01 November 2013

Post-Structuralism, I

Tennessee State Senator Brian Kelsey's Gift to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius - "Websites for Dummies"

Classic. HHS Sec gets "Websites for Dummies," it's times like these that renew my hope. 
Get it?
The 630 million dollar website that is either broke or breaking people's wallets/purses, which the US government is paying the same company to fix, all to sell insurance at a federal level, which is against the law b/c the US constitutional system is not allowed to profit from its public. Well that site is broken, because it was a government closed-market interpretation that doesn't make healthcare any cheaper, not even cheaper by the rates of its own site. Kill the Commiesaurus. We should all agree that humans and dinosaurs need not coexist. She looks like she doesn't get it, why the book, why ppl are ungrateful for the income assault, for the minimum wage underemployed clusterfuck, for the people who want empirical evidence and not a bureaucratic sob story, for a govt that makes costs increase and problems persist only to sell the problem as the solution, for a disconnected elitist pseudo-intellectual arrogant view of solutions as attacks on their liberal sensibilities. She glares of flippancy and arrogance, as if to wonder her purpose, from what I know she doesn't get, nor do her comrades in perpetual egocentric soul-devouring envy.

The word that is to fittingly describe the dangers of split infinitives.

Tao? Yesterday.
Zen? Today.
Love? Tomorrow.
Sex? Health.

I found this blurb yesterday, as follows,

Wikipedia, "Antipositivism (also known as interpretivism or interpretive sociology) is the view in social science that the social realm may not be subject to the same methods of investigation as the natural world; that academics must reject empiricism and the scientific method in the conduct of social research. Antipositivists hold that researchers should focus on understanding the interpretations that social actions have for the people being studied. Antipositivism relates to various historical debates in the philosophy and sociology of science. In modern practice, however, interpretivism may be equated with qualitative research methods, while positivist research is more quantitative. Positivists typically use research methods such as experiments and statistical surveys, while antipositivists use research methods which rely more on ethnographic fieldwork, conversation/discourse analysis or open-ended interviews. Positivist and antipositivist methods are sometimes combined."

I would add, also known as revisionism, or, lacking object permanence. Interpretists, seem like they could be called just plain lazy, I wouldn't call them pessimists, but I might call them protectionists or alarmists. It could be called liberalism because its an opinion before facts, sometimes never reaching point of fact, which is okay in some cases, but smacks of pessimism. A pessimist might say, even in theory, if the sky were to fall, we're all together fucked now, if not, probably still are. The interpretist says the sky IS falling, flakes, hosers, politicians, poseurs, fakes, jerks, dbags, etc., and despite proof they become revisionists and again insist the sky is falling. Antipositivists become parasites and destroyers. The current US mandated/imposition healthcare model is based on Switzerland's, they survived the socialists collapse of the global economy because they refuse to let people devalue their standard of living, not because they made everyone wear brown shirts.

...the quote above says 'for the people being studied' and 'rely on fieldwork', yet you and I know the behavior of the someone being observed instantly and forever changes when the person being watched learns they are being watched; that subject itself is called "Reactivity", and is the center of my fictional forays and in both my understanding and plight of this reality.

Wikipedia, "It [Reactivity] is a significant threat to a research study's Internal Validity and is typically Controlled when using Blind Experiment designs."

It brings one question, so I'll ask it.
Rhetorical Section:
In the state of gratification being that of materialism and the renunciation of emotional pain being directly corollary to acceptance of impermanence, the adoption of ascetics, and the renewal of focus in one's own life, there is peace in understanding and value in all honesty. If then such is so, are medical services a need of mind or body, in such a way that free will would prevent premature illness in the way that autocracy cannot, or are needs of the mind and body by a governing forced will (on others) a medical service, or if else is atonement and/or vindication and/or retribution the proper penance for not doing so properly in either case?