Something people should know about me, my thoughts, the way I approach discussions, etc. -There is little that I am a die-hard proponent of. Science may be the only thing. So when I put forth ideas such as the one on my previous post, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate. I find it more fun and interesting to do so. It's Socratic; the process of inquiry and rebuttal or confirmation or embellishment is enjoyable in of itself.

I've realized that people come to believe that I fully endorse whichever side of an argument I'm supporting. The reality is that I don't really support anything, I mostly just don't support many things. This angle corroborates my general life strategy, namely, "I'm all about the experience." I'd rather support fallacious arguments for a while and perhaps gain some understanding as to why they exist than be right all the time. Hopefully, by slowly, and personally, discrediting most claims on truthhood I'll arrive at at least a semi-close version of it, and have stories/experiences/insights to show as well. It's as if I was canoeing down a river, and the rest of the canoes arrived at the destination rock at some point in the river. I would arrive long after the latest canoe, and would explain that I had had to examine every rock outcrop, marsh, bank, or spring. I'd rather know the river through and through and be last; I feel like it would render the finishing rock that much more appealing.

During my dreams last night I heard "Cafe Mocha" repeatedly, and in one of my dreams I was making a cafe mocha and I was mixing whole avocados in. I don't think I'm going to try that one. It reminds me of a hilarious dream I once had though, in South Padre Island. I was intoxicated during the dream, in fact, and I dreamt that I was doing a beer bong of water, and there were advil pills floating around the top.

Ok, let's discuss a principle that I have spoken with some of my friends about. That which is popular is good, or that which is approved by the majority is good.

Usually the context of this idea is somewhat jocular and not taken in a serious light. But I actually think there is some merit to it. I usually jokingly say something like "Britney Spears must be good because she is so popular." Now this seems silly but what about this one - "Coffee is good because most people like coffee." I think this statement seems more intuitively or logically appealing as agreeable. Personally, I don't like or drink coffee because of the same reason my brain reacts to ritalin (meth) differently than most people. Caffeine usually, unless in copious amounts, in which it has the normal effect, gives me a headache and is rather undesirable. Does that make coffee bad? Just because I'm nuerologically off doesn't mean that I should conclude that coffee is bad. Perhaps there is something appealing in Britney that many people don't appreciate.

The basic principle is that the things that the majority of a given number of people agree upon as good are in fact good. It seems logical yet many people don't accept this. But why do we say that killing is wrong? Suicide bombers will maintain that their actions are noble yet most people will say there are terrible. Therefore, killing innocent people and one's self is bad, but only because most people agree that it is. The suicide bomber won't agree with you that it is a horrible act. He/she thinks that it's the best thing he/she could do. Is this that much different than, say, maintaining that your favorite band, some obscure group that most people have never heard of, nay, that the type of music they even play is unknown to most people, is good?

Of course an acceptance of this principle will yield such happy conclusions as - gladiatorial contests are good because most Romans approved. It only follows that in the Roman environment they were good. Thus the nature of goodness, along with everything else, changes over time. There is no ultimate good as there is no ultimate evil.

First of all, Shiner Bock is great.

Second of all, the total lunar eclipse is in full swing right now and it's sweet.

Third of all, Davidson is now 18-0 in conference, which is pretty ridic, and emphasizes the weird position that Davidson basketball finds itself in. Bob McKillop, best-looking coach accolades notwithstanding, must be flustered by the seemingly ease with which he pulls off conference victories in spite of his utter lack of ability to pull of upsets against the likes of UNC, Duke, UCLA, and other top 25ers. He just rattled off the 27th straight conference victory, yet he is something like 0-20 vs top 25 teams. Frustrating. Most of those losses have been incredibly close games as well, many times with Davidson leading in the second half.

I did today my first fartlek of the training for Boston session, and it was nothing short of a bitch. Until next time, tata.

I'd like to follow up on my last post because I think this is really important. A friend brought to my attention the insightful point that the concept of evil exists, and has a practical utility both in essentially deterring people from acting maliciously and preventing horrendous acts. This I readily accept. However, I believe this to in no way undermine determinism nor do I acknowledge that it allows for anything that can be considered 'evil' to exist in any ultimate sense. For example, surely we have less acts of malice because of the rise of civilization and law than we would have had otherwise, but that does not mean that when these comparatively fewer acts of malice do occur they can now be considered 'evil.'

How in the hell did I not take a philosophy class in college? Not a single damn one! A sin of epic proportions. I guess I got a decent dose of it in my history classes. I'm trying to decide whether I should get a book on modal logic; it looks like spicy stuff.

On NPR the other day I heard that John McCain has been flying coach and carrying his own bags to his destinations. Maybe that's common in campaigning but I think that's pretty bad-ass. He must do it to get in touch with the "average" American. Hehe. Whatever.

Saw "There Will Be Blood" the other night. Was less of a movie and more of an excuse to cast Daniel Day-Lewis in something he would accept. Perfect.

Gracious. I haven't posted in almost a week. I've been busy with starting my job and all other sorts of shenanigans...I'll just stop. That's an excuse. And this is simply unredeemable.

So there is no such thing as 'evil.' There is only ignorance and misunderstanding. People don't murder because they are 'evil' or 'bad people.' They just don't understand the implications of their actions. An inability to understand life for what it is and act accordingly is the sole culpable aspect of people's decisions. Furthermore, some categorically horrendous acts of mankind or of certain individuals are largely not her or his fault (fun activity: locate the uber PC construction of that sentence, then give yourself a pat on the back). Rather they are due to an accumulation of past formative events that shape a person and his or her decisions, which are themselves largely due to "chance"(I find that word's usage ambiguous and somewhat controversial and only use it for simplicity's sake).

Basically I believe that no one is at fault for their 'poor' decisions, or for their 'good' ones, for that matter. When a child puts his or her hand on somthing hot, recoils, and bursts out crying from the pain, the parent usually says something to the effect of "it's ok baby...you didn't know." Life is just a hot surface of escalating complexity, at the end of which (it would be nice, anyway) a god would say "it's ok man...you didn't know."

Why do we think so statically? Why do we think we know everything? We laugh at what people thought about life a thousand years ago. Do we really presume that Earthlings of a thousand years ahead won't laugh at us as well? And what evidence is there that we are even getting closer to any kind of ultimate Truth anyway? Science surely demonstrates that matter obeys certain principles here in our reality. But what is there to illustrate that our reality has any meaningful bent on ultimate Truth?

We think this way because it is comforting. It is comforting to believe that one can assign meaning to life and believe it to be true. The pattern of history, however, shows that this action has been largely futile, again only assuming that our reality has some bent on Truth. Why questions are diminishing as How explanations rise. Will we reach the point where there will be no Why questions left? only How explanations? Or will conscious species first be selected against because the advantages of consciousness will become slight compared to the increasing ability to apprehend life as meaningless?

Existentialism posits a solution - assign your own meaning. Is that not a medication? Here take this dose of self-proscribed meaning for your life is meaningless attacks.

Are we conceding that life is a disease?

I demand a better and universal belief system.

August.....













2008.....














In a land far away.....












Where eating this is in every way normal.....





Where there is no toleration of treason....

And these are frowned upon completely.....

Through the heavy smog of the city.....

Through sounds of unintelligible nonsense.....

Emerges a man.....













From a group forgotten....









Who thinks he has what it takes....





















To make history.










Now switch to British/Australian/New Zealand/South African blend (Eastern European works as well)

The 2008 Olympic marathon will be a race for the ages. Haile Gebrselassie will attempt to cap perhaps the finest distance running career of all time with a final gold medal. The 35 year old Ethiopian is the favorite, having run the two fastest marathons ever in the past six months, a daunting addition to credentials that include 25 other world records. Paul Tergat, former world record holder, and every other male Kenyan from twenty to forty will be in the race as well. Each and every one of them has a legitimate shot of standing atop the podium in Beijing.

This race, however, will carry some wild cards. The August heat is expected to play a decisive factor, as well as the pollution problem that the Chinese government has been trying to rectify ever since they were named host-to-be (which will affect those runners who are allergic, most notably Gebrselassie).

But from a group forgotten emerges forth a 25 year old golden boy from the fairy tale land of California. Since the 1970s, American distance runners no longer compete for world elite status. Ryan Hall, a man so inexperienced and naïve of his own talent, who, in the hilly portion of the Trials, drops a 4:32 18th mile, eases up a bit, and then pushes a 4:34 20th, and afterwards says something so innocent as “I wasn’t trying to make that decisive of a move,” disagrees. Can he restore respect to the once heralded body of American distance running? The sheer anticipation will perhaps be unbearable for some.

You know who rules? Dinosaurs do. Like, they're the ultimate crowd pleaser. Everybody loves dinosaurs. I mean, take T-rex. He's pretty much the most bad-ass one. Does it not strike you as odd that T-rex appeals to EVERYbody...male, female, old, and young alike.
Two guys could be arguing over something silly and trivial, like politics. One will be like,
"You know Obama man, he's the best." And the other guy will be like,
"No, dude, Mike Huckabee was a governor man...of a state, Arkansas. He's the best."
And on and on for hours. But you could interject at any moment and be like, "Yo guys...who's really the most badass motherfucker around?" And the first guy would be like,
"Dude...T-rex man."
And the other guy would be like, "Tyranosaurus, fuckin Sharp Tooth...what are you trying to pull?"
Or were you ever like, "Man...have you ever thought about how big T-rex's thigh muscles are? They're fuckin huge as shit." And the dude you were talking to was like, "I don't know man, they're not that big. I think T-rex is over-rated."

No, you were never in a conversation like that. Because everybody fuckin LOVES T-rex.
But he's completely unaware that he's a star. All he knows is that he's starving. You could go up and talk to him and be like "T-rex, man get out of this place. They freakin love you back home, they LOVE you man! You'd sell out years ahead, dude, years. Stop slouching we don't buy that shit anymore. Get that tail off the ground. It's for balance man, BALANCE...you're a fuckin predator!"

Of course you'd really have to shout this from the entrance to a man-sized cave...far away, with a megaphone.

It's too bad that T-rex never understood that he would become a legend. Legends never die.

Listen I can't reconcile...writing a post...about my awesomeness with how awesome I am. But I can't reconcile how awesome I am with not writing a post about my awesomeness.

Inspiration: Alexander Hamilton, Michael Cera, Alea Skwara, and Dances with Wolves.

p.s. It's ok Tom, you're still banging a Brazilian supermodel.

I have spent the last couple weeks grappling with the now inescapable realization that the last 5 or so years of my life have amounted to a slow but steady process of becoming a bloody liberal. I say a bloody liberal, cuz that's what one is - essentially an evil person that sets out to destroy all that is sacred and virtuous and timeless. My reason tells me that this change is fortuitous, for I analyze what I have come to know and accordingly decide that which is good. However, my subconscious knows that liberals are bad and anything associated with liberalism is wrong, lost, and contaminated. As these two components of my brain vye with each other I am left to sort through the aftermath.

Why are liberals evil people? Because they want the government to solve people's problems. What is wrong with you? (sheeeeeesh) that you can't solve your own problems? You don't have enough money? Why, for heaven's sake, go get yourself employment. You don't have an education? You should have studied harder in grade school! (Here is one I'll never forget) "The way I see it, there are two possible ways for a person's healthcare to be paid for, (hold up two fingers) 1) the patient pays for their bill (put down one finger) and 2) the patient says I don't have enough money, so the government should pay for it (put down remaining finger). But now, how can the government pay for someone's healthcare? The government can provide money in one of two ways, (hold up two fingers) 1) raising taxes (put down one finger) and 2) printing more money (put down remaining finger). Both of these methods affect all other citizens of the United States of America and are embodied in the statement "YOU pay for it, YOU pay for my healthcare random citizen, through your direct contribution from taxes or with the devaluation of your dollar through inflation.

Now, my grandparents certainly qualify as wise individuals - there isn't a shred of doubt. They exemplify those who have taken their cast lot and produced bountifully; their steadfastness is second to none. Nevertheless they are victims of a narrow-mindedness that perhaps shouldn't be surprising given their growing up in rural Missouri during the depression. While others suffered, they did not, and they succeeded by assigning the utmost value to self-subsistence: farm, family, and independence.

People who fail become liberals so that other people will solve their problems. My subconcious knows that truth all too well, my formative years shaped it so. Of course only ignorance would allow someone to believe that we are all cast the same lot, and lead to the dogmatism characteristic of my former guardians. I'm not endorsing all of liberalism's tenets, but I acknowledge this foundation and its superiority over that of conservatism. Conservatism has its roots in stressing the equality of cast lots (that or a tacit agreement with the world that some people are just going to suck at life, which is indeed true, but actively supporting that notion is certainly dispassionate), which I believe ultimately derive from two sources 1) religion, which maintains that life is subsidiary and everyone is in perfect position to do the only thing required of them - to love god and accept that he loves you (like every aspect of religion questionable at best) and 2) ignorance. I'll likely broaden on these themes later, for now let me recommend an improvement for the future: population control.

Changing the scale of human numbers won't solve existing fundamental problems that have been with us since the dawn of civilization, but sizing down will produce many benefits (such as deflation of resources, i.e. elimination of famine, etc.) and certainly have less of an impact on the planet and other species, which, if you'll remember, are cast here on Earth as well. Future species or extra-terrestrials may look favorably upon the change, so unpredictable of that devouring world parasite that was H. Sapiens.