Hold on tight.
HOMELESS GUY
He’s from northern California.
He came to Minneapolis to visit his ailing mother, who tragically died in his arms shortly after his arrival.
To exacerbate matters, he was jumped by a group of people—“blacks,” in his words—who took his identification including birth certificate, driver’s license, etc.
He needs five dollars—just five dollars—which will provide him enough to find shelter tonight.
I dug in my pocket and pulled out five quarters. I had visited Caribou Coffee just moments before and received change. I always put all non-quarter change in the tip jar and keep the quarters for myself for emergency parking money.
But this guy approached me, and possibly because I was standing in the ominous shadow of my workplace—an institution which, after all, extols the virtue of Social Justice—I gave him my change despite the fact his story was clearly horseshit.
I tried to feel good about doing this. After all, as I blogged once a long time ago, it’s not up to me to decide how he spends his money, it’s merely my job to lend whatever assistance I can. This was a piece of wisdom imparted to me by the former editor of my college newspaper.
Then it dawned on me that I had just given an obvious liar more money than I tipped the three people who worked very hard to provide me my coffee at Caribou. Whereas the staff at the coffee shop greeted me warmly, provided me exactly what I asked for and put their all into serving me and earning a living for themselves, all this guy on the street did was put his hand out, lie to me, then: He had the gall to ask for more. He wanted the full five dollars from me. He didn’t get it.
My resolution is that from here on out, every bit of change I receive at the coffee shop—including quarters—goes into the tip jar. They work very hard, just as I do and just as everyone reading this blog does. I don’t know what the real story of this gentleman on the street is, but I do know it’s not the one he told me and I feel like a heel for giving him money.
PORN LOOPHOLE
This week’s edition of the New Yorker contains an article about the evolution of Playboy Magazine’s centerfolds over the years. They devote an entire glossy page to several decades worth of centerfolds presented in full-frontal glory. It’s not your typical New Yorker “artsy” nudity; rather, it’s the very type of stuff a “progressive” publication like theirs would normally profess to abhor: Good, old-fashioned objectification of women.
MORE NEW YORKER HYPOCRISY
I will likely explore the following in more detail at a later time.
The aforementioned edition of the New Yorker also contains a lengthy piece on global warming. It’s the typical hand-wringing journalism: We are perilously close to a worldwide catastrophe unless drastic measures are undertaken immediately to curb the use of fossil fuels.
By the way, I believe that global warming may indeed be happening, and what’s more I think it might be largely attributable to our insatiable use of petroleum. That’s not the point. The point is, the New Yorker article presents a wonderful, typical example of the gaping hole in the arguments used by—for lack of a better term—left-leaning folks.
The article paints a portrait of concerned people basically sitting on the edge of their seats waiting—oh so impatiently waiting—for a government decree that forces all of us to curb our use of fossil fuels. Raise gas prices to deter petroleum use. Enact rigid standards on fuel-efficiency for behemoth SUVs. Sign onto the Kyoto Protocol, for Christ’s sake.
The gaping hole in the argument, in my opinion, is the whole government mandate aspect. Every day I see a hundred cars on my commute bearing bumper stickers warning of the dangers of global warming. I read article after article like the above illustrating the problem and outlining the solution. The very place I work for is heavily into the global warming thing, going so far as to host a prominent person in the field at an upcoming symposium.
Never mind that the president of our organization—a four-foot-five, 80-pound woman—drives an SUV so large that she can barely reach the door handle.
If every person professing a belief in global warming were to “put their money where their mouth is,” a great deal of the problem could be curbed. Junk your car. Move close enough to your employer that you can walk to work. Only purchase goods that are made and sold locally, ensuring that fossil fuels are not consumed in order to ship them.
After all, the mantra of the same types of folks supporting drastic changes in our lifestyle seems to be “choice.” My body, my choice. Keep your laws off my body. Yet when it comes to choices that could very well save the earth—at least according to these folks—well, those choices need to be declared from on high. In the meantime, the hypocrites crying “The sky is falling” will continue to drive the half-mile to the convenience store to buy a loaf of bread, purchase baby carriages for their numerous spawn (who ironically will go on to consume fossil fuels themselves) made of plastic which comes from—surprise—petroleum, etc. etc. etc.
I love this planet and I marvel daily at its beauty and complexity. When I see what we’re doing to it I get sick to my stomach. However, I value freedom as much as I value Mother Earth, and I truly believe that persuasion, not coercion, is the key to making the changes that desperately need to be made.
ORIGINS
I had dinner with Jules last night and after my one beer my mind turned philosophical. Jules is used to that, and I thank her.
We got to talking philosophy and whether or not there is a God.
As you’re all aware, I’ve droned on and on about Origins and how nothing I read supporting the theory of Evolution bothers discussing origins. Recently it was announced that “in the beginning,” to coin a phrase, the Universe was the size of a marble. In a trillionth of a second it expanded to what we now see around us.
Well, that clears that up.
I just re-read “The Salmon of Doubt” by the late Douglas Adams and within that book is an extemporaneous speech he once delivered about life, the universe and everything. Within that speech he mentioned the “Tautology Argument” of Origins, and for whatever reason during my most recent reading of the piece—probably my tenth time through it—a light bulb went on.
Here’s what dictionary.com has to say about tautology:
Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
An instance of such repetition.
An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement "Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow."
Adams’ point was that arguing Origins is meaningless: It’s here. Yes, it’s impossible whether you’re a Creationist, Evolutionist, or Intelligent Design theorist. The fact is it’s here, let’s just figure out what we can figure out.
I can hear my friends exclaiming “That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you all along, you moron,” and I can hardly blame them. Sorry I’ve put you all through the torment in recent months.
Anyway, reading Adams’ speech got me thinking about some Creationism vs. Evolution points. Here are some random thoughts:
According to Creationism, Adam and Eve were created in one fell swoop as sentient beings. Tracing their lineage points to a Creation around 6,000 years ago. Further, Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge and were cast out of Paradise. Now, wouldn’t two sentient beings who had just partaken of the Tree of Knowledge—two physical beings who had walked on the earth alongside the Almighty himself—have had the presence of mind to record what they had observed? Would not such valuable information have been protected at all costs; perhaps a signed, notarized document from Adam himself stating “Sorry I fucked everything up”???
Intelligent Design theorists claim that a Designer had his hand in everything from the Beginning. How does that benefit the Designer? Are we simply a laboratory experiment in the eyes of the Creator? If He/She/It is capable of dictating the progress of Evolution over a period of billions of years, wouldn’t that same being have the power to simply snap their fingers and make it all happen? If we evolved under the watchful eye of a Designer, at what point were we deemed “worthy” of possessing a soul?
Given the Tautology Theory and simple common sense arguments, believe it or not Evolution currently makes the most sense to me. I do not currently see any way that a God exists, nor do I see why said God would continue to hide themselves. It seems to me that things have eroded enough here on Earth for the Almighty—if He exists—to intervene and clean house.
I will close with what I told Jules at the end of our philosophical conversation last night: “Space men.” I truly believe it is space men. This weekend, do yourself a favor and watch the movie “Contact” starring Jodie Foster. While she does not, unfortunately, bare her breasts in this film like she did in “Nell,” this movie nonetheless is fascinating to me because I think it presents the most likely scenario for the answer to life, the universe and everything: It’s just always been. There are civilizations out there that have been around for eons, and their purpose as they evolve is to spread the good news: That life is forever a mystery, but for whatever reason it has to continue.
He’s from northern California.
He came to Minneapolis to visit his ailing mother, who tragically died in his arms shortly after his arrival.
To exacerbate matters, he was jumped by a group of people—“blacks,” in his words—who took his identification including birth certificate, driver’s license, etc.
He needs five dollars—just five dollars—which will provide him enough to find shelter tonight.
I dug in my pocket and pulled out five quarters. I had visited Caribou Coffee just moments before and received change. I always put all non-quarter change in the tip jar and keep the quarters for myself for emergency parking money.
But this guy approached me, and possibly because I was standing in the ominous shadow of my workplace—an institution which, after all, extols the virtue of Social Justice—I gave him my change despite the fact his story was clearly horseshit.
I tried to feel good about doing this. After all, as I blogged once a long time ago, it’s not up to me to decide how he spends his money, it’s merely my job to lend whatever assistance I can. This was a piece of wisdom imparted to me by the former editor of my college newspaper.
Then it dawned on me that I had just given an obvious liar more money than I tipped the three people who worked very hard to provide me my coffee at Caribou. Whereas the staff at the coffee shop greeted me warmly, provided me exactly what I asked for and put their all into serving me and earning a living for themselves, all this guy on the street did was put his hand out, lie to me, then: He had the gall to ask for more. He wanted the full five dollars from me. He didn’t get it.
My resolution is that from here on out, every bit of change I receive at the coffee shop—including quarters—goes into the tip jar. They work very hard, just as I do and just as everyone reading this blog does. I don’t know what the real story of this gentleman on the street is, but I do know it’s not the one he told me and I feel like a heel for giving him money.
PORN LOOPHOLE
This week’s edition of the New Yorker contains an article about the evolution of Playboy Magazine’s centerfolds over the years. They devote an entire glossy page to several decades worth of centerfolds presented in full-frontal glory. It’s not your typical New Yorker “artsy” nudity; rather, it’s the very type of stuff a “progressive” publication like theirs would normally profess to abhor: Good, old-fashioned objectification of women.
MORE NEW YORKER HYPOCRISY
I will likely explore the following in more detail at a later time.
The aforementioned edition of the New Yorker also contains a lengthy piece on global warming. It’s the typical hand-wringing journalism: We are perilously close to a worldwide catastrophe unless drastic measures are undertaken immediately to curb the use of fossil fuels.
By the way, I believe that global warming may indeed be happening, and what’s more I think it might be largely attributable to our insatiable use of petroleum. That’s not the point. The point is, the New Yorker article presents a wonderful, typical example of the gaping hole in the arguments used by—for lack of a better term—left-leaning folks.
The article paints a portrait of concerned people basically sitting on the edge of their seats waiting—oh so impatiently waiting—for a government decree that forces all of us to curb our use of fossil fuels. Raise gas prices to deter petroleum use. Enact rigid standards on fuel-efficiency for behemoth SUVs. Sign onto the Kyoto Protocol, for Christ’s sake.
The gaping hole in the argument, in my opinion, is the whole government mandate aspect. Every day I see a hundred cars on my commute bearing bumper stickers warning of the dangers of global warming. I read article after article like the above illustrating the problem and outlining the solution. The very place I work for is heavily into the global warming thing, going so far as to host a prominent person in the field at an upcoming symposium.
Never mind that the president of our organization—a four-foot-five, 80-pound woman—drives an SUV so large that she can barely reach the door handle.
If every person professing a belief in global warming were to “put their money where their mouth is,” a great deal of the problem could be curbed. Junk your car. Move close enough to your employer that you can walk to work. Only purchase goods that are made and sold locally, ensuring that fossil fuels are not consumed in order to ship them.
After all, the mantra of the same types of folks supporting drastic changes in our lifestyle seems to be “choice.” My body, my choice. Keep your laws off my body. Yet when it comes to choices that could very well save the earth—at least according to these folks—well, those choices need to be declared from on high. In the meantime, the hypocrites crying “The sky is falling” will continue to drive the half-mile to the convenience store to buy a loaf of bread, purchase baby carriages for their numerous spawn (who ironically will go on to consume fossil fuels themselves) made of plastic which comes from—surprise—petroleum, etc. etc. etc.
I love this planet and I marvel daily at its beauty and complexity. When I see what we’re doing to it I get sick to my stomach. However, I value freedom as much as I value Mother Earth, and I truly believe that persuasion, not coercion, is the key to making the changes that desperately need to be made.
ORIGINS
I had dinner with Jules last night and after my one beer my mind turned philosophical. Jules is used to that, and I thank her.
We got to talking philosophy and whether or not there is a God.
As you’re all aware, I’ve droned on and on about Origins and how nothing I read supporting the theory of Evolution bothers discussing origins. Recently it was announced that “in the beginning,” to coin a phrase, the Universe was the size of a marble. In a trillionth of a second it expanded to what we now see around us.
Well, that clears that up.
I just re-read “The Salmon of Doubt” by the late Douglas Adams and within that book is an extemporaneous speech he once delivered about life, the universe and everything. Within that speech he mentioned the “Tautology Argument” of Origins, and for whatever reason during my most recent reading of the piece—probably my tenth time through it—a light bulb went on.
Here’s what dictionary.com has to say about tautology:
Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
An instance of such repetition.
An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement "Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow."
Adams’ point was that arguing Origins is meaningless: It’s here. Yes, it’s impossible whether you’re a Creationist, Evolutionist, or Intelligent Design theorist. The fact is it’s here, let’s just figure out what we can figure out.
I can hear my friends exclaiming “That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you all along, you moron,” and I can hardly blame them. Sorry I’ve put you all through the torment in recent months.
Anyway, reading Adams’ speech got me thinking about some Creationism vs. Evolution points. Here are some random thoughts:
According to Creationism, Adam and Eve were created in one fell swoop as sentient beings. Tracing their lineage points to a Creation around 6,000 years ago. Further, Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge and were cast out of Paradise. Now, wouldn’t two sentient beings who had just partaken of the Tree of Knowledge—two physical beings who had walked on the earth alongside the Almighty himself—have had the presence of mind to record what they had observed? Would not such valuable information have been protected at all costs; perhaps a signed, notarized document from Adam himself stating “Sorry I fucked everything up”???
Intelligent Design theorists claim that a Designer had his hand in everything from the Beginning. How does that benefit the Designer? Are we simply a laboratory experiment in the eyes of the Creator? If He/She/It is capable of dictating the progress of Evolution over a period of billions of years, wouldn’t that same being have the power to simply snap their fingers and make it all happen? If we evolved under the watchful eye of a Designer, at what point were we deemed “worthy” of possessing a soul?
Given the Tautology Theory and simple common sense arguments, believe it or not Evolution currently makes the most sense to me. I do not currently see any way that a God exists, nor do I see why said God would continue to hide themselves. It seems to me that things have eroded enough here on Earth for the Almighty—if He exists—to intervene and clean house.
I will close with what I told Jules at the end of our philosophical conversation last night: “Space men.” I truly believe it is space men. This weekend, do yourself a favor and watch the movie “Contact” starring Jodie Foster. While she does not, unfortunately, bare her breasts in this film like she did in “Nell,” this movie nonetheless is fascinating to me because I think it presents the most likely scenario for the answer to life, the universe and everything: It’s just always been. There are civilizations out there that have been around for eons, and their purpose as they evolve is to spread the good news: That life is forever a mystery, but for whatever reason it has to continue.
posted by Admin Worm at 10:24 AM
<< Home