9/11 And The Sport of God
Another quote from Moyers' article. The quote is from Reinhold Niebuhr:
"'When we talk about love we have to become mature or we will become sentimental. Basically love means...being responsible, responsibility to our family, toward our civilization, and now by the pressures of history, toward the universe of humankind.'"
Saturday, September 17, 2005
9/11 And The Sport of God
I love Bill Moyers. I'm an atheist, but his interviews of Joseph Campbell on PBS really give me a solid appreciation for most religions. . .that is when they are not causing people to be violent and intolerant. Thanks to Tula at the Crab Casa for sending this article:
9/11 And The Sport of God: "What are the stakes? In his last book, the late Marvin Harris, a prominent anthropologist of the time, wrote that 'the attack against reason and objectivity is fast reaching the proportions of a crusade.' To save the American Dream, 'we desperately need to reaffirm the principle that it is possible to carry out an analysis of social life which rational human beings will recognize as being true, regardless of whether they happen to be women or men, whites or black, straights or gays, employers or employees, Jews or born-again Christians. The alternative is to stand by helplessly as special interest groups tear the United States apart in the name of their 'separate realities' or to wait until one of them grows strong enough to force its irrational and subjective brand of reality on all the rest.'
That was written 25 years ago, just as the radical Christian right was setting out on their long march to political supremacy. The forces he warned against have gained strength ever since and now control much of the United States government and are on the verge of having it all."
9/11 And The Sport of God: "What are the stakes? In his last book, the late Marvin Harris, a prominent anthropologist of the time, wrote that 'the attack against reason and objectivity is fast reaching the proportions of a crusade.' To save the American Dream, 'we desperately need to reaffirm the principle that it is possible to carry out an analysis of social life which rational human beings will recognize as being true, regardless of whether they happen to be women or men, whites or black, straights or gays, employers or employees, Jews or born-again Christians. The alternative is to stand by helplessly as special interest groups tear the United States apart in the name of their 'separate realities' or to wait until one of them grows strong enough to force its irrational and subjective brand of reality on all the rest.'
That was written 25 years ago, just as the radical Christian right was setting out on their long march to political supremacy. The forces he warned against have gained strength ever since and now control much of the United States government and are on the verge of having it all."
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
A Game of Second Chance
OK, so, I watch this TV show called Numbers and I learned this math thing while watching last week. Check out this demonstration first, then read the following and PLEASE share you comments:
Cup and Bean Game
I wrote the game in ColdFusion hoping to prove to my wife and other non-believers that the math I learned is correct. Here is how it goes. . .
The game master hides the bean under one of three cups.
You choose one of the cups where you think the bean is.
The game master reveals that the bean is NOT under one of the OTHER TWO cups that you did not choose.
The game master now tells you that, if you want, you can change your choice of where you think the bean is.
You change or reaffirm your choice.
The game master reveals where the bean is.
That's the game.
Here's the math, in lay man's terms--the only terms I know for it. . .
At the start of the game, you don't know where the bean is, you have a 2 out of 3 chance of getting it wrong.
When the game master reveals one of the cups you did NOT choose, you have an opportunity to change your choice. The math says you should change your choice.
See, in the first choice, you were more likely to have chosen the wrong cup. Now, at the opportunity to change your choice, you should know very well the odds are that the previous choice was wrong.
Sure, there is a 1 in 3 chance that you were right--but odds are odds, and 2 in 3 wrong still beats 1 in 3 right.
The game is not over, you know that there is a greater chance that you first choice was wrong than it was right. When faced with the new, seemingly 50/50, choice you should abandon the likely wrong first choice.
If I were a math wiz, I'd explain all this in those terms, but that would probably make even less sense to many of us. So, just play the stupid game as many times as you want and see for yourself. If you don't trust my code, download it here or just play the game with a friend over and over again with real playing cards (where's the ace?) or any other analogy. I've played the game many times and have never won less than 7 out of ten games when consistently changing my choice on the second chance. My wife tried it out and she maintained her choice every time and never won more than 3 games out of 10.
But no one believes me!! That second choice really throws people off.
If anyone has a more eloquent way of explaining this--or better yet, has a transcript of what the guy on Numbers said--please share it here in a comment.
Also, any other code monkeys out there are welcome to chime in on my code--especially if there is a flaw.
Thanks
Cup and Bean Game
I wrote the game in ColdFusion hoping to prove to my wife and other non-believers that the math I learned is correct. Here is how it goes. . .
The game master hides the bean under one of three cups.
You choose one of the cups where you think the bean is.
The game master reveals that the bean is NOT under one of the OTHER TWO cups that you did not choose.
The game master now tells you that, if you want, you can change your choice of where you think the bean is.
You change or reaffirm your choice.
The game master reveals where the bean is.
That's the game.
Here's the math, in lay man's terms--the only terms I know for it. . .
At the start of the game, you don't know where the bean is, you have a 2 out of 3 chance of getting it wrong.
When the game master reveals one of the cups you did NOT choose, you have an opportunity to change your choice. The math says you should change your choice.
See, in the first choice, you were more likely to have chosen the wrong cup. Now, at the opportunity to change your choice, you should know very well the odds are that the previous choice was wrong.
Sure, there is a 1 in 3 chance that you were right--but odds are odds, and 2 in 3 wrong still beats 1 in 3 right.
The game is not over, you know that there is a greater chance that you first choice was wrong than it was right. When faced with the new, seemingly 50/50, choice you should abandon the likely wrong first choice.
If I were a math wiz, I'd explain all this in those terms, but that would probably make even less sense to many of us. So, just play the stupid game as many times as you want and see for yourself. If you don't trust my code, download it here or just play the game with a friend over and over again with real playing cards (where's the ace?) or any other analogy. I've played the game many times and have never won less than 7 out of ten games when consistently changing my choice on the second chance. My wife tried it out and she maintained her choice every time and never won more than 3 games out of 10.
But no one believes me!! That second choice really throws people off.
If anyone has a more eloquent way of explaining this--or better yet, has a transcript of what the guy on Numbers said--please share it here in a comment.
Also, any other code monkeys out there are welcome to chime in on my code--especially if there is a flaw.
Thanks
Vanita Gupta - Human Rights Advocate Honored
A colleague at work thought my wife would be interested in the following, I'm gonna try to get out of bed on Saturday to go see this:
An event called "New Frontiers in Leadership" - this is a yearly event organized by Ekal DC Chapter in which they honor a young Indian American achiever. Last year they had honored "Sonal Shah" - founder of Indicorps. This year they have invited "Vanita Gupta" - a lawyer by profession who has earned a name for hershelf in the field of Human Rights at a very young age.
An event called "New Frontiers in Leadership" - this is a yearly event organized by Ekal DC Chapter in which they honor a young Indian American achiever. Last year they had honored "Sonal Shah" - founder of Indicorps. This year they have invited "Vanita Gupta" - a lawyer by profession who has earned a name for hershelf in the field of Human Rights at a very young age.
The event is on September 18, 2005, 11 A.M. at the Marvin Center, George Washington University, 800 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20052
Ekal DC invites you to come and be a part of this inspiring interaction with Vanita.
About Vanita Gupta
- A lawyer by profession. Currently works as Assistant Counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Her work involves civil rights litigation to promote systemic reform of the criminal justice system
- Won the release of 46 wrongly-accused African Americans in Tulia, Texas
- Recipient of the Soros Justice Fellowship
- Recipient of the India Abroad Special Award for Outstanding Achievement
- Recipient of 2004 Reebok Human Rights Award
- Recipient of Upakar Foundation Community Ambassador award
- Recipient of American Red Cross "Rising Star" award
- Appeared on the NBC Today Show, CBS Evening News, CNN, PBS Lehrer News Hour, Court TV, MSNBC and National Public Radio
Sunday, July 25, 2004
DC's Neutrino Video Project
I read about this on the most interesting DC, Platonic, CraigsList posting I've seen this week:
DC's Neutrino Video Project
Looks like it could be an interesting show. The CraigsList Poster sounds interesting too, but I'm looking for an exercise partner. Not an arts buddy.
DC's Neutrino Video Project
Looks like it could be an interesting show. The CraigsList Poster sounds interesting too, but I'm looking for an exercise partner. Not an arts buddy.
Bloggers at the Political Conventions
Interesting buzz today about bloggers as "journalists," especially in light of their getting press credentials for the Democratic National Convention which starts tomorrow in Boston, MA -- it's a first. A lot of the citations I make below have good stuff on the weblog phenomenon in general.
"Journalists think good information leads to opinion and argument. It's a logical sequence. Bloggers think that good argument and strong opinion cause people to seek information, an equally logical sequence" Jay Rosen, PressThink
Rosen writes about bloggers bringing back what journalists have taken out of reporting on politics. I only wish he were refering to good old fashion dissent. Even so, perhaps that will be the case in some instances. It would be really nice if any of the bloggers at the convention are not all that impressed with the Democratic Party and speak up about it. I'm so tired of all the bland rhetoric from many liberals / progressives who will support Kerry simply in the hopes of getting Bush and Cheney out of office. I want those dorks out of there too, but I'm not impressed with Kerry and Edwards so far either. I'm not looking to spoil an election here, but at some point something on the left side of our failing two party system has got to give!
WNYC's On the Media today also had a good story about the bloggers getting invited to the convention and, evidently, the dissent here is among some conventional / commercial journalists. Go figure!
I also found a good article about the possibility that blogging will be or has been subjugated by the two parties. That author thinks this will backfire on the parties. This article also shows how late I am with this story. It was published in early July on CNET's News.Com.
Here are some blogs that got credentials:
CyberJournalist.net has a whole growing list of confirmed, credentialed blogs, plus the following lists:
"Journalists think good information leads to opinion and argument. It's a logical sequence. Bloggers think that good argument and strong opinion cause people to seek information, an equally logical sequence" Jay Rosen, PressThink
Rosen writes about bloggers bringing back what journalists have taken out of reporting on politics. I only wish he were refering to good old fashion dissent. Even so, perhaps that will be the case in some instances. It would be really nice if any of the bloggers at the convention are not all that impressed with the Democratic Party and speak up about it. I'm so tired of all the bland rhetoric from many liberals / progressives who will support Kerry simply in the hopes of getting Bush and Cheney out of office. I want those dorks out of there too, but I'm not impressed with Kerry and Edwards so far either. I'm not looking to spoil an election here, but at some point something on the left side of our failing two party system has got to give!
WNYC's On the Media today also had a good story about the bloggers getting invited to the convention and, evidently, the dissent here is among some conventional / commercial journalists. Go figure!
I also found a good article about the possibility that blogging will be or has been subjugated by the two parties. That author thinks this will backfire on the parties. This article also shows how late I am with this story. It was published in early July on CNET's News.Com.
Here are some blogs that got credentials:
CyberJournalist.net has a whole growing list of confirmed, credentialed blogs, plus the following lists:
- Journalists blogging for news sites
- Delegation and party members blogging from convention
- Others
Another short article at CyberJournalist gives details on how the Democratic News Service will provide bloggers with resources and politicians during the convention. . .makes me wonder if they won't also be sure to keep down any signs of originality or dissent.
...Filth: My "Friend's" reply to my reply
I'm not sure I made the right decision to reply to my "friend" about this. . .or at least what I said in my reply. I will provide her subsequent response below.
*****BEGIN MY "FRIEND'S" REPLY*****
I did not mean to offend you with the email that I passed along. But for the record I will continue to pass it along. I am not spreading hate by sending this. You should know that I of all people have embraced people frrom every culture. But this country has gotten so liberal lately and I for one am damn tired of it. That's the difference between you and me. We are on two opposite sides of the fence. I'm tired of people trying to tell me that I can not use the word God in public. And how dare you question my Christianity when you seem to have stepped away from yours years ago. And do you know what it is like to wait on the same people for years and they still have trouble speaking English. No offense, but if I went to another country for a long period of time, I would be FORCED to learn the language. This email was not directed at Helen's family in any way. Do they know how to speak English?
And as for your patriotism, you live in the most patriotic city in the country but when I stayed with you, I felt like you did not appreciate it. Maybe because your political views are so different than mine.
Don't make threats to me David, You will be "forced to cut me off" from ever emailing you again. Threats just piss me off. And you THINK I was attacking Helen and your loved ones, but I KNOW you were attacking mine because you called them hatemongers. My mom was on that list. If I told her you said that about her, it would break her heart. Think about that awhile. There were many other people on that list that I consider my friends, so don't you dare call them names. And don't tell me how to use the fucking computer. If I wanted to use the BCC and CC fields I would have.
So, am I pissed? Fuck yeah I'm pissed. That email was sent out to the general public and was not an attack on any one individual (contrary to what you believe). But this email you sent was a personal attack on me and I do not appreciate it. So now I am returning the favor.
*****END MY "FRIEND'S" REPLY*****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
