"Mock Spanish" and Cultural Purity

I've been reading some papers written by a linguist, Dr. Jane Hill.

Dr. Hill's theory is that any use of Spanish by an Anglo constitutes Racism.

I thought a lot about it, at first I was offended because I use Spanish occasionally, although I can't ever remember using Spanish with an Anglo as a joke of any kind.  When I lived in El Paso sometimes we were shot at just for being White and being in the barrio.  If my use of Spanish back then had been considered racist at all, there was a good chance of my being beaten or even killed, depending on who I was hanging out with.  And yes, I occasionally hung out with guys they call cholos, or "gangstas" in the modern parlance.  It was business.

I typically made more money with Blacks and Hispanics than I made with White friends.  I won't get into this because this isn't true confessions, but, when people make money in a particular way they are going to associate with a particular type of people.  Any perceived racism, at all, will destroy the relationships at the very least, and can result in death.

So was I upset because I am not fluent in Spanish, still use Spanish occasionally and very poorly?  I don't think so.  I'm pretty good at recognizing and learning from my mistakes, although, I don't always agree with others about what my mistakes are.

For example, people tell me that it is a mistake to say that I can argue against homosexuality from fifty different ways because stupid people will automatically assume I am homophobic when I make this statement.  My reply is almost always that I really don't give a shit what stupid people think.  I will defend my right to free speech and the fact that I can argue against any issue I have an opinion on because I actually research issues before I develop opinions and have even changed my opinion based on new facts.  My opinions are based on the very fact that I can argue against them.

Stupid people not withstanding, why did Dr. Hill's research on "Mock Spanish" annoy me?

Then it hit me, the research presented an absolutist social viewpoint and in my experience absolutism, especially in social issues, was always incorrect.  If I drill down far enough there is always a range.

CPU makers developed equipment that could make the traces on chips one electron wide, the thought being that all electrons are the same size.  They discovered that these "one electron wide" traces occasionally became blocked by electrons that seemed to be to wide to get through them.  The chip makers increased the size of the traces to slightly more than "one electron width" and they worked.  To me this meant that electrons came in a range of sizes, from wide to narrow and that we couldn't measure the size accurate enough to understand the distribution.

Distribution, the normal range from one least likely to another least likely.  A normal range defined by a modality and a mean and a median.  A range, not an absolute, a range of behavior.

Ahhh, I thought.  That was it.

Then I thought for some more.  Here was a paper assigned in a 300 level university class and I didn't agree with it.  Fine.  As I thought about it I realized that social absolutes were typically racist.  White people cannot say "nigger".  This is a racist social absolute based on the experience Black people have with the word and the way it has been used for around 400 years.

What was racist about this paper?  Any use of Spanish is racist so how could the paper be racist?

The it hit me, the paper was advocating the linguistic purity of English using a form of reverse psychology.  "We can't adopt Spanish phrases into English because then we are being racist against Spanish speakers".

Not only was the paper wrong because it presented an absolutist social viewpoint, it was wrong, in my opinion, because the paper advocated Anglo cultural purity by insisting that the normal cultural exchange and the adoption of Spanish culture was racist.

I am not an advocate of racial or cultural purity and because I am not, I found Dr. Hill's papers offensive in the covert advocation of cultural purity.

That is not going to go over well with my professor, or a lot of other people including people at the University and elsewhere.  There is a religious reverence for accepted academic theories and the professors who originate them.  Geocentricism, originally advocated by Aristotle and Archimedes and opposed by Aristarchus, became an academic truth of such veracity that when Copernicus and Galileo challenged that theory they were ostracized by academia, which at that time was centered around the Catholic Church.

I find it mildly amusing that academicians often ridicule the religious faith displayed by believers when they also display a form of religious faith in their academic beliefs.

Be that as it may, I had my answer.  I was offended by the absolutist proposition that cultural exchange is "racist" and therefore cultures must remain distinct and segregated, which is a form of racism.

Unpopular, probably as much as my insistence on being well informed enough to argue against a position that some believe should be so inviolate that no contrary argument should ever be advanced.  Yet, I insist on studying what other people take for granted and sometimes, as in this situation, I reject the popular opinion and stand upon my own two feet.

There are undoubtedly forms of cultural exchange that are racist, the belief that one culture is better or worse than another, there are also cultural exchanges which occur naturally as two or more cultures interact over time that are not racist and do not specify one culture as being better than another.

I am not and will not become a racial or cultural purist.  I reject any advocacy of cultural purism, including absolutist arguments that any cultural exchange is a form of racism.

Israel, Apartheid and Generalizations

While there is no doubt that Israel is an apartheid state and that I personally believe an open and transparent democracy to be an optimum form of government, I am also aware that there are circumstances under which democracy fails to achieve the goals required.

In this case, Israel was created specifically to be a sanctuary for Jewish people so that Jews being persecuted unto death in other nations might have a place to flee to rather than be turned away as so many Jewish refugees were before and during WW2.

U.S. history does not document it's failures well and one of those failures was the refusal to allow Jewish refugees into the United States both before and during WW2. I'll post a link about one such story.

Since the primary purpose of the Jewish State of Israel is to create a sanctuary for Jewish people the conversion of the current apartheid government to an open and transparent democracy would prevent the nation from achieving its one and only true purpose. Sanctuary.

If there ever comes a time in the history of this world where people are no longer violently bigoted against each other, then I would support the concept of Israel becoming an open democracy. As long as national leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, as well as a list of others much too long to post, continue to politicize antisemitism I will support both the right of Israel to exist and the right of Israel to maintain itself as an apartheid state.

The problem I see is that international politics, as well as internal politics in the United States, are trending to eliminating support of Israel on the basis of apartheid. There are internal protests in Israel by Jewish people who support the concept of an open democracy. There are those in Israel who advocate for the establishment of a more open immigration policy. Israel faces internal opponents to their original purpose just as they face external opponents to the political policies developed to achieve Israel's original purpose.

I don't believe Israel can stand against the tide of international and internal political opinion. I am of the opinion that Israel will probably cease to exist as a Jewish Sanctuary State sometime in the next 100 years.

The original terrorists or insurgents or freedom fighters who fought for an independent Jewish State during and after World War 2 created underground factories where they produced firearms and ammunition, including an open bolt, fixed firing pin, blow back operated, sub-machine gun called the Sten.

Israel is an excellent example of what determined people can do when motivated by an oppressive and even genocidal political system such as that which occurred in Germany prior to World War Two.

That motivation is gone from the minds of people today. People have replaced this genocidal motivation for a Jewish Sanctuary with dreams of “peace, love and good will towards all”. Others have maintained the dream of an antisemitic Jewish genocide where the bane of their existence is eliminated from the face of the Earth.

Growing up in a Jewish neighborhood and having many Jewish friends and family I am well aware that some Jewish people, like some “ugly americans” and some people from many other cultures, can adopt an attitude of superiority and condescension towards others. If one's only experience, or the majority of memorable experiences, are with these “ugly culture” individuals a person may categorize all of the members of the culture as “ugly”. In fact, this happens often.

This categorization is not a symptom of hatred, rather it is a symptom of limited intellectual capacity. People make categories under which they assign people based on their experiences, their education and their intellectual capacity. No one is capable of infinite categorization. Typically we categorize the people closest to us as individuals. The farther from our personal orbit a person is, the more likely they are to be categorized using some generalization or generalizations.

There is usually some truth to generalizations. For example, there is a generalization that Blacks like watermelon. This is a true generalization. People like watermelon is also a true generalization. Blacks are people so Blacks like watermelon. There is a caveat that not all people like watermelon and so not all Blacks like watermelon. Every generalization has exceptions.

In psychology there are several personality traits and many psychologists differentiate between these personality extremes using either/or categorization. A person is either this or that.

The theories of personality traits depends on what is called a bi-modal distribution. An individuals personality will 'rank” somewhere along this bi-modal distribution. We could say that the total distribution is twelve standard deviations long. Six standard deviations for each end of the personality spectrum.

From reading and conversations over the years with psychologists it is interesting to listen to how they describe these personality traits. In my experience psychologists use four categories, extreme trait, trait, alternate trait, extreme alternate trait. Occasionally two other categories will be added, mild trait and mild alternate trait. Rarely do psychologists seem to add a seventh category of “borderline”, meaning within the central tails between the traits or a seventh and eighth category of extremely mild trait and extremely mild alternate trait.

In a normal distribution there should be just as many extremely mild traits as there are extreme traits, yet, rarely do we hear psychologists speak about individuals who fall in the center tails and probably exhibit behavior attributes of both traits and alternate traits. These “centrists” are probably the most confusing people for psychologists to work with.

I explained all that to explain why I believe that even the most educated and experienced use a finite number of categorizations for people.

Politically I am a centrist. I have very strong opinions on political issues. I am opposed to the existence of prisons, but, I believe strongly in the death penalty. I am pro-choice and pro-second amendment. I could go on, but, I believe I have communicated that my opinions typically balance each other such that I am neither a liberal not a conservative, but, to many people on each side I appear to belong to the other because they have a limited capacity for categorizing and they place me in the category they choose. If a person of limited intellectual capacity believes in the generalization that only conservatives support the individual right to bare arms, I become a conservative in their eyes. If a person believes that only a liberal would be against the concept of prisons, I become a liberal in their eyes.

If we accept that all people have limited intellectual capacity and cannot create infinite categories where each person is evaluated on an individual basis, then we also assume that there are some criteria for inclusion into these categories. There are some criteria which people believe are “absolute”. This is “right” and that is “wrong”, regardless of the individual involved.

The currently popular anti-apartheid sentiment in the world is one such “absolutist” criteria. Apatheid is “wrong”, regardless, and must be eliminated.

In addition, some people have an antisemitic absolutist criteria where Jews are “wrong” and must be eliminated.

In addition, we have some people who have an occupation absolutist criteria where any nation which is occupying the land of another nation is “wrong”.

I could go on listing these absolutist generalizations to explain how international public opinion is turning against Israel based on these absolutist generalizations, or stereotypes, or bigotries.

Where does propaganda stop and discussion begin? What exactly is a fact? How can the average person develop an opinion about what Israel is and should be based on the conglomeration of propaganda, facts and absolutist drivel designed to appeal to those of limited intellectual capacity?

I just don't think Israel can survive the political onslaught over the next hundred years, unless, God takes a hand and delivers Israel. Will God accept that Israel is faithful? What does that even mean? Who can interpret the mind of God except God?

I can't predict what God will do. I believe the actions of large groups of people are fairly predictable though, and I believe international public opinion will continue to build against Israel.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267

How to use a water filter when you are backpacking

I've been hiking and back packing some over the years.  Recently I have been reading some of the books backpackers who have hiked the AT and PCT, that is the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail, have written.  I find it amazing people use their water filters in such inefficient ways.

My kid brother and I took our first long distance back pack on Isle Royale in Lake Superior.  My mother, who was a pretty awesome woman, took her two teenage children on a backpacking trip.  I was a voracious reader and had read so many camping and backpacking books, I felt like an expert.  That first day out of Rock Harbor we hiked three miles together.  The second day, my mother couldn't carry her pack so I carried hers and mine.  She took a boat back from that campsite, Daisy Farm.  My brother and I packed everything we had thought we would need and now realized we didn't into our mothers pack and we set off across the island taking the Minong Ridge trail.

We had problems.  Fuel conservation, water conservation, purifying water (boiling was the only way the rangers had told us back then), food supplies.  Reading about these things and dealing with the reality of them was very different.  Everyone talks about this, but, backpacking and parenting are things that really can't be prepared for well enough.

The reality is always different from what we imagine based on the theory.

Using a water filter sounds easy, drop the intake hose, maybe with a pre-filter into the water and pump away.  That can work, but, it will kill your filter faster than it needs to die and that filter can be the difference between life and death.  Quite literally.  Also, it creates the potential to contaminate the exterior of the filter with something you don't want.

The first step in batch water treatment is to collect the water.  Use a nylon bucket (like I do) or a gallon sized ziplock bag, or any lightweight, flexible container you can put more water into than the size of your largest water bottle.

The second step is clarification.  Wait a while for the water to settle and then skim off the floaties.  Now the water being pumped is relatively clear and your filter will thank you.

Third, use an inlet filter and pump the water in your water bag through your filter and into your water bottle.

Pretty simple, but...there is more.

Filtration removes most stuff, but, not everything.  There are water filters and water purifiers.  If you have a water purifier, like a First Need, the task is done.  If not, we need to treat the water we have just pumped with a chemical disinfectant like iodine, halazone or chlorine bleach.  Unscented chlorine laundry bleach,  will do the trick.

If you need a sanitizer for your cooking and eating utensils, rinse out your water bag, fill it with water and add 25 drops per quart.  Don't drink the water being used as sanitizer, that much bleach will make people sick.  Because of the potential for cross contamination it is a good idea to occasionally sanitize water bottles and the outside of the water filter, hose and pump apparatus.

On Isle Royale my brother and I each carried two 32oz canteens.  Not enough. 

In my thirties when I was backpacking around Michigan using Jim DuFresne's guides I carried near two gallons of water.  Two 64oz bottles in the bottom section of my pack.  Two 48oz bottles in outside pockets of my pack.  One 22oz bottle in a small water bottle pouch on my pack or on my belt.  I used pre-measured, home made, heat sealed packets of Gatorade to add to my 22oz water bottle, 2 per day.  It is amazing how helpful that is.

My brother and I first made them for our Isle Royale trip for our canteens using a gadget my mother had purchased.  Now, they are packaged foods you can buy at a party store.

I also carry an emergency filter.  It is little more than a thick straw, but, used properly it could be the difference between life and death.

I also carry a two ounce bottle of unscented chlorine bleach with one of those caps that has the little flip nozzle.  I put it in a ziplock snack bag.  Yeah, I could use iodine or halazone, but, bleach is cheaper and can be used to sanitize my gear.

I cannot stress how important good sanitation is when back packing.  When you think you are being careful, be more careful.  Be careful how and when you use the bleach.  I usually dig a hole and dump it into the hole, then I cover the hole.

Einstein was wrong, and his wrongness is very kewl.....

Most of this I figured out a long time ago, for example, the fact that Einstein was right about relative motion, but, wrong about mass increasing at the speed of light.  Since inertia is caused by mass, there is no inertia at the speed of light, and no acceleration to the velocity of light speed.  While we may say mass is relative to velocity what we are really talking about is inertia.

Last night though, I had an epiphany and here is a teaser.

So....time travel is relative. What does that mean? The classic example Einstein used is a person sitting still on a train that is traveling past a person who is sitting still at a station. Neither is moving, yet, the relative motion between them makes it look to each of them as if the other is moving.

Now usually this is where someone might say that when the person at the station appears to be moving it is an illusion caused by the motion of the train.

This is wrong.

The truth is that the train station is moving relative to the observer on the train. Motion is always relative to the observer.

As is time.

For example, suppose I go forward in time to 1914. From my relative position I am moving forward in time, my watch would continue to tick forward. 

However, from a different observation point, it may appear that time traveled backwards around me as I continued to move forward in time.  While some people say time travel is impossible, even though we currently travel in time at a constant rate and in a constant direction, the reality is that the momentum we have in time remains constant because while we continue to travel forward in time, our position in time relative to someone else's position in time is different.

Einstein wrote: "It is not clear what is to be understood here by "position" and "space." I stand at the window of a railway carriage which is travelling uniformly, and drop a stone on the embankment, without throwing it. Then, disregarding the influence of the air resistance, I see the stone descend in a straight line. A pedestrian who observes the misdeed from the footpath notices that the stone falls to earth in a parabolic curve. I now ask: Do the "positions" traversed by the stone lie "in reality" on a straight line or on a parabola? Moreover, what is meant here by motion "in space" ?"

We tend to conceive of fixed points from which we determine motion. For example, we may consider the Earth to be revolving about the sun, from an observation point on the sun. From an observation point on Earth, the sun is moving and we are stationary.

The truth is, both are true depending on the point of observation.  There is a third perspective which Einstein did not consider in this example and that is the perspective of the rock, which remains motionless until assaulted by the Earth moving at a vector in opposition to and at a velocity consistent with the Train.  Were we to plot the motion of the Earth and the train in relation to the observation point on the rock we would have a very different perspective on the motion of the train and the Earth, however, both of these would be describing identical motions such that as the train moved up and away, the Earth would move up and toward the rock.

Now, suppose time were to travel backwards. Where in space would I be if I remained stationary?  (this is hypothetical, since in reality, momentum would remain constant and my motion forward in time and space would remain constant, if we consider my existence to be a fixed point in time, at any particular moment in time, but, not in space)

I would be in the same place, but, the Earth moves relative to its axis, and relative to the sun. The sun is moving relative to the center of the galaxy. The galaxy is moving relative to the center of the universe. If time goes backwards around me just for a minute, then I would be about 9,000 miles away from where I was on Earth before time moved relative to me.  Gravity maintains my position relative to the center of the planet at any particular moment and since I was born on the planet, my relative motion is consistent with the motion of the planet and we typically do not feel any inertial effects.  There is an inertial effect however, and the wind proves this since wind is simply air moving in response to inertia related to the rotation of the Earth. 

Now this is where Einstein messed up, because, he believed that as velocity increases, mass increases until it becomes infinite and as mass becomes infinite, gravity becomes infinite and, well, bye.  The entire universe becomes a black hole.  Huh?

Now anyone who followed me this far without retreating to, "yeah, but this is all an illusion", might begin to realize that, were we sitting on a photon with the sun speeding away from us at the speed of light and the Earth speeding towards us at the speed of light we would not be experiencing an increase in mass, since we don't, and since gravity remains constant, from our point of observation, sitting on a photon.  Neither the Earth nor the sun became a black hole, their mass did not become infinite as they suddenly experienced the instantaneous transition from stationary to light speed.

See, we keep thinking of fixed points or coordinate systems in space time, but, there aren't any fixed points and the Earth, as well as everything on it is moving at the speed of light already, relative to the observation point of a photon created on the sun, which is also moving at the speed of light away from the photon. The concept of the fixed point is an illusion, not the relative motion. The relative motion is real.

So..... which objects are experiencing time dilation and expansion to infinite mass?

Wouldn't you like to know :-)  God, I love it when I understand.

Why God loved Abel and hated Cain, "fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man". George Patton.

I was watching the movie, Patton, when I first heard that quote and I understood it immediately.

Fixed fortifications gave mobile forces a place where they could close in and destroy the population.  Castles, fixed fortifications are built to protect people from invaders and provide a place of sanctuary for soldiers protecting farm land which is required for crop growth.

The castle cannot be built that is large enough to protect the number of people guarding it.  A person requires 1/4 of a hectare, about .6 acres, of land to produce enough food to feed them for a year.  That is an area of about 162 feet by 162 feet with a perimeter of around 650 feet.  Imagine a "castle" with one person to guard 650 feet or around 200 meters of wall all by themselves.

Yes, it wouldn't be quite that bad.  640 acres has a perimeter of 4 miles and would feed about 1,100 people and that creates a perimeter density of one person every 10 feet.  If we enclosed 4 square miles, with a perimeter of 8 miles enclosing 2,560 acres which would support 4,266 people we still get one person every ten feet.  Make a circle, 1 mile in diameter and it is one person every 20 feet.

And population must be kept stable, at or below the number of people the enclosed land can support.

Farmland is not defensible, so, smaller fortifications are constructed which give enemy forces encumbered access to the farmland.  Suppose an invading force brought along some slaves to farm a region protected by a castle while the castle was under siege?  Actually, all the invaders would have to do is wait out the people in the castle while they took possession of the land which is the means of support for the people protected by the castle.

Fixed fortifications.

God accepted Abel, who raised sheep  and turned from Cain, the farmer.  God appreciated the work of the mobile nomad with his herd and had no respect for the fixed fortifications of the farmer.

In the military we were told that we had to learn to shoot, move and communicate.  Which of these three were most important?  Mobility, then communication and finally, the ability to fight or shoot.

These are hard lessons to apply, but, they make sense.

Today, our fixed fortifications are under assault and in danger of being invaded, as so many fortifications of the past have been, by the environment those fortifications are fixed in.  New Orleans is below the level of the surrounding water.  Los Angeles is in danger from earth quakes.  New York is in danger from rising water levels.  Eventually, all of our fixed fortifications, our cities, will be invaded and destroyed as so many ancient cities of the past have been.

Gen 4:2...And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. ³ And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the
ground an offering unto the Lord. ⁴ And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his
offering: ⁵ But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was
very wroth, and his countenance fell. ⁶ And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art
thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? ⁷ If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

So Cain desired the stability of the fixed fortification, the farm, the city, more than he desired to please God. 

It took me a while to get this. What happened with Cain is the same thing that happened in Exodus.  God gave the people the ability to nomads, to eat and drink wherever they went and in doing this to be safe from invasion.  But, the people without God lived in fixed fortifications, cities, and the people who claimed to want God, Israel, actually cherished the stability of a fixed fortification more than they cherished the protections of God.  And God gave them what they wanted, even though it made them and makes them a target for their enemies.

So, what is your fixed fortification?  To what do you cling for stability?  Your family?  Your home?  Your church?  The ground?  Your RV?

Or God?

What is home for you?