Monday, November 9, 2009

Time for Musical Monday!

Yay!  Today's random spin on the mystical shuffle wheel came up with "Wasted on the Way" by Crosby, Stills and Nash, off their Greatest Hits album.  The song was originally released as a single in 1982 and was included on their album Daylight Again that same year.  Off to the side there is the music player widget that will now play this song in addition to last Monday's song, and below are the lyrics:

"Wasted on the Way" - Crosby, Stills & Nash

Look around me
I can see my life before me
Running rings around the way it used to be

I am older now
I have more than what I wanted
But I wish that I had started long before I did

And there's so much time to make up everywhere you turn
Time we have wasted on the way
So much water moving underneath the bridge
Let the water come and carry us away

Oh when you were young
Did you question all the answers
Did you envy all the dancers who had all the nerve

Look round you now
You must go for what you wanted
Look at all my friends who did and got what they deserved

So much time to make up everywhere you turn
Time we have wasted on the way
So much water moving underneath the bridge
Let the water come and carry us away

So much love to make up everywhere you turn
Love we have wasted on the way
So much water moving underneath the bridge
Let the water come and carry us away
Let the water come and carry us away
Read more »

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Science vs. Religion: fight?

I have heard more than one atheist hold up the grand name of "science" as their be-all and end-all in support of their crusade against God.  Likewise, I've heard Christians holding up "the bible" as their be-all and end-all in their crusade for God.  Much of the time I just sit back and enjoy the show: their approaches to the debate in which they engage are so comically similar I can hardly believe they don't notice it themselves.  However, today I feel compelled to put my two-cents into the pot.

First of all, I want to remind any proponent of science that the process of science never proves anything.  Evidence is collected in an impartial manner and in such a way as to suggest one variable's effect on another, but when we attempt to generalize these findings to the world at large we must admit that there is a certain degree of error involved.  Of course, this error is often less than 5%, or 1% (as in, something is often very likely), but to ignore the error obscures what science really is.  Also, we must not forget that the theories developed are interpretations of this evidence.  Granted, they are interpretations that are subjected to vigorous testing and debate, and so carry a good deal of weight: however, do not forget that they are interpretations and label them as facts.
Read more »

Saturday, November 7, 2009

What makes death scary?

Is it the prospect of experiencing pain?  Is it the thought of never seeing loved ones again?  Is it uncertainty as to whether or not one is going to heaven?  Is it doubt about the existence of the afterlife?  Is the prospect of not existing simply scary?  Is it the thought that our death is inevitable and completely out of our control?  Is it biologically pre-programmed to encourage us to live and reproduce as long as possible?  Have I asked too many questions?  Yeah, I have; anyway, from what I've heard, pretty much any of the above, or more, can engender a fear of death.  And unfortunately, fear is not something so easily dispelled, even when we acknowledge that the fear is of something silly.  Yes, I'm calling the fear of death silly.

What I want is for you, and everyone, to think that a fear of death is silly.  Not profound, or deep, but silly.  I mean, fearing death because of pain is silly: living through a painful experience will prolong a pain that could be ended by death.  Death is a release from pain: biologically, your nerves have stopped working, and spiritually, you shed such mortal sentiments.  And you will see your loved ones again in the afterlife: that is, unless you've been a very bad girl or boy and you've only loved the pure of heart.  Or, suppose there is no afterlife: existence simply ends in death.  Contemplating such oblivion can be scary: however, when cease to exist, you lose your give-a-damn.  You stop caring about, thinking about, worrying about EVERYTHING.  Not having to think about, worry about, care about, or deal with anything sounds a lot better than the struggle of living: of course, you won't think so when you're dead because you can't even think about it.
Read more »

Friday, November 6, 2009

Capitalism vs. Communism, part 2

(Continued from Capitalism vs. Communism, part 1, picture found on The Public Choice Capitalist)

Last week, I began this discussion by talking about how both communist and capitalist societies deal with resource scarcity.  Today, I want to talk about power: specifically, who holds it?  In communist societies, the ideal is that nobody holds the power.  Everyone does their job, and provides the fruits of their labor willingly to whoever needs it.  Likewise, everyone takes whatever they need from whoever produces it.  However, on a scale larger than a small town, this becomes very difficult: how to you organize the transportation of food from the country to the city, for instance?  How do you determine how much of every resource is needed to keep everyone supplied with their necessities?  How do you deal with thieves, murderers, or people who refuse to give their product or service to one or more individuals?  Enter the government: a body of officials whose job it is to organize the efforts of the populace into a cohesive, functioning machine.

As we have seen in pretty much every communist society to date, the government holds a great deal of power.  It controls the production and distribution of products.  It makes and enforces the laws.  It handles foreign relations.  It handles education.  What doesn't it do?  This is starting to sound like a bad infomercial: buy yours today!  Question is, does the government need to handle these things?  I would argue that it does: at least, a central organizing body is necessary for production and distribution.  A central organizing body is necessary for law and order.  A central organizing body is necessary for education, and ensuring that all necessary jobs are filled (tying into production and distribution).  Who better than the government?
Read more »

Thursday, November 5, 2009

We are America: What Can We Do?

(Picture taken from johnzQuotes5)

Every day I try to think of something relevant and significant to talk about, because every day I want to say something that will make at least one person think critically about some aspect of the world and how they fit into it.  Today's entry was inspired by a post I read yesterday called Something's Broken... on the blog Freedom of Thought.  This talks about the plight of the homeless in the United States and urges people to get up and do something to help those who lack and are struggling to survive.

This point hit me a little hard.  I have come to desire greater freedoms, smaller government and less taxes: however, when looking at the pictures of the homeless (especially one man, curled up in a city corner, mostly buried in snow) I thought to myself, "What should we do?  Who should be responsible?  How can this be fixed?"

As I'm sure you've all heard, as an individual person we are less than a blip in the sea of 300 million Americans (United States), and even less in the sea of 6.7 billion people worldwide.  My thoughts have stayed confined to the United States for the time, as it is my home country, but they also can be applied to the world at large.  Please listen.  I'm sure you've heard the like before, but does it make them less true?  These are my thoughts:
Read more »