It's a hot and sunny day in San Francisco, even here in the fog belt part of the city where I live.
I had a manicure and pedicure this morning, so my nails look pretty and painted. I can't believe manicures and pedicures were a regular part of my life a few years ago, when I used to wear suits to work every day. Now painted nails are a nice and luxurious treat for me.
I got my eyebrows and upper lip waxed as well. I usually do my brows and waxing myself, but the salon does such a better job. There is nothing like waxing the hair off your body, but take it from me, don't wax your underarms. It's so not worth the money. The underarm hair grows back in two days. What's the point of that?
I shaved my legs very thoroughly as well, shaving once, then buffpuffing the legs, then shaving once again for good measure, and then buffpuffing again to finish. I love the feel of my own shaved legs. They feel so smooth and silky.
It was nice to see that the salon I usually go to was full of women and men having beauty treatments. There is something comforting in seeing that in the midst of a bad economy and war, people still have enough money to beautify themselves.
I'm not sure if I'll post when I'm on the cruise. Supposedly I'll be able to log on from the boat, at a rate of 50 cents a minute, so I may post although it will be very short pieces.
I wonder if there will be TV on the boat. I was vacation in Bali when the Gulf War 1started, so I guess it's fitting I'll be on vacation on the high seas on a luxury liner sailing down the california coast to Mexico during Gulf War 2.
My parents taught me never to discuss religion and politics in polite company, and my father said even then, only with people you know very, very well. It will be interesting to see if the war comes up as a topic. I don't usually say anything with vehement anti-war people, especially when they're emotional and attacking Bush ad hominem. I mean, what's the point. I'm not going to have a critical discussion on the pros and cons of war, and I'll be accused as a Bush supporter, which I am so not. I'll probably just smile and nod, and walk away.
I was thinking about my pro-war stance on the way home last night. Having been an anti-government protestor since the age of 16, and having always felt apart from american society in general, it's kind of cool to think that I finally feel somewhat normal and a part of american society. Maybe I'm not such a freaky geek nerd girl after all.
Saturday, March 29, 2003
Friday, March 28, 2003
A former peace activist changes his mind about the war on Iraq, Feature: Pacifist says 'I was wrong'.
There is so much bad karma in this talk about the war. People are saying the most awful things, and wishing death on people. Beware. All the spiritual people and futurists are saying that karma is speeding up now, so if you do and say bad things, you'll get it back instantly. And with karma, you get it back three times.
Check this article out about a professor from Columbia University, Columbia teacher calls for `a million Mogadishus;' referring to 1993 ambush of U.S. servicemen.
What a fool! I think this professor needs some serious therapy, because he obviously has a ton of repressed anger. And he's an academic as well. No matter what side you fall on about the war, what good does it do to wish people to die?
This professor just adds the fuel to fire that conservatives have been saying for years, that public education is all about indoctrination by the hostile left.
The other thing I'm start to hate is ad hominem attacks against Bush. People say they're against the war, but instead of offering rational arguments for why, they will launch into saying how much they hate Bush and don't trust him. I hear very few voices of the anti-war movement, especially the ones who call up and give their opinions on radio stations, that don't within 5 minutes launch into an ad hominem attack on Bush.
Introduction to Ad Hominem Fallacies
One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting). Our decisions should be based on a rational evaluation of the arguments with which we are presented, not on an emotional reaction to the person or persons making that argument. But because we often react more strongly to personalities than to the sometimes abstract and complex arguments they are making, ad hominem appeals are often very effective with someone who is not thinking critically.
Ad hominem fallacies take a number of different forms, though all share the fact that they attempt to re-focus attention, away from the argument made and onto the person making it.
Among the most frequent ad hominem appeals are attacks on:
personality, traits, or identity:
"Are you going to agree with what that racist pig is saying?"
"Of course she's in favor of affirmative action. What do you expect from a black woman?"
affiliation, profession, or situation:
"What's the point of asking students whether they support raising tuition? They're always against any increase."
"Oh yeah, prison reform sounds great--until you realize that the man proposing it is himself an ex-con."
inconsistent actions, statements, or beliefs:
"How can you follow a doctor's advice if she doesn't follow it herself?"
"Sure, he says that today, but yesterday he said just the opposite."
source or association for ideas or support:
"Don't vote for that new initiative--it was written by the insurance lobby!"
"You can't possibly accept the findings of that study on smoking--it was paid for by the tobacco industry."
The point is that each argument must be evaluated in its own right. Information or suspicions about vested interests, hidden agendas, predilections, or prejudices should, at most, make you more vigilant in your scrutiny of that argument--but they should not be allowed to influence its evaluation. Only in the case of opinions, expert and otherwise, where you must rely not on the argument or evidence being presented but on the judgment of someone else, may personal or background information be used to evaluate the ideas expressed. If, for example, a used car vendor tries to prove to you that the car in question is being offered at lower than the average or "blue book" price, you must ignore the fact that the vendor will profit from the sale, and evaluate the proof. If, on the other hand, that used car vendor says, "Trust me, this is a good deal," without further proofs or arguments, you are entitled to take into account the profit motive, the shady reputation of the profession, and anything else you deem to be relevant as a condition of "trust."
I am no Bush supporter, but I hate people arguing their case and making it personal. Conservatives did the same thing with Clinton, and I hated it then. The other side is doing it to Bush, and I still hate it. Where the heck is all this emotion coming from? Argue the points and don't make it personal, because then I just think you're not very intelligent and your argument is totally worthless.
Check this article out about a professor from Columbia University, Columbia teacher calls for `a million Mogadishus;' referring to 1993 ambush of U.S. servicemen.
What a fool! I think this professor needs some serious therapy, because he obviously has a ton of repressed anger. And he's an academic as well. No matter what side you fall on about the war, what good does it do to wish people to die?
This professor just adds the fuel to fire that conservatives have been saying for years, that public education is all about indoctrination by the hostile left.
The other thing I'm start to hate is ad hominem attacks against Bush. People say they're against the war, but instead of offering rational arguments for why, they will launch into saying how much they hate Bush and don't trust him. I hear very few voices of the anti-war movement, especially the ones who call up and give their opinions on radio stations, that don't within 5 minutes launch into an ad hominem attack on Bush.
Introduction to Ad Hominem Fallacies
One of the most common non-rational appeals is an argumentum ad hominem--or, as the Latin phrase suggests, an "argument against the person" (and not against the ideas he or she is presenting). Our decisions should be based on a rational evaluation of the arguments with which we are presented, not on an emotional reaction to the person or persons making that argument. But because we often react more strongly to personalities than to the sometimes abstract and complex arguments they are making, ad hominem appeals are often very effective with someone who is not thinking critically.
Ad hominem fallacies take a number of different forms, though all share the fact that they attempt to re-focus attention, away from the argument made and onto the person making it.
Among the most frequent ad hominem appeals are attacks on:
personality, traits, or identity:
"Are you going to agree with what that racist pig is saying?"
"Of course she's in favor of affirmative action. What do you expect from a black woman?"
affiliation, profession, or situation:
"What's the point of asking students whether they support raising tuition? They're always against any increase."
"Oh yeah, prison reform sounds great--until you realize that the man proposing it is himself an ex-con."
inconsistent actions, statements, or beliefs:
"How can you follow a doctor's advice if she doesn't follow it herself?"
"Sure, he says that today, but yesterday he said just the opposite."
source or association for ideas or support:
"Don't vote for that new initiative--it was written by the insurance lobby!"
"You can't possibly accept the findings of that study on smoking--it was paid for by the tobacco industry."
The point is that each argument must be evaluated in its own right. Information or suspicions about vested interests, hidden agendas, predilections, or prejudices should, at most, make you more vigilant in your scrutiny of that argument--but they should not be allowed to influence its evaluation. Only in the case of opinions, expert and otherwise, where you must rely not on the argument or evidence being presented but on the judgment of someone else, may personal or background information be used to evaluate the ideas expressed. If, for example, a used car vendor tries to prove to you that the car in question is being offered at lower than the average or "blue book" price, you must ignore the fact that the vendor will profit from the sale, and evaluate the proof. If, on the other hand, that used car vendor says, "Trust me, this is a good deal," without further proofs or arguments, you are entitled to take into account the profit motive, the shady reputation of the profession, and anything else you deem to be relevant as a condition of "trust."
I am no Bush supporter, but I hate people arguing their case and making it personal. Conservatives did the same thing with Clinton, and I hated it then. The other side is doing it to Bush, and I still hate it. Where the heck is all this emotion coming from? Argue the points and don't make it personal, because then I just think you're not very intelligent and your argument is totally worthless.
Someone sent me this. This is funny in a sick way.
SECURITY NOTICE
We've just been notified by Security that there have been 6 suspected terrorists working out of your office. Five of the six have been apprehended. Bin Sleepin, Bin Loafin, Bin Goofin, Bin Lunchin and Bin Drinkin have been taken into custody. Security advised us that they could find no one fitting the description of the 6th cell member, Bin Workin, at your office. Security is confident that anyone who looks like he's Bin Workin will be very easy to spot. You are obviously not a suspect at this time.
SECURITY NOTICE
We've just been notified by Security that there have been 6 suspected terrorists working out of your office. Five of the six have been apprehended. Bin Sleepin, Bin Loafin, Bin Goofin, Bin Lunchin and Bin Drinkin have been taken into custody. Security advised us that they could find no one fitting the description of the 6th cell member, Bin Workin, at your office. Security is confident that anyone who looks like he's Bin Workin will be very easy to spot. You are obviously not a suspect at this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)