The Idea of Race

Race is a biological term, a biological idea. A race of a species is a group within that species that has some set of characteristics that distinguish it from other group(s) within that species. A race (or subspecies, variety, cultivar, breed or other such distinction) simply means that there is enough variation for humans to see it as worth noting and reliably different at least in some sense.

At some point in time, some human noticed the usefulness of the term race in describing differences among all types of species besides Homo sapiens and then decided to include Homo sapiens among the types of species that could be known to have races. After all, no one will disagree that there are biologically significant differences between groups of Humans and that groups of people can be formed out of individuals within the global population that share these biologically significant differences.

This, of course, is a social construction. It is a human fabricated idea that divides the universe into more manageable chunks. These smaller and more manageable chunks make the process of choice and thought easier, but are prone to making errors, particularly along the margins of the chunks. For example, consider the distinctive curliness of the hair of Native Africans. Certainly not every single curl is the same width, and certainly the average width of curls varies from head to head. So any descriptive simplification regarding these distinctive curls will inherently not accurately describe those Native Africans with larger width curls or smaller width curls. Duh!

The fact that race is a social construction is not something to debate, it is not an argument to be won, it is a fact. The greater and more difficult question is whether that social construction is useful. While we ponder this question, if you don't find it useful, don't use it. If you find it useful, go ahead. However to presume that because race is a social construction that it is an immoral, offensive, or logically invalid idea, is not logically founded. If you disagree and have logically valid reasons for doing so, I'd love to hear them.

We the people of the former USA, in order to improve our union do hereby enact this constitution. We acknowledge that it won't last forever but that it is another draft on top of the one that the "founding fathers" made.

Our government will be composed of a set of commitments that we make as a society and the mechanisms that we will make to uphold those commitments and to make new commitments.

We are committed to:

1. Generally allowing every individual to do as they please, so long as that action does not interfere with the desired actions of others. In situations where the desires of one overlaps with the desires of another;

2. Maintaining a set of laws, guidelines, and mechanisms that maintain speedy and fair decision-making and the binding mediation of conflict.

3. Listening to the pleas and the desires of the marginalized in our society even if we don't believe we can address their concerns. Further, making a good-faith effort to address their concerns and finding win-win solutions.

4. Allowing every individual a chance and access to the opportunities that everyone else has, which includes;

5. Empowering disempowered groups.

6. Generally staying out of the business of other countries unless explicitly asked to. If there are currently in place means of preventing that asking from taking place, and we have reason to believe that we would be asked if those means were not in place, we can intervene but only by removing, circumventing, or disabling those means. Our actions in other countries should only be what we are asked to do. In the case of allies or national friendships, lots of activity ought to be maintained as long as it continues to provide net benefit to both societies.

7. Being responsible for our actions as a nation and the consequences of our actions including: acknowledging past and current wrongs, thoroughly examining our own actions for negative consequences to others, and righting our wrongs to the best of our ability.

8. Maintaining a sense of humor for cryin' out loud! :).

9. Allowing for flexibility in our legal system and the understanding that it has limitations and may at times contradict itself. At times when our laws contradict each other, the most important principle to take into account is the spirits of our laws especially as they relate to these commitments.
10. Allowing for the modification of these commitments over a long period of time, but preventing them from being modified on a whim.
11. Trusting in our system and lodging complaints and seeking routes within our system to make change rather than violent means.
12. Maintaining transparency and the free-flow of information and ideas from, through, and throughout government and society.

there is no such thing as a linear relationship

Linear relationships only exist as simplifications of non-linear relationships or simplifications of portions of non-linear relationships. Even our own representations of lines themselves are in fact non-linear. however, thinking of things in terms of lines is helpful. Apparently it's useful to mathematicians, so lets leave them with their lines. But in general we come into problems when we try to apply linear models to anything in reality because nothing is linear. One possibility for a truly completely strait line is the edge of a crystal. but who's to say that the atoms line up exactly, and further, the edges of an atom are not definite but flexible, a line is not flexible, nor rigid, it is imaginary and only exists as a tool that can be used properly or improperly in explaining or simplifying the universe.

why should you care and what new information is this:
Well, in economics and in any quantifiable study graphs are usually employed to represent the data visually. Students are taught from a young age the idea of lines and that definition is regularly redefined for them. In the context of graphs, lines are no longer used but curves are substituted. Unfortunately, similar definitions of lines remain on curves, such as zero width. Because of this simplistic model of reality we have to employ cumbersome and outmoded tools such as error bars. Whenever a simplification is to take place, it is important that the students know that such simplification is taking place and that they see the limits of the lens you've given them rather than believing the image they currently see is the be all and end all description of reality.

Barack Obama

Judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

There is a lot of hype about Barack Obama because of the belief that he might be "electable" and that he's "black". He might be the first "black" president.

There was this woman on the Colbert report who argued that Barack Obama is in fact not black because part of what black means is part of the post-slave culture of African Americans.

I think at some point we need to stop trying to boil down the human experience to anything but an individual experience and a community experience. Labels and categories won't ever truly work, except to teach the lesson of individualized experience. Now I'm not saying that we don't have things in common as humans or that there aren't similarities among humans, but humans don't belong to definitive categories usually. Someone who identifies themselves as a christian, may in a different mood or frame of mind more identify with being a woman perhaps despite having a penis.

We need to acknowledge the experiences that have taken place over the course of history, consider those experiences when deciding what to plan for the future and what to do in the present, but we must not dwell on what has taken place in the past so much that it defines the present.

One of Barack Obama's many hats is that of a politician. As such, I think he couldn't be happier than to ride the wave of sympathy from a culture he doesn't belong to.

I'm not against the notion of a dark-skinned person being president, I'm against the notion that the color of one's skin defines their experience as human and/or betters or worsens their ability to be president necessarily. There are many light-skinned people who identify much more with a "black" experience than many dark-skinned people. But what does it matter? Do you get it? We are talking about his skin color or his cultural experience!!! Try to discuss a bold initiative he's proposed. Try to discuss what he's going to do to improve the situation in the poor neighborhoods of our big cities. Try to discuss his ideas. Try to discuss the ideas of any candidate. Try to discuss anything beyond the labels of liberal and conservative or wacko or bible-thumper. Try if you can to move beyond the labels toward improving the level of happiness in our society.

How hot is my stove?

I search online led nowhere so I decided to create the content myself. I found a rough estimate of the temperature of the surface of a scratched teflon pan using the smoking point of two fats, butter and refined canola oil (325 and 425 respectively).

Big burner|Small burner
325 1 min | 1 min
425 2 min | 2 min

It seems the size of the flame didn't matter all that much. Also important to note, the small burner was tested second and retained heat from the first test even though it soaked in the sink with cold water in it for 2 minutes.

Invalid Assumptions in Macroeconomic Theory

Macroeconomic theory in our country is very much centered on 2 false premises:
Wants are infinite and resources are scarce;
"Consuming" goods and services brings satisfaction.

Macroeconomic theorists have a greater obligation than many think to be meticulous and open minded because an incorrect model on their part can cause a depression in the world that lives beyond charts and graphs that they might only rarely interact with.

To say that wants are infinite is to express a sentiment of an immature creature. Wants are infinite in our world only if resources are infinitesimal. This is extreme and inaccurate. In fact our resources can meet the needs of 6 Billion people (though, because of inequities of distribution, which these assumptions enforce, the needs of many go unmet).

Consuming goods doesn't necessarily bring one happiness, satisfaction, or utility. While this is somewhat addressed through the idea of marginal utility, this concept doesn't have a macroeconomic counterpart, ie marginal utility from aggregate consumption is assumed to never reach zero and certainly never dip into the negative. More consumption is always better it is assumed because, of course, no one would continue consuming when it is not in their best interests to do so. But that is clearly not true. Heroine addicts continue consuming all the time. Imagine what a heroine marginal utility curve would look like... Similarly if we examine the goods and services we "consume" we would be missing the picture if we did not see the addictive parts. For example, mobsters offer protection from themselves. This is inherently addictive and parasitic. What about a less extreme example? Cigarettes. Legal, no crime involved save for false advertising perhaps. What about something a little closer to home for non-smokers? Imagine being told that you will be happier and healthier if you buy a certain product. Imagine being told your parents love you more if they buy you a certain product. Imagine a productivity tool that costs more to produce and maintain than it returns in productivity and has hidden costs. We live in a world more complicated than guns and butter.

And finally, while those assumptions worked in a simple hypothetical world, the application of those models of reality is a creative process and not merely a flawed descriptive one. When we conjecture "wants are infinite" we don't just conjecture, we tell a story; a story people generations from now will hear and may believe as fact. We teach students that they are greedy first, wonder them with mathematics, and as our final nudge leave our posts in cookie-cutter positions for them to fill as researching but uncritical pawns.

Imagine a teaching style where criticism is encouraged. Imagine a teaching style where assumptions are considered and analyzed and a critical essay is worth more than a blog post.

SdrawKcab!!!

While not doing homework, I came up with the idea for a restauraunt in which everything is backwards. The entrance is in the alley and the dumpster is on the sidewalk (it would be moved into the alley for the trash day).
When you open the door, a lady waves good-bye and says have a nice day. And then asks "Cash Credit or Check?". She then asks you if you enjoyed your meal, and based on how much food you want, you tell her "Full" if you want a lot, "Satisfied" if you want a little, and "Starving!" if you don't want very much. Each amount would be a flat fee, and you don't get to choose your food. (now would be the time to discuss any food preferences, vegetarian, salty, protien, no carb, low-fat, etc)
You are brought to a table with dirty dishes on it which are replaced with desert, then an entree, a salad, and finally some starters, that weren't chosen by you, along with clean silverware.
You are then handed a menu items we are thinking of stocking, as well as items we currently stock. You order to show your preferences on what things you would like served. Order a la Carte to make suggestions.

Finally, as you walk out, the lady asks how she may help you.
Along with lots of other backwards-themed items (as well as embarrassing costumes for the help), this could make for a potentially profitable tourist restaurant.