"It is what it is"

When I started my last job, my boss would say this all of the time.

"It is what it is."

Perhaps I don't need to spell out her loss of hope and virility. Her dismal outlook on life. Her downfall. Her apparent desire to squelch optimism and independence out of other people because she lost her spunk a long time ago.

I think the quote does it pretty good justice.

The real sad thing is that it works. I started saying this too. At first I cringed at hearing anyone say it; then I got used to it. Then I would cringe when I said it; and then I got used to that too. I examined my own broken psychology a lot at this job. I am no more amazing than anyone else, really, even if it pains me to admit it sometimes. This phrase, and the attitudes that accompanied it, started to become mine as well.

Dun dun dun.

It really is an awful little slogan. And so patently untrue. Nothing must remain as it is, especially if it is bad or wrong. We all have a duty to resist it and to change it to something right and good.

Eventually it will. It can and it will.

Or we'll all go extinct. Which ever is first.

Which would you like?

Remember to be Positive...

I just began reading the introduction to Jane Goodall's book, Harvest of Hope.
   ...ug.

It is a hard way to begin a book and I had to put it down. Especially considering the book has the word hope in the title. I started to lose hope. I thought:

Must remember to start with the positive. I could write 10 thousand pages on the atrocities in the world now, past, and future. Perhaps it's just how my mind works. It is easy to see what is wrong; more difficult to see what is right

So: start with the positive. Some measure of "hope". Give people perusing your words something that they can DO. Something tangible. Some what and how, and maybe some where, First. Just not Why. Why is sad and takes the energy out of a caring Who, eager to get to that what and how.

Start: You are an amazing animal. Capable of one hundred miracles before breakfast and a hundred more uncounted. All of them taken for granted, but astounding miracles none-the-less. You can see, for starters, that is a pretty amazing trick when you stop to think about it. You can identify sounds and smells. Balance on your feet--that's a cool one we don't appreciate until it's gone. Your sense of balance is really rather uncanny. You can convert oxygen and a plethora of foods into ATP, energy, movement, and life. You can sequence DNA, reproduce your basic building blocks with some improvements and digressions. All this stuff we can do without even a careful thought. You are capable of emotions and thoughts and directing your life. you are capable of great good and your actions Do matter, more than you can tell. Just as all these mindless miracles matter.

The most amazing accomplishments of your life are the same as Michael Jordan's most amazing accomplishments. And they are just as impressive as the accomplishments of Genghis Khan and George Washington and Alexander the Great. Your little choices can matter as much as theirs as well. Your little choices Can change the world. Do not doubt your power. Nothing is unchangeable. Really, if you look back, things change remarkably fast.

So, yes, have some hope. And "Be the Change you with to See in the World". If it is eating local, supporting your fellow person, supporting no the millionaires. These little decisions can and do change things. Even if, at some level, they just get converted into little numbers in a massive database. They push the predictions one way and then another.

Corny enough?

Dear RTD

I have been an advocate for public transportation my entire life. And I still will be. We cannot afford to pollute this poor planet any more! We have already lost winter in Denver. But sadly, you have lost in me a very valuable customer and, over the next month or so, at least $100.

I realize that the bus waits for no one. But after missing connections, often because busses are over-filled, and paying $10 per day to suffer through this, and in the end having to call for other rides to pick up our stranded asses (which saves nothing for the environment) I wonder:

Where the hell is the lightrail? Why are we still using antiquated busses for public transportation in a city that is so supportive of this failing public transportation? As long as you interact with the regular traffic, you will be unreliable. And unusable for so many people. And now, that even includes me. Between the advertisements, the $2-5 fare, and the tax-payer support, and the paid parking, I find it hard to think that there isn't enough money to make this a little better.

Why aren't we getting better? Perhaps it is time that we demand something better.

So we will be finding ride-shares instead. Good bye, I hope you can figure out something in the future.

Battling the Bad

I like common scars... I think that most people do. We are social animals, after all. We like anything that can connect us with our fellow plodders. My favorite common scar to talk about is the belly button because it makes the perfect example. We all have a belly button, none of us really remember any of the trauma associated with our belly-button's existence. But it is a bona fide Scar! The result of a gross flesh wound so grievous that the scar will be there for your entire life.

I find that I have another common scar with a lot of people....

   I like Apple products.

....God damn it..... Somtimes I even like Apple. Despite the whole grossly over-sized monopolistic multinational conglomerated bullshit. (Their painful "store", however, turned me all the way off.)

It's a rather painful admission to me because, for the most part, I don't have a very good reason to like apple products. I don't need an Apple TV (no one does); I don't need a smartphone (or want one); I don't need any of their crap.

But it's all pretty.

It's pretty. That's the bottom line. Apple is damn fantastic at design and that is what floats the whole bloated company.

I have always done pretty good at ignoring cultural crap that I don't need. I don't even buy candy bars. I don't need a new computer, so I don't go out and get a new one because it'll stream movies just a little bit better. I don't need a car because (they are vile/I can walk/they are expensive/evil/crime... sorry) I live close to work and friends. But recently... I found an iPod. A little iPod touch. It was current, when I found it, pretty slick, slightly broken, and pretty much the fanciest thing I own to this day.

And now, for an inexplicable reason, I want the new one. I want to replace my cracked screen with a whole new, gen 5, unnecessary Apple thing. It's not gonna be that much better. (...but... maybe it'll be faster), it's not gonna be anything else (...well... it has a better camera... And a Flash!), it's not going to make me feel better about my self (could give you status.), why would I need it? (it fits more apps on the screen!).

I think it's Satan talking in the parenthesies.

I have always been strictly ethical in my purchases. I believe rather firmly that our consumerism is the best control we have over the corporate power structure, like voting is supposed to control democracy. And I don't like buying anything new. Recycling is so much better for the world. It requires so much less mining. But now- I wanna buy the new one! Satan tells me, it can't be that bad. Everyone is doing it.

I retort that, it can be that bad.

"No. Not really. It's just one out of a million very small things."

"But I have never been part of that million."

"It'll get you out from under Verizon! I know you don't like th--"

"Oh, sly. But keeping the old one is good enough."

"You're parents need one to get out from Verizon. Give them yours and get the new one!"

".... well... that's not NO. I can get a used old iPod for them too!"

"You could... or you could get something NEW!"

Testing.

... a sad admission: I will vote for Mitt Romney.

Under the following circumstances.

First, we need to get our priorities straight. It is phenomenally difficult, I realize, when bombarded by a multitude of false information laced, so deceptively with truth. From so many different points of view, from so many different sources, with so many different spins and purposes.

Question: do we want things to change? Or would we rather have a media market every two to four years. Do we want to make some headway, or would we rather bicker and argue? There are a lot of conflicting ideals in this bubbling country of ours, but one most people would agree on is: we need to deal with the tribulations of the present and the future and, as well, the past.

Politicians play games in office. Neither side can agree with the other, for obvious reasons. Some are petty, but many are ideological. And most are theoretical.

Which brings me to science. Which we all believe with increasing certainty. In order to test a theory, you need to collect some data. At the moment, we have a more democratically controlled government. We've had a democrat president for only four years and most of his presidency has actually been governed by the presidents before him. If we really want to know if the current theory is correct, we need to pursue it for at least 12 years. 16 would be better.

After 16 years of democratically managed country, and it is not working, I will try a different theory willingly. And even vote for someone who, I think, is utterly bizarre.

Design and Function

I like design. And systems. Creating controlling systems. When I was younger, I imagined video-game controllers because that is what I did. I still think of them sometimes... And I still think I've got a good one in my head. But I have to admit, I didn't have the creativity to make the leap the Wii controller was.

But I did improve on it.

....in my head....

So it has been with some interest that I have been watching the evolution of Google's organizational system. They have built themselves into a quandary  They have so many varied systems, being used in such a variety of ways, that it is difficult to make a streamlined thing that would work for everyone. Some people (fewer and fewer by the day, I think), like Google Reader. Others just use their classic search. Many use their email or docs ("Drive", whatever - at least the old url still works: docs.google). What should go first? Where should they go?

I offer some pro-bono advice. Though if they like it, they should hire me for part of their design staff. I've got more of them.

Nesting. Basically, a lot of my idea comes down to nesting. And integrating their header system with Chrome. Redundancy is also a good policy: a few different straight-forward ways to get to the same place. But also the ability to speedily chose what one wants in all of those directions. The options on the top? Combine images, news, whatnot into one "search" heading. Have a simple "search" button, and on the side the "list" button to see the other options. And I think it'd be pretty cool if I was signed into Google on someone else's computer running ol' and shitty Explorer if I could still see my bookmarks... What an interesting system that would be. (Of course, that should only be an option for those with computers that could handle such a system.) The main thing in their toolbar should remain the search bar. Acting like the omni-box of Chrome. If you type in: alligatormagazine.com - it just goes there. If you type in imdb.com *tab* then you are set to search imdb.... or at least let that work for Google's own services (image *tab* and you will search images; plus *tab* and you search plus; maps *tab* and you are searching maps)


Whew. That's just a dump of crapp information. Let's break it down a bit. Here's my basic idea:

Google's homepage could look pretty much like Chrome. I like Chrome's set-up. It is clean as Mac, really, and more customizable, and easy to use even for those who don't tinker with their computers endlessly. Replace the navigation tools (back/forward/reload/etc) on the left side of the "OmniBox!" with their logo; replace the tabs on the top with their services, similar to what they have now: +you, search, images, etc.... Under the search, are your own bookmarks (provided you are logged in and want them, on the right are the google sharing tools and options/settings menu. It is ever so slightly annoying to me that my name is in one place, separated by "share", and then some little logo that is supposed to represent me. If I click on my name, it is the same as clicking on the symbol, yet they are far apart... Instead, where +you is, there could be your logo. And that dialog when you click on it. Combine the dialog of Chrome and that of general Google. Next to it, is your name, and that would take you straight to Google Plus.

Within the search box there could be a little box telling you what you are searching. Google? Images? Plus? Contacts? Mail? Drive? Docs? Calendar? All of that. If you click on it, then you get a drop down menu of options. What search engine do you wish to use? It should always be there, to tell the user what is being used currently. If they type a new engine and press tab (ala Chrome), then it will change. But they could use their mouse as well. This would remove the need to have a bar on the left full of the search type options. That screen space could be used for something else. Yay, small screen computing. The search engine that would be used would be where you are. And they could be ordered with what that user uses most.

I notice that the search bar is gone here on Blogger. That breaks the consistency.

There are two versions of Google Contacts - one in mail, and one independent. Why?

Calendar could be integrated with Plus and events, but have those two ways of looking at them.

Elegance is important. So it would take a little fine-tuning. But if it is integrating and unifying, the effort would be well worth it.

Anyway, hope you're listenin', Google.

I wanted to draw a picture, but, well, I'm running out of time. It's pretty clear in my head, but my description is pretty rambly. If there is anyone out there who would like clarification or to discuss it.... well, like I said, I just kind of think of control systems.

I've got one for Apple too, and their calendaring and reminding system if they want to give me an offer!

Negative Reciprocity

I was walking past the world trade center the other day. It's monolithic black and chrome lettering and fountains and beauty in the middle of Denver.

It occurred to me how baffling it is that people don't realize that negative reciprocity not only exists, but is soundly understood by, well, anyone who wished to study it.

Economics can be described by several different systems. Some of them are called "reciprocal" and some of them are not. While it is nice to think, "anytime people trade, both get richer and the world gets richer therefore!" that is awfully unrealistic.

The simple concept of profit is, really, the opposite of that. We cannot have a concept such as Profit and not realize that someone is not becoming richer. Someone is getting a lot more rich than someone else. Our economic system is, by definition, a Negative Reciprocity system. By design, there are winners and losers. There are those who profit and those who are taken advantage of. It is designed so that everyone tries to get the most possible profit from every transaction as possible. Not for their own well being, not so that they can stay alive, make other trades, and keep the system going. But so that they can get more than their trading buddy.

That is profit. That is negative reciprocity. That is the system we have.

And that does, actually, mean that people get screwed. Sorry.

Adam Smith's model trade where both profit is defined as a "Reciprocal" economic system. Which is usually exemplified by bartering. Usually. In this system, both trade for what they need, both benefit. No one comes out with "more" than the other person, per se.

We Are The 47% (And so are You)

I was a little tired this morning; almost slept in so long that I didn't have work... but I got up, hurriedly ate breakfast, and got out the door. But between stepping out of my bed and stepping out of my home, I read the big graphic on the front of the newspaper:

"I know some believe government should take from some to give to the others. ...I think that's an entirely foreign concept." read the quote in the Denver Post. Attributed to that famously wealthy tax-exempt presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

I couldn't help but smile and laugh. That's my reaction to a lot of life. I shook my head, of course it is a foreign concept!

Robin Hood was not an American. Prince John was not the phony king of Boston. Yet both of these archetypes took money from one type of person to give it (or "redistribute" it) to some other type of person. Robin Hood (strictly speaking not "government") took from the fabulously over-wealthy and gave it to the suffering poor. Prince John created the suffering poor by hoarding all the wealth in the nation...

I cannot help but be struck by the modern parallel. Robin Hood is a good parable for our modern world. And perhaps France would not have had their bloodshed in the 1790s if they had paid more attention to the Robin Hood myth.... Or maybe that's just my own fanciful thinking.

It may be a foreign concept, but 'wealth redistribution' (as loaded and veritably anti-understood as the term is) has as much application in America as it has everywhere. It has application everywhere. Every when, even. With exception to tiny, family-size societies--where everyone knows everyone else more intimately than most people know their children--there has been a government which manages things such as "wealth"

That is what a government is For!

When I read stories in the newspaper and listen to the antics of our people ("I love our country!" cries the patriot "It's the government I can't stand!" ...?), I wonder.  "What the hell do people thing Government Is?"

What is it? Is government just some strange sports game we play every two years or so like the Olympics? Is it a nuisance? Should we have one at all...? Perhaps not, if we can't even remember what it is there for.

Anyone?

The answer I always thought is that government is there to manage. It is there to keep people acting as a family even though we do not know each other. Even though we don't have any closer relation to each other than we fit within the imaginary boarders of our country. It is for banding us together to face common obstacles, to give our common point, to help us utilize the power of our own being in the face of a global population exceeding 7 billion now.

Next challenge question: Is there a Government in the History of the World that hasn't done some redistributing? I challenge anyone to find one. Wealth Redistribution is NOT about stealing from the wealthy, it is about responsibility. No one lives and works in a vacuum. No one is alone. No one is entirely self-made.

No one.

We need each other no matter how much anyone seems to think they are better off alone. The sad thing is that so many of the people you depend on in your life are very far away and most of them you will never meet. But they have helped make a world you and I can survive in. We are not alone. Give thanks and be a little humble. And all those comments that float around about businessmen not building alone are only mean that. The United States of America isn't old enough to have come up with redistribution, so, yes, technically it is a "foreign concept." One could argue that it is an alien concept.... for what religion on earth doesn't charge people with giving and sharing. All those wonderful lessons from Kindergarten.

And once again, we must remember The L Curve.

....I could go on, but I would arrive at ranting stage and no one would want to continue reading what I have to say. But every argument tends to circle back on each other, so I'm sure I'll talk more about it again.

Probably tomorrow.

The Nuu-Chah-Nulth Potlatch

Once upon a time, on the West coast of Vancouver Island, long before it was called Vancouver Island, the Nuu-Chah-Nulth people fished the Pacific Ocean. Fresh salt-water air was a fact of their lives. Skipping the waves in small boats was common as they searched the sea all summer long for the best places to get fish.

Every year, there were those people who didn't find enough fish for their families. And others who had so much food they could not have eaten it in a dozen life-times. Such is the way for life on the changing Ocean. It isn't the same from one year to the next.

So, they would have a potlatch ceremony.

The Potlatch was an undisguised re-distribution of all the wealth in the culture. In return, the best givers would get the best status. Everyone gave and gave and gave! Shared everything they had! That was the whole point. No one quibbled about it. No one said, "why should someone else take my fish! I'm just a better fisherman!" Because it would be stupid to let the rich stay so rich. Wealth, (when you don't codify it into a dollar) spoils! You cannot just hoard it for ever and ever and ever and ever for no particular reason. It is better to share it so your neighbors don't starve and haunt you sound next year.

...Hm. Maybe we'd be better off if we made our money out of mackerel....

Internet Service

This is directed primarily at my Alma Matter, Western State College (now Western State Colorado University; that's right, without any punctuation.)

Enabling people to do things online should not be a complete substitute for customer service. When someone takes the time to journey into an office to ask somethings such as, "hey, I'm looking to get an Official Transcript, because I need one for my job." they should not be told: "Go online, go away."

Because they are not online; they are in her office.

Perhaps, instead, she can tell them, "you can do all this online, you know. You don't have to traipse all the way up here!"

"Uh...." he'll say, sheepishly, "Right. Shoulda known that. Of course. Internet. Forgot about that."

"But, since you're already here, I can put that order in for you. Where would you like it sent? Or would you just like to pick them up here in a week or two?" or whatever it takes to get an Official Stamped Sealed Notarized Cauterized Ledgerized Legalized Transcript.

Why can she only take orders from a computer? What ever happened to human interaction? Why do I sound like a 60 year old complaining about all this new-fanged technology even though I'm in my 2nd decade?

I kinda hope that my school collapses, as I predict it will. But I'm afraid that everyone is doing this. I know you can't apply for a soul-sucking dead-end job at a box store with an application and resume anymore. Because.. i've tried... No, the only way it is possible to apply is by submitting a Standardized Test Style Application online. Then, you're placed in a virtual pile of 10K other applications which will never be read.

But The Trick to getting out of that virtual pile is still to go in person to the store, find the managers, shake their hands, make them laugh, and get them to remember your name. Then, they'll look (or search) for your application and hire you.


Especially if you make them laugh. In a good natured and clean sort of way.

The Shack by William P. Young (2007)

As always, the people on the back of this book have wonderful things to say about it. They are all bubbles and praise.

But I cannot bring myself to praise this book. I find it to be a Headache, but not in the way that the author wanted it to be.

First of all, I will dispense some advise: to anyone who is thinking about reading The Shack, is pretty sure they want to read this book, or is about to start reading this book. What ever you do, skip the Forward. The forward is a big hurdle for me. Something about how I read and interact with characters... it has presented the single biggest problem I have. In the forward, the character Mackenzie is told to be a very smart guy. Able to converse in a wide variety of topics well. He's smart, smart, smart and an all around cool guy.

But in the story, Mack is about as dumb as a salamander. His rain don't quite reach the ground. Mack's entire purpose in this story is to inanely ask the same question (on behalf of the reader) about a half a dozen times and still not quite get it. But always be blown away. There is not a time in the book when his head isn't filled, his processors overloaded. He's always about to blow a circuit. Always. Always.... Always....

It gets really tiresome. Mack is the source of my headache. I really cannot abide him. Look, I don't quite buy the book; I don't think it is the word of God! or anything. But I get it. I can follow most of the thoughts and the arguments. Don't agree with it all. I think Will thinks contradiction and conundrum equal wisdom. But I get it. I think most people will get it. I think most people have heard all of this stuff before. But Mack? Oi.

The entire book gets really tiresome. It's like Ishmael. I know there are a lot of people who were impressed by that book as well, and to those who are: you could quite possibly like The Shack.

But I didn't like Ishmale, in the end, I couldn't finish it. And I don't like The Shack. They are very similar books. They were created the same way and for a similar purpose, and both will be hard to finish if you don't like Choose Your Own Adventure books when you aren't even allowed to chose your adventure.

These books are a chance to preach. One of the characters in the book acts as a stand in for you. They are the audience and they ask a few questions and are told answers. The other character in the book is a stand in for the author. They set themselves up as some arbiter of good information that you should follow, they try to predict your questions and the difficulties you might have with the philosophies disposed, and they preach to you.

It is a hard thing to do with a book for a book is not a dialog. A book is static. What if you have a different question? You cannot ask the book it and expect a response.

But, oh, how I wish I could ask it questions. I would have a lot to say.

The Shack's existence is really an oxymoron. One of it's omnipresent themes is that we should not live by rules (Will seems to trust in anarchy...), and that God does not tell us how to live. But his book sure does.

Institutions are bad! Oh, and we created the Missy Project!
People tend to take their best characteristics, magnify them, project them, and assume that God is like that, but God is More Than That (says the God character in the book)....who is a projection of Will...
Mack is Smart! As eating lead paint.

Really, though, I am too hard on this book. It's because I'm at the end, and it's been going downhill for the last 100 pages. Earlier, it wasn't so bad. There are some good things in it; they just get horribly overshadowed by the end. Then the book falls apart. I'm a little regretful that I picked it up in the first place.

On the bright side, talking about religion always gives me a lot of philosophical exercise.

Guilt Power!

Apparently, Guilt is a great tool for getting people to behave well.

According to this little study, there is a pretty decent correlation to how guilty people feel and how greenly they consume.

America, that cesspit of Satan's Society, cares, a little--about a quarter as much as Indians-- but is the least green place on the planet. Surprise. I suppose I might feel a little better here than in Germany. Though they actually consume a little more appropriately, they don't care too much about the environment.

The lesson to be learned from this: guilt your friends. Environmentalists the world over: play the guilt game. It has a good chance of helping out. At least in the short term. Point out when people buy something that was shipped 10,000 miles; tell your friends when they leave the window open and the furnace on that they are horrible, awful, no good, very bad people; berate people for driving a few blocks and tell them the stories of poor African villages being polluted; laugh at people stupid enough to belive Global Warming is a hoax like the moon landing; ask people if they like forests being plowed up for coal just because they can't be bothered to unplug/turn off unused electric appliances.

It may not be a good way to make friends, but maybe it'll help make a difference.

A Public Service Announcement about Sidewalks

"Sidewalks" are poorly named. They are on the side, but they are hardly a good place to walk.

Everyone knows they are hard on your knees (so hard), but they can be just as hard on the rest of your joints: ankles, hips, and back.

And they don't exercise you as well. If your walking, it is better to go on some sort of "undulating" surface. Like dirt. Or grass. Or, hell, even the street. They will keep your ankles stronger. And your knees, hips and back. Keeping all the smaller, unrecognized, balancing muscles from weakening.

A True Conservative Irony

People are, generally, pretty schizophrenic. I think it has something to do with those "labels" I mentioned earlier. People get stuck on the word and think that it is important. When really, it is just a label. One person will say, "I'm a Democrat" and get so focused on that idea that they will align themselves with anything the democrats say. I came across some research once about that. I cannot find it anymore, sadly.

One point was this: If you call yourself a "Democrat" and a leader in that party does something stupid (say, sleeps with a secretary; that seems popular) then you are more likely to think that they had a reason, and that they are still a good person. If they vote against you, you will probably forgive them. When the enemy, a Republican, does the same thing, you will believe they are evil, vile, stupid, et cetera.

Stick with your team.

Another interesting point is that sarcasm goes both ways. Most of the time. Those who are being made fun of often don't see it; they just think that people are agreeing with them. Those on their other side see it as a joke. Many republicans think Colbert sympathizes with them, or is a republican; democrats tend to think he has such a bottomless disrespect for the conservative platform that he can do nothing but laugh at it.

I have been labeled Democrat. And I vote that way most of the time, but I am the most conservative person that I know.

1. About half of the time, I believe we should "preserve existing conditions", but more often I would "restore traditional ones". I think most of our problems are caused by technology, they aren't going to be solved by it. The world would be in better shape if we still lived in caves and our "technology" was limited to how we cracked stones.
2. I am always a cautious estimator. I work slowly to make sure I don't miss many details (and I try to stay as open minded as possible)

The rest of the definitions I don't fit so well. I am not part of a conservative party, they aren't very often actually conservative. Instead, I vote liberally.

I just find that ironic. It shows some of the change that has happened within the parties. The labels, the words, have changed less.

Labels

An actual conversation I had:

'So called "Progressives" are destroying this country because they don't know what they're talking about."

'Well,' said I, 'What do you mean by "Progressives"?'

'Progressives. Don't give me any crap about what that means. If you accept a label, then you accept all of the things with that label If you are a Progressive, then you are one. I don't care what else you think you are and no one else does, either. That's what happens, man."

I was a little lost in this 'conversation'. It wasn't so much con-, as in with, but just versation on the part of my companion. He wasn't much of a listener.

In a way, he had a point: people assume a lot with a label. If you get labeled something like extrovert, then people expect you to be talkative, outgoing, gregarious, annoying, et cetera. However, it isn't like anyone has much control over the labels that get stuck to them. Sometime we do, but I cannot help being labeled introvert by most people, even though I think I am more of an extrovert.

Those labeled don't tell very much in the end. They are a simplification of a very complicated thing. 'Extroversion' is a collection of traits, each one could have nothing to do with others. Most of them come together in a suite we can put in one building (one word), but it is not always the case.

See: I am an "extrovert"

• I never like being alone.
• Ever. "me time" is not something I particularly care for, though I tend to have a lot of it (maybe that is why, though)
• I like talking to people.
• I really rather love talking to people
• Even if it is about things I don't like
• I enjoy crowds, even.
• Being with people energizes me.
• Getting attention stimulates me.
• Interacting with others is complicated and intriguing.
• I don't get very embarrassed by attention.
• Conflict is entertaining.
• I like to "be where the action is"
• I really prefer working with others.

Some might call me an "ambivert" because:

• I am Not enthusiastic, talkative, gregarious, or assertive
• I am very contemplative
• I like to write. And to read.
• I like hiking and running too
• But I really like doing them with others.
• I am Not skilled at social situations. I am never the "life of the party".
• I look and feel like an introvert.

If I am around a lot of people, doing a lot of things all the time and having fun, I don't need as much sleep. It's only happened to me a few times, but I'm not even tired. I cannot wait to get up and go do more things. But I don't get this very often because I don't make friends quickly, I fear that they tire of me. I act like an introvert; I sorta think like an introvert.... But those strong traits of an extrovert--gets their energy from others--makes me deny ambiversion.

I'm just an incompetent extrovert. And a somewhat incompetent introvert. I don't spend enough time and focus on anything to be a prolific enough writer to make a living at it. Partially from a sense of perfection, I suppose. I've written a lot right now because I'm not going back over it even once to make sure it is good. I'm just gonna let it be what it is. Like a true blogger: just telling people about me. Which is not really what I want to do, here. I am more interested in ideas than what is happening to me.

And so the point: you cannot assume anything about anyone just because of a label that you find stuck to them. You don't know where it came from or what it means. Labels are simplifications. "Mean", "Democrat",  "American", "Left handed". Even things like "Yellow" and "B-flat". Reality is a spectrum. B-flat is a little range of sounds, Yellow a rather bigger range of colors.

Concern? Or Compassion.

A lot of people like me are labeled "Concerned" because we are, I guess, concerned about atrocity and genocide and awfulness; or maybe just a lack of goodness that we see around us.

But it isn't really concern for me. I care more about the Amazon, thousands of miles away, then I care about my self, really. But I'm not "concerned". I am concerned about my inability to feed myself, pay rent and debt off, and all that annoying jazz.

Why do I care about polar bears, the insects in Ecuador, trees and shrimp? Because I care. Because I think of myself as compassionate. When I hear that you are being slowly lacerated, I feel bad about it and I don't want to kill anyone.

It is my compassion that makes me sad that I seem to be in the minority.

One Thing

If there was One thing, only one, that I would do to people, I would make everyone a critical thinker.

Or maybe just open minded.

Really, we need open-minded critical thinkers in this world. More than we have, anyway. It seems that we don't have very many most days.

But even those who are, aren't usually active. So Open-Minded Critically Thinking people who can put their thoughts into action. For their own good.

Ideally, an open-minded critically thinking person would come to the conclusion that what is good for the whole is best for them. I would hope that "whole" would come to mean the earth.

An Actively Open-Minded Critically Thinking person with Empathy. What if everyone was an Actively Open-Minded Critically Thinking person with Empathy and a Whole-Earth viewpoint?

But even then, if they are not willing to change in their own life... and if they are lazy, it will amount to nothing. So everyone in the world needs to be an Actively Open-Minded Critically Thinking person with Empathy and a Whole-Earth Viewpoint willing to be changed and swayed. And somewhat eager to change and sway others - that is share their ideas. I suppose that's implied in being "Active". And willing to be changed and swayed is implied in being "Open-Minded".

So all we need are people who are Actively Open-Minded Critically Thinking person with Empathy and a Whole-Earth Viewpoint.

Who is empathetic who doesn't consider the other denizens of the earth. Perhaps we can just say we need more people who are Actively Open-Minded and Empathetic Critically Thinking people.

So I guess if I could change One thing, I would actually change four. Even though truly critically thinking people act on their thoughts, and become more and more open-minded as their lives go on. Empathetic Critically Thinking people?

Which is more important for human beings to learn....

Empathy?

Or Critical Thinking Intelligence?

Neither one of them is just "knowledge".

The Cost of Industry

Everyone is sad: there are no jobs. One thing I always here taking the blame for this is export. Instead of making all the sutff we use here (and Boy! we've got a LOT of stuff) we have others make it for us. Like some over-stuffed monopoly man.

Work is hard.

But no we have none. And that is hard, too.

There are a million things to do about this, if we would buckle down and do them (spend a little more for American Made stuff, for one). I recently read that other countries (like China) spend their revenues like a venture capitalist would. Sticking their fingers into investments.

"What's that you say?" asks the country in the booming, omnidirectional voice a country would have, "Mactrotechnogadget wants to make a new gizmo? Well what's keepin' 'em from makin it here?"

"Well, sir..." said the meeker messenger, "it appears that they don't want to spend $200 million building a new plant to make them... It's a lot of money and all so I think they're just looking for--"

"Say no more! It's not a problem." laughes the country, "We can help 'em out, can't we?"

"Sir?"

"Tell 'em if they'd like, we'll go halfsies with 'em! Hell, we'll go 70-30. And we might as well start builing in just in case they take the offer. Begin ground breaking!"

"Oh! Well... Alright!" says the excited messenger, "I will, sir! Right Away!"

"Good! It will be great to have that new industry here, m'boy. Just fantastic!"

And the choice is tempting. Sometimes the only option for a company that wants to make something that can actually sell. How many people would buy the American-Made iPad that cost $1500? When here in America, our bi-polar (literally) dissociatively identified government says:

"Oh! Well..., uh... You know, it's complicated. There's taxes to figure out... and policy... Should we cover that cost with a new tax? Or just borrow something... from a creditor... we could cut a little from school taxes, of course.... hm....." then interrupts itself shouting: "Fool! We cannot meddle in the Private Sector!" only to interrupt again, like a sweet old lady, "yesyesyes. It all makes perfect sense now. Of course we'll help you little business man, you! Here's a benny, now run along and play! He's such a sweet--Hey! Come back here with my money you thief! How dare you destroy the environment! Crooks and Liars, all of you!"

And all the while, the populace (who elected this babble, of their own "free will") is screaming, shrilly, loud enough to burst their own ear drums: INCOMPETENCE!!!


It's no wonder we don't get anything done around here.

But it is harder for us. We make it very hard for ourselves. Where would we get the money to build a manufacturing plant for a poor billion-dollar corporation? Our billionaires can't afford to be taxed any more than they can afford to build anything. China has some money to work with.

Now to derail myself from the point:

My primary concern is the environment, but really I think of the world as a whole. So I'm going to contradict myself here.

I am one of the reasons America has no ability to make up its mind. I would rather mine for Molybdenum on Red Lady up in Crested Butte then anywhere in China. Red Lady will be a little bit better taken care of. As will our workers making iPads. But the end product will be more expensive in dollars (the dollar cost reflecting more accurately the true cost of the toy) But in the end, I would rather no more mining ever again. We've already pillaged enough crap out of the ground for the rest of eternity. Besides, mining is a short-lived economic 'solution' - it ain't gonna last. I always vote against it.

And then cry foul when it is done in China instead.

In a perfect world, we would recycle better. No industry and mining will ever be a permanent economic solution unless in considers the whole picture. Cycles back on itself and keeps turning. That's how the economic machine is supposed to work: you do work, get a dollar, spend it someone else's work who then gives it back to you for yours again. Over and over and over again. Just keep moving. Money is only supposed to be an accounting system. So why not build these factories in existing places? In existing cities? Recycle bottles and cans instead of mining? Then I would support the industry being here.

Our entire understanding of "economics" is a figment of our collective imagination and is in no way the only option or reality. It is a manufactured reality. In the end, any economy is only as functioning as its parts. If we want a good one, we have got to have parts. And we are running out of them and exporting the rest.

Learning Something New: the cost of marriage

I have far too much time on my hands at work to really call it work. But I get more important things done doing my own things than what my job asks me to do--sell poison (ie candy) to children.

I also spend a lot of time learning relatively worthless things on the omniscient (but compulsively lying) internet.

My latest learn:

For a few weeks, a friend of mine has been insisting that married life is more expensive than single life. But this confused me. Not only do couples get natural benefits (sharing an electric bill instead of having two: cheaper overall) but they get tax breaks.

So I decided to do a little research.

I came across several news-stories, from the BBC and the like; most of them talk about the cost of being single. But there was one rather in-depth article from Forbes.

They followed several couples who make more in a month than I spend in a year (opulently wealthy people: so it might have less bearing on a guy like me), but the basic conclusion is this:

Most married people spend more money. Because they choose to. They make "adult" decisions and have to buy themselves a nicer house and car and save for their future children's college and whatnot.

So that's it: simple: married people choose to spend money being "adults". But you don't have to choose that. It is not the act of marriage that makes life more expensive.

Money Sucks

I think I do pretty good at staying positivity. Until I start thinking about money.

Even when I was in Elementary School I didn't like money. I suppose my path was set even then, because now I don't have enough of it. I still don't like it, but mostly because I have to worry about the stupid stuff so often.

Wouldn't it be great if being a good person and a decent worker had some baring on how "successful" you were?

Sigh.

But in the end, I think I'm happier than Mitt Romney and his millions and billions of dollars.

I think I'd cry myself to sleep every night, poor ol' Mitt. It has got to be heavy to carry that conscience around. 

They is We

People are not ready for the society we have. Somehow, we have built it on progressive and intelligent ideas when, to be honest, most people don't have all that much intelligence or foresight. While there are a lot of very foresightfull ideas in the United States Constitution and other democratic ideals about the world, one that they are all lacking is the vision to know that we are not ready. Perhaps we were more ready in the past. I sometimes think that we have been spoiled (as a people) beyond our ability to cope with something so weighty as 'freedom'.

The problem is: how does one choose a good, honest, benevolent dictator? King Arthur is a work of fiction.

It was a long time ago when I was talking to a group of people about the some somewhat important issue when they said, "they won't let that happen."

"They? Who is they?" The government? The Illuminati? What 'they' could possibly make sure we don't do something stupid?

Us.

We are the keepers of power, but we are always looking to someone else for guidance and a place to put blame. We use too much coal? Well, someone better figure out how to solve that... but I'm not going to think about the coal it takes to run my computer, keep my phone charging all day long... There are some researcher who believe that if we cut out all our unnecessary drains on the electrical system, we could shut down several coal powerplants throughout the nation. All we have to do is be more conservative.

But how could anyone expect their own actions to count? There must be some leader, first, who outlines what to do, right?

Only if you aren't adapted to the freedoms that we possess. Which, more and more often, I am sure we have too much. Too much freedom and not enough responsibility. How can we achieve energy independence, for example? Well, we could just use a little less energy. Who says we need as much as we use?

Phantom power is not a very widely used term. Every electronic gizmo in your house draws some phantom power just by being plugged in. Some more than others, some have standby features that range from a running light to scanning for updates. This all takes electricity that we aren't really using. How many power plants could we decommission if we would just be a little more conscious. Being alive, you would think that we would relish being conscious more than being asleep, but sadly it seems the opposite.

Splentastic

I was working at a concessions stand when someone concerned about eating healthy tried to buy something. It happens occasionally. Some poor soul doomed to fail in his goal. For there is nothing I sell that I would actually buy myself. And as the stellar salesman that I am, I often tell people this.

Just trying to be helpful.

There was one man who decided to get a {insert name here} Zero because there are less calories.

But I am not sure that ingesting a chemistry lab project is really all that healthy. True there are a load of people in this country with diabetes, and the over-consumption of sugar (in all of its forms: cane, corn, and all). But really.... is a fake sugar better?

From all the nutritional information I have been reading lately (like the god-awfully dense Good Calories Bad Calories - great book: I recommend it. But I also agree with Laura Vanderkam's opinion on the book) the signs point to no. You might as well eat sugar.

If you are concerned about diabetes, don't eat that either.

The Fast Runner (2001)

I like movies that are not out of Hollywood. I think part of it is just unrecognizable actors who look a lot more real. The people in Atanarjuat look like Inuit, not like southern California models. Because they are. Atanarjuat is the first film from Canada written, directed, and acted by the Inuit people.

It is also pretty fascinating to watch movies that are outside of one's own culture. I learned a little about how igloos are made, and how the Inuit ate and dressed. I learned that their women had (perhaps they even still have) blue tattoo marks on their faces. And that they treat their dogs absolutely wretchedly.

That was the worst part of the movie. It is obvious that these dogs are not happy campers in real life and pretty much hate their handlers. Apparently no one ever told them about clicker training.

The movie is Anthropological in its cultural intensity, but has Cool (cold? ha ha. I'll stop) story telling. Some weird camera angle choices and some little 'continuity' errors (I think I saw a scene where someone was wearing modern boots), but if you can overlook the lack of special effects, it is a good movie. And if you can stand to see a little Inuit penis, because that's in there if that stuff gives you an aneurysms.

Drought

January 27th, Gunnison Colorado. A place that is renown for its cold. And this is the first time it has snowed on top of snow. Not because it has been too cold, but because every small snowfall we have had has melted before anything else comes.

It's a little scary. Not only because of what we could say about global warming (only to be refuted by someone saying, it's only one year. These things happen) but because of the snowpack. If last summer was dry for some people (Texas, cough), this summer is shaping up to be worse.

Hope people are ready to tighten the belt a little farther.

Planting Chocolate Bars

StudentsFirst will take umbrage with what I am about to say:

Most of the time, I assume that people are generally equal. Some very smart people have the unfortunate fate of being smart in something that isn't respected. Such as drawing or music or soccer. These people are not called our geniuses. But the other day I was talking to a group of girls who were at least in 7th grade. Probably at least 11, I guess they could have been 10, but I would guess them at 12 or 13 (see how good I am with guessing ages; that's another skill that is generally not considered important enough for one to be considered 'intelligent'.)

Somehow these girls got me to talk about my favorite topic: evil corporate behavior and boycotting. I sell Coka-Cola at my job, and Nestle Chocolate, and Mars and everything that is bad for you, our economy, and the planet. It doesn't fill me with a great amount of pride. Somehow they got me to casually mention the slavery and murder committed by these corporations against under-privileged people.

They were surprised. But it didn't stop them from drinking a coke and eating a Crunch bar. As most people. Sigh. The more surprising part came later.

"Which is Worse!" one demanded, "the coke or the poweraid?"

"Oh.... They are pretty much the same. The worse one is probably that chocolate. Chocolate growers aren't treated very well."

"Growers... You can grow chocolate...?" they asked, a little nervously. I wasn't sure why.

"Well. Yeah."

She started to spit it out. "Almost everything you eat you grow."

"So if I plat this, will it grow a chocolate tree!?" asked one.

"...No. Chocolate is a process..." but at this point, I think 'process' was way too big a word for these poor girls. And I began to think, this is not a problem with our educational system in this country, it is more a problem with the value we put on education. No single teacher is going to teach the stupid out out of that.

It was amazing to me. I cannot remember being so nieve in my life; granted I have a somewhat poor memory. This was appalling. How distanced have we gotten from our basic needs as living beings to understand so little? No, you can't plant a casserole and get a casserole plant out of it. How did you come to think such a thing? It was more surprising than the boy who couldn't tie his shoe. Also in middle school.

It is sad. And all the more so because I began to see them as sheep. I began to think that maybe (only maybe) I am in fact intrinsically superior to them. These girls who seem to be naught but mostly-mindless filler in the human race, but really no one of consequence and probably never will be. Taking up land, air, food, resources and never having the potential to quite understand what 'resources' even are. Do these girls have a hope of ever growing up? Do they have a hope of learning how to think? Our educational system can do more to help people think (rather than know) than it does. Alright, I agree on that point. But this is a greater societal problem, I think. What in their lives (or missing from their lives) enables this to even be possible?

How can the human race simultaneously produce Leonardo da Vinci and and the faceless and unambitious? Who can't even take the energy to spare a thought?

Is this all that is left of Circle Vs. Square?

A Difference

Take a pen, or a tennis ball and toss it in the air at a friend.

I have noticed that most women will flinch and cover their head or try to move out of the way. Men generally put their hands up to catch, even if they aren't very good at catching. Some people on both sides do it skillfully, most just flail.

There are of course, exceptions: women who will try for the catch and men who will flinch. But it is surprising to me how often the dichotomy exists.

One could prescribe it to some hunter-gatherer explanation if they choose to. I prefer to wonder what in our society has created this split.

The Greatness of Time Banking - an hour as currency

One of the best ideas I have heard of in a long time is called "Time Banking". There are many places that people can go to get involved in Time Banking options that may (or may not) be active in their communities. There is the center: TimeBanks.org, and from there people can find local efforts.

Time Banking is a lot like doing favors from friends, but making your pool of friends a little larger and easier to coerce. You can keep track of your hours and bill people for them like dollars. Apparently, I am not the only person to think this is a great idea because it is getting more popular.

There are other places people can go for an overview of Time Banking, or stories about it. I am more interested in whistful thinking right now.

I was talking to a man a few weeks ago about our economy. For not being an "official" economist (and liking the topic about as much as I like politics...), I sure have a lot of conversations about it.

My friends opinion was that there is nothing in this world that has enough value to be used as a standard for our monetary system. He said it like fact, and I didn't question it too much at the time. But he is patently wrong: if we set the value of a pound of gold (a horrible standard: I don't recommend using gold as our standard again but it would be better than Limbo, as it is now) as worth a billion dollars, then we have enough gold to back the economy. It is all a matter of standardizing it. It might be hard to go that way now, but hell we went into Limbo money.

Ah: But imagine if we set our basis on time? Every individual has the same budget: 24 hours a day. Then you company would be as valuable as the people it employees. The more employees, the higher the budget.

Every job is a job that 'needs' doing, in one sense or another. And by that logic, they are as valuable. We shouldn't have one person getting a billion dollars per hour they play golf and another person get paid five for cleaning puke off of the floor.

I hate cleaning puke off the floor.

The 'better' jobs (the ones you don't despise doing) are paid more in respect and self-worth as well as in money. It is hardly fair. I would rather do a job that I like doing for room and board than janitorial duty for 150K a year. The better jobs would, in the end, go to the better worker: everyone makes an hour for an hour of work, but some people you would rather pay that hour to. The better Geologist is going to keep his job, the quicker Computer Nerd will keep writing programs, the more skilled surgeons will operate. Those less skilled will end up in the unwanted jobs.

There would still be economic factors. And I suppose there would still be companies that charged a hundred hours for something it only took them 1 hour to make: negative reciprocity just like our current economy. And in the end, that is what Time Banking now is seeking to avoid, in part.

Being Positive

Ah, in the end I'm not all that different from very many people. Though, to admit, I have always tried to be a little. "Normal" people do not impress me in any positive ways.

But, as being different for the sake of being different is just as pointless as being the same for the sake of being the same, I have to admit that I have a lot in common with the rest of the human race. Laziness, Bipedalism, Glasses... and I find it hard to remain positive very often.

In fact, I might be more negative than just about anyone else I know. As I am trying to get my philosophy published in an online way, and brainstorming what it is I have to write about, I find that most of it is critical of some horrendous stupidity that I see.

I'm like Captain Hindsight from South Park.

So in an effort to be a more agreeable human being, I am going to make an effort to extol the virtues in the world I see. What people do that is positive and deserves emulation rather than what should be avoided and my short logical (evidence-less) conclusion on why that is so.

Working Together

Listening is a very important skill and it goes rather undervalued in our world. I am not sure why; perhaps it is because the more forceful you are with your own opinion, the more chance you have of convincing someone that you are right. And being forceful is the opposite of listening.

I think there is a little ego that motivates it. I have been trying to find a way to get my ol' Alma Matter (Western State College) to improve the efficiency of their vehicle fleet. And though a million conversations, I have come to the conclusion that the best thing to do (so far) is to simply get departments to work together. If there are two departments that are going the same basic direction, perhaps they can plan and go together. If they share the trip, together they might cut down on a whole van. Maybe.

The fear that already exists (before we even begin) is that there will be resistance to the idea. Working together is hard and different departments don't want to work with the hassle. It will be harder, I see that. But there are many times when it might still be pretty easy.

Sidewalks

Besides their awful carbon footprint (though it can be a carbon sink...), cement is great for things like Roller Blades, Bikes, Skateboards, Cars, and anything else with wheels. It makes travel easier, quick, smooth. That is it's use.

It's not really good for feet, though. There is a reason that there is no animal evolved to locomote with wheels: this sort of surface didn't exist before us. It's kind of a marvel that we make all of our "sidewalks" out of it.

Where I live, it seems that every place that people do walk, someone thinks we need concrete there. "Oh! People are walking there... well, let's make it an official path! Make it easy." I think that this is the thought: make it easy.

But there are some people, of whom I number one, who avoid the sidewalks. I walk beside the sidewalk because I understand how horrible it is for me and I rather like my legs. I am one of those people who cut across and line out where a new sidewalk will go. But it is not because I want a new sidewalk; it is because I want less.

I was wondering how many knee problems would go away if we didn't have sidewalks? Or if our sidewalks were packed earth or something softer? But I suppose after a million people trampled it down, a dirt path would be almost as hard. I am not sure if the research has been done, because it would be difficult to do. Are there any places that have replaced cement sidewalks with softer paths? Cement is so hard that your knees, bones, and joints take all the brunt of your step. I wouldn't be too surprised if some lower-back problems are the fault of walking on such hard surfaces. They aren't good for your ankle, either. With such a flat surface, your ankle gets weaker and weaker as your supporting muscles atrophy. Or simply fail to grow in the first place. Making it easier to twist and injure the joint.

Yet another place a simple change could have great impact. But it would require a re-tooling of our current system.

A little on lifestyles and locomotion

In a world that worships the automobile (yet another contraption I regard as a corruption; a satanic trap), those who know me are forced to forego it.

It really is a corrupted satanic trap, though. It is an up-front cost of between $1,000 and $100,000! And then, it traps you. It costs a monthly in-sewer-ants to even be allowed to use it (and with good reason: they are dangerous! If anything, I think the monthly cost should be more. Drivers should also know a lot more about driving and their cars, at the minimum, to be allowed to drive. Perhaps with re-evaluation every year... but I could digress in that direction for a long, long time.) The more one uses a car, the more maintenance it costs. And (of course) it runs on a fuel that, while costly, does not have a price that comes anywhere near representing the damage it extols from plants, animals, people an their societies, the air, climate, future, and just about everything.

And if you don't buy this fuel, the in-sewer-ants, the maintenance, et cetera, then it will decay. Cars must be exercised or they will fall into disrepair.

They require loving care--Demand that you Love the Fucking Things!--a lot of attention, make your life stressful and expensive....

Then there is the death toll they exact just on people. 42,636 people in 2005. While that is not as horrible as, say, heart-disease, that is just the direct accidents. Ignoring the factor they play in heart disease (no exercise), and other chronic illness.

And yet, if you spurn these things, you are not an acceptable human being. You are shunned. People think that you are stupid. People don't understand.

I push people into abandoning their cars. With poor success most of the time. At least when they are not in my company. But I wont even take a ride in one. And yet, despite the evils of using the car, it makes me feel bad to ask people not to use them.

And thus: I am just as stupid and crazy as everyone else!

Why I am an Environmentalist.

My post yesterday was pretty fatalistic. It is something of the reason I am an "environmentalist", but not the real reason.

I keep hearing that there is no point. That, eventually, our moon will sling out of orbit and the earth will be pulled into the sun. That, eventually, the sun will supernova and the earth will disintegrate.

Well yes. How foresightful. Eventually the entire universe might collapse. Or entropy will pull every quark an infinite distance apart from every other quark. So what?

I guess it comes down to what you believe the purpose of life is? Do we have some grand Purpose of some unimaginable kind? If so, I cannot begin to understand what could be greater than... just living. Living and being happy and fulfilled.

I mean, what could be a greater purpose than to live? Right here and right now?

Life is not a destination. Our destinations are all the same. The universe will not last forever. All records will eventually cease to be. But right now, you are alive. And that is pretty miraculous.

So I am not an environmentalist to preserve the state of our planet forever.

I am an environmentalists to protect those homes, those lives, and that happiness that is happening right now. Those lives that deserve a chance to enjoy themselves because they are here. It matters not, really, if polar bears go extinct. It matters that they are starving right now and that bloody sucks!

I am an optimist.

I am an optimist:

I believe that when The Famine hits, the human race will have an epiphany.

I have that argument with a lot of people. Most disagree with me. But I think we will have an epiphany for the good. The 'richest' people in the world might just be among the first to starve. For, though they can Pay their private militaries to go and steal food for them, they wont be able to do much else. The militia might steal the food, buy why would they bring it back to their employer? Food is food. It's more valuable than paper or marks in your credit card. They'll just keep the food for themselves and never bring it back. Perhaps they will even join the communities they were deployed to when it becomes clear what is of Real value:

Food
  Water
    Friends

And then money, our current standard for measuring everything and the best definition for "stupid" in our world right now, will finally mean what it really is: Toilet Paper.

Rest assured and comfortable that The Famine is coming. When it does, all the world will truly understand what it has meant to be African for the last hundred years or so. For most of the people on that poor attacked continent. People have been predicting Armageddon for a million years, they have been predicting this one since the industrial revolution. While it hasn't happened yet, we are getting closer to it: nothing lasts forever. Though everyone's been wrong so far, that will not always be the truth.

Some prophecies are more reliable than others. Here's mine:

When The Famine comes, a billion or so will go just from starvation. A billion or two more from in-fighting, anarchy, general stupidity, and the like. And perhaps the rest of us from all out War. If (and this part is a big if) we cannot work together.
   However, The Famine is avoidable! If we can concentrate on that tiny little all-important IF. It should be avoidable just up until it actually happens. Maybe. But it is getting harder and harder the closer we come to that point.

I am not the first to issue this prophecy in some form. It was issued before I was born and hasn't happened yet. Some people take this as a sign that it will never happen. If you want a date on my prediction, you will have noticed that it is not present and I don't intend it to be. There are a lot of gray areas, I'm not going to pretend to be mystical. I am just logical. So far, The Famine the dates are always wrong. But everything else was right and it is still happening. We use all of our resources faster than they can replenish. Oil, coal, gas, forests, soil, water...

Land...

Each one will put a strain on a system already quite stressed. We are currently using so many fossil fuels to just grow food that once oil and such really are on the decline, we will hit Peak Food.

The Famine.

And all the while, our population grows. Peak Land or Peak Space. We've got a long way to go before the whole world looks like Tokyo. But we will not be able to support ourselves long before that happens. For the last 2000 years or so, we have put off The Famine. but that is no reason to expect that we can put it off forever. Forever is a very, very, very long time. But we wont even put it of until our sun goes out. We can't escape it. It is coming for us just like it does for every other species on this planet.

Told you I am an optimist....

A quick thought on science.

There are a lot of "scientists" I have known with a vehement hatred of religion. Unaware that most of these individuals are actually very religious. For science can be followed as a religion.

But how dare those Anti-Religion Science-Nuts say that the worst thing is Religion? (those that do) Sure it's got its crimes: crusades, terrorism, nationalism to some extent, and willful ignorance pretty commonly; but what about the crimes of science?

• Nazism
• A-bombs
• Bombs in general
• Guns too
• Cars
• Oil
• Mining
• GMOs
• Agriculture
• Computers
• Television
• Airplanes
• Chemical Warfare
• Electricity
• And after a lot of this, as a side note, entitlement
• Industry
• Soot
• Smaug
• Cities
• Corn Syrup
• White bread
• Eugenics
• I'm sure there are more

The list is positively endless.

What in the Hell?

The People for the American Way sent me an email recently:

"After years of learning about the details of an American decision-making system centered on exploitation and extraction, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan lost his temper on-air. Instead of just being angry, Dylan wrote GREEDY BASTARDS: How We Can Stop Corporate Communists, Banksters, and Other Vampires from Sucking America Dry. In the book, Dylan, who is emerging as a leading voice and dedicated ally against out-of-control corporate influence in government, reveals the details of this broken system, and more importantly, what we can do today to fix it." They said.


I thought: "Hm. Yep. Greedy Bastards, all right. They are everywhere. We do reward the most satanic behaviour best."


Then at the end of the email they encouraged me to pre-order a copy at Barns & Noble or Amazon.


Now... That's not doing a God Damned thing to stop the greedy bastards. I'll admit, I don't know as much about Barns and Noble's business, but I do know about Amazon and everything that I have heard about them is bad. They use monopolistic pricing (joining Walmart in selling Harry Potter 7 for cost - something a small bookstore could never achieve), they push out competition and reduce competitiveness with their little ebook thingy. And though I don't know too much about Barns and Noble, I know that they are big business, not real business, and just for that my assumption is that they don't do much to foster competition in their market.


If you want to Stop the Greedy Bastards, going there is not the way to do it. Buy from a local bookstore instead! That might but a stutter in the step of all those Greedy Bastards.

A new format for me.

Since I obviously don't have the attention span, and I have too much perfection, and I can't decide which way to take them, I decided not to do full-argument essays. Instead, I'll do essay vignettes.

Besides, according to some research (I was told... I don't know where it is, sadly), short arguments are more powerful. It makes sense: Who has the attention span to read an article in Time or National Geographic nowadays, anyway?

Using the power of computer's (mug), I'll link articles that have something to do with each other and in that way I can have more complete arguments.

And I can say what I have to say.

Hopefully there are some people who care. Not to be too arrogant, but I think that my thoughts would be good for a lot of people to have.