Wants

There's many things I want to do. I want to write interesting and entertaining things, I want to dispense wisdom, I want to be comfortable and loved and all sorts of other things. I've missed out on some of these, squandered opportunities, ignored chances, and so on. The key, I'm realizing, is to just do things. Be active, not just reacting to life. Even if things don't work out perfectly, you'll usually learn more than you would have if you didn't. And that gives you more to go on for next time. Especially in writing, and wisdom, both of which come from what you've done. You can take wisdom from others, but it doesn't really fit you right until you make it part of yourself. Like a pair of new shoes, it's not really yours until you've broken them in, stomped a few miles in them.

If I'm going to write, then firstly, I have to actually write. And secondly, I have to do things, to have stuff to write about. Great as imagination and research are, experience gives things immediacy. And then maybe my journal will quit being so boring. Heh.

This isn't really any new revelation, things have been moving this way for a while. I barely watch TV any more, that was one of the first casualties of the Internet for me. And lately I've been moving away from having music on most of the time online, too. Constant stimulation keeps giving you new input, even if it's something you've heard a thousand times before. Which can be helpful, or it can be noise. Sometimes, you need the quiet and time to think to let things settle and fall into place.

That and general distractions and things like work and life are part of the reason I've not been on IRC or the GG forums as much, or on Furc. I just haven't been able to be involved like I used to be, haven't been able to keep up. And I'm trying to cut back on the amount of time I spend gaming, to make it a hobby again, rather than a constant thing. The problem is, it means I don't see many people as much as I'd like to, and that's bad. Even the ones here on LJ, where I just hook my brain to the keyboard and let crap pour out.

But, I've started the new job hunt, and it's time for things to start changing. They shoulda a long while ago, but what's done is done, let's see where this goes.

Tags: Mindscribbles, Me

A Comparison of Three Religious Guidelines (Well, sorta)

So, in my various studies, both offline and on, I've noticed a common thread running through many different religions, ethosii (ethoses? Ethoen? Whatever.), spiritual paths, and the like. The basic message is "Don't be a lamer," the main variation is the definition of lamer. I'm only slightly kidding.

But there's three key phrases in particular, that struck me as being almost identical. But only almost, they share the same basic thought, but they're worded differently, more actively or passively, and how specific they are. So I'm "reviewing" them, in the order from the weakest to the strongest. And along the way hopefully it'll provide some insight, humor, or just a way to waste ten minutes at work, any of which would be fine. But I picked these three because they're the "core rule" for each.

"An it harm none, do as ye will." We'll start with the Wiccan Rede, because it's the most passive, and the weakest, I think. Besides being worded in RenFaire English, it's extremely vague. It's not so much a rule, as a guideline. There's no definition at all of "harm", or what to do if any course of action harms somebody, and no real suggestion of what to do, other than whatever you want. But it gives a sort of ground floor for behavior, of not hurting anybody. Which is good and fine, but no terribly specific or much of a guide other than that.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The "Golden Rule", straight out of the New Testament. It's more active, telling you to do unto others, but only what you'd like them to do to you. Of course, it leaves out things like what about kinks that you're into that somebody else isn't, and so on, but it's more specific. But not terribly much more, and it's not that active, it's just saying if you do something, do something you'd want to have done to you.

"Be excellent to each other." Bill and Ted. It's much more active, telling you to actually go out and BE excellent to each other. Excellent's very vague, but it's more positive than just not hurting anybody, at least on a par with thing you'd like to have done to you. It's questionable if everything you'd like to have done to you is excellent, and vice versa, so that's probably a wash. But it's definitely more active, telling you to actively go out and be excellent. Which is why I like it. The world needs more excellent things and people.

So, there you go. I may get around to expanding this later, if I come across other sentences that're nice and short to paste and analyze, though this really is less than a book-cover-blurb of any of the religions of philosophies involved. Except maybe Bill and Ted's. So take them as you will.

Tags: Language, Religion, Mindscribbles

Time for another letter to the editor

Not that they printed the my last one, but. I'm going to make one to reply to this, a happy fun piece of spin. Also, it's inconsistent, and wrong.

For example... "If it only takes rescinding President George Bush's tax cuts to solve the problem, as Selbo states in his letter, then former President Bill Clinton was lying when he said there was a Social Security problem. Even after Clinton raised taxes, he said there was a looming Social Security shortfall."

When Bill Clinton was in office, the situation was completely different. For one, the expected date of when Social Security would run out of Trust Fund buffer was a lot sooner, like 2010, rather than 2040something like it is now. Also, we had a surplus, which was how Clinton was preparing for Social Security, by paying down the debt and ensuring the money would be available to pay back the Trust Fund bonds. The surplus is long since gone, thanks to George W. Bush's tax giveaway to the rich. Now, between continued irresponsible tax giveaways and two wars, the deficit is bigger than ever. Nothing in Bush's privatization scheme would do anything to fix this, either. The President wants to borrow TRILLIONS more to create "private accounts". Trillions that will have to be paid back by our kids and grandkids, with much higher taxes.

"Yes, there are some government bonds in the Social Security coffers,..." Some. 1.6 Trillion dollars is a pretty big "some".

"Do you think the U. S. Government will just print the money to redeem the bonds? It doesn't work that way. " Well, yes, it does, really. But leaving that aside... "No, future taxpayers will have to cough up the money to redeem those bonds. And any increase in taxes at this time for Social Security will end up the same way. Congress will spend it and give the taxpayers a bond that our grandchildren will have to make good."

President Bush's "plan", what little of it we've actually been told (which amounts to... uh... "private accounts! Private accounts!" with no details or information) would require borrowing TRILLIONS of dollars more, which would be added to the government's debt that, yes, you guessed it, our kids and grandkids would have to pay back, far more than the bonds that would come from a tax increase to buffer the Trust Fund.

"What President Bush is dealing with is the retirement promise of Social Security. Allowing a portion of this to go into a personal account would benefit the poorest among us who cannot save for retirement." Not really, no, it wouldn't. From the numbers on the Cato Institute's online calculator, actually, the poorest among us would make less from private accounts than from Social Security. Yes, really.

And Social Security, despite his claim otherwise, IS an insurance program. It insures people against going broke when they retire. Even if we created President Bush's miraculous private accounts, there would be people whose accounts would fail, or the stock would drop, or they'd outlive the money in their accounts. Does this guy really think that the American public would sit around and let old people starve to death? Maybe, but I doubt the politicians would, thanks to the AARP if nothing else. And then we'd have to re-create essentially the same setup as we have now, with the government ensuring that people wouldn't drop below a certain income once they retire.

"Now Selbo feels that investing is risky. For some people it is, for others it isn't." That sentence is total... well, total nothing, really. Investing is only not risky if you can afford to lose the money. And if you can afford to lose the money, you probably have other things to supplement Social Security ANYWAY, this goes completely against his line above about private accounts "helping the poorest among us".

"People would have choices for investing, but not risky choices. Selbo indicates that he trusts the government. Well, it will be the government telling people what their investment choices are, the same as a government employee's own retirement plan. And these personal accounts would be voluntary!"

No, they wouldn't be. I mean... his whole sentence contradicts itself. It's "voluntary" but the government takes the money out automatically, forces you to invest it, and tells you what you can invest it in. That's not "voluntary". It's not necesarilly bad, but it's what he's claiming.

"The responsibility that current workers have to support current retirees will become too burdensome in the future because the ratio of worker to retiree will drop to two workers for every retiree. " False, actually, it depends on many factors.

"Personal accounts will not solve the problem, but they may help ease the pain when benefits are cut. The present benefit program is not sustainable."

Okay, seriously, WTF? He just admitted that the President's "private accounts" won't help solve the "crisis" in Social Security at all. Which is true. Which President Bush has even admitted. So... they won't solve the problem, they won't stop benefit cuts, and they're going to cost trillions of dollars more in debt... Where's the good side to these "private accounts"? Because I'm not seeing it, at all.

"All solutions should be on the table, but to just say rescind the Bush tax cuts and the problem will be solved smacks of partisanship at its lowest level." LOL.

What a horrid, hack job of an opinion. Which is only to be expected, when trying to defend something that he ADMITS won't help the alleged "crisis" at all. Wow. Just wow.

Tags: Politics, Mindscribbles

Letter, first draft

This is replying to this letter here to one of my local papers. Feel free to comment, critique, and offer other things I should mention or rebut.

( Letter to the Editor! )

Tags: Politics, Writing, Mindscribbles