My Mother’s Son

I have been looking up the bands my mom likes. These include among others, Procol Harum, The Moody Blues, Neil Diamond, Phil Collins, Chicago. I must say, I love these bands/Artists. I have always been my mother's son in regards to music.

My Dad's Music which inludes Dianna Ross, The Four Tops, Simon and Garfunkel, John Denver, Tom Petty, Matchbox Twenty have never really appealed to me. My dad likes folksy easy to like music. My mom likes the stuff that requires a bit more of a willingness for the music to grow on you, but when it does you really like it.

I am going to make a playlist in tribute to my mom, who is still alive by the way, tributes often are in regards to dead people not this time.

If you have not heard the songs: Whiter Shade of Pale, I Know You're Out There somewhere, and If You Leave Me Now check them out. The Music sounds an awful lot like indie rock of today.

5:58 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

College Love

The bells echo across the empty town

through the oaks and cars to Logan

over the commons where I first sat with you

Reading Elliot and Hawthorne

It was a cold day in October

you with your ear muffs

and coffee shops

and books full of the stuff of dreams

The world was going to change

It did indeed

December came and lights fell softly on your face

as we walked to the playhouse

Like

Hamlet

Ghostly Paternal Phantoms

Haunted us

But we were not afraid

We did not fail to act

The bells now silent as the pledges gather

The old leaves still gather shoes

 Cobain's voice barely whispers

 somewhere souls plot

to change the world

New voices carol

but

I lost you.

5:12 AM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Cowboy Rant

 I don't like cowboys or cowgirls, sorry Meghan. Cowboys have a big chip on their shoulder. Once the genteel socially conscious people like Willie Nelson or Johnny Cash, they have sense become the loud antagonistic Toby Keiths of the world. No, you do not intimidate me with your large truck, or your gun rack. I drive a toyota rice burner and I can still kick your smug ass and I am an Atheist liberal Diamond Blue Democrat who hates Country Music.  

Cowboy boots on girls is not sexy, nor are cowboy hats. I will take a nose ring and green or pink hair over a cowboy hat anyday. I don't find your defensive brutish little sayings about family, culture, country or god folksy or clever. Your naked lady mudflaps make you look retarded as do your truck testicles.

Your music has become antagonistic. It is not an objective portrayal of life, love and truth, it is slanted one sided idealistic portrayal of redneck living, and yes we city folk still consider the term redneck to be an insult.

You might be a redneck if you hate: Blacks, Jews, Atheists, Environmentalists, Homosexuals, Liberals, Foreigners, Hispanics, or anyone who is not like you.

Another thing, raising cows in a pasture that is surrounded by fence, does not make you a cowboy. It might make you a rancher, but not a cowboy. The cowboy myth is just that, a myth. In the 19th century, disenfranchised southern white men went west after losing their slave holdings and learned from the more talented Hispanic cattlemen how to be "cowboys." These were drunken loud uncultured idiots not worthy of becoming our cultural icon. America is not a nation of cowboys just because every male in your backward red state fancies themselves that way.

Cowboys have not produced any art, technology, or advanced social awareness. It is rednecks who held back civil rights. It is redneck who holds back gay rights. It is rednecks that elected president Bush. It is rednecks who won't let Jesus just slip quietly into the night of antiquity.

To celebrate this culture of the redneck, is to celebrate the darkness that is two hundred years of backwards southern repression of all things new and progressive. It is a celebration of our worst qualities as Americans. I will not wear a cowboy hat. I am from the country, but I do not celebrate that fact with bloated vehicles, bloated self-esteem, bloated machismo and a large belt buckle. I love the fact that I am from the country and take pride in knowing how to raise a garden or how to fish. I do not need to be a big blowhard to prove it.

4:28 AM - 6 Comments - 4 Kudos - Add Comment

The Problem of Evil

This one of the many angles that Atheists use to attack the idea of God. The idea is that a loving and all powerful God would not allow evil to be in the world. There are many counter-arguments to this, one being free will and another which is a little more complex.

Evil stems from God given free will. The idea is that God wanted us to be autonomous beings with the abilty to make decisions for ourselves and he cannot be held responsible for those decisions because he gave us free will. This is crap. We do not give child molesters free will. We do not give Murderers free will. These people we lock up and limit their deicision making ability. God should limit the free will of those who would declare wars and enslave the people. Besides that, God demands obediance, he does not provide for free will.

The argument is that we would grow bored with perfection. If their were no dangers, we would have no sense of fulfillment or purpose in life. It is the overcoming of obstacles that make life worth living. This is a compelling arguemnt. One that I had to think about for awhile. Then it hit me. God is omnipotent, why would he create humans who grow bored with perfection? Why would he create us with this flaw. A loving God would not do so.

The problem of evil remains a thorn in the side of the believers. 

5:11 PM - 2 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

Alright a Real Blog: Stoicism Versus Terrorism

A Stoic is a terrorist's worst enemy.

First of all if you do not know what a Stoic is, let me explain. Stoicism was a school of thought created by Epictetus in Ancient Greece. Though it originated in Greece the philosophy became the central philosophy of the Romans for ages until that later weaker philosophy known as Christianity replaced it as the Empire's premiere way of thinking.

Stoicism states that it is not events that cause pain, rather our reaction to them. If someone calls you a name, it is your reaction that determines if you are pained not the words from the person taunting you.

Apply this now to the global war on terrorism. What is that terrorists want more than anything else? Is it death, is it power, is it fame? No, it is fear and paranoia that they want. They know that to take on the United States or any other western nation toe to toe in a full traditional military engagement would result in their being turned to dust, but if they can cause the citizens of those nations to become afraid and do something stupid, like over react by changing their laws deploying their military, profiling their citizens, changing their way of life, then they have an angle at which to attack us and disrupt us.

The answer then is to have stoic resolve not to react. The terrorists want nothing more than to see the citizens of the Great Satan shaking in their cowboy boots waiting for the next plane to fall from the skies. How then would they act if they see us with faces as calm as Hindu bulls as we discuss how to deal with terrorism?

What if we said, "Hm, our towers fell so we shall rebuild them if we choose to do so."

This would not invite another attack, because it would show that they completely and utterly failed. This does not mean that we cannot be on guard against terrorist plots, but it is the over reaction that we must, absolutely must avoid at all costs because that is bait the terrorist want us to take.

3:56 AM - 2 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

The Stoic and the Jihadi: A Parable Jesus Style

A Stoic awoke one morning and found that that his neighbors house had been burned down. He rushes over to help. Later that day the Jihadi is proclaiming to all that will hear that he can strike at anytime, that YOUR house is next. The stoic seeing that he has an audience says, "Would you burn my house down as you have done to my neighbors?"

"Absolutely, yours is next." The Jihadi says

"Well I guess I had better start gathering logs and lumber for my next home."

"I will burn that one down as well."

"Sir I shall inform you that there are plenty of trees in the forest for which to make houses."

That night his house is burned to the ground. The Stoic rebuilds his home even bigger and stronger than before. He even loses a few pounds as he does all the manual labor involved.

That house to is burned to the ground. This goes on for years.

Eventually the Jihadi says, "Stoic, I have burnt your house down for years and yet you do not strike back at me are you a coward?"

The Stoic says, "Because I am not a coward, I have not struck out at you."

The Jihadi understands this seemingly cryptic response well. Frustrated with the lack of reaction, the Jihadi grows tired of setting homes ablaze and decides that perhaps it is in his best interest to target someone who does react. The others though are impressed with the Stoic's reserve and imitate him. The Jihadi cannot win.

Oh and there were two sets of footprints and all that I carried you yada yada yada.

3:33 AM - 2 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

Back in the Candidate Pool

I thought that I was no longer being consider for Border Patrol Agent, due to the fact that paperwork was sent to me while I was away for two weeks and while I was gone, the deadline came and went.

The paperwork was the background check and guess what? Homeland security already had my fingerprints and questionaire on file. I am good to go. I got a letter today saying that an oral interview is scheduled in Euless Texas on the 17th of December.

Fun Fun Fun. I got to get off work during the a hectic time travel time of the year. I am sure that my bosses will work with me though.

Well, I got to go get ready for work.

Kudos all and have a great day.

4:25 PM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

To Dance in the Belly of the Crucible

A blog about a coworker who engaged in me in debate and lost I might add. You know all this stuff, but for entertainment's sake, please by all means read on and feel free to provide a comment.

Roger Steed who is a jovial happy go lucky guy took advantage of the fact that no flights were going out to hit me up to talk religion. I was more interested in talking to some of my female coworkers, but as Lucas a good friend of mine was listening, I decided to take him on. I love an audience

Again this is told from memory as I do not have a tape recorder, but I will be about as honest and objective as I can be, which is not very much as I am gloating here.

Roger asked me if I believed in miracles knowing full well that I don't. My thought was, "Fuck, Roger leave me alone."

"Well do you?"

"Define a miracle." I say

"Well that is up to interpretation." He begins "My idea of a miracle is not necessarily yours."

"Okay, I will define it then since you are playing games, a miracle is when the physical world acts in a way that is contrary to the way in which is normally acts, and does so to an extend that no explaination can be summoned and my answer is no, I do not believe in miracles."

"I have seen a few. Do you want to hear?"

"No"

"There was this dude with Brain cancer...."

Oh God here is comes

"The doctors said he had less than a week to live..."

Less than a week! Does he make it! I'll bet he does

"My preacher prayed over him and the next morning he was fine and there was no trace of the Cancer. He lived happily for two month and died with no trace of Cancer."

I am beginning to believe in my own prophetic abilities, predicting the end of miracle stories that is. Him dying though was a bit of a twist, miracle stories rarely end with deaths.

"Okay Roger, First of all this is not a miracle. Who was the doctor that said he had a week to live? He died eventually, perhaps the week to live thing was a mistake and it was actually two months. Why is it you put faith a doctors diagnoses, but not in her ability to cure, you leave that to God. Why is that thousands upon thousands of faithful men and women die of horrendous flesh eating viruses all the time, what was so special about this man?" I go on and on

"If you want to see a miracle, you have to go where miracles are, you wont see one in a bar."

I personally have seen miracles in a bar. Tha fat loud redneck went home with the hot chick.

"Roger, you did not respond to my challenge questions, you really just ignored them."

"I don't need to prove anything."

"Do you want me to believe you?"

"I don't care."

What the fuck?

"Then why did you tell me this miracle story?"

"Oh, I thought you would want to hear."

"I think you do want me to believe or you would not have said or you want to debate the miracle. I am going to debate it since you bring it up. Sometimes weird things happen, you roll ten dice and all or snake eyes, this does not mean it is a miracle. Things just happen. What it is, is a desire to believe which causes you to witness what you believe to be miracles. You want a miracle, so you see one. You did not question the doctor's original diagnosis, you did not see the autopsy report after the man died, you did not the catscan of the man's brain after he is said to have been cured of the cancer. You did not see these things because you did not want to see them, you wanted to believe it was a miracle."

"You wont know until you experience one yourself."

"Well if you want me to believe you, you need evidence plain and simple."

"Do you have evidence that I am speaking to you now?"

"Yes, Lucas here also hears you and you are on videotape."

"No, you don't have evidence, you just know it and that is how it is when God speaks."

"Um I just said I have evi...."

"When I speak to you, it is no different than if God speaks to you."

"Yes it is."

"No it is not, you have no proof, but you just know."

"Roger this is a false analogy, when humans speak to other humans it shows up on recordings, video tapes, multiple witnesses observe the act, it happens everyday, I see you talking, Lucas sees you talking, none of this is case with God talking, this is a false analogy. When the likihood of something being true reaches a 98 to 99 percent likelihood threshold, it is safe to assume that it is true and is happening. "

This is no longer only about miracles.

"If no one believed in God, without religion, mankind would go mad."

Mad with joy.

"Mankind would have no repercussions for his actions."

"There is that whole court of law thing."

"That is not a deterrent."

"Fewer percentages of Atheists are in prison than their Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and Jewish counterparts, we can safely say that belief or disbelief has little no effect on obedience to social norms and laws."

"I want to see those statistics."

"Do your own homework."

"I will"

"What has science done?"

I was getting up to go, but he just did not want me to leave."

I sigh "Longer life expectancies, electricity, global communication, polio vaccine, internet..."

"What about nuclear bombs?"

"Nuclear bombs are not in of themselves evil things. It is their use against innocents that is evil."

"Yeah, but science gave  them to us."

"Yeah, you're right." I say "and I can argue that Nukes have actually saved lives, but I am not, what I am going to say is that science is not a moral system, it is only a system from which knowledge is obtained. What we do with that knowledge is what can be good or bad."

"We need a moral compass then, like religon."

"Well religion has caused more bloodshed then anything else and I don't think that our moral compass should be based on religion, something that is based on nothing but opinions."

"How can science make us moral?"

"Science attempts no such thing, but morality may very well be a side effect of scientific thinking. Science gives a grasp on reality, so that our beliefs are based on reality. When our beliefs are based on illusion or out right untruth, we do stupid hurtful things."

"Like what?"

"Seriously Roger?"

"Yeah what?"

"I believe that I am of a superior race and that jews are not worthy of life, I do not believe this based on any sort of scientific research, I believe this based on well faith. I act in accordance to my beliefs."

Okay I am tired of this, I won the debate and at one point I had everyone laughing who listening in because I was really revealing how absurd some of this was. If I can get them to laugh, I believe that I am showing them there is something to this whole disbelief thing.

Anyway Kudos goodnight.

2:49 AM - 1 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment

The Needs of the Many

Outweight the needs of the few.

I have not read any Utilitarian literature as of yet, but I generally agree with this statement, though there are questions to consider.

One, why does the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few? The reason is individuality. It seems contradictory to say that protecting the needs of the many protects individuality, but it does as the many is in actuality many individualities. If one can protect two unique individualities as the cost of one, then one should do so. The problem though is that individuals are not equal. Some individuals' needs are not the same as the rest.

A sociopath has a need to murder, and a rapist a need to rape, so if you have two murders who wish to kill one innocent person who has a need not to be murdered should you still meet the needs of the many? Of course not, but why? This is an extreme case. Rape and Murder are univerally agreed to be reprehensible, but what about cases that are not universally reprehensible? The controversy that comes to mind is abortion.

In the case of Abortion, the needs the many is the need to abort fetuses that would be most likely be drain on society. One would have mothers who are overworked and likely to neglect their children who will grow up and likely have difficulties in life causing more difficulties. True this is not one-hundred percent, but I am sure statistics would show that the many if not most of the children of mothers who were not ready emotionally and financially to support them will end up becoming dependent on society rather than a support to society. Then again if one fetus becomes the inventor of the cure for cancer, then we would be in effect acting contrary to this principle of the supporting the many rather than the few. 

The question then should be is it prudent to abort this minority so that the majority should benefit? Another question would be whether or not the benefits are equal to the fetus losing its life.

I personally support a mother and FATHER'S choice to either abort or keep their unborn fetus. I feel that sacrificing the lives of fetus that are not yet even self aware is prudent for the benefit of society as a whole, but I recognize that counter views are complex and worthy of consideration.

Ultimately I guess the old adage that nothing is absolute applies to this utilitarian statement as well.

10:21 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment

The Rules of Acquisition

There is a debate in the business world about corporate ethics and what that entails. There is a school of thought that states that a business's only responsibility is towards its stockholders, and it has no obligation towards society. I disagree wholeheartedly.

Business's sole goal is to make profit, not to champion social programs that end social ills. I agree with this to an extent; however, it is the responsiblity of a business to clean up its messes. If a business pollutes the air, it is the responsiblity of the business to clean the air. If a business sells a faulty product then it is the responsiblity of the business to recall that product. These are the simple questions regarding business ethics.

What about creating a massive ignorant poor working class? Is it a corporation's responsiblity to enlighten and empower the working class? Wal-Mart as an example goes into a town and eliminates the competition, then hires the towns people to work in their store and they agree to work because there are no other shops in which to work because Wal-Mart put them out of business with their low prices, so then if Wal-Mart pays them little, keeping them from saving enough money for their own education or for their children's education, does Wal-Mart owe them something? It is a complex problem. Are low prices Wal-Mart's only obligation to ensuring that we live better.

I am not quite ready to say a business must be responsible for providing a means for its employees or their children to gain a college education or similar means of empowerment simply because they do not pay well. I am equally not ready to say that Wal-Mart or any other corporation has no obligations toward employees who are underpaid and overworked.

What I believe is this; when anyone or any organization gains power, either through wealth, political influence or by any other means, that individual or organization automatically has a responsibility to do their part to better society. After all it is from society that all power is derived. So if Wal-Mart gains power from consumers, then Wal-Mart owes something to consumers, many of whom work for Wal-Mart. Are low prices enough to cover Wal-Mart's obligations to society?

I am picking on Wal-Mart, the fact is that all major corporation in the world face ethical questions like this. Too often, more precisely 99 percent of the time, Corporations do not care about these ethical questions, they do not believe that they have any obligations beyond those who are directly invested in their business. This is why we are in the economic crisis we are in now.

Ultimately, it is our responsiblity as employees and consumers and stakeholders in society to gaurd against abuse by any powerful entity. We cannot expect the powerful to police themselves, we have to crack their mighty knuckles through our power to vote and more importantly with the power of our voices and our wallets and organizing into labor unions does not hurt either. So ultimately the question of business ethic falls upon the shoulders of those who are potentially harmed by unethical corporate behavior, consumers and employees.

So what say you?  Let's slay some corporate dragons that hoard our rightful treasures.

4:00 PM - 2 Comments - 2 Kudos - Add Comment