Author: Dale

Posted on

A Scout is…

The Boy Scouts of America is a fine organization that has been teaching youngsters to do many good things throughout the years. They recently had their 100th jamboree in Virginia and there was much controversy over President Obama not showing up to the celebration but instead appearing on The View (and probably golfing too). Then there was this:

After watching this I felt that these Scouts had missed a great opportunity to demonstrate what they stand for and what they represent as Scouts. Let me remind everyone that:

A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.

Those were just rattled off from my memory so I may have missed the part about the times when a scout is not one of the above. I can honestly say that if this preachy eagle scout was present, I would not have booed (I have never booed anything). I can understand the youngsters feeling spurned by our fearless leader’s desire to go hang out with some hags over them, but again I must go to the principles and point out that they represented the scouts and what they stand for while they were there in uniform.

Although I understand their point of view I am disappointed in the missed opportunity and hope that they each come to realize the missed opportunity too. It would not have made any headlines but it would have demonstrated the principles that the Boy Scouts stand for very well if these young men had not behaved the way they did.

Posted on

Still Life

As you may be aware I enjoyed annoying my art teacher in high school. One thing that anyone who has taken an art class has had to do is to draw a still life scene. In our class the teacher loaded a table in the middle of the room with fake fruit, plants, random junk and bovine skeletons. She had spotlights shining onto the subjects. We were told to select three items from the scene to draw. As you might guess this was my selection:
Continue reading “Still Life”

Posted on

Redistributionists and the Glaring Problem With Their Methods

Many people seek to “level the playing field” or “spread the wealth around” so as to be kind to others and have a utopia of sorts. I believe the claimed cause to be very noble and right, but the methods sought after by such individuals expose the motives of those who claim to believe this way.

The government of the United States of America has been the most important magnifying glass to examine redistributionists. In America people are free to do with their property as they please. They can horde money and food or they can give every last penny away. With this freedom Americans have done well generally, as America is the most generous nation ever seen on planet earth. Many people have the view that there should be no poor among us and that everyone should share of their good fortune with others and not have more than everyone else. I am one of those people.

Where the vast and overwhelming majority (considering I have never met anyone who has expressed thoughts like mine on the topic) of such people go wrong is in their looking to government to force others to redistribute. Being in America, people are free to come together and pool their resources in a community effort to have all things equal. It can be done and I believe should. It is my contention that if people were to do this, it would lead to greater prosperity of, not just poor individuals but, everyone. Doing this would lead to the next jump ahead, or you could say another 5000 year leap. If even 50% of Americans would choose to pool their resources to share with everyone else imagine the problems we could solve. By having government force people to do such, imagine the problems we create.

Where I part ways with the socialists and communists is in free will (and quite a few other things really, but this one is most relevant). Government should not force anyone to give up property. This is despotism and exposes the motives of powerful people who claim to want this equality. Under every redistributionist government there has been a powerful and rich few ruling over the equally poor masses. The only reason that I can think of for an already powerful person to promote government imposition is that like Tim “the Toolman” Taylor they want more power. History is filled with villainous tyrants oppressing people and seeking more and more power. The problem with many Americans is that we do not think it can happen to us in today’s world; that somehow our day is different. Well guess what, it can happen and has been happening for a while in a very Fabian way.

Eliminating poverty and making sure everyone has plenty is a good cause and one that should be promoted more widely for people to choose. But sadly, many look to government imposition. Doing this would only put Americans under the rule of that all too common rich and powerful few. Since redistribution can be done freely in our society there is no need for government to force us into it. People can and should just do it and encourage others to do it. There has been an entanglement between two causes in the United States. The government that was set up to protect the rights of individuals has mixed itself up in social and moral issues in which it has no place. Instead of focusing on the former task we have people in government looking to provide for people by “spread[ing] the wealth around”.

The Constitution established a perfect place to exercise one’s free will and choose to give to others. That should be the message promoted by those who truly believe in giving freely to others, in a free country such as the United States. Instead we have a few already powerful people looking to be the ruling class hiding behind what appears to be a noble cause. If they truly believed in the cause they would encourage people to use their freedom to live in such a way. Instead they seek power, coercion and oppression of others. Charity requires no legislation, no middle man and no enforcer. All that is required is knowledge, desire and choice.

UPDATE: Apparently I write like George Orwell.

I write like
George Orwell

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Posted on

Yes, It’s About Time!!

It has been so long since I have been excited for an album to come out that wasn’t a gigantic disappointment when I heard the first single. I have found something that will be released on August 31, 2010 that I am excited about getting my slick mitts on. It is from the apparent genius behind Chris Cornell’s Euphoria Morning album (because judging by recent performance, it wasn’t Chris) Alain Johannes formerly of the band Eleven (which is also worth checking out).

Alain has helped many people with different projects like Cornell’s stuff and Queens of the Stone Age. Give the first song released a listen:

[gplayer href=”http://www.everydaynormal.com/files/Endless_Eyes.mp3″]Endless Eyes[/gplayer]

Am I just starving for something good or is it really as good as I think it is? Let me know.

Posted on

Worst Spectrum Ever

In high school and college I was taught that along the political spectrum we have communists on the left and fascists on the right. I have heard many others outside of a school setting use this view many, many times as well. I must say that I have always absolutely despised this view of things. Come with me now and learn why.

First off, if I have Stalin on the left and Hitler on the right where can a fella go to not be bossed around or killed for beliefs or ethnicity? On the left we have crap and on the right we have crap, how can this “spectrum” suddenly become more pleasant when it gets halfway between the two views? Most people don’t know that this view of right “wing” and left “wing” refers to seating arrangements in French parliament during the 1700’s. The people on the left were the commoners and the people on the right were the fat cats. The left side extended to views such as socialism and communism because such views claim to work for the little guy and the right side extended to crony capitalism and government being in bed with business for obvious reasons. The “wings” view sucks as it leaves me without a place to sit. But that is not the only reason that it sucks. Both ends of this spectrum begin with a premise that I reject outright and that is; that government should have a certain level of power that is beyond what I will allow. The right side in this view wants business to grow in size and power along with the government and the left side wants government to grow in size and power as it controls what people have. Both options sound horrible. Much of the beauty of the American Way is that bad guys are supposed to fail and not be bailed out and that little guys can get ahead and become big guys without then having what they have earned taken from them in equalization efforts.

There are many versions and views of the political spectrum, many of which have obvious flaws. One of the most popular and one that I have the least issues with is the Nolan Chart. This chart has four Superman symbol shapes (Truth, Justice and the American Way, aaaahhhhyeah!!) around a centrist square. This view shifts from right-left to North, South, East and West where communism and fascism would be more correctly near each other on the bottom. Here is my result:

One flaw in this is, of course, a flaw in every political name assignment game. It ignores other situations and takes only my approach to federal government and could give the appearance that that is how I am in all situations. I had a star right at the north of the libertarian shape. If the survey had been about interaction with others of my own free will I would have been deep in the liberal section. If it had been about how I personally conduct my life it would have been deep conservative. I do not see a situation in which I would ever venture to the statist or centrist regions. Another problem is that it, as do most other views, has liberal being opposite of conservative. Liberal the way it was classically meant focused on allowing freedom for individuals. Conservatism is focused on preserving traditional things that are viewed as positive. These are not opposite from each other. Conservatism is the opposite of progressivism. Progressivism and statism are also opposite liberalism. When I say that I am liberal in relation to interaction with others I do not mean the popular meaning of today where I want to force people to pay for my health care or to wipe with one square to save the environment. I mean that I want to allow others to do as they will, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. When I say that I am conservative in my personal living I do not mean, as many have a view of today, that I want to bailout corporations and start up a PATRIOT act. The definitions have been skewed from their original meaning. Most people have taken these changed definitions and made them a big part of their worldview.

Another way of looking at things which I like, which makes things much more clear as to why the most popular spectrum is dumb, is the Law spectrum.

This helps to explain my uneasiness with a view that has total government on both ends. This view sums up what the American founders were thinking very well. They did not want another tyrant and they didn’t want to just have anarchy. The system they set up allowed bad guys to fail and little guys to grow. Under this system groups of people could come together of their own volition and disperse their incomes amongst each other if they wanted without government involvement at all. It also allows people the freedom to be greedy jerks or to do other things that are not “nice” but are not infringing on the rights of other people.

If I were someone seeking power and control I would definitely want the popular “wing” political view to prevail and be taught as it would make people feel as though they must have some form of imposing government and they should pick their favorite of the sides.

If you follow the Nolan link and take the survey let me know your results below.

Posted on

Meeting Famous People

Many people freak out when someone famous gets near them. I have never envied the famous when it came to privacy or the ability to do things in public. For this reason I am pretty sure that I will never meet anyone famous.

I have been around when famous people have been around and people have swarmed them. Such a scene always drives me away as I would like to not be a person who is bothering someone else so much. This behavior will help guarantee that I never meet famous people.

My claim to not ever meeting famous people comes with some caveats. The first caveat is that I have some famous cousins that I have met at family reunions and get togethers. I met Cleon Skousen (Political and Religious author) at the Skousen family reunion in 1994. At the same function I ran across Bart Oates and his brother Brad who both played in the NFL (Bart won the super bowl the season after that). I met Dale Murphy (Outfielder for the Braves, Phillies, Rockies and two time National League MVP) and have seen him at many family funerals. I don’t count these as meeting famous people because they were really just meeting family who happened to be well known.

The next caveat is meeting someone who is not really that famous or at least not in your area. I met one of the greatest musicians of all time, but his fame is overwhelmingly had only in Canada. Ian Thornley (formerly of Big Wreck) did a show which I attended. His band was the opener and afterward they said they would be in the back of the club to sign stuff and hang out. I could not resist of course since he and his band were the entire reason I had come to the show. I went back and had them sign a CD while the headlining act played. Myself and my friends along with 2 other people were the only ones back with them. It was strange because they had put on a really good show that the crowd enjoyed but since they were not famous no one cared too much beyond the occasional passerby saying “you rock” or something like that. I felt like a silly teenage girl talking to Ian, since I had heard his music in high school and thought it was amazing. Since he was not being swarmed by others because of his lack of huge gigantic fame in my area I consider this one just hanging out after a show with someone who is famous elsewhere in the world. When I write it out I guess I have met a famous person, just mildly famous, and I was not annoying about it.

I can’t believe I almost totally forgot about meeting a famous person under perfectly normal and non-teengirl screamer way. I have met and chatted with LaVell Edwards twice. Once at the aforementioned football camp where I was told that I could be an All-American tight end. The second time was in 1998 when he noted that I must be the one that gets all the groceries in the family since I was so much larger than my uncle. Those were both full fledged meeting a famous person and I cannot find a way to excuse it away.

Posted on

Time Travel is Real: UPDATED

UPDATE: I must inform Mr. Hawking that he may be slowly catching up to me. Read about his theory here and then go ahead and find out why I have stated that time travel is not only possible, but is accomplished every microsecond of everyday.

Time travel has been the subject of a large number of discussions, books, movies and such. Unfortunately, they all portray time travel in an extremely unrealistic manner. I myself have previously been fooled by what seemed to be a superior depiction, of what time travel would be like, that I found in some movies. But with a little thought about it, I have come to realize what it would be like to actually travel through time. And now I will share it with you.

To the Future

Time travel is much less dramatic than you think.  In fact, I do it everyday.  Everyone does it everyday.  That’s right, we are all traveling through time.  With our time travel we are heading from point A (birth) to point B (death).  This is very simple to understand and makes time travel much less fascinating than before.  As we head from point A to point B we make observations and learn new things that help us to mark different moments in our time-line.  To take Marty McFly from the year 1985 to the year 2015 (as in Back to the Future 2) it would take thirty years.  That would make a very boring movie.

To the Past

For Marty to go back to 1955 from 1985 things get slightly more interesting.  Marty would have to have been born in 1968 or 1969 for him to be in high school in 1985, which means that if he went back to 1955, he would not exist in human physical form.  Meaning that he would be physically in many different places such as: in some dirt in a field on a farm or in the ocean floating around, waiting to evaporate and rain down in a lake near Hill Valley.  If we change the story a little and only take Marty to 1975 he would be 6 or 7 years old and he would, of course, not be aware of Doc Brown or anything in 1985.  He would also not be aware of his re-travel forward to 1985 as it would seem like he was just living his life as he makes observations and learns new things at different points in time.

The 4th Dimension

A couple of times in the Back to the Future series of movies Doc tells Marty that he is not thinking 4th dimensionally.  This is funny to me, since Doc is apparently not thinking 4th dimensionally either.  Doc tells Marty not to worry about hitting some painted American Indians below a drive in movie screen because the movie screen isn’t there in 1885.  Doc overlooks the fact that in 1885 the particles of matter that made up Marty and the Delorean are not organized into the form of a person and a car.

I used to think that the Bruce Willis movie “12 Monkeys” was an accurate depiction of time travel since he goes back in time to try to change the future but finds out that he cannot change anything.  The fact that you cannot change anything is certainly correct, but the fact that he traveled back in time and was fully grown and aware of observations he had made in the future is a huge mistake.

It is my belief that, on the time-line that is the 4th dimension, we can travel back and forth.  Traveling forward is what we call living and we make the aforementioned observations and learn things.  Traveling backward would take our particles to the older time and replay everything to the future.  As time is “replayed” we are completely unaware of anything that we did not observe or learn before a certain point and we have absolutely no idea that we have traveled back.  If you need a time machine for this to feel right in your head you can just consider your particles of matter to be the time machine.

Posted on

Remember the Alamo

I was once in a vegetative state back when I had television and saw what one could get away with calling a documentary about Ozzie Osbourne. There was a moment in the show when they started talking about a fairly famous incident which landed Ozzie in some trouble. The people that were interviewed about the incident talked about it in a seemingly amused manner and appeared to think it was actually quite funny. Continue reading “Remember the Alamo”

Posted on

Shutup. OK. : UPDATED

Still putting the new versions of videos up.

My brother Jared used to torture me when I was trying to go to sleep. I thought I would slap together a little animatic to let you in on my pain.