Archive for 2010

It appears that my ACL adventure might not be over. For the past couple of months my knee has begun to loosen up, meaning that it felt as if the tibia was beginning to slip forward in more and more situations than I thought were appropriate for my level of rehabilitation.

Now, at first I suspected this was because of a lack of muscle strength due in part to the patellar tendon pain I had been experiencing but as the months went on the movement was beginning to exhibit itself in day to day activities, and the pain has really only increased as a result.

I thought perhaps I was worrying myself over nothing, I do this often relating to issues like this, but in this case perhaps they were relatively well founded.

I went to my orthopedic surgeon a few days ago and he confirmed my self diagnosis: the knee was indeed a bit loose. The anterior drawer and lachman tests turned up positive, however he could not produce a positive pivot shift which gave him, and by extension me, a little hope that this is all salvageable.

He has prescribed a six week course of physical therapy in an effort strengthen the surround muscles in the hopes that this will solve my issue.

Here’s seriously hoping this is the case. I don’t particularly want to experience this again.

“You know Marcus, a person can be rich in more than one way,” my old uncle used to spit, with that knowing little impish smile. You know what I say? Only poor fools like that sort of talk. Makes them feel like they have something too–when in fact the haves know everyone else, well, has not.

Hell, it makes me feel good…I’m rich in feeling good. But how good can you feel when you’re dirt poor? You can’t live that way and be happy. No. Fucking. Way.

They would have you believing that the poor person is happier, friendlier, and more noble than any rich person could ever be. The rich person is far too greedy to care about the greater community; he wouldn’t stop for a second to help a guy out. He wouldn’t stop to pick up a dime–it’s not worth the time they say. Well, chief, what about the statistic that 73.3% of donations¹ made come from individuals that earn roughly $500,000 or more? You ever hear that one? And whatever’s left comes from the rest of us bums earning a paltry sum.

All I’m saying is, a small percentage of people even approach that bracket, yet they seem pretty damn philanthropic to me; hell, they’re living well and helping others, only making themselves feel even better. They must have happiness issues. Tax breaks for philanthropy don’t explain it.

You tell me. What do you think? Are the rich simply hoarding and making life harder for us regular, normal folk? Is it time to revolt against the rich classes?

Hell no.

What good will that do? There will always be a class of people that have what we do not. Even in that bullshit utopian, communist dream, the party is rich and extravagant, while the people generally suffer the consequences of central planning.

Look, the rich do a great job of distributing their wealth without government interference, so why press it? Because envy is on their minds.

Can’t make anyone happy.

I’ve not had the opportunity to watch this video yet, but the lede is very interesting and indeed thought provoking to say the least:

A crucial part of the self-consciousness of individuals and the way they define themselves socially is a perception of their location in a historical narrative, however vague. For most people in North America and Europe the narrative in question is that of ‘Western Civilization’ – this is true for all parts of the political spectrum and includes those who see this narrative as one of triumphant success and others who perceive it as a much darker story. However, the picture that emerges from historical research does not support any of these accounts. Rather they lead us to the conclusion that historic Western Civilization no longer exists but has perished or been transformed. This should make us think about how to understand our historical location and lead us to see past, present, and future in a new way.

To my mind I suppose this is discussing classical western civilization; the world of Rome and Greece is long dead, but perhaps we’re living the fallacy much as our ancestors did when crowning Roman emperors a millennium ago. Though these societies seem to survive in many ways in our modern institutions, I’m torn on this subject until I view the clip.

Typekit is a service designed to meet the changing typeface needs of the modern web and, in their words, “is the easiest way to get real fonts on your website.” In short, Typekit allows you to use a wide range of hosted typefaces on your site for a reasonable price. Select typefaces based on your needs, determine your selectors, and attach a little javascript to the <head> of your document and you’re set.

I’ve eschewed its use on my personal site for a while, but recently decided to give the trial account another run–you’ll notice the Typekit badge docked to the bottom of the page, indicating that I’m freeloading the system until I decide whether or not to utilize the service on a paying basis–in order to determine its usefulness for me. What are my needs here?

I would certainly like to use a typeface that can be seen uniformly by all users, and this definitely provides the necessary functionality, but I will have to be careful in the choices I make; there are a wide array of font families to choose from, and you’re apt to go wild when first given access to such variety. It is a variety the likes of which have never been seen before on this here web. At the moment I’ve chosen Droid Serif made by Google Android, in all 4 weights and styles for the body copy.

I’m using both Typekit and Cufon to include non-standard typefaces, but would like to eliminate one of the two at some point, and I would prefer to eliminate Cufon because of text selection and licensing issues. I look forward to testing the Typekit service further.

I’m a sucker for a certain subset of science fiction; the sort that usually involves space faring humans living in an optimistic future. The kind that allows a small child to envision a world of endless possibilities–a future that ends kindly. A future that involves an awful lot of really cool theoretical science.

When I was a younger man it was always my dream to live in an era of intense space exploration; while I happen to live in one, it is merely in the earliest stages of exploration, one that will likely not see much in terms of human exploration of even our local system in my lifetime. That is, I won’t get a chance to witness very much of it. As I grew older this always gave me pause–sadness would creep in, tears would flow, friendships were forged. Or something. Anyway…

It wasn’t the large naval style space battles that drew me in. Science fiction offered me an escape from the real world that kept me innocent (so to speak), interested in learning, and always feeling optimistic. I learned to question everything in order to gain a better understanding of the world around me; perhaps this is why I ask questions now–why I read in order to gain a better understanding of history, science, and everything around me. I’m curious, but mostly I just want to know, even if that knowledge isn’t extensive.

Well, when the new Star Trek came rolling out of theaters last year I was excited to say the least. My stomach felt as if it were free falling in anticipation. I get that feeling every time I participate in some nostalgic activity, though I’m generally disappointed in the end. Not this time. This time I was brought back to that sense of adventure and awe I had as a young man–for a few hours anyway.

Look this nerdry is indeed really stupid, but for one reason or another it shaped me and my interests for the last 18 years or so, and so I will never apologize for being a giant nerd/geek. Take that with a conformists grain of salt.

“So, what did you get me?” Is the greeting I receive. No, I kid. We picked each others gifts out yesterday, at about the same time. Not because we’re lazy and not because we didn’t know what to get each other…no, it was because of laziness that we both waited until the last minute to get gifts for one another.

At any rate, happy anniversary!

Yes indeed. Two years, almost to the minute, I’ve been married to a wonderful gal, who recently began blogging by the way. She’s been a whole lot of fun, making me into a big old giant idiot of man. She’s more beautiful than she’ll ever admit (the tragedy of being a woman, perhaps), and I love her a great deal.

I hope that she enjoys being married to me as much as I have enjoyed being married to her, and despite our differences of opinion on issues near and far (and isn’t that what makes life worth living anyway?) I feel like I’ve got a solid friend and companion in my wife.

I love you, Michelle, thanks for the two short years so far.

I can’t claim an extensive understanding of progressive thought, but I am willing to give it a hearing; I’m mostly willing to do so in order to exemplify the ideals I’m always preaching about; namely that ideas need to be heard and debated, not cut down without analysis. So how do I determine what to address or discuss? I will have to use media sources, first, because I am not as intimately involved as I should be in reading and researching progressive thought; second, I won’t use this particular post to critque the ideology in question, merely to spell it out and gain an understanding. I’ll leave the commentary to the comment area (a bit of a confusing phrase?) if any will take place.

First, what role should government play in our lives? What I get from liberal friends and from a basic reading of the news is that many of these individuals are, in general, a passionate group and often place the well-being of others at the forefront of their philosophy; this is why they do what they do, for the less well-off. What can be done to ensure that these folks are taken care of, and how best to accomplish this goal?

In general, it is best to support a government that is vast and far reaching in order to help the most people; plus reform doesn’t move fast enough in society and provides a less reliable motivator; for social justice it is best to force change through legislative action; barring that, perhaps judicial activism. This philosophy “holds that the function of the liberal state is to supply individuals with the opportunity to provide for themselves by useful work. The right to work and the right to a living wage are considered as real as the right to person and property, while unemployment and low wages are considered to be a reproach to the justice of society.” ¹ So in a sense, the right to work becomes a natural right, which is granted by government, a right which is to be protected at all costs, while inequality indicates how certain segments of society are served poorly by current institutions.

The focus is generally on the good of the community as a whole rather than what is good for individual actors, so that everyone can live an equally good life. “It conceives the rights of the individual as harmonious with those of the community, and defines the first in terms of a common good and the second in terms of the well-being of individuals. Social liberal policies include government intervention in the economy to provide full employment and social welfare, and protection of human rights.” ¹

A small critique of this thought process. While I said I would not offer criticisms, it best to provide a little balance. The state has been described “as the entity that maintains a monopoly over the legitimate use of force in a given territory.” ² Meaning, the state is the only entity that can manipulate actors in any meaningful, legitimate way. In order to accomplish progressive goals by attempting to provide work and reasonable wages means that the state must force it’s citizenry to comply with any edicts regarding work and wages in order to ensure compliance. ² I would like to assume that the citizenry wouldn’t normally accept this kind of pressure to conform without a rational reason, though.

In my opinion, what makes progressivism so dangerous is the nobility of its causes. When taken in the abstract, for instance, there are few who would disparage the importance of progressive priorities such as health care and education. The difference between progressives and conservatives, however, is that progressives consider these issues to be matters of “social justice,” thereby necessitating government provision. Politically, we often see progressive policies gain more traction because it is easier to create massive deficit-financed entitlement programs than to ask people to make spending sacrifices in their own lives. This makes intuitive sense since whatever money the government borrows needs to be paid back by future generations. Therefore, we can almost think of the government as a hidden financing mechanism for American households. Yet, while progressive policies might seem attractive—since they allow Americans to collectively finance social programs via low interest government debt—they ultimately require people to pay a much higher cost: their own freedom. That is, every time we expand the government’s mandate, we effectively socialize private rights, especially those pertaining to property. ²

In short, this is why so many people align themselves with progressive/liberal policies. Because it is noble, and just to do so on it’s face. Thus, one could come to the conclusion that the converse was true of classical liberal thought; that it is merely heartless and self serving–well self serving perhaps is sort of accurate.

What are your thoughts on progressive ideology? What role should government play in society? Why do you subscribe to/not subscribe to progressive ideology? Could you see the opposing sides view in a positive light and would you be willing to try to understand it in order to better understand your own views?

I want to leave you with a thought from F.A. Hayek, brought to my attention by Mr. Hollander: “If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.” ²

I’m going to rant for a little bit; I’m going to do this because I’ve had it with being considered a government hating, racist, ignoramus, low-life conservative minded person. My views are not extreme; my views are not heartless; and my views are far from racist. Each of these arguments against my beliefs lack legitimacy in that they do not address my thoughts in any way. My beliefs are completely ignored, but my character is attacked; I’m considered an idiot and heartless for bringing this up.

When I disagree with a set of opinions, my disagreement is misguided, dangerous–subversive even–yet when those with whom I disagree are in opposition to what I have said their protestations are of the highest order of patriotism–intelligent, and well guided. Really, they’re just fucking enlightened–while I am clearly not.

Disgust is displayed prominently on my face.

Where did these ideas come from? Obviously there are some legitimate arguments to be had on both sides of the governing philosophy coin, but the complete dismissal of one of those viewpoints is indeed subversive and antithetical to the ideals with which we are supposed to have been taught since birth; the real crime, though, is the manner in which they are dismissed rather than the disagreement itself. Character attacks do not advance political debate; they change the nature of the debate, while solving nothing.

It’s no wonder a lot of conservative minded folks are such conspiracy theorists when their beliefs are attacked in this way by the national media, politicians, and just about every Tom, Dick, and Harry in Hollywood; this is all they hear.

A list of my crazy, subversive, and supposed racist beliefs and thoughts:

1. Governments are for securing and maintaining the natural rights and liberties of members of society; the social contract is legitimate under these circumstances. When a government no longer follows it’s rules and instead becomes a body that doles out rights and liberties its purpose is muddied and it begins to protect liberties less.
2. Governments exist to maintain security in society and to protect from foreign actors; this is how liberties and rights are protected.
3. While taxation is important to maintaining government services and security, the increased amounts of taxation required to maintain the modern welfare state begin to encroach on one’s right to property as the government increasingly sees those earnings as theirs first, and yours as a pittance for your time. Thus, taxation is not evil, it is that taxation for redistribution helps no one over time.
4. We should help one another in society. People need a hand every once in a while, a leg up, something to get them moving; however, using taxation in order to force a helping hand is not charity. Governments are not for creating happiness.
5. People are free to do as they wish, as long as it harms no one; so, people may marry who they wish, drive whatever car they wish, believe what they wish, and act in a manner conforming to the no harm principle.

Please, if any of these ideas are racist, crazy, anti-intellectual, ill informed, or heartless, let me know.