I recently overheard a comment that spurred me into a little research project. The comment (slightly paraphrased): "If I was a Democrat or Union Member, I would have been happy that I had to stand around and do nothing while somebody else worked." So right away, you've got a whole loaded gun full of the standard Right rhetoric regarding Democrats and Unions. Without knowing any specifics on the subject in question, one can assume that this non-work situation is the result of either A) some bogus work protection policy put in place by a Democrat controlled governing body and/or B) Union protectionism of superfluous jobs and/or procedures. Either way, it's clear that there's no way this is the result of a Republican initiative, or at least the speaker assumed so and would pass on the usual Right rhetoric bashing the Left for this transgression.
Before I move on the the actual meat of the project, I want to say that had he speaker uttered something along the lines of, "You know I was standing around because some Republican figured out this was a good way to funnel more money to his business cronies." I would have been just as suspicious and incensed. I hate partisan rhetoric, from either side, that is spewed with no basis or backup. If you know, and I mean know, that some problem is a direct result of the actions of one party or the other, then by all means call a spade a spade. And, hopefully, do so with logical arguments and documentation, not here-say and conjecture. Parroting the b.s. of the talking heads of television and radio, following your parents, brother, etc. party lines, and echoing misinformation from emails, blogs, and editorials just further divides this country and throws more green wood on and already blinding political fire.
So here's the object example of knowing your real enemy. The quote above was due to the result of a new certification requirement in Virginia for pyrotechnicians. This requirement unfortunately means that uncertified individuals must be "supervised" by someone certified. That makes a lot of sense on paper, but almost none practically since certifications from other states are not valid. What it means is that someone with an abundance of certifications and experience from another state will still have to have a VA state pyrotechnician present, for no other purpose than to just be there to fulfill the requirement. This is over and above all other state and federal laws regarding pyrotechnic safety and setup. There's the effect, now to the cause (remember the blame is laid at the feet of the Left):
Starting with the actual certification requirement:
http://www.vafire.com/state_fire_marshal/PDFs/PyroCertProcess02092011_rev02172011.pdf
Which was voted in by this board:
http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/AboutDHCD/BoardofHousingandCommunityDevelopment.htm
during this meeting:
http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/AboutDHCD/Board_minutes/minutes%20Jan.24.11.pdf
Tracking down the full makeup of the board would be time consuming, and even then would obviously not give insight to the process and politics involved. But on the surface, this occurred during a Republican governor's tenure:
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/
and went through at least a few of his appointees:
http://projectvirginia.com/mcdonnell-appointments-include-tito-munoz-to-virginia-housing-board/
http://www.publicsafety.virginia.gov/News/viewRelease.cfm?id=282
The power to the board was granted and direction given by the General Assembly per:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+27-97
The sponsor to "amend and reenact" that statute (Senate Bill 8):
https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+cab+SC10212SB0008+RCSB1
was Republican: http://sov.state.va.us/SenatorDB.nsf/27b5042a70f517f585256c05005bd42f/797ab9ce5739fbd885256ae00070224e?OpenDocument
The full history of the bill is here:
https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sum+SB8
The Senate, at the time, was controlled by Democrats 22/18, but the House was controlled by Republicans ~60/40. The House overwhelmingly passed the bill:
https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+vot+HV1641+SB0008
And finally, the Republican governor approved on 4/11/10 (see the history link).
So, if "I were a Democrat or Union Member", I would actually blame Republicans for the fact that I had to stand around and babysit somebody.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
The Lost Drive-By Visit
Does anybody do the drive-by visit anymore? Have cell phones killed people's ability to be spontaneous and just drive to see someone?
I recently did a drive-by, my first in many years - mainly because it has been a while since I've been near any friends who would appreciate a visit - and I happened to have my wife with me on this occasion. I didn't even think about it, it was just something I was going to do. The friends were literally 1 minute divergence from the path I was taking anyway, so it only made sense to stop since I had wanted to drop something off that I had borrowed, for a while. So, here is a paraphrase of the conversation with my wife on the way:
Me: "Hey, we're gonna stop at Fred's for a minute."
Her: "Oh, did he call?"
Me: "No."
Her: "Did you call him?"
Me: "No."
Her: "What if they're not home." (referring to Fred's wife in the "they")
Me: "Then I'll see them another time."
Her: "But you didn't call ahead. What if they're busy?!"
Me: "Then they won't answer the door or, if they do, then they'll tell me they're busy."
Her: "That rude. I don't understand why you wouldn't call. We're not going there and bothering them."
Me: "I don't see it as bothering them. They're our friends and like to see us. I'm not asking to stay for dinner. We're just stopping by on our way somewhere. I'd rather just visit than call and schedule something."
As it turned out, Fred and his wife were home, invited us in, and were happy to have a short visit. I had gaged the acceptance and openness of my friends correctly. There are some friends I wouldn't do a drive-by to, although very few because people who would actually have a big problem with it probably aren't people I'd like to be friends with. FYI, my wife is a lovely person and I'm not putting her down. I do not think her reaction to actually doing the drive-by is indicative of her response should we receive one. I feel she's just thinking through the action like everyone else today does.
Before I became all adult and professional, say around 23ish, I did drive-bys all the time. The practice mostly stopped because I moved to Washington D.C., away from my old chums and family, and DC is not very conducive to "popping over". But, even there, and other cities I found myself through life, if I was near enough to someone and had the desire, I had no problem rolling over to see them. I like the spontaneous nature of it and I really think people are pleasantly surprised by a personal visit when you really don't "need" to see them. Sometimes it's the drive itself that's fun. I've taken a drive out to a far-flung friend's house just because the drive is nice and seeing someone on the other end of it is a good excuse. If they're not there, well, it's still a nice drive.
My drive-by practice started during the early cell phone era when, obviously, you couldn't call ahead unless you called from your home. I could be weird in this drive-by thing, but I don't think so. I know other people would "just stop by" on their way somewhere. So, with everybody having cell phones now, have we killed our ability to do things unscripted and unscheduled? It's now rude not to call ahead. Why wasn't it before? Does the ability to do something confer a new protocol of politeness? I hope not. I don't want to live my life like I'm going to a popular restaurant all of the time. I don't call ahead for reservations on life. I'm certainly not going to reserve time with friends and family. In return I expect them to not feel obliged to accommodate me.
There's a yin and yang to this drive-by thing and I'm using it as a proxy for a deeper problem I think society is having with technology. The yin is me dropping by unannounced. The yang is my friends and family having the confidence in our relationship and the chutzpah of their own to wave me off with no hard feelings. Extrapolate this now to cell phones (voice and texting), Facebook, Twitter, email, and chat. I watch people run to their cell phone when it rings or there is a notification, conditioned to answer it no matter what the circumstances, short of them being on fire. Facebook comments and posts have to be answered. There is now a compulsion for instant gratification of both giving and receiving responses. I answer my cell phone when it is convenient for me. I call people back when I feel like it. I deal with Facebook, email, and chat when I have time. These are all tools for me, not other people. They're mine. I own them to use them how I please, not how it pleases others. So, I've seemingly gone off track here, but get this: the very same freedom that allows me to not be compelled to bow before my cell phone is also the same freedom that allows me to consider either giving or receiving a drive-by visit.
Because I'm not expecting someone to call to plan every little detail of our relationship, I don't require a call for someone to visit and I think my friends would all reciprocate. Maybe I even push them into it. Camel Feet is that guy who can just show up, but they expect that unexpected aspect of me, just as they expect me not to answer the phone every single time they call. And, back to the yin and yang, they know they can turn me away with absolutely no hard feelings. The people who feel they have to answer the phone are the same people who couldn't turn me away, regardless of how impractical it is for me to be there, and would truly think I was rude for even showing up without calling first. That's just a crappy way to go through life, in my opinion. If somebody calls at a bad time, I don't answer. If someone shows up at a bad time, I tell them it's a bad time. If I'm either on a call or someone is over and it becomes a bad time, I tell them. Why do people now have a hard time telling each other their real status and just plain being honest? Family and friends should be able to do that with one another, right?
I recently did a drive-by, my first in many years - mainly because it has been a while since I've been near any friends who would appreciate a visit - and I happened to have my wife with me on this occasion. I didn't even think about it, it was just something I was going to do. The friends were literally 1 minute divergence from the path I was taking anyway, so it only made sense to stop since I had wanted to drop something off that I had borrowed, for a while. So, here is a paraphrase of the conversation with my wife on the way:
Me: "Hey, we're gonna stop at Fred's for a minute."
Her: "Oh, did he call?"
Me: "No."
Her: "Did you call him?"
Me: "No."
Her: "What if they're not home." (referring to Fred's wife in the "they")
Me: "Then I'll see them another time."
Her: "But you didn't call ahead. What if they're busy?!"
Me: "Then they won't answer the door or, if they do, then they'll tell me they're busy."
Her: "That rude. I don't understand why you wouldn't call. We're not going there and bothering them."
Me: "I don't see it as bothering them. They're our friends and like to see us. I'm not asking to stay for dinner. We're just stopping by on our way somewhere. I'd rather just visit than call and schedule something."
As it turned out, Fred and his wife were home, invited us in, and were happy to have a short visit. I had gaged the acceptance and openness of my friends correctly. There are some friends I wouldn't do a drive-by to, although very few because people who would actually have a big problem with it probably aren't people I'd like to be friends with. FYI, my wife is a lovely person and I'm not putting her down. I do not think her reaction to actually doing the drive-by is indicative of her response should we receive one. I feel she's just thinking through the action like everyone else today does.
Before I became all adult and professional, say around 23ish, I did drive-bys all the time. The practice mostly stopped because I moved to Washington D.C., away from my old chums and family, and DC is not very conducive to "popping over". But, even there, and other cities I found myself through life, if I was near enough to someone and had the desire, I had no problem rolling over to see them. I like the spontaneous nature of it and I really think people are pleasantly surprised by a personal visit when you really don't "need" to see them. Sometimes it's the drive itself that's fun. I've taken a drive out to a far-flung friend's house just because the drive is nice and seeing someone on the other end of it is a good excuse. If they're not there, well, it's still a nice drive.
My drive-by practice started during the early cell phone era when, obviously, you couldn't call ahead unless you called from your home. I could be weird in this drive-by thing, but I don't think so. I know other people would "just stop by" on their way somewhere. So, with everybody having cell phones now, have we killed our ability to do things unscripted and unscheduled? It's now rude not to call ahead. Why wasn't it before? Does the ability to do something confer a new protocol of politeness? I hope not. I don't want to live my life like I'm going to a popular restaurant all of the time. I don't call ahead for reservations on life. I'm certainly not going to reserve time with friends and family. In return I expect them to not feel obliged to accommodate me.
There's a yin and yang to this drive-by thing and I'm using it as a proxy for a deeper problem I think society is having with technology. The yin is me dropping by unannounced. The yang is my friends and family having the confidence in our relationship and the chutzpah of their own to wave me off with no hard feelings. Extrapolate this now to cell phones (voice and texting), Facebook, Twitter, email, and chat. I watch people run to their cell phone when it rings or there is a notification, conditioned to answer it no matter what the circumstances, short of them being on fire. Facebook comments and posts have to be answered. There is now a compulsion for instant gratification of both giving and receiving responses. I answer my cell phone when it is convenient for me. I call people back when I feel like it. I deal with Facebook, email, and chat when I have time. These are all tools for me, not other people. They're mine. I own them to use them how I please, not how it pleases others. So, I've seemingly gone off track here, but get this: the very same freedom that allows me to not be compelled to bow before my cell phone is also the same freedom that allows me to consider either giving or receiving a drive-by visit.
Because I'm not expecting someone to call to plan every little detail of our relationship, I don't require a call for someone to visit and I think my friends would all reciprocate. Maybe I even push them into it. Camel Feet is that guy who can just show up, but they expect that unexpected aspect of me, just as they expect me not to answer the phone every single time they call. And, back to the yin and yang, they know they can turn me away with absolutely no hard feelings. The people who feel they have to answer the phone are the same people who couldn't turn me away, regardless of how impractical it is for me to be there, and would truly think I was rude for even showing up without calling first. That's just a crappy way to go through life, in my opinion. If somebody calls at a bad time, I don't answer. If someone shows up at a bad time, I tell them it's a bad time. If I'm either on a call or someone is over and it becomes a bad time, I tell them. Why do people now have a hard time telling each other their real status and just plain being honest? Family and friends should be able to do that with one another, right?
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Teabagging n00bs after pwning them! Epic Fail!
I was shooting basketball at the local rec center last night and there were half a dozen 9-11 year olds in my proximity. I nearly fell over laughing when one of them exclaimed, 'I so pwned you!'.
(For anyone that doesn't know this term, the short answer is that it's pronounced "poaned", as in, "owned" with a "p" at the front and it means exactly the same thing as when one is "owned", in sports or gaming parlance. Feel free to Google the history, but it's derived from PC gamers often mis-typing "owned" as "pwned" because of the proximity of the "p" on the keyboard.)
I've been playing video games since they existed, I still play games on Xbox Live, and I have a number of friends who play WoW, so I'm well versed in the various geek terms that have become prevalent across different platforms. I hear this stuff all the time through those filters, so I never really think about it until a source outside of the norm crashes through to wake me up to the mainstream usage. A 9 year old pwned somebody on the court last night! Whoa!
Are 90's and 00's gamers the equivalent of the previous generation's surfers of the 50's and 60's? Surf lingo hit the scene heavy in the late 50's and through the 60's and gave us lasting terms, such as "Dude!", "Air" (almost all X-Games get "Air" and surfers were the originals), "Bail Out" (see "Air"), "Gnarly", "Heavy", "Kook/Kooky", and "Sick!" (good sick, not bad sick). Even the shaka or "Hang Loose" hand gesture has it's place. Unfortunately, while surfers gave us generally pleasant terms, gamers contributions have generally been derisive.
Starting with the title phrase, to teabag is the ultimate insult. I implore all parents and adults out there to be aware of this upcoming vulgar gesture. What concerns me is that this one is slipping under the parental radar in gaming, so when it makes its real life appearance, many won't even know what the gesture represents. A "simulated" teabag would look like a weird squatting dance, probably with reduced downward motion to not look too stupid. Make no mistake, this is as vulgar as flipping the bird or making the upraised fist, hand in the crook of the elbow gesture (fyi, I'm purposefully not telling you what it really is so you can go find out yourselves). Do I teabag in games? Absolutely, although judiciously. (There is a rationale behind the usage, as it's the only non-verbal F-You one can give in games.) Do I want to see it in person? Absolutely not, and I'll punish my children unmercifully if I ever catch them doing it either.
Newb/n00b: Newbies have been around since man first organized itself for competition, but now we have a way to brand them.
Fail and Epic Fail: Do I really need to tell you what these mean? Fail is derived from a the "Blazing Star" game's terrible Japanese to English translation for defeat: "You fail it! Your skill is not enough! See you next time! Bye bye!"
A few for the positive side, or at least not exactly negative: w00t = Wow! Loot! or Wonderous Loot. The double 00 is an idiotic geekism. (See the perversion of newb above). (Wikipedia attributes woot to other derivatives, but they don't make sense given the 00 inclusion) W00t has now transcended its gaming origins to be generally used as a positive exclamation, most commonly as "Woot!". Also, can be used when leveling up in a game, as can "Ding!".
There are some more floating out there, but I don't see any of them floating to the surface anytime soon. Or, as some would say, they haven't become a meme yet. I specifically referenced surf lingo because it predates "meme", which I think is a pompously overused term by people who try to make themselves sound smarter and cooler on the Internets.
(For anyone that doesn't know this term, the short answer is that it's pronounced "poaned", as in, "owned" with a "p" at the front and it means exactly the same thing as when one is "owned", in sports or gaming parlance. Feel free to Google the history, but it's derived from PC gamers often mis-typing "owned" as "pwned" because of the proximity of the "p" on the keyboard.)
I've been playing video games since they existed, I still play games on Xbox Live, and I have a number of friends who play WoW, so I'm well versed in the various geek terms that have become prevalent across different platforms. I hear this stuff all the time through those filters, so I never really think about it until a source outside of the norm crashes through to wake me up to the mainstream usage. A 9 year old pwned somebody on the court last night! Whoa!
Are 90's and 00's gamers the equivalent of the previous generation's surfers of the 50's and 60's? Surf lingo hit the scene heavy in the late 50's and through the 60's and gave us lasting terms, such as "Dude!", "Air" (almost all X-Games get "Air" and surfers were the originals), "Bail Out" (see "Air"), "Gnarly", "Heavy", "Kook/Kooky", and "Sick!" (good sick, not bad sick). Even the shaka or "Hang Loose" hand gesture has it's place. Unfortunately, while surfers gave us generally pleasant terms, gamers contributions have generally been derisive.
Starting with the title phrase, to teabag is the ultimate insult. I implore all parents and adults out there to be aware of this upcoming vulgar gesture. What concerns me is that this one is slipping under the parental radar in gaming, so when it makes its real life appearance, many won't even know what the gesture represents. A "simulated" teabag would look like a weird squatting dance, probably with reduced downward motion to not look too stupid. Make no mistake, this is as vulgar as flipping the bird or making the upraised fist, hand in the crook of the elbow gesture (fyi, I'm purposefully not telling you what it really is so you can go find out yourselves). Do I teabag in games? Absolutely, although judiciously. (There is a rationale behind the usage, as it's the only non-verbal F-You one can give in games.) Do I want to see it in person? Absolutely not, and I'll punish my children unmercifully if I ever catch them doing it either.
Newb/n00b: Newbies have been around since man first organized itself for competition, but now we have a way to brand them.
Fail and Epic Fail: Do I really need to tell you what these mean? Fail is derived from a the "Blazing Star" game's terrible Japanese to English translation for defeat: "You fail it! Your skill is not enough! See you next time! Bye bye!"
A few for the positive side, or at least not exactly negative: w00t = Wow! Loot! or Wonderous Loot. The double 00 is an idiotic geekism. (See the perversion of newb above). (Wikipedia attributes woot to other derivatives, but they don't make sense given the 00 inclusion) W00t has now transcended its gaming origins to be generally used as a positive exclamation, most commonly as "Woot!". Also, can be used when leveling up in a game, as can "Ding!".
There are some more floating out there, but I don't see any of them floating to the surface anytime soon. Or, as some would say, they haven't become a meme yet. I specifically referenced surf lingo because it predates "meme", which I think is a pompously overused term by people who try to make themselves sound smarter and cooler on the Internets.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
White Fat vs. Brown Fat: Its Cold Out There!
I was perusing some headlines and I noticed a new study regarding warmer indoor temperatures contributing to obesity. Weight loss gimmicks, fads, wisdom, research, etc. always interest me due to the gross level of misinformation and narrow focus they present. This latest one didn't disappoint.
It has to be one of the stupider lines of research I've seen. Really? You mean that if people make it warm and cozy inside and decide not to go outside and exercise or work, they'll get fatter? Thanks for that news flash! How about you try a real comparison: measure people that "live in the cold" against those who are warm but workout regularly. But, make sure you are using test groups that have the same relative daily caloric expenditure.
If cold is the primary factor during winter, then I would expect all of those NYC hotdog, magazine, and other street vendors to be "brown fat" laden and ready to be muscle machines come warm weather (you have to read the article and underlying science to understand what I'm talking about). Obviously, there are some serious gaps in the study. There may be interesting science around brown and white fat cells, but once again American science has perverted a line of research to conform it to a specific goal(s).
What is that goal or goals? Well, of course, our ultimate desire is to be fat and lazy without the effects of being fat and lazy. So, if researchers can figure out a way to trick the body into producing more of those "good" brown fat cells and less white, via the next miracle weight-loss drug, then they'll declare success. The next goal is somewhat hidden in the article, at least until you reach the end. The theory goes that if we want to fight obesity, then we should all turn down our thermostats...which just happens to save energy and reduce carbon emissions.
I'm absolutely not against saving energy and reducing carbon emissions, but don't try to sneak an agenda in through the back door of a national health issue. Furthermore, why in the world does research always focus on such narrow parameters, putting blinders on to correlations? It's almost a guarantee that whoever they studied in the "cold" has a higher energy output than whatever slobs they found sitting around inside their cozy homes. If you read the wording carefully, you'll notice that the real comparison is between indoors and outdoors, not true controlled temperature tests. Does it take a scientist to figure out that the average person who spends more time outside in the winter will be less fat? Let's look at the groups who would be outside: athletes, manual laborers, farmers, nature buffs, etc. It's easy to see that those groups all have more active lifestyles.
It has to be one of the stupider lines of research I've seen. Really? You mean that if people make it warm and cozy inside and decide not to go outside and exercise or work, they'll get fatter? Thanks for that news flash! How about you try a real comparison: measure people that "live in the cold" against those who are warm but workout regularly. But, make sure you are using test groups that have the same relative daily caloric expenditure.
If cold is the primary factor during winter, then I would expect all of those NYC hotdog, magazine, and other street vendors to be "brown fat" laden and ready to be muscle machines come warm weather (you have to read the article and underlying science to understand what I'm talking about). Obviously, there are some serious gaps in the study. There may be interesting science around brown and white fat cells, but once again American science has perverted a line of research to conform it to a specific goal(s).
What is that goal or goals? Well, of course, our ultimate desire is to be fat and lazy without the effects of being fat and lazy. So, if researchers can figure out a way to trick the body into producing more of those "good" brown fat cells and less white, via the next miracle weight-loss drug, then they'll declare success. The next goal is somewhat hidden in the article, at least until you reach the end. The theory goes that if we want to fight obesity, then we should all turn down our thermostats...which just happens to save energy and reduce carbon emissions.
I'm absolutely not against saving energy and reducing carbon emissions, but don't try to sneak an agenda in through the back door of a national health issue. Furthermore, why in the world does research always focus on such narrow parameters, putting blinders on to correlations? It's almost a guarantee that whoever they studied in the "cold" has a higher energy output than whatever slobs they found sitting around inside their cozy homes. If you read the wording carefully, you'll notice that the real comparison is between indoors and outdoors, not true controlled temperature tests. Does it take a scientist to figure out that the average person who spends more time outside in the winter will be less fat? Let's look at the groups who would be outside: athletes, manual laborers, farmers, nature buffs, etc. It's easy to see that those groups all have more active lifestyles.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Answering Prayers: By the Numbers
So, who hasn't heard about Ted Williams yet? The "Golden Voice" is hitting every media outlet, so we're all up to date on the former homeless man's rise to fame, with the help of God. Yes, God answered his and his mother's prayers. Chance, his own personal perseverance and generous character, the natural goodwill of others...all attributable to God. Now comes the avalanche of secondary media and Facebook posts that tell us how this man owes everything to God because his prayers were answered.
So what of the other ~110,000 chronically homeless, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of temporarily homeless? Assuming some don't believe in God, some are incapable of formulating prayers due to mental illness, and others refuse to pray, I would still be willing to bet there are a good number praying for help and even have others praying for them. How does God pick, then?
Years ago, my cousin was diagnosed with leukemia. It's a horrible form of cancer with a current survival rate of 40%, up from 14% in the 60's. Thankfully, my cousin survived. To many, it was, and is still, declared as a miracle. Many prayers were asked for and many prayers were said. He beat the odds but, every day, 60% of others don't. Why was his case, in particular, a miracle? Why were his family's and friend's prayer's answered when the majority of others are not?
You cannot find any competitive endeavor, especially when Americans participate, that "winners" don't thank God. Olympic medalists, sports teams, racing drivers, reality TV competition competitors, game show contestants, etc., etc. all thank God for their wins. When someone, or a team, wins, there are invariably many, many more "losers". I'm pretty sure a great many of them were praying for victory. Do they thank God for the loss? If two teams/competitors both pray to God for the win or even just to play well (which would be the more modest prayer), how does God pick who to answer? I almost have this image of Zeus and Poseidon each imbuing their champions with power for victory, but it sort of breaks down because God is singular. Ever tried to play checkers against yourself? It doesn't really work so well.
Floods, earthquakes, hurricanes...we've all seen the aftermath footage of survivors thanking God for their lives. Really? So John Doe down the street, who lost his home and family: what should he be thankful for? You see the same thing with every level of tragedy and despair: people thanking God for not making it worse or for answering their prayers while they were at the cusp of death. That's right, you prayed and God answered. He just happened to ignore the other two passengers, with you, when the car slammed into that tree.
God gets credit for even the mundane. I have seen thanks given for a new job, an affordable car available for purchase, a child getting good grades...I could go on ad nauseum. The point being that, with all of these prayers flying around and prayers being answered and miracles happening, what's the logic? Is the prayer answering percentage based? Can you get yourself into the queue with extra effort? I don't think anyone has been able to answer this question, except with the tried and true oblique responses:
- We don't understand God's grand design (He's infinitely smarter than you, so don't bother even questioning anything associated with God or faith).
- He helps those who help themselves (implying you haven't done enough for yourself if your prayers aren't answered?)
- Someone's time was up (Again, don't question what you'll never comprehend)
Faith is wonderful like that. There is absolutely no argument that can stand against the basic foundation that God is unknowable and unquestionable. Well, bullshit. I'm not going to get into any kind of theological debate with anyone over this. I simply want to point out the narrow focus that people have when attributing credit to prayers and God's largess. Most people are pretty damn selfish. Am I against prayer? Hell no! Pray away. Anything that gives you strength and makes you feel better is a positive in my book. Will I be praying anytime soon? Statistically speaking, I'm just as well off as people who don't, so no. And, to anyone who would decry, "Atheist asshole!", I'm an agnostic. The difference will be in a later post, if you don't know it already.
“Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear” -- Thomas Jefferson
So what of the other ~110,000 chronically homeless, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of temporarily homeless? Assuming some don't believe in God, some are incapable of formulating prayers due to mental illness, and others refuse to pray, I would still be willing to bet there are a good number praying for help and even have others praying for them. How does God pick, then?
Years ago, my cousin was diagnosed with leukemia. It's a horrible form of cancer with a current survival rate of 40%, up from 14% in the 60's. Thankfully, my cousin survived. To many, it was, and is still, declared as a miracle. Many prayers were asked for and many prayers were said. He beat the odds but, every day, 60% of others don't. Why was his case, in particular, a miracle? Why were his family's and friend's prayer's answered when the majority of others are not?
You cannot find any competitive endeavor, especially when Americans participate, that "winners" don't thank God. Olympic medalists, sports teams, racing drivers, reality TV competition competitors, game show contestants, etc., etc. all thank God for their wins. When someone, or a team, wins, there are invariably many, many more "losers". I'm pretty sure a great many of them were praying for victory. Do they thank God for the loss? If two teams/competitors both pray to God for the win or even just to play well (which would be the more modest prayer), how does God pick who to answer? I almost have this image of Zeus and Poseidon each imbuing their champions with power for victory, but it sort of breaks down because God is singular. Ever tried to play checkers against yourself? It doesn't really work so well.
Floods, earthquakes, hurricanes...we've all seen the aftermath footage of survivors thanking God for their lives. Really? So John Doe down the street, who lost his home and family: what should he be thankful for? You see the same thing with every level of tragedy and despair: people thanking God for not making it worse or for answering their prayers while they were at the cusp of death. That's right, you prayed and God answered. He just happened to ignore the other two passengers, with you, when the car slammed into that tree.
God gets credit for even the mundane. I have seen thanks given for a new job, an affordable car available for purchase, a child getting good grades...I could go on ad nauseum. The point being that, with all of these prayers flying around and prayers being answered and miracles happening, what's the logic? Is the prayer answering percentage based? Can you get yourself into the queue with extra effort? I don't think anyone has been able to answer this question, except with the tried and true oblique responses:
- We don't understand God's grand design (He's infinitely smarter than you, so don't bother even questioning anything associated with God or faith).
- He helps those who help themselves (implying you haven't done enough for yourself if your prayers aren't answered?)
- Someone's time was up (Again, don't question what you'll never comprehend)
Faith is wonderful like that. There is absolutely no argument that can stand against the basic foundation that God is unknowable and unquestionable. Well, bullshit. I'm not going to get into any kind of theological debate with anyone over this. I simply want to point out the narrow focus that people have when attributing credit to prayers and God's largess. Most people are pretty damn selfish. Am I against prayer? Hell no! Pray away. Anything that gives you strength and makes you feel better is a positive in my book. Will I be praying anytime soon? Statistically speaking, I'm just as well off as people who don't, so no. And, to anyone who would decry, "Atheist asshole!", I'm an agnostic. The difference will be in a later post, if you don't know it already.
“Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear” -- Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Inaugural Post: Ending Facebook as my forum
I've never been much of a blog follower. When a Google search picked something interesting up, sure I'd hit it and follow the thread, but I didn't really see the need for blogs or bloggers. Two things changed my mind, though. First, I bumped into a couple of blogs that were perpetually relevant to my interests, generally aligned with my thought processes, and, most importantly, are written by intelligent and balanced individuals. Second, I realized, after a very long-winded comment-fest on Facebook, that I was actually already blogging.
A little over 2 years ago, my wife and I decided to join the Facebook craze. Our only compulsion for doing so was because we were bound for life in the UK, and Facebook seemed like a great vehicle for keeping up with everyone. It was and we did. For the first 6 months, I was a typical Facebooker, adding long-lost friends and classmates, playing goofy games, etc. Over time, though, I filtered it down to its base components so that I could get on, get the relevant information about people I actually cared and wanted to know anything about, and get off. When you synthesize Facebook down like that, you can really see who says plain stupid and/or incorrect things, who is far left/right, and the gross level of misinformation travelling through comments, like/dislikes, and statuses.
I didn't consciously set out to utilize Facebook as a way to spread my political views (which can be misleading because I often play devil's advocate) or incite debate, but, by my nature (highly skeptical, analytical, critical, diffuse, and unreserved) I couldn't let certain things slide. It's one thing to know someone is making uninformed decisions that only affect them (sort of) and another to see that translated to assertions that everyone sees on Facebook and may even "Like". While every battle can't be fought, I found myself slowly drawing upon the power of the comment to validate, denounce, expand, etc. For a while, I was secure in my cocoon of thinking that, really, only my family and closest friends are probably seeing this stuff, and they know I can't let go of a good verbal fight. Slowly but surely, though, from stray Facebook comment dropped in here and there, from people I never talked to, and actual conversations with extended friends and family, that I only see infrequently, I realized the audience was much larger than I suspected.
I went into a slow shock for a while. I didn't want to post to anyone that might get angry or get into debates that revealed too much detail about my personal views. But, once we returned to the U.S., after 18 months in the UK, I felt the old urges rising, especially when bullshit swirled around regarding the various Euro Zone economic crisis. To wrap this story up, I went back to my old ways, but I became much more judicious in selecting my targets and a bit more politically correct in my comment approach. A few months ago, though, a succession of long-winded "debates" convinced me that I might want to consider a different forum. That was the genesis of "Middle Of The Road".
A little over 2 years ago, my wife and I decided to join the Facebook craze. Our only compulsion for doing so was because we were bound for life in the UK, and Facebook seemed like a great vehicle for keeping up with everyone. It was and we did. For the first 6 months, I was a typical Facebooker, adding long-lost friends and classmates, playing goofy games, etc. Over time, though, I filtered it down to its base components so that I could get on, get the relevant information about people I actually cared and wanted to know anything about, and get off. When you synthesize Facebook down like that, you can really see who says plain stupid and/or incorrect things, who is far left/right, and the gross level of misinformation travelling through comments, like/dislikes, and statuses.
I didn't consciously set out to utilize Facebook as a way to spread my political views (which can be misleading because I often play devil's advocate) or incite debate, but, by my nature (highly skeptical, analytical, critical, diffuse, and unreserved) I couldn't let certain things slide. It's one thing to know someone is making uninformed decisions that only affect them (sort of) and another to see that translated to assertions that everyone sees on Facebook and may even "Like". While every battle can't be fought, I found myself slowly drawing upon the power of the comment to validate, denounce, expand, etc. For a while, I was secure in my cocoon of thinking that, really, only my family and closest friends are probably seeing this stuff, and they know I can't let go of a good verbal fight. Slowly but surely, though, from stray Facebook comment dropped in here and there, from people I never talked to, and actual conversations with extended friends and family, that I only see infrequently, I realized the audience was much larger than I suspected.
I went into a slow shock for a while. I didn't want to post to anyone that might get angry or get into debates that revealed too much detail about my personal views. But, once we returned to the U.S., after 18 months in the UK, I felt the old urges rising, especially when bullshit swirled around regarding the various Euro Zone economic crisis. To wrap this story up, I went back to my old ways, but I became much more judicious in selecting my targets and a bit more politically correct in my comment approach. A few months ago, though, a succession of long-winded "debates" convinced me that I might want to consider a different forum. That was the genesis of "Middle Of The Road".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)