Secrets II

Since I got taken to task recently for posting a not very satisfying post on secrets, and since I really do feel like I might have something to say somewhere deep in the mysts of my brain, I'm going to try to again.

First off, I really do think most secrets arise from attempts to hide either our true selves, or something society deems improper. I'm excluding of course secrets like "Don slept with that stewardess while his pregnant wife was home alone" secrets.*

A person who is perfectly comfortable with himself/herself wouldn't need secrets, I would imagine. Am I wrong on this?

My thinking is that if you are perfectly, 100% comfortable with yourself, you won't have anything that is a secret. Because what would be the point of keeping the secret? If you're comfortable with all your actions, if they are based on your morals and derived from conscious thought, what would there be to hide? Maybe a bad outcome. But then again, I'm not sure covering a bad outcome is exactly a "secret." If you suggest a course of action at work and it fails, not bringing up the fact that it was your idea isn't a secret so much as good PR work. If my book never gets published, I'm not going to advertise that fact. That doesn't make the book a secret.

No, secrets are usually related to actions that DON'T portray you as you "think" you should be. Either because they don't fit with your conscious thoughts, or because they do, but society finds them reprehensible and you aren't willing to take on that battle.

For instance, I'm fairly reserved about my Libertarian status with people. Libertarians (both rightfully and wrongfully) have somewhat of a bad reputation as nut jobs and a fringe element. Announcing your a Libertarian seems to often fall somewhere between announcing you believe whole-hardily in aliens having visited earth and announcing you support the Nazi party. Refuting that error takes too damn long, so its just easier to not say anything, let people slowly become accustomed to what I believe, and then one day when it comes up surprise them with it.
This especially fun since I pull the economic part of the Republican party and the social part of the Democratic party, leading followers of both to think I'm with them; until I'm not.

But that's not really a secret. Its more like the "work" scenario above. Still, that's a pretty thin line, because lets face it, child molesters, nudists, partner swappers and those guys who participate in very, very odd animal-love videos online aren't merely participating in a "failure to disclose the truth," they are quite literally, holding a secret. Its a thin line, and its thin enough that I don't know that I see it all the time.

Now, if I were an honestly an anarchist, might I be keeping a secret by not declaring it? I mean, - sorta like being a nudist - the looks you'd get and the explanations needed would be quite tiring. So you'd probably not tell everyone. Is that a secret, or a lack of disclosure? I tend toward secret on that one.

Both (three if you include my Libertarianism - but I generally don't for various reasons that will remain secret for neither reason 1 nor 2) are socially unacceptable on a level that keeps them secret. However, a person who was truly self-secure, and unhampered by public opinion, would probably have no problem disclosing them.

One last thought: The post that got this going (see my last post for the link, as I'm too lazy too) mentioned that a peer suggested she had no secrets. That is just the kind of thing someone with secrets would say in a group. The nature of secrets prevents their reveal to all but the best trusted, let alone to large groups at once.

It sounds like a case of "thou dost protest too much" to me. Someone who truly had no secrets wouldn't seem like the type that would have to announce it, even in a discussion. They are open and secure and it probably doesn't occur to them. By announcing they have no secrets, it seems more likely to me that either A) they do or B) they do and just don't realize it.

Sorta along the same lines of "always be suspicious of those who tell you how moral they are, because those who are truly moral don't feel the need to constantly be blabbing about it."

* Bonus points if you get the reference; which you can spend in the Points store. Good luck with that.

Me got the spank-ed as little

Me is now too not smart.

So says this study.

Secrets

Someone recently got me thinking about secrets and why we keep them.

I thought I might have some really good post, but I'm afraid all I have is regurgitated knowledge: We keep secrets because the secret in question is either A) socially unacceptable or B) provides a window into ourself that we don't want others to see.

B is probably sometimes a corrallary of A, but sometimes it a stand alone reason.

Sorry, that's all I've got. Kinda anticlimatic, I know.

Something glowing to think about

... if global warming (now restyled global 'climate change' to account for largely stagnant global temps over the last 10 years) is a disaster for both the human population and earth (a point I'm not willing to concede except for the purposes of this argument) why isn't nuclear energy the easy, obvious, most discussed answer?

Wind farms need vast stretches of open, relatively flat space. Don't know if you've noticed this, but there isn't a huge abundance of that just lying around twiddling its thumbs. The one area where the preceding is true is often met with horrific antipathy. That area is off shore.

Solar is kinda reliant on a sun that, especially on days like today, tends to be missing from time to time. Like at night. And winter in the Northeast. And Seattle. Oh, and its expensive.

Nuclear, however, is relatively inexpensive. Plants are already designed and the technology is already "mature" and thus viable. The space needed is significantly smaller than a wind or solar farm for similar output. And its pretty darn safe. The last incident I know of if TMI, and it resulted in (disputedly) zero population deaths and (again, disputedly) few or no injuries.

I'm not saying nuclear doesn't have drawbacks. Disposal of the waste presents big issues, certainly. But if we are truly on the edge of an ever deepening chasm called global warming/climate change, isn't it a small price to pay? If we are, I think its disingenuious and suspect NOT to discuss the one thing that could save us. I'm not saying we have to forgoe all advancements in solar and wind. I'm not saying solar and wind can't be the future.

But the reality is:

Burning coal accounts for 36 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, natural gas 20 percent, and oil (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and heating oil) 44 percent. Since 90 percent of the coal burned in the U.S. is used to produce electricity, replacing all coal-fired generating plants with zero-carbon electricity generation plants would just about cut emissions by 2 billion tons.

Currently, 1,400 coal-fired electricity generation plants supply about 45 percent of the country's electricity while 104 nuclear power plants produce roughly 20 percent. So to replace all coal plants with nuclear plants would mean building 250 new 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants over the next 10 years, or about 25 new plants per year. That could be done for about $1 trillion.

Look at the comparison: According to the Electric Power Research Institute and using standardized wind generation costs you would need 500,000 windmills costing $1.4 trillion or $4.5 trillion in solar panels to replace all the coal-fired plants in the country. Windmills would cost 40% more and we'd require a lot of them. Solar would just cost a lot.

We are either ignoring the obvious, easy answer to a looming "disaster," or something else is going on entirely in the climate change/global warming movement.

Disclosure: The FDA regulates apples & cigarettes. Also, before I'm smeared as a smog lover: I compost and consider every earth-friendly innovation I can.

On TJ, Deism, and writing

I'm going to handle these in reverse order. Why? Because its my blog and I can.

Writing on the blog has fallen off. But its fallen off across the board, i.e. - on everything. Neither is a good thing. I took August off to reward myself for my hard work, knowing that I had a piece or two or three yet to complete. I've now made two stabs at the first of those pieces without any kind of success. I need to really buckle down. I have two pieces I really need to get done, and probably 100 more. Plus, I'd like to start Book II at some point.

I've recently become enamored with the idea of, and would probably describe myself as, a deist. A follower of deism. Long story short: You believe in a god who set the world's natural laws in motion and has stayed out since then. Its very Jefferson Biblish. And Jefferson, and lots of other Founding Fathers, were or probably were, deists. Deism allows you to believe in all sorts of science and to be skeptical of all the holy "books" and miracles and supersitition. My take on it is that maybe god was there at the "big bang," maybe he made it go "bang." But he hasn't had a hand in it since, and he doesn't appear, nor make Mary appear, in potato chips. Jesus was a great moral leader, but not the son of God. Holy books are fine, human takes on religion, but they are just that, human works with all the accompanying frailty, fault and agendas that comes with it.

(Now, that wasn't so short, was it?)

I hate people who try to romanticise about the "good old days." I'll paraphrase Billy Joel ... "the good old days weren't always good. And tomorrow [doesn't have to be] as bad as it seems."

I have some conflicted feelings on Thomas Jefferson. He did some stuff that I really wish he hadn't, especially in light of his well-stated beliefs. But I really respect the hell out of the guy. By far my favorite founding father and the person (living or dead) I'd most like to invite to a dinner. The more I learn, the more I like.

I'm going hunting for a good TJ biography.

That's a pretty big thing, because I never, but never, read biographies.

I'm fascinated by this Moliclue

Guess of what the above picture is a photo*? (Hint: The hede is a hint that gives it away)

Its a picture of a single molecule of pentacene, according to the Daily Mail (via Volokh). Pentacene consists of 22 carbon atoms and 14 hydrogen atoms.

The five "rings" you can identify in this picture are five carbon atoms. The source says the hydrogen atoms around the carbon rings "can be seen;" I fail at that, unless its a reference to the dark circles above and below the rings.

Anyway, pretty neat. I wasn't aware that they could do anything like this. Of course, having said that, I will now find out that it happens all the time, probably since something like the 1800s.

*And yes, I did a single-armed hand stand-based summersault to avoid the dangling participle.