September 2003 Archives

Adam writes about finding "The One", and I want to add my $0.02.

However, we all need love. We want people who care what happened today. We want people who know what we’re saying. We need people to talk to, cry on their shoulders, cry laughing with, to be down with, and to be pick us up. The extrapolation of this is the need for “The One.” It is an instinctual, spiritual, and insurmountable need and drive to seek out a person who fulfills those needs and desires. We hope to find that person. Hope is closely related to the opportunity available to you and your experiences. Whether acknowledged or not, it is most people’s hope to realize and hold to the person they recognize as their partner, their best friend, their soulmate, “The One.”

I don't, personally, think there is a "The One" that needs to be found. I think that there are probably a great many women with whom I could build a happy, successful marriage. Even still, it's not easy to find "A One" (or however you'd want to say it).

I generally try not to go too far out of my way. If I'm going to find someone who will decide to love me, she's probably going to be in the same types of places that I go to myself. She won't be identical to me -- I hope -- but she'll probably share some of my interests; I'm not likely to meet her at a rave or a strip club, for instance.

Mostly, I just live my life and try to make myself into a person that will be "A One" for the type of girl I hope to attract. I've probably got a long way to go, but I'm working on it.

The Spherewide Short Story Symposium got a mention on an MSNBC page yesterday called Blogspotting. That's pretty nifty, although I haven't seen any hits coming in from it.

A Cincinnati woman was jailed for contempt of court when she failed to show up to testify against a man she accused of raping her.

Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Patrick Dinkelacker charged the North Fairmount woman with contempt of court Friday, saying he wanted to send a message: Not showing up for court - even if fearful of retaliation, as the woman claimed - makes the justice system useless.

The woman said she was dragged into woods near her home and raped by a stranger in July.

Michael Lindsey, 25, of North Fairmount, was charged, but when the woman failed to show up for three hearings, Dinkelacker dropped the charges. Lindsey's attorney says his client is innocent.

Prosecutors and police will talk to the woman about the case after her release from jail.

"It is up to the victim; this is not a case we can prove beyond reasonable doubt without her testimony, which is typically true in rape cases," Allen said.

Considering the social stigma that follows even the accusation of rape, I think it's critically important that the legal system work to protect alleged perpetrators from false, or frivolous, complaints. Rape is a very serious crime that carries more negative connotations even than murder; it's difficult to prove and difficult to disprove, and I suspect that wrongful rape convictions far outnumber wrongful murder convictions.

The "reasonable doubt" standard is often hard to make when it comes to rape, even when all parties involved know that the man in guilty. Prosecutors are often left with little more than evidence of arguably-consensual sex, and a he-said she-said story; in certain circumstances, it may be obvious that the accused is guilty, and prosecutors may spin insubstantial evidence to a sympathetic jury to get a conviction that isn't justified by the law.

On the flip side, when a man is cleared of rape charges, there's always the suspicion that he was let off on a technicality, and his reputation is irreparably tarnished.

In such a climate, it makes a lot of sense for men and women to choose their acquaintances, friends, and romantic relationships very carefully. As I've mentioned before, I work with children at my church, and I'm doubly careful to be very conscious of who I allow myself be alone with.

(Also via Drudge.)

Via Drudge and Bill Hobbs, I discover that Wesley Clark has a substantial vision for the future: faster-than-light travel.

"I still believe in e=mc², but I can't believe that in all of human history, we'll never ever be able to go beyond the speed of light to reach where we want to go," said Clark. "I happen to believe that mankind can do it."

"I've argued with physicists about it, I've argued with best friends about it. I just have to believe it. It's my only faith-based initiative." Clark's comment prompted laughter and applause from the gathering.

Gary Melnick, a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said Clark's faith in the possibility of faster-than-light (FTL) travel was "probably based more on his imagination than on physics."

While Clark's belief may stem from his knowledge of sophisticated military projects, there's no evidence to suggest that humans can exceed the speed of light, said Melnick. In fact, considerable evidence posits that FTL travel is impossible, he said.

"Even if Clark becomes president, I doubt it would be within his powers to repeal the powers of physics," said Melnick, whose research has focused on interstellar clouds and the formation of stars and planets.

Well, it's just about as plausible as universal health care and the UN. I recommend we divert all our resources from those doomed endeavors to researching space travel.

1. ... have super strength, or super speed?

2. ... be able to read minds, or be the greatest orator to have ever lived?

3. ... be a vampire or a werewolf?

4. ... give up the internet, or give up solid foods?

And now for a post-debate update of my earlier post on gambling for governors. Since last Wednesday's candidate debate, Arnold has surged ahead in the polls.

The poll said 63 percent of probable voters said they would cast ballots to recall Davis, while only 35 percent would vote against recall.

In regards to the second part of the ballot, the poll said Schwarzenegger had the support of 40 percent of those polled. Lt. Gov Cruz Bustamante was at 25 percent; Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, had 18 percent; Green Party candidate Peter Camejo 5 percent; and Arianna Huffington, 2 percent.

It looks like my earlier predictions were, in fact, too conservative. I predicted that the recall would succeed with more than 60% approval, but now I wouldn't be surprised if it goes above 70% once election day actually arrives. I expected Arnold to win with a small plurality, but with those kinds of numbers he might actually pull off a majority, whether McClintock pulls out or not. Why? Because many McClintock-ites will change their minds and vote for Arnold at the last minute, and many "non-likely-voters" -- who are discounted by pollsters -- will possibly turn out to vote for the action star.

So what do TradeSports bettors think on September 29th?

Compare that with the numbers from September 24th:

You can see that Arnold has gained more than 18 points, Bustamante has lost 18 points, and the "recall fails" contract has dropped by nearly half, to just 15%. The poll numbers certainly influence the prices placed on these contracts, but these valuations go to show that the Davis camp in wrong in thinking that:

"The Gallup poll is a joke," said Peter Ragone, spokesman for the Californians Against the Costly Recall. "There isn't a public poll, private poll, or poll amid friends and families in this state that is consistent with those numbers. It has no impact on us."

It's also interesting to read that a great many Californians are rushing to buy new cars before the vehicle license fees go up 300% on October 1st. That timing has got to be hurting Davis.

[And note: I'm not affiliated with TradeSports in any way, nor do I gamble.]

Everyone's making buttons for their websites to show their support for various and sundry causes, so I decided to jump into the fray with some pro-capitalism graphics. I'm no artist, but I play one on TV, and I think these 120x40 pixel gifs are perfect for displaying my belief that capitalism is the best -- and most moral -- economic system known to man.

McGehee suggests in the comments section of my previous post that if juries [corrected] are good enough to try criminals, maybe they're good enough to approve or reject legislation as well.

So how would a system of "legislation by jury" work? I don't think it would be that hard. Transfer the power to write bills to the executive branch, and then set up a system for randomly selecting registered voters to either approve or deny every such proposal that comes down the pipe.

Objection: Some bills require technical knowledge to understand.
Response: Maybe bills that are that complex are bad, ipso facto. Bills should be no more than 1 page in length, and should only deal with a single issue.

Objection: Empaneling a nationally representative jury would be a nightmare.
Response: Maybe, if you expected the jury to actually discuss the bill, as a trial jury does. But with modern technology it would be trivial to set up a computerized system that would allow 1000 or 10,000 randomly selected citizens to vote via the internet.

Perhaps ranther than abolishing legislative representatives, it would be better to simply require a randomly selected jury to approve any laws that the legislature passes.

Our bicameral Congress was founded with these ideas in mind. The House of Representatives was supposed to serve the restraining, close-to-the-people function, but over time that principle has been eroded.

I first read that Republicans are trying to get Dennis Miller to run for office in California from Mr. CalBlog, and now I see another story linked from Drudge. Miller seems like a smart, articulate, thoughtful man, and I'm at least open to the idea of him running for office. I just watched "Bordello of Blood", and he's great against vampires -- always an advantage for a politician.

The article from Drudge lists a few liberal celebrities who are considering running for office as well, but the list seems pretty lackluster to me. Not in star-power, but in intelligence.

(Actor Kelsey Grammer and tennis star Martina Navratilova are among those who have talked about opening political careers in recent weeks.)

"You know all of the people on 'Friends' are going to be available. They are making $1 million an episode. Most everybody knows who they are," says Martin Kaplan, director of the University of Southern California's Norman Lear Center, which studies the intersection of politics and entertainment. "All this drives home the idea, I think a false one, that you don't need any particular skills or background to be a senator or a governor. All you need is ambition and fame."

I've heard all of these people speak extemporaneously, and they all sound like idiots. I'm sure there are some intelligent, liberal celebrities, but these folks aren't them. In fact, come to think of it, the most politically vocal liberal celebrities tend to be the most innane. Maybe that perception is just a byproduct of my disagreement with their views, however.

In general, who would I like to see running for office? I don't think military officers make great politicians. Nor doctors, even though they're well-educated. I think that a legal education is beneficial for a politician, but people who go into law just to make money probably don't make the best public servants. Academics shouldn't get into politics, because they're too far-removed from reality.

I think that non-academic historians (are there such people?) might make good politicians. Maybe intelligence officers. Entrepreneurs, engineers [Pure vanity! -- Ed.], economists.

All those jobs carry potentially disadvantagous baggage as well, but just as Bill Hobbs notes about journalists, I think it's important for politicians to have some education and job experience in fields other than politics itself. Take Grey Davis for example: he's been in California politics for 30 years. When a reporter asked Arnold if he thought he had enough political experience to be governor, Arnold replied: "If you want political experience, just stick with Grey Davis." Everyone got his point.

So who do you want to see running for office?

Isaiah 66:2

"Has not my hand made all these things,
and so they came into being?"
declares the LORD.

"This is the one I esteem:
he who is humble and contrite in spirit,
and trembles at my word."

Am I the only one who thinks men are funnier than women? I don't think so. Susie over at Practical Penumbra lists some of her favorite funny bloggers and notices that they're all men. She says it's odd, but is it?

All the funniest comedians are male, in every media -- stand-up, TV shows, movies, books, you name it. When women are in the comedy genre, they usually play the straight "man", putting up with the male comedians' nonsense with a sigh and a shrug. Furthermore, most comedies are aimed at men, and those demographers know what they're doing; I bet that female-targeted comedies bomb in the box office. Can you even name one? Ugh.

To get closer to home, I don't know any funny females. I know women who think they're funny, and occasionally they are, but they can't compete with my funny male friends. Most of the time though, they don't even try. Women like to think they have a good sense of humor, but those that do normally show it by their ability to get the good jokes, not their ability to tell them.

So I have a question: am I missing something? Maybe men and women have difference types of humor, and in most male-dominated social settings the male humor dominates; since I'm male, maybe all my experiences are tainted by that domination, and I never get to see women being funny amongst themselves. Does that happen? When women are alone, are they funny in some way that's appreciated more by women than be men?

That seems like the most logical explanation to me. Women are -- for whatever reason -- less socially aggressive, and since humor is often an aggressive behavior women may tend to have their humor subdued when there are men around. But that still doesn't account for why women comedians aren't funny in artificial settings such as stand-up comedy and movies.

I don't know anything about Salman Sharif other than that he ran a violent resistance group that planned and executed a nearly-successful assassination of a prominent politician. Doesn't sound like a very nice guy, does he? Well his target in 1996 was Uday Hussein.

It was obviously against the law of his country for Sharif to attempt to kill Uday, but I have a rather hard time condemning his actions; Uday was responsible for thousands of deaths in the past, and would certainly be responsible for thousands more in the future. Uday hadn't broken any laws -- his word was the law -- nevertheless, I believe that an attempt to kill him was morally justified. It wasn't attempted murder, it was attempted justice.

Someone please help me make a distinction between Salman Sharif, and Paul Hill. I want to be able to, but I'm having trouble. Yes, it sounds like Paul Hill was a little crazy, but let's isolate his intent from his motive. He may have been motivated by "God telling him what to do", but his intent was to kill people responsible for murdering babies, so that they couldn't murder any more.

[Note: even if you're pro-choice, consider how you could draw a distinction without resting on your belief that an unborn baby is not a human.]

Let's say I went to a movie theater, and the people behind me won't quit talking, even after I ask them to. In fact, they're sneaking beer into the theater and carrying on amongst themselves continuously. I go to the manager, and he refuses to give me a refund or to do anything about the people behind me. The manager says that they've already emptied the registers of cash; the theater is "closed" and we're in the last show of the night. He offers vouchers to another movie, but I refuse to ever return to the theater, so those are no good to me.

Would it be wrong for me to extort the manager by threatening to call the police, the state health department, and the ATF if the manager doesn't refund my money by any means necessary (including from his own pocket)? Every theater is certain to have multiple health hazards that would require clean-up before the establishment could pass an inspection, and there are minors consuming alcohol on the premisis -- it's not as if I'd have to lie about anything.

I like symmetry, and it pleases me aesthetically that much (most? all?) of the universe is conceptually symmetrical. For example, addition and multiplication are commutative and associative:

x + y == y + x
x * y == y * x
x + (y + z) == (x + y) + z
x * (y * z) == (x * y) * z

It always bothered me that division and subtraction weren't commutative and associative, until I realized that neither of those operations is truly a fundamental mathematical concept; both are combinations of two other operations. Subtraction is addition with negation, and division is multiplication with inversion. Thus, conceptual symmetry is maintained.

Please understand that the symmetry I'm talking about is very high level. Addition is symmetric, and so is capitalism -- you put work into the system, you get benefits out. Socialism is so awkward and absurd to me because it attempts to break this natural symmetry by disconnecting work from reward, and it fails for just that reason. I hope my meaning of conceptual symmetry is clear from these examples, because I'm not sure I can define it more rigidly at this juncture.

Conceptual symmetry depends a great deal on how we humans connect and relate concepts together. If a concept does not balance symmetrically, then it is generally the case that the concept is not well-formed, and does not represent reality. SDB gives a perfect example of a malformed concept when he writes that:

There's the old saw about the irresistible force and the immovable object and what happens when the irresistible force is applied to the immovable object. (The question turns out to be nonsense. It's logically impossible for both to exist in the same universe, so it's logically impossible for them to ever meet. Therefore it makes no sense to discuss what would happen if they did.) In our universe it turns out that every force is irresistible and no object is immovable. Any object, no matter how massive, will respond to any force, no matter how small. The response may be miniscule, but it isn't zero.

It's an interesting mental exercise to consider what would happen if an irresistible force met an immovable object, and the question may appear symmetrical on the surface. The fact that the question is actually nonsensical within our universe, however, demonstrates that the concept behind it is not actually symmetrical. Force and mass are entirely different concepts that cannot be symmetrically related by the "moves" operation.

(Here is an interesting mental exercise: what if there were immovable objects? It would require some sort of universal static friction. Such a universe would not have Newton's three laws of motion. Another, even more difficult exercise: imagine a world in which addition and multiplication were not commutative. (You can't do it.))

Dean points to a fun little quiz that will help you decide who to vote for in the California recall election. There are 12 questions, with blind policy snippets from each candidate (you don't know who said what). You select the policy statement that most matches your own, and at the end you find out who you should vote for.

Unsurprisingly, I got 9 points for McClintock, and 3 points for Arnold. This might be helpful to someone who knows nothing about the various candidates (i.e., a lot of Californians). As I mentioned previously, I have two liberal democrat friends who thought Bustamante was slimy, and ended up deciding to vote for McClintock (absentee).

Bill Hobbs points to a sad and sickening tragedy that happened in a Nashville nursing home last night.

Seven elderly people died in a fire at a Nashville nursing home late last night and 20 were critically injured from burns and smoke inhalation. The building had no sprinklers because it's an old building that was built before sprinklers were required by law. Okay. But what I want to know is: Why would a company that operates nursing homes put frail elderly people to live in a building without sprinklers? What were they thinking?

The answer to Bill's question is pretty simple: the owners of the nursing home predicted that they would make more money that way. The company must have thought that the chance of a deadly fire times the cost of such a fire (in damage and lawsuits) would be less than the cost of housing the elderly folks somewhere else or of adding sprinklers.

Of course, there's also the fact that the elderly people and their families should have noticed that there were no sprinklers in the facility. The absence of sprinklers lowered the safety of the facility's residents, and that lowered safety should have been taken into account by the company's potential clients. Maybe they didn't notice, but the opportunity was there, and a lack of sprinklers is easy to see if you're looking for it.

But most people probably wouldn't think to look for such a thing; most people are probably rationally ignorant about such safety concerns. That is, they are ignorant about such details on purpose, because it would be impossible for every person to know every possible safety measure that should be in place at a nursing home. Or in a car, or a plane, or anything. Because of this rational ignorance, people entrust the government with the responsibility of regulating certain aspects of life. The public can then rest assured that not everyone is ignorant, and that in fact there are some people who dedicate their careers to ensuring the safety of old people in hospitals.

It sounds like the building in question did satisfy the existing regulations. Perhaps the tragedy that occurred is an acceptable loss to society, perhaps not. That's what democracy is about. I expect the relevant regulations in Nashville to be strengthened, if this tragedy gets wide coverage.

One of the consequences of capitalism, and freedom in general, is that each individual bears the majority of the responsibility for their own welfare. In a socialist society, no one is responsible for anything -- everything is provided by the state. The system breaks down, though, because when no one is responsible, no one does anything. There's no incentive.

On the other hand, in a free society everyone is responsible for themselves. If you don't have any food, you have to get a job. Sure, someone might be charitable towards you, but there's no legal obligation for anyone else to support you. In a totally free society, anyone could build a home for old people however they wanted, and each potential client would be wholly responsible for verifying the safety of the establishment. Same for restaurants and their food, and for cars, &c. The benefit of such a society would be that you could open any type of business you wanted, and you could pretty much do whatever you wanted to do -- as long as you were willing to face the potential consequences afterwards.

But you might find yourself spending most of your time testing every hamburger you eat for E. coli, since there would be no regulations to protect you. A free society may be able to take corrective action through lawsuits after a problem (such as a fire in an unsafe nursing home), but there would be little it could to to prevent such problems.

It's pretty easy to see that some non-zero level of regulation is beneficial to society. Where is that level? That's where capitalists and socialists disagree. Personally, I'm happy to know that the food I eat has been prepared to some minimum health standard, and that I'm not likely to get sick and die. Sure, most restaurants might cook good food anyway, even without regulations (it's good for repeat business)... but then, one might expect most nursing homes not to burn down, either.

Do you ever find yourself forced to endure some mindless, boring drivel that feels like it goes on for ever and ever? Maybe it's in school or at work, or maybe one of your friends tells those lame stories that never end and doesn't have a punchline or a point.

Well now you can add your own punchline to any statement or story with one simple phrase! I call it the universal punchline, because anything that comes before it automatically becomes funny when you follow up with... under the sheets!

Here's an example.

Boss: We need to get that PCI analyzer card working again.
You, in your head: Under the sheets!
Co-worker: Yeah, I don't know what's wrong with it; it isn't coming up.
You, in your head: Under the sheets!
Boss: Maybe we just need a new card. Ask Harry.
Co-worker: Ok, I'll see if I can grab him after lunch.
You, in your head: Under the sheets!

With this simple trick you can keep your spirits up through the most boring staff meeting or sensitivity training session. Even SDB's [brilliant, insightful -- Ed.] essays can be spiced up!

SDB: The solution to the "two body problem" is elegant and satisfying. But if there are three bodies, that can't be done.
You, outloud, surprising your co-workers: Under the sheets!

Give it a try! If someone is telling a boring story, just start saying Under the sheets! every time they pause. It may not work for every sentence, but eventually it will; everyone will start laughing and the guy will have to stop his useless babbling.

Judicious and generous use of the universal punchline will make your life better, and make you a better person. Just make sure you know when to say it outloud, and when to keep it to yourself.

Welcome to the first ever Spherewide Short Story Symposium! I'm your host, Michael Williams.

Any story that's worth telling can be told in the short story format, and the purpose of the Symposium is to provide a forum for bloggers to strut their literary stuff. Most of us spend our time writing about Important Issues, and I thought it would be fun to change it up a bit and tease out our more creative natures.

Most of the links below will take you to the author's own blog, but I have hosted some of the stories locally by request. Some authors didn't want to receive commentary on their work, so I decided to let them each be responsible for providing whatever response functionality they desired. Please feel free to comment on the Symposium itself in the comments section for this post.

Many thanks to everyone who submitted a story, and to everyone who was kind enough to link to the Symposium during the submission process.

Without further ado, here are the entries, in the order they were received.

"The Great White Light", and "Home", by Chris Noble

"To A Good Home", by Brian J. Noggle

"The Love Charm" (alternate ending), by Eugene Volokh

"A Life Lived", by I Am Me

"Policy Decision", "The End of The Affair", "Contratemps", and "Impurities", by Francis W. Porretto

"Adrift at Sea", by Jason Kallini

"The Last Snow", by Lee Zanello

"A Cthulhu Conspiracy?", with several links to short stories submitted by Andrew Ian "Marty" Dodge

"Flight", by The Yeti

"Virtual Strangers", "Interview With The Vampire", "Impact", "Symbiosis 1", "Symbiosis 2", and "Through The Lens", by Todd Overman

"Sam and David", and "The Twitch", by Megan

"Unclaimed" (hopefully the permalink works), by Alifa Saadya

Untitled, by Bishop Vulture

"Purity", by Sarah N.

"Wild Night", by Adam Harris

"The Corpulent King", and "Midnight Movie", by Michael Williams

Thanks everyone, enjoy!

I love Tradesports and the market it represents. Who is more likely to know the odds for any particular event than people who've got money riding on it? They've got a section for betting on politics, and I like tracking the action; when the volume is high enough, I think that these odds give a good representation of reality.

Let's take a look at a few interesting samples. Note that with perfect information, the "Bid" column would add up to 100%, since the contracts for each question are all mutually exclusive. They generally don't, and they usually add up to less than 100%; this reflects that the bettors are conservative with their uncertainty, and are bidding less than they think the contracts are actually worth. (The opposite holds for the "Ask" column.)

[I've never bet on Tradesports, and am not affiliated with them in any way.]

First up, the question on everyone's mind: what's going to happen with the California recall?

For some reason, Bustamante's odds have gone up significantly today -- in anticipation of the debate tonight? Arnold has improved slightly, and the big loser has been the "Recall Fails" contract. High trade volume -- it's not looking good for Davis. Expect some action here after the debate.

Next question: who will be the Democrat nominee for president?

Too bad I didn't get a screenshot of this question last week, because the "Field" contract skyrocketed when Wesley Clark declared his candidacy (and Hillary jumped a bit, too). Both "Field" and Hillary are falling as Clark's shine wears off, but Dean doesn't recover any of the ground he lost when Clark declared. Very high trading volume on all the contracts except McCain.

And finally, will George W. Bush win the 2004 presidential election?

High volume, and no change. In fact, this contract hasn't changed much in value since I've been watching -- it's been around 66% for months. I wonder if this constancy speaks more loudly than his fading poll numbers?

Polls and bets reflect different things, though, and it's important to keep that in mind. A poll shows what percentage of people (for example) want President Bush to win, whereas these contracts show what percentage of people think Bush will win.

Opinion Journal is on a roll today; Pete du Pont, former governor of Delaware, as a great piece about the voucher system being proposed for Washington DC.

Lenin once said that he would rather have everyone in Russia die of hunger than allow free trade in grain. ...

Allowing parents to choose the school that is best for their children is a sensible and compassionate idea for educating Americans just as grain markets would have been for feeding Russians. It took decades for the Soviets to recognize that collectivized farming was a terrible idea; maybe this week the Senate will realize that collectivized education is just as bad.

Ah Lenin, that moderate communist.

Arnold outlines the economic policies he would implement as governor in a Opinion Journal op-ed. It all looks great to me. I like Tom McClintock more on other issues, but I could certainly live with Arnold's economics.

[I have two liberal Democrat friends who recognize that Cruz Bustamante is slimy and crooked; they told me they could never vote for him. But they didn't like Arnold either, and I learned today that they both ended up voting (absentee) for McClintock. Isn't that od