The Intersection of Truth and Unreality

So, it's hard to be a modern netizen without running across a conspiracy theory or two. These range from the obviously plausible (websites devoted to JFK assassination theories) to the unlikely (the Bush administration was behind 9/11) to the downright absurd (reptilian aliens are infiltrating world gov'ts). Most recently, the conspiracy theorists are having a good time talking about the incident in Newtown, CT.

As conspiracy theories go, it's less plausible than the ATF instigating the Waco Siege, but more plausible than the Gov't doing 9/11. But that's not really what this post is about. There's something a lot more important to discuss, and it's not the real identity of Emilie Parker, or whatever the hell that girl's name is.

What always occurs to me whenever I read about someone's pet theory is "If I believe this is real, what changes for me?"

It's a hell of a question. It doesn't sound that hard to answer, until we start getting down to the specifics. If Sandy Hook was planned by the gov't, then our gov't is evil on a level we've never experience in the US, and it's probably time to put some folks up against a wall. But that's not at all what this post is about, so we're going to substitute a "Stolen Television" analogy here. Just to avoid confusion.

If my television gets stolen, then to act as if it is still there would be an act of madness. My XBOX won't play movies anymore, to act otherwise would be to choose unreality over reality. Madness, there's really no better word for it. To know the truth, but to live according to that which is known to be a lie, is to choose to live in an unreal world. It's self-chosen insanity.

The Truth simply is what it is. It's not something people should ever avoid, nor should people ever ignore it. If my television gets stolen, then it would be an act of madness to choose to believe that it's still there. The reality or unreality of my television being stolen isn't innately good or bad, it simply is. Obviously, I'd have to get a new television, but reality wouldn't change.

Back to conspiracy theories. If I come across a conspiracy theory, and it's just not believable (I'm not saying it was aliens....but it was aliens), then nothing is required of me. I can go back to bed, and wake up for work tomorrow. Unreality requires nothing of a conscious mind, and to change in reaction to unreality (my television was not stolen, I need to buy a new one) is to choose insanity.

One of the most central axioms in my life is that things simply are what they are. The Truth is True, what's Real is Real, and it is what it is. I rarely like reality (Tax day is coming up, I didn't have paycheck withholding last year...ouch), but that doesn't mean that I can swap in whatever insanity strikes my fancy that day. If I believe something is real, then I'd have to be a crazy person to act like it isn't.

I'm sitting on a very real recliner, in a very real state (really bad state, but hey, it's Oklahoma), typing on a very real computer. Tomorrow, I'll go to a very real job by driving a real car down real roads, dodging other real cars. Life, literally, depends on my interaction with reality.

If I choose to disregard reality, like assuming that the semi-trailer on the freeway isn't real and trying to merge in front of it, I'll end up dead, or in the hospital. A better place would be a padded cell, which is the only good place for people who refuse to deal with reality.

I'm not saying that we should all rise up against our gov't. I'm not saying Sandy Hook was a conspiracy. What I am saying is that if things are true, then we should act on them, and if things aren't we shouldn't. I'm not just talking about big things, or grandiose fights against corruption (Let me know how marching on the Capital goes, okay?). It's the little things, too.

If it's true that it's good to hold doors open for old ladies, then hold the damn door open for old ladies. If it's true that it's good to get some exercise every day, then do your age in jumping jacks tomorrow morning (or pushups, whatever you fancy). Don't just acknowledge that something is true, then live as if it isn't. If you do that, you're choosing to betray yourself, you're choosing madness, you're choosing lies over truth, unreality over reality.

If you're a religious person, like I am, then you bloody well better commit to that, too. If you really believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God, don't even try to hide from Him. Don't try lying, don't try dodging. Commit to what you believe is real, don't choose what you believe is false.

Maybe, after a while, you'll change your opinions about what's true and what isn't, and that's fine, too. People who stay in reality rarely find that they've got everything sorted, and as long as they stick with what's real and true, then there's nothing wrong with seeing shades of gray between black and white. It's called nuance, it's actually a beautiful thing.

Dealing with reality is hard-ass work. Maybe that's why folks seem so quick to turn towards anything that will take away the burden. The reality that the only way to succeed is to work hard is daunting, so it's easier to turn towards someone who promises easy success. The reality that you can't save money by spending more is unpleasant (to say the least), so we're quick to look for ways to make more income instead of spending less.

There's a natural tendency to want to avoid reality whenever possible. Life is hard, there's no two ways about it.

But it's real. Even in a world of murderous gov'ts, greedy corporations, retarded politicians, and idiotic drivers, the real thing is a hell of a lot better than the alternative. Let's deal with the real world as it is, in the exact manner it deserves, and give no thought to the unreality that tempts us.

Personally, I really hope that in the end, Sandy Hook was really just the actions of Adam Lanza. I really hope that in Waco, the Branch Davidians shot first, and that in New York, it was really just 19 hijackers who wanted to strike back against the Great Satan, or whatever they call us. That would be nice, easy, and wouldn't require much of us.

If it's all bullshit, then I guess we're in for a rough couple of years.

Either way, I'll take the real world, and I'll see where reality takes me. Maybe it'll ask me to go places I wouldn't otherwise go, and to change my path through life. Maybe it won't, maybe reality won't bother my hopes and dreams to much. No matter what,it's better than choosing unreality, lies, and madness.

Without Jesus, I'm Fucked

Do you figure He'll damn me for saying that?

I've never been to a church where the church-going folks didn't use a hilarious list of childish euphemisms for every bad word. I mean, I know that at some point, certain words in the English language were defined as "good", and "good" words are appropriate for a certain class of society, and certain other words are "bad", and "bad" words are never appropriate for that class. Church-going folk like to think they're high class, so we're taught not to use the "bad" words.

I believe, contrary to our postmodern culture, that words have specific meanings. A word has a list of meanings, these can be found in a dictionary. These meanings are well-defined, but do not in and of themselves carry a moral value. We string words together into sentences, these sentences combine the meanings of the individual words to form a statement. This statement contains the message of the speaker, and that message may contain a moral value.

So, for example, if I tell someone to "fuck off", it's not that the word "fuck" is bad, nor that the sentence "Fuck off." is inherently evil, but that my desire for them to "fuck off" is. Angrily telling them to jump off a cliff or into a lake would have very similar meaning, but to the high society folks, wouldn't carry the "bad" moral value attached to the word "fuck."

Now, back in a Bible college I got thrown out of, I heard a lot of kids talk about things that were "frikkin' cool!" or "jacked up", and sometimes I heard them say something was "bullcrap." I even once heard a kid say, in shock, to "Shut the front door" in response to whatever he'd heard.

I've read the Bible, I don't remember it saying that God doesn't see right through euphemisms. In fact, I remember it saying that God not only knows what's in our hearts, He judges us based on them.

At what point do we think avoiding the Seven Words We Can't Say On TV will trick God?

Back to the title of this post, it's how I talk sometimes. Without Jesus, I'm fucked. My life has been, and may yet be, a world of shit, and the only thing that gets me through is my faith in the Almighty God. Who, by the way, knows exactly what I'm thinking, at all times.

He knows what I really mean to say when I drop coy little euphemisms. I know what I really wanted to say, I ain't even close to fooling Him.

Now, amusingly, I don't cuss nearly as much as I used to. I've calmed down, and with that calm comes fewer situations where I use anything close to "bad" words. It's not that I mind them, it's just that I don't feel that the sentence I'm about to speak requires a word like that as often.

When I talk to people, I try, to the best of my ability, to give them the absolute, unvarnished, no-frills truth. If you ask me for my opinion on something, you'll get it. I'm sure that I could develop the ability to lie my way through life and give everything a nice sheen of euphemisms, but I'm not in the business of making people feel good, I'm in the business of speaking the truth.

The truth doesn't often make anyone feel warm and fuzzy, but it's not meant to. The truth is what we measure ourselves against, to see if we're full of shit or not. If we are, it becomes obvious once actual Truth shows up.

Funny thing is, the more practice I have with simply speaking the truth, the harder it is to get confused about what I'm supposed to say in a certain situation. There's no concerns about who'll get offended, or whether or not it's appropriate, it's the truth, and it'sa ALWAYS appropriate to speak the Truth. 

The truth is that without Jesus, I'm fucked.

I think He understands what I mean.

An Ode to a Broken Nose

I had my nose broken in a mosh pit on Saturday. It's Monday night now, and it's still sore, so naturally, I've been thinking about it a fair amount. It's an interesting topic to think about, what a broken nose means, and I figured it's worth writing about.

First off, I discovered something about myself that I'm very proud of: I got headbutted in the nose by a guy in a mosh pit, and didn't get angry at him, or the accident itself. Considering my legendary temper, I'm very pleased that I appear to have grown up, and in no small measure. That's new.

Second, I don't intend to get it "fixed" unless it causes actual health problems. I mean, it's my nose. It's basically there to hold my sunglasses up and allow me to smell stuff. Half of what it smells for me, I don't like, but at least it's functional. As long as it's functional, I don't really care what shape it is.

I mean, I could worry that my nose being misshapen would have an effect on my good looks, but I don't consider myself particularly good-looking anyways. Perhaps I am, but the important thing is that nothing in my life depends on my good looks. I'm an aircraft mechanic, a good one for how long I've been at it, and my nose has nothing to do with it. Half the time, it's giving me info on what MEK and acetone smell like, and I'm not a fan.

I could go to a doctor to get it fixed, I suppose. Of course, when I walked into the doctor's office (probably the ER, because they've always got a bonesetter on duty), I'd have to drop a c-note on the counter. Then it's another to see the doctor for 15 minutes, another for the anesthetic they'd have to shoot me up with, and probably another just to mess with me. I highly, highly doubt I could get out of there without spending $400.

For a nose. A part of my face that's only there for aerodynamics. Seems, you know, kinda vain. I'm not a big fan of vanity, or doing things for aesthetic reasons. My face is lopsided to begin with, I took a terrific knock to the head when I was five when a car I was riding in got broadsided, and I was sitting in the seat that got hit most directly. My right eye is slightly lower than my left because of that accident.

So, to hell with getting it fixed for reasons of vanity. I'm not going to get prettier as time goes by anyways, to start spending money on it now would simply be, as Solomon put it, "chasing after the wind." It'd be a waste of cash.

Third, a broken nose feels a lot like having a head cold, and makes cleaning boogers out of it a lot harder. The right nasal passage got slimmed down a bit, I'm dreading my next actual head cold.

Fourth, I'm disappointed that I didn't get to have a fountain of blood when it got broken. For all the trouble of having a broken nose, it didn't bleed, which means I didn't get to use it to score sympathy points with anyone. Lame. There was a very pretty girl who performed at that show, I would have happily sat next to her and talked with her while waiting for the bleeding to stop.

Then again, blood doesn't come out of carpets, and everyone would have been all "Ermagawd, are you OK?" all night long. I'm a low-key guy, I'd have hated all the attention that didn't, you know, come from a beautiful slam poet.

Libertarianism Will Always Lose.

Libertarianism will always lose in the political arena.

Always.

Inevitably.

Every single time the Libertarian Ideal goes up against people who think the ideal way to run things is to have the power to run everyone's lives, it will lose.

As a man who does his best to avoid trying to exercise influence or control over anyone, I'll explain why: 

I do my best to avoid exercising influence or control over anyone.

Most libertarians are a lot like me. We keep to ourselves, we mind our own business, we take care of our own problems, and we don't ask for help because we don't want it. We're social loners, or outright loners, but we're definitely not groupies. 

So, when it comes to conflicting ideologies in the political arena, and convincing other folks to see things our way, we're not the type to try to force anyone to do anything. We'd rather not use the federal gov't to make anyone do anything, something our ideological opponents see no problem with.

Actually, that's the problem, isn't it?

The folks who just want to be left alone to look after themselves will always end up in small, disjointed groups. The folks who think the answer is using one massive group that has all the power to make things happen their way will do just that. Davids want to be David, Goliaths want to be Goliath.

We don't have the power they do, we don't even want it. We'll never be able to match them, and if somehow we managed to accrue that much political pull, we'd never use it. It's anathema to what we believe in. We simply want to be left alone, while the other side wants the exact opposite.

Looking at it another way, libertarians are naturally rather ascetic folks. We're the modern, political version of monks. We want to live our isolated lives in our mountain monasteries (cityfolk would call them log cabins), pursuing our spiritual lifestyle of hiking, camping, and shooting things that are made of meat. We like hardship, and we like the product of what we put blood, sweat, and tears into.

Our opponents are the opposite. They're hedonists that want everything to be handed to them. They don't want to work, they want a big guy who will give everything to them, who will protect them from everything, and they absolutely don't want to deal with anyone who isn't willing to play along. When folks don't play along with them, they view it as theft, the way we'd view someone who breaks into our house and steals our stuff. If we're not giving our "fair share", then we're stealing from the "less-advantaged."

I'd love to be optomistic about it, but the simple fact is that our ideology is not given to aggression. Hell, that's one of the selling points of the minarchist movements. No big gov'ts or big corps or big groups of any kind to step on the little guy.

Problem is, that's our downfall. We're the little guy, by choice, and we're just not big enough to resist getting stepped on.

I liked her better with clothes on.

If I was going to write something to impress a hot chick, this wouldn't be it. But then, I never write to impress anyone, I write for me. And sometimes, I just feel like telling hot girls to wear more clothing. Not because of some high-sounding morality, but because it's actually more attractive.

Hear me out. Here are two pictures of the same actress: (For the record, this has very little to do with Ms. Lawrence, I've never met her, and haven't heard anything bad about her character.)

I find the actress as pictured in the first picture vastly more attractive than I find her in the second picture. There's a single-word explanation, too:

"Drama"

The second picture shows the actress wearing clothes that scream "Drama", while the first shows her wearing clothes that scream "she can handle her own life".

Ladies, guys don't want high-maintenance girlfriends, and we for damn sure don't want a lot of drama in our lives. It's something we'll put up with, if the relationship is worth it, but it's ALWAYS a down-side. Even guys who really enjoy doing lots of nice things for their girlfriends don't want a girlfriend who demands it. That sort of thing sucks all the fun right of the relationship, and pretty soon, we're trying to find a way to break it off, and find a lower-maintenance girl.

The more girls I meet, the more true it seems that the women who spend a lot of time on their image, who wear fashionably sparse clothing, etc, etc, etc, are always the ones who demand a lot from everyone around them, and aren't capable of being there for anyone else.

If you don't believe me, turn on the television, and watch the celebrity news for an hour. You're not going to see people who wear T-shirts and jeans on a daily basis having breakdowns, cheating on each other, and making headlines, it's the folks who wear clothes that scream "look at me! I'm beautiful!"

Girls who wear functional clothing seem to be able to handle their own lives, and that's extremely attractive to guys who have matured past age 14. Functional clothes tend to be worn by people who know that how they look is secondary to what they're doing that day, and that sort of knowledge bodes well for a relationship. It's attractive not because of the raw sexuality of the clothing, but because it speaks of a maturity that would make for a decent relationship.

Just a thought.

(laughter) Then again, nobody in their right mind would try running in the forest in boots that aren't tied, so maybe she's just doing it for the image. Definitely not something people who spend a lot of time in the woods do.

The Philosophical Requirements of an Extant Deity

(For the duration of this post, I consider it irrelevant what specific deities one believes in. God, Allah, Brahma, Shiva, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, whatever, it's not really pertinent.)

I hear a lot of folks talking about whether or not they believe in God. Now, don't get me wrong, that's an extremely important question to ask, but it seems that a lot of people answer that question, then stop there. While the people who decide that no, they don't believe in the existence of God, or a god, or gods, can certainly cease their line of questioning, those folks who decide that yes, God exists can't stop there.

Well, I suppose they could, but that would be a shame, because the real question isn't "Does God exist?", it's "What does it actually mean for God to exist?"

Now, I suppose I ought to define God in a general sense, not a Protestant-Theology sense. God, according to dictionary.com, is: "the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions."

Heavy stuff. So, if God exists, He is an absolutely powerful being, who has total control over Reality. An absolute ruler, above reproach by the virtue of being all-powerful, regardless of the morality of the situation, or the moral values espoused by God. I'm human. I barely have control over what I do tomorrow, and I can lift about 100 pounds off the floor.

So, what does it really mean that God exists? Well, first and foremost, if God exists, I must know what God is like. If I were to interact with the mayor, the governor, or the president, I would certainly want to know what sort of person I was dealing with. If the president is capricious, I must tread carefully. If the president rewards certain behaviors, or punishes others, I should know this as well. Thus, if God exists, I need to know what sort of Being I am dealing with.

Second, I should do all that I can to conform to the virtues espoused by God. If God rewards loving behavior, I should love everyone. If God rewards trickery, I should be as duplicitous as possible. If God rewards bravery in battle, I should be brave, and seek out battle. If God rewards justice, I should treat everyone fairly, and so on and so forth. This isn't high theology, this is self-preservation. I would certainly want to not only minimize the possibility of my angering God, I would want to be as pleasing as possible.

Third, my devotion would need to be absolute. If God is the all-powerful ruler of all that is, then not being a faithful servant would be an act of rebellion. There's no room for fence-sitting, it's either for or against. The simple fact that God is in total and complete control of everything, regardless of the level of free will involved, would mean that any decision to disobey would be an act of rebellion.

Fourth, if God enacts a system of rewards and punishments, then it would mean that I should attempt to persuade everyone to believe in God as well, so they could reap as many rewards as possible. Likewise, and even more important, I need to try to convince everyone to believe in God so as to avoid the punishments. If the system includes a heaven and/or a hell, defined as an eternal reward or eternal punishment, then this would be of paramount importance.

Five, any message from God, written or spoken, should be studied, analyzed, and obeyed to the last letter. These five things, I believe, are a requirement if God exists. They wouldn't really change from one god to the next. It's not a matter of what the holy book of choice would say, but rather a simple requirement of existing in a universe made by a Creator. If God exists, what does that mean for you?

A One-Way Ticket To Mars

You. Will. Die.

This isn't a bad thing, or a good thing. It's a simple fact of life that life ends. Given a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. It's math. It's basic. It's simple, inevitable, and universal. 

At some point, we should stop trying to stay alive forever, because it's simply not going to work. No matter how much raisin bran we eat, no matter how much we exercise, or how safe of a car we drive, or if we don't drive at all, at some point we'll die. A man in perfect physical health, great genetics, and excellent safety habits can still get hit by a crashing plane.

On the other hand,  we shouldn't be idiots. We should make sure we have good engineers to design our buildings, we should wear seatbelts, and we should most definitely wear helmets when we ride bikes. After all, even though death is inevitable, we shouldn't go about hastening it. We should be smart.

Somewhere in the middle is a balance, and we as a society need to find it. Whenever I turn on the TV, I see a society that's absolutely paranoid about getting old and dying, but at the same time, we're taking self-destructive behavior to an entirely new level. Gotta eat right, gotta work out, gotta have that drink and take that drug. It's so unbalanced it's almost indicative of mental illness on a national level.

It's considered socially unacceptable to plan a lunar or martian space mission that doesn't involve the astronauts landing without a return vehicle already built for them. (There are, of course, other examples of this, but this is the one I'm writing about.)

I consider that unacceptable. Send me. I'm not doing much with my life, and I'm an A&P student.

Are we really so afraid to lose anyone that we are unwilling to risk losing people who would volunteer? People who we could tell, honestly, that we'll be sending them out with the very best technology the world has to offer? That we'll be supporting to the best of our abilities? That we'll be training to the very highest standards?

Every frontier has danger, outer space is certianly not an exception to that. We're not going to get back into space if we're unwilling to take a few risks, and those risks by definition involve death. But then, a lot of folks died during the exploration of the Western US, and nobody will look back and say "Man, exploring Colorado was totally not worth those five guys who drowned in a river."

I am going to die. I could do that on Earth, or someone could send an A&P to Mars to help build a permanent Martian base, and I could die there. Heh, I could die halfway there, when the spaceship gets smashed by a meteorite. It really doesn't matter to me, I won't be able to stop any of it.

Safety isn't unimportant, but it's often overrated. In the end, we're all dead. Let's do something with our lives that benefits future generations, shall we? It might not be safe, but nothing is, so let's do the best we can, with what we have, and make the rest up as we go along.