Dr. Forbush Thinks

Our experiences effect us in profound ways. Sometimes we don’t see the effect for quite some time. Kurt Vonnegut Jr. experienced the horror of the fire bombing of the German city of Dresden during World War II. Some have argued that this fire bombing was worse than the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All of these events left questions in the minds of those who witnessed them. The questions have varied, but they center around how man can hate so much to kill and destroy so much without thinking of the death and destruction that was actually caused. Justification wasn’t really the question, because the people who were effected were not the people who made the choices for which the hatred was directed. The complexity of the situation was truly felt by Vonnegut who had witnessed this horror, but the intricate details he wrote describing it communicated that horror to the wider world. But the wider world had been too euphoric in their victory over evil to understand what they had done. Vonnegut continued to ask if evil had been used to defeat evil. And, he continued to ask it in different ways as he questioned things that we all took for granted or “granite,” the stone structure we use to base our cultural beliefs on.

Slaughterhouse Five was the book that Kurt Vonnegut Jr. used to show us most directly what he thought and felt about this incident. I wasn't forced to read Slaughterhouse Five in High School, I freely chose to read it. I don't think that it was my first Vonnegut book. I believe that was "Welcome to the Monkey House," which was a collection of his short stories. But after reading that I sought and read everything that he wrote. Breakfast of Champions and Cat's Cradle were certainly my High School favorites, although I liked the twisted ending in Slaughterhouse Five.

When I heard that Kurt Vonnegut Jr. had died I knew that I would need to write about his influence on me. When I went out on the web this morning I was struck by how many people were out in cyberspace doing the same thing. He would have smiled at the effect that he has surely had on so many people. Maybe some of his ideas have seeped into our culture like a virus infecting our planet. But, somehow I know that that viral infection is a positive transformative disease. And, maybe that whole concept comes indirectly from some of his insight.

While I was reading Cat’s Cradle my English Teacher saw the book I was carrying and asked to borrow it. I gave it to her a few days later after I had finished it wondering what her reaction to it might be. I had disagreed with her insight into a couple of novels that she had taught up to that point. So, this was my first literary confrontation with an adult “expert” and I was ready to defend my personal taste. And, when she returned the book her only notable remark was that it was anti-science. Of course I had to disagree with her.

But, as I thought about what she had said I realized that anti-science was actually almost right. But, it really wasn’t anti-science but it was against the use of science for warfare. Some people do equate science and the use of that knowledge for less noble developments. Using science to destroy life, or using science to save lives doesn’t really implicate science, but the people who use the information learned from science. Unfortunately, as a young teenage reader I was unable to put that into words the way that I would have liked to. So, instead of saying something like that, I responded with, “Oh really, I didn’t think so.”

I really hate it when that happens, and it still bothers me to this day 30 years later. So, Kurt Vonnegut Jr. was indirectly responsible for me wanting or needing to communicate better.

These books and stories have effected me over the years. The little concept of ice-nine in Cat’s Cradle pops into my brain at odd times. Ice-nine is a hypothetical crystalline form of water that freezes above room temperature. I small crystal of ice-nine when placed in water acts as a crystal “seed” causing the water molecules to align themselves in a way that all the water around the crystal would become crystalline as well. The obvious advantage of ice-nine is that the military could turn swamps into hard solid ground. Hence the ability of the military to turn a quagmire like Vietnam into a parade down Main Street USA. Of course the short sighted view of the military advantage eclipses the far reaching consequences of oceans, lakes and rivers freezing all over the world. People would need to develop a whole industry of water mining and melting to provide for the entire planet, not to mention all the lower forms of life that would die of thirst because they couldn’t know that they needed to raise the temperature of the water to drink it.

I think of this when I think of crystal “seeds,” or potential damage from new technology, or even when the stock market rises on the prospect of short term gains over long term health of company. This little allegory is about planning and thinking as well as the cute story that it tells. The cute story just helps one remember the more important lesson of thinking before you act. And so, Kurt Vonnegut Jr. was responsible for pushing me to look at the consequences of our actions just a little bit more.

But, maybe Kurt Vonnegut Jr.’s ideas were a little bit like the crystal ice-nine seeds that were planted in the world. The way that those who have read and reflected on what Kurt Vonnegut Jr. wrote has been effected by those ideas. The little molecules of thought in our brains have been rearranged and crystallized into something a little more solid. He has shown us in the immediate sense what should matter to us in order to make the big picture make sense. At least I know that his writing has effected my thoughts in that way.




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

Two hundred and thirty two years ago the frustration of British occupation reached the tipping point and men were killed in the name of freedom. But, what was the freedom these men desired that was worth risking life, limb and property in order to prevail? And, how could these average men from a far corner of the British Empire succeed against then arguably most powerful force on the planet? What motivated the two sides of the conflict and why did they remain motivated?

Every American knows, or should know the story of the first battle in the War that eventually lead to the Independent and free country of the United States of America. King George III sought cash to fund his Empire and he raised taxes on his American subjects. Law abiding Americans respected the authority of the government and paid their taxes. But, a few individuals began to feel that they taxes paid provided them no benefit. The King could argue that he provided protection, but slowly the Kings forces of protection became forces of occupation and enforcement.

This small group of lawbreakers gradually grew in number as they convinced their fellow citizens of the King’s unfairness. Emotions being what they are they began to grow and fuel a hatred against the King and his authority. In the beginning each side could argue reasonably why they believed that they were right, but according to the law the King had authority and by the law he alone had the right to enforce the law. Even so the hatred toward the King grew and grew.

We all know the story, but we often forget that the Americans that stood up to the King were criminals. A curiosity that strikes me every time a conservative that argues the legal status of an action of protest could easily slip into praise of the brave patriots that stood up to the King two hundred and thirty two years ago.

Today we know the outcome of this conflict and we praise those criminals that stood up to the King. But, we rarely think about the emotions and thoughts of those criminals as they made the decision to break the law.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to travel to Boston. Since my ancestors had been from what is now Massachusetts and some of them had actually participated in the legendary battle I felt the need to see what that battlefield looked like. I drove to Concord and went to Minuteman Historical Park. At the time I knew that my ancestor David Forbush was a sergeant in Captain Issac Davis’s regiment from Acton, Massachusetts. I also knew that another ancestor Major John Buttrick was one of the commanders at the battle. So, I looked at this place while I imagined what it would be like to be there on that particular day when the shot fired was heard round the world.

I was caught off guard by the simplicity of the place. A road, a bridge and a weapons cache on a farm on the other side of the river. The river was less than twenty feet wide and surely a few men could cross the river without the aid of the bridge anywhere along the course. How could this little stand off at this bridge be such an impediment to the strongest military force on the planet? Why could the British just set up camp and wait out the rebels and earn the respect of the law-abiding citizens of the town? Why couldn’t they make the argument that the King was the sole authority in the land and prove their point?

We are often faced with these questions when we feel that the laws imposed against us seem to be unfair and dangerous. But, why can’t the more powerful military force control the population and make them obey the law?

We can think about another more recent standoff at a bridge. This time the bridge was in Selma, Alabama and the force to be reckoned with was the Alabama state troopers. The issue was just and powerful and the rebels had freedom on their side. This time the protesters did not carry weapons and in the long run we know that they succeeded. The conflict was just as emotional and people were hurt. The drama in Alabama was played out over many days and the nation watched via television as the state troopers beat the people at the bridge. How could the obviously superior force not stop this rag tag group of criminals? The law was against them, the authority was against them, but freedom was on their side.

The case for freedom winning against the stronger force of authority is a tortured history. Force sometimes wins, but the people need for freedom generally wins over time. And, sometimes the powerful forces are able to take the freedom away even after it is won. Superior force is like that, it can suddenly turn things around at the drop of a hat. In the Congo, Iran, Guatemala and other countries the United States used its superior force to aid in coupes that over threw Democratically elected governments. The people of the United States have largely forgotten these misdeeds, but the people who live in these countries still harbor the desire for freedom. There are many problems in the case made for winning freedom. Freedom implies freewill and freewill can not be controlled. Undesired results will happen when people have Freedom and implement their freewill. The desire for fairness pushed the democratically elected governments of Congo, Iran and Guatemala to move further to the socialist side of the political spectrum than the United States felt comfortable with. And, the United States decided to use its superior power to take the people’s freedom away.

The history of America controlling the freewill of smaller countries has created a narrative that has been exaggerated, exploded and exploited among those who desire political power. People around the world know some of these stories and they imagine that there are even more events that have been covered up by the American conspiracy.

Whether these things are true or not isn’t the point. The point is that the perception of America having its hand in the politics of countries around the world makes the suspicion, fear, and hatred of America grow around the world. And, US foreign policy over the last five years has played into the hands of those who wish to demonstrate the evil ways of America. And, we continue to help them on their way.

Like I said, the truth doesn’t matter when we talk about the motivation of people. People are willing to die for what they perceive to be a noble or righteous cause. Freedom is one such cause that continues to push people forward. And, in Iraq we are on the wrong side of this perception.

In Iraq the majority of Iraqis see the US as oppressors, and enemy occupiers. The Iraqis see America’s interest centered on the oil that they possess. Iraqis want their freedom to determine their destiny. They know America’s history, including the Iranian coupe that took Democracy away from those people. They perceive the unfairness of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and perceive America’s ties to this. Some Arabs see the Americans as profane secular hedonists that disrespect their religious practices. And, all of these people desire freedom to create their own laws that may limit the freedom of their own citizens. So, whose freedom is more important?

Everyone can not have all the freedom that they desire. Freedom desired by one may end up impinging on the freedom of another. But can the grand authority of a superior force be used to dictate which freedoms are allowed and which freedoms are denied? That seems to be the current thought of the current administration, and the Iraqi people don’t like it.

But, can a relatively small group of lawbreakers win against the most powerful force on the planet? Maybe the Bush administration should read some history and learn that when the people desire freedom they tend to win in the long run. It doesn’t matter if the freedom that they desire is the same as the picture that we envision. The ultimate authority rests in the desire of the people, it just takes time and the perception of freedom.







-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

In the United States everything seems to be about money, except when it isn’t. If Yogi Berra didn't say that, he could have. But, the point is that money, capital, market rise and prosperity is the language of America and capitalism. We saw this when the Soviet Union collapsed; capitalists were standing on their soapboxes proclaiming the strength and power of the capitalist system.

Of course I believe that capitalism is a motivating factor. People desire the easy life, and one sure way to an easier life is having money in the bank. The dream of resting on your laurels and having the world be your oyster has long been the American dream. It is certainly hard to argue with the fact that people can be bent to do the right thing if money is offered in exchange for it.

Not all cultures operate on this principle. Some cultures value family more than money. Some cultures value religion more than money. Some cultures value the well being of society more than money. But, here in American although you may find some minorities with these skewed and warped values the majority of Americans value money above all else.

One minority in the USA that has been fighting an uphill battle are the environmentalists. These crazy people have determined that the environment that we all live in deserves a high value. So, instead of worrying about the cost to corporations, industry or just plain folk who want to drive big SUVs they are concerned with the possibility that our environment might possibly become unlivable for our future generations.

Well, in the American culture it is quite clear that priorities should ensure that we have enough money before we start spending it on the future generations. After all, if the environment is destroyed we would have wasted all this money spending it on people who would never have been born anyway. What a silly waste of money!

Another minority that doesn’t see things the same way as the majority of Americans are the people who want to make sure that the average working stiff has enough money to live on. These people are as crazy the environmentalists. They want to spend money on people who don’t have enough gumption to get a real job that pays real money. They don’t have the network of friends and family to make the connections to get that job, so they must not really be worth anything anyway. And, these crazy people want to spend money on these poor slobs. Can you imagine that? This minority really believes that if people are sick they should be taken care of even if they can’t afford to pay for it. Maybe if they took out a loan or something and their family promised to pay it back after they died it might be fine. But, can you really imagine wasting money on these people?

It sure is a good thing that these people are in the minority here in the USA, because if they weren’t we might end up with a system like they have in Europe. It turns out that in Europe people who care about the poor, the working class and the environment are in the majority. In Europe they value people and our planet more than money. So, in Europe they spend money to make society a better place for everyone. It sure is a good thing that we don’t have a majority of crazy people like that in our country.

Can you imagine how bad the European economy must be doing with these crazy people spending all this money?

The strange thing is that at first there were problems getting everything in Europe working. They had high unemployment rates and lots of issues with getting services to everyone that needed them. But as time went on things seem to have worked out quite well. And, yesterday I read that the value of the European stock market has surpassed the value of the US stock market for the first time since World War I.

So, what does that mean to me?

Think about the history of the twentieth century for a moment. Europe experienced two very destructive wars that destroyed not only people and property, but entire infrastructures and industries. If you owned a company that was doing pretty well in 1905 but it was destroyed in the Great War then the value of that company had fallen quite a bit. In some cases only the intellectual property, i.e. the recipes and secret formulas remained. If you own stock in a company, that means that you own a fraction of the company that had lost quite a bit of value.

The value of a stock market is the total value of all the companies listed on the market. Since the bombs and bullets were kept on the other side of the ocean during this war the United States was able to preserve its industry and infrastructure and the relative values of the two markets reversed. And, just as Europe began to rebuild the value of its markets by rebuilding companies and infrastructure it was hit with another war. This war was arguably even more destructive than the first. And, during this time the United States was able to build even larger and more robust companies that were still untouched by the bombs and bullets across the sea.

In the United States we value money as I said before. This means that if I buy stock in a company I expect that the value of the company to go up so that the value of my stock goes up. The value of the company is reflected in how much profit the company can make, the value of its intellectual property and value of its assets and property. This is determined by how much a potential stockholder is willing to pay for a share of stock.

Let us assume that the two groups of markets, in the US and in Europe both started out at the same value after World War II. We know that they didn’t, but let us assume that they did. If we assume that both markets operated freely then we could assume that they might grow at approximately the same rate; if all things were equal.

But, all things were not equal. In Europe the value of their stock market was much below the value of the US markets. And, on top of that the people in Europe decided that some things were more important than money. They created a National Health Care system in each of the nations. They consisted of many different nations that had tariffs and prejudices with each of the other countries. They also taxed their gasoline at an enormous rate in order to protect the environment by forcing people to use the fuel as efficiently as they could. And, they created a system of worker’s rights to protect the average worker from being exploited by their employers.

So, based on these facts it would be nearly impossible for Europe to manage to continue it growth at the same rate as the United States. And, since European growth would need to exceed the United States growth for a substantial number of years in order for Europe to catch the United States we should have been able to predict that Europe could never reach the United States in economic value in any measure. But yesterday, we found out that they did. And, they did it with out putting money as the most important priority. Instead they caught the US and they continued to value people more than money all the way to the bank.





-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

In politics and the legal system there is one parameter that is rarely talked about, unfairly used and often abused by the one with the advantage. That parameter is time.

Imagine the simple case of a lawsuit against a major company. The company has caused a severe illness and the victim has at most three years to live. If the victim is right the company should simply pay the victim for the damages done. If the company uses every legal tactic available to delay the case the victim will never see justice and know if his or her family has been taken care of. After the victim dies the family may realize that the final three years of the victim’s life were consumed by this lawsuit and they might just drop the case because of the extreme emotional toll it has taken on the family. If they do the company has succeeded in wearing down the victim’s family. Even if they don’t drop the suit the company might be willing to settle out of court and family might be relieved to have the case behind them. Even if the family wins the company will avoid paying any retribution throughout the appeals process. If the family looses they will be likely not to pursue any appeals because of the emotional stress. Time is on the company’s side.

Time is taken into account is the US constitution where it tells us that a person has a right to due process and a speedy trial. But, speed is not always if the favor of a person being accused of a crime, especially if they are out on bail and a key witness is on his deathbed. There are many ways in which something looks completely fair until one takes time into consideration.

Politics is the same way. The effect of laws are often time dependent. Sometimes laws have dates where they expire. Failing to renew such a law leads to the expiration of a law. In other words the effect of time has an additional pressure on those who are in favor of the law.

In 1994 the Republicans had just won a majority in the House of Representatives on the “small government” issue. And, in an effort to make their voice heard they refused to pass a supplemental bill to continue the operation of the government when it ran out of money. Now, if the majority of Americans truly hated the spending of tax dollars on everything, then this would have proven that point and a majority of Americans would be delighted by the shutdown of the government. History did show that Americans actually like the things that government does for them. They just don’t like the things that the government does for others. So, the point is that the shutdown of the government pointed out to the Americans that some functions of the government are appreciated by a majority of Americans. And, the shutdown of the government backfired for the newly elected Republicans.

The failure of Republicans was short lived and it proved to be a learning lesson that the Republicans built on as they were able to maintain control of congress for twelve more years. The point isn’t that they were able to create new legislation to make things better, because they couldn’t. They didn’t have the power to override a presidential veto. But, they were able to make use of the clock and make sure that the money wouldn’t be there for any government programs. This sent a message to President Bill Clinton that he should be careful about what laws he vetoes, because time was on their side.

Well, we are back to the future on another key issue. This time the issue is the Iraq War. The popular opinion is that we made a mistake going into Iraq and we should find a way out as soon as possible. This popular opinion contrasts the opinion of George W Bush, that we leave our troops in Iraq until the terrorists give up and go home. Seeing that we are trying to keep peace in a civil war where the two sides of the civil war hate each other, but they hate us being there even more and they are already home, it doesn’t look like George W Bush’s plan has any chance of happening.

But, who’s side is time on? If we continue on with the status quo who will time benefit? It looks like time just might be on the side of Iran, the insurgents and the terrorists. In fact, if the terrorists were smart they might just stay quiet for some extended period of time and quietly build a cache of weapons until the Americans come to the conclusion that the situation is under control. Once the last American leaves Iraqi soil they could jump out from their hiding spots and exacerbate the situation into the civil war from Hell. That is if that really is their objective.
However, I don’t believe that the terrorist really want an Iraqi civil war as badly as they want a training ground for their soldiers. Iraq is the perfect training ground and the Americans are the perfect targets for building support for their cause in the Arab World. The mayhem in Iraq is the perfect foil for Iran, who is the biggest winner in this conflict so far. The longer we stay in Iraq the stronger that the terrorists, Iranians and insurgents become, because time is on their side.

So, what can we do about it? Well, the US Congress made the first attempt at trying to end the war in Iraq. And, of course George W Bush intends to veto the bill. But, what happens after his veto? Does anyone really think that the US Congress will suddenly be frightened into writing a bill that the president wants? If George W Bush vetoes every bill that Congress passes and he doesn’t like then what will happen? Who has time on their side?

If George W Bush doesn’t get his bill, there will not be any money for the troops. The President will not be able to keep the troops in Iraq without any money. So, theoretically if the Democrats in congress hold the line the president can not win this fight. He has a choice between accepting the law saying that he will withdraw the troops by next September, or vetoing the money for the troops that are there right now. Time is on the side of the Democrats. Will the Democrats continue to stay the course and force the hand of the President? That is the real question. The president has a choice between having his funding run out or accepting a timeline for withdrawal.

But, George W Bush has one thing that could change the course of the Congress, and that is American public opinion. The American people want to support the troops. But, how each person sees supporting the troops differs wildly. Many people believe that getting our troops home as soon as possible is a method to support our troops. Others believe that giving our troops a bottomless well of resources is the way in which we support our troops. George W Bush is counting on those people to rally forth and change the opinion of the Congress. If the Democrats hold together and fail to create a new bill that George W Bush will sign, then how will the American public view the standoff between these two branches of government? I am sure that the pollsters are out there trying to find out right now. The opinion of the American people will determine the outcome of this battle, but the fact is that the Democrats truly have time on their side, and in my opinion that’s a good thing.









-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

Socrates made this famous statement at his trial 2400 years ago. And, for some, what he said then is relevant to us today. Some people write in their diaries every day in an effort to see what they can about the life that they are living, and explore ways in which they can make it better. But, I also know that there are people who do exist in this world that continue to be confused when they make the same mistakes time and time again.

Like living in an abusive relationship for ten years and finally being able to muster enough courage to break away and start a new life. But, only a few months down the road this very same person finds another abusive relationship with another abusive person hoping that this time the plot will work its way out differently.

But, it is hard to examine our lives honestly. Actually it is hard to examine our lives at all, let alone honestly.

For example, I asked a group of students yesterday to take ten minutes and reflect upon their lives. “Just think about where you are now and where you are planning to go. Think about the whatever pops into your head and spend ten minutes examining it.” It wasn’t very complicated. Everyone should do this everyday. There isn’t much more to it than that. It could be more complex. One could systematically go over a list of what you are doing and how did you get where you are. One could ask all the question words about their situation and where they are planning to take this large endeavor called life. Socrates actually had method of reasoning and detailed this in the quest of examining his life. Of course he didn’t write any of it down and we only have his students records of it, which may not be an honest examination since any account is often distorted through the eyes of a third party.

I found the students to be unusually distracted. The brightest student in the class was clearly the least eager to take on the challenge of examining his life. Often the person who knows the most is the fearful of what he might discover. I wasn’t really surprised and I thought that with only a ten minutes to reflect on their lives it wouldn’t really make a difference anyway so I let the class devolve as the students quickly opted for anything else to do except think about their lives.

The brightest students seemed to be distracted by each other while the less bright students were confused by the idea of reflecting on their lives. They asked me to explain what I wanted them to do again and again. They looked at me with a puzzled look on their faces. The net outcome was that no one really accomplished the assignment. I was a bit disappointed, but I also realized that reflection among American youth today is a completely foreign concept, that seems to be avoided at all cost. Why does one need to think about ones actions when they are told what to do almost every moment of every day? They have adults telling them how to behave either in person or on TV in songs or on the Internet almost continuously from the time that they awake until the time they go to bed. When exactly do they sit and stare into space and just think about nothing? When do they take the time to organize their thoughts? But, the main question is, when do they sit and do nothing without suddenly spouting the phrase, “I’m bored!?”

So, are all the unexamined lives of our young teens worth living? They all seem to be so determined not to examine their lives even when they are encouraged to take a mere ten minutes to do so. It isn’t like they are an unruly class. In general these students take assignments seriously. The problem was that this assignment asked them to do something that they either didn’t want to do or they already knew what they were going to find and they were afraid of that rediscovery. They didn’t like the lives they were leading, but they had already come to an easy justification for their lives and they didn’t want to disturb it.

It is well understood among those who recruit teens that the young mind is uncomfortable with their lives. They want to be happy and they fear discomfort. They fear finding something that they don’t want and they are susceptible to suggestions of easy solutions to this problem. Some religions offer an “easy” list of rules to follow. These rules offer the hope of enlightenment that these students seek without the pain of exploring the truth in the context of their own lives. Sometimes a religious group will explore a tiny emotional exposure that brings a flood of tears to the unwary teens. The emotions actually frighten the teens into following the teachings in the hopes of staving off the possibility of that ever happening again.
Some groups offer projects that help the community as a substitute for thinking about the big picture. Members tell each other that they are doing their parts and there is no need to consider doing more. A continuous examination of ones life is nearly impossible, and the consequences could result in unintended consequences of society in general and each person in particular.

What kinds of disturbing things could discovered in an honest examination of ones life?

Well, if you honestly answer some of these questions you could begin to find out.

Are you doing everything in your power to take advantage of everything you have been given?

Are you doing everything in your power to reduce the suffering of everyone around you?

Do you have a plan to change your life and make things better for you, your family, your town, your country and your world? What is that plan? What are you doing right now to make that difference?

Do you even have a plan for how to make things different in the next few minutes? How?

How often do you re-examine your plan?

Do you have a safety plan for when things could go wrong? Do your safety plans include those around you including your family, friends, co-workers and neighbors?

Do you have justifications that keep you from doing any of these things? Are they really justified?

It is hard to honestly examine your life and feel good about the selfish choices that we all make. We all make selfish choices, myself included. The question is not really if we make these selfish choices but where we draw the line between selfishness and selflessness. The fear of losing everything and finding ourselves living on the street keeps most of us from doing everything that we can do. But, fear of being called selfish keeps us from keeping everything for ourselves. And, sometimes a bit of empathy helps us in our reaching out to others. This being said, how can any of us criticize anyone else when we realize that each one of us has his or her personal struggle with this challenge.

It is truly hard to examine your life. Is might be easier to make some choices and continue to live our lives without rethinking these choices. But, is an unexamined life really worth living? Then again, maybe you don’t need to examine your life if you love Jesus.





-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

What are the differences between a healthy relationship and an abusive one?

I presume that we could most likely agree that every relationship that we have with any other person is unique. There are personal details about every relationship that makes them unique. There is a personal history involved with every person and that history involves all of the relationships that the person has with every other person.

But, just because every relationship is unique that does not mean that we can not know anything about a relationship in general. This is because we have the ability to generalize about relationships based on general characteristics of those relationships.


The broadest generality that we can make is to determine whether a relationship has the characteristics of an abusive relationship or a healthy relationship. The first thing that comes to mind when we think about this difference is violence. Does one person in the relationship cause violence to the other person in the relationship? This is obvious, but understanding why the two people were attracted to each other in the first place and sought to build a relationship in the first place gives us insight into understanding the relationship and the two people involved.

So, what do the two people find attractive in each other that leads them into an abusive relationship in the first place? Generally the personalities of the two people complement each other. The abuser is looking for someone to control and the abusee is looking for someone to give them direction. That’s right, the abusee is generally does not know what they want except for some vague ideas about having a happy life surrounded by happy people. After all, many of us have this same general idea, but we also have more specific plans about what we want. But a person that is susceptible to abuse is willing to be told what to do in order to achieve this generalized goal of having a happy life and being surrounded by happy people. They tend to pursue making the people in their relationships happy and often to the detriment of themselves. When they meet a person who is determined to tell them what to do, the abusee is likely to do everything they are told to do without question. And when the abuser takes advantage of the abusee the abusive relationship is born.

So, the abusive relationship doesn’t have to be violent. In fact, the violence might never surface at all as the abusee continues to be taken advantage of by the abuser. In fact, the first time that violence might happen is when the abusee actually stands up for themselves and goes against the will of the abuser. The violence might be a sign that one party of the relationship finely has a personal plan for the future with something a little more specific in mind. Sometimes the generosity of the person begins to extend beyond one relationship into another one. For example, we can imagine a wife that gives money to help her mother out of a financial problem against the will of her husband. If the husband disapproves he may threaten the wife and at least show his displeasure. In an abusive relationship the controlling abuser refuses to consider the problem and asserts his control instead of trusting the abusee. In a healthy relationship a trusting discussion determines the concerns of both parties and reaches a consensus plan of action.

So, it is clear that trust is one of the most important aspects of a healthy relationship, while control is the most important aspect of an abusive relationship.

There are many relationships that we have with different people. We have relationships with friends, neighbors, family members, and acquaintances. And, we can also consider collective relationships as well. This is because we have leaders on where we work and at the various levels of government. The leaders that we have deal with other people as well and these relationships are also subject to the universal laws of relationships. There may be healthy or abusive relationships. Bosses might be unreasonably abusive or they may encourage healthy teamwork and discussion. There might be a mutual respect and trust between us and our leaders, or there may be an assumption of control and abuse.

And, our leaders also have relationships with other leaders. Our boss has an intra-company relationship with other managers in the company. And, the managers have inter-company relationships with other companies. And, all of these relationships may be healthy or abusive. Similarly our political leaders also build relationship with other leaders and these relationships may be healthy or abusive as well.

So, one question that I have is the US relationship with Iraq a healthy relationship or an abusive one? Can we look at the relationship between the two countries as a function of the relationship between the two leaders, or should we consider other efforts as well?

Let us consider the relationship at the basic level. Why does it exist at all? I would suggest that Iraq as a country doesn’t really know what it wants for itself. It has some general idea of a happy life and being surrounded by happy nations. But, because there are so many different groups inside Iraq with many different ideas of happiness or success it really doesn’t have one specific goal and a plan to achieve that goal. Since it has no specific idea or plan, only a generalized idea of what it wants it is ripe for being told what to do to achieve its general happiness. In other words, Iraq is ripe for abuse.

The United States under the current administration may not know what it wants for Iraq, but they certainly want to control Iraq. The administration is happy to tell Iraq what to do and what not to do. In other words they are acting like a classic abuser. They know when they are happy and they clearly know when they are not happy with Iraq.

This is the classic abusive relationship. The abuser wants to control the abusee and at this point the abuser has resorted to violence. The violence is increasing because the abusee has finely realized that it doesn’t want to be controlled. But, similar to an abusive relationship they are not sure of the way out. The abuser is telling the abusee what to do and the abusee has realized that they don’t want to be controlled. The abusee doesn’t know if getting out of the relationship is the best plan, but it doesn’t like being abused either. If the relationship is ever going to change from being an abusive one to a healthy one the key is trust. The abusee and the abuser will need to learn to trust one another. So far this doesn’t look like it is going to happen any time soon.





-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

On March 31, 2004 the world was shocked as they witnessed images of four burned bodies hanging from a bridge in Fallujah, Iraq. We were told that these men were American contractors hired to secure food deliveries. The interesting thing was that the families of these men were actually told a different story. They were told that they were hired as a special military detailed to protect Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Somebody wasn’t getting the story straight.

These four bodies were being used to rally support for the American effort in Iraq. The supporters of the war used the images to vilify the enemy and to call anyone who questioned the war as unpatriotic. The truth is that these men wouldn’t have even been in harms way if the administration had relied on American soldiers rather than military mercenaries to carry out their missions.

It turns out that the United States has about 150,000 American military in Iraq. But, we also have almost 100,000 American “contractors” in Iraq as well. And, the most aggressive of these contractors are from a company called Blackwater. The men that were hanging on that bridge back in 2004 were contractors from this company.

Journalist Jeremy Scahill has a new book out called “Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.” In this book he illuminates some of the mysteries surrounding this company. He tells us how Erik Prince, a radical right-wing Christian multimillionaire controls 20,000 troops, a military base and a fleet of 20 aircraft, but most people have never heard of his organization. Even after the macabre hanging on the bridge in 2004, people still don’t know that those men worked for Blackwater. Or, if they did, they didn’t know that those men were actually highly trained military men. Jerko "Jerry" Zovko, Wesley Batalona, Michael Teague and Stephen "Scott" Helvenston were in Iraq and they were soldiers, not contractors.

Stephen "Scott" Helvenston was not only a Navy Seal, he was a Navy Seal trainer. Michael Teague was a decorated 12-year Army veteran who had served in Afghanistan, Panama and Grenada and with a Special Operations helicopter unit nicknamed "Night Stalkers.” Jerry Zovko spoke Arabic and several other languages well enough to chat with the staff in the small hotel where he lived. Wesley Batalona was also an ex-military man an Army Ranger with experience in Panama and the first Gulf War. The point is that these four men had more military experience than many of the soldiers occupying the country at the time. So, to call them contractors actually made them sound more like innocent civilians caught in the crosshairs of the terrorists who hate everything American including these poor guys who could never have provoked anyone by merely guarding the food supply to the Iraqis. At least that is what the press reports tended to imply.

But, in Jeremy Scahill’s book we see another side of this company: Blackwater. It turns out that Blackwater isn’t under the military code of conduct. The company argues that private contractors shouldn’t be subject to military laws, because they are a private contracting firm. They are actually paid through the state department, and other government departments instead of the Pentagon which stands to bolster their argument. But, they act like a roving band of mercenaries with only Erik Prince to answer to.

It turns out that the four men on the bridge had signed quite extensive contracts relieving Blackwater of almost any responsibility in the case of their deaths. But, the four families have gathered their forces anyway in order to sue Blackwater in Civil Court. It turns out that the detailed contract these men signed with Blackwater detailed how the men should be protected on their mission as well. At first Blackwater didn’t worry much about that detail, because Blackwater claimed that the details of the incident would be a military secret that could put the American forces in harms way. So, the fact that the Blackwater employees were traveling in two jeeps without the aid of a rear gunner was kept from the families for nearly two years. This action actually should void the contract and the families of these men are taking the case to court.

But the case may not be a slam-dunk just yet. Did you ever wonder what Kenneth Star is doing these days? You know, the prosecutor who spent nearly five years investigating the Clinton’s real estate dealings and only was able to catch Bill Clinton lying about an affair with an intern at the White House. Well, he is working as a lawyer defending Blackwater from these poor families who have lost the ones they love through the negligence of Blackwater. (It is interesting how he always find himself on the side of evil in these matters.)

It turns out that Blackwater is sparing no expense to defend its right to be above the law. They claim that they don’t need to obey the military code of conduct because they are a private firm. They also claim that they shouldn’t be prosecuted in a criminal court, because they deal with military secrets that could put our troops in jeopardy. They also claim that they can not be prosecuted for any of the actions that they have taken in Iraq under the Iraqi courts, because they are Americans. In fact they seem to have an excuse for almost every possible way they that they could be held accountable for their crimes.

Crimes!? Yes, Crimes. There are many reports in Iraq detailing the antics of the “Blackwater Guys.” They see themselves as above the law. They have reportedly shot at people first, then ask the questions later. Is this the way that America should be building relations with the Iraqis, or others in the Middle East.

Yes, Blackwater isn’t just in Iraq. In fact, they go to the places where the US hasn’t athorized troop deployment yet. Blackwater can go to these places because they are a private company. And, a private company can go wherever they please. Talk about loopholes. Blackwater has found the right combination of circumstances that they have made war a profitable enterprise once again. And the soldiers aren’t the ones getting all that cash. Blackwater charges $950 per day per soldier to the US government, and they pay the majority of their mercenaries $350 per day. The rest of that money seems to go into overhead or Erik Prince’s pocket. We don’t know for sure because that detail is a secret that might jeopardize the safety of the troops in the field, or maybe Erik Prince from his mercenary soldiers.

If you want to know more about Blackwater, then maybe you should read the book. Or, you could listen to Jeremy Scahill interviewed by Terry Gross on Fresh Air. The podcast and audio are in the archives at npr.org.














-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

When we think about the though police, we think of some future society in George Orwell’s 1984 where Winston Smith is actually arrested by the thought police that can actually read the minds of public and search for illegal thoughts. The government determines which thoughts are allowed and which thoughts are not allowed.

Currently our world is not so clever as to invent a thought reading device. Some people however are able to identify what others may be thinking. They are able to infer their likely thoughts based on their demographics. This is how elections are so very predictable that candidates need to change their public opinions in order to win over a fraction of those who are unaware of a candidate’s past thoughts.

If we look at a large group of people with a similar background and we offer them a selection of two candidates with extremely different opinions we can certainly predict the outcome of the election in advance. If we offer the same two candidates to a completely different group of people the opposite outcome could be very likely. In a democracy we certainly hope that this is the case, because that is how we believe the system should behave.

Now, if we turn the tables and carefully craft a candidates that says what we know that the electorate wants to hear then we stand a high chance of electing any candidate that is willing to read the speech. It doesn’t really matter what the candidate believes. It is what he is willing to say that can get him elected. And, that is the state of politics today.

Many people have much time and energy invested in this strategy of containment of political power. Many regions of our country have been determined to lean one way or the other, and there is fear that some number of people might change their thinking and be swayed to vote differently. Those who fear a change in thinking would like to control the thoughts of those that live around them. Politicians who have invested their careers into thinking in one particular way would like to maintain a base of supporters who continue to think the same way. Supporters of a candidate that is making laws in favor of them would also like to maintain a solid base of people that continue to think the same way. So, the question becomes - How can we get people to continue to think the same way?

Well, a real life thought police isn’t going to happen very soon, because our ability to read thoughts is only at a very infant stage. So, we resort to other forms of thought control. Peer pressure is probably the first form of control that comes to mind. We all want our friends to agree with us. Because, if our friends didn’t agree with us we would feel obligated to argue with them, and arguments might lead to conflict that might damage our friendship. So, we feel obligated to agree with our friends when we can and save the fights for the really important issues. If a friend likes a political candidate and we don’t have an opinion we might find ourselves supporting the candidate in an effort to prevent an argument.

This type of peer pressure may be extended to acquaintances and neighbors as well. A neighbor who knocks on the door and offers information on a candidate that they support might influence a person who does not have an opinion on a certain candidate.

Peer networks may also use single “frightening” issues to influence how people think that they should think. A “frightening” issue may become a handle for an entire political agenda. The Religious Right may want to change civil laws into religious laws, but the general public wouldn’t allow that to happen outright. But, if the majority of the public dislikes homosexuals, then gay marriage could be the issue that allows the religious right to grab onto a larger segment of society. A candidate running on gay marriage as political issue might be elected with a cohort of similar religious animals and pass a religious law banning divorce for anyone because Jesus told us how bad it is. Or, perhaps they could ban sex outside of marriage, or wearing bikinis in public. Or, perhaps they could even pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of alcohol. Who knows where it would end?

People who have an ideology support their opinions on a set of supporting evidence. Sometimes the evidence that they use comes under fire. Sometimes the evidence itself is merely an opinion supported by only faith that the opinion is correct. Sometimes the arguments can not be supported by any logic at all. How do ideologies like this maintain support?

The older people who support a particular idea will eventually die. Younger people are always being born into the group, and the ideology of the group depends on converting the children to the ideology. This happens in religions all the time. Parents take their children to church, temple or meeting week after week and they hear the same stories year after year. Before they know it the children believe the stories before they can support the stories with reality based logic. If the story tells us that Hercules held the world on his shoulders while Atlas took a break, then the children will know and believe the story until reality bring it into question. When space science shows us that the world is a sphere floating in space the children ask the question: Where does Atlas stand? They won’t ask if Atlas is a real being, they already know that he is. They just want to know where he could stand.

Obviously the ideology that requires the largest “contortions of reason” in order to “believe” in the ideology requires the most defense. And, with that being said it is obvious that children need to learn the “facts” early, and avoid anything contrary to the “facts” until the ideology is hardened like cement. This is where the parents must become the thought police of their children. Parents actually have the power to create the thoughts in their children’s heads. At this point parents can either create thinking questioning children, or accepting faithful unquestioning children. Or, at least many parents believe that they can.

To be fair, this type of indoctrination is by no means restricted to religions. If we think about family history, we all know that there are stories that tell us the injustices suffered in our families. Sometimes these injustices lead to family feuds in which hatred in passed to future generations. Family feuds are extended into national or cultural feuds in some cultures. “Remember the Alamo,” has been passed future generations and remembered to provoke hatred at the future generations of Mexicans. When children are told about this defeat they are instilled with hatred and some are even provoked to feelings seeking revenge. Of course children don’t only react to the story, but they also react to the feelings that their storytellers evoke when telling the story. Stories of the burning of Atlanta evoke emotions of hatred toward the soldiers that burned that large swath of land. But those who burned that land are no longer alive to pay for that deed. Do Atlantans praise this action as an action that shortened that war, or do they hate the Northerners who inherited the responsibility of that action? The answer lies in who tells the story, and how it is told. Children are taught how they should feel from the stories they are told, long before the time when they can weigh all the evidence.

This may explain the seemingly crazy reactions of parents to the history lessons taught in school. History can never take into account of every person’s perspective. It is almost impossible to imagine every injustice that has been perpetuated throughout history. Young men have often been forced into battle to fight for ideas that they didn’t believe in. People have been forced into slavery and conditions that border on slavery. People throughout history have been cheated out of property and forced into tragic conditions. If you personally suffered these tragedies, then it is easy to understand the pain and suffering. If you are a family member from a family with a member who has personally suffered, then it is easy to feel empathy for that person. And, if a member of you local regional culture, ethic culture or national heritage, then you have heard the stories and you are sympathetic for your extended family. And, similarly people outside of this circle get much less sympathy. People with the agenda of passing down the hatred from generation to generation want each generation to feel extreme empathy for their own people and less or no empathy for those outside the circle. Regardless of the truth, the emotional feelings of empathy for one culture over the other is an agenda of some people. The cultural thought police form the young minds of children to pass these feelings to future generations.

And the thought police don’t want you to know this.






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

John McCain seems to have taken to the Republican way of politics. That is, to lie to whoever you can in order to win support. Two years ago I thought that John McCain was a worthy Republican that stood outside the swill and vomit of the Republican Neo-Cons that were running the show. He did stand up to the administration, a couple of times. But, then he though that this “outsideness” would be his advantage in a potential Presidential run. So, what did he do? He went out and sought the support of the Christian Right. He gave up his Libertarian charm and sought the governmental control Christians to back him.

When he did this, I lost all respect for him. The “Straight Talk Express” couldn’t decide which track it was on. It slammed to a halt and gingerly edged its way toward the Dobbson Christians. Tim LeHay and the Neo-Cons weren’t quite so sure about this stranger in the village and they turned their backs every time he walked by. And, the Libertarians that he had initially appealed to began to see him for the Republican that he really was, a liar.

This is what always seems to bother me about the Republican Party. Every time a candidate rejects the social conservatives and proclaims their favor of fiscal conservative values, like only spend the money that you have and provide efficient and useful services for the common good their will is broken by the threat of withdrawing financial support for their campaign.

Now, John McCain’s campaign is falling out of favor in money circles and in popular polls. I am not surprised, because see him as a politician that has fallen to the political temptation of being bribed to support the people with the money. His announcement of his candidacy on David Letterman’s talk show was an attempt to scrape the bottom of the idea barrel with a news cycle flurry that might spring him a few points higher in the polls. I don’t think that it is going to work. People already know that he will bend and sway in the political wind, like other politicians with no back bone. Republicans will not stand for a flip flopper; we know that from the 2004 campaign.




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

What is the strongest force in nature?

Any physicist can tell you that the strong nuclear force is that strongest force in nature. And, it must mediate the interaction between Republicans and their money. Republicans are afraid of just about everything. They tell us the dangers of terrorism and Saddam Hussein’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Or, is it Iran now? But, the thing that Republicans seem to fear more than anything else is the possibility that they may be separated from their money.

Think about the Iraq War for instance. They want to wage war, but they don’t want to pay for it. They would rather borrow the money and have their children pay it back with interest. They believe that scaring the Jesus out of the Muslims by using huge weapons of mass destruction will keep them safe. But, they don’t want to spend their own money to pay for these destructive weapons. They feel that if they kill enough radical extremists, then the radical extremists will become just as afraid as they are of losing their money. If the terrorists become frightened enough, then the terrorists will leave us alone and do what ever it is that fearful terrorists do.

Not only that, but Republicans want a cheap war. They don’t want the deluxe model, because they know that if the Republicans loose control of government, then they might actually have to pay back the debt generated from this aggression. It would surprise me if the next generation were to wise up, retain control of government and punish the current Republicans in charge by taking away their Social Security checks. But, the problem is that this attack on the Iraq War generation would punish the wrong people. The truly evil people are the Republicans who supported George W Bush and never questioned him at any step along the way. What good is a government that has checks and balances and never uses them?

Somehow we have allowed the argument to get so convoluted that the people who actually care about the well being of our soldiers have become the bad guys.

Let’s think about this crazy Republican reasoning and see if we can find the flaw.

The Republicans became fearful of loosing their money when the financial markets in New York City were attacked on 9/11/2001 by radical extremists. Fear of anyone who might qualify as a potential radical extremists fueled hatred of Arabs, Muslims, and many people who have “strange” sounding names or accents. Even though all evidence tells us that such a small number of people are actually terrorists or extremists that fear is creating a large number of people who are unfairly being discriminated against. But fear is such a strong force that it allows the discrimination to continue. And when the Republicans that have their assets recorded on computer disks that could be targeted their fear becomes even more irrational.

But, crying about the potential loss of money isn’t very manly, so the Republicans use the “horror” of the 3000 killed on 9/11/2001 as an excuse for taking such extreme action as attacking and killing over 100,000 Iraqis and more than 3000 US soldiers. They want thousands of US troops to create a Democracy in the Middle East, to create a wealthy class in the Middle East that shares the same fear of loss of money that they have. Perhaps if the wealthy in a Democracy in the Middle East will act in self interest then they will fight to keep their money for the Americans. At least, that seems to be the complex idea behind their actions.

And, of course they hide their fear of financial loss behind the support of our troops that they sent into harms way. Their logic seems to be, send troops to overthrow a country to create a Democracy to protect their money. Then proclaim the support for our troops as a patriotism that shouldn’t be questioned, because questioning the deployment will put our troops in harms way, because they might not feel so patriotic if they knew that the whole reason for their suffering had to do with protecting the wealth of those who were afraid of losing their personal wealth.

And, this shameless act of greed and fear is protected from criticism by this clever proposal that they actually care about our troops. But, this curtain seems to have finally been tossed aside with the revelation that Republicans don’t really want to pay for care needed by our wounded troops. They don’t want to treat our troops who have sacrificed body parts with the respect that they deserve. Of course they must buckle to political pressure when the truth comes out. And the political pressure will cause the cost of this war to go up. Of course the Republicans will borrow more money to pay for this, even though they would rather not. They were simply embarrassed into this. It is like when someone is embarrassed into contributing to the church collection by a preacher who puts the names and amounts of contributions on the church wall.

The Republicans would rather not pay any more than they need to, but when they are called on the carpet, they will pay the least amount than they can get away with. And, if they can they will do their best to blame someone else for the problem. Chances are that our military hospitals are given a budget and the military hospitals do the best that they can with the money that they have. Why not blame the guy who is spending the money, rather than the people who apportion the money to the veterans? Just remember, the Republicans are motivated by the fear of losing their money, and nothing else.







-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

A few weeks ago I was invited to join a peloton. Of course I didn’t know what a peloton was, but I was able to infer its meaning from the context of the conversation. The invitation was to ride our bicycles across town and up some incredibly steep road, then stop, and watch as the cyclists from the “Amgen Tour of California” come racing up the hill.

As I have written here several times in the past, I am in much better condition than I was just three years ago. I am aerobically fit, from my daily workouts at the pool and my weekly jogging expeditions. But, my experience on a bicycle is not very recent. About 15 years ago my bicycle was my main transportation to and from work. I road a couple of miles on the bike trails in The Woodlands, Texas. And, I road a couple of miles each way to work in the rains of northern Germany. But the bike riding wasn’t really enough to keep me fit, because I managed to put on a few pounds even with the cycling. I rode, but I never made the trip a challenge, cycling was just another mode of transportation.

Since I hadn’t ridden my bicycle for quite some time I knew that it needed some maintenance. A quick look showed me that my tires were basically rotting on the rims and one of my brake cables was about to break. I bought new tires and inner tubes, but the little piece of brake cable wasn’t a standard part at the “big box” sporting goods store that I visited. The salesman suggested that I visit a “bike shop” to find the piece that I needed.

One might want to reflect on this little incident, if we remember that the “bike shop” is having difficulty competing with the “big box” sporting goods store across town. The “bike shop” is actually a neighborhood sporting goods store that also repairs bicycles in the back of the shop. The “big box” store has only been in town for about a year. I ended up buying the tires and the inner tubes at the “big box” store and then traveled across town to see if the “bike shop” had the piece of cable that I needed. I spent about $20 at the “big box” store, and the bike shop had the small cable piece I needed for $2. They also had the tires and inner tubes, but I had already bought them at the “big box” store. Obviously if other patrons behave the same way that I did it is easy to read the writing on the wall - the “bike shop” really isn’t going to survive. When I realized what I had done I looked around for something else that I might need. And I found a $20 bicycle pump that I thought that I might like to have, and I bought it. But, this was a charity purchase that I didn’t really need to make. Most people don’t even think in those terms, so I began to lament the demise of the “bike shop” before it has happened. We will all loose the ability to find those “little pieces” that the “big box” store won’t keep in inventory because they don’t sell that fast. We’ll end up needing to go online, find these things, and order them “next day” delivery instead.

With all the parts in hand I attacked my bicycle. I tore it apart and then put it back together again. I even used the new bicycle pump to fill the tires. I petitioned my family to go on a bike ride so I could test my handy work. Of course I was greeted with a blank stare questioning my sanity. My wife, feeling guilty, joined me on a short ride of about ten miles. The bicycle seemed to be in working order - ready for the peloton.

My brother-in-law works at a big “bike shop” that actually sells high-end bikes to professional racers. His store sponsors at least one race a year and maybe more. He sent us a professional bike-racing shirt that I thought would be appropriate to wear on this journey across town and into the world of bike racing. I didn’t really know what to expect, but I figured that bike racing wasn’t really as popular as the Super Bowl or the World Series. I figured that we would ride up the hill that was blocked off from automobiles and we would find ourselves alone, as I expected the typical overweight out-of-shape Americans to stay at the bottom of the hill and root from there if they even decided to watch the race at all.

I was slightly surprised when I met up with our peloton and discovered what cycling enthusiasts they were. Two of them had also wore their cycling jerseys. Three of them had very nice bikes, where mine was at least 20 years old with about 20,000 miles on it. At least it had new tires on it.

Well, as we started off I felt at ease knowing that these guys had major cycling experience. They used cycling hand signals to worn us of potential dangers, like cars. They knew how to ride through traffic and signal to the cars. And, I just followed their example. All of my cycling experience was basically on bike trails or in bicycle friendly countries. So, I followed, watched and learned.

We rode for several miles until the hill emerged ahead of us. I anticipated the hill looking forward to testing my ability to climb it with my bike. Of course the riding became slower and my heart pounded harder as we began to climb. And eventually I stopped and walked my bike a short distance up a very steep section. Then I hopped on the bike and pushed ahead a bit more. Then I was completely embarrassed when one of the experts in our group asked me why I didn’t down shift my gears. Well, I had down shifted my rear gears, but I completely forgot to do the same in the front. And, of course that made things much easier.

We rode about 1 mile up this hill and found a sharp turn in the road where we could wait for the professionals to race by. And, to my surprise the crowd had not thinned out on this stretch of the course. People were crowded and they clutched their cowbells. In fact, as we rode by many of the people rang these cowbells “just for fun” as they waited. The crowd was quite large. I imagined that the number of people crowed along this mile up the hill was larger than the number of people that gathered for the last parade that I attended. And, the people seemed to be more excited than the crowd at the last parade that I attended. Many of these people had chalked messages on the road as they waited. “Floyd was Framed, ” “Go Levi,” and “Super Fan” were some of the messages that I remember. But, the road had hundreds of these. I couldn’t imagine that any of the cyclists would even read them, but you never know.

The particular spot where we stopped had a Fox News TV camera set up on a tripod. At the time we had no idea who owned the camera, but later in the evening some footage showed up on the local Fox News affiliate taken from that vantage point. It also helped to have “Super Fan” choose this spot to root for the cyclists.

Super Fan is a guy who wore a big fuzzy wig, a red, white and blue jump suit and a red, white and blue cape. The guy was obviously an attention seeking person possibly with a mental disease. (;-}) And, he managed to get himself on the evening news acting like a loony, so got some of that attention that he was seeking.

We waited for over 30 minutes to see a couple of minutes of bike racing. First we saw a few cars and motorcycles traveling the course 10 to 15 minutes ahead of the cyclists. Apparently they are looking for loonies like “Super Fan” that might decide to disrupt the race. Super Fan got a lot of coverage on the local TV station, but he didn’t have a message. Perhaps if he were protesting something or making another statement the advance cars might figure out a way to detain him before the cyclists were to reach that spot. Behind these advance cars were several units of police, on motorcycles and in cars. These guys yelled at the crowd that walked into the street as we waited for the cyclists. More motorcycles and cars came through until finally the first group of riders came riding through behind a motorcycle that stayed just in front of the leaders.

Well, I certainly appreciated the effort those cyclists made as they pumped their way up that hill after my earlier attempt. It was amazing to me how close those guys hung together as they climbed that hill. The skill they demonstrated to me went beyond the simple ability to power that bike 650 miles across the California landscape. Controlling that bike, in that pack of cyclists pushing up and then racing down the hills, is certainly beyond my ability. Being there and witnessing the actual event is difficult to put into words, simply because so much was happening that made the event and writing about it can only be done by excluding so much.

After just a few minutes the cyclists had passed and we were on our way to the next vantage-point. As it turned out the cyclists went up the hill and around a loop. In about 30 minutes they were due to pass by once again. So, we rode back down the hill to another place to wait for them to come around their loop. And, as we waited it got colder and I began to freeze. One of the guys in our peloton made a break away and decided to ride the five miles from where we were to the finish line. But, I decided to wait instead of ride basically because I had a meeting back at work that I didn’t want to miss.

As we waited the Girl Scouts came by and sold us cookies. As I imagine this phenomena 20 years hence I see businesses exploiting this by selling soft drinks, hot dogs, ice cream and more. Once they identify the “hot spots” where all the people come to wait for the racers fly by the venders will fill in the vacuum.

The ride back afterward was fast. Most of the ride was down hill, except for a short segment uphill and into the wind. Most of the ride was effortless, aside from that little climb that I pushed hard against. But, that little fight just before arriving at my destination brought back memories of those professionals climbing that hill. My struggle made me want to fight harder. But, I wondered how long I could keep up that fight. One quarter of the way up that hill was tough, but the professionals had ¾ of the way more to go up that hill after almost 100 miles of riding. Wow.




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

I am of Scots decent. My family has been in this country since 1654; maybe longer because I don’t every ancestor 12 generations or more back 350 years. Over these past 350 years my family has lost the taste for haggis and the urge to toss the caber. In a strange twist of history my ancient ancestor was born after the time when the old style philabeg (predecessor of the kilt) had been banned by the government and before the new style kilt was invented in 1725. My ancestor from Scotland who was captured and brought to the “New World” against his will and sold as an indentured servant had only ever worn pants. It is quite strange to think of the idea of a Scottish Highland games that glorifies the kilt, but had never been part of my Scottish family’s heritage.

Actually there are quite a few ironies and distortions in our relationship between our ethnic heritage and our ethnic culture.

Did that last sentence sound strange to anyone? I am saying that ethnic heritage and ethnic culture are two different things. This is because people no longer live in the same small village for their entire life. More people travel than they used to. And, more people especially in America move around and live in different places. This mobile culture “overwrites” our “hometown” culture. And, when we leave a particular place our memory of that place becomes frozen in our minds as the way that place “IS.” But, the reality is that the place continues to evolve after we leave that place. And, the new place that we find ourselves a part of begins to change because of the ideas that we bring to it.

When we go to another country we take our “American” ideas with us. But those “American” ideas might be a mixture of 1970s Chicago, 1980s rural Texas and 1990s rural California experience plus everything we “know” from TV about America. And when the German who meets you learns about “America” he will form an idea about America that isn’t the same as if she had met a person who has a 1970s New York, 1980s LA and 1990s Seattle experience of America. In fact, it might make sense to talk about a “personal” culture at some point.

But, underlying these experiences of American life that give us an American culture we also have an ethnic culture that is passed down through our family by means of ethnic tradition. But when you live close to people from many different backgrounds it is likely that you will pick up bits and pieces of the cultures that surround you. We see this all the time in regard to food and drink. We eat Mexican, Chinese and Japanese food all the time. We serve bagels, falafel, pita pockets, hummus, coffee and tea that all came from other places and other cultures. We absorb new words and descriptions when we hear our neighbors use them. We wear clothes and shoes that we see our neighbors wear. Culture flows, it isn’t stagnant. But our mind freezes what we see today and we call that American culture. Maybe that is why many of us don’t like change. We have learned to like the culture that we have, because it gives us comfort, but as the culture changes as it always will we find ourselves looking for that old culture that we once knew so well.

My grandmother came to the United States in the early 1900s. She was following her father who was looking for a better life. He first travel to Leadville, Colorado where he went to work in the lead mines. After a short while he learned that the lead mines in Colorado were dangerous. They were dangerous because the owners of the mines owned the town and they knew that the workers didn’t have enough money to just pick up everyone in the family and move to a better place very easily. But my great grandfather was all alone and he didn’t have to pick up the family and move. He just needed to move himself, and so he did. He went to the coalmines in Pennsylvania and worked there, where he found that competition had forced the mines to be safer, although not completely safe.

When my grandmother and her family finally reached Pennsylvania they brought the culture of the “old” country with them. They made friends with others from their country and they attempted to save the traditions that they could. Some of their holidays fell on workdays in Pennsylvania, so they found that they couldn’t celebrate them in the same way. They found that those who wore the latest fashion quickly ridiculed them for wearing their native dress.

With all of this talk about culture, maybe we should define it to make sure that we understand what we mean by culture. And, what it comes down to is that culture is the same as values. What we value is a function of our experience and tradition. When the religious right talks about values they are talking about culture. And, the issue is that some people desire a common culture where everyone understands the standard values of the whole. The problem is that there is no such thing as a common uniform culture in a world where everyone is mobile. People bring their values with them as they move around the world and they leave their values with the people that they have contact with.

There are three broad categories of values: utilitarian, moral and existential. Utilitarian values are the foods and material things that we value. We might say that Americans value hamburgers as utilitarian value. We rank our favorite foods as a country and we determine what we value as the best foods as a culture. If we had a more uniform culture we might be able to have an “American” Restaurant where everyone would agree that “American” food was served there. Maybe it would be called Applebee’s or Marie Calendar’s. It is quite obvious that American food really isn’t a very strong utilitarian value. With so many different ethnic foods brought to the American dinner table our culture is extremely diverse.

Moral values are what we view as a culture to be right and wrong. The Christian right is correct when they say that our moral values are largely based on a Judeo-Christian ethic. This is because people with a Judeo-Christian heritage founded the Untied States and they brought those values with them. But, just because they passed those values down to us does not mean that those are the best moral values that exist. Many cultures have explored moral questions and those cultures have discovered different answers to those questions. Philosophers and theologians have explored the questions of ethics and morals and public discussion on these issues would be a good way to approach the problems we have with moral values. The main problem with our current understanding of morals is that they are based in many different religions, and many people find it difficult to question their personal religion. Therefore many issues such as gay marriage or abortion have little room for debate. There are too many people out there with an absolute view on the issues. If too many people have an absolute view on a religious issue they will not be persuaded by argument, and they will not accept the decision by the majority. If a minority feels strongly about a moral issue that they regard as an absolute, they may resort to violence and believe that they are justified by a higher power.

Even more important than moral values are existential values. These are the values that we have about our purpose as a species, society, culture, family or person. These questions are so important that we are afraid to think about them. We often teach our children to find their purpose through their religion, prayer, meditation or spiritual ritual. Since most of us have little confidence in what our purpose truly is we often defer the question to someone older and wiser, which also have no idea. And, sometimes we just “know” what we are meant to do. Currently, however our country is not united behind any specific purpose. We have determined earlier that we are “not the world’s policeman.” We have also determined that we should “spread democracy throughout the Middle East, starting in Iraq.” But what should our purpose as a country be? With the country being run by a group that believe that we are in the “End Times” predicted by the Bible purpose is not weighing on their minds. And, if we do not have a purpose articulated to the people, then the next crisis will make us ripe for the extremists to take another shot at grabbing for power, like the Bush administration did after 9/11/2001. Next time it might not turn out as well.

The point that I am trying to make with this post is that America is a land of diversity. The diversity is “good” in that it gives us plenty of choices when it comes to culture. Naturally as we experience different cultures we take what we value from them when we can. We take foods and art and ideas. We also take moral and ethical ideas as well when we see that they make more sense or solve social problems. But, with so much diversity we lose a sense of communal culture where we know what everyone else likes and believes. This makes things more difficult, because we need to communicate more to find out what our neighbor thinks. And, when we don’t have a defined purpose as a country, which is most often communicated through the culture, we could find ourselves vulnerable to extremists who could tell us what we should do in time of the next crisis. People will respond more easily if they do not have a clear picture of our purpose. This is a dangerous place for our country to be.

The solution is to discuss these things before we have our next crisis, so that we will be on the same page as a country and not be vulnerable to some crazy lunatic in the next crisis.






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

Yes, I have been to a nude beach. Or, as the signs around the beach proclaim, “clothing optional” beach. To my surprise however, not many people that I know have actually participated at a “clothing optional” beach. So, the mystique of nude beaches persists through our culture.

Now, of course my experience was many years ago quite far away from where I live. It wouldn’t be very likely that I would go there again, even though I enjoyed the experience quite well. That being said, my experience and my expectations at the outset were quite different. And, I believe that the expectations, false or real, are at the root of the misconceptions surrounding the whole idea of nude beaches in American culture.

I expect that many Americans who happen to go to nude beaches do so because of expectations, or in a way similar to my experience. I never planned to go to a nude beach, it just happened. I was on a trip and a group of people that I knew suggested that we go swimming. It was summer, and we had several breaks through out the day for lunch or other things. So, the time to go swimming was available. However, since swimming was not on the agenda for the trip it, most of us hadn’t brought swimming suits, or even shorts for that matter.

As we began to complain about not bringing the normally required attire, one the members of the group explained that there was a clothing optional beach within walking distance. Since our group was coed I had expected sigh of “Oh well.” Instead I was surprised that the group was in favor of giving the beach a try at lunchtime. Maybe it was peer pressure, maybe it was curiosity or maybe it was the expectation of something forbidden, but all of us got together to trek to the beach at lunchtime.

I had known the people I was with for some years by this time, but I had never seen any of them naked. At the time I wasn’t in top physical condition, but neither were they. Curiosity and expectation gripped me, and so I never thought much about embarrassment. Like Popeye said, “I yam what I yam.”

We actually had to climb down a fairly steep sea cliff in order to get to the beach, which was secluded from the road above. Trees grew high up and down the cliff, so there was no possibility of a casual observer being surprised by what was on the beach. And, furthermore signs along the path warned that the beach was clothing optional.

When we reached the bottom of the cliff I didn’t pause to contemplate the situation. I quickly found a place to put my clothes and I took them off and piled them up. We all carried towels from the hotel we were staying in, but no one rapped themselves in it. Instead we did what anyone who goes to the beach does; we put our towels on the beach and sat down.

The perfection of the experience must have been with the people I was with. No one acted embarrassed or insecure. Everyone continued to talk about the things we had talked about as we continued to watch the people around us. After a while some of us decided to sun bathe while others went in the water for a dip. In fact, I don’t remember exactly what I did moment by moment. Instead I remember the experience as something exotic and unusual.

My expectations might have been along the lines of something potentially erotic, but the reality of the situation was more along the lines of something freeing. Of course that sounds like some type of liberal mumbo jumbo, but the experience is easier to experience than to explain.

Maybe painting a picture would help to explain the experience. There were about 100 people on the beach, maybe more. Most of them were sunbathing, but some were swimming in the chilly ocean waves. The weather was warm and comfortable, not windy at all. There was a logging company a short way up the beach in one direction, but there was little activity taking place there. There were several seals in the area, many of them were climbing huge stacks of logs and jumping into the water. They chased each other around the piles and we all watched them from time to time. As I sat down and looked around I began to notice the people who occupied the beach. It was easy to spot the regulars, because they were the ones who were completely tanned - no tan lines at all. One of the regulars was a woman, in her thirties. She walked up and down the beach selling drinks. She carried a cooler but covered nothing what-so-ever. It was obvious that she rarely if ever had worn a bra, because her mammaries hung low, much lower than anyone else’s on the beach.

In that first hour at the nude, or clothing optional, beach I began to enjoy the freedom to observe and freedom from the restriction of clothes. The novelty of the experience hadn’t worn off and I felt a sense of accomplishment that I had actually done something that cultured society doesn’t normally approve of. We spent a week at this meeting and we skipped several lunches in order to go back to this special place. The weather cooperated and we had a great time.

But, like with anything there are always problems normally unforeseen at the outset. Imagine for a moment what happens when a male is erotically stimulated. Now, imagine a beach full of erotically stimulating females. Trouble can happen in the form of embarrassment if one isn’t careful. Actually, this is in one form a relief for some females at the beach, because they may have some insight into the men that she may encounter on the beach. On the other hand the men on the beach need to put some restraint or control on any fantasies that might happen from time to time. I found that this wasn’t as big of a problem that I had imagined, which surprised me in a strange sort of way.

Some things can not be controlled. And, on a nude beach I found this out as well. As I opted to sunbathe on one occasion I drifted off to sleep in the nice warm sun. And thirty minutes later when I had awoken I discovered an artist sketching my anatomy. Apparently I had a mildly erotic dream and an artist had taken his opportunity to draw me in my pose. I wasn’t upset, after all there wasn’t much that I could have done about it. And, what difference did it make to me. But, it was certainly not something that I had expected when I had thought about the potential of going to a nude beach.

Over the years since this experience I have often thought about it in the light of experience. One thing is for certain; I appreciate the functionality of clothing more than I had before my experience. It has also allowed me to separate the difference between nudity and eroticism that is based in reality. Before this experience I had imagined a quick jump between naked bodies to sex. Instead I appreciate the important human relationship aspect of the whole process. Of course, I am not saying that I appreciate human relationships because I went to a nude beach. Instead I am saying that this experience lead to a different point of view that assists in drawing the whole picture. Relationships are tricky, and any insight into how they works seems to be a good thing from my point of view. And, if nothing else, the experience showed me that the crazy religious right that is afraid of nudity because they think that it will automatically lead to sexual promiscuity have their facts wrong. There were no wild and crazy sex orgies on that beach. There wasn’t even one couple making out on the beach that I saw. In fact, I would say that nudity may have prevented some of those things because of the embarrassment factor I mentioned above. So, if I have any words of wisdom from this experience they would be, “Try it yourself, you’ll be surprised. If you ever have the opportunity go to a nude beach and experience it.”






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

When does one man’s freedom become another man’s intrusion?

Sometimes these things are simple to understand. If you don’t like someone you do not have the freedom to harm him, because your freedom intrudes on his freedom. However, these things are not always black and white.

Think of the situation where a salesman wants to sell something. He believes that he has the freedom to walk up to someone’s home, knock on the door and offer his wares for sale. It is certain that the home owner had no intention of buying whatever is being offered, but the salesman believes that he has the right to ring the door bell and intrude on the homeowner.

Most often the homeowner doesn’t feel put out. The homeowner might feel annoyed. The homeowner might just want the salesman to go away. Or, the homeowner might suddenly realize that the wares that the salesman is selling are the magic that is missing in his life and he would be lucky to pay $19.99 for whatever the salesman is selling.

Some people are lonely and they hope that a salesman will come knock on their door in order to break up the monotony and loneliness. But, if you ask most people they will tell you that they dread the strange knock at the door because it is most often a salesman trying to unload his wares.

People often erect “no soliciting” signs as a warning to those who wish it sell their goods. Apartment complexes and buildings also erect these signs. And, many mostly affluent cities have ordinances prohibiting solicitation. And, these signs and laws often have very little effect on curbing the eager salesman from offering his wares.

Actually, we should face the reality of the situation. No one likes to be marketed to. We don’t like to be told what we should buy. It doesn’t matter how great the product is; we would like to learn about it ourselves. When the salesman appears, then we all would like to have time to think about the product. And, when the salesman is about to leave, then we fear that we will have missed the opportunity to buy that special product.

Dealing with a salesman at the front door is one thing. It is a small intrusion that we are willing to forgive if he offers something that we either want or need. However, the intrusion is less forgivable when the wares are not wanted or needed. One particular salesman has a monopoly on the product that isn’t wanted or needed (At least from my point of view.). This, of course, is the religious salesman selling his faith. These guys aren’t asking for money, they are asking for your faith. In fact, these people are asking for your faith based on a short talk crafted to convince you that their faith is the one true faith.

Now, I am not arguing that there aren’t people out there that don’t need some guidance, and perhaps religious guidance might be the right fit. But, doesn’t the idea of fast thoughtless religion put a bad taste in your mouth? Since people are naturally drawn to ask these philosophical and religious questions, I would expect that people searching on their own are more likely to find their best personal way to God on their own. People who are spoon fed a simple spiritual solution at their doorstep will be disappointed down the road when the doorstep religion slowly becomes real. However, that assumes that religions are all basically equal with no religion better than another. This might be the case, however for most religions there is only one true way. And, of course that one true way is through their doors.

People can be compelled to do many strange things when they are taught to believe that those who don’t share the same faith are likely to be lost souls condemned to eternal damnation. Imagine the sorrow you feel for that dog that was lying dead on the side of the road. Imagine the greater sorrow you feel for the child that died of a terrible disease. And, if you were compelled to believe that that child was condemned to eternal damnation because they weren’t saved by your religion. How could anyone let that happen? And one way to do that is to go out and sell your religion.

As a nation we have created public safety laws that we believe help protect our society from needless death and suffering. Seatbelt laws, traffic laws, drunk driving laws, and Arizona even has a stupidity law that are meant to protect the public from unnecessary death and injury. And so, to the religious it would only make sense that we pass similar protection laws that would protect the public from eternal damnation. After all, isn’t damnation worse that simple death? Well, it is if you believe in it. And, being hounded about damnation might be worse than death if you don’t believe in it.

Conservatives have been known to argue about the ridiculous overreaching of the liberal laws passed to protect us from death and injury. They protested against seatbelt laws. They protested against smoking bans in public places. They argued against clean air and clean water. The only safety laws that conservatives have agreed with over the last few decades have been those dealing with alcohol. This however could be based in the religious morality issues dealing with drinking more than an actually concern with safety. This is because many religious believe that the effects of alcohol and drugs is to disable the personal moral control of a person. From observed evidence of protection laws passed by liberals and conservatives it is clear that the main concern of liberal is to protect the body and the main concern of conservatives is to protect the spirit. Conservatives will argue that government should not waste money on laws that protect stupid people from doing stupid things. And, liberals argue that the government should not enforce religious laws. In both cases each groups intends to take away someone’s freedom for their own good. And both groups feel justified in doing so.

So, the final question here is - If you own a business and you want to protect your clients should you be allowed to exclude dangerous clients? For example, if you have a paintball range are you allowed to exclude people who don’t follow the rules? Not following the rules could result in bodily injury of you or another patron.

This seems to be a straight forward question with a straight forward answer. Of course you should be allowed to exclude those who you deem to be dangerous. After all, if someone is injured at your place you could be sued.

So, for a religious person who believes that damnation is worse than death, should he be allowed to exclude people who he deems dangerous to the spirituality of the others at his place? Or, in simple language, could the exclusion of non-Christians from Christian business owner’s place be allowed? Or, would the exclusion of non-Christians from his place be considered a form of discrimination?

I ask this question because I read of the owner of an athletic club that demands that his swim team members sign a contract that list all the rules of the team. One of the items on the list is “I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior.” Of course in all honesty non-Christians would not sign this contract and the net result is that the non-Christians would not be allowed to swim on the team. Of course the owner of the athletic club sees himself as protecting the spirituality of the other children on his team. Read about it here.






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

In my most recent piece on dishonesty I compared politicians and used car salesmen. What I was trying to communicate in the piece is that dishonesty is not a “black and white” thing. As Americans we accept the fact that a salesman, regardless of what he or she is selling will put their product in the most favorable light. We know this and accept it as a fact. Putting a product in a favorable light may or may not be deception. And, it may or may not be dishonest. I tried to be clear, but one reader told me that Bill Clinton’s father was a used car salesman. I assume that is a fact, but I don’t know anything about Bill Clinton’s father so I can’t really comment one way or the other.

But, what difference does it make whether Bill Clinton’s father was a used car salesman? I know that the reader didn’t like what I wrote, so I assume that he was trying to point out the fact that I must have liked Bill Clinton, therefore the guy I liked was fathered by someone I didn’t like, namely a used car salesman.

There are many problems with these assumptions. First of all, Bill Clinton was a better president than George W Bush, but it doesn’t mean that Bill Clinton was my favorite president of all time. Both of these guys have enormous flaws, but these are the guys that were able to make it through the political process that we have in this country. One of the main problems we face is the US political process. Perhaps Bill Clinton made it through the political process because he had a father that was a used car salesman. In fact, the point of my essay was how both politicians and used car salesmen use a form of dishonesty in selling their wares. That fact is that even John McCain’s straight talk express ran out of steam because he couldn’t maintain his straight talk amid all the truthiness.

Little did Sammy Cahn or Jimmy Van Huessen realize that Americans are so much in love with the idea of High Hopes. In fact, Americans praise the idea of High Hopes in such an idealized way that it is often viewed as a sin to be realistic about the motives of both our salesmen and our politicians. When a politician comes along and starts to tell us what we want to hear we begin to believe them even more, because we have such High Hopes that we believe that we have finally found that rare beast, the honest politician.

But, the problem is that the politicians and the salesmen have all been singing a different tune. Instead they are listening to Bing Crosby croon out Johnny Mercer and Harold Arlen’s song. They are accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative. It’s all in the eye of the beholder and reality doesn’t matter. And, the real danger happens when we combine the reality of these two philosophies put forth in these two songs.

If we have a public with high hopes looking for a politician to fulfill those hopes they are willing to accept whatever they can find. Then you introduce a politician who is accentuating the positive and hiding the negative the best he can. In this situation we end up with political pretenders who offer only faces that look like what America wants and in which America is willing to accept with those high hopes. Of course none of this is based in reality.

And, this takes us back to the advertisers. When the advertisers tell us about their amazing wares we never believe their claims without skepticism. We all know that most soda is favored carbonated sugar water, but we allow the advertisers tell us about the magically property of this drink. We like the flavor and the hype so we continue to accept the claims of the advertisers, even though most of us have realized long ago that drinking this magic potion doesn’t really change our lives as the advertisers suggest. But advertisers continue to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative in everything that America sees. How else could we become such an obese nation? When the positive tastes so good, why should we think about the negative of a few hundred extra pounds?

So, what is going on in a soft drink ad? What are the advertisers telling us, and are they being dishonest? Are they using deception or are they committing fraud? And, why do we allow the ads to influence our buying habits?

Advertisers don’t tell us that drinking soda may lead to obesity. But the simple equation of 3500 calories equals one pound of fat and 200 calories per 12 oz. of soda should lead us to some frightening conclusions. One 12 oz. soda per day could lead to 2 pounds extra per month if nothing else changed in your diet or exercise habits. And soft drink advertisers would have you drink many more than one 12 oz. soda per day. There are big gulps of 64 oz. that we are encouraged to drink. Think about it, 3 big gulps are going to become one pound of fat. A big gulp per day is 10 pounds of fat per month. So, is it fraud to leave this information for the buyer to figure out? Obesity doesn’t just come from soft drinks, the soft drink companies may claim. They are not the only ones responsible. Why should they tarnish their accentuation of the positive with that unwanted negative information?

Every company does this. It isn’t just used car salesmen and politicians. But, like your parents said when you told them that, “everyone’s doing it,” “would you jump off a bridge, if everyone was doing it?”

All that I was trying to say with my dishonesty post was that dishonesty is an accepted form of sales technique. Everyone knows that they should be skeptical when the salesmen sound “too good.” Rush Limbaugh might makes “conservative values” sound like a panacea. Al Franken might makes Rush Limbaugh sound like a big fat idiot. But, these political sales people are trying to get their policy across and the policy just isn’t as good as it gets. Political policy has winners and losers in the most general cases. Sometimes the rich win and the poor loose. Sometimes the smart people win and the stupid people loose. Sometimes the government tries to fix the inequality and sometimes they fail miserably. The only way that these policies can be kept in check is for Americans to care about the political policy. Then they can make sure that they don’t get ripped off to badly, or else we’ll just have a government that tells you that they know what’s good for those who do care.




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection