In the world of the ancient Greek, the ill would fall asleep in temples dedicated to the god Hippocrates, hoping that he would visit them in dreams and cure whatever ailed them. This is the origin of the organized medical practice, and created the Hippocratic Oath. This oath is still said, in some form or another, by every medical professional that's passed through a university. It basically outlines that the doctor will act humanely, professionally, and put the patients best interests before anything else. One of the biggest parts of that oath is the phrase "Primum Non Nocere", which in the English version reads "above all, do no harm". This is basically what medicine is, putting the most benefit for the patient above all else. Since it is impossible to do anything without harming anyone, this is typically taken to mean minimizing the harm done as much as possible.
Many people don't understand what this means. They confuse the word "harm" with the word "pain". A procedure may cause a lot of pain, but if it is for the best, then it is the doctor's duty to perform it. Take, for instance, the case of abortion. I've heard the Oath used against doctors practicing abortions many, many times over, but is it with cause? Is it harming the patient to have an abortion? Of course, there is significant emotional trauma. But let's face it, it is for the best in the end. If you are getting an abortion, then you have a pretty good reason. So is it professionally ethical to perform them? The answer is yes.
The same question applies to basically every other procedure, from cold sores to assisted suicide. It is worth reiterating the single fact that it is a physician's position to find the situation of the least harm, not no harm, because it is impossible to do something without harming someone. This is crucial, because I am sick of the so called "moral guardians" tying the hands of our doctors and scientists in the name of their misguided morals. Are there some unscrupulous doctors in the world? Yes. Could there be quite a few? Yes. But does that mean that the government should tie the hands of the people trying to make the world better just because some idiots with no scientific training think they know what they speak of?
Here's a tip, people. Yes, there are corrupt scientists, and corrupt physicians. But until you get a degree in the field, let alone a PhD, stop bitching about it. You don't know what you're saying, and your opinion is only effective on the other idiots like yourself. Alas, many of those idiots are also politicians, but that's for another day.
Love always,
Grimm
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
Faux News
Today I came across a television that was showing a certain news station, Fox News. Now, while I do accept the fact that all news stations have their own bias, noticeably along party lines, but at least most stations have the good taste to try and hide theirs. Fox News seems funded solely by the Republican Party, it's bias is so strong and so obvious. They use the world "liberal" freely and treat it like one would use the term "Nazi". Seriously, Fox, can't you learn to be at least a little tactful? Journalists are supposed to be neutral parties that work on the part of the public to factually report news, not to be puppets of a party (liberal or conservative, mind you). And, of course, Obama, our resident lame duck, is a mixture of Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini according to Fox News. As I've said before, the president has no real power. So lay off and focus on people who actually are able to change the country (many of whom are conservatives... don't want to get too close to your fanbase?) and able to make a difference. Or at least learn to pretend you're real journalists, like all the other stations do.
Love,
Grimm
Love,
Grimm
Saturday, October 3, 2009
The Virtual Friend
Not too long ago many of my personal friends moved to so-called "greener pastures", leaving me to converse with them in a virtual sense. While this is certainly a change, I've found that although speaking through the net, actual conversations still happen, the passage of ideas still occurs. Perhaps the conversation is enhanced, because of the cornucopia of information that is instantly accessible over the internet. It's not a diluted, sad version of conversation, just... different. Is the fact that one speaks over a device or interfaces with a computer instead of speaking face to face important to the point where we should struggle against the tide to force physical nearness? No, you see. The entire reason for conversation is the transfer of ideas, not physical contact. Will I go so far as to say that verbal communication is antiquated? Of course not. I simply say that it's not the only real way to converse.
Now, this raises some interesting ideas about net users that one may meet while online. Take, for instance, me, Grimm. You probably don't know me, in the sense that people who have met me face-to-face do. But you know me better in some aspects than they do, for you know my mind. On the net there are no censors, no public pressure obscuring and moderating ideas. Out here, we are anonymous, and in that anonymity there is power, allowing anyone to say what they want (much to the chagrin of so many forum moderators). So when you meet someone online, whether in a forum, chat room, video game, and so on and so forth, are you actually meeting them? Do you need to see someone to know them? The answer, as always, is no. You can still share ideas, hold conversation, make jokes, tell stories, love, laugh, cry, etc., etc., ad nausea. It's still conversation, and you can still make friends. And yet, the world has a stigma against this kind of relationship, a world that seems stuck in the ages of newspapers that one bought from shouting street urchins. While the idea that people who think that the ability to "tweet" makes them technologically adept should be expected to understand virtual relationships is somewhat ridiculous, it seems that the (for lack of better word) geeks among them would correct their misconceptions. Why don't they? They're afraid of public opinion. It's hard being a geek, to be ostracized simply for knowing too much. Most people try to avoid being too against the herd. Where do they go to be themselves, readers? That's right! The internet! It's a conundrum, my friends. And it isn't going to change quickly, it's going to be something like the phasing out of racism. It gets better with each generation.
With love,
Grimm
Now, this raises some interesting ideas about net users that one may meet while online. Take, for instance, me, Grimm. You probably don't know me, in the sense that people who have met me face-to-face do. But you know me better in some aspects than they do, for you know my mind. On the net there are no censors, no public pressure obscuring and moderating ideas. Out here, we are anonymous, and in that anonymity there is power, allowing anyone to say what they want (much to the chagrin of so many forum moderators). So when you meet someone online, whether in a forum, chat room, video game, and so on and so forth, are you actually meeting them? Do you need to see someone to know them? The answer, as always, is no. You can still share ideas, hold conversation, make jokes, tell stories, love, laugh, cry, etc., etc., ad nausea. It's still conversation, and you can still make friends. And yet, the world has a stigma against this kind of relationship, a world that seems stuck in the ages of newspapers that one bought from shouting street urchins. While the idea that people who think that the ability to "tweet" makes them technologically adept should be expected to understand virtual relationships is somewhat ridiculous, it seems that the (for lack of better word) geeks among them would correct their misconceptions. Why don't they? They're afraid of public opinion. It's hard being a geek, to be ostracized simply for knowing too much. Most people try to avoid being too against the herd. Where do they go to be themselves, readers? That's right! The internet! It's a conundrum, my friends. And it isn't going to change quickly, it's going to be something like the phasing out of racism. It gets better with each generation.
With love,
Grimm
Friday, September 18, 2009
You're going to fix the economy? By yourself?
Its been, what, almost a year soon since the presidential elections? I believe they started running ads even before now. As we all remember, one of the biggest issues that was covered in the election was that of the economy. Basically what was promised (by both parties, mind you) was a plan spearheaded by the government, and pretty much solely by the executive branch according to the opinions of the majority of the public. Obama or McCain were finally going to do what the previous administrations failed to do, over and over again.
And guess what.
It didn't happen.
Is this the fault of the administration? Is it the fault of the Democrats that this happened, or rather didn't happen?
The answer is a resounding no. Why, you might ask Dear Old Grimm. Why is it someone else's fault? Or rather, the bigger question is "Who is responsible for the downturn?"
The answer is simple, but the explanation is very complicated. In a nutshell, the fault lies in the hands of the common man, and the responsibility of rebuilding lies with the corporations. The proverbial beaten dead horse of the "crisis" is the "toxic loans" that were put out, or to be more technical, the sub-prime loans that were given to people who had nothing of the credit to be able to get a true, healthy loan. This basically accomplished nothing more than putting large amounts to money to people who have very little self-control. Credit scores exist for a reason, they allow banks, lenders, etc. to judge whether a person will play their part in the loan process. So, yes, part of the blame lies with the lenders that put out the loans to begin with. But that's not the largest part of the debt pie.
The real problem is with the common man, who took out the loans so that (s)he could buy a mansion, a new wife, and a wide screen t.v. off their bad money. These loans were not forced on these people, they actively and knowingly took them out, knowing they could never pay them back. Parallels can be drawn between the gamblers who were "forced by the casinos" to gamble. And the problem is difficult to fix, its hard to "make" money, when so much has been lost in the rough and tumble. Note that most of the people that are the cause of the problem are the same people who are pushing the government so hard to fix the economy, the so called "downtrodden." After all, the government has been their crutch for so very, very long. Why wouldn't they rely on it even further?
Now we must focus our attention on how to fix the situation. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the blame is split between the banks and the consumers, it falls to the corporations to fix the situation. And I don't mean the "Lets give billions to banks to keep them from crashing and completely destroying the economy of the United States", I mean actual fixes. The companies need to stop bending to the will of the common man, after all, they caused this to begin with. They need to focus on real growth, so that we can regain what we lost. Remember, kids, our money is fiat, we stopped the gold standard a long time ago. So, the worth of our money, and therefore the worth of our country, is based on how well the country is doing. When we enter a depression (not something as extreme as the Great Depression, simply any time growth is suppressed) our value goes down. When growth occurs, the value goes up. So, the best way to save the economy is to focus on growth at the cost of all else. (See my previous entry)
A long, long story made short, stop blaming the president for your failures. Stop whining about losing your job, we can't have full employment and growth. And let us think, if you were really that good at your job, you'd still have it. Growth will result in more jobs, and a better country. So let the companies do their job.
The problem with why the populace blames the government for their problems is that the government doesn't have as much power as people think it does. The economy is run by the corporations and their puppets of consumers. The policies of the country are created by the "court of public opinion", the media, and most of all the angry protesters. The government, especially President Obama, is built on a platform of public opinion, their plans hold little intrinsic merit. So, if the lose approval, they will be destroyed before they get off the ground. They are truly puppets to angry citizens with big voices. Funny how that works.
Don't waste your time blaming the government. They're just you puppet. Pull their strings.
As always, with love,
Grimm
And guess what.
It didn't happen.
Is this the fault of the administration? Is it the fault of the Democrats that this happened, or rather didn't happen?
The answer is a resounding no. Why, you might ask Dear Old Grimm. Why is it someone else's fault? Or rather, the bigger question is "Who is responsible for the downturn?"
The answer is simple, but the explanation is very complicated. In a nutshell, the fault lies in the hands of the common man, and the responsibility of rebuilding lies with the corporations. The proverbial beaten dead horse of the "crisis" is the "toxic loans" that were put out, or to be more technical, the sub-prime loans that were given to people who had nothing of the credit to be able to get a true, healthy loan. This basically accomplished nothing more than putting large amounts to money to people who have very little self-control. Credit scores exist for a reason, they allow banks, lenders, etc. to judge whether a person will play their part in the loan process. So, yes, part of the blame lies with the lenders that put out the loans to begin with. But that's not the largest part of the debt pie.
The real problem is with the common man, who took out the loans so that (s)he could buy a mansion, a new wife, and a wide screen t.v. off their bad money. These loans were not forced on these people, they actively and knowingly took them out, knowing they could never pay them back. Parallels can be drawn between the gamblers who were "forced by the casinos" to gamble. And the problem is difficult to fix, its hard to "make" money, when so much has been lost in the rough and tumble. Note that most of the people that are the cause of the problem are the same people who are pushing the government so hard to fix the economy, the so called "downtrodden." After all, the government has been their crutch for so very, very long. Why wouldn't they rely on it even further?
Now we must focus our attention on how to fix the situation. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the blame is split between the banks and the consumers, it falls to the corporations to fix the situation. And I don't mean the "Lets give billions to banks to keep them from crashing and completely destroying the economy of the United States", I mean actual fixes. The companies need to stop bending to the will of the common man, after all, they caused this to begin with. They need to focus on real growth, so that we can regain what we lost. Remember, kids, our money is fiat, we stopped the gold standard a long time ago. So, the worth of our money, and therefore the worth of our country, is based on how well the country is doing. When we enter a depression (not something as extreme as the Great Depression, simply any time growth is suppressed) our value goes down. When growth occurs, the value goes up. So, the best way to save the economy is to focus on growth at the cost of all else. (See my previous entry)
A long, long story made short, stop blaming the president for your failures. Stop whining about losing your job, we can't have full employment and growth. And let us think, if you were really that good at your job, you'd still have it. Growth will result in more jobs, and a better country. So let the companies do their job.
The problem with why the populace blames the government for their problems is that the government doesn't have as much power as people think it does. The economy is run by the corporations and their puppets of consumers. The policies of the country are created by the "court of public opinion", the media, and most of all the angry protesters. The government, especially President Obama, is built on a platform of public opinion, their plans hold little intrinsic merit. So, if the lose approval, they will be destroyed before they get off the ground. They are truly puppets to angry citizens with big voices. Funny how that works.
Don't waste your time blaming the government. They're just you puppet. Pull their strings.
As always, with love,
Grimm
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Growth or Stability?
Today I read a story in the New York Times about Japan, how it was employing highly trained citizens in tedious, mediocre jobs that are far below their skill level for the sake of employment. So the question became this: what would you rather have, growth or employment? Which, of course, boils down to the idea of you can either have permanent growth for the entire nation, or to help the individual man. What is the better of the two?
The answer, of course, is to favor growth, because growth is permanent. The world is constantly changing, people growing, failing, dying, succeeding, buying, selling, everything. So, when you try to focus on the transient instead of the permanent, then what are you expecting but for your work to be swept far, far away? It is somewhat like the wartime-high of the economy. Back before the first world war, the economy in the United States was relatively tiny relative to what it was afterward. That's because the government had less employment due to the war. And yet there was explosive growth, why? Its because they had rapid growth in infrastructure to accommodate the war effort. But the key thing is that they had the jobs to accommodate the returning soldiers, leading to a huge boost in the economy that lasted through many depressions and wars. See? When growth is favored, in the end, everyone wins.
With love,
Grimm
The answer, of course, is to favor growth, because growth is permanent. The world is constantly changing, people growing, failing, dying, succeeding, buying, selling, everything. So, when you try to focus on the transient instead of the permanent, then what are you expecting but for your work to be swept far, far away? It is somewhat like the wartime-high of the economy. Back before the first world war, the economy in the United States was relatively tiny relative to what it was afterward. That's because the government had less employment due to the war. And yet there was explosive growth, why? Its because they had rapid growth in infrastructure to accommodate the war effort. But the key thing is that they had the jobs to accommodate the returning soldiers, leading to a huge boost in the economy that lasted through many depressions and wars. See? When growth is favored, in the end, everyone wins.
With love,
Grimm
Monday, September 14, 2009
Its Been A While...
Its been a while, obviously, since my last post. Why? I think this sums it up pretty well:
http://xkcd.com/635/.
Seriously, what is the point of a blog? If I were to post anything meaningful on this page, no one would care. If I posted mindless drivel, and the entire population read it, it got printed and made into a movie, and I rolled about in piles of money every morning, it still wouldn't matter, because its still crap.
Hell, why bother? And yet I do anyways. Why? Because the internet is a forum, and it needs to stay that way. It may be like trying to stem a flood with a pebble, but it's better than nothing. Most of the content on the internet is either utterly useless memes, or some kind of corporate bull. If the internet is a creature, then we need to have a brain. And I'm not talking about posting pictures of Fluffy on a motorboat. I mean actual commentary.
Thus, I appeal to the world. Think, post, blog, get on your roof and scream loudly, I don't care. Just start working. Make this world a little bit louder.
Your friend,
Grimm
http://xkcd.com/635/.
Seriously, what is the point of a blog? If I were to post anything meaningful on this page, no one would care. If I posted mindless drivel, and the entire population read it, it got printed and made into a movie, and I rolled about in piles of money every morning, it still wouldn't matter, because its still crap.
Hell, why bother? And yet I do anyways. Why? Because the internet is a forum, and it needs to stay that way. It may be like trying to stem a flood with a pebble, but it's better than nothing. Most of the content on the internet is either utterly useless memes, or some kind of corporate bull. If the internet is a creature, then we need to have a brain. And I'm not talking about posting pictures of Fluffy on a motorboat. I mean actual commentary.
Thus, I appeal to the world. Think, post, blog, get on your roof and scream loudly, I don't care. Just start working. Make this world a little bit louder.
Your friend,
Grimm
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Nature of Evil
What, exactly, is "evil"? It has been described in more ways than can be possibly imagined, but it always comes down to one thing, really. Most people say that it's the opposite of good, but in order to define evil, then, we must define first what "good" is! In the common vernacular "good" is taken to mean putting others before yourself, helping others, giving to charity, etc, etc, etc. Therefore, evil, the opposite of this, must mean looking out for only yourself, being self-centered, etc, yes?
But I think we can agree that the common definition of good is also a wrong one.
Take, for example, the idea of charity, putting others before yourself and expecting nothing in return. This, my friends, is called a myth. True charity has never, and never will, exist. People always have ulterior motives, whether its fame, PR, personal satisfaction, the favor of some divine being, or just outright making yourself feel better for living well. If there wasn't something to be gained by doing the action, you wouldn't do it. It's that simple. The same rule applies to the basic idea of "good", putting others, the whole, before yourself, the unit. But the unit wouldn't support the whole if he had nothing to gain from it. Therefore, this idea of "good people" or "good for the sake of being good" is a fallacy.
Now let us look at "evil", defined as being self-centered and selfish. Is it not human nature for someone to look out for themselves? It's an evolutionary imperative! It is not my job to take care of others, it is my job to take care of myself. The only reason why you should tolerate fools is because they are useful. Like it or not, we have to keep the morons around to flip the burgers and dig the trenches. They breed like rabbits, so their mortality rate shouldn't be a problem. Just let them run free, keep them out of your business, and everyone will be a lot better off.
Perhaps Nietzsche had a point in developing the idea of a slave/master morality. Because from where I'm sitting, it seems that it has worked so far. The common masses are still held docile out of either fear or apathy, and the government is allowed to run free, send them off to pointless wars, kill their jobs and give it back again, all of that. The haves are living well, while the have-nots suffer, and frankly, I don't see anything wrong with that. If they want to climb out of their squallor, let them educate themselves, stop pickling themselves with undistilled ethanol, and killing themselves. Tell them to pick up a dammed book. And don't coddle them, please.
With love,
Grimm
But I think we can agree that the common definition of good is also a wrong one.
Take, for example, the idea of charity, putting others before yourself and expecting nothing in return. This, my friends, is called a myth. True charity has never, and never will, exist. People always have ulterior motives, whether its fame, PR, personal satisfaction, the favor of some divine being, or just outright making yourself feel better for living well. If there wasn't something to be gained by doing the action, you wouldn't do it. It's that simple. The same rule applies to the basic idea of "good", putting others, the whole, before yourself, the unit. But the unit wouldn't support the whole if he had nothing to gain from it. Therefore, this idea of "good people" or "good for the sake of being good" is a fallacy.
Now let us look at "evil", defined as being self-centered and selfish. Is it not human nature for someone to look out for themselves? It's an evolutionary imperative! It is not my job to take care of others, it is my job to take care of myself. The only reason why you should tolerate fools is because they are useful. Like it or not, we have to keep the morons around to flip the burgers and dig the trenches. They breed like rabbits, so their mortality rate shouldn't be a problem. Just let them run free, keep them out of your business, and everyone will be a lot better off.
Perhaps Nietzsche had a point in developing the idea of a slave/master morality. Because from where I'm sitting, it seems that it has worked so far. The common masses are still held docile out of either fear or apathy, and the government is allowed to run free, send them off to pointless wars, kill their jobs and give it back again, all of that. The haves are living well, while the have-nots suffer, and frankly, I don't see anything wrong with that. If they want to climb out of their squallor, let them educate themselves, stop pickling themselves with undistilled ethanol, and killing themselves. Tell them to pick up a dammed book. And don't coddle them, please.
With love,
Grimm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)