Ana

onah — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:37:57 GMT

Hey. I bought a scooter. it's a Kymco, People 150. :) One of these days (yeah, right) I'm going to post a picture or video of me and/or the scooter. I swear.

The fastest I've pushed it to (downhill w/ a tail-wind) is about 65mph. 50-55 is a more typical top-speed. Because it can only go so fast, I knew I had to give up road trips when I got it. I thought I could, and so far it's been more or less fine. But I find myself searching google-maps to find out-of-town roads/highways I can drive on. Problem is, google maps doesn't tell you the speed limits. To overcome this, I sometimes use the ... what do you call it... the street view? I look at all those photos of the streets... and zip back and forth along a stretch of highway until I find a speed-limit sign. haha. :)

I'm going to try out this google thing... I don't know if it will work. let's see: Found a Speed Limit Sign

nope. it didn't work the way I wanted. LJ won't publish the code. That link seems to work though. Anyway, I was pleased when I figured out this works. (well enough, I think.) You can, I think, infer from the map that I'm thinking about driving my little scooter up over a little mountain pass and go on down to Lake Tahoe. That's a nice place to visit now and then.

see ya.

onah — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:08:22 GMT

geez. I already feel stupid about what I just posted. I think the possibility of having an audience doesn't work for me. Maybe I'll try it again next year.

onah — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:41:02 GMT

I've been nudged. Hi.

how y'all doing?

I'm fine. I'm going back to school these days and doing a lot of math homework. It's easier this time around for some reason.

Still living in Sparks NV.

I was in a car accident about a month ago, and my little car, that's been taking good care of me for the last 14 years, is totaled. This is terrible, of course. It was the other driver's fault. As you might expect, her insurance company has offered me a settlement that's insufficient to replace my car. I'm going to fight it. Yesterday I rode the bus in Reno for the first time. It was kind of nice. I might keep on with this. I'm also thinking about buying a scooter.

Things are far from perfect but they're certainly good enough. In most ways, I think, I couldn't really ask for better.

I do a little bit of writing these days. (very little.) It consists mostly of stuff involving: figuring out my beliefs... it's almost academic or at least layman-philosophical... I guess it's just a diary. an example of the prosaic content: "if I feel now, ashamed or embarrassed of who I used to be, and I know I've always felt that way, that means I can be reasonably sure that in the future I will feel the same about my future's past; which is to say I will, then, cringe and feel embarrassed about who I am now. So, knowing this, can I do anything about it?" Only far more wordy and with copious ellipses. haha. I have no audience and that's perfectly wonderful.

So, y'all doing alright? Whenever I come back to this journal it's a blast from the past. I'm amazed to see so many people are still here and writing. I see you've all changed though, which is great. I'm not the only one getting a little older. I haven't checked to see who still has me friended, so I who might read this. Best wishes to you all. Nice to "see" you again.

yet another political/social/philisophical rant

onah — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:28:53 GMT

Something has been bothering me for a while... about the argument for free-enterprise vs. government doing the work, for the government. that is; anything the government does requires at least some small amount of work (and usually money) to make it happen. Much of that work can be "outsourced" to private industry. A lot of people really like this idea for a variety of reasons (some talked about, others not). One of the reason most often referenced is "efficiency". "Government is inefficient" they say. I think this claim is very often over stated, but I'm not going to argue about this point. What's been bugging me... is something about *profit*, and it just got a little clearer in my head just now, and this is it: most of whatever efficiency is gained in private industry is converted into profit... privately owned wealth. So, do we have a more efficiently run state? I contend not. I think what we wind up with is less money going directly to the working people and more of that money going to owners of companies... big companies... which is to say: the idle rich. Once a business is given a task by the government, that business will work as hard as it can... not to do the best job possible as one would hope, but to make as much profit as possible. That means quality of service declines, ground level employees (the privately employed people doing the actual work, government work) are paid less and worked harder. The government doesn't spend any less or not much less money... and whatever money is left over winds up in the pockets of share holders. Whatever efficiency is gained winds up as profit and reduced services, which means most of us wind up with less that we might otherwise.

You could say that any privatized governmental function serves as a tax break to the filthy rich... because we, the rank and file tax payers, pay the filthy rich to do a poor job of the government's work.

my basic thing: When people rearrange the structure of how publicly work gets done, it tends to change where the money winds up. "Rearrange" is a key word in that sentence... because it's like a deck of cards, a zero sum game. There will be an end result with something left over. In the end, who has received the greatest benefit?

The purpose of government... think about it... is to improve the lives of the governed. We come together to form agreements such as our constitution and laws in order to make our own lives better. Murder is illegal? Thank goodness! My life is better. I get to vote for anyone I choose to lead my country? Alright! My life is better. Pay taxes to build a few roads? OK... as long as we all pay a little bit for the new roads, I'm cool with that... because roads (often) improve my life. Government is for *us*. All of us. When it does anything, this should always be the driving principal. We, all together, pay lots of money to a public sector in order to improve our collective existence. Whenever some of *us* are benefiting more than others, we, the people, the owners of this nation and government, need to take a very close look at what's going on.

hm... I bought a book about a week ago that speaks to issues like this one. I haven't read it but I listened to the author speak a little. Did you know that big box store (like Wal-mart and Target) often don't pay sales tax to the government? They collect it, but they have deals with the government (local) which allows them to keep the sales tax money. The rationale behind this perk is that they (the big box stores) strengthen the local economy ... so the local government should subsidize their presence. Did you know that? And, what happens, of course, when a big box store moves in is all the local small stores providing the same services go out of business. This means (!!!) the small local business owners are subsidizing their own demise. Follow? The little guys are driven out of business. People go to work at big box stores and are paid less. And we, who used to own, run, and work at our local business now shop at the big box stores, pay "sales tax" because we are legally required to do so. This "sales tax", however is kept by this new store, as a subsidy. We pay "taxes" in order to help the filthy rich to destroy our locally owned and operated businesses.

This is not the kind of thing that is talked about much on TV. go figure.

btw, I'm not saying free enterprise has no place in government. But, we need to be a lot more discerning. Remember, the key is that thee only function government is to improve our collective lives. Let that be a guiding principal.

Crying Hillary

onah — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:48:56 GMT

Is anybody else really irritated about Hillary crying during a speech? I couldn't believe it. What's even more unbelievable to me is that it somehow was received favorably. huh? I don't get it. When I heard the clip it sounded an awful lot like she was upset about not winning in Iowa... that she was saying "come on guys! why didn't you vote for me? I'm trying to save the country... and how am I going to do that if you don't vote for me?" oh, brother.

If she gets the nomination, do you think Republicans are going to feel sorry for her? Will she get the Republican sympathy vote? "oh, I was thinking 'anybody but Hillary', but that crying business just broke my heart." as if. no, they're going to just tell it like it is. We don't want a President who's going to cry when she doesn't get her way.

I am honestly confused. Why did anybody like that? it's on the edge of making my skin crawl.

onah — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:27:02 GMT

the books I've been reading lately are making me feel like I have a pretty good layman's understanding of modern economics. I am fascinated.

The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics, by Eric Beinhocker

I loved this book. It has a good, understandable explanation of the modern understanding of evolution. It makes an excellent case that this new theory of economics is, at the very least, far more realistic and scientific than classical economics; exploding (in my mind) ideas/myths of "perfect information", "perfect rationality", "perfect competition" and so on. I also found really interesting what he had to say about the profound influence culture may have on economies.
currently reading: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, by Naomi Klein

At present, I am maybe 1/3 of the way through the book. I am engaged, but also a tad skeptical about its thesis. What I am appreciating very is the basic over-arching history it's giving me of the neo-liberal (recently renamed: "neo-conservative"?) 20th century economics movement of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics... and some of the unfortunate side effects. This book, you might say, is quite political... or at least can easily be framed that way. I think the basic purpose of the book, the intent of the author (so far, in my mind), is to "re-associate" the ideology of the "Chicago Boys" with the terrible brutality, the terrorism, of the South American dictatorships that came to power, with US support, in the 60's through the 80's. Pinochet in Chile is an example. These regimes came to power with a laissez-faire economics play book in their back pockets. Free trade isn't something we tend to associate with anti-democratic power. Yes? Naomi Klein makes a very good case that in a great many instances, since the early 60's, unfettered capitalism has been instituted, literally, by force. ...that this pure laissez-faire model was, in some cases, not only undemocratically enforced but the primary motivation for military coups.

In my understanding (from other sources) Pinochet, et al, were supported by the CIA in order to fight the cold war... so it makes sense that free-market ideology would follow. (thinking about it, that we support(ed) brutal dictators, always makes me sick.) This book theorizes, with terrific help from direct quotes by Milton Friedman himself, that the policies recommended by this economic model are usually so terribly unpopular, that they cannot be instituted without at least a suspension of democracy. I think that is probably true in many or most possible locales. In the US, on the other hand, I'm not so sure.

Here's a thoughtful review: Shocked, awed and uncertain, which I find myself agreeing with. Here's a stupid review: Bleakonomics, which provides an excellent of example of how one might read between the lines and miss the actual message. (of course, maybe I'm just reading something else between the lines. really though... I think this guy didn't understand the book.)

anyway, economics... yeah. very, very interesting stuff. hehe.

I'm also fascinated that... I've heard anyway... that Marxist thought may be one of the most influential in the coming century. (Marxism, btw, is not Communism. I thought I'd say that in case ... uhm, you happen to "hate Marxism". I am not a Communist or a Marxist, or a Capitalist... but whatever, please keep your hate to yourself.)

onah — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:51:13 GMT

I believe I'm going to be in Seattle over the holidays. Not sure when, exactly... but the rough idea is 14th through the 2nd. Anyone want to have a cup o' coffee while I'm in town?

gallbladder 86-ed

onah — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:58:33 GMT

My gallbladder was removed about two weeks ago. Are you surprised? I sure was, and still am. that was a real left-fielder.

I'd been doing a "cleanse" diet for about a week and 3-4 days. Two days before, I'd started feeling tired and a bit under the weather for the first time since starting the diet. I thought this was strange because everything I'd read and heard made me think I might feel bad at first but good for most of the time. Instead, I felt fine (great) until day number 9, or so. On day 11 I had some abdominal pain, that kept getting worse. I decided to go to bed and sleep it off, but I found I couldn't lie down. Then, I couldn't stop moving. It sucked.

I paced... laid down... on my stomach, on my back on my side, I knelt, I leaned over chairs... I did whatever I could to try to relax because I was so tired, but could not. I thought I must have food poisoning, though I wasn't really nauseous at all. After an hour of hell in my apartment, I drove myself to the emergency room. I thought I was probably being a wimp... because I thought uhm... the pain wasn't really that bad... but I could NOT ignore it... I could not stand still... and it became pure agony.

I arrived in the ER at something like 1:30am. After they finally gave me pain meds by something like 2:30-3am... I could finally sleep which was *absolute heaven*. They removed my gallbladder, via laparoscopic surgery, at 4:30pm that same day, and I left the hospital by 7:30 that evening. whoa.

I'm not saying that cleanse diet necessarily had anything to do with the sudden gallstones and inflammation. It's in interesting coincidence though. I'd never done a detox anything before... and I'm guessing my body was pretty toxic. (probably still is, but less so.)

hm. btw, my skin is looking very good now, and I've lost something like 5lbs in the last 3 weeks. heh. Did I mention I became a vegetarian about 4-5 months ago? Back then I weighed something like 195lbs, which is the heaviest I've ever been. About a month ago I was joking to myself that "I never thought I would be happy to weigh 185." (because "normal" for me is more like 160, and good is closer to 150.) Now I'm 180 or less... and I'm just confused by this. since I started the vege thing... I haven't been craving food so much. (it's weird.) I never expected to lose weight, and certainly not this much, or this fast. And, I'm happy and satisfied. *knocks wood*... Of course, all things are temporary... especially my happiness. ;) I have to say though... that since I stopped trying to be a rock star and instead am just trying to be a normal/good/moral/simple person... things are going pretty well. I'm never going to be rich, or famous, or admired, or anything else that I've wanted. instead, I'm going to be normal, awkward, confused, uncelebrated, unglamorous, goofy, afraid ... honest, simple, accepting (of as much as possible), quiet, and be around people who are very, very much like myself. I'm also always conscious and aware... i.e. no more "soma vacations". ;) I'm stuck in my body, and in my life, and always will be. And, I'm really learning to like it. who knew I would one day sort of understand patience? haha. who knew I could be happy without being powerful, respected, and rich? haha. who knew...

it's funny that I only write here when I'm happy. I wonder... I must look like an irritatingly happy idiot to you people. I think that might be the only image I'm comfortable with projecting. hehe. No, the truth is, I'm just like you. :) (unless you people are all irritatingly happy... in which case... no, I'm not anything like a "rock star.")

look: " Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything"

onah — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:11:11 GMT

haha. I loved reading this. Some great bits:

"My brain exploded with the implications and the beauty of the thing," he tells New Scientist. "I thought: 'Holy crap, that's it!'"

and...

So far, all the interactions predicted by the complex geometrical relationships inside E8 match with observations in the real world. "How cool is that?" he says.

he comes up with a promising unified theory and he says: "Holy crap, that's it!" haha. :) I think that's so funny, and cool. way to go surfer dude!

you guys should do this

onah — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:08:53 GMT

a meme I want to watch: put on some roller skates and put yourself in front of a camera, and introduce yourself. that's it. the rest is up to you. (btw, is it still "cool" to use the word: meme? I've been out of it, as you know.)

onah — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:14:11 GMT

I saw Barack Obama when he spoke in Reno. It was too long ago for me to remember specifics, but all I care about are my *feelings* anyway though... so specifics don't really matter in Ana land. (actually... more likely: I just have such a hard time remembering most specifics that the only way to keep from hating myself is deciding that my feelings are a good enough guide. cognitive dissonance resolved.)

what I do remember:

Overall, I was inspired. I thought he was great.

Some of what he said was only interesting. Maybe I don't know enough about those issues.

What got on my nerves is, he kept talking about (I'm paraphrasing, but this is about my feelings, remember) changing EVERYTHING. By everything... I mean something like: wiping out corruption on Capitol Hill... bringing back real political discourse (rather than living with sound bytes, and staying-on-message/punditry)... uhm, giving Americans a sense that they have control over government, control over their country, and a real say in... things.

The way things work right now, that makes so many of us cynical about government, works very well at getting people elected. It seems to me that American politics today comes down to: whoever uses the dirty play book most effectively wins. (It's very discouraging to me because I don't want dirty-play-book politicians making important decisions for me.)

I can't help but believe, because of his change everything platform, that he's either naive, or a liar. I prefer to think naive, and honestly it seems more plausible. Even though he's an absolute genius (at least compared to me, he is for sure), he seems naive.

Why is naive bad? In my opinion, the worst that could happen is: he'll end up chasing impossible dreams and end up doing nothing at all.

The only realistic alternative at the moment seems to be Hillary, and I think she's a dirty-play-book type. two faced... typical politician. I believe this is worse and naivete.

I'm curious to know what you think about this.

onah — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:15:20 GMT

hi. sup?

onah — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 21:49:45 GMT

it's a good thing I'm not a counselor. My advice would be: "you know... when I find myself in a situation like yours, I find what helps me most is... you know... pulling my head, out of my ass. Let's try it together now, ok? 1, 2, 3..." pop! I wish.

onah — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:36:33 GMT

Hey y0. happy to be alive today. :) not that I wasn't expecting to be. I'm just happy. :) I miss you.

onah — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:04:51 GMT

hi. posty...

interesting dream last night. war. watched all the nukes launch, felt sure mutual anihilation was imminent (terrifying), but the return nukes never came. afterward I watched the news, hoping to find out how badly the rest of the world had been destroyed. nothing was said though, except on Fox News which were giving technical descriptions of what nukes were meant to accomplish... and talking about terrorists.

onah — Tue, 09 May 2006 18:12:31 GMT

this is a great article: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050806Z.shtml

it tells it like it is, imho. and, I think the man in charge is hell bent on bombing the hell out of Iran. One quote I find particularly disturbing:

A former defense official who still advises the Bush administration told Hersh that the military planning is grounded in the belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government."

Who could possibly believe that bombing the hell out of Iran will embarrass the religious leadership? Did bombing the USA embarrass President Bush, or Pat Robertson? Does it turn the people against Bush or any American against any other American? I should say not. Who is it in our government who thinks Iranians are so fundamentally different that they would act to being bombed in a completely nonsensical way? This COMPLETE lack of understanding is truly frightening. Iran's democratically elected hard right leader got there because of all Bush's saber rattling, scaring and angering Iranians.

onah — Sun, 07 May 2006 03:40:33 GMT

from Rolling Stone's recent article: The Worst President in History? -- One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush

Bush's alarmingly aberrant take on the Constitution is ironic. One need go back in the record less than a decade to find prominent Republicans railing against far more minor presidential legal infractions as precursors to all-out totalitarianism. "I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the president," Sen. Bill Frist declared of Bill Clinton's efforts to conceal an illicit sexual liaison. "No man is above the law, and no man is below the law - that's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country," Rep. Tom DeLay asserted. "The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door," warned Rep. Henry Hyde, one of Clinton's chief accusers. In the face of Bush's more definitive dismissal of federal law, the silence from these quarters is deafening.

Seems some Congressmen (actually, only Republicans that I'm aware of) may think hypocrisy is a "family value." I guess Frist and Delay will argue for the rule of law unless it's a fellow Republican breaking them. And lets see... Delay has been indicted for something he could very possibly go to prison for, and Frist is probably guilty of insider trading even though the stocks he sold were in a supposedly "blind trust" which turns out to be not so blind.

I don't put much faith in Congress-people because... in my view, people who are the best at gaining and keeping power are usually the least trustworthy. They know too well how to play politics. Playing politics is all about saying the right thing at the right time... never showing your honest hand to anybody... being naturally two faced... being sweet as pie to anyone you need something from... publicly making an act of sincerity and righteousness when speaking about things you may not give a crap about. people in power are great actors, and devious backstabbers. They lead us. We elected them.

it's yet another thing that makes me angry about how this country functions. it's up to us, the people, to stop electing chiselers just because they happen to have nice smiles or seem to have a nice down-home sensibility. how to you tell a difference between a good apple and a bad? I don't know. I think we all have an innate ability to sniff out a knave though. snakes in grass. I think... look for humility; in demeanor, speeches and action. fearless... do the right thing even if it will get me thrown out of office... while also FOLLOWING THE LAW... humility. ones who can join with the population as real people rather than "staying on message"... the message created by PR managers, designed to win a campaign and nothing more.

onah — Mon, 01 May 2006 18:28:56 GMT

I honestly want to hear a sensible explanation to this.

Oil companies are making gigantic profits right now. The oil companies and people in the know say "this is due to market forces. When commodities are priced high, that's just the way it is. There's nothing shady going on. No price fixing going on." and so on. Well, my question is, if there's really nothing shady going on then why are *all* the oil companies making such enormous profits? Profit is what's left over after you've made a lot of money and paid all your expenses. Profits normally don't get very big in commodities markets for a variety of reasons, except where there's something shady going on.

The only way oil companies can make enormous profits, that I can see, is if they're charging more than they need to in order to do business. The fact that all of them happen to be making these profits all at the same time seems to point to obvious questions about market manipulation.

So, I'm sure there's some other obvious thing I'm missing because no one seems to be asking my question. How can the oil companies say "we have to charge higher prices" when their well known profit margins tell us they obviously don't have to?

onah — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:09:53 GMT

stories like this one:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042806B.shtml

make me think that this war was created for the sole purpose of funneling as much money possible to Halliburton. They're the only ones getting paid! Taxes were cut, but expenses have increased, and the deficit is completely loony. The only citizens benefiting from GWB's policies are the filthy rich... and most of all: Halliburton... which is run and owned by the filthy rich. I bet you anything Halliburton is taking far more care in fortifying Dick Cheney's "undisclosed location" than it has on any civil projects conducted in Iraq. They got paid and ... I read about them attempting a billion dollar task, known to be impossible, failing of course, then quitting the project when the budget ran out. They're pretending to get shit done and blaming their failure on "terrorists" when all they're really doing is getting paid to do squat in a country we/they care diddly about.

meanwhile, because Dick doesn't give a shit about anyone except the people in his family, his close friends (if he has any), and the people who are going to make him rich beyond imaginings, he cuts the funding for the VA so much that the soldiers doing his dirty work have to beg for health care. this is to make sure we suck as much money as possible out of America into Halliburton. Cheney must think: "Screw the Vets! They're cannon fodder anyway. just people, who are not part of my family and who will not survive global warming because they're not invited to my undisclosed location when the shit hits the fan. let them suffer because I deserve everything and those uncouth muscle heads deserve nothing." seriously. I think Dick Cheney is truly insane. I am scared for this country. We have three years to go, and ... it seems like the best I can hope for is... the impeachment of George Bush? Hold on. yes, I think having the master mind (DC) in front of television cameras instead of actually making policy and cutting deals would be better for the country. Right now he can do anything he wants without even having to put on a happy face. Put him in the big chair and he might have to spend a little more time pandering.

OK... so I'm ranting. But, cutting funding for the VA while we're at war in two countries? This president won the election reportedly because Americans were concerned about "values". Whose values are at work here? Whose definition of values says it's good to screw vets after they come home from fighting our poorly conceived war? I am beside myself.

onah — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:25:02 GMT

from: "Taking the President to Court"

As some of you may be aware, according to the President and Congressional Republicans, a bill does not have to pass both the Senate and the House to become a law. Forget your sixth grade civics lesson, forget the book they give you when you visit Congress - "How Our Laws Are Made," and forget Schoolhouse Rock. These are checks and balances, Republican-style.

As the Washington Post reported last month, as the Republican budget bill struggled to make its way through Congress at the end of last year and beginning of this year (the bill cuts critical programs such as student loans and Medicaid funding), the House and Senate passed different versions of it. House Republicans did not want to make Republicans in marginal districts vote on the bill again, so they simply certified that the Senate bill was the same as the House bill and sent it to the President. The President, despite warnings that the bill did not represent the consensus of the House and Senate, simply shrugged and signed the bill anyway. Now, the Administration is implementing it as though it was the law of the land.

by Congressman John Conyers
Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 12:46:24 PM PDT

can you believe that? "oh, they don't need to vote on our changes. we know this bill will pass." *rubber stamp!* Talk about disregard for the Constitution. I think I mentioned here about one of the President's infamous quotes: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!" perhaps it is to you and your cronies Mr. President. yipes! I hope we can use that piece of paper, someday, to have him impeached.

onah — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:11:09 GMT

Republicans tend to talk about entitlement. Who's entitled? The people who work for it, that's who. It's a strong point. Hard to argue with. After all, the question frames the issue in terms of people who work and those who don't. Even "the little guy" wants to feel the pride of having earned his/her wages. Feeling like you deserve what you get feels good.

They also argue against cost of living wages increases, calling them: "entitlement raises". The idea being that people like teachers, if given cost of living wage increases, will not feel they have to work at being a good teacher. In other words, they won't have to compete with other potential teachers who might want their job. (aside: no one wants to be a teacher because they get paid dick. so, there's a bit of a problem with the logic. but, back to the point...)

so, the focus is on hard work and enforcing that hard work through a system that creates competition. if you *must* work hard simply in order to get a job, keep a job, or get a raise, then you're much more likely to work hard. The assumption is that the best in a field will rise to the top and all others will have to find a different field to work in. simple. find your niche by finding where you can 1) survive, and hopefully 2) thrive.

What I've been thinking lately is that everyone gets exactly what they deserve, no matter what. There is no such thing as entitlement. Republicans are more likely to agree with this that Democrats, I think. But I don't know. It seems so predictable, that people generally think they deserve all good things that happen to them or all things that make them comfortable, and think they don't deserve what makes them unhappy or uncomfortable. It's so predictable, one might think it's a part of human nature. It's absurd though. Why do I deserve anything? I was born into this wealthy country, to a family that wasn't rich but is very capable when it comes to managing money. I have a fair intellect which helps me win at everything I care to work at. Do I deserve what I have? Why? Why am I not starving to death? Why am I not getting raped and shot at in downtown Baghdad? Why am I not the Queen of England? Do I deserve to have better than what I have? When someone says something nice about me, do I deserve it? When I get a raise or get fired, do I deserve it?

I think we all get exactly what we deserve because their is no such thing as being deserving. There is only getting, and not getting what makes you comfortable and happy.

what I have, good and bad, is my fault and my achievement.

does this mean I'm a Republican?

I think the argument isn't framed correctly. While it may be true that I deserve what I am able to work for, I think working for something which results only in taking that thing from someone else, is morally and spiritually vacant. Working against someone for my own gain diminishes society as a whole, rather than enriching it. Ignoring everyone while "looking out for number 1" and my family and friends, weakens our country by demoralizing the citizenry. I get mine and hold onto it! Don't tax me!

Why are we in country so focused on winning? On getting what I want and need? Why are we completely blind to anyone's pain and suffering except our own, our family's and close friends? Why are we so willing to ignore the suffering and confusion of those unable to earn their own way?

Capitalism is a disease. I'm not advocating that we adopt an economy that's not free... that's not driven and controlled to some large extent by market forces. No. I am wishing that we could work for each other, rather than against one another. I wish we could work to boost each other up, rather than each of us fighting so hard against everyone else to make our own little piles of gold, which we then have to guard from thieves. I want to help everyone. Not just the people I like and/or happen to agree with. If I struggle to help everyone, and everyone else takes up the same struggle, then we all lift each other up and are all together lifted.

To some extent this idea is almost always enforced by government. We do it in the US to a small degree with taxes that we use to provide health care and small retirement funds. In communist countries the idea is taken to the extreme... nearly all private ownership is abolished and people are made to work for what seems to be nothing at all. what are they suffering for? their life never improves while some politicians live in opulence and a military is maintained.

enforcing it removes the charity and makes it undesirable. it removes my ability to help others through my own good will, and instead forces it to happen through an unfeeling state and a miserable, inevitably corrupt bureaucracy.

well, it doesn't really remove the charity for me. when I pay taxes, I think of the people it will help and the good it will do, and try not to think of all the weapons I'm helping to purchase. but, this is aside the point.

so... what is the point? well, how does one create a society focused on helping itself by each individual staying focused as possible on helping all their neighbors... no matter how distant and no matter how much alike we are to them? How does one create a society in which all individuals work for the greater good, rather that just for themselves?

Why I want this? I want it because I want to help, and I want to be helped. This is the kind of society I would like to be a part of. One that takes the risk that some will take advantage of a free ride, but that shuns those who do. One focused on optimism and personal spiritual growth, rather than making sure my own needs are met at everyone else's expense. This is a society I would love to participate in. real community.

I find I have very little trouble forming community lately in the people I happen to surround myself with. We've been able to come together to build projects and help one another with little things. Providing moral support and all that. Outside of those little communities, is a world that seems bent on squeezing whatever it can from me. It has no interest in helping me succeed. It is totally focused on using me for how well I am able to prop it up. I feel like we're a drowning nation... all, in a panic, pushing each other under so that we can get our own breath. I'm tired of it.

onah — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:26:24 GMT

Do you have a blue-collar job? Do you think of that job as one you had to compete for? Do you think of your wage/salary as a bargaining chip? How about your willingness to work harder and longer than your fellow employees? What besides wages and work ethic do you consider bargaining chips? Perhaps you're good looking? Or maybe you're strong and able? Perhaps you're smart and see room for advancement into a management position. How to you feel about that competition? Do you think it influences your view of your coworkers? (If I'm trying to make a rhetorical point, I don't know what it is. So consider these straight forward questions.)

onah — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:25:21 GMT

Outkast. I was telling my sister once that Speakerbox, The Love Below Disc 2, kicks ass. And she informed me that the album "is so Prince", and I was like: "what?" haha. She said, yeah... all the music has a Prince flavor which she's not surprised by because the album was produced by Prince. again, I was like: "what?" ;) So I listened more and thought... huh, I think she's right.

Today I installed LimeWire and downloaded a bunch of George Clinton & The Parliament Funkadelic. Listening to it... I ended up doing a sort of head waggle dance I think of as sort of a Prince thing... though I'm not sure where I got it. Later on some voices in these recordings sound EXACTLY like a couple voices on the The Love Below, Disc 2. (btw, disc one may as well be recorded by a completely different band, it's so different... and sucks in a completely ordinary way.) The similarity in the voices freaks me out just a little. They really sound like the same people. And the music is way more similar to Speakerbox than it is to most Prince. Then again, one of the songs I downloaded was Erotic City... which is a song I had only heard Prince do. This older version sounds almost exactly like it... not quite as well produced (a little rough in some ways) but the musicianship kicks ass. That is one funky song. :)

So, this is probably only new to me, but I think I found Prince's biggest influence. This band kicks. There's something about ... a band that's not afraid to be stupid, and kampy... they're awesome. the bassist is right on. Bootsy Colins I guess? the man is a genius. I'm going to buy these records when I'm not so poor.

onah — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 11:25:58 GMT

The Smithsonian, a publicly chartered operation that receives 75 percent of its funds from Congress (read: tax payer's money) has made an exclusivity deal with Showtime. The deal, if I understand it correctly, allows Showtime to refuse access to filmmakers and researchers who seek "more than incidental" use of its public archives. A spokesperson: Linda St. Thomas, director of media relations for the Smithsonian said "The policy is only for filmmakers who are making a film for broadcast." I expect this could (and will) be interpreted as any film that could ever potentially be shown on TV, which means every film. Who of us is stupid like that? "oh, well... it only affects film makers who'll have their stuff shown on TV. in that case... go ahead and sell the fuck out of it. screw those f'ing TV producers." wtf?

am I angry? uhm...

This collection belongs to the American people. How can our government decide that a single private media company can have control over what other media companies can access? How can this kind of shit happen? Well, I didn't vote for it. On the other hand, we as a nation voted in a bunch of Republicans not too long ago. In a representative democracy (a republic) such as ours, decisions are made by the people via proxies we call elected officials. Apparently, selling exclusivity contracts to private firms for access control to what belongs to tax payers is something Republicans will do for us. Yes folks! This is yet another example of your tax cuts at work. remember when GBW sent you that $300 dollar check? I blew mine on... I don't even know. that sort of cash disappears, becomes incidental, even (especially?) for the most destitute in a matter of months, if not days. who gives a crap about $300? (or did your family get $600? big f'ing whoop. how much more are you paying for prescription medications now? about $600 more a year maybe?) and now, big media has control over what in our national heritage museum can be shown on TV. I think I'm getting screwed. We're all getting screwed. hope you really enjoy how GWB is "protecting" those f'ing "values". jeee-bus.

onah — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:47:13 GMT