Category: Uncategorized

[source: http://alecstapp.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/thomas-babington-macaulays-speech-to-the-house-of-commons-on-jewish-emancipation-april-17th-1833/]

I love this speech for what it says about how human nature hasn’t changed in 180 years. The particulars of who is being discriminated against and which precise rights they are denied in what jurisdiction change. But I do not understand how someone who reads these words can’t be touched by the empathy and love for humanity contained therein. Hats off to Thomas Babington Macaulay.

… The plain truth is that my honourable friend is drawn in one direction by his opinions, and in a directly opposite direction by his excellent heart. He halts between two opinions. He tries to make a compromise between principles which admit of no compromise. He goes a certain way in intolerance. Then he stops, without being able to give a reason for stopping. But I know the reason. It is his humanity. Those who formerly dragged the Jew at a horse’s tail, and singed his beard with blazing furzebushes, were much worse men than my honourable friend; but they were more consistent than he.

…

The honourable Member for Oldham tells us that the Jews are naturally a mean race, a sordid race, a money-getting race; that they are averse to all honourable callings; that they neither sow nor reap; that they have neither flocks nor herds; that usury is the only pursuit for which they are fit; that they are destitute of all elevated and amiable sentiments. Such, Sir, has in every age been the reasoning of bigots. They never fail to plead in justification of persecution the vices which persecution has engendered. England has been to the Jews less than half a country; and we revile them because they do not feel for England more than a half patriotism. We treat them as slaves, and wonder that they do not regard us as brethren. We drive them to mean occupations, and then reproach them for not embracing honourable professions. We long forbade them to possess land; and we complain that they chiefly occupy themselves in trade. We shut them out from all the paths of ambition; and then we despise them for taking refuge in avarice.

Okay, so, I got doored. It happened at about 6:45pm, near the Granville stop. Having previously dodged several near-dooring experiences, I always wondered somewhat skeptically how they actually happened. I discovered today. They happen very, very quickly. One second I was biking along, just east of the L line, the next I was lying on the pavement. I got up quickly, surveyed the damage (a painful, bloody right bicep, I expect bruises soon). I yelled at the guy who had opened the door, who looked kinda scared. I’m pretty sure I told him it was “fucking criminal”, which, expletive not withstanding I believe is true in Chicago. My bike’s front wheel was bent and useless. Some dude biked past and asked if he could help. I waved him on. I took my bike east of the granville stop and locked it up against a sign. I grabbed my bag, took out a shirt, put it on, went back, and took a picture of the car, including license plate. The young lady in the passenger seat was still in the car and not looking comfortable with the attention. I crossed the street, took a picture of the side of the car. I walked back to my bike. I took pictures of the damaged bike and my injuries. I went into the train station, tapping past the turnstile with my chicago card plus. I thought better of not talking to the driver, went back to the car, arrived as he was returning to the car. I was angry and stern, but not hostile. He was extremely chagrined and apologetic. He offered to pay for anything. He said he was a new driver and that he got paid that evening. He said that he parked there all the time. I pointed out that it was an area with very heavy bike traffic since the official bike trail from the lakefront headed north includes that section. I gave him my number (which he still hasn’t used, an hour later). We shook hands. I returned to the train station. A short indian gentleman, who I believe works there (because he was in a neon vest) told me had had seen it all, that the guy hadn’t noticed me and opened the door. I waved him away. I finished my trip by train, got to Pliny’s place, took 3 ibuprofen, accepted Joe’s offer to photograph my main visible injury (a deep scratch on my right bicep), cleaned and bandaged the bigger of my two wounds, tried to file a police report by phone (311), was told that as a vehicular police report it could not be filed by phone and that I’d have to file it in person, ideally some time in the next three days. Decided to, as Mike recommended, write down the time line of events, and that is my story. Now to finish a stiff drink or three so I can sleep better this evening. This post should help me recall the events.

I wish I had collected contact info from the cyclist who offered to help and the short indian dude at the Granville station. I mean, I hate to be cynical and think that the guy who doored me won’t follow through on his word, but I have the sinking feeling that he won’t. Let this be a lesson to me. Next time I’m the victim of a criminal act, and a potential witness asks if I need help, or says they saw what happened, thank them politely and ask for their contact info. Also, don’t trust someone who could potentially be liable for harming me, and collect their info as well. Even if I already have their license plate info.

Also, getting doored sucks. Drivers, please look before you open your doors on the street.

So, we landed late on Friday, and took supershuttle to our friend Bryan’s place.

Saturday was brunch with Tom at Herbivore, board game browsing, then homemade dinner with Josh and Brennan on the peninsula, before coming back and dropping by Jeremy’s Birthday drinks.

Sunday was brunch with Tom at Saturn, board games at Nathan’s, then pizza and project Runway at Tom’s with Nathaniel.

Monday I finished drafting a union survey, we had brunch with Bryan, I got new shoes (tossing the old ones in a trash can right outside the store. They were seriously worn out.) Got a week membership at the most convenient (and coincidentally gayest) gym in town, did a leg workout, met Matthew and played RFTG and then Wizard (for the first time ever), had dinner with Nathaniel at Golden Era, and called it a night. And then I sent out the union survey.

Tuesday, I started off with a transition committee meeting for the new bargaining unit with our union, worked out chest and back, grabbed lunch at herbivore, played board games (glory to rome specifically) with new folks we met through the wonders of proximity based social networking (aka scruff), bounced on trampolines with friends new, old, and just-moved-to-SF-from-Chicago, then dinner, now back home.

Themes so far for vacation: vegetarian restaurants, board games, old friends, and a few people from chicago. =)

I’ve seen a few people reposting this article which claims that people aren’t smart enough to make democracy work. I wasn’t sure about the author of the study behind the article, so I did a bit of digging. Most of his work is not related to politics directly, but rather to self-evaluation of skill. And according to a UK radio interview he apparently does agree with the political application of the work. And I think they’re missing something critical, which makes the direction they’re going with this rather pointless.

Democracy, whether representative or direct, is about political decisions ultimately being made by the people affected by them, not the technical competence of elected leaders or enacted policies. “No taxation without representation” is a slogan from the pre-revolutionary and revolutionary decades of what is now the United States, and a close variant of that shows up on DC license plates. That’s not a cry for more technically competent leadership, that’s a complaint about not being involved in the decision making process. They may have wanted more technically competent leadership, but really, they wanted their needs tended to. And that is what democracy looks like. Democracy is the answer to “Let them eat cake,” not the answer to “How do we determine the optimal arrangement of taxes and services?”

Democracy is a system of political decision making, a way of resolving conflicting interests. We may aspire to perfect governance, but for that aspiration to even make sense, we have to agree on our values. And we have chosen to express those values through a generally peaceful, mostly democratic framework. While I might have ideas for how this system could be improved, those two principles at the very least seem well worth maintaining.

I agree that a more technically competent electorate would produce more technically competent leaders and decisions. I support the idea of increasing the electorate’s technical expertise, along with our freedom, security, compassion, curiosity, hope, and creativity. But I cannot support that at the cost of disenfranchisement. No matter how technically inexpert, I think citizens have a right to contribute their voice to the definition of their governance. I do not buy that there is a single “competence” factor that would magically produce better governance for all.

Pliny loves red wine and he loves chocolate. Ergo:

http://smittenkitchen.com/2011/09/red-wine-chocolate-cake/

Also, I share with you an awesome pic from Rolling Stone.  Glee’s Kurt Hummel at a Leather Bar.

Great contrast there. =)

Second favorite thing about blogging: getting to work out ideas in writing (first favorite was the community.  When I figure out how to get that back, I’ll be in touch).

1.  I love intellectualism.  Our brains are useful assets, we should use them.  And just because not everyone can follow what someone is thinking does not mean they are wrong (nor does it mean they are brilliant and misunderstood).  However, if you can take whatever insights you have, especially if they are esoteric and make them readily accessible, that’s great.  Especially if you can do it without losing the elegance and completeness of your thoughts.  Being right is not just good, it’s one of the most important things.

2.  Being different is not inherently bad, and may have some inherent value.  Evolution couldn’t happen without mutation.  Diversity makes a collective strong.  I don’t care if you wear funny clothes, talk different, or have obscure hobbies.  Who am I kidding?  I think all those things are awesome.

3. Honesty rules.  I spent too many miserable years lying about who I was and am to value privacy and secrets over open-ness and honesty.

4. One should generally assume the best about others’ intentions and attitudes.  Most people mean well, and we all make mistakes.

That’s all I really feel like writing on that front at this point.  This has been a test of Stephen’s RSS broadcast setup on facebook.

So, I’ve taken a shine to a new MMORPG, RIFT, aka, waster of much time.

While it doesn’t have a trial membership, per se, there are occasional event-based free-trial weekends.  I got in on one and liked it well enough to go in for the full deal a few weeks later, with a discounted download ($15) from amazon.  Current deal is only $10 down.

The game will be compared to WoW for a couple reasons:

1. WoW is the biggest MMORPG out there, and the one with the broadest fan/familiarity base, so if you make that comparison, more people will get it;
2. RIFT works like WoW. Even comparing it to the universe of MMORPGs including GuildWars, Everquest, and FFXI, the MMORPG I played the second most of, the game works far more like WoW:
   • Fantasy setting;
   • two opposing factions, with multiple races each;
   • purchasable mounts to speed up non-combat movement;
   • a character development system that looks and feels very like WoW’s talent trees;
   • very similar crafting and gathering systems (one patch fixed a tooltip to correctly refer to “Apothecary”, rather than “Alchemy” skill, which is what it’s called in WoW);
   • instances;
   • guild levels;
   • a nearly identical auction house and banking system;
   • similar underlying mechanics for character abilities;
   • dragons each affiliated with a particular other-worldly/elemental plane (all the dragons are bad guys in RIFT though); and more
   • The similarities abound.

However, there are noteworthy differences, some improvements, some deficiencies, and some just neutral.

Continue reading “RIFT”

As I was writing a quick impressions piece on RIFT, I had to write a long diatribe on WoW’s mechanics.  This was out of place, so I’m giving it a post unto itself.

Character development in WoW

In WoW, each character has 1 class chosen from 10 at character creation, with some racial variation in available classes, but all classes have been available to each faction since the burning crusade, the first expansion.  In terms of the archetypal roles to fill (damage/healer/tank/buff), depending on how the player customizes the character, any class can do significant damage, 4 classes can heal and 4 classes can tank, including 2 that can do both, and there are at least two classes with substantial buffing powers.

Each class has three categories of abilities, and three corresponding “talent trees”.  For example, mages gain access to “frost”, “fire”, and “arcane” abilities, have “frost”, “fire” and “arcane” talent trees.  Characters gain access to abilities as they level, paying a trainer to learn new abilities.  Starting at level 10 and continuing with increasing levels, players also gain points to use in their talent tree.  Talents typically improve an ability associated with that talent tree.  Some talents also give abilities.  This system was expanded without fundamental changes in the first two expansions.  In the third expansion, Cataclysm, it underwent a more fundamental revision.

I’ll skip the historical versions and describe the current system.  Each talent tree has 9 tiers.  The first 8 tiers generally have 5 or more places to put points per tier.  In order to open up the next tier of talents, you have to spend 5 more points in the tree.  Generally higher tier talents are better, and so talent builds tend to put 5 in each tier until reaching the ninth tier, which has only one spot, which gives the player a .  WoW eventually added the ability to have two talent setups, with the ability to switch between them when out of combat.  After Cataclysm, characters had to choose one of their three trees, and spend all their points in it up until level 69. (hehe), with freedom to distribute the remaining 10 points after that in whatever talent tree the player chooses.  Characters gain special abilities appropriate to their initial talent tree.  A character may be able to completely fill in one tree, but will never hit the top of more than one talent tree.

It did import all my LJ entries.  Many of which are so embarrassing.

It also imported all the comments.  I think about 80 times each.  Fabulous.  Le sigh.