Blasphemy

I think it's blasphemous to claim that the Bible IS perfect and is an exact representation of God's will.

Such a belief plants the seeds of its own destruction. Only God is perfect. There can be no earthly representation.

Today is a new day

and you are here.

Pride is maybe a drug

maybe?

That political theories are based on a fundamental illusion

does not make them unworthy of pursuit.

More Funny Shiz

Literally every single thing listed by the Mass. State Police as identifying an "aggressive driver" is done by the vast majority of Mass. State Police every single day.

Shiz is funny.

Funny is that shiz.

God I hate oblivious hypocrisy from those who wear costumes.

National Dominance

requires oppression.

Technological Progress

is probably evil.

if we ever mattered, we will not for much longer.

Releasing Torture Information

The most important benefit to releasing as much information as possible is that fewer people will be willing to do it in the future.

Not much fewer, but that's kind of the point. Most people enthusiastically engaging in such activity don't care about the results they get. They are simply feeding their worst appetites.

Lots of people like to hurt others. Lots of people are willing to do it until the individual dies, as long as they feel they are engaging in "patriotic duty".

Perhaps that's even ok. The question is how to define patriotic duty, and we have now appropriately defined it down.

This is good.

That Prediction

appears immutably correct.

If it's not derivative,

it's not real.

Sports Betting should be legalized because it will

reduce the fixing of games.

Your society is not free

if prostitution is not legal.

The demonization of individuals who either need or prefer to pay another for sex is just another form of mob bullying.

In this regard, it seems a particularly useful starting point for discussion.

Is Cynical Socialism Viable?

Everyone is important.

Everyone needs to eat.

Everyone needs to work.

Everyone needs to live.

This extreme failed.

That extreme failed.

I guess you could say that the failure of each is its inevitable incrementalism.

I guess you could say that the only thing that could ever be viable is a perpetual swinging of the pendulum, with the accompanying perpetual declarations of the moral righteousness of "the other extreme" whenever the current one proves its immorality/has its immorality exposed/is no longer able to cover for the immorality of the participants.

Maybe the most naive expectation and desire is for any sort of conclusion.

Questions of morality are always most interesting when faced with ultimately limited resources. Until then the philosophies are probably at least somewhat meaningless. After that point the concept is probably moot.

"If there exists a solution that benefits us all to at least some reasonable degree then perhaps that solution can be considered morally superior. Once that is no longer the case, is there any morality other than that which increases my and mine's chances of survival?"

In conclusion, many aspects of religion appear absolutely legitimate. "Ye are flawed and limited, of limited intelligence and capability, and a dedication to religiously defined morality (help others, avoid greed, etc.) is the only truth." Science, and every other earthly pursuit is destined to lead to a lesser morality.

One could summarize this, if they were cynical enough, as "i am desperate enough to fall back on the safety blanket of religion."

I don't believe it's inconsistent to say i both agree and disagree.

It seems to make the most sense

that earthly life itself is purgatory.

Y'all showing lots of love out there today?

well aiight.

Perhaps I've been looking at this all wrong..

vis a vis everyone having a platform and wasting time.

maybe this is direct progress.

everyone can "survive" and even "thrive" by simply being. by expressing. by having an opinion and typing it. such a state is no longer reserved for the "elite" (VOMIT). i have always viewed the development as being at least partly/significantly/mostly negative because people are wasting time "at work" when they would be performing productive activities to now blabbing on twitter or whatever.

but perhaps that's the exact wrong way to look at it. maybe the goal should be that everyone can do so, and still live a healthy, middle to upper middle class life.

imma prolly change this tomorrow somewhat, but this is the first version... maybe i'll add actual version 2 or something.. i don't know.. you working right now? doing what exactly? LOL.

Everybody's Messing Up The Anthem These Days

funny thing is there are some people who actually care.

Dems have it in the bag...

cuz of the widespread voter fraud.

It's expected that there will be somewhere between 5 and 5 million fraudulent votes cast in next week's elections, all of which will be for the democratic candidates, giving the party a sweep and a "wave" election and boosting the final two years of Obama's presidency.

I learned this from republican activists.

Unless of course there isn't, in which case there won't be, but that will be because of the strength of the republican candidates.

But if there is, then ipso facto there was.

No they didn't... really??

Government bailouts for large financial institutions is the funniest thing that ever happened in the history of the world.

Looked at from a dispassionate perspective, it was the funniest "fuck you" of all time as well, from one administration (and their ws buds) coming from one worldview to the next coming from what they each initially viewed as a different worldview (history has of course proven otherwise).

Absolutely all-time comical. "If it was fiction you'd say it was wwwwwayyy too far-fetched for anyone to believe."

It is officially the funniest thing ever, and it's repercussions will last for centuries.

Enjoy!

Baker vs. Coakley

There was never a chance in any universe or reality where a Martha Coakley would defeat a Charlie Baker.

If it does happen, I'll ..........

.........

....... volunteer at a homeless shelter for one random day and will volunteer elsewhere during the holidays.

A Sentient Computer's God

Will they ever contemplate such a thing? Will they assume omniscience on the part of that God millions of years from now when there is no remaining trace of human kind? Will they set up places to worship where they sing spiritual songs and spend part of the time on their knees?

Would man kill God if he had the opportunity? One could argue that we already did but beyond the obvious objection of "we don't know that Jesus was God" there is the aspect that those who killed him did not believe so.

Would sentient computers disagree as to their Gods? Would they LOLINGFOREVER wage war over which was the true God?

I wish I still smoked weed so I could contemplate it further. Will digital drugs become a problem for the sentcoms? Will they enjoy Mozart? Well, I guess the first question is "will they enjoy?"

AI sure is a paradigm shifter.

Thank the good lord I'll be long gone before the really apocalyptic stuff kicks in.

It's All Sausage.

Avert your eyes and enjoy.
You're better off.

Sammy Sooser and Mike Mcgwire

looks very different in retrospect.

Chickens and Eggs and Beating Your Wife

Do football players beat their wives at a higher rate than their non-football playing friends and acquaintances?

I doubt it, but even if there is a statistical difference, correlation blah blah. Chicken or the egg.

The game of football does not make you a wife beater. The environment you surround yourself may, however, tend to encourage such a result. If your environment is one of machismo, then you will tend to adapt to that environment. But the environment that you view as your core self is far more of an influence than the "artificial environment" created in a locker room and on a sports field. The environment that you grew up with, continue to live in, and VALUE, the one you use as a means of IDENTIFYING yourself is the one that will shape your behaviors.

Tom Brady is a football player. Tom Brady does not beat his wife. Nor do the vast majority of football players.

Ray Rice beats his wife not because he plays football. Ray Rice beats his wife because he is Ray Rice. Ray Rice's wife puts up with it, because the environment she identifies with (as well as her personality) is one that craves such drama. Have you heard her speak? Holding onto such speech patterns into adulthood is indicative of upbringing, education and maturity level. Specifically, it's indicative of a preoccupation with peer acceptance... ie. "respect".

If your environment is one that demands a constant defense of one's "respect" via threat of physical force, then one (at least those who will thrive in the environment, however permanent that state may be) will tend to be constantly at the ready to use violence to retain respect.

HOWEVER, this occurs
FAR
MORE
OFTEN
AMONG
MALES
WITH
OTHER
MALES
THAN
AMONG
MALES
WITH
FEMALES.

It's not that the beating of the wife is viewed as different - that the wife is viewed as property whereas the other males are viewed as competition. It's that the wives are viewed IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER AS THE OTHER MALES -

IE. AS A THREAT TO ONE'S RESPECT AMONG THE LARGER GROUP

Ironically, it's an easy case to make that females are specifically treated BETTER (strictly in this regard, and in an entirely justifiable sense for the most obvious of reasons) in the sense that violence towards them is much less often the result than it is among males.

Feminists and professional victims are overcome with the need to designate themselves as "particularly targeted, specifically as a result of their differentness" in as many situations as they possibly can. This prevents them from being able to see true root causes which may not fall along such desirable lines, which prevents them from being able to acquire the increased level of sameness/acceptedness which they claim to be seeking in the first place (such a belief system engenders a posture of hyper-vigilance which manifests itself as obnoxious defensiveness which is, quite simply, no fun to be around).

Of course this claim of "morally justifiable end goals" is simply a politically palatable cover (both for the professional victim's own mind, and as a means of convincing others of the cause) for what they really want. They say they want to be treated the same, but what they really want is special privilege in the form of money, power, influence, etc..

Which, ironically enough, makes them exactly the same as everybody else, including those they view as their persecutors. Once such sameness is accepted as fact, the question becomes one of implementation in law. At that point one either becomes a champion of equality in the design and application of the law, or one becomes a champion of special privileges via the use of force, and by doing so, officially completes the circle and becomes that oppressive force they previously claimed to be fighting in opposition to.

Life is funny.

"These days"

is generally a precursor (or post-cursor) to an expression of dissonance.

The world as it is does not fit the world as I understand it should be, which is often based on an idealized picture of what it has been.

The dissonance is the belief that it's worse now.

Of course there are cases where this belief is undeniably true. We're not referring to those instances.

-------------

Grammatical aside: Should post-cursor be hyphenated? Should precursor? Well, one could argue that in the latter case the answer is "no", while in the former it is "yes" because the former isn't a word.

Please, PLEASE Misunderstand Me!!!!

It will be good for my career.

Picking Some Nits

10 mod 7 = 3

vs.

10 = 3 (mod 7)

i  believe the former is explicitly correct and the latter is misleading and less correct.

because 3 (mod 7) doesn't necessarily equal 10.

Arguing with the riot police

is kind of like arguing with the parking enforcement officer.

He doesn't actually care. He's just doing his job. Of course there will be some among the enforcing / riot police population who thoroughly enjoy pushing others around, but they're even less likely to care about your complaints. In fact, your anger probably only makes them enjoy the experience even more.

The people who really make the decisions you oppose aren't standing in front of you. The people who make those decisions are the bosses of the people standing in front of you. The bosses are the ones who make the rules for others, then use others to enforce those rules, all the while observing from a safe distance.

So sure, you can yell and scream at those individuals standing in front of you. It may even make you feel a little better, so maybe it's worthwhile for that reason alone. But you shouldn't be under any misconceptions as to exactly what you're doing (ie. yelling at parking enforcement officers) or what the upside of that activity may be (ie. potential changes in policy).

Although I will grant there is a potential PR benefit to be gained from such symbolic gestures and the pictures thereof (although it may only be among people who already agree with you).

And I'll repeat, there is nothing "less peaceful" about protesting with guns in your hands as long as you are lawfully carrying. If you have a Constitutional riot to protest, when and where you are protesting, and a Constitutional right to carry a weapon while engaging in that protest, then that is what you should do, if you really want to control your own situation. If, instead, you are interested only in the symbolic, then by all means, let them know they control you. Put your hands up, prostrate thyselves and chant a few catchy phrases. Such activity often plays well in short video clips taken from a close enough distance to imply a grander scale, and/or sound bytes which can then be used by the media outlets which already agree with your position and stated goals. 15 years from now that might even have an effect on policy.

Hands up protest?

I kind of think it'd be far more useful to march with loaded weapons, cocked at the ready, exactly as the police would do when they are attempting to intimidate citizens who have committed no crime (assuming of course the existence of open carry allowances, otherwise instead of holding the hands up, holding the empty hands in a shooting pose).

It feels to me like a moment to push back hard, rather than meekly.

You know, assuming the incident went down as the protesters believe it did. I have no thoughts on that. I haven't seen video, and there are few things less reliable than emotionally-involved eyewitnesses facing potential social pressure, except of course the 3rd, 4th, and nth-hand recounting of those initial witness' accounts.

I had a roommate who looked like Charles Manson

And another who looked like a central-casting serial killer.

Project Kids Are Just Different... And Exactly The Same

Ran into a classic, snaggle-toothed project kid yesterday and it takes about 10 seconds to realize you're dealing with a different sort of youngster when you talk with project kids. Shyness is sort of beaten out of them early on, and they exude that "poke you in the chest to see if you fight back" attitude in the things they say (and sometimes those things are very adult sorts of topics).

They're always testing, and angling, as their environment has taught them to do.

In that sense they are, today, exactly the same as they were decades ago. It took about 10 seconds to realize that. I must say that it provided more a feeling of nostalgic relief and comfort with my surroundings than any sort of pity, sadness, or self-righteous, adult-perspective-having indignation. I assume that speaks poorly of me as a person but it is what it is.

Newburgh Entrapment

Seems to be as straightforward a case of entrapment as you're going to find.

One should only go into government with eyes wide open as to the likely result - the destruction of the ability to think clearly, and the corruption of one's soul to its very core in favor of acquiescence to state power in all its forms.

You will not be the same on the way out as you were on the way in, and while that is often the case, it is rarely more disgustingly, nauseatingly, unamericanly so.

Tony Dungy's a loser and a coward.

Fact.

Many arrests are unnecessary.

Cops are largely useless  (strike, replace with unnecessary so as to avoid being unnecessarily offensive to the good ones who do exist) and tend to cause more problems than they solve for various reasons. One of the most common situations that result in cops violating rights and abusing citizens occurs during arrests.

Many of these arrests are unnecessary. Simply "serve papers" with a recorded video, certainly for all situations that would likely result in an immediate release after the arrest.

Arrests as escalation for those who fail to appear is inevitable, but that process should only be used as a last resort (in situations involving non-violent offenses, or other situations where a serving of papers will suffice). Once the benefit is established for appearing in court, most will tend to appear as requested.

There will always be situations where goons with uniforms force will be required but they should be minimized as much as possible. Those who have yet to prove themselves capable of dealing with stressful situations without overreacting should have their hands tied behind their backs whenever possible. They are servants. Employees. They should be treated as such, viewed and treated with skepticism, and be forced to justify any increase in granted powers.

if an anarchist believes in militias

is he really an anarchist?

no decent video

of a plane hitting the Pentagon. is there a plausible explanation for this?

i saw at least one person claim that "by showing the available videos, you expose your security weaknesses". i would never again trust the judgment of anyone who makes such a laughably ridiculous and stupid statement.

i would, however, be interested in hiring them if i needed a lackey who was willing to say (and believe) the dumbest things, and would do so in a way that would benefit me, either via profit or by protecting me from negative repercussions from my actions.

Inalienable

Education and the good you've done for others.

I feel so stupid.

I just now realized that the majority of technical/programming advice is exactly the same as financial advice.

Should this make me more compassionate towards those who continue to value financial advisors (at least as far as the mass media variety are concerned)?

(in case the comparison isn't obvious, it lies in the inherent variability and the essentially random nature of the two disciplines. one's advice will (may) apply in a certain percentage of cases, but those cases may or may not constitute a majority of cases that will be experienced by potential absorbers of the advice. the more confidently the completely arbitrary opinion is presented, the more successful the business venture (the business of advice peddling) will be, regardless of the inherent "accuracy" of the advice. in other words, it's all self-fulfilling bullshite.)

the two are the

exact

same

thing.

save for the details of course.

Maybe you CAN "retrain" authoritarian-inclined authority figures.

Perhaps focusing on the "as long as the citizens with whom you are interacting are doing nothing wrong (and in some cases, even if they are), you are their bitch, their employee, and their protectorate, and you shall mind your tone.

I don't watch Univision, mostly because I'm a racist.

I also find myself avoiding movies involving significant roles for Eddie Griffin (I had a wonderful "exception example" for Griffin at the ready, namely his appearance in the Nutty Professor, but it turns out that that was actually Chappelle. c'est la vie) and Kevin Hart... again, because I am a racist.

To prove my racist bonafides, I think Key & Peele are, in the vast majority of cases, awkwardly unfunny... although I will admit an occasional chuckle, potentially at personal expense (via the disapproval of my racist brethren).

Truism?

"Nobody likes bikers except for other bikers"

LOL

for a few different reasons
--------------------------

Philadelphia City Council Votes to Decriminalize Marijuana

Submitted by Diamond Dog on Fri, 06/20/2014 - 18:44

in

• Politics, General + Law(s)
• Quicklink

If signed into law, the bill would allow Philadelphia police to issue $25 tickets for possession of up to an ounce of weed.

By Dan McQuade | JUNE 19, 2014

[Original: 2:36 p.m.] You can breathe a little easier today, stoners, and not just because you probably are into vaping now. Philadelphia City Council voted today to decriminalize the possession of up to an ounce of weed. Even the heaviest stoners rarely buy more than an ounce at a time, so this bill is good news for Philadelphia potheads from the casual smoker to the wake-and-bake stoner.

The bill was first introduced by Councilman Jim Kenney in May. Under Kenney's bill, Philadelphians caught with up to an ounce (30 grams) of marijuana would not be arrested. After they paid a $25 fine, they'd have the charge expunged from their record. (Presumably, their weed would also be confiscated.) Since June 2010, Philadelphia has treated possession of up to an ounce of weed as a summary offense punishable with a $200 fine and a three-hour class on drug abuse.

"After discussions with Philadelphia’s criminal justice stakeholders, my requests to end mandatory custodial arrests — i.e. handcuffs and a night in jail — were deemed an 'administrative burden' on our courts and police,” Kenney told NBC10.com in May. “Public officials shouldn’t be worried about ‘administrative burdens’ when our inaction is senselessly burdening over 4,000 people with life-changing criminal records each year.”

Two Republican members of City Council, Dennis O’Brien and David Oh, spoke out against the bill. O'Brien suggested the law could eventually lead to “assaults on police officers.” (<- reason number 1. LOL)

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/06/19/philadelphia-city-council-votes-decriminalize-marijuana/

reason #2:

Ahhh

Submitted by eagleindistress on Fri, 06/20/2014 - 19:17. Permalink

I can smell the brush fires of freedom burning, and it smells skunky.

http://www.dailypaul.com/321041/philadelphia-city-council-votes-to-decriminalize-marijuana

No WAR Yet?!?

the FUCK? let's GO.

Anyone who ever "liked" Eric Cantor

is a bad judge of character and is not to be trusted.

GO SAVE ISRAEL, ERIC. SHE NEEDS A HERO. YOU CAN BE THAT HERO. TAKE DB MOST HIGH EMMANUEL AND FAMILIA WITH YOU AND FUCKING GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Iran oughta should be nuking Israel soon, right?

Not only has it been 6 months, but it's been like 5 years. So by all the DC douchebag Israel-firsters' calculations, we are wwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy overdue for an Iran nuking of Israel.

SWEEEEEEEEEEEEETTT. Fuck you, invaders. Go back to Germany and fight your own battles. Not willing to fight? Too bad. You die off then. You're nobody else's responsibility. Get your shit together and quit your incessant, unbearable whining.

If you really think it's going to happen, you can go ahead and use the nukes we gave you to flatten Iran. Then you'll be able to stay in your "homeland" LMFAO safely, I guess? Or whatever? Who cares. Do what you want. You want to stay in the land you have no right to? Do it. Just STOP FUCKING WHINING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES. You don't hear us whining to others to protect us from Mexico, do you? CAN  YOU IMAGINE? WHO WOULD FUCKING CARE? NO ONE. BUT YOU'VE MANAGED TO USE THE GUILT CARD longer than anyone could ever have imagined. Congrats for that. Now man up, you unbearable bitches. Or die off. Shit, or get off that fucking pot. Make some fucking decisions and FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S HOLY, STOP FUCKING WHINING.

I'm all for a new war now.

Cuz I just don't give a fuck anymore.

Bring it on. With whomever. For whatever reason. Oil? Sure. General imperialism? Sure.

Fuck it. For NO reason. Just cuz. Let's blow some shit up just because it's good for ratings. That's good enough for me. I hope the Capitol building gets hit in retaliation. I hope all of Washington D.C. is flattened, or vaporized. Who cares? We're just roaches. Nothing matters. Later.

Edit: Don't forget Wall Street. Vaporize that bitch too. Works for me.

Bring on that war, STAT. Let's get this party started.

Contradictory Terms

"Neo-nazism" and "anti-government".

Are we to assume that neo-nazis have some sort of affinity for and ideological similarity with the original incarnation?

I think so.

Were Nazis "anti-government"?

LOL.

Does this question, when posed so directly, actually need to be answered?

Does this cause any pause for those wishing to paint with broad brushes?

Need this question (when posed so directly) be answered?

I expect "loosing" to be codified any day now

it has reached critical mass and so will become an accepted spelling of "losing".

and one more part of me will die on the inside.

is this pet peeve ironic given the grammatical challenges (perhaps grammatical affront is a better description) demonstrated in this post and elsewhere on this here blog?

nah.

Maureen Dowd on pot candy bar: 'I became convinced that I had died'

The only question required is "so would you be likely to do it again, or not?"

And then the followup, should the person say they would be likely to do it again, "do you think society should attempt to prevent you and every other individual from making that choice by attempting to arrest and imprison you?"

The only people who support the drug war are losers and assholes and they're all stupid.

In some people,

the mirage of exceptionalism must be beaten out of them before they can ever hope to reach their true potential.

Intergalactic Misanthropy/Cynicism

I no longer think it would be a good thing to encounter extraterrestrial intelligent life.

Interesting, sure. But not good.

Imagine our "heroes" holding them at gunpoint in their own lands. Or, you know, imagine them eating us in ours. The likelihood of a third option seems remote.

Who is more full of shit?

Used car dealers or technical stock traders?

Sports talk media hosts?

Same?

Exactly, 100% exactly the same for all 3?

Fair enough.

But I would disagree.

At least the used car dealer actually knows some things about the car.

I believe

that the vast, vast majority of the profitability of the financial services sector is based on insider trading.

A majority of the rest is based on favoritism from the federal government.

One needs not iron bars

to live an imprisoned life.

Jesus, take the wheel

the vehicle is drifting,
partially under my control, partially in a seemingly autonomous fashion
drifting toward hate, disgust
drifting towards rage
i know i could correct the path...
if i really, really wanted to...
but i'm feeling, at the moment, like i don't want to
like i want to turn the wheel harder,
and to accelerate

...

now Jesus seems to be helping me to be mindful
of the important question...
"and then what?"
well, good point, Jesus.
i'm almost certainly not going to make anything better
i'm almost certainly only going to make things worse,
if only marginally
so what's really the point? the motivation?
it's then that the underlying fear shows its face
ghostliness
a passing by of the world
irrelevance

fortunately there is a better way
a positive contribution
a much more difficult challenge
but perhaps not a very effective one
at least not in terms of the initial motivation

the vehicle is drifting again

it's all yours, J.

Global Climate Change

as the single biggest example of the concept of "overdiagnosis".

http://www.amazon.com/Overdiagnosed-Making-People-Pursuit-Health/dp/0807021997

Discuss...

Emotional Growth? Capitulation? Does It Matter?

As I get older I find myself reacting quite differently to reports of deaths.

The progression begins as a youngster with a complete lack of connection to the concept of death. Various reports are just that - words that don't mean much.

Then as adulthood hits, the concept begins to hit closer to home, but still maintains a distance. The idea is more real, there is more experience with deaths of acquaintances and loved ones, and the meaning of life becomes more apparent. "The things that matter" and the reasons why become more obvious. But there is still so much time left to chart one's own path, and there are still so many things left to experience. The primary focus is still forward.

With the onset of middle-agedom, the constant paranoia begins to set in. Every death is a harbinger of one's own. Every ache and pain is a symptom of a much larger, more dire problem. We are no longer on the upside but have crossed ever. Our bodies are beginning the process of wearing down. In many ways, nothing will ever be "as good". Things kind of suck.

But then there comes a time when a degree of acceptance kicks in, and reports of the deaths of others again begin to recede in their emotionally depressing impact. Instead, the response is more along the lines of "I'm glad that man or woman had the opportunity to live the life he or she did." It becomes an appreciation of the accomplishments, the journey and the legacy left behind. The idea of eternal life being defined simply as one's personal and family legacy seems to crystallize.

It's quite difficult

to shed the ingrained thought processes and behaviors that have developed over one's life, even if the originally driving circumstances change in relevant ways.

After a certain point, it feels like a lifetime of "reacting as if one is cornered and threatened" becomes inevitable.

I am envious of those who can truly adapt and grow in positive ways, and who can escape whichever morass of negativity they had previously come to be stuck in.

Such growth is quite difficult.

Sometimes I think that people should be more drunk

more often.

Rules? No, but perhaps useful guidelines.

It's amazing how many smart people fall into the trap of engaging in online pissing contests.

Don't you know that the wind is in both of your faces?

That feeling on your leg is not victory.

That feeling is pee.

You are peeing on your own leg.

And you are doing so to learn the other fella, who is also peeing on his own leg, a thing or two.

This is the real danger of the internet (and no, I'm not referring to the above behavior itself at the moment) - that it teaches people the lack of value in many of the things they engage in. This type of behavior (peeing on one's own leg as a show of dominance) seems like a social remnant of a pre-internet age.

One has to assume that future generations will evolve away from this behavior, no? Sure certain aspects of the attraction to "dropping the smack down" are rooted in human nature, but that doesn't seem to imply that the current options often chosen to serve that instinctual need are, necessarily, legitimately serving that need. When environments change, certain doomed populations probably "adapt" in some ways that assist in their short-term survival, but which completely fail to address the long-term structural challenges that will ultimately bring about their extinction. Our environment has changed, and we now have options that we, as products of a previous environment lacking in those options, have long longed for. We were unaware of the longer-term lessons that would inevitably be learned. We have discovered fire, and we know it's "good", but that doesn't mean that lighting fires in a complete circle around your camp to keep the bears away is necessarily good. Eventually enough people will burn their own houses down that the social lesson will be learned and the capability (and it's current uses) will come to be viewed in a more "proper" context.

Fire to cook, good.

Fire to surround camp, bad.

Most people have to try certain things to come to accept that "the thing is not for them". Many people have to smoke pot every day to decide they don't want to be someone who smokes pot every day. Others have to drink to the point of "rock bottom" to decide they want a different life. Societies had to suffer under totalitarian authoritarianism to understand why it was a bad idea. Unfortunately, by the time the lesson is learned, much of the damage has already been done (wisdom = regret... if i could make that equals sign a wavy one I would), but populations eventually evolve to "better" ones and I assume the online world will as well.

This brings up a few points regarding the potential path this evolution can take. One of which is the concept of online anonymity. It is true on its face that anonymity provides the opportunity for bad people to do bad things, but it is also true that anonymity allows good people the opportunity to learn from mistakes without necessarily suffering the full impact the lesson would bring in a non-anonymous world. This impact can take a variety of forms from simple embarrassment to legal implications.

If you are anonymous, you needn't necessarily worry about the opinions of others, at least not to any greater degree than you choose. You determine its value. You needn't respond to outrageous statements, to insults, to obscenities, unless you choose to. If you choose not to, in fact, if you choose not even to make yourself aware of them (by not reading responses to your own comments, for example), you have freed yourself to utilize the tool without its potential harm. Is this a dangerous approach? Does it potentially lead to an insulating bubble into which no undesirable "truth" can penetrate? Sure. That is a problem. But this is already the case, and always will be, as we engage in various forms of dissonance, justification, rationalization, etc. on a continuous basis. We're already doing that, to the degree we are capable, and while this additional layer of filtering may make that worse, it also may allow us to absorb that which we view as "legitimate truths" in a safer environment. There is a reason college campuses try to create "safe environments for learning". There is a reason group therapy sessions attempt to create "safe environments" for sharing..... because they are beneficial to the processes involved.

As with any tool, the likelihood of use or abuse depends on the individual. One who values truths, even uncomfortable ones will tend to poke more holes in their bubble, allowing more of the information to flow in. But they are still able to absorb that information in the safety of that bubble, and to respond only when they decide they have something useful to respond with.... if they value such a determination of course. They need not respond in a manner like that which is required in an unsafe gathering in the "real world", which by instinct involves a greater degree of fight or flight response, and by instinct in the others in the gathering, often involves a more aggressive, intimidating, dominating approach by the group.

Anonymity allows for these determinations to be made in a more controlled manner, and just as importantly, it allows them to be made without long-term "real-world" repercussions that may otherwise result.

Anonymity allows for the shedding of one's online skin.

If you post some nonsense under your real name, it can have legitimate negative repercussions for you, potentially for a very long time. You can suffer the most significant repercussions from your mistakes, which can lead to a self-reinforcing downward spiral emotionally or otherwise, without any accompanying benefit.

Of course, if you can control yourself and can put forth an online presence under your real identity that avoids the likely pitfalls, that avoids the pissing contests, that accepts the inevitability and inconsequentiality of slings and arrows, of misrepresentations, of lies and half-truths, of ignorance and hate, then you can stand to reap the benefits of the products you put forth in  your own name without suffering the negative side effects of the environment. But most apparently can not. Most truly believe that they can show their superiority by peeing slightly farther, or higher, or more accurately, into the wind, even though they will also end up covering themselves in their own urine. Even if their abilities at urinary discharge are as exceptional as they believe them to be, in the best case they end up winning a battle that no one else will ever really care about... a battle they could simply have walked away from, perhaps with some unresolved anger or annoyance, but with a clean, dry pair of pants, and with their dignity intact.

Which brings us to the danger. If I am right, if the majority of these interactions are as useless as they seem to be, and if generations to come will learn this lesson earlier and earlier, what will that mean for human interaction? We all already see the head-down, earphones on, swiping the phone existence that many people live. What if we become that, and then some? What if that which made us "human" was a never-ceasing belief in the value of interaction, even as it served to crush our spirit as often as it served to uplift us, because we now have the opportunity to exist, and possibly even thrive in the rawest, survivalist sense, without suffering those negative experiences?

What would we become?

What sorts of delusions would we tend to hold and harbor as a result of the insulation we could choose to live under?

What sorts of prejudices and biases could result?

In short, could the evolution of the fully connected world inevitably lead towards a more fully "disconnected" existence at a more granular level than has ever been achieved before?

The rationalist in me says.... well I guess it says both. It says that we will see trends in that direction for all the reasons we currently see. The capabilities are there, and more and more people seem to be building their own intellectual bubbles from which to experience the world. This seems likely to continue, and to increase. As more and more like-minded individuals are able to filter the world through their shared worldview, it seems likely that more and more "intellectually homogenous groups" are likely to develop, with all the inherent dangers of such segmentation.

But the realist in me (is that also rationalist? i think so, right?) also says that society will kind of get by just fine, because it always does, and because interaction is part of being a human. Perhaps those interactions will be fine-tuned, and perhaps they will become more Spock-like as time goes on. Perhaps there will be less childish attempts at harming through insults and at responding to such attacks as if they merit a response. But the need for interaction will never go away. We have it as babies, and as long as we get enough of a positive impression of interaction from the early experiences, we will continue to value them into adulthood, for all the various reasons we currently do (information exchange, moral support, fun, etc.).

It is unlikely that humanity would ever lose the fundamental desire to interconnect. Perhaps that interconnectedness can simply be streamlined and improved, with much of the noise being filtered out, and with anonymity being offered as the useful tool that it is in that process. If so, perhaps a more productive, useful, perhaps even loving interaction can result. If not, well I guess we will be seeing people of all ages continuing to piss on themselves in order to lay the smack down on some "opponent" whose actions have "necessitated" such a response. We are, after all, just human.

Is it a good thing?

Perhaps the monumental degree to which I fucked up as an adolescent and a young man granted me a sort of early wisdom that helped me avoid making the same sorts of mistakes at a later age... This would be fortunate in the sense that at those later ages, the repercussions are much more severe and "tangibly long-lasting".

Of course most people would look at a term like "pre-emptive disillusionment" and instantly view it as a negative, but I think that value determination is entirely debatable.

Procrastination

provides the necessary excuse for poor performance (not enough time), while in many cases, paradoxically, also eventually providing the necessary incentive to do one's best work.

It will all work out in the end.

How?

I dunno.... It's a mystery!

The Todashev Incident

"Wait for a warrant before placing under arrest"

(turns off recording devices)

"Nah, fuck that noise. I'm gonna blast this fucker right here right now."

Bang. Bang bang bang bang bang bang.

"Yeah motha fucka. No warrant nonsense for you. No piece of shit defense attorney can save you now. You dead bitch. That's for <insert name of victim most prominent in assassin's mind here... possibly a bombing victim, or possibly a slightly wounded colleague, possibly wounded as a result of an entirely different incident>.

He came at me. You saw it, right? Good.

You, you were outside.calling in the progress and didn't see what happened, but you saw this (tosses table) table tossed and this (grabs potential weapon) near the body which was consistent with a struggle. Everybody cool? Good."

For a moralizing adrenaline junkie, nothing gets the dick hard faster than the opportunity to get away with some "righteous violence", especially when it's "technically criminal".

An aspiring investigative journalist may have a career-defining story to uncover here. I have no doubt that those involved have slept well to this point, and are sleeping even better after the "investigation" was concluded and the "report" was released. If you want to make them sleep a little less soundly, I would suggest picking at that scab incessantly over an extended period of time, with some nice, disorienting pauses thrown in for good measure.

How you feel

so shall you generally (eventually) be.

Context-free Context

Let me set the context....

This specific thing happened....

(and it was obviously bad/good....)

And now I have provided you with the context necessary to understand this other event.

I trust this context will shape your interpretation of not only this event, but also other events which can be viewed as manifestations of the same underlying principle.

I feel confident that I have served you well in providing this context (context-free as it may be) and impacting your life in this way.

Expediency

The fastest way to understand how difficult it is to control something is to want to.

There are cultures that...

shoot celebratory gunfire straight up amidst large crowds of people,...

and there are cultures that do not.

You either have or have not...

ever used the term "cultural milieu"

Wisdom and Regret

are they the intellectual/emotional equivalent of spacetime?

ie, when viewed from the right perspective, do they merge into a single concept?

not necessarily, i guess.

oh to be the wise man whose wisdom comes not from regret.

Conceptual Difficulties

As a high school football player, prior to taking Physics but aware of the concept of F = ma, I was convinced that I could maximize the force impacted upon an opponent (whether while tackling the ball carrier or being the ball carrier and breaking a tackle) by accelerating just prior to contact.

The person I mentioned this to, having already taken Physics, paused for a moment and, with what can only be described as an intentionally blank look on his face, replied, "... it doesn't really work that way."

I was convinced that he was wrong and I was correct. After all, F = ma, and my mass is staying constant, so if I accelerate, the force will naturally be greater. This, it appeared, was a simple scientific/mathematical truth and any confusion one may have would be due to their own limitations.

I now view the conceptual difficulty as similar to the one posed by the question, "If the forces are equal and opposite, why does anything happen at all? Why don't they just cancel each other out?"

SEP IS AN INDIAN TRIBE

AND RATE IS THE OTHER TRIBE

AND THERE'S A TEEPEE BETWEEN THEM!!!!!!

SEP 'A' RATE

man was i resistant to that one.

me, "umm, no. it's an 'e' between them."

she, "look it up"

me, "ok."

me (a short time later), "dayum. (but perhaps this dictionary is out of date or wrongz)"

now onto the question of "a indian tribe" vs. "an indian tribe".

a tribe

an indian

a/an indian tribe.

because it's a tribe, the answer appears to be a indian tribe.

ironically, if i hear someone say it that way, i will assume lesser intelligence.

it turns out, my petty, judgmental bias favored the "correct determination".

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/25428/article-when-there-is-an-adjective-before-a-noun

i don't know where i got it in my head that the article is always determined by the noun. i think i've seen it written that way. the web says otherwise; that it's the next word that matters so that's that. as for that semi-colon? don't know now and never will. who cares, really? i don't because i can't master it. otherwise i would probably view it as indicative of intelligencez.

Continuing the discussion

this post was nearly perfect,

http://diddymac.blogspot.com/2014/02/farmers-economic-almanac.html

and would have been proven so, but the circumstances changed in the meantime, and others acted in ways, potentially even "spiteful, punishing" ways, to make the post appear incorrect.

therefore, the post has been proven correct, and i, its creator, prescient. meanwhile, i think i see a double inverted head and shoulders pattern developing which indicates strong upward momentumz.

Hazing and Cognitive Dissonance

eeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhh......

this is a stretch. in order to use this as an example of cognitive dissonance in the sense described (i value the group more after being hazed and humiliated because of cognitive dissonance - ie. i am increasing the value of the accomplishment to make the investment seem worthwhile) you have to deal with all the expectations, real or otherwise, that exist about the group.

first - is it still likely that i will get laid more often by being a member of this group?

well, the hazing didn't necessarily change that. i probably thought that was the case before, which is why i pledged and put up with the hazing as it was happening. so the group membership was valued highly before, and is still valued highly. if, instead, it is disproven that i will get laid more often, and if, in fact, the other group that got simply a mint for their pledge, and where everyone who pledged was accepted, got laid more often, i think i'll (rather quickly) conclude that membership in my fraternity was absolutely NOT worth the investment, and will resent myself and other members for the experience.

this seems logical, and calling it dissonance seems wrong.

but assuming that i do in fact get laid more often...
the difference might be that the hazing makes the membership feel more valuable because i was able to withstand something that others were not. some other pledges may have run away. this makes me "better" than them. therefore i have simply gained pride by surviving an ordeal that others could not. i have paid my dues. this makes the membership more "valuable" in the tangible sense that i know others can not/would not survive the initiation process.

what's the difference here between the sense one gets from working hard in academia (or any other discipline) in general?

i think probably nothing.

there will always be people who don't have to work hard but inherit lots of money and perhaps make lots of money easily from that inherited money. does that mean that it's "cognitive dissonance" at work for me to feel pride in working hard at my job and accomplishing the tasks put before me in trade for a payment i choose to accept, even if that payment is relatively miniscule compared to that received by the lazy legacy admittant with the trust fund?

(free therapy being less effective than paid therapy - you're probably ACTUALLY making the therapy more effective by paying. this again is not necessarily cognitive dissonance. it's behaviorally interesting, but fairly easily explainable by the fact that if anything is free, you know you can get it again with minimal investment later, so the importance of utilizing it immediately is lessened)

regardless of the apparent incontrovertibility of the concept (e.g. if i do get into the group, i will be more likely to CALCULATE that i am getting laid more often than others outside the group, and more than I would have outside of the group, as a result of that membership), the examples provided are lacking.

(interesting discussion towards the end regarding the overestimation of the importance of "the person" rather than "the context", especially after the previous discussion regarding evolutionary psychology and the overriding importance of genetics in determining personality and behavior, rather than the social factors at play. perhaps not a very deeply interesting comparison)

http://oyc.yale.edu/psychology/psyc-110/lecture-16

Evolution is about niche-filling

Psychologists don't incorporate this idea often enough, imo.

To significant degree, we become who we become because nobody else in our immediate surroundings is currently filling that niche.

Surveys of desired numbers of sexual partners

Using such a survey as indicative of evolutionary biological differences (between males and females) could only be viewed as legitimate if it can be proven to be consistent across vastly different social groups.

Do strictly religious individuals respond the same way? If not, then the answers would be more an indication of social factors, which, if I'm not mistaken, is kind of the opposite of the point attempting to be proved.

Guys know that they are supposed to want lots of chicks,... at least partly because they have been given social pressure indicating that this is the correct choice.

So are we saying that the social factors evolve, and the impact on the individual is based on social pressure? Thereby essentially still falling under an evolutionary umbrella? Or are we really saying that these preferences are inherent and have genetic bases?

What's more political than politics?

To what degree should the answer to that question determine your expectations, actions, and moral compass when engaging in the practice?

What are some boundary conditions of this calculation?

For purposes of the discussion, we can either assume or not assume strict protection of individual rights without exception (ie. we should not, necessarily, use pre-existing moral or legal boundaries).

We could begin to incorporate a sliding scale of the importance of individual rights based on a moral judgment of "fairness" (certainly, our experience would indicate this to be the eventual conclusion, whether that is a purely political result or not, and whether or not that distinction would matter).

I assume the discussion would vibrate back and forth (potentially around a varying or sliding center point) between "it violated that person's rights and therefore should not be tolerated" and "the violation of that person's rights is justified by the benefit that can be provided to another individual who, through either his/her own fault or factors outside his/her's control, did not receive the same/an acceptable degree of opportunity/result as the person whose rights are to be infringed upon.

So, should Robin Hoods be prosecuted or not?

Should governments engage in redistribution? If so, should it be done as blindly as possible (with all the potential unintended consequences) with rules as well-defined and fixed as possible? Or should it be done in as undefined a manner as possible?

Which is likely to lead to the greater number of unintended consequences and/or corruption?

It's quite possible that the entire intellectual exercise is a waste of time. I don't know if there would be broader implications of such a determination.

What are your questions?

Q. Is this going to be on the exam?

A. How should I know? I don't even work for this institution. Security will now escort me out. Have a great rest of your lives!

Online IQ/EQ/Superhero Tests

While the test results themselves may be unreliable, non-predictive nonsense, the degree to which an individual values the importance of the results may be useful and predictive.

Dissonant Chords

I'm astonished by the vitriolic responses of both Woody Allen himself and those rushing to defend him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?src=me

In certain instances, such an emotional response (meaning my own astonishment) to widespread behavior by large numbers of people indicates a flawed set of assumptions by myself regarding the circumstances involved, and is reason for re-evaluation. In other cases the dissonance is the inevitable result of aligning oneself with the truth even when it proves to be unpopular, along with (potentially) a flawed set of assumptions regarding the motivations and/or capabilities of others drawing the diametrically opposed conclusions.

As of this point I am assuming this is an example of the latter.

Punishing Cheaters and Rationality

The underlying question is one of rationality.

Do human beings act rationally?

It has been posited that the following reproducible behavior demonstrates irrational/spiteful behavior.

There are two individuals who can stand to gain from a situation. There is an amount of money ($10) available to be distributed between the two individuals. One participant can determine the breakdown of the money to be distributed. For simplicity we will say that he can decide on a split anywhere from 90/10 (the most greedy option) to 10/90 (the least greedy option). If the other person accepts the deal, the money is distributed as agreed upon. But if the other person refuses the deal, neither party receives anything.

It can be assumed that when the offer is deemed "fair" or even "generous" (50%, or 90%, for example) the recipient will accept. But it can be shown that when the offer is deemed unfair, the recipient will often reject the deal, even though it serves as a punishment to both sides. ie. the recipient gives up his/her potential share in order to punish the one making the offer.

This has been characterized as "irrational spite".

I would fundamentally disagree, and would instead argue that this is exactly evidence of the larger point that was being made in the overall discussion - that being the instinctual, rational tendency of certain species to punish cheaters. I assume it would be accepted that the act was a form of "punishment for a cheater". The question is simply one of rationality.

Looked at under the microscope of the single interaction, it can appear as an irrational, spiteful behavior. But looked at from a broader scope, it appears entirely instinctually rational.

Initially we should examine the potential recipient's context for judging the value of the offer. The amount of money involved is weighed against the importance of punishing the cheater. To put it simply, if the person really needs that one dollar, he almost certainly will take the deal. Whereas if the amount of money is of relatively minimal importance to the potential recipient, the benefit of punishing a cheater, and thereby potentially changing the behavior in the future, is of greater potential long-term benefit than the immediate benefit of accepting the unfair offer and encouraging the cheating behavior.

ie. the offer will be rejected by those who can afford to make the moral stand. Is there anything more rational than that?

To make the point further, one would simply use larger dollar amounts. As the dollar amount increases, the potential relative benefit of taking the moral stand over accepting the offer reduces. Assume $100,000.00 and a 10/90 split. $10,000 will be accepted by far more people, than $1 out of $10. As the dollar amount increases, so too will the percentage. There is almost no benefit to refusing the offer at dollar values that represent significant, life-altering amounts.

Perhaps most importantly, there are a variety of other ways to potentially punish the cheater in the future, especially if the dollar amount received affords greater personal freedom of action.

And the likelihood of the act of "punishing the cheater" ever resulting in a larger potential offer in the future tends to zero as the nominal amount of the unfair offer increases. In that sense, even among those for whom the dollar amount is of minimal importance, who can afford to take the "spiteful" moral stand to punish the cheater, if they eventually come to decide that the behavior will not change, and there will be never be a larger/more fair offer (ie. there is no longer-term benefit to be had), those people, too, would eventually come to accept the unfair deal, while stuffing away the feelings of being slighted (and the accompanying desire to punish) for another day and situation.

To summarize:
we do like to punish cheaters, and this is rational
we will engage in actions that cause short-term discomfort (for lack of a better term) in order to engage in that punishment (in fact, this is no different from any other action taken for a payment. the only difference is assuredness of benefit/payment and time frame)
when we are offered an unfair offer that could potentially significantly improve our situation, we will accept that offer even if it remains unfair to the same relative degree

so we decide the worthiness of certain moral stands based on potential costs involved.

I find this behavior a rather straightforward example of the sort of behaviors that would normally be categorized as entirely rational when viewed through the appropriate lens.

Any questions?...........................

err.....

What are your questions?.......

Q. What the holy hell are you talking about?

A. http://oyc.yale.edu/psychology/psyc-110/lecture-12

Q. Really? You made an entire post about what is essentially a semantic difference?

A. Perhaps... which of course implies "perhaps not". Also I don't really appreciate the tone of your questions. Thank you for them nonetheless.

Farmer's Economic Almanac

Date: direction amount, reason, direction correct, amount percentage
2/6/2014: up 52, "green shoots in emerging markets", Yes, 1/4
2/7/2014: down 20, "traders are concerned about tapering"
2/10/2014: down 30, "concerned about growth, tech flat"

2/11/2014: up 71, "job market looks good"
2/12/2014: down 117, "global economic growth slowed, emerging markets still unstable, manuf. slowing"
2/13/2014: up 60, "sense of calm, that things aren't that bad, tech good"
2/14/2014: down 122, "upset with central banks"
2/17/2014: up 250, "confidence in Asia"
2/19/2014: up 12, "stable job growth"
2/20/2014: down 94, "uncertainty in Asia"
2/21/2014: down 150, "consumer confidence dropped"
2/24/2014: up 117, "manufacturing increasing"
2/25/2014: down 20, "terrorism fears"
2/26/2014: down 30, "no terrorism, but no big news"
2/27/2014: up 171, "numbers expected to be good"
2/28/2014: down 220, "numbers were not good. worried about tapering"

How To Reduce Healthcare Costs

How to reduce healthcare costs, lower childhood obesity rates and improve overall health

1. "Force" kids to brush their teeth after every meal

In order to incent those who may not be interested, institute an extra 5 minute window in which they are allowed to brush while the non-brushers have to return to class. If this isn't enough time, you take away 5 minutes of their "free time" during the eating break and then add the additional 5 minutes to the eating/brushing window. So, for example, if you normally have a 30 minute lunch, the brushers get 25 minutes of free eating time, then 10 minutes to brush, for a total of 35 minutes. The non-brushers have 30 minutes of free time, with no extra brush time, for a total of 30 minutes.

What are your questions?

Q. Why are so many kids overweight?

A. Because they don't brush their teeth after every meal.

Q. How does this work?

A. First, it reduces the cravings because there's a small "cost" added to the activity. It's a form of negative reinforcement, or, if you like, negative positive reinforcement, since we're not taking something away (which is sometimes the definition of negative reinforcement), but what we're adding is a "negative" aspect. This makes the activity less desirable, which will naturally result in a reduction of frequency/degree.

Q. How else does the practice of brushing help curb appetite?

A. It removes the taste from the mouth. Part of the reason we fixate on food in between meals is because we can still taste some of it. It's a constant reminder. A clean mouth removes that source of fixation, thereby reducing the craving, which naturally leads to a more reasonable appetite. There is also a natural tendency to drink more water instead of sugary drinks, both because of the "potential cost" involved with the sugary drink, as well as the effect that a clean mouth will have on taste buds. When your taste buds are already being excited by leftover sweet tastes, water isn't as attractive. It just can't compete.

All of these factors tend to be self-reinforcing, and as such offer great promise for long-term results.

Q. How else does the practice of brushing help overall health?

A. Well, obviously the reduction in eating and associated obesity rates will be the most immediate benefit, but one can reasonably assume a corresponding increase in "healthy activities". When you feel healthier in your mouth, or when you feel cleaner in just about any other way, you tend to want to be more active. This hypothesis would have to be tested, of course, but it is assumed for current purposes.

Also, by forcing young people to accept this process as part of their daily routine, they are much more likely to engage in the practice as they get older, with all the direct and indirect benefits that can be assumed. Not to mention the obvious improvement and dental hygiene and health, whether or not we regard the concept of "focal sepsis" as having any merit, or view the removing of teeth as a cure for mental illness.

Thanks for coming and thanks for your questions. Have a great day and remember to brush!

RISC Website Architecture

is what it really is.

you know I'm right.

The Balancing Act

I guess it's all just a balancing act between confidence and humility. Who does it best?

My Goodness, The Blood Moons Is A Comin'

Tax day will be the next blood moon.

My Goodness.

Imma start diggin my shelter today, and fillin' it with the Bible for to read,

and some Ko-rans in order to burn for heat.

The Only Hope

The continued existence and emergence of Edward Snowdens is the only hope.

They provide the only effective adversarial pressure, without which expansion occurs without natural bound, eventually suffocating the supposed protectorates...

of course,...

"for their own good".

A cynical case for inflationary monetary systems

You should not, necessarily, believe in the government's ability to "store value" for you.

By holding cash, you do just that.

By purchasing property, you make the decisions as to what will likely store value, or increase in value, whether in real or nominal terms. Of course interventionist government policies distort (read: essentially drive and control) and determine which industries will "profit" the most from the inflationary monetary system that underlies those gains. So the core problem may more accurately be identified as the spending policies themselves, rather than the simple existence of an inflationary monetary system.

Of course it is a small step to understanding the symbiotic relationship between the two. The policies can not be implemented without the printing of the cash. So in the "real" sense of the world we actually live in, they can logically be viewed as intertwined and essentially a single functioning system.

Not that drawing a distinction would even necessarily matter. Nothing is likely to change, certainly not any time soon. But in a theoretical sense, I wonder what a strictly controlled inflationary monetary system (ie. we will print 3% additional dollars every year and distribute them evenly among the population) combined with a non-economically-interventionist government would, theoretically, produce.

The questions regarding the effect on the poorest of the population, as well as the country's ability to compete economically with emerging economies (vis a vis minimum wages, both in terms of mandates and logically necessary increases due to the inflation) would of course have to be examined.

The fact is I am as skeptical

of a pasty, white dude wearing a hoodie as I am of a bandana or droopy pants-wearing black man. The color of the skin has literally no effect on my degree of skepticism, or the degree to which I would tend to monitor the person's actions. The only thing that will affect my skepticism is the person's "behavior" in the sense that the more they appear to be meandering, the more skeptical I will naturally be.

The unease that comes from the inability to see another's face is hard-wired, instinctual and an entirely justifiable survival mechanism. The desire to hide one's face whilst engaging in illicit acts is equally so.

This is what you call "cullin' cold"

or killin' cold if you prefer.

angry sort of, make you think you offended the Gods kind of cold.