A long time ago, I was in a Church group one day. The group leader had a very intuitive approach that night, and I have had a very different outlook on life since then. The issue that we were talking about was homosexuality. We mentioned the fact that yes, it is immoral. But what we particularly focused on was the issue of power plays and truth claims. Please let me explain.
A truth claim is exactly what it sounds like. Claiming that something is true. "It's cold outside." or maybe "We should let all the illegal aliens here in the United States stay, and not be deported." are examples. A power play is something else. It is the IMMATURE approach of offending someone, often with a truth claim. One example is "God hates fags." Also, a slur (especially a racial slur) is a power play. Any type of name calling is a power play. For those of you who are hockey fans, you might be familiar with power plays. If a hockey player does something wrong, they will have to sit in the penalty box. During that time, that team has 1 fewer players and the opposing team has 1 more players. During that time, the opposing team engages in a power play. It is the exact same concept as in an argument, when a truth claim is also a power play. So how do we tell the difference between a truth claim that's not a power play and a power play? Well, it's a matter of opinion. If I tell you that the tobacco industry has blood on its hands because of the countless people who have died from smoking, many people will declare that statement to be a power play. Some who would see it as just a truth claim might say "You know that he's right." Here is one way to distinguish between a truth claim and power play. A truth claim is meant to benefit the person who you are speaking to. A power play is meant to benefit the person who is speaking. So if I make that statement about the tobacco industry to try to reduce the number of people employed in tobacco, so that they can have a better task in their careers, that is just a truth claim. But if I make that statement so that anti-tobacco organizations will give me donations, and so that we can raise taxes on the tobacco corporations, then that statement that I made is a power play.
Here is another example. Let me say this.
On November 22nd, 1963, John F. Kennedy was shot while riding in a vehicle with no top cover. He should not have been so exposed to somebody hurting him.
I personally think that that is just a truth claim. Now let me say this.
On November 22nd, 1963, John F. Kennedy was shot while riding in a vehicle with no top cover. The dumbass was basically asking for it because of that.
I think we can all agree that the statement in red is a truth claim, while the statement in green is a power play. But these two statements are generally saying the same thing. Right?
There is also the issue of scare tactics. There was a Stanford University Professor sometime ago named Paul Ehrlich. He once claimed that everyone on Planet Earth (yes, everyone) would be dead sometime during the 1980's. Was that a power play? You decide. But not all uses of scare tactics are power plays. Let me prove it to you. I once spoke with a gentleman who had heart surgery. After the procedure, his surgeon told him that he can't play golf anymore, or at least for awhile. She mentioned that she had one patient who didn't listen to her, and when he swung the club, his sutures opened up, and he had to be taken to the hospital to get all stitched back up. Yikes!! Was the doctor who said that trying to feel superior, and make her patient feel inferior? I don't think so. She was making a very valid truth claim, that's all. So, not every form of scare tactic is a power play.
Also, there is the issue of stupidity. There is a big difference between calling a person stupid, and telling them that they did something stupid. If I know someone who gets in a car accident because they ran a red light, I might tell them that what they did was stupid, or wrong. But I wouldn't just say that they are stupid. Is it just a truth claim to tell someone that what they did was stupid or wrong? Isn't it always a power play to call someone stupid, just like any other type of name calling?
When I go to Church, I expect to learn something new. Always. And how does the Pastor accomplish that task. It is always done utilizing a truth claim. In other words, if I go to Church and the person giving the Sermon does not make a single truth claim, I have just wasted my time. Right?
Let's say that I make a truth claim to someone. It could be about religion, it could be about sports, etc. And then the person says that my moral compass is irrelevant, and that my truth claims are completely invalid. Guess what? That accusation is a power play. The accusation that there are no valid truth claims is, in and of itself, a power play.
I hope that you will think about this post. Maybe you will look at things differently afterwards. And maybe you'll become more of a hockey fan as well.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
My War Against Alcoholic Beverages
December 22nd, 2010 was one of the worst days of my life. I was more ill than I had almost ever been. If Michael Moore were still filming Sicko, he could have had me in it that day. Not that there are good cases of diarrhea, but this was a pretty bad case of it. The night before I threw up. I won't get too descriptive of what took place, but I'm sure you know that it wasn't pleasant. After taking some good medicine, I was fully relieved in a day or two. After a few moments of thought and wonder, I came to realize that what I went through on December 22nd was something that is quite common for a lot of people. They are called alcoholics.
I personally almost never drink. Not even one beer every now and then. And, when I do drink, I really don't understand what I was missing out on. Lately, I have been looking for work as an engineer, and one of my biggest criteria for a career is that I don't work for a company that makes alcoholic beverages. Now, if a company does make ethanol from corn or whatever for fuel, that is completely different. If you are reading this, you might be asking yourself, why is this such a priority for you Ryan? My response is a question for you.
Do alcoholic beverages do more harm than good?
People who are very fond of the booze will always try to squirm away from this question without providing an answer. They will respond with the fact that Jesus drank wine. That is correct. But, we are not capable of amounting to Jesus. We, as people, have temptations that become addictions. So, feel free to tell me that Jesus drank wine, it is an absurd comment. Also, people will comment that drinking alcohol in moderation causes people to live longer. Fair enough. But, how much longer? If, by not drinking I will die at age 83 instead of 91, I've had worse. I personally think that Prohibition should be brought back. People will respond that they themselves do not drink to excess, even if others do. They will declare that it's not fair that they get punished for other people's screwups. True, but I don't give a darn about what's fair. I care about what's right.
I do think that Prohibition would truly be better than worse for this country. People would break the law every day, and almost every second, but it will reduce the number of people who depend on it the way that robots depend on batteries. Every individual who works at Anheuser-Busch and Jose Cuervo, etc. have absolutely nothing to be proud of when the day is over. Chances are that you disagree. Maybe you think that alcohol really isn't as awful as I'm making it out to be. Why don't you say that to the family who used to live right next door to me. When they were living right next to me, the mother of the family, Laurie, was killed by a drunk driver. So I'd like to ask you again.
Do alcoholic beverages do more harm than good?
I personally almost never drink. Not even one beer every now and then. And, when I do drink, I really don't understand what I was missing out on. Lately, I have been looking for work as an engineer, and one of my biggest criteria for a career is that I don't work for a company that makes alcoholic beverages. Now, if a company does make ethanol from corn or whatever for fuel, that is completely different. If you are reading this, you might be asking yourself, why is this such a priority for you Ryan? My response is a question for you.
Do alcoholic beverages do more harm than good?
People who are very fond of the booze will always try to squirm away from this question without providing an answer. They will respond with the fact that Jesus drank wine. That is correct. But, we are not capable of amounting to Jesus. We, as people, have temptations that become addictions. So, feel free to tell me that Jesus drank wine, it is an absurd comment. Also, people will comment that drinking alcohol in moderation causes people to live longer. Fair enough. But, how much longer? If, by not drinking I will die at age 83 instead of 91, I've had worse. I personally think that Prohibition should be brought back. People will respond that they themselves do not drink to excess, even if others do. They will declare that it's not fair that they get punished for other people's screwups. True, but I don't give a darn about what's fair. I care about what's right.
I do think that Prohibition would truly be better than worse for this country. People would break the law every day, and almost every second, but it will reduce the number of people who depend on it the way that robots depend on batteries. Every individual who works at Anheuser-Busch and Jose Cuervo, etc. have absolutely nothing to be proud of when the day is over. Chances are that you disagree. Maybe you think that alcohol really isn't as awful as I'm making it out to be. Why don't you say that to the family who used to live right next door to me. When they were living right next to me, the mother of the family, Laurie, was killed by a drunk driver. So I'd like to ask you again.
Do alcoholic beverages do more harm than good?
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
A Colossal Failure of Common Sense
During the month of October in 2008 I ran in the Des Moines Marathon. During about that same month, Bill O'Reilly had Congressman Barney Frank on his show. Here is the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bijtBkKQwY8
Some of you reading this may not be fans of Bill O'Reilly, but that's not the issue. When I saw this video during the same month that I did the Des Moines Marathon of 2008, the last words that Bill said really struck me. "....the biggest financial collapse in federal history." That was the very first sign that I saw that a metaphorical tidal wave was coming. I recall wondering what this means, if it's true. And less than two months after that I read online that Bank Of America announced that they will cut 35,000 jobs over the next three years. Also, my Uncle Gary who owns his own firm had to let three people go. And, of course, damn near every place of work was reducing the number of their staff, while simultaneously breaking a few hearts along the way. After realizing how serious this catastrophe was, there were two questions that needed to be answered:
1) How do we get out of this mess?
2) How did we get in it in the first place?
First of all, you must realize that the two questions are very different from each other. The first question asks for a cure, the second asks for prevention from this being repeated. This post that I'm writing is all about the second question. And a book that you should read immediately talks all about that. It's called A Collosal Failure of Common Sense by Lawrence McDonald. It's about the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Lawrence McDonald was actually a Vice President of Lehman Brothers. Before I started reading the book I was told by my Grandma Marilyn that she had lost $10,000 because of Lehman Brothers. I remember telling my friend that fact to which he responded, "Be glad that it was only $10,000." Like the book CHINDIA, a vital reason why I chose to read this was to become knowledgeable about something I was clueless about. I knew nothing about what Lehman Brothers did as a business. I also knew nothing about why they filed for bankruptcy.
The big thing that you need to know about Lehman Brothers is what a derivative is. No, I'm not talking about calculus, I'm talking about an agreement. If I go to a store and buy an apple, that is not a derivative because it's actually buying a product. But, if I call that store, ask them if they have any apples left, they then offer to hold onto that apple until I come to the store, that is a derivative. Also, if a farmer talks to a local grocery store and they agree to a certain price that the grocery store will buy the farmer's food, that agreement is a derivative. That agreement provides security to both the farmer and the local grocery store. That's because even if the market fluctuates the value of food, the price that the farmer and grocery store agreed to stays. Lehman Brothers was all about this business of derivatives because of people buying houses through mortgage loans. And those loans were transferred to about any person on planet Earth through Lehman Brothers. A Scandinavian living in Norway, Sweden or Finland could actually be the person who you yourself are paying with your mortgage payments.
This book is not a promotion or a slander on Democrats or Republicans. It tells us how this mess took place. Shortly after the Great Depression began, there was a bill passed in the Senate called the Glass-Steagall Act. It said that investment banks and commercial banks have to be separate. Essentially, it was intended to prevent banks from betting your house on the market. And the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed when Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act right before he left office. The signing of the bill gave the potential to cause this economy to be ruined. So a bill that was urged by Phil Gramm, Jim Leach and Thomas Bliley (all of whom were Republicans) was signed off by a President who was a Democrat. When Clinton signed the bill, Mr. McDonald actually thought it would be great because it would increase the flow of money. But it ended up blowing up in everyone's faces. And the icing on the cake was that before this bill was actually passed, the bank Citicorp was already engaged in both investment and commercial banking. Which, of course, was illegal.
Sometimes, when you read about something, there is so much technical jargon, it's practically nonsense. If you don't know what I mean and you'd like an example look no further than this wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
After reading this article, I feel that this does not help clarify what the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 actually did. In a Colossal Failure of Common Sense, I learned that people used to be able to buy "insurance" on for instance boats. Because of these "insurance" agreements, if that boat actually sinks to the bottom of the ocean the person who bought that insurance actually makes money. I'm not kidding!!! How stupid is that??? And for a while it was illegall, but our US Congress did legalize that kind of "insurance" in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. And I'm willing to bet that if you look at that wikipedia page, you won't realize that that's what it does.
In a previous post that I wrote, I talked about a tv series that I was very fond of called The Wire. There was an event that happened that I still remember today. The Mayor of Baltimore becomes aware of an absolutely absurd idea that a subordinate of his has taken into effect. The press gets a hold of the information, and Mayor Royce's chances of reelection is damaged. His response when he first hears that it happened was "I didn't know that it was going on." To that a character responds with "That's even worse." Basically, what I'm getting at is that the person in charge is the person in charge. When all hell broke loose at Lehman Brothers, former CEO Dick Fuld had a lot of eyes pointed at him, wondering what his explanation was. In a youtube video that I saw of him, he was in a courthouse presenting his side of the story. He stated "I take full responsibility for the decisions that I made, and the actions that I took." That tells me that he challenges every person to explain exactly why the collapse of Lehman Brothers is his fault. I won't tell you why, but A Colossal Failure of Common Sense meets that challenge very well.
Lawrence McDonald did a fantastic job of presenting his side of the story in this book. He talked about how he worked his way to landing his dream job at Lehman Brothers. Before getting hired at a firm, he actually pretended to be a pizza delivery guy coming to these firms. "I have an order for a double cheese, triple sausage pizza for Mr. (insert name of person who can help him get a job)." He mentions that this scheme didn't work very well. After a few failed attempts, he was finally given some advice about how to work his way to landing a job here. Sell something. Anything. I don't care what it is, but learn how to get people to buy your product. He tried that out by selling some kind of meat. Later on, he did get a job with Morgan Stanley, and then he got the job with Lehman Brothers. And right before the collapse, he was fired.
A Colossal Failure of Common Sense was as good of a read that it could have been. From start to finish, the book was extremely engaging, and only in my wildest dreams would I be able to do it justice in this post. Here's one last link that I'll let you click on, and if you do read this book, please remember this when you finish it.
http://virtualopinion.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/47_lehman_brothers.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bijtBkKQwY8
Some of you reading this may not be fans of Bill O'Reilly, but that's not the issue. When I saw this video during the same month that I did the Des Moines Marathon of 2008, the last words that Bill said really struck me. "....the biggest financial collapse in federal history." That was the very first sign that I saw that a metaphorical tidal wave was coming. I recall wondering what this means, if it's true. And less than two months after that I read online that Bank Of America announced that they will cut 35,000 jobs over the next three years. Also, my Uncle Gary who owns his own firm had to let three people go. And, of course, damn near every place of work was reducing the number of their staff, while simultaneously breaking a few hearts along the way. After realizing how serious this catastrophe was, there were two questions that needed to be answered:
1) How do we get out of this mess?
2) How did we get in it in the first place?
First of all, you must realize that the two questions are very different from each other. The first question asks for a cure, the second asks for prevention from this being repeated. This post that I'm writing is all about the second question. And a book that you should read immediately talks all about that. It's called A Collosal Failure of Common Sense by Lawrence McDonald. It's about the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Lawrence McDonald was actually a Vice President of Lehman Brothers. Before I started reading the book I was told by my Grandma Marilyn that she had lost $10,000 because of Lehman Brothers. I remember telling my friend that fact to which he responded, "Be glad that it was only $10,000." Like the book CHINDIA, a vital reason why I chose to read this was to become knowledgeable about something I was clueless about. I knew nothing about what Lehman Brothers did as a business. I also knew nothing about why they filed for bankruptcy.
The big thing that you need to know about Lehman Brothers is what a derivative is. No, I'm not talking about calculus, I'm talking about an agreement. If I go to a store and buy an apple, that is not a derivative because it's actually buying a product. But, if I call that store, ask them if they have any apples left, they then offer to hold onto that apple until I come to the store, that is a derivative. Also, if a farmer talks to a local grocery store and they agree to a certain price that the grocery store will buy the farmer's food, that agreement is a derivative. That agreement provides security to both the farmer and the local grocery store. That's because even if the market fluctuates the value of food, the price that the farmer and grocery store agreed to stays. Lehman Brothers was all about this business of derivatives because of people buying houses through mortgage loans. And those loans were transferred to about any person on planet Earth through Lehman Brothers. A Scandinavian living in Norway, Sweden or Finland could actually be the person who you yourself are paying with your mortgage payments.
This book is not a promotion or a slander on Democrats or Republicans. It tells us how this mess took place. Shortly after the Great Depression began, there was a bill passed in the Senate called the Glass-Steagall Act. It said that investment banks and commercial banks have to be separate. Essentially, it was intended to prevent banks from betting your house on the market. And the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed when Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act right before he left office. The signing of the bill gave the potential to cause this economy to be ruined. So a bill that was urged by Phil Gramm, Jim Leach and Thomas Bliley (all of whom were Republicans) was signed off by a President who was a Democrat. When Clinton signed the bill, Mr. McDonald actually thought it would be great because it would increase the flow of money. But it ended up blowing up in everyone's faces. And the icing on the cake was that before this bill was actually passed, the bank Citicorp was already engaged in both investment and commercial banking. Which, of course, was illegal.
Sometimes, when you read about something, there is so much technical jargon, it's practically nonsense. If you don't know what I mean and you'd like an example look no further than this wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
After reading this article, I feel that this does not help clarify what the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 actually did. In a Colossal Failure of Common Sense, I learned that people used to be able to buy "insurance" on for instance boats. Because of these "insurance" agreements, if that boat actually sinks to the bottom of the ocean the person who bought that insurance actually makes money. I'm not kidding!!! How stupid is that??? And for a while it was illegall, but our US Congress did legalize that kind of "insurance" in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. And I'm willing to bet that if you look at that wikipedia page, you won't realize that that's what it does.
In a previous post that I wrote, I talked about a tv series that I was very fond of called The Wire. There was an event that happened that I still remember today. The Mayor of Baltimore becomes aware of an absolutely absurd idea that a subordinate of his has taken into effect. The press gets a hold of the information, and Mayor Royce's chances of reelection is damaged. His response when he first hears that it happened was "I didn't know that it was going on." To that a character responds with "That's even worse." Basically, what I'm getting at is that the person in charge is the person in charge. When all hell broke loose at Lehman Brothers, former CEO Dick Fuld had a lot of eyes pointed at him, wondering what his explanation was. In a youtube video that I saw of him, he was in a courthouse presenting his side of the story. He stated "I take full responsibility for the decisions that I made, and the actions that I took." That tells me that he challenges every person to explain exactly why the collapse of Lehman Brothers is his fault. I won't tell you why, but A Colossal Failure of Common Sense meets that challenge very well.
Lawrence McDonald did a fantastic job of presenting his side of the story in this book. He talked about how he worked his way to landing his dream job at Lehman Brothers. Before getting hired at a firm, he actually pretended to be a pizza delivery guy coming to these firms. "I have an order for a double cheese, triple sausage pizza for Mr. (insert name of person who can help him get a job)." He mentions that this scheme didn't work very well. After a few failed attempts, he was finally given some advice about how to work his way to landing a job here. Sell something. Anything. I don't care what it is, but learn how to get people to buy your product. He tried that out by selling some kind of meat. Later on, he did get a job with Morgan Stanley, and then he got the job with Lehman Brothers. And right before the collapse, he was fired.
A Colossal Failure of Common Sense was as good of a read that it could have been. From start to finish, the book was extremely engaging, and only in my wildest dreams would I be able to do it justice in this post. Here's one last link that I'll let you click on, and if you do read this book, please remember this when you finish it.
http://virtualopinion.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/47_lehman_brothers.jpg
Sunday, June 13, 2010
The Shield
There are numerous forms of entertainment that we as an audience are exposed to. Movies, tv, music, etc. With them comes a vast amount of mature themes. Nudity, sex, violence, profanity, etc. I, as a member of the audience, can handle just about any amount of mature themes in entertainment. I was able to watch the whole movie Saving Private Ryan without once feeling squeamish. Despite the shocking moments of brutality, the film was not, IMHO, vile. It was one of the best films ever made and demonstrated how heroic those soldiers of the Allied forces really were. Likewise, when I was training for the Des Moines and Chicago Marathon, I listened to some music that did have some swearing. Till I Collapse and Lose Yourself (both by Eminem) were some of my favorite songs, and they really got me to bust my butt on my run. So if some form of entertainment has mature themes, maybe that's not the whole story. A tv show could be rated MA or a movie could be R, but as long as there is meaning to what makes it so, you can't necessarily say that it's wrong. However, I don't think that little children should be allowed to be exposed to this entertainment at all. Also, movies like Fight Club or a song by Eminem pretending to kill his ex-wife are just plain disgusting, and are little more than garbage.
This post today is about a show I watched called The Shield. It is my favorite television series of all time. After watching all seven seasons, it truly touched me and held my interest more than anything I could have imagined. The storylines were very well done and the acting was amazing. Vic Mackey, played by Michael Chiklis, is the heart and soul of the show as the lead character. No character, not even Tony Soprano, breathed as much life into a show as Vic Mackey did.
The Shield is a police drama that takes place in Los Angeles. The police department that they work at is called The Barn. In the show, the police are always busy given the rampant gang activity in LA. There is a significant amount of tension between the cops and the crooks. However, more than you might imagine, there is also a significant amount of tension between cops and fellow cops. There are times when more or less civil war takes place in The Barn. I previously made some comments about mature themes in entertainment. Well, this show is about as vicious as it gets. You will see PLENTY of people get killed. You will hear profanity like there is no tomorrow. Michael Chiklis, the main actor, in real life has a daughter who in the show plays his own daughter. And in real life she is not allowed by her own father to watch this show. But it's never in poor taste. If something happens, it happens for a reason. In the very first episode, you get a good glimpse of what the show is all about. There is a part when Vic Mackey wants a man to give up the location of a little girl. After some convincing "interrogation" the next scene shows the police rescuing this little girl from God knows what. Also, there is a scene of Vic doing an act that truly shows him to be a hero. But all of that is negated by something else that he does later on. And there is a reason why he does what he does. He does it because of the "cop" lifestyle that he has.
There is so much that happens in this show that if you skip an episode you will be confused as to what's going on. One alternate title of the show could have been Secrets and Lies. Constantly, the cast of characters are keeping secrets or lying to others. This is caused by the sins that they have commited and what they are willing to confess to. There is one point in the show when Captain Acevada declares "Vic Mackey isn't a cop. He's Al Capone with a badge." Whether I want to admit it or not, Acevada is completely correct. Vic Mackey was just as much a criminal as ANY criminal he ever put away. But don't be discouraged. When it's all said and done, I promise you that The Shield does not endorse this rogue cop attitude. Not one bit. Along with the barbaric nature of some of the police, there is truly one individual who you have to love. His name is Julien Lowe, and he uses his Christian faith as much as possible as his own compass.
There are many characters that made up The Shield, as there were many events. They were extremely memorable. The series finale was almost perfect, as was all the other shows that led up to it. For those of you who are not interested due to the mature themes of the show, fair enough. However, with that put aside, it couldn't have been any better.
This post today is about a show I watched called The Shield. It is my favorite television series of all time. After watching all seven seasons, it truly touched me and held my interest more than anything I could have imagined. The storylines were very well done and the acting was amazing. Vic Mackey, played by Michael Chiklis, is the heart and soul of the show as the lead character. No character, not even Tony Soprano, breathed as much life into a show as Vic Mackey did.
The Shield is a police drama that takes place in Los Angeles. The police department that they work at is called The Barn. In the show, the police are always busy given the rampant gang activity in LA. There is a significant amount of tension between the cops and the crooks. However, more than you might imagine, there is also a significant amount of tension between cops and fellow cops. There are times when more or less civil war takes place in The Barn. I previously made some comments about mature themes in entertainment. Well, this show is about as vicious as it gets. You will see PLENTY of people get killed. You will hear profanity like there is no tomorrow. Michael Chiklis, the main actor, in real life has a daughter who in the show plays his own daughter. And in real life she is not allowed by her own father to watch this show. But it's never in poor taste. If something happens, it happens for a reason. In the very first episode, you get a good glimpse of what the show is all about. There is a part when Vic Mackey wants a man to give up the location of a little girl. After some convincing "interrogation" the next scene shows the police rescuing this little girl from God knows what. Also, there is a scene of Vic doing an act that truly shows him to be a hero. But all of that is negated by something else that he does later on. And there is a reason why he does what he does. He does it because of the "cop" lifestyle that he has.
There is so much that happens in this show that if you skip an episode you will be confused as to what's going on. One alternate title of the show could have been Secrets and Lies. Constantly, the cast of characters are keeping secrets or lying to others. This is caused by the sins that they have commited and what they are willing to confess to. There is one point in the show when Captain Acevada declares "Vic Mackey isn't a cop. He's Al Capone with a badge." Whether I want to admit it or not, Acevada is completely correct. Vic Mackey was just as much a criminal as ANY criminal he ever put away. But don't be discouraged. When it's all said and done, I promise you that The Shield does not endorse this rogue cop attitude. Not one bit. Along with the barbaric nature of some of the police, there is truly one individual who you have to love. His name is Julien Lowe, and he uses his Christian faith as much as possible as his own compass.
There are many characters that made up The Shield, as there were many events. They were extremely memorable. The series finale was almost perfect, as was all the other shows that led up to it. For those of you who are not interested due to the mature themes of the show, fair enough. However, with that put aside, it couldn't have been any better.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
CHINDIA
This post that I'm writing today is about a book called CHINDIA How China and India Are Revolutionizing Global Business. When I saw this book at Barnes and Noble, with the trusty gift card that I had at the time, I realized here is a topic that I know absolutely nothing about. After reading the book, I have learned a lot, and it was more than just worth my time and money. Author Pete Engardio did more than just a good job. After reading the entire book, I have no idea if Mr. Engardio is a Democrat or Republican. I have to admit, I like that because his lack of a bias towards one or the other amounted to an excellent read. In fact, CHINDIA is light on opinions, but is overwhelming with facts. Mr. Engardio tells us how it is, and yes, from time to time he will make predictions.
So why China and India? Why wasn't this book called Frermany or Argentazil? It's because China and India compose roughly one third of the world's population, even though combined they compose less than ten percent of the total land area of the globe. Japan has made some great breakthroughs in their economy, however Japan's population isn't large enough to pack as much of a punch as China and India. You might have heard the saying "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog." Maybe that's not entirely true. China and India are like two siblings, both with their own strengths to be complementary to the other. Also, as two siblings, they resemble each other in many areas. China has the hardware, India has the software. China has all the resources that they need to trade products all around the world (which creates a large deficit here in the US) and India has some of the brightest minds on Planet Earth. If you have never seen a single item that you have bought that said MADE IN CHINA, I worry about you. Likewise, India has a college called the IIT (Indian Institutes of Technology), and it's possibly harder to get into than vet school. The IIT breeds the greatest minds that you can ask for. Also, India's technology services make it truly shine as a country. So, the way that I look at it is India has the brains and China has the brawn.
One issue that came up was a question of morality. China's labor costs are extremely low. When Chinese workers make a product and it is shipped here in the US, it still sells for less than products made here in the US! CHINDIA commented on the fact that Chinese vacuum cleaners have caused some employees of Hoover to lose their jobs. What is the best approach economically? What is the best approach morally? If we, as customers buy these cheaper Chinese vacuum cleaners, people at Hoover lose their jobs, and we validate the harsh conditions for Chinese workers. But, if we as customers boycott them then we are limiting global trade, and that should be done at a bare minimum. My feelings are that we should buy these Chinese products, but at the same time we should be aware of the fact that more than half a billion Chinese (that's more people than here in the US) live on less than two dollars a day. Also, simultaneously we should be willing to hire former employees of Hoover to work in another job.
Mr. Engardio does also comment on social issues. China's healthcare system is horrid, and SARS certainly did not help. Also, you've possibly heard of China's one child policy. Married couples can have only one child, and eventually that will increase the retiree/worker ratio which will be another difficulty for China. In India, kiosks are king. Kiosks is how business is going to flourish in India. Also, India's population is much younger than China's. One unfortunate similarity between India and China is their overwhelmingly poor standards of pollution control. For more information you can check out http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/0,28757,1661031,00.html
In the times of slavery here in the United States, cotton was king. Now, in China, coal is king.
After it's all said and done, Mr. Engardio predicts a winner in this battle between China and India. He predicts that India will win. With its youthful population, he thinks that India will become the ultimate force to be reckoned with.
This book helped me to be familiar with a subject I knew practically nothing about previously. The main theme is this. We, as people of other countries besides China and India, cannot ignore those two. The two combined will have colossal influence for decades to come on the global economy, and businesses must accept that, or even better, use it to their advantage.
So why China and India? Why wasn't this book called Frermany or Argentazil? It's because China and India compose roughly one third of the world's population, even though combined they compose less than ten percent of the total land area of the globe. Japan has made some great breakthroughs in their economy, however Japan's population isn't large enough to pack as much of a punch as China and India. You might have heard the saying "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog." Maybe that's not entirely true. China and India are like two siblings, both with their own strengths to be complementary to the other. Also, as two siblings, they resemble each other in many areas. China has the hardware, India has the software. China has all the resources that they need to trade products all around the world (which creates a large deficit here in the US) and India has some of the brightest minds on Planet Earth. If you have never seen a single item that you have bought that said MADE IN CHINA, I worry about you. Likewise, India has a college called the IIT (Indian Institutes of Technology), and it's possibly harder to get into than vet school. The IIT breeds the greatest minds that you can ask for. Also, India's technology services make it truly shine as a country. So, the way that I look at it is India has the brains and China has the brawn.
One issue that came up was a question of morality. China's labor costs are extremely low. When Chinese workers make a product and it is shipped here in the US, it still sells for less than products made here in the US! CHINDIA commented on the fact that Chinese vacuum cleaners have caused some employees of Hoover to lose their jobs. What is the best approach economically? What is the best approach morally? If we, as customers buy these cheaper Chinese vacuum cleaners, people at Hoover lose their jobs, and we validate the harsh conditions for Chinese workers. But, if we as customers boycott them then we are limiting global trade, and that should be done at a bare minimum. My feelings are that we should buy these Chinese products, but at the same time we should be aware of the fact that more than half a billion Chinese (that's more people than here in the US) live on less than two dollars a day. Also, simultaneously we should be willing to hire former employees of Hoover to work in another job.
Mr. Engardio does also comment on social issues. China's healthcare system is horrid, and SARS certainly did not help. Also, you've possibly heard of China's one child policy. Married couples can have only one child, and eventually that will increase the retiree/worker ratio which will be another difficulty for China. In India, kiosks are king. Kiosks is how business is going to flourish in India. Also, India's population is much younger than China's. One unfortunate similarity between India and China is their overwhelmingly poor standards of pollution control. For more information you can check out http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/0,28757,1661031,00.html
In the times of slavery here in the United States, cotton was king. Now, in China, coal is king.
After it's all said and done, Mr. Engardio predicts a winner in this battle between China and India. He predicts that India will win. With its youthful population, he thinks that India will become the ultimate force to be reckoned with.
This book helped me to be familiar with a subject I knew practically nothing about previously. The main theme is this. We, as people of other countries besides China and India, cannot ignore those two. The two combined will have colossal influence for decades to come on the global economy, and businesses must accept that, or even better, use it to their advantage.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Theoretical Physics
On a previous post that I put about Asperger's Syndrome, I mentioned that I am very fond of a fair number of individuals who possibly have AS. One of those individuals is a man named Stephen Hawking. He is a theoretical physicist, mathematician, professor, etc. I read a book that he wrote called The Universe in a Nutshell. I got it from my Uncle Al for Christmas, and except for my Ipod, it's possibly the most memorable Christmas present I have ever received. It was the beginning of my interest in theoretical physics. So, what is theoretical physics? Well, that can be tough to define, but I would say that it's physics that explains or suggests answers and solutions to the realm in which we are not familiar with. Nobody has ever been inside a black hole, as far as I know. Nobody was around during the big bang. There is a vast amount to learn on this topic that encompasses how the universe manages to exist as it is. In this post, I might say a few things that will go over your head and not understand. I'll do my best to speak english.
One important subject is the four known forces of the universe; the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force and lastly the gravitational force, aka gravity. The strong force is the force that holds an atom together, with its protons neutrons, etc. The weak force is the force that repels atoms from each other. The electromagnetic force is, you guessed it, electricity and magnetism working together. Lastly, gravity is a force between every single pair of bodies in the universe. It would seem that the weak force would be the weakest force of all four right? Well, actually gravity is the weakest of them all. The force of gravity is affected by the multiplication of the two masses of bodies. Because Planet Earth weighs far more than Jay Leno, I'm not attracted to Jay Leno as much as I am to Earth. So how does gravity's weakness in force play out in real life? When something falls here on Planet Earth, no matter how fast Earth's gravity was pulling it, the atoms will always repel each other when the object lands, due to the weak force. How is gravity a weaker force than the electromagnetic force? Go to your refrigerator right now. Do you see any magnets on your refrigerator? If you do, then you see that despite the VAST mass of planet earth, the force of gravity pulling the magnet downwards is easily offset by the electromagnetic force keeping the magnet on the refrigerator. Lastly, how is gravity weaker than the strong force? When one manages to break an atom, and release the energy, it can become catastrophic. It's one of the reasons why we have all heard of E equals m c squared. When a mass is multiplied by the square of the speed of light, that right there packs a punch. And that is exactly why Hiroshima was completely obliterated on August 6, 1945. That should be a sign that the strong force is more powerful than gravity.
Another important concept of theoretical physics is that there is the macroscopic and the microscopic understanding that govern everything. The microscopic deals with atoms and particles while the macroscopic deals with the much larger view.
Quantum Mechanics is the study part of theoretical physics of the very small, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is the cornerstone of the Microscopic world. It states that no matter what, we always will have an uncertainty in the exact position and the exact velocity of every and any object. The mass of the object times the uncertainty of the position times the uncertainty of the velocity is at least .00000000000000000000000000000000626 Js. This value is known as Max Planck's Constant. This might seem to be a miniscule and very irrelevant fact, but note this. Classical physics suggests that if we know the exact position and the exact velocity of every particle in the universe (not just most particles, ALL OF THEM) then we would be able to declare everything that has happened in the past and everything that will happen in the future. We would know for a fact how the dinosaurs died out. We would know how much longer Earth will remain inhabitable. But, The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that will never happen. Now, I am not as knowledgeable about this stuff as some of these guys, so I have no clue how the value was determined. But Hawking declared in his book that even GOD himself is limited by this value as well. I feel that it's very naive to declare the limits of God's capabilities. Another concept that plays into this issue is black holes. You have probably heard of black holes. They are stars that have collapsed upon themselves and suck in everything (yes, including light) due to its immense gravitational field. That is very ironic because it was thought that gravity only sucks in objects with mass. Think of a black hole as a large sink in the universe. The gravitational force for all objects is stronger for objects as they get closer to each other. If an astronaut were falling through a black hole, his body would become ripped open because the black hole's pull would be stronger on his legs than his head. Anyways, Hawking declares that any object sucked into a black hole has information that will be completely lost forever. If he's right, that is yet another reason why we will not determine how the dinosaurs died or how long Earth will exist.
On the opposite side of theoretical physics is a phenomenon called relativity. Relativity was an idea created by Albert Einstein while he was working in a Swiss Patent Office. During the time that he was working on this concept he was getting roughly ten hours of sleep a night! In other words, get your sleep! Relativity covers both General Relativity and Special Relativity. General Relativity starts with the letter G, and so does the word gravity. Special Relativity deals with light. General Relativity talks about how a large mass, such as a planet, will cause objects to curve as they pass nearby due to the gravitational field that it creates. It explains why spacetime is "curved." Spacetime is the concept that there are four known dimensions: three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. Right now I'm typing this at a seat in the library, but many times before other people were typing in this exact same seat in this same three dimensional space. Likewise, as time carries on, I have been to many other places besides this seat. This theory demonstrated that Sir Isaac Newton was wrong about his concept of absolute time. He declared that there was no beginning and there will be no end. Imagine a train that goes on in infinity and never really had a starting point. Well, relativity showed that theory to be false. On the other side of the coin is special relativity involving light. No matter where you go, no matter what you do, special relativity says that the speed of light is always 186,000 miles per second (aka c). If I can throw a ball 30 mph, and then throw a ball while in a car going 60 mph, I can throw the ball 90 mph, right? Well, no matter how fast or slow your car is going, when you turn your headlights on, that light will travel c. Here's something else. If I'm in a locomotive going 30,000 mps and I shine a light from the ceiling to the floor, I will record data to see how fast it moved. Let's say a bystander outside of the train watches the exact same thing. From my perspective, the light shined in a straight line. From the other person's perspective, the light shined at an angle because it was moving in a train. So, therefore, because the other person saw it differently, doesn't that mean that we'll have differing values for the speed of light? Actually, no, and that's because since I was in a very fast moving vehicle, time slowed down for me to the exact amount in which when I do the math and when the other person does the math, we will both calculate the speed of light to be c. In fact, if you were on a plane for the rest of your life, that would add roughly one second to your life span.
So, we have Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. One focuses on the small, the other on the not so small. Currently in the physics community, the task now is to create one theory that explains both. This challenge is still ongoing, but one proposed theory is something called string theory. It states that all atoms are made of oscillating strings. String theory still is not considered a breakthrough, and one of the reasons why is that there are five different possible string theories that physicists have. In his book The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene comments that when one has five different theories for the same thing, he/she is looked upon as unknowledgeable on the concept. Let's face it. He's right. Another fact about string theory is that if it's correct there are ELEVEN dimensions in the universe. Ten spatial and one time dimension. We obviously have found three spatial dimensions, but what about the other seven? With that, physicists go on and on about their theories, but in the end, this concept is really, really in its infancy.
This is just the basics of the realm of theoretical physics that I have fallen in love with. There are many books that discuss this in much better detail than I can here. And since I'm too simple-minded, I may not be able to comment and understand this beautiful universe as well as I'd like. But, it's still fascinating, IMHO.
One important subject is the four known forces of the universe; the strong force, the weak force, the electromagnetic force and lastly the gravitational force, aka gravity. The strong force is the force that holds an atom together, with its protons neutrons, etc. The weak force is the force that repels atoms from each other. The electromagnetic force is, you guessed it, electricity and magnetism working together. Lastly, gravity is a force between every single pair of bodies in the universe. It would seem that the weak force would be the weakest force of all four right? Well, actually gravity is the weakest of them all. The force of gravity is affected by the multiplication of the two masses of bodies. Because Planet Earth weighs far more than Jay Leno, I'm not attracted to Jay Leno as much as I am to Earth. So how does gravity's weakness in force play out in real life? When something falls here on Planet Earth, no matter how fast Earth's gravity was pulling it, the atoms will always repel each other when the object lands, due to the weak force. How is gravity a weaker force than the electromagnetic force? Go to your refrigerator right now. Do you see any magnets on your refrigerator? If you do, then you see that despite the VAST mass of planet earth, the force of gravity pulling the magnet downwards is easily offset by the electromagnetic force keeping the magnet on the refrigerator. Lastly, how is gravity weaker than the strong force? When one manages to break an atom, and release the energy, it can become catastrophic. It's one of the reasons why we have all heard of E equals m c squared. When a mass is multiplied by the square of the speed of light, that right there packs a punch. And that is exactly why Hiroshima was completely obliterated on August 6, 1945. That should be a sign that the strong force is more powerful than gravity.
Another important concept of theoretical physics is that there is the macroscopic and the microscopic understanding that govern everything. The microscopic deals with atoms and particles while the macroscopic deals with the much larger view.
Quantum Mechanics is the study part of theoretical physics of the very small, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is the cornerstone of the Microscopic world. It states that no matter what, we always will have an uncertainty in the exact position and the exact velocity of every and any object. The mass of the object times the uncertainty of the position times the uncertainty of the velocity is at least .00000000000000000000000000000000626 Js. This value is known as Max Planck's Constant. This might seem to be a miniscule and very irrelevant fact, but note this. Classical physics suggests that if we know the exact position and the exact velocity of every particle in the universe (not just most particles, ALL OF THEM) then we would be able to declare everything that has happened in the past and everything that will happen in the future. We would know for a fact how the dinosaurs died out. We would know how much longer Earth will remain inhabitable. But, The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that will never happen. Now, I am not as knowledgeable about this stuff as some of these guys, so I have no clue how the value was determined. But Hawking declared in his book that even GOD himself is limited by this value as well. I feel that it's very naive to declare the limits of God's capabilities. Another concept that plays into this issue is black holes. You have probably heard of black holes. They are stars that have collapsed upon themselves and suck in everything (yes, including light) due to its immense gravitational field. That is very ironic because it was thought that gravity only sucks in objects with mass. Think of a black hole as a large sink in the universe. The gravitational force for all objects is stronger for objects as they get closer to each other. If an astronaut were falling through a black hole, his body would become ripped open because the black hole's pull would be stronger on his legs than his head. Anyways, Hawking declares that any object sucked into a black hole has information that will be completely lost forever. If he's right, that is yet another reason why we will not determine how the dinosaurs died or how long Earth will exist.
On the opposite side of theoretical physics is a phenomenon called relativity. Relativity was an idea created by Albert Einstein while he was working in a Swiss Patent Office. During the time that he was working on this concept he was getting roughly ten hours of sleep a night! In other words, get your sleep! Relativity covers both General Relativity and Special Relativity. General Relativity starts with the letter G, and so does the word gravity. Special Relativity deals with light. General Relativity talks about how a large mass, such as a planet, will cause objects to curve as they pass nearby due to the gravitational field that it creates. It explains why spacetime is "curved." Spacetime is the concept that there are four known dimensions: three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. Right now I'm typing this at a seat in the library, but many times before other people were typing in this exact same seat in this same three dimensional space. Likewise, as time carries on, I have been to many other places besides this seat. This theory demonstrated that Sir Isaac Newton was wrong about his concept of absolute time. He declared that there was no beginning and there will be no end. Imagine a train that goes on in infinity and never really had a starting point. Well, relativity showed that theory to be false. On the other side of the coin is special relativity involving light. No matter where you go, no matter what you do, special relativity says that the speed of light is always 186,000 miles per second (aka c). If I can throw a ball 30 mph, and then throw a ball while in a car going 60 mph, I can throw the ball 90 mph, right? Well, no matter how fast or slow your car is going, when you turn your headlights on, that light will travel c. Here's something else. If I'm in a locomotive going 30,000 mps and I shine a light from the ceiling to the floor, I will record data to see how fast it moved. Let's say a bystander outside of the train watches the exact same thing. From my perspective, the light shined in a straight line. From the other person's perspective, the light shined at an angle because it was moving in a train. So, therefore, because the other person saw it differently, doesn't that mean that we'll have differing values for the speed of light? Actually, no, and that's because since I was in a very fast moving vehicle, time slowed down for me to the exact amount in which when I do the math and when the other person does the math, we will both calculate the speed of light to be c. In fact, if you were on a plane for the rest of your life, that would add roughly one second to your life span.
So, we have Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. One focuses on the small, the other on the not so small. Currently in the physics community, the task now is to create one theory that explains both. This challenge is still ongoing, but one proposed theory is something called string theory. It states that all atoms are made of oscillating strings. String theory still is not considered a breakthrough, and one of the reasons why is that there are five different possible string theories that physicists have. In his book The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene comments that when one has five different theories for the same thing, he/she is looked upon as unknowledgeable on the concept. Let's face it. He's right. Another fact about string theory is that if it's correct there are ELEVEN dimensions in the universe. Ten spatial and one time dimension. We obviously have found three spatial dimensions, but what about the other seven? With that, physicists go on and on about their theories, but in the end, this concept is really, really in its infancy.
This is just the basics of the realm of theoretical physics that I have fallen in love with. There are many books that discuss this in much better detail than I can here. And since I'm too simple-minded, I may not be able to comment and understand this beautiful universe as well as I'd like. But, it's still fascinating, IMHO.
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Albertson Ladies vs. Marc Rudov and all of those clowns put together vs. me
From reading the title of this post you undoubtedly have no idea what this post is all about. Well, it's mostly about sexist thoughts, feelings and attitudes. Some are blatant, some not as much so. There are many women and many men who are sexist. They have labels, stereotypes, etc. for the other gender. If I'm in a bar and I see a woman drinking a bottle of beer, it would be immoral for me to think that she should be drinking a wine cooler instead. If I am watching football on tv, and a woman is a commentator for how the game is going to turn out, it is wrong for me to think that she doesn't know what she's talking about. That's why I don't do it. Are there differences between men and women? Sure there are!! In my Bible Study Group, some of the best cooks that we have are women. But there are guys who are excellent cooks too. Also, guys do tend to fart more than girls. Considering the fact that I grew up with three brothers, I know what I'm talking about. But I have heard women fart too. Despite some differences between males and females, I do my best to not stereotype, to judge, etc. But that can't be said for everybody.
My Mother has three sisters and a brother. My Grandma Roseva deserves an Olympic Gold Medal for having successfully raised these five individuals to become the adults (ahem) that they are. There are four women (my Mother and her three sisters) and one man. I have obviously gotten to know these four women very well. The Albertson Ladies are all strong supporters of women's rights. Guess what? I am too. But I prefer to be known as a supporter for people's rights. Now I love all four of these women as much as any son or nephew should. But, whether I like it or not, sometimes they have said or done something that suggests that they are sexist. My favorite example of this comes from the youngest of the family. I was having dinner with her and her kids and a conversation broke out between her and me.
Her: Oh yes, I believe that Bill Clinton is one of the best presidents that we have ever had.
Me: Do you think that it is a good thing for a man to cheat on his wife?
Her: Well, Ryan that's the thing. That's a very common thing for men to do.
Me: What do you have to base that off of?
Her: (Pausing for a moment)....Statistics.
(without her mentioning a single statistic I then spoke.)
Me: So, for instance, you're telling me that George W. Bush has cheated on his wife because he's a guy?
Her: I'm sure he has.
I still am very puzzled by this. Now look, this isn't about Democrats vs. Republicans. This is about one of the Albertson Ladies not just accusing, but KNOWING, that George W. has commited adultery. During that brief moment, she was the judge, the jury, the prosecution, and the defense all rolled into one for the case of whether or not George W. Bush has cheated on his wife. According to her, he's guilty until proven innocent. If that's not sexist, then I don't know what is.
I have known my mother for a long time. There are good things about her that are not taken for granted, as she already knows that. But, the truth is that she has proven from time to time that she is on the side of women more than men. Growing up, we would watch a few tv shows of her choosing. Some noteworthy ones are Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman, Star Trek Voyager, Medium, The Closer, etc. After enough thought it is clearly obvious that my Mom prefers a show in which a woman is in a leadership role. She admitted that once, explaining why she liked Cagney and Lacey so much. However, one exception is that she is a diehard fan of NYPD BLUE. When I choose a tv show to watch, the gender of the lead character is not a decision maker or breaker by any means. My favorite show of all time is The Shield, and during half of the series, a woman is the Captain of the Barn. I am also a big fan of The Closer. One time I was having dinner at home with the family. It was about this time when Obama was beating Hillary in the primaries and caucuses. My Mom then made a comment that a woman as president would not send us to war as likely as a man would. Whatever way you look at it, that is a sexist comment. That is a statement that only somebody with a mild grudge against men would make. If I made a comment that a man as president would not be as tardy to a formal speech because he spent too much time polishing his nails and putting on lipstick, I would look like a buffoon as well. Why does my Mother have this attitude? Part of it is because she's still vehement about Title IX. As a student at Ames High School, she had no opportunity to compete in sports. Literally forty years later, she still complains about it. What somebody is supposed to do in this situation, is move on and realize that even though life sucked, and it was unfair sometime ago, that was then and this is now.
On the complete opposite side of the spectrum, is a man named Marc Rudov. To be honest, I feel kind of sorry for Marc. He is a man who is clearly sexist. The radio talk show host does clearly have a grudge against women. Some of you might think that I should have replaced his name in the title of this post with Rush Limbaugh. You might say that Rush is a much more well known person who has said mean things about women, particularly calling some of them feminazis. Here's the reason why Rush is not the guy who I'm going to go after. If you turn the radio on to listen to him the next time that he's on, I guarantee you, I bet you every buck I have, he is not going to harp that much, if at all, about women. What really gets his blood boiling is the Democratic Party. I personally almost never listen to Rush, but I know what I'm talking about. Marc Rudov has a radio show and he has been on television a number of times. Every time that he argues something, he argues in favor of men instead of women. Now, I'm going to show a few of his opinions, some more ridiculous than others, and give my 2 cents about them.
1) Actor Wesley Snipes is being punished more harshly for tax evasion than if he were a woman.
Okay Marc, listen. Where exactly in the judicial system would he have been treated more mercifully if he were a woman? Would the jury vote for a less severe punishment? Would the prosecution be more lenient? Marc Rudov then says that Martha Stewart commited a far worse offense than Mr. Snipes, and so did Dionne Warwick. I am not convinced by Marc Rudov's claim, but his accusation isn't necessarily outrageous.
2) Men should boycott Valentine's Day.
This one is where Mr. Rudov really shines. He gives a statistic that men spend twice as much money as women do on Valentine's Day, so therefore men should boycott Valentine's Day. Now, I think that if he gives out that statistic and says that he feels that that ratio 2 to 1 should not be that high, fair enough. That is a fair and reasonable opinion. But boycotting Valentine's Day because of it is not. For the very humorous debate about that subject, please click on the following Youtube link. One of the arguments that his opponent makes is that when a man buys his girlfriend/wife a piece of lingerie, that is a gift for him as well. GOOD POINT!! Thank God for Victoria's Secret! But on a more serious note, any man who would even consider boycotting Valentine's Day does not know what falling in love with a woman is all about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgFNqkO-jmY
3) Hillary Clinton was in Las Vegas giving a speech, and a man asks her for help. The man tells her that his wife is an illegal alien. Hillary then responds with saying "No woman is an illegal." That's not right.
I agree with Mr. Rudov on this one. "No woman is an illegal?" Hillary made a sexist comment, it was degrading to men, and it's unethical. If you are an illegal, you are an illegal. One might argue that a nut like Rudov is someone you should never agree with, but I say that broken clocks are right twice a day.
I once had an English Teacher who mentioned how we should avoid sexist comments in our papers/speeches. For example,
"The man who is unwilling to take a risk will accomplish nothing in life." WRONG!!
"The person who is unwilling to take a risk will accomplish nothing in life." BETTER!!
There is a show that I watched a long time ago with my brother called street smarts. It was a dumb show about how two contestants could guess whether or not these people on the streets would know the anwer to a stated question. 100% of all the episodes that I saw pitted, yes you guessed it, a guy against a girl. Why? The show's abysmal ratings had to be lifted somehow by forcing you to root for whichever gender you belonged too.
There are many differences between men and women, as we all know. Not just accepting the opposite gender, but also admiring the opposite gender just as much as our own is a difficulty for too many. It is a chore for the Albertson Ladies and it is a chore for Marc Rudov. Hopefully it's not a chore for you.
My Mother has three sisters and a brother. My Grandma Roseva deserves an Olympic Gold Medal for having successfully raised these five individuals to become the adults (ahem) that they are. There are four women (my Mother and her three sisters) and one man. I have obviously gotten to know these four women very well. The Albertson Ladies are all strong supporters of women's rights. Guess what? I am too. But I prefer to be known as a supporter for people's rights. Now I love all four of these women as much as any son or nephew should. But, whether I like it or not, sometimes they have said or done something that suggests that they are sexist. My favorite example of this comes from the youngest of the family. I was having dinner with her and her kids and a conversation broke out between her and me.
Her: Oh yes, I believe that Bill Clinton is one of the best presidents that we have ever had.
Me: Do you think that it is a good thing for a man to cheat on his wife?
Her: Well, Ryan that's the thing. That's a very common thing for men to do.
Me: What do you have to base that off of?
Her: (Pausing for a moment)....Statistics.
(without her mentioning a single statistic I then spoke.)
Me: So, for instance, you're telling me that George W. Bush has cheated on his wife because he's a guy?
Her: I'm sure he has.
I still am very puzzled by this. Now look, this isn't about Democrats vs. Republicans. This is about one of the Albertson Ladies not just accusing, but KNOWING, that George W. has commited adultery. During that brief moment, she was the judge, the jury, the prosecution, and the defense all rolled into one for the case of whether or not George W. Bush has cheated on his wife. According to her, he's guilty until proven innocent. If that's not sexist, then I don't know what is.
I have known my mother for a long time. There are good things about her that are not taken for granted, as she already knows that. But, the truth is that she has proven from time to time that she is on the side of women more than men. Growing up, we would watch a few tv shows of her choosing. Some noteworthy ones are Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman, Star Trek Voyager, Medium, The Closer, etc. After enough thought it is clearly obvious that my Mom prefers a show in which a woman is in a leadership role. She admitted that once, explaining why she liked Cagney and Lacey so much. However, one exception is that she is a diehard fan of NYPD BLUE. When I choose a tv show to watch, the gender of the lead character is not a decision maker or breaker by any means. My favorite show of all time is The Shield, and during half of the series, a woman is the Captain of the Barn. I am also a big fan of The Closer. One time I was having dinner at home with the family. It was about this time when Obama was beating Hillary in the primaries and caucuses. My Mom then made a comment that a woman as president would not send us to war as likely as a man would. Whatever way you look at it, that is a sexist comment. That is a statement that only somebody with a mild grudge against men would make. If I made a comment that a man as president would not be as tardy to a formal speech because he spent too much time polishing his nails and putting on lipstick, I would look like a buffoon as well. Why does my Mother have this attitude? Part of it is because she's still vehement about Title IX. As a student at Ames High School, she had no opportunity to compete in sports. Literally forty years later, she still complains about it. What somebody is supposed to do in this situation, is move on and realize that even though life sucked, and it was unfair sometime ago, that was then and this is now.
On the complete opposite side of the spectrum, is a man named Marc Rudov. To be honest, I feel kind of sorry for Marc. He is a man who is clearly sexist. The radio talk show host does clearly have a grudge against women. Some of you might think that I should have replaced his name in the title of this post with Rush Limbaugh. You might say that Rush is a much more well known person who has said mean things about women, particularly calling some of them feminazis. Here's the reason why Rush is not the guy who I'm going to go after. If you turn the radio on to listen to him the next time that he's on, I guarantee you, I bet you every buck I have, he is not going to harp that much, if at all, about women. What really gets his blood boiling is the Democratic Party. I personally almost never listen to Rush, but I know what I'm talking about. Marc Rudov has a radio show and he has been on television a number of times. Every time that he argues something, he argues in favor of men instead of women. Now, I'm going to show a few of his opinions, some more ridiculous than others, and give my 2 cents about them.
1) Actor Wesley Snipes is being punished more harshly for tax evasion than if he were a woman.
Okay Marc, listen. Where exactly in the judicial system would he have been treated more mercifully if he were a woman? Would the jury vote for a less severe punishment? Would the prosecution be more lenient? Marc Rudov then says that Martha Stewart commited a far worse offense than Mr. Snipes, and so did Dionne Warwick. I am not convinced by Marc Rudov's claim, but his accusation isn't necessarily outrageous.
2) Men should boycott Valentine's Day.
This one is where Mr. Rudov really shines. He gives a statistic that men spend twice as much money as women do on Valentine's Day, so therefore men should boycott Valentine's Day. Now, I think that if he gives out that statistic and says that he feels that that ratio 2 to 1 should not be that high, fair enough. That is a fair and reasonable opinion. But boycotting Valentine's Day because of it is not. For the very humorous debate about that subject, please click on the following Youtube link. One of the arguments that his opponent makes is that when a man buys his girlfriend/wife a piece of lingerie, that is a gift for him as well. GOOD POINT!! Thank God for Victoria's Secret! But on a more serious note, any man who would even consider boycotting Valentine's Day does not know what falling in love with a woman is all about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgFNqkO-jmY
3) Hillary Clinton was in Las Vegas giving a speech, and a man asks her for help. The man tells her that his wife is an illegal alien. Hillary then responds with saying "No woman is an illegal." That's not right.
I agree with Mr. Rudov on this one. "No woman is an illegal?" Hillary made a sexist comment, it was degrading to men, and it's unethical. If you are an illegal, you are an illegal. One might argue that a nut like Rudov is someone you should never agree with, but I say that broken clocks are right twice a day.
I once had an English Teacher who mentioned how we should avoid sexist comments in our papers/speeches. For example,
"The man who is unwilling to take a risk will accomplish nothing in life." WRONG!!
"The person who is unwilling to take a risk will accomplish nothing in life." BETTER!!
There is a show that I watched a long time ago with my brother called street smarts. It was a dumb show about how two contestants could guess whether or not these people on the streets would know the anwer to a stated question. 100% of all the episodes that I saw pitted, yes you guessed it, a guy against a girl. Why? The show's abysmal ratings had to be lifted somehow by forcing you to root for whichever gender you belonged too.
There are many differences between men and women, as we all know. Not just accepting the opposite gender, but also admiring the opposite gender just as much as our own is a difficulty for too many. It is a chore for the Albertson Ladies and it is a chore for Marc Rudov. Hopefully it's not a chore for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)