WebCogito

THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA:

The following conversation between a receptionist and an HR Rep was overheard in a company breakroom:

Receptionist: “Hey, I know you wanted to go shopping. I heard Dillard’s is having a sale. They have 30% off stuff already 80% off.”

HR Rep: “Oh great! Wait, but doesn’t that add up to more than 100%?”

Receptionist: “Yeah, I’m not really sure how that works.”

A political advertisement, directed against the Tennessee Senate campaign of Harold Ford, Jr, has sparked a controversy. Among other things, the ad shows a lascivious-looking woman who claims she met Ford at a Playboy party. She then reminds Ford to “call her.”

If you’ve yet formed an opinion based only on the above description, you may think the point of the ad is to paint Ford as a philanderer, or at least, to suggest that he is indiscreet. And maybe that is the point of the ad (see it at msnbc).

But the controversy deals with some of the other details about the ad – the respective races of the characters. The woman is white and the candidate is black. This feature of the ad has led its critics to suspect the existence of a racial motivation underlying the ad: that the ad’s producers are exploiting the (racist) notions that interracial relationships are wrong, that black men must not fraternizing with white women, and that a black candidate who does not know his “proper place” is not one who should be elected.

The irony here is that for a critic to suspect a racist motivation, especially where one is not explicit, requires that critic himself embrace some facet of racism. A critic in this case is one who is ever-vigilant about racial discord. This sustained suspicion of racial motivation is no doubt the result of the once-overt-but-later-turned-subtle forms of discrimination.

The problem with this heightened vigilance is that it is a response to an offensive sentiment that may not truly exist. Now, I am not naïve enough to believe that racism does not exist or that it does not manifest itself subtly. But how can we differentiate between a non-explicit form of racist expression and one which is truly innocuous?

Travis County, TX:

Last week, the county commissioners voted that the county-as-employer would pay for bariatric surgery for a number of its morbidly obese employees. The county is a self-insurer with respect to health care, meaning it manages its own costs and pays them out of its own “pocket.” Under the commissioners’ logic, the cost of the surgery ($20K) is actually lower than the cost of the medical conditions associated with morbid obesity (diabetes, hypertension, etc). Financially speaking, this decision makes some sense.

County residents quickly decried the decision with something along the lines of “I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for those fatsos!” Most residents overlooked the financial basis for the decision and instead reacted to the (questionable) idea that gluttonous fat folk were getting an easy way out at taxpayer’s expense.

Though the commissioners’ solution might not be the most appropriate or efficient, the citizens’ reaction highlights the popular disdain of the obese. Why is this sentiment so vehement? Is obesity an unsightly condition? Admittedly, it isn’t very attractive. But neither are certain clothing styles. (For that matter, many people’s faces are downright homely). Does obesity reflect a lack of self-control? Possibly. But so do a variety of other indulgences, many of which do not manifest themselves outwardly. Are obese folk just lazy? Perhaps. But many non-obese people exhibit equally sedentary lives.

As we Americans get fatter by the day, we might be wise to reconsider our attitudes toward the obese and finally get to the root of this sentiment.

(Due to emphatic criticism of the plan, the county commissioners are reconsidering their decision).

(update: 09-27-06: The commissioners voted to reverse their previous decision. The commissioners explained themselves by noting the lack of evidence to prove that the surgery would indeed confer a cost savings. The commissioners also noted that public opposition was heavy. This makes you wonder about what other decisions are made without “sufficient evidence” and yet escape public scrutiny.)

How many of your college classes have you put to use? I remember taking way too many courses (some of them twice), and got little use from many of them. If I could choose my entire college curriculum, I would dispense with the Wordsworth and Calculus and trim it down to the following… Read the rest of this entry »

Forbes has published its latest list of the richest 400 people (link opens in new window).

Ordinary multi-millionaires finally found themselves on the wrong side of polite society this time: only billionaires have made the list. Bill Gates tops the list at a comfortable $53 billion.

It takes a rare constellation of factors to result in such personal fortune: long hours at work on a daily basis, many years of toil, persistence even in the face of defeat, an ambitious and purposeful character, ripe market conditions, knowing the right people to help you along.

But the rewards are more than justifiable. I can think of many low-wage workers who possess those same character traits. These traits, on their own, do not merit such compensation (be it too low or too high).

After a certain point, these billionaires no longer earn their pay. They are merely the beneficiaries of inertia and accrued interest. Why should these self-renewing fortunes continue to inure to them personally?

I am glad that the Gateses and Buffets, in the form of charitable donations, have levied a self-imposed tax. Perhaps they have realized that every dollar in their own coffers is one fewer dollar available to the rest of the world.

THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA:

“Men in America are ridiculously pathetic now. Have you noticed anytime they want that quintessential sort of brute, primal male, they cast an Australian?”

–James Woods, as quoted in the Oct 2006 issue of Maxim Magazine

A while back (2003), there were certain fat folk who sued McDonald’s, alleging in part that the latter’s deceptive advertising and processing of its food resulted in the obesity of its customers. The suit was criticized by many as the product of plaintiffs who could not exercise personal responsibility over their own choices.

Why might a consumer blame McDonald’s instead of himself? I think this phenomenon is the flip side of the coin of something more disturbing in our culture: the need to get someone’s approval for everything we do. For example, if you apply for a job, you’ve got to get the approval of the hiring officer. To buy something on credit, a lender must approve of your credit standing. To rent an aparment, the landlord must approve of your rental history.

Perhaps long ago the default state of things was, “you are allowed to do it unless someone objects.” But these days, it’s the reverse: you can’t do it unless someone approves. Why the change? Probably because government & big business have become more pervasive as our society matured. Each passing year witnessed yet more laws / regulations / business practices that, incrementally, resulted in a lot of constraints.

So what’s the connection to personal responsibility? In short, we can’t demand much personal responsibility from someone who isn’t allowed to exercise independent choices. Consider a close-to-home example: If a parent tells tells his child what to do at every step, the parent implies that the child cannot responsibly make his own decisions. Any failings of the child are rightfully blamed on the parent.

Until people have more personal freedom, they will continue to shirk personal responsibility.

For about a year, I had been fortunate to avoid the displeasure of air travel. Recently, a cross-country trip required that I fly Continental Airlines.

Part I: The security line.

I shouldn’t have bothered to wear a belt on my day of travel. I should have just stuffed it into my bag and pulled it out after I’d arrived at the hotel. And who did I think I was fooling with the belt, anyway? Did people really think that I needed one? I haven’t comfortably fit into my pants since I wore those diapers with that elastic waistband. And if you’ve ever wondered why many Texan men wear that big dinner-platter-sized belt buckle, it’s because that’s the only thing that can hold back that huge beer gut. Everything’s bigger in Texas!

Read the rest of this entry »

“Skinny, socially privileged white people get to draw this neat little circle. Everyone inside the circle is normal. Everyone outside the circle should be beaten, broken, and reset, so they can be brought into the circle. Failing that, they should be institutionalized, or worse, pitied.”

Dr. Gregory House, “Lines in the Sand” episode of TV Show “House”