The forgotten factor in the "Religious Freedom" debate

The last few weeks have been filled with debates, from town halls to mainstream media, from congregations to social networks, over the merits and intentions of Indiana's "Religious Freedom Restoration Act".

What doesn't seem to be getting mentioned much if at all is one the foundational beliefs those who sponsor and back measures like this hold and believe deeply.

Many religious people, not just Christians, believe that homosexuality is a choice. They believe people make a conscious decision to be gay. Further, they don't accept that there's anything organic about being transgendered. They think that a transgendered person is simply someone displeased with their biologically assigned gender and who wants to think of themselves, and wants everyone else to think of them, as a member of the opposite gender.

The religious ignore any scientific evidence that supports a biological and genetic basis for people who are gay or transgendered. They believe that these are "lifestyle choices", that one day in 1986 little Timmy decided he'd rather have sex with Billy than Marcia, or that he'd rather be Theresa than Timmy. Yet when questioned directly about this belief, I have yet to encounter someone who can tell me exactly when it was they made the choice to be heterosexual. While they often say that gays must have suffered some trauma of a sexual nature in their youth that made them choose to become gay, they dismiss the testimony of those who have been gay since they were first sexually aware who had wonderful childhoods. Of course, there is trauma often suffered when attempting to come out to homophobic family members and friends. That's a whole other issue, a very real and painful one.

These religious people do not see this debate as one over equal, civil rights. I'm sure the majority of them see our treatment of Blacks as an issue that needs to be addressed, a situation that needs correction. They know that no one chooses their ethnic background, but they fervently believe that one does choose their sexual orientation. They cannot separate orientation from behavior. In fact, they see the entire LGBT community as a group who has chosen to behave in ways unacceptable to the majority of "decent" (i.e. religious) Americans. They reject the notion of orientation. Because of their failure to appreciate the difference between behavior and orientation, they cannot equate discrimination toward Blacks or women with discrimination toward LGBT people. 

Thus, this debate over "religious freedom" is less a civil rights matter and more another aspect of the religious right's ignorance of science, their preference for the Bible over biology. As long as they refuse to respect medical science and instead defer to their religiously inspired bigotry, they cannot "in good faith" support the fair and equal treatment of gays and the transgendered. 

We are the 99%

We are the 99%.

The beat down, the hopeless, the pointless, the useless.

Robbed of the dream, denied success.

The poor, the disenfranchised, society's mules.

Robotically working, mindlessly living.

Lacking vision, denied salvation by the gods.

Reduced to pretense;

“Let’s pretend we can still be anything we want to be”

“Let’s pretend our lives are following a divine plan”

“Let’s pretend hope, and love, and opportunity exist”

Unable and unwilling to face reality.

Displeased with what is, hoping to achieve what will never again be.

We are the 99%.

The disillusioned, the angry, the impotent.

We buy homes we can’t afford.

We carry guns we know we’ll never use.

We rage online, in words.

Yet we meekly go about our lives.

Our misery makes us weak.

The future is dark and mysterious.

We buy our lottery tickets, we drink our cheap whiskey.

We die still dreaming of being among the 1%.

10 ways to thank a veteran for their service

Almost every time someone discovers I'm an Army veteran they will inevitably, at some point in the conversation, say, "Thank you for your service". 

I admit, I prefer thanks to chants of "baby killer" and accusations of being the tool of a fascist government.  

But all too often it's easy to see that the phrase is just a "feel-good" reaction, lacking any emotion or sincerity. It's as hollow as the "God bless America" that ends every political speech by every U.S. politician that has ever mounted a podium. 

My advice, as a veteran, is this: stop saying "Thank you for your service" or any similar trite, politically popular bullshit. 

You sincerely want to thank a veteran? Here are ten things (there are many more) you can do that will make every veteran's sacrifice and service worthwhile.

• Vote
• Defend and protect your family, friends, neighbors and children
• Get involved in social projects that help less fortunate Americans: Provide jobs to the unemployed, provide shelter to the homeless and food to the starving 
• Get your news from journalists, not commentators and entertainers
• Champion honesty, compassion, empathy and generosity
• Promote justice and the equal treatment of all Americans
• Take care of our country; don't litter or waste resources
• Don't give away your Constitutional rights for political expediency 
• Understand we must work together to solve national issues
• Realize that everyone who contributes to bettering our society is just as worthy of thanks as any veteran

In short, thank a veteran by working to improve the life of every American citizen, including yours. The American people are who we fought to defend and protect.

Acting like an extrovert

All my life I've been the epitome of introversion.

When I was younger my hobbies were reading, writing, and nature photography. The only sports I enjoyed were solo pursuits; hiking, rock climbing, gymnastics, competitive roller skating. I prefered to spend time alone, and liked that.

Yet I was involved in choir and ensemble groups, I had a good time acting in several stage plays and in college I took public speaking every semester because of the confidence it gave me and I really liked the prof who taught the course.

As an adult I look back at my working life and realize that the majority of jobs I've held could best be described as either public service, customer service or retail management.

My current life exemplifies this dichotomy. I work in a convenience store 8 hours a day then go home to my rented room, where I tend to spend time with my beloved Cleo, the world's greatest Cocker Spaniel, and my computer. I have my meals in my room, often reading a book while I eat.

So how does a natural introvert adapt to a professional life as an extrovert?

I think it's best explained with a metaphor I invented when I had to council an employee who was being terminated. He and I were quite similar, yet I could adapt to life as a working extrovert and he couldn't. He couldn't understand how I managed it.

Since he and I had both been involved in theater, I told him that my working life was a role I played in a stage production called "My Working Life". At work I wore a uniform (costume) and acted according to a script (the expectations of the job/my employers). I wasn't me at work, I was a character in a play which earned me money that was used to enjoy my real life. In fact I took great pains not to mix my professional and private lives. I don't party with coworkers or make friends with them. I seldom if ever bring work home with me. I avoid discussing my job when I'm not at work. My two lives are wholly separate. It's a matter of compartmentalization.

So if you ever run into me at work, don't be insulted if I fail to be personal and treat you like every other customer I deal with daily. You're not meeting me but rather the character I play as a job. If you meet me away from my job, don't be surprised if I have little to say about my work and prefer to discuss philosophy, or science, or Cleo.

When bacon goes bad

In 1394, a pig was hanged at Mortaign for having sacrilegiously eaten a consecrated wafer; and in a case of infanticide, it is expressly stated in the plaintiff’s declaration that the pig killed the child and ate of its flesh, “although it was Friday,” and this violation of the jejunium sextae, prescribed by the Church, was urged by the prosecuting attorney and accepted by the court as a serious aggravation of the porker’s offence.

– E.P. Evans, The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals, 1906

Priorities

I suppose I really ought to quit smoking. But I bought a carton of smokes last week and I've still got 6 packs left. Besides, smoking's my muse, it ignites my brain cells.


Smoking gives you cancer. You could get lung cancer, even brain cancer. Cancer's a horrible, shitty, deadly disease. 

If I quit now I'm leaving 6 packs of cigarettes unsmoked, unappreciated. They don't let you return those things to the store you know. 

It could be those 6 packs that push you over the edge and give you cancer. You'll die a terrible, miserable death. Your hair will fall out. Oh wait, OK, your beard will fall out. You'll have to lie in a hospital bed all day. You hate that. And there isn't really a cure, so you'll linger in pain and sadness until the day you die.

But if I quit now I'm out 20 bucks. 

The fog

He stood and watched the fog approach
silently, with a natural stealth
it rolled toward him, and he stood and waited.

He reached out his hand,

touched the first wisps of vapor,
felt it on his fingertips,
cold, and wet, and empty.

Like his hopes, his life, his dreams.

There was no light, no sound,
there was the man, and the fog.

It caressed his cheek 
like his mother once had.
It damped his eyelids,
his cheek, his forehead.

It chilled him to the bone,
the touch of death, of nothingness.

It chilled him to his soul,
a dark place filled with memories and regrets.

The fog totally enveloped the man,
it was all he could feel and touch and smell.
And he welcomed it.

Within minutes the fog was gone
and with it, the man.

A plot device fails

Wikipedia defines a plot device as,

 "...anything which moves the plot forward or maintains it.A contrived or arbitrary plot device may annoy or confuse the reader, causing a loss of the suspension of disbelief. However a well-crafted plot device, or one that emerges naturally from the setting or characters of the story, may be entirely accepted, or may even be unnoticed by the audience."

Plot devices are used in novels, television, and movie scripts. They may be a thing or event that reinforces the overall story line in the reader's or viewer's mind. Some are obvious (the statue in The Maltese Falcon) and some are subtle. Some plot devices are cleverly finessed while others are stereotypical and border on cliches. 

Plot devices are important. They maintain the story line and more importantly, they keep the reader involved in the story, they must encourage the suspension of belief that is required to enjoy a fictional tale. 

The importance of plot devices came to me while watching last season's final episode of Castle. 

For those of you unfamiliar with the show, a brief synopsis. A crime novel writer receives permission from his friend, the New York mayor, to shadow a homicide detective in order to gain insight into procedures he can use in his books. Not surprisingly, the detective he follows around is female, young, pretty and troubled. They quickly become friends and eventually lovers. The plot is standard, it's been done too many times before. I waited until season four before watching an episode, and then only because I'm a rabid fan of Nathan Fillion (Firefly and Serenity). The show contains just enough humor and misdirection (every episode has multiple points where everyone thinks they know who the killer is, only to be proven wrong) to keep it interesting, so it wasn't long before I went back and watched each season. There's also a plot device that runs through many of the episodes in every season; who killed Detective Beckett's mother? That question has been answered last season and that plot device has been replaced with another; will Beckett and Castle get married?

It's this latest plot device that rang false to me and disturbed my suspension of disbelief. 

Castle is supposed to be a best-selling author. He's wealthy. He has a house in the Hamptons and an apartment in New York. He travels the globe frequently, almost casually, and in first-class. He doesn't have an office, he works at home. His daughter just left home for college, and his mother lives with him in his apartment.  

Beckett is a typical detective, not wealthy and tied by her job to New York. At the end of last season she was offered a position as an investigator for the Attorney General of the United States. This would involve a move to Washington D.C. 

This is presented as a deal-breaker for their relationship. Castle opines that this will mean they won't see each other any more. 

This plot device makes no sense. 

Castle could easily move to D.C. and let his mother keep his New York apartment. He could incorporate Beckett's change of jobs into the life of his fictional character based on her, Nicky Heat. In fact, a writer might welcome this change in the circumstances of his character. It opens new possibilities and venues. Introducing this "issue" into the plot makes us wonder what possible objection Castle could have to following his girlfriend to D.C.

Perhaps the writers will explain this satisfactorily in the next season. If I were writing for this show I would have avoided introducing that issue. 

Why the computer will impact humanity more than any other communication technology

Photograph of a young girl listening to the radio during the Great Depression. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I believe several factors contribute to the Internet having a far broader and deeper impact on the world than the telephone, radio or television had or have now.

The telephone, radio and television all required equipment which had to be provided by large companies and industry.

Telephone poles and wires had to be strung all across the nation before Bess in New York could call Fred in California. There was no peer-to-peer alternative, no personal phone service unless you were able to use a wireless telegraph.

Radio required broadcasters within range of the audience's receivers. In the early days AM broadcasts were frequently interrupted by storms or other electrical devices.

Both radio and television required professional content providers. For the average family there was no station-to-station radio or television. They relied on major studios and corporations to provide content. Would those media have become popular without radio shows and television programs? And the content was all pushed to the consumer. There was no interaction with the listener or viewer. They were simply passive receivers for content provided by the emerging entertainment industry.

In stark contrast the Internet was envisioned and implemented as an interactive medium. Its core functionality relied on the content provided from both, or all, ends of the communication links.

Early computer modems piggybacked on the technology already in place for the telephone. No one had to wait for a corporation to string new wires or build new transmitters. No one had to rely on a network to provide content or build fancy receivers. Kit computers were on the scene almost as soon as this new technology became popular.

Radio was developed on principles that emerged from research into telephony, and television shared the same origins. Both relied on a fairly narrow spectrum of radio waves. While television overshadowed radio by providing similar content in a more advanced form, neither could replace the functionality of the telephone.

But computers quickly exploited wavelengths unusable by either radio or television, allowing them to become wireless devices free of interference from their electronic ancestors. Within a few short years of their adoption computers offered applications that replicated the telephone, the radio and television. You could make calls from your computer, listen to music or voice broadcasts, even watch videos and commercial broadcasts. Computers and the Internet didn't just advance the technology of their predecessors, they incorporated and replaced them.

Perhaps the greatest difference between radio and television and the Internet is the democratic nature of the content. Anyone can get online and produce content or collaborate with others. It's what the telephone could have become if cell service had been offered alongside wired telephony at its advent. But the need for wires and expensive central hubs kept the phone from becoming what the Internet has, a nearly ubiquitous means of personal and global communications.

Related articles

• Mark Kassof Research Finds Internet The Most Important Medium; Radio Ties TV
• Swedish Radio Launches Cool Second Screen Campaign
• Today in Entrepreneurial History: March 28
• Unprecedented National Research on "State of Listening in America" Shows Radio Remains Hugely Popula
• Huge Bird Nests Built On Telephone Poles

Climate change and denial

It's baffling to many of us why people are so reluctant to listen to scientists on the topic of climate change and why groups of us, even the Republican party, seemed determined to ignore and dismiss the science behind it.

Humans seem to frequently engage in denial, especially on issues of a cataclysmic nature for either the planet or ourselves personally. Look at how death has spawned so much superstition, all of it intended to assure ourselves that this apparently inevitable personal catastrophe can somehow be avoided. 

It often takes an event becoming imminent to jar us into dealing with it. Speculation about climate change, comet strikes, even the possible hacking of our electrical grid or the possibility of martial law or a theocracy isn't enough to get Americans to take these threats seriously and support funding to find a way to deflect or prevent their occurrence. Even people who are not usually skeptical are reluctant to face such massive and life altering events, preferring to cast doubt on the speculations or find alternative, more reassuring possibilities. The more likely the life altering event, the more desperately humans will seek to deny its inevitable occurrence. 

We don't want to believe that we've had a profound and possibly irreversible impact on the planet. We don't want to accept responsibility for having perhaps doomed our species to extinction. We want to believe our superior brains and human ingenuity will once again save the day and prevent an apocalyptic event. We want to believe our species has millions of years ahead of it yet. 

There's also an element of selfishness involved. We want to believe that if the planet is undergoing a dramatic change that will effect our lives on a major scale, it will likely take decades if not centuries to occur. We won't have to deal with it personally. We tell ourselves that science or technology will find a solution by the time it becomes an imminent reality. 

Another factor in play is the fact that the majority of humanity believes in supernatural gods who look after us and wouldn't allow the planet to become unlivable. If science or technology fail to find a way to make everything right again then their god will. One way or another we'll be spared from having to accept responsibility for our actions and the world will be saved by someone or something down the road.

A veteran's thoughts on Veteran's Day

I was going to take advantage of Applebee's offering of a free meal today, and Golden Corral's offer tomorrow. This two-week period is one in which I have very little money left after paying rent, and since moving to Virginia and enduring several months of unemployment earlier this year I have no savings to speak of, so a free meal would help me stretch my budget. But reading about Applebee's CEO's threat to hurt his employees because of the projected costs of offering them basic health care I decided not to avail myself of something that only decreases his profits more and gives him more justification for his actions. I also won't be eating at Papa John's since their CEO wants to make a political statement at the expense of his employees. These CEOs receive excellent compensation and live in luxury (Papa John's CEO's castle), yet they choose to sacrifice their employees rather than lessen their own wealth. I can't be a party to that. I refuse to do something that will disadvantage another person who's economic situation is likely similar to my own. 

Another factor in my decision is that I joined the military for my own reasons. I was given an excellent education during my enlistment, I was fed, clothed and housed for free or at a low cost subsidized by American's tax dollars. I chose to enlist and serve. I do not need to be thanked for doing what I chose to do. It isn't rational to try and make my service, or anyone else's, an act of sainthood. A lot of Americans protect and serve our country; the police and fire department men and women, utility workers, doctors and nurses, teachers and yes, even honest and conscientious politicians. Where are their free meals? Where are their holidays? 

Not every member of the Armed Forces is a hero. We have medals and awards for those few who risk their own lives in the performance of truly heroic actions. We lessen the importance of their sacrifice when we call every service person a hero. 

I'm not special, I'm not unique, I'm not a hero. I'm like thousands of other Americans and thousands of other current and former soldiers. We go to work, we pay bills, we're thankful that, while we don't have much, we have more than our brothers and sisters who are unemployed and/or homeless. Those are the Americans who need a free meal. 

America Incorporated

My fellow Americans, today I am privileged to accept the role of CEO of America Incorporated.

As you may remember, we replaced the outdated system of government we had labored under for too many years in 2012 with the election of a business man rather than continuing to allow lawyers to run our nation. The Supreme Court helped pave the way by declaring corporations to be individuals which made it possible for large businesses and wealthy individuals to exert an influence in the political realm denied to them previously. They were able to convince the American people that our country would be far better off being run as a company rather than to allow political parties to set the course for our future.

 Once we incorporated the nation we found many of our most basic problems were solved.

 The economy became a much easier to understand system of profit/loss statements. When we closed the Internal Revenue Service and replaced it with a system of payroll withholdings from America's employees, formerly referred to as citizens, contributions to the bottom line increased and tax evasion was virtually eliminated. Every employee contributed their fair share based solely on their earnings which removed the inequity inherent under the taxation policy.

 Social inequality was eliminated as well when we declared all Americans were employees. This was a concept we could all easily grasp. No longer did we have the poor, the middle class and an upper class, groups with poorly defined boundaries. A system with owners, managers and workers was one we were familiar with and had clearly defined job descriptions. The ability to move from the workforce to management is possible based on an employee's contributions and knowledge. No one is forced to remain in the same position in society their parents held. And by declaring all former citizens as employees we have done away with the concept of unemployment. Everyone legally living in America Incorporated is an employee, and every employee has a job. Anyone who refuses to work is fired and asked to leave the organization, a fair and equitable situation.

We have further increased social equality by doing away with entitlements and the unprofitable practice of private ownership. In America Incorporated all assets are owned by the company and employees earn the right to use them. An employee's lifestyle is commensurate with their willingness to work. The more you contribute to the company the more the company rewards your efforts. 

By running America as a business we've been able to eliminate all political governments. We no longer have to deal with multiple levels of bureaucracy, no longer have to put up with petty dictators more concerned with preserving their positions of power than helping our society move forward. By treating the former states as franchise partners, we have established central policies and administration that apply to every employee where ever they may live. It's true that several former states chose not to franchise themselves with America Incorporated, and it's their own fault that they were quickly purchased by foreign entities that could better afford to run them as businesses. Seeing as how we enjoy full trade relations with the Chinese owners of Idaho and both North and South Montana as well as Spanish California, our bottom line has only been strengthened by the loss of those territories. We have more assets to share among our remaining employees and more buyers for our manufactured goods.

The return on your investment in America Incorporated has been improved by replacing politicians with proven industry leaders. Our CFO has had over 30 years experience managing the finances of major Fortune 500 companies. Our CIO has held senior positions in information technology and public communications. The head of our Human Relations department has spent her entire working life in that field and has shown herself to be a capable manager. Employees deal directly with her staff, whether they need to set up their medical benefits or ask for a change in their schedule. No longer do people have to deal with their company, then their city government, then their state government and finally the federal government. All that bureaucracy has been streamlined by establishing America Incorporated as the only company we all work for. 

Remember, you're not just employees of America Incorporated, you're also shareholders. Rather than paying dividends management reinvests profits to provide a higher return which is reinvested in the company. This allows us to provide our employees with the best available benefits and to preserve and improve our infrastructure. 

Like any company that wishes to maximize profits and minimize loss, our employees are monitored to ensure compliance with corporate policies. This is done through a variety of methods, including CCTV and drone aircraft, as well as random monitoring of electronic communications. We do this to ensure all employees are working for the common good of America Incorporated and not abusing their positions of responsibility for personal gain. Employees found to be in violation of corporate policy will be counselled and if necessary, their employment will be terminated. 

We have every confidence that America Incorporated will be proven to be a far superior form of governance than our previous experiment with a democratic republic. During my ten-year term as CEO I will do all I can to ensure maximum profitability for the corporation. I will do everything possible to ensure the profits are shared fairly among all employees in proportion to their commitment to the corporation. 

I thank you all for your attention to this broadcast. You may now return to your regular duties. May God show his favor with our efforts. 

Posted with Blogsy

Aphorism

A couple of years ago I came up with an original aphorism that compresses many of my opinions on religion and politics into just a few words. 

Popularity does not confer validity. 

By that I mean that just because a belief is shared among a large number of people it is not automatically true, correct or acceptable. My aphorism is an almost poetic summery of the Appeal to Popularity logical fallacy. 

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim. (Source)

Many religious people contend that their beliefs must be true based on the millions of people around the world who share them. Naturally they don't allow that same argument to apply in the case of other religions that also enjoy a large number of followers. It's like saying that back when the majority of people in the West thought the Earth was flat it must have been truly flat. 

Similarly, there are politicians who will attempt to convince us their policies are sound based on the number of favorable poll ratings they receive. "My plan to sell Detroit to the French must be a good move. 65% of the people in Kansas approve." 

An appeal to popularity is an attempt to convince us something is true simply because a majority of others think it is. It fails to take into account the possibilities of misinformation or plain ignorance. It could only confer validity if no effort was made to find a better explanation for an observance. Had humanity arrested its exploration of astronomy in 100 B.C.E. we'd still think the Sun orbited the Earth. If medical research had stopped in the Middle Ages we might still believe illness was caused by demons or humors. Just because a lot of people agree on any particular belief does not mean that belief is sensible, logical or true. 

Popularity does not confer validity. 

Learning from regret

Recently I read a quotation that encouraged us to live without regret. It implied that regretting past mistakes was unprofitable and only served to depress us and make life less enjoyable. 

I confess to harboring many regrets about my life. 

All but one of them I can and do usually sublimate in my daily life. I intellectually understand that I can't go back and correct past mistakes, but emotionally the desire to do so is ever-present. Regretting past behaviors or words can be emotionally crippling. It's important to me to examine my regrets in an attempt to learn from them and adapt my future actions based on what I learn, but not allow my regrets to damage me emotionally. I make every effort to deal with them intellectually rather than emotionally. 

This week I was reflecting on some of the events in my life I especially regret and came to a realization I'd missed before.

Most of the events in my life I regret, either the commission of or the outcome of, relate to decisions I made about the course of my life. I've made several lousy decisions about my future. Had I chosen to travel a different path my life would have taken a completely different route, and possibly a more pleasing and beneficial one. The realization I came to is that I tend to prefer little or no change to my external world when things are going well, or at least well enough, because I live more in my head than I do in the reality around me. I don't want to be bothered by adapting to changes in my external life if I can avoid them. When I do make changes in my external reality I tend to give those changes too little thought, I don't spend enough time to consider the effects of those changes on my life. I don't take my external reality seriously enough.

If I ignored my regrets I wouldn't have had this revelation, I would continue to make the same mistakes in the future. With this understanding I can give more consideration to my future. I now appreciate the need to spend more time and thought on what effects my decisions will have on my external life, and in turn have on my happiness and peace of mind. I can avoid more regrets down the road. 

No doubt we need to keep a handle on our regrets so that they don't cause us to freeze in our tracks, unable to make any decision at all lest we do something we may later regret. But it's beneficial to our self-knowledge to examine dispassionately our past actions, especially those we later came to regret. We need to learn from them in order to assure that the decisions we make in the future are more sound and thought-out. We can only avoid committing actions in the future we'll later regret if we know what we've regretted doing in the past and why we made those decisions.

Posted with Blogsy

Clothespin Commitment

Chasing Revery is a blog I hadn't read before but will now. It offers a challenge to writers to come up with a short, 500 word maximum, story that relates to a posted image and includes 5 randomly selected words. 


Below is the image,

and the 5 random words.

1. Task
2. Digging
3. Flea
4. Price
5. Legend

And here is my tale.

Clothespin Commitment

The old clothesline hardly saw any use anymore since Sean bought the fancy new washer-dryer combo on sale last year. These days its primary purpose was to serve as the net when the kids played volleyball in the back yard. 

Meanwhile the clothespins sat in a box on the back porch, completely ignored and nearly forgotten. But today they once again had purpose. Today they once again would be entrusted with the task of securing Sean's laundry on the line, ensuring that it remained high until dry. 

Digging through the collection of clothespins Sean selected five of the newest and strongest to keep his white bedsheet fixed to the line, to prevail against all attempts by the wind to turn the bedsheet into a beautiful white sail and blow it across the yard. 

The clothespins had but one purpose in their lives, one job that gave meaning to their existence. The five chosen to secure the bedsheet against the wind knew that nothing could deter them from their assignment. They couldn't allow the flea that chose to use the clothesline as a highway from the doghouse end of the yard to where the dog was now resting in the shade of the sheet to distract them from their duty. But when the crow landed on the line and began to peck at these curious wooden oddities, they realized the wind was not going to be their sole enemy on this fine afternoon. 

The crow fixated on the clothespin at the closest end. He pecked and prodded until finally the clothespin lost its grip and fell to the grass. The remaining four clothespins silently communicated alarm. "We must hang together, we cannot allow this creature to defeat us. No price is too large to pay in our duty to keep this sheet on the line."

The crow, deaf to the clothespin's cries of commitment, continued to peck at the next clothespin on the line. Its resistance to the crow's assault was commendable but futile. Within just a few minutes it joined its fallen comrade in the grass. Clothespins two, three and four soon suffered the same fate.

Now only one clothespin remained to carry out the duty entrusted to the original five. 

This particular clothespin was a legend among Sean's clothespins. The gales of the Summer storm two years ago tore all the laundry off the line except for a pair of Sean's underwear that this clothespin refused to release its hold on. No crow, no amount of wind would defeat it.

The crow soon realized that he had met his match. This wooden toy fought off every trick in his repertoire. Acknowledging this, he lost interest and flew away. The wind, too, seeing that it couldn't dislodge the sheet from this hero's grasp, fell to a light breeze. 

Grateful to the survivor, Sean decided this clothespin should serve a higher purpose. It's now affixed to the side of his desk and holds all of his important mail. 

15 grammar goofs that make you look silly-CopyBlogger

There is a middle ground between being a "grammar nazi" and writing so poorly that you can't be understood. This infographic explains some common errors that everyone who writes for comprehension should avoid.
Like this infographic? Get more copywriting tips from Copyblogger.

Money and Politics: Paying for Power

The election funding issue has become obscene. 


Where once upon a time people sought public office in order to serve their fellow citizens, now they seek office in order to enrich themselves and in many cases build a base of rich and influential backers in order to seek higher and higher positions. The higher the office one seeks, the richer they must be personally and/or the richer their supporters have to be. 

Too often, I suspect, those backers aren't putting their money behind the candidate they believe espouse the best policies for the country, have the clearest vision and most workable solutions for the problems we face as a nation or who possess the higher integrity as a person. Rather these backers are in essence buying the office. They are paying the going rate to ensure the election of a person sympathetic to their interests and who they expect will reward the backer's contributions with favorable legislation. What else explains the refusal of any politician from any party to seriously limit campaign funding?


In our market economy political office has become just another commodity to be bought and sold by those with the most money. Funding a presidential candidate has become the ultimate capital (perhaps; capitol) investment. The Citizens United decision and the creation of superPACS make it clear that politics is a market in which only the wealthiest have the sufficient means to play. The concept of representation is dead. What percentage of the American public do Obama and Romney represent? The wealthy, the best-educated, the most powerful and influential. They have no idea how the average American lives. 


If Mr. Smith went to Washington these days he'd never get past the Capitol guards. He'd have no more influence on politicians than the average citizen. Primaries and the electoral college ensure that the average citizen has little to no influence on the outcome of elections. All of our politicians are bought and sold by those with the largest stake in what decisions the politicians make in office. That stake has nothing to do with what's best for all our citizens. It is solely based on profits and the increasing of power and influence by those who pay to get their candidate elected.

Do you know the truth?

The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it. ~Terry Pratchet

First it should be noted that Terry's quote doesn't address the concept of "the truth" itself but rather says that he finds those who are striving to find "the truth" better company than those who believe they are in possession of it. In other words, it's a comment on people and their attitudes, not the nature of truth. I, too, think that people who are willing to admit they don't posses "the truth" make better companions than those who presume to already know it. They have no interest in changing their opinions since they believe that what they know is absolutely true. While this attitude affects religious people, it doesn't only affect them. There are many people with many opinions on a variety of subjects who believe that what they know is unassailable and claim that nothing will ever change their mind. I've found people who think they know "the truth" to be pompous and arrogant, uninterested in learning anything that may challenge their presumptions. They aren't fun to be around because all they're interested in is their own thoughts. They have no motivation to listen to anyone else or entertain new ideas. 


Then we need to define our terms. What is “the truth” and what is meant when it’s capitalized as “the Truth”? We need to know the context in which that phrase is being used. That will help us understand what “the truth” may represent on a certain topic. 


Lastly we ought to acknowledge the limitations of our humanity. We can only know what we have the means to discover and the words to describe. We as humans, because of the evolutionary limits of our senses, cannot perceive everything. Because of the capabilities of our brains we cannot know everything. The inability to posses absolute knowledge means we cannot reach absolute conclusions. There’s always the possibility that exceptions and contradictions to what we currently know exist and we just haven’t encountered them yet. 


That’s why the search for knowledge, the quest for “the truth” whatever that means in any context, ought to be considered an ongoing, lifelong pursuit. I like being around humble people who can admit their own ignorance and yet continue to explore and learn as opposed to those who believe they have nothing left to learn as they already posses “the truth”. 

Wisdom requires humility

A member of a debate forum I'm on has a signature on his profile that is short but profound.


"Humility is a prerequisite for wisdom because we will always be wrong about many things and therefore must be open to realizing self-error." (Yarn)


The scientist Robert Millikan expressed a similar attitude when he said, "Fullness of knowledge always means some understanding of the depths of our ignorance; and that is always conducive to humility and reverence."

If one is truly seeking wisdom they can only do so by admitting that there is much they don't know and that much of what they think they know could be wrong. 

Humble Contemplationby ~cicaprincessa

This is the point where the desire for enlightenment departs from the path of seeking religious knowledge. Seeking only that knowledge which one believes can be imparted by a god means that the knowledge one believes they receive from their god must be free of error, that it cannot be wrong. There is a smug satisfaction that accompanies the belief that one is the holder of absolute truths. 

The seeker of natural knowledge, that knowledge and wisdom generated by humans over the course of centuries of trial and error, success and failure, always remains aware that the knowledge they posses as well as that which they seek may very well be in error, and that they only seek it because of their current ignorance or incomplete knowledge. There is no absolute knowledge to be acquired and no source of absolute knowledge. The belief that one posses knowledge which is absolute and without error blinds that person to what they don't know. How can you seek to know more if you already think you know it all?

Before we begin a journey of discovery and seeking knowledge, we must practice the humility of admitting that we are unsure, unconvinced and unaware of so many things. It's foolish to take pride in the small amount of knowledge we posses when the amount of ignorance we each posses is so much greater. It's equally foolish to think that we as humans could ever be free from error. 

Knowledge and Wisdom

I contend that knowledge is remembered awareness. Wisdom is rightly applied knowledge.


We encounter information every minute of every day. Our senses are constantly feeding data to our brain. Much of it is ignored. That which we are aware of and remember becomes knowledge. 

The brain itself can interfere with this process if it is in less-than-optimum condition. Dementia, genetic disorders, alcohol and drugs can all affect the brain's ability to remember and synthesize the data is receives. 

Not all knowledge is beneficial or constructive. Some of it is downright detrimental to our happiness and peace of mind. We do have a certain degree of control over what knowledge we retain and use and what we ignore. 

Wisdom as the application of knowledge in a way that's most beneficial for ourselves and our world.


Wisdom is taking the knowledge we posses and applying it to achieve positive results. While we may not have full control over what knowledge gets put into our brain, wisdom is exercising full control over what we do with our knowledge. 


This is why we respect a knowledgeable person to a lesser degree than we respect a wise person. 


A person full of knowledge is a repository of information. That information may be useful or useless. We all know someone who delights in retaining thousands of bits of trivia; the only thing they usually do with it is entertain others or win bar bets. They have a lot of knowledge but fail to apply it in a way that is of benefit beyond becoming popular at parties or getting free drinks. 


The wise person takes the knowledge they have, however great or small the amount, and uses it to improve their own lives or the lives of others. A wise person can change the world.


Knowledge is the banishment of ignorance, wisdom is the application of knowledge.