Do you listen to talk radio? Watch political TV shows? Do they make your blood boil? Is that their goal? Do you ever get tired of all the negativity and vilification? It's not limited to those types of "entertainment" either, is it? The new cool seems to be the old angry (or at least complaining, gossiping or backbiting). What we need is a little sponge love.
What is sponge love? Remember those sponges for bathtime that were shaped in letters of the alphabet? That's the sponge part. We had those for our kids when they were real little and my wife and I started using them to write love letters to each other. That's the love part. It wasn't easy with one of each of the letters of the alphabet, so we had to get pretty creative. We eventually bought a second set, then a third. Finally we dumped them and went to dry erase markers. But the purpose is the same: be positive and loving.
Most of the following we actually have written on the shower wall. A few though are thoughts for what we can write in the future. So if you're feeling a little too much negativity in your life right now, sit back and soak in the positive love.
We'd have a utopian society if every man had a you.
You are more desirable every day.
Well done. (And the reply) I'd say you're rare.
Your laughter brings joy to my heart.
Wish I'd married you a lot earlier.
The lights dim when you leave the room.
Your daily gift of love spoils me.
You take my breath away. (Reply) Quick, let's do mouth to mouth.
I'm in debt for the love I owe you.
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways ... can't, there are too many.
My heart was reborn on our wedding day.
I'm a better person because I'm married to you.
You have two hearts: yours and mine.
All that I have is nothing without you.
There's never enough time to spend with you.
A gift of my love for your birthday (you can place a gift in the tub/shower with an arrow pointing to it). (Reply) But it's not my birthday. (Response) Every day I celebrate your life.
So why didn't I wait until Valentine's Day to write this kind of a piece? Because love shouldn't have to wait. And besides, you look like you needed it.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Nobel Peace Prize — Dy-no-mite!
Prestige. How does one get it and how does one hold onto it? The Norwegian Nobel Committee has attained great prestige with their annual prizes. They recently came under fire though for the award of their 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Whether you agree with the award or not, why does the world put so much emphasis on what the Norwegian Nobel Committee decides? Who are they? Who was Nobel?
The Norwegian Nobel Committee is made up of five members who are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. They are supposed to represent the political makeup of the Norwegian Parliament. Point #1: The Nobel Peace Prize is political.
The Nobel Committee is currently made up of one man (Chair of the committee) and four women. Two are from the Labour Party and each of the remaining three represents a different party: the Conservative Party, the Progress Party, and the Socialist Left Party. The Labour Party is officially a social democratic party. "[I]t is largely through their efforts that the modern welfare state in Norway has been created." The Conservative Party considers itself non-socialist, however its "social policies are quite liberal, with the party's programme supporting liberal policies such as gay adoption rights and marriage." It only received 14.1 percent of the vote in 2005. The Progress Party's original name was "Anders Lange’s Party for a Strong Reduction in Taxes, Duties and Public Intervention." It is considered right-winged. Though it "became the second largest political party in Norway for its first time in the 1997 parliamentary election, and has been so ever since, only abrupted by the 2001 parliamentary elections, " it "has yet to be part of a Norwegian government, mainly as a result of the concurrent ostracism by most of the other mainstream politcal [sic] parties." The Socialist Left Party was founded as "an alliance of the Socialist People's Party, Communist Party of Norway, Democratic Socialists - AIK and independent Socialists." The majority of the members of the committee are therefore socialist or socialist leaning with one member being "right-winged" whose party is ostracized by most of the other mainstream political parties. Sounds a lot like "The View". Why don't we just have Barbara, Whoopi, Joy, Sherri, and Elisabeth decide on who gets the Nobel Peace Prize? Would the outcome really be so much different? Point #2: The Nobel Committee is a left-leaning, socialist organization.
Alfred Bernhard Nobel was a Swedish chemist, engineer, inventor and manufacturer. His last will and testament established the Nobel Prizes using the majority of his estate to finance them. Of the Nobel Peace Prize his will states, from the Nobel Prize website: "... and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses (emphasis added)." He didn't say, "for actual accomplishments and not just for campaign promises," but it seems to be implied, wouldn't you think? Point #3: The Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be for work already accomplished.
And speaking of Alfred Nobel, he wasn't just any inventor and manufacturer, he was a major armaments manufacturer (he turned a company named Bofors from an iron and steel mill into a weapons manufacturer) and invented gelignite (blasting gelatin), ballistite (a smokeless replacement for gunpowder) and dynamite. Weapons for peace? He wrote a prose tragedy, which was regarded as scandalous and blasphemous. When his efforts to sell the rights to ballistite to the French government failed (he was then living in Paris) he licensed the rights to the Italian government. Nobel was accused of industrial espionage and high treason against France. He subsequently moved to Italy where he spent the rest of his life. A premature obituary of Nobel by a French newspaper stated, "The merchant of death is dead," and went on to say, "Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday." Point #4: The person who established the Nobel Peace Prize was not considered a man of peace.
To summarize:
● The person who established the Nobel Peace Prize was not considered a man of peace.
● The Nobel Peace Prize is political.
● The Nobel Committee is a left-leaning, socialist organization.
● The Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be for work already accomplished.
Does the prize still seem so prestigious now that you've learned these facts? Any organization is free to award what they want to whomever they want for whatever reason they want. That's not the issue. The issue is, should the rest of the world accept the political views of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, without question? Should we think this is the end-all award for peace? Are their decisions of any worth? If so, how much? As far as their last decision goes, it looks like they got back to their roots, because it certainly seems to have blown up in their faces.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee is made up of five members who are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. They are supposed to represent the political makeup of the Norwegian Parliament. Point #1: The Nobel Peace Prize is political.
The Nobel Committee is currently made up of one man (Chair of the committee) and four women. Two are from the Labour Party and each of the remaining three represents a different party: the Conservative Party, the Progress Party, and the Socialist Left Party. The Labour Party is officially a social democratic party. "[I]t is largely through their efforts that the modern welfare state in Norway has been created." The Conservative Party considers itself non-socialist, however its "social policies are quite liberal, with the party's programme supporting liberal policies such as gay adoption rights and marriage." It only received 14.1 percent of the vote in 2005. The Progress Party's original name was "Anders Lange’s Party for a Strong Reduction in Taxes, Duties and Public Intervention." It is considered right-winged. Though it "became the second largest political party in Norway for its first time in the 1997 parliamentary election, and has been so ever since, only abrupted by the 2001 parliamentary elections, " it "has yet to be part of a Norwegian government, mainly as a result of the concurrent ostracism by most of the other mainstream politcal [sic] parties." The Socialist Left Party was founded as "an alliance of the Socialist People's Party, Communist Party of Norway, Democratic Socialists - AIK and independent Socialists." The majority of the members of the committee are therefore socialist or socialist leaning with one member being "right-winged" whose party is ostracized by most of the other mainstream political parties. Sounds a lot like "The View". Why don't we just have Barbara, Whoopi, Joy, Sherri, and Elisabeth decide on who gets the Nobel Peace Prize? Would the outcome really be so much different? Point #2: The Nobel Committee is a left-leaning, socialist organization.
Alfred Bernhard Nobel was a Swedish chemist, engineer, inventor and manufacturer. His last will and testament established the Nobel Prizes using the majority of his estate to finance them. Of the Nobel Peace Prize his will states, from the Nobel Prize website: "... and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses (emphasis added)." He didn't say, "for actual accomplishments and not just for campaign promises," but it seems to be implied, wouldn't you think? Point #3: The Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be for work already accomplished.
And speaking of Alfred Nobel, he wasn't just any inventor and manufacturer, he was a major armaments manufacturer (he turned a company named Bofors from an iron and steel mill into a weapons manufacturer) and invented gelignite (blasting gelatin), ballistite (a smokeless replacement for gunpowder) and dynamite. Weapons for peace? He wrote a prose tragedy, which was regarded as scandalous and blasphemous. When his efforts to sell the rights to ballistite to the French government failed (he was then living in Paris) he licensed the rights to the Italian government. Nobel was accused of industrial espionage and high treason against France. He subsequently moved to Italy where he spent the rest of his life. A premature obituary of Nobel by a French newspaper stated, "The merchant of death is dead," and went on to say, "Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday." Point #4: The person who established the Nobel Peace Prize was not considered a man of peace.
To summarize:
● The person who established the Nobel Peace Prize was not considered a man of peace.
● The Nobel Peace Prize is political.
● The Nobel Committee is a left-leaning, socialist organization.
● The Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be for work already accomplished.
Does the prize still seem so prestigious now that you've learned these facts? Any organization is free to award what they want to whomever they want for whatever reason they want. That's not the issue. The issue is, should the rest of the world accept the political views of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, without question? Should we think this is the end-all award for peace? Are their decisions of any worth? If so, how much? As far as their last decision goes, it looks like they got back to their roots, because it certainly seems to have blown up in their faces.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The New Prejudice
There is a growing movement in society. It is one of rejecting long-held traditions; of saying what used to be unacceptable should now be acceptable. Every generation wants to make a name for itself. Many new generations reject their parents' belief systems in a misguided attempt to show they are independent, smarter, or more progressive than those who have gone before. Unfortunately this can, and does, lead to new prejudices.
What is a prejudice? The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition gives this etymology: "Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment." In other words, prejudice is a preconceived judgment or opinion. The same source continues: "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge" and "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."
This week Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican United States Representative for Florida's 18th congressional district, who is currently the most senior Republican woman in the U.S. House, reportedly made this statement: "The [enter any opposing stance] bigotry spewed by this ... shill demonstrates once again that [there are] advocates of hate and intolerance."
Bigotry? Shill? Hate? Intolerance? Sounds like we already meet the criteria for "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics." "Well, maybe it was deserved," you may think. What did the individual/group in question state that showed such bigotry, hate, and intolerance? Here's the statement I found by doing an Internet search, "That matter is very sensitive, very touchy. As a Muslim, I am not in favour of it . . . it is not accepted by the majority of countries. My opinion is not in favour of this matter at all. I think it's not really acceptable by our religion, our tradition."
Did you catch any hate speech at all? Just the opposite. He said it was a sensitive matter and seemed to treat it with respect. Intolerant? He said he was not in favor of it, but later recognized that "there are some countries that allow that". Does this mean that any time we are not in favor of something, that automatically makes us a bigot? It automatically makes us a hateful person because we don't accept all ideas, or at least the politically correct ones? What kind of logic is this?
This is the new prejudice: To prejudge someone with a differing viewpoint, call them names, and label them hateful and intolerant (which is exactly how the accuser is usually acting). It is being prejudice against anyone who doesn't agree with us and label them the "bad guy" in an effort to get people to accept our views and reject theirs. This new prejudice is running rampant in our society. In every news story that deals with opposing opinions/positions see if you can't recognize it. I see it all the time in the media. I see political figures use it regularly as a weapon against the other party. It's easy to call other people names, to make a straw man argument, and to throw out unsubstantiated accusations. Usually those who resort to such things do so because they don't have a leg to stand on themselves.
So, what was this differing opinion about that resulted in such irrational hostility? Does it matter? If you really want to know, go ahead and do an Internet search based on the direct quotes I used above. You may be surprised. You may even change your mind about who you think the "bad guy" is. If you do, you just might prove my point.
What is a prejudice? The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition gives this etymology: "Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment." In other words, prejudice is a preconceived judgment or opinion. The same source continues: "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge" and "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."
This week Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican United States Representative for Florida's 18th congressional district, who is currently the most senior Republican woman in the U.S. House, reportedly made this statement: "The [enter any opposing stance] bigotry spewed by this ... shill demonstrates once again that [there are] advocates of hate and intolerance."
Bigotry? Shill? Hate? Intolerance? Sounds like we already meet the criteria for "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics." "Well, maybe it was deserved," you may think. What did the individual/group in question state that showed such bigotry, hate, and intolerance? Here's the statement I found by doing an Internet search, "That matter is very sensitive, very touchy. As a Muslim, I am not in favour of it . . . it is not accepted by the majority of countries. My opinion is not in favour of this matter at all. I think it's not really acceptable by our religion, our tradition."
Did you catch any hate speech at all? Just the opposite. He said it was a sensitive matter and seemed to treat it with respect. Intolerant? He said he was not in favor of it, but later recognized that "there are some countries that allow that". Does this mean that any time we are not in favor of something, that automatically makes us a bigot? It automatically makes us a hateful person because we don't accept all ideas, or at least the politically correct ones? What kind of logic is this?
This is the new prejudice: To prejudge someone with a differing viewpoint, call them names, and label them hateful and intolerant (which is exactly how the accuser is usually acting). It is being prejudice against anyone who doesn't agree with us and label them the "bad guy" in an effort to get people to accept our views and reject theirs. This new prejudice is running rampant in our society. In every news story that deals with opposing opinions/positions see if you can't recognize it. I see it all the time in the media. I see political figures use it regularly as a weapon against the other party. It's easy to call other people names, to make a straw man argument, and to throw out unsubstantiated accusations. Usually those who resort to such things do so because they don't have a leg to stand on themselves.
So, what was this differing opinion about that resulted in such irrational hostility? Does it matter? If you really want to know, go ahead and do an Internet search based on the direct quotes I used above. You may be surprised. You may even change your mind about who you think the "bad guy" is. If you do, you just might prove my point.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Health Care Agreement
Last Wednesday President Barack Obama addressed Congress. In his address he spoke of those who oppose his health care plan and say it contains death panels. He called them liars. When Pres. Obama said his plan wouldn't offer free care to illegal immigrants, South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" There was a big uproar over stating that the President lied. No uproar over the President saying anyone else lied. There were many calls to show the President respect. But shouldn't the President show respect to others as well? There shouldn't be a double standard. I'm not saying President Obama lied, but is saying someone lies disrespectful if they are lying? History has shown that past presidents have lied. Wouldn't this country be better off if we were allowed our free speech and called politicians (respectfully, of course) on their false statements? Isn't that one of the main reasons our founding fathers felt it was so necessary for us to have free speech?
There was a news report this week that stated the Democrats and Republicans agree on 80% of health care reform. It didn't seem like a scientific 80%, but just a way of saying both sides agree much more than they disagree. According to reports the biggest disagreement is over having government-run health care. News flash: we already have two government-run health care programs. Ever heard of Medicaid and Medicare? Reports are constantly being aired that both programs will run out of money because spending practices are unsustainable. What makes us think a third government-run program will magically be any different?
Let's go back to the 80% agreement issue and for the sake of argument accept that 80% figure. In other words, our legislature has the opportunity to pass legislation to allegedly improve health care in this country, but because they're not getting 100% of their way 100% of the time, they want to throw out 80% of what they can improve? Doesn't that seem petty? That depends.
Successful legislators are grand negotiators. One of the greatest tools in negotiating is leverage. So they are all trying to leverage their agreement on the 80% in order to get more of what they want. After all, why settle for 80% when you can have 90% or even 99.44%? But the best negotiators know how far their leverage will take them and they don't hope for the impossible. As a servant of the people, which is what a legislator should be, you don't make the people suffer by getting nothing just because you want to look good by getting a few more tenths of a percentage in your favor.
So is there any valid reason to hold out for 100%? If it's for ethical, moral or legal grounds, then yes. Would it be illegal to have government-run health care? Apparently not since we already have it. Though many would argue it shouldn't be legal based upon our capitalist society versus one that is socialist or communist.
Many find it hard to define the difference between moral and ethical. They are typically used synonymously and will not be differentiated in this composition. They will encompass that which is considered right and wrong as well as refer to fair and/or acceptable treatment. Would it be immoral/unethical for the government not to offer health care? In other words, is it somehow morally wrong / ethically ignoble for the government if they don't run a health care system? If so, then our founding fathers established an immoral/unethical government. Remember, the Declaration of Independence does not declare that the unalienable rights are: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of health care." It may be argued that a government is ethically reprehensible if it doesn't at least try to make health care available to all citizens, but how can it be argued that government must run it or it's immoral? For example, the government has established law that all drivers must have car insurance, but the government didn't start their own car insurance company. Why must they do it for health care?
80%, 65%, or whatever amount of agreement there may be. How moral and/or ethical is it for our legislators to continue to quibble amongst themselves rather than to make at least a minor advancement, a small step in the right direction, to improve the health care system in this country? In the aforementioned speech President Obama stated, "Well, the time for bickering is over." Indeed.
There was a news report this week that stated the Democrats and Republicans agree on 80% of health care reform. It didn't seem like a scientific 80%, but just a way of saying both sides agree much more than they disagree. According to reports the biggest disagreement is over having government-run health care. News flash: we already have two government-run health care programs. Ever heard of Medicaid and Medicare? Reports are constantly being aired that both programs will run out of money because spending practices are unsustainable. What makes us think a third government-run program will magically be any different?
Let's go back to the 80% agreement issue and for the sake of argument accept that 80% figure. In other words, our legislature has the opportunity to pass legislation to allegedly improve health care in this country, but because they're not getting 100% of their way 100% of the time, they want to throw out 80% of what they can improve? Doesn't that seem petty? That depends.
Successful legislators are grand negotiators. One of the greatest tools in negotiating is leverage. So they are all trying to leverage their agreement on the 80% in order to get more of what they want. After all, why settle for 80% when you can have 90% or even 99.44%? But the best negotiators know how far their leverage will take them and they don't hope for the impossible. As a servant of the people, which is what a legislator should be, you don't make the people suffer by getting nothing just because you want to look good by getting a few more tenths of a percentage in your favor.
So is there any valid reason to hold out for 100%? If it's for ethical, moral or legal grounds, then yes. Would it be illegal to have government-run health care? Apparently not since we already have it. Though many would argue it shouldn't be legal based upon our capitalist society versus one that is socialist or communist.
Many find it hard to define the difference between moral and ethical. They are typically used synonymously and will not be differentiated in this composition. They will encompass that which is considered right and wrong as well as refer to fair and/or acceptable treatment. Would it be immoral/unethical for the government not to offer health care? In other words, is it somehow morally wrong / ethically ignoble for the government if they don't run a health care system? If so, then our founding fathers established an immoral/unethical government. Remember, the Declaration of Independence does not declare that the unalienable rights are: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of health care." It may be argued that a government is ethically reprehensible if it doesn't at least try to make health care available to all citizens, but how can it be argued that government must run it or it's immoral? For example, the government has established law that all drivers must have car insurance, but the government didn't start their own car insurance company. Why must they do it for health care?
80%, 65%, or whatever amount of agreement there may be. How moral and/or ethical is it for our legislators to continue to quibble amongst themselves rather than to make at least a minor advancement, a small step in the right direction, to improve the health care system in this country? In the aforementioned speech President Obama stated, "Well, the time for bickering is over." Indeed.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Lockerbie No Longer Be "Lockered" Up
Last Thursday Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, aka the Lockerbie Bomber, was released from a Scottish prison allegedly on the grounds of compassion. I say allegedly because there have been accusations that he was released to remove roadblocks hindering Britain’s leading oil companies from seeking multibillion-dollar oil deals with Libya. Since these are currently only allegations let's just focus on the premise that he was let out of prison on compassionate grounds. Scottish justice secretary, Kenny MacAskill, "said that the 'humanity' that prompted his decision was 'a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people.'”
Comments have been made that the Lockerbie Bomber showed no compassion for the innocents he murdered so why should compassion be extended to him. I commend those who feel that is the wrong yardstick to go by, but instead take the higher ground. But does the higher ground mean that compassion should trump justice?
Mr. Megrahi served only eight years of a life sentence imposed by a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands, which declared he serve a minimum of 27 years. If Scotland defines itself as being humane by releasing a convicted mass murderer after serving less than 1/3 of his minimum sentence, shouldn't they release everyone in their prisons who have served only 1/3 of their minimum sentence? Oh, that's right, Mr. Megrahi is supposed to be dying (aren't we all?). Hmm, I thought that's what a life sentence was about: that you die in prison.
Make no mistakes about it, compassion must never overrule the dictates of justice. If justice is met, then let us be as compassionate as we humanly can. If justice has not been met, then let us be compassionate within the bounds of not breaking or bending the rules or slapping justice in the face. Otherwise why don't we just decide to be super compassionate and let everyone out of prison? If terrorists decide to take over our country, let's just be compassionate and not fight them so they can mercilessly carry out genocide? How compassionate would that be to our citizens? It turns out it wouldn't be compassionate at all. You see, showing misguided compassion towards one can turn out to be cruelty to many others.
Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was flown home in a V.I.P. jetliner to scenes of a hero's welcome in Tripoli, Libya. (BTW mainstream media, thanks for eating out of terrorists' hands and prominently displaying such propaganda.) The son of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi (Libyan leader), Saif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, held up the hand of the Lockerbie Bomber upon his return to Tripoli as if in triumph. Sounds to me like slapping justice in the face.
Which is more compassionate? To "locker" up a convicted mass murderer or to "locker" up Lady Justice? Good thing Lady Justice is blind, otherwise she just might see that slap in the face coming.
Comments have been made that the Lockerbie Bomber showed no compassion for the innocents he murdered so why should compassion be extended to him. I commend those who feel that is the wrong yardstick to go by, but instead take the higher ground. But does the higher ground mean that compassion should trump justice?
Mr. Megrahi served only eight years of a life sentence imposed by a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands, which declared he serve a minimum of 27 years. If Scotland defines itself as being humane by releasing a convicted mass murderer after serving less than 1/3 of his minimum sentence, shouldn't they release everyone in their prisons who have served only 1/3 of their minimum sentence? Oh, that's right, Mr. Megrahi is supposed to be dying (aren't we all?). Hmm, I thought that's what a life sentence was about: that you die in prison.
Make no mistakes about it, compassion must never overrule the dictates of justice. If justice is met, then let us be as compassionate as we humanly can. If justice has not been met, then let us be compassionate within the bounds of not breaking or bending the rules or slapping justice in the face. Otherwise why don't we just decide to be super compassionate and let everyone out of prison? If terrorists decide to take over our country, let's just be compassionate and not fight them so they can mercilessly carry out genocide? How compassionate would that be to our citizens? It turns out it wouldn't be compassionate at all. You see, showing misguided compassion towards one can turn out to be cruelty to many others.
Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was flown home in a V.I.P. jetliner to scenes of a hero's welcome in Tripoli, Libya. (BTW mainstream media, thanks for eating out of terrorists' hands and prominently displaying such propaganda.) The son of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi (Libyan leader), Saif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, held up the hand of the Lockerbie Bomber upon his return to Tripoli as if in triumph. Sounds to me like slapping justice in the face.
Which is more compassionate? To "locker" up a convicted mass murderer or to "locker" up Lady Justice? Good thing Lady Justice is blind, otherwise she just might see that slap in the face coming.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Science vs. Religion
To listen to the media one might come to the conclusion that science and religion are at odds with each other. Are they? Do they need to be? What is science? What is religion?
One of the most common definitions we're familiar with for science is the third one listed in the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. When it comes to religion the same dictionary refers us to the word religious which is defined as: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality. Hmm, ultimate reality, knowledge, basically the search for truth, doesn't sound like they're all that different.
"But one is based on ignorant blind belief while the other uses hard facts," you may be screaming. Since we're looking for similarities here, let's apply the scientific method to religion and also see if there isn't any need for unsubstantiated belief or faith in science.
Though there are variations on the scientific method we will use the following:
1. Definition - Define what we're trying to find out
2. Observation - Observe and gather information
3. Hypothesis - An effort to use logical reasoning to explain the data
4. Experimentation - Perform experiments and document results
5. Analysis - Analyze the results
6. Conclusion - Decide what the data mean
7. Peer Review - Make sure others can repeat the experiment with the same results
8. Refine - Wash, rinse, repeat as necessary to confirm
The scientific community understands that there's a difference when using this method for social sciences in contrast to the natural sciences, but it's still a good method. My intent here is not to prove or disprove anything, nor to write an exhaustive doctoral thesis on the matter, but simply to demonstrate how the scientific method can be, and has been, applied to religion.
1. Definition: Is there some sort of supreme creator of the universe? 2. Observation: The universe exists. It is complex. 3. Hypothesis: Humans can create things. A being with greater knowledge (i.e., science) could create complex things. The hypothesis is that a supreme creator exists. 4. Experimentation: If a being exists there should be a way to communicate with it. If our minds were created by another being, this other being should be able to read the thoughts from our minds. The experiment is to use our thoughts to try and communicate (i.e., prayer). 5. Analysis: Thoughts were used to communicate. Thoughts (communications) came back to the mind as well as a change in feelings. 6. Conclusion: Communication was achieved with the supreme creator. 7. Peer Review: Millions upon millions--if not billions--of others have tried the experiment with the same results. 8. Refine: The results of the experiment are consistent and communication becomes easier as we learn to refine the experiment.
Remember, just because we can't build a machine to detect or recreate something going on (e.g., prayer), doesn't mean it can't exist. We currently don't have a machine that can recreate gravity; that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
OK, how about the flip side? Is faith ever required for science? First let's define faith by referring once again to Webster's: firm belief in something for which there is no proof : something that is believed especially with strong conviction. Most Darwinists seem to have a very strong conviction that the missing link exists, yet to date there is no proof; a missing link has never been found. Does science require faith? Check.
Looks like science and religion have a lot in common. Since they are both efforts to discover truth, they should not be at odds with each other. Instead of scientists fighting with religionists and religionists fighting with scientists, how about we work together to come to the knowledge of the truth?
One of the most common definitions we're familiar with for science is the third one listed in the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method. When it comes to religion the same dictionary refers us to the word religious which is defined as: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality. Hmm, ultimate reality, knowledge, basically the search for truth, doesn't sound like they're all that different.
"But one is based on ignorant blind belief while the other uses hard facts," you may be screaming. Since we're looking for similarities here, let's apply the scientific method to religion and also see if there isn't any need for unsubstantiated belief or faith in science.
Though there are variations on the scientific method we will use the following:
1. Definition - Define what we're trying to find out
2. Observation - Observe and gather information
3. Hypothesis - An effort to use logical reasoning to explain the data
4. Experimentation - Perform experiments and document results
5. Analysis - Analyze the results
6. Conclusion - Decide what the data mean
7. Peer Review - Make sure others can repeat the experiment with the same results
8. Refine - Wash, rinse, repeat as necessary to confirm
The scientific community understands that there's a difference when using this method for social sciences in contrast to the natural sciences, but it's still a good method. My intent here is not to prove or disprove anything, nor to write an exhaustive doctoral thesis on the matter, but simply to demonstrate how the scientific method can be, and has been, applied to religion.
1. Definition: Is there some sort of supreme creator of the universe? 2. Observation: The universe exists. It is complex. 3. Hypothesis: Humans can create things. A being with greater knowledge (i.e., science) could create complex things. The hypothesis is that a supreme creator exists. 4. Experimentation: If a being exists there should be a way to communicate with it. If our minds were created by another being, this other being should be able to read the thoughts from our minds. The experiment is to use our thoughts to try and communicate (i.e., prayer). 5. Analysis: Thoughts were used to communicate. Thoughts (communications) came back to the mind as well as a change in feelings. 6. Conclusion: Communication was achieved with the supreme creator. 7. Peer Review: Millions upon millions--if not billions--of others have tried the experiment with the same results. 8. Refine: The results of the experiment are consistent and communication becomes easier as we learn to refine the experiment.
Remember, just because we can't build a machine to detect or recreate something going on (e.g., prayer), doesn't mean it can't exist. We currently don't have a machine that can recreate gravity; that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
OK, how about the flip side? Is faith ever required for science? First let's define faith by referring once again to Webster's: firm belief in something for which there is no proof : something that is believed especially with strong conviction. Most Darwinists seem to have a very strong conviction that the missing link exists, yet to date there is no proof; a missing link has never been found. Does science require faith? Check.
Looks like science and religion have a lot in common. Since they are both efforts to discover truth, they should not be at odds with each other. Instead of scientists fighting with religionists and religionists fighting with scientists, how about we work together to come to the knowledge of the truth?
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Drugs and Taxes
Reportedly Massachusetts Representative Stephen Lynch recently referred to a proposed beer tax increase as a hate crime. And according to the AP this week, "A bill to tax and regulate marijuana in California like alcohol would generate nearly $1.4 billion in revenue for the cash-strapped state, according to an official analysis released Wednesday by tax officials." These types of taxes are typically called 'sin taxes'. Why do you think that is?
The former is an attempt to fund the Obama administration’s health care reform program. The latter, as mentioned, is to generate more revenue for a state. Would either work? Should they?
One blogger denounced the health care sin tax for three reasons. His first argument is that they don't work. He cited that people will then buy less, resulting is less revenue for the government. But is increased revenue the true purpose of a sin tax? Isn't its purpose being that since you're going to 'sin' anyway, you should pay for the ill effects you'll be causing by your 'sinning'? Increased alcohol consumption results in higher medical problems (and therefore costs) so why should others paying medical premiums pay more for others' bad decisions? If people really do consume less because the price is higher (due to taxes), then they'll increase their health resulting in decreased medical costs for everyone. I guess it depends upon what you mean by the tax 'working,' but it looks like it works to me. If they work then why not legalize marijuana in California? Remember our definition of something working in this regard: it decreases usage of something bad for us and/or society. Legalization increases use and according to the article, "Marijuana use would likely increase by about 30 percent once the law took effect...." So, no, it would be a bad idea to legalize marijuana in California.
The second argument was that these types of taxes result in job losses. Again, what is our goal? If tomorrow, all of a sudden, illegal drug usage stopped and all the drug lords and their ilk lost their 'jobs' would we cry foul? Wouldn't we be happy they lost that kind of 'job' and wouldn't we wish they would go out and get a legitimate job that would help rather than hurt society? One of the arguments for legalizing the use of marijuana is that it would create 'legitimate' jobs and businesses. It probably would--more EMTs, more police, etc.--but at what cost to society? California might be able to generate $1.4 billion in revenue, but how much of that would go toward counteracting the ill effects of marijuana use? My guess is that it would cost much more than $1.4 billion.
The final argument is that constituents don’t like them. I'm sure drug lords wouldn't like it if people stopped using their drugs either, but that's not the point. No one likes taxes to go up on the stuff they use. But should we be 'users' in the first place? Maybe the 'crime' here is not 'hating' the loss of controlling our own minds and giving that control up to a chemical.
The former is an attempt to fund the Obama administration’s health care reform program. The latter, as mentioned, is to generate more revenue for a state. Would either work? Should they?
One blogger denounced the health care sin tax for three reasons. His first argument is that they don't work. He cited that people will then buy less, resulting is less revenue for the government. But is increased revenue the true purpose of a sin tax? Isn't its purpose being that since you're going to 'sin' anyway, you should pay for the ill effects you'll be causing by your 'sinning'? Increased alcohol consumption results in higher medical problems (and therefore costs) so why should others paying medical premiums pay more for others' bad decisions? If people really do consume less because the price is higher (due to taxes), then they'll increase their health resulting in decreased medical costs for everyone. I guess it depends upon what you mean by the tax 'working,' but it looks like it works to me. If they work then why not legalize marijuana in California? Remember our definition of something working in this regard: it decreases usage of something bad for us and/or society. Legalization increases use and according to the article, "Marijuana use would likely increase by about 30 percent once the law took effect...." So, no, it would be a bad idea to legalize marijuana in California.
The second argument was that these types of taxes result in job losses. Again, what is our goal? If tomorrow, all of a sudden, illegal drug usage stopped and all the drug lords and their ilk lost their 'jobs' would we cry foul? Wouldn't we be happy they lost that kind of 'job' and wouldn't we wish they would go out and get a legitimate job that would help rather than hurt society? One of the arguments for legalizing the use of marijuana is that it would create 'legitimate' jobs and businesses. It probably would--more EMTs, more police, etc.--but at what cost to society? California might be able to generate $1.4 billion in revenue, but how much of that would go toward counteracting the ill effects of marijuana use? My guess is that it would cost much more than $1.4 billion.
The final argument is that constituents don’t like them. I'm sure drug lords wouldn't like it if people stopped using their drugs either, but that's not the point. No one likes taxes to go up on the stuff they use. But should we be 'users' in the first place? Maybe the 'crime' here is not 'hating' the loss of controlling our own minds and giving that control up to a chemical.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
ADULT VS. CHILD
In this corner ... an adult, struggling through life, trying to find happiness. And in this corner ... a giggling child, enjoying life to it's fullest. We who call ourselves adults, are we experiencing our second childhood or are we just acting childish? Is there a difference?
We obviously have differences when it comes to rules for adults and children. We can't have three year olds driving around in cars; they don't have the mental capacity at that age to realize it's not all fun and games and they shouldn't play bumper cars with daddy's second-childhood sports car. But should all the rules be different?
When our children are in pre-school or starting out in elementary school we teach them to "play nice." "No hitting." "Share." "Take your turn." "Make new friends." "Say you're sorry." And when they get old enough to understand we say, "Don't cheat." But something happens by the time they're in middle school/high school or at least by the time they're in college. The rules change. In sports we may say, "Kick their tail!" (or we use a more base remark). In business some teach, "Hit 'em where it hurts" or "Take away their market 'share'." Still others grow cynical as they get older and preach it's all about numero uno. If a friend's marriage ends in divorce, the jilted may say, "I'll never forgive him/her!" As their friend do we pat them on the hand and tell them they're right; they shouldn't? Maybe our friend was the one who 'cheated' on their spouse and when we found out about it we gave them a little wink and a nudge? "It's OK as long as you get away with it"?
Why should children be taught to play nice if all we're going to do to them when they grow up is to unteach them? Three year olds shouldn't drive because they don't have the mental capacity to handle it. Can children not understand kicking some tail? Of course they can, it's human nature. So that's not the reason we don't start young to teach them to play dirty. We start them out young to teach them to rise above their human nature; to be better than just giving in to animalistic impulses. So why change the lessons when they get older?
Here's another example of a double standard: alcohol. Oh, but you say, children can't 'handle it'. Yeah, as though the laws of physics stop working for 'adults'. Sure, children's bodies are smaller and more susceptible to alcohol's influence, but how many 'adults' can't 'handle it'? How many drunken driving deaths are there? How many abused family members are there? How many shattered homes, lost jobs, lost chastity, lost souls are there from 'adults' who thought they could 'handle it'? Children always think they're invincible and it's not going to happen to them. Adults are supposed to be more mature. What about 'adult' entertainment? "I'll give you some money if you show me yours" sounds like something an immature child would say, not someone who's supposed to be grown up.
There's a difference between being childlike and childish. Unfortunately in today's society we label too many things 'adult' when all they really are are childish. Maybe it's time we all went through our second childhood and took on childlike qualities such as "Play nice." "No hitting." "Share." "Take your turn." "Make new friends." "Say you're sorry." "Don't cheat." Then maybe we can all enjoy childlike laughter again.
We obviously have differences when it comes to rules for adults and children. We can't have three year olds driving around in cars; they don't have the mental capacity at that age to realize it's not all fun and games and they shouldn't play bumper cars with daddy's second-childhood sports car. But should all the rules be different?
When our children are in pre-school or starting out in elementary school we teach them to "play nice." "No hitting." "Share." "Take your turn." "Make new friends." "Say you're sorry." And when they get old enough to understand we say, "Don't cheat." But something happens by the time they're in middle school/high school or at least by the time they're in college. The rules change. In sports we may say, "Kick their tail!" (or we use a more base remark). In business some teach, "Hit 'em where it hurts" or "Take away their market 'share'." Still others grow cynical as they get older and preach it's all about numero uno. If a friend's marriage ends in divorce, the jilted may say, "I'll never forgive him/her!" As their friend do we pat them on the hand and tell them they're right; they shouldn't? Maybe our friend was the one who 'cheated' on their spouse and when we found out about it we gave them a little wink and a nudge? "It's OK as long as you get away with it"?
Why should children be taught to play nice if all we're going to do to them when they grow up is to unteach them? Three year olds shouldn't drive because they don't have the mental capacity to handle it. Can children not understand kicking some tail? Of course they can, it's human nature. So that's not the reason we don't start young to teach them to play dirty. We start them out young to teach them to rise above their human nature; to be better than just giving in to animalistic impulses. So why change the lessons when they get older?
Here's another example of a double standard: alcohol. Oh, but you say, children can't 'handle it'. Yeah, as though the laws of physics stop working for 'adults'. Sure, children's bodies are smaller and more susceptible to alcohol's influence, but how many 'adults' can't 'handle it'? How many drunken driving deaths are there? How many abused family members are there? How many shattered homes, lost jobs, lost chastity, lost souls are there from 'adults' who thought they could 'handle it'? Children always think they're invincible and it's not going to happen to them. Adults are supposed to be more mature. What about 'adult' entertainment? "I'll give you some money if you show me yours" sounds like something an immature child would say, not someone who's supposed to be grown up.
There's a difference between being childlike and childish. Unfortunately in today's society we label too many things 'adult' when all they really are are childish. Maybe it's time we all went through our second childhood and took on childlike qualities such as "Play nice." "No hitting." "Share." "Take your turn." "Make new friends." "Say you're sorry." "Don't cheat." Then maybe we can all enjoy childlike laughter again.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Happy Freedom Day
Yes, I know, it's supposed to be Happy Independence Day or Happy 4th of July, but aren't we really celebrating our freedom? As I've written before (here, here and here) there is much confusion about freedom. Does freedom mean being able to do whatever we want whenever, however, or wherever we want? Absolutely not. Freedom doesn't mean the right to harm others and some would argue not even the right to hurt ourselves (which subject I won't tackle right now). Freedom doesn't mean free from rules, laws or regulations either; that would be anarchy and anarchy seriously restricts freedoms.
What does freedom mean then? Depending upon which dictionary you consult, the typical definition is: the power to act, speak or think without externally imposed restraints. So if there's an "externally imposed restraint" or law to not steal, has the government taken away a freedom? That depends. Why? Because you still have the power to act out a theft or speak or think about stealing. No freedom to choose has been taken away; you can still rob someone if you so choose no matter what the law is. The freedom of choice to act, speak or think has not been taken from you, only the freedom to choose the consequence for your wrongful act. Do you see the difference?
What "freedoms" should governments grant? To rephrase what I stated in the previous paragraph: governments--or any entity for that matter--cannot take away our freedom to choose, they can only establish the consequences of those choices. (To be perfectly accurate there are exceptions such as execution or frontal lobotomies, which take away our ability to choose, but those options are obvious freedom limiters and are not included here.) Therefore governments grant freedom from undesirable consequences. Isn't that really the "freedom" we're talking about?
To recap:
Freedom of choice cannot be taken away
Freedom from consequences of choice can
The question then becomes should all undesirable consequences be taken away in order to establish "freedom"? No, of course not. There should be undesirable consequences for such things as theft, murder, etc. But what gets included in the "etc."? Like it or not, that's where society's moral compass comes into play; what we, collectively, think or feel is right or wrong. If we declare it "right," we pass laws to establish freedom from undesirable consequences. If we declare it "wrong," we pass laws establishing undesirable consequences. Too often I hear, "You can't legislate morality." If you look at the situation with a discerning eye, that is really all we ever legislate. We just better make sure we know what's really right and wrong.
What does freedom mean then? Depending upon which dictionary you consult, the typical definition is: the power to act, speak or think without externally imposed restraints. So if there's an "externally imposed restraint" or law to not steal, has the government taken away a freedom? That depends. Why? Because you still have the power to act out a theft or speak or think about stealing. No freedom to choose has been taken away; you can still rob someone if you so choose no matter what the law is. The freedom of choice to act, speak or think has not been taken from you, only the freedom to choose the consequence for your wrongful act. Do you see the difference?
What "freedoms" should governments grant? To rephrase what I stated in the previous paragraph: governments--or any entity for that matter--cannot take away our freedom to choose, they can only establish the consequences of those choices. (To be perfectly accurate there are exceptions such as execution or frontal lobotomies, which take away our ability to choose, but those options are obvious freedom limiters and are not included here.) Therefore governments grant freedom from undesirable consequences. Isn't that really the "freedom" we're talking about?
To recap:
Freedom of choice cannot be taken away
Freedom from consequences of choice can
The question then becomes should all undesirable consequences be taken away in order to establish "freedom"? No, of course not. There should be undesirable consequences for such things as theft, murder, etc. But what gets included in the "etc."? Like it or not, that's where society's moral compass comes into play; what we, collectively, think or feel is right or wrong. If we declare it "right," we pass laws to establish freedom from undesirable consequences. If we declare it "wrong," we pass laws establishing undesirable consequences. Too often I hear, "You can't legislate morality." If you look at the situation with a discerning eye, that is really all we ever legislate. We just better make sure we know what's really right and wrong.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
What Are You Waiting For?
Have you ever seen a movie that moved slowly or was somewhat boring, was pretty predictable or had a lackluster plot, had little to no action or didn't have much to look at, had acting that left a lot to be desired, had a flat dialog, or for all intents and purposes on an artistic scale you would give it a very low rating, but for some reason you still liked the movie? Sometimes the story is bigger than the movie. Sometimes the art form is uninspiring, but the message is very inspiring. I recently saw a movie like that (OK, it didn't have all those bad traits.)
The movie was "based on a true story." Unlike most movies with that subtitle, this one did not seem to veer far from reality much at all. Maybe that's why it didn't make for an exciting movie; real lives aren't like the movies.
Of course some celebrity lives are presented to us as never-ending dramas. This week three big celebrities passed away. Up until the very end of their lives they always seemed to give the media fodder for a story. However you personally felt about the way they lived their lives, hopefully in some way they touched your life for the better.
That's what made the aforementioned movie worth watching: it was about a man who made other lives better. He started out a frustrated and angry person, but then had a life-changing experience. He now goes around the world on speaking engagements telling his story and trying to lift others. He and his wife established and run an orphanage in Africa for children whose lives have been affected by HIV/AIDS (lost parents to it, have it themselves, etc.) He hasn't touched millions of lives (yet) like those three celebrities, but he has touched thousands. He mentions in the extra footage on the DVD that we don't have to touch millions of lives, we just need to start where we're at. That's exactly what he did. He didn't start out to change the world, he started out to change himself.
Everyone's sphere of influence is different. But even if you can influence just one person's life for the better, you've accomplished something remarkable, even if that one person is you. So pay it forward, do a random act of kindness, be a good Samaritan, perform unselfish service, pick up the phone and call an old friend, etc. It doesn't have to be grand or spectacular or exciting. Don't worry about how big or small the act is. Most often it's the small acts that mean the most anyway. Whatever it is, whatever it takes, just do it and do it now.
So . . . what are you waiting for?
The movie was "based on a true story." Unlike most movies with that subtitle, this one did not seem to veer far from reality much at all. Maybe that's why it didn't make for an exciting movie; real lives aren't like the movies.
Of course some celebrity lives are presented to us as never-ending dramas. This week three big celebrities passed away. Up until the very end of their lives they always seemed to give the media fodder for a story. However you personally felt about the way they lived their lives, hopefully in some way they touched your life for the better.
That's what made the aforementioned movie worth watching: it was about a man who made other lives better. He started out a frustrated and angry person, but then had a life-changing experience. He now goes around the world on speaking engagements telling his story and trying to lift others. He and his wife established and run an orphanage in Africa for children whose lives have been affected by HIV/AIDS (lost parents to it, have it themselves, etc.) He hasn't touched millions of lives (yet) like those three celebrities, but he has touched thousands. He mentions in the extra footage on the DVD that we don't have to touch millions of lives, we just need to start where we're at. That's exactly what he did. He didn't start out to change the world, he started out to change himself.
Everyone's sphere of influence is different. But even if you can influence just one person's life for the better, you've accomplished something remarkable, even if that one person is you. So pay it forward, do a random act of kindness, be a good Samaritan, perform unselfish service, pick up the phone and call an old friend, etc. It doesn't have to be grand or spectacular or exciting. Don't worry about how big or small the act is. Most often it's the small acts that mean the most anyway. Whatever it is, whatever it takes, just do it and do it now.
So . . . what are you waiting for?
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Legalize and Legitimize
It's legal, so there must not be anything wrong with it, right? That's the problem with legalizing anything, people begin to believe there's nothing wrong with it just because it's legal. But there are many things that are legal which result in scourges on society, especially those things that result in addictions. If Prohibition had never been repealed would we have the high rates of alcoholism we experience today? What about gambling addictions? And pornography, would there be so much heartache and so many broken homes if it were illegal and harder to get a hold of?
To illustrate, let's take a look at abortion rates in the United States before abortion for convenience was legalized in 1973. For the three years before it was legalized (as far back as I could find on the CDC website) the ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) ranged from 52 to 180. Since 1974 (first full year of convenient abortions) the rate has ranged from 238 to 364 (Note: The last year of the report is 2004). That's more than double. I guess twice as many people were convinced that since it's legal it must be OK now.
Many people are crying to legalize currently illegal drugs, more particularly marijuana. Do we want drug usage to double? Triple ... or go even higher? Do we want more people out there not thinking straight? Many argue that we're causing worse crimes because we're actually creating drug lords by keeping these drugs illegal rather than allowing drug lords to become "legitimate" businessmen. What? Are we creating thieves by having crimes against theft? Should we turn robbery into a "legitimate" business? Do we create murderers by having laws against murder? What kind of ridiculous argument is that? We don't force anyone to do something wrong just by making an act illegal. They choose to do something wrong whether it's legal or not. (Remember, making it legal doesn't make it right.) Others argue that it's too hard to police drug use. If theft or murder were too hard to police, should we stop making those acts illegal?
Should we get rid of any law because we don't have enough backbone, because it's just too hard on us to do the right thing? If fighting against what's wrong is not working well enough or we don't like handling it because it's too inconvenient; those just aren't legitimate excuses to give up and make anything legal.
The inconvenient truth here is that to legalize is to legitimize. Let's not legitimize any more scourges on society. In fact, why don't we get rid of the legal monsters we've already created?
To illustrate, let's take a look at abortion rates in the United States before abortion for convenience was legalized in 1973. For the three years before it was legalized (as far back as I could find on the CDC website) the ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) ranged from 52 to 180. Since 1974 (first full year of convenient abortions) the rate has ranged from 238 to 364 (Note: The last year of the report is 2004). That's more than double. I guess twice as many people were convinced that since it's legal it must be OK now.
Many people are crying to legalize currently illegal drugs, more particularly marijuana. Do we want drug usage to double? Triple ... or go even higher? Do we want more people out there not thinking straight? Many argue that we're causing worse crimes because we're actually creating drug lords by keeping these drugs illegal rather than allowing drug lords to become "legitimate" businessmen. What? Are we creating thieves by having crimes against theft? Should we turn robbery into a "legitimate" business? Do we create murderers by having laws against murder? What kind of ridiculous argument is that? We don't force anyone to do something wrong just by making an act illegal. They choose to do something wrong whether it's legal or not. (Remember, making it legal doesn't make it right.) Others argue that it's too hard to police drug use. If theft or murder were too hard to police, should we stop making those acts illegal?
Should we get rid of any law because we don't have enough backbone, because it's just too hard on us to do the right thing? If fighting against what's wrong is not working well enough or we don't like handling it because it's too inconvenient; those just aren't legitimate excuses to give up and make anything legal.
The inconvenient truth here is that to legalize is to legitimize. Let's not legitimize any more scourges on society. In fact, why don't we get rid of the legal monsters we've already created?
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Equality ≠ Equal
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." and so begins the second sentence in the United States Declaration of Independence. Equality is one of the basic tenets of our society, but what exactly does being equal mean?
There are people who are born without limbs. Are they equal in the ability to move and carry objects as those who are born with limbs? Were they "created equal" as the Declaration of Independence states? If we say that an inequality does exist for those born without limbs do we cry, "foul ... unfair ... cruel universe"? Should we then level the playing field so to speak and force everyone to be equal? What would that look like? Would we tie back limbs or surgically remove them? Who would perform the surgery if no one had limbs? People are also born with different levels of intelligence, some even with what we call mental disabilities. Should everyone then undergo frontal lobotomies or other brain surgeries to make us all equal? Who would be left to intelligently perform brain surgery?
These scenarios sound ridiculous, don't they? So why doesn't all forced equality sound just as ridiculous?
I have a sister who did not enjoy school and did not do well at it. Our father was a school teacher so one would expect him to have a high educational standard for his children, and he did. He expected me to get straight A's. Yet he did not expect that of my sister and would be elated if she came home with straight C's. Was he unfair? No, he treated us equally. How is that possible? By having different (unequal) standards for each of us based on our individuality he treated us equally by encouraging us equally to be at our best. Equality means understanding and accepting differences and not forcing sameness. Being "created equal" to me means all human beings are of equal value. We are all different but we all have the same worth, which is priceless.
This year the world has experienced the scare of the "swine" or H1N1 flu virus. Mexico seems to have been the hardest hit, but it has affected people from divers nations with diverse ethnic backgrounds. We know scientifically that some diseases seem to be more prevalent for certain races than for others. For the sake of argument let's say there was a new virus that only affected Latinos. If we developed a vaccine for the disease would we distribute it based on race or would we be "equal" and make sure all races received equal amounts? In this case, by "favoring" that one race--only giving it to them--we would be treating all races equally: those who need it get it, those who don't need it don't get it.
In the late 70's and early 80's there was a huge push to pass the Equal Rights Amendment ("ERA"). [Note: It has been reintroduced in every Congress since 1982.] For those not familiar with the ERA, it basically mandates that the law turn a blind eye to gender, or in other words, the law would not recognize that there is any difference between men and women. The big problem is that there are differences. (Any scientist could confirm that for you in case you're in doubt.)
So why would I write about equality this week? Because this week the California Supreme Court ruling upheld the voters' passage of Proposition 8. Opponents immediately cried foul stating that California is not treating people equally. But haven't we established that in order to treat people equally they must be treated differently because they are different? By definition homosexuals claim that there are differences between men and women because they prefer one over the other. Men and women are different. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are different. So let's not force equality by fooling ourselves into saying everything is the same. It's not. Marriage should not be forced to undergo a frontal lobotomy to make it "equal".
There are people who are born without limbs. Are they equal in the ability to move and carry objects as those who are born with limbs? Were they "created equal" as the Declaration of Independence states? If we say that an inequality does exist for those born without limbs do we cry, "foul ... unfair ... cruel universe"? Should we then level the playing field so to speak and force everyone to be equal? What would that look like? Would we tie back limbs or surgically remove them? Who would perform the surgery if no one had limbs? People are also born with different levels of intelligence, some even with what we call mental disabilities. Should everyone then undergo frontal lobotomies or other brain surgeries to make us all equal? Who would be left to intelligently perform brain surgery?
These scenarios sound ridiculous, don't they? So why doesn't all forced equality sound just as ridiculous?
I have a sister who did not enjoy school and did not do well at it. Our father was a school teacher so one would expect him to have a high educational standard for his children, and he did. He expected me to get straight A's. Yet he did not expect that of my sister and would be elated if she came home with straight C's. Was he unfair? No, he treated us equally. How is that possible? By having different (unequal) standards for each of us based on our individuality he treated us equally by encouraging us equally to be at our best. Equality means understanding and accepting differences and not forcing sameness. Being "created equal" to me means all human beings are of equal value. We are all different but we all have the same worth, which is priceless.
This year the world has experienced the scare of the "swine" or H1N1 flu virus. Mexico seems to have been the hardest hit, but it has affected people from divers nations with diverse ethnic backgrounds. We know scientifically that some diseases seem to be more prevalent for certain races than for others. For the sake of argument let's say there was a new virus that only affected Latinos. If we developed a vaccine for the disease would we distribute it based on race or would we be "equal" and make sure all races received equal amounts? In this case, by "favoring" that one race--only giving it to them--we would be treating all races equally: those who need it get it, those who don't need it don't get it.
In the late 70's and early 80's there was a huge push to pass the Equal Rights Amendment ("ERA"). [Note: It has been reintroduced in every Congress since 1982.] For those not familiar with the ERA, it basically mandates that the law turn a blind eye to gender, or in other words, the law would not recognize that there is any difference between men and women. The big problem is that there are differences. (Any scientist could confirm that for you in case you're in doubt.)
So why would I write about equality this week? Because this week the California Supreme Court ruling upheld the voters' passage of Proposition 8. Opponents immediately cried foul stating that California is not treating people equally. But haven't we established that in order to treat people equally they must be treated differently because they are different? By definition homosexuals claim that there are differences between men and women because they prefer one over the other. Men and women are different. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are different. So let's not force equality by fooling ourselves into saying everything is the same. It's not. Marriage should not be forced to undergo a frontal lobotomy to make it "equal".
Saturday, May 23, 2009
A Memorable Holiday
Are you enjoying this holiday weekend? Is there such a thing as a bad holiday? It's always nice to have some extra time, but it's important to stop and think why we've been given a holiday. This one more so than some others.
I think the 4th of July is another one of those holidays we should stop and think about. Our last one was pretty memorable. We did something quite different than we ever had in the past. My son had recently gotten into model rockets so we decided to shoot some of them off. We ended up not launching any rockets because of how windy it was, so no "rockets' red glare," but we did launch something that wouldn’t be affected by the wind: we decided to launch one of my daughter’s dolls.
Yeah, weird, I know. Earlier in the day my niece’s boyfriend was helping my daughter color one of her dolls with a Sharpie. My daughter calls it a Barbie doll because it’s the size of a Barbie, but it was a Troy doll from High School Musical. My daughter cut the doll’s hair and our niece’s boyfriend gave it a mustache. They thought it looked like Ben Stiller from one of his movies. I don’t remember how the conversation got from there to substituting “Ben” for a rocket, but it did. We even gave him a red cape. He didn’t go very high (dolls are much heavier than model rockets), maybe 20 feet, but we still considered it a successful launch. It still looked funny and gave us all a good laugh.
I’ll bet you didn’t know that Ben Stiller was a superhero, did you? Have you noticed how popular superhero movies are lately? They’ve yet to make a feature length film of my childhood superhero: the Green Lantern. I guess I liked him because he was just an ordinary mortal that was given a special ring which granted him superhero powers by “the Guardians of the Universe” because he was a good person and could be trusted. Society has always seemed to have a fascination with heroes, especially super ones (e.g., Greek and Roman mythology). Of course the only ones that actually count are real life heroes.
I think that what this holiday's about: real life superheroes; just mortals who have been called upon by the Guardians of our "universe" (nation) to protect our freedoms by giving their all.
Others have not been called upon to give their all, though they were willing to. They deserve some memory engrams as well. We don't need to just sit back though, we can be their sidekicks; something many of us didn't do very well at during the Vietnam War. And the least we can do as sidekicks is to remember these heroes during this holiday.
I think the 4th of July is another one of those holidays we should stop and think about. Our last one was pretty memorable. We did something quite different than we ever had in the past. My son had recently gotten into model rockets so we decided to shoot some of them off. We ended up not launching any rockets because of how windy it was, so no "rockets' red glare," but we did launch something that wouldn’t be affected by the wind: we decided to launch one of my daughter’s dolls.
Yeah, weird, I know. Earlier in the day my niece’s boyfriend was helping my daughter color one of her dolls with a Sharpie. My daughter calls it a Barbie doll because it’s the size of a Barbie, but it was a Troy doll from High School Musical. My daughter cut the doll’s hair and our niece’s boyfriend gave it a mustache. They thought it looked like Ben Stiller from one of his movies. I don’t remember how the conversation got from there to substituting “Ben” for a rocket, but it did. We even gave him a red cape. He didn’t go very high (dolls are much heavier than model rockets), maybe 20 feet, but we still considered it a successful launch. It still looked funny and gave us all a good laugh.
I’ll bet you didn’t know that Ben Stiller was a superhero, did you? Have you noticed how popular superhero movies are lately? They’ve yet to make a feature length film of my childhood superhero: the Green Lantern. I guess I liked him because he was just an ordinary mortal that was given a special ring which granted him superhero powers by “the Guardians of the Universe” because he was a good person and could be trusted. Society has always seemed to have a fascination with heroes, especially super ones (e.g., Greek and Roman mythology). Of course the only ones that actually count are real life heroes.
I think that what this holiday's about: real life superheroes; just mortals who have been called upon by the Guardians of our "universe" (nation) to protect our freedoms by giving their all.
Others have not been called upon to give their all, though they were willing to. They deserve some memory engrams as well. We don't need to just sit back though, we can be their sidekicks; something many of us didn't do very well at during the Vietnam War. And the least we can do as sidekicks is to remember these heroes during this holiday.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
How Far Would You Go To Protect A Child?
Last month the San Jose (California) City Council voted against a proposal to put filters on public library computers to protect children from exposure to porn sites (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=6771963). Opponents of the proposal sited First Amendment "rights" and the cost of filters. This isn't the first municipality to rule against protecting children. I've written on First Amendment rights in the past and on how there needs to be a balance. As far as the cost of filters goes, I'm the IT Director where I work and I use a free and open source software (FOSS) filter that gets the job done better than the one I used to pay for.
What do you think workers of a public library would do if some people came into their library and stated they were going to a corner of the library to take pornographic pictures (but of course quietly so they wouldn't "disturb" other patrons)? Would they allow it because everyone has the "right" to freedom of expression or would they immediately dial 911? Chances are, the latter. And I'm willing to bet that the majority of society would also agree that such expression would be inappropriate. So if we don't allow such lewdness through the front doors of libraries why do we allow it through the Internet doors? Have you ever been to a public library that had Playboy magazines or porn films on their shelves? Then why allow access to such things on their computers?
Someone attending the meeting said, "Why use anyone's money to filter where nothing happens?" Apparently that person was uninformed that, "There have ... been 14 complaints to library staff regarding the use of explicit content," and that "ABC7's 2006 I-Team investigation captured several library patrons performing lewd acts while visiting porn sites." But it doesn't just happen in San Jose (see Man arrested on child pornography charges following library incident, Isabella Co. Man Arrested for Printing Child Porn on Library Computers, and Man arrested with child pornography after leering at children outside Covington library to name a few). The fact is, it does happen too frequently and there are free and low cost ways to alleviate it.
"But they have a 'right' to view it if they want to," others may say, "the First Amendment guarantees it." Since when did the First Amendment guarantee that the government supply illicit material to its people?
Of course the ACLU was there to defend their everything/anything goes stance. Their representative, Skyler Porras, said we should "not deny people access to important health and sexuality information." Again, where exactly in the Constitution does it say the government must supply this? Should we supply this to our children? According to City Council Member Pete Constant, "Studies have shown that 75-percent of children get to pornographic sites inadvertently and that's something I think we should be protecting our youngest children from in our libraries."
The most common argument seems to be the "legitimate research" (e.g., breast feeding or other physical health related issues, etc.) that an upstanding citizen can't get to because a filter has miscategorized it. Are these people saying that they are unwilling to go to an Internet café or a friend's house to do their research instead of a public library because their inconvenience is more important than protecting children from debauchery? Also--and I hate to sound like a broken record here--but why is it the government's responsibility to provide this research for free?
So what's more important to you: protecting children or protecting your selfishness?
What do you think workers of a public library would do if some people came into their library and stated they were going to a corner of the library to take pornographic pictures (but of course quietly so they wouldn't "disturb" other patrons)? Would they allow it because everyone has the "right" to freedom of expression or would they immediately dial 911? Chances are, the latter. And I'm willing to bet that the majority of society would also agree that such expression would be inappropriate. So if we don't allow such lewdness through the front doors of libraries why do we allow it through the Internet doors? Have you ever been to a public library that had Playboy magazines or porn films on their shelves? Then why allow access to such things on their computers?
Someone attending the meeting said, "Why use anyone's money to filter where nothing happens?" Apparently that person was uninformed that, "There have ... been 14 complaints to library staff regarding the use of explicit content," and that "ABC7's 2006 I-Team investigation captured several library patrons performing lewd acts while visiting porn sites." But it doesn't just happen in San Jose (see Man arrested on child pornography charges following library incident, Isabella Co. Man Arrested for Printing Child Porn on Library Computers, and Man arrested with child pornography after leering at children outside Covington library to name a few). The fact is, it does happen too frequently and there are free and low cost ways to alleviate it.
"But they have a 'right' to view it if they want to," others may say, "the First Amendment guarantees it." Since when did the First Amendment guarantee that the government supply illicit material to its people?
Of course the ACLU was there to defend their everything/anything goes stance. Their representative, Skyler Porras, said we should "not deny people access to important health and sexuality information." Again, where exactly in the Constitution does it say the government must supply this? Should we supply this to our children? According to City Council Member Pete Constant, "Studies have shown that 75-percent of children get to pornographic sites inadvertently and that's something I think we should be protecting our youngest children from in our libraries."
The most common argument seems to be the "legitimate research" (e.g., breast feeding or other physical health related issues, etc.) that an upstanding citizen can't get to because a filter has miscategorized it. Are these people saying that they are unwilling to go to an Internet café or a friend's house to do their research instead of a public library because their inconvenience is more important than protecting children from debauchery? Also--and I hate to sound like a broken record here--but why is it the government's responsibility to provide this research for free?
So what's more important to you: protecting children or protecting your selfishness?
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Quotes
Every now and again someone gets a flash of inspiration and captures an insight that, typically, is expressed in not very many words yet speaks volumes. There are many famous quotes; some valuable, some not worthy of their notoriety. Following are some quotes that have recently been sent to me. See how many you find which you would consider putting in the valuable category.
Never give up what you want most, for what you want at the moment. --Anonymous
Some people are making such thorough preparation for rainy days that they aren't enjoying today's sunshine. --Anonymous
A life with love will have some thorns but a life without love will have no roses. --Anonymous
This is the true test of love: to respect and serve those who can be of no use to us at all. --Anonymous
We cannot make others do the right things. We can only show them by our example what doing the right things looks like. --Anonymous
For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness. --Anonymous
One person working with you is worth a dozen working for you. --Anonymous
When you judge others you do not define them, you define yourself. --Anonymous
A marriage may be made in heaven but the maintenance must be done on earth. --Anonymous
To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover the prisoner was you. --Anonymous
We do not suddenly become what we do not participate in becoming. --Anonymous
When we're through changing, we're through. --Bruce Barton
Nothing is invented and perfected at the same time. --John Ray
Most of our faults are more pardonable than the means we use to conceal them. --Anonymous
Life is 10% what happens to us and 90% what we decide to do about it. --Thomas Edison
It isn't enough to put your best foot forward, you have to follow through with your other foot too. --Anonymous
It is only those who do not know how to work that do not love it. To those who do, it is better than play. --Anonymous
The highest possible reward of any mans toil is not what he gets for it but what he becomes by it. --John Ruskin
Expectations are premeditated resentments. --Anonymous
The grass may look greener on the other side but it still has to be mowed. --Anonymous
Just because we have taken one step down a wrong road is no reason why we have to take two. --Anonymous
The mighty oak was once a little nut that stood its ground. --Anonymous
Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does. --Anonymous
One last note: Too often quotes are attributed to the wrong person or not attributed when they should be. My apologies if there are any of those above.
Never give up what you want most, for what you want at the moment. --Anonymous
Some people are making such thorough preparation for rainy days that they aren't enjoying today's sunshine. --Anonymous
A life with love will have some thorns but a life without love will have no roses. --Anonymous
This is the true test of love: to respect and serve those who can be of no use to us at all. --Anonymous
We cannot make others do the right things. We can only show them by our example what doing the right things looks like. --Anonymous
For every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness. --Anonymous
One person working with you is worth a dozen working for you. --Anonymous
When you judge others you do not define them, you define yourself. --Anonymous
A marriage may be made in heaven but the maintenance must be done on earth. --Anonymous
To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover the prisoner was you. --Anonymous
We do not suddenly become what we do not participate in becoming. --Anonymous
When we're through changing, we're through. --Bruce Barton
Nothing is invented and perfected at the same time. --John Ray
Most of our faults are more pardonable than the means we use to conceal them. --Anonymous
Life is 10% what happens to us and 90% what we decide to do about it. --Thomas Edison
It isn't enough to put your best foot forward, you have to follow through with your other foot too. --Anonymous
It is only those who do not know how to work that do not love it. To those who do, it is better than play. --Anonymous
The highest possible reward of any mans toil is not what he gets for it but what he becomes by it. --John Ruskin
Expectations are premeditated resentments. --Anonymous
The grass may look greener on the other side but it still has to be mowed. --Anonymous
Just because we have taken one step down a wrong road is no reason why we have to take two. --Anonymous
The mighty oak was once a little nut that stood its ground. --Anonymous
Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does. --Anonymous
One last note: Too often quotes are attributed to the wrong person or not attributed when they should be. My apologies if there are any of those above.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The Right Religion
This week the Associated Press came out with a story entitled, "Survey: Americans switch faiths early, often" based on the report, "Faith in Flux: Changes in Religious Affiliation in the U.S." The report showed that about half of U.S. adults switched religions at least once during their lives, most of which who had just gradually drifted away from their childhood faith. Most who left the religion of their childhood did so before turning 24 with a majority joining their current faith before 36.
Some who left their religion have not affiliated themselves with another. The story claimed that one-third say they just haven't found the "right" religion. I wonder what they mean by that. Do they mean "right" as in it's a right fit for their lifestyle or "right" as in the one rightly sanctioned by God?
So, how do you decide on the right religion? First off, what do you consider a religion to be? I like the Merriam-Webster definition which states: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." That means that even atheism is a religion. Ah, but you say it can't be because "faith" is a requirement of the definition and atheists don't have faith. Of course they do! They can't prove scientifically that God does not exist so all they're left with is an intense faith in their belief that one doesn't.
Now that we have that established, back to the original question, how does/should someone decide on a religion? According to the article 74 percent cited "attraction of religious services and worship". Is that a good indicator: the preacher is very charismatic or interesting or entertaining? I've read religious texts by many different faiths that are considered sacred writings and believe me, sometimes they're a great cure for insomnia. Not that I'm trying to express any disrespect for any of those writings; it's just that there is a difference in trying to read a text book versus a novel. You can get a heck of a lot more value out of a text book, but novels are generally more entertaining. If we're looking for charisma, entertainment or fascination from a character, remember that in those writings it's usually the bad guys who demonstrate those characteristics ... not that we need to jump to any conclusions here about any particular preacher. :-)
"About half of those who have become unaffiliated cited a belief that religious people are hypocritical, judgmental or insincere." Are churches sanctuaries for saints and angels or are they hospitals for the spiritually sick? Where should hypocritical, judgmental or insincere people be? Shouldn't they be where they will be taught not to be that way? Shouldn't we be glad that they're at church learning to turn their lives around? Don't most religions, in some form or another, teach us to love our neighbors? If we really love them should we be running away from them to a place where we don't have to deal with them or should we stay and be where we can help them?
"Large numbers said they think religious organizations focus too much on rules...." Good thing science doesn't focus on rules at all! Come on people, if there is a God, and he really and truly does love us, wouldn't he want to let us know the rules of happiness? Don't we do that for our kids? "Don't put your hand on a hot stove." "Look before you cross the street." And on and on and on. Rules aren't restricting, they're liberating. They keep us from harm, show us how to make and do things correctly, and let us know how to play the game so we can win!
"Nearly six in ten former Catholics who are now unaffiliated say they left Catholicism due to dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings on abortion and homosexuality." OK, so here's the real $64,000 question: Do we find a religion that agrees with what we want to believe or do we change our beliefs to agree with the correct religion? Yes, the tricky part is that "correct religion" phrase, so let's put it another way: Do we try and get God to agree with us or do we change our beliefs to agree with God? Until we answer that question for ourselves, we're not ready to find the "right" religion.
Some who left their religion have not affiliated themselves with another. The story claimed that one-third say they just haven't found the "right" religion. I wonder what they mean by that. Do they mean "right" as in it's a right fit for their lifestyle or "right" as in the one rightly sanctioned by God?
So, how do you decide on the right religion? First off, what do you consider a religion to be? I like the Merriam-Webster definition which states: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." That means that even atheism is a religion. Ah, but you say it can't be because "faith" is a requirement of the definition and atheists don't have faith. Of course they do! They can't prove scientifically that God does not exist so all they're left with is an intense faith in their belief that one doesn't.
Now that we have that established, back to the original question, how does/should someone decide on a religion? According to the article 74 percent cited "attraction of religious services and worship". Is that a good indicator: the preacher is very charismatic or interesting or entertaining? I've read religious texts by many different faiths that are considered sacred writings and believe me, sometimes they're a great cure for insomnia. Not that I'm trying to express any disrespect for any of those writings; it's just that there is a difference in trying to read a text book versus a novel. You can get a heck of a lot more value out of a text book, but novels are generally more entertaining. If we're looking for charisma, entertainment or fascination from a character, remember that in those writings it's usually the bad guys who demonstrate those characteristics ... not that we need to jump to any conclusions here about any particular preacher. :-)
"About half of those who have become unaffiliated cited a belief that religious people are hypocritical, judgmental or insincere." Are churches sanctuaries for saints and angels or are they hospitals for the spiritually sick? Where should hypocritical, judgmental or insincere people be? Shouldn't they be where they will be taught not to be that way? Shouldn't we be glad that they're at church learning to turn their lives around? Don't most religions, in some form or another, teach us to love our neighbors? If we really love them should we be running away from them to a place where we don't have to deal with them or should we stay and be where we can help them?
"Large numbers said they think religious organizations focus too much on rules...." Good thing science doesn't focus on rules at all! Come on people, if there is a God, and he really and truly does love us, wouldn't he want to let us know the rules of happiness? Don't we do that for our kids? "Don't put your hand on a hot stove." "Look before you cross the street." And on and on and on. Rules aren't restricting, they're liberating. They keep us from harm, show us how to make and do things correctly, and let us know how to play the game so we can win!
"Nearly six in ten former Catholics who are now unaffiliated say they left Catholicism due to dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings on abortion and homosexuality." OK, so here's the real $64,000 question: Do we find a religion that agrees with what we want to believe or do we change our beliefs to agree with the correct religion? Yes, the tricky part is that "correct religion" phrase, so let's put it another way: Do we try and get God to agree with us or do we change our beliefs to agree with God? Until we answer that question for ourselves, we're not ready to find the "right" religion.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Hollywood Envelopes
Hollywood and envelopes go together like bread and butter. By "Hollywood" I mean the entertainment industry, wherever they're located. They love envelopes, not just the award show type, but pushing whatever envelopes they can find, no matter what's in them.
This past week I was watching one of the few television shows I view on a regular basis and witnessed an envelope bursting wide open. As a result I took the show off my DVR schedule. I don't need to waste my time on such garbage. Why is the goal to "push the envelope" rather than to offer something worthwhile?
Those who have a voice in determining the awards for those envelope-laden shows seem to value envelope pushing above all other criteria as though that's the only thing needed to be artistic. "And the award goes to ..." the episode that shows the most flesh, because no show has gone that far before; or to the movie that depicts the most despicable acts because to date no one else has dared show such disgusting scenes, etc. What's the value in that? When I get done watching a show I want to feel that my life was somehow enriched by it (even if that means I just got to relax a little), not that I've lost some of my humanity.
And speaking of envelopes, what about the ones that pushed onto the scene from 1978 to 1995 killing three people and injuring 23 with bombs? And the follow-up envelope to The New York Times on April 24, 1995, containing the demand to print verbatim the 35,000-word paper Industrial Society and Its Future? Wouldn't you say Theodore John Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, knew how to push envelopes? Would Hollywood give him an award for his "artistry"? Hey Hollywood, instead of trying to push envelopes, why don't we all do what's appropriate and beneficial for society?
I suppose Hollywood feels pushing envelopes is the best way to get their bread and butter and they're going to Milk it for all it's worth. "The envelope please." And the loser is ... us.
This past week I was watching one of the few television shows I view on a regular basis and witnessed an envelope bursting wide open. As a result I took the show off my DVR schedule. I don't need to waste my time on such garbage. Why is the goal to "push the envelope" rather than to offer something worthwhile?
Those who have a voice in determining the awards for those envelope-laden shows seem to value envelope pushing above all other criteria as though that's the only thing needed to be artistic. "And the award goes to ..." the episode that shows the most flesh, because no show has gone that far before; or to the movie that depicts the most despicable acts because to date no one else has dared show such disgusting scenes, etc. What's the value in that? When I get done watching a show I want to feel that my life was somehow enriched by it (even if that means I just got to relax a little), not that I've lost some of my humanity.
And speaking of envelopes, what about the ones that pushed onto the scene from 1978 to 1995 killing three people and injuring 23 with bombs? And the follow-up envelope to The New York Times on April 24, 1995, containing the demand to print verbatim the 35,000-word paper Industrial Society and Its Future? Wouldn't you say Theodore John Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, knew how to push envelopes? Would Hollywood give him an award for his "artistry"? Hey Hollywood, instead of trying to push envelopes, why don't we all do what's appropriate and beneficial for society?
I suppose Hollywood feels pushing envelopes is the best way to get their bread and butter and they're going to Milk it for all it's worth. "The envelope please." And the loser is ... us.
Friday, April 17, 2009
The Lighter View: The Fattening of America
The number of overweight Americans continues to rise. By some estimates two-thirds of American adults are already overweight. What's the cause? Genetic factors? Overeating? Sedentary lifestyle? American's penchant for sweet, deep-fried and fattening foods?
No, it's those dang Girl Scouts! That's right, every year they tempt the American public with delectable cookies. If they had just one or two choices we could write it off as an attempt to raise funds. But with their wide selection of irresistible delicacies it's gotta be a conspiracy to fatten us up. Don't believe me? Oh, just go ahead and try to tell them you're on a diet and couldn't possibly buy their wares. They'll give you those puppy dog eyes of theirs and guilt you into giving up your cash.
Answer me this: if it's really to raise funds, why don't they tell you the money goes toward their feminist indoctrinations? Huh? You didn't really think they baked all those cookies themselves, did you? Oh no, they enslave those poor little male Keebler elves to do all their dirty work for them!
Oh, but they only sell them for a season instead of year-round. If their hidden agenda were to fatten up Americans, they would sell them all the time, you say. Don't you see? That's the genius of their plan! If they were always available it would be easy for you to turn them down because there'd be no impetus to buy right now and stock up for the whole year. Let's face it, you know you buy more boxes of cookies than you could possibly eat in an entire year ... or so you think. Am I right or am I right? But you know what happens, don't you? Uh huh, you eat them all up in six months or less, one box per sitting, and gain an extra 30+ pounds every year that you couldn't possibly take off in the remaining time before you buy your next supply.
So what's your favorite? The Thin Mints? The Samoas? Are you a peanut butter or lemon freak or are you a more traditional shortbread or chocolate chip person? Don't you see? They have all the bases covered. When you drool at their website, go ahead and click on the nutrition facts, as though there were any nutrition in those evil temptresses we call Girl Scout cookies. The average number of calories for just one single, solitary cookie is over 50! That means some boxes have 1200 or more calories that you're downing in that one sitting. Oh, the cellulitic horror of it all!
So the next time a seemingly defenseless, cute little cherubic Girl Scout comes to your door with her only hope for the survival of her organization, just say no. Stop the madness. Do it for yourself. Do it for America!
No, it's those dang Girl Scouts! That's right, every year they tempt the American public with delectable cookies. If they had just one or two choices we could write it off as an attempt to raise funds. But with their wide selection of irresistible delicacies it's gotta be a conspiracy to fatten us up. Don't believe me? Oh, just go ahead and try to tell them you're on a diet and couldn't possibly buy their wares. They'll give you those puppy dog eyes of theirs and guilt you into giving up your cash.
Answer me this: if it's really to raise funds, why don't they tell you the money goes toward their feminist indoctrinations? Huh? You didn't really think they baked all those cookies themselves, did you? Oh no, they enslave those poor little male Keebler elves to do all their dirty work for them!
Oh, but they only sell them for a season instead of year-round. If their hidden agenda were to fatten up Americans, they would sell them all the time, you say. Don't you see? That's the genius of their plan! If they were always available it would be easy for you to turn them down because there'd be no impetus to buy right now and stock up for the whole year. Let's face it, you know you buy more boxes of cookies than you could possibly eat in an entire year ... or so you think. Am I right or am I right? But you know what happens, don't you? Uh huh, you eat them all up in six months or less, one box per sitting, and gain an extra 30+ pounds every year that you couldn't possibly take off in the remaining time before you buy your next supply.
So what's your favorite? The Thin Mints? The Samoas? Are you a peanut butter or lemon freak or are you a more traditional shortbread or chocolate chip person? Don't you see? They have all the bases covered. When you drool at their website, go ahead and click on the nutrition facts, as though there were any nutrition in those evil temptresses we call Girl Scout cookies. The average number of calories for just one single, solitary cookie is over 50! That means some boxes have 1200 or more calories that you're downing in that one sitting. Oh, the cellulitic horror of it all!
So the next time a seemingly defenseless, cute little cherubic Girl Scout comes to your door with her only hope for the survival of her organization, just say no. Stop the madness. Do it for yourself. Do it for America!
Friday, April 10, 2009
We're Involved In "War On Terrorism" Halfway Around The World, But Where's Our "War On Drugs"?
Early yesterday morning a 22-year-old male--who, according to police, was driving with a suspended license because of a previous drunken driving conviction--allegedly ran a red light, broadsided a car killing three people and seriously injuring another, and then fled the scene. Also according to police, the accused had a blood-alcohol level that was substantially over the legal limit. He was booked in jail on three counts of murder, three counts of vehicular manslaughter, felony hit-and-run, felony driving under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of an accident. You may have heard about this incident given that one of the victims was Los Angeles Angels' pitcher Nick Adenhart.
This isn't the first time we've heard about someone who's been drinking and driving and is then let out/off so the crime can be repeated, and unfortunately it won't be the last time either. Alcohol is a drug. As a society we don't like to face that fact, just look at the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution which repealed the 18th (prohibition), but nonetheless alcohol is a legal recreational drug. Some are calling to legalize other recreational drugs. No, I'm not a member of MADD and I'm not currently calling for the reinstitution of prohibition, but I am asking us to look at how serious we are as a nation at fighting against harmful drugs. Alcohol has killed, does kill, and will continue to kill many innocent people, not to mention all the other harms that it heaps upon its victims. Do we really want to create even more sorrow by allowing other recreational drugs to be legal? Don't we already have enough to handle with just alcohol? If we really have a war on drugs, why aren't drunken driving penalties more stringent?
Here's another one to contemplate. I run the drug screening program where I work. More times than I'd like to admit, results come back positive for the use of illegal drugs. If we really have a war on drugs in this country, why isn't it mandatory for medical facilities to turn this information over to the police to use in convicting proven law breakers? I know what some of you are thinking, "Do you realize how much more overcrowded our jails would be if we did that?" And my response is the same, "How serious are we?"
Some of the people I work with are ex-cons (not necessarily for drugs). I am told that it's pretty easy to get drugs in prison because they are brought in by the prison guards! True or not, shouldn't there be drug sniffing dogs at all prisons? That is, if we're truly serious about reducing illegal drug use and distribution? This is just one example, but there are many other actions we can take to make obtaining illegal drugs much harder.
In wartime people get killed. From drug lords to dealers, many on that side of the "war" kill those who would oppose them. We're even told they have some pretty heavy weaponry. But in addition to killing their enemies they also kill their own, those that work for them and the lowly users (either directly or indirectly through overdoses). Isn't that what Hitler did, kill his own as well as his enemies? To take the comparison even further, their "Jews" are those in law enforcement, except for those on the take of course. We seem to hold Hitler up as one of the most, if not the most, evil despots in the history of the world. Drug lords are in essence little Hitlers who infiltrate nations with their wares and kill myriads of people. Are we as united in ridding the world of such murderers as we were at ridding the world of the genocial maniac of WWII? How serious are we?
Where is our war on drugs? Where is your war on drugs? How serious are you?
This isn't the first time we've heard about someone who's been drinking and driving and is then let out/off so the crime can be repeated, and unfortunately it won't be the last time either. Alcohol is a drug. As a society we don't like to face that fact, just look at the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution which repealed the 18th (prohibition), but nonetheless alcohol is a legal recreational drug. Some are calling to legalize other recreational drugs. No, I'm not a member of MADD and I'm not currently calling for the reinstitution of prohibition, but I am asking us to look at how serious we are as a nation at fighting against harmful drugs. Alcohol has killed, does kill, and will continue to kill many innocent people, not to mention all the other harms that it heaps upon its victims. Do we really want to create even more sorrow by allowing other recreational drugs to be legal? Don't we already have enough to handle with just alcohol? If we really have a war on drugs, why aren't drunken driving penalties more stringent?
Here's another one to contemplate. I run the drug screening program where I work. More times than I'd like to admit, results come back positive for the use of illegal drugs. If we really have a war on drugs in this country, why isn't it mandatory for medical facilities to turn this information over to the police to use in convicting proven law breakers? I know what some of you are thinking, "Do you realize how much more overcrowded our jails would be if we did that?" And my response is the same, "How serious are we?"
Some of the people I work with are ex-cons (not necessarily for drugs). I am told that it's pretty easy to get drugs in prison because they are brought in by the prison guards! True or not, shouldn't there be drug sniffing dogs at all prisons? That is, if we're truly serious about reducing illegal drug use and distribution? This is just one example, but there are many other actions we can take to make obtaining illegal drugs much harder.
In wartime people get killed. From drug lords to dealers, many on that side of the "war" kill those who would oppose them. We're even told they have some pretty heavy weaponry. But in addition to killing their enemies they also kill their own, those that work for them and the lowly users (either directly or indirectly through overdoses). Isn't that what Hitler did, kill his own as well as his enemies? To take the comparison even further, their "Jews" are those in law enforcement, except for those on the take of course. We seem to hold Hitler up as one of the most, if not the most, evil despots in the history of the world. Drug lords are in essence little Hitlers who infiltrate nations with their wares and kill myriads of people. Are we as united in ridding the world of such murderers as we were at ridding the world of the genocial maniac of WWII? How serious are we?
Where is our war on drugs? Where is your war on drugs? How serious are you?
Friday, April 3, 2009
An Evolving Fairy Tale
Once upon a time, which time was too long ago for anyone to know, there was a land far away from majestic mountaintops. It came to be known as the Valley of E.
This was no ordinary place. The Valley of E had perfect weather. Well … almost. Sometimes the weather would act as if it had a mind of its own. A storm could begin and end in the blink of an eye. That is, if there were any eyes around to blink. You see, the Valley of E was uninhabited. Everyone lived in the mountains.
A river ran down the middle of the valley. It branched off into many streams and creeks. This was fortunate because without a good water supply the small patch of sugar cane could not survive. Off to the east stood one magnificent olive tree. To the west was a field of wheat. Beyond the wheat it was barren. The only thing there was a dry salt bed.
But the most significant feature of the Valley of E was a rather odd rock formation that rested at the edge of a grove of trees. It was long and flat except at one end where there was a rectangular hollow at the bottom. From the hollow the rock rose up and curled like a wave of the sea.
Late one day a strong wind blew in from the west and almost stripped the wheat field clean. Kernels were flying everywhere. Not only kernels, but also a few crystals from the salt bed beyond were picked up and tossed about. The wind was so ferocious it carried wheat and salt all the way to the rock formation and dashed them to powder against the part of the rock that looked like a wave. When the wind finally ceased some of the powder came to rest in the rectangular hollow of the rock.
Though the weather was typically perfect, this was a strange couple of days, for early the next morning another strong wind swept through the valley. This time it came from the east. Leaves from the grove were stripped from the trees and covered the sky. The sugar cane, which had barely survived the previous night, could no longer withstand the wind. Cane was tossed to and fro, fro and to until it was hurled against the wave of the rock. As the cane continued on its wayward course some of its sweetness dripped into the hollow.
The magnificent olive tree was mighty and could not be broken by the wind. However, leaves and olives were ripped from its branches. As with the cane, wheat and salt, olives were pounded against the wave of the rock. By this time the wind was so strong that what oil came of such severe pounding was blown up, not down, and settled in a depression on top of the wave. When the wind died down leaves floated to the ground. Some came to rest on top of the oil.
The weather continued its unusual course and a light rain immediately followed. Oddly enough the rock was shaped in such an ideal way that it protected what was now in the hollow of the rock from getting soaked. But the rain did fall on the leaves and olive oil on top of the wave. The depression soon filled with rain and water ran down the side of the rock. The rainwater carried oil into the hollow as well as some fungus that had washed off the leaves.
In harmony with this strange weather pattern the light rain did not last long. It was now late morning and the sun shone brightly. The sun continued to heat the ground rapidly until after midday when a whirlwind sprang up. This dust devil formed on the flat part of the rock and therefore did not have any dust in it. It began to move but then got caught under the wave and couldn’t escape. The whirlwind caused quite a stir in the hollow of the rock. Everything that had previously landed in the hollow was mixed together so well one would think it had been done on purpose. Whirlwinds are known to have brief lifespans and this one was no exception.
The weather finally settled down. But now the ground decided to have its turn. And turn it did, into an all-out, rough and tumble earthquake! The whole valley shook. The earthquake shot the rock formation into the air. As the rock reversed its course to fall to the ground the mixture in the hollow popped out, hit the top of the rock, folded in half, twisted a quarter turn and landed back in the hollow with a plop. Whenever the rock fell back to earth it shot back into the air. And each time the mixture performed the same dance: it popped out, hit and folded in half, twisted and landed back in the hollow. After a short time the violent shaking stopped.
The bright sun kept the temperature warm. The fungus that had been carried into the hollow fed off the sugar causing the mixture to rise to twice its original size. Then aftershocks hit! Each time one hit the rock jumped and the mixture again did its dance, which caused it to deflate a bit. The aftershocks did not last long, but the weather continued to be warm and the mixture once again rose to twice its size.
By this time another storm was brewing and the air began to cool. The weather now seemed to be answering the ground with a shock of its own: lightning! It was only one bolt—for now—but that’s all it took to light up the trees at the edge of the grove. The bolt hit with a thunderous crash and the trees burst into flames. Many of them fell to the ground around the rock formation and caused the temperature of the rock to rise about five times what it had been. The trees did not burn completely before the fire died out, but they did burn long enough for the mixture to turn into
a beautifully browned, perfectly baked loaf of bread!
The bread did not remain undisturbed very long before the ground and the weather decided to have one last argument. Another aftershock hit and the bread rumbled in the hollow. Then lightning struck again! This time it hit the magnificent olive tree and shattered it into shards of wood. Those pieces of wood came flying toward the rock just as the full force of the aftershock caused the loaf to break free and leap into the air. The shards fanned out and cut right through the bread, bounced off the wave and cleared the rock.
The pieces of bread fell downward and rolled until they came to rest on the flat part of the rock. And there it sat:
a perfectly sliced, delicious, fresh loaf of bread!
A man (of questionable heritage, they say), who thought life would be better far from his home in the mountains, happened upon the tempting loaf of bread. He stooped down and picked up a slice. After examining his newfound treasure he took a bite, relished in the taste and believed he would live happily ever after.
But alas, butter would not be created accidentally for another billion years!
This was no ordinary place. The Valley of E had perfect weather. Well … almost. Sometimes the weather would act as if it had a mind of its own. A storm could begin and end in the blink of an eye. That is, if there were any eyes around to blink. You see, the Valley of E was uninhabited. Everyone lived in the mountains.
A river ran down the middle of the valley. It branched off into many streams and creeks. This was fortunate because without a good water supply the small patch of sugar cane could not survive. Off to the east stood one magnificent olive tree. To the west was a field of wheat. Beyond the wheat it was barren. The only thing there was a dry salt bed.
But the most significant feature of the Valley of E was a rather odd rock formation that rested at the edge of a grove of trees. It was long and flat except at one end where there was a rectangular hollow at the bottom. From the hollow the rock rose up and curled like a wave of the sea.
Late one day a strong wind blew in from the west and almost stripped the wheat field clean. Kernels were flying everywhere. Not only kernels, but also a few crystals from the salt bed beyond were picked up and tossed about. The wind was so ferocious it carried wheat and salt all the way to the rock formation and dashed them to powder against the part of the rock that looked like a wave. When the wind finally ceased some of the powder came to rest in the rectangular hollow of the rock.
Though the weather was typically perfect, this was a strange couple of days, for early the next morning another strong wind swept through the valley. This time it came from the east. Leaves from the grove were stripped from the trees and covered the sky. The sugar cane, which had barely survived the previous night, could no longer withstand the wind. Cane was tossed to and fro, fro and to until it was hurled against the wave of the rock. As the cane continued on its wayward course some of its sweetness dripped into the hollow.
The magnificent olive tree was mighty and could not be broken by the wind. However, leaves and olives were ripped from its branches. As with the cane, wheat and salt, olives were pounded against the wave of the rock. By this time the wind was so strong that what oil came of such severe pounding was blown up, not down, and settled in a depression on top of the wave. When the wind died down leaves floated to the ground. Some came to rest on top of the oil.
The weather continued its unusual course and a light rain immediately followed. Oddly enough the rock was shaped in such an ideal way that it protected what was now in the hollow of the rock from getting soaked. But the rain did fall on the leaves and olive oil on top of the wave. The depression soon filled with rain and water ran down the side of the rock. The rainwater carried oil into the hollow as well as some fungus that had washed off the leaves.
In harmony with this strange weather pattern the light rain did not last long. It was now late morning and the sun shone brightly. The sun continued to heat the ground rapidly until after midday when a whirlwind sprang up. This dust devil formed on the flat part of the rock and therefore did not have any dust in it. It began to move but then got caught under the wave and couldn’t escape. The whirlwind caused quite a stir in the hollow of the rock. Everything that had previously landed in the hollow was mixed together so well one would think it had been done on purpose. Whirlwinds are known to have brief lifespans and this one was no exception.
The weather finally settled down. But now the ground decided to have its turn. And turn it did, into an all-out, rough and tumble earthquake! The whole valley shook. The earthquake shot the rock formation into the air. As the rock reversed its course to fall to the ground the mixture in the hollow popped out, hit the top of the rock, folded in half, twisted a quarter turn and landed back in the hollow with a plop. Whenever the rock fell back to earth it shot back into the air. And each time the mixture performed the same dance: it popped out, hit and folded in half, twisted and landed back in the hollow. After a short time the violent shaking stopped.
The bright sun kept the temperature warm. The fungus that had been carried into the hollow fed off the sugar causing the mixture to rise to twice its original size. Then aftershocks hit! Each time one hit the rock jumped and the mixture again did its dance, which caused it to deflate a bit. The aftershocks did not last long, but the weather continued to be warm and the mixture once again rose to twice its size.
By this time another storm was brewing and the air began to cool. The weather now seemed to be answering the ground with a shock of its own: lightning! It was only one bolt—for now—but that’s all it took to light up the trees at the edge of the grove. The bolt hit with a thunderous crash and the trees burst into flames. Many of them fell to the ground around the rock formation and caused the temperature of the rock to rise about five times what it had been. The trees did not burn completely before the fire died out, but they did burn long enough for the mixture to turn into
a beautifully browned, perfectly baked loaf of bread!
The bread did not remain undisturbed very long before the ground and the weather decided to have one last argument. Another aftershock hit and the bread rumbled in the hollow. Then lightning struck again! This time it hit the magnificent olive tree and shattered it into shards of wood. Those pieces of wood came flying toward the rock just as the full force of the aftershock caused the loaf to break free and leap into the air. The shards fanned out and cut right through the bread, bounced off the wave and cleared the rock.
The pieces of bread fell downward and rolled until they came to rest on the flat part of the rock. And there it sat:
a perfectly sliced, delicious, fresh loaf of bread!
A man (of questionable heritage, they say), who thought life would be better far from his home in the mountains, happened upon the tempting loaf of bread. He stooped down and picked up a slice. After examining his newfound treasure he took a bite, relished in the taste and believed he would live happily ever after.
But alas, butter would not be created accidentally for another billion years!
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Public Company Disease
Businesses provide product(s) and/or service(s), but they exist to make money. There are altruistic business owners who are not trying to make money hand over fist, but to stay in business they still need to make money. Whether a company is privately held (does not offer shares to the general public) or publicly held (its registered securities--stock, bonds, etc.--are for sale to the general public) the profit it makes goes to the owners. How much ends up as profit is adjustable. Once obligations are covered (e.g., paying for utilities, rent, purchases, etc.) the remaining money can be put back into the business (e.g., buy more machinery, facilities, etc.) to grow that business or the money can be declared profit and dispersed among the owners. If the "excess" money is never reinvested back into the company and the owners keep taking it as profit all the time, the business will never grow and most likely it will fail. I understand this is a simplistic explanation, but I don't want to bore you too much. :-)
People generally buy stock in a public company to make a profit and the sooner the better. Because public company owners are focused so much on making fast profits, the managers who run public companies are also focused on the fast buck. I remember reading about a computer company CEO a few years back who increased the company's stock value by over 50% in a short period of time, but was fired because the owners expected even more! Because managers want to make a lot of money now too often they sacrifice future profits and value of the company. This is the public company disease and it doesn't just affect public companies.
There's been a lot in the news lately about sports figures on steroids. In an attempt to be big and strong and make the big bucks now, those athletes are seriously endangering their future health. Others in society take illegal drugs because they want to feel good now. They risk not only their short- and long-term quality of life, but life itself.
Any body--be it human, business or government body--that sacrifices the future for the now, jeopardizes the long-term health and viability of that body.
In an attempt to feel good now by getting out of the recession immediately instead of letting markets correct themselves over time our government is throwing money at the problem. Current estimates are that they will stop at 5 trillion, but there's no guarantee of it ending there. I ran some calculations in an earlier post, but maybe I drew the payback out too long (over 2000 years) so the debt didn't look so big. So let's recalculate.
Whenever we hear people mention the national debt we typically hear them say we are indebting our children. Sometimes they also say grandchildren. I don't remember ever hearing anyone in the media say anything about great grandchildren, so let's just suppose our grandchildren need to finish paying it all back. Let's stretch the time line out and let's start with those who just became adults: 18 year olds. Let's say they start having children about 10 years later (right around the average nowadays) and the same holds true for their children and their grandchildren. In other words, their children are born 10 years from now, their grandchildren are born another 28 years after that or 38 years from now. Those grandchildren will then only have 46 more years to pay off the debt before their children arrive at adulthood and have the burden passed on to them (28+18). That totals 84 years.
Before we go any further I feel it's important to mention that our government is telling us that we won't have to pay off the full amount because they expect to make money on the bailouts. If "experts" in the field of finance got us into this mess and couldn't get themselves out of all that bad debt that the government is taking off their hands, what makes us think that the "experts" in government can get out from owning all that same bad debt? But let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that we'll get at least some of it back. Of course let us not forget that while we're waiting to get it back we have to pay interest on all that money now. So let's just say that the money we get back balances out the interest we're paying in the interim so it turns out to be a wash and we have to pay off $5,000,000,000,000 total.
Divide that five trillion dollars by 84 years and we have to pay off over 59 billion dollars ($59,523,809,523.81 to be exact) every year ... and that's just so our great grandchildren aren't indebted by it. That sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but on a per taxpayer basis it comes out at under $500. That doesn't sound too bad, but do you want your taxes to go up by that much (not to mention for everyone else for the next 84 years)? Aren't taxes high enough already? We keep being promised by this administration that our taxes will go down, not up. How's that supposed to happen when we have more and more debt to pay off? Remember, these calculations aren't taking into account our current indebtedness. Just like in the infomercials we can say, "But wait, there's more. Now how much will you pay" in higher taxes?
The public company disease is already at pandemic proportions. It's time to bite the bullet and take our medicine now before our government body gets any sicker.
People generally buy stock in a public company to make a profit and the sooner the better. Because public company owners are focused so much on making fast profits, the managers who run public companies are also focused on the fast buck. I remember reading about a computer company CEO a few years back who increased the company's stock value by over 50% in a short period of time, but was fired because the owners expected even more! Because managers want to make a lot of money now too often they sacrifice future profits and value of the company. This is the public company disease and it doesn't just affect public companies.
There's been a lot in the news lately about sports figures on steroids. In an attempt to be big and strong and make the big bucks now, those athletes are seriously endangering their future health. Others in society take illegal drugs because they want to feel good now. They risk not only their short- and long-term quality of life, but life itself.
Any body--be it human, business or government body--that sacrifices the future for the now, jeopardizes the long-term health and viability of that body.
In an attempt to feel good now by getting out of the recession immediately instead of letting markets correct themselves over time our government is throwing money at the problem. Current estimates are that they will stop at 5 trillion, but there's no guarantee of it ending there. I ran some calculations in an earlier post, but maybe I drew the payback out too long (over 2000 years) so the debt didn't look so big. So let's recalculate.
Whenever we hear people mention the national debt we typically hear them say we are indebting our children. Sometimes they also say grandchildren. I don't remember ever hearing anyone in the media say anything about great grandchildren, so let's just suppose our grandchildren need to finish paying it all back. Let's stretch the time line out and let's start with those who just became adults: 18 year olds. Let's say they start having children about 10 years later (right around the average nowadays) and the same holds true for their children and their grandchildren. In other words, their children are born 10 years from now, their grandchildren are born another 28 years after that or 38 years from now. Those grandchildren will then only have 46 more years to pay off the debt before their children arrive at adulthood and have the burden passed on to them (28+18). That totals 84 years.
Before we go any further I feel it's important to mention that our government is telling us that we won't have to pay off the full amount because they expect to make money on the bailouts. If "experts" in the field of finance got us into this mess and couldn't get themselves out of all that bad debt that the government is taking off their hands, what makes us think that the "experts" in government can get out from owning all that same bad debt? But let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that we'll get at least some of it back. Of course let us not forget that while we're waiting to get it back we have to pay interest on all that money now. So let's just say that the money we get back balances out the interest we're paying in the interim so it turns out to be a wash and we have to pay off $5,000,000,000,000 total.
Divide that five trillion dollars by 84 years and we have to pay off over 59 billion dollars ($59,523,809,523.81 to be exact) every year ... and that's just so our great grandchildren aren't indebted by it. That sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but on a per taxpayer basis it comes out at under $500. That doesn't sound too bad, but do you want your taxes to go up by that much (not to mention for everyone else for the next 84 years)? Aren't taxes high enough already? We keep being promised by this administration that our taxes will go down, not up. How's that supposed to happen when we have more and more debt to pay off? Remember, these calculations aren't taking into account our current indebtedness. Just like in the infomercials we can say, "But wait, there's more. Now how much will you pay" in higher taxes?
The public company disease is already at pandemic proportions. It's time to bite the bullet and take our medicine now before our government body gets any sicker.
Friday, March 20, 2009
The Lighter View
At times what's going on around us and the troubles of the world can weigh down on us. Sometimes we just need a break. So today, rather than write about something serious, I thought I'd take a lighter tack. I hope you don't mind and I hope my friend who exchanged emails with me doesn't mind my publishing a slightly modified version of her prose. What follows is friendly banter between two friends through email.
I know, I know, today's not a special occasion or anything, but I thought I'd write anyway. Mainly because I have something out of the ordinarily drab day-to-day life that happened to me so I actually have something to write about. Now don't get your hopes up, it's not all that much, just something that doesn't happen every day (thank goodness).
I almost sliced my thumb off a few days ago. See, I told you it was noteworthy (and something I'm glad doesn't happen on a regular basis). OK, so I am exaggerating, I didn't even cut to the bone or anything, but I probably should have gotten stitches. However I'd rather not spend my money on doctors. I don't know how it was in your family, but me not going to the doctor's is not too different from how we were raised: you practically had to be on your way to the morgue before my dad would take you to the doctor. I was so scared when I got hit by a car when I was seven; not because I thought I would die from the accident, but because I thought my dad would kill me from having to go to the hospital!
Anyway, back to the present ... We put gauze on my thumb and secured it with a couple of band aids (oh, excuse me, that should be Band-Aid brand or, since we go for the cheapos, "adhesive bandages"). When I took the gauze off in the morning my thumb was still bleeding quite well, thank you (hopefully this is interesting rather than just grossing you out). So I resorted to my home remedy stitching. No, I'm not some macho guy who took out the needle and thread like you see in those westerns or war movies. I used super glue (oops, there I go again, Super Glue brand aka cyanoacrylate glue) and ARM & HAMMER® Pure Baking Soda. The baking soda kicks off the glue quickly which stops the bleeding. It puts a protective coating over the wound and acts kind of like a synthetic scab (see, now I really am grossing you out). Of course I covered it with an "adhesive bandage" so I could stem the flood of people questioning me as to why I would walk around with a big glob of Super Glue® and baking soda on my thumb! In case you're wondering, my thumb is healing well and I only cry once a day now when nobody's looking. Of course I'm milking it for all it's worth and while I'm milking it, I hope you appreciate the sacrifice I'm making to type with an gimp thumb and the pain I'm experiencing with every space bar press (just kidding, I'm pressing the space bar with my other thumb).
Please write back and let me know about all the exciting things that are new in your life. You know, like how your laundry's coming or how you just can't wait for the next episode of your favorite TV show, stuff like that. :-) Just kidding. Your life is probably much more exciting than mine.
Take care,
Your Super Glued Friend
You didn't respond to my last email so it looks like my worst fears have been realized - you really DID get super-glue-poisoning in your thumb, then had to type one-handed until you got carpal tunnel in your "good" hand, and now since you have to type only with your toes, it's slowed you down so much that you can only type a sentence a week... am I right??? And if that's the case, I'm going to be really, really patient in waiting to hear anything from you.
Seriously, I hope your stitch-less-ness is working out for you, and that your injury is healing properly. Although we've never had much money in either my current family or my family of origin, we always thought that scrimping on life-or-death (or maiming) issues was (just barely) out of the question. Really just checking on you - hope everything's okay for you and your family.
Take care!
Your Concerned Friend
P.S. Wait - did you ever say how your slashing came about??
I like your excuse much better than the one I was going to make up. You're sooo funny!
Sorry it took way too long to write back to you. Got a question for you: If someone's expected to speak and doesn't, we say the cat's got their tongue. What poor defenseless animal can we blame for not writing back?
The other common household pet, the dog, doesn't work because he's too engrossed in eating my homework to blame on this. Besides, he's too lazy to do anything else anyway. I'd certainly like to blame it on that dang monkey on my back (he's so annoying) but he's having too much fun pulling out my hair (no wonder I'm balding). I could get rid of him if I'd pull a tiger by the tail (monkeys don't like sticking around when there's another animal up the food chain from them) but I'm not too fond of man-eating tigers, though that would certainly provide a great excuse for not writing back (hard to do when you're dead, you know).
No one would ever believe a fox did it; they're far too sly to have blame stick to them. It's like they wear Teflon or something. The owl's too wise, the bee's too busy, and the lark is just too freaking happy to keep anyone from doing what they should. I've got it! I'll blame it on the mule. You see, I've been trying to write you back, but that mule won't budge, that stubborn animal! (Actually it was my fingers that wouldn't budge, but they act just like mules sometimes.)
My thumb is doing much better. Thanks for asking. I can use it normally now ... well, normally for a grossly scarred piece of meat (just kidding). It's too early to tell how bad the scar will be, but it looks like it won't be too bad. I guess I'll have to go on the road and declare the merits of Super Glue to the world.
To answer your question on how I slashed my thumb: it was while I was building a computer. Yeah, I know, computer geeks are considered to have a low-risk lifestyle--sedentary with lots of pizza (hmph, and they call that low-risk! Think of all the artery clogging!)--but computers can be downright mean. Computer cases are usually made out of pretty thin metal, i.e., razor thin. My hand slipped while I was trying to put something in place and, zing!, slice city. Oh the risks we take to bring the world technological Nirvana.
Well, I've been silly long enough, so I'll sign off. Hope this email finds you and yours well and happy as a freaking lark.
Take care,
Your Super Glued and Healing Friend
I know, I know, today's not a special occasion or anything, but I thought I'd write anyway. Mainly because I have something out of the ordinarily drab day-to-day life that happened to me so I actually have something to write about. Now don't get your hopes up, it's not all that much, just something that doesn't happen every day (thank goodness).
I almost sliced my thumb off a few days ago. See, I told you it was noteworthy (and something I'm glad doesn't happen on a regular basis). OK, so I am exaggerating, I didn't even cut to the bone or anything, but I probably should have gotten stitches. However I'd rather not spend my money on doctors. I don't know how it was in your family, but me not going to the doctor's is not too different from how we were raised: you practically had to be on your way to the morgue before my dad would take you to the doctor. I was so scared when I got hit by a car when I was seven; not because I thought I would die from the accident, but because I thought my dad would kill me from having to go to the hospital!
Anyway, back to the present ... We put gauze on my thumb and secured it with a couple of band aids (oh, excuse me, that should be Band-Aid brand or, since we go for the cheapos, "adhesive bandages"). When I took the gauze off in the morning my thumb was still bleeding quite well, thank you (hopefully this is interesting rather than just grossing you out). So I resorted to my home remedy stitching. No, I'm not some macho guy who took out the needle and thread like you see in those westerns or war movies. I used super glue (oops, there I go again, Super Glue brand aka cyanoacrylate glue) and ARM & HAMMER® Pure Baking Soda. The baking soda kicks off the glue quickly which stops the bleeding. It puts a protective coating over the wound and acts kind of like a synthetic scab (see, now I really am grossing you out). Of course I covered it with an "adhesive bandage" so I could stem the flood of people questioning me as to why I would walk around with a big glob of Super Glue® and baking soda on my thumb! In case you're wondering, my thumb is healing well and I only cry once a day now when nobody's looking. Of course I'm milking it for all it's worth and while I'm milking it, I hope you appreciate the sacrifice I'm making to type with an gimp thumb and the pain I'm experiencing with every space bar press (just kidding, I'm pressing the space bar with my other thumb).
Please write back and let me know about all the exciting things that are new in your life. You know, like how your laundry's coming or how you just can't wait for the next episode of your favorite TV show, stuff like that. :-) Just kidding. Your life is probably much more exciting than mine.
Take care,
Your Super Glued Friend
You didn't respond to my last email so it looks like my worst fears have been realized - you really DID get super-glue-poisoning in your thumb, then had to type one-handed until you got carpal tunnel in your "good" hand, and now since you have to type only with your toes, it's slowed you down so much that you can only type a sentence a week... am I right??? And if that's the case, I'm going to be really, really patient in waiting to hear anything from you.
Seriously, I hope your stitch-less-ness is working out for you, and that your injury is healing properly. Although we've never had much money in either my current family or my family of origin, we always thought that scrimping on life-or-death (or maiming) issues was (just barely) out of the question. Really just checking on you - hope everything's okay for you and your family.
Take care!
Your Concerned Friend
P.S. Wait - did you ever say how your slashing came about??
I like your excuse much better than the one I was going to make up. You're sooo funny!
Sorry it took way too long to write back to you. Got a question for you: If someone's expected to speak and doesn't, we say the cat's got their tongue. What poor defenseless animal can we blame for not writing back?
The other common household pet, the dog, doesn't work because he's too engrossed in eating my homework to blame on this. Besides, he's too lazy to do anything else anyway. I'd certainly like to blame it on that dang monkey on my back (he's so annoying) but he's having too much fun pulling out my hair (no wonder I'm balding). I could get rid of him if I'd pull a tiger by the tail (monkeys don't like sticking around when there's another animal up the food chain from them) but I'm not too fond of man-eating tigers, though that would certainly provide a great excuse for not writing back (hard to do when you're dead, you know).
No one would ever believe a fox did it; they're far too sly to have blame stick to them. It's like they wear Teflon or something. The owl's too wise, the bee's too busy, and the lark is just too freaking happy to keep anyone from doing what they should. I've got it! I'll blame it on the mule. You see, I've been trying to write you back, but that mule won't budge, that stubborn animal! (Actually it was my fingers that wouldn't budge, but they act just like mules sometimes.)
My thumb is doing much better. Thanks for asking. I can use it normally now ... well, normally for a grossly scarred piece of meat (just kidding). It's too early to tell how bad the scar will be, but it looks like it won't be too bad. I guess I'll have to go on the road and declare the merits of Super Glue to the world.
To answer your question on how I slashed my thumb: it was while I was building a computer. Yeah, I know, computer geeks are considered to have a low-risk lifestyle--sedentary with lots of pizza (hmph, and they call that low-risk! Think of all the artery clogging!)--but computers can be downright mean. Computer cases are usually made out of pretty thin metal, i.e., razor thin. My hand slipped while I was trying to put something in place and, zing!, slice city. Oh the risks we take to bring the world technological Nirvana.
Well, I've been silly long enough, so I'll sign off. Hope this email finds you and yours well and happy as a freaking lark.
Take care,
Your Super Glued and Healing Friend
Friday, March 13, 2009
Apathy, Interconnections, and Rude Awakenings
"Let them do what they want. It doesn't affect me." How many times have you heard that statement (or something similar to it)? How about, "Mind your own business"? Do things other people do--even perfect strangers from far away--affect us? And should we do something about it?
Have you seen that new show with John Quiñones called "What Would You Do?" It's basically about strangers (paid actors) doing things that most other people would normally find unacceptable and whether the observers will decide to get involved. The implication of the show is that they should get involved. I guess it's that age-old apathetic (and pathetic) question: Am I my brother's keeper?
Before we go on, a little quiz. What is the best-selling nonfiction audio book on tape in history? It's an international bestseller that has sold (as of this writing) more than 15 million copies in 38 languages throughout the world and still going strong. And in 2002, Forbes named it one of the top 10 most influential management books ever. Give up? It's "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen R. Covey. Why do I mention this? I feel there are principles in this book that are insightful and accurate ... and apparently so do a lot of other people from many different walks of life. Not that, in and of itself, that proves the truthfulness of his words, but at least it should give us reason to have an open mind and find out for ourselves if his words ring true.
He writes about the different stages of maturity that we (hopefully) go through in life. We start out as defenseless babes, unable to take care of ourselves and therefore dependent on others to take care of us. Then we grow and become independent: capable of taking care of ourselves and making our own decisions. Unfortunately too many think that's the highest level. But it's not. The greatest maturity is to be, and to recognize, interdependence. This is the stage where we realize we are all intertwined and that we must cooperate--or as he puts it, synergize--with others to achieve greater heights than any one could achieve individually or that could be achieved at all by one person alone.
When you think about it, aren't phrases such as "becoming who I really am" or "doing my own thing" just expressions of selfish seclusion? How about doing things for others and becoming better than "who I really am" today for the benefit of society as a whole tomorrow? Even Bill Gates who, depending upon the year, is named the richest man in the world, could not have grown Microsoft to the behemoth it is today all by himself. He is only as rich as he is because other people give him money. I'm not familiar with his personal habits, but more than likely he depends upon others to grow and package his food, make his clothes, build his cars, etc., etc., etc.
We are all interconnected. A year ago how many of us would have thought about our neighbor who let his house go into foreclosure, "Let him do what he wants. It doesn't affect me"? Look at where our economy is today because of others defaulting on their home loans. Do what our neighbors--or even perfect strangers clear across the country--do affect us? Yes. Does what we do affect others? Yes. We are all tied together.
We may not always be able to tell how the actions of others will affect us or our society, but they do to one degree or another. We can't just sit back and be like the three monkeys: deaf, dumb and blind. But what if the effects of people's actions are not immediately apparent (like the housing crisis) and we don't recognize the harm that can be done? That's where it gets tricky, but we can't ignore the potential. Remember the "butterfly effect"? Even little things can have huge consequences.
I'm not trying to be an alarmist here, I just think it would be nice to avoid rude awakenings.
Have you seen that new show with John Quiñones called "What Would You Do?" It's basically about strangers (paid actors) doing things that most other people would normally find unacceptable and whether the observers will decide to get involved. The implication of the show is that they should get involved. I guess it's that age-old apathetic (and pathetic) question: Am I my brother's keeper?
Before we go on, a little quiz. What is the best-selling nonfiction audio book on tape in history? It's an international bestseller that has sold (as of this writing) more than 15 million copies in 38 languages throughout the world and still going strong. And in 2002, Forbes named it one of the top 10 most influential management books ever. Give up? It's "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen R. Covey. Why do I mention this? I feel there are principles in this book that are insightful and accurate ... and apparently so do a lot of other people from many different walks of life. Not that, in and of itself, that proves the truthfulness of his words, but at least it should give us reason to have an open mind and find out for ourselves if his words ring true.
He writes about the different stages of maturity that we (hopefully) go through in life. We start out as defenseless babes, unable to take care of ourselves and therefore dependent on others to take care of us. Then we grow and become independent: capable of taking care of ourselves and making our own decisions. Unfortunately too many think that's the highest level. But it's not. The greatest maturity is to be, and to recognize, interdependence. This is the stage where we realize we are all intertwined and that we must cooperate--or as he puts it, synergize--with others to achieve greater heights than any one could achieve individually or that could be achieved at all by one person alone.
When you think about it, aren't phrases such as "becoming who I really am" or "doing my own thing" just expressions of selfish seclusion? How about doing things for others and becoming better than "who I really am" today for the benefit of society as a whole tomorrow? Even Bill Gates who, depending upon the year, is named the richest man in the world, could not have grown Microsoft to the behemoth it is today all by himself. He is only as rich as he is because other people give him money. I'm not familiar with his personal habits, but more than likely he depends upon others to grow and package his food, make his clothes, build his cars, etc., etc., etc.
We are all interconnected. A year ago how many of us would have thought about our neighbor who let his house go into foreclosure, "Let him do what he wants. It doesn't affect me"? Look at where our economy is today because of others defaulting on their home loans. Do what our neighbors--or even perfect strangers clear across the country--do affect us? Yes. Does what we do affect others? Yes. We are all tied together.
We may not always be able to tell how the actions of others will affect us or our society, but they do to one degree or another. We can't just sit back and be like the three monkeys: deaf, dumb and blind. But what if the effects of people's actions are not immediately apparent (like the housing crisis) and we don't recognize the harm that can be done? That's where it gets tricky, but we can't ignore the potential. Remember the "butterfly effect"? Even little things can have huge consequences.
I'm not trying to be an alarmist here, I just think it would be nice to avoid rude awakenings.
Friday, March 6, 2009
California's Constitution Wants God's Blessings
We the People of the United States ... and so begins the Constitution of the United States. Most of us are familiar with that famous first line. The Constitution of the State of California is in the news right now due to Proposition 8 being on trial. But how many of us are familiar with its words? The first line reads, "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution." Hmm, I wonder what would happen if a lawyer tried to argue in court that their position, rather than their opponent's position, will secure blessings from the Almighty God for the people of California?
Many are arguing that Proposition 8 is taking away their rights. I've written about "rights" before, but I'd like to address the issue again. What is a right? According to a legal dictionary I found it is: a power, privilege, demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law. The key here is "by virtue of law." In other words, the law giveth and the law taketh away rights. In my view it's not a matter of what is or is not a right by virtue of law, but what should be a right. It looks like, for California at least, the laws should be based on what will secure blessings from God.
Many are arguing that Proposition 8 is taking away their rights. I've written about "rights" before, but I'd like to address the issue again. What is a right? According to a legal dictionary I found it is: a power, privilege, demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law. The key here is "by virtue of law." In other words, the law giveth and the law taketh away rights. In my view it's not a matter of what is or is not a right by virtue of law, but what should be a right. It looks like, for California at least, the laws should be based on what will secure blessings from God.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Splashing Mud
Do violent video games cause their players to be violent? Some studies say yes, some say no. Those who want to protect children tend to believe the studies showing such inclinations while those who make money off of these types of games like to believe the opposite. Texas A&M International University's Dr. Christopher J. Ferguson,a criminal psychologist, was recently interviewed by a video gaming website (guess which studies they like) in regard to violent video games and their effect on children.
Dr. Ferguson's take on the studies is that 90-95% of the research is very bad and that he's seen conclusions that the research just doesn't support. Said he, "The way that we study questions, the way that we support our hypotheses are not very scientific, quite frankly. And social science is kind of an oxymoron, to some extent." Hmm, sounds like he's talking himself and the vast majority of social scientists out of their jobs. So according to Dr. Ferguson if all, or at least most, of the studies are not to be trusted, then what do we base our conclusions on?
It really boils down to this: are we affected--even in the most minute degree--by anything and/or everything that touches our lives? If we walk down the street and a passing car splashes mud on us, have we not been affected? Whether it's one spot of mud or we get soaking wet, yes, it affects us. We may not care that we got one drop on the side of our foot (our response to what has touched us) but we have been touched! Everything that touches our lives has the potential to change who we are (someone who's completely clean or someone who has mud on them). How much "touching" and how we react to it are the two elements that make the difference.
Many people will say, "I play tons of violent video games and I'm not going to go out and repeat the Columbine High School massacre." My response is you may have a high tolerance for mud and you may make the conscientious decision to not let it affect you in that manner, but obviously there were people who let the mud (wherever its origin) affect them and they did enact the massacre. Do any of us know exactly where our breaking point is? Do we keep piling on the mud until it crushes us? Why would we purposely throw mud on ourselves in the first place?
The question isn't: do violent video games (or music or movies or whatever) affect us. That answer is an emphatic yes! The question is: how much does it affect us? The answer is different for each one of us, but it should engender another question: why are we going around splashing all this mud?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Land of the Free and the Home of the Cowards?
Eric Holder, the newly confirmed U.S. Attorney General, made this statement yesterday: "... in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards." Wow! He must have a lot of clout to get away with calling us a nation of cowards. Where's the public outrage? Why isn't the media jumping all over this? Being a high-ranking government official and telling the people you "serve" that they are cowards? Well Mr. Holder, I for one disagree with you and will dedicate this post to a recent racial issue. (I told you there weren't any taboo subjects.) In fact, the racial issue surfaced the same day you made your outlandish statement.
The New York Post published an editorial cartoon with a monkey being shot to death by a police officer. It was an obvious reference to a recent story about a pet chimpanzee who was shot to death this week after attacking a house guest in Connecticut. What was not so obvious--or at least what the controversy is about--was whom or what the chimpanzee represented. The Post Editor in Chief said it "broadly mocks Washington". The Reverend Al Sharpton condemned it as a racist insult about President Barack Obama. (I'm not a gambler, but if I were, I would love to play cards with Sharpton because you always know what card he's going to play.)
This is a country that allows freedom of speech to mock the president and those holding that position have been, for as long as I know, the brunt of political cartoons. The question isn't whether this particular cartoon was inappropriate, disrespectful or disgusting (unfortunately too many of them are). The question is do we treat one president different than all the others simply because he's half black? If we really are color blind to race then the answer is a resounding NO! And lest we forget, the last president was compared to monkeys quite a bit. Do any of you recall Rev. Sharpton coming to President Bush's defense for any of those comparisons? Same political office, same rules--let's not be cowardly about it.
Oh well, at least Michelle is proud of us now.
The New York Post published an editorial cartoon with a monkey being shot to death by a police officer. It was an obvious reference to a recent story about a pet chimpanzee who was shot to death this week after attacking a house guest in Connecticut. What was not so obvious--or at least what the controversy is about--was whom or what the chimpanzee represented. The Post Editor in Chief said it "broadly mocks Washington". The Reverend Al Sharpton condemned it as a racist insult about President Barack Obama. (I'm not a gambler, but if I were, I would love to play cards with Sharpton because you always know what card he's going to play.)
This is a country that allows freedom of speech to mock the president and those holding that position have been, for as long as I know, the brunt of political cartoons. The question isn't whether this particular cartoon was inappropriate, disrespectful or disgusting (unfortunately too many of them are). The question is do we treat one president different than all the others simply because he's half black? If we really are color blind to race then the answer is a resounding NO! And lest we forget, the last president was compared to monkeys quite a bit. Do any of you recall Rev. Sharpton coming to President Bush's defense for any of those comparisons? Same political office, same rules--let's not be cowardly about it.
Oh well, at least Michelle is proud of us now.
Monday, February 16, 2009
What's In A "Natural" Name
In honor of Valentine's Day this past weekend I thought it fitting to quote some words from Juliette:
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title.
Many companies know well the power of names. Reportedly Detroit automakers spend hundreds of millions of dollars on focus groups and market research to come up with car names. If an automaker named their new car "dud" how many buyers would they have? Remember how Golden Crisp cereal used to be called Super Sugar Crisp? But in today's world who wants a cereal with super amounts of sugar?
We try to eat healthy and so we are always on the lookout for healthy cereals. We recently bought one that's "organic". In fact, right after the company's name on the box (which has "nature" in it) the topmost word is organic. It's kind of funny to read the list of ingredients because every ingredient is preceded by the word organic (with the exception of sea salt). I guess they're trying to make a point. But they're also trying to use naming conventions to hide a dirty little secret.
The first ingredient, and therefore the single most used, is "Organic rolled oats". Good for them. But the second most used ingredient is "organic evaporated cane juice". Hmm, what could that be? I don't think they're referring to Aunt Bessie's walking cane, but are trying to hide the word sugar from sugar cane! And what happens when you evaporate sugar cane juice? I'm pretty sure you get granulated sugar. Oh, sorry, in this case you get organic granulated sugar. The second largest ingredient is sugar! How healthy does that sound now? Maybe they should have called it Golden Organic cereal.
Marketing professionals love words like natural and organic because we literally eat them up. But we need to see thru the view they are trying to give us. Last time I checked, poison ivy is both natural and organic, but you wouldn't catch me eating it. There are a lot of things that are natural and/or organic that are very bad for us: anthrax, arsenic, botulism, cholera, cyanide, hemlock, radioactivity, ricin, strychnine, etc. On the other hand there are unnatural things that help us to be healthy, such as synthesized medicines. Just because something is natural/unnatural, organic/inorganic, etc., doesn't make it inherently good or bad.
So the next time a company tries to get you to "buy" something by marketing it as natural, organic, etc., just remember what's in a name and stop romanticizing those words. "Henceforth I never will be Romeo."
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title.
Many companies know well the power of names. Reportedly Detroit automakers spend hundreds of millions of dollars on focus groups and market research to come up with car names. If an automaker named their new car "dud" how many buyers would they have? Remember how Golden Crisp cereal used to be called Super Sugar Crisp? But in today's world who wants a cereal with super amounts of sugar?
We try to eat healthy and so we are always on the lookout for healthy cereals. We recently bought one that's "organic". In fact, right after the company's name on the box (which has "nature" in it) the topmost word is organic. It's kind of funny to read the list of ingredients because every ingredient is preceded by the word organic (with the exception of sea salt). I guess they're trying to make a point. But they're also trying to use naming conventions to hide a dirty little secret.
The first ingredient, and therefore the single most used, is "Organic rolled oats". Good for them. But the second most used ingredient is "organic evaporated cane juice". Hmm, what could that be? I don't think they're referring to Aunt Bessie's walking cane, but are trying to hide the word sugar from sugar cane! And what happens when you evaporate sugar cane juice? I'm pretty sure you get granulated sugar. Oh, sorry, in this case you get organic granulated sugar. The second largest ingredient is sugar! How healthy does that sound now? Maybe they should have called it Golden Organic cereal.
Marketing professionals love words like natural and organic because we literally eat them up. But we need to see thru the view they are trying to give us. Last time I checked, poison ivy is both natural and organic, but you wouldn't catch me eating it. There are a lot of things that are natural and/or organic that are very bad for us: anthrax, arsenic, botulism, cholera, cyanide, hemlock, radioactivity, ricin, strychnine, etc. On the other hand there are unnatural things that help us to be healthy, such as synthesized medicines. Just because something is natural/unnatural, organic/inorganic, etc., doesn't make it inherently good or bad.
So the next time a company tries to get you to "buy" something by marketing it as natural, organic, etc., just remember what's in a name and stop romanticizing those words. "Henceforth I never will be Romeo."
Thursday, February 12, 2009
We All Do It
Did you notice the Associated Press story today that reminded us what week this is? It's the “Freedom to Marry Week.” Heck, it's Thursday and it took them most of the week to remind us? It's even the 12th annual. Huh, who knew? I've never even heard of it before. Have you? Who declares what week it is anyway; the same people who make you pay them to name a star after you?
The article touched on California's Proposition 8 and mentioned that the state's Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on March 5, 2009. Here's another instance of those who disagree with the voters trying to get the wrong branch of government to change the law in their favor. This time the argument can't be that it's against the state constitution since the voters made it part of the constitution. And at least for once someone printed an article that didn't mention the standard line about “narrow-minded hateful bigots who want to discriminate by taking away others’ rights”.
The end of the article points to a national grass-roots organization called Marriage Equality USA. Equality is always a good word to use for your organization since it implies that those who disagree with you don't believe in equality. For that matter, freedom is also one of those words, as in Freedom to Marry Week. But “free for all” is not equivalent to a free-for-all. That's why civilized societies always have restrictions in their laws. We have the right to “free” speech in this country, but we still put restrictions on it: slander, libel, perjury, conspiracy, etc.
Therefore it stands to reason that a civilized society would have restrictions on marriage. The article quotes a Matt Flanders, 37, of Brooklyn as saying, “I should be able to marry the person I love.” So is he, or those who favor his views, calling for marriage to include polygamy? Those who engage in it state that they do love all those other people. What if someone in his 50's asserts he is in love with a 10 year old? Would Flanders et al. fight for the right of a “dirty old man” to marry an innocent child? Can anyone remember hearing a gay rights activist call for incestuous marriages? And this whole line of reasoning by this side of the debate begs the question, “Why stop at 'person' I love?” Why do you want to restrict marriage to just 'people'? Come on, let's be equal here!
It’s easy to vilify those who believe differently than we do and say they are against equality, freedom or that they're un-American. But the fact of the matter is that people on both sides of this issue believe in restrictions on marriage, which have nothing to do with hatred, bigotry, discrimination or taking away rights. What it does have to do with is where each feels those restrictions should be. You see when it comes to restrictions on marriage, we all do it.
The article touched on California's Proposition 8 and mentioned that the state's Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on March 5, 2009. Here's another instance of those who disagree with the voters trying to get the wrong branch of government to change the law in their favor. This time the argument can't be that it's against the state constitution since the voters made it part of the constitution. And at least for once someone printed an article that didn't mention the standard line about “narrow-minded hateful bigots who want to discriminate by taking away others’ rights”.
The end of the article points to a national grass-roots organization called Marriage Equality USA. Equality is always a good word to use for your organization since it implies that those who disagree with you don't believe in equality. For that matter, freedom is also one of those words, as in Freedom to Marry Week. But “free for all” is not equivalent to a free-for-all. That's why civilized societies always have restrictions in their laws. We have the right to “free” speech in this country, but we still put restrictions on it: slander, libel, perjury, conspiracy, etc.
Therefore it stands to reason that a civilized society would have restrictions on marriage. The article quotes a Matt Flanders, 37, of Brooklyn as saying, “I should be able to marry the person I love.” So is he, or those who favor his views, calling for marriage to include polygamy? Those who engage in it state that they do love all those other people. What if someone in his 50's asserts he is in love with a 10 year old? Would Flanders et al. fight for the right of a “dirty old man” to marry an innocent child? Can anyone remember hearing a gay rights activist call for incestuous marriages? And this whole line of reasoning by this side of the debate begs the question, “Why stop at 'person' I love?” Why do you want to restrict marriage to just 'people'? Come on, let's be equal here!
It’s easy to vilify those who believe differently than we do and say they are against equality, freedom or that they're un-American. But the fact of the matter is that people on both sides of this issue believe in restrictions on marriage, which have nothing to do with hatred, bigotry, discrimination or taking away rights. What it does have to do with is where each feels those restrictions should be. You see when it comes to restrictions on marriage, we all do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)