A Penny Stolen Is Worth More Than A Penny Earned

For as long as I can remember the penny has cost more to make than it is actually worth. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that the cost of any coinage should be less than or equal to it's value because of the value of the metal itself. The point is that making pennies is a negative impact on the economy. Why continue to do something that produces less than what resources go into it?

Read more!

Universal Healthcare

Over the past couple of months there's been hours of coverage this whole healthcare thing. Whether it's creation of death panels or showing off these crazy shooting people at protests. There was so much coverage with non-sense bias commentary that I stopped watching the news all together both on TV and online. It's was disgusting. There are so many arguments bouncing around that I've come to conclusion that no one actually knows what is going on. It seems to boil down to two viewpoints:

1. It is the responsibility of the government to look out for the common welfare. Wherefore it's citizens should be provide with universal healthcare when they are sick because the cost is greater than one person can afford at one time.

A. Governments are not a safety net but instead a shield. On one hand they can regulate industry in order to prevent future fraud but they should not be used for those who do not take care of themselves.

Both arguments have merit. In the liberal side it is true that most people do not get sick at the same time and therefore if 95% of people are taking care of the sick at any given time than it is easier to afford. It is also very idealistic to believe in helping the common man and treating everyone equal. The conservative side takes a more responsible view in that a proactive person will take care of themselves, given the opportunity, and would be better able to make decisions concerning their own welfare. Not to mention a group of people unaware of an individual's health should not be dictating how they should be cured.

My problem is one falls flat when faced with greed and the falters in the face of sloth. I should not be held responsible for the idiotic decisions of others but at the same time I deserve to have choice in my own life, which includes degrading my body should I choose. Taken to extremes there does not seem to be any answers that would make either side happy. This is taken to extremes because there is money to be made now and it cost to much money to change.

The obvious answer seems to take the same approach with healthcare that we take with car insurance. In order to drive a car on a tax funded road you must have a driver's license AND car insurance. This seems to work remarkably well. Those with money get fantastic coverage while those with little get the bare minimum, but in the end everyone is covered. Exception will always exist for those who believe they can afford to take a chance but they deserve what ever happens, because they are gambling with their lives.

Why not apply the same philosophy to healthcare? Regulate that every working or benefits receiving person must have it but don't offer any choices through the government. That way we as individuals can decide how much money to spend for the coverage we believe is needed. Make it a state mandate to guarantee there is something affordable for those making min wage and then leave it at that.

In the end I don't want to pay for someone else's drug problem but I also don't want to insurance to be the reason I don't receive any procedures. I'm willing to help my fellow man but only as far as they are willing to help me. Charity is a two way street and there is no way I am going to help someone with problems for which they should be solving it on their own.
Read more!

There Is No Pill Strong Enough

Sometimes I can't help myself but jump to conclusions. Every time someone says they're sick the automatic reply seems to be to take a pill. This so prevalent I can't decide if this is a result of successful marketing by Pharmaceuticals or our need to believe there is more to life and that next pill could be the red one.

Growing up it tended to be my Dad who decided how I would be cured of the common cold or headache. Invariable it always entailed eating something with protein and going to bed. It didn't matter what time of day or if I just woke up. You would have to lay in bed doing nothing except trying to sleep or reading a book. Being a sickly child you can imagine how many books I managed to read.

I digress. My main point is I was raised to not take pills except in extreme circumstances. Net result is in spite of growing up sick every month my immune system at 30 seems infinitely healthier then my friends and colleagues. I still get sick every other month but really notices because I don't fall over helpless at the slightest pain and complain until I've swallowed the latest miracle drug. Even better I'm usually better and fully recovered the next day. If it's an especially bad cold or flu I take NyQuil, but only as a way to force a good night's rest.

In the interest in full disclosure my Mom takes pills like their is no tomorrow. She's been taking them for so long and so often that she has an unhealthy tolerance to most pain killers. A tolerance I inherited, making medicine like Tylenol obsolete. Even when I got the stomach flu and they fed me a prescription pain killer and Demerol, they were in-effective. It took Codeine to make me finally not care about the pain.So all of this may just be my experience with in-effective drugs, but I don't think so. To this day I prefer to not take anything unless I'm truly impaired.

In way our society has become completely dependent on drugs. We think everything can be cured using a little red pill. Whether it is ADHD or depression, we go searching for the immediate gratification that makes our problems not our fault. No one seems to realize the drug isn't curing anything but delaying the results, admittedly delaying to the point where it no longer matters. A child how doesn't pay attention in class but manages to play 15 hours of video games or an entire weekend playing in the woods does not have ADHD. That an adult hates their job, can't find someone to love, feels they've missed out on life, and has no reason to keep living is problem with perspective. These are all things that would be better worked out talking to friends and family or even a psychologist.

This constant taking of medication only destroys our immunity. Stop taking something every time you don't feel happy and actually solve your problems. In the end a simple readjustment of priorities may be all it takes to turn a clinically depressed person into someone who is happy 24/7.
Read more!

I Am Only 3.5 Years Old...

The topic of maturity is so much fun to discuss. So many people have different opinions you would think we were discussing religion. That's not even going into the whole women mature faster then men fallacy. As always let's define maturation before we explore it:

Mature: 1) complete in natural growth or development, as plant and animal forms. 3) fully developed in body or mind, as a person. 6) No longer developing or expanding; having little or no potential for further growth or expansion.

The general trend tends to imply that one has matured when one has finished growing into adulthood. Such as when one is thought old enough to vote (18), legal drink (21), or have intimate relations (14). Something about being old enough to make informed decisions. Has anyone caught the glaring leap to conclusion here? Society deems you adult despite how or how much information you have gathered. Just because you went to school and read a book doesn't mean you've stopped your growth in mind and body.

Probably not fair that I jumped ahead like that. Although society may call someone an adult does not necessarily imply they are mature. Instead it is meant to imply they should have been taught enough information to become mature and society is no longer taking responsibility for that education. That's fair, if a little short-sighted. It's not like we can go around giving people maturity tests for how they should be spending money or raising kids, but it would sure make life easier for those who pass.

Let's move away from the government dictations and explore our own verbiage. Maturity is easier to understand if we take it from actionable stance instead of mental and physical. By actionable we're going to understand as what actions someone takes in any given situation, sort of line in the sand when it comes to wisdom. If it is raining outside a child or turkey may look up with their mouths open and drown. An adult will instead open an umbrella or look for cover. Therefore we further define or concept into the ability to react in a responsible way through experience or intelligence.

While we're here why not slap an analogy up against it? My favorite is how girls start maturing at the age of 12 while boys start at 15. Good gracious do women love to hold that statistic over men, except they do it while ignore our definition above. To start maturing implies nothing while to be mature implies a process has completed. Thus a child which takes 10 years to mature is no better off then one that matures in 1 year 9 years later. To laud one started maturing first is simply a mark of immaturity as well. I believe that means we should explore the other end of the age spectrum for boys and girls.

To avoid a long diatribe of all the immature acts committed by both sexes we shall bring up relationships. Most of us have experience in this area and it will make it easier to relate. Common stereotype tells us women love their bad boys in spite of knowing they are bad for them as they are under the immature reasoning that they can change a person. 100% of mature adults understand this is impossible. It takes nearly 20 years for women to break this stereotype so we can say most women mature in their late 20s and early 30s. Men on the other hand start maturing in a complete different method. There is no 20 year period of trial and error but instead an over-night maturation some time between 13 and 40. Thus the mid-life crisis for many of my brethren. As males we typically will remain child like until the occurrence of some defining event usually depicted in Coming of Age novels.

Have you ever noticed Coming of Age usually has a guy experiencing something and growing up in a year while women will spend years? There is where the big understanding on this whole topic comes from. Those bad boys girls like haven't matured until they realize in their 40s that their whole life is wasted away with nothing to show for it. But for most guys we usually undergo some sort of world shattering event in our early 20's. Whether it is finding out the rat race implies we are the rats or some devastating relationship, we still find ourselves figuring out our inner turmoil well in advance of our sisters. Probably explains why both 18 and 32 year old women like 24-28 year old men.

Personally I matured very early, around the age of 13. It has left me years ahead when it comes to philosophy but also with a complete lack of foolishness. Only now (much like grandparents will tell their grand kids) am I realizing that I don't have to act mature all the time. It is enough to know the appropriate time to be mature and act child-like the rest of the time.
Read more!

Living Without Regret

Have you ever been asked the question:

If you could go back and change one thing in your life what would it be?

Every time I hear or think of this question I always think of that movie "Mr. Destiny". Where James Belushi is given the chance to live an alternate life where he hits a home run in high school instead of striking out like he was supposed to. In this second chance he has the perfect life where he marries the prom queen and becomes filthy rich. It all falls apart because he was supposed to be a prick in that life and when he tries to be himself someone screws him.. blah, blah, blah.

My point is although he hated his real life his 'perfect' life was worst because it wasn't the person he should be in order to enjoy it. You are the person you are now because of the choices you made. If for some reason you change the past you will not be happy with your new life because you didn't grow down that branch in life. So despite the whole goody goody story told of someone being happy and poor the reality is if he had really hit that ball and for some reason changed to the poor 'happy' life he wouldn't have been happy with that.

So no regrets in my life and I would never change the past. I'll admit I've changed myself several times trying to predict the right future I want to live. What about those points in life that might have changed everything? Well there's the choice I made to be friends with Sarah instead of more intimate. Not to mention picking Marie-Ann instead of Nancy or even Christy way back in 9th grade. If you notice everything I would like to go back to are all relationships. It was a couple of years ago I noticed this and decided to change my life to find someone special to share my life with.

Instead of looking at the past with regret look at it and change your future. If you wish you hadn't taken those drugs then go through rehab. If you wish you had made the star play then either get back into sports or find something that will get you noticed like politics. Stop regretting what you can't change and instead take those what-ifs and make then will dos.

That's why I don't live with regret and instead make myself a better person. Well better according to what want to be.
Read more!

Good vs. Evil

Such a great question. What is the difference between good and evil? As easy as people try to make it out to be the answer is not so obvious. There seems to be some argument about morality being inherent to the universe and is therefore proof of God. Poppycock I say. The things we say are inherently good are actually exactly the things needed for a species to propagate and grow. Coincidence?

In order to make this discussion easier we must first describe innocent. The state in which a person does unaware of the existence of good and evil. Typically used to describe animals and babies innocence describes a creature, with at least some intelligence, who can make decisions but only makes them from curiosity or instinctual view point. For instance tigers hunt their prey when hungry and baby may accidentally kill a pet bird when playing to rough. No one can see either has performed an evil act even though both could have decided to do something else.

Where does evil come in? If that tiger continues to kill despite having more then enough food or that baby grows up and becomes a serial killer. But it doesn't have to be killing but evil usually implies someone who goes beyond selfishness to the point of harming the great environment. There in lies the key. Good is always defined as that which propagates an improvement in quality. For all purposes that truly is a matter of perception. That whole adage about history being written by the survivors couldn't be more true.

Let's pull ourselves back down to a more basic level. If evil is harming the greater society and good is improving it another way to define good is to say it is the acknowledged absence of evil doing. Wait you say. Couldn't someone help without knowing they were not being evil? Of course, but then that person was unaware of good and evil and was therefore performing an innocent act. On the other hand they had no need to be aware of the what is good to perform an evil act, because they only needed to be thinking about themselves.

Here we have the beginning of a postulate. Good is the conscious act of doing something that is not evil. How do we back this up? Perhaps the best example are the ten commandments.

*You shall have no other gods before Me
*You shall not make for yourself an idol
*You shall not take God’s name in vain
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Honor your father and mother
*You shall not kill
*You shall not commit adultery
*You shall not steal
*You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
*You shall not covet your neighbor's wife

8 of 10 are defined by not committing an evil act. The remaining two could also be argue is not acts of goodness but of respect. By not doing them a person is not view as evil but simply as a person without principal. So what we have good being defined by evil and our postulate reaches conclusion.

Why does this deserve mention? Well to point out those who have committed the most good were the ones who could have committed the greatest evil. In the end your level kindness and general perception of being a good person is defined by just how much evil you had the opportunity for but did not follow through on.
Read more!

When is Someone Lying?

There are so many definitions of this concept floating around that everyone believes they know the true definition. Yet I seem to always find an example of something that defeats it getting me the response that there are always exceptions.

WRONG

Something that has a definition can not have something that contradicts it. That would make it understanding instead or theory, as in most people except it while understanding it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The problem is words don't have exceptions. They are created for a purpose and we can't go around changing it for our own ends, otherwise we lose the whole communication foundation.

Even in the dictionary do we find two conflicting definitions:

lie
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

The first statement agrees with Harry G. Frankfurt while the second is so ambiguous as to demand comment. The ambiguousness is found in the belief that deception is lying, when someone can use the truth to deceive as well. For example if a friend asks how much money you make per year one can respond with $50k. While that person could actually be making $70k they do make $50k as well. The deceiver did not lie but he did deceive, if only to not offend.

This concept, that 99% of the people I know have, of a person is lying if they deceive you or simply do not give all the information is very unsettling. It makes me believe that no one has any principals of honor and integrity. For someone to believe that a true statement told in deceit is a lie means that person believe everyone lies and therefore has redefined it to find it more acceptable. Wait, that sounds like a large leap when I transition like that. Let me expound...

A person who believes all deception is lies must either believe there is good and bad deception or all deception is evil. The second is easy to remove from the conversation by bringing up Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the fact that there is more then one religion in the world. Someone is lying for the good of mankind so therefore not all deception is evil. Ok, if there is good and bad deception we must approach each with rigid uncaring logic. Eh, who are we kidding? Why do I need to even define good deception? If someone is trying to make someone feel better why would they need to deceive? In order for them to have good intentions they must either believe what they are saying, know what they are saying is false, or simply not care.

1. If they believe something that is not true then does not make them a liar.
2. If the statement is knowingly told as false then they are intentionally making someone believe an untruth.
3. If the they don't care then they are simply telling a story for entertainment.
4. If the statement was not the whole truth then the aim was to let the individual come to their own conclusion

The first is not deception and the third is entertainment, which in itself out of the scope of this post. The second which means someone is deliberately giving false information for the sole purpose of arriving at the wrong conclusion. That leaves the fourth. Here lies the crux of my point. For someone to believe that person is intentionally withholding information for the purpose of the conclusion reached being wrong implies that person believes all others are inferior. That this would be common among all people who do not tell the whole truth infers that all people believe themselves superior to all other people. That is where I simply can't jump on the band wagon.

There are times when telling the whole truth will lead to catastrophe, but I will never intentionally deceive. Instead I must offer a vague truth or very specific truth in the hopes a person will stop asking more questions. At no point did I attempt to deceive, but instead I purposedly moved the conversation away. It's exactly like changing the subject. Most importantly I did not give false information. According to the second definition above it is possible for me to have lied if the person reaches the wrong conclusion. That is simply unacceptable to a person who refuses to give false information but still wants to be successful and honest person.

In the end I believe that we as a people should return the concept where telling the truth is a matter of honor. Making a promise is believed and people are respected for who they are and not who they pretend to be. So far it has worked for me, how about you?
Read more!