| The Extremely Flat Tax |
[Sep. 4th, 2008|10:12 am] |
I'm talking with my parents about the tax rates Obama and McCain are proposing. At the highest tax brackets McCain is offering a 4.4% tax cut and Obama is offering an 11.5% tax increase. And I'm playing devil's advocate.
Why should rich people pay a higher percentage than poor people? Why are we talking about "percentages" at all? Forget the "flat tax" - why should taxes be tied to income at all? Everyone drives on the same roads, has the option of sending their kids to the same public schools, and gets protected by the same armies regardless what their income is. Why doesn't the country just "go dutch"? Federal expenditures were $2.73 trillion last year divided by 300 million people equals just ~$9000 per person. Why hasn't anyone suggested that everyone in America has to pay $9000 regardless of how much money they made?
(This isn't a rhetorical question. There are lots of reasons why we don't do that. But before you start talking about what tax brackets are appropriate you should figure out why you're talking about percentages at all.) |
|
|
| in retrospect, we should have seen this coming. |
[Sep. 4th, 2008|06:55 am] |
 |
|
|
| The Overbearing Definition |
[Sep. 4th, 2008|12:20 am] |
I've noticed a rhetorical fallacy or trick - frequently unintentional - that has bugged me for a long time. Maybe there's a formal word for this, but I've called it "the overbearing definition".
It's related to my annoyance with semantic arguments. The world is full of many THINGS. Definitions are abstractions of those things. We can argue about which definitions apply to which things but the things are what they are. Whether I call it a "mug", a "cup", or a "flagon" the container that I drink coffee from remains the same as it always was. But some people seem to think that calling something a different name changes what it does, what it is, or what they expect it to be. I call this "the overbearing definition". Thinking that the definition dictates function rather than the other way 'round - that a rose by any other name does not actually smell as sweet, because it's no longer a rose.
For example at one time I identified as a Republican. The definition became overbearing when people started saying "If you're a Republican it must mean you're religious, that you oppose abortion, that you don't care about poor people, and you hate Bill Clinton." None of that was true, but in their minds my identity became secondary to the definition I had placed on myself. See also: Jews who don't keep Kosher, "straight-acting" homosexuals, people who live in Texas who aren't baptists or Bush voters, etc. I suppose this is the inverse of the no true scotsman fallacy. Rather than saying "if he's not wearing a kilt he's not a true scotsman" it's insisting that all scotsmen must be wearing kilts, even if many are not.
What really bugs me is when someone starts using an overbearing definition to make a point dishonestly or unfairly. For example some creationists try to call evolution a religion by using a specious comparison and then use the application of that definition to deny the falsifiable, strongly-proven theories, and mountains of evidence that make evolution very different from every genuine religion I know. It's not just inaccurate; it unnecessarily strains the conventional definition of the term. It's using rhetorical sleight-of-hand to claim that two things are exactly synonymous because they share a small number of superficial similarities.
I'm usually against overbearing definitions, but not always. The one example that I actually support is gay marriage, where advocates are trying to make "same sex partner" synonymous with "spouse". Opponents are trying to say that those things are different. Gay marriage advocates are trying to say that no they aren't - same sex domestic partners are exactly synonymous to opposite-sex domestic partners in every way. Same spouse health care plans, same hospital visitation rights, same fifth amendment right against incrimination, same rights to adoption, same right to retain biological children from previous marriages. It's a definitional argument that I support because I agree that these things are and ought to be exactly synonymous and equivalent in every meaningful way, even if it is not yet in common practice. |
|
|
| déjà fucking vu |
[Sep. 3rd, 2008|11:52 pm] |
I went back to play soccer last week, as i'd been jonesing to play and i felt my right thumb was well enough to handle it. Last Wednesday i was pretty rusty, but i was pretty good on Thursday. Today i was pretty good until one of my opponents kicked my left thumb out of joint. Have a look or two if you have a strong stomach.
Kimmy took me to the emergency room and, well, there's not much to do. I'm in a splint, it's swollen, and i'm depressed because not only will i be out for another month, but i am seriously considering quitting. |
|
|
| Open Commentary |
[Sep. 3rd, 2008|11:50 pm] |
I enjoy listening to the director's commentary track on a DVD. But sometimes I wish there were more tracks. Maybe I don't want to watch Star Trek with commentary by William Shatner. Maybe I want to watch it narrated by the world's biggest star trek fan. The kind of guy that Universal isn't going to let anywhere near the microphone even though he knows waaay more about the show than he should.
So I had this idea - Open Commentary. It would work kinda like Wizard People Dear Reader. Are you a big fan or authority on a particular movie? Watch the movie (with headphones) while recording your own commentary track, and upload it to the Open Commentary database. I could do this with Candy Von Dewd so that people watching it could actually understand what the hell is going on. |
|
|
| overheard in the tour van |
[Sep. 3rd, 2008|06:56 pm] |
"Do you think that salami came from Salamis?"
"No, I think they came from italics."
"Salami comes from italics?"
"Yeah. It's all connected." |
|
|
| Furnace |
[Sep. 3rd, 2008|05:28 pm] |
Practice talk today; good but needs work. "If you just give that same talk, it'll be really good, but if you slow down and whittle your data a little, it'll be great." Felt frustrated (eye sockets were hurty) so I ate some raisins and cashews and went for another run (45m). Edit: it's like 40 minutes later and I realized how cranky I must sound in this entry but hark! It is a few minutes later, I have an orange which I peeled in one piece, and I am decidedly not wearing the crankypants. Presentation improving measurably by the minute. |
|
|
| Keep on keepin' on |
[Sep. 2nd, 2008|06:32 pm] |
Went for a roughly 4k run with Kim on Sunday to keep my metabolism up. All trails and really enjoyable. Today I went out in the afternoon for a 7.2k run. I think building up to the 10k AIDS run at end of the month (already registered!) will be straightforward, but I need to get to 10k regularly so I can have a time goal in mind. |
|
|
| Speedy speedy... |
[Sep. 2nd, 2008|12:27 pm] |
Hey all!
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) mrl24 and I had a blast at Burning Man, and are now in Portland for the Industrial Jazz Group tour which starts tonight in Seattle at The Jewelbox Theater. But first, we're going to crash the WAA conference in Seattle to see if we can drum up some buzz.
I won't have much 'net or phone access during the next week, so I'l try to update here and/or via Twitter, or over at the IJG News page. If you need me, SMS is best.
More on BMan later, but for now I just need to give a "Dude, I bow to you," and also a "KHAAAAN!" to Ray who earwormed me and many other burners from 2000 miles away, as we could not resist the bait of tastysnax. 762nato, I bow to your resourcefulness and stealth. (Details later.)
Seattle peeps and those with Seattle peeps: Pleeeeeeease pass the word on that we have a show tonight-- we could really use the support. Doors at 10pm, Baby Gramps at 10:30, us at 11:15/11:30. The Jewel Box Theater is in the Rendezvous Bar and Restaurant, at 2322 2nd Ave (in the Belltown district of Seattle). |
|
|
| maybe it's a "what if?/elseworlds" comic |
[Sep. 2nd, 2008|12:13 pm] |
Why does smccloud's map of Western Europe depict a Germany that encompasses Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, the eastern half of Austria, Hungary, and Slovenia (as well as Luxembourg and possibly Liechtenstein [thanks, eqe])? UPDATE: Scott acknowledges and regrets the error.
Also, why does Google Chrome sound like Google is reinventing emacs as a Web browser, with Javascript instead of Lisp? |
|
|
| it doesn't happen often, but it's funny when it does |
[Sep. 1st, 2008|11:26 pm] |
In a bar on Saturday night, one of Lou's friends who sort-of knows me is standing next to me at the bar.
"You look familiar, Ronan, but I can't figure out why. What's your second name?"
"Waide. Ronan Waide"
"Waide... are you Waider?"
Much giggling on my part, obviously. He knew me from the Irish Linux Users Group, a gathering of which (funnily enough) was one of the previous places where someone had a "so you're Waider" reaction. |
|
|
| Types of Disagreements |
[Sep. 1st, 2008|11:49 am] |
I tend to argue a lot with people on LJ and lately I've been stepping back and thinking about what kind of disagreements are productive to argue about and what kinds are less productive.
First, there are completely subjective points of view. "Nature is awe-inspiring." "Getting the flu feels like getting kicked in the head by a Swede." "Barack Obama is a handsome man." "Fried chicken is delicious." Statements that come down to personal experiences. Maybe I love the grand canyon but you think it's boring and want to get back in the car after five minutes. I love cilantro but you think it tastes like soap. There's no way to "win" these arguments and no common ground on which to win it; if someone doesn't like chocolate or birthday parties and they enjoy getting their testicles kicked that's a little weird but there's not a lot you can say.
Then there are objective statements. "The earth is 4.8 billion years old." "The CDC's annual vaccine will give you 60-80% protection against influenza." "Barack Obama bought a house from a corrupt felon." "Fried chicken has lots of trans fats." "Two guys have a bigfoot corpse in their freezer." Factual statements. These arguments are "winnable" because they share the common ground of objective reality. We can discuss the certainty of these statements and find evidence to increase or decrease their certainty. As long as both people are good faith actors with compatible standards of evidence you can eventually sort out what's what.
And then there are value judgements. Raising children without belief in God will make them behave badly and society suffer. You shouldn't force children to get polio vaccinations before attending school. We shouldn't allow secret Muslims to be president. You shouldn't eat fried chicken because it is too unhealthy. Value judgements are complicated because they're composite arguments. There's an implied objective component. "If you do X you will suffer Y and Z consequences." And there's a personal and subjective component. "Getting X is not worth suffering Y and Z." It seems most productive to distill these arguments down into both parts, hash out the objective disagreements and "agree to disagree" on the subjective ones. Reasonable people can agree on the factual premises but disagree on the subjective conclusions. |
|
|
| Sunday Labor |
[Aug. 31st, 2008|11:26 am] |
|
I am sitting on the porch of a house in a beach town in central California. I slept late and my friends are sleeping later. Yesterday we explored the dunes and the value of mildness. Hidden tree houses and rope swings, seen by parents in groups of passers by, but not the kids (caught up in their own trains of wonder). Now, though, there is a Nalgene full of coffee from the liquor store up the street of which I am drinking a portion from a mug decorated in copulating bunnies. It is under these conditions that I read pages 65-68 of ZatAoMM and understood it without trouble. Vacations are good. |
|
|
| I think I've seen these guys before... |
[Aug. 31st, 2008|10:20 am] |
 |
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
mom_news
rushed
