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.