Comments by adasiak
Page 1 of 14 | Next
Posted on June 17 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My above comments have just been called "closed minded" and "socialist/communist". Maybe I brought that on myself by using inflammatory phrases like "cutthroat individualism" and "morally repugnant".
Let me try again, without anything that could be interpreted as personal. (This way, you may imagine that the following doesn't apply to *you*.) Since I don't believe in absolute, immutable truth, I am usually happy to be argued with and persuaded, as long as you can leave the ad hominem attacks out of it.
(1) Individuality is necessary and should be protected. But individualism is not a sufficient moral or philosophical basis for civil society. It says nothing about cooperation, kindness, or obligation -- all of which are essential when people come together to live in community.
(2) Not everything boils down to personal responsibility. Some forces that affect us are out of our control. For example: the conditions of our birth (are we born with FAS?), our upbringing (which permanently affects our neurochemistry), and the opportunities available in the culture we find ourselves in (are there jobs for unskilled laborers that pay a living wage?) -- all of these affect us but are circumstances created by others.
As agents who both directly and indirectly affect the lives of others, we have an obligation to those others. That obligation may be to help them directly, or it may be to create circumstances under which they can thrive and give back to society.
Let me reiterate those first two points: Individuality is necessary and must be protected. Personal responsibility cannot be denied, nor can we deny that some individuals make bad decisions. But individualism and personal responsibility are insufficient social principles; they alone cannot do the moral "work" we demand of them. Other principles, like social responsibility or mutual obligation, must come into play in any society that wishes to rise above barbarism.
(continued next post)
On Task force
Posted on June 17 at 3:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mike_Starkey: 'The state didn't turn them into drunks, why should the state "stand up and take responsibility?"'
Let me ask it another way: Even though (let's suppose) you didn't personally turn anybody into a persistent inebriate, do you still have any responsibility to help such people out of their situations? Do you have any responsibility for your fellow man and fellow community member? Do you have what is called "social responsibility"? I believe that you do.
You ask, "Where are the family and friends? Where is the church? Where are the community service organizations?"
Sometimes, Mr. Starkey, these groups fail to provide enough of a supportive network to keep people from falling into a life of chronic inebriation. "The state" that you deride -- that is, the political organization we share that should be devoted to the general welfare -- has twin duties here: (1) help to create a society rich in social capital (http://fairbankspedestrian.wordpress.com...), so that people may have strong networks of friends, family, church, and private service organizations, and (2) provide another safety net so that the least fortunate of us may still receive help and better ourselves.
I find the cutthroat individualism of your questions morally repugnant and not worthy of a citizen.
--Paul Adasiak
"The Fairbanks Pedestrian"
On Task force
Posted on June 16 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nathan Vonnahme: "I wish we could read the text of the actual law, newsminer."
Don't go hard on the News-Miner; this is an AP article, whose content they don't have much control over.
If you're interested in the full text, I think I found it at http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/ (the Legislature's web site). Search for HB 88.
Posted on June 16 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ecray: "Is it less offensive and wrong to you now?"
In fact, it is, though more because of your first post, where you point out that they're talking about MSM as a "risk category". The sentence itself didn't mention these as risk categories, just as distinct methods of transmission. But if the CDC have identified these as categories of statistically risky behaviors, I have no quarrel.
You're right, I was reading too much into it. Thanks for steering me right.
On Study finds high rate of STDs in Alaska, but few cases of HIV
Posted on June 16 at 5:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The Centers for Disease Control define five categories for methods of transmission of HIV: men having sex with men; heterosexual contact with a partner known to have HIV...."
Or, to paraphrase: If a *heterosexual* person is going to catch HIV, it must be from another person with HIV -- but for gay men to catch it, it's enough that they be having sex with each other, regardless of their HIV status.
At least, that's how the quoted sentence reads to me.
Isn't that an offensive insinuation? Not to mention, just plain wrong?
On Study finds high rate of STDs in Alaska, but few cases of HIV
Posted on June 16 at 5:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
But "...one nation, indivisible, with liberty..." (but without "under God") is older still. Wasn't "under God" added in the 1950s, as a reaction to our national fear of "godless communism"?
On Good old USA
Posted on June 13 at 6:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
blue5011: "Exactly what principle of the Constitution has been violated? What numerous laws?"
You may read the 35 articles of impeachment and their documentation here: http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amome... This is a 65-page PDF and may take a few minutes to download over dialup connections.
Posted on June 12 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Given that the light saber is technology centuries beyond us, I'm curious to know why the News-Miner made no mention of its appearance in one of the above photos.
On Two South Fairbanks homes destroyed in separate fires; arson suspected in one
Posted on June 12 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Allyson Churches: "I see that a lot of Alaskans cannot drive more fuel efficient cars because they need four-wheel drive to get up and out of their driveways, or are just plain safer traversing our slippery roads."
h2os: "So if I can't walk 12 miles to my job, I don't need to work at all? Do I go on welfare so I can stay home and not use my car? Or do I give up my home (with no mortage) to buy a house in town so I can walk to work and make a $1500 mortgage payment?"
Isn't this the problem itself -- that we've collectively chosen to build a culture where automobile ownership is the ticket required for first-class citizenship?
I like what Nathan Vonnahme and Dove have to say about living close to your work, school, and shopping.
Of course, to some degree the problem is the choice individuals make to live far from their daily needs. But we've created a legal framework that makes such choices seem rational. (At least they seemed rational when fuel was cheap.) The State DOT subsidizes drivers through roads, rather than investing in public goods like rail. The Borough zones land uses apart from each other so that living near where you work, play, and shop is nearly impossible for most. Our land is taxed far less than our buildings, which encourages people to occupy large, unused plots, which in turn requires people to live farther from each other. Required lot lines and set-backs keep us from living compactly, even when we want to. We refuse to invest in good public transit (frequent, late-running, with wide coverage).
Yes, living near your work, school, shopping, and recreation is a splendid way to save on fuel -- if you can do it. But we need not just individual solutions, but collective solutions that benefit the greater community and *allow* people to make economical choices.
Here's a summary of my workshop on "Fairbanks after $10-per-gallon gasoline": http://fairbankspedestrian.wordpress.com... I don't pretend that it addresses the difficulty of heating our homes, but, since gasoline for our cars is such a large chunk of our overall energy consumption, reducing our need for cars should be high up on our community's agenda.
Page 1 of 14 | Next
Posted on June 17 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
(continued)
(3) We rarely need for "the state" -- or whatever we call the body authorized to compel people -- to foster individualism. We have enough store of individualism and self-interest on our own; the state must merely protect it.
(4) One of the state's goals should be to foster community, so that we have the opportunity to form reliable networks of family, friends, church, and charitable non-profit agencies. The state should provide the infrastructure so that community and social action may thrive.
(5) Another of the state's goals should be to help protect those people whom we -- through our collective and usually unintended actions -- have helped put in the hardest circumstances.
(6) Personal responsibility is important. But an excessive zeal for punishing (or denying help to) those who make bad choices can hinder our ability to do social good. That is, if our highest concern is making sure that nobody must ever pay for helping another out of his or her bad choice, we will have to abandon all hope of doing social good -- because some irresponsible people would *always* slip through. If we wish to have a society that performs collective action or promotes the general welfare, we must put a higher priority on helping others than on denying those who would take advantage.
--Paul
On Task force