Posts

Last Will & Testament

-
Yeah, I don't plan to die right away and this topic sounds morbid, but hey I could get hit by a bus tomorrow, so never say 'never' right?  So here it is... my legally binding last will & testament, because I haven't gone to the trouble of doing the official lawyer-estate thing yet.

My organs go on eBay. Oh wait, that's not legal... okay so anyone who needs them can have them, if I haven't abused them too hard by the time I croak. If I wind up vegetable, fruit, or meatloaf (like the dude in Metallica "One")... call Dr. Kevorkian or just pull the plug. As for my remains... I don't want to be buried in the ground. That is just gross to be eaten by worms and bacteria. I choose cremation. Should anyone (e.g. family) choose to keep my ashes... I would prefer being stored in a container with a lid, so I don't spill on the floor. Tupperware is fine... I'm not picky. Just label me or slap my photo on there so I'm not accidentally baked into a casserole. If cupboard space is tight, I would prefer my ashes be planted under a tree or mailed to a socialist congressman in an unmarked envelope (haha, last laugh on me!).

As for ceremony arrangements, yeah I don't really care. If there is any kind of gathering, I just request that either Motley Crue "Home Sweet Home" or Guns 'n Roses "Knockin On Heavens Door" be played... because those are sweet ass tunes. It would also be great if some guns were fired in the air at some point - not in a military funeral way, but more of a jihad AK-47 kind of way. (Not kidding... consider it my last request dammit!) As for all my sh*t. I don't care, just keep my guns in the family. Also, somebody save off all my posts to disk...because I don't know what happens to them when people die.

If I have any choice in the matter, my last words will be "I WILL BE AVENGED!" Those are the baddest last words I can imagine... so if no one is around when I die, those were my last words - I'll make sure to say them as the last light fades. Just take my word for it. Rest in peace out biatches!!!

Post a Comment
Read more

The Golden Rule

-
Everyone learned the Golden Rule as a child. It is the ethic of reciprocity. It may be worded different ways, but always means: "Treat others how you'd like others to treat you". It's called "golden" for the value in it's universality and simplicity. A child can understand it, because it captures all of humanity's virtues: fairness, equality, empathy, justice.

Sometimes, we take simple things for granted. We've got religions with commandments and thousands of laws written, yet consistently applying the ethic of reciprocity would encapsulate all of that. Whether you raise your child christian, pagan, or atheist... teaching a child the Golden Rule would be the only moral compass needed to see how being a cheat, hypocrite, killer, or thief is wrong.

This discussion gets interesting when you bring it into the adult world where money, power, and politics enter the equation for individual decisions. Crafty adults bend a "do unto others" justification around what they seek for personal gain. These explanations always bastardize the Golden Rule, ignoring the fact that preferences aren't universal. All people are different. For this reason, the Golden Rule is first and foremost an ethic of individual rights.

Consider examples:
  • A drug prohibitionist says "Make drugs illegal because I'd want people to stop me from doing drugs.". What does the drug prohibitionist say when his cheeseburgers are restricted by a vegan?
  • A socialist who says "We need to take from the rich, and give to the poor". What does the socialist say when his home is robbed by someone poorer than them?
  • A neo-conservative says "We need to occupy Iraq, because ...". What does the neo-conservative say when his homeland is invaded and occupied by another country?
Perhaps in each case, the advocate for "doing unto others" would attempt to justify 'indirect consequences'... such as drugs lead to violence, or a hundred other complicated reasons. The simple hypocrisy remains in each example... they wouldn't like an analogous choice being forced upon them. The Golden Rule prescribes not just 'doing unto others' but 'leaving others alone'. Some may have heard the joke "The Golden Rule = He who has the gold makes the rules". It could be retorted "He who makes the rules, takes the gold". In both cases, the real Golden Rule is being broken.
Post a Comment
Read more

My Bug-Out Bag

-
I've started putting together a "bug-out bag". I am an Eagle Scout... and you know what they say: "Be Prepared.". A bug-out bag is something you pack for an emergency, when the shit really hits the fan. Whether it's an earthquake, flood, tsunami, mega-volcano, zombie outbreak, alien attack, electromagnetic pulse, meteor, nuclear or civil war - you don't want to be waiting in line at REI when it happens. You want to have the basics ready to take with you, then get you and your family 'out of Dodge!'. Before having wife+kids, I'd figure if Armageddon came I would find the nearest weapon and fend for myself. Perhaps I've started this project now that there are little ones, but it's probably also due to watching The Road with Viggo Mortensen. (a well-done, yet disturbing film)

This is actually quite an intriguing project. It will force oneself to confront the humbling realization that we human animals are so domesticated, most of us wouldn't survive in the wild. One may develop a new sense of respect for Davy Crockett and, if you're like me, explore a whole new world of YouTube survivalist videos such as "How to set a snare trap". I have begun collecting the items for my Bug-Out Bag after reading up on survivalist articles and blogs. I will be hitting up Army Surplus stores, Wal-Mart, REI, and internet purchases... in that order. The key is having things on-hand, and not having to hit the store when it's too late.

Here is my list:

Food/Water
Shelter/Safety
Tools
To top it all off, I will make sure to bring my hardback rubber-bound copy of "How to Stay Alive in the Woods", which I picked up at a bookstore a few years ago. I hope I never have to use my Bug-Out Bag, but I'll sleep a wink better knowing I have it...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ready... Set.... Beard!

-
I put the shaving cream away this morning. The plan is to go full beard, and then trim back to "friendly mutton chops". My father had facial hair all my life until a few years ago, alternating between phases of a Sonny Bono moustache and Chuck Norris beard. Maybe I will carry on the legacy, or just put on a winter coat... I'm not sure yet.

I expect it should fill in nicely. In my high school yearbook, they asked "How have you changed since freshman year?" I was quoted as answering "Facial hair." I grew a respectable beard over a few weeks on my high school graduation trip. I dabbled with goatees in college.  I can get a 5 o' clock shadow. I am armed with manly facial follicles. It's about damn time I harness these powers.

I remember reading recently that beards are indicators of trustworthiness (Journal of Marketing Communications). That is interesting... what is it about beards? Could it be that people with beards are perceived as more "granola", and not caring about superficiality? Are they deemed wiser? I mean Santa Claus, God and Jesus all have beards. That's pretty good company. However, the Uni-bomber, Karl Marx, and Fidel Castro had to go ruin it for bearded people. Goatees are the opposite. You've got goatee Satan and Lenin. Plus, everyone knows that your evil parallel universe self has a goatee, like evil Spock. That's why I like Friendly Mutton Chops. It's got that friendly bearded fullness, but then throws a you with the shaved chin. Did he shave the chin to keep food out of his beard? Or does he ride with biker gangs on the weekend? Why didn't he shave the whole thing? It's so mysterious! So many choices. Who knows where this follicular adventure will take me...

(Whoa, random aside... I just image-googled 'Friendly Mutton Chops' and saw a photo of my friend Jim down the page. Small world!)
Post a Comment
Read more

Laws vs Regulations

-
What is the difference? Well, I'm not going by a dictionary... but there is a clear difference between:

A) "You must not commit violence."
vs
B) "You must apply for a license, so an official can evaluate whether violence may be committed by your desired action."

I'd categorize laws as part of a justice system, where someone reacts after the fact when the law has been violated. I categorize regulations as the hoops you're forced to jump through... all the paperwork, the licenses, The bureaucrats that review your case for approval.

Which is better? If justice is upheld by law, can a regulatory approach ever add value? Regulations make it harder to engage in illegal activities, but also harder to engage in legal activities. Certain types of people absolutely worship regulation. They fail to see the forest for the trees. In the equation, costs of "red tape" and loss of productivity are large. The bureau-philes would say "The cost of letting crime run uncontrolled are larger", assuming that regulation can actually stop a criminal in the first place. Regulations assume the people are essentially bad, and should be controlled by benevolent bureaucrats. Who's to make sure the bureaucrats aren't bad? Laws must, by nature, be written clearly so they can be fairly interpreted in a court of one's peers... and justice appropriately served.

The error of the regulation advocate is not giving enough credit to the deterrence of a strong justice system. Let's face it, human behavior is not easily controllable. The alcohol prohibition of the 1920's corresponded with increased alcohol use. People will do what they want. To say that most people don't use heroin because it's illegal is simply not true. Like regulations and bureaus, you can build an intricate barbed wire fence around your garden, but then a rabbit will still find a way to dig under it to eat your vegetables. Waskally wabbit!

Are there any good examples for necessary regulation? Let's see... where do we have the most regulation today? Health - see how FDA rules deny drugs to the sick who would willingly try experimental treatments. Terrorism - look how the TSA rules lead to pat down 3-year olds and crowds out airline's ability to protect their own $200 million aircraft. Pollution - one I've dscussed before.  I've talked about local Sacramento regulations as well. The examples go on, but in each case... minus regulation, there would be an opportunity for courts to serve justice in a case of actual fraud or violence. Bureaus crowd out private responsibility.

The fact is, most regulations are excuses for government to reap new revenue and for public unions to expand their payroll. They are means of rent-seeking by special interests. They are beasts conjured loose by politicians upon manufactured crises. De-regulate and privatize, but do not neglect a strong principled, expedient, and accessible justice system in it's place.
Post a Comment
Read more

Steampunk

-
So, we are at Fanny Ann's Saloon for divebar last night and there is a group of folks dressed up in 19th century garb. I say "Hey, did you just get off work from the Railroad Museum?". A guy says "No, we are the Steampunk Society." Steampunk? When I told Brandie, she asked "Stinkpump?".. haha. So, he explained that it's like Sci-Fi for the 19th Century. Think... H.G Wells, or Wild Wild West (with Will Smith). or Steamboy (Japanese anime). These guys sported real mutton chops and homemade ray guns, with top hats, leather straps, and biplane goggles. Crazy stuff... but at least it looked more fun than some dorky Renaissance Faire.

So, the first cool possibility I thought of with this genre is Steampunk Batman. I think putting the dark knight in leather on victorian cobblestone streets with some goggles and gunpowder powered gadgets with lots of gears, and maybe steam-powered bat-train would be sweet. Then, after some googling, turns out this has sort of been done (with villian Jack the Ripper, no less). Furthermore, fan-art has conjured up an entire steampunk Justice League.


Low, and behold... there is even Steampunk Star Wars


So, the next thing that should definitely be done steampunk is Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. You have these genius inventors, and it's all centered around railroads. Unfortunately, it looks like the better-late-than-never making of the movie will be done in an alternate modern day where trains are somehow still relevant. Oh well, I hope it turns out to be a decent film for what it's budget allows. Heck, the video game BioShock (inspired by Atlas Shrugged) is quintessential steampunk. Perhaps one day, we'll see a reboot Atlas Steampunked... with Galt's Gulch filled with marvelous contraptions, and Dagnar could be sporting some goggles and mutton chops. It could be a tale of celebration of innovation and technology, dispelling the myths of the evil greed of the "gilded age".
Post a Comment
Read more

We Don't Need No Education

-


I've always liked fields of study that lead to bigger questions. I got my B.S. in Psychology (cognitive/biology emphasis). and I almost chose Anthropology (evolutionary emphasis). The 'human condition' was a big question for me when younger (but that's another blog post). I've also liked Physics and Economics which seek answers to big questions on rules defining our surroundings. I've never had interest in studies testing rote memorization of formulas, names, numbers, and dates. Those can be looked up; concepts and heuristics can't. Take History... what I learned in school was generic and cherry-picked. I studied History best later on my own, seeking answers with past analogies to present day. I minored in Computer Science and work in that field, however the technical skills on my resume were self-taught. Not everyone is like me though. The other kids  can have their chemistry, biology, and quadratic equations.  I was never one of those kids who decided to be a lawyer or doctor, and studied accordingly. I worked at what interested me, and somewhat slacked on the rest... and I turned out fine.  General schooling was perhaps a decent framework, but 75% of it has not been useful in my life. I would have rather studied the things I was curious about earlier on.

It's interesting that many entrepreneurs don't have advanced degrees, most rocks stars have never taking guitar class, and many geniuses underperformed in school. Richard Feynman did terrible in history and language, but surpassed his own mathematics teachers from early on. So, what is the right balance of "well roundedness" and forcing kids to do things they don't like? What is the most efficient and valuable form of education system? Why should we trust bureaucrats to tell us what education our children need, when they do a terrible job deciding what our economy needs? What is the minimal education a parent owes their child, beneath which we consider it "neglect"?

To answer these questions, one has to weigh whether education serves: 1) the individual, or 2) "society"(whatever that means), or 3) some combination thereof. I've heard people argue that even childless taxpayers benefit from public education, because 'it prevents civilization collapsing into unskilled chaos and helps prevent people from resorting to life of crime'. This is completely bogus. The hooligans in street gangs are surely not there because their algebra teacher isn't good enough, and history class isn't going to help them straighten out. Those problems mostly result from the home, and perhaps from being bored by algebra. In fact, these kids would do better if they could focus on something that kept their interest and productivity. However, let's face it, there are some kids who aren't that bright. What serves them best? To try and struggle through school OR taking a job early on they can grow into? Since every child is different, we do a disservice to children, parents, and taxpayers by "standardizing" K-12 and pushing everyone to go to college. Nearly half of college students drop out. What does that tell you? Too many kids are going to college. Government subsidies have driven up costs for everyone, including smart kids who could benefit most from college. Even with K-12, parents should make the choices... not administrators or bureaucrats. The three R's, Reading, 'Riting, 'Rithmatic has in the past been considered a basic education standard, and should be the minimum we expect parents to provide to avoid "neglect". Let' face it though, most parents want what's best for their kids and will go far beyond that 3 R's literacy minimum. As for the neglectful bad parents... well, sadly you're not going to regulate them into being good parents, ever.

What can fix education? I'd refer to Milton Friedman's ideas here. He advocated requirements for minimum general education, but desired that parents own the choices and costs. Charter schools are a step in the right direction, by introducing variety and competition into education. Vouchers are even better, allowing parents to "upgrade" their child's education and add variety by ending the neighborhood-school pairing. Perhaps if those ever happen, we could migrate towards complete private choice in education and phase out the socialist tax burden of public schools. Around the globe, the next generation will have the Internet and Wikipedia. Knowledge and education worldwide will equalize as bright self-taught kids everywhere will have access to information. Either the US becomes competitive, or it will continue it's present decline via a bureaucratic centrally planned public school system. We've seen that private control and competition always breeds quality, and that is no different with education.
Post a Comment
Read more