As I signed on to Facebook tonight for the estimated 30th time, I received a notification saying that I had been compared to someone. It turns out I was voted a happier person! I continued on to look at my rankings.
Some rankings are accurate (according to my opinion), and some rankings are not.
I won 3 out of 3 votes for better taste in music. I can't argue with this. I mean, who could vote against someone who is well-versed in the likes of Eric Clapton, Led Zeppelin, Huey Lewis & The News, Jack Johnson, Pink Floyd, John Williams, and Richard Cheese, to name a few. I would be surprised if you recognized more than three of the names listed.
I won 3 out of 3 votes in the category of "More likely to skip class." Ha. In high school I missed 6 days during my sophomore year. The rest of the time I had perfect attendance. In college I've missed 2 guitar classes, 1 exercise class, and 1 English class. I missed my English class because I had to volunteer for six hours for another class. The next time I'm skipping class, I'll be sure to remember that I'm "More likely to skip class."
I also had 3 out of 4 and 2 out of 2 on "smells nicer" and "rather have dinner with," respectively. Wow, I must have been compared to some fairly horrible people if this is the case. I played football in high school, which meant that weight training was in the morning during either first or second period. I know that I smelled like ass after each weight training because I would wear the same gym clothes for a week or two before washing them. Yeah, gross. The "having dinner" part is just as comical. I'm 20 years old and my parents still hassle me about my manners as the table. A few of my campers at the YMCA comment about how I chew with my mouth open when I eat an apple. My only defense for someone wanting to have dinner with me is that I can bring some interesting conversation (just ask anyone that ate dinner with our crew during the past year).
I received 2 out of 2 votes for "most fashionable." For those of you who know me, you know how lax I am about my dress. I usually throw on a pair of shorts and a T-shirt for the day (sometimes a collared-shirt). Oh well, I must have been compared to Yoda and Richard Simmons for my two wins.
Some of these are kind of accurate though.
Some of the ones that I did not fair well in are "would rather sleep with," "rather kiss," "more attractive (which I only got a 3 out of 9 on)," "better body," and "nicer."
Hmm, I'm going to have to argue that since the rankings about me being "more fashionable," etc., are incorrect, then I must be "more kissable," "better body," etc.
Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Monday, June 9, 2008
Nice Pencils! Now, Fork Them Over...
The following passage I am about to type up for you is a passage from Neal Boortz's book Somebody's Gotta Say It. Dad dropped this treasure chest in my lap, and I thought I would share the booty (almost contradicting what the passage is about) with you.
I would encourage you to go buy this book (or at least read a chapter or two while burning some time in Books-A-Million). In one chapter, Boortz tells a story about a child who gets school supplies. The child is ecstatic because he is getting new pencils, markers, paper, backpack, etc., for school.
When the child goes in the next day the teacher asks him to dump all of his supplies into a big tub. The teacher explains to the child that the supplies should be for for everyone in case they need them.
This, according to Boortz, is where the child first learns about the abolition of property rights. Your child is being taught that "their property rights end when someone in authority says they end. Here the child is giving up his belongings to a government agent," says Boortz. Like Boortz says, it starts early.
Boortz thinks you may be skeptical about this situation, as many of his callers were. As it turns out, there were also callers backing the accuracy of the statement made by Boortz. Children actually experience this type of thing in classrooms.
You might ask "How are these things related to human rights? It is physical property, not something that is a part of you."
Boortz explains the answer to this question by saying "It is a simple truth that property rights are the very basis of human freedom. We come into this world with nothing but our bodies and our minds. Those are the assets we bring with us to the marketplace. And no society based on economic and social freedom has ever survived the loss of private property rights.
Nobody would seriously argue against the notion that we, as individuals, are the sole owners of our minds and our bodies. We present our physical and mental labor to the free enterprise marketplace and trade it there for wealth, usually in the form of money. It can be said that we have received that money in exchange for the expenditure of a portion of our lives. That property is every bit as much ours as our very bodies and minds are.
To demand that we forfeit property to the government--even so trifling a piece of property as a schoolboy's notebook--is to demand a degree of involuntary servitude from us all."
Wow. Looking at it that way presents a point of view in which few people would argue that Boortz is comparing this type of economy to Marxism. Marx even states "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."
In my opinion, Boortz is correct.
Boortz tells a story about his daughter in day care. The daughter is sent to day care with a bag of candy. The teacher took the bag of candy away, saying that it isn't right for her to have anything that every other child didn't have. If she didn't bring enough to share with everyone, then she couldn't have it at all.
Boortz, upon hearing the news from his daughter, confronts the day care coordinator. Boortz asks "why it was the day care center's policy to indoctrinate children into the idea that it was not right for them to have property that other children didn't have."
Boortz received a blank stare.
Boortz then proceeded to ask her how she would feel if the bank distributed her next paycheck among its other customers, telling her it wasn't nice for her to have money that other people didn't have. The coordinator got the point.
Sharing is an important life-lesson that is to be learned when children are growing up. What children should NOT be learning is that they HAVE to give their property to other people because someone says so.
Maybe this view is a little cruel and self-centered?
Maybe so... but probably not. I have grown up moderately well-off, never had to share much because I was an only child and never went hungry. I recognize that I was born into a position better than many other children.
However, this does not justify the government mandating me to give money to it for the support of others. I am mentally competent to decide how I distribute my charitable money. Ask my friends about how I spend my money; I have almost never turned down someone who has asked me to buy lunch for them when times are hard for them.
So does this make me a capitalist pig? "Yeah Jeff, you're like, being unfair man. Everyone needs to, y'know, help out...pitch in so we can all live better lives. Competition is lame man... it is going to do us in one day."
Seriously?
Competition is everywhere. You compete in courtyard games. You compete in organized games and sports. You compete when you go for a job interview. You even compete when you are looking for a mate.
So, to the person (assuming it is a guy) who claims that I am a capitalist pig, let me ask you this: Can I have your girlfriend? You have a girlfriend and I don't, so this means that you cannot have one. We are just going to have to cut her up in to pieces and share. Or to the other guy who is dating the incredible hot sexy woman who stands 5'8, has full natural breasts, puts out anytime you like, and is incredibly loyal to you: I don't have a girlfriend like that so you have to share to accommodate my needs. How about to the man who is 6'5 and can run a 4.4 second forty-yard dash? I cannot do these things. If this equal? Of course not.
The diversity and individuality in life is one of the greatest things about life. I hope I am not forced to give it up.
Are you starting to see how unrealistic it is to expect that we are all going to have the same things?
I would encourage you to go buy this book (or at least read a chapter or two while burning some time in Books-A-Million). In one chapter, Boortz tells a story about a child who gets school supplies. The child is ecstatic because he is getting new pencils, markers, paper, backpack, etc., for school.
When the child goes in the next day the teacher asks him to dump all of his supplies into a big tub. The teacher explains to the child that the supplies should be for for everyone in case they need them.
This, according to Boortz, is where the child first learns about the abolition of property rights. Your child is being taught that "their property rights end when someone in authority says they end. Here the child is giving up his belongings to a government agent," says Boortz. Like Boortz says, it starts early.
Boortz thinks you may be skeptical about this situation, as many of his callers were. As it turns out, there were also callers backing the accuracy of the statement made by Boortz. Children actually experience this type of thing in classrooms.
You might ask "How are these things related to human rights? It is physical property, not something that is a part of you."
Boortz explains the answer to this question by saying "It is a simple truth that property rights are the very basis of human freedom. We come into this world with nothing but our bodies and our minds. Those are the assets we bring with us to the marketplace. And no society based on economic and social freedom has ever survived the loss of private property rights.
Nobody would seriously argue against the notion that we, as individuals, are the sole owners of our minds and our bodies. We present our physical and mental labor to the free enterprise marketplace and trade it there for wealth, usually in the form of money. It can be said that we have received that money in exchange for the expenditure of a portion of our lives. That property is every bit as much ours as our very bodies and minds are.
To demand that we forfeit property to the government--even so trifling a piece of property as a schoolboy's notebook--is to demand a degree of involuntary servitude from us all."
Wow. Looking at it that way presents a point of view in which few people would argue that Boortz is comparing this type of economy to Marxism. Marx even states "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."
In my opinion, Boortz is correct.
Boortz tells a story about his daughter in day care. The daughter is sent to day care with a bag of candy. The teacher took the bag of candy away, saying that it isn't right for her to have anything that every other child didn't have. If she didn't bring enough to share with everyone, then she couldn't have it at all.
Boortz, upon hearing the news from his daughter, confronts the day care coordinator. Boortz asks "why it was the day care center's policy to indoctrinate children into the idea that it was not right for them to have property that other children didn't have."
Boortz received a blank stare.
Boortz then proceeded to ask her how she would feel if the bank distributed her next paycheck among its other customers, telling her it wasn't nice for her to have money that other people didn't have. The coordinator got the point.
Sharing is an important life-lesson that is to be learned when children are growing up. What children should NOT be learning is that they HAVE to give their property to other people because someone says so.
Maybe this view is a little cruel and self-centered?
Maybe so... but probably not. I have grown up moderately well-off, never had to share much because I was an only child and never went hungry. I recognize that I was born into a position better than many other children.
However, this does not justify the government mandating me to give money to it for the support of others. I am mentally competent to decide how I distribute my charitable money. Ask my friends about how I spend my money; I have almost never turned down someone who has asked me to buy lunch for them when times are hard for them.
So does this make me a capitalist pig? "Yeah Jeff, you're like, being unfair man. Everyone needs to, y'know, help out...pitch in so we can all live better lives. Competition is lame man... it is going to do us in one day."
Seriously?
Competition is everywhere. You compete in courtyard games. You compete in organized games and sports. You compete when you go for a job interview. You even compete when you are looking for a mate.
So, to the person (assuming it is a guy) who claims that I am a capitalist pig, let me ask you this: Can I have your girlfriend? You have a girlfriend and I don't, so this means that you cannot have one. We are just going to have to cut her up in to pieces and share. Or to the other guy who is dating the incredible hot sexy woman who stands 5'8, has full natural breasts, puts out anytime you like, and is incredibly loyal to you: I don't have a girlfriend like that so you have to share to accommodate my needs. How about to the man who is 6'5 and can run a 4.4 second forty-yard dash? I cannot do these things. If this equal? Of course not.
The diversity and individuality in life is one of the greatest things about life. I hope I am not forced to give it up.
Are you starting to see how unrealistic it is to expect that we are all going to have the same things?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)