Monday, March 23, 2020

Features Of A Dollar Bill

 

Features Of A Dollar Bill
by Rob Cottignies


The most common piece of paper currency in our wallets has a surprisingly complex history.

Introduced in 1862 to fund the Civil War effort, a dollar bill’s size was originally seven square inches larger than it is now. The design underwent many changes until the parameters were made uniform in 1928.

The first one-dollar bill featured a portrait of Salmon P. Chase, then-Secretary of the Treasury under President Abraham Lincoln. Seven years later, Chase’s depiction was replaced by that of George Washington, America’s first president and important guide to forming the country.

(Had you heard of Salmon Chase before reading this article? If so, did you think it was a kids’ game involving fish?)

The first design with Washington also featured a scene of Christopher Columbus in a rare moment when he was not exploiting, abusing, or murdering Native Americans.

Some other general modifications included adding and removing colors and words, different designs, and portraits of Lincoln, Martha Washington, and Ulysses S. Grant.

A fun story:

In 1864, National Currency Bureau superintendent Spencer Clark was asked to portray explorer William Clark (of Lewis & Clark) and/or Comptroller Freeman Clarke on a note.

By narcissism or ignorance, Spencer saw the person’s surname on the request and promptly added his own likeness to American currency.

Two years later, an outraged Congress passed a law stating no living person can be shown on any paper or metal money, deeming the depiction of somebody who is still around to be unpatriotic.

Currently, paper money is more like clothing fabric than paper, being 75% composed of cotton with linen comprising the rest. The ink is a ferrofluid, which is mildly magnetic and an important feature to prevent forgery.

While higher-denomination notes contain various anti-fraud designs, the one-dollar bill has remained largely unaltered.

(If you were to produce counterfeit money, why would you focus on a dollar bill?)

The Bureau Of Engraving & Printing is responsible for physically printing paper currency. Its facilities in Washington, D.C., and Fort Worth, Texas, manufacture all of America’s (legal) cash.

The United States Mint produces coins and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. This entity oversees production facilities in Denver, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and West Point in New York. The U.S. Bullion Depository located in Fort Knox, Kentucky, contains an enormous amount of gold and is also under the umbrella of the Mint. This gold provides the backbone of currency, the bills by themselves being worthless.

Important to note is that a Federal Reserve Bank is one of 12 institutions accountable for issuing currency for its geographic area based on need and other factors. In order of numbers (explained later), the cities that cover these regions are Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, Saint Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, and San Francisco. These also oversee common banks and similar money-related organizations.

Below are pictures of a sample American one-dollar bill followed by explanations of the circled features.

*GENERAL FEATURES*

Why is the dollar bill colored that way?
Off-white is the natural color of the paper. In addition to being a ferrofluid, the ink is green simply because that was the most abundant color when (and since) mass printing began.

The number 13
Sets of 13 are “hidden” on both sides of the dollar bill, such as on the reverse side’s pyramid with 13 levels and the symbolic eagle holding 13 arrows underneath 13 stars. This number represents the original British colonies.

Federal Reserve Note

This phrase ensures the bill was authorized by a Federal Reserve Bank.

‘This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private’

The bill is official currency and legally must be accepted by creditors (but not necessarily private businesses) in any cash transaction. To clarify, a bank (creditor) must accept physical currency but an airline (private business) can refuse cash for on-board purchases.

‘F’ in circular seal / Two sixes on each side

These two features tell us which Federal Reserve Bank issued the bill.

Our sample dollar is from the region covered by Atlanta. Looking at the list explaining Federal Reserve Banks above, you will see Atlanta is the sixth city mentioned. The ‘F’ within the circular seal is the sixth letter of the alphabet. ‘6’ is displayed multiple times as a deterrent from forgery.

J3 / J146

These numbers signify the bill’s position on the sheet when printed and the plate used to print it, respectively.

F76767986I

The first character in this serial number is ‘F’, the same as the letter in the circular seal denoting the bill was issued in Atlanta. The numbers keep track of the order this note was printed in its series year. The ‘I’ at the end also signifies the bill’s place in the sequence, with the letter being replaced by a star if there was some sort of printing error.

Series 2013

This series of bill design (specifically the signatures) was begun in 2013 but the note itself may have been printed that year or any after.

Signatures- Treasurer, Secretary of Treasury

On our sample bill, the Treasurer was Rosa Gumateoteo Rios and the Secretary of the Treasury was Jacob Lew.

The Treasurer oversees the Mint and Bureau Of Engraving & Printing and typically acts as an advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury, who is a member of the president’s Cabinet, advising him (or someday her) on economic issues such as defense spending and tax policies.

As of February 2021, there has been no Treasurer since Jovita Carranza left the position in January 2020. The current Secretary of the Treasury is Janet Yellen, the first woman to hold that position.

The Great Seal of the United States

This design was developed, with help from others, by secretary of the Continental Congress Charles Thomson and adopted as the official seal of the U.S. in 1782. It was made a feature of the dollar bill in 1935 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The seal is presented with the reverse (back) on the left of the dollar and the obverse (front) on the right.

The reverse side of the seal displays a pyramid with its top “floating” above the rest. Inspired by the Egyptian pyramids, this symbolizes strength and longevity.

The piece above the pyramid is the Eye Of Providence, a symbol representing the Holy Trinity and meaning God is watching over Americans.

Annuit Cœptis is Latin for ‘Providence has favored our undertakings’.
Novus Ordo Seclorum is Latin for ‘A new order for the ages’.
MDCCLXXVI is ‘1776’ in Roman numerals, representing the year the United States declared independence from England.

The obverse side features a bald eagle, the national bird of the United States. The olive branch in its right talon and arrows in its left suggest peace and war, respectively. The shield on the eagle’s chest is an adaptation of the American flag. The ribbon in the bird’s mouth reads E Pluribus Unum, which is Latin meaning ‘From many, one’.

In God We Trust

This national motto of the United States first appeared on paper currency in 1957, two years after the law mandating it was enacted. It had appeared on coins during the Civil War but was not required.

57

Fronts and backs are printed by different machines, so this number identifies the plate used.

Hopefully, this list of explanations will spur your interest in everyday things. It has already helped me with a Jeopardy response about the Eye of Providence. (To brag a little, none of the contestants got it.) Maybe one day, the lists on this blog will help you and/or me on the actual show.

Enjoy!

 

SOURCES

 

Read The Article, Not Just The Headline

Read The Article, Not Just The Headline


The following idea was taken from Zack Galifianakis:

John Lennon's song Imagine includes the line, “You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.”

Editing the excerpt this way- “You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not”- fails to be a misquote, since it's word-for-word accurate, but it isn't the entire story.

For another, it is a fact that Mark Twain was born in Florida; the town of Florida in Missouri.

Both of those shortened statements are examples of the truth, nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth.

I’ve seen too many comments on social media by people who clearly read an article’s headline but not the article itself, then rushed to judgment. Had they taken a few minutes to find out everything that happened, perhaps they would have thought differently or been more educated within their automatic opinions.

Information blindness can be a dangerous thing.

People on all sides of every issue are quick to start screaming as if they have all the facts and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong and/or evil.

Social media can be great but giving everyone a voice often leads to turmoil, largely because people are so confident in their opinions that they present them as factual.

My comments on such statements are generally inquisitive but are often met with unnecessary hostility by people who clearly don’t take time to think critically. Even if I disagree with the “other side”, I want to understand its view.

For example, I was always quick to dismiss people who believe Earth is flat but open-mindedly watched a documentary about it, hoping to discover why they think their theories are true.

The one useful thing I learned was flat-Earthers are often not unintelligent but in fact scientific and clever. Unfortunately, their scientific thinking ended when their goal was found to be false. They seem to be unable to ever back up what they say with evidence, but trying to understand their mindset was an interesting experience.

(The documentary was called Behind The Curve. I would recommend it to anyone who suffers from curiosity.)

As I write this in June of 2020, protests are happening around the world that were sparked by a police officer with light-colored skin murdering George Floyd, seemingly only because his skin was dark. Racism in the police/public arena is nothing new, but this attack was recorded, along with three other officers who stood by and let it happen.

(I did not use the terms ‘white’ and ‘black’ above to emphasize that racism is about skin color and little-if-anything else.)

The video is horrible to watch, but after my first viewing, I wanted more information. Why were police going after Floyd? What caused the clash? Is the knee-on-neck strategy within regulations? Did the officer have a history of abusing his power? If this was indeed about race, what made the officer like that? Upbringing, society, a group he belonged to?

Nothing can excuse the killing of a helpless, unarmed person by someone who swore to uphold the law, but researching those questions gave me a better understanding of the situation as a whole.

Arming yourself with information is the only way to convey accurate points.

(For one of many fair articles that summarizes the events, [look here].)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52932611

These protests are largely peaceful, but some people have used them to cause property damage, steal from stores, and incite violence while tensions are already high.

Many people don’t realize or simply ignore that the rioters are separate from the protesters, so the focus has shifted to the rioting instead of its root cause. As wrong and awful as those acts are, keep in mind they were ultimately spawned by decades of unchecked prejudice by police.

Concentrating on one thing- however important- within a bigger issue is ignorant and harmful to all sides.

For a sub-par analogy, it would be like hating an entire album because you thought one song was poor.

(Also, let us note that racism is not reserved for white-to-black but any group hating another simply for looking or behaving differently.)

These riots have reminded people of 1990s Los Angeles, when a man named Rodney King was videotaped being physically beaten by four policemen.

The recording was shown all over the news and charges were brought against the officers, who were all acquitted of assault and three of excessive force, with the fourth case being dismissed because the jury could not reach a verdict.

The L.A. Riots ensued, which resulted in dozens of deaths and countless other damages. Unlike the George Floyd case, this did not begin with peaceful protesting. People were very angry, and once more the main reason was race: King was black and the officers were white.

So, why did the officers get acquitted? I won’t say police privilege had nothing to do with it, but many people were unaware that the video shown by the media was only a small part of the story.

Already on parole, King drunkenly led police on a high-speed car chase. When they caught up to him, he resisted arrest multiple times, so the officers used physical force. (Source)
https://www.npr.org/2017/04/26/524744989/when-la-erupted-in-anger-a-look-back-at-the-rodney-king-riots

One could certainly argue the force was excessive, but the rest of the facts and images weren't given to the public. Had they been, people would have known why the officers acted that way and the riots would have been less or not taken place at all.

However, racial tensions in Los Angeles were growing so maybe a riot was inevitable and this situation was a convenient trigger.

In March of 2019, two women were scheduled to make the first female-only spacewalk from the International Space Station. When the mission was postponed, misleading headlines led to the idea that NASA called off the mission because of sexism.

Again, people judged without all the information.

The mission had not been cancelled, but one of the astronauts was being replaced.

Why?

After a prior solo spacewalk, astronaut Anne McClain determined her suit was too big, so she suggested somebody take her place. Spacesuits are intricate and expensive so it's not like NASA has a warehouse full of them in all sizes. Also, astronauts don't fully know if their suits fit correctly until they are in zero- or micro-gravity, which is what it took for McClain to report the improper fit and scrub herself from the mission.

If NASA had indeed been sexist, they absolutely should have been called on it. However, doing so inaccurately caused much unnecessary anger.

If you hear about a story and immediately get upset, consider the source is trying to heighten that emotion from people. Doing a little research is a simple way to know if your reaction is appropriate or not. Plus, you’ll likely gain some knowledge that can be used in helpful, civilized discussion about the issue.

(Maybe John Lennon was right- He’s not the only dreamer.)

What's my point? Get all the details. Don't judge a book by its cover and all that.

Lastly, I'm reminded of a story that went something like this- A writing professor walked into his classroom backwards, stood on a desk, and yodeled “Good morning” to the class. He then wrote on the blackboard, 'The teacher came into the room and greeted the students'.

His point was to compare what actually happened against how most of the students would’ve described it, based on their poor work.

The headline was what the teacher wrote but the full narrative is what happened in the classroom.

There's usually more to a story. If you question its summary, you just might be proven correct or accidentally learn something about another aspect of the issue. Gasp!

 

The Most Meat-heady Thing I've Ever Experienced

The Most Meat-heady Thing I've Ever Experienced

On the 1970s sitcom All In The Family, Archie Bunker often referred to his son-in-law as "Meat-head", meaning he was a thick-headed dope.

My definition of 'meat-head' is more modern, mainly meaning a over-confident male jock or somebody with that attitude. Both usages imply a negative connotation, so either is fine by me.

Some years ago, a friend of mine was one of four winners in a contest to play football on the field at MetLife Stadium, which was called Giants Stadium at the time, even though the Jets also played there. Additionally, both teams claimed (and still declare ) New York as their home even though the stadium is located in New Jersey.

Each winner got to bring ten friends for two recreational games followed by a buffet in a suite which probably cost more per game than the total value of everybody's car.

Our first game was against the meat-head team, which I knew was the meat-head team because they were all males around the six-foot mark in good physical shape.

They were wearing matching shirts and chanting, or at least that's how I remember them. Regardless, the first part was definitely true.

The team I was on varied in physique and athletic ability, so the meat-heads had no problem scoring on almost every play-- their own and ours.

Later in the game, after they'd run up an insane score to overpower our zero points, I pulled aside the meat-head who I thought was most reasonable, pointing out my friend and saying it would make her day if she caught a pass, because she'd won the contest and her favorite team was the Giants and she was really excited about the whole thing. I was next up to be quarterback and would toss the ball to her, so I would've appreciated his team easing up on her coverage.

And this was his reply…

"You want me to throw the game!?"

The score was so lopsided that I don't think we could've caught up in the time remaining even if the other team wasn’t on the field.

But yeah, he was worried one catch would've changed everything in the meaningless game.

As I stared in disbelief, he went back to his team's huddle. (Yes, they were huddling and planning plays, as they probably also did in a flag football league or something.)

A few seconds later, their heads popped up to look at me. I remember hearing laughter but who knows for sure.

I passed the ball to my friend anyway but since they knew our play in advance, they were able to intercept it and get a touchdown in all their meat-heady glory. It was disgusting. I didn't think people like that actually existed.

To end on a nice note, the second team we played against was far more practical. They varied in age and size and we were even able to score some points! The meat-heads won their second game too, crowning them champions of a non-existent league which couldn't have mattered less.

But you know what? Their egos obviously needed the wins, so good for them. I just hope that now they're fat and soil their stained sweatpants all the time.

 

Saturday, March 21, 2020

Women Should Invent A Sport


Women Should Invent A Sport


The graphic above compares and contrasts the careers of professional basketball players Sue Bird and LeBron James.

Their years played and championships won are exactly the same, yet the salary each player earned during 2020 differs drastically- $215,000 for Bird and $37,440,000 for James.

(LeBron’s total salary may have been even higher but I will use the given number for comparison.)

For some math, Sue made less than one percent (~ 0.6%) of LeBron’s total.

In fact, Bird and six other players (all the WNBA’s highest-paid athletes) each earned $215,000, totaling $1,505,000, which is slightly over 4% of LeBron’s salary.

(Note that the amounts are what the players made directly from their organizations and does not include endorsement deals or anything like that. Many WNBA players earn extra- and often more- playing in foreign leagues during the off-season.)

There are many factors to consider in this situation, including the idea that many people would be perfectly happy earning $215,000 per year and that if an athlete truly loves his or her sport, the amount of money made should not matter.

But it *does* matter.

The point of this article is not to analyze societal inequality and gender disparity but to suggest an alternative that could shift things toward a more balanced civilization.

Male-dominated sports bring in an obscene amount of money to their organizations, advertisers, apparel companies, and whoever else is involved. Female sports get plenty of attention but not even a noticeable fraction of that money, as demonstrated by Sue and LeBron above.

To use another sport as an example, men’s finals in major tennis tournaments are always the last to be featured, getting the best television time. Tennis, along with basketball and pretty much every other professional sport, gives men a majority of the attention.

(A financial comparison with WNBA players would be unfair since much of tennis stars’ earnings come from endorsements and other outside ventures. Even within that system, men generally make more, though women’s earnings are considerably higher than in the WNBA.)

Some argue that women should be paid equally yet opponents stipulate they should play equally. (Currently, men play best-of-5 matches while women play best-of-3.)

There have been many great female players throughout the history of tennis, but do they get the same recognition as their male counterparts? In most cases, no.

This could largely be due to women's sports being seen as “alternate” versions of sports that have traditionally been dominated by men. The WNBA, softball, that weird lingerie football thing, and even soccer mostly follow the rules of their masculine equivalents. The only obvious difference is that women play them.

(That may have sounded degrading but alternative versions of established sports have never fared well. Just ask the XFL.)

A new sport specifically designed for women might begin to change things.

It should not forbid men to play (as major sports do not strictly bar women) but highlight female-friendly attributes.

For example, women typically have less height and more flexibility than men, so cater to those assets.

If the average female height is 5’4” and male height 5’9”, incorporate a ceiling around the 5’6” mark. This specific aspect would exclude many (but not all) men while being inclusive of many (but not all) women.

(I have no idea how an audience would be able to watch a sport with a low ceiling but somebody else can solve such problems.)

Women also tend to have a lower center of gravity, helping them dominate sports such as roller derby and gymnastics, which also focuses on natural gracefulness.

Another sport mostly played in America by women is field hockey, though men more commonly play it worldwide.

In 1901, an Englishwoman named Constance Applebee came to study at Harvard and brought the idea of field hockey with her. Her female classmates quickly took to the sport since women’s exercise was typically limited to slow activities such as croquet and golf.

Applebee continued to promote field hockey and change the look of women’s athletics for almost 80 years, dying aged 107.

Related fact- When women began regularly playing basketball, many “men’s” rules were deemed too rough for them, so the sport was modified to prevent over-exertion. One change involved players having to stay within assigned zones on the court to avoid running its full length.

Also, there is an International Women’s Sports Hall of Fame. Founded in 1980, it was first located on Long Island in New York, then moved to Manhattan’s Sports Museum of America until that closed in 2009. The archives have since gone to Sarasota, Florida, where the Women’s Sports Museum will soon open for a three-year “preview”, possibly leading to permanent residence.

If you plan on having at least an extra $15,000 for the next three years, go here to become a sponsor.

Taking a break from serious content, it’s high time for some silliness…

Inventing a sport is not as easy as it sounds, so how does one go about it?

Having no idea how to invent a sport is one way to begin.

Next, find a website to guide the process. Ideally, the site will pluralize basic words with a ‘z’ instead of an ‘s’, demonstrating that it is not only intellectually responsible, but very hip as well.

Lastly, let the ideas flow.

STEP ONE – The Basics

According to Kidz World, the first step is deciding the new sport’s basics- where it will be played, if accuracy or speed is the focus, and whether individuals or teams will be involved.

Based on the previously-mentioned criteria (shorter height, gracefulness, flexibility, low center of gravity), this new sport will be played in a labyrinth with a 5’6” ceiling, speed will be important, and teams will play it since that is usually more fun for everybody involved.

STEP TWO – Pick A Name

Giving the sport the best name possible will skyrocket it to fame. In this case, that name is Giffyblap.

STEP THREE – Design The Playing Surface

Imagine a hedge-maze created by M.C. Escher. The game’s area would be outlined by trimmed bushes and the low ceiling would make many players squat down to carry things.

STEP FOUR – Rules

Developing this would become tedious so the three main rules are: 1) First team to kick a rubber pyramid into a hole wins, 2) Dancing like a swan is not only allowed but encouraged, 3) One point is scored each time a player does a full split to obstruct an opponent.

STEP FIVE – Equipment

Rubber pyramid, hidden swan costumes, durable socks, and, of course, face protection.

STEP SIX – Play The New Sport

Gather some ladies, put all this information together, and have some fun trying out Giffyblap!

Of course, Giffyblap is a very silly and impractical idea. But it demonstrates how potentially simple inventing a new sport could be. In the appropriate hands (clearly not this author’s), one just might come along that would sweep the globe with popularity, finally giving women prominence on the worldwide sports stage.

Just be sure wealthy men can make money from the new sport. This might sound counter-productive, but it must be part of the plan, since nothing has gotten done for a very long time that did not involve wealthy men getting even more money.

That system should be changed as well but these steps toward attaining gender equality would surprisingly somehow be easier.

Not to worry- If the sport even hints at catching on, wealthy men will come running.

Or, just get rid of sports. Gladiator days are over.


Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Admit That Your Belief Is A 'Maybe'



Admit That Your Belief Is A 'Maybe'


How much better could humanity be if people admitted religion
might not be true?

This largely-unanswerable question is worth considering since much destruction throughout history could have been avoided with a mild amount of healthy doubt.

Believe in a god or gods, creatures with multiple appendages, the flying spaghetti monster, or whatever else but stop pretending it is definitive. Beliefs like these are not necessarily untrue, but a reasonable compromise would be calling them 'maybes'.

When there is no proof, certainty is impossible. It just works that way. You might believe you have proof, but you don’t.

Simultaneously, keep in mind the adage, ‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’.

Religion made sense in ancient times:

“What is that thing in the sky? It gives warmth, makes crops grow, and provides more light than that other thing in the sky. It does lots of good for us so we should worship it and try not to make it angry.”
'Good idea. How could we do that?'
“Make up stories and sacrifice people.”
'Wait, what?'

There are countless historical times when groups of people with certain beliefs have been persecuted by groups of people with differing beliefs. Some major examples include various Holocausts (not just the Nazi one), Rwandan genocide, the Inquisition (the Spanish version and others), witch (and werewolf) trials all over the world, the "civil" war in Syria, etc.

These atrocities and many more have resulted in millions of deaths.

And for what? Neither side was proven correct because there was no certainty to begin with.

Many of us have heard about Muslim martyrs (suicide bombers) who sacrifice themselves (while murdering many others) in the name of Allah. We have also heard about the 72 virgins they will receive in the afterlife by doing this.

The Qur’an (Muslim holy book) never actually gives a number and they are not really virgins but wives devoted to (male) pleasure.

Or there are virgins available to any (male) Muslim.

Or there are no afterlife-women involved but only divine food and drink.

Or the afterlife is much different from any of these.

Or there is no afterlife.

These thoughts are debated by skeptics and believers alike.

So, which is correct? Any of them might be, and that is my point.

In 2015, the French magazine Charlie Hebdo (which satirizes everyone) came under gunfire after publishing cartoons criticizing Islam. The issues in question also featured depictions of the prophet Muhammad, which is illegal blasphemy in countries that observe Sharia law, which base their government around the Qur’an.

It should be noted that France is not a Sharia law country.

Had the extremists stepped back and said something like ‘Maybe a cartoon is not really a big deal so we should go get some sandwiches instead’, this could have been avoided. But because that seemingly-impossible notion did not happen, 23 people were killed and injured, including police officers and a maintenance worker who had nothing to do with the cartoon.

To be fair, the magazine had been warned several times by Islamic radicals who foretold something bad happening if they continued to mock their religion.

Since all factors must be considered, the assailants honestly thought their actions were not only justified but necessary.

Cases like this are rare and extreme but occur often enough to mar overall societal progress.

If mass murder does not bother you but a cartoon or comedian does, your priorities should be adjusted.

(Those two examples were not meant to single out Islam. Atrocities have come from many places.)

How did the universe come to exist? Nobody knows for sure but here are some creation stories:

Science advocates the Big Bang, the scientific theory that everything was condensed into an extremely tiny spot around 13.8 billion years ago then got so heated it exploded and has been expanding ever since.

Is the Big Bang Theory a fact? No. Is it correct? Maybe.

In general, people who follow the Bible believe God created everything in six days less than 10,000 years ago.

Is the Bible a flawless book of facts? No. Did God truly make stars, planets, plants, animals, sandwiches, and everything else humans know about? Maybe.

According to Hinduism, three gods (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva) have created, maintained, and destroyed the universe in a cycle that has always existed and will last forever.

Are those three gods responsible for keeping all of creation in check? Maybe.

Flat-Earthers sort of believe in Biblical creation and think Earth is a flat disk surrounded by a gigantic wall of ice with a domed ceiling over everything.

Should their beliefs be considered true? No. Every experiment they have done has proven nothing at all or their own theory as false.

Still, they should admit their belief is a ‘maybe’ instead of promoting is as factual.

There are many other creation stories from various belief systems but that small sample should suffice to prove my point.

In our society, we hear about bad things way more often than good ones, but there are some pretty bad 'bads' regarding religious history. If ‘maybe’ and ‘eating sandwiches instead’ had occurred to the persecutors, perhaps those events would not have happened.

Or, possibly, they were inevitable and would have come about in a different way.

If any of this has caused anger, step back and consider why. If you would rather not reflect on your beliefs, I invite you to get over it and read something else.

What I am suggesting is to question what you believe, if only to confirm your belief. If you are going to have faith, make it count.

I believe all beliefs are nonsense, including my belief that all beliefs are nonsense.

You might think part or all of that idea is nonsense. And you know what? That’s fine! I will not try to change your mind nor harm you because of it, the same way I would expect you to not do so to me.

I am aware that my last sentence was similar to the "golden rule" of many religions, and, if nothing else, my use of it is an example that people should respect other people's beliefs.

 

 

SOURCES


Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Yes, Worries


Yes, Worries


Dear Guy Who Went Out Of His Way To Hold A Door For Me Even Though I Showed No Signs Of Not Being Able To Open It Myself:

Firstly, in the name of simplicity, I shall refer to you as Duckfart, because I have no idea what your stupid name actually is.

Dear Duckfart:

In case you don’t remember our importantly notable encounter this morning, I was about 15 feet from a doorway I had to enter when some girl came flying out because her hand was holding a leash attached to a large, running dog.

This made me think of how annoying it is when people say, 'Are you walking your dog or is your dog walking you LOLOLOLOLzzz!!!!!11’, so I was furious before even seeing you.

And then you appeared, Duckfart.

Instead of trying to help your friend who was being doghandled, you ran around the door to hold it open as if I was royalty.

As I walked past you to enter the building, you said something peculiar- "No worries, bro."

Being a trendosaurus maximus (as the kids say), I knew your statement stood in place of "You're welcome", which is also a strange phrase that I will get to a bit later.

Curiously, you said it without being thanked at all. Regardless of my plan to feign gratitude or not, you boldly assumed I was not just grateful but indebted to your poor excuse for generosity.

Essential to say, I was fuming mad by the time I walked through the doorway and here is my list of reasons why:

1) You are one of the rudest people I have ever encountered, Duckfart. Holding a door open when somebody is right there should obligatorily be done, but stopping your travel to whirl around in dramatic fashion to hold a door for somebody whose arms are not full is inexcusable. You are not a hero. You are an obnoxious, attention-seeking loser whose only hope for redemption is to train your dog to hold doors for strangers because that would be interesting.

2) Did you really think I was worried? I was absurdly confident in my ability to open that door and enter the building. And was I supposed to be concerned that you would break your stupid shoulder or something while holding the door for me? Nothing about our encounter worried me until after, when I was screaming internally.

3) Do you think you’re Australian, Duckfart? Because you are not. You had no criminal accent and Australian rugby players would probably beat you mercilessly simply for wearing that fitted blazer that your grandmother likely said you look 'darling' in.

In case you are wondering why I am blathering about Australia, “No worries” is a phrase with roots to that lovely country.

4) If you meant "You're welcome", you chose another dumb saying with no real connection to this letter but now I am focused on it and will not turn back.

I am welcome? WHERE!? Are you a store manager? Did you invite me over for snacks?? Can I come aboard your stupid sailboat??? If any of those garnered a yes, "You're welcome" would have been wildly appropriate. Other than that, get over yourself.

5) Bro. Do not call me that. Do not call anyone that.

6) I hate your scarf.

7) What is your dog's name?

(Realizing this argument- which made no sense to begin with- is getting weaker with each numbered point, I have decided to end this letter.)

With all of that said, I must congratulate and thank you, Duckfart. It has been a surprisingly long time since I have achieved such a multi-layered level of philosophical anger. Your simple "nice" gesture of holding a door open has unleashed the aggression of a thousand papercuts.

You are so terrible that it can only be described as Bieberian. Justin Bieberian. I don’t understand why people hate him, but I know it’s a thing that helps me out here.

As people hate Justin Bieber, I brutally hate you, Duckfart. I hate your chivalry and your blazer. I hate your friend and your grandmother. I almost hate Australia because of you, but I know they had very little, if anything, to do with our encounter.

I have been trying to wish less death and destruction upon people lately, so I will close with this- I hope you poop in your pants at a horribly inconvenient time, such as at a wake or Thanksgiving dinner.

Yours in unreasonable disdain,
~Rob

PS-- If you can make trendosaurus maximus an actual thing, I will graciously denounce most of my previously-mentioned hatred toward you.