Fraud Triangle Comparison to Sin Triangle

In one of my accounting classes, we learned about something called the fraud triangle, which I thought was a great theory.  It said for someone to execute fraud, they had to have all three of the following:

1) Incentive

2) Opportunity

3) Rationalization

So if someone wanted to steal, but never had the chance to, it wouldn't happen.  Or if they had a chance to, but couldn't make their conscience accept it as a viable option, it also wouldn't happen.  And of course, if they didn't want to, they wouldn't even pursue it to begin with.

Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to put this triangle idea in Bible classes as a constructive theory behind the concept of sin.  I've always felt that Biblical doctrine was a great way to provide the rationalization necessary to protect against the act of committing a sin, even when there was both the opportunity and a desire to engage in it.

New National Anthem?

If we ever get a chance to select a new national anthem, I'd vote for Hulk Hogan's Real American entrance music when he was in the WWF.  I listened to it countless times over the years watching old wrestling tapes and YouTube videos, and to this day I still feel a sense of pride in the country when I hear it.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lZDgGr1PO0&list=RD9lZDgGr1PO0&start_radio=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPO5lbFnulE&list=OLAK5uy_keN9V6A6Txc98L-QGKWnCohmOTHLHkycU&index=11

Desire Idea

I had a thought this morning:

Perhaps the people that desire capitalism the most are the ones that deserve it the least, and perhaps the people that desire socialism the most are the ones that deserve it the least.

And I wouldn't be surprised if this desire idea could be generalized to other things as well.

Personally, I'd like to believe that I could accomplish whatever goals I have under either political system.

Serving in Heaven vs. Ruling in Hell

Paradise Lost brings up this debate.  Some would rather rule over chaos than serve under order, and others the opposite.  And for a while I wondered which I preferred.  Then I thought of a scenario that puts this into perspective.  

When I used to compete in lifting meets, I definitely preferred others to be weaker than me.  I'd rather be 1st place with a low combined weight total than 6th place with a much higher total.  Didn't matter if I squatted 315 pounds in the 181 pound weight class, as long as no one else exceeded me. Squatting 700 pounds and being 3rd place just wasn't as good of a prize in my eyes.

And I thought the same initially with regards to intellect.  If I was the smartest in the room, it didn't matter if everyone else WAY below me or just slightly below me.  As long as I was at the top and recognized as the best.

But years later my perspective has changed a bit.  I realized if I was the smartest person ever on earth, the quality of our daily appliances we take for granted would probably be dramatically lower.  Is it worth a lower quality of life for everyone else just to satisfy my own ego?  Can I handle having a lower ranking on the totem pole of recognition if it means a better life for everybody in general?

And it made me realize that it probably is better for me to accept a lower status of governance than to possess total authority over things of inferior quality.  Letting go of a little bit of control can make things go a long way.  And ruling over a bunch of idiots doesn't sound like such a good prize anymore.  Better for us to try to build up those underneath us and accept the benefits of them overtaking us.  

But of course, if those underneath don't want to build themselves up, they are probably better off learning to accept their place.

I Planned a Return at Age Forty - Didn't Happen

I started another blog a few months back called Zen in the Art of Being a Jerk (https://zenintheartofbeingajerk.blogspot.com/), where I talk about how much I like heel wrestling characters.  One of the typical heel characters is often referred to as the closet champion.  This is the champion that refuses to face all challengers, and ducks as many as he can in order to try to artificially increase the length of his often undeserved title reign.

In that spirit, when I was a powerlifter in college, I legitimately feared competing in the very difficult open division.  I was able to compete in the teen division, the junior division, and the collegiate division, and it was much easier to place in those specialized divisions than it was in the open division.  But after college, the number of specialized divisions is slim pickings, and lifters are pretty much forced to compete in the open division.  It isn't until age 40 that you can compete in a masters division for older lifters.  So before I graduated, I joked to my college buddies saying I would avoid competing after college and wait until I'm 40 years old to compete again.

Now at age 44, I'm just too beat up to be anything near competitive.  My digestive issues are the main thing, but my hip flexors bother me on squats too, and last time I tried heavy bicep curls my hand was numb for darn near a month.  I simply can't push myself hard when training anymore without risking injury.  Sure, I could still sign up and lift super low weights in a competition, but that's just no fun.  I guess some guys can keep going strong at that age, but not me.  My back injury in my 20's sealed the deal, and once that finally cleared up a few years later, all my muscle was gone, I had just started a family, and I simply didn't have enough incentive to return.  Then when those digestive issues set in after I hit my late 30's, it was very clear that my competition days were over, never to return.

3rd Grade News

I always like how Trump called the news the Fake News.  Because in some ways he's kind of correct.  I understand not everyone in the population has the mental capacity to read very much (or the free time or interest for that matter), but the choice of articles, and the choice of headlines in particular, are often quite abysmal in order to generate clicks.  They really do seem to be intended, not always to be false as Trump implies, but always to be FAR over-simplified to little more than a catchy slogan that leaves a whole lot of relevant facts out of the account.  Both the left wing and right wing media are very guilty of this.  Probably not EVERY piece of media has this fault, like local newspapers for instance, but online stuff like Yahoo news and the articles it links to often fit this description to a T.  Fox news probably as well, although I haven't paid attention to them in a while.  But I remember in the past they'd take small sound bytes from speeches, ignore the rest, and run with the sound bytes as if those alone said as much as a dissertation.  That is not good journalism.

So I think I'd rather call it 3rd Grade News than Fake News, because it simplifies things too much, where maybe some of the facts are accurate, but they leave out a lot of relevant information to paint a false impression.  I think Lisa Simpson said it best when she said, "As usual, the playground gets the facts right, but misses the point entirely."

I guess the news does what it can to generate revenue and keep afloat.  I know I sure as heck don't like to think deeply about politics much in my time away from work, and I don't blame anyone else for not wanting to either.

I Usually Vote Republican, But Understand Why Many People Don't

I believe in the last general election I voted in, I chose one Democrat, and everyone else I chose on the ticket was Republican.  

As much as I dislike progressivism, I can't deny that there are some things moderate and even staunch Democrats stand for that have genuine merit.  Showing concern for the environment and making sensible efforts to control pollution is certainly not a bad idea.  Showing compassion for refugees attempting to escape from an oppressive government to start a new, honest life looks like the right thing to do as well.  Increasing the tax burden on those who have benefitted greatly from living here and can easily afford the increased burden is difficult to argue against too.  So I certainly understand why people often vote against Republican stances and don't blame them for doing so.  Particularly when economic conditions for the general population are not doing so well under the Republican watch and when a rude fellow with a questionable record and a lot of inherited money is put in charge of the land.

In fact, most of the time I vote, it isn't because I love the Republican stances at all.  I just can't stand the progressive stances.  The ones that look for fault in every darn thing and refuse to be satisfied.  They rarely give those that they are against a clean slate and a chance to start over.  In their eyes, America is forever a land of bigots and will always be racist, sexist, xenophobic, and whatever accusation you want to throw against it - because it was without a doubt a major part of the Atlantic slave trade hundreds of years ago - long before its birth and all the way until the mid 1800's.  

Now, SHOULD progressives hate America forever because of this glaringly awful part of its history?  Don't they have a point?  Maybe so.  But man, if you're going to hate a country, or anything else, that much - you know, FOREVER, no matter what it does in the future - then just don't even be a part of it.  Go to Europe (even though it doesn't have anywhere close to a clean slate as far as its history of human rights goes), or start your own country.  It makes no sense to hate something so much that it can't ever redeem itself, yet to still stay associated with it.  

So until the forever unsatisfied progressives exit the picture, it will be difficult for me to consider lending my support to anyone - even a moderate - who fails to strongly differentiate himself from such a negative and hopeless group that prides itself on unachievable yearnings.  Even if you give this progressive group everything it wants, that's still not good enough because it cannot erase the past.  And the best way to deal with anyone who can't be satisfied with anything you ever do going forward is to simply ignore them.  Why waste effort to appease those who can never be appeased?  

But American progressives do not have to stay in this forever-unsatisfied purgatory.  They can climb out if they so wish without sacrificing much, if any, of their push for improved human conditions.  I think they just need to realize that a big part of changing the future is to accept that the past cannot be changed and to go from there.

That said, do I blame people for picking permanent America-haters over convicted felon Trump?  Do I blame people for picking convicted felon Trump over permanent America-haters?  No.  I don't blame either one.  Why?  Because some decisions are tough and prioritizing can be difficult.  I'm not even proud of my own decision.  But I think I'd be even less proud if I chose otherwise.

Trump is really doing the exact same thing I would do if I was in his position regarding the progressive extremists.  He's completely ignoring them, and even going actively against them.  I have never seen a politician before him have enough brash guts to do that.  So that's one thing about the man I can admire and support, even if his personal life isn't much different than Bill Clinton's.  It really does get exhausting seeing moderate politicians trying to appease the unappeasable, which I witnessed for many years.  FAR too long.