The Physics of Currency (or, Exhibiting Two-Dimensional Thinking and the Flaws of Lateral Economics)

Proponents for economic stimulus, while varied in their supported theories, all seem to experience the same flawed thinking: It's always a unilateral concept that holds the 'key' to our success. We either trickle it up or down, hoping that either the investing class (i.e. 'the rich') or the spending class (i.e. 'the poor') will influence the economy in such a way that their opposing end of the line will eventually receive beneficial effects.

Recently, I had thought about the idea of a bilateral system. While still a two-dimensional concept, it seemed to have some merit to it. The idea of creating tax breaks and incentives for middle-income families and businesses, we could stimulate higher levels of spending from one of our largest consumer bases, as well as promote job growth in multiple industries. Effectively, we would push benefits both ways along the class line, providing better employment opportunities for the lower-class and greater profit/revenue potential for the upper-class.

It appeared a viable option and, for all I know, is an existing theory (I did try to search for it, but invariably found nothing but 'bilateral loans' and 'bilateral trade agreements'. I couldn't seem to find the right search string for a 'bilateral trickle'). However, it still has its flaws. Being a two-dimensional concept, the variables for any applied mathematics are limited. In all respects, the more variables we can apply to the model and the more malleable the model is, the better the chance of a successful outcome.

This is where two-dimensional models are lacking. We cannot provide adequate influence to the system to affect a prosperous solution. With only three possible variations in the flow (upwards unilateral, downwards unilateral and bilateral), a failure in one formula to produce results will hinder any corrective influence. We would have to effectively stop the flow of the failed application before being able to initiate the changes to push it in another direction. This, of course, takes an incredible amount of effort and time... even the insubstantiality of economics has an impressive momentum.

With the classical economic perspective no longer accomodating modern practices, it's time for our economic leadership to start, literally, thinking 'inside the box' of three-dimensional applications. It would also be prudent to engage in further exploration into chaos mathematical theory and its function in the economic and financial sectors. There are numerous models out there waiting to be exploited, for lack of a better term, in the pursuit of strengthening our economic power and stability.

I've said before that I'm not an economist, not by any stretch of the imagination. However, if I can realize our current two-dimensional economic paradigm is no longer a viable option, why can't those within the economic fields also come to the same conclusion? Even our President-Elect, for all of his apparent intelligence, appears to be stuck in the unilateral perspective with his interest in producing a 'trickle up' structure. How can we get them to understand that now is the time to bring the 'fringe economists' to the forefront and allow them to push us beyond the limited boundaries of our current, failing system?

Fifteen Years Late (or, The Challenges of Adult Education)

I am intelligent.

It's a simply matter of fact... possibly a minutia of ego.

Possibly.

I consume and retain information quite readily for someone my age, when the mind is not as malleable as it once was. I don't balk at analytical problems nor do I have any difficulty processing data and formulating independent theories on what I've picked up.

And, yet, I am afraid.

As the date on which I return to school approaches, I find myself experiencing a rapidly developing fear... palpable, thick, settling abruptly as a cast-iron fog.

I. am. old.

And, honestly, before anyone says anything about the early thirties not being old, let me clarify. I am fifteen years behind the standard college entry age. I am much older than the average student, the same average student with whom I will be competing academically. I plan on pushing straight through to a Master's... and will, subsequently, have to apply for internships also being sought after by younger, more adaptable minds.

This... this is where the seed of fear is nurtured. I cannot fathom how much harder and more thorough my studies are going to have to be. Additionally, I'll have two toddlers who need their father, a wedding to plan, a marriage to build and enjoy... all while being a full-time student. Other students will have parties as distractions; I'll have life.

I have no desire to turn back, mind you. However, this feeling will be ever present through the course of my career as a student. I will fear... no, I do feel inferior to those students who are fresh out of highschool, who haven't forgotten their lessons, who are simply continuing their education without more than a summer break.

I'm beginning to understand the pressure many adults express as a concern when attempting collegial courses later in life. I can only hope that I'll be able to pass through it and push my way through to a better, more fulfilling set of life experiences.

Brief Thought (or, Unions Always Have to Spin...)

After reading the New York Times article about the Walmart employee trampled to death, part of it struck as just as inhuman as the death of the employee:

The union spokesman pointing out the lack of safety and how Walmart, itself, should be investigated, rather than focusing on the individuals who forced their way through the doors and trampled Mr. Damour.

As if I needed another reason to dislike unions.

Brief Thought (or, We Hope You Enjoyed Your Stay)

Of the approximately 770 individuals detained at Guantánamo, 23 have been charged with crimes. Out of the remainder, somewhere over 500 have been released and were handed letters that read quite like this one:

Dated Oct. 7, 2006, it reads as follows:
“An Administrative Review Board has reviewed the information about you that was talked about at the meeting on 02 December 2005 and the deciding official in the United States has made a decision about what will happen to you. You will be sent to the country of Afghanistan. Your departure will occur as soon as possible.”

That's what we give them. No apologies, no explanations... just a plane ticket and a kick out the door. Sort of a "Sorry, you didn't have any pertinent information and, as such, are of no use to us and are not worth the expense of taxpayer dollars. Good luck and we hope you enjoyed your stay."

At the very least, we could've said, "Oops, our bad... you're not a terrorist. Sorry, dude." It would've been better than what they were given.

Honestly, It's Perfectly Fair (or, My Party Believes in Rights...Except for Conservative Perspectives)

While I consider myself a 'damned, dirty' liberal, I am, obviously, a bit more of a moderate leftist in my views. I don't always see 'eye to eye' with the Democratic Party and, frequently, I find myself at odds with their agenda.

Now is, sadly, one of those times.

After we've just been through one hell of an election, pushing our first non-Caucasian into office with a landslide victory, the Democrats have to start causing a ruckus. Certainly, we have good control in two of the three branches, which does make it a good time to push through beneficial legislation that may have otherwise been thwarted.

The keyword there is 'beneficial'.

Instead, Pelosi and her Frat Pack are looking to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

Why, you might ask. The answer is relatively simple... conservative talk radio hosts outnumber their liberal counterparts by about ten to one. And we can't have all that 'crazy' talk all over the airwaves when the Dems are in power.

Truth be told, I believe we could do with fewer conservative talk shows, but that's just personal opinion. However, my solution to the problem would be to find a few charismatic liberally-minded individuals to work up an audience and tackle their counterparts 'head on'. If we want fewer conservatives on the radio, we need to develop smart, informative talk shows and push them to a level of popularity that will put them in the position to take the places of less popular conservatives.

However, the Democrats, obviously, don't play that way. Instead, we'd rather just force the networks to provide balanced coverage of both perspectives. With the current ratio, this would effectively mean many radio networks would have to drop popular (and profitable through advertisements) shows. There would also have to be a rather extensive overhaul of the remaining shows to make certain they can no longer focus on one side of the issue.

Anyone remember the Free Speech Clause? Obviously not. We, as a party, only seem to bring it to light when it suits our agenda of the moment. In this case, it is, in the immortal words of our outgoing President, "A piece of paper." (I will give Bush, Jr. credit... he didn't toy around with the Bill of Rights, he very stubbornly tried to ignore it. That, in my opinion, is more honorable than what my party is doing).

If this legislation is passed, the Democrats are pretty bluntly engaging in an action, the likes of which they claimed against Bush numerous times. They would be restricting the freedom of their opponents to openly express their opinions on the airwaves of privately owned businesses. In all respects, I would hope our President-Elect will veto the bill when it reaches his desk; however, the individuals he has picked to choose the next FCC Chairman are supportive of the legislation. So, while he has openly stated he is against the renewal of the Fairness Doctrine (back in June), his actions dictate a different opinion.

The idea of simply planning for this legislation causes me some concern. Should it actually be reinstated, I will be embarrassed to call myself a Democrat. If it comes to that, I may find myself tossing my vote away on third party candidates who better represent my views, though they will never be in power.

Brief Thought (or, "How Can We Advertise Without a Bailout?!")

In the wake of the near idiocy of the Big Three basically demanding a bailout for their companies, I find it ironic that Citi Group is looking for handouts to help them through their harder times...

All whilst keeping their $400 million contract with the Mets to make certain it's still "Citi Stadium".

On the other hand, AIG's new CEO will be working for $1 a year as his salary, without the possibility of a performance-based bonus until 2010. Additionally, they've eliminated a small handful of their top executive positions, as well as stated the remaining top-level executives will not receive bonuses or salary increases. Certainly, if they grow from this bailout, they will receive some incentives, but they do seem to have a focus on reponsibly dealing with the taxpayer dollars.

Editted: To give more credit where it's due, Goldman Sachs has stated there will be no performance bonuses handed to their executives this year. It's only a small step, of course, but it is nice to know that some in the industry are, at the least, showing some sort of sacrifice, no matter how little it may be.

Is it Still "Yarr!"? (or, Somalia and the Rebirth of Modern Piracy)

Welcome to the Gulf of Aden, located between the Arabian Peninsula's Yemen and Somalia's little Horn of Africa. It is, quite arguably, one of the world's vital shipping routes, with roughly 10%-12% of all seaborne petroluem shipments made through the region on their way to the Suez Canal.

It also has a more notorious name, "Pirate Alley."

Since the early 1990's, with the fall of the Siad Barre regime in Somalia, many of the local warlords vying for control of the country have, effectively, legitimized the 'industry' of piracy as a means to raise additional funds to support their war efforts and their socio-economic standings. In the earlier years, piracy in the area was limited, as only a handful of individuals were brave enough to start seizing smaller vessels travelling through the area. Most of these were the pirate groups who had already been active in the area during the Barre era.

The last twelve to fifteen months has brought a drastic increase in active piracy, as well as brought to international attention the lucrativeness of this criminal profession. Since 1984, there have been approximately 440 recognized incidents of pirate attacks in the area... of these, about 120 are reports from 2008, with the twelve months prior to today accumulating almost $150 million in ransom from these attacks. Given that there are only an estimated one to two thousand pirates, even with passing on a good bit of the funds to the government in Puntland (a region that broke away from Somalia shortly after 1991) and some of the warlords, the individual shares would definitely be better than the estimated $600/year of the average Somalian.

There are some who believe there are Islamic (or, more specifically, Al Qaeda) connections to the pirates, though it seems a bit contradictory, as the majority opposition to the pirates comes from Islamic sources. Until recently, when the U.N. opted to send a NATO task force to the area, it was the Islamic groups and regimes in the area who battled the pirates. Even now, there is still very little assistance coming from the NATO group, as they do not yet have definitive 'rules of engagement' for dealing with suspected pirates. I think it's safe to say that the Islamic nations in the region would prefer that random warlords not have access to the profits of piracy, profits that can purchase short range missiles on the black market.

I do find it interesting (and mildly amusing) that the pirates actually have a code of conduct. In almost every instance, they've been described as fairly disciplined, exceptionally drilled young men who are very focused on the prize. They prefer not to kill and, in fact, there have been few pirate-related deaths over the years. There are, apparently, references to the older code of the 'South Seas" pirate days... possibly due to a handful of the more educated leaders amongst them utilizing their history lessons to keep things running as smoothly as possible. However, I'm assuming they don't "Yo, ho, ho" over a bottle of rum or sing racy pirate chanties.

Certainly, they aren't the only pirates in the world. The international waters of East Asia have their share of issues, as well as the tropical seas off of our own south-eastern shores. However, the pirates in these regions consist mostly of smaller, less organized groups. Of course, this probably has to do more with having to avoid the more regular patrols of international forces in these waters. It's this lack of any real regulatory patrol or defensive net that has allowed the Somlian pirates to evolve into the well-practiced machine they are today.

Fearless little buggers, too. Anyone remember the Russian cargo ship carrying thirty-three tanks? There were ships representing numerous national fleets facing them down and they just stared right back, never blinking. Or they're brazen capture of a tanker hauling some $110 in petroleum... obviously, they have concern when it comes to dealing with powers supported by the militant Islamc sects. In some ways, they're a whole, new breed of pirate... one we have never read about in the stories with which we grew up.

In all honesty, I don't know whether to consider them a problem to international trade or an interesting twist on modern piracy. As an adult who is concerned by the implication of the increased price of goods based on transports having to travel longer distances, I hope the task forces will be able to accomplish a lasting solution. The child in me, however, simply thinks, "Yarr!"

Experimentation (or, Learning the Hidden Variables of Blogging)

While the format is still the same, there are some additional features you might notice. I'm starting to play around with some of the Google Webmaster and Google Analytics tools in an effort to experience more of the 'behind the scenes' of blogging.

As it is, I've already surprised myself with how often I've posted entries. Normally, I'm not as prolific a blogger as this. Both my Myspace and Livejournal accounts are lacking in any attention. I log in at random intervals and, in the case of Myspace, post about once every few months... my Livejournal hasn't seen in real activity in over a year.

I'd like to offer thanks to the local blogging community. They've rekindled my interest in posting and have led me to a point where I actively enjoy the process. I'm learning a bit more about myself as I continue to 'put my thoughts to paper', as it were.

Obviously, I'm not the best of writers out there and my posts are often more opinion than fact. Still, this experience has allowed me better understand both my perspectives and those of others.

Again, thank you to those who have shown interest and provided me with the interest to keep going.

Updating the System (or, National Sales Taxes as an Improvement)

I support the FairTax movement.

Now, let me focus on that for a moment. By 'support', I mean that, when feasible within my budget, I provide monetary donations to them. I do this due to my belief that they are the strongest lobbying entity in the National Sales Tax field. Beyond that, I do not endorse them, aside from sending interested parties to their website to learn more.

The Fair Tax model is not entirely correct, in my opinion. Their numbers are off and their economic theories are not entirely accurate. However, they are gaining a slow momentum and bringing attention to the idea of what I do support.

A National Sales Tax in lieu of income taxes.

There are many who oppose the idea in any shape or form... and I'll grant them their reasonable concerns, as the imposition of a NST is a drastic change to the system.

I'm still not perfectly educated on the issues involving it, but I'll try to provide my reasons in support of the tax.

1. Under a NST, certain groups that were previously untaxable by income standards (i.e. drug rings, illegal pornography rings, those involved in prostitution, black marketeers, etc.) would now be taxed on purchases made with their less than legitimate funds. Personally, I like the idea of being able to 'tax' incomes that are otherwise out of the normal tax loop. We would also catch those individuals who are being paid 'under the table', preventing them from circumnavigating the system.

2. While it may seem a bit odd, we would also pull tax dollars from international tourists. I haven't looked up the numbers for how many visitors we receive annually, but I would imagine it's a sizeable amount.

3. A NST would eliminate the 'matching dollars' system under which our employers currently operate. That money saved could be used for a number of beneficial actions, ranging from offering higer wages/salaries, providing more affordable health insurance options, more rapid expansion of businesses, etc. Savings could also be handed down to the consumer, which may help keep prices relatively the same compared to the additional funds individuals would have in their pockets. Prices might be higher than they are now, but we would, effectively, have more money to spend.

4. With a NST, we could reduce the size of government organizations involved in the collection and review of taxes. Yes, that means some people will lose their jobs, but with the potential for a stronger economy, it would more of a shift from public to private sector for them. The money no longer being spent on these organizations would help reduce our annual budget requirements, allowing us to put funds where they're needed.

A simple NST, however, would have to be carefully considered. While our tax code is a bloated mess, there are a number of statutes that provide some tax relief for a myriad of reasons (property ownership, expenses on dependents, etc.). There would need to be a similar system designed, ableit more simplified than the current code. These reliefs could be applied towards the prebates individuals would receive.

The prebates, themselves, are another concern. The system for prebates needs extensive work. Under our current system, as Chris Muse pointed out in a comment on my post about taxation, almost half of our citizens wind up not actually paying any taxes. There are many of those who receive more in refunds than they pay out over the course of a year. The prebate system needs to be designed to prevent this imbalance.

I would suggest something similar to our W-4's we currently use. Individuals provide their exemptions and prebate checks would be based around the review of these forms. However, there should be a percentage cap on 'taxes' refunded. If we can provide a system where no one is either 'zeroed' out by their prebate or makes a profit on it, a system where everyone winds up on the 'plus' side of taxes to the government, we will be better off than we are now.

The only issue for which I cannot discern a solution is for those who will have already spent the majority of their employed lives paying under the current tax system. Senior citizens would be the hardest hit, excepting those with exceptional pensions or retirement investments. It doesn't seem entirely fair to have them paying equally into a National Tax when they are no longer employed. Perhaps it would be an exemption for them... allowing those over the 'social security' age prebates that would produce a 'zero sum'.

However, I wouldn't hold the same true for the welfare system. Welfare users would still be subject to the sales tax, which would effectively mean their expenditures would actually help offset the cost of their system use.

The current ideas out there for a NST aren't perfect; neither is my concept, for that matter. However, I believe it is time to repair and readjust our tax system with the hopes of re-establishing ourselves as a strong economy and nation.

Brief Confirmation (or, The Monday Outing)

The plan to be at Tavern on the Market sometime shortly after six o'clock tomorrow is 'good to go.'

Unfortunately, as a pre-apology to anyone who decides to attend, I will be coming straight from work, so I will probably bear the delightful aroma of a day's worth of food service.

I can't wait until January... then I can attend outings such as these after the cleanliness of class.

Editted: Just to avoid the confusion of who, exactly, is who... I'll probably be the only one at Tavern with blue hair.

Probably.

27 Months of "Too Small" (or Pluto and the Fight for Planethood)

Tomorrow is the anniversary of the twenty-seventh month of Pluto's demotion.

Let us have a moment of silence for those of us who spent decades believing in our 'little planet that could."

Pluto, we still remember your glory. (February 18, 1930 - August 24, 2006)

Brief Thought (or, "No Taxation without Representation" and Those Outside the Concept)

While the numbers were a little difficult to determine, we have somewhere between two and four million teenagers who are employed and paying state and federal taxes. If their tax dollars can be spent on government-based programs, why are they unable to be a part of the voting process to help determine where those tax dollars should go?

Conversely, there are millions of individuals whose only income is through non-taxed sources. Since they have no earned income providing to the federal and state governments (aside from sales taxes), should they still have the privilege of voting to affect how tax dollars are potentially spent?

Effectively, between the two we have 'taxation without representation' and 'representation without taxation'. What, exactly, is our "American" ideal supposed to be?

Brief Thought (or, "Student" as an Active Career Choice)

While I have no intention of remaining in school indefinitely, I have come to realize that those of us over the age of thirty, through sheer diligence of applying to every adult-oriented grant and scholarship program, can actually pay for a full-time education while living off of the equivalent of a $25k a year salary.

It's sad to think that, starting with the 2009-2010 school year, I'll probably be making more while in school than I will after I finally make it all the way through a Master's program.

Maybe this is how they should work the welfare and unemployment systems... pay for a trade or degree program, then set them loose. It would, most likely, be more economically efficient in the long run.

Editted: With the 2009-2010 year, starting next fall and meeting all of the applicable deadlines for grants and scholarships, if my credit score was better, I would, effectively, be able to purchase a new 2009/2010 model car and buy a modest house without actually being employed, assuming I receive approximately half of the aid for which I apply.

My reaction to this can only be expressed in the common, online vernacular of 'wtf?'.

A Gathering of Minds (or, An Outing for the Roanoke Blog Community and Interested Parties)

Monday evening, I'll be hanging out at Tavern on the Market to relax a little and celebrate my return to school (now that my classes are all locked in place). If anyone wants to come by for a visit for general chat or discussion related to blogging and how we can improve ourselves, feel free. I'll be there shortly after six o'clock.

Brief Thought (or, The Battle for Gay Marriage)

As a side note to my previous post:

In this modern era, where we allow those of non-heterosexuality to serve in the military, albeit in secret, protecting the rights and freedoms of others, why is it we can't allow them the indulgence of marriage?

I don't care about the definitions religions apply to marriage or the 'survival of the species' mentality that marriage serves to produce offspring (which, honestly, marriage or not, that's solely in the realm of sex)... it's a union between two people connected by love and affection, no matter how you look at it.

And, honestly, isn't the "Pursuit of Happiness" one of our inalienable rights as American citizens?

Crashing the Rainbow Barrier (or, Allowing Homosexuals and Bisexuals in the Military)

Today, 104 former Admirals and Generals called for a repeal of the infamous "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy of the Clinton era, so that such members could serve openly. The support is up drastically from a similar demand for repeal sent last year by 28 former military leaders.

All I can say is, "It's about damned time."

During the six years I served, I was friends with several soldiers, both male and female, who were admitted (in the privacy of friends) homo- or bi- sexuals. I knew of many others, as well. Some might say I failed in my duties as a leader by not reporting these individuals for violating the regulations against homosexual activity, from the time I was a Private First Class filling an NCO position and later when I was a Sergeant (two of these soldiers served under me in separate units). However, every single one of them was a hard-working, excellent soldier, people in whom I entrusted my safety and, in the case of duty accomplishment, my reputation as a 'get the job done' leader.

Perhaps my failure to bring these soldiers before the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) for admitting their sexuality to others comes from the way I was trained. From my Drill Sergeants to my first Platoon Sergeant, the First Sergeant I first worked directly for, my first real Company Commander onto all the others under whom I served and learned leadership, I was taught to always place the needs and welfare of my soldiers as one of my highest priorities. Additionally, I was taught to always consider the needs of the Army over other considerations. In both cases, keeping quiet and respecting their sexual choices and keeping them secret won out. I saw no need to upset the military careers of these soldiers nor to cause their assets and strengths to be removed from an Army that needed them.

Just like race, religion or gender, it shouldn't matter. If someone wants to make the choice to serve in one of the military branches, they should be able to do as such, without having to hide who they are. They're just like every other cross-section of the military; some will be need to be disciplined and molded into better soldiers, some will always walk the line of mediocrity, never exceeding or dropping below the standards and some will be gifted, talented service members who give everything of themselves to better their unit, branch and country. They deserve the same consideration and chances as any other potential recruit.

President-elect Obama has stated he believes in a repeal, but that he may not be the one who accomplishes it. In part, it may be fear that he will fall into a similar situation as President Clinton did or it may be something as astute as realizing it will take some time to adapt the military culture to readily accept the change, which may not be entirely possible if he only serves a single term. As support for the repeal continues to grow, however, he might not have much choice in the matter.

These next few years may be the best opportunity to, at the least, start such a change. With both a liberal President and Congress, it's a measure that could be readily made, as long as those making it realize they can't make it a 'sudden impact' on the modern military. There will be prejudice and there will be internal opposition, but, with time, these individuals can become accepted members of military service, with more regard for their records and accomplishments than whom they choose to bed.

Roanoke Blogger Gathering (or, Fermented Grains and Fruit as a Social Interactive Process)

Quite a few months back, Chris Berry posted a blog entry that, towards the end, invited other Roanoke bloggers to gather to have a drink or two and discuss the blogging culture and how we might better improve our own blogs through shared experiences.

It's on the table again as an idea. I'm not entirely certain what sort of traffic my blog receives, as I have no tracking elements installed. However, I know a few of you read and have some connection to other bloggers in the area. If you have interest and/or know of others who might enjoy such an outing, let me know and between our assorted work and family schedules, hopefully I can figure out a suitable day and time, preferably before the holiday season is fully upon us.

National Dogma (or, Religious Freedom and the War on Non-Believers)

Modern America contains a plethora of religious beliefs and attitudes, most represented through various centers of worship, organizations and lobbyists/politicians. We owe this particular freedom to the First Amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It's the 'freedom of religion' card that nearly everyone employs to protect their individual practices, to include the agnostic and atheistic views of 'non-belief/non-practice."

In respects to the Christian population and, most notably, the near-militant Christian Right, it can be reasonably assumed the initial implications of the Establishment Clause was to protect those of Protestant faiths who had suffered a great deal of persecution from the European Catholic entities. Perhaps it was left unstated as a 'spirit of the law' concept; however, it was not implicitly stated, which allows for the protection of most religious practices and anti-religious beliefs.

For a moment, let's look at what it means that 'most' religious practices are protected. In 1879, the Supreme Court dealt with Reynolds vs. The United States, concerning the Federal prohibition against polygamy. The Supreme Court upheld the law, stating, in short, that while the government cannot create laws that prohibit religious beliefs or opinions, there will be neutral laws that interfere with practices. It was a decision made to uphold the laws concerning the welfare of the population as a whole, effectively disallowing extremist practicies and rituals that could endanger others. Later, in both 1990 and 1997, the Supreme Court upheld state laws the prohibited the use of drugs and allowed for drug-testing of State employees when confronted with the use of peyote in religious rituals (in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which had, effectively, nullified the 1990 ruling. The Supreme Court's 1997 decision revived the previous precedent and claimed Congress' act of attempting to interpret the Constitution as stepping outside their bounds).

So, not everyone is afforded full freedom of religious expression, depending on rites and rituals conflicting with local and Federal laws. We accept that it isn't entirely plausible to allow for every religion to engage in practices that could cause harm to others. However, we currently have no laws or regulations in place that prevent prejudicial actions against those in the questioning or non-belief mentalities. Certainly, those practices are protected under the First Amendment, but we do live in a primarily Christian nation, which does nullify that protection to some degree.

The idea of 'religious freedom' is now utilized as 'the freedom to express disdain and displeasure' with a theological mindset that is different and in the minority. Support a cause that disrupts the strength of the church in government affairs and you find yourself labeled as a 'radical'. Christian groups have any gone as far as to produce ad campaigns stating "Why do Atheists Hate America?", declaring those who choose not to accept belief or faith as 'un-American' or 'un-patriotic'. In most situations, their statements could be considered as libel and slander, but no one challenges them.

There is a bit of a paradox in the Christian political agenda. They want creationism and prayer in school, which I honestly support. Creationism should be allowed as an elective course for Christians and prayer as religious practice shouldn't be disallowed. However, neither should be mandatory, which is what they desire. Likewise, they will fight tooth and nail to keep 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, even though it's mandatory inclusion causes a source of friction amongst believers of other faiths and non-believers alike. They want their religious freedoms, but will refuse to allow others their own.

To a degree, it's a climate of fear. Between sin, eternal damnation and any denial of entry to Heaven, churches control their congregations through subtley implied fear. As such, those belief or non-belief systems that stand in contradiction to Christian teachings inspire a distaste or even hatred born from that fear.

In respects, not all Christians follow this pattern. I have Christian friends who experience very strong faith, yet are still accepting, if not entirely understanding, of a decision to actively not believe. There are churches who preach acceptance and patience in regards to those of the non-belief sect. I respect these individuals for not involving themselves in the viscious cycle of religious antagonism.

My recent post on my own agnosticism and Chris Berry's on his admitted atheism gave rise to this entry. We represent the minorities in the faith/non-faith fields and, as such, have the potential to face extreme prejudice based on the fact that we do not conform to any sort of 'rational' belief system. We do not always experience the freedom to express ourselves without the consequence of being judged poorly by others.

Why should we be any different? Do we not deserve the same rights extended to others under the First Amendment?

What, exactly, does that mean? (or, The Nature of the Nyms and How We Perceive Ourselves)

The title may be longer than the actual real content of this post. The pseudonym I use isn't entirely common knowledge, depending on the books one read as a child (and keeps around the house for their children to read when they're older). So, to the point, the meaning of my nym, as defined by Richard Adams' "Watership Down".

Hlessi: a wandering, solitary rabbit, usually found living above ground like a hare

Waking up the Nation (or, The Need to Accumulate Your 'Piece of the American Pie')

The American Dream.

The best definition for it is that hard work, the willingness to take risks, perserverence and determination will lead to success and social/financial prosperity. It is the invisible, driving force behind our particular brand of capitalism, though some would say it is only a myth or fairy tale to keep the poor from discovering the 'real' truth. It is the soul of every entrepreneurial startup, every new actor's audition, every success story in our country. These days, however, it also encapsulates the Welfare system as part of the proverbial 'pie'.

First, I support the concept of a welfare system. There are those who are, through no or little fault of their own find themselves unable to provide for their families. I believe we should help these individuals as they work to improve their situation. Work is the operative word, mind you. Welfare should only be a crutch in the most literal sense, something to hold you up during the healing process and nothing more. Unfortunately, the system doesn't work that way. It allows for people to 'earn a living' through poverty... and there are too many people who have learned to take advantage of just that, working hard at 'being poor' to maximize benefits recieved.

Again, I believe there are people who truly need it. I, personally, utilize the system to provide health care for my children because I don't earn enough to afford medical insurance. There are many more like me and even more in worse situations, scraping by between scant paychecks and government aid. You could consider us the 'upper class' of the poverty range, those who hover within a few thousand a year of the Federal poverty line. We bounce back and forth because we are trying to pull ourselves up and start into more prosperous and successful lives. We use the system as it was originally intended... a temporary solution to help fill the gaps while we adjust aim and focus on our goals.

I digress from my original intentions for the post. Our current welfare system is an issue that irritates me and is prone to causing rant-ish behavior. It's better suited for discussing at another time.

Part of it, however, remains moderately on target.

The American Dream... it's real. And it does require more effort than most are willing to place into it. It isn't always going to be an amazing 'rags to riches' experience, but it's the building block for providing your children with something more and they, in turn, will push further upwards. It's more of a legacy to begin rather than an instant lottery win of success.

We see it in the news on a regular basis in the guise of new, previously nameless companies that rise from seemingly nowhere (anyone remember using Google and Yahoo in the 90's... when Alta Vista was one of the premiere search engines?). We see it in film, most recently with "The Pursuit of Happiness", a tale based on real life experiences, which provides us with the hope that we, too, can attain this dream.

I've been more focused on it recently, as the Roanoke Times has had a number of letters to the editor discussing the "American Dream"... and it's given me some perspective to the changes I'm about to make in my life. After six years in the Army and another five blindly stumbling through mediocre employment, trying to determine what I wanted to accomplish, I'm finally heading back to college with the help of the G.I. Bill/Army College Fund. My hard work and perserverence with the military is going to provide me with the educational credentials to validate the intelligence I already know I have (apologies for the ego stroking) and allow me to pursue employment that will allow me to better provide for myself and my family.

Certainly, it's going to be more hard work and effort, a great deal of sacrifice concerning my free time and my budget will be stretched thin. But I'll be better off for it... I will find success.

To those who believe their tax dollars shouldn't go to provide for the 'poor and lazy', well... maybe you're right, at least on the 'lazy' part. But, realize that many of those 'poor' aren't looking for handouts; rather, they're asking for a crutch to keep them stable while they pursue the same success as you.

To those who feel we should support everyone, remember the old adage of teaching a man to fish. The support we provide should be limited and temporary, just enough to keep someone on their feet while they learn to walk again. They will never have the chance to taste their piece of the pie if you don't give them the opportunity to earn it.

Death and, Well, You Know the Rest (or, Why I Prefer to Pay My Dues to the Federal Government)

I will apologize in advance, as this is another brief post. There are other entries of substance coming shortly.

To those who feel we must work to lower taxes, either on certain income brackets or across the board, or who believe we shouldn't have to pay a Federal tax, allow me to point out a few Federal 'programs' these tax dollars support that I, at least, happen to appreciate:

The Military
The FDA
The FBI
Funding to States for Road Repair and Public Works
The Department of Education
The Veteran's Administration
The Department of Agriculture

I am certain I could produce a handful of posts based on these... and I've probably missed a few that aren't readily coming to mind.

(editted to remove the USPS)

Monday Morning (or, Fluff Post of the Week)

Many thanks to Jason Reid for this picture... it has definitely started my week off right.

Brief Thought (or, The Intermission Preceding a Real Post)

In the aftermath of Obama's election to the presidency, one thought keeps running through my mind:

Will we finally realize we no longer need the presence of Affirmative Action to protect what the law can only infer to as 'second class' citizens?

Empirical Theism (or, The Choice to Not Choose in Matters of Faith)

When I was much, much younger, I was proud to be a Presbyterian, following in the beliefs of my grandparents and mother. I went through the Catechism and a second baptism in my middle school days and proclaimed beliefs in which I did not have the greatest comprehension.

As I entered highschool, I began independent studies of multiple religions. I began to question my own faith, as it was grounded more in familial interests rather than personal spiritual experience. As the years have passed, I have read through texts on Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, early Japanese Shinto, Wicca/Paganism, Christianity, Mormonism and the irreverant, but strangely compelling Discordianism. As such, I have a great respect for the religions of the world, finding philosophies in each with which I agree on moral and ethical grounds. Each has merits in its own rights.

However, none of this reading has affected the decision I made at around the age of seventeen... the age at which I first engaged my agnostic leanings. I began as an Agnostic Theist, giving my belief to the Church as a matter of faith. As my education and personal experiences furthered, I have since waivered between Strong and Weak Agnosticism, though Weak seems to provide the majority of my theistic opinions (In brief, Strong Agnosticism posits that deific forces are unknowable by man, whereas Weak believes a deity can be known, but there is not enough proof to support the existence or non-existence).

Many see my views as a 'cop out', avoiding either a commitment to or denial of the existence of a deific presence. As of yet, only one person has ever pointed out the logic of Pascal's Wager, which still requires a leap of faith that I am not, at present, capable of making. (For those unfamiliar with Pascal's Wager, he stated that the infinite rewards of belief in God outweigh the finite aspects of disbelief and pointed out that God was, in respects, a 'safe bet').

I cannot, however, find reason to accept belief based entirely on faith alone. I have not had what I would consider any spiritual experiences, but I do not consider my lack thereof indicative of the non-existence of a greater power. The problem is that I do, in fact, require some sort of empirical data, some element of proof before I can either acknowledge or dismiss the presence of a deity.

Given the nature of the universe and the intricate design, one can only imagine there must be some sort 'engineering force' that makes everything work and make sense. However, I cannot, as of yet, determine what to call it or which path to choose in matters of faith.

If this makes me a 'fence-sitter', so be it. I believe Agnosticism is, in itself, a 'safe bet', as it provides me with the ability to explore a religion without bias. I don't have to accept the contradictions inherent in multiple philosophies and can, rather, question them and pursue further knowledge to help provide answers to the aspects that don't make the greatest sense. I would rather have the knowledge and respect that I do rather than being restricted by the nature of my faith in a chosen religion.

Statistically, I know I will eventually choose a religious path as I grow older and reach an age where my mortality becomes a more prominent issue. I'd like to think my constant questioning and quest for answers now will allow me to make a choice of 'aware faith' rather than the 'blind' kind.

Delays (or, How I Need to Unlearn Procrastination)

I've had quite a few blog entries in my head over the last few weeks. I do promise to get them written and posted shortly.

As it is, I've been more than moderately sidetracked with my hobbies and the upcoming expansion for World of Warcraft (or, digital multi-player crack, if you desire a more appropriate definition for what the game really is).

The next few days should provide quite a few posts as I work to clear some of the ideas from my mind.

Sorry to keep my handful of readers/watchers waiting.