Solely In Black and White: January 2011

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Legally Stupid

Capital Dome
While I may or may not be a proponent of government intervention with regards to free market capitalism and whatnot, depending on the circumstances, I am a bit disconcerted with the amount of idiosyncratic regulation that the government infringes on our (my?) daily life. Don’t get me wrong, I am quite thankful that I live in a democratic society where my freedoms are unparalleled and quite laudable, yet, one does have to wonder about some of the arcane laws that have been instated. Granted, this topic would not have warranted a post. However, after reading the article States’ Lawmakers Turn Attention to the Dangers of Distracted Pedestrians, which posits that some wise politicians wish to prohibit citizens from crossing the street while listing to music, I decided it was time write a post.

Stupidity aside, the first question I have is, what exactly are these people wasting their time on, and do their constituents have any idea what they are advocating for? I doubt one can base their political ambitions on being the notorious nincompoop who can’t even walk down the street and think at the same time. Then again that might be a valid description of many politicians in office… ;-) Regardless of political inequities and abuse of power there is an underlying message that is being stated: consumers are too stupid to protect themselves. 

Courtroom detail
Protectionism is nothing new. Furthermore, protectionism is even quite warranted in many circumstances! However, deciding how people walk down the street should not be one of them. Another protectionist measure that is quite bemusing is government regulated shower heads. Have you not heard about shower heads? Who would have ever thought that the government would control how you shower? We’ll you see, the government must protect us from ourselves by limiting how much water can come out of our showerheads. While the reason given is because it wastes valuable resources, I think it a ploy to keep people less hygienic thereby limiting their chance of becoming politically active, since politicians appear clean. Thus, the government is limiting the potential pool of new candidates. Clearly a well thought-out conspiracy theory I think! :-p Then again it could be the EPA knows what’s really in our water and thinks they should limit our exposure to said substance… :-/ 

Regardless, the main issue with protectionism is that it breeds stupidity on two levels. One, it contributes to human conformity and enables people to “not think for themselves” (aka, sheep syndrome or sheeple) and secondly, it creates reliance. Take for example the antiquated New York State law that levies a $25 fine on flirting! See how well that turned out… :-) The alternative issue with protectionism is that it enables stupid people, who otherwise would have been removed from the gene pool through evolutionary paradigms, such as riding a bike without a helmet, to live longer and thrive… and even become politicians who create laws…. :-p

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

How is that for Hoot?

When I was dating I always contemplated whether I wanted a spouse who was a night owl like me, or a morning lark. So much so, I think it was even something I would ask about on a first date. No, I didn't use that a qualifier in any way, I was just curious, really. Sorry, I never understood morning people. Although, in retrospect the statement "I am a morning person, do you mind if we cut this short" might have come in hand. On second thought, that was three in the afternoon, so never mind. 

On first glace I thought having symmetry or nocturnal compatibility would be awesome. That way, when I write my posts late at night, my adoring wife will still be up to proofread them and add her contributions. (Btw, thanks again TAW :-) ) I mean isn’t being on the same schedule a positive precursor for marriage? Since human’s nocturnal nature is genetic, it would follow that compatibility can even be ascertain in a laboratory without even meeting a potential date. Granted, a lab match would only imply that the pair would enjoy staying up late, but hey, that’s a start, right? 

Since we are both night owls we enjoy basking in the moon glow till the wee hours. Reading blogs, eating late night snacks, etc… But this night time bonding has its price. It also means that there is nobody pressing us to go to bed at night or wake up in the morning

However, after some thought about the matter, perhaps it is best that a pair be on opposite ends of the spectrum. Aside from positing that opposites attract, it would create a natural balance. Sorts of like a biological checks and balances system, but without the red tape. Naturally, the night person would be inclined to proscribe a later bed time than the early bird, while the early bird will be granted full authority over the wake-up routine, human alarm clock service, or something like that. As night owl you wouldn’t believe how many alarm clock we need to wake us up. :-) I think the count is at 4? :-( 

I presume the only conclusion I have ascertained from this: until science creates a cure the genetic mutation called the “after-hours-gene” I guess us night owl won’t know what were missing. So in the mean time, good night… or good morning if you’re reading this when you wake up! :-p

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

A Single Bad Day…

Cloudy sky

I marvel at society sometimes. Okay… a little more often than I have to… I mean I do have to conjure these posts sometimes. ;-) Anyways, what I marvel most about society is not their lack of compassion but their misguided sympathies. If anything the recent blizzard has shown the true compassion of people, at least somewhat. But aside from the empathetic nature of people, and their desire for kindness I am a bit shocked at something; bad days. 

While bad days are a common irritation that has plagued mankind since the invention of the day, (or perhaps the creation of the work-week and the occurrence of Mondays all too often) they are something that cannot be avoided. No, I have not discovered the cure for bad days, nor am I advocating a movement to eradicate them, although if science where to discover a solution I would be grateful. But alas, that is not the case. 

Regardless of whether bad days can be eradicated or not, the point of this post is quite simple. Now that I am on the other side of the fence, per se, I have come to the glaring realization that singles are not allowed to have bad days! Shocking; I know! Who would have thought? It seems that whenever a single person has a bad day they are automatically written-off with the notion that they are “distressed that they are single.” 

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that being single can’t contribute to a bad day. I recall having some bad dates that soured my mood for longer than a day. However, the notion that a single person must be happier and more cheerful than the rest of society is absurd, and to think otherwise is ludicrous. So while society may be unduly empathetic towards singles, whether justly or not, just please have a nice day.