San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, December 26, 2014

The Most And The Least Disciplined Groups In The SDA

I read a blog post last week, found here, that disturbed me greatly.  For you to understand why I was so upset you first need to understand my presuppositions about the matter.  I believe that personal discipline is something an individual does to control and guide his life.  Some people have great levels of personal discipline but most people have little to no personal discipline at all.  There is a general correlation between how much a person loves freedom and his level of discipline.  In general those who love freedom the most are the most disciplined. Conversely, those who love government the most are the least disciplined.  This should not come as a surprise to any of us since lovers of government are like passive infants constantly looking to mother government for their sustenance.
Personal discipline can be expressed in an individual's body weight.  Now I have to tread carefully here since there are several groups of people who have high body weights who do not suffer from a lack of personal discipline.  Those groups include those with glandular problems, those with a low metabolism and those who are mentally ill and forced by their various mental diseases to eat against their will. Gaining or losing weight is a relatively simple concept to understand.  Over the course of a day you will burn a certain number of calories.  Over that same day you will ingest a certain number of calories.  Those who burn more than they consume lose weight. Those who consume more than they burn will gain weight.  It really is that simple, except for members of those three categories I already mentioned.
People with glandular problems find that their glands cause the 100 calories they consume each day to somehow turn into something more like 3-4000 calories.  That is why they can say that they didn't eat at all but still managed to gain weight.  A similar thing happens to those with a low metabolism.  These folks only burn about 100 calories a day, no matter how active they are.  They could run a marathon and still their bodies would only consume a couple of hundred calories.  And, of course, those who have mental illnesses that cause them to gain weight are never personally responsible for the fact they are overweight.
Now that we have eliminated the three groups that are fat because of reasons other than a lack of personal discipline, allow me to come to my point.  A group of people did a survey that compared a person's profession with his body mass index.  Many people were tested and the results were tabulated.  The conclusions derived from the survey about the five fattest and the five leanest professional classes are startling.  Since I believe that being overweight is generally a sign of a lack of personal discipline I can conclude that those in the five highest body mass index professions are the least disciplined groups of people in the SDA.  On the other hand, those in the five lowest body mass index groups are the most disciplined groups of people in the SDA.  So, without further ado, I give you the five most disciplined groups of people in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika:
  1. Economists, scientists and psychologists.  Those who conducted the study grouped together various professions that were very close to one another in body mass index.  That is why you see  more than one profession listed in the number one slot.  The fact that scientists are the most disciplined group of people in the SDA does not surprise me.  Nuclear particle scientists can spend an entire career in search of one elusive sub-atomic particle.  They are so obsessively looking for that particle they have no time to eat.  No wonder they are so skinny.  On the other hand, I would need a psychologist to figure out why psychologists are so disciplined.  As an arm-chair economist with a moderate body mass index myself, I can heartily agree that economists are highly disciplined individuals.
  2. Artists, actors, athletes and reporters.  Why do all these left brained people show up in the second most disciplined group of people in the land?  Since most all of the members of those four groups are also bleeding heart liberals who love government it does not aid the conservative cause to confess that they could actually be more disciplined than the conservatives.  I can't believe that those people are actually disciplined so I choose to believe that they all suffer from the mental illness of obsessive compulsive disorder.  That means they can have a low body mass index and still be personally irresponsible.  I like that.
  3. Physicians, dentists and nurses.  This category surprises me a little bit since it seems as if most doctors and nurses are really overweight.  Maybe it is just the physicians and nurses that I visit who are fat.  I am always amused when I get a lecture about my eating habits from a doctor who is both younger and heavier than I am.  On the other hand, it does take a lot of personal discipline to prepare for any of those careers so kudos to them.
  4. Cooks, bartenders and waiters.  Now that comes as a shock, does it not?  I am trying to figure out how the people in these professions could have so much discipline and still be in these professions.  Maybe it is true that all aspiring artists, actors and writers have to pay their bills by working as service personnel in restaurants. 
  5. Janitors, maids and landscapers.  Ah....finally I get to my profession.  I thoroughly expected janitors to make the top five list of most disciplined groups of people.  Despite our shiftless appearance and carefree demeanor, we janitors are an ambitious lot who are committed to personal betterment and self empowerment, whatever that means.  What cannot be denied however is that we are a pretty disciplined group of people.  It takes an extraordinary amount of discipline to dedicate oneself to a lifetime of service cleaning up the messes of others. 
The next list of five are the professions that make up the least disciplined people in the SDA.  I will do this list in count-down fashion, starting with the fifth and proceeding down to the number one most undisciplined group of people in the land.

      5.  Bus drivers, truckers and garbage collectors. No surprises here.  Any career that involves
           sitting on one's bum for eight hours a day while stuffing Little Debbie snack cakes into
           the mouth will inevitably result in a large increase to the body mass index. 
      4.  Architects and engineers.  This is a bit surprising to me.  I hold engineers in high esteem.
           Without the services of engineers we would have very little in the way of technological
           advancement in the world today.  The handful of engineers I have known were highly
           disciplined people.  They had to be to succeed in their careers.  So maybe this is an
           exception to the rule.  Maybe engineers are the fourth most fat group in the SDA because
           they are so dedicated to their work they have no time to eat or exercise.
      3.  Home health professionals and massage therapists.  How ironic it is that those who travel
           to our homes to advise us on healthy living end up being the third most fat group of people
           in the country.  And what is it with massage therapists?  How can they be so overweight?
           I suspect that if the body mass index was taken exclusively from information derived from
           the fingers we would discover that massage therapists are the skinniest people in the
           world.
      2.  Social workers and pastors. I don't know much about social workers.  Thankfully I have
           never had any dealings with them so I am unable to make any snide remarks about how
           undisciplined they are.  I have had lots of experience with pastors and this criticism is spot
           on.  Christians in general, and pastors in particular, are undisciplined brutes who love to
           eat.  I think that so many pastors are overweight because they deny themselves other
           physical and sensual pleasures in life.  After all of that denial they have to do something
           to experience pleasurable physical sensations so they eat.  Of course the fact that
           overeating is the sin of gluttony is lost on them. 
      1.  Cops and firemen. This is the only reason I wrote this post today.  When I read the article
           that declared doughnut eating cops and firemen to be the most overweight group in the
           SDA I just had to laugh.  Cops and firemen desperately attempt to project an image of
           being in superb physical condition.  Much is made of the strenuous physical tests they
           must pass to become cops and firemen.  But when all is said and done, cops and
           firemen are the most fat and least disciplined groups of people in the SDA.  That does
           not surprise me one bit.

Thursday, December 25, 2014

Merry Christmas To All?

Christmas has not been a merry time for most of humanity throughout most of human history.  Here are three reports about the relative merriness of the Christmas season in Iraq, Ukraine and Syria today.  The full story can be found here.

"For the first time in more than 1,000 years, reports the Washington Post today, 'the plains of Nineveh and its provincial capital of Mosul have been virtually emptied of Christians.' Where there had been religious and cultural diversity for centuries, the destruction of Iraqi society brought about by US intervention has left only the most hardened of extremists to terrorize what is left of the population. Already six in ten Christians have fled Iraq, leaving churches empty and a way of life that dates to the time of Christ a distant memory."
"Christmas will likewise be a somber celebration for the estimated 500,000 Ukrainians who were forced to flee their homes as the US-backed regime in Kiev destroyed much of eastern Ukraine. Again it is a question of cause and effect. The US mainstream media will blame the separatist regions of eastern Ukraine for the violence, but will ignore the precipitating factor: the US-backed coup in Kiev that ousted an elected government and put into power an unelected regime hostile to the eastern provinces of that country....Many residents of eastern Ukraine will be spending Christmas (which falls on January 7 according to the Orthodox calendar) underground in Soviet-era bomb shelters. They will have neither running water, sanitary facilities, nor privacy. Their homes have been destroyed by the US-backed regime in Kiev."
"In Syria, where the US has backed Islamist extremists in a three-year effort to overthrow the secular Assad regime, Christianity has also been nearly eliminated. In Aleppo, home to one of Syria’s largest pre-war Christian populations, citizens are split between a government-controlled sector and a rebel-held sector in the east. A few Christians remain in the government-held areas where families from government-controlled districts gather every Sunday evening in the church, which is brightly lit thanks to its generator, a major draw in a city where frequent power cuts plunge homes into darkness."

Christmas is not only hard for many Christians alive today,  it was hard for people in the past as well.  Christmas started as an extremely unmerry event for the citizens of Bethlehem under the rule of King Herod.   I am sure you all know the story of the "slaughter of the innocents."  The wise men from the East had informed Herod that they were heading to Bethlehem to worship the King of the Jews.  Since Herod considered himself to be the King of the Jews and since he would tolerate no competition, he dispatched an army to Bethlehem with orders to kill all of the male children under two years of age.  The army did what it was told and the result was what is today called the slaughter of the innocents.  I wonder if the citizens of Bethlehem appreciated the fact that Jesus was born in their town?  It is an interesting observation that the first major event in Jesus' life revolved around His battle versus the civil government.  Civil government never has and never will tolerate Christianity.  Whenever the two clash you can be certain of one thing, Christians will be persecuted and many will die. Bethlehem was just the first of many slaughters of the innocent.
Things are no different for the great majority of people living today.  I am amazed by the fact that God-hating unbelievers constantly wish Merry Christmas to each other.  Christmas is not a merry time for a pagan.  Christians worship the Son of God and celebrate His advent at Christmastime.  Non-Christians hate the Son of God and do everything they can to suppress the truth He taught and the Church He planted.  What unbelievers fail to realize, or actively decide to suppress, is that  little baby lying in the manager in Bethlehem is the same God-Man who will judge them and send them to the Lake of Fire for eternity one day.  Every single human being will one day stand before that baby in Bethlehem, only when we stand before Him He will be the God-Man who will either act as our judge or our savior.  That is not merry news for most people.  Christmas should be the saddest of all holidays for unbelievers.  It is a day that reminds them that they are doomed for eternity if they fail to repent of their sins and worship the Son.
There is only one group of people for whom Christmas is merry.  Christians celebrate the first advent of our Lord at Christmastime.  We also profess belief in His second advent and joyfully anticipate that day as well.  The Son of God has redeemed His people from sin and purchased them for Himself so that they might enjoy eternity with Him and all of that primarily for His own glory.  For those whom God has redeemed Christmas is quite merry indeed.  For all others it is death.

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Sony

I read that Sony has decided to release the movie The Interview on Christmas Day.  It will be a limited release as many theaters are still unwilling to assume the risks associated with screening the film.  I found the reaction to Sony's earlier decision to pull the film off the market after receiving veiled threats from the North Koreans to be most interesting.  All of a sudden the career politicians and patriotic citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika rediscovered the First Amendment. Many loyal subjects of King Obama declared that Sony should proudly and vigorously declare its First Amendment rights and distribute the movie as planned.  How ironic, I thought to myself.
A couple of years ago I was standing on the Appalachian Trail.  It was there I saw my first "First Amendment Free Zone."  The trail had crossed a pass, or gap as they call it in that part of the country, and there, alongside the highway, was an area enclosed by a couple of signs informing me that I was free to speak my mind provided I stood between the two signs.  The clear and obvious message was that I was not free to speak my mind outside of the artificial boundary created by the signs.  I remember wondering to myself how it was possible that I could have the right to free speech when that right was restricted to zones designated by the federal government.  Apparently very few loyal citizens of the SDA recognized the inherent contradiction in the signs.
The First Amendment guarantees my right to free speech but if I were a college student at many colleges in our country today I would find that my right to speak freely is seriously curtailed in many venues.  For example, I could not create a "white" newspaper.  The blacks can create their own newspaper but creating a newspaper for whites is deemed racist and not permitted.  Many of the classes that I might attend would most certainly not allow me to point out that after the two white cops were killed in New York City last week no white people were seen speaking on the television urging their fellow white people to not take to the streets and riot.  Indeed, no rioting has taken place at all.  No gangs of whites have descended upon the white businesses in the area, breaking windows and looting stores.  There have been no round the clock reports on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC about the huge parades of white people blocking traffic as they march through the streets in protest.  I am reasonable sure that I would not be permitted to point any of these facts out without being subject to censorship.
We are not far from the point where any person who says anything negative about heterophobes (homosexuals is another term for these folks) without being prosecuted for a hate crime and thrown into prison.  Pastors who preach the historic Christian doctrine of the sinfulness of homosexual behavior have already been attacked by high profile politicians.  I expect more to come on that front.  Where is the First Amendment in those instances?  Obviously the First Amendment only applies when government wants it to.  Otherwise it is thrown away with the rest of the Constitution.
All of this is just an introduction to what is really on my mind today.  What follows are two quotations.  The first is taken from the CNBC website.  The second is taken from the Denver Post. 

"Sony made a mistake in pulling The Interview earlier this week, according to President Barack Obama. 'Sony's a corporation that suffered significant damage, there were threats against its employees,' Obama said on Friday. 'I am sympathetic to the concerns that they faced, but having said all that, yes, I think they made a mistake.'  He added that he wished 'they'd spoken to me first, so he could tell them not to set a bad precedent by caving into hackers' threats.'  Obama also emphasized that the U.S. will retaliate in some way against North Korea—which the FBI fingered as the attacker earlier Friday.'They caused a lot of damage, and we will respond. We will respond proportionately, and we will respond at a place and time and manner that we choose,' he said."  (cnbc.com December 18th)

"Sony Pictures' capitulation to threats related to its movie 'The Interview' marks a new low in corporate cowardice....Since when does Hollywood allow foreign thugs to censor its product?...Cinemark (where James Holmes gunned down a dozen fans of Batman, MW) dropped plans to show the film.  After all, Cinemark is still battling lawsuits whether or not it should have foreseen that a man dressed as the Joker and wielding a small arsenal would burst into one of its theaters and kill or maim scores of people....The U.S. tort system is unique in fostering such claims, which have already resulted in a federal judge ruling last fall that such a massacre was a 'foreseeable next step in the history of mass shootings.'" (Denver Post, December 18 Editorial)

So this is what we have come to in this sad land?  The King of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika expects businesses to consult with him prior to making business decisions that are absolutely none of his business whatsoever?  Since when is it the business of the King to render judicial decisions about the business decisions of a company that makes movies?  Then, to top it all off, the King declares that Sony has caved in to hackers threats when its executives made the entirely rational decision to pull the movie.  Something is desperately wrong with a country when the King of the land can get away with this sort of bullying.  
The Denver Post editorial was one of the most disgusting cheap shots I have read in years.  Labeling the Sony decision an example of "corporate cowardice" is astoundingly stupid and amazingly immoral.  Sony should file a lawsuit and sue the Post into bankruptcy for such slanderous accusations.  What makes the editor's comments even more bizarre is the fact that he recognizes the reason why Sony made the decision that it did.  And that brings me to the point of today's post to this blog.
Sony's decision to pull the movie was the only reasonable course to take.  I fear the decision announced today to release the film will have grave consequences for the Sony corporation and its shareholders.  Why?  Because of the immoral legal system that exists in this disgusting country.  The newspaper recognized this fact when it acknowledged that family members who had relatives that were gunned down by James Holmes have sued the theater in which the massacre took place on the grounds that the theater should have known in advance that somebody would enter the theater and gun people down.  Amazingly, or maybe not so these days, the judge hearing the case agreed with the plaintiffs and the case is being allowed to proceed.  It is hard for me to imagine a more immoral situation than that.
Why should Sony take the financial risk associated with releasing this film when it knows in advance that if something as innocuous as a fist fight breaks out within a mile or two of a theater showing the film it will be sued for millions and millions of dollars for not knowing in advance that its movie would create that reaction?  If King Obama and the Denver Post really want to do something constructive in this situation they would stop criticizing Sony and start pushing for a total overhaul of the legal system in this immoral country. 

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Amerikan Cyber-War Hypocrisy

How ironic it is that North Korea has suddenly experienced a total lapse of Internet service immediately after King Obama threatened  King Kim with a counterattack to his earlier attack of Sony Pictures.  What do you think, is it a coincidence or an act of aggression from the Socialist Democracy of Amerika?  I suspect most Amerikans believe that some secret SDA department of cyber-attacking is at work here and I suspect that most Amerikans are feeling an inflated sense of pride over the fact that we have shown those dirty foreigners that we are a power to be reckoned with.  Whether or not the present troubles with the Internet in North Korea are a result of SDA attacks really does not matter to me, although I think it is true.  The SDA has a long history of such attacks over the past several years.  Consider these:
  1. For a general description of SDA cyber-attacks over the past years go to this Washington Post article.   
  2.  For a description of the cyber-wars already started by the SDA against our perceived enemies, go here
  3. For a description of SDA cyber-attacks upon the Chinese, go here
  4. For a description of SDA cyber-attacks upon Iran, go here
  5. For a description of SDA cyber-attacks upon Iraq, go here
  6. If you are still not convinced that the SDA has been actively involved in waging cyber-warfare all around the world in recent years, just Google "US cyber-attacks against enemies" and see what comes up.  We have been quite active, probably more active than you realize, in waging cyber-wars against people and countries we do not like.
 I have a simple question for those who are outraged at the North Koreans because of the cyber-attack upon Sony.  Why?  The SDA has been doing the same thing for a much longer time and on a much larger scale.  Why should the fact that one country actually retaliated to our attacks disturb SDA citizens so much?  Somebody actually gives us a little bit of our own medicine and we scream to high heaven about how unfair it all is.  Does that not seem at least a little bit hypocritical to you?  I am not saying that what the North Koreans did was correct.  It was not. It was an act of aggression.  But why is it good when the SDA does it and bad when anyone else does it?
I have an answer to the questions that I have asked above.  All SDA royalty, career politicians, military heroes and patriotic citizens have the right to do whatever they want to do to stinking foreigners because we are exceptional and they are not.  The definition of exceptional is easy.  Whatever we do is right, by definition.  Whatever we do is right because we are Amerikans and Amerikans are exceptional.  If that seems circular to you, too bad.  Our exceptionalism supersedes logic.  In that sense the rulers of the SDA are just like God.  Whatever they do is morally right simply because they rule the SDA and, by extension, the rest of the world.  And don't try to say that the SDA is not exceptional or you will find yourself on the receiving end of an attack by the military or the cyber-warrior class.  
Does it seem hypocritical to you that the SDA would be crying foul over things that it has been doing on a grand scale to other sovereign nations for years?  Tough.  You still don't get it, do you?  The SDA is exceptional and everything the SDA does is right.  End of argument.  If you persist in arguing this issue it will only prove that you are a prime example of what it means to "hate America first."  You are also worse than Hitler and anyone who smokes. Don't ever criticize the SDA.  The best operating principle is "my country right or wrong" only, of course, your country is never wrong.   The SDA is never guilty of hypocrisy.  The SDA never does anything to anyone else that is not in the best interest of the person or nation being attacked.  It is a strange idea that attacking another country is good for them but it is true, provided the SDA is the country doing the attacking. If anyone else ever attacks anyone else it is always evil and the SDA will respond with omniscient and omnipotent perfection to everything that takes place. 
On another topic.....I just can't figure out why so many people around the world either just barely tolerate or actually actively hate the SDA. Can you?

Monday, December 22, 2014

Teachers, Athletes And Capitalism

Last week Nancy Nowak of Englewood wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post in which she repeated the usual blather about how professional athletes are overpaid while government school teachers languish in poverty.  She was upset about a recent contract signed by a Denver Bronco player.  She then compared that contract value to a government school teacher's average contract value and said, "Most American teachers, who have the most challenging job of all--educating the next generation---also work hard....Our children and our society deserve the best teachers possible."  She then went on to suggest that professional football players "donate a portion of their incomes to education."  She concluded with the question, "Why do sports players deserve to make so much money and teachers don't?"
How it is that being a government school teacher is "the most challenging job of all" was never explained.  How it is that having government employees involved in the process of indoctrinating the "next generation" is the most significant activity of our time was not described.  Why it is that after decades of activism by the government school unions, and hundreds of proclamations about the high quality of government school teachers already on the job, Nancy is able to conclude that the present crop of teachers is not "the best teachers possible" is never elucidated.   I was fascinated by the fact that my neighbor's children suddenly became my responsibility as Nancy described them as "our children". When did that happen?  I can assure you, I had nothing to do with the entrance of my neighbor's children into this world, despite what they might tell you.  Obviously, there is a lot to complain about in Nancy's letter.  And predictably, the complaints soon followed.
A government school teacher by the name of JoAnne points out that real property owning professional athletes pay more to the school system than most of us because they own mansions which are subject to the same real estate tax as the rest of us peons.  She quite properly says that it is wrong to single them out but then goes on to clamor for higher taxes for all.  Like all government school employees, she believes the solution to every problem is higher taxation for all.  JoAnne is seemingly incapable of considering any solution to the government school problem that would include reducing their scope and decreasing their influence.  I wonder why that is?  Jim is a retiree who complains that he can't afford the higher taxes Nancy is advocating.  But Jim is also a self-proclaimed capitalist.  He points out that the free market has set the wages for teachers and professional athletes and, although Nancy might not like it, he concludes that "as long as consumers are willing to pay high ticket prices for sporting events...some athletes will receive ridiculously high rewards."  Jim is not free from the envy that infects most citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika however.  He concludes by writing, "I fully agree that all of our multimillionaires and billionaires should do much more than they do when it comes to philanthropy."  David completes the standard litany of responses to the high athlete-low teacher salary debate by agreeing that football players sadly make more than "teachers, police officers and firefighters", all of whom are government employees by the way, by saying, "Our society says the above named jobs are worth a lot less than that of a football player.  What does that say about our society?  It says we can and should do better."  There, I think I have covered all the bases.  Now it is time to bring some perspective to the issue.
Why are we even having this conversation?  Why are the financial terms of someone else's employment contract fodder for public discussion?  This is nothing more than gossip and should stop.  And I will stop, right after I have had my say.  Why should government employees make more money than those who actually contribute to the capital stock of the world economy?  Participants in the free market do more for the intellectual endeavors of individuals in society than a slew of government employees ever will.  Jim pretends as if government employees actually make less money than those in the private sector.  He should spend some time examining the data.  The fact of the matter is exactly the opposite of what he posits.  Teachers, security officers/police officers and firefighters in the government sector make much more money and have many more benefits than their partners in the private sector.  Compare the salary for a Christian elementary school teachers to a government elementary school teacher some day and you will see what I mean. 
Most of the letter writers had something to say that was correct.  A highly paid professional football player makes what he does precisely because millions of fans are willing to pay for tickets to the games and millions more are willing to watch the games on commercial television.  The individual owners of the various teams are then able to divide those enormous revenues as they see fit and employee athletes according to the current market price for athletic services.  Not all athletic services command the same salary.  Why does a a professional bowler rarely sign a $45 million dollar contract?  Because professional bowling does not have the fan base that professional football does.  Is that a bad thing?  Of course not.  It simply is what it is.  Why do so many believe that nothing is wrong with society when a couple dozen people love a particular sport but then things are desperately wrong with society when that sport grows popular? 
Does the fact that millions of people love professional football and relatively few people love professional bowling constitute a sign of some sort of sickness in society?  If so, please describe what it is, how it got there and how you propose to get rid of it.  "Society" does not say anything about football, bowling, teaching or any other activity.  Society is made up of individuals and the more individuals want to engage in a particular event the more money will flow to that particular event.  The relative number of members in a group who enjoy a particular event tells me nothing about some amorphous entity called a "society".  All it tells me is that a particular event, in this case professional football, is very popular.  Who am I to tell my neighbor that he should not like football?  Who am I to tell several of my neighbors that the fact they all like football is a sign of some sort of sickness that they need to be cured from?  I need to mind my own business and let my neighbor watch what he wants to watch. 
JIm's cheap shot at the philanthropic efforts of the SDA's richest citizens is exactly that, a cheap shot.  He should do his research before he writes his letters.  The fact that billionaires generally do not give the same percentage of their incomes to charity is irrelevant because their incomes are so enormous.  Charitable giving should be seen from the perspective of total amount given and when measured by that standard the rich out give us commoners by a huge margin.  Bill Gates and Warren Buffet give more to charity each year than most of us will earn our entire lifetimes. So give em a break Jimmy boy.
I conclude that entirely predictable discussions in the public forums of the newspaper continually arise because people are envious and like to gossip.  Since I am neither envious nor do I like to gossip I will stop, now.