I was set up to go blog and…my laptop died. Dropping a quick-line from a friend’s computer to let you guys know that I’m not forgetting about you. As soon as we can discover more money, I’ll back to blogging.
Gainfully Employeed
Sorry for the Internet MIA everyone, but I have joined the great washed ranks of the gainfully employed. I am now a white-collar worker drone; part of the maddening crown, a contributor to the rush-hour traffic. I now do monkey work for $12/hr in a very nice building for 40 hours a week. I’m living the post-graduate dream right now. But, as it’s my first 40-hour a week job, and another 10 hours on top of that for commute I’m still trying to figure out how to juggle my schedule to fit in doing everything I enjoy doing and still have time for 8 hours of sleep (now that I actually need it), home chores, and re-engaging my brain after the boring work I do. I beg your indulgence in this transition period.
This job has taught me some interesting things. Namely, it’s kinda nice to be financially solvent (I make in a week what I might have made in a month at my other job). Also, I am apparently not supposed to say to people I do “low level monkey work” within earshot of the boss. It’s “Data base compilation and verification”. But, even though I really am living a dream that a lot of people would kill for, I still have a few complaints. 1) Even though this is a full-time, open-ended job, it’s still “temp work”. I got it through an employment agency. This means no benefits, no workers compensation should I get hurt (unlikely), no unemployment benefits if I get laid off, and no company “bennies”. It’s temporary only in a legal fiction, but that legal fiction still stands. 2) I don’t really need to work 40 hours a week. 30 hours would have been just peachy. I also don’t have that option. Along the same vein, I have no idea why I have to commute to do a job I could easily do at home and they could have a cubical open. And, I really feel terrible about complaining about this job at all, because I HAVE a job, and it’s a nice job. That makes me wonder if that’s one of the barriers to labor reform in the first place- the double-edged sword of “at least you have a job” and the threat of being called lazy if you value your private time.
Finally, an article to sink your teeth into, written by someone who had more intelligent things than I to say.
So Why Did I Have Kids, Anyway?
So you really want one of these?
It’s a question I try not to examine too closely, frankly. The reason for that is, well, I have them already–I’ve had them for my entire adult life, really. The time to question my decision to have them at all has long since passed, I think.
But sometimes I’ll come across an article like this one–I try not to wince at the tone they inevitably sport, a combination of defensiveness and superiority–and I’ll find myself musing a bit on my own embedded and irrevocable parental status.
Nidal Malik Hasan: civilian casualties “highly suspect”
“Every conceivable effort made” to avoid civilian casualties.
FORT HOOD, Texas — An Army psychiatrist who led a ground assault against U.S. forces stationed at Fort Hood said that yesterday’s ground assault was a “surgical operation,” and that reports of civilian casualties are “likely overblown.”
“We will be performing a full and thorough investigation,” he continued, “Provided we are able to secure the support of authorities on the ground.” U.S. authorities have thus far not allowed Hasan access to the area in which the attack was conducted.
“Of course, caring for injured soldiers remains our top priority,” Hasan said, his breathing assisted by a ventilator, “But I’m actually feeling pretty good right now.”
The U.S. has alleged that anywhere from two to five civilians were caught up in Hasan’s attack. The allegations have not yet been substantiated. Military police refused to comment, citing an ongoing investigation.
Meanwhile, Afghan and Iraqi leaders have offered tepid, sarcastic condolences to the families of those killed. “Yeah, wow, that sucks.” Iraqi president Jalal Talabani wrote in a press statement, “I can’t even imagine. Twelve lives lost. And for what?”
“Well, never mind that,” the statement continued, “CNN is so depressing. What else is on TV? There must be something good. Isn’t it sweeps week?”
Well, that’s it then. All Hail the GOP, the true party of righteousness!
The last three times I’ve opened a browser window, the top news headlines have been variations on the above theme. Yep, folks, the brief insanity of the American people in both electing Barack Obama to the White House and purging Congress of its Republican majority has ended! The tide is turning! And here’s the proof!
By seizing gubernatorial seats in Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans on Tuesday dispelled any notion of President Obama’s electoral invincibility, giving the GOP a lift and offering warning signs to Democrats ahead of the 2010 midterm elections.
Wow. A Republican governor in Virginia! When we have a Democrat as president! Because one thing Virginian voters sure are known for is–!
List of Virginia governors, 1982-present
Charles S. Robb (Democrat) 1982-1986 President at time of election: Ronald Reagan (Republican)
Gerald L. Baliles (Democrat) 1986 -1990 President at time of election: Ronald Reagan (Republican)
L. Douglas Wilder (Democrat) 1990-1994 President at time of election: George H.W. Bush (Republican)
George F. Allen (Republican) 1994-1998 President at time of election: Bill Clinton (Democrat)
James (Jim) Gilmore III (Republican) 1998-2002 President at time of election: Bill Clinton (Democrat)
Mark Warner (Democrat) 2002-2006 President at time of election: George W. Bush (Republican)
Tim Kaine (Democrat) 2006-2010 President at time of election: George W. Bush (Republican)
–consistently electing a governor of the opposite party of the sitting president. And nope, it’s not a coincidence; for one, in Virginia, the incumbent governor is barred by law from seeking reelection, and two, Virginia has a large number of voters registered as “Independent” (about a third of all voters), the majority of whom consider themselves “Moderate.” Which means, that whatever direction they percieve themselves as being pushed…say, by the ideology of the Commander-in-Chief of the United States…they will dig their heels in and lean the other way. As you see above.
Now, I already knew all this from simply living smack up against Virginia for about sixteen years now (which is why I engaged in some heavy eye-rolling after the third or fourth repetition in the news of the title meme of this post); however, I can’t claim the same level of familiarity with New Jersey governors and voters–maybe it has some sort of grandiose meaning. But as far as Virginia goes…well, no. Sorry, folks.
Concerned Troll Style
The background is thus: Just about a year ago, Lisa wrote a post, a guide to getting rid of feminism (by ending social injustice). She observed that men, as a group, are in a particularly strong position to end sexual predation, since it’s such a gendered form of oppression. Her post was linked from an MRA site, so it caught the attention of a number of trolls. Most, I presume, slunk off when the safe space comment policy led to them being silenced! Muzzled! And… Censored! But one of them really went the extra mile.
I recently discovered a hitherto unread email from one of these trolls. It was like Christmas! I’m not as into writing posts like this—you mean there’s sexism? On the Internet?!—but today, just for you, I have extracted the sweet nectar from his e-mail and shall now present my findings: a detailed description of the Concerned Troll Style art.
Just One More Piece of Ance-data
Last Sunday, I was at work, grinding my teeth at yet another irritating customer (no, this table isn’t heavy at all, I would love to hear you complain about how the high the prices here are at the thrift store. Oh, setting this down is rude, because I’m not giving you my full attention. Ah, so you can get this same item new for cheaper at Target. That’s lovely. If that’s the case, why don’t you buy it there?) when suddenly my tooth started to hurt. By the end of the night, it was really starting to hurt, particularly when I tried to chew anything. By the next morning, I was in wake-up agony.
Not being a fan of pain, I called in sick to work* to go the dentist. A few hours later, and an x-ray picture, then a few more hours later with a specialist and the verdict is in- I need a root canal. Well, I need to get a root canal redone. Apparently, they didn’t do it right the first time.
So, we schedule it for Wednesday, in the mean time, give me some nice antibiotics and some Vicodin.** I show up on Wednesday, and of course, the first thing that needs to be done is the payment.
I have dental insurance through Hubby. Hubby gives up about a third of his paycheck to make sure we have insurance. So, I only have to pay 20% of the cost.
20% of the cost is 300 dollars. So, basically, at the beginning of the month, we’re short 150 dollars for rent. All for the joy of having a root canal.
My tooth is doing much better. I have to go in again to get it refilled, and then I have to pay even more money to get a crown. Hubby and I will find a way to make up the extra 150- I think we’ll probably just ask the rental company to give us a day extension, they’re normally pretty good about that, or we’ll get a pay-day loan from the ‘rents. But, if we weren’t coming from parents that had that sort of extra loanable cash, we’d be at the sharks at the pay-day loan places mercy. As it stands, it’s another chicken and rice month at the Antigone house.
We are responsible. We have health insurance (thank you, Hillary, 20-somethings do in fact get it when we can afford it). I brush my teeth every day. And we have plenty of wiggle room. And this almost kills us.
We need health care reform in this country. Badly.
*They required a doctor’s note. Can you believe it? The night before I tell them that my tooth hurts, I call in, way before my shift to say I’m going to the doctors, and they demand a note for my crappy retail job.
** Fun fact- vicodin does not actually work real well for me. It actually makes me puke AND one of the pills wasn’t enough to kill the pain. It takes two and an Aleve.
Time Travelling God Particles
I’m no theoretical physicist, but I was a member of the institutional science community. My particular bullshit field was “artificial intelligence,” but in the modern university, bullshit fields abound–sometimes with legitimate scientific endeavors buried within, or as an umbrella above, the bullshit.
I predict that large tracts of present-day physics research will be revealed as an exercise in mathematical masturbation–a sort of ueber-complex sudoku puzzle that only .001% of humanity has the intellect and training to attempt solving. The sudoku metaphor can be extended to include the relevance of the solution to our questions about the nature of reality.
I’ll admit, I don’t have the mathematical chops to follow, replicate, or disprove the work of theoretical physicists. My skepticism of their work stems from more primary methodological concerns. Of primary concern is the lack of testable hypotheses–a feature found also in rank mysticism.
and then there’s this:
A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather. (NY Times 10/12/09)
One of the two pysicists is Bech Nielsen of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen. You probably recognize from his famous proposal that the Veneziano model was actually a theory of strings*. A distinguished physicist indeed.
Nielson along with Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto (less famous–doesn’t have a Wikipedia entry) propose that Higgs boson particles created by scientists in the future, travel backwards through time to prevent scientists in the present from discovering them.
Seriously.
Now I’m the first to sympathize with scientists forced to use metaphor. Communicating an absurdly complicated topic to an untrained public is challenging. I’m also sympathetic to the problem of the media in relating these metaphors to the public: how literal are they meant to be taken? Is the cat *really* alive and dead at the same time? Is space *actually* a rubber matt displaced by bowling balls? And so forth.
But, as far as I can tell, the Terminator metaphor above is meant to be taken literally. Just substitute Higgs boson for Arnold, and anything-to-do-with-discovering-Higgs-boson for Sarah Connor.
The list of things sabotage possibly engineered by Higgs: the cancellation of the planned Superconducting Supercollider in the US in 1993, the various mechanical problems of the Large Hadron Collider, and the arrest of a resident physicist on suspcion of Al-Qaeda affiliation.
Seriously.
Of course, thinking like scientists, they’ve come up with a plan–a peer reviewed, up-for-publication-in-a-real-journal plan. It goes a little something like this:
- Create a deck of 1 million cards.
- Write “Procede” on 999,999 of the cards.
- Write “STOP” on 1 card.
- Shuffle.
- Draw a card.
If the card says “STOP,” then it supports the claim that Higgs boson(s) are emanating from the future to stop scientists from creating them, and we should design more experiments so that Higgs, from the future, can tell scientists how they should proceed with their experiments.
I think it’s a great experiment, but I would go the additional step of not including the “STOP” card. That would really cinch it. As a “real time” way you provide Higgs input on HLC activity, you could have a grad students continuously flipping coins. If one of them comes up heads one million times in a row then we know Higgs thinks we’re going too far. Or, with nearly the same degree of scientific rigor, we could have a seance. I’m willing to be the conduit through which the Higgs boson can make its will known to our world.
Seriously.
*I had no idea who he was either.
**Since it would cost, like, a billionth as much as their other bullshit experiments, why haven’t they done it?
Political Power, the Barrel of the Gun and All That
I believe that the only human future, that is, a future with humans in it, is one in which violence as an acceptable mode of human interaction is renounced. This renunciation will make the state, as we know it, impossible. Every power of the state rests, ultimately, on its power to “legitimately” kill its citizens. I realize that I’m repeating myself, but there seemed to be some disagreement over my claim and I thought it worth while to clarify my position and attempt to come to some understanding before I go on and make yet more outrageous claims.
I am not claiming that the only action that state agents can take against a citizen is to kill him or her. I have been fined and put in jail. I hear they have over two million people in prison, so yes, I understand that alternatives to execution exist for the government. However, I can’t imagine very many of those 2 million would have gone willingly to prison or would be easy to keep there if the death of an inmate at the hands of a policemen or guard were considered murder (which, by any objective standard, it is).
People submit to state agents specifically because those agents are authorized to kill people who resist. Nobody surrenders to mall security*.
Without the ability to drag people to jail, authorized to kill resisters and escapees, how does the state level fines? Unless they can take houses, killing those who defend themselves as they would against any other home invader, how can they levy property taxes? Without threatening employers, how do they collect income taxes?
This stands separately from the claim that they shouldn’t do these things. It’s not a novel position that they should, but it cannot be claimed that these powers ultimately rest on anything other than the power to kill people.
Everyone likes to call out state violence–well almost everyone–that they don’t agree with while justifying or redefining the state violence that they support. This argument is as old as time and has gotten humanity nowhere**.
While we may disagree about the necessity for violence to maintain social order, provide for the sick and the old, or educate the young–it is disingenuous to deny that, ultimately, agents of the state require the monopoly on violence and the “authority” to kill citizens to enforce the preferences of the ruling class.
*Actually, I take that back: there are people, broken people, who will submit to any authority figure. I submit, without evidence, that those people were likely broken by violence at some point in the past. Broken by aggressors who, explicitly or implicitly, threatened death for continued resistance. That’s a topic for the future.
**In reference to the undeniable increase in the standard of living and the no-longer-being-as-frequently-killed-to-death of huge swaths of humanity under state control: These victories resulted from a multitude of individuals sacrificing their lives and wealth to drag the state kicking and screaming out of some aspect of barbarity. In reference to the idea that, for example, not arresting homosexuals who marry (or those that marry them) is a good use of state violence: it is a good renunciation of state violence–yet another subject to revisit.
New look
Time for a PAB update. The old template has been hacked for the last time; we needed a framework that was more Wordpress-current.
Everyone hates change, but I dig the sleek new look and hope you do, too.
Non-Violence vs. Political Solutions
A position of non-violence is incompatible with the idea of political solutions to social problems. The state, as we know it, ultimately has only one tool for controlling behavior, it can legitimately kill individual people. All other punishments are premised on this power. Until this is understood, the mass of humanity will remain the the impoverished slaves and servants of a tiny parasitic ruling class and will, perversely, thank them for the “safety” they provide.
If you oppose the non-violent position, then you will only ever contribute to problems stemming from violence. While you may point to a temporary victory–a political solution that “solved” a social problem–growing from the “solution” like bamboo shoots will be dozens, hundreds, thousands of resulting problems, each begging for a new political solution.
I’ve encountered alot of anger around this argument. Almost nobody, especially on the left, wants to be in a position of preferring violent solutions to non-violent. Yet how can one logically argue that support of state solutions is anything but the preference for violent solutions (answer: you can’t).
This puts the angry person in the position of having to create an imaginary world in which violence and only violence can stave off apocalyptic disaster. In this fiction, attempting, or even beginning to attempt to organize voluntarily to address social problems leads immediately to a fate worse than death–a world of chaos and violence in which everyone good dies at the hands of the evil, mad and powerful.
These arguments, lunatic as they are, can be persuasive because a) no matter how horrifying real-life state atrocities are, the apocalypse is worse and b) they rely on fear, a historically reliable way of overriding rational thought and bringing debate to an end.
A novel position came up in a conversation recently that simultaneously surprised and delighted me. It is worth addressing because it is the only alternative to the fear based response. The position is that the state doesn’t need to use violence but could be reconstituted in such a way that it is a voluntary organization. In principle, how can I have any problem with that? If the state renounces violence in favor of voluntary cooperation, it will cease to be a remnant of stone-age barbarism and become a part of the future of humanity. By my definition, it would no longer be a state at that point, but I would be happy concede to calling it a state if it is ever brought into being.
Recently