Thursday, February 22, 2007

Pork Roast



Allow me to apologize for the delay in getting this Pork Roast done. It takes an awful long time to roast a whole hog, and this is my first time doing that so, of course, it took even longer than average to get it done. Actually, it was first started way back last September but was left to "cure" for all these months. So sorry, too, if it's a little tough or otherwise unpalatable. ;-)

However, the timing is now even better since we can also take this as an opportunity to celebrate the Chinese Year of the Fire Pig (burn, baby, burn! lol).

And on top of that we could make this a kind of dinner theater in conjunction with CIP's fun story, The Easterner.

Oh, and one last note. Since pork isn't Kosher then consume at your own risk. ;-)



The 7 Commandments are abridged for the last time, simply reading, "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

George Orwell, Animal Farm



CapitalistImperialistPig did a post last year "Self Evident Truths" that pretty well sums up his porcine flavor.

His concoction doesn't agree with me so allow me to serve up my own alternative recipe. To start here is the first part of the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


First off, cip skipped that first paragraph. The following is a very important omission in his case:

...to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...


That's a big set-up for the "self evident truths" and "inalienable rights". The Forefathers are establishing that there are indeed "separate and equal" positions that are determined by Nature and God. What that means is that all people are equal no matter who they are, what characteristics they have, or whatever things separate them. The plumber's value is the same as the doctor's value even though they have been endowed with different skills, interests, etc. that put them in different "stations" in life.

Unlike the aristocracy of England they did not accept that being born into a particular family made someone in any way superior or inferior. Also the Forefathers did not believe or assert that they were in some way superior, or even more equal ;-), to the aristocrats. They said they were separate and equal. You can also think of that as meaning 'different and equal'. They meant it as individuals as well as collectively. (and please, let's not get in a tizzy over the slavery issue because it was a sociological error and has been mostly resolved, and this is my feast and that subject isn't welcome, thank you)

CIP goes into something about 'ordinary truths' and 'great truths' and how these "self evident truths" are 'great truths', but I'm not sure I understand the rhetorical difference between them. He said:

Ordinary truths, said Bohr, are statements whose opposites are false, whereas great truths, are distinguished by the circumstance that their opposites are also great truths.


Maybe I'm just dumb or lack some imagination at the moment, but that just doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, I think the "self evident truths" are not determined by myself or himself but by themselves. They are the truths that are determined by "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." I need a good example of a law of nature that qualifies as one of Bohr's "great truths" that is true and opposite at the same time. Or is that Bohr's odd way of saying that it is very Natural that there are "separate and equal" things?

Okay, I just looked it up found that the basis of Bohr's idea is his "principle of complementarity: that items could be separately analyzed as having several contradictory properties. For example, physicists currently conclude that light is both a wave and a stream of particles — two apparently mutually exclusive properties — on the basis of this principle." (wikipedia) That sounds pretty close to "separate/different and equal" to me. ;-)

But, CIP, I also found that Bohr said that the opposite of a great or profound truth might be another great or profound truth. That "might" and the other differences in wording do make a difference, just as different ingredients can't always be substituted in a recipe. And I'm glad I looked that up for some clarification because it sure didn't sound like something that Bohr would say the way that CIP presented it.

Let's move on to the great truths:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Those "great and self evident truths" are that

1) all men are created equal (by virtue of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, and 'equal' can be 'different' and 'separate'),

2) they are endowed by their Creator (or Nature) with certain unalienable Rights including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Unalienable Rights are not only Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness but include those, but I don't think there is any way to interpret that as saying that unalienable rights are negotiable.

If you apply Bohr's idea, as CIP tells it, to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness what happens? You get what CIP did. He degenerated into a rant about some aristocratic elite in control of the country and other mostly indecipherable things. Just like when a recipe goes wrong. Why is it his application of Bohr's idea failed in this case? Because he took a wrong turn in his calculations or he flubbed up his recipe:

Great truths are subject to the "Tinker Bell" effect. Their power can endure only as long as people believe in them.


Actually, that is probably a good summary of the Liberal Outlook on Life (L.O.L., lol). They would like to believe that the Laws of Nature, or the real "great truths" and therefore "self evident truths" can somehow become untruths or opposites or 'separate but not equal' just by refusing to accept them. Well, that's about as satisfying as a Tofurkey on Thanksgiving Day instead of a nice baked ham.

Remember I what I said a little ways up? 'Anyway, I think the "self evident truths" are not determined by myself or himself but by themselves. They are the truths that are determined by "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God."' If they are really "great truths" they will be true and powerful regardless of people's belief or non-belief in them.

Why is it so hard for Liberals to accept these Laws of Nature? 'Equality' does not mean even more equal. 'Separate' does not mean even more equal. 'Different' does not mean even more equal.

(please note the dangerous weapon carried by the pig: a pitchfork, no less!)

Well, now back to Animal Farm. Let's recall that the pigs led the Animal Farm after the Great Animal Revolt, and it didn't take long for them to start changing the Seven Commandments to suit their needs. Hmmm, doesn't that sound just like:

... the "Tinker Bell" effect. Their power can endure only as long as people believe in them

So here we are with the piggish thinking. They had no "great truths." They only applied the rules to everyone else and not themselves. Sounds just like a pig sty, doesn't it?



The Pigs became the new elite aristocracy because they didn't truly believe in equality for all. They only believed in themselves. The lived by the "Tinker Bell" philosophy of changeable truths. Not "self evident truths" or "great truths." They didn't respect the differences in the animals that separated them. They saw these differences as reasons to oppress and mistreat the others. They clearly had no understanding of the "separate but equal" aspects of Nature.

And it's quite apparent that CapitalistImperialistPig is not any different from any other Pigs. Except that now he has been roasted! ;-)

By the way, I must assure all that I wasn't the one who put the Big Pig on the spit, a job much too demanding of my stature. I asked some of my scary hillbilly buddies to take care of that for me. ;-) Funny thing, while they were working at it I did hear the tune Duelling Banjos playing. And I think I even heard one of them saying something about making pigs squeal.... Weeeeeee! Weeeeee! ;-)

Warning: Only those with very strong stomachs should click that last link. Trust me.


Side note: Apparently, the smell of roasted pork in the air has some pigs in Washington on the warpath. ;-)

12 comments:

nige said...

Yum that pig looks delicious!

Reminds me of a joke on the advertising banner of Lubos' blog:

++++++++++++++++

What do you call a pig that does karate?

++++++++++++++++

Pork chops.

Sorry!

Rae Ann said...

nige, LOL, thanks, that's funny.

The Guy said...

Cute story at uncyclopedia. Where else could we find the unvarnished truth.

I'm thinking that pork is sovereign to keep off muslims so you've got that going for ya.

But I do have to wonder what Porky would say about all this high-falutin' philosophy of yours? In his patented stutter "D-d-d-don't be ridiculous there's no such thing as communist ghosts!" just before a 16 ton anvil squashed him flat. Yum! pressed pork.

Oh, and I got a perverted word for verification: bunmyljz

rjb said...

Dear Rae Ann

Very strong message. Sounds like a we shall never surrender. Well done!. All my support. Regarding this nice friend, the pig, I'm glad to introduce you to the "caviar" of cured hams. Our peculiar black hooves pigs.

http://www.infohub.com/TRAVEL/SIT/sit_pages/11255.html

Have a very nice saturday

r.

rafa said...

Sorry Rae Ann, that was me.

Rae Ann said...

Hi Guy, thanks, but "high falutin"? You've got to be kidding! ;-) Funny word verification. Put some barbeque pork on that bun.. lol Have a nice Sunday!

Rae Ann said...

Hi Rafa!

Thanks! Wow, that tour sounds fascinating and delicious. I'll have to check the local gourmet store to see if they have some of that ham. And if I can afford it. ;-) Have a great Sunday!

Bee said...

argh. great. I just wrote a comment, and it got lost *not-my-day*

sorry, I'm currently not in the mood to write it again. will come back later...

Bee said...

can we have a vegetarian post at some point" ;-)

Bee said...

*yawn*

okay, here's a second try on my comment. My mathematical mind always has kind of a problem with statements like this

all men are created equal (by virtue of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, and 'equal' can be 'different' and 'separate'),

the obvious questions this raises are

A) What exactly means 'men'? This might sound silly, but think about it for a while. Is being human a matter of our DNA? Are certain types of monkeys also to be considered human and enjoy human rights? Does being human end and start? Does serious brain damage disqualify? From which state on is a fetus human? Which brings us directly to...

B) what means 'created', and

C) what means 'equal'? The addition by virtue of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, and 'equal' can be 'different' and 'separate' Doesn't really help. If being equal means the laws of nature apply to all humans, but the laws of nature weren't laws of nature if they wouldn't apply to us then the statement is completely empty.

One way or the other, you see I'd make a very poor lawyer or philospher. I like to know exactly what the argument is about... And regarding a definition for what means 'human', this is an issue I've tried to point out for the party I've been committed to for several years (back in Germany). They were like: what's she talking about? I'm perfectly sure people will come back to the question, give it a decade or two. Same thing with a right for information. (By now there are some people who've picked up that).

Best,

B.

Rae Ann said...

Hi Bee,

Yeah, you raise some interesting questions. I think we have to remember that when the Declaration was written people didn't know as much as we know now about DNA and so on.

A) by men, I think it means humankind, not animals of some other variety. What determines a species? I'm not really sure, but I think we all recognize humans when we see them. It will be curious to see what happens when a new human species evolves and how that will play out.

B) when they said "created" that was the only way they knew at that time how to say that humans came to be.

C) I'm not sure I understand your question here. What they meant by created "equal" is that every person is as much a person as any other and has all the same rights as any other person regardless of family status, etc. Remember that they were revolting against a monarchy and social system based on birth class (but it could be bought too for enough money) that gave some people more rights than others.

Like you have baby A born to a servant and you have baby B born to a wealthy land baron, well, baby A and baby B are equal.

A = B by virtue of the laws of Nature/God, even though they are very different individually they still each have the same basic rights as any other human being.

I'm sorry if I'm not helping any.

Rae Ann said...

Oh, yeah, Bee, are you a vegetarian? I'll see what I can cook up for you!