Cautious Optimism

There are many threats that a Trump administration brings to the world at large, some real, some imagined. Many people are freaking out that his presidency is an existential threat to them, and if they’re in ISIS or an illegal immigrant living in America, then they clearly have a fair concern. But none of us truly know what his intentions are, where he stands on many important issues, and what changes his presidency will actually bring.

However, there is one battle that matters more than any, and it should matter to all of us. Trump’s policies will roll back environmental protection. His message this very evening made it clear that he’s willing to sacrifice our environment for short-term economic gain. And for the future of humanity, this may very well be suicidal.

But what I see everywhere on social media are red herrings. Distractions overblown by fears reverberating out of echo chambers, and it’s everything the left claims that the right does (and they do), but now the shoe is on the other foot, and frankly, it’s embarrassing.

Many of my friends didn’t read WikiLeaks. They supported the Neo-Liberal section of the Democratic Party, because of the party itself. They supported Hillary because Bernie told them it was OK to, regardless of how badly she and her friends screwed him during the primaries. So bad that DWS had to resign right before the Convention – only to be replaced by the equally corrupt Donna Brazile, who happily helped Hillary cheat her way to the nomination. There’s no moral justification for this, so it’s ignored within that echo chamber.

Many of my friends have no idea about the Honduran Constitutional Crisis of 2009, and what it revealed about Hillary’s character. They know how Republicans whined about Benghazi endlessly, and yes, they’ve been corrupt idiots crying wolf at Hillary for decades. So of course many open minds tuned out and ignored clear signs of her corruption, like her reaction to that right-wing military coup against a democratically elected government, or how she rewarded DWS & Brazile for their corruption. How the Democratic party leaders acted in these circumstances was shameful, everything a progressive should expect from a Neo-Conversative. But Obama and Hillary did it, so it must moral then, right?

No. Grow up. The heart of the democratic party is in a battle between a Neo-Liberal movement, and an anti-corruption movement. The Neo-Liberals cheated their way to victory, and were surprised when the anti-corruption candidate defeated them during the general election. And that’s where the cautious optimism starts to set it.

Because now both major parties might actually be shedding corruption. The Democrats just found out that hard way that they can’t compromise their morality anymore. The next candidate that emerges in 2020 should be a true progressive, one who is genuinely beyond partisan politics and cares about the issues (Tulsi Gabbard!). And maybe Trump will drain the swamp; I’m sure the liberal media will tell me otherwise every step of the way, but there’s some evidence that his intentions are genuine as well – only time will tell.

And by the way, I fully believe and have been scared that a Clinton presidency would have pushed us closer to war with Russia. Our continued fighting against the Assad regime is both illegal and against our best interests, as we’re preventing Syria from fighting ISIS. We have no business there, which both Trump and Gabbard agree upon, evident from their previous statements coupled with their meeting today. That sort of meeting gives me cautious optimism as well; out of all the Democratic leaders Trump could meet with, he chose one who showed she wasn’t corrupt during the primaries, one who has shown she won’t always vote with her party, but will act in the best interest of her country. Good for both of them!

That’s why so many millennials supported Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul over the last few elections; disagree with their specific politics all you want, but they’re honest, not corrupt, care about peace, know how to compromise, and put country first. The internet has become the great equalizer, and people know how to look past the party affiliation and into what truly matters – is this an intelligent, genuine person who is acting on our behalf? Each generation will only become smarter, more knowledgeable, and less easy to fool. The age of corruption is starting to end.
Both sides of the media will be lying to us, every day. Each party will lie and distort the messages of the other. They all have something to sell, and it’s rarely the truth. So as citizens, let’s not waste our energy fighting each other, or waging battles against non-existent threats that the media conjures as distractions.

We should be ready to act, but not yet; Trump isn’t president today. He hasn’t suggested any specific legislation that threatens our environment. He probably will, and that’s when people and organizations need to be ready to act. But if you’re fighting against him every step of the way, many otherwise independent minds might eventually stop listening, just like how many were unable to see Hillary’s corruption, because so many pointless battles had been waged against her already.

Let’s get ready to fight. Truth will be our weapon, research our ammunition, and together we can make sure that this isn’t an age of ignorance, and nor will it become an age of floods and natural disasters.



This Election: What Every Open-Minded American Needs To Consider

The turmoil within the hearts of most Americans right now should be clear to all of us at this point; everyone’s social media feed is filled with attacks and defenses of the candidates and each other. And within those feeds are more lies than logic, coming from both sides of the aisle, as desperation has fogged over our collective rationality. Speaking as someone who understands and appreciates why every candidate can be sanely voted for, I’d like to explain some pragmatic nuances that can help us all.
Right now, voters have four imperfect options on their ballots: Hillary, Donald, Gary and Jill. Like it or not, the first two are both terrible candidates with huge character flaws and checkered pasts, while the last two are fringe candidates with no realistic chance of winning this election. So the first thing is to accept is that your vote is, on some level, going to suck. The second is to aim your vote in the direction that will give us all the best possible future. And the way to do that is to understand the impact of your vote, which could very well be different than mine.
I live in Massachusetts, a state that will absolutely give all of its electoral college votes to Hillary. But if by some miracle Trump were to win, he’d have already won the nation. So a vote for Hillary in my state won’t make a difference, and a vote for Trump, even if it were to put him over the top in my state, would still be meaningless because he’d be winning nationwide regardless of our state’s results. However, a vote for a third party candidate in states like mine helps propel those parties towards important legal and psychological milestones.
Third parties build momentum over time, and large strides are quite possible this year for both the Libertarian and Green parties. So while both of their candidates have no chance in 2016, both parties could suddenly have tremendous life blown into them. This would be an enormous boon to the health of our democracy, as our two-party system sees the world in absolutes, and as a result, the amount of gridlock in Washington has been astonishing in my lifetime. Even one small third party could make all the difference in clearing those obstructions, and while you still won’t like every bill they pass, the shift overall will be towards the moderate center. But first they need easier ballot access, equal federal funding, to be included in the debates, and included in our casual conversations as well; for all that, they need momentum, and that requires all the votes we can spare. And unless you are in a swing-state, you can spare your vote; otherwise, it doesn’t even matter.
Now, for those whose votes can actually swing things, your choice is much harder. The preeminent pragmatist philosopher William James believed that for such momentous decisions, we should first listen to our heads, and if still undecided, follow our hearts. The single most important difference between Hillary and Donald is their likely choices for the Supreme Court. Both of them will sell us out to special interests, both are likely to increase war, both will subvert democracy at home and abroad, while their loyalists and media ties spin their lies masterfully. And thankfully we have other branches of government that will keep a check on them, but that crucial tie-breaking vote on the Supreme Court effectively means that you are voting on two of our three branches this year.
For most of us, that lone consideration should be enough to make a rational decision, though a little research into the history of the Supreme Court may be necessary for some voters. And given how split they’ve been over the recent years, I expect that such research would sway an equal amount of people to and from each side, just like I expect that third party support will come out of Democrat and Republican voters in roughly equal numbers, which is backed up when you compare two-candidate polls with four-candidate polls this election cycle. So no worries there!
But for those in swing states who minds are still not made up: follow your heart. Vote in the manner that will allow you to sleep best later that night, because that’s far better for you and our democracy than if you just stayed home undecided. And I won’t try to sway your heart, because it isn’t rational.
And for those considering a third party vote, here a few more thoughts to chew on. At this point in history, you aren’t voting for the candidate so much as the party itself, so research their actual platforms; neither of them are as crazy the media portrays them. The Green Party’s primary mission is probably the most important for the overall survival of mankind, but they are otherwise just a focused extension of the Democrats. The Libertarians, on the other hand, hold positions that synch up with the Republicans and Democrats fairly equally, which is why I believe they would probably be better at finding common ground and breaking up government gridlock. Either is fine choice, if you believe in it.
So please, let’s stop with the notion that we all have to vote for the lesser evil. Our votes should have practical meaning, and that’s different depending where you live. So we can keep sharing political news and facts, but enough with the fear-mongering. The true imperative right now is to heal our democracy, and for most of us, that means fighting for our nation to have more than two realistic choices on the ballots each and every year moving forward.


Necessary Agreements

Our society would benefit greatly from the mutual agreement of some new social norms. These are things that we would all announce as common sense changes that we will adhere by, and through our combined will would create positive benefits for us all.

  1. Before we begin relaxing at the end of the day, we should contribute to some form of creative endeavor. Whether it’s making art or music, writing a story or carving some wood, a day becomes all the more complete when you’ve made its mark more permanent. This should be considered normal, though not mandatory every single day; just those where you have considerable time to relax.
  2. We should each only post on social media once a day, at most, unless something truly amazing is happening. We are drowning in a sea of information, and quality is more important than the quantity of things, which currently drown out many important messages. And knowing that we all are limiting ourselves makes us respect and listen to the messages of others with more intent and appreciation.
  3. If you have no kids in your life, none in your house, then you can keep your gun out and ready in an well-considered place, so that it can keep you feeling safe. Once kids are in your life and house, guns must always be locked up where they can’t possibly get them. The presence of easily attainable guns continues to lead to the deaths of far too many children; these should all be avoidable.
  4. If you want to steal art digitally, it is not morally wrong. Whether it’s movies, TV, music, or books. we live in a world where we can easily replicate art. This has the benefit that more people who would not normally be able to appreciate it are able to, and art should be appreciated, as it helps advance our collective social evolution. This is all fine, with one major caveat: if you are willing to steal art, you should also be willing to support the favorites that you discover. And so far, we’ve done well at this unwritten rule: file-sharers support the music industry more than those who don’t share them.
  5. We should be taking care of our health, for both our own sake and for our loved ones. And so it should be normal for everyone to figure out at least one way that they enjoy moving their bodies, some form of exercise, and we should all be doing our forms with vigilant regularity.
  6. Let’s acknowledge that sports in America today are inherently sexist, and seek to fix this. All four of our major sports are played 100% by men. We can’t force the individual teams to change that percentage, so let’s make sure our families also watch the sports that girls do play, such as tennis and soccer, so they get the support they need and eyes on their accomplishments. It seems that every night on major networks, all year round, our societal focus for physical accomplishments falls entirely on men, and girls need to see strong role models as well.

What do you think? Would you change anything, or add something to the list? Share this if you think it’s right on, or part of some serious discussions we should be having. Thanks!


Expert B.S.

How much research does the media really do when reporting the news, and how honest and informed are the experts? Let’s look at the case of Sandra Bland, who died recently in a Texas jail cell, and how the media has reported her use of marijuana.

“I don’t think it’s possible to rule out the possibility of use while in jail,” said University of Florida toxicology professor Bruce Goldberger, who reviewed the report for The Associated Press. Bland was impaired by marijuana at the time of her death, Goldberger said.

What is the evidence this “expert” has based his judgment on? Sandra’s test came back with 18 micograms per liter of THC, according to that article. Of course, according to an expert, it should have been 18 nanograms per milliliter, but the word nanogram sound really tiny and insignificant, which wouldn’t synch up with the story at hand, would it?

So is 18ng/ml really a large amount of pot to have in one’s system? According to the U.S. Military, a urine test would require at least 50ng/ml to come back as a positive, so she tested 3x under the limit for someone in the armed services; this number is also the industry standard for a cut-off as to whether a test comes back positive or not in general. And according to Wikipedia, “A responsible adult user of 5-10 grams per week will reach levels of over 500 ng/ml a couple days to weeks after use”.  And Sandra tested 28 times lower than that number.

The only counter-argument I can imagine is that she was tested 3 days after she should have had access to any marijuana, and that these levels are elevated given how much time had passed. However, a regular user would test positive for up to a month or more after ceasing use, so her testing below the average threshold after only 3 days implies that she wasn’t a heavy user. And yes, this is the observation that should be made from her drug test results, yet it is the exact opposite of what the media will tell you.

And yet the mainstream media wants the average citizen to think that her tests were extremely high, and thus she must have been using drugs in jail, which must be why she killed herself! Because it’s either that, or our police and our government are going to look bad again. But why would the media report this story with such a one-sided, factually-ignorant bias?

Perhaps it’s because our government has paid them off to report it this way. They have the means, motivation, and the history of having done exactly this. At this point, is there any reason to trust the reports coming from police officers, when they are the ones most likely to lie under oath? And on that topic, let’s consider the lead investigator here: Glenn Smith, a man with a history of racist actions, who was dismissed by his own city council with a vote of “no confidence”.

Finally, there is the issue of her mugshot, which as some have pointed out, doesn’t look right. She is wearing her orange jumpsuit already, which is odd, because everyone else is wearing their street clothes in their mugshots from that county, and her hair is lying straight back, like she’s lying down. It’s almost as if she was already dead when she was picked up, and the police were covering up their own murder. In which case all the evidence they’ve presented must be taken as a load of B.S.

What our country needs are truly independent investigators and journalists, and instead we have police panels investing themselves, and every major media outlet owned by major corporations that benefit from the status quo.

To fight this, we need to call out the media for their B.S., with calmly stated and well-cited facts which we share with each other. We need to tear down the public’s belief that the news is a source of honestly-derived facts, by exposing the barrage of lies which emanates from both sides of the political spectrum. We do this until we have a nation of neither left nor rights, but independents, who learn to vote for the honest and genuine candidates, rather than for a single-issue that gets to their emotions, or blindly along party lines. Who don’t blindly cheer on their local police as a group of automatic heroes, but who admit that there are individuals who are often corrupted, and truly support those other individuals who expose this corruption.


Christian Hypocrisy

After hearing another rant today against Muslims, and how they are going to take over the world, I think it’s important for our primarily-Christian nation to check its status. The willful ignorance that the United States has embraced regarding its long history of violence, lies, and hypocrisy has to be addressed any time our citizens consider taking actions against another country or people. So the next time you hear a friend or a relative talk about how terrible any other group of outsiders are, have them consider these points.

First: every group of outsiders has been initially rejected by the United States. From the Germans to the Italians to the Irish, racism has been dividing our country even before color was an issue. Some people propagate such issues for profit, or for power, or simply due to the ignorance and hate that was bred into them by their family and history. But it has always been wrong. Every group that has been given time to adapt to our country has succeeded. While Black Americans have been struggling for longer than other groups, consider how easy it is for an Irish family to blend in with the majority culture after one generation. And every group of immigrants, for centuries, has been blamed for “taking the jobs” from those who are already here, so that argument has no weight, and they have all added to our collective language with their own. If America isn’t willing to take in every culture, then we are not a melting pot, but simply a partially-done stew. Our country will have truly succeeded the day that every culture on Earth feels welcome within our borders, and on that day we will have proven ourselves as the greatest culture.

Then there comes the issue of violence. It’s easy to look at other countries and decry them for their history of violence, but much harder to examine our own history critically. Consider how villainized Iran has been in recent years by our media, then look at this:

violenceAnd while it’s fair to criticize ISIS, and be afraid of the damage they could do, that doesn’t excuse any actions taken against Islamic people as a whole. Likewise, the actions of the radicalized elements of one religion do not define the beliefs of the whole group. And before Americans throw any stones against Muslim people, it’s important to remind ourselves that we were behind the overthrowing of a democratic government in Iran, and the imposition of a religious dictatorship there, simply because it suited our economic desires. And that is not a lone example; America’s history of violence and covert regime change in South America alone is appalling, and our motivation there has been based on greed more than anything else.  How can America hold the rest of the world to such high moral standards without looking in the mirror and seeing hypocrisy? Ignorance. Yet the same “Christian” leaders who led these wars are the same ones whose holy book says that “You cannot serve both God and money” (Matthew 6:24). They are also the same ones who would have us forget the Crusades and the Inquisition as mere incidents in history, and certainly not evidence against Christianity being a religion of peace.

Finally, let’s consider just how ridiculously hypocritical certain cultures within Christianity have become – and while these people are no means reflective of our nation or Christianity as a whole, they are certainly not rare either.

Those Christians who condemn gay marriage but who have divorced, or have married a divorced person are all violating their own religious law (Mark 10:9 and Luke 16:18). They clearly need to marry their dead brother’s wife. And I’m sure when their daughters are raped, they are happy to have the rapist marry their daughter. Because that’s what the bible clearly instructs them to do.

Those Christians who demand their political leaders pray in front of them, or who demand that prayer be put into school – that is entirely against the teachings of the bible, which clearly mocks such practices as those done by “hypocrites“. (Matthew 6:5-6)

Those who mock Muslims for having their women veiled are forgetting the words of First Corinthians, 11:5-13.

Consider those who dress in fine clothes, or who wear gold jewelry, and wonder how they reconcile such extravagance with First Timothy 2:9 and First Peter 3:3-4.

And those laws against eating pork are just for the Jews, right? I mean, it’s in the bible, which is supposed to be infallible, but that part can get ignored because bacon tastes good, right?

Still, one could forgive any Christian who violates their faith, so long as they remember and follow the words of Matthew 7:1, which is better said in Luke 6:37 “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”



Equal Opportunity

My heart and my mind have been conflicted over a certain moral quandary for the last few months, as the Libertarian part of me is at odds with my Progressive side over the issue of civil rights.

At the core of the matter is a businesses right to refuse their service to anyone for any reason, versus the ability of a citizen to access public accommodations without being discriminated against. My Libertarian side believes that business owners should have the right to operate as they see fit, and society can reward of punish them accordingly for their prejudices. However, my Progressive side knows of the Jim Crow era, and how shameful our society acted when granted the unrestricted privilege of denying service.

One interesting caveat in this problem is that civil rights only extend to public accommodations, and there already exists an easy method for business owners to avoid legal repercussion for their discrimination; they simply need to organize their businesses as private clubs, or as religious institutions, both of which operate outside of this framework. And if the party being excluded can reasonably be determined to be disruptive or inherently dangerous, then legally they can be denied service.

But the arbitrary rejection of a class of people based solely on prejudice does not bring a net benefit to society, other than an increase of liberty amongst business owners. And since they do have legal alternatives that can allow them to discriminate, our society would seem better served to protect every citizens right to enjoy the services of public accommodations – not just those listed as protected classes of people, but everyone.

However, there is one final consideration to be made, and that is the practical one – for if a person does not want to offer you their service based on their prejudice, why would someone be so adamant to seek that they sue the other party? For the issue of a wedding service, I can understand wanting access to your ideal location; I know that I had an unreasonable desire to be married in one exact location, and I’m grateful that I was able to secure it. But who would want a psychologist that doesn’t agree with your lifestyle, or even a cake-maker or photographer – they might be the best, but if their heart isn’t in it, then why would you trust them to do the job right?

I can understand suing on moral principle, to protect your civil rights, but in these instances, the response seems to be extreme, as though it were more of a deterrent from future violations than a punishment designed to fit the crime itself. And yet, what would an appropriate punishment look like, for a business owner who refuses service to someone they know is a poor match for them due to their personal beliefs?

It’s at this stage that I believe our society must go all-in with our stance that protected classes are truly equal, but the answer isn’t huge fines or forced service. If you don’t want to serve a gay couple, or an interracial marriage, or a disabled person, then as a society we must do our best to change your mind. The best method for this would be community service, and the ideal person to decide where that service would take place would be the wronged party. That’s a punishment that would suit the crime, one that would allow an owner to avoid giving service they are uncomfortable with, and would give the wronged party a chance to convince them otherwise through direct experience afterwards. That’s how society can make these incidents into opportunities for positive growth.


Trade Value

Our local sports world is in panic mode, as the Boston Red Sox are having a terrible 2014 season, and have begun trading away players. The news that we traded Jon Lester and Jonny Gomes for Yoenis Cespedes has terrified many, but it was an amazing trade on every single level, beyond an emotional one: here is why.

Jon Lester only has 2 months left on his contract with the Red Sox, who are no longer in serious contention for the post-season – this is a new development. 2 weeks ago, they still had a chance, but after losing 8 of the last 9 games to division rivals, the writing is on the wall. While Lester would have had greater trade value before the season started, or a few months ago, there was no sane reason to trade your best pitcher when he had so much value to this team – while they were still in contention. But since the post-season is no longer realistic, his value in Boston for the rest of the year is nothing. And while it would be an emotional relief to have signed him to a long-term deals months ago, not signing him allows him to be traded like this, and net a return as great as Cespedes. The only downside is that he will almost definitely be more expensive at the end of this year, but the Red Sox can afford him.

Trading Jon for the next 2 months changes nothing about his prospects for resigning with the Red Sox in 2015 and beyond, and that is what matters anyway. Trading him to the A’s, who can’t afford him in the future, is smart, because even if Jon loves it out there, he knows there is no point in settling down in that area – a long-term deal there is not going to happen. In short, the Red Sox are sacrificing nothing to gain something important. Jonny Gomes is in the same boat as Lester – his contract is up in 2 months, but unlike Lester, Boston does not need him going forward. Sorry Jonny!

Meanwhile, the Red Sox got back exactly what they need: a power-hitting right handed outfielder, with one of the best arms in the game. While it’s true that they only get him for one full season, many amazing players have come to Boston and fizzled out. One year and 2 months is enough time to determine whether Cespedes can actually play in Boston, and whether they should offer him a long-term contract – which the Red Sox will also be able to afford.  There aren’t many players like Cespedes available on the market, and while quality pitching is the top priority, a slugger of his caliber definitely comes second. And this is the reigning home-run derby champion, 2 years running – put him in Fenway 81 games a year, and magic might happen. Every player is a risk, but Cespedes seems like a smart one to make.

So in a nutshell, the reason this is a great move is because it cost the Red Sox absolutely nothing of value, and in return, they filled one of their two greatest needs for 2015. The story isn’t over yet – they still need to resign Lester in the off-season to fill their top need, an ace pitcher. But these next two months in Oakland don’t change the odds of the Red Sox bringing Lester back, except in one way: when Jon looks at his options of places to play in 2015, he’ll be looking at an even better Red Sox team to play for, than the one that would have existed had he stayed in Boston for these next 2 months. So while it emotionally hurts to see Lester leave, even if briefly, this is just the beginning. The Red Sox are putting the pieces together to create their best realistic possibility to win it all next year and beyond, and that’s exactly what they should be doing. Bravo – and good luck to Jon & Jonny in Oakland this year – now let’s see how Yoenis plays with a Green Monster behind his back!


Market Protest

If you don’t live around New England, you might not appreciate what a great store Market Basket is. My family has been shopping there for years, and not only do they have the best prices on almost everything, but a great selection as well, and great customer service, all while offering their employees a fair wage and good benefits. We typically go there around 10am, and which time we are able to scoop up produce, pastries and bread at half-off, which means a fresh-baked loaf of Saloio bread goes for $0.95, and a bunch of bananas end up costing a quarter – amazing!

And if you don’t live around New England, you probably haven’t heard about the upheaval at Market Basket. Employees have staged a massive and prolonged protest for the last few weeks now, embittered by the firing of their CEO. Shelves have become empty, as warehouse workers refuse to deliver goods, and a lack of goods combined with visible protests have resulted in empty stores. Clearly the old CEO, Arthur T. Demoulas, was beloved, and if you’ve ever seen how packed their stores are, he’s done a great job of drawing in customers. It’s hard not to be on the side of the employees, as so many of them seem to care sincerely, and I absolutely do support their protest.

Today I visited their location in Burlington, MA, and was amazed by what I witnessed. There photo 1was a large congregation of well-organized protesters all along the outside of the store, who were spending a beautiful Saturday afternoon standing up for their boss. And not only were they extremely polite to everyone who passed by, but they were also kind to customers leaving the store – all they asked was if they would be willing to sign a petition – there were no apparent hard feelings. But most photo 2amazing were their ages; these were the youth, standing up for their elders, doing what they felt was right.

Now signing a petition is nice, but they are rarely effective. Protesting on social media or writing a blog post (like this one) will probably be just as useless. Boycotting the store, which most every local seems to be doing, could make a critical 3

However, there may be less of a boycott and more of a practical avoidance going on – the produce and fresh bread departments were absolutely bare, and the deli was running very low. One family I spoke to while hiking in Woburn earlier today mentioned how they switched to shopping at Shaw’s temporarily for this reason. If Market Basket ends up firing its employees and replacing them, or photo 4just hiring temporary scabs to fill the gap, then customers may flow back in, and all this may be for naught.

So I believe the most valuable tool that non-employees have is their ability to screw over any attempts to punish existing employees. And the best way to accomplish this is to apply for a job at Market Basket. Then, once your first shift is scheduled, simply do not show up. Ensure that those photo 5warehouse jobs remain unfilled, until the demands of protesters are met.

If enough people do this, then the board of directors will have no choices left. It doesn’t matter if you have a job already – that works better, actually – simply create a new false resume, go online, to a store or to a warehouse, and be sure to let the employees there know your plan. If those employees all know to ask their friends to pitch in, then this plan has an ever greater chance of succeeding. And together we can send a strong message to corporate America: that employees are the heart of a business, and deserve to have a say in how the company is run.


Boston Brave

There has recently been an out-pouring of negativity against the “Boston Strong” movement, some of which is understandable. Slogans can be dangerous; they are often repeated without much thought or critical analysis, they are ripe target for abuse by scammers, and they can take the level of discourse down to the lowest common denominator. And while all of these may be true at times, I believe this movement is in-of-itself a net positive for local culture, and should be left alone by the cynics in our society.

The two primary things to consider with this issue are the motivations of the major forces involved. To start, there are the terrorists, whose mission was to create an environment of fear. For them, success is watching a community slowly break down and crumble, as its citizens avoid participation in favor of safer, more insulated lives. So far, with a record number of volunteers ready to support the Boston Marathon in 2014, it would seem that the terrorists have completely failed to sway the nerves of Bostonians.

More so, imagine how frustrating it is for the masterminds of such acts to see Boston come together stronger than before. When an act designed to instill fear brings out the bravery instead, the terrorists have completely lost. So if for no other reason, “Boston Strong” is justified by the message it sends to those who would seek to destroy our way of life.

There is also the motivation of those who wear the shirts and support the One Fund. They seek to stabilize a community going through a rough period, and show each other that we aren’t going to let our freedoms be dictated by others, as Big Papi put it. I think our federal government could learn a thing or two from Boston about freedom, and what type of sacrifices need to made to keep it. Strip searches at the airport don’t make us any safer or freer, but Boston didn’t cave in and there were no cries for any local Patriot Acts.

You see, slogans are rallying cries, to remind us of important ideas. In this case, it’s to cherish and take advantage of our freedom. Bostonians didn’t begin hiding away, or start riots, or pass restrictive legislation – we moved on and forward with our established lives. We founded and supported honest charities, and kept good on our promises. This year, we’ll take some extra time to honor the dead and wounded, as is natural – but as time goes on, life will return to normal. Boston won’t forget, but it won’t let itself be changed for the worse either; our citizens are simply too smart and brave to cave in to cowards.

To donate to the One Fund Boston, click here – Thanks!


The Miner

After a day of reading and writing poetry, I began to edit the poem of another – and found myself changing it drastically enough to call it my own. This poem goes out to everyone who has mined a cryptocurrency – enjoy!

Mining Crypto sounds fun, it’s true;

Maybe you’ll make a little cash!

You can start with one GPU,

And contribute your share to the hash.

Soon the addiction will set in,

And you’ll want to start a farm.

Mining’s a game and you must win!

So you buy more gear; what’s the harm?

A month will go by without a glitch

With glee you’ll watch your wallet soar

100,000 coins – you’re rich!

A power bill? Nuts, now you’re poor.

Cheers! ~ Rob