About the “Organic” Scam

Share

Ok, I just took a survey on a brand of organic milk that really bugged me… In the ad, the milk was touted as being antibiotic, pesticide, and hormone free, as the best way to keep children healthy and strong. Later they showed a second add demonstrating how this milk fortified with DH5alpha fatty acids helps give kids the things necessary to be healthy. What a mixed message.

This type of advertising conjecture constitutes propaganda worthy of Goebbels. Implications that organic offers a better alternative ignore the true meaning of the word organic. By the true scientific definition of “organic”, acetone (nail polish remover) and cyanide (poison) are also organic, yet none of us would voluntarily ingest either of those two things. Actually, we do. If you ever ate an almond, you VOLUNTARILY ate poison. Also, what’s wrong with hormones, antibiotics and fertilizers? Humans take them, they manufacture them in their own bodies, and they constitute simply a concentration of things that occur naturally.

Now, these advertisers tout their products on the auspices that they’re as close to the wild as possible. Granted, any product nourished with nothing but that which it obtains without mans interpolations usually tastes better, that’s not the primary culprit, nor is it feasible, affordable or practical for most people to nourish themselves. Grow a garden. I plan to. I trust my own food more than I trust anything that I buy. However, man was not meant to live forever, and God knows I don’t intend to. Oxygen, which breaks down everything it touches, is far more hazardous to our health than BHT, DDT or tetracycline. Yet, nobody has thought, thank God, to ban its ingestion.

The second ad was what really got my goat. You can add DH5alpha, but not antibiotics or hormones? Howsat? If they add something that wasn’t there already, isn’t that tantamount to the crime of fortification? I spent years in graduate school measuring different natural treatments to plants meant to increase their antioxidant production. Another lab studied Creosote (chaparral) as a means to make rubber. In the end, I learned that we don’t know enough about why plants or animals make certain things to force them to make it naturally.

The very best thing you can do is grow your own food. Then you control what it gets, when, and how much. You can monitor it for the opportune moment to harvest. Then, you can store it in the most expedient and safe manner. Much of our food processing comes from our urban sprawl. As a resident of Vegas, I know it’s neither possible nor practicable for everyone who lives here to grow his own food. It would negate our productivity and limit our livelihood for want of the water required to just keep things alive. We grow things where they grow best and move them to where people want to live. As a result, we add things to preserve the food until it’s consumed.

I have long been a proponent of self-reliance. Grow what you need. Raise what you kill. Use it all. The Indians ate meat, and they were lean and strong and healthy to ripe old age. Organic is not a panacea, but it is not in the interests of most people to revert to subsistence agriculture. Do what you can yourself, then augment the rest. Whatever you do, don’t you DARE legislate such that it forces me to live “organically” if I don’t want to.

Please pass the almonds.

Pride and Prejudice

Share

Inspired by the intellectual pursuits of a dear friend, I have taken upon myself to accomplish a resplendent and ambitious summer reading list. Among the first of the volumes that came into my hands, I am somewhat loathe to admit finishing Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, in which I found many a valuable mention amidst much firth and frivolity.

Perhaps to my detriment, I daresay Mr. Darcy and I are somewhat alike. He is perceived in none other than a derogatory and demonstrative manner. Of the impressions I make and the commentary I read, I find a commonality of confluence between our characters. When people meet me, they normally regard me as dour, stern, and far too serious for my age. Rest assured that I worry about things with the hope only that you must not as a consequence. My friends say they are glad to know me, but had they not had cause to familiarize themselves beyond the trivialities of First Contact, they would not in any case have taken pains to delve deeper. Said her sister Jane, “Even Mr. Darcy may improve on better acquaintance.”

My Darcy appears cold, aloof and condescending. The characters make much about their predeliction that he be proud and prejudiced. I find him by contrast to be a guarded sort, possessed of taciturn circumspect for want of relationships of trust among those with whom he associates. Having been wronged by a “friend” in Wickham and then besmeared and slandered by the same, he takes great pains to be wary of his company. Like that character, I am wary and cynical towards the motivations of others when they meet me, having often been made a target for usury and abuse in the wake of my gracious outreach. Elizabeth criticizes him by saying that his “defect is a propensity to hate everyone”. I do not hate them. I trust them as far as I can throw them.

Being of few words and not given to frivolity himself, Mr. Darcy appears disenchanted with the types of associations that permeate high society. I don’t gather that he enjoys the excesses of wealth and status. He himself is the type of person one wants in their circle of influence, one of low maintenance but high yield who makes great utility of what means come to his disposal. He deserves his personal pride, for what he does with his means and made of himself. The charitable acts and sacrifices he makes ought procure the good opinion of all, but we learned from Shakespeare that only the evil that men do lives after them.

Beneath the stern and seemingly unfeeling exterior of Mr. Darcy lies a sincerely generous, compassionate and loving nature. Perhaps some feel he makes strange overtures and decisions, but the weightier matters of life and propriety demand from him a tenacity and resilience against the world. And his hand shall be against every man and every man’s hand against him (Genesis 16:12).

He’ll Just Lie There Too

Share

Tuesday Night at Taco Tuesday, one of the women there told me the following joke. She asked me whether I knew what happened to a liar when he gets to hell. He’ll just lie there too.

I grow frustrated at how politicians pit us against one another in polar opposite directions depending on their agenda. Before the election, they pit us against one another, and then after the election they rile us up and ask why we can’t get along. While our overt enemies attack from without, they undermine from within, and all the while pass the buck for blame to a victim.

We all know that government is the problem. Yet, the popular rhetoric in news outlets blames the target of government policy (capitalism) for things the government forces them via regulation to do. Then the government claims to come in on its white horse to save us. We see that with oil prices, food prices, and health care costs. Like the proverbial scab that never heals, they cannot leave it alone, and our lives never improve. Whenever in the interests of the public government enacts a policy that raises costs, American consumers foot the bill.

On his May 13^th show, Rush Limbaugh pointed out this phenomenon in respect to all the global warming legislation:

In either case, it's going to raise prices, and these prices are not just going to be absorbed. They are going to be passed on, as always, to the end of the line, which is the user, the consumer. And you will have nothing to say about these carbon emissions that these industries are engaging in, but you are going to end up paying for it, all of us are. Under a false premise!

We have nothing to say about the policy, but we bear the burden.

In an earlier post, I explained how companies project costs into the prices of commodities we buy. Every time we “stick it to Big Oil” or “the rich”, in the end every consumer ends up carrying the burden. The intended targets just pass it on, and eventually we are left holding the check.

Serving a Useful Purpose

Share

I read a story this week that I cannot unfortunately find that talked about how, regardless of the age at which people retire, they seem to have a similar set of circumstances. First off, most of them go back to work, not necessarily for pay but to have something to do. Secondly, when they stop contributing to society, they doom themselves to a fixed and consistent life span.

Although many of my peers may argue for the ignoble ease of a luxurious retirement and for how much they enjoy leisure, when you stop being useful you die. There is no happiness without service and sacrifice, and without serving a useful purpose to others, the body and the soul seem to break down. Our soul knows full well for what end it was created- to be a boon in the lives of others.

Some of the worst time in my life was when I was unemployed. Aside from the browbeating I took from family for my sloth and from my significant other for not bringing home bread, I really didn't know why I got up. I actively sought work, and I took the first thing that came along, despite its intense physical demands. I found that, regardless of how physically exhausted I felt, I slept well and felt my day had purpose.

I've never had a problem working for a living. I like to be useful, to have purpose, which is in truth part of why I do these articles every day so that my day demands something of me.

When my grandfather retired from pharmacy and the school at which he volunteered cut him from their list, he took a huge turn for the worst. We all thought it was Parkinsons, which turned out not to be the case, but he no longer moves either physically or mentally with the acuity I knew of him just a few years prior. He really lost to a large degree his sense of purpose, and some of his other senses shut down on him.

By contrast, I remember the junior high principal in Florida who, in his sixties, was the oldest Triathlon champion in his class. He lived just down the street, and in the morning when I saw him, he was always running or biking, rain or shine, and in tip top condition. He had a purpose, a goal, a direction. Although I haven't read it, I know a Purpose-Driven Life offers much more of the satisfaction and wealth than the empty, unsatisfying lives of the snobbish elite. Not that there's anything wrong with wealth, simply with how you use what you have.

I left my physically-demanding job because I knew my body couldn't handle it for 30 years. I often look at UPS drivers and wonder how much they NEED UPS's great healthcare due to the physical strain on their bodies. However, I prefer to waste and wear out my life doing something that matters than go to waste, even if the things I choose to do don't actually bear any fruit.

Nice Guys Finish Last

Share

While I'm on the subject forgive me one more relationship grouse, then I promise to let off this subject for a while.

Over the past several years, I've known several women to whom I was attracted who told me they weren't interested in me and then paid me the following insult: "I wish I could find a guy like you." Hello! I am like me. They insinuate that there's something about me that they like yet something about me they detest at the same time. They don't really mean they want someone like me. They really want someone like me, only cuter- much cuter.

I know I'm not much to look at, but I'm a decent man.

About half my life ago, one of the college aged guys in my martial arts class told me something that gave me encouragement. He said that the girls to whom guys paid no attention in high school would be the ones that they'd pursue in college for the traits and skills those girls had towards making good relationships. For my own part, I have lost almost all interest in and attraction to the drop-dead-gorgeous girls who offer aesthetics and little else. While attraction is important to me, I know that aesthetic beauty is an asset guaranteed to depreciate while other characteristics retain value or appreciate with time.

When you consider what I bring to the table, the girls who insult me under the guise of a compliment describe me correctly. Not to say I'm perfect, but I possess a myriad of skills, characteristics, and ethos that will be useful and strengthening to a properly founded relationship. Other far more attractive guys talk about what they do in the evening. They convene for movie nights, pay homage to "Family Guy" reruns, or go out to eat. I go home and read Dostoyevsky or Marcus Aurelius, work on my own books, and do photography. On the weekend, they go for hikes or to the pool. I work on my car, fix my bike, and pour concrete. They stay up late, sleep in, and become part of the party life. I retire early, rise early and exercise, and work to keep my quality of life. Yet, those are the guys everyone wants to be around and to be together with.

I really wish I could stand here and tell you that nice guys finish first, but I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided and that is the lamp of experience. Being valedictorian, an eagle scout, and a moral man have not catapulted me to fiduciary, philanthropic, educational, political, or marital success. Nor have they proven successful keeping me from troubles in any of the aforementioned arenas. I know no other way to live. I trust that what should be will be when the time is right, but this much I know. If there were more people in the world, not like me, but who lived like me, the world would be a better place, because it would be full of people who really care and really try to "Do Your Best" and "Do a Good Turn Daily".

Not “Just” Friends

Share

The other night, I heard for the umpteenth time the line “let’s just be friends”. While not completely surprised and not necessarily disappointed, I confess that the repetition of that phrase in no way made it easier to hear. As I consider the frequency of this occurrence, I think that part of the reason for why relationships don’t last and why marriages put an end to long friendships is that in dating most people skip the part about becoming friends.

My sister and I spoke at length one day about how most guys want to skip to the chase. They are out looking for a relationship, and for them a date is almost as good as a marriage proposal. If girls don’t immediately warm to their ovations, they feel prone to abandon an effort at continued dates. Confusion between the terms “dating” and “going out” further exacerbates the problem. My sister told me she would like to go on more dates, not necessarily for the purposes of marriage, but for the purposes of being involved and making the most of her college experience.

As a missionary, I learned the principles necessary for building lasting and enduring connections between people. Only by building on a firm foundation can relationships endure the tests of time and the inevitable hiccups occasioned by miscommunication. Toward an explanation thereof, I propose the following matrix.

Building relationships of trust

This constitutes the most important part of the long-lost skill of courtship. During this phase, most of the familiarization effort takes place, not simply inquiring after facts but also as to the disposition of others with whom one comes into contact. At this point, the foundation of future interaction is generally laid, as we build on common beliefs shared with people with whom we wish further association.

People do not inherently trust one another from the get-go. However, in all of our meetings and socializing we gravitate towards those in whose presence we feel comfortable. Where we share common beliefs, values, and norms, the common ground gives us things to discuss, things to do, and things about which to eventually show how much we care. Some people during this phase put on a pretense of interest as part of their ulterior motive, but there exists a myriad of advice for discerning the true purpose of why people involve us in conversation.

This phase of relationships can take as little as an hour or as long as years to set up. It constitutes the scaffolding of friendship, which will hold up whatever else we intend to do with these people. During this phase, attraction moves from the aesthetic to the ecumenical, so that we find ourselves sometimes associating with people in whom we might not otherwise have had initial interest.

Finding out

After the blasé endearments of First Contact, relationships move to a multi-faceted inquest. Finding out extends from First Contact through the entire spectrum of this matrix, as we determine Details, Disposition, Determinations, and Denouement. During the Building Relationships of Trust phase, we mostly concern ourselves with details- the things that give us things to talk about and perhaps segue into parts of character, history, and activity in which we have true interests and that may further the relationship.

It is important that during Finding Out we determine the Disposition of our new acquaintances. There was a great article on basic principles in measuring the disposition, but dozens of great books have also been written on the subject. Online dating sites have made a mint using these types of questions to help measure putative compatibility, but they truly show interesting things about other people you encounter, if answered honestly and thoughtfully. Something needs to be asked about Politics, Money, and Priorities, so that you can either establish a requirement to skirt certain sensitive subjects or determine efficacy of continued pursuance of the relationship.

Proper Find Out questions help us Determine the type of relationship possible with those whom we meet. Knowing their Disposition on a range of subjects, we know what types of activities and how far we can go spending time with others. Some people, to whom we are physically, intellectually, or spiritually attracted, may not want the type of relationship with us that we want with them. I stopped keeping track of the girls who fed me the “let’s just be friends” line after 63.

In the end, we forge friendships with purpose. The Denouement of our confluence serves a purpose, hopefully a mutual improvement association of sorts, that leaves us both edified for having met one another. Many of the people we meet, regardless of how much we enjoy their company, pass into our lives for but a season. When they serve their purpose, we need to be willing to accept that eventuality. Properly asked questions throughout the relationship will help us prepare for the eventual end or cement the association to withstand the throws of time. So many friendships end with the marriage of one part of the friendship because that person forged a relationship with a spouse that cannot abide other friendships. That is a true shame.

Resolving concerns

Jealousy and misunderstanding abound in relationships. I mentioned that often, due mostly to insecurity, friends/spouses feel threatened by the advent of new friends into our lives. True friends understand that they don’t fit all our needs as well as other people and accept that they are not a cure-all. Given our varied interests and backgrounds, in every relationship communication barriers exist that must be overcome. I prefer straightforwardness in conflict resolution, but most of the people I know don’t want to face the Dour One, because I intimidate them.

Relationships cannot endure where concerns exist. Sometimes concerns exist of which we are not aware, primarily because we do not ask. In the time since I was a missionary, I noticed that I seem to care less on average to discern and discuss whatever reservations others have. Most of it is spoken in a hushed whisper, and it must be brought out. Although we can’t always come to a mutually agreeable resolution, a person who avoids conflict or refuses to look into a solution is not generally interested in a mutual improvement association as a consequence of your confluence.

Making and keeping commitments

In dating most especially, but also as an underpinning of many conversations, people want to skip the aforementioned sections to the Commitment phase. They skip the “getting to know you, getting to know all about you…” section of courtship for the hand-holding, snuggling portions for purposes of gratification. They schmooze those they intend to use for whatever advantage the association affords them, hook the sinker, and reel us in to serve their aims. While I’m not above helping other people, I appreciate it when they make a genuine effort to understand the vehicle by which they arrive at their destination, which vehicle I am.

The problem with this harried and artificial march to the climax of relationships is that commitments lightly offered without proper scaffolding do not last. If you marry someone or “go steady” with them without spending time going through the other phases, you may find yourself bound to someone with whom your goodness of fit proves insufficient to endure the trials that abound. By skipping an effort to find out and resolve concerns, they can tear marriages or relationships apart. If you partner for sports, business, or other venues with someone without having properly acquainted yourself with their demeanor, values and disposition, you may find yourself left holding the bag.

I have thus far skated through life without many roommates. I elected this method knowing that my skill set necessary for interacting with others lacked some vital tools, and that people were unlikely to put up with some of my eccentricities. My friends shake their heads and marvel at my daily grind- how I rise at 5AM to study the scriptures, then exercise for up to an hour before beginning my day and retire by 10PM to my bed, about the time that other people are just starting to get busy.

We cannot however underestimate the value of a properly crafted friendship. If we marry a good friend, we can be assured of certain strengths that help us stand the test of time. If we date a friend but it doesn’t work out, we may retain a good friendship that we value even though romantically it didn’t work out. If we surround ourselves with true friends, they will not envy us the company of other friends, irrespective of gender, who satisfy wants and needs better than they can.

It has been said that true friends know all about you and like you anyway, that you can tell them the truth, either about yourself or about them, and they won't fly off the handle. They are rare gems, and too few spend time necessary to find them, settling instead for plastics and pyrite that bear a semblance of value but lack the substance to endure.

Contempt for Women

Share

A few weeks ago, after expressing a few opinions on some matters of varied theme, an observer turned to me and asked me if I hate women. Except for the fact that I value the opinion of that individual, I might have dismissed the question offhandedly as completely absurd. However, in thi instance I realized he had a point.

For some inexplicable reason, I felt inspired to watch My Fair Lady, and I was struck to writing this article based on something Henry Higgins says in the film. "Have you ever met a man of good character where women are concerned? ... Well, I haven't. I find the moment I let a woman make friends with me she becomes jealous, exacting, suspicious and a damn nuisance. And I find the moment I make friends with a woman, I become selfish and tyrannical. So here I am, a confirmed old bachelor, and likely to remain so." Odd as it struck me, I found myself in complete agreement with this fictitious character, which I will enumerate.

After a myriad of experiences with women where they automatically assume me to be a person of questionable character and ulterior motives, I expect women to conform to the lowest common denominator. I try to prove myself a man of high morale fiber and women suspect me of ulterior motives. Having had negative experiences with other men, they expect me to live down to their expectations. Sadly now so do I.

Even women who choose to speak with me fall into the categories suggested by Higgins. Even my sister and I had a spat not a few hours hence on a difference of opinion regarding morals and behavior. She begrudges me when I secure a date because she didn't. I'm not sure why; none of them have obviously led anywhere, my marital status considered.

Several years ago, I came out of a bad relationship with a woman. She also exhibited all of those traits. When people liked my company or asked my advice (particularly her parents) over hers, she exhibited an unparalleled jealousy. When I graduated with my BS and she had no degree, she resented it, notwithstanding I was older and she wasted time in school. As for her exacting demands, where first I made accommodations to show affection, she came to EXPECT certain favors and behaviors, and they were no longer considered marks of my favor. Although she said she catered to my beliefs, in the end she really only wanted me to validate hers through agreement and my condoning thereof.

My best friend was once surprised and put off when one night nature called and I left my instant messenger open and she accused him of being my secret girlfriend. One night we sat at a gas station and I stared at something she assumed it was the tramps adjacent. It took me quite a bit of persuasion to convince her that I honestly had simply been interested in the fact that the price on the station's large sign differed from the pump price. I even still have a wordpad document on this laptop I kept where she marked down some number that called my cell phone which she believed belonged to some other girl. Her suspicion knew no bounds.

As a result, I have grown cynical and bitter toward women. When I realized this, that same friend asked me not to let that women ruin every woman in my estimation. Where she once reigned over me in tyrannical fashion, I feel inclined to take charge and assert myself so as to not allow myself to be undermined later by an initial capitulation.

Since that relationship, which is the only committed relationship in which I've been that lasted longer than 10 days, I have largely focused on myself. I talk about what I want, do what I want, insist on my way, and stick to a litany of very picky criteria in women with whom I want to associate. I figure that if I'm going to get involved again, there are things I absolutely want and things I refuse to tolerate. I see myself slipping toward the patriarchal order in which the man is master, which is not really what I want. Even worse, until this month, I had resolved myself completely to a solitary celibacy given my dismal success with dating. I even chose a vocation that will practically vouchsafe me against the forging of any relationships with women.

I want a partner. I want someone who completes me, who elevates me, and who loves me for who I am at my core. I do not really want to be alone.

However I fear, since that's not up to me and since I have had such dismal luck in this regard, that my former predilections shall prove true in the end.

I Look Forward to Saying 'Yes'

Share

A few weeks back, I had my first go at being on the other side of an interview table doing the asking. The experience taught me many things, one of which particularly struck me and inspired me at the same time. When we asked one of the candidates if he had any questions, his confidence and hope took me for a loop.

When can I start? The question took me back. So did his confidence. Besides the obvious implication of "hire me, now", comes the question "You’re hiring for a position; if you pick me when would I start?" It's a question I think everyone should ask. It may strike a cord that helps you stand out, and it gives you a bit of knowledge that would be useful. I don't know that I'll ever forget him.

The very last thing he said was, "I look forward to saying Yes". His optimistic and positive affirmation of demeanor was something to which I genuinely aspire. In the end, I think people get what they expect, and since I'm naturally cynical and bitter, perhaps that's why I know nobody who's applied for as many jobs as I have. I was never going to get any because I lacked confidence.

For most of my life, I've known the words to Maria's theme enroute to the Von Trapp home in Rogers and Hammerstein's "The Sound of Music". "Besides which you see, I have confidence in me." How does she do it? I don't know, but I'd sure like to.

Oh great, a new resolution...

Crime and Punishment

Share

Much has been said about the issue of capital punishment, and I have myself written, though not in this forum, about my own thoughts on the subject. In summary of my own premise, I endorse the practice for its ability to prevent recidivism of crimes perpetrated against men. I don’t know that I could pull the switch or trigger, but I have never believed it prudent to burden my posterity with debts occasioned by my own choices. Let criminals pay their own debts.

Some argue against aggressive prosecution and punishment of offenders for the prospect of hurting an innocent. Having myself been wrongly accused and harassed by law enforcement, but notwithstanding their mismanagement of the issue, I prefer to chance punishing an innocent man than to allow too many to go free. I have often thought about what I would do at the sentencing hearing if someone I dearly loved faced the death penalty. Prior to now, I was inclined to believe the supplicatory propaganda of those who profess faith yet do not act on those precepts who would advise me to extend mercy and vilify me if I refused. That is the issue I take up today.

Patrick Henry said, “It is natural to men to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes to a painful truth and listen to the song of that siren ‘til she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men…?” Yes, we hope men will change, but most of our capital crimes for which execution is even a possible punishment are not things men decide to do one day. Rape and murder are not gateway sins. They come after one has already skated down the hill of sin where there were no signposts and they do not realize how far they’ve come. People do not come into the world rapists and murderers. They begin with lesser crimes- larceny, pornography, and deceit, stealing pens from work, spreading vicious rumors, and casting sidelong glances at trampishly dressed harlots. Eventually, they go further, where previously they would not dare, and their actions crescendo into the types of crimes that constitute capital punishment.

So, a man convicted of murder or rape is guilty. Whatever inconsistencies and hesitations, more often than not, the prosecution finds itself able to demonstrate a history of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object- establishment of a tyranny over the hearts and minds of men. Capital crimes are crimes of control. The perpetrators want to put other people under their boot. They have done plenty up to the point that demonstrates a history of violence and vileness.

In Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov[1], we read how it is indeed the Christian way for men to endorse capital punishment: “I don’t want the mother to embrace the oppressor who threw her son to the dogs! She dare not forgive him! Let her forgive him for herself if she will, let her forgive the torturer for the immeasurable suffering of her mother’s heart. But the sufferings of her tortured child she has no right to forgive.” It is not Christian to forgive by proxy that which is not ours to forgive. For crimes like rape and murder, the criminals cannot make full restitution and restore that which was lost. No man has power to give life or to render anew the virtue of a woman. It is not Christian to deny justice.

As part of his own parable of the Debtor and Creditor, Jesus himself taught that the Debtor could not escape the consequence except by the intercession of a Mediator. While the Creditor escaped repayment of the debt, the Debtor’s demands for justice were met by the Mediator’s offer to pay the Creditor’s debt and take over as Debtor to his friend. Thus, his mercy satisfied the demands of justice. It did not cancel them. God does not intend us to escape consequence, and the atonement of Christ, while accommodating for the mistakes men make, only makes their effects go away. We cannot change what we did, but if we apply the Atonement it is with God as if we never had. Agency is not free; it comes with an opportunity cost.

Capital punishment is Christian. It reflects these same principles that balance justice and mercy. I cannot extend mercy that is not mine to give, and murderers cannot appeal for mercy to men they kill if they are separated by a mortal coil from an equivalent spiritual disposition. If I then at a sentencing hearing make a motion for mercy, not only do I do my loved one so robbed a disservice but also all others against the criminal perpetrated crimes for which he has not yet been called to account. All of these depend on us for the exaction of justice.

If there were no punishments there would be no law. But there is a law given and a punishment affixed and a repentance granted. If not so, God would cease to be God. So, I forgive you for what you have done to me, but what you have done to the yet unborn and the dearly departed lies beyond my purview to forgive, and to assume among the powers of the earth a station that allows me power to steal the agency of your victims when you steal their life or virtue makes me as equally wicked and fitting scorn for all those others who are themselves good and brave and true. May God judge betwixt me and thee and reward thee according to thy deeds.
[1] “Rebellion” Page 12

Do You Want to Win?

Share

As a Civil War aficionado, forgive me yet another foray into the world of military masterminds. When you look to the commanders upon whom President Lincoln eventually came to rely, you will not find the most polished of speakers or the fanciest of gentlemen. Great Britain, and all the other kingdoms of Europe, made the mistake of garbing the gentry in the robes of authority on the battlefield, falling victim to the Mongols, Napolean, and ultimately the ragtag Continental Army. Our commanders differ from the great men of Europe- they are gruff, they are rough, and they are forged in the fires of combat. They knew how to fight. That's why so many of them ran for president.

In politics you have to pick your battles and face them one at a time. Chancellorsburg, Fredericksburg, Gettysburg, the Wilderness, and Appomatax all played a pivotal role in the playout of the war, but none of them constituted the war in and of themselves. For those who try to fight a national campaign and ignore the individual battles, they will lose. While a national scope plays a major role, the war turns on a series of engagements. According to Sun Tzu, one must decide where one will fight and where one can win and do the kinds of things that will help them win, even if it's discouraging one's opponents from fighting there. Pull back to states easily defended and advocate issues where you are strong and where you can exploit the weaknesses of the opponent.

Mark Levin, speaking of his experience helping Ronald Reagan's election bids in 1976 and 1980 emphasized how the victor must concurrently run two messages: A concrete plan with a few issues and a negative message that while negative is delivered with a smile. Ultimately, that strategy is the exact way that General Grant proved able to defeat the Confederates and put an end to the war. His strategy followed the plan Levin suggests: first, he set up a strong, concrete front, and pushed inevitably towards the accomplishment of both symbolic and strategic victories (Richmond, Vicksberg, New Orleans, etc.). Secondly, he dispatched Sherman through the south to cut a swath through the center of the Confederacy and undermine its message.

So, I present the Ulysses Grant Election Theorem.
Relentless siege of areas of weakness: Grant comes under some criticism for his high casualty rates, yet historians cannot argue that the war pivoted on every battle Grant won. In the west, he utilized attack from land, sea, and (although limited) the air, driving off the enemy where practical. He made sure that his men were supported, first with decisive and dependable leaders at their head and then with sufficient support from the rear to bolster their advance. Contrast that to Pickett's charge…

March through the home country and break down the effigies: When you can stir up things at home, you undermine the confidence of the populace in their army. That was precisely why Gettysburg proved so important. Had the Confederates won, they would have deftly defeated on the home turf the Federal Army. People usually win at home. They know the land. The people support them. When an enemy invades, sometimes it inspires pacifists to pick up the sword. If you can beat them on their home turf, it weakens morale.

Hit them close to home- attack them where they think themselves safe: In the 2004 election, Senator John Edwards couldn't even help John Kerry capture his own South Carolina constituency. George Washington set a precedence for American victory in this fashion when he crossed the Delaware on Christmas Day and handily whooped the Hessians. Again, that's why Lee marched into Pennsylvania, and that's why Sherman proved so effective. He marched through the most capital parts of the land, slaying the small cadres of soldiers that arrayed against him and laying waste to the infrastructure, industry, and heart of the Confederacy, where everyone thought based on Lee's success the North could never reach.

Agility, mobility, hostility: Most of the greatest disasters for both sides arose from a lack of flexibility, dedication to victory, and ability to respond to changes on the battlefield.

Fight: With rare exception, Grant was known for pushing the fight. Despite a reputation as a butcher on the battlefield, he didn't take a lot of time putting his army into array. It was precisely that attitude among previous commanders that Buford bewailed before Gettysburg.

Replace incompetents: some of the political candidates insist on keeping loyal leaders in their circle regardless of their ability. Grant, himself picked by Lincoln for his willingness to do his job, picked brigade and division commanders for their proven experience and ability on the battlefield. Since the generals back then generally marched in front of their troops, he knew that the better the men were who led the way the greater his chance to win the day.

Don't let other people do what you ought: when the heat came on, Grant took the blame for failure and waved off the fame for victory. Instead, liberal candidates use surrogates to fight their battles for them so that if they go awry they can distance themselves from the circumstances. It echoes of the verbiage we hear in Mission Impossible: "if for any reason you are captured, we will disavow all knowledge of you." Stand by your men.

Come from multiple vectors: by the time Grant came to power over the Union Army, the Confederates had lost quite a few soldiers and some of their resolve. Despite the bulwark of fortifications available around their strongholds, they generally lacked sufficient manpower to man them all. Grant deployed his forces to stretch the defenders sufficiently that tears appeared and opportunity presented itself.

Use every medium available: some of Grant's early victories came because he started using the Navy in his assaults. Challenged by Nathan Forrest's unconventional cavalry tactics, he was forced to deploy men in new ways to counter unexpected challenges. Under his leadership, Negro Troops moved from largely being contraband raider units to part of the regular army, participating in regular combat alongside other regiments.

Carry a big stick, and make sure those who represent you do likewise. Consider whom Grant chose to do certain things. He put some of his predecessors (Burnside and Meade) in as Corps commanders because that’s where they excelled. He promoted good soldiers like Sherman and Chamberlain to greater responsibility. He chose Chamberlain, who had thwarted Hood at Gettysburg, to symbolically accept Lee’s surrender. If you want to win, the figureheads must be substantive, not simply laden with glib talking points or as figureheads. Most of the famous leaders in that war began the war as Colonels.

Quick and decisive: the original premise and presumption in the North was that they would simply sweep the Confederates off the field. As such, they came ill prepared to the first battle and faced a complete rout. Grant knew he needed to build upon the Gettysburg victory and take the fight to the enemy. The best defense is a good offense. You must focus on winning as quickly and decisively as possible and not make the mistakes Democrat party candidates made in 2008.

Victorious war strategies define objectives that can be achieved and then provide the means and materials to accomplish those same aims. In politics as in war, the mercurial and ephemeral vagaries of the candidates may fire up the young and dumb, but they do not offer a vehicle to the ends. When the din of the rally dies down, people want to hear the details, and if your plan contains only flowing imagery, people will know you offer a weak front. At that point, the battle is already desperate for your campaign, and you face ultimately a dismal defeat.

When criticized by some reporters for his conduct in Algiers, the French General tasked with ending the uprising and finding the terrorists asked in rebuttal, “Does France want to win? Then France must be willing to do what it takes.”

Dedication

Share

As part of my preparation to join the military, I started a fairly regular and challenging exercise regimen. The last two days have really put to test my committment to that way of life for a variety of reasons.

Temperature/Pressure

Tuesday's high temperature in Vegas set a new record- 108F. At 6AM, it was already 89F, which is the warmest temperature I've ever run in, and by the time I was finished, I was physically finished too. This morning it was only 74F (storm rolling in), but the wind whipped across the valley and made the going a bit tougher than otherwise. The thing about biking though is that I can always downshift and use the gears to overcome the wind.

Arising early
In order to beat the heat and take advantage of the coolest daily temperatures in Las Vegas, I usually try to leave the house by 6AM. I do this after I get up and read the scriptures, trying to put God and my good health first in the day. Most people find it very hard to rise early, but in my previous job, I started work at 4AM, so for me I'm actually sleeping in technically, so by comparison, this for me is easy.

Unless you dedicate yourself to retiring early enough in the evening to gather sufficient sleep, rising early is tough. Nobody else is up (which for me makes the roads safer), it's hard to motivate yourself if you're the type that needs someone else to encourage you to keep to the goal, and the bed seems mighty inviting, especially if like I did last night you sleep funny and your back is sore.

Accompanyment
I invited two people to accompany me to various parts of my exercise regimen. One of them surprised me Monday by actually getting up and coming along. Granted, Tuesday and Wednesday have been wicked weatherwise, but sometimes it's nice to not be alone. Sure, exercise isn't romantic or really a bonding thing, but normally I just recite poems and documents I've memorized to myself as I bide the time. Sometimes it's really nice to have a come-along.

On the other hand, compared to earlier, I rarely miss a day. At first when I worked myself up in intensity, frequency, and duration, sometimes I took days off to rest when I felt particularly exhausted or sore. During two of the toughest days this year, I stuck to the regimen and persevered. Demonstrates my dedication, something that ought not be discounted.

I really hate to brag...no, no I don't. ;)

Some Fair Tax Math

Share

Although I have not yet read Neal Boortz’s book on the Fair Tax, I understand a bit of what he means and wish to provide a simple illustration. I think if people see the math and understand the arguments, they will unite behind the movement. First, we must understand its implications and the barriers standing in the way thereof.

How the fair tax empowers the people

When I heard Neal Boortz endorse the tax, he explained that the Fair Tax empowers the people with another redress against tyranny. Under his plan, the government provides a rebate based on consumption and household size to reimburse you for tax paid on the staple necessities (toothpaste, toilet paper, food, etc.) similar to that in existence in Idaho. If you object to the policies of the government, you refrain from purchasing anything from a vendor that charges tax (does not include private parties and the like), thereby reducing revenues to the government and arresting their ability to reappropriate your money. Right now, nobody can escape paying taxes, so we are FORCED to support programs with which we disagree (see an earlier post of mine on the breakdown).

How the fair tax is a reduced tax
When you buy an item, there is already an embedded portion of the price that constitutes tax. When Senator Clinton (D-NY) told reporters last week she wanted to transfer the obligation for federal gas taxes to oil companies, Mark Levin pointed out that oil companies will simply raise prices to accommodate the burden, yielding no net change to the consumer in the end. Her policy simply changes from whence taxes come, as does the Fair Tax, except that the Fair Tax reduces an individual’s total tax obligation. If you purchase more goods, you pay more tax. This phenomenon accounts in part for the fact that when you buy a car and drive it off the lot, it depreciates so much- the car price includes a sum that represents the taxes paid by the corporation in order to provide you the commodity.

Under the Fair Tax, the only taxes corporations pay are in acquisition of raw materials they purchase. Since raw materials cost much less than finished products, corporations can cut prices under this tax system, reflecting their reduced tax burden. The corporate income tax rate currently sits near 40%, meaning that a federal sales tax of 20% constitutes HALF the current estimated tax burden paid by consumers at present.

Therefore, even in Nevada, the total effective tax rate for an individual becomes 27.75% (20% federal and 7.75% Clark County NV sales taxes), instead of the 50+% paid currently (15% Federal Income Tax plus 40% corporate tax burden and the 7.75% NV sales tax) when buying the same good. Now, granted it's not that easy, but if you don't have to compensate for a corporation's income taxes when buying a new product, the price of the item will be lower and the total tax paid will be lower even though it seems you're paying more. There is an embedded tax in the price of everything that is not itemized as a tax. So, you pay it but just don't know.

How it affects the Poor
First and foremost, the Fair Tax abolishes all Federal Withholding. Therefore, every cent you earn goes home with you. One complaint the poor have against the system as presently constituted is that if they go get a job the government takes enough from them that it acts as a disincentive to get off welfare. Under this program, you keep everything you earn. If you do not buy things that include tax, you pay no tax. Therefore, the poor, who typically don’t buy new cars or homes or fancy clothes etc., and typically only buy staple goods, for which the Fair Tax requires no sum cash outflow, pay ZERO tax. Plus, everyone is spared the pain and anguish associated with filing in April.

How it affects government revenues
Some argue that if the price drops, government revenue drops. While on an item by item case basis, this may be the case, except in cases where the savings on a commodity find their way into savings the government receipts will not decline. The money one person saves on one item allows him to buy more items, each of which comes with a tax burden. Thus the sum tax potential is not reduced but rather spread over a larger number and variety of goods and services, each having lower total cost, but the total spend, where expenditures are fixed as we assume since wages are fixed the total sum of tax will not decrease.

How to implement the Fair Tax
The biggest obstacle to the Fair tax is the 16th Amendment, which establishes the federal income tax. In order to implement the Fair Tax, we must concurrently repeal that amendment and replace it with a new tax via amendment. The reason why so many people feel that this is a pipe dream is the scope of the amendment process.

In 1976, the Equal Rights Amendment died at the state level. Despite having passed super majorities in both houses of Congress, it didn’t even make it onto the ballot in most states, and where it did it failed to be ratified by the people at large. Amending the Constitution requires:

• Passing of an act via supermajority (60%) in both houses, especially in the event of a presidential veto
• Ratification of the act in the states at the next election via sufficient signatures that get the initiative on the ballot
• Passage of the amendment in 75% of the states before the 10 year expiry period

Otherwise, the amendment dies. It’s supposed to be hard. It’s our last bastion of hope against tyranny.

Proportionality

Share

I spoke with a coworker today about changes in prices over my lifetime. I remember at the tender age of 12 buying stamps for $0.19 and at the age of 16 buying gas for $0.85/gal. Since I like math, I wanted to see how these commodities compare.

Toward this end, I established a simple ratio coefficient to describe the price relationships. When I was 16, oil cost roughly $30/barrel, compared to $125/barrel today. If we run the numbers, you find an interesting correlation of proportionality.

Computing the ratios, we find the following:
1995: $30/$0.85=35.3
2008: $125/$3.65=34.3
The ratio relating the cost of a barrel of oil to the comparable cost of a gallon of gas, DECREASED in the last 13 years, and at a rate of 3% over that time period.

During that run of time, several outlying periods exist. Periods of supply interruption associated with rationing skew the data, so depending on from where you measure, the math yields different results. Over a longer period, however, the data normalizes to a trend, as you can see from the math, closely equating the rate of inflation.

As such, anyone who tells you gas companies like Chevron/Texaco and Exxon/Mobil are reaping windfall profits is selling something.

Problems With Public School I

Share

I heard tell Wednesday on Mark Levin’s radio program about a teacher who told his students that Conservatives were all going to hell. The mother of the child, once Mark pulled her on air, promised she would “educate” herself so she didn’t sound uninformed when she complained to the principal. Were that I, I would waste no time going down and striking down that kind of behavior. I don’t care who you are, whether your parents gave you a WII or if you ate too much or if the kids didn’t pick you for kickball or if you wore mended jeans or had buck teeth, etc. Nothing gives you the right to talk to my son like that.

In high school, my AP History teacher showed us a rated-R movie in class despite my religious preference to not watch movies of that rating. When I went to complain, the principal listened, and the teacher was promoted to dean. At least he wasn’t imposing his beliefs on students in class anymore.

A friend of mine called me frantically one day a few years ago asking where the school district offices were. One of the teachers at her daughter’s school had taken her daughter forcibly by the arm, manhandled her to the end of the line, and verbally lashed her for an imagined transgression of which the girl was not guilty. My friend wanted to file a complaint, and I accompanied her and her children.

It is incumbent on parents to look out for their children. I know plenty of people who don’t care about their kids, wanting the prestige of having posterity without the responsibility associated therewith. Some people have no business bringing children into this world. Some others have no business teaching them.

Not For This World

Share

In response to a request after a previous post, I want to address the prospect that men were not made for this world, and that's why so many things here don't make sense.

Ghandi warned in his day of the evil desires of the heart: Politics without principle; Pleasure without consequence; Knowledge without effort; Wealth without work; Business without morality; Science without humanity; and Worship without sacrifice. Look around you at the themes of television programs, sitcoms, theater, cinema, and literature, and you will see the majority depict search for thrills and gratification, irrespective of consequence. Remove personal responsibility, and you abolish morality. Moral principles are based on a set of beliefs, values and norms of behavior agreed to between members of society. If nothing we do is wrong, there are no morals, and we truly are Australopithecines. There is no self-control, no discipline, and hence no growth. Rising popular movements and pseudo religions seek to abrogate the thought of eternal consequence and declare that this life constitutes all there is. Morays of man invite us to surrender to the animal impulses and selfish desires of our hearts on the auspices that we live only once.

I, by contrast, believe that life consists of much more than mortality, a concept that I feel is best described as a play in three acts. Shakespeare first coined this image in written word as he declared that: “All the world is a stage, and the people, merely players. They each have their entrances and exits…[1]”. Just like in his plays, the departure of a character from the play means only an absence from the story, not a cessation of existence on the part of that person. The actor has simply walked offstage. We pass from this story into another of different scope and cast but paralleled in importance to the plots in which we play a part as players in this story.

The concept of a life after this and an existence that lasts beyond the grave is not a new one. When we stop to consider the implications of this concept, it behooves us to consider the implications of our choices and our interactions with one another on the stage of life. CS Lewis says it best:

It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit[2].

Most of the edicts of the Almighty, that we love our neighbor as we love ourselves, and all commandments acting as appendages thereunto revolve around the eternal nature of the soul.

The first act constitutes a pre-earth existence. Whatever experiences, education, and activities common to our immortal nature appertain thereunto define the events of the first act. The choices we met in that act drove the events under which we entered this second act. Although short, by comparison, in duration, the second act determines all subsequent plot developments in the final act of our immortal progression. However, all memory of Act I remains inaccessible to us during Act II, and people, left in the dark thereby, fall prone to tendencies to complain and misunderstand the events of this life. Apparent unfortunate events lead men to complain to God, eventually losing faith in Him because they see no evidence that His plan will be actualized. During the crescendoing climax of Act II, much of import occurs: upheavals of character and nature, pacts and betrayal, surprise and disappointment. Men are prone during such times to lose faith and heart. People need to remember under these circumstances that the happy ending comes at the end of Act III.

---

[1] “As You Like It”, Act II Scene 7

[2] CS Lewis, The Weight of Glory, McMillan 1980

Global Warming is Bad Science

Share

As I listen to the weird science associated with global warming, it reminds me of problems I had with students while teaching Introductory Biochemistry Laboratory and Biochemical and Environmental Measurement courses to undergrads as a graduate student. Like those poor souls, people try to extrapolate beyond the mark and interpret data in a way that’s both inaccurate and misleading.

Part of our experiments involved teaching them how to use internal and external standards. Given that the global warming debate cannot possibly incorporate an internal standard, I will restrict my stories to the latter type. Students measured out carefully portions of a standard of known concentration and measured the responses of instrumentation in the presence of those standards or their eventual derivatives. Then, they extracted and measured the unknowns and compared it to the standard curve.

For the protein concentration assay as an example, they measured bovine serum albumin from 5mg to 40mg per tube. Nobody actually measures protein in a tube; they care about the ratio of protein to carbohydrates or fat or other metabolites on a volumetric or mass basis. In this particular experiment, they mascerated a portion of a rat organ, separated out each of the biochemical fractions and then purified them prior to measurement. As each fraction became more pure, it became necessary to measure using a nonstandard concentration unit, in our case mg protein/tube.

This created two problems. First, when students forgot the measurement conventions, they faced trouble rectifying the final answers to rational answers. When you use alternative conventions in presenting your data, you must convert it into a convention that makes sense to those interpreting your data. Secondly, some of the samples yielded concentrations outside their standard curve. Many students simply extrapolated the curve beyond the original limits and assumed their measurement accurate. Outside the confines of those standards, however, they do not know how the concentration corresponds to the measurement in use. A sigmoidal, parabolic, or asymptotic relationship might exist, thereby negating the value of their data.



Most global warming data excludes outliers and covers a limited period. Most measurements lack good controls. Most experiments include too many variables. As such, their data usually falls outside their standard curve. To compensate, they simply extrapolate data from times when measurements exists to distal time periods of exigent scientific relevancy. The problem is that most scientific events involving energy, including global warming, follow the pattern of a wave, meaning that if you track along the rise or the fall of the curve, you assume a pattern of behavior that doesn’t even come close to telling the true story.

This is just another example of bad science.

I'll Get You My Pretty...

Share

While some shout with jubilation over the prospect that Senator Obama may put away Senator Clinton forever, it behooves us to move with caution. Dick Morris wrote an article on Friday that he thought she intended to duke it out with Obama so as to weaken him against Senator McCain and set herself up for the 2012 election. Rush Limbaugh warns constantly that he refuses to count Clinton out until he sees her legs curl up under the house. Borrowing from that analogy, I wish to comment on this prognosis.



No sooner did the Munchkins begin celebrating the demise of the wicked old witch under whose tyranny they lived than her sister appeared. While the good witch reminded her that she had no power there, that restriction lasted for only a brief time and in the confines of Munchkinland. As soon as Dorothy embarked down the yellow brick road, she was subject to the buffetings of the evil one’s power, and thus the story begins.

For these reasons, I concur with Mr. Morris and Mr. Limbaugh that counting Clinton out ahead of time is a bad place to be. I watched this week the “Doomsday Machine” episode from Star Trek: TOS Season II, where Commodore Decker engages in fisticuffs with a security officer. At one point, he feigns defeat and fatigue, and when the security officer drops his guard, the Commodore quickly subdues him. As soon as we let our guard down, the Clintons may overpower us. Therefore, I refuse to count her out until she’s dead and buried. Even then I may remain reticent.

The power of the wicked witch in Oz reached far and wide, enabled by a large network the likes of which the Clintons likely have. If they wanted to destroy Obama, they would have, and therefore I can’t help but wonder where Clinton’s true feelings on the matter lie. Despite how much she wants power, she knows she cannot get it this election without tearing the party apart, but she could try again in four years after either Senator McCain or Obama botches the job.

It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope; we are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth and listen to the song of that syren till she transforms us into beasts. Thomas Paine warned us of the folly of wishing that our will might be so. Much as we may want to see the Clintons down and out, I suggest a modicum of circumspect going forward lest we be caught unawares. As we continue down the yellow brick road of Conservativism, looking for a way to get back to that land we love, we need watch out for the snares of that evil one who would be king.

Some material in the Clinton II administration may not be suitable for all citizens.

Syntax of the Sin Tax

Share

Today Congress takes up the question of new regulation of the tobacco industry. While we're at war, in the midst of an economic curfuffle, and concerned about them wasting tax money, they cannot take time to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. However, there's plenty of time for them to add regulations to industry, which can do nothing but exacerbate the current economical situation.

As Rush Limbaugh said on his program today, the legislation has nothing to do with Congress abhorring the practice, as they intend to exempt mentholated cigarettes (accounting for more than 25% of the industry's products) from the new levy (levy=tax). It's all about getting more tax money.

On the auspices that it cost so much more money to abbrogate the effects of drinking, smoking, and carousing, lobbyists won a repeal of Prohibition. While the shootings and crime associated with bootlegging and the like went away, new wickedness replaced them: DUI, DWI, spousal abuse, the lawlessness of the frontier town, gambling, the breakdown of families, etc., filled the void. These new vices arguably cost society more in absolute dollar terms than the blatant obvious costs of the underground bootleggers, but are in no way less violent or severe on their victims.

All throughout history, tobacco and other controlling substances have been subject to federal control. The so-called "Sin Tax" levied against these eccentriccal commodities ostensibly fund a myriad of healthcare programs meant to abbrogate the effects thereof, from counseling to outpatient care to increased law enforcement demands and to the medical costs associated with manslaughter DUI.

Under the same rationale, new lobbyists call for a move to legalize marijuana and bring it out of the shadows so that people are spared exposure to the criminal element. They cite the fear and loathing associated with Capone and Seagle and speak of caring for the victims, which constitutes nothing more than code for "so we can tax it." They do not intend to give health care agencies money but intend to shuttle the money into programs they want, no matter how distally associated to health care. If you doubt that posture, consider how the various states reappropriated the tobacco settlement money, and none of them spent the money on health care. Utah used it to refurbish highways for the Olympics. Nevada reformulated it into a scholarship program. Other states followed suit. The "victims" of tobacco are not better off for any of that money.

Politicians often dress their ulterior motives in the drag of care and concern. Under the auspices of altruition, those least concerned with our well-being lure us down into hell with flaxen cords. I find it highly ironic that King James I of England (James VI of Scotland) under whose reign the tobacco industry actually began criticized advocates of that industry. He came to the throne at a very bloody period of history and arguably was not among the greatest advocates of the well-being of mankind at large. At the end of his rebuke, however, he closes with the following:

Have you not reason then to be ashamed and to forbear this filthy novelty, so
basely grounded, so foolishly received and so grossly mistaken in the right use
thereof. In your abuse thereof sinning against God harming yourselves both in
person and goods, and raking also thereby the marks and notes of vanity upon you
by the custom thereof making yourselves to be wondered at by all foreign civil
nations and by all strangers that come among you to be scorned and held in
contemp; a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the
brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof nearest
resembling the horrible stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless.

If they really felt the practice were reprehensible, they would endorse prohibition. The trouble is, they can't afford to hate it. They make too much money.

Final Disposition of the Dead

Share

Before people get all bent out of shape about my vehement feelings about right and wrong, I wish to turn your minds to something I tell people often. From ideas implanted on my mercurially malleable mind at a young age in CS Lewis’ The Great Divorce, I think many people will be surprised at the final disposition and composition of death and hell.

Many people among my religious affirmation automatically condemn individuals like Adolf Hitler to the damnation that awaits the sons of perdition. They forgive the thieves next to Jesus and spit on Pontius Pilate. I leave judgment to the Lord, knowing that “I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men” (Doctrine and Covenants 64:11).

Despite what other Mormons may tell you, plenty of Mormons will not achieve what you believe heaven to be, and very few of the human family will achieve what most people picture as hell. In the end, I believe that, like at a youth dance or fancy diinner party, people gravitate to those portions of the realm where they feel most comfortable. People that come into their circle likewise share the disposition that leaves them satisfied with that type of conversation, the opinions fronted therein, and the character/morality of those adjacent to them in the circle. At judgment, we will go where we are comfortable, and the wicked cannot abide the presence of God.

You cannot say in that day “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, cast out devils”, etc. You will know and be known as you are known. At that day, I prophecy that many Mormons, and many great men of the earth will end up in places that surprise them and find themselves adjacent to people they might never have considered in their spiritual class. I believe that God will bless men as much as he can and punish them as little as he must. Since the situations that stipulate our responses differ in degree of difficulty, I think many whose plight seems dire to them that cannot look upon the heart will find more mercy than they apparently deserve and that many who waste or bury their talents shall reap the whirlwind of shame and be denied what might be theirs. Where much is given, much is required, and he who sins against the greater light receives the greater condemnation (D&C 82:10). Yes, that includes me.

Divided by Demographics

Share

Freshly laid off out of graduate school, I took the first job that came to me. After a period of time, I came to work alongside Cameron, to whom I wish to credit an attitude that both refreshed my faith in people and exemplified the mentality that ought permeate once more the opinions of this people. Although I forget the circumstances, I remember that somehow someone drew attention to his ethnic identity and Cameron asked why he had to be an African-American, “why can’t I just be an American?”

I understand how important demographics can be. I enjoyed my statistics course in college. For our final project, my partners and I polled over 500 students/visitors to our campus, asked them a series of questions, and then tried to correlate responses based on a series of demographics. Despite the large volume of data, in the end we concluded that the data remained insufficient to show any significant differences between demographics in our study. That is the take-home message.

Any kind of trend or stereotype crumbles under the weight of sufficient data points. Inevitably, as the sample size grows so also grow the frequencies and variations of outliers so measured. In the end, despite minute differences, we are all the same. Scientists make much of our 96% genetic homogeny with Apes and how we are so different, yet those who cite those studies as evidence for evolution ignore the fact that in practice and precept, people are also largely the same, despite variances in exogenous aesthetics.

We share so much with our neighbors- the food we eat, the air we breathe, our culture, our habits, a yearning for companionship and a desire to be rewarded for our labor. Yet, at every chance they get, elitists attempt, through application of a series of labels, to divide us on the basis of demographics.

I learned years ago that the first technique of an abuser is to isolate the victim. Instead of focusing on commonality, these malcontents separate us into groups of such small numbers that we eventually find ourselves bereft of companions, compatriots, and compassion. They establish cadres of “African-Americans” and “Irish-Americans”, of single, unmarried women, and men with more than one divorce. If they parse us down to ridiculously exclusive groups like men who chew gum and drive blue cars or dog owners born in New England with current passports, the data becomes truly meaningless, but the implications of these new identities divide us even when we need to be strong against their buttressing.

Divided, they then pander to our special interests, which interests we allow them to create when we allow them to ablate our commonalities. To one group they promise universal healthcare; to another they promise tax cuts, all the while knowing that their placations constitute nothing more than a series of mutually exclusive eventualities. Moreover, each of their new constituencies begins focusing on its individual needs regardless of the collective good or cost to the whole if their minutia finds favor.

When I worked with Cameron, a lot of work fell to me. Regardless of race, gender, or religion, we worked alongside slackers and workhorses alike, and I often sucked up higher workload despite no increase in pay for the common good. Large groups of people beyond my coworkers depended on our daily exertions, and I could not let them down even if to my individual detriment.

Echoing the sentiment of that coworker whom I greatly admire, I ask you, why can’t we just be Americans? Godspeed to you Sir, and all my best.

Relying on Technology

Share

I was sorting through old issues of Imprimis among other things and came across a discussion of how America is susceptible to Electromagnetic Pulse. My Father served in the USAF as an Electronic Warfare Officer, which job on a very basic level involves disrupting an enemy's electronic signals and rendering his equipment useless while leaving ours functional. So, any missile they fire, any bomb they drop, any attack they mount, etc., depend solely on visual acuity and the application of physics without correctional guidance provided by technology.

I was readying comments posted on a friend's blog about how people depend very much on electronic devices for their life and livelihood. So much of what we do depends on our access to networks, electricity, etc., that if an EMP hit us, I doubt very much many people would know what to do. Most would lose all their data and records, and the pulse would render man of our devices if not all completely inoperable. Although the push of the future asks and almost requires that in order to be competitive in the global market that men must be tech-savvy, there is a call for familiarity with old technology.

Old technology doesn't mean it's not valuable. The other day, I sold one of my old cassette players to an old woman who wanted to be able to record stories for her kids. Many old people don't know how to use our technology, but she's comfortable with cassettes and will use that media. I lent one to my mother once because she only had a particular song on cassette that she wanted to share with a group, so I enabled that. Furthermore, many old technologies are easy to repair; not all, but many.

Consider Scotty's Castle in Death Valley, CA, operated completely by mechanical systems that enabled its original owner to enjoy fresh, clean water and electricity despite being distal from any public utility system. Consider the simplicity of the 1.8L engine in my Saturn SL1 which, since it's not burgeoning with complex electrical systems, doesn't break down as often as newer cars which have so many intricasies that they prevent the average joe from being able to work on them. Also, the AC Compressor system works on simple physics principles but provides comfort in the 120F heat of a Vegan summer.

In addition to the opportunities it creates, it also serves as a protection. For example, if someone sees my car in the parking lot, which stereo do you think they'd steal? The one in my car, AMFM stereo cassette or the multi-CD changer in the Mercedes adjacent? While in graduate school, my knowledge of DOS enabled me to recover a file, at least in part, that Windows had jettisoned to the normal user via the recycle bin. The data was still on the drive, and because I knew how to find it, I saved untold hours of labor.

Many Americans have become so dependent on gadgetry, that they cannot function without it. For my own part, I hate the feeling that cell phones, pagers, email, etc., have become a leash for us rather than freeing us, as people come to expect instant gratification of their requests. Leave me a message, or I won't call you back. I had a friend in Reno who set a goal of going off the grid, such that during an outage in the valley he and he alone had electricity and warmth because he wasn't dependent on public utilities, or beholden to them either. When electricity goes out, can you cope?

The point of this article revolves around encouraging individuals to cope with technology without allowing it to become their master. By knowing about but doing without we remain marketable but free from the shackles of a technologically-dependent though -advanced society. I endorse the learning of skills exigent to technological sophistry. While it may be cheaper or easier to depend on modern technology, it's not always in OUR favor. Complex cars require trips to the mechanic, quickly hyping the cost. Packaged food, while quick and cheap, often robs us of final nutrients because food isn't ripe when picked, or it contains excesses of deleterious contents that harm us more than we'd choose if we were truly aware.

A short time ago, I challenged an acquaintance to a contest. We would, through various means of orienteering, navigate a course to certain way points in the Nevada wilderness and measure who made the journey most accurately in the least amount of time. Since I selected the way points, I purposely chose an area that mitigated the effectiveness of modern technology. Armed with a compass and map, I hit the way points relatively easily. As soon as this other person left the coverage area of his service provider, his GPS navigation system ceased to function, and he couldn't call for help because there was no cell phone coverage. I did that to teach a principle, that knowing why and how works better than knowing what button to push, especially if the macro feeding the button breaks.

Electronic gadgetry is great, but if you make it your crutch, it could let you fall without warning. For that reason and more, I thank my parents for involving me in Boy Scouting. It truly, I believe, gave me an edge.

Buyer beware.