ARE YOU REALLY MORE LIKELY TO BUY THE PRODUCT IF IT COSTS $19.99 RATHER THAN $20.00?
IS YOUR BABY CUTER THAN ALL THE OTHER BABIES IN THE NURSERY OR DO THEY REALLY ALL LOOK ABOUT THE SAME?
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE YOU CAN CALL YOURSELF A HUMANE ANIMAL LOVER AND STILL EAT HAMBURGERS, LOBSTER AND PHEASANT BECAUSE THEY TASTE GOOD?
IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF WEEKS OF RECEIVING UNEMPLOY- MENT BENEFITS, ARE YOU REALLY LOOKING FOR ANOTHER JOB?
DO YOU REALLY NEVER POSE NUDE IN FRONT OF THE BATHROOM MIRROR?
WHEN YOU'RE EATING DINNER AT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOME, IS IT REALLY THE BEST MEAL YOU'VE HAD ALL YEAR?
DO YOU REALLY MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS YOU IMPLY TO YOUR FRIENDS THAT YOU DO?
IF YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN, WOULD YOU REALLY DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN?
WHENEVER SOMEONE ASKS YOU HOW YOU'RE DOING, ARE YOU REALLY ALWAYS FINE?
ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO RETURN THAT $100 YOU FOUND IN THAT WALLET TO ITS RIGHTFUL OWNER?
AREN'T YOU REALLY BEING A VOYEUR WHEN YOU ENJOY SEX SCENES IN THE MOVIES THE WAY YOU DO?
ARE YOU REALLY ALWAYS THINKING OF THE PERSON YOU'RE HAVING SEX WITH?
DO YOU REALLY WANT TO PAY MORE TAXES SO THAT SOMEONE ELSE'S KIDS CAN GO TO COLLEGE?
DO YOU REALLY THINK THE CAMPAIGNING POLITICIAN YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE FOR ALWAYS TOLD THE TRUTH?
DO YOU REALLY THINK YOUR DOCTOR KNOWS THE CORRECT ANSWER TO EVERY MEDICAL QUESTION YOU ASK?
DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU KNOW IT IN YOUR GUT?
WHEN YOU'RE STOPPED BY A COP, WERE YOU REALLY NOT SPEEDING?
ARE YOU REALLY 39?
DO YOU REALLY CARE WHETHER THAT GUY ACROSS TOWN HAS HEALTH INSURANCE?
IF YOU WERE SENTENCED TO DEATH, WOULD YOU STILL REALLY BELIEVE IN THE DEATH PENALTY?
DO YOU REALLY THINK ALL GOOD THINGS COME TO THOSE WHO WAIT?
DO YOU REALLY THINK IT ALL EVENS OUT IN THE END?
Thursday, July 30, 2009
THE DUI CHARADE
In all states, at a certain age, you are allowed to:
get married
get divorced
have children
have an abortion
drive a car
drive a boat
buy cigarettes
risk your life in the military
enter into legally binding business contracts
but you are not old enough to.......buy a Coors Light.
The age? 18 (in fact, in most states, you can't purchase a beer or any alcohol and drink it in public until age 21).
Absurd!
The prime argument made for the mimum alcohol laws is that youngsters don't have the good judgment not to drink and drive. DUI's involving teenagers are increasing. According to all statistics, however, adults don't have any better judgment, and so perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol either. But that was Prohibition and we rightly repealed that law.
Here's the real problem, and it applies to drivers of all ages. In the state I live in, there is a song-and-dance act regarding DUI violations:
A DUI ticket is given, a lawyer is hired for a few thousand dollars, a court date is set, the charges are dropped to a lesser offense, punishment is set at loss of driving privileges for a period of time, a fine payable to the court, some hours of community service and a psychological evaluation. Often, with a clean record, the offender's loss of license period is shortened and the whole matter is expunged.
Who gains from this little play? The lawyers (fees), the courts (fines), the judges and those who work in the courts (jobs). We, the public? No. DUI is very serious and dangerous offense. But according to all statistics, the little scripted play acting does little, if anything, to lessen underage drinking, driving under the influence, or danger to the community.
Possible solution: confiscate the automobile used in the DUI incident for two or three months (longer based on the offender's record), whether it belongs to the DUI offender or not (unless it was reported stolen), whether it is used in a business or not, whether it is the only car the family has or not. Store it in a police pond. No exceptions. Perhaps...hopefully...that will put enough pressure on parents, friends and others to keep automobiles out of the hands of those who are drinking (it will at least keep that automobile out of their hands). Perhaps the drinkers will get the message themselves. A sobering thought.
And we'll all be better off for it.
get married
get divorced
have children
have an abortion
drive a car
drive a boat
buy cigarettes
risk your life in the military
enter into legally binding business contracts
but you are not old enough to.......buy a Coors Light.
The age? 18 (in fact, in most states, you can't purchase a beer or any alcohol and drink it in public until age 21).
Absurd!
The prime argument made for the mimum alcohol laws is that youngsters don't have the good judgment not to drink and drive. DUI's involving teenagers are increasing. According to all statistics, however, adults don't have any better judgment, and so perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol either. But that was Prohibition and we rightly repealed that law.
Here's the real problem, and it applies to drivers of all ages. In the state I live in, there is a song-and-dance act regarding DUI violations:
A DUI ticket is given, a lawyer is hired for a few thousand dollars, a court date is set, the charges are dropped to a lesser offense, punishment is set at loss of driving privileges for a period of time, a fine payable to the court, some hours of community service and a psychological evaluation. Often, with a clean record, the offender's loss of license period is shortened and the whole matter is expunged.
Who gains from this little play? The lawyers (fees), the courts (fines), the judges and those who work in the courts (jobs). We, the public? No. DUI is very serious and dangerous offense. But according to all statistics, the little scripted play acting does little, if anything, to lessen underage drinking, driving under the influence, or danger to the community.
Possible solution: confiscate the automobile used in the DUI incident for two or three months (longer based on the offender's record), whether it belongs to the DUI offender or not (unless it was reported stolen), whether it is used in a business or not, whether it is the only car the family has or not. Store it in a police pond. No exceptions. Perhaps...hopefully...that will put enough pressure on parents, friends and others to keep automobiles out of the hands of those who are drinking (it will at least keep that automobile out of their hands). Perhaps the drinkers will get the message themselves. A sobering thought.
And we'll all be better off for it.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
START THE RACE
The breakdown of the human species into races has varied significantly from Biblical times to the present and in different countries of the world. The concept of race unites groups of people based on physical characteristics, place of origin, cultural customs, etc.
The question arises: What is the race of an offspring of a mixed racial union who exhibits some characteristics of each parental race?
For example: iIs it appropriate to refer to the child of one black and one white parent as black? Remember, the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse is not a donkey or a horse but a mule.
Interracial marriages occur with increasing frequency, and it is time to establish new race classifications appropriate to modern times. Accepting today's popular delineation of four races...caucasian, black, asian, indian...here are my recommended new races:
BLACAUC...offspring of a black and a caucasian
INDCAUC...offspring of an indian and a caucasian
ASCAUC...offspring of an asian and a caucasian
INDBLAC...offspring of an indian and a black
ASBLAC...offspring of an asian and a black
INDIAS...offspring of an indian and anasian
BLACIND...offspring of a blacauc and an indauc
BLACAS...offspring of a blacauc and an ascauc
BLACBLAC...offspring of a blacauc and an indblac
CAUCBLAC...offspring of a blacauc and an asblac
BLIAS...offspring of a blacauc and an indias
ASIND..offspring of an indcauc and an ascauc
INDIND...offspring of an indcauc and an indblac
INDLAC...offspring of an indauc and an asblac
ININ...offspring of an indauc and an indias
CAUCLAC...offspring of an ascauc and an indblac
ASBAS...offspring of an ascauc and anasblac
CAUCDIAS...offspring of an ascauc and an indias
ASBLIND...offspring of an indblac and an asblac
IASBLAC...offspring of an indblac and an indias
ASDIAS...offspring of an asblac and an indias
There you have it...simple, clear, logical...finally!
The question arises: What is the race of an offspring of a mixed racial union who exhibits some characteristics of each parental race?
For example: iIs it appropriate to refer to the child of one black and one white parent as black? Remember, the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse is not a donkey or a horse but a mule.
Interracial marriages occur with increasing frequency, and it is time to establish new race classifications appropriate to modern times. Accepting today's popular delineation of four races...caucasian, black, asian, indian...here are my recommended new races:
BLACAUC...offspring of a black and a caucasian
INDCAUC...offspring of an indian and a caucasian
ASCAUC...offspring of an asian and a caucasian
INDBLAC...offspring of an indian and a black
ASBLAC...offspring of an asian and a black
INDIAS...offspring of an indian and anasian
BLACIND...offspring of a blacauc and an indauc
BLACAS...offspring of a blacauc and an ascauc
BLACBLAC...offspring of a blacauc and an indblac
CAUCBLAC...offspring of a blacauc and an asblac
BLIAS...offspring of a blacauc and an indias
ASIND..offspring of an indcauc and an ascauc
INDIND...offspring of an indcauc and an indblac
INDLAC...offspring of an indauc and an asblac
ININ...offspring of an indauc and an indias
CAUCLAC...offspring of an ascauc and an indblac
ASBAS...offspring of an ascauc and anasblac
CAUCDIAS...offspring of an ascauc and an indias
ASBLIND...offspring of an indblac and an asblac
IASBLAC...offspring of an indblac and an indias
ASDIAS...offspring of an asblac and an indias
There you have it...simple, clear, logical...finally!
Sunday, July 26, 2009
BASEBALL, YER OUT!
Baseball is our national pastime, but it has three strikes against it and you know about three strikes
STRIKE ONE: BALLPARKS HAVE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS
Since a team plays half its games in its iwn home ballpark, its dimensions can make quite a difference in its won-lost record, in a ballplayer's batting and fielding averages, pitching record, paycheck, the winning of Cy Young and MVP awards, and the prospects of being voted into the Hall of Fame. Comparing the records of players who play in different ballparks is meaningless, invalid, absurd..
A ball hit 315 feet down the right field line in New York's Yankee Stadium or San Francisco's AT&T Park is a home run, but a ball hit 40 feet further back in Chicago's Wrigley Field is a lazy fly ball and a probable out. Want to compare the record of sluggers who play in those two ballparks? Or of pitchers who pitch in those two parks?
A line drive to left field that would reach the stands for a home run in most ballparks would ricochet off the Green Monster in Boston's Fenway Park -- a 37 foot high wall that sits atop its left field fence a short 310 feet away -- and bounce harmlessly back onto the playing field for a single or double.
Some parks are domed and protected from weather, others aren't. Some ballfields have artificial grass that speeds up ground balls, others have natural grass that slow up the ball. Different parks have different amounts of foul territory behind home plate and down the foul lines. A team's fortunes have been known to rise and fall with the rise and fall of its pitching mound.
Baseball is the only professional sport whose playing fields have such differences in its dimensions.
STRKE TWO: ARBITRARY AWARDING OF WINS/LOSSES TO PITCHERS
A win is awarded to the pitcher who was the pitcher of record when the team went ahead in the game and stayed ahead (starting pitchers must pitch 5 innings too get the win). That arbitrary rule can and frequently does produce an absurd result, such as this:
The starting pitcher for the home team pitches a beautiful game, and leaves the game in the 9th inning with his team ahead 10-0. A relief pitcher comes in and gives up 11 runs, to make the score 11-10 in favor of the visiting team. The home team then scores two runs in the bottom of the ninth to win the game 12-11.
The winning pitcher under today's rules? The relief pitcher, who pitched atrociously, and not the starting pitcher, who pitched masterfully! The charging of losses to pitchers have similar problems.
Simple solution. Have the game's official scorer award the win to the pitcher he or she believes most contributed to the win, the way the official scorer rules whether a batter reached base by getting a hit or on an error. Might there be a game when a team wins, all of its pitchers pitched poorly and no one is awarded the coveted win? Sure, and deservedly so.
STRIKE THREE: IT AIN'T A WORLD SERIES
Each baseball season wraps up with the playoffs and their shining highlight, the World Series. Problem is, the world is not invited. The only teams invited are 27 teams from the U.S. and one each from Toronto and Montreal. Professional teams in Europe, Asia, South America, the Caribbean and other parts of the world are ignored. Think of what we Americans would be saying if there were a World Football Series and U.S. teams were shunned.
Solution? Give the World Series a new name, like the North American Series (which it is), or the Grand Series or some other such name...or, leave the name as it is and legitimatize it by inviting the world. Sure, there was a time, 100 years ago, when professional baseball was only played in the U.S. and the name World Series was appropriate, but 'taint so anymore.
Our national pastime needs serious fixin'.
STRIKE ONE: BALLPARKS HAVE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS
Since a team plays half its games in its iwn home ballpark, its dimensions can make quite a difference in its won-lost record, in a ballplayer's batting and fielding averages, pitching record, paycheck, the winning of Cy Young and MVP awards, and the prospects of being voted into the Hall of Fame. Comparing the records of players who play in different ballparks is meaningless, invalid, absurd..
A ball hit 315 feet down the right field line in New York's Yankee Stadium or San Francisco's AT&T Park is a home run, but a ball hit 40 feet further back in Chicago's Wrigley Field is a lazy fly ball and a probable out. Want to compare the record of sluggers who play in those two ballparks? Or of pitchers who pitch in those two parks?
A line drive to left field that would reach the stands for a home run in most ballparks would ricochet off the Green Monster in Boston's Fenway Park -- a 37 foot high wall that sits atop its left field fence a short 310 feet away -- and bounce harmlessly back onto the playing field for a single or double.
Some parks are domed and protected from weather, others aren't. Some ballfields have artificial grass that speeds up ground balls, others have natural grass that slow up the ball. Different parks have different amounts of foul territory behind home plate and down the foul lines. A team's fortunes have been known to rise and fall with the rise and fall of its pitching mound.
Baseball is the only professional sport whose playing fields have such differences in its dimensions.
STRKE TWO: ARBITRARY AWARDING OF WINS/LOSSES TO PITCHERS
A win is awarded to the pitcher who was the pitcher of record when the team went ahead in the game and stayed ahead (starting pitchers must pitch 5 innings too get the win). That arbitrary rule can and frequently does produce an absurd result, such as this:
The starting pitcher for the home team pitches a beautiful game, and leaves the game in the 9th inning with his team ahead 10-0. A relief pitcher comes in and gives up 11 runs, to make the score 11-10 in favor of the visiting team. The home team then scores two runs in the bottom of the ninth to win the game 12-11.
The winning pitcher under today's rules? The relief pitcher, who pitched atrociously, and not the starting pitcher, who pitched masterfully! The charging of losses to pitchers have similar problems.
Simple solution. Have the game's official scorer award the win to the pitcher he or she believes most contributed to the win, the way the official scorer rules whether a batter reached base by getting a hit or on an error. Might there be a game when a team wins, all of its pitchers pitched poorly and no one is awarded the coveted win? Sure, and deservedly so.
STRIKE THREE: IT AIN'T A WORLD SERIES
Each baseball season wraps up with the playoffs and their shining highlight, the World Series. Problem is, the world is not invited. The only teams invited are 27 teams from the U.S. and one each from Toronto and Montreal. Professional teams in Europe, Asia, South America, the Caribbean and other parts of the world are ignored. Think of what we Americans would be saying if there were a World Football Series and U.S. teams were shunned.
Solution? Give the World Series a new name, like the North American Series (which it is), or the Grand Series or some other such name...or, leave the name as it is and legitimatize it by inviting the world. Sure, there was a time, 100 years ago, when professional baseball was only played in the U.S. and the name World Series was appropriate, but 'taint so anymore.
Our national pastime needs serious fixin'.
BEFUDDLING
To me, the human mind is at once the most wondrous, fascinating and befuddling part of our being. Wondrous because of its enormous capabilities, fascinating because of its as yet untapped potentials, and befuddling because it has strange attitudes and beliefs about itself.
For example: We can often be heard to say, "I had to talk myself into it." What in tarnation does that mean? The "I" and the "myself" in that sentence are the same thing, the same you, aren't they? If the "I"s mind already knows or believes or wants something, who or what else is there in the "myseld" that it has to convince? "You" only have one mind, it is the only decision maker in you, and you are already convinced. So who or what exactly are you talking to? Befuddling.
Ever say to yourself (what does that mean?), "I have to give my mind a rest." Shouldn't that more accurately be stated, "This part of the total me needs to shut down this part of the total me because this part of the total me is tired of doing what this part of the total me is designed to do"? Befuddling.
Ever say, "I can't stop thinking about it"? So your mind, which in one way or another, controls everything in your body, is not in total control of itself? Something else is controlling it? What? Befuddling.
And when the mind turns to drugs and alcohol and biofeedback and self-hypnosis and meditation and mantras and yoga and stuff to shut itself partially or totally down, is that aN acknowledge- ment that it prefers at times not to do the job nature intended it to do? Nature intended it to do? Nature, too, has a mind? Befuddling.
Can you ever really not know yourself? Lie to yourself (since you already know the truth)? Not believe you're saying or doing something? Push things out of your mind? Make believe it didn't happen? Close your eyes (eyes?) to the facts? Walk on burning coals and choose not to feel what you're feeling? Not know who you really are? Believe the unbelievable? Erase something from your mind? Turn off your mind (how could you ever choose to turn it back on if it takes an awake mind to make choices)? If you had a brain transplant (they're probably coming), would you be you or would you be he or she? Can you ever really go out of your mind, since you are not in your mind, your mind is in you?
Mind-boggling.
For example: We can often be heard to say, "I had to talk myself into it." What in tarnation does that mean? The "I" and the "myself" in that sentence are the same thing, the same you, aren't they? If the "I"s mind already knows or believes or wants something, who or what else is there in the "myseld" that it has to convince? "You" only have one mind, it is the only decision maker in you, and you are already convinced. So who or what exactly are you talking to? Befuddling.
Ever say to yourself (what does that mean?), "I have to give my mind a rest." Shouldn't that more accurately be stated, "This part of the total me needs to shut down this part of the total me because this part of the total me is tired of doing what this part of the total me is designed to do"? Befuddling.
Ever say, "I can't stop thinking about it"? So your mind, which in one way or another, controls everything in your body, is not in total control of itself? Something else is controlling it? What? Befuddling.
And when the mind turns to drugs and alcohol and biofeedback and self-hypnosis and meditation and mantras and yoga and stuff to shut itself partially or totally down, is that aN acknowledge- ment that it prefers at times not to do the job nature intended it to do? Nature intended it to do? Nature, too, has a mind? Befuddling.
Can you ever really not know yourself? Lie to yourself (since you already know the truth)? Not believe you're saying or doing something? Push things out of your mind? Make believe it didn't happen? Close your eyes (eyes?) to the facts? Walk on burning coals and choose not to feel what you're feeling? Not know who you really are? Believe the unbelievable? Erase something from your mind? Turn off your mind (how could you ever choose to turn it back on if it takes an awake mind to make choices)? If you had a brain transplant (they're probably coming), would you be you or would you be he or she? Can you ever really go out of your mind, since you are not in your mind, your mind is in you?
Mind-boggling.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
AND THE ZIT AWARD GOES TO...
When President "Obama denounced the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department for stupidity--
one of the department's officers, Sergeant James Crowley, while investigating a possible break-in, arrested Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. for disorderly conduct for being belligerent, refusing to show identification and cooperate with the police, and after repeatedly accusing the Sergeant of racism (the sergeant is white, the Professor is black)--
he made the following logical errors:
1. When the President acknowledged he made his comments without having all the evidence, he acting irrationally by basing his comments on subjective feelings rather than objective facts;
2. When the President admitted he was biased in his judgment of the incident because the Professor was a friend, he sought to include bias as an element of fairness and justitce;
3. When the President impliedly brought the issue of racism into the arrest, he made the syncretic error of relating two facts (there is racism in America, and there was this incident) that were not proven to be related to each other;
4. When the President implied that racism motivated the Sergeant's actions, he assumed a cause and effect relationship that didn't necessarily exist;
5. When the President invoked the spectre of racism, based solely on the fact that some police officers may be racist, he committed the error of generalization (what's true of some members of a group is true for all members of the group)...ironically, the logical error inherent in racism;
6. When the President denigrated the police for arresting "a middle-aged man with a cane," he sought to evoke sympathy by bringing up irrelevancies, and either showed historical ignorance or was guilty of attempted deception.
For all of the above reasons, President Obama is awarded the first ZIT Award for being guilty of the most Zany Illogical Thinking of the week.
one of the department's officers, Sergeant James Crowley, while investigating a possible break-in, arrested Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. for disorderly conduct for being belligerent, refusing to show identification and cooperate with the police, and after repeatedly accusing the Sergeant of racism (the sergeant is white, the Professor is black)--
he made the following logical errors:
1. When the President acknowledged he made his comments without having all the evidence, he acting irrationally by basing his comments on subjective feelings rather than objective facts;
2. When the President admitted he was biased in his judgment of the incident because the Professor was a friend, he sought to include bias as an element of fairness and justitce;
3. When the President impliedly brought the issue of racism into the arrest, he made the syncretic error of relating two facts (there is racism in America, and there was this incident) that were not proven to be related to each other;
4. When the President implied that racism motivated the Sergeant's actions, he assumed a cause and effect relationship that didn't necessarily exist;
5. When the President invoked the spectre of racism, based solely on the fact that some police officers may be racist, he committed the error of generalization (what's true of some members of a group is true for all members of the group)...ironically, the logical error inherent in racism;
6. When the President denigrated the police for arresting "a middle-aged man with a cane," he sought to evoke sympathy by bringing up irrelevancies, and either showed historical ignorance or was guilty of attempted deception.
For all of the above reasons, President Obama is awarded the first ZIT Award for being guilty of the most Zany Illogical Thinking of the week.
Friday, July 24, 2009
RING IN THE NEWS
I have always been curious as to why married people wear wedding rings. It seemS a strange custom. I understand that years and years ago, it symbolized a commitment to marital fidelity, and in some countries the value of the ring represented a monetary endowment. Today, I think, it is used more as an announcement... that the wearer is taken, maritally and sexually speaking.
But since probably less than 1/100th of 1% of the people you meet have any pressing need or desire to know if you are sexually available, and since there is the far less costly invention of language to convey that tidbit of information, what is the purpose of making the announcement?
But this post is not arguing for the abolition of wedding rings. Quite the contrary. If the purpose of wearing a ring is to reveal something important about yourself that others ought know, then I propose we each, married or not, wear ten rings, one on each finger, to announce the following with indicated specificity:
1. RELIGION (christian, jewish, buddhist, muslim, agnostic, atheist)
2. SEXUAL ORIENTATION (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual)
3. DESIRED FREQUENCY OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR (once daily, once weekly, on holidays only)
4. OCCUPATION (doctor, lawyer, indian chief)
5. FINANCIAL STATUS (rich, poor, somewhere in the middle)
6. AGE (under 40, in prime time, senior, archaic)
7. POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE (capitalist, socialist, fascist, communist, anarchist, terrorist)
8. DIETARY HABIT (carnivore, vegetarian, health nut)
9. PRESENT MOOD (serene, anxious, depressed, none of your business)
10. MARITAL STATUS (taken, taken but looking, not taken and desperate)
Yes, those rings will cost a little bit. But think of all the conversation that will be saved by the mere flashing of your dazzling, bejeweled ringed fingers...conversation that likely pollutes the planet more than all the gasoline we spew into the atmosphere.
In another post, I will identify the intriguing information that will be revealed by the ten rings to be worn on your toes.
But since probably less than 1/100th of 1% of the people you meet have any pressing need or desire to know if you are sexually available, and since there is the far less costly invention of language to convey that tidbit of information, what is the purpose of making the announcement?
But this post is not arguing for the abolition of wedding rings. Quite the contrary. If the purpose of wearing a ring is to reveal something important about yourself that others ought know, then I propose we each, married or not, wear ten rings, one on each finger, to announce the following with indicated specificity:
1. RELIGION (christian, jewish, buddhist, muslim, agnostic, atheist)
2. SEXUAL ORIENTATION (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual)
3. DESIRED FREQUENCY OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR (once daily, once weekly, on holidays only)
4. OCCUPATION (doctor, lawyer, indian chief)
5. FINANCIAL STATUS (rich, poor, somewhere in the middle)
6. AGE (under 40, in prime time, senior, archaic)
7. POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE (capitalist, socialist, fascist, communist, anarchist, terrorist)
8. DIETARY HABIT (carnivore, vegetarian, health nut)
9. PRESENT MOOD (serene, anxious, depressed, none of your business)
10. MARITAL STATUS (taken, taken but looking, not taken and desperate)
Yes, those rings will cost a little bit. But think of all the conversation that will be saved by the mere flashing of your dazzling, bejeweled ringed fingers...conversation that likely pollutes the planet more than all the gasoline we spew into the atmosphere.
In another post, I will identify the intriguing information that will be revealed by the ten rings to be worn on your toes.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
WHAT, ME LIE?
Humans are liars...habitual, blatant, prolific liars.
We have been taught since early childhood to lie:
"Don't tell her the truth, it will hurt her feelings"
"Where is the truth going to get you?"
"What's truth anyway? What's true for you may not be true for me"
And so we lie...to gain advantage, money, position, favor, respect, adulation, sex and whatever else we deem of value. We lie with one hand on the Bible, we lie on our mother's grave, we lie at the risk of being struck by lightning,, we lie at the risk of selling our soul to the Devil.
We lie because "everyone else does," "who'll know anyway," and "you gotta be crazy not to."
We lie to our boss, to our spouse, to our friends, to our neighbors, to the IRS, to the police...and to ourselves.
We double lie: "This painting is worth $5,000 and I got it for $800." (Worth $1,300 and he paid $1,500 for it.")
We triple lie: "And I've already had someone offer me $8,000 for it." ($1,500)
We quad lie: "But I wouldn't sell it for $50,000." ($2,000)
We lie about how much we lie.
And we take pride in how well we lie: "He believed every word I said. It was like taking candy from a baby. I'm such a damn good liar."
So the question arises: Considering all of the above, is there a good reason not to lie?
Well, there is always the risk of being embarrassed if you are found out, or of feeling a bit guilty, but most liars, I think, feel the risks are small and the rewards too tempting.
So why should you not lie? Because your ultimate goal in life is to be happy (the goal of all people)...and happiness depends upon your having a substantial measure of self esteem (that is, a positive feeling that your life is of value and you are worth living it and worthy of what you have achieved)...and because every time you lie, it is an admission to yourself that the true you, the real you, is not capable of succeeding in life and that the only place you can succeed, if at all, is in the vacuum of unreality, where is nothing of value. No more powerful attack on your self esteem and your happiness potential is possible.
The liar may feel a certain pleasure at having "gotten away with it." But that pleasure will be short-lived. Reality always avenges itself and the consequences of his lies in the reality he sought to avoid are, in fact, unavoidable.
We have been taught since early childhood to lie:
"Don't tell her the truth, it will hurt her feelings"
"Where is the truth going to get you?"
"What's truth anyway? What's true for you may not be true for me"
And so we lie...to gain advantage, money, position, favor, respect, adulation, sex and whatever else we deem of value. We lie with one hand on the Bible, we lie on our mother's grave, we lie at the risk of being struck by lightning,, we lie at the risk of selling our soul to the Devil.
We lie because "everyone else does," "who'll know anyway," and "you gotta be crazy not to."
We lie to our boss, to our spouse, to our friends, to our neighbors, to the IRS, to the police...and to ourselves.
We double lie: "This painting is worth $5,000 and I got it for $800." (Worth $1,300 and he paid $1,500 for it.")
We triple lie: "And I've already had someone offer me $8,000 for it." ($1,500)
We quad lie: "But I wouldn't sell it for $50,000." ($2,000)
We lie about how much we lie.
And we take pride in how well we lie: "He believed every word I said. It was like taking candy from a baby. I'm such a damn good liar."
So the question arises: Considering all of the above, is there a good reason not to lie?
Well, there is always the risk of being embarrassed if you are found out, or of feeling a bit guilty, but most liars, I think, feel the risks are small and the rewards too tempting.
So why should you not lie? Because your ultimate goal in life is to be happy (the goal of all people)...and happiness depends upon your having a substantial measure of self esteem (that is, a positive feeling that your life is of value and you are worth living it and worthy of what you have achieved)...and because every time you lie, it is an admission to yourself that the true you, the real you, is not capable of succeeding in life and that the only place you can succeed, if at all, is in the vacuum of unreality, where is nothing of value. No more powerful attack on your self esteem and your happiness potential is possible.
The liar may feel a certain pleasure at having "gotten away with it." But that pleasure will be short-lived. Reality always avenges itself and the consequences of his lies in the reality he sought to avoid are, in fact, unavoidable.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
AH, A SIMPLER LIFE
I would like to have been a caveman. Really, I would. Not because I think he lived a better life than we do...he did have more leisure time, though not as many entertaining diversions to fill it with...but because of the things he didn't have to do:
file tax returns
mow the lawn
attend school
send birthday cards
pay bills
iron
keep bank balances
unclog toilets
change diapers
shave
clean the fireplace
wash dishes
wax cars
wear ties
get stuck in traffic
listen to his neighbor's 7 year old kid play the piano
hire lawyers
serve time in prison
stand in lines
get old age disabilities
worry about identity theft
get there on time
HOW DID WE GO SO WRONG?
file tax returns
mow the lawn
attend school
send birthday cards
pay bills
iron
keep bank balances
unclog toilets
change diapers
shave
clean the fireplace
wash dishes
wax cars
wear ties
get stuck in traffic
listen to his neighbor's 7 year old kid play the piano
hire lawyers
serve time in prison
stand in lines
get old age disabilities
worry about identity theft
get there on time
HOW DID WE GO SO WRONG?
THE UNSPOKEN RIGHT
I heard a commentator on television the other day argue in favor of affirmative action (AA) on the basis that it is needed to remedy past racial discriminations in our country, and that it is an effective way of doing so. Those are the classic pro-AA positions and while I disagree with both of them...I think education is the best way to lessen the frequency of racial, sexual, religious or any other form of discrimination, and that AA programs may actually promote discrimination...those are not the arguments I wish to make here.
I would like to reply to the commentator from a different standpoint...one I have never heard voiced before (not saying it hasn't been made, just that I have never heard it):
We each have a right to be racist.
I have a right to prefer vanilla or chocolate, to hang out only with members of a certain race, to invite to my home only members of certain national origin, to marry only a member of a certain religion. And, yes, I have a right to hire only members of a certain ethnic group to work for my company, and to use any other illogical, irrational basis for hiring that I wish.
Years ago, a certain very well known company hired only, or virtually only, African Americans. Many called the company racist, and it was. But I also argued that it had a right to be racist, to run its business as it wished. That is what freedom is all about. ..your right to live your life as you choose provided you do not initiate force against others and restrain their right to live their lives as they choose.
I am a member of a minority that has been persecuted throughout history. To their credit, my tribesmen never thought, nor sought, to fight their way out of persecution by way of further persecutions (by way of denying freedom) or prosecutions. They thought instead to enhance their worth as human beings, as students, as workers, in the hope that others would use that worth as the basis of their decisions. Some of the others have, some haven't. That is their freedom.
It is the government, not individuals, that may not discriminate. We are all equal under the law and justice requires that we be treated that way. Favoritism for or against any group by the government, whatever its noble motives may be, is prohibited. But I, and you, are free to be as picky and choosey as we want, no matter how ignominious and uneducated that might be.
It no doubt sounds strange to most, but arguing for the right to be racist is actually a call for freedom.
I would like to reply to the commentator from a different standpoint...one I have never heard voiced before (not saying it hasn't been made, just that I have never heard it):
We each have a right to be racist.
I have a right to prefer vanilla or chocolate, to hang out only with members of a certain race, to invite to my home only members of certain national origin, to marry only a member of a certain religion. And, yes, I have a right to hire only members of a certain ethnic group to work for my company, and to use any other illogical, irrational basis for hiring that I wish.
Years ago, a certain very well known company hired only, or virtually only, African Americans. Many called the company racist, and it was. But I also argued that it had a right to be racist, to run its business as it wished. That is what freedom is all about. ..your right to live your life as you choose provided you do not initiate force against others and restrain their right to live their lives as they choose.
I am a member of a minority that has been persecuted throughout history. To their credit, my tribesmen never thought, nor sought, to fight their way out of persecution by way of further persecutions (by way of denying freedom) or prosecutions. They thought instead to enhance their worth as human beings, as students, as workers, in the hope that others would use that worth as the basis of their decisions. Some of the others have, some haven't. That is their freedom.
It is the government, not individuals, that may not discriminate. We are all equal under the law and justice requires that we be treated that way. Favoritism for or against any group by the government, whatever its noble motives may be, is prohibited. But I, and you, are free to be as picky and choosey as we want, no matter how ignominious and uneducated that might be.
It no doubt sounds strange to most, but arguing for the right to be racist is actually a call for freedom.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
PROBLEMATIC QUESTIONS
So how did humans learn about microorganisms?
What if you don't want the mare back in?Doesn't the hyena laugh longest?
What if the one I am holding is flapping its wings?
Has the mountain ever come?
Why do you think I won't succeed the second time?
Better than antibiotics?
Even if you are giving to yourself?
I thought you weren't supposed to use that word?
So taking care is bad?
What if the cart has a motor?
Isn't that a good reason not to be early?
If they are properly named, what else could they be?
Do you think hard working slaves would agree?
Can you say where it goes?What if the kitchen is the only air conditioned room?
Might He have wanted us to invent airplanes?
How do you know when the breeze is sick?
If you have lost your soul?
So the first 39 don't count?
What if nine saves a hundred?
Doesn't the quiet one get away with murder?
And sloth doesn't?
Better than sex?
Can you make it eternal?
Is it ever too early?
If they are really gone, what else can they be?
How do I know it's a sick breeze?
Sunday, July 19, 2009
THE GREAT GAP
I vacillate between the idea that humans are glorious god-like beings and the idea that we are just another species of bugs in the rug. The main reason for the vacillation is the huge disparity between man's potential and his actuality:
He talks about the sanctity of human life but despite not knowing when life begins, he destroys millions of fetuses annually rather than giving birth to them and putting them up for adoption;
He has the unique power to choose the course of his life yet very often chooses not to choose, blindly following the choices of others;
He studies calculus and trigonometry and other subjects he will almost never use and fails to study the nature of his own species, logical thinking and other subjects he needs to know and use;
He professes to value longevity but pays only modest attention to nutrition, exercise, avoidance of stress amd other matters that would extend his life;
He is physically weaker than virtually all other living species;
He claims to have a soul but pays virtually no attention to it;
He believes in benevolence and compassion and nonjudgmentality yet angers easily and intensely and often violently;
He argues he is not racist yet condoned slavery for most of his existence;
He claims to be civilized but robs, rapes and murders with ever increasing frequency and the country acclaimed as one of the most civilized at the time sought to annihilate a race, at which it was 50% successful;
He claims to love freedom yet enacts law after law which forcefully denies the freedom of his neighbors and of himself;
He decries the brutal treatment of animals yet unnecessarily kills billions of them each year and eats them with relish, or cuts off their heads and hangs them over the fireplace to extol his manness;
He proudly boasts of his intelligence yet turns to mystical unknowable faith to make decisions on some of the most important issues in his life;
He denounces those who act in their self interest but personal gain and happiness motivate every action he takes;
He is capable of achieving self esteem but is easily thwarted by feelings of inadequacy, self doubt and guilt.
Humans are the only species that does not live in accordance with its nature and does not live to its potential. As the gap between its glorious potential and the reality of its existence widens, the forces of evolution may place its survival in jeopardy.
Strange manner of species, indeed.
He talks about the sanctity of human life but despite not knowing when life begins, he destroys millions of fetuses annually rather than giving birth to them and putting them up for adoption;
He has the unique power to choose the course of his life yet very often chooses not to choose, blindly following the choices of others;
He studies calculus and trigonometry and other subjects he will almost never use and fails to study the nature of his own species, logical thinking and other subjects he needs to know and use;
He professes to value longevity but pays only modest attention to nutrition, exercise, avoidance of stress amd other matters that would extend his life;
He is physically weaker than virtually all other living species;
He claims to have a soul but pays virtually no attention to it;
He believes in benevolence and compassion and nonjudgmentality yet angers easily and intensely and often violently;
He argues he is not racist yet condoned slavery for most of his existence;
He claims to be civilized but robs, rapes and murders with ever increasing frequency and the country acclaimed as one of the most civilized at the time sought to annihilate a race, at which it was 50% successful;
He claims to love freedom yet enacts law after law which forcefully denies the freedom of his neighbors and of himself;
He decries the brutal treatment of animals yet unnecessarily kills billions of them each year and eats them with relish, or cuts off their heads and hangs them over the fireplace to extol his manness;
He proudly boasts of his intelligence yet turns to mystical unknowable faith to make decisions on some of the most important issues in his life;
He denounces those who act in their self interest but personal gain and happiness motivate every action he takes;
He is capable of achieving self esteem but is easily thwarted by feelings of inadequacy, self doubt and guilt.
Humans are the only species that does not live in accordance with its nature and does not live to its potential. As the gap between its glorious potential and the reality of its existence widens, the forces of evolution may place its survival in jeopardy.
Strange manner of species, indeed.
Friday, July 17, 2009
THINK BEAUTY
My neighbor called the other day and the first thing she said was, "I heard you bought a new lawn mower, did you get a good deal?"
That made me think of the priorities we use when purchasing goods and services in the marketplace today...and how, in all but a few instances, money--cost--seems to be firmly esconsed in the #1 position.
Television, newspaper and radio ads implore us to think of money first:
"Nobody but nobody undersells us"
"Find a lower price and we'll beat it by 10%"
"Rent this beautiful car for only dollars a day"
"Order in the next few days and we'll double our offer"
Store fronts are emblazoned with screaming signs:
"Going out of business sale"
"Back to school sale"
"Buy one, get one free"
"Seniors get 20% off on Tuesdays"
Store aisles are covered with bright attention-getting stickers: "This item on sale. Regular price $, sale price $, you save $." And, oh yes, "Sign up here for the store's card, carry it with you on your key chain, show it every time you come to the store, and you'll pay the low low low prices only available to our loyal customers."
Coupons offering discounts are everywhere. They come at you in the mail, they fill special newspaper inserts, they are handed out in the streets. Cutting coupons has become an occupation, and an obsession.
Now, of course, except for the few of us who have more money than we are ever reasonably likely to spend, money is a factor in any purchase. But is it really the most important and interesting thing about my new lawn mower? What about quality and safety and efficiency and durability and noise level and serviceability and warranty...and beauty.
Yes, beauty. This is an unabashed pitch to promote beauty to replace money in the #1 priority position. Beauty in all its manifestations...beauty to the visual sense (art), beauty to the auditory sense (music), beauty to the sense of touch (texture), beauty to the sense of gustation (gourmet cuisine), beauty to the olfactory sense (exotic aroma), and beauty to the mind (curiosity, conjecture, comprehension).
Beauty feeds the soul and bouys our spirit. It reveals how perfectly pure life can be. It is harmony and symmetry. It evokes the emotion of love. It brings with it an inner serenity and contentment. It adds luster to our individual lives as nothing else can do. It is the pathway to entering the glorious spiritual realm within ourselves.
To paraphrase the Bible, how greater doth a man profit than in the enrichment of his soul?
Think beauty.
That made me think of the priorities we use when purchasing goods and services in the marketplace today...and how, in all but a few instances, money--cost--seems to be firmly esconsed in the #1 position.
Television, newspaper and radio ads implore us to think of money first:
"Nobody but nobody undersells us"
"Find a lower price and we'll beat it by 10%"
"Rent this beautiful car for only dollars a day"
"Order in the next few days and we'll double our offer"
Store fronts are emblazoned with screaming signs:
"Going out of business sale"
"Back to school sale"
"Buy one, get one free"
"Seniors get 20% off on Tuesdays"
Store aisles are covered with bright attention-getting stickers: "This item on sale. Regular price $, sale price $, you save $." And, oh yes, "Sign up here for the store's card, carry it with you on your key chain, show it every time you come to the store, and you'll pay the low low low prices only available to our loyal customers."
Coupons offering discounts are everywhere. They come at you in the mail, they fill special newspaper inserts, they are handed out in the streets. Cutting coupons has become an occupation, and an obsession.
Now, of course, except for the few of us who have more money than we are ever reasonably likely to spend, money is a factor in any purchase. But is it really the most important and interesting thing about my new lawn mower? What about quality and safety and efficiency and durability and noise level and serviceability and warranty...and beauty.
Yes, beauty. This is an unabashed pitch to promote beauty to replace money in the #1 priority position. Beauty in all its manifestations...beauty to the visual sense (art), beauty to the auditory sense (music), beauty to the sense of touch (texture), beauty to the sense of gustation (gourmet cuisine), beauty to the olfactory sense (exotic aroma), and beauty to the mind (curiosity, conjecture, comprehension).
Beauty feeds the soul and bouys our spirit. It reveals how perfectly pure life can be. It is harmony and symmetry. It evokes the emotion of love. It brings with it an inner serenity and contentment. It adds luster to our individual lives as nothing else can do. It is the pathway to entering the glorious spiritual realm within ourselves.
To paraphrase the Bible, how greater doth a man profit than in the enrichment of his soul?
Think beauty.
THE SIMPLE SEED
I:n the seemingly endless debate on whether same sex marriages ought be legalized and recognized throughout our country, three words are notably absent.
First, let me say that marriage is not properly of government concern. It is an arrangement between two (or more) people that may or may not entail certain contractual obligations which, if there are any, ought be enforced legally as any other contractual obligations are. Otherwise, government, hands off!
But let us delve a bit further and look at the main arguments made against same sex marriages.
It is argued that being sexually attracted to a member of the same gender is not natural. That may be genetically true for most people but is obviously not true for others. For them, it is genetically natural. Secondly, in this vein, where is it written you must act in accordance with your nature? In fact, as you will see below, it is written that your right to act contrary to your nature is protected by the law.
It is argued that same sex marriages are immoral because the Bible says so. If what is written in the Bible determines morality and propriety, then those who use this argument would have to argue that slavery, stoning nonbelievers to death, treating women as second class citizens, requiring widows to marry their brothers in law, polygamy and prolific use of drugs are morally acceptable. Do they? Are they? Religious folk tend to want to make the Bible one of America's founding documents, but, sorry guys, it isn't.
It is argued that same sex marriages are not part of our culture. True, at the moment. But culture is malleable, not something rigid that must be adhered to. Our actions determine our culture, not the other way around. If we change our view of same sex marriages, our culture will change and they will become part of it, and that argument will be gone.
I said above that three words were missing from the argument. They are pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence refers to our unalienable right to pursue our own happiness... and the preamble to our Constitution speaks of the desire to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Read together, it is clear that one of the revolutionary pillars of the new culture that was being established is our individual freedom to pursue our happiness in ways that we choose, provided only that we do not deny the freedom of others to do the same.
Will being an architect or a merchant or a drifter make you happy? Go ahead, you choose. Want to live in Idaho or Nevada? Go ahead, you choose. Want to smoke even though it may be harmful to you? Your choice. Want to believe in God and the Bible? Your choice (though not necessarily mine). Want to enter into a same sex marriage? Your choice.
Want to know what makes America the wonderful country that it is? Simple. Our freedom to choose how we will pursue our happiness.
First, let me say that marriage is not properly of government concern. It is an arrangement between two (or more) people that may or may not entail certain contractual obligations which, if there are any, ought be enforced legally as any other contractual obligations are. Otherwise, government, hands off!
But let us delve a bit further and look at the main arguments made against same sex marriages.
It is argued that being sexually attracted to a member of the same gender is not natural. That may be genetically true for most people but is obviously not true for others. For them, it is genetically natural. Secondly, in this vein, where is it written you must act in accordance with your nature? In fact, as you will see below, it is written that your right to act contrary to your nature is protected by the law.
It is argued that same sex marriages are immoral because the Bible says so. If what is written in the Bible determines morality and propriety, then those who use this argument would have to argue that slavery, stoning nonbelievers to death, treating women as second class citizens, requiring widows to marry their brothers in law, polygamy and prolific use of drugs are morally acceptable. Do they? Are they? Religious folk tend to want to make the Bible one of America's founding documents, but, sorry guys, it isn't.
It is argued that same sex marriages are not part of our culture. True, at the moment. But culture is malleable, not something rigid that must be adhered to. Our actions determine our culture, not the other way around. If we change our view of same sex marriages, our culture will change and they will become part of it, and that argument will be gone.
I said above that three words were missing from the argument. They are pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence refers to our unalienable right to pursue our own happiness... and the preamble to our Constitution speaks of the desire to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Read together, it is clear that one of the revolutionary pillars of the new culture that was being established is our individual freedom to pursue our happiness in ways that we choose, provided only that we do not deny the freedom of others to do the same.
Will being an architect or a merchant or a drifter make you happy? Go ahead, you choose. Want to live in Idaho or Nevada? Go ahead, you choose. Want to smoke even though it may be harmful to you? Your choice. Want to believe in God and the Bible? Your choice (though not necessarily mine). Want to enter into a same sex marriage? Your choice.
Want to know what makes America the wonderful country that it is? Simple. Our freedom to choose how we will pursue our happiness.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
NATURE 1 0 1
Today, class, we will look at the nature of various species of life and how their nature determines how they should be treated.
AFRICAN LILY This plant thrives when grown on the edges of lakes and running streams. If it is exposed to frost, it will die.
DOMESTIC CAT This is a predatory carnivore by nature that hunts vermin, snakes and scorpions. It likes food rich in amino acids but should not be fed sugary foods since it is lactose intolerant. It also has difficulty digesting plant-derived nutrients. Neutering reduces its risk of getting certain cancers.
HUMAN A bipedal primate of the homo sapien family. It has a highly developed brain that is extremely curious and capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection and problem solving. It has the unique quality of perceiving beauty and creating aesthetics (art and music).
It also has a highly developed power of choice, the free exercise of which is critical to its mental health and happiness. The extent to which a human society flourishes has been shown to be directly related to the extent to which its government recognizes this natural desire to choose. The greater this recognition--politically referred to as "freedom"--the greater and more developed is the society and its citizenry enjoy the benefits of a higher standard of living and greater likelihood of attaining happiness. In those societies in which choice is restrained, humans tend to become anguished and hostile, even violent.
ELEPHANT The largest land mammal known for its memory and an intelligence comparable to hominids that plays, uses tools, has high self-awareness and manifests altruism. It has no natural predators and its existence is threatened only by human intrusion and poaching. Its trunk is so sensitive it can pick up a single blade of grass and is strong enough to rip branches off a tree.
The elephant is not fully domesticated. The male is difficult to domesticate but some have been used as weapons in war. Some females have been tamed and used in the logging industry. All elephants must be watched for moments of ferocious rage.
The nature of each species of life illuminates the most efficient and appropriate way of dealing with it. With regard to humans, it is the only proper standard of of what is right or wrong, morally speaking, and it sets the limits of government power.
A species can only survive in accordance with its nature. To treat a species contrary to its nature is to impose a death sentence on it.
AFRICAN LILY This plant thrives when grown on the edges of lakes and running streams. If it is exposed to frost, it will die.
DOMESTIC CAT This is a predatory carnivore by nature that hunts vermin, snakes and scorpions. It likes food rich in amino acids but should not be fed sugary foods since it is lactose intolerant. It also has difficulty digesting plant-derived nutrients. Neutering reduces its risk of getting certain cancers.
HUMAN A bipedal primate of the homo sapien family. It has a highly developed brain that is extremely curious and capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection and problem solving. It has the unique quality of perceiving beauty and creating aesthetics (art and music).
It also has a highly developed power of choice, the free exercise of which is critical to its mental health and happiness. The extent to which a human society flourishes has been shown to be directly related to the extent to which its government recognizes this natural desire to choose. The greater this recognition--politically referred to as "freedom"--the greater and more developed is the society and its citizenry enjoy the benefits of a higher standard of living and greater likelihood of attaining happiness. In those societies in which choice is restrained, humans tend to become anguished and hostile, even violent.
ELEPHANT The largest land mammal known for its memory and an intelligence comparable to hominids that plays, uses tools, has high self-awareness and manifests altruism. It has no natural predators and its existence is threatened only by human intrusion and poaching. Its trunk is so sensitive it can pick up a single blade of grass and is strong enough to rip branches off a tree.
The elephant is not fully domesticated. The male is difficult to domesticate but some have been used as weapons in war. Some females have been tamed and used in the logging industry. All elephants must be watched for moments of ferocious rage.
The nature of each species of life illuminates the most efficient and appropriate way of dealing with it. With regard to humans, it is the only proper standard of of what is right or wrong, morally speaking, and it sets the limits of government power.
A species can only survive in accordance with its nature. To treat a species contrary to its nature is to impose a death sentence on it.
Monday, July 13, 2009
DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH
One of the diamonds of the American way of life is Equality...that laws apply the same to all of us regardless of our differences in race, religion, creed, gender, place of origin, etc. It was the motivating ideal behind the concept of unalienable rights. Having come originally from a class-based society, we were sensitive to the inherent unfairness of government favoritism benefitting some at the expense of others. Has equal treatment under the law always been achieved? No. But it remained the glittering ideal.
Until now. President Obama and Congressional Democrats have overtly abandoned the ideal, unleashing a torrent of programs that give preferential treatment to select groups. The poor, the disadvantaged, the minority, now compose the reigning class. Its needs preempt the property rights of others to spend their funds as they see fit. "Unalienable" is no longer recognized as a word. We are returning to our class-based roots.
It is loosely stated that the needs of the needy (whatever and whoever they are) are to be paid for by "the rich." Actually, that identification is a misnomer since it is not the rich necessarily that will bear the costs but the higher adjusted gross income earner, via increased taxes. A billionaire who keeps his or her money in a safe deposit box now pays and will pay nothing, nada, zilch, for government services and benefits (like schooling, fire and police and military protection, stimulus programs, etc.). It is the higher wage earner, the producer, the successful entrepeneur that provides jobs to others, that is illegally and unconstitutionally being singled out in violation of the principle of equal rights.
Notice that the President's nominee to the Supreme Court has stated that she will infuse compassion (aka unequal legal standards) into her judicial rulings. That could be the final straw to unify the power of all three branches of government to the destruction of Equality.
That all of this is done proudly by those in political power is a testament to their ignorance of (or worse, hatred of) the concept of Equality and why it is such a glorious ideal. It reflects a disdain for individualism and achievement. I leave it to others more knowledgeable than I to figure out the swamp of misguided emotions that is propelling America's fall from grace.
We may need another Revolution.
Until now. President Obama and Congressional Democrats have overtly abandoned the ideal, unleashing a torrent of programs that give preferential treatment to select groups. The poor, the disadvantaged, the minority, now compose the reigning class. Its needs preempt the property rights of others to spend their funds as they see fit. "Unalienable" is no longer recognized as a word. We are returning to our class-based roots.
It is loosely stated that the needs of the needy (whatever and whoever they are) are to be paid for by "the rich." Actually, that identification is a misnomer since it is not the rich necessarily that will bear the costs but the higher adjusted gross income earner, via increased taxes. A billionaire who keeps his or her money in a safe deposit box now pays and will pay nothing, nada, zilch, for government services and benefits (like schooling, fire and police and military protection, stimulus programs, etc.). It is the higher wage earner, the producer, the successful entrepeneur that provides jobs to others, that is illegally and unconstitutionally being singled out in violation of the principle of equal rights.
Notice that the President's nominee to the Supreme Court has stated that she will infuse compassion (aka unequal legal standards) into her judicial rulings. That could be the final straw to unify the power of all three branches of government to the destruction of Equality.
That all of this is done proudly by those in political power is a testament to their ignorance of (or worse, hatred of) the concept of Equality and why it is such a glorious ideal. It reflects a disdain for individualism and achievement. I leave it to others more knowledgeable than I to figure out the swamp of misguided emotions that is propelling America's fall from grace.
We may need another Revolution.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
HOW IS YOU?
Now we all know that when we ask "How are you?" when we are speaking to one person, we are being grammatically incorrect. The word "are" is a plural word...we are, they are. The word "is" is its singular version...he is, she is, it is. The Spanish have it right. They have different words for the word "you" depending on whether you are addressing one person or more than one person. We don't, in English, which may account for the sometimes ungrammatical "How are you?"
So, I am campaigning to change it to "How is you?" when speaking to one person. And the response could be, "I is fine."
Sound funny to you? Is you laughing?
Good, because hopefully then we we will cut way down the number of times we ask this most popular idiotic question, "How is you?"
Think about it. At any one moment in my life, I am likely happy about some things, not so happy about others, and downright miserable about others. And is you asking about my physical health, my mental state, my financial status, my career development, my love life, what? How do I answer your question? And to what detail would you like that answer? I figure on average it would take me about two days to give you even a shortened version of the real answer...which is what I don't think you want to hear, but why then did you ask the question?
So I will give you the extremely emaciated, ridiculous and lying answer "Fine" and both of us can be on our way.
Our way? We're not sharing a way. I is not going the same way you is. Is I?
So, I am campaigning to change it to "How is you?" when speaking to one person. And the response could be, "I is fine."
Sound funny to you? Is you laughing?
Good, because hopefully then we we will cut way down the number of times we ask this most popular idiotic question, "How is you?"
Think about it. At any one moment in my life, I am likely happy about some things, not so happy about others, and downright miserable about others. And is you asking about my physical health, my mental state, my financial status, my career development, my love life, what? How do I answer your question? And to what detail would you like that answer? I figure on average it would take me about two days to give you even a shortened version of the real answer...which is what I don't think you want to hear, but why then did you ask the question?
So I will give you the extremely emaciated, ridiculous and lying answer "Fine" and both of us can be on our way.
Our way? We're not sharing a way. I is not going the same way you is. Is I?
THANKS, MOM
Willie?
Yes, Mom.
What you doin'?
Writing.
Writing again? How's it coming?
Slowly, forsooth.
Have you decided what you want to be, or at least what you don't want to be? That's the important question. But whatever it is, it should not be a blur in your mind. What do you want for supper? We have sparrow wings. Outrageous prices, unfortunately. Why don't we take our broken armchairs down to the sea, no trouble in that, and supposing we mend them?
Thanks, Mom.
What have you written so far?
To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them.
So beautiful. Wherever do you get your ideas from?
Yes, Mom.
What you doin'?
Writing.
Writing again? How's it coming?
Slowly, forsooth.
Have you decided what you want to be, or at least what you don't want to be? That's the important question. But whatever it is, it should not be a blur in your mind. What do you want for supper? We have sparrow wings. Outrageous prices, unfortunately. Why don't we take our broken armchairs down to the sea, no trouble in that, and supposing we mend them?
Thanks, Mom.
What have you written so far?
To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them.
So beautiful. Wherever do you get your ideas from?
Saturday, July 11, 2009
THE ELEVEN IDIOCIES OF THE WORLD
Nature and man have produced wondrous things and lists of the Wonders of the World are historic.
Here now is my list of the eleven most grievous man-made idiocies of the modern world:
1. THE HOLOCAUST
2. SLAVERY
3. ABORTIONS
4. FAILURE TO ACCEPT THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN SPECIES AS THE STANDARD FOR HUMAN ACTION
5. FAILURE TO COMPREHEND REALITY-BASED NONRELIGIOUS SPIRITUALITY
6. JUDGING A PERSON BY THE COLOR OF HIS EYES...I MEAN, SKIN
7. GOVERNMENTS
8. THE "TILL DEATH DO WE PART" MARITAL VOW
9. THE 50 WEEK WORK YEAR
10. THE EXPRESSION "HAVE TO"
11. GRASS LAWNS
Here now is my list of the eleven most grievous man-made idiocies of the modern world:
1. THE HOLOCAUST
2. SLAVERY
3. ABORTIONS
4. FAILURE TO ACCEPT THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN SPECIES AS THE STANDARD FOR HUMAN ACTION
5. FAILURE TO COMPREHEND REALITY-BASED NONRELIGIOUS SPIRITUALITY
6. JUDGING A PERSON BY THE COLOR OF HIS EYES...I MEAN, SKIN
7. GOVERNMENTS
8. THE "TILL DEATH DO WE PART" MARITAL VOW
9. THE 50 WEEK WORK YEAR
10. THE EXPRESSION "HAVE TO"
11. GRASS LAWNS
Friday, July 10, 2009
PLAN D
(I am not an economist, but neither are 99% of those who comment about the economy, so here goes.)
We have been told the American economy, confronted with a 10% or so unemployment rate, is not in good shape. I am not sure exactly what standard is being used to determine our "not in good shape" rating. When I travel about, and see roads crowded with SUV's and Hummers and other expensive cars, and packed restaurants and hotels and theaters and ballparks and airports, it doesn't look as if we are not in good shape. I guess we wouldn't be saying that if the unemployment rate were at, say, 2% (although the economy would not be in good shape to those 2% unemployed, would it?). In some countries (France and Germany, for example), I understand a 10% unemployment rate is considered pretty good. But for the purpose of this post, let's agree we're economically hurting.
Stimulus giveaway programs that were intended to fix the problem, have not yet done so. More stimulus plans are on the table, though some pundits allegedly wiser than I am predict they will exacerbate rather than ameliorate the situation. Everyone is seeking a nirvana-type plan...and I have it!
I call it "PLAN D." Why Plan D? Why not? They are called stimulus plans, aren't they, and they haven't stimulated a darn thing...other than more misnamed stimulus plans.
The prime reason we are considered to be hurting is that some of the poor, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, among us cannot afford the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter, health care, transportation, education. Let's call those items the Package.
Step One: The government should calculate a reasonable annual cost of the Package for the average American...say, $20,000... print currency and give that amount to each American on January 1 of each year. With our population of about 320 million, that would total 6.4 trillion dollars. Otherwise, the government stays out of the economy. Net result: immediate solution to the needs of the needy without increasing the size and cost of government.
Would that currency have any gold in Fort Knox to back it up? No, but who thinks about, cares about, or actually knows, the amount of gold backing up those crumpled dollar bills in their pockets. It will be like Monopoly money, exchangeable for goods and services...which is what the whole purpose of money is, no?
Would some astute economic wizard sitting in Kakamoon not want to sell his goods in America because there is no gold to back its currency? I don't know why he wouldn't since he could buy all sorts of stuff here and, in short order, probably around the world.
Would Plan D drive up the prices for items in the Package? Perhaps, a bit...and next year's Plan D payments will be appropriately adjusted.
Would the sudden inlux of trillions of dollars of currency drive up inflation? The influx and the possible effects of it will be reduced by the elimination of payments under current welfare and benefit programs. And think of the enormous savings in shutting down all those bureaucracies and agencies.
Would Plan D entice a few to work less because their necessities are already provided for? Perhaps. Might be a good thing...more leisure time, less stress, more enjoyment of life.
STEP TWO: There is no Step two.
There are also no income taxes to pay for Plan D since the plan doesn't cost the government anything. And no big costly government bureaucracy required to run the program.
I suspect and hope that somewhere in ther hearts, most economic pundits recognize that the free enterprise system works best. History has proven that to any honest thinker. Bygiving free rein to American entrepeneurs, Plan D gets as close to the free enterprise system as we are ever likely to get.
We have been told the American economy, confronted with a 10% or so unemployment rate, is not in good shape. I am not sure exactly what standard is being used to determine our "not in good shape" rating. When I travel about, and see roads crowded with SUV's and Hummers and other expensive cars, and packed restaurants and hotels and theaters and ballparks and airports, it doesn't look as if we are not in good shape. I guess we wouldn't be saying that if the unemployment rate were at, say, 2% (although the economy would not be in good shape to those 2% unemployed, would it?). In some countries (France and Germany, for example), I understand a 10% unemployment rate is considered pretty good. But for the purpose of this post, let's agree we're economically hurting.
Stimulus giveaway programs that were intended to fix the problem, have not yet done so. More stimulus plans are on the table, though some pundits allegedly wiser than I am predict they will exacerbate rather than ameliorate the situation. Everyone is seeking a nirvana-type plan...and I have it!
I call it "PLAN D." Why Plan D? Why not? They are called stimulus plans, aren't they, and they haven't stimulated a darn thing...other than more misnamed stimulus plans.
The prime reason we are considered to be hurting is that some of the poor, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, among us cannot afford the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter, health care, transportation, education. Let's call those items the Package.
Step One: The government should calculate a reasonable annual cost of the Package for the average American...say, $20,000... print currency and give that amount to each American on January 1 of each year. With our population of about 320 million, that would total 6.4 trillion dollars. Otherwise, the government stays out of the economy. Net result: immediate solution to the needs of the needy without increasing the size and cost of government.
Would that currency have any gold in Fort Knox to back it up? No, but who thinks about, cares about, or actually knows, the amount of gold backing up those crumpled dollar bills in their pockets. It will be like Monopoly money, exchangeable for goods and services...which is what the whole purpose of money is, no?
Would some astute economic wizard sitting in Kakamoon not want to sell his goods in America because there is no gold to back its currency? I don't know why he wouldn't since he could buy all sorts of stuff here and, in short order, probably around the world.
Would Plan D drive up the prices for items in the Package? Perhaps, a bit...and next year's Plan D payments will be appropriately adjusted.
Would the sudden inlux of trillions of dollars of currency drive up inflation? The influx and the possible effects of it will be reduced by the elimination of payments under current welfare and benefit programs. And think of the enormous savings in shutting down all those bureaucracies and agencies.
Would Plan D entice a few to work less because their necessities are already provided for? Perhaps. Might be a good thing...more leisure time, less stress, more enjoyment of life.
STEP TWO: There is no Step two.
There are also no income taxes to pay for Plan D since the plan doesn't cost the government anything. And no big costly government bureaucracy required to run the program.
I suspect and hope that somewhere in ther hearts, most economic pundits recognize that the free enterprise system works best. History has proven that to any honest thinker. Bygiving free rein to American entrepeneurs, Plan D gets as close to the free enterprise system as we are ever likely to get.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
ENTER THE SPIRITUAL REALM
Man is a composite of two elements: body and mind. The spectrum of human existence looks like this:
-----------------/----------------------------/------------------
At each moment of life, man exists somewhere on the spectrum.
The BODY part of the spectrum manifests in the doing of primarily physical, material, concrete matters...what I refer to as management of life matters: buying food and preparing meals, shopping for clothing and household goods, cleaning house, paying bills, etc. Activities requiring a significant amount of physical activity and a lesser amount of mental effort, much of which is automatized due to its repetitive nature. For those who see it as a purely physical activity, sex falls into this part of the spectrum as well.
The BODY/MIND part of the spectrum involve activities that require both physical and mental effort....education, both teaching and studying, the medical and legal fields, journalism, business, science, etc. In this part of the spectrum, mental activity generally entails a measure of creativity, abstraction and responsibility.
Which leaves us with the MIND part of the spectrum. Of course, there is no human mind without a body, but as we move closer and closer to the right end of the spectrum, there is virtually no concern with or feeling of the physical. The mind rises to the outermost level of its magnificent potential, contemplating the glories and sublime exquisiteness of life in all its manifestations. Music feeds it, the arts transport it, and it soars free and whole and untroubled into the expansive grandeur. Beauty surrounds.
Here, spiritual soul mates connect in unyielding and enduring oneness, virtues of justice and honor and good will and humanity gleam brilliantly pure, and the awareness of where you are fills your soul with ecstasy. You are alive in matchless serenity.
You have entered the spiritual realm.
Beware, you may not wish to return.
-----------------/----------------------------/------------------
BODY................ BODY/MIND..........................MIND
At each moment of life, man exists somewhere on the spectrum.
The BODY part of the spectrum manifests in the doing of primarily physical, material, concrete matters...what I refer to as management of life matters: buying food and preparing meals, shopping for clothing and household goods, cleaning house, paying bills, etc. Activities requiring a significant amount of physical activity and a lesser amount of mental effort, much of which is automatized due to its repetitive nature. For those who see it as a purely physical activity, sex falls into this part of the spectrum as well.
The BODY/MIND part of the spectrum involve activities that require both physical and mental effort....education, both teaching and studying, the medical and legal fields, journalism, business, science, etc. In this part of the spectrum, mental activity generally entails a measure of creativity, abstraction and responsibility.
Which leaves us with the MIND part of the spectrum. Of course, there is no human mind without a body, but as we move closer and closer to the right end of the spectrum, there is virtually no concern with or feeling of the physical. The mind rises to the outermost level of its magnificent potential, contemplating the glories and sublime exquisiteness of life in all its manifestations. Music feeds it, the arts transport it, and it soars free and whole and untroubled into the expansive grandeur. Beauty surrounds.
Here, spiritual soul mates connect in unyielding and enduring oneness, virtues of justice and honor and good will and humanity gleam brilliantly pure, and the awareness of where you are fills your soul with ecstasy. You are alive in matchless serenity.
You have entered the spiritual realm.
Beware, you may not wish to return.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
IS THIS REALLY REAL?
FBI: Are you the leader of your group? The other guy says he is.
MAFIA: I am, you can take my word on that.
FBI: We are willing to cut the number of guns we have if you will cut the number of guns you have.
MAFIA: We could go along with that if you get rid of the bulletproof vests you have.
FBI: Why do you want that?
MAFIA: Because your having them makes it seem as if you're worried we might shoot at you, and that makes us feel bad.
FBI: Don't want you to feel bad. We can get rid of them. We want to be able to come in from tine to time to count the number of guns you have.
MAFIA: We could agree with that and if you give us 3 months notice and you come in not more than once every 5 years.
FBI: Why do you need advance notice?
MAFIA: So that we can get them ready and make it is easy for you to count.
FBI: That's nice.
MAFIA: And we can count your guns?
FBI: Any time.
MAFIA: What about the Cosa Nostra? They have a lot of guns.
FBI: Haven't worked out a deal with them yet.
MAFIA: What about the Malos Rangos? They have a lot of guns.
FBI: Haven't worked out a deal with them yet.
MAFIA: What about the Tribig Gundas? They have a lot of guns.
FBI: Haven't worked out a deal with them yet. Shall we smile and shake hands on our deal?
MAFIA: Sure.
FBI: Big day for peace. The world will applaud us.
MAFIA: I am, you can take my word on that.
FBI: We are willing to cut the number of guns we have if you will cut the number of guns you have.
MAFIA: We could go along with that if you get rid of the bulletproof vests you have.
FBI: Why do you want that?
MAFIA: Because your having them makes it seem as if you're worried we might shoot at you, and that makes us feel bad.
FBI: Don't want you to feel bad. We can get rid of them. We want to be able to come in from tine to time to count the number of guns you have.
MAFIA: We could agree with that and if you give us 3 months notice and you come in not more than once every 5 years.
FBI: Why do you need advance notice?
MAFIA: So that we can get them ready and make it is easy for you to count.
FBI: That's nice.
MAFIA: And we can count your guns?
FBI: Any time.
MAFIA: What about the Cosa Nostra? They have a lot of guns.
FBI: Haven't worked out a deal with them yet.
MAFIA: What about the Malos Rangos? They have a lot of guns.
FBI: Haven't worked out a deal with them yet.
MAFIA: What about the Tribig Gundas? They have a lot of guns.
FBI: Haven't worked out a deal with them yet. Shall we smile and shake hands on our deal?
MAFIA: Sure.
FBI: Big day for peace. The world will applaud us.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
IRRATIONAL IRRELEVANCE
I 've been a sports enthusiast for years, and I have always thought that when it comes to racial, ethnic or religious discrimination, the professional athlete has it more right than any other group.
When the black Christian point guard steals the basketball and sees one of his teammates under the basket, he does not think "Shou ld I pass the ball to that rich, white, Jewish guy , or should I help my Buddhist teammate from Hong Kong get his fair share of the points?" If he is a winning team player, the only thing he thinks is "Here's the ball. Score." And when he does score, the two hands high fiving are not a black one and a white one but simply two teammates congratulating each other.
And the reason for that is simple: It is because all of that racial, ethnic and religious stuff is irrelevant. Was there discrimination against Jackie Robinson when he first came up to play in the major leagues? Yes, until players saw how good he was and that he could help win games and that the color of his skin was irrelevant.
It is a good lesson for all of us to learn. Almost always, a person's skin color, culture and ethnic heritage are totally irrelevant to the issue under discussion. "I love learning about ancient lands and religions, so I talk often with my Muslim neighbor from what once was Persia." That is relevant identification. "My Muslim neighbor broke the lawn mower I lent him" is irrelevant identification.
It would be a good lesson for the government to learn. Laws that require me to hire a fair cross section of racial groups, for example, promote irrelevant identification. Race is not a factor in productivity. Welfare programs targeting particular ethnic groups promote irrelevant identification since poverty touches every group. And all promote rather than lessen discrimination.
You don't identify me as a brown eyed person and you shouldn't identify me as a black person. I am one of those...but which one is almost always irrelevant.
When the black Christian point guard steals the basketball and sees one of his teammates under the basket, he does not think "Shou ld I pass the ball to that rich, white, Jewish guy , or should I help my Buddhist teammate from Hong Kong get his fair share of the points?" If he is a winning team player, the only thing he thinks is "Here's the ball. Score." And when he does score, the two hands high fiving are not a black one and a white one but simply two teammates congratulating each other.
And the reason for that is simple: It is because all of that racial, ethnic and religious stuff is irrelevant. Was there discrimination against Jackie Robinson when he first came up to play in the major leagues? Yes, until players saw how good he was and that he could help win games and that the color of his skin was irrelevant.
It is a good lesson for all of us to learn. Almost always, a person's skin color, culture and ethnic heritage are totally irrelevant to the issue under discussion. "I love learning about ancient lands and religions, so I talk often with my Muslim neighbor from what once was Persia." That is relevant identification. "My Muslim neighbor broke the lawn mower I lent him" is irrelevant identification.
It would be a good lesson for the government to learn. Laws that require me to hire a fair cross section of racial groups, for example, promote irrelevant identification. Race is not a factor in productivity. Welfare programs targeting particular ethnic groups promote irrelevant identification since poverty touches every group. And all promote rather than lessen discrimination.
You don't identify me as a brown eyed person and you shouldn't identify me as a black person. I am one of those...but which one is almost always irrelevant.
Friday, July 3, 2009
WATCH OUT
We have become a spectator society. We watch rather than do.
An average American watches tv over 4 hours per day. If he watched no tv, he (or she) would extend his life by 3 extra months of awake time per year...equivalent to extending his life expectancy by 20 years!
We watch sporting events. Major league baseball and the National Football League alone have attendance of almost 100 million each year, with over 32,000 at every baseball game and over 67,000 at every football game.
We watch movies. The number of movie tickets sold in the U.S. in 2008 exceeded 1-1/3 billion.
We read a lot of fiction. Yes, reading is a form of watching... watching the characters in the book experiencing life. Years ago, when I was in the military, I wrote a book review column for the Stars and Stripes, and so I spent a lot of time reading. A good friend of mine, a musician hippie type from California, asked me why I read so much. "Whatever pleasures you get from reading how fictional characters live their made-up stories," he told me, "are trivial to the pleasures you can get by living those stories yourself. Come with me to the pub," he urged, "and I'll prove it to you." He was right.
Yes, I know, sometimes there is something to learn by watching. Sometimes we are too tired to do anything and there is a measure of enjoyment in watching. But as I learned years ago, life shines in the doing.
There is one thing we don't usually watch: our lives flying by.
An average American watches tv over 4 hours per day. If he watched no tv, he (or she) would extend his life by 3 extra months of awake time per year...equivalent to extending his life expectancy by 20 years!
We watch sporting events. Major league baseball and the National Football League alone have attendance of almost 100 million each year, with over 32,000 at every baseball game and over 67,000 at every football game.
We watch movies. The number of movie tickets sold in the U.S. in 2008 exceeded 1-1/3 billion.
We read a lot of fiction. Yes, reading is a form of watching... watching the characters in the book experiencing life. Years ago, when I was in the military, I wrote a book review column for the Stars and Stripes, and so I spent a lot of time reading. A good friend of mine, a musician hippie type from California, asked me why I read so much. "Whatever pleasures you get from reading how fictional characters live their made-up stories," he told me, "are trivial to the pleasures you can get by living those stories yourself. Come with me to the pub," he urged, "and I'll prove it to you." He was right.
Yes, I know, sometimes there is something to learn by watching. Sometimes we are too tired to do anything and there is a measure of enjoyment in watching. But as I learned years ago, life shines in the doing.
There is one thing we don't usually watch: our lives flying by.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
THE PRINCIPLE ERROR
On a television news show, the issue was raised by a Republican pundit that President Obama was now saying he would do something that he said in the campaign he would absolutely never do. The liberal pundit on the show countered with, "I never heard Republicans complain when President George W. Bush did a similar thing so they have nothing to complain about now."
Ouch! That defense offered by the liberal pundit is a classic logical error. It is an "ad hominem" (Latin for "against the person") attack on the arguer rather than on the argument. An attack on the person on the other side of an argument does not negate the argument made by that person. An argument must stand or fall on its own merits. To counter an argument, it must be shown that the facts offered up by the arguer are mistaken or do not support the conclusion...in this case, that Obama is not going against what he said in the campaign, or if he is, it is not an impropriety. It matters not one whit whether the argument is being made by a child, a criminal, someone who is insane, or by a political party that has done something nefarious in the past. Whatever the shortcomings of the arguer, the argument must be countered on its own terms.
So why then do we so often hear ad hominem attacks during a discussion of some issue or other, like "What would you know about it?" or "That's really funny coming from you of all people" or, as in this case, "You guys can't complain, you've done the same thing"?
I think it is because we are not as principled a people as we once were. A principle is a general idea about life that serves as a guideline for living and for our views of what is right and wrong, such as "You should always be honest," or "If you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything." But if a principle is to be used as the basis for action, it ought be clear and well-defined... and it ought be something you can prove is right.
For example: Let's say one of your principles is "It is good to help the needy." That is a fairly commonly held principle. Perhaps your parents told you that when you were a child. Perhaps you heard it in a sermon. Perhaps you saw and enjoyed a movie about Robin Hood, who was portrayed as a hero for "robbing from the rich and giving it to the poor." So when the government today seeks to pass a federal program to give some benefits to some perceived needy group, you might jump on the bandwagon.
But to know whether your principle clearly applies in this case, you would first need to answer these questions:
Why is it good to help the needy? Who exactly are the needy? Does it matter what they are needy of? Does it matter why exactly they are not in a position to provide themselves with what they need? Should everyone help the needy or only those that can afford it? And how is that determined? Is it appropriate and constitututional for the government to implement a program that will force some to pay additional taxes for that program? Should your principle apply only to voluntary charitable giving to the needy? Etc. etc. etc.
It would take time to study and answer these questions, time many would prefer not to expend. Their principles remain unsubstantiated by reason and fact and logic and they base their positions on moral and political issues with personal, unreliable feelings...feelings that are always "right" simply because we feel them. Ever notice that political pundits never never ever change their minds or admit they were wrong.
So, rather than proving that President Obama's changing his mind t is not per se wrong and a violation of a proper principle, it is easier to blurt out some ad hominem complaint against the other side. After all, they would say, "It doesn't feel right for you to complain when you guys have done the same thing."
What about "two wrongs don't make a right"? Not feeling that one today.
Ouch! That defense offered by the liberal pundit is a classic logical error. It is an "ad hominem" (Latin for "against the person") attack on the arguer rather than on the argument. An attack on the person on the other side of an argument does not negate the argument made by that person. An argument must stand or fall on its own merits. To counter an argument, it must be shown that the facts offered up by the arguer are mistaken or do not support the conclusion...in this case, that Obama is not going against what he said in the campaign, or if he is, it is not an impropriety. It matters not one whit whether the argument is being made by a child, a criminal, someone who is insane, or by a political party that has done something nefarious in the past. Whatever the shortcomings of the arguer, the argument must be countered on its own terms.
So why then do we so often hear ad hominem attacks during a discussion of some issue or other, like "What would you know about it?" or "That's really funny coming from you of all people" or, as in this case, "You guys can't complain, you've done the same thing"?
I think it is because we are not as principled a people as we once were. A principle is a general idea about life that serves as a guideline for living and for our views of what is right and wrong, such as "You should always be honest," or "If you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything." But if a principle is to be used as the basis for action, it ought be clear and well-defined... and it ought be something you can prove is right.
For example: Let's say one of your principles is "It is good to help the needy." That is a fairly commonly held principle. Perhaps your parents told you that when you were a child. Perhaps you heard it in a sermon. Perhaps you saw and enjoyed a movie about Robin Hood, who was portrayed as a hero for "robbing from the rich and giving it to the poor." So when the government today seeks to pass a federal program to give some benefits to some perceived needy group, you might jump on the bandwagon.
But to know whether your principle clearly applies in this case, you would first need to answer these questions:
Why is it good to help the needy? Who exactly are the needy? Does it matter what they are needy of? Does it matter why exactly they are not in a position to provide themselves with what they need? Should everyone help the needy or only those that can afford it? And how is that determined? Is it appropriate and constitututional for the government to implement a program that will force some to pay additional taxes for that program? Should your principle apply only to voluntary charitable giving to the needy? Etc. etc. etc.
It would take time to study and answer these questions, time many would prefer not to expend. Their principles remain unsubstantiated by reason and fact and logic and they base their positions on moral and political issues with personal, unreliable feelings...feelings that are always "right" simply because we feel them. Ever notice that political pundits never never ever change their minds or admit they were wrong.
So, rather than proving that President Obama's changing his mind t is not per se wrong and a violation of a proper principle, it is easier to blurt out some ad hominem complaint against the other side. After all, they would say, "It doesn't feel right for you to complain when you guys have done the same thing."
What about "two wrongs don't make a right"? Not feeling that one today.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
HAPPY NEW DAY
I would guess that most people, given a choice between the familiar and the strange, would choose the familiar. Agree? Take out books from the library by familiar authors, eat in familiar restaurants, stay at familiar hotels, drive familiar routes, etc. The familiar, or well known, is associated with a desire that things go in the future the way they went in the past...and the comfortable and safe feeling that they probably will.
The strange, or new and unknown, is the seeing of what you haven't seen before, the hearing of what you haven't heard before, the thinking about what you haven't thought about before. It is associated with a desire to discover new realities..and the exciting potential of touching your spirit and expanding your life.
The choice you make between the familiar and the strange is life-forming. It affects not only what you do but, perhaps more importantly, how you feel about what you do. We feel little glory when we triumph without risk. We do not gain much self-esteem when the choices we make today are the same exact ones we made yesterday. There are fewer thrills and eurekas in the familiar than in the new.
The familiar is mind numbing. It is in our nature to automatize the doing of things we have done over and over again before. The strange piques interest and excites our senses.
Your daily choice.
The strange, or new and unknown, is the seeing of what you haven't seen before, the hearing of what you haven't heard before, the thinking about what you haven't thought about before. It is associated with a desire to discover new realities..and the exciting potential of touching your spirit and expanding your life.
The choice you make between the familiar and the strange is life-forming. It affects not only what you do but, perhaps more importantly, how you feel about what you do. We feel little glory when we triumph without risk. We do not gain much self-esteem when the choices we make today are the same exact ones we made yesterday. There are fewer thrills and eurekas in the familiar than in the new.
The familiar is mind numbing. It is in our nature to automatize the doing of things we have done over and over again before. The strange piques interest and excites our senses.
Your daily choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)