's say for now the requisite level of danger is the traditional threat to your own life, as in the Smith and Jones example. Clearly if Smith was threatening slander and public humiliation, Jones would not be justified in killing Smith to defend himself against said slander. Conditions (2) and (4) are problematic. If someone is threatening you with any level of harm, no course of action will reduce the threat more than killing the aggressor. Furthermore, condition (2) requires killing to only reduce the danger, which is not equivalent to condition (3) requiring "more desirable" actions to go so far as to "eliminate" the danger. Perhaps killing should be required to eliminate danger and "more desirable" actions, such as not killing, can be given the grace of only reducing said danger.

But even so, condition (4)'s claim that non-lethal options must reduce the threat more than killing could lead to Alexander's Principle of Self-Defense to justify actions he did not intend. For example, if Jones had been carrying both a TASER and a gun, and since using the TASER on Smith would allow Smith to re-initiate the threat later, Jones would not only be justified in choosing the gun, but it would be preferable since it would more fully eliminate the threat on Jones' life. The level of reduction of threat cannot be morally relevant on the same grounds that potentiality is not. For example, if Jones drew his gun and shot Smith in the arm, it is still possible that Smith could return fire, whereas if Jones shot to kill the potential harm is erased. But the potential for future threat is not relevant to the decision of a mode of self-defense. When in a fist-fight that normally would not threaten life, it is impermissible to decide to kill your opponent because s/he may one day attempt to take revenge for the fight.

In fact, in the vast majority of self-defense cases a "more desirable [course] of action, such as killing fewer or guiltier persons, or not killing at all" ⁸ is available. The most obvious in the Smith and Jones example is that of Jones returning fire without intent to kill, and rather firing with intent to incapacitate by hitting non-vital organs. Depending partly on the weapon being used to attack, the defender has many choices: evasion, attempting to incapacitate (throwing rocks, e.g.), calling for (hopefully also nonviolent) aid, or attempting to verbally defuse the situation (diplomacy). Of course, in war a soldier is often not given most of these options, largely because the situation typically involves more than one person on each side and the threat is extremely high. A standoff situation though, might be verbally defused. Or a general melee could be defused by using non-lethal force (many weapons are in fact in development that use various forms of energy to incapacitate crowds⁹). Other situations might be defused by superior numbers or superior lethal/non-lethal firepower. Some situations can be defused just by deterrent power, such as the three Taiwan Strait Crises¹⁰ in which America's nuclear or conventional power kept the People's Republic of China from invading the Republic of China. The effectiveness of deterrence, especially nuclear deterrence, is a debate for another day, but deterrence by threat of retaliation does bear mentioning (even if it is on shaky moral ground). So in response to Alexander's third condition for killing in self-defense, a non-lethal retaliation (or in general a "more desirable course of action") is nearly always available.

So, while killing in self-defense may be in some situations morally permissible, it is always superogatory to refrain from killing. In the domain of self-defense, it would never be uncharitable for the defender to not kill the aggressor. Of course, superogatory actions are by definition not obligatory. But when faced with a choice between a morally permissible neutral action (such as killing in self-defense or refraining from giving a homeless person food) and a morally superogatory action (such as using non-lethal means of self-defense or buying a homeless person a sandwich), it is always more desirable (ceteris paribus) to choose the superogatory action. The superogatory action is by definition morally good and above and beyond moral obligations. Maximizing the number of decisions to take the superogatory action is a worthy goal. I am not claiming that one should simply excuse transgressions. For example, if I decide to call the police on the bomb-building Mr. Z, the choice is between the superogatory action of giving him complete autonomy and the obligatory action of protecting the safety of those around Mr. Z. The choice to call the police instead of killing Mr. Z is the superogatory vs. neutral decision that lies within the obligatory action of protecting people's safety (self-defense). In summary, in the case that I know that Mr. Z is building a bomb, it is obligatory for me to take some action to prevent him from harming himself or others. It is superogatory for me to decide not to kill Mr. Z and instead notify the police, who can safely and without harming Mr. Z remove the threat of the bomb. In many situations similar to the case of Mr. Z, though, it may be said that refraining from killing to stop the threat is obligatory in the face of alternative actions that do not require making an exception to a normally morally impermissible action. Once again, starting a war (being the belligerent or aggressor nation) is soundly impermissible, even when the war is started to stop a threat (since that threat could ostensibly be defused in alternative ways). It is also questionable whether the use of lethal tactics in a defensive war is permissible if and when non-lethal tactics are available.

Conclusion

The Principle of Self-Defense is not sufficient justification for killing during war, and if killing during war is unjustified, war itself (excepting a war without killing, 'twere to exist) must also be unjustified. So, self-defense is not a sufficient reason to permit war. Of course, many have posited other justifications not covered by this paper, for example the Principle of Punishment, as it is called, or a principle of retribution/vengeance. I believe, however, that even if punishment or retribution could justify war, without a sufficient case for just killing in war these theories falter. Perhaps there could be a war without killing (especially as we enter the age of robotic combatants), but so far it has not happened. If punishment and/or retribution can be carried out without killing, though, most people would refer to it as a diplomatic solution and not war.

I have not attempted to claim that the Principle of Self-Defense is faulty or immoral, just that it is insufficient in many (or most) cases to justify killing in self-defense. Also, since once a conflict (war) has started both the defender and the aggressor, when examining individual skirmishes, can claim self-defense. So, both become an aggressor and a defender, and an aggressor is never justified in killing, or at the very least the Principle of Self-Defense cannot apply to an aggressor-aggressor situation. And finally, I posited that it may in fact be obligatory to use non-lethal force (or a non-violent course of action), even while defending oneself, if both lethal and non-lethal options are available. I do not make a pacifist claim of inaction over any violent action, but rather a non-violent claim. That is, a defensive action should be first non-violent. In the case that a non-violent reaction is not enough, non-lethal, preferably as low-harm as possible, violent action can be taken. Finally, in some extreme cases lethal action is permissible, but these extreme cases are almost the exception that proves the rule, in that a non-lethal action is almost always available. If lethal action in self-defense is only permissible in extreme cases, even self-defensive war may only be permissible in extreme cases. Thus, the Principle of Self-Defense is not sufficient justification for war.

Notes

Fullinwider, Robert K. “War and Innocence.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 5, no. 1 (Autumn 1975):90-97.
Alexander, Lawrence A. “Self-Defense and the Killing of Noncombatants: A Reply to Fullinwider.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 5, no. 4 (Summer 1976):408-15.
Fullinwider, “War,” 90-91.
Ibid. 94
Alexander, “Self-Defense,” 409.
Ibid. 410
Ibid.
Ibid.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapons for general information and some links to and descriptions of weapons that exist or are under development. E.g.: pepper spray, electroshock weapons, the Active Denial System, acoustic/sonic weapons, sticky foam, non-lethal rounds, et cetera.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Taiwan_Strait_Crisis

Rare Earth Hypothesis vs. Reason

2009-10-29T21:46:00.004-05:00

As you probably have gleaned from the title of this post, I disagree with the Rare Earth hypothesis-- that is, the theory that the spectacular coincidences and conditions that led to complex (not even necessarily intelligent) life on this planet is so statistically remote that it is extremely unlikely that any other planet in the universe has evolved complex life. The term (and hypothesis) comes from a book by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee.

Now, I have not read this book, and therefore I am not fully versed in their arguments. I plan to read the book and make a more detailed argument, but I wanted to lay down my base hypothesis first. Also, Wikipedia does an ok job at summarizing their argument.

So, before we get to their equation, let's look over some data:

It is estimated that there are 200-400 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy.
It is estimated that there are about 100 billion (10¹¹) galaxies in the universe.
Galaxies tend to contain between ten million (10⁷) and one trillion (10¹²) stars.

Now let's crunch those numbers. With simple math, we can conclude that the average galaxy has 10^9.5 stars. So, to calculate the total number of stars in the universe we need 10¹¹ * 10^9.5, which gives us, with rounding, 10²⁰ stars. (That's 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.) That's a lot. If each star was the size of a tennis ball, stacked up they could reach the moon from the earth (avg. distance) almost 17.5 million times.

Now let's make some guesses. In the famous Drake Equation, it is estimated that half of all stars will have planets. So that gives us a more manageable number of 10¹⁰ stars with planets. For the sake of argument, let's say that our solar system is fairly typical, and maybe the average number of planets in a solar system is around 6. I think I am being generous to the Rare Earth-ists here, as a solar system could easily have tens of planets, not to mention life-supporting moons. That gives us 6 * 10¹⁰ planets in the universe. Disregarding the Drake estimate of 2 planets per star supporting life, let's say that, I don't know, 1/8 of planets support complex life.

So, we have finally arrived: 60,000,000,000 planets could support life. Sixty billion seems to be far from the estimate of 1. If my estimates have an error of 99.9%, there would still be 7,492,500,000 planets supporting complex life. Of course, some of that may have died off already, and most (statistically) we would never be able to find. (If you read the numbers above, and you're good with visualization, you should already have realized the size of the haystack in which we are searching for a proverbial, uh, 60 billion needles.)

As I have said, I will in fact be making a more detailed argument later. However, I assert that the vast immensity of the universe makes the Rare Earth theory extremely unlikely, statistically. And I haven't even broached the subject of carbon-based vs. non-carbon-based life or the general assumptions of what a 'life-supporting planet' requires.

QED.

Barack Obama Deserves the Peace Prize

2009-10-09T10:48:00.009-05:00

I, like many others, was a little surprised by the news that Barack Obama was named the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Many people's reaction has been, "But what has he done?"

I will tell you, in the form of the press release from the Nobel Prize Committee:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

So, in the words of the committee itself, they awarded the Peace Prize to Mr. Obama for making substantial gains in the diplomatic process, giving people hope, and beginning work towards various peaceful goals, including nuclear disarmament.

Let me step away from achievements, for a moment, to answer another fast criticism of this award. Many have pointed out that the nominations for this prize were due to be postmarked by Feb. 1st, 2009, exactly 12 days after the President took office. So, people have concluded (erroneously) that Mr. Obama received this award before taking virtually any steps as President of the United States. I would like to point out to the world that a nomination is only a nomination. Obviously, someone had high hopes for what Mr. Obama could accomplish in this year, and yes, maybe they submitted the nomination for political reasons. However, I assert that the Nobel Prize Committee is not peopled by idiots or fanboys. I have extremely high respect for their organization, and I hope that you do too.

The Nobel Peace Prize, from the will of Mr. Nobel himself, is to be given to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." The Prize committee, in making its decision, was looking into the last 8 months of the presidency, and not the first 12 days. There were very many nominations for this prize, in fact the most nominations ever. I assert that if they believed that Mr. Obama had not made progress promoting "fraternity between nations" etc. they would have picked one of the other 204 nominees. The list is secret for the next 50 years, but I think we can trust there were some good names on it.

So, has President Obama signed a large peace accord, as President Wilson did before winning the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize? No. Did he help to negotiate peace between two major countries at war, as President Roosevelt did to win the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize? No. I believe, however, that he has made great strides in promoting "fraternity between nations," at the least.

In very short order, President Obama changed the foreign policy of the United States from strong-arm unilateralism to broad-based diplomacy. He immediately appointed important envoys and began new peace talks, including being the first President to open meaningful peace talks with Iran, which, although rocky and far from over, have dramatically improved the relationship between our countries. He made steps to bring our country back under the codes of conduct laid out in the Geneva Convention. He restarted nuclear disarmament talks with Russia, this time, unlike his predecessors, negotiating for a stronger reduction. He paid our debt to and reopened meaningful interaction with the United Nations. And he told the world that not only would we not take unilateral actions, but that we also require the aid of other countries in order to move forward towards peace and disarmament.

Perhaps, in this great century, the people need a flashy achievement. The 2009 Physics Prize, essentially awarded for the invention of fiber optic communication, is pretty cool, as well as immediately tangible. Peace, however, is rarely flashy. Peace is shaped through long negotiation, nurtured by building trusting relationships with sovereign nations, and enacted through policy change.

I do not deny the unbelievable work of people who, every day, all over the world, are working in immediately tangible ways to improve life and promote peace. Yes, these people are extremely deserving of praise. When you look at the wording and the purpose of this particular recognition, however, you find a description of the 'big picture.' Without belittling the work of so many, this particular prize exists for a different reason.

The Nobel Prize Committee, and the Nobel Prizes themselves, exist to encourage and inspire as much as they exist to reward notable achievements. Countless times they have been awarded for progress, and progress surely has been made.

Mr. Obama said this morning that he did not feel he deserved the prize. Mr. President, I must respectfully disagree. Your contribution to the global peace process is already irrefutable, brought forth largely from a willingness to talk and to listen, and to treat other nations with their due respect. You have brought hope to not only the millions in your country, but to billions around the world. We see you as a leader who one day may bring to this Earth a new era, and we hope. Where once we saw immovable obstacles, you have changed the international political dynamic to be a place where diplomacy and cooperation can work.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, and others whose voices may not be heard this day, I thank you for all you have done already, and I look forward to watching you change the world.

Damn Small Linux... still foiling my install

2009-09-11T12:19:00.002-05:00

Here's a picture of my Xybernaut MA-V previously posted about, currently hooked up to a desktop monitor. I am still trying to find a compatible HMD, but I have a lot of setup to do before I'm ready for it anyway. You can see the wrist-size keyboard there, though, which is pretty sweet.

Currently, I am attempting to install Damn Small Linux, which is giving me some trouble. The OS is designed to run on a LiveCD or USB thumb drive, etc. so getting it to reside on my hard drive is proving difficult, despite DSL having at least three separate ways to do just that. Despite having the USB external CD drive listed as my first boot device, the computer has problems booting into DSL, without which I cannot work on partitioning my hard drive for Linux, or perform the install itself. For some reason, when I ran cfdisk the first time, and thought that I had successfully partitioned the drive, I rebooted the computer to find myself back in Windows. Now, when I try to boot back into the DSL LiveCD, it isn't letting me.

For now, as I am on vacation, this project is sitting still, but when I get back to it next week, and hopefully finally get DSL running on the hard drive, I can really get started and I will definitely keep you all up to date.

Green Goods

2009-08-31T03:42:00.005-05:00

After watching a Frontline episode about the state of water quality, I decided I needed to put more action to my thoughts and begin to revamp how I live my life, so I have been changing over to some of the new 'green' products on the market. These products fill a new and rapidly increasing market, and I have heard that some "don't do anything" and some are the next best thing. So, I thought I'd take you along on my journey by sharing my experiences with the products I have been using.

Most of these are being bought as I run out of other things, so it is in a fairly random order. Also, we all know about CFLs, and we all should be using them, so I won't bother to beat that subject to death. (Although I await consumer LED lamps with bated breath...)

Sturdi® Degradables
These trash bags come in your normal kitchen-size as well as ubiquitous black trash bag and lawn/leaf. They claim to be 100% degradable, as in, they will break down over time, mostly due to interaction with light. Not quite as cool as fully biodegradable bags would be, but a step in the right direction. These bags don't have any of those fancy 'technologies' of the bigger brands, but they are just as robust as any other trash bag I've ever used.
My rating: 5/5

TerraCycle™ All Purpose Cleaner
A great product from a great company. This cleaner works great for every day use, and is completely non-toxic and packaged in what they call "waste-stream" packaging. Essentially, your bottle of cleaner once was a liter bottle of something else, and the spray cap was a spray cap to something else as well. I have been using this to clean sticky messes up off my kitchen counter (non-toxic, remember?), and it works great, especially if you give it about 10 seconds to soak for a big mess. For example, the very first thing I used it on was a big gob of honey that had spilled down the side of my honey jar and coalesced on the counter. Being a chore to clean up, it sat there for 2-3 days (I know, I know). First I sprayed cleaner on and tried to wipe immediately to limited success, but then I sprayed a bit on, let it sit for about 15 seconds, and wiped the whole mess up with my (biodegradable) sponge in one go. The only downside is that, like other cleaners, it doesn't smell so great, but at least it isn't caustic-bleach-smell. This company also offers a bathroom cleaner that I have not yet tried.
My rating: 5/5

Scotch-Brite™ biodegradable absorbent sponges
I got these sponges to lessen the amount of paper towels I use. They pretty much seem like your average traditional sponge, except that, being made from recycled paper, they will biodegrade once I throw them away. I have found them to be dead useful, and even if they start to break apart a little sooner than their cousins (which they do), I personally don't want to keep a sponge for years anyway. You can find the whole range of products here. I have only used the above-mentioned sponges, but I plan on using the others as well.
My rating: 4/5

Ecos Free & Clear Liquid Laundry Detergent
After being a long-time Tide user, I've switched over to this detergent. I chose the free & clear version with no dyes or scents, since I think both of those are superfluous in something you are going to pour down the drain. (I don't buy detergent to look at or smell...) So far it has been working great, even on my work-shirts that get various grime, grease and dirt on them. I was always a fan of the 'bleach-alternative' Tide products, so my only disappointment is the slightly reduced function on bad stains. However, since these are probably in the minority of your laundry, grab a stain stick or spray and you should be set to go.
My rating: 4/5

Method® gel hand wash refill
Again, I chose the 'free of dyes + perfumes' (a.k.a. 'go naked') version for basically the same reason as above. Also, though, I didn't like the two other scents that were available at that particular retailer. This soap is everything you expect from a soap, and is not antibacterial, which, if you are not in a hospital, clinic, or nursing home, you probably don't need. It's another topic, but antibacterial soaps are a very, very bad thing, so trust me here. The refills also come in these sweet pouches that the manufacturer claims allows an "83% savings in plastic, water + energy." I'm all for it.
My rating: 5/5

Method® all surface wipes
Same 'go naked' version as the soap above. I like the advent of these cleaning wipes, and now I can get them in a greener version. Generally, it is better to use a reusable cloth and a bottle of spray, but sometimes you have something to clean up that you'd rather not keep around, or you need the portability the wipes offer. And at least these are "compostable" and made with eco-friendly cleaning agents. The wipes are made from bamboo, and the packaging is also minimized. Sometimes the lid can leak air a little, though, causing your wipes to begin to dry out, so make sure you snap it tight, or maybe put the bag inside another bag for long-term storage.
My rating: 4/5

That's all for now. I have a few other things I am currently using, and I plan on continuing to pursue these products further, so I will have more suggestions and reviews later on. Let me know what you think or suggest other products for me to try by leaving a comment.

Note: I have not, in any way, been reimbursed for any of these reviews by any company or person. These are purely my opinions. All product names are registered trademarks of their respective manufacturers.

Xybernaut MA-V

2009-08-30T08:01:00.000-05:00

I recently bought a Xybernaut MA-V wearable computer off eBay, and I am working on building a wearable computer interface for everyday use. My aim is to have a wearable computer with the following capabilities:

Monocular Head-mounted Display (HMD)
Voice-activated functionality
Go-anywhere web access
Bluetooth, and functionality to tie in your cell phone while wearing the device, so that you can make/receive calls, send SMS and MMS and whatnot all from the device
Integrated camera(s) to capture what you are seeing. Also: low-light vision (thinking IR illumination right now, versus 'real' night vision), infrared, ultraviolet, 'full-spectrum'
A simple interface built specifically for it's purposes. Lots of voice interaction and keyboard shortcuts (for my wrist-mounted keyboard).

Some of those (general) aims are long-term, and some are shorter. (E.g. I won't be affording FLIR anytime soon.) Other functionality thoughts I will be pursuing follow:

Advanced pattern recognition via the mounted camera. This is your classic sci-fi case of recognizing faces of people you know and offering additional information automatically. I will be pursuing smaller things first, as I am no genius AI programmer. For example, I have considered those apps that recognize UPC barcodes. With that, you could be looking at a package of something in a store and be offered additional information, such as prices at other retailers/online, manufacturer information, reviews, etc.
GPS. With the above, you could combine these to create a function that gives you the menu, hours, and phone number of the restaurant you just looked at (pattern-recognition on sign, plus gps location, plus google maps/earth). You could also tweet a thought, a picture of what you are seeing, and your exact location at the time ("Look at that great sunset.").
Enhanced memory/knowledge. E.g.: Storage of the video footage from the mounted camera for the past X amount of time.. allows 'instant-replay' functionality for your life, basically. You could also save something you just saw for later reference or for posting online. E.g.: Built in and quick access to reference materials, like Wikipedia, dictionaries, ebooks, etc. That way, when Harriet Bosse comes up in conversation, you know exactly who people are talking about.
Enhanced vision. As stated above, I would like to implement various camera systems, including low-light vision, infrared, ultraviolet, 'full-spectrum,' etc. The added insights into the world around you gained by these additional filters would be interesting, at the least. It's difficult to even speculate, but imagine seeing temperatures around you. It's a type of ambient computing that I believe would be valuable. Digital zooming would also be very useful.

These are just the beginning, and as I progress through this project I expect my aims and goals to evolve. If you have ideas, feel free to leave a comment.

The MA-V came preloaded with Windows 2000, but the only preloaded software (other than the OS package) was a battery meter, which is easily replaced. I asked friends for suggestions for a small Linux distribution, which led me to Damn Small Linux (DSL). It looks like a great distro for my project, so in the coming days I will be testing it out, and I will continue updating you on my progress on this project.