Pensees

Think about it:

You go through all this hard work to make and bake delicious bread, then you go and deliberately burn it ("toast").

They go through all this hard work to make a nice, smooth parking lot, then they go and deliberately build a bump to make it uncomfortable when driving over it ("speed bumps").

Everyday I resist gravity, then I go and pay a hideous amount for equipment and tickets that allow me to fall down mountains ("skiing").
Over and over again.

Thoughts on Gun Restrictions

> Concealed Weapon Permits (CWP) allow a person to carry a loaded firearm on his body or in his car.
> Assault rifles are made for shooting people.
> All shootings have one thing in common: A gun was used.

Sound scary? People have strong opinions about guns. The knee jerk reaction is to ban guns, or at least to heavily discourage gun purchasing. Basically if guns were obsolete, life would be better.

I'd wager the majority of anti-gun proponents have never shot a gun before. Said again: My guess would be +97% of people who lobby for sanctioning guns have never fired one. Their fear of these weapons is based off of Hollywood stereotypes, hastily-judged personal experiences, or newspaper driven stories about innocent people being "gunned down." Everybody who I have accompanied when they first shoot a gun, responds this way: "That wasn't so bad," or "that was cool," or "that was fun." It's amazing how education and experience greatly reduce the fear of guns, if not erasing the fear completely. It's weird, but when you think about it, it makes sense. Consider this:

Politically-charged fears are always due to ignorance.

Bear with me. Here are some examples:
> A person who works closely with a corporation will disagree with: "Corporations are bad because they get rich by oppressing people."
> A person who is in the health field will disagree with: "Doctors are unethical people who don't really care about their patients."
> A person who works in the legal field will disagree with: "Lawyers are cheating, selfish people who benefit from people's misfortunes."
> A person who has worked hard in life, made educated, careful decisions, and ultimately got rich, will disagree with, "Rich people are lazy and don't deserve their money."
> A person who has worked closely with law enforcement will disagree with: "Cops enjoy bothering people if they can get away with it, especially if the person is a minority."
> A person who has worked closely in the music industry will disagree with: "Rich artists have too much money, so downloading isn't so bad."
> A person who has worked closely in the church will disagree with: "Churches exist just to make money."

Important! There are exceptions to everything. Correction: "fears are not always due to ignorance." Not all lawyers are ethical, not all doctors are saints, and not all churches are holy. The 1% of these people who are unethical give the rest a bad name.

How many rich people have you met are really like Paris Hilton?

Here's what's scary though: People love it when they can generalize based upon that unethical 1%. Deep down inside, some people want all doctors to be bad, probably because of a perfectly valid experience with a careless doctor. They want guns to be bad, because they've experienced the abuse of one. I am not trying to trivialize these abuses, but it is unbelievably shallow to take out one's shock, denial, anger, depression, or confusion on an entire profession or issue--especially without knowingly researching or experiencing those controversial issues.

It's amazing how people don't mind generalizing when they are knowingly ignorant of a profession or issue.

As for guns, the most common defense is:
Guns shoot --> Shooting kills people -->Therefore if guns are taken away, less people die.
This makes sense, but it's not realistic. I could go through dozens of statistical and logical arguments, but I'll just say this:
I'm not saying, "Give a gun to everyone," but when people have experienced shooting a gun and understand the precautions, safety, and etiquette 99% of gun owners have, those people will be much less reluctant to generalize that "guns are dangerous."

One more thing: The point of, "The Right to Bear Arms," was not hunting or recreation. It was self-defense, specifically against an oppressive government. That's why we still have assault rifles.

Barack Obama's Resume.

There was a fascinating interview on Mike Fitzsimmons' News Commentary...

The chair director for Barack Obama's campaign was answering questions from callers.
One caller asked, "What has Barack done--what is his resume--that would convince me that he'd be an efficient president?"
The Director spoke about how Obama had initiated the FutureGen issue, to which the commentator Fitzsimmons politely corrected the Director, mentioning how Obama only helped revive it, not create it. The Director stood corrected, which was an understandable mistake to make. But then the caller asked...
"So what's point #2?"
...
...silence...
...
Yes, even the Chair Director of Barack Obama's campaign couldn't answer the question, "What has Barack done?"

Obama's campaign emphasizes emotion... "hope," "change," and "a new future."
I've noticed that "emotion" is necessary in an argument when attempting to convince someone.
However, the argument cannot hold water if there is no reason along with that emotion. It's a delicate cocktail, but when mixed correctly, anyone could be convinced. It's not brainwashing, it's just a good argument.
There is no reason or logic in Obama's campaign. This may seem like a harsh accusation, but ask any supporter why Barack would be good for the country, and the supporter will mention how he'll "bring change," but would the supporter mention anything about Obama's track record?
My opinion on the "change" buzzword that's being thrown around: I believe Obama would bring change. Clinton would bring change. Even my stuffed dinosaur Bluey would bring change. The correct answer to, "Do you think Obama will bring change?" is: "Duh!" The correct question is, "How well will Obama implement change?" and "How has Obama implemented change in the past?"

Is this an unfair question?

Every job requires a resume.
Now the most important job in the world is up for grabs, and people aren't asking, "What's Barack's resume?"

This is scary.

McCain or Clinton? Election 2008

I don't agree with John McCain 100%, but I do disagree with Hillary Clinton 150%.

According to Hillary Clinton (and Obama believes much of the same), we are to:
"Strengthen the middle class."
My response: Yes, that's good. But I don't think we should go about doing it by punishing people who worked hard enough to actually get rich. In my view, over-taxing the rich is redistribution of wealth. If someone responds with, "The rich got wealthy by oppressing the worker," or, "They have too much money," then I'd think I was reading the Communist Manifesto. Don't you think Marx, and all the other countries who failed using this ideology, would be proud?

"Providing Affordable and Accessible Health Care."
My response: Yes, that's wonderful. But I don't think it's the government's responsibility to provide everyone with health coverage.
Do people really think that the government would handle our health efficiently? The government already is doing a swimmingly good job with our DMV, IRS, Dept. of Public Welfare, CBP (Customs and Border Protection), why not give them our health too! It would be a remarkably efficient department, with absolutely no red tape, and I'm sure no one would abuse the system like they're abusing Emergency Rooms right now.
I'm not even going to argue how much our taxes would skyrocket... the sheer inefficiency of this ideology should be enough make people question the fantasies Clinton and Obama are dreaming.
Canadians are already coming here for emergencies... where are we going to go when we have the same system? Mexico?

"End the War in Iraq."
My response: Yes, that's wonderful. But I don't think we should do it by cutting of the Iraqi government's firepower ("us") and then throwing money at the problem.
Funding the UN to mediate the "problem," as if the sectarian parties are but mere school boys is not realistic. I've seen why the Maoist Rebels in Nepal will not dare attack Kathmandu, thus establishing complete Communist dominion over the country. Is it because there are United Nation SUVs frolicking about, spreading peace and tranquility? No. It's because there is a Royal Nepalese machine gun nest on every street corner.
Peace between Iraq's Government and sectarian gangs ("terrorists") is a nice thought, but it's not realistic. Think about it: peace would require comprise. When the Kamikaze started to be implemented, do people really think that we should've "dialogued" with them? No. They wanted to annihilate us. Bombing the Japanese (twice) not only influenced, but it brought about the Japanese surrender. Not all our enemies, past and present, have our same morals or Christian values about life. There are people out there who kill for pleasure. A lot of people refuse to admit this, because it's uncomfortable and tough to handle. No, the insurgents aren't being "misunderstood." Americans need to realize that terrorists aren't lying when they say, "We will destroy the USA."
(Oh, and please drop me a line when someone has thought up a good comprise with death. They would get the Nobel Peace prize every year for the rest of eternity.)

"Promoting Energy Independence and Fighting Global Warming."
My response: Yes, that's wonderful. Oil sucks because our economy is reliant on other countries. At this moment, oil is the most cost efficient (very cost efficient) method of power, especially for vehicles. We've been running on this stuff for years, and until something better comes along, no one's going to bother investing in an alternative. The cliche, "The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones" rings true. It's because iron was more efficient, not because the government outlawed stones or because people felt guilty using rocks. We need to get our priorities straight.

In a nutshell:
1. Profit drives investment.
2. Fuel alternatives need investment.
3. Thus when fuel alternatives reap profit, it will flourish and become more efficient due to investments.

A Green Fad driven by guilt will not drive people to find a fuel alternative (guilt is not a lasting motivation). Forced government stipulations will not make people more willing to invest in fuel alternatives. Last time that happened people had a massive Tea Party in Boston. And just half of the world's scientists and a politician saying it will destroy the earth will not make everyone more willing to invest in fuel alternatives, at least not in the long run.
Here's the motive that needs to be emphasized: Money. It's a sad motivation, but it's realistic. The US will be more independent, more free, more efficient, more profitable (thus more money), if we had a fuel alternative. That's the way to convince people to be Green. Not guilt, a fad, or government stipulations.
Admit it... when we get down to brass tacks, people buy energy-saving lightbulbs because it saves money.

How to be Popular & Cool - Four Tips and Tricks

#1. Never blatantly acknowledge excitement, funniness, or awkwardness.
What not to do: Situation is a bunch of people standing around at a good party, laughing, talking, snacking, etc. You say, "Hey everyone! Isn't this a great party!" Everyone quietly takes a sip and reminds themselves never to talk to you again. Never acknowledge excitement.
Why this is true, is because you're trying too hard. You're not confident. This leads us to #2...

#2. Whatever you do, do it with confidence.
What not to do: You've had a bad stomach ache all day. You go to push a door open, and you fart. Sure it's a mistake, but everyone's human. At least 5 people behind you heard it. You don't say anything and embarrassingly cough as if they misheard the fart. People quietly walk past you and remind themselves never to talk to you again.
Even if it's mistake, do it with confidence. Don't be stuck-up. Laugh at your accidents. Be confident.
Why this is true, is because everyone makes mistakes and is embarrassed by them. If someone makes a mistake, and he shrugs it off, all of the sudden this confident person becomes everyone's icon--he has dominated something everyone else is still struggling with. But, don't be stuck-up about it. This leads us to #3...

#3. Be nice.
What not to do: Someone walks onto the bus, and you're sitting in the back. Technically there's an empty space next to you. You don't want this annoying guy to sit next to you, so you move your legs over so it covers the space next to you. This guy has to sit alone up front. ("My gosh he would've been annoying.") He never talks to you again.
The one's who are rude because they have so much confidence make a lot of friends (they claim they "don't care."). But they never stop to think they make twice as many enemies. If you're considerate to people, you ultimately make twice as many friends as enemies.
The ones who say, "I don't care," might attract a few shallow-minded followers, but the reality is, everyone knows he or she cares way too much. Almost to the point of being embarrassing.
For example, a gothic girl is always cussing people out and being mean. She "doesn't care what other people think," and she "doesn't need to fit-in." Is she being "confident?" No, she's joking herself. She's cares what the goth crowd thinks, and she's certainly trying to "fit into" the rebellious crowd. She's fooling herself, and everyone knows it. She's still trying to fit in.
Another example: A chick is always checking her makeup in a little purse mirror. She checks herself at least 3 times a class. Sometimes she smears on cotton candy flavored lip gloss. She sits next to the hottest guy in class. She's alway texting on her pink cell phone that's smaller than a credit card. And guess what? She looks beautiful. And she's confident. She does it all in front of everyone and she doesn't care what they think.
YEAH.
RIGHT.
Her whole life revolves around what others think of her... she never bothers to be nice or talk to a nerdy guy because she's so full of herself. I'm not saying that trying to look beautiful is bad, but it gets bad (and embarrassing) when that's all she care about. And ultimately people say, "Oh her? She's full of herself... (she's never tried to talk to me)."
This is my goal: Someday, when people look back and remember me, I want them to say, "Oh yeah, Beau? He was a really nice guy."
I don't want them to remember: "Beau? Oh yeah, he was so full of himself."
Be nice.

#4. Don't try to be in just one crowd.
Make it your goal to be comfortable walking up to any crowd--whether it be the druggies, XC, football, volleyball, hicks, band geeks, theater dorks, emos, Christians, Mormons, goths, Mexicans, student body, gamers, car junkies ("grease monkeys"), or partiers--be comfortable talking (and getting along with) any crowd. This means being confident and nice. When someone says your name, they should not be to pin-point the crowd you're in. If you are able to manage this feat, you will be the coolest person in anyone's eyes.
Don't try to be in just one crowd.

Beau's Thoughts on Humor

The Connections and Progression of Good Comedy.

Something fascinates me about the humor of Far Side--arguably the best cartoon strip of all time.

Do you ever notice that the caption (text) is completely reliant upon the cartoon (image), and vise versa? That is, the joke will not be understood unless the audience makes the connection (the "discovery") between what they see and what they read.

Audiences love making discoveries. The gasp, the ah-ah!, the satori moment is what convinces the crowd that the humor is brilliant--because they believe they are being brilliant.

There are far too many examples of the alternative, where everything is spelled out for the idiot Sunday comic reader. For example, Family Circus:How is this remotely clever?

("TEE-HEE! CHILDREN DON'T WRITE BLOGS! THAT'S ABSURD!")

How about Marmaduke? Now there's a clever comic!

("HAR! HAR! HAR! DOG'S DON'T HUG! THAT'S SO FUNNY!")

This is a rare exception--a Marmaduke that's actually clever:

Now we talk about progression of humor, often using the "rule of threes." (Usually follows a pattern: funny, funnier, funnest. Or normal, normal, absurd. Mix-and-match.) I consider Dilbert a perfect comic that exemplifies this progression. I call Dilbert "smart humor" because there's always a clever progression, not just a clever observation or outrages situation. Notice how the first frame is always a 'funny' or 'absurd' setup. The second frame bounces off of the first frame's idea, and finally climaxes on the third.

Humor. There's a lot to it, and no, I don't know everything about it. Most of my experience is derived from trial and error (emphasize the error).

Basically, don't think just a clever statement is going to be funny when it's unsupported by context (i.e. it's "random"), or it's devoid of life-relevance (i.e. it's "pointless").

More notes coming soon regarding:

> Acknowledging excitement or funniness is the quickest way to snuff it out.
> Sarcasm is awesome, but what are the effects of excessive sarcasm? Is it different from dry humor?
> How to be "funny." Don't push it. (i.e. don't say to yourself, "I've got to make these people laugh.")
> Slapstick humor: Laughing at other's misfortune? Or laughing at absurdity?
> If it's not true, it's not funny.