Work that turns into Work

Today – and last week – I had two days where I really understood why outsourcing could be a good thing.

Gigi and I sell real tangible goods – tie-dye 2.0, also called mudmee tie-dye. Gigi is the part of our enterprise who creates the products and who also takes them out to art and craft show. I just sit in the house and stretch out my feelers to potential customers through the internet.

For me, building the site and programming the whole inventory and order handling was the self-assigned internship to learn how to deal with the web. I also learned a lot about marketing which I did not have to do much of when I was only dealing with very few clients in the high-tech and scientific programming, something I had done before venturing out into the new realm of the web.

These last two weekends we had added two new types of shirts that had already created good responses at shows and now our mailing list responded very well. So, after the waves calmed down a bit, I was working till late into the night to process all those orders.

Initially each and every order was met (by me) with big excitement and a quick trip to the paypal backed to print the shipping label and get those items out. Don’t get me wrong, I love it when there are so many orders that it takes me all night to get them ready for shipping – but I also understand why outsourcing can be a real good thing.

Yet before  I can even consider outsourcing I would probably have to ‘blackbox’ my system some more. As it was all handcrafted, there are still some elements in my system that are only obvious to me – because I built them – but not black-boxy enough, so that I  could just hire somebody and let him or her do the order processing.

In case you are a bit curious what this is all about – I am speaking about Mudmee Tie-dye at  JustZen.

The Logic of Logic

I am sometimes torn between my scientific and spiritual side. Educated in the sciences I appreciate cold pure logic. So, when I run into a lecture likes this by Peter Boghossian…

…I might have my spiritual world shaken up.

When Dr. Boghossian explains that faith-based processes are not reliable, I have to admit that he is right. When he shows us that homeopathy does not work, I am tempted to laugh with him about the ridiculousness of faith in a remedy that does not contain anything (but water). According to homeopaths, the remedy does contain the ‘essence’ of the substance. But ‘essence’ is not something than can be measured, so it really IS only water.

What do I do to get back to my spiritual base?

First of all I have to allow myself to be exposed to ridicule for believing in something that science can’t see. But then I also have to make real to me that there was a time, not very long ago, at that, when we could not measure radioactivity. If somebody at that time postulated something that could kill you within the shortest time without being felt, smelled, or seen, this person would have been certainly ridiculed. I make it clear to me that we cannot measure the ‘essence’ of a substance – yet!

Beyond that argument I try to wrap my mind around the question if we are possibly only looking into a self-fulfilling closed system. Results of religious believes are often explained as self-fulfilling situations – if I believe in the resurrection of Jesus with all my heart and don’t allow any other possibility, I might actually have an apparition that is as real as the cop handing out a ticket for kneeling in the middle of the street.

If this works for a single person, then a group of people can certainly increase the effect and we have those events where blind start seeing and lames start walking. Science has looked at those events with double-blind studies and found that they are all humbug. Yet, they cannot duplicate a parameter they are completely unaware off, so the double blind study might miss essential parameters.

Thus I clarify for myself that science itself is in no way different than the faith they investigate. It is just a different faith – a faith that requires a multitude of observers that all observe the same.

Comparing this with a vivid dream might make this more obvious. Imagine a dream in which you can fly. And also make this a dream where you have a sweetheart that can fly with you (yes, I am thinking of Douglas Adams.) Then add another element that there is a big crowd that cheers you on as you swoop through double barrels and looks deeply embraced with your sweetheart. Would any member in this dream doubt that you two fly?
But, but, but … that’s a dream, that is different!

To which I have to answer: Says who?

Just as I could imagine that in my dream I introduce a scientist that does not believe and demands double-blind studies, so can I imagine that in ‘real life’ I introduced those scientists that tell me that homeopathy is humbug and that they have proven it beyond any reasonable doubt.

For me it boils down to the question if the ‘real life’ is any more real than my dream. And I have to admit total inability to answer that question. Simply from the fact that while I am in the middle of my lucid dream I don’t know that I am dreaming.

Maybe I am dreaming now – I would not be able to tell until I wake up – until then the question has to remain unanswered.

Up to that point any logic is self-contained logic, conclusive within itself, and the logic of science has no more relevance than the logic of astrology or reading tea-leaves. I might have preferences, but that is solely my own, personal decision.

Seeing Without Your Eyes

I used degrading eye-sight as an excuse to replace my 24 inch monitor with a 32″ TV – and I love it. Now, when I am at the other office with only a 24″ monitor I sometimes have to put reading glasses on to see the smaller part of the photoshop interface.

The idea that, as we get older, our eyes get weaker and we accept to use glasses. There seem to be a strong correlation between the eyes and seeing.

But I have been suspicious for a while that this is not the whole story. Simply because sometimes – and I have not found the pattern – my vision is just perfect. And if it would be weaker eye muscles and less elastic lenses would be the only reason for declining eye-sight, then this would not make sense.

The following video of a painter, born without eyes (!), gives more fuel to that line of reasoning. Now, what really is seeing?

Sexual Emancipation for Men

From the time of my early childhood I have seen the view on gender and sex certainly change. Initially it was the natural order of things that papa was out to work and mama was home taking care of the house and children.

Then came the ‘sexual revolution’ which changed all that. All was turned upside down and put together in a different way. Somehow I ended up with the deep rooted opinion that it is very, very bad to act in a way that could be considered sexist. Only the inner values, which are independent of gender, were considered to be relevant. You were supposed to be sex-blind.

That naturally created some discrepancy between what I could observe and what I was supposed to observe. Let’s take the example of a very pretty girl. One guy who, like me, was drilled to see only the inner values – even though that was rather difficult to do – started a conversation about philosophical questions of life, the universe and everything to engage the intellectual being inside that pretty exterior, and got nowhere.

The other guy just locked his eyes onto her body, drooling noticeable, only able to utter such intelligent thoughts as “Wow, you are so beautiful, can I have your number?” Not a single note about the inner qualities. He usually got the number.

Often the purely sexual aspect is exhibited – oozing sexuality instead of displaying a masters degree or a doctor title. And, funny enough, this is mostly done by the female, who officially works on being appreciated for her intellect and not the cleavage. Let’s take a normal business setting. Men are usually totally a-sexual in such an environment, buttoned up shirt with a tie. But the female executives often show off her non-intellectual qualities. What would happen if men would do that?

All these thought, I have to admit, never really surface totally within me, until very recently, when I ran into a picture of Angela Merkel, the German chancellor.

Ms. Merkel is probably a very intelligent person, at least in the limited political way, so why in the world is she sexualizing her appearance so much. There is no beauty in this as she is not a particularly beautiful person, and whom is she trying to arouse? Or is this just a sport to see how long it takes that male until he finally looks at her boobs? There certainly are other options to dress as you notice when you look at the person in the background behind Ms. Merkel.

When I though about how this would look like if the male part of the political world would give up its boring non-sexuality and let it all hang out as well, I became curious. So I went out to find if it did indeed exist, and to my total surprise, I found it.

George W after the sexual liberation

Wouldn’t that put a completely new face on politics? Please don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to bash either Bush nor Merkel. It is just that here we are offered by these very public figures a way to understand just how much of a double talk exists in the arena of emancipation. We could use any setting in business as well, we would, most likely, find a similar situation.

Hopefully, after draining my brain of inner conflict, I will now be able to just compliment a woman on her looks without the idea of violating the emancipation law. Because, quite honestly, I appreciate female beauty just as any other male. Just as I am sure women appreciate male beauty. Just as a side note, a co-worker of my wife once called me ‘ruggedly handsome!’ I still dearly love Sharon!

What do you think, should men start fighting for sexual equality in politics and business and dress more like George in the above picture?

HDR Photography with an old Camera

I have to admit that I do not have a decent camera.

I was about ready to invest in either a Nikon D5100 or a Canon Rebel t3i when I learned about the new breed of mirror-less changeable lens cameras – much smaller and lighter but same picture quality as the DSLRs – and that stopped me dead in my tracks because who wants to buy something old and miss the latest and greatest.

But I really wanted to get my feet wet with HDR, which stands for high dynamic range, and combines several images with different exposures into one with a much higher range between the brightest and the darkest parts of the image. much more than can be done in a single frame.

Modern cameras make this a bit easier but I finally had the cognition again that photographers make photos – not cameras. So, I dug out my old Nikon Coolpix 5400 and started to experiment a bit. This camera actually has a feature called bracketing which is useful for HDR photography.

I had to dig into the manual but found out that the bracketing as implemented works well for the purpose of HDR – I can turn on bracketing to take one frame correctly exposed and then, while holding down the shutter release, four more frames are take at -2, -1, +1 and +2 stops. After taking these five shots the age of the camera shows because it takes 10 to 20 seconds to write all that image data to memory card – a whopping 256 MB CF card.

I use the HDR support in Photoshop CS5 to help me combine the 5 shots into one, and here is an early result – a shot of a house for rent that we are going to take a look at tomorrow.

Celebrating the Forth of July

“Thank you, thank you, thank you!” the man, filled with jubilation, exclaimed.

Hi left hand was missing. It had been the hand with the finger that his golden ring had been stuck on. He had not been able to remove this ring for his master, who really wanted it. The master, being very resourceful, had just taken off the whole hand and passed it to his jeweler to use the gold from that ring for something he might want soon.

“Thank you,” cheered the man again in devotion, “so I may serve you with my right hand to the fullest of my abilities!”

And in reverence for the master he turned to his fellow-men and proclaimed:

“Rejoice, because we are free and brave!”

(little piece of trivia: the Boston tea party occurred over a  tax of 10%)

When Loved-Ones Stop You

Larken Rose is one of the most prominent contemporary anarchists around. Maybe I should stop using that all too emotionally loaded word and better call him a voluntarist. It describes the same but avoids the wide spread misunderstanding what anarchism really is.

A voluntarist is somebody with the philosophy and conviction that a free society must be build on the voluntary interaction of individuals instead of the initiation of force through a government apparatus.

When I learned about Mr. Rose and his ideas they were fundamentally different than they are today as, during that time, he actually took the government serious and actually challenged them to show him where his interpretation of the law was wrong. He was certainly right about the law but very wrong in his assessment that somebody of the challenged cared. He got a time-out for a year which he used, while fed and berthed by the federal government, to write. One of the results of that writing was a novel of the title The Iron Web. I report about this book in another article.

This book subjects the reader to the question “who owns you” and tries to give some hints on how this could be answered and establishes a real-world iron web which is comprised of those people that fully consciously answered it with a resounding ‘I’ and act upon it. If you do own yourself you do not owe allegiance to anybody and certainly not to any government and its laws.

To signal this state of the mind, Larken Rose suggested the symbol at the top of this article and I was immediately busy adding this symbol to a commercial web site selling tie-dye that I ran then and actually still operate today.

But if you have somebody in your space who has not had this change of mind, you have somebody who does not want to upset the powers, and the fear of breaking any of their ‘laws’ can be overwhelming and intimidating.

So, I actually received pressure of removing this symbol not from the adversary but from my ally. I hate to call them adversaries as that gives them power they don’t have intrinsically, but I am lacking a better word.

This is the system how it has been built, it uses indoctrination to make loved-ones the enforcers – that stinks but is a matter that has be be dealt with.

The Fall of Rome and Modern Parallels

Did you enjoy your history classes in school?

I believe there is hardly anybody who will answer ‘yes’ to this question, and I believe this to be by design. People at the helm, the so-called ‘leaders’ are usually not the smart and productive ones. Otherwise they would not have to resort to plunder. So we can not expect them to be very creative in inventing new ways of cheating the productive part of the people out of the fruit of their labor.

They have to look at successful actions in the past. But as these actions are always doomed and not very long lasting it would be very bad for business if others would recognize their actions and see where they lead.

Thus history lessons have to be made so boring that nobody wants to even look at them. Trying to actively hide them would not work because a good mystery will always cause interest and that is definitely something that must be avoided.

Making it boring was therefore a very good move. If a noticeable number of people would be interested in history – even the rather recent one like that of the Hitler empire – they would see the plain parallels in today’s events.

Hitler for example used the word Vaterland (fatherland) and the emotionally charged word to rally the people behind his agenda. ‘Homeland’ feels pretty close to that. Both don’t have any real meaning as a farm in Maryland is as little my home, or fatherland as a farm in China. The current owners of both would kick me off if I were to go there and life there now. If something is not mine it is not mine independent of where it is.

But beside making the real history, one that tried to convey reasons behind events and not only the date, a mock-history is sold and promoted by Hollywood. This fake history causes people to believe that they know what went on and so there really no reason any more to do some actual research into cause and effect.

All these ideas are not new and all over the past the few who could look and see realized this reality. One such evidence is the essay “The Fall of Rome and Modern Parallels” by Lawrence W. Reed, the director of The Foundation for Economic Education. This was a talk given in 1979 and is read by Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio.

Or see it directly on YouTube.

Aaron Russo – Freedom to Fascism

The very last work of Aaron Russo, a very successful manager and film maker (Bette Midler, Trading Places) was a documentary, that, while in the making, had been seen as the possible end to much of government tyranny. And with what it shows it should be – but apparently there are the powers that like conditions as they are and the movie bogged down in the distribution.

In pre-screenings the movie had received standing ovations but due to the lack of wide distribution into the main stream, the movie had limited impact.

I ran into the following interview in which Mr. Russo, not too long before he succumbed to cancer, told much of his story.

 

Random ‘Laws’

If we put ourselves on a quest to find real justice we cannot look for it in the current legal system as used under political power. Real justice has to be the same everywhere. If it is not then it is just random, arbitrary rules that should be seen as such and disregarded as much as possible, at least it should not be given any credence, and certainly not voluntarily complied with.
One such rule was encountered by a close friend many years ago when he used a small inheritance to buy an even smaller air plane. He had flown this plane at his local flight club as a rental and when sudden influx of money mysteriously coincided with this plane to come up for sale he took the plunge into plane ownership.
He got the money from the bank – in cash – and met the owner at his bank where the transaction was to be done. He paid the money, go the bill of sale and the deal was done. He did not know that he should have used an escrow service to make sure nothing went right – but no harm was done as nobody tried to cheat the other and it was smooth sailing.


Until a few month later he received, out of the blue, a letter from his states Franchise Tax Board demanding payment of some three thousand dollars as use tax. Use tax is the state’s way around the problem of a sale taking place when they cannot collect sales tax with the help of the seller.
Why would the FTB get any money for the sale of an airplane, my friend wondered. There was just no justification for that open hand because there was no service from the state whatsoever. My friend at that time did not know that the states – all politicians in fact – don’t need that at all. But mostly they keep up the appearances and pretend that they have to collect those taxes to maintain the roads, train our kids and protect us from the boogie man.
But all that was not the case for an airplane: airports are a federal matter – the FAA – taxes on aviation fuel was used to maintain those, no streets or installations of the state were used at all.
So, obviously, my friend tried to get out of the need to pay all that money for nothing. He found out quickly that the neighboring state did not collect sales or use tax. As he had not purchased the plane in his own name but in the name of a trust – turned out to be a good idea – he changed the address of that trust to Oregon and told the FTB to buzz off.
They did not give in so easily and wanted to see documentation showing that the plane had not been customarily be located in their state – they always come up with some interesting wording and rule so that they get their way, right? Faking that documentation was a lot cheaper than three thousand bucks, so my friend did that.
But, hey the government, being what it is, wiped all that off the table and said that they wanted the money anyways. Now the problem with tangible objects is that they can be stolen under the color of law. My friend did not want to take that risk and just sold the plane to another trust in another state without sales or use tax – Nevada. The FTB still tried to place a lien on the plane to get their share the next time the plane was sold, but they ultimately failed.
This is just a story of how somebody beat a random rule by using the fact that the rules are not uniform everywhere.
But what should be taken home from this story is the fact that it shows clearly that these rules are random, and that we have to treat them as such. Follow them as little as possible, make it as hard as possible for the perpetrator to enforce them – don’t comply voluntarily, but try not to be hurt by a brutal system that initiates force to get its way.
You wonder where the initiation of force is? Just play through the scenario, had my friend not complied. A lien would have been placed. When the tax would not have been paid for a longer time, the FTB would have foreclosed on their claim, confiscated the plane, sold it and taken whatever they claimed was theirs – without any court involvement. Had my friend tried to protect his property, cops would have come to arrest him and put him away. Had he resisted he would have been shot.
There is no niceness to be expected if you cross the government, make this very clear. So, you are playing with fire if you resist that suppression but we can be successful as some great members of this race have show – Gandhi comes to mind.