A musing Beam

Well, there are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the wheel of time, but book 14 was AN ending.  This article is about the nerds that understand what the heck that means.  (I warn you again later, but there are a couple of minor spoilers, mainly in noting what does NOT get resolved.) Okay, so Robert Jordan began publishing the Wheel of Time in 1990.  He passed away after the 11th book, and Brandon Sanderson (of Mystborn fame, among other novels) was brought on to finish the series.  He wrote the last 3 books, and they are among the best in the series.  I'm very glad that Sanderson wrote books 12 and 13, and I'm glad he wrote the chapter The Last Battle for book 14 ... but I wish that Robert Jordan had written another half a book afterwords, and I hope to explain why here. For those that love the Wheel of Time series, Jordan created characters that we often know better than our closest friends.  I can predict Perrin or Matt's decisions eas...

This is the last in a 3-part series on the issues raised by the violence in Newtown, CT.  The first was on mental illness ( http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/12/issues-raised-by-newtown-pt-1-mental.html ), the second covered gun control ( http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2013/01/issues-raised-by-newtown-pt-2-guns.html ), and this one addresses our need to better handle the shifts in culture that our more connected world evokes. Our changing culture Our culture is changing in ways that make it easier for people to access materials with less social interaction. If I want to only read conservatives' posts, or jihadists', or Wiccans', or animal welfare rights advocates', or ...  I can comfortably do so.  I can watch snuff films without anyone knowing.  I can practice what it would be like to kill people in great detail by purchasing a video game, and I can order all of that online with relative anonymity.  Of course, I can also do all the neat stuff that we re...

This entry is the second in a 3 part series on the issues raised by the horrific violence in Newtown, CT.  The first was on mental illness (http://t.co/NOJfvN6Y), and the last will be on cultural changes.  This one is on guns and gun control.  Unless you like legal stuff, feel free to skip the afterward on  the Constitution (it's marked). In summary, I think that Newtown gives us very little evidence about the need for changes in the way we handle gun laws.  It does give us a reason to pause and think, though, and so it is reasonable to take that time to inspect our gun policies and how we got there.  In the end, I think people should be able to defend themselves with small arms, and hunters should be able to hunt with them, with relatively little government oversight, but that significantly more oversight is good once we go very far into the assault weapon spectrum and beyond. An overview of a strategy The government should not be allowed to assume th...

This is the first in a 3 part series on the child murders in Newtown, CT.  This first installment is about the biggest issue raised, in my opinion: Our country's mental health policies.  The second will be about another hot-button issue: Gun control.  The final one will be on the need for us to better handle the cultural shifts we are experiencing. I am going to try a new tactic and keep the blogs shorter. I can discuss sources and nuances in the comments, and shortness will hopefully widen the potential audience. Mental Illness Most of us seem to think that only "crazy" people would go to a public place and murder as many strangers as possible.  True enough, but while "craziness" may be necessary, it is not sufficient -- it does not cause the incidents, but instead it permits them by removing one of the barriers (individual sanity) to such mass, "senseless" violence happening. To state what should be overly obvious, most people suffering from...

Introduction For a (hopefully refreshing) change of pace, this post has absolutely nothing to do with politics.  Instead, it is about how to allocate chores and rent between roommates. Let's say you live with 3 other people.  All of you move in to a 4-bedroom apartment at the same time, and all of you are on the lease.  You pay the same amount, use utilities the same, and eat the same.  You can add in whatever considerations you want to make all of you absolutely equal with respect to each other, how much space you have, and how much you monetarily contribute.  (For present purposes, let's also say that you all agree on how many chores should be done, how well they should be done, and on what schedule.) The basics Default rules Now, how do you allocate chores?  I think one important distinction is who causes the need for a chore to spring into being, and one way to think about that is "passive" chores versus "caused" chores (my terms).  Passive...

Here is another small entry.  This is solely to debunk the silly notion that President Obama is a socialist.  It is made again and again by those on the radical right.  Unfortunately, others keep buying in, I fear because they do not pay attention to any outlet that doesn't spew conservative dogma. So, here are the basics.  Socialism means to advocate government or employee ownership of industries. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism )  If the steel worker gets his paycheck from the state, and not from a private owner, that is socialism for steel production.  If all hospitals are run by the government (see England), that is social medicine.  If, on the other hand, doctors work for private hospitals who are paid for their services by various customers, including the state, this is not socialism.  If everyone received health insurance through the state, we would have socialized health insurance (but not socialized medicine).  Of course...

This is a quick note specifically discussing whether the contraceptive requirements in the Affordable Care Act implemention are unconstitutional. For those that don't know (and where have you been?), "Obamacare" requires that companies that provide healthcare have to offer contraceptive services without co-pay.  There are some exceptions (small businesses; organizations with religious missions, employees, and clients; grandfathered plans), but let's ignore them.  Some private companies are suing because they say this mandate forces them to pay for services that they find morally repugnant. The first court to hear the case on its merits (as opposed to dodging the question for various procedural reasons) gave a pretty resounding "No":  This does not substantially restrict religious freedom.  In, O'Brien v. HHS ( http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/missouri/moedce/4:2012cv00476/119215/50/0.pdf?ts=1348931108 ), the district court said ...