My Terrorism definition:
"Any attack made by a non-state, non-uniformed entity against a state's property and/or citizens based upon ideological or other identity motivations."
A state, or its uniformed agents, cannot commit terrorism. They can oppress, commit war crimes, break national or international laws and treaties, but they can't be terrorists. Saddam's soldiers, when in uniform, could rape, pillage, and burn his own people or even commit genocide, but I wouldn't call it terrorism. I would call it war crimes, atrocities, crimes against humanity, etc.
Terrorism, to me, is a specific label that addresses the violent actions of individuals with ideologies. PETA if it bombs a butcher's shop; Greenpeace if it rams an oil tanker.
Is Hassan, the Fort Hood killer, a terrorist? Yes, because he wasn't operating as a soldier of the US Army or as an American; instead, he was operating under his identity as a muslim jihadist, supporting the ideology of killing the infidels and oppressors of muslims.
It does not matter that the facts disprove his rationale. It doesn't matter that Iraqis are more free and safe now than ever before. All that matters is that he didn't want to support the Great Satan with his service, and did want to kill Americans.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
From an educational speech by Obama, almost a year ago today:
OBAMA: “But that’s not the leadership we’ve been getting from Washington. For decades, folks in Washington have been stuck in the same tired debates over education that have crippled our progress and left schools and parents to fend for themselves. It’s been Democrat versus Republican, vouchers versus the status quo, more money versus more reform. There’s partisanship and there’s bickering, but there’s no understanding that both sides have good ideas that we’ll need to implement if we hope to make the changes our children need. And we’ve fallen further and further behind as a result.”
Oh, I could have quoted from the whole speech, but this paragraph alone is enough. Where to begin?
1) Educational policy coming from Washington is part of the problem. Education worked when it was local; every time a layer of bureacracy has been added, it gets worse. Districts, states, federal, everything conspires to politicize what used to work for us in the country... and, I hate to say it, the Teachers' Unions have only aggravated the problem (unlike others, I can't lay the blame on them).
2) This line just did it for me: "It’s been Democrat versus Republican, vouchers versus the status quo, more money versus more reform."
a) Firstly, get the order right.
Democrat vs. Republican
Status Quo vs. Vouchers
More Money vs, More Reform
Democrats are NOT the party of school vouchers.
b) Obama unwittingly makes my point for me, by saying that more money does NOT equal more reform. At the very least they aren't synonyms; at the worst, they're opposites.
Does anybody understand that the schools are broken, like everything else government-run is broken, because it's the government? Vouchers = control of tax money = an issue directly connected to government!!!
Here's a meme for you:
Universal Health Care is where the government controls your tax money to provide the medical care they deem appropriate.
The Educational System is where the government controls your tax money to provide the primary education they deem appropriate.
With medicine WE want to control the medicine we get (via private companies, private insurance, etc). With education, we should (and are) striving for the EXACT SAME THING: controling or education via controlling the money the government takes from us to provide it. Vouchers are a way of us taking some of that control back; why do you think the government, and the teachers who are beholden to the teachers' unions, are so opposed to them?
Take it a step further. Look at how little education our kids get these days, even as spending hits record highs. As we pander to the unions and prop up a government-run system of education, are we not seeing RATIONING of education itself? Larger classrooms, less challenging content, less for the exceptional students, less vocational instruction for those who are not destined for college...
Why is it that in many classrooms, 'honors' and 'gifted' more often than not means 'more' homework, not 'harder' or 'better' homework? Only when you get to classes like AP classes, where objective testing and private markets still apply, do you get a class and a standard that still means something.
The parallels between universal health care and our current school system are eerie. The failure of one can predict the failure of the other, for I would argue that inasmuch as the education system is government-run, it is a government failure. Take the government out of the equation, and I guarantee things would improve.
OBAMA: “But that’s not the leadership we’ve been getting from Washington. For decades, folks in Washington have been stuck in the same tired debates over education that have crippled our progress and left schools and parents to fend for themselves. It’s been Democrat versus Republican, vouchers versus the status quo, more money versus more reform. There’s partisanship and there’s bickering, but there’s no understanding that both sides have good ideas that we’ll need to implement if we hope to make the changes our children need. And we’ve fallen further and further behind as a result.”
Oh, I could have quoted from the whole speech, but this paragraph alone is enough. Where to begin?
1) Educational policy coming from Washington is part of the problem. Education worked when it was local; every time a layer of bureacracy has been added, it gets worse. Districts, states, federal, everything conspires to politicize what used to work for us in the country... and, I hate to say it, the Teachers' Unions have only aggravated the problem (unlike others, I can't lay the blame on them).
2) This line just did it for me: "It’s been Democrat versus Republican, vouchers versus the status quo, more money versus more reform."
a) Firstly, get the order right.
Democrat vs. Republican
Status Quo vs. Vouchers
More Money vs, More Reform
Democrats are NOT the party of school vouchers.
b) Obama unwittingly makes my point for me, by saying that more money does NOT equal more reform. At the very least they aren't synonyms; at the worst, they're opposites.
Does anybody understand that the schools are broken, like everything else government-run is broken, because it's the government? Vouchers = control of tax money = an issue directly connected to government!!!
Here's a meme for you:
Universal Health Care is where the government controls your tax money to provide the medical care they deem appropriate.
The Educational System is where the government controls your tax money to provide the primary education they deem appropriate.
With medicine WE want to control the medicine we get (via private companies, private insurance, etc). With education, we should (and are) striving for the EXACT SAME THING: controling or education via controlling the money the government takes from us to provide it. Vouchers are a way of us taking some of that control back; why do you think the government, and the teachers who are beholden to the teachers' unions, are so opposed to them?
Take it a step further. Look at how little education our kids get these days, even as spending hits record highs. As we pander to the unions and prop up a government-run system of education, are we not seeing RATIONING of education itself? Larger classrooms, less challenging content, less for the exceptional students, less vocational instruction for those who are not destined for college...
Why is it that in many classrooms, 'honors' and 'gifted' more often than not means 'more' homework, not 'harder' or 'better' homework? Only when you get to classes like AP classes, where objective testing and private markets still apply, do you get a class and a standard that still means something.
The parallels between universal health care and our current school system are eerie. The failure of one can predict the failure of the other, for I would argue that inasmuch as the education system is government-run, it is a government failure. Take the government out of the equation, and I guarantee things would improve.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Universal Health Care is a bad idea
There are more things we haven't heard discussed regarding health care. People continually conflate several issues on this topic, and then wonder why everybody is completely unable to agree/see the wisdom in their own points. Let me seperate these out a bit:
Medical Treatment availability and cost
Medical Insurance availability and cost
When you think about them, the difference between them should be obvious. Medical Insurance is INSURANCE - a form of paying for the probability of needing money if certain conditions are met. With the exception of certain tax ramifications, the need for insurance goes up as your personal income goes down, as theoretically, if you have enough money saved, you don't need insurance, whether it's health or life or auto. So for many people, it's a hedge against an uncertain future. So in summary, medical insurance is an INVESTMENT OF MONEY.
Medical Treatment is a SERVICE. It has become horribly complicated, regulated, and legislated, but at the bottom, it is about you paying a professional (doctor) cash for a service (setting a bone, delivering a baby, etc). Like any private company, this service should be available without blatant discrimination. Whether you walk into a Wal-Mart or a Hospital, if you plunk down cash for a $10.00 gizmo, you should be able to walk out of the store with the gizmo regardless of your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. This is an issue of AVAILABILITY.
* * *
Those are the preliminaries. Now for the real arguments.
Many people support Obama's Medical Plan because they believe that many people can't get, or can't afford, medical care otherwise. This, again, is two very different options conflated. Let's break it out:
1) I support OMP because many people can't get medical care.
Not true (or it should not be). If you have the proper form and amount of payment, there is (or should be) very little reason why you can't get served whatever treatment you are seeking.
Realistically, with the amount of legislation and legalese involved in medicine, it is a wonder that any healing is done at all. There are countless abuses on all sides of the equation - from abusive nurses to incompetent doctors to stifling red tape to inflated insurance costs to bogus hospital fees - the list goes on. There is no transparancy in either medical legislation, or in medical costs.
2) I support OMP because people can't afford medical care.
This is a criticism of either exorbitant medical costs, health insurance costs, or a lamentation of how poor people are. Medical costs are a real problem, as seen in the corruption mentioned previously. health insurance costs are also an issue, but more from a legislative and legal standpoint; abusive or incomprehensible insurance policies, a bias against cash by hospitals, and convoluted or blatantly anti-capitalistic laws surrounding the industry are much of what is at fault.
There is a humanitarian aspect to #2 as well. Many people argue that health care is a right, that everybody from the president down to an illegal alien bum deserve health care provided to them, regardless of whether they can pay.
My response, however, is "Why?" Our constitution guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; in spirit and in practice, this is meant to mean, "Do your own thing, so long as you don't interfere with anybody elses' right to do the same", which almost parallels the Wiccan creed of "An it harm none, do as you will".
The Constitution guarantees you the right to work as you see fit - to earn money and spend it as you choose, minus a tax for essential services (government infrastructure). You have the right to save for college or a wedding, to put money away for retirement, or to blow it on hookers and dope. It's up to you to decide to strive for lots of cash and fame, or to take a steady, safe, 30k/year job and not have as many options. How much MONEY you EARN is totally up to you, limited only by your ambition, your capability, and (to a much lesser extent) to luck.
Most people earn as much money as they deserve. Before you jump on me for that, think about it. We all know what it takes to make more money in our given profession. We either choose, or don't choose, to pursue that option because of the cost involved. If I want more money as an accountant, I can either pursue a management track or go into business for myself. Both of those options require more time, money, and risk than I'm currently willing to spend, so I stay where I am.
The same goes for most other people. With the exception of people who truly have had misfortune visit them (unforseen rare brain tumor, car accident where insurance illegally won't pay out, etc) we are where we choose to be in life - financially, socially, and spiritually. Growing in any of these three categories is hard - most people shy away from such hard growth. But that option is possible in America, more than it has ever been in ANY OTHER nation that has ever EXISTED in the history of the human race. We have more options to rise and fail on our own merits in the USA than anybody has ever known.
So why the push for Universal Health Care now? Not by government - we all know why the pols want it: power and money, corruption and greed. No, why do the individuals want UHC?
Two reasons: Justice and Greed.
Justice, because the health care and insurance systems ARE broken. In many cases you CAN'T get a realistically priced medical service, or can't get insurance, or laws prohibit you, or what not. Medicine is NOT sold like drapes at a Wal-Mart. Until it is, we DO need more efforts made towards making the system more just. But this could be done by less regulation, not more; just more transparency, less red tape, and less special interest. And a lot of this could come about by treating citizens as adults; letting them choose what is right for them with informed consent, instead of using legislation to 'protect' them from their own decisions.
The second reason why UHC is desired by many is greed. Universal Health Care IS a redistribution of wealth, from those who can afford health care to those who can't. It is this equation:
Equality of Opportunity - whomever can afford it, can have it
to
Equality of Outcome - whomever wants it, gets it, at the cost of whomever can afford it
It is completely about the transition from Meritocracy to Socialism. This is what the vast majority of the proponents of UHC want, whether they be citizens or politicals.
* * *
One other (sub)category exists: so-called 'altruistic' greed. Many people wish for any and all medical treatments to be available to everybody. Whether it is bandages or organs or $75,000 pacemakers, everybody should get the treatment they need regardless of cost, these people say. And since hospitals won't provide it, they must be made to provide it by the government option.
Need I explain why this is a bad idea? When you artifically depress prices, you create shortages. Shortages lead to rationing. This is the iron law of supply and demand. If you want rationing, like we already see in Canada (as one of the worse examples), then by all means implement UHC. But again, you're taking from those who could otherwise have/afford medical care, and giving it to those who can not afford it. Is THIS justice? No, it's redistribution.
Furthermore, we all know that government is inefficient. If you have to mail something, do you go to UPS, USPS, or FedEx? You go to USPS only if you have no choice. If they didn't have a monopoly on 1st class mail, or if they weren't a governmental agency, they'd have long ago gone out of business. Do you think that government-run health care will be any better?
Medical Treatment availability and cost
Medical Insurance availability and cost
When you think about them, the difference between them should be obvious. Medical Insurance is INSURANCE - a form of paying for the probability of needing money if certain conditions are met. With the exception of certain tax ramifications, the need for insurance goes up as your personal income goes down, as theoretically, if you have enough money saved, you don't need insurance, whether it's health or life or auto. So for many people, it's a hedge against an uncertain future. So in summary, medical insurance is an INVESTMENT OF MONEY.
Medical Treatment is a SERVICE. It has become horribly complicated, regulated, and legislated, but at the bottom, it is about you paying a professional (doctor) cash for a service (setting a bone, delivering a baby, etc). Like any private company, this service should be available without blatant discrimination. Whether you walk into a Wal-Mart or a Hospital, if you plunk down cash for a $10.00 gizmo, you should be able to walk out of the store with the gizmo regardless of your race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. This is an issue of AVAILABILITY.
* * *
Those are the preliminaries. Now for the real arguments.
Many people support Obama's Medical Plan because they believe that many people can't get, or can't afford, medical care otherwise. This, again, is two very different options conflated. Let's break it out:
1) I support OMP because many people can't get medical care.
Not true (or it should not be). If you have the proper form and amount of payment, there is (or should be) very little reason why you can't get served whatever treatment you are seeking.
Realistically, with the amount of legislation and legalese involved in medicine, it is a wonder that any healing is done at all. There are countless abuses on all sides of the equation - from abusive nurses to incompetent doctors to stifling red tape to inflated insurance costs to bogus hospital fees - the list goes on. There is no transparancy in either medical legislation, or in medical costs.
2) I support OMP because people can't afford medical care.
This is a criticism of either exorbitant medical costs, health insurance costs, or a lamentation of how poor people are. Medical costs are a real problem, as seen in the corruption mentioned previously. health insurance costs are also an issue, but more from a legislative and legal standpoint; abusive or incomprehensible insurance policies, a bias against cash by hospitals, and convoluted or blatantly anti-capitalistic laws surrounding the industry are much of what is at fault.
There is a humanitarian aspect to #2 as well. Many people argue that health care is a right, that everybody from the president down to an illegal alien bum deserve health care provided to them, regardless of whether they can pay.
My response, however, is "Why?" Our constitution guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; in spirit and in practice, this is meant to mean, "Do your own thing, so long as you don't interfere with anybody elses' right to do the same", which almost parallels the Wiccan creed of "An it harm none, do as you will".
The Constitution guarantees you the right to work as you see fit - to earn money and spend it as you choose, minus a tax for essential services (government infrastructure). You have the right to save for college or a wedding, to put money away for retirement, or to blow it on hookers and dope. It's up to you to decide to strive for lots of cash and fame, or to take a steady, safe, 30k/year job and not have as many options. How much MONEY you EARN is totally up to you, limited only by your ambition, your capability, and (to a much lesser extent) to luck.
Most people earn as much money as they deserve. Before you jump on me for that, think about it. We all know what it takes to make more money in our given profession. We either choose, or don't choose, to pursue that option because of the cost involved. If I want more money as an accountant, I can either pursue a management track or go into business for myself. Both of those options require more time, money, and risk than I'm currently willing to spend, so I stay where I am.
The same goes for most other people. With the exception of people who truly have had misfortune visit them (unforseen rare brain tumor, car accident where insurance illegally won't pay out, etc) we are where we choose to be in life - financially, socially, and spiritually. Growing in any of these three categories is hard - most people shy away from such hard growth. But that option is possible in America, more than it has ever been in ANY OTHER nation that has ever EXISTED in the history of the human race. We have more options to rise and fail on our own merits in the USA than anybody has ever known.
So why the push for Universal Health Care now? Not by government - we all know why the pols want it: power and money, corruption and greed. No, why do the individuals want UHC?
Two reasons: Justice and Greed.
Justice, because the health care and insurance systems ARE broken. In many cases you CAN'T get a realistically priced medical service, or can't get insurance, or laws prohibit you, or what not. Medicine is NOT sold like drapes at a Wal-Mart. Until it is, we DO need more efforts made towards making the system more just. But this could be done by less regulation, not more; just more transparency, less red tape, and less special interest. And a lot of this could come about by treating citizens as adults; letting them choose what is right for them with informed consent, instead of using legislation to 'protect' them from their own decisions.
The second reason why UHC is desired by many is greed. Universal Health Care IS a redistribution of wealth, from those who can afford health care to those who can't. It is this equation:
Equality of Opportunity - whomever can afford it, can have it
to
Equality of Outcome - whomever wants it, gets it, at the cost of whomever can afford it
It is completely about the transition from Meritocracy to Socialism. This is what the vast majority of the proponents of UHC want, whether they be citizens or politicals.
* * *
One other (sub)category exists: so-called 'altruistic' greed. Many people wish for any and all medical treatments to be available to everybody. Whether it is bandages or organs or $75,000 pacemakers, everybody should get the treatment they need regardless of cost, these people say. And since hospitals won't provide it, they must be made to provide it by the government option.
Need I explain why this is a bad idea? When you artifically depress prices, you create shortages. Shortages lead to rationing. This is the iron law of supply and demand. If you want rationing, like we already see in Canada (as one of the worse examples), then by all means implement UHC. But again, you're taking from those who could otherwise have/afford medical care, and giving it to those who can not afford it. Is THIS justice? No, it's redistribution.
Furthermore, we all know that government is inefficient. If you have to mail something, do you go to UPS, USPS, or FedEx? You go to USPS only if you have no choice. If they didn't have a monopoly on 1st class mail, or if they weren't a governmental agency, they'd have long ago gone out of business. Do you think that government-run health care will be any better?
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Government Money
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/theres-no-such-thing-as-government-money/
The linked article talks about the concept of government money, but I believe she does not take it far enough. She is right that there is no such thing as government money, but never says what it is:
It is our money.
Government is an institution created by and for the people. It cannot exist without us. All that it has, it has gained from us.
So every time a person votes for more entitlements, what they're doing is taking more of their paycheck and throwing it at other people - and they're trusting that a bloated beaurocracy can do it better, more efficiently, and more discriminatingly than they, an individual, can.
How brilliant, and how demonstrably untrue.
The linked article talks about the concept of government money, but I believe she does not take it far enough. She is right that there is no such thing as government money, but never says what it is:
It is our money.
Government is an institution created by and for the people. It cannot exist without us. All that it has, it has gained from us.
So every time a person votes for more entitlements, what they're doing is taking more of their paycheck and throwing it at other people - and they're trusting that a bloated beaurocracy can do it better, more efficiently, and more discriminatingly than they, an individual, can.
How brilliant, and how demonstrably untrue.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Telemarketing calls are a form of theft.
I have tried to articulate to myself why telemarketers fill me with incredible levels of rage. My wife scolds me to be nicer, that they do not deserve the curt, even rude treatment I heap upon them when they call my office. Some of my friends protest tha they “are just doing a job”. I disagree, and can prove it.
1) I am on the no-call list. This means that their calling me is in violation of state and federal law. It doesn’t stop them, however. I do not have caller ID, so I can’t see their number, and good luck getting them to give you contact info, so I am stuck for reporting them. This is a legal and contractual violation by the telemarketer’s company.
2) When I inform them that I am on the do-not-call list, I have never had one merely apologize and promise to take me off of their call list. The callers do not care if I am on the DNC list, or that the company they work for violates the rules of the DNC list. The moment they knowingly work for a company that violates the law, they are just as culpable. They cannot legally or morally blame the company for their actions.
3) Being a business, I cannot pick and choose the calls I handle; I must answer all calls, and I must expend time and energy doing so. This disrupts my work day’s rhythm and reduces my time available to perform legitimate work.
4) As my time costs the company money, telemarketer calls are costing my employer money. Further, if I have to work longer hours to recoup the time I have spent on their calls (or on spam in emails, for that matter) then they are costing me, personally, in the one commodity I value most: MY time.
5) My time is priceless, as I have a finite amout of it. No one has a right to choose how I spend it but me.
In the end, this is why I hate (yes, HATE) telemarketers. As a disclaimer, yes, I even briefly interviewed for a telemarketer job, and have known people in the business. That said, I have never known one who has been in the business more than 1-2 days who didn’t know exactly what they were doing to people.
Telemarketers are thieves of time and energy. They are unethical abusers of my time and my desire to be left alone, and they are willful violators of the law – the spirit of the law, and quite often the letter of the law.
Treating them in any way other than rudely only encourages such behavior. My only regret is that I can’t have them arrested and their companies fined and closed down.
1) I am on the no-call list. This means that their calling me is in violation of state and federal law. It doesn’t stop them, however. I do not have caller ID, so I can’t see their number, and good luck getting them to give you contact info, so I am stuck for reporting them. This is a legal and contractual violation by the telemarketer’s company.
2) When I inform them that I am on the do-not-call list, I have never had one merely apologize and promise to take me off of their call list. The callers do not care if I am on the DNC list, or that the company they work for violates the rules of the DNC list. The moment they knowingly work for a company that violates the law, they are just as culpable. They cannot legally or morally blame the company for their actions.
3) Being a business, I cannot pick and choose the calls I handle; I must answer all calls, and I must expend time and energy doing so. This disrupts my work day’s rhythm and reduces my time available to perform legitimate work.
4) As my time costs the company money, telemarketer calls are costing my employer money. Further, if I have to work longer hours to recoup the time I have spent on their calls (or on spam in emails, for that matter) then they are costing me, personally, in the one commodity I value most: MY time.
5) My time is priceless, as I have a finite amout of it. No one has a right to choose how I spend it but me.
In the end, this is why I hate (yes, HATE) telemarketers. As a disclaimer, yes, I even briefly interviewed for a telemarketer job, and have known people in the business. That said, I have never known one who has been in the business more than 1-2 days who didn’t know exactly what they were doing to people.
Telemarketers are thieves of time and energy. They are unethical abusers of my time and my desire to be left alone, and they are willful violators of the law – the spirit of the law, and quite often the letter of the law.
Treating them in any way other than rudely only encourages such behavior. My only regret is that I can’t have them arrested and their companies fined and closed down.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
It pains me to admit it, but...
People use phrases all the time without thinking about their meaning. I like to demolish this automatic acceptance of such phrases and examine them - and what's really being said or not said.
Take this phrase: "It pains me to admit it, but..."
What is the literal meaning? A statement causes pain to the speaker when they concede that it is true. To admit something is to hold one opinion or position, then to move or shift to allow for a different one. Why should admitting something be painful?
What is this phrase often followed by? "It pains me to admit it, but you're right."
Usually people stop there. What else is unspoken?
"It pains me to admit it, but you're right and I'm wrong."
That's what people have so much trouble with: being wrong. This is something I can't relate to. Oh, not because I'm never wrong; I'm often wrong. I differ from most people because I also admit it when I am wrong. And then I act really crazy because I adopt the truth, system, or value I was corrected on for future use!
Crazy, I know, and incredibly immature. Why immature, you may ask?
Think about small children. They do things, experiment and explore, with little regard to consequences. They find what works and what does not. Fire burns. Dogs bark and bite. Bees sting. They learn cause and effect, and they (usually) change their behavior because of it. Children are constantly growing and changing, adopting new likes, dislikes, behaviors, and ideas. We call it the maturation process.
The only problem is, it seems like many of us stop this process at some stage of our adult lives. We stop maturing; we stop changing and adapting as we find new truths and better ways. If this is adult, mature behavior, then please, label me immature!
Which brings us back to the problem phrase. When someone prefaces a statement with "It pains me to admit it, but..." this is both something to applaud and something to mourn. It is good, in that they can admit that they are wrong and that they can change their belief or behavior to a better way. They can become a better person.
It is something to mourn, however, because being an adult, being mature, growing as a person, etc., all of this growth process which people laud and pay lip service to, this wonderful thing -
- pains them. Hurts them. Whether from shame at being wrong in the first place, or not thinking it through, or at discovering that their facts or education were imperfect, the source of their pain is only peripherally relevant. What is sad is that the betterment of their mind, values, ideals, and identity, which is arguably why we are on this planet to begin with, is something that causes them pain.
My way of thinking is much simpler. Don't mourn that you were wrong, but instead cherish that you are now right.
Take this phrase: "It pains me to admit it, but..."
What is the literal meaning? A statement causes pain to the speaker when they concede that it is true. To admit something is to hold one opinion or position, then to move or shift to allow for a different one. Why should admitting something be painful?
What is this phrase often followed by? "It pains me to admit it, but you're right."
Usually people stop there. What else is unspoken?
"It pains me to admit it, but you're right and I'm wrong."
That's what people have so much trouble with: being wrong. This is something I can't relate to. Oh, not because I'm never wrong; I'm often wrong. I differ from most people because I also admit it when I am wrong. And then I act really crazy because I adopt the truth, system, or value I was corrected on for future use!
Crazy, I know, and incredibly immature. Why immature, you may ask?
Think about small children. They do things, experiment and explore, with little regard to consequences. They find what works and what does not. Fire burns. Dogs bark and bite. Bees sting. They learn cause and effect, and they (usually) change their behavior because of it. Children are constantly growing and changing, adopting new likes, dislikes, behaviors, and ideas. We call it the maturation process.
The only problem is, it seems like many of us stop this process at some stage of our adult lives. We stop maturing; we stop changing and adapting as we find new truths and better ways. If this is adult, mature behavior, then please, label me immature!
Which brings us back to the problem phrase. When someone prefaces a statement with "It pains me to admit it, but..." this is both something to applaud and something to mourn. It is good, in that they can admit that they are wrong and that they can change their belief or behavior to a better way. They can become a better person.
It is something to mourn, however, because being an adult, being mature, growing as a person, etc., all of this growth process which people laud and pay lip service to, this wonderful thing -
- pains them. Hurts them. Whether from shame at being wrong in the first place, or not thinking it through, or at discovering that their facts or education were imperfect, the source of their pain is only peripherally relevant. What is sad is that the betterment of their mind, values, ideals, and identity, which is arguably why we are on this planet to begin with, is something that causes them pain.
My way of thinking is much simpler. Don't mourn that you were wrong, but instead cherish that you are now right.
Inspiration
WELCOME!
This blog has been a long time coming. Its inception is simple: I have been interacting with other human beings for thirty-five years, and this experience has led me to form a singular purpose. That is to say, I want to combat the forces of idiocy and ignorance and make people think about who they are and what they believe.
It's a big task, and I alone am not up to it; no one person is. But I hope that my voice will add to the voice of the rational in keeping this world back from the brink of insanity. I refuse to give in to chaos, disorder, and evil. Is that clear enough a mission statement for you?
Let me also add, however, that I'm not here to convince you that one way - my way - is right. I'm not trying to change your mind; I can't. I can only offer the facts and truths as I see them, and invite you to share yours, and hope that when the dust settles we find (if we do find) a single truth left standing. Further, when such a truth is revealed, I pray that both of us will be mature enough to embrace it. Yes, you heard me: this is an invitation for you to prove me wrong. If your facts are solid, your logic good, and mine are not, I'll change my values. The price of this, Dear Readers, is that YOU must do the same.
Put up or shut up time.
You may ask if I've ever blogged before. The answer is 'Not really'. I'm not a true stranger to this. I've written 'diary' entries before, I've had a Livejournal, and I've had good, lively debates with friends and family - but I've never really put myself out there. I've certainly never had an audience. Why not? Many reasons. Job security. Identity security. Time commitment. Effort. All the usual excuses. I've been willing to challenge a friend when they mindlessly spout off a bit of idiocy without thinking, but I've never had the gumption to do so on a larger scale. I'm coming to believe that this might even qualify as a lapse in my civic duty. I'm not sure.
I can't let it slide any longer, though. I have my own thoughts and truths I'd like to share with you, and topics I want to discuss. I also believe that putting myself out here will give me the opportunity to better myself. As a side effect, I believe the same could happen to you. I'm all for making the world a better place, one corrected misconception at a time.
I've never been afraid to tell people when I see that they're full of it. Little things I let slide - such as an uncle's penchant to say 'Damn Republicans' whenever there's an ill in the world. But the big things, and sometimes even the not-so-big, I challenge. If someone says that the Big 3 auto companies are solely to blame for their financial troubles, I point at the unions and say, "What about them?" I point at the Left and its eco-policies and CAFE standards and nudge them saying, "Hmmm?"
Don't mistake me for a Republican, however. I'm not one, or a Democrat, or a Libertarian. I'm also not a conservative or a liberal. I find some value in each group, but I don't ascribe to any one blanket identity, policy, or value. There is value EVERYWHERE - nothing is wholly without it - and wholly embracing any ideology weakens you to the fallacies contained within it. Conversely, to issue a blanket rejection of any concept, person, item or ideal because of one aspect or element of it is the height of foolishness. Such sweeping associations and rejections are easier, true - which is why so many do it - but this behavior is neither intellectually honest nor viable if one is in the service of reality and truth (little T).
Hmmm. That's a bit stronger than I'd intended, but - maybe that's for the best. Next post, I will dissect a phrase that we take for granted and look under the hood - something I love doing.
This blog has been a long time coming. Its inception is simple: I have been interacting with other human beings for thirty-five years, and this experience has led me to form a singular purpose. That is to say, I want to combat the forces of idiocy and ignorance and make people think about who they are and what they believe.
It's a big task, and I alone am not up to it; no one person is. But I hope that my voice will add to the voice of the rational in keeping this world back from the brink of insanity. I refuse to give in to chaos, disorder, and evil. Is that clear enough a mission statement for you?
Let me also add, however, that I'm not here to convince you that one way - my way - is right. I'm not trying to change your mind; I can't. I can only offer the facts and truths as I see them, and invite you to share yours, and hope that when the dust settles we find (if we do find) a single truth left standing. Further, when such a truth is revealed, I pray that both of us will be mature enough to embrace it. Yes, you heard me: this is an invitation for you to prove me wrong. If your facts are solid, your logic good, and mine are not, I'll change my values. The price of this, Dear Readers, is that YOU must do the same.
Put up or shut up time.
You may ask if I've ever blogged before. The answer is 'Not really'. I'm not a true stranger to this. I've written 'diary' entries before, I've had a Livejournal, and I've had good, lively debates with friends and family - but I've never really put myself out there. I've certainly never had an audience. Why not? Many reasons. Job security. Identity security. Time commitment. Effort. All the usual excuses. I've been willing to challenge a friend when they mindlessly spout off a bit of idiocy without thinking, but I've never had the gumption to do so on a larger scale. I'm coming to believe that this might even qualify as a lapse in my civic duty. I'm not sure.
I can't let it slide any longer, though. I have my own thoughts and truths I'd like to share with you, and topics I want to discuss. I also believe that putting myself out here will give me the opportunity to better myself. As a side effect, I believe the same could happen to you. I'm all for making the world a better place, one corrected misconception at a time.
I've never been afraid to tell people when I see that they're full of it. Little things I let slide - such as an uncle's penchant to say 'Damn Republicans' whenever there's an ill in the world. But the big things, and sometimes even the not-so-big, I challenge. If someone says that the Big 3 auto companies are solely to blame for their financial troubles, I point at the unions and say, "What about them?" I point at the Left and its eco-policies and CAFE standards and nudge them saying, "Hmmm?"
Don't mistake me for a Republican, however. I'm not one, or a Democrat, or a Libertarian. I'm also not a conservative or a liberal. I find some value in each group, but I don't ascribe to any one blanket identity, policy, or value. There is value EVERYWHERE - nothing is wholly without it - and wholly embracing any ideology weakens you to the fallacies contained within it. Conversely, to issue a blanket rejection of any concept, person, item or ideal because of one aspect or element of it is the height of foolishness. Such sweeping associations and rejections are easier, true - which is why so many do it - but this behavior is neither intellectually honest nor viable if one is in the service of reality and truth (little T).
Hmmm. That's a bit stronger than I'd intended, but - maybe that's for the best. Next post, I will dissect a phrase that we take for granted and look under the hood - something I love doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)