Fast Profits and Hot Potatoes

Share

While in graduate school, I decided to buy a house rather than rent. Fortunately for me, I got what was a comparatively good deal in the local market, and when my funding in graduate school dried up, I was able to sell the house for a handsome profit. One of my neighbors was not so lucky. At the time I sold my one house, he owned three, and it was all he could do to work enough overtime to make the three payments. These were not the only ones he owned, he having previously flipped two other homes in the rising market of 2005. The problem was that in his haste to make a quick buck, he took on more than he could chew, and when the market tanked and he found himself owning houses that he could not sell, it may have destroyed his credit, his career, and his family. I moved away and never found out what happened, but last time we spoke, he was worried because he was stuck holding the hot potato.

Entire industries exist encouraging you to use other people’s money in order to make a quick profit. When they can, government officials warn us of these ponzi schemes, but the government is involved in them too. Social Security looks a lot like a pyramid scheme, and no matter how innocuous the term multi level marketing sounds, companies like Mary Kay exist because the people at the top sell the idea of quick money to people at the bottom. The trouble for the lay person is that the quick money comes easiest to the people at the top; just ask Bernie Madoff. In fact, a blogger I follow suggests to his readers that they take out credit cards, use balance transfers with low fees to generate cash flow, and then invest the cash for a return of interest, and then pay it back in full before any payment is due, essentially getting interest free loans. Eventually someone has to pay for this, and the people who make borrowing easy are counting on you not being able to pay the piper.

Sometimes, the scams are people trying to make a quick dime at other’s expense. The same people involved in ammo fleecing on a petty scale probably rail against “evil corporations” who go after “corporate profits” while they excuse themselves because it’s only a few boxes or only $20. The scale is not what makes it wrong. Furthermore, what happens when you end up with ammo you can’t fire? Like my neighbor who ended up with houses he could not sell, you have things that are of no use, and eventually the ammo market will recover, and some people will have “invested” in ammo they cannot sell. I will not be surprised to discover that certain politicians made bank on rising stock prices for Smith and Wesson or Sturm, Ruger, and Co. It is also a matter of public record that some people manipulate the rules to benefit themselves. Harry Reid manipulated land prices to enrich himself and his sons. They think you are selfish, but they are totally justified because they “work for you”. I’m sorry, but none of those people, including Harry Reid, have ever done anything specifically at my request or that specifically benefitted me. Most of it was coincidental and accidental.

Using debt to make money is a popular notion and an old one, but it is a game of hot potato. The only ways in which I am aware that indemnity ever dies is when civilizations or governments collapse and reform in new ways under new leaders. Even at death sometimes your debt passes to your descendants, and even the death of Richard did not free John Lackland from the debt of the crusades or Richard’s redemption from Leopold. Eventually, someone is left holding the bag, on the hook for everything, and it would be both foolish and arrogant to assume that we will not be the ones stuck with the obligation to pay back what we borrow. My neighbor hopefully found a way; I have a sneaking suspicion that his life collapsed under the burden of debt. I find it odd that so many people warn me that “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is” and then dive right into something just like that. When the pied piper came to collect his debt, he took the children. Unless we learn from that tale, we may suffer the same fate. Release yourself from bondage. Free yourself from debt. Then you don’t even have to touch the potato or worry about getting burnt.

Freedom Fundage

Share

Before I moved to Vegas, my employer stonewalled every effort I made to advance my career. My father suspects it’s because my manager received extra money in bonuses for my performance and relied on that money. Whatever the reason, despite my contribution to the organization, nobody came to talk me out of leaving until I had only two more days to work. By then, I had moved my belongings into storage and moved into a weekly hotel room, and my father was on his way up to help me move. I told the General Manager, “I have $3000 in the bank, no debts, bills or obligations, and a place to live. You need me more than I need you.” It felt empowering.

I’m not alone. Both Humphrey Bogart and Scott Adams pointed out the benefits of having an emergency reserve because of the financial independence it gives you to be picky with how you spend your time. Bogart used to keep $100 in a drawer ($1000 adjusted today for inflation) so that if he was offered a role he didn’t like he didn’t have to take it. Scott Adams created the “Dilbert” character Wally who saves up money so that he could retire any time he wanted when the demands of work became impossible, unethical, and/or unrealistic.

Since I don’t have a desk, I had to find another way to set some money aside, but I have money in the bank ready to go above and beyond what I earn. It’s nice to not live paycheck to paycheck and to have some set aside in case of an unexpected change, particularly during the years when the Department Chair would come visit me and tell me my name was on the layoff list. That certainly builds morale and makes one feel secure, which is why I thank God for the small rainy day fund I have so that I don’t have to take what others want to give me.

Money’s greatest value to you after the bills are paid lies in its ability to give you options, to give you freedom. This is probably why I rail against debt of any kind and why I take opportunities to take extra sections. Most of the extra goes straight into retirement, and some of it gets spent on travel, but a good portion also goes into preparedness. I beefed up my food storage and set aside an emergency fund so that if I am offered a role I don’t like I don’t have to take it. Maybe this is why government is so eager to take money from you. They don’t want you to have a reserve, to have a choice, to have any freedom. It’s empowering to be able to walk away when things become incompatible with happiness and pursue your own adventure and opportunities elsewhere. I am glad that I had that exchange with my manager; the best thing about the story is that it’s true, and I really did need them less because I had something set aside. If you can, it will give you options, peace and freedom too.

Horsford Only Faces Friendly Folks

Share

I attended my second Congressman Horsford event at work yesterday and found that the more faces he wears the more he remains the same. Ostensibly he came to talk about how to make financial aid better, but he was really here to drum up support from students to force the state legislature to act in the next week. His opening video was very partisan, projecting blame, and his solution which he was good enough to publicly declare is one already in place.

I know things about Horsford that he doesn’t like to discuss. His Achilles Heels create a semblance of False Modesty when he honestly owns his weaknesses without declaring them. He does not want to appear weak, and he has been well coached. It was after all was said and done a staged event, and the media seemed to play right into his hands with the way they reported it, focusing on the students, as if they are qualified to make judgments about how higher education should be administered.

Despite all of that, I think Horsford was as surprised as I was by the sentiments from the faculty and staff section. Normally, he plays to friendly audiences rather than proselyting his ideas, and although most of the students bobbled their heads in cadence, even the College President echoed my sentiments in his closing remarks. I was not as alone as I thought I might be. Our VP for Financial Aid thanked me for my comments, and one of his assistants asked for copies of the articles I cited. Horsford used language that made me feel like this was a fishing expedition. He claimed to be there to hear what we had to say, which actually means we want to hear from you if you support our side. Ostensibly, he cared about what the students think, but we know they don’t really care about students who didn’t want Obamacare or want to opt out of SSI or because we know they don’t care about what the as-yet-unborn think. In fact, they slaughter them like shrupshire sheep.

Most of his rhetoric was swung at a cheering and somnambulant student body that clapped at his every notion. His speech typified of the normal liberal of corporations and class warfare. If you destroy corporations, you destroy jobs, and you eventually destroy wealth. They cheered when he asked, “Why should you be on the hook for that?” and proposed an incentive system of loan forgiveness for certain vocations. I don’t know, maybe because you signed a contract? Why should I be responsible? He even went so far as to say “jobs that contribute to society” as if there are some that don’t, and even though he clarified with “more than others” when I pressed him, the first utterance is usually what you really mean. While Horsford criticized tying the rate to the market, he then advocated it while at the same time arguing for more artificially low rates, which is what is creating our current economic problem. Horsford proposed incentives to pay off student debt for “Jobs that contribute to society” as if there are jobs that don’t contribute to society. When I confronted him afterwards, he stratified them, that certain jobs are more difficult to get qualified candidates. There never seems to be a dearth of candidates for public office.

Members of the administration and faculty seemed to share my concerns. We worry about those who are unprepared and ill inclined to complete their degrees and end up with debt without a way to pay it off. One fellow said he paid $17,000 annually towards his student debt. That would cripple most folks. Horsford brought lots of numbers, but he seemed ignorant of the great body of journalistic and scholastic works questioning his premise that college is a panacea. Students don’t realize that someone is on the hook for this or that this kind of debt fetters them in chains of indentured servitude as they pay off the debt. If the students are not disciplined to achieve and then cannot find jobs, what good will the loans do them? I still don’t know why we offer degrees in art history. What do you do with that degree anywhere? It’s hard enough with a science degree to get a job, even for people with a PhD.

Basically, this was a staged appearance. None of the comments in the official meeting from the faculty made the news. Rather, the news reported that it will be difficult for students and showcased a student who isn’t sure the sacrifices will be worth it. What the news didn’t say is that he has been accepted to and decided to attend American University. I went to one I could afford, and so could he. I know the rest of the story, because I was there, and I’m not sure he’s not a plant, because he has been at every Horsford event on campus. Loans may get them into college, but unless we get them out of college and into a job, then it’s not a good investment. It’s a red herring to think that just because college can help that it necessarily will. Most of the rich tech billionaires never finished, and I can name cousins and students who earn more than I do who never earned a degree. It gives you options. What you do with them, like the loans, is entirely up to you.

Changing the Citizenry

Share

Until now, I have been confused by the bipartisan effort against the will of the people to offer amnesty to millions of illegal alien felons in this country. I saw no benefit to the United States as a whole to bring in a slue of poor, uneducated, and unskilled workers simply because they were here and then bestow on them rights that, were I to do what they did, that same government would take from me. Since returning from Alaska, I realized that they do this because the politicians do not like the citizens they represent and they hope by doing this to change the distribution of the electorate to one that is willing to give politicians more power.

Evidence abounds that the politicians hate the people of this nation. They rationalize the illegal felons from foreign lands by channeling virtues of the Founding Fathers and comparing these new arrivals to our forefathers. At the same time, you can read elsewhere how politicians roast the Founding Fathers as white men who stole land and resources from the natives who were living here. Either the Founding Fathers were virtuous or they are not, and if they are, they were virtuous because they believed in the civil society and rule of law. Even if the trades made between pilgrims and Iroquois nation were unfair, they were considered just and fair exchanges by those who transacted them at the time, and all claims and counterclaims were settled by men of that time, no matter how much buyer’s remorse their posterity may harbor. The politicians claim we are not paying our fair share as citizens, that we are not giving or helpful or generous, and that the people who come here to take do so because it’s “for the children”. That canard has to stop. What about our children? What kind of nation will they inherit? Amnesty advocates seem able to see only virtues in the immigrant while they see only evils in the citizens. It is as if the citizen is beholden to the immigrant, irrespective of his national origin or attitude towards the rule of law. They are considered essential while citizens already extant are considered impediments to progress and progressivism.

Politicians seem completely disinterested in the law. As the people clamor for a sealed border, the politicians focus on amnesty. Where we would be on trial for committing a felony and then stripped of the right to vote, politicians anxiously trip over each other to give these other felons franchise. The declaration of independence reflects that governments are created by the people to serve and protect them. It is a statesman’s responsibility to serve first and foremost those who band together to form a government. They are those who elect him, and they are the ones to whom he is accountable for the execution of his rights, powers, and responsibilities. Efforts to curry favor with people who are not yet citizens at the expense of those who already are constitutes nothing less than gross dereliction of duty if not blatant defiance of a political oath of office. Citizens are those who consent to be governed and for whom the government exists. Consequently, I am the advocate of those already citizens over those who may one day hope to be, and especially over the concerns of those who wish to reap the benefits of citizenship without paying the price or respecting the rules f the civil society from which they wish to benefit.

Citizenship means to throw off allegiance to their former nation and society. My neighbors, even though they have many redeeming qualities, seem resistant to throwing off allegiances to their former sovereigns and traditions, even when these undermine their success in America or the ability of America to continue in prosperity. Governments are obligated to bias citizenship to those who are most likely to be absorbed into and contribute to the society as presently constituted. Instead, they are interested in “fundamental transformation” when there are already nations elsewhere to which they could migrate if they really believe that such a society is superior. This is the attitude of conquerors who intended to erase other cultures and imprint their own on every land over which they could take the reigns of power from the people who lived there.

Advocating amnesty over the law is a duplicitous stance. The citizen is minimized and the illegal alien is noble. That’s not always been the case. If Liberals think unrestricted immigration is so wonderful, why do they denigrate the white influx to native american lands? Immigration reform is racism against whites. The illegal alien today is noble, but when we came here, it was the natives who were noble. Between those two dates, you see the Great White Male, that demon of the deep whom they relentlessly hunt like Ahab. Chain migration is a system that hurts the prospects of a civil society. Rather than prioritizing immigration based on skills, it prioritized based on who they knew. It is the ultimate GOBNet, in which immigrants choose who come, and the immigrants become poorer, less educated, less skilled, and less successful than those who preceded them. We are a government of men now, where you prosper, not in accordance with your fealty to the law but in accordance to whose patronage you can gain in Congress. I had no idea that the Senate was now our very own House of Lords. It’s now a matter of who you know rather than who you are. Politicians overlook the citizens in favor of illegal aliens and punish citizen 501c4 groups while those headed by distant relatives of the president rapidly receive rubber stamps. The GOBNet will destroy the nation.

The reason why politicians refuse to close the border is because they want to change the constituency they represent. When they ignore the people who elect them to bestow favors on people who cannot vote today, it shows whose interests they really represent. They resent the citizens extant and hope to change the citizenship so that it is the one they want to represent- one that votes them ever-increasing amounts of power.

Fed Bears and Fed Humans

Share

After my misbegotten venture panning for gold last Friday, I went into the office to warm up and dry off a bit. The day was unseasonably snowy on the Turnagain Arm, much to the surprise of almost everyone, least of all myself. To pass the time, I engaged the shop keeper in conversation about the facility and its features, and she shared with me the story of a bear. He apparently comes down and checks the chickens for eggs; he’s smart enough to not cut off his food supply but not smart enough to know that one day these visits will necessitate that he be shot before he presents a danger to humans.

All over Alaska, you see signs warning you against feeding the wildlife. There are some sick and wounded animals who are kept in an enclosure by the Alaskan Wildlife Conservation Center who cannot fend for themselves, but in general when animals come to depend on humans for food they become unable to survive on their own. In the case of bears, a Fed Bear is a Dead Bear, because eventually bears that come looking at human shelters and human refuse containers for food present enough danger that the state licenses them to be shot to protect us and to prevent the bear population from becoming weaker.

Paradoxically, we do the exact opposite with our own species. As members of our own species become increasingly dependent on us, they like the bears become less able and inclined to survive on their own. Like the bears, they pass on this behavior to their young who inherit an attitude toward and expectation for social welfare that makes them increasingly weak. Unlike bears, we do not shoot them because we have a different set of morals for our own kind. However, a Fed Human is a Dead Human. Although they may be alive, they do not necessarily truly live.

Look at the faces of animals in captivity. They do not look happy. Look at the faces of humans who are dependent on someone else’s beneficence, voluntary or via compulsory taxes, and even with their iphones, plasma TVs and camaros, they are still NOT HAPPY. It’s not enough. They obtain it easily, and so they esteem it lightly. We keep them alive, but they do not truly live. Unfortunately for our species, these also reproduce, and the human race becomes ever weaker as we “feed the bears” among us.

Every semester, I comment on the paradox of the career choice most of my students pursue. I remind them that they are entering a profession where we prop up at great expense some of the weakest among us. I am not advocating that we let them die as did Ebenezer Scrooge. I am pointing out that as we continue to do this, we make the bears among us ever more dependent on the bulls among us, and eventually there may not be enough to feed everyone. I point out that it’s highly probable that we have more poor among us because modern medicine keeps alive today people who would otherwise be dead already. Even I with my nearsightedness might not have lived to adolescence had I been born but a century earlier, and even if I had, it’s very unlikely I would have become a professor.

In the end, feeding the humans does the humans as much of a favor as feeding the bears. When they do not have to do any of their own work, they become as loathsome to the body as any other kind of saprophyte. No matter how cleverly they know to take the eggs without killing the chickens, eventually those who own the chickens will want to eat of the fruits of their labor. The law of the harvest applies. If you reap what you did not sow, you must eventually pay the price. If you sow but do not reap, eventually you must have the benefits of your work. We believe that in every other aspect of life and pretend it doesn’t exist when it comes time to feed the humans. Feeding them for a day just prolonges their death. There are better options, which will work precisely because humans are not bears.

Undulation

Share

My trip to Alaska gave me plenty of examples of the principle of undulation, something that, because we are such transitory creatures, we rarely see. So maybe the sun never completely sets and maybe the rain kept on while I was there, but the sun moved, and the seasons progress. I saw the tide, I saw the progression of generations, and I stood on ground once covered completely in glaciers and realized anew that the cycle of undulation goes far beyond our power to comprehend.

I teach my students about the principle of equilibrium which teaches us that there is an optimum balance at which there is no net change. Change occurs, and the ebb and flow of undulation continue, but over the right interval, you don’t notice it. When we look at Alaska, we need to keep in mind we’re looking at a single snapshot that captures one point in eons of time.

It is widely supposed in Alaska that the retreat of glaciers is bad. I overheard numerous conversations of persons concerned with how much the glaciers have retreated in the last century. Park rangers and residents spoke of the “dangers of global warming” even as the outside weather gave us the most prolonged winter in Anchorage since white men settled there. It rained and snowed, and they still spoke of it. Even the plaques disagreed. One of them spoke of how it was beneficial because the glaciers ground up the bedrock to make soil and permit the growth of museum size vegetables (which are proudly on display in a nearby museum). Another plaque spoke of ginkgo biloba fossils unearthed by the glacier, meaning that Alaska was once tropical.

What makes us think that the present state is the one advantageous? It certainly benefits us, but that doesn’t say that it isn’t better to have a warm Alaska and a frozen Arizona. Who are we to say what is normal? It is what we know, and so we assume, because we know how to handle that circumstance, that it’s how things ought to be. They have not always been that way. Denali grows every year as the Pacific Plate slides under the North American Plate. Glacial retreat revealed gold. It is presumptuous of us to assume, particularly when we speak cliches like “the only constant is change” that we’re changing AWAY from the ideal.

Undulation permeates all of life. We have the cycle of life, the cycle of seasons, the revolution of electrons, planets and galaxies, and the succession of generations. The tides go in and out, the sun rises and falls, men are born and die, and the cycle of up and down progresses onward like a perpetual game of jump rope. We see only a small part, as Shakespeare said: “Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon a stage and then is heard no more”. It is but an hour, a paltry sum of time, and as we look back over the procession of our own years, we can see our own lives rise and fall like the Alaskan terrain, peaks and coastal wetlands alike, combining to make either a bleak landscape or a pleasant picture.

All things change. As we learn to trust that what should be will be when the time is right and recognize our true role in the universe, we can have confidence in good things to come. We are not the center of the universe. We are a part of this massive orchestra that plays flawlessly and creates a masterpiece truly worthy of awe. Alaska awed me. What it taught me I hope will help you see awe as your life illustrates for you the principle of undulation.

Flecks of Gold

Share

I returned this morning from a week's vacation in Alaska. The first thing I did when I arrived home was take a shower and put on clean, dry clothes. You see, just a few hours prior to my departure, I had been panning for gold at Copper Creek. The folks there thought I was completely nuts to be out in the sleet panning gold out of the river. I was cold and wet, but I managed to find five flakes, which is more than the fellow there named David said most people find their first time out, particularly alone.

For the price of $20 and three hours of my life, it was probably a good deal. In addition to the flecks, which are worth about $0.40 on the open market, the price included the tools and instruction by David on how to get started and how to recognize real gold from the rest. It was silent except for the flow of water and the light squish of snow as it fell on my back and head. After three hours, I was frustrated enough that I gave up the adventure and realized the real lesson.

Mostly, I was dissatisfied by my search for gold not because of the gold but because the gold was all I had to show for it. I wasn't with friends or family or even with workers (who wisely decided to sit inside on chairs and watch me across the open yard). Of the vacations I recall and the memories I hold most dear, as much as I enjoy my stories and pictures and adventures, the things I treasure most are things I did with people I love, with my family. When I spoke to my dad, I told him I'd rather go on a family trip to Jackson Hole, which is a lot like Alaska but less remote, because at least then I'd be with other people I knew and loved. Life is richer when you share it.

I haven't rushed to put my small vial of stones on the shelf because they're not what I treasure about the experience. What I treasure most is the realization that, as much as I enjoy doing things, the multiplicative effect of doing things with someone else make the flecks of gold something more than shiny scrimshaw adorning the dais. Real flecks of gold in life are the memories and traditions you share with your family and on which you can have fond reminiscence, because unlike the gold I found, those cannot be taken from you. I'm not sure the gold will ever matter to anyone, but if I had found it with someone else there, we could share the memory. Many miners sent home their flecks to their family. It was so that they could share something with the people they loved. They are the ones who really hit the Mother Lode.

USA Offers Pirate Amnesty

Share

There’s a huge amount of talk about amnesty. It ignores much of the transformative history in this hemisphere of those given amnesty and the consequences of that excessive tolerance towards aberrant and abhorrent behavior. As politicians push for amnesty, consider what that meant in the past as a measure of what we can expect in the future. It has no real direct benefit to the citizens.

I became aware of amnesty through a study of the age of the buccanneer. In essence, pirates would loot, plunder, pillage, burn, rape, and do all sorts of lasciviousness. Suddenly, a government would offer amnesty, forgiving them all of their trespasses against that government in exchange for turning privateer. They would then prey on enemy governments with the PERMISSION of that government. The government got nothing; the citizens got nothing. The pirates gained a safe harbor, a title, some land in some cases, and the protection of the rulers. Sometimes they continued to prey on ships of the government that gave them permission to raid.

Amnesty is license to continue the practice of pillage and plunder. It excuses them without justice because the excuse will elevate the government or is perceived as having such a benefit. It does not help the citizens, and in fact it cheapens the work of those who try to adhere to the law. All amnesty will do is change the width and breadth of benefits the government can pass to those who are helping them wage war.

Who is the enemy of government? The citizens are the enemies of government. When the government offers letters of marque and turns pirates to privateers, the citizens have an openly declared and politically protected enemy. The citizens are trying to hold power in check. Recipients of amnesty know no such controls on power or restraint. When the government offers amnesty, it is looking to buy mercenaries to prey on the citizens who believe in the protections of the law. It will not help us.

Every politician who supports amnesty misapprehends the importance of the rule of law. Civil society is an agreement of people on a form and structure of government most likely to secure them freedom and peace at the lowest cost. We make laws to help us manage expected behaviors, so that we know how to play the game. Amnesty is akin to changing the rules during the game to favor a new player at the expense of those who have already made improvements. Every politician who favors amnesty hopes it will benefit them. If it helps the citizens, it’s entirely coincidental.

Amnesty is Racist

Share

As both political parties pander to the illegal felon community, I am upset. I ask myself why they are more interested in what people who do not have any actual say in our communities think over the opinions of the citizens. From their ill-advised marches with Mexican flags to their outright lobbying to Congress, I wonder why they even have a voice at all. Why do we kowtow to foreigners? They don’t elect our representatives . We do, and somehow for some reason we no longer count.

If you and I commit a crime, they take our rights away. Our elected leaders are practically tripping all over themselves in a rush to give rights to people who committed a crime. They will say it’s not fair to hurt the children, but “I didn’t build that”. I didn’t force them to come here. Besides that, we don’t seem worried at all when one of us, particularly if he’s white, is incarcerated for life for a crime. What about his innocent children? Why should they suffer? They suffer because they are citizens, and the politicians don’t need to buy their votes anymore. As Mark Levin said back in 2008, some would give out methadone and contraceptives in goody bags to buy votes, and they do.

Proponents of amnesty focus our attention on imagined virtues in illegals while ignoring the evils they have done by flagrantly violating our laws. They rationalize the illegal felons from foreign lands by channeling virtues of the Founding Fathers and comparing these new arrivals to our forefathers. At the same time, you can read them elsewhere roast the Founding Fathers as white men who stole land and resources from the natives who were living here. Either the Founding Fathers were virtuous or they are not, and if they are, they were virtuous because they believed in the civil society and rule of law. Even if the trades made between pilgrims and Iroquois nation were unfair, they were considered just and fair exchanges by those who transacted them at the time, and all claims and counterclaims were settled by men of that time, no matter how much buyer’s remorse their posterity may harbor.

Too many elected officials see virtues in the immigrant while they see only evils in the citizens. It is as if the citizen is beholden to the immigrant, irrespective of his national origin or attitude towards the rule of law. They are considered essential while citizens already extant are considered impediments to progress and progressivism. Meanwhile, we are the ones who pay the lion’s share of improvements to infrastructure, social welfare, and research and development while the illegal aliens are “doing jobs Americans won’t do” like haul trash, manicure lawns, and sit outside Home Depot drinking Tecate. Many of these have already committed crimes, but we can’t say that because it’s “racial profiling” while it’s perfectly acceptable to baste the “Great White Male” for screwing the natives out of their lands and goods. It’s only ok to pillage if you’re not white. We are somehow still the Barbarian Hordes.

Both the politicians and the people they propose to exalt exhibit a blatant disregard for the rule of law. The Declaration of Independence reflects that governments are created by the people to serve and protect them. It is a statesman’s responsibility to serve first and foremost those who band together to form a government. They are those who elect him, and they are the ones to whom he is accountable for the execution of his rights, powers, and responsibilities. Efforts to curry favor with people who are not yet citizens at the expense of those who already are constitutes nothing less than gross dereliction of duty if not blatant defiance of a political oath of office. Citizens are those who consent to be governed and for whom the government exists. Consequently, I am the advocate of those already citizens over those who may one day hope to be, and especially over the concerns of those who wish to reap the benefits of citizenship without paying the price or respecting the rules of the civil society from which they wish to benefit. Citizenship means to throw off allegiance to their former nation and society, and the aliens who live near me have shown anything but an eagerness to celebrate what is good in America. My next door neighbor glares at me when I raise my flag on federal holidays and he speaks Spanish right in front of me. If I spoke English in Europe, even though they are also white, they would think that was rude.

The system has been turned on its head so that immigration no longer aids the establishment of a nation. Once the rules were obligated to bias citizenship to those who are most likely to be absorbed into and contribute to the society as presently constituted. Instead, they are interested in “fundamental transformation” when there are already nations elsewhere to which they could migrate if they really believe that such a society is superior. This is the attitude of conquerors who intended to erase other cultures and imprint their own on every land over which they could take the reigns of power from the people who lived there. Chain migration is a system that hurts the prospects of a civil society. Rather than prioritizing immigration based on skills, it prioritized based on who they knew. It is the ultimate GOBNet, in which immigrants choose who come, and the immigrants become poorer, less educated, less skilled, and less successful than those who preceded them.

Politicians in favor of “immigration reform” have shown a hatred toward the citizen and deference towards criminals, miscreants and malcontents. They adopt a duplicitous stance in which the citizen is minimized and the illegal alien is noble. That’s not always been the case. Once they thought the Native Americans were noble, but now that the indigenous population is white, we are still the villains. No matter what, it’s the white man’s fault. If Liberals think unrestricted immigration is so wonderful, why do they denigrate the white influx to native American lands? Immigration reform is racism against whites. The illegal alien today is noble, but when we came here, it was the natives who were noble. This is an unprincipled position, and I reject it.

What we share far exceeds the ways in which we differ. We are Americans. We came here for opportunity, for advancement, for peace, for FREEDOM. I worked for UPS for a while, and the Union Steward on my belt once complained about a form they asked us to complete. He asked why he had to mark down that he was African American. Why couldn’t he be an American? I have always respected people who actually do see people for the content of their character, and I wish to know what there has been among the conduct of illegal felons from foreign lands to justify those hopes with which legislators are pleased to console themselves and this house. They need to come forth and show a true spirit of freedom, a mark of maturity, and an inclination to improve. That is not accomplished by amnesty; it is accomplished only through repentance, by making it right. Make it right. That is your obligation in Congress and to the children you dragged over here as anchors. Send them the right message, and then someday they will come here and make America better.

Better Radar Detectors

Share

Yesterday morning, I had a chat with the former dean of our college about work standards and ethics. Both of us are of the mind that people should do what they ought to do, whether someone requires it of them or not. However, the attitude of the world seems to be to get a better radar detector and thereby avoid consequences of misbehavior rather than invite the consequences of correct behavior.

The law is not enforced equally when enforced by people. While a teenager, I first became aware of cops when, one Sunday, several prominent families in my congregation arrived unexpectedly late to church. They had all been ticketed at an intersection near the chapel where members of the Faith were known to drive through the stop sign. This week, a small boy confronted a LVMP officer here in town for parking his motorcycle in a pedestrian throughway so he could go get a soda from a convenience store. We have people everywhere who are rewarded, not on their merits, but on their associations, and elsewhere we have people who believe that it’s only a crime if you get caught. Rarely do they have a good answer for what it is when you are accused of a crime you didn’t commit.

Most of my friends drive like bats out of hell and hope to avoid tickets. I had a student this term who admitted being late twice because she was being issued a speeding ticket. Like folks did when I was a new driver, her lab partner suggested she needed a better radar gun. I told her that the best tonic was to start obeying the law. I told her of a time on the US95 when a policeman followed me because I dared to pass him. He was driving 57 in a 65 zone, so I went around him as soon as I could. If it is justice with which you threaten me, I am not threatened.

Rather than do what is right, people are anxious to find new ways to avoid being caught. Imagine my surprise to read about an app for smart phones so you can cheat on your partner without being caught. Now there’s an app for adultery. The paradox is that when you try to cheat, you must continually raise the stakes to keep up the pace and keep ahead of the cops. Don’t believe me? Watch “Next”. No matter what he tries, eventually the cops catch up with him, and he can see the future. Eventually the truth comes out and you have to face the music, even if that time doesn’t come until judgment day.

Mr. Miyagi offered us the best advice on how to avoid dangerous situations. “Best way avoid fight? Not be there.” You cannot be hurt by things you don’t actually do in a just situation, and so rather than finding a better way to cheat the system, let the system exalt you. Even people who disbelieve in God believe in karma, and so we all agree that what a man sows he shall reap, and eventually it catches up. I am frustrated along with you about people who eat whatever they like without getting fat, disappear from work whenever they like without being fired, take whatever liberties they like without losing face, and exercise whatever power they like without accountability. Wednesday night, when a friend of mine suggested that she should become a jerk and that would help her get a guy since “guys always pick mean girls”, I convinced her that even if it worked it wouldn’t lead her to a man with whom a happy and healthy relationship was likely. What goes around really comes around. The universe is spherical, and eventually things will finish the round trip.

Just as there are consequences for bad behavior, there are consequences for good behavior. Even if the guilty only feel guilt, the righteous can count on feelings of peace. Even if the wicked are rewarded with money, the righteous are rewarded with reputation, honor, and remembrance, which cannot be taken from them. I know our choices stem from our values, and sometimes it’s hard to value things that can’t even get you lunch off the value menu, but when you achieve something moral people can’t rescind it like they did to Watson’s Nobel Prize. The good lives after you too. It survives you in the lives led by the people you touch, the family you raise, and the strangers inspired by your life. What you’re really passing on is your example, and that’s a legacy that lasts.

Same Ten People

Share

My father has a lot of interesting ideas that condense to short acronyms. This is one of his newest and one of my favorites because it is something I see very often. You will see the same faces regularly in every arena of life, not because of merit, but because most bureaucracies venerate the status quo. This is the theory of “Same Ten People” (STP), or two, twelve, whatever, the point being that the same people always participate.

In my congregation at church, the older group of men is full of people who have held every position of responsibility imaginable, sometimes multiple times. When the time comes for them to choose someone to replace our bishop, they will probably reach back into this same pool of demonstrated and known entities and recycle someone to a position of responsibility. My father noticed the same thing in his congregation- when the time comes to ask someone to do something, they pick one of the Same Ten People to hold a position, to host a party, to accompany an outing, to donate materials, or whatever. Rarely do they go find someone who isn’t part of the GOBNet. It suits us just fine.

At work, I find the same thing to be true. I remember a few years back when the search opened for a new college president. One candidate, upset after the chosen candidate was taken from a lower position in the institution complained, “Why bother to go through the charade of competing the position if you’re just going to hire one of your own?” This is particularly arduous because we move people around in departments and can count on the next college president coming from the current executive vice presidents, and I think I know which one it will be. It’s “his turn”. For my part, professors habitually turn to me to do things that are not my job because they can count on consistent quality and reliable delivery. I am a known entity, and they like that. I have since trained others to do what I do, knowing that I may oneday make myself extemporaneous. I’ll survive.

Politics also is rife with this. We move people around from position in a municipality to the state and then the federal government. They “move up the ranks” as it were, and the same names are always on the ballot as if there are no other qualified or interested or influential people in the state or nation to do that job. Frequently, it’s people who studied political science or law, as if homogeneity is an advantage in representative government. I have had enough Bushes in politics, and if another Adams were running, I’d be tired of that too. Especially upsetting is when you discover that people obtain appointed positions due to connections rather than qualifications because they initially didn’t qualify to be city attorney or because they were about to be fired from another position. It is malversation at its finest, and it holds us back from actual achievement to recycle the same people, ideas, or GOBNets. Even when you rotate your tires, eventually you must replace them.

The problem is that it restricts growth and presumes that the choice made is the best choice. When I applied for a job with the highway patrol, they rejected me because I didn’t have a criminal justice background. Despite my attempts to argue that my background brought diversity (something they ostensibly celebrate), they look to a consistent, albeit low quality, pool of applicants to keep from upsetting the apple cart. I know the Sergeant who interviewed me probably feared that I would give him a moving violation despite the brotherhood of blue, and if so, he was exactly right. So much of our hiring is done internally because we already know the people, the quality of their work, their connections to other employees and their propensity to fit in, but as we see with JC Penny, Apple, and scores of other companies, sometimes the best thing is to bring in someone to shake things up and save the day. Even worse, we see nepotism rear its ugly head as if genetics automatically makes one better (can anyone say divine right of kings?).

Good leaders surround themselves with people who are experts in their fields. When you surround yourself with your friends or patrons, it evinces a lack of confidence in your position or a lack of regard for people who are not part of your inner circle. If you want a set of bobbing heads, don’t waste your time appointing a Cabinet with whom you will never meet; just go get some bobblehead dolls and save us all money on salaries and benefits. If you’re wrong, the popularity of an idea doesn’t make it right. It just makes it popular. Sometimes you need someone who can see things from a different angle or ask a different question, because they are not like you and can find something that someone like you cannot find. This is why diversity matters; diversity of ideas and experience and perspective adds more real achievement than diversity of melanin or testosterone content. The value of a man is not in his genes; it is in what he does with them.

When I see them pick from STP, it makes me sad. I know we ignore qualified and motivated people in favor of things only tangentially related to the task at hand. As bureaucracies venerate the status quo, they continue to turn to STP, or the same cast of characters, who produce the same quality of work. Sometimes that’s good, but it does not help us progress unless the STP are actually the best people available. Otherwise, it becomes a self-licking ice cream cone that eventually consumes itself and leaves everyone out on the street looking for something new. Fortunately for me, most of these folks will retire within the next five years, paving the way for a new set of STP. We’ll see how that plays out for me.

Midlife Crisis

Share

I watched my sister walk at her graduate school commencement last weekend and had my midlife crisis. We're about ten years apart in age, and so I started to take stock of where I am versus where I expected to be. I reminded myself that I made decisions that made sense with the information available at the time even if other choices now seem wiser. I reminded myself that her circumstances cannot be mine because we chose slightly different paths. I reminded myself of all the good things that go on. I have discovered that, done well, the midlife crisis can be a midlife navigation and invitation.

One of the most useful things in setting my new course was actually a piece of brickabrack at the eatery where we met my brother and sister in law for lunch. It read, "Teaching- I'm not in it for the income; I'm in it for the outcome", and I totally agree. There is something magical about seeing someone make a connection and realize something that's new for them. I remember back in graduate school how much I loved teaching, so much that I focused on being a TA over my laboratory responsibilities, which angered my major professor. I enjoyed that so much more than our work in lab, and it influenced greatly my choices since then.

Graduate school itself was far different for me than for her. You infrequently hear me speak of my alma mater or friends or coworkers, and the few reference I make are as vague as possible to avoid slander, because I had a rough time of it by and large and didn't enjoy it much. I have zero interest in going back or keeping in touch, because most of the people from that time who actually transformed my life in ways I like are no longer there. There were things I didn't know back then or didn't do back then because there was nobody able to help me in the ways I would like to help my historic self. Besides that, the things that really mattered were under the watchful eye of Providence, and God led me to a land of promise.

Maybe I don't have the salary or family like people I knew back then, but I do have my merits, my knowledge, my abilities, and my students. They know me. Some of them don't like me, and that's probably normal, but I am highly requested and have high retention rates in my sections, and I earn good money doing it even if I earn the absolute minimum. It sure beats selling fries. When my sister graduated, I was healthy enough, wealthy enough, and available enough to travel up to commemorate accomplishments by a cherished family member. Just because I don't have a family of my own doesn't mean I can't love the one into which I was born.

It was a time for me to check my life goals and review the charts of my voyage. That night, my sister threw herself a "Quarter of a Century Party" in conjunction with her concomitant birthday. I hit the freeway and thought that I've completed more than 33% of my life and still lack any posterity. I have however learned to be true to myself, pursued things I thought would make me happy, improved when I could, and held my ground once I got there. I live simply but healthily, I speak quickly but boldly, and I do something I enjoy at a wage that supports the lifestyle I enjoy and the obligations coupled thereunto. My midlife crisis was a time to change my navigation if necessary and an invitation to consider if my course will still lead me where I intend to be.

Happily for me, most things remain "full speed ahead". Not that I measure my worth based on what my students think, but since they are my most immediate and frequent source of feedback, the fact that a vast majority of them take me for multiple classes or recommend me for more opportunities shows that I must be doing something well. I think Sir Thomas More would be happy that I, unlike Baron Richard Rich, chose to be a teacher. I know as do my pupils and our common God whether I am doing any good, and I am at peace largely with what I'm doing and how. Of course there are some minor adjustments to make, but that's good to know too. It sure beats having to beat an addiction or a felony conviction or a financial indemnity I cannot hope to ever pay.

Each of us gets to check in with their former self, and I imagine that in some way we're all disappointed. Our reaction to this is either graceful or ingratiating. Whereas many people I hear go find a new girlfriend or a luxury sportscar or a vacation package, I looked out at the feedback I received, acknowledged it, and set out to prove that what people think well of me is true. I am out trying to earn the positive feedback. It will be nice if the college also marries that to our merit increases, because I could profit greatly from what I really am. If that's a crisis, I'll take another!

Liberals Don't Care

Share

When liberals overran the Democrat party, they took upon themselves the old notion that Democrats look out for the little guy. Evidence suggests however that, despite how much they moan about evil corporations that they are crony capitalists who buoy up their favorite corporations over those of conservatives and that communism may just be a red herring. Beware when politicians talk in sweeping vagaries about charity and sacrifice and morality because they discuss these things, not because they believe in them, but because they know you do. In fact, liberals are their own favorite constituent, beneficent, and beneficiary. Anything you happen to achieve as a consequence of their actions is usually completely accidental. The dogs eat crumbs from the master’s table.

Common liberal rhetoric shows that they care only about people who are useful to them. Once, Sandra Fluke and Cindy Sheehan and others were common names spouted by the media. Some other names like Ambassador Stevens, Shakil Afridi, and Chris Kyle are never mentioned by the media or other liberals because they are not useful in advancing the liberal agenda. Obama promised a job, a new car, and a new kitchen to people during the 2008 campaign, but none of those people report receiving anything, and even the famous “Obamaphone” lady and “Obamagirl” of Youtube fame were less enamored with him in 2012 because he wasn’t validating their needs. When you listen to their talking points, it shows just how little they care about issues, events, and people that hedge up their way. Harry Reid referred last week to Ted Cruz as a schoolyard bully, previously to tourists at the capital as “smelly”, and to the GOP leadership as “obstructionist”. Hillary Clinton’s infamous utterance of “What difference does it make?” shows that they do not view you as people; they view you as numbers, as a means. You may recall the infamous story of a man throwing starfish into the sea who is told that he cannot make a difference because there are too many starfish to throw back. The man looks at one, throws it, and says, “It made a difference to that one”.

Politics is about the business of people. Imagine if the liberals had reacted to Newtown the same way they reacted to Benghazi with the trite dismissal of “what difference does it make?” It makes a great deal of difference to the victims, but since the victims are adults, and probably conservatives, they don’t really care. The liberal fascination with digital technology, polls, statistics and the like shows that liberals do not value individuals. Digital information is impersonal. They pander to the people whose screams resound most shrill in their ears even if that group is a vocal minority. They will get up and talk about things that are emotional because they know YOU care about them and because they can use your emotional attachment to elevate themselves. If they cared about children with autism, people with expensive medical treatments, students with learning disabilities, neighbors who haven’t held a job for years, and family members with depression, they would be able to name some. I can.

Liberals circle their wagons only around their own. They will bend over backwards to protect members of other races unless like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, or Benjamin Carson you happen to be a conservative. It’s ok for Bill Clinton to commit sex acts in the White House, but if a conservative is suggestive or unfaithful, they demand that he resign in disgrace. They can elect and uphold members of the KKK, but if George Allan mistakenly says something that can be taken as a slur, he must be defeated. Much of their moral compass is duplicitous. Obama will do anything to save a child’s life except stop abortions, particularly if “saving a child” means denying you freedoms. You only really mean it if you fight for it when it involves people you don’t know or especially people you don’t like.

When liberals hold up their duplicitous standard, they clothe themselves in “odd old ends stolen forth from holy writ, and seem saints when most they play the devil”. Hillary Clinton spoke about how Benghazi “was a long time ago” and no longer matters. They require you to forgive and forget them immediately for any breach of honor, ethics, morality, and duty, while at the same time they hold any minute misstep on your part over your head in perpetuity. Every jejune and ruderal mistake that a conservative makes is grounds for ridicule while every lambent achievement of a liberal is seen as qualification for beatification. It is acknowledged that liberals may “eat, drink and be merry”, because they have no moral standard and believe in a “living and breathing” standard of law. What they are doing “isn’t hurting anyone” even though that’s not true; at the very least it hurts people who care about them as individuals! If a conservative makes an error, he is not just “being human”, he is being a hypocrite, because he has declared himself an adherent to a moral order. It’s ok to make mistakes only if you are a liberal, in which case it becomes a resume enhancement like Elizabeth Colbert-Bush who served time for contempt of court.

There is God and there is government, and for liberals, government is their god. Since so many of them inhabit elected office and the bureaucracy, they view themselves as perfect; they are part of their own god and must be the solution. Therefore, they adopt a nihilistic and narcissistic view of the universe in which they imagine to themselves that “whatsoever a man does is no crime”. If it feels good, do it, and the only commandment is that if you get caught at least get rich from the publicity. Quite literally Liberals believe that they are born better than other people and are rarely required to prove it. We still don’t know if Obama ever actually graduated, what his grades were, and how he got into prestigious schools from a disadvantaged background in which he describes himself as a disaffected drug addict.

Just because a person calls himself one thing does not make it so. Not all liberals call themselves liberals. This is how Congress gets loaded up with RINOs. Not all liberals know that they are liberals. Liberalism actually consists in two things. First, they create a world based on lies because it’s what they want to be true. Secondly, it is subject to change at any time in a way that benefits them and their friends, truth being relative. They do not live in the real world, and they do not believe in truth, which is why they frequently attack people rather than their ideas. When a boxer starts hitting below the belt, it’s because he knows he cannot beat his opponent on merit and must resort to dirty tricks. When a politician must Roorbach, it means he knows that he cannot win unless he lies. Liberals don’t care. For them winning is everything.

It takes time to figure out who really means it because even people who really mean what they say will make mistakes. Eventually, it is possible that even people who really do love you will hurt you; the ones who mean it will not do it purposely, and when they realize it they will correct their error and attempt to make it right. Liberals just say, “oops” and then insist that the solution to bad government is more bad government. When liberal policies benefit the disadvantaged, mostly it’s accidental. If they could run on their merits and accomplishments, they would, but since they can’t they usually attack the character or record of their opponents. Obama won elections mostly by destroying his opponents. After he defeated them soundly, what did he do to help the little guys he created? Nothing.

You know the merit of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him. Obama can’t actually gain much from the regular citizenry. We have too little money, too little clout, and too little power to do anything for him besides pull the lever for him on election day. Consequently, he has little incentive to do anything for us afterwards. By contrast, last night about a mile from home, I came across two young ladies collecting money to pay for their cat’s surgery. I stopped my bicycle, emptied my wallet, and rode home. I don’t have any expectation from those girls, but I do know that their cat’s name is Patches. I already put him in my prayers, and that, my friends, is how you know who cares. I know the name of that creature who benefits. When you name names, the people or programs become real. Those girls and their cat are real to me. Ask yourself if you are really real to those who claim to be your advocates. When you become real to a person in a position of responsibility, your interests become real, and that’s why real people and real world and real truth really matter.

More to the Story

Share

Brian Sandoval ran for governor of Nevada promising an end to furloughs and a better lot for state workers. As a state worker, I pay attention to his promises in this regard, and so far, he’s a dismal failure at the face value of his statement. That may be the problem, that Sandoval didn’t mean what the words he spoke meant to us. He may end furloughs at zero benefit to the State employees, or at least to those of us who “report” directly to him. Like so many other topics in politics, there is clearly more to the story than we see at face value.

The problem with the decision in the first place was how they decided to attack it. Governor Gibbons decided to, rather than cut our pay outright, institute a furlough program. He sold it to us as “at least you get 12 days off extra vacation”. The problem was that they were spread evenly every month and so were not necessarily useful to us. When Sandoval changed it two years ago to a 2.5% cut and six furlough days, that was the first problem because now we were basically working six days for free (not really, but that’s how some people chose to see it). At least I could schedule them whenever I wanted, and so I did so during the winter closure when there’s nothing to do anyway, so I could take a trip, something we could not do before. Now, Sandoval will abolish the furlough program. It means we can now earn overtime, but it will be seen as 12 days we work for which we are not paid. It was done backwards.

Local news ran a story last week about the governor’s attempts to work contrary to the legislature. As the Senate works to pass a bill that ends furloughs and restores pay, the governor’s spokesman says he wants to end the furlough and do what sounds like capping our pay at current levels. I haven’t had a raise since 2009, and I do more work than people with more longevity. It’s not about merit in my group. Meanwhile, after the school district teachers won a pay increase last year and as the tenured faculty will see their furloughs go away, Sandoval found a way to give $300M to the county school district for a vague list of programs but can’t find the money to restore our pay. Which side he takes will show me who he really values, and I find it appalling that he will cowtow to the school district over the state employees. He’s the executive of the state, and I cannot think of any other state executive except for Jerry Brown (D-CA) who cut his own bureaucracy to prop up other ones.

The article is big on some deals and short on others, and some of the dots just don’t connect. The woman cited in the article claims she has lost over $7000 since the furlough program. If you do the math, that would put her at a salary of $140,000 in the unemployment office accounting for 5% total paycuts. If the reporter had done due diligence, they would have found there is more to the story. At TransparentNevada.com, she is listed in 2010 as having a pay of $35,335.89 with $1,419.54 in overtime or other pay and an unexplained deduction of ($815.52) in salary adjustments. The only people I know who have these types of adjustments are people who take leave without pay (which is no longer authorized). Look at the data for 2011, and it does not add up to fit the standard details. There’s more to the story. A 5% reduction amounts to an expected base pay of $33569, but she received only $29,565.04 with $2.55 overtime, and again an unexplained salary deduction for ($1,213.20), which again looks like leave without pay. It looks to me like she isn’t working a full time position, and that’s not the governor’s fault, not to mention the strange salary adjustments. If she’s not working enough hours, that’s her problem. The math does not substantiate the numbers reported.

Politicians and reporters often talk out of both sides of their mouths without being qualified to speak on things. The news was way off just a few weeks ago with the Boston bombings, and all they had to say was “oops”. Governor Sandoval has learned to say things that sound sufficiently vague so that they can change in nuances of meaning as he changes the advocacy group he decides to support. Yes, he will still end furloughs. That’s all that will change. In essence, we will then go to work for six more days for which we will receive no extra compensation at a time when he finds money for all sorts of pet projects from Clark County to Carson City.

Even with all of that, I know enough to know that I don’t know the whole story. I don’t know the rationale for the decisions they made, the other alternatives, who advocates what, etc. It’s a very complicated process, and that’s why it’s good that more than one person is involved in making that decision. There is no guarantee that any man, no matter how paragonal he may be, will always make the right decision. We are humans; we are apt to make mistakes. What I see of the story leaves a sour taste in my mouth, and I invite Governor Sandoval to justify his priorities, because I don’t feel appreciated. Leaders have two roles- to accomplish the mission and to take care of those who accomplish the mission. Even if you accomplish the former, if you fail at the latter, it can still be a failure. That’s what will live on after Sandoval leaves. Just ask Julius Caesar.

Genetics and Heritage

Share

I just stood in line for lunch behind a man who was 6’2” and probably 170lbs. He ordered a meal that amounts to at least 1800 calories, which is what he’s probably supposed to eat in an entire day. As I ordered my salad, I could not believe that I have to work as hard as I do to be fit, because I can tell from his jowls that he’s skinny at the waist and belly due to genetics and not due to activity. He doesn’t have to do anything, and he gets to look like I’m desperately working to look. However, I wouldn’t trade him my heritage for his genetics. I was born of a great heritage. My late grandfather was an amazing man. I learned more about him in the two years since he died than I did in all the years I remember before that. I learned how much our personalities were similar, which is why he worried about me, knowing what challenges I would create for myself. I learned about how many health problems he successfully bested before finally dying peacefully in his sleep at the age of 90. At his funeral, I saw prestigious members of political organizations, civic organizations, business, and ecclesiastical leaders who came to pay their respects. Each speaker spoke of my grandfather’s love of faith, family, and fidelity to principle, and I knew then if I didn’t know before that I was descended from a great man.

Sometimes I bemoan the genetic lot handed me. I know when I look at pictures of my grandfather that it’s only a matter of time before I will gain weight and be a large man like he was. For now, for my health, I spend time each day when possible exercising to strengthen my endurance and increase my ability. I don’t seem to lose any weight. Despite this frustration, I realized that if I didn’t have to work very hard to be in shape I probably wouldn’t appreciate it either. What we obtain easily, we esteem lightly, and I think this fellow at lunch probably takes it for granted that he’s tall, skinny, and lean. While I envy him the outcome, I appreciate the lessons I learn from paying the price.

My ancestors crossed the continent of North America before there were any wagon trails. They came to America from Scandinavia, Germania, and Mercia, meaning that they were among the hardiest, strongest, and most tenacious of the barbarian hordes. We were known because we were large and ferocious and resistant to the things that tested the mettle of a man. My ancestors raided the coasts and tested the borders of the Roman Empire. My grandfather showed me through what he achieved that those genes still exist within our family line. Although we might be larger than I’d like, he was strong too, overcoming a series of otherwise debilitating health circumstances and cultural clashes occasioned by his values that might have broken a weaker man.

One of my good friends pointed out that he respects my efforts because I am fighting genetics, but I am also benefiting from them. I wish I could work out three times per week for a half hour each time, eat like this fellow or my students and look as good as they do, but I know that if I could I would not appreciate the work required to achieve that under normal circumstances. I know that I don’t really comprehend the cost of crossing the Atlantic, fighting Hadrian, walking across the plains in a wagon train, or eking out a farming community from the Utah salt flats. I don’t appreciate that because I do not understand the price. I have come to empathize with and appreciate my ancestors because within me are some genes I inherited from them that allow me to achieve when I work for it. I thank them for what they bequeathed me even if they didn’t know they were doing it.

We are told that everything has its strengths and weaknesses. This fellow I saw today probably has other problems. I’m not sure I’d trade him just to have a leaner body, as much as I wish I had one. About a month ago, I went hiking with my friend’s nephews who admitted to me that they know they are not fit just because they are skinny. At the end of six miles, they were the ones out of breath and with their heads hung low, and it showed me that my belief that health is in the blood and in the cells might be the truth. I know many people think it’s at the waist, but we don’t consider Somalians or Ethiopians to be healthy. I have learned other things like endurance and perseverance, which may not be heritable characteristics because my ancestors left me their example and their haplotype. I thank God for my heritage; if He chooses to also bless me with the fruits of my labors, that will be wonderful too.

Why I’m Leaving Facebook

Share

Facebook has come to be a two-edged knife in our world depending on how you use it. I originally learned about Facebook in 2007 when I attended a Divine Comedy event at Brigham Young University. I originally joined Facebook as a joke. At the time, I found it a useful tool to contact and reconnect with people who were significant parts of my past. Over time, I realized that they belonged mostly in my past. Of my 400+ friends, I communicate with maybe 30 on a regular basis, and those people all have my email or phone, and so we don’t need Facebook. Instead, Facebook can be described similarly to Count Rougen’s torture machine in “The Princess Bride”: “I just sucked one year of your life away”. I have probably wasted a year of my life obsessing about, checking into, playing games on, or interfacing with people on Facebook, and it has become detrimental to my health, happiness, and overall prospects.

Content on Facebook has changed drastically during the years I have been a user. At first, Facebook was filled with exchanges of ideas, news, and other things with old friends, new friends, and family members, and I really liked that. Now, my news feed is littered with mostly reposted memes and cartoons, the jejune and ruderal, and the side bars are cluttered with advertisements for things I do not need or want to see. I actually spend a lot of time fact checking this quesquilia because people just repost it without due diligence and investigation, kind of like the media during the Massacre at Boston. It’s not productive for me to try to educate everyone, particularly if they are not interested in doing their own homework. Indeed you might say that the more popular a thing is the less useful or true it is. A thing is not made true or useful by a certain number of “likes”. Also, most of what’s on the internet, including Facebook, is pretty useless which is probably why it’s free. Even when I do talk to folks directly, our interactions begin because we happen to be online or because we’re interacting through a game, and so I end up doing neither what I like nor what I ought but rather filling the time. All of this makes me look like I’m lazy or shallow, because I’m tempted to be constantly there sharing what I ate for dinner or where I’m going. I tried to use it to share ideas and quotes, but I don’t know that this is bearing the fruit I wish it were, and I have other outlets.

As we might expect with a term such as “facebook wall”, the interface on Facebook has become a display case where people show mostly the best and newest of themselves. It has become little more than a Brag book of sorts. Posts about baby births are accompanied by quotes like” I made this”, and other phallic displays (look how hot my wife/gf is, or check out this cool place I visited on vacation). In high school I hated this kind of condescension, and now it’s a competition either for praise or pity depending on the news, and I don’t really feel the need to showcase my activities or share my pains with people I never see or maybe never even met (I addressed the problem with Facebook “friends” previously). People who want to know will talk to you directly. It has been nice for my parents because they can access pictures and updates about family members distal in space and time, but I see my parents regularly, and I stopped posting a lot of my activities because I worried about people knowing when I would not be home.

We post information to Facebook that doesn’t belong there. From sexual preferences to opinions to vacation activities in real time to our home addresses, we make information available that people used to have to steal. In our eagerness to share and be famous or important to just get attention, we tell people everything about us and then wonder why nobody wants to get to know us. Stalker behavior arises where people “facebook stalk” potential dates or employees or associates to determine from our likes and posts and connections whether we are worthy of their time and association. We don’t actually get to know anyone; we look them up online first and judge them before meeting them. Furthermore, there are people I don’t want to be able to find me easily online like former love interests, my boss, and the handful of people who took offense to what I did or said. It’s already easy enough to find you with all the public records that are available free online for the asking.

Mark Zuckerberg is an awful marketer. Facebook is naturally his baby, but he has shown a continued and chronic disregard for the opinions, preferences, and requests of users. Without users, he, like a college without students, has no company. We are his customers, however indirectly, but he continually does what he wants while flipping us the bird. I resisted until they forced all of us to timeline, and the new timeline looks a lot like the old format. I guess old is the new. He focuses on other inchoate things like the liking system and fiddling with the ever present advertising, which is a joke. Facebook clearly doesn't know anything about me. It displays advertisements and page suggestions that could not be more distal from what I find interesting because I am friends with people who like those things. Zuckerberg assumes that because we are friends we share interests and activities when I choose friends on VALUES. Facebook does this, not because it reflects my interests, but because it wants to DIRECT them. Like all advertising campaigns, this exists to drive us all to what Facebook's development team wants us to like/do/buy/etc. When "the man" dances, certainly boys, what else, the user makes Zuckerberg rich. Facebook sends the wrong message: drop out of college, sell people something that makes them popular, and get rich. That’s not success. That’s exploitation.

Like so many other things, Facebook is actively engaged in causes and activities with which I disagree. Rather than continue to use it and let people think I support let alone condone, I choose to take my activities elsewhere. Facebook’s political activities use money in malversation; their new push is to advocate the “immigration bill” which will essentially destroy America as we know it. It rewards people who have committed crimes with the benefits of citizenship and encourages people whose morals and civil behavior are incompatible with Constitutional law to flood into this country and immediately benefit without having to pay any price aside from arriving here. I suppose that’s consistent with the fact that Zuckerberg didn’t work hard to get where he is; he manipulated people in making his Social Network.

Finally, Facebook gets in the way of useful work. I spend time every semester talking with my students about how nature abhors a vacuum and how the universe only does useful work, and then I sit on Facebook and throw away my life. Beyond that, there are now bills before Congress that will require me to disclose my password to my employer. My current employer would actually monitor my activity, and future prospective employers would troll it looking for anything that might indicate I am a liability. Aside from my well known and oft-published aversion to the GOBNet and fascination with the Constitution and morality, there isn’t much to find, but I just assume they couldn’t find it that easily. It was once a crime to log in and pretend to be someone else under their credentials. I guess it’s ok now. You can’t be hurt by things you don’t do, and I have plenty of other overtly opinionated outlets like this blog and my twitter to which they can look without fearing that I’ll while away the hours on Facebook busy doing nothing at all.

In any case, these are my reasons. There are a few good things, but I have calculated that the cost/benefit ratio of continuing to use Facebook for now exceeds the toleration limits I find acceptable. I do spend a lot of time outside doing other things, and even when I get home in the evening I spend very little time on the internet because there isn’t quite frankly that much on the internet that interests me. If I want to talk to those few people I know, I can call or email them, and if I want to get to know someone new, I can invite them the old fashioned way. It worked for thousands of years; it can still work now, and now maybe I can get some work done. I choose to do things that are more likely to contribute to my health, happiness and prospects, realizing that nothing URL can be as useful as something IRL. Brethren, adieu.