Something to consider:

• A person gets injured and goes to the hospital. Because they are embarrassed about what really caused the injury, they report the cause as something else.
• A crime occurs, but for various reasons, the victim doesn’t report it.
• Someone doesn’t like a co-worker, and falsifies reports, making them seem guilty of something.
• During war, records are altered in order to remove evidence of wrong-doing in order to escape the wrath of a superior officer.
• A business manager fudges the sales figures.
• A witness to a crime exaggerates how many people were involved.
• A politician alters the records to obscure who they received money from and how much.
• A person lies on their tax records in order to gain tax benefits.
• A scientist who lives off funding and grants exaggerates the impact of (or completely lies about) the subject of their research in order to seem more important.
• People running an organization cover up details of a problem in order to prevent a scandal.
• etc.
• etc.
• etc.

We lie. We exaggerate. We conceal. It’s human nature, especially under personally stressful cases, such as sales, war, crime, etc. And the fact that we fill out “official documents” doesn’t change that fact. We simply place these lies on paper.

And yet, we rely on official documents to give us historical data.

When we use these documents to asses historical trends, activities, etc. the rarest action we take is asking “what if these are not correct?”

When the more likely fact is that a huge amount of the records we keep are not accurate (to various degrees) we should be very careful about the decisions we make by using them.

Here’s a perfect example: The US IRS tax codes practically encourages people to fudge numbers in order to gain bigger tax returns. (I recall that in their documentation, this is almost expressly said so, but I can’t relocate this information, so I may be wrong on that.)

Now, those official tax return documents are used to “paint” a picture of economic activity, and those pictures are used to make decisions and actions on a Federal level, affecting the entire United States of America.

Do they ever ask themselves where the data they’re looking at may be flawed? Do you? Maybe you should.

I have resisted commenting on the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman shooting case on purpose. There was too little public information and too many issues that folks try to combine together. However, I wish to focus now on one of those subjects. The issue of “stand your ground” and other self defense laws.

I will not discuss details of the above mentioned case. As the Philosophy of Reality recommends, it’s not wise to try to state opinions as facts when I simply don’t have enough inside information to feel that I know the Truth of what happened. Better to wait and learn more. However, that case has brought a lot of discussion about the Stand your ground law that was cited as reason for not initially charging Mr. Zimmerman with anything. It is this and similar laws I wish to discuss here.

Or more accurately, the stupidity of making such laws.

That there are actually laws written about the issue of defending yourself from attack amazes me on a certain level. I can understand the desire of those in the governmental persuasion to try to draft laws concerning physical attack. It’s well within their assumed “role of authority”. However, the problem is that laws are almost always written in such narrow, self defining scopes, that they simply can’t cover what they’re intended to cover. (I discuss more about this in my article Too Many Laws.) And no more so is this fact presented than in self defense laws.

Also the most annoying factor of self defense laws to me is this: These laws, if you read them, are often written as if the governing body (Federal government, Parliament, etc.) is granting their people these right. The truth is the exact opposite:

Defending yourself and those people/places/things you care about is among the most basic animal right to try to stay alive possible. It ranks right up there with eating, etc. If you (or those you care for) are in danger, you have the right to remove that threat (or escape harm’s reach) however you feel is best. If you feel running away is your best option, then do so. If you think you must “return fire”, do so. Generally, humans have a good ability to gauge appropriate levels of defensive retaliation. Most of the time, someone will not try to break the offenders neck just because they were called “an idiot”.

Yes exceptions occur, and some folks do overreact to a specific situation. However, if morals, rules and laws are properly made, then exceptions are already accounted for. In this case, if a possible overreaction occurs, (The above mentioned shooting for example) then the situation should be investigated, preferably in the manner I mention in my post about justice systems. (I.E. trying to determine the truth, not assign guilt.)

Another problem I have in the realm of laws/rules trying to cover self defense involves how businesses handle training their employees. I’ll pick on 7-11 as they are among the oldest and most well known convenience stores. But the truth is, basically every retail company follows this practice. The company policy is if an armed robber holds up the store, the employees are instructed to offer no resistance, and let the robber take what they want. The theory being that they report the robbery with as much detail as possible and let the police handle it.

Well this policy has been in place for many decades now. Let’s examine the results. Have convenience store robberies decreased or increased? Are the robbers acting more violent or less? Are the stores losing less money or more? Are the criminals being caught more often? The truth is that passive acceptance of theft is tantamount to encouraging it. In trying to keep their employees safe (and avoid risk of lawsuits from angry relatives) retail companies actually encourage the problem, not DIScourage it.

Imagine instead if employees were taught apprehension and restraint techniques. Imagine that each time someone wanted to rob a store, they knew the employees would actively try to stop them.

As a thought experiment, imagine someone waved a gun and forced entry into the White House. What if the staff and security guards all followed the same “let them take it. It’s not worth your life” philosophy that pervades the retail world? Would this work? Unlikely. Fact is, anyone dumb enough to try this would be forcefully restrained, and maybe even killed. And since this fact is well known, how often is this attempted?

I’m not saying that convenience stores should train to that level, or employ Secret Service staff. What I’m saying is that offering no resistance at all does not reduce crime. What’s needed in the realm of self defense is not more laws and rules, but more personal training. However coming from a martial arts background, I’m obviously biased about that opinion.

The case of Trayvon Martin & George Zimmerman is a sad one. Someone died and family/loved ones on both sides are forever affected by this. Hopefully folks will learn more about this so we can form more educated opinions. But as I said before, do not let exceptional situations tempt you into trying to deny or regulate basic rights from everyone else.

There’s been lots of scientific study involving sex lately. (The creation of Viagra and so many other similar drugs is of course a huge hint of this fact) However, these studies are often showing us things that many just wouldn’t have suspected.

I heard about this little discovery on the Dr. Dean Edell radio program. I don’t remember the specifics, so I’ll sketch out what I do remember.

In studying the changes in the hypothalamus (the part of the brain involved during sexual attraction) a study involving testosterone, estrogen and smell in an attempt to understand the whole “aphrodisiac” thing, found this out.

Something involving smell and testosterone lit up particular parts of the brain in women but not men. As would be expected, the opposite was true when estrogen was used. I.E. the men were stimulated, but not the women.

EDIT: I found the references to the tests. They can be found here and here.

So what happens when a homosexual male was exposed to these scents?

His sexual reaction was similar to the women, NOT the straight men. Meaning the smell of testosterone arouse both women and gay men.

The reverse was also true. The smell of estrogen aroused both straight men and gay women.

I’ve always said people can’t decide who they’re going to fall in love with. Turns out I’ve been right all along.

One time, I was talking to a guy while he was waiting for his wife to finish shoe shopping. We came across a great idea for a business. I ran this idea across other people and have received almost unanimous agreement on this idea. So I’m placing it out for others to consider and see what you think. Here’s the idea:

A fully stocked clothing store, connected to a sports bar.

The idea is simple: The men have place to relax while the women go shopping. If they need the man for some opinion, last minute waist measuring, etc. he’s right there. The clothing store is connected directly to the bar so you can walk from one to the other, allowing the lady to ask “what do you think” right in the bar, where he can say with pride that it’ll look great on her.

I’ve already considered the pros and cons for this business and like it, but I’m interested in hearing what you guys think.

I’ve also been told by a few people that this idea is already in business. However I have my doubts because none of them were ever able to tell me the name of the business, where it is, or anything. They just say “Oh someone’s already doing that” or Yea, there’s already a business like that.” but when I asked for specifics, they can never give a straight answer. The point is that I don’t think this business has been created yet. However, if you want to create or open a business like this, please make sure this is NOT where you got the idea, otherwise I will ask (politely, of course) for my fair share of the proceeds.

After all if you open a business based on an idea I (or anyone else) offer here, I don’t think a “finders fee” is such a bad request to fulfill.

Setting that aside, what do you think? Do you think a business like this could work? Think it would make a decent profit?

NOTE: This is a repost of an article I had up on a now dead forum I made. I first posted this April 31 2005:

Why do so many act as if there’s only one correct way to correctly deal with a situation? If you don’t do things their way, they think you must be doing it wrong. Different cultures deal with the same situation in different ways. This often comes up in cultural disputes and is often at the heart of racist thoughts.

Isn’t it possible, even appropriate, to be able to complete the same task in multiple ways? The electric eel, the elk, the lion and the bumble bee all gain their food through different means, yet they all eat.

The saying “All roads lead to Rome” can be interpreted as meaning there is more than one way to reach the same destination.

So the Boy Scouts of America aren’t allowing gays or Atheists into their organization. (Technically, I was still Jewish while I was in the scouts, so no “rules” broken there.) Some groups such as “Scouting For All” are trying to force the Boy Scouts to stop this policy.

My opinion?

The Boy Scouts are a private group. They have the right to allow or disallow whomever they want for whatever reason. Do we have to like it? Nope. But we can’t destroy that right whenever it displeases us. You ever see that sign in some stores that say “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”? I want that right and I feel the Boy Scouts have that right too.

Of course, another major issue is that the Boy Scouts are also trying to pretend it’s a government funded organization, and deserves the big federal grants it gets. It’s currently one of the only groups that is getting away with saying it’s both government funded (and thus open to Federal anti-discrimination regulations) and a private organization. They are trying to have it both ways, and eventually that will cause them problems. Law suits and judgments are already coming that are going to force their hand one way or the other.

So what should we do? If you can’t join ‘em, beat ‘em. Start a similar organization and allow gays, Atheists and everybody else to join. Create an organization that beats the Boy Scouts by emulating all their best qualities and removing all the practices we disagree with. Scouting For All is off to a good start. Hopefully they will flourish, or some other group will.

NOTE: This is a repost of an article I had up on a now dead forum I made. I first posted this March 29 2005:

One of the most common complaints about the death penalty is the problem of reasonable doubt. The gist of the argument essentially says:

“What if we kill someone and find out later that they really didn’t commit the murder they were on death row for? Then we killed an innocent man.”

Let’s apply our logic searching questions and explore the premise of this argument to see if it holds true.

What about a murder case where the criminal is known? What if there is no doubt at all? Let’s say we have a gruesome multiple murder. There’s video of the crime where the face and voice of the murderer is very clear. His name is even spoken and responded to. The accused admits it openly in court, and is completely without remorse about his actions. He even admits he will commit a similar murder if he has the chance.

Yes, this is a worst case scenario. A completely remorseless, evil person, who knows fully what he did, and will do it again if allowed.

In this case, or some like it, would you think the death penalty is a viable option?

If you are of the group that use the reasonable doubt argument and now say that even in this case, the death penalty shouldn’t be used, than you are being untruthful, either to yourself, or those you debate with, or (most likely) both. You had a condition that is used, and we removed that condition. Yet still you wouldn’t allow the death penalty. Which means your true reasons for it are something else, and reasonable doubt is simply a smoke screen.

It is at this point that a typical reply is to throw the hands in the air and with say with great sarcasm, “Oh great, you make up a fantasy case just to push your agenda. Well, hell, let’s just go whole hog and kill every criminal then.”

Sarcasm aside, it is a poor move to take a debating issue for a specific situation, and pretend the person is trying to use it for a cases, related or not. So don’t bother with that reply.

But if you are those that claim the “reasonable doubt” issue of the death penalty (And yes, it is a fair and valid point that must be considered when deciding if someone should be killed for their crimes) can you be honest enough to allow the death penalty in cases when there is No. Doubt. Whatsoever.

One of the biggest failings of current U.S. government (on all Federal, State, and local levels) is that the systems are designed for making laws, but severely broken in the aspect of removing laws. Oh, laws can be removed, however the process of removing them is more difficult (and much less obvious to all involved) than making new ones.

And the worst part is that most new laws are absolutely useless and would never be written if the older laws were simply upheld like they’re supposed to be. Case in point:

Shortly, the US Supreme Court will be wasting their time listening to the arguments involving the US Govt. vs. Xavier Alvarez (if that is his real name. More on that later.) This issue concerns the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a law written to handle a specific problem: People making false claims to being awarded various military medals and honors.

On the surface, the law seems to make sense: Folks (like Xavier) who intentionally falsely claim to have been awarded the Medal of Honor, for example, should be treated as criminals. They are lying and trying to gain favors, in some form or another, by claiming awards they didn’t get. This degrades those that truly did receive such honors. (Remember during the 70s/80s when it seemed every 10th person you met was a decorated Vietnam war vet?) He was arrested. Jailed. The whole nine yards.

And now he’s complaining that this laws infringes upon his first amendment right to free speech. Up through the appeals courts we go, and now the Supreme court gets their turn.

To make things worse, many folks in the “free speech” camp are foolishly siding with Xavier. They fear that this law, if upheld, will lead to folks being yanked out their cars by S.S. Troops just for lying to the girl they’re making out with saying they’re packing nine inches and invite her to see for herself. (Spoiler alert: Bad pun coming) These fears are sheer poppycock.

So with idiotic fears of the government stealing their free speech rights to push them, they support a known and admitted liar, forcing them into the corner of claiming that lying is protected by free speech, and we should reject all laws against this. 14-seconds of contemplative thought should be enough for most smart high school drop-outs to realize that allowing folks to legally (and morally) lie under all situations is a stupid act that would begin the fall of any rational civilization.

However, I am forced to conclude (based on personal experience) that there are actually some of those siding with Xavier that actually believe lying is ok and folks should be able to do it wherever, whenever, and however they wish. These people are immoral and/or stupid and should be ignored. It is the simply uneducated and/or hornswoggled that I wish to hopefully change their minds.

Oh, I’m sorry. Did you think I’ve gone off-topic from the title and supposed purpose of this post? Never fear. I’m about to tie things back together.

The stupidest part of those fools aligning themselves with the liar Xavier is that their fears of anti-liar laws leading to the rebirth of the Third Reich is proved false by the fact that we already have anti-liar laws, thus making this Stolen Valor Act nonsense redundant and useless.

The laws (which should really be a single well-written law) I refer to are those involved with: FRAUD. Fraud is defined as “the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right.” In other words, someone who proven to gain via deceit is already considered a criminal.

HELLO!?!?!!?!! Claiming you received the medal of honor in order to receive benefits of a personal and/or monetary nature is F-R-A-U-D.

Since we’re talking about anti-lying laws, let’s also recall those laws that rightfully attack slander and libel.

Had the proper Fraud law(s) been used as it/they should have been, instead of making blundering narrow-focused laws that convey absolutely no extra benefit, none of this would have ever occurred.

The funniest part of this silly legal debating going on is this: Many of those who seem to argue for allowing “legal lying”, are those same ones who seem to think it’s proper for it to be a crime if I state such falsehoods on my cell phone while driving.

Everybody has a purpose in life.

Some people’s purpose is to serve as a bad example for others.

Regardless of the language used, it is vitally important to keep in mind, and use properly as much as possible, the correct definition of the words you use. While it may currently be en vogue in some places to assign different definitions to certain words to make them “cooler”, it is also dangerous in the long term, unless folks remember the original meanings. Changing the definition of words quite simply changes the way in which they are meant to be used, and thus can adversely affect our understanding of what we read.

For example…

The word “gay” long ago meant happy, not homosexual. In this case, the change in meaning most likely came from the simple fact of the more expressive, extroverted, “perkier” personality traits exhibited by some homosexuals compared to their more “stuffed shirt” hetero sexual friends.

Also, go learn about the original wording of the New Testaments. The “virginity” of the mother of Jesus had a slightly different meaning then today’s version.

In the realm of politics, the USA is currently being torn apart by the misuse and intentional “mis-defining” of words. However, there are two which I see as the “umbrella words” for those poor definitions. Those words are:

• Conservative
• Liberal

Currently, they are misused to mean

• Conservative – mean, anti-gay, pro-Christian, money-hungry, old farts
• Liberal – tree-hugging, no morals, Godless, Labor-union, hippies

When the reality is that these words actually mean:

• Conservative – disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
• Liberal – favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

While some may argue that the correct definition leads directly toward the currently used ones, they are only right to a minor extent. The error can be illustrated in a simple truthful fashion like this:

A “liberal” in the true sense, sees a system as flawed and wants to change it. Those who’ve used the system a long time and like it are “conservative” about this issue, wanting to keep things as they are.

However, once those “liberals” succeed in making the changes they wanted, and enjoying the new system, eventually, along comes another generation who wish to make changes. Now those former “liberals” are suddenly “conservative” about their system, not wanting any changes.

And therein lie a hint toward possibly fixing certain cultural divides.