G.I. Joker

I remember when G.I. Joe was a real G.I..
'Nuff said.

Merry Christmas!

Yes, it's actual dialogue, from the original series first-season episode Dagger of the Mind. The lady is the conveniently-named Dr. Helen Noel, played by the incomparable Marianna Hill.

One of the great things about Trek was that it recognized that despite all the tech they surround themselves with, people will be people. We'll still have Christmas, and office parties, and those little uncomfortable memories.

And that's something to smile about, wouldn't you say?

What happens on the Enterprise stays on the Enterprise.

And lest we forget the reason for the celebration, Trek's here to remind us:

I Wish...

Think about it. 

Voting in our political system, if it were done ideally, would work like this:

1. All voters would cast ballots for those candidates who best represented their interests.
2. The votes would be tallied, and the winner would be the candidate who best represented the interests of the most voters.

But it doesn't really work like that, does it?  For many voters, elections are a form of team sporting event. Voters don't cast ballots for the candidate who best represents them. Rather, they get behind and cheer on the champion on their team who has the best chance of winning, whether their agenda aligns with the voters' or not. If it has ever puzzled you how it is that Congress can have an approval rating of 14% (fourteen percent!) even though each and every member was elected by a majority vote in his or her district, then here's your answer. The voters play the game instead of voting in their interests, and when to no one's surprise they are not represented, they are dissatisfied with the people they pretended to prefer for the sake of the "election game".

Doesn't that sound a little silly to you? So I want to talk to the "team players".

The only time the you seem to take a genuine interest in your own best interests is when you are discussing the candidates of your own party's opposition. It's a bit bizarre, but the next time you're watching the network pundits prattle on, pay attention and you'll see it in action. Militant Leftists wax philosophic about what "the Republicans" need to do. Right-wing mouthpieces do the same about "the Democrats". They are both supremely adept at finding the flaws in the other side's candidates, and they are both supremely inept at recognizing the same in their own.

If you were looking at it purely as election strategy, it is the worst one to take. After all, if you want your candidate to sail through the general election to victory, shouldn't you encourage the other party to offer up some halfwit as their nominee? It seems to be what they'd naturally do if you weren't around to "help" them with your sage advice as to who's best, doesn't it?

Of course, that's not exactly how your advice runs. Opposition commentary is almost entirely negative. You point out the flaws so they can pick the candidate with the fewest to offer up. But the end result is the same. By speaking up, the opposition party has exerted a lot of pressure on you to pick the candidate with the "fewest flaws". One who can win. As a result, the opposition has just picked your candidate's flaws. That's not going to affect your vote, of course... you're a team player.

Then comes the General Election, and you have nothing but the one nominee from your party, whose flaws you pretty much completely ignored during the primaries, having been fixated on what was going on in the other party for whom you would never vote as a pure matter of principle. And suddenly you recognize that your nominee isn't going to win with just your core party votes. There are swing voters out there, and they're paying attention to all the details you ignored. And you have to deal with that, so it's all back to team sports and your own nominee's weaknesses and strengths honestly don't matter. General Electioneering becomes an exercise in denying all the flaws the other team picked for your candidate, and denying any of the strengths in theirs. Anything you've ever said good about one of your candidates is bad when it's said about the other guy. And right now, I'm going to pick on the Democrats, because as the champions of identity politics they provide so much low-hanging fruit:

• Pick on Obama? You're racist. 
• Offer up a black candidate of your own? You're still racist because he's an Uncle Tom. And saying he's an Uncle Tom isn't racist, because you're the racist, not me. QED.

• Pick on Hillary? You're superficial and a misogynist. 
• Offer up a female candidate of your own? OMG, what is she wearing? And seriously, does she think she can win with that face and hair? 

• Ask about Obama's birth certificate? RACIST! BIRTHER! 
• Ask about Ted Cruz' birth certificate? No, really... this has serious problems! 

• Offer only rich white people who are past retirement age as candidates? No they're not (seriously). Besides, they know what's best for you. 
• Offer a multicultural buffet of young candidates... black, white, male, female, hispanic? They're really condescending old white guys. And racist. Don't forget racist.

And it works the other way around. If a Democrat has an idea it can't be good because... well, because. And Republican ideas are good just because they're Republican. (Seriously, visit this link if you think I think it's all Democratic nonsense). Any candidate's qualifications and disqualifications are moot because you don't want "them" in charge. "Them" is, of course, the other team.

Neither one of you has a candidate... you're voting for the Donkey or the Elephant. Go, team!

Personally, I prefer it the way it's supposed to work. So I don't intend on voting Republican or Democrat or even necessarily Libertarian... and I proudly proclaim my lack of intent. I'll vote for a Presidential candidate who best represents my interests. And if they all suck, I'll abstain, knowing that my vote won't reduce the the amount of "suck" in the system.

But to be honest, most of that suck is from you guys.

Tattoos

---

Personally, I appreciate the artistry, but I'm too fond of the human body au naturale to ever consider modifying such a perfect work.

---

Doing Unto Others

I hope this comes across as intended: help others fearlessly, confidently, simply because it's right.

I made this meme in response to another one I saw (below). It expresses a statement that's technically correct... BUT, the correctness of it stems from a horribly incorrect mis-statement. I'd say it expresses a little truth by sacrificing a big one:

On the face of it, it's right. If you live your life expecting that good deeds will earn you rewards in equal measure from the people for whom you do them, then you will be disappointed.

That's because that's not what you're supposed to be doing. You can do it right instead.

So what's my problem with this meme? There are a few:

FIRST: It magnifies negativity. Everyone knows that feeling of disappointment when you expect the people around you to behave more kindly toward you than they do. It's important to acknowledge those feelings, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But this meme is basically a piece of advice, that's not what advice is for. Advice is for taking action to deal with the emotions after you've acknowledged them. This meme basically invites you to dwell on disappointment: to avoid future action due to the assumption that you'll always (or frequently) be disappointed. I think there's much better advice to be had.

SECOND: It expects payback. You're doing "FOR" others and expect them to do "FOR" you.  That's not the point of the Golden Rule... not at all. It's not even how it's properly phrased. Most often it's stated as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Yes, it's a Biblical meme... even if you have little room for religion, it's still good advice whether it was given by Jesus, Shakespeare, or Oprah Winfrey. But since it's been around for thousands of years, out comes the Bible. Mostly people have problems with what they think is written there. So here we see what is:

"All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets."

-- Matthew 7:12

See that? "Should do". Not "will do". In fact, there's not one thing that's actually said about what they will do to you. The entirety of it... 100%... is about how you treat others. And how should you do that? As you wish they should treat you. It's an instruction for you, not an expectation of them. It's neither servitude nor obligation, but simply doing what's right. Later on you're given the advice again, rephrased:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

-- Matthew 22:39

Your disappointment comes from your expectation, and that's what needs to change, because you may be missing out on something much better. 

THIRD: No one has the same heart as yours. But most people have a heart like yours. They respond to kindness in kind. Someone has to go first, so why not you? Why not me?

And sure, not everybody responds in kind. Not every smile will get you a smile in return. Some people are just grumpy. Some are sad for reasons that have nothing to do with you. Some may have even listened to poor advice from Internet memes and have built walls. Some are suspicious because they, too, have listened to cynics and are looking for "the catch". Some were never taught the golden rule as it should be understood. Toss them the smile anyway and keep walking so you can toss a few more at others. They may not return your kindness today, or to you; but they will remember that it was given freely. There was no catch. The cynics were wrong about you. And somewhere, sometime, that grumpy person will be kind to someone... just because it's right and because they had your example.

Here's the funny bit about that heart. You feel disappointment only if you are willing to give kindness. And if the cynics are wrong about you, then they are wrong about a lot of people. Because contrary to what some big purple dinosaur may have told you as a child, there are a lot of ways in which you are not unique.

You are not unique in having feelings.
You are not unique in feeling gratitude.
You are not unique in being human.

When you stop to consider that we all share our humanity, it opens up an entire new world of realization. There are many people like you. And if you're willing to help, they are too. If there's one person who's willing to help, there are millions. But the only mind you know is your own. So the only way to ensure that there is one is by being that 'one'.

And here's something else to think about: if someone else just gave you that piece of advice, you know for a fact that you won't be alone. All you have to prove is that it's true for you.

So consider what's "in it for you"... a city, a town, a country, or even a world, in which people are taught to be charitable for the sake of it... freely, cheerfully. Even if not everyone is so inclined, this is still an infinitely better world than one where people are tolerable only out of fear of the law, not because it's right; where they do not support those in need of their own accord, but only because they are forced to contribute so that someone else will do it for pay; or because they desire the benefit.

FINALLY, the advice is just plain faulty. It's wrong because following it doesn't make you a better person; nor does it place you among better people.

The implicit advice given by this meme is that you shouldn't treat others as you would have yourself treated, because they wouldn't do it for you. As advice is ranked, perhaps it's slightly better than Jim Jones' invitation to "have some Kool-Aid." I'm not kidding. Taking this advice can screw up every relationship and personal interaction in your life, for the remainder of your life. It invites you to be selfish and standoffish at best, and others will respond in kind, because they do have hearts like yours, and will not take kindly to such poor treatment.

Wouldn't it be a comfort just to know for a fact that you live in a world where if someone truly needs help there is a person who will step up and give that help?

Be that person.

Still Did Their Jobs

I'm about sick of the "Still Did His Job" meme for several reasons: 

1. It's applied without thought 
2. It's an OBVIOUS logical fallacy
3. It's not that clever to start with. 

So I decided to break it.

This was the tamest of the images I could have used to illustrate the point. Sometimes personal conviction must override orders from the State. We may not agree on when that is appropriate, but it is certain that blind obedience to authority is simply stupid. 99% of the meme-writers have lost sight of that.

Here's another image I could have used:

And no, this doesn't correspond one-to-one with Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses in Kentucky. I'm making a different point... a point about the meme itself, and the expectation that people should do their jobs simply because they're their jobs. When a job is morally abhorrent, you shouldn't do it. People know that. That's why Oskar Schindler was a hero.

You might argue that rank-and-file German soldiers followed the Nazis' orders because otherwise their lives were in danger. The problem is that Mrs. Davis might argue the same regarding her immortal soul, on which she may place a greater value than mere loss of life. Whether you and I disagree with her is irrelevant. [1] Disagreement doesn't make this an intelligent meme.

And we may disagree with Mrs. Davis over whether this rises to a level to where she should actively block her job as opposed to quitting it. That disagreement still doesn't make this an intelligent meme.

If Mrs. Davis has that deep-held conviction, she is morally justified in acting upon it. This is where it's appropriate for the courts to interpret the law and make a well-informed decision, which might result in her removal from the position. It's not time for half-baked ridicule from people who aren't even terribly good at it.

There are few worse ways to make your point, because it doesn't address the problem that resulted in dissent. It just confirms your willingness to blindly submit to authority. 

Do you still think that "doing your job" gives you the moral high ground?

---

All images used under Fair Use for the purpose of political commentary.

[1] Now, if you'd really like to know what I think on the Kim Davis subject, it's that she should do issue the licenses as directed by the court. I've explained it before, but I'll summarize it in my next post.

Poe's Law

This:

This Girl Just Trolled The Entire Internet By Acting Like A Stupid Liberal [PODCAST]

-- The Libertarian Republic

Lead to this:

Lead to this:

It seems to me that Poe's Law provides a very useful method of gauging one's own sanity, as measured against the public norm. Otherwise, you could be a loon and never know it.

So if your most serious pronouncements are met with the Fry Face as people try to figure out whether you're being serious, consider that at the very least you appear to be a loon to those people around you. Adjust yourself accordingly: