Politics and Culture

A few years ago, there was a funny skit in either Living Color or SNL that noticed the "people who ruin everything." I don't remember too well, but it was about those who, through their irresponsibility, took something away from the rest of us. An unfunny example would be the murderers who make airport travel bothersome and time intensive.

So, I was reading about a lawsuit against Wynn resorts for failing to protect their employees against second hand smoke. Some thoughts:

1. Second hand smoke is a scam. No harm, no law suit.

2. Still, if there's a law on the books about smoking in the workplace, and the casino doesn't follow it, they should get in trouble with the law. This was not the case.

3. By making employers responsible for things not conceived of by either legislators, regulators, employees, and employers; the plaintiffs and their attorneys "ruin everything." From now on businesses will be forced to be so proactive as to burden everybody else.

4. Including those people who like to smoke.

5. If the lady thinks smoking is bad, she should have left. Maybe she could have worked as an operator for an online casino where she'd only be smelling the stink from her own home. Now, she should be lobbying for anti-smoking laws.

6. The union and Wynn only care about money.

7. Add in the lawyers, and these things are enough to make people cynical.

Won't each dollar going to pay for the luxury dorms, gyms, and classes these mostly middle-class kids enjoy take away from some poor person-of-color's (POC) health care or primary education? Just asking.

Let's deconstruct the purpose of the public university:

Everything the government spends money on is supposed to be good for society in general. So, if the public decides to spend money on primary schools, it's because they think that a literate populace makes for a better society.

If the people spend money on parks or libraries, it's because citizens think that these activities provide a good -not just fun- experience, one that everybody should enjoy, or provide a society-improving function like keeping kids off the street, in the case of skate parks or midnight basketball.

Public money shouldn't benefit an individual or particular group alone, which is why the government doesn't pay for seminaries.

I can see the benefit to society for supporting future engineers, chemists, doctors and some other professions that increase the quality of life for everybody. Without offending anybody who's studied these worthy subjects, how will giving money to students delving into _________ [Gay, African American, Chicano, Feminist etc.] studies, sociology, English (mine), communications (nobody communicated before it became a major), or political science help society in general?

An argument can be made that an abundance of people in these fields actually harms the United States, as many of these graduates then require more education to learn to do something useful.

(In fact, I'm the only English major from my class -of those I'm still in contact with- who can claim to be using the things he learned in school [I'm an English teacher] to produce. Most of my classmates are in IT, movies, or whatever.)

My solution to the UC budget "crisis" (I'm sure African children are weeping with sympathy) is to limit public support for those majors that don't benefit society and give it to those who have the greatest likelihood of improving it: Robbing Peter Artsy to pay Paul Pediatrician. That would be the socially responsible thing to do, and we know how concerned UC students are about the general welfare.

See this point (with facts!) here and here.

"If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make [politics] your life."

-Jimmy Soul

There's something uncomfortable about being a member of the opposition party. One sometimes finds oneself cheering for failure. The best-intentioned reasoning goes like this: "When people realize that the current administration and it's policies are terrible, they'll be willing to elect my side. In order for that to happen, things have to get bad." The worst example of this is when those opposed to Bush eagerly awaited disaster in Iraq (don't deny it, Ms. Arianna "the surge sucks" Huffington). Republicans did it a little when the stock market was going down earlier this year. Obviously, if the opposition doesn't fail, one either has to live with cognitive dissonance (and we know how painful that can be) or change one's mind.

I'm pretty good about stopping myself (as if hoping really had an effect), realizing that failure means people getting hurt, but I don't like thinking that the success of my beliefs require the collapse of another's.

(I've developed a method for dealing with this that's a combination of Western scientific induction and Eastern detachment: I sit back and observe. If I'm right [I am], I need not do anything to hasten an outcome ["look, he's the man. Let's see how it works out"]- bad effects will follow bad policies as night follows day. If I'm wrong, then I adjust accordingly. I make an exception for those things where the damage done might not be readily apparent. People like Mark Steyn think that health care will mean the certain, but stealthy destruction of free enterprise. I care about some social issues because I think that they're a long-term disadvantage, but it's not exactly the most fun activity I can think of. Of course, there are those things that directly affect me.)

There's a mode of operations on some political shows and blogs that also rubs me the wrong way. As soon as the opposition gets into power, some see it as their duty to destroy them. Admittedly, it's difficult to assess how much is "too much" and some would argue that it's not beyond the bounds of decency, as they desire an end and wish to use tactics they consider effective- no doubt they're sincere and truthful in their opposition, and I appreciate Brietbart, Malkin, and Beck's good work against ACORN- doing so just makes me unhappy: I prefer to defend than attack and will mostly leave the pit-bull stuff in others' capable hands.

It's also the case that many of my friends and professional colleagues don't share my politics. Now, I don't hide it, but I'm sure it's off-putting to some, and if there's anything I hate it's putting people off. I also get the feeling that a lot of those who disagree with me will be getting very angry in the near future, with or without my help.

Oh, and I'm in the military and Obama is my commander.

As an added benefit, I'll have more time to log about other important things like music and sci-fi.

To summarize a rambling post:

1. I don't like to see my interests as separate from the current administration's, even if I think they're doing unintentional harm to the nation. I know, I know, but I can't do it all of the time.

2. I don't like to pick on people's every fault, even if some of them are funny, like addiction to teleprompters. You can't have a person impossible to mock in some way.

Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner

3. I don't want to alienate co-workers any more than I already do with my poor social skills.

1. Obama said that the Fort Hood massacre is "incomprehensible." Let me help him: The killer thought that the God in which he believes would like that he murder those who, according to him this time, are harming Muslims. At least that's what he said. Understand?

2. I added on my Fort Hood post that it's true that if a person murders (unjust killing) for his religion, he's a religious fanatic. It follows, however, that a person who kills for material things, like money, is a materialist fanatic. The Orlando killer, Jason Rodriguez, is a materialist nut.

3. Brookstone should be able to fire people who don't agree with a strongly-held corporate belief. It's their money. I also think that corporations can make people speak politely or with a certain accent, have appropriate hair styles, not dress like the opposite sex, and pretty much anything else. It's their money.

4. And, why isn't the boss wrong for creating a hostile work environment for Christians?

5. Some people without strong feelings on gay marriage might be swayed against it by the sense that stating a negative opinion about homosexuality might get them in trouble and that allowing same-sex marriage would make it downright forbidden. Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage has said that the Carrie Prejean incident helped their cause. The pro-traditional-marriage-only side in the Maine vote used the case of a counselor who got in trouble for expressing an anti-same-sex marriage opinion as an example of what can happen to dissenters if gay marriage were allowed. The anti-Mormon demonstrations reinforced the idea that pro-same-sex marriage types will not tolerate dissent once they gain the power to impose their view of the world onto everybody else.

6. Man, I wish I didn't have to talk about this stuff.

"The Latino Mayberry." Hmmm.

I must say that I really like my city. Lived here 80% of my life. It has lots of places to go: A Borders Books, which is a sign of civilization. I've never had a crime problem. The people are nice. I've worked at the schools and my kids currently attend Burke and McGee and seem to be doing well. Their teachers are very good. My kids are in baseball, cub scouts- all of that stuff. I go the Saint Marianne Catholic Church. Race isn't a factor in anything, as far I know.

Yes, it's heavily Democratic, but more because of union membership and custom than anger and the seeking of government services. It's certainly not a broad cultural affinity with Ed Begley or Sean Penn, although there are a few of those around.

The video makes a good point. Most people in Pico Rivera don't see themselves as alien to the American experience. The police aren't their enemy. Citizens turn to the police to stop crime- imagine that.

Pico people go to church, picket the local strip club (for and against), work, study. They get mad if schools don't teach your kids.** You know, normal stuff.

I think that's the key for Hispanic success: to see ourselves as individuals who want to succeed instead of victims. It's the attitude of successful minority-immigrants like Indians, Italians, Irish, Koreans, Cubans, and, if you think about it, Americans from almost everywhere else on the globe. Yet, many Hispanics, urged on by liberals and leftists (you know that Communist radio station like Pacifica broadcasts their poison in Spanish), make choices that lead them to form part of an underclass.

Anyways, the report is pretty accurate and our sheriffs do carry guns.

**A principal of mine, one of my favorite people in world called Andrew Sermeno, came up with a brilliant compromise with religious parents who didn't want Halloween celebrated at school: He turned it into "Character Day" and made all of the students dress as a character from a book. The kids had to carry the book in the parade.