Late-Night Ramblings

It's late at night and my mind is buzzing. I have to talk, so I'm going to make a blog post. I won't think any less of you if you decide to turn back now. This will be hard to follow, confusing, and quite possibly offending as I've noticed my brain tends to get a little weird late at night.

As I write this, I'm writing a book report in another tab, and my thoughts might overlap a bit which will be confusing. Well, I don't mean I'm writing them simultaneously. I've only got two hands and one keyboard and can only write one thing at a time. You know what I mean.

So! That movement to make Idaho a "Christian State"... what's up with that? Let's mock them mercilessly for a little bit.

...No, I can't do it. The knowledge that a single religion is so certain of its dominance in our country that it believes it can simply claim a state as a "Christian State" is just depressing. I mean, honestly, unless every single person in Idaho is Christian, they can't do that. Naming something a "Christian State" automatically excludes anyone who isn't Christian as being unrepresentative of that state, of not being a true... er... Idaho-ian. As I'm almost certain there's at least one person in Idaho who's atheist, agnostic, or a member of any religion other than Christianity, naming Idaho a "Christian State" would not be representative of it.

Imagine 83% of Canada's population consisted of huge rabbits. Would it make sense to call Canada the "Land of the Rabbits?" Actually, that's a bad example. Imagine 17% (83 - 100) of the population is huge rabbits and the rest are humans. That's more accurate. Would it make sense to call Canada the "Land of the Humans?" No, because (a) not all of the population is human and (b) a majority of humans in the population is not unusual or especially noteworthy. The same is (unfortunately) true of Christianity.

I'm not insulting Christianity, by the way, just saying that a bit of variation in religions would be better... no, screw it, I am insulting Christianity. I'm tired and on a roll, I don't have time for religious niceness. Alright, fine, Voice In My Head, being tired doesn't excuse being a jerk, but... never mind.

I've added a lot more to my little Life Goals thank-you note. I think I've mentioned it before -- it's a little blue thank-you note that I've been writing life goals and fun things to do inside. Assuming I don't accidentally send it to some relative in place of the intended thank-you note, I hope to use it in the future to remind me of both what I prioritize(d) at the ages of 13 to 14 and also as inspiration.

I will, of course, keep it private. It's possibly the most secret thing I possess. Well, with the exception of the private folder in my Google Drive. But I will say two things I've written in:

- Make real-life friends
- High school & college

I'm not sure what to talk about next, so I'll explain each of them.

Make Real-Life Friends:

I was thinking about this and looking at the Life Goals thank-you note tonight and I realized something: my life is kind of empty. I have a thriving online life, with lots of online friendships, but it's not the same as being able to call someone, to hang out, to play games with someone, to be able to actually talk face-to-face with a person. And with the exception of my best friend George, I'm pretty lacking in that department.

I'm going to high school next year, and that'll be my chance to make friends and to mend my social life. And that actually leads into my next point...

High School & College:

The next seven or nine years of my life (four years of high school, one year break, two or four years college) will be pretty crazy. I haven't decided which college I'm interested in yet; I've decided on my career, but not on any sort of steps to get there. I'll have to think about that, work towards that, and achieve that. I know I can do it.

I could probably keep talking, but it's been a long blog post already and I've got a report to write. So long, internetz!

What is an Army?

What is an army?

It's a pretty weird question. It's a philosophical thought I had a couple weeks back, and I wrote it on a little blue thank you note. That led to a thank you note containing all my life goals; I'm almost asking the universe to cause a mix-up and send all my life goals to someone.

Getting off-topic. Sorry.

So what is an army? As I said, it's a weird question, but it sort of warrants some thought. I mean, is it just a bunch of people with guns? Does it take a nationality or cause?

Before you go any further, I'd like to just mention: I thought this up late at night and it is currently late at night so I might be not-smart right now. Ugh. Words.

"Words," I say disdainfully, writing a blog post.

Several minutes of off-topic thoughts and distractions later...

What are the qualifiers that turn a group of people into an army? Weapons immediately come to mind, but that's not true -- a mob is a form of army, right? Armies have existed who fight with their fists?

Dictionary.com says (looking it up in a dictionary is NOT cheating. Yeah, I can say that, I made up the freakin' game) gives four definitions of an army.

...I am at the stage of tiredness where I can no longer count. This doesn't bode well for the quality of the blog post. Five definitions, not four; sorry.

1.

the military forces of a nation, exclusive of the navy and in some countries the air force.

2.

(in large military land forces) a unit consisting typically of two or more corps and a headquarters.

3.

a large body of persons trained and armed for war.

4.

any body of persons organized for any purpose.

5.

a very large number or group of something; a great multitude; a host.

Well, sure. I suppose I can agree with those.

The one we're thinking of now is #3, right? But wait... #3 is inaccurate. An army doesn't have to be armed - we just discussed that - and it doesn't really have to be trained. But then, what the hell is an army?

If you told a bunch of people they were the Orillian Army of Orillia, sworn to protect the nation's people, would they be an army?

Well, no. You can't involuntarily be part of an army, right? So that's yet another qualifier that doesn't exist.

The definition of an army is becoming pretty loose... let's go back to definition #3 from before. Our improved version reads "a large body of persons for war." As in, a large group of people whose intention - as a goal - is war.

Oh dear lord. I looked at that for about five seconds and realized the only two qualifiers... well, except for persons... are wrong too. And... wait... nope, persons is wrong as well. Damn these vague definitions!

Let's start with "large." Does an army have to be large? The trouble is, this involves opinions -- how large is "large?" I'd say no. Relying on an adjective which is itself a matter of opinion is bad here because we're trying to get a perfectly correct definition.

Now, let's look at "war." That's not right, is it? I mean, the U.S. Army still exists when we're not at war. Armies can also be used as law enforcement, or border protection, or defenders against ancient long-lost races emerging from the sea with the intention of razing our cities and devouring our children... or, y'know, whatever.

So we've narrowed it down to "a body of persons." This is starting to sound suspiciously like other words... crowd, group, and party come to mind.

But YAY let's remove more qualifiers! Who needs those stupid things after all? NOT US, THAT'S FOR SURE!

Armies can consist of entities other than human beings. Ants? A special form of ant, the army ant, can form - you guessed it - armies. So yeah, it's not just a human term.

"a body." We've narrowed down our definition of an army to become "a body."

I can't see any way of fixing this, so... yeah. An army is "a body."

Leaders Have No Power

The title says it all: Leaders possess no power.
I'm pretty sure I know what your initial reaction to this statement will be. You will say, "What? No, leaders are powerful!"
The thing is, very few leaders have power on their own. Most leaders do not, for instance, have magical powers or insane acrobatic skills. Leaders are only powerful because people support them.
Imagine a king who rules a country called Entrelonne. The king has all the power because, if someone were to rebel, the army would squash them. But in this situation, the king doesn't have the power -- the army does. The army serves the king, but the king does not personally have the power of the army. If the army were to rebel, the king would be doomed. The king does not, in fact, possess any power whatsoever except that power which his subjects give him.
It's the same with all leaders. Without the support of the people, the leader no longer possesses any power whatsoever. Leadership does not grant power, it gives the service of those who do have power. Of course, leaders can be powerful. The king of Entrelonne, for instance, could secretly be a ninja. But that is the person, not the title. The title of King grants no power to a person.