ConTREVORsial PersPECKtives

A Comment on the Recent Events in Ferguson, MO

2014-08-17T14:56:00.000-04:00

I have long advocated an end to the insane war on drugs. As of this writing, I have held this position for over twenty years.

If you disagree with that position, then we can have a civil discussion on many grounds and part friends even if our arguments do not lead to any agreement.

But if, after seeing all that has happened this last week in Missouri, you hold the position that this sort of thing is sometimes necessary (if perhaps sad or undesirable), and drug laws will sometimes need to be enforced with this sort of violence, then you are now, in my book, officially one of the bad guys.

You could, of course, hold the opinion that this has nothing to do with drug laws, in which case you are only wrong, and not necessarily evil. ;-)

Not that my opinion should matter to you, but if it does, you might want to have a close look at your motives and see if you are proud of them or not.

- Trevor.

I Hereby Support the Drive to Raise the Minimum Wage

2014-02-07T16:54:00.000-05:00

For years I have been frequenting fast food restaurants all around the country. The counter people are difficult to deal with about half the time. Sometimes their accents are hard to understand, sometimes they have trouble understanding me, and sometimes they just don't want to be there.

I have wondered why we didn't have touchscreen ordering. There is no need to complicate this eating thing with people. Recently, I have seen touchscreen ordering start to appear in various, high-priced locations around the country, and I welcomed this development.

Raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to the $10 I hear has been proposed would toss these workers out on their butts and replace them with polite and detail-oriented computers which up until now have been difficult to justify when there are teenagers willing to work for less.

What will happen to those people who lose their jobs, you ask? Who cares. Screw 'em. Let them go on welfare, and let the people who get the new $10 per hour jobs pay an extra $2.75 (or more) an hour to support 'em. I mean, not enough to give them any happiness, just enough to keep them from rioting. They weren't at that job to learn useful skills anyway, they were just going to rot there at minimum wage their whole lives just like we did. Really, this is better, and we know what's better for them, because we're smarter. We need to fine them or jail them if they work for so little. Better they go on the dole.

This should work out just fine, and I get what I want, which really is the important thing here.

- Trevor.

P.S. If you can't tell that I was being ironic above, you are not allowed to read my blog anymore. I have logged your IP address and if you try to sneak back I will come to your house and attempt to give you a hug. So watch it.

P.P.S. Also, for those who sincerely believe the minimum wage will help poor people, I apologize for the snarkiness. I respect your desire to help. I sincerely think you're wrong, and I hope your efforts fail, but the snarkiness here is for my entertainment, not a serious economic or political argument against your position. Although that could be arranged if you'd like - I can be serious sometimes.

References: Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics, Google Search of Mises.org for "Minimum Wage"

Fog Lights

2014-01-25T12:55:00.003-05:00

Fog lights on a clear night: The perfect solution when you're afraid that someone, somewhere, doesn't know that you're a jackass.

- Trevor.

"This Title Has No Comma In It"

2013-12-23T11:15:00.000-05:00

I don't keep up on new developments in English grammar. I'm not even up to speed on old developments. But there is one thing that I do differently than everyone else, on purpose, and I'll argue here that it isn't wrong. It's about quotes and punctuation.

My argument is that quote marks indicate that the content between the marks is accurately represented exactly as someone else said, or exactly as you should reproduce it in the future. Therefore, the punctuation that exists for purposes of sentence structure, and is not part of the quote, belongs OUTSIDE the quotes, not inside.

I agree that this post is not informative, and is boring, but I want you all to know that I'm doing it on purpose. It is a choice; it is not born from ignorance.

So now you know that all the rest of my grammar errors are just that - ignorant errors. This particular one, however, is not an error - it's me being right against the crushing weight of the rest of the world.

- Trevor.

Delight the True Believers

2013-12-21T14:32:00.002-05:00

Seth Godin says on his blog: "Instead of working so hard to prove the skeptics wrong, it makes a lot more sense to delight the true believers." (Hat Tip to Lifehacker.com)

I just want to add my voice to his, and maybe amplify it a bit. He goes into a bit more detail in his post, and it spoke to me. Strongly. It's a new way of looking at "I don't care what they think", which has always seemed a little false to me. I do care what they think, even though I don't want to.

Here is a way to continue to care what "they" think, and turn it on its head to gain motivation instead of killing your idea so thoroughly you forget that you had it.

That's a good way to look at life. No conflicts with those against me, because I'm focusing on those who are with me. Delight those who believe, and if no one does, delight yourself.

- Trevor.

It's The Journey, Not The Destination

2013-11-21T11:50:00.000-05:00

I don't know why people find these words worth repeating, or why they might take comfort from them. To me, they are words that don't seem to apply to the person saying them, they're meant for the listener, to tell the listener that he is doing something wrong, looking at something wrong, feeling something wrong, and he should quit being unhappy. Just flip a switch and @!+&*@ing smile.

Like so many political solutions that are offered up, there is little attention paid to details, or how a thing could - or couldn't - actually work. Just be happy by fiat, and if it doesn't work, then there is something wrong with YOU, not my prescription.

In my opinion (which is what you're here for, right?), the only actual meaning that could be squeezed out of these words is that for most people, in order to be happy, they have to be making progress toward a meaningful goal; one doesn't have to wait for goal achievement in order to take pleasure from it. But there's another side to that concept. A dark side, if you will. If you can feel the joy of goal achievement in anticipation of it, prior to completion, then circumstances which move you away from your goal can be as devastating as final failure.

So these words, to me, when used as some sort of mood booster, are meaningless drivel, usually uttered by someone that in the future can be safely ignored - so not altogether different from me.

- Trevor.

2013-05-13T17:33:00.002-04:00

I'm rooting for Hillary Clinton for President in 2016, because, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
- Trevor.

Hidden Violence

2011-06-04T21:24:00.000-04:00

Here's a point of view that might be new to you, let's see if it's controversial in any way.

Gun control proponents are violent.

Nope, not a typo. Like an email address on a web form, let me type it again so you can be sure I meant it the first time:

Proponents of gun control are violent.

My guess is that most gun banners don't consider themselves violent, and for good reason. So, I'll explain further, but to do that we need to counter some myths that are so prevalent and "normal" that most people won't even notice that there IS a myth, let alone think about it in any meaningful way. If they do read this, and think about it, I expect they're going to have to re-align a lot of their theories about life and interaction with other people. Or, as is more generally the case, just dismiss me as a whack-job so they can go back to their "peaceful" lives and not worry about all the havoc and death and destruction that's being done in their names, and, in a very small way, because of their actions.

Here's the dialogue with my imaginary straw man:

Me: What does it mean to "ban" something?

Strawman: Silly question. It means we say people can't have the thing.

Me: Uh oh, that brings up three more questions. If every answer does that we're going to explode like a Plutonium bomb. 1. WHO says people can't have the thing? 2. WHICH people can't have the thing? 3. After we find out the WHO from question one, then we ask: Why do the people from question two pay any attention to them?

Strawman: Ok, we can address these issues, this time, because I can see that you're writing the words for both of us, and I have no choice but to indulge you. I mean, it's your blog. If we were real people, in the real world, right now I would be scoffing and pointing out how ridiculous you are. Everyone knows we're talking about the government, which is the will of the people. If they ban a thing, it goes away and isn't a problem anymore.

Me: I know you're my strawman, and I just made you say that, but even you, an imaginary person created solely to argue against me, have to be able to see that whatever the answer to the first two questions, your preliminary answer to number three is not close to reality. But, we'll deal with that later (or not). We're going to pin you down on your answers to 1 & 2 first. So you're saying it's "The Government" that does the proclaiming?

Strawman: Yes.

Me: Ok. I agree. What about number 2?

Strawman: The people.

Me: The people of the government? You mean the employees?

Strawman: If I asked you to define "pedantic", do you think you could do it in less than 500 words?

Me: No.

Strawman: Ok, just wondering. No, I don't mean the employees, I mean the subjects. You know - the people.

Me: No, I don't know, but just for the sake of this argument, let's pretend I do, and I'll accept your definition. The people who are subject to the rule of the particular government, meaning nearly everyone who is in its "borders".

Strawman: Yeah, the people, like I said.

Me: Ok. So, you said earlier that the thing disappears when it's banned. I don't understand how that works. Let's ignore that there are, in fact, some of these things in existence, and just pretend they disappear. Then let's also ignore the fact that the law has to be very carefully written so that people know exactly what they can and cannot do, and many people will find a way to comply with the letter of the law and not the spirit. Let's ignore all of those kind of side issues, and agree that commercial manufacturing of the banned item will cease immediately. Sound good?

Strawman: Yes. That's exactly what will happen.

Me: Ok. Why?

Strawman: What do you mean why? The government said to stop, so they stopped.

Me: I don't think so. If I owned a business that was making me money, I wouldn't stop just because a bunch of people in an expensive building somewhere told me to. There must be more.

Strawman: Well, of course. If they don't stop, they'll be fined.

Me: You mean those people that told them to stop will then tell them to pay them some money? Nope. There's got to be more than that. If I ignored them the first time, why would I not ignore them again?

Strawman: I'm not exactly sure what would happen next. Nobody ever ignores them. Maybe you'd get a summons to appear in court.

Me: And if I ignore it?

Strawman: Well, if you don't show up in court they may issue a bench warrant, meaning they can arrest you and bring you to court. I guess they would come and get you and bring you there.

Me: What if I told them I didn't want to go?

Strawman: They wouldn't care, they would just take you anyway.

Me: Take me? How do you mean? With brute force? You mean just grab me by the arm like a mobster or something?

Strawman: Not like a mobster, the guys that come will be officers. They have procedures for this, they put handcuffs on you.

Me: I don't like having handcuffs put on me.

Strawman: No, I doubt many people do. But sometimes bad guys have to be restrained.

Me: By bad guys you mean people who are peacefully living their lives, making items that other people want?

Strawman: No, you know, bad guys who hurt other people.

Me: So, in this case we're talking about they would not arrest me?

Strawman: Of course they would, in this case you're a bad guy.

Me: So by bad guys you SOMETIMES mean people who are peacefully living their lives, making items that other people want? Ok, skip it. Let's say I agree I'm a bad guy, but I still don't want to be arrested. If YOU grabbed me by the arm and tried to make me go with you, I would have the right to stop you, wouldn't I?

Strawman: Yes, but this is different.

Me: Yes, because these particular guys you're talking about have guns, don't they?

Strawman: It's not the guns that make the difference, it's the badge, and the fact that the government has issued a warrant.

Me: But if I still think I'm right, even though they have badges and a warrant, then that doesn't convince me. But the guns do. They'll shoot me if I try to defend myself.

Strawman: Yes, of course, but you wouldn't do that.

Me: No, I wouldn't. I would probably stop as soon as they said to. But just so you know, and just so all you gun banners out there know: It's not because you're right, it's because you have a bigger army, with bigger guns. You win by using the gun you forbid me to have. And each time you take away a weapon, it gets easier to take away more. Even the filtered history we learned while growing up showed us how dangerous governments are. Governments have killed literally millions of people in the last century. First step to that kind of evil? Disarm the people.

Me (again): Thank you, Strawman, you did a fine job. I invite anyone who thinks Strawman should have had better arguments to please comment and let me hear them.

Gun control proponents might want to recognize that reality sucks. It's tough out there, and while most people are good, there are a lot of bad guys. If we agree that people who use guns to force others to do things they don't want to do are bad people, then you have a small internal crisis you need to deal with. I'll let you get on with that.

- Trevor.

People are Idiots

2011-02-16T01:49:00.002-05:00

People are idiots, especially me.

First Post - Credit Scores (why the world is as screwed up as it looks)

2011-01-27T05:10:00.002-05:00

The first post is supposed to be special, right? Screw that. It's going to suck like all the rest of them. Why are you even reading this? There's interesting stuff on YouTube, go there.

For an illustration of why the world we think we live in has to come crashing down around our ears and start paying attention to reality, skip the balloon boy, the US Government, and all the other really crazy stuff on YouTube and read this:

Here is some info from my FICO report:

To improve your score the following areas should be addressed:

1. Too few active mortgage accounts (Reason 48)

2. Too many inquiries (Reason 22)

3. Bankcard account balances are too high in proportion to credit limits (Reason 06)

4. Too few recently opened bank installment accounts (Reason 41)

It says, in easy to understand English, that:

1: I haven't borrowed enough money.
2: I've been thinking about borrowing money, and that's bad. (I haven't - no applications for at least two years)
3: I have borrowed too much money.
4: I haven't borrowed enough money.

Ok, I want to point this out, because many people think the banks have some arcane knowledge, and that in *their* world, all of this makes perfect sense. NOPE. It's just as stupid as it seems. BUT - this is the reality that governs the financial markets. So here it is: my score was lowered because I borrowed too much money and because I didn't borrow enough money.

One more time, but first let me say: I don't care about my FICO score. I'm not borrowing money anymore. Ever. So it doesn't matter. I'm shooting for zero as a FICO score, because it will make me proud, but otherwise I could care less. So now here it is in case you missed it: My score was lowered because I didn't borrow enough money, and because I borrowed too much money.

In their world this makes sense. It can't, because reality doesn't work that way. Aha! They don't deal with reality (they will... but they don't just yet). Here's a dull and boring story to explain my point. Yes, it is *both* dull and boring (and made-up).

Bernie Madoff was doing almost the same thing the big banks are doing. he took money and simply spent it, rather than invest it for clients. When someone wanted to withdraw some of their funds, he gave them some of the money he had sitting around. No problem - until everyone wants theirs at once.

The big banks of today have an accomplice - the Fed. So they can do one better than Bernie Madoff. When they want money, they simply create it. So, even if every investor wants their money at once, it's not a problem - they just create some more and give it to them.

"But Trevor," you say, "where does this money come from? They can't create value out of thin air!"

I didn't say they create value, I said they create *money*. The value comes from *other* money. For example, the dollar bill in your pocket. If you're in a room with four people, three of whom have a dollar, and one that has three ice cream cones he's selling for a dollar each, what happens when one guy suddenly creates $5 out of thin air, and adds it to his original buck? Well, maybe he'll be nice and let you buy an ice cream cone for a dollar, but maybe not. Maybe he'll decide he wants all three ice cream cones, and he'll pay $2 each for them. You can't pay $2, because you only have the one. So the guy selling ice cream cones has a choice: be nice, let you and your buddy buy an ice cream cone for a dollar each, and maybe get another dollar from the banker (that's the guy with the brand new money), or sell all three to the banker and get $6. I can't even be mad at the ice cream vendor, I'd have a hard time taking two dollars and an ice cream cone instead of $6. But remember, the guy with extra money that came out of thin air didn't create value - the ice cream vendor had the same three ice cream cones either way. The same amount of wealth... but different people get to enjoy it.

So the point I'm trying to make with my late-night drunken ramblings, is that THE FED IS STEALING OUR ICE CREAM!!!

And that's just wrong.

- Trevor. (My name is Trevor Peck, thus the stupid blog name)

p.s. I skipped a lot of important things here, but that doesn't mean I don't know about them (I might not), or that I'm wrong (I'm not). It just means I'm too lazy to point it out. It means that maybe if I could I would just create dollars out of thin air and live off of your efforts, but I don't have those kind of connections. Plus, I'm a good guy and would feel guilty while enjoying my ice cream. Chocolate tastes good with ice cream. Guilt - not so much. So complain in the comments, and I'll back up my statements.

After I've finished all my ice cream.