When the fangs come out

In the last few weeks, I have been reminded of something. I have a very unenlightened reaction to certain stimuli. Of particular note, my reaction to a male attacking a female is barbaric.

And so, I am writing to my brothers.

Perhaps your reactions are different than mine.  Let me put it simply.  I am far from a violent man.  However, a male that raises his hand to a female is not a man; he is something to be knocked down.  If a male would dare to force himself upon a female, he has turned against himself and against us all.

I am very capable of embracing vengeance.  I am very capable of giving in to anger.  I am very capable of turning a blind eye to vigilante justice.  I am very capable of considering horrible treatment of other human beings.  A male attacking a female causes all of these effects.

We need to remember what we are. When a predator appears, we don't invite it in. We stand between it and what we hold dear.  We stand up so that others have the courage to.  We stand up so that those that can't are protected.  We stand because it is what we are.


Perhaps my views are antiquated.  I accept that and embrace them.  I know very well my sisters are not waiting for some "white knight".  I have no desire to be anyone's "white knight".  I want us all to be better.  I want us to weed out those that make us lesser.  I want to live in a world where I can call all men my brothers.

The myth of millenials

I think it's time we start talking about something so we can stop talking about it.  The term "generation" as a macro-unit has no real basis.  There are historical events that contribute to the collection experience of a group of people.  However, if we think about that for a moment, we will realize why the term "generation" is of little use.

Let us take the "Greatest Generation".  Now depending on what system you use for breaking up "generations" (after all it's completely arbitrary), you may choose to group everyone born between 1910 and 1924 in this group.  You can choose large and smaller groups if you wish.  The grouping does not separate into socioeconomic background, locality, or any other measure.

If we choose to consider this "group", it includes a male born in Harlem, New York in 1924 and a female born in Oklahoma in 1910.  Is there any way we can realistically consider this the same group of people?  However, as everyone else seems to be, let's continue.  The defining historical events in the United States that would have effected these people's lives were the Great Depression and two world wars.  Someone born in 1910 may very well have seen their older siblings leave for the Great War.  Their childhood would have been peppered with influenza outbreaks.  In 1929, when they were just starting to build their adult life, the economy and agriculture would collapse.  A person born in 1924 would be 4 or 5.

A child growing up hungry or with parents looking for work would not remember much else.  They would not look upon the New Deal as an uplifting, they would be children.  We must also remember that not everyone was out of work.  Millions of people all having their own experiences.  Even labeling them the "Greatest Generation" it is still a disservice.

And so let us, go forward.  A male born in 1924 would likely have been headed to war.  Again, however, not everyone did.  Let us, however, assume that somewhere between 1941 and 1945 this individual was shipped out.  Did he volunteer?  Was he an officer or enlisted?  Which front did he serve on?  I think we can all agree that the experiences of a fighter pilot stationed in Europe and a Marine sent to Okinawa would tell two very different stories with the commonality of "awful".

Even if we consider all war stories equivalent.  A women born in 1910 would have experienced the war very differently.  She would probably have children by 1941.  She may have even had teenagers talking about the war in her living room by the time it ended.  I can only guess at this woman's story and hope that she has gotten the opportunity to tell it.

Now, it is 2017.  The number of people in the United States and on the planet has skyrocketed in the last 50 years.  People who like labels are now grouping the people born between 1980 and 1994.  Again, there is no separation based on socioeconomic group or any other measure.  People write articles about this "group" as if they all share one personality.  It is as asinine as astrology and has as little actual data to back it up.

Why would anyone claim that a child growing up impoverished and a child of the aristocracy ever have the same experience?  Why would you pay for this "market research"?  How can someone who was 7 years old have had the same reaction to 2001 as someone who was 21?  How can you compare the reactions of someone that watched the Internet take shape to someone that has always had access to it?

And what has this "market research" brought us?  All I've seen is a collection of stereotypes thrown around.  The same stereotypes that have been thrown at the young for generation after generation.  I was born in 1976.  Depending on which arbitrary nomenclature you use, I am either Generation X or Generation Y.  In either case, we were "self-entitled" or "self-absorbed" just 15 years ago.  15 years before that, a group of people were labeled the "Me Generation".  You can find op-ed pieces penned in the 1920's that indicate the same about our forebears (although with some Puritan rhetoric thrown in).

People are not different simply based on the year they were born, anymore than they are different based on the month they were born.  I am not Gen X or Gen Y anymore than I a WASP or a Gemini.

You want to know what an individual born between 1980 and 1994 is like?  Talk to that individual.

To the Democratic Party

I have read your missives and heard your speeches.  I feel the need to speak out.  There are many that wear the label of Democrat proudly.  I speak not of them.  I speak only of a small group of people that one word refer to as "the party leadership".

Let me state you have my vote.  As the current Constitution of the United States reads there are really only going to be two sides.  I do think this should be changed, but in the interim, the Republican party has doubled-down on its antiquated, misogynist, hate-filled rhetoric; and you are the opposition.

So, please, I beg you, stop trying to be the "middle".  Stop being harmless!

The election cycle of 2016 is still fresh in our minds.  I registered as a Democrat long enough to vote in the primary.  I had done so in 2008 as well.  In both cases, I wanted my voice heard.  In both cases, I saw an opportunity.  A candidate was on the ballot that had passion.  A candidate was on the ballot that brought a message.  A candidate was on the ballot that was not harmless.  In 2008, the end result was what I had voted for.  In 2016, it, obviously, was not.

The numbers were tallied and the nomination was given to Hillary Clinton.  Many have written and spoken about this.  She was a qualified diplomat and I very much think she would have made a good President.  However, the Democratic Party ticket amounted to two people who would describe themselves as "boring".  The words "Traditional" and "Conventional" were bandied about.  That was a recipe for disaster, and I honestly am not certain why more people didn't see it.

"Safe" and "conservative" are words that I do not align with.  I claim the labels "liberal" and "progressive" wholeheartedly and I believe the Democratic Party should as well. 

I receive request after request for money.  You don't need money, and you certainly don't need to start fundraising 3 months after an election.  You need a message.  You need to point out what could be.  People will donate to causes they believe in.  Give them something to believe in. 

People don't vote for harmless.  They may vote against harmful, and that may have the desired effect, but, mostly, they'll stay home.

It has been nearly a year since too many people stayed home.  It is time to decide how to move forward.  You have my vote.  Give me the opportunity to cast it for someone worth voting for.

Perspective and Perception

"Let's go to the top of the hill" I heard one child say to another.

"Hill?" I thought to myself and then looked in their direction of travel.  The part of the parking lot I was in did slope up towards another.  "Hill" might not have been the right word, but "ridge" or "incline" are both less common.  It isn't truly a street, although I believe it is recognized as such by some mapping systems.

I hopped in my car and also went up the "hill" and then out of the apartment complex and down the street.  Roughly a mile away, Tiffany's version of "I Think We're Alone Now" come on the radio.  I laughed in amazement.  Somewhere someone thought playing this in 2017 would encourage advertising revenue.  After laughing for about 15 seconds, I changed stations (or channels if that is the parlance you prefer).

I arrived at a Staples, initially went to the "Laser Cartridges" sign I could see from the entrance and then saw the printer cartridges along one wall with no distinct sign visible from the entrance.  I looked through my options.  The cartridges I was looking for had gone through a branding change in a vain attempt to convince customers something was improved.  I say vain in my case, perhaps someone else was enthused.  There was a package offering both the color and black cartridges and some "photo paper" for less than the combined price of the separate cartridges.  I have thrown out more "photo paper" than I have used, so I payed the extra markup.  I knew that 90% of the cost is markup in this case.  If I am being ripped off, the amount matters little.

I was then offered some type of "membership" or "rewards" twice.  I declined, twice, and noted that I didn't need a bag, again twice.  I took my leave and headed back home.  A station playing some Michael Jackson which I quickly switched from.  I returned home and walked my dog. On a patch of grass, I saw several pieces of sliced bread seemingly left there intentionally.  I could not think of a good reason ti do so.    

These perceptions were defined by my perspective.  This has caused many to believe (or at least state) that we define our own reality.  I would have thought that creation of machines that could perceive would have put an end to that, but it has not.  Perhaps some people do not believe that they perceive, only that they collect data.  I would say simply that we have an overdeveloped sense of our own "greatness" and move on.

The children, the programming directors of various radio stations, the young men working at a retail outlet were all had their own perspectives.  The fact that many of these perspectives seem to have commonalities is both a product of my own perspective and a product of the fact that the initial sensory input was similar because we exist in the same reality.  I believe that too many people are influenced by money, and so I see evidence of that.  I believe that we create more waste than we should and so try to avoid it.  I believe that the perspective of the small is limited and so I choose to recall evidence of that.  I didn't cause the children to reference "the hill" but I did notice it.  I think ill of the majority of pop music and so believe that more people should.  I think nostalgia is a destructive force and again feel that more people should.

I also believe that perception is far more powerful when multiple perspectives are taken into account.  I believe that we humans have the ability to modify our perspective.  I also believe that our perspectives are part of what defines us and perspective that is truly malleable can be mislead.

And so, Michael Jackson did have a profound impact on pop music, yet I prefer not to listen to his work.  Someone does remember Tiffany's music fondly, perhaps because it reminds them of a pleasant event, but it really has no place in radio play.  Many, if not most, people will buy the package  if they need both cartridges, and some may even use the "photo paper". I also believe that you only purchase ink at a Staples because you need to print something out that day and know that I only think of printer ink on those days.

And now back to perceiving the world around me.

Alcohol and I

Allow me to personal for a moment.

I believe I've spoken before about self-medicating.You see, I have an odd relationship with alcohol.  I do not crave it.  I do not "need" it.  I can generally go months on end without imbibing.

However, once I have progressed down a certain path, I continue.  This can happen on any random Tuesday and is generally uncommon in my life.  But, when I leave the realm of sobriety, I have the desire to continue down the path.

And so, I do not classify myself by any of the labels we use.  I will not seek out intoxication.  I will have a few drinks and then a switch is flipped.  A switch that cannot abide my everyday life.  I desire... more.  This does not seem to have a cut off or any modicum of reason attached to it.  There is simply a significant difference between "having a beer" and drinking.  I cannot say definitively where that line rests.  I do know that once I cross it, my brain does not pause.

There are many interactions with alcohol.  We are humans and patterns may emerge but are rarely demonstrative.  I wished to note my own pattern as it seemed uncommon.  I have heard various metaphors related to "man from the draft board" or "cut off" but I have never felt that warning.  I have gone from "It's time to go home" to "I need a few more drinks" in a matter of moments.

If you too have a similar reaction to alcohol, I will simply note it is healthy.  It is how your body processes a toxin. Pretending that we are unaffected by alcohol is not a solution.  Realizing how we react to a given stimulus is the path to growth.

Brothers and sisters we have a problem

We have again seen what humanity is capable of and again seek to explain it.  We see hate and we try to discover its source.  We see violence and believe that all humans wish to avoid it.  We have seen evil and label it misguided.

Perhaps we misunderstand evil..  Many people think of it as some outside entity, some corrupting source.  As an atheist, I have never accepted an outside entity as the cause.  Good and evil are human concepts and can only be applied to human actions.  Whether or not humans are "inherently" good or evil does holds very little interest for me as I do not believe that morality is inherent.

If you go with the adage "You are what you do", humans can be classified as good or evil.  I would love to do away with labels all together, but the source of the problem is labels.

If you are over 25 years old, you are not a disaffected youth.  If you are a member of the group in power, you are not disenfranchised.  If you choose to embrace the symbols of hate, it is because you feel a connection with them.   If you choose to end the existence of another human being, you are a murderer.  If you commit acts with the sole intent to causing a large group of people to fear for their personal safety, you are a terrorist. 

As I've said many times on other topics, the line is not blurry.  Attending a protest wearing riot gear is deliberately intimidating as is the carrying of torches and brandishing of weapons.  Each point of escalation comes with a decision.  Verbal abuse is not an excuse for physical violence.  Physical violence is not an excuse for the use of weapons.  There is never an excuse for targeting non-combatants.

The saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." is a false equivalence.  If you deliberately target civilians, your political point is moot.  If you commit acts of terror, your motivation, upbringing, socioeconomic group, and even to a large extent your mental state at the time are immaterial.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States does grant

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

there was nothing peaceable about the assembly chanting "blood and soil" and gathering under the banners of our enemies.

ad hominem

Don't worry.  I'm not going to go through dozens of fallacies.  Actual debate takes place very rarely in our society.  However, I have run into this one so many times in the last year and it has been used so dismissively, I did wish to mention it.

In my opinion, if you mock a person's physical appearance you have already lost your argument whatever it be. 

Ad hominem has often been compounded with Argument by Generalization in the cases that come to mind.  The result are "arguments" that contain words like "libtard".  Obviously, I see no value in debating such arguments.

So, why I am writing?  Because we are better than that.  We did not get here by throwing slander at one another.  Yes, we did it often, but it is not the primary source of our many accomplishments.  We do not persuade others by mocking them.  We may persuade third parties from time to time.

It is time to remove the venom from the discussion.  It is time to act like adults again.  The only idea that has come to me thus far is to respond to such fallacious arguments by identifying them.  This will probably be seen as "trolling".  I hope one day, it will simply be considered "debating" again.

Another flying car...

For the second time this year, I have watched the maiden flight of an aircraft designed to be an air taxi.  The first was funded by the nation of Dubai.  The second was built by a private company in Germany.  To many people, the visions of writers from the 20th century are finally becoming reality.

I do not believe those visions ever left our minds.  Many technologies were developed in the 20th century that are only now cost effective.  We tend to think that the time between prototype and production run is minimal or negligible.  This has never been the case.

In many cases, the prototypes had flaws that were of great concern.  Personal "jet packs" were constructed and tested in the 1950's.  They had flight times measured in seconds.  We did not simply abandon this technology though.  We still lack an efficient fuel source in this case.  There is another issue which some people ignore but is critical.  These devices require training to use.  Imagine if you left one in your garage and a child tried to operate it.  Mass distribution of jet or rocket engines raises a great many safety concerns, and it should.  Flying cars have a similar flaw.  "Joyriding" in your parent's car can be dangerous.  "Joyriding" is your parent's aircraft is dangerous.  In the case of consumer aircraft, we again had an issue with power sources until recently.  And again, safety is a concern.  I do not believe the average driver is capable of commuting in an aircraft.  Aircraft travel is limited and regulated in ways that do not seem possible if even 1% of the population were pilots.  If, however, the aircraft are autonomous, this becomes plausible.

In some cases, the original calculations were just wrong.  If Einstein's original calculations had been used during experimentation, he would have been proven wrong.  The revised calculations were proven via experimentation in 1919.  The Alcubierre drive requires an energy source that is unfeasible, only later work by Harold White made us consider the possibility again.

There are interim steps that allow the unimaginable to become reality.  Regardless of resources, ENIAC would have never reached the performance levels available to anyone reading this.  The transistor and the integrated circuit were necessary inventions in this process and then those inventions needed to be improved upon.  Again, energy sources needed to improve.  They have.

We are not now reaping the benefits of these things because of some monumental event.  We are reaping the benefits of these things because of what we consider gradual improvement.  The span of 20 or 60 years is actually the blink of an eye, but the 20th century prepared us for leaps and bounds.  In truth, those leaps and bounds took years.  The Saturn V was not built in 1947 or 1952.

The lithium-ion battery was not instantly "better" than its cousins.  The next battery technology will not see widespread consumer use in a week or a year.  The quantum computer exists but it will take many years for it to replace "traditional" supercomputers, and may never be used by most people.

So, yes, we have flying cars.  We have flying cars because we had VTOL aircraft, quadrotors, microprocessors, and several generations of jet engines.  We we will have AI in the next 20 years, because we had the Intel 4004, Deep Blue, and currently have IBM's Watson and a host of other systems.  We will have androids and machines that pass all variations of the Turing test because of the current work in robotics.  We will travel to Mars during the 21st century because we have learned much since the 1960's.  We may never have replicators, but we do have 3-D printers that fit on desktops and are available to consumers.  We have not created a polymer with a higher tensile strength than spider silk, but we have created graphene, superconductors, and steel alloys that could easily be called "ultrasteel" if desired.

"The future" didn't just show up in 1955.  It took quite a bit of work to be designed, modeled, tested, and forged.  We have seen many of he visions crafted in the 20th become reality.  We will see many more, we may just not meet the original schedule.

What did actually make the U.S. great?

Because, we were.  The 20th century truly was a U.S. century.

Please note, I did not say "American century".  Our seeming belief that we are the only country over the span of 2 continents worthy of consideration is endemic of one of the problems with this county.  We think we own the place.  The fact that the rest of the world lets us speaks to our influence.  In 1917, we were "The Yanks" and our soldiers "Doughboys".  At one time the British thought to simply absorb our numbers into their command.  That had all changed by the end of the 20th century.

But fighting wars wasn't what made us great.  Wars don't make anything great.  Extreme situations do, however, shine a light on what already exists.  Germany underestimated our ability to mobilize, twice.

In my opinion, what made us great was our belief in ourselves.  Many things were considered impossible until we did them.  "You can't fight on two fronts." was actually printed on U.S. propaganda during World War II.  We started out the century finishing the Panama Canal.  We turned out attention to the Mississippi River and made it navigable in a way Mark Twain would have thought impossible.  We went to the moon (no, that is not up for debate).

I think what made us great can be summarized by a story usually used to criticize us.  We wanted a pen that could write in zero gravity.  We knew pencils existed.  We made a pen that could write in zero gravity.  We did not take the easy way out.  We wanted something and we made it happen.  Yes, it was expensive.  Yes, it seems excessive.  And, yes, that didn't matter.

But now, it is a new century.  There was several attempts at electric cars by U.S. manufactures at the end of the 20th century.  General Motors EV1 was the most famous, but Ford and Chrysler also built some electric vehicles between 1996 and 2002.  All of these models were discontinued without actual production runs.  Then something happened that has become common in the 21st century, someone outside the U.S. took the risk.

Toyota launched a production hybrid in 1997.  Honda followed in 1999.  I particularly remember a commercial aired for the Honda Insight on 1/1/2000.  I also remember not seeing that commercial again.  At a hostel in Washington DC, I remember the hope that commercial inspired and the defeat I felt as I protested the inauguration of an oil man.

In 2008, work was completed on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC),  It dwarfs the U.S. Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and is now the center for global experimentation in the area of particle physics.

We still have the drive.  We still attract the dreamers.  But, something has changed.  We as a nation won't take the risk.  We have become frightened.  We forgot that our economy was built by men like Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Elon Musk.  It was not built by anyone at Goldman-Sachs.  It was not built by the people at Apple and Atari that fired their founders.  We forgot that technology is what got us here.  We forgot that looking backwards gains you nothing.  We forgot that the word "impossible" may just be a suggestion.

It is time we remembered.  It was time we remembered that progress happens whether you like it or not.  It is time to create a solar panel that the world buys in droves, not a coal plant the world mocks.  It is time for us to accept the software industry as an industry.  It is time for us to be less concerned about milking old patents, and more concerned about filing new ones.  It is time for us to be less concerned about steel exports, and more concerned about semiconductor exports.  In short, it is time to move into the 21st century.  We can still make it a U.S. century.

Allow me to retort...

I write to my senators relatively often.  I hope that one day the amount I write will be considered minimal.  I recently wrote to my senators regarding H.R. 26 (REINS) and H.R. 998 (SCRUB).  As I believe these resolutions will pass the House, I felt writing to my senators was prudent.

I wanted to share a response I received from Senator Toomey and take this opportunity to respond.

... I am supportive of reasonable pollution controls that are designed to protect our natural resources and public health, and individual state agencies have the knowledge and experience necessary to safeguard these important assets...

Individual states you say.  I have to ask. Did Louisiana have the resources to deal with the Deepwater Horizons spill?  What percentage of the costs would Alabama contribute?  Although Alaska does benefit greatly from the oil industry, they did not benefit enough to deal with the Exxon Valdez disaster single-highhandedly.  In my own backyard, the borough of Ambler, PA contains a Superfund site.  Is the State of Pennsylvania ready to take on the cost burden associated with this site and the many others in Pennsylvania?

In all cases, the obvious answer is no.  The states do not have the resources or even the jurisdiction to oversee environmental protection.

Senator Toomey goes further to state:

..I am concerned about the excessive regulations coming out of the federal bureaucracy in recent years that needlessly impede job creation and harm Pennsylvania farmers..

Are we really going to go down this path yet again?  The last time industry was actually negatively effected by the EPA was in 1973 when the use of spray-applied asbestos was banned.  Even removing lead from our gasoline did not negatively effect an industry as one can see from looking at the profit margins of Exxon

I am not certain what regulation(s) Senator Toomey is referring to that "harm Pennsylvania farmers".  The regulations that have passed in the last 8 years have been focused on the energy industry.  As the United States is still the 2nd largest consumer of coal, I support all of these regulations as I have worked with coal combustors and know the effects of Black Lung.

The specter of "job loss" comes up again with:

.. Under the Obama Administration, the EPA and other federal regulators were especially aggressive in proposing new rules that raised energy prices, imposed onerous compliance costs, undermined economic growth, and put Pennsylvanians out of work...

Let us see.  According the U.S Energy Infromation Administration, the cost to "Ultimate Consumer" was 9.74 cents/KwH in 2008.  By 2016, that had risen to an amazing 9.96 cents/KwH.  In 2011, it reached a staggering 9.99 cents/KwH.  No adjustments for inflation or any tweaks.

Let's talk about unemployment.  Without any spinning, adjustment, etc. according the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in January of 2009, the Unemployment Rate was 7.8.  In January of 2017, the Unemployment Rate was 4.8.  Same organization, same calculation method.

I would be glad to discuss actual data with Senator Toomey at any time.  I do recommend that he consult other sources.  He seems to be getting his information from rhetoric and misnomer, both of which have horrible track records.

And just so everyone can see that I did not take anything out of context, here is the email in its entirety:

March 24, 2017



Dear Mr. Musick,

Thank you for contacting me about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I appreciate hearing from you.

Like most Pennsylvanians, I believe it is essential to protect our state's natural beauty and the quality of our environment. I am supportive of reasonable pollution controls that are designed to protect our natural resources and public health, and individual state agencies have the knowledge and experience necessary to safeguard these important assets. It is for these reasons that I have supported commonsense efforts in Congress to protect the environment and conserve lands for the enjoyment of future generations.

While I support sensible environmental protections, I am concerned about the excessive regulations coming out of the federal bureaucracy in recent years that needlessly impede job creation and harm Pennsylvania farmers. Under the Obama Administration, the EPA and other federal regulators were especially aggressive in proposing new rules that raised energy prices, imposed onerous compliance costs, undermined economic growth, and put Pennsylvanians out of work. I am hopeful that the Trump Administration will take a new direction and pursue a more balanced approach that is mindful of both our economy as well as our environment.

On March 16, 2017, President Trump released his fiscal year 2018 budget blueprint, which proposed reducing the EPA's budget by 30 percent compared to the current fiscal year. I understand your concerns about how federal budget cuts could impact environmental conservation in Pennsylvania, and it is important to know that the President's budget is only a proposal and has not been enacted into law. Please know that my staff and I are reviewing all areas of the President's budget blueprint, and I appreciate hearing your input.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania

I'm going to be mean now...

.. because I'm letting emotion get the better of me.  That is not an apology.  We can not be cold and calculating.  We must have passion

And so, let me state several opinions very concisely:

• If you feel that providing for the lesser fortunate is a waste of money, you are cruel.
  
• If you feel that the current political and economic systems in the United States are fair, you are misguided.
  
• If you would hold others back so that you can advance, you are a loser.
  
• If you feel that health is a commodity, you are a fool.
  
• If you feel that any group of people is "... taking your...", you are a failure and are blaming your failure on others.  If you blame others for your failure, you will continue to be a failure.
  
• If you stand by, and watch, and do nothing, you are complicit.

I have been disgusted for so long that I can no longer be peaceable.  The counter-points no longer warrant consideration.  There is no common ground.  I no longer believe that ignorance is to blame.  I will no longer attempt to educate those who disagree.

The dismantling of social programs is barbaric and misanthropic, not misguided.  Reallocating funds from the arts to an already over-inflated military can only be the act of the hate-filled, not the insecure or those who have been lied to.  The lies are not the problem.  Those who have chosen to willfully deny facts to believe the lies are the problem.

I will now return to pursuing the avenues available to me to resist.

Because some people just don't get it

I am hesitant to write this, but also feel silence is complicity.

Black Lives Matter.  That is a simple statement.  It is also undeniable.  Yet when it became the name of an organization, it became an issue for some.  We started seeing "Blue Lives Matter" and "All Lives Matter" as almost retorts.

I am not a member of the Black Lives Matter Network.  I am not involved with their organization.  I do not speak for them.  I simply feel that their name is a powerful message in itself and that the responses to it and indicative of the need for the organization.

First of all, no one has ever really questioned if "Blue Lives Matter".  When a police officer is killed in the line of duty, streets are named after them, parades are held.  Murdering a police officer is a capital felony in many states.  Our popular culture is fascinated with law enforcement.  We believe law enforcement is a dangerous job.  In truth, taxi drivers are more likely to get shot than police officers while on the job and significantly more likely to do on the job period.  I am not going to belittle what law enforcement personnel do, their lives matter and we all know that.

Let me also state that in no rational world view are the lives of law enforcement personnel at odds with the people they serve and protect.  The use of deadly force should always be investigated simply because all homicides should be investigated.  Let me further state that the Black Lives Matter organization was created in response to the shooting of Trayvon Martin.  This heinous act was perpetrated by George Zimmerman, an insurance underwriter at the time.

On the other hand, we have individuals that seem to feel that we live in a post-racism society.  Dreaming of such a society is laudable.  Working towards such a society is a worthy endeavor.  But pretending we live in one is unconscionable.  If we filter out extremists, Gallup polls will still reveal that our opinions on guilt and innocence are shaped by the racial stereotypes that are a part of our culture.  The truth is that the deaths of certain members of our society are investigated with all the resources available and those found guilty are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  Obviously, no resource is unlimited, but no one can deny that our disparities and that those disparities align with demographics.

And thus we reach the point where there is a need for the phrase "Black Lives Matter".  Human beings destroy one another far too often.  The purpose of any system of justice is to evaluate guilt or fault and mete out an appropriate response.  What has happened time and again is that the justice system in this country has found individuals free of guilt despite significant evidence to the contrary.  It is not the tragic event, it is the response to the tragic event that is of concern.  In the last few years, video has been captured of some of these tragic events.  This has simply brought further light to an existing problem.

The simple fact is that the justice system in this country is not just.  This is not simply variations in media coverage.  That is a symptom, not a cause.  In the end, in dozens of cases that caught national attention and in hundreds of cases that didn't, the color of a persons skin was inseparable from the case.  

As long as any human being can fire multiple shots into the back of another human being and not be charged with and convicted of murder or manslaughter, there will be a need to stand up.  We can pretend that such an event does not happen.  We can pretend that such events happen equally across all demographics.  We can pretend that there are extenuating circumstances each and every time it happens.  

Or. we can stop pretending and start trying to fix something that has been broken for far too long.

Taking nails out of walls

It isn't the boxes.  It isn't paint and joint compound.  It isn't leases or mortgages or contracts.  It isn't calling in favors or offering people pizza and beer to carry stuff.  It isn't sitting on the floor, ordering delivery or wondering where the plates are.  I have memories of all of these things from my moves and the moves of others, but they are not what I think of when I think of moving.

It's taking nails, screws, hooks, and fasteners out of walls.  From dorm rooms, to apartments, to offices, to houses, looking around for the hardware that was used to hang posters, diplomas, degrees, plaques, mirrors, hooks, shelves, prints, and shadow boxes.  Removing the claim you staked on the property.  Pulling memories from the wall.  Patching the holes that were made long ago but have been hidden.

Because someone else will come.  Someone else will drive a nail into the wall.  They deserve the right to choose where to put the nail.  They will have memories to hang on the wall.  They will make the place their home.

You carry your memories with you.  Some may never hang on a wall again.  But when you arrive at a new location, you will not look around and see nails sticking out of the wall.  Chances are good someone else boxed up their memories and left you a clean canvas.  You know what to do.

Yes, I am a sore loser

I had to write.  I had been foregoing it as many of my thoughts may have seemed defeatist.  But, I'm still here and while I am, I will stand with my brothers and sisters. I will fight.

I have seen comments from people allied with the new presidential administration which seem to indicate their belief this about a lost election.  I have seen the phrases "sore loser" and "sour grapes".  Let be me clear, the only person disputing the election results that I have heard of is the current president.

But, I am a sore loser.  You see I lost something very dear and I cannot abide it.  I lost hope.  I lost faith in this country.  At one point, my faith in humanity was shaken.  Over the last few weeks,I have seen a fire start.  A fire that I feel is long overdue, but it did, unfortunately, need a spark.

And so, I have three messages for the people of my country.

For those who did willingly choose this outcome, I ask for any justification whatsoever.  I ask you to look back at the previous years and decades, and explain to me what good the policies of the current administration, and the party that supports it, can possibly do.  I then ask more specifically to look at the last month, and let me know of any benefit we have gained.  This country has never been isolationist.  In this century, isolationism is nearly impossible.  The borders will come down.  Division has never been tenable.  Taking health care away from those in need helps no one.  Building a wall to separate people became ridiculous with the advent of aircraft.  The Berlin Wall did not stop mass defection, the 47,000 members of the Grenztruppen der DDR guarding less than 100 miles of wall is what kept people in,  You can choose to deny these things, but in the end you know them to be true.

To those who were eligible and did not vote, you are as responsible for this result as you would be if you had voted for the winner.  I hope that you see what your silence has allowed and I hope that you join those trying to save this country.

To those of you who used your voice, I ask you to continue to do so.  I ask you to leave the confines of your own choir.  I ask that you contact your news outlets.  I ask you to write to your congressman whether or not you voted for them.  I ask you to stand with your brothers and sisters.  I ask you to remember that caring for your fellow humans is not a political issue.  I remind you that helping to protect those who cannot protect themselves is the purpose of a government.

I will skip the quotes from greater individuals than I.  I will not reference history's many similar situations.  I will say simply that the world is watching.

Hobbes and Locke were both wrong

I have run into the discussions which could be labeled "Hobbes vs. Locke" a number of times.  Recently, however, I came to a new interpretation of morality in general.

Whether we claim a divine source or a priori knowledge or programming or simple logic, every adult I have ever met has a moral compass.  In short, we know what we ought to do.    Where we differ most is in what we are going to do.

If you'll allow me to interpret for a moment:
Hobbes presented mankind as naturally "self-interested".  Hobbes never claimed that such as state "ought to be", simply that it was.  There were two conclusions made based on this determination: that constant war would ensue and that the only way to prevent this was to have a "State" which enforced its will upon the populace.

Locke saw our "better angels".  But, he saw exactly that.  We are not our "better angels".  We are "self-interested".  I would love to live in the world Locke conceived, but I do not.

I think that Hobbes did a slightly better job of evaluating his fellow humans.  But, what we are and what we ought to be are dramatically different things.  Morality is not a compiled list of decisions made by all persons.  Morality is not game theory.  Morality, regardless of its perceived source, is based on principle.

I have also come to the conclusion that Hobbes "solution" is in no way tenable or desirable.  Fear of punishment is not a basis for morality.  Coercion is not a basis for morality.  As a basis for morality, it would fail quickly.  A State would either have to continue to find new ways to inspire fear or dedicate more and more resources to surveillance over time.

Fear of punishment and coercion are often part of the decision process, but the decision process is not morality.  Morality is part of the decision process and in many cases, it ought to be the argument which carries the most weight.

Although it can be argued otherwise (as nearly anything can), I put forward that morality is not nearly as subjective as we pretend.  I believe that most of the individuals in a given culture will agree on what they ought to do.  They often choose to do otherwise.  We are not our "better angels".  However, pretending that such a decision in moral is simply rationalization.  In a word, "You know better."

Read the book

I was recently reminded of the difference between the interpretation or "CliffsNotes version" of work and the actual work. The most common examples are religious texts, but philosophical texts are a close second. As a result, quotes are often taken out of context. For instance, the Nietzche "quote" "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." Admitting to translation issues, the person and tense variation can be ignored, but the line in my copy reads "Out of life's school of war: What does not destroy me, makes me stronger."

I recently read the Communist Manifesto and again find that the interpreters have taken what they found useful and ignored what they found arguable.  The abolition of the family went by the wayside a long time ago.  The guideline: "Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country." now seems antiquated while "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production..." is indeed an obvious necessity for modern society.

Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy starts out as a foundational work of epistemology but ends in drivel.  The last paragraph of The Gift of the Magi changes a great short story to a bludgeon.  The Iliad contains no reference to the Trojan horse.

I will skip interpretations of religious texts and the catastrophic effect they have had on human history.

The sheer volume of material that is published yearly makes it impossible to read everything.  However, it seems that the interpreters have, by and large, been those with an obvious agenda.

But don't take my word for it.  Don't take anyone's word for it.  Only by experiencing do we grow.  Anything else is a shortcut.  Go to the source  You will learn much about the author and the interpreters.