66 posts tagged “previous blog”

I've stopped blogging because lately I've felt like I have to perform my best for an audience every time I write and a lot of times I don't want to talk to an audience, I just want to talk to myself. Either I want to hammer an idea for eventual public display, or just take notes, or I know that a certain subject doesn't matter to anyone but me and I don't want to justify my writing on it. The point is I never started a blog for an audience, and it's become a hinderance to my writing. I found a new blogging service, called Vox, which displays posts based upon who has access to see them. Which mean I don't have to search through the back pages of my dashboard for any stray note I typed down two months ago. It's as easily accessable as the rest of my blog, because when I'm logged in I can see all my posts displayed normally. I've been using it for a month and, although I'll miss experimenting with the greater power of Blogger, Vox suits me better. Even if it feels too pre-packaged to begin with.

My new site is http://ivorytowerdue.vox.com and I'll start moving my posts manually from here over there whenever I feel like it.

Comments Posted to Original Blog:

Tom Rowland said...

Hi, Amanda.

Read you January 1st post and thought I'd let you know what I do. Lots of times my posts are sense of life "erruptions"' in that I let my subconscious do the work and make the connections. I'm not trying to figure things out, but simply want to express my outrage or inrage (?). Like my diatribe about Socialized Medicine in Tacoma. Other times, when I want to think long and hard, I do it off-line and then copy/paste it to my blog,like with the long article I'm writing on Tracinski. You've probably thought of all that, so I'll just say what I've seen, I like.

Tom @ www.trowland.blogspot.com

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:08:00 PM

The Second Proclamation of the Prince Chulalongkorn From The King and I [1956]

There shall be no bowing like toad, no crouching, no crawling. This does not mean, however, that you do not show respect for king! You will stand with sholders back and chin high, like this. You will face king with proud expression, showing pride in self as well as in king. This is proper way for men to show esteem for one another, by looking upon each other’s faces, with kindness of spirit, eyes meeting eyes in equal gaze, bodies upright, standing as men were meant to stand.

I saw this this on THE FORUM 4 Ayn Rand Fans, posted by Paul's Here. It really hits home.

I need a job where I can earn enough money to pay my bills, so that I can spend the rest of my time studying. I have such a job, in fact I make enough at this job that I can even think about investing ~$150-$200/month. However, I recently discovered that the government is taking damn near 25% of my paycheck in taxes! That's over $200 per month! The government is actually stealing a week out of four from me! I'm so pissed I actually cursed loudly on the job in front of customers when I found out. So now I have to waste even more time that could be dedicated to my studies in order to find a way to suplement my income. Rat bastards.

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
are the rule

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass

Tax all he has
then let him know
that you won't be done
till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
he's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me
to my doom..."

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

-----------------------------------------
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax,
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest expense
Inventory tax
IRS Interest Charges
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road usage taxes
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax(SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
-----------------------------------------

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world....
and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

In regards to the recently proposed and happily defeated minimum wage increase. A government enforced increase in wages is not going to benefit anyone. Employers have a certain budget for employing labour and when the price of that labour increases, no matter how incrementally, they have to off-set the cost in some way in order to maintain their profit. Either they'll have to charge more for their product or cut costs in producing it or both. The most likely method of which is simply to reduce labour, as it's the source of the problem.

In other words, if an employer has to pay more per employee, he'll make due with less employees. Just like when anyone finds a necessary increase in their budget and they have to do without something to cover the costs. The same holds true if you were to argue that a company should take that money out of their profits, because a company doesn't just sit on a pile of money. They use their profit to invest back into the company in research and development, invest it in general, or pay dividends to their shareholders. There isn't an unlimited supply of money and rearranging where it goes does not create more of it.

So when you applaud the wage increase consider your own job, are you a necessary asset to your company or are you expendable to pay for someone else pay raise? And if you think it's OK, your position is secure you could use the money, consider who's paycheck you're receiving by governmental mandate.

It's disgusting that the government puts us in this position, of sacrificed and sacrificee, by rearranging wealth.

Update [8.18.2006 @ 5:53 pm]: I've submitted various forms of this post [edited depending upon the space I'm allowed] as letters to the editor to Purdue's Exponent, The Journal and Courier, and The Indianapolis Star.

Update [8.22.2006 @ 1:37 am]: I've got a confirmation call from all three newspapers, and my letter was published today in The Exponent. We'll see about the others, but I'm tinkled pink about it! Of course I'm keeping print copies; I may just frame them! ^_^
After reading over it in the paper, I really wish I could have expanded a few points and made my argument more explicit, but I think it was good for this format that I remain brief. I'm not sure, since I know what I meant to argue by each statement, but did my brevity do disservice to my clarity? I'd really appreciate an outside opinion on this, since it's my first LTTE.

Update [8.23.2006 @ 5:36 pm]: The Indianapolis Star has published my letter today. I'm going to run down to town today and pick up a paper. Still waiting on The Journal and Courier to see if I'm 3 for 3!

Update [8.25.2006 @ 5:33 pm]: An here's a link to the LTTE page in The Journal and Courier where mine is printed [scroll down to "Sacrifice comes with increased wages"].

Update [8.25.2006 @ 5:33 pm]: An ARI press release.

Comments Posted to Original Blog:

Mike N said...

Hi Amanda. I think your LTE is just fine. You made your points well. Don't worry about being more precise as that would mean a longer letter and editors generally chop them up destroying your more precise meaning anyway.
Keep up the good work.
Mike N

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:45:00 PM

softwareNerd said...

Way to go. With this kind of hit rate, buy a whole lot of frames at CostCo, and keep a few walls ready!

Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:42:00 PM

Amanda Carlson said...

Thanks, Mike. It's reassuring to know other people understand what I'm writing, then I know I'm not just projecting my own intentions onto the peice.

Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:50:00 PM

Amanda Carlson said...

SoftwareNerd: I could just go, like, crazy-cat-lady and keep piles of newspaper around my house. :-D Save the frame money.

Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:58:00 PM

Watch, I command it. ---> Linky

Scott isn't always right, but he uses his head well. And this video alone is enough to put him on my top ten "list of people who are human".

A taste: "I've never really understood people who say gas costs too much."

A little over a year ago I posted my ponderings over the validity of a metaphysically existent god, ie. in this plane/universe/realm/dimension. I wanted to know the answer to the question, "does god exist?" I concluded that to exist one must literally be in existence, that is, the modern notion of god as an infinite-unknowable-ethereal-being is ludicrous. But I was stumped by the claim that god is in existence, is knowable, and does have a definite identity all of which we simply don't yet have conclusive evidence.

What confused me about such an argument is that I knew arguing for either the proof or disproof of god on no evidence are both impossible and silly to attempt, but I didn't yet grasp the implications of that impossibility. I didn't understand where to go from there and I was stopped at the false dichotomy without a proper understanding of the correct third option. I guessed it had something to do with how one goes about gaining knowledge [epistemology], but no clear idea of what that meant.

Now, a year later, I've learned a lot with the help of excellent conversation with my friends Nick, Coire, and Peter. Now that it seems so clear I kind of wonder, rereading John Stark's comments, why it wasn't so obvious then. So, I'm going to explain my new understanding, though I don't think I'm saying anything new to those of you who understand the issue already and to those of you who don't, I don't think I can say anything which will make you understand if you haven't yet thought about it. This is purely for my own benefit.

We as humans very literally can't know anything on no evidence; or to put it positively, we know by evidence. We make observations and find the logical implications of those observations by reason. In the absence of observation there are no logical implications to discover, no conclusions to be made, literally nothing to say.

Put it another way: The conversation that helped me to finally glean this insight was one about truth in which Coire asked, if a man is proven guilty and sentenced but is later released on the grounds of new evidence which proves his innocence, is the original verdict true? Assuming the jury made no errors in judgment given the evidence they were provided, it was the introduction of new evidence and not the realization of faulty reasoning which proved the man's innocence.

The answer is yes, it was true within the context of the given evidence. And what about within the context of that same evidence plus that which was discovered later? It is silly to say. It is like asking if there are snow storms in North Dakota to which the proper answer is yes, then asking if there are snow storms in North Dakota in July, and claiming a "no" answer refutes the truth of the previous answer. They are both correct, both true, but only within the context of the evidence given for the conclusion.

Truth is not reality. Reality is as it is with or without our knowledge of it. Truth is what we correctly derive from our observations reality, but our observations are neither infinite nor boundless.

And so, when asked whether or not I think god exists, my answer is no longer a no [I don't think it was ever a yes]. My answer is: there is nothing I can say about god.

Comments Posted on Original Blog:

AS said...

I think you're in a good place... I reckon God can handle us not being sure about his existence.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:15:00 PM

Amanda Carlson said...

I didn't say I wasn't sure. In fact, I am finally sure.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:28:00 PM

John Stark said...

I'm glad to be enlightening, even if after the fact. :)

"And so, when asked whether or not I think god exists, my answer is no longer a no [I don't think it was ever a yes]. My answer is: there is nothing I can say about god."

I would still make the distinction you make at the beginning of the post: that a supernatural being [which is generally what is meant by a "god"] can't exist.

A natural entity, i.e. one with identity, one that exists, that a person chooses to call a "god," would be using that term pretty loosely. [I would strongly suspect that the person was trying to smuggle in the actual definition of "god," otherwise, why use that term?] Even so, if a person claimed there existed some entity with identity, existing within reality [not that anything could exist elsewhere], and called it a "god," it would be completely up to them to show evidence that such an entity existed, and you would rightly have nothing you could say about it until then. [And they would have nothing they could say, either; they could only make sounds that are similar to words in a certain order.]

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:29:00 PM

Amanda Carlson said...

You're right, John. It was a small point of uncertainty. But I think it was necessary to address because if I were deeply religious [in a wacky delusional world] it's the argument that I'd make. And besides I've met people who have claimed god is real.

While I was trying to figure out what exactly god is supposed to be I talked some Mormons into telling me about their god [surprisingly undifficult :-)]. When they said god exists with a body you can touch I asked where, and they told me his home is on a planet circling a star called Kolab.

Thursday, August 17, 2006 6:59:00 PM

How do you get along with co-workers? That's what I wish they'd ask me again.

In the last week I had an interview to be a barista at Starbucks. I was passed over for the position and someone else was hired. I remained persistent in talking with the managers, so much so that I was worried I'd become a pest, because I really wanted to know what I had done wrong or what I could do better. I discovered that I gave the impression that I would have difficulty getting along with customers and fellow workers, that I wouldn't be able to form the bonds that are so unique to Starbucks. That's what I had been anticipating.

While reviewing my interview in my mind this had been a knot of uncertainty, I didn't know if I had conveyed myself accurately. I understand that when I was asked that same question, "how do you get along with co-workers", I responded that I didn't very well. And that's true, I didn't get along with my co-workers very well, but it's not the whole truth. That was my error, where I had an oppourtunity to shine I remained blunt.

I should have explained why it is that I've spent the past two months hunting a job at Starbucks, why I've been so persistent. I should have said that I know Starbucks is all about the atmosphere. I know that you can get coffee almost anywhere, but Starbucks is the only place where you can relax among friends and sip a little coffee on the side. That's what I love about Starbucks so much, they've taken my favourite free-time activity and offered it to me any time I want for the price of a tall coffee frappuccino with an extra shot of espresso and light whip [$3.50].

I should have said that Starbucks is one of my favourite places to go and it would be only too wonderful if, for now, I could work there. I should have explained that I have a job now, a decent job at which I could conceivable do well and rise among the ranks. But I don't get along well with my coworkers because it's a fast food place and they're all harried with their own jobs. There's very little room to get along well with each other. I should have said that I try to crack a joke, be friendly, and cheer someone up when they're upset about upset customers, but that it's all secondary to my job where I'm supposed to be as fast as I can. Don't get me wrong, fast food isn't evil, they just sell speed instead of comfort and so "getting along" is rather a non-issue and often gets in the way.

I should have said that it bores me having to repeat lines at customers because when I try to be frank and friendly I get reminded that I'm going too slow. I should have said I enjoy speaking happily with customers and coworkers, that It'd be fun to play with the menu for customers the way Starbucks employees do rather than reluctantly saying, "no, we don't carry that". In short, I should have said that I don't get along well with my coworkers and that's precisely why I want to work at Starbucks so single-mindedly. Because I'm a cheerful and open person and even though I have to pay the bills I want to have some fun doing it. I want to work in a place where I have the oppourtunity, nay am encouraged, to get along with coworkers and customers.

What you have just read seriously illustrates my problem. I write better than I speak, and speak better in retrospect than at present. More to the point, I speak very well (as in the physical action of speech) with diction, clarity, and assertiveness. But what to say, that's what I can never get right the first time. I can't seem to speak my mind without giving it at least ten minutes of thought first as to what exactly I mean to say and in what words to best say it. My powers in that area are restricted to small witty commentary among friends, on which I've actually been highly complimented.

So now, I'm encouraged to try again in six months. We'll see if I can learn to communicate properly by then. I hope this has helped.

On Tuesday July 4th in Memphis, Tennessee the World Overcomers Outreach Ministries Church erected a statue in the image of Liberty with a bizarre Christian metamorphoses.

Instead of the book she cradles the two tablets of the ten commandments in her left arm. In her right she raises aloft a cross rather than the torch of liberty. Reportedly, 'Jehovah' is written across her crown and there is a single tear rolling down her cheek. Lady Liberties wretched twin is named The Statue of Liberation Through Christ.

From The New York Times:

The statue, inspired by a Memphis church that has three giant crosses, strikes him [pastor Apostle Alton R. Williams] as "a creative means of just really letting people know that God is the foundation of our nation," he said.

Mr. Williams has written several books and pamphlets analyzing a variety of matters, among them patriotism and the original intent of the founding fathers.

In "The Meaning of the Statue of Liberation Through Christ: Reconnecting Patriotism With Christianity," he explains that the teardrop on his Lady is God's response to what he calls the nation's ills, including legalized abortion, a lack of prayer in schools and the country's "promotion of expressions of New Age, Wicca, secularism and humanism." In another book, he said Hurricane Katrina was retribution for New Orleans's embrace of sin.

Mr. Williams said his statue's essential point was that Christianity should be the guiding ethos of the nation [...]

"One of Britain's most prestigious art galleries put a block of slate on display, topped by a small piece of wood, in the mistaken belief it was a work of art."

This bit of news from Reuters, courtesy Nicholas Provenzo at Rule of Reason, is just too precious. The Royal Academy apparently doesn't know art from a paving stone.

... But this thing is in my house! ::horrified girly scream::

Centipede.0