A Thought: Anti-religious people go nuts when the religious Creationists point out that there are gaps in Charles Darwin’s attempt to explain creation. “How could there not be gaps in his Theory of Evolution?” they ask. “He was dealing with mid-19th century science.” They also caution that we shouldn’t insert God, or mystical miracles, into every gap we currently have in our current explanations, based on our current levels of science. The import of this message is that we have already filled many of Darwin’s gaps with our current levels of science, and we will fill even more as science advances in the future. Yet, some of these people, that place such prominence on science, are perfectly willing to fill the gaps of our current levels of science on global warming with the explanation that man did it.
On that note, how many future generations, with their progressed levels of scientific knowledge, are going to be laughing at global warmers in the manner we currently laugh at bloodletters and flat earthers? There were even some people, see Aristotle, that believed that a slab of beef spawned maggots. Scientists warn, based on these precedents, that we shouldn’t leap to conclusions, or fill the gaps of our current scientific knowledge, with explanations that support our personal agendas, but some of them claim that all the science is in on global warming, and there’s no need for more scientific debate on the subject.
B Thought: We all learn lessons in life, no matter how old we are, and no matter how many times we have already learned those lessons.
C Thought: Debate matters of substance with enough people, and you’re bound to come across extremes. Those of us that discuss matters with representatives of the extreme faction of the other side, find it enjoyable to nuke their ideas out of the park with facts. If you seek such discussions often enough, however, you’re bound to run across the extreme faction of your side. Some of these people, unfortunately, go so far out of the parameters that you may initially think that the other side may be right about their characterizations of your side. They’re not. The person in front of you is simply a characterization of the extreme faction of your side that diverts themselves away from the important matters of the day with trivial matters. I don’t know if these people strive for the trivial, because they’re not able to compete in the knowledge of important matters, or they find the trivial more entertaining, but they are inordinately intrigued by the trivial, and they exist on both sides of the aisle
D Thought: Most artists have one masterpiece in them. Everything they do after that is, in ways large and small, derivative of that one masterful work. Those of us that get excited when we experience a masterpiece, should understand how difficult such a thing is to create. Most of us don’t. Most of us characterize the masterpiece as brilliant, and everything after that “sucks!” We express our extreme opinions for the mileage it gains us, but most that say such things have never tried to do anything artistic.
E Thought: Some watched the movie version of Fight Club and fell in love with the romanticized notion of blowing up banks to finally achieve economic justice in this unfair system. The import of this dream is that those that are burdened by debt, would be no more, and we could reset this American system to give the poor a second chance to become rich. Those that inherited money, would have to start over from scratch. Those that gained money by being lucky, or being in the right place at the right time, would have to do it again. Those that accumulated money by ill-gotten means, would have to start over from scratch, and those that haven’t been afforded a chance to succeed in our unfair system, would be able to have another crack at the system. Let’s put aside the ridiculous notion that blowing up a couple branches, of a couple banks, that house a couple computers, can accomplish anything. Let’s say, for the purpose of this argument, that some Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) bomb were able to comprehensively wipe out all data, and all Americans were afforded a restart. How depressing would it be, to these theoretical dreamers, to realize that people are, in fact, different? How depressing would it be to them that some people are more talented, more industrious, more ambitious, more creative, and more willing to put it all on the line for something? How depressing would it be for these people to finally achieve hope and change, only to realize that everything would eventually cycle back? How depressing would it be when all the same millionaires are the same millionaires and billionaires ten years after the EMP bomb occurred? It’s not only possible, it’s likely. Most of those that accumulated the millions and billions they did, did not do it by birthright. Most of them knew how the system worked so well that they could manipulate it again, if they were called upon to do so, and they might enjoy the challenge. In this post-EMP world, these people would know how to raise capital better than we would, they would know how to form coalitions better than us, and they would be far more willing than the rest of us to risk it all on some idea that they just thought up. We, theoretical dreamers, would be living in John Lennon’s Imagine world, while they would be re-invigorated to prove themselves all over again. This event would prove to be only be more depressing to those dreamers to eventually realize that they couldn’t do it yet again.
F Thought: One of the primary arguments against the stop, question, and frisk law, used by the police in New York City, is that it violates the Fourth Amendment, and it allows for some degree of profiling. Most of those that argue against this law do not want it finessed. They want it ended. An interesting aspect of the law, that I hadn’t considered before, is that black leaders have been screaming for generations that government doesn’t do anything about the crime that occurs in specific black neighborhoods. They’ve said, for generations, that government leaders ignore the crises that occur in some crime-ridden black neighborhoods, and they’ve said that the police virtually ignore those neighborhoods. Yet, when a government, and its police force, do attempt to do something, and that something is the stop, question, and frisk law, black leaders claim that it unfairly targets blacks in those specific black neighborhoods where crime is the highest. The answer, of course, is that those black leaders, screaming the loudest about the fact that the government wouldn’t do anything to solve black on black crime, and that most police forces won’t even go into those neighborhoods, never wanted solutions. They just enjoy the fruits of the labor involved in screaming.
G Thought: Why do serial killers in movies, and on TV shows, turn the TV off when a news report of their spree makes it to air? I understand that the screenwriter is trying to establish the fact that the killer is not doing what he’s doing for fame. “This particular killer has a more gruesome motive,” the action of turning the TV off attempts to suggest. “His malady is so much deeper than all that. This particular killer is not your typical, garden variety serial killer.” In one particular show, Netflix’s The Fall, the serial killer plays with his child while the TV broadcasts a press conference with those in charge of the investigation detailing their findings, and he appears to be only symbolically interested in the broadcast. When it’s announced, by the serial killer’s wife, that dinner is ready, he shuts the TV off, mid-press conference, and takes the daughter to the dinner table. It’s cool and all that he doesn’t care, and it does characterize him as something different than what we expect, but shouldn’t that killer want to know how the law’s investigation is proceeding, so he can, at least, adjust his spree accordingly?
H Thought: Anyone that argues against the fact that most Americans are ignorant when it comes to the subject of Economics, needs to watch an episode of TruTV’s Hardcore Pawn. Pick any episode, and you’ll see a customer walk in with something of relative value, and you’ll hear them assign it value. “I want $100 for this ticket to (a concert by the band) Journey!” said one particular customer, on one particular episode. When she was asked how she arrived at that dollar figure, she couldn’t do it. When she was informed that she wouldn’t be getting $100, she was outraged. “I want $100!” She then proceeded to express the indignation that, at least, one customer does in every single episode of the series.
These customers don’t care that they’ve just entered a pawn shop –that is not going to give them face value, much less fair market value, for their product– they just want their $100, and they usually “don’t care” because they don’t know. They know nothing about economics, bartering, or the fact that a pawn shop is in the business of making as much profit off their products as possible. They don’t even know enough to know anything about the bartering process involved in the pawn shop world, they just want their $100. I don’t want anyone to think that I approve of what they do on the show, or in their shop, for I think they shortchange most of their sellers, but if I were to enter this, or any pawn shop, I would walk in knowing that I probably wouldn’t receive the value that I assigned to this product. My goal would be to get something more than I fear I would get. And perhaps this fear, and this knowledge of how the pawn world works, would lead me to getting far less. Regardless, I can assure you that I wouldn’t be one of these crying and screaming idiots that ends up getting tossed out on their ear, on a nationally broadcast television show, or if I were, I wouldn’t be signing the release that allowed them to air it. It would officially be the most embarrassing moment of my life. To these people, apparently, it’s just another manic Monday.