LITHIUM: THE SEEDS OF GALAXY FORMATION?

     There's a weird property of metals called "cold welding" whereby, in a vacuum, two pieces of the same metal will join together when they come into contact with each other. The description goes as follows:

The reason for this unexpected behavior is that when the atoms in contact are all of the same kind, there is no way for the atoms to “know” that they are in different pieces of copper. When there are other atoms, in the oxides and greases and more complicated thin surface layers of contaminants in between, the atoms “know” when they are not on the same part. (Richard Feynman)

    This got me wondering, one of the mysteries of the universe is how large-scale structures like galaxies came to be in the nearly uniform densities of matter produced in the Big Bang. Randomness surely played a role but I get the impression from my readings that such randomness would've been too slow for protogalactic cores to develop into the enormous superclusters of galaxies and voids present in the universe today over a mere 14 billion years.

     Dark matter is called into question as a possible attractor as the hypothesized material, while it has gravity, is only affected by gravity allowing the newly formed matter to gather around its mass whereas ordinary matter is affected by electricity, magnetism, radiation, and subject to gas properties like pressure, temperature, etc.
    The trouble is, while scientists are certain dark matter exists, no one knows what exactly it is making it kind of impossible to test this hypothesis.

     Now I have to believe something like this has been thought of before and discredited but nevertheless I'm putting it forth: what if something more mundane could've led to the creation of galaxies?

     In the first few minutes of the Big Bang, the temperatures and pressures were still sufficient to convert the newly created electrons, protons, and neutrons into the heavier nuclei of deuterium, helium, and a smidge of lithium.
     Of those three elements, lithium is a metal and when the universe became cool enough to allow the formation of atoms after 300,000 years, there would be lithium floating around amidst this ever decreasingly dense gas which I imagine would have formed vacuum-like conditions quite quickly.

     Now if like atoms of metal cold weld for the reason stated above, does it not stand to reason that even the tiny, tiny amount of lithium theorized to have formed during the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis would have, through random interactions, found one and other and welded together forming ever larger seeds to acts as attractants to the far more enormous amounts of hydrogen, deuterium, and helium out there?

     I would like to believe that over the millions of years between recombination and the first stars, there was plenty of time for atoms of lithium to make clumps of anywhere from hundreds to tens of thousands of atoms which would have collectively more concentrated gravity than the surrounding material which doesn't particularly enjoying interacting with one and other.
     Helium is famously unreactive and hydrogen is content once it finds a partner to bond with. Neither will naturally clump...but lithium would...and might that be enough to begin the slow process of gathering ever larger clouds of gas together to form the first stars and protogalaxies?

     I honestly don't know...but I like the idea.

BABYLON 5: RAMBLING ABOUT IMMORTALITY AND OTHER FIRST ONE IMPLICATIONS...

"We were born naturally immortal"

     Lorien confesses this to Ivanova during the "Into the Fire" episode of Babylon 5. He goes on to say, "At first we were kept in balance by birth rate. Few of us were ever born, less than a handful each year. Then I think the universe decided, that to appreciate life for there to be change and growth, life had to be short. So the generations that followed us grew old, infirmed, then died. But those of us who were first went on..."

     I've wondered about this. Details about Lorien's race and the groups of ancient, powerful aliens collectively known as The First Ones were always scant and deliberately so as, in the words of the show's creator J. Michael Straczynski (who may have quoting someone else...haven't listened to that commentary in a long time), "To define is to kill." It's how movies like Jaws worked so effectively. By keeping the shark unseen, the impact of its horror increased because we instinctually fear the unknown. Once exposed to a fear, we can face it. Likewise, once exposed to an unknown, we can demystify it.

    This does not mean conclusions may not be drawn about them. One of the gimmicks in the show is the use of hyperspace to allow for interstellar travel in reasonable timeframes. Being able to access it is a game-changer for a species. Before that, a spacefaring species would be confined to its own solar system because space is VAST making travel between stars a generational consideration and not to mention a one-way trip. This was the fate of Earth prior to its encounter with the Centauri.
    And that is typically how a younger race "discovers" hyperspace: they are encountered by another spacefaring race who already has access and that access is sold or rented for a time until that race manages to reverse-engineer the technology of jump gates and becomes a full-fledged member of the interstellar community.
    The first conclusion drawn from hyperspace entry points called "jump points" is why they are colored orange for entry points and blue for exit points. This would be an example of the Doppler effect but applied to light rather than sound. If anything it shows how much faster hyperspace travel is because it is red-shifting the light of entry points and blue-shifting the light of exit points.

     However, where those gates came from in the first place is never mentioned outright in the show. The clue given is via the First Ones. Shadow vessels appear to phase into normal space seamlessly. The Walkers of Sigma-957 explode electrically into normal space. This unnamed First One jumps into normal space as though cloaked in fire.

Shadow Vessels appearing

The Walkers of Sigma-957

almost-as-old-as-the-Vorlons First One

     But when the Vorlons appear, they appear using the same funnel shape used by every other of the younger races depicted in the show.

Vorlon capital ships entering normal space

    The conclusion which may be drawn is that the Vorlons built the jump gates seen throughout the series and seeded them throughout the galaxy. It is probably fair to assume the Vorlons had intended them for their own use but others found them and made use of them. They built the highways and now others benefit from their pioneering work.

     Another thing I couldn't help but notice in the show is that despite the advanced age of the First Ones, the younger races seemed able to adapt to them quickly. Like, their technology was still far beyond our own but we could crack it. Maybe that's an effect of it being easier to reverse engineer something than it is to create it from scratch but I also wonder if it had anything to do with what Lorien had said about his race's initial immortality.
     Using his own words, one can infer that with long life, comes slow change and that with short life, comes faster change. We don't know how long-lived the individual beings of the First One races are. We only know that the Shadows are the oldest of them. Personally I would like to believe that the Vorlons are the youngest of the First Ones because the show has a way of rhyming (in addition to the main rivals, the Vorlons and Shadows, being diametrically opposed) and it would seem appropriate if they were.
     Lorien comments that the beings in the cloaked-in-fire ship are "almost as old as the Vorlons". The natural interpretation that statement in English carries the implication that they are younger than the Vorlons but it could just as easily be the other way around if you allow for it (and I am :-) ).
     It's the same as when they are given names. The name of the homeworld of the Shadows is Z'ha'dum but the name of their species is said to be over 10,000 letters long, unpronounceable by the human tongue. The name of the Vorlons is just that and while their homeworld is once referred to as "Vorlon" by Lyta Alexander, it is usually referred to as "the Vorlon homeworld". Unless Lyta was correct, I would like to think the name of the Vorlon homeworld, like the Shadows's actual name, is over 10,000 letters long and thus unpronounceable to the human tongue so as for their respective species to rhyme, so to speak.

     Anyways, what if the First Ones are mortal, but especially long-lived naturally? Another feature the First Ones have in common is that they are unlike the younger races in that they are not walking meat sacks like we are.

Lorien

Vorlon

Shadows in their raiment - they're ultraviolet, thus invisible to the human eye as energy beings

     They're all "energy beings" and while it is implied this is a transcendent state any species in this universe can achieve in time, quite personally I like to think of it as the First Ones came from a time when the Universe was different, more magical if you will. Lorien would be from the immortal "Golden Age", the First Ones would be from the long-lived but increasingly body-bound "Silver Age", and the younger races are from the short-lived, very mortal, meat-sack bodies "Bronze Age".

     To take a page for J.R.R. Tolkien's lore, I would say the immortal Lorien race could choose to cloak themselves in bodies as though raiment if they so chose but that they did not need such bodies to survive and could survive the loss of those bodies. However I'm assuming that they would need to use physical bodies in order to work the substance of the Universe but were slow to do so being immortal.

Lorien's raiment

     The First Ones were also born without bodies and could choose to have them or not but unlike Lorien's race, they were more limited, appearing to be limited to a single physical form with which to work the Universe and which each species of First One had in common with others of their kind. They were also weaker. A Vorlon, for instance, cannot survive in the vacuum of space whereas we see Lorien doing so just fine. The Shadows seemed especially vulnerable to being killed by explosions or simply being shot.
     If I had to venture a guess, I would say the First Ones were born that way and were not the product of evolution like the younger races are.
     As for the younger races, being one of them yourself, you know how vulnerable we are to death. It's like our bodies can't wait to die and that our souls, if they exist at all, appear inseparable from, and thus likely die with, our bodies.


    But the thing is, for races millions to billions of years older than humanity, they're not inscrutable and I wonder if this has to do with them living longer. Human generations are only about 25 years long. Imagine if our generations were 1,000 times as long or even 10,000 times? You wouldn't be in as much a hurry to do things, now would you?
     Human civilization is about 6,000 years old coming from 20-25 year generations. 250 generations built this city. But if those generations were a thousand times longer, just getting to the Moon would've taken millions of years. Maybe that's how it was for the First Ones: never in a hurry to get shit done because there wasn't one. Even more so for Lorien's race, thus his surmising that for there to be change and appreciation, life must be short.
     And because human, Narn, Centauri, Minbari, Drazi, etc. lives are so short, they've gotten a lot farther in the short lifespan of their civilizations than the First Ones ever could have done in the same period of time.

     I think it would at least explain how beings so old could be beaten by creatures so young as us as well as outmaneuvered in thought.

    As for the charge that the Shadows and Vorlons who took it upon themselves to nurture the younger races like shepherds had become rigid and inflexible, perhaps (also an allusion to the Lord of the Rings), it is because they were cheating death.
     The Vorlons did so directly. A rough draft script for a never-produced Babylon 5 movie stated that the Vorlons were not always immortal implying that they are now and thus weren't always. The Shadows are known for hibernating in-between their wars which may have been their trick to prolong their lives beyond reasonable measure (perhaps even doing so as a response to the Vorlons becoming immortal...if you're going to cheat, we're going to cheat too!). You could extend, say, a thousand year lifespan considerably if you were only awake for it twenty or so years at a time and in stasis for hundreds to thousands of years in-between.
     The lack of change the Universe once corrected for by creating mortal intelligences would thus come into play again and need to be dealt with. Creatures living long beyond their natural lifespans, however long they already were naturally, would disrupt the natural flow of life and growth in the Universe.
     Thus, they and the remaining First Ones had to go which was finally able to happen thanks to Sheridan and the Vorlon Kosh.

     I've really lost my place but I'll publish this nonsense that you might enjoy it...somehow.

THE VALUE OF THE CENT

     Often in collectors' circles they'll take about returning to real money, that is, coins comprised of gold and silver and following a gold standard. It's one of those little dreams we have, to possess coins whose value is not inextricably tied to the well-being of the country within which we reside. Fiat coins and currency are, in effect, value suicide pacts. If the United States (or country you live in) fails, all your coins and especially your paper money, is now worthless.
     The coins only mostly so as copper and nickel do have some scrap value...though very little compared to its present face.

     But I don't think a return to gold and silver coinage is either feasible or even possible anymore. Plus the metals have too much volatility. I can't imagine gold holding a steady value for a hundred years like it did when valued at $20.67 per troy ounce. Surely its value rose above that during the Civil War and World War I, but the nation held firm to it from 1834-1933. After that it was revalued at $35 per troy ounce but without accompanying gold coins for economic use and that only lasted a few decades (and the second World War) before rising again to $38/tr.oz. and finally to $42.22/tr.oz. before Congress gave up the gold window ghost in 1971.
     Silver's value has been too unstable to make properly valued coins with, fluctuating from $1.29 per troy ounce to almost $50 per troy ounce between 1964 and 1980. The metal has been on a second wild ride since 2006, spiking as high as almost $40/tr.oz. back in 2011 (something I failed to take advantage of, though I did sell a bit of my holdings in 2008 when silver briefly topped $20/tr.oz.) before dropping back down to around $15/tr.oz. today. That kind of volatility would make it impossible to keep coin values stable enough to prevent hoarding.

     But what if instead of pegging the value of our money to a metal or other commodity, we peg its value to an idea?

     One thing that really bugs me about money today is just how worthless it is, especially our coins. We have cents, nickels, dimes, and arguably quarters, which have no purchasing power at all.
     Presently the quarter-dollar is at its breaking point. A single quarter can purchase only a single hollowed-out gumball from a vending machine, a brick of Ramen soup, or a package of seeds in my local supermarket. I'm not even sure if arcade games will let you play a game for a single quarter anymore.

     Why is it like that? Coins used to have real purchasing power so why can't they still?

     If we're going to have cents, nickels, and dimes floating around, shouldn't they be able to buy things? Shouldn't the lowest value coin of the republic be able to buy something? And that's what I'm proposing. Not a gold standard, but a purchasing standard.

     We go about that the standard by which our coin and currency is to be valued is that the lowliest coin is to have purchasing power. The smallest coin must be able to buy a certain non-zero number of things and the money supply must be kept in line in order to preserve that.
     The advantage such a system would have is that the money supply would be able to expand in response to a growing population whereas under a gold standard, the money supply can only increase by adding additional gold to the treasury. Birth and death records are compiled annually and the Constitution requires a decennial census so we should have a good idea of what the money supply ought to be in order to have the one cent coin be able to purchase a certain non-zero number of things.

     As things stand right now, it is arguable that our money supply is 20 to 25 times too large at minimum. If the quarter has reached its purchasing limit (and I did give three examples), then its role should be assumed by the cent thus allowing all the coins of the realm to reacquire purpose.

     I wouldn't expect the change to happen overnight but I suspect the Federal Reserve Banking System could be employed to contract the money supply accordingly using its prime interest rate. The money it collects using that rate after subtracting its necessary uses like salary and maintenance, instead of being turned over to Congress and added to the general fund, would be destroyed.
     The rate of this destruction would be only a few percentage points a year so deflation would be modest but over time, the money supply would have its value restored.

     I'm sure there are faults in this idea. I wouldn't mind knowing what they are but I will reject any fault that basically reads like "it's bad because it hurts the wealthy". Deflation is whispered about as though it were a harbinger of the apocalypse. Deflation would benefit the poor and savers. Deflation only hurts the wealthy and I suspect that is why there is such opposition to it. As I've heard it said, if inflation were bad for the already rich, there wouldn't be any.

     Besides, the only other way is to eliminate all coins below the half-dollar or to issue a revaluation whereby fifty dollars ($50) equals one new dollar (N$1) and I don't think anyone in Congress is willing to admit our money has become just that worthless yet...

POWER DYNAMICS AND FLIRTING...

     I hate the lack of defined social etiquette when it comes to when it's okay and when it's not okay for men to flirt with women (and vice-versa). I say this somewhat ironically as I despise social conventions as unnecessarily restrictive but they have their purpose, especially in tense or otherwise in scenarios with too many variables. A defined social etiquette, or diplomacy if you will, helps take the edge off by allowing participants to follows established guidelines rather than risk accidental offense.

    I accept, however reluctantly as a coward, that it is generally accepted that men make the opening moves when attempting to woo women ("woo" is a terrible word, isn't it?) however, while it is also generally accepted that not all situations are appropriate for male-initiated flirting, there is no clear-cut set of rules establishing when and where such behavior is appropriate.

    I'm not sure I can define the scenarios mathematically but an obvious, all-too-cliché, example where it is perfectly acceptable to flirt is ye olde bar or a dance club. People, strangers, deliberately meeting up in a public place purveying in intoxication is the standard-bearer for male-initiated wooing via inviting female body language.
    I'm not actually one to believe that the men are ever in control here. I feel, like in nature, women are generally always the ones holding all the cards and just make it look like the men are the ones doing so.

    But I think it's also safe-to-say that people would agree that the supermarket or restaurant are not places where male-initiated flirting is acceptable. The difference being that the female cashier (and even customer) and waitress are not in positions of power like they are at a bar or club. They have to be nice to you. They can't get away. They can't tell you off. Etc.
    Yet, as anyone can attest, guys still shamelessly flirt with such women all the fucking time. Now I'm not saying it's wrong, in of itself, for such flirting to happen. I'm saying it's wrong when the man initiates flirting when the power-dynamic does not favor the woman.

     There is a way around this. If the female cashier, waitress, or customer initiates flirting with the guy, she is granting him permission to do so in a venue where his advances would otherwise (and should) be frowned upon. In this way, the power dynamic of the bar/club is preserved in places where it may not simply be assumed by the male.

     The trouble is, I don't see anything like this actually going on nor when I was in school (or from posts I read online) were we ever educated in such a manner of when are where flirting is appropriate. Feminist posts will occasionally broach this topic but I've only ever read complaints about creepy men, etc. taking advantage of the topsy-turvy power dynamic, not calls for social etiquette.

     Admittedly, this sucks for me as only very rarely has a female customer even kinda-sorta flirted with me. It sucks because some of my customers are very attractive and from the ones who do speak, sometimes immediately appealing too. But it only seems fair to apply.
     I think of sexual harassment videos and shit from school and work. They always told you what not to do, but never what to do leaving cautious folk like me without guidance.

     Additionally, I think of the rather unnatural world of online dating and how the power dynamic perhaps ought to play out there as well. I regularly read complaints about creepy guys or overly sexual guys bothering women on these sites, ruining the experience for everyone. Sites like Tinder which require a mutual match before contact may be made and Bumble which require girls to initiate contact with men might help somewhat but what of simply the overall etiquette? What should it be?

     My thoughts on this are that it's okay for men to initiate contact on sites like Plenty of Fish and OKCupid but that it is not okay for them to ask for the girl's phone number. I feel by asking for the phone number, the men are violating the power dynamic.
     Online dating isn't like real life dating as there is no face-to-face communication and all its attendant body language, eye contact, smells, etc. that both consciously and subconsciously go along with face-to-face meetings. As women will readily admit, they're kinda sussing the men out to determine if they are creeps, sexual perverts, or the ever classic, serial killers and they're denied this pass/fail opportunity when the man is demanding her private contact information before she is willing to give it.

      Unfortunately, like the cashier and waitress examples, there are no defined and socially accepted rules for these scenarios so they continue to go often violated by men, making dating that much harder for the rest of us. I wish there were a way to socially shun the power dynamic violating men, but as of now, there isn't and as of now, it's still very hard for me to get a date playing by rules that I've effectively made up and may ultimately be projecting an apparent lack of interest when nothing could be further from the truth.

      It makes me hate my life...

THIS IS HALLOWEEN...

     See, I think what ultimately ruined Halloween as a festival of scary was business. It's hard to find genuinely terrifying things or provocations of unease or sources of existential dread throughout the month of October except in very niche environments. People like to say Halloween is "scary" but it's really not. There's talk of monsters like old-school vampires, werewolves, witches, and mummies and more modernly favored zombies, vengeance-fueled spirits, weapon-of-choice spree killers, and vampires but you get sanitized versions of them instead.

     I understand why. It's kinda hard to sell candy, costumes, and television specials to children while also giving them a real sense of mortal terror, challenging their faith in happy endings, and by enhancing our already natural fear of spiders, snakes, and the unknown. Brands can't really turn their mascots into genuinely frightening things. They have to make attractive the darkened Halloween palettes and present a kind of "fun" scary instead.

    I'm not sure in any real sense why Halloween needs to be scary but I suppose it's the age-old that's what we've been told kind of tradition. I just know that such celebrations are impossible in an atmosphere convincing consumers to buy shit.
    We get anthropological M&Ms as a cutesy vampire (watch out! fangs!), Frankenstein's monster (aah! bolts!), and a fashionable witch (help! she's wearing glasses!); Snap, Crackle, and Pop illuminated as if to tell a fun-scary story over a cauldron of Rice Krispies treats; coloring books of smiling friendly witches whose spells provoke delight rather than dread and dancing skeletons to entertain rather than warn of imminent danger; "scary" movies where the kids are always successful at pushing back the evil as though nothing had happened; it goes on...

    It's hard to deliver genuine scares, especially as one gets more sophisticated but I also don't think it unwise to use the holiday for public service. Movies which show how easily one can become enchanted by and to do service in the name of evil (think the masterminds behind the Hitler Youth), how peer pressure can override an overarching sense of what's right, how fear can make one complicit in wrongdoing, and so forth.


   I don't know what the solution is besides just sucking it up and not giving a shit about such trivialities. I think I look at the word "scary" in Halloween season much like the word "beautiful" in today's social media and how it's not only overused, but misused. Surrendering to the ever-changing tides of meaning is necessary lest one desire himself a linguistic Canute...

TEMPORAL PAULI EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE...

     I wonder if the reason we've seen no evidence of time travel is because a variation on the Pauli Exclusion Principle would forbid it?

     The principle states, to the best of my understanding of it, that two identical fermions (things like electrons and quarks) cannot occupy the same quantum state. In other words, you can't have two electrons occupying the same point in space.

     It makes me wonder (with no ability to prove it of course...what do I look like, a mathematical genius?) if the same concept applies temporally. In other words, the same particle from different times (effectively two particles now, but still otherwise identical, from this point of view) not being able to occupy identical moments.
     From a 4th dimensional (time) point of view, the particles you're comprised of would look not like points, but lines stretching from their creation to their annihilation. I'm thinking time-travel would force those lines to intersect, effectively overlapping moments. If two of the same kind of particles in the same moment cannot occupy the same volume, then perhaps two identical particles from different times cannot occupy the same moment.

     I'm repeating myself. I know. I'm just struggling with a way to describe what I'm thinking so that it's consistent.

     Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. All energy (of which matter is) has been with us since the beginning of time and will continue until its end (should that ever come) so just because you have not always existed does not mean the electrons and quarks (represented as protons and neutrons) have not always existed. And they will continue to exist long after you no longer have a need for them.
     You can't go back (or forward) because it would require your fermions to occupy the same moment and that's just not allowed...

    Maybe that's why. I don't know. I was bored at work...

CELLULAR MARGINALIZATION...

     I've finally pinpointed the time when I first felt decoupled from the world as though no longer a part of it: cellphones. I think cellphones represent a sea change in our culture not so much because of what they are, but what they have enabled. They started proliferating in 1999 and by the advent of smartphones capable of accessing the internet, the change was too far along for me to feel like I could ever be a part of the world again.

     I feel marginalized by them. It's in my nature (or at least I'm well disciplined) to be patient and to delay gratification. I can't imagine answering an unexpected cellphone call nor can I imagine myself responding to a text in public and especially if I'm around friends and/or gathered with family. I thought such behavior was considered rude. Now, it's whatever and I'm the weirdo for sticking to that and now I'm the asshole if I get mad when I'm interrupted because someone couldn't wait to respond to a text.

     When I make plans or agree to the plans of another, I stick to them and budget my time accordingly in order to show up on time and at the agreed-upon place. But if I get mad when plans are changed last minute or when people text to say they're going to be late, again...I'm the asshole. I don't understand when the world became so fly by the seat of one's pants. I don't understand how or why planning has come to be seen as obsolete; how it is in any way more virtuous to alter plans via constant updates, punishing those who would keep them. But now it's considered a punishment to hold others to plans. I don't get it...God forbid we do what we said we were going to do.

     Smartphones have added another element to my feelings of obsolescence. Now the idea of waiting until later to do something has been almost completely taken off the table and for some reason this is celebrated.

     And I say all this as a coward. One would think I would welcome texting over conversation; that I would welcome distractions to avoid interacting with groups of people; that I would welcome popping in earbuds to block out the public world around me...but I don't.
     I don't actually carry my cellphone with me when I leave my apartment (unless I'm going someplace I've never been before since payphones are no longer a thing). Why should I? Growing up, the telephone hung on a wall. Later they became somewhat portable but they were still tied to the home. I've spent more than half my life being comfortable being out of contact and perhaps more so, EXPECTING to be out of contact when I've left my home to run an errand. When people learn of this, they act as if I am mad. And it's not the kids who act that, but the adults. Those same adults who, like me, did not have cellphones growing up.
     I don't listen to music when I'm walking. Not having a car, I'm a professional pedestrian - if such a thing may be said. I know the value of being aware of environmental sounds for my own safety but even outside that. If I'm walking in a park or sightseeing, I don't want to be shut out from it. I don't see the point of going outside to listen to music. It's like people today are afraid of silence and I don't know where that fear came from. In some ways I can understand women doing so...men are proven assholes so providing a visual cue of "Don't talk to me" may have actually proven liberating for women. I wouldn't be surprised if their mp3 players aren't actually on: that it's all an act because men just don't know how to keep to themselves in public.
     I don't like texting. And again, this comes from a coward who avoids talking to people at practically all costs. However, despite that, I feel if I do want to talk to someone that...I should talk to that someone; that even if it's all subconsciously processed, body language and tone of voice is important when getting to know someone. I don't want to hide or avoid that obligation when it comes about.
     I don't mind being bored. I feel no terror when bored yet I swear people do or that they feel boredom is bad for you somehow. I feel no need to fill every waking moment with an activity nor do I feel compelled to respond to texts and phone calls immediately. I'm not a doctor, EMT, police officer, volunteer fireman, etc. whose services may be required at a moment's notice. Whatever it is, it can wait. Good news can wait. Bad news can wait too. And bullshit...bullshit can DEFINITELY wait until later. And if it's really bad news, well...bad news has a way of finding you. Because of that, I feel no need to even look at my phone when out and about.

     When I go out, I'm going out. When I go out with friends, I'm going out to see those friends. When I'm seeing family, I'm there to see my family. I don't think it's wrong to be busy. Likewise, I don't think it's wrong to expect other people to be busy when they're out with their friends too. Phones used to have busy signals. I miss those. Now that I think about it, the introduction of call waiting was a harbinger of things to come. I would never answer call waiting. Why? Because I'm talking to you now. I don't see how it's good psychologically to tell your friend that you have other things you'd rather be doing than talking to them...
     How ironic that putting my friends first while I'm with them in person and believing that others should do the same would make me the impolite one. Sorry that I don't feel it an appropriate time to look at who's texted me...

     But that's not how the world works anymore. I can lament it. I can wish it weren't so or that it would go back to the way it was...but that won't happen. Regardless of whether my positions are better or saner is irrelevant because they're obsolete. I'm obsolete. I don't foresee me ever fitting in with this brave new world of what I perceive to be rudeness, impulsiveness, and impatience. I just fade. For all the good cellphones can and do do, the shitty behaviors they've liberated from their users are alien to me. It's not something I can ever in good faith join.
     I'm not saying I don't ever feel the temptation nor do I wish to imply that I myself have never engaged in such behaviors. Besides, one doesn't need a cellphone to be rude and I've been rude in my day. I wasted many weekends playing videogames, listening to music, and watching TV shows nonstop (sometimes just to watch something...anything. I wasn't even all that into a lot of shows I watched as a kid) when maybe my Mom or Dad would have rather me spent some time with them. Looking back on it, I'm not proud. I could've been...should've been...a better son. The point is, I'm certainly not innocent. Maybe it's just all too new so a culture and its associated rules haven't been established yet. Maybe in the coming decades, I'll feel a part of this world again as people temper their behavior in light of what these machines are capable of doing to us. But I don't know, the drug of now is most addicting.

     Even television's not the same. VCRs in a way started it, but their capacity was limited so the idea of binge-watching an entire season wasn't exactly a thing. VCRs allowed a person who would otherwise be left out join in the conversation. Television used to be a cultural thing. Sure, there were repeats in the Summer but otherwise you had to watch the show when it aired or risk being left out. There were no high-capacity DVRs or on-demand online video feeds.
     It's more minor than the points above but it's still a thing now that you can't expect the people you're talking to to have seen a show's episode the day it aired...or even at all. Cable's proliferation has fragmented audiences to a considerable degree. It's not all bad but at times I think there are too many channels...too many options. The old cable boxes used to only have 36 channels and the first 12 were broadcast and local access leaving you with 24 cable channels and HBO.
     It's all so alienating...

     My world is gone...or at least, the world I understood is. It's ironic that I should feel so disconnected when the people of this world have never been more connected to each other.

WHO IS LINK FIGHTING IN THE LEGEND OF ZELDA (NES) DUNGEONS?

     I was playing the original Nintendo "The Legend of Zelda" the other day and I walked away wondering just who was Link fighting throughout the majority of the game?

     The creatures in the overworld are very likely Ganon's minions, but what of the dungeons? The story presented in the game is that Ganon stole the Triforce of Power and wanted to get his hands on the Triforce of Wisdom but Princess Zelda (somehow) broke apart the latter Triforce into eight pieces and hid them away in monster-infested dungeons before being captured by Ganon.

     Are the creatures in the dungeons just random monsters or are they loyal to the ruling family of Hyrule and just never got the message that Link actually intends to defeat Ganon (somehow) using the Triforce of Wisdom? It's obviously not clear nor does it help that many of the enemies you've fought in those dungeons are also present in Ganon's level (with the exception of the Lanmola and Patra which I can assume are the only definite servants to Ganon in the dungeon levels of the game).

     If it's the former, then damn Zelda's got some skills, right? She evaded being slain by all that shit and managed to hide the fragments away. But somehow I doubt that. Not because I think Zelda is just a girl or something sexist like that but because the Triforce pieces are clearly being guarded. The rooms the pieces are in are preceded by intimidating monsters like the Manhandala and Gleeok dragons (maybe not so much Aquamentus...).
     Zelda II strongly gave the impression the palaces Link fought in to undo the binding spell on the Great Palace were patrolled by parties loyal to Hyrule and tried to kill Link because, well...that's what they do (all while being unaware that by doing so, Link's blood will be used to restore Ganon to life making things even worse...nice job breaking the kingdom, guards!). They're certainly not going to take Link on his word that he's only trying to help and Zelda obviously couldn't vouch for him because she had been rendered magically comatose (apparently there's no King or Queen of Hyrule who could tell these guards to stand down).

     Therefore, it's possible to assume that the creatures in the original game's dungeons are loyal to Hyrule and not Ganon. It would then make sense that Ganon kidnapped Zelda in an effort to use her extortionately to have someone else gather the pieces of the Triforce because I guess Ganon is not powerful enough (despite being able to turn invisible) or brave enough to tackle Hyrule's dungeons himself (seriously, what's SUPPOSED to be in those dungeons when they aren't being used to house Triforce fragments? What kind of society is Hyrule?).
     Instead he's holed himself up in Spectacle Rock and barring anyone from entering his palace unless they've come bearing the Triforce of Wisdom. Then, he would betray the bearer by sicking his minions on him/her. When the bearer died, Ganon could simply take the Triforce and rule. I'm sure Zelda's fate would not be a desirable one.
     Also logic would dictate that if they were loyal to Ganon, why aren't they just taking the pieces of the Triforce to him to begin with? Ganon needs that Triforce to cement his rule. It wouldn't behoove him to leave them lying about for some dickwad like Link to recover.

     The only trouble with this scenario is the presence of those same enemies in prior dungeons. Even the entrance is guarded by an old man like the one who gives you a (shitty) sword at the start of your quest. Maybe they're formally loyal servants who have been seduced by Ganon...or more likely, it's the memory limitations of the NES in 1987.
     It may have also been an oversight.
     But they could have also very well, despite those limitations, put the enemies of the overworld inside that final dungeon and thus not added to the game's memory burden. It could've been guarded by a Moblin instead of an old man demanding the Triforce before letting you enter. Hell...it could've taken the Triforce from you to let you pass (in the same manner as the hungry Goriya and for extra tension, the entryway gate could've slammed shut as the other three sealed doors opened, letting you know you've been tricked and that you're "supposed" to die here).

     A lost opportunity...

     I also can't imagine the guilt trip Link must have to live with knowing that, over the course of two games, he's slaughtered loyal servants to Hyrule in order to save a single princess. That's gonna be some costly therapy...

52 CHARITIES...

     I have no idea how good or even effective such an idea would be, but when I read about the extreme poverty of cocoa farmers around the world, I wondered if they (and other worthy groups) might benefit from a tiny payroll tax levied on, ideally the world, but let's leave it at the level of the United States for now as there is no international authority on Earth which can collect and distribute taxes and and because the United States, acting alone, could create moral pressure on other nations to follow suit.

     I'm using the world's estimated 5 million cocoa farming households as an example because chocolate is a favorite confection to many and knowing the poverty that is not much above slavery that goes into its harvest I would think make them a useful example as to the kind of good this proposed payroll tax could do. It is stated that many of these farmers live in extreme poverty, surviving on less than $1.25 a day (or about $450 a year), so imagine if the estimated 145 million workers in the United States, many of whom most certainly enjoy chocolate candies or chocolate-flavored things or use cocoa butter enriched products, might be called upon to help using but a smidgen of their annual earnings?

    This would be by no means a terribly helpful thing, but again, if other nations might be morally coerced into going along with this, it would help even more. Imagine if a dollar a week, regardless of earnings, were set aside as a withholding for a group of 52 charities, causes, and/or other worthy groups/organizations and donated to a respected United Nations organization to distribute this money directly to those whom it was designed to help.

     52 charities each receiving from the United States 145 million dollars on an annual basis (about 7½ billion dollars total).

     I would think these donations ought to be targeted to low-profile causes as they are almost certainly lacking in strong advocacy. In the case of the aforementioned cocoa farmers, that would mean an annual stipend from the United States of about $29 per household, almost a month's income, paid directly the families.
     I honestly don't know how much of a difference that would make in their lives. I can only imagine myself receiving a month's income for no apparent reason and thinking of how it would affect mine. While such an amount given to me would certainly not be life-changing, it would also not go unnoticed and would certainly prove helpful.

     Assuming this isn't a totally stupid idea, I'm sure you can think of other worthy groups that might receive their share of $145 million dollars. I suppose they could be voted on by the American public. This act of charity does not feel like it should be decided by special-interest-group-influenced politicians.

     I don't know...

THE RADIOACTIVE LOTTERY...

     Radioactive elements have half-lives. That is, over a period of time specific to the radioactive isotope, half of the original sample will have decayed. Repeat that period and half of the remaining half will have decayed and so on.

     Now, I know I have to be wrong about this but nevertheless it remains a thought I've had because I don't know how to go about finding the answer to my question nor do I know if the answer would require knowledge of the kinds of mathematics that go WAY beyond my capacity to understand.

     The thing is, take a sample of the standard element for dating old organics: Carbon-14. 14C is radioactive and decays into stable nitrogen-14 via beta decay (that is, a neutron emits an electron and antineutrino, becoming a proton and upping the element by one). The half life of this isotope is approximately 5,730 years.

     Now here's the thing...

     After 5,730 years a sample of carbon-14, say ten pounds worth, will have gone through the first of its half-lives leaving five pounds of carbon-14 and five pounds of nitrogen-14. Now I'm guessing this might violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle but if you could (somehow) isolate the half of the carbon-14 from the original ten pound sample that did not decay, would you now be in possession of a five pound sample of carbon-14 that is not radioactive? Or at least not radioactive for 5,730 years?

     I know the answer has to be no...but why is it no? I can't help but feel that if one could somehow be intuitive enough to separate such a sample that it could be done. I also think about stuff like Uranium-238 which has a half-life of almost 4½ billion years. I don't know when the first atoms of uranium were forged but I would have to assume with a half-life of that long, that atoms of uranium-238 from the first supernova that produced them way back when still exist.

     What makes certain radioactive atoms more stable than others? What about extremely radioactive elements like astatine which has no stable isotopes and the longest lived one is measured in hours? Are some of astatine-210's atoms (and I am probably using the wrong word) meta-stable and could conceivably last the lifetime of the universe?

      The nature of the basic math behind half-lives suggests that it is impossible to get rid of all the original sample. Atoms are small so if you have a mole of astatine-210 (which has never been witnessed by the way...I hear such a sample if it could somehow be synthesized would explode from the heat of its radioactivity), with a mole being some 6 x 10²³ atoms (a HUGE number), how many times could you divide such a sample in half and still be left with a number greater than 1? Maybe not as many times as I suspect (I don't feel like doing the algebra right now), but it would still be quite a number of divisions meaning some of those atoms will last a lot longer than 8.1 hours. Some potentially for years.

      I wonder why that is so? Why are some radioactive atoms more (temporarily) stable than others?

LOGICAL FALLACIES...

      While I see it most whenever the latest atrocity committed in the name of Islam is committed, the fact is, it could be applied to most anything. Inevitably in any such article you'll read a variant of:

Islam is a religion of peace, therefore the perpetrators of this latest crime are not real Muslims.

     What exactly does that mean? Isn't that true of everything after a fashion? It's a statement that looks logical but I'm certain contains a fallacy though for the life of me I don't know which one (or ones). I never took a logic class. I wish I had.

     It just seems like a statement to absolve a group from any and all responsibility like what you read on practically every vitamin bottle/health food container after beneficial claims are made. There's always that asterisk: THESE STATEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN EVALUATED BY THE FDA. THIS PRODUCT IS NOT INTENDED TO DIAGNOSE, TREAT, CURE OR PREVENT ANY DISEASE.
     It's not that the claims are necessarily bullshit, it's just that no one has bothered to subject them to rigorous scientific scrutiny but the fact remains that statement can be made in small print on the backside of the package while the beneficial claims can be made boldly, front & center.

     It's like a purity test. Only 100% counts. Anything less and they're not a real or true X. I mean, would you still consider a person a vegan if they ate meat ignorantly served to them (so as to be polite/not waste food) or if they were to accidentally eat meat or put on a borrowed pair of leather shoes because their feet were sore? I would.
     It would seem strange and petty to strip someone of their title for committing an act of politeness or accidentally transgressing, no?

     Is Islam an inherently war-like religion? I don't know and I doubt it. Most people seem content to live their lives without bothering anybody or imposing upon them.
     If I had to guess, I would say Islam is more a convenient tool for terrorism than a cause of it. I mean, the Bible is full of heinous stories that I'm guessing people would rather ignore/forget (and certainly not act upon) in order to focus on the good stuff. It strikes me as no different than those would use immigrants or those not of their race as scapegoats for current problems rather to tackle those problems in earnest. It seems easier to gather people to your will in anger, envy, and violence than it does to bring people together for a common good. Humanity doesn't seem to like the idea of a rising tide lifting all boats. We appear to remain a selfish lot who would wish only for ourselves and our loyal group to be raised thusly, leaving the rest to suffer and believe in our hearts that they are inferior and deserving of their fate.
     You have a combination of shared religious identity and the cultural memory that your religion was once very powerful and commanding. What greater way to sway a disadvantaged group to your side is there than the promise of a return to "the good old days"?

     And that, is what I think is going on.

     Though I think those who proffer such statements of So&So is not a real X because of Y are just trying to rationalize, more to themselves than to others, that nothing is rotten in the state of Denmark. They don't want to accept the possibility that people could be motivated to commit to heinous acts, violent acts, terroristic acts, etc. in the name of X group.

     I don't know what I'm trying to say so I'll end it here...

ADDENDUM (03/17/2015): I have recently been informed by Alias TBA that what I am thinking of is an informal fallacy called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy which appears to be part of a larger fallacy group called the Ad Hoc Hypothesis. Good to know :-)

COMPETITIVE GOLD AND SILVER

     I should make it clear that I don't think the United States should return to the Gold Standard. I can't really articulate the argument why and it may seem surprising to hear such a thing from a coin collector. However, that doesn't mean I don't think gold coins shouldn't exist as money.

     Why not have competing currencies? Congress could use its authority to coin silver and gold and put them into the marketplace as money alongside the present day fiat coins and currency.

      Just don't give them the same name.

      Leave dollars and cents to the fiat currencies. Leave them as is.

      However, there was another denomination name in the past: the eagle. An "eagle" was another word for "ten dollars". The word never appeared on a coin. I think it was just an official name and nothing more.
      The next step up was the union. A "union" was supposed to be another way of expressing "one hundred dollars". I remember the term coming up when there were talks of making $50 gold coins in response to the massive gold find in California back in 1848. The proposed $50 coin, which was never made, was referred to as a "half union".

      We could run with those terms...

      The silver coins could be referred to as eagles and denominated as such but with no official conversion formula. There could be quarter-eagles, half-eagles, eagles, and double eagles: 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, and 1 ounce of silver respectively.
      The gold coins could be referred to as unions and denominated like the silver eagles with again, no conversion formula for the other currency types.
      Smaller (or larger) versions of both types of coins could also be authorized if needed.
      How many dollars one could get for these coins would vary based on market trends. Likewise, how many silver eagles one could get for a gold union would also vary.

      The point would be to let the currencies comingle and be used by the public as desired. Laws to prevent abuse of the powerless could require employers to pay employees in the currency of their choice without fear of penalty as well as for banks to pay out debts in the currency desired by the account holder. Stores could post prices in three units much like it was during the Civil War when pricing based on paper money, silver, and gold could be found.
      It might be a little confusing at first and it ultimately might mean nothing. Gold and silver money might prove unpopular with the public and limit its use in commerce. Or it could be very popular forcing Congress to make its dollars more attractive to the public.

      I think it would be a fun experiment. I certainly don't see the harm in doing so.

VOTING SHMOTING...

     If you don't vote, you lose the right to complain. See, I don't understand that line of reasoning. How is that even possible? Does not voting somehow negate my rights as a US citizen under the Constitution? No, of course not. You can't even vote until you're both 18 and registered and there are numerous ways to lose that right but regardless of whether you vote or not (or can't), your rights under the First Amendment...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

     ...are in no way affected, not to mention any of the other rights afforded to you as a citizen. Whether I vote or not, I am still allowed to petition the government and peaceably assemble. Those are not voter's rights, those are US citizen rights.
     Voting may have gotten those men and women into office but it doesn't preclude the citizenry from complaining about them (or praising them as the case may be...or have I "lost" that right too by not voting?).

     Another reason that argument is bullshit is because only white, land-owning males were allowed to vote originally. That's a whole lotta people with no say in who may or may not represent them. Were the multitudes of disenfranchised from the late 18th to mid-20th century admonished for complaining about a government they did not vote for?
     Their voices may not have been appreciated (especially I would gather from blacks and women), but they were still entitled to their free speech, free presses, to peaceably assemble, and to write the government about wrongs they feel have been committed.

     I'm pretty sure the only thing you lose by not voting is the ability to say you voted for that particular person or proposition.

     By extension, I wonder if anyone has done any research on those who didn't vote. Like, during the day of an election or just before, has a suitably done poll of people who were definitely not voting ever been conducted to see whom they would've voted for if they could've been bothered to go to a polling station?
     If so, did the acquired results, if tabulated as actual votes, ever affect the outcome of an election? I have this feeling their missing votes would not change anything. Without any evidence (mind you) to support my opinion, I feel the collective opinion of those who don't vote will closely match the collective opinion of those who did vote.

     I say this because there are no longer any deliberately disenfranchised voters in this country anymore. Women have the vote. Blacks have the vote. Anyone who's 18 and older and a US citizen may vote.
     Arguably the only disenfranchised population are felons. Whether convicted or not, and especially those who have been released, I don't see why committing a crime ought to cause one's right to vote to be revoked. Criminals may not be desirable but they are still citizens, right?
     But that's a different argument. My concern here would be are there enough legally disenfranchised people that, if their votes could be cast, would they be able to affect the outcome of an election? I'm guessing had the United States had full suffrage for all citizens back at the Constitution's signing, our line-up of Presidents would likely be very different today.

     I don't know. That's not much of argument and it's certainly not well-supported, but it's something to perhaps start a conversation...

TALKING ABOUT STUFF I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT...

      Since the latest Israeli incursion into Gaza, my Twitter feed has lit up with supporters for Gaza and I think one person for Israel. It's very lopsided. Apparently the United States is the only nation right now supporting Israel in its decision. I'm not sure if that means the United States is on the wrong side of this issue or if it means the United States is the least anti-Semitic country. I mean, there's still a lot of hatred for Jews around the world and in Europe. I guess the guilt over Germany's actions in World War II has worn off?

      Still, I wonder if all this support for the Gazans is real or just lip-service. Do the nations opposed to Israel's incursion aid the West Bank and Gaza strip to the tune of billions of dollars in annual aid? I'm just speaking out my ass right now, but I feel like the supporters for Gaza are related to the pro-life people.

      The pro-life people fight tooth-and-nail to protect the lives of unborn fetuses and put just as much energy into shaming poor, single mothers and fighting the social welfare programs designed to at least give them a leg-up in life. In other words, they don't put their money where their mouth is. They want to force all pregnancies to term but are not interested in making sure those children have a chance in life.

      The Gaza supporters go out of their way to immediately blame Israel for its deeds with no blame-sharing (i.e. how much of this is Israel's fault and how much of this is the Palestinians fault?) but leave it at that. The Gazans have the verbal support of the world, but should not ever expect them to pony up some foreign aid (and not simply humanitarian aid) and/or military support...the kind of support they'd actually need if these protestors were actually interested in helping them.

      Personally, I'm not too interested in what goes on there. I'm not saying Israel should wipe every Gazan off the face of the Earth, but why can't they use their military to bring about a forced relocation of the Palestinians in Gaza to the West Bank and then annex the territory? It's an old-school tactic. Apparently that's wrong now: it has been arbitrarily decided that maps are permanent now.
      Why can't the other countries of the world bring a united force together to oppose Israel? I don't want to hear some bullshit about the United Nations. The United States has veto power: they obviously wouldn't approve a military strike against one of its allies. But why should that stop the Middle Eastern nations from sending a force over? Or the European Union? Or the African Union? Or China? Or whomever? Do they really think the United States would declare war on those who did? The United States is strong, but even it cannot fight a war against, say, sixteen nations at the same time. And it needs those nations for trade/oil anyway so really, what's the United States going to do?
      That's why I feel like all this outpouring of support for Gaza is bullshit.

     Also, when did the deaths of a few hundred or even a few thousand people get to be considered genocide? Whenever I hear that word, I'm picturing the on-purpose deaths of a significant percentage of a people.
     Cambodia's actions under the rule of the Khmer Rouge offer a guideline for what that percentage ought to be. The Khmer Rouge killed a quarter of Cambodia's population and that was considered a genocide. I can go for that. I would consider something a genocide once the death count requires two commas or represents 25% or more of the targeted population, whichever comes first.

      Okay, I'm done talking about shit I know nothing about...

A TOTALLY GRATUITOUS SWIPE AT THE KARDASHIANS...

     I saw this posted on Facebook the other day and it annoyed me. I should probably make this clear that autistic people don't annoy me. To me they're no different than anyone else who's retarded. They get passes for their behavior (within reason) because you know they know not what they do. No, I get mad at their caregivers/parents because they, more often than not, come across with rather unrealistic assessments of their child's present and future capabilities.

     I get it. You've been saddled with a burden you never asked for but stop pretending that your burden must now also be our burden. Just as you wouldn't bring a child into a go-go bar or a deaf person to a music concert, you have to be aware that not all venues are appropriate for retarded/developmentally disabled children and adults.

     Anyways, I see this post and my assholish thoughts immediately surface. I'll post my thoughts in blue italics and not bother to proofread them to make it easier for you to attack me in the comments' section. Also, the original post had "thou shall" rather than the properly conjugated "thou shalt". This has been corrected.

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR INTERACTING WITH KIDS ON THE AUTISM SPECTRUM:

ICE-AGES, IMPACTS, & DISEASE - oh my!

     It was just something that came up the other day in conversation but it left me wondering about the causes of extinction in plants and animals. It can't always be impacts, supervolcanoes, and ice-ages. Nor would it be fair to always blame humanity for these problems (though I'm sure with our worldwide presence and relative ease with which we can travel we do share some of the blame). After all, over 90% of all the species which have ever lived are extinct and were extinct long before homo sapiens entered the scene. As George Carlin would say, "We didn't kill them all. They just disappeared. That's what nature does."

     It had me wondering what role disease has to play. White Nose Syndrome is devastating bat populations in North America. Mortality rates make the Black Death look like a walk in the park by comparison. 90%-95% of bats who contract this fungus die and at this point I'm not even sure if those "lucky" 5 or so percent are naturally immune or simply got lucky. But still, it's like the Drafa Plague for bats...

     Fossil records only show that species have gone extinct and can only date those extinctions relatively or within a plus-or-minus of thousands to millions of years. With rare exceptions like the K-T Extinction event which famously wiped out the dinosaurs can it be shown that 80% of the species alive at the time perished in short order but even then, it only happened instantly in geological terms. Overall hundreds or even thousands of years may have passed before that 80% threshold was reached.

     But still, what of disease? Recorded history has only been around for a mere 6000 years and it's only become detailed recently. Yes, humans are responsible for some extinctions like the dodo bird but I don't think it's productive to reflexively blame humanity as we haven't been around long enough to notice how else the Earth disposes of species.
      Even if the White Nose Syndrome isn't 100% fatal, could it crash the bat populations to the point where it would be impossible for them to recover? The disease was only noticed in 2007. If a thousand years is the blink of an eye in geologic time, what is a decade or two? Is it possible that several bat species will have gone extinct before 2017 or 2027? And if so, how often has something like this happened? Viruses, bacteria, and fungi are insidious creatures and the former two have had quite a head start evolutionarily speaking.

      I don't know but like I said...it makes me wonder.

LINE OF THE DAY, part XXXIV

(from cspackler from this article)

"From Conservatives, all we hear is the constant bitching and crying about how all lazy people want is welfare and to loaf about like lumps of crap on the teat of society. These are people that are working full time and still getting the shaft. When we argue that people should have the dignity of a living wage to encourage more work- we get a resounding no. And why? Because it potentially compromises the profits of the largest corporation in the history of the world.

I have news for you Righties. There are a lot of Americans who are utterly incapable of delivering value in a knowledge based economy, and the number is increasing. This was cool when we had factories, but sadly, even the factories we still have need fewer, more computer literate workers.  So it seems to me that you have two choices: get comfortable with sharing a bit more of the wealth in the form of higher wages, or look forward to seeing them with burning torches at a gated community near you.

And finally, let me demystify this for everyone who believes in the myth of the infallible, omniscient CEO: there isn't anyone alive in business who is worth 500 or 1000X an average worker. No one."

     I tend to agree with this sentiment. I'm also one of those people who gets pissed off when some asinine commenter mentions things like "those jobs are ENTRY LEVEL: they're not meant to support families" or "if you don't like your job/pay, get a different one" or "start your own business" or my favorite of all, "go to college and get an education so you can land a better job".

     Each one of those is stupid and simplistic in its own way. Are there jobs out there which are entry level? Yes. Should they pay less than jobs which require a skill base? Also yes. However there are a couple of things wrong, or at least questions I have, with that sentiment.
     Are there enough living wage jobs out there for everyone who wants one? If the answer is no, as I've ventured before, then it is arguable that the minimum wage must rise. It is also arguable that those jobs which do require a skill base are also not paying enough for the investment of time and money put into them. Perhaps your wages ought to be going up as well. Something tells me everyone working for a large company could get a decent raise if CEO compensation packages were limited to 25-40 times what the lowest paid worker (hired or contracted) for the company gets paid.
     The other thing is, and this may sound harsh, but I simply don't believe that it is possible, no matter how lofty our goals, to educate everyone to the levels necessary to participate in today's economy. Some people just don't have the intellect necessary to take on such difficult learning. Any Bell Curve will see to that. What of those people? Are they not deserving of dignity? And what of those people performing vital services that don't necessarily require a top-notch education like garbage haulers or bus/subway/taxi drivers or other low-level but obviously vital, services? I'm sure you would not want to live in a world where you were responsible for hauling your own trash to the dump or walking around a large city or cleaning your own sewage pipes. Yes, it's arguable that "anybody could do those jobs" but just because that is so, does that mean they are automatically undeserving of a living wage given the scale of the service provided?
     Also, what of those people who perform tasks that are also necessary but seem to add little or no value to the economy like people who work in animal shelters or for sanctuaries? What of librarians, philosophers, and researchers? Those latter jobs require a ton of skill, but offer few good-paying positions and the former jobs require passion, compassion, and dedication yet apparently ensuring the livelihoods of our abandoned furry and feathered friends and providing safety and comfort for abuse victims is not high on the pay priority scale.
     Replacing the low-education jobs with machinery isn't a smart idea either...at least not in a country with a rising population. Those people need work...they need money...and odds are they are not smart enough to compete in a knowledge-based internet level economy. And since we're not the kind of society which would kill such people for their unproductiveness or lack of utility, they have to be housed, clothed, fed, and provided with a measure of dignity. Something you're not going to get by paying poverty wages.
     To put it simply, if you don't like the idea of an entry-level worker making a better wage, then you're not being paid enough too. Don't attack down.

     I've also always hated the fallacious argument of leaving your job for another if you don't like it. This couples with the going back to school argument because while perfectly simple on paper, both arguments fail to take into account that these things cost money. And then there's logistics.
     I'd love to leave my job for something where I feel like a person and not a number on a budgetary spreadsheet, but where would I go that would pay me as much or more than what I'm making now and accessible from my home without a car? I'm trapped. My job pays too much to just up and go, but too little to really live off of (as evidenced by me not owning a car). I'm sure there are many people like me. Plus jobs, even in the best of times, are not abundant or at least readily available. And forget about quitting on principle. Unless you have a ton of cash you're sitting on, that's not even an option. Believe me, I'd love to have fuck-you money in the bank, but I don't...so I have to suck it up and take the hits to my dignity, to my pride, and to my sense of self-worth practically daily.
      Going back to school is just as stupid an argument because that costs a shit-ton of money...even with loans. And odds are you will not be able to go to school full time to get a degree in four years. No, you'll be working too, trying to stay afloat while studying complex and difficult subjects...and that's if you don't have children. If you have a spouse, you might stand a chance if s/he's supportive of the idea and willing to carry you during that time. But still, there's no guarantee that your degree will get you a job that not only pays better, but enough to also pay off your loans while living your life. Otherwise, you may have been better off where you had been. It's simply not an option without a society willing to pay for such an education socially.
      The value of an education is at an all-time low I would say. In days of yore, your father could have taught you ironworking and you would have that skill for life. And you could take that skill and teach it to your son and pass along the family business just as your grandfather had taught your father. A skilled, once learned, was worth a lifetime of labor and then some.
      How many jobs can you say that about nowadays? A lifetime career traditionally spanned forty years (I guess 25-65). Think about what goes on today. Imagine you were 65 right now. That means, you would have embarked on your career in 1973. That means you would've been formally educated in the 1960s. Life's changed a lot since then. If you were picking up where a retiree was leaving off in 1973, he would have begun his career in the 1930s. The world changed a lot in those forty years too, but not so much that a (wo)man couldn't have relied on their education to last them throughout most, if not all, of their career.
      How long does an education last now? I figure at an ideal minimum, it should last for at least as many years as it would take to pay off the student loans...or at the very minimum, an education should be worth at least as many years on the market as it took to earn it (in other words, if it takes four years to get a degree, the education received should last at least four years before needing to re-up on it). Does that even come close to how long an education lasts these days? How quickly does skill obsolescence take hold forcing workers to increase their knowledge and skills these days? It sounds all so very stressful and while I'm sure there are numbers among us who can handle (and even welcome) that kind of stress, I feel most people would burn out.

      As for starting your own business, the numbers bear this one out. Unless it's all sole proprietorships, we can't all be business owners. Some people lead, others follow. I suspect in any given group there are more followers than leaders. It's a great sentiment to try to make it on one's own but you still need investment capital which the poorer among us certainly don't have and you'll also need a marketable idea and an education in business and accounting (which brings us back to the prior example).

      Just pay people better. It's also a numbers game. Ultimately businesses have to sell shit and they can't sell shit if the people on the bottom have no money to spend because it's all going into housing, food, and transportation. The few people on top, the One Percenters as they've been called lately, can't buy it all and charity from the ultra-wealthy is ultimately insufficient. Until the wealth up top is spread to the lower classes, dreamers can't dream. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there with good ideas worth trying out but they'll never get the chance because they're too busy trying to survive, unable to save a few bucks to get ahead or take risks with.

      I can't think anymore so I'm done...

THOUGHTS ON THE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL...

     I'm just gonna state first off that I did not follow George Zimmerman trial at all. My awareness of it has been strictly limited to what could be gleaned from the front pages of newspapers and internet headlines. What struck me upon learning the verdict was how people reacted to it.

     I've noticed people treat these major trials like sporting events. They've picked their team and they root for it right to the end. If their side wins, justice was served. If their side loses, then an injustice has occurred. Of course when there's an acquittal there's no rematch so it can make people on the "losing team" a bit upset.

     The other thing I've noticed is that people pick their sides right at the start. The person on trial was judged guilty or innocent before the opening gavel and like I said above, this opinion - once formed - never changes. I first saw it with the O.J. Simpson trial. And what's more, I don't remember a single person I've ever spoken to who first thought that O.J. was guilty and then later changed his opinion based on the evidence (or vice-versa). This was also true with the Casey Anthony trial and more recently with the Jodi Arias trial.

      Knowing that makes me glad that the rule of law is what matters and not mob rule.

      As for the race-relations issue that has come to a head since the verdict, I dunno. I'm definitely not in a position to discuss that...not at all.

PROMOTION AND EVOLUTION...

     There's this concept out there called the Peter Principle. It is defined as "Employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence." In other words, people are promoted based on skills and achievements until they get promoted to a level beyond their abilities and there they remain. "[W]ork is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence." It basically sounds like a recipe for a workplace run by idiot bosses...a formula endlessly exploited by comics, television series, and movies. While bored at work one night, I was wondering if instead of the Peter Principle, it was more like promotion is related to evolution itself and that while goodness could come out of it, it's ultimately based on people being bad at their jobs.

     It may sound weird, but one interpretation of evolution that I've had is that it is fueled by failure. In evolution, success leads to stasis. I'll start with fish to illustrate. The fish species which evolved into amphibians were not good at being fish. Their fins were bad for swimming among other things so they couldn't compete for food and resources like the other more suitably adapted fish species could. In this do-or-die situation, they learned to exploit the land somewhat. As you know with frogs and salamanders, they are tied to water but can exist in the air as well.
     Those amphibians which sucked at being frogs and such would evolve into lizards and those lizards which sucked at being lizards became mammals and birds. And finally with humans, those chimps which sucked at being chimps became humans. We are here because of a long line of ancestors which sucked at their jobs. And before you object, remember that species such as sharks and crocodiles have remained more-or-less unchanged since dinosaurs roamed the Earth over 65 million years ago. Sharks and crocodiles are VERY good at what they do so there's no pressure on them to change.

     I think the workplace operates in a similar manner. If you are really good at what you do, you will remain where you are because the Powers That Be will not want to lose their prized employee who allows them to not work as hard. Only those who are hampering efficiency and/or frustrating management get considered for promotion or at least lateral transfers to other departments until they find something the person is good at and leave him or her there.
     How do you know it's because you're good and not because you already suck? I would say if managers are seeking answers to questions they should already know from you then you are one of those hyper-competent people who's probably right where they belong (and almost certainly underpaid).
     If however management either leaves you alone or is always asking you to do other tasks than the one you thought you were hired to do, well then perhaps maybe you're not so good at your job and lacking justification to get rid of you, they're trying to see if perhaps you would fit better elsewhere because you're mucking up the efficiencies of the workplace where you're supposed to be. Maybe after a while, you actually get transferred officially (or even promoted) to another department (and thus made someone else's problem) and it will come with a pay raise in an effort to provide incentive to get you out of your current ineffectively performed job. And yes, this probably means the genuinely competent people who could've done the task the incompetent has now been assigned for more pay will now resent that person and/or the workplace as they languish in their same position for the same pay. But since they are competent, they can't mess up on purpose hoping to get the same result. They're too honorable to do something like this. Damned if you do; damned if you don't.

     Put more simply, the people who aren't so good at the jobs they were hired for (but not so bad that they have to be fired) get more opportunities for promotion because management keeps shuffling them around in an effort to find their best fit. They "evolve" into department heads or managers because they suck at what they do. Ideally they become what they are in fact good at but I guess since we're usually witnessing the evolution itself rather than the evolved state, we are filled with resentment watching these people get ahead because pay raises are based on promotion and not competence in the workplace.