Brandon's Sometimes Erroneous and Often Arbitrary Blog

On The Desecration of Beloved Characters and A Triggered Response to "Velma"

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:51:00 +0000

The definition of “adaptation” according to the authority of my word processor suggests a work which is recast in a new form, an inevitability especially with those classical characters which have long been a source of entertainment for patrons of the arts. The current adaptation of characters from the past is found in just about every genre of art, somewhere, but seems most prominent in film and TV, where it takes place with the categories of horror movies, creature features, slasher films, action, fantasy, drama, and all subgenres in between. While some reboots or adaptations reach far into the past for their source material, some are incredibly recent with remarkably little space or time between installments. The Marvel Universe or Batman movies are a couple notable examples. Some are sequels, but others are adaptations which differ significantly from a previous entry in the franchise, released perhaps even just a few years earlier. Thus, we see characters going through process of change, and this acceptable to a wide audience given certain factors. It is apparent through online discussions and revenue some general observations might be in order.

One of the big ones relates to the age and established attributes of a beloved character. There seems to be a relationship between how long the character has been around and the level of patience fans have for abrupt changes of the subject’s characteristics. Rather than writing a HUGE list of individual aspects which go into this matter, the length of time a character has been around implies a certain level of fandom and adoration. It goes without saying the characters who suck don’t really stand the test of time. I don’t think Jar Jar Binks is going to have a show in fifty years.

Infamy is another one. A character doesn’t necessarily need to be likable or to be memorable to appeal to audiences. Yet, it seems a despised character is a little more prone to adaptation without groaning from a section of the audience. Think Nurse Ratchet from “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest.” Not exactly a beloved character, though brilliantly performed by the late Louis Fletcher (a role she took the Academy Award home for Best Actress in 1976). This character stayed in the public consciousness, so much so Netflix released their own show “Ratchet” in 2020 based on the character. With all the love-to-haters out there with Nurse Ratchet, it might be considered unacceptable to cast the role much differently from what the original portrayed. So, we see infamy may too keep a character in the public eye so even they too might get a Netflix adaptation fifty years later. Can we expect a Netflix “Binks” after all? Please no.

On the other hand, infamy and the staying power of character might be best shown in the horror genre. Halloween is finally releasing its supposedly last installment and even Leatherface might not be completely done waving his chainsaw around. In this instance, there might be a little bit more freedom with this genre for many of these story lines have enough plot holes and twists to provide plenty enough room for another person to take up the mantle.

Characters known only for a short time or which transition from one genre to another have more capability to be changed free of controversy. When I was a youth I read “Rising Sun” by Michael Crichton and was quite excited for the movie to come out. After watching it the casting confused me, particularly the character of Peter J. Smith who was portrayed in the film by Wesley Snipes. It didn’t seem like an obvious fit for me from reading the book, but the character was new, not involved in sequels or follow ups, so the shift was unexpected by not terrible by any means. However, if the book or a subsequent series of novels existed for a long period of time, and the portrayal was counter to what I was expecting it could’ve be more off-putting. Whatever the case, we can’t ignore the conceptions or ideas impressed upon a person from any story, book, television show, movie, or any other source material imprints.

Finally, let us get to this “Velma” thing now. This is the real crux of the issue. When we go see a movie, yes, we go into it with expectations. These are formed by trailers, buzz about the movie, and in some cases by what we know of the characters prior. Even so there are some characters I couldn’t give two craps about. Take this updated live-action “Little Mermaid” movie coming out. People are up in arms about the casting or such, and I get it, but I can’t really criticize it. It’s not like I can’t conceive they have presupposed notions of the character based in literature and previous re-tellings, but I don’t have any connection with the tale of the “Little Mermaid.” (Or would that be tail? groan) I was never a fan, so I don’t have the slightest connection to the fable or film and don’t give a hoot.

I’m not a fan of “Snow White” either but I know the source material around it, where there are things about the character which have been ignored completely by the makers of the upcoming film. I do find this example a bit annoying, simply because of its literary specificity. In these instances it makes you wonder if the makers care about the story or characters they are seeking to portray at all? If caring about a fictional character is a real thing.

HBO Max has come out with the splendid idea for “Velma” and I for one am rooting for it to be a ratings disaster. Considering all the things I have laid out here, let me say, I always would tell people half-jokingly I was a Scooby-Doo fan before it was popular (which is impossible since the Hanna-Barbera classic predates me by 10 or 11 years, premiering in 1969). It’s considered a staple of classic animation and television, picking up fans among both children and adults along the way to becoming a historical institution in television history. It spawned two live action movies, several animated movies, and had hosts of guest stars who were all to happy to voice and lend their likenesses to be drawn with Scooby and the gang.

Now in 2022, for some reason the characters are getting an overhaul, to which I say, “Is nothing sacred anymore?” I mean, sure, “Little Mermaid,” whatever, but “Scooby-Doo”? Now they’ve gone to far. Are you out of your mind? I am no fortune teller or delusional enough to post this hoping to keep those meddling kids from screwing up my favorite cartoon, what is done is done, but I think this is going to tank for a couple reasons. First, let us look at the target audience. Supposedly, last I heard, this Velma series was going to be for a mature audience and deal with murders, gore and all that kind of thing. Alright, out the gate not the worst premise. It isn’t enough to destroy the show, writers could perhaps do a lot with it, but the characters have been altered to resemble nothing like the original gang, and there isn’t even a dog! It is advertised to be a prequel of sorts. It will take some creativity to explain the shifts in the characters from the prequel stage to the original show, much of which wouldn’t fit if they are assumed to be in the same “universe” as “prequel” would suggest.

It being for adults, we are talking about an older audience who is probably is better acquainted and more accustomed to the classic “Scooby-Doo” formula. Velma with her Mary Jane shoes, Shaggy with his unhinging jaw evolved for the sole purpose of consuming three-foot tall sandwiches, Fred with a sailor necktie or whatever it is, and Daphne, with . . . well, another scarf I suppose. I don’t think any sexual tension between Fred and Daphne was canon, but would take research and my browsing history is bizarre enough. Oh, and of course the dog with the speech impediment. Other than the names (”Shaggy” will supposedly be referred to by his canonical name Norville Rogers), there is almost nothing similar about “Velma” to the “Scooby Doo” crew which was supposedly was its inspiration. I suppose we can argue it is a spoof, but it doesn’t seem to be what is being implied or where it is going.

It seems then the producers and every one involved in this early Saturday morning blasphemy is guilty of hijacking people’s beloved childhood institutions for the sake of pushing some P.C. dog—— well, “Scooby feces”. It be almost insulting if I was forced to watch it, which I am not, and won’t do so. I believe plenty of others will join in suit. I’m sure they will come up with some uniquely clever answer for these arguments made by applying the labels of being generally racist, often homophobic, prone to gaslighting, always patriarchal, incessantly privileged, functionally ableist, triggered, toxic conversationalists. Perhaps others also which they’ll insist on to attack and at the same time destroy the meaning or impact of their labels as they flip through their Rolodex of pop buzz words.

(Image more effective if you make the sound effects.)

It doesn’t take too much rational discipline to be able to understand the argument. The preconceived notions of a character through literature or the past are often supposed by people when they look at your movie or film and decide, according to their prerogative, if it is worth their money and time. Nobody can deny the characters in “Velma” differ significantly from what we grew up with, what we know, or what we imagine when we hear “Scooby-Doo” and its oh so catchy theme song. Even the “Mystery Machine,” not a character at all, if they were to replace it with a Dodge Dakota would just be depressing. To make the leap from acknowledging this to racism is quite the stretch, but done on a regular basis anyway. Not a rational argument, but experiential, it looks as if people would rather watch something which doesn’t violently conflict with their memories. Granted, some of us do guard our nostalgic recollections with a bit of, admittedly, jealous passion, but it doesn’t mean a buzz word applies.

Not hating on Dodge, I had a Dodge Dakota back in the day but never used it for my mystery solving adventures.

A spoof would be acceptable. Using different characters to portray similar traits but with glaring differences, is something usually held quite acceptable. Even if you had Velma be Veronica and Shaggy voiced by, well, Shaggy, that sounds like something I might at least give a go. There have been some shows which have borrowed from the “Scooby-Doo” formula with some level of success. “The Venture Brothers” is said to give off some Scooby-vibes, and the gang is included in one episode, and “Mike Tyson Mysteries” was heavily influenced by the show. For this reason I think “Ghostbusters: Answer The Call” was acceptable. It may have been a different story piggybacking on the old, but it is still trying to make its own way. Lastly on this point, the benefit of the spoof is you can introduce a whole new cast of characters in likenesses of the originals and keep from kicking someone in the nostalgias, and might, pick up a few extra views because of it. A perfect spoof would draw viewers to the old and the new.

I have been putting off telling of all the “woke” stuff packed into “Velma,” but it takes the beloved characters a lot of us grew up with and twists them to fit some agenda instead of just providing pure entertainment. In this case, “Velma” might have another strike against it with the show being only a newly packaged heap of the regurgitated message we are constantly bombarded with anyway. If there is any cleverness behind this show, I wager it is only going to be episodic and the whole of the show is going to offer every bit as much entertainment as CNN's morning lineup.

It has been announced “Velma” is now queer in the new prequel, of course implying she must be queer throughout the show up until this point. It seems as if this is a bit of desperation to throw in this plot point. When we look at the original “Scooby-Doo”, other than then cutting a groovy rug on a rare occasion, there isn’t a lot of romance implied. Just a group of young sleuths driving around solving mysteries. What person can’t look back into their youth and relate to that? Despite this, the makers of “Velma” want to create something which was never intended or never even there to begin with. It’s like there is a desperation to make this cartoon sexual in some way. Hollywood is running with this formula now, where they apparently have a check list of all the social engineering tiers they need to visit in any production, and if it isn’t there, you better believe they will make it so. Not with just current projects, but also the one’s already finished. Now they are reaching into the past saying if it wasn’t there to begin with, we are going to “reimagine” it so.

Disney Princesses Reimagined as Cement Mixers

The interesting thing is, with some of these productions, especially as of late, the tokens of the messages they are trying to portray, aren’t pulling in the views even among those to whom these talking points would be most directed. Velma identifying as “queer”, you’d think would draw in viewers who can relate to it. Maybe I will eat my words, I don’t know, but recently these groups haven’t been turning out en masse for these reimaginings. Maybe to a degree Hollywood is getting just as transparent to these groups as it is for others. I wouldn’t be surprised, because pandering is best done in intermediate doses. If you are going to pander to a group, or push an agenda, overwhelming might not be the best course, though if your being pandered to, being overwhelming is exhilarating at first. Right before it gets boring. Especially in the scope of entertainment.

People like movies they can interject themselves into, or identify with the characters. So it is quite understandable LGBT representation would be found in movies to attract the movie goers who can place themselves in that role on a subconscious level. Yet, the longer a character has been around, the more the character takes on a personal construct of their own in the mind of the movie goer. They are unable to interject themselves into the character because the character has been fully formed in their mind. It is not malleable to the viewer, nor does the viewer suppose it is completely open to interpretation for any other.

On Stracist Things

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Sun, 02 Oct 2022 11:53:00 +0000

This morning I sat down with my coffee and opened up Facebook to see what is going on in the lives of friends and grab a meme or two which floated by on my feed. Upon it was featured a post with an article regarding “Stranger Things” star Caleb McLaughin who plays Lucas Sinclair. In the brief article, Mr. McLaughin stated he was convinced some of the fans of the show were racist because of a lack of visitors at a convention and the amount of Twitter and Instagram followers he has in comparison to his co-stars. He went on to tell a foreign audience America is just seeped in bigotry.

Now, for all I know maybe he is right. Maybe there are really are just millions of fans out there of the show who are secretly racist, fast forward his scenes and refuse to follow him on Twitter. I’m not omniscient so I can’t know for sure, but, and just thinking out loud here, perhaps it isn’t the first explanation we can look at regarding his measly, laughable 15 million followers (how embarrassing). I think we just might be able to conclude a few other things to into account. It is the norm for celebrities nowadays to jump on the victimhood bandwagon, but just for the sake of argument, let’s pretend we don’t immediately look for this as an explanation. What other could there be? Hard to imagine but for the sake of this entry, let us try.

For one, honestly, when it comes to this show, he isn’t the most fascinating character and, hey, that isn’t necessarily his fault. Not being sarcastic. It isn’t. His character simply isn’t the most engaging and other than the pizza guy from the last season, he probably is one of more of the “expendable” (for lack of a better word) characters especially since more and more characters have been added to the show. At the beginning of “Stranger Things” he had more of a presence, but his position has been declining as the show goes on. Again, probably of no fault of his own. It isn’t as if he or Eduardo Franco write the show. Truly, if I had Twitter or the Gram I would follow the actress who plays his sister before I followed him because her character on the show is clearly more interesting.

Argyle (Eduardo Franco) and Erica Sinclair (Priah Ferguson)

Second, and looking beyond “Stranger Things” is the fact many of the people have done projects outside of the show which have gave them more prominence in the public eye. More exposure often equals more followers. Though Gaten Matarazzo, who plays Dustin Henderson, has slightly more followers I believe, because he has a sense of humor and personality which is quite evident outside of the show; apparent in interviews and whatnot.

Gaten Matarazzo

Millie Bobby Brown who plays Eleven was the recent Godzilla films, stared in Enola Holmes (and soon Enola Holmes 2, also on Netfix), and, she is a woman. This may be a shock but it’s probable a few teenage guys out there had a crush. Finally, you have Finn Wolfhard who stared in both parts of “IT” and “Ghostbuster’s Afterlife.” Although Caleb McLaughin has some film credits, the movies haven’t had the audience the others have had.

This celebrity victim mentality stars are “opening up about” is getting out of hand. Bryce Dallas Howard recently bemoaned the horrific experience she had to endure because to star in the last, purportedly awful, Jurassic Park movie, the movie-makers actually were or going to ask her to lose weight. Well, this was a distressing revelation to me. Who knew actors and actresses had to conform their bodies to the roles they are supposed to play? First the Weinstein scandal and now this.

I don’t think the occupation really has much room for such complaints. You are casted to act as another person, of which there is a conception in the script or mythos of and what the audience expects, and a person will be cast to fulfill the part. You are also well-paid for your time and effort. Don’t get me wrong, it isn’t like Bryce Dallas Howard is a CPA and her dirt bag boss asked her to lose weight. Such a thing would be unacceptable. However, actors and actresses, when it really comes down to it, despite all the talent in the world (and often because of it), are spectacles. Yes, I said it. It is the nature of the job. It can’t be easy to conform into roles, and makeup and costumes while able to add, are unable to remove. Which one of us hasn’t been amazed at any actor who has transformed themselves for a role, particularly those method actors who strain the limits of good health to provide entertainment to the masses? From the sounds of it, most the time the actors who complain of such transformations aren’t called to do a Christian Bale-level morph.

Christian Bale in “The Machinist”

Is it unfair Hollywood works for something as superficial as sex appeal? Maybe. Yet, it is something I have noticed about the entertainment industry though: Sex sells. Hollywood is in the business of making money. Sex appeal works in bringing in money. Therefore, they encourage their actors and actresses, particularly those who are pleasing to the eye to begin with to, well, flaunt it. Maybe it is morally corrupt of our society, I won’t dispute that, but it isn’t a surprise. Yet, actors and actresses always seem surprised. Are they really?

It is so beyond the realm of believability they would be so ignorant, so stretches the imagination, my conspiratorial spidey-senses just can’t but flare up. Much like my hemorrhoids. Imagine if you will, for a moment, a governing body of folks beyond the voting booths. Imagine them standing beyond and behind the politicians, behind the podiums, behind the newscasters and Hollywood boardrooms. Imagine these folks have a dastardly plan, of painting our nation as an evil one for the expressed purpose of replacing division among the economic classes, with divisions of race and gender, or of victim and privileged, in order to create a new Marxist “utopia.” The victim the neo-proletariat and the privileged the neo-bourgeoisie. Imagine for a moment these things classes with the presence of comfortable satisfaction were waning and with it the anger. Imagine this poor utopian concept slipping further and further away from this body’s grasp. It would needs a spark. It needs a fire. It needs and inferno.

A brainstorming session then results in an ingenious plan accompanied by cackling laughter, to paint the privileged as the victim and infiltrate the victimhood school to divide and ramp up anger. Recruits are brought in from the media to press the narrative, and speak of the great pains they are suffering while lining their pocketbooks. Many shake heads, laugh, murmur, and not enough flock to their cause. The infiltrators present day-long propaganda, clogging any media with pre-approved messages and telling them their contentment is a lie and there are people right outside their door waiting to cause them harm. Waiting to objectify them. Waiting to take away their rights. Waiting to abuse them in all kinds of manner. Oh, even if these appear slight and inconsequential, it is really representative of a deeper and more profound darkness in the heart of the oppressors. Even if you have less Twitter followers, it speaks of the deep hatred just waiting in the shadows to spring out, not only supposedly onto the celeb infiltrators, but anyone who can identify with them or those characteristics which ensnare them and demote them from contented to suffering victim.

Oh, but how much more proof is needed! Not enough anger. Too many people going about their lives. Shrugging. A new strategy forms. That's it! More cackling laughter as they release crappy movies with the infiltrators staring, removing the norms from beloved tales so when they don’t make money, which they plan anyway, they can blame it on the oppressor and show the victimhood camp the proof of the ingrained hate within all the privileged. Movie studios and media channels and online platforms spending millions with no expectation of return just to get the message out. Taking the hit for the sake of the illusion.

On Criticisms Against "Thoughts and Prayers" (Updated 10/02/22)

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Thu, 03 Feb 2022 22:26:00 +0000

Before I even begin to get into it, I want to point out this entry will both recognize and acknowledge certain circumstances when the popular criticism of “thoughts and prayers” might be warranted, but will primarily be a defense of “thoughts and prayers.” The idea there is something inherently wrong about offering “thoughts and prayers” is a idiom we are frequently confronted with nowadays from the headlines of newspapers to memes. Despite the concessions I’ve made, the overall air of the phrase is done mean-spiritedly rather than offering any real critique. When more material from the source of this mockery is available, this oft becomes evident by additional evidence.

If we assume the mockery to be non-existent motive, then it is usually used to impress upon anyone offering their cares in the form of “thoughts and prayers” a certain level of guilt which may make them change their tune on whatever issue is at hand. As if to say, “Your thoughts and prayers are useless, and something more about this issue needs to be done. Your thoughts and prayers haven’t changed anything and your inaction has lead to the issue becoming prominent in society.” Maybe, then, the target who feels guilt or pressure for what they have not done and will swap sides.

This method is, at least, conceptually accurate and one of the elements which makes it so is, often, those who pray and who believe prayer to be a powerful force in the world differ from the progressive society we find ourselves in. It is neither far-fetched in practicality due to the Christian Progressivism and Unitarian ideas creeping into the Church. Christian houses of worship are getting more and more progressive because they, in part, have been heavily influenced by progressives. It is my contention the impression of guilt upon people does, indeed, sway them as does the appeals to emotion which spur it on.

These are generalities of course, but the fissure between Progressivism and Evangelicals can be denied. As Progressivism moves forward, Evangelicals become a bigger and bigger threat. Hence, the other outcome of attacking “thoughts and prayers,” namely, to furrow the brows of those already against the people who engage in these practices. It is interesting the comfortable camaraderie people find under banners of hate. No matter what side of the aisle you fall, it is trustworthy observation. It should be noted such a method isn’t used to just present disagreement, but to vilify and make any opponent the object of utmost scorn. Unlike the concept of a “dog whistle,” where proponents get the message loud and clear while going unnoticed by others, the message is said loud and unblushingly by all.

Those motives aside, the real issue with “thoughts and prayers” and those who criticize it, is it represents a misconception on how it works to being with. Admittedly, if you see a person get injured, say, right in front of you and you swan off to keep from getting your hands dirty, or because you have something better to do, the criticism is warranted. However, in the broadest sense, it isn’t how “thoughts and prayers” work among Evangelicals. There are numerous studies which show faith is one of the determining factors in helping people, both with volunteer work, and with donations to charitable causes. Given this, faith being such an important element to increase the probability of one giving and helping, the Evangelical, or say more generally someone of faith, doesn’t have the view on “thoughts and prayers” which is assigned to them.

Let us say you yourself were homeless and a person came up to you on the street and asked you for money. You might respond, “My friend, if I had anything at all I could give you I would. But I myself have no money.” An understandable reaction since you are limited in what you could do for the said person. Sometimes in life too we are limited by proximity and nearness to be able to do anything of any physical help or worth. It just the nature of things. For instance, at the time of this writing hurricane Ian just swept across Florida and now is making landfall in South Carolina. I myself live on the west coast, and am quite limited on my power or what I could do for anyone there at this time. I can’t take them into my home. I can’t feed them. Provide shelter or any of the rest. I could certainly donate to the cause and give to those charities who are proximate to the event, yet I can’t be there to help. Nor can millions of other Americans.

If a person yet has faith and believes in the power of prayer, they might be offered up so God may protect, bless, and heal the land. Even if you aren’t a religious person, you certainly know prayer is engaged in by believers and when there are times of helplessness, as if your actions won’t or can’t change anything, then prayer is logically where the faithful would go next. One can debate the worth of prayer until they are blue in the face, but it doesn’t change the fact people engage and do so when they are not near to an event. I might go so far as to suggest, in this context, there is a relationship between proximity and prayer.

The practice of blessing is something to consider on our next point. Many people within the Church have their children blessed by a pastor or priest. This is a very common practice but even though it has prayer as a part of the ceremony, nobody would rationally think it excludes action. The child still needs to be reared up correctly, nourished, cared for, instructed, and all the like. Children are a lot of work and the presence of prayer and blessing doesn’t remove responsibility in any degree, nor is it expected to. Using this example, we see one of the errors made when people mock “thoughts and prayers,” for there is no extant evidence of there being a disjunction between prayer and action. “You either use prayer or you use action,” is not a valid characterization of the beliefs of those who pray and it is evident it is a logical fallacy (false dichotomy).

To the faithful, prayer and action go hand and hand. Prayer supplements action. Some Evangelicals pray over their day before they get out of bed. It doesn’t mean they don’t swing their legs off the bed and plant their feet firmly on the floor and take care of responsibilities, it just asks a blessing over their day so the results might surpass the efforts. This, in essence, is a common formula to prayer, that whatever our object of worship, by their hand a greater output may be experienced by what we can input. Such as, “Lord may this letter (or paper) be effective,” or “bless the work of my hands.” Yet, this always just applies to the silly faithful who are incapable of changing anything right? Not so much because the term also includes thoughts which is a consideration extending beyond faith to normal human experience.

(Hopefully you plant your feet on the floor and it is not one of “those” mornings.)

From the position of an atheist this should be rejected outright. The suggestion thoughts go apart from action is irrational, absurd, and even unscientific. Often times we have to think on issues before we find the best and most correct way to respond. Sometimes, we actually have to pause an action to give it thought so we may not do the wrong action or go about something the wrong way. It in no sense removes action from anything. So, both on the basis of prayer and of thought, we have a complete misunderstanding of the nature of both.

I did say, however, there is a part which is accurate. This is written unto the faithful though and I don’t think the secularist would have much use for it. First, the idiom “thoughts and prayers” used as a message of concern where there really is none is dumb. Some who mock “thoughts and prayers” are those who have seen it hash-tagged enough to where it just got annoying and a tool of gaining clout. Again, dumb. Let’s put in a Christian context where it might also be an accurate criticism.

Some who mock it are not going after thought as much as they are going after prayer, but since Christians are supposedly not very deep thinkers anyway, attacking thought appeals to them. This aside, let us say you have a dear friend whose family member is in the process of passing away. Or, it doesn’t even need to be a friend, just any acquaintance. They ask you, “Please pray for so-and-so” and you agree affirming to them you will “keep them in your prayers.” Then, let us say, you do not. Not because you are spiteful or anything, you just forgot with being busy, or you just didn’t have so much invested in this person passing on so it skipped your mind. As terrible as it may sound.

We can make all the excuses we want, but to say you are going to pray for someone, and you don’t, is wrong. In the end you gave someone your word you would do something and you didn’t. It is in this kind of context criticism against “thoughts and prayers” becomes applicable. It becomes a platitude which you ultimately shrug off. Indeed, I have no doubt people have used this as a platitude before, and it has a part to play in the mockery it has become.

In addition, you ever notice how even among the secular community, you still occasionally get a request for prayer when they are in dire need? It is a fascinating thing where someone will mock prayer at one time and ask for it another. Notice the main target of this “mob” against “thoughts and prayers” is generally the ones offering them, not the ones asking for them. If someone approaches me Online from across the country and asks for our prayer, should we say, “I can’t pray for you because I can’t do anything for you.” Of course not. Such a response would lack compassion.

This is another thing the secularists have a hard time understanding: Prayer is often an expression of compassion. Many suggest through “thoughts and prayers” we just don’t care. This is a faulty assumption because though you might conclude prayer has no value, it is not universally concluded. Those who do find prayer an appropriate response, often pray for the needy and those terrible events which confront our world and act in accordance when they can. Yet, I can’t discount, as mentioned above, the “hash-tagging” of the phrase, which is the spiritual equivalent of putting a countries flag on your profile picture when they’re facing some crisis. “Hey, look at me, I have a Ukraine flag behind my head. I really care!” It is a horrible thing to use to get clout. However, if you are sincere then more power to you. Likewise, avoid “thoughts and prayers” hash-tagging (as a platitude it needs to be removed from people’s vocabulary), but if sincere keep those thoughts and prayers coming.

It is our conclusion then the criticism of “thoughts and prayers” is irrational based on the elements within the phrase. It is absurd because neither thought nor prayer necessarily remove action or effort. Not only this, but there is nothing wrong with offering “thoughts and prayers” when a person is unable to provide effort due to not being proximate to the event, but still has great concern. These are somewhat irrelevant though since much of the criticism itself isn’t really an argument as much as it is mean-spirited anger being expressed over disagreement, which can function as a means to get clout in and of itself.

On My Attempt To Raise Awareness of The False Virtue of Raising Awareness

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Thu, 22 Oct 2020 00:37:00 +0000

It may be necessary at the start of this entry to raise the possibility and make the reader aware beforehand that this may make some people upset. As is always the case, I don’t set out to do this as a goal or end, like some sort of insatiable online troll, but it is just the nature opinion and expression given on such an open and hostile forum such as the Internet, which presents this inevitability. I am sure I have offended in my writings before, and here I likely am to do again with the reasonable conclusion that this won’t be the last time either.

Since this is more of a rant than anything else, I am going to forego lengthy introductions and simply state what I feel is true: There is nothing about “spreading awareness” in and of itself which is inherently virtuous. In fact, it has the potential for representing the exact opposite. I do not attest all “awareness raising” is immoral or lacks virtue, I only profess the current phenomenon that exists in pop culture where it seems that virtue can be expressed by a single hashtag, in fact, cannot.

"'For us to be the first [to wear braille on sports jerseys] is really cool to bring awareness to the cause,' Orioles pitcher Mike Write said."

The term “raising awareness” obviously infers there is some issue or cause that people are unknowledgeable about, or completely ignorant and unaware of, and it is regarded as necessary that recognition of the said issue be forwarded among a society so the problems and struggles that result from it may be remedied, defeated, or hindered. To use the example above, it isn’t “raising awareness” to project and promote a cause which everyone is already keenly aware of. Blindness is a condition I would suspect the majority of adult individuals who are tuning into or watching Baseball, know of. I might go even further and to say it is quite well-known the world over, and depending on how you look at it (no pun intended; well maybe subconsciously), is experienced to a degree by many who have severe vision problems. In a sense, it would be like me trying to raise awareness of, near-sightedness, male-pattern baldness, inner-ear infections, hangnails, or dry, itchy, flaky scalp. I can try to raise awareness all I want, but if everyone is already aware of the issues, it doesn’t raise much of anything at all. Other than hearing myself talk, it has no more virtue than a person posting #HowAboutThoseBlindFolks on Twitter.

In another sense, you may quickly and rightly object protesting that such things like “raising awareness” for the blind actually encourages people to give to a cause or charity, and if this is the case then I say “good!” That is great! Charity is inherently virtuous! Making people aware of a charity, and particularly volunteering for that charity, is far different than “raising awareness” that blind people exist. One is inherently virtuous, the other is not. You can quite obviously do both. Case in point, the Orioles baseball team did auction off the braille jerseys and gave the proceeds to charity, which is their saving grace in my opinion. Still seems a bit odd to me, but they still backed up statements with action. You may be of the kind where you “raise awareness” with time, effort, you give generously to charity, and therefore, to you, the term “raise awareness” is interchangeable with the promotion of giving and it all serves to that end, and if that is the case I raise no issue with you. However, I would say that you have broken away from the norm, in that you don’t serve platitudes, but back them up with action.

It seems clear that there are those who say this in a superficial sense and do so without any real effort, believe, or feel the phrase alone legitimizes an overinflated sense of personal accomplishment and charity which they enjoy with minimal or non-existent effort. It’s like a person receiving or making the argument that they deserve the Medal of Honor without ever entering a war zone or wanting to engage in combat. You need to be in the arena and on the field. A spectator shouting to another spectator or encouraging one another to cheer, and what to cheer for, in the end, neither gets credit for the touchdown nor should they. Even those on the sidelines are personally invested and ready to go at a moment's notice once the coach calls on them. A yelling spectator is far below both.

Charity and giving in a sense sound so boring though. Isn’t it better to think that you not only gave to charity but accompanied by that donation the knowledge that you are furthering a worthwhile cause and promoting “awareness”? Honestly, it certainly sounds better. To give to the blind is just charity, but to “raise awareness” means you are on some greater cause and mission. Some greater calling beckons and needs you. Yes! You! YOU must spread the word and receive recognition for your brave awareness-raising!

All and all, as we have said, the virtue lies in efforts, in charity, in volunteer work, and in raising money, with the accumulated funds being a pool that you yourself have contributed to. “Raising awareness” is only peeing in someone else’s pool as a contribution and trying to take credit for its construction. Simple “awareness” raising, is relatively worthless. If a homeless man who just lost everything and is struggling on the street, or living in a van, he needs help to build a solid foundation to get his life back together. If a few people are simply made aware of his plight somewhere out in the suburbs, what does their awareness of his struggle mean to the man who has lost it all? Jack squat, that’s what.

It’s hard to say that every person “raising awareness” is a person trying to leech on some moral or ethical loophole, and because it is so difficult, I am quite fortunate that it isn’t the point I am trying to make. As mentioned it may have its place in fund-raising among respectable and charitable organizations. I live in the Pacific Northwest and here we have a number of prominent charities that are directed toward blindness and handicaps in a more general sense. A couple of these include Northwest Center and The Lighthouse For The Blind. These good people strive to collect donations in person and over the phone (telemarketers are one thing, but if you get mad that a charity calls you, even during dinner, well, I just hope you aren’t of the sort). In my recollection, they never start by saying, “Yes, hello. I am so-and-so and I am trying to raise awareness for the blind. If you could go ahead and tweet a hashtag we would appreciate it.” It was always the virtue of giving and charity which was impressed upon the person being approached. They never left saying, “Okay, please tell just one person today about blind people.” Once more, the real virtue being the focus, not a false one.

As I can’t say there is absolutely no reason for “raising awareness,” and I don’t think it should be open to mockery in all circumstances. Just because most people are aware of the existence of domestic violence doesn’t mean that they are knowledgeable of its extent in society, nor does it mean that it should cease to be a continual topic of conversation and social reflection. In this regard, “raising awareness” is akin to saying that we are keeping an issue at the forefront of social discourse that the behavior might be discouraged and rebuked veraciously as unethical and immoral.

Rule of thumb, how do we tell the difference between a positive “awareness-raising” and a negative or neutral one? It is all reducible to where we can ascribe the virtue. Simply tweeting #DefeatMalePatternBaldness or #UrinaryTractInfectionAwarenessMonth isn’t a virtuous action, or even a virtuous statement. It can be quite empty and designed to draw attention more toward the self and a supposed self-virtue, and the feeding of a hungry pride that desires empty accolades and thumbs-ups, hearts, likes, reposts, rather than the professed cause. If that is the case, then it is more unethical than ethical. In doing so you are not “raising awareness” of anything but yourself.

“Raising awareness” can also be considered a redundancy at times. Let us say I am fed up with leaf blowers at 8am in the morning. I can simply state, “I wish people would wait until at least 10am to use leaf blowers,” and people become quite aware of my stance on that issue. #NationalEarlyLeafBlowerAwarenessWeekend doesn’t raise any more or any less than my initial statement did. That person should become aware of your impressions is something already implied, and making a statement of your concerns is “raising awareness” in and of itself. We are left with two general options, a true “awareness-raising” which promotes a cause greater than the self and is attended with virtuous action, or the “awareness-raising” of the self and empty platitudes which represent no virtue either within the self or in attending action. In the end, promoting yourself at the expense of an issue or people suffering from an issue is you taking advantage of them. Nothing more. Speaking of redundancy I should probably work on closing this entry out.

Overall, what irks me is the promotion of the self over the cause it is purporting to expose, and even using that cause as a means to inflate persona for the sake of appearance. This is all too common. You may say that I am making a mockery of the term “raising awareness,” and maybe I am a bit in being critical, but I would also respond that indulging in this term in an unethical manner, as some have done, has already accomplished this very thing.

On Why I Am Pro-Life

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Tue, 04 Jun 2019 05:18:00 +0000

On Ideas; Not People

"I attack ideas, I don't attack people - and some very good people have some very bad ideas." --Supreme Court Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia

Recently, Governor Cuomo of the state of New York signed into law the so-called “Up-To-Birth” abortion bill and in its wake, Alabama and Georgia have voted to ban the practice of abortion. Although the subject of abortion has never left us and continues to be a volatile dividing topic that threatens to fracture, or perhaps, completely destroy friendships and other relationships, the controversy surrounding the issue has been pushed to the forefront of the public consciousness by these events. It has also revealed that within the pro-choice camp there are varying degrees of permissibility, with these degrees usually separated by trimester (i.e., abortion is permissible if done within the first, or second trimesters, etc.). In fact, it seems there are those who are pro-choice who are quite squeamish about the law signed by Cuomo and it as at least on this foundation the two opposing sides can, perhaps, find a bit of common ground on an issue which generally allows for none. At the same time, there are pro-life people hesitant on bills like the one Alabama and Georgia have passed and other states are considering.

The Signing of the Reproductive Health Act, January 2019.

No doubt about it, abortion is a divisive issue, and in beginning, to make this essay perhaps a bit more agreeable to the critic, I would like to begin by highlighting a couple of things I am seeking to do in my examination of it. I assure the reader that it is my intention to examine the issue and not people. Being pro-life means a lot of challenges are thrown your way, some more valid than others, and I would be quite dishonest with myself and with whoever might take up this essay to say that I haven’t found myself sympathetic to a person’s plight in some circumstances. Truly, there are individual issues (which I will address) where it might be easier, or rather, quite certainly, it is easier, to critique the issue than to be actively confronted with it. If my exploration of abortion or any resulting subjects that arise from it seem cold, let me assure the reader it is not the case, and I would implore those interested to remember that I am exploring in a philosophical way the issue itself and not the people. I have absolutely no interest in going after people on a personal level. After all, concerning those who have had an abortion, it is a course of action that cannot be changed, for it has already occurred, and all change must reside in the present and future. This is why I am much more interested in ideas themselves than the people who may hold those ideas and making them the target. Of course, it can be hard to separate the person from the idea because it is people who hold the ideas. Regardless, in this work, it is my goal to achieve this as much as it is possible.

There are many ways in which people justify their positions, but not all are applicable. I recall a TV show in which a character expresses that she is pro-life and is answered by another saying that they had no idea she was the religious sort. She denies this and asks if you have to be religious to believe that an unborn child represents a life? He responds by saying there is a correlation. This I would agree is accurate to some extent, but as the show points out it is not necessarily the case. The point is, not all people are religious, so when approaching the issue to the general public, one finds an appeal to religion to be lacking. Simply, a non-religious person is not going to be swayed by any religious argument and consequently if confronted with such an argument might be put off instead. The associations we make are more important than we realize. If one does view pro-life as a religious position and pro-choice as a non-religious position, and the individual in question is non-religious, they very well may have an inclination to hold the pro-choice view simply due, in part, to that constructed association.

Also, one cannot claim to be objective and not look at the side which holds their position. In doing so, it isn’t as if there haven't been atrocities committed in the name of the pro-life movement. First off, if you walk into an abortion clinic and murder people, either the patients or the practitioners, you have absolutely no business applying the term “pro-life” to yourself. You are anything but and represent a direct and horrific contradiction of the pro-life view. We also need to perhaps question our methodology in promoting the pro-life position.

Colorado Planned Parenthood Shooter Robert Lewis Dear Jr.

Is this to say it should be accepted by pro-lifers? Should they just sit on the sidelines and remain silent then? I would hope it is obvious that this is not what I intend to do. In an effort to refute the challenges and ideas to the pro-life view, I hope to show by addressing the critics that there is a rational basis for the pro-life position, which may produce a bit more good than screaming insults at people in or outside a clinic, merely waving a sign, or trying to block people from entering. I don’t wish to devalue anyone protesting or their passion for the cause, but in my understanding, going after an idea is like a vaccine to a particular action, and it is to here we should start, for it is much more efficient than just fighting the symptoms of a disease that is already caught. You aren’t going to be able to stop the tide by merely setting up a breakwater.

On The Fringe

Simply addressing the challenges to the pro-life position isn’t enough to produce a case for it. The view needs to stand on its own rational foundation, but I find that the challenges represent some of the greatest hindrances to accepting the pro-life view. Again, I will address these, and perhaps others I hear during the process of writing this, but here are some examples that are cited to the pro-lifer as a challenge or rebuke:

A.) Rape

B.) Incest

C.) Birth Defect

D.) Life of Mother

E.) If Outlawed . . .

F.) It’s my body

G.) Bundle of cells

H.). None of your business

Conservative speaker Ben Shapiro pointed out at a Q and A session that these represent fringe issues of the whole and don’t represent the majority of abortions. This is true based on the data and numbers, but does it mean it is a sound rebuttal? Well, that might be a little more complicated.

Source: AGI (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html)

The father of the discipline of logic, Aristotle, proposed the principle of non-contradiction. This law, in short, says that anytime a contradiction is present, this represents a falsehood or fallacy within the whole of the argument.

Ayn Rand sums it up eloquently and concisely:

“To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.” --Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand Reader, p. 260.

“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.” --Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p. 152.

This is likely the view that is taken by pro-choice people when they offer these challenges, that is, they attempt to show a contradiction somewhere in the thinking of the pro-lifer and thus, by necessity, prove that it is false. It certainly might seem to work, for if the pro-lifer says that abortion is not permissible, but admits that it might be so in some other case, in the critic’s mind, it represents a contradiction and it invalidates the whole of the pro-life argument. So, in that case, and according to that point-of-view, no, Ben Shapiro doesn't give a good rebuttal. A contingency is enough to counter the greater whole.

Yet, how a pro-lifer may regard it is a bit different, and in this sense, Shapiro offers a sound rebuttal. In truth, contradiction is much harder to prove then one might suspect, particularly on a philosophical level. Yes, there are simple forms like when one contradicts their statements in an account or personal anecdote, then we can easily determine they are lying, but in issues like this it becomes more problematic. The reason why is that in order for a contradiction to exist and be applicable, the particulars need to be virtually identical. One of the ways the charge of contradiction is overcome is to show error on the part of those making the charge that the circumstances are similar or the same. Simply pointing out major differences in situation A from situation B is often enough to validly and soundly counter the charge of contradiction.

It is on these grounds that Ben Shapiro’s rebuttal was sound, that these are differing circumstances, and are so individual and relatively rare that they represent fringe issues that don’t reflect the vastness of the real circumstances surrounding the majority of the practice. Shapiro addressed this by asking the woman bringing the question if she would agree that in the majority of cases it was wrong, to which she would not agree because she wasn’t willing to limit abortion to the exception to the rule. Therefore, Shapiro reasoned, her line of questioning was simply an excuse. So, in a very real way, how effective this answer by Shapiro is, and those who utilize it, really comes down to your own personal philosophy on contradiction and its relation to truth. However, I seek to build a case for the pro-life view by appealing to both. I will address the individual cases which are often cited by pro-choice people, as well as admit that when we talk about abortion, these represent minute fringe circumstances that do not appeal to the whole and don’t represent a contradiction to the pro-life position.

On “In The Case of…”

This is probably the area that gets the pro-lifer in the most amount of trouble and gets the most ire directed their way. To be completely honest, it would be much easier to take the position like I discussed in the last section and write off these fringe examples as inadequate to justifying the whole practice. This is because some of these can be quite uncomfortable to discuss in both a philosophical way and as a sympathetic human being). Truly, the pro-life view isn’t unfeeling, for if it were, we would have to ask why these “fringe” examples are so often pressed towards pro-lifers? I suggest part of the reason is that it does make us uncomfortable, and pro-choice people are quite aware of this, and if it makes us uncomfortable and invokes feelings, then just like others, we are not unsympathetic to these challenges. What the pro-life position believes though is that just because we are sympathetic to someone, or something, it doesn’t mean that a resulting action is justified or right. No, just like law and morality, we need to admit that emotion and rationality are not always in sync. It seems clear that emotion and action can indeed be opposed to each other. This is not said to so much a devalue an emotional response, but rather it is the question of whether it is rational that the emotional response is carried out in action? Either rationality is reined in by emotion, or emotion is by rationality.

Concerning this, it is rationality that should have authority over emotion. We see the dangers and unreliability of emotion all around us, and even in our personal lives, we can think of times where emotions have got the better of us or led us astray, or where we regret an action that was promoted or prompted by emotion. Again, this is not saying they don’t have value, or even that emotions always imply an error, only that to rely on them solely is a mistake. Yet, don’t people also make mistakes being adherent to strict rationality? Absolutely, but this is because rational people make mistakes in determining what is rational. It's much like a math problem. If we answer a math problem incorrectly, it is not math that is at fault, but rather our misunderstanding and miscalculation of it. While we can identify mistakes in the pursuit of what is rational (i.e., as Rand said, we can have a faulty premise), with emotion we cannot. Currently, we live in a world where emotion is always right. We only determine our emotions as wrong from it when it hurts us, others, or doesn’t produce the end we desire or anticipate. Thus, while mistakes can objectively be found in determining rationality, it is not that rational that is at fault, but our misunderstanding of it and our own miscalculated errors. Emotion, on the other hand, at times can be inherently dishonest and wrong and still appear very much valid.

So it is on the basis of rationality that we appeal. To do otherwise is generally because the view can’t be defended on rational grounds. If you can’t provide a defense on rational grounds, then often it is the case that the next method of justification is to shift the burden of proof and where it lies. In this case, the case of abortion, it's on how a person feels.

On Defense and Building a Case

M. C. Escher, Bond of Union, 1956.

When offering a defense of a particular viewpoint or issue, or attempting to construct a proof of that view, there are numerous methods that one can appeal to or exercise. The first is what can be referred to as the classical. This defense simply seeks to first determine a proof for an element upon which all other subsequent issues rest. Yet, there are other ways proofs are constructed.

There is the evidential, which seeks to prove something on the basis of pure, empirical evidence.

There is the experiential, which seeks to prove based on someone's experience. However, it must be remembered that philosophically this approach is generally considered unreliable and represents what's called the anecdotal fallacy.

There is the historical, which seeks to prove a case based on the historicity of a particular subject.

There is the presuppositional, which seeks to prove based on first making the assumption a view is true and then pointing out either its flaws or its validity. This is also called systematic consistency presuppositionalism. In the science of logic, we can refer to this as a form of indirect proof.

Now, certainly, I think all these will find their place in the construction of my argument, but if I had to classify my attempt, I would classify it as classical and henceforth, we should start with the element upon which many of the others rest. This is presenting a case that the unborn is a life. It should be noted too that these constructs and methods are used on the pro-choice side as well.

On The Life Inside

I was reading a debate online one time and, as I recall, a pro-choice woman was defending her pro-abortion stance, and ended up saying something like the following: “I didn’t give this thing permission, it is merely a parasite stealing my nutrients.” To the pro-lifer, this would almost be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. I don’t recall if the pro-life person offered the fact that even a parasite is a living thing, but regardless it represents how some pro-choice people view that life inside. A parasite. Indeed, I have seen this argument a number of times on Facebook and message boards. We see in that such a statement, great efforts are made to not only avoid referring to it as a life (“thing”) but also to deny its value (“parasite”). It may be argued that some people who have abortions fear this “thing” will continue to be parasitic once it is born, not biologically, but to their lives to some degree. It doesn't represent a powerless and dependent child, but a mere parasite.

Crepidostomum Cooperi

Biological, familial, or social dependency doesn’t equate to something being parasitic. For one, parasites are invading creatures, living creatures, that do not share the same biological makeup of the host. You do have creatures that can absorb another of its species, I believe there is an angler fish that does this, but in these cases it is an independent being prior and then becomes biologically dependent, even losing some of its organs and mobility in the process. It is not a growing, developing thing, but something being enveloped into another. A baby is a growing developing being, which when carried to term will become independent, in a biological sense, and continue to increase in independence. As much as anything can become independent anyway, for as I said earlier, we are all dependent beings in some regard.

8 Weeks

Now that we got the idea of a fetus being a parasite out of the way, let's move on to offering proof of life. In order to do this, we have to ask the question: What is life? There are a number of ways people approach this question, there is both the scientific and the philosophical. I read a work by one woman doctor, who was pro-choice, that made the admission that it appears by science that life begins at conception, but said it wasn’t that easy, that what determines a life is based on what a person believes is a life, or it represents a philosophical question and not a biological one. While reading it, I must admit that I was almost impressed with her candor on the subject. Many scientific works have been written to support the idea of life at conception, or life approximate to conception.

The American College of Pediatricians stated in 2004:

“The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception--fertilization….Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species of homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception.” --When Human Life Begins, American College of Pediatricians, March 2004.

Also:

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.” --M. Kaluger, Human Development: The Span of Life, p. 28-29, 1974.

We see in the earlier example, the woman who declared the unborn to be both a thing and a parasite, that this both denied the personhood of the unborn and devalued it at the same time while removing its humanity and/or personhood. It could be said that the even more basic foundation of the pro-life view is that all life is valuable. It doesn’t devalue but promotes value. In fact, in the pro-life position, pure living existence is beyond worth. I am not saying that we do not attribute value to lives based on the actions of a person, I am saying that the condition of living in and of itself is immeasurably valuable. This is applicable here because of the different philosophical ideas on what defines life, and in order to address these differences as a whole, we will need to appeal to a life’s value, and on this, we will build the case based on potentiality and actuality at a later time.

Yet, on a biological basis, the pro-choice doctor is hard-pressed to, by biology alone, science alone, disprove that life isn’t exhibited in the developing body. As my poorly sourced recollection of a scientific article attests to (if anyone has read that article and has the source please let me know). A National Geographic video entitled “The Biology of Prenatal Development” declared:

“Biologically speaking, human development begins at fertilization.”

The critic, or those undecided on the issue, may ask about the development and if this presents a challenge? When asked what life is, one word that is thrown around is that in order for something to be a life, it needs to be sentient. I’ve seen many pro-choice debates and arguments which state that sentience must be achieved before the term life can be applied to it. This condition, analytically, or definitionally, suggests the following:

1) Independence

2) The ability to perceive or sense

3) The state of being self-aware

4) The desire for self-preservation

5) Intellectual capability

6) Mobility

As we can see, to refer to something as a “sentient life” would be a bit of a tautology in this context. Sentience implies life. So, in practice, if one asks what makes a child a life, and the answer is life (aka. sentience), that doesn’t really answer much. It sounds better in a rhetorical sense, rather than providing insight into what life is. Yet, in it, they suggest that these sentient characteristics aren’t found in the developing life of a child. We should address each of these to see if this is a worthwhile response to the question of what is life?

1. Independence I believe is something we have already touched on. Whether something is independent or dependent isn’t quite enough to determine if it is a life or not, simply because, to some degree, all things are dependent. The philosopher William Rowe came to the conclusion that there were at least three forms of being. There were impossible things (things that couldn’t exist because of the law of non-contradiction, i.e., a triangle with four sides), there were cogent things (things that can either be thought to exist or thought not to exist; possible things), and finally necessary things (a thing that must be). In the latter case, you leave the realm of strict philosophy and more into theology and for this reason, we won’t get into that, but needless to say, the cogent thing, the category of which we all belong, does imply dependency. Only a necessary thing can be completely independent. A true sentient being cannot be completely independent, but rather must be dependent, as the other characteristics of the condition show. For instance, much of our intellectual capabilities exist a posteriori, that is derived from experience, and therefore even our very knowledge is dependent, to a vast degree, on experience and the world around us.

What about it being strictly biological independence that is implied? Several years ago, I was unfortunate enough to get very sick and I wound up on dialysis due to the shutting down of my renal function. Would this unpleasant experience, in which by use of an umbilical and machine filtered my blood, have made me any less of a life? Certainly, we might ponder how such a frequent treatment might affect one’s life, but we can’t say they cease to be less of a life than anyone else who isn’t dependent on that treatment. Conditions for life, don’t negate the condition of life.

Earlier in the essay, we also touched on whether a living thing can exist within another living thing, and it is clear it can. Much of what we discuss in this aspect is not so much life but mobility and how that mobility suggests life. To use myself as an example, when I was ill I spent a number of weeks immobile and unconscious. This didn’t negate my life or its value proper, nor would it anyone else. In fact, doctors, nurses, CNA's all work tirelessly to preserve life in such circumstances rather than abandon it. I hope the reader can see that I don’t mean these as direct comparisons, but mean them to show that dependency is a condition of life, and in some circumstances, necessary for it. You might be tempted to argue the opposite. Rather than independence suggesting life, it often seems that the more dependent a living thing is, the closer to pure being that life exists. Knowledge, wisdom, and experience are the things that we pile onto the tabula rasa of pure being or life proper.

2. The ability to perceive or have sense perception has been long acknowledged by the scientific community and a number of studies have been done which provide some startling proof of the unborn’s ability to sense and perceive. In fact, it has been long held that frequent reading or certain types of music can be beneficial to the development of the unborn. This is a prime example of some pretty well-known facts about the perception and sense that is found in the life in the womb. A simple Google search will provide a vast body of evidence showing that this is the case. Regarding sense perception:

"A dramatic example of how early the unborn baby responds to painful stimulus was revealed in the television special The Miracle Months, which features films of fetal development taken inside the womb. One particular sequence shows an unborn child of only 9 weeks gestation trying to shield himself from the camera lights by placing his hands over his eyes." --Professor William Brennan, The Abortion Holocaust: Today's Final Solution.

In dramatic testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 15, 1995, Dr. Robert White, the Director of Neurosurgery and Brain Research at Case Western Reserve University's School of Medicine said:

"The fetus within this timeframe of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain. . . . [W]ithout question, all of this is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure."

Yet, again, we find instances where an inability doesn’t negate life. A person in a comatose state, for instance, isn’t declared a non-life, rather we do all we can to preserve it. This critic might say though, that like the angler fish, it was at first sentient and then lost its independence, and it is desirable that it be restored to the state it already achieved. However, I hope the reader can discern that I am making the argument that an unborn child is analytically and empirically sentient in the first place, and regardless the case of the comatose patient has already admitted sentience and while it is certainly beneficial for the preservation of personhood, it isn't the determination of it. In such cases, it is generally viewed that, for lack of better terminology, the question comes down to functionality rather than sentience. In a sense, the state of such a patient admits to the idea that sentience can be dormant without negating the personhood. This lamentable instance might very well apply also to the concept of potentiality which we will address soon.

3. The state of being self-aware is labeled as number three is almost interchangeable with number four, which is the desire for self-preservation. The reason why is because when a being is self-aware, self-preservation is often evidence of that awareness. I believe it may be a whole other long topic to discuss the levels and degrees of self-awareness, but in a general sense, these two things go hand and hand. While we understand the basic principle of self-preservation, it remains the case that preservation is not an independent condition achieved by self, but often a dependent condition by which other things are utilized to achieve preservation. We often have to rely on this evidence in forms of being which lack the ability to communicate. Self-awareness might be evident when you get up in the morning, get dressed, and for the vainer of us, check yourself out in the mirror to make sure you look proper relative to the function or plans you have set before you. A child might express self-awareness through selfishness, a common trait of children, or communicating their hunger, sleepiness, joy, frustration and all the like. You take the means of communication or transmission though, which would be the case in the unborn and you have to rely on other forms of evidence, namely that which regards self-preservation.

4. The desire for self-preservation. There have been many people that have been pro-choice and shifted their views to either pro-life, or in some cases, come to admit that the subject isn’t as black-and-white, or cut-and-dry, as they first made it out to be. Often times these shifts are experiential. An avid opposer of Planned Parenthood, the organization that performs the most abortions per year in the United States, changed her opinion on abortion after watching one being performed. Her account says that while sitting in on the procedure and watching it on the monitor, she was quite struck when the unborn child drew back from the instruments that were being used to dismember it, as if in fear and pain. The nervous system is certainly intact enough to produce pain. A neonatologist and assistant Professor at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine testified before Congress on May 17, 2012 and stated:

"There is amble biologic, physiologic, hormonal, and behavioral evidence for fetal and neonatal pain. As early as 8 weeks post-fertilization, face sink receptors appear. At 14 weeks, sensory fibers grow into the spinal cord and connect with the thalamus. At 13-16 weeks, monoamine fibers reach the cerebral cortex, so that by 17-20 weeks the thalamocortical relays penetrate the cortex. Many authors have substantiated that pain receptors are present and linked by no later than 20 weeks postfertilization. In fact, by 20 weeks post-fertilization, the fetal brain has the full complement of neurons that are present in adulthood. At 19-20 weeks post-fertilization, electroencephalogram [EEG] records are possible. We have no difficulty performing EEG studies on infants at this gestational age. At 22 weeks, continuous EEG's reflect away and REM sleep state typical of neonate. In the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, we can witness first hand the change in vital signs associated with pain." --Dr. Colleen Malloy M.D.

These accounts have been parroted by several ex-practitioners of abortion, who have come to denounce it. This provides some anecdotal and scientific evidence that the unborn are self-aware, have an instinct for self-preservation, and indeed, sense and perceive.

5. Intellectual capability is often an attribute used to characterize a quality or value of life, rather than life itself, or life proper. In this way, it is often used in a relative sense, but it doesn’t say something is not a life because of a lesser capability, it only assigns a primarily subjective value to it. In the vast majority of cases, a need for self-preservation, and sense, or perception, are used as evidence to denote an intellectual property to being, or a being. However, this is not always the case as many may say that a tree or plant lacks intelligence, but does seem to be geared towards self-preservation. For instance, a tree will bend in a manner that facilitates receiving sunlight. Yet, with plants, nobody really concludes that botanical things don’t represent life. One thing we can be reasonably sure about is that intellectual capability isn’t only revealed by what something knows, but the ability to attain knowledge. As the experiments with music and reading, and the whole process of living life show is that our intellectual faculties are understood by our ability to learn rather than anything else. This is found in the unborn:

"[B]ehavioral studies have shown that fetuses become attuned to a variety of features of the surrounding auditory environment. For example, fetuses habituate to the native language of the environment of the mother, familiar melodies or fragments of stories heard during pregnancy, and even the mother's voice. In addition to learning-based habituation involving the laterobasal amygdala only, fetuses, for example, react differently to native and nonnative vowels or familiar and unfamiliar melodic contours and discriminate between different vowels of their native language. This capability for fine-tuned auditory processing and discrimination suggests that memory traces lasting for several days in the auditory cortex are formed as a result of fetal learning. These neural memory traces are a prerequisite for effective recognition, categorization, and understanding of speech, enabling newborns to generate specific learned behaviors. For example, at birth, neonates cry with their native language prosody." --Eino Partanen, Teija Kujala, Risto Naatanen, Auli Liitola, Anke Sambeth, Minna Huotilainen, "Learning-induced Neural Plasticity of Speech Processing Before Birth," September 10, 2013, ed. Michael I. Posner, University of Oregon, http://www.pnas.org/content/110/27/15145

That a sentient life must have intellectual capability generally only means that it has the ability to learn, and this is certainly the case, especially during the latter portions of carrying the child to term.

6. Mobility also seems to be implied by those arguing sentience. Yet, along with some of the other characteristics, the state of being immobile only applies to a quality of life, rather than life itself. Many people and things are hindered in their mobility but live fulfilling lives and this certainly wouldn’t be the case if they ceased to be a life altogether. In fact, one could be justified in saying, in general, young age and old age are both characterized by a lack of mobility. This doesn’t mean that it is invaluable or ceases to be, rather we teach the young to walk, and we seek to prolong the mobility of those who are becoming feeble. It is the case, again especially in later portions of pregnancy, that the life inside becomes increasingly mobile and active, much to the mixed delight and, honestly, the discomfort of the mother. Eventually, the child’s mobility outgrows the confines of the womb.

You may notice that I am now referencing portions of pregnancy rather than as a whole, but again I have shown that these characteristics, or rather the lack of them, don’t negate life, but at the same time, we do associate life with them. That is why even in the pro-life group, the nearer to term a child is aborted, the more horrendous it becomes. With the signing of Cuomo’s “Up-To-Birth” abortion bill and the blocking of the bill which would make mandatory medical care for a child of a botched or unsuccessful abortion, it becomes actually harmful to the arguments of the pro-choice camp. Indeed, it seems like most of them are completely thrown out the window. A mere choice cannot empirically shift life to a non-life, or a non-life to life. All the choices we make in life are not judged simply on the choice, but how these choices correspond to reality. The choice doesn’t change reality, you’re either correct or you’re not. I find it increasingly true that those backing this bill, and opposing the mandatory medical care for those who survive abortions, is to toss aside the arguments that the pro-choice group has spent years, decades, in fact, formulating.

For these reasons, when a person says that an unborn child, or fetus, or whatever you would like to label it, must be sentient to be considered life, I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that it is sentient, and thus by their own measure, a life.

On Scientific Backing

Although I have quite railed against independence being necessary for something to be considered life, one cannot help also appeal to these definitions, that is, to both debunk in adherence to, and apart from. To explain further, I find it to be faulty on the basis of the general (i.e., independence isn’t a condition of or for life) and the specific (i.e., it can be shown that independence is applicable to the unborn). For those who might critique me and say that I am contradicting myself, I should point out that the former, the general, is a classical or evidential answer, while the latter is a presuppositional form. I would also direct the reader to my previous section on building a case to explain the paradox.

So, in order to further clarify, we should make a distinction between the quality of independence and being individual. These are two different things. A thing can be a singular, individual (not necessarily a person), but be dependent at the same time. This goes to show that individuality doesn't equate to independence, and dependence doesn’t equate to non-individuality. Certainly, an individual life has certain characteristics that distinguish it from other lives. Of these, we can apply form and mass, and matter, or can appeal to more scientific evidence for individuality, particularly when it comes to living organisms, like genetic makeup and DNA. Also, when concerning the more complex organisms, organs, skeletal structure, and cellular composition. In addition, individuality can be shown in causality, that is, cause and effect. For instance, that which may affect the mother might not affect the newborn, and that which may affect the newborn might not affect the mother.

If one suggests that individuality must be exhibited in order for something to be independent or be life, then this is both shown on the philosophical level, and on the scientific level. It is immediately at or approximate to conception that the unborn has its own individual genetic code and DNA.

“The two cells gradually and gracefully become one. This is the moment of conception, when an individual’s unique set of DNA is created, a human signature that never existed before and will never be repeated.” --National Geographic, “In The Womb” (Video).

It is a matter of 5 ½ to 6 weeks when the child’s heartbeat can be detected.

Sure, we can distinguish life apart from such complex organs, but they are certainly attributed to human life, and it is this life which quickly becomes apparent. It is an interesting subject because in a world so devout to science and the pursuit of it, in certain areas, it becomes chiefly ignored for the sake of things like “choice.” However, I recall I said that I would refrain from making this about people and just about the issue itself, so I will depart from this particular train of thought because I perceive it might lead up to the opposite.

On Arguments Against The Pro-Life Position

Julio Ruelas, Critica, 1907.

I suppose it is difficult to address the whole of these opposing sides, pro-choice and pro-life, in such general terms. One must recognize that it is likely that people of the pro-life view, and the pro-choice view, disagree with certain aspects of those arguments which are used by the side that they are aligned or associated with. As I said, it is sometimes hard to address people and ideas separately, and I really don’t like having to paint a whole group of people with one broad brush stroke. So, if I have characterized anyone who reads this and they are thinking, “This isn’t me at all,” I could only ask for your patience and to share your individual thinking with me, but I only ask that you might be respectful as I have tried to be.

It would be quite unsound for me to think or say that I believe I am going to answer every argument out there against the pro-life position. I am not that prideful, nor delusional. I have heard many clever arguments against the pro-life position, but I believe that the ones I offer here are the most applicable. What I mean is quite often those clever examples which may seemingly fall through the cracks are reducible to these issues which I will address, but, again, to make the suggestion that these are all the arguments out there would be quite a gullible suggestion. If anyone has any further arguments, I would be most open to hearing them.

Once more, before we get into it, I understand how easy it is for me to sit at a keyboard and talk on these topics without ever having set foot in the shoes of those who have endured these oft brought up examples. My sympathies, in a number of these examples, are quite profound. Unfortunately, it is hard for me to prove such a thing here, and I can only ask the reader to really take my word for it. Further, I must mention that an exploration of these issues kind of surprised me, in that the ones I thought were going to be easy to refute, became quite difficult, and the ones I thought would be difficult, ended up being a little less complex than I had imagined. All and all an exploration of these issues brought a few surprises.

On The Case of Rape

It should be evident to the reader by now that I won’t adhere to the “fringe circumstance” argument that Shapiro used to address one of his questions. I do believe it has some validity, but this is primarily to ones who have already been convinced of the soundness of the pro-life argument. To those not convinced, these are issues that really need to be addressed. Out of these, the case of rape is a large and looming one.

I was somewhat pro-choice at one time but held the general idea that it shouldn’t be used as a form of birth control. I haven’t completely abandoned that position, in that, I have ideas that have carried over from one side to the other. I recall and still hold to the idea that the consequences of the committed abortion would fall greatly upon the rapist rather than the victim. For instance, I believe those found guilty of rape are punished way too lightly for us to be called “civilized” society. Not only do I want increased punishment for rapists, but if a pregnancy resulted, I think they should be punished twice over. I bring this up because I hope that it goes to show that I am not completely unsympathetic to the plight and torment that such victims may have to go through. Far from it.

Indeed, the impregnated victim of rape could perceivably consider that child an unwanted token of a horrific event in their lives, and would not, therefore, be treated as wonderfully as a child deserves. This is at least one argument I have heard regarding this tragic example, and in it are a number of elements I think might be the case, but notice that implicit in it is the idea that children deserve to be treated in a moral way. The argument goes beyond this of course, but it is interesting to note that it admits to the value and worth of a child in declaring that it deserves to be treated in a certain way.

Yet, this is only one aspect. Another says that because the child was conceived during an unwilling, unlawful, and traumatic event, the victim is justified in terminating the pregnancy through means of abortion. This is chiefly an appeal to emotion. Why this is the case is that it implores us to understand the decision by appealing to our sympathies. Yet, in our emotional understanding of the decision, does this mean the decision is rational? It does not.

Here is where the classical proof comes into play and it simply comes down to the following. If the unborn represents a life, then it is not rational and, sorry to say, unjustifiable. If it does not represent life, then, well, frankly, most abortion is justifiable. I sought to show, albeit in brief, that on both a scientific and philosophical basis, it is reasonable to conclude that the unborn are analytically alive. Thus, it would be unjustifiable. Allow me to explain further.

Given that the unborn represents a life, it has a certain intrinsic value, this is why the rape victim is a victim, because her life also has intrinsic value and it is not just the body that is harmed when someone is raped, but all elements of their lives. It is their future that is victimized and I, again, would like much stricter penalties on those who commit rape than we currently have. A brief period of time in prison, a release with flyers going out to the community doesn’t seem like enough, and I think this is an issue where we could all agree. That being said, an attack on an innocent party doesn’t facilitate or rationally excuse another attack on an innocent party. In the case of these examples, you wind up with, essentially, three parties. The rapist, the victim, and the unborn. That the woman is victimized doesn’t justify the harming and victimization of another innocent party. The stealing of one party's innocence doesn’t necessitate or excuse the trespassing of another.

I think we have a pretty moral understanding of this. We make concessions when a victim attacks the perpetrator who victimized them, but we don’t when it is an outside and innocent party. A woman whose life is victimized by a rapist, going after her rapist and taking his life, sorry to say, I am not going to be too sympathetic toward him on that one, but if she murders his children, well then I am going to say that is not justifiable in any sense. As would anyone. It just comes down to this, if you are a victim then you deserve all the sympathy and all the help in the world, but it doesn’t give you the justification nor right to harm innocent life. What to do about the child once it is born? Well, those are issues that raise some difficulty, but difficulties don’t allow for the harming of innocent lives. They need to be tackled on their own and I would suggest that the issue of what one does with a child, an unwanted child, is an issue that extends past abortion, past these horrific examples, but to suggest abortion is the only avenue is quite disingenuous.

It also isn’t universal that women who have been raped abort their children. Now, this can’t be considered a pro-life argument per se, it’s an anecdotal fallacy, but it does show that support, advice, guidance, and help to those in such a terrible situation may be available, and practical, to those who need and may benefit from it.

On The Case of Incest

In all likelihood, and for good reason, the following this one will make most people squeamish. Yet, it is worth addressing because, not only does it include a couple other of the arguments we will visit, but also, it's a subject that has been increasingly popping up due to the “love is love” movement, if you will, becoming increasingly prominent in today’s society, which, I hope makes the reader just as squeamish as myself. No, I am not talking about LGBT or how they may use the term "love is love," but people who have taken it to justify great perverse examples which I would prefer not to get into here.

This argument is actually an amalgamation of other arguments. For one, in cases of incest, rape is often considered as its cause by those who are proponents of this argument. The other is from birth defect, and as we have addressed the first, the second one is where it gets tricky. I will save some of it for addressing birth defects as a singular issue, but there is no doubt that incest can produce birth defects. Yes, no doubt. I once heard a law professor speaking about how it was some sort of rumor or falsehood that incest can produce such deformities. I don’t know how studying law makes someone an expert on such things (by the way I am not an expert either), but it flies in the face of genetics and history.

Indeed, when one looks over the monarchy governments over the course of history, it becomes apparent that some were deformed by the close intermarrying of bloodlines, many monarchies believing that the bloodlines needed to be as pure as possibles, which led to deformities both in body and mind. This seems to be the focal point of the incest argument, that of physical or mental deformities. I will seek to show that these don’t justify abortion on their own, but neither does the cause. It may seem grotesque to some, but the product of intermarrying or otherwise, still remains a life, and the extinguishing of it is unjustifiable. Yes, that life still has value. Yes, it is still a life. Thus, it is not justifiable to terminate it because of source, victimhood, or condition. We get into some of these deeper in the next section.

On The Case of Birth Defect

Recently, a mentally handicapped man sat before the Senate and testified passionately that his life was worth living. It is sad that a handicapped man had to testify to that, to remind people, to show people, to inform them that his life, despite his handicap, had value. That he was not worthless. That he enjoyed his life and contributed to the life of others. This is echoed by actor John C. McGinley known most famously for his roles in the movie "Office Space" and role on the TV show "Scrubs." Though his mission is different, namely, the removal of a certain offensive term from the public lexicon. It is true he hasn’t expressed an opinion on abortion and steered clear of it when asked, but I only reference McGinley because of his great love for his mentally handicapped son and this is shared by many families in similar circumstances. His mission is a good one, and one I have changed my view on over the years. Simply, I used to have a “words don’t hurt” mentality when it came to such things, and I justified it through scholastic adherence, but I have since then shifted my thoughts on it and feel Mr. McGinely is quite correct. I may write on it someday.

This is the danger we reach when we see birth defects and determine that that life has a lesser value or absolutely no value. Many families who have children who are handicapped, while they admit the challenge, also declare their love for their special needs sons or daughters. Challenge and difficulty don’t negate value, sometimes it actually does the opposite! I find slippery slope arguments sometimes to be fallacious but we do need to ask if this is permissible and allowed, then where does it end? This represents a problem I have reached with trying to iron out the pro-choice view, in that it is incredibly blurry. This permissibility of the hazy can lead to things beyond the pro-choice argumentation. We literally have people advocating now for the death of sentient, independent, and individual, living beings. Again, this completely does away with the arguments we are examining.

Heartwarming story about parents who adopted two disabled children following the death of their first son to rare genetic disorder

Not to get too far off track, when we say or allow that a deformity means that something doesn’t have a right to live, that is very dangerous territory, and in my mind, quite wrong. Since “sentience” has no place anymore in determining whether some live or die, at what age outside the womb is the permissible? Although we are getting quite good, that is, science is getting quite good at detecting birth defects inside the womb, what about if one only becomes apparent at birth? Is it justifiable then?

I find it hard to look at someone handicapped either mentally or physically and think their life isn’t worth living. Yet, in the case of abortion, when it is justified because of this line of reasoning, that is exactly what we are doing, we are predetermining that their life has a lesser value than those without handicap, and then it needs to be asked, where the line is drawn? In addition, how is it affecting those who are handicapped now when we argue on this basis that it is better that they should not have been born? Are we approaching a day when we will see such people on the street and think, "It would have been better for them if..."?

On The Life of The Mother

Pregnant Mom [Carrie DeKlyen] Chooses Baby Over Her Own Life: People.com

As I have revealed, there were a few surprises when examining the individual issues raised against the pro-life view. This is one of them. I, for some reason that I can’t honestly articulate, thought this would be an easy one to address on a philosophical level, but it turned out to be a bit more difficult than I thought. Particularly, because one needs to show that a contradiction doesn’t exist in their view when included within a whole argument. Further, it raised some philosophical issues which I didn’t expect. That being said, let’s move into it.

In the strictest sense of the term, here is one condition where I am “pro-choice.” I want to make this clear because I have heard some pro-life arguments which declare that it is not permissible to abort in such a circumstance. I am pro-choice on this issue because of the reasons I will share, but also because I can’t say that a mother in unjustified or wrong in giving up her life for her unborn child as some mothers have done. It seems to me that if you take on the term of pro-choice in such a circumstance, that necessarily means that you believe both are permissible. I recently read about a mother who denied herself chemotherapy because it would terminate the pregnancy (link above), but tragically in doing so was giving herself a death sentence. Such loving sacrifice I couldn’t ever say was wrong, it is the ultimate expression of love and I can’t help but find it honorable and find it worthy of the most highest accolades.

Yet, should the life of the mother, if threatened, be bound to die because of the life of their unborn child? This is where it gets tricky, and I believe we will present another element to this question later when we discuss potentiality and actuality, but here we will just appeal to ideals. I must admit to the reader that by ideals I mean an idealism. I am somewhat of an idealist in that I do think morality is objective. I also share in the views of some of the more famous idealists like Martin Luther King Jr. who I cite because of his idealism concerning the inherent rights of man, which are applicable in this discussion and it is here where I would like to begin on answering the question concerning the life of the mother.

When I began to examine this question I felt like I was in sort of a stalling tailspin for a while in that I didn’t know what direction I would go, except into confusion. Yet, eventually, I found my footing and some even ground concerning the intrinsic rights of man, or as some may say, all living things. What are these intrinsic rights of man that idealists frequently cite? Further, what rights are exhibited in behavior like self-preservation? As you may recall, we touched on this already when discussing sentience. To answer this, let us take the American Declaration of Independence into account:

"While in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation."

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." --Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

The most basic right that life has, which it strives to grasp hold, is the right to live. The right to life. To have this right secured. This is indeed the most basic right afforded to any living creature. The conflict, of course, comes in when the right of one thing to live conflicts with the right of another to live.

This is exactly what we find happening in the case of where the mother’s life is threatened by the life inside. We find that the mother’s right to life is in conflict with the unborn’s right to life. What do we do in such situations? How do we determine which one has the greater right to life? We should face the facts and realize that we all probably encounter this conflict more than we would like to admit. The foods we eat, and the lives taken which provide us food, are one example of how we experience in our normal everyday lives this right to life. Vegans have taken a particular stance on this issue. It is when pondering the general rules which govern such right to life interaction where things become difficult. There are general principles, but no real rule, which allows for the pro-choice position in this circumstance. In fact, if we consider the one anecdote I provided, then it seems to add more credibility to this principle.

This principle may seem silly in how simplistic it is, but often right to life decisions are governed by principles relating to chronological order. Simply, if a thing has a long-established right to life, then when in conflict with another right to life, the former takes precedence over it. This is not always the case, however, and other elements come into play. For instance, the greatness of a thing might overpower the right to life of another, which in other circumstances may have a presiding right to life. A younger lion may overtake an older gazelle because of might rather than any right to life, not that the animal kingdom would have any concept of that. Despite this, I believe there are certain principles at work in the world, in general, which are metaphysical and which when analyzed can provide insight into human behavior and ethical questions.

Even Darwin denoted these metaphysical principles, in his Origin of The Species, and his exploration of the survival of the fittest. Yes, in his view, it was fitness, aka. greatness and might that precipitated his survival of the fittest principle. Also, but not always, what is more fit to protect its life is often more developed, in which age can be a factor. So what governs conflicts between rights of life are fitness and chronological factors. In these aspects, the mother is justified in preserving her life, but only in as far as she is living, not the condition of her life. The anecdotal evidence which I brought forth, shows that if a woman believed her life wouldn’t extend much past the child, then she is justified in viewing the child’s right to life above her own.

In the end, making difficult decisions in these circumstances is justifiable because the mother’s right to life preexists the one of the unborn and, as heart-wrenching as it is, she should be given the choice to prolong her life in such a tragic situation. To some degree, I think this might surpass the abortion argument though. I mean, really, how many of these situations take place at a Planned Parenthood rather than at a hospital? I can’t say it never happened, but I am willing to bet that these incidents don’t occur at Planned Parenthood (if we want to make Planned Parenthood alone synonymous with the practice which is rationally dubious).

On “It’s My Body…”

This argument isn’t a particularly good one. I would hope that this answer to the pro-life movement is less literal and more figurative, in a sense saying just, “it’s my choice.” Though this argument too is not a very valid reason for terminating a life it at least attempts to make the morality of such a position relative, while the former “it’s my body, my choice” argument is tainted by absurdity. This is easily rebuked by utilizing principles of identity. From the pro-life perspective and the view that the child represents a life, it is the life of the child that is terminated and not the life of the mother. This alone indicates that there are separate lives, or if you prefer, bodies which should be regarded.

One way to approach this is to address the issue while appealing to philosophical theories concerning the nature of form and of identity, or how we can differentiate between individual forms. One way we do this is by noting the differences between one form and another. It is the case, of course, that pregnancy does affect the nature of the whole, i.e. the mother, but this doesn’t necessitate that both the child and the mother are made up of the same substance regarding body and form.

Let us say, for example, that one wishes to demolish a wall inside their house to expand a room. Well, the demolishing of that wall, although changing the overall layout of the house, doesn’t cease to make it a home. It is an individual structure, which, given that there is sound construction, doesn’t negate the house itself. So, yes, while pregnancy does affect the body of the woman who is pregnant, this doesn’t mean that the child is a part of that body alone.

In fact, how often is it the case that women can produce children without any sexual contact? If pregnancy is a manifestation of the body of the mother and is not merely a cause of effect to the mother’s body, then we might be justified in asking whether or not virgin births and pregnancies should be more commonplace?

The bodies are certainly linked, and the critic might approach this and ask why if the bodies are not one and the same then why the death of one can bring about the death of another? Doesn’t this, given my train of thought, imply that the bodies are one and the same because of the sharing of effects? To take the home and wall example again (as poor as it might be), to knock out a wall from inside the home can indeed be often done, but one must take into account the construction. If one knocks out the wrong wall, which is internally necessary for the house’s sound construction, then the home might become unstable and collapse. Still, just because an effect is similarly shared, doesn’t mean that the wall and the home are one.

Obviously, too, there are structural differences between a wall and a house which provide distinguishing characteristics to imply that one isn’t the other. This is also the case when it comes to the child and mother. The child has its own internal organs, its own DNA, its own chromosomes, and various other differences that distinguish it as an individual from the mother. To suggest otherwise is quite a twist on sound logic, biology, and science as a whole. Yes, the body of the child exists within a body, but it is not equitable to that body in which it exists. Both have separate identities. In short, it is not the body of the mother which one is addressing, but that individual body which is being terminated. If the mother and child shared the same exact substance, then both would be terminated by abortion.

On Business That is None of Yours

This one has been refuted by the pro-choice movement itself and organizations like Planned Parenthood which while saying its none of anyone’s business other than the mothers and their doctors (abortionist), at the same time demand taxpayer-funded support, which pulls just about every taxpayer into the debate. While many might support or not care where their tax dollars go, it does justify the opponent of abortion to join in the conversation. To say it is none of anyone’s business doesn’t negate the fact that we are demanded to pay for it, and until each person has to cover their own expenses, or people can opt-out of having their tax dollars to go to such a cause, this argument is a strongly invalid one.

Let us suppose this is the case though, that our tax dollars are not used and you can opt-out completely of anything that supports or goes to the cause, would it still be none of anyone’s business, particularly the business of men? That men can’t make judgments on the practice is said as a method to silence opposition, but its not particularly a good argument, since boys too are terminated in the womb, and men are paying for it, and have an active part in the creation of a child. If it is none of the business of men to make judgments on abortion, then the child is none of our business at all. To follow this to its logical end would mean the end of all child support being paid by men and all responsibility would fall on the woman. Of course, we would not dare say such a thing or suggest this course of action, because men share in the responsibility for children and it very much is our business. We would dare say such a thing, but it didn't stop Dave Chappell, who said during a standup special:

"If you can kill [it] then I can abandon it. It's my money, it's my choice."

Although his act didn't give a good indication of where his position in full, he seems to reference both sides, his point is still ligament. If we have no say in the choices and morality of others, then where does that stop? At motherhood? We also have to ask whether or not we can approach any moral question if we are not directly involved? This is akin to cultural relativism or ethical relativism except in hyperdrive. These questions usually concern cultures and civilizations far removed from us and then ask if the actions they take or the ideas they have can be judged by another culture? For instance, do people in the United States have a right to judge practices like female genital mutilation as is done in areas within the Middle East? If we don’t then are we justified in granting asylum because of such practices? If we are cultural relativists then we would either need to practice stringent isolationism or embrace lawlessness and anarchy on both an international and domestic scale.

Yet, the “none of your business” argument suggests a cultural relativism within one’s own culture. This is why it’s a hyper-cultural-relativism and denies the existence of objective morals whatsoever, which is wholly unrealistic. When we follow these principles to their logical and eventual end, we find that we certainly wouldn’t want to live in a world where this is the case. We want men to not be “deadbeat dads” (there would be no such thing in an ethically relative world), we want them paying child support and taking care of their offspring, we want a world where we can question morality objectively that we may apply laws, which would not exist if we didn’t believe in such objectivity. No, as a non-aborted citizen, we do have a right and responsibility to make moral questions and examine these questions as they confront us. Therefore, it is on these grounds that this is a paper thing argument that falls apart under the lightest of scrutiny. It really doesn’t have any more logical weight than just telling someone to shut up.

On The Right To Judge

This argument is strongly related to the last but has at least one more distinction. It assumes that one can have their own moral beliefs, but even in the presence of these views, one cannot pass judgment on a person who does otherwise. It is somewhat self-defeating though.

For instance, a person who declares that a person is wrong in daring to judge another for a particular practice is doing the same thing they’ve declared shouldn’t be done. Pretty much in the same breath. Simply, to say one is wrong to pass judgment is judgment and indicates the absurdity of this statement even on a very subjective level.

On “A Bunch of Cells”

One of the questions that concerns both science and philosophy is the question of identity, and there are numerous ideas concerning the complexities of life and matter and how it is manifest within a singular identity. In the strictest of terms, for instance, life within the womb is a bunch of cells, but then again, so are all living things. Not only this, but we can even go beyond this and say that all living things are made up of energy. An analysis of the matter of which life forms are comprised, to the quantum level, is indeed scientifically useful, and philosophically useful, but it doesn’t negate life. Life is a complex unity of energy, cells, genes, chromosomes, DNA, chemicals, elements, all working in unison to allow life to thrive. To say a person is just a composition of cells and the genetic code isn’t necessarily untrue, but it is an examination of the particulars of which make up life, not of the definition of it.

In fact, I would suppose that to say we are just an amalgamation of cells is a bit of an analytical statement, and is presupposed in the definition of life. This is not to say that all form is living because it is made up of cells, for such a statement would be quite ridiculous. It is to say that cellular structure and composition is a necessary part of life, so it doesn’t really add anything to the argument at all, since “bundles of cells” can be both living and nonliving. It amounts to that the child is not a life, which is already the argument anyway, and it ignores the other particulars, DNA, chromosomes, genes, organ development, and others which present further evidence of life.

As a side note, we do know that certain forms of life represent colonial organisms or ones that are considered a singular being, like the so-called flying spaghetti monster (Bathyphysa conifers), a siphonophore, which is an organism made up of a cluster of individual organisms called zooids. A more famous example is the Portuguese man o’war. One would be forgiven for considering this creature to be a jellyfish, but a jellyfish represents a single multicellular organism, while a siphonophore, is an organism made up of a colony of individual organisms. All this just is mentioned to show that a “cell-cluster” is both to be expected in a life form, and isn’t enough to negate the presence of life. A general principle of life within biology and science is that life is multicellular, this usually only applies to the more complex forms of life, but there are even singular cells which represent life, called unicellular organisms (single-celled organisms). They are considered by science to be the oldest form of life and contains things like algae and plankton. It is quite obvious that we cannot compare human life to algae or a zooid, but one cannot say that based on a cellular cluster it doesn’t represent life, nor, even, a single-celled organism.

Bathyphysa Conifers

The 6th edition of Patten’s Foundations of Embryology says:

“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.” --Bruce M. Carlson, Patten’s Foundations of Embryology, 1996.

On Assuming The Negative

When we look at abortion from a broad perspective, one is often challenged with the question, “When does life begin?” This is a reasonable question and in argumentation, it is used to either defend one’s position or argue against the other side’s position. In other words, it is both used on the offensive and the defensive side of the argument. Yet, we all use it to solidify our own position on the issue because it is so integral an element and by asking it we agree that this is more than a relative issue, but an objective one. Now, again, there are few places where there is room for compromise on abortion, but one that we find often is found here. When it comes down to it, many simply say they do not know where life begins, and as pro-life as I may be, at least this is an honest answer. None of us are truly omniscient, nor can we remember the exact moment upon which life or consciousness was given unto us.

This is the question we reach with this line of thought: Is it reasonable then, that since we do not know where life begins in the womb exactly, that we should, therefore, not consider it to be life, and treat it as non-life? To me, this is quite an unreasonable approach. As a whole, when we say we do not know when life begins, is to open ourselves up to the possibility that it may be a life, as opposed to those who flatly deny it. Since we all know the value of life, and the possibility of life is there, then why would we assume the negative rather than the positive? It seems to me that if you value life, then you would at least want to side on the side of caution that you may be, indeed, terminating a life, rather than since you cannot know, decide that it is worth discarding or terminating. It could be said, if we were to even accept that it does not represent life, that life is so valuable that even a developing life deserves to be protected.

On The Positive and Absolute Value of Choice

At this point, one may argue that it is choice which is the deciding factor, but this too falls apart under scrutiny. Just because someone has a choice to do something, doesn’t make the choice correct, moral, or rational. Driving down a two-lane highway, I have the choice to veer off into the oncoming lane and hit another car, to both end my life and take many others with me. I give this example, not as a direct comparison of abortion, but rather to show that it is not choice that presents us with absolute freedom and a positive value upon making any choice, but rather the context of that choice and the situation within which it is regarded and applicable. The truth value, moral value, and rational value doesn’t exist in the presence of choice itself, but in the choice taken. Yet, in the pro-choice movement, there is present the presupposition that the presence of choice indicates a positive absolute value in the expression of it. Yet, our common life experience empirically shows that this is not the case and saying a choice is correct simply because of the presence of choice is a poor one. Though I do believe there are those on the pro-choice side that understand this and use other means to make a case for abortion, at the same time, it is presented as a general companion to the movement, rather than a necessary component of it.

On Pure Being Through Causality

Throughout this essay, we have touched on some of the scientific backings behind life and its origins, but there too is the philosophical side to address when it comes to life being manifest in the womb. This part represents more the metaphysical principles behind the science and more general philosophical categories, but it may be of some use to those who aren’t so quick to dismiss philosophical elements and argumentation.

It is not in dispute that those who have life generally have the ability to create life. This too, is a principle of causality, that an effect of a cause will, in some part, have semblance with that cause. An effect will resemble its cause, and this applies to things like life. Two living things coming together to have physical intimacy create an effect and that living nature is presented onto that effect. This is all that is meant when it is said that life begets life. No matter what your cosmological viewpoint, this cannot be denied, and although some might question whether it is a necessary principle, the fact that it is such a looming one is beyond dispute.

Well, what does this have to do with proving life is in the womb? Well, it cannot be deductively and without room for doubt be deemed true (deductive logic being hypothesized to be only represented in pure mathematics and pure propositional logic), but it can be used in the inductive toolkit for defending the pro-life position, that the child within the womb represents a life because the child’s causes are life, and that life is communicated unto the unborn.

This does present us with a snowball effect of philosophical issues. For instance, not every time man embarks on creating an effect if you will, does it end in expressing life. If I build a chair, I am not creating life, but only form. If I make a clock, I am only creating form and function. I may produce something that makes movement, or in the case of robotics, even mimics life, but it is not life. Further, sometimes the desire and actions that bring life, for various reasons aren’t enough to actually bring it into being, nor is the life always carried to term. Yet, in the latter case does that mean it never existed at all?

So why don’t a chair or clock resemble life by these philosophical theories? Notice, they aren’t the product of natural processes, like child-creation, for instance, rather they are produced by the mind and by action and in this way they really do have a semblance. In addition, artificial tools are often used to produce the form or functionality of the object. They have an aesthetical resemblance and one that fits our desires for function and use. They resemble our plans, our ambitions, and what we find aesthetically pleasing. In this way, they do take on a resemblance, but we are quite unable to impart life unto these things, unlike in the case of a child, upon which we impart life.

On Potentiality, Actuality, and The “Unanswerable” Argument

A few months ago, I was presented with a pro-choice argument that was touted to be unanswerable by anyone who has a pro-life position. I am not the only one in this regard that when approached by someone who says they had something “unanswerable,” it immediately piques my interest and I immediately embark on seeing if it is really the case. Sometimes they aren’t very interesting or challenging, sometimes very, sometimes you learn new things, and sometimes you don’t. While in particular, this one was very creative and clever, it wasn’t particularly difficult, but, in my case, it actually helped me iron out a pro-life position.

Many of you have probably seen it so I would like to paraphrase a bit here, but leave all the rational parts intact. Suppose you were a pro-life person and were caught in a burning building. In one room there was a two-year-old girl and in another, there is a room full of a thousand zygotes and both are of equal distance away. You only have time to run and grab one before the building collapses taking everything inside with it. Which one do you go get? The zygotes or the child?

Clever, right? I will admit it. It is. Yet, this doesn’t mean it's correct. First, it represents a kind of logical fallacy called an argument from consequences. In it, a hypothetical scenario is introduced where both consequences are undesirable (i.e., if one leaves the child then the zygotes are burned up, if one leaves the zygotes then the child is burned up). Then those offering the scenario ask the person to make a judgment call based upon it and whatever consequence is chosen, it is used as "proof" of the validity of the critic's view. Further, the scenario is perfectly structured for one to make a singular choice, in that both are of equal distance apart, you can only grab one, so on and so forth.

We put this in another context with the same logical operators and we see it's not particularly effective. Suppose you were a pro-animal person (who isn’t?) and were caught in a burning building. In one room there is a kitten and in another room there is a puppy and both are exactly the same distance away from you. You only have time to run and grab one before the building collapses taking everything inside with it. Which one do you go get? The kitten or the puppy.

Obviously, this differs in that the kitten and puppy both represent life, while the pro-choice person is trying to argue life. However, this shows another element, that the original scenario is also fallacious in that it is an appeal to emotion. It also becomes apparent in what it seeks to do. For instance, if one says, “I would grab the kitten,” then the person offering the challenge could declare “Aha! Then you hate puppies!” If they say, "I would grab the puppy," then the person offering the challenge could declare "Aha! Then you hate kittens." Just because one pushes for judgment between consequences both undesirable doesn’t really show the exact reason why either is undesirable.

Unlike the kitten and puppy though, which may have a bigger judgment call element, this one does seem more obvious. Obviously, we would all grab the child. Due to this, the critic says, “Aha! Then you agree that zygotes don’t represent life.” This is the thing that helped me iron out my position.

I noticed that it is zygotes alone. It’s not women impregnated with zygotes that are in the other room, its the zygotes by themselves. There is indeed a dependency of life on the mother at the zygote stage and that cannot be denied, nor has any pro-life person, as far as I know, tried to deny it. This goes back to the beginning of the essay if dependency negates life. It does not. If you take a dependent thing and demand it be independent, it's going to die. The greater the dependency the more fragile it is in independence. So how does it apply here?

It applies because it presented into my mind a distinction between potentiality and actuality. In the scenario, when we are confronted with the young child, that represents both actuality and greater independence. A zygote shows a potentiality in that without being within the womb of a mother, it cannot continue to develop.

J. Clark says:

“Each human begins life as a combination of two cells, a female ovum, and a much smaller sperm. This tiny unit, no bigger than a period on this page, contains all the information needed to enable it to grow into a complex...structure of the human body. The mother has only to provide nutrition and protection.” --J. Clark, The Nervous System: Circuits of Communication in The Human Body, p. 99, 1985.

On The Charge of Sexism

The charge that abortion is symptomatic of sexism doesn’t stand up either. The reasons for this are, first off, that there are pro-life women too and it actually is quite demeaning to say that women who are pro-life are only so because they have given in to the power of men. This, while not sexist (because you can’t be sexist towards your own gender right?), it is demeaning to say that because someone doesn’t agree with your viewpoint, they are weak, can’t think for themselves, ignorant, or stupid. In that regard, with that kind of treatment, it's hard for me to see how such a charge champions for women. It can’t. The process of tearing down will never lift up.

Yet, let’s for a moment even assume that is true. Let us just give that to the pro-choice position. Does it still hold that there is proof of sexism? No, because the pro-choice side, if you will notice, doesn’t push to only save male children, but wishes to do so despite gender, from both female and male pro-lifers. It is not a sexist position, but a rational and moral one which no gender can claim hold of.

On Pro-Life Being a Religious Position

Yes, I had to touch on religion eventually, but I will keep this argument in context. This is an attempt to label pro-life people as religious in order to give it sort of a mythical quality to the non-religious pro-choice group. See the problem there? This one is refuted because there are religious people who are pro-choice. There are groups that don’t believe in religion and are pro-life. Among these are groups like SPL (“secular pro-life”), which is of the greater atheistic pro-life movement, as well as even pagan pro-life, the latter only being mentioned because a lot of those who argue that pro-lifers are religious are referring to Judeo-Christian theology. Yet, while it is the case that many religious people are pro-life, that in itself doesn’t make it an irrational position, andy more than people declaring murder should be made legal because the religious believe it shouldn’t be.

The fact that it is not religious is exhibited by the wide range of beliefs and views of individuals who hold to the pro-life position. Some, of which, I have been privileged to talk to. The other reason that people push the religious angle to discredit pro-life, is because if they can put a religious label on it, it is easier to evoke the separation of church and state and say that it is unconstitutional to impose restrictions on abortion on the grounds that it would be imposing something religious, like it is some mystical religious practice or something to believe an unborn child represents a life and should be protected as such. Questions of morality, choice, life, what constitutes life and what protections it should receive is in no way religious, as I hope this whole essay is evidence of.

On The Women Seeking Illicit Abortions Will Be Injured or Die

This oft-repeated argument goes as follows: If abortion is made illegal, then it would force women who want abortions to do so through illegal means, which are less safe and can lead to injury or even death. While this is certainly a sad consequence of banning abortion across the board, it sidesteps the fact that death and consequences happen with current abortions. Interestingly, it is hard to get numbers on such incidents because it is not legally required that abortion clinics provide them, whether it be death or complications. In addition, when a death occurs it is characterized as "maternal death" and not one necessarily resulting from abortion. Some deaths are caused by the anesthesia, medical conditions, and the surgical procedure itself. In addition, the risk of cancer is said to increase.

Abortionfacts.com states:

“Approximately 10% of women undergoing elective abortion will suffer immediate complications, of which approximately one-fifth (2%) are considered life-threatening. The nine most common major complications which can occur at the time of abortion are: infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock. The most common ‘minor’ complications include: infection, bleeding, fever, second-degree burns, chronic abdominal pain, vomiting, gastrointestinal disturbances, and Rh sensitization.” --David C. Reardon, Ph.D., https://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/major-physical-affects-related-to-abortion

Whyprolife.com says there is even danger in the abortion pill:

“22 women who took the abortion pill have died since 2000. Women who have had surgical abortions have died also. Just to name a few: Antonesha Ross died on May 8, 2009, in Chicago of untreated respiratory complications that should have prevented her from having an abortion in the first place. Ying Chen died on July 28, 2009, in California after an anesthesia reaction that went unnoticed. Karnamaya Mongar died in November of 2009 in Philadelphia after unlicensed personnel administered her sedation medications and oversedated her. Jennifer Morbelli died on February 7, 2013, in Maryland because of an amniotic fluid embolism. Tonya Reeves hemorrhaged to death in Chicago in July of 2012. On February 13, 2013, Maria Santiago died in Maryland of sedation complications. Given the reasons . . . for underreporting, these cases represent an unknown but small fraction of actual complications or deaths related to abortion.” --http://www.whyprolife.com/abortion-risks-side-effects-and-complications/, 2018.

Indeed, it seems that even deaths that have been caused or contributed to by abortion are labeled as “maternal” rather than referencing the abortion itself as a cause. The CDC monitors any deaths due to abortion under the more prosaic sounding Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, thus somewhat obscuring data from the practice. Further, there are a number of studies that I invite the reader to look up about the psychological effects of abortion in the long-term. I don’t mention these things to indicate that there is no difference between the abortions of yesteryear (illegal) and currently (legal), for I am certain the "back-alley abortion" was much more dangerous, but we cannot say that abortion is 100% safe either, or without consequence.

Whatever you think about the numbers and findings, it still doesn’t mean that the argument for the health of women seeking an abortion through illicit means is a good one. Whether abortion is safe isn’t that much of a consideration if it is immoral. Let us simplify this argument for the sake of time. If the developing child, or whatever you want to call it, represents a life, then taking that life is wrong (the cases of the life of the mother being threatened by the pregnancy alone notwithstanding). It amounts to infanticide. If it does not represent life, then it is justifiable. However, if it is a life, and is therefore morally wrong, then the fact that someone gets hurt or maims themselves, or dies in the pursuit of doing wrong, isn’t a good rationale for the legalization and approval of that wrong.

On Only The Rich Will Only Have Access to Abortion

I just heard this one and needed to include it to answer it briefly. I don’t think it will take as much time as any of the other challenges because it falls apart pretty quickly. It says that if we make abortion illegal, only the rich can afford it. I may, I hope, not have to explain why this is a bad argument for too long. Let’s put it in another context. We may all disagree on whether drugs should be made legal, but for the sake of illustration, let's put it this way: Let us suppose that meth is the most expensive drug on the planet (you can probably already see where I am going with this). Therefore only the rich and upper classes can afford to do meth. Thus, it follows, that we should legalize meth on the grounds that it is more affordable for everyone and everyone can do meth. Again, not a direct comparison, but one that emphasizes that if something is wrong, how much someone pays for that wrong, and how much people can’t afford that wrong, is a bad foundation upon which to give your support.

On Progression, Regression, and The Political Pendulum

Abortion has always been a mainstay in the public dialogue, but within my life, I have to say, I haven’t seen it like this before. This is why I decided to write somewhat extensively on it and present all the arguments. One large reason that it has come to the forefront of the political and social discourse is because of how far one side was willing to go, advocating unequivocally for what amounted to infanticide. One thing we notice about society and the political spectrum is that when we press for progression too far or try to regress too far as well, the political pendulum will sometimes violently swing the other direction. This swing, which is always in motion, can occur over a gradual period of time, or at other times it can be rather abrupt. Due to the fact that it was pushed so far one direction, that children out of the womb, who were independent, or actual and sentient, were subject to choice, not only negated all the arguments pro-choice people were making for years but also shocked those who were in the middle on the abortion issue. If you think about it, that isn’t too surprising. To say that you can slaughter a child born out of the womb because choice overcomes its life is shocking, and that it was testified too and freely admitted, was, in another sense, confirmation of what some of those pro-lifers who advocated for slippery-slope arguments were saying.

On Whether Can You Be Pro-Life if You Were Once Part of or Exercised a Pro-Choice Viewpoint?

Yes! Indeed, many have switched between views, degrees of those views, and jumped back and forth over their lives, and this won’t change. Why this is a question included, is because sometimes people invest so much in a particular view that its either frightening to get away from or they feel hypocritical for moving from one end of the spectrum to another. We often have friends, family, or colleagues we fear we may disappoint or may disagree with us and we are afraid we might lose them. Certainly, it is a fear of mine in writing this. Yet, this isn’t always the case, nor should it be. These views, pro-life and pro-choice, don’t seem to be exclusive ones at all.

I’ll leave it with this thought and paraphrase author C. S. Lewis by doing so, that it is the case that people adhere to progressivism simply because of its appeal that it is progressive. Yet, there is nothing more regressive and stagnant then not recognizing a mistake and refusing to turn around. When one embarks on a journey toward a particular destination, it is not progressive to make a wrong turn and keep going, it leads you only further away, and the only way to really progress is to turn again and proceed back toward your intended goal. If your goal is the truth then don’t let your mistakes keep you from progressing forward.

Thank you all for reading and I hope at the very least this work might present you with the understanding that the pro-life position isn’t arbitrarily foolish, but thought out, explored, and despite the challenges (some of which are gut-wrenching), still stands in the light of its challenges.

Also, I welcome any comments, but because within my studies I have found those who insult, express uncontrolled rage, hatred, and threats to be the most irrational and convincing, all such comments will be ignored. However, I welcome any further challenges or thoughts that I may have not considered and would love to hear your thoughts on these issues.

Again, I thank you.

On Exaggerations, Agreements, Treaties and a Chris Farley Reference

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Sat, 03 Jun 2017 08:59:00 +0000

I think people are exaggerating the impact the Paris Agreement actually has or had. Anyone want to take a stab as to why it is called an "agreement" rather than a "treaty?" They aren't the same thing. A treaty is usually formed by an overseeing or governing party, which writes strict terms or conditions that the members of the party need to follow lest they face consequences for breaking the conditions of that treaty. An agreement doesn't necessarily have to follow these principles at all. They aren't equitable with each other. For instance, one could argue that all treaties are agreements, but one cannot argue that all agreements are treaties. There are of course degrees of agreements in how binding they are to the members of that agreement. With the Paris Agreement, it actually has no power and nations like India only are a part of it on a "we'll see" contingency. Basically, if they get billions of dollars of aid from other nations they will become a part of it. "Give us billions of dollars and we will throw our support behind your largely symbolic agreement." More or less.

Despite, or in spite of, what various fact-checkers are saying, In October 2016, "The Guardian" reported:

"Money will be a big challenge for India, which says it will require over $2.5tn (£1.9tn) to meet all its targets. It says it will achieve the targets only if other countries give it money and discounts on new technology."

Countries set their own terms and there is no official treaty or enforcement measures. Let us say that a country breaks the terms of their agreement. What happens to them? Well, the consequence amounts to:

Although there is an effective false dichotomy being peddled, I am all for alternative energies. Whatever you think about the state of global warming, there is nothing wrong with wanting to be good stewards of the planet. I think that is something we should all strive for regardless of bickering on the data. I choose to bypass this argument because it generally goes nowhere. The citation of one study will lead one to cite a study which says opposite and this goes on in a never-ending loop. I simplify it by making it a moral question.

In the end, the Paris Agreement is like a bunch of people getting together, clapping each other on the back, while criticizing others in such a way which implies that principle is not the standard cannon by which one is praised and another criticized. In short, national burdens aren't equal to pollution output. Now, is Trump the one to lead us into a more environmentally conscious future? I am not so sure about that, but concerning the decision to leave the Paris Agreement, I believe it was the right call.

On An Article Rebuke, Why I Actually Agree With Leaving The Paris Agreement and Some Notes on the Fabian’s Marxist Globalism.

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 13:30:00 +0000

After abandoning the environmental Paris Agreement, the world has once again resorted to its standard “freak-out mode” for anything Trump does or doesn’t do. This, of course, is expected by now, but I would say this is one of the few where at least some discussion is warranted. That is, while many other examples of media and social freak-out are completely manufactured, and I would say the reaction about this is over the top, behind are it are things that beg a rational discussion, if that were possible. This would require an in depth examination, which many today don’t want to do. No, it is much easier to oversimplify the problems and promote a false dichotomy saying, that either you are for the Paris Agreement or you hate the environment, are anti-science and want nothing more than to watch people suffer and the world burn. In fact, you may have already reached that conclusion simply from the title of this blog, which goes to show how well that false dichotomy is being peddled.

People are quick to point out, however, that the matter is settled? Concerning that and before we continue, I would like to cite the words of the great author Michael Crichton, the writer of “Jurassic Park”:

“I want to . . . talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.”

The website iflscience.com provides a rather unscientific analysis of Trump's speech after deciding to depart the Paris Agreement. It is entitled, "Trump Just Said Some Truly Crazy Things During His Paris Exit Announcement," and can be found here. Let's go through these crazy things real quick and see if they are as crazy as iflscience.com promotes them to be.

“The world went crazy when the Paris agreement was signed. They went wild. This was because it placed America at a serious economic disadvantage.” —Trump

Though the article says this is a conspiracy theory, it really isn’t. When one looks over the implementation of regulations and demands made by the Paris agreement, the USA is held to a much higher standard beyond countries that pollute way more than us. China for instance. The only part that I would question about the statement is that the world went crazy and for the cited reasons they did so.

“China can do whatever they want. They can build coal plants, and we can’t.” —Trump

Again, pretty true. While regulations bind the hands of Americans other (not all) countries remain free to do what they want. The article states that China is “gradually” moving away from coal. Its fuel and carbon consumption is expected to peak in 2025 and it is not until 2050 that they want alternative energy implemented to a large degree. Yet, it is not only until 2030 where any implimation is stated to take place. We will all be under water by then according to science.

The Financial Times reported:

"China is for the first time emitting more carbon pollution per person than the EU, birthplace of the industrial revolution. In a notable turning point for the worlds's most populous nation, China produced 7.2 tonnes of planet-warming carbon dioxide a head last year, compared with 6.8 tonnes in the EU. Its total CO2 emissions outstrip those of both the EU and US combined."

The Guardian reports:

"People in the UK are 64 times as likely to die of air pollution as those in Sweden and twice as likely as those in the US, figures form the World Health Organization reveal."

Numbers also reflect that China produced approximately 1.8 kilo tonnes of CO2 and currently are at 10m tonnes and rising. The USA was around 4.7 in 1980 and peaked around 2006 at 7m tonnes. We now produce 7m tonnes. Now I can't say for certain that numbers are being manufactured, on either side, but it seems that countries like India who have toxic air warnings and "air emergencies" rank to a lesser degree than the US.

Though people bicker over the numbers, and it is relevant to discuss these numbers, there is another point. I once heard it metaphorically put like this, that for every one regulation passed upon other countries, the USA gets five, despite being relatively and comparatively clean especially if one considers the mortality rate as reported by The Guardian. To continue:

“This agreement is less about the climate and more countries gaining a financial advantage to the United States.” —Trump

This is also true. It follows from what has been stated above. If you hinder one country from producing industry and allow the others to do so without regulation, at least relatively, then obviously one is going to have an economic advantage over the other. If we add certain trade agreements into the mix, it does put the US at a disadvantage.

The article in iflscience.com goes on to say:

“Well, ironically, by pulling out of the pact, other countries will gain a financial advantage. Their clean energy markets will continue to produce new jobs, increase efficiency, and save money on climate change prevention measures.”

This isn’t accurate. One of the greatest issues with alternative energies is that they are neither efficient enough in many cases and not economically viable enough in others. The history of alternative energy as an economic powerhouse, with the exception of hydro-electric, is riddled with companies that have failed and sent many people home without jobs. One huge example is the failure of Solyndra under the Obama administration. The Obama administration also gave 2 billion to Abengoa, a green energy company in Spain. Depite the government pouring money into these businesses, they failed miserably. Further, Spain is 27 billion dollars in debt from failed green energy projects.

“So we’re getting out, but we’ll start to negotiate, to see if we can make a deal that’s fair. If we can that’s great, if we can’t that’s fine.” —Trump

I think this is fair. If the Paris Agreement wanted to say, we will hold countries accountable according to their pollution output and use that for the judge of how we regulate, then I think it is something we should be a part of. They don’t however, and I will attempt to give a brief explanation why that is after we explore these quotes. Their current position about the US being part of the agreement and renegotiation shows that the environment may not be their primary concern, for they just essentially told the US to buzz off.

“In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord.” —Trump

This is a simple premise. Trump is saying that he was elected to ensure the sovereignty of the United States of America, and what Paris wants isn’t as important in his mind as to what the people of America want. Now the Paris Agreement isn’t the only ways in which the sovereignty of the United States is threatened, in that other countries have a huge say in how we run our nation. The UN is one of the biggest examples and our involvement suffers from a lot of the same issues. A couple of these, which have some huge corporate money behind them, courtesy of the Rockefeller’s (conspiracy theory, hello!), is the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the G30 (this was founded by Geoffry Bell, who was “invited” to do so by, you guessed it, the Rockefeller Foundation). Further, guess which foundation is involved in the Paris agreement?

“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.” —Trump

This, is, of course, related to the former quote. Let us consider our own households. When we run our houses, raise our children, reflect on and utilize our finances, it's obviously better that we take this role, while being a member of that household, because we relate to and are conscious of all the concerns of that household, the members, their needs, so on and so forth. We, for instance, wouldn't want the electric company telling us and demanding how we run our house. Likewise, why should a group in Paris determine how we run our country? Now, not all micro-examples can apply to the whole, obviously, but some principles do apply to a macro level and I believe it can be utilized here.

The article goes on to say that Trump declares it threatens the development of clean coal. The article follows this by saying:

“Clean coal does not exist. (Clean coal is a form of low-carbon coal. He might as well have said that the Paris agreement is preventing America from researching ghosts and pixies.)”

This is nitpicking. Clean coal is a term used even by the government and in 2008 Obama supported clean coal technologies. To be so rigid and technical when one obviously understands what is meant is a little illogical. The ghost and pixies comparison is ridiculous since the government talks about it and leaders as well. It is well established that clean coal as a technology exists, whether the term is accurate or not.

The process of something that doesn't exist...

“Even if the Paris agreement was implemented in full, it is estimated that it would implement two-tenths of a degree of temperature reduction by 2100.” —Trump

I am not a mathematician and can’t speak to it, nor can I say if he means it being implemented across the globe or simply in the US. If we consider the latter, his numbers become a little more reasonable to believe. Think about it. If China has a free pass, is going to peak in 2025 and is only shooting for 2050, if they produce more pollution than the US and Canada combined, then who is making the greater impact? If it is accurate that the Paris Agreement only supposes to slow down global warming for an 8 month period out of 80 years, this would mean our impact would be relatively minuscule at best. The main question is why would countries with less environmental impact be held to a higher standard than those with greater impact? If alternative energy is such a viable option why isn’t it implemented equally?

Here is my conspiracy theory. You knew it was coming.

In 1884, the Fabian Society was founded. Wikipedia states:

“The Fabian Society is a British socialist organization whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism [just plain socialism] via gradualist and reformist effort in democracies, rather than by revolutionary overthrow.” —Wikipedia

Note the wolf in sheep's clothing on their coat-of-arms.

Basically, the Fabianists were a group of socialists who sought or rather seek to implement global socialist reform by taking over democracy. However, their method is reformist, that is they understood that socialism couldn’t overtake democracy because, more or less, people enjoyed their freedoms too much. Thus, not daunted from their goal, they proposed that this overtaking would be gradual. Like the proverbial frog in a boiling pot that doesn’t understand it is being cooked to death when you gradually turn up the heat, as opposed to directly applying intense heat all at once, they thought they could find ways to scheme and take over democracy, replacing democracies tenets with socialist ones, over time, so that Marxism could take over without any being the wiser. One method is of course fear. A person who is scared can be convinced to give up their freedoms and rights under the guise of their protection so to speak.

That face you make when you see someone giving up their freedoms willingly.

The Fabianist goal (yes it is a real organization, they even have a website), is not just limited to Britain where they were founded, but concerns the world, and implies a centralized government and banks in a system commonly known as the New World Order. So what in the world does this have to do with climate change?

Climate change and the Paris agreement are examples of the implication of social and economic socialism on a world stage. Climate change is the means and the Paris agreement a body bringing it about, so to speak. So with this in mind, let us ask the question again, why are greater polluting countries like China less regulated then countries like the USA despite the fact that they produce so much more pollution? Well, if you wanted to bring about Marxism through Fabianism then why would you go after countries that are already Marxist, to begin with? They represent a lesser threat to the Fabian new world order. Democracies are the greater threat and are focused on, which explains why pounds of volumes of pollution in China isn’t as important as ounces in terms of America. I can’t say that Trump has all this figured out, but two large tools of the Fabian Marxist goal that is evident today are the current P.C. movement and social justice as a whole and climate change. Their tools are media and academia. I just posted a video on my Facebook where Dr. Jordan Peterson declares that 1 out of 5 college professors identifies as Marxist. Those are the only ones that are honest enough to declare it. Through climate change, we are giving up are jobs, freedoms and inviting this New World Order willingly, and it used to be something that America was afraid of. Prior to WWII we passed on the UN’s predecessor the League of Nations for this very reason.

Maybe it is a conspiracy theory and maybe world banks and governments don’t want to bring about a New World Order. Yet, guess what foundation is involved with the Fabians? You guessed it. The Rockefeller’s. George Soros is also involved. Anyway, consider the following quote:

“The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is proud to support the Paris climate agreement as a monumental step forward for the world.”

I echo the words of Crichton:

“Reach for your wallet, because you are being had.”

On a Slight Unfortunate Oversight in The Purchase of My New Truck

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:44:00 +0000

Let me first start off by saying I love my new truck. Yet, this blog entry isn’t about that, nor is it some sort of prideful exercise or attempt to show it off. Rather, this blog entry concerns something rather embarrassing that happened to me after my purchase of my vehicle. This embarrassment wasn’t akin to your pants falling down in public or anything, but there was certainly an oppressive air of awkward claustrophobia that accompanied one particular stage of my whole post-purchase phase of my new means of conveyance.

Usually, I am an outgoing person almost to a fault, in that as long as it entertains I don’t mind it being at my expense. This means the occasional and willful self-embarrassment in public. In addition, for some reason, perhaps related to my self-depreciating usual form of humor, I find it entertaining to the self to make others embarrassed, as long as there is some joy found in it. For there is that embarrassment which one encounters that has an offensive air, and there is that which one can shrug off and often laugh at. Even in the moment of occurrence. For this whole narrative to make the kind of sense I intend, I must share a couple more things about myself. First, the reader should be aware that I used to be a DJ. Alas, not one of those fancy club DJ’s with an entourage, cases of records, and turntables. No, quite the opposite. I was a DJ for dances, parties, weddings and the like. This put me in the same category as the DJ’s for high school proms and whatnot. This being the case, it should be apparent, if one knows the industry, that I have a wide, wide selection of music. To emphasize this point, a high school dance, a New Year’s Eve party and a wedding are obviously going to have a completely different music itinerary. So, I had music from every genre, every era, and every individual categorization you can think of. In addition, before I get to the point, I am extremely lazy. Thus, I uploaded much of the music from my DJ library to my own personal library, not by choosing selectively, but by utilizing a means of the select-all and cut-and-paste method, which every savvy computer user is familiar with. I ended up with some personally undesirable music on my iPod and to again emphasize my laziness, I haven’t actually deleted songs one by one, but have managed to survive by simply skipping forward when a horrid song starts to play.

Of course, I do hear the occasional, “What in the world are you listening to?” However, if one were to take these incidences and conceptually accumulate them into a singularity, they would hardly be of any consequence. Thus, my skip forward method has served me well and I am able to, for the most part, avoid any charges from others implying that I am a huge Lawrence Welk fan. Yet, this might be the time I rethink my regular iPod browsing methods. With that tangent out of the way, we will revert back to my truck purchase. I purchased a beautiful, brand new, 2013 Nissan Frontier SL 4x4 with all the fixins. Buying a new car was something I have never experienced before and it both made me want to jump for joy and projectile vomit. I don’t mind telling you reader that the mixture of nerves and excitement was quite a tremendous experience. However, right after I bought it I realized, because of the vast amount of technology present in the vehicle, the only thing I knew how to do was drive it. I couldn’t even figure out the windshield wipers if I wanted to. So it was decided that I would in fact make an appointment for the next day to come back in and have everything explained to me.

Now, when it comes to stereos and computers and such, like most guys, I consider myself quite the technology able guy. With exploration and trial and error anyway. However, I will admit to look under the hood of a car, I might as well be doing brain surgery. I am clueless (My girlfriend helps me out. She is like Mona Lisa Vito, Marisa Tomei’s character in, “My Cousin Vinny.”). At any rate, we scheduled an appointment to have all the technology explained, and have it synced up with my cell, texting, phone calls, navigation, address book and all that noise.

I had always heard horror stories about car salesman and I am sure it is justified, but my experience was a good one and I was helped out by a great attentive salesman by the name of William. I pulled up to the dealership and William dashed outside to greet me and we basically got started right away with trying to sync up all my personal technology, iPad, iPod, cell, (Samsung Galaxy! Droid sucks! Just sayin’.) and Bluetooth. Well, syncing turned out to take a couple tries and while we were working on this he was going through the stereo functions from XM radio, to my auxiliary or my iPod.

We were trying to make a phone call with my truck and call, of course, my mother whom William had met. As we were trying to figure it out my music, which was on random, to my horror started playing, “The Waitresses.,” and their hit from 1982, “I Know What Boys Like.” Perhaps some more explanation is needed. When DJing, specifically weddings, there are songs which are played for both parties of men and women which are usually chosen by the bride and groom prior to the wedding. Thus, this song is occasionally played. Yet, here it was, with me and poor salesman William, sitting in my truck, trying to make a phone call, with this awkwardness being spewed by my stereo and iPod. A horrible situation. Horrible.

Finally, we got the phone to work and I was not embarrassed in that pleasant fun kind of way, but seriously turned red and wanted to instantly throw my iPod out the window (which would have been inappropriate it being a present from my girlfriend). My mother luckily picked up the call on her new Kia Soul and William began by saying it was a test to see if my truck and Bluetooth were paired correctly, in order to make the call. Of course it was in the affirmative, and I quickly interjected.

I told her that while we were attempting to call the song of infamy had come on and made things extremely awkward, which she of course got a kick out of. I told her to confirm the fact that I had been a DJ and that much of my music was random in nature. She confirmed this, much to my delight. I was nervous she would’ve maybe used the opportunity to take out enact some revenge against my teenage disobedience and made me look like a moron more than I already was. It occurred to me she could simply do so by asking me what I was talking about and that I was never in such a profession. However, all things confirmed, to my vast relief William got quite the chuckle out of it. So much so I don’t think I can say that he didn’t notice the song or anything. It was an awkward moment for all.

Thus, the moral is that one should really go through their collection more often, for if you have something embarrassing anywhere on your music library, or collections or libraries in general, it’s just bound to come up at the most inopportune and blush-enticing moments.

On a Late Night Trip to Walmart

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Sat, 28 Sep 2013 14:12:00 +0000

I find it difficult, or at the least very unlikely, that there could be one single person in the totality of The United States of America that has not experienced something a little, "off," at their local Walmart retailer. Certainly, I would think, that if any given person truly has not experienced something amiss, then in all probability, they themselves are the catalyst of this air of oddness which can be, and is, perceived by those shoppers who belong to a more "normal" class.

This is truthfully what one most thinks about when we consider both the hilarious and terrifying displays which we witness at Walmart. For a time I would not have addressed the Walmart displays proper, meaning those particular edifices which compartmentalize and frame certain products so they stand out too the shopper. Rather, the curious displays I would've been most prone to comment on generally came from those who partake in late night shopping, decked out in all kinds of obscure clothing, or lack thereof, with accompanying body odor, and assorted forms of unsightly facial or body hair. These include, but are not limited to, the likes of a neck beard or an exotic form of mullet. This is just to name a few examples contained within the vast array of bizarreness, which lends itself to being seen or experienced at Walmart.

Yet, my last experience was in fact quite different and suggested the true nature of the proficency and upkeep of the store by it's lack of general maintenance. Some of these examples are shown here. First, is a photo of a display of women's jeans. Why I was in the women's section by the way is none of your business. Regardless of why I was there we find that there is a collection of dust that doesn't suggest a breeding population of dust bunnies, but rather an orgy of dust gorillas.

Second, and speaking of gorillas, is a rather strange and disgusting product I found packed in among the shelves. I am no parent, but if I was, I would immediately discourage the fascination and enjoyment some kids get from fondling either real or fake snot. Wether it be from themselves or any other animal species. The very fact that it is a shampoo suggests an image of a kid coating himself in a snot-like substance. This is dangerous, for who knows what kind of fetishist your child will grow up to become if allowed to partake in such actions and products.

In a brilliant almost seamless transition, I was in the market to get some shampoo. As I walked down the aisle looking for my product of choice, I happened upon a bulbous tube of the foaming jelly and prepared to put it in my cart. Unbeknownst to me, the tube had somehow ruptured and was experiencing a bout of seepage, which we all know can be very unpleasant. The errant leaking got all over my new sea foam colored jacket, much to my dismay and chagrin. Ironically, I took the jacket off convinced I would look weird to the other patrons of Walmart.

Finally, to highlight more of the uncleanly nature of this particular Walmart, is a curious goo which was splattered among the tile floor. I can only attribute this to some fingernail polish or some other akin material. Yet, rather than it being the possibility of one misadventure, in a completely separate aisle, was another splatter pattern of a different hue. The remnants of these two mysterious eruptions were greatly ignored by employees who shuffled around obviously priming themselves for a full night of graveyard shift stocking. This mess you would think would hurriedly be cleaned up, since it posed a hazard to people like myself, who can hardly walk on a non-slick surface without the occasional face plant. In addition, several employees past by in near proximity, where it would be able to be viewed clearly, but no action was taken. Perhaps each employee pretended not to see the splatter in order that the buck may be passed for someone else to clean up. A tactic I am familiar with and can easily identify.

Though I did not see the exact circumstances from which the mess became manifest, I find the order of events can quite logically be deduced if we interject the subject which we visited earlier concerning the gorilla snot shampoo. Children. I believe it to be the case that a person or persons, who let their child run loose and wild, like a chimp among buckets of its own feces, are responsible for the destruction of product. Ironically, it is their lack of responsibility which makes them responsible. For not only would they be held responsible for not reigning in the screaming and flailing terrors, but also for hurriedly exiting the scene of the crime, or if not, projecting a false amazement and disgust at the mess they supposedly, "happened upon." I do not suggest that this is truly the case, but it is more likely than not.

There is one last reason I find Walmart to be a odd and frightening place. Even gross. However, concerning this reason, I shall spare you the details due to its graphic nature, and only disclose the fact that I now refer to Walmart as, "Wall-Shart." This is simply because of something I encountered in the restroom there. Whether I had anything to do with this particular incident is irrelevant so don't ask. Likewise it is also irrelevant what restroom I was in.

So, this all being said, be wary when you find yourself shopping at Walmart and examine all surfaces, for there a danger may lurk. Be aware of your surroundings, and if it glistens and appears wet, I don't recommend touching it. Just sayin'.

Regards.

On The Underlying Nature of Superstition and Luck

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 18:08:00 +0000

What is the implication of the concept of luck? Luck presents us with a duality inherent in its nature. That is what we would call, "good luck," and, "bad luck." Generally, when possible, we like to invoke these terms as they apply to the overall experiences and circumstances that a particular person may encounter within a given period of time within their lives, or their life proper and absolute. Yet, there is also the application of these terms as it applies to individual episodes or happenstances. Superstition transcends luck, in that particular occurrence can make a positive or negative influence upon a individuals luck. Thus, we see that luck and superstition are not the same thing. They cannot be divorced from each other, but are independent at the same time. Superstition denotes an effect upon a person's overall luck. In this context, luck is simply dependent on superstition, for superstition without an effect on luck can be classified by another term, "belief."

Certainly superstition has that defining characteristic as well. It is used to classify beliefs that are generally non-material, and perceived as outdated and disproven. Yet, because this has no bearing on luck, it is a different kind of superstition by definition and more so regards belief independent of the scientific method, rather than on luck. Thus, when I say, "superstition," one should be aware I mean it in the context of affecting luck, and not the, "outdated," belief classification.

The term, "luck," however, can nearly always be interchangeable with the term, "fortune." Thereby, good luck and good fortune can be considered one in the same, as too is the case with the antithesis, though this, the latter, is scarcely used. However, "fortunate," implies good luck in more an immediate sense, in that it regards a particular event. In the same but opposite manner, "unfortunate," presents a linguistic axiom which needs no further elaboration.

Luck, if not referring to the basic principle, absent its positive or negative modifier, is generally considered to be good rather than bad, and, "lucky," is obviously regarded the same. An example would be, "Your in luck." This all being the case, what we really find luck to imply is that there are events in our lives that are out of our control, and the overall nature of our attributed and assigned luck is left up to some providence besides ourselves, superstition, or chance. This is important to remember, in that it both contradicts some aspects of superstition as well as conforms.

Superstition, it being transcendent over luck, is the true subject of focus, for superstition as a whole is a representation of our a posteriori (knowledge from experience) lives within the material. However, we need to broaden our view of superstition a little. When we do this we find superstition to be quite aligned with our experience, in that it supposes cause and effect, as well as consequence from action. Also, it suggests that there are experiences and things that occur, beyond our control, which put us in favorable or precarious situations. This is certainly the case in life, so when we view superstition in general, we find it not so absurd as we may when considering particulars. In fact, it could be thought analogous for life itself.

Truth is many find superstitions to be silly and irrational. However, at the same time, many of us follow these superstitions, "just in case." We are aware of them and become anxious when one presents itself. However, the fact remains, that though cause and effect certainly governs much of the world and rational thought, the belief, or dare I say, superstition in and of itself, that mundane occurrence or mishap reverberates within the universe to affect the self in good luck or bad luck, doesn't make an iota of sense. Thus, there is an inherent tautology within superstition, that superstition equates to a superstition.

That one's luck be affected by such a tautologous and irrational belief, in and of itself, doesn't follow from the observable natures of cause and effect. In these observations, generally the greater the cause the greater the effect, while with superstition, it claims the cause, though it be minor, produces a greater effect. A direct contradiction concerning the nature of things. For example, I will invite the reader to employ the use of their imagination and picture a car crash test, which I will suppose we all have seen on TV or elsewhere. In my case I was fond of the crash test dummy itself to where I actually had the toys which were gruesome reminders of the importance of wearing a safety belt, and to which I credit to this very day my inability to drive without. We see that there are two objects, a car of which is the subject of the test, and a retaining wall. A variable of speed is added unto the relationship between the objects, and impact and damage is dependent not only on s, but also on the vehicles construct. The greater s, the greater the effect. In addition, the construct of the car contains many variables, x, y, z . . . and so on. Thereby, we find a dependency not just on s but on x, y, z, as well. Of course, as thermodynamics will attest, the energy manifest is eventually dispersed between the objects. This point does have a similarity with superstition, in that if one were to cross the boundary concerning a particular law of fortune, then an effect would be produced, but be dispersed after a period of time. As is the case with breaking a mirror which supposedly brings seven years bad luck before it's eventual dispersal.

This all applies in that superstitions are extremely vague. It simply states, x therefore y. It forgoes the intermediate variables which are so apparent in cause and effect, as I attempted to show in the crash test example. To exemplify this latter point I will use a couple popular examples. First, to walk under a ladder is considered bad luck. Therefore, as an exercise, we will pose several questions to inquire if there is a application of greater or lesser loss of luck depending on the ladder, which is the object promoting or suggesting a possible cause of deteriorating luck. Does it matter how tall the ladder is? How many rungs it has? What materials it is comprised? A standard "straight" ladder, or one with an "A-frame" like appearance? Does the distance from the top of the individuals head to the top of the ladder itself make any difference? In the nature of cause and effect, such simplistic rules are hardly the case. In other words, the simplicity of, "to walk under a ladder is bad luck," presents us no particular elements which may lessen or increase the effect. Its common by empirical observation that degrees and singular influence, or small details, can manifest a great range of degree in its ability to manifest the potential nature of the effect or result.

A broken mirror produces bad luck. Well, does it depend on the size of the mirror? What about the fragmenting? Is it dependent on how many shards are thrown from the frame? What if they aren't thrown from the frame at all? What about a black cat crossing your path? Does it have to be pure black? Long hair? Short hair? Tail or no tail? What about if your driving a jeep through the jungle and a black panther runs across the road, are you more doomed than if it were a house cat? In experience, we find such details do and would matter, but as mentioned this isn't the case with superstition.

If superstition is so irrational, then why its power over the human psyche? Why the penny loafers and rabbit's feet key chains (I would like rabbit's feet penny loafers come to think of it. Just in case.)? Truth is, it is simply our awareness of these popular superstitions that encourage and foster them. It is our own minds that attribute misfortune to bad luck, or good fortune to good luck. It is a presupposition we make, where we ignore any situations that might suggest the contrary. For instance, if we were to awake and discover it was Friday the thirteenth, we would presuppose that anything unfortunate occurring on that day has its initial cause in the calendar date alone. Anything positive which occurs that day on the other hand would be ignored and non-attributed.

It is simply the case that the bad circumstances in life erect strongholds and hurdles which need to be overcome. Thus, they tend to resonate in the mind more than those periods of prosperity, which because of a lack of challenge can and are generally approached with indifference. At least in relative terms. Another reason we find attribution to superstition to be a popular product of the paranoid mind, is we often come to a superstitious cause in a regressive reflection of events past. If calamity befalls us, we may search for reason, or the cause of which it came to pass. This search or inquiry of cause is a natural function of the human mind, and justly so. In this case, however, we will ascribe misfortune unto the mundane for means of explanation. Never mind that the explanation is irrational. It fulfills a desire to place blame on some event or occurrence to reach a conclusion or reason such events occur. Thus, the most popular superstitious myths are singled out as solely responsible for an unwanted result.

As philosopher and Rutgers professor Walter T. Marvin observed:

"What is true of the superstitious is in part true of all men. In light of our knowledge or the darkness of our ignorance we explain what we perceive and then assert existence. In doing so we are presupposing some world hypothesis or another, perhaps a crude and primitive one, or perhaps one of a modern and enlightened adult. Moreover, we fit the thing which we assert to exist somehow into this world conception and into the system of other existents in which we believe. As long as we feel satisfied with the result we do not question the thing's existence."

Again, superstition ignores facts to the contrary. Being in the fishing business, I can tell you that alongside mining, a life at sea contains the most superstitions than any other profession. Some of these have basis in mythology or real occurrence, which has echoed down through the ages, eventually manifesting as a superstition, which are still highly regarded today. There are many superstitions that go along with a life at sea. As Peter D. Jeans puts it in his fabulous book, "Seafaring Lore & Legend":

"Considering the demands of superstition and the subsequent prohibition of so many different articles and practices aboard a ship . . . it might be thought surprising that a vessel ever weighed anchor and set sail in the first place."

These superstitions include, but are not limited to (for there're hundreds):

The breaking of a bottle of champagne across the bow of a vessel prior to launch, which has its gruesome origins in the Vikings practice of launching a boat over their prisoners or slaves, that their blood may be an offering to the gods.

A ship builder should make sure to have a coin placed under the mast. An interesting side note to this is that our boat, built in the mid-sixties, does indeed have a coin under the mast, which we discovered when we had the mast taken off to be shortened, rewired, and equipped with new lights, ladder and platforms. This was discovered this year. I had known about this superstition for quite some time, and inquired if there was a coin under our mast. Not because of any superstitious element on my part, but because I was curious if the superstition was still in practice. The answer was one of mystery, for it was not known if there was or not. Turns out despite its relative recent construction that there was. We don't know of any other "recently" built boat that has this peculiar hidden inclusion. The origins of this superstition are that a coin is required to pay Charon the ferryman of the river Styx to cross into the underworld. The custom was adopted by shipwrights who placed a coin under the mast to appease Poseidon or Neptune, depending on whether you follow Greek or Roman mythology. This was done that the gods might grant a safe voyage. In our case, the coin was a silver dollar, really highlighting the inflation of American currency which Charon apparently keeps up with.

One is not to name their boat after a storm or any atmospheric phenomenon. In addition, it is considered bad luck to change the name of a boat. One wonders then the right course of action if a captain determines the name of their boat is unlucky. Yet, to revisit my point that evidence on the contrary is largely ignored concerning superstition, the vessel, "Norseman," built in 1893 went through a dozen name changes with no ill effects. Also, the boat of Sir Francis Drake changed its name from the, "Pelican," to, "Golden Hind," and made its journey successfully.

Sir Francis Drake

There are a number of rules concerning women aboard a ship, which in recent years has obviously been disregarded. It was even once held that if a mariner, on his way to boarding a ship, came across a barefoot woman, he would refuse to board the vessel.

Most famously, it is believed unlucky to depart from port on a Friday. This is because it is the day Christ was crucified. In fact, Fridays in general used to be considered unlucky, but now that it symbolizes the end of the work week, this is no longer as relevant. This used to be such the case, that if a vessel in the British Navy did embark on a Friday, they were immediately called back to port by the Admiral. Yet, what is lesser known is that it is lucky to leave on a Wednesday. "Wednesday," we get from, "Wodin's Day," a deity worshipped by the Vikings. This god was supposedly a benevolent one to ocean going and thus to leave on his day would present good fortune.

One is not to have bananas on a ship, nor umbrellas, coffins, any furry creature other than a cat or dog, flowers, priests, and by all means never whistle. There are three reasons for the latter. First, in the early days of sailing, audible sounds from a pipe or instrument were used to communicate commands. Thus, a whistle could be confused with a command leading to potentially disastrous results. Secondly, it is even believed to this day that a whistle, or forceful blow of air, stirs up an air current, which will inevitably result in a gale. So singing along to Guns and Roses', "Patience," isn't recommended. In addition, if this is true, why isn't there a superstitious ban on passing gas? Thirdly, it was believed that the god of winds and breezes would believe he was being mocked and punish those whom dared be disrespectful.

No priests aboard a ship obviously has its biblical origins, much like not leaving on a Friday. Jeans sites the reason of Jonah. God commanded the prophet Jonah to go to Nineva, but instead Jonah attempted to flee to Tarshish, which was located in Southern Spain, which biblically emphasizes the extent of the desire of Jonah to flee from God, for it was literally considered the ends of the earth at that time. We all know what happens then. God, punishing Jonah's disobedience, brings a tempest upon the vessel which Jonah is traveling and the sailors learning of Jonah's trespass against God immediately toss him overboard where he is swallowed by a great fish or whale. Turns out this is a possible occurrence (See the 1891 account of the "Star of The East" and one James Bartley). However, I would also like to add another biblical reason. It is quite possible, that adding to this superstition, is the fact that the apostle Paul was shipwrecked off the coast of Malta, which he stayed upon and converted much of the population to Christianity.

"Jonah Leaving The Whale," Jan Brueghel The Elder. Circa-1600

Again, we find another superstition concerning the edifice of a ladder. It is unlucky to pass a flag between the rungs of a ladder to another mariner. In addition, it is unlucky to kill an albatross. Such birds were thought to contain the spirits of deceased seaman, whom rose up from Davy Jones' locker and took flight upon wings. This superstition, of course, is the basis for the ill fortune of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's antagonist in his famous epic poem, "The Rime of The Ancient Mariner." One of my favorites I will have you know.

"And I had done a hellish thing,

And it would work 'me woe;

For all averred, I had killed the bird

That made the breeze to blow!"

I myself have known of many mishaps that have occurred on boats which have had a storm or tempest implied in their title. In addition, heard accounts of problematic voyages when their departure date coincided with a Friday. However, ill-fated voyages occur despite all superstitious precaution. Yet, let it be known that, as the saying goes, commercial fishing boats are as, "holes in the ocean," through which a owner's bank account is always depleted. So, at some time, more likely than not, the crew of a fishing boat is to feel unlucky at some point. This correlates with our general lives for we have all had, "bad days," which suggest that our, "luck has ran out." This being the idea that there is a ethereal trove of luck that we tap into once and a while. How we let it build is unknown. Perhaps by picking up a lucky penny or so forth. Yet somehow we unknowingly use up our mystical storage unit of luck and fall on bad times henceforth. It's supposed that a transgression concerning the cosmic laws of luck and superstition will negate the good and leave the bad. However, such a concept is irrational, as most of us will agree, but we follow these, "laws of fortune," deceiving ourselves into thinking that we can procure a pleasant future by adherence to these laws.

There are times where our fortune is dependent upon perception. A single event can indeed be said to be either lucky or unlucky. This cohabitation is apparent in the example of getting the knife in my foot, which I address in my previous post. Taking this example into account, it could be said that the knife falling into my boot blade up, and my foot settling down upon it was an unlucky incident. Yet, it could also be said without fallibility that I was extremely fortunate that the blade didn't go through my foot, or cause any greater injury than it did. There is a close relationship in this incident between the duality of luck, and we can see evidence to the contrary in even one instance, regardless of which side you take. Even to the point of near death, which I have experienced and wrote extensively about I had great misfortune in my illness as well as being extremely fortunate.

There're other vessels whose name changes and original names, which the ancients would never had dared put on the bow of a boat, have produced profitable careers and are back year after year. The negative incidents on boats which clash with the law of fortune, however, are marked, underlined, and highlighted by the mind, so they stand out above and in contrast to those who have, "escaped," the wrath of luck.

Some superstitions do have practicality to them, so the adherence to superstition isn't necessarily a bad thing. Walking under a ladder you may get something dropped on your head, you knock over a person upon it, or any variety of dangers one might think of. In addition, who wants to break a mirror anyway? You could cut yourself and some mirrors shouldn't be broken. Your rear view mirror is a great tool, and logically it follows if you break that one, some bad, "luck," might follow. These might actually suggest an inherent clumsiness on your part which may correlate with a perceived visage of, "bad luck," as I can attest. Furthermore, killing an albatross like Coleridge's Ancient Mariner is just cruel and I would advise against it. A carcass with a 15 foot wing span is quite a formidable obstacle and storage space is sure to be an issue.

Cats are good luck on board a ship because of their ability to keep the rat population at, "bay," while bananas are still considered bad luck, though this superstition has its origins in that mariners used to be privy to disease from the insects and bugs that would routinely hide out in the delicious bushels. Less of a problem today, though still observed by many. In fact, this very year I saw a boat with a large, "No Bananas," sign posted within the doorway.

Generally, in the end, our paranoid minds, and even the passage of time, are to blame for the belief in superstition and luck. Perhaps, you can even apply this lesson to yourself, where a particular action you avoid because you believe something bad will occur and manifest itself in the aftermath. For instance, I hate those soup and cat food tins that have the pull tab on them. I gashed myself once and bled into some kibble. I now have associated cat food lids with something terrible and I will never again use my bare hands to open one. Now I opt for a tool instead. We actually see similarities to this and to superstition. In my example, I first became paranoid of some occurrence in the past and essentially have believed (as we have said belief itself can sometimes be classified as superstition) this occurrence to be in perfect unification with what occurs in the future. Simply, I have made the judgement that if I open one of those lids in a like manner, I am going to cut myself. Absolutely. Thus, I avoid them, creating the rule, "never open a cat food tin lid by a pull tab while only utilizing your bare hands." Thus, I have identified an object, and a behavior that is appropriate in interaction, and thereby, produced a kind of superstition.

Some superstitions are this exact, like the superstition of sharks following a boat. This is said to mean someone on board is going to die. Yet, at the same time, where my example differs in other examples concerns the specificity. Many superstitions are quite vague in how they will manifest bad luck. This, again, may be due to the passage of time in that a belief or practice gave rise to a general feeling of bad luck, when the practitioners of eras past might have perceived an exact consequence of a particular action, due to their time, space, conditions, knowledge, and particular activities. As epochs go by however, it becomes askew and while the causal object of the superstition may be similar to its ancient origins in some degree, and the meaning or purpose has been lost concerning the effect supposed by a trespass against this particular law of fortune. Thereby, to apply it to my example, in 7000 years perhaps my idea will be transformed into a plain, "cat food tins are unlucky." Though in 7000 I suspect food will just materialize in a dish via some Jetson-like food ordering ATM like machine and sharp tins will be dug up by archeologists and anthropologists, rather than utilized in our own condominiums which will by then probably orbit our own planet in a form of an giant artificial ring. If we last that long. Just in case, let us not break too many mirrors.

On The Mishaps and Misadventures of One Brandon Myhre

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Sun, 01 Sep 2013 17:55:00 +0000

This fishing season may in all likelihood be called, the most fouled up of any I've previously experienced. Though I'm not superstitious by any large extent and only pay attention to them, or rather, am only aware of superstitions due to their influence in both popular culture and American folklore, an attempt to completely ignore the frequency of an almost immediate subsequent mishap after the resolution of a previous, is an impossibility for it seems continuous. One cannot help being aware of the particular folklore concerning the number 13 and how it may suggest a relationship between these annoying happenstances and the current year of 2013.

Again, I'm not the superstitious sort. In fact, setbacks have occurred for the last forty years my family has been in the fishing industry. I myself have had much worse years than this one in my personal life, but in light of the folklorist influence, I find this connexion made regardless. Rationally, it doesn't follow, in my mind, that the universe be governed by such superficial and superfluous incidents the likes of a broken mirror or stepping on a crack in the sidewalk (Did this superstition exist before the invention of concrete? Furthermore, once concrete was invented, did the universe shift in order to accommodate this superstitious effect?). Though they may be subject to inclusion in the, "principle of sufficient reason ," or causation, to imply that a concept so obscure as luck may be affected is absurd. Simply, what I mean is that though one may certainly break a mirror from some means (cause) and shatter the surface of the glass (effect), how the mere fact that a person has caused a looking glass to fragment and that it somehow negatively reverberates within the cosmos to affect the self for a specific period of time, thus producing bad luck, is preposterous.

I wouldn't just be myself if I didn't visit this topic a little more in depth at a later time, but first I would like to describe a couple of things which may suggest to those who believe in the high governing concept of luck, that I may have indeed drawn the shortest lot. A seafaring custom, by the way, in those horrible instances and examples of that which is the greatest of taboos as a means of survival upon the high seas (See the wreck of the Medusa, or of the Mignonette and the ill-fated Richard Parker for some chilling tales).

"The Raft of The Medusa," by Théodore Géricault, c. 1818-1819

In my personal accounts, there is not much to blame except chance, and when I say, "chance," I will henceforth mean chance in regards and adhering to the conception of low probability, not a chaos which comes to or expresses an order through a surreal association of particulars. This former chance, of course, isn't independent or distant of a true relation between objects in close proximity to each other. In fact, quite the contrary. In my instance, the objects were placed in close proximity according to will. What makes this first instance striking is the probability of it actually occurring. It wasn't a near impossible occurrence, but the chances of it coming to pass were very low, to say the least. Yet, the other, or second incident I will address, I can attribute to a greater probability, relative to the chances of the former, and to this I do have an object of blame and one whom I will regard as responsible. That is the Kellogg's corporation.

The first instance I will recount is the one of the least likelihood. One night while traveling to get a load of "humpy" salmon (or pink salmon for those of you who are scrupulous about using proper names concerning your seafood) we got caught in a gale. We made sure to secure any object that could be flung about on deck, and retreated to the safe and dry quarters of the ship. I took off my "XTRATUF" boots and set them side-by-side on the floor under several hooks, upon which we hang our gear. I took off my knife belt, and hung it from the hook above my boots with my knife snugly tucked away in its sheath. This I've done from habit for quite some time, but by now, dear reader, you may see what is going to transpire.

The next morning while tucked away in the safety of Prince William Sound, we suddenly got a boat that needed to deliver its fish to us. Such unannounced visits are commonplace and in such circumstances the crew, which includes myself, are in quite the frenzied hurry to prepare the deck and take the fish of any given boat. This process we try and get done as quickly as possible and any delays are rare if not nonexistent. Its something we healthily pride ourselves in. So, I found myself immediately rolling out of my bunk, still in a sickening daze due to not having the chance to properly wake up, or have my customary cup of equally sickening thick coffee, which, on average, is strong enough to give a pack mule tremors.

I immediately grabbed my boots and scrambled into the galley and sat down on the end of the bench seat which parallels our galley table at the appropriate right angles to provide for both space and luxury. I put one boot on with no problem, and when applying the other boot onto my foot I let out a yelping obscenity which even the ocean-going, soon to be seafood, probably detected from the oceans great propensity to carry sound waves along with the cresting waves themselves. A sharp pain was being experienced in the right side of my starboard foot and I instinctively tried to retract it, only to find the pain was neither lessening or disappearing altogether. Furthermore, whatever had bit into my foot was still there. Stuck. I shook my foot wildly and reached down to try and remove the boot, only adding to the pain. So I continued shaking and even contemplated screaming for help, but knowing there was now a boat alongside I wanted to save myself the embarrassment of everyone knowing I had some deficiency in practical and basic problem solving, or the pain threshold below that of a young prepubescent girl.

I shook whatever it was loose and eventually got my neoprene "XTRATUF" boot off my non-tough self. I quickly examined my foot which seeped blood. This was of no major consequence however, and a few bandages took care of the issue, but it could have been much worse than it was. In my boot I saw my knife, a serrated Victorinox utility knife, or a "Vicky" as we refer to them, standing vertical with the blade standing straight up. I had nearly ran it clear through my foot. I got to work shortly after that and inquired of my coworkers, what the odds would be of such a thing occurring. They all seemed to agree that to anyone else it would be an astronomical probability, but since it had happened to me, it wasn't at all surprising. This my friends, may give you some insight into the nature of those incidents which befall me.

It was merely a few days later, when what I will refer to as the infamous, "cereal incident of 2013," occurred. I awoke in the morning experiencing the sensation of hunger and decided that since we had just acquired fresh milk to partake in the consuming of a bowl of Kellogg's, "Raisin Bran Crunch." Well, I was mid-bowl when I felt an odd sensation in my upper starboard molar. I spat out a good chunk of tooth, apparently swallowing a lot as well, and I suddenly lost my appetite. Of course, I immediately began to explore that region of my mouth with my tongue, only to discover I had, more or less, given myself a root canal, for a price much cheaper than your local dentist. The very same professional I will still have to visit when I get home from Alaska, that he might prepare the tooth, or lack of it, for its royal cresting.

Was bad luck to blame? I don't think so. In fact, I think it is a conspiracy between the cereal manufacturer and dentists. This is much greater a threat than the, "pencil conspiracy," that I mentioned in my previous article, due to the fact this one causes personal injury. Furthermore, it could be the case that popcorn manufactures are in on it too. These companies produce products to further the field of dentistry, so it could easily be concluded that the conspirators exchange money and goods to benefit each other at the expense of the public's oral pain and anguish.

Yet, we find in many such conspiracies there is an element of symbolism that identifies the conspiracy or conspirators, as Dan Brown can both attest and make up as he goes along. Yet, where would I find this Brown-ish symbolism? Where was the raisin bran symbols equivalent to the marks left by the Knights Templar? It took me some time, but after examining the box of "Raisin Bran Crunch," I saw it was gleefully staring at me in plain sight. The image is an obvious one. A bright yellow gleaming sun. The bran sun is not without emotion, for it is given a human resemblance, though certainly cartoonish. What do we notice about its grinning gaping maw? It's completely toothless! This suggests the true purpose of the, "crunch." The cereal has less bran and more crunch to render one completely toothless or in sore need of a dentist. Furthermore, "crunch," may indeed reference the audible sound of one's tooth breaking off, rather than the sound the cereal gives off upon consuming. Moreover, the, "two scoops," look suspiciously alike with those dental tools they use to spread a patients cheeks apart. In addition, because the, "scoop," is in no way a real standard unit of measurement, both standard and metric, it could only refer to the method employed by dentists to scoop out the remaining bit of tooth from under the gum line. My friends, be warned, this is the dark Kellogg secret truth. If anything henceforth happens to me . . . Well, you get the idea.

So how do we account for such events occurring in so close a duration? Was it indeed negative luck concerning both the short separating interval of time as well as the events themselves? Though I certainly was victim to the conspiracy, not everyone is. It is here we get into our discourse concerning the nature of luck and of superstition. I had thought the discourse would be a concise one, but to my dismay I did what I always tend to do and wrote too much. So, assuming anyone has reached this point, to avoid the loss of interest, I suggest an intermission before we continue and my following post will be on the underlying natures of luck and superstition. Yet, during this intermission I would encourage all not to have a bowl of cereal. Until next time.

On Why I Hate Pencils

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Tue, 06 Aug 2013 21:33:00 +0000

Let us for a moment reflect on that curious writing utensil which is the pencil. I'll get straight to the point (pun intended) and share that the pencil is an instrument of writ which I completely despise. Though there may be the occasional circumstance that necessitates the need of a pencil, this fact alone doesn't reflect in an equitable manner from which one could respectfully declare that the micro-wooden obelisk is the best of all writing tools. Likewise, the spork may come in handy in some given circumstance, but otherwise it is pretty much a useless particular to a person's silverware collection. However, I must say I have a lot more affection towards the spork than I do the pencil.

Surely, let us assume such a situation does arise demanding the need of non-inked writing. Even given this fact, one need not stock up on four-hundred of them in order to meet the demand, outside the classroom that is. The classrooms and schools throughout the globe are the most common places to find pencils and demand their use. This is understandable, for the pencil is usually accompanied by a small pink eraser opposite the end employed for writing. Due to it's ability to erase, we find that the pencil does appear to serve its place in the classroom as the spork may in the lunchroom. This is one possible attribute which can save the pencil from being discarded completely as a ridiculous, clutter-some, and environmentally wasteful product. However, I would suggest that we not only focus on new forms of energy and move away from fossil fuels, but we move away from pencils as well, which greedily utilize a valuable natural resource.

When we conceptualize a pencil, we always tend to add the eraser as a necessary attribute which distinguishes this classification and definition. This being the case, one is completely duped as to why it is that some pencils lack an eraser at all. Realize that because the eraser, or ability to erase written text provided by the lead enclosed in the center of the wooden shaft, is the only saving attribute of the pencil, to negate it in it's production is beyond absurd. You could always have a double-ended pencil of course, but this is essentially multiplying the ridiculousness of the whole conception of a pencil.

Not only is this archaic looking writing tool loathsome in these ways, also it apparently is masked in a clothing of simplicity, which may not be the case at all. In fact, there may be much secrecy in the nature of the pencil akin to certain Masonic rituals practiced in their believed locations of renown. When we see a pencil, it is generally going to be a number-two pencil. To me this suggests many other types which are hidden from the general public and this gives the pencil a menacing mystique in my mind suggesting that it cannot be trusted. Perhaps, in fact, it has been made as such to promote the governments influence and power over the people. This would explain why it is so demanded in classrooms across the nation, and perhaps the world.

When a student sits down readying himself for the GED, SAT or any other like test in terms of, "instruction," given in the answer form, he/she knows that a number-two pencil will be required to fill out the little circles (completely) which will indicate their answer. Thereby, the student looks down at the number-two pencil and has the subconscious thought planted in his/her head that he/she will never achieve excellence, but always come second. This devastates the mental capacity of the student and as such the individual will cease to be a threat to the, "man," or localized or federal government. The injustice committed by either will henceforth go largely ignored by the student as he/she proceeds from out of that era in their lives and moves on, though not by necessity forward. To fix this we only need to raise up, write up petitions, in pen or by the use of word processing, and gather signatures. If one who signs does so in pencil, it is already too late for them and we need move on.

Another problem with pencils is the pencil to sharpener ratio which has always plagued mankind from its invention. If pencils weren't a example or worthless trash enough, surely the sharpener, in addition to the pencil, adds to my arguments validity and soundness. It is very often the case that in the household, though many pencils may be present, there is scarcely a sharpener. One may have a whole drawer full of the yellow number-two's, but have not one sharpener in the house. If one does exist in the immediate temporal space of the household, it is often misplaced or lost, much like the cliche lost sock in the laundry. Thereby, the household is littered with the remnants of dulled or broken pencils, which will never fulfill their purposed purpose and again are only a means of wasting natural resources.

In the classroom a student scarcely has a sharpener of his own, though one may be supplied by the school or teacher for the whole classes use. In this case, the classroom is always disrupted by people getting up to sharpen their writing edifices and making a constant ruckus which disturbs others just as much as a certain particular student who thinks he is funny, has a big loud mouth, practices no self-control, respect or discipline might. It may also be the case that an electric sharpener isn't available and in these instances, one circa 1950 may be hanging on the wall with a turn crank utilized to sharpen the pencil. These latter examples are even more annoying, though not as much as the particular student, in that they don't have grease fittings or WD40 applied to them. Hence, when a student goes to sharpen his pencil, a terrible screeching and metallic wailing fills the classrooms firmament in a audible fashion alike to biting down on tinfoil, if one could hear such a sensation. Lastly, these sharpening devices are far from perfect, which is a money making scheme by the pencil making corporations. You can't put a pencil in a sharpener and get an exact point, or perfect point, every time despite our advanced technology. This is because those pencil creating powers that be want to waste your pencil so that you need buy more. It would be safe to assume that money exchanges hands between pencil and sharpener conglomerates.

It usually happens that one side be not sharpened or tilled of the wooden enclosure, while the other will. Thereby, one needs to develop strategies in order to perfectly sharpen a particular pencil. Including manual rotating, applied pressure, incline, leaning, and all variations of deviation on both the X and Y axes (the plural of axis, not the tree cutting instrument). If these means aren’t available, then we employ things like knives to get an edge on the pencil. While it may work to a degree in creating a point, the overall shape is abstract and reminiscent of Richard Dreyfuss’ clay model mountains in Spielberg’s, “Close Encounters of The Third Kind,” and doesn’t last long, though pencils aren’t made to last to begin with.

There is no way to escape the necessary inclusion of the sharpener when one considers the pencil. Thus, it is really a compound conception which we need to recognize. The need of a sharpener is an implication of my next point which is that pencils break. It is not an infrequent occurrence that when one is done sharpening their pencil that the very tip may break off. Though still looking useable, when applied to paper, it displays not a singular, sharp, and linear line, but a dual line which one will immediately find displeasing and try and fix, usually without the sharpener. We employ the scuffing method, where we try and scuff the dual tip off to mold into a singular which we can use. This is hardly successful and the surfaces on which this method is tried is scarcely appropriate. Examples include walls, desks and chairs. Therefore, most often we resort to square one, and are back at the sharpener to try once again.

So, both the conceptual particulars of the pencil and the sharpener applied as a whole give me further evidence of my rationality of my distaste for pencils. Speaking of distaste, this perfect transition leads me to my next point, the unsanitary nature of pencils. One need only look at a person deep in thought, destined to be number two, to understand. Often, we find such people lost in thought to be doing all sorts of things with pencils. These include, but aren't limited to, chewing on the pencil, putting the eraser in their ear, chewing on the eraser, or scratching with it. It's often you find pencils with teeth marks in them, making the tool look more like an orthodontist's mold, than anything else. Therefore, to borrow a pencil is like asking to lick the inside of someone's hat. It's foul and gross.

Pencil companies have tried to impress us with various statistics and claims of reusable resources in their production, but we see right through their claims. One example is how one with a pencil can draw a strait line for a whole mile before running out. Or something like that. Yeah, great. What kind of a surface? Flat surface? Asphalt? Furthermore, what number of pencil? How long? Is there a standard length woth pencils? So as you can see we aren't given this information. Thus, it is kind of useless unless all particulars of the example are known. I am not impressed. Guess what? I can take a ten gallon jug, put a hole in it, and with a small drip carry it farther than a mile. So what? Absurd. They’ve tried to embrace technology by giving us the, “mechanical pencil,” a device that breaks the lead more often due to its brittle nature. This is to such a degree, that its not uncommon to see these mechanical pencils with many lead fragments within the containing cylinder. In this state it is more prone to jammin than Bob Marley was.

Methods of lead extraction are utilized here in an effort to load the pencil's, "cartridge." One includes a slight shake or vibration in both a horizontal and vertical fashion. The cruelty of this device is made evident in the fact that if one's pencil is loaded with a lead segment of too short a length, than the mechanical pencil will cease to perform the task for which they tell us it was designed. We find when we put this lead to paper, it retreats back into the recesses of the cartridge, and in effort to be restored to somewhat functional use, needs to be manually removed. A couple clicks will reveal the end of the lead outside the cartridge and an individual must pull on the lead to fix the heinous device, as well as shake in another larger lead segment. This is quite ingenious for those devious scoundrel designers who made the mechanical pencil, made it so the shaking method of loading the cartridge, is a necessary part of the mechanics, but also is directly responsible for the fragmentation of the leads within the cylinder. The lead, once removed, then has no use other than to be committed to the refuse receptacle. This is wasting precious materials which are saturating or polluting our landfills, oceans, wetlands, and homes. The deception of the pencil is, in short, a danger for us all.

It will take a lot more to pull the wool over my eyes. In addition friends, likewise I hope it will for you.

On a Charge of Anti-Semitism in a Text Book

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:56:00 +0000

I am convinced that in today's colleges, universities, and even high schools, radicalism is certainly alive and well, being openly taught by teachers or text books that promote not just the ideas behind the radical, but also encourage these to be practiced to the extreme. These ideas are at times caught by students who make the schools aware of the dangerous views endorsed. In other circumstances, parents may be made aware of these outrageous teachings and alert those in charge or share their concerns. In rare instances, these concerns can actually get out to the media and become the antagonist for debate and discussion. There are a number of ways this radicalism can be shared, but the most often ones are, editorials by the author of a text book, leading questions, which suggest a radical answer, in class lectures, and of course, grading. The foremost two and last have been experienced by yours truly.

In any case, currently there is one such text book in Tennessee that has come under fire and there are those who want it pulled from the curriculum. Their argument states that a particular question in, "The Cultural Landscape: An Introduction to Human Geography," by James M. Rubenstein, a book used for advanced placement, is "blatantly" anti-Semitic. If true obviously it would reflect poorly, not only on the author and publisher, Prentice Hall, but anyone who employs the use of the book in any way. Though certainly not a large issue when we consider current events and the news media at large, there's been a little net hubbub concerning it, which I will now add to. The question that's raising some eyebrows reads:

“If a Palestinian suicide bomber kills several dozen Israeli teenagers in a Jerusalem restaurant, is that an act of terrorism or wartime retaliation against Israeli government policies and army actions?”

Now the question that has arose is if this question is, as stated by Laurie Cardoza-Moore, the head of a pro-Israel group, "blatantly anti-Semitic?" Mrs. Cardoza-Moore is indeed the very same person who expressed her concerns about the text and apparently feels the question is leading in that it takes a pro-Palestinian position. Yet, does it really?

To clear up a few things, I myself am far from being anti-Semitic, quite the contrary. I would classify myself as being completely pro-Israel and believe Palestine uses detestable means to spread terror in the Holy Land (I wrote about this more extensively when addressing Hamas. See my article, and please note the sarcasm: "On The Genius of Hamas"). This being the case, I feel I would be discerning concerning any anti-Semitism this text would contain, if any at all. However, I respectfully disagree with Mrs. Cardoza-Moore, and those who have raised issue with the question across the net or media. My conclusion is that the question has no anti-Semitism and the inclusion of the question in the text book serves another purpose altogether, which may objectively benefit the student, rather than serve to degrade a whole people.

Rather than provide just a brief opinion, I will attempt to show exactly why the initial text is free from anti-Semitism. At least according to my reasoning. First off, let us consider the first word of the text, that is, "if." Whenever and wherever one sees this word, they can be reasonably sure they're being introduced to a hypothetical situation. The hypothetical situation being introduced here, which certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility, is the suicide bombing of a restaurant, in which several teens are killed. Then, we're asked to ponder a question of terrorism or wartime retaliation, and the motives behind the attack. Let's look at it in a more simplistic logical view. We will label the the suicide bombing as, "S," for sake of argument. In addition, we will label the possibility of the terrorist act as "T," and the prospect of it being a wartime retaliation we will simplify as, "R."

Thus, we get to the heart of the question, which can be formulated as:

S ) T v R

The precursor to the ) symbol represents the hypothetical or, "if/then," and the "v" symbol, or wedge, represents a disjunctive syllogism, that is an either/or. After this quick simplification, in a grammatical sense, not in a logistical one, we get rid of all extraneous particulars, rather present or imagined, which may distract from the text. It can be read as thus:

"If a suicide bomber kills several teens in a Jerusalem restaurant, then it is either a terrorist act or one of wartime retaliation."

I don't include the Israeli government or army actions in my simplification of the question, because I believe those are implicitly implied by the word, "wartime." I go into a little more detail on my article, "On The Tragedy in Boston, Media, and a Terrorism Definition." Enough intrusions and shameless plugs though (for now). With the simplification we see that this either/or element is pretty evenly distributed, and the rest of the pondering and discussion is on the part of the student, rather than stated in the text.

The point of such questions isn't to lead students to a inevitable conclusion, like some profess this one does, and I couldn't disagree with more, it's to encourage critical thinking or analytical skills. Unfortunately in today's world not all issues are as "simple" as math, that is that only one steadfast conclusion can be reached. Thus, though I certainly would strongly disagree with those who took the wartime stance, the point is to have students reason for themselves and in an effective, objective manner, along with analyzing all different aspects of a issue.

The author or publishers must've foresaw the difficulty that such a question presents in the mind of many. Indeed, it is a very divisional topic and people have their own conclusions on this topic before many others, excluding their own countries, well being, etc, etc. The "controversy" this issue provides and the questions that arise may very well have been the reasoning for putting the question in the text book in the first place. I would like to think that we would want students who were able to think for themselves in an objective fashion.

So why is this such an issue? It's nothing new, it has always been a large source of controversy, even preceding our current age. However, I feel concerning this particular subject of the text book, there is a bit of ultra-sensitivity happening, which is somewhat understandable considering what is happening in the world. With the threats, whether they be valid or dangerous enough, of nukes from North Korea, or our own threats of terrorism at home, we've been able to start identifying with life in the Holy Land, that a daily outing might turn and end in violence. We see people doing innocent normal everyday activities in Israel, and suddenly becoming a target. It's getting to be like that in our own neighborhoods. As we've seen, many people have went to work, to enjoy leisure activities, or run in a world wide celebrated race, and never came back. If they do, they never come back the same. Thereby some of these folks, understandably, become hypersensitive and we find issues like this popping up, where people's fear dictates their perceptions, observations, and ideas.

Another aspect of the question that we shouldn't ignore is that it provides a challenge to students to define what war and terrorism are, which is an interesting question. The terrorism definition I reached in "On The Tragedy in Boston, Media, and a Terrorism," I believe holds true. I believe there is a difference and its these differences that are alluded to by the text. This is obviously another great source of debate, which I have no problem with students pondering such questions. Isn't that one of the main purposes of schooling in the first place, to produce qualified graduates who can think for themselves, observe data effectively, objectively and arise at a conclusion?

If one were to draw such a conclusion from the text, that it is leading in someway, then I feel one would have to reach the opposite answer. That is, the unjust act on the part of the suicide bomber. This is due to a few things:

A: The Israeli teenagers age suggests an innocence attributed with youth.
B: A restaurant, suggesting a peaceful, neutral, or innocent atmosphere.
C: The bombers complete disregard for human life including his own.

With the implications these components suggest, one could argue that the question was blatantly on the side of Israel. Yet, again, I don't think that was the point of the text, nor the whole exercise. It was to encourage debate and internal dialogue concerning the nature of war, terrorism, and even when, where, or by what means, such actions are or are not warranted. In concluding, all this hubbub is simply due to a hypersensitivity, which I dislike saying saying because it alludes to the fact the term "hypersensitivity" can denote fault or an unreasonable reaction. I don't feel it is unreasonable, nor do I feel it's silly. We are beginning and have already begun to see terrorism and threats of war on our very doorstep. Thereby, it is no wonder some keep on guard concerning radicalism, terrorism, and the controversies that arise from it.

Yet, finally, if there is any doubt concerning my conclusions from the cited text, perhaps we can look at it in context by taking the whole paragraph into account. I think its clearer and puts this whole argument to bed. In my mind anyway.

“Distinguishing terrorism from other acts of political violence can be difficult. For example, if a Palestinian suicide bomber kills several dozen Israeli teenagers in a Jerusalem restaurant, is that an act of terrorism or wartime retaliation against Israeli government policies and army actions? Competing arguments are made: Israel’s sympathizers denounce the act as a terrorist threat to the country’s existence, whereas advocates of the Palestinian cause argue that long-standing injustices and Israeli army attacks on ordinary Palestinian civilians provoked the act.”

To their credit the director of schools has looked into the issue and has found that no other complaints were filed prior to Mrs. Cardoza-Moore's.

On The Atari Government, Violence and Grass

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 02:49:00 +0000

Again, in case anyone missed it, I am currently in Alaska, and this being the case it can be rather difficult to keep up on the news, though I get brief updates. However, I did listen to the news a bit today thanks to our XM radio. Of course, much of the news is still centered upon the bombing in Boston, and more specifically the backgrounds of those who are responsible. Chechnya is just north of the Caucasus and has a violent history. In the 90's, Chechnya, as I gather, tried to separate itself from its mother Russia, with violent results. Apparently Russia attacked, decimating the capital city of Chechnya. When Chechnya was finally granted independence this wasn't enough to stop the violence, and essentially two governments were formed, leading to more violence. As we have seen all over the world at various times and places, when a country is in such a divided state, factions can arise that may use terrorist tactics to wreak havoc on the public and those in power alike. It seems to be a common theme among separatist states. Such tactics aren't usually successful. In addition to being completely misguided, they can, in fact, backfire, causing these terrorists to become the villains themselves, even though they might seek to be heroes, patriots or revolutionaries in the public eye. This is obviously due to their complete disregard for human life. Indeed, the line of the innocent and whom they regard as guilty parties, or the enemy, becomes so blurred that it doesn't matter. Their cause is one that is sought by complete anarchy. There are many names such people or groups go by, like rebels, or separatists. In the case of the Boston bombers they have been labeled, "Islamic Separatists," a blend of both religious philosophy and political idealism. Such separatism is generally localized, where it is thought it will have the greatest effect. This violent faction doesn't go outside its boarders or apart from whom they have conflict with, and don't concern themselves with countries or people far removed internationally. Yet, there is another faction that seems to believe their cause has greater impact or chance of success when taken on a global scale, as might be the case with the Boston bombers. So even in cases of, "Islamic Separatists," you may very well have at least two different factions, one focused on immediate territory, while another is focused on the international community.In addition to all this it should be mentioned that after the 90's conflict, Chechnya became somewhat of a hub for Islam. Advisor Stephen Yates, said on Fox News, they had an influx of Islam and extremism after Russia's initial smothering of Chechnya's move to break off. I recall his words from memory, so my facts or quotes might be subject to a little error, but regardless it is interesting that such places in the world, those that are immersed in turmoil, often become centers for extremism. I find that it may be the case that such influx of extremism can be equated or illustrated in a smaller scale, like those of riots, or demonstrations which erupt into anarchy.In many of these, there are those individuals that use such gatherings as an excuse for violence, they themselves being prone to it. In fact, there are those when questioned about their motives during a hostile demonstration which have no idea what the underlying cause or motivations are, only that they can use it to enact and indulge in their own violent desires, while still being covered in the veil of some greater cause.This being said, and this obviously is just a hypothesis, perhaps these countries of turmoil attract such extremists, just in the same way demonstrations do, because it offers an excuse to display acts of violence, which they secretly desire. Thereby, instead of being a lone nutcase at least they can be seen by their cohorts as martyrs or hero's of the ideal with the violent acts they profess, carry out, and make evident in death or destruction.There is another distinction that I would like to make concerning those extremists who employ these acts of destruction and terror overseas. The reason why will become apparent. You've got ones who are lone, whom plan and carry out these acts of their own accord or volition, convinced that in some way progress is being made in the name of the cause. Then you have those who remain in contact with their leaders and planners who may fund and help organize an assault. According to the intelligence community within the government, many of these latter extremists communicate via the Internet.Yates stated that the internet has great power and is, "sovereign," and hinted at the dangers it poses to national security. Such talk I've learned to be weary of and in my mind it sets up a red flag, one which may precede a government "power grab." When we look at what the government is doing today, and has been doing, we see that they've been slowly taking away our rights as granted by our constitution. In fact, if our freedoms were represented by yellow pills, the government would be as Pac Man. All I hear lately when politicians speak is, "waga-waga-waga-waga-waga."Our rights have already been infringed upon post 9/11, and indeed before. Our privacy has been trespassed by our leaders who "represent" us, as well has our right to bear arms, and these have all been taken by means of utilizing fear and outrage the public justly feels after a terrible event. I am far from saying, of course, that a conspiracy is taking place, or that the government has a hand in all these disasters, I am only stating that the government uses these events as the means to their end, to gain more power over the people. This seems to be the case on both the right and the left and is not limited to just the USA.By Yates saying such things, I began to see a future a message out of Washington D.C., that they must monitor our Internet use for the sake of our protection. Many might respond to this with, "As long as we're safer," or, "I have nothing to hide." That may be so and I hope it is the case, but this would undermine what this fabulous country was founded upon, the right to be free. I would feel my freedoms slipping away even more then I already can, if my e-mail was read by a Washington think tank, or if they tracked my movements to such a degree they knew every little outfit I purchase for my cat, "Chief Tuckapaw." It's unfortunate but such concessions of freely handing our rights away is equitable to handing away our very country. On this point, let me just say that concerning these terrible events, I am very sorrowful and feel great compassion towards the victims and those who have lost loved ones. Furthermore, I in no way intend this entry to be a condemnation of people who are sympathetic and have heart felt emotions concerning such things and are willing to do anything to see that they don't happen again. I can both understand and relate to it. Yet, I pose the question, why should we let violent morons who don't give a damn about people's rights, even the most basic human right, the right to live, be the very reason we give up our rights? Why is it always seem to be the case that the victims and innocent have their rights revoked while they are passed on abundantly to the guilty? Maybe it's true. Maybe we have buckled under these sadistic losers and in the end gave them a power that even they couldn't have scarcely imagined.Such violent people(s) are of course not always backed by or take up some cause or goal, some just commit random acts of violence, which have no rhyme or reason, as most violence doesn't. It is only in the self delusion that violence leads to some goal, but again, there are those that need none. Two days ago on 4/20, the pot smokers holiday, there was a gathering in Colorado to celebrate. This gathering was estimated as possibly being attended by as many as 80,000 people. I don't know what the finally talley was, but this is beside the point. During sometime in the evening someone opened fire, shooting off a handgun. Nobody was hit, but panic soon erupted among the crowd. The suspect was allegedly caught on camera and the Colorado police are now searching for the perpetrator. Now I'm not a pot smoker and haven't been for a long, long time. Personally, I just don't like the feeling it gives me and I stay away from it. Yet, when it comes to pot legalization, I am for it. I am sick of my tax payer dollars going to incarcerating, in the grand scheme of things, small time "criminals," who just happened to be caught with a dime bag. Also, having done it myself, I feel it's not that bad, and there is a contradiction between allowing alcohol to be legal and making pot illegal. To me it doesn't make sense, but I will quickly state I'm not for drug legalization across the board. At any rate, this moron, instead of partaking in a celebration, which must have included plenty of candy, chips, ice cream, and soda, decided to ruin everyone's hazy gleeful time, by shooting a gun off. The backlash could be that the voters of Colorado might regret their decision. Assuming that this person smokes grass, weed, pot, herb, whatever, he is perhaps the biggest idiot in all the state of Colorado. Moron! What was the purpose, to see people panic? What if people were crushed in a horrible stampede? It takes a sick mind to get off on such things, and he should be nabbed immediately and investigated, for such minds are not usually content with one riotous act, and he may have committed crimes in his past. Of course, this will probably be on the news making it an argument for gun control as well as the revoking of the legalization of marijuana cigarettes and all forms it can take. Who would've though pot smokers could be so violent when you have shows like "Archer," to occupy their time.Another fascinating thing on the news is the charge that the FBI and law enforcement took too long in tracking down the Boston bombers. Here we go again with misdirected blame. You've got to wonder why people still get involved in law enforcement for they're more frequently blamed than the criminals, especially when it comes to high publicity, atrocious crimes like what happened in Boston. Even inanimate objects come into blame, like guns, or video games. It seems as though both the public and media has a need for the blame to be equivalent to the tragedy. That is, in short, the outrage at what occurred in Boston is too massive to project upon one individual, or a couple as the case may be, and in addition someone else needs to answer for the abomination. Many point to the fact that at least one of the brothers was investigated in 2011, and here it is nearly two years removed and people are pondering why anything wasn't done then, despite it being way prior to the actual bombing. In actuality, I can kind of understand it, but we forget that law enforcement is entangled in bureaucracy. This is why those people who commit the most heinous of crimes, at times, get off on a measly technicality, which is outrageous. This is a further example of how rights are taken from the victim or innocent and given unto the guilty. Thereby, it is no wonder that in such investigations no actions can be taken, especially when no crime has been committed. What kind of country would we live in when people are arrested just because they're suspected of being capable of some future crime, the nature of which would have to be theorized?I, in fact, applaud not only the people of Boston, but also law enforcement who was able to track these horrible people down in a matter of a few days. They even went as far as to shut down a whole city to get the perps, and the character and diligence of the people of Boston helped lead to the apprehension, especially concerning the individual who was observant enough to discover where the remaining suspect was hiding out. Since they don't hear it enough, I say good job Boston, and a great job to FBI and law enforcement. Despite all the critics and yes, there have been mistakes in the past, the law enforcement community did an amazing job in Boston, followed all leads, and communicated efficiently with the public and media to track the suspects. An example of how things need be handled indeed. Way to go. With the kind of people they apparently have in Boston, I just may need to move there or at the very least visit.

On a Quote by Cynthia Nixon

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 02:07:00 +0000

It's interesting, but as I explore the net I often find things that piqué my interest or curiosity. Of course, this isn't necessarily interesting in and of itself, but what makes it so is the fact that it may concern a certain topic or subject matter that in other circumstances don't nearly interest me in such a fashion, but in other situations I feel the almost unbearable need to respond. I experienced this rather recently when I ran across a quote from self proclaimed lesbian Cynthia Nixon:

'Gay people who want to marry have no desire to redefine marriage in any way. When women got the vote, they did not redefine voting. When African-Americans got the right to sit at a lunch counter alongside white people, they did not redefine eating out. They were simply invited to the table.’

Again, perhaps just another celebrity who holds to the delusion and deceives themselves, in the end serving their pride, in thinking that they're a ring leader or central component in the movement of social "progress." We see a lot of this in today's culture, and in reality it isn't that surprising, for a lot of times these snippets of false wisdom are prompted by mediums, whose own bias already foresees the reaction.

Before I go much further though, let me give credit to Cynthia, or her ghost writer, or her publicist, or her handlers, or her assistants, because her quote is actually more well constructed than most I find by celebrities. Not in a logical way, but because its construction is designed in a manner that it is almost like a trap set to spring when anyone may disagree with her. I admittingly don't know much about Mrs. Nixon apart from her role on, "Sex and The City," the fact that she is a lesbian, and, in fact, is herself married. Thereby, her level of arrogance concerning the quote and this issue are in question, for some celebrities are more arrogant than others. So it occurs to me that my introduction may be a little harsh considering my lack of knowledge concerning the character of Mrs. Nixon, and I will retract a bit on those particulars, offer apologies if applicable, and just confine myself diligently to the quote rather than Mrs. Nixon herself.

When we look at this quote we find its construction to be on very shaky ground and unstable as it turns out. First off, I would like to point out the three main components of Mrs. Nixon's argument. She starts by saying that those who are gay or lesbian have no desire to redefine marriage. We, for the sake of argument, will call this premise, "A." Second, or premise "B," she addresses women's suffrage, adding that they did not redefine voting. Third, or premise, "C," she addresses the civil rights movement, the emancipation of African-Americans, their being recognized as equal or being granted equal rights with whites, including every right to dine in any establishment white people were privy to. Thus, to recap:

A: Gays do not want to redefine marriage in any way.
B: Women did not redefine voting by being granted the right.
C: Civil Rights and the movement towards the equality of African-Americans in society, and that their inclusion to be able to eat alongside whites didn't redefine eating out.

Mrs. Nixon attempts to interlink all these examples and almost uses premises B and C to equate to A. Thereby:

1. B
2. C Therefore, A.

It is a very poorly constructed argument in general terms, but it does succeed in that it suggests that if you disagree with premise A, then you MUST disagree with premises B and C. Thereby, you are against women having the right to vote, and racist. In fact, it could be said you are both racist and sexist. This is the trap that springs if you are to disagree with Mrs. Nixon and those who are opposed to gay marriage might feel a tinge of guilt and or shame when reading over her statement. Furthermore, what is illustrated is that you may even be a enemy to equality in general.

This could just be called an argument from guilt, but at the same time this guilt and disagreements with gay marriage must be reconciled in some fashion beyond just Nixon's argument. Unfortunately for Mrs. Nixon, there is another reason her argument is a poor one, for the "trap" essentially backfires. It contains the implication that change or redefinition is a bad thing, which is counterintuitive to what she wants to state in her quote. Let us briefly ask ourselves what is entailed when something is, "redefined?" The ramifications of a redefinition are that something in the original understanding of the idea or context has shifted or changed.

For example, not to be sardonic, but let us consider the word, "gay." This is a word that has been changed over the years. The word was once used to imply jovial merriment, but now it has changed, or been redefined, to refer to the homosexual. This is rather a simplistic example but it still rings true in the more complex. When we define something, we not only define what it is, but also define what it's not. Allow me to give another illustration. Artists are trained not only to define form by emphasizing their subject in a figure that is either linear or impressionistic (though there are vast varieties and mediums which can define form, such as colorism, and indeed sculpture, but I've only chosen two for our purpose), but a prudent artist is encouraged to recognize what is called, "negative space." That which is outside or apart from the subject, untouched but utilized to give the object the desired form. Thereby, if one had the time, in theory, a positive definition could be reached just by excluding the negative or by elimination.

Thus, to be happy is not to be angry, is not to be mad, is not to be depressed, etc, etc, etc . . . The definition of something marks its boundaries and limits, and the redefinition stretches them or moves them, creating a new definition out of the conception. Furthermore, to define is to give something identity, and you cannot change something and give it a new identity, and call it the same, any more than you can call a circle a square. They both have unique characteristics which defines and identifies them from other concepts.

Thereby, she is wrong about the redefining of marriage, for marriage has long since prior been the union between a male and female. Pushing these boundaries gives it a whole new identity and definition. We see in B or C however that change or redefinition is not by necessity a bad thing. Due to her application of premises concerning equality, we see that this is really the motive behind her statement, a complete equality despite the existence of predetermined definition. Yet, to allow gay marriage, and to treat gay couples, as hetero couples by marriage is to turn that definition into something which it was not intended to be. So, of course it becomes redefined, it's form has changed.

Even so, we can be even more simplistic to argue Nixon's point. When we ponder or reflect upon gay marriage, it becomes apparent that we add the attribution or particular of, "gay," to "marriage," in order that we can differentiate the concept of gay marriage from marriage proper. If marriage wasn't redefined, then we'd have no reason, nor even the perception, that there was a redefinition occurring, thereby no additional attribution would be needed. Due to the fact that both these terms exist gives evidence that there is a change and redefinition of the marriage institution.

Another part of the issue resides in the fact there is another fallacy in Mrs. Nixon's quote, which is as controversial as the gay marriage proposals. This deals with ethics and morality. It is a necessary condition that by accepting Nixon's remark, you must also believe that homosexuality is a trait born in human beings, and so vital a part of their make up, as to be equal unto race and gender. That is what is suggested anyway. Yet, if you don't believe this and believe sexuality is a choice, then her argument further falls apart.

In my view homosexuality is a choice, as is manifest in general nature, and suggested by the cagtagorical imperative, a secular theory proposed by Immanuel Kant that attempts to explain the existence and values of morality. Briefly, it states that we reason, whether consciously or not, and apply all actions as an absolute world wide. So, murder is immoral because man would quickly become extinct if all men murdered, had the freedom to murder, and were murdered. Therefore, according to the categorical imperative we conclude that murder is morally bad. B and/or C are certainly not choices for they cannot be redefined. Indeed, if one attempts to do so, they fall under a different definition or classification, like transgender. Therefore, it is unjustified that Nixon makes the juxtaposition she does. For what your race is and what gender you are is endowed onto you, and you have no way of shifting back or forth, nor experimenting, as is evident in the homosexual community. A predisposition doesn't equate to being, "born that way," nor does it affect ethical values. Premises B and C are steadfast and, apart from dramatic surgery, are unchangeable. It was this that prompted society to justly make laws and civil protections for both parties that Nixon mentions. Hearts and minds needed to be changed concerning civil rights, and that was on the side of society, not on the side of women or African-Americans, for they cannot be changed or redefined, it was the redefinition of social practices, for lack of better terminology, that established equality.

Lastly, before I end this entry, let me say that though I disagree with gay marriage, or that being homosexual is a state one is born into, I don't hate homosexuals. That is I don't condone any act of violence, outward hatred or the spewing of slurs, and alike conduct. I believe in civility and treating each other respectfully, despite our differences. I suspect if we acted in such a detestable way to everyone we disagreed with, then we would shy away from all human contact whatsoever, and this isn't realistic or reasonable. Even concerning our best friends, family, and acquaintances we share different ideas. People have a hard time understanding that you can disagree with someone and be civil all at the same time. Though, honestly, we do tend to surround ourselves with people we have common interests with.

This being said, I am sure many of you found yourself angry at this entry and that wasn't my intention, though it is inevitable, only to respond to the quote and express my thoughts concerning gay marriage. Yet, if you are angry and made it this far, I thank you at least for reading and following through, for most I suspect would stop half way and write me a nasty response full of colorful vulgarities. Due to the division and emotion this topic breeds, I await such e-mails. However, I thank you again, and I pray that this country and the world could start being civil even in light of disagreements and with that I bid you a fond farewell.

On The General Fallacy of Blaming Ideology

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:56:00 +0000

After listening to the media coverage of the horrible events that occurred in Boston on XM radio, my only source for news on a boat in Alaska, of which I get bits and pieces almost equivalent to headlines or bylines, I find that just as quick and shocking as those were, the media’s attempt to place blame before any facts were or are known, and indeed before any compassion for the victims was made evident, provided an element of shock to me. Various ideological labels were thrown about by various news organizations in an effort to assign a blame. My main question concerning this is whether or not it is reasonable to A, make such quick judgements and B, if assigning blame towards suspected associations is both legit and accurate. I regard question A to be a much easier question to answer than the latter.

The desire to hold someone accountable for such an atrocity is certainly reasonable and should be part of our inherent nature. Yet, there have been those times, and those circumstances, where such judgements are rushed, or globalized, leading not to justice, but rather injustice. This includes, but certainly is not limited to, the examples of the opinion of the general public, law enforcement, and media.

Yet, though I write this after the incidents in Boston, I do believe law enforcement, “got their men.” In a particularly rare twist the media and the public helped out law enforcement, by giving them the clues to track the perps down. This is a rarity in that the interactions between all these groups are sometimes muddled and frequently lead to outrage and discontent whether it be justified or not. Obviously I cannot address every example, for they are numerous, but it seems the law enforcement “tool” of the public and media, can be both a blessing and a curse.

This is due to media drawing its own conclusions, though occasionally using the word, “alleged,” have obviously already made up their own minds on the guilty and culprits, most the time independent of evidence. It is interesting, but in media this responsible party is generally a reflection on those whom they consider villains. What this does in the ring of popular opinion is cause strife between ideologies. For instance, immediately after the bombing, Chris Matthews blamed it on a right-wing culprit due to its lack of sophistication. He even had a guest on his show who echoed his conclusion. This can rile up the emotions of disagreeing philosophies and bring about conflict.

Thus, before a culprit was even named, an ideology was blamed responsible, a total askew and backward way of thinking on Matthews’ part. It truthfully shows us more about Mr. Matthews than the actual events and the protagonists behind them. What about in cases of profiling? We know that in certain groups can commit atrocities, or too just singular individuals can commit crimes and subscribe to a particular ideology, which can be manifest in their crimes and actions. There are those specialists who are versed in identifying these horrible ideals which lead to the despicable nature of their crimes. When this is known, or suspected, it provides a profile law enforcement can use to apprehend the guilty. Even so, this is not always accurate.

What is apparent is that those in media are hardly educated enough to point out a perpetrator and/or the philosophies he/she may subscribe to. In fact, in such media outbursts as such Matthews is guilty of. Furthermore, despite the presence of profilers in law enforcement, these men and women are not always instrumental in the capture of a criminal. At times, as is the case with the Boston suspects, the criminal is first apprehended and then their motives and idealism become clear. As of today, in fact, a day after the arrest of the second brother, his motives are still not clear, and Obama told the public wisely, “Not to jump to any conclusions.” Chris Matthews would be wise to listen to the president whose voice sends a tingle up his leg, those I guess it beats a trickle down his leg. Just sayin’. Perhaps the President too knows that the more rash the conclusion, the least likely it is to be true. Rash conclusions reflect more on those concluding than what is the case in reality.

Certainly we can see the danger in rushing to judgement, but what about the judging of ideals or a persons inherent beliefs? At what time, if any, is this warranted and at what time is it not? This is of course is a somewhat difficult question to answer, for there are those ideals which contain a violent aspect and these are ones that may need to be addressed independent of the general rules.

I find it might be helpful to start off this portion of my essay with an illustration. Let us say you belong to a local YMCA, and one of the members goes on a shooting rampage, killing innocent people in the process. Now, should your whole local organization become suspect for such atrocities? This is rather a silly example, but I choose it for a purpose, because its sometimes what we do, which is equally silly. There are plenty of ideologies, philosophies, dogmas, creeds, denominations, and categories, for almost every general belief structure out there. Each one, in addition, has its own subsections, divisions and partitions.

Let us suppose Chris Matthews was right for a change (speaking of making generalities, nudge, nudge) and there was a right-wing culprit responsible for the attacks in Boston. Should that reflect on all those who subscribe to the right-wing ideology? Certainly there are those that would believe this to be the case, but mainly only because they already have a predisposition, feelings of anger, discontent, or paranoia concerning those who belong to the right-wing of American society. Yet, it isn’t a reasonable conclusion, for it disregards those right-wing individuals who are as outraged and sympathetic concerning such attacks. It is an unjust globalization of an ideology. This remains true if one were to attribute the bombing to the left-wing faction of society, or even Americans in general, it would be equally unreasonable.

So when does it become justified? Simply, we need to narrow our scope of focus, and apply and observe applicable conditions. For instance, there are groups that exist within the world where their philosophies encourage violent behavior, and are a integral component of it. Thus, it being an essential part of their dogma, a conclusion that these groups possess violent tendencies, would be a reasonable one to make. Yet, there needs to be specificity, for these groups may take on the guise of another or be adjunct from a greater, deserving of its own classification. The more general and wide the scope we draw conclusions from, the more these conclusions are alike with racism or sexism, which is dangerous indeed.

On The Tragedy in Boston, Media, and a Terrorism Definition

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:11:00 +0000

Today there was a terrible bombing in Boston, which injured over a hundred and killed at least three people. These are dangerous times we are living in, and who knows, one day living in this country may be akin to living in the Arab nations where violence surrounds and abounds.

Again the media and government seems almost split and contradictory it its collective personality. While they in the media within the immediate aftermath had no problem speculating between the political affiliations of the perpetrator, or perpetrators, i.e. left-wing or right-wing, any possibility of an organized terrorist connection, they seemed hesitant to address. Yet, again, at the same time, the imagined political ideals that such a person might have, were discussed. This frighteningly suggests and shows, not only a strong partisan divide in this country, but the extent of the hate or anger that one side feels towards another. I fear this divide and strife will only get worse, and indeed we have already seen civility and tolerance, which everyone demands but nobody practices, begin dissipating into a thing of the past. This is in both media and the general public, though there are those examples to the contrary. Lastly, I would like to point out this is based on the short coverage I did see and wasn’t in front of a TV or radio all day getting continual reports, so therefore any disagreement may be well founded for all I know.

Now I would like to address this word, “terrorism.” I find it a little odd, yet still a bit understandable, as to why the President and/or White House would be so hesitant to say the word or any variation thereof. Furthermore, after a brief Google search I found many definitions of terrorism, but not one concise meaning, which I found curious. One website explains this by suggesting that terrorism is a very relative term and is dependent on whom is using it. Also, one says it need be done especially as a means of coercion. However, I would like to humbly suggest a definition myself, that occurred to me when reflecting on all these acts as they occur all over the globe.

I was driving in my car a number years back, and I found myself stuck at a light behind a car which had a bumper sticker that read, “War is Terrorism.” Well, that kind of got this whole thought process going and I began to ponder the nature of war, and of terrorism, and how they might differ, if indeed they did. I have come to the conclusion that they do. My definition of terrorism would be, “Any act of violence, or attempted violence, designed to cause harm to a innocent person’s being, life, or property.” In short, terrorism is an act which targets the innocent. In addition, these acts usually testify to some cause and/or group. Furthermore, the terrorist seeks for his act to be infamous in the public eye as a spectacle, so he may use outlandish means or claim as many lives as they can in order to spread panic and fear among the innocent, which pleases the perpetrator through the chaos it brings down.

Alright, so maybe my definition isn’t as simple as I set out for it to be, but terror and the terrorist have these like traits when an act is labeled as one of, “terror.” Thus, at President Obama’s press conference, I was surprised at the absence of the word. He may have came out and said that it was by all means an act of terror, for there were innocent, unaware people targeted, but at the same time, perhaps he didn’t want to confuse people by making them think he was referring to, “organized terrorism.” That is a group like Al Qaida or Hamas without absolute proof first. Perhaps it’s time we change our definition of what terrorism is, when those not involved in any conflict and are thereby innocent, are targeted, hurt, or killed, by those employing warlike means.

I thank you all for your time and my prayers and thoughts go out to all those affected by today’s tragic events.

Love you Boston!

On Bread and How its Ripping You Off

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 21:00:00 +0000

The observation and joke has long sense been the inequity between the measure of hot dog buns in relation to the sum of hot dogs bought and or sold within their preset packaging. If one were to host a barbecue, for example, and buy only one package of each, not only would you discover that your a cheapskate and terrible host, but you would also find a number of hot dogs left after you and your few, and probably only friends, were served. Though, I have not examined every kind or brand of hot dogs, and hot dog related product, this can generally be said to be indeed true. We have all learned in our experience to cope with the contradictory reality within the bun/dog relationship.

Though I risk sounding by this essay a little too much like Glenn Beck, I will refrain from doing so completely by never mentioning George Soros (other than right now), or utilizing a chalkboard to make my point. Yet, the truth is that the hot dog bun is not the only baked good out there ripping you off. This can to a degree be readily seen, as the thrifty shopper is well aware of, while they stroll down the bread aisle of their favorite local supermarket and spy the unreasonably high cost of any yeast infused product. We find not only the prices to be extreme, but in addition find that there is an underlying malicious intent instilled within the loaf and that pre-wrapping which prepares the parcel for sale.

For eons, bread has been a staple product in the diet of people the world over. In the past, great care was taken in its preparation, and exuberant joy would emit from children and adults alike, whenever a freshly baked loaf was displayed. Yet, despite age, all would rush to the treat with childlike enthusiasm. The pride and care they would take in their carbohydrate packed culinary creations was evident to everyone who bit into the earthy loaf. Alas, that we cannot rekindle the adoration of bread as they had in those bygone eras.

Instead, by mass production, and bread makers, the latter that produce something resembling in shape and form a Mountain Bar, or perhaps more akin to a cubist work by Picasso, than a sumptuous loaf baked by the late Julia Child, we have lost that piece of romanticism we used to attribute to our bread. It's as if our regard for bread has moved from Thoreau to Marx.

The horrific truth is that excluding the hotdog/bun inequality, you may still fall victim to the great bread conspiracy, whether you like complex carbohydrates, wheat, italian, or white, you are privy to this scam, and I have fallen victim to it many times. When one strolls down the bakery isle of their favorite store, this scam lies in wait, and we may not even contemplate the horrible truth. This truth rests in the occasional unequal number of slices per loaf. In those bygone days of homemade baked goods, one could measure out the slices in size taking into account the amount of guests, that each would get an equal share.

Most people, thanks to the Earl of Sandwich enjoy the treat that bears his namesake. The vast majority of the time, this requires two pieces of bread and the necessary filler in between. Thereby, it seems logical that all mass produced loaves would in fact have an even number of pieces of bread that one may engage in consuming assorted sandwiches until the loaf is gone. Alas, this isn't the case and too frequently one ends up with an odd number of slices, where a sandwich can only be made by dividing the slice. This isn't too difficult a task this much is true, but we must remember the high prices of bread, and this price doesn't take into account the amount of slices in each packaging. So, you may be indeed buying a loaf of bread for full price, but getting shorted on one slice, probably to the amusement of the management of any bread company.

I believe the grocers to be in on this as well, and though I haven't studied the subject fully, I suspect a break down of the bread, bun and hotdog integrity, and sense an arising crisis among consumers. I would encourage you all to write your congressman about this important issue.

On Juicing in Sports and Jaegermeister's Discouragement of it

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:45:00 +0000

Nowadays, sports is made up of more juicers than a months worth of late night infomercials. While some fruit juicers were endorsed by real athletes that naturally pushed the limits of the body, like the late Jack LaLanne, the sports world has been for a while now, turning against natural abilities in an effort to turn sport superstars into something more sinuous, and thereby more entertaining. All this accomplished not through athletic discipline, but through the use of performance enhancing drugs. This is a sad state of affairs (much like my own athletic ability), but lest my conclusion be thought to be superficial, I will explore just a few reasons why this is unsportsmanlike, dangerous, and even what it says about society today.
Within popular opinion, and even within the editorials and articles in publications like, ESPN, SI, or the Sporting News, one may come across the argument that people just don't care, shouldn't care, or that the pressures of a sportsman encourage that all athletes should, "bulk up." It is unfortunate that the idea of sportsmanship has reached such a low point, that this would even be encouraged, excused, or permitted. Giving someone an edge by a means that is unnatural, or opposed to the rules and the inherent ideas behind competition, is an idea that we most apply to sports like Football, Baseball, and its pop culture kin. Yet, to see the fallacy in these ideas and the overlooking of such trespasses against athleticism, it may be useful to reflect on what may happen when we apply these principles to other forms of sports, jobs, or competition. When we do this we find the fallacy of this kind of thinking to be more explicit, for it is applied in a sense which we can identify with a little better, than an impersonal sportsman we may see on television. To the general public those who participate in such sports, not only achieve the status of celebrity, but also one amounting to a kind of superhero who has developed their body, the means of which can be irrelevant, to do what most the rest of the spectators can't. Thus, there is a degree of awe when one watches two competing teams or individuals battle it out. To be able to identify with such sportsman or sportswoman can be quite the task indeed, for their skill is generally beyond the Standard of human capability, in not just strength, but also stamina, dexterity, discipline, endurance and all the like. Yet, again, when we take this principle of performance enhancing drugs down to the common man, we find sportsmanship, discipline and even skill to be on the decline when one permits the use of steroids. Furthermore, this may be just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
One of the oldest "sports," is the hunting of game. The respectable nature of the hunt, is expressed even on bottles of Jaegermeister, and, in fact, quite eloquently. Jaegermeister, which means, "master hunter," states on the label, "It is the hunter's honor that he protects and preserves his game, hunts sportsmanlike, honors the Creator and His creatures." We see in this quote that sportsmanship, honor, and integrity are all emphasized.
Now when applying the principle of heightening one's abilities, through artificial or unfair means, and putting it into the context of hunting, the sportsmanship is profoundly degraded, as well as, in this case, gruesome. Instead of a hunter, pursuing prey with a rifle or compound bow, with heightened abilities, it would be much like going hunting with a bazooka, land mines, or painting a deer with a laser, and having the creature waxed by an air strike. In the same way, it would be like fishing with dynamite.
I think many of us would agree that such an elevation of ability and/or tools would be most unsportsmanlike indeed. What about bowling? What kind of sport would it be if one competitor had a ball half the width of the alley (though someone might point out a person would need to be athletic, superhuman or on steroids to handle such a ball, but thats beside the point - settle down!)? Let's not forget our southern friends, what about Nascar? How fair would it be if someone would have the use of a jet in the race? These examples may seem extreme and rather silly, but I use them to emphasize the point, that not only is the use of these controlled substances dishonest, but the decrease of honesty, by means of unnaturally enhancing skill, and thus providing one extra tools, is directly and adversely proportional to the sportsmanship these sports are supposedly founded on. Thus, if dishonesty and artificial enhancement are on the increase, in an equal degree, the sportsmanship is on the decrease.
One may point out some fault in my examples that since each "sporter" uses a tool, and it is these tools that are increased in ability, not the sportsman, these examples cannot be equated with steroid abuse. However, in such physical sports, which by the way I was never good at, and I "was" more a fan of "Dungeons and Dragons" anyway, the body is one of the greatest tools in all of sports, and it is this tool that is altered by juicing up. The principle of enhancing your gun or weapon in hunting, is one in the same with enhancing your "guns," or tools in the body. The examples might be different, but the principle is coherent without any absurdity. One not need apply some alteration to, "The Duke," to make these examples corollary.
Due to all this, we see that steroids equate to an advantage. An advantage in sports, produced by artificial means is cheating. Plain and simple. Even if you worked at McDonalds and a guy strung out on speed could do 30 more burgers than you an hour, and thereby gets a raise above you, would you not feel cheated? For your performance would be lowered by the juxtaposition the management may have between you and the strung out individual. Yet, even McDonalds doesn't allow such behavior and such a person would be immediately fired, but we don't even hold the standard of McDonalds in sports apparently, except within the possible example tailgating with fat encased treats roasting on a bar-b-cue, clogging arteries and shortening one's life span. (I believe there is a correlation between your life span and the decrease thereof according to how many tailgates you attend, and every time you indulge in grade "s" quality "beef" from the golden arches.)
Another popular argument for the use of steroids, is that sportsman are under a lot of pressure to perform. No doubt this is true, but this pressure has always been present in sports, since the earliest times. I believe it can be argued that the very concept of competition presupposes a pressure to outperform another. This pressure isn't just limited to sports, and you may have indeed experienced it in your own workplace or social life, but such pressures, do not equate to the permission of drugs. The pressures of life may not be pleasant, but they are ever present. They are mentioned and experienced throughout time, from the Bible to Queen and Bowie. Certainly, these pressures don't excuse inappropriate behavior.

David Bowie and Queen - Under Pressure by stevanhoggPressure in athletes is not a new thing. From to the first olympians to the jr. high athlete, pressure is apparent and a factor in their participation. Yet, they participate knowing full well this pressure exists, and if one cannot handle pressure, then they should cease to be an athlete. I have no sympathy for those who engage in an activity where pressure is so explicit, then later complain about it. When we put it in context, the pressure of being a sportsman and missing out on a trophy or national title, isn't so bad. Several ancient cultures engaged in sports where the loser was killed. Not only does Rome have a history of this, but also the Mayans. Now thats pressure. Again, pressure is presupposed and a necessary condition of competition. In all forms. Even the contestants on the Price is Right are subject to pressure, which must be excruciating when anyone ever bids one dollar.
Another argument goes that so many people in sports do steroids and it has been done for so long anyway, that enforcement now would be absurd. Well, performance enhancing drugs hasn't been done forever, rather athletes, like many in society, were once concerned and focused on honor. In fact, honor was sometimes the initial cause of competition. Honor is unfortunately an outdated ideal. Why have honor when you can have 5 million dollars? Yet, I ask why not have both, for there are great athletes of the past and today who never used performance enhancing drugs, and still had the ability to entertain in and through competition. This should be the case today in all examples, but we are far from it, for the idea of honor has been degraded by the pursuit of goods, pride, and the most carnal. Yet, it wasn't too long ago where honor was so important many would actually give their lives or sacrifice their health to achieve that ideal. Of course, one would argue that steroids can be the means to the end to that ideal, but the use of such drugs makes keeping that honor intact an impossibility.
The permitting of this and what it says about our society and culture as a whole, I feel is quite scary and, in fact, dangerous. For those who don't care about this issue, and many shrug it off, we see it fits a constant and current trend in pop culture, and that is the excusing of behavior for means of entertainment. This obviously goes beyond the sports world and one can indulge in any kind of activity they want, as long as they have the ability to entertain. Cash helps too. Not only is enforcement lax concerning such actions, but if one becomes privy to some consequence, this consequence is not as strict as would be directed at the majority of common the common man. This gives many celebrities, and sports figures a free pass to engage in things that the common man could not possibly get away with. While we conclude our politicians should be free of any mistake whatsoever, in entertainment and sports they are encouraged, for to the American, there is nothing more entertaining then a train wreck.
Steroids being present in sports, produces another question concerning the Hall of Fame and those that break records. Should the records stand equal and comparable to those included into the cathedrals of sports greats? I say no, for I feel it is disrespectful to have these inclusions, that they may be compared against, or along with those who have held sport to a higher standard and played the game naturally. Just as in my terribly poor McDonalds analogy, this comparison represents an unfair advantage, even among these monuments of likeness which extend at times beyond the life of the individual,, for there is an evident belittling of the greats by the inclusion of the fakes. If indeed one wants to build an edifice for those who are on steroids, may it be separated from the rest, that they may not be considered one in the same, for they are most certainly not. At least include a relief of a syringe on those who have altered their performance from these drugs.
Yet, there are bound to be mistakes for due to lack of enforcement, it can be difficult to identify those on these drugs. In fact, the chemists who produce these drugs are always trying to remain one step ahead of detection. Then how do we spot a juicer? Well, in football, its easy. When another player swats another on the rear end in the, "good game," or, "adda boy," fashion, and the recipient cringes, well they have more then likely recently had a large needle in their butt. With added enforcement of the principles behind sportsmanship, and a stricter no tolerance attitude, or at least some form of punishment which actually punishes the guilty, I believe sports can be saved, however it would be a long road, for the deterioration of sportsmanship is not just due to the use of steroids, but rather other behaviors that threaten the purity of these great games.

Some of these behaviors and lack of sportsmanship may in some cases be linked to the use of steroids, though this is according to some, not others, so since I am not a scientist, I can't claim it to be conclusive by any means. This element is kind of based on who you ask. However, there have been many studies done, in the lab, and outside the lab, which suggest there may be a relationship between steroid abuse and aggression. This was indeed tested outon monkeys and found to be the case in that example, but I believe monkeys have anger issues to begin with, especially when it comes to throwing feces.
To be fair, sports have always contained an inherent emotional nature, and "trash talk," on the playing field or court are common place. While one school holds this connection to aggression and steroid use to be true, another disputes the idea. All I know is if athletes start throwing feces, the results can be considered conclusive concerning the relationship between steroids and aggression.
The term, "steroids" is a colloquialism for "anabolic-androgenic steroids", or "AAS." What is undisputed about the use of these drugs is the physical effects that one may encounter after frequent use. Yet, as said before, the psychological effects are under current study and debate. The structure of the heart, liver problems and high blood pressure have all been associated with the use of AAS, and it goes without saying that these being in good condition are necessary conditions to be a successful athlete, especially if one considers the long term.. Though this is dangerous enough, we find if one gives credibility to the psychological aspects of steroid abuse, then the true danger and dark side of AAS becomes clearer and should negate any discussion into its allowance into sports whatsoever, for it in a sense the debate becomes ridiculous, for it becomes outweighed by the danger.

Some of the psychological charges against AAS make the claim that it may make the user, "hypomanic." In 2005, CNS Drugs quoted:

"Significant psychiatric symptoms including aggression and violence, mania, and less frequently psychosis and suicide have been associated with steroid abuse."

I know it may appear that given recent events regarding the Kansas City Chiefs' Devon Belcher, that I may be hinting, either implicitly or explicitly, at this particular tragedy, yet this is not the case at all. To editorialize and make connections that I have no proof of concerning the murder-suicide in regard to steroid abuse, would be very disrespectful to those involved, and even broader, to those who have been emotionally effected by the tragic events. So why write about this topic now? Simply because I started writing this particular entry before the Belcher tragedy. I am no way suggesting that Belcher used steroids or that the events and the substance have any relation to each other. Thus, again, these two topics are divorced from each other, but when we look at the list of possible psychological effects from steroids, we may come to find that such events are possible and induced by the substance if one is to adhere to the "inconclusive" conclusion of the aggression, violence, mania, psychosis and suicide cited by CNS Drugs, which may be (or may not be) onset by AAS.

If this is indeed the case then we can expect those personal fouls, or unnecessary roughness calls to increase in correlation to any increase in the abuse of AAS. These symptoms, of course will not be contained in the arena or stadium, but also outside the field of play. I rather recently had the opportunity to interview a therapist I met about his impressions concerning a possible connection between steroid abuse and violence. Specific details were of course omitted due to the patient-client confidentiality, but he did indicate he counseled several non-pro sports individuals whom used steroids and noted that there were examples of anger, abuse and aggression within the home that suggest, to him anyway, that a connection is apparent.
Another danger about the use of steroids in athletes, concerns not the athletes themselves, but those who look up to them, respect them, and consider them as role models. This is a huge responsibility that the athlete must be aware of, whether they like it or not.

The very fact that there are even fans indicates this role model element to be a necessary consequence of their participation and success in sports, despite the fact that some may want to deny it. A dangerous fact concerning the addition of steroids in a particular individual, or the disclosure of those who use of such substances, reflects not only on them, but also those who idolize them.
Now the truth is the responsibility of a young sportsman doing steroids doesn't necessarily rest fully upon the pro-athlete. Indeed, the responsibility rests with the budding athlete. Yet, it could be said that pro-athletes influence young minds that the use of steroids equates to greater success. Some statistics suggest, that up to three percent of all high school student athletes use steroids, and to a young athlete it is much more dangerous a prospect, than say that of an older pro-athlete. Why this is, is simply because their bodies are in a greater degree of development than that of an older athlete. In fact, AAS has the ability to change the structure of the heart, specifically the ventricles, which may cut short the athletic future of a young athlete or even his life.
It is for these reasons I feel a stricter approach by those in sport management, law enforcement and society as a whole needs to be adopted in order to curb the abundant use of performance enhancing drugs. Lives are at risk, not only in the sense of death, but also the quality of life. Again, one's ability to entertain should not reflect on the degree of punishment they receive for any trespass against law or regulations set by any authoritative organization. This, personally, hints to me a loss of character within our country and indeed the world, which can only be repaired when we understand and realize the dangers or consequences that can arise from our complacency for what is wrong, merely for the sake of entertainment.

On TV Personalities Who Eat Each Others Moist Butt Flesh, Cut and Sloughed Off From The Bone

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:01:00 +0000

A disturbing Story from Yahoo out of The Netherlands. Two television personalities, as mentioned in the article below, volunteered to eat chunks of each others flesh. This footage is scheduled to be aired tomorrow. As sick as this is, it may have an audience among both foreign soccer teams and woodland bears. I am trying to not have it affect me personally, but the thing is, whenever a woman asks me to go "Dutch" again at a meal, I am going to be extremely creeped out. On a positive note though, it appears the experience wasn't two bad for those involved, so they should consider themselves lucky they weren't game show hosts, for if that was the case the flavor may have been just a little too gamey. Finally, everyone should consider themselves blessed that this horrid story wasn't made more horrible by the two involved by opting to eat other chunks of their personal nether lands.

From Yahoo News:

TV presenters eat each other's flesh

A Dutch television stunt is generating headlines around the world - for all the wrong reasons.

The two presenters of TV show Proefkonijnen (which means guinea pigs or test rabbits) brought reality television to a whole new level when they ate each other's freshly cooked flesh.

Dennis Storm and Valerio Zeno were earlier filmed while they were under local anaesthetic as a surgeon cut a piece of their muscle at a clinic.

Storm watched as flesh was cut from Zeno's abdomen, and Zeno returned the favour when muscle was cut from Storm's bottom.

A chef was brought in to fry their flesh on their TV show, in front of a studio audience.

Zeno and Storm then sat for a candlelit dinner - complete with wine - to dine on each other's muscle.

Storm told ABCNews in the United States that the muscle was cooked to medium-rare in sunflower oil without seasoning.

"Nothing is really that special when you're talking about the taste of the meat, but it is weird to look into the eyes of a friend when you are chewing on his belly," Storm told ABCNews.

"The punchline of the show is to get really simple answers on stupid questions, such as can you shave with ketchup or can you drive blind?

"And we wanted to find out how human flesh tasted."

Storm said the stunt was worth the pain in his behind.

"It was just a few centimetres of meat," he said.
"And now I have a good story about that scar."

Storm and Zeno said the stunt was legal because both entered into the cannibalistic pact voluntarily, Britain's Daily Mail reported.

"A lawyer advised the program's producers that while cannibalism is not itself against the law, the presenters or the surgeon who operated on them could run in to legal difficulties," The Mail said.

"The presenters also claim that there is no risk of ill health, as long as the human meat is properly cooked."

International news headlines ranged from "Cannibalism on Dutch TV generates world-wide repulsion" to "In the worst possible taste: Sick TV stunt features presenters eating EACH OTHER".

The pre-recorded episode will air on December 21.

On Technological and Online Intrusions Into Personal Privacy

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:44:00 +0000

Maybe I am too much of a romanticist, but I miss the old days, absent of all the technology which obtrusively permeates today's current social landscape. It's not those technologies which contain inherently a purpose which makes our lives better and healthier on a day to day basis I raise issue with, but those which, much like this blog, are completely arbitrary. I remember the day when starved for attention, I could do misdirected stupid stuff, act like a complete moron, and not have to fear someone taking a picture or video of my mischievous, although harmless, frolicsomeness. At the risk of sounding too much like Thoreau, I prefer those bygone days, where technology was there for those who sought it out, but remained somewhat distant, at least relatively, in our private lives. Now I can't even run through the mall shirtless, in cut off denim shorts, while mimicking the Macarena without being placed on YouTube.

How can we defeat this intrusion and how did it get so bad in the first place? I believe the culprit is not so much the photographic devices themselves and their ability to capture images, but rather how small and somewhat inexpensive they have become, not to mention their inclusion in cell phones. To fix, what I consider a large part of the problem, we need to take these camera's out of cell phones, first and foremost, then force companies which manufacture camera's and camcorders to emphatically increase their size, to no less then three feet wide, four feet long, and over 60 pounds. This way, you would at least need a tripod to operate it, and you wouldn't be able to carry it around all the time in your fanny pack or man purse to pull out whenever you see anything even remotely amusing. At the very least, give cell phones somewhere in the neighborhood of over 300 buttons, most of which won't do anything, or randomly change their functionality during the operation of the device. However, keep the most basic functions intact and easy to accomplish, so that functions like making a phone call will be the most frequently used out of all the features.

There are numerous cell apps,like FourSquare, that will let you, "check in," at your present location. These are becoming increasingly popular and to stop this trend they should simply change the names of the apps to inform the user, appropriately, that they indeed are a loser. Perhaps something like, "No one gives a crap where you are at app," would be most affective, or at least, "Hey, if I liked you at all, I would be there with you already now wouldn't I?" Actually, come to think of it, it seems more-so that they would have to like you personally, to even entice them to invite you to their current location. Great, now every time I see one of those check-ins on Facebook I am going to get really depressed. Terrific. Sometimes I really hate writing blogs. I never thought of that. I despise those check-ins where everyone was apparently invited except you, then they rub it in your face like a jackass. Dammit.

Facebook, though has been cited by many for trespassing against individual privacy, though to be honest, Facebook, I feel, isn't the main perpetrator of this, given the choice of our decision to join the social networking site and the numerous privacy options Facebook gives its members. The real online threat to privacy, is the online search engine powerhouse which is Google. I wish I could say, that due to this I have jumped on the Bing bandwagon, but I haven't. I do use Google as my default search engine, so if I had any logical continuity concerning my convictions then I would cease to be the hypocritical person I am being today. Yet, because I occasionally indulge in my hypocrisy, I feel strangely comfortable attacking Google.

For a long time now Google has been creeping society out by their peeping-tom like indulgences, and, although sometimes it does take the hassle out of being a peeping tom, by alleviating those chance encounters like being chased by a dog, accidentally hiding behind some poison ivy, or falling out of a tree, what you can see or discover is somewhat limited. A real shame. Yet, overall, I find the service, which you aren't even civilly ffered to opt into, to be crossing a boundary into being completely inappropriate. In fact, I have taken up quilting, and by me taking up quilting I mean forcing my family members into quilting, so that I can cover up my house and car-part laden lawn from aggressive satellites.

They followed up this endeavor, obviously not satisfied with their satellite view featured on Google Earth, due to its lack of possible partial nudity, by something called "Street View." When I first heard about this, I was nervous about the venture, because I was frightened they might catch me with their camera equipped vehicles washing my van while, of course, dressed in my form fitting one piece swimsuit. I don't mind my neighbors viewing, in fact I encourage it, despite their colorful verbal objections, but me being all over the internet is quite another matter.

Now Google has announced the "Find Your Face" feature for Google+. With this technology, you can scan your face and Google will inform you whenever someone has posted a picture of you. Great, exactly what I want to be informed of, whenever someone places my ugly mug on the internet. I don't like being photographed and I would rather live in ignorance of the profound degree of my ugliness. Now if this technology was used in the confines of social media, then maybe it wouldn't be so bad, it would just be like Facebook's "tag" function, but automatic. Yet, of course, this feature will help in supplying evermore intrusions into our daily life.

The movie, "Minority Report," contains similar technology which is currently being developed. In the movie, John Anderton, played by Tom Cruise, is bombarded with ads that recognize his face and appropriately, or inappropriately, display advertisements specifically suited for him. This very thing is being developed today, and currently, the technology will be able to determine race, weight, color of hair, and other physical characteristics and display ads which jive with the computers conception of you. I anticipate seeing a lot of Krispy Kreme, dog food, and Kaopectate ads in the not too distant future.

When many people hear of such emerging technologies, there is a school of thought, in which the reply is simply why worry about it if you don't something to hide? To me the biggest issue is that our inclusion and participation in such technologies is just assumed by large corporations and this is increasingly putting us in an environment where we are constantly being recorded on private systems 24 hours a day. Thus, our individualism is being belittled by those in possession of this technology, often times simply for the purpose of acquiring more capital from us by accosting us with unnecessary intrusions into our lives. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with capitalism or the concept of advertisements, but with how frequent they are getting, I can't help but feel annoyed by it. In fact, sometimes, if the ads are repeated or annoying enough, I won't buy the product just out of spite.

Remember the days when you could go see a movie, or watch something on YouTube without ads being thrown in your face? Ads in movie theatres to me is ridiculous, that's one of the reasons I pay for a movie if I choose to go, to not be advertised to in the form of commercials. Yet, now a long list of commercials plays before the movie. It won't be long before our DVD's are filled with ads, which we will be unable to interrupt by skipping through to the movie menu in order to enjoy our purchased film. The scariest part is that I think the governments application of like technologies is already pronounced in our lives and if we were aware to what extent, no citizen would stand for it. Thus, I have to say it is the ol' "slippery slope" I am most against. Even given that these technologies present no danger, the fact is, the someday could.

It is easy to allow such freedoms to the government and corporate giants when we don't see any effect, but this doesn't mean big brother won't become a hindrance to freedoms in the future. How much this technology is progressing is evident in a rocket that was just launched yesterday by Japan. The rocket has the ability to zoom in and present details on any place on earth within a three foot square parcel of land, or anywhere on earth for that matter. I try to not be a paranoid person, but its not hard to imagine how much vast information is being gathered by those who can afford such technology. Can we really trust such people to only use it properly 100% of the time? I also wonder if they are honest with us on the full extent concerning the information gathering properties of any like devices.
I heard from an old boss, who happened to know, supposedly, that in the Vietnam Era the US had a satellite that was advanced enough that it could read the license plate off a car. Now, this is complete hearsay, but if it is true, who knows how much people can be spied on, tracked, and viewed without any warrant or congressional order currently. In addition, can we assume its only visual information that is being collected. I think such "slopes" need to be examined and spoke out against by the general public, not because of how it may be used currently in a peaceful fashion, if one is to assume this as fact, but because all it would take is some corrupt officials to break the rules of decency to trample on our right of privacy.

On The Evermore Present Frustration in Watching The Foosball

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 16:50:00 +0000

One thing I never thought I would write a whole blog entry on, other than my chronic flatulence, is sports. Its not that I don't like sports or fail to watch them regularly, its more so I never had any reason to write on it, and I often don't know what I am talking about most the time concerning sporting issues. Thereby, a blog entry on sports was extremely improbable. I don't know how people are so knowledgeable in it, but I find myself quite impressed when people rattle off stats, who was traded where, and what sports star just got charged with possession of a firearm, DUI, or for exposing himself in public. Indeed, every time I sit in on a conversation, or more likely, since I spend a lot of time alone, eavesdrop in on a conversation, I feel like I might as well be sitting in on Mike Greenburg and Mike Golic. I am pretty clueless when it comes to such issues, and if I was invited in on a serious sports conversation, I would be the Dexter to the conversation as a whole and just murder it completely, by stupid, obvious comments which have no consequence to any particular subject or individual engaging in the discourse.

This is why the blogging medium is so great, because people can't tell me to shut up, or pull my underwear halfway up my back (I have custom made them to rip once they reach a certain height) when I blather on about nonsensical issues. I only regret that a blog needs a coherent subject, otherwise I would just keeping going about things like socks, air conditioning, stamp collecting, forest rangers and green sequin skirts. Not necessarily in that order. (Those topics might not be funny, but I challenged myself to write down the first subjects that come to mind. The last one kind of scares me.)

Because I don't know how to make a segue from green sequin skirts, to football officiating other than thinking that green sequin skirts on refs would be pretty stylish, I will just begin now, my thoughts on refereeing in the sport of football today.

It should be obvious to the casual observer that, me being reared in Seattle, may have a sort of pseudo-bitterness towards referees in sports, particularly football, due to Seattle's ill-fated visit to the Super Bowl a number of years ago against the Steelers. You couldn't be more wrong. I have a full-fledged bitterness towards referees in sports due to that. I recall a year after the disaster, I took a trip down to Mexico while in a equally ill-fated relationship with my accompanying counterpart. Anyways, we went inside a Jewelry store and after some conversation with the clerk, he asked us where we hailed from. I informed him of my Seattle grunge roots, to which he replied, "Wow, did you guys get screwed in the Super Bowl." I remind myself that he was trying to sell us merchandise, but the fact he even knew about the whole fiasco and arguments concerning the game, was pretty impressive to me. I didn't buy anything, but due to his declaration, I decided to skip his store later that night while on my crime spree.

Now, I am obviously not Nostradamus and, in fact, any quatrain I try to write turns somehow into a dirty limerick, so this obviously gives valuable insight into my psychic abilities. At any rate, I don't know, if the officiating was perfect, who would've won that game, the Steelers might have very well one, who knows? What I do know is that the final score was altered in some way by the terrible officiating. Perhaps its because of this I find myself sensitive and abusive when confronted with a bad call on my television or indeed on someone else's. Its almost to the degree it gets so frustrating to me that I want to turn off the game no matter what team its against, though obviously it is less upsetting if its against the opposition of the team I wish to be victorious. However, it doesn't stop me from making a mental note of it, and when it comes down to it, I would prefer a game without such terrible calls, despite who may benefit from them.

That's somewhat the problem. The consequences of such calls from the officials have the inherent power to impact a game, change the momentum and the overall tide whether it be ebbing or flowing. With such a huge responsibility, you would think those who officiate the games would be more scrutinized by those organizations over them, but this seems hardly to be the case. To have better officiating one would need to understand the consequences that arise from a bad call and make it equitable to the official. Years ago this would have been a tall order, but now because of the increase in technology integrated in every sport, I don't believe this to be a impossible undertaking and it is sorely needed.

At this point many officials can represent their mood, favoritism and death threats by the mob they have received in their calls, which at times seems to triumph over their professionalism. Indeed, quite recently I have seen more than a couple games where bad calls occurred, but the aftermath went beyond people just the crowd booing the official testifying to my point. Their was an official review in one case, in another case one of the coaches challenged and in all angles and replays, the final conclusion that everyone was waiting for seemed apparent. This was confirmed by the crowd and by the announcers, only to have the opposite chosen by the officials, which caused a uproar of sorts, enough to be talked about in a negative light by the narrators of the game, and sports casters after the game and score were finalized.

Do mistakes happen? Yes, of course they do, to say they don't would be a completely moronic position to take. Just look at my blog(s). I think every human has the right to err to some degree, and referees aren't excluded from that. Yet, there are errors and there are grievous errors, and I think it is the latter which upsets the general fan the most and should be subject to review and perhaps disciplinary action. However, in my view, a bad call doesn't have to concern a game changing call to require disciplinary action, but also those little nitpicking calls, like holding or illegal contact, which though such calls have their place, a lot of time seem silly. In fact, depending on the game, some of them get so overwhelming that you wish the damn refs would just let them play the game.

Lets not kid ourselves. Football is a rough sport, I think most people of sound mind will agree. To look over and examine conduct among players in the normal course of the game with a fine toothed comb, to me, is ridiculous. I believe, because of its physical and somewhat violent nature, you could find an infraction with and in every play if you wanted to. Therefore, this grants ample opportunity for favoritism to be represent. I most often see this "nitpicking" concerning holding and illegal contact calls. Again, it doesn't make such calls ridiculous, but there needs to be some sort of standard of force, duration, or hindrance displayed within such infraction in order for it to get called. Its football, not ballet.

Its getting to the point where you don't know if you can cheer for a touchdown anymore before its reviewed. It used to be, in simplistic terms, once that ball crossed over into the end zone, more or less, a touch down. Now, they need to maintain control throughout the play, which sounds great and pretty straightforward. However, after watching some games and this rule cited when pulling points away from teams, I don't find it as straightforward as much as I find it dependent on personal interpretation. All calls somewhat are based on that, but although well meaning, this rule has turned out to be ridiculous to many fans, myself included. Again, not the rule itself, but its application when an official review or challenge is sought.

Unfortunately, what I feel they don't call enough is personal fouls. Every game there is some moron who takes a swing at another player, despite the fact he is wearing a helmet. What damage can they possible do, I mean other than break their hand? In football don't you kind of need your hands, so what good can possibly come from that? Such incidents are broken up, but often not called. To me it not only seems so pointless because of all the protective gear, but also because a large portion of the game concerns hitting each other. It makes as much sense in football as it would in boxing. They should get called, not for damage they may cause or inflict, but simply for being an idiot.

Obviously there are referees that make great calls and thus I hope nobody concludes that officiating is worthless in my view. Certainly a number of calls are necessary and correct, but it always seem like the ones that have the most impact are the ones where the referee should see some kind of consequence for it. Perhaps they should go to some form of merit pay.

On No More Omar, 49 Rounds For 56 Escaped Animals, and The Occupy Wall Street Movement

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:55:00 +0000

Greeting and Salutations Once Again,

So, I am sitting in bed a while ago picking at my face, when I see breaking news come on the television. Now, the breaking news most often featured on our local TV stations here in Seattle, usually consist of puppies or kittens that get stuck in a drain pipe somewhere. Yet, this time it was somewhat different. Instead, it was the cruel Libyan dictator Kaddafi hiding in a drain pipe. I sat up when the flashy “breaking news” graphic flashed across the dusty screen of my RCA 18” tube television (it’s not that bad – it’s the lightest in the series, only weighing a measly 85 pounds). The anchorman announced over my headphones (the only thing that functions as speakers for my TV due to a mishap with Sunny Delight and vomit) that Omar Kaddafi was indeed dead. They immediately followed this report with a video of an extremely graphic nature, which despite my love of horror films and amateur wrestling, made me want to throw up. I was going to put the Omar death video I saw on here, but I decided that due to its graphic nature, I would instead post this video of bunnies.

Immediately after, it suddenly occurred to me that one really needs to be impressed with the abilities of Arabs to search random scattered holes in the ground and other subterranean edifices for the evil dictators who are fleeing their eventual judgment or demise. Indeed, if Elmer Fudd had an Arab ancestry, I am convinced he would have no problem tracking down that infamous wascially wabbit in his wabbit hole before the hare could surface and carry on with his mischievous shenanigans or hijinx.

I would like to offer my advice to all evil dictators in the future. Perhaps find a hiding place above ground. Maybe in a box car or something. They would blend in just fine with all the city hopping hobos, who all speak gibberish anyway, though admittedly the ex-dictator would have to settle for a somewhat lower quality harem.

Anyway, after this fascinating and somewhat, admittedly joyous news story, came one of the Ohio escaped animal fiasco. The anchorman was quick to warn the viewers that some of the following story would contain "disturbing images." Then, the narrator began to report the story with a long distance camera shot with a field containing several animals dead. Now they never showed blood on this particular report, only a collection of animals which could have been sleeping for all I would have known if it hadn't been for the narration. This was interesting to me because they had just showed Kaddafi getting his head blown off with no such warning, but were quick to label the animal involved story as "disturbing."

Although, the stories themselves were quite interesting, and truly tragic when it comes to the animals, but for some reason, perhaps because of my lack of social life and friends, I found this to be intriguing detail concerning the juxtaposition between the two subjects and their portrayal in the local news. Why is it that you can show a real person getting a bullet to his head, or the aftermath of it, and nobody is disturbed by human blood and brain matter, but showing a dead animal is assumed to have the ability throw people into conniptions without a cited warning before the footage is aired? I find there to be several reasons for this, including the desensitizing of society through movies or TV, and media ethics, which culminates to the eventually effect that human life seems to be increasingly devalued over that of animals. I think there are several more reasons, but number one, I believe I have narrowed it down to it somehow being the Disney corporations fault.

Truth be told, I am an animal lover (not in the gross sense). I like animals and despite my jokes or comments on here, I have never hurt an animal. While kids were frying ants and caterpillars on the sidewalk, I could never partake for some reason because I just felt bad for the insect, dying and tortured at my hands just for the sake of some form of twisted entertainment. So I would distance myself from such activity and go play with my sisters dolls instead. That in itself has led to many years of social awkwardness. I like household pets as long as they aren't mine and they don't relieve themselves on my carpet, any personal belongings, or my person. Yet, I am not a extreme animal lover either. That is, I don't mind hunting and fishing, as long as the carcass isn't just left there to rot and though there are examples of zoos or enclosures that seem somewhat like torture because of their limited size, I don't think a zoo, or enclosed habitat, is in and of itself terrible or by those facts alone we can presume that the animal is mistreated or tortured. Yet, again, a habitat does need to be of considerable size relative to the animal displayed within it. Further, I am not a vegan and frequently partake in the eating or wearing of the flesh of an animal, though my friends tell me I should really take the extra time to cure the flesh first before I wear it. Even what I don't use, like hide, legs, head and such, I find uses for. Like tossing it over an overpass for a cheap laugh and a brisk run immediately afterwards. I clarify my feelings towards animals just so nobody jumps to the wrong conclusion in these examples and concludes somehow that mistreatment of animals is somehow permissible in my view. I assure you it is not. Even with the overpass thing it wasn't mistreated while it was alive mind you.

In the case of Libya, and indeed within many countries in the region, humans are very much treated like animals, or worse. Their rights are stripped away to such a degree that even the basic human right, the one to survive, is stripped of them. Protests and riots have erupted from Africa to the Middle East proper as is evident every night in news broadcasts, and in these protests, the participants are not threatened with pepper spray or having a tent confiscated, but rather death at the hands of the dictatorial government. Though we have seen a number of corrupt autocratic government systems collapse within the last few years because of such uprisings, before it is all said and done, many of the protesters are tragically killed for declaring their dislike for government or policies. If one looks across the world at how many citizens or members of the press have been killed for stating or writing something against those in power, its truly astounding.

It is almost silly to juxtapose such horrible events with the protests of the current Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, where, in essence, all they have to worry about it getting booted out of a public park, maybe feel a little dope sick when their drugs are confiscated, and sent back home to occupy, once more, their parents basement. That may seem unfair, and though I will concede every individual still engaged in the movement may not hold to that globalization, I think it is the direction, what may be called, the dregs of the moment are going.

Coming from Seattle I see the occasional protest, most notably the 1999 WTO protests and riots that caused havoc downtown. In that case, and indeed the case of the OWS protests, everything, for the most part, starts out alright. A notice is put out to invite people of like minds, to use their constitutional right to free speech and they quickly organize in a specific location in order to best profess whatever their mission statement may be. Though I may disagree with a particular groups ideology, the right to organize without the fear of death or violence is one protection this country gives us, and I particularly like the idea of ordinary citizens getting involved in the political process, no matter if it is OWS or the Tea Party. Yet, Tea Party excluded, there seems to be a pattern in these modern examples of protest. When the initial participates organize to protest, everything is somewhat and relatively calm. Those individuals within the group wave signs, maybe yell a little bit, but for the most part, everyone eventually goes separate ways after the rally dies down, though admittedly there might be a couple days of "camping out." After the movement gains momentum, and gets media attention, more people are attracted to the protest and rallies, some with pure motives, while still others are probably on so many drugs they think they are protesting for Denny's to cut their prices on their "Moon's Over My Hammy" meal.

Obviously, this isn't a absolute conclusion, but I do know that as of a few weeks ago, at least three people had to go to the hospital from Portland's OWS protest due to heroin overdoses. In addition, local Seattle protests have been shuffled around more than Air Force One when Obama has something important to do in Washington. These reasons are frequently reported to be health concerns due to needles being found in the area immediately surrounding the encampments. It has got to the point that though, at first, someone would know why are they are really there and give a coherent message to a reporter, that such questions from reporters are responded to now with incoherent and contradictory statements. In general, I would say when such protests move from daily rallies to camping indefinitely, the message gets lost and the movement becomes occupied by fist bumping, tattered clothing wearing college aged kids who raise their fists against the establishment, capitalism, and at the same time have no issues with demanding your spare change.

Recently while watching the news coverage of the Black Friday shopping madhouse, they briefly focused on some OWS protesters, protesting Black Friday. The man, who to his credit was standing their quietly with a sign, did say he and his colleagues were protesting consumerism. Now, if I wasn't so busy trying to teach my dog how to tap dance, I would have laughed outright at the screen. The man apparently had no concept of where his clothes came from, his Fox racing beanie, or how he got those markers to make the sign and which he sniffs on a nightly basis (Marker huffers are an untapped market. How you think you got those there genius?(When writing this it occurred to me that marker huffers are an uncapped market. Thus, I am currently in negotiations to make my own line of pen, "Snuffies.")

Capitalism isn't a perfect system, but its the best. No perfect system will exist as long as imperfect people exist. Its one of the harsh realities of our world, but we do have the ability to speak out and change the tide of "progress," but what makes it affective, is not only how much sense it makes in its message, but the methodology behind the protest. When we look at such affective protests of the past, in our country alone, it usually doesn't take people throwing things through mini-mart windows or random acts of violence. The most effective have been those that have been civil. For instance, most recently, when Bank of America announced their five-dollar debit card fee, people organized and encouraged people to move their money elsewhere. This was so effective that Bank of America eventually dropped the charge. Though the OWS movement at the beginning was charged with not having a coherent message, I think what was displayed with OWS and The Tea Party is quite clear, the frustration the public is having with their current political leaders and corporations. When it comes to corporations, I have no problem with the mere existence of corporations, but rather those economic powerhouses who make profit by price gouging the public. I understand due to inflation sometimes prices need to go up, but I perceive that the general public is increasingly under the impression that they are being taken for a ride by many corporate entities and politicians. This, above anything else, is an important message which should be heeded by those who provide services and those in power. However, if people like those who now have hijacked the OWS movement, continue to speak for such groups and propose to be under their banner, then the message or possible influence the rally might have had might as well be tossed out the window, for as the respect decreases, so does the power of a particular group to produce change.

You really need to feel bad for the police who are given the responsibility to keep such groups under control. I am sure on occasion a cop oversteps the bounds of his authority, but for the most part I feel cops are well trained to handle such situations and their actions display as such. Yes, being pepper sprayed isn't exactly pleasant, but when it comes down to it, its probably one of the most "humane" ways to control an unruly crowd, especially when considering all the other methods. I always hear people complaining about the police and their conduct to some reporter on the news, but the next moment footage shows some moron swinging a big metal bat or pole at police. What's to be done? Police hardly ever pepper spray without warning unless attacked or threatened, and ample warning, sometimes in fact for days prior, is given to the protesters to disperse.

If a cop rushed one of the protesters and beat him with a nightstick people would call foul, but still when a 84 year old woman is pepper sprayed by getting caught in the crossfire, people still call foul. I feel bad for the old woman, but pepper spray isn't as accurate as say a night stick, but that would be unacceptable. What was she doing there in the first place? Perhaps her family should look after her a little closer. To her credit though, she was rather humorous and good natured when asked about the whole ordeal. If cops threaten to arrest or spray then you should probably heed the warning and not consider it a joke. Most cities have been more then accommodating to the movement, but cops have a duty to make sure that nobody else's rights are infringed upon by their presence. The most tragic thing about all this was when I saw the elderly pepper sprayed woman doing a interview on TV and realized that it was Keith Olbermann interviewing her. Yes, Keith Olbermann is back! That is the most horrendous thing about this whole story and soon I expect protests to arise just from this fact alone. Horrible. Horrible.

In closing, finally, I would say in America the word to live by when protesting and speaking ones mind should be, "civil," or depending on the extent of which one is fighting for their rights and what that right is, possibly even, "civil disobedience." Of course, the extent of these can change relative to the cause, but I feel its a more than an essential rule of thumb especially if one considers what they want the eventual outcome to be, successful or unsuccessful. Basically, the ends must justify the means. The man who got this process exactly right was the brilliant Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which he outlined in his famous, "Letter From Birmingham Jail." His boycotts and protests changed the world profoundly and the methodology which made it so successful has been long since forgotten by those who stage protests and those who participate in them.

On Great Steps Forward in Urinal Gaming and Technology

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:10:00 +0000

Get ready to play with yourself or with friends in a bathroom near you.

Its about time someone got with the program and developed Urinal video games. Although, its not quite that streamlined or popular yet, considering that its only in a bar in South London at this time, but the possibilities are, nevertheless, endless. After all, the deeds at the urinal and the processes that make yellow snow possible are the original first person shooters, so its only natural that someone would decide to bring that process into the gaming and machine age.

Is it really so surprising? Society has been conditioning us for this possibility for a long time now. Perhaps you recall going to your local carnival, grabbing a water gun, and aiming it towards a miniscule hole in a board which, after firing a stream of water into it, made a cardboard horse move above all the individual participants stations, the obvious goal to be the first to cross the finish line by the mere dexterity of your aim. Then, if you did indeed win, you would be rewarded with a mutated looking stuffed animal, which hardly ever resembled anything existing in the animal kingdom, smelling of foul cheese and hepatitis, incomplete with a googly eye missing, matted "fur," obvious charring from cigarette burns, and stitching draping from the dreadful thing in long ribbons.

It may take a few years to get to America, but I think its great. If it does go global then maybe I don't have to stare at nasty elongated boogers formed into abstract shapes on the wall in front of the urinal anymore. Furthermore, it may keep those creepy people's eyes from casting errant sideways glances at you and your stream. Also, maybe I can actually use a urinal without getting all shy and flustered, having to instead opt for the stall, where I have to sit down and pee like a prissy little girl. Yep. Besides the fact I can't kiss the controller for good luck, I don't see anything negative about this at all.

However there are very many questions that still need to be answered concerning this technology, like, what about Multiplayer? I mean is there room for Co-Op or will it be just Drenchmatch? Will there be cheats available, such as the up-down-up-down-select-start?

For those of you who are curious about what kind of games we can expect, a few days ago I took advantage of a discrete leak and was able to find this list of upcoming urinal game titles developed by Urinthegame Studios for the PeeEZPee Urinal Console.

These include:

Grand Theft Yellow
Silent Spill
Lebron James' "Dribble"
Whizzers and Warriors
Splash Bandicoot
Mist
Shaun White's Snowgoing Road Drip (To be released on the upcoming Nintendo Wee)
Centipeed
Portal-Potty
Septic
Ghostbusters: Don't Cross The Streams
Urinal: Asparaguses Fragrance
Modern Pourfare
Bladder Master
Where in The World is Carmen Going-to-go?

Although I wish this product success, I just hope they don't carry it to the next level and never, ever, develop toilet games like:

A Boy and His Glob
Call of Dookie
Poo Pong
Kingdom Sharts
Freeway Rest Stop Story (For cell gamers)
World of Bowelcraft
Tiger Woods' Loaf
Wolfensteaming
Harry Squatter
Fallout #2: New Pants

Though, admittedly, I guess some toilet word processing would be pretty cool, like:

Microsoft's "Turd," or, of course, "Turdperfect."

On My Near Death: The Second Account

noreply@blogger.com (Brandon Myhre) — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:29:00 +0000

People always say that bad things occur in sets of three. I absolutely don’t believe this to be the case, for bad things can happen in singles, doubles, triples, and even more. In fact, I would bet that most people have been through times in their life where they encounter hardship after hardship to the degree that they feel almost jinxed and conspired against by the three fates. We have all experienced those periods while we journey through life when, just when you think all things are going well, you are blindsided by tragedy or adversity.

The hardship I have lived through continues to this very day, though admittedly much less. The onslaught of sickness which racked my body and made it necessary for doctors to put me into a coma, was more or less defeated, but I soon after was the subject of another medical emergency that set me back significantly. This secondary medical condition, oddly, turned out to produce more concern in the long term than did my initial sickness, from which I was on my way to recovering from.

To those of you who have had the privileged joy of reading my previous entry, you may recall I had just gotten out of ICCU and was moved a couple floors up to recover. Again, by coincidence, some of my friends showed up and kept me company for a while in my brand new spacious room. Finally, I was one step closer to getting home, or so I figured. Yet, from the time I came out of the coma, to this particular point, many would tell you I didn’t look exactly normal. That is to be expected when just coming out of a coma of course, but my eyes looked rather odd, for they were as big as saucers and were nearly bugging out of my skull(which people also tell me on occasion is very thick by the way). Though this was brought up to the doctors, they figured it was just me coming off the massive amount of drugs I had been on in the ICCU ward.

My friends eventually left, and despite me being in a coma for over two weeks, I was still really exhausted for some reason. I had no problem lying in the bed and slipping off into slumber. Yet, it was interrupted after just about fifteen minutes by one of the nurses, who informed me somebody got their wires crossed and this wasn’t my room after all, but was reserved for someone else. They promptly rolled me down the hall in a wheelchair to another room, which I had to share with an older gentlemen who was fast asleep and I found myself immediately jealous. After I was helped into bed on the other side of a sea blue curtain, it didn’t take me long until I too fell into a deep sleep.

When I awoke I heard the chatter of the man's family surrounding him. I had the odd unreasonable recollection of how peaceful the ICCU was, which of course was nonsense. Yet, I felt extremely shy and for some reason vulnerable in that place, in a room filled with people I didn’t know. I was pretty uncomfortable there, even more so concerning the man’s private condition, which I won’t disclose. However, it wasn’t long until I was itching, not in the literal sense, to get out of that particular room. The nurses informed me that they were trying to find a private room for me, for which I was grateful. Even my family and friends didn’t stay too long in that room, because either they felt uncomfortable as well, or it was due to the lack of space.

Either way, I was extremely pleased the next day when they found me another room. A private one as well. However, this round of “musical rooms” wasn’t over just yet. Once they found me a room, they informed me of my continuing need for dialysis. After getting settled, they discovered that the room couldn't handle a dialysis machine because, from what I gathered, the room couldn't supply the power it takes to run the machine. They did have another room available though, to my delight, which somehow was able to shine through my frustration, and I was quickly transported there. I wasn’t very angry at the nurses though, I am sure it happens. Plus, it must have not been very fun for them. I had quite a few nick-knacks, boxes full, that people had brought in for me and that the nurses had to carry over every time I moved rooms. Finally, I was in the room I was to stay in . . . for a while.

My eyes were not getting any better and despite frequent inquires the doctors stuck to their guns more than a bitter Midwest republican, and informed my family, again, it was just due to the drugs wearing off. As for me I didn’t worry about it too much, although my family and friends were kind of weirded out by it, similar to how my friends are weirded out every time I wear a skirt. I probably would have been worried as well, but at this time I didn’t have a mirror to look at myself yet so, as far as I knew, such fears could've been motivated by an understandable paranoia. I would eventually find out this wasn't the case.

I didn’t have much in the room, but I was glad that I had a TV and my cell phone at least. This turned out to be a necessity, for although I could have read, my mind would easily lose focus and I would have to reread things over and over again. In addition, my bill on that particular 1-900 number was overdue, so much of my social life through my cell was thereby incapacitated. It was horribly frustrating, so I watched TV, which may say something about the very nature of television since I was able to pay attention to that quite well. It turned out to be good though because I don’t know if any of you have had the pleasure of having dialysis, but its not exactly exciting and I came to dread it after a while. Although they encouraged me to rest pretty much all the time, I found myself getting anxious and staying up to the wee hours of the morning. Thank you Al Bundy for keeping me company during those trying times.

Most the times the dialysis was completely painless and worked as it should, but on occasion there were some issues. I had a stent which was inserted in the right side of my neck just below my jaw which served for the dialysis treatment and gave me a series of five scars. What would happen at times was the stent was having trouble cycling my blood, which would set off an alarm on the machine itself that was rather annoying and relentless at times. Also, it would tend to build up backpressure which would cause pain. This made the doctors nervous and they decided to call it quits and continue the next day. As I recall, I was hooked up to the machine for about an hour to 90 minutes at a time, so I learned awfully fast to use the restroom before I was hooked up. Especially because they had me constantly hooked up to an IV to flush out my kidneys so it was like ever 15 minutes that I would have to urinate. It wasn’t very fun. Hows that for some T.M.I?

This was another cause for humiliation as it turns out. I do like my privacy as does everyone when it comes to this kind of thing. Well, they should anyway. I have certainly seen hobos downtown that could stand to be a little more modest. Anyways, They requested I urinate in a, turns out, a very badly designed container so they could measure how much of the fluids my kidneys were processing. Yet, I was so embarrassed a few times I got out of bed on my own, not a good thing by the way, and I was scolded for going to the toilet on my own (I still can’t believe I made it), as well as getting out of bed without assistance. They happened to be rather more upset about the latter than the former. Yet, they took pity on my pitiful self and only on occasion requested I use the aforementioned container, but still said that I had to call the nurse at the front desk every time I felt the urge. This was another reason for embarrassment, but I didn’t complain. Why make their job harder than it is? I’m sure it was a duty they weren’t exactly thrilled to perform.

I needed several treatments of dialysis and each time I hoped it would be my last, but alas, that was not to be. In addition, every time the IV bag would run out of fluids I would hope they wouldn’t bring another in. It was so great to be disconnected and free to “move about,” but most the time they would just bring in another bag and hook me up to it. I almost felt like reaching up, grabbing the bag, and squeezing so the fluids would get into me faster, under the false hopes that the current bag would be my last. So, whenever I wanted to get up and use the restroom, I would have to lug that terrible coat rack looking stand around which was more of an obstruction than you would think.

It was around this time and in this room that I first caught a sight of myself in a mirror. I didn’t really even recognize myself. Turns out my friends and families “understandable paranoia” was actually quite accurate. I not only looked rather creepy, but under the influence of the most expensive speed money could buy. My eyes were wide and bulging out of their sockets, but not only that, I also had a huge sore on my tongue from the tubes that had been down my throat for so long. Due to its appearance, this almost bothered me more than anything and I asked more than a couple doctors what could be done. They informed me it was an ulcer and nothing could be done, it would have to heal on its own, which would take some time. It certainly did. I didn’t think it was possible to scar your tongue, but apparently it is. It’s hard to notice, but every time I slap my tongue against an Otter Pop you can tell its there.

It was not long after this, that a physical therapist visited me and informed me that I was to try and walk with her down the hall the next day, which I didn’t feel so good about, for my weakness was very pronounced. Yet, I also felt a little excited to be able to get mobile again. True to her word, she showed up the next day with a wheeled walker and a wheel chair. My folks were there at the time so she requested my father to follow me with the wheelchair right behind in case I fell. We started off right outside my door and I struggled to make my way down the hall with the walker, whose wheels were worse than a grocery store shopping cart, but this could have been due to the fact I put almost all my weight on the thing. The nurse walked along side me guiding the IV stand. After only about ten feet or so my legs would shake almost uncontrollably and was forced to sit down after twenty feet. I believe I walked two more times in increments of twenty and was exhausted. They wheeled me back to my room and I got back into my bed ashamed my will power wasn’t able to provide my muscles any extra strength to toss away the walker and sprint throughout the ward. The physical trainer eventually asked me, and recommended, that I go to a rehabilitation center for a couple weeks, which I turned down. I felt embarrassed enough as it was needing help to move around and I opted to rehabilitate myself after I had left the hospital.

She didn’t reply either negatively or positively and kept working with me from time to time. At other times it was just the nurses who would help me walk about, and slowly I kept building back strength in my legs and proceeding further down the hall. I began to walk halfway and then the full length of the hall. As we walked I had many interesting conversations with the nurses there that kind of startled me and gave me further insight into how serious my condition really was. They asked me what was to be the purpose of my life, for one of them suspected it must be something great to live through such a thing. One asked me how it would profoundly change my life, and still another asked, maybe half jesting, if I saw “a light” or anything, which I didn’t. However, to be confronted with such a menagerie of profound questions, prompted some serious reflection as well as another reminder what I had just been through. After a few days, I was given the great news I would be off dialysis and my kidneys had significantly improved. They tore the stent out of my neck, which smarted and bled profusely. I had to maintain pressure for about twenty minutes, which I did almost to the degree I bruised myself, for some reason paranoid I might bleed out if I didn’t. Finally, they took the blood soaked gauze off my neck and replaced it with just a regular Band-Aid patch. I still had those pesky IV fluids going in, but I felt freed up immensely.

I continued to walk, sometimes with the physical trainer, sometimes with nurses, and sometimes with my family. Eventually, I was able to circle the ward once, twice and finally three times. My legs got relatively much stronger and one evening I was able to, finally, with my father, circle the ward three times. I returned to my room tired in both a sleepy sense and physical sense. My father realizing this stayed a few moments and said he was going to leave. He wished me good night and left. Though my appearance was still messed up, more so than normal, I was feeling good and very positive. The doctor came in and told me I was to go home the very next day and I was so excited I don’t think he left the room completely before I got on the phone and called my folks. Needless to say they were very thrilled that I was to be discharged. After a brief and happy conversation I hung up and prepared to doze off for the evening, if my excitement would let me that is.

A few minutes after that, my friends Amber and Aaron strolled into the room to visit me much to my surprise. I was quick to tell them the news and they were indeed thrilled I would be out of there the following morning. After some brief BS-ing, I was informed that it was my friend Aaron’s birthday and they were to be somewhere for a party and celebration, so they couldn’t stay long. I offered him a happy birthday and regrets that I couldn’t be there. As we sat there talking the alarm on my IV started going off indicating the bag was empty. I asked Amber what the noise was, which I should have known for I heard it several times before. Thus, this probably indicated I was feeling a great deal of confusion. She informed me that it the alarm for the IV because the fluid was empty. I’m pretty sure I would have checked that out myself and saw the bag empty, but I didn’t for some reason. Again, I asked Amber what the noise was, which she found odd to say the least and informed me a second time. The third time I asked she knew something was definitely wrong with me, though she has probably always known that to a degree being my friend, but even more so this time. My hand began to shake which I just stared at for a couple seconds and then I began to seize.

Now, other than the IV, I wasn’t hooked up to anything else. No monitoring equipment or anything. So, the only alarm that was beeping was from the IV. From what I hear it was kind of panic and pandemonium in the room, but thankfully they knew instantly what must be going on. Immediately Amber and Aaron helped turn me on my side as I slipped into a full blown grand mal seizure. After they got me on my side Amber held me while Aaron ran to the emergency button by the door, which would immediately call the nurse. The following events are so wild that if it wasn’t such a serious and potentially deadly situation, I think it would be almost comical. Indeed, some Benny Hill music behind the events would be most appropriate.

Aaron pressed the button on the door, which was faulty in some fashion and it didn’t work at all. Not missing a beat, he took off out the door and down the hall to the nurses desk, only to find no nurse on duty. He ran down the halls calling for help and couldn’t find a single person until he ran into a cleaning lady. He pleaded with her to find a nurse and told her I was having a seizure, and according to him, unbelievably, this lady just took her time strolling down the hall casually telling him she would find some one.

Eventually, a doctor and nurses did eventually show up and quickly took over Amber’s duties and tried to calm me down. Amber immediately called my parents, who were shocked, and quickly ran over to the hospital. Now, I don’t know what kind of actions they used to stop my seizing, if any, but whatever they did or didn't do, didn’t do the trick and I kept thrashing about. By the time my parents got there, they were wheeling me out and down the hall with me still seizing on the gurney, it had been almost an hour. They ran up to the doctor and asked her what was happening and for all the details she could provide.

Now, I had already met a rather rude doctor when I was first admitted into the emergency room, but this lady, whom I will call Dr. M, was completely tactless and not on the same page as any of the other doctors. This caused some great confusion in a moment of grief and panic, which further resulted in anger. As they talked to this doctor she informed them she believed I was faking the seizure to get more drugs. That would be some dedication there to fake a seizure for a whole hour. Nobody could believe what she was saying and my friend Amber, from what I hear, looked like she was going to jump up and punch her in the grill. My mother was in hysterics and panic stricken when she lamented, “He was to go home tomorrow.” The doctor replied, “Well, I guess he isn’t going to be going home tomorrow now is he?” I don’t know what she was thinking, but how about some consistency there? I’m faking, but your not going to not discharge me?

She somehow came to the conclusion that I was still ill with ARDS, which I had been cleared from, and said that I still had it and could get worse, which doctors before and after denied wholeheartedly. I think this woman was such a, well, “brat,” because she knew she dropped the ball and it took some cleaning lady to be able to find any staff. Yet, at this time I had about six or more doctors and nurses there all for a guy who is supposedly faking a seizure. They couldn’t get me sedated which prompted the doctors to ask what kind of substances I frequently took part in, through which they learned, other than the occasional drink, I was clean. They tried to call the elevator, but for some reason the elevator was not working and they struggled to restrain me while trying to figure it out. Eventually, they got another elevator to work and I again was taken down to the ICCU and away from the worst doctor I have ever encountered.

While I was taken back for the doctors to work on me, my parents and friends sat outside, my mother so upset a nurse called a Chaplin to talk to her and provide some level of comfort and strength. My friends provided this as well, my friend even turning down his own birthday party stating that there was no place he would rather be. I need to take this opportunity to thank them for the strength the provided my mom. As I was wheeled into the ICCU some of the nurses who were very familiar with my case were depressed when I showed back up saying, “Oh no, not our Brandon.” Its amazing the impression you can leave people with without even realizing it. However, I wasn’t conscious at this time to hear these near flattering remarks.

They Finally got me sedated I began to drift in and out of consciousness. I recall them turning me over and giving me a lumbar puncture at one point. At any rate, they once again, not knowing exactly what had occurred, put me into a coma. This time, however, it was not for over two weeks, but for two days while they ran tests to determine exactly what had happened. They determined I needed an MRI and I was eventually pulled out of the coma. I came to and was curious why I was in a different room, which looked surprisingly familiar. It hit me quickly that I was back in the ICCU. Crap. Hoping it wasn’t the case, I immediately reached down to check to see if I had a particular obtrusive tube in, hoping it indeed wasn‘t the case. Double crap. I was simultaneously confused and depressed at the same time. Yet, this was quickly removed prompting the same intense discomfort I had described in the previous entry.

I was transported down to the basement floor where their MRI equipment was located. I was put in the machine, but due to my drowsiness from the sedation, I promptly fell asleep. They had to pull me back out of the machine and wait a good fifteen minutes or so before I became more awake. Meanwhile, this made my mother nervous, for it was taking a little while longer than it should have. After the procedure was complete, I was pulled from the claustrophobic tube and taken back upstairs, where my family and I were informed that my brain was bleeding towards the back of my skull. Something they called a subarachnoid hemorrhage. Figures. I have always hated spiders.

With this revelation came a new medical mystery. Was it the hemorrhage that caused the seizure or did the seizure cause the hemorrhage? The hospital decided they were ill equipped to deal with the situation and though I did speak to a neurologist at their facility, it was determined that I should be transported to downtown Seattle to their neuroscience department. There, they said, I would be seen by several specialists in order to determine the nature and severity of my particular condition. They quickly summoned a ambulance for transport. In retrospect, I would have preferred if they just gave me a bus pass, due to the figures that would arrive at my house concerning the bill for this brief transportation.

I was discharged, thanked everyone for the care I received, and was wheeled down a corridor to the elevator. When coming so close to death as I had, you would be surprised at the kind of things you will find joy in. As the paramedics rolled me down the hall way, one side was bordered by fake trees, upon which hung pure white Christmas lights, which reminded me instantly of the season. Its hard to determine such things like the passage of time when your surrounded by like opaque walls wherever you go. This sight, for some reason, gave me such a profound sense of joy, I still have a hard time making complete sense of it. Although, I was headed towards another medical facility, the idea that I was leaving this one combined with the sight of the simple decorations, gave me such a feeling of joy, I could have almost wept. It was far to soon, if you ask me, when they rolled me into the elevator and the doors closed, enclosing me once again in a all too small enclosure.

The doors opened unto the lobby and I was pushed across, to some embarrassment, into a waiting ambulance. The sun did not shine that day and it almost seemed as dreary and grey as had been my stay within the multiple hospital rooms, wards, and their accompanying decor. Yet, I found the bustling of the people outdoors, going about their daily lives, on foot and within their vehicles, to be a subject of intense interest to me. I began to fantasize about where they were going and what they were doing, missing the freedom I had to move about in such a manner as that. On the way down to Seattle, I had a delightful conversation with a female paramedic, who kept my spirits up until we arrived at the hospital which had the semblance of a old cathedral with a hint of gothic architecture. Although, some might be put off by the spires and exterior decor, I found it quite beautiful as I was ushered indoors.

Yet, the interior wasn’t nearly as interesting to me as I was met with the familiar walls and unimaginative furnishings as my hospital before. I was somewhat disappointed, but realized my trip was one of necessity and thus I kept my feelings to myself, determined to do whatever I could in my power to find the answers the doctors and I were seeking concerning my health. Fortunately, they were expecting me and I had a room to myself. I didn’t have to move even once and I quickly settled in, trying to be as positive as I could. From here on out I was in the care of three specialists, a neurologist, a rheumatologist, and a nephrologist, who visited frequently offering up loads of theories, speculations or possible treatments. The rheumatologist, whom I will refer to as Dr. “R” came in and was, by his own account, shocked. He had received my medial history and was amazed at how talkative I was. In addition to that, he later put in his notes I was surprisingly chipper and of good countenance, which shocked him. He told me that he expected the antithesis to the point of me being quite sickly, depressed and sedate. The odd thing was that my eyes were back to normal. They were no longer wide and protruding from the sockets.

It was his hypothesis, along with the neurologists, that I may have been experiencing “micro seizures” during that time. He hypothesized I may have lupus or vasculitis. However, there was some concern that I may have a blood clot or inflamed arteries in my brain and told me they wished to do an angiogram. I wasn’t too thrilled, because I knew what the procedure was and how it was performed. Basically, what it is, for those who don’t know, is they take a catheter and enter through the groin, running it up through your heart and into your head where they inject a dye which can be picked up by x-ray. Thus, they can look at the blood vessels in your head and see if there is any blockage. Again, I wasn’t too thrilled. Yet, I agreed to the procedure, simply on the grounds that it had to be done, and I was scheduled for the next day, though they were a little hesitant. This hesitance was because my kidneys were not back to normal and they were concerned about my bodies ability to filter out the dye and expel it. After weighing the options and risks however, they decided on following through with the procedure.

I was again transported to the bowels of a hospital and was surrounded by nurses. They administered some sedation and pain medication. Yet, this was not enough to keep me from blushing when they informed me that they needed to shave me. They, as the nurses were at the hospital before, were very professional and kept me covered as much as they could. They moved me into a room that reminded me of the main deck on the Nebuchadnezzar in “The Matrix.” There were flat screens everywhere, some tilted over me, others on the wall, while still others above a desk. All ran separate programs, while others showed rotating 3D renderings of blood vessels, I assume of some other patient.

The doctor came in, obviously former military due to his camouflaged doctors hat, and described briefly the procedure to me. I was told to lie flat and stare straight up, which I did, not wanting to even see the needle they used to do this particular operation. I was informed that I would be notified of the results in real time which was kind of rough for me to hear, for if the results were bad, I would know right away by their words and the tone of their voice. Thus, I became extremely nervous.

The operations started and I felt an immense pressure, much like a large brink was sitting upon me. They told me not to move, and I complied to the best of my ability. Other than the pressure and a little pain of the actually incision, I didn’t feel anything while the ran the catheter up through my body and up into my head. There, they injected the dye and I heard the faint sound of them conversing as my blood vessels were explored. The vessels appeared on the monitors, which I looked at more out of curiosity than necessity. I viewed the black outline of my blood vessels as the dye coursed through my brain, and didn’t see anything outwardly unnerving, but I didn’t look long, due to my nervousness. Thus, I waited as patiently as I could and was surprised that I didn’t have long to wait, which I was thankful for because it had seemed to me that the local anesthetic applied before the incision was wearing off, the pain increasing to a large degree. Just when I noticed the pain increasing, they informed me that it was done and pulled out the catheter and bandaged me up. The doctor came up alongside me and informed me as far as he could tell, there was nothing out of the ordinary with my blood vessels, which was a relief for me to hear.

I was moved back upstairs into my room, while being informed that the results would be sent to all the specialists involved in my care. I did need a few pain killers the following days from the procedure, but was quickly switched to Ibuprofen, which did the trick. It appeared to Dr. N. that I was negative for Vasculitus, but not cleared yet for Lupus. Yet, they seemed a little confused as to what exactly was going on and all sort of options were pondered over. In the meantime, I gave plenty of blood, 12 vials in one day as I recall, and my kidneys were closely monitored for ill effects from the dye. Some of my blood work revealed some abnormalities that pointed towards a auto-immune disease, but were far from being conclusive. One doctor mentioned that I may consider a brain biopsy, which I immediately didn’t want to do, finding it too explorative and thus breaking the Hippocratic oath. Yet, I was informed by the kidney doctor that I could do a Kidney biopsy which is less evasive. I was told that often things that occur in the brain can be detected in the kidneys, which I found interesting on an intellectual level. Yet, due to some of the danger from kidney damage it was decided it would be too risky to do such a procedure.

Daily blood work showed that I was improving, but still I had a bed alarm, which would notify the nurses if I got up. Like the hospital before, the nurses would occasionally visit me and converse over a whole variety of topics. It was during one of these visits she made it clear the bed alarm was necessary for many of the patients there who were recovering from brain surgery. Yet, since I had yet to get brain surgery, my bed alarm was taken off, much to my delight, for every time I moved the dang thing would play a horrible serenade of the nursery rhyme, “Mary Had a Little Lamb.” I had previously asked if there was anyway they could change the terrible song, to which I was notified that nobody knew how to change it. I find this interesting that they could care for brain surgery patients, but couldn’t figure out how to change the song of an alarm.

Even though mine was disconnected, many of my neighbors weren’t offered this luxury for their own safety. I had a older gentleman in the room next to mine, whose bed alarm would go off most frequently. The nurses would come in and try to get him to lay back down, but he wasn’t really able to grasp that he was in the hospital, due to perhaps the pain medication, the surgery or both. He informed the nurses he was tired of playing slot machines and wanted to go into the bar to get himself a beer. They spent many of nights trying to persuade this poor man that he was in the hospital and not in a Vegas gambling establishment.

As my vitals continued to improve, I was informed that I was in great enough health to go home the day before Christmas, much to my delight. It had been a long ordeal and I was anxious to see the outside world once again. However, they told me I would have to come back for periodical check ups and tests, for the answer still alluded all the doctors concerning my seizure. I agreed and I quickly called my folks and arrangements were made for my transport home. It was during this time that I caught my first glance of my tragically confused neighbor. He was an older gentleman, shaved bald with a large horseshoe incision on the right side of his head. It was held together by staples and he wandered out of his room. Why his alarm didn’t go off I can’t say, but perhaps he was granted exercise once in a while, much like I was. He seemed to immediately come over to my room and stood outside the door looking in.

It was a little awkward, but knowing what he must have gone through, me and my family offered him pleasant greetings. He inquired of us where Patricia was. We had no idea, both where she was, or even who she was. We told him we didn’t know, but that perhaps she would be there soon, thinking it must be a visitor or family member of his. He informed us that Patricia was to come over to fix his TV. We stammered a little bit in reply, offering our hopes that this woman would eventually come to visit. He seemed to feel that he was still in his home and nurses walked up to him and led him off gently, while my folks and me looked at each other awkwardly. I do hope Patricia showed up, whoever she is. Nobody should spend the holidays alone.

We packed up my things and I left, being led with a wheel chair, obviously not allowed to walk out of the hospital on my own accord. Though I quickly began to control the wheelchair on my own as we went into the pharmacy to get my anti-seizure medication and a long detailed list of how to take them. I got into the car and was driven back to my parents house. The doctors had told us I should not be alone, thus I wasn’t able to go back to my own home, but went with my folks to spend the holidays and a month or so recovering. Much of the time I was completely immobile. My legs and arms had deteriorated to the point I couldn’t walk down a hall or up some stairs without feeling like I was going to fall or getting exhausted. It was extremely frustrating. Luckily, my mother, who just had knee surgery, had a recumbent bike that I would get on and ride to build up some muscle. It was slow going. Not only did it hurt, but my heart rate would spike and I would have to remove myself from the bike every ten or so minutes.

My legs were still numb due to nerve damage and as the feeling came back, it was if as my body registered it as pain. This is something I still have to contend with to this day, but the damage is supposedly reversible. I still have pain and numbness, but the overall area of which this was occurring as shrunk immensely. I was forbidden to go back to Alaska for the first herring season, which has set me back financially somewhat, but was eventually granted permission to go for the second herring season and the subsequent salmon season as well. This I am grateful for and hopefully it will build up my strength quickly.

I continued seeing several specialists and have almost got a clean bill of health. My kidney doctor still wishes to keep an eye on me every six months due to some protein found in my urine and my neurologist as well. Lupus was eliminated as a possible cause and eventually the neurologist found a diagnosis. The condition I had concerning the seizure was something called PRES or Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome. The interesting part about this diagnosis, is that it has never been seen in the particular part of the brain where it occurred in me and my case is to be soon written up in a medical journal, name withheld of course. Not the kind of fame that I would wish for, but it is what it is.

As of now, I have yet to have another seizure and most issues I am battling concern getting back into the same shape I was before all this happened. I feel fortunate about getting back to work, being in relatively good health and gaining some independence back. I continue to see doctors, but as said before, its only every six months or so. I am off all medications dealing with my near death, but through this I was diagnosed with another non-serious condition and I have to take medication for that. For anyone who has known me, they may have noticed I have a slight nervous twitch about me, which remained undiagnosed for sometime. Indeed, some doctors just wrote it off as some sort of “tic.” The kind of tic that creates small muscle spasms, not the one that burrows into your skin.

After spending some time with the neurologist he inquired about why I walked around twitching like a pigeon. I told him exactly what I had been told and he quickly diagnosed me as having a genetic disorder called “benign central tremors.” I was prescribed a blood pressure medication, simply for this particular disorder and not any blood pressure problems. I am happy to report it has seemed to help and I now seem to have a relatively steady hand, which I haven’t had in years.

Thus ends my adventure, I hope, and despite how challenging and scary it was, I found the constant support of family and friends to be a constant source of strength. I would like to end this entry with, once again, thanking all those who were praying for me, keeping me in their thoughts, visiting, inquiring about my condition, and were overall concerned. In addition, I would like to thank those who kept my family and friends strong through this because, as mentioned before, in a lot of ways they were worse off than I was. Finally, thank you to the doctors and nurses who provided great care, support and did all they could to keep my dignity intact. I love you all and God bless you.

Brandon Myhre clear.