Intelligence

      What is intelligence?  Psychologists have tried to measure and answer this for eons but they would be the first to admit that their tests fall short.  Now, I'm not a science guy so I'm not going to develop a test for it, but I will try to define it so that others may extrapolate a test for it.
      As in most terms I define, I will say what it is commonly perceived to be but isn't.  Intelligence is not what you know.  Just because someone can recite Locke, Descartes, Aristotle, Nietzche, or whoever they find interesting doesn't mean that they are intelligent.  The intelligence part comes in the application of what you know.
      I will give two facts that may seem contradictory then tell you where they're not.  Fact 1: Most of the greatest inventions in history were invented or developed by people who didn't go to a prestegious college or didn't have much of an education to begin with.  Fact 2: Owners of large corporations know Fact 1 yet they continually favor hiring those who have degrees from Harvard, Yale, Oxford or other prestigious universities.  Why?  Shouldn't they realize that on average, these are not the people that revolutionize things?
       The answer to this question is that the intelligence doesn't come in the invention, it comes from applying the invention.  The Wright Brothers were brilliant in their discovery of how to make an airplane but the intelligence came from people who took what they did and created supersonic aircrafts.  Now, can you argue that the Wright Brothers showed intelligence by my definition in that they took how a bicycle works and applied it to create flight...yes, that's why I said it was brilliant, but the nameless people who used that knowledge to make a supersonic aircraft should not be dismissed either.
         The part of intelligence that continues to baffle me is how come people who dominate all standard tests of intelligence whether it be straight A's in school, perfect scores on standardized test or high IQ's decide to remove themselves from society.  Into the Wild documents one such person.  What does he see that I don't?  One of my high school teachers was valectadorian at Stamford, he then decided to run across the United States then went back and rode a bike across the United States to figure out what to do with his life.  Like I said, he's a high school teacher...that couldn't have been the answer.  He is the only person I've ever taken writing advice from since I believe everyone else's advise to be bad, but why can't these people function in the real world?  It can only be two possibilities from what I see, A) They realize the fruitlessness of the ratrace of life so remove themselves from society (Into the Wild and my teacher shortly after graduation) or B) They can't apply what they know to better themselves.  If it is B, then they really can't be considered too intelligent.

Illegal Immigration

People miss the point of the problems with Illegal immigration.  I always hear the same arguments "you're grandparents were immgrants, why are you against them now?" or "You're just too lazy to get an education for skilled labor."  You're missing the point!  The problem with illegal immigration has nothing to do with the illegal immigrants that do all the shit jobs most white people don't want to do for less pay than Whites.  The Irish followed the same strategy when they came to this country, I do not condemn them nor do I condemn the few that come here and contribute to the work force.  I do, however, blame the ones that take their gang violence from their country to here.
      In Juarez, Mexico, drug cartels are constantly at war with each for territory.  This war has crossed into America.  It is true America has gangs like the Bloods and the Crips and the Irish immigrant formed gangs too, but they were much more small-time than these machete wielding ruthless barbaric killers that the surrounding countries have to offer.  These people are descendant from cannibals and people who ripped out people's hearts, decapitated them and kicked their head down a flight of stairs when they were being more humane.  The less humane ones used heads to play soccer.  This is only a couple hundred years ago.  Yes decapitation was a form of capital punishment in France but at least they reserved it for criminals not people they just happen to find. 
        To let you know the problem that they have caused, Mara Salvatruca or MS13 has an entire division of the FBI devoted solely to them.  For those of you who don't know, they are an El Salvador based gang and they are the only gang in American history that has yielded an entire division of the FBI.  That doesn't include the Latin Kings and the Drug cartels of Mexico.  The Mexican army cannot contain these gangs and they are coming here.  This is why a mayor in a border town of Arizona enlisted the minute men, a policy that treats illegals as invaders to this country to be shot on site.  This is why Arizona passed the law allowing cops to check the papers of people they think may be illegal.  It's not about taking jobs, it's about keeping the gang violence out of this country.  Unfortuantely, when Arizona incorporated it's minutemen policy, illegal immigrations is estimated to have quadrupled into New Mexico.  Not hard to find out why.
    Ronald Raegan said that a country with no borders is not a country at all.  Movies like Machete will tell you that the big drug cartels want the wall to be built so they can control it.  If they limit the supply of drugs into this country, then they can jack the prices up.  I say, this is a good thing, limiting the amount of drugs and decreasing the amount of suppliers is a good thing.  Making prices cost prohibitive so less people will be able to partake is a good thing.  I agree the wall will not keep everyone out but it will decrease the number significantly.  Just because it isn't perfect, doesn't mean nothing is better.  The most disappointing thing is, our President sides with the gangs.  Look how Arizona has been villified by the federal government merely for trying to limit gang violence in their state by attacking it at the source.  Also keep in mind that despite being sued by the federal government and the national hysteria and condemnation, Arizona remains steadfast because they value their safety over their reputation.  Although, I am in favor of the extremist position to enlist the minutemen at every border in addition to the fence, I understand that killing everyone may be bad policy.  The electrified fence really shouldn't be such a polarizing issue and is the obvious choice.

Reverse Generalizations

        As I expressed in my book, there are a reason for stereotypes and generalizations but you need to be responsible with them because you will be hard pressed to find a member of the group that has every single stereotype that is associated with them.  This is going to take the reverse because I'm sick and tired of people believing that labels don't apply to them. Just because you don't exemplify every stereotye, doesn't mean you're any less a part of the group.  For instance, Greeks are normally tardy to everything.  I am very punctual, my punctuality doesn't make me any less Greek.  The reverse comes in when political parties are entered into the mix.
        The tipping point for me came when I read a book called, "Why I drink."  As I read through the book, it was liberal idea after liberal idea then he said, "I hate when people call me liberal because I hate hippies, so therefore I'm not liberal."
     This is merely an exception to the general rule.  I can still say that if an issue comes up, you'll agree with the liberal point of view, this is just an exception.  The label is still good and shouldn't be excluded.  Stereotypes and generalizations are not science, humans are all unique in some aspect so obviously exceptions will come up unless that person is incapable of thinking for themselves and just follows party lines.  One of my closest friends hates when I call him conservative, yet I can't think of one issue that he's liberal on.  He's against affirmative action, favors lower taxes, wants much stricter border control, believes in strong family values, pro-capital punishment, pro-life etc. etc.  He just hates politics so tries not to discuss it but anyone who comments on society and current events is being political in some shape or form.  Since "Conservative' is an adequate label for me, I can say that on any given issue, him and I will agree and we do.  When we debate, it's always based on logic and reason about the issue.  That's what he tells me, "I'm not conservative I just take an issue and think about it logically and make a conclusion" My response, "Precisely why you're conservative you just don't like the label"  Conservatives base their views on logic, liberals on emotion. 
           Labels are an important way to let someone get to know you.  You need to give them shortcuts so don't condemn them just because you have a couple exceptions.  Even in psychology, which tries to provide a scientific understanding of human personality, they allow for exceptions.  Every single psychological disorder is based on the DSM-IV, in which at least 10 traits are listed and if a certain number apply to you, you are diagnosed with that disease.  Not one disease on the DSM-IV requires every single trait to be evident, yet the label still works. 
       I have more respect for people that have no nationalistic ties and hate being labeled than with people that claim to be of ethnic descent but hate being labeled because at least their consistent with their illogical thinking.  If you consider yourself white, black, HIspanic, Dominican, American etc. etc. but don't like being labeled because of a couple exceptions, you are being a hypocrit.  If a majority of traits fit you, embrace the label because given the 6 billion people on this planet, there probably are a lot of people that have a similar combination of traits as you...deal with it!

Worst crime

I often times ask taboo questions that people seem to villify me for.  This is going to be one of these times.  Of all the crimes out there, I believe the only two that can be given any stake to the worst crime are rape and murder.  I'm not of the Afghan notion that all crime is stealing so this is a ridiculous argument, I do not consider murder or rape stealing even though I will use words like "Theft"  and "Taken"when describing murder. 
      If you murder someone, they are dead.  You have taken a life.  Their friends and family will grieve vehemently at this heinous crime.  Some of them may want revenge and seek out to kill the muderer with good cause.  As for the murdered party, they do not have to live with the horror of what happened to them.  They also will not get to experience the things they may have seen or done had they not been killed.  I don't like that because you have no idea how someone's life will progress.  I'm sure homeless people didn't think they'd be homeless.  The person could have failed in their business ventures and hated their life.  Potential worth cannot be measured without making assumptions so I discount these notions.  One aspect that will help murder in this debate is the bible has a commandment "Thou Shalt not commit murder" but not one for rape.  They do have some for coveting a neighbors wife, which can be extended to rape if the person is married but you do not have it singled out the way murder does.  The biggest argument I see for muder's side is that women will "choose" to be raped to avoid being murdered. 
     When you rape someone you have forced them to have sex with you whether by mere physical means or put them in a situation where they were too scared to say no.  This causes intense anger from friends and family and the need for revenge is much greater.  As for the victim, they have to live with the knowledge that they were raped.  Some rape victims never recover from the emotional anguish and seculde themselves in the hospital and put themselves in a catatonic medically unresponsive state.  Others do maintain a relatively normal lifestyle.  Most, however, are somewhere in between.  It is very common that they generalize their assualt to all men and perhaps become Lesbians.  They overreact to the slightest touch of a man and see it as violent.  Some spend astronomical amounts of money on psychologist, which never seem to help.  Then again, psychologists don't seem to help in any situation.  This is not a good way to go through life.  The real question is living with being raped a fate worse than death?  Also common in rape is vaginal or anal tearing.  This leads to medical bills and infections, especially in the anal case.  Semen is an immunosuppressant so it is designed to weaken the defenses agaisnt toxins and the rectal walls are very thin and given what exits from the rectum, the likelihood of infection is high.  Also, it is an increased risk of STD's.  Unlike consentual sex, when raped, a woman's vaginal walls do not lubricate themselves, and the body will actually tighten up as a defense mechanisms, which only makes the damage worse.  Even though, this natural defense will block a path to the uterus making it difficult to become pregnant, this is negated because semen can live inside the vagina for up to three days.  After the rape encounter is over, the body reopens the path, thus the semen can continue its journey.  Because of this, it is a myth when people claim that you can't get pregnant from being raped.  Since it is still rare, I won't heavily weight the pregnancy aspect and all the emotional stress that comes with having an unwanted baby or an abortion. 

       Now that we have put forth what happens in either case, let's combine them.  Similar to murder, when you rape someone, you have committed immeasurable damage.  You cannot measure the grief that friends and family have though in a rape victims case, there is less sadness from friends and family but more anger.  The need for revenge from friends and family is much stronger with rape than it is for murder.  The men close to the injured paty in both situations will feel a sense of inadequacy since they are the ones who were supposed to protect them.  You don't really see this if a male gets raped or murdered since the thought is they are supposed to defend themselves.  It's interesting that when it comes to rape, raping a woman is seen as much worse than raping a man.  When evaluating the friends and family affect of rape, the definitive question is does the enhanced anger in the case of rape make up for the sadness in the murder case?  I feel that the more emotions that are triggered, the worse the crime.  This is why when evaulating the effect of friends and family, the edge goes to murder. 
          As it comes to the victim, in both rape and murder it is highly unlikely the victim will have a normal life after being raped and impossible in the murder case.  There is no emotional scarring from being murdered because the victim is dead.  The generalization of all men are evil and never being able to trust men is likely with rape.  The rape victim will have to go through the therapy and medical treatment involved in rape, whereas a murder victim avoids this aspect.  The cost of a funeral is high, but that goes to family usually.  Medical bills normally go to insurance or taxpayers, but it's highly annoying going to get treatment of any kind.  Now, some argue that it is theoretically possible that a rape victim can fully recover emotionally and physically from the encounter and this is not a possibility in murder but the likelihood seems too low for me to weight it heavily.  When evaluating the effect on the victim, the edge seems to go to the rape victim.
         Now the question is, which is the greater discrepancy?  Is the gap between affect on family and friends between murder and rape larger than the gap between effect on the victim with rape?  Answer that, and the worst crime is found.  I find myself leaning toward being raped is worse but I do not fear death so I am likely biased.  I also look at the common political strategy in dealing with a scandal.  They liken it to cutting off the tail of a dog.  It's much more humane to just do it in one cut then to cut a little piece off and work you're way up the tail.  Murder seems to be just doing it one cut, but rape has so much more things for the victim to deal with that it's cutting the tail off a little bit at a time.  Despite this conclusion, I can't seem to get it out of my head that when women are put in the situation, they choose rape over murder, that is the only thing that stops me from being completely certain of my conclusion.

What makes a good friend?

I say that I have really good friends but I wasn't quite sure how to define what exactly is a good friend.  So this blog will first focus on what a good friend is not and then move on to what it is. 
      A good friend is not someone that calls you every day.  Sure a good friend can call you every day, but that act in and of itself does not make them a good friend.  My closest friends are people I don't talk to too often but when we do talk we pick up right where we left off even if it has been years since we spoke.  Time does not destroy the connection of a good friend.  You should at all times be able to pick up the phone and call them for help regardless of how long its been since you spoke.  This just happened to me as a friend who I haven't spoken to in almost two years just contacted me for help.  I readily agreed even though the conversation near two years ago didn't go so well.
       A good friend is not someone that demands change from you.  This is such an easy point yet it is the most often misconstrued.  This is the number one reason why friendships dissolve.  If you find yourself having to sacrifice your morals because this person either exploits them or doesn't accept them, you shouldn't be friends with them.  I have a rule that I don't let my friends drink alone.  Someone who I thought was my friend at the time, then called me every day to drink with him.  Clearly he was an alcoholic.  I found myself revising this rule to never drinking during the day, so he just called me at night.  He continually exploited these rules and used them against me, if someone does that, you should break contact with them..and I did eventually.  Despite what people think, people cannot and do not change.  You can convince the world you're someone else but you will never convince yourself.  Eventually your true self will break out and you would have wasted your time with anyone that wanted you to change.  People who have broken off friendships with me say things like "You never plan" "You're just too argumentative" "I can't be friends with someone who's stubborn"  If these are all traits of someone you can't be friends with, you were wasting your time being friends with me because those are traits I possess. 
       If you're someone that continually questions, you need friends who are patient to clearly explain things to you without getting frustrated.  Personally, I'm not someone that likes people getting too close.  When I feel a friend getting too close, I unleash the darkest and most horrible parts of my personality, the argumentative, brutally honest, aggressertive in your face full on assault.  My closest friends are all people that were unimpressed by it, to them, they saw no difference between that and how I normally act it was just an exaggeration.  The point is, you should never hide who you are from a close friend.  In a way, it's like picking a spouse, they need to see every crumb of your being and not be scared off.  One of my closest friends has a similar personality to mine, the only difference is, he shows you the horrible parts of his personality when he first meets you to see if you get scared off so he doesn't waste his time.  I argue that this is a better way, but not one I utilize.  I would do almost anything for my close friends, and I can say the same about them.
     A good friend is not someone that is not there in bad times.  If a friend is not willing to help you in your most vulnerable state, they are not friends.  It's easy to be friends with someone when times are good, but times never stay good, and when shit hits the fan, the bad friends leave.  Remember this in case times get good again.  Oddly, I have a friend who is the exact opposite of this.  There are two times in my life where I would believe I hit rock bottom.  Both times, she showed up, lifted me up and put me on track to getting things right with my life and then went away again.  When times are not too good, good, great or anywhere not rock bottom, she wants nothing to do with me.  She is what made me think about this.  But if a bad friend is someone that isn't there when you hit rock bottom but only in good times, then the natural opposite of that is someone who's there during rock bottom but not in good times, this logically makes it the opposite of bad, which we call good.  The other point is, if someone can convince you're friend to not be friends with you, they were never good friends.  Even if that person lied, your good friend should be able to confront you on it and realize the person was lying because they know you and what you would or would not do.