Some are calling the best movie of the year, one which I have not yet seen, The Blindeside. It's supposed to be one of those happy-feel-good movies, and better yet, it's based on a true story. My mom said, "It's a movie about how people are supposed to behave."
I haven't seen it, but I know the basic gist of it - a woman takes in a boy who has no friends, no family, and no future. She raises him as her own, and he has a glorious career. A movie about how people are supposed to behave.
After the earthquake in Haiti, I saw several news programs about American parents worried about their adopted Haitian orphans. Apparently the process takes a while, and they are unsure if their adopted children survived. Watching these programs, it occurred to me that if there aren't a lot of orphans in Haiti now, there soon will be.
Why can't we all adopt a Haitian orphan? Or an orphan from any underpriveleged part of the world for that matter, or an American? I have discussed the matter with a few people, and they have some good excuses.
1. They are too old to be raising a child.
2. They don't have enough money to take in another child.
3. (This is mine) Their lives affairs are not in order to take in a child (they would be a single parent, for example).
However, in any one of these three situations, these people would still be able to offer a child a better life than the alternative. Do you think a child plucked from starvation cares if his parents are older than all his friends' parents? Do you think not having college paid for or not having designer shoes is anything compared to the pain of starvation or neglect? And if I really could lift a child out of those situations, isn't a caring mom who is doing her best and has to use child care occasionally better than a crowded, dirty orphanage?
It's what we should do...it's how we should behave. And yet we don't.
The truth is, saving children is one of many noble causes that we can throw ourselves into. Why not work to feed the villages they come from? Provide clean water and shelter? Help out at homeless shelters and pregnancy crisis centers in our own country? Send money.
It's still not enough. Recently I was challenged to think about what the world would be like if every Christian lived the ideals of our faith again. What if each one of us took up the banner of a cause - any cause - and lived it with passion? But the problem is, most of us don't have that kind of passion. At most we have the volunteer a few hours a week and donate a percentage of our paycheck kind of passion.
And I am ashamed to think I don't have it either. I recently started to get involved in a cause I was passionate about, but work situations got in the way. Now that I have free time, I keep finding excuses not to jump back in. I am busy. They are not open. I need to call and forget. I deserve to relax a bit after the job I just got out of.
So this is my new commitment - to call those people this week and jump back in, and I challenge each of you to become passionate about a cause. If all of us did something big, the world really would be a better place. And go rent The Blindeside. It's a movie about how we are supposed to behave.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Truth About Road Rage
We all have road rage. Although there are many who would not admit it, ("The other drivers are the ones with the rage, not me!") it's still there. Think about any time you have "tskd" or sighed or frowned or shrieked because of the actions of another driver. If you have shouted out loud in your car, cursed another driver, or rammed your car into theirs, you probably have road rage at some level.
So why does driving, even when we have no where to be, stress us out?
Don't you like to think of driving as a car commercial - zooming aimlessly around mountain curves or through the desert? Or perhaps just going for a country drive - taking in the scenery. Although analysts think it may be dying, America has a "car culture," mostly because the car represents the American spirit. It represents independence, achievement, versatility, and invention. We love driving to work rather than taking trains or buses because of the independence of leaving when we wish and arriving when we wish.
We just don't take into consideration those other pesky drivers.
You see, the root of all road rage is a frustration because of a lack of control. Add to this problem the perception that the cause of that frustration may be a car - an inanimate object -rather than another human. (We also have a need for speed, as objects in motion tend to stay in motion).
Think about the scenarios you find yourself in while driving. Traffic. This one gets to me - we are all in the same situation, but no one wants to do anything about it. When I am sitting on the highway doing nothing, I wonder why the other cars (as opposed to the people in them) didn't take the bus. I wonder what granny-lady two miles down the road is holding us up. And I wonder why the concept of merging is so hard. I can't control how many drivers are on the road at any given time, and it frustrates me.
(Frankly, rush hour traffic always gets me logistically speaking because the highway goes on forever - if the cars in the front of all the entire traffic are moving at the speed limit, and the cars behind them, and the cars behind them - what's the problem? Why does it get to such a problem?)
One exhibition of road rage I employ involves tail gating. I'm a little nervous about getting in a wreck, so I don't do it to the extreme that others do. But there's nothing more frustrating than being blocked behind someone going under the speed limit. Especially if there's no one in front of that person. And especially if you're in the middle of a three-lane highway blocked in on all sides by lollygaggers. While people debate (oftentimes with the police) the accetable ranges to exceed the speed limit, I usually think of it as a common courtesy to at least go the speed limit. But I can't control how fast other drivers go.
I get frustrated at a red light because I have no control. I have no control of when the light will change. I have no control of whether the car in front of me will go through the yellow light or stop early. If I am turning right, I have no control over whether the car in front of me will also turn right, therefore allowing me to continue my forward momentum.
The final example I will give is based on a lack of control as well as something that fights against all the rules of fairness we were indoctrinated with as kids - right of way. From the time we are five years old we are taught about lines and how people are served in the order they get in line. We are taught that the people behind us will patiently wait while we take our turn. However, on the road, these rules do not matter. If I am turning left (anywhere) I can be stuck there for hours while oncoming traffic keeps on coming and coming. Even though I was probably at that intersection before the other cars even considered taking a trip, I still have to yield.
Add to this frustration when you cannot predict the movement of other cars. Blinkers are a great tool when used properly. Enough people have thumbed their noses at the concept that it has ruined it for everyone.
The same frustration comes with lights. They have become fairly predictable for me. However, sometimes they do not follow the pattern I ascribe to them. Or perhaps they last too long. Or they didn't recognize that I had pulled up in time to give me the arrow (you see - first come first serve only is a good rule when it works in my interest).
Let's just face it, American spirit or not, the minute we put the key in the ignition, we give up a large part of our freedom, and it's not just limited to following the laws. While you may choose a career with any level of personal interaction that suits you best, when you get on the road, you have to interact with all kinds and play nice. There's no real rhyme or reason to it - you have to dawdle behind granny because...well, what other choice do you have?
And that, my friends, is the truth about road rage.
So why does driving, even when we have no where to be, stress us out?
Don't you like to think of driving as a car commercial - zooming aimlessly around mountain curves or through the desert? Or perhaps just going for a country drive - taking in the scenery. Although analysts think it may be dying, America has a "car culture," mostly because the car represents the American spirit. It represents independence, achievement, versatility, and invention. We love driving to work rather than taking trains or buses because of the independence of leaving when we wish and arriving when we wish.
We just don't take into consideration those other pesky drivers.
You see, the root of all road rage is a frustration because of a lack of control. Add to this problem the perception that the cause of that frustration may be a car - an inanimate object -rather than another human. (We also have a need for speed, as objects in motion tend to stay in motion).
Think about the scenarios you find yourself in while driving. Traffic. This one gets to me - we are all in the same situation, but no one wants to do anything about it. When I am sitting on the highway doing nothing, I wonder why the other cars (as opposed to the people in them) didn't take the bus. I wonder what granny-lady two miles down the road is holding us up. And I wonder why the concept of merging is so hard. I can't control how many drivers are on the road at any given time, and it frustrates me.
(Frankly, rush hour traffic always gets me logistically speaking because the highway goes on forever - if the cars in the front of all the entire traffic are moving at the speed limit, and the cars behind them, and the cars behind them - what's the problem? Why does it get to such a problem?)
One exhibition of road rage I employ involves tail gating. I'm a little nervous about getting in a wreck, so I don't do it to the extreme that others do. But there's nothing more frustrating than being blocked behind someone going under the speed limit. Especially if there's no one in front of that person. And especially if you're in the middle of a three-lane highway blocked in on all sides by lollygaggers. While people debate (oftentimes with the police) the accetable ranges to exceed the speed limit, I usually think of it as a common courtesy to at least go the speed limit. But I can't control how fast other drivers go.
I get frustrated at a red light because I have no control. I have no control of when the light will change. I have no control of whether the car in front of me will go through the yellow light or stop early. If I am turning right, I have no control over whether the car in front of me will also turn right, therefore allowing me to continue my forward momentum.
The final example I will give is based on a lack of control as well as something that fights against all the rules of fairness we were indoctrinated with as kids - right of way. From the time we are five years old we are taught about lines and how people are served in the order they get in line. We are taught that the people behind us will patiently wait while we take our turn. However, on the road, these rules do not matter. If I am turning left (anywhere) I can be stuck there for hours while oncoming traffic keeps on coming and coming. Even though I was probably at that intersection before the other cars even considered taking a trip, I still have to yield.
Add to this frustration when you cannot predict the movement of other cars. Blinkers are a great tool when used properly. Enough people have thumbed their noses at the concept that it has ruined it for everyone.
The same frustration comes with lights. They have become fairly predictable for me. However, sometimes they do not follow the pattern I ascribe to them. Or perhaps they last too long. Or they didn't recognize that I had pulled up in time to give me the arrow (you see - first come first serve only is a good rule when it works in my interest).
Let's just face it, American spirit or not, the minute we put the key in the ignition, we give up a large part of our freedom, and it's not just limited to following the laws. While you may choose a career with any level of personal interaction that suits you best, when you get on the road, you have to interact with all kinds and play nice. There's no real rhyme or reason to it - you have to dawdle behind granny because...well, what other choice do you have?
And that, my friends, is the truth about road rage.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Living the High Life
I have usually thought that I would like to be fabulously wealthy or else a bit on the poor side, but not somewhere in between - such as moderately wealthy. While it might be obvious why I would enjoy being "fabulously wealthy," it may seem stranger that I would prefer, for lack of a better word, lower class to middle class.
The answer, of course, comes from the challenge. Just for definitions sake, let me explain what I mean by fabulously wealthy, moderately wealthy, and somewhat poor. Fabulously wealthy means that, without having to have a job or even "manage" my finances unless I choose to, I can do whatever I want - take vacations, buy a house, buy a car...without thinking of the financial consequences. I believe a sum of at least $5 million might put me in this area, although with inflation and such, it might take more. Obviously fabulously wealthy is a crazy dream.
Moderately wealthy is what most of us are, or what we might call "middle class." You may want to picture "upper middle class," however. Moderately wealthy means you manage to pay the bills, put a bit (or a large chunk really) into savings, and still have plenty left over to spend or splurge as you see fit. This means that, while you cannot have both a new luxury car and a boat, you can have one, or you can have both in a few more years of hard work. Moderately wealthy is full of perceptions. Maybe the object that I am choosing between is not so pricey as a car (do I buy a book or a DVD?), but there is disposable income involved.
Somewhat poor is somewhere between making minimum wage and...well, moderately wealthy. It is where you don't have to choose between the book and DVD because you likely can't have either, where you potentially work multiple jobs, and where you likely have government subsidies. So what's the advantage?
To me, moderately wealthy is not a challenge, especially since most Americans fall into the range somewhere between wanting a book and a boat. An income earner of moderate wealth can hope to work himself up from wanting a book to a boat, but there is little chance of any of us becoming fabulously wealthy. That kind of wealth is inherited, won, or earned in those hard to come by, hard to perform jobs.
So while it would be nice to dream about, if I want to live like I'm moderately wealthy, I have to actually spend money that I have earned. Every purchase or decision has a drawback associated with it. Being moderately wealthy brings to mind the common phrase, "You can't take it with you." Why should I struggle to get from book to boat if I'm still going to be in the same relative class?
No, an actual struggle would be nice. Throughout my college years I felt as though I was living in a board game. You budget. You work. You spend less than you make. And then, boom - I had a job that paid all the bills I had to pay (just not all the bills I wanted to pay). There is no uncertainty or excitement in life.
So I have created a false sense of poverty. I don't stick to it as much as I should - I still find myself eating out or being wasteful in another way (books...I have to buy my books). But I throw everything I can into savings in the hope that one day I can jump from book to boat in an instant, even though I would be content to live in the book class the rest of my life.
On the other hand, I have been reminded that there are advantages to being Moderately Wealthy, and I can apply them to making my life more pleasant. Today I noticed a coworker with a unique coffee cup, and I realized that there are simple ways to make yourself feel fabulously wealthy without actually so being.
1. Chinaware and Dishes
One advantage of being moderately wealthy is that we can make purchases that are not a necessity. My dishes were given to me by my well-meaning mother. I did not pick them out. I did not register for them. They are quaint. But not fabulous. I prefer to leave them that way because I don't really care to go spending money just so the china I (and usually I alone) eat off is more attractive.
However, my coworker's mug reminded me that there are advantages to picking out some great dishes. She was drinking coffee from a clear glas mug, which is something I only associate with the high life. You know, you sometimes see such glassware on cruises or first class cabins or fancy hotels. And yet, here she was in a 9-5 office sipping from a piece of art.
I imagined myself sipping out of that cup...let's face it, coffee's coffee, and it probably would get cold so quickly...but every time I lifted the mug to my lips, I would imagine myself a princess and dream of a sunlit breakfast room...I have nothing to do all day, and after I finish my coffee, I will sit in the garden and read...ah the high life.
Although I haven't tried it, I'm sure a similar effect could be produced if you ate dinner on fine china. I am sure some fine looking china can be bought at very reasonable prices - the conveniences of a modern world!
2. Moderate Alcohol Consumption
While the media have done a most excellent job of pointing out the perils of smoking, they have not taken the same steps with drinking. Perhaps this reflects a societal acceptance of one over the other. "Going clubbing" has been romanticized, and many young people believe the best way to spend their nights off is to go to a bar and drink until they can't remember anything. Personally, I would rather remember what I do in my free time because otherwise it feels wasted. However, Hollywood has done an excellent job of pointing out a more sophisticated, moderate type drinker.
I recently watched a movie where the main characters would meet over cocktails - sometimes in an "upscale" bar, sometimes at home. Over the holidays I watched Frasier entertain his guests by offering them a glass of wine or brandy (or was it sherry)? Formal dinners of any sort are accompanied by wine - not water, and punch is always spiked.
Whether moderate alcohol consumption is advantageous to your health is still an uncertain debate, but the jury came back long ago and announced that moderate drinking was not detrimental to your health. Many people drink a glass of wine with dinner for heart problems. I am told alcohol (red wine specifically) may help bust belly fat. The myth of a "night cap" helping you to sleep has been busted, but I have no problem with someone drinking in the comfort of their own home.
With the exception of beer (which is nasty and, I believe, almost crude), alcohol can have an image of sophistication. While I am neither advocating or fighting against moderate alcohol consumption, I have found its addition to my routine makes me feel classy.
I don't mean I drink a glass of wine every night. Actually, I would call myself a light drinker. What I speak of is the relaxing effect pouring your pop, juice, or even water into a wine or martini glass can have! Indeed, my new favorite hobby is to pour my Mountain Dew into a wine glass, open my blinds, and stand in the morning sun working on my crossword puzzle.
Yes, blame Hollywood and warn weaker minds against the real dangers of alcohol, but even without the buzz, it can add a hint of sophistication to your life.
I could go on about ways to feel like you are living the high life while still on a budget. However, it's up to your imagination. As someone with disposable income, you can choose how to spend your money. Perhaps you want to fly first clas - just once - on a family vacation. Or visit the extremely pricey restaraunt even when it's not a special date. It's your choice.
I, on the other hand, am going to curl up with my wine goblet, looking forward to when the sun streams in my room, and I will remember to keep my eye out for clear glass coffee mugs so that I, too, can feel like a princess.
The answer, of course, comes from the challenge. Just for definitions sake, let me explain what I mean by fabulously wealthy, moderately wealthy, and somewhat poor. Fabulously wealthy means that, without having to have a job or even "manage" my finances unless I choose to, I can do whatever I want - take vacations, buy a house, buy a car...without thinking of the financial consequences. I believe a sum of at least $5 million might put me in this area, although with inflation and such, it might take more. Obviously fabulously wealthy is a crazy dream.
Moderately wealthy is what most of us are, or what we might call "middle class." You may want to picture "upper middle class," however. Moderately wealthy means you manage to pay the bills, put a bit (or a large chunk really) into savings, and still have plenty left over to spend or splurge as you see fit. This means that, while you cannot have both a new luxury car and a boat, you can have one, or you can have both in a few more years of hard work. Moderately wealthy is full of perceptions. Maybe the object that I am choosing between is not so pricey as a car (do I buy a book or a DVD?), but there is disposable income involved.
Somewhat poor is somewhere between making minimum wage and...well, moderately wealthy. It is where you don't have to choose between the book and DVD because you likely can't have either, where you potentially work multiple jobs, and where you likely have government subsidies. So what's the advantage?
To me, moderately wealthy is not a challenge, especially since most Americans fall into the range somewhere between wanting a book and a boat. An income earner of moderate wealth can hope to work himself up from wanting a book to a boat, but there is little chance of any of us becoming fabulously wealthy. That kind of wealth is inherited, won, or earned in those hard to come by, hard to perform jobs.
So while it would be nice to dream about, if I want to live like I'm moderately wealthy, I have to actually spend money that I have earned. Every purchase or decision has a drawback associated with it. Being moderately wealthy brings to mind the common phrase, "You can't take it with you." Why should I struggle to get from book to boat if I'm still going to be in the same relative class?
No, an actual struggle would be nice. Throughout my college years I felt as though I was living in a board game. You budget. You work. You spend less than you make. And then, boom - I had a job that paid all the bills I had to pay (just not all the bills I wanted to pay). There is no uncertainty or excitement in life.
So I have created a false sense of poverty. I don't stick to it as much as I should - I still find myself eating out or being wasteful in another way (books...I have to buy my books). But I throw everything I can into savings in the hope that one day I can jump from book to boat in an instant, even though I would be content to live in the book class the rest of my life.
On the other hand, I have been reminded that there are advantages to being Moderately Wealthy, and I can apply them to making my life more pleasant. Today I noticed a coworker with a unique coffee cup, and I realized that there are simple ways to make yourself feel fabulously wealthy without actually so being.
1. Chinaware and Dishes
One advantage of being moderately wealthy is that we can make purchases that are not a necessity. My dishes were given to me by my well-meaning mother. I did not pick them out. I did not register for them. They are quaint. But not fabulous. I prefer to leave them that way because I don't really care to go spending money just so the china I (and usually I alone) eat off is more attractive.
However, my coworker's mug reminded me that there are advantages to picking out some great dishes. She was drinking coffee from a clear glas mug, which is something I only associate with the high life. You know, you sometimes see such glassware on cruises or first class cabins or fancy hotels. And yet, here she was in a 9-5 office sipping from a piece of art.
I imagined myself sipping out of that cup...let's face it, coffee's coffee, and it probably would get cold so quickly...but every time I lifted the mug to my lips, I would imagine myself a princess and dream of a sunlit breakfast room...I have nothing to do all day, and after I finish my coffee, I will sit in the garden and read...ah the high life.
Although I haven't tried it, I'm sure a similar effect could be produced if you ate dinner on fine china. I am sure some fine looking china can be bought at very reasonable prices - the conveniences of a modern world!
2. Moderate Alcohol Consumption
While the media have done a most excellent job of pointing out the perils of smoking, they have not taken the same steps with drinking. Perhaps this reflects a societal acceptance of one over the other. "Going clubbing" has been romanticized, and many young people believe the best way to spend their nights off is to go to a bar and drink until they can't remember anything. Personally, I would rather remember what I do in my free time because otherwise it feels wasted. However, Hollywood has done an excellent job of pointing out a more sophisticated, moderate type drinker.
I recently watched a movie where the main characters would meet over cocktails - sometimes in an "upscale" bar, sometimes at home. Over the holidays I watched Frasier entertain his guests by offering them a glass of wine or brandy (or was it sherry)? Formal dinners of any sort are accompanied by wine - not water, and punch is always spiked.
Whether moderate alcohol consumption is advantageous to your health is still an uncertain debate, but the jury came back long ago and announced that moderate drinking was not detrimental to your health. Many people drink a glass of wine with dinner for heart problems. I am told alcohol (red wine specifically) may help bust belly fat. The myth of a "night cap" helping you to sleep has been busted, but I have no problem with someone drinking in the comfort of their own home.
With the exception of beer (which is nasty and, I believe, almost crude), alcohol can have an image of sophistication. While I am neither advocating or fighting against moderate alcohol consumption, I have found its addition to my routine makes me feel classy.
I don't mean I drink a glass of wine every night. Actually, I would call myself a light drinker. What I speak of is the relaxing effect pouring your pop, juice, or even water into a wine or martini glass can have! Indeed, my new favorite hobby is to pour my Mountain Dew into a wine glass, open my blinds, and stand in the morning sun working on my crossword puzzle.
Yes, blame Hollywood and warn weaker minds against the real dangers of alcohol, but even without the buzz, it can add a hint of sophistication to your life.
I could go on about ways to feel like you are living the high life while still on a budget. However, it's up to your imagination. As someone with disposable income, you can choose how to spend your money. Perhaps you want to fly first clas - just once - on a family vacation. Or visit the extremely pricey restaraunt even when it's not a special date. It's your choice.
I, on the other hand, am going to curl up with my wine goblet, looking forward to when the sun streams in my room, and I will remember to keep my eye out for clear glass coffee mugs so that I, too, can feel like a princess.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
In recent months as I have followed the news, politics, economics, and even observed my own peers, I have noticed class envy as I have never seen it before. Pursuit of wealth is one of the building blocks of a capitalistic society, but there is a growing sentiment that a certain amount of wealth can be too much.
How much is too much? One blogger I read wanted to tax 100% of earnings above $75,000. Politicians throw around ideas of higher taxes for the "wealthiest" which they quantify as people making over $200 - $250 thousand a year. Other news talks about capping CEO salaries and benefits at $500,000 a year. Is there such a thing as making too much money?
Well, first of all, before someone on the outside can sit and declare a salary as "too high" they need to determine the circumstances. While I would LOVE to be paid $75,000 a year, if I lived in New York City or California, I would be pretty upset about that wage and might even find myself barely scraping by, due to the high cost of living. In addition, what if you are a father of several children with a stay at home wife? Would $75,000 cut it?
Many people make it on less, and I applaud them. I am a huge proponent of living within your means, whatever those are. But I am not against bettering your situation either. Sure, making $250 grand a year would allow pretty much anyone anywhere to live comfortably. But does that justify capping salaries and taxing high earners?
I'd like to look at two points. First of all, why are these people paid so much? And secondly, why does it bother the rest of us that they make so much? The answer to the second question will help explain why we justify out attitudes against these people.
I have seen the business world. I have seen the "fast track." And I got off of it. Having seen the fast track, I can tell you exactly why people who make so much are paid so well. It is because they have worked hard for it. Imagine for a minute the jobs that would pay six figures. What do you think about? Doctors, lawyers, CEO's, accountants and wall street financiers, small (but successful) small business owners.
What do these people have in common? They have all worked hard to be where they are. Doctors go through years and years of medical school and come out the other side with high debts. In addition, many work long hours and are often on call. The same is true for lawyers and businessmen. Small business owners often work seven days a week and work years before they start to see a payoff, and many fail.
I have seen how you can jump on the "fast track" to the top. I was in public accounting for a few years. If you are willing to work 60-100 hours a week for five or six years, you, too, can make six figures. If you are willing to work them for 15, you can be a partner and make LOTS of six figures. You can be a millionaire by the time you are 40, if you are smart.
But then what? Well, you continue to make your huge salary as a partner in a large firm, or you become an officer at a corporation. Either way, you work long hours and weekends and holidays. You rarely see your family. You have a huge house you rarely enjoy. You can hire a nanny and a cook and a maid because you have no time to do household chores yourself.
Further, in these careers, putting hours in at work is not the least of your sacrifices. You are a face - an important money making machine for your company. You are expected to stay fit, to look good, to dress nice, to drive a great car, and to attend banquets and parties. You donate your money to charity and you donate your time (or find people who work for you who will donate theirs).
And you go through a wife or two or three, as each one tires of waiting up at night. Unable to commit time to work on a relationship which was not built solidly to begin with, you are one of the lucky few if you never experience a divorce. And these days, if you marry before you are in your forties, you are also one of the lucky few.
And that is why these people make so much money. If the anticipated reward was not so high, they would not sacrifice so much. Companies need someone to run them, and these people need to be experienced and well trained. How much more experience can they get other than putting in 80 hour weeks for 20 years?
And now to why people are so envious. I admit, I sometimes wish I had the "easy" life. I, too, look at large houses and dream about what it would be like to come home to them. It would be nice to do something without budgeting for it. It would be great to travel on a private jet to exotic locations and attend balls. But I walked away from that life, because ultimately I can be happier with simple things.
So why are we so envious? Well I think in a way we are hard on ourselves. We all made a decision to give up that life in one way or another. We decided the hours were too long. We decided we weren't interested in being a doctor. We decided not to go to college. We didn't want to take a risk of opening our own business.
Being envious of high-earners is similar to being envious to someone who found a great sweater 80% off. We both had the potential to get the bargain, but only one of us went out hunting for it.
True, money is necessary for survival, but there are other things that are good and necessary. We all need water to drink and air to breathe, but if you throw me into a pool of fresh water, I will probably focus on getting air and not stop to take a drink. The same is true of all of us. As we go through life, we will have to make decisions based on our circumstances that often result in giving up someting else.
Many choose not to go to college - they save time and money by jumping into the workforce. There are jobs that do not require a college degree that pay enough to make a decent living, just as there are college degrees that will not get you a decent job anywhere.
Is that why we are envious? Because we know that we are ultimately the ones to blame for our economic state?
In addition, class envy transcends classes. Those who make $75,000 envy those who make six figures, and those who make six figures envy those who make seven. I think the reason we envy them is because it is easier. We all know how hard it is to make that kind of money. Someone who says that "no one deserves" to make more than $75,000 would jump at the chance to have an $80,000 job. However, if I said they had to work 75 hours a week for it, they might not be so quick to jump.
One final point - although you sometimes hear it with sports figures, I almost never hear people complain about the salaries that celebrities make. Being a movie or rock star is a hard life, too - it also requires long hours, lots of hours, and the paparazzi hounding you day in and day out. And yet, I almost never hear someone say, "They paid him $22 million to be in that movie?! No one should ever make that much!"
Why is it that the hard working Americans who make millions are hated while the Americans who bring home a load of dough from making one movie are idolized? I often see celebrities as getting paid oodles to do something they love, but a lawyer working late nights all alone is probably working hard to desperately hold on to his dream. What is the difference?
Many, I think, believe that if a lawyer's pay were cut in half, they might see a raise somehow. They see a company go through layoffs while the executives still make six figures or more. However, put things in perspective. Depending on the number of layoffs, a company could probably pay their CEO nothing and still not make up for the money they are trying to save by laying off their workforce. In addition, as mentioned before, the CEO makes such a high salary because he has to make the hard choices. Does anyone think the President laughs with glee when he sends troops out to a war zone? So do they really think CEO's enjoy announcing layoffs? No, they look at all the options and try to do what is best for the company.
Like it or not, money motivates people. If you had invested a large amount of money in a company, and the board came to you and said, "We have to hire a new CEO. We can hire a young man who just graduated from community college with a liberal arts degree and pay him $50,000 a year or we can hire the man who took Big Company X from the bring of bankruptcy and turned it into a profitable company in just five years, but he wants us to pay him $5 million a year." What would you say? (Believe me, if you split that $5 million among all the shareholders, you'd probably get back less than a dime). That salary is an investment - and it's an investment being made for you. This is what happens with companies all the time.
Class envy is completely out of place in America today. While we all have the potential to realize our dreams, many choose not to because they look for an easier route. I do not envy high earners, but I do respect them. And I know that this country could not run without these people - and that these people would not be motivated to go out and run the country if there were not a high motivation attached.
I'm not saying to go out and hug your doctor or send a thank you note to a local CEO. But we should all be more aware of what America would be like without these people. Because a country where there are no high earners - well, that's Communist Russia, and is that what we really want?
How much is too much? One blogger I read wanted to tax 100% of earnings above $75,000. Politicians throw around ideas of higher taxes for the "wealthiest" which they quantify as people making over $200 - $250 thousand a year. Other news talks about capping CEO salaries and benefits at $500,000 a year. Is there such a thing as making too much money?
Well, first of all, before someone on the outside can sit and declare a salary as "too high" they need to determine the circumstances. While I would LOVE to be paid $75,000 a year, if I lived in New York City or California, I would be pretty upset about that wage and might even find myself barely scraping by, due to the high cost of living. In addition, what if you are a father of several children with a stay at home wife? Would $75,000 cut it?
Many people make it on less, and I applaud them. I am a huge proponent of living within your means, whatever those are. But I am not against bettering your situation either. Sure, making $250 grand a year would allow pretty much anyone anywhere to live comfortably. But does that justify capping salaries and taxing high earners?
I'd like to look at two points. First of all, why are these people paid so much? And secondly, why does it bother the rest of us that they make so much? The answer to the second question will help explain why we justify out attitudes against these people.
I have seen the business world. I have seen the "fast track." And I got off of it. Having seen the fast track, I can tell you exactly why people who make so much are paid so well. It is because they have worked hard for it. Imagine for a minute the jobs that would pay six figures. What do you think about? Doctors, lawyers, CEO's, accountants and wall street financiers, small (but successful) small business owners.
What do these people have in common? They have all worked hard to be where they are. Doctors go through years and years of medical school and come out the other side with high debts. In addition, many work long hours and are often on call. The same is true for lawyers and businessmen. Small business owners often work seven days a week and work years before they start to see a payoff, and many fail.
I have seen how you can jump on the "fast track" to the top. I was in public accounting for a few years. If you are willing to work 60-100 hours a week for five or six years, you, too, can make six figures. If you are willing to work them for 15, you can be a partner and make LOTS of six figures. You can be a millionaire by the time you are 40, if you are smart.
But then what? Well, you continue to make your huge salary as a partner in a large firm, or you become an officer at a corporation. Either way, you work long hours and weekends and holidays. You rarely see your family. You have a huge house you rarely enjoy. You can hire a nanny and a cook and a maid because you have no time to do household chores yourself.
Further, in these careers, putting hours in at work is not the least of your sacrifices. You are a face - an important money making machine for your company. You are expected to stay fit, to look good, to dress nice, to drive a great car, and to attend banquets and parties. You donate your money to charity and you donate your time (or find people who work for you who will donate theirs).
And you go through a wife or two or three, as each one tires of waiting up at night. Unable to commit time to work on a relationship which was not built solidly to begin with, you are one of the lucky few if you never experience a divorce. And these days, if you marry before you are in your forties, you are also one of the lucky few.
And that is why these people make so much money. If the anticipated reward was not so high, they would not sacrifice so much. Companies need someone to run them, and these people need to be experienced and well trained. How much more experience can they get other than putting in 80 hour weeks for 20 years?
And now to why people are so envious. I admit, I sometimes wish I had the "easy" life. I, too, look at large houses and dream about what it would be like to come home to them. It would be nice to do something without budgeting for it. It would be great to travel on a private jet to exotic locations and attend balls. But I walked away from that life, because ultimately I can be happier with simple things.
So why are we so envious? Well I think in a way we are hard on ourselves. We all made a decision to give up that life in one way or another. We decided the hours were too long. We decided we weren't interested in being a doctor. We decided not to go to college. We didn't want to take a risk of opening our own business.
Being envious of high-earners is similar to being envious to someone who found a great sweater 80% off. We both had the potential to get the bargain, but only one of us went out hunting for it.
True, money is necessary for survival, but there are other things that are good and necessary. We all need water to drink and air to breathe, but if you throw me into a pool of fresh water, I will probably focus on getting air and not stop to take a drink. The same is true of all of us. As we go through life, we will have to make decisions based on our circumstances that often result in giving up someting else.
Many choose not to go to college - they save time and money by jumping into the workforce. There are jobs that do not require a college degree that pay enough to make a decent living, just as there are college degrees that will not get you a decent job anywhere.
Is that why we are envious? Because we know that we are ultimately the ones to blame for our economic state?
In addition, class envy transcends classes. Those who make $75,000 envy those who make six figures, and those who make six figures envy those who make seven. I think the reason we envy them is because it is easier. We all know how hard it is to make that kind of money. Someone who says that "no one deserves" to make more than $75,000 would jump at the chance to have an $80,000 job. However, if I said they had to work 75 hours a week for it, they might not be so quick to jump.
One final point - although you sometimes hear it with sports figures, I almost never hear people complain about the salaries that celebrities make. Being a movie or rock star is a hard life, too - it also requires long hours, lots of hours, and the paparazzi hounding you day in and day out. And yet, I almost never hear someone say, "They paid him $22 million to be in that movie?! No one should ever make that much!"
Why is it that the hard working Americans who make millions are hated while the Americans who bring home a load of dough from making one movie are idolized? I often see celebrities as getting paid oodles to do something they love, but a lawyer working late nights all alone is probably working hard to desperately hold on to his dream. What is the difference?
Many, I think, believe that if a lawyer's pay were cut in half, they might see a raise somehow. They see a company go through layoffs while the executives still make six figures or more. However, put things in perspective. Depending on the number of layoffs, a company could probably pay their CEO nothing and still not make up for the money they are trying to save by laying off their workforce. In addition, as mentioned before, the CEO makes such a high salary because he has to make the hard choices. Does anyone think the President laughs with glee when he sends troops out to a war zone? So do they really think CEO's enjoy announcing layoffs? No, they look at all the options and try to do what is best for the company.
Like it or not, money motivates people. If you had invested a large amount of money in a company, and the board came to you and said, "We have to hire a new CEO. We can hire a young man who just graduated from community college with a liberal arts degree and pay him $50,000 a year or we can hire the man who took Big Company X from the bring of bankruptcy and turned it into a profitable company in just five years, but he wants us to pay him $5 million a year." What would you say? (Believe me, if you split that $5 million among all the shareholders, you'd probably get back less than a dime). That salary is an investment - and it's an investment being made for you. This is what happens with companies all the time.
Class envy is completely out of place in America today. While we all have the potential to realize our dreams, many choose not to because they look for an easier route. I do not envy high earners, but I do respect them. And I know that this country could not run without these people - and that these people would not be motivated to go out and run the country if there were not a high motivation attached.
I'm not saying to go out and hug your doctor or send a thank you note to a local CEO. But we should all be more aware of what America would be like without these people. Because a country where there are no high earners - well, that's Communist Russia, and is that what we really want?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Fatima
One of the great tragedies that resulted from the Protestant revolution in the 16th century was the splitting of Christianity not just between Protetstant and Catholic, but into two cultures. today all Christians share certain key cultural aspects, such as the celebration of Easter, and vary on others, such as the celebration of Lent (which is actually becoming more popular among Protestants). We share teh same moral code devoted to family service and charity, but there are some disagreements on certain details.
Another sad result of the culture clash is that we no longer share a history. I recently came across an astounding bit of history so recent that some witnesses may still be alive, taken as a matter of fact, not faith, by most Catholics but never even heard of by most Protestants - the visions of "Our Lady of Fatima."
Of course, therein lies the silence. One of the biggest cultural differences between Catholics and Protestants is the treatment of Mary. Most Protestants see reports of Mary sightings as laughable hogwash, but so does the Catholic Church. In general, all reports of "miracles" are investigated with a skepticism bordering cynicism. And it is this very cynicism that makes "approved" sightings of Mary that much more spectacular. Rather than encouraging mass hysteria, the Catholic Church has only approved 15 of 265 supposed Mary sightings as being considered legitimate, and many of these approved only after years or centuries of investigation.
In 1916 and 1917, three Portuguese children claimed to see visions of angel and Mary on a hillside. The angel taught them to pray. When Mary appeared, she toled them she would return on the 13th of the month for six months. When word of the visions (spread by the excitable youngest child) got out, the children were told to be silent by their parents, their priest, and by the local authorities (the Portuguese government severely restricted the role of the church at the time). But even upon threat of torture or death, the children would not recant.
Each month they returned to the hillside where they saw "the Lady." A large crowd began to gather. Some claimed to see lights when the lady was present. Many said the sun dimmed or a cloud appeared.
The lady told the children that she would bring them all to heaven - the youngest two very soon. She also showed them three visions, called secrets: a vision of Hell, a prophesy that World War I would end and be followed by an even more terrible war, and a vision of persecutions of Christians. In addition, she predicted that Russia would soon become a threat to the entire world.
So far I am sure most people are not impressed. Visions may be imaginations. Prophecy may be lucky or only as authentic as any other non-religious prophecy (like Nostradamus). But what happened nexte is what makes me consider these events remarkable. It made many people believe the children who had not before. Now, remember the year was 1917 - a far cry from ancient Israel or the Dark Ages where superstition was compounded by a lack of scientific knowledge. Nor was the story passed down orally for years before finally being recorded.
On October 13, 1917, the children reported that there would be a miracle, so that those who could not see "the Lady" would believe. The hillside was crowded with somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 people. As they looked on, the sun dimmed so they could see it without hurting their eyes. Then it began to spin and change colors - all colors of the rainbow. Most astonishing of all, it turned bright red and rushed towards the earth. After the display, the clothes of the people which had been soaked with rain, were left completely dry. Of all the thousands there that day, no one has ever contracdicted this story, and hundreds or thousands were personally interviewed about what they saw.
Scientists have offered explanations, but are mostly baffled. Some say the crowd's eyes were playing tricks on them from staring at the sun. Others compare it to events in China, but the conditions and location would not fit a mirage of sorts. All explanations lack something. Further, a miracle can easily have a scientific explanation, but it may be the timing or results that make it miraculous (an environmental phenomenon that just happened to occur that day).
Personally, I see power displayed on a scale only God could pull off - commanding the sun or, perhaps, giving each of the thousands of attendees the same vision. Either way, the scale is grand. Imagine if instead, all the attendees had died of...something. That would be in our history books it would be so huge. And yet, for a large group of people, these events are unknown. Most Protestants can't decide what to make of the events becuase they don't even know they happened.
One final note. Even to Protestants the Pope is an important figure who can't be ignored. Many Protestants sneer at the concept of a pope. And yet, especially under John Paul II, the pope is as important as any world leader. Although I cannot speak for all Protestants, I think we all applaud him when he stands up for the Christian faith and morals. The issues he addresses are those we all face to some extent. We judge him if he says something we consider preposterous.
And so now I see that Catholics and Protestants are united on the subject. While Protestants decided which papal declarations and actions are legitimate, Catholics try to influence the pope. For over 50 years, Catholics around the globe have been begging the popes to perform an act of consecration of Russia which was requested by the Lady of Fatima. This simple request went mostly unheeded until 1984. Subsequently, Communism fell in 1989. Am I saying the pope miraculously cused this - not necessarily.
I guess what I'm stunned by is the deeper meaning and pain that the Cold War must have had to devout Catholics, who have been praying for Russia for decades. A large piece of our history was, for some, a spiritual battle that Protestants don't even know about.
Call it what you will, the spiritual culture of Catholics, with their stories of saints and miracles, their devotions and holy dyas, is rich and deept and connected to all Christians' heritage. It is a shame that Protestants have to miss out on it.
Another sad result of the culture clash is that we no longer share a history. I recently came across an astounding bit of history so recent that some witnesses may still be alive, taken as a matter of fact, not faith, by most Catholics but never even heard of by most Protestants - the visions of "Our Lady of Fatima."
Of course, therein lies the silence. One of the biggest cultural differences between Catholics and Protestants is the treatment of Mary. Most Protestants see reports of Mary sightings as laughable hogwash, but so does the Catholic Church. In general, all reports of "miracles" are investigated with a skepticism bordering cynicism. And it is this very cynicism that makes "approved" sightings of Mary that much more spectacular. Rather than encouraging mass hysteria, the Catholic Church has only approved 15 of 265 supposed Mary sightings as being considered legitimate, and many of these approved only after years or centuries of investigation.
In 1916 and 1917, three Portuguese children claimed to see visions of angel and Mary on a hillside. The angel taught them to pray. When Mary appeared, she toled them she would return on the 13th of the month for six months. When word of the visions (spread by the excitable youngest child) got out, the children were told to be silent by their parents, their priest, and by the local authorities (the Portuguese government severely restricted the role of the church at the time). But even upon threat of torture or death, the children would not recant.
Each month they returned to the hillside where they saw "the Lady." A large crowd began to gather. Some claimed to see lights when the lady was present. Many said the sun dimmed or a cloud appeared.
The lady told the children that she would bring them all to heaven - the youngest two very soon. She also showed them three visions, called secrets: a vision of Hell, a prophesy that World War I would end and be followed by an even more terrible war, and a vision of persecutions of Christians. In addition, she predicted that Russia would soon become a threat to the entire world.
So far I am sure most people are not impressed. Visions may be imaginations. Prophecy may be lucky or only as authentic as any other non-religious prophecy (like Nostradamus). But what happened nexte is what makes me consider these events remarkable. It made many people believe the children who had not before. Now, remember the year was 1917 - a far cry from ancient Israel or the Dark Ages where superstition was compounded by a lack of scientific knowledge. Nor was the story passed down orally for years before finally being recorded.
On October 13, 1917, the children reported that there would be a miracle, so that those who could not see "the Lady" would believe. The hillside was crowded with somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 people. As they looked on, the sun dimmed so they could see it without hurting their eyes. Then it began to spin and change colors - all colors of the rainbow. Most astonishing of all, it turned bright red and rushed towards the earth. After the display, the clothes of the people which had been soaked with rain, were left completely dry. Of all the thousands there that day, no one has ever contracdicted this story, and hundreds or thousands were personally interviewed about what they saw.
Scientists have offered explanations, but are mostly baffled. Some say the crowd's eyes were playing tricks on them from staring at the sun. Others compare it to events in China, but the conditions and location would not fit a mirage of sorts. All explanations lack something. Further, a miracle can easily have a scientific explanation, but it may be the timing or results that make it miraculous (an environmental phenomenon that just happened to occur that day).
Personally, I see power displayed on a scale only God could pull off - commanding the sun or, perhaps, giving each of the thousands of attendees the same vision. Either way, the scale is grand. Imagine if instead, all the attendees had died of...something. That would be in our history books it would be so huge. And yet, for a large group of people, these events are unknown. Most Protestants can't decide what to make of the events becuase they don't even know they happened.
One final note. Even to Protestants the Pope is an important figure who can't be ignored. Many Protestants sneer at the concept of a pope. And yet, especially under John Paul II, the pope is as important as any world leader. Although I cannot speak for all Protestants, I think we all applaud him when he stands up for the Christian faith and morals. The issues he addresses are those we all face to some extent. We judge him if he says something we consider preposterous.
And so now I see that Catholics and Protestants are united on the subject. While Protestants decided which papal declarations and actions are legitimate, Catholics try to influence the pope. For over 50 years, Catholics around the globe have been begging the popes to perform an act of consecration of Russia which was requested by the Lady of Fatima. This simple request went mostly unheeded until 1984. Subsequently, Communism fell in 1989. Am I saying the pope miraculously cused this - not necessarily.
I guess what I'm stunned by is the deeper meaning and pain that the Cold War must have had to devout Catholics, who have been praying for Russia for decades. A large piece of our history was, for some, a spiritual battle that Protestants don't even know about.
Call it what you will, the spiritual culture of Catholics, with their stories of saints and miracles, their devotions and holy dyas, is rich and deept and connected to all Christians' heritage. It is a shame that Protestants have to miss out on it.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The Bill of Not-Rights
When our forefathers founded this country, they did so on the foundation that all of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights such as the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights they codified into the Consitution as the Bill of Rights - ten rights they believed everyone had. Rights that had been trampled on under Britain.
Some of those rights are under attack today. For instance, the right to bear arms. While we have a right to bear arms, we do not have a right to use those weapons to attack anyone at will. People have a right to not be murdered which outweighs any mis-use of weapons. Still, even though their issue is with those who would take advantage of a right, there are people who want to take that right away from everyone.
In the same manner, there are rights that it seems today people think they have when, in fact, they have no such thing. I am going to outline the Bill of Not-Rights - things that people feel they are entitled to, perhaps under the real Bill of Rights, when in fact they are not.
1. You do not have the right to a TV. Earlier this year our congressmen and even our President wasted precious time debating if the switch to High Definition TV should carry on as planned, although many Americans weren't ready for it. It seemed they were preparing for some sort of Apocalypse, should the switch be made too early. Convert boxes were given away to those who could not afford to buy one. Taxpayer money was used to buy devices so people could rot their minds and bodies in front of the tube. (In his defense, President Obaman needed everyone to have TV access so he could interrupt their regularly scheduled programs for his never ending string of speeches).
Another place we see people believing in a "right" to telivision is prison. Prisons have become notorious for changing the word "privilege" into the word "right" all in the name of avoiding "cruel and unusual punishment" (missing Oprah). In fact, the changing of privileges to rights in prison may have impacted the expectations of society to what they are today. "If someone in prison has accrss to free TV, internet, and college courses, so should I!"
2. We do not have a right not to be offended or feel uncomfortable. In protecting freedom of speech means protecting free speech for the very people who offend us the most, knowing that when we speak out, our rights will also be preserved. Free speech is a government protected right. It does necessarily apply to private institutions. You can't insult your boss and not get fired. You can't cuss in front of your mom and not get your mouth washed out with soap. You can't call Jimmy "fatso" on the playground and not get in trouble. What it means is that the government can't arrest you for any of these things. Businesses and institutions have rules for professionalism and how things are to be done.
However, today it seems that the nonexistent "right" to not be insulted or not feel uncomfortable has gone too far. When people are offended they try to claim outlandish reasons for involving the government in silencing the offender. Verbal assault! It seemed they were trying to incite a riot! I didn't feel safe around them!
3. You do not have a right to government money. Frankly, entitlement programs have gone a bit too far in this country, but that's not what I'm talking about right now. I'm talking about the hundreds of not-for-profit organizations that are sponsored by the government. When President Obama took office earlier this year, he reversed a standing policy whereby federal money would not go to fetal stem cell research. Upon signing the new law, he described the former policy as dangerous and said something to the effect that morals shouldn't get in the way of progress. No matter what your view on stem cell research, the President was fundamentally wrong. Before he reserved it, no federal moeny coult go towards this particular research. Private money was available to fund it.
The government has no obligation to fund any non-profit endeavor, whether scientific, social, environmental, or academic. These organizations, many who do good things, do not have a right to taxpayer money. Obama was wrong to assume that witholding federal funds from a cause would automatically force it to deteriorate and end progress as we know it.
First of all, the money is neither the President's nor congress's. It is ours. Ultimately, everyone will have an opinion on the programs that the money goes to, with at least 50% against any one particular program. Second, these entities are subject to the same free market rules as for-profit agencies. Look at the space program - as private investors see a financial interest in getting to space, they have funded private reasearch programs and made considerable progress. Most organizations that the government helps to fund also have their own sources of revenue. The final problem with the perceived "right" to funding is that when private institutions accept government money, they also accept government oversight, which often deteriorates and muddles the whole process.
However, you often hear of the perceived "right" to government funding in academia and art. For instance, I recently heard of a school that refused to stop showing pornographic films because of "freedom of speech." While freedom of speech is a right, what the school didn't seem to understand is that they didn't have a "right" to use state funding for something that offensive to most people. As I said before, we don't have a right not to be offended. But neither do schools, or any government institutions, have a fundamental right to spend our money on projects that are morally wrong or just plain silly.
4. You do not have a right to an easy life. But you do have the right to declare bankruptcy. No one seems to remember that right before the 2008 election, Obama publicly declared that there was no need for a comprehensive overhaul of healthcare that would provide healthcare to all Americans. Don't you remember? It took a few days for it to sink in for me, too. In the last debate, Obama explained that he voted against a bill in Illinois that would require doctors to provide medical treatment to babies that were born as a result of failed abortions. His resonse, "I voted against it because I knew the doctors were going to treat the babies anyway." He was so right.
Doctors are bound by a system of rights that is older than our Bill of Rights. They are bound to treat anyone who comes to them in need of their help, especially if their life is in danger. So, you see, we do have a right to healthcare.
But that's not really what's at issue here. What people perceive is that they have a right to "affordable health care." While this would be nice, it is not a fundamental right. Remember life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Right to healthcare, which we have, is a right to life. The problem is that when good people get sick they may end up with six figure hospital bills that can only be paid in a form such as a second mortgage. If they have no insurance, or sometimes even if they do, a hospital stay can literally bankrupt them. People perceive that they should have a right to healthcare without having to run up such huge debts, but as nice as that would be (and yes, things can be done with the current system to help lower costs) it is not a right. We have the right to pursue happiness. There is no guarantee that we will obtain it!
In ancient days, those who could not repay their debts were sent to prison or sold into slavery to repay them. In America we have a wonderful system that allows us to declare bankruptcy when debt becomes impossible to repay. It is not an "easy out." It makes it very hard to live life following a bankruptcy. And it is not ethical to run up debts just to declare bankruptcy and get out of them. However, we do have that option, instead of being sent to Australia.
Another option is to work hard, to not spend as much money on luxuries, and to pay off a little of the hospital debt each month. Because that is another right that we do have - a right to dignity.
5. The final right we perceive is a touchy subject, but all of the perceived "rights" above culminated in one big mistake. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman had a right to an abortion.
Now, my views on abortion have evolved as I've grown up, but I have always been disturbed by the logic of the court. The ruling was based on a right to privacy. As far as I know, I don't see how pregnancy and privacy are related - unless the plaintiff didn't want anyone to know she was pregnant.
However, I would attempt to take this from a logical viewpoint - let's try to ignore morals for just a moment. We have a right to health. In a situation that threatens the life of a woman or the life of a baby, she should have a right to decide if she is willing to give up her life for that child. That is a right.
But there is no "fundamental" right that says a woman has a right to not have a kid if she gets pregnant. Taking morals out of it, the ruling of the court should have been that the abortion was legal if it was legal and illegal if illegal. The decision effectively legalized abortion for everyone in America, but by creating a "right" that did not actually exist.
Legalizing abortion is one thing, but the perception of many is that by making abortion a "right," then women had a right to a cheap or free abortion, an abortion without barriers - this goes back to the perceived "right" to be financially safe. It gave women the perception that they had a "right" to an easy life - such as the perceived "right" of having TV access all the time. And it gave women the idea that they had the "right" not to be offended - by people judging them for becoming pregnant, by abortion protesters, etc. It means people think that the government has a resonsibility to fund abortion clinics, which have a "right" to run.
I am not trying to throw an emotional and sensitive argument into an otherwise logical debate. I am just trying to show an example of what happens when people confuse "rights" with privileges. Life is hard. We are so lucky to be in a country that allows us to reach our potential. We also have a lot of laws and programs that help to make life easier for us, in whatever way is best for us. Not all these laws or programs are fundamentally bad or wrong. Nor are ideas of loving people and getting along.
However, none of these things should be confused with rights - inalienable rights that no one can, or should, take away. What we can do is use the rights we do have - the Bill of Rights and combine them with rights that were not canonized - such as the right to dignity, the right to hope, the right to a positive outlook, the right to dream. Because if our "rights" ever infringe upon the rights of others, then they cannot be rights at all.
Some of those rights are under attack today. For instance, the right to bear arms. While we have a right to bear arms, we do not have a right to use those weapons to attack anyone at will. People have a right to not be murdered which outweighs any mis-use of weapons. Still, even though their issue is with those who would take advantage of a right, there are people who want to take that right away from everyone.
In the same manner, there are rights that it seems today people think they have when, in fact, they have no such thing. I am going to outline the Bill of Not-Rights - things that people feel they are entitled to, perhaps under the real Bill of Rights, when in fact they are not.
1. You do not have the right to a TV. Earlier this year our congressmen and even our President wasted precious time debating if the switch to High Definition TV should carry on as planned, although many Americans weren't ready for it. It seemed they were preparing for some sort of Apocalypse, should the switch be made too early. Convert boxes were given away to those who could not afford to buy one. Taxpayer money was used to buy devices so people could rot their minds and bodies in front of the tube. (In his defense, President Obaman needed everyone to have TV access so he could interrupt their regularly scheduled programs for his never ending string of speeches).
Another place we see people believing in a "right" to telivision is prison. Prisons have become notorious for changing the word "privilege" into the word "right" all in the name of avoiding "cruel and unusual punishment" (missing Oprah). In fact, the changing of privileges to rights in prison may have impacted the expectations of society to what they are today. "If someone in prison has accrss to free TV, internet, and college courses, so should I!"
2. We do not have a right not to be offended or feel uncomfortable. In protecting freedom of speech means protecting free speech for the very people who offend us the most, knowing that when we speak out, our rights will also be preserved. Free speech is a government protected right. It does necessarily apply to private institutions. You can't insult your boss and not get fired. You can't cuss in front of your mom and not get your mouth washed out with soap. You can't call Jimmy "fatso" on the playground and not get in trouble. What it means is that the government can't arrest you for any of these things. Businesses and institutions have rules for professionalism and how things are to be done.
However, today it seems that the nonexistent "right" to not be insulted or not feel uncomfortable has gone too far. When people are offended they try to claim outlandish reasons for involving the government in silencing the offender. Verbal assault! It seemed they were trying to incite a riot! I didn't feel safe around them!
3. You do not have a right to government money. Frankly, entitlement programs have gone a bit too far in this country, but that's not what I'm talking about right now. I'm talking about the hundreds of not-for-profit organizations that are sponsored by the government. When President Obama took office earlier this year, he reversed a standing policy whereby federal money would not go to fetal stem cell research. Upon signing the new law, he described the former policy as dangerous and said something to the effect that morals shouldn't get in the way of progress. No matter what your view on stem cell research, the President was fundamentally wrong. Before he reserved it, no federal moeny coult go towards this particular research. Private money was available to fund it.
The government has no obligation to fund any non-profit endeavor, whether scientific, social, environmental, or academic. These organizations, many who do good things, do not have a right to taxpayer money. Obama was wrong to assume that witholding federal funds from a cause would automatically force it to deteriorate and end progress as we know it.
First of all, the money is neither the President's nor congress's. It is ours. Ultimately, everyone will have an opinion on the programs that the money goes to, with at least 50% against any one particular program. Second, these entities are subject to the same free market rules as for-profit agencies. Look at the space program - as private investors see a financial interest in getting to space, they have funded private reasearch programs and made considerable progress. Most organizations that the government helps to fund also have their own sources of revenue. The final problem with the perceived "right" to funding is that when private institutions accept government money, they also accept government oversight, which often deteriorates and muddles the whole process.
However, you often hear of the perceived "right" to government funding in academia and art. For instance, I recently heard of a school that refused to stop showing pornographic films because of "freedom of speech." While freedom of speech is a right, what the school didn't seem to understand is that they didn't have a "right" to use state funding for something that offensive to most people. As I said before, we don't have a right not to be offended. But neither do schools, or any government institutions, have a fundamental right to spend our money on projects that are morally wrong or just plain silly.
4. You do not have a right to an easy life. But you do have the right to declare bankruptcy. No one seems to remember that right before the 2008 election, Obama publicly declared that there was no need for a comprehensive overhaul of healthcare that would provide healthcare to all Americans. Don't you remember? It took a few days for it to sink in for me, too. In the last debate, Obama explained that he voted against a bill in Illinois that would require doctors to provide medical treatment to babies that were born as a result of failed abortions. His resonse, "I voted against it because I knew the doctors were going to treat the babies anyway." He was so right.
Doctors are bound by a system of rights that is older than our Bill of Rights. They are bound to treat anyone who comes to them in need of their help, especially if their life is in danger. So, you see, we do have a right to healthcare.
But that's not really what's at issue here. What people perceive is that they have a right to "affordable health care." While this would be nice, it is not a fundamental right. Remember life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Right to healthcare, which we have, is a right to life. The problem is that when good people get sick they may end up with six figure hospital bills that can only be paid in a form such as a second mortgage. If they have no insurance, or sometimes even if they do, a hospital stay can literally bankrupt them. People perceive that they should have a right to healthcare without having to run up such huge debts, but as nice as that would be (and yes, things can be done with the current system to help lower costs) it is not a right. We have the right to pursue happiness. There is no guarantee that we will obtain it!
In ancient days, those who could not repay their debts were sent to prison or sold into slavery to repay them. In America we have a wonderful system that allows us to declare bankruptcy when debt becomes impossible to repay. It is not an "easy out." It makes it very hard to live life following a bankruptcy. And it is not ethical to run up debts just to declare bankruptcy and get out of them. However, we do have that option, instead of being sent to Australia.
Another option is to work hard, to not spend as much money on luxuries, and to pay off a little of the hospital debt each month. Because that is another right that we do have - a right to dignity.
5. The final right we perceive is a touchy subject, but all of the perceived "rights" above culminated in one big mistake. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman had a right to an abortion.
Now, my views on abortion have evolved as I've grown up, but I have always been disturbed by the logic of the court. The ruling was based on a right to privacy. As far as I know, I don't see how pregnancy and privacy are related - unless the plaintiff didn't want anyone to know she was pregnant.
However, I would attempt to take this from a logical viewpoint - let's try to ignore morals for just a moment. We have a right to health. In a situation that threatens the life of a woman or the life of a baby, she should have a right to decide if she is willing to give up her life for that child. That is a right.
But there is no "fundamental" right that says a woman has a right to not have a kid if she gets pregnant. Taking morals out of it, the ruling of the court should have been that the abortion was legal if it was legal and illegal if illegal. The decision effectively legalized abortion for everyone in America, but by creating a "right" that did not actually exist.
Legalizing abortion is one thing, but the perception of many is that by making abortion a "right," then women had a right to a cheap or free abortion, an abortion without barriers - this goes back to the perceived "right" to be financially safe. It gave women the perception that they had a "right" to an easy life - such as the perceived "right" of having TV access all the time. And it gave women the idea that they had the "right" not to be offended - by people judging them for becoming pregnant, by abortion protesters, etc. It means people think that the government has a resonsibility to fund abortion clinics, which have a "right" to run.
I am not trying to throw an emotional and sensitive argument into an otherwise logical debate. I am just trying to show an example of what happens when people confuse "rights" with privileges. Life is hard. We are so lucky to be in a country that allows us to reach our potential. We also have a lot of laws and programs that help to make life easier for us, in whatever way is best for us. Not all these laws or programs are fundamentally bad or wrong. Nor are ideas of loving people and getting along.
However, none of these things should be confused with rights - inalienable rights that no one can, or should, take away. What we can do is use the rights we do have - the Bill of Rights and combine them with rights that were not canonized - such as the right to dignity, the right to hope, the right to a positive outlook, the right to dream. Because if our "rights" ever infringe upon the rights of others, then they cannot be rights at all.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The Diet
When I came back from Minneapolis at the end of April and jumped on my Wii, I realized something had to change. My general philosophy for maintaining a healthy weight of “be careful” wasn’t working. Since busy season had started, I had gained 8%, and 13% since I had started my new job a year and a half before. While not overweight, I hovered dangerously close to the top of the healthy BMI category. My other general philosophy of, “I’ll walk it off in the summer when I have more time,” was also obviously not going to work. I had jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire – they made it clear that I would be in busy season throughout the summer (until mid-October, to be exact).
Knowing that I no longer had the luxury of exercising to stay in shape, I decided to resort to something I had never done before – dieting. Ugh.
My sister is a dietician, so I immediately enlisted her help. I already knew that her belief system centered around calorie counting (in addition to a healthy lifestyle). She told me to “exercise” however I could – like parking far away from the building, and to not go below 1200 calories a day. I also went onto MSN health, which told me that to maintain the weight I want I should eat 1500 calories. Essentially, if I continued my current lack of exercise but ate only 1500 calories per day, then over time I would naturally fall back down to my college weight level.
This was much harder than it appeared. My first day I mistakenly believed I could have 1800 calories, so I counted and counted, and by the time I went to bed, I had used them all up. It was painful. I wanted to cry. And then I found out the real number I had to reach – somewhere between 1200 and 1600 calories. Yuck. However, after the first week, I had changed my tune. Part of calorie counting was combating portion distortion. We were ordering all our meals, which made healthy choices hard to come by. So when they ordered Chipotle, I gasped at my 700 calorie burrito. But when I considered that I could fill myself on half of it, I now had two meals. Likewise, I had always dreaded and feared vegetables. But when we ordered sandwiches from Subway, I realized that I could add bulk without changing the calorie count of my sandwich. I drank much more water. The pounds melted off, and I felt better.
Unfortunately, the summer ended relatively flat for total weight loss for me. One reason was that I didn’t count calories on weekends. Self-denial can lead down a slippery road to binging, and my theory was to neither binge nor deny myself on the weekends. Another problem was balancing my diet. I would play with the food pyramid online to find a way to get my full servings of nutrients in my allotted calories. But once I squeezed in my daily pop (reduced to only 12 ounces), I had tipped over the line. Some nutrient was going to have to go, because I could never give up pop. Asking friends to challenge me to stay healthy didn’t work either – they didn’t want to work at it. The last problem was dipping down into the 1200 calorie range. I knew better than to do this. However, during each day I was so cautious about my calories. I dreaded getting up to 1600 by lunchtime – then what? So I overcompensated to some extent. I ate incredibly light throughout the day, and if, at the end of the day, I still had calories, I would indulge in a yummy treat. However, I began to wonder if 1200 was more of an arbitrary number. What if it was actually 1300 calories for me? I had always had a better metabolism than my family. Was I busting mine? Would I permanently damage it so that weight loss in the future would be that much harder?
By August, stress, long hours at work, and anger at not being able to eat yummy goodies set in. I gave up the whole idea, thinking, “I have maintained a healthy weight all my life without paying attention, so who cares?” In addition, I was working long hours and didn’t want to check my weight on my Wii daily. Bad idea.The next time I stepped on, I was over the “healthy weight” BMI and rising. It was only a 4% increase from May, but a 17% increase from college and a 13% increase from a year ago. Add to that my dietician sister telling me that “overweight is overweight” and “healthy is healthy.” Could a few pounds really have thrown me from the healthy to heart disease and cholesterol problems category? Unlikely. However, I renewed my weight-loss goals. This time, due to increased free time, I combined diet with exercise. I made it a goal to meet my 1600 calories a day, at least for the time being, and to adjust down only if I felt like I was leveling off. Things started to look better.
I write this today because I have been told that keeping a food journal and writing about your diet experience helps. It keeps you accountable, for one. It keeps you motivated also – it reminds me how when I just make small lifestyle changes my overall wellness can be improved.
Knowing that I no longer had the luxury of exercising to stay in shape, I decided to resort to something I had never done before – dieting. Ugh.
My sister is a dietician, so I immediately enlisted her help. I already knew that her belief system centered around calorie counting (in addition to a healthy lifestyle). She told me to “exercise” however I could – like parking far away from the building, and to not go below 1200 calories a day. I also went onto MSN health, which told me that to maintain the weight I want I should eat 1500 calories. Essentially, if I continued my current lack of exercise but ate only 1500 calories per day, then over time I would naturally fall back down to my college weight level.
This was much harder than it appeared. My first day I mistakenly believed I could have 1800 calories, so I counted and counted, and by the time I went to bed, I had used them all up. It was painful. I wanted to cry. And then I found out the real number I had to reach – somewhere between 1200 and 1600 calories. Yuck. However, after the first week, I had changed my tune. Part of calorie counting was combating portion distortion. We were ordering all our meals, which made healthy choices hard to come by. So when they ordered Chipotle, I gasped at my 700 calorie burrito. But when I considered that I could fill myself on half of it, I now had two meals. Likewise, I had always dreaded and feared vegetables. But when we ordered sandwiches from Subway, I realized that I could add bulk without changing the calorie count of my sandwich. I drank much more water. The pounds melted off, and I felt better.
Unfortunately, the summer ended relatively flat for total weight loss for me. One reason was that I didn’t count calories on weekends. Self-denial can lead down a slippery road to binging, and my theory was to neither binge nor deny myself on the weekends. Another problem was balancing my diet. I would play with the food pyramid online to find a way to get my full servings of nutrients in my allotted calories. But once I squeezed in my daily pop (reduced to only 12 ounces), I had tipped over the line. Some nutrient was going to have to go, because I could never give up pop. Asking friends to challenge me to stay healthy didn’t work either – they didn’t want to work at it. The last problem was dipping down into the 1200 calorie range. I knew better than to do this. However, during each day I was so cautious about my calories. I dreaded getting up to 1600 by lunchtime – then what? So I overcompensated to some extent. I ate incredibly light throughout the day, and if, at the end of the day, I still had calories, I would indulge in a yummy treat. However, I began to wonder if 1200 was more of an arbitrary number. What if it was actually 1300 calories for me? I had always had a better metabolism than my family. Was I busting mine? Would I permanently damage it so that weight loss in the future would be that much harder?
By August, stress, long hours at work, and anger at not being able to eat yummy goodies set in. I gave up the whole idea, thinking, “I have maintained a healthy weight all my life without paying attention, so who cares?” In addition, I was working long hours and didn’t want to check my weight on my Wii daily. Bad idea.The next time I stepped on, I was over the “healthy weight” BMI and rising. It was only a 4% increase from May, but a 17% increase from college and a 13% increase from a year ago. Add to that my dietician sister telling me that “overweight is overweight” and “healthy is healthy.” Could a few pounds really have thrown me from the healthy to heart disease and cholesterol problems category? Unlikely. However, I renewed my weight-loss goals. This time, due to increased free time, I combined diet with exercise. I made it a goal to meet my 1600 calories a day, at least for the time being, and to adjust down only if I felt like I was leveling off. Things started to look better.
I write this today because I have been told that keeping a food journal and writing about your diet experience helps. It keeps you accountable, for one. It keeps you motivated also – it reminds me how when I just make small lifestyle changes my overall wellness can be improved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)