Once, we were taught in our schools what wealth and money truly were. How money was simply a way to measure value of objects, and rather subjective at that. The truth that wealth was not a zero-sum ratio was so well established that it was assumed that there was no need to continue teaching it; that it was so self-evident as to be unnecessary to explain. Its a shame these are not part of curriculum anymore.
The first point Id like to address is wealth. Too many ignorant fools carry on that those with wealth "stole" it from others, acting as though there is some limited amount of wealth in the world. Wealth is when one takes raw materials and turns them into items of value. Sand has nearly no value. Melt it into glass, and it increases a small amount. Turn that glass into a special bottle or statue, and it becomes even more valuable.And that's one simple example. The limit of turning raw materials like wood, metal or sand into needed items is limited only by imagination and industry. So, as long as there is imagination, raw materials, and someone willing to work hard, wealth will keep being produced.No one is "stealing" it from you. Either you produce wealth, or you dont.
Next is the explanation of money, something economics seems to have stopped teaching. Regardless of the form the currency takes, or what it is backed by, all money is essentially assigning a worth to objects for trade. Many tend to forget that this value is entirely subjective. One man may think his first edition batman comic book is worth millions, but to most everyone else, its just pulp-paper. I could go on with a near-endless list of other items, but I think this explains the idea quite well. So its not some conspiracy of evil keeping money from you, but rather a simple matter of "can they buy what you're offering somewhere else for cheaper?"
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Europe's coversion to christianity
I have several friends who follow....alternative religions. Rebuilt Wicca, Asatru (modern Scandinavian) Hellenic (modern Greek), Rebuilt ancient Egyptian and so on. Many of these friends use equal parts of legend, myths, history, and sciences to cobble together a religion. But what they create is not the old religion. Because they do not know the old in its entirety, they dont understand why Christianity replaced these beliefs.
The first belief is that Christians came to convert by the sword. And thats wrong. By the time the "Northern Crusades" happened, most of the Northern lands were already converted. The "Crusaders" were actually invited by rulers of the country, to help stamp out rebellion. They called it heresy to get the church's aid.
There is a repeating format to most of the elder religions: The gods are born, and will eventually die. At the end of the world, the gods die, and not only the living, but the dead are lost as well. Judaism and its two split-offs were the first that offered a god that existed before the beginning, and would continue on after the end. We today cant understand the importance of that, given the strong efforts world-wide to tarnish religion and eliminate it.
To know that your god is destined to die; indeed, the Greek and Norse legends told that the killers already existed, and gave all the details of who, how, and why; this proved the gods limited, and led to questions of what other limits they had.
Next was the problem of the afterlife. In viking lore, you got to go to paradise only if you were especially heroic, and died in battle. Many people forget, it wasnt just dying, you also had to be so amazing on the battle field that the Valkyries noticed you above all the rest. Otherwise, you went to Hel. Now, it wasnt all fire and brimstone as Christians teach, but it was not a pleasant friendly place. And great "sins" ogainst the gods were such things as dying of disease or old age, yet the religion taught that "The Fates" beings with power even over the gods, controlled everything, and had laid out your life before you were even born.
Then there were the Greeks; their afterlife was dark, dreary, and miserable period. No reward or punishment regardless of how you live. The Egyptians believed that your station in life fixed your station in the afterlife. And so on... And come the end of the world, even the dead were going to be destroyed.
But, the Judaic religions offered something different. Believe this teaching, follow these rules, and you would go to paradise, regardless of how you died. And while the evil were in for great torture, the faithful were actually going to be rewarded. And when the world ended, this god would survive, with all his faithful, to live on a new earth.
Its hard to explain to todays high-tech, science based population the psychological effects these arguments had. Here was a god that wouldnt die, an afterlife that didnt condemn one unless they were "evil" by a standard that most religions already taught was "bad", that said all were equal - the lowest laborer was as much loved as the highest king by this god.
This religion offered hope. Hope that if rewards didnt come in this life, then they would in the afterlife, and that come the end of the world, all would not be lost. Today, those in civilized parts of the world forget the power of hope. Our lives are spared the suffering and hardship that religion offers consolation for. So we have difficulty understanding just how important this facet is to the lives of those without such blessing. And because of that, we have a hard time understanding why the Judaic religions are so popular, and why conversion is so easy.
The first belief is that Christians came to convert by the sword. And thats wrong. By the time the "Northern Crusades" happened, most of the Northern lands were already converted. The "Crusaders" were actually invited by rulers of the country, to help stamp out rebellion. They called it heresy to get the church's aid.
There is a repeating format to most of the elder religions: The gods are born, and will eventually die. At the end of the world, the gods die, and not only the living, but the dead are lost as well. Judaism and its two split-offs were the first that offered a god that existed before the beginning, and would continue on after the end. We today cant understand the importance of that, given the strong efforts world-wide to tarnish religion and eliminate it.
To know that your god is destined to die; indeed, the Greek and Norse legends told that the killers already existed, and gave all the details of who, how, and why; this proved the gods limited, and led to questions of what other limits they had.
Next was the problem of the afterlife. In viking lore, you got to go to paradise only if you were especially heroic, and died in battle. Many people forget, it wasnt just dying, you also had to be so amazing on the battle field that the Valkyries noticed you above all the rest. Otherwise, you went to Hel. Now, it wasnt all fire and brimstone as Christians teach, but it was not a pleasant friendly place. And great "sins" ogainst the gods were such things as dying of disease or old age, yet the religion taught that "The Fates" beings with power even over the gods, controlled everything, and had laid out your life before you were even born.
Then there were the Greeks; their afterlife was dark, dreary, and miserable period. No reward or punishment regardless of how you live. The Egyptians believed that your station in life fixed your station in the afterlife. And so on... And come the end of the world, even the dead were going to be destroyed.
But, the Judaic religions offered something different. Believe this teaching, follow these rules, and you would go to paradise, regardless of how you died. And while the evil were in for great torture, the faithful were actually going to be rewarded. And when the world ended, this god would survive, with all his faithful, to live on a new earth.
Its hard to explain to todays high-tech, science based population the psychological effects these arguments had. Here was a god that wouldnt die, an afterlife that didnt condemn one unless they were "evil" by a standard that most religions already taught was "bad", that said all were equal - the lowest laborer was as much loved as the highest king by this god.
This religion offered hope. Hope that if rewards didnt come in this life, then they would in the afterlife, and that come the end of the world, all would not be lost. Today, those in civilized parts of the world forget the power of hope. Our lives are spared the suffering and hardship that religion offers consolation for. So we have difficulty understanding just how important this facet is to the lives of those without such blessing. And because of that, we have a hard time understanding why the Judaic religions are so popular, and why conversion is so easy.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
The republicans' lack of courage
So, Benghazi happened 3 years ago. We've had several investigations; called an endless number of people to testify before congress, and so on in the monkey show.
The following have been established as facts:
The ambassador had been asking for increased security for over a year, and it was denied by clinton.
There was knowledge of a planned attack on that day, at that time, a week in adavnce, and nothing was done to prepare.
Hillary was trading military grade equipment, to include missiles and other heavy ordinance to the Libyan "rebels", self-admitted members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda
Most communications before, during and after were done on a non-secure server in her home with private e-mail in an attempt to hide the arms dealing.
She was dealing through personal civilian contacts rather than US government sanctioned personnel.
She lied after the fact many times while under oath testifying before congress.
Even democrats are admitting there is a case for perjury. The whole server mess is grounds for espionage charges. If these investigations can prove she knowingly and deliberately was providing weapons, supplies and aid to Al-Qaeda and Talibani forces, forces we are in a declared war with, thats textbook treason.
The interesting question is "did she act alone?" Was obama telling her to do this? Did he know? Did she erase all those emails just to throw suspicion on him to weaken his ability to lead?
As long as this stays in Congress, where they fear her, and are generally corrupt and incompetent, we cannot get the truth or justice. Her actions warrant arrest and fair trial. But the republicans are too cowardly to do whats right.
The following have been established as facts:
The ambassador had been asking for increased security for over a year, and it was denied by clinton.
There was knowledge of a planned attack on that day, at that time, a week in adavnce, and nothing was done to prepare.
Hillary was trading military grade equipment, to include missiles and other heavy ordinance to the Libyan "rebels", self-admitted members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda
Most communications before, during and after were done on a non-secure server in her home with private e-mail in an attempt to hide the arms dealing.
She was dealing through personal civilian contacts rather than US government sanctioned personnel.
She lied after the fact many times while under oath testifying before congress.
Even democrats are admitting there is a case for perjury. The whole server mess is grounds for espionage charges. If these investigations can prove she knowingly and deliberately was providing weapons, supplies and aid to Al-Qaeda and Talibani forces, forces we are in a declared war with, thats textbook treason.
The interesting question is "did she act alone?" Was obama telling her to do this? Did he know? Did she erase all those emails just to throw suspicion on him to weaken his ability to lead?
As long as this stays in Congress, where they fear her, and are generally corrupt and incompetent, we cannot get the truth or justice. Her actions warrant arrest and fair trial. But the republicans are too cowardly to do whats right.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
LARP Armor
Many survivalists look at the Live Action Role Players and other organizations that create real and fantasy armors, and think its silly, somewhat childish, and useless.Most never look at more than pictures, or maybe see someone in the distance. And its a shame, because a close inspection would be most educational.
For starters, those that make their own are going to be quite skilled in leatherwork, and the other materials used to make the armor. Armor making is not a feat one starts off attempting, but a project for someone who has achieved fair or better proficiency at the necessary skills, and already attempted similar work on a smaller scale. Crafters must test themselves before trying, because of the amounts of materials (and the expense of those materials) that will be wasted if they screw up.
Second, it does depend on the purpose the gear was made for, granted. But most leather gear made even for the "light" contact LARPers is still a medium grade on par with what good leather work gloves are made of. It wont stop a bullet, true. Then again, by the time you get enough material to do that, you usually cant move. Tandy Leather sells a 10-11oz grade; its about a quarter of an inch thick. You can cut through it, if you're dedicated or patient. In a fight, its right handy for keeping your innards inside, where they belong. And it makes some of the most beautiful of that fancy, fantasy armor that most the survivalists and preppers sneer at. Because if you're going to be uncomfortable, you might as well look awesome, right? Quarter inch stainless is real easy to get, and makes great plates for armor. The actual battle armor used in most of history was a mix of leather, chain mail, metal plates, and cloth for padding; there was no single solid uniform armor, no matter ho it looks.
I like to point out ideas and options for people. My old unit used to have a saying, "the first one to stop fighting because its too (hot, cold, dark, whatever) is the first to die." If you care more about your looks than your hide, you aint gonna survive. Im willing to look like a dorky elf, or some knight from D&D if it means I got all my soft parts covered while going into a fight, and my opponent doesnt. And Im not worried about "fair" fights, if its for survival. Tonight, when Im alive and you're not, I'll make sure to tell the story so that we both sound like the most noble heroes since the Dark Ages. Heck, I might even put on my dorky armor and look the part.
This gear will stop the environmental injuries, for the most part. If made and padded right, it will stop all but the mnost dedicated attacks. That makes it almost as good as any man-made combat armor on the market. Its cheap, very functional, durable, and easy to make if you know how. And, if you use lighter weight leathers, it becomes "buckskin" leathers, like the Native Americans wore.
Just a thought....
For starters, those that make their own are going to be quite skilled in leatherwork, and the other materials used to make the armor. Armor making is not a feat one starts off attempting, but a project for someone who has achieved fair or better proficiency at the necessary skills, and already attempted similar work on a smaller scale. Crafters must test themselves before trying, because of the amounts of materials (and the expense of those materials) that will be wasted if they screw up.
Second, it does depend on the purpose the gear was made for, granted. But most leather gear made even for the "light" contact LARPers is still a medium grade on par with what good leather work gloves are made of. It wont stop a bullet, true. Then again, by the time you get enough material to do that, you usually cant move. Tandy Leather sells a 10-11oz grade; its about a quarter of an inch thick. You can cut through it, if you're dedicated or patient. In a fight, its right handy for keeping your innards inside, where they belong. And it makes some of the most beautiful of that fancy, fantasy armor that most the survivalists and preppers sneer at. Because if you're going to be uncomfortable, you might as well look awesome, right? Quarter inch stainless is real easy to get, and makes great plates for armor. The actual battle armor used in most of history was a mix of leather, chain mail, metal plates, and cloth for padding; there was no single solid uniform armor, no matter ho it looks.
I like to point out ideas and options for people. My old unit used to have a saying, "the first one to stop fighting because its too (hot, cold, dark, whatever) is the first to die." If you care more about your looks than your hide, you aint gonna survive. Im willing to look like a dorky elf, or some knight from D&D if it means I got all my soft parts covered while going into a fight, and my opponent doesnt. And Im not worried about "fair" fights, if its for survival. Tonight, when Im alive and you're not, I'll make sure to tell the story so that we both sound like the most noble heroes since the Dark Ages. Heck, I might even put on my dorky armor and look the part.
This gear will stop the environmental injuries, for the most part. If made and padded right, it will stop all but the mnost dedicated attacks. That makes it almost as good as any man-made combat armor on the market. Its cheap, very functional, durable, and easy to make if you know how. And, if you use lighter weight leathers, it becomes "buckskin" leathers, like the Native Americans wore.
Just a thought....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)