by Ethan Johnson
December 31, 2007

Various thoughts and linked items to close out the year:

• What I learned from picking up trash in my spare time: Litter has become my new fascination, and serves as something of a metaphor for the world's problems. I feel a sense of annoyance when I collect up each representation of someone's utter disregard for the world at large, a sense of responsibility as I work quickly and quietly to remove the litter, and a sense of accomplishment when each bag of trash is disposed of properly. But the quest to de-litter is something of a fool's errand, in that there's always more. I can't de-litter the whole of Plano, Texas alone. It would be best if the behaviors that led to the litter were themselves curbed, but I feel that modeling the ideal behavior (cleaning up what others neglect without expecting any sort of help or recognition) is preferable to wishing the problem away passively.

  Some time ago, a man named Bud Bilanich talked about what he called the "tyrrany of the 'or', and the genius of the 'and'." (Note: He's not the only one who has done this, but he's "top of mind" for me.) I see this when I de-litter a very small patch of land relative to Plano, Texas: People think that they can take their walk or pick up trash. I have found a way to take a walk and pick up trash, providing multiple benefits (I get my walk, and the cleared land benefits from not being clogged up with unnatural items). I started to think darkly that I was the only one who had the "and" mentality, when I saw an Asian man who bikes around the neighborhood every day slowly pedal by clutching a piece of dirty cardboard. Every little bit helps. Which brings me to...

• E for Effort: Mark Cuban blogged recently about effort:

  In sports, the only thing a player or coach can truly control is effort. The same applies to business. The only thing any entrepreneur, salesperson or anyone in any position can control is their effort.

  Too true. I can't force people to de-litter or engage in any number of activities that might arguably be considered beneficial. I can decide how much effort to devote to a given undertaking. It was through the regulation and application of personal effort that permit me to report...

• 46: Officially, I have lost 46 pounds this year. I started my regular exercise regimen on February 3, 2007, weighing in at 295 pounds. This morning I weighed in at 249. No magic diet pills, no shortcuts, no passive "set it and forget it" trickery. The plan worked because I worked it. Full stop.

• The illusion of separation: I have been batting around the idea of the separation of Church and State, and surmised that on paper, such separation is possible, but I wonder how this might be expected to work practically. For example, if the Dalai Lama were to somehow be elected to a political office, I would expect that his Dalai Lama role would necessarily color his world view, and therefore his politics. Perhaps the Dalai Lama could indeed represent all people equally, and set aside his religious/spiritual beliefs in favor of serving the needs and wants of his constituency. This may seem nitpicky and far out, but consider this tidbit concerning Mike Huckabee, Republican hopeful for President:

  In Little Rock, GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee was reviewing a disaster insurance measure that he intended to support when he became troubled: The bill, drawing on centuries-old legal terminology, referred to natural disasters as "acts of God."

  In a time of emergency, Huckabee would hold up the measure for more than three weeks to press his personal objection that the Almighty could not be blamed for the region's loss. In the process, he drew damaging headlines and created new strains in his relations with the state's legislature, the General Assembly.

  Let us not kid ourselves: I allege that the religious may necessarily govern from a religious point of view, even subtly - to the possible detriment of the nonreligious, and equally so that the nonreligious will do the same - that is, to the possible detriment of the religious. Not every instance of these behaviors are deemed to be newsworthy, but I suspect that anecdotally we might find examples closer to home, as t'were. Which leads me to...

• Who are the Founding Fathers? I have been making my way through the updated and expanded version of Lies My Teacher Told Me, and had an interesting epiphany. The author details the "settling" of what is now North America (any self-respecting wag will ask how one "discovers" or "settles" a place that was already discovered and settled) and gives an account of a ship that was either diverted to or accidentally ended up in Massachusetts - where the 35% passenger load of Puritans wanted to go - instead of Virginia, where the 65% passenger load of non-Puritans wanted to go. A document was created that served as something of a precursor to what is now the US Consitution - though I must note here that it was NOT consulted in the course of creating the Constitution. Anyway, this primitve form of democracy was significant in that it wasn't the standard operating procedure of its day, and as the author notes, was actually a tool for minority rule rather than representative democracy. True democracy would have landed the crowd in Virginia after the fact, you see.

  Anyway, every so often I'll hear someone echo the robotic assertions to the effect of "the Founding Fathers were ministers" (very few were) "this country was founded on Christian principles" (maybe by accident, but by and large the Framers were Deists), or its close cousin, "this country was founded on the Bible" (citation needed). My epiphany was this: Who are the Founding Fathers? And once that determination is made, are those robotic statements lies?

  Consider this assertion: I can go out tomorrow (holiday be damned) and buy a new car for under $10. There is NO reason why a Toyota should cost upwards of $15,000. All carmakers jack the price up, and someone should stop them, since I can buy a new car for under $10.

  Yes, but what kind of car? OK, it's a Hot Wheels or Matchbox toy car. But was I lying? No. But I wasn't speaking the whole truth either. Thus, I suspect (if not outright allege) that the "Founding Fathers" of this fairly new semantic minefield were none other than the Puritans, NOT the framers of the Constitution. I think we've reached a time where we need to distinguish the framers as "the Framers" and the Puritans as "the Puritans".

• The Uncertainty Principle: Here's something I never thought I'd see in the otherwise black and white world of political punditry: In Praise of Uncertainty. More of this, please.

Have a safe and happy New Year, regardless of your calendar preference. How about a better tomorrow? <EM>