So, I'm reading a book about the history of anarchy. It turns out that anarchy is not what you see on the news. It is not confined to black-clothed, sociopathic morons, smashing windows and throwing rocks at the police at various international meetings around the world.
The philosophy of anarchy is pretty simple. It is, fundamentally, the belief that humans are perfectly capable of governing themselves. People can coexist in society without any form of organized government. Government only serves to cause friction between people of various life situations by setting up and enforcing laws that benefit one group or another. As the government becomes stronger, and rules and regulations pile up on top of each other, our freedoms necessarily diminish.
The only way to be completely free, for people to experience true liberty, is to live without the yoke of coercion, which is the sole purpose of government. Government exists only to curb our so-called baser instincts and force us to live in harmony with one another.
Anarchism is a philosophy that sees humanity as innately reasonable, considerate, and moral. It assumes that, given the choice, we will all do what's best for ourselves and our fellow man. It is a philosophy that stresses individual liberty and freedom, while also emphasising the good of society as a whole. It is not, at it's core, an excuse to, in the words of Allistair Crowley, "Do what thou wilt, so mete be". It is a call to all humans to excercise restraint in all their dealings with others. But it is a self-imposed restraint, not one directed to us by the state or organized religion or society as a whole.
If there were any sort of tenet or dogma attatched to anarchism, it would be to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Seems pretty simple, and a good way to live.
Unfortunately, in my experience, people don't always behave that way. People are generally greedy, selfish, and sometimes just plain mean.
I guess I sort of agree with whoever said that, "If men were angels, they would have no need for government." He also went on to say that if we were governed by angels, we would have no need to watch our leaders like parollees in charge of the petty cash fund.
The balance between individual freedom and security is a very delicate one. How much do we value security? How much of our freedoms are we willing to sacrifice in order to feel safe and secure? Ben Franklin said "Any man that will sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither." That is a pretty extreme statement. In my opinion, it's a matter of degrees. I'm willing to take off my shoes before I board a plane if it will ensure that my flight will not be interrupted by some whacko with a bomb in his shoe. The line is the important thing.
Where should the responsibility of the governement to protect us end, and our responsibility to protect ourselves begin?
This brings me to the other book I'm reading at the moment. It is a history of the Jewish people. No other race has been so hated, persecuted, or scorned as the Jewish race. They live in a land that is practically encircled by people that not only despise them, but actually believe that they have no right to exist. Every day they deal with threats and accusations ranging from plots to take over the world, to total nuclear anihilation.
The middle east is a rough neighborhood for the Jews, but they manage to not only survive, but thrive. Israel boasts the most liberal democracy in the region, as well as the strongest economy. They, as a people, enjoy more freedom than any of their neighbors. And yet, they live under the constant threat of attack. How do they do this? How do they balance the freedoms that their people enjoy with the security that they demand? Common sense.
They have a very well organized system of national defense. They gather information from anyone and everyone, and then they use this information to target specific threats. Yes, that's right, they profile people. If someone fits the profile of a threat to their nation, they concentrate on that person.
This results in far fewer 95 year old women in diapers and a wheelchair getting stripsearched at Israeli airports than in the US. This means that normal traffic flows through their security checkpoints far more smoothly than in any other nation on earth. This is because they are not stupid. They are proactive as opposed to rreactive. Yes, the citizens of Israel have sacrificed some of their freedoms for security, but their government works to ensure the least amount of sacrifice and the greatest amount of security. Somehow, they manage to keep their citizens safe without devolving into a virtual police state. It is a system we should look to emulate.
Anarchy is a wonderful philosophy for those that see only the good in mankind. For those that believe that humanity can actually be ruled by "the better angels of our nature."
For those of us that live in the real world, there is an acknowledgement that not all people are capable of resisting the primal urges that are programmed into our DNA. Some people are simply evil. It is protection from these people that the government is charged with providing, while keeping the intrusions on our liberties as minimal as possible.
It is a delicate balance, but one that is possible to achieve. As long as we are ruled, not by emotion, but by reason, there is hope that we can enjoy a government that works the way it is supposed to work. One that protects us from those that wish to do us harm, and doesn't inflict harm on us in the process.

Gay marriage in New York

Kathy Griffin tweeted that "We Are all New Yorkers now" after the decision to legalize gay marriage in the state. Um, I'm not. Not that I have anything against gay people. My problem is mainly with New Yorkers. The fact is, this decision has absolutely nothing to do with me. If New York wants it, let them have it.

I feel a little like governor Christie on the subject. When asked his opinion of the ruling, he grunted and said "Not a big fan."

I just think it's funny that the left is so invested in the gay marriage issue that it is celebrating a state's right to defy the federal government's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Why are they so vehemently opposed to state's rights concerning abortion, illegal immigration, and healthcare? Either I'm an idiot, or this is another example of the rampant hypocrisy on the left.

Before you say it, I know it can be turned around to expose the rampant hypocrisy of the right as well. They oppose gay marriage but are supportive of state's defying the fed on the other 3 issues.

This leads to my most important point. Who the hell is Kathy Griffith? Why have I never heard of her? When did she become the barometer of right and wrong in our society? Why do celebrities, pseudo-celebrities, and the likes of Kathy Griffith continue to weigh in on subjects that they have no grasp of? And most importantly, why do some people continue to encourage them?

As far as I'm concerned, the government has no business declaring or denying anyone's right to marry anyone else. Marriage is, and has always been, the domain of religious institutions. Civil unions, which are supported in most states, and by most of America, including me, would certainly fall under the auspices of the government. A civil union is a contract, one that is protected by the constitution of the United States. Marriage is a sacrament, one that is overseen by various religious denominations the world over. What happened to separation of church and state?

On another, more personal note, I recently started writing for examiner.com under the title of Indianapolis conservative. Why they have me pegged as a conservative, I don't know. I'm sure it will mortify my mother, so I won't argue with it.

The important thing is, I may be able to make some money from it. Apparently I get payed according to page views. Roughly one half of one cent per visit. Not much, but every little bit helps. I would like to invoke that old song from the depression era, updated for the internet age...instead of "Brother can you spare a dime?" it is "Brother can you spare a page view."

Look at it this way, it won't cost you anything, and it may reduce the likelihood of me hitting you up for a "loan". I put that in quotes because a loan is something that is payed back eventually.

I submit to you that if my household deficit was rated as a percentage of my personal GDP, the US would appear completely solvent by comparison. Of course, I don't have the ability to print money and lend it to myself. If I did, there would be a flat screen in every room and Sam Adams in the fridge. Unfortunately, it's analog TV and Miller High Life for me.

So check out some of my articles. Often. In fact, make it your home page. The posts are, mercifully, a lot shorter than the blog posts. I'm having trouble making coherent points in less than 15,000 words, but hopefully I'll get better.

If this seems like a shameless attempt to rope my family and friends into pretending to support something that I have always wanted to do, that is to make a living as a writer, it is. So please don't make me ask again. I do have some pride.

Well, not really.

I was listening to the radio the other day. No, this is not another song-themed post. I was actually listening to talk radio, which I do from time to time.
They played a quote from David Carr, who writes for Time magazine or the New York Times or something like that. He said, "...but if it's Missouri or Kansas, or you know, it's the dance of the low-sloping foreheads you know? The middle places..."
He said this on Bill Mar's show. I know I spelled his name wrong, I just like it when the name is appropriate, like Anthony Weiner. I also like it when the name is ironically inappropriate, as in the case of Barney Frank.
At first I giggled a little. It was a good line. Funny, creative, rolled off the tongue nicely. It had a certain melody to it. Then I thouight, "Hey, he's talking about me." No, I don't live in Missouri or Kansas, but I do live in flyover country. I actually refer to people from Indiana as swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool, but it's okay if I say it. I'm not a liberal elitist snob. I just say it because it's funny to me.
This Carr character, who later apologized for the comment, not accepted by the way, is also originally from flyover country. He took great pains to explain this fact as he made his apology. He may have forgotten his roots because he was educated in the finest institutions in the land. I don't know squat about him, but I'd guess Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Brown, something like that.
One thing I've learned is that it doesn't matter where you went to school. What matters is what you learn while you're there. The most important thing, in my opinion, is to learn the ability to think for yourself. To form your own opinions based on what seems right to you, after researching both sides of the issue. That's why I slog through crap like Krugman and Zakaria and Chomsky (actually, Chomsky pretty much a genius, and I like him, and I hate him for it because he's still an elitist snob).
I want to be able to argue either side of any issue intelligently, depending on who I want to piss off at any particular time. The only way to do that is to learn the arguments that both sides make, think about them just a little bit, and come up with some ideas of your own on the subject.
This is what the idealogues on the left and the right will never understand. It's like they all think with one brain. They yell and shout out the same tired old talking points to the same tired audience, time after time, and then wonder why no one listens to them.
The dance of the low sloping foreheads comment makes me want to hunt this knucklehead down, beat him over the head with a club, drag him by his silver ponytail back to my cave, and feed him to my pet dinosaur. Instead I will point out to him, and to others like him, that there are universities outside of the Ivy League. There are places that, while they may not have the same manners, traditions, and social customs as yours, are inhabited by intelligent, thoughtful people that may just happen to disagree with your vision for the future of humanity.
In the words of Richard from Tommy Boy, "There are 2 kinds of smart. Book smart, which waved bye-bye to you a long time ago, and then there's street smart, the ability to read people..." If I'm looking for someone to theorize about the best possible solutions to problems in order to create a utopian society, I'll go with book smart. If I'm looking for someone that I can actually trust to implement public policy that will affect all of us, something that may not be the best solution, but at least takes everyone's ideas into account, I'll go with street smart every time.

"When you feel just like a tourist in the city you were born, then it's time to go."
That's a line from the song "Tourist" by Deathcab For Cutie. Quick sidenote, Deathcab For Cutie is the greatest name for a rock band since Green Apple Quickstep. It's not even up for debate.
I recently went home for a long weekend. Is it weird that I still consider it home when I've been in Indiana for almost 3 years? It is what it is, I guess. Indiana, though not a bad place to live, will never be my home. For one thing, the food is terrible. Food is very important to me. I like to eat. The Red Sox are also very rarely available on television. This is actually more important than the food issue. Finally, my entire family is back east. I miss them a lot. You never realize how important some things are until they aren't anymore.
That being said, this last trip was a little strange. Something didn't feel quite right. I'm not sure what it was. Maybe it's true that you can't go home again. Or, as Stephen King says, "Home is the place where, when you have to go back, they have to kill you." That's not as creepy as it sounds. It's really supposed to be some kind of metaphor. The reason it's important to leave your comfort zone is that it is impossible to grow as a person with the restraints put upon you by familiar surroundings. When you don't have the opportunity to experience new things, it's almost like a prolonged catatonic state. Challenges that you may confront are avoided for the simple comforts of a friendly and familiar smile. Leaving the nest irrevocably changes a person. Not saying that it's good or bad, it just does.
I never felt really comfortable in Massachusetts this time. It still looked like home. It smelled like home. I saw my parents and my sister and all my in-laws, who seem to have, for some reason, taking a liking to me. Something just didn't feel kosher. Maybe it's because we weren't there for long enough. Maybe it's because we've been gone too long. Maybe it's because we've romanticized home to the point where the reality can never live up to the expectation. Who knows.
The point is, I felt like a tourist, when I should have felt at home. This can mean one of two things. Either I am done with Mass. for good, or I need to get the hell out of Indiana, and fast, before it's too late.
I still carry the east coast with me. My accent is as strong, if not stronger than it used to be. I still religiously follow the Sox and the Celts and the Pats and the B's. I still read the Herald, the only paper in Boston by the way, Pravda doesn't count, even if they do own part of the Red Sox. I miss the food. I miss Dunkin Donuts on every street corner. I miss the radio stations and sports on tv. I miss my family and friends. I don't miss the politics, or the fact that we were always broke. Not that we're not always broke now, or that I like the politics in Indiana, but it's a little bit easier here than there.
It felt strange driving through the town I used to live in. Everything seemed familiar, and yet foreign. Some things had changed that I didn't even notice until they were pointed out to me. New buildings, different stores, things that you don't even notice unless you're paying attention, and maybe that's just it. Maybe, when I wasn't paying attention, everything changed. Or more likely, I did.
I think that everyone fells a certain disconnect when surrounded by strangeness. Maslow says that people are either able to cope with it, unable to cope with it, or they relish the challenge. Some people find excitement in change, others fear change, and still others simply accept it as a part of life. I haven't figured out where I fit in yet. Either in Mass. or Indiana, or in Maslows heirarchy of personalities, but I will at some point.
I will be home next month. This time I will be bringing the entire family, which is my entire life. I know one thing, wherever they are, my heart is, and that's as good as home to me. I will see then what's more important to me... where I am, or who I am there with. Many questions will be answered, but what will it change? Probably nothing, maybe something, maybe just me.

"New Low" for the middle class

I listen to the radio a lot. Out here in the midwest there are two types of radio stations, country, and crap. That is assuming there is a difference between the two. There is one station that plays pretty decent music, though it is one of those that seems to have a playlist of about twenty songs, played over and over in a somewhat different order. Occasionally they throw in a new one. One of the new ones I heard over the last year, and that have made it into the regular rotation, is "New Low" by a band called Middle Class Rut. It's a good song. But it got me thinking about the middle class.
What exactly is the middle class? Does it really exist? It seems as though the only time it's even mentioned is by politicians or their cronies trying to drum up support for one campaign or another. "I'm looking out for the middle class" say countless leaders who are, in reality, looking out for themselves and trying to get into your wallets.
I am about as middle as they come. I am the middle child of a middle income family, living in the middle of the country, middle of the road politically (although I would probably be considered a fascist by many due to my ideas on the proper size and role of the federal government, which would be funny if it wasn't so sad), creeping up on middle income as I make my way through middle age. Am I average? No. If I'm not an average American, is there any such thing as an average American? I'm not sure that there is.
The chorus of the song, such as it is, goes like this "I feel right, I feel left, I feel wrong, I feel left behind. I feel up but mostly down." Describes a lot of people that would be considered middle class ar average, doesn't it? We are all trying to slog our way through our lives, paying bills, working, attempting to find a balance between what is necessary and important, and what may be considered frivolous or enjoyable. But the frivolity is necessary, if only to recharge our brains for the droll and mundane. We all spend a lot of time living in our own heads, dreaming our own dreams, imagining our lives in another frame or reality.
We are all, I think, Walter Mitty. I haven't read the story in decades, but I remember it because it seemed to describe me in some way. Mitty would escape into fantasy in order to lessen the burden of an otherwise unhappy life. I also remember it because it was the first time, but not the last, that I thought that maybe I was smarter than my teacher. She claimed that Mitty was preparing to kill himself. That all this fantasizing and dreaming was unhealthy in some way. I felt that it was entirely healthy and a natural reaction to his circumstance. He felt trapped and frightened by what his life had become, so he invented different scenarios in order to cope with it. It probably would have been healthier for him to just change his life, but he was so adapted to convention that it was impossible for him.
This is acculturation at it's most extreme. Most of us are held back by convention and cultural restraints. In many cases it is a good thing. You don't go to the grocery store in your underwear, unless, of course, you're in really, really good shape. Our culture demands that we wear pants. There are many ways that cultural convention can hold us back if we let it. We are taught by our elders to fit in at all costs. To be like everyone else, at least outwardly, so we need to turn inward to satisfy our individuality. Some of us break free of these restraints to do great things. Some of us never manage, and our imaginations are forced to help us cope with our shortcomings. I think to some degree we all do this, not only because our lives are unhappy, mine isn't, and never really was, except for the periods of time in which I made stupid decisions and caused my own sort of doom spiral, but because we are human beings.
We dream because we are human. It is part of the human condition to yearn for something more, something better, something else. That is probably why catchphrases such as "Hope and change" act as magical mantras on the minds of so many so-called average Americans. We want hope, we want change, we want more. This is what separates us from animals. The desire to create, to enjoy, to have leisure time and freedom.
We, as a nation, for the most part, don't need to worry about where our next meal is coming from. Our economic system has provided the greatest amount of wealth in the history of humanity. This wealth is spread out, in spite of what some people insist on claiming, among all of us. Not equally, that is true, maybe because we are not all equally equipped or inclined to take the necessary steps to provide for our own needs. This widespread wealth allows us the opportunity to seek out other gratifications, to improve our own situations.
So, is there such a thing as an average American, or middle class? Only in reference to campaign slogans and punchlines at elitist cocktail parties. Other than that, there are only Americans. We are all in this together. In spite of the efforts of some to make everything a war between the rich and the poor, or the middle against the extremes, there remain only Americans. We have been given the gift of freedom. That great gift comes with great responsibility. We are required to shape our own lives in the manner that we see fit, and then live with the consequences. Through it all, during good times and bad, we all look for something more, we all dream about something better or different. We are the catalysts for hope and change, not some unctious politician. We dream and then we create. In doing so we create a better life for ourselves, our families, and our nation.
The longest journey begins with the first step, and the first step to progress is a vision, a dream, a goal, something that begins in our minds and then is made into reality through hard work and perserverance. By improving our own lives, we improve the lives of those around us. Self-interest, to paraphrase Adam Smith, is the driving force behind the progress of individuals, communities, and nations. The greatest advances in society have been provided by so-called average citizens that have risen above convention and created. It all starts with a dream.

So I'm reading a book by Abraham Maslow. I know, but when I took it out at the library I was unaware that it's a textbook for post-graduate psychology students. It's pretty interesting, but in the first chapter I came across one of my danger words.
There are a few words, phrases, and concepts that set me off. For example, anything that involves global warming, organic food, regressive tax, social justice, or the greater good are very likely to cause me to have a heart attack. Another of these ideas is the anti-intellectualism thing. This is the idea that Americans are basically idiots that hate anything intellectual. We are all against learning and education. I actually read a book by Elizabeth Jacoby that claimed exactly that. She said that the "folks" just don't appreciate the fact that their intellectual superiors are looking out for their best interests. We in flyover country are too stupid to take care of our own lives, and too ignorant and proud to let them do it for us.
This idea was first introduced, I am sure, by intellectuals themselves. Most likely because no one was listening to them. The reason no one listens to intellectuals has nothing to do with anti-intellectualism. It is more likely because of the fact that intellectuals have never done anything in their lives but think about stuff. While there is nothing inherently wrong with thinking about stuff, I do it all the time, it is usually advisable to have some experience doing stuff before you give people advice about the best methods for doing stuff.
Talk what you know, and what you don't know, don't talk. I remember that from high school. Apparently, these eggheads never heard that phrase. Why should I take the advice of someone that's never held a real job in their lives, never had to live check-to-check, never had to decide which bill to pay this month and which can be put off for another month. Most of these people went directly from the teet to the teet. Mommy's to the government's. They all seem to work for various "thinktanks". What, exactly, is a thinktank? What do they do there? Do they sit around and think? I do that for nothing. Why should they make 6 figure salaries for it? Are they smarter than me? They would say yes, I'm not so sure. If they can't tell the difference between "anti-intellectualism and anti-intellectual, they should forfeit at least some of their salary.
It seems to me that their biggest bone of contention is with the religious right. They feel that the "biblical literalists" completely disregard scientific fact in an attempt to give some sense of meaning to their lives. This is to say that, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, people that believe in the truth of the bible are just plain stupid. I am by no means a biblical literalist. The way I see it, Jesus taught in parables. If he is the son of God, perhaps he inherited that trait from his old man. The bible is many things. It is not, in my mind, an accurate historical account of human history. I do not, however, completely discount the opinions of those that feel that it is. They are entitled to their opinions, as are the secular humanists, the Muslims, the Jews, and even the democrats. It is only when their opinions paint me as an uncultured, uninformed imbecile that I take issue with them.
How are the bible thumpers any different from the cult of global warming that has arisen over the las several years. Oh yeah, global warming has been proven to be a farce. When the average temperature of the earth has actually declined over the last decade, and you change the name of your movement in order to disassociate yourself from the prime motivating factor of your movement, you should probably pack it in.
The truth of the matter is, no one can really say for sure that the origin of human existence is one thing or another. None of us was there. If you believe in creationism, the big bang, or even alien intervention, I can't say for sure if you are right or wrong. I can say that if you call me stupid, we should step outside and have a discussion about the capital forming effects of collective institutions such as farming cooperatives and labor industrialization in the pre-marxian world. You won't know what I'm talking about, and frankly neither will I, but I can fake it as well as you can. That's because I'm not stupid. And neither is most of America. No other nation puts such a premium on education. No other country is so beholden to a knowledge economy as America. No other people are as versed in the ways of modern life as we are. That's because no other country has embraced modernity as heartily as us.
Ideas are the new currency, and this nation has them in abundance. Intellectuals, the really scary ones, are afraid that their monopoly on thinking is going the way of Ma Bell, and they are afraid. They are the kids we used to pick on in school. You know, the one's our mothers told us would be running the world someday. Our mothers were right, and now they are having their revenge. Trying to tell us how to live our lives, tell us what we should eat, whether or not we should smoke, how to raise our children, and then whining about how we hate them when we don't agree with them. It's the revenge of the nerds in the new millenium. And they wonder why we hate them.

I love going to Subway. Not for the food, that pretty much sucks. But I like the way they make the sandwiches. I think if Adam Smith designed a sandwich shop, it would look a lot like Subway. Adam Smith was the father of modern economics. He was a huge proponent of the division of labor. Of course he also opined that, in extreme cases, division of labor could lead to a stupid, dull, and unfulfilled existence for the majority of humanity. He obviously never thought about the time saved, and the immense wealth created and shared by all, that the division of labor could provide, opening the doors to climbing Maslow's pyramidal heirarchy of needs, blah, blah, blah.
Back to Subway. If you've ever been in there you know that one person greets the customer and asks what kind of bread and meat you would like. He then slides the product to the next person, who applies the vegetables and the toppings before passing it on to the next person who wraps the sandwich and hands it to the cashier, who rings you up and tells you to have a nice day. I know that all restaurants function in this manner, but it is so easy to see at Subway. It all happens right before your eyes. It is the most efficient, fastest way to make a terrible sandwich known to man. And it always makes me smile, especially because I know I'm not the one that has to eat it. One of the things I miss the most about Mass is the plethora of small, family-owned sub shops. It seems like every town, no matter how small, has at least 2 or 3. In Indiana, also known as the nation's largest truck stop, the choices are significantly limited. Less competition means worse food. Something else Adam Smith could have agreed with. And so that brings us to...drumroll please...Book review time.
Back by popular demand. Really, the letters, emails, and phone calls I received from publicists and authors begging me to review their books has been overwhelming since my last effort. They have been sending me free advanced reader's copies and just-released hardcovers by the truckload. So I thought I'd try to keep the gravy train moving. Free stuff is free stuff, even if most of it is crap.
I recently read P.J. O'Rourke's "Peace Kills". Unfortunately, this belongs in the crap section. Kind of like the food at Subway. Stale, homgenized, and tasting slightly of tin. I like O'Rourke. He can be funny, incisive, sarcastic and obnoxious. Sometimes all in the same sentence. I admire that. But this one has none of his usual humor or caustic wit. In fact, it felt to me as if he got his bar tab one night at closing time, took one look at it and said "Oh, Oh. Time to write another book." Then, during the cab ride home, he texted his secretary and ordered her to cobble together some of his old pieces, "Anything about foreign policy, that seems to be big right now, and Chomsky's making a killing", added a little commentary, hopefully before he sobered up, and sent it to his publisher. Now I know why I got it for 3 dollars online.
The reason I brought up Subway and Adam Smith in the beginning of this, is that I actually like O'Rourke's style. I've read a few of his other books and found them to be amusing and informative. He is, above all, a smart-ass. But he's also very smart. This makes for good reading in my opinion. 'Peace Kills' is not one of his better efforts. I recommend his book on Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'. That one was so good, I was grateful that I slogged through the original before I read O'Rourke's take on it. Smith is difficult to read. He makes a point, then remakes it over and over and over again. Finding the nuggets of gold in 'Wealth of Nations' is akin to searching for a handful of needles in a 900 page haystack. Actually, pins might be more apropos. The search is long and difficult, but it is well worth the effort in order to see the depth and sincerity of his arguments in their original context. O'Rourke manages to capture the essence of the entire book in a scant 200 pages. Simply by visiting several countries, getting drunk, and writing down his observations, he highlights the main points of 'Wealth of Nations' as well as Smith did. Quite extraordinary if you ask me. That's why I was so disapointed in 'Peace Kills'. He set the bar too high, and this one falls woefully short.

Now that we have the whole birth certificate thing out of the way, we can concentrate on more important issues. I guess that's why the president waited so long to come out with the forgery. What, you think that thing is real? The more that people like Trump were playing up the fact that our president was really born in Kenya, the less they were talking about the economy, foreign policy, and the other missteps, mistakes, and misconceptions of the present administration.


Look, I don't care that Obama is a Kenyan-born muslim who hates America. He was elected by a majority of the country, so he's in charge. I'm more concerned with what he's done since his inauguration.


I think that it's instructive to look at the positions he has taken on all these issues, and what his goals are. Normally I don't like to assign motivations to people I've never met, but in this case, his actions can only lead to one conclusion.


Let's take the so-called "Birther" controversy. The president could have produced documentation of his birth at any time. Why did he wait so long? I believe he enjoyed the controversy. Not only because it took the focus off of what may go down in history as the worst presidency since Jimmy Carter, but also because it allowed him and his people to paint a segment of the American public as racist loons. The press insisted that if you believed the president wasn't a citizen, you were a racist. I don't know what one has to do with the other, but that was the story line.


It should be a familiar refrain. That particular slur describes anyone that disagrees with the president's stance on pretty much anything. You would think with all the overeducated snobs in the White House, they could have come up with something else. Maybe a little bit of variety. But I guess if it ain't broke, don't fix it. But then a funny thing happened on the way to Trump's dalliance with presidential politics. People, normal people, started to question the president. Too many people, that had earned too much respect in the public theater were suddenly wondering why the president didn't just produce his birth certificate. Obama could see the writing on the wall, could tell that his usual tactic of continuing to smear all those against him was not going to work anymore in this case. He did the right thing. He caved. He gave up his attempt to divide the nation on yet another issue. Casting some of his fellow citizen's, yes that first part was a joke, as misguided loons wasn't working anymore, so he did what he had to do to slow Trump's momentum. It must have killed him to do it.


I don't think I'm the only one that has noticed that this has been the most polarizing administration in recent memory. They seem to be attempting to create issues that will divide the nation on several different levels. Rich vs. poor. Black vs. white. Latino vs. everyone. They attempt to bully their detractor's by waiving around the "Racist" label at the slightest hint of disgreement. If you are against building a mosque at ground zero you are a racist. If you want to secure the border you are a racist. If you want lower taxes and more freedom from regulation for business you are a racist. If you don't support cap and trade legislation you are a racist. If you don't believe in global warming you are a racist. Apparently, if you eat, sleep, breath, or make any attempt to form your own opinion on any subject that may cast even the smallest semblance of doubt on anything that the president has said, thought, or done, you are also a racist.


This is, of course, all politics. Obama is a creature of his condition. He was raised in the stormy seas of Chicago politics. Pay to play. All's fair in love and war. Cut their throat before they cut yours. These are the edicts he was trained on. This is his environment. This is his real birth certificate. Every thing he does, has done, and will ever do is nothing but a calculated effort to preserve, maintain, and increase his own political power. It's the Chicago Way. It's become the Washington way. But it's the wrong way.

What comes next

I'm happy Bin Laden is dead. I just thought I'd be happier. I thought it would mean a little more to me. It seems a little hollow. Maybe it's because so much time has passed. Maybe it's because I realize there will be another whack job waiting to take his place. Maybe I'm just a little concerned about how this will all shake out with Pakistan. Obviously there were people high up in that government that knew where he was hiding. How much they aided him in his staying hidden is yet to be known, but my guess is, they helped a lot. What does this mean for our relationship with one of our only allies in the region, and more, what does it say about us that we were fooled into thinking of them as an ally?


I'm glad American soldiers were the one's to get him. I don't think it would have happened any other way. No one else in the region was going to do it.


I hate the fact that unctious politicians will attempt to use this, and by extension our military heroes, as a way to ingratiate themselves to the public ahead of the coming elections. Call me crazy, but none of them pulled a trigger, none of them should gain from this any more than the rest of us.


I'm happy for the people that lost loved ones on 9/11 and during the wars that followed. Hopefully this can bring them some kind of closure, help them deal with the grief they have been experiencing.


I know the reports out of the government will change many times over the next few weeks. I haven't really been paying attention and I've heard several different versions of the events.


I know there will be critics of the operation. I read that some Muslim clerics are upset that Bin Laden's corpse was "disrespected" by being buried at sea. Perhaps we should have shown him the same respect that his people treat their prisoners with. You know, we could have decapitated him and then posted the video on youtube. Or we could have released his dead body to an angry mob so they could tear him limb from limb. Maybe they would have considered that a little more respectfull.


Again, I'm not sure what happens now. I don't mean to sound callous, but it seems a little like the home team won a super bowl or world series to me. The team, obviously, is Seal team 6 and the rest of the military. The fans would be all of us. There is a sense of euphoria after the victory. The people that are more invested in the game are obviously more affected, but everyone in the community shares in the victory. Once the game is over, the parade is done, and the mess is cleaned up, we go back to our lives. There is a sense of pride, a feeling of accomplishment, but that only lasts for so long. Just like in sports, there is another season coming up.


Our team, our military can't afford to rest on it's laurels. They need to get right back to work to defend their title. I have no doubt that they will.


Oh, and one other thing. The smart owners, that's us, never offer a contract extension to the coach and GM right after the championship. They are under contract until 2012. Let's wait before we think about letting the politicians cash in on the team's victory. Coaches don't win championships, neither do GMs. Players do.

Does everything really happen for a reason? Is there some logic to life, something lurking behind our decisions that we remain blissfully unaware of? According to several economists, yes. I understand that economists are generally the last people one would go to for answers about human behavior, but really, that's what economics is, or at least a large part of it. Who cares about GDP or interest rates or invisible hands or utilitarianinsm unless it can give us some kind of insight into the choices people may make, and the reasons behind these choices.

Okay, it's that time of the month again. No, not that time, it's book review time. I know, this is the first one, but I read a lot. Why not try to impress people with the vast scope of my well-readedness. No, that's not a word. I just made it up. But I bet you wouldn't know that if I didn't tell you.

I just read "The Logic of Life" by Tim Harford. Excellent book, even if the author is British. It talks about rational choice theory, which is a very interesting concept. Basically, the theory holds that people's decisions, regardless of how haphazard or asinine they appear to be, are made by engaging in a process of cost/benefit analysis, a determination of risk vs. reward that is computed many times, in infinitely small increments of time.

The example used by the author is catching a baseball. No one knows the physics or the mathematical computations required by a person holding a glove to determine where the ball will go and where the glove should be in order to have the ball hit it. Many stupid people have, nonetheless mastered this activity. Even more difficult are the calculations required to hit a baseball as it's coming at you at over 90 miles an hour, but some can do it with ease. No one is accusing Manny Ramirez of being a mensa candidate, but he was one of the best hitters that ever lived.

The author takes us through several studies and experiments done by economists attempting to tease out differences in the way people behave when faced with similar options and how they behave in the same situations when faced with different consequences. One of the studies included a look at teen pregnancy and the changing morals of teenagers with respect to sex. It seems that the evidence shows that, in states where parental consent is required for an abortion, teenage pregnancy is reduced significantly. If one of the costs of having sex is having to tell your parents that you are pregnant, it apparently tips the scales in the other direction. There is also evidence that, during the height of the aids scare, people in general were less likely to have sex with men. This includes men as well as women. Apparently being gay is not a lifestyle choice, unless of course, that choice may lead to a long, painful, and drawn-out death.

Harford also makes a distinction between regular racism and so-called rational racism. The regular kind is genuinely abhorrent, while the rational kind, while equally abhorrent, is actually backed up by studies. It seems that it is in an employer's economic interest to discriminate on the basis of race in some cases. This, of course leads the people being discriminated against to give up trying to improve, leading to the discriminatory practice becoming more prevalent and, sadly, more rational. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The Logic of Life is an interesting read, made so by the author's style and rather dry sense of humor. There is a great deal of information and opinion. There are also studies and experiments that back up the author's assertions. All in all, it is a thought provoking journey through the human decision-making process. It was well worth the 5 dollars I spent on it, and I recomend it to anyone that is interested in why we do the things we do.

When Democrats Attack

So much for the new climate of civility in political discourse. I guess all it takes for that to go out the window is one party feeling that they are in danger of losing an argument. Then the big guns come out. Pelosi accuses republicans of trying to starve 6 million old people. Obama uses his bully pulpit to attack Paul Ryan, even though he hasn't read Ryan's budget proposal. It's laughable the way that politicians resort to demonizing their opponents any time they feel like a simple debate won't go in their favor. I'm anxiously awaiting the quote from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz that "Republicans want to kill poor babies, then serve them to old poor people as their last meal before they kill them in order to save money on social security." You know it's coming soon. These are the times when I miss Alan Grayson. He was a bottomless pit of mindless, accusatory rhetoric. At least the democrats aren't trying to blame Bush for everything anymore.
I know, I know, the republicans do the same thing. It makes great theater. I do have a slight problem with the reaction of people that aren't really paying attention. There are people that actually believe some of this crap. These people vote, they discuss politics, they protest and hold signs. I can't help but think that they must know better. They have to understand, on some level, that the drivel coming out of Washington is designed to deflect, to divide, and to demonize the opposition without having any basis in reality. There are no facts, there is no real debate going on. One side calls the other fat, the other responds with "I know you are but what am I", and so it goes.
This grade school rhetoric is kind of amusing. Seeing supposed grown-ups, the people that are supposed to be our leaders, reduce themselves to nothing more than schoolyard bullies praying no one stands up to them is pretty funny. Sad, but funny. They lessen themselves by doing it, that's the funny part. The sad part is that they lessen their office, their position at the same time. How can we take a representative seriously when so many of them sound like morons. Look up some of the quotes from Grayson, Pelosi, Reid, et al during the so-called debate over healthcare. Listen to some of the quotes by members of the republican party in reference to Obama over the last few years. Listen to Donald Trump. On second thought, please don't. Can we take any of these people seriously?
I've said before that I love this stuff. I think it's hilarious when the talking heads go at each other and cross all boundaries of social decorum. On the other hand, I don't enjoy it so much when our leaders do it. They should be above the fray, shouldn't they? Shouldn't we be able to trust them? Shouldn't we be able to maintain at least a modicum of respect for the people we elect to run the country? The more they open their mouths, the harder and harder it is for me to believe that anyone would color in the circle next to the names of any of these people on election day. I don't know if it says more about us than about them, or if it only means that the alternative would be worse. Where do these people come from? All I know is that if these are the best we can come up with, maybe we should try something else. maybe we should try to find one good man or woman (there's got to be one out there somewhere right?) and name them dictator for life. We may not be happy with their decisions all the time, but at least we wouldn't have political spitball fights masquerading as political debate anymore.

What is a socially responsible corporation? Let's start by defining socially responsible. In my opinion, to be socially responsible, one must do something that benefits society. Makes sense, right? If you are socially irresponsible, that would detract from society. Well, what is society? Is it a simple majority of all the human beings on the planet? Is it everyone on the planet? Is it confined to one's community or nation? Is there a certain percentage of any group that would constitute society? These are important questions. For my purposes, I'll define society as the group of people that are most affected by any decision or action that one undertakes. This may be simplistic, but it's my theory, so I'll make up the rules as I go along. What does it mean to be responsible? Does it mean that you sacrifice your own interests for the interests of others? What if your interests coincide with the interests of others, and by sacrificing them, you are also harming a great number of other people. If Exxon/Mobil stopped drilling for oil, many people would be happy. No more destroying the environment. No more adding to the carbon footprint of mankind on the earth. Blah, blah, blah. What about the many thousands of people that would lose their jobs? What about the tremendous spike in the price of gasoline that would accompany the closing of one of the largest suppliers of oil in the world? What about the rise in price of everything that needs to be delivered somewhere in order to be bought buy people all over the world? Would any of the people adversely affected by this consider the decision to be socially responsible? I don't think so. So is responsibility dependant upon your perspective? Maybe. Let's move on. What is a corporation? A corporation is an entity that is created for one thing, and one thing only. That is to make a profit. A corporation cannot be evil. It cannot be good. It can only be exactly what it is. It can either be successful, in which case it enriches a great number of people, in addition to providing a good product for a good price to millions of consumers, or it can go out of business. Unless of course, it is considered by some to be too big to fail, which is another argument entirely. A corporation has no morals. It has no conscience. All it does is try to make money. People within that corporation can have feelings of social responsibility or empathy. They may even make decisions that reflect their own personal feelings and goals, but once those decisions start to hurt the bottom line, there will be repercussions. That is the way things work. At least they would work, if we would let them. And that, in my opinion, is the problem. We have too many people in too many positions with too much authority over things that they have no concept of. Why should Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, AKA the village idiot and his ugly, stupid stepbrother, have anything to do with finance? Neither one of them has ever even held a job. Why should they have the power to decide the future of millions of people that actually live in the real world? What does some career government bureaucrat know about what creates jobs, or costs jobs, or anything that exists outside the sphere of their limited experience? Nothing. And yet, for some reason we entrust these people with the power to pick who should survive and who should die in the corporate world. Why is that? Why do we listen to a complete moron like Joe Biden, no disrespect intended. I'm sure he's a lot of fun at cocktail parties, when he can stay awake of course. And why do we totally disregard the opinions of men who have spent their entire lives studying what makes an economy work and what doesn't? Maybe I'm getting a little off subject here, but why do we expect people that have no idea what they're talking about, to know what they're talking about? So, to be socially responsible, a corporation must benefit society. Even an evil corporation like Exxon/Mobil creates a great deal of benefit to society. Heck, even Walmart helps society, if by helping you mean creating something beneficial to the vast majority of people. When corporations are forced by government bureacracies and special interest groups to expend scarce resources in a vain effort to prove that they are benefiting society in a way that satisfies these very special interests, it costs us all. When Walmart has to pay millions of dollars to hire consultants to prove that they are making an effort to be more socially responsible, over and above the many and varied benefits that they bestow on society simply by existing, who pays the price? Not Walmart, they just pass the cost on to the very people that are supposedly being looked out for by the politicians and do-gooders. So who is being irresponsible? The corporation, which is just doing whatever it can to increase it's profit, because that's what it's supposed to do, even if it means spending millions or billions on a pr campaign to make them more palatable to the social and political elites, or the social and political elites, who make the rest of us pay in a material way for their own easement of conscience? Walmart, by it's very existence, brings a great deal of good to a great part of it's society. The one's that demonize Walmart, and companies like Walmart, do nothing but detract from the benefits provided by Walmart and other corporations. Who is really being irresponsible here? I guess it depends on your perspective, but from where I'm standing, give me more Walmart, and much less government.

Contrary to popular belief, I do not hate the environment. In fact, in an indirect way, it's how I make my living. If people didn't want to see healthy trees, pretty flowers, and lush green grass, I wouldn't have a job. So no, I don't hate the environment. What I do hate is environmentalists. Maybe hate is too strong a word. Maybe it's just dislike. There are so many different kinds of environmentalists it's difficult to keep them separated in my mind. Some of the ones I don't mind so much are the Ed Begley Jr. type. They live the way they want us all to live. They are very annoying at times, but at least they're not hypocrites. Look, if you want to recycle, go ahead. If you want to eat only organic vegetables, knock yourself out. Just don't tell me I should be doing the same. That's just going to make me do the exact opposite. If you tell me I need to recycle to save the planet, I'll tell you that if noone in the country recycled for the next 100 years, we could fit all the trash created in an area the size of Columbus, Ohio. This would actually be an improvement for Columbus, but that's a story for another day. I don't recycle, and part of the reason is people like you telling me I have to. Organic vegetables may be fresher, tastier, and better for you than the canned variety. I don't care. I like my vegetables preserved in a can so that their expiration date can be measured in nuclear half life. That's because I don't like vegetables. I haven't eaten one on purpose, other than a potato or 2, in about 15 years. I need them to last a long time in the cabinet. As I said, these people don't bother me too much. I think they would gain more traction if they just tried to lead by example, instead of tsk tsking us and trying to guilt us into being more environmentally conscious. Look, Ed, I get that you love the environment. I think it's great that you can power your entire house with solar panels, windmills, and some kind of turbine you had hooked up to your excercise bike so you can get a good workout while you save the planet. Most of us don't have the time, money, or the OCD that you do. We just don't care all that much. Another type seems to feel that animals are more important than people. These are the folks that don't mind diverting precious water from farmers in California in order to save some kind of bait fish that may or may not be disapearing from some area. Sure, save the river smelt, or whatever it is, and let's not worry about the farmers. They're only growing food to feed people. People don't really need to eat. And let's not allow fishermen to use the bait fish as bait anymore either. They're only catching fish that may go to feed more people. I don't really see what their problem is with the last one. If the smelt is so wonderful, why shouldn't the fish get to eat it? Shouldn't their last meal on earth be a good one? These are the same people that don't want to drill for oil in ANWAR because it may disurb the caribou. First of all, who really cares about caribou. Second of all, any oil we can extract and refine in our own country reduces the amount of oil we have to buy from Saudi Arabia. They take the money we send and spread it around to great organizations like Hezbollah and Al Quaida. Thirdly, drilling for oil has become such an advanced science that, if you had a pool beneath your backyard in Southern California, BP could get it out from somewhere in the Nevada desert and you would never know it was there. It wouldn't even cause your swingset to lean to one side. I could go on and on, but I want to get to my favorite environmentalist of all. That's right, the man who invented the internet, Al Gore. I know he didn't exactly claim to have invented the world wide web, but it's still funny to say. Here is a guy that rode Bill Clinton's coattails for 8 years, waiting for his chance. He was vice president to one of the most popular and charismatic presidents of recent times. Regardless of where you stand politically, everyone loves them some Bubba. He finally got his chance. His opponent was some hokey, spoiled brat son of an ex-president who couldn't put together a sentence longer than 4 words without misspeaking, mispronouncing, or, in the opinion of many, misleading his audience. No way could a yokel from Texas defeat this intellectual giant in an election, until he did. So what did old Al do? He sued of course, and thankfully lost. Of course, had he won, perhaps we wouldn't have been subjected to his new career as the patron saint of global warming. Thank goodness the rest of the country noticed that the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes before they managed to push through the cap and trade bill. Sadly, Al managed to make a boatload of money by lying to the public about the imminent threat of climate change, but he wasn't alone. Do you really believe that knucklehead could have come up with a scam of that magnitude on his own? He was just the face of that charade. The thing I remember most about him is a video I saw of him answering an Irish reporter's question with a question. (once a politician, even a bad one, always a politician) Al was talking about the plight of the polar bear, how it was nearing extinction. The reporter had the temerity to point out, quite correctly, that the polar bear population was actually increasing and asked Al to explain his point. Al responded by asking him, "But do you feel that the polar bear is endangered?" This pretty much sums up the entire climate change fury. Never mind the facts, how do you feel? Reasoned discussion has no place in this argument. You are either with us, or you, sir, are worse than Hitler. I don't hate the environment. I don't hate environmentalists. I don't hate Al Gore. Well, maybe a little. And I don't hate polar bears. Human beings are on the top of the food chain for a reason. We have managed to create something on this planet that no other species has accomplished. Someday, another species may come along that is smarter, stronger, and more adaptable than us. Let's enjoy our time at the top. The planet was here long before us, and it will be here long after we're gone. I don't care about river smelts or recycling. I'm not worried about the environment or environmentalists or Al Gore's bank account. I care about people, and the only thing I think about when I look at a polar bear is how it tastes. Maybe on the grill with a little cajun seasoning and some rice pilaf on the side.

I've been thinking a lot lately about choice and fate, decisions and destiny. I don't know why. Maybe it's turning 40, I mean 29 again, but it seems like the line between the two is getting blurrier and blurrier.

For instance, when I moved from Mass to Indiana, I thought it would be a better life for my family. Turns out, it has been. Maybe not in every way. We still have problems, still struggle from time to time, but the problems are different, the struggles seem less strenuous. On the flip side, we miss our families terribly. We made a decision to do what we thought was best for us and our children, and in some ways it has turned out that way. In other ways it hasn't.

What if we had stayed in Massachussetts? We would still be struggling to get by. But maybe something good would have happened there that won't happen here. Maybe we missed out on our 'big break'. Maybe our 'big break' is waiting for us here in Indiana. Maybe it's somewhere else. Maybe it's nowhere. Maybe we don't have a 'big break' in our future. Maybe there is no such thing as a 'big break'.

If I were a pessimist, which I have been accused of being, I would say that it is our destiny to struggle through life. It is fate that keeps us in the position we are in. We have no choice but to try our best, and accept what life gives us.

If I were an optimist, which I most definitely am not, I would say that it could have been much worse. I could have moved to California, maybe Nancy Pelosi's district. That, I am sure, is one half step removed from hell on earth. We could have stayed in Mass and lost everything, what little we had, when the economy collapsed. We could be in much worse shape than we are, so we should be grateful for what we have and not anger the gods by wishing for more.

Thankfully, I am neither a pessimist or an optimist. I am a realist. This means, basically, that I don't believe that my 'fate' or 'destiny' is controlled by anyone but myself. I made the decision to move to Indiana. I will accept the consequences. I made the choice to work where I work, to do what I do for a living. If I don't like it, which I don't, It's up to me to change it, which I may. The point is, it is up to me. No force or forces outside of myself control my life. I am free to decide my own future. If I decide poorly, it is not becaused I am cursed, or destined for failure. It is because I made the wrong choice. It means I need to pick myself up, dust myself off, and try again.
We all make bad decisions in life. We all make good decisions too. We can't blame the bad ones on fate and accept credit for the good ones. If we did that, we would all be democrats, and then where would we be?
I think that too much time is spent, wasted really, on trying to figure out who is to blame for a given situation. That applies to every situation, whether it be personal, political or 'something else that starts with p'. (sorry, I'm a sucker for alliteration, and for groupings of 3, but I couldn't think of anything that fit). We need to stop living in the problem, and start living in the solution. (God, I sound like Tony Robbins don't I?).
I will end with this thought; (no more parentheses, I promise) no matter the direction your life takes, regardless of what happens, it can all be traced back to one decision, one choice you have made that set the engine in motion. Once that engine is in motion, it may take a lot to stop it and get it going in the other direction, but we all have the power within us to do just that. All it takes is another choice, another decision, as difficult as it may be, and your life will turn in a different direction. You may not be happy with it, but at least you know it was all up to you.

A memo to me

Time is abstract - A construction of humankind. It does not exist outside of us. It is merely a way to measure the gap between birth and death, to parcel it into neat, tidy sections as we travel through our lives.
Time is motion - it is measured by revolutions of the earth, orbits around the sun, beats of the heart. It is constant and irreversible. Graying hair and aching bones reminding us that it is, above all, limited.
Time is relative - It seems like yesterday that I was in my early 20's, with my whole life in front of me. 5 hours shovelling mulch from the back of a dumptruck into wheelbarrows in a cold rain seems like an eternity.
Time passes, quickly or slowly, depending on our perspective. Our attempts to mark time, to trap time, to explain or define time, are merely rages against the dying of the light.
Time does not march on, but we do. To what or when is up to us. Time is not precious, but life is, so live it well, before your time is up.

"Two paths diverged in a silvery wood. I chose the one less travelled, and that has made all the difference." What would have happened if he didn't? Where would we be if Robert Frost the poet turned out to be Bob Frost, the accountant, or the tax attorney, or the gas station attendant? Wouldn't the entire world be a little grayer? A little less poetic? I think it would.


We all make choices every day. Each one of us decides their own fate. Sure, there are things beyond our control, the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan come to mind, but for the most part, we are in control of our own destiny.


So, what if we're not? What if all the world is some Calvinist, predetermined scenario that has already been decided? What if we have no choice but to choose what we have been assigned to choose? What does that do to the sentiments of Frost?


It means that he didn't choose anything, the choice was made for him. And so the path was not "less travelled" it was preordained. takes some of the romance out of it, doesn't it?


I've been reading a lot lately about Quantum Physics, the theory of relativity, and time - Quick sidenote - I am a dork - and it has got me thinking about things I normally don't think about.


As far as I can tell, Einstein postulated that time, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I agree with this (I'm sure Einstein will be relieved) because I have experienced it myself. The hour between 11:00 and noon is of decidedly different duration depending on your perspective. A hungry person will see time dragging, while a person with a lunch meeting that they are not completely prepared for will see the moments tick by far more quickly. Time is relative.


Time, as we use it, is basically a construction of human conceit. We assign arbitrary ticks to the tocks of our clocks, and use them to set our watches, our dates and our lives. Each revolution of the earth is a day, each orbit around the sun is a year. 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in an hour, 60 seconds in a minute. These are all numbers plucked out of the air and settled on as a way to measure the unmeasurable. Why is it that 1 year of our lives equals 7 years in a dog's life? It is indefensible in any rational sense. But why is a tree called a tree, a building a building. We need to define things in order to express them to each other. To make them make sense. At my old job, we had a term called the 'fas 5 minutes'. If the boss said he would be there in 5 minutes, you better get comfortable, it was going to be a while. His idea of 5 minutes could be anything from 10 minutes to an hour and a half. But we all understood it, and could set our watches by it, sort of.

There is no universal time. Einstein was the first to come up with that idea. Science is a funny thing, especially physics. It turns out that there are 2 kinds of physics, theoretical and experimental. Experimental physics is the excercise of measuring and testing. Comparing the data and the results, and coming up with a conclusion. Theoretical physics, like that of Einstein and Niels Bohr, is more a process of coming up with some idea, rationalizing it in your mind, explaining it in a paper, and then waiting for the real scientists to either prove or disprove it. I'm not knocking it. Einstein and Bohr were brilliant men. The theories they came up with have certainly stood the test of time. They have been accepted by pretty much the entire scientific community. But then again, so was global cooling. I mean global warming. I mean climate change. you get the idea. Just because someone a lot smarter than any of us comes up with an idea, it's not necessarily the gospel truth.

Quantum physics, to me, and I'm certainly no expert, is a way to introduce the inexplicable into scientific eqations. To define what cannot be defined. I think it's mainly a way for scientists to insert God back into science, without calling it God. The Big Bang was caused by something, but what was it? What can be happening in a state of total inaction? If there was nothing before the big bang, how did the big bang happen? Let's come up with a series of indecipherable equations to explain it, rather than allow for the reintroduction of the supernatural.

It turns out that there are a lot more things that science cannot explain. For instance, not every scientist believes that there is no possibility of matter travelling backward in time. They all agree that it is possible to travel forward. One simply has to travel for a period of time at or near the speed of light and then return to where you started. You will have aged, say 10 years if you travel at 80% of the speed of light, while the earth would have aged 20 years. You are in the future. The past, however, poses another problem. If you can travel into the future, you should be able to travel into the past, right? Superman did it in one of his movies. It made perfect sense to me. He simply flew in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation faster than the earth was rotating. He travelled to the past. Most scientist's won't allow for this. The reason that they give? It would cause a paradox. The most famous example of this is the "Grandmother Paradox" Say a man travelled back in time and killed his grandmother. He would never have been born, right? If he was never born, how could he have travelled back in time? Aside from my objection to the whole idea of grannycide, this seems a flimsy base on which to build a scientific argument on.

Some scientists have postulated the existence of parallell universes to get around the paradox argument. They suppose that there could be an infinite number of universes existing side by side. Each universe would contain separate histories, different presents, and far different futures. According to this scenario, one could go back in time, if one were so inclined, and butcher one's dear little granny with no ill effects on their own existence. In the universe where they are a cold-blooded murderer, they would not exist in the future but in the present, and in the universe that they left, they would cease to exist from the time they travelled back. Got that?

This brings me back to Robert Frost. If there is a universe where he became a professional wrestler, a baker, or an underwear model, I don't want to be in it. I like the one where he is a poet. But who decides which universe we inhabit? Are we in more than one at the same time? Can we go back and forth between them? Is everything we have ever done, or will ever do, already playing out in some form at some other place and time in another universe? What does that do to free will? If we are already doing something before we decide to do it, do we really have any choice but to decide to do it?

This is making my head hurt. I'm going back to economics and politics. Philosophy is so much more straightforward than science.

Why do people hate Walmart so much. I can't understand it. It's like Bush derangement syndrome, but with an inanimate object. I've been reading in the Boston Herald that Mayor Menino isn't sure if he wants to allow Walmart to open stores in Boston. I don't understand it at all. It makes me think of Robin Williams old stand-up routine, you know, before he started making movies and stopped being insane. He used to say about cocaine and it's addictiveness, "Hey, it costs a ton of money, but it makes you paranoid and impotent, so give me more of that."
With Walmart, it seems to work in reverse. "Hey, they provide tens of thousands of jobs, give great deals to consumers, and make a ton of money for everyone associated with them, let's get rid of those guys."
I'm not surprised that Menino has a problem with Walmart coming to Boston. Trying to be nice here, but he's definitely not the brightest bulb in the chandellier. What I have a hard time getting is the intellectuals that demonize the chain. I know they don't shop there, they don't need to. They have a ton of money. It never ceases to amaze me to see that the more money one has, the more noble one can afford to be.
They don't need the great deals, or the jobs, but I'd be willing to bet a lot of them own stocks, so they're making money off it too. But they all harp about how Walmart abuses it's employees, and destroys the small town, Main Street type stores while they cash their dividend checks.
First of all, if you've ever been inside a Walmart, you've seen the people that work there. Most of the employees are High School or college kids just getting started in the work force. They are getting valuable experience that will help them a great deal in the future. they are learning things like responsibility, showing up at work every day, working with others, and getting a resume started at the same time. They don't earn much money, because they are not worth much money right now, but with the experience they gain, they will be worth much more in the future.
I also see a lot of middle-aged women working there. They are, I can only assume, just getting back into the workforce after raising some kids. Either that or they are trying to help supplement their household income with a little part-time work. Again, they are not being paid any less than they are worth in that context.
The other main component of Walmart employees seems to be senior citizens. They are obviously trying to make some extra money in addition to their social security check, or just trying to get out of the house. Either way, I don't see any other companies busting down the door to hire them.
What do all three of these groups have in common? They all are low-skilled, or no-skilled labor. They are, for the most part, looking for part-time employment. And they all seem to be pretty happy with their situation. They'd probably rather be working at Walmart than not working at all.
No, Walmart does not offer most of their employees health benefits. Hardly any company does for part-time workers? Why should they? They get people lining up at the door to apply without offering them. Should they do it to be "socially responsible"? Let me break some news to you, corporations are in business to do one thing, make money. The more the better. They do this by creating a product that people want, and seling it at a price that people can afford and are willing to pay. Walmart makes money because it offers quality stuff at low prices. They can afford to do this because they keep their costs low. Part of their cost control is hiring people from the 3 groups mentioned above. If they are taking advantage of their employees, I'd guess there are about 33 million Americans that would love to be taken like that. That's how many people in this country that are unemployed. And that's probably on the low side. Many economists argue that the true number is closer to 66 million. Some of those people may even live in Boston. But thanks to Mumbles Menino, who is, after all, only looking out for the little guy, they will all be protected from that evil job that Walmart wants to give them. Thanks mayor.

Alinsky, Step Brothers, and sleep-deprivation

I want to talk about life. I know, it's a big subject, so I'll just focus on a small part of it. You know, the meaning part. I've been thinking a lot about this lately. No, I'm not dying, at least no more than anyone else is. I realize I am not an authority on life, especially considering mine has not been very successful thus far. At least not in the generally accepted sense of successful, i.e. I don't make $400,000 a year and own a million dollar home, but I think I'm doing okay.
I don't know where this is coming from. I can only surmise that it's a combination of working crazy, weird hours, reading Saul Alinsky, and watching "Step Brothers" again. Trust me, it will all make sense eventually... or it won't, and that's kind of the point.
Let's start with an old bromide, "Life is a journey". Well of course it is. It's also a battle, a bitch, a struggle, a joy, a highway, and a bowl of cherries, among many other things. It is what it is, or it is what you make it. I tend to fall on the side of the latter. I don't see life as a series of events unfolding around me. I am an active participant in my life. Everything that happens to me is a direct or indirect result of decisions and choices that I make. So why do bad things happen to good people? That question becomes irrelevant when you realize that things don't "happen" to you. If a nun is hit by a car, it's probably because she made the decision to cross the road at that particular time without looking both ways. The priest that hit her may have made the choice not to watch where he was going. In both cases, good people made bad choices, and the result was a tragedy, but nothing "happened" to either of them.
Once you accept the fact that you are the driving force behind the direction your life takes, entire layers of bitterness and anger simply melt away. If you didn't get the promotion you thought you deserved, it's not because your boss hates you, it's because you didn't do enough to earn it. You're not stuck in a bad relationship, you stay there because you don't leave. If you fail at something, it's not because you weren't good enough to succeed, it's because you gave up trying. To me, life is not a succession of trials and battles, but an endless stream of opportunities to grow, to learn, and to achieve. I realize there are flaws in my argument. For instance, no child chooses to be born to abusive parents. No person stricken by some genetic disease decides to contract those particular genes. You really can't choose your family. But that is the only caveat I will allow for now. In the end, the only absolute truth is, as my parents used to say "You have noone to blame but yourself".
So, about sleep-deprivation. Anyone that works for a living understands that there is work, and there is work. When the boss calls, you go. This happens to be the time of year when I make the most money, as well as work the craziest hours. I think, perhaps, there is a correlation between the two. There is a premium to be paid for entirely disrupting a persons life. I just wonder sometimes if the price is worth the remuneration. Then I remember that the price isn't really paid by me, and the remuneration isn't really enjoyed by me, and that makes it okay by me. My wife and children pay the real price. They are the ones that have to put up with my moodiness and lack of help around the house. They also get the benefits of the extra cash. So it seems like a fair trade. I get to act like a bastard with none of the usual guilt that goes with it. All it costs me is a little bit of my sanity, which I never had in great amounts to begin with. But it gets me to thinking about the choices I have made in my life. The jobs I have had, and have refused. The friends I have let go of, and held on to. The chances I have taken, and the chances I have not taken. Many people have told me that I have potential. For what, I don't know. Potential to me is nothing but unfulfilled promise, and apparently, I have that in abundance. Life is a journey, and I am nearly halfway through mine, with little materially to show for it, but when my sons tell me they love me, all my choices seem right.
Now to Alinsky. His contention, or one of them, for he was a very contentious man, is that life is a Sisyphean struggle. Sisyphis was the figure in Greek mythology condemned to push a boulder up the same mountain for eternity. Each day he would reach the top, only to have the boulder roll back down, forcing him to start over. I'm paraphrasing a bit here, but Alinsky claimed that, like Sisyphus, we are all destined to push a boulder up a mountain. the difference is that we are not doomed to start over every day. Sometimes, yes, we lose a battle. The stone rolls down and we are forced to start from scratch. But other times we reach the peak, only to find the mists above us recede, revealing yet another summit to reach. Another battle to be waged, another foe to vanquish. (a quick sidenote, for a self-professed pacifist, Alinsky used a lot of martial language in his writings. Adapting to the tactics of his enemies, I guess.) I think this is a perfect metaphor for life. There is always something else to do, some other battle to be fought, some other question to answer. The pursuit of happiness is a falsehood, true happiness is in the pursuit. Once we stop moving forward, we stop living.
So now we have the question, what is the meaning of life? Why are we here? Alinsky, who I will admit is far smarter than I am, has said that the meaning of life is in it's lack of meaning. Bringing chaos into some semblance of order is the true expression of humanity. Righting all wrongs, establishing social justice, and progressing to an everchanging ideal of utopia is man's fate. Never to be achieved, but never to be given up on. In my opinion, life is all about the small things. the little victories and defeats. Each event is a milestone, a bridge to the next occurence. Every situation is an opportunity to grow and to learn. If nothing presents itself, go out and look for it. Happiness is out there, either as an end, or as a part of the journey to an end. It's up to us to seek it out, and to recognize it as it's happening.
Where do we go for the answer? Well, we go to "Step Brothers" of course. For those of you who have not seen the movie, it's almost as entertaining as "Hot Rod", but with a little more social relevance. Basically, it's the story of two overgrown adolescents, 40-year-olds still living with their parents. When their parents get married, they become, at first, mortal enemies, and then, fast friends. Towards the end, Mr. Dobak, Dale's father, gives a speech about his childhood. He laments the fact that Dale and Brennan (AKA Dragon and Nighthawk) have been forced to give up their essential beings in order to be considered "Grown-up" even though he was the catalyst for it. He tells the story of his childhood. He had always wanted to be a T-rex. He made his arms short. He frightened all the kids in the neighborhood. He was a T-rex. Then one day, his father told him it was time to put away all his childish fantasies and become a man. He relented, with the promise that one day he would return. He would go back to trying to be a dinosaur. But over time, he forgot how to do it. He had lost the ability to be a dinosaur. He couldn't get it back, and he hated the thought of Dale and Brennan losing their inner dinosaur, their inner child.
So, what is the meaning of life? What is the answer? I don't know. I only have questions. I told you I wasn't an authority on the subject. For those of you who sat through this inane rambling, I apologize, but it was your decision. I would also like to offer this. "From the mouths of babes comes the wisdom of the ages". I don't know if that's a quote from anything, but the quotation marks give the statement a certain gravitas, don't you think? All I know is, I am not finished yet, but this post is. I would like to end it with something profound, but all I keep thinking is what my 4-year-old keeps asking.
"Why Daddy, Why?" And the answer is...

Many people have weighed in on the tragedy in Tucson. Pundits on the left have assigned blame to the inflammatory rhetoric of the right, specifically Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle. Pundits on the right have stepped in to defend the free speech rights of their own, and as a consequence, attempt to curtail the right of the left to excercise their right to free speech.
So the left blames the right, the right blames the left, and the beat goes on in Washington. But I haven't heard many people blame the guy with the gun.
Look, I realize that our political discourse has become somewhat uncivil in recent years, recent years meaning 230-something years. We have always had people pushing the envelope of good taste and decorum in order to get their point across, and I suspect we always will.
There is a market, albeit a small one, for the likes of Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow, just as there is a market for the Rush Limbaughs and the Ann Coulters of the world. Bill O'Reilly calls them bomb-throwers, and there is no shortage of them on either side of any issue. The reason for this is simple, we want this. If people stopped paying attention to WWE style political punditry, it would simply go away. Like a sit-com noone watches gets cancelled mid-season, the shows that traffic in this sort of rhetoric would disapear if people stopped watching or listening. The problem is that we love this stuff, so it's not going to go away.
The idea that talking heads blame a tragedy of this sort on other talking heads speaks only to the insane arrogance of talking heads. Do they really believe that normal people take them so seriously as to go on a shooting rampage because they use words that can be construed as violent or uncivil? Do they really believe they have that kind of power to incite? Who do they think they are?
Or even more to the point, who do they think we are as Americans? Are we just sheep, unthinking morons that can be swayed to violence by the mere suggestion of it on television or the radio?
Elites wonder why regular citizens don't seem to like them all that much. It makes me wonder how they can consider themselves intellectuals in the first place, when they don't realize that people don't like to be treated like idiots and mindless automatons.
Should we have more civility in our political discourse? I don't think so, most people don't, at least not according to the ratings for cable news.
Should we blame the tragedy on rhetoric from the right? I don't think so, but some would disagree. I just think it's a little disingenuous to say that Sarah Palin or Sharron Angle are resposible for the dead and wounded, when there's a nut-job with a gun standing in the middle of the street.