Daydreaming

Well, my spring cleaning degenerated into spring daydreaming. Man, would I love to be lounging on a nice warm beach right now, sipping a pina colada and listening to the gentle surf.

Aaaahhhhh....

Concessions

Sorry for not posting for so long. I guess I over-exerted myself with that big roast.

Since the weather here has become more spring-like I've been inspired to do some spring cleaning. Cleaning usually coincides with lots of thinking, and most of my recent mental energy has been spent on the health care issue. It's pretty clear that there are some serious problems with the health care system of the U.S. I can't say that I've discovered any solutions, but I have finally resolved my basic moral ambiguity about it. And that, I think, is probably the first step to solving any problem.

Since I am a big believer in and supporter of public education, it finally occurred to me that it would be isomorphic for me to see health care in the same light as education. Since I believe that all have a right to education, then why should I think differently about health care (which is probably an even more basic need than education)? Now, I'm not beginning some swing to the left here, but it does seem more consistent to treat the two in similar ways.

My primary reason for supporting public education, despite its problems, is because it is in the best interest of a society for its citizens to be educated, and it seems like a valid pursuit of the society as a whole to provide a basic education for all. Now if I just replace "education" with "health care" it seems to also apply. It is in the best interest of a society to assure that all citizens have access to basic health care.

Okay, so now I've found my moral "north" about it. The next step is to consider the "hows" of it.

Well, I still have lots of cleaning to do, so I must go get started.

Pork Roast

Allow me to apologize for the delay in getting this Pork Roast done. It takes an awful long time to roast a whole hog, and this is my first time doing that so, of course, it took even longer than average to get it done. Actually, it was first started way back last September but was left to "cure" for all these months. So sorry, too, if it's a little tough or otherwise unpalatable. ;-)

However, the timing is now even better since we can also take this as an opportunity to celebrate the Chinese Year of the Fire Pig (burn, baby, burn! lol).

And on top of that we could make this a kind of dinner theater in conjunction with CIP's fun story, The Easterner.

Oh, and one last note. Since pork isn't Kosher then consume at your own risk. ;-)

The 7 Commandments are abridged for the last time, simply reading, "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

George Orwell, Animal Farm

CapitalistImperialistPig did a post last year "Self Evident Truths" that pretty well sums up his porcine flavor.

His concoction doesn't agree with me so allow me to serve up my own alternative recipe. To start here is the first part of the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

First off, cip skipped that first paragraph. The following is a very important omission in his case:

...to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...

That's a big set-up for the "self evident truths" and "inalienable rights". The Forefathers are establishing that there are indeed "separate and equal" positions that are determined by Nature and God. What that means is that all people are equal no matter who they are, what characteristics they have, or whatever things separate them. The plumber's value is the same as the doctor's value even though they have been endowed with different skills, interests, etc. that put them in different "stations" in life.

Unlike the aristocracy of England they did not accept that being born into a particular family made someone in any way superior or inferior. Also the Forefathers did not believe or assert that they were in some way superior, or even more equal ;-), to the aristocrats. They said they were separate and equal. You can also think of that as meaning 'different and equal'. They meant it as individuals as well as collectively. (and please, let's not get in a tizzy over the slavery issue because it was a sociological error and has been mostly resolved, and this is my feast and that subject isn't welcome, thank you)

CIP goes into something about 'ordinary truths' and 'great truths' and how these "self evident truths" are 'great truths', but I'm not sure I understand the rhetorical difference between them. He said:

Ordinary truths, said Bohr, are statements whose opposites are false, whereas great truths, are distinguished by the circumstance that their opposites are also great truths.

Maybe I'm just dumb or lack some imagination at the moment, but that just doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, I think the "self evident truths" are not determined by myself or himself but by themselves. They are the truths that are determined by "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." I need a good example of a law of nature that qualifies as one of Bohr's "great truths" that is true and opposite at the same time. Or is that Bohr's odd way of saying that it is very Natural that there are "separate and equal" things?

Okay, I just looked it up found that the basis of Bohr's idea is his "principle of complementarity: that items could be separately analyzed as having several contradictory properties. For example, physicists currently conclude that light is both a wave and a stream of particles — two apparently mutually exclusive properties — on the basis of this principle." (wikipedia) That sounds pretty close to "separate/different and equal" to me. ;-)

But, CIP, I also found that Bohr said that the opposite of a great or profound truth might be another great or profound truth. That "might" and the other differences in wording do make a difference, just as different ingredients can't always be substituted in a recipe. And I'm glad I looked that up for some clarification because it sure didn't sound like something that Bohr would say the way that CIP presented it.

Let's move on to the great truths:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Those "great and self evident truths" are that

1) all men are created equal (by virtue of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, and 'equal' can be 'different' and 'separate'),

2) they are endowed by their Creator (or Nature) with certain unalienable Rights including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Unalienable Rights are not only Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness but include those, but I don't think there is any way to interpret that as saying that unalienable rights are negotiable.

If you apply Bohr's idea, as CIP tells it, to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness what happens? You get what CIP did. He degenerated into a rant about some aristocratic elite in control of the country and other mostly indecipherable things. Just like when a recipe goes wrong. Why is it his application of Bohr's idea failed in this case? Because he took a wrong turn in his calculations or he flubbed up his recipe:

Great truths are subject to the "Tinker Bell" effect. Their power can endure only as long as people believe in them.

Actually, that is probably a good summary of the Liberal Outlook on Life (L.O.L., lol). They would like to believe that the Laws of Nature, or the real "great truths" and therefore "self evident truths" can somehow become untruths or opposites or 'separate but not equal' just by refusing to accept them. Well, that's about as satisfying as a Tofurkey on Thanksgiving Day instead of a nice baked ham.

Remember I what I said a little ways up? 'Anyway, I think the "self evident truths" are not determined by myself or himself but by themselves. They are the truths that are determined by "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God."' If they are really "great truths" they will be true and powerful regardless of people's belief or non-belief in them.

Why is it so hard for Liberals to accept these Laws of Nature? 'Equality' does not mean even more equal. 'Separate' does not mean even more equal. 'Different' does not mean even more equal.

(please note the dangerous weapon carried by the pig: a pitchfork, no less!)

Well, now back to Animal Farm. Let's recall that the pigs led the Animal Farm after the Great Animal Revolt, and it didn't take long for them to start changing the Seven Commandments to suit their needs. Hmmm, doesn't that sound just like:

... the "Tinker Bell" effect. Their power can endure only as long as people believe in them

So here we are with the piggish thinking. They had no "great truths." They only applied the rules to everyone else and not themselves. Sounds just like a pig sty, doesn't it?



The Pigs became the new elite aristocracy because they didn't truly believe in equality for all. They only believed in themselves. The lived by the "Tinker Bell" philosophy of changeable truths. Not "self evident truths" or "great truths." They didn't respect the differences in the animals that separated them. They saw these differences as reasons to oppress and mistreat the others. They clearly had no understanding of the "separate but equal" aspects of Nature.

And it's quite apparent that CapitalistImperialistPig is not any different from any other Pigs. Except that now he has been roasted! ;-)

By the way, I must assure all that I wasn't the one who put the Big Pig on the spit, a job much too demanding of my stature. I asked some of my scary hillbilly buddies to take care of that for me. ;-) Funny thing, while they were working at it I did hear the tune Duelling Banjos playing. And I think I even heard one of them saying something about making pigs squeal.... Weeeeeee! Weeeeee! ;-)

Warning: Only those with very strong stomachs should click that last link. Trust me.


Side note: Apparently, the smell of roasted pork in the air has some pigs in Washington on the warpath. ;-)

Freedom and Free Will

America was founded under the assumption of Divine Providence. Whether or not some segments of our current population might like it, our Founding Fathers believed that God had given them this opportunity, and in fact, duty, to establish a new kind of nation in which the people had protected personal freedoms, the utmost among those the Freedom of Religion. They were well aware that with great freedom comes great responsibility.

Humans have always had trouble obeying rules. Part of that problem is that we have these wonderful, highly evolved minds that live in still rather animalistic bodies that can and do overwhelm our minds sometimes. And then there are just some people whose minds are faulty too. ;-)

What can people do if they want to allow everyone to have great Freedom but some people aren't really capable or even willing to exercise the responsibility that comes with that Freedom? Well, usually, we have to make some rules that protect everyone's freedoms, and when certain people refuse to honor those rules then we try to reform them or remove them from society.

God gave Mankind "free will" which means that we have the choice to do what's right or to do what's not right and many other things in between. God knew that this free will put a lot of pressure on mankind to learn how to respect each other and further evolve spiritually, emotionally, and mentally, and that's why He did it. (just as we challenge our own children to become 'better' people)

What would be the point of a Universe with no degrees of freedom? String theory suggests that even in the "beginning" there were/are at least 10^500 degrees of freedom. ;-) Well, I'm probably (or definitely) misusing that whole thing, but please forgive me since my own brain's 10^500 degrees of freedom are a bit unruly today. ;-)

Of course, I know by looking at the natural world that we do operate under a certain amount of determinism in the form of the Laws of Nature. But the Laws of Nature/God and the Laws of Man do basically serve the same purpose of containing chaos, though usually the Laws of Man achieve this by severely limiting choices and freedoms. And that's just not Natural. While the Laws of Nature tell me that I can't flap my arms and start to fly (except when dreaming), they also tell me that I have the choice as to how I think (or don't think) about God, religion, science, and just about everything else. Our minds are kind of a reflection of all those degrees of freedom.

Well, what was I trying to say anyway? I guess the point I'd like to make is that God/Nature has "given" us a great deal of freedom by virtue of Free Will and that America was founded on the precept that using this Free Will for the advancement of individual Freedoms was the purest use of that Free Will.

Unfortunately, I see too many people forgetting all about Free Will and Freedom in the way they think and act. They forget that their Freedom ends where someone else's begins. They forget that with their Freedom they have a lot of Responsibility, including not to infringe on others' freedoms. And it is hard sometimes to accept that others have the freedom to do or think things that we disagree with or don't like. The point of Freedom of Speech, for example, is not to protect abusive behavior because abuse is the result of exercising no Responsibility. The point of it all is to learn tolerance and to transcend the base impulses to oppress the Freedom of others in whatever forms that oppression might take (abuse, ridicule, insult, imprisonment, etcetera).

Freedom does not insure constant Happiness. But it does insure the Pursuit of Happiness, as our founding fathers already told us. Free Will is our gift from God/Nature. Freedom is that gift in action. And Responsibility is what keeps it pure.

Amen. Go in Peace.

Lucky Guess?

While cooking supper a little while ago I was also listening to the news (FoxNews because cnn isn't conducive to good digestion). There was a guy on there who was organizing a boycott of Bank of America in response to its deal with the no social security number credit card. (not being a good blogger right now and adding links to the relevent articles, etc., maybe I'll have time later)

It struck me as kind of funny that just recently I had mentioned that banking was not exactly a pristine industry and so on. My observations about banking were made well before the current hoopla about Bank of America. Isn't that an interesting "coincidence"?

Things that make you go "hmmm." Well, draw your own conclusions. ;-)

Chivalry is Dead (or senile at best)

The definition of chivalrous is "marked by gracious courtesy and high-minded consideration especially to women."

There is a sad lacking in today's world of gallant or distinguished gentlemen (though I'll say that most of the men who come here are the exception). I'm tempted to blame the feminazis for that. Well, it's probably not all their fault, but they are probably a big part of it. They insist that they be treated as men, and so then you have all these men who think that all women want to be treated as men. Sorry, that just ain't so.

I am a woman and feminine and happy to be feminine. And I expect to be treated as a feminine woman. I don't mind being 'delicate' or 'fragile'. This isn't to say that I'm weak or incapable. I've been through three pregnancies, labors, deliveries via c-section, and the recoveries of those surgeries. The feminine kind of strength it takes to do that is much greater than whatever exertion it might have taken for the male to plant his seed. Women are not the 'weaker vessel' unless you are comparing something basically trivial like the average muscle strength of men and women.

It's probably easier for men to treat women as men. That takes no consideration or thought about adjusting speech and actions. It's the lazy way out.

One of the worst results of this lack of chivalry is that men assume that a strong, capable, intelligent woman can, or wants to, take care of herself and doesn't want any help with problems, car doors, or whatever. I like help. I don't resent the offer of help. I'm usually not afraid to ask for help. And if you want to know the God's honest truth, I'm pretty disappointed when I'm not offered help when it looks like I might need it. I know I should probably take that as other people having confidence in my ability to handle things on my own. I appreciate that thought, but I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm not a Superwoman who can handle it all without some help and support at times. There is no such thing as a completely independent person- male or female.

Anyway, when a man mistreats a woman it is a sure sign that he is underendowed in many ways. He can't use the excuse that if a woman is 'equal' to him that she should expect to be treated as roughly as he would treat a man. That's not equality. That's meanness. I can't pretend to understand why some men are so hateful, angry, and unmanly that they think it's okay to beat up on a woman.

But it's clear that any man who does abuse a woman, verbally or physically, is too weak and cowardly to beat up on other men. A woman is an easy target. And of course, the bad men will use anything she might do in attempting to defend herself or fight back as some kind of evidence that she has no honor for others to defend. It's just like the old witch tests where they'd throw an accused witch into the river, and if she floated/swam she was a witch and had be burned, but if she drowned, well, then she was a good woman who unfortunately died.

So this brings me to a complaint that I've been very hesitant to make. But I really do want to say it and I will. I'm shocked that practically no 'chivalrous' men who have witnessed my abuse by a nasty and underendowed man have stepped up to intervene. WTF?? If you saw a man abusing one of your female friends in your office, for example, would you just turn away and pretend that it wasn't happening? Would you think, "Oh, she can handle that herself. I don't want to get involved"? Well, I don't know. Maybe you do think that, but if you do then whatever 'superior' male endowments that Nature has given you are being completely wasted.

Think about your mother, your wife, your sister, or your daughter. Would you like it if someone mistreated them? It's inexcusable to me for someone to ignore or dismiss a man attacking, mistreating, abusing, etc., a woman. It's as if it's an endorsement of that behavior.

To disagree with someone and have civil debates is one thing. But to allow someone to relentlessly verbally abuse another is downright plebeian. And it's NOT EVEN LIBERAL.

Momma's Moon Lodge

No Men Allowed

This post is a place where women can come and commiserate about how stupid men are sometimes and any other thing that they need to get off their chests. For further explanation of moon lodges click here.

Women, feel free to rant and vent.