A Quick Jab at the Paranormal: Am I onto Something?

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know shit about shit.  Yeah, I get half to three-quarters of your standard Jeopardy  questions right but that's man-made whatever.  I'm talking about in the unknown.  I'm talking about in parapsychology and religion and philosophy and psychology and physics.  If you read the first sentence in this paragraph, you'll never believe the one that follows this semicolon; I love where I am in my education.

Socrates said (I may be paraphrasing; depends on your source): "One thing only that I know, and that is that I know nothing."  Well, smack me with a house slipper and call me Jilly McWilly.  I knew it all when I was seventeen--even more when I got into college.  Yet, to be as wise as Socrates, I had to go down a path of open-mindedness like I had never imagined.  I had to let go of almost everything I believed if I wanted a chance at uncovering truths.  That shit is flat-out hard, leaning toward the impossible!  Ever made a 5 or 10-year run at deprogramming yourself? Good Gawd, man.

But I did it.  I think like I believe Socrates thought way back then, and that makes me incredibly happy with my way of thinking.  Hell, I think if Socrates were an American today, we'd be nearly identical in our philosophies and beliefs.  I get him.  I get his openness and his old faithful fallback; pure logic.  Once you close your mind on a subject, your learning of alternatives is over until you de-program yourself or somebody (or something) does it for you.  While I have searched the internet from end-to-end to find a quote that I thought was by Einstein (but since have not been able to find it by anybody,  but I know I read it and I know it was from a more famous historical figure, and I used it, paraphrasing, in my book, Name of Alt), I could not find it.  It went something like this:

"To have true intelligence, you must look at the information available in the world as you would look at traffic at a crossroads.  Let your mind be the crossroads.  At one point, it knows a car is in the center--at another, it is gone.  Be willing to strike down old beliefs if newer, better, more believable evidence emerges in a given category.  Let information go so information can flow.  The most intelligent in the world have a mere "working truth" in their mind; a current observation built from all the information that has passed before them combined with all of their thoughts about that information and mixtures of that information AND their imagination; look at knowledge as you would look at flowing water under a microscope.  Always be in a state of believing in "working truths," truths that you will certainly allow yourself to strike down in the face of more convincing evidence."

Truth be told, I elongated that like a balloon clown, but I needed to get my philosophy across.  We don't need to go into the "world is flat" argument, or the "Copernicus" argument, or anything else that was believed worldwide but dis-proven; just understand that I am an open tunnel through which information passes, and I grab onto what is believable, and honestly, I do wish everybody was that way instead of being so rigid in what their parents and teachers "taught" them 30 years ago.  But I accept them and entertain their thoughts; always have, and I believe I always will.

Now, let's apply some of that to the supernatural (more specifically, ghosts, aliens, telepathy and telekinesis).

For ghosts and UFOs, I believe it's entirely possible that they are very real, that they are very normal, but that they are natural "accidents."  I do not believe in grand design.  I believe in chance design, just short of chaos theory.  If, in fact, some of our scientists are right who come from the platform of quantum mechanics and, among those, the ones that come from the platform of m-theory and string theory, then it is entirely possible that our universe is occasionally bumping into a parallel universe, which shows real things, right before your eyes, that disappear.

I can already hear some arguments; "But the ghost I saw was transparent, and walked through a wall while the UFO I saw was not transparent and simply traveled fast after hovering for a while--for a long while, longer than I've every seen a ghost hang around."

Ok, so your ghosts could be "souls" or "formerly human energy fields that contain all but your conscious" that got trapped between two universes--between the two flapping sheets.  Therefore, they truly are nothing more than small energy fields with some type of manifestation powers.  UFOs on the other hand (let's discount the hoaxes and man-made ones and get serious here; we're talking about the unexplained ones) may have actually started within that parallel universe and find themselves surprisingly in ours (or us in theirs), not knowing what to do or how to get back after an unexpected "bump."  The scientists like to explain these "branes," (short for "membranes") as bed sheets flowing in the wind, only a slight distance apart, and they occasionally "bump," placing something from one universe into another for a period of time, until it separates again.  Essentially, the difference between UFOs and spirits could be where they originate from and what form they are in; energy fields or physical structures/beings.

We have only begun to scratch the surface of a global consciousness and connected thoughts for telepathy.  Even though they have successfully, in a lab environment, proven that telepathy works with one person transmitting thoughts to another, we still don't understand the natural (a.k.a. before 2012) mechanisms at work.  It's so easy to say, "EMF.  Yep, EMF.  That's EMF."  To me, that's like the scientists saying "The universe is 70% Dark energy, and 25% Dark matter" with only 5% being known substance," which they have said.  To me, that's the perfect equivalent in logic as saying about our very complex oceans, "The Oceans are 95% water, and they're wet (and what a humble scientist should admit is that, "That's all we know right now," but instead, they act like they figured something out; please.  Ego, go home.

Telekinesis has very few scientific examples supporting its existence, yet you'll see somebody try it sometimes and it's very convincing.  Tossing out cheats, what's going on?  I believe that the human brain could have 30, 100, 6000 senses, and we've only discovered and employed 5 (and part of the sixth) now.  We are really dumb, and the sooner we accept that as a species, the sooner we'll make massive gains in education (yes, I get it; we put a man on the moon, but I'm talking about dumb as in comparing our knowledge to what is unknown, not what we have done compared to primitive man).

So, it could be that those people have been early out of the gates on developing their sixth sense which may include powers of telekinesis, or that some other natural force happens, occasionally, while they attempt these experiments and just ONE out of a THOUSAND works, and they convince themselves that therein lies the proof; they are full-blooded telekinetics.  They believe that they only need to hone their skills.  And it may be total bs.  It may cause them to waste the rest of their lives trying to bend forks with their minds when really, it was a moving portion of earth's magnetic field, or something else, that worked that one time for them.

So out of all this, what is real?  What is really real is observable, record-able, and repeatable phenomena.  With those three combined, you've got something.  With those data, you can begin to open up a study that has merit to it; a solid, empirical foundation.  This is where you can draw your very intelligent scientists in and have them start working on it to figure it out.  In my mind, that's where I am right now.  I want to give them something, whether (as I'm confused about) it is proof that something exists or just enough to convince them that these phenomena MUST be studied more closely with more manpower/brainpower/computerpower.  Stop blowing it off!  It's happening!!!  Let's give it the study it deserves.

Do your Google searches for famous NASA astronauts, pilots, heads of state, and other very respectable witnesses who have seen both ghosts and UFOs AND aliens WHILE in groups who describe the same sightings.  IT.  IS.  REAL.  Give it the study time it deserves.  Re-open the parapsychology deparments at your major Universities; call it "PScience," if you want to keep it modernized and shake the ridicule that is/used to be associated with the narrow-minded "Oh, you believe in little green men" people who are just dumb, in my opinion, or terrified that their comfortable and protected little world may, once again, be disrupted.  All I'm asking for, all we're asking for, is give us ten years of good, wide-spread study without the backdrop of ridicule to try to explore empirical evidence from uncertain phenomena--within that time, I'd bet you a Buffalo nickel that most of what we now call "paranormal" becomes "normal."

Thank you for reading.

Stuff you probably didn't know about my books: Addy's Boom and the Blast Frontier's tidal wave

One of the most difficult parts of this book on the research end was figuring out what would happen to Lauren when the wave hit her store, if the store stood. 

I had to view about 15 YouTube videos and read 8 or 10 reports on water flow into an enclosed area when the water level was actually above a non-water-tight roof on that enclosed area.  Then I had to figure out what the chances were that the actual buildings on Main street would have provided her some impact protection (vs. becoming water-propelled missiles) as the debris crossed Church street (for those that didn't know, those streets and buildings are all real, as is "Richard's Classic," which is actually called Richardson's.)

Then I had to figure out the average speed of a tidal wave, and the average (by percentage) level of water trailing a tall-crested tidal wave to make sure it would not be below the door entrance to her store; otherwise, the store would have easily filled up with water, leaving no gap for her to breathe.

I then had to estimate how much water would have leaked in from the roof to add to the level of water already in the store, and how high that would rise before the crest passed.  Lucky for Lauren, theoretically, she still had a foot of air space to breathe, locked at the top of the store, until the wave receded. 

THINK HARDER! (I'm not getting political this season, but shit like this infurates me when it's thrown in my face as fact).

The following "story" is one that democrat-haters are passing around.  I'm about the beat the hell out of this story and if you care about accuracy in folklore, pass this back to the originators of this myth.  

The following is the myth, in it's entirety as posted by a good friend of mine (with different political views).  After posting the myth, I will then post it again, in it's shredded form after I beat the living shit out of it with my logic stick.  You won't recognize what the original author intended when I'm done, but you will see the truth.  It's after midnight, so forgive any grammar mistakes, or trivial percentage flaws... or don't.  I don't care.

First, the myth, as posted by this friend (in red):

Remember when those Dems start spewing false facts about taxes, this is how it works.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier ......

 

Next, the same myth posted with my comments in green (may appear black depending on your video settings): 

 

Remember when those Dems start spewing false facts about taxes, this is how it works. (Erm, no.)

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The analogy is insane off of the starting block.  First, these men buying  beer are voluntarily going out, purchasing (or drinking free) a specific product that they want, and then using this strange, non-linear tax-code formula to pay for said goods.  WTF?  With tax collection, you are paying non-voluntarily for a non-specific product (or service) that you can't possibly know if you want!  It is not apples and oranges, it's apples and goddam orangutans.

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.  (Is that right?  Go out to a bar with a group of guys with varying incomes, and when you're done drinking, say, "I'm not paying anything" and see what happens.  See if that rich man will cover you.  Let us know how that works out).
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

Whoa, Nellie.  Since the Bush Tax Cuts, the period-adjusted millionaires are paying their lowest tax rates since 1945, when they paid 66.4%; now they pay 32.4%!  So in the above analogy, the tenth man would be paying more like $45, then scale it down from there.  But let's leave it intact and continue because I don't need help destroying this ridiculous analogy.

 

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

 

Stop this little merry-go-round right here as the original storyteller is trying to make you dizzy.  Equivalent of the above "curve"=federal, state, or local government stating, "We're now reducing your taxes by some percentage, requiring your commitment to go down to as low as $0.  For those already paying $0, you will see no change.  For those who currently pay a lower amount than the actual amount of the discount, your new payment will be $0.  For those paying a higher amount than the amount of the actual discount, you will see a discount (using this storyteller's analogy) of larger amounts based on your larger expenditures; this will be on a sliding scale." 

 

None of this includes any state, federal, or local taxes that people are paying, poor and rich alike, for commercial products and services.  The four poor men that walk out of the bar drunk just SO HAPPEN to be the most likely to be arrested for drunk in public and other illegalities, imagined or otherwise, discovered during the investigations, statistically (don't play dumb here--get your Google on) and will pay fines, which will go directly into a local tax fund--a fund the six richest men haven't dropped a penny into.  They may have to serve jail time, immediately lowering their chances of finding well-paying jobs in the future.  They didn't have the "connections" like many of the wealthier folks do to get out of such tickets/infractions/trouble.  (Don't make me cite sources; just Google, "Rich people getting away with crimes"). 

 

Moreover, our government(s) have tax brackets that people clearly fit into based on their incomes.  If you want to shove that square peg into this round-hole analogy, you must first determine the actual income of each person, then apply the cost in taxes as a percentage, then give each man a discount based upon what his cost in taxes, as a percentage, is, as a result of his income bracket.  

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.  They would still drink for free.  Got one thing right.  Again, I ask any "poor" person to go out and try to drink for free and see how that works out for ya.  Makes the analogy a bit moot, but let's entertain it all the way through. 

 

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'  Well, I thought you would never ask.  As referenced above, the new $20 windfall would automatically negate the four men who paid nothing, leaving only the six to divide it amongst.  Using their standard tax bracket percentages paid, and then deriving from that the differences paid between each of the men, by percentage, then those percentages would then be applied to the $20, giving each man his legal share of the discount.

Now, let's get jiggy with it.  Who was paying what, in the beginning?

First four men: 0%, 5th man: 1%, 6th man: 3%, 7th man: 7%, 8th man: 12%, 9th man: 18%, and the 10th man: 59%.  (keep in mind that to correlate the difference in percentages of taxes paid between the 9th man and that horribly abused 10th man whose rate jumps up to 59%, that would require his income to put him in a bracket of paying 59%, while the richest people in America are only paying 32.4%.

 

It's this effing simple, people; if the men want to keep on paying based on that formula, which the original storyteller said they wanted to do, the new $20 windfall brings the following truths: 100-20=80.  The bill is now $80.  That makes the men pay the following: 5th man pays 1% of $80, or $0.80.  6th man pays 3% of $80, or $2.40.  7th man pays 7% of $80, or $5.60.  8th man pays 12% of $80, or $9.60.  9th man pays 18% of the $80, or $14.40, and the 10th man pays 59% of the $80, or $47.20.  I will call this paragraph the "True Math" paragraph, because I will be referring to it again. 

 

 They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

Wait a minute: the bartender (being a government authority for this analogy, correct?) suggested (no... enforced?  yes) that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by (get this) roughly the same amount (can you possibly get any more vague as to how this bartender reached the amounts below?)  So he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay (or, in more accurate terms, WOULD pay, unless they wanted to go to jail).

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). (A product of the ambiguity of the mind of the bartender, this $1 savings, as are all the savings that follow in the next four lines.)
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. (True).  And the first four continued to drink for free.  (True again)  But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" Stop.  Wrong again.  These men "got" NO dollars.  They got discounts!  They received a lesser burden through an authority bringing a discount upon them.  These men had NO complaint as they used a firm mathematical formula to pay the amounts early on in the story.  And even though these totally arbitrary discount applications the bartender gave to each man were not the exact same as the formula used before, they were relatively close.  No dollars were given out!  Only discounts on money that was guaranteed to be collected were given out.  

So this sixth man, who, before, had NO problem with the charge for beer being on a sliding scale based on income--who had NO problem with the fact that those richer than him paid more, while those poorer than him paid less, is now LIVID because a larger dollar discount but lower percentage discount was given to the wealthier men!  Even as he, the sixth man, was paying less that he had been?  Work with me here; he had NO problem with the richer men paying more of an amount, but a SERIOUS problem with them getting a summarily larger discount for what they were bringing to the table, even though the percentage discount still fit exactly within the framework they had ALL agreed was an acceptable one.  Matter of fact, the only thing that was changing was who was getting more of a break.

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"  And the bitching goes uphill...

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" Rinse and repeat...

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" First of all, the poor have never believed that they were being robbed by taxes; they have believed that they were being exploited as cheap labor, and as maltreatment and politics and racism and sexism and all of the other isms kept them from climbing to a respectable level of success, they stayed quiet, and nothing changed, and one day they are walking home from work or leaving a doctor's office after having their severe disability treated and somebody yells, "You are the scum of America!"  THAT'S the exploitation happening to the poor, of both sexes and all races, but especially among minorities.    This pucktarded bar analogy saying that the poor were mad because they were already paying $0 for drinks and now they can't get paid cash for drinking the drinks because a $20 discount falls upon the group is preposterous!

By letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire, there would be about 4% increase in the tax on the richest 2% of Americans. 4%.  Check out a nice conglomerate of charts for understanding what's really happening here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.  Honestly?  They beat him up.  In your analogy, this beating meant that they demanded that since he made more money, he should not be given unfair tax breaks on investment income or other income taxes.  Republicans and those on the far right believe that if we can just keep this rich man happy, he'll buy so much beer that all the others will have all the beer in the world that they can possible drink.  How fragile an argument that is.  Compare it with reality.  

 

That rich man, first of all, isn't buying anybody shit, especially the poor unless he's forced to.  Secondly, although he could open businesses directly or with investments that would employ people, which would, theoretically open up an entire complex of businesses to support that business, anybody can (and does) do that with loans from the government and foreign investors.  So there they all are, making their money and employing people, and it's all a happy world because the little rat people (the poor; just using the wealthy's terminology for us) are getting crumbs that are falling off of the wealthy peoples' tables, but they've forgotten one little factoid; 50% of new businesses fail in their first 5 years.  

 

So flip a coin; the supporting complex of business supplying the failed business follows suit, and the rats scurry away, looking for crumbs from somewhere else, grabbing some tax dollars for unemployment because the rich don't want to give up one effing red cent that might help the people of this country who can't afford it get an education and spread their own entrepreneurial wings, come up with their own inventions, deliver their own ideas that only an educated mind can produce.  Nooooo no.  Greedy.  Clinging to every penny while our country goes straight to hell.  Long as they got theirs, that's good enough.  Fuck America, they say; I'm rich.

 

So by asking for the extra 4% in taxes from the rich; for asking for the old tax code to be put back in place which they had no problem with before, we're beating the rich man up?  Oh, my.  Beware, my friends that believe that.  If this gets much worse, you will see what will amount to some real beating-up.  The rich won't give up a penny.  The poor are stuck in a mine shaft.  The government is the only entity with the power to close that gap to keep this "beating-up" from taking on a more literal shape.     

 
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!  Wrong again.  The 10th man may go somewhere else, but if he still lives in America, he will pay his dues.  If he goes somewhere else permanently, Americans don't want him here anyway.  We are a land of patriots.  We are a land of neighbors.  We will not let an oligarchy run our country.  WE, the people, run our country, and if he doesn't like it, he and his money can get the F out. The nine men left would simply form a new group (in this ridiculous analogy) where the total bill didn't equal $100 and/or find more rich folks to join in and participate.  

 

That's really what this is about.  

 

Don't make the rich help out a little more; don't "punish" them, because if they pay a higher tax rate, why, they may have to settle for only 14 beach-front houses instead of 16, and what a travesty that would be.  What a terrible robbery!  Have those rich folks explain that logic to the woman paying the 30-odd percent on income tax while she's working two jobs as a janitor to try to save up enough to go to a community college so she can then earn enough to get her two kids through college which would make THEM more valuable additions to society, further strengthening this country and adding a bunch more "tenth" men.  Go explain about your two less beach-front houses with your 4% tax hike.

 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.    And that, boys and girls and everybody else, is bullshit.  See the truth not as my version or another version; see the truth as it actually is.  Do your research.  Become empowered; otherwise, you're just another servant to the ruling class... and if you get motivated, hey, what the hell; fix it.  

 

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier ...... Au revoir... don't let the door hit ya.  The ones left believe in this country, and those are the only ones we want.  Go run your sweatshops and screw your customer base; you have no conscious anyway, so enjoy your new, worry-free life.  When natural disasters hit, we'll still be there to bail you out.  That's who we are.

 

21 Confessions and Realizations Before Midnight

1.  I fully believe that alien life forms have visited Earth and are not from other dimensions.
2.  For some reason, I get the feeling that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.
3.  Part of the reason I love to ride scooters is that I am almost killed once or more per day by people who do not pay enough attention to see me.
4.  Part of what I dislike about scooters is that I almost get killed once or more per day by people who do not pay enough attention to see me.
5.  Unlike many men, I welcome a moderate depletion of testosterone, and say good riddance to the many stupid things it made me do.
6.  The pain of missing my daughter cannot be softened with any medicine.
7.  In the past 50 years, our U.S. has gone from a care-for-thy-neighbor union to I-gotta-get-mine selfishness, but at least race and religious tolerance has grown, per capita.
8.  I now know, without any doubt, that the person you will find that you can truly have a long-term (forever) relationship with is going to be a person who accepts every single thing about you without trying to change it.
9.  If there is a catastrophe for the world, governments will survive while the people die. 
10.  Why can't a new space race be started in which the WHOLE world unites to get human beings to truly begin colonizing other planets/moons?  Would the interest not be universal?  Would we not breathe a sigh of relief for our species once such settlements are established in knowing that humanity will live on?
11.  The way younger people treat their parents and the elderly is saddening.
12.  If it turns out that God is an alien, and he really does want to be worshipped and the only God and praised, I got a feeling that I'm not going to like those aliens.
13.  Something is "off" in the Universe.  I sense it.  I don't know what it is; I almost feel like you would feel if you were being punked and somebody was just about to point out the cameras.  I get a strong sense of awakening that I can't describe... don't know when, if, or how, but I sense it.
14.  We will be at the world's population limit before 2050.  With current farming, we couldn't feed any more than eleven billion.
15.  I don't think cats are necessarily smarter than dogs, but they are much better at hiding guilt than dogs are.
16.  I do not believe there is anything magical or intelligent happening in the Earth's core.
17.  I do not believe that small groups of Illuminati or other "powerful" people are making all of the decisions; decisions are made by the highest bidders in most of the world.
18.  As the bottom continues to fall out of religion, people do lose their basic sense of moral direction and they get depressed with their new realization.  This had begun the process of declining morality, but added an increase in personal responsibility and a new appreciation for the short and delicate nature of life.
19.  Scientists, politicians, and the media have cried wolf so many times now that we will not believe them again until the wolf is dragging us into the forest, and even then, we may believe it's just a weather balloon.
20.  One good piece of living advice is this; picture yourself on your deathbed, all those years from now.  Looking back on your life, what would you have done differently?  Surprise--you have time to make the change now.
21.  If you really want to know what matters to you in life, pay attention to the first 3-5 things you think about upon waking up (besides using the bathroom or morning breath):

How do you define work and the ability to work?

One thing I've always  been weak on and continue to try to improve upon is keeping things concise.  In my writing, especially, I tend to try to include all types of information into a post that should be, if going by the advice of all of the experts, limited to your topic and support for that topic.

I've been practicing, and I'll do my best tonight, up until the point that it feels unnatural.

How do you define work?  Here's Webster's definition, and it is one I will not argue with:

work: activity in which one exerts strength or faculties to do or perform something: a : sustained physical or mental effort to overcome obstacles and achieve an objective or result b : the labor, task, or duty that is one's accustomed means of livelihood c : a specific task, duty, function, or assignment often being a part or phase of some larger activity.

There is a select group of people that tend to define work strictly as follows, to the best of my reckoning: work: when somebody leaves the house everyday for 8-12 hours and makes money for the activities they performed during those hours.

Next we'll define disability:

a : the condition of being disabled b : inability to pursue an occupation because of a physical or mental impairment

Finally, we'll use the CDC's and WebMD's definitions and descriptions to have a look at moderate-to-severe arthritis (which I have in the right knee and spine; both areas have had two surgeries each) and degenerative disc disease, as well as fibromyalgia which my doctor insists that I have but I deny) (also, because there will be my commentary in with quoted commentary from these official websites, I'll highlight my words in yellow, until my summary): 

CDC definition for osteoarthritis in knee and effects, found here:

 Osteoarthritis is a disease characterized by degeneration of cartilage and its underlying bone within a joint as well as bony overgrowth. The breakdown of these tissues eventually leads to pain and joint stiffness. The joints most commonly affected are the knees, hips, and those in the hands and spine. The specific causes of osteoarthritis are unknown, but are believed to be a result of both mechanical and molecular events in the affected joint. Disease onset is gradual and usually begins after the age of 40. There is currently no cure for OA. Treatment for OA focuses on relieving symptoms and improving function, and can include a combination of patient education, physical therapy, weight control, and use of medications.

VIII. Impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) [AAOS Fact Sheet; NHANES III data]

• OA of the knee is 1 of 5 leading causes of disability among non-institutionalized adults. (19)
   
• About 80% of patients with OA have some degree of movement limitation
  • and 25% cannot perform major activities of daily living (ADL’s), 11% of adults with knee OA need help with personal care and 14% require help with routine needs.
     
• About 40% of adults with knee OA reported their health “poor” or “fair”.
   
• In 1999, adults with knee OA reported more than 13 days of lost work due to health problems.
   
• Hip/knee OA ranked high in disability adjusted life years (DALYs) (20) and years lived with disability (YLDs). (20)

IX. Unique characteristics

• Disease in weight bearing joints has greater clinical impact.
   
• About 20–35% of knee OA and ~50% of hip and hand OA may be genetically determined. (21, 22)
   
• Established modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors: (4, 21, 22, 23)
  • Modifiable
    • Excess body mass (especially knee OA).
    • Joint injury (sports, work, trauma).
    • Occupation (due to excessive mechanical stress: hard labor, heavy lifting, knee bending, repetitive motion).
      • Men — Often due work that includes construction/mechanics, agriculture, blue collar laborers, and engineers.
      • Women — Often due work that includes cleaning, construction, agriculture, and small business/retail.
  • Structural malalignment, muscle weakness.
  • Non-modifiable.
    • Gender (women higher risk).
    • Age (increases with age and levels around age 75).
    • Race (some Asian populations have lower risk).
    • Genetic predisposition.

NOTE: Current smoking has been shown to be protective for osteoarthritis although it is unknown if this is due to the physiological effects of smoking on collagen, bone and cartilage tissue or if it is due to some unmeasured surrogate factor.

• Other possible risk factors:
  • Estrogen deficiency (ERT may reduce risk of knee/hip OA).
  • Osteoporosis (inversely related to OA).
  • Vitamins C, E and D – equivocal reports.
  • C-reactive protein (increased risk with higher levels).

Next, we'll take a look at spinal arthritis and degenerative disc disease from WebMD since CDC didn't have adequate descriptions of them (I have been diagnosed with moderate-to-severe arthritis in my spine and degenerative disc disease, along with the mild-to-moderate arthritis in my right knee and the resulting deformation of the knee from injury):

What Is Osteoarthritis of the Spine?

Osteoarthritis of the spine is a breakdown of the cartilage of the joints and discs in the neck and lower back.
Sometimes, osteoarthritis produces spurs that put pressure on the nerves leaving the spinal column. This can cause weakness and pain in the arms or legs.

Who Gets Osteoarthritis of the Spine?

In general, osteoarthritis happens as people age. Younger people may get it from one of several different causes:

• injury or trauma to a joint
• a genetic defect involving cartilage
• a condition that makes the joint lose its proper formation 

For people younger than 45 years old, osteoarthritis is more common among men. After age 45, osteoarthritis is more common among women. Osteoarthritis occurs more often among people who are overweight. It also occurs more frequently in those who have jobs or hobbies that put repetitive stress on certain joints.

What Are the Symptoms of Osteoarthritis of the Spine?

Osteoarthritis of the spine may cause stiffness or pain in the neck or back. It may also cause weakness or numbness in the legs or arms. Usually, the back discomfort is relieved when the person is lying down.
Some people experience little interference with the activities of their lives. Others become more severely disabled.
In addition to the physical effects, a person with osteoarthritis might also experience social and emotional problems. For instance, a person with osteoarthritis that hinders daily activities and job performance might feel depressed or helpless.

Degenerative Disc Disease (WebMD, cont.)

What is degenerative disc disease?

Degenerative disc disease is not really a disease but a term used to describe the normal changes in your spinal discs as you age. Spinal discs are soft, compressible discs that separate the interlocking bones (vertebrae) that make up the spine. The discs act as shock absorbers for the spine, allowing it to flex, bend, and twist. Degenerative disc disease can take place throughout the spine, but it most often occurs in the discs in the lower back (lumbar region) and the neck (cervical region).
See a picture of the spine and the discs in your spine .
The changes in the discs can result in back or neck pain and/or:

• Osteoarthritis, the breakdown of the tissue (cartilage) that protects and cushions joints.
• Herniated disc, an abnormal bulge or breaking open of a spinal disc.
• Spinal stenosis, the narrowing of the spinal canal , the open space in the spine that holds the spinal cord .

These conditions may put pressure on the spinal cord and nerves, leading to pain and possibly affecting nerve function.

What causes degenerative disc disease?

As we age, our spinal discs break down, or degenerate, which may result in degenerative disc disease in some people. These age-related changes include:

• The loss of fluid in your discs. This reduces the ability of the discs to act as shock absorbers and makes them less flexible. Loss of fluid also makes the disc thinner and narrows the distance between the vertebrae.
• Tiny tears or cracks in the outer layer (annulus or capsule) of the disc. The jellylike material inside the disc (nucleus) may be forced out through the tears or cracks in the capsule, which causes the disc to bulge, break open (rupture), or break into fragments.

These changes are more likely to occur in people who smoke cigarettes and those who do heavy physical work (such as repeated heavy lifting). People who are obese are also more likely to have symptoms of degenerative disc disease.
A sudden (acute) injury leading to a herniated disc (such as a fall) may also begin the degeneration process.
As the space between the vertebrae gets smaller, there is less padding between them, and the spine becomes less stable. The body reacts to this by constructing bony growths called bone spurs (osteophytes). Bone spurs can put pressure on the spinal nerve roots or spinal cord, resulting in pain and affecting nerve function.

What are the symptoms?

Degenerative disc disease may result in back or neck pain, but this varies from person to person. Many people have no pain, while others with the same amount of disc damage have severe pain that limits their activities. Where the pain occurs depends on the location of the affected disc. An affected disc in the neck area may result in neck or arm pain, while an affected disc in the lower back may result in pain in the back, buttock, or leg. The pain often gets worse with movements such as bending over, reaching up, or twisting.

Next is fibromyalgia:

What is fibromyalgia?

Fibromyalgia is widespread pain in the muscles and soft tissues above and below the waist and on both sides of the body. People with fibromyalgia feel pain, tenderness, or both even when there is no injury or inflammation.
Fibromyalgia can cause long-lasting (chronic) pain. It has no cure. But with treatment, most people with fibromyalgia are able to work and do their regular activities. When it is not controlled, you may not have any energy. Or you may feel depressed or have trouble sleeping. But there are many things you can do to help manage your symptoms.

What causes fibromyalgia?

No one knows for sure what causes fibromyalgia. But experts have some ideas, such as:

• Nerve cells may be too sensitive.
• Chemicals in the brain (neurotransmitters) may be out of balance.
• The deep phase of sleep may be disrupted and affect the amount of hormones that your body releases.

What are the symptoms?

The main symptoms of fibromyalgia are:

• Deep or burning pain in your trunk, neck, low back, hips, and shoulders.
• Tender points (or trigger points) on the body that hurt when pressed.

People with fibromyalgia may have other problems, such as:

• Anxiety and depression. These can make you feel worse.
• Sleep problems and tiredness.
• Headaches.
• Morning stiffness.
• Trouble concentrating.
• Irritable bowel syndrome.

Symptoms tend to come and go. You may have times when you hurt more, followed by times when symptoms happen less often, hurt less, or are absent (remissions). Some people find that their symptoms are worse in cold and damp weather, during times of stress, or when they try to do too much.

How is fibromyalgia diagnosed?

Doctors diagnose fibromyalgia based on two things:

• Widespread pain on both sides of your body above and below the waist
• Tenderness in at least 11 of 18 points when they are pressed

Before the diagnosis, your doctor will make sure that you don't have other conditions that cause pain. These include rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica, lupus, and other autoimmune diseases.

So, for those that really need to see this, here it is.  I qualify for Social Security Disability because of my injuries (one service-connected, two not).  This isn't just to people in my personal circles who need to have a MUCH BETTER understanding of medical conditions before passing judgment, but the fact that I've written and published four novels in the last 18 months with a fifth due out in November and I've managed to repair a couple of hundred computers during that time (remember the definitions of work?  I meet and exceed them), work that was done in an environment that allows me to bend over or lay down when neccessary to relieve severe pain--work that let's me moan out loud when I have to without scaring co-workers (this type of behavior is something I mask very well in public for short periods of time, which may be a precursor to people asking, "Why doesn't he have a 9-5?) --work that permits me to take breaks when I need them or work late into the night as spacing my breaks out requires.  This is not just that closer circle of people who think they know what it's like to be me; it's for anybody in general who judges somebody that they don't see leaving their home from 9-5 while have zero understanding of their medical conditions and zero understanding of the work they manage to do at home in spite of those medical conditions.

The bottom line is this: I think most of my friends and people in today's world who are up with the times and are open-minded understand that they shouldn't be judging anyone for anything until they know all the facts (which you never will regarding any one individual because, at least, all facts are never disclosed), but to those who insist on judging by using their narrow-minded views on what work or disability means, you need to educate yourselves.  If you don't educate yourselves on the conditions and personal lives of people you judge, which is virtually impossible in some cases because people do not all choose to disclose all of their personal information to you so they can get a favorable judgment from you, then you don't know.  If you won't hear that reasoning and insist on judging anyway, or if you use some form of jealousy or negativity in general to try to jump on somebody in this situation, you are on a very low plane of intelligence and understanding.  Extremely low.  It's ghetto.  It's barbaric in some ways.

I've found that the people on this low plane rarely choose to rise up and learn--to figure it out and stop judging--so to them, I shake my head and say goodbye to thier chance for understanding and happiness, because you cannot have happiness until you have understanding, and the negativity resulting from judging while not understanding combined with the unwillingness to learn and understand is a circle that takes a person straight downward on an intelligence and happiness scale.

For those that judge me, I can't stop you, but I'll bet I could terrify you if I walked up to you with a mirror that said "Judge this person" on it while showing it directly to you.... oh how blind the judgmental ones are when the hot light of inspection is turned upon them.  For those who get it--who understand that I do fight this fight every single day and I still produce when an average man might quit altogether--you people are the ones I admire.  I truly have deep respect for you and whatever you have done to reach understanding.  There are plenty of people out in the world today falsely claiming to be disabled or not working the 9-5 for other reasons; I swear on my daughter's life that I am not one of them.  So, if you have read all that and you still insist on judging, this is my permanent middle finger aimed your way until you are enlightened.  For those that have chosen to learn what is necessary to understand, or at least to realize that you don't know enough to judge, you are always a friend to me and I'll do anything I can for you.

Enough is enough.

Tired of the BULL$HIT? U.F.O. Sightings Are Real, But Made Unreal.

Before I write a post like this, I'm usually feeling a little anger at the government.  That would be my government--the U.S. government.

Not others, necessarily.

For example, I just watched this special from the History Channel about U.F.O. reports for the second time, and I wasn't watching for the pictures or accounts--this time, I was watching for the culture.  My question to myself was this: what is the culture in a given area that a U.F.O. reporter must walk into in order to share his experience?  The resulting answer, for many places but especially in the U.S., was a culture of pure hostility, ridicule, and dismissal.

Why?  What is it going to take?  If you're one of the people who believes in intelligent life outside of our atmosphere, you must hold at least some excitement over the prospect of coming into contact with them.  If you refuse to believe there is intelligent life out there, or that it hasn't visited Earth, nobody is going to convince you it's real and happening now.

If you watch the above referenced show on the History Channel, how do you come away with any feeling other than the U.S. is incredibly harsh toward those reporting U.F.O. sightings/encounters?  It's not made any easier by technology, either; with my moderate knowledge of programs like Photoshop and Cinema4D, I could create both pictures and videos of U.F.O.s that are incredibly realistic.  There is something that I hate about that, and I guarantee you that there is something the U.S. government loves about it.

It's now easier than ever to dismiss sightings, in the form of pictures/video, as having been tampered with.  And oral accounts are almost given no credence.  Now, the flood of hoaxes will blur and diminish the believeability of U.F.O. reporters.  Set aside for the hope that maybe some beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt polygraph can be designed (and it may come), we are pretty much left to decide whether or not we believe in intelligent life elsewhere.

I heard the argument, which is a good one, about God--you'll put 100% faith into an invisible being you've never seen, heard, or sensed in any provable way, yet you'll fully dismiss photo and video evidence that has been fully tested and researched by experts who claim it has not been doctored.  You'll believe it when a president tells you that a country has something to do with the terrorists who attacked your country and that, therefore, we must invade that country, without a second thought (until much later).  You'll believe in ghosts, having never seen or sensed one in a provable way (audio, video, photo, other technological means that would have shown the encounter), if at all.  But as soon as the possibility of E.T. life visiting Earth comes up, you're pointing and laughing, saying that the reporter is either crazy or looking for a paycheck.  You'll believe what you're told--humans have done that since our beginning.

And what you're told, now, usually, is that U.F.O.s can all be explained, and they are not craft from some advanced civilization (or possibly, as I've theorized before, they are our own craft from the future, visiting key history sites/moments).

What a shame.  But nothing will change unless you and I do something to change the culture, will it?

What it will take is you and I and everybody we know telling their friends and family and their governments that what people see, especially pilots in the sky (due to their training, proximity to many spotted craft, and ability to distinguish natural or other phenomena from alien or enemy craft), must be taken seriously.  It MUST be.

Make the FAA take out of their guidelines that no mentions of U.F.O.s are allowed, even as pilots and air controllers and airport personnel are reporting them.  It's getting RIDICULOUS.  In every branch of science and learning, we encourage those with honest reports, especially when accompanined with evidence/proof, to step forward and help us better understand what is happening in our world (or elsewhere) and yet, regarding U.F.O.s, we wave them off and immediately discount their story.  WHY?

Don't you want to do something about this?  Regardless of whether or not the U.F.O.s are guided by intelligent forces outside of our planet/solar system, enemy countries, or some other phenomena, don't you want the persecution of people who are telling the truth to STOP!?  I do.  I hope you'll help.

The New Definition of Author

Said it before and I'll say it again; anybody can write a book.

What follows when I say/write this somewhere is something like, "No, I couldn't," or, "Maybe, but not just anybody can write a good book."  Fair enough, but if you can put together a few thousand words, you can call it a book, put it up on Amazon.com and others as a legitimate publication, and sell it.

Because of that, we have to re-define author.

Authors, to many of us (I'm guessing, as I often do), are or were a group of people who had incredible writing skills.  They were unique, and considered very creative, artistic, and intelligent.  If they had a recognizable name, they were easily made into living (or dead) legends as soon as we learned about them.  Maybe it had something to do with our English teachers and their constant references and teachings of the great names.  Maybe it was an academic crush we had after reading one author or another.  Somehow, the term "author" had a very regal air about it.  It sounded like its own lottery victory--something like a knight or a Samurai.  Author.

Now, we new-age "authors" have to be honest about who we are.  If anybody can get a book out there, put before millions of people if they have the connections, advertising money, or just luck (anything other than a fantastic gift in their craft), we can't let the new term stain the old term.

The new author can be anybody.  Literally.  Anybody CAN write a book.  You don't see bands and musicians that perform local gigs being dangled in front of hungry listeners in fifty different countries unless they market it as such.  A sculptor, painter, or artist of any type typically has to break through some huge barriers to get any significant sales.  But not an author.  An author can put together something, get it before millions, and start making some money with no advertising dollars, no agent, no editor, no lawyer, no label, no imprint--nothing.  An author needs nothing but the will to write and publish his own work in order to be an author.

Of the other authors I talk to, with the exception of a couple, very few are having any illusions about the new definition of author.  They know that it doesn't take what it used to take.  Sure, some of the greatest writers of all-time have been self-published because no formal house would take them, and thanks be to the Gods of Words that they did.  And of these new authors, stars will emerge.  But never before has the entry cost been so low, and the potential payoff so high for a writer.  Never before has enough time in a day existed for somebody to risk the long, tedious process of putting down words at novel-length, (especially considering the initial investments before typewriters of type-setting them, presenting them to a publisher or agent, and then waiting sometimes months or years to hear if you had anything worth publishing) because they had more free time--didn't have to work on the farm sixteen hours a day, or the railroad, or the lumber mill.  Now, even full-time employees find time during their days to write and send it to themselves through e-mail, or jot it down somewhere on a break, then they have evenings and weekends.  Never before has it been so easy to call one's self an author.

The good news is that most of us know this.

Most of us, I think, are very respectful of what our more traditional heroes did to get their stories into print.  We are not them.  We are the new authors.

What does that mean to you as a reader?  Nothing, really.  Means you are going to have a LOT more to choose from, but you'll have to develop an eye for quality work or at least work that you enjoy (formatting problems and typos are on the rise, for some reason, even among big names).  You'll have to learn to have that discriminative eye to save yourself time from investing your precious reading time into a book you won't enjoy.  For writers, that means that you should have no illusions about how important you are just because you put a bunch of words on paper.  For one thing, no matter how good you write, you're nothing without readers.  Secondly, most of us do not write for fame or money and wouldn't mind being nothing--most of us would write if we were the last human on Earth and had no audience.  It's just a necessity.  Most of us, articulate or not, do not know why.  We just need to write.

To my reader friends, this writer is asking for your patience.  Yes, we're flooding you with new choices in reading now, and most of us cannot afford to vet our stories to the degree some household name in writing could--with the many levels of edits and re-working and teams of beta-readers and professional critiques.  We just want to tell our stories.  That means that, yes, we're going to put out some sub-standard work as a group.  The bar has been set high--it is now being lowered by volume of works produced and the trade-off of relaxed restrictions for more variety.  We want to keep the bar high but we are really nothing more, when compared to the traditional author, than a fruit-stand on the side of the road compared to a major grocer.  Our stuff might be great, and less filtered and more pure than the stuff you get through the grocer, but who is running our quality control?  Who is making sure we comply with FDA standards?  From which seller are you more confident buying from?

That's the struggle for us, while having to think (and discriminate) more is the burden for the reader.

In any case, I encourage readers and authors to share in that public discourse that defines what an author is in 2012 and beyond.  All that has happened is that the entire show has changed to open-mic night.  I think it's important that new authors aren't believing in something that isn't true and that readers aren't believing that the word "author" means what it used to.

In summary, I guess I could say that the new author cannot carry by default what his traditional counterparts carried in status and esteem.  That still must be earned, in any field.  What we can offer is a fruit stand, and we can tell you how pure our fruit is, and we can talk about how we grew it and how enjoyable it will be, and we can sell it for less than the grocer.  Everything involved, to a reader and author, is still a risk, but it's not an incredibly important risk.  Try something new, hone your skills for separating bad writing from good writing in the early going, and let's move some fruit!