I always tell myself, "I need to sit down and write a post, for old times sake". I think online journaling has changed for the better now though, and in a lot of ways, it cannot get any worse.
Most "blogs" that provided decent enough content have been absorbed into traditional media. The rest scattered into social media, which is now in a state of complete disarray. I want to continue writing, and I will do so, but probably on my Medium account.
Who knows, maybe one day I'll return here. All is well with me.
Saturday, April 1, 2017
I always walk this fence where I don't like how politics has injected itself into all of our conversations, but I still occasionally enjoy having them. I think by and large, we all have sensible conversations, but thanks to the internet and social media, we've kind of let the old rules slip away.
I get aggravated by people that I agree with and with people I disagree with online because there's been a huge lack of intellectual honesty the past few years. Someone will find great offense to something one politician does while letting a favored pol pull the same stunt. We've lacked a lot of consistency and this lack of intellectual honesty turns a lot of people off leading them to silence their friends by muting or unfriending them.
The next huge hurdle we face now is that no one really knows about fallacies and basic debate devices that used to lead to productive conversations have been replaced by screaming and mob mentality. A good example is reacting to en errant politician by pointing to another politician that got away with the same mistake.
So all we're left with are non sequitur, straw men, bandwagons, and it's all loud, messy, and I am convinced it's on purpose. People are mostly left to just turn it off and run away, not debating, but surrendering to the noise. It's a shame that these tactics are used because in this day and age. There's a lot of conversations that really need to be both started and completed.
My take away: Learn the fallacies and avoid them. I know there's a lot of them, but if people don't know they're riddled with fallacies, it's going to be hard to be taken seriously. So more important than my blabbing, read them ----> HERE
Sunday, March 26, 2017
I began finally after 42 years my forever career. I was hired on by the Commonwealth as a compliance regulator in the life and health insurance industry. I work with a phenomenal group of smart people that are dedicated to ensuring state residents have equitable, reasonable insurance.
My household over the past couple years has grown in ways that I don't care to disclose in a public forum. It has come with its share of challenges and blessings. The passing of time has taught me that while I thought I was fairly wise about the world in my youth, I really had no idea.
As far as my posts here, I fully plan on a mix of cultural and personal blabbing into the next year when I find spare time, which is going to come at a premium more and more as time passes. I have not forgotten my old blog though. I will persevere.
Saturday, August 27, 2016
You have never met me and I can't say I know you other than what I see from you on the television. In your prime you knocked my favorite football team out of the playoffs a couple times. For a minute you actually looked like you had real talent only to see it faltering off thanks to lesser coaching and older legs.
As I said, I don't know you. I never went to school with you. I never hung out at a bar or at my place to listen to the frogs and crickets on my back porch. I try not to judge people I don't know and I'm betting right now a lot of people are doing just that, judging you.
Some had noticed during football games you were sitting out the national anthem. Of course news being the sensational beast that it is propagates stories about you skipping out on it then go to ask you why. You then go and tell this same gonzo media that you don't want to stand up during the national anthem because the American flag represents a racist culture.
Joe Average is not going to like you much after hearing that. They are the ones that watch your games, that buy your merchandise, and fill those seats in your stadium. Sure a few Marxist professors and fringe groups may applaud your bravery and even some like me will defend you for having a right to your opinions. You have every right to sit, pick your nose, cry, whatever you want to do within this American society and within the parameters of the rule of law. I just wish to make one request:
Donate your salary.
According to your contract, you're currently making "a 6 year, $114,000,000 salary with the San Francisco 49ers, including a $12,328,766 signing bonus, $61,000,000 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $19,000,000".
That's a nice paycheck. It's a lot more than I make. That money you're making though is racist money. That money is made by bigots in head offices that pay your salary. It's made by task masters that own companies, hire people, and pay them tiny unfair wages. It's made by sponsorships and corporations that have slave, prison, or child labor in third world countries. If you follow your logic, you really have no need for that hefty paycheck that you're making. You should be able to keep yourself warm at night without all that cash knowing you weren't part of this system you hate.
After all it's bigoted blood money, right? It's what hoists that flag up in that billion dollar stadium you play in once a week when you're not sitting on the bench.
Give it to charity, Colin. Give it to charity! Give it to people that are actually trying to make the world a better place. You play a game, Colin. You live in a bubble. You aren't in the real world. Who the hell decries their surroundings while making such tremendous profit from it? That makes you no better than the greedy selfish people you won't stand to acknowledge. Donate your salary!
If you don't want to stand with your teammates, your friends, and the good people that are in abundance in this country, that's fine. But every time you cash one of those checks you just painting yourself as the bigger hypocrite. Follow your own logic, stranger, donate your salary, and go Packers.
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
There's nothing like a tragic loss of life for people to tout their political beliefs. And it's so much easier in this social media age. As I've noted many times before though, there's a lot less discourse now and a lot more shouting and yelling.
The weekend tragedy in Orlando is a sad and depressing example of this showboating. In the midst of evil and intolerance, sides have geared up to discuss the merits of gun control again. Yet I don't really hear a coherent debate. What I hear are two sides screaming about two narratives that don't mesh together at all. Picture two children arguing. One wants a video game and the other one wants to eat. The focus is in two different arenas, food and fun.
On one side of the gun debate are people who are strong advocates of constitutional jurisprudence. Passing increased measures to limit a law abiding citizen access to weapons, they believe, will not solve the problem of evil that exists when a bad person obtains one of these weapons. Armed self protection is the best defense against evil, according to them.
On the other side of the debate are those who are justifiably exhausted to see useless lives wasted and want to only see certain types of weapons limited, certain ammo clips, or even ammunition itself restricted. They call for bans on what they call assault weapons including semi automatic rifles. Many do not feel a full ban on every gun is warranted, just the ones that do a lot of damage in a small space in a short period of time.
So what sounds like on the surface a logical debate actually isn't. Both sides are arguing two different points. The anti gun division is not addressing the point made by the pro group division and the pro group division is not properly addressing the concerns of the anti gun division.
Because of this misunderstanding on the proper points for argument, there is no resolution. We either ban these types of weapons or we just arm everybody, but neither reality is going to happen, at least not in any foreseeable future. The abortion argument in the US is similar but that's a completely different animal that I dare not tackle today.
So what would be the proper response to both sides. Here are my humble, novice thoughts:
To the pro gun lobby, the weapons being threatened are standard rifles. You cannot ban a rifle because it's scary looking. The AR 15 is a single shot semi automatic rifle. That means you have to pull a trigger for each shot. Automatic rifles are already banned. One cannot go to the local gun shop and buy by definition an assault weapon in most countries at a gun store.
So banning this weapon means that one would have to ban a wide array of weapons that are used for hunting home defense or are just collector items for thousands of rustic rural Americans. We're talking everything from militaria to squirrel rifles. It would spell the beginning of the end of constitutionally protected rights to bear arms, per their fears.
The anti gun lobby just wants to see an end to mass shootings. It would be preferable for the only guns to exist be the ones that can only fire a round or two before reloading. Carrying or the ability to buy semi automatic rifles should just cease to exist. There is no need to carry large clips, there is no threat from our government. It would just be good common sense if anyone wants self protection, to buy a common non semi automatic handgun.
While this sounds like a valid argument on each side, both arguments belong in two separate debates. And unless someone has a firm grasp on what both sides believe, there will never be a logical agreement. The anti gun lobby does not answer to the concern that they don't know what exactly they are trying to ban while the pro gun lobby really isn't expressing the concern for loss of life at the hands of these tools.
Where can we find the resolution? Understanding how guns work may help the anti gun lobby and understanding the need to limit the ease of purchasing those guns should be the focus of the debate. What laws are in place now? How would future laws prevent future occurrences? What's the best deterrent to someone bent to preform evil? Where are the statistics of gun bans working? Is there less violence or more violence in states that have stricter gun restrictions in place? These points are not truly being discussed and those that think they are merely kid themselves. I know I don't have all of those answers.
It seems that rational debate based on full knowledge of both sides of a coin have been replaced by political grandstanding. It is an election year and I guess I should expect as much.
Where have all the rational voices resolved on finding a solution gone? In the meantime, nothing will get resolved and we will continue to slide into a dark age that I fear we may already be well engaged. An age of either rampant violence and ignorance or fascism where dissenting opinions are squashed in favor of the more popular slant.
Or perhaps an unworkable mixture of both. Scary.
Friday, April 22, 2016
I know I publish so rarely nowadays on my personal blog. People just don't post in traditional means anymore. Most people throw out interesting information and tidbits to their social networks and I'm certainly no exception. But I wanted to post where I could be found if people wanted to interact with me even to this very day.
- My Twitter is here.
- My Facebook is private to my family (sorry, not sorry).
- I write for iTechTriad, a great tech driven publication here.
- I write historical articles on Medium here. I'm doing a series on Washington's rules now.
I always look forward to interacting with friends. Please feel free to check me out, follow me, and let me know so I may do the same!
I know I often say I shy away from and avoid political posts. I don't even tolerate it in my social media timelines and in an election year that is a hard task to accomplish. There is something that is bugging me though about the political process and since I have a platform, here I go!
I just wanted to provide two quick reasons why I believe that the boycott is completely asinine in nature and in delivery:
- Boycotts are lazy - In this political climate it seems to be easy for some to speak their minds via the retweet, repost, regram, or boycott than to actually bring about any activism. I am not advocating rioting and protesting, but a boycott is incredibly slothful and usually doesn't influence or impress your friends. Often times nowadays lazy activists on the other side will then call in a buycott and the effect is completely null
- Boycotts hurt regular people - Someone dear to me works for a company that is a target for a recent boycott because of a policy that they adopted. Avoiding that establishment on principle would be the best way to resolve this issue or communicating said dislike normally sufficies. But by calling for a boycott, that shot caller can then hide behind this slacktivism to declare they made some in-rows with that retailer. This dear person in my life relies on an income to keep her house going, to pay her bills, and to feed her nephews. So when you want to boycott an establishment, think about who's really going to suffer. I'll provide a hint, it's not the executives or CEO that made that unpopular decision.
So what do we do Mike? Honestly, I can't answer that question, but I just wanted to kind of express that I fully intend on buycotting just about any boycott and if I have a problem with the political leanings of an establishment or a state, I'll let my buying power affect change quietly without blaring a big obnoxious bullhorn.
The best service and product is likely not going to be sold by someone who has your exact political leanings and beliefs. If we fully followed boycott logic, many of us would never eat out, go to a movie, watch television, or listen to music ever again. We can stand on our principles in the voting booth and at the register without the fanfare.
What I still hold closest to my heart is that no one on earth has to agree with me, thank you for hearing my side.