Litter Bugs

Have you ever noticed how some people just leave their trash behind them? I have never understood that. I cannot do that. It makes me physically uncomfortable to do that. I don't know why it is so easy for some people to do that. Why is it so easy for them, though? Do they think it's fine and normal? Do they think that's where trash belongs?

Well, each person in society has a different background, and has been raised differently. I distinctly remember on numerous occasions learning about the harms of littering. Furthermore, I remember going out and collecting garbage to clean up public areas. I remember doing this as part of a youth group, around the age of 9 or 10.

So what is it that is wrong with just leaving the trash behind as you go about your way? What is it that makes me uncomfortable? Well, I know it's wrong. It affects everybody. It harms the environment. It makes our cities ugly. It can hurt wildlife. It can poison the soil, and it can stick around forever. Well, not forever, but it certainly sticks around for the long term. It will likely outlast human society. What's worse is that it may stick around where you leave it, but it may not. Sometimes, it gathers to a somewhere else.

Grocery bags, for instance, tend to be drawn to areas around Wal-Marts. Cigarettes stay where they are left and actually seep poison into the ground, making it not grow as well for years. That's not an exaggeration. Cigarette butts, which are not biodegradable, affect the ground and soil for several years, as well as being toxic to any animal or small child that may put it in their mouth. Plastic that makes its way to the ocean gathers into garbage patches, notably the great pacific garbage patch. There seem to be others, but they are smaller and less well known.

Is there trash that you can leave behind safely? Well, you probably shouldn't, but if you can't pack everything with you, then the only safe items are organics. Things like banana peels, apple cores, branches, and other biodegradable organics are relatively short lived. It can still be obnoxious, and there are much better things to do with them, but they are not harmful.

So what can each of us do about it? Well, each item you properly put away in the garbage, recycling or compost keeps it off of the streets and keeps our cities and the whole world cleaner. If we can pick up litter that we come across and not add any of our own, that will make a difference. Each item that you don't add to the problem contributes to the solution.

If you choose to use packaging that can be reused and avoid disposable packaging, you are helping fix the problem. That comes down to shopping and planning, because you need to plan ahead to use reusable containers. You cannot just grab snacks in reusable containers at the last moment. It isn't the easiest thing, but it has a very positive impact on your own neighbourhood. If you do use disposable packaging like Ziploc bags, at least bring them home, maybe even reuse them. However, reusable packaging is much less likely to be thrown out or left behind, so it creates those good habits. If something breaks, don't just drop it on the ground and forget about it. Take it home, then you might be able to fix it.

So, what difference can you make? A lot. The problem was caused by a lot of individual people not worrying about what they were doing, so now it needs to be fixed by individual people doing their best. Each one of us by ourselves will not make much difference, but as we all try to do our best, it will add up to that big difference that we need to make in our cities.

Why the US 2016 Election is Different, and the Same

When I was in school, I remember learning about the Napoleonic wars. For those of you who may not be so familiar with those wars, they were the aftermath of the the French revolution, and had a major influence on all the wars since then. They particularly had a major impact on World War I and World War II. It is not often brought up in what way they impact modern warfare, however, but it is simple. In the years before the Napoleonic wars, soldiers were professionals who focused on fighting. They were not civilians. If you go back far enough, of course, this was not true, but in the 17th and 18th centuries, armies were made up of professional soldiers. This has varied at times throughout history, but the Napoleonic wars transitioned from this to Universal Conscription. As a result, the French army under Napoleon was a massive force of approximately 500 000 soldiers. This was at a time when the entire world's population was just reaching 1 billion, Europe in total had only 200 million, and France had less than 30 million people. Considering that, the number of soldiers was huge. This did not significantly change anything about war, except for the scale of war. The scale of war, however, changed everything. That scale still remains in place, in large measure, for all wars that are fought at home, so while it may seem that things have reverted to the format of using only professional soldiers, this is not typically the case for countries where fighting is occurring. In fact, it is merely an illusion in a world that has more conflict, but the conflict is more localized.

So what does this have to do with the US election? Well, on the surface, nothing. War and politics are related, but not closely enough for this to have a direct impact on the current election. However, the tactics are important. How do you win battles, and eventually a way? You change tactics. This is especially true if you are losing. You create the ideal situation for yourself to win. This can be mirrored in politics. What are the tactics your opponent is using? She is setting herself up as the best possible candidate? You attack her credentials, put her on the defensive, make sure she doesn't have the airtime to question your credentials. You don't have enough of a platform or plan? Spend all of your time attacking your opponent, make sure you don't have time to talk about it. Attack everything about your opponent. Question every statement, emphasize every misstep.

Of course, the nature of modern politics have been changing slowly over several years. It has become less about stating your position, and more about attacking your opponent. However, Republican candidate Donald Trump is taking it to an entirely new level, while Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is trying to play the same sort of political games from years past. That makes this an extraordinarily unique election, where people are angry, uncertain, devoted, impassioned, and apathetic. Trump is outrageous, and that makes people respond in unusual ways. Trump is generating free press, and is keeping Clinton out of the spotlight.

So what is that going to mean? Well, it could mean a lot of things. It could lead to the end of the Republican party, and the rise of a new political party. This seems unusual in US politics, but outside of the US, it is much more common. Even in the US, it has happened more recently than it appears, with the significant shifts of the Democratic and Republican parties in the mid-twentieth century. It could lead to civil war, as the hatred, distrust, and combativeness increase, but that seems unlikely for now. It could literally lead to an electoral college gridlock, with relatively few passionate supporters of Clinton, and numerous passionate supporters for Trump and various third party candidates including Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Evan McMullin, and others. This is especially true because Johnson and McMullin have heavy regional support, making it possible that they could grab some electoral votes in their home states of Utah and New Mexico. It could mean that politics are going to be about who can dig up the most mud on their opponent. It may mean that the level of speeches are going to be moving t a simpler level, as Trump tends to speak more simply and that is getting attention. It could mean that candidates are going to speak more aggressively, flamboyantly, and gregariously. The importance of media attention that Trump has demonstrated is extraordinary. Most likely, it means that things will not be the same again. Not much has changed, other than the scale, but that can change everything.

Marriage in Government

In the past few years, marriage has become a significant topic of debate, however, so much of what is discussed seems to be nonsense.

Historically, marriage was solely the domain of religion. It was overseen by religion, and not governed by laws and regulations of the government in the modern sense. It was not the place of government to control that part of society. However, it has been government controlled for a long time. It has been controlled for hundreds, or even thousands of years. The reason for that has nothing to do with the questions being debated today.

Today, people debate it as a right given to particular groups of society, while not to others. When it was first implemented, though, was it a right for anyone? Certainly not. There are rights attached to married couple and families, but marriage was not a right at all. It was merely recognition by the government of a status set up by religions. Effectively, these rights were given as incentives to marry within the laws of culturally accepted religions. This is not without modern parallels. Today, we give certain rights and privileges to non-profit and charitable organizations. They are not rights available to anyone, but only to those that choose a particular lifestyle.

Marriage today has become attached to the rights that it provides, in that it is now provided directly by the government in most cases. However, rather than making it a right for everybody, marriage itself becomes an incentive provided by the government. Marriage is not, then, a right that must be fought about. It is not a right equally to people of any sexual orientation, but an incentive, just as the status of charitable or non-profit organization is granted only to certain organizations.

So why would marriage have been organized in this way? Traditionally, the optimal situation for raising children was considered to be by a mother and father. Most people likely continue to believe this to be the case, but support gender neutral marriage because they mistakenly believe it is a right, rather than understanding the true nature of marriage in government. In any case, it was not set up as a right. It was a societal norm that was adopted by government as an incentive.

So what is the real question that should be discussed? Well, if marriage is an incentive, then is it right that it be so? There have been studies done on the topic, with results showing all sorts of strange, contradictory things. Clearly, those who have studies backing them up will never challenge the validity of their studies, nor will they accept the invalidity of the studies that support them. However, it is just as clear that there are problems with those studies that contradict each other. There are many things that can invalidate a study, such as small sample size, inappropriately selected study, inability to properly analyze results, observer bias, outside elements, and so on.

So what do you think? Do all forms of marriage deserve the same types of incentives? Should the government even be determining what makes it a marriage, or simply leave that to others, and then provide the incentives to those who are able to come within an organization that provides a definition?

As a side note, if government did leave it to other organizations, it seems probable that this would effectively provide the incentives to all forms of marriage, as any form of marriage is likely to have sufficient adherents to form an organization to institute it. Government would need to continue to provide regulations prohibiting marriage before the age of consent, although in most cases this would be controlled simply by laws that protect minors such as contract law and laws regarding rape, which tend to limit these sorts of involvements based on age.

As a final note, I do not provide any links to studies that show benefits or negative impacts as a result of the presence or absence of either a father or a mother, or the comparative effects of having two mothers or two fathers or a mother and a father because not all of them are accessible online, and those that are can be found reasonably easily. If you are trying to find comprehensive studies, I would recommend going to your local library to research the studies. Many public libraries have access to more useful resources such as academic journals and scholarly reports.

The "Rules" of English

English is a horribly inconsistent language. It has tremendously difficult rules with plenty of exceptions. It is a bad situation made worse by the fact that it has been split into two main variants: US, and UK. Each of these have their own distinct rules and tendencies. There isn't much for absolutes, in any rule. Spelling is not phonetic. There are words that are spelt weird, or at least not spelt according to the rules.

English is definitely not the ideal language for business use. It desperately needs to be improved. It becomes a barrier for people trying to conduct business if they were not taught it as a child. It may not be the worst language, but it is far from being the best language. It is, however, the language which is the most alive. New words are constantly being added to allow for the description and explanation of more complex technologies.

All of this leaves us in a horrible catch 22. English is a horrible language for learning, because it obeys no rules, but the business and technology worlds are so invested in English that it cannot be superseded by a superior language. There is no better language to use, if only because there is no business case for doing so. Many companies would refuse, because their people would need additional training in order to learn the new language.

So what is our world to do? International languages have been proposed before, with Esperanto being one of the best known. But the concept has never worked, it has always ended in failure! So what can be done? The only rules for English is that you have to use it. Not everyone speaks English, so they must learn it. There is no consistency in our language. We have to be able to communicate.

Political Truth

What is truth to politicians? What is truth in politics? Well, truth is truth, and while some would consider truth to be relative, in most cases it is not. In science, it is a given that there is only one truth. Either a statement is correct, or it is not. Either we evolved from single cell organisms, or we did not. Either someone is dead, or they are not. There are millions of examples of truth that do not depend on your point of view, and are not relative to your experiences. In fact, there are very few statements that are true in a relative way. If it is a quantifiable, verifiable statement of fact, then it can be tested, and there can only be one outcome.

Politicians, though, would have it otherwise. They would bend their words so that you cannot quantify and verify them. They would state things so that they cannot be tested, but prove that their opponents are either lying or deluded. We saw plenty of that in the recent US presidential campaign. For the years leading up to the election, each side was constantly trying to belittle and disprove their opponents. A massive smear campaign, with little in the way of solid facts. Each side trying to blame everything bad on their opponents, and taking credit for everything good.

They certainly are willing to overemphasize the mistakes and unintended consequences of their opponents actions. I will not identify anything specific, but it is easy enough to find blame cast by one side for anything related to the other side by even the slimmest connection.

It reminds me of one particular scene in Star Wars, Episode V. Luke is speaking with Obi Wan's ghost. Initially, Obi Wan told Luke his father was killed by Darth Vader. Now, anybody familiar with the story knows that Luke father was Darth Vader, and Obi Wan was speaking allegorically. Darth Vader was the evil side of Anakin Skywalker, whereas Obi Wan was more accurately referring to the good side of Anakin Skywalker, which had been overtaken by Darth Vader. So Obi Wan may have considered him dead, but by any objective view, Luke's father was still alive. Of course, if you feel that truth is relative, then Obi Wan was speaking truth, from his point of view. But if what Obi Wan said was false, then truth is not relative. However, those are the types of statements that are commonly made by politicians.

So is it acceptable for them to make such statements? Do we accept their truths? Or in reality, are they telling us lies, and we are just choosing the lesser of two evils? You must decide what you will choose to believe, but that will not make falsehoods true. Truth will out, as they say, and sooner or later, our system of career politicians will destroy itself. Look to the recent US election. People say that Obama's campaign is one of the most negative campaigns ever seen. With most of it as exaggeration, he will be despised by many, especially as accuracy takes over. And yet that type of campaign, which has proven to be successful, will only become more common. It is a self destroying type of cycle. And while they may call it truth, and some others may call it truth, it will never be seen as wise. It will never be valuable.

Teamwork or Groupthink

Have you ever heard the term Groupthink? It is a concept described by sociology that shows that people working together have a tendency to stick with what has been done previously, and not consider possible problems, or superior alternatives. The reason that it happens is because people don't want to express a dissenting opinion, or any opinion that goes against the group as a whole. Of course, sometimes the dissenting opinion may be the opinion of the majority of the group, but nobody wants to be the one to point it out, so it goes unnoticed.

Teamwork, on the other hand, is necessary to get many projects done. It is not the opposite of Groupthink, of course, it is a solution to a different problem, and it creates the circumstances under which Groupthink occurs. However, if Groupthink does not occur, then teamwork is a valuable method of improving productivity by having multiple individuals contribute to a particular project. They are able to do more than what any one person could accomplish alone.

The ideal objective of teamwork, then, is improved productivity, while the danger is Groupthink. This challenge needs to addressed if teamwork is to fulfill its objectives. And how does one counteract Groupthink? Well, in order to properly address it, one must work to achieve the opposite of Groupthink, which is free and unrestricted communication. One must encourage all ideas without restriction, and then seek all challenges that exist so that they can be properly solved, without resistance or ridicule.

Communicative Overload

The world is changing rapidly. 20 years ago, the online world was only just beginning. There was next to nothing, really not much more than online forums, a few games. Only the very technical were online. Cell phones existed, but for the most part, they were rare, still large and bulky, and hadn't produced any changes in the world. The only ways of communicating were in person, by mail, and by phone. Of course, there were telegraphs still, short wave radio, and so on, but those were relatively minor, not really intruding into the lives of the average person. For someone to talk to someone else, it was one of those three methods.

10 years ago, the Internet had hit us in full force, there were IM clients on many computers, e-mail was taking hold as a major method of communication, smartphones were on the verge of being available with the development of the Palm Treo and the BlackBerry. They weren't mainstream yet, but cell phones were popping up everywhere.

Now we are truly in the age of total connection. Many people have smartphones. In Canada, approximately one third of cell phones are smart phones, and out of nearly 35 million people in Canada, close to 25 million have a cell phone. The United States, with approximately 314 million people, have over 100 million smartphone users out of approximately 234 million cell phone users. These numbers are based on early 2012. We have text messages, social media, video and audio conferencing online, instant messaging, e-mails, forums, blogs, and other means of communicating online, all of which are available through our computers or our smartphones. We can call and be called, and can be reached at any time because of our obsession with being always connected, always online, always available. In short, we think that we are never out of touch of the world around us.

I would suggest that all of this does not make it easier to communicate. Certainly it makes communication more possible and convenient than ever, but it does not really make us any more likely to communicate. The idea is possible, it has even been achieved, but it hasn't really accomplished anything. We have too much happening. If you spent all of your time focusing on communications and social media, it would not be enough time to keep up with every possible piece of communication sent more or less in your direction through social media. It's mostly just buzz. Overload. Irrelevant.

However, instead of recognizing that, most of us use it to soothe ourselves, make us think that we are more communicative, because we are a part of the community. We delude ourselves into thinking that because we have all of this information being sent our way, it combines into a meaningful social interaction. How pointless life can become. How dull, how lonely. I loved the Toyota's ads for the Venza, pointing out the difference between friends on social networking sites that you interact with daily, versus actually getting out there and experiencing something. I would disagree on the importance of their vehicle to make it happen, but life can be an adventure, and certainly it is more meaningful when shared with friends. Have we forgotten how to do that? Have we forgotten how to have meaningful social experiences? That is communication. That is the development of friendship. That, my friend, is life.

A Shrinking World, A Growing Community

The potential of the Internet is astonishing. It allows us to grow our community without regard for borders and reach out to those who share our values and beliefs. It entirely redefines what community is. The Internet is the biggest revolution since mail systems gave us the ability to communicate beyond our immediate vicinity.

The reason for that is that while telegraphs and telephones sped up our ability to communicate with people around the world, in order to use them, we still needed to know what was at the other end of the line. We needed to have someone to send our message to, or they did nothing for us. The Internet encourage exploration, growth, and interaction beyond our immediate community.

The result is that we are no longer forced to rely on traditional models. We no longer need to have met someone in the real world before we develop some kind of friendship. We can be the people we truly are, instead of trying to fit in to the world to which we were born. We don't have to rely on chance any more. We can make what we want of our life. The world is no longer limited to what is within reach, because the whole world is at our fingertips.

So what do we choose to do with this? Generally, we stay in our own, small, pre-Internet communities, and wish for change. It requires a different model, and that relies on us being willing to take the plunge and actually change. We need to take the next step, but our teachers tell us not to. They tell us to fear the outside world, to resist that kind of break with tradition, because there might be predators out there. There may be people who would take advantage of us. They want us to live in their world, the place where strangers cannot be trusted, and where we must rely on them. So how do we deal with this?

Simple. When we are communicating on the Internet, we either remain anonymous, or we require people to use some sort of Government issued identification. If we remain anonymous, then we can develop friendships, but we don't divulge the information that would be needed to locate us. We don't share our gender, our age, or our picture. We maintain our identity separate from our online persona, so nobody we meet can take advantage of a friendship developed online. If we require Government identification, then there is a means of proving who we are meeting, but why would we need to do that if we never need to meet these people in reality?

There is no reason that we can't be part of global communities, ones that actually represent who we are, and encourage us to be our truest selves. There are, of course, still risks, as in anything, but are the opportunities as small as those who would stop us would lead us to believe? I think not.

Bigotry versus Anti-Religious Sentiment

Bigotry is a word that can be used synonymously to prejudice, in most cases. Basically, it is a certain expectation that somebody has and is unwilling to change. It is something that is fought against very harshly by much of the Liberal minded media. Or at least, that is their stance, although in reality, there are only certain ideas that they fight against, while they seem to be working hard to preserve others. One of the views they oppose most vigorously seems to be anything connected to religious feelings. For instance, they despise belief in God while adamantly defending any sort of scientific idea, whether it is proven or not. They revile against self-discipline, particularly when it comes to relationships, promoting whatever they think feels good at the time.

I will not succumb to mainstream, though. They may despise some of my opinions as inconsequential, and hate my life style. I like my life, though. I will not change the way I live my life, no matter what the masses may think. I will not submit to every urge, whether it be homosexual, homicidal, or any other urge. I will choose how I live my life for myself, and I will not act according to how the Liberal media portrays what life should be. I have no use for them. They are free to live their own lives thus, but they will not rule how I live mine.

And yet, somehow, they seem to think that if I have opinions on how life should be lived, and if I live my life by those values, they have the right to force me to give them up. They are not prejudiced, they are Right, and I have no right according to them to disagree. How can they be so stupid? Do they in truth not see the dishonesty of their beliefs? That they have prejudices? I at least am aware of mine, and understand that they do not wish to share them, and because of the freedoms that they have been given, are free to hold their own opinions on life. I will not oppose their right to that. But when they will fight my right for the same, what can I do but fight? Should I be shunned for harmless opinions that cannot stop anyone from living as they choose simply because of what those opinions are? Because I do not approve of homosexual behavior? Because I do not approve of infidelity and dishonesty? Because I do not accept that natural urges should be acted upon?

Think on it! Freedom is life!

Human Potential

You are unlimited.

Do you feel it? Do you know what it means? There is no reason to call down problems. There is no reason to believe that you can't do what you wish. To do what you wish, you must, however, first believe. Do you believe? Will you act? That is the question. It is not whether or not it is possible, but whether or not you will take the steps necessary to realize. It is whether or not you will set the goal that causes things to happen. And when I say you set the goal, I mean it in a more active sense than some might mean. When you write down something you would like to do, and call it a goal, that is not setting a goal. That is only making a note of what you wish to do.

Setting a goal is deciding that you want to do something, determining the steps you will take to do it, and following through. If you just write it down, it is not a goal at all. It is just a daydream. To those who will act, however, great things can be accomplished. They say that most of the time, you will succeed. Think on it. In trying, how often have you truly failed? If you think of your failures, how many times were they truly failures, and how many times were they simply times when you did not try, when you gave up before you really started? There may be times when you fail, but they are less often than you might be inclined to say.

So go ahead. Try. Really try, and you will find that you have succeeded.