A Factually Accurate "Rhyming Couplet", As Per The Style that is All the Rage with the Nation's Young People

The speed of light remains the same
In all inertial reference frames.

Postscript!

I realize that I neglected to derive a conclusion from my previous post, so here it is:

The opposing sides in the abortion debate cannot agree, since they are arguing in different frames. The only solution that I would consider is to kill them all and let God sort them out, but then I would be violating both a "right to choose", since you can't have an abortion if you're dead, and a "right to life", for reasons that are obvious to everyone but you, Ben.

I mean, really now.

Why Abortion Debate is Inherently Futile

Disclosure: I, personally, believe that all arguments concerning the morality of abortion are inherently futile, since they all include the basic assumption that killing babies is wrong.

Are you "pro-life" or "pro-choice"? These words speak volumes about the nature of debate over abortion, and can serve as a useful example of how to "frame" a debate.

It is my belief that these two viewpoints are inherently irreconciliable, because of the way the language itself shapes the way we think of the issue. "Life" and "Choice" are both things that nobody can really be against; it seems almost self-evident that any good person would be in favor of life and in favor of choice.

Can't you see the poll results now?

Question 1: Are you in favor of life?
Question 2: Are you in favor of choice?

Saying that one is "pro-life" or "pro-choice" is meaningless; everyone likes life, everyone likes choice, and to say that you are in favor of them conveys no semantic content. In fact, these words have negative meaning, since meaning furthers communication, but these words hinder it.

No reasonable person wants to kill babies, and no reasonable person wants to restrict women's rights. However, because of the use of words like "pro-life" and "pro-choice", if a "pro-lifer" wants to make a statement opposing abortion, he will immediately be seen as opposing women's rights, and vice versa. In my debating lexicon, this is known as "framing the debate".

The classic example of framing the debate is when the upstart young journalist asks the senatorial incumbent, "Sir, have you stopped beating your wife yet?". It may seem obvious in such a blatant context as this, but changing the frame of the debate prevents meaningful communication. In this case, whatever answer the senator gives will extend the basic assumption that he regularly beats his wife. In this case, the correct answer is mu (note: if you ever actually answer a question like this with "mu", I will punch you in the face) but to take a side in the abortion issue is to make a similar concession: if you are "pro-life", you are anti-choice, and if you are "pro-choice", you are anti-life.

So, because of the language used, what we see in abortion debate is the equivelant of "Guns can be used in crimes. You're against crimes, aren't you? Then you're against guns." This is a simple logical fallacy, and the world would be such a better place if more people realized this.

In debate, the response to a change of frame is to change it back. Hence, my belief in the morality of infanticide. However, perhaps this is an appropriate place to push greater mainstream support of the Regressive Party?

Anorexics of the World, Unite!

Okay, so apparently there are plenty of anorexics in the world and they certainly like to organize.

But even the skinniest, most beautiful anorexic should be able to see the selfishness and wasted effort in her actions. I have a solution that will work out to everybody's best interests.

Why couldn't all the anorexics of the world (sorry, bulimics, you're left out of this one) unite on a massive hunger strike? They don't even have to agree on a cause; although unification would present a stronger message, consensus from such a large community is unrealistic, and everybody has their pet causes. They are well familiar with the consequences of malnutrition; they would take care not to overexert themselves, and wouldn't make the common "rookie" mistake of drinking too much water, which can hasten the metabolism. Concerned doctors and parents would have no choice but to support their lifestyle; they would no longer have to go to great lengths to conceal missed periods and vomiting spells. Perhaps most important of all, standing up and fighting for a cause in which they believe would give anorexics self-esteem and confidence, though hopefully not too much or they might not be anorexic anymore.

So the next time you start to calculate how many calories are in your toothpaste, stop and think of the potential you possess to make the world a better place for all of us.

Anorexics: Making pallbearers' jobs easier since 1962.

Part 3 of the Third Amendment:
The Third Amendment, Part 3

Just kidding. This is about Zacarias Moussaoui.

The facility where Moussaoui will serve his life sentence is The United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado. He will be one of 190,309 federal inmates. The total budget for the Federal Prison System (under Department of Justice) is $4.7 billion.

In short, what this means is that each and every American is paying about $0.000003 a year to keep Moussaoui fed, clothed, and under constant heavy guard in solitary confinement. We each pay $15.67 a year to afford this privilege to the other 190,308 federal inmates.

I don't know about you, but I want my $15.67 back.

In all seriousness, why is this man still alive? Why are we giving money to the government to keep him alive?

Most of the usual arguments against the death penalty don't apply. One cannot claim that Moussaoui was falsely found guilty; he pleaded guilty to six felony charges. Whether or not he could potentially be "rehabilitated" is irrelevant; what does it matter if he could become a productive member of society if he's serving six consecutive life sentences?

What I find most infuriating is that the three jurors who prevented the unanimous verdict necessary to give Moussaoui the death penalty were concerned about making a martyr out of him. This is possibly the worst reason to do anything, ever. First of all, people can easily garner "immeasurable love and respect without becoming martyrs; Moussaoui can still serve as a "martyr" for radical fundamentalists, even if he's still alive. Second, if we allow fear of reprisal to cloud our perspectives on justice, the terrorists win. Seriously. Creating a reluctance to act due to fear of retribution is a greater blow than could be struck by any hijacked airliner.

Ultimately, Moussaoui is at worst an evil man who conspired to kill thousands of Americans, and at best an idiot. As far as I'm concerned, both of these are capital offenses.

Can Anyone Make Heads Or Tails Of

This?

Because I sure can't.

It has something to do with the code "227644".

An Allegation of Subtle Gender Bias in the SAT I Reasoning Test
One Student's Shocking Revelation

I recently took the SAT's. Since I finished each section in about half the alloted time, I had a lot of opportunity to look around the classroom, bite my fingernails, calculate powers of two up to 2^30, and discover a subtle gender bias inherent to the structure of the test. What I found may shock you. So be warned! These words are not for the wuss-of-heart.

For each of the nine multiple-choice sections, the answer sheet has 40 rows of empty bubbles to fill in, each row consisting of A, B, C, D, and E. These rows are arranged in 4 columns of 10 rows each. If the answers were chosen randomly so that no one letter was favored over another, the distributions would be roughly even, in the long run. This was my initial expectation.

However, looking at each column of my answers, I found that the distributions were rarely symmetrical. This is to be expected, since each column is not going to be a reasonable sample of all the answers. However, I began to wonder if the variance from symmetry was not just random, but systematic.

There were a total of 17 complete columns filled with answers by the end of the test. 8 of them had more answers on the left than on the right (bubbles A and B), and 9 of them had more answers on the right than on the left (bubbles D and E).

This is clear indication of gender bias. By the classical definition, "right" represents the masculine and "left" represents the feminine. By having more columns with answers on the right than columns with answers on the left, the SAT subtly pressures test-takers towards the masculine, and away from the feminine. Since all test-taking is ultimately an expression of the self, the College Board is forcing female and effeminately male test-takers to go against their true natures.

One might argue that basing this allegation on one test (my own) presents insignificant evidence to prove gender bias, especially when the difference between right and left is so small. However, the College Board's refusal of my request to provide me with complete test results of every student for the past six months only proves that they have something to hide.

One might also argue that I cannot base this allegation on my own test, since my answers might be, to put it bluntly, inaccurate. However, this is false; I received a perfect score on the SAT, so my test is indicative of the platonic ideal of all completed SATs, and is thus representative of the College Board's sexist standard.

Still unconvinced? There are 40 blanks for answers in each section. The prime factorization of 40 is 2^3 * 5. In the Pythagorean numerology, 2, the first even number, represents the masculine, and 3, the first odd number, represents the feminine. Their union is their sum, 5. With its answer sheet design, the College Board is telling each and every one of us that men are 3 times as important as the union of male and female.

Each and every one of us SAT takers deserves a personal apology from the College Board for this blatant misogyny. The only way the College Board can redeem itself in my eyes, and in the eyes of America, upon the revelation of this truth, is by redesigning the test at its core so that the answers are arranged radially, rather than in columns, thus making the distinction between right and left, and by extension the distinction between male and female, meaningless.

Addendum
Revenge of the Third Amendment

And I thought the Constitution was where it was at. Check out all this stuff in the Articles of Confederation!

"...unless such State be infested by pirates..."

More on this later.

Whence the Third Amendment?
Musings on the Anachronistic Sheet of Parchment that Some of Us Affectionately Refer To as The Constitution

This website is titled "The Third Amendment" for a reason, and though some might think that my fixation upon the Third Amendment is part of an elaborate joke or satire of the government itself, those people vastly overestimate my intelligence.

No, the Third Amendment is really my favorite amendment. I suffer no false illusions of its importance in U. S. history; close perusal of the appropriate links on this page will reveal that there has only ever been one court case in the history of the United States judicial system concerning the Third Amendment. The text of the case is here but in all honesty it isn't interesting, even a little bit.

The reason that I find the Third Amendment so interesting is that it is entirely a product of its time. Quartering British soldiers was a serious point of contention leading up to the Revolutionary War; the Declaration of Independence makes reference to "quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us". Viewed in the context of the drafting of the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, such an amendment makes perfect sense. But to me, the fact that we have these deadheads in a "living document" like the Constitution is fascinating.

The Third Amendment isn't the only anachronism. The majority of Article 1, Section 2 is irrelevant, concerning specific numbers of representatives from each state. Article 1, Section 8 is rife with good stuff. Giving Congress the power to "fix the Standard of Weights and Measures" must have seemed like a good idea at the time, along with control over what would eventually become the D. C. area, and the "Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings". As for Article 1, Section 10: I'm glad they put that stuff in there, because my state just tried to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts," and "grant any Title of Nobility" just the other day. DENIED!

I'm not even going to touch Article 2. Way too many words in there.

But Article 3! Ah, yes, good old Article 3. Good thing we gave the Supreme Court authority over "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction". And thank God they held onto original jurisdiction over "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls". I'd take that shit over appelate jurisdiction any day.

And the Amendments! Oh, the Amendments. Amendment XVIII, anyone? What unholy symmetry it forms in conjunction with Amendment XXI! Look out! Here comes Amendment XXII from the left! FREOWWW!

I guess what I'm trying to say is, how often does any of this stuff come up? What of this is really so important that we had to put it into the document that would lay the foundation for all the laws our nation would have, ever?

I'm not dispariging the Founding Fathers, and I definitely don't think I'm smarter than anyone for picking up on this stuff. I'm certainly not the first to do so, and I know that all of this is in the Constitution for a reason. If I have any point at all, it's that everyone should be reading the Constitution, like all the time.

I just think it's funny, is all.

On the Merit of Ideas, or Lack Thereof

This post, read out of the context of the previous two, will be utterly devoid of meaning.

*****

A girl in my history class wrote her term paper on "Graffiti: Art or Vandalism?". She's a pretty smart girl, so I felt bad that she would be wasting her time and brainpower trying to answer such a meaningless question.

I will give you, gentle reader, the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are well versed in the koan of Master McCloud, namely his (not entirely original) idea that if one defines "art" as "something not directly furthering human goals of survival and reproduction", there is at least a little bit of art in everything we do, and at least a little bit of the survival/reproduction drive in even the "purest" art.

Thus, the problem is one of categorization. For most people, graffiti doesn't get to be art because art is supposed to be beautiful and graffiti can be ugly, or because you can only do art on things that you own. Saying that graffiti is vandalism is saying that it is just as destructive to property as breaking windows or starting small fires. Slightly smarter people tend to try to classify graffiti somewhere between the two by attempting to define the elusive quality of "artistic merit", which is something I'm not even going to touch.

This problem of classification is one I consider a lot, especially in school. In our English class, we are reading "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close", a fictional story in which the collapse of the twin towers is an integral element. Some insisted that it was still too soon to write a fictional account of such an event, and we quickly became bogged down in a debate about under what circumstances it was acceptable to make fiction of such things.

"Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" is, in my opinion, a good book; I enjoy reading it and thinking about what it says. It could not have been written without using the collapse of the twin towers as a plot element. I don't care if it's "too soon" or not, if we get a good book out of it. If my entire family died tomorrow and somebody wrote a fictional account of it the next day, I would be happy if it were a good book. If it wasn't a good book, I would only be upset because they had wasted my time.

In the same sense, the tags of "art" and "vandalism" for graffiti are fundamentally irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether or not the graffiti is an improvement over what had been there previously.

To bring this down from the fluffy realm of idealism to the spiky land of spiky reality, where everything has spikes, occasionally poisonous, I propose an idea. That I am posting this idea here rather than posting it in a well-thought-out letter to the Goveror speaks volumes to its validity and practicality.

What if the Department of Graffiti Removal were to change its classification of graffiti from "everything" to "anything that garners more complaints than praise"? Set up a graffiti hotline. If you see something you like, you phone in and say so, likewise if you see something you don't like. Every week or so, the tallies for each tag are added up. If it's positive, the piece stays. If it's negative, scrub scrub. Not only will this discourage pointless, ugly graffiti (it'll just be removed) but it will promote creation of graffiti good enough to draw praise from passers-by.

Thus are the problems of graffiti, world hunger, religious strife, and the common cold simultaneously solved. Tomorrow, I discuss the validity of the Third Amendment itself.

On the eventual triumph of Eastern Civilization over Western Civilization

If you haven't read the previous post, I humbly suggest that you start there. Go! Go ahead! I'll wait for you below these asterisks!

*****

Finished? All right, good. Quiz time.

1. How do Westerners greet each other?

If you answered "Handshake", you get a point. You get a bonus point if you said "Air kissing, if by 'Westerner' you mean 'European'."

2. How do Easterners greet each other?

If you said "Bowing," then you're two for two, assuming that you got the previous question correct as well. If you got the bonus, then I guess you're three for two. That's like 150%!

3. Which of these two methods of greeting can potentially spread disease?

You can see where I'm going with this.

As far as things that I worry about go, H5N1 rates significantly below getting stuck in an elevator with a girl on the list of things that keep me up at night. The first time I heard the sentiment expressed that the world is long overdue for its next pandemic, be it bubonic plague or whatever, was when I read Robert A. Heinlein's "Friday", which was written twenty-five years ago.

However, I don't believe that discussion of H5N1 is merely so much feverish air. Is the idea of a Spanish-Flu-proportioned pandemic really so far-fetched? This doesn't mean it will happen anytime soon, or even within the next century, but consider it thusly: If there is a 1% chance of a pandemic every year, there is a 100% chance of a pandemic occurring within the next 100 years. Don't believe me? Flip a coin twice. According to the laws of probability, there is a 100% chance of getting heads at least once.

Even the strongest skeptic must concede that there is at least a slight possibility of pandemic, and it's easier to consider preventive measures now than when we're busy coping with such severe symptoms as fever, headache, fatigue, sore joints, sneezing, and chills. We have nothing to lose by adopting my simple proposed preventive measure, and everything to gain.

I'm not the first to predict the "demise of the handshake", and I was inspired to write this when I read an article about how the WHO is actively promoting the elbow bump as the societally acceptable form of greeting. But honestly, bumping elbows is retarded. Everyone thinks so. Just ask anyone.

But you know what's about an infinity times cooler than the elbow bump? Bowing. You know, like the Japanese ninja did before they commenced serious flipping out. Unlike the elbow bump, bowing is awesome. Also unlike the elbow bump, people already do it. It doesn't spread disease, and it serves the same purpose as the handshake in displaying a certain amount of vulnerability. (Shaking with your right hand shows that you're unarmed, bowing exposes the hands and the back of the neck.)

The benefits don't end there. Remember back in elementary school, when bullies would beat you up every day on the playground during recess? Then, when you had finally managed to stagger back to your feet, they would offer you a handshake as a sign of reconciliation? Foolishly, you would reach for their hand, your heart full of gratitude and relief that perhaps, finally, your torment was ending. Of course, your torment was only just beginning; they would grab your arm and pull you down again, stomping your face into the dry, coarse playground sand. Don't you remember the taste of every grain of that sand, slowly mingling with the taste of your own blood as you swore that one day, you'd have your revenge, and by God, it would be sweet?

With bowing, none of that second part would happen.

So go on! Next time somebody moves as if to shake your hand, respond appropriately by recoiling in terror from the unseen millions of germs that await you. Show them how real men and geishas alike greet each other: with a display of submission. The alternative is to go down in history as the Typhoid Mary of the 21st century and to watch, helplessly, as Western civilization shakes hands with disease-ridden doom and is hopelessly overrun by the impeccably sterile, yet insidiously crafty Nipponese.