Revenge: The Ugly Truth

You know how in movies or books a common theme is that the antagonist (i.e., the "bad guy") kills the protagonist's (i.e., the "good guy's") family or best friend or something, and in the end the hero kills the villain and says "This is for so-and-so"? Well, it may be romantic or cool and all, but it's not really for the dead person's benefit--it's all for the protagonist's benefit. When it comes down to it, revenge is a selfish thing. Killing the one who killed your friends can't help your friends any--they're dead! It's all about assuaging your own grief, making yourself feel better, taking something from the person who took something from you. And then the relatives of the person you killed will feel the same way and try to do the same to you, and  the vicious cycle continues. It's a shame, really, that movies and books glorify revenge and try to make it into something heroic, which it's not. Instead of saying "That's for my family and/or friends", the protagonist should say "That's for ME, because you killed my family and/or friends, so I'm going to kill you because I'm mad and sad and this will help me feel better". Of course we all feel sorry for the hero because he is the hero and usually he's been wronged, but then we blindly accept everything he does as good and okay--it has to be, because he's the hero. And we end up sympathizing with a cold-blooded murderer, which is what villains are! Think about that--we've been cheated and tricked by the movie industry! We're on the side of the bad guy now!

Revenge: The Logic of Hate
Source: www.patheos.com

Arbitrary Limits

So I have a serious beef with driving, smoking, gun-owning, and drinking limits. I guess I should rephrase that--I don't have a problem with the existence of limits, but the fact that those that exist are so arbitrary. To illustrate: a stretch of road in one state can have the exact same characteristics of a stretch of road in another state but have a different speed limit just because it is a different state. So, just because I cross the state boundary the laws of physics behave differently and what was formerly safe is no longer so? I don't think so! Or just because I go to another state or another country suddenly my maturity level increases to where I can safely drink alcohol on my own at a younger age? Limits are supposed to be for the safety of the people, but its all about what different governments think is safe and not about what actually is safe. Again, why 65 mph? Why not 70 or 80?  The difference between the results of an impact at 65 and an impact at 80 aren't that different--you're still going to total your car and sustain serious injuries. And human reaction time isn't that much worse at 80 vs. 65. Or again, why 21 before I can buy alcohol? Why not 19 or 17? Or younger? Heck, at 18 most young people are done with high school and either starting a job and possibly a family or going to college and higher education--they are not children anymore! What are the criteria for these limits? Again, it seems that no one has really thought this through logically--the limits are set to what the current people in authority think is best, but this may not be what actually is best for their people. And this is just wrong--governments are given their authority by God for the good of the people, and thus they have a serious responsibility to use that authority wisely and for the purpose for which they were given it: the good of the people. Random limits just because there should be limits is not wise use of authority!

Modern Cities

So recently I was talking with a friend about cars vs. horses and how horses would probably be better for our society but how cars are a necessity with our world the way it is. I mean, we have cities that are so big you can't even drive across them in a single day, let alone around them! That's just crazy, and unheard of in the history of man except for our day and age. That's not a city--that's just a massive conglomeration of humanity sprawled across the land. Think about it: the reason mankind began living in cities was for mutual protection from enemies and for the betterment of the lives of the inhabitants through cooperation. In a modern city, covering thousands of square miles, there can be no unified, coordinated defense against an invader--it's just a giant target with so many helpless people running around as individuals or small groups. Or think about this: depending on where you live, it could take a couple hours to a whole day or more to walk to the capitol of the city, if you even know where it is! In any other day and age, such a city could not have sustained itself--and even today, they don't always sustain themselves that well! The size of cities today makes for a logistical nightmare, traffic nightmares, law enforcement nightmares, you name it. In everyday life, it's just too big, too massive, for a normal amount of civilized control and cooperation among the inhabitants. As a citizen of a modern city, all I know is that there are hundreds of thousands of people living for miles all around me, of whom I know less than 0.01%. And somehow, we're supposed to function as a unified whole? No wonder people nowadays are so disconnected!



Tokyo, Japan, the world's largest city in the history of mankind.
Metropolitan population: 35.7 million people (almost as many as the entire State of California)
Metropolitan area: 5,000+ square miles
Source: worldsbiggest.net

Satellite view of Tokyo, Japan
Source: wikipedia.com

Veils

One of many infuriating sights on viewing a Novus Ordo Mass is all those women (dare I call them such?) standing with their short hair and pants and uncovered heads! Why must women fight so strenuously against putting on a veil and get all riled up as if it's somehow demeaning to women? It has nothing to do with making woman some sort of slave! It's so simple, really! A woman's hair is her pride (at least for most women--I know some like to be bald, but let's not go there!). Anyway, thus, for a woman to cover her hair is a sign of humility, which is perfectly appropriate and expected in the presence of God, the highest authority. For men, it's the opposite--when a man covers his head, it's a sign of self-sufficiency and even dominance, which is why men take off their hats in the presence of authority, a high dignitary, when entering a host's house, greeting a friend or a woman. Thus, men uncover their heads in the presence of God, the highest authority. There's other even simpler reasons--having women cover their heads in church helps keep everyone equal (which is how we're supposed to approach God, all equal children of God and brethren in Christ). And it prevents church from becoming a beauty contest to see who has the most outlandish hairdo, at least during Mass! And it helps keep people from being distracted by outlandish hairdos, and helps men keep their eyes on their missals and the ceremony and their thoughts on God. It is simply removing or mitigating temptations, both for men and women. But again, the main reason is for humility before God, the same reason why men should never wear hats in church. My instinctive reaction when I see these women is the same as if I were to see a man with a hat on in church: "How proud and disrespectful and insulting to God!" And the very fact that women refuse to cover their heads so they won't be seen as submissive or something is a sign of pride, which is the very reason why they should cover their heads! So for goodness' sake, ladies, swallow that feminist pride and put on a veil!



Source: blog.culturaldetective.com 

Speaking in Tongues

So with Pentecost recently and all, I was reminded of how some Protestants believe that "speaking in tongues" means speaking in some special, heavenly language, the language of the Holy Ghost or the angels or something like that. I don't quite understand why they would think this. It's just overcomplicating matters--speaking in tongues simply means you speak your native language and everyone can understand you as if you were speaking their language. Sort of the opposite of the confusion of tongues at Babel. Additionally, why would there be a "language of the Holy Ghost"? Language is just our imperfect way of communicating information to each other--we have to use sounds to try to convey thoughts. This is definitely an imperfect form of communication, as meanings can be misconstrued and words cannot always capture accurately what we want to say. God, on the other hand, is perfect--He is perfection itself. He does not need words to convey what He wants--He can send the information directly and clearly to the mind. Besides, He does not have a physical mouth or vocal chords (other than that of the human body of the Second Person, Jesus Christ), as He is a pure spirit, so His communication is directly through the mind, which is part of the soul. Of course, He uses words and language often when interacting with mortals on earth, but this is because of our imperfection and our need to use words as creatures possessing bodies of flesh and blood--in heaven, the angels and saints are spirits and there is no need for a special heavenly language!

Source: vultus.stblogs.org

Guns vs. Swords

Ok, this has always been one of my pet peeves. While I'll admit guns are fun (hey, I'm a guy, what can I say), I detest their use in battle and firmly believe that they have entirely degraded the noble art of war into random butchery.

When men fought with swords, you actually had to face your opponent, pitting your strength, skill, and wits directly against his. There was actually a chance for the individual soldier to survive; he had a measure of control over his fate. He could increase his likelihood of returning home to his family by training and improving his skill at arms. In a sword fight, a man at least knows he has a chance to fight for his own survival, and won't just get shot down at any moment.

There's no skill, no honor, in a gunfight. The individual soldier is just more fodder for the bullets. He really can't do anything to increase his chances of survival, as it's all pretty much random chance. Sure, he can train to be a better shot, but the best marksman in the world can still be shot down by some noob firing hundreds of rounds a minute on full auto--no matter how bad a shot the other guy is, with so many bullets some of them are going to hit! A man can't do anything to protect himself from thousands of bullets flying through the air, other than hope there's good cover to crouch behind. Out in an open field, no one has a chance, and they all just butcher each other.

You might say, well, in the days of swords, a man could still get shot down with no say in the matter--they had bows and crossbows, you know. Well, I wasn't talking about the days of swords, but about swords themselves vs. guns. But I'll take up that point. First of all, I detest archers, and I never said I agreed with bows and crossbows in war either. However, at least bows had much shorter range than guns, much slower firing rate, much slower projectile speed, required much more skill and were therefore rarer, and you could actually protect yourself from arrows with shield and armor.

That being said, I reiterate that I don't agree with bows in war either. Guns or bows, it's cowardly to just hide at a safe distance and shoot down the enemy with no chance to defend himself. Wretched archers! Nothing better I like than to finally close with those pesky archers that have been harrassing your men from a distance and annihilate them in close combat! Take that, you dishonorable cowards! Whenever I have a choice between ranged or melee characters in a game (board, computer, video), I choose melee, and I take great delight whenever I have the chance to destroy those annoying ranged enemies with my blade!

(Note: this is why I love the Jedi of Star Wars, the Black Templars of Warhammer 40,000, and other such heroes who, in a futuristic world of advanced guns, still prefer to face their foes in good old-fashioned close combat, lighsabers or chainswords in hand)



Source: lozdoodle.wordpress.com

Air Pressure and Straws

Okay, so this is probably going to seem kinda nerdy, but hey, I'm an engineer, I think about these kinds of things. Thought of this one the last time I was at a restaurant. Anyways, you know how when you suck on a straw in a drink you're rewarded with some refreshing liquid in your mouth? Well, you're not actually the one responsible for that mouthful of drink, not directly; it's all about air pressure. We all know that the air around us presses on everything. Well, it's pressing on the surface of that drink in your cup. So when you suck on the straw, all you're doing is creating an area of low pressure inside the straw so that the air can push the drink up the straw into your mouth. You're not exerting a force on the drink at all; you're just reducing the force on the air inside the straw so that the air outside the straw, which is constantly pushing on the drink, is now stronger and pushes your drink up the straw. That's a lot less satisfying, isn't it? It's not like your actions have a direct result on the drink; without the air pressure, you could suck on that straw for all you're worth and nothing would happen. You're not pulling the drink into your mouth, much as you might think you are. It's rather disappointing! You aren't getting a direct result like when you pull on a wagon; there, you're directly responsible for its movement. Here, the air is doing the work of pushing, you're just making it possible. Think of that the next time you drink out of a straw!




Source: abetterchemtext.com