Green Cheese Moon

GREEN CHEESE MOON: A Facebook Conversation*

 *Any resemblance to actual persons or events is entirely coincidental

 

__________________________________________________

Arone posts: "The moon looks like its made of green cheese."

__________________________________________________

 

Terry: It can look like that but its surface is made of basalt and breccia.

 

Arone: But it looks like green cheese, so it is.

 

Terry: You seem to be confusing visual comparison with evidence of its composition.

 

Dron: Whatever Arone says is true.

 

Terry: Dron, if Arone told you the sun was a god that rode across the sky in a golden chariot, would you believe it? Arone, the moon’s lowlands are made of a kind of basalt and the highlands are breccias. We’ve been to the moon and we know what it is made of. People didn’t used to know what the moon really was so they made up all sorts of things to explain it based on what it looks like. But the history of science shows logical avenues of study, including technology development like spectrometry, long before we had the ability to sample it directly and they showed it to be made of kinds of rock similar to Earth’s formation.

 

Arone: I am an atheist, Terry. I don’t believe in gods. But, I KNOW cheese and I know empirical evidence when I see it. What Dron said has some merit. I am right about lots of things. You don’t get credit for going to the moon, Terry. You are just being pedantic with your convoluted double speak. You are ignoring the clear fact that it looks like green cheese and I have an experiment that will prove it. Let’s both slice a wheel of swiss cheese, leave it unrefrigerated for a few days until it starts to get a slight veneer of mold on it. Then we will go out at the next full moon, hang the wheel of cheese from the limb of a tree and view it from a distance such that it takes up 1 degree of sky space, just like the full moon. We will shine a light on the cheese wheel and put on a pair of dark glasses to obscure the difference in distance and lighting between the two objects and account for any potential bias in knowing which object is which. If you can honestly say that they look pretty similar in shape and general appearance, you must dance naked down the main street of your town and post a video of it on youtube entitled “I am so stupid I thought the moon was made of basalt and breccia”. If I can honestly say they look completely different in shape and general appearance, I will do the same with the title finishing “... made of green cheese”.

 

Tum: Cut the cheese! Whoever smelt it dealt it.

 

Terry: Your challenge is completely absurd, Arone. By what standard do you define the terms “look pretty similar” and “shape and general appearance”? Your proposal is completely biased toward the aesthetic attributes of shape, space occupied in the field of vision and illumination. What about spectroscopy results of the moon viewed from Earth that match the chemical composition of basalt and breccia, not green cheese?

 

Arone: It is an experiment, Terry. It is perfectly scientific. I have a theory, I set up a means of testing it and abide by the results and conclude accordingly. You are just blinded by your profession. If you can’t excavate it personally, you call everybody else’s opinion about it wrong.

 

Dron: I believe whatever I see. You read too many books, Terry. That is you’re problem. 

 

Carl: LOOK at it, Terry!

 

Reama: I write poetry. I know how to write and Terry is dumb.

 

Carl: Ha! Good one, Reama! Reama is reely smart, Terry! You need to here a reely smart person tell you yer dum so you will get it!

 

Tum: I’ll see you on the dark side of the cheese.

 

Terry: Hey Reama, do you have anything at all to say about the topic of the moon? Carl, seriously? You make yourself sound stupid when you declare that simply viewing something can explain its composition.

 

Reama: I know how to write and so do you, Ms Terry. I know how to write so well, I snowed all my college professors my freshman year into giving me good grades. I am highly intelligent and insightful because I know how to write. And I know your type well, Ms Terry. You know how to write but you are dumb. You can’t see the wisdom in these simple men’s simple words, but you are full of yourself and your vocabulary to make arguments on obfuscation and no substance. Whatever I say is true because I have such a great command of the English language and my professional career in education. Whatever you say is not true because you lecture people about how smart you are instead of trying to communicate with them. I obviously don’t care at all about what your profession is and how it informs on what you are saying. I just don’t like you because you question my friends’ assertions.

 

Carl: You tell her, Reama! All Terry does is insult people! I don’t have nuthin more I need say about the moon! Reama said it all! Ha!

 

Dron: You don’t have to read books to be smart, but you can be smart and read books. I feel sorry for you that you don’t get that, Terry. You liberals just read some books.

 

Terry: Reama, you really need to GFY. Oops! There I go just insulting people instead of talking about the scientific basis of studying the moon’s composition! LOL! Oh, nevermind. You folks are brilliant... not as brilliant as the luminosity of the moon as a celestial object viewed from earth, but I have learned a lot from you. Never EVER try to reason with self-absorbed, arrogant fools about matters of objectively demonstrable truth. Thank you. Bye bye.

On Extremism and Dancing

I love dancing. Its one of those things that is both a natural part of being human (whether you do it or not) and a socially regulated thing.

I love politics. Its one of those things that is both a natural part of being human (whether you engage in it or not) and a socio-economically regulated thing.

In dancing there are extremes that I love. I love square dancing. I love slam dancing. I love them both. They are not mutually exclusive. We might even combine them in a fascinating fit of moderation.

Square dancing is the epitome of order and regimen. It is conservative. Do what you are told.

Slam dancing is the epitome of freedom and self- expression. It is liberal. Do what you feel like doing.

Both slam and square dancing require people to act in unison.

There are no physical casualties in square dancing, at least not anywhere I have ever heard of. It is probable that, incorrectly interpreting orders, folks have smashed into each other and endured injuries. It is mostly harmless in that we don't physically hurt one another. We do, however, blindly obey orders so everyone is doing the same thing and having a good time.

There are certain physical casualties in slam dancing, deduced in part from my personal experience though these were no worse than my college rugby daze. But we expect the injuries with the free-for-all that is unobstructed freedom. It is mostly harmless in that everyone is having a good time. We do, however, give ourselves up to the mercy of our fellow humans with no authority.

These extremes are not mutually exclusive, nor are they the only options to dance. Dancing is a rainbow of possibility. I am not particuarly good at either extremes though I appreciate them both. I love it all and love all who accept it all.

Dance and live. Live to dance. Or don't dance. Or dance in your own personal way.

Don't deny others their chance to dance.

OCCUPY 4th of JULY

Independence Day! A time of celebration for American patriotism. The source of that patriotism is the understanding of freedom, that people should not be subjected to control by illegitimate power. Such power is tyranny. It benefits only those that have the power and forces those deprived of power to bear the costs and burdens necessary to produce such benefits.

The founders of this nation were privileged white men. They rebelled against the established government because they were subjected to control by illegitimate power. That is, their colonial interests were not represented by the government rule they lived under. So, they stood up and did what they could about it.

They wrote up a document that described human rights in both abstract terms and in the broadest language of inclusivity understood for that historical time period. The Declaration of Independence boldly declared that everybody is created with the equality of certain rights. Though the language of the document did not purposefully exclude categories of people, the implementation and practice of the institution it ultimately fostered very much excluded most of the people that were subjected to the new government's rule.

The document declared that governments must derive their just powers from "the consent of the governed". If a form of government becomes destructive of human rights and civic representation, the people should alter or abolish that government because it has become illegitimate... a new tyranny.

The privileged white men had the means and conditions to rebel against their oppressors, who were simply more privileged white men. They engaged in acts of civil disobedience. The Boston Tea Party famously destroyed property in protest of a lack of representation in the government imposing its illegitimate rule over that property. They engaged in armed rebellion.

The oppressed people of this new nation, particularly the ones considered as property themselves, did not have the means and conditions to successfully rebel against their oppressors. Acts of civil disobedience were quelled in the most gruesome and ugly ways. Tyranny seems only a concern of the privileged white men when they are the victims of it, not when they are the perpetrators of it.

Eventually, the abstract terms and philosophy of human rights that originally inspired the privileged white men to change the systemic basis of tyranny, progressed into the wider acceptance of whom the constituency consists of as "the governed".  Conservative resistance erupted into civil war... but ironically this time, the rebels were fighting against freedom. They were fighting what they saw as the tyranny of the federal government in re-defining human slaves as free people instead of their property. They were fighting against progress and for their own power to own other human beings as property.

Today, many people perceive the United States government as the instrument of illegitimate power. In much the same way that the civil war was the product of very polarized perceptions of this problem, so today the "tea party" movement and the "occupy" movement appear at complete odds, though both seem to be making the same claim. The differences between the two boil down to who they feel is being oppressed. A sober analysis of the situation would clarify the reality as much as any unbiased review of the civil war should.

The popular aspects of the "tea party" movement put them in the position of British loyalists as corallary to their role in the American Revolution. They support their own right to free speech and assembly when they have conformed to the government's strictures on it. They chastise the rights of people to peacefully assemble and petition government for redress of grievences when it is done without top-heavy organization and monetary payment to governmental powers for unconstitutional permits.

The popular aspects of the "occupy" movement fit much more comfortably as the position of the American Revolutionaries. Our government has become destructive of the ends of civil representation and human rights. Corporations are now "people" and speech is not "free". We are depriving actual people of their right to representation in rule that directly affects their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We have established speech as a product of monetary investment, not a product of critically scrutinized ideas in equally inclusive forums.

Our national legislative body of elected representatives is overwhelmingly, disproportionately occupied by very wealthy white men in complete incongruity with the identities of the governed population that are subjected to their rule. The laws that come out of that body overwhelmingly benefit wealthy white men at the expense of everyone else that bears the costs and burden of those benefits.

We have a right to alter or to abolish this form of government and to institute a new and better means to effect our safety and happiness. "Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes..." OCCUPY is all about heavy and persistent causes that impel us to the revolution.

President or Prom King?

As we find ourselves in the heat of the national campaign for President, the question comes up yet again about what people are voting for. Yes, yes... we are going to vote for the President, but what does that actually mean to people? Clearly, there is a strong current of personal popularity that seems fairly disengaged from the actual policy endorsements the candidates propose.

I know that I would LOVE to have a beer with W or Barry. I would like to have a beer with Mitt though that seems unlikely and telling for why that is. It seems all too much a campaign for Prom King. Of course, Prom Queen is not an issue yet, though I have personally always said that Sarah Palin would make a great Prom Court Queen... if a shitty President/Vice President of the USA.

So now we have a story coming to light about how one candidate (not to rule out the good Dr Paul just yet) views gay people. Its not just an issue of public policy. Its an issue of personality. The privileged rich kid Romney went to prep school and apparently was a dastardly bully.

Obama was raised in a "broken" home by an anthropologist mother who took him to the antipodial side of the planet in his childhood to know people of very different beliefs and experiences than the typical American.

I happen to care most about public policy assertions when I choose to vote for a candidate to any office. But if it really does come down to Prom King? Obama... Barack Hussein Obama for Prom King. Now when do we get to vote for Prom Queen... or even Madam President?

Tax Time and the Golden Paradouche!

I like filling out my own tax forms. Of course, I really hate it because its tedious and frustrating with all the convoluted instructions you have to worm your way through to find out that the thing you just spent an hour figuring out is something that doesn't apply to you after all. But the reason I like to fill it out myself is precisely because of the opportunity to come across various ways that different people get screwed and/or benefited by the tax code.

Yesterday's lesson came from the Form 1040 instructions for Line 60, "Other Taxes". I was pretty sure that this was not going to apply to me, but I perused them anyway. I was rewarded by item #10, "Golden Parachute Payments". It turns out that "if you received an excess parachute payment (EPP), you must pay a 20% tax on it".

This struck me with several questions. First, aren't ALL "parachute payments" excessive? Second, are the people that receive such gratuities unaware that they owe a tax on it? Third, why isn't this tax withheld from the payment? Fourth, 20%?! Or should I write, "20 & # * @ ^  % ?!"?

I certainly am ignorant of such things, but the concept I have of golden parachutes comes from the moniker "Golden", which the instructions quickly euphemize into EPP. It implies that we are talking about a rather large amount of money. I seriously doubt such things are ever $100, which the rest of us call a "Christmas Bonus".

How is it that 20% is arrived at as a "fair" tax? For some reason, such payments are not considered earned income, much like Capital Gains. So because someone didn't actually work for this money and they are really just paid for doing absolutely nothing except getting fired, they get a nice break in taxes from this massive amount of actual income that would be taxed at upwards of 30% if they had truly "earned" it.

I thought of this 20% as I scanned the tax table to fill in Line 44, "Tax", and discovered that if someone's Taxable Income is $5 (no, I did not forget any zeros on that), their Tax is $1, that is, 20%. I don't think I have to point out the irony here, though I guess I just did.

Now everybody that actually works for a living, be sure to check out Box 12 of your Form W-2 and see if there is a Code "K" there. The instructions are a bit confusing and I can't tell if this indicates you were already taxed or that you received a payment that requires you to pay a tax, but either way, it would be like winning the lottery without even playing if you see this. Or if you received a Form 1099-MISC, Box 13 will say "EPP", indicating that you are required to pay 20% of the amount shown.

My final thought on this is that anyone who received such a payment and is filling out this form for themself, should probably be doing it from a prison cell. I mean, if this were a fair and just world.