New feature: Interesting thoughts

I'm going to, periodically, post interesting thoughts I've come across in my travels, on my own (those will be infrequent), and in books I'm reading.

Here's the first, from Curious Minds about "speciesism," the assumption that humans are superior or deserve special treatment over animals:

"Doctrinaire antiabortionists who blow up clinics and murder good doctors turn out on examination to be rank speciesists. An unborn baby is by any reasonable standards less deserving of moral sympathy than an adult cow. The profiler screams 'murder!' at the abortion doctor and goes home to a steak dinner."

Yes, BUT... Richard Dawkins is an atheist, and some of his views are therefore perhaps not surprising. His use of the word "good doctor" implies a bias to the piece, because you simply can not know that. I'm not sure what "standards" he refers to, but if given the option of saving a baby, even an unborn one, or a cow, even an adult one, I'm pretty sure most would choose the baby. If this is speciesism, and I think this specific case almost certainly has some aspects, I think its culturally ingrained. And also not nearly as evil as Dawkins makes it out to be. In fact, I'm pretty sure that "reasonable" is up for debate, since Ayn Rand-following Objectivists would probably argue, reasonably, that the human is ALWAYS more deserving of moral sympathy than the cow.

I think Dawkins' big mistake comes in saying a cow is "more" deserving. I guess you can make the argument that they are equally deserving, but "more" seems a stretch. Equating an unborn human as equal and on a similar level as an adult cow (and thus both can be killed) is one thing, assuming it is LESS than a cow, that's another, in my mind.

I realize you can't necessarily consider their future "upside" when considering moral sympathy - otherwise you end up on a slippery slope to comparing the handicapped with those of us without noticeable handicaps, and that lands you in a sticky situation.

I have an internal battle with myself over the killing of animals for food for more than survival purposes. If some smarter alien race came along, could they kill us just because they could think in a different, more advanced way than us? Would they be justified? I feel, somewhat, that its that argument that we use to support our superiority over cows. But I also feel that if put in a purely "natural" situation, for lack of a better term, that we would end up being prey. I think our ability to think and reason like that, but more than that, our ability to create a system of laws and determine and assign rights, gives us a moral superiority. Also, if cows are off limits, then worms and bugs and ants probably should be as well, and then, well, the house I'm living in and typing this from is probably a mass murderer, as an I.

Its certainly not a fool-proof thought on my side, as I said, I battle with it, but there it is.

$533B is half of $455B?

The 2008 deficiet was $455 billion. A record.

This year's deficiet (2009) will hit $1.75 TRILLION. I'm not OK with that by any stretch, but you can certainly argue that desperate times call for desperate measures. I'd disagree on a number of points, including how desperate it is, when we knew what he know, and how much the desperate response will actually help. In any case, you could argue it, so I'll leave it alone.

However, Obama - not what was it, 2 days ago? - promised to cut the budget deficiet he "inherited" in half by 2013. But the budget he submitted has the deficiet in 2013 at $533B. So either $533B is HALF $455B, Obama lied, or Obama can't help but tell you what you want to hear, regardless of what he really wants to do. Or I suppose he somehow plays with the numbers so that when you index for inflation, consider the jobs that he "saved," and then throw in some wart of a toad and whiskers from a mutated kitten, you can conclude that the $455B Bush decifiet WOULD HAVE BEEN 1.66 trillion, and thus his is halved.

And you can bet that his 2013 estimates are just that, estimates that might and probably will go up, up, up and that they include rosy projections of taxes income that can always be revised downward when the time comes.

UPDATE - sure enough, it appears that Obama's "halve the deficiet" talk refers to the 1.75 trillion budget for 2009. So at $533B he has room to spare. But its kinda just a little disingenuious to talk about the problems of the deficiet you "inherited," more than double it, and then pat yourself on the back for cutting that in half, don't you think?

How is the 100 push up challenge going? Pretty well, I'd say

Could I do 100 straight? Yesterday I thought I probably could. After a disappointing Monday, Wednesday was fantastic. I didn't even really struggle until that last set of 45, in which I upped the :45 sec break to 1:15, did 27 push ups before taking :15 more seconds and doing the last 18.

Up until that last set I really felt well and thought I could have done 100. Could I? I doubt it. But I felt really, really good and strong. So its working. Its really working. I'm probably going to do Day 3 on Friday, take the test, and see where I stand.

A couple other points re: Obama

I liked that he appeared willing to take on the agricultural subsidies that are a waste of money and prop up prices, protect "special" industries and keep competition from really working. More on that here. But we'll see. Almost everyone agrees those are bad, at least in theory, but no one really wants to take them on come budget time.

Second, there is an omnibus spending package to fund the budget for the rest of the year for things like NASA and what not that the Congress just sent him. Bush & Congress couldn't agree on it, since Bush - maybe for the first time ever in actual practice - wanted to freeze domestic spending. The bill includes an 8.5% uptick in spending currently. Enjoy the squeeling pigs here.

At a time when businesses everywhere are slashing prices and jobs and households are doing with less with less, is it unreasonable to expect that the government could at the very least keep spending pegged at the inflation rate of 3 or so percent?

A couple things on Obama's speech

As Reason points out, Obama didn't exactly "inherit" the deficiet. Yes, it was large when he got there, but the reality is that he was in the Senate when at least SOME of it was created, and his party - the party clapping at all the digs at the previous administration's deficiet creation - have been in power in the Senate since 2006.

That brings me to point numero 2, which is that I thought Obama represented "change" from the old ways of doing things? Really? Blaming a president a month gone from office for problems that are probably at least 40% the responsibility of your party is "change"? First, I don't think the partisan "blame him, its all his fault, I'm a pure angel in all of this" game represents much of a change. Second, I'm not sure what it accomplishes. It just bugs me when I see the democrats stand up and clap at Obama's "lets get rid of this deficit" lines as if they adhore them, especially when the line should really end with "that we all created."

Further, his let's cut the deficit talk is kind of hard to believe, since 3 out of every 4 sentences he spoke involved new spending, new programs, or an expansion of some kind ON TOP OF the trillion dollar stimulus bill he just signed. Sigh.

But hey, he's found $2 trillion to cut over the next 10 years (or 5 percent). My question: If these programs are "wasteful & ineffective" (his words) why are keeping them around for 10 years?

I'm a cheater, cheater pumpkin eater

During my push up set I quit in the middle. I was tired; I was hung over Sunday. That and a long night and with my wife unable to sleep last night and having to get up with a couple times I just wasn't in peak shape. But after going downstairs and making a glass of milk, my determination renewed and I finished the set, including the last 40. Then I did my normal work out. All in all, not a bad day.

Now I'm writing for my novel. So its been a pretty productive day.

I'm still here

As I type this I'm huffing & puffing and my heart is beating as if I just ran a marathon. Though, I guess technically I just did a push up marathon.

Week 5, Day 3 (20, 20, 24, 24, 20, 20, 22) then a final set of 50 that I started after a 1:30 break, got through 25, took a 45 second break, then did 10 more, and finally a 15 second break and the last 15.

The first 150 went pretty well, though that last 20 and the next 22 are a dousy. That's 200 push ups in 10 minutes.

100 UPDATE: My mom has joined the 100 push up challenge. I think she does something like 3, so she's way behind in Group 1, Week 1, but good for her. Its not necassarily about how many you can do NOW, its about how many you'll be able to do and doing them at all. She's seeing the same kind of body transformation that I am. So for everyone and anyone reading this, join up. Its tough, but I promise you'll see results. As I said, I'm pleasently surprised by the results and the gains.

RANDOM NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND: I'm still reading Curious Minds & becoming more and more curious about Scratch Beginnings.

I'm playing Ninja Gaiden II almost exclusively. I still love Horde mode from Gears II, but NGII has my focus right now. The first one was a tough, tough challenge. The game is known for its difficulty, and this one is living up to the title.