Tag Archives: Society

Return To MEL

Posted by on July 26, 2025 No comments

While I was rebuilding my blog post-by-post, I ran through some trip log posts I had made for drives to nearby areas looking for CDs.  I thought I should revisit that idea.  Last weekend, I woke up too late to get a good early start, so I planned for this week and this morning, off I went.  This time I had less of a plan compared to my previous runs.  My initial plan was to go to the flea market and some music stores.  You know, just kind of ease back into it and see how I feel about making trips again.

The driving wasn’t bad.  Took the beater car so it was loud and rough, but familiar and still comfortable.  Traffic wasn’t really bad at all.  Got to the flea market maybe 30 mins after opening time and the market parking lot was a little eerily empty.  Overall, it wasn’t exactly a pleasant experience.  I hadn’t been to Melbourne for 3 years.  But I have been to flea markets in Daytona and one up north of me and it’s the same in all of them.  Hold on, let’s have this discussion at the end.

I walked all the rows and there were some CD sellers there, but one was not open, and I remember they weren’t open the last time I was there years ago.  So weird.  And of all the others I looked at, I didn’t buy anything new, just some dupes that I plan on comparing on relative waves (something else I want to get back to).  So overall, not really productive.  And it was hot.  It’s been really really hot this year.  I don’t want to really go outside anymore it’s so bad.

So after that flea market, I did a search for music stores and found one not far away.  When I got there I recalled being there years ago.  Good for them that they’re still around.  I ended up buying 4/$10 of new stuff.  Nothing valuable, mostly just collection filler.  So that wasn’t unpleasant (except for the running and screaming kids who would be scolded half-heartedly by their dad, who just wanted to buy some records – priorities!).  And with that done, I located my standard roadtrip lunch – Carrabbas.  And with that done, I was just ready to get back home.

And on the drive back, I had a lot of time to reflect on the flea market situation.  It feels like, for about 10 years now, going to a flea market is just… offensive.  I’m talking specifically about Trump merch dominating the entire place.  Now don’t get me wrong, I know flea markets have always been a little offensive.  It was like a Super Spencers.  You could get bongs and bowls, switchblade knives, and signs that say, "Don’t like it?  Suck my dick." and "All white is all right"  But even with all that nonsense, there was a sense that people would buy that stuff, and maybe they really were the lowlifes that actually liked and thought that way.  But you also felt assured that they would do their bad stuff with their bad friends in their bad backyards and they would still be upstanding, presentable people in public areas.  But since that taboo has been shattered and that mask has come off, it seems being a racist or an asshole is just an American trait now.  There’s no shame in holding those values.  In fact, judging by the merchandising, it’s celebrated.  And that is just so saddening.

And I have a less obvious observation on this as well.  Flea markets used to be sort of a commoner’s market.  People might sell their old belongings, flip or resell stuff, offer services or even do some retail sales.  But there’s something different about the Trump merchers.  I mean, that’s all they do.  That’s a really specific thing to be selling and the customer base is pretty well set in stone.  On the way to Carrabbas, I saw a dedicated trailer set up in a parking lot selling merch.  What’s the lifespan for that business?

While it would be easy to poke fun or simply call these merchants stupid, are they stupid?  I don’t think so.  I think they’re predatory.  They’re opportunists and they know who they’re taking money from.  In a way, they are like drug dealers.  And they’re feeding an addiction of hatred.  They moved into the flea market like pawn shops and vape store move into distressed communities.  And they’ve taken over.

And it’s been the same at all the flea markets I’ve been to (except for the Hispanic flea markets – go figure). 

Ayn I Rand. I Rand So Far Away.

Posted by on January 22, 2013 No comments

For a while, I’ve been watching “patriots” circle-jerk over Ayn Rand and I never understood why.  So, I took a short amount of time and read a short book of hers called Anthem, which I assumed would be typical of the Rand philosophy.  I can say I have no further desire to read a Rand book.  For as much as conservatives scream about the evils of socialism and communism, the world that Rand wants is just as evil, just in the other direction.

To me, Anthem is a tribute to selfishness and hubris.  The final chapters are filled with an excess of “I”, “me”, and "my”, which is meant to contrast with the whole rest of the book, where the primary character refers to himself in the plural, “we”.   This book’s story is set in an absurd world, because it’s the only world that you could even begin to justify the main character’s actions and beliefs.  Some future world where humanity has regressed to the dark ages and is controlled by a collection of councils, who have mapped out everything so there is no personal choice.  And somehow, people today think we are moving in that direction?

As I neared the end of the book, knowing what was going to happen, I thought I would write a blog post as an epilogue to the story, describing what would happen when this extreme individualistic philosophy grew.  Turns out I didn’t need to.  The book already had it covered.  The primary character took over an old house, claimed all its possessions as his, planned to convert it into a fortress, planned to build an army and wage war on the existing community, make his house the capital of a new world and be the absolute leader.  This is a good thing? 

At the turning point in the story, where the character begins to learn at a hyper-accelerated pace and surpasses the entirety of humanity in knowledge, it is not dwelled upon that he stole items from various councils to accomplish his learning.  While it sounds understandable to break the laws of an absurdly oppressive future world, the general message, reinforced in the closing of the story, comes across as “Do whatever it takes for your own benefit.”  This is something to strive towards?

The problem with this book and the current flavor of individualism is the inherent exclusiveness.  Coming along with that is the despise and near hatred for fellow humans.  In this mindset, everyone is out to get something from you and you’re not going to share anything with anyone you don’t deem worthy.  In this mindset, you have no need for anyone else – unless you need something from them, of course.  The viewpoint that a person has no value whatsoever and contributes nothing to society is the default instead of the exception.  Trusting no one but yourself is the overriding belief.

So what becomes of a society of individuals?  How does anything move forward?  How can there be any progress without shared resources?  Consider a bunch of individuals living by a stream, each using the water for daily life.  A new person comes along and dams the river upstream so he can do whatever he wants to with the large pool.  That’s his right; he’s doing whatever his individual desires want.  The others downstream suffer.  Without any governing body, I suppose the dam owner would simply be run out or killed and the dam destroyed.  Sounds like an incredible world to live in, where whatever you make is yours and only yours.

The concept of radical individualism like portrayed in Anthem and in the equally absurd previous example are possible when there is no overpopulation crisis.  If someone cramps your individual freedoms, simply move farther away.  This, accurately, is how America got started and is how and why it grew so powerful.  but with as crowded as America is now, we have no choice but to be socialistic.  We do not have the space nor the independence (as in lack of dependence on others) to make this happen.  Maybe being a farmer in the rural Midwest would be suitable for such people, but not everyone can attain this.

There’s always such a big cry from the people who feel they’re being repressed.  “Why can’t I?”  “The government won’t let me (insert anything here).”  The answer is that what you want is not good for society.  Not everyone can go and start building a nuclear power plant, because not everyone will get it right, then we all have to pay for the mistakes.  The answer this book purports is that it doesn’t matter.  The only thing that matters is that it is good for me.  Although in the closing chapters the book came very, very close to using this phase, it didn’t.  The phrase, usually reserved for unmentionable acts, is “The end justifies the means.”  And to have a society built on that belief would be a terrible one to live in.

A Lot Of Nonsense (But Torture is Discussed)

Posted by on August 1, 2010 No comments

I’m generally pretty good about hating on the human race, by which I mean I generally hate the human race and am pretty good at it.  But in light of recent research on my part, I feel I need to give us some credit.  It’s hard to say this is the pinnacle of civilization, but…

A lyric in a song made a reference to “Catherine wheel” and I felt inclined to find out what it was all about.  It turns out to be a torture device.  Not a particularly clever one, but rather grotesque.  I’m not sure why the wheel was needed, but the technique employed was essentially breaking all the victim’s bones then letting them die on their own.

Of course now that I knew about this particular torture device, it would be a disservice to not understand it in context of other torture devices in use at the time.  So I had a lovely time of reading and understanding many different methodologies for punishing people.  Sounds like fun, huh?

It made me wonder how it must have been to live in that age.  Just like now, you have your rich and elite who can get away with most everything, and there’s probably a pretty narrow “middle-class”, who garner some respect and a small sphere of influence in their region.  But then there’s the working class, and working might be a generous term.

The thing that strikes me is that physical torture was entertainment to the common people in those times.  And it might have been a perpetual worry that they might be an entertainer some day.  Could they ever have imagined what the world would be like now?  Living back then, could you even visualize cities that were clean, buildings like malls and office complexes that were kept sparkling all the time?  Paved roads, lit-up city streets, safe, secure houses?  The pessimist in me is right there with you.  “Clean cities?”  “safe houses?”  But let’s all think in relative terms, here.

Our current time would surely seem like literally heaven to them.  Of course, they don’t understand anything modern, so it would all be “magic” to them.  And how could they comprehend a civilization that didn’t employ torture as a standard practice (except for those rich and elite previously mentioned)?

So, looking around, yeah, we have a lot of stupid people.  We have some bad people that do some pretty bad things on a local level and some at a global level.  We have cases where people’s rights are violated by people in power.  But at least we don’t have rotting corpses hanging in cages in our cities, or exhibitions of torture downtown.  We don’t have to fear someone coming to town and randomly accusing people of heresy and torturing them for show.

I think short-term things look bleak, but long-term – like not in my lifetime – things should continue trending toward a global social structure.  Currently, we define ourselves by race, nationality, and religion.  Nationalism is in its death throes as the Internet allows global communication.  Nations have less power to convince their populace that outsiders are “evil”.  The more we communicate disconnectedly, the less race will be a concern.  You could have years of partnership and communication history with a person and never know he or she is of a race you dislike.  That proves the ridiculousness of racism.  Religion?  That’s going to take some work, but at least the religious leaders don’t have the power they used to, so maybe in time, we can work something out.

Take Pride, not Lives

Posted by on May 28, 2010 No comments

I see mass-manufacturer Foxconn has been pretty heavy in the news for all the suicides of their workers and now they have a solution: higher pay.  How American of a solution is that?  We’ll buy your happiness.  Little do they know they will only make the problem worse because now workers won’t be able justify quitting because they can’t make that much anywhere else.

Pondering this, I had a typical impractical thought.  But who knows,  it’s “so crazy it just might work” ™.  The root problem is job dissatisfaction.  Some of it is long hours, some is monotony, but I might speculate a lot of it is a feeling of uselessness.  It comes back to the Gung Ho principles.  These anonymous, tireless workers don’t understand the good that they are doing.  They don’t know the joy they are bringing to someone by assembling these products.

It’s not just Foxconn, it’s totally rampant.  It could be the #1 American export.  Automobile builders, apparel assemblers (shoes, shirts, jackets), farmers, everyone that makes something for someone else, they are all anonymized by a company name.  When people buy something, they say “Apple made this” or “Nissan built this.”  No, actually, people made these things.  We’ve forgotten that people do the work.  Take a look at some of the stuff around you.  People made those things for you.  Even if people didn’t make them, they maintained the machines that made them.

So, how to get this human connection back?  What if every automobile running through the assembly line had a “Thank You” card on it that each worker would sign as it went through their post?  What if an assembly worker would slip a note into each device they assembled stating “This was assembled by Dave Smith.  Let me know that you enjoy it at www.companyname.com/feedback/DaveSmith.”  You offer a chance for the worker to connect with the customer. 

And another thing happens as well.  You create accountability.  And it’s personal.  Can you imagine how people felt putting tags that say “Inspected by #11”?  That’s all I am, is a number.  If that’s all you are, who cares what quality of a job you do?  But putting your name to your work is incentive to do a good job.

Of course, maybe I’m wrong.  The current generation seems to have no problem posting stories of exceeding stupidity and embarrassment on Facebook, tying it directly to their names.  Maybe there is no value anymore to “having a good name.”  On the other end, maybe it’s completely impractical for a large company with massive turnover.  Then again, maybe there’s a reason for the massive turnover.  Hmmm. We can’t implement this idea because of the turnover cost, even though the idea might improve the retention rate.

Epiphany

Posted by on April 10, 2010 No comments

There is an infographic I found a while ago that I found quite interesting.  At the time I found it, It was a “that’s neat” response.  Upon revisiting it and doing some critical thinking, I realize that it answers so much about the current political environment.  Some questions it explains:

  • Why can we never have world peace?
  • Why can we never be equals?
  • Why must some people be poor?
  • Why do those poor people typically vote for Democrats?
  • Why are rich, white people typically Republicans?
  • Why are we so screwed up right now?

The key, for me, is understanding the base motivations of Conservatives and Liberals.  It also made me realize how liberal I am, so consider this your warning.

For reference, the graphic is at: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/leftvright_world.html

Typically, when you hear pundits talk about right/left, red/blue, Republican/Democrat, they focus on stereotypes: Democrats want to raise taxes, Republicans want to start wars, Democrats want government to control your life, Republicans only care about the rich people.  No one ever talks about why these parties do this.

A simplistic view is that Liberals want everyone to get along and to be treated equally, while Conservatives want defined classes of people.  Why do Conservatives need classes of people?  Because their whole ideology is based on getting personally rewarded for your personal efforts – the harder you work, the more reward you get.  Sounds pretty good,  and I agree with it until I realize that this requires a winner and a loser.  Your success results in failure for others.  Their success results in failure for you.  So, successful people want to remain successful and keep others that would threaten their success as subordinate. “The rich get richer.” 

Why are they called Conservatives?  Because they resist change.  Things are fine just as they are, with us in control.  How far back do you have to go to see Conservatives resisting change because Conservatives were in power?  All the way back to the days of slavery.

So on the other side you have Liberals, who are always changing things in the interest of balancing power, making advancement possible for people who don’t have the resources available to richer people.  And Conservatives hate that.  First, because they didn’t get any help for their success, and second, because it gives them competition.

The other light bulb burning brightly from my study of this graphic is a key word applied to Conservatives: fear.  It is found in the relationship of parent to child.  Parents control their children through fear.  It’s been nearly 10 years that we have been besieged with a non-stop torrent of fear mongering from our Republican leaders.  When we finally received a break – in the message of “Hope” – the Republican message remained unchanged, but refocused.  Now instead of fearing an external enemy, we must fear our own government.  But only because the current president is a Democrat, once Republicans take over again, we can start worrying about the rest of the world.

So in summary, having Conservatives in charge means things will not change.  That’s great if you are a Conservative yourself and/or you are content with the way things are right now.  The problem with being Liberal is that your nature is to promote equality.  This tactic doesn’t work against a Conservative, who does not believe in equality and whose prime mission is to rise above and control others in order to succeed – little more than base, primal, instinct.

2012 can not come soon enough.

Too Many, Too Many, Too Many

Posted by on April 8, 2010 No comments

I’ve been thinking about things that have changed since I was growing up and what made them change.  And I’m beginning to point the finger at people.  Not specific people, just people.  There’s too goddamn many of them.  And they suck.  But, oh, don’t worry about me.  I’m doing my part.  I’m not incrementing that population counter at all and I’m not living past my prime.  I’m just a passing fad.

So what have we lost as we’ve gained people?  I haven’t done much thought on this topic, just some casual thinking.  So I don’t have a multi-page rant, but I came up with a few items.

Travel:  Whether by air or car, there are too many damn people travelling.  Air travel used to be luxurious.  My parents dressed me in a suit to go to the airport.  It was like going to church.  Now, it’s just a big cattle train.  With the apparent loss of manners and couth of the average American, it’s a terrible experience.

Education:  All the time, I’m hearing about how schools need to be built or expanded.  Where the hell are all these children coming from?  When I was growing up, there was no school shortage.  And with all this overcrowding, there’s no way anyone’s getting a good education and no teacher is getting paid for the effort they have to put in.

Beaches:  I haven’t always lived near a beach, but when I was growing up, there were regular vacations to a beach.  And I remember it was a lot different then.  For one, you could drive your car on the beach.  Not now.  And can you imagine if you could?  It would be a big-ass parking lot with no room for people.  Traffic jams on beaches; beach rage; idiot drivers.  Again, something that used to be a pleasant experience ruined by the masses.

Does it sound like I’m being elitist?  I don’t think so.  If the stupid humans of the world had enough damn sense that they don’t need to have more than two kids, much less 4, 6, or – holy shit – 8, then there’d be enough resources for everyone.  There’d be enough seats on a flight.  There’d be enough roadway for everyone.  There’d be enough beach for everyone to lie out and for some to bring their car. 

As humans, we’ve lost any concept of humans as a race.  And we’ve stopped thinking about the big picture, and we’ve certainly stopped thinking of anyone but ourselves.  2012 can not get here soon enough.

Driver Formula

Posted by on March 10, 2010 No comments

I think I’ve come up with a formula to determine the assholosity of any driver on a highway.  The formula is simply:

x*abs(y-z)

Where x is the number of lane changes per mile, y is the average speed of the driver, and z is the average speed of the rest of traffic.  Spoken, the formula is: the number of lane changes per mile multiplied by the deviation in speed from the flow of traffic equals the level of asshole on the road.

This formula is a great step forward in the field of Asshology, of which I consider myself an expert.

The “have it” habit

Posted by on December 1, 2009 No comments

At dinner tonight, I had the opportunity to train a new employee.  Not directly, but because nothing I ever do is simple, they got to experience exceptions to the order-taking routine.  At the close of the transaction, I was going to say something to the effect of “Enjoy your employment, lucky person” but decided against it.

As I ate, I considered this a little further.  I’m (still) employed.  I’m doing ok.  But at the same time, I’m a responsible employee and a quick learner.  I could have that job!  And since I’m still employed, I’m more desirable to employers because it shows I can keep a job.  I should have that job.

But what kind of flack would I take for doing something like that?  I’d be taking jobs away from someone who really needs one.  “You already have a good job.  Stop hoarding the jobs, jerk.”  This transitioned my thinking into class warfare: the “have’s” and the “have not’s”.  I think this needs revision.  It’s the “have not’s”, the “have enough’s” and the “have more’s”.  See, I want to advance from “have enough” to “have more”.  And I could, because I’m not currently in the “have not” crowd.

But like I said, that’s not really fair.  The rich get richer, as they derisively say.  I would be suppressing the “have not’s” – the class below me – from advancing to the “have enough’s”.  So, in order to spread some of the wealth, I will take that job.  And another.  And maybe another.  Then I will outsource my jobs to another person who could not get the job on their own.  Wait, it’s not really outsourcing, is it.  Insourcing?  No, not that either.  No, it’s reverse subletting.  I am going to sublet my jobs at a lower wage and take the difference as a “convenience fee”.  It works for property, why not jobs?

But as usual, I’m so far behind the times.  Of course, this is already done with day laborers, contract positions, and other temporary positions.  But those are all handled by businesses.  Businesses run by rich people.  The “have more’s”. Once again, I’m getting held back by the man.  It’s so hard to get ahead anymore.  Woe is me.

Singularly Open-Minded

Posted by on August 5, 2009 No comments

A while ago I was browsing around and someone had mentioned a blog that sounded interesting, so I visited.  It was ok for the first couple of posts, then I left.  Recently, I hit upon another blog that gave me the same reaction.  In both cases, the blogs were trying to be raise awareness.  The first about racial stereotypes and the second about racial and gender biases.

I consider myself to be pretty open minded.  I’ll listen to anything, but I tend to just collect the information to form a complete opinion.  The more opinions you hear, the better able you are make your own.  But some people have one opinion and spout it ad nauseam.  And sometimes those people think they are being open-minded simply because their obsession is a minority position or some other radical thought.  But they’re still closed-minded, or as I say, singularly open-minded.

So, thinking about this idea made me wonder how being open-minded related to being uncommitted.  Can you be truly open-minded and still have an opinion or does having an opinion give you an artificial bias?  And maybe it has to do with the level of acceptance of differing viewpoints.  You can hold an opinion until the opposing arguments convince you otherwise.

And that’s one area I take issue with the blogs that I had read.  I can only take so much “selling” at one time.  I must have determined quickly that the remaining posts would be more of the same.  The more I hear an argument, the less persuasive it becomes.  Some of it is: You’re trying too hard.  If your idea was so good, you shouldn’t need to go on and on about it.  The other part is cynicism.  If you don’t shut up for a minute and let me consider what you’ve said, I’m not going to believe any of it.

Now I’m getting all worked up.  Thanks.