Reaping What We Sow

Share

Winds of change have started blowing at work. It's too early to tell how they will actually affect my heading if they affect me at all. However, the conversations that have arisen have a common theme- that people will resist efforts that tell them they cannot reap what they sow or that they must reap what others have sown.

Some people are upset. The scuttlebutt in our meeting last week is that the state, in an effort designed around an effort [I think] to reduce the budget, intends to reevaluate our jobs and change our salaries "as appropriate". They may go up; according to one coworker that happened 10 years ago, but they are likely to go down. They ask us to do more with less and then cut our salaries while some other people get raises, and those of us who bear the lion's share of the work are a little upset.

By way of personal examples, consider the following. Our former department secretary told once of a problem with a supervisor in financial aid who was a known tyrant. She left for a year on leave of absence, returned for a year, and then and only then saw them chop him up. By contrast, for teachers, this is the part in the semester when students start to drop and class sizes shrink. Not so for me. I have picked up eight extra students net in the last two weeks. The other professor who teaches two sections of the same class for which I have a single section has, in his two sections, only four more students total than I have in my single one. He gets paid twice as much money at least per student, and I'm sure he laughs all the way to the bank.

This has happened to me before. While in graduate school, I took on extra work driving a forklift for a great hourly wage of $16.00/hour. Among other abuses and usurpations, after they passed me over for promotion twice, my father convinced me to quit. I gave them a week's notice. The Operating Manager called me into his office to change my mind, smooth things over, appease me, or what have you. Now, I didn't know him, but I'm sure he knew me, at least statistically, because I consistently did 130% of expectations every week. I told him that it was basically irreversible. I had packed up all my things, put them in storage, moved out into a hotel where I could pay by the week, and arranged for my father to take time off to help me move. I am very pleased with two things I told him. When asked what he could do to change my mind, I told him, "You should have been doing those things for the last six months". After he offered me a paltry $0.25/hour raise, I told him, "You need me more than I need you. I have $15,000 in the bank, and I can live on that for a year."

People believe in Karma except when bad karma returns to them. They seem to hope the other guy gets his due while they expect exigent mercy for themselves. Karma did round trip on this manager, and he reaped what he sowed. Unbeknownst to him, I had mailed an official letter of resignation to corporate headquarters. As a consequence of correspondance initiated by that letter, my boss was terminated. He and I had no personal beef, but a leader is responsible not only for the mission but for those who accomplish the mission. Not all leaders take care of the people who actually accomplish work; sometimes they uphold and hold up people whom they like and with whom they are friends while they lean on others. Eventually, they act surprised when the donkey's back breaks and he kicks them for their idiocy.

I anticipate a showdown at work fairly soon. For some reason, as was true at my last job, the GOBNet likes to prop up the weakest among us and burden the strong. I am not sure how it will arise, but I will probably not allow people in positions of authority above me to usurp power and exercise tyranny. It is, unfortunately, the sad disposition of almost all men as it were as soon as they get the least scintilla of power to immediately begin to exercise it unrighteously. For my own part, I am not sure I wouldn't be just as bad as the bosses I've had, but that's one reason why I don't aspire to those positions. Eventually, they get their due, and the wisest thing I can do is, if crap hits the fan, simply quit on the spot and leave them with the hand they decided they wanted to play. It's not an offense to them; it's a service to myself. When they decide to change the equation without my input or consent, it's my choice whether I choose to play the game by these rules.

My personal work dilemma is nothing new. Rather, it's part of a larger argument that people who sow nothing can reap what I sow, but that's exactly what happens sometimes, particularly in organizations that do not keep electronic track of achievements and demerits, where one person gets an undue portion of the load and other people get an undue portion of the reward. Eventually, they may not have me as a "human resource" anymore, because, unlike the chemicals in my cabinets, I am a a free agent and can go react somewhere else. They need me more than I need them. I wonder if they will realize that before it's too late.

You will reap what you sow. The only way to escape that is to repent, in which case the Savior has already reaped for you, and you can escape the fruits of foolishness and savor those of wisdom and love instead.

Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land

Share

Wednesday in class, one of my studens who had me before asked me if I was "going to be a Nazi and grade harshly for naming organic compounds". I stopped her right there and asked her to consider her words carefully. I asked the students to show by a raise of hands which of them had ever met a real Nazi- a Jew-gassing, Hitler-loving, facist, totalitarian Nazi. I was the only one in the room who ever had, and I've met more than one. They are creepy.

You see, the Nazis are an easy scapegoat. None of us are that bad, unless of course we're projecting personally objectionable behavior onto someone else via hyperbole. I have seen no shortage of this during the campaign as people look for the bad in the candidates they dislike and tout the virtues of people they support. They see what they choose to see, investigate the obvious and ignore everything else. You see, it's easier to be right than to change.

Most totalitarians and monarchists believe themselves to be better. Consequently, they view themselves as the source of our rights- that what we have is because they are gracious and generous. However, as the Jews of Germany or the Hutus of Rwanda or the people slaughtered by Slobadon Milosevic will tell you, if rights come from government, they can be taken away by government instantly without redress.

Our nation was founded on the predication that rights do not come from government. Society doesn't even come from government. People gathered together long before they made governments; men were before they made government, and therefore the created cannot be greater than the creator. Rights cannot come from something man creates; if they come from man, they must come from society of man, which is different than government. This is why I embrace individual sovereignty and memorized and hung a copy of the Declaration of Independence in my home- it protects and preserves all that I value in this world.

In November, this nation will decide whether or not they still desire to be free. The funny thing to me is that this is the same fight that men have always fought- to decide whether any society conceived in liberty can long endure. Our circumstance is full of paradox: We can vote for our leaders, but we cannot buy the toilets or cars we choose; our bodies are ours if we want an abortion, but we can't eat whatever we like. Either we are free or we are not, and we are not. I'm not saying I believe in anarchy. Freedom isn't to do whatever you like as much as it is the ability to do what we ought.

Totalian tyrannies are not fun. They are not cheap. Someone has to pay for all the freebies Obama promises to give you. Someone had to make available all the rights he's created. They are not rights. His ignorance of the definition of the word "right" does not excuse him to use hte word to his own nefarious ends, but this is not a vocabulary lesson. It's a lesson on principle. The point of America is the notion that men are and ought to be free if they come here to do what they ought. It's not about the land or the money or what letter follows you in as a party affiliation- it's about the notion of value and values. That's where we differ.

Far too many people, no matter what party they advocate and including both Presidential candidates in my honest opinion, are more concerned with who is right than what is right. It's why Obama can't be taught and why Romney can't be tied down. Both of them act as if it's all about them, and it's not. America predates them, and God willing will be around long after they are dead. I am not a big fan of Romney, but at least he doesn't hate this country and despise our success and freedom. As far as liberals are concerned, you will always have too much money and too much freedom until you have none at all of either.

That's why I will proclaim liberty. Liberty allows us to find out what is right, sometimes by trial and error. It's a fundamental precept of our Faith- that men make mistakes and learn and correct them through the Atonement of Christ who fixes things and makes us clean. Contrary to what you hear, we have not in this generation actually given liberty a chance. They give it an inch and then, seeing any weakness, take a yard. Then they see only good in their own ideas. That's a very vain and arrogant way to act, but then again, it's also very human, and human beings are not logical or rational, no matter how much they may aspire to be like or equate themselves with Spock.

In my opinion, the only way to live long and prosper for most people is for the people to be as free as possible. People under duress are never happy or free.

Passing of Neil Armstrong

Share

For me, Armstrong’s death is the end of an era. I wasn’t even a twinkle in my father’s eye when Armstrong walked on the moon, but Armstrong is the icon of an era that transformed my life.

NASA’s space program was so successful that it made vogue and successful a genre of space-inspired media. CS Lewis had already written an unsuccessful science fiction series, as had Isaac Asimov, and then of course there were all those campy black and white movies and television programs that made us afraid of the unknown. When Armstrong stepped on the moon, much of that fear left us. Sure, the Apollo 11 chapter would make us take a step back, but we had taken many steps forward because of Armstrong’s first step.

Armstrong precipitated things that transformed my generation. From Star Trek to Battlestar Galactica to Dune to Stargate to Star Wars, all of those things are perfectly normal for Generation X. With Armstrong dead, what will be the link for the rising generation? I have cousins whose children know nothing of Han Solo, and most of my students think I, at 33, am backwards and a loser for liking Kirk and Spock. My ancestors settled the American west in the 1840s. This gave them a new frontier, and it inspired my father to fly.

What dreams will persist to the new generation? I have seen posts since the news broke where people mix up Neil Armstrong (NASA engineer) with Lance Armstrong (Tour de France champion). What do they know, and will they appreciate it? Some day, they may really say when we reminisce about how “we walked on the moon once”, “so? What good is that now”? There are stories out there that Obama might make this the era during which we walk on Mars. How, with him cutting NASA’s exploration programs (he already scrapped the shuttles)? Why does this always have to be about Obama?

The great and classy thing about Neil Armstrong is that he wasn’t into fame. I wonder sometimes if Kirk was modeled after Armstrong- Kirk who climbed mountains “because they were there” and who took a demotion to command a starship again. John Glenn became a senator. Others became legends. Armstrong became an icon, but he didn’t care, and he didn’t capitalize on it, which is why it’s so rassafrassin tacky that Obama made this all about Obama.

The world lost a gentleman this weekend. It is truly our loss. One small loss for this man; one giant loss for all of mankind. Boldly go, Mr. Armstrong. Tread well.

Work = Fair

Share

I work two jobs essentially, with a schedule that puts me at work 58 hour weeks until the semester ends. I like being busy doing something that I love, but even when I didn’t like my job, I worked because I hated being bored. In fact, whereas most people opine that the weekends are short, I wonder why they are so long. There seems to be a resistance against the notion that work is good and desireable and the way to go. Our government thinks they can take care of us without someone to till our land and pay the tax. While they elevate actors and lawyers to positions of power, they do not realize that there when tailors rule the land nobody will make the clothes. So much for “French fashion and French politics” (The Scarlett Pimpernell).

Romney wants to put work back into welfare, and they vilify him for it. You see, it’s actually a principle of our belief system, and it’s a principle of the universe. I teach my students all the time about useful work and Gibbs Free Energy. Many of them understand that muscles get better because you use them, not when someone pays you not to.

NBC did this massive hit job on the LDS church, but they made one mistake. They showed the huge warehouse full of food, toiletries, and other sundries that we store so we can GIVE THEM AWAY to people who fall on hard times. In fact, we have been doing this so well for so long that George Albert Smith, President and Prophet in 1945, when asked how soon aide could be shipped to war-torn Europe told President Truman that it was already ready to go. The only thing they ask on Welfare Square in Salt Lake City or at similar centers in major metropolitan areas fortunate enough to have Deseret Industries facilities, the only thing they ask is that you work for it.

Several years ago in graduate school, I met a beneficiary of this program. Homeless once more, he recalled fondly however how, when he needed food and clothing, they gave it to him in exchange for putting new laces in some shoes for shipment overseas. The work is trivial, but it needs to be done, and so it’s a win win scenario (Stephen Covey was also a Mormon).

This weekend, my mother told me something I didn’t know. She told me how she remembered how, watching Cecil B Demille movies starring Charleton Heston, her dad told her that the reason these movies had so many extras and live action massive scenes was because of the depression. People were desperate for work, so they would go cheer on the chariot race or row in a galley or walk through the Red Sea or whatever for enough money to feed their families.

I find it interesting that the Democrat party platform for welfare has changed so much. Much as I disagree with FDR’s alphabet soup of government work programs, at least the people worked for their sustenance. We have a large concrete wedge about 30 miles from Vegas holding back the Colorado river that was built by one of these programs, and at least FDR asked people to work for what they received. Obama wants to just give it away.

People have a negative incentive to work. One of my students told me Wednesday night that he receives more money collecting welfare than he could earn if he got a job (plus he’s a veteran who just came home from deployment). The only way they come off is when the benefits expire, and Obama bent over backwards to extend unemployment compensation to 99 weeks, which means you can collect money for two years without doing a thing. How is that fair?

I know someone personally who has decided that it’s not fair that some people don’t have to work, and so he’s not going to. The trouble is that the cost must be bourne by someone. At a previous job, I once came in very sick with dysentery. I notified my boss I would give him my all but might not be able to do as well. My coworkers noticed I had scaled back, and so they did too. Eventually, despite making about a dozen trips to the bathroom in my 11 hour shift, I picked up the slack and worked near my normal production. When my boss asked me, I told him that someone had to do it, and since I was going to end up doing it anyway, I would do it on my terms, or at least in what capacity was up to me.

Someone ends up holding the bag, doing the work and paying the price. Much as the takers may loath us, it’s a principle of the universe. The story is told of the little red hen who, when the time comes to reap, elects not to share with those who have not sown. Many of these takers believe in karma for those who offend them but balk when karma views them as an offender. If you reap what you sow, what will those reap who never sow? How is it fair to take from the mouth of him who earned and give to him who has not labored? Of course, if you benefit from largess, of course you think it’s not fair.

Another story is told of a naturalist who observed the behavior of pigeons at the park. As people continue to feed them, gradually more birds congregate. Eventually, the humans withdraw the food source or scale it back while still visiting the locale. The birds’ behavior becomes aggressive. They are angry. They “deserve” food just for showing up. They have become dependent, but that’s neither fair nor natural. I find it odd that so many people who allegedly believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest and evolution insist that we prop up and support and subsidize the weakest among us. That’s not fair or wise.

Credentials

Share

Last week, I stuck around after class Thursday night discussing things with a few students about their career aspirations. You see, very few people get degrees in Biochemistry, partly because it’s a tough course of study, but also because it’s old-fashioned. In fact, when I came to Vegas to teach, I think they were surprised I was young, because most people only take as much Biochemistry as they must. What worked out for me is that with a Biochemistry background, I am useful to and have worked in both Biology and Chemistry, and a former undergraduate classmate of mine is suggesting I teach the Biochemistry course because his PhD is in Organic Chemistry, and he knows he’s not the best subject matter expert.

I laugh sometimes when I learn what people’s credentials actually are. There is a member of our department who teaches Anatomy and Physiology. While his BS is in Physiology, what he doesn’t tell his students is that his PhD is in Psychology (easy to not notice if you don’t read it closely), but he makes his students call him Doctor even though the doctorate is not in the subject he teaches. Many people pass themselves off as experts without much to back up their claims.

What bothers me most is TV, which is what came up with my students. I decided to write about this today when I heard that Bill Nye the “Science Guy” came out as critical against people who don’t believe in evolution. How did Bill become a “Science Guy” anyway? Did he come up with those programs or was he the presenter? Does he actually understand the science or did he just read a teleprompter? That’s the problem with television. Nye actually has a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell. All the rest of his degrees are honorary.

Likewise, some other famous TV “doctors” have different credentials than we think. Hugh Laurie in “House” is an actor. So is Patrick Dempsey who plays a doctor in “Grey’s Anatomy”. Dr. Phil has a degree in Psychology. Likewise, Dr. Ruth, the noted sex therapist, is a psychologist. Dr. Drew is an internist specializing in controlling substances (so far I’m noting a theme). At least Dr. Oz is a medical doctor, being a Cardiothoracic surgeon who actively (albeit barely) teaches at Columbia university. You see, “doctor” doesn’t always mean what we think it means, and people think it means something other than it ought.

Then there’s Obama. We don’t actually know what degrees he has because he won’t release his transcripts. You can see mine any time you like. They are impressive.

Obama = Higher Taxes

Share

According to my major bank, this is what's coming our way 1 January 2013 unless Congress acts to change it. Congress hasn't acted to change it first because both houses were Democrat-controlled until 2010, and secondly because each party controls one now, and they rarely agree to pass the other's quesquilia. While Obama flits about the nation talking about how the GOP has it in for you and how he "cut taxes for 95% of Americans" which is hogwash, let's look at the real expected outcomes.

The practical implication of this is that EVERYONE who pays taxes will pay more starting next year. He doesn't care if you're 'middle class'. As far as the Democrats are concerned, you will always have too much money and too much freedom until you have none at all of either.

Ideal and Real

Share

After I signed my overload contract to teach this fall, I ran into a former student of mine who thinks I'm amazing. It's always nice to run into people who feel that way about you when you've just been through a week where people who feel the opposite bare their teeth. We had a lengthy conversation, and when he told me that I'd given him many truths about which to think, I reminded him that I know a lot more about what ought to be than the way things really are.

During the course where he and I met, I taught my students about the Ideal Gas Law. We talked about the differences between ideal gases and real ones. I point out in lecture that it is possible to force real gases to behave like ideal gases if you can force them into a particular and single set of criteria. The amount of energy required to do this is substantial, and so frequently we settle with real data and estimates rather than going to the trouble to force things to behave in an ideal way.

Just as there are ideal gases and real gases, there are ideal people and real people. Most people, and in fact everyone I know, is actually a real person rather than an ideal one. You see, it takes a great deal of energy and effort to force yourself to conform to ideal behavior, and since it's coming from inside something that is not ideal, I don't think it's possible for anything imperfect to be perfect in and of itself. It works for gases because something more perfect and more powerful provides the energy. Gases don't want to behave ideally any more than we do.

That's kind of the paradox. While there might be an ideal and while a man might be able to strive very well and come very close, since we are all real people, none of us can and will be ideal. At the end of "The King and I", Anna says of the king "I don't know if any man lived as well as he could, but this man tried." The quest for ideal sets up those Don Quixotes to be either scapegoat or saint. As long as they manage to be successful, they come across as saints, but as soon as they fail, which they will, people take that opportunity to turn them into scape goats and tie their beams to the mote. A single moment of weakness does not ablate a life of piety any more than one great deed excuses a life of debauchery. We are all real; nobody is ideal.

Perhaps that's why I am so particularly grateful for the Atonement of Christ. His liabilities cover our weaknesses. He pays the price of justice. His blood pays the price of our punishment. With his stripes we are healed. By His stripes it is for us as if it never happened. Only a being greater than we can provide the energy necessary to force us into narrow criteria where it is possible for us, however briefly the moment may be, to act as if we were ideal. Christ is the only Real Man who is also an Ideal Man. He understands how to bridge the gap between what is and what ought to be. I don't know how it works; I just know that it does, and I testify that it does. I challenge you to turn to Him for help to be an Ideal Man, and I promise you that as you do He will show you the way in which you should walk and help you keep it.

'Unfair' Medal Counts

Share

Many of my foreign friends, in particular British people, have complained that the United States wins too many Olympic medals. They contest that the medals should be more evenly distributed and that we have an unfair advantage because we can afford better training, etc. What the data actually shows is a different story, however, and the same people who did the complaining ended up winning far more than UK's 'Fair Share'. The Olympics show the way the world really works- that excellence and individual achievement are rewarded.

Right after Phelps made his last swim, I posted to Facebook the question "Which roads and bridges helped Phelps win all those Olympic medals?" You see, many global leaders, particularly our President, think that everyone is average and that nobody is special, that you didn't build that. They believe in shared sacrifice and shared outcomes, but they aren't going to give me a gold medal. I doubt Obama would have given one to Luke Skywalker for destroying the Death Star. What they really mean is that you don't deserve what you get unless they gave it to you. When they talk about how it's unfair, what they really mean is that they resent that they didn't get to dictate terms. Here are the real outcomes:

Using their own dictations, the numbers tell a different story. I compiled data on all nations earning at least three olympic medals, their population and GDP, and then I calculated what their "fair share" should be. The data showed an interesting story. The nation that won "too many" medals by both measurements was Jamaica, which won more than 2000% of its "fair share" of medals. The nation that got shafted the most was India, which received only 1% of its fair share by population and only 50% of its fair share by GDP. The United States won twice as many medals as its population suggests but only half as many as its GDP predicts. My friends in the UK, by contrast, won 600% of their fair share by Population and 112% of the medals by GDP. If anyone is overrepresented, it's the UK from whence the most complaints I heard came.

The Olympics show how the world actually works. China makes a concerted effort to be competitive and wins big. Other nations, in particular from the Caribbean where most of the unfairness occurs, see their efforts for excellence rewarded in a big way. Tally up all the Olympic results, and in all time, America has, with 5% of the population, won 12% of all medals. Unfair? Maybe, but that depends on what you use for comparison. America also attracts the best people from all nations because here you at least have a chance to be rewarded for excellence.

One other final statistical note of interest. Michael Phelps is being touted as "the greatest Olympian ever" while he took home 0.76% of all the medals. In order to even be statistically significant, he would have had to win 28 total medals just in this Olympics, which means his 'haul' is statistically insignificant.

The President of the United States, however, looks at it differently. I think he resents our excellence. Our politicians have fallen out of love with America, and they relish in the opportunity to diminish accomplishment and exacerbate faults. I find it very difficult to reason with people who exaggerate their virtues while they exaggerate my weaknesses. Either you celebrate excellence or you don't, and all of this talk about how the Olympics are 'unfair' smacks of pride and envy. Thou shalt not covet. When other nations win, I think that's cool. Ethiopia won its only medal in the Marathon where it took gold, which is only the second gold it ever won. That's huge! I am excited when America wins, but I do not lie and demagogue about our opponents, and I certainly don't celebrate their failure. You can celebrate excellence without depreciating your opponents. That's the great thing about the Olympics, and I'm glad they were successful and safe. Kudos to the UK for that.

Note: Olympic population data and GDP data taken from Yahoo Sports data on nations indicated. Olympic medal count accurate as of 13 August 2012. GDP calculated from total GDP of nations included. Population data derived from population of countries that participated. Calculations to nearest tenth. GDP and population represented in millions. Raw data available on request. Nations omitted that won fewer than three total medals. Data are for comparison and commentary only. No rights granted or implied. No permission to further transmit without attribution authorized.

Rewards of Work

Share

As our government touts the virtues of unemployment benefits, I wonder where our society is headed. Over the past few weeks, it has been brought to my attention that several of my coworkers have been forwarded for promotions and pay increases despite the fact that my work load is larger and that I have been "in grade" longer than they. The other fellow with whom I work closely in the Chemistry Department pointed out that they frequently turn to us because they know we will get the job done. As much as it irks me to watch others promoted over me (my base pay has been frozen for over four years now) because they "need the money" while they do less work, I find the timing of this post interesting.

After dinner Sunday night before I went home, my father handed me a pamphlet his father gave him years ago called "A Message to Garcia". With apologies to the author, but because I think the message matters, I am reprinting it in its entirety. Its message is as prescient and sagacious today as it was a century ago.

1899

A Message to Garcia

By Elbert Hubbard

In all this Cuban business there is one man stands out on the horizon of my memory like Mars at perihelion. When war broke out between Spain & the United States, it was very necessary to communicate quickly with the leader of the Insurgents. Garcia was somewhere in the mountain vastness of Cuba- no one knew where. No mail nor telegraph message could reach him. The President must secure his cooperation, and quickly.

What to do!

Some one said to the President, "There’s a fellow by the name of Rowan will find Garcia for you, if anybody can."

Rowan was sent for and given a letter to be delivered to Garcia. How "the fellow by the name of Rowan" took the letter, sealed it up in an oil-skin pouch, strapped it over his heart, in four days landed by night off the coast of Cuba from an open boat, disappeared into the jungle, & in three weeks came out on the other side of the Island, having traversed a hostile country on foot, and delivered his letter to Garcia, are things I have no special desire now to tell in detail.

The point I wish to make is this: McKinley gave Rowan a letter to be delivered to Garcia; Rowan took the letter and did not ask, "Where is he at?" By the Eternal! there is a man whose form should be cast in deathless bronze and the statue placed in every college of the land. It is not book-learning young men need, nor instruction about this and that, but a stiffening of the vertebrae which will cause them to be loyal to a trust, to act promptly, concentrate their energies: do the thing- "Carry a message to Garcia!"

General Garcia is dead now, but there are other Garcias.

No man, who has endeavored to carry out an enterprise where many hands were needed, but has been well nigh appalled at times by the imbecility of the average man- the inability or unwillingness to concentrate on a thing and do it. Slip-shod assistance, foolish inattention, dowdy indifference, & half-hearted work seem the rule; and no man succeeds, unless by hook or crook, or threat, he forces or bribes other men to assist him; or mayhap, God in His goodness performs a miracle, & sends him an Angel of Light for an assistant. You, reader, put this matter to a test: You are sitting now in your office- six clerks are within call.

Summon any one and make this request: "Please look in the encyclopedia and make a brief memorandum for me concerning the life of Correggio".

Will the clerk quietly say, "Yes, sir," and go do the task? On your life, he will not. He will look at you out of a fishy eye and ask one or more of the following questions: Who was he?

Which encyclopedia?

Where is the encyclopedia?

Was I hired for that?

Don’t you mean Bismarck?

What’s the matter with Charlie doing it?

Is he dead?

Is there any hurry?

Shan’t I bring you the book and let you look it up yourself?

What do you want to know for?

And I will lay you ten to one that after you have answered the questions, and explained how to find the information, and why you want it, the clerk will go off and get one of the other clerks to help him try to find Garcia- and then come back and tell you there is no such man. Of course I may lose my bet, but according to the Law of Average, I will not.

Now if you are wise you will not bother to explain to your "assistant" that Correggio is indexed under the C’s, not in the K’s, but you will smile sweetly and say, "Never mind," and go look it up yourself.

And this incapacity for independent action, this moral stupidity, this infirmity of the will, this unwillingness to cheerfully catch hold and lift, are the things that put pure Socialism so far into the future. If men will not act for themselves, what will they do when the benefit of their effort is for all? A first-mate with knotted club seems necessary; and the dread of getting "the bounce" Saturday night, holds many a worker to his place.

Advertise for a stenographer, and nine out of ten who apply, can neither spell nor punctuate- and do not think it necessary to.

Can such a one write a letter to Garcia?

"You see that bookkeeper," said the foreman to me in a large factory.

"Yes, what about him?"

"Well he’s a fine accountant, but if I’d send him up town on an errand, he might accomplish the errand all right, and on the other hand, might stop at four saloons on the way, and when he got to Main Street, would forget what he had been sent for."

Can such a man be entrusted to carry a message to Garcia?

We have recently been hearing much maudlin sympathy expressed for the "downtrodden denizen of the sweat-shop" and the "homeless wanderer searching for honest employment," & with it all often go many hard words for the men in power.

Nothing is said about the employer who grows old before his time in a vain attempt to get frowsy ne’er-do-wells to do intelligent work; and his long patient striving with "help" that does nothing but loaf when his back is turned. In every store and factory there is a constant weeding-out process going on. The employer is constantly sending away "help" that have shown their incapacity to further the interests of the business, and others are being taken on. No matter how good times are, this sorting continues, only if times are hard and work is scarce, the sorting is done finer- but out and forever out, the incompetent and unworthy go.

It is the survival of the fittest. Self-interest prompts every employer to keep the best- those who can carry a message to Garcia.

I know one man of really brilliant parts who has not the ability to manage a business of his own, and yet who is absolutely worthless to any one else, because he carries with him constantly the insane suspicion that his employer is oppressing, or intending to oppress him. He cannot give orders; and he will not receive them. Should a message be given him to take to Garcia, his answer would probably be, "Take it yourself."

Tonight this man walks the streets looking for work, the wind whistling through his threadbare coat. No one who knows him dare employ him, for he is a regular fire-brand of discontent. He is impervious to reason, and the only thing that can impress him is the toe of a thick-soled No. 9 boot.

Of course I know that one so morally deformed is no less to be pitied than a physical cripple; but in our pitying, let us drop a tear, too, for the men who are striving to carry on a great enterprise, whose working hours are not limited by the whistle, and whose hair is fast turning white through the struggle to hold in line dowdy indifference, slip-shod imbecility, and the heartless ingratitude, which, but for their enterprise, would be both hungry & homeless.

Have I put the matter too strongly? Possibly I have; but when all the world has gone a-slumming I wish to speak a word of sympathy for the man who succeeds- the man who, against great odds has directed the efforts of others, and having succeeded, finds there’s nothing in it: nothing but bare board and clothes.

I have carried a dinner pail & worked for day’s wages, and I have also been an employer of labor, and I know there is something to be said on both sides. There is no excellence, per se, in poverty; rags are no recommendation; & all employers are not rapacious and high-handed, any more than all poor men are virtuous.

My heart goes out to the man who does his work when the "boss" is away, as well as when he is at home. And the man who, when given a letter for Garcia, quietly take the missive, without asking any idiotic questions, and with no lurking intention of chucking it into the nearest sewer, or of doing aught else but deliver it, never gets "laid off," nor has to go on a strike for higher wages. Civilization is one long anxious search for just such individuals. Anything such a man asks shall be granted; his kind is so rare that no employer can afford to let him go. He is wanted in every city, town and village- in every office, shop, store and factory. The world cries out for such: he is needed, & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia.

THE END-

I am not always the best at being a Rowan in the workplace. Some of the things they ask of me are things to which I do not have permission, and so I must ask for further direction. My signature is worth about as much as a used toothpick. What I have done is give my superiors options, appraise them of objectives, update them on achievements, and take care of business as far as lies in my poor power. While a coworker slated for promotion takes credit, I have taken the initiative, knowing that to wait (as was the case with this person last year at this same time) will be worse than to be proactive. Sometimes, I am given directives, and while I may carry the message to Garcia, my pay is not in proportion. The consequence of this has been that where others have their base pay increased, I have other opportunities.

I came to this state and Nevada higher education in October 2007. I started teaching in January 2008. Since then, I have taught six different courses, many without so much as an example syllabus or my own copies of the lab book or course text and with as little as five days notice until the start of term (like just happened today when I was offered a seventh unique course to teach). With each offering, I have moved up the course listing to more important classes with higher requirements. Two weeks ago, a friend of mine from undergraduate asked me if I would be willing to teach a senior level class in Biochemistry and create a class on scientific instrumentation for a Chemistry Minor.

I am not a power player in the GOBNet. I am outranked, outclassed in terms of publications and degree titles and even the choice of alma mater. I usually get the dregs of the class listings. Yet, the people who make the decisions are coming to me to get the Message to Garcia because they know I will do the job well and on time, and that students will get a good value from what I offer. I have the largest overload of anyone in the department (I will spend 58 hours a week on the clock), and I am teaching three different courses this semester, some of which have students on the roster that I have seen before.

To close, allow me to quote Mr. Hubbard again: "Folks who never do any more than they get paid for never get paid for any more than they do." I am fairsure that they are offering me these opportunities because I go above and beyond. Even if some of the administrators choose to overlook my contribution or at least withhold rewards, the rewards of work are sometimes beyond the paycheck. For anyone who looks at my resume since coming to the Nevada System of Higher Education, they will see the following: a man of inauspicious beginnings was given greater and more opportunities until he eclipsed some tenured faculty, passing more senior persons to take advantage of opportunities. I have risen to the occassion and risen in their estimation as a consequence.

Although I earn a fair wage, I am very cheap. I earn the rock bottom minimum, even when I teach overload because the minimum overload exceeds 1.5 times my normal hourly wage. Others cost the institution far more. My sections are also at 75-99% capacity whereas some of theirs are barely large enough to keep open. My reputation and resume speak for themselves, and I thank God for rewarding me for my work. I may not be as good as Rowan, but God has granted me opportunies and shown me to be a civilized man. I consider that a great blessing. Now, I'm off to work.

'Rule' of Three

Share

A close friend of mine is absolutely obsessed with the so-called Rule of Three. He finds meaning in triplicates of just about anything, and while it might be apophenia, it might also have some relevance. In my own life as well as my study, I have seen evidence to suggest that things that happen in triplicate mean something, and so I'll attempt to address them here.

Many instances in life follow the Rule of Three. I teach my students to do all their laboratory exercises in triplicate because it takes three to do a standard deviation. Only at that point does it become statistically significant. Stools need at least three legs in order to stand. Triangles are one of the most stable and efficient arrangements. In fact, I'll talk about those in another post later. We eat three meals, award three levels of medals at the Olympics, etc. Some of these seem to be coincidental, but that might be due to the fact that we do not know the origin of those observances, many of which come from scripture.

Many instances in scripture likewise seem to follow the Rule of Three. There are three members of the Godhead- God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Tabernacle and later the temple were in three segments: the outer court, inner court and Holy of Holies. Encampments around the temple involved groups of three tribes. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day. Peter denied Christ three times. The combined House of Israel had three kings: Saul, David, and Solomon. Scripture tells us that "where two or three are gathered in my name, I will be in the midst of them" and that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established". Noah even sent forth the bird three times looking for land. Elijah had the priests of Baal douse the altar thrice with water. Israel celebrated three mandatory feasts every year. It seems to be significant.

From my studies in the LDS Institute of Religion, I learned some of the significance of numbers in scripture. You see, Three represents Completion. This is why 7-7-7 (Seven being the number of perfection) is the sign of God because it is three sevens, or complete perfection. Likewise, 6-6-6 (six representing deception) is a sign of the devil, because it is complete deception (not six hundred sixty six as many people assume).

This begs the question of what three as completion actually means for us. As I have thought about these scriptural references (which started late Saturday night), I have noticed a trend. The first instance seems to be problematic. The second seems to be preparatory and the third seems to be successful. Look at a few examples. When the devil attempts to thwart the plan of God he firsts in the garden and convinces Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, secondly, he goes after Jesus while he's fasting. The third attempt is ongoing now and ultimately will fail. Adam and Eve had three named first sons- Abel, Cain, and Seth. When Cain kills Abel, Seth, from whom most of us descend, becomes the successful expansion of their family. Noah sends forth the bird looking for land. First it comes back as it left; secondly it brings back a branch, and finally it does not return. Even the kings follow this rule. Saul brought them together, but David ultimately proved unprepared to follow God, and it was Solomon who finally built the temple.

From the examples about which I was able to think, the number three seems to be significant. I am hoping that in my life the rule of three proves to follow the same patter. I have plenty of reason to hope for it, and if it proves to be that way, you'll certainly hear about it later. Until that time, consider that important things do seem to come in threes.

America Suffers for Sabbaths

Share

All growing up, I have fought with members of my Faith who think that some things are acceptable to do on the Sabbath. Now that I am an adult, I think that most of the ills we suffer, particularly in the blessed land of America, result from our unwillingness to keep the Sabbath Day. I think sometimes when we read scriptures we, in our pride, compare ourselves to Israel and pat ourselves on the back that, although we might be wicked, at least we're not THAT wicked. The scriptures are there however to warn us of what might be if we do not change our ways.

When God gave His commandments, very few of them came with promise. Although when He first delivers them to Moses God doesn't mention the blessing, He covers it later how Sabbath observance will help Israel secure the blessings and rights of God. As I think about all the people I know who think that rights come from government (which is a creation of man), I find it odd that they ignore this vast contributor to our culture as not only irrelevant but also misguided. It has kept the Jews together and alive for longer than any other nation or religion ever has.

Here is the promise, exerpted from Leviticus 26: Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord. If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them; Then I will give you brain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time: and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely. And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land. And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword. For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you. And ye shall eat old store, and bring forth the old because of the new. And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people. I am the Lord your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, that ye should not be their bondmen; and I have broken the bands of your yoke, and made you go upright.

God's promise is threefold. First, the land and the people will be fruitful and bounteous. Secondly, the land and its people will be protected and victorious. Finally, the land and its people shall be graced by the presence of God and have freedom under His law.

What America really needs is to follow the Sabbath. Instead, we make every excuse to find things to do that are either inconsistent with the spirit of the Sabbath if they are not in direct violation of the letter of that law. For example, when I moved to Vegas several years ago, I attended a game activity for young singles one Sunday evening. I was uncomfortable enough before they broke out the face cards for Texas Hold'em. I have friends who go hiking or boating to "go find God in nature" but who neither look for Him nor speak about Him much while there if at all. After church last Sunday, I sat in the foyer listening to a man discuss with his children what movie they would watch that afternoon- Universal Soldier or The Shining, neither one of which are appropriate for children let alone the spirit of the Sabbath. These are not evil men; they are doing silly things.

In his groundbreaking work, for which I should now be earning royalties I quote it so often, CS Lewis talks about this. He observes that "Murder is no better than cards if cards will do the trick. Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft under foot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts." Indeed, the tempter is so good at it that he leads us around with a flaxen chord, cheating us by degrees and talking with us about Seemingly Unimportant Decisions (SUDs). "One drink won't hurt." "One smoke won't hurt." After he lulls us into a false sense of security, pacifying us that "it's not that big of a deal" or that "everyone's doing it", we find it easier to justify, and we're paying the price.

Failure to obey the Sabbath has undermined the nation's greatness and moral fiber. Even for families that were busy, the Sabbath used to be that one day a week as was true in my father's family when the family gathered together and parents taught their children. In his farewell address, Reagan touched on this topic by saying,

"I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual. And let me offer lesson No. 1 about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do."

As Reagan prophetically warned, the erosion of civic ritual, the observances of things that contribute directly and positively to cultural and personal morality rely on parents gathering together to teach first what it means to be a child of God and then what that means in the context of the nation where they reside. I testify that as soon as Americans sit around on the Sabbath doing what they ought that our nation will see a return of the blessings promised this great land by its Creator.

America isn't what we see at the Olympics, on the news, in a political campaign or an advertising one. It is in the faces of our children on a Sunday afternoon, guided and fed by the activities in which we allow them to engage and in which we take the lead as parents in the home. It is found in the kitchen, around the table, as we gather together to talk, to pray, and to enjoy the company of family members when the sun goes down, that we can find solace in our homes when all the turmoil of the world rages outside to our ruin. Those other things are outside evidence of inside character, and the character of our nation has been weakened by our failure to worship and obey that God that gave our nation and its Constitution life.

I have many friends who seem to think that rights and our nation are not products of God. They are arrogantly proud, so full of hubris they cannot possibly be the rational beings they purport themselves to be. Even though Curiosity landed on Mars last week, we still get caught up in our own self-import, ignoring the fact that people and this earth are wholly insignificant on a universal scale. Our value comes because we are Created, and our Creator has an interest in our survival and success. Until we give Him back His day, we cannot expect or hope for His help, and we have never needed it more.

Voter IDs

Share

The Democrats like to talk about how voter IDs are like a poll tax. I would really like to tell someone the next time they demand a photo ID that they're trampling on my civil rights. Problem is that probably won't work for me because I'm not important enough like Rand Paul to refuse government regulation and not go to jail like he did when he refused a TSA patdown.

Here is my list of reasons for which we are required to show a photo ID: To buy beer To pick up kids from school To use a credit card To prove our identity if arrested To complete an I-9 form for employment To get a passport To fly on an airplane To rent a car To cash a cheque To use the gym To attend classes at school To be identified as an employee at work To enter Sams/Costco To buy cigarettes To see a doctor To take a test To get a library card To get a prescription drug To enter a club or bar or nightclub

But not to vote. You can vote if you claim to be you, even if you aren't that you that you claim to be. In Nevada, you do have to show your ID at least once, either when you register or the first time you vote if you didn’t at the time of registration.

If Republicans were the ones usually involved in voter fraud, they would probably ask us for fingerprints or DNA tests to verify our identity, but the Democrats will even allow pets and zombies to vote. It's duplicitous for them to require it for some things but not for something fundamentally critical to the integrity of our political process. Then again, they rely on that and always have to win elections by cheating.

Effort or Character

Share

Recent events gave me reason once more to think about how backwards our society is when it comes to rewarding accomplishment. Between the Olympics and my own life, I see not only the disparity but also why people choose to live the ‘normal’ way rather than the way they probably ought. You see, we are all motivated by some kind of reward or value system, and most people, including sometimes myself, are too impatient to wait for better rewards later.

Most normal people are unaccustomed and ill equipped to give much of an effort. Yet, it is from those ranks that most of our heroes are acclaimed. These are typically average people who rise to the occasion and do more in a moment than they normally do or than society would expect of them. They are rewarded because, when the time came, their efforts bore fruit.

People like me face a unique predicament that is largely a losing proposition in modern society. We live our best most of the time. Sometimes, particularly when we are sad, tired, bored, or lonely, we fall. Rather than being praised for normally giving more than is expected or required, we are roasted for momentary lapses. Even if our normal activities bear good fruit in abundance, we are not recognized for that; we are only criticized for a bad crop.

Our society seems less interested in what is good than they are in effort. You are praised for trying, given awards for participating, for giving an effort. In essence, you either are sent to the podium for a good moment or hung for a poor one, without any regard for a lifetime of service. The same kind of misbegotten notion is related to the belief that you can repent on your deathbed of a lifetime of behavior, when your habits have made you a more or less permanent character.

We saw this in the Olympics. The top gymnast had a bad day, and received no medal for best all around. Her teammate, able to avail herself of the opportunity, shone. I think she deserves praise, but this sets us up for a fallacy of that whole hellish philosophy that “to be means to be in competition” or that “I can only achieve if I thrust you aside” or that “it’s a null sum game, and if I want, I must take from you”. Life is not a competition. Yet, people make an excuse to feel better, not because they have won, but because you have faltered. We all finish the race at the same rate- 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and what differentiates us is how we run along the way.

Everyone assumes I am playing a game and looks for evidence that I am too good to be true. They perceive that it takes very little effort to live a high standard. On the contrary, it takes a great deal. I have to prove every minute of every hour of every day that I mean it, because as soon as I fall, people assume that everything else was a ruse, a game, an angle. They require me to forgive them their momentary lapses and praise them for small moments of greatness while they ignore my normal greatness and accentuate the moments when I am human. It’s very diabolical. It’s a way for them to always have it their way.

I find it paradoxical that some of these people consider themselves Christians. As a central tenant of our common Faith, we believe that men are mortal and make mistakes, which is why a Savior was necessary. While they accord themselves forgiveness for egregious errors without repentance or even contrition, as soon as I acknowledge my unworthiness, they parade it around in the streets. It’s not about being better; it’s celebrating in the FACT that I will eventually falter. I become either saint, which is impossible, or scapegoat, a way for them to rationalize their aberrant and abhorrent behavior by hanging it around my neck whenever I do anything remotely human.

We are human. We all make mistakes. Doing something once can be an error; doing it again is a choice; continuing to do it makes it a character. Even Superman had his kryptonite. Even he needed someone unaffected to rescue him. Thank God for His Christ, that even I, who am just a man, may be made perfect through the Blood of the Lamb.

Government Spying on You?

Share

Contrary to popular belief, and as upsetting as the notion is that the government proposes to use drones for domestic surveillance, the government isn't that interested in you. You probably aren't important, rich, or dangerous enough for them to notice you. They don't even seem bothered by shootings in Aurora, CO or bother to act about the shooter in Oak Creek WI even though they tracked him for a decade.

So many people out there are trying to get noticed. We want attractive ladies to see us, employers to pick us, game shows to feature us, and our families to love us. A sad few even resort to extremes and follow the route taken by Hiltons and Kardashians, selling their lives for a mess of pottage albeit an expensive one. The government has bigger problems to deal with like Romney's income taxes and how to make sure that a sufficient number of dogs and zombies make it to the polls to ensure a second term for Obama. They are too busy to mess with most folks, no matter how much Glenn Beck foments at the mouth about how they're coming for you. They don't know you. They couldn't care less.

The fact of the matter is that government only pays attention to you if you give them sufficient reason to. Aside from ECHELON and other programs that skim your online activities for certain website hits, certain associations, and certain key words, they have far too many people of whom to keep track. In fact, it doesn't seem to bother them that Huma Weiner has ties to security threats (she has a clearance) or whether Obama actually is a citizen (He has the highest clearance for a civilian). They're probably using that equipment like Tommy Lee Jones does in Men in Black to track down and watch women they once loved and lost.

The only times the government has been interested in me are when I have done things that are suspicious, typed certain keywords, or applied for a clearance. In graduate school, for research purposes I procured some materials and used a machine that are automatic triggers because of how they can be misused outside higher education for dangerous purposes. I've purposely typed and said things hoping to distract the NSA (like mentioning ECHELON, which I am fairsure triggers them scanning this article). I mostly do it to annoy them. As for a clearance, well, let's say that DHS wishes I'd never applied for a job there and that I'm still waiting for adjudication of my file even after a Congressional inquiry over four years ago. Otherwise they largely leave you alone. You're just not that important. Not yet.

Even during the Revolution, only two Americans were villainous enough to secure permanent death warrants. John Hancock and Samuel Adams were never to be forgiven under any circumstances. Both of them had a long history of sedition and riotous outcry, and so it stands to reason that Britain might not want to forgive them. The rest, even Benedict Arnold, were welcome back into the Empire. It takes a great deal more than most people are willing to do to sacrifice that card. Plus, they have bigger plans than some Chemistry professor with a blog...

Wide Open Space

Share

I’m always looking for acreage in Wyoming. It’s not because I love snow or want to live off the land or because I just love Wyoming. I look for land in Wyoming because I like wide open spaces. I like to be able to just walk out my back door and plant what I want, play what I want, and go where I want whenever I want for no other reason other than I desire to. I don’t like that Obama can shut down national parks to appear there. Those are mine, or at least they are supposed to be. I want my own space.

Government doesn’t like this, which might be why government hates Westies. They frequently refer to us as “flyover country”, a part of the nation they court in elections when they think they need our votes. Then they treat us with disdain and ignore us the rest of the time. What they resent about us is that we don’t need them. We don’t want them. We yearn to breath free.

Under the auspices of convenience, efficiency and cleanliness, they attempt to compel us to conform to behavior. They raise fuel prices, stop repairing roads, raise taxes, cancel services, raise food prices, etc., all to discourage us from being on our own. They want to concentrate us back into cities so that we are easier to control. A friend of mine once said that Republicans are neighbors only because property lines eventually collide but that Democrats are neighbors because of proximity. Republicans don’t care because they are isolated; Democrats don’t care because they don’t want to get involved.

This is designed to make men easier to control. They don’t want us to get involved. They don’t want us to be free. They want us dependent on them. Over the weekend, I read stories about how it’s now illegal to collect rain water on your own land. They have already imposed restrictions on how you can use your land and for example won’t let you shoot guns on your own 40 acre parcel. This is incompatible with the westie way of life. We came west because we like wide open spaces. We desire freedom.

Almost everything government does is a campaign against freedom. They want to govern your whole life and tell you what to eat, how to dress, and whom you may take to wife. They want to control where you go and how you get there, what you do and when, and under what conditions you can do what they allow. They are about control, but our Constitution was about freedom. That’s why they hate us, our guns, our religion, and our way of life.

We are actually far more tolerant than most people on average. As long as you don’t harass me, take my cattle, damage my hat, trespass on my land, or mess with my family, I don’t really care what you do on your property with what you have. It doesn’t interest me. I seek freedom to pursue happiness according to the dictates of my own conscience, and I allow all men the same privilege. Let them seek how, when and what they may.

Fishing for Controversy

Share

The media seems more interested in fishing for controversy than looking for news. In that way, they’re much like everyone else, more interested in corroborating their own preconceived notions than in finding out what’s really true. We have loads of stories that attest to the hypothesis that the media isn’t a news organization anymore and that in fact it’s an appendage of a particular political agenda.

Take for example the Chick-fil-A story. They were very unhappy about how many people showed up to buy food in support of Chick-fil-A. Many of them, including friends of mine who work for various media outlets (including ones that normally confine themselves to medical related news) referred to this as a “movement of hate”. When the LGBT community staged a counter protest that included actual hate speech and vandalism and had very low turnout, all of that got swept under the rug, giving the impression that the counterprotest was a success. The fact they are missing is that the CEO of CfA didn’t come out and volunteer his opinion; he was asked in an interview about his views on marriage, an interview by a Christian organization. He did not say he hates gays; they have inferred that.

It is unwise and immature to take offense where none was given. He stated his opinion, which is something everyone is entitled to do, unless you’re a Christian or Jew. Media spokesmen talk now about how he’s a hater, but they slander and libel his company and hope they can put him out of business and destroy jobs he created. He wasn’t speaking to everyone; yet everyone has taken offense to his opinion, when they claim the privilege to express their own. Religious views are also freedom of speech, but that’s part of the 1st Amendment most liberals wish wasn’t there

Similarly, the media celebrates other attempts to undermine traditional marriage. California once passed a proposition to protect marriage, which was overturned by the 9th Circuit Court. They took tax and utility money from the people trying to defeat Prop 8, which offends me. The media was absolutely atwitter when the Court struck down the voice of the people, not because that was according to our law but because it validated their own preconceived opinions. I think it’s hate to force me to support financially something I find offensive, but they don’t seem to give a flying pinwheel if I’m offended.

An executive from Venta railed on youtube. He attacked the employees. He lumped them together. He accused them of being haters. His behavior was full of hate. I laughed a bit when he said, “I’m a nice guy” and then attacked the poor woman in the drive through as a hater.

Likewise, the media likes to jump to conclusions about violence. When the PhD candidate in Aurora shot up a theater during a Batman movie, the media immediately assumed he was a Tea Party member. Of course, they never seem concerned about Major Hassan, who shot up a bunch of soldiers on a military base. The media always looks for violence at Tea party events when evidence suggests that the Occupy Wall Street movement has more lawlessness. From public defecation to rape to murder to rampant theft, Occupy was riddled with crime rather than the Tea Party.

In other words, the media investigates the obvious easy conclusion and ignores all others. They take Occum’s Razor to an unhealthy extreme, not because it’s the most plausible but because it’s the easiest explanation to rationalize.

Romney’s tax records, horse ownership, and school behavior are matters of utmost importance in the election while the media remains silent on everyone else. Secretary Geithner didn’t pay taxes. Reid managed to become a millionaire. Pelosi called a request for her taxes “a distraction”. Arpaio thinks Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud, and Obama has never released his transcripts, but only Romney’s records interest the media.

What they are doing ought to invite speculation. Nobody normal has been walking around demanding Romney’s records. Nobody normal is walking around saying that everyone at Chick-fil-A is a bigot. Nobody normal is walking around thinking that everyone in the Tea Party is a psychopath. Any reasonable person knows that people are people and must be measured by the content of their character rather than their clubs and associations. Not everyone who belongs to the National Honor Society is honorable or smart.

The media is a movement other than one that interests itself with news. They are trying to create an impression. They are hasty to project preconceived notions because that’s easier than really getting to know him. Whatever else they seek, they are not looking for the truth.

Media seems more interested in manufacturing a story than reporting news. Now Romney must prove he is honorable. If he doesn’t respond he’s “hiding something”. If he does, it’s because “he’s trying to control the debate”. The media likes to have it both ways. For them, charity and honesty are one-way streets that benefit them.