I started thinking today about the past 30 years. One thing occurred to me: my entire life, right down to the moment of my birth, has been about defying convention and authority. In truth, I'm convinced that the problem with authority is genetic. See, I was born 30 years ago today, and I am aware that it was to two people who had problems accepting the status quo. So, below is a list of things that lead up to me, and what was expected to happen.
My father had problems with the entire concept of convention. When most people who grew up when he did knew that they would be married once, that was clearly a sign to him that divorce and infidelity was an option. He was married four times (that the family knows of), and for a while, two of those marriages was concurrent. The Christian faith says to marry once, the Islamic faith says that polygamy is accepted. He was born and raised Christian. He met his concurrent wife (at the time) while in an Islamic nation. The entire time he was married, to all of his wives, he clearly had no problems with potentially leaving a few other genetic markers around. Officially, I am his fifth child and only known son. Unofficially, I am his only known son, but that could be an entirely different matter in truth as he clearly had his share of mistresses. Dad, thanks for defying convention. And then, for your fourth (known) marriage, you had to go out and find my mother. Oh, and when most men have given up on reproduction, you conceived me in your 57th year, and I was born just short of your 58th.
My mother was always too darned smart for her own good. She was four when she started first grade. She ended up being the only daughter of her parents who fled the authority of the Chinese cultural revolution and ended up in the Dutch-Islamic colony of Indonesia. And then, with a mother that had converted to Islam, she managed to grow up Catholic. Oh, and if that wouldn't defy convention enough, you had to marry this American.
Now, when most people talk about jungle fever, they think of interracial cross-pollination. Nope, not only did my parents who came from two entirely different cultures, but two entirely different socio-economic backgrounds, meet, they met in the jungles of East Kalimantan or what is commonly known as Borneo. Yep, I am a direct result of a nasty and horribly literal case of jungle fever.
Then of course, is the fact that I was scheduled to be born on Christmas day. In fact, I was scheduled to be the fourth generation in a row on my mother's direct line to be born on Christmas. Oops. I clearly decided that being born on that day wouldn't do. Also, I would have been the only male born of that line to be born on that day. Yep, that clearly wouldn't do either. So while convention would have dictated that I would have either been born in Asia or the States, I had to be born three days early and in Europe. Oh, and while most are born either by Caesarian or in a completely natural way, I had to be induced. Apparently, the extra three days without being induced would have been quite fatal to my mother. Then of course, after I was born, she made the decision that though I was born to carry two passports as a subject of the Queen and as an American, she insured that I would carry only an American passport. Of course, mother would insist that I speak Oxford at home, even though I was being reared in the states.
I gotta tell you, thirty years of defying convention and authority is clearly in my blood. Yup, I attribute all of it to my unconventional circumstances. May the next thirty years be just as odd.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Christmas
Let me be straight with you, the expression "Happy Holidays" just does not fly with me. Between Thanksgiving and the New Year there are the Winter Solstice, Hanukkah, and Christmas. Kwanzaa is not one of those legitimate holidays. If a person uses the expression "Happy Holidays" around me, I will ask them to clarify. I would prefer it if they used Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah around me. Those are legitimate holidays. But Happy Holidays is just a cop-out for people who do not wish to offend anyone. And in the process, that offends the hell out of me.
The United States is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. Kwanzaa was started by a black separatist who did not think that black Americans should be Christian. It was started to supplant Christmas in the 1960s. As a result, Kwanzaa is a bullshit holiday. And heaven forbid that someone names that bullshit holiday in front of my face because I will correct them on it.
Oh, and while I'm at it, Wicca is a bullshit religion. Roman Paganism is legitimate, Celtic Paganism is legitimate, Norse Pantheism is legitimate. Wicca was an attempt in the 1960s to resurrect Celtic Pantheism/Druidic practices by an American.
And on that note, to my readers, Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, and may your new year be wonderful.
The United States is founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. Kwanzaa was started by a black separatist who did not think that black Americans should be Christian. It was started to supplant Christmas in the 1960s. As a result, Kwanzaa is a bullshit holiday. And heaven forbid that someone names that bullshit holiday in front of my face because I will correct them on it.
Oh, and while I'm at it, Wicca is a bullshit religion. Roman Paganism is legitimate, Celtic Paganism is legitimate, Norse Pantheism is legitimate. Wicca was an attempt in the 1960s to resurrect Celtic Pantheism/Druidic practices by an American.
And on that note, to my readers, Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, and may your new year be wonderful.
Monday, December 3, 2007
The Fourth Estate
I haven't posted in a while, but I would like to take the time to address an issue that has been jabbing into my gut recently.
The news media has taken a great many liberties over the years. How many of us would really be all that surprised to hear that one of the vaunted reporters had made an error, and that by doing so, drew an inaccurate conclusion? Basically, that is a tactful way of saying, would anyone be surprised if it turned out that one or all of them didn't know what they were talking about?
I very much doubt it. What concerns me, though, is their claim to some form of higher justice. "We are in the business of reporting the news." Isn't that what they say? Interesting that there is no mention of truth. The only requisite is that the story garners interest.
So, how can they honestly say that they are the People's Voice? How can they say that they represent the interests of the "Common Man" when they are not held accountable for their foibles?
Oh, and where in the Declaration of Independance or the Constitution of the United States does it give the press the esteemed position of watchdogging the government? Last I checked, there were three pillars in our governmental structure, not four.
The Freedom of the Press is guaranteed by the Constitution. What this means is that no charges can be brought against the press for presenting a dissenting article that refutes what is released by the government. There were once even laws that required that the information be factual.
Do you want to know why? Ever hear of the term "Yellow Journalism"? Dictionary.com provides the following definition:
yellow journalism n. Journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers.
I don't know the origin of the phrase, but I can tell you where I first heard it. It was in U.S. History, back in Middle School. What they were talking about were two of the most embarassing moments of our governmental history. Because of public misunderstanding and outrage that was a direct result of unethical reporting practices, the U.S. Government did two things.
1. They entered into a conflict that is remembered today as the Spanish/American War. The press reported that the ship that blew up was attacked and sunk. Forensic evidence later confirmed that the explosion came from INSIDE the vessel, not outside.
2. They unlawfully, and without invitation, annexed the Hawaiian Archipelago, believing the papers when they said that a majority of the inhabitants of those islands wished for it to happen.
I am quite certain that many, if not all, of the people that read this can come up with even more examples of this manner of reporting, but, following the findings after the Spanish/American War, the goverment set down guidelines for honest and ethical reporting.
In their need to keep readership, the Major News Networks and Publications could not allow their most effective weapon, sensationalism, to be taken from them. Lobbying considerable pressure and finacial support, they were able to either get the restrictions removed, or lightened.
The end of honest and ethical reporting was heralded by the courts deciding back in the 1980's that the reporters did not have to reveal their C.I.'s (confidential informants) identities. I honestly think that they snuck that one in under the radar when the law enforcement agencies were lobbying to protect their own, but whether or not this was so does not change the result.
Today, the only accountability that a reporter must worry about is to their editor. A simple retraction can forgive many an inaccuracy, and the government wouldn't DARE interfere. Can you say, "Censorship"?
I don't know that there is any easy or good fix to this problem, but one needs to be found. The days when we, as a people and as a nation, can be lead around unquestioningly by the nose by someone whose sole purpose is to sell papers instead of reporting the truth should be long gone.
If they aren't, well, then we are not nearly as civilized as we claim to be, are we?
The news media has taken a great many liberties over the years. How many of us would really be all that surprised to hear that one of the vaunted reporters had made an error, and that by doing so, drew an inaccurate conclusion? Basically, that is a tactful way of saying, would anyone be surprised if it turned out that one or all of them didn't know what they were talking about?
I very much doubt it. What concerns me, though, is their claim to some form of higher justice. "We are in the business of reporting the news." Isn't that what they say? Interesting that there is no mention of truth. The only requisite is that the story garners interest.
So, how can they honestly say that they are the People's Voice? How can they say that they represent the interests of the "Common Man" when they are not held accountable for their foibles?
Oh, and where in the Declaration of Independance or the Constitution of the United States does it give the press the esteemed position of watchdogging the government? Last I checked, there were three pillars in our governmental structure, not four.
The Freedom of the Press is guaranteed by the Constitution. What this means is that no charges can be brought against the press for presenting a dissenting article that refutes what is released by the government. There were once even laws that required that the information be factual.
Do you want to know why? Ever hear of the term "Yellow Journalism"? Dictionary.com provides the following definition:
yellow journalism n. Journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers.
I don't know the origin of the phrase, but I can tell you where I first heard it. It was in U.S. History, back in Middle School. What they were talking about were two of the most embarassing moments of our governmental history. Because of public misunderstanding and outrage that was a direct result of unethical reporting practices, the U.S. Government did two things.
1. They entered into a conflict that is remembered today as the Spanish/American War. The press reported that the ship that blew up was attacked and sunk. Forensic evidence later confirmed that the explosion came from INSIDE the vessel, not outside.
2. They unlawfully, and without invitation, annexed the Hawaiian Archipelago, believing the papers when they said that a majority of the inhabitants of those islands wished for it to happen.
I am quite certain that many, if not all, of the people that read this can come up with even more examples of this manner of reporting, but, following the findings after the Spanish/American War, the goverment set down guidelines for honest and ethical reporting.
In their need to keep readership, the Major News Networks and Publications could not allow their most effective weapon, sensationalism, to be taken from them. Lobbying considerable pressure and finacial support, they were able to either get the restrictions removed, or lightened.
The end of honest and ethical reporting was heralded by the courts deciding back in the 1980's that the reporters did not have to reveal their C.I.'s (confidential informants) identities. I honestly think that they snuck that one in under the radar when the law enforcement agencies were lobbying to protect their own, but whether or not this was so does not change the result.
Today, the only accountability that a reporter must worry about is to their editor. A simple retraction can forgive many an inaccuracy, and the government wouldn't DARE interfere. Can you say, "Censorship"?
I don't know that there is any easy or good fix to this problem, but one needs to be found. The days when we, as a people and as a nation, can be lead around unquestioningly by the nose by someone whose sole purpose is to sell papers instead of reporting the truth should be long gone.
If they aren't, well, then we are not nearly as civilized as we claim to be, are we?
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Time to Stop Using Non-Lethal Methods
Our good friends at the UN and Amnesty International have decided to further persecute the government of the country that made them possible and the system that made it possible for them to operate in peace. Those two organizations have declared war on good old fashioned capitalism and the United States and Taser International by calling the use of a taser a form of torture.
Now I personally have been on the receiving end of a taser (voluntarily so that I would know what it was before I made personal decisions about it). I will openly tell you that it is a wonderfully unpleasant and highly effective experience that I would not like to repeat. I would not, however, call it torture. I call it a non-lethal and effective deterrent to deadly force for those people who have compunctions about gun ownership or potentially having to take a life in the service of their own self-defense.
That being said, I also believe that it is a far more effective deterrent in the field when used by police and military personnel than bullets. I also believe that bullets have a place. But when your job is to serve the peace or get someone back for interrogation alive, there is no better tool. And in the end, the taser, like a hammer, a wrench, a computer, and a firearm, is a tool. The fact is that we can use anything that comes our way for either lethal or non-lethal means if we choose to. And unlike many alternatives, a taser causes no loss of blood and does not need to be precise to have a non-lethal effect. Think about it, just try to put a bullet or a knife through someones critical mass without making them bleed out or killing them... good luck. Killing a person with a taser, on the other hand, is extremely hard. I mean, you seriously have to try to kill a person with a taser to kill them, and even then, it's not guaranteed.
But, if the U.N. and Amnesty International want to call it torture, I guess we can always get our police and military back to shooting all suspects and killing them rather than being tried for war crimes. Because if we cannot use non-lethal means, and talking won't always work, we are left with only one option.
Now I personally have been on the receiving end of a taser (voluntarily so that I would know what it was before I made personal decisions about it). I will openly tell you that it is a wonderfully unpleasant and highly effective experience that I would not like to repeat. I would not, however, call it torture. I call it a non-lethal and effective deterrent to deadly force for those people who have compunctions about gun ownership or potentially having to take a life in the service of their own self-defense.
That being said, I also believe that it is a far more effective deterrent in the field when used by police and military personnel than bullets. I also believe that bullets have a place. But when your job is to serve the peace or get someone back for interrogation alive, there is no better tool. And in the end, the taser, like a hammer, a wrench, a computer, and a firearm, is a tool. The fact is that we can use anything that comes our way for either lethal or non-lethal means if we choose to. And unlike many alternatives, a taser causes no loss of blood and does not need to be precise to have a non-lethal effect. Think about it, just try to put a bullet or a knife through someones critical mass without making them bleed out or killing them... good luck. Killing a person with a taser, on the other hand, is extremely hard. I mean, you seriously have to try to kill a person with a taser to kill them, and even then, it's not guaranteed.
But, if the U.N. and Amnesty International want to call it torture, I guess we can always get our police and military back to shooting all suspects and killing them rather than being tried for war crimes. Because if we cannot use non-lethal means, and talking won't always work, we are left with only one option.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Worth Reading: A True Story About Numbers
I of all authors and posters know about the validity of numbers and how statistical information can be influenced by a removal of one or more pieces of data. Let me tell you a little secret about my primary line of training: I am a statistical analyst. So when I run across stories about how policy has been influenced by bad statistics, I do some inquiries to validate those stories, otherwise, they are just stories. But when I find people who share divergent political views from my own who claim to have proof that certain members of my trade are doing things that make my trade look bad, I really listen. And if they have a scientific or math mindset to back it, that makes it that much more worth looking into. Guess where I'm going with this: GLOBAL WARMING.
One of my favourite authors of all time is Orson Scott Card. Politically and religiously, he and I do not agree. But I read the following article written by him and it validates what I myself have been doing. Now, I could explain in detail how he validates my stance that man-caused global warming is just another crock. Or, I could let you read his article, because he is just a far better author than I am, and his way of delivering information and telling stories is just vastly superior.
So please, if you have any desire to learn the truth about global warming, read his article, then do your own follow-on research to validate it.
Oh, and the image is the sole property of the Second Tier Politics and the Iconoclast Report. Copyright 2007. All Rights Reserved
One of my favourite authors of all time is Orson Scott Card. Politically and religiously, he and I do not agree. But I read the following article written by him and it validates what I myself have been doing. Now, I could explain in detail how he validates my stance that man-caused global warming is just another crock. Or, I could let you read his article, because he is just a far better author than I am, and his way of delivering information and telling stories is just vastly superior.
So please, if you have any desire to learn the truth about global warming, read his article, then do your own follow-on research to validate it.
Oh, and the image is the sole property of the Second Tier Politics and the Iconoclast Report. Copyright 2007. All Rights Reserved
Monday, November 19, 2007
Creepy Factor
The following link just takes creepy to a new, albeit somewhat funny, level. A Canadian of Southeast Asian descent created a fembot in a wheelchair. Unfortunately, the fembot looks far too close to being human, but far enough away to make me, as a writer and proponent of advancing technology to get the heebie-jeebies. And then of course, there is the ultra-creepy bit when the good doctor gropes her. Of course, humour ensues as she responds by slapping him. But did he really have to grab her jubblies on the video?
If you want to know more about human-android relations, and see the video, follow the link: Project Aiko
Via Engadget
If you want to know more about human-android relations, and see the video, follow the link: Project Aiko
Via Engadget
Friday, November 9, 2007
Friday Free For All - Cute
Sometimes, with all the negative news out there, I just need something to make me smile. For all those negative moments, instead of turning to anti-depressants, I turn to my favorite source of positive stuff: CuteOverload. And when that isn't enough, there is always The Daily Puppy. Of course, if I was at Edwards AFB, I might go to their Supply squadron and harass Wizzo, the Military Working Cat.
But until then, I leave you with the cutest video I've been exposed to all week: The Joker
But until then, I leave you with the cutest video I've been exposed to all week: The Joker
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Nationalized Health Care
Everyday, I hear about some politician or political platform touting the need for nationalized health care in the states. Let me tell you, that concept scares the daylights out of me. And it's not just because I started my life as a Brit. More than anything, it is because I have lived with the U.S. government controlling my health care for the past 8 years. Now if you are wondering how I managed to luck out with that one, it is because I served on Active Duty for 6 years and currently have the option of receiving care from the Veterans Administration as a result of those years of service to my government.
So, if you, my readers, are convinced that government health care is a good thing, let me tell you now to talk to any member of the armed forces currently serving on active duty. Ask them if they would trust the doctors on base for anything outside of trauma care (of which, they are by far the best). Most will tell you that they would prefer to go to a doctor off post who is a professional rather than go to a doctor or dentist on base who practices medicine.
Need more proof? If any of my readers remember the 1980s, they would remember the fact that during the 80's and 90's the VA medical system was the object of scandals that would make getting medical care in Cuba more desirable at that point in time.
Of course, if you want something that hits closer to home and is more recent, I have two words for you: WALTER REED.
Now, my question to my readers is this, if the government can't take care of its own defenders, what on earth makes you think it can take care of the rest of its own citizens? Our current medical system might be broken, but leave the government in charge and every day, you will wake up to Dr. SNAFU at BOHICA Medical Center and health care that would best be described as FUBAR.
So, if you, my readers, are convinced that government health care is a good thing, let me tell you now to talk to any member of the armed forces currently serving on active duty. Ask them if they would trust the doctors on base for anything outside of trauma care (of which, they are by far the best). Most will tell you that they would prefer to go to a doctor off post who is a professional rather than go to a doctor or dentist on base who practices medicine.
Need more proof? If any of my readers remember the 1980s, they would remember the fact that during the 80's and 90's the VA medical system was the object of scandals that would make getting medical care in Cuba more desirable at that point in time.
Of course, if you want something that hits closer to home and is more recent, I have two words for you: WALTER REED.
Now, my question to my readers is this, if the government can't take care of its own defenders, what on earth makes you think it can take care of the rest of its own citizens? Our current medical system might be broken, but leave the government in charge and every day, you will wake up to Dr. SNAFU at BOHICA Medical Center and health care that would best be described as FUBAR.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Another Hidden Headline
Well, here is another headline I expect to not see anytime soon thanks to the media. It looks like a phase I HIV vaccine test is working!
On another note, I apologize to my readers for not posting last week. My body and I were failing to get along with each other.
On another note, I apologize to my readers for not posting last week. My body and I were failing to get along with each other.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Image Idenification...
Well, it was bound to happen. The day was bound to come when I would try to take on the ways and means that we use to describe ourselves. While I feel confident in my ability to understand the topic that I am addressing, I am not sure of my ability to explain it.
Here's what you get for two pennies...
Have you ever looked back on your life and tried to remember just how many different labels that were ascribed to you? I have. The list is rather long, and there are some that are certainly missing, but here are a few highlights: Dork, Nerd, Geek, Dreamer, Loser, Asshole, Elitist, Professional, Philosopher, Cowboy, Redneck, and Country.
Oh, and I mustn't forget Hellion, Crazy-Person, and Wack-Job.
Not a bad list, if I do say so myself...*grin*
I guess if you really wish to understand them, you must realize that none of them are a profession. They are all descriptions given of my character. Some were given by my friends, some by enemies. Some were from jobs I have held, and some are a statement of my background and way of looking at life.
I remember quite well how much those labels hurt when I was younger. Never being one of the "cool-kids", I felt quite painfully the distance that existed between me and my peers. As I got older, there came ones that I took pride in. What was strange was how some of them that used to hurt, became a badge of merit over time.
Not that anyone that reads this would find the concept difficult to believe, but here is an example of one such change. In primary school, I was a nerd, and an outsider. As a senior, I was a nerd...and hosting chemistry study-hall for a number of the varsity cheerleaders. Were any of them my friends, no...not as I recall. But it was quite a boost for my self-esteem at the time...
But, I am getting off topic here.
What I have spent some time thinking about is how, as I get older, the power of these ascribed labels has diminished. Well, that isn't exactly correct. It isn't that they have diminished, but rather that they no longer have the power to hurt me.
Somewhere along the line, I realized that everyone has the same problem that I did. For lack of a better way of expressing it, they started "believing their own press."
Upon realizing this, I decided to put some thought into why the labels were so important. I came to the conclusion that the reason why they exist is quite basic. They exist because there is a need in many to feel special. Be honest, with yourself if no one else, and answer the following question:
How many of you out there were brought up to believe that you were something special? How many were taught that they could be anything that they wanted to be?
I don't think that I would be very far off in stating that most of us have heard those words.
What does this have to do with labels? I'm glad you didn't ask...
You see, the labels exist because all of us are trying to find out just what it is that is special about ourselves. We look at the people that we see, and compare ourselves to them. Differences are cataloged. The ones that make us feel superior go to one side. The ones that make us feel inferior go to another.
Here's the kicker: For most, the only traits that we choose to show others are the ones that make us feel superior. Need proof? Look at the social groups that existed in your high school, or in your job, or even in your recreation time. I am willing to bet that there was at least one person that was a "mascot." There was at least one person that didn't fit the mold of the rest of the automatons, but was accepted. That person was usually the butt of most of the jokes and pranks, but they were kept around because just by being who they were, they made the other members of the group feel better about themselves.
The same reason is responsible for many of the talk shows today. Be honest, do you really watch them because you hope that the person will have some kind of epiphany, and out of some altruistic need on your part, you watch in hopes that you see it?
Come on, folks!
People watch those shows because they get the opportunity to see someone who's life is even more messed up than they believe their own to be! Many will even go so far as to say, "Well, at least MY life isn't THAT bad...!"
Sure, there are the heartwarming stories of triumph. Do we watch them because we want to see them overcome? Don't fool yourself. Most watch them because they look at their inferior column and say, "Well, if THAT person, whom I am better than, can do THAT, then I can too!"
Here is my question, if any are brave enough to answer: Why do so many feel it necessary to tear someone down to make them feel better about themselves? Why is it so hard for us to admit that someone might be better than we are at something?
I know, I know. You want to know what this has to do with labels. Make the point already, right?
Here's my point. The reason why the labels no longer bother me as much as they used to is because I am making a conscious effort to admit to my weaknesses, my failures if you will. If I don't like failing in one aspect of my life, then I do something about it. If it doesn't bother me to admit that someone is better than I am at something, then I do absolutely nothing.
Why, you might ask?
Because I don't see how competing for a prize that I have no desire to win makes sense!
I don't care if I am the richest, smartest, most famous, most successful, most respected person in the world. The only thing that I am willing to strive to be is the best Me that I can.
Let me tell you something, folks...
When that day comes, my parents will have been right. I truly will be something truly special.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Friday Free For All: Hero Worship and the Eternal Child
Today, I had a unique opportunity to walk among giants. I had lunch with men who are very much responsible for my current way of life. I had lunch with Enlisted Pilots of the U.S. Army Air Corps. A few of them became household names but most of them went on to lead exceptional, but quite ordinary lives. Thirty-eight of them made it to lunch. Four of them spoke to all of us. I share a table with one of the lesser known pilots who, as luck would have it, made my world feel very small.
Why am I bringing up men who I had lunch with, when so clearly, I am bent on attempting to make my readership think? Well, that is easy: listening to them made me think about the qualities we so desperately cling to in our heroes. And what I came up with is that our heroes share many of the same qualities as children. The biggest difference is that our heroes have bigger bodies and get paid for what they do.
So what are the qualities? The first quality shared among all heroes, male and female, is that they dream. Children dream. Heroes dream. The most successful folks on earth dream and are not afraid to dream. This quality of dreaming is critical because dreams have a habit of becoming a reality. Another thing that makes dreaming critical is that most adults have abandoned their dreams in favor of something else, mostly their jobs, family, and trivial excuses too numerous to count.
The second quality that is universal to our heroes and idols is the inability to comprehend the word "impossible". Most of the people we idolize and call heroes simply do not understand that things cannot be done. The reason they believe that is that in their experience, they have yet to be proven wrong. Think about it, General Charles Yeager had no idea whether or not breaking the sound barrier would kill him. It was popular belief at the time that if you broke that barrier, you would be broken beyond repair. He was the first man to break that barrier, and he did it while suffering from the flu. Clearly, the word impossible was not in his vocabulary.
A third critical quality is the ability to have fun with their careers. Think about the most successful professional athletes, musicians, entertainers, and politicians. They all enjoy the fact that to them, their jobs are not jobs, but rather their hobby, and they just happen to get paid for it. It's not a job, it's playtime.
And suddenly it occurred to me that as children, we ALL had these same qualities. We dreamed because we could. We acted on those dreams because no one told us that our dreams were impossible. And we did it all when we were playing. And we try to recapture that through our children, and through our heroes.
So today, this one goes out to the nearly 3000 enlisted flyers of the United States Army Air Corps who, as it turned out, had far more aces in terms of raw percentage than their officer counterparts in WWII. Of those 3000 who flew between 1912 and 1942, about 370 are alive today. Among them, 38 were able to attend today's function. Below is a list of a few of those who made it:
Why am I bringing up men who I had lunch with, when so clearly, I am bent on attempting to make my readership think? Well, that is easy: listening to them made me think about the qualities we so desperately cling to in our heroes. And what I came up with is that our heroes share many of the same qualities as children. The biggest difference is that our heroes have bigger bodies and get paid for what they do.
So what are the qualities? The first quality shared among all heroes, male and female, is that they dream. Children dream. Heroes dream. The most successful folks on earth dream and are not afraid to dream. This quality of dreaming is critical because dreams have a habit of becoming a reality. Another thing that makes dreaming critical is that most adults have abandoned their dreams in favor of something else, mostly their jobs, family, and trivial excuses too numerous to count.
The second quality that is universal to our heroes and idols is the inability to comprehend the word "impossible". Most of the people we idolize and call heroes simply do not understand that things cannot be done. The reason they believe that is that in their experience, they have yet to be proven wrong. Think about it, General Charles Yeager had no idea whether or not breaking the sound barrier would kill him. It was popular belief at the time that if you broke that barrier, you would be broken beyond repair. He was the first man to break that barrier, and he did it while suffering from the flu. Clearly, the word impossible was not in his vocabulary.
A third critical quality is the ability to have fun with their careers. Think about the most successful professional athletes, musicians, entertainers, and politicians. They all enjoy the fact that to them, their jobs are not jobs, but rather their hobby, and they just happen to get paid for it. It's not a job, it's playtime.
And suddenly it occurred to me that as children, we ALL had these same qualities. We dreamed because we could. We acted on those dreams because no one told us that our dreams were impossible. And we did it all when we were playing. And we try to recapture that through our children, and through our heroes.
So today, this one goes out to the nearly 3000 enlisted flyers of the United States Army Air Corps who, as it turned out, had far more aces in terms of raw percentage than their officer counterparts in WWII. Of those 3000 who flew between 1912 and 1942, about 370 are alive today. Among them, 38 were able to attend today's function. Below is a list of a few of those who made it:
- Brigadier General (Retired) Charles "Chuck" Yeager
- Carroll Shelby
- Brigadier General (Retired) Edwin F. Wenglar
- Lt. Col (Retired) Clark and his wife Mary - Thank you for the conversation!
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Penalized for Success
First, it was bad enough that they taxed us to begin with. But now, right as I, and so many of us stand on the verge of success, I find out that the Democrats want to penalize us further for that success. And in exchange, they wish to redistribute that tax money to people they deem "under-privileged".
Think about it, as a person, would you rather make $149,000.00 or $$150,000.00? Would you rather make $20,000.00 or $500,000.00? I know it seems like common sense, that you would prefer to make more money, right? But what if the cost went up from 15% to 30%? See, right now, I am in an income bracket whereby the government takes about 15 cents of every dollar I earn before I ever see that dollar. The more money I make, the more I pay in taxes on this graduated system. Now you might think that this system is fair, but what if I told you that under if the current system, you already get penalized for success? See, for those of you who are on that bubble of making $150k, but have not crossed that line, it makes more sense to make $149k because if you cross that magic line to $150k, you will pay an additional 4% surcharge for being successful! So at the end of the day, the person with $149k has more money in his pocket than the guy who makes $150k. Which, in that range of cash flow, is at least $5k more.
But it gets worse, under the new plan that is being proposed, greater subsidies go to those who cannot rise to the challenge of being an American and carving their own path to success. Your charitable donations at work in the form of taxes. So income gets redistributed.
Now you might be of the opinion that people who make more should pay more because they can afford it. But look at things this way: if you, as a 4.0 student were told that you would have to get a 3.0 gpa for your 4.0 work because some kids might not make it into college without some of the A's you made, wouldn't you think that it was unfair? That is exactly what the current tax system does to achievers. The new system would turn your 4.0 into a 2.5. Ouch! But you are 4.0 student, you can afford to lose a few points because you are smarter or work harder than the rest and can make it up again. Don't worry, it is for the greater good. Now think, those grades are not grades, but rather, your money. Does it feel good again?
It should pay to be successful. You shouldn't have to pay with your soul for that success. The fact is that you have already paid. And you sure as hell shouldn't have to be forced to make charitable donations with every dollar you make. Failure should be painful, not success.
But if you want fairness, maybe we should all go to the Fair Tax. It doesn't penalize us for success or failure.
Think about it, as a person, would you rather make $149,000.00 or $$150,000.00? Would you rather make $20,000.00 or $500,000.00? I know it seems like common sense, that you would prefer to make more money, right? But what if the cost went up from 15% to 30%? See, right now, I am in an income bracket whereby the government takes about 15 cents of every dollar I earn before I ever see that dollar. The more money I make, the more I pay in taxes on this graduated system. Now you might think that this system is fair, but what if I told you that under if the current system, you already get penalized for success? See, for those of you who are on that bubble of making $150k, but have not crossed that line, it makes more sense to make $149k because if you cross that magic line to $150k, you will pay an additional 4% surcharge for being successful! So at the end of the day, the person with $149k has more money in his pocket than the guy who makes $150k. Which, in that range of cash flow, is at least $5k more.
But it gets worse, under the new plan that is being proposed, greater subsidies go to those who cannot rise to the challenge of being an American and carving their own path to success. Your charitable donations at work in the form of taxes. So income gets redistributed.
Now you might be of the opinion that people who make more should pay more because they can afford it. But look at things this way: if you, as a 4.0 student were told that you would have to get a 3.0 gpa for your 4.0 work because some kids might not make it into college without some of the A's you made, wouldn't you think that it was unfair? That is exactly what the current tax system does to achievers. The new system would turn your 4.0 into a 2.5. Ouch! But you are 4.0 student, you can afford to lose a few points because you are smarter or work harder than the rest and can make it up again. Don't worry, it is for the greater good. Now think, those grades are not grades, but rather, your money. Does it feel good again?
It should pay to be successful. You shouldn't have to pay with your soul for that success. The fact is that you have already paid. And you sure as hell shouldn't have to be forced to make charitable donations with every dollar you make. Failure should be painful, not success.
But if you want fairness, maybe we should all go to the Fair Tax. It doesn't penalize us for success or failure.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Escapism...A Riposte
Early on, my fellow contributer and I identified the possibility that we needed to ensure that we spoke with different "voices" in order to confirm that we are in point of fact two different posters. In all actuality, I don't think that will prove to be much of a problem, but in an effort to underline that intent, I will put forth my own take on the topic that he broached.
Why is America, or the World for that matter, so interested in sporting events? Do we watch them because we appreciate greatness? Is it for the possibility that we believe that there is some tangible benefit to being present when history is being formed? Are we attempting to live out our childhood dreams of fame and fortune through this brief exposure to someone that actually succeeded in an area where we only wish we could?
The answer, in many cases, to the final three questions is, invariably, "Yes, we are." But, like so many other things, giving a simple answer to a complex question is inadequate. I am as much a fan of Occam's Razor as anyone else, but all things are not equal, therefore a simple explanation will not do.
The fact of the matter is that watching sports is but one of many activities that many people the world over use to escape the drudgery that they believe is their life. For that brief span of time, however long it is, they are not the dull office-going, 9-5, pencil-pushing, blue-collar dweeb that they alway promised themselves that they would never be when they were a kid.
As activities go, watching sports is far less harmful than other activities that I can name, alcoholism, and drug abuse are two easy examples of something worse.
I am not disagreeing that they are paid an exorbitant amount of money, but, quite simply, their salaries are not measured by my yard-stick. Much like the prohibitive costs of theater tickets, the price is set by the audience. In other words, they only make what the audience is willing to pay.
How much would you be willing to pay to escape the idea that you have become everything that you swore you would never be?
What I find to be intriguing is the three part cycle which we, as fans and fellow escapees put these people through.
1. The need to hold them up as icons of our society. Athletes, Actors, Singers, and anyone else in the entertainment industry are hero-worshiped. Usually you have to have some modicum of talent, but not always. Because all we see is their public face, sometimes, looks are enough to generate a following.
Take Paris Hilton, for example. Decent enough looks (that is if anorexia is appealing to you), no acting talent whatsoever, and yet her name has been in lights for years. Let me go ahead and do away with the suspense for you: You will never see the cure for cancer on "The Simple Life."
2. We need to destroy them, to vilify them and anyone that is associated with them. Sometimes, it would seem that one of the only things we like better than a hero, is to see that hero fall. Why is that, do you think? Personally, I think that it is because we all have something of an ego problem. Just how long are we going to be willing to hold someone up as being better than us, knowing that they probably pick lint out of their belly button just like everyone else? How long are we going to forgive them their foibles before we feel the need to crucify them?
Look at Michael Vick. Last year, the man was an example for all the youth, particularly black youth, of Atlanta. Now...Could there be a bigger villain?
3. We need to see the underdog win. We need to see someone that has fallen about as low as they can to come back and make it good. Why is that? Is it merely because we celebrate their success in some beautiful altruistic manner? Far from it. It allows us to believe that if someone can go from being worse off than we are to being better off than we are, it is feasible to believe that we can do the same.
Don't believe me? Try this one: Lance Armstrong was a man that was a fair cyclist before he was diagnosed with cancer. After the operation and recovery, he came back and won the Tour de France something like seven times. He was touted as a hero for everyone, someone that came from behind and proved that he could be the best.
If only it would have stopped there. Unfortunately, it is a cycle that repeats itself. Apparently, he has been on top long enough, because now they are tearing him down again.
I guess that I should summarize by saying that I believe that the entertainment industry will demand only what they believe they will be paid. The lives of the people that we idolize will be important to us simply because they are not our own. And finally, we will only tolerate the hipocracy of our idolatry for so long before we feel the need to destroy the object of that idolatry, instead of coming to terms with the truth:
If we to take half as much interest in our own lives as we do those of our "heroes" we would not HAVE to escape them...
Why is America, or the World for that matter, so interested in sporting events? Do we watch them because we appreciate greatness? Is it for the possibility that we believe that there is some tangible benefit to being present when history is being formed? Are we attempting to live out our childhood dreams of fame and fortune through this brief exposure to someone that actually succeeded in an area where we only wish we could?
The answer, in many cases, to the final three questions is, invariably, "Yes, we are." But, like so many other things, giving a simple answer to a complex question is inadequate. I am as much a fan of Occam's Razor as anyone else, but all things are not equal, therefore a simple explanation will not do.
The fact of the matter is that watching sports is but one of many activities that many people the world over use to escape the drudgery that they believe is their life. For that brief span of time, however long it is, they are not the dull office-going, 9-5, pencil-pushing, blue-collar dweeb that they alway promised themselves that they would never be when they were a kid.
As activities go, watching sports is far less harmful than other activities that I can name, alcoholism, and drug abuse are two easy examples of something worse.
I am not disagreeing that they are paid an exorbitant amount of money, but, quite simply, their salaries are not measured by my yard-stick. Much like the prohibitive costs of theater tickets, the price is set by the audience. In other words, they only make what the audience is willing to pay.
How much would you be willing to pay to escape the idea that you have become everything that you swore you would never be?
What I find to be intriguing is the three part cycle which we, as fans and fellow escapees put these people through.
1. The need to hold them up as icons of our society. Athletes, Actors, Singers, and anyone else in the entertainment industry are hero-worshiped. Usually you have to have some modicum of talent, but not always. Because all we see is their public face, sometimes, looks are enough to generate a following.
Take Paris Hilton, for example. Decent enough looks (that is if anorexia is appealing to you), no acting talent whatsoever, and yet her name has been in lights for years. Let me go ahead and do away with the suspense for you: You will never see the cure for cancer on "The Simple Life."
2. We need to destroy them, to vilify them and anyone that is associated with them. Sometimes, it would seem that one of the only things we like better than a hero, is to see that hero fall. Why is that, do you think? Personally, I think that it is because we all have something of an ego problem. Just how long are we going to be willing to hold someone up as being better than us, knowing that they probably pick lint out of their belly button just like everyone else? How long are we going to forgive them their foibles before we feel the need to crucify them?
Look at Michael Vick. Last year, the man was an example for all the youth, particularly black youth, of Atlanta. Now...Could there be a bigger villain?
3. We need to see the underdog win. We need to see someone that has fallen about as low as they can to come back and make it good. Why is that? Is it merely because we celebrate their success in some beautiful altruistic manner? Far from it. It allows us to believe that if someone can go from being worse off than we are to being better off than we are, it is feasible to believe that we can do the same.
Don't believe me? Try this one: Lance Armstrong was a man that was a fair cyclist before he was diagnosed with cancer. After the operation and recovery, he came back and won the Tour de France something like seven times. He was touted as a hero for everyone, someone that came from behind and proved that he could be the best.
If only it would have stopped there. Unfortunately, it is a cycle that repeats itself. Apparently, he has been on top long enough, because now they are tearing him down again.
I guess that I should summarize by saying that I believe that the entertainment industry will demand only what they believe they will be paid. The lives of the people that we idolize will be important to us simply because they are not our own. And finally, we will only tolerate the hipocracy of our idolatry for so long before we feel the need to destroy the object of that idolatry, instead of coming to terms with the truth:
If we to take half as much interest in our own lives as we do those of our "heroes" we would not HAVE to escape them...
The Gladiatorial Arena
Tonight, while the vast majority of the USA watches that singularly most dull of American pass-times, I will be at my office wondering "why?" Of course, the pass-time I refer to is the World Series. And no matter what people tell me, or how un-American I come across to my readers for blasting baseball, I fail to find any source of amusement in that sport.
It is the sport that takes patience to watch, has less action than soccer, worse manners than pigs, and more "juice" than a Tropicana processing facility. And after all the allegations, misdeeds, and open admission before congress that the modern greats are more scandalous than the Roman Senate under the rule of Caligula, we still promote and encourage this bad behaviour by watching the sport.
But maybe my ire should not be lodged at this single sport, but at all modern sports. And at the people who pay to watch them. Are we so filled with luxury that we are willing to pay people to move for us? Is life so cheap that rather than living it, the average American will pay $50.00/year to watch the equivalent of modern day gladiators beat, pummel, and destroy themselves, either in a ring, a stadium, or as the after-effect of fame? Why do we watch rather than participate? The fact is that baseball, and almost any other sport, is a far more enjoyable game when you participate rather than just drink beer from the sidelines. And when we participate, we actually get something of a benefit in exchange in the form of camaraderie and calorie burn.
But instead we choose to spend our money on people who have done nothing so special in their lives other than live with an excess of testosterone, not all of which was produced by their own corpses. Why don't we choose to watch news or well written programming? Is is because we are too lazy to want to comprehend plot development, or too scared to watch something that might make us want to get out of our chairs and change ourselves, and possibly the world in the process?
But instead we reward bad behaviour. We pay perfectly good money to watch boys in big bodies swing a club at a spherical object in the hopes of running around a diamond of dirt. And worse yet, most of these wastrels will not give us our money's worth. Dare I say that most of them are not worth the cost of their components, much less their salaries? If they were moral and/or benefited society as a whole, I could justify the expense. But I cannot. And luckily, one of the biggest wastes of component value will not be playing tonight.
So to my readers, if you have ended up watching that horrendous first game tonight, just remember that the average person is not worth $20m. If they are lucky, their total components account for about $10.00 in a chemistry lab. And remember that the suckers who paid for World Series tickets paid far more to watch.
So America, have we paid for our Gladiators? Because I am not entertained.
It is the sport that takes patience to watch, has less action than soccer, worse manners than pigs, and more "juice" than a Tropicana processing facility. And after all the allegations, misdeeds, and open admission before congress that the modern greats are more scandalous than the Roman Senate under the rule of Caligula, we still promote and encourage this bad behaviour by watching the sport.
But maybe my ire should not be lodged at this single sport, but at all modern sports. And at the people who pay to watch them. Are we so filled with luxury that we are willing to pay people to move for us? Is life so cheap that rather than living it, the average American will pay $50.00/year to watch the equivalent of modern day gladiators beat, pummel, and destroy themselves, either in a ring, a stadium, or as the after-effect of fame? Why do we watch rather than participate? The fact is that baseball, and almost any other sport, is a far more enjoyable game when you participate rather than just drink beer from the sidelines. And when we participate, we actually get something of a benefit in exchange in the form of camaraderie and calorie burn.
But instead we choose to spend our money on people who have done nothing so special in their lives other than live with an excess of testosterone, not all of which was produced by their own corpses. Why don't we choose to watch news or well written programming? Is is because we are too lazy to want to comprehend plot development, or too scared to watch something that might make us want to get out of our chairs and change ourselves, and possibly the world in the process?
But instead we reward bad behaviour. We pay perfectly good money to watch boys in big bodies swing a club at a spherical object in the hopes of running around a diamond of dirt. And worse yet, most of these wastrels will not give us our money's worth. Dare I say that most of them are not worth the cost of their components, much less their salaries? If they were moral and/or benefited society as a whole, I could justify the expense. But I cannot. And luckily, one of the biggest wastes of component value will not be playing tonight.
So to my readers, if you have ended up watching that horrendous first game tonight, just remember that the average person is not worth $20m. If they are lucky, their total components account for about $10.00 in a chemistry lab. And remember that the suckers who paid for World Series tickets paid far more to watch.
So America, have we paid for our Gladiators? Because I am not entertained.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Propaganda, Our Buying Habits, and Modern Medicine Part 1
This past week, headlines went out proclaiming the next major pandemic as a new strain of Staph bacteria that is resistant to many different kinds of antibiotics. And that got me thinking (scary thought, I know). It got me thinking about a singular concept that comes close to defying the logic that the mass media (to be known from here on out as Propaganda Networks) wants us to have:
Media manipulates our buying habits by creating new scares that the uninformed will buy into, and therefore buy products relating to. This boosts their ratings so that certain advertisers will benefit by having your eyes and/or ears for that much longer to peddle their wares.
Explanation:
The most recent scare about Staph has everyone running around like headless chickens looking for hand sanitizers, anti-pathogen wipes, and cleaning products. Unfortunately, the use of those products are what is directly attributable to compromised immune systems in many children and adults.
See, a few weeks ago, a little known article was published that says that sometimes, a little dirt is a good thing. That made the headlines for less than two days. Go fig, it allows for a common sense approach to cleaning without advocating dirt. Still, did the average person hear about it? Of course not, but for those of us who did, we suddenly have the Staph scare to scare us back into buying those same products that could have done us harm. Apparently, this Staph bit has been going on for a few years, but only after that article came out, did the need to reshape our habits become apparent to the marketers. Then again, if it was really a problem, would we know?
Or how about global warming? Soon after folks started questioning it, the news started showing the benefits of ethanol and bio-fuels. Yet again, facts were omitted that are only showing up now, such as how diverted food crops have lead to a surge in food prices and the potential that using food crops for fuel for things other than our bodies might be a bad idea. But our buying habits have been altered. Right down to those folks who bought hybrids that will never achieve the savings they think they will.
Part 2 will be written next week examining the role of modern medicine and how it is potentially damaging the species.
Media manipulates our buying habits by creating new scares that the uninformed will buy into, and therefore buy products relating to. This boosts their ratings so that certain advertisers will benefit by having your eyes and/or ears for that much longer to peddle their wares.
Explanation:
The most recent scare about Staph has everyone running around like headless chickens looking for hand sanitizers, anti-pathogen wipes, and cleaning products. Unfortunately, the use of those products are what is directly attributable to compromised immune systems in many children and adults.
See, a few weeks ago, a little known article was published that says that sometimes, a little dirt is a good thing. That made the headlines for less than two days. Go fig, it allows for a common sense approach to cleaning without advocating dirt. Still, did the average person hear about it? Of course not, but for those of us who did, we suddenly have the Staph scare to scare us back into buying those same products that could have done us harm. Apparently, this Staph bit has been going on for a few years, but only after that article came out, did the need to reshape our habits become apparent to the marketers. Then again, if it was really a problem, would we know?
Or how about global warming? Soon after folks started questioning it, the news started showing the benefits of ethanol and bio-fuels. Yet again, facts were omitted that are only showing up now, such as how diverted food crops have lead to a surge in food prices and the potential that using food crops for fuel for things other than our bodies might be a bad idea. But our buying habits have been altered. Right down to those folks who bought hybrids that will never achieve the savings they think they will.
Part 2 will be written next week examining the role of modern medicine and how it is potentially damaging the species.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Friday Free For All - Hot World Leaders Edition
I don't mean to make light of things, especially after yesterday's attempted assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. But I took one look at her, and I must admit that she is a gorgeous woman. So, as I can only think of two women in politics that I seriously enjoy looking at, I ask my audience to give me their list of hot (beautiful, not literally on fire) politicians. Also, I will issue a caveat: Any reference to anyone named Clinton or Janet Reno will immediately be subjected to extreme ridicule and be asked to submit to an eye exam and a lobotomy.
Here is my list:
1. Benazir Bhutto (as pictured above)
2. Laura Bush
Send in your lists via the comment system.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
An Ivitation...er, introduction
I will freely state that I am NOT the most intelligent man that you will ever meet. But I AM intelligent. I am here for no better reason than, well...I was invited. I am not famous, rich, or athletic. I hold not a single degree from any other institution besides Life. (Personally, I have no trouble admitting that I am a Journeyman.)
Because I was invited to share, I will. I can freely tell you now, though, that my intent is not to inform. My intent is not to convince you to share my point of view. My most sincere hope is to encourage any/all readers to, and this is important, think for themselves!
Question what I have to say. Disagree with it. Condemn it to the fires of the Abyss. But do it in a manner that I might respond, namely, the comment portion.
Unlike my co-contributer, rarely will you find me quoting a news source. Most of my thoughts are of a philosophical/sociological/psychological bent. These are the things that I think about.
All.
Day.
Long.
A good conversation, with an exchange of ideas by people from different backgrounds is my most sinful pleasure.
Like I said, you don't have to agree with me.
To support this, and close my first contribution to what, I hope, will be an interesting forum, I give you the following quote:
If you see two people, and one of them is a "Yes-Man", then one of them is unnecessary.
Because I was invited to share, I will. I can freely tell you now, though, that my intent is not to inform. My intent is not to convince you to share my point of view. My most sincere hope is to encourage any/all readers to, and this is important, think for themselves!
Question what I have to say. Disagree with it. Condemn it to the fires of the Abyss. But do it in a manner that I might respond, namely, the comment portion.
Unlike my co-contributer, rarely will you find me quoting a news source. Most of my thoughts are of a philosophical/sociological/psychological bent. These are the things that I think about.
All.
Day.
Long.
A good conversation, with an exchange of ideas by people from different backgrounds is my most sinful pleasure.
Like I said, you don't have to agree with me.
To support this, and close my first contribution to what, I hope, will be an interesting forum, I give you the following quote:
If you see two people, and one of them is a "Yes-Man", then one of them is unnecessary.
P.R.CA (To the tune of Y.M.C.A.)
Well, I know that this one is easy as heck to make the leap to, and far too easy fodder, but I feel like changing things up today. So, I give you the People's Republic of California, or the P.R.CA. as a celebration of their absolute devotion to being the nanny state and removing people of all responsibility and rights.
Citizen, there's no need to feel down.
I said, Citizen, leave your rights on the ground.
I said, Citizen, 'cause you're in a new state
There's no need to be unhappy.
Citizen, there's a place you can go.
I said, Illegal Citizen, when you're short on your dough.
You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find
Many ways to have a good time.
It's fun to stay in the P-R-CA.
I lost my second amendment rights in the P-R-CA.
They have everything that you need to enjoy,
You can hang out with all the boys ...
It's fun to stay at Tax Payer Expense.
It's fun to stay in the P-R-CA.
You don't need to get yourself clean, you can have a good meal,
You can do what/whoever you feel ...
Human, are you listening to me?
I said, Citizen, what do you want to be?
I said, Citizen, you can make real your dreams.
But you've got to know this one thing!
No person does it all by itself.
I said, Citizen, put freedoms on the shelf,
And just go there, to the P-R-CA.
I'm sure they can help you today.
It's fun to stay at Tax Payer Expense!
It's fun to stay in the P-R-CA!
They have everything that you need to enjoy,
Women there don't need boys ...
It's not that fun in the P-R-CA.
I cannot smoke in the P-R-CA.
You don't need to get yourself clean, you can have a meal,
You cannot do what's moral if you feel ...
Citizen, I was once in your shoes.
I said, I was afraid to pay my dues.
I felt no one wanted to tolerate me.
I felt like I needed to work ...
That's when someone came up to me,
And said, citizen, take a trip way out west.
There's a place there called the P.R.CA.
They only make legals pay.
It stopped being fun at the P-R-CA.
My rights are gone in the P-R-CA.
They gave me meds so that I could enjoy,
the fact that they only want me to play with boys ...
I got brainwashed in the P-R-CA.
I'm not accountable in the P-R-CA.
Citizen, there's no need to feel down
U.S. Citizen, leave your bill of rights on the ground
It's fun to be a criminal in the P-R-CA
It's fun not be accountable in the P-R-CA
Human, are you listening to me?
Human, what do you wanna be?
P-R-CA
you'll lose yourself in the P-R-CA
no man, does it all by herself
Citizen, put individual rights on the shelf
P-R-CA
then just go to the P-R-CA
P-R-CA
Citizen, I was once in your shoes
P-R-CA
Citizen, I said, I was down and out with the blues.
P-R-CA
No military displays allowed in San Francisco, Oakland has banned smoking in public places to include parks, other towns have banned smoking in apartments, and the State has banned smoking in cars with persons below 18. Gun laws so restrictive that for the most part, outlaws are the only ones who can have them... Yes, if CA leads the U.S., then we as a nation are all in trouble...
Citizen, there's no need to feel down.
I said, Citizen, leave your rights on the ground.
I said, Citizen, 'cause you're in a new state
There's no need to be unhappy.
Citizen, there's a place you can go.
I said, Illegal Citizen, when you're short on your dough.
You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find
Many ways to have a good time.
It's fun to stay in the P-R-CA.
I lost my second amendment rights in the P-R-CA.
They have everything that you need to enjoy,
You can hang out with all the boys ...
It's fun to stay at Tax Payer Expense.
It's fun to stay in the P-R-CA.
You don't need to get yourself clean, you can have a good meal,
You can do what/whoever you feel ...
Human, are you listening to me?
I said, Citizen, what do you want to be?
I said, Citizen, you can make real your dreams.
But you've got to know this one thing!
No person does it all by itself.
I said, Citizen, put freedoms on the shelf,
And just go there, to the P-R-CA.
I'm sure they can help you today.
It's fun to stay at Tax Payer Expense!
It's fun to stay in the P-R-CA!
They have everything that you need to enjoy,
Women there don't need boys ...
It's not that fun in the P-R-CA.
I cannot smoke in the P-R-CA.
You don't need to get yourself clean, you can have a meal,
You cannot do what's moral if you feel ...
Citizen, I was once in your shoes.
I said, I was afraid to pay my dues.
I felt no one wanted to tolerate me.
I felt like I needed to work ...
That's when someone came up to me,
And said, citizen, take a trip way out west.
There's a place there called the P.R.CA.
They only make legals pay.
It stopped being fun at the P-R-CA.
My rights are gone in the P-R-CA.
They gave me meds so that I could enjoy,
the fact that they only want me to play with boys ...
I got brainwashed in the P-R-CA.
I'm not accountable in the P-R-CA.
Citizen, there's no need to feel down
U.S. Citizen, leave your bill of rights on the ground
It's fun to be a criminal in the P-R-CA
It's fun not be accountable in the P-R-CA
Human, are you listening to me?
Human, what do you wanna be?
P-R-CA
you'll lose yourself in the P-R-CA
no man, does it all by herself
Citizen, put individual rights on the shelf
P-R-CA
then just go to the P-R-CA
P-R-CA
Citizen, I was once in your shoes
P-R-CA
Citizen, I said, I was down and out with the blues.
P-R-CA
No military displays allowed in San Francisco, Oakland has banned smoking in public places to include parks, other towns have banned smoking in apartments, and the State has banned smoking in cars with persons below 18. Gun laws so restrictive that for the most part, outlaws are the only ones who can have them... Yes, if CA leads the U.S., then we as a nation are all in trouble...
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The Beginner's Guide to Breaking Free Thought
There are some things that transcend profession. A classic example is the manipulation of free thinkers into sheeple by politicians, clergy, and others who need mass support in a short period of time. So I post this guide for future despots, and for people who wish to free themselves of them.
But what do I know? I am just an observer.
- Create a mob - this can be a concert, protest, convention, or any other function that organizes people into a mass.
- Plant those who believe in your ideology throughout the mob - see item 5.
- Disorient and create confusion via loud noise and/or optical pollution - this combined with the crowd prevents escape and makes your target audience far more susceptible to your will.
- Use a measured pentameter when speaking all the while varying your volume, but keeping your frequency range stable.
- At certain critical points, allow your plants to create an uproar, thereby inducing more confusion and ensuring that most members of the crowd feel like they are surrounded by your supporters. This will help to create and environment where certain verbal prompts will automatically be positively responded to by the mob.
- Convince them that you have walked in their shoes through simple, believable, stories. No need for complexity when trying to appeal to a mob. Complex lies require memory, simple lies require little explanation, and can easily be justified later with cover stories that make mountains out of insignificant grains of sand.
- Convince them that your leadership ability is based on the fact that you have risen above, and that by listening to you, they will support a person who will take them with you.
- Never forget to emphasize to them that you act on their behalf, "for the greater good", and to emphasize that point repeatedly without sounding monotonous.
- It helps to ask rhetorical questions, but is not necessary. The rhetorical question gives the mob a sense of participation, without giving them a voice.
- Never forget that a lie told often enough to enough people becomes their truth.
- End your message in a fashion that polarizes your crowd. "We will go forth and do X because Y will lead to your downfall..." etc, or "We must stop Z". Hate is easier to control than love. Remember that it is easier to make your mob hate your opposition than it is to make them love you.
But what do I know? I am just an observer.
Monday, October 15, 2007
The Department of Other Studies
Other than Caucasians, every recognized ethnic group has a studies department at almost every major academic institution. Well, except one... "Other".
The census bureau officially recognizes "Other" as an ethnicity. When I fill out job applications, "other" is an option for how I ethnically categorize myself. And as a person of mixed heritage, that means that I have three options available. I (the author of this blog), can list myself as "Asian/Pacific Islander", "Caucasian other than Hispanic", or "Other". But when I go to institutions of higher learning that are supposedly sensitive to the needs of all ethnic groups does not have a department of "Other" studies.
So please tell me why I can find departments of African, Asian, Chicano, and Native American studies, but no department of Other studies. I just want to know why us "Others" are being academically discriminated against.
Until then, I DEMAND MY DEPARTMENT OF OTHER STUDIES.
The census bureau officially recognizes "Other" as an ethnicity. When I fill out job applications, "other" is an option for how I ethnically categorize myself. And as a person of mixed heritage, that means that I have three options available. I (the author of this blog), can list myself as "Asian/Pacific Islander", "Caucasian other than Hispanic", or "Other". But when I go to institutions of higher learning that are supposedly sensitive to the needs of all ethnic groups does not have a department of "Other" studies.
So please tell me why I can find departments of African, Asian, Chicano, and Native American studies, but no department of Other studies. I just want to know why us "Others" are being academically discriminated against.
Until then, I DEMAND MY DEPARTMENT OF OTHER STUDIES.
Friday, October 12, 2007
We Celebrate the Charlatan
Well, good ol' Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for claiming that the planet is getting warmer due to man made activity. Now, I find this to be funny for a number of reasons:
- A judge in Great Britain found Al's "Inconvenient Truth" to have at least 9 inconvenient half-truths or outright lies.
- 30 years ago, the average scientist was convinced that we were on the verge of another ice age... I ain't frozen.
- Doesn't the Sun warm this planet? Last time I checked, if you really wanted to stop global warming, the most effective solution would be to stop the fusion reaction that the sun is.
- Isn't Global Warming a science problem and not a peace problem?
- During the Academy Awards this year, carbon credits were being handed out in the amount of 100k lbs/recipient. Supposedly that was an offset of 20k miles driving or 40k miles flying.
- That averages 5lbs/mile.
- In a worst case scenario, everyone would drive a Hummer H1 which gets 8mpg city.
- A gallon of gasoline/petrol weighs approx 6.25lbs at 72 degrees F.
- If we stipulated that petrol was a solid and not a liquid, that would mean that everyone would burn approx .78lbs fuel/gallon.
- But gasoline is a hydrocarbon so it is not entirely made of carbon which would clearly reduce the amount of hydrogen released.
- Also, since Gasoline is a hydrocarbon liquid, that means that parts are hydrogen and oxygen so that further reduces the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere.
- Even if you account for the amount of fuel used to manufacture, transport, advertise, sell, and maintain the vehicle over the course of 3 years, provided it was running on solid fuel, you would not exceed 2lbs/mile
- So, worst case scenario, if everyone was driving an H1 than runs on solid carbon fuel, .78lbs/mile < 5lbs/mile.
- Where is the math behind human induced climate change?
- And aren't we in a period of increased solar activity?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
I will always remember Jubal
Mr. Heinlein, thank you for creating the character of Jubal Harshaw. If it was not for him, I would never have learned one of the three most important lessons of my life... that 99 times out of 100, if someone says thank you, they actually mean "I resent you".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)