Physed 129: Creative Parkinglot Driving

Share

While driving to work one morning, I initially worried about a strange noise I heard. The sound intensified as I moved up in the fast lane passing people next to me, crescendoing to climax as I passed a very ugly car of unknown make and out-of-state plates. Although this man seemed at the time happy to sit in his place, a few minutes later, I heard the whine of his muffler and turned to see him careen forward in the far right lane, passing cars by the score and violating the speed limit by no small degree.

An equally short time later, I caught up with him at the junction of US-95 and I-15, as the traffic in that merge lane forced him to slow. I drove by and thought what an idiot he must have been. As I neared work, passing through a school zone, a large SUV came up behind me suddenly and then threaded between myself and the car at 7:30PM as soon as the opportunity provided for it, whizzing out of sight. I pulled up next to him at the next light and laughed as green showed for me while the left turn lane remained red for him.

My brother drives a newer model Saturn SL1 than I and once complained about lower fuel economy than I. On my last fillup, I clocked 39.1mpg for my 1.9L engine to his 34ish (we live in the same place). When last I rode with him, I knew what accounts for this discrepancy. My brother itches to move from a stop, quickly plateus in speed, then squeaks to a stop at the next light, whereas I drive more steadily on average. His excessive power requirements for short and unproductive bursts of speed account for lower fuel economy.

The "hurry up and wait" mentality is not the only driving malady I've seen. I remember driving from early morning religious seminary to high school when the carpool driver turned around to talk to us and hit a series of garbage cans aligned on the curb. Fortunately Florida doesn't use brick mailboxes like Nevada does. A later instance that same year, one of the other drivers sideswiped a pole in the high school parkinglot because she wasn't paying attention. Last year, I watched a woman put on mascara while driving 55 on NV-SR-445, and I cannot recall the hordes I've seen talking on cell-phones most of which I discover as I pass them (they are usually not maintaining their lane or speed). Driving is not an activity during which any human can multitask.

We used to joke about taking this course in college as a filler and a way to break up the stress occasioned by our courses of study. Sometimes I wonder if, in lieu of taking the driving test, they didn't opt for this course as part of a community college/high school joint program to help them develop advanced techniques from the get-go without establishing the basic theoretical basis on which to build good habits.

Courting and Courtesy

Share

Several years ago, I took advantage of a spur-of-the-moment opportunity to ask a coworker out for a no-pressure outing for ice cream. My employer had put on a barbecue activity after work and released us from our responsibilities early to attend. In the course of the event, I spent some time speaking to a young woman, a few years my elder, but to whom I was admittedly attracted and asked her if she'd like to join me for ice cream at a local establishment. Accepting, she spent time chatting with me until after dark, and given our 04:00 start time at work, I parted ways with her.

What happened next surprised me immensely. She ignored me at work, didn't answer my phone calls, and told other people that I refused to call her. I now have a new theory as to why that happened.

I abide by a high and apparently abnormal code of morality and ethics. I made it clear to my date that night in no uncertain terms that my intentions preclude the types of intimacies common to superfluous relationships as a part of my mantra: chastity before marriage; fidelity in marriage. However, the problem is that so few people actually mean this and the majority of those who claim it to be true use it as a ruse to take physical advantage of the women they date. Take for instance the friend in the movie "Hitch" who dates a man Hitch refused to help because he only cared about scoring, and played the ploy to get her to sleep with him.

Chances are, after the date, her friends and crew-mates asked her to give an accounting of the events. Chances are that, based on her prior dating experience, she assumed that I was not interested in her because I refrained from physical intimacy with her of any kind (including the minute act of hand-holding). Chances are she assumed I said I believed in chastity as a ruse. In order to save face with her friends, not feel dejected, and not have to report a relationship "failure", she concocted a story telling how I didn't like her, and that's why I didn't sleep with her.

The really unfortunate truth: I liked her. A lot.

When I asked a friend who knows about this girl and my experience with her to comment on this post before I posted it, she said:

I think you should post it. People need to know good men still exist and women are in a steady decline of their not really morals but what we need physically to feel a connection with the opposiite sex and it's sad. What happened to being reserved and courting?????

As the last vestige of a bygone era, I fear I'll never successfully navigate this world.

Former UPS Employees

Share

A few months ago, I received a letter from the IRS asking me to contact Pacific Coast Benefit Trust regarding pension money held by them for me. Due to UPS's disiniterest and inability to track me down, by the time I found out about the money their fees had eaten up all but $20 and so I'm expecting a check for $11 after taxes and processing.

If you worked for UPS, ever, regardless of the length of time, contact PCBT and ask them for the paperwork necessary to transfer the money to an account under your control. You'll probably have to pay taxes on it, but it's better than letting PCBT eat away at it in maintenance fees.

I Won't Hold My Breath

Share

For some reason this morning I found myself opining previous relationships. The last relationship I had lasted 10 days and was over a year ago. Around that time, I really came to empathize with the song Hope- by Ryan Shupe and the Rubberband. Since I bought the song, I won't do them the disservice of posting their lyrics free, but basically it's about a guy who refuses to let his hopes get up on the chance for romance.

I have not thus far wondered enough about why girls dumped me to ask them. From time to time, I wonder "what's wrong with me", but then I remember that my tastes in and of themselves are fairly picky. For example, if you drank or smoke...ever...you're out. I'm not sure I want to deal with children that aren't mine, especially if they were born out of wedlock. I live a very strict moral guideline, and I don't think I'd feel comfortable with or communicate with someone who didn't or who on the auspices of marrying me pledged to adopt such a way of life.

This last girl before I met her went through a series of shall we say abusive relationships, although I would come to find out she did most of the dumping. When she and her guy finally parted ways, part of me got jittery, and part of me told me to watch my back because she was on the rebound. Several times, including once in my presence, her friends told her she should go out with me. Her response as aforetimes was that she wasn't ready for a relationship. Not one week later, she called me to ask me if I thought she should meet this guy she'd been chatting with at an online dating site. Within a few weeks, she had moved out of state to be with him, and they are now expecting their first child.

At one point, she defended this guy by saying he's a lot like me. I knew then that such a proposition constituted monstrosity, a position validated by his sexual promiscuity with her. They appear to be happy, and that's fine with me. I think things turned out best for all parties.

Prior to that, another girl simply stopped answering the phone without any justification and further added insult to injury by alleging I had cut ties to her.

Part of why I don't let this turn of events get me down is because I know how I stand with someone whose opinion matters more to me than any other. On several occasions, God himself has intimated to me that my status pleases him. If any of the reasons these girls might cite were of sufficient gravity to necessitate change, I think God would have mentioned it.

So how do I deal with their rejection? Some people tell me that confidence will attract girls in the aftermath. I know what I am and I know what I have to offer. It's their loss.

If You Could Earmark Tax Money

Share

When my father and I were discussing taxes back in February, we talked about leveraging our tax advantages and expenditures to reduce our federal income tax liability as far as possible. To that end, we talked about living in states without state income tax, maximizing donations, and using leveraged accounts to keep money in our pockets or into things we want instead of letting the government spend it for us.

Mark Levin spoke with a man on his radio program a few weeks ago who advocates a "fair tax" which would in essence allow taxpayers to protest the government by withholding tax money. This means that, in a consumption-based tax system, if you protest government expenditures, you refrain from purchasing goods and services that generate tax revenue, effectively denying the government money. I will detail my own version of this later.

So, I started wondering exactly how my money gets distributed to government programs. An illustration of my total payments follows:

This image is proprietary

My total tax liability (after refund) was a measely $1200, which is filtered out into the above described programs. However, there are very few things in that list where I think the government has any say, and I prefer to keep that money (preferrably) or earmark it to things I believe in.

If I had my way, I'd only pay for DOD, War, Veterans, DHS, Energy, Justice, NASA, DOT, Treasury and the Interior. If I did that, it would mean my tax liability would either be: $329.52 or distributed among those programs at proportionately higher rates. Let people who think we need welfare or federal control of education pay for that. I prefer not to.

I'd like to be able to protest by withholding money from things I don't believe in. The people who reallocate our wealth shelter their money and don't pay for the programs they write into law- they expect us to. In the end, everyone gets shafted because of their greed for power. Spend that $260 (DOD general plus War of Terror) well you folks at the DoD. I wish I could have given you more.

For now, I'll just throw some tea in the harbor.

Disclaimer: The author of this post is an aspirant for the United States Air Force, and so any allocations funding the DoD would be self-serving. Then again, how is that different from Algore?

Pets 101: Care of Magical Creatures

Share

One of the blogs I read referred yesterday to an article with which that author and I disagree. He maintains that no expense is too great and alleges that those who put animals to sleep don't understand the care and concern of an animal. This will be one of a series of articles I propose to write on the topic of pets and people. Jonathan says he'd spare no expense to save his dog. Until I put an animal down, I felt the same way.

When I got married, I inherited my first ever pet, despite having sworn that I would never own a dog (I may talk about the many times I've been attacked and seen others attacked later). At first I was just unsure, but then I eventually learned quite a bit about myself from raising and breeding Beagles, an education I consider valuable in preparation for having children, but I digress.

My baptism by fire in care of dogs came when just shy of his first year Tutankhamen came down lethargic, then sick, and warranted a trip to the vet. As I lived 30 miles from town, this was a planned event. Tut had been born with a bad liver as his enzyme titers indicated, necessitating a transplant for $2000, assuming one could be found. I asked the doctor about it and when he said it "might" solve the problem, I wasn't sure. I liked Tut very much, but as a starving college student and newlywed, I didn't have that kind of money. The ordeal started at 7AM, and ended for me around 3PM when I bade him farewell and left him to be put to sleep.

Pepsi developed breast cancer after my sister in law refused to take her in after an infection. Eventually, she paid for tumor removal, but the tumors returned within a few weeks, and she decided to just let Pepsi die. Being still in the same financial circumstances, I did what I could for Pepsi, going out to visit her in the evenings and stroking her while she lay next to me huffing in pain. She got to the point where she would meet me at the gate despite the pain of motion and whimper when I left. ONe day I came home and Pepsi was gone. She had died sitting near the gate waiting for me to come home.

When April had problems during pregnancy, we took her to the midnight emergency for a C-section. She survived, but all but two of her puppies died, and because it was emergency, it cost a great deal to keep her alive, but that time I paid the bill.

By contrast, two of my beagles Aragorn and Lady were torn apart by the neighbor's akitas, which he refused to lock up. There was nothing I could do to help either of them.

Part of me died every time one of my dogs died. I could never have euthanized one of them myself, but based on those experiences, I do not think that the extemporaneous prolonging of life would have been best for them. Both Tut and Pepsi suffered terribly, and whatever money I might have spent had I had it offered only a pittance chance of altering their situation for the good. Medicine is not just about prolonging life but about improving the quality of life, so if all they can do is pain manage or offer risky surgery with miniscule chances of survival that promise extra pain, I'm disinclined to follow that line of suggestion.

Some people may call me callous for electing to put an end to pain, but if all they know by extended life is more pain I do not think we're doing them a favor. Sometimes if you love something, you have to let it go.

Just fifty years ago, the medical knowledge remained unknown to us about how to cure myriad of maladies. It was not thought then cruel to leave people to die. We are more humane now than we ever were before, and so many animals survive who wouldn't otherwise due to better care and vaccinations, but just because animals are alive doesn't mean they're being treated well. I have rescued several beagles, including aforementioned April, who were infinitely better off with me despite their troubles.

I love my dogs. They are part of my family. I will give them the best quality of life I can, but when it's their time to go, I will rejoice that I knew them and look forward to a reunion in the next world. After all, all dogs go to heaven. See you there Arrow.

This image is proprietary

Mark My Words

Share

In this day of rapid media dissemination of information coupled to archival facilities on the internet, it pays to mark your words. Within minutes of a speech, a blog post, an email, etc., whatever you said is stored, scanned by the NSA, and potentially targetted by other internet commentators some of whom are paid to read the asinine scribblings that clutter the information age.

Someone will probably take down your words word for word, chronicling it forever on the internet. Beware then accusations and criticism of your comments unless you prepare before sharing your thoughts what documentation might be required with which to make a case against your accusers. The wiles of men are quick and devious, and they can be ruinous if you're not careful.

Enter Senator Clinton, currently under attack today from talk radio and even CBS news for dressing up a routine trip to Bosnia in 1996 in such a way as to seem heroic. Her feeble attempt thereby to buoy up her image fell flat as early as last week when Mark Levin detailed on his radio show how Sinbad (who was with the senator) discounted her account of their visit as highly fantasic and fictitious. He stopped short of calling it an out-and-out lie, which is essentially what it is. Even more scathing, the average man may access the actual text of her prepared remarks on Senator Clinton's official campaign website. In case they are removed, as they inevitably will be, they are also available at Jabberwonk. Leave no doubt that what she said 12 years ago resembles not one whit that which she alleges to have said today.

Much has been made in recent weeks about Reverend Jeremiah Wright's comments. Senator Obama dismissed it as "just words" after touting the value of words in an early speech, mentioning some powerful examples such as the Declaration of Independence and King's "I Have a Dream" address. Reverend Wright ostensibly spoke from the hip without prepared remarks, according to Senator Obama's affirmation, but apparently Senator Clinton gave a PREPARED address. How can you misread your own notes?

At my high school commencement, as valedictorian, I was invited to speak. After several iterations of my proposed remarks suffered high censorship, I brought in what I always intended to say and ignored the binder on the podium. Nobody expected me, he who was most likely to succeed, from any untoward underhandedness, and it caught them completely by surprise. In other words, I knew what I wanted to say, and I wasn't going to let them tell me what I was allowed to say. A person as powerful as Senator Clinton wouldn't let someone else dictate words to her with which she did not stand in agreement.

Politicians make scabs of promises, with little to no intention whatsoever of keeping them. They give speeches, then excuse it conveniently as simply an error. Only they can get away with that. I remember fighting with my wife and trying to convince her that what she heard was not what I meant. She did not often buy that argument. Why do we buy it from Senator Clinton or Reverend Wright?

Eventually, due mostly to the valiant circumspect of talk radio, I expect that everyone involved in campaigning this year will be called to carpet when what they do deviates from what they said. In the end, there will be an accounting with a Great Judge who cannot lie and will not deceive. Then, it will be with us as it will be for Ben Wagner's father after the local "witch" put's a curse on him called the "Bizinko", saying, "Your words will fly back into your mouth like a bucket of bilge." Or as a much wiser man said, "For our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon us to hide us from his presence."

Mark my words. No matter what may appear, no evil man may escape the awful consequences of his wickedness. Likewise, God will deny no righteous man the blessings earned as fruits of his labor. Then at last, we shall know them all and be known in turn by all.

Often during my marriage my wife would allege I'd said things. Without evidence discounting her allegations, no recourse remained except to defy her or relinquish the argument. To keep the peace, I often surrendered. Eventually, I started recording things, and during our divorce, I conducted all correspondence through email so as to have a written record that I could simply Google and prove that I was right. This made me suspect that she'd concocted most of her allegations in order to manipulate me, knowing I was a man of honor and would honor it if she convinced me I said it. The idea actually came from my divorce attorney (reference available on request), for said he the police do it, so why not we? Plus, it makes for a great show when the judge hears or sees the plaintiff dig her own grave. I hardly had to even fight.

I try not to write or at least disseminate things until I'm done fleshing them out. Even these posts usually sit on the laptop which is not connected to the internet overnight until I get around to posting them. In the end, however, stand by what you say and do. It might not be spot on, but people appreciate intellectual honesty and will welcome your reasoned and honest explanation of how you arose at your conclusions. Many more still may sympathize or at least empathize with that path. If you act like Hamlet, you invite the just wrath and scorn of your critics upon you.

Word.

Everybody Freeze

Share

Law enforcement officers generally issue this or a similar challenge to those suspected of crimes. I don't know why they bother. Criminals always run.

Of course it doesn't make much sense to ask them to run. Logical as that outcome might be, no policeman would invite a person to do wrong, or would they?

We've all seen on TV the putative ways by which policemen break the law. I watch them drive at excessive speeds, ignore traffic lights, and hold up traffic. If they were sitting behind me and not vice versa, I bet bottom dollar they'd issue me a ticket. They plant evidence, frame people, hide things, are "on the take", ad infinitum, and so they're not much different from us.

I've interviewed for law enforcement jobs. They basically rejected me offhand because I have a Biochemistry degree, not Criminal Justice, as if those classes on my transcript make me any more prepared than any other applicant. When the Nevada Highway Patrol rejected me, I finally figured out what was wrong: I wasn't a big enough ass hole.

I know a few people who were LVMPD here in Vegas but who quit because it was putting a drain on their lives as a whole. They resemble me in many ways: trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty and brave. Contrary to popular belief, many of the cops you might expect to meet at random are few of those things. They aren't boy scouts, and they don't want any. It's like the movie "Dave" where the Chief of Staff goes apoplectic at the prospect of the Vice President ascending. They can't have that "Boy Scout" be in charge.

Law enforcement is where bullies go when they finish high school. There, we pay them to do basically the only thing they're good at.

Most good people want to fight crime, but few of them can honestly deal with criminals. Their behavior and personalities differ so much that it makes them uncomfortable. Good people want the rules to work, and so when they don't, they fly to pieces like glass. Good people can't interact with the fallen mortal world.

Unfortunately, this leaves the world with less than optimal people in positions of authority. Good people don't want to be corrupted, and so they shy away in the end from everywhere we need them to be. When a good man arises, bad people cut him down. If he wins, his normality exposes their mediocrity.

That's the bottom line in the mortal realm- bad people want everyone to freeze where they are and stop progressing. It's a good thing nobody listens.

Operation: Sexy 'Stache

Share

Last night I saw this hillarious video about facial hair and just had to comment on this. Although it was written for a specific audience, the sentiment and premise remain constant with my overarching theme that beards don't make men men.

About a year ago I shaved off the goatie I'd grown after finishing college at the behest of the State of Nevada which disproved of it. It took my supervisor over a week to notice what exactly I changed about my appearance. However, people noticed very quickly when I had one and their reactions clustered in similar territory.

Hypothesis
I grew the beard as part of an experiment (sorry- scientist) to see what effect it would exert on people I met. I hypothesized that people would be judgmental of me and make negative assumptions based on the beard before ever getting to know the man underneath (aside from the year test period, I've been clean-shaven all of my life). My null hypothesis was that it wouldn't affect people's opinions at all. For experimentation, I applied for several jobs that I didn't care if I got or not (they weren't better than my current job) and I asked 62 different girls out for drinks (picked at random times and places although there was some bias since I wanted to ask girls out to whom I was attracted and not simply random girls).

Experimental Procedure
When I went in for interviews, my hair and beard were neatly trimmed, and I wore my finest vestiments (charcoal single-breasted suit with white shirt and tie). I likewise groomed myself for religious functions. For invitational and extra-vocational activities, I dressed well but wore the beard. Girls were invited to go out with me whenever the opportunity presented itself, so sometimes that meant I was on the way home from work (and rather dirty sometimes), or not spectacularly dressed, or covered in dog hair after a vet trip, but I could not control those variables without sacrificing the asking opportunity. Only two of the girls I asked were girls I met on occasion of my vocational pursuits.

Experimental Results
Only one job interview (the job I currently hold with the State of Nevada) didn't seem bothered by the beard. Even the PPL, although many people had 'staches, suggested I shave. The highway patrol (where again a Sgt wore a 'stache) didn't seem to like it. (I think there were other variables at work here like the fact that I have an MS in Biochemistry and not a BS in Criminal Justice.) Of the 62 girls I asked out, only two answered in the affirmative, and they were both girls with whom I interacted as a function of my vocational activities (see above). Only one of those two continued to talk with me two weeks after our date, but I have not had a real conversation with her for the last 8 months.

I was introduced by a friend of mine to a person of influence in our ecclesiastical community who gazed down at me and said, "Oh, you're that Thomas". Condescension oozed from his lips.

Conclusions
Although perhaps not statistically significant (after all, how many eligible girls were there in the metropolitan area whom I might have asked out?) and since there were exclusionary bias in the selection of girls to ask out (but then again who asks out girls to whom they are not attracted?), the data seemed to indicate one thing very clearly- there was sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the 'stache exerted no effect on people's opinions of me.

By my reckoning, the goatie produced largely negative results. It certainly in and of itself generated no positive ones. I suspect the two girls with whom I had dates dated me less for the fact that the goatie didn't bother them and more to point that they knew who I was from interacting with me and saw through the beard on that account.

There is no such thing as a sexy 'stache for the girls in which I express interest. A coworker of mine suggested I buy a motorcycle, as that helped him attract girls, to whit I replied I cared little to attract the type of girls that kind of visibility promised. The girl with whom I made the most progress intimated that she liked men with facial hair, but she and her boyfriend (who is clean-shaven) are expecting their first child now, so I know that's not the whole story.

There is nothing wrong with a beard. It changed nothing of the person that I am. In point of fact, since shaving, I have had equally low ROI in the dating department although I do expect a change of vocation in the near future. Without shaving, I know I'd never get that job. My parents like me better without one, but they interestingly enough never criticized me for having one, only mentioned that it might help me get a better job if I shaved.

The bottom line is a line I heard from Dr. Seuss years ago when I was excised from an online community for my defiance of convention: "Be who you are and say what you think, for those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind". Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson, the real one, said, "It is necessary for the happiness of man that he be true to himself." If you are true to who you really are, you can be happy, no matter what other people think, even in Utah.

Guitar Hero Heroes

Share

If you live within a few blocks of my home, you might in the evening between the hours of 18:30 and 20:30 hear renditions of famous songs and new compositions of my own work emanating through the neighborhood as I strum the strings of my Yamaha guitar. Wednesday night, someone invited me to come to a "Guitar Hero" party this weekend, to whit I answered I needed time to consider their offer.

Having now spoken with my sister who's played Guitar Hero, I opted to decline the kind invitation. Until this last fall when Guitar Hero III came out, I'd never even heard of this game, and until that same time, I'd never really tried to play the guitar in earnest, although I had plucked out some tablature during my second sojourn in Europe 1998-2000. My sister told me that, since I play decently on a real guitar, she felt I would not enjoy it.

I saw this morning the following Gearlog warning about those who play this popular game. When I saw the pictures of the implements used to play the game, I understood why my sister felt the way she does. I am by no means a professional guitarist or a musician, but at the eve of yesteryear, I sought something to do in my free time to stimulate my mind and occupy my time constructively since I'm single. I lighted on the guitar, and these tools are no guitars.

I started playing the guitar for real (chords and tablature) Christmas Day 2007. Since then, I've written four songs and learned dozens more, including a score of complicated chords which my sister termed "ambitious". For my education in the guitar, I turned to online work from other aspirants who play real guitars, and wrote a few of my own where they left me disappointed.

Perhaps playing the guitar comes easy to me because I played clarinet and piano as a teenager and because I sing tenor. Music appeals to me due to the rhythmic and mathematical progressions, so I enjoy it. For less or the same money as Guitar Hero and the accouterments required to play, you can own and play your own acoustic guitar. You may never write songs that make money and bring you fame, but you can still woo girls with a real guitar 10-20 years from now, play at reunions, or enjoy the instrument whereas nobody will care in 2010 if you own a PS3 or beat GH3.

For all the time I spent mocking garage bands in high school, I rethought the value thereof. Instead of being couped up inside glaring at a cathode ray tube or projection monitor, they were outside making something. The association between individuals, the entrepreneurial spirit, the interactions arising from collaborative effort outshine any value that beating a hard GH3 level has. Some of those people even managed to become famous. More than that, it gave them a place to belong and allowed them a creative venue with which to improve upon their time. Some parents may disagree on account of the noise or expense, but who can doubt that they used the instruments and perhaps gained an appreciation for tonality, tempo, crescendo, and harmony that cannot be learned any other way except through interpersonal relations.

Before you argue about the "interaction" of video gaming, consider the following. Video gaming generally involves interaction through the game. Would you interact with those people if they didn't have the latest gaming system? I shudder to think of all the hours I spent watching other people play. I confess that we went to those homes because those people had an NES or Sega Genesis, not because we genuinely found them affable. In fact, I doubt I'd interact with them at all for lack of those gaming systems. They knew it too, and they treated us accordingly. Secondly, gaming creates interactions that are foreign to who we really are. I remember the first time I played Street Fighter II where upon losing a bout to my brother I felt feelings of unmitigated bellicose nature arise within me. They were foreign to my normal personae, and without that game, I don't think I would have ever felt that way about anyone or anything. Those are not positive rivalries created by video games.

Instead of tapping away at keys on a fake guitar, you could make your own music and have something to show for your time that you created. Free software like audacity or garageband if you own a Mac allow people to author and finish their own work. Nothing felt as good as when I received back the Copyright information from the Library of Congress for my first book. Nobody can take that away from me, but someone can always come along and beat your high score.

Virtual reality threatens to take away from us our true life. From virtual dating to Neopets to garageband ad infinitum, we slowly surrender ourselves to a world of fantasy. We are becoming the matrix. There is no spoon, and soon there may be no you because you have squandered your time.

If you hear guitar music and roll your eyes thinking it's just some more punk kids, remember that some people still do play real instruments. Should that turn out to be what you hear, thank your lucky stars that they're improving upon their time.

Econ 411: Political Economics

Share

Amidst the recent villification of oil companies, I find the following analysis illuminating. I started a new IRA for tax year 2007 and just received their prospectus, detailing holdings. Although I didn't buy it on those auspices, the fund in which I invested includes the following holdings as a percentage of total investments:

0.35% Chevron-Texaco

0.27% Pacific Gas and Electric (California Utility company)

0.16% Royal Shell

I own 325 shares of this fund at present, which means I own

1.14 shares of Chevron Texaco

0.88 shares PG&E

0.52 shares Shell

My parents hold similar fund investment ratios, but with considerably more shares. Assuming they hold a measely 10000 shares, they hold 35 shares Chevron, 27 shares of PG&E, and 16 shares of Shell Oil. That 35 shares of Chevron is worth almost $3000. I'd say that my parents have a vested interest in the financial success of those companies. So, I suspect, do you.

Most people who hold IRAs or diversified 401k funds hold a vested interest in funds of public scrutiny. Wal-mart, Albertson's, Revere-Ware (yes, started by the Revere you think started it), Exxon-Mobil, Firestone, Ford, GMC, etc., may constitute a portion of your mutual or index fund. When the government quests against those companies to tax their "windfall profits", they essentially tax you. Those taxes trickle down to lower ROI for your shares, lower dividends, and smaller retirements for regular Americans. By contrast, many politicians are invested in privately held industry, such as companies that sell carbon credits, solar panels, wind turbines, etc., none of which you are allowed to invest in. Then they pass legislation to enforce the use of those commodities, raising their returns with no affirmation in your portfolio.

Even if you don't own stock, you make money. Many government fiscal policies affect you as well, primarily through a devaluation of your earning power through inflation or increased cost. In my lifetime, I've seen stamps rise from $0.12 to $0.42 for domestic postage and gas rise from $0.80/gal to $3.29/gal as recently as my last fill-up. My first job took a gallon of gas to reach each way to earn $5/hour, but if I were still earning that wage, instead of costing me 15 minutes of work each day to pay for transportation, it would cost me 36 minutes, more than a two-fold increase in cost to get to work. Furthermore, inflation devalues the buying power of your money if you sew it into your mattress, so that if you "go to the mattresses", the essential effect is as if you'd been robbed. Your $1000 doesn't buy what it bought ten years ago when you put it there. My car cost $12.300 new, but to replace it today would cost me $15,400 and that for the same equivalent model (the SL1 was phased out by Saturn about 6 years ago).

Before you freak out, consider what reactionary responses of other fearmongers cost you. A recent Yahoo Finance Analysis reports the following, and I quote:

• "(Investors) seem to be coming round to the notion that the deterioration in the U.S. (economic) picture cannot be ignored on the pretext that commodities are a 'weak dollar play' or an 'inflation hedge', and thus immune from downward pressure," said Edward Meir, an analyst at MF Global UK Ltd., in a research note.

Oil typically moves inversely proportional to the dollar, and is currently being touted, like Gold (according to commercials on Talk Radio from Leer Financial) as a hedge against inflation and losses in the stock market. Buying commodities provides no hedge. It's a speculative investment and could be worth less tomorrow than it is today (oil closed near $101 today, down from $110 on Monday for a 10% loss this week alone). It tends to vascillate short term more than stock and like gold doesn't build wealth over a long-term investment horizon.

People buying oil today are not buying it for tomorrow. In the same article quoted earlier, it reports that contracts at least through April and possibly May have already been negotiated and set in stone. That means the oil price you hear quoted today is what suppliers will have to pay for crude in June to replace current supplies and forthcoming April and May inventories. You have no idea what will happen tomorrow, let alone this summer. You may forcast, project, and hope and pray, but in the end you hold as little sway over tomorrow as you do over the rotation of planets in our solar system.

In the proximal future, the government will issue "prebate" checks as an advance on tax refunds you'd receive when you file your 2008 return. In order to pay for this, they have to come up with money, and since they haven't collected the tax money for 2008 yet, they borrowed it, and printed more at the mint. The more money in circulation, the less each dollar is worth. When they send out the checks, a $600 check will not be worth that much, because the supply of dollars rising will cause the worth of a dollar to decline.

The politicians who pandered to pass the "economic stimulus package" knew full well that it serves very little to spur the economy. We enjoy an election year, and they want to appear involved, to look like they care and are doing something, so they did this, so we can pat them on the back and tell them how great they are. In the end, they made things worse.

Said a wiser man than I: The government which governs best governs least. The best thing government can do for the economy is to get out of its way. If they do nothing, it will do well. If they removed restraints and regulations it would be better.

Give Me John Hancock

Share

Everyone knows that John Hancock penned his signature in large font to the bottom of the Declaration of Independence. What most people don’t know is that he was the only signer to sign it on the 4^th of July. Not until the 2^nd of August of that year did the remainder signatories add their vote of confidence, but even then some men who attended the ratification refused to put their names to the document.

Whatever they did after that point matters very little. They missed the opportunity to emboss on the annals of history their names in perpetuity. While some may have striven valiantly in the cause of liberty, we only remember that first man for his emboldened defiance of George III, and their efforts lie in predicate nominative, obfuscated by how they kept their first estate.

The true impact of John Hancock’s signature extends far beyond the eyes of a long dead British Monarch. John Hancock’s bold defiance of tyranny befits the symbolic nature of the Revolution and its role in a greater conflict that spans epochs of time. Sometimes I wonder if John regretted his flamboyantly boisterous display, but one thing leaves no doubt. For the rest of his life, John Hancock strove against those same powers that attempted to establish tyranny over the minds of man.

If John Hancock could somehow emerge in society today, endowed with comprehension and knowledge of all transpiration since his death, I believe he would be appalled. Furthermore, I believe that he would again pen without question his name to anything that defied the new tyranny creeping in among us. During his time, America remained largely ignorant of socialism, but I know he would recognize it today.

Give me a John Hancock. No, I don’t want your autograph or signature. I want a man who says, “Screw what other men think. I intend to do what is right.” Sometimes people ask me if I worry about the ramifications of my blatantly defiant stance against socialism and liberalism, my condemnation of it as a satanic instrument, and my criticism of those who fall for the emotional outcroppings and try to redeem themselves with our blood. Like John Hancock, I don’t really care. My detractors and denigrators can do nothing of permanent resonance to me. They can only cause suffering to the body. In the end my soul, like Hancock’s name, will live on.

I believe that there are great men and women in embryo all around this nation. By and large, they remain silent for fear of powerful men and women whose riches and connections threaten to destroy in grandiose fashion that way of life they intend to build for their families. The problem is that they sin by silence and allow those same forces to establish a new socialistic tyranny by degrees, line upon line, precept upon precept, until they are grasped with the awful chains of death and hell.

When the Jeffersons, Hamiltons, and Paines of our day arise, these nefarious forces keep us from recognizing them. They are shouted down and cut off in speeches, given poor marks for their writs, and hampered by haranguing hordes intent on nullifying that which is good and brave and true. Socialists flood our educational system and verily render it no longer able to teach men how to live and act and carry themselves off in life triumphantly. Rather they fill the skulls of our children with “facts and figures”, interpretive methodologies, and the philosophies of men, mingled with truth.

During the revolution, it took a Hancock to rise up and put a name to the idea. On him came by consequence the sum vitriol of Britain’s wrath, the personification of satan’s desire that all men might live in as much misery as possible. Misery poured out upon the colonies, and Hancock, himself perhaps the wealthiest man in America, found himself on the run from General Thomas Gage, lost several of his ships including the Liberty to the British, and suffered greatly trying to keep Washington’s army supplied and equipped during the revolution. Eventually in consequence of his privations, he succumbed to illness and died at the age of 56. He left no descendants. He had a lot to lose, but he also had much to gain.

For those of you who worry about what tyrants may say, remember Hancock. Stand for something, or you may find that you have indeed lost all by your hesitation. At first, it just took Hancock’s signature. At first it will probably just take yours, but unless you are willing to trade everything you have to secure liberty, then you do not deserve it. Give me John Hancock, and I will give you again the resolve necessary to pay any price to preserve those inalienable rights with which our Creator endows all men.

Kicking Against the Pricks

Share

Last week, some guy emailed me in response to a Craigslist ad, giving me reason to pause. Despite having never met me, this man proceeded in combative and condescending fashion to rant against me. At the end, he further insulted me by offering me only 30% of what I wanted for the item.

For some reason, I let this get to me. After putting the matter to some thought, I arrived at the following conclusion: I should not let this insignificant person hold any sway over me. I would not let him goad me into a response, no matter how reasoned or appropriate, for my energies were not worth it. This pathetic man deserves my sympathy, for obviously he has nothing better to do than troll Craigslist looking for people to critique.

One major reason people like this get on my nerves is because they’re stupid. Stupid people confuse me. Not that I’m omniscient, but I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck, and the people with whom I hobnobbed in graduate school and in my current job far exceed this jerk in intellect and conversation. As for this man, his ignorance confuses me.

I don’t as a general rule hang out with certain people. Despite invitations, I have never gone to a bar after work or to a dance club. I do not sit around shooting guns or watching American Idol, and until recently I didn’t blog either. None of the people in these circles are doing anything bad necessarily, it’s simply that those are not places or activities in which I feel comfortable.

A month ago, I took my guitar down to a store to get some professional help. I took up the guitar just after Christmas by learning chords and downloading music off the internet. As such, I know nothing of guitar jargon or theory or really care. Fortunately, they were able to easily diagnose and treat the condition at hand. As I stood waiting for the associate to find someone to perform the adjustments, I glanced around the store and felt very out of place. The guitar store contained the typical assortment of stereotypical music acolytes one might expect, each more bizarre than the last. I stood there in Wranglers and a Croft and Banks collared shirt, in stark contrast to anyone else. No wonder my sister asked me to go with her to pick up her guitar last year.

When fashion briefly approximated my wardrobe in college, I enjoyed a brief period of popularity, which was as transient as the Reno snow. No sooner had fashion moved to a different genre than those in whose company I once found acceptance mocked and denigrated me for sticking with what I had. I reminded them that I’d worn these things because I already owned them, not because they became cool. They didn’t care. They were really using the opportunity to justify their own pathetic existence.

I needed to learn again not to kick against the pricks. This impolite rapscallion didn’t know me from Adam. He also deserves no response. I refuse to debase myself for his amusement. I know I am right with God, and so nothing he has to say matters one whit.

Repeating History

Share

Barrack “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named” Obama denounced his renegade preacher last Friday for spurious anti-Americanisms heard in a Christmas broadcast. Although in a public statement he tried to distance himself from the reverend’s comments, according to Hannity and Colmes on 14 March 2008, Reverend Wright now works on Obama’s campaign. Despite saying he doesn’t support the church leader in his ideas, Obama gave over $22,000 in charitable donations to the church. In my opinion, you do not donate money to something with whose edicts you disagree.

After attending the church for 20 years, Obama thinks that a simple statement of criticism can mitigate his association. Their mutual improvement association saw the Obamas through their marriage, the baptism and raising of their children and now to myriad of endorsements in his presidential campaign. His proponents affirm that associations don’t count. Apparently they forgot the Reed Smoot Affair.

In 1902, after having been elected to the Senate, members of Congress opened a series of hearings that lasted four years meant to establish whether or not a Mormon could serve in elected office. Despite the precedence of prior Mormon office holders in Deseret Territory and later the state of Utah itself, the Republican party continued to crusade against Mormons for their prior but now mute issue of polygamy.

Allegations of the ignorant bombastically bombarded Smoot and his associates during the hearings. At issue during those hearings Senators wanted to know whether Smoot, or indeed any Mormon, advocated and endorsed principles contrary to the constitution and to American principles. The Senate’s stance was somewhat contradictory and hypocritical. When Smoot was finally seated in 1906, one of the senators remarked, “He believes in polygamy but he doesn’t polyg. We believe in monogamy, but we don’t monog.”

For Smoot, it mattered very much what religious affiliations and beliefs he held, and that was just to hold a senate seat which Obama already holds. Smoot never tried nor wanted to obtain the presidency. When Mitt Romney made the attempt this year, he had to again field questions that should have been answered over 100 years earlier by the Smoot Inquest. Every speech, every appearance, every debate involved him defending his religion, and that was to his fellow Republicans. When will Obama be called to defend his?

Smoot overcame the spurious allegations. Will You-Know-Who be able to?

Holistic and Home Remedies

Share

My immediate supervisor (Ph.D. Chemistry) and the director of our Mass Spectrometry Lab (Ph.D. Chemistry) asked me (M.S. Biochemistry) to write a grant investigating holistic remedies. During a discussion one day about herbal remedies, they wondered how to come to scientific conclusions about those claims and then came to me, seeing as how I studied plant secondary metabolites in graduate school.

The horrible little secret is that by and large the human body bears responsibility for abrogating itself any perturbation to the natural order. Despite our advances, man remains incapable of creating anything that directly countermands the effects of viral, fungal, and parasite attack. By the same measure, nothing we provide directly fights abiotic attack (temperature, pressure, gravitational forces, etc.) either. Over time, our bodies acclimate to the new conditions using the materials we provide them. Some bodies do better than others, due in part I think to the availability of certain accessory cofactors provided by consumption.

One of the most potent secondary metabolites of interest I studied is resveratrol. Resveratrol is claimed to be among the most potent antioxidants, but when chemically synthesized in a laboratory proves to be bio-inactive. Our lab hypothesized that under abiotic stress, resveratrol production would increase, so as to mitigate the adverse effects of the stress. The wine industry paid particular interest to this research, as primary resveratrol production and consumption is part of the grape industry.

Despite their hopes and our expectations, but logical and reasonable, abiotic stress increased 50-fold resveratrol in leaves and shoots but only 2-fold in the berries. When you’re measuring in ppb, a 2-fold increase is not necessarily statistically significant. However, it is useful, if you plan to eat leaves.

In addition to those compounds, we identified about 100 other compounds, many of which remain unidentified as to their exact nature and function, that changed in concentration significantly under the same conditions. Chances are, some of them serve a role either passively as antioxidants like resveratrol or as cofactors in other reactions. I suspect they either lower activation energy or increase efficiency for processes already possible in the body.

Nobody seems interested in testing plants to find out what it is exactly that makes them useful to the body. Most of the herbal supplements are not supported by the FDA, meaning there are no scientific studies linking any components to human health. That doesn’t mean they’re not there. It means everyone’s too lazy to do anything useful.

The other possibility is that they fear what they might find. When we presented our resveratrol findings at the ASEV conference in 2003, we also presented a report on ethyl-carbamate. In the presence of alcohol, and under sufficient heat, unfiltered amino acids and proteins floating in wine perform a nucleophilic reaction that creates the ethyl-carbamate carcinogen. Since wine is typically made in summer, transported by truckers and sold by winebibbers, in the chain of custody, the marginal propensity indicates that at some point during the chain from vine to table the wine has breached the 70ºF threshold to initiate this substitution reaction.

We took our wine and some random samples from a liquor store and tested them for ethyl-carbamate. Almost without exception, of our ten varieties and of the four store varieties, every vintage contained 80%+ of the legal limit for ethyl-carbamate content of 100ng/ml. By contrast, beer usually has 10ng/ml and cognac 500ng/ml. This is why sherry and cognac (which are heated during processing) are not made in the U.S.

So, they sell you on wine for its ability to fight atherosclerosis and as an antioxidant, but our studies show that ethyl-carbamate content mitigates any protective effect found in the average glass. They are right to fear what they might find. What we don’t know is killing us.

Self-Reliance

Share

Crude oil prices recently hit new highs (mostly because the dollar hit new lows), and so once again we find ourselves thinking about American energy policy. Despite their expressions of concern, none of the leading presidential candidates offer any solutions meant to either alleviate short term stress or abrogate long term problems. They prefer to mire themselves in the Disneyland of thought about what "might be" and tout solutions for which we lack both means and technology to bring to bear.

I have, for some time, researched the concept of solar panels for my own 100-acre ranch in Wyoming. When I was in graduate school, I roomed with a family which kept itself completely off the grid. True, solar and wind generated insufficient energy to meet all their needs, but Adrian simply fired up the generator when the batteries ran dry and all was well. It is conceivably possible to, at relatively little upkeep expense, provide all of one's own power needs, but not everywhere people live. Adrian lived on a sloping escarpment about 10 miles north of town with a permanent southern exposure. His proximity to a lake ensured constant winds. His lack of neighbors gave his panels and turbines unobstructed access, and the distal proximity of neighbors vouchsafed against complaints of eyesore. For him, it was a panacea.

For most people, generating our own power is neither possible nor practical. For the United States, however, it is not only possible and practical, it is imperative. The United States possesses energy resources that might render it independent of all exigent sources for power. We get plenty of sun, wind, and water for renewable energy, but we also possess a plethora of coal, oil, natural gas, and most importantly, Uranium.

Don't misunderstand me. I live in Nevada, but I endorse nuclear power. I am not sure Nevada has much nuclear material, but I know Clinton prevented access to a great deal thereof under Grand Escalante National Monument in Utah- a vast expanse of nothingness that nobody would care to visit let alone pay visitation fees to support the Park Service facilities established there.

We westerners perhaps think differently of self-reliance. Our ancestors, more proximal in time than our coastie neighbors, eeked out a subsistence living on the prairies. My own progenitors played an integral role in vegetating the vast salt marshes of the Wasatch and Uinta flood basins. I'm glad I didn't see it before they got to work.

I believe, like my ancestors, that we ought produce as much of our own as we can. Domestic supply suffers less from the vicissitudes of war and terror that shake the nations abroad than might be occasioned from trading partners, no matter how benign our association. Additionally, the more proximal the source, the less subject it is to aberrations of nature that impede shipments, either wrecking ships or waylaying cargo when forces beyond our control inhibit transport. Plus, Americans are less likely to cheat each other than foreign potentates are to cheat us, envious they be of our prosperity.

One final reference to the pioneer builders of this nation. They did not follow a singular vector in their settlement and all get behind the same cart. They spread out far and wide through many settlements and attacked the wilderness everywhere in concurrent fashion. It makes little sense to me for our leaders to endorse and pursue exclusively one method for solving energy concerns at the exclusion of all others. There is no energy El Dorado that will solve all of our problems. If we want constant, consistent, and safe energy sources for today and tomorrow, we ought to be doing everything in our power everywhere we can to attack the wilderness. For those who want to follow the impractical and often prohibitively expensive course of renewable resources, let them. Meanwhile, what about coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power? Let's mine what we have, build refineries, and power ourselves long enough to develop and perfect alternative means.

Said a great American patriot, Patrick Henry: "We are not weak if we make proper use of the means which the God of Nature hath provided us." Nature gave us these things to use. Until we find something better, it makes cowards and fools of men to ignore what they have and opine what they have not.

Bare Truth About Bear Markets

Share

I saw an article on Yahoo Finance that intimated a recession has come. Whether or not that is the case, there are a few lessons to be learned based on my own experiences I feel disposed to share. Fearmongers in the media have been drooling in anticipation of this moment, and by so doing I believe they hastened its advent or tipped the scales in its favor. How many people do you know who are now hoarding money because they heard on the news that now is a bad time to invest?

Despite his wishes, the President will not stimulate the economy by giving us a tax "prebate" (term patent pending). In essence, he's fronting us a refund on our 2008 taxes hoping we'll spend it and spur the economy. Being the frugal miser I am, I plan to put it into some sort of investment (probably a CD at this point) to generate a return on the money. Most people will pay bills they already owe, and so nothing in terms of new spending will result.

The economy will, as a result of this disappointing return, recede. I don't know how far or for how long, but the market seethes with a reactionary few who respond to every wind of rhetoric. That phenomenon accounts at least in part for rising oil and gas prices. Those prices are ironically earmarks of recession, occassioned primarily by the decline in value of the dollar, or INFLATION. Just four weeks ago (I watch this regularly), the dollar hovered near 0.69 Euros, hitting a new low today at 0.63 Euros, or a loss of 10%. In the same time, oil jumped from $100 to $110 and gold from $900 to $1000. Please note that these commodities rose proportionate to the dollar's fall.

Gold and oil are poor earmarks of the market because they respond to fearmongering. These commodities are referred to as futures, which means they trade for what people think they WILL cost at some future point. The traders in this market react to every speech, every threat, every disaster, with abject fear, and they buy more futures, further exacerbating the problem.

Some might argue that stock prices represent a future value as well, and rightly so, since a company stock price reflects what investors think $1 invested with the company will be worth in the future. However, most companies have assets besides the products they make, unlike gold and oil companies, and they have some degree of products in production, whereas a gold or oil venture may just know where to go.

Avoiding the fear mongering is tough, but that strategy is best during a bear market. I have preferred, by and large for the last 17 years I've been in the market, to largely ignore what the market does. My investments, with rare exception, are largley diversified to the point where I can absorb short-term oscillations or sector specific crises.

At the tender age of 12, I inherited $2000 on the advent of a very very very distant relative's death. At the behest of my parents and since I didn't know what I'd spend it on, I put it into the now defunct Berger 101 Index Fund. It remained there through the Gulf War and the volatile and horrible Clinton administration until I drew it out as a down payment on my first home in 2003 (which I eventually sold for 100% profit). I withdrew the money just after the 2000-2001 recession at the same value it held just prior to that bear market. During the time I held the fund, it generated an annual 15% ROI.

Thanks to unforseen circumstances, I stayed out of the market until 2007, when I bought into an aggressive fund through USAA. My strategy so far has paid off in that fund. I follow the principle as I always have of dollar-cost averaging.

Take the beginning of this year for example. USCGX is currently trading at 7.87, which is the lowest level in two years. Since 1 January, it has traded as high as 8.43, but my monthly distributions to the fund on the 12th of every month have resulted in the following:
January 8.03
February 8.10
March 8.06
Between the February and March purchases, the value of the fund surged to its highest point this year, but my purchases have all been near the lows of the year. If the market goes up, I win. If it goes down, I lose less than if I’d bought at the peak.

I believe the stock market is much like the ocean. Each wave is followed by a trough, but overall, the sea remains steadily increasing in volume thanks in part to glacial melt in the Antarctic. Sometimes you see tidal waves, and if you’re lucky enough to catch a wave and sell at the crest, kudos. If not, remember that the sea carried wave after wave of ships safely to destinations without too much trouble.

Trying to catch the market requires far too much time and risk than most people can tolerate. With dollar cost averaging, you end up with a series of periodic investments that sometimes catch the market up and sometimes catch the market down. Over the long haul (7-10 years), properly diversified stocks rise in value. You've seen graphs and charts about how much money things are worth over time. When I worked for Wal-Mart, they told us about one of the longest serving associates who at her retirement held almost $1.2 million in stock alone, from a single investment of circa $5000 back in 1972 when WMT first went public.

I started a jogging regimen last fall to build my body up to join the military. I learned firsthand the biochemical effects that impinge one's ability to continue past the breaking point. When you first start running, you initially hit a wall occassioned by the depletion of glucose/glycogen stores in muscle tissue. Since muscles burn sugar exclusively for fuel and since fat cannot be mobilized into sugar for metabolism until your body reaches an aerobic state, the anaerobic conditions necessitate lactic acid fermentation. Lactic acid buildup causes muscles to burn and ache, and you may feel you cannot go on. As you press on past 10 or 15 minutes, you find that "second wind" that allows you to run almost until (at least for me) you decide to quit. The last 25 minutes of my 40 minute run are easier than the first 15, despite my being "tired".

When the market throws you things that seem hard to tolerate, remember that there is more going on than meets the eye. Many people, burdened by the initial fatigue, quit the race before they catch that spurt that allows them to continue going. Success in a market requires endurance and a sticktoitiveness similar to that of jogging or any similar sport that requires a man to go the distance. It may not seem like you're making it closer to your goal, but if you quit, you will not be better off tomorrow than you are today. Any challenge that presents itself offers you a chance to grow through risk and effort. If you opt out, you remain the same, but if you stay in, you're most likely to grow as a result.

I am not worried about the current downtrend. I am more worried about increases in capital gains taxes proposed by the House, which will cost me more than the current recession will. Recessions are temporary; tax hikes are forever.

On the Marrying Age

Share

I may attract a barrage of criticism for my sentiments in this regard, but I feel compelled to say a few things anyway. Well meaning though their efforts may be, I wonder if the encouragement of church leaders for young people to marry quickly revolves less about setting a good foundation and more about keeping young people out of trouble. They may avoid sexual sins by this election, but they sacrifice other things in exchange, things that exert powerful influence on relationships.

One of my wife’s constant tirades focused on my apparent inability to supply her with all of her desires. I earned enough for our needs, but for many people that doesn’t suffice. In marriage, "you" and "I" dissolve in favor of "us" and "our". Many young people never learn a community of property or cooperation. In many cases, this arises because parents elect to provide for the needs of their children instead of expecting them to pay their own way as much as possible.

Young people marry when they’re immature. A friend commented on how his wife isn’t as much fun or free now that they have children. While he departs the home for work each day, she remains at home surrounded by constant responsibility, which forced her to mature quickly. My friend sees forces of less magnitude, and despite his advanced age relatively acts less mature than chronology dictates.

My sister complained recently about disparities between herself and eligible bachelors. Many of the available have several years on her and forget how they were at 19 when they judge her demeanor unfit for marriage. When I was 19, I was abroad, preaching about Christ in a foreign land, so the situation was very different. Most of the boys when I returned home placed excessive emphasis on marrying a younger, attractive woman while simultaneously expecting a level of maturity from them comparable to their own despite the disparity in age. The irony is that at 21, neither my compatriots nor myself were all that mature.

At 21, I had only one year of college under my belt, with no definite future prospects. Although I never changed my major, even upon graduation a BS in Biochemistry doesn’t necessarily lead to a job. I also leaned heavily on promises of people in positions of power, none of whom delivered on their word. Growing up, I never had a pet, and I never had a roommate at college, not since living with my kid brother during high school. Despite the things going for me, I was not fit for marriage at 23 when I tied the knot.

I think a lot of people get married too soon. While unnecessary delay leads to trouble and the onset of bad habits, early plunges often lead to unnecessary pain and anguish. An old movie title, “Fools Rush In” speaks volumes in this regard.

So what do I think? I think people should date each other for at least a year, and by dating I mean classical courtship, NOT living together in sin. If a person puts up a pretense, it becomes difficult to keep up a charade for an entire year, and over a longer duration, one sees more evidence of possible conflicts later on. Once the initial romantic attraction wears off, without rose-colored glasses, we see more clearly the person we idealize.

I believe in abstinence outside of marriage. Sexual indulgence leads to broken homes, disease, and distrust of females towards people possessive of true chivalric ideals. I think men should have a plan, a realistic plan, and be either working toward it or nearly complete with training so they can care for their families. Only then can mates accurately weigh their fiscal compatibility. I think women need an education of their own, so they can care for themselves for as long as it takes for a man to grow in love with them. I think people should know one another as a couple for a while before inviting children into their home, for at least a year, so that they can see how one another respond to input without the emotional unsteadiness of pregnancy to confuse them.

Even after one elects to delay marriage to a later age, one must not overcorrect by withholding the requisite habits and lifestyle changes necessary to a healthy relationship. Delay does not necessitate or warrant a cessation of dating, dallying in education, or indulgence of personal goals. Happy is the man who prepares without knowing so that when the opportunity arises he is prepared to take advantage of it.

People in my religion are probably the worst for encouraging wanton marriage. No sooner had I returned from missionary service than my grandparents began hounding me to produce grandchildren. They pestered me about dating, offered to introduce me to some "very fine young ladies", and hinted at my solemn duty. How do I reconcile my words with my religious beliefs? God is a God of order. He wants us to do good things in the right place at the right time for the right reasons. Blind obedience isn’t healthy. Being blind in anything isn’t good.

Airborne Shows Flaws of Science

Share

This morning, I read an article about how AirborneHealth is offering refunds to users of its products given the fact that it may or may not affect whatsoever the health of those who take it. According to the article all of the scientific evidence establishing Airborne as profilactic in fighting infections constitutes simply the word of a man who under questioning cited no studies whatsoever, let alone scientific, and lacks credentials of a degree to back up his assertions.

Airborne constitutes simply the latest in a long line of non-scientific products that explain why so many products contain the disclaimer "Products [and information] have not been evaluated by the FDA and are not meant to diagnose, cure, mitigate or prevent any disease. If you have a health condition see your physician." For many of these products, the makers simply lack expertise or desire to embark on the long and arduous process of verifying the validity of their claims when bringing a product to market.

What of the people who claim that Airborne works for them? I believe Airborne, like so many other things we take, acts in bipartate fashion. First, consumption of a profilactic serves a psychosematic role in abbrogating disease. A recent article mentioned on talk radio (I forget where unfortunately), referenced how in terms of erectile disfunction medication placebo seemed in many instances to run close heel to the actual drug, bringing into question why anyone "needed" an ED drug.

Psychosematic drug effects are not a new concept. In the OLD movie "Captain Blood", the Governor of Jamaica, suffering from gout, suggests that Dr. Peter Blood bleed him again. Bleeding does absolutely nothing to help gout, but for the governor, the doctor was doing something, so it tends to have a psychological effect on the patient. If you get something, it tends to help, even if that something is a sweet-tart.

Airborne, secondly, may contain ingredients which, if consumed as part of a healthy diet, act in concert with the body's innate immune response and magnify its effects. For many years, I have hemmed and hawed over echinacea, despite having seen it work. I do not think echinacea, or Airborne for that matter, in and of themselves work. After all, a doctor once told me he was proscribing an antibiotic to "prevent viral infection". When I reminded him that they are not at all efficacious against viruses, he admitted it was a "preventative measure in general". Doubtless, the antibiotic may help, particularly if an opportunistic pathogen rears its ugly head. However, its effects I suspect serve an auxiliary role.

We all know about those old wives-tales, things that make you feel better but you don't know why. I've been given chicken soup, chamomille tea, and some Phillipino leaves I couldn't pronounce, all of which seem to help. I think they work, we just don't know why.

The big problem is that scientists don't really seem to care. I particularly love titles like these:
New Study Proves Viagra Effective For Male Impotence
Science doesn't PROVE anything. Not particularly leveled against these particular researchers or the fine fabricators of Viagra, et al., but I have seen for purposes of aggrandizing a career, all sorts of scientific malfeasance in the course of my scientific career, orchestrated to advance a name without regard whatsoever for truly advancing society as a whole.

I have personally witnessed: falsification of results, omission of results, withholding of results, as well as a lot of other things in science. Scientists don't much seem to care about the scientific method.Most scientists, despite what they tell you, know little of how the scientific method actually works. Science doesn’t prove anything. Science disproves all other possibilities until only the truth presumably remains. In a hypothesis-driven endeavor, one collects data and tries to refute the null hypothesis, which is the opposite of your hypothesis. Evidence either satisfies conditions to reject the null hypothesis or proves insufficient to disprove the null hypothesis. In this way, no matter how overwhelming the data, the truth is never really proved, we are merely unable to disprove it. This phenomenon is easily illustrated by physics, which is highly content-specific: all that we know about resistance, gravity and acceleration forces and “constants” applies only in the context of the earth. Although the principles remain the same, all the parameters change when we leave the planet, and some forces change depending on our latitude on this one. Non-scientists refuse to accept this fundamental truth of science- that we cannot “prove” much by experimentation. Data at best provides evidence that A and B are related or that A and B may be causative agents of C. Alec Guinness had a good line in “The Empire Strikes Back”, when he said that much of what we hold to be true depends on our point of view. This is especially important to consider in light of rogue scientists who will obscure or fabricate data, ignore variables, or withhold information to prevent others from subverting their personal agendas. They cannot prove what they believe, so they fit the data to their preconceived notions.

As for holistics and home remedies...more on that later.