www.pintofstout.me.

The  first post of the year to be chosen concerned a fairly large event – the hanging of Saddam Hussein.  Saddam Hangs…Video at 11 is a commentary on the nature of government and force on a mass scale.

The next selected posts takes a different tack; instead of looking outward to examine the world, I looked inward to myself.  What Lies Beneath the Foamy Head of the ‘Stout? is a pretty succinct analysis of myself and some labels I always try to self-apply.

Back to the external evaluations, I commented on a series of NPR stories about underground economies.  This post got good responses, like many of the posts of this time period – probably because I posted more frequently.  Underground Agorism: A Contradiction That Needs Fixed and the subsequent post, The Black and Blue of Black and Gray Markets, all revolve around the same book and various media outlets reviews and discussion about it.

Bread and circuses have nothing on a Gourmet PB&J, a post about expectation and being sold short.  This one triggered discussion on and off the blog.

Of all the posts picked from 2007 (and all the posts written since this blogs inception),  Tearing Down the Wall Between Church and State is probably pretty high in the running as an all-time favorite.  I am tickled at the concept I discuss and the point I make, especially in regard to the title.  I also think I did a fairly good job at conveying this concept in this post; thus, a favorite.

The concept discussed in Anarchy: Much More Than Nothing is held in equally high regard and expounded upon further in subsequent posts (that may not have made this list).  I have included this post because it was originally written for another blog and reading it is like watching the idea formulate and coalesce into something right before your eyes.

Collander Accuses Kettle of Not Holding Water (Also Black Adds the Pot) was a exploration of the relationship between concepts and the reality in which we attempt to apply them.  Specifically, it was questioning my job and my role in contributing to the State in some way.

The concept explored in Have Job, Will Power was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I had my fingers crossed, as well.  I had just read Hemingway and was attempting to emulate his style in the opening paragraph.  A fun read, IMO.

This next post I’m not including for the post itself so much as the faux narrative of the fake home improvement book I put in the comments.  If a Blogger Blogs Amongst The Noise and Nobady Hears It, Is He Really Writing? is just another examination of the egoistic nature of this forum.

Anyone who reads this blog regularly – or even sporadically – knows I use a LOT of metaphor.  Stale as Office Coffee is one extended metaphor regarding elections, hope, and change.  There are several posts in 2007 and 2008 in this same vein (with different metaphors) due to the presidential election circus.

Like my introspection in the second post listed above, “Identity” Theives: The Joke Is On Them! is an exploration of identity and the dialectical opposite mistaken for identity in our serialized world.

In yet another post about the election, Meanwhile Down at the Crossroads expounds upon the old fable of selling one’s soul to the devil, and explains why it would be better to deal with the devil than candidates for public office.

Finally, in a post that put kind of a fun spin to a more serious topic, No Votes For Non-Believers is included because I found the writing clever.

Even after better than a year, I still find it hard to narrow them down to just a dozen or so posts that deserve to be labeled “best of”;  but here they are.  It is my hope that a brand new home for this blog would come online before I find the need to post another entry.  All I need is the time to work it out, Iguess.  Keep your eyes and browers peeled for that announcement.  In the mean time, read up; it’s on me!

I would like to enlist the help of the few regular readers (and any passers-by) to help pick out some favorites from 2007.  I will still be picking some myself, but outside input will attenuate the egotistic self-indulgent feelings a bit.  Just list your selections in the comments (and perhaps why you chose them) and I’ll include them.

Thanks.

The diversion in all of our once-merged lives is likely driven mostly by our lives themselves and not simply geography.  It is the choices made in living and the circumstances steering those decisions that introduce the separation in geography; seldom is a change in geography initiated for its own sake.  Circumstance bounces us around pretty randomly, like a rubber ball bouncing on gravel.  Ups and downs are all part of the equation.

This line of thought was mostly sparked by the meeting of college friends.  Most of them had continued on the path they started, virtuously forging ahead, while some of us (*cough* me *cough*) wandered toward no goal in particular.  Toward the end of my quest for a degree, it is no secret that I had taken a plunge.  Circumstance and, of course, my decisions separated me prematurely from my fellow travelers; it separated me from much, in fact.  Many connections were lost in my nihilistic plunge into self-pity, and many of those connections are yet to be reestablished.  Comparing current circumstances when the connections are reestablished has proved very interesting in regards to the sometimes winding paths we travel in life; the paths that diverge greatly at so much as the flap of a butterfly wing or a bounce off of the proverbial bottom.

I once saw a quote by General George S. Patton (ironically while waiting to talk to the financial aid department at YSU) that stated, “I don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom.”  This quote assumes a simple two-dimensional system where the path stays the same.  I have  felt lately that the premature divergence spoken of previously was my bottom.  The comparison of current circumstances on the Patton scale shows stark differences.  But I don’t think Patton had it right. The bottom is rocky and rather than bounce on the same path as the fall, one is just as likely to bounce in a completely different direction, maybe in a direction better suited to the bouncee than the path that led to the fall to begin with.

The different path I ended up on cannot be labeled better or worse than any other potential path on an objective scale.  I’ve looked back on many turning points in my life where I had initially valued some outcome negatively, such as denial of admission into the U.S. Naval Academy, or the loss of goals and perspective academically, but upon further reflection these turning points have often led to my subjective happiness and growth.  Struggle and adversity is often held up as a catalyst for imporvement. Like Gandalf emerging from great tribulation more powerful, adversity may have been what was right for me – the me created by the convergences with other people, the ups and downs of circumstance, and, of course, the rocky bottom.

Over the course of my stumbling into this ugly world – I only skirt the outer edges currently – I was informed by some friends in the belly of the beast that my resume was being shelved because the supervisor had read a blog entry wherein I mentioned something about sitting in my cube reading philosophy all day.  I couldn’t quite find where I had said anything like that, nor could I figure how my blog was found in the first place.  Apparently, with the proper search of my email address (formatted in a very particular way) and last name (both on my resume), one can come across this here depository of thought and introspection.  Now, I tried to keep my anonymity online, for the most part, so employers and any government goons looking for dirt can’t associate this place with me.  There was a reason why pamphleteers of revolutions past published anonymously under pen names – Cato, Publius, and Tom Paine issuing Common Sense anonymously come to mind.

I was, at first, shocked and shaken that my anonymity had been broken.  The same friends who had told me of my outing also suggested taking down the offending post.  I looked through post after post (over 200 of them now) to see if I had described my boredom and disillusionment with my job in such a specific way as I was told I did.  I couldn’t find it.  In fact, if I tagged posts for removal that similarly may offend the sensibilities of the hiring manager who is so disillusioned as to think any part of the bullshit application and interview process is sincere – about as sincere as behavior on a first date – I’d have to remove the whole blog.  Between honest introspection about self-motivation, which has actually helped to motivate me, and political radicalism, there would be little left worth keeping.

It was also subtly suggested that I change my voicemail greeting from the Lebowski-esque “the Dude is not in…,” to something more…professional.  But this all cuts to the heart of the issue: I am not my job.  It is a personal phone and a personal blog for a person with a individual personality more interesting than the bland cut-and-paste placeholders preferred by corporate America.  I understand the actual situation once inside this beast is different, where personalities come forth and many problems are solved outside the realm of a narrow job description, but the facade built around these organizations for those outside erases the beauty that is the collective effort of many individuals harmonizing toward creation.  (Now I’ve swung in the opposite direction from hyperbole to utopia!)

Well, Mr. Cogwell and Mr. Spacely, I’ve located my error and have corrected it.  If only the Google cache would reset and not find the old version, I will be anonymous once again.  I may hide, but I will not stop being who I am to appease some anonymous desk-sitter looking for the Stepford version of a GIS specialist.  I may even add a tag of “work stuff” to all posts talking of the world of employment and my place in it; that way if they do happen to find me, it will be much easier to find relevant posts.  I can’t guarantee they will comprehend the post or its significance to my job performance, though.  This is me; take it or leave it.

Was Plaxico foolish or stupid in anything he did that led to the chain of events of last week?  Hell yes, he was!  Carrying a handgun without knowing how to properly handle it and unload it is pretty foolish (The New York Post reports the weapon was fired accidentally while attempting to unload it while fumbling with a glass of wine.)  Other reports I overheard had him carrying the weapon in his pocket and firing it while trying to remove it from his pocket.  I can’t confirm any of these stories, but the general points I took from them had Plaxico drunk in a club and misfiring this dangerous, dangerous weapon in drunken horseplay.  I’m also pretty sure this couldn’t be corroborated either.  So as much as any accident is stupid, yeah he was stupid.  Next time be more careful, you idiot.  But was he stupid for even carrying a gun?  No, not by a long shot.  Everybody’s personal protection is their own business; he was just doing what he thought he needed to.

The other overwhelming tone of reports and talk seems to be the criminality of the whole debacle because the gun was unregistered.  For those saying that bullshit about it being the law and he didn’t have a permit or any of that can take a long walk off a short pier.  Nobody needs a permit to carry a gun, or even carry a gun safely; they need the permit to keep the wolves of the violent government at bay.  The gun could work for this purpose as well, but the odds are really stacked.  See, the thugs of state need no stinking permits.  The criminality is also implied by simply blaming the gang-banger culture.  What?  So because Plaxico Burress is a black man with some attitude it makes him a gangster or a gangster wanna-be; therefore, a criminal?  Give me a break.  Would that mean we should assume the folks saying shit like this ride to their AARP meetings decked out in KKK hoods while licking the windows upon their short bus?  Well…  Back to rationality now, please?

The National Football League does have an anti-gun policy at all their functions and facilities, including those of the individual teams.  Plaxico didn’t shoot himself while in the proximity of those NFL rules to which he is contractually bound.  Nothing has been said about the policy of the club itself regarding weapons either.  Nobody but himself was harmed in the whole incident, which also makes it a victimless non-crime.  Had he or if he did do damage to the building, then he would surely owe them compensation for repairs, but there has also been no report of that.  No, the only trouble Mr. Burress seems to be in is for flaunting the stupid rules of the state; not asking for permission and, surrounding this whole ordeal, not cooperating enough in the inquisition (accusations of a cover up).  And the only things Plaxico is guilty of is fame and carelessness (in the handling, not the possession).  He may even end up breaking down more bad laws in the footsteps of Washington D.C.’s Mr. Heller, if David B. Kopel of the Cato Institute is to be believed, and if Mr. Burress chooses to pursue it that far.  The only real victim in all of this is the American public and their 2nd Amendment.

UPDATE (12-6-08):  More news in this case, as the AP puts out a narrative of the situation.  Apparently he had the weapon, a 40-cal Glock,  in the waistband of his track pants.  Really?  Track pants to a posh, swinging club?  Must be nice to be famous.  Buy a holster Plaxico, and then take this thing as far through the legal system as possible.  Straight to the top, I say.

Considering the state of the economy, one should strive to keep every lousy cent possible out of the hands of government, who is pretty much responsible for this mess (and by its “solutions,” will be responsible for the next one as well).  This means redoubling efforts to contribute to the counter-economy.  Know a friend or a friend of a friend that makes cookies or homemade jewelry or pottery or clothes or paintings or anything that may be gift-worthy?  Why not purchase from them this Christmas?  Sunni has a great page at her blog that lists some fine purveyors of counter-economic goodies.  While there Christmas shopping, be sure to order some delicious caramels from Sunni; they are the very bestest caramels ever!

Besides buying and recieving gifts during this time, many also take the time to donate to charities.  Maybe it is the encroachment of tax season (are they ever out of season?) and the potential for write-offs that drives this giving; or maybe it is simply the spirit of goodwill that can only stand to muster itself for a few weeks of the year before regressing back into paranoid tension.  Regardless of the motivation, one must make a wise choice when giving.

I was recently alerted to some shadiness behind the obnoxious yellow PlanetAid clothing donation boxes everywhere.  Apparently, only a small percentage of the money made from reselling the donated clothes actually goes to charitable programs; much much less than other typical charities.  A web search for PlanetAid will yield articles detailing indictments and fraud with associated organizations in various countries.  I looked at the Better Business Bureau’s website for Charities and Giving to make comparisons of PlanetAid, Goodwill Industries, St. Vincent DePaul Society, and the Salvation Army, the major charities in my area for clothing donation.  The information from this site was quite helpful in deciding who to donate to based on work in my local area, percentage of overhead, and their mission statement.  So be sure to do a little bit of research before giving to an organization, especially the government!

Speaking of charities and Christmas gifts, the two can be combined (if buying for the non-selfish, non-consumer-addled) via Redefine Christmas.  This is a website that will link to a charity in which donations could be made in someone’s name for a Christmas gift.  For the selfish and consumer-addled, this is like a gift card, only worse!  Consider it an intervention.

Beyond shopping and giving advice, I can only advise to keep your head down and keep moving.  This will all be over soon.  Happy happy.

The function of bullets, arrows, thrown stones, knives, swords, bombs, nuclear bombs, or fists is to transfer energy to a target. The purpose of such energy is to create a physical change of the target, usually to make it cease or alter function. The more precise a weapon is in its transfer, the less energy is needed; whereas the less precise, the more total energy is needed in order to achieve the same energy density at the target; i.e. a low-energy arrow and a high-energy hand grenade.

(Before I go any further and there comes along some smarty-pants physicist (you know who you could be!) to say that all of these changes are essentially physical, I have this quote for you, then I will drop it: “All science is either physics or stamp collecting,” supposedly uttered by Ernest Rutherford after receiving the Nobel Prize in chemistry (I just really wanted to use that quote; what a smartass!). Thanks to Dr. Tabak for having that on his coffee mug while terrorizing mechanics students.  Putting this basic truth aside, we shall continue with the aforementioned terminology of the various physics subfields of biology and chemistry.)

I think I have decided to break down this discussion by the desired end result or effect on the target.  There is obviously a wide range of possibilities here including mere “flesh wounds” and “fucking snuffing it.”  The Black Knight would bleed on me if he heard me say it, but these aren’t nearly as subjective as he would like.  Slowly backing away from the scratch and flesh wound categories of Dr. Monty Python, I have thought about it for a few seconds and broken my effects of weaponry into four categories: Deflection/Repulsion, Temporary Incapacitation, Functionality Alteration, and Functionality Termination.  I’ll address all these from both a mechanical and a biological perspective, meaning both the mechanical functions of biological targets and non-biological targets.

The categories I delineated typically escalate in severity which, if the delicacy of the target is discounted, also loosely relates to energy density delivered to the target – for mechanical effects.  The effects upon chemical and biological function depend almost wholly on the delicacy and stability of the target.  Starting at the low end of energy and effect we have deflection or repulsion (180-degee reflection).  This could easily consist of a shove or a punch or some act that imparts low amounts of energy to some object in order to change its position or direction of travel.  In animals and humans, the pain inflicted by this act may also work as a deterrent with non-lasting effects.  These can also trigger chemical and biological effects such as reduced vision or mobility.  Weapons imparting this scale of energy transfer tend to be blunt objects not intended to completely destroy the physical structure of the target.  Chemicals dispersed with horrible odors or other effects that discourage advancement may be countied into this variation, I suppose.

The next step up brings us to incapacitation, which is also non-lasting.  With each step up on this scale, the effects of the lower rungs of the scale are carried throughout (with the exception of the permanence of effect, perhaps).  Deflecting or repulsing some thing (the target) with much force may result in the incapacitation of this target.  Even with very large mechanical targets, which usually require much more force, one can incapacitate the object without destroying it completely.  Mechanical objects won’t heal themselves as humans and animals do, so the temporary nature of the incapacitation depends on the ability to repair it.  Stun guns affect their targets in this way, I’m assuming by overwhelming the electrical signals of the brain to the rest of the body.  Chemically, tranquilizers could be delivered to incapacitate the biological target.  Perhaps the Vulcan Neck Pinch would fall into this category as well.  Certain new non-lethal weapons that I have read about years ago (maybe not that new), wherein a super-sticky foam is applied to the target, thus incapacitating them would also qualify to share this category of effect (Spiderman approves).

With many of the weapons achieving this class of effect, dose and/or total energy make all the difference.  When the controls of the energy to transfer are bypassed or the target is outside of the “normal” subset of targets the weapon is calibrated for, then higher levels of damage can occur – up to and including termination.  Too strong of a tranquilizer or multiple doses of it on a smaller creature can stop the heart and multiple applications of electricity from a stun gun can ultimately end the same way.

So far conventional guns or arrows and other projectiles haven’t entered into our equation.  This is because these usually carry much energy concentrated in a small area causing damage greater than temporary incapacitation.  (Rubber riot bullets used to protect the state regime from those it is meant to serve, while still not reducing the tax base, are the only projectiles I can really think of that don’t alter the physical properties of the target permanently.) This sort of weapon spans the last two effect categories, depending on the aim of the weapon as much as the weapon itself.  Mechanically, the damage done by a projectile means the destroying of tissue which can alter function.  For instance, an arrow destroys muscle tissue and arteries and such so that they no longer contain the blood being pumped through them.  When enough blood has escaped this no longer functioning tissue, many ill effects take hold.  Some wounds alter function permanently, and some of that altered function may result in a fundamental change in the functionality of the target, for instance a once alive target becomes now dead.  This effect on non-living targets could be illustrated with the example of shooting the tires of a vehicle or a tank throwing a tread; the target isn’t completely destroyed, but its functionality has been altered.

Biological changes were partially covered with the mechanical aspects of biology above, but the chemical aspects of biological change are important, too.  First, the presence of foreign material in the body can have ill effects, such as lead or some other chemical introduced by the projectile.  Some chemicals can also alter the functions of nerves and cells of various sorts, sometimes damaging them permanently.

Weapons are designed on several factors, only some of which have to do with the mechanical operation of the weapon itself.  Other design criteria include the size and nature of the target(s), the proximity to the target(s) to the weapon itself, and the desired effect on the target(s).  For instance, a cruise missile is designed to be used from great distances with the purpose of total destruction of the target (and, collaterally, to other secondary targets in proximity to the primary target); whereas a pistol is designed to be used in fairly close proximity while only affecting a single target to varying degrees.  Even the object transferring the energy can be designed for various effects – see armour-piercing and hollow point bullets or the .223 round vs. .308 round.  Even as humans have become more proficient in the delivery and amount of energy  (chemical or mechanical) delivered to a target in order to destroy it, so too have we been finding more intermediate ways of affecting the target as desired, without actually destroying it.  Much of the progress in this latter sense is a result of the knowledge gained about the nature of the targets, especially if human, as much as the mastering of the mechanical science of delivery.  In this sense, weapons have evolved with time, but the concepts and goals will continue to stay the same.

When it is said that someone’s voice is heard, isn’t it usually referring to the airing of that person’s original thoughts and opinions?  If an actor is reading from a script they didn’t write, their voice wasn’t heard, even thought they were physically speaking.  So how does an election actually equate to voices being heard?  And whose voices?

The election process in this country starts out with petitions.  Some petitions require a multitude of signatures to be accepted and the candidate added to the ballot; some petitions require a small fraction of those signatures so long as the candidate has the proper party affiliation.  In the very first stages, then, it seems a small portion of people have a bullhorn while muffling the voices of the rest.  Thankfully for the whole process, “the people” have a memory span of about two shakes, and they forget all prior knowledge in order to put their voice into the chorus already written by the few.

As the nomination process progresses through to the actual general election, fewer and fewer “voices” are being heard.  The voice of special interest and power players compose the chorus and direct the now-actors with the bullhorn of the corporate media.  When the election finally arrives, the scripts are written, vetted, and approved.  The voter simply chooses the script they wish to read and their “voice” is added to the chorus.  By this time, they have already forgotten that this wasn’t actually their voice but continue to believe it anyway.

All the world is a stage, and we are merely players.  Bravo, and I’m ready for my close-up.

There are phrases like “the working poor” floating around. This refers to the people who are actually employed, sometimes in more than one job, who still can’t afford housing, food, and other tenets of the American dream. Perhaps this state of affairs is due to the cost of actually going to work.

In the past I’ve written about the chicken-or-egg nature of earning and spending; the first time I talked about some of the factors affecting the work environment that make us desire escape so frantically; the second time I elaborated on how we spend our treasure in pursuit of an escape from the depressing world of employment, in turn resulting in the need to work in order to pay off the escape. Somewhere else, though I can’t find where, I thought I also mentioned that my spending habits go contrary to reason and become less frugal the more pinched I feel and yet more stingy when I feel like I’m getting ahead. And just this past week I noticed an expansion, or perhaps a corollary, to this phenomenon. The busier and more frantic my employment environment becomes, the more my feeling of pinched finances grows in parallel. This also seems to contradict logic. When working hard for long hours, one is apt to collect overtime, which means actually getting paid more. So why does it seem like I’m with less money when working so much? Is it just an illusion brought about by stress and the apparent contraction of time ([time flies when keeping busy (less time)] x [time = money] = less money)?

My answer to those questions is two-fold. The first part deals not necessarily with illusions, but with less concrete things: the psychological effects of the stress and the employment environment. Placed in situations like this where the reward doesn’t necessarily match the effort, it takes away from the psyche of the individual, making them feel spiritually poorer. This reduction in the wealth of the spirit acts as a gel filter on the spotlight with which other aspects of life are viewed, coloring the outlook on non-employment related things with the same tone as the skewed work-reward analysis. Suddenly, common and habitual spending habits seem overpriced or undervalued. Combining the psychological reduction in value of one’s spending habits and the perceived increase in one’s work value while all actual prices stay the same results in a perceived net loss.

The second part of my answer says that the perception is not an illusion at all. When laboring at ever more stressful levels, ever more urgent and intensive relief must be employed, not to mention squeezed into less free time. Often the reduced time for escape leads to higher premiums on the cost of the escape to substitute for the therapeutic nature of relaxation and free time; therefore, one could be spending more money when working at elevated levels of production. The extra amount spent may not be large, but the effects are enhanced by the skewed outlook of value of both the the worker and the spending, not to mention the issue of time preference.  While the extra money is spent immediately, the possible extra money earned is delayed.

There is a general cost of being employed that often goes unnoticed and unaccounted for.  Everything from clothes or uniforms to transportation and formalized education are costs that are either created or enhanced by jobs and our job culture.  All of our stress treatment and treatment for depression, and the previously-mentioned “escape spending” are also created or enhanced by our jobs.  Claire Wolfe had written on this previously in an article that has always made me rethink the decisions and situations in my life.  I’ll let her finish it out expertly.  From Dark Satanic Cubicals:

Jobs suck. Corporate employment sucks. A life crammed into 9-to-5 boxes sucks. Gray cubicles are nothing but an update on William Blake’s “dark satanic mills.” Granted, the cubicles are more bright and airy; but they”re different in degree rather than in kind from the mills of the Industrial Revolution. Both cubicles and dark mills signify working on other people’s terms, for other people’s goals, at other people’s sufferance. Neither type of work usually results in us owning the fruits of our labors or having the satisfaction of creating something from start to finish with our own hands. Neither allows us to work at our own pace, or the pace of the seasons. Neither allows us access to our families, friends, or communities when we need them or they need us. Both isolate work from every other part of our life.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

DVD EXtras!:  This didn’t fit into the piece, really, so consider it part of the “making of:” documentary!

I’m sure we’ve all heard plenty recently about politicians being for the working man or from the middle class. These statements turn out to be truer than they know. Being in the parasitic or political class (poly = many, ticks = parasites; therefore politics), these smoke-blowers are all in favor of working Americans, because, after all, someone has to be productive for these idiots to exist. This is similar to being for food, water, and breathable air. Likewise, their existence is made possible and sustained by the wealth of the middle class. The lower classes keep voting for them, while the middle class keeps them in substantial loot (laundered through the contracts given to “contributors”). These gas bags waste considerable resources traveling all over the globe to be sure people hear them say that they empathize with us working stiffs. They really know what it’s like, since they can observe it from far above any actual productive work.