[Cc'ed some brainy friends]
Y.A.,
This is an interesting scientific opportunity. As you well know, climate scientists say that CO2 drives temperature changes, and that solar radiation is a minor factor (accounts for about 25% of the temperature change in their models). Others, like meteorologists and physicists, are very skeptical of these claims because the models aren't well-validated and because they make unphysical assumptions.
So what happens when sunspot activity shuts down and CO2 levels keep rising? Well, now we get to test the climate models. That's what's happening right now. The sun has been basically inactive since 2005, and all four major temperature tracking outlets report that global temperature[1] has dropped by 0.65 Celsius or more, wiping out a century of warming.
This is actually not a good thing. Human society deals with heat better than cold. Cold freezes water and bursts cells, which is why early frost kills crops. Warmer climates mean the agricultural belt moves north by something like 100 miles per degree Celsius, closer to Canada with its vast tracts of empty land. Colder climates bring that frozen tundra further south. Poor people die from exposure to cold more readily than heat stroke. I'm afraid I don't have the numbers to back these claims up, sorry, and if I'm wrong you can correct me--but I'm not gleeful about proving the global warming fanatics "wrong" because this cold will cost us.
On the other hand, it's also the price of public education. Americans have the opportunity to realize that a purported "consensus" of scientists from a single discipline all agreeing with each other does not constitute peer review, let alone guarantee truth. (There's too much opportunity there for inbred science, whereby you can't get funding to investigate anything that rocks the boat. Once a consensus gets established there's no way to challenge it within the discipline.) So what can you do? Be humble, and listen to "wrong" opinions until you know what makes them wrong or you change your mind. That's how real science operates, and the really good scientists like Richard Feynman and Freeman Dyson have been doing that all along.
-Max
[1] Whatever that means. It's actually very difficult to give a point-estimate of temperature for a planet. It is the average temperature of all stations at the equator? The poles? The average of the two? The total heat energy of the planet, divided by planetary mass and converted to temperature units? Not that you could measure the latter in any case.
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Independence vs. Dependence vs. "Interdependence"
Dear sis,
I've been pondering a question on which you may or may not have an opinion to express.
Perhaps you can relate to this: it seems to be built into me that I really, really dislike being dependent on other people. I don't mind other people helping out sometimes--it often makes things happen faster and better--but I hate, hate, hate it when I find I don't have the power to make do on my own, if necessary. It makes me feel like an idiot and a child. Obviously it isn't possible (in mortality) to do without help from Heavenly Father and Jesus[1], but what about other people? Are friends necessities or luxuries? What about your spouse? I've heard people say that you ought to aim to be "interdependent" with your spouse instead of "independent," but that doesn't seem quite right to me. I want to marry someone because I like her, not because I need her, and I would hope that if she or I were temporarily stationed thousands of miles away from each other we'd miss each other but both be basically okay. Anyway, I can't remember what Heavenly Father and Mother's relationship is like, and all the other married people I know have been married for considerably less than a thousand years, so I don't know for sure, but my hunch says that in the long run, (the capability for) independence probably is the ideal to aim for. Interdependence is still dependence, after all.
I may be barking up the wrong tree here, since everybody but me seems to think that "interdependence" is better. I've been pondering this question for three years or so and I'll keep gathering data. If you want to weigh in with an opinion, I'll be interested in hearing it.
-Max
P.S. I mentioned to you that I was feeling strange emotionally, right? It turns out that was at least partially seasonal affective disorder (there's no sun in Washington). Vitamin D supplements have cleared up the problem. I'm not generally big on artificial health aids--they seem like cheating--but I'll make an exception for vitamins because it's easier than drinking a ton of Vitamin-D-fortified milk. I bet lack of sun is not a problem down in Texas...
It's always a little bit funny to me that your body can affect your mind, but obviously it can.
[1] Even not counting the Atonement, they're the ones who make the sun work, and who provide the electromagnetic force that keeps my atoms together, etc.
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
I've been pondering a question on which you may or may not have an opinion to express.
Perhaps you can relate to this: it seems to be built into me that I really, really dislike being dependent on other people. I don't mind other people helping out sometimes--it often makes things happen faster and better--but I hate, hate, hate it when I find I don't have the power to make do on my own, if necessary. It makes me feel like an idiot and a child. Obviously it isn't possible (in mortality) to do without help from Heavenly Father and Jesus[1], but what about other people? Are friends necessities or luxuries? What about your spouse? I've heard people say that you ought to aim to be "interdependent" with your spouse instead of "independent," but that doesn't seem quite right to me. I want to marry someone because I like her, not because I need her, and I would hope that if she or I were temporarily stationed thousands of miles away from each other we'd miss each other but both be basically okay. Anyway, I can't remember what Heavenly Father and Mother's relationship is like, and all the other married people I know have been married for considerably less than a thousand years, so I don't know for sure, but my hunch says that in the long run, (the capability for) independence probably is the ideal to aim for. Interdependence is still dependence, after all.
I may be barking up the wrong tree here, since everybody but me seems to think that "interdependence" is better. I've been pondering this question for three years or so and I'll keep gathering data. If you want to weigh in with an opinion, I'll be interested in hearing it.
-Max
P.S. I mentioned to you that I was feeling strange emotionally, right? It turns out that was at least partially seasonal affective disorder (there's no sun in Washington). Vitamin D supplements have cleared up the problem. I'm not generally big on artificial health aids--they seem like cheating--but I'll make an exception for vitamins because it's easier than drinking a ton of Vitamin-D-fortified milk. I bet lack of sun is not a problem down in Texas...
It's always a little bit funny to me that your body can affect your mind, but obviously it can.
[1] Even not counting the Atonement, they're the ones who make the sun work, and who provide the electromagnetic force that keeps my atoms together, etc.
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Tax rates
Dear Jenn,
I know we've discussed income tax before, but this document is interesting:
http://www.house.gov/jec/news/2007/October/pr110-24.pdf
Salient facts:
1.) The top 1% of Americans generate 40% of the income tax revenue, and the top 5% pays 60%. That makes it hard to complain about tax cuts for "the wealthy," since they're paying the lion's share of the taxes in the first place. Lower- and middle-class individuals pay more taxes than this chart would indicate, in the form of payroll taxes for social security, etc., but the Department of Agriculture, the military, and the Department of Energy are all paid for mostly by the wealthy.
2.) The top 1%'s share of gross income (as opposed to taxes paid) went from 14% to 21% between 1992 and 2000, and was still (or back up to) 21% in 2005, when this document was produced. Income is distributed more unequally in the Internet age. Hmmm. It looks to me as if elite skills are becoming more valuable, and of course the job market is undoubtedly getting more competitive at the same time. Of course I could be wrong. But get a good education and work hard at self-improvement.
Of course you already knew all that. I hope your work is progressing apace, and look forward to seeing you again.
Love,
B.C.
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F.
Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The Challenger Failure
Feynmann on the Challenger failure. A classic for anyone who wants to understand, for instance, the global warming debate, or fusion research. Not because these have anything to do with O-rings on the space shuttle, but to absorb the manner of thinking and learn the right questions to ask.
http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/dumb/feynman.html
-Max
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Psych. Profiles: McCain, Obama, Clinton
[quote] During the 2000 presidential campaign, I applied the principles of personality assessment, based on the theories of psychiatrist Carl Jung, to candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore. Forgive me if it sounds like gloating, but here's what my research revealed about the personality type of the future 43rd president of the United States: "They are decisive and little bothered by second thoughts and self-doubt." "Since [they] do not reflect very much on their errors or analyze their mistakes to any great extent, it is difficult for them to learn from their errors, and so they can become caught in a loop, repeating their mistakes."
It's time again to apply the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to our presidential candidates....
[end quote]
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Correct principles of Feminism
Here's a quotation from Jesse W. Crosby that you may find interesting.
One day when the Prophet carried to my house a sack of flour he had borrowed, my wife remarked that he had returned more than he had received. He answered that it should be so; that anything borrowed should be returned always with interest to the lender. "Thus," he said, "the borrower, if he be honest, is a slave to the lender."
Some of the home habits of the Prophet--such as building kitchen fires, carrying out ashes, carrying in wood and water, assisting in the care of the children, etc.--were not in accord with my idea of a great man's self-respect. The above incident of the Prophet carrying the sack of flour gave me the opportunity to give him some corrective advice which I had desired to do for a long time. I reminded him of every phase of his greatness and called to his mind the multitude of tasks he performed that were too menial for such as he; to fetch and carry flour was too great a humiliation. "Too terrible a humiliation," I repeated, "for you who are the head, and you should not do it."
The Prophet listened quietly to all I had to say, then made his answer in these words: "If there be humiliation in a man's house, who but the head of that house should or could bear that humiliation?"
1.) Feminism sometimes gets a bad rap amongst members of the Church, but I rather like it. I've heard older women observe that younger families divide labor differently than they did--the men are more involved with the children and household chores. I think there's a lot of truth to feminism.
2.) Matt. 16:22-23 may strike a person as odd, that Peter actually thinks to rebuke Jesus, the Christ. The account above captures the spirit of what I think happened there--people don't always recognize righteousness when they see it, and Peter apparently thought Jesus was inappropriately discouraged, lacking hope, and rebuked him, thinking he was helping. In Jesse's case he was rebuking Joseph in a correct principle, but not counter to the prophecies and commandments of God, and so Joseph's reply was considerably milder than Jesus' to Peter: "Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offense unto me."
-Max
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Adam-God theory
Wikipedia supplies some interesting information:
Just before his death, Young took steps to ensure that the Adam–God theory was taught in LDS temples as part of the Endowment ceremony. In his personal journal William Clayton recorded the teachings of Brigham Young given in the Nauvoo Temple on 28 December 1845. In these teachings Brigham Young clearly states that there are at least two persons named Adam.
Meeting at half past 10 o clock this day in the attic Story of the Temple, for those who could clothe themselves in the garments of the Priesthood. A very large congregation was present, the side rooms were some of them filled, a curtain was withdrawn and the other rooms besides the east room were filled. About 200 persons were present, clothed in priestly garments. President Young addressed the meeting, it having been opened by prayer by P. P. Pratt, and singing the songs of Zion, "The morning breaks the shadows flee" and "Come to me &c. President Young came into the room at 1/4 before 12 M. He said he supposed those present were a part of those who had received their endowment, that they were those who desired to be wise and do honor to the cause they have espoused, and bring no reproach upon the character of him who has given us of the things of his Kingdom liberally. The keys or signs of the Priesthood are for the purpose of impressing on the mind the order of the Creation. In the first place the name of the man is given, a new name, Adam, signifying the first man, or Eve, the first Woman. Adam's name was more ancient than he was. It was the name of a man long before him, who enjoyed the Priesthood. The new name should be after some ancient man. Thus with your ancient name, your modern name and the name that was last given you, you enquire concerning things past present and future. (Brigham Young, Intimate Chronicle 238-239 (William Clayton Journal) (28 December 1845))
If, as Brigham Young teaches here, Adam was named after "some ancient man" who held the priesthood and lived long before Adam did, then the identity of that more ancient Adam might help us understand better Brigham Young's teachings concerning Adam. If that more ancient Adam is God the Father, then all the mystery of Brigham Young's teachings relative to Adam disappear.
[bolded emphasis by Wikipedia]
This fits pretty well with my prior observation that Brigham Young knew perfectly well that Heavely Father and Adam-who-was-Michael are different people--but the part I could never figure out was whether the writing was garbled, or, if it isn't garbled, why Brigham Young would be referring to the Father as "Adam" also. If William Clayton's journal is correct it's because the name has significance. Maybe that shouldn't surprise anyone who knows what "Adam-ondi-Ahman" means.
-Max
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Just before his death, Young took steps to ensure that the Adam–God theory was taught in LDS temples as part of the Endowment ceremony. In his personal journal William Clayton recorded the teachings of Brigham Young given in the Nauvoo Temple on 28 December 1845. In these teachings Brigham Young clearly states that there are at least two persons named Adam.
Meeting at half past 10 o clock this day in the attic Story of the Temple, for those who could clothe themselves in the garments of the Priesthood. A very large congregation was present, the side rooms were some of them filled, a curtain was withdrawn and the other rooms besides the east room were filled. About 200 persons were present, clothed in priestly garments. President Young addressed the meeting, it having been opened by prayer by P. P. Pratt, and singing the songs of Zion, "The morning breaks the shadows flee" and "Come to me &c. President Young came into the room at 1/4 before 12 M. He said he supposed those present were a part of those who had received their endowment, that they were those who desired to be wise and do honor to the cause they have espoused, and bring no reproach upon the character of him who has given us of the things of his Kingdom liberally. The keys or signs of the Priesthood are for the purpose of impressing on the mind the order of the Creation. In the first place the name of the man is given, a new name, Adam, signifying the first man, or Eve, the first Woman. Adam's name was more ancient than he was. It was the name of a man long before him, who enjoyed the Priesthood. The new name should be after some ancient man. Thus with your ancient name, your modern name and the name that was last given you, you enquire concerning things past present and future. (Brigham Young, Intimate Chronicle 238-239 (William Clayton Journal) (28 December 1845))
If, as Brigham Young teaches here, Adam was named after "some ancient man" who held the priesthood and lived long before Adam did, then the identity of that more ancient Adam might help us understand better Brigham Young's teachings concerning Adam. If that more ancient Adam is God the Father, then all the mystery of Brigham Young's teachings relative to Adam disappear.
[bolded emphasis by Wikipedia]
This fits pretty well with my prior observation that Brigham Young knew perfectly well that Heavely Father and Adam-who-was-Michael are different people--but the part I could never figure out was whether the writing was garbled, or, if it isn't garbled, why Brigham Young would be referring to the Father as "Adam" also. If William Clayton's journal is correct it's because the name has significance. Maybe that shouldn't surprise anyone who knows what "Adam-ondi-Ahman" means.
-Max
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Why Most Americans Are Polygamous
[Cc'ed M-LDS & general public]
May interest you.
-Max
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Can you trust poll numbers? Plus, rambling on Obama
[I sent this to Jenn several weeks ago. I think it may be worth Cc'ing the general public at this point.]
FYI--
Interesting data here.
In some of the primaries and caucuses held on Tuesday, things weren't much better. The final polls seriously underestimated Mr. Obama's performance in Alabama and Georgia, and Mike Huckabee's vote in Georgia and Missouri. In California, two polls conducted over the same two-day period before the election yielded diametrically opposite results: one showed Mrs. Clinton leading by 10 percentage points, while the other reported Mr. Obama up by 13 points. In four other states — Illinois, Massachusetts and Connecticut for the Democrats and Alabama for the Republicans — polls showed large ranges of variation.
As the remaining states prepare to cast their decisive votes in this campaign, how are voters supposed to make sense of all the conflicting data?
Unfortunately, when the differences are as severe as they were in California, we can't. Despite 22 years of experience as a Democratic pollster, I can only speculate about what might be going wrong.
Why? Because so many pollsters fail to disclose basic facts about their methods. Very few, for instance, describe how they determine likely voters. Did they select voters based on their self-reported history of voting, their knowledge of voting procedures, their professed intent to vote or interest in the campaign? Did they use actual voting history gleaned from official lists of registered voters?
Fewer still report the percentage of eligible adults that their samples of likely voters are supposed to represent. This is a crucial statistic, given the relatively low percentage of eligible adults who participate in party primaries. (In California, for example, turnout surged in 2008 but still amounted to about 30 percent of the state's eligible adults.)
Incredibly, some organizations routinely report results without any indication of whether a live interviewer or a recorded voice asked the questions.
It's tempting to get excited about, for example, Obama's current lead over McCain in the poll numbers, but I'll think about this article and be cautious in assessments. My gut feel is that Obama will probably be our next President. Maybe I'm overestimating the power of the American racial guilt complex, but I think [Inserting foot in mouth now] a significant number of independent voters would like to be able to point to Obama as a sign that America is neither anti-Muslim nor still mired in 1960's-era racial prejudice, and that 3-5% may be enough to give the edge over McCain. In a funny sort of way, it's an appeasement policy, although the enemy here isn't the Nazis but their own psyches, masquerading as other's opinions. At least for the racial part--the Muslim aspect has some real geopolitical baggage attached that makes "appeasement" more than just a metaphor.
My biggest worry about Obama is that he's not, or doesn't appear to be, a political realist. Over the past few years I've seen too much ideolism in action (Paul Bremer) to be eager for any more. (This in spite of the fact that I'm inclined to idealism myself, which is why I would never vote for myself were I to run for President.) On the plus side, he's not closed-minded, so one might hope that realism would win out occasionally in his policies. My other concern would be the Supreme Court nominations. The Supreme Court has lately been rendering strict-constructionist verdicts (by narrow margins), like the software patent ruling on obviousness and the Kansas City school district verdict, and I would rather not see that margin evaporate.
Well. Civilization will probably survive, even if it doesn't take my advice.
-Max
My biggest worry about Obama is that he's not, or doesn't appear to be, a political realist. Over the past few years I've seen too much ideolism in action (Paul Bremer) to be eager for any more. (This in spite of the fact that I'm inclined to idealism myself, which is why I would never vote for myself were I to run for President.) On the plus side, he's not closed-minded, so one might hope that realism would win out occasionally in his policies. My other concern would be the Supreme Court nominations. The Supreme Court has lately been rendering strict-constructionist verdicts (by narrow margins), like the software patent ruling on obviousness and the Kansas City school district verdict, and I would rather not see that margin evaporate.
Well. Civilization will probably survive, even if it doesn't take my advice.
-Max
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Education spending: Kansas City
This article is biased, in the sense that the writer has clearly come to a conclusion, but the numbers are interesting. Kansas City's $400 million budget was two to three times the norm. Throwing money at schools doesn't seem to help them much.
There's been some talk of merit-based teacher pay recently (Obama claims to be in favor of it), which sounds like a good idea in principle although the details could be tricky. (You might think that No Child Left Behind also sounds good in principle, for instance. Practice has shown it to be an almost-unmitigated disaster. In fact, I can't even remember which part of it is not a disaster. Maybe it will come to me.) In the data that I've looked at, pumping money into school systems appears to be used mainly to shrink class sizes to 15-20 kids. It seems to me that the money would be better spent on teacher salaries. If you double the class size to 30-40 kids, and double the pay to $70K-90K, you may have some chance of attracting talented, motivated young people to the teaching profession (right now people who are really *good* at math or biology tend to go work for the NSA or pharmaceutical companies), retaining good teachers (low pay is demoralizing, even for people who really love to teach, because in our society it says that your work is not valued), and perhaps giving enough leverage that you could cut out the dead weight (teachers who aren't any good but that school districts are afraid to fire because it's so hard to find a replacement, and because the teacher's union jumps all over you). You can't do this in isolation--you'd want to couple it with disciplinary and regulatory reforms such that you could, for instance, expel students for threatening teachers with physical violence, which in the worst school districts today you can't do--but you'd be pleasantly surprised at the caliber of the talent you attract when you "build up a [profession], and make it honorable in the eyes of all people." A really good teacher will do more with a class of 30 students than two mediocre teachers will with 15 each, and that's a start.
~B.C.
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
There's been some talk of merit-based teacher pay recently (Obama claims to be in favor of it), which sounds like a good idea in principle although the details could be tricky. (You might think that No Child Left Behind also sounds good in principle, for instance. Practice has shown it to be an almost-unmitigated disaster. In fact, I can't even remember which part of it is not a disaster. Maybe it will come to me.) In the data that I've looked at, pumping money into school systems appears to be used mainly to shrink class sizes to 15-20 kids. It seems to me that the money would be better spent on teacher salaries. If you double the class size to 30-40 kids, and double the pay to $70K-90K, you may have some chance of attracting talented, motivated young people to the teaching profession (right now people who are really *good* at math or biology tend to go work for the NSA or pharmaceutical companies), retaining good teachers (low pay is demoralizing, even for people who really love to teach, because in our society it says that your work is not valued), and perhaps giving enough leverage that you could cut out the dead weight (teachers who aren't any good but that school districts are afraid to fire because it's so hard to find a replacement, and because the teacher's union jumps all over you). You can't do this in isolation--you'd want to couple it with disciplinary and regulatory reforms such that you could, for instance, expel students for threatening teachers with physical violence, which in the worst school districts today you can't do--but you'd be pleasantly surprised at the caliber of the talent you attract when you "build up a [profession], and make it honorable in the eyes of all people." A really good teacher will do more with a class of 30 students than two mediocre teachers will with 15 each, and that's a start.
~B.C.
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Shooting down satellites
[laughter] Now the Pentagon is doing it too.
~B.C.
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
P.S. (Happiness)
P.S. Of course you know that I adamantly oppose the main thrust of the article, which asks, "Is it better to be alone, or to settle?" and answers with an exhortation, "Settle!" Settling is a terrible idea as well as unethical and heartlessly cruel to the person for whom you are "settling."
I might feel differently about this if death were permanent, since 60 years of being moderately well-matched is better than 60 years of standing alone, but your one and only one opportunity to shape the character and destiny of your spouse is... before you choose who he (or she, in my case) is. The trick is to realize that each requirement brings a corresponding cost, possibly a multiplicative cost, in terms of how long you need to look to find a person with such qualities. For minor qualities, like a sense of aesthetics, it may be a smarter bet to pick someone who has the important (fundamental) qualities you're looking for, and pay an additive time cost to develop the minor qualities, e.g. by spending a few years taking him to plays and operas (and being prepared to write off the quality if such excursions fail to "take").
The only way settling strikes me as a smart bet is if you either 1.) are playing a finite game (i.e. believe this life is all you've got) or 2.) have ONLY minor qualities on your list.
Trusty, dusky, vivid, true,
With eyes of gold and bramble-dew,
Steel-true and blade-straight,
The great artificer
Made my mate.
Honour, anger, valour, fire;
A love that life could never tire,
Death quench or evil stir,
The mighty master
Gave to her.
You know, Jenn, sometimes you amaze me. That poem is exactly like you.
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Happiness
What do Americans really want from life, and does what they're chasing actually lead where they want to go? A paragraph from this article struck me:
In some ways, I meant it: we'd both dreamed of motherhood, and here we were, picnicking in the park with our children. But it was also decidedly not the dream. The dream, like that of our mothers and their mothers from time immemorial, was to fall in love, get married, and live happily ever after. Of course, we'd be loath to admit it in this day and age, but ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won't tell you it's a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she'll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child).
Of course it's hard to know to what extent the generalization is correct. Anyway, no deep thoughts from me on the topic. I just thought it was an interesting admission.
-Max
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Schrodinger's Emotion
Jenn,
I was thinking about that whole "feeling" thing some more recently. I don't think it's really fair for anyone to expect me to understand my own feelings because they are, of course, conditional. How can you know how you feel before you know what universe you're in? You don't even know what things mean yet.
Example: suppose you, Jenn, have a date with a boy. You're supposed to meet him at a cafe downtown. He doesn't show up. How do you feel about this? You'd probably say that it depends upon what happened to prevent him from showing up. If he's playing on his Xbox at home, you're annoyed. If he's stuck in traffic, you're sympathetic. If he's lying in the hospital in a coma after getting mugged, you're alarmed and maybe a little bit sad. Until you have more data, you're in all three states at once and more. When you find out what actually happened, the feelings you have which are consequents of things which never happened also become things which never happened. When he sheepishly phones you to say he's still at home and just noticed the time, you know that you're merely annoyed, albeit a little mollified that at least he called to explain.
Breaking ties with K. always hurts because I never know whether it was the inevitable result of trying to be friends with someone radically and fundamentally different from me or a regrettable result of my ham-handed handling of a friendship which ought naturally to be very good because we're fundamentally similar. Some day far in the future, I'll be able to look at the trajectories of our respective lives and deduce which similarities were fundamental and which were incidental, because the fundamental traits will remain. Sort of like carving a sculpture. Anything still there after a thousand lifetimes is probably there to stay.
See you then.
Love,
-Max
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
I was thinking about that whole "feeling" thing some more recently. I don't think it's really fair for anyone to expect me to understand my own feelings because they are, of course, conditional. How can you know how you feel before you know what universe you're in? You don't even know what things mean yet.
Example: suppose you, Jenn, have a date with a boy. You're supposed to meet him at a cafe downtown. He doesn't show up. How do you feel about this? You'd probably say that it depends upon what happened to prevent him from showing up. If he's playing on his Xbox at home, you're annoyed. If he's stuck in traffic, you're sympathetic. If he's lying in the hospital in a coma after getting mugged, you're alarmed and maybe a little bit sad. Until you have more data, you're in all three states at once and more. When you find out what actually happened, the feelings you have which are consequents of things which never happened also become things which never happened. When he sheepishly phones you to say he's still at home and just noticed the time, you know that you're merely annoyed, albeit a little mollified that at least he called to explain.
Breaking ties with K. always hurts because I never know whether it was the inevitable result of trying to be friends with someone radically and fundamentally different from me or a regrettable result of my ham-handed handling of a friendship which ought naturally to be very good because we're fundamentally similar. Some day far in the future, I'll be able to look at the trajectories of our respective lives and deduce which similarities were fundamental and which were incidental, because the fundamental traits will remain. Sort of like carving a sculpture. Anything still there after a thousand lifetimes is probably there to stay.
See you then.
Love,
-Max
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
What women want
[Cc to blog]
I thought this was interesting:
Abstract: The current research tests the hypothesis that women have an evolved mate value calibration adaptation that functions to raise or lower their standards in a long-term mate according to their own mate value. A woman's physical attractiveness is a cardinal component of women's mate value. We correlated observer-assessed physical attractiveness (face, body, and overall) with expressed preferences for four clusters of mate characteristics (N = 214): (1) hypothesized good-gene indicators (e.g., masculinity, sexiness); (2) hypothesized good investment indicators (e.g., potential income); (3) good parenting indicators (e.g., desire for home and children), and (4) good partner indicators (e.g., being a loving partner). Results supported the hypothesis that high mate value women, as indexed by observer-judged physical attractiveness, expressed elevated standards for all four clusters of mate characteristics. Discussion focuses on potential design features of the hypothesized mate-value calibration adaptation, and suggests an important modification of the trade-off model of women's mating. A minority of women—notably those low in mate value who are able to escape male mate guarding and the manifold costs of an exposed infidelity—will pursue a mixed mating strategy, obtaining investment from one man and good genes from an extra-pair copulation partner (as the trade-off model predicts). Since the vast majority of women secure genes and direct benefits from the same man, however, most women will attempt to secure the best combination of all desired qualities from the same man.
To a hypothetical query about marriage in mortality, I sometimes hypothetically retort, "My Father doesn't particularly care if I marry here. If he did he would have sent me better-armed." Then later I calm down. Hypothetically.
-Max
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Disasters: doing the RIGHT thing
"Six Missing After Refinery Explosion Injures Dozens," trumpets the headline. A Georgia sugar refinery exploded in flames earlier today. I couldn't help reflecting that, if this had been a nuclear power plant, and six people were killed, the backlash would probably be cataclysmic for the nuclear industry. Three Mile Island didn't kill ANYONE, but it poisoned the regulatory atmosphere for 25 years--only in the last couple of years have people started talking about building new nuclear power plants in the U.S., because the environmentalists have realized that nuclear waste isn't actually nearly as hard to deal with as pollutants (of which CO2 is, rightly or wrongly, their chief concern) and the policymakers have decided that relying on the Middle East for energy is a mistake. (It actually turns out that the U.S. doesn't buy Middle Eastern oil--we get it from Canada and Venezuela and other close sources--but that doesn't matter because oil is fungible, minus the transportation costs. Saudi oil does have the virtue of being extremely cheap to extract, but the benefit of that goes to the Saudis, and only indirectly affects the U.S. by decreasing oil prices.)
Part of the problem is that people don't have a sense of proportion. We can blame some of this on built-in cognitive bias and some of it on deficient mathematics instruction (the point of math skills is for people to realize that you don't have to trust your brain's rule-of-thumb wiring when it doesn't match a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation[1]), and some of it on the fact that we tend to care more about "fixing" problems than understanding them. I recall a story I heard a few months ago, from a fellow who used to work at an amusement park. The park had a lot of part-time, long-term employees from the local area. New management came in and, in a cost-cutting measure, fired all the long-term employees and hired new kids for a lot cheaper to do the same jobs. It didn't hurt the long-term employees any because they made more money at their real jobs, but it surgically removed all the experience from the staff--all the supervisors and managers went back to being nurses and machinists and whatnot and the kids had to be supervisors and managers. It worked out okay for a few months, and then an oversight led to a simple mistake being made, one that any long-term employee would have known to correct--I believe a cable was left out in the wrong place--and a horrible accident occurred and maimed three people, as I recall. There was a horrible outcry and the public demanded tighter safety regulations of amusement parks. Anyone who was familiar with the situation would have told you that the procedures (which are the things regulations control) were just fine. The real problem was that poor management had destroyed the park's human capital: experienced employees. I don't think the public ever became aware of this dimension of the problem, they just demanded that SOMEBODY SHOULD DO SOMETHING and THERE OUGHTTA BE A LAW. Whether government action was really necessary in this case is not something I can judge from here, but if action is taken it should be after you know what the problem actually is--you can put up more hoops for the kids to jump through, but they're still kids. If you must take action, mandate that a certain percentage of the park workers be long-term employees. I think you can see why that's a terrible idea, and that's why I'd favor no government action at all, because the root cause of the problem cannot be solved by government in any sane way. I actually think the problem should have been solved by the press, by discovering and publishing the managerial negligence at the root of the problem so the market can punish appropriately.
Anyway, trying to leap to a solution before you know the problem is likely to be expensive, ineffective, and possibly dangerous. I've heard from some quarters that 2001 was the warmest year in recent history and the temperature has been dropping somewhat since then[2], and it seems to be true that the meteorologists and whatever-they-call-guys-who-study-sunspot-activity are nervous about the solar cycle and low flux density ("The Canadian Space Agency's radio telescope has been reporting Flux Density Values so low they will mean a mini ice age if they continue"). Climatologists think CO2 has caused a lot of warming and will continue to cause warming, physicists say CO2 can't have the effect the climate modelers say it does, meteorologists aren't sure what's happening, and well-meaning political activists want to classify CO2 as a pollutant[3] and regulate it heavily.
Understand the problem before you (re-)act, or you will probably do the wrong thing[4].
~B.C.
[1] For instance, I checked, and the U.S. national debt is about $30K per capita right now. That's a lot, especially because not every capitum is a worker, but home mortgages probably add up to more. This is not to say that I'm happy about debt and even less happy about deficits, but it puts things in quantitative perspective.
[2] I haven't checked this claim out thoroughly. I'm actually skeptical that a single global temperature measurement can have any meaningful validity anyway--what does it mean to say that "the Earth" averaged X degrees Fahrenheit this year?
[3] It might be equally appropriate to classify it as a fertilizer. I've been told that plant photosynthetic efficiency scales roughly as the square root of carbon dioxide concentration. Roughly speaking, twice the CO2 means almost 50% more plant growth. Which, incidentally, uses up CO2 in the growing.
[4] There are exceptions. A well-known axiom of warfare is that, in battle, a wrong decision is still better than no decision at all--probably because it makes sure your subordinates are at least pointed in the same direction, and then they use their initiative and try their level best to make your orders come out all right anyway.
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Part of the problem is that people don't have a sense of proportion. We can blame some of this on built-in cognitive bias and some of it on deficient mathematics instruction (the point of math skills is for people to realize that you don't have to trust your brain's rule-of-thumb wiring when it doesn't match a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation[1]), and some of it on the fact that we tend to care more about "fixing" problems than understanding them. I recall a story I heard a few months ago, from a fellow who used to work at an amusement park. The park had a lot of part-time, long-term employees from the local area. New management came in and, in a cost-cutting measure, fired all the long-term employees and hired new kids for a lot cheaper to do the same jobs. It didn't hurt the long-term employees any because they made more money at their real jobs, but it surgically removed all the experience from the staff--all the supervisors and managers went back to being nurses and machinists and whatnot and the kids had to be supervisors and managers. It worked out okay for a few months, and then an oversight led to a simple mistake being made, one that any long-term employee would have known to correct--I believe a cable was left out in the wrong place--and a horrible accident occurred and maimed three people, as I recall. There was a horrible outcry and the public demanded tighter safety regulations of amusement parks. Anyone who was familiar with the situation would have told you that the procedures (which are the things regulations control) were just fine. The real problem was that poor management had destroyed the park's human capital: experienced employees. I don't think the public ever became aware of this dimension of the problem, they just demanded that SOMEBODY SHOULD DO SOMETHING and THERE OUGHTTA BE A LAW. Whether government action was really necessary in this case is not something I can judge from here, but if action is taken it should be after you know what the problem actually is--you can put up more hoops for the kids to jump through, but they're still kids. If you must take action, mandate that a certain percentage of the park workers be long-term employees. I think you can see why that's a terrible idea, and that's why I'd favor no government action at all, because the root cause of the problem cannot be solved by government in any sane way. I actually think the problem should have been solved by the press, by discovering and publishing the managerial negligence at the root of the problem so the market can punish appropriately.
Anyway, trying to leap to a solution before you know the problem is likely to be expensive, ineffective, and possibly dangerous. I've heard from some quarters that 2001 was the warmest year in recent history and the temperature has been dropping somewhat since then[2], and it seems to be true that the meteorologists and whatever-they-call-guys-who-study-sunspot-activity are nervous about the solar cycle and low flux density ("The Canadian Space Agency's radio telescope has been reporting Flux Density Values so low they will mean a mini ice age if they continue"). Climatologists think CO2 has caused a lot of warming and will continue to cause warming, physicists say CO2 can't have the effect the climate modelers say it does, meteorologists aren't sure what's happening, and well-meaning political activists want to classify CO2 as a pollutant[3] and regulate it heavily.
Understand the problem before you (re-)act, or you will probably do the wrong thing[4].
~B.C.
[1] For instance, I checked, and the U.S. national debt is about $30K per capita right now. That's a lot, especially because not every capitum is a worker, but home mortgages probably add up to more. This is not to say that I'm happy about debt and even less happy about deficits, but it puts things in quantitative perspective.
[2] I haven't checked this claim out thoroughly. I'm actually skeptical that a single global temperature measurement can have any meaningful validity anyway--what does it mean to say that "the Earth" averaged X degrees Fahrenheit this year?
[3] It might be equally appropriate to classify it as a fertilizer. I've been told that plant photosynthetic efficiency scales roughly as the square root of carbon dioxide concentration. Roughly speaking, twice the CO2 means almost 50% more plant growth. Which, incidentally, uses up CO2 in the growing.
[4] There are exceptions. A well-known axiom of warfare is that, in battle, a wrong decision is still better than no decision at all--probably because it makes sure your subordinates are at least pointed in the same direction, and then they use their initiative and try their level best to make your orders come out all right anyway.
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
FxS = k?
Subject: FxS = k?
Bruce Schneier on security tradeoffs:
"I'm sure they have that saying ['Privacy and security are a zero-sum game'] in their business. And it's precisely why, when people in their business are in charge of government, it becomes a police state. If privacy and security really were a zero-sum game, we would have seen mass immigration into the former East Germany and modern-day China. While it's true that police states like those have less street crime, no one argues that their citizens are fundamentally more secure....
"The debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control....
"If you set up the false dichotomy, of course people will choose security over privacy -- especially if you scare them first. But it's still a false dichotomy. There is no security without privacy. And liberty requires both security and privacy. The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither."
I don't always agree with Schneier on the importance of privacy, but he's always worth listening to.
-Max
Bruce Schneier on security tradeoffs:
"I'm sure they have that saying ['Privacy and security are a zero-sum game'] in their business. And it's precisely why, when people in their business are in charge of government, it becomes a police state. If privacy and security really were a zero-sum game, we would have seen mass immigration into the former East Germany and modern-day China. While it's true that police states like those have less street crime, no one argues that their citizens are fundamentally more secure....
"The debate isn't security versus privacy. It's liberty versus control....
"If you set up the false dichotomy, of course people will choose security over privacy -- especially if you scare them first. But it's still a false dichotomy. There is no security without privacy. And liberty requires both security and privacy. The famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin reads: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's also true that those who would give up privacy for security are likely to end up with neither."
I don't always agree with Schneier on the importance of privacy, but he's always worth listening to.
-Max
Monday, February 4, 2008
Republicans for Hillary
This statement was worth a chuckle:
Bill's relationship to Hillary is blissfully straightforward compared with that of Republicans. They hate her, and they love hating her. They have wanted her to lose the nomination for the mere sport of it, and they have wanted her to win because they think she's the weakest potential Democratic nominee. Lately, the entire party seems united in its quiet pleading: "Please, Hillary, you're in it, now win it -- for us."
"The mere sport of it." [laughter] I think this guy's correct.
-Max
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Bill's relationship to Hillary is blissfully straightforward compared with that of Republicans. They hate her, and they love hating her. They have wanted her to lose the nomination for the mere sport of it, and they have wanted her to win because they think she's the weakest potential Democratic nominee. Lately, the entire party seems united in its quiet pleading: "Please, Hillary, you're in it, now win it -- for us."
"The mere sport of it." [laughter] I think this guy's correct.
-Max
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Whimsy
[A story I've been writing collaboratively with my cousin. You know how it goes, you each take turns writing a paragraph. -Max]
Ken and Barbie are walking down the street when all of the sudden...
Barbie said, "Ken, I want a divorce."
Ken dropped his cell phone. "You want a what? Why?"
Barbie: "You are to weird you alway worry about your hair and if it looks plastic! Thats why"
Ken started to cry. "Don't be a baby," she said. "I'll even let you keep the dinosaurs." Ken looked up. "Really? Then in that case--"
Alright but only if I can keep the pink teddy bear that when you squeeze it says "I love you" and gives you a kiss. I really...
...think that bear would make a good dartboard because it DESERVES TO DIE!!!!"
At this point Barbie whipped out a machete. "Oh yeah, Ken?! Well SO DO YOU!!!" Barbie launched a spinning jump-kick at Ken's head. Ken looked very surprised as a foot hit him in the solar plexus and a machete severed his jugular and his neck. His disembodied head spun through the air, mouth agape as if to say, "Barbie! I never knew you could do that!"
Barbie was frustrated, she had only killed her boyfriend and these police cars came speeding up just as she was getting in the car and they arrested her!! Her the wonderful Barbie! Barbie was furious and in the mean time they broke her nail! That manicure cost $100.00 it was "silver palm trees"! Once they got to the station...
A scrawny guy wearing a leather jacket and sunglasses walked up to her. "Hi," he said. "I'm Brad Pitt. What do you say we go out to lunch sometime."
"Well," said Barbie. He WAS kind of cute. "I'm busy being arrested right now. Could we do it tomorrow?"
The guy nodded. "That's cool. I'll meet you at your house?" He got on his motorcycle and vrrrooomed away.
"Hmm," she thought. "Maybe there is an up side to being arrested. But, wait--how does that guy know where I live?" A chill went up her spine.
The next day, when it was time for her date with the scrawny guy, Barbie...
sat by her cell with a guard by her at all times wondering if he would show up hoping not. She was really worried but she knew that lunch would be sitting in the visiting room and they had to talk through a little telephone. Though she could...
always just pretend she couldn't hear him through the telephone. Why had she ever agreed to this date in the first place? She would much rather be...
with the stupid vain Ken even though he was boring... Then Barbie got an idea...
She asked the guard if she could use his cell phone. He said okay, so she dialed Ken's number and got... his voice mail. "Ken, baby," she said. "I'm in jail. Do you think you could come over and bail me out?" She hung up the phone, and then realized that she had already cut his head off earlier that day. "Oh!" Barbie said. "I wish I had not cut Ken's head off!"
Suddenly the air began to sparkle, and a beautiful but tiny woman materialized in the air above Barbie's right hand. "Who are you?" Barbie asked, ignoring the gaping guard.
"Why Barbie," said the woman...
[To be continued.]
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Mormon temple myth
[From the Mensa/LDS discussion list, a thread about people's reactions when they realize that you're Mormon]
I haven't been in Mensa for very long--about four weeks, actually, and so far I've only been to two activities plus this mailing list--but here in the Seattle area, I haven't gotten any particular heat for my religion. There was one time, I was discussing with a guy the absurdity of having a Mensa admission test at the Regional Gathering since, from what we understood at the time, only Mensa members were allowed at the gathering in the first place. He laughed and said something about the Mormons. I cocked my head and asked, what do you mean? Oh, he said, "they have some kind of a point system to get to go to a Mormon wedding. You get a certain number of points for going on a mission, or not smoking, or giving money to the church, and you have to get so many points in order to get in. I had this friend, and they wouldn't let her in to her own sister's wedding. She was, like, a hard-core Mormon, too."
"That's messed up!" said a girl.
I hesitated, unsure whether to bring this up, but said, "Actually, I am Mormon, and it doesn't work like that." It turns out his friend was only 22, so I told him it was, approximately, a matter of being old enough. There's no point system, and going on a mission doesn't affect temple eligibility. (I later corrected this: going on a mission makes you "old enough," approximately speaking, to attend a wedding.) His attitude was, "That's cool, that makes a lot more sense." A reasonable guy. It made me wonder how many of the myths floating around about the church are the fault of well-meaning church members trying to explain things with [wince!] poor analogies.
-Max
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
I haven't been in Mensa for very long--about four weeks, actually, and so far I've only been to two activities plus this mailing list--but here in the Seattle area, I haven't gotten any particular heat for my religion. There was one time, I was discussing with a guy the absurdity of having a Mensa admission test at the Regional Gathering since, from what we understood at the time, only Mensa members were allowed at the gathering in the first place. He laughed and said something about the Mormons. I cocked my head and asked, what do you mean? Oh, he said, "they have some kind of a point system to get to go to a Mormon wedding. You get a certain number of points for going on a mission, or not smoking, or giving money to the church, and you have to get so many points in order to get in. I had this friend, and they wouldn't let her in to her own sister's wedding. She was, like, a hard-core Mormon, too."
"That's messed up!" said a girl.
I hesitated, unsure whether to bring this up, but said, "Actually, I am Mormon, and it doesn't work like that." It turns out his friend was only 22, so I told him it was, approximately, a matter of being old enough. There's no point system, and going on a mission doesn't affect temple eligibility. (I later corrected this: going on a mission makes you "old enough," approximately speaking, to attend a wedding.) His attitude was, "That's cool, that makes a lot more sense." A reasonable guy. It made me wonder how many of the myths floating around about the church are the fault of well-meaning church members trying to explain things with [wince!] poor analogies.
-Max
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Influencing national policy
When it comes to voting for a town mayor or a local official, your vote counts for a lot. When you're trying to influence national policy, your 1/300,000,000 share of the the popular vote probably counts for less than your 1/10,000 (or whatever) share of the people who bother to contact your elected representatives on a particular issue. (This share could be smaller or larger, depending upon how much media interest there is in the issue.) I've written to my congressional representatives before via email (Senator Hatch's office has been very good at responding), but I recently stumbled upon the NSS's guidelines for Contacting Your Elected Representatives - The Basics. They are good enough that I feel I should pass along the link, and highlight two points:
1.) Identify yourself as a constituent and ask to speak with the member of the staff responsible for researching and tracking the senator/representative's position on your particular issue... Due to the demands members of Congress face, the staffer will likely know more about the issue anyway. [And the Senator's position will lean heavily upon the staffer's view. -Max]
2.) If you do not know the senator/representative's position, ask what it is and offer factual evidence why she or he should support your view. [emphasis added]
This second point is just basic human theory. If you want people to listen to you, you have to listen to them first.
-Max
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F. Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Tender mercies
By the way, word of the day today was "assuage," with this note attached:
To "assuage" is to sweeten or make agreeable or tolerable, and it is far from the only English word for relieving or softening something difficult. Others include "allay," "alleviate," and "mitigate." "Allay" implies an effective calming or soothing of fears or alarms, while "alleviate" implies temporary or partial lessening of pain or distress. "Mitigate" suggests moderating or countering the force or intensity of something painful.
What really struck me was not the word "assuage" itself so much as the wording of the other synonyms, each reinforcing a message. I feel like this was Father, being thoughtful. I don't know for sure, of course, but it seems like him. Maybe someday I'll ask.
~Maximilian
P.S. I'm also thinking of 1 Nephi 15:5. Things always seem bigger while they're new to you. I don't mean to trivialize the destruction of the Nephites, and maybe this is a subject for another time, but--uh, shutting up. I don't think I can express the thought without being insensitive to the feelings of some readers.
--
"The presentation or 'gift' of the Holy Ghost simply confers upon a
man the right to receive at any time, when he is worthy of it and
desires it, the power and light of truth of the Holy Ghost, although
he may often be left to his own spirit and judgment." --Joseph F.
Smith (manual, p. 69)
Be pretty if you are,
Be witty if you can,
But be cheerful if it kills you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)