These Are the Times, Mr. Paine

Thomas Paine wrote this on December 23, 1776: "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered yet we have this consolation with us, the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value." Of course, Paine wrote these lines in the frightful times of the American Revolution. However,don't they still ring just as true today? Little has dimmed the message since its first printing. Patriots still "deserve the love and thanks of man and woman." The terrorism patriots face is indeed "tyranny that is not easily conquered." And, the value of what is obtained in the ongoing struggle still gives "everything its value." Less well known is another Thomas Paine quote: "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." Paine believed in the importance of improving conditions of all world inhabitants. Almost prophetic in view, Paine's statement seems more suited to the 21st Century than to his own 18th Century. The United States now finds itself in a world community of very complicated interdependence. Since America's independence, the country has grown increasingly dependent on world trade, world alliances, and better world relations. Most citizens of the United States seem more than willing to reap the benefits of this interdependence, but less of these people are less than willing to face the consequences of dealing with its hardships. The economy is hurting and many blame foreign interests. The armed services are engaged in struggles to insure the safety of its citizenry, yet many are quick to disapprove of military actions. Criticisms upon criticisms seem to daily remind us that these are still "the times that try men's souls." And, unfortunately, "summer soldiers" still shrink as their climate becomes bleaker. Maybe these, indeed, are very trying, hard times in which to live. Many things seem never to change in some people's perspective of living through such trials. And to be honest, how much of this oppression is self-administered? How many negative aspects of these "trying times" are Americans willing to claim come from within their borders? Maybe we should look in the mirror to find a blameworthy individual. People can no longer expect to attain cheaply the guarantees of a happy existence through just wishes or inheritance. All must act and all must play vital roles in the world. In a struggle to maintain certain good qualities and to change other negative aspects of a modern world, people are going to meet stiff resistance. Global tyranny is both bold and elusive. Dealing with visible threats and hidden dangers, patriots are still willing to risk their lives to defend freedom. As Thomas Paine said long ago, "the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." And, so it goes with "doing good" all over the globe.

Clean Machines

Admit it, doesn't it feel better to drive a clean car? Not only do you feel better while driving a clean automobile, you seem to actually drive better, probably since your reaffirmed pride in the condition of the car makes you a little more cautious of those who may ruin your new wash.

After managing a car wash for three years, I noticed this instant increase in self-respect when a customer got his car washed. It seemed to be pretty much across-the-board satisfaction as well. Even those driving a "clunker" were happy to get the car clean. I've seen people get car washes in vehicles that looked almost junkyard bound due to various poor conditions, yet, when clean, these clunker drivers reared back in self-glorification as they drove their dirtless autos away.

Teenagers cleaning and polishing their autos in anticipation of the prom or a big date were often meticulous in their concerns to remove every possible speck of unwanted foreign matter inside and outside their vehicles. I wondered how this teenage cleanliness compared to the condition of their rooms at home. It's funny how motivation can make all the difference.

Sometimes, older people were extremely critical in their appraisal of a wash. I began to wonder if old age contributed to making sure they were "getting their dollar's worth" or if age merely gave them added incentive to take care of their valued possessions. Regardless, with a shining car, seniors drove away with smiles on their faces.

I've witnessed several times people getting a wash in the driving rain. This behavior, I must admit, I did not understand. Did they just wish to throw their money away? Maybe, psychologically, they got the same boost of joy or pride others got but the "rain washers" got it out of the very act of washing, even if their auto was going to be clean only in the bay. This speaks of pretty temporary satisfaction.

I need to draw out the point once more. People feel better and drive better in a clean car. So, I am proposing a new law based on a pretty good principle that is sure to cut down on accidents through better defensive driving. Maybe, the state needs to pass a law that requires motorists to drive clean cars. I know there are few kinks to work on in that proposal such as, "How do you define "clean"? and "How do you expect people to clean their autos in inclement weather?"

Maybe someone can help me. I think I'm onto something here though. Safety first, I've always heard. And, come to think of it, law enforcement officers were some of our best clients.

Who Is a Hypocrite?

Do your realize that just because someone is a hypocrite, that does not make them wrong? Many try to label hypocrisy as wrong by using a fallacy known as an ad hominem (argument against the person) attack.

An ad hominem attempts to change the subject. It consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. For example, children may accuse their parents of hypocrisy if the parent admonishes them for using drugs or smoking, or warns their children of the dangers of such activities, if the parent used them in the past. Such ad hominem attacks are used by people while judging others to justify their own actions. Also, unfortunately, some people genuinely fail to recognize that they have character faults that they condemn in others but still commit these attacks. On the other hand, a hypocrite is a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives. Adlai Stevenson once said, "A hypocrite is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation." This, of course, implies a politician who professes his love of conservation doesn't believe in it because of the importance of the redwood. So it follows, in another example, that a doctor who truly believes smoking is dangerous yet smokes is not a hypocrite simply because he/she practices dangerous behavior. Instead, to accurately label as hypocrite a doctor who advises patients that smoking is dangerous, the doctor would have to actually believe smoking is not dangerous, yet in front of others pretend to believe the opposite, regardless of whether the doctor also smokes. One of the following example is not ad hominem. Which of the following is NOT an example of an ad hominem fallacy? 1. "John has been proven to be a liar numerous times, therefore you should reject his testimony and acquit my client." 2. "He says we shouldn't enslave people, yet he himself owns slaves" 3. "He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!” 4. "He says the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, therefore he is a communist" 5. A prosecutor asks the judge to not admit the testimony of a burglar because burglars are not trustworthy. 6. A group of blacks respond to arguments about reverse discrimination by saying the opposition is just being racist and using hate speech. 7. "Apparently, you are too stupid to comprehend the difference between an insult and an ad hominem argument." 8. "You say this sausage is loaded with cholesterol but I notice you eat it every morning." 9. "Why don't Pro-lifers adopt the babies they don't want aborted?" 10. "You have claimed that John Edward doesn't really talk to the dead, but how can we believe what an atheist says?" The answer is number one. Because it is not an attempt to get the person to reject John's argument, but instead reject his testimony. A testimony is not an argument: it is a report of events. The fact that a person is a known liar has no bearing on whether or not they present a conclusion supported by premises - but it does affect how we evaluate their reporting of alleged facts. Notice the difference between this argument and argument number five.

What Is a Human Worth?

Dr. Carl Schultz, Houghton College, analyzes the makeup of a human life. His look into definitions of a human provided by science are revealing and diverse: An animal. A physico-chemical being. A creature occupying a small place in space and time. One of the extraordinary diversity and profusion of living forms. Highest form of life. A creature, homo sapiens, at the highest level of animal development characterized especially by a highly developed brain. Occupant of an infinitesimally small body in the solar system. The current world population is estimated at 6,782,536,522. As significant as we think we are, those numbers are staggering since most of us could count immediate and close acquaintances on our fingers and toes. The chance of making much of difference to even a majority of the inhabitants on earth is next to nil. As we chug along in our daily routines, we constantly remind ourselves of the importance of our small contributions to a vast mankind. How about the significance of a human as a species on planet earth? Estimates now reveal that 99% of all the species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct. And, some experts have estimated that up to half of presently existing species may become extinct by 2100. Causes such as genetics and demographic phenomena, genetic pollution, habitat degradation, predation, co extinction, and global warming seem to support this idea. Polar bears, desert gazelles, sea otters, and some species of sharks are among many animals currently on the brink of extinction.Some scientists predict the future life span of Earth will be "only" about another billion years. Earth exists as one of the smallest planets in our own solar system. When we compare the size of the earth to that of the other planets in our solar system, our smallness becomes readily apparent. Although the earth is the fourth largest planet, Jupiter, the largest planet, is 2.5 times more massive than all the other planets in the solar system combined while the sun alone accounts for 99.9% of the mass of our solar system. Of course, innumerable stars are thousands of times larger and brighter than our sun. Antares (Alpha Scorpii), a super-large body, is about 700 times the diameter of our sun and one of the brightest stars in the heavens. The Milky Way Galaxy, in which we exist, is estimated to be 5 billion years old and contains about 200 billion stars. Astronomers estimate that the diameter of our galaxy is about 100,000 light years, or 600 quadrillion miles. One scientist guesses the chance for life elsewhere in the galaxy is maybe 1 to 1000 intelligent life forms, most of the time, in a galaxy like the Milky Way, but maybe only one or two technological civilizations. There are an estimated 10 billion galaxies that can be seen using a light refracting telescope and many more that can be observed using radio telescopes. In a mere 100 years, our knowledge of how old the earth is has increased 50,000-fold, and the universe is now known to be at least 5 million times older than was believed in Galileo's day. Whatever the definition of human used, in relation to the universe, one of us humans seems pretty insignificant. We may think the stars revolve around us as we busily run our missions on our little speck of the planet, but, chances are, we are just spinning ourselves around in our own infinitesimally small minds. Does that help with your problems at all? Here is one author's view of the most influential people in history ranked in order. I seriously doubt if anyone reading this article will break into the top ten in the next revision of this list. (Hart, Michael H. The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, Revised and Updated for the Nineties. New York: Carol Publishing Group/Citadel Press; first published in 1978, reprinted with minor revisions 1992. ISBN 9780806510682) 1. Muhammad (570–632) 2. Isaac Newton (1643–1727) 3. Jesus Christ (7–2 BC – AD 26–36) 4. Buddha (563 BC–483 BC) 5. Confucius (551 BC–479 BC) 6. St. Paul (5–67) 7. Ts'ai Lun (50–121) 8. Johannes Gutenberg (1398–1468) 9. Christopher Columbus (1451–1506) 10. Albert Einstein (1879–1955)

Wake Up, America!

I challenge you, my friends, to sit down with your children today and teach them all the proper ways to behave and think. Since we have determined our convictions, it's about time we teach our convictions to those whom we love best. For decades, I have heard about the lesser bad effects of marijuana use versus the effects of alcohol use. I think to prove a conviction here, parents should light up in front of their children, let them see their parents high, and teach their children to smoke marijuana when they grow up instead of drinking beer. They would be doing a great justice to health care and to crime. Stoners are good, productive citizens with proven track records. It's about time for them to advocate usage to youth in order that the young people of today will live in a safer, reefer-filled world. Next, the sex talk. I think children should definitely be taught the advantages of bisexuality. Teaching kids that "bi is best" would lesson their fear and aggression toward any sexual persuasion. This is a new, accepting society that needs to be taught and reinforced very early in life that total freedom of sexual expression will not only help release unneeded pressures during adolescence but also encourage vital sexual experimentation during those "formative" years.

Bisexuality increases a person's chances of meeting people of diversity, and the variety presented to participants guarantees a lower divorce rate, when and if "traditional" marriages occur. Bi instruction seems to be the only sex-ed that can offer benefits to all persuasions. Society needs to shift from a procreation message to a toleration message. It's about time to put belief into action. After all, sex today is not all about having children and traditional heterosexual couplings are failing at an alarming rate. It's also about time to follow PETA's lead and teach our children to stop eating animals of any kind. In fact, vegan is the safest choice. No animal deserves to suffer, be it for food source or for clothing source, or for any source. Begin today by cutting meat from the family diet. And, please no bleeding hearts for meat substitutes-- these are like giving little boys toy guns to play with--the potential for using the real thing is the false message here.

This program of change can begin with the child's new selections at fast food restaurants as well as changes to the family diet. Imagine the savings and the health benefits which also positively impacts the health care system. Society must pressure insurance companies to demand their customers stop eating animals or pay increased premium rates to cover health care expenses. Speaking of pain, do plants suffer? Switzerland has already issued a document outlining the ethical treatment of plants. The document generously allows that "any action with or towards plants that serves the self-preservation of humans [is] morally justified." Why do plants have to suffer needlessly? There is an extra lesson to teach the kids. And finally, talk with your children about the "gansta" culture. Why are the kids being punished for this behavior? It is what they are programmed to do by the culture and it's about time to recognize that and respond accordingly. For example, gangsta rap is music describing the reality of inner-city life, and the rappers are only adopting a character, like an actor playing a role, which behaves in ways that they may not necessarily endorse. Since the '80s it has become the most commercially lucrative subgenre of hip hop. While the music reflects the violent lifestyle and deals with subjects such as homophobia, violence, racism, black supremacy, profanity, promiscuity, misogyny, rape, street gangs, drive-by shootings, vandalism, thievery, drug dealing, alcohol abuse, substance abuse and materialism, it, according to Spike Lee, is like black minstrel shows acted in an ignorant manner for the entertainment of audiences. Kids may need to be reinforced in their right and need to role play these important issues. Parents should play gangsta music with their children and show them the advantages of partaking such roles. In fact, parents should support the industry themselves by buying products to promote gangsta culture. Psychologists can relate the harm done to young people who are denied outlets for their playful aggressive feelings. Violence, as it relates to children, can be productive as play. If parents themselves were to imitate gangsta culture and behavior, the children would feel even safer in such real environments and understand criminal acts can be fun. How can a deeper look into reality be harmful? Perhaps play followed by field trips to areas rich in gansta culture would be most beneficial. Well, today is the day to put belief into action. To take the first step toward a better, more diverse, and more understanding America, parents must get off their soap boxes and receive their calls to action. Live it, America, and begin to reap the results. For some of us, attitude adjustments may have to be made, but the majority will certainly conform.

Do it now. That is, if you believe in it.

The Scuds

I know we love the afflicted in our society, at least those the media reminds us daily to love. Anyone with celebrity who sadly falls victim to tragedy or misfortune is caught in the lens and personalized, sympathized, and eulogized. As we all listen to the commentator and follow his instructions about how we should react to the event, we ponder how the "news" will change our own lives. You know, I was thinking... how much sympathy and time of day we give to the "scuds." As we go about our daily lives beyond the reach of the tube, we encounter the scud. In fact, we encounter scores of Scuds everywhere we go. The Scuds are knee-deep at Walmart, at Krogers, at the gas station, at Bob Evans, at school. There they are, spending our tax money on things they can't afford. Hell, we can't even escape the Scuds that live down the street when we return to our humble homes. How did the Scuds manage to move in there anyway? Just who are these Skuds? They're the poor, dirty, skanky, in-breeding, cigarette-smoking, lottery-ticket-buying, screaming-kids-hanging-all-over-them, junky-car-driving segment of our Appalachian society. We would prefer to ignore them, but it's just impossible to keep their ignorant asses out of our way. And they love to get close to us when we're doing our important daily routines. I think the Scuds would keep to their crack-smoking selves in shame. Why do they want to be in the places that we would prefer to be filled with normal, good-smelling, law-abiding people like us? There should be a law, you know: someone should make Scud-free zones where we could shop and eat and drive in peace. Well, at least we don't live in California or Florida where other new Scuds would be arriving from Mexico and Asia by the hundreds on a daily basis. Thank God for small blessings. We do have a little control over where our Scuds tend to settle. I bet you don't even hear any English in some of those states. Who in the hell do they think they are, anyway, coming into our country? And, what really is bad is how freaking irresponsible these welfare Scuds are. They don't have any reason to work and they become single parents who hand down defective traits to their kids. Nothing is worse than a third generation Scud whose lazy ass doesn't care about nothing but popping pills and bottles of beer. There's your crime. Then, what does the government do? They create programs that Scuds can enter to get our money. It's a joke-- the government could be using these dollars to help build wages for the common working people employed in industries that need bailed out. Scuds don't pay taxes anyway. Why should they get any advantage? Or, officials should put their dollars into programs that focus on important issues like abortion and protecting our borders from hordes of immigrants. Scuds don't care about the issues that good people want addressed. What is going to happen to retirement? It's all because of the Scuds that Social Security is in such bad shape. So, let's keep ignoring these poor people who occupy spaces so close to us. They don't deserve any help from us. Let them starve and work at McDonald's flipping hamburgers until they just fade away or get a proper education. In the meantime, we must ban together to develop some effective anti-scud methods of our own. This is the only way to save this great nation of ours. Now, excuse me, I have to get back to my reality television shows. Aw, did you hear about what happened to poor Donald Trump the other day? Some Facts about Welfare to Work Stereotypes:

Myth: Poverty Results From a Lack of Responsibility Fact: Poverty Results From Low Wages Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent Myth: Most Welfare Recipients Are African American Women Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children-Most Women on Welfare Are White Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts Provided: © 2009 American Psychological Association Public Interest Directorate 750 First Street, NE • Washington, DC • 20002-4242 Phone: 202-336-6050 • TDD/TTY: 202-336-6123 Fax: 202-336-6040 • Email

Homosexuals and Christians

You know, you really should believe in something. And, with conviction, support what you believe. I don't care if you believe animal crackers are the key to the universe, just believe it and support it and make sure you don't hurt the other fellow with your beliefs. Which brings me to the "touchy" subject of the day. I believe in being a heterosexual. That belief does not interfere with the rights of homosexuals to practice their own beliefs. I do go to a club that doesn't allow gay dancing or open displays of gay affection. They do not ask your sexual persuasion when you join because that is a breech of personal rights; however, the club makes their rules explicit as to behavior allowed in the club. I don't believe in openly stating my sexual preference in any situation. I observe and respect the privacy of others in such matters. If I didn't want to respect the rules of the club, I would not have joined. I would not go to the club to flaunt behavior that the club does not allow. Why would I want to remain a member if not in good standing? Likewise, I keep myself out of biker clubs (I'm not a biker.), gay clubs (I'm not gay.), Nazi and Skinhead clubs (I am neither.) But if these people want to operate a club within their legal rights, then I have no problem respecting their operations. I am not looking for trouble by entering their club and forcing my social, political, or sexual orientation on their establishments. I expect their members not to force a lifestyle on me. I don't want a prospective friend to ask me questions about my sexual orientation in order that he might judge me to be a bigot if I strongly believe in heterosexuality. A bigot may be defined as "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own." My friends who are homosexuals (I perceive that by our conversations.) do not expect me to rally around their banners of support because they respect my rights to private convictions and preference. I am tolerant of different sexual orientations. I am not a homophobe: a person who hates or fears homosexual people. But the reality is that stating you are homosexual to a group of heterosexuals is less likely to draw negative reactions than stating you are a heterosexual to a group of homosexuals. It is not meant to be a matter of public record in the first place. Yet, today, heterosexuals are often drawn out and branded as "bigoted" by those who wish to advance their cause. In truth, this rush to judgment is bigoted behavior by homosexuals. What I tolerate and what I actually do are two entirely different subjects. And, please, let's put the purely religious interpretations to rest for a few minutes. Why? Arguments can be made for acceptance of conduct on both sides of the issue by using the Bible. Old Testament vs. New Testament and Jesus's non reference aside, I believe the issues of marriage, co-habitation, and orientation are personal issues in many respects. But, why do people insist upon condemning a different viewpoint in the name of God? Read some verses if you like and are truly going to use the Bible for reference: Genesis 19:1-29, Judges 19:1-30 Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:3-13, Jude 1:7-25, Romans 1:26-32. As Christians, people know that God alone will properly judge and condemn improper and proper behaviors. This is the same God who gave us commandments not to steal and not to commit adultery. People practice these behaviors and are daily forgiven. God loves people as they are, so isn't it wrong for Christians to stereotype any person so that he or she can be treated as a statistic and dismissed? But, if you believe in Christianity, the fact that Jesus never spoke of homosexuality as a sin could be dismissed the same as knowing that Jesus never spoke of murder as a sin either. We all know that murder is a sin. I am not a deity. I cannot judge all proper and improper moral conduct. Furthermore, I will not treat anyone with something other than love unless they display conduct undeserving of my love. With that in mind, please, I beg you, quit bashing people who believe that homosexuality is wrong. Many of these people are willing to lovingly tolerate and respect a homosexual's rights. This does not mean everyone has to believe in every aspect of that person's private matters. And lastly, if you are a homosexual and indeed want a Christian wedding ceremony, decide what Bible you are using as a basis for your union. Civil ceremonies are available.

Artist Design

Consider the following rhythm pattern: da-da-da-da da-da-da-da. Now consider this pattern slightly altered: da-da-da-da da-da-da-dum. What element of the pattern is bound to draw attention? Is it the nice, smooth flow of the repeated rhythm that creates the effect of an artful design or is it the interruption of the rhythm that pulls the audience away from endless repetition, though perfect in measure, that is bound to bore or distract the listener? The pattern depends upon the "dum." This interruption, or roughness of surface, is required to make the flow something other than just mechanical perfection. This is true in all art forms: unique design is related to such roughness of surface. Slight imperfection, roughness, or interruption-- in music, writing, painting, dance--makes the work believable and pulls people toward understanding beauty in the human condition of fallibility. Havelock Ellis states this concept as such: "The absence of flaw in beauty is itself a flaw." Francis Bacon echoes this thought: "There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion." For me, this roughness of surface is so evident in artful music. A performer that produces mechanical perfection without the birthmark of its human creation has created a work void of style. And, style is but the refinement of peculiarity. The true musical artists do not use stylistic devices; instead, they inherently produce them. Granted, every great artist employs imitation while emulating influences that have helped define his style, but to "karaoke" copy such style or merely show precision in delivery with tone and range dues nothing to advance musical artistry. Artists expand boundaries within forms such as rock, folk, jazz, blues, Cajun and zydeco, reggae, R&B, ethnic, and international music. And, to the careful listener, they rely upon delivering breathtaking performances with the help of roughness of surface. These artistic performers are not just great musicians. As Chris Standring, jazz artist relates, "They (artists) are those who have a driving desire and need to say something original artistically, to express themselves and to communicate that expression to an audience, be it a small niche market or wider demographic." They have a true desire to express a unique inner-voice whether millions or dozens are willing to listen. Thus, the artists lend credibility to their creations. An artist's technical shortcomings can actually be the very essence of his artistry. For example who does not know the distinct sound of B.B. King's guitar stylings--certainly one not filled with mountains of awesome licks. Or, who, at least at first, has not winced at the vocal intonations of Bob Dylan--loaded with gravel and grit. These artists have both developed and refined their talents to give unique voice to long-standing, often tired, forms of music. Artists first find their given talents and then learn how best to use them. Let's face it, if a musician were able to play an instrument technically perfect, at all speeds, meticulously so every note that came out was totally clean and audible, would this be ultimately interesting to an audience? Chris Standring answers, "Yes it might be very clever and impressive, but for how long could you listen to an album where every phrase felt like you were having your teeth drilled!?" So enters the importance of imperfection and roughness of surface to prevent such sterling but painful repetition. The beauty of an artist's performance relies upon his audience's associations with theme and content but also upon the fact that the audience "gets" the message through the method of humanistic delivery. Most great artists generally have a little mystery about them that seems to propel them above the status of mere entertainers. This mystery is based upon their sincere and dedicated talent with a responsibility to say something profoundly unique. This extra character also helps them develop their career longevity as they age into new, inspiring works. In 2004, Rolling Stone compiled an article,The Immortals, with the aid of a panel of fifty-five top musicians, historians, industry executives and critics, selected by the editors of Rolling Stone. Voters were asked to pick, in order of preference, the twenty artists they deemed to be the most significant and influential of rock's first fifty years, those whose work continues to have an impact today. Here are the first ten picks as presented in the article on April 15, 2004. 1) The Beatles 2) Bob Dylan 3) Elvis Presley 4) The Rolling Stones 5) Chuck Berry 6) Jimi Hendrix 7) James Brown 8) Little Richard 9) Aretha Franklin 10) Ray Charles

What Are the Odds?

Do you like playing the odds? Just for fun, here are 10 events with their corresponding odds listed below. Match the events with the odds. I will reveal the answers later. EVENTS Odds of being murdered: Odds of drowning in a bathtub: Odds of being born a twin in North America: Odds of dating a millionaire: Odds of finding out your child is a genius: Odds of becoming president: Odds of becoming a pro athlete: Odds of catching a ball at a major league ballgame: Odds of getting a royal flush in poker on first five cards dealt: Odds of getting a hole in one: ODDS A. 90 to 1 B. 563 to 1 C. 250 to 1 D. 22,000 to 1 E. 649,740 to 1 F. 685,000 to 1 G. 10,000,000 to 1 H. 5,000 to 1 I. 18,000 to 1 J. 215 to 1 According to the Lottery Commission, the odds of hitting 6 of 6 numbers for the Classic Jackpot in the Ohio Lottery are a cool 13,983,816 to 1. The chance of dying from parts falling off an airplane (1 in 10,000,000) are much more likely to happen. The odds of hitting the jackpot in the Mega Millions game are 1 in 175,711,536. The odds of spotting a UFO today are 3,000,000 to 1 or 58 times more likely to occur. A 1999 national survey conducted for the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, which was created by Congress, found that lottery players with annual household incomes of less than $10,000 spent nearly three times as much on lottery games as those with incomes of more than $50,000. The survey also found that high-school dropouts spent $334 a year on lotteries compared with less than $90 by college graduates. Businesses selling tickets receive a 5.5 (5.5 cents per dollar) percent commission for all sales and other bonuses for winning combinations.

Sympathy For the Ass

Since the fall of Communism in the U.S.S.R. and the apparent lackadaisical attitude of most toward terrorism on our native shores, I think it is important to recognize a new Boogie Man among us. Of course, I am referring to an old acquaintance, the Ass. In an attempt to justify the the Ass, I am offering some reasons for the need of his existence in American society. To give reference to the Stones, I think this piece must be labeled "Sympathy For the Ass." My apologies to Mick and Keith and old Scratch. First of all, the Ass serves as a most gleeful person lacking an internal firewall that keeps him from saying almost everything he thinks will put him in a better light. Often his words are not straightforward but just a little malicious in intent. He revels in his own humor and shallow intellect. People hate him for being so forward at times while at other times being weaselly wise. The Ass is an archetypal villain whose mindless, Eddie Haskell-esque, two-faced style brands him truly un-American. What better easy target of our scorn? People just feel more confident having a good Ass around to kick every now and then. Then, of course, the Ass can be very attractive to those who are not asses. Robert Winch, a sociology professor at Northwestern University, stated in his research that we look for someone with complementary needs. A talker is attracted to someone who likes to listen, or an aggressive personality may seek out a more passive partner. Many use the Ass to fill ass-like aspirations of their own. This is the old theory of "opposites attract." Many an Ass lives a stable relationship with his mate, herself a very un-Asslike individual. As far as sexual attraction, many attractive girls enjoy "being the girl that they can't have." According to fellow blogger and founder of the Human Evolution Project, Dr. T, "These women get to add the ready display of some proof that they are not only sexually attractive to the masses; They also get to add that they are sexually exclusive and thereby more attractive to a higher class mate."

This points to the possible truth of an evolutionary selection for a woman to enjoy snubbing one Ass after another Ass. If indeed, there was no competitive advantage to these tendencies, they would be getting selected out of the gene pool. The Ass still proudly plies his charms for these egotistical women. With his obnoxious pickup lines ignored, he seeks these women's rejections time and again with apparent unswerving gratitude. Another quality of a well-developed Ass is his ability to tell people want they want to hear, then follow it up with brutal honesty. According to standup comedian and writer Charlie Hatton, "The key thing to remember about being a smartass is the turning point between 'sugary sweet' and 'brutally honest'. It's crucial to be polite and helpful, right up until the key word comes out of the victim's mouth..."

For an example, Charlie uses one of his jokes: Jilly: Do these pants make my butt look big? Smartass: No, not at all. Really, they're quite fetching on you. Jilly: Really? Smartass: No, not really. They're squishing your enormous ass like an oversized pressed ham. Maybe if you'd tuck the bottom of your cheeks into your socks, that would be better.

My last point in favor of keeping close company with the Ass is his never-ceasing ability to provide news and gossip. People can count on the Ass to deliver the most asinine behavior during the most solemn of times. Once committed, the terrible blunder is front page news for Ass-lovers everywhere: the more awful the gaffe, the better the tattle. Needless to say, the Ass doesn't mind the constant scrutiny of his neighbors, as long as he is the center of their attention.

In brief, you got to love the Ass. His very existence defines his mission. An ass is here to poke a little fun at people's posteriors. Truly suited to his craft, the Ass will diligently toil until his indelicate parting shot resounds among his fellow men. Only then will some miss him. Sadly, most will just quietly whisper, "I'm glad that silly Ass is dead and gone."

When we write, we scratch out a little truth that attempts to convey our interpretation both of an inner world that we possess and of an outer world in which we live. Combining the two worlds of truth to let them fluently flow from mind through print is, at times, very difficult. Conflicts arise between our present beliefs and our present state of affairs. Then, we question ourselves and our core understandings as we attempt to interpret an idea. When two interpretations of truth clash, sometimes the writer becomes a stone wall, strong in defending his beliefs. This approach will be met with solid resistance, even if it is sound. Why? We do not argue known facts or trite opinions; we argue that which has substantial intelligent opposition. To do otherwise would be to lower our image. So, many times we choose to compromise.Compromise is a basic negotiation process in which both parties give up something that they want in order to get something else they want more. Compromises usually occur in win-lose situations -- when there is a fixed pie to be divided up, and whatever one side gets, the other side loses. Ideas that cut to the core of an individual's or group's identity or survival are particularly tough to compromise. Two things that usually are not compromised are values and fundamental human needs. Yet, without compromise of values, many single couples would be ostracized for living together. Likewise, without compromise of needs, such as independence, motorists would never be ticketed for not wearing their safety belts. Tolerating something new involves re-balancing our wheels or even surrendering an entire vehicle of thoughtful conveyance. To allow concessions to the opposition eventually strengthens our position in a true argument (remember, some things are just not worthy of being argued). Giving in can enhance our grace and raise our credibility. Imagine a few examples from recent history. What if President Clinton would have first admitted to "having sex with that woman"? What if Pete Rose had first come clean to betting on baseball? What is Mark McGuire had first admitted to steroid use? What if George W. Bush first admitted he had no credible evidence of "weapons of mass destruction" stockpiled in Iraq? Many reasons entered into each person's decision to embrace an initial lie: public image, criminal charges, popular support. But, in each case, the personality chose to embrace his inner interpretation of a preferred truth over society's eventual view. No surrender to or embrace of the opposition was offered, or, at least, offered in time to save the person's credibility. History is harsh on a liar, even if the lie is meant to benefit others. Complicity is viewed as illegal and dishonest in every court of the land. Then, we may best be served by minding inner and outer truths when we write. Our adherence to inner truths helps develop strong voice and unique style while our mindfulness of outer truths serves witness to our knowledge of the subject and our acknowledgement of a changing society.Striking sparks when a proper blend is found, we then write with power and conviction. How do most verbal arguments proceed? First, the opponents loudly state their positions; then, they air a tirade of ideas largely void of logical support; and finally, they realize a real solution would require equal shares of compromise so they merely leave the battleground in a heated huff. Seldom is such an exchange viewed as an opportunity to enhance each person's experience of the relationship. After all, even best friends cannot and do not agree upon everything. To concede to well-supported ideas is not to admit total defeat. The military saying is "losing a battle does not constitute losing a war." However, we have become so ingrained with the slogan "winning is all" that we have made it override common sense. Using that philosophy, people have no margin for loss; instead, they view loss with shame and anger. Without loss, improved performance is impossible. How can perfection be further perfected? Vulnerable to danger and suspicion, people who compromise are often falsely viewed as cowards. The United States Constitution and has been called "a bundle of compromises." Compromise in man's relationships with each other is a necessary means of living together in an imperfect society. This compromise involves mutual concession, not total surrender. A human being must decide what areas of life are most important, and what areas of life, work, or relationships can be more flexibly constructed. The phrase, "pick your battles," applies well to the understanding of compromise. Compromising does not mean to become flimsy and weakened in ethical control. Writing, then, requires a survey of our audience, an appeal to their senses, and support for our own positions. More support is required for unpopular stands because of the nature of their controversy. At best, our writing may reach compromise, and that partial surrender should often be our goal of communication. I'm reminded of a couple of verses from John Prine's song "The Great Compromise." In the song, the speaker becomes a "victim of the great compromise." "Well we'd go out on Saturday evenings To the drive-in on Route 41 And it was there that I first suspected That she was doin' what she'd already done She said "Johnny won't you get me some popcorn" And she knew I had to walk pretty far And as soon as I passed through the moonlight She hopped into a foreign sports car Well you know I could have beat up that fellow But it was her that had hopped into his car Many times I'd fought to protect her But this time she was goin' too far Now some folks they call me a coward 'Cause I left her at the drive-in that night But I'd druther have names thrown at me Than to fight for a thing that ain't right"

To Go Beyond

The real world in our eyes

We move toward the sun

That brightens up the skies

As it rekindles our finite run.

Though the distance looms so long

And our odometers seem so slow,

Our patience must be strong

To fuel dreams that will drain low.

On the fringe of our earthly aim

A simple landmark fills our eyes,

So we make the passage to claim

Our sweet, well-earned new prize

We tell ourselves, "I got a hold!"

A nibble, then a much harder bite.

Then we pull on the sturdy pole

As the hook sets the strong line tight.

As we close on the final deal

Then weigh our hearty grab,

The things that we begin to feel

Turn solemn and strangely drab.

We should bask there in the bloom

Of the goal we at last attained.

But now we've just entombed

A wild dream forever tamed.

As we notch a bright new mark

On the belt of our expanding life,

The newest scar initials a start

For the next stroke of the knife.

The purpose of every happy soul

Is never wish a dream be gone.

Don't be glad just to meet a goal.

The key to life is to go beyond.

Answering Tough Questions

You always want an answer to your questions. I have a few reasons you may not find your answer:

Because besides Judge Judy, no one else in the world knows the real scoop Because you're the first person whoever asked me questions about that dumb poop Because when I say "because" that represents everything that there is Because the correct answer to your question is just none of your danged biz Because Albert Einstein has been dead and gone for many, many years Because I am sure I could never gulp down that much ice cold beer Because no one can remember the place George W. Bush was last seen Because you can't expect to know about the places that you've never been Because some questions are never meant to be really answered at all Because if I tell you, the complex systems of civilization will all fall Because my mind is too occupied with decoding remaining secrets of DNA Because you would die in fear finding out the real date of Judgment Day Because the CIA and FBI both swore me to a vow of total secrecy Because you couldn't live with the truth the way I know it to be Because you would learn something about yourself you didn't want to know Because then you wouldn't be the only one left to eat the yellow snow Because when you have all the answers, I have to change the key Because some things exist that very young eyes should never see Because the response is so complex you'd have to get a brain transplant Because the Geico caveman and his wife are really your uncle and aunt Because you think a Rhodes scholar is the big boss on the state road crew Because after the answer it would still be something that you never knew Because you make me feel as if I am small and my mind is blank Because you jumped ship with all the rats when my first ship sank

A Letter For Olivia

Deer Olivia, Your thoughtful essay on grammar and usage. Reminds me that not all my cliches’are original. Enjoying your spirited discussion about conventions, you can see the predicament I’m in. I mean it would look badly for an old English teacher to nowingly split an infinitive if you was me. Don’t ya think not? And to use my words the way my dialect sounds wood shirley get me thru the line et Pondrosa Restrant. May be yer rite. Worryin’ bout little things like speling is dum as a rock to. I am real tired of every one gettin’ so criticle bout usage arrows, ain’t you. I mean when I drug myself out of bed this morning where I laid all nite, I sed, “I haven’t wrote fer this long just to put myself in this sweet pickle of the horns of a dilemma.” If less people wood have had less rules on grammar, fewer concern over writing mite germinize sum new ideals, you bet yer life. So, I think your absolutely kerrect. It looks like I was rong all right. Rules only count in hand grenades and horse shoes, anyways. I won’t wate on usin’ spel chek or none of them dickunarys no more. Whom needs a libary any how? Irregardless of how some kranky old English teachers thunk. Im free to spearmint with the langwhich! And, nother thing. Alot of us recieve criticizm fer not using no standard way of doin’ it.That jest truely makes me loose my cookys. Having seperate rules ain’t wierd when it comes to doin’ it at all. I bet at lest forty weighs exists or moar. People, there gonna have the same affect! Why not do it a ez weigh? My wife sez thats the weigh I been doin’ it fer years and years. And she oughtta no cause she always complains bout me doin’ it my same old boaring weigh. So, if you think yer more smarter then some one jest cause you right good English, you got some udder things comin’, you ole McDonalds. Don’t count your eggs before they hatch. Yes, you should be contrite in briefs and don’t rambel with words in order that you can get a yer point on a subject with which you are aiming for a bulls aye. So, each of the rules can be impotent in the rite sitting depending on for who you are writing for, on the other hand, bee awares of the situashun. Having stated that oblivious detale, punctuation can be usefull to you to. Sea, hear is one example. If I was to put a coma in the rong place the meaning, could be changed in the hole dang sentence. Chek it out— “Jim Bob, put the thang away.” verses “Jim, Bob put the thang away.” verses “Jim, Bob, put the thang away.” Means a few diffrent thangs to think about. In conclosure, to get use to using unstandard English, to get the more comfort within it, and writing it good should be the one thang we can get agree able two. Therefor for any one to tell we people how to communicate gooder is like a wolf in sheeps’ cloths. Their folks that don’t no Jack in wool suites. Except the new standards, make a conscience effort to rite the way you want to, and don’t illicit a teacher to precede with your new tricks. Throw yer Caucasians to the wind ant bea free. “To hex with yer rooles, unkadamien!” Don’t get flushterd, just go with the flow. No body will get cornfused. And, God sed, “Let they’re be light and furmamints wear neked Adam can raze some cane!” And, if Eve of Adam’s rib, would have left the apple in the serb ant’s hand, nobody wouldn’t had to worry bout no nowledge noways any how. Ain’t that the honest truth? Its a alternating unireversal out there in facebook land, Captan Kerk.

Thoughts on Proper Grammar

I would like to thank my friend and ex-student Olivia Smalley Parks for writing a great blog entry. I think she makes some very good points while she subtly teases about respecting conventions in facebook writing. I want to include her entire piece in this entry. Enjoy her writing. You will find it both entertaining and informative. I think she thoroughly covers a topic dear to our hearts.

Thoughts on Proper Grammar and New Words Why do I feel compelled on facebook to type in "proper" English instead of just going with the flow? Is this a sign that I had too many red marks on my papers in school? Am I afraid that my high school writing teacher will secretly think, "Geez, I guess she didn't hear a word I said!"? (Love ya, Mr. T!) Am I afraid everyone is going to think I am an idiot because I write like I speak? Who knows? As my sister put it, facebook is "like an alternative universe... the rules just don't apply." Well, for some people, maybe. Apparently not for me. So as of now, I am declaring that the rules don't apply for me either! Bad spelling, bad grammar, who cares? After all, all of those ridiculous grammar rules we learned in school most likely originated from some person trying to describe the language as it was spoken at a specific period in history. Who determined the standard? What part of the country were they living in? (I bet they weren't from the deep South!) What type of education did they have? Why must we insist on abiding by these somewhat arbitrary standards? Do I think the formal grammar rules are useful? I think they could be useful for someone trying to learn English or for someone in academia who wants to judge people based on his knowledge of a topic rather than on his grammar. (Or is that what they're really judging? hmmm.) I recall writing research papers in high school for which we had to use "proper grammar". (Writing "for which" just made my skin crawl. Possibly because I would never speak that way.) I am fairly sure that our teachers were well rested after "reading" those papers! So why not just write about the topics the same way we would speak about them? What's wrong with that? Well, in the high school setting, they were preparing us for success in the post secondary world. A world in which there are no dangling participles and you may never, ever end a sentence with a preposition. (oops, I think that was a fragment!) The truth is, many college professors would rather not sift through your Appalachian accent to get to the meat of your writing. They just want to know if you understand the topic at hand. For me, this is extremely boring writing! So why not just say, "The heck with your rules, academia!"? Practically speaking, I think some folks would have a hard time finding a job or getting into certain college programs. I think it boils down to people having elitist attitudes and the status quo. These wonderful grammar rules are practiced by educated people, so it may be that in their minds, the individuals who choose not to abide by them do not measure up. Whatever happened to the rules being used to describe what was spoken? Why insist on using the rules of grammar in a prescriptive manner and thus alienate part of society that may have something profound to say? Practically speaking, it is nice to know when reading where one sentence ends and another begins, where to pause, and what to emphasize with the use of punctuation. It's also nice to be able to read a passage fluently because the author was attentive to how the passage would be interpreted by the reader. But these preferences don't even begin to delve into the briarpatch of proper grammar we had to learn in school. I would much rather leave it to the linguists to describe the ever-changing rules of spoken language. Why insist on using the outdated rules from some specific slice of culture/history to frame writing today? Write the same way you speak. Want to see individuality? I bet you'd see it! After having said this, I now throw caution to the wind! I don't care whether the facebook world thinks I'm a grammatical nightmare! You want to hear "voice" in writing? Well, here ya go! As a side note, whose job is it to come up with new words anyway? My husband loves to poke fun at me because occassionally I'll throw a new word at him. He just gives me this you-are-TOTALLY-NUTS look and snickers under his breath. (So I'm a little eccentric...) If you hang around a child between the ages of 2 and 9, you are bound to hear a few new words. (...or I'm just immature) Have you ever listened to Tigger on Winnie the Pooh? (There's a grammatical train wreck!) Over 100 new words were added to Merriam-Webster's dictionary last year (2008), so we know someone is making up new words. So, what credentials must one have to coin a new word? My thought that it is part of our makeup is to invent new words. As a believer in the Biblical God of creation, I have read that man was created in God's image. In addition, God directed Adam to name the animals. Considering that there are over 1 million words in the English language alone, I would reasonably assume that He programmed into all of us a little of that creative nature. With this in mind, I now challenge you, my facebook friends, to thrive in this world without grammatical rules and to go on a word-making inventure. (Don't bother looking it up on dictionary.com. It's not there!) Do not be ashamed. Use your new words. Share them with the world!!! By Olivia Smalley Parks

The Hungry World

Some Koreans munch on theie local dogs, The more suffering, the better the meat, Smashing cats in sacks against brick walls To liquefy in blenders and sell as drinks. While Hindus in India eat no sacred cows, If it motherly moos, keep it off their plates. Gods Shiva and Krishna have bovine ties, So cows are divine: 'dus never touch a steak. Islam belief is very strict that pork's a harmful dish. See, some people think "you become just what you eat." An unclean pig makes morals low and spirits fall away And cause one to grow a snout and cloven, dirty feet. Japanese love to sink their teeth in sashimi oh so pink. They dip raw, thin slices in sherry sweet sauces made of soy, And make horse meat a big part of izakaya essential cuisine. The lucky may get some basashi, fat nag's neck is a special joy. Limeys eat their breakfast treat of dried pig's blood and fat. This peppery thrill is often called blood pudding as its name. Mixed in a black sausage with some oatmeal, barley, and bread, Homer in the great Odyssey gave reference to its fame. Yanomami of South America think cannibalism is quite OK. To add strength for an enemy's defeat nothing do they waste; They reabsorb their closest clan in their cremated remains. The tribe serves dinner eating their ashes with banana paste. In the States a kid will eat 1,500 PB sandwiches before graduation, And a typical American appetite swallows 28 pigs before it dies, Along with 51 pounds of chocolate for the sweet tooth every year. So those other folk might look at us with curious, unbelieving eyes.

The Shadow of Indifference

You let me down

Flat, leveled, busted

By the rushing roadway

Bleeding

Going down slow

You let me down

Embarrassed, humiliated, belittled

In my huge mistake

Alone

Hugging my shaky knees

You let me down

Branded, labeled, stigmatized

On the walk of life

Indicted

Dodging long pointing fingers

You let me down

Gagged, shackled, tethered

To a hanging tree

Suspended

Death dancing jerkingly

You let me down

Empty, gaunt, starved

From the raging famine

Skeletal

Lying in debris

You let me down

Unnoticed, unappreciated, unloved

Within a careless family

Ignored

Wishing to be free

You let me down

Dismembered, discarded, swept

Between cracks of conformity

Buried

Knowing you are just like me

What is Your Pleasure?

What is happy? Temporary at best It’s over-rated Whether you find it Or do it Or just run into it What is happy? Lasts a while It’s temporary Whether you wear it Or drive it Or live in it What is happy? Satisfies a little It’s relative Whether you feel it Or revel in it Or lust for it What is happy? Changes with time It’s dependent Whether you have it now Or expect it soon Or breathe it in What is happy? Lives in point of view It’s priceless Whether you sugar it Or swallow it Or are consumed by it What is happy? Ages every day It’s fickle Whether you play it Or hold it tightly Or wish it back What is happy? Unrestrained by design It’s elusive Whether you box it Or tie it up Or shut it in your room What is happy? Spiritual forever It’s hopeful Whether you read it Or ponder it Or wait patiently on its deliverance.

A New Pet vs. Stranger Survey

Well, I can't say the "Pet vs. Stranger" votes to date are exactly what I expected. I am just about to buy me a yard full of dogs if they are that important as friends. Don't kick me while I'm rolling over, please, but isn't every person we meet and later consider a friend really a stranger at first? No wonder few children want to be left the first day at school. It seems strangers are largely viewed as threats. Are many people saying that pets make a better first impression than strangers, or what? An interesting view in the animal/human worth debate occurred after one of America's worst natural disasters. Hurricane Katrina caused PETA to level a number of accusations and requests in a case against Lousiana State University because of alleged cruelty to animals. These accusations and requests, according to an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education include, but are not limited to: "We believe that Louisiana State University officials must be charged with the cruel abandonment of the thousands of animals who drowned, suffocated, starved or died of dehydration in its laboratories," stated a letter sent by PETA to the attorney general of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr. I find these charges very interesting considering LSU was doing everything in its power to save people's lives during the tragedy and the animals in their facilities were largely a homeless population in the first place. What should the officials have done: Turn the animals out into the flood and certain death or take the risk that they inevitably took and live with the sad consequences? So, does the law have anything it requires of a bystander to save his fellow man? The absence of a generalized duty to rescue is a perennial feature of the first year of law school. Generations of law students have learned of the existence of the no-duty rule by reading hypothetical cases of babies who drowned in puddles while Olympic swimmers stood by and did nothing, and real cases, such as Yania v. Bigan and Kitty Genovese in which bystanders did not intervene or notify the police when someone required rescue -- with tragic results. The no-duty rule prevails in most of the United States, but it is not popular. Interestingly enough, studies have found that groups of people witnessing a tragic event may be less likely to intervene than a single observer. A shared feeling of indifference is tolerated more than a personal episode. When people are alone and represent the only help for a stranger in need, they feel more morally obligated to respond. However, xenophobia, the fear of strangers, seems almost hardwired into the human psyche. It is definitely taught to people very early in life. Understandably, the fear of anything foreign and potentially dangerous is instilled into children for their own protection. Yet, the parable of the Good Samaritan seems to have been eroded by reports of child abduction and abnormal behavior. In fact, very little, if anything, is now expected of youth in respect to their kind treatment of people unknown. Helen Schucman and William Thetford, Professors of Medical Psychology at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, present an interesting alternate to conventional thinking about strangers. Their work, in A Course in Miracles teaches an idea that can sound shocking. A Course in Miracles says that in reality there is no such thing as a stranger, for there is no actual gap between people. Individuals seem to be separate bits of mind stuck away inside different bodies, but in truth they are one (an idea that is taught by many spiritual traditions). And if they are one, then, somewhere inside, "I know you." According to the course, no matter who a person may be, they have known each other forever. If this is true, then there are no strangers; they are just ancient friends. Since I'm sure few bought into the work of Schucman and Thetford, I must slightly change my original post dilemma. Please respond so that I can discover if the changes made any difference in your answer. Let me try a question with a slightly changed scenario. Both your pet and Angelina Jolie (for the male respondants) and Matthew McConaughey (for the female respondants) are drowning. Only one can definitely be saved and the other is certain to die. Who will you save? I assume both of these people are strangers to you. And, assume you are going to survive without injury in your rescue attempt.

If anyone wants a reversal of the scene, let's make the stranger a black female homosexual. I am curious about responses to gender, race and sexual orientation vs. the family pet. Let me leave with a couple of quotes of wisdom:

"Never trust the admiration of an audience who are made more self important by their admiration." --Ranjit Singh Mathoda "The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference." --Elie Wiesel

No Fear?

"No Fear" I've always disliked this logo/slogan/attitude/lifestyle. When I see someone display it proudly as a symbol of macho domination, I question the message. Why? I question whether the motivation behind the slogan is cockiness and intimidation, merely fashion consciousness, or a well-meaning phrase to elicit courage. Please, don't read wrong intentions in my attitude. I know some desperate times require fearlessness in the face of danger or in the defense of life and liberty. I totally agree that little or "no fear" may be required in certain situations. Yet, I think many misinterpret the message here and merely advertise their own personal macho "personas." (Latin for mask) “Fear is the most powerful emotion,” said University of California Los Angeles psychology professor Michael Fanselow. The normal response for dealing with a real threat is either flee or fight. Research shows the brain commands fear reactions, helping create stress hormones that shut down non-emergency functions of the body like immunity and digestion to help the body focus on fighting the perceived threat or running away from it. The assumption that fear is a learned avoidance reaction to potentially dangerous situations is gradually being questioned. Recent studies show that fear may be a genetically determined function of the nervous system. This view receives support form an evolutionary point of view. The ability to detect and anticipate dangerous situations seems to be crucial for survival, and individual learning might not be entirely quick enough to ensure survival chances. (Panksepp J. Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. New York, Oxford, 1998) If a group is portrayed as extremely heroic and another group portrayed as barbarian or inhuman, dehumanization is achieved through fear. This in turn leads to more mistreatment, as it is easier to abuse or hurt a group that has been dehumanized. A cycle develops--someone is hurt, resulting in fear and the demonization of the person or group that hurt them. This, in turn, makes it easier for future wrongdoing to occur. Consider the treatment of Jews by the Nazis. Hitler used fear tactics to control entire groups and to aid genocide. Or consider fearful pressure used by gangs to organize and to carry out violence. The abuse of power generates tremendous fear in many other similar situations. The moral: It's perfectly normal to fear purposeful violence from those who hate us. But with our emotions now calming a bit, perhaps it's time to check our fears against facts. "It's time to get back to life," said terror-victim widow Lisa Beamer before boarding the same flight her husband had taken on September 11th. To be prudent is to be mindful of the realities of how humans die. By so doing, we can take away the bully or the terrorists' most omnipresent weapon: exaggerated fear. Fear is useful while exaggerated fear is largely harmful to our peaceful existence. A "healthy" fear--or fear which has a protective function--can evolve into unhealthy or pathological fear, which can lead to exaggerated or violent behavior. Some researchers then advise, if the threat is not real, the best way to deal with fear is just the opposite: "Wait it out and chill." So, a person who fears too much, especially of unwarranted danger, can be dangerous. Student gunmen often use their perceived fears of popular peer groups to become mass murderers. Likewise, serial killers may develop unnatural fears and hatreds of groups like women to, somehow, justify their hideous crimes. It has been my experience that people who have been put in harm's way under deadly conditions confess to their fear and their God-granted grace to control their worst moments. Combat veterans, for example, readily admit tremendous fear under fire. To deny these feelings of fear, the veterans would be belittling the very real horrors of war. Most interestingly, many veterans of combat carry these fearful moments with them and are very reluctant to discuss them later, partly due to their respect of fallen comrades and partly due to some feelings of guilt for their fateful survival. To close, the Memorial Day weekend is a fitting time to think about our own fears and try to deal with its role in the lives of our loved ones. "No fear" as a statement of character may simply mean "be courageous." However, the most courageous people I have ever met, and fortunately gotten to know, have never once advertised their bravado. Largely, these heroes are a quiet, thankful group who both respect the values of fear and who have overcome the pitfalls of it. "If we take the generally accepted definition of bravery as a quality which knows no fear, I have never seen a brave man. All men are frightened. The more intelligent they are, the more they are frightened." --General George Smith Patton

Who is a Pretender?

People always seem to get angry at the “pretender.” I have been guilty of criticizing other people’s two-faced behavior many times. I think of my youth and all the grand, spirited ideas I told myself back then I would never compromise. At an early point in my life, most decisions I made were black and white in my limited view. I thought I knew exactly what life demanded of an honest individual, and I saw little cause to compromise with false values or standards. After all, I was an Aquarian in the Age of Aquarius. “Time’s they were a-changin’” and I longed to be a positive force in the New Frontier. As time passed and my Technicolor World began slowly to fade, multiple solutions seemed to multiply, once easy decisions became hard to make, and false faces, although still somewhat distasteful, became tinged with wrinkles of reality. I often think of musical influences in my life. Jackson Browne’s song “The Pretender” (1976) seemed to make more and more sense with each passing day. I think the song, in a few words, presents insight into who most of us eventual become. Don’t we all feel a little let heartbroken by circumstances that altered our view of Camelot? At the very least, time calls upon us to question our roles in the real world.In my generation, those immature expectations were all based on love and mutual understanding. “I want to know what became of the changes We waited for love to bring Were they only the fitful dreams Of some greater awakening?”

Then, we realize the necessity of working and facing everyday commonplace images in a world largely unromantic and basically utilitarian. We still see ourselves as unique, necessary cogs in the machinery of our world and feel we can still provide ourselves with every imagined dream of youth. Yet, everything around us seems to point us toward being slaves to necessity. “Caught between the longing for love And the struggle for the legal tender Where the sirens sing and the church bells ring And the junk man pounds his fender. Where the veterans dream of the fight Fast asleep at the traffic light And the children solemnly wait For the ice cream vendor Out into the cool of the evening Strolls the Pretender

He knows that all his hopes and dreams Begin and end there” At some point in our existence, we recognize that a compromise between our values and our temporal condition must be made in order to exist in some kind of harmony. Often stupidly raging at the world or at others for our own apparent lack of control over real outcomes, we sadly experience a departure of hope. “Ah, the laughter of the lovers As they run through the night Leaving nothing for the others But to choose off and fight And tear at the world with all their might While the ships bearing their dreams Sail out of sight” Unfortunately, we admit defeat and prepare to join the vast majority of those who conform to the accepted, albeit often false, standards set by others. Our values often become controlled by monetary concerns, and we look toward the next generation with a greater comprehension of their glorious but hopeless ideals, tried and found untrue by our very own youthful existence. “I'm gonna be a happy idiot And struggle for the legal tender Where the ads take aim and lay their claim To the heart and the soul of the spender And believe in whatever may lie In those things that money can buy Where true love could have been a contender Are you there? Say a prayer for the Pretender. Who started out so young and strong Only to surrender.” Finally, we commit our lives to the drab conditions and boring routines of our base environments. As we exist in less than extravagant lives, we attempt to find someone who can associate with our lost dreams and our present state of affairs, a companion who when found, may help us mutually discover that which we can logically achieve together. “I'm going to rent myself a house In the shade of the freeway Gonna pack my lunch in the morning And go to work each day... I'm gonna find myself a girl Who can show me what laughter means And we'll fill in the missing colors In each other's paint-by-number dreams...” As a last reminder, Browne ends the song with a requiem of refrain that hints of some chance of success for all pretenders. He longs for hope and ample preparation for his fellow com padres in falsehood. Aren’t we all pretenders to some degree? I think so. I am certainly guilty. When someone is being a little ambiguous or dishonest these days, I often recognize the cause and merely laugh to myself. “Say a prayer for the pretender Are you there for the pretender? Say a prayer for the pretender Are you there for the pretender? Are you prepared for the pretender?”

Music and Lyrics by Jackson Browne from the album The Pretender, 1976, song "The Pretender." Asylum Records.

Would You Save a Pet or a Stranger?

I have a question for you. I heard a conversation Thursday afternoon on WLW radio from one of their talk personalities. He asked the audience, “If given a choice, would you save a complete stranger or your pet from dying?” The hypothetical is that the one saved will live and the one ignored will certainly die. (For example, both may be drowning at the same time.) To me, many of the responses he received were unbelievable. Many people would choose to save their pet over a stranger.

I decided to find some responses on the Internet to the same question. Here are some of the actual answers I found that people sent in response to the same question:

If the cameras were on, I'd save the stranger, if no camera's I'd save my beloved pet...I have my lil' doggy, I hate her so much yet I love her so much (it was a rough relationship at first)...and I'll save her...plus if she died it would destroy my wife!

But honestly. I'd save my dog. Because I love my dog. And I don't know the stranger.

If I had to choose between just one of them, I'd most likely save my pet. Still, I'd be racked with guilt for not saving someone's life.

My pets are members of my family who I love and who love me. Without hesitation I'd save my pet first & if the stranger can't hang on a bit longer then so be it.

I can’t get another dog like this one and the stranger can turn out to be a killer that tried to kill my pet!

I know my pet. I love my pet. My pet may be a different species than me, but my pet is still part of my tribe. A complete stranger is just that -- a complete stranger. Now, in principle I value human life above the life of an animal, but it doesn't follow that I value the life of any given human above the life of a particular animal.

My pet probably. I don't care much for humans and human interaction.

I’d save a pet over a complete stranger any day.

First off, the world is overpopulated, one less human can’t be too bad in the grand scheme of things. Secondly, I love my dogs, and couldn’t care less about some random guy that just dropped dead—happens all the time.

My pet. For all I know that person could be a crackhead, a murderer, or a rapist... I'm not obligated to protect random people (ESPECIALLY MALES). A male should be able to protect himself. …my dog is my obligation. I own the dog, it cant take care of itself, my dog relies on me to feed it, water it, take it out, and even protect it against some things. I would save my dog.

Of course, the logical follow up to these responses would be, “What if the human were you and someone else was faced with saving your life over their pet’s?” I didn’t find any responses to that question, but it begs for answers (especially from those above). I know some of the people above were probably young, but they were old enough to type the answers you see. What does this simple survey tell us about complacent individuals in our society?

To equate the value of any human’s life to an animal’s life seems ridiculous, stranger or not. I just wonder how human companionship became so powerful over man’s humanity for man. Have you ever saved a life? I have been lucky enough to do that a couple of times- fire and drowning. Both were strangers and neither were in any condition to thank me for the favor. My point here is that the act of saving a life is reward enough.

Here are some statistics on pets from the American Veterinary Medical Association. I include these stats to show the relative importance of pets to Americans. I do understand the tremendous attachments and possible benefits of owning a pet although I wonder how well cared for the majority of pets truly are.

Dogs Cats Birds Horses

Percent of households owning 37.2% 32.4% 3.9% 1.8%

Number of households owning 43,021,000 37,460,000 4,453,000 2,087,000

Average number owned per household 1.7 2.2 2.5 3.5

Total number in United States 72,114,000 81,721,000 11,199,000 7,295,000

The Bible, quoting Jesus, states,"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:12-13, RSV)

The word “friends” can certainly apply to human/animal relationships; however, to interpret this quote as “pet significant” would be stretching the theme of “the greatest gift.” I propose the life of any stranger is greater in worth and importance than the life of any animal. Whether you love your pet more than most humans, feel certain people are inferior to pets, or just don’t care for strangers, you must believe a human in need demands your immediate attention. The loss of a pet negatively affects its owners and realistically receives little or no attention from others.

I defense of animal lovers, I wish to include a quote from one of my favorite political and philosophical figures in history. I believe a distinction can still be made in Gandhi’s defense of defenseless animals. That distinction is: Gandhi is speaking of protecting animals from the cruelty of man, not protecting a human life in an accidental circumstance.

What Gandhi Said

"The greatness of a nation and its Moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated."

"To my mind the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man."