Idiosyncrasy in “conjectures”; (Dec. 21, 2009)

            Idiosyncrasy or cultural bias related to “common sense” behavior (for example, preferential priorities in choices of values, belief systems, and daily habits) is not restricted among different societies: it can be found within one society, even within what can be defined as “homogeneous restricted communities” ethnically, religiously, common language, gender groups, or professional disciplines. Most disciplines have mushroomed into cults.

            A cult is any organization that creates its own nomenclature and definition of terms to be distinguished from the other cults in order to acquiring recognition as a “professional entity” or independent disciplines that should benefit from laws of special minorities (when mainly it is a matter of generating profit or doing business as usual). These cults want to owe the un-initiated into believing that they have serious well developed methods or excellent comprehension of a restricted area in sciences. The initiated on multidisciplinary knowledge recognize that the methods of any cult are old and even far less precise or developed; that the terms are not new and there are already analogous terms in other disciplines that are more accurate and far better defined.

            Countless experiments have demonstrated various kinds of idiosyncrasies.  This article is oriented toward “cult” kinds of orders, organization, and professional discipline.  My first post is targeting the order of mathematicians; the next article will focus on experiments.

            Mathematics which is used as meaning “sure study” (wisekunde) has no reliable historical documentation. Most of mathematical concepts were written many decades or centuries after they were “floating around” among mathematicians.  Mathematics is confusing with its array of nomenclature. What are the differences among axiom, proposition, lemma, postulate, or conjecture?  What are the differences among the terms, theorem, questions, problems, hypothesis, corollary, and again conjecture?  For example, personally, I feel that axiom is mostly recurrent in geometry, lemma in probability, hypothesis in analytical procedures, and conjecture in algebraic deductive reasoning.

            Hypothesis is in desuetude in mathematics. For example, Newton said “I am not making a hypothesis”: Socrates made fun of this term by explaining how it was understood “I designate hypothesis what people doing geometry use to treating a question.  For example, when asked for their “expert opinion” they reply: “I still cannot confirm but I think that if I have a viable hypothesis for this problem and if it is the following hypothesis… then I think that we may draw a conclusion. If we have another hypothesis then another conclusion is more valid.”  Plato said: “As long as mathematics start from hypothesis instead of facts then we do not think that they have true comprehension since they are not going back to fundamentals”

            Hypothesis is still the main term used in experimental research. Theoretically, an experiment is not meant to accept a hypothesis as true or valid but simply “Not to reject it” if the relationships among the manipulated variables are “statistically significant” to a pre-determined level, usually 5% in random errors. Many pragmatic scientific researchers don’t care about the fine details in theoretical mathematical concepts and tend to adopt a hypothesis that was not rejected as law.  This is one case of idiosyncrasy when the researcher wants badly the “non-rejected” hypothesis to represent is view. Generally, an honest experimenter has to repeat the experiment or encourage someone else to generalize the results by studying more variables.

            Conjecture means (throwing in together) and can be translated as conclusion or deduction; basically, it is an opinion or supposition based on insufficient proofs. In the last century, conjectures were exposed in writing as promptly as possible instead of keeping them floating ideas, concepts, or probable theorems. This new behavior of writing conjectures was given the rationale that “plausible reasoning” is a set of suppositions thrown around as questions mathematicians guess they have answers to them but are unable to demonstrate temporarily.

            The term conjecture has been used so freely in the last decades that Andre Weil warned that “current mathematicians use the term conjecture when they fail after a few attempts to verify a concept, even if the problem is of no importance.”  David Kazhdan ironically warned that this practice of enunciating conjectures might turn out like a 5-year Soviet plan.

            At first, a set of conjectures was meant to be the basic structure for a theorem or precise assertions that were temporarily used in the trading of logical discussions. Thus, conjectures permit the construction of rigorous deductions that are accessible to direct testing of their validity. A conjecture was a “research program” that move ahead in order to foresee the explored domain.

            Consequently, conjecture is kind of extending a name and an address to a set of suppositions and analogies for a concept long before tools and methods are created to approach directly the problem. A “Problem” designates a mental task submitted to the audience or targeted for research or project; usually, the set of problems lead to demonstrating a general theorem. Many problems are in fact conjectures such as the problem of twin primary numbers that consists of proving the existence of an infinity of coupled numbers such that p-q = 2.

            One of the explanations for using freely the term conjecture is the modern facility of mathematicians of discriminating aspects of uncertainty at the theoretical level. It is an acquired habit, an idiosyncrasy. Thus, for a mathematician to state a conjecture he must have solved many particular cases and recognize that a research program is needed to developing special tools for demonstrating the conjecture.  This is a tough restriction in this age where time is of essence among millions of mathematicians competing for prizes.

I don’t understand why the Board of Education would ever call an emergency public meeting of the Manhasset School Board to address allegations that they knowingly violated the Taylor Law in 2005.  Announcing an 8PM meeting with 9 hours notice to address issues from 2005 smacks of desperation.  Their attempt at damage control caused the BOE to sink deeper into the quicksand of incompetence, arrogance and malfeasance.  The prepared statement read by Cindy Cardinal, a labor attorney and the Board President, was reminiscent of Bill Clinton 1998.  Her response to the allegation was, “No”.  That’s it.  She was asked to elaborate on her statement, “I also believed that the decision to outsource would withstand a potential legal challenge and that we would ultimately prevail in court.” The question from the audience was, “Why was the public not informed that a legal challenge even existed and the legal expenses could reduce or negate the cost savings?  And why was it not disclosed that voting for Proposition No. 3 involved firing the MESPA union drivers without bargaining to impasse?”  Her response was that she was unaware of any litigation issues and anyone can sue you for anything.  That response is curious given the contents of the original Improper Practice Charge filed by Conrad Lower on behalf of MESPA on July 15, 2005.  On page 4 of that document, item 28 provides details on the 12 meetings held with the district between January and April 2005 (1/21/2005, 2/10/2005, 2/11/2005, 2/16/2005, 2/18/2005, 3/2/2005, 3/7/2005, 3/9/2005, 3/31/2005, 4/5/2005, 4/13/2005 and 4/20/2005.  The vote to outsource was held in May 2005.  On page 5 of the Improper Practice Charge, item 29, Conrad Lower (MESPA) expressed to Mr. Mountanos (Ingerman Smith) on several occasions before the District’s decision to subcontract that the position of MESPA was that the District was required to negotiate the decision to subcontract, and that any decision to subcontract without bargaining to impasse would violate the act.  In sections 36 and 37, Conrad Lower references the Taylor Law.  It does not seem reasonable that over the course of twelve meetings with Conrad Lower the union suing and the Taylor Law never came up?  The Improper Practice Charge seems to contradict Cindy Cardinal’s claim of no prior knowledge.

Given this new information, I find it curious that the BOE is claiming they had no knowledge of  violating the Taylor Law and they failed to advise the public that Proposition No. 3 had a built in litigation expense that was never disclosed to the public.

Other meeting highlights were Cindy Cardinal refusing to answer questions, using privilege as a shield.  Equally comical was Bill Shine’s sudden onset of hearing loss when a member of the public suggested the BOE file an insurance claim against their Errors and Omissions Policy.

The theme of the night was accountability.  Apparently, accountability is a  word unfamiliar to the Board of Education and the Administration.

From wiki:

The attribution to Bernard is due to John of Salisbury. In 1159, John wrote in his Metalogicon:

“Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size.”
(“Dicebat Bernardus Carnotensis nos esse quasi nanos, gigantium humeris insidentes, ut possimus plura eis et remotiora videre, non utique proprii visus acumine, aut eminentia corporis, sed quia in altum subvenimur et extollimur magnitudine gigantea”)

As Paddy said, “there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance.”
To me, it is just two sides of the same thing. Confidence is how one perceives himself, while arrogance is how others think he perceives himself.

… or maybe,
confidence is how one and others perceive himself, and arrogance is how him and others think how he percieves himself comparing to others.

such a blahblah!

The research and its direction is very dependent on the resources that are available, and the contacts, collaborations that are made.

Cindy Cardinal elected to BOE 5/15/2003

Larry Belinsky and Aline Khatchadourian elected to BOE 5/18/2004

Transportation Outsourcing Introduced 10/13/2004

Powerpoint presentation on Outsourcing by SPLC 10/13/2004

MESPA met with Administration in 2005 on  1/21, 2/10, 2/11, 2/16, 2/18

MESPA met with Administration in 2005 on 3/2, 3/7, 3/9, 3/31, 4/5

William Shine named interim Superintendent 4/11/2005

MESPA met with Administration 4/13/2005, 4/20/2005

Transportation Outsourcing Information 5/12/2005

Huntington Coach Presentation

Huntington Coach Responds to Residents

Faq

Huntington Coach, hiring practices

Board Column on Outsourcing

Dr. Gavin Transportation Presentation

Transportation Bids

William Shine in Manhasset Press Promoting Outsourcing 5/13/2005

Ballot Items for 5/17/2005

Pat Aitken elected to BOE 5/17/2005

Proposition No. 3 – Bus Outsourcing Passes 5/17/2005

“Save Manhasset Buses” Attempts to Force a Re-Vote on Bus Outsourcing 6/14/2005

MESPA Improper Practice Charge 7/15/2005

District Loses lawsuit Brought by Baumann Bus Company 8/3/2005

Huntington Bid Anulled, Forced by Judge to Reopen Bidding 8/3/2005

Bus Outsourcing Savings Lower by $212K due to Baumann Settlement 8/18/2005

Transportation Guide 2005/2006 9/1/2005

Cindy Cardinal re-elected, Carlo Prinzo elected to BOE 5/16/2006

PERB Decision of Administrative Law Judge 10/16/2006

Board of Education Statement Regarding Transportation Outsourcing Litigation 10/25/2006

Charles Cardillo becomes Superintendent 11/08/2005

Q&A/Information Regarding Outsourcing Litigation 12/18/2006

Larry Belinsky and Aline Khatchadourian re-elected to BOE 5/15/2007

Board Reaches Accord with 1 MESPA Employee 1/31/2008

New York State Appellate Court Finds PERB Order Unreasonable 4/28/2009

New York State Appellate Decision 4/28/2009

Board Statement Denying Violation of Taylor Law 12/14/2009

]]> http://manhassetbus.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/transportation-options-to-consider/ Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:58:22 +0000 manhassetbus http://manhassetbus.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/transportation-options-to-consider/

The Board of  Education and school administration continue to display their arrogance and incompetence .   The PERB order was handed down July 23, 2009, yet the BOE and the administration waited three months before they took any type of action.  To-date the BOE has failed to mail any information on Proposition No. 1 to Manhasset residents as they have done every other time in the past (see previous notices from 2005).  Now with 6 days before the vote , the BOE is claiming they don’t have time to do a thorough financial analysis of insourcing vs. outsourcing and present their findings to the public.  Instead the public is presented with an ill-prepared confusing 15 page slide show which is nothing more than rehashed past budget numbers.  It wasn’t until December 3, 2009 that the public learned from the district hired transportation expert that school buses had a useful life of 15 years.  That same night were made aware the $850K required to fix the bus garage was merely a band-aid and the real number was actually closer to $6M.  And just so we are clear, this information was not in any BOE presentation, it came out during a Q & A session.  How are taxpayers going to make an informed decision when the BOE and the administration is willfully hiding information and only offering it up under direct questioning?  They have not fulfilled their duties as Board members and should immediately resign.  The Board can spend $600K on a law firm to defend its ridiculous actions, it can hire a transportation consultant, yet it can’t hire someone to crunch the numbers?  I’m not one for conspiracy theory, but,  if  I didn’t know better I would say the BOE is trying to push this vote through without the public’s knowledge.  For shame.

Consider some of these possible options:

• Lease buses rather than buy
• don’t spend $850K on temporarily renovating the bus garage
  • share a garage with another district
  • outsource the repair work
  • lease a bay from a private company
• 50 drivers and 56 buses
  • do we need 6 extra brand new buses in a brand new fleet as spares
  • can we buy those spare buses over time rather than day one
  • is it cheaper to lease or rent spare buses from private companies as needed

Why have none of these options been explored and shared with the public?  Where is the public outrage at this BOE culture of ignorance, incompetence and waste.  Queue the clown music, the Board is getting ready to blindly waste more taxpayer money without considering and analyzing any alternatives.  doot-doot doodle-oodle oot doot do do…

No financial model is perfect. And this one is no exception. The data was provided by the Manhasset Board of Education and the Manhasset School District Administration. The model attempts to tackle several issues: long-term cost of owning and maintaining buses, accruing for new bus purchases in 15 years, rising wage and benefit costs, historical run rates on costs, short-term and long-term garage renovations. The model also attempts to take into account past ($600K) and future litigation expense, union back wages and interest ($8 – 16M), and reported costs savings from outsourcing ($6M). The assumptions in the model are the most conservative approaches possible. The $2.5 million MESPA payment under outsourcing is projected in every year. An accrual of $1.7M for 5 years was added to purchase buses in 2024 for $8M. The $8M price tag for buses was calculated by growing $5.4M (current bus purchase) by 3% annually for 15 years, 563K is $8M divided by 15. The BOE transportation expert stated that it would take $6M to properly renovate the garage and that $850K was a short-term solution. It was assumed that in 2 years the garage renovations would be necessary and that a 10 year bond would be issued to fund the renovation. Therefore, debt service at 4.4% was added to the model.

15 Year Projections
15 Year raw numbers PV/FV
15 Year Graph Future Value Comparison
15 Year Graph Net Present Value Comparison

Although imperfect, this model still serves a valid purpose. It is our best guess using the information provided by the BOE. It allows tax payers to consider all of the potential future costs, assign values to them and provides a basis for an informed decision.

Click here to view the slides from presentation 2. It mainly describes the outcome of our first deliverable. For more detailed info we refer you to our first deliverable which can also be viewed on our blog.

1. Who is your customer?
2. How does your customer experience value?
3. What is unique about your value proposition?
4. Are you competing primarily on price or value?
5. Do you design products and services that deliver the desired value?
6. Do you design effective sales and service channels?
7. Do you recruit and equip employees to deliver and increase customer value?
8. What are you willing to do to deliver better value?
9. How have you added value to customers of late?

10.  Do you refine and measure the value proposition to ensure customer loyalty and retention?

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir - Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please visit www.asifjmir.com, and my Lectures.

Opinion Letter Thanking Bus Drivers June 17, 2005

Comments from School Board on Transportation Debacle September 4, 2009

Letter to the Editor Oct. 30, 2009 – Wants Justification of the Outsource Savings

Letter to Editor Nov. 20, 2009 – undecided, writer wants BOE accountability

Manhasset School District Posts Absentee Ballot Information November 27, 2009

Letter to Editor December 4, 2009 – writer wants answers from BOE, voter involvement

Pat Grace Weighs In December 10, 2009

Letter to the Editor December 10, 2009 – Postpone the Vote

Letter to the Editor December 10, 2009 – Vote No

Letter to the Editor December 10, 2009 – Pitchforks and Torches – Vote No

Proposition No. 1 Unanimously approved by the Board of Education. While this proposition resulted from the PERB order, nothing in the order indicated this course of action or this timeline. See previous post

Manhasset School District Board Minutes October 22, 2009 (Prop. 1 – pg 3, item 2)

Proposition No. 1 (Bus and Equipment Purchase)
VOTE: Ms. Cardinal, Mr. Prinzo, Ms. Aitken, Mr. Belinsky, Mrs. Khatchadourian – YES
MOTION APPROVED 5-0

In the Board of Education public presentations, Dr. Shine, Assistant to the Superintendent, only presented order number 4 from the PERB Order.

Below are all 6 orders:

1. Cease and desist, no more outsourcing of MESPA jobs
2. Restore all outsourced transportation to MESPA
3. Reinstate unit members with differential back wages and benefits plus 9% interest
4. In the event taxpayers disapprove the bus purchase, provide comparable work or pay displaced unit members differential back wages and benefits plus 9% interest, until unit work becomes available.
5. If restoring unit members is delayed by outsourced contract obligations, pay differential back wages and benefits plus 9% interest until work is restored
6. Negotiate in good faith

The order is pretty clear,  re-instate jobs, pay unit members back pay and benefits plus 9% interest, negotiate in good faith.  The order does not set a date for compliance or indicate that the BOE should create a ballot proposition.  In this order there is no mention of 18 vs 39 members, the language states, “unit employees”.

No financial model is perfect.  And this one is no exception.  This analysis was prepared by the Manhasset School District Citizens Advisory Committee for Finance. The data was provided by the Manhasset Board of Education and the Manhasset School District Administration. The model attempts to tackle several issues: long-term cost of owning and maintaining buses, accruing for new bus purchases in 15 years, rising wage and benefit costs, historical run rates on costs, short term and long-term garage renovations. The model does not take into account past ($600K) or future litigation expense, union back wages and interest ($8 – 16M), and reported costs savings from outsourcing ($6M). Those numbers add up as follows, Outsourcing cost = cost saving – past litigation – future litigation – back wages – interest on back wages. In addition to what is on the spreadsheet outsourcing year 1 costs = 6M – 600K – ~400K – ~12M – ~2M = -9M. The model attempts to take the most conservative approach possible. The $2.5 million MESPA payment under outsourcing is projected in every year. An accrual of $563K per year was added to purchase buses in 2024 for $8M. The $8M price tag for buses was calculated by growing $5.4M (current bus purchase) by 3% annually for 15 years, 563K is $8M divided by 15. The BOE transportation expert stated that it would take $6M to properly renovate the garage and that $850K was a short-term solution. It was assumed that in 2 years the garage renovations would be necessary and that a 5 year bond would be issued to fund the renovation. Therefore, debt service at 4.4% was added to the model.
10 year financial analysis Manhasset School District Proposition No. 1

Although imperfect, this model still serves a valid purpose.  It is our best guess using the information provided by the BOE. It allows tax payers to consider all of the potential future costs, assign values to them and provides a basis for an informed decision.

Click here to take a look at our first deliverable  for this course. Mainly it describes our conceptual design and our media strategy.

An observation I’ve made, many times, involves the exceptionally feminine, sexually ambiguous, and overall just not very manly qualities in Mormon men.

An oft cited reference (and rebuttal to this charge) involves their first prophet’s love for wrestling (or wrastling) other men, an anecdote meant to demonstrate Smith’s physical rigor and playfulness, and raises more questions than answers.Sure… wrastling other dudes is okay, but when the man-on-man physical domination turns sexual, God the Father, Elohim, takes it personal. Is there an underlying reason for the rampant homophobia and seemingly universal, epicene demeanor in your average Mormon male?

Scared of Your Penis

Growing up as a Mormon boy seems to entail some serious sexual-identity scrambling — starting very early on. As boys develop into young men, they are mentally manipulated to feel guilty about their bodies. At as early as twelve years old, boys are required to talk about masturbation, sexual fantasies, their bodies, and other intimate, often confusing topics with an unrelated, authoritative clergy member.

Continue reading (for free) at www.ericnorwood.org

New York must have been jealous of Californians homophobic tendencies when confronted with a vote to legalize same-sex marriage.

Gay Marriage had already cleared one half of the New York legislature, the state assembly. It had the support of Governor David Paterson, and a majority of New Yorker’s, in a recent poll, approved of legalization for gay marriages.

So what happened?

The New York Daily News reports that…After a historic debate that lasted close to three hours, the Senate today rejected a bill that would have made New York the sixth state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage.

The final vote was 24-38. Eight Democrats voted “no” – Addabbo, Aubertine, Diaz Sr., Huntley, C. Kruger, Monserrate, Onorato, Stachowski – while not a single Republican voted “yes.”

It was held up and eventually defeated by a sharply divided New York state senate. Although Democrats are in the majority, they lost the support of some of their conservative members. All the Republican state senators voted against the bill.

The New York state senate leaders wouldn’t even allow debate on the gay marriage until now,because there was no actual will by the Senator’s to acknowledge or affirm same-sex marriage.

New York also doesn’t allow civil unions, but has several laws, executive orders and court decisions that grant many of the rights to gays long enjoyed by married couples. What it does not grant is equality, setting up an apartheid like system for gays in New York, and most of our great nation.

This action by the New York Republicans and weak Democratic leaders will reflect what I predict will happen to Healthcare reform in the United States Senate.

Even though we all voted in a majority of Democratic Congressman, there seems to be a naive belief by the Democratic Congressman that if they move toward a middle ground, and compromise with the homophobic racist American freedom hating neocons in the Republican party, that they will be seen as moderate to the Republican voters in their district, which is crazy.

No matter how oppressive the Democrats are to the American’s that voted them in to office, the Republicans still will hate you. You have not impressed nor have you gained any ground with the Republican voters, but what you have done is proven to the Republicans just how much of a hypocrite you really are.

There is no compromise when it comes to personal freedoms, and the freedom of choice.

We all as people have a right to pursue any legal and non-violent form of happiness that we so choose. The fact that same-sex marriage is not legal is a failure of our society.

I am not gay, so if a million gay men and women choose to marry each other, …it will not have any affect on my life at all, other than the fact that I might have to decide on what wedding gift’s I should give to each couple, as I would anticipate attending a lot more weddings.

But any action to stop them, will lead to a slippery slope of amendments to restrict all of our personal freedoms, and that will directly hurt many of us, straight or gay. I am for freedom,I am against fascism.

I say this to my gay Americans out there, these laws that citizens have to vote on remind me of the outcome of some of the very first Civil Rights legislation that was voted on right after the Civil War, and all bills that related to the freedom and full rights for black Americans, were all defeated soundly in both houses of Congress.

The American people, given a chance to vote on freedom, will always vote against it. Republicans are trained from a very young age to vote against their own self-interest, and this legislation is no different.

The ugly cloud of homophobic hatred now stretches out from coast to coast…making California just as bad as the haters in New York.

Call and write all of the backwards state Senators in New York, listed in this article linked here,from the New York Daily News… http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/12/gay-marriage-fails-24-38.html

The State Assembly had earlier approved the bill, and Gov. David Paterson, perhaps the bill’s strongest advocate, had pledged to sign it.

Immediately after the vote, gay rights advocates chanted: “Equal rights now!” Many said they weren’t surprised by the decision. Most, including Paterson, said they at least wanted a floor debate and vote.

Senate sponsor Thomas Duane, a Manhattan Democrat and the Legislature’s first openly gay member, vowed not to give up his life’s goal.

“I’m like a dog with a bone,” said Duane in his closing remarks on the floor, when defeat was becoming clear. “I wouldn’t let go of anyone … Because I don’t give up. I don’t know how to!”

The message should be clear to gay rights advocates, the time for civil unrest is here. New York and California set the pace for the rest of America, so the tactic of using the ballot has ended, and the time is now for civil disobediance…or forget about getting married legally.

Choose one….

SOURCE-

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hRfgezF0Cr4Z-4GqQaP9vio3k_gQD9CBCVJ00

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/12/new_york_senate_kills_gay_marr.html

Propositions are immaterial. We think propositionally. Therefore, our mind must be composed of some immaterial element.

Otherwise, we would be saying that propositions are reducible to compositions of matter; i.e. neuron with such-and-such charge is what we know to be as the idea of “blue.” This is obviously false.

The argument can’t be that the material and immaterial are unable to interact. Since I am a material body as well as my immaterial mind, I am assuming that, somehow, there is a connection between the immaterial and my body.

Materialism cannot account for the fact that there is a real immaterial at all, and attempts to explain away consciousness through deterministic impulses and illusions; however, this is a deceivingly old problem. Democritus, the first Greek philosopher that we know of to propose a world that is atomistic (in very much the same way that science views the world), first understood the heavy burden of this position. Although propositions weren’t referenced, he did speak of senses; how can atoms (for if that’s all there is, that’s all we can be in sum) feel? How is sense explained?

Not being a materialist, I don’t encounter this problem. The problem I do have is to explain how the material and the immaterial interact.

I would say that the particular connection of my material body and my immaterial mind is facilitated through a “prime animating organ,” otherwise known as the soul.

More to come later on this.

Note: This is part 2 of our traveling series on state politics.  You can read about California’s governor and his tax problems here.

In response to the passage of California Proposition 8 – which banned the brief law allowing gay marriage in the state last November – one man is taking a stand on government involvement in marriage. Since the proposition was passed, the state, and nation, have seen an eruption of protest and legal challenges on the part of gay rights activists.

Joe Marcotte has filed with the California Attorney General’s office to include a ban on divorce in the state of California. The ballot proposition, entitled the “2010 California Marriage Protection Act,” aims to undermine the argument against gay marriage as a defense of traditional marriage.  As Marcotte told NPR,

“Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more,” the 38-year-old married father of two said.

California has a rich history of constitutional amendments, and is often called one of the most pure forms of direct democracy in the world. Californians voted on 21 state amendments or referendums in 2008 alone; Since 1911 voters have seen 1142 propositions in front of them.   On issues ranging from the addition of a “none of the above” option on the ballot to universal health care, Californians change the language of the constitution nearly every time they go to the polls.

In order to get a proposition on the ballot that changes the constitution a person simply has to pay a registration fee ($200 which is refunded if the initiative makes the ballot) and collect signatures of registered voters equal to 8% of voters for the last gubernatorial election.  This is nearly 700,000 registered voters.  Because of the risk of fake names, duplicate signers, and any other problems associated with a petition, professional petitioners aim for double this count.

And, yes, there are professional petitioners.  A multimillion dollar business, individuals are paid per signature to stand in front of grocery stores, universities, and public places often not caring about the issues they are petitioning and regularly presenting conflicting petitions.  This is not exactly what progressive reformers had in mind a hundred years ago.

Marcotte’s recent national exposure has given this petition new energy and funding.  With the LGBT community planning an amendment in 2012 to reverse Proposition 8 rather than trying in 2010, the addition of this “anti-divorce” amendment would prove a point.  While likely to be deemed unconstitutional and impractical, the amendment will point out to California and the nation that there is no validity to the argument for “preserving traditional marriage.”

By Emma Sandoe

Here is the presentation where we showed the other groups what we are aiming for. It also includes our concept that we have decided to work with.

En ny etableringslag för mottagande av nyanlända invandrare kommer att gälla från och med 1 december 2010. Folkpartiet i Södertälje välkomnar detta beslut, som går i linje med den motion som vi skrev fram till landsmötet om ett breddat ansvar mellan stat och kommuner i flyktingmottagandet.

Framöver kommer staten, via Arbetsförmedlingen, att få det övergripande ansvaret att slussa in nyanlända invandrare i arbetsmarknaden med en rad åtgärder. Arbetsförmedlingen kommer att tillskjutas 920 miljoner kronor extra för att klara det ökade ansvaret.

Etableringslagen innebär ändringar i en rad lagar; alltifrån skollagen, bostadsbidragslagen till socialtjänstlagen. I förlängningen kommer denna investering att betala av sig i form av lägre bidragskostnader, högre skatteintäkter och inte minst bättre integration.

Det är bara att lyfta av hatten för integrationsministern Nyamko Sabuni (FP), som med detta anpassar integrationspolitiken till verkligheten och inte minst till arbetslinjen. Kommuner som Södertälje kommer att ha stor glädje av denna reform när den är i full drift.

Regeringens proposition “Nyanlända invandrares arbetsmarknadsetablering – egenansvar med professionellt stöd” finns att läsa i sin helhet här.

As we lead up to our Evangelism Conference on December 12-13th, I thought it would be appropriate to give some posts particularly geared towards evangelism.  Here’s a video of Mark Driscoll speaking on Evangelism.  I think Mark gets as close as any contemporary pastor to what biblical evangelism should look like.  In other words, it should be the joyful work of satisfied believers who love their neighbors and want to share with them their deepest love, namely God.  His words here are particularly helpful on how we can share the gospel:

affiche "claques et fessées"

trouvée ici. (merci ma Noémie!!!)

la nature humaine est bonne

trouvée ici.

Une députée UMP veut interdire la fessée

Par Laurent Mauriac | Rue89 | 15/11/2009 | 18H48

La pédiatre et députée UMP Edwige Antier a déposé mercredi dernier une proposition de loi visant à interdire les châtiments corporels, dont la fessée. C’est ce qu’elle annonce dans Le Parisien/Aujourd’hui en France de ce dimanche La suite

voilà un vieux combat que je mène modestement depuis des années, et ça m’a valut pas mal de scène de violence, au moins verbale!

glisser quelques mots, sur Françoise Dolto…

et bien voilà une initiative qui fait plaisir!
bravo Mme la députée UMP (connue pour être pédiatre, sur les ondes de France Inter notamment).
rien à redire.

les enfants battus (puisqu’il n’y a pas de petite gifle) d’aujourd’hui feront la violence de demain.

encore une idée progressiste que la gauche a “oublié” de défendre…

moi, j’ai plutôt deux mariages à Mulhouse où la dame qui officiait a encouragé les époux à frapper leurs enfants qu’ils n’avaient même pas encore (la même qu’au mien, mais là elle s’était abstenue, allez savoir pourquoi). j’avais été scandalisé et dégoûté.

cf aussi , ancien article sur ce blog.

bien@ vous,
nicogé

PS:

peace and love: ça vaut aussi pour nos enfants!

NB (rajouté le 16/11/2009 à 21h30): je ne me fais aucune illusion quant à l’issue de la chose…

Georges Dreyfus came to Chulalongkorn University again for the third time, and this time he gave a public talk on “Can a Buddhist be a Skeptic?” The talk was really interesting and touched upon some of the very difficult issues in Buddhist philosophy. He started by recounting the tenet found in the Madhyamika system, especially as propounded by Nagarjuna. According to the Madhayamika, a thing does not have its own ‘inherent characteristic,’ which defines what it is to be that thing and none other. Thus Madhyamika is contrasted with a branch of Indian philosophy that asserts that there is an inherent characteristic in everything that makes it the caase that that thing is what it is. One might compare this to the Aristotelian essence — whatever that gives a thing its defining characteristic. Thus a chair, according to this view, is a chair because it possesses something called ‘chairness.’ By virtue of possessing the chairness a chair is a chair and not, say, a table.

For Nagarjuna that is unacceptable. In his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way (Mulamadhyamakakarika), he presents a barrage of arguments intending to show that no thing whatsoever possesses this inherent characteristic. However, that does not mean that a thing can be anything else. It means rather than a thing is what it is, for example a chair, only through its being related to other things and through its being an extension or instances of concepts. In short, a thing is what it is simply because it is recognized that way. A chair is a chair because people sit on it and call it a ‘chair.’

A consequence of this is that, ultimately speaking, for Nagarjuna it does not make sense to say of any thing that it exists. On the other hand it also does not make sense to say that it does not exist. The chair in a sense does not exist because it lacks any inherent characteristic (the Sanskrit term for this is svabhava). However, to say that it does not exist does not make sense either because the chair is there. Nagarjuna goes on to say that it does not make sense to say that it both exists and does not exist, because to say that would presuppose that there is something the existence and non-existence of which is being asserted. Furthermore, to say that a thing neither exists nor does not exist does not make much sense either for the same reason.

This is known as the tetralemma. The idea is to exhause any and all possibility of saying anything about any object whatsoever. If it does not make sense to say anything in the four sides of the tetralemma, then it is clear that it does not make sense to say anything of anything at all. For example, Nagarjuna says somewhere in the Fundamental Verses that it cannot be said that the Tathagata (the Thus-gone, hence the Buddha) exists, does not exist, both exists and does not exist, and neither exists nor does not exist.

The  tetralemma has been a subject of intense interpretation. Dreyfus cited an example of a relatively obscure Tibetan translator and philosopher, Patrap Nyima Drak (I have to look up whether this is correct), who asserted that what the tetralemma says is true literally. Other scholars, such as Chandrakirti himself and Tsong Khapa, shied away from asserting baldly that the tetralemma is true literally. For them to do so is very close to being irrational, for it means that one can’t say anything of anything at all. If that is so, then why is one saying anything at all? Why don’t keep quiet all the time?

Dreyfus said that for Patrap, he held that no statement could be held and believed, because ultimately speaking any statement at all falls into one leg of the tetralemma and is thus untenable. So Dreyfus compared his position to that of ancient skepticism, also known as Pyrrhonism. According to Pyrrhonism it is not rational to hold any belief. All statements are ’suspended’ because no statement ever acquires enough evidence to support it.

Nagarjuna himself also could be interpreted as supporting this view in a way, since he says at the very last stanza of the Fundamental Verses that in the end the goal of the Buddhist philosophy is to “relinquish all views.” So in a way this is not a philosophy at all, if you hold that philosophy is nothing but putting out words and more words. Since nothing can be asserted in any way of anything, then according to Patrap the only course left is to suspend any and all judgments. (But is this philosophy?)

So this comes to Dreyfus’s own question at the beginning. Can a Buddhist be a skeptic? Yes, because at least one Buddhist, Patrap Nyima Drak, was a skeptic. But is this a valid position to hold in Buddhist philosophy? It can be useful as a guide for practicing, and of course in Buddhism this is in the end what counts.

This leads to a very difficult problem for Buddhism. On the one hand, if you can’t defend any position at all, then how can you show that any of the teachings of the Buddha is true? How can one teach Buddhism to anybody? There ae a number of Buddhist teachings thatmany Buddhists take to be true, such as the law of karma, the Four Noble Truths, and so on. If a Buddhist can be a skeptic, then how can one come to believe the law of karma or the Four Noble Truths, which are the central teaching of Buddhism?

However, the advantage of Patrap’s standpoint (paradoxical again because the skeptic has no standpoint) is that it leads us to non-attachment even of doctrines and teachings. We realize that in the end these are only words and language, and being attached to them would only lead to suffering and further wandering in samsara, even though these words are the Buddha’s. The key is to ‘relinquish all views.’

So what gives? We have to wean ourselves from the belief that there is one true, correct version of things that we can arrive at. Language does not represent reality as it really is. Language is only a tool. The tetralemma shows that no matter how much we try, language still deceives us. The point is to get at reality without language. So practice is important, but philosophy and teaching the Dharma is important too. Otherwise how can we ever come to understand all this?

You can listen to Dreyfus’ talk right here on the podcast of the Center for Ethics of Science and Technology and the Thousand Stars Foundation.

In the proposition is stated what is the desired effect of the project. What will be achieved?

We would like it if all the people of Delft can get involved with the project. A way they can participate and add something they can later point at (figuratively and/or literally) and say ‘I did that’. Creating something that will last for many years creates a feeling that all the chaos is leading somewhere and that the benefits will be there later. It also gives a reminder to look back on the project afterward.

If all the little contributions of the inhabitants can be combined in one project it will give al feeling of unification.

In this way the inhabitants of Delft will have more attention for the whole project and see that it is not all bad what is happening around them.

We want to create an infectious enthusiasm with the inhabitants of Delft about the project. People will hear of the project and say to their friends ‘Hey have you heard about this….’. Word of mouth promotion will be a major media tool next to additional promotion.

We want to create a place/object near the ‘Spoorzone’ where the people from Delft can add their identity to. This project will be a distraction to the chaos and bring the delft people together.