Liberals' Soda Ban is about Taxes, not Health.

So Bloomberg has moved to ban all soda containers larger than sixteen ounces (we here in the civilized world call it 'pop' as it has few similarities to baking soda). It's a not-surprising, totally symbolic, ineffectual measure that is certainly not designed to improve the health of New Yorkers.

Why would you buy a 32oz pop? It'd probably kill you if you sucked it all down at once (the acidity would expend your body's stored alkaline buffers faster than their replacement rate and drop your blood pH to dangerous levels). People don't do that. They buy it in a nice, insulated container as to have hydration readily available and cold for their long shift. They're mainly blue collar and outdoor workers or traveling sales- and repairmen. The elite is totally ignorant of such lifestyles because their jobs are easy, comfortable, and in arms' reach of a mini-fridge for their three hour shift.

They thus develop a bias, cognitively confirming that "only fat people" buy large drinks. If you surveyed Big Gulp buyers, I bet you'd find the data reflecting the demographics of middle-and-low-class America. States full of elitists like New York would accept such bias in legislation: "we responsible few must take care of the poor, fat slobs that don't know how to take care of themselves." On top of being ridiculous, that's not the government's reason for passing the legislation.

Sure they might say it's health, but it's really TAXES. That's right: it's just a hidden take hike. Instead of buying a huge drink, you must now buy multiple containers to maintain your lifestyle around the government's meddling. Multiple containers means multiple flat markups adding to more sales tax revenue. Multiple containers means multiple per-bottle environmental fees and more revenue for state governments. It's a small and meddlesome tax increase, but it's a tax increase.

It's fine to get into a 'big-Sally-shouldn't-get-her-dirty-fingers-in-my-food' argument, but it's pointless. I know most of you like government regulations and food policing and such policies are just the logical extension of what you already support. We need to make it a 'stealth tax hike' argument to repeal Big Sally's newest intervention.

Native American Civilization Cycle and an Annoying Picture!

[My apologies about not writing regularly or on the subjects I say I'm going to. I'd rather just write whatever comes to mind whenever it does. The below started off as a comment that got me thinking about a second subject and thus this post isn't well written and I don't want to put the effort to reorganize it and make it so. Sorry :) ]

This picture annoys me. Some liberal page posted it not too long ago, probably thinking themselves 'intellectually humorous,' but it's not so. The picture's plain incorrect.

The principle cities of the Mayan Empire had been abandoned almost two centuries before the Spanish arrived. There wasn't a "Mayan people" to meet the Spanish. There were the "Yucatec," a pan-cultural identification, of which a handful called themselves "Mayan" despite having little semblance of the fallen Empire's culture. The Yucatec weren't centralized politically or religiously: they kept their loyalties to kinship groups, marking a significant devolution from something that looked like a state. The same, unexplained pattern is seen elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere in the same time frame.

The great civilizations (if they can be called that) just melted before contact with European explorers: the Cahokians are the primary example in North America (completely gone before 1400) and the Inca in SA (progressive collapse until a civil war broke out just a few weeks before Pizarro made contact in 1532). I've always thought that this was simply the pattern of native civilizations.

Villages were very spread out and never had the wheel for speedy contact, thus trade networks were slow to develop.. When a network did develop, it spread and grew to have hubs that became locations of power and dense contact. It wouldn't take long for foreign infectious agents to contaminate trade networks (especially if they're moving animals over such long distances). 

Native immunity was notoriously weak (even to diseases that are native to the continent) so people would start getting very sick with a higher incidence rate in these trading hubs. Factor that into most tribes' religious assumptions (that disease is a curse) and people start understandably fleeing the trading hubs. Go through this dozens of times and the logical culmination is an aversion to property rights, no technological development mechanics whatsoever, minimal political development, low increases in immuity, and minimal literacy (which in turn hampers social, religious, and scitech development). The one significant exception is the Mexica. They built well-populated civilizations with significant technological developments, property rights, and complex social/religious structures (the last was the Aztec). Their problem was that they were all one people.

  

They pretty much spoke the same language, followed similar customs and religious practices. Sure they were splitting and fighting little wars over the Aztecs' sacrificial tribute system by the time Cortes made contact, but war wasn't a constant way of life as it had been for Europeans, East Asians, and Arabians for upwards of two milennia. Arms and armor went underdeveloped and resource-expanding technologies like farm equipment were not needed because they never had their males slaughter one another to press such a labor demand. There was a lack of individualist competition with what property rights they had: they never competed their way to prosperity. They just got along.

I suppose that's why our "We-Are-Family" education system glorifies and studies such civilizations that have little to nothing to teach us. 

A Fix for Bullying?

After a Facebook friend of mine posted this story about a Detroit seven year old responding to his broken home and schoolyard bullying with suicide, the comment thread quickly filled up with the typical views on the subject of bullying (and not the broken home). Most of the blame centered on all the parents involved because, of course, children and teachers are blameless in everything. There was the more Christian response of turning the other cheek and not retaliating; the more moderate approach of not retaliating violently, but doing so with words and state power; and the response of teaching your kids to defend themselves both verbally and physically. All of these are portrayed as solutions to bullying.

It's not something you can fix. Kids, specifically boys, are little barbarians and have bullied one another since the dawn of the species. No amount of technology or elite cogitation are going to change that. Every advanced culture has had means of channeling that violence. The Athenians and Spartans had kids beating each other up for status in their military training. The classical Japanese were much the same: ceremonial combat between kids using false weapons that still hurt quite a bit when you failed. For most of Western civilization in the past 300 years, we've used sports and combat sparring. 


Sports have always been very violent things and they were up until the nonviolence people added soccer, crazy amounts of padding to hockey, flags to football, and took away scores. Combat sparring has disappeared faster (because weapons are, of course, inherently evil) but, where it remains, it's still pretty violent (not karate, but wrestling and fencing). It's not participated in widely, though. So that leaves a bunch of little barbarians with little to no release. It's bottled up until we get school shootings, over-the-top retaliation, insanely violent video games, and stories like this kid's. All of these apply to boys, primarily, girls have always had different means of sorting themselves out.

I don't pretend to understand it but it seems to be at first centered on gathering the approval of adults while they're young. More approval means more status. Later it evolves into gathering the approval of males their own age during their teen years and ends in adulthood as a self-approval topped off by the approval of a handful of significant people. These observations both for boys and girls don't apply totally, of course you always have outliers, but these mechanisms have been broken down. 


They've broken down unevenly. There are some areas that still have the mechanisms in place and functioning somewhat properly. Other places that don't tolerate a good fistfight tend to have more of the drastic violence. I'm fine with just going around the nonviolence people and letting kids beat each other up for status like an unofficial form of the Spartan and Athenian way. What about you?

My Favorite Verses

I'll cite them in NIV for accessibility purposes but you should keep in mind that all modern translations are tainted by politically correct dialog. The King James Version is far superior to getting at the real meaning of the verses. I may keep adding to this list....

1. Luke 12: 22-31

Then Jesus said to his disciples: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to your life? Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest? Consider how the wild flowers grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith! And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.

2. Ecclesiastes 1:9 (and pretty much all of Ecclesiastes)

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

3. 2 Thessalonians 3:10

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

4. Romans 13:1 (KJV)

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

5. Matthew 10:16

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

6. Matthew 18:21-22

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?" Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.

7. 1 Peter 3:17

It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

8. 1 Chronicles 17:2

Nathan replied to David, "Whatever you have in mind, do it, for God is with you."

9. Psalm 19:1 (KJV)

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

10. Psalm 18:47-49 (Strikethru is a correction to the KJV...one of those politically correct bits)

He is the God who avenges me, who subdues nations under me, who saves me from my enemies. You exalted me above my foes; from a violent man you rescued me. Therefore I will praise you, Lord, among the nations [heathen]; I will sing the praises of your name.

11. Isaiah 40:31

but those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.

12. Psalm 24:4-5 (KJV)
He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.

Honor

Honor's a word you don't here very often anymore. It's primarily used as a noun for ceremony or a verb for death rites or...ceremony. Very rarely do you hear of honor in the possessive sense - that a person is honorable or not. It's no longer a social system that reveals how much you can trust someone given their reputation as honorable or dishonorable.

In the days seemingly passed for our culture, honor was tied to your gender. Honorable men were strong, honest, forthright, et cetera, while honorable women were chaste both in regards to their virginity and interpersonal courtesy. I find that the explicit usage of these concepts has been killed off over the past century by a trident.

• We've grown far more commercial and plutocratic. No one cares how honorable you are if you have money or goods they desire. The common thought assumes the viced are in prison.
• We hate having to answer for the consequences of our actions, especially the bad ones. 
• The feminists did it. Feminists threw out both main tiers of female honor by being promiscuous loudmouths. Granted, neither has proven very successful.

The word was killed, but not the concept. 

The practices of honor are still strong today, for women especially. Women who are direct and commanding are shunned and called 'bitches' (I've had plenty of managers this way) so women usually give commands through asking. I've always found the practice annoying, but it appears more tolerable to...other women. In another aspect, women who are promiscuous, augment their appearance in revealing ways, or mutilate themselves with cosmetic surgeries are known as 'sluts and whores.' There even seems to be an equivalence between these two terms when the previous was once a title more honorable than the latter. The dishonorable women become tools of others and rarely gain high respect and love. The consequence is similar for dishonorable men.

Those who do not distinguish themselves as direct and honest fail to get promotions and advancement into leadership positions at the same rate of those that do. Those who are confident and outspoken to the point of arrogance are hated primarily by those they defeat are insulted as a long list of words from jerks to asses. If they're admirably useful but without the trappings of honor, they are advanced to ever more useful, servile positions. It's this type of nigh-dehumanization I find worse punishment than social demotions, albeit easier to ignore in an environment that ignores the words. Indeed I do think the lack of explicit honor (dis)possession is starting to impact the practices that will eventually spin the institution apart.
  

If we're not specifically teaching children, they're only going to pick up practices through unknowing eyes. Honor will be greatly diminished for them and even more so for their grandchildren until the institution spins itself out. I've got two predictions as to where this leads, both assume cyclical history:

• THE END OF THE EMPIRE! My first thought was that we'll get more and more honorless until the vehicles of our civilization fail. One is the economy: without competitive men innovating and driving the material side forward, we'll lose wealth and influence until we lose power and sputter out. The second is motherhood and its derivative: community. If women stop 'preferring the mommy track' and instead go for economics in any broad way, we're done.
• THE END OF AN ERA! When I thought about it more, I figured this'll result in the coming of another 'republican motherhood'-style reorganization of honor and practice. This assumes a cyclical and similar tides of honor systems. Simply put, the first followed the formation of the country and awkwardly resulted in abolitionism and radical Republicanism. The second started at the end of the 19th century and resulted in women voting, centralization to the state, and Prohibition. The third started in the 60's and resulted, again awkwardly, in the end of the Soviet Union. Each of these seemed to upset the workings of society but in the end amounted to vehicles for policy changes that were coming anyway.

Check back tomorrow for the conclusion of this post.

Canada's Dutch Disease?

The shrewd Prime Minister Stephen Harper
is damn good at his job and an example for conservatives.

So I was planning on my Honor post for tonight, but then I ran across this gem.
It reveals a growing fight in Canada around where to place the blame for the loss of manufacturing jobs, primarily in the Great Lakes area. Naturally the socialists want to blame 'Others,' specifically those in the heavily conservative areas that have grown substantially with oil production in the past few years.

So the NDP has pulled Dutch Disease out of its hat: a very, very convenient argument. DD is something they should teach you about in college political science courses, but don't because it's a crack against foreign aid and such is against the dogma of the academy. It happens when a large growth in natural resource production or an influx of foreign aid valuates currency so much that fabrication industries flee to cheaper places with cheaper currencies (as to export back to the highly-valued currency markets and thereby make more wealth). It's a tidy little argument that favors the socialists and, if accepted by the population, gives them leave to regulate natural resource production to economic demise, depopulating producing territories, and preventing the Conservatives from getting any more free seats in the House of Commons. The Conservatives' response is epic, simple, hyperbolic, and effective: “The leader of the Opposition wants to call Canadian employers a disease.” Both reveal the genius and creativity of the Canadian political establishment, even if they're total crap. 

The socialists have chosen, as always, to conclude they want to. If they relied of facts of the world, they wouldn't be socialists. As the end of the article says, "the report concluded that cyclical factors and global competition are mostly to blame for the decline in factory production," but such is not in the headline. There are a dozen other major explanations for Canada's loss of manufacturing jobs, all of them shared with the American Midwest's loss of the same jobs. You can be very sure we don't have DD (the expansion of fracking is a pittance compared to our economy's size, even in its weakened state).  Until the fortunes of Michigan and Ontario see a wide and thusfar nonexistent disparity, I'll doubt the Canadians have it either. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Edit: this report lends credence to the DD theory, specifically the inversion of manufacturing jobs with the drop in currency value. I still have my doubts as this could be due to the growing instability in China, northern Mexico, and Europe.

RIFT Warrior Blight Champion 4set Bonus

I'm rapidly approaching acquisition the four-set bonus on the Blighted Champion's Synergy Crystal so here's some light analysis for our AoE rotation in that reality.

The crystals function cuts Bladefury's cooldown in half, making it possible to bring into your rotation every time you stack three attack points, assuming you have the 51champ Destroyer's Bearing saving you that extra attack point.

With the 1.8.6 hotfix's nerfing of Cornered Beast's crits from Proper Timing (the buff no longer makes all the ticks crit, just one of them it seems) that left PT's full affect on BF's ticks untouched, I figured the blighted crystal might make it profitable to cut CB out of my rotation but for groups of 9+ mobs while macro-ing PT in with BF. Upon investigation I found my assumption incorrect:

Most of the data here is just routine stuff that showed to me the big different in damage for CB and BF.

Check the bottom section under row 17. A BF rotation is two Mighty Blows and one BF over the course of 4.5 seconds on one target. It would do 3795(plus crits). Repeating that the seven or so times you could in a 32.5 timespan, you'd do 27k damage or 843.33 per second.

If you added in CB twice to that rotation, you'd get 38k (plus crits) or 1177.90 per second: a clearly better AoE method. As this test is for one target, it holds true for everything under eight and is especially true for nine and ten targets as CB's damage increases while BF's stops at eight.
-------
In conclusion your Blighted Champion Crystal AoE rotation (2+ targets) should remain the same MB+MB->CB+MB+MB->BF+MB... and CB every time it's up. I'd advise two other things:

-Moving your PT macro to BF for 2+ targets and to Titan's Grip for single targets. With the crystal your TG should NOT be in your AoE rotation UNLESS a group of enemies is beyond melee range from you but within melee range of an enemy you can attack (as TG's range is based on the enemy's location, not yours, unlike BF and CB).

-For fewer targets in an AoE situation (2-3), I'd suggest the use of the Disruptive Soulstone greater-modified Disruptive Strike for the attack power buff whenever it's available, but especially before CB. Perhaps we should use DS+MB->CB/BF to fill that extra GCD at 3AP while BF comes off cooldown? You could always reserve it for Debilitating Strike or to renew your Mark....
-------
As I wasn't very thorough with this explanation, feel free to pose any questions in the comment section.