I went to the VA (Veteran's Administration) hospital in Durham yesterday. Nothing serous, just a checkup. I used the time to go to the prosthetics department to find out about a set of knee braces I had ordered some time ago. I had actually placed five orders for them since I knew I needed a new set. VA policy is that you get 1 (yes, that's one) set (I have to wear one on each knee) a year. A set wears out in about 3 months, six if you baby them. Anyway, the fellow at the desk in Prosthetics told me they had been mailed the day before. At this point my Spider-Sense began to tingle madly, but I saw no supervillians sneaking up on me, so I left. As it turned out, the fellow was true to his word; I found the new knee braces waiting for me when I got home.
Seven months late, and one size too small.
Maybe I'll have better luck next year.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
This one's about gun control (and then some).
Quite often in the news you hear about crimes of violence committed with firearms as the weapon of choice. I have noticed that when reported upon by the media, or commented upon by politicians, these crimes fall into one of two categories.
The first category is called "gang violence." This is the language used by reporters and politicians to indicate that one or more non-white people got shot up.
The second category is "gun violence." This means that one or more white people got shot up.
Can anyone guess what the difference is between the two crimes, other than race being used as a tool to minimize or maximize political and financial ends?
If you guessed nothing, you guessed right. Why don't we ever hear that someone who got murdered was the victim of mental illness? Or the victim of knife violence? How about drug violence? Or any of a number of other contributing factors?
Because gun violence sells news, and gets politicians --whether they are for or against them--votes. Pure and simple.
Our law enforcement agencies are unable to stop guns from falling into the hands of criminals. This isn't media hype or political dogma--it's an unfortunate fact. Violence in the world we live in (yes, even in out a county as 'civilized' as the United States) isn't a matter of "if," it is a mater of "when." The criminals have guns, so why shouldn't we? The only way to defend yourself from someone with a gun is by having a gun of your own--and using it. When threatened by those who do not wish to live in accordance with the social contract that most of us adhere to you have two choices: you can become a victim, or not.
The unfortunate thing about this piece of knowledge is that most people think the decision is made at the point when someone sticks a gun in your face, or pulls a knife on you, or punches you. This is not true. If it has gotten that far, you have already made a choice--to become a victim--by not making a decision beforehand.
The decision of whether or not you want to be a victim isn't made during an attack. It is made well before. Hopefully years before, so that you will have had the time (and actually spent it) to acquire the necessary training, skills, attitude, and equipment that will be necessary for you to carry out this decision. This means a lot more than buying a gun or taking a few self-defense classes. It means going to the range and learning how to safely use it, as well as keeping it clean and well-maintained. It means going to the dojo and honing your mind, skills, and reflexes--in addition to practicing your techniques--so that you will have the mental, spiritual, and physical fortitude to deal with violence when it confronts you.
This does not mean that you have to kill or even injure someone else in order to defend yourself. It is perfectly acceptable to choose to be a pacifist. However, if you choose this path and do not train, you still have decided to become a victim by not making a decision. If attacked, you aren't someone choosing not to do violence or suffer it by fending off your attacker without harming them. You are just another victim laying on the ground, getting the hell beaten out of you or bleeding to death, because you didn't know how--didn't choose to learn how--to defend yourself.
The first category is called "gang violence." This is the language used by reporters and politicians to indicate that one or more non-white people got shot up.
The second category is "gun violence." This means that one or more white people got shot up.
Can anyone guess what the difference is between the two crimes, other than race being used as a tool to minimize or maximize political and financial ends?
If you guessed nothing, you guessed right. Why don't we ever hear that someone who got murdered was the victim of mental illness? Or the victim of knife violence? How about drug violence? Or any of a number of other contributing factors?
Because gun violence sells news, and gets politicians --whether they are for or against them--votes. Pure and simple.
Our law enforcement agencies are unable to stop guns from falling into the hands of criminals. This isn't media hype or political dogma--it's an unfortunate fact. Violence in the world we live in (yes, even in out a county as 'civilized' as the United States) isn't a matter of "if," it is a mater of "when." The criminals have guns, so why shouldn't we? The only way to defend yourself from someone with a gun is by having a gun of your own--and using it. When threatened by those who do not wish to live in accordance with the social contract that most of us adhere to you have two choices: you can become a victim, or not.
The unfortunate thing about this piece of knowledge is that most people think the decision is made at the point when someone sticks a gun in your face, or pulls a knife on you, or punches you. This is not true. If it has gotten that far, you have already made a choice--to become a victim--by not making a decision beforehand.
The decision of whether or not you want to be a victim isn't made during an attack. It is made well before. Hopefully years before, so that you will have had the time (and actually spent it) to acquire the necessary training, skills, attitude, and equipment that will be necessary for you to carry out this decision. This means a lot more than buying a gun or taking a few self-defense classes. It means going to the range and learning how to safely use it, as well as keeping it clean and well-maintained. It means going to the dojo and honing your mind, skills, and reflexes--in addition to practicing your techniques--so that you will have the mental, spiritual, and physical fortitude to deal with violence when it confronts you.
This does not mean that you have to kill or even injure someone else in order to defend yourself. It is perfectly acceptable to choose to be a pacifist. However, if you choose this path and do not train, you still have decided to become a victim by not making a decision. If attacked, you aren't someone choosing not to do violence or suffer it by fending off your attacker without harming them. You are just another victim laying on the ground, getting the hell beaten out of you or bleeding to death, because you didn't know how--didn't choose to learn how--to defend yourself.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
I get my science geek on a little.
While reading the news online, I came across an article by Tim Worstall (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/07/19/the-cheap-way-to-deal-with-climate-change-iron-fertilisation-of-the-oceans/). The reason why I mention this is because, in my self-appointed role as 'Punisher of Stupid,' it is my duty to do something about things like this. Mr. Worstall advocates dumping iron into the oceans, in order to combat global climate change. I'm guessing what he actually means is to stop the ever changing Ph of the world's oceans, because they suck up a large amount of the carbon pollution we produce. This is important because (if anyone remembers their high-school chemistry) when you add carbon dioxide to water you get carbonic acid. That's why Pepsi and Coca-Cola eat that green junk off your car battery terminals, and the enamel off your teeth.
Anyway, the science behind adding iron to the oceans basically goes like this: you dump iron powder into the oceans, which causes algal blooms, which in turn die off after combining all the iron with carbon dioxide, and then sink to the bottom of the ocean where it will rest for a hundred years or so--so we don't have to worry about it anymore.
Mr. Worstall's reasoning for this particular approach is that we should only "reduce emissions where the costs of doing so are lower than the benefits we gain from having emissions." Here is why he wins the bouquet of dildos: this is the same math that car manufacturers and use to determine whether or not it is cheaper to recall something dangerous, or just pay off a few lawsuits.
He would rather rationalize some monetary expenditure than try to fix the problem.
He also neglects to add that the most carbon we will be able to 'remove' in this fashion is about 1 (that's one) gigaton a year. Unfortunately, we dump about 7 to 8 gigatons of carbon waste into the oceans each year.
Here's another science fun fact that neither he nor the source that he quotes mentions: there's a depth in the ocean called the calcium carbonate compensation depth. This is cool because, if you drop something made of calcium carbonate, say a seashell, into the ocean (way out in the middle, where it's very deep), it will sink for a few weeks and then suddenly disappear. This is because the shell has sunk far enough into the ocean that the pressure upon its' surface is so great that the very molecules it is made of are forced into solution, i.e. forced to become part of the water. Think of it like like when you crack your knuckles, and force the gas bubbles in those synovial joints back into solution with a little 'crack.' Only there's no 'crack' when it happens in the ocean.
Diatom frustules, or the little shells that they are made of, are mostly silicate, so that part goes all the way down to the very bottom of the ocean to form that lunar-surface looking place called the abyssal plain. That substance on the bottom of the ocean, which is mostly diatom frustules, is called melange (it is also composed of other things, like dust from outer space, trash we have thrown into the seas, and lots of other things). These diatom skeletons have lots of uses, like as abrasives in things like toothpaste, or as filters, or as insulation, so they are cool and interesting.
But what happens to all that carbon they grabbed while way up there (4,000 meters or more) above the abyssal plain, at the surface of the ocean? Remember the calcium carbonate compensation depth?
Oops.
This plan would only work in shallow parts of our oceans, and then only minutely. And, at best, all it would do is put an even larger ecological problem in the hands of our grandchildren. And I know, I didn't mention it above, but adding carbon dioxide to the oceans (and thus making them much more acidic) is a bad thing. If you would like to know why, go watch "Soylent Green." It's one of Charlton Heston's better movies, and will explain what poisoning the oceans means to all life on the planet in an much more entertaining way than I can.
Anyway, the science behind adding iron to the oceans basically goes like this: you dump iron powder into the oceans, which causes algal blooms, which in turn die off after combining all the iron with carbon dioxide, and then sink to the bottom of the ocean where it will rest for a hundred years or so--so we don't have to worry about it anymore.
Mr. Worstall's reasoning for this particular approach is that we should only "reduce emissions where the costs of doing so are lower than the benefits we gain from having emissions." Here is why he wins the bouquet of dildos: this is the same math that car manufacturers and use to determine whether or not it is cheaper to recall something dangerous, or just pay off a few lawsuits.
He would rather rationalize some monetary expenditure than try to fix the problem.
He also neglects to add that the most carbon we will be able to 'remove' in this fashion is about 1 (that's one) gigaton a year. Unfortunately, we dump about 7 to 8 gigatons of carbon waste into the oceans each year.
Here's another science fun fact that neither he nor the source that he quotes mentions: there's a depth in the ocean called the calcium carbonate compensation depth. This is cool because, if you drop something made of calcium carbonate, say a seashell, into the ocean (way out in the middle, where it's very deep), it will sink for a few weeks and then suddenly disappear. This is because the shell has sunk far enough into the ocean that the pressure upon its' surface is so great that the very molecules it is made of are forced into solution, i.e. forced to become part of the water. Think of it like like when you crack your knuckles, and force the gas bubbles in those synovial joints back into solution with a little 'crack.' Only there's no 'crack' when it happens in the ocean.
Diatom frustules, or the little shells that they are made of, are mostly silicate, so that part goes all the way down to the very bottom of the ocean to form that lunar-surface looking place called the abyssal plain. That substance on the bottom of the ocean, which is mostly diatom frustules, is called melange (it is also composed of other things, like dust from outer space, trash we have thrown into the seas, and lots of other things). These diatom skeletons have lots of uses, like as abrasives in things like toothpaste, or as filters, or as insulation, so they are cool and interesting.
But what happens to all that carbon they grabbed while way up there (4,000 meters or more) above the abyssal plain, at the surface of the ocean? Remember the calcium carbonate compensation depth?
Oops.
This plan would only work in shallow parts of our oceans, and then only minutely. And, at best, all it would do is put an even larger ecological problem in the hands of our grandchildren. And I know, I didn't mention it above, but adding carbon dioxide to the oceans (and thus making them much more acidic) is a bad thing. If you would like to know why, go watch "Soylent Green." It's one of Charlton Heston's better movies, and will explain what poisoning the oceans means to all life on the planet in an much more entertaining way than I can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)