Wow, April 30! Has it been a month already?
When I first started this thing, I knew the first couple of days would be easy because I'd already written the posts in preparation for the launch. But just between you and me, I was a little worried about what would happen going forward. I mean, 300 words a day really isn't THAT much, but coming up with a different topic each day, that could prove to be challenging.
Fortunately, I've got a couple of themes I'm going back to from time to time and the news never fails to provide me with inspiration. Anyway, I thought I'd take a breather today and do something a little different.
If you've been with me the whole month, you'll know that this "experiment" is really about discovering if I have what it takes to be a writer. The first measure of success will be seeing if I have the creativity, stamina, and discipline to come up with 300 words a day for a year. So far, so good.
The second benchmark is to see if I can actually interest others in what I have to say. Well, the blog site I'm using to publish these things has a tool to monitor that. So far, my first 29 posts have generated 326 page views. That's more than 11 a day. Since I'm new to this, I'm not sure if that's good or bad but my guess is that since this is a new blog and since I'm not advertising it anywhere other than my Facebook page, it's not bad.
As I learn more about this, I expect to do more things that increase awareness. For now, I'd like to ask if you'd share with your friends any posts that you think might interest them.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Friday, April 29, 2016
Individualism vs collectivism, Part 3
As promised, I'm returning to the train of thought that I started here and here.
Capitalism, socialism, communism...
There are a lot of "labels" that get tossed around, especially on the political stage, but what do they mean? How can we differentiate them? Well, hopefully, you've taken some time to not only read my previous posts on this thought but also the article I referenced in them. If so, you'll recognize why I'm narrowing it down to individualism vs collectivism.
I think I've made it clear that I don't acknowledge individualism as a viable way for a society to exist. Ironically, now I want to explain how I also think collectivism isn't a viable way, either.
A popular axiom amongst conservatives is that everywhere socialism has ever been tried, it has failed. Another one is that the problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other peoples' money.
While those might sound trite to some, why are they true? The idea of collectivism is a noble principle; "From each according their abilities, to each according to their needs." If you're sick or weak, you shouldn't have to worry about your needs being met. Meanwhile, if you're perfectly healthy, you should have compassion for your fellow man and be sure to work hard enough to compensate for the weakest in the society.
But why hasn't that nobility born fruit? The Plymouth Plantation tried it and failed. The Communist Revolution in Russia tried it and failed. Even today, China, North Korea, and Cuba don't even exist as true collectivist societies.
Well, as I suggested in the previous post, it has to do with human nature. Simply put, when we produce something, we naturally think it's ours and when we're handed everything, we lose the desire to produce anything.
Capitalism, socialism, communism...
There are a lot of "labels" that get tossed around, especially on the political stage, but what do they mean? How can we differentiate them? Well, hopefully, you've taken some time to not only read my previous posts on this thought but also the article I referenced in them. If so, you'll recognize why I'm narrowing it down to individualism vs collectivism.
I think I've made it clear that I don't acknowledge individualism as a viable way for a society to exist. Ironically, now I want to explain how I also think collectivism isn't a viable way, either.
A popular axiom amongst conservatives is that everywhere socialism has ever been tried, it has failed. Another one is that the problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other peoples' money.
While those might sound trite to some, why are they true? The idea of collectivism is a noble principle; "From each according their abilities, to each according to their needs." If you're sick or weak, you shouldn't have to worry about your needs being met. Meanwhile, if you're perfectly healthy, you should have compassion for your fellow man and be sure to work hard enough to compensate for the weakest in the society.
But why hasn't that nobility born fruit? The Plymouth Plantation tried it and failed. The Communist Revolution in Russia tried it and failed. Even today, China, North Korea, and Cuba don't even exist as true collectivist societies.
Well, as I suggested in the previous post, it has to do with human nature. Simply put, when we produce something, we naturally think it's ours and when we're handed everything, we lose the desire to produce anything.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Happy Birthday to Me!
Psychiatrists explain that a mid-life crisis comes about when someone realizes that they have more life behind them than they do in front of them. The odd things that people might do at that time are just their way of dealing with the realization of their own mortality.
I'm 46 years old today. There could be some kind of miracle happen between now and... whenever, but I think it's safe to say that I'm personally past my mid-life point. Men in my family historically have had a pretty early expiration date but besides that, physical fitness has never really been a going concern in my life.
Be that as it may, my worldview kind of precludes the concept of a mid-life crisis, anyway. You see, I happen to be of the persuasion that the world itself has an expiration date. While "no man knows the day nor the hour," I have reason to believe that the concept of "Armageddon" is non-fiction. Not only that, I also have reason to believe that it could come about "soon and very soon." A good summary of some of the reasons I happen to believe something that many people dismiss or even deride can be found in a 1998 movie called The End of the Harvest.
I started to believe this notion was real before being exposed to that movie but when I eventually saw it, it confirmed what I was already thinking. So as a result, I've been living with the presumption that my life could end at any moment. It's incredibly liberating being able to live as if there might not be a tomorrow. At the same time, it's also incredibly demanding.
What about you? You don't have to wait for your birthday to get introspective. How now shall you live?
I'm 46 years old today. There could be some kind of miracle happen between now and... whenever, but I think it's safe to say that I'm personally past my mid-life point. Men in my family historically have had a pretty early expiration date but besides that, physical fitness has never really been a going concern in my life.
Be that as it may, my worldview kind of precludes the concept of a mid-life crisis, anyway. You see, I happen to be of the persuasion that the world itself has an expiration date. While "no man knows the day nor the hour," I have reason to believe that the concept of "Armageddon" is non-fiction. Not only that, I also have reason to believe that it could come about "soon and very soon." A good summary of some of the reasons I happen to believe something that many people dismiss or even deride can be found in a 1998 movie called The End of the Harvest.
I started to believe this notion was real before being exposed to that movie but when I eventually saw it, it confirmed what I was already thinking. So as a result, I've been living with the presumption that my life could end at any moment. It's incredibly liberating being able to live as if there might not be a tomorrow. At the same time, it's also incredibly demanding.
What about you? You don't have to wait for your birthday to get introspective. How now shall you live?
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Uber on
Driving for Uber affords me so many opportunities to meet new people. Granted, it's impossible to get to know someone in such a brief time and many of them don't want to engage in conversation at all, but when I've got those that do, it's a good way to get a snapshot of what so many different demographics are thinking.
Yesterday, three young people needed a ride and when I say young, I mean early 20's. When they got in, they heard Rush Limbaugh on my radio talking about Donald Trump and they started asking question.
One asked if Rush wasn't a racist. I asked him if he had ever listened to Rush before. He said that this was the first time. So, I asked him why would he think Rush is a racist if he had never listened to him. He replied that he'd heard that said about Rush. So, I had an enjoyable minute explaining that Rush doesn't like Democrats so Democrats say a lot of things about him trying to discredit him. They asked, "You mean people like Hillary?"
Turns out that they can't stand Hillary Clinton. They don't trust her. They believe she's in bed with the big banks. They know that everything she says could be a lie. Now, they like Bernie but they don't really want to support him and they couldn't really put their finger on why.
Just for fun, I poked at the minimum wage and then the free college thing and asked them why they thought college was too expensive. I brought up that the most expensive thing about college is personnel salary. Then I led them to a question about why should a college professor make so much more money than a McDonald's burger flipper.
Yeah... they're not feelin' the Bern.
Yesterday, three young people needed a ride and when I say young, I mean early 20's. When they got in, they heard Rush Limbaugh on my radio talking about Donald Trump and they started asking question.
One asked if Rush wasn't a racist. I asked him if he had ever listened to Rush before. He said that this was the first time. So, I asked him why would he think Rush is a racist if he had never listened to him. He replied that he'd heard that said about Rush. So, I had an enjoyable minute explaining that Rush doesn't like Democrats so Democrats say a lot of things about him trying to discredit him. They asked, "You mean people like Hillary?"
Turns out that they can't stand Hillary Clinton. They don't trust her. They believe she's in bed with the big banks. They know that everything she says could be a lie. Now, they like Bernie but they don't really want to support him and they couldn't really put their finger on why.
Just for fun, I poked at the minimum wage and then the free college thing and asked them why they thought college was too expensive. I brought up that the most expensive thing about college is personnel salary. Then I led them to a question about why should a college professor make so much more money than a McDonald's burger flipper.
Yeah... they're not feelin' the Bern.
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
A carrot for Redskins fans
Do you know Aesop's Fable, The Tortoise and the Hare? It simultaneously teaches lessons on idleness and perseverance. It gave us the axiom, "Slow and steady wins the race." Look around and you can find evidence of that being true just about anywhere.
I'm a football fan, specifically a Pittsburgh Steelers fan. I think the Rooney's, who own the Steelers, incorporate that axiom into the way they run their team. Coaching tenure in the League is a rare thing. Some teams have a reputation for firing a coach almost every year. Others, though a little more patient, won't let a coach go more than a couple of years without results.
In Pittsburgh, they've had 3 coaches in 47 years. And the first two weren't fired, they retired. Now, there were a few bad seasons sprinkled into those 47 years but the owners let the coaches work through those times.
Their philosophy also shows up with how they acquire and retain players. Rarely do you see a case of the Steelers paying big bucks to go out and get the splashy free agent. Rarely do you see a case of the Steelers paying big bucks to keep one of their own.
Contrast that with the Washington Redskins. I hope the deal they made to get free agent Josh Norman works out well for both parties. However, I think too many Redskins fans still remember the Albert Haynesworth debacle.
Human nature is a curious thing. Capitalism can bring out the best in us but it can also bring out the worst. When not pressed on the issue of survival, why do we tend to default to apathy? And when we perceive a competitor has an unfair advantage, why do we tend to surrender in self-pity rather than rise to the challenge?
I'm a football fan, specifically a Pittsburgh Steelers fan. I think the Rooney's, who own the Steelers, incorporate that axiom into the way they run their team. Coaching tenure in the League is a rare thing. Some teams have a reputation for firing a coach almost every year. Others, though a little more patient, won't let a coach go more than a couple of years without results.
In Pittsburgh, they've had 3 coaches in 47 years. And the first two weren't fired, they retired. Now, there were a few bad seasons sprinkled into those 47 years but the owners let the coaches work through those times.
Their philosophy also shows up with how they acquire and retain players. Rarely do you see a case of the Steelers paying big bucks to go out and get the splashy free agent. Rarely do you see a case of the Steelers paying big bucks to keep one of their own.
Contrast that with the Washington Redskins. I hope the deal they made to get free agent Josh Norman works out well for both parties. However, I think too many Redskins fans still remember the Albert Haynesworth debacle.
Human nature is a curious thing. Capitalism can bring out the best in us but it can also bring out the worst. When not pressed on the issue of survival, why do we tend to default to apathy? And when we perceive a competitor has an unfair advantage, why do we tend to surrender in self-pity rather than rise to the challenge?
Not a Never-Trump rant, but close
In case you're not following closely, Donald Trump is one of the men trying to secure the Republican nomination for President this year. That by itself is a little surprising to a lot of people because of his past views on political issues and his past support of other politicians. But it seems that many people are taking him at his word and voting for him in the primary process.
Meanwhile, his leading opposition, Ted Cruz, is doing everything he can to give himself a chance to be the nominee. It's to the point now where he won't be able to do so before the convention this summer, but if he can prevent Trump from clinching, Cruz does have a realistic chance at the convention. That's because of the way the convention will work.
If there were just two candidates, only one would've had a chance to get a majority of delegates. However, since this thing started with 17 and still has 3, it's not unrealistic to think that nobody could get a majority. When they set up the system, they realized this could be a possibility. So, they wrote the rules in such a way that in this particular case, despite the fact that Trump will likely win a plurality of votes and delegates and probably a majority of states, he may not end up being the nominee.
That sets the stage for Trump and everyone who voted for him to be very upset. And this brings me to my point; he's already griping about the system being "rigged" and that Cruz is "cheating" and that Cruz is an "insider" making deals. However, Trump knew all the rules before he started.
So, why didn't he run as a Democrat? Or even better, why didn't he run as an Independent?
Meanwhile, his leading opposition, Ted Cruz, is doing everything he can to give himself a chance to be the nominee. It's to the point now where he won't be able to do so before the convention this summer, but if he can prevent Trump from clinching, Cruz does have a realistic chance at the convention. That's because of the way the convention will work.
If there were just two candidates, only one would've had a chance to get a majority of delegates. However, since this thing started with 17 and still has 3, it's not unrealistic to think that nobody could get a majority. When they set up the system, they realized this could be a possibility. So, they wrote the rules in such a way that in this particular case, despite the fact that Trump will likely win a plurality of votes and delegates and probably a majority of states, he may not end up being the nominee.
That sets the stage for Trump and everyone who voted for him to be very upset. And this brings me to my point; he's already griping about the system being "rigged" and that Cruz is "cheating" and that Cruz is an "insider" making deals. However, Trump knew all the rules before he started.
So, why didn't he run as a Democrat? Or even better, why didn't he run as an Independent?
Monday, April 25, 2016
You're getting warmer?
I didn't observe Earth Day. Don't get me wrong; I'm all for keeping our house in order but Earth Day is moving beyond just being good stewards of the planet so that our progeny will be able to enjoy clean air and water. Radicals are "seizing the day" in order to promote a corrupt agenda.
I'll admit that I believe climate change is real. I'll even concede the possibility that the ice caps could melt and the sea levels could rise. I just don't accept that anything humanity has done has had anything more than a negligible impact and I don't accept that there is anything we can do to remedy any potential problems. As such, I'm led to analyze the motives of anyone who promotes such nonsense.
What I've concluded is that there are 3 basic groups amongst those who believe in man-made climate change. The first is the least worrisome. They're not fanatical and they really don't know much about the issue. They just see and hear all of the propaganda and simply have a genuine concern. The second is also nothing to fear but they won't be swayed. They're zealots and really believe this stuff and probably lose sleep at night over the fact that it seems like nobody wants to do anything about the problem. The final group is the one to worry about. They either know it's a hoax or they don't care; they just want to profit from it. They refuse to relent because they're building an infrastructure that will reward them if they're able to dupe the rest of us.
Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't form my view in a vacuum. You can't depend on "research" from just one point of view. Study the opposition, too, and test each side against the other.
I'll admit that I believe climate change is real. I'll even concede the possibility that the ice caps could melt and the sea levels could rise. I just don't accept that anything humanity has done has had anything more than a negligible impact and I don't accept that there is anything we can do to remedy any potential problems. As such, I'm led to analyze the motives of anyone who promotes such nonsense.
What I've concluded is that there are 3 basic groups amongst those who believe in man-made climate change. The first is the least worrisome. They're not fanatical and they really don't know much about the issue. They just see and hear all of the propaganda and simply have a genuine concern. The second is also nothing to fear but they won't be swayed. They're zealots and really believe this stuff and probably lose sleep at night over the fact that it seems like nobody wants to do anything about the problem. The final group is the one to worry about. They either know it's a hoax or they don't care; they just want to profit from it. They refuse to relent because they're building an infrastructure that will reward them if they're able to dupe the rest of us.
Maybe I'm wrong but I didn't form my view in a vacuum. You can't depend on "research" from just one point of view. Study the opposition, too, and test each side against the other.
Sunday, April 24, 2016
To infinity and beyond?
This post is dedicated to my baby sister. Growing up, it sometimes felt like she was the center of the universe. At least that's the way I thought I was being forced to treat her. Anyway, she just celebrated a birthday and I actually hope she felt like the center of the universe for a little while.
I love logic. It breaks my heart to see so few people in the world that understand logic and even fewer people who employ it on a regular basis but just because it's endangered, that doesn't mean it's extinct... yet.
As a Christian, I frequently engage non-believers in conversation about our existence. One of the points they try to make to discredit Christianity is that early Christians believed the Earth was the center of the universe. When Copernicus suggested that the Earth and the other planets moved around the Sun, the church was fit to be tied.
Personally, as a Christian, I don't have any gripe with Copernicus because frankly, I know he was limited in what he could've known about the universe. For example, he didn't know how big the universe is or about how many other galaxies there are. He didn't know that the universe was expanding.
Fortunately, we live in an age where technology has revealed all of this new knowledge. And with logic, we can now correctly deduce that my sister is the center of the universe.
The logic goes like this:
1. The universe is something. Ergo, it must have a center.
2. The universe is everything. Ergo, from our limited vantage point, we can't determine where the center is.
Conclusion: the center of the universe can be anywhere.
So, at least on April 23, help me remember that Kimberly Diane Riddle is the center of the universe.
I love logic. It breaks my heart to see so few people in the world that understand logic and even fewer people who employ it on a regular basis but just because it's endangered, that doesn't mean it's extinct... yet.
As a Christian, I frequently engage non-believers in conversation about our existence. One of the points they try to make to discredit Christianity is that early Christians believed the Earth was the center of the universe. When Copernicus suggested that the Earth and the other planets moved around the Sun, the church was fit to be tied.
Personally, as a Christian, I don't have any gripe with Copernicus because frankly, I know he was limited in what he could've known about the universe. For example, he didn't know how big the universe is or about how many other galaxies there are. He didn't know that the universe was expanding.
Fortunately, we live in an age where technology has revealed all of this new knowledge. And with logic, we can now correctly deduce that my sister is the center of the universe.
The logic goes like this:
1. The universe is something. Ergo, it must have a center.
2. The universe is everything. Ergo, from our limited vantage point, we can't determine where the center is.
Conclusion: the center of the universe can be anywhere.
So, at least on April 23, help me remember that Kimberly Diane Riddle is the center of the universe.
Friday, April 22, 2016
News from the campaign trail...
Okay, I'm going to set the stage for you. See if you can figure out the identities of the candidates I'm describing and in what contest they're fighting.
Candidate A is self-made and for the most part, historically a Democrat with a strong lean towards populism. While campaigning, Candidate A is very vitriolic with rhetoric against the establishment and works to ensure that the bureaucracy is wrested from their control and government power is returned to the people.
Candidate A is wildly popular amongst supporters and that fire is stoked with words and deeds. At the same time, the opposition views Candidate A as brutish and despotic. Candidate A declares disgust for the intricacies of politics, despite being well-versed in them.
Some of Candidate A's views are controversial in their racial overtones, At the end of the day, Candidate A's ruthlessness will possibly ensure success.
Meanwhile, Candidate B, though a contemporary of Candidate A, is the younger of the two. Candidate B is a Republican and a devout Christian. Though not known as an inspiring orator, Candidate B is known for having principles and working tirelessly and sacrificially to see those principles bear fruit.
From humble beginnings, Candidate B made a career of fighting for what was thought by supporters to be a righteous cause. However, those opposed to that cause despised Candidate B all the more because of it. Some might have even killed Candidate B, if given a chance, out of hatred for the cause, as well as the person.
Who are these Candidates? What is their contest? Who wins?
Well, Candidate A is Andrew Jackson and Candidate B is Harriet Tubman, the contest is for who gets top-billing on the face of the $20 bill and if you've been following current events, you should know already.
Candidate A is self-made and for the most part, historically a Democrat with a strong lean towards populism. While campaigning, Candidate A is very vitriolic with rhetoric against the establishment and works to ensure that the bureaucracy is wrested from their control and government power is returned to the people.
Candidate A is wildly popular amongst supporters and that fire is stoked with words and deeds. At the same time, the opposition views Candidate A as brutish and despotic. Candidate A declares disgust for the intricacies of politics, despite being well-versed in them.
Some of Candidate A's views are controversial in their racial overtones, At the end of the day, Candidate A's ruthlessness will possibly ensure success.
Meanwhile, Candidate B, though a contemporary of Candidate A, is the younger of the two. Candidate B is a Republican and a devout Christian. Though not known as an inspiring orator, Candidate B is known for having principles and working tirelessly and sacrificially to see those principles bear fruit.
From humble beginnings, Candidate B made a career of fighting for what was thought by supporters to be a righteous cause. However, those opposed to that cause despised Candidate B all the more because of it. Some might have even killed Candidate B, if given a chance, out of hatred for the cause, as well as the person.
Who are these Candidates? What is their contest? Who wins?
Well, Candidate A is Andrew Jackson and Candidate B is Harriet Tubman, the contest is for who gets top-billing on the face of the $20 bill and if you've been following current events, you should know already.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Anti-Confederate history
If you're a big screen aficionado or a fan of Matthew McConaughey, in a couple of months, you're in for a treat. But if you're celebrating Confederate History month, get ready to be offended.
Every history student knows that the American Civil War was the bloodiest and most divisive period in our history. The state of West Virginia exists because of that division. However, pro-Union sentiments could be found all over the South, not just in Appalachia. Secessionists just did a better job of suppressing it elsewhere. One place they failed was Jones County, Mississippi.
"Free State of Jones" is set to open in theaters on June 24. When it does, millions will be exposed to a story that I never knew of until a few months ago. Even as a history buff, especially Civil War history, I had never heard of Newton Knight, the character played by McConaughey. He was a dispirited Confederate soldier who deserted with others and returned home to oppose the Confederacy.
At the time, their exploits eventually garnered enough attention that the South sent troops to crush them and the North sent resources to aid them. By the middle of 1864, Knight's group had officially seceded from the Confederacy and repelled attempts by the South to put them down for the remainder of the war.
Having grown up in Virginia, I've always been exposed to "Confederate Heritage" or "Southern Pride." Recently, across the South, the Confederate flag has been front and center in many news stories. While there were certainly some noble characters and valiant efforts that came from amongst those who fought for the South, overall, the entire event was a wicked enterprise. The South rightfully lost and fortunately for freedom's sake, men like Newton Knight had an important role in their loss.
Every history student knows that the American Civil War was the bloodiest and most divisive period in our history. The state of West Virginia exists because of that division. However, pro-Union sentiments could be found all over the South, not just in Appalachia. Secessionists just did a better job of suppressing it elsewhere. One place they failed was Jones County, Mississippi.
"Free State of Jones" is set to open in theaters on June 24. When it does, millions will be exposed to a story that I never knew of until a few months ago. Even as a history buff, especially Civil War history, I had never heard of Newton Knight, the character played by McConaughey. He was a dispirited Confederate soldier who deserted with others and returned home to oppose the Confederacy.
At the time, their exploits eventually garnered enough attention that the South sent troops to crush them and the North sent resources to aid them. By the middle of 1864, Knight's group had officially seceded from the Confederacy and repelled attempts by the South to put them down for the remainder of the war.
Having grown up in Virginia, I've always been exposed to "Confederate Heritage" or "Southern Pride." Recently, across the South, the Confederate flag has been front and center in many news stories. While there were certainly some noble characters and valiant efforts that came from amongst those who fought for the South, overall, the entire event was a wicked enterprise. The South rightfully lost and fortunately for freedom's sake, men like Newton Knight had an important role in their loss.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Somewhere, into the rainbow
I'm hoping for a blue-ray copy of The Force Awakens for my birthday next week. Between Star Wars and Star Trek, I like Star Wars the most but they both have in common the concept of traveling at light speed. In those movies, how do they portray that?
For the first Star Trek, I think they placed a camera on the floor pointing up and dropped small pellets to make it look like stars coming towards it. It's all done with computer graphics now, but they ultimately give the impression of very fast motion.
Well, I don't want to disappoint you but realistically, it would look much different. While accelerating to light speed as fast as they show isn't currently possible, we are capable of traveling near light speed with the technology we have today. If we have enough fuel, we can build a rocket engine that continually accelerates.
However, as we approach light speed, what we'd see might be a little frightening. Because of the Doppler Effect, light from any source in front of or behind us would be shifted out of the visible spectrum. So, even though we could detect any stars in front of us, we couldn't see them. It would look like we're running headlong into darkness while also running away from darkness.
The stars we could see would be those in between but they'd also be shifted with those approaching looking kind of purplish and those retreating kind of reddish with all the other colors of the rainbow represented in the middle.
The ultimate effect would be that it'd look like we're completely surrounded by a sort of twinkling rainbow with nothing other than oblivion at either end of that rainbow.
As long as I could trust HAL, I think I'd rather sleep during the trip.
For the first Star Trek, I think they placed a camera on the floor pointing up and dropped small pellets to make it look like stars coming towards it. It's all done with computer graphics now, but they ultimately give the impression of very fast motion.
Well, I don't want to disappoint you but realistically, it would look much different. While accelerating to light speed as fast as they show isn't currently possible, we are capable of traveling near light speed with the technology we have today. If we have enough fuel, we can build a rocket engine that continually accelerates.
However, as we approach light speed, what we'd see might be a little frightening. Because of the Doppler Effect, light from any source in front of or behind us would be shifted out of the visible spectrum. So, even though we could detect any stars in front of us, we couldn't see them. It would look like we're running headlong into darkness while also running away from darkness.
The stars we could see would be those in between but they'd also be shifted with those approaching looking kind of purplish and those retreating kind of reddish with all the other colors of the rainbow represented in the middle.
The ultimate effect would be that it'd look like we're completely surrounded by a sort of twinkling rainbow with nothing other than oblivion at either end of that rainbow.
As long as I could trust HAL, I think I'd rather sleep during the trip.
The sound of silence...
I was working for a local cable TV contractor on 9-11 and we had a project near Tyson's Corner. When the first tower was hit, we were on the HOV lanes on 95 and by the time it was clear America was under attack, my crew had arrived at the job and were just beginning to get to work.
I remember parking the truck near the work area so that we could listen to the news broadcast. As events transpired, we noticed there was no air traffic to be seen, despite being so close to Dulles, except for the occasional fighter jet patrol.
By noon, our customer was telling all of its contractors to go home for security concerns, so we packed up and joined the tens of thousands of others who were evacuating DC and Northern Virginia. Like many of you, I vividly remember getting home and somberly absorbing the endless footage on the evening news. I can't deny there were some tears shed.
Well, here we are, nearly 15 years later and I learned something today about 9-11 that felt like a brand new punch in the gut. Have you ever seen the show Pawn Stars? A quirky family owns a pawn shop in Vegas and gets all kinds of interesting people coming in with unusual items. They try to highlight items with historical significance.
Today, I saw an episode that featured a letter signed by Helen Keller. Not only was it authenticated, it was simply amazing to hear things about her I never knew. However, the expert also shared a heart wrenching detail. For almost a century, Helen Keller's Archive had been housed a block away from Ground Zero and was completely destroyed in the collapse of the World Trade Center.
Even in death, she's been muted.
I remember parking the truck near the work area so that we could listen to the news broadcast. As events transpired, we noticed there was no air traffic to be seen, despite being so close to Dulles, except for the occasional fighter jet patrol.
By noon, our customer was telling all of its contractors to go home for security concerns, so we packed up and joined the tens of thousands of others who were evacuating DC and Northern Virginia. Like many of you, I vividly remember getting home and somberly absorbing the endless footage on the evening news. I can't deny there were some tears shed.
Well, here we are, nearly 15 years later and I learned something today about 9-11 that felt like a brand new punch in the gut. Have you ever seen the show Pawn Stars? A quirky family owns a pawn shop in Vegas and gets all kinds of interesting people coming in with unusual items. They try to highlight items with historical significance.
Today, I saw an episode that featured a letter signed by Helen Keller. Not only was it authenticated, it was simply amazing to hear things about her I never knew. However, the expert also shared a heart wrenching detail. For almost a century, Helen Keller's Archive had been housed a block away from Ground Zero and was completely destroyed in the collapse of the World Trade Center.
Even in death, she's been muted.
What's in a name? Part 2
In an earlier post, I explored the meaning of some names. I'm not exactly sure why, but stuff like that fascinates me. So, expect to see me go back to that well from time to time, including today.
Without using Google, what do you know about Exxon? That's such a weird word, there HAS to be an explanation for it.
Well, it's funny you should ask.
Almost every American recognizes the name Rockefeller. That name evokes visions of vast wealth and luxury but do you know why? Well, at the end of the Civil War, as the post-war economic recovery started to get in gear, the world was beginning its transition away from whale oil as a means of creating artificial lighting.
John D. Rockefeller positioned himself to capitalize on the new market of refining oil to produce kerosene, among other products. His drive to grow his business led him to form a partnership in 1870 which became the company, Standard Oil.
Within a decade of its founding, Standard Oil was refining almost all of the oil in America. It became so big that in 1911, an anti-trust case that had been brought against them was decided by the Supreme Court and it was ruled that Standard Oil was a monopoly and needed to be broken up on a regional basis.
However, many of the new companies retained the word "Standard" in their names. By then, it had become ubiquitous. In the American lexicon, it often took on the form, "S.O." By the time WWII rolled around, Standard Oil of New Jersey was officially marketing itself as Esso.
Finally, in the 1970's, as a result of a series of mergers and acquisitions, Esso became Exxon. So, while the name Exxon doesn't actually mean anything, it does have a "rich" history.
Without using Google, what do you know about Exxon? That's such a weird word, there HAS to be an explanation for it.
Well, it's funny you should ask.
Almost every American recognizes the name Rockefeller. That name evokes visions of vast wealth and luxury but do you know why? Well, at the end of the Civil War, as the post-war economic recovery started to get in gear, the world was beginning its transition away from whale oil as a means of creating artificial lighting.
John D. Rockefeller positioned himself to capitalize on the new market of refining oil to produce kerosene, among other products. His drive to grow his business led him to form a partnership in 1870 which became the company, Standard Oil.
Within a decade of its founding, Standard Oil was refining almost all of the oil in America. It became so big that in 1911, an anti-trust case that had been brought against them was decided by the Supreme Court and it was ruled that Standard Oil was a monopoly and needed to be broken up on a regional basis.
However, many of the new companies retained the word "Standard" in their names. By then, it had become ubiquitous. In the American lexicon, it often took on the form, "S.O." By the time WWII rolled around, Standard Oil of New Jersey was officially marketing itself as Esso.
Finally, in the 1970's, as a result of a series of mergers and acquisitions, Esso became Exxon. So, while the name Exxon doesn't actually mean anything, it does have a "rich" history.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Individualism vs Collectivism, cont'd
I'm 2½ weeks into this and if you've been with me the entire way, thank you. If not, today, I'm going back to a previously mentioned article, if you want to get up to speed.
A big reason I'm having a hard time with their premise is that just by the fact that the founders created a central government, no matter how weak, they acknowledged that we are a community. The only way to recognize individualism in its purest form is to have no government. But even a child can predict what happens when you have no government - anarchy.
If we all lived as if our own wants and needs were the only thing that mattered, not only would there be chaos, there's be little or no freedom. The strongest might have all the freedom they wanted but it would come at the expense of those unable to protect themselves.
Whether you believe in God or not, human nature is undeniable; we aren't naturally selfless and caring. We have to learn those things and then put them into practice.
Consider a baby. There's nobody more helpless and defenseless but at the same time, there's nobody more selfish and demanding. If you doubt that, hang around a baby that's hungry or soiled or just plain tired. They'll let you know when they're not happy and they won't stop until you meet their need.
So, I submit that the idea of individualism is not really feasible. Collectivism is our natural way of existence. Now, I'm not saying it should be as the article describes it. But in coming posts, I hope to be able to expand the thought and demonstrate why all examples of state-run collectivism have failed.
Believe it or not, it also has to do with human nature.
A big reason I'm having a hard time with their premise is that just by the fact that the founders created a central government, no matter how weak, they acknowledged that we are a community. The only way to recognize individualism in its purest form is to have no government. But even a child can predict what happens when you have no government - anarchy.
If we all lived as if our own wants and needs were the only thing that mattered, not only would there be chaos, there's be little or no freedom. The strongest might have all the freedom they wanted but it would come at the expense of those unable to protect themselves.
Whether you believe in God or not, human nature is undeniable; we aren't naturally selfless and caring. We have to learn those things and then put them into practice.
Consider a baby. There's nobody more helpless and defenseless but at the same time, there's nobody more selfish and demanding. If you doubt that, hang around a baby that's hungry or soiled or just plain tired. They'll let you know when they're not happy and they won't stop until you meet their need.
So, I submit that the idea of individualism is not really feasible. Collectivism is our natural way of existence. Now, I'm not saying it should be as the article describes it. But in coming posts, I hope to be able to expand the thought and demonstrate why all examples of state-run collectivism have failed.
Believe it or not, it also has to do with human nature.
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Is taxation theft?
Because of the whole Tax Day postponement thing, I should be able to get away with talking about Tax Day stuff some more.
I often see or hear the phrase, "taxation is theft." Being a conservative and having more than a few conservative friends, that shouldn't surprise me. However, I'm pretty sure I can't endorse that view.
If the state is run by a king or emperor, you might be able to say it. If the state is run by a government that came to power through anything other than consent of the governed, you might be able to say it. However, in the United States, the citizens are given opportunities to participate.
For example, this year, we're having primaries or caucuses with multiple political parties, then conventions, and then the general election in November, all to determine who will serve in just one office for just 4 years. There are also nominating processes under way for every seat in Congress and about a third of the seats in the Senate which also culminate in the general election in November. And this doesn't even scratch the surface of all the different state and local offices that are constantly being elected or reelected across the country.
We have opportunities to serve in these offices or to select who we want to serve in our name. We have opportunities to petition them while they serve to influence their decisions. Granted, that IS a lot of work but whether we do the work or not is up to us individually.
The bottom line is that while taxation is determined by those who govern, those who govern are determined by those who participate. In other words, we tax ourselves. If you want to change taxes, you have to change the government.
Taxation isn't theft.
I often see or hear the phrase, "taxation is theft." Being a conservative and having more than a few conservative friends, that shouldn't surprise me. However, I'm pretty sure I can't endorse that view.
If the state is run by a king or emperor, you might be able to say it. If the state is run by a government that came to power through anything other than consent of the governed, you might be able to say it. However, in the United States, the citizens are given opportunities to participate.
For example, this year, we're having primaries or caucuses with multiple political parties, then conventions, and then the general election in November, all to determine who will serve in just one office for just 4 years. There are also nominating processes under way for every seat in Congress and about a third of the seats in the Senate which also culminate in the general election in November. And this doesn't even scratch the surface of all the different state and local offices that are constantly being elected or reelected across the country.
We have opportunities to serve in these offices or to select who we want to serve in our name. We have opportunities to petition them while they serve to influence their decisions. Granted, that IS a lot of work but whether we do the work or not is up to us individually.
The bottom line is that while taxation is determined by those who govern, those who govern are determined by those who participate. In other words, we tax ourselves. If you want to change taxes, you have to change the government.
Taxation isn't theft.
Good for the gander?
April 15th isn't exactly Tax Day this year. I'm unsure why, but the feds pushed back the filing deadline to the 18th. When the 15th falls on a holiday or weekend, they do that, but this time, it was a Friday. Oh, well. If they're not in a hurry, neither am I.
In honor of Tax Day, I want to connect some current news stories. The Democrat Presidential candidates are jockeying for position on the minimum wage while they also talk about making "the rich" pay "their fair share" in taxes.
To start with, under present conditions, nearly half of Americans aren't paying any federal income tax while the top 1% pay nearly half of them. So, I'm not exactly sure just how much more "the rich" need to pay to satisfy the "fair share" that's expected of them.
Meanwhile, in several localities around the country, the march towards a higher minimum wage is pushing forward. Rather than expose the fatal flaws of any minimum wage, I want to pose a question. If they really believe there should be a minimum wage, and if they really believe in equality, why aren't they also pushing for a "maximum" wage?
Think about it; employers have budgets, budgets include wages as a fixed expenditure. If the lowest paid employees are going to make more, one way to balance the books is to pay the highest paid employees less. Well, if you're trying to be "fair" in a situation like that, just cut to the chase and pay everyone the exact same thing.
Nationwide, the median income is just over $50,000. For a 40 hour week, that works out to around $25/hr. Why not establish a fixed wage, every position with every employer pays the same, including in the Senate and the White House?
In honor of Tax Day, I want to connect some current news stories. The Democrat Presidential candidates are jockeying for position on the minimum wage while they also talk about making "the rich" pay "their fair share" in taxes.
To start with, under present conditions, nearly half of Americans aren't paying any federal income tax while the top 1% pay nearly half of them. So, I'm not exactly sure just how much more "the rich" need to pay to satisfy the "fair share" that's expected of them.
Meanwhile, in several localities around the country, the march towards a higher minimum wage is pushing forward. Rather than expose the fatal flaws of any minimum wage, I want to pose a question. If they really believe there should be a minimum wage, and if they really believe in equality, why aren't they also pushing for a "maximum" wage?
Think about it; employers have budgets, budgets include wages as a fixed expenditure. If the lowest paid employees are going to make more, one way to balance the books is to pay the highest paid employees less. Well, if you're trying to be "fair" in a situation like that, just cut to the chase and pay everyone the exact same thing.
Nationwide, the median income is just over $50,000. For a 40 hour week, that works out to around $25/hr. Why not establish a fixed wage, every position with every employer pays the same, including in the Senate and the White House?
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Last full measure of devotion
Yesterday, I posted a blog celebrating Jefferson's birthday. Today, a different kind of anniversary weighs on me. 151 years ago, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated.
Besides being 2 of the 43 men who have served our country as President, they're also connected through Lincoln's passion for the ideals Jefferson so eloquently articulated in the Declaration of Independence.
In the years following 1776, the Declaration's only real significance came in the form of the Revolution. It didn't lay out a form of government. The Articles of Confederation had to be written to serve that purpose and later, the Constitution replaced them. As the country began to establish itself among the nations of the world and it had to defend itself from those who sought to crush it, including Britain in 1812, the Declaration was kind of forgotten.
But since the founders had avoided resolving the sin of slavery for the sake of building the nation, tension eventually built up to the eruption of the Civil War. Many of the abolitionists of that time, as well as Lincoln, went back to the well of sentiment dug by Jefferson.
If you grew up and studied in the American education system, you undoubtedly were exposed to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Being one of the most significant pieces of our history and owing to its brevity, it has easily become one of the most familiar orations by anyone in the world. However, it wouldn't have been possible without Jefferson's influence on Lincoln.
Whatever the reasons each side held for justification of the Civil War, the Gettysburg Address went on to galvanize the North. In just a few minutes, Lincoln was able to remind his people that the reason for the nation's conception gave them a moral obligation to persevere.
As he honored the dead, he inspired the living.
Besides being 2 of the 43 men who have served our country as President, they're also connected through Lincoln's passion for the ideals Jefferson so eloquently articulated in the Declaration of Independence.
In the years following 1776, the Declaration's only real significance came in the form of the Revolution. It didn't lay out a form of government. The Articles of Confederation had to be written to serve that purpose and later, the Constitution replaced them. As the country began to establish itself among the nations of the world and it had to defend itself from those who sought to crush it, including Britain in 1812, the Declaration was kind of forgotten.
But since the founders had avoided resolving the sin of slavery for the sake of building the nation, tension eventually built up to the eruption of the Civil War. Many of the abolitionists of that time, as well as Lincoln, went back to the well of sentiment dug by Jefferson.
If you grew up and studied in the American education system, you undoubtedly were exposed to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Being one of the most significant pieces of our history and owing to its brevity, it has easily become one of the most familiar orations by anyone in the world. However, it wouldn't have been possible without Jefferson's influence on Lincoln.
Whatever the reasons each side held for justification of the Civil War, the Gettysburg Address went on to galvanize the North. In just a few minutes, Lincoln was able to remind his people that the reason for the nation's conception gave them a moral obligation to persevere.
As he honored the dead, he inspired the living.
Is the Holy Spirit like a battery or a solar panel?
If you're a Christian, you likely know something about the Holy Spirit but within the community of Christians, the degrees of understanding about the Holy Spirit varies across a wide range.
Some denominations follow the doctrine that salvation isn't eternal; that any sin after we're saved can cause us to lose our salvation. Others teach "once saved, always saved" because of scriptures that suggest believers are sealed for eternity. All agree that those who're saved are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Similar to Old Testament accounts of God's presence indwelling the Tabernacle or the Temple in Jerusalem and the New Testament account of Pentecost, a believer today is God's Temple and He comes to live within the believer, empowering the believer to do the will of God.
The difference in beliefs on the eternal nature of salvation manifests itself in the discussion of the nature of the Holy Spirit in an interesting way. Those who don't believe salvation is eternal might say that the Holy Spirit functions in a believer much like the way a battery does in an electronic device. It provides power but that power source is temporary and can be depleted or even removed.
On the contrary, someone who believes that salvation is eternal might consider the Holy Spirit to be more like a solar panel, permanently attached to the believer. The panel can be put in a position where it doesn't provide the desired power to the believer but it's because the believer has turned their back to the source of the light or is walking in darkness altogether. As long as the believer stays in the light, facing the light, the solar panel will always be able to provide power to the believer.
So, are you living in the light or in the darkness?
Some denominations follow the doctrine that salvation isn't eternal; that any sin after we're saved can cause us to lose our salvation. Others teach "once saved, always saved" because of scriptures that suggest believers are sealed for eternity. All agree that those who're saved are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Similar to Old Testament accounts of God's presence indwelling the Tabernacle or the Temple in Jerusalem and the New Testament account of Pentecost, a believer today is God's Temple and He comes to live within the believer, empowering the believer to do the will of God.
The difference in beliefs on the eternal nature of salvation manifests itself in the discussion of the nature of the Holy Spirit in an interesting way. Those who don't believe salvation is eternal might say that the Holy Spirit functions in a believer much like the way a battery does in an electronic device. It provides power but that power source is temporary and can be depleted or even removed.
On the contrary, someone who believes that salvation is eternal might consider the Holy Spirit to be more like a solar panel, permanently attached to the believer. The panel can be put in a position where it doesn't provide the desired power to the believer but it's because the believer has turned their back to the source of the light or is walking in darkness altogether. As long as the believer stays in the light, facing the light, the solar panel will always be able to provide power to the believer.
So, are you living in the light or in the darkness?
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
When in the course of human events...
Happy Birthday, Thomas Jefferson!
That's right! 273 years ago today, the author of the Declaration of Independence was born. It's said that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Well, I hate having to do things over unnecessarily so, let's make sure we always remember the things that are most important to us.
While Jefferson didn't give us freedom and what he did give us wasn't entirely original thought, he was able to bring together disparate ideas and themes to express something in a revolutionary way. The thought that "all men are created equal" wasn't new to humanity but it was the first time that someone had actually incorporated it into a formal decree. This idea, upon finally being expressed in ink, had the effect of galvanizing a group of people as they undertook one of the most daunting enterprises in human history.
Along with other Virginians like Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry, he worked to organize the other colonies and communicate with them so that in the event of hostilities with Britain, no one colony would be isolated. The Declaration was the ultimate outcome of those efforts.
Some historians today tend to be critical of Jefferson because he was a slave holder. I'm not going to defend that aspect of his life but we'd all be remiss if we didn't recognize that he did exhibit some abolitionist traits in his work. Throughout his career, including the drafting of the Declaration, he made numerous attempts to diminish the institution but was generally thwarted.
He seems to have been troubled by slavery but wasn't quite sure how to go about ending it in his lifetime. I guess we could all learn something from that. At the very least, every noble cause is worth the effort of trying.
That's right! 273 years ago today, the author of the Declaration of Independence was born. It's said that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Well, I hate having to do things over unnecessarily so, let's make sure we always remember the things that are most important to us.
While Jefferson didn't give us freedom and what he did give us wasn't entirely original thought, he was able to bring together disparate ideas and themes to express something in a revolutionary way. The thought that "all men are created equal" wasn't new to humanity but it was the first time that someone had actually incorporated it into a formal decree. This idea, upon finally being expressed in ink, had the effect of galvanizing a group of people as they undertook one of the most daunting enterprises in human history.
Along with other Virginians like Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry, he worked to organize the other colonies and communicate with them so that in the event of hostilities with Britain, no one colony would be isolated. The Declaration was the ultimate outcome of those efforts.
Some historians today tend to be critical of Jefferson because he was a slave holder. I'm not going to defend that aspect of his life but we'd all be remiss if we didn't recognize that he did exhibit some abolitionist traits in his work. Throughout his career, including the drafting of the Declaration, he made numerous attempts to diminish the institution but was generally thwarted.
He seems to have been troubled by slavery but wasn't quite sure how to go about ending it in his lifetime. I guess we could all learn something from that. At the very least, every noble cause is worth the effort of trying.
Even The Greatest Show on Earth needs a place to lay their heads at night
If you don't know already, besides being your friendly neighborhood dumb-founder, I'm also an Uber driver. As such, especially driving in our nation's Capitol, I'm constantly meeting interesting people.
Last night was no different. I picked up a young couple at a grocery store (nothing unusual) and they were speaking a foreign language (also nothing unusual) that I deduced was Portuguese. They confirmed my guess that they were from Brazil.
As we arrived at the address, the guy pointed out a gravel road leading into the darkness beside the house with the actual address. It was then that they began to reveal more about themselves. The gravel road led to the railroad and he guided me to the train car where they live. They're circus dancers and they live on a circus train.
It seems that the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus is in town. They've been appearing at several local venues and are currently performing at Eagle Bank Arena (Patriot Center) at George Mason University. While they're here, their train is parked at a switch yard in Anacostia.
Though I know of the circus, I've never been exposed to how exactly they travel around the country. This train is huge. It's over a mile long and there are hundreds of people living on it.
These young people aren't that different from any of the other young urban professionals I meet while driving except that instead of cubicles, they work under the big top; instead of an apartment, they live in a sleeping car. Some of the items they had purchased were a bottle of wine, microwave meals, and a Keurig machine.
While "The Greatest Show on Earth" might prompt us to imagine the exotic, at the end of the day, the entertainers are still just ordinary people.
Last night was no different. I picked up a young couple at a grocery store (nothing unusual) and they were speaking a foreign language (also nothing unusual) that I deduced was Portuguese. They confirmed my guess that they were from Brazil.
As we arrived at the address, the guy pointed out a gravel road leading into the darkness beside the house with the actual address. It was then that they began to reveal more about themselves. The gravel road led to the railroad and he guided me to the train car where they live. They're circus dancers and they live on a circus train.
It seems that the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus is in town. They've been appearing at several local venues and are currently performing at Eagle Bank Arena (Patriot Center) at George Mason University. While they're here, their train is parked at a switch yard in Anacostia.
Though I know of the circus, I've never been exposed to how exactly they travel around the country. This train is huge. It's over a mile long and there are hundreds of people living on it.
These young people aren't that different from any of the other young urban professionals I meet while driving except that instead of cubicles, they work under the big top; instead of an apartment, they live in a sleeping car. Some of the items they had purchased were a bottle of wine, microwave meals, and a Keurig machine.
While "The Greatest Show on Earth" might prompt us to imagine the exotic, at the end of the day, the entertainers are still just ordinary people.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
A brave new world?
Is there any reason to think that the internet is nothing more than a black hole for the mind? Sure, it has brought about some wonderful improvements in some areas of life. For example, instead of a set of encyclopedias in our homes, now we only need a smart phone with the Google app. Instead of a bunch of awkward fold-up maps, now we only need a GPS app. Heck, it can even tell us where the cheapest gas is or what the show times are at our local theater.
In fact, the internet has grown so intelligent, it sometimes even knows what we want before we do. Our search history is monitored in such a way that enables advertisers to target us individually with their product rather than using mass marketing. However, have we grown so attached to technology that we can't escape its influence?
One of the pioneers of science-fiction literature was a man named John W. Campbell, Jr. In 1937, he wrote a short story entitled, "Forgetfulness." In it, he imagines a race of people living in the ruins of an ancient civilization that appeared to have been much more technologically advanced.
Other-worldly explorers discover this odd situation and are struck by how primitive and ignorant the natives are. However, without giving any spoilers in case you want to read it for yourself, in the end, the explorers are blown away by just how advanced the present day inhabitants are in comparison to their ancestors.
The story makes me wonder what would happen if we suddenly lost all of our technology. Would our baser natures take over and survival of the fittest suddenly become the law of the land? Or could we expect a more humane humanity? Could we move on to a better future?
In fact, the internet has grown so intelligent, it sometimes even knows what we want before we do. Our search history is monitored in such a way that enables advertisers to target us individually with their product rather than using mass marketing. However, have we grown so attached to technology that we can't escape its influence?
One of the pioneers of science-fiction literature was a man named John W. Campbell, Jr. In 1937, he wrote a short story entitled, "Forgetfulness." In it, he imagines a race of people living in the ruins of an ancient civilization that appeared to have been much more technologically advanced.
Other-worldly explorers discover this odd situation and are struck by how primitive and ignorant the natives are. However, without giving any spoilers in case you want to read it for yourself, in the end, the explorers are blown away by just how advanced the present day inhabitants are in comparison to their ancestors.
The story makes me wonder what would happen if we suddenly lost all of our technology. Would our baser natures take over and survival of the fittest suddenly become the law of the land? Or could we expect a more humane humanity? Could we move on to a better future?
Saturday, April 9, 2016
Do as I say, not as I do
In my 4th post, titled "Not for the faint of heart...", I linked to an article. If you haven't had a chance, you should check it out because I'll be coming back to it occasionally, starting today.
The essay addresses the differences between individualism and collectivism. As a conservative, I feel like I'm supposed to agree with it but I'm having a hard time. It pretty much comes down on the side that says individualism, good; collectivism, bad.
Based on other statements, I assume the author believes in God but that doesn't really matter. God said that it's not good for man to be alone. If you believe the Bible, you can't ignore that humanity was designed to be societal.
An atheist may believe in evolution but they recognize the purpose of our existence is the continuation of our genes. The welfare of our mates and offspring is crucial. So, no matter what your worldview is, I think it's a stretch to characterize a family as "nothing more than individuals who have come together to interact for a common purpose."
That said, there's a point they make that can't be ignored. Those who crave power today use collectivism as a means of controlling people. They put themselves in a position to profit from the labors of others. Because of this, it isn't true collectivism. Everyone is supposed to do their fair share of the work to help provide for the collective but the leaders take an unfair share while providing no labor.
Case in point, Bernie Sanders. As much as he extolls the virtues of socialism, he's living off of the system while never producing a thing in 72 years. Meanwhile, in a society where the median income is under $52,000, his income from the Senate is more than triple that.
The essay addresses the differences between individualism and collectivism. As a conservative, I feel like I'm supposed to agree with it but I'm having a hard time. It pretty much comes down on the side that says individualism, good; collectivism, bad.
Based on other statements, I assume the author believes in God but that doesn't really matter. God said that it's not good for man to be alone. If you believe the Bible, you can't ignore that humanity was designed to be societal.
An atheist may believe in evolution but they recognize the purpose of our existence is the continuation of our genes. The welfare of our mates and offspring is crucial. So, no matter what your worldview is, I think it's a stretch to characterize a family as "nothing more than individuals who have come together to interact for a common purpose."
That said, there's a point they make that can't be ignored. Those who crave power today use collectivism as a means of controlling people. They put themselves in a position to profit from the labors of others. Because of this, it isn't true collectivism. Everyone is supposed to do their fair share of the work to help provide for the collective but the leaders take an unfair share while providing no labor.
Case in point, Bernie Sanders. As much as he extolls the virtues of socialism, he's living off of the system while never producing a thing in 72 years. Meanwhile, in a society where the median income is under $52,000, his income from the Senate is more than triple that.
Friday, April 8, 2016
For whom the toll bells
Recently, I had a conversation about the I-95 Express lanes. Simply put, these are special commuter lanes that allow others to use the lanes at a price. The lanes were funded and built by private enterprise on state-owned land. The builders get an ownership stake in the lanes, they recover their investment through the tolls, and any excess profit is returned to the state.
Some people oppose the arrangement. I like it. I realize that without the arrangement, the project would not have happened because the government couldn't afford it.
However, there's a complaint about the project that I can't ignore. Where the lanes end, they create a bottle-neck at a location that was already a major choke point along the corridor. Eventually, the lanes are to be extended to a point that should eliminate this problem but that extension is in a future phase that has not yet been given a start date.
This all brings me to my point. Well, more like a conspiracy theory. You see, the tolls aren't fixed. They fluctuate with the volume; more cars equal higher tolls. I don't have evidence but I'm wondering if the "design flaw" creating the bottle-neck isn't deliberate.
As a student of human nature. I know greed is natural. My last blog entry covered that. If you were building a project where your profits increased with use and you had a design that forced increased use, it'd be like finding the goose that laid golden eggs. What would stop you from doing it?
Additionally, what if you knew it also increased demand for you to build your next project?
Again, I don't have any evidence. I just know what I know about the project and human nature. However, I do think it's important to ask questions.
Some people oppose the arrangement. I like it. I realize that without the arrangement, the project would not have happened because the government couldn't afford it.
However, there's a complaint about the project that I can't ignore. Where the lanes end, they create a bottle-neck at a location that was already a major choke point along the corridor. Eventually, the lanes are to be extended to a point that should eliminate this problem but that extension is in a future phase that has not yet been given a start date.
This all brings me to my point. Well, more like a conspiracy theory. You see, the tolls aren't fixed. They fluctuate with the volume; more cars equal higher tolls. I don't have evidence but I'm wondering if the "design flaw" creating the bottle-neck isn't deliberate.
As a student of human nature. I know greed is natural. My last blog entry covered that. If you were building a project where your profits increased with use and you had a design that forced increased use, it'd be like finding the goose that laid golden eggs. What would stop you from doing it?
Additionally, what if you knew it also increased demand for you to build your next project?
Again, I don't have any evidence. I just know what I know about the project and human nature. However, I do think it's important to ask questions.
Can I get me somethin' while you wait?
I was watching a news report of scandals within the V.A. and how they doctored records to hide extensive wait times that many of our vets experience. In case you're not familiar with this story, the reason behind their actions was greed. It seems they were allowed to create an incentive program where some of the employees received lucrative bonuses for meeting certain benchmarks, one of which was reducing wait times.
As I sat there, I was reminded of a particular peeve that my wife and I share. I'm sure you've all experienced something like this. You're in line at a fast-food drive-thru and you get to the window to receive your order but something's not ready, so they ask you to pull ahead and they'll bring your order out to you.
In some cases, it doesn't bother you. Maybe you have a special order sandwich but there's someone behind you and the staff can fill their order without them having to wait. However, sometimes, they tell you that they're waiting on your fries. I'm sorry! I didn't know fries were a rarely ordered item! I guess those folks behind us aren't ordering fries.
But even giving them the benefit of the doubt, I finally realized what their story was one time when we were asked to pull forward but there was nobody behind us. In fact, nobody ever pulled up to the window in the 3 or 4 minutes we waited.
Just like the V.A., those places have incentives to get us away from the window. There's a clock tracking customer wait times and the restaurant's performance review includes that information.
I don't know about you but I believe the best response to this threat to our freedoms is to refuse to pull forward. Let's have a sit-in at the drive-thru.
As I sat there, I was reminded of a particular peeve that my wife and I share. I'm sure you've all experienced something like this. You're in line at a fast-food drive-thru and you get to the window to receive your order but something's not ready, so they ask you to pull ahead and they'll bring your order out to you.
In some cases, it doesn't bother you. Maybe you have a special order sandwich but there's someone behind you and the staff can fill their order without them having to wait. However, sometimes, they tell you that they're waiting on your fries. I'm sorry! I didn't know fries were a rarely ordered item! I guess those folks behind us aren't ordering fries.
But even giving them the benefit of the doubt, I finally realized what their story was one time when we were asked to pull forward but there was nobody behind us. In fact, nobody ever pulled up to the window in the 3 or 4 minutes we waited.
Just like the V.A., those places have incentives to get us away from the window. There's a clock tracking customer wait times and the restaurant's performance review includes that information.
I don't know about you but I believe the best response to this threat to our freedoms is to refuse to pull forward. Let's have a sit-in at the drive-thru.
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
This day in history...
148 years ago today, the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified. In case you don't know, this was when the Constitution finally got America to the point where we recognized that all men are created equal.
Except that it really didn't.
While slavery wasn't exactly sanctioned by our founders, it wasn't banned, either, despite what some of them desired. The Constitution would've never been ratified with a ban on slavery, so a compromise was made to ensure the survival of our young nation. They passed the buck and didn't address it.
A lot of critics like to take the founders to task for this flaw but lest they forget, four score and seven years later, the nation paid the bloodiest sacrifice in American history to right the wrong.
In the aftermath, the 14th Amendment was America's way of righting that wrong from the prior century. The problem is, racism didn't die and the 14th Amendment prompted racists to come up with segregation. It would be another century before those laws would be removed.
I'm using this occasion to remind people on both sides of arguments like abortion and LGBT rights and even Obamacare that there is no such thing as the law of the land. If that argument had any validity, we'd still be living under the authority of the Plessy vs Ferguson case or even worse, the Dredd Scott case.
The Supreme Court can and does make bad decisions. From time to time, later courts can and must correct those mistakes. The present is no different than the past. As we head towards another Presidential election and as over 30 Senate seats are up for reelection, I'd like to use this platform to remind everyone of just how important it is that you do your civic duty.
Except that it really didn't.
While slavery wasn't exactly sanctioned by our founders, it wasn't banned, either, despite what some of them desired. The Constitution would've never been ratified with a ban on slavery, so a compromise was made to ensure the survival of our young nation. They passed the buck and didn't address it.
A lot of critics like to take the founders to task for this flaw but lest they forget, four score and seven years later, the nation paid the bloodiest sacrifice in American history to right the wrong.
In the aftermath, the 14th Amendment was America's way of righting that wrong from the prior century. The problem is, racism didn't die and the 14th Amendment prompted racists to come up with segregation. It would be another century before those laws would be removed.
I'm using this occasion to remind people on both sides of arguments like abortion and LGBT rights and even Obamacare that there is no such thing as the law of the land. If that argument had any validity, we'd still be living under the authority of the Plessy vs Ferguson case or even worse, the Dredd Scott case.
The Supreme Court can and does make bad decisions. From time to time, later courts can and must correct those mistakes. The present is no different than the past. As we head towards another Presidential election and as over 30 Senate seats are up for reelection, I'd like to use this platform to remind everyone of just how important it is that you do your civic duty.
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
What's in a name?
I see Ted Cruz has been projected the winner of the Wisconsin Republican primary. While I'll certainly be digging into politics over the lifespan of this blog, today I want to go a direction you might think a bit odd. However, if you've made it through the first four days, you should be ready for odd.
Do you know what Ted Cruz's actual name is? Ted is just a nickname for Edward, his middle name. His full name is Rafael Edward Cruz. I don't know why his parents named him that but I thought it'd be interesting to see what his name means.
You see, whether you know it or not, all of us have been given names that have an original meaning... no matter how strange the name. I have a sister-in-law named Pretzel because when she was still in her mother's womb, mom had a craving for pretzels.
A famous name, Jesus, in its original Aramaic, was pretty much the same as the name we know today as Joshua and it means "God is Salvation." Other names that are popular today also come from the Bible; John, Peter, Mary, David. They all have meanings.
Sometimes, as you read the Bible, you come across accounts of babies being born into certain circumstances and the names they received reflect those circumstances; names like Moses, Samuel, even Ichabod. If you don't already know the story, trust me when I say you don't ever want to name your kid Ichabod.
My own name, Leonard, means lionhearted. Make of that what you will.
Well, Rafael means "God has healed." While some may disagree that our nation needs some healing, I suspect that to those of us who believe it does, voting for someone named "God has healed" might give us some hope.
Do you know what Ted Cruz's actual name is? Ted is just a nickname for Edward, his middle name. His full name is Rafael Edward Cruz. I don't know why his parents named him that but I thought it'd be interesting to see what his name means.
You see, whether you know it or not, all of us have been given names that have an original meaning... no matter how strange the name. I have a sister-in-law named Pretzel because when she was still in her mother's womb, mom had a craving for pretzels.
A famous name, Jesus, in its original Aramaic, was pretty much the same as the name we know today as Joshua and it means "God is Salvation." Other names that are popular today also come from the Bible; John, Peter, Mary, David. They all have meanings.
Sometimes, as you read the Bible, you come across accounts of babies being born into certain circumstances and the names they received reflect those circumstances; names like Moses, Samuel, even Ichabod. If you don't already know the story, trust me when I say you don't ever want to name your kid Ichabod.
My own name, Leonard, means lionhearted. Make of that what you will.
Well, Rafael means "God has healed." While some may disagree that our nation needs some healing, I suspect that to those of us who believe it does, voting for someone named "God has healed" might give us some hope.
Monday, April 4, 2016
Not for the faint of heart...
I'm tempted to try to be humble and say that I don't know everything but the truth is, I think we all believe we know everything. I mean, how often do you read something and either agree or disagree with it?
That's pretty much what always happens, right? But then that's where it stops. We almost never let someone have a chance to change our mind. No matter what we believe, rarely can we be talked out of it.
Take abortion, for example. Whatever you believe about it, what are the chances someone could make a case that would dissuade you? Usually, the only way we can be moved on any subject is through personal experience. Something has to happen to us in order for us to have an epiphany. It takes more than words.
And that's what brings us here. The Daily Dumfundity is meant to be more of an experience than an essay. I want readers to feel what I feel and if I'm successful at that, I might even be able to get them to believe what I believe.
One of the things I believe is that as a society, we're woefully ignorant of how a society is supposed to work. Many of us don't even know how to articulate what a society is.
Well, I ran across an article that expresses a lot of what I think already and in coming days and weeks, I'll be delving into it from time to time. Here's a link to check out, if you want some homework:
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Individualism+vs.+Collectivism
To be fair, I'm not even sure exactly where I stand on their Individualism vs. Collectivism question, but I recognize that if we want our society to function properly, we kind of have to agree on the answer.
What about you? What do you think?
That's pretty much what always happens, right? But then that's where it stops. We almost never let someone have a chance to change our mind. No matter what we believe, rarely can we be talked out of it.
Take abortion, for example. Whatever you believe about it, what are the chances someone could make a case that would dissuade you? Usually, the only way we can be moved on any subject is through personal experience. Something has to happen to us in order for us to have an epiphany. It takes more than words.
And that's what brings us here. The Daily Dumfundity is meant to be more of an experience than an essay. I want readers to feel what I feel and if I'm successful at that, I might even be able to get them to believe what I believe.
One of the things I believe is that as a society, we're woefully ignorant of how a society is supposed to work. Many of us don't even know how to articulate what a society is.
Well, I ran across an article that expresses a lot of what I think already and in coming days and weeks, I'll be delving into it from time to time. Here's a link to check out, if you want some homework:
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Individualism+vs.+Collectivism
To be fair, I'm not even sure exactly where I stand on their Individualism vs. Collectivism question, but I recognize that if we want our society to function properly, we kind of have to agree on the answer.
What about you? What do you think?
Sunday, April 3, 2016
I Have A Preposition For You
Do you hate grammar police? You know, the kind of person who makes a fuss about how a word is spelled or pronounced? Maybe they have a problem with the way others misuse punctuation.
Well, you should probably stop reading now.
When I run across someone who routinely fails to take advantage of spell-check or someone who insists there's no need for the Oxford comma, I tend to have a SMH moment. More often than not, it's a college graduate and not only am I wondering what they were doing in elementary school when they were supposed to be learning this stuff, I'm curious about the level of scrutiny their college professors extended towards the work these people submitted on the way to earning a degree.
I don't have a college degree. However, I was raised by a school teacher and if she didn't do anything else, she at least taught me how to speak without sounding like an idiot.
One of the things I learned is that you're not supposed to end a phrase with a preposition. I know it happens a lot in conversational English and I'm guilty of doing it myself from time to time but I'm amazed by how rampant the practice has become, even in writing.
"What's that for?" "Where are you at?" "Which street do you live on?"
They may sound normal but only because so many of us speak like that. The truth is, we just need to work a little harder if we want to sound like we have a modicum of intelligence; "What purpose does that serve?"
Sometimes, it's easier; "Where are you?"
And sometimes, it's neither; "On which street do you live?"
Is it just the times in which we live?
Or is it too much to ask for?
Well, you should probably stop reading now.
When I run across someone who routinely fails to take advantage of spell-check or someone who insists there's no need for the Oxford comma, I tend to have a SMH moment. More often than not, it's a college graduate and not only am I wondering what they were doing in elementary school when they were supposed to be learning this stuff, I'm curious about the level of scrutiny their college professors extended towards the work these people submitted on the way to earning a degree.
I don't have a college degree. However, I was raised by a school teacher and if she didn't do anything else, she at least taught me how to speak without sounding like an idiot.
One of the things I learned is that you're not supposed to end a phrase with a preposition. I know it happens a lot in conversational English and I'm guilty of doing it myself from time to time but I'm amazed by how rampant the practice has become, even in writing.
"What's that for?" "Where are you at?" "Which street do you live on?"
They may sound normal but only because so many of us speak like that. The truth is, we just need to work a little harder if we want to sound like we have a modicum of intelligence; "What purpose does that serve?"
Sometimes, it's easier; "Where are you?"
And sometimes, it's neither; "On which street do you live?"
Is it just the times in which we live?
Or is it too much to ask for?
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Who's the fool, now?
You're back!
Welcome to Day 2 of my experiment. For this issue, it's probably appropriate to spend just a little bit more time laying out what I'll be doing for the next 363 days.
To start with, I should make it clear that yesterday wasn't some April Fools Day prank. I'm still here and you'll be able to find me here everyday until March 31, 2017, unless I throw in the towel or die. I only chose April 1st for a practical reason.
A more appropriate day might've been January 1 but that was the culmination of the holiday season and I wasn't ready to undertake a new challenge like this on that particular day. Besides, if I started any day before March 1, I would've had to write 366 posts because this is a Leap Year. That would just be WAY too much.
Besides, if you take into account the general tone I hope to set in this blog, what better day is there than April Fools Day to start?
That reminds me; do you know why there's such a thing as April Fools Day? A long time ago, some cultures designed their calendar around the cycle of the moon and in such a way that the new year would begin with the arrival of spring. The first new month after the vernal equinox happens to be April. That meant April 1 is the equivalent of New Years Day on those old calendars.
Imagine when people who celebrated New Year on January 1 first encountered people who celebrated it April 1. It's not hard to figure out why they might have been called fools.
Now that I've explained all of that, the only question that remains to be asked is are you a fool for reading this?
Welcome to Day 2 of my experiment. For this issue, it's probably appropriate to spend just a little bit more time laying out what I'll be doing for the next 363 days.
To start with, I should make it clear that yesterday wasn't some April Fools Day prank. I'm still here and you'll be able to find me here everyday until March 31, 2017, unless I throw in the towel or die. I only chose April 1st for a practical reason.
A more appropriate day might've been January 1 but that was the culmination of the holiday season and I wasn't ready to undertake a new challenge like this on that particular day. Besides, if I started any day before March 1, I would've had to write 366 posts because this is a Leap Year. That would just be WAY too much.
Besides, if you take into account the general tone I hope to set in this blog, what better day is there than April Fools Day to start?
That reminds me; do you know why there's such a thing as April Fools Day? A long time ago, some cultures designed their calendar around the cycle of the moon and in such a way that the new year would begin with the arrival of spring. The first new month after the vernal equinox happens to be April. That meant April 1 is the equivalent of New Years Day on those old calendars.
Imagine when people who celebrated New Year on January 1 first encountered people who celebrated it April 1. It's not hard to figure out why they might have been called fools.
Now that I've explained all of that, the only question that remains to be asked is are you a fool for reading this?
Friday, April 1, 2016
The Pilot Episode
How frustrated do you get when after sitting in traffic, creeping along for what seems like eternity, you finally break free, only to see that there was nothing blocking the road in front of you? There was an accident on the OTHER side of the road and you were delayed because of everyone slowing down to see what was going on.
Rubberneckers.
We can't stand them, but how often do you stop to ask yourself if you're one, too? Well, if you're reading this, chances are pretty good that you are.
Welcome to the very first Daily Dumbfundity!
Over the years, I've written several Letters to the Editor of The Free Lance-Star. To be considered, they had to be under 300 words and they'll accept only one a month. I've gotten quite a bit of attention each time, so I've wondered if I have what it takes to be a writer. You're looking at the first step in a new experiment.
I'm going to see if I can write 300 words a day for a year. As a middle-aged, libertarian leaning, constitutionally dogmatic, Christian fundamentalist conservative who likes the Pittsburgh Steelers and is blogging in a Presidential Election year, the range of topics might tend to take the path of a drunken cyclist but I hope to give any readers an opportunity to scratch their heads, trying to figure out what might be wrong with me.
In fact, that should explain the meaning of my blog's title - The Daily Dumbfundity. If something is profound, we call it a profundity. Well, over the course of the next year, I hope to bring to light various things that I think are dumbfounding.
So, fasten your seat belts, roll down your windows, and rubberneck away! I hope you have a dumbfounding experience.
Rubberneckers.
We can't stand them, but how often do you stop to ask yourself if you're one, too? Well, if you're reading this, chances are pretty good that you are.
Welcome to the very first Daily Dumbfundity!
Over the years, I've written several Letters to the Editor of The Free Lance-Star. To be considered, they had to be under 300 words and they'll accept only one a month. I've gotten quite a bit of attention each time, so I've wondered if I have what it takes to be a writer. You're looking at the first step in a new experiment.
I'm going to see if I can write 300 words a day for a year. As a middle-aged, libertarian leaning, constitutionally dogmatic, Christian fundamentalist conservative who likes the Pittsburgh Steelers and is blogging in a Presidential Election year, the range of topics might tend to take the path of a drunken cyclist but I hope to give any readers an opportunity to scratch their heads, trying to figure out what might be wrong with me.
In fact, that should explain the meaning of my blog's title - The Daily Dumbfundity. If something is profound, we call it a profundity. Well, over the course of the next year, I hope to bring to light various things that I think are dumbfounding.
So, fasten your seat belts, roll down your windows, and rubberneck away! I hope you have a dumbfounding experience.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)