Nature of Competition

I dislike competition.

I understand that competition is the basis for biological development. I understand that species that compete better will survive. I understand it is integral to what we are. I am in effect competing with all the people that might want my job. I have to be better than all of them to keep my job. Competition exists. I just dislike it.

I dislike it unless it's against something other than other people. Competing against my own previous standards. Competing against a task. As long as there isn't another person on the other side.

I dislike competition with people because someone wins, and someone loses. Again, I see that to grow in life it seems necessary to lose, but that doesn't make it better. If I am the one who wins... I feel bad because the other person is faced with not being "as good" as me. I feel bad when I lose too... because I wasn't "good enough" to win.

I don't understand people who enjoy competition because it seems to me that if they win, they are being inconsiderate of the people around them. If the lose and keep enjoying it, it seems like they don't understand what just happened.

Even a friendly game of foosball at work is something I'm starting to dislike because it's starting to feel like people involved care what happens. I can play and enjoy it normally because it doesn't matter. We play another game, and there's a different winner. We can compliment each other on the good shots or good stops. And no one seems to care who actually wins. But when people start to look dissappointed, or keep track of win rates, or just cheer when they win instead of just enjoying the company... I don't like it anymore.

I think my self-image is part of the reason I dislike competition so much. I seem to put more value into those contests than there actually is. The board game "Risk"... I won't play that game anymore. Where a game of foosball can take a few minutes and can go either way on a regular basis... Risk and games like it take hours. You set up, you plan, and your intelligence has a bearing on the game. So to me, Risk is a game where you get together with your friends and spend hours of deep thought to show an example of being smarter than your friend. To me it seems like a slap in the face. Either you find out you're dumber or smarter, and either way, someone has to lose, and it's this long drawn out process to get there. How does that help anyone? When I win, the victory feels hollow because I made another person face the idea that they aren't good enough. When I lose, I realize I'm not good enough. I won't play that game ever again.

So while I understand that competition is necessary in life, and that a person can become stronger by losing... I hate being the one to tell someone else that they lost. There's no pleasure in winning for me when the competition matters.

How can I go into a competition against another person knowing that the only outcomes can be bad? I hate competition.

---

Now on a bit to the other side of it... homogeny. Schools are the best example I can think of here. Each student is competing with themselves to learn. But of course, the grades make for a way to compare students. But I'm not looking to go indepth on my thoughts about grades. I'm looking to get to Levels. Some schools separate students into low difficulty classes through a spectrum to the high difficulty classes. Kids are put into levels. And while a person after reading the previous part of my post might think I'm against levels because it's a form of competition, they'd be wrong. Grades can be kept to yourself. But the level of classes you're taking is pretty easy for people to find out. So it's easy for people to say "I'm in level 1 classes and you're only in level 4 classes... you must be stupid". There is the same sort of competitive standard.

And there are people in the world who think those levels should go away. But I am adamantly against that. When you're a teacher, you have to account for all of your students and their learning styles. And unfortunately, you tend to have to go at the pace of the slowest learner. If you keep a pace that the fastest learners can keep up with, the slow kids get left behind and you aren't doing your job. If you keep a slow pace, the fast learners will invariantly get bored, and very likely won't learn. You're still not doing your job. To do your job, you need all of the students to learn the lessons. As you may guess... this effort required increases dramatically when the students have such different learning abilities, to the point where to get rid of those levels would mean teachers would be far more likely to fail. Putting stupid kids in with smart kids just means the system won't work.

So in the case of schools, I think it's vital to label students as low level through high level learners. Without it, we're making the task of teaching close to impossible. And when did we stop admitting that some people are stupid? Sure, you feel bad for a stupid kid, but putting him into a class with smart kids is not going to make the situation better. Instead... put him in a room with other kids who learn like he does, and let the teacher do their job. They might not learn as much in total... but at least they'll learn. We can't treat students like a homogeny. While I would feel bad categorizing a kid as stupid... how else can we keep things moving? How else can make things good for everyone involved?

---

Alright... I'm done putting my thoughts down about this one for now. I don't have a clue what good it will do, but I figured I'd try to get my head straight anyway.

Thinking versus Doing

"Thinking is easy, acting is difficult, and to put one's thoughts into action is the most difficult thing in the world."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

I think about that concept frequently and often for extended periods. It seems to define me. I don't know how well Goethe's quote applies to everyone else, but it fits me extremely well. I have hopes. I have intentions. I have goals. I think about these things and it turns into a day-dream about things I'd love to do or experience. But I don't do them or experience them.

I'm writing this post because I'm thinking about things I'd like to do that I'm not doing. I can be conscious of the fact that I'm not doing what I want to do and still find excuses to not do them. Does that mean it's not actually what I want? Or do I spend all that time day-dreaming and hoping for things I don't actually want? That doesn't make sense... but then why don't I just act on those thoughts? Goethe knew me well apparently. For some reason putting my thoughts into action is terribly difficult for me.

Talking to a woman I'm attracted to. Home improvement projects. Buying a new car. Taking a ski trip. Going shooting more often. Practicing karate. Getting back into shape with running. Writing software in my free time to try to sell it for extra cash. Writing fiction in my free time because I love writing (I think). Getting together with friends more often...

It's all stuff I think I want that I'm not actually doing. I'm sure there's more I should list, but I think you get the idea. Can you make a list like that? This is where I'm hoping I can be of some service to anyone who stumbles on my little blog. I'm hoping that maybe you'll think like I do, but that maybe you can be conscious of the situation and actually do something about it.

I'm writing this so I can try to think through in a clearer way what is going on with me. I think I want to act on my thoughts. I want to stop being afraid. I want to stop making excuses. Maybe putting this out there for anyone to see will help me. Maybe it'll help someone else too.

Good gravy my impulse to find negative sides is strong. As I wrote the previous paragraph I was thinking to myself about how I don't know where to start. When I get home after work I'm just going to settle down and catch up on TiVo'd shows. And why would reading someone else's thoughts on this help anyone to get over that hurdle? And the thing is... I believe the negative side. I believe I won't change. And I believe that anyone reading this isn't likely to change either... or at least not because of anything I've written.

So here I am pondering again the concept of acting on your own thoughts because I'm not strong enough to do anything about it.

More about religion...

First, there's an article to at least gloss over. The italicized parts give a good idea of where they're going with this one...

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000008385.cfm

Citizen link? My first complaint with the article is that for some reason it seems to assume that religion has a right to have a bearing on legal limitations. I'm pretty sure we're allowed to follow whatever religion we want, or no religion at all. I'm sort of offended by the title of the website considering the content of their site. Oh well. I guess they can say whatever they want right? As long as they don't somehow change the meaning the citizenship and for their sake, I hope they don't hold the mistaken belief that their religion is more important than others.

Their first point about why gay marriage is a problem has to do with the reference to one person in the wedding being called the bride and the other, the groom. Apparently California state law changed it to "Party A" and "Party B". Sounds pretty ridiculous to me. Why does it matter whater either person is called? Why does it matter to any law? And why would anyone suggest that it's the fault of gay marriage that the state came up with a misguided change? The "Citizen Link" definitely messed up on this one. Sure, they (religious types) might insist on calling themselves "Bride and Groom"... that's fine. I've got no complaint with it. Everyone should be able to choose what to call themselves in that context too.

Their next point has to do with how churches might lose their tax exempt status if they hold one sexual behavior/preference above others... like if a church says homosexual behavior is wrong, they could lose their tax exempt status. Churches shouldn't be tax exempt to begin with. I don't go to any church. I don't benefit from any church that I'm aware of. I pay taxes, and the companies that I'm aware of pay taxes, so why don't churches pay taxes? They are corporations that provide a service to people who look for it. They have employees. They have customers. Paying customers even... how much money do they make in donations? yeah yeah... donations aren't technically payment... but it's a fine line, and no religious institution should be exempt from taxes.

So I guess in a way, I agree with Citizen Link. Churches shouldn't lose their tax exempt status over views on sexual orientation. What they left out is that Chruces should lose their tax exempt status anyway. But this leads me to another dissappointment with Citizen Link. They seem to be asserting that Churches should keep their tax exempt status. They based their argument on a faulty premise. I'm sad if legislators try to use sexual orientation as an excuse, but if churches lose their tax exempt status, I'll be happy.

The article's next point is about how parents are losing the right to oversee the sexual education of their children in Massachusetts where gay marriage is the moral equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Again, we have something where they are looking at it wrong AND making a faulty assertion.

How can you lose the right to teach your children your beliefs about sexual relationhips unless you're doing something damaging to the children? You can tell your kids that gay marriage is wrong all you want. Just don't expect any public school to support a religious belief over the freedom of human beings to marry who they like. Heck, why are schools responsible for teaching kids about relationships anyway? There's no class taught about what's right or wrong in relationships, unless you consider health class to be responsible for filling kids heads with unsupported notions of a religion? Health classes are responsible for making kids aware of actual health issues... not religious issues. So if you want to teach your kids to be closed minded, that's still your right. And Massachusetts (I never thought I'd be defending Massachusetts since I have my own complaints with it) is not a bad state for supporting gay marriage.

Also, what makes anyone think that heterosexuality is more moral than homosexuality? I don't even know where to begin on this one. If I say that cleaning your house of dust is a crime against your own dead skin particles... disrespecting your own flesh... and I whole-heartedly believe it... would you agree that your cleaning of the dust in your house is less moral than my behavior? If I say that it's an atrosity that a religious person speak one word of their religious belief to me, would you consider it immoral because I said so? The only argument I can think of that anyone might make to suggest that heterosexual marriage is more "moral" than a homosexual one is based on religion. And religion by definition is based on faith... a belief in something unprovable. Basically... what this article is saying is that gay marriage is less moral because "they say so". There's absolutely nothing to support that. Hell... gay marriage might even be hugely good for human kind... we're already overpopulating our planet... gay couples can't conceive on their own. So the birth rate goes down. And gay couples may decide to adopt, helping kids without a good home already. I'm just throwing some possibilities out there. But even what I'm saying doesn't make gay marriage moral either. I'm trying to get to the idea that morality is not related to marriage. It only comes into play when the act of marrying includes something that hurts someone. And then the act that's hurting someone is what has the moral issue... not the marriage to begin with. Okay... I've babbled enough about that one. I hope it was understandable.

The article's final point is about small business owners not being to operate and still hold their deep religious belief. Well, I think that this one is a bit touchy. The article provides an example of a religious couple that turned away a gay couple from their photography business for wedding photos or something. Apparently, the business was fined for turning them away. I can see both sides of the situation, so I guess this one is the one I have the least complaint with. Discrimination is what the article forgot. Discriminating based on religion is not okay in this country as far as what I understand. If you have a business that anyone can walk into, you're not supposed to turn them away just because they happen to think Zeus and the other gods of his kind are real. Just like it would be wrong to turn you Jesus/God loving people away because of your belief. I'm an agnostic with a belief that atheism is probably right. Would you turn me away because I don't believe in God? Why would it be okay to turn away two guys who just want pictures taken of their happy day? It's a business... so can't discriminate because of homosexuality. So I guess I changed my mind. I disagree with the article. The couple that turned down the customers because of their belief was horribly rude, and legally improper. They can express their distaste, and maybe the gay couple would choose someone else on their own, but denying them service... that was wrong.

So I guess that's another post on my part about how religion is a bad influence on our society. I don't begrudge religious people the right to believe as they see fit, but I do take exception with it when it negatively impacts the people around them and even more so when it tries to affect government and law.

Love and Confusion

Surprise... Surprise... I've been single for a long time. I'm a computer programmer with hermit tendancies. Doesn't change that I feel like I want a relationship. I've known that for a long time, but my own propensities get in the way. Logically, it seems simple to make a change and do something about it. Emotionally... well I tend to feel nervous, and no amount of logic has succeeded in ridding me of that feeling.

I went to a gaming convention in Indianapolis recently. GenCon is a huge gaming convention with a big vendor floor that sells all sorts of gaming related products. There was a trading card booth that hired a "booth babe" to draw the attention of geeks like me. It worked to some degree on me, except the product they were selling wasn't something I was interested in. The girl working the booth however, was something I was very interested in. Of course, she probably got plenty of attention from guys there, so all I ended up doing was asking if I could get my picture with her.

She's obviously beautiful. Mind numbingly so. I keep looking at the picture. And I kick myself for not buying something, finding out her name, saying SOMETHING... anything that might mean I'd have a way to talk to her again. See, not only is she beautiful, but she was nice and intelligent. I did talk to her for a bit, and she was leading the conversation to help me with my nervousness. She spoke clearly and knew what to say to bring the conversation along. And I was my usual useless self.

So I am interested in her, but the picture does something more to me. I look at it, and I see two people that look happy together. I know we're not "together". And I know it's unlikely I'll ever meet her again, but I see myself standing there next to a beautiful, intelligent, kind girl who is smiling with an arm around me... and it really forces me to think about how I want that. I really want to be a person that makes some great girl happy. I really want a relationship. And the picture gives me a glimpse... a moment in life... that shows me what it could be like. A picture can be a powerful thing.

I'm going to post this blog. But I'm starting to think I'm just going to start complaining if I keep typing.

particles and the nature of the universe

There is no such thing as "random".

That's the basis of my hypothesis about the nature of the universe. It leads me to believe that there isn't really a such thing as free will for example. If this statement intrigues you, keep reading and I'll try to explain.

First imagine an infinite space with nothing in it except one base particle of matter. Imagine that this particle is moving in a particular direction at a particular speed (though movement won't matter yet since it's in the only thing in infinite space). Based on the knowledge of the particle's properties, environment, and current movement, it is the case that five seconds later, the particle will be in a spot that could have been defined mathematically. A better way of looking at it is that you can know both past, present, and future of that particle with 100% certainty. Let's not worry about Heisenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) problems here. This hypothetical situation doesn't reuire that anyone measure this particle or actually even know about the particle. In the example... there just is a particle, and its behavior can be modeled... it will behave a certain way.

Now let's add another particle to the scenario. Their movement matters now because of relative position. Let's even say that the particles will collide. Based on the behavior of particles of their nature (whatever that might be), the speed they're moving, and the angle they'll hit each other at, we can again mathematically model the following behavior. Maybe they bounce off each other and change the path they were taking. But the new path is perfectly predictable... the outcome of the collision with those parameters would be the same every time. Change something a little bit, and the outcome will be different, but knowing the preceeding situation, you can still model the resulting behavior.

Now imagine the universe. A presumably infinite space with lots and lots of particles moving about in ways that can be modeled. They'll react to the gravity of nearby particles. They'll react to hitting other particles, sometimes bouncing, sometimes combining... but every single thing those particles do is a logical progression where if you know all the pieces, all of their behaviors, and their current situation, you could mathematically rewind and see where they were. You can also mathematically fast word and know with 100% certainty (as long as you have all the information to work with) what will be happening in 5 seconds, 5 hours, 5 years... Whatever time frame you like, though of course longer times would require huge amounts of calculations as you figure out every step of the way, but try not to get hung up on thinking that this has to be a human being or any intelligent being that is "knowing" all of this. Just keep in mind that regardless of whether a person knows about the particles, they are there behvaing in the way they normally would. The whole universe and everything in it is just a complex continuous reaction that keeps going.

That's my hypothesis. I don't have any real means of proving it since I'm human. But I can give you something to think about that might lead you to think the hypothesis has some weight to it. Actually, I'm kind of hoping what I wrote above seems logical to you, and you find weight to the idea already.

Let's carry the idea out further now. The human body is composed of those particles. How they behave is a static thing... it doesn't change, or if it does change, the change is expected... because it's part of the behavior of the particles. Gravity affects us, sunlight affects us, wind affects us, sound affects us... all the particles around us have some bearing on us in some way.

Our brains are made of these particles. How we think and what we think is a result of the behavior of those particles, the larger constructs of our neurons, and all of the environmental forces around us as we grow up. Now, if someone could somehow know all of the particles in the universe and their situations without affecting them, they could watch those particles interact and could likely predict exactly what position those particles would be in next, and what that would mean for everything. Based on various stimulus, past experience, and the way our neurons are formed, the resulting choices we make would be perfectly predictable. The particles would move as expected. The electrical charges and chemical reactions that are the medium for our thought would behave as expected. Our thoughts and choices are a result of particle interaction and are subject to the same laws as the rest of the particles in the universe. "Free will" is a misnomer.

I'm not trying to suggest you can't decide on your own. I'm not trying to suggest that you are under some kind of control of the particles of the universe. I'm saying that you make your decisions and take your actions based on everything that came before that affected you, and you will always do so. When you decide to throw a pen on the ground upon reading this to prove that you can do something unexpected, it's a reaction to reading my words that would easily fit into the mathematical equation. The particles reacted to the other particles and your body ended up taking action. And the hypothetical being that can know all the particles would easily know that you were about to throw the pen on the ground and would even know what your thoughts would be. Every action you take is a result of what came before. There is no such thing as doing anything unpredictable from teh view point of the universe. Of course, other people might not have expected it, but they didn't have all the info. It was unpredictable to that person watching you, but that doesn't really matter. The particles behaved as they would.

All of that said, I carry the thought further by then realizing that all of the future will happen as it would. Every decision you make. Every stumble. Every change of mind. Every decision where you wonder what would have happened had you chosen another path. It's all going to happen as the particles bounce, and the imaginary creature that can know all the particles and all their interactions... could perfectly predict exactly what your life would include and every decision you would make.

Of course... now to bring the Heisenberg uncertainty principle back into it for a moment. If this mythical being told you what was going to happen, it would affect your decision making... the particle behavior would change... the being would have affected the particles it was observing. But then your reactions would change in a predictable way... so I guess this quick tangent is leading me down a path to an attempt at a proof that an all-knowing being can not exist. :)

All this thought is coming out of my head very quickly and I'm not sure I got all of it into this piece. My conclusion is that while we decide as we like, the decision is perfectly mathematically predictable, and so in a way there is no such thing as free will because what will happen to you over the course of your life is just a particle reaction set in motion long before you were born.

Oh that reminded me. A friend of mine debated with me a bout this a bit, and got me to a point where I was saying that everything is a result of the moments before it. He brought up the question of what happened first. I'm just trying to be complete here. So what set off the first set of reactions? It's a question that lots of people have tried to answer for various guesses about the "beginning" of time and space. It's a question that all intended answers have to address really.

I'll address it as simply as I can. I don't know. But my not knowing has nothing to do with what really happened, and my not knowing does not disprove the hypothesis I put forth. I can guess, and some people might point to a "god" of some variety, but I don't need to know that. The particles march on.

Musings on smoking

Why do people smoke? What I use to rationalize people smoking in my head is to imagine that someone they are close to smoked near them at some point before high school graduation. Parents or friends I guess. And then they continue smoking because of the addiction... both chemical and psychological.



I find myself trying to apply logic to smoking, but it doesn't work well. Theoretically, no one would choose to smoke. It makes no sense to smoke. And it makes a lot of sense to not smoke. But in practice... well... lots of people smoke. Looks like in 2006 the CDC estimated that about 20% of the 18+ year old population in the United States smokes (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.htm). So one in five adults. I'd be curious to see how it spreads across age groups, gender, and geographic location (among others), but really my curiosity is based on the personal experiences near people who smoke, and an un-scientific observation that physically attractive women in bars, pubs, and clubs seem to all smoke. But that will get way too involved if I try to get in depth on that one. So I'm going to go back to the basics. The pros and cons of smoking.



The Pros...

- once you're addicted, smoking a cigarette satisfies the addiction causing a feeling of relaxation.
- it's rebelious?



The Cons...

- It costs money.
- It kills you slowly and with horrible painful conditions.
- It kills the people around you with horrible painful conditions.
- It smells bad. Really bad.
- It leaves a film of some awful material on everything you smoke near.
- The stench clings so even when you're not smoking it can be smelled.
- Did I mention the horrible health effects yet?

Here we go... a better set of information than I could put together. More CDC numbers: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/factsheets/cig_smoking_mort.htm

Apparently over 400,000 people a year die from cigarette smoking. That's pretty nasty. So at this point I'm adding one more reason smoking people might use: they just don't care. They started smoking, and don't care enough to stop. They smell bad, they are spending hundreds of dollars they don't need to, they're ruining thier own health, and they're hurting the health of those around them. I don't get it. Logic says to me that anyone in their right mind would stop smoking... and go through anything to stop. Oh well. I guess smokers don't care.

social skills

Sometimes I wonder if I messed up somewhere along the way in growing up. I really enjoy solitude... I find myself craving it. But in a weird paradoxical twist of human programming, I can also crave company and attention.

At a given party, I can watch the person who's at the center of attention and feel jealous that I don't have what it takes to gather that kind of crowd. I sometimes try to do social things, but I'm not very good at it. Meeting people in public... new people... is something I'm especially bad at. I don't know what to talk about. I know computers. I'm pretty knowledgable about guns. I'm a practicing martial artist. I have a pretty vast knowledge of movies... which is the closest I can come to a topic that "normal" people might know about. Oh yeah... there's that I'm agnostic... which seems to be the minority... so religion as a topic is right out. I don't follow sports at all... I don't care about some professional sportsman making millions of dollars to play a game. I'm a little miffed that so many professional sports players complain about their salaries. they get to play a game to entertain people... while those people are off doing things like making sure the streets are clean, putting together furniture, and so... not making nearly as much money. I suppose it makes sense that a job where lots of people are willing to spend money will earn you more, but it does seem odd to me that a soldier who risks far more physically, who is ordered to be away from family and friends, and who may die for our sake are paid no where near as much as a professional athlete. Sure... the government might not use the soldiers terribly well... but that doesn't change that the soldiers chose to give their lives to us... for us...

Sorry... I went off on a tangent about how much I dislike professional sports and the fascination our country has with them. I understand that people need escapes... something to take their minds off the stressful parts of life. Sports just isn't it for me. So it's one less thing I have in common with "most" people.

I wasn't part of any clubs in highschool. I did no afterschool activities through the school. And I think I missed out on a chance to learn what it's like to be social with people then. I was reclusive even at that age.

I'm 31 years old. When I say it to myself I think about how bizarre that is. I'm a socially awkward person who's supposed to have lived enough life to know things... to know how to give advice to younger people about life will be like.

I'm still stuck wondering how to meet a girl to date. A woman. I'm old enough I guess that it's weird to call someone I could date a "girl".

So in all of that growing up where I wasn't having social experiences to learn those social skills... I think it became a sort of self fulfilling prophecy. I didn't have the social skill... so I was alone a lot. I was alone a lot, so I found ways to be entertained. I was entertained while I was alone, so I stopped trying to be social. I stopped trying to be social, so I didn't learn the social skills.

To back-peddle a little... I know manners at the dinner table. I know a decent amount about addressing people properly in different formal situations. I know when to be appreciative for kindness and graciousness. What I don't seem to know is how to be confident and relaxed around people I don't know. I tend to just clam up and start paying attention to what everyone else is doing. I start noticing things like who the most likely people in the room are to be dangerous. I start noticing where exits are. I notice potential weapons in case I might need them. I withdraw into my thoughts and the conversations people are having around me sort of disolve into background noise.

Those escapes... I love them. I perk up whenever they come up. But solitude... I wonder how long I can stand it... I probably need therapy.

So I guess this isn't a very useful blog for anyone. I think this was more an attempt at getting my thoughts out. I do this occassionally. It's sort of strange to me that I was just thinking I'd like to "feel normal"... to feel like I'm part of society. But I guess lots of people don't feel normal.

So what's the next step?

Adding Gun Control Laws is a Bad Idea (edited)

EDIT: I guess 16 years ago this is how I felt. A lot has changed. Some of my points in there about guns being inanimate objects are logically true, but it completely ignores so much. And it's so callous. Children... real children... have to be afraid in school. They might die in school. How is that okay? We need to do something. We need research; licensing; registration; and yes... more laws. We need to do something because the current situation is not okay and has not been okay for decades. I'm not saying take away people's guns. I'm saying we need to do everything we can to protect children and other innocent people. And guns are a tool involved in the deaths of too many people. Even if they are inanimate, they are a problem.

I'll leave the rest of this post untouched, but I do not agree with it anymore...

---

So since I already made a sort of hurried attempt at getting my thoughts out about religion, I figured I'd play with another hot-button topic: Guns.

I'll say right off the bat that I believe in and support the individual's right own firearms. I hope to explain why in a manner that might be helpful to those who want to ban guns in the U.S., so they begin to understand why banning guns would be very bad.

First, an irrefutable point: There are lots of guns in the world, and lots of guns already in the United States. They exist.

Now we already have lots of gun control laws in the country, and if you do any kind of searching on Google for stats on guns brought into the country illegally... you might find yourself wondering what the hell our government is doing. I'm guessing they're doing the best they can. The fact is, the government has been trying to stop illegal trafficking of firearms for a long time. Many years. Decades even.

So let's look at a hypothetical situation. Let's say that the government passes the horrendously stupid law that says United States citizens are no longer allowed to own firearms of any kind. Now let's put aside the idea of an armed rebellion. Let's assume all the law-abiding citizens of the country agreed, and turned in all their guns. Happiness and Peace ensues right? Hell no. Think back to the part about how the government already can't keep guns out of the country, and how it already can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. A law that stops citizens from owning guns is a law that condemns those citizens to a fate chosen by criminals.

Now do some research on the percentage of firearms used in violent crime which are obtained illegally. Even if the government managed to ban guns for its law abiding citizens, it wouldn't put any kind of real damper on the violent crime rate with guns. In fact, in other places in the world where stricker gun control laws have been passed (you can find this with Google searches too) crime rates have increased. Criminals have a good reason to believe that their victims will be unarmed... there's less risk for the criminals. So it makes sense even if there weren't real world example (Australia has had problems with this).

One last thing along this line of thinking. If I'm at home, and I hear someone break in (smash a window, bust the door in, pick the lock, whatever), I already know a few things about this person. First, I know it's not law enforcement officials because they announce themselves. They have to. Second, there's a good chance the person is a significant danger to me. I know that because any smart criminal is going to do a little research on their target first. If they are breaking into a house, they could easily avoid me by breaking in while I'm at work. So if they chose to break in while I'm there, it's because they want something with me. Maybe just to kill me. And if they're a stupid criminal, and broke in thining I wasn't home, I suppose they might just run away, but they might also panic and try to hurt me. In any case... if someone is breaking in while I'm home... they are a danger to me.

So assuming I notice early, and have twenty seconds or so to think, i can chose one of three options. First and probably safest is to exit through another door or window and run away and call the police from there. Depending on the bad guy, you might lose a few things, but not your life. Or if they're determined to kill you, very likely running away won't get you anything, because they'll try again. Second option is to call the police immediately and hide somewhere in the house. This option is the stupidest, but those unable to handle the third option (coming up), and who got cornered somehow might not have any other choice. Unfortunately, this means waiting for three to fifteen minutes while police try to get to you. Any person with a frying pan can kill you in less than three minutes and still get away before the police get there. Hiding is a bad idea. The third option is to fight back. And if you are one of those responsible American citizens that took shooting and gun safety courses, and you own a gun... you might have time to get that gun and shoot the guy who's breaking into your house. It's within your legal rights to do so... and i would argue that it's within your moral rights as well, though that's a whole other blog.

Now that we have that defined, it boggles my mind that so many people in this country seem to want the government to take guns away from us. Do these people think the government is capable of protecting us? I'm 100% confident that it is not possible for the government to protect us. I'm quite sure that if someone broke into my house, it would be up to me to do something about it. And I hope I have the presence of mind if it ever does happen to get my gun, find a defensible position that the intruder is less likely to notice right off, and then after I get a look at the person to make sure I'm not shooting someone I shouldn't, pull the trigger... maybe a couple times for good measure, and then call the police.

Now of course, most people will never have to deal with this. But some might, and I refuse to deprive those people of an extremely effective means of self defense. I will not support any laws that takes more rights away from citizens with respect to guns.

Okay, we all understand now (I hope) that gun control laws simply aren't capable of accomplishing what some gun control law supporters believe they will. They can't protect us from guns. But I've misspoken. And this leads me to why gun control laws are not the answer. Guns are not capable being a threat to anyone. They are inanimate objects. Guns are handled by people. Laws can not stop a person from feeling. If a person wants to kill another... there hundreds of ways other than through the use of a gun to do so. Poison, explosive, frying pan, knife, baseball bat, golf club, cricket bat, fire wood, broom handle, pillow, bare hands, rock, car, tire iron, a little push from a tall precipice...

The real problem isn't guns. It's people. So if we want to do something about making our lives freer and safer... it won't be accomplished by taking our rights away from each other.

---

The only argument that people bring up that I'm anywhere near hesitant about it deaths of children by firearm. That concept right there is awful, and I obviously hope that children will stop dying long before their times. But I do have some responses to this.

First... more children die each year in swimming pool related accidents than gun related accidents and events. Look it up on Google (I love how readily available information is). Look up drunk driving accidents while you're at it. The numbers I'm asking you to find are not meant to say that children dying in gun related incidents is okay. It's meant to give you perspective. Guns aren't bad by themselves... just like swimming pools.

Next, go back to my previous statements about how guns are inanimate objects. They have no ability to make decisions. Therefore it is impossible to assign any kind of blame on them. Look to the people wielding them. Some people use guns with malicious intent. Some use them to protect when there's no other choice. What we need to hope for is that citizens of the United States will take some responsibility for their own actions and for their own safety. My father owns guns. He taught me what they were and to avoid them when I was young. I listened because my father was scary, and the prospect of killing or dying was horrendous to me. My parents raised me correctly. When I was ten or so, my father started teaching me how to use guns. We went to a shooting range and practiced for a long time. I already knew what they could do. After all the practice, I knew how to handle guns to avoid bad results and to gain safety. My parents raised me correctly. If I had ever stepped out of line even a little... I would have been smacked down so hard and fast that I would have had to learn from it. You dont treat guns lightly. They are not toys. What I'm getting at is that when children die from a gun shot wound... it was irresponsible actions of parents and guardians long before that time that lead to it. If it's even possible for a kid to get a gun from his parents to bring to school... those parents screwed up big time. If kids just scream and die in the face of such a thing... their parents screwed up in not teaching them what to do in emergencies like that.

Yes... it would be ideal to have a world where there are no bad people willing to kill for hatred, anger, greed, or entertainment. But we don't live in that world. And laws can't change that. People will continue to die around the world for stupid things. Please don't hold the false belief that taking my gun away from me will somehow make you and your kids safer. Please stop being afraid and if you're up to it... go take a shooting class. See if you can learn something. See if maybe you can be one of those responsible citizens who will stand up and protect themselves and their families.

Guns are not evil. They are inanimate.

Several Aspects of Religion

So sticking with the theme of writing about things I think about a lot, I might as well write a post about religion. I'll just say right up front, that I'm agnostic. And this post is likely to include a lot of stuff the a highly religious person might find bothersome. Just a fair warning.

I've noticed in various discussions I've had with people about religion, that religion can mean lots of different things to different people. Seems obvious, but what do you think about when someone says that word? Do you think about "God", or a belief in something of all power? Do you think about church and the organization? Do you think about the philosphical tenets? The moral lessons? Do you actively think about many aspects of what religion can refer to?

I've taken to thinking about religion in three somewhat vague ways. I consider the individual's beliefs, the community's form, and the religious corporation it would be associated with. That last one is my way of referring to big religious organizations like those associated with the Vatican. Oh... damn... and I guess I have to add a fourth category... televangelism.

The Individual
This is really the most important aspect of religion. What does a given individual believe? Does that individual believe in Heaven and Hell? Enlightenment? Reincarnation? The Greek Pantheon? Redemption? God and the Devil? In this case... religion is simply "what the person believes" to me. This is where my agnosticism really comes out. Every time I talk to someone who says they believe there is a God, I wonder why. What thing in life made them begin to believe? What confirmed it for them? And the truth is that there is no proof for the existence of God (I'm using God now as a focus and example of any belief in some power so great that it has some bearing on the universe's existence).

Can you prove to me that God exists? Can you prove to me that God does not exist? What I'm left with is the knowledge that God is unprovable. But for some reason billions of people around the world believe whole-heartedly that there is something there based solely on the word of other people... and perhaps a desire to believe.

This takes us to faith. It comes up in almost every religion discussion I'm part of. I'm told it's not about proof. Some might argue that faith and happiness as a result is preferable to skepticism and misery. People that have faith can get emotional support in life from their faith. They can find happiness in "knowing" they will go to Heaven when they die. They can believe that all the bad events of their lives have a reason and that God has a plan for them. It can bring a sense of comfort and belonging. And all of that is true. It can do wonderful things for a person. But the thing that confuses the hell out of me is that people are capable of genuinely believing... as if God were the truth (like those stupid car decals)... as if God were a fact. But I already know... as should everyone of rational mind... that God is unprovable. How can these religious people believe in something without proof? Just because it's comforting they're unwilling to consider that their beliefs have no support except what some guy at a podium told them or what's written in a book... that again... was written by a human?

Why is one religion right and another one is false? Just because billions of people have believed it for a couple thousand years? Because one makes more sense to you than another? How do we know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't the true creator of all things? Please... read the wikipedia article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster. How is it any less valid than Christianity? Buddism? Taoism? Judaism? Sure, you can say it's silly, but how can you prove it isn't true? All faith in a God or power gets you is a false sense of comfort. And I refuse to comfort myself with something unprovable.

This stance of mine makes it hard for me to interact with other people sometimes. But fortunately I have managed to save my ponderings for the internet of late, and I avoid the topic when I can with friends. I have several highly intelligent friends who are also highly religious... and it confuses the heck out of me. Maybe a random person from the internet can shed some light on it.

Religious Community
The next aspect I wanted to look at (man this is getting long, and I'm probably already skipping thoughts in my attempt at getting through it all) is the community of religious people. By this I mean the group of people who belong to a church or equivalent group locally... people that get together and hold picnics, fundraisers, do charity work, and so on. This is the one aspect of religion that I really like a lot. Sure... these things brainwash the kids that get dragged in to the sermons into the same unprovable belief system, but while I hate that unprovable assertions are made, I can't deny some of the beneficial effects. Morals can be taught this way. And so I bite my tongue a bit. The really good part of this though is the fact that it becomes a community. People getting together with commonality, sharing their burdens, helping each other, meeting each other, and developing a sense of belonging to a healthy community. These small churches that can accomplish that... I like them... even though I'm not fond of the belief system.

With that said, I've considered joining a church just for the social aspect. That might be insulting to people who actually believe what the church is teaching, but I'm trying to convey how much I admire the community aspect of the church. But... as I mentioned before... I can't believe in something just because it might be comforting or afford me a bond with people I didn't know before. I can't choose to believe in something so obviously unprovable. So I'm stuck with a chasm between me and religious people. Unfortunately for me, I don't enjoy watching professional sports either, so I'm right out of luck on what to talk about in social situations.

The Overgrown Religious Institutions...
The Vatican is horrifying to me. Any religious institution that can affect people on that scale scares the hell out of me (yes... I keep using the word "hell" on purpose). When they try to insinuate themselves into government decisions, I begin to believe that society is headed for a huge collapse. This is the level of religion that I hate. I don't understand individual belief. I admire community bonds. I hate when people try to use religion to justify legal actions. The church saying that gay marriage is wrong and therefore should be illegal... that's a load of crap. Sure... a gay couple couldn't get the religious ceremony in a church that doesn't agree with gay marriage, but who cares about that? Marriage at this point is a legal definition that any two people should have the right to. There are tax benefits and so forth that makes it so we can't use gender to discriminate here. Anyway... that's just an example of where big religious institutions try to throw their weight around.

Let's not forget how many wars have been fought over big religion. It is my conclusion that big religious institutions are detrimental to society. I am open though to the possibility of examples that don't fall into this category. But no one can deny the negative effects of so many religious institutions... no can deny the wars, the persecution, and the divisive influence it can have on that scale.

Televangelism... ugh...
My thoughts on this are best described as disgust and pity. Those guys that get up on stage and preach to the world on television are some of the most evil people I've ever been exposed to. Maybe some of them actually believe the crap they're spewing, and yes... their devoted followers may receive that comfort benefit I mentioned earlier... but really... the televangelist is asking for money. Send them money for redemption. Have you ever watched one of these shows? It's sick. In a financial way you kind of have to admire them. They're milking gullible people who are desperate for comfort. In every other way, they're deplorable.

Then comes the followers. Them I feel pity for. I'm not sure I have to describe that further. How do you go from rational human being to a sheep that depends on a televangelist for emotional life support?

Wrap Up
Perhaps this was too big a topic for me to squish into a blog post. I guess what I was hoping to convey was a rational look at why religion should go away. And I always hope that someone who is suffering with the unprovable beliefs of a religion might wake up and realize that there's a really strong probability that their religion is wrong. And now this post is devolving into me ranting. Unfortunately for those of strong religious belief... they still can't prove their religion is right.

Introspection

There are some things over the course of my day that make me really mad. Really... the only thing that happens on a daily basis is that I get mad at other drivers. And I'm pretty sure that the "points" I have against them are valid, but the real problem is something else. I'll go over my pet peeves on other drivers first to give you an idea of what's making me mad, and then see if I can come to a useful conclusion...

My first pet peeve is drivers who don't know how to use their turn signals correctly or who don't bother to use them. They serve a purpose in traffic. They alert other drivers that you are intending on doing something other than follow the current pattern. An example is when you change lanes (cross the dotted line). If a driver doesn't use the turn signal, I should be safe in driving as though that person is going to continue following their course. Not using a turn signal at the right time can easily mean accidents. And yet on a daily basis, I see people use turn signals in "turning only" lanes, or lanes where the road is curving away from the other lane... even though it's the expected behavior to continue to follow the lane. Then I see people cross the dotted white line without turn signals, or actually turn out of the main path onto a side road without a turn signal. This is the most minor of my pet peeves about driving.

Next in severity is loitering in the left lane on the highway. The left lane is called the passing lane. The right lane is called the travel lane. When you are just driving on the highway, you're supposed to be in the right lane. If you catch up to someone and want to drive faster than them, you use your turn signal to switch lanes, move to the left lane, pass the car, and use your turn signal to get back into the right lane as soon as you're done passing. It's actually a pretty neat algorithm. Now I understand that in times of heavy traffic this becomes harder and I often give up and stay in the left lane just in hopes of going faster... but it has to be pretty heavy traffic. But there's no excuse for those people who just sit in the left lane not passing anyone during normal or light traffic. Sometimes, they end up keeping pace with a car in the right lane... and then don't seem to care that a huge line of cars is building up behind them. I hate those people. They should be fined until they smarten up and drive correctly. This probably causes me the biggest aggravation on the road... being stuck behind someone who seems oblivious to the world around them or the people they are inconveniencing.

My final big pet peeve with other drivers is the most dangerous one: Merging. How is it that people can pass driver's education classes, pass the practical exam, and then not know how to merge. A quick explanation: Match speed with the traffic you intend on merging with, then move into the traffic. It's pretty simple. So why is it that so many people come to a stop at the end of the on ramp to a highway? What do they think the on ramp is for? I'll tell you. It's for matching speed with the highway traffic. The only time you should be coming to a stop on the on ramp is if the highway traffic is also stopped. And these people are going to get someone killed. It's so much harder to merge with highway traffic from a stop. And everyone behind them who was forced to stop also are now in danger. This one pisses me off the most. These people should lose their licenses.

Now with all of that said, I end up coming to work in a bad mood, and I end up going home from work in a bad mood. It's like a twice daily dose of medicine to keep me agitated. But here's the introspective part. Why am I really getting mad about this? I'm looking at other people who I have no real influence on, and I'm getting mad at them. They are influencing me because I make it happen. I shouldn't be getting mad at these people. I've been driving for nearly 16 years, and have only gotten into two accidents with other drivers involved... and they were both my fault. Granted, the conditions of the accidents were fairly extreme (like ice on the road that I under estimated), but they were still my fault. And while it bothers me that people don't use their turn signals correctly, it hasn't caused an accident that I've seen. And while people being inconsiderate in the left lane on the highway is also bothersome, I'm still going to get where I'm going with only a few minutes difference in arrival time at most. I just need to change my expectations and not be so impatient. And while people stopping to merge is stupid and dangerous, I haven't been in an accident because of it yet, and getting mad about it isn't going to teach the bad driver anything.

So the problem is me.

I'm getting mad for no good reason. I sit here as I type this and wonder if I can apply this knowledge to my life. I wonder if I can help myself be less angry with a seemingly simple understanding that getting angry won't benefit anyone. It won't help me deal with anything. It won't help my headaches go away. It won't help my work. It won't help me relax at home when the work day is done. I understand that anger is an emotion that can be very important in some situations, but I also understand it will never help me make good decisions too. If I can change myself... I think I'll be a happier person.

An end of the week beginning

I've never really thought I had enough to write about that other people might be interested in reading. I've written quite a bit in my time, but I've only shared bits and pieces. But even when I wrote in a journal or in an odd file on my computer, I realize that the audience of the writing is not me. It's whomever happens to read it. I seem to write as though I expect someone to dust off an old journal decades down the road and read something that evokes something important in their thoughts. I think most people probably feel like they have something important to say, and most people would feel happy to know that someone is listening. And I think the internet is a pretty big example of that. We all have a voice here, and lots of potential listeners.

So I guess I'm hoping that I do have enough to say that people might find it interesting and maybe even helpful. Hopefully if you're reading this there's already a substantive post up about something that you can read. This is just a greeting. So hello, and welcome to my blog.