Questions For The Ponderosa

Catchy, isn't it? I'm all for creating new definitions for old words. In this case, ponderosa are people who ponder, like myself. It's plural, of course. Singular would be ponderosan.

So today's questions involve geography. This is so fun.

Let's start with North and South America. Two continents separated by a small country called Panama. It also so happens to be halved by the Panama Canal. Although I don't know for sure they were separated before or after the Canal was built, so there is a case for a continent not necessarily being separated from others by water. But if Panama's canal divides North and South America, then what continent is Panama technically in? If it is one and not the other, how can that be? Unless we change Panama to be North Panama and South Panama, two separate countries. I mean hell, North and South Vietnam, North and South Korea are separate countries, but aren't separated by water. It certainly would be a first to have a country split in two, not just because of the Canal that runs through it, but because it also separates two continents! You heard it here first, folks.

Here's another. We have the European continent, which includes Russia, or also known as Eastern Europe, technically-speaking, but most don't refer to it as that. Maybe we could call Russia, the North East, because that's what they are. We have the Middle East, and the Far East, and even Southeast Asia. Although Japan is farther south than Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, ect., which are the ones considered Southeast Asia, but Japan is considered just Far East. Well, that is correct because it is farther east the the Southeast countries. How about the Phillipines? Far East, or Southeast Asia? Russia is over Asia and beside Europe. Why Europe and not Asia? Because Russians are not Asian. Makes sense. Another example of two continents NOT separated by water.

Back to the Middle and Far East. Now I've had this argument with a former associate from Pakistan and my neighbor, who thought he was a geographical expert because world maps and atlases were a hobby of his. But if you hear me out, while you may not agree, you have to admit it makes sense. And that's what the LoongTao is all about. Pointing out alternatives to the norm, that make sense, and hopefully changing history in the process.

Ok, I know Pakistan, to some, and most Pakistanis, is considered Far East. And so do atlases and maps. I don't and here's why. I also don't consider India the Far East, as well, which many might think is stretching a bit far. But if you think about it, Pakistan is above and to the left of India. Pakistan's neighbors are Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I classify Pakistan as Middle East, along with the others. Looks aren't everything, but in this case, a big part, along with their faith, which is Muslim, and their geograhical location. There's 3 different reasons right there.

India on the other hand, has a mix of Hindu, Muslim, and Buddhism. We all know Buddhism is divided up into various sects throughout the Far East (Tibetan, Chan for the chinese, and Shinto, rinzai and tendai for the Japanese), but the Hindu people are a completely different breed from Asian. If Buddhsim is the only tie that connects it the Far East, it's because all of the asian Buddhist sects started with a man named Boddhidarma, a hindu priest, who ventured east and trained a sickly group of monks in China, who eventually came to be known as Shaolin. He taught them how to meditate, breath correctly, and defend themselves, using techniques that resembled the movements of five animals, dragon, tiger, crane, panther and snake. The shaolin then continued with more animals and the rest is history, except that now India is considered Far East. (Notice to cat lovers: two of the five animal styles are cats. Yeeaaahhh)

So what would you call India? How about the Central East. Pakistan would go under Middle East. Russia would go under North East. And the former Russian republics would go to Eastern Europe. Or, Europe, in general.

If it's all about geography, then it should be about where all of them are situated. Whatever religion or faith you are, or whatever country you're fighting with over borders, is a moot point.

Take Kashmere. Now there's a can of worms. Both Pakistan and India lay claim to it. And they've been fighting over it forever. But if you take out the faith and appearance factor, and concentrate on just it's geographical location, where would you put it? Could it be Middle East - it's east of Pakistan. Could it be Central East - it's north of India. Could it be European - it's south of Europe. My god, what do we do with Kashmere?

Divide and conquer. If you can't fit in, you don't belong. (LOL - not to be taken seriously, folks.)

Voyage Of Discovery

Well it appears our solar system has a tenth planet. Oh, the controversey ensues. What to name it. Is it a planet? What about the others nearby.

There is an object that is round and cirlces the sun. Sounds like all of our planets. But we've had nine for eternity. But our ability to see further out hasn't always been there. So it is with this new planet. We are now in the process of enlarging our very own solar system. All textbooks, at least the science books, need to be re-written.

Here's the discrenacy, though. This tenth planet is twice as far from the sun as Pluto. That's a long way if you ask me. It orbits our sun, making it part of our solar sytem, but passes through the Kuiper Belt. There are many objects there that are large, round, and would be classified as planets, according to our standards. And one could even argue that Pluto is part of the Belt, although right at the edge, and was the only thing we could see at the time.

Do we relegate Pluto to the Kuiper Belt, or add the tenth planet, and possibly others nearby, that meet our criteria for planets? Either way, history is changing before our very eyes, at least when it comes to textbooks and curriculums.

Oh, this is an exiting time. I'm not even going to express how it should be classified because the process is ongoing, and I'm enjoying every minute of it.

Now if we could just build a spaceship that could take us there in a matter of days or weeks instead of light years, well then...

Point-Counterpoint

These are my closing statements on the "business" concept. While I stand by my views, I do acknowledge that that there is a different interpretation out there. I can see where it's coming from, but it's not what I'm talking about. The reason being, money comes in to play in the differing viewpoint, but is not in mine, which is probably the reason for the disagreement. So, as Judge Mills Lane says, "I'll allow it."

OK, so the movie theater was not the best example, well, sorta, it is. But Google is a better example. The theater is an example of a dual business. The business of showing movies, and the business in selling food. After thinking about it, since I worked not just in the theater business like my "business" partner, but also in the restaurant business, I got to thinking: if the concession areas are inspected by the same officers who inspect resaturants, for cleanliness and violations, then you could say they are in the food business. But you'll then have to classify primary or secondary, since the theater still makes money at the box office, albeit not much. So my view is: the primary is showing the movie, because that's why you're there in the first place, and secondary, the concessions, because that is from which revenue is generated.

Which brings me to my adjusted point, using Google, and the theater scenario, to a certain degree, as an example. And I think this is what my "business" partner was trying to say, but I still disagree, in part, because of the influence money has on the argumented point. Money shouldn't change what your business is, but since that is what all the fuss is about, the issue is dead because nothing will change.

Here's the new business concept:

"A company's product or service is it's business; If their income is derived from something else, then that is there business, But if the product or service makes money as well as something on the side, such as advertising, then it is a dual business, with primary and secondary focus".

And you can quote me, Webster.

See how money will change the appearance of what you're business is. Google business is it's search engine. It's income is derived from advertising. So many out there consider them them an advertising company. I don't. As do many others. We have our reasons. You have have your reasons. To argue is a moot point.

Which brings me to my next point: a generalization on debating an issue based on interpretation, then diagreeing, eventually arguing, and ultimately, making it personal.

After this debate continued in person, I noticed how it can quickly turn into an argument, which means although both sides have made there point (the debate), now both sides are more concerned with pushing there point (the disagreement), now they're repeating what they've already said, and not entering in new information, which makes it an argument. Neither wants to lose. The unfortunate part: when both sides get so frustrated, then it becomes personal. How? When one says, "Well, I think you're wrong".

Whoa. Where did that come from? I thought we were debating an issue that had different interpretations. I guess you thought yours was the correct one and there is no other. Well, I beg to differ. If there is another, it doesn't mean yours is not correct, it means that there may be others that are correct, also. You make your point but don't see mine, or at least acknowledge that another interpretation exists, or that since the other person is not budging, you're not going to pack it up and walk because neither side is going to win? You've just made it personal.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were a math teacher. And math is cut & dry. But when someone discovers a different pathway to the answer, and it's put to the test, and the answers always come up correct, the teacher doesn't care. You have to use his formula. Yours is not acceptable, even though it's been proven it works.

So in the interest of peace, I'm letting this one go. I stand my ground. Because that's what Chuck would want.