Although I'm not sure that it qualifies as an adage, I've always felt that the public discussion of religion and politics is taboo, because both subjects are, to me, anyway, deeply personal and as such, are no one else's business. Religion, of course, is completely subjective, so discussing that with anyone is akin to mental masturbation. Politics, however, is a bit different, in that I believe the voters must do all they can to become informed on the issues at hand and cast their vote accordingly. If the playing field were level, this would make perfect sense, but it's not. As a result, when deciding on political candidates, I use this rule: I do as much research as I can on each, and then I decide which one I'm most comfortable with when they lie to me. Simple, huh?
Politicians are a very strange breed, in my opinion. I'm no conspiracy nut, but I must confess to being immediately distrustful of anyone who WANTS to be the president. It amazes me that people flock to their candidate believing that he (or she) is the ONLY one who can lead us on the right moral path and save us from the certain depravity of their opponent. We spend countless hours and millions of dollars to elevate them to the highest office in the country, and when the goal has been achieved, we then exhaust every effort to tear them down for making the decisions we put them in office to make.
For instance, I liked Bill Clinton. I was really comfortable with him lying to me. Of course he inhaled. Frankly, I'd prefer that the person who makes the drug laws has had some experience with drugs. That he was having an extra marital affair was a shining example of his fallibility. I am in no way excusing his behavior, but I do understand it. Being the most powerful man on the face of the earth would, I suspect, be a source of stress, and he is just a man, no matter how much we want to hold him to a higher standard. One could argue that he asked for scrutiny by wanting to be president, which is valid. Again, though, if you follow people who WANT that kind of scrutiny, and who KNOW that they are prone to the same foibles as every other person, you must accept it when they do not measure up to impossible standards.
I was following the John Edwards blogging snafu last week. It seems he hired Amanda Marcotte of the blog Pandagon to write for his campaign blog. With article titles like "You'd Think a Douchebag Could Get More Pussy Than This", it would seem that Edwards either didn't read any of her work before hiring her, or didn't realize that many people find language like that objectionable, to say the least. In another article concerning birth control (which I believe has been deleted by Marcotte), she referred to Mary (of virgin birth fame) as being impregnated with the "sticky white goo" of the Holy Spirit. There's a difference, I think, between satire and insulting, even mocking the religious beliefs of millions of Christians. As noted, I am not going to discuss my religious beliefs, but what in the world made Edwards think that this is the style of writing he wants to use to project his ideals and promote his candidacy? Do we want to give him the power to wage war when we already know that he's not paying much attention to details?
Discussions of religion and politics are arguments waiting to happen. I suspect that even among Christians, the image of God that each person has is different from that of the person sitting next to them in the same church. As for politicians, they break the cardinal rule of trying to be all things to all people. Remember Lamar Alexander? He ran for the Republican nomination for president in 1996 and 2000, proclaiming himself to be a "man of the people". He used an SUV instead of a tour bus, and wore a red flannel shirt to show how down to earth he was. The trouble was, Alexander was far from average, as far as income. When asked by a skeptical reporter how much a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs cost, he was overheard by several witnesses telling an aide "I need to know the price of a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs. I need to know right now". A man who doesn't know the price of two staples that nearly every American uses on a daily basis is not a man of the people. He dropped out of the race soon after.
If we as a people do not cut ourselves off from the aphrodisiac of the cult of personality, we will forever have leaders who promise more than they can deliver. Why do we believe these men will behave like anything other than, well,...men?
23 February 2007
16 February 2007
Addiction!
I have been smoking cigarettes regularly for 30 years. I know it's not good for me. I have quit several times, and one of these times, it will stick. I've tried the gums and rubber bands, and even the patch, which I'm sure would be more effective if i could stick it on my mouth. It's a tough habit to break. Non-smokers, though, naively think it's simply a matter of will power, and only weaklings allow themselves to be controlled. My retort? Basic training in an infantry battalion is a matter of will power, and I did that. Believe me, it takes more than will power.
But, I didn't start this essay to rant about me. I saw a commercial today for a nicotine gum, I think, or maybe it was a pill. In any case, the gist of the ad is this: "I've tried the gum (or pill) many times, and nothing seemed to work. That's because I (as if this were a an isolated case) have AN ADDICTION to nicotine". The demeanor of the actor implies that the addiction makes them special, unlike, say casual smokers, and that they need a special tool to help them overcome their unique problem. Fair enough. I'll admit it's an addiction. The funny thing, though, was that I saw this commercial during one of those idiotic voyeur shows like "Maury", (to which I find myself strangely attracted sometimes). The subject matter of the show was people with eating disorders. In particular, all the guests were morbidly obese. They were addicted to food.
I've gone without nicotine, and for the first few days, things can get pretty weird. It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for every other person in the world going out of their way to piss me off. But food? How can you say you're addicted to food? That's like saying you're addicted to oxygen. I'm not picking on overweight people (there but for the grace of God go I), but is it really fair to say a person can be addicted to food? One can certainly eat too much, but we have to eat something.
I don't have to smoke, but I have to eat. The whole ordeal, with the commercial and the subject of the show seemed really incongruous to me. I'd write more, but I have to have a snack.
But, I didn't start this essay to rant about me. I saw a commercial today for a nicotine gum, I think, or maybe it was a pill. In any case, the gist of the ad is this: "I've tried the gum (or pill) many times, and nothing seemed to work. That's because I (as if this were a an isolated case) have AN ADDICTION to nicotine". The demeanor of the actor implies that the addiction makes them special, unlike, say casual smokers, and that they need a special tool to help them overcome their unique problem. Fair enough. I'll admit it's an addiction. The funny thing, though, was that I saw this commercial during one of those idiotic voyeur shows like "Maury", (to which I find myself strangely attracted sometimes). The subject matter of the show was people with eating disorders. In particular, all the guests were morbidly obese. They were addicted to food.
I've gone without nicotine, and for the first few days, things can get pretty weird. It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for every other person in the world going out of their way to piss me off. But food? How can you say you're addicted to food? That's like saying you're addicted to oxygen. I'm not picking on overweight people (there but for the grace of God go I), but is it really fair to say a person can be addicted to food? One can certainly eat too much, but we have to eat something.
I don't have to smoke, but I have to eat. The whole ordeal, with the commercial and the subject of the show seemed really incongruous to me. I'd write more, but I have to have a snack.
15 February 2007
Retirement Horror
I love horror movies. All kinds of 'em. Cheesy (Hammer films), really scary (Exorcist, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Silence of the Lambs); I'll even watch the most insipid films, out of sheer morbid curiosity (Monsturd, about a killer...uh...turd...really). But just tonight, I watched what was possibly the most frightening thing I've ever seen captured on film. On the PBS show "Frontline", I watched an expose on the state of the 401(k) retirement plans in the United States, and I was truly shocked and frightened by what I saw.
The link to the show is provided, so I won't run it down for you. I will, however, say that if you have to work for a living, you had better make sure that your retirement plan is going to pay off for you when you need it. The bottom line of the show is that most people who are in a 401(k) plan (80%) don't realize that it is not going to be sufficient until it is too late, and then the weeping and gnashing of teeth will begin. You'll be grinding your teeth to try and chew your tears, because that's about all you'll have to eat after just a couple years of retirement. Of course, you can always get a side job, but do you really want to spend your golden years working at the golden arches?
80% is a lot. And that number only includes those who opt to get into a plan. According to the show, upwards of 40% of the working public do not even enroll in their company's plan. It's easy, I think, to dismiss these poor schmucks as foolish, and boy won't they be sorry when it's too late. It's at that point though, when they realize their folly, that the horror lies. Allow me to offer an analogy that may seem simplistic and ridiculous, but if you think about it, the parallels are unmistakable.
In 1846, 87 presumably decent people, led by George Donner, left Missouri, bound for what they thought were the riches of California. They took what they thought they would need for their journey. Unforeseen pitfalls, however, left them stranded in the Sierra Nevada mountains, where they had to resort to cannibalism to survive. Of the original 87, only 46 endured the ordeal.
You might ask what this has to do with properly managing your retirement fund. Only this: If you do not plan for your financial journey, you run a huge risk of not surviving, or worse. I use the Donner Party story to illustrate what people are capable of. Make no mistake: The have-nots will not sit idly by and rue their foolishness for not being prepared. They will take what they need by any means necessary. Does this mean that the smart investors need to stockpile weapons as well as money? You tell me. Now, I don't necessarily think that a class war is coming, but I wouldn't completely count it out. Come to think of it, "Night of the Living Dead" would have been a good analogy too.
So, whether you like the Donner Party story or NOTLD, or even Aesop's "Ant and the Grasshopper", if you don't plan for your retirement NOW, you can either brush up on sayings like, "You want fries with that?", or you can practice stealth techniques like dumpster raiding and dodging bullets. I thought this story was terrifying and I really needed to rant about it. Thanks for listening!
The link to the show is provided, so I won't run it down for you. I will, however, say that if you have to work for a living, you had better make sure that your retirement plan is going to pay off for you when you need it. The bottom line of the show is that most people who are in a 401(k) plan (80%) don't realize that it is not going to be sufficient until it is too late, and then the weeping and gnashing of teeth will begin. You'll be grinding your teeth to try and chew your tears, because that's about all you'll have to eat after just a couple years of retirement. Of course, you can always get a side job, but do you really want to spend your golden years working at the golden arches?
80% is a lot. And that number only includes those who opt to get into a plan. According to the show, upwards of 40% of the working public do not even enroll in their company's plan. It's easy, I think, to dismiss these poor schmucks as foolish, and boy won't they be sorry when it's too late. It's at that point though, when they realize their folly, that the horror lies. Allow me to offer an analogy that may seem simplistic and ridiculous, but if you think about it, the parallels are unmistakable.
In 1846, 87 presumably decent people, led by George Donner, left Missouri, bound for what they thought were the riches of California. They took what they thought they would need for their journey. Unforeseen pitfalls, however, left them stranded in the Sierra Nevada mountains, where they had to resort to cannibalism to survive. Of the original 87, only 46 endured the ordeal.
You might ask what this has to do with properly managing your retirement fund. Only this: If you do not plan for your financial journey, you run a huge risk of not surviving, or worse. I use the Donner Party story to illustrate what people are capable of. Make no mistake: The have-nots will not sit idly by and rue their foolishness for not being prepared. They will take what they need by any means necessary. Does this mean that the smart investors need to stockpile weapons as well as money? You tell me. Now, I don't necessarily think that a class war is coming, but I wouldn't completely count it out. Come to think of it, "Night of the Living Dead" would have been a good analogy too.
So, whether you like the Donner Party story or NOTLD, or even Aesop's "Ant and the Grasshopper", if you don't plan for your retirement NOW, you can either brush up on sayings like, "You want fries with that?", or you can practice stealth techniques like dumpster raiding and dodging bullets. I thought this story was terrifying and I really needed to rant about it. Thanks for listening!
05 February 2007
So I'm Lazy
I see it's been quite some time since I've posted last. I doubt that it makes much difference, since I don't think anyone reads this. Apparently, it's been long enough that we've moved beyond the beta stage, and I've had to re-create my account. So, in order to test things for myself, I'll rant just a bit.
On the new sign in page, I see there's an ad for "You Tube". I've seen a few videos on this site, but not many. I have seen enough, though, to know that being "punked" or "served" or "owned" are words used by any idiot with a camera who thinks that capturing people doing stupid things is somehow entertaining. The fighting vids are the absolute worst. Here's a word to the wise: Having your ass kicked is no fun, and watching someone else getting theirs kicked is, well...depressing. If you find that sort of thing entertaining, you are a sorry person with absolutely no trace of self worth. Call me corny, but it seems to me any budding "film maker" could find something better to do with their gigabytes than to film morons proving that evolution still has a long way to go.
OK, that's it for now. I'm sure I'll find my soapbox again for another rant soon.
On the new sign in page, I see there's an ad for "You Tube". I've seen a few videos on this site, but not many. I have seen enough, though, to know that being "punked" or "served" or "owned" are words used by any idiot with a camera who thinks that capturing people doing stupid things is somehow entertaining. The fighting vids are the absolute worst. Here's a word to the wise: Having your ass kicked is no fun, and watching someone else getting theirs kicked is, well...depressing. If you find that sort of thing entertaining, you are a sorry person with absolutely no trace of self worth. Call me corny, but it seems to me any budding "film maker" could find something better to do with their gigabytes than to film morons proving that evolution still has a long way to go.
OK, that's it for now. I'm sure I'll find my soapbox again for another rant soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
