Guilt

Religion and Society use Guilt to manipulate you to believe as they do. Guilt is the most powerful motivator--it causes people to avoid eating donuts, it makes you go to bed early, it even makes you beat yourself up when you do something "wrong."

But who determines what is "wrong?"

Realistically we are all individuals and determine right and wrong on our own --I know, that's a very relativist statement. [we think eating donuts are bad because they will make you sick, ie fat ie unhealthy ie shorten your life, but if you think a short life is perfectly acceptable for you then what's so wrong about eating a donut  and being fat and unhealthy? --if you're comfortable with the outcome, it doesn't matter.]
MMmmmm...

The problem is that people aren't comfortable with certain outcomes because of guilt: society makes you think that being fat is bad and they ostracize fat people. Society is obsessed with living forever and finding ways to prolong their lives, so they frown upon people who want to live a short, happy life.

You beat yourself up because you want to fit in with society. You want to prescribe to the same things that everybody else does and you have a subconscious desire to believe what the rest of society believes. You simply want to be a part of the "in" crowd.

You don't have to be.

You are an individual.

My recommendation is to live your life questioning everything. Question why people believe the things they do. Question why people do or don't do things that you clearly want to do. And after you do or don't do those things that people don't want you to do, question whether they really bring you what you want.

Everything you need to understand about life comes back to elementary school jokes: If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you?

Value of a life

What is the value of a person's life?

This question suddenly intrigues me... 

Most people find it easy to think about value in terms of money. Is a person as valuable as the total amount of money they earn in life? How about the total assets they own, cash included?

A second prominent measure of value I have heard is "number of people touched" though i don't agree with this measure of value because it disregards individuals who create great value for their own lives and not others, which i do find valuable so long as they don't do it at the expense of other people.

Nor do I fully prescribe to the moral philosopher's measure, the total "good" he or she has contributed minus total "bad", though I think it comes very close to an accurate measure...if it were only possible to measure in that way practically.--until it happens you really don't know what will happen.

Every life is valuable. Every life has the right to make choices and live the way they choose. No one has the right to take another's life nor do they have the right to force another to live their life a certain way. Further, no one has the right to judge another, because doing so implies that the judge knows THE only way to live life. Judging a life, in effect, forces another person to prescribe to a specific way of life.

The value of a life is highly personal. Neither you or I can gauge the value of some other person's life except by our own subjective judgements. The only person who can gauge the value of your life objectively is you. Only you know what you value and if you have done everything you can to create value in your life. In the end, you will hold yourself accountable for your successes and failures. And, really, the only disappointment in life is when you quit trying.

Death is the opposite of life, and if life is valuable, death is not. Death is of no value to anyone, not yourself and not others. Since we do not know what awaits us after this life, the only understanding that matters to us is this life. What we do now, we can guarantee will affect this life, and because we have seen the far effects of those who have come before us, we know that what we do in this life counts. There is no guarantee that in death we start over. There is no guarantee that what happens to our spirits after we die is beneficial. In other words, we can only rely on the value of this life.

In essence, you are valuable so long as you are living, because if you are living, you can keep making value. And you can keep making value so long as you determine in your mind that you are valuable. The value of a life is limitless so long as that individual values his or her self.

Story Format: Comedy, Tragedy, and Real Life

I haven't written ANYTHING in a long time it seems...This (my final) semester of classes doesn't have any English courses and I've been preoccupied with other things so writing as a hobby has flopped.

The topic of this article is on real life and stories.

Stories are interesting; they are attempts to make the unreal real, but to do it in a way to emphasize a specific point. Stories aren't just "random" they aren't moj-poj collections of different items and plots--not just anybody can make up a story because there are surprisingly many rules--rules that our minds enforce subconsciously and when broken inform our conscious that the story is "lame".

One "rule" is that of the Tragedy or Comedy.

Let's start with comedy: It's a story line or arc just like a tragedy. But the comedy always starts with the main characters at the bottom of the pile. The lowest rung. The base of the totem pole. Bad things happen immediately starting the story.  But the point of a comedy is how the main character rises from the dust rises from the slum and succeeds.
If the initial trial isn't hard enough, the audience doesn't appreciate the growth that is made. The story of a rich man getting richer just isn't all that interesting.
Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's not funny, but the ending is meant to make you feel good--inspired that mankind is so capable.

But let's talk about Tragedy:
Tragedy is the opposite of comedy. Instead of starting on a sad note, it starts on a happy note. Something good happens, something too good. The purpose of a tragedy is to point out the folly of mankind, or human nature, or whatever else.  By the end of the story, the characters who were so successful in the beginning are brought to their knees, humbled, humiliated, and lost. They lose everything.


But real life is so different.

Sometimes rich people do get richer.
Sometimes poor people get poorer.
But we are still attracted to the situations where people in poor circumstances rise to prosperity.
It pains us and confuses us when people in prosperity fall.

The more human of us try to help those who fall to land soft, and help those who are trying to rise to rise well.

I'm never aware of where I am. Comedy leads to Tragedy leads to Comedy. Sometimes I feel as though I am in a comedy--that I'm rising from some horrible state. Other times I feel I am falling from a higher plane.

When one falls...

USU Makes a Deal

If you live in Logan, UT or Cache Valley...or anywhere near there, I am hosting a fund-raising event for a non-profit organization, Wasatch Social Ventures,  which is the organization responsible for raising funds for the Huntsman SEED program. The fund-raising event is called USU Makes a Deal, and is patterned after the TV show "Let's Make a Deal." We are going to charge $5 for admission (or $8 at the door).

Here is the event page for USU Makes a Deal
https://www.facebook.com/events/117270405089323/

And here is some more information about the SEED program, which sends students to 3rd world countries on a mission to educate people about starting businesses and to extend those people micro-loans to start up their dreams:
http://huntsman.usu.edu/seed/


Tell all your friends for me!

Circle of Life

It's been a while since I posted--I have 5 min before my boss responds back to me, let's see how this turns out...

(I don't know what this means but it looks cool)

I've had this thought on my mind the past few days: What about the afterlife?--I mean that in relation to the previously mentioned articles .

We will all die someday.
No one living knows what lies on the other side, death. We are all left to speculate based on our life experiences.
What we do know is that it does come--that no one, as yet, has been able to avoid death.

We also know that our physical bodies remain here, inanimate, and that the only way for them to move is for someone to move them. The living are therefore left in charge of moving the dead, and although it may serve a selfish purpose (if the body is in the way) the act of interacting with the dead is primarily a selfless act.

What we do not know is whether the physical body will be used by it's accompanying spirit at some future date. Many have speculated that the spirit is still connected to the body, or that the body and spirit will return together, or that the body does not matter. Honestly, I side with those who believe the body does not matter--not because I don't believe in the other two possibilities, but because our bodies decay. All of the chemicals and energy that went into our bodies will be dispersed elsewhere and what we borrowed to live in this life will erode away over time.

What matters most is not your physical body, but what you do with your body while living and what others will say about you when you are dead. This is your heritage and cannot be destroyed. Only spiritual things are capable of this because they are capable of changing and impacting the world around them.

The rich and powerful have found a way to preserve their heritage and legacy--but only so far as some other human being is willing to accept the selfless act of moving their body. Tombs and Graves are only maintained by the reigning power and if the latest king or sovereign leader opposes the dead, he or she will destroy the tomb, destroy the symbols, and eliminate the place of the dead.
Great minds have found a way to preserve their heritage and legacy by "discovering" the useful application of knowledge. --but only so far as that knowledge is still useful. Many philosophers have developed ideas that we still rely on today, that are still useful. Many inventors have created useful tools for our lives that we still use today as well--but how many inventors and philosophers were wrong or their inventions were replaced by more useful ones and we no longer know their name?

The point I am leading to is that although there are many ways to make a legacy or a heritage, even those things may end. The key is that they have to be done for the benefit of others otherwise others will refuse to "move your body" when you die.

Even with heritage and legacy in mind, there is a more important aspect of life and death that I will present now, and that is the present.We do not know what lies tomorrow. Though we may benefit people of the future, there are many people in the present who need our help now.
 Death is not a scary thing, nor is it a sorry thing. We do not need to mourn those who have passed on, because life is hard and they no longer have to deal with these troubles--if they died happy, you can take comfort in knowing they ended on a positive note. If they died sad, you can take comfort in knowing that they no longer have to deal with their trials. Celebrate their lives, celebrate the things that they did for you and the way they changed your life, but remember: they are not among the living anymore. There are those among you right now who need you more than the dead.

The dead really don't need us.

You are an ever-present, spiritual being. What happens to you today and how it affects you tomorrow is what matters--I think many people lose sight of their priorities when someone dies around them. They get caught up in the feeling of loss--that that person is no longer going to have an influence on their life--that they abandon all hope, they cry because they are confused. They cry because they don't know how to take the news, they don't know how to react to it, they don't know what they should be thinking about. They fear the unknown--but they don't need to! There are plenty of 'knowns' all around them, plenty of people, plenty of things.

When we fear the unknowns, when we feel the loss of someone, what is really happening to us is that we briefly lose sight of what is important to us. We lose our grounding in life. We get so focused on the one person who is no longer with us that we momentarily withdraw from the people who ARE with us.



Anymore, whenever I hear about deaths, my thoughts instantly go to the urgency to take up more responsibility. I commit to taking up the slack where that person left off (if applicable). Because to me, the living matter more than the dead.

When I die, I don't want a traditional funeral. I want to be cremated and my ashes to be scattered in a place few will go to. I want a monument built at some other religion's monastery that lists 3 of my greatest deeds, my name, and where I lived. And I don't want anyone to attend a ceremony in recognition of my death. That way, if they wish to know me (the dead me) they must learn about someone else's life, beliefs, and religion and therefore open their minds; they will never find my body and wonder whether I am not with them always; and rather than spend their time in celebration of my life, they will be with their family and friends, strengthening their relationships with them. Lastly, they will know that I lived in a town, city, nation, or world and will wonder what impact I made on it.

Trends in Terrorist Attacks- Global Public Enemies

The trend over the last couple decades in warfare is focused on guerilla warfare. Here are some quick observations we know from September 11th 2001 and 2012 (The attack on US Embassy's in Northern Africa):

• Terrorists use religious language and rhetoric to incite the lower classes of people who are economically and educationally deprived 
• They target nations, groups, and organizations that have economic wealth and freedom
• Their attacks are focused to maximize the terror factor and reduce costs
• As such they are very well organized grass-roots organizations
• Their overarching vision and mission is often vague (such as Jihad in the holy lands) and are designed to last forever (there is no way to measure overall progress)
• Even still, their vision is global not local
• Essentially, Terrorists can only win battles and not wars
• They are only permitted to thrive in locations of the world where individuals do not have sufficient freedom (either they are economically constrained or they are oppressed by their government) 

To me it seems as though "Terrorists" (if that's the correct term) are just bullies...they don't have the things they want and their life circumstances are so poor that they take their economic or govermental oppression out on targets that are not directly involved in their oppression. 

This is precisely what Hitler did to gain power over the Germans

What the Bolsheviks did to control the Russians

What Geronimo did to the Native Americans/Mexicans

What we are facing isn't new, and is likely the byproduct of a shrinking world. Although America may play a strong part in our shrinking world, Americans and American Ideology and Organizations are merely players in a constantly changing environment. The changing dynamics affect everyone and these "terrorists" are global citizens who are causing problems to our global society. They are no different than the village trouble maker in primitive societies or the town drunk. 

It is an unfortunate thing that our nations by themselves are unable to handle all of these problems on their own. This situation is comparable to the individual states in the U.S. being unable to contain Jesse James the train robber or Johnny Dillinger the bank robber. 

The solution, for the U.S., was to create a national criminal justice force out of the executive department of the government. This was known as the FBI.

But as the world expands, there becomes a need for an International Task force charged with criminal justice  . We need to recognize that Terrorist acts, Rebellion, Sedition, and otherwise are criminal acts. Such actors become public enemies to the global public. Unrest in one remote part of the world affects the rest of the world--this is 2012. 

In the past we have seen a village pride, town pride, county pride, state pride, national pride, and now it is imperative that we develop a global pride. We need to be proud to be citizens of the Earth and we need to be as involved in global affairs as we are in our local and national affairs. Without such pride we are doomed to repeat history over and over again. Public enemies will surface over and over again and we will be unable to prevent them, unable to stop them until it is too late. 

No man is an island and although modern terrorists tend to focus their efforts on America and its direct allies, all nations of the earth will be affected by these global public enemies. 

Mankind's Greatest Problem

A fellow traveler throughout life once asked me what I thought "the biggest problem was with people." I sat for a moment and then said that the biggest problem with people (individuals and society) is that they don't forgive often enough. Everybody wants Justice. They want what's fair and they want at least an equal share of it. If someone does something to offend them, they want that person to suffer and they themselves to be blessed.
Eventually, the universe will balance itself out. Karma will turn right around and bite everyone who takes more of their share and it might even give more than a fair share to those who are offended. Those who get the worst out of life initially get the best out of life later, and those who have life easy struggle when they are older. But none of that matters really when it comes to people...

People are the catalyst of life. How you treat people is what matters most--the relationships you have and maintain are what is important, not what is just and fair. In the real world, justice and equality don't exist in the same breath as friendship, love and happiness. With people, there is no right and wrong, everything is just different. Some people do things one way, others do things another way, yet both are still living, still surviving. If doing things their way helps them accomplish their goals and find purpose in life, then let them do it. So long as they aren't knocking you down, it's alright that they step on your toes. This world is too big to take offence whenever someone rubs against you the wrong way.

There is something beautiful about being able to withstand other people's negative energy and transforming it into something neutral--or even something positive!

Typically, people's problem (individual's and society's biggest problem of not forgiving) comes down to a common scenario: one friend gets into an argument with another friend or lover or other relation, and they vow not to forgive or forget. They build up a long list of grievances and don't ever let go of the situation and they distance themselves from their friend.
The trouble is that the times when you need friends the most is in that moment when your friend disappoints you, upsets you, turns on you, offends you, hurts you, or otherwise influences you negatively; and in that moment, you've distanced yourself from your friend. In the moment that you harbor animosity between you and your friend and you create that distance between them, you lose your friend and you no longer have your friend to be with you during that, the worst, time.

Forgive people, let the universe balance itself out, life is to precious to lose a good friend.

Accountability

The only way to find true happiness in this life--lasting happiness and peace. Is to be fully accountable and conscious of our decisions. And when we make mistakes, to accept those mistakes. 




Hmm...
I seem to have left off two of the most important things on my list of beliefs: Accountability and Balance.

Accountability is the most important thing I believe in. Since "we are the most powerful things in the universe" (4) we have the potential to obliterate others just like us, or limit them [or force them to chnage (6)] .--This presents a philosophical fallacy because if we are so powerful that we can destroy others who are just as powerful as we are, then there is the great potential that someone else has already come along and destroyed or limited our power. What that means is that the first person to destroy everyone would ruin my theory that we are all equally powerful--because one individual would clearly be more powerful than everyone else and so long as that person is living he or she limits the rest of the population.
Granted, this fallacy doesn't disprove what I believe in--in fact, I believe that it IS true.--That certain people (or organizations, or societies) have obtained the power to limit the rest of mankind.
You have no doubt seen this: the bully in school who pulls down those around him or her. The jerk at work who tries to make you look bad in front of the boss. The home owners' association that won't approve you to leave one car parked in the driveway. There ARE people out there who limit your ability to rise and obtain your potential. --That's what's holding you back; it's not that you aren't capable, it's that someone told you you couldn't.

I don't care who you are, what you believe in, what you want to do in life, and how "justified" you are by the "truth" or whatever you want you call it. If there is one thing I know for certain--better than anything else in this life, it's that "Every Action has an Equal and opposite Reaction" --Newton. This is the Universal Principle of Balance. Not only have you seen it in Physics, you have seen it in your relationships with other people and in your will to survive in this life. Everything you do will have a reaction. Every choice you make, every decision you follow through with, every plan you carry out--they all have reactions.

There are positive reactions and negative reactions. Positive reactions are in your favor. Negative reactions are not in your favor. There are also neutral reactions, which neither hurt you nor help you. In every Atom of the universe there is a positive proton, a negative electron, and a neutron. [[side note: scientists got to choose which one was positive and which one was negative because the real observation that they made was that there are two equal and opposite charges that pull and push towards each other.]] In every relationship you have with another person your decisions either draw you closer, pull you apart, or change things but balance out in the end.

I believe in complete Accountability for my actions and I believe others should be completely accountable as well. It is possible to dodge accountability (more on this later) the negative effects of our decisions can be deflected onto others or postponed while meanwhile we enjoy the positive effects from our decisions. But therein presents another interesting philosophical fallacy: it would be impossible for everyone to deflect all negative outcomes. Eventually, someone has to experience the negative outcomes. (think: stacking draw-4 cards in Uno) I like to refer to this as Karma, because it is an English word most people understand.

At this point in my argument I must admit to you that the best argument I can give you against being unaccountable is that it is unfair, but the wise philosopher will counter with something to the effect of that those who are skilled at dodging negative consequences are obviously only out to achieve the greatest individual gain for themselves and do so selfishly.--such people wouldn't care about the unfairness.

So I must settle on a weaker argument: not being accountable ruins others' lives. It ruins societies. It ruins the future. But most importantly (to those who don't care) you can't ever fully dodge Karma. It keeps coming back in different forms. To illustrate, bullies always get beat up by bigger bullies and so forth who one day end up in prison and get beat up by fellow bullies and cops and the government bans them from things and punishes them and those negative consequences come back in full force.

This leads right into my beliefs about Balance.
The universe is always going to balance itself out. People are born in a burst of energy and they die in a fizzle of energy. Life is full of opposites and extremes. When you die, someone else will replace you and life will carry on. In every way--physically, morally, spiritually, etc.--the universe will balance itself out. Bad people die; Good people die too. Every problem that mankind faces will be addressed until it is obliterated and the moment that it is no longer a problem, a new problem will surface. The changes that society makes now will impact the future and future generations will have to address the problems that are developing right now.

EVERYTHING balances out in the end. This isn't a nihilist point of view however--what we experience right now is what counts most (2). And in many ways right now we are out of balance: we are either experiencing a grand total of positive or negative value.--either most things are going our way or most things are going against us.

Smart decisions are decisions that maximize the positive gains and minimize the negative effects. Being accountable means accepting those negative consequences because the positive gains outweigh the negative ones.

The only way to find true happiness in this life--lasting happiness and peace. Is to be fully accountable and conscious of our decisions. And when we make mistakes, to accept those negative consequences early before they morph into something worse.

Pushing Away

I went to the opening night showing of ParaNorman and was touched by the human theme. --As some of you may know, a lot of the same people who worked on the movie Coraline worked on ParaNorman. Coraline, too, has a very human theme and I expect this pattern to continue on any future movies these individuals work on.
Once you look passed the creepy, freaky, trippy scenes in Coraline you realize that at its core, the film is about a girl who ought to be happy with her needs being met rather than wanting more and better things.
ParaNorman, much less creepy, freaky, and trippy, is about how a society can harm the life of individuals who they don't understand.

[SPOILER ALERT]
In ParaNorman we realize that the witch who is haunting the town is just a little girl who was a little different and who was punished for being different. Although this is VERY true so far, the one scene that strikes me the most is the climax, where Norman states the blatantly obvious (obvious if you understand human nature, that is--which 99% of the film's child audience probably doesn't): The only reason why the witch is haunting the town is because they caused her so much pain. ParaNorman sends a very human message: even though it is human nature to seek revenge and to hurt the bullies who bullied you, it's better to let it go and move on with life (or death) in peace.

*People tend to push away those things that they are afraid of. They tend to be hurt a little too easily when they don't get everything they want and don't understand why. They become more afraid of the unknown because of the bad experiences they have had with the known and the cycle continues. [return to *]

Eventually they push so far to the opposite corner of their little boxes that they fall out of their boxes and land in unknown territory anyway.
Because people reflect so much on the bad, they easily forget about the good or fail to notice it entirely; so their decisions are rarely based on keeping the good things alive but on killing the bad--a bad that they don't understand and aren't sure on whether its good or bad anyway.

We've advanced far enough as a society that we don't need to hold grudges, we don't need to eradicate anything--good or bad--because there is always a way to live with it in harmony. We don't need to fear anything because we are fully capable of surviving through anything. If history and human nature says anything, its that we are all individuals looking for a safe harbor and the only way we can find that harbor is if we build it ourselves.

Feel Like I'm living an American Dream

I watched "The Pursuit of Happiness" today for the first time--I knew the general story, I always wanted to see it, but I never had the chance to do so until I realized my roommate had a copy of it lying in the living room.

--Throughout my college career I've had the opportunity to investigate what makes up the American Dream--over and over and over. From all sorts of angles...including Benjamin Franklin, Emerson, Thoreau, Jack London, Early Conquistadors, Christopher Columbus, The Founding Fathers, John Muir, Wallace Thurman, Fitzgerald, Lorraine Adams, Frank Herbert, Harper Lee, Bret Harte, Stowe, Twain, and so many more.

What most people gather about the American Dream is that Americans are Tough, Independent, and Determined to succeed. The image that comes to their mind is an individual setting out into the wide world, determined to succeed and make a name for themselves in a savage environment.
"The Pursuit of Happiness" affirms that motion. The main character, Chris, goes through a lot, is determined to succeed, and is independent throughout the film...

But if you look VERY closely at the stories of success--the true American Dream stories, you might question  the term "independence." 


In every rags to riches story; in every American historical account; in every success in America story, you will find that those who obtain the things they want from life got help. They all succeeded after someone lent them a hand, gave them a break, and helped them survive.
The pilgrims and John Smith--got help from the natives. The food necessary for colonists to survive was given to them by the locals who were already established and successful.
America became a nation only after Britain established a governing body and established order throughout the colonies. The colonies were not united until the British told them they were subjects of the king.
Benjamin Franklin would not have become a famous printer-jack-of-all-trades-philosopher if it weren't for his father, brother, Quakers, father-in-law and several others.

Chris Gardner, in "The Pursuit of Happiness," would not have survived if it weren't for the christian shelter that he was able to stay at until he sold his last bone density testing machine. He would not have survived if he wasn't taken up by the brokerage firm. Selling those machines on his own did not work after all.

I feel as though a case can be made that being an American isn't being independent and free.--Those are the stories that get told most but probably only make up 5% of Americans. To be an American is to establish yourself and then lend a hand to those who are struggling to survive. Find some level of stability and share it with others. Pulling yourself up from your bootstraps must imply that you're pulling yourself up on the arms of others who are lifting you up. Don't forget to take my survey!

Writing and Living

I've felt like writing a new article lately but I have been thinking less and less about deep enough topics these past few weeks simply because my summer semester is ending this week. Sometimes I just stumble into thoughts that I want to explore, other times I really have to try hard to think about things.

I'm not obligated to write on this blog and so everything that I do write is usually something I've put a lot of thought into. I've lived a few of the things I've written about--either by living through them by accident or choosing to live through them and test them out; so for me, writing is about like living. I write about life. I enjoy life. I keep on living. I'm excited for what the future always holds and when I write I'm either reflecting on what has already happened (the past) or what could/might/will happen (future).

Sadly, I don't think I could ever do writing for a living. Writing and I have a love-hate relationship. I love writing about things I care about; I hate writing about things that I don't want to write about--which is typically the things other people care about. You can't make money writing for yourself, that's for certain, you have to write for other's enjoyment.

Another thing that prevents me from living a writer's life is that even though I like when I'm writing and reading, the real thing that I enjoy doing is thinking and living through things. I love observing and experiencing things--the writing is just my way of expressing what I feel.
My English degree has helped me in many ways: I write more concise, I know how to think, how to judge, how to feel. I know more about humanity now because of my degree. I've learned a lot of refined skills, especially communication, but I'm still a terrible writer. --Just because I know HOW to write properly, language, writing, and communication is so fluid and flexible--especially the English language-- that in order to say things to the most effective it requires much more time and energy than to merely blurt out whatever I want to say--which is not the proper way to write.

Friday was the last day I would ever take an English class--this class wasn't required for my degree per se (it was elective credit). It was an easy class I took to fill up the last few credits of my degree. But the point is that I will never again attend a class on English in my life. I'm not sure whether to celebrate or to cry honestly. Probably I will celebrate, because I don't believe in feeling down about sad things for very long, especially when life is something to celebrate.

--Another problem I have with writing is that it's hard to be open about my thoughts and beliefs and sometimes if I start writing about a certain topic, people can assume that I'm thinking about that topic a lot and them make their own assumptions about my psyche--which is why I don't write about love, religion, or politics very often. It's because I don't want people to assume that I'm in love, that I miss someone, that I have someone special, that I'm constantly thinking about that person and contemplating the future with them--or that I question many religions, or have my own opinions separate from religions, or that I completely disagree with the way certain people live their lives or the things they do; I'm not Mark Twain, but I don't want people to feel animosity towards me the way they do him. I also don't like to present too many of my political beliefs because our democracy is founded on the belief that people are all different, that they have their own opinions, and that their the majority rules not because it is the most vocal, but because it is the most consented. Plus, I hate when people try to argue with me and change my opinions in politics if I don't want to  be persuaded and I just want to vote--let people have their own opinions.
My psyche is my psyche. Until I know your psyche personally and I know I can trust you, you won't see mine.


With that said, I'd appreciate if my family and friends (you who read this blog) would answer the following questionnaire I developed to get a feel for my audience. It can help me find a starting point for some articles:

Gender pt. 2

There are some odd gender concepts found in the natural world, but still no homosexuality. Here are a few I thought I'd break apart:

If females had penis' (peni? pl?) they wouldn't have sperm, they'd still lay eggs.

And if men had breasts, they WOULD be mature and deal with breast feeding in public. 

He thinks he's sooo cool because he has two women; if only he knew that one was a male in disguise mating with his woman.

Polygamy DOES exist in the natural world quite comfortably. In this case it's 2 men 1 woman, but only because she  typically produces twins and in order to survive and take care of them both she needs two men to help. In other species where the male population needs to enhance quickly (bigger, faster, smarter, stronger, etc) then the dominant male will breed with multiple females because there are more females than males.

Yet another example of the woman controlling sexual stimulation. Not only does the alpha female choose who to mate with, if a male tries to dominate her and force her to breed, she has a built in cock-block that makes it virtually impossible to rape her.

I hope you learned a few things today: No where in the animal kingdom is homosexuality acceptable. Homosexuality = death. More interesting to me however, is that depending on the circumstances of the population what we see as traditional gender roles vanish and all sorts of things happen in order to survive.

--I might eventually expand this argument trail by exposing certain human sexual behaviors (postponing the ethics of them temporarily) and offer possible reasons why they happen.

[[Simple Link: my first article on Gender]]

New Blog

For anyone who is interested, I will be taking on another blog (new topics call for new blogs).

It follows the title of this blog (when 1 falls) the new blog is tilted (compliments 2 living)

Go check it out: compliments2living.blogspot.com

If you're in love with the intellectual insights that I present but you're sick of me analyzing them for you, then you'll LOVE my new blog.

-Kyle

How do you like them Apple?

Oh man, I absolutely hate Apple. Not because of some obscure reason or because I'm a true windows fan (I'm actually not), and not because they hire child labor in china to put together their parts (Albeit unknowingly).


No, I hate it because of what they are doing to the entertainment industry, and the only way I can explain this is if I jump around a lot and tie up my loose ends later:


Everyone out there complains about how Windows has (HAD) a monopoly on computers, and yet few people gripe about what Apple is doing. Apple has nearly established itself as a vertical monopoly: Audio and Video and distribution.

EVERYONE thinks that they need a mac in order to create videos or music. Most people rate Final Cut Pro as the best. And they refuse to work with others who don't use it.

Really... let's listen to someone who actually knows: me!

Final Cut is NOT the best option. It's not cost effective, it's not the most resource efficient and it's not the most simple to use. Nor is it the most powerful. What final cut has that the others don't are hidden codecs.

Codecs: you know, those things that digital video is encrypted in. Those things that Hollywood established in order to protect their DVDs from being copied and edited... Really they just prevent john smith from pirating and make piracy into a professional's game (as it should be).

So here's the deal: Apple has a borderline monopoly because it owns the software to make the music and videos that are then used on the apple I-series (pod, pad, phone, mac, etc.) You can't go from one phase to another.

Now, they are LEGALLY getting around this monopoly because they leave "options"...you know...codecs...you don't HAVE to export to a .mov file...but they're not going to include a good decompressor with their software that will go directly into .mp4, .avi, .mpeg, .mts, .m2t, .wmv, etc. and to make things worse, they set the default export format to a codec (one of the many that are disguised as .mov) which you cannot view on a PC.

Granted, there are all sorts of .mov files--that doesn't mean anything other than that the file was made on a mac (codecs are different from files types). But the codecs, THEY are original. You see, DVPRO is one such codec that Apple doesn't release to windows. And yet it is one of the "best" decompressors that final cut has to offer as far as quality goes--it's also the type of codec used when importing from a digital device. Let's say you plug your camera in and import a video into final cut--BOOM it's automatically a mac only format. And to add to it, it's a format that can't even be played on windows computers.
What this amounts to is that you can't upload the files to final cut, then have your buddy edit half of the video on adobe or avid or my favorite Sony Vegas...instead, they have to be exported as a different file/codec type--legally that's fine, but practically speaking that's not realistic: The only way around it is to render a separate file--Why would I want to make 2 copies of a video on my harddrive: one that is great for final cut and one that is great for the rest of the world? Videos can take up gigabytes of space and hours of time to render into the proper format--this solution is very unrealistic in a world where even a 1 tb harddrive is still expensive and even fast computers still take hours to render.

Such is why I don't support Apple at all. (Yes, windows does it too, but they don't do a good job at it and so the best codecs tend to be accessible everywhere, not just on windows wmv or avi)

Online Dating

If you've ever been curious about what online dating is all about, whether it works or it doesn't work, read this article, you'll be impressed by what you learn.

Being an ex-life coach I feel more than qualified to write about online dating sites. --In some regards they were my competition, because people would rather hide out on online dating sites rather than fix whatever problems that they have that prevent them from having a relationship. In other regards, I've tried scooping up the online dating crowd in my marketing efforts and I had to do a lot of research in order to figure them out. In fact, I was interviewed at one time for a newspaper article related to this topic.

Here's what I've learned from it all:

1. Women are only online because they either a) lack the social skills to attract the attention of males in person or b) they are just investigating it because it is marketed as some mythical golden goose and they want to see if it really does produce golden eggs.
2. Men are only online because they either a) lack the social skills to attract the attention of females in person, or b) they are just looking for some easy action.
3. There ARE a lot of creeps online--in fact, you have a 1:5 (my estimate) chance of meeting a pedophile, rapist, druggie, thief, or other creeps online who if you meet in person will either rape you, molest your kids, steal your money or things and sell them to buy drugs and leave you without anything.
4. The women who lack the most social skills tend to be predominantly A) single mothers and secondary to them are B) women with weight issues.
5. There are three predominant (specific) reasons for a single mother to use online dating (remember that these women are either just investigating or they lack social skills) A) they feel that their efforts in a non-online-spurred relation have failed resulting in them being a single mother and that somehow it will be easier for them to have a committed long-term relationship with someone who they believe is a "nice" guy because he survives online. B) they're just looking for no strings attached sex and aren't really interested in a relationship. C) they are too lazy and gutless to develop a relationship in person, i.e. they are scared to take risks, believe they don't have enough time, or they are unmotivated to meet new people.
6. Most women who resort to online dating have a poor opinion of men, specifically, they believe in generalizations such as that men lack chivalry or men are players.
7. Those "normal" women who are only experimenting with online dating are likely to only stick to it for three weeks or less. Again, the rest--the ones who stay--have some social malady.
8. Not all dating sites imply the same things. Some dating sites attract a specific type of people. I attribute this to their marketing and branding efforts.
9. There are plenty of free and semi-free dating sites that are moderately respectable and therefore there is no reason to invest in a paid dating site because they all attract the same two kinds of people (read #1 and #2 again).
10. Few people use more than one dating site, most find one they like and stick to it.

Notes
This is heavily weighted towards what I learned about women in online dating because my target market for my research was women. I already know a lot about men because I am one. Also, bear in mind that I stuck to the age limits of over 18 and under 30.

Summary
If you're looking for someone to have the perfect relationship with don't use online dating. If you're a male and you insist on it, you had better be comfortable with inheriting kids because she probably has at least one. Also, there is no significant difference between the level of maturity of someone who is 18 online and someone who is 28 online. If you're a female, and you insist on online dating, you had better be comfortable with guys that want sex--some of them may hold out for a short while but they'll all eventually expect sex.
The physical quality of the people you see on online dating is a good reflection of the physical quality of those you would meet in person--I would suggest that there is even an accurate ratio of the number of "good looking" (I know that that is a subjective term) people compared to not so good looking.

I think really I would be scared to do online dating knowing what I know now.--I still have accounts online but I use them for experimentation and occasionally I like to look at pictures of people, it's an odd fascination of mine I know, but I feel like self-taken photos and the photos people choose to represent themselves say a lot about them and it's all very interesting.

Notes on Pairs

This is a snippet of some notes I've been sitting on for a few months--I remember writing these late at night on my smart phone and I don't remember what I was going to do with them, whether they were meant to be an article or part of a story idea or what exactly I was going to do with them. Every week when I check the notes on my phone I see this and keep meaning to use it for something, so I figure I'll just post it with the preface that these are just notes and may not actually lead to a conclusion
----

Two identical, similar or corresponding things that are matched for use together.

Why are they put together? Because it makes it easier to accomplish things and some things can't be done with just one half of a pair (think scissors)

It's much easier and more efficient to be paired than separated and occasionally tow unpaird things are just two worthless objects because they are not paired (atomic bonds, scissors, etc).

Some separated pairs serve an entirely different functions whent ehy are not paird or can do a different functions better by not being paired (...the pair holds it back?--but I can't think of an example).

So what is their true purpose? The one[function] that can be fulfilled unpaired (if not in a pair) or a function that can be fulfilled only as a pair?

And What of people?
when people have been paird, of course it's easier to perform certain fu nctions. It's also easier and more fulfilling (accomplishes it's purpose), to perform functions without the other pair or part of the equation--when that other pair is missing...(Again, I can't think of a specific example).

Is it easier to be good or bad depending on who or what a person is paired with? Is it harder to be the opposite (good or bad) without the other matching pair?

Normal, sane individuals would have a hard time doing good or bad if they weren't paired with objects or people who influence them to do one or the other.

The true nature of an individual is not his or her influences then, because when paired with one or the other he or she will be influenced by them.

The true nature of a person then is his or her desires and ability to resist persuasions that go against their true desires.

Mothers and Daughters

I could approach writing this article in several different ways: I could act excited as though I just made a major discovery (Eureka!)--though I've known this for several years. I could act outraged as though the people who don't know this or don't do this are scum for not taking action--but the rhetoric of such an approach would only deter those people from ever doing it, and it would pit those who are doing it against those who aren't, and I don't think that will solve anything. I could also act scientific about it and pull out a bunch of statistics--but my experience has been that people are wowed by statistics at first but then forget about them (because 99% of people hear too many statistics in a given day to keep any of them straight).

Just watch this video and then I'll comment on the subject:

\

The biggest problem facing our society today is the lack of good treatment by parents towards their daughters, and the lack of respect that daughters have for parents because of it. We've empowered women over the years to make them more equal to men. Many barriers have been broken, admirably, by superior women. Just like young boys must earn the privilege to be called a man, women have earned the privilege to be equal to men on many accounts; and on what remains it is only likely that women will overcome those barriers too.
But when you start to talk about the problems facing this world--not the quantitative problems such as sickness, but the problems that limit our quality of life-- there is a clear wire connecting those problems and the treatment of women in general. Anger, revenge, fear, threatenings, vile behavior, incivility, and disrespect to name a few, can all be tied to the way in which young women are raised. When a young girl is treated with disrespect by her mother or father, when her parents fight all of the time, when parents take advantage of her timidity, or they use her for a scapegoat--she will not only be repelled from her parents, but she will also carry the cycle on to the relationships she has with other people and eventually to her children.
Culturally, men are different. For hundreds of years young boys have been taught to be tough, to not be emotional, to act and defend themselves and to be proactive. Tales from the bible, greek, roman, and norse mythology, and american cinema have always portrayed the male protagonist as violent, tough, and commanding and because of such a long history of this culture, when men are mistreated, they fight rather than flight, they prove themselves, and if they fail they accept their losses and their insignificance.
Recently, the female protagonist has split into two categories: The sexually powerful, commanding goddess, just like Madonna and Lady Gaga or Katy Perry, Angelina Jolie, Ke$ha, Britney Spears, all female super heroes, Desperate house wives, the princess on Avatar, the women of Star Trek, and many others. OR, the shy, timid, unlucky girl who gets a good life handed to her for no reason, such as Anne Hathaway, Julia Robberts, Bella, any Disney Princess, etc.. The problem with this is that whereas the male figure teaches men to be tolerant and to stand firm to what they believe and to go after what they want and be proactive, the two female figures teach women that it is okay to control other people using their body, that in order to get what she wants she has to be confrontational rather than suave, that it is okay to be emotional and angry and to run away from situations if she doesn't get what she wants, that revenge is perfectly justified, and if not any of those then that in the end luck will always prevail to help her get everything she wants in the end whether she deserves it or not.--It culturally enforces the stereotypes men apply to women: that they're emotional, grouchy, unrealistically demanding, controlling, and that they control the sexual aspects of a relationship and if a man wants to have sex he must assert control over her/tame her, and that she will still always possess these irrational traits and that man just needs to deal with them and no run away.---------------This is nothing new. Thousands of people have presented this argument, and my job is to present further argument in line with this one, not restate old arguments.

When a young girl feels like she isn't loved at home, she retreats from home.--she may still live at home, but she despises home and she finds things to do that her parents wouldn't approve of simply out of subconscious revenge for being mistreated. She disregards simple advice of her parents because her parents' ethos has been damaged to the point where she subconsciously believes that what they say might be the opposite of what she should do. She ventures into the world too trusting of outsiders and not trusting enough of insiders, then she gets burned by someone who she thinks she loves and who loves her, when in reality she has no idea what love is because she hasn't ever experienced it before in her life--not even by her parents. Granted, this is an over simplified story--there are many variations of this scenario, nevertheless they all conclude that if the parents would have treated their daughter with a little more respect and formed an actual relationship with her rather than an obligated relationship, the daughter might have gone to them for advice, might have recognized what true love is in the first place and avoided the charms of others who claim love and have other motives in mind.
Just like John Mayer sings, "girls become lovers and turn into mothers"--that's pretty simple, but she only becomes a mother like her mother if she decides to be a mother at all. If she never knows what true love is like, how is she going to love her daughters (or sons) that way?
Many young girls go down dark paths and make stupid decisions because no one loves them. --This is not gender specific, young boys do the same until they realize how to follow the culture of the man and they stand up for themselves and suddenly it becomes okay for them to go in and out of the dark paths of life because that's part of being a man--Taking drugs, getting pregnant, having abusive relationships, breaking the law, all of these things come about when people don't feel loved or lose track of how to love other people even when those people don't love them back.

And let me present a counter argument in case anyone tries to point out the painfully obvious: Men can love too. Men can love women and break the cycle of a woman not being loved. They can have children and even though the woman doesn't know entirely what a loving relationship is (other than the one with her husband) her husband can love the children and correct any maladies in the cycle. [[how does biology correct defects in one person's gene line? It takes the good genes from both sides and tries to eliminate the bad ones--love can work the same way and hopefully correct the bad characteristics]]. However, even though our society is on the verge of equalizing man and women, the women typically get the kids, even if the man has a better job and could raise those kids, and even if the man might be the one who knows how to love better than the other--the woman gets the kids simply because of the cultural implications that men are supposed to be a certain way and women another way (unless the woman has done something terribly wrong that would make her place unsafe for kids).


The only thing I can see that would correct our society and make life "fair" is if parents loved their kids--really loved their kids. And knew how to love those kids. And if they didn't know how to really love and respect and care about their kids and show their kids how to love and respect and care about other people, then those same parents would LEARN how to do these things. --I don't think there is any excuse for not figuring out how to have a good relationship, people make excuses because they're lazy. The truth is, you can have an amazing relationship (friends, lovers, parent-children, mentor, etc) with ANYONE if you really want that. And THAT is what can improve the quality of life (as opposed to quantity of life).

Our non-realities aren't even Believeable

AMC is playing the matrix trilogy right now and every time I see the first 30 minutes of the show I'm reminded of how IT has shaped the way we approach movies today.
An entire genre--two genres even--has developed all because of the popularity of the Matrix. 1st, the live-action anime. 2nd, the comic book film. Granted, comic book films have been around since the first Batman in 1989 or Superman in 1978, but it wasn't until recently that comic book films have caught fire in the film industry.
The logic goes like this: comic books already have an established audience. They already have an artistic style and costumes and even camera movements can be seen in the way that the artist draws their panels. Turning popular books into films has been around forever because it's easy to market them, and it's a little easier to produce them because a lot of the creative decisions have already been made. All of this just means that it's easier. Easier, easier. They already know what the audience expects from them before they get to the theater.

Live Action Animes. Well, let's see, there is the Matrix, Sin City,Ultra Violet, Resident Evil, Aeon Flux, (I suppose I should include Transformers) &c. &c. They're starting to become more and more popular with western audiences and we will no doubt see more and more of them into the future.

The future. That's an interesting concept. It's something that all anime movies are about. --I'll admit to watching a few animes. I'm curious about this genre so I've seen a few of the most popular series, Ghost in the Shell, Cowboy Bebop, Trigun, Escaflowne, Dragon Ball Z, Pokemon, Berserk, and a few others. I can see a lot of potential in the genre and I've been impressed by all of the works of Hayao Miyazaki, including Panda! Go Panda!, but overall the anime genre is tainted by the least creative plot lines, too overthetop characters, and in-coherent themes.
The problems with animes aren't their ideas. They have brilliant ideas, such as a man with a bounty on his head on a desert planet where there is a mixture between modern technology and western era technology--steampunkeque (trigun). Or how about In a fantasy world, a good king is overthrown by an evil one and his son has to get revenge and save the country using only a giant mecha suit (Escaflowne). In the future on mars, a bounty hunter sets out to capture the ultimate criminal (sounds like a Bruce Willis film, but no, it's Cowboy Bebop). The ideas are solid, it's the implementation of those ideas that flop.

I think it centers around the themes of Animes (anime? is that the plural of anime?). They try too hard to make a dramatic point about life or the environment or about good and evil. The worst storytelling I have ever seen was in Escaflowne, where for 3/4 of the series everything is outstanding, but then it all goes downhill when they introduce the fate machine. A machine that controls fate. I think they even called it Deus Ex Machina--I have to give them credit, it is correctly titled, and unless you have something to say about poor storytelling you should never center your story on an actual deus ex machina. --I'm not kidding, and neither were the makers of that anime. It was really terrible because it at the 3/4 mark the main character had killed his main opponent and his conflicted older brother, who was working for the enemy, was still alive and starting to feel guilt, and the boss of the main characters' foil character (who he had just killed) was still alive, and you assumed at the 3/4 mark that he would make amends with his brother and kill the SOB who brainwashed his brother into being evil. --Yes, that's how it ends. But to justify all of that, they include the 5 or so episodes about how they had built a machine that could predict the future and that they could change fate by correcting anything that opposes them.
Why did they do that? Why didn't they just conclude the series by making it obvious that the main boss was a wicked genius and good at persuading people to follow him, and then have the MC do what he needed to do?
OR how about in Trigun, where Vash (anime are full of funny names for their characters), the MC goes around haphazardly helping all of the towns folk and what not and isn't a bad character he's just been labeled as such (every nerdy anime lover's dream come true, a character they can relate to). Nearing the conclusion (I think in this one it happens just before the climax), it is revealed that Vash is actually a superior alien race and that the planet is a new colony for humanity, but that his antagonist is actually his twin brother. Why do that? They had an amazing story until that point, all they needed to do was let the two characters have a showdown at high noon and then have Vash be declared a hero and retire?
In Berserk, the story shifts from being about a band of outlaw mercenaries who make a respectable life advancing to the thrown, to suddenly being about a magical token that the foil character carries around with him that grants him wishes and is actually evil... We don't find out about that until the last 4 or 5 episodes.
Introducing details so late in the story just ruins the story.

Pokemon at least did things right: It's ALWAYS about catching pokemon or beating trainers--preferably both in one episode. You know what you're getting into when you watch it, just like you know that the Simpsons will always start out on one path and end in another, or a character in Family Guy will do something completely ridiculous and stupid and have to correct that throughout the course of the episode. Pokemon's problem is that the characters are TOO over dramatic. Then again, twelve year old boys leaving home is always going to end in an over-dramatic mess...

Comic Book movies are the same way though... The Quirky Tony Stark invents a suit to help him--battle evil. Turns out that his partner steals his suit idea, has him fired, and then they have to duke it out suit against suit, but...turns out there are other bad guys out there and Stark will have to team up with other super heroes (with real super powers) and eventually the x-men in order to save the world

There is nothing wrong with this I suppose, but you'd think they would at least put it in the distant future, not the present.--ten years from now these films are going to be so dated--dated like the matrix using a 56k modem noise for the first time Neo goes out of the matrix. 

Going to a movie, comic book or anime, I expect the world to not be believable, just like I do in a sci-fi. I expect the world in it to not be believable, but I expect the maker of the film to make a case that it is believable. These days, comic book and anime films compensate for the implausibility by setting them in the present day--transformers in 2007, no way!--you mean there is a secret school for genetic mutation humanoids in which they train their powers and use them for good? You mean this reality is not this reality, it's the matrix? 

Come on, you don't need to do those things to have an enjoyable film, Metropolis and Gotham doesn't have to be New York city or Washington D.C. or anywhere else, just set them in an alternate, Marvel universe and we'll be perfectly happy.

My point is, we have changed so much over the last 10 years that now EVERYTHING has to be set in the present day in order to be interesting. I think they're trying too hard to sell their movie. Eventually, I suppose we'll reach a point where people realize that they want to approach movies with the understanding that it's not the real world and things don't work that way in real life. If the mass of society (The ones who are so attached to super hero films) doesn't realize this, then we'll probably see a breed of weirdos that are commonplace, just like anime weirdos are so...weird. In fact, we're already seeing them: people dressing in super suits to combat villains on the streets--and the crowd of people who endorse such behavior...

Crosswalks

I quit facebook. Entirely. I didn't like that any stalker and his dog could look me up, size me up, chew me up, and spit me out before fighting me in person. I also envisioned myself in the future with the dog I want to get prowling around on facebook, sizing people up before I really met them.--I don't like that phony crap. If you want ammo to shoot at me, read my blog--at least there I get to track you, what city you live in, if you're bringing backup, and I can also make money if you click on my ads--I don't get those privileges on facebook, a place for gossip, a place for creeps. I don't care how many people potentially *could* find my blog from my facebook page, the costs are far greater than the benefits.


Before I get into today's article I want to announce a challenge. I started playing Yahoo's Fantasy Finance, a fantasy stock market game that runs the same way that all the other "fantasy --" games work: it takes real life measurements and applies them in game form.--this one is tied directly to Yahoo Finance, a stock market measuring app on the yahoo website. I started playing at the opening of the stock market this morning and at closing I had made $20 (after subtracting the fees involved for purchasing my next stock for tomorrow morning). I have a goal to double my money in 52 weeks (you start with $100,000).--It looks like a stretch right now, but I'm sure going to give it my all! --If you play (or you're going to start playing) feel free to add me as a friend and we can turn it into a friendly competition: (kyle_oakeson)


Now the real article:
--------------------------------------------------------


I was walking home along a crosswalk today--there's only one on the way to my house from campus, and jerk-off had the nerve to yell out the window of his truck "look both ways before crossing the street." If you ever see me cross the street right there, you know I don't look both ways. Most of the time I don't look either direction, the rest of the time I only look one way. Sounds crazy, doesn't it?


I'm 23, just finishing up with post-secondary school, and if you saw me walk into the street you'd think I had a death wish.--no, I don't value my education so poorly that I feel as though after I graduate I have no where to go, but I have two very "smart" reasons for boldly crossing the street. I've thought about them a lot and I figure I have such a solid knowledge on the subject that I'm 90% non-persuadable.


Although there are two main reasons, I'll keep this organized by numbering my points:


1) I have the right of way. I have the right of way no matter where I am, because I am on foot. I am a pedestrian. In a court of law, however, if I get hit while jay-walking in a speed-zone of higher than 30 then I don't really have a case for not looking both ways because the danger of the situation (higher speeds) would cause the average person to consider their own safety before venturing into dangerous territory.
2) There IS a crosswalk there. Crosswalks are legally marked off zones where pedestrians are designed to travel. The crosswalk was invented to protect the pedestrian by making drivers aware that they need to be cautious when driving over the crosswalk. During typical travel times of the day (which varies per crosswalk but in a realistic manner), drivers need to be extra careful so that they don't hit pedestrians. In this particular crosswalk, since it is right off of campus, it is understood that during times of the day when classes are held, pedestrians will use the crosswalk regularly. Meaning any time of day from 8AM to 6PM, a pedestrian could cross that walk.
A distinction needs to be made here about school zones however, lest my readers get confused. A school zone is designed to give children, who may or may not understand the danger and risk in crossing a street, extra protection against careless drivers. In a school zone, drivers are commanded to drive at 20 mph or less, which is still dangerous to a small individual (using simple physics, even getting hit at 10 mph by a 3000lb or heavier car can cause a lot of damage to someone who weighs under 50lbs and whose fulcrum is lower than 3 ft.).
Let me just paste in the Utah code concerning crosswalks because that will make a more valid case, starting with the least pertinent and building:
     "Utah Code 41-6a-1707.   Entering intersection, crosswalk, or railroad grade -- Sufficient space required.
     The operator of a vehicle may not enter an intersection or a marked crosswalk or drive onto any railroad grade crossing unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection, crosswalk, or railroad grade crossing to accommodate the vehicle without obstructing the passage of other vehicles, pedestrians, or railroad trains notwithstanding any traffic-control signal indication to proceed."
So interpreting that: a vehicle (let's take a pickup truck for example) may not enter a crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on either side for the pedestrian (myself) to cross without being obstructed, or blocked. --This law is mostly talking about stopping on a crosswalk (such as what I have seen people do when they are turning right at an intersection and nearly hit a pedestrian [either in the act of turning right or as they approach the intersection]). It's still relevant though, because it says that they MAY NOT obstruct me from walking on the crosswalk.
     "Utah Code 41-6a-1002.   Pedestrians' right-of-way -- Duty of pedestrian.
     (1) (a) Except as provided under Subsection (2), when traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the operator of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way by slowing down or stopping if necessary:
     (i) to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling; or
     (ii) when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.
     (b) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply under conditions of Subsection 41-6a-1003(2).
     (c) A pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard."


Here's the real deal. A man in a deep blue truck in Logan, UT shall yield the right of way by slowing down or stopping to a pedestrian (myself and others) crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on half of the roadway or when the pedestrian (myself) is approaching so closely from the opposite half as to be in danger.
Interpreting: so if I'm crossing from left to right and a car is driving on the right side of the road, if I make it out into the road and he or she is not an immediate hazard, then they must slow down.
However, a pedestrian (myself) may not suddenly leave the curb into the path of a vehicle which is close enough to constitute an immediate hazard.
3) Any vehicle driving on the right side of the road and is less than one car length away from the crosswalk is not an immediate hazard. I can say this quite confidently. I have seen several Cache Valley Public Transit Department Buses (these things weight tons!) stop in one car length on the right side of the road. Why? Because this is a hill. A very steep hill. My first car probably would struggle going up this hill in 3rd gear.
4)One car length is enough for me to see quite clearly without using my peripherals. When I said I only look one direction, I meant that I look up the hill. A car going down the hill will take more distance to stop than one going up. If my extended peripherals (I can see the top and the bottom of the hill which is probably 300-400 yards) indicate that I need to look up the hill, then I look up the hill and then look straight ahead. I have good peripherals. I can see OVER 180 degrees (beyond 180 degrees I lose track of detail but I can still clearly see motion, and a moving truck or bus is motion). It bothers me sometimes and I get jumpy and bugged out when someone moves, rather quickly, in my extended peripherals (beyond 180 degrees).
5) If you don't like me, don't like my attitude, just hit me. Seriously. The Utah code only goes so far. It makes for good guidelines, but these situations are far more complex and can involve a lot of emotions. In fact, the outcome of a court case on this matter may reveal something different than the interpretation of the present law. In other words, I DARE you to hit me, just like I DARE you to challenge the Utah court system. If we go to court, and I'm in crutches or a broken arm or your truck has a dent in it, or I'm in a wheelchair, and you stand before the judge and say: "He didn't look both ways."--that's your only defense. You can't say that you were driving ethically and responsibly and politely. A polite person (and bus drivers typically are) would notice the Asian man who has been standing on the right side of the road for 5 minutes and the tall, obvious and apparent 23 year old, boldly walking down steps towards the crosswalk, and that polite person would stop and allow the pedestrians to cross (Because of the way I walk, most people can see me and recognize me from beyond 500 yards). A responsible driver will get in the habit of checking for people along crosswalks or approaching crosswalks in the city. --have you ever been on a 4 lane (2 in each direction) road and someone's crossing the crosswalk and has the right lane stopped up and people in the left lane keep driving?--it's irresponsible!) And ethically, if you're gonna drive, you better at least follow the guidelines that say that a pedestrian has the right of way.
6) It's possibly more dangerous to challenge the law than it is to challenge life. If you kill someone while driving, you lose your license, you pay a huge fine to the victims family, you go to prison for 3-5 years for manslaughter, and you live with guilt for the rest of your life. Me, I lose my life, but then I'm in a happier place, I don't have guilt, I don't have to do anything other than be dead. No matter who you worship, God, Allah, Odin, Zeus, Christ, or Baal, if you kill someone because you didn't step on the break---you're going to regret it.
7) I'm a poor college student. If you hit me, your insurance will pay for my physical, medical expenses. The rest of the court system will pay for my tuition, and I'll go back to school in a wheelchair to become a lawyer  and you'll see me on TV saying "one call, that's all."
8) Lest anyone try to use this article against me (if ever I get hit), I'm committing right now to make a more concentrated effort to look both ways before crossing the street.


The point is, if you're going to drive, drive ethically, responsibly, and politely. And don't scream out your window at someone who made you stop because in that case, I know for a fact that you were not a hazard: you did in fact have the time to stop for me, I.E. you were a danger, but not an immediate danger; and if you hit me it would hurt you more than it would hurt me.

The New Bards pt 3 Poetry Series

The money-making marketer
sat, stood, and sang
bringing buyers back
increasing income
and producing profit.

In the olden days there used to be a profession called the "bard." Bards were patronized, which means someone rich was paying their bills. In exchange, the bard would write songs for them and entertain them, but more importantly they would travel around and spread their stories. Rich people, typically kings or oligarchs, were willing to pay for bards to be lazy and sit around writing songs and saying poems all day long because it was beneficial for the king to have someone talk about him to their peasants and other kings around the world.

Today, a super-star's power is measured in how much "Buzz" they generate. Buzz is the term for how much people are talking about someone (or something). Marketers are in charge of generating this buzz, measuring it, controlling it, and using it for the benefit of the person they represent. Typically, marketers work for a corporation, organization, or company. However, there are plenty of sole proprietorships out there (individuals conducting business) who hire someone to do their marketing--there is also the more obvious politician, who hires several teams of "marketers" to create buzz for them.

As you can see, the "bard" isn't an obsolete occupation--it's an evolved occupation.

It is a common rhetorical practice to change the names of things to make them sound more edgy and applicable. One can easily see why they would change the name of "bard" to "marketer"--a marketer sounds much more like a financial occupation than a boring one. After making the name change, bards cut word-associations of their profession such as "boring bards" "bad bards" and "bland bards" and instead associated them with "Marketers at the market" "money-making marketers" or even, "Mass media marketer." Teachers just never learn do they? They've been called teacher for countless years!

If you want to sit around and write poetry all day, you might want to take a reality check and reconsider real professions. You can make a lot of money applying the skills of a poet to practical things, how many times have you turned on tv to the jingle "give me a break, give me a break..." or "doo doo doo doo doo doo dowaa, It doesn't matter what comes, fresh goes better in life..."

Now is a good time for me to argue something else:

A lot of people look to English majors with confusion: What is English, what is its practical purpose? "So you're gonna write books?--Oh, then you're going to be a teacher?" Others say that majoring in English is just an excuse to take a break from real life and write...poetry...all day. *sigh*
The GOP Presidential Nominee, Mitt Romney was an English Major. Now days, the worst dirt people can find on him is that he makes so much money and hasn't done anything wrong. How is that possible? Being rich and a good person, is that real?
Socrates argued this issue a long time ago and concluded that the best leaders are just and honest, and they are just and honest because they are reasonable.--Reasonable in the sense that they are capable of reasoning: picking a side of an argument, evaluating it, and changing sides of the argument when they realize their side isn't the most logical. --This is what English majors do. They learn how to argue, how to evaluate ideas, how to generate their own ideas and think for themselves, and they learn how to effectively communicate those ideas to other people.
Choosing to get a degree in English is like choosing to major in good leadership. Business degrees these days only teach you how to make money and how to overcome obstacles, but they won't teach you how to act ethically for any other reason than that the punishment for unethical behavior is worse than the benefits. They can only teach you a sub-par communication skills when compared to the skills an English major learns. They lack the foundation to teach you how to think creatively. And, granted, they're starting to teach leadership skills, but you'll notice that they're only a side-thought: Interpersonal skills? That's just a fancy way of saying don't step on anyone's toes, give everyone a chance, and don't be afraid to speak up. That's the first class they teach an english student and then they give them 10,000 hours of practice at it, and as all of the seasoned professionals in the business world say: Being able to act and communicate will get you further than being able to crunch numbers.

Anyone can crunch numbers. Technology is advancing to the point where you don't even really need to crunch numbers, a computer will do that for you. But creativity and communication are indispensable skills that cannot be replaced by a machine--true, they follow patterns just like mathematics follow patterns and rules and they all have variables, but communcation is the presentation of ideas, and ideas are always changing whereas math never changes.

You want to be a bard? Focus on the most important job functions first and then you'll be permitted to use your poetic skills on the side--and be paid for them.

All's Fair that Ends pt 2

Pace yourself next time
that you read War and Peace, please
It is a big book



Anyone can write poetry and make it meaningful. Real writing talent lies in writing consistently, purposefully, and for a VERY long time. Take War and Peace for example. One of the masterpieces of all time. The writing throughout is consistent, it serves the purpose of providing the Russian point of view on the war of 1812, and it is most definitely long.
Someone could say the same thing in 100 words or less, written with stanzas and rhyme and pterodactyls--okay, maybe not pterodactyls, but something equally cleaver--but it just wouldn't compare to War and Peace. No one would remember it the way that they remember the characters in the book. No one would care as much about the war of 1812 if they read the poem compared to the epic novel. Most of all, and I dare someone to make me put my foot in my mouth on this one, no one will think the person who wrote the poem about the war of 1812 is a better writer than Leo Tolstoy.

Good writing is always consistent writing. You can't write a story and change your writing style midway through. You can't stray from a theme of symbols that you established in the beginning of your story and expect your audience to be happy. For instance, I once told a verbal story about a dog named Longdog. Longdog was a long dog. He walked with us for a long way. He had a long tail. When we drove a long way away from him, Longdog was sad.--I carried this story on for quite a long time (no pun intended, this is serious stuff!) I explained all of the adventures that Longdog, myself, and my friend had. In reality, Longdog and I only knew each other for an hour or two. He was a friendly beagle that took a liking to me. I never once said that Longdog was a beagle while telling this story--that was the point. Nor did I mention that Longdog was fat--because Longdog was supposed to be long, not fat. If I would have, at the end, started saying that Longdog was fat, he rolled with us for a while. He wanted us to carry him because he was lazy--none of that would have worked for the story.
Consistency is important, that's why there are so many rules to writing baecus eff yaa dont fullow rulls and stae consistant ppl have a hard time under ftanding u.

As reader we expect everything we read to have a distinct purpose. It needs to make sense to us, and for us to like it, it needs to have meaning. I've written about this before: in everything we do in life, we need to find closure. Just like computers with a never ending error loop, if we don't find closure in something we have a hard time getting past it. Still today people have a hard time wrapping their head around 9/11 (it's been 10.5 years) because they don't think it make sense. There are comic books and comic book movies that, to this day, I can't seem to understand or get over--why would anyone want to sit through hours of Dragon Ball Z just to watch Goku charge up and blast Vegeta?
The movie Fight Club is a good example of closure. It doesn't make 100% sense that Tyler Durdan is also the main character but because we are led on to believe that in your sleep you can do crazy things and not know it, even talk to yourself, it establishes perfect closure. The closure is so good in that film that it never gets old watching it, because the next time you watch the film you're analyzing why it makes sense, and the next time you're confirming that it does make sense. Closure is magical, it can create purpose where there is no purpose.
So that poem that T.S.Eliot wrote--nope. Doesn't establish closure. [you know which poem I'm talking about!] It doesn't serve a purpose either unless you want to use the cop-out line: "T.S. Eliot was trying to express that nothing makes sense anymore."--I don't buy that, he's correct, nothing makes sense, but when did it ever make sense? And why not simply say that in one line? Or, instead of saying it in one line and never writing it down, why not write a novel about it or a book about it? Just like there are certain things that should never be said outloud, there are also certain things that should never be written down--especially not in a poem!

Length is always an issue. Have you ever paid for a movie that was less than 60 minutes long?--sure, a television episode might be less than that, but episodes purposefully aren't the full story. If what you have to say can be said in 5 minutes, why not stand on your soap box and talk for 5 minutes? I know there are a lot of political activists that write poetry. I think that's stupid. Not even the poetry of the revolutionary war really influenced the war, the thing that influenced the war was the outstanding leaders who were on the ground in America supporting the American cause.
Poetry isn't going to make you famous, it shouldn't make you rich, and it is not going to change the world. It is too short to change the world, because the moment a person is finished with your poem, they're going to forget about it and carry on with their life. They do it with books too, but because there is so much written into a book, little things remind them about the book and they start to develop habits based around those books.

Poetry is utterly useless by itself and should never make anyone rich. There is something wrong with the MacArthur foundation for giving out an award for poetry. Have you ever heard of Kay Ryan? What has Kay Ryan done and why is he ranked with Roland Fryer who is one of the top 8 young economists in the world during a time when we need good young economists to find solutions to economic problems?

Still not convinced that poetry is the easiest thing in the world and shouldn't be considered a respectable art?