What he got right and what I'm not sure about

I just finished a book called The Prophetic Imagination, by Walter Brueggemann. One thing I liked about reading the book was that I didn't agree with a lot of what was written in it. I've found that when I read books I tend to agree with the author more often than not. Sometimes the thought crosses my mind that I'm not giving conflicting views enough of a chance because reading a book gives an author a monopoly on your time and thoughts and certain biases might go unrecognized. However, every now and then I read something that I really don't like and at the very least it reminds me that I still know how to think for myself. Since I just finished the book I wanted to write a few things about what I thought Brueggemann got right and what I'm not so sure about.

One reason I didn't enjoy this book is because I think his writing style could have used a little help. The book might have been a little easier if he communicated in a way that was a little more down to earth. It was a book about prophecy and I imagined reading it, not knowing much about religion, and being thoroughly freaked out. It was a little over the top for me.

One thing that I did take away from it is that change in a society will not occur if people don't take the time to imagine how it could be different and think about the steps needed to get there. This, to me, is a simple idea though and doesn't need high and mighty language about prophecy, royal consciousnesses and alternative consciousnesses. "Do not be overrighteous, neither be over wise, why destroy yourself? Do not be overwicked and do not be a fool, why die before your time? It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other, the man who fears God will avoid all extremes." Ecc 7:16-18. I think Brueggemann could benefit from taking this advice.

Another thing I disagreed with was a general undertone that prophecy was a goal to reach. I don't think it is wise for a person to concern themselves with this. Even when John the Baptists disciples asked Jesus who he was he only replied to tell John that the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured... and the good news is preached to the poor. To me this says, "Who cares what you call it, the proof's in the pudding." It seems to me that people who get too caught up in semantics and labels forget what is really important. The goal should be to defend the cause of the poor and the needy and to visit orphans and widows in their distress, whatever you want to call the people who do this is irrelevant. Claiming to be a prophet and using all that other religious jargon is only going to freak people out and make a person prideful. And that is what I think is so dangerous about this book.

Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

This youtube video is hilarious. If you've got a few minutes watch it and then read the rest of my post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

This makes me laugh but it also makes me ask a lot of serious questions.

If everything is so amazing why isn't anyone happy?

Our culture spends an enormous amount of time pursuing money and material items which this video describes as so amazing. The more successful we have become, the more unhappy we seem to be. If our unhappiness is a result of our pursuit of the wrong goals, what are the right goals?

Have we inadvertently traded community for self-sufficiency through financial avenues? Is our unhappiness the result of a lack of community?

Is there any way to retain community while still pursuing self-sufficiency? Would that even be a solution?

For some reason, I think there is a very strong correlation between the unhappiness that our culture is experiencing and the breakdown and loss of healthy relationships. We have become so financially self-sufficient that needs no longer bring us together. The need for one person to cook for many and have a communal meal because not everyone has the time to prepare their own food was replaced by restaurants, frozen food, microwaves and higher paying jobs. The need to call your family and friends to help you move was replaced by the company Two Men and a Truck and the ability to pay them. The need to get together with your friends for coffee or beer is being replaced by tv shows like Friends and sites like Facebook. And the list goes on. We are getting more of everything with less authenticity (especially when you think of food and Facebook) and I think what has been lost in the process is contributing to our unhappiness.

I'm not sure I know what the solution is to these problems but I do know that a culture full of unhappy people is a danger to itself. Unhappiness breeds unhappiness. Discontentment breeds envy and jealousy. Crime goes up when people want what others have. Whatever the answer is, I think it's in all of our best interest to start thinking about it and looking for it.

Facebook status update

I'm in a bit of a good mood right now because of something a little selfish. There have been a couple quotes I wanted to put up on Facebook for a while but never did. Anyway, yesterday I posted them and it ended up being my most "liked" status update ever. A bunch of my friends copied and posted it on their pages and it was even copied by a large group named People Against Jan Brewer. This was the status update:

‎"We cannot continue to sustain all of this stuff because you don't run a state, you don't run a country with your heart," - Jan Brewer

"A hard heart is no infallable remedy to a soft head." - C.S. Lewis


The C.S. Lewis quote is a line from a book he wrote titled, "The Abolition of Man." Ever since I read it I've been looking for clever way to use it in response to a right winger who blows off a good argument by calling it emotional. I tend to get that argument a lot from a certain individual but I wouldn't tell him this quote because I like him and wouldn't want to be a dick. Jan Brewer, however, does not have the luxury of being liked by me. So this morning, as selfish as it may be, I'm a little proud of how well my cleverness was received. I read through the comments on the pages of other people who copied my post and there were a few people who had some nice things to say. A couple of the more flattering comments were as follows:

Tanicia Hood Haha, who ever posted this, of the People against jan Brewer crew was ingenious to follow with that quote. Take a bow if you would.


Joy Wilcox brilliant.


So anyway, I'm in a bit of a good mood after being called brilliant and ingenious by strangers.

The DREAM ACT

The DREAM ACT passed a vote in the house today and will be voted on again tomorrow in the senate. I was really happy to hear that it did well but I still have my doubts about the senate vote. I really hope it passes but I was thinking about it and I'm pretty sure everything will be okay if it doesn't.

I have a lot of undocumented friends and acquaintances and most of them are actually really happy people. A thought crossed my mind that they are a lot better off than the people who oppose them. While I was reading today I came across an article about why Jan Brewer opposes the DA. She was going off on her usual "You can't run a state or a country with your heart" nonsense. I was reminded of a quote by C.S. Lewis that I read a while back in The Abolition of Man. He says, "A hard heart is no infallible remedy for a soft head." Jan Brewer definitely has one of those. So do a lot of people who oppress the powerless. She has no idea that it's in her best interest and the best interest of our country to provide people, who we've already given a public education, the opportunity to work legally and pay taxes instead of working under the table or turning to the black market for income. Who, of my undocumented friends, would trade lives with some of the most prominent anti-immigration figures? Who would want to go to bed at night and be Russell Pearce, Jan Brewer, or Kris Kobach? I'm absolutely 100% positive that every single one of them are better off being an undocumented immigrant in the U.S. than to be one of those pitiful souls. That makes me feel very good inside.

I can't think of one undocumented friend of mine who is hungry. I can't think of any who do not have clothes. They are forced to live a life that is very resourceful. They are hard working. Most of them have a closer community and better friendships than mainstream Americans. There are many aspects of living an undocumented life that should be envied by the rest of us but we never look at it that way. Maybe if the DA doesn't pass the senate tomorrow they will be better off for it. I still hope for a passing vote but at the end of the day, many of them are good happy people and I hope they don't lose that if they get there papers and enter the ugly world of American affluency.

The Gifts of the Jews - Book Report

I just finished reading the "The Gifts of the Jews" by Thomas Cahill. That was a great book. I think it really changed the way I view the Bible, God and faith in general. It was a historical analysis of the origins of the Jewish faith and how the Jews revolutionized modern thought and brought about western civilization. This might be somewhat controversial but it convinced me that a lot of the old testament was inaccurate, having been passed down orally for about a thousand years before being put into written form. This is actually very liberating and refreshing to me as I've always found it very difficult to believe that God would do some of the things the old testament says he did (I just filed these things away as something I didn't have an answer for). It's nice to know that some of those accounts were probably embellished but that the general events are very historical and although it might not be perfect, there is no reason that belief in God should be scrapped just because the Bible may not be without error.

What is religion?

I was talking to a couple friends last night and one of them brought up some religious topics. He made an argument that religion was relative and anyone could be the answer or have the answer. It was all just whatever people decided to follow. I didn't really argue with him but I did say that if you make that argument you'd have some pretty tough questions to answer but that no matter what argument you make there are tough questions to answer. It was my nice way of saying I didn't agree with him but that I don't have some kind of "knowledge" that is better than everyone else. What did get me thinking, however, was how he reached his conclusion.

He said that he saw a magnet on a refrigerator that said something about how life isn't about who you are but it's about who you choose to be. He also read a fictional book about a mechanic in North Carolina who was the messiah but decided he didn't want to be and went up on a mountain and told God that he quit. He then chose to become a pilot and lived a happy life - like the refrigerator magnet, choosing who you want to be instead of just being the person he was born. This was apparently enough to convince him that anyone can be the "messiah" and he is confident enough about it to tell people that there is no messiah because anyone could be it.

I had a thought though that what he just did was create a mini religion. He read a book, believed the message that there is no true religion and was telling people that the absence of religion is what is true. I'm pretty sure that's what the majority of religions do. Most have a book, a message and try to recruit followers. I don't think that's a bad thing because I don't think truth is relative. If there is truth out there why would it be bad to search for it? I just think that if you are going to tell people, in a definitive way like my friend did, that things are a certain way you should probably have more than a refrigerator magnet and a fictional book. My friend happens to be a really nice guy and I think people would listen to him but I think the only reason anyone would listen to him is because he's a nice guy and it's easy to say "truth doesn't exist" and go on and live however you choose. But if what he's doing is spreading a mini religion, why aren't people offended? It's a little offensive to tell a group of people the Jesus is the only way to heaven or that not breaking Islamic law will get you there. So why is it in American culture that someone can get inspiration from a refrigerator magnet, tell people religions aren't true and it not be offensive but if you get inspiration from the Bible or the Quran all of a sudden you're religious and shouldn't be forcing it on anyone. Isn't that what everyone does who claims to have knowledge? So what is religion, if that's not?

Two ideas - Anchoring and Loves for the Sub-Human

I started reading another book by C.S. Lewis this morning called the "Four Loves." The first type of "love" that he discusses is the love/like that we all experience for things that are not human such as a pleasant smell or a glass of water when we are thirsty. He describes how a person loves the smell of sweet peas when he passes a garden on his morning walk or how a wine aficionado loves wine so much that even on his death bed when he knows he will never drink wine again he would be mortified if a bottle of fine claret were wasted on a person who did not appreciate it.

When I read the section about the person who loves the smell of sweet peas on his morning walk it made me ask myself why I don't take the time to appreciate little things like that. I don't even go for walks and I live right next to a park that is, in all honesty, probably one of the nicest parks in the Phoenix area. I can't say that I wasn't a little ashamed of myself. I really should go for walks and appreciate nature a little more than I do. However, I have a little theory about why I have forgotten to appreciate things like that and I read about it in a different book a month or so ago.

When I read "The Paradox of Choice" by Barry Schwartz there was a section on something that he called Anchoring. In the book he theorized that the amount of pleasure we derive from any given source is affected by the amount of pleasure we would expect to receive from a given alternative. For example, if you were going to buy a pair of shoes you would be ecstatic if you bought them and knew that because you bought them you would no longer have to walk around barefoot. The anchor is going around barefoot. When compared to that a pair of shoes is a wonderful thing. However, if you don't anchor your purchase against being barefoot and instead just anchor your purchase against the other possible options, your purchase will probably only be a little bit better or the same as any other choice that you may have chosen. When you look at it this way, the pleasure that you derive from the shoes decreases drastically.

I think my lack of appreciation for things like the smell of sweet peas might be a result of what I anchor pleasurable things against. The smell of sweet peas is, at best, a small source of pleasure. It's not something, about which, you're going to sit down at the end of the day and say "I smelled sweet peas today, today is a good day." There are a lot of things in my life that I find pleasure in but the reality is that most of them are bigger than the smell of sweet peas. My girlfriend, good books, a business, friends, food, playing sports - all of these things I'd say cause me more pleasure than sweet peas ever could and as a result, when I experience things similar to the smell of sweet peas, I don't derive much pleasure from them because there are plenty of other things that are a source of greater pleasure for me. However, I recognize this as a shortfall for me. When I experience simple things I need to stop and recognize them as a gift in and of themselves. I shouldn't compare them to anything else other than not having been able to experience them at all. I think I will be a happier and more appreciative person if I can start looking at good things this way and maybe it will inspire me to go out and look for simple pleasures on a regular basis.

Poetry

"Here I sit all broken hearted, tried to shit but only farted. Then one day I took a chance, tried to fart but shit my pants."

I read that on the wall in a bathroom stall in a truck stop one time. I can't lie, it made me laugh. Anyway, I can't remember ever writing poetry but It's my girlfriends birthday and I just got off the phone with her and she was telling me I should write a blog in a different genre than I usually do. I think I'll try my best at a poem but I wanted to warn anybody reading this that I have no idea what I'm doing and when I finish I'm going to publish the post but it's probably going to be pretty embarrassing. Here it goes... 

It's been five minutes since I finished the paragraph above and I don't know where to start,

I think I remember something about how poetry is supposed to come from the heart?

I can tell that if this poem is going to have any length at all it's going to take some time,

I think I remember something about how poems are supposed to rhyme?

Aren't they supposed to have a certain number of syllables too?

Or maybe that's just the Japanese Haiku?

I don't know, I've never done this, maybe it'll be best if I just use my wrist,

To position my hands over the keys, while sitting outside under the trees.

Haha, I'm lying, I'm just in my room, thinking of another word that'll rhyme with room, Broom!

That's it, broom rhymes with room and another word that rhymes with those two is tomb ;)

You know Dr. Sues used to be one of my favorite authors as a young lad,

I liked "Hop on Pop" because the drawings in it were rad.

That verse a couple lines back with broom, room and tomb reminded me of Dr. Sues.

You know what else reminds me of Dr. Sues? A big yellow caboose. 

Okay, time to make a point, poetry might not be for me.

But it was fun to try and I'm glad other people do it with glee, lol.

Happy Birthday Renee! I hope you liked my incredibly cheesy/awful poem ;)

The importance of fiction

     I've really been enjoying some of the books I've been reading lately and that had me wondering why I don't read these kind of books all the time. I've read quite a bit for the last 5 or 6 years or so with a few breaks in there along the way. My opinions on the types of books that are worth reading has evolved throughout the few years that I have realized I like to read. I thought I'd write a blog about what my opinions used to be and what they have become today.

     When I was young I actually couldn't stand reading. Reading was something that they made us do in school and I viewed it as work and not a leisure activity. Even though I enjoyed a few of the books I read as a child such as "The Hatchet" or "Island of the Blue Dolphins" it was kind of like finishing a cool science project, "Yeah, now that it's done it's pretty cool but not nearly cool enough to justify the time and effort needed to complete it." That was the opinion of my childhood self of course, now that I'm older I can really appreciate the knowledge and insight that can be gleaned from books. There were a few key books and a few key people that brought me to this realization. One key person was my brother-in-law, John Spencer. I don't know how he did it back then but he convinced me to read a few books like "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and "The Jesus I Never Knew" by Phillip Yancey. These books probably changed my life forever, not only because they contained knowledge that I enjoyed reading about but because they changed my opinion of reading altogether. This was the first baby step to my love of books.

     One of the struggles I've gone through in my life is that sometimes I have trouble looking at things from other peoples point of view. I draw hard conclusions when I feel like they can be backed up by reason. One of the hard conclusions that I drew about books was that I thought non-fiction books were the only ones worth reading. I can remember a conversation with my friends mom, DonEtta, when I told her, "Reading fiction is stupid, if I wanted a story I'd go backpacking or go do something fun and exciting to make my own. Why would I want to read about somebody else's made up world?" I really believed that gaining knowledge was the only purpose for reading and I couldn't figure out why so many people wasted their time by reading meaningless stories. Now that I'm older I can look back and realize how small minded I was being. I still have a tendency to draw hard conclusions when I feel like they can be backed up by reason but I think I get to those conclusions a whole lot slower and with more thought than I used to and if it's not an important issue, I try to avoid it altogether.

     I was in a bit of a reading slump when I started dating my girlfriend, Renee, a couple years ago. It is her that I have to thank for making me pick up books again and start reading them. I had gotten a little bit burned out with the books I was reading and hadn't been at it for quite a while. She bought me a copy of "The Hobbit" by Tolkien and I read it all during a short vacation in Hawaii with my mom. "The Hobbit" completely changed my misconception about fiction and I went on a fiction rampage after that. I read all of the Lord of The Rings trilogy and a couple other books by Tolkien, all of the Chronicles of Narnia, all of the Harry Potter books, and a long 10 book series by Vince Flynn about Mitch Rapp, a CIA Operative. There were a few other books here and there in the middle but for the most part, I ditched non-fiction for awhile and ate up the fantasy worlds created by those talented authors. Looking back, I can tell that even though these books weren't the types of books I thought could teach a person something, I ended up taking some very important things away.

     "The Hobbit" and the other books by Tolkien taught me how much I desire a simple life. Even though it was all made up in Tolkien's mind, reading about hobbits made me want to be like them. They just live simply, eat, drink and are happy and there isn't anything that they do that's not possible in real life. It reminded me of my brother-in-laws' favorite verse in the Bible, Ecclesiastes 2:24&25 "A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, for without him who could eat or find enjoyment." Reading those books changed my life for the better because it made me realize that the goals we have in society don't have to be accepted by everyone. Happiness and contentment can be a priority over money and materialism.

     "The Chronicles of Narnia" taught me aspects about certain virtues such as justice, mercy, bravery and Love as well as others.

     The Harry Potter books made me appreciate the benefits of friendship. I think they made me think consciously about the type of friend I want to be for other people and to always be willing to forgive and be empathetic to other peoples situations.

     The Mitch Rapp series by Vince Flynn were a different animal. Although they were really fun to read, I've never seen such a miserable protagonist as Mitch Rapp. It was hard to disagree with everything he did in the book because he always seemed to be stuck between a rock and a hard place and had to choose between the lesser of two evils. Even though, in theory, I didn't disagree with what he did, it was hard to agree as well. It was almost like watching a fight at a bar, it seemed really easy to tell who was right and who was wrong but when you think about it, it would probably be better if the people fighting just didn't hang out in bars. What I took away from those books was this, a life well lived avoids conflict whenever possible.

     At the end of my fiction rampage I didn't have another series to read so I picked a book up off my shelf called "Sages and Lunatics, recovering what we lost from factory education" by John Spencer. I enjoyed reading this book very much and when I was done I picked another book up off my shelf called "The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando De Soto. This was one of the best books I have ever read and I have blogged about it previously. Right now I am in the middle of a book called "The paradox of choice" by Barry Schwartz. This is another book that I am really enjoying. These last three non-fiction books have been so much fun to read I started to remember that old thought I used to have that gaining knowledge is the only purpose for reading. This time I'm not being so closed minded and I think I'm better off for it. Looking back at what I've read and  learned and the thoughts I've pondered as a result makes me realize that nothing can be bad as long as it's analyzed and examined properly. I think I will forever be a reader of fiction as well as non-fiction and I have learned and will continue to learn a lot about myself and the way I want to live in the process.

Aristotle Quotes

I was looking for a quote yesterday that I thought was from Aristotle. The quote was "Music bypasses the gatekeeper of reason and enters the soul." I never did find out if it was one of his or not but some of the other quotes that I came across were great.

How 'bout this one - "Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime." Aristotle was a philosopher or in case people don't know what that means, a lover of wisdom. I think this is a wise quote and I wish that elites in todays society would recognize this kind of wisdom and realize that it is in their best interest to alleviate poverty and create opportunity for the poor.

There was one other quote that sent my mind off on a tangent as well. It was "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Although I don't have a college degree, I do consider myself an educated person. I went to college for 4 years and then stopped in order to go into business for myself. In January I will have been in business for 4 years and it has worked out to be exceptionally beneficial for me so far. During my years in business I have not stopped thinking or educating myself and one important realization I have come to is that education and wisdom are free or at least almost free if you count the minimal costs associated with buying used books or paying late fees at the library. I feel like self education can be more beneficial than a traditional education because an individual can navigate their mind wherever their interests take them. During the course of my own thoughts and readings I have entertained many thoughts that I do not accept, which is one reason why I not only liked this quote but was a little flattered by it. Not having a degree sometimes makes me feel a little inferior to other friends of mine who are educated but it is nice to think that a man as wise as Aristotle might have considered me educated.

I have, in my mind, thoughts that I don't know if I should accept or not. I spend much of my time thinking about how to rescue the poor from their suffering. I know it sounds cheesy but, as a Christian man, I believe that loving the poor is a way for me to love God. There have been times in my life when I've tried to feel a warm fuzzy feeling in my heart for God because I think church taught me that loving God was supposed to lead to that kind of feeling. To be honest, whether I'm right or wrong, I'm not sure if I've ever really felt that way but I'm not convinced that Love is something that you feel more than it is something that you do. I'm not very outwardly religious but loving the poor is something that I want to do and think about constantly even if it's only in my mind. The thoughts that I don't know whether or not I should accept deal with alleviating the suffering of the poor. It's almost as if I've come up with a plan that could fix the worlds problems but I'm hesitant to share it because even I'm not convinced that it's not crazy. Sometimes I feel like writing a book and laying it all out there but I feel like I would be crushed under the criticism that I know it would receive or maybe I'd feel even more crushed if everyone that read it thought it was stupid and it never even caught traction which is actually a much more likely scenario. Alleviating the suffering of the poor would be tremendously difficult without the consent of the rich and those people scare me even though it's hard to deny that I am one of them, at least during this time in my life.

Book Report - "The mystery of Capital" by Hernando de Soto

I finished the book "The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando de Soto a couple days ago so I thought I'd write another blog about what I want to take away from the experience. 

> I learned that sometimes when a situation is very complicated the best way to gather enough information about it is to get your hands dirty and go out into the real world and make observations. Yesterday I was talking to a work associate of mine and we were debating politics and the topic of immigration came up. He was talking about how it's the norm for "Illegals" to come here and get put in a house with 50 other people where they are treated inhumanely and held ransom until their families can come up with $10,000 to procure their release. I am fortunate enough to have several friends that are not documented American citizens and can attest from personal experience that this is not the norm. I know bad things happen but I have plenty of friends who came here by way of kyotes, paid their fee and were fine. Point is that media is extremely biased and the best way to get a grip on the situation is to make some friends in south Phoenix and ask them what really goes on. You'll find that plenty of "Kyotes" who are vilified in the media are actually decent people that are just trying to get paid for providing a service in the black market because they aren't allowed to work legally. Some do it better than others but the fact is that people talk and they have a reputation to maintain. If it's the norm that they treat people poorly their business would suffer because there are others who don't and people within those communities know who can be trusted and who can't.

> I gained a lot of respect for the poor. It was really neat to read a book that talked about some of the amazing things that poor people in other countries have accomplished. He documents instances where shantytowns organized so well that property values were actually higher in the extralegal section of town than in the mainstream neighborhoods where people actually had legal title for the properties that they inhabit. There was even a case where the elected president was living in a home in which he did not have legal title because that was where the best living conditions were.

> I learned to focus on solutions rather than punishments. Administering justice is beneficial when it is based on reality but when it is not feasible the longer justice is pursued the more society will suffer on both ends because the fight over justice will become a greater problem than what it is attempting to resolve.

> Another thing that was interesting to me was how often societies had run into the same problems over and over again. It really drove home the saying that history repeats itself and it made me wish that people could look at history for guidance to a peaceful solution and avoid solutions that led to violence, bloody revolutions and oppression.

This book was one of the best books I've ever read. I would recommend that everyone take the time to read it.

Don't ask don't tell?

This has been a pretty hot button political issue lately. The military's don't ask don't tell policy about gay people openly serving in the military almost got repealed by the senate but the vote was blocked. It was an issue that really polarized the Republicans and the Democrats. This is one of those issues in which each side has some very valid points and i feel like nobody on either side calms down and remembers why the don't ask don't tell policy is there in the first place.

Gay rights isn't something that I spend much time thinking about because I really don't care that much to be honest. I'm not gay so I don't have a personal reason to care but I'm not homophobic either so I don't have any reason to fight against it. Of all political issues I'd have to say it ranks among the least important to me. However, because it's such a non-issue to me I think it's allowed me to see each argument clearly and make a pretty sound judgement on the issue.

This is, in a nutshell, what I think about the don't ask don't tell policy. It's already a fair compromise. Gays don't like it because they think they should be able to be themselves. Problem is that other people want to be themselves too. If gay people can be born gay, other people can be born a little weirded out by gay people and I don't think it's anything anyone needs to fight about. A gay person should be able to be themselves but a guy that's not gay shouldn't be made to strip naked and shower next to someone that he know's is attracted to his gender either, which is what happens in the military. Sure it's an inconvenience for gay's but it's an inconvenience for straight people if it's not there too. The compromise is don't ask don't tell. Everyone be themselves but don't go running your mouth about it. I don't know why everyone argues about this. The policy, even if it's not perfect, avoids more issues that it creates and is good for everyone.

Slippery slope arguments

A police officer in Phoenix, Arizona shot and killed a 29 year old man and the dog that lived at his residence on Tuesday while responding to a domestic violence call. There were 2 officers present at the time of the shooting. The other officer reported that the man was unarmed and that the dog was barking but was not threatening either one of the officers. The officer that shot the man was arrested on aggravated assault charges Tuesday evening. Prior to the shooting, the officer had put his gun to the temple of the man that was later shot and killed.

This really hit a nerve with me and I wanted to write about it. I've already read articles that make a slippery slope argument in favor of not charging the officer with murder. Basically, they say that police officers need to be confident in the face of danger and that convicting officers for shooting suspects will cause them to hesitate and the end result will be that the hesitation will put them in danger. I think that's bullshit. I understand that cops need to be confident while on the job but we as a society don't want them to be so confident that they think they can shoot unarmed men without the risk of prosecution. The slippery slope argument works on both sides of that mountain and in my opinion the side of the mountain that allows cops to murder unarmed citizens is much more dangerous.

 This is the way I see it. We are all very lucky that the other officer didn't cover for him or else he might have gotten away without a hitch. If this situation is as bad as it looks at first glance his blatant disregard for his actions says one of two things to me. Either he went crazy, in which we can all breathe a sigh of relief in knowing that it is probably an isolated incident, or he was completely competent at the time and just thought that he could get away with it. If the later is true, we have some serious reform measures we need to take in regard to our law enforcement. He was a nine year veteran of the police force and if in those nine years he became confident enough to think he could get away with what he did, we need to take a look at what goes on in the police force to allow that to happen. If indeed he did think he could get away with it, there have most likely been numerous events in which he has gotten away with more minor offenses as a result of having no accountability or rather having other officers (the presumed accountability) turn a blind eye. The fact that he even thought another officer would cover for him for something like this raises very valid concerns about the ethics of the entire force. I'm not saying the entire force is corrupt but I am saying that the concern is valid and needs to be investigated and addressed properly.

Basically, I think we as a society need to raise the red flag here and publicly hold the system accountable during the due process that is going to ensue. We need to calmly stay informed while he is given his right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of his peers. If he is convicted of murder I think prosecution to the full extent of the law is very warranted in this case and I think we as a society need to cry out for justice. We cannot allow people in authority to murder unarmed citizens under the color of law. This is a very important issue and should not be neglected by the public.

Weight loss tip

I watched the movie Spanglish last night and I had a thought come to mind about why dieting doesn't work that I wanted to share.

In the movie a Mexican mother and her daughter immigrate to the United States and live in the barrio with family. The mother gets a job as a maid for a very wealthy American family. The plot of the movie unfolds as the two cultures collide and stereotypes are broken down. In the movie the issue of money comes up quite a bit because the Mexican family doesn't have much and the American family has more than they know what to do with. The way people think about money in the movie compared to the way our body's manage energy consumption is the metaphor I'd like to share.

There is a scene in the movie when the Mexican daughter and the two children of the American family are all sitting out on the patio that overlooks the beach with the American father. The father is making a piece of art (I think) and he needs weathered pieces of glass that can be found on the beach. He proceeds to tell all three children that if they go look for weathered pieces of glass on the beach he will give them a certain amount of money for each piece depending on the size and the color. The two American children don't really care to look because they know that they have enough money to meet their needs and pretty much do whatever they want. The Mexican child, however, sees this as an opportunity to make more money than she's ever had in her life. She scours the beach day and night in search for the weathered pieces of glass and ends up finding enough to make a small fortune. In the movie the father is a little taken back by the amount of money that he owes but he pony's up the dough anyway and then gets in trouble from the Mexican mother for meddling with her daughter. Anyway, I think something can be learned from this in regards to weight management.

You see, our body's need to do something with every bit of energy we consume whether it be use it to perform necessary functions or store it as fat. Just like people need to do things with every bit of money we acquire whether it be spend it or put it in the bank. When people go on a diet that is like living in the barrio. They consume less energy than their body needs and the result is weight loss because their body has to get that energy from somewhere and the result is that it taps into it's fat stores. When people stop a diet, however, that is like the little Mexican girl that is given the opportunity to make money when she wasn't able to while living in the barrio (on the diet). The result is that the body naturally holds on to all the energy that it can because it anticipates that it might need it at a later date.

This is why it's so important to maintain a healthy lifestyle when it comes to weight management. If you are struggling with weight and you keep moving back and forth between the barrio to the beach house you are going to confuse the shit out of your body and in turn be more unhealthy than you would be if you just maintained a consistent lifestyle.

So this is what I recommend. You need to find out (or at least make an educated guess) what your resting metabolic rate (RMR) is. This is the amount of energy that your body consumes at rest. It's kind of like an idling car, it still uses a little bit of gas but not as much as it would if you were going 60 mph. Knowing your RMR is important because then you can easily find out how much food you can eat in a day in order to either lose or at least maintain your weight. Once you have this knowledge you need to structure your lifestyle around the amount of food that you've determined works for you. It is very important, however, that this be a lifestyle change because, as we've discussed, the moving back and forth between diet and overeating confuses the body and hinders healthy living more than it helps.

Everything I've discussed thus far is only a foundation for weight management. Once you've determined the right amount of food your body needs to consume, anything you add to your new lifestyle can also help. Some healthy additions I would recommend are drinking more water than you need every day and exercising. The types of food you eat are also a factor. Cut back on things like desert and sugary drinks.

Above all, don't stop using your brain. A healthy lifestyle is incredibly simple if you take the time to think about it. You know what's good for you and what's not and you don't need a book or therapist to help you. It's not easy. If it was, everyone would be thin but you are smart enough to do it yourself. I think too many people place the responsibility on things outside of their immediate control - I need to read that book and then I'll know what to do - I need to get a personal trainer and they'll make sure I'm doing the right things. Problem is that at the end of the day, it's up to you. Every time you have the opportunity to put a cookie down or not buy a half gallon of ice cream at the store, those are decisions that you need to start making. They're different for everyone but you know what they are for you.

This is about as simple as weight loss gets. Don't get distracted by all the stuff advertised on T.V. that makes weight loss look easy. Anyone who says it is easy to lose weight in a healthy way is trying to sell you something you don't need. The truth is that it takes a lot of work but the work isn't rocket science. You know what to do, you just need to start doing it, make a lifestyle out of it and not look back.

Oh yeah, and don't stress too much - that will kill you faster than food will ;) Hope you enjoyed this one.

Marijuana

Arizona is going to have the opportunity to vote on a medical marijuana proposition in the upcoming election in November. I've been thinking a little bit about the pro's and cons of legalizing marijuana and thought I'd write a blog about it.

I think I'll talk first about the pros for this proposition.

1. Marijuana has medicinal value for sick people. Some people disagree with this but I've got to say that they are flat out wrong if they think marijuana can't help for certain illnesses. If you're one of those people, consider this example - Cancer patients going through chemotherapy often have trouble with loss of appetite and nausea. If you've ever watched Harold and Kumar go to White Castle you know it's common knowledge that marijuana stimulates the appetite. It's not always the healthiest food you might be after but for a cancer patient who is having so much trouble keeping food down that they are experiencing weakness, it's hard to imagine not letting them make their own decision on the issue. You don't have to agree with the decision but can't you agree that it's their decision?

2. It's already widely used and, currently, drug cartels and the black market are reaping the financial benefits. Legalization would allow legitimate business to take over and would start to hurt the revenue streams of the drug cartels and the other various business components of the black market. Again, you don't have to agree with using marijuana but any reasonable person would at least concede this point as a benefit to legalization.

3. Marijuana is safe considered to other drugs that are legalized for their medicinal value. All kinds of opiates have been legally approved as ways to manage pain. Opiates are actually pretty dangerous compared to marijuana. It's pretty hard to argue against that. Who doesn't know someone they went to high school with who ended up overdosing on prescription pain killers and dying? I know I do. Does anyone know somebody who overdosed on marijuana and died? Some people say it's not possible. I don't know if it's ever actually happened, but I do know that not only have I never known anyone who overdosed on marijuana, I've never heard of it happening either. That being said, whatever your opinion is on this, I think it's safe to say that marijuana is much safer than other legal drugs prescribed to manage pain. So the question some medical marijuana proponents are asking is, "if opiates are legal, what's the problem with a little weed, dude?"

And the cons.

1. It's not easy to regulate. When a cop pulls someone over for driving drunk there are breathalysers and field sobriety tests to easily find out if they are driving under the influence. With marijuana, it's not so easy. Opponents say that medical marijuana users will drive under the influence without the threat of detection and make our roads more dangerous than they already are. Since this is a possibility, marijuana should remain illegal. (I'd say that's a problem for law enforcement. Why should a cancer patient not be able to use marijuana because cops are too stupid to find a way to prove if someone's high or not? Law enforcement can adapt if they try. It's really easy to take a blood sample onsite if someone is suspected of being impaired. And if a cop can't tell, then they're probably safe to drive anyway).

2. Kids will think it's okay to do drugs if they see adults using it. This is also a real possibility. Just like it's a real possibility for alcohol abuse or abuse of any other legal drug. Hey parents, get involved in your kids lives again. This isn't going to pose any problem that's not already out there, it's just with a different substance. Fact is that kids are just about 100% guaranteed to face these decisions in their lives, whether they are legal or not, and if they are educated with facts they will most likely make a responsible decision. And if they don't, they probably wouldn't have anyway.

3. It's not FDA approved and there are no federal studies to show that it has medicinal value. True, but have you ever asked yourself why there have been no federal studies to show that it has medicinal value? It is currently a schedule 1 drug, right up there with LSD and cocaine. The difference is that although it's a schedule 1 drug, it's nothing like other schedule 1 drugs. The FDA would have a hard time doing studies and administering a drug to a group that they said is as bad as LSD and cocaine. This has caused them not to research it which is why there is a lack of studies showing it's medicinal value. Kind of stupid if you ask me but nevertheless, it's what some opponents are saying.

Anyway, this kind of turned into a pro medical marijuana post. Wasn't really intending it to be like that but when I start thinking about it this is just where reason takes me. Hope you enjoyed it.

Politics - is a moderate presidential candidate a possibility?

Just curious, with liberals so far to the left and conservatives so far to the right, is it possible for a candidate in the middle to get elected? And if so, how in the world would they do it?

I'm not a republican or a democrat and I actually don't like either party although lately the republicans have been a little more scary to me than the democrats. I was thinking about a candidate that I would actually be excited about taking office and it's so far from current reality that it was almost depressing. Anyway, I thought I'd blog to nobody about how I think a candidate could get elected and change the country the way we all need it to be changed.

Campaign - I'd like to see a candidate run a clean campaign. I have a vision of him stopping in the middle of a heated debate and telling the American people that the two candidates running for office are the best two people that America could nominate and that either one of them will make a fine president and that there is no need to fear and no need to argue to the point of dividing the public. Not that it has to be true, it's still politics, but I'd like to see someone extend a hand to the other side not because they like them but because they realize that all the fighting that has been going on lately is a bigger problem than the ones they are trying to solve by fighting. I would listen to a president who explained in detail how he was going to facilitate the repair of the country, not by using government but by allowing free people to provide for themselves. That is how economic problems have been fixed successfully in the past. I want a president that inspires the public to act, not a president that inspires the public to vote for him by telling them how he is going to create programs that fix their problems without them having to lift a finger.

Goal - A president that is a leader and not a problem solver would also be a breath of fresh air. We have some serious cultural issues that should be addressed. The government cannot fix these problems w/ regulation. Someone needs to step up and tell the American people that they are free and to quit being stupid. Explain a few culturally accepted procedures that don't make sense and tell the people how they can fix it. Like home ownership for example, it's considered normal now to buy a house and spend the next 30 years paying it off. Most loans are through the government now so people spend 30 years of their life working to pay the government back. I see a real problem in that. I don't see why people need to live in a house that is pristine before they have earned it and I think a leader should tell people that spending a large chunk of their income on housing for 30 years of their life is greatly reducing their ability to prosper. I think home ownership needs to be the base from which we build a sustainable economy which is what I would like my presidents main goal to be.

Unemployment - In my opinion, organization and access to resources can fix unemployment very quickly. I'd like to see unemployment fixed not by government stimulus but by allowing companies and people access to unused land and other resources which are currently not allowable under law. Law's should not dictate the way people live, the way people live should dictate laws. Land happens to be one of a countries most valuable resources and if used properly can build capital where it does not exist. I think unemployment can be fixed by developing unused land for the people that need it. Think about how many jobs could be created if the government designated 100 square miles of federal land for development and gave it to development companies in exchange for them taking unemployed people off of government aid and putting them to work. The unemployed could build sustainable communities that shed some of the unneeded cultural baggage that we think is mandatory.

Sustainable communities - In my opinion there are a few main aspects to a sustainable community; food, water, shelter, energy, waste removal, maintenance and access to education. I'd like to see all of these handled on the local level. This would impede any entity from obtaining a monopoly on a life sustaining industry which would give security to communities.

Food - Like I said, I'd like to see food produced locally to protect communities from a food industry that is too big and mass produced to give a quality product to everyone. Specifically I'd like to see homes built with the type of garden seen here - http://www.bensoninstitute.org/Publication/Manuals/Walipini.pdf. This would provide communities with an affordable system of quality food production and would ease many of the problems that the agricultural industry is having now.

Water - Communities would need to be built in locations where clean water is available. That doesn't really need much explaining.

Shelter - I'd like to see a change in the way homes are built. Currently a person buys a home with credit and it takes them 30 years to pay it off. This is because they have to finance the floors, walls, plumbing, electric, paint, fixtures, etc. All a home really needs to be is something that keeps you out of the elements. All the extra's are nice but are they worth 30 years of work when they could be paid off in 15? I'd like to see homes built that, on the outside, look like this one - http://www.greenopia.com/BA/news/15615/10-8-2009/The-Most-Beautiful-Earthen-Homes-on-the-Planet. On the inside they would just be a big modifiable room. Basically just a buried concrete shell with pluming and electric coming out of the floor. This would do multiple things. From the outside it would make communities beautiful because they would blend in with nature. Because they are so simple they wouldn't need the massive amount of financing that conventional houses require. Once purchased they would be easily upgradeable, meaning that people could install bedrooms, flooring, cabinetry, etc as they have the cash to pay for it. By installing these with cash as you go along a person would save almost 50% because they didn't finance all the amenities. All of this money saved would be available to spend for usable goods instead of going to the Fanny May and Freddy Mac type companies that have a monopoly on the current system of home financing. I really think that housing like this could fix the huge cultural issue we currently have with the way we purchase our homes.

Energy - Sustainable energy for each local community or possibly each individual home is a must have for a sustainable economy and community. The technology is already out there to get away from coal and the other environmentally damaging ways to produce the energy needed to power our culture. And let's be honest, environmental nuts are annoying. I want to hear someone make an argument, not for saving the environment, but for how cool it would be to live in a city and not have to breathe smog every day and not have to put up with all the other crap we pollute our cities with. Saving the environment is obviously a plus but the benefits of living in a clean environment should be enough to sell it to anyone. Consider the following examples of how sustainable energy can be harnessed.

Wind - http://www.makanipower.com/. I think this is an awesome way to harness cheap sustainable energy. Installing this all over the U.S. would create tons of jobs while saving people money that they can spend in other areas of the hurting economy.

Solar - http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3287-plant-mimicking-solar-cells-can-self-assemble. I thought this was awesome when I read it. It might not be quite ready to hit the market but the technology is there and if enough people make it a priority this kind of thing can become a reality really soon. http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3263-plug-in-solar-appliance-brings-cheap-solar-power-t. Another article depicting the possibilities of energy production.

Wave - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEk74DIkuk. For areas near the ocean.

Geothermal - http://www.qualibouenergy.com/island-st.lucia.php. I actually don't know much about this but it's out there. Enjoy.

Energy storage - http://www.isentropic.co.uk/index.php?page=storage. A common problem with renewable energy is that it is hard to store once it is created meaning that while the wind's not blowing or the sun's not shining there is no energy unless it can be efficiently stored. This may or may not be a viable means of energy storage but it does provide an example of what's out there. If this doesn't work there are plenty of other ideas as well - http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/category/27.

Energy is a huge resource! With unemployment as high as it is, why can't a company get financing to employ Americans to start installing these everywhere? That bailout money for the housing industry could have been used for financing these kinds of things instead of saving the broken system we currently have. The good news is that it's still broken and eventually they are going to have to bail it out again or try something new. I would love to have a president explain this and tell Americans to mobilize and start these projects. Stop looking at the government for an answer and just expect the government to stay out of the way and let this happen. I'd vote for someone who said that!

Waste Removal - Reducing the amount of waste produced is one of the best ways to manage waste removal. Communities need to make it convenient to recycle locally. This means homes equipped with composting systems that can be used in gardens. Also, extra taxes on items purchased that produce un-recyclable waste. I'm ordinarily apposed to new taxes but what I think this would do is encourage companies to use recyclable materials and cut down on packaging waste which is a huge source of unneeded garbage. And hopefully when they accomplish this they wont be paying the extra tax anymore anyway but I think they need the financial incentive. This isn't really an area of expertise for me but there are already tons of proven programs that are working all over the country. Consider this as an example, http://www.wastezero.com/Press2.cfm

Maintenance - This isn't as crucial as some of the above mentioned areas so I'd like to share it as just an opinion. If the above mentioned ideas are put in place there will be a huge need for upkeep in the community. I'd like to see jobs like landscaping and maintenance be a priority. In our society we try to make everything so that it doesn't need to be maintained because that costs money. That's why so many houses in my neighborhood have ugly rock yards and so much concrete. It's really unappealing if you ask me. I think we need to change a cultural norm and start to value the way nature looks by integrating it into the way we live our daily lives. This would, however, create the need for someone to keep it up and I don't see why that's a bad thing because it creates a lasting job for someone that might not have one otherwise. I would suggest that communities be encouraged (but not required) to create community management companies that take care of things like local landscape and community maintenance. These jobs could be run by and employ people within the community which would help ease unemployment. Unlike the current system where on a local level some residents manage their own landscaping and maintenance and others don't which leaves the possibility for degradation of the neighborhood. And on a larger level the state employs huge companies with a bidding process to manage community landscape. Under a new restructuring process the costs of landscaping and maintenance could be spread out between more people and money could be kept within the community giving security to people that live there.

Education - Here's a huge issue that doesn't get enough attention. Education in America is not providing citizens with necessary tools to survive as well as tools to improve. As technology has increased people stopped feeling the need to know how to grow food and provide basic sustenance for themselves. This is a real problem. One result of this is a food industry that is now required to mass produce food at such an enormous level that they have begun to cut corners. Just go eat at McDonalds and my point will be proven. Think about what kind of food has become acceptable for consumption. It's disgusting! Watch Food Inc or Supersize Me. That is actually how many Americans live their lives and that is really sad. Education has failed because it didn't produce citizens that were smart enough to realize what was happening and instead just accepted insane solutions out of necessity because they had no other alternative. Obesity is out of control, heart disease and diabetes rates are skyrocketing as well as many other health risks. This is all a result of the unhealthy lifestyles we have come to think of as normal. Education needs to be restructured in order to teach people how to live better.

I would recommend a hybrid form of education where students go to the local school to learn how to live in the community and survive in a sustainable way. Locally they learn how to garden, build homes, purify water, take care of animals, socialize and basically learn how to actually perform physical work and live independent of the government so that they can avoid this - http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/photographer-capture-life-in-garbage-city.php. and this - http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/10/03/magazine/08wwln.1.html which is a photo of people waiting in line for government welfare. People wouldn't need to do that if they new how to provide for themselves in a sustainable way and had the freedom to do so. This is what local education should look like and it should not change too much because people should always have the ability to provide for themselves even if they choose not to.

I mentioned a hybrid form of education because I think computers need to be used for learning other subjects such as math, history, English, etc. This could be an online curriculum that is completed at home or students could commute to a school to learn them, the important thing is that they still learn these subjects. (BTW, I've got to throw this in there because of how bad it is. No Child Left Behind is the dumbest educational policy ever! When no child gets left behind no child advances either because there will always be children that get left behind. That is a reality that a policy cannot prevent and when a policy dictates that all available resources be spent to make sure no child gets left behind, that's exactly what happens - No child gets left behind because no child goes anywhere).

Adults also need access to affordable education as well. With technology I don't see why this hasn't happened yet. There is plenty of knowledge out there that nobody in particular owns. I don't see why this can't be organized and shared for free as a way for adults with access to the internet to receive education and get better jobs if they want to. Why does a University of Phoenix education cost an arm and a leg when you own the computer and all most students really need is an organized curriculum and a means of navigating it. UoP doesn't own the knowledge they are providing so why are the economical barriers so high? Adult's access to knowledge needs to be greatly reduced and they need to be provided with ways to show that they have achieved competency within certain fields. Here's an arbitrary example - A school shouldn't look to see if a teacher has a degree in order to hire them, they should look at real examples of work that the teacher has completed in order to judge competency and a teacher should be able to show schools how much time they have invested in their education not just show a piece of paper that has become much too easy to obtain. None of that needs to cost $20,000 or more. If this can be done it will allow adults to better themselves and when they can do that everyone will benefit.

Now, I've explained how I would like a president to fix our country and I've added a lot of detail that I'm sure  should be adaptable because I'm not an expert on a lot of the topics I wrote about. However, I think I have at least laid out a rough draft that is plausible and should be considered. The immediate benefits to this are that developing land will create capital that can be used as a resource for creating jobs which will ease unemployment and stimulate the economy. The drawbacks are that homes wouldn't be sold with all the bells and whistles and living in these communities could require a little more work than living in conventional homes. The question is would the benefits of the changes outweigh the drawbacks? Worst case scenario is that the ideas I've laid out are impractical or impossible for the free market to accomplish and we can all go back to fighting with each other about gay marriage, healthcare, war, and all the other stupid issues that keep us from prospering.

I hope you've enjoyed reading my thoughts. Thanks for your time.

Book Recommendation

I've been reading a lot of fiction over the last year and a half or so and I've enjoyed it but I think I started to forget how enjoyable other types of books can be as well. So I grabbed a book off my bookshelf that was recommended to me by my brother in law a few years ago that I just never got to. I'ts called The Mystery of Capital by Hernando De Soto. He's a Peruvian author who works in a think tank that influences economic policy for developing countries. I've only got through the first chapter and a half but what I've read so far has blown my mind. It actually excites me to read about plausible solutions in a world where so much feels like it is out of control and hopeless.

I just want to summarize what I've read so far and maybe I'll write future posts as I read more.

The beginning of the book talks about how much dead wealth the poor in developing countries actually possess. It defines dead wealth or dead capital as usable goods that cannot be readily turned into liquid or capital. The premise is that the poor in developing countries live wherever they can in homes built in shanty towns and outskirts. He says that these homes do not have clear title but they are worth money in the small communities and are regularly traded and sold within the community which has it's own unofficial regulatory system that is enforced by local leaders and basic social norms. The book describes ways that capitalism can be successful in these communities by rewriting land laws to give the poor clear title to possessions that they obviously own and that nobody really has a chance at taking from them. (eg. would a government really go into a shanty town and evict people living there? Answer- Probably no so why not give them clear title to it). With this clear title, even though the equity would be minimal, they could use the possessions as collateral to receive loans and grow the small businesses that they are already operating. And if this was done for everyone in the shanty at the same time they would all have capital to buy each others goods and services and it would basically act as a springboard to get the community legally operating and growing. A lot of this is my interpretation of what would happen but the basic premise is that giving clear title to poor people's living arrangements free's up capital and what happens from there is up to the free market.

Anyway, it's a really interesting read so far and I just wanted to write a little about it and recommend the book to anyone that might stumble upon my blog.

Thinking logically - Being effective does not mean something is justifiable

I was hanging out with my family this weekend because we were having a rummage sale to benefit cancer research for my aunt. Everyone know's you don't get to choose your family and I'm definitely no different. I got into a brief conversation with one of my cousins and the topic of border security came up. His solution involved placing chain guns at the border that could be controlled remotely through the internet. He thinks it would be a good idea to let citizens control the guns and shoot people that are trying to cross the border and I'm pretty sure he was serious... I was pretty appalled at first and asked, why? His only answer was that it would deter it and as soon as I started a counter argument he just kept repeating,"It would deter it, it would deter it." When I was able to finish a sentence I said, "At what cost? At the cost of human life? That's awful." At this point the conversation ended and he just shrugged his shoulders like I was the idiot that doesn't have the stomach to solve a problem quickly and effectively.

I was thinking about it later and there were a few things I wish I could have said to him but I didn't so I'm going to write it in this blog instead. If I had the chance, I'd ask him if he would punch his kids in the face when they behave poorly. When he says no, I'd say "But it would deter bad behavior, it would deter bad behavior." I'd try to make him realize that just because something is an effective deterrent, that doesn't mean that it is justifiable. Any reasonable person would agree to some extent. Small nuclear bombs at the border would be an effective deterrent as well but nobody in there right mind would suggest that. What scares me is that there are too many people out there like my dumb-ass cousin who are willing to metaphorically swallow a cat to catch a mouse or maybe in his case swallow an elephant to catch the mouse. Point is that killing people for committing a misdemeanor according to AZ state law would be a much bigger problem than undocumented immigration.

I realize that my cousin probably fell off the deep end on the right side of the spectrum and there's next to no chance of this actually happening but it's still a little unnerving that a firefighter who is a prominent member of society can say things like this and think people are going to agree with him or worse, actually have people agree with him. Persuasive people like him and his world view are how some of the most horrible things imaginable happen in a society. Start with a little problem, fix it with another problem, fix that problem with something worse and all of a sudden you're killing desperate people that are so poor they are willing to walk across a desert just to get away.

I don't really know what the point is that I want to make other than that I wish people would take a step back and think critically about their views and beliefs. Try to come up with ideas and solutions that benefit everyone instead of either being the best case scenario for their group or the worst case scenario for whoever their adversary is. Who can't agree with that, huh?

Stress Reduction Technique

I tend to think a lot about stress reduction in my life because I think it's an important part of being happy. In my opinion it is because our happiness depends on the way we think about situations and not necessarily about the situations themselves. If you can find ways to think about things in a non-stressful way you might be more happy than someone else in the same situation. So I'd like to share a way that I view a certain aspect of our lives that I think might be beneficial to other people.

Money, or more specifically the amount of money that we have can be an enormous cause of stress to people and I don't think it needs to be. I like to think about money in terms of panic points. The panic point is an arbitrary number at which a person freaks out because they don't have enough money to meet their needs. The panic point can be different for everyone but I think the most common panic point is $0. This happens to be a very stressful panic point because at $0 you actually don't have enough money for anything. When you get to this panic point you either use credit which digs the hole deeper, make lifestyle changes that reduce expenses or find ways to make more money. All three of those solutions can be stressful but I think all three can be avoided if a person just chooses to think about a different panic point.

I'm thinking about certain people that I know that always find a way to squeak by but never have any left over money and are always stressing about it because they only worry when they run out of money. But what if they started to worry when they got down to $1000 instead? Maintaining a $1000 balance is just as easy as maintaining a $0 balance once a person saves $1000. Having $1000 is, however, much less stressful than having $0. All a person needs to do is decide what changes they would make at $0 and instead start making those changes at $1000. The result is a reduction in stress because you act like you are out of money, which means you don't spend it, but it's less stressful because desperation isn't actually right around the corner.

So if you are someone who is stressed out about money, I suggest cutting cable bills, eating out and everything you can possibly cut, only for a time, until you reach the new panic point that you decide fits your lifestyle. Once there start pretending like the panic point is your new $0 level and I think you will find that stressing about money issues will go away.

12 angry men

I watched one of my favorite movies a couple nights ago called 12 angry men. It's a really old black and white movie about a jury of 12 men that are deciding whether or not a boy is guilty of murdering his father. If found guilty the boy will receive the death penalty. The evidence against the boy is overwhelming at first and 11 of the 12 men vote guilty right away. As the movie unfolds the one man examines evidence and testimony and convinces the other 11 men that reasonable doubt exists and they should not convict him based on the evidence.

This is one of my favorite movies because it really exposes the dangers of prejudice, apathy, and a host of other injustices. I encourage anyone to watch it and think about how we treat people on a daily basis and whether or not there is anything you want to change.

Using FrontLine Plus show's your pet you care???

Sometimes I hear advertisements and cringe at what I'm listening too. There happens to be an advertisement I hear on facebook all the time for a product called Frontline Plus that is quiet possibly the worst I've ever heard.

Frontline + is a tic product for dogs. The advertisement starts out with a man speaking in a very deep serious voice that says "Using Frontline Plus shows your pet you care." Seriously? When did we as a culture shut our brains off?

There are a few ways too look at this but I think is speaks volumes about the culture we've created. First, it says a lot about the way products and services are marketed to people. It is very deceptive and creates an emotional tie to the product that does not need to be there. The fact that this type of marketing is effective is pretty disturbing. If a company can successfully market a product based on a lie instead of a beneficial function then there is no longer any need for quality. When quality is tossed out the window the free market will no longer need to compete with quality products, they will only need to compete by marketing and advertising successfully.  Just ask yourself how much junk you have laying around that you don't use very often? There is a good chance that these items were marketed based on a lie instead of a function. It might be a good idea to think about the way a product is marketed before you buy it. If it doesn't even attempt to give a good reason for needing the product then you probably don't.

Another way to look at this is by thinking about what kind of person actually falls for this kind of gimmick. I know there are a lot of stupid people out there but, really, how stupid do you have to be to actually believe that your pet can identify they brand of tic medicine and evoke a warm fuzzy feeling inside because they know you care about them. This is the subliminal message that the product is trying to instill. If you love your pet you will buy them Frontline Plus and they will know that you care about them because you did. The people that hear this advertisement and go buy Frontline Plus are either brainwashed or exceptionally stupid.

So, here's how this can change your life for the better. I don't think people that buy Frontline Plus are stupid, I think they probably just don't have time to think about it. Start listening to the advertisements that you hear and ask yourself if you actually need a particular brand because it is better and if you can't figure out if it is better or not then buy the generic because it's probably just as good. Also, if you look around and realize that you have tons of name brand junk just sitting around that never gets used, you are probably brainwashed by the marketing that you view and need to just start using your noggin a little more. It could save you a bunch of time and money that might make life a little less stressful and a little more enjoyable.

Dodgeball

My dodgeball league starts tonight so I thought I'd write about how I became interested in the sport and how it has been a positive influence in my life.

I've been playing fairly regularly for just over 3 years now. Playing dodgeball has become one of the highlights of my week on a regular basis. I started playing when I moved to Scottsdale to go to school at ASU Polytechnic. I moved there from Glendale, AZ which is about 30 miles to the west. At the time I didn't know anyone on this side of town except for my friend John who was my roommate. I was going to school 30 miles to the east so the friends I made out there weren't exactly in close proximity to where I lived either. Being a very outgoing person, I really missed having friends to hang out with regularly. I got connected with AZ Dodgeball when the owner of the league friend requested me on the social networking site Myspace, back when it was still popular. I looked at their website and realized they met on Thursday nights about 4 miles from where I lived. I decided to go check it out one week and was hooked immediately. I have played on a weekly basis, other than the few times that I have sustained injuries, ever since then.

At first it was just a fun way to be active during the week. Gradually, I became friends with many of the people in the league and started to hang out with them on the weekends. A few months later I was going on snowboarding trips and soon realized that my entire social life was grounded with people that I had met through playing dodgeball. Pretty soon I showed up one night and saw two girls warming up that I had never seen before. A friends girlfriend walked up to me and said, "That blond girl is really cute, you should go talk to her." I replied, "I don't know about her but her friend is hot!" Then I walked over and introduced myself to Renee who I have now been seeing for over 2 years. I continued playing and making friends and now I can't imagine what my life would be like if I hadn't found out about this awesome sport!

What I learned from playing dodgeball is that there are a lot of benefits to joining a social athletic group other than just the fun to be had by playing. So I'd encourage anyone who wants to make friends and have fun to go out and join a dodgeball/kickball/bowling, etc league. It could change your life.

Business Idea

Owning a business is an aspiration that many Americans would like to do at some point but coming up with a profitable idea/service, business model and the capital to get it off the ground is an insurmountable feat most of the time. I'm not trying to be a pessimist but it has to be true because if it wasn't more people would own businesses. I happen to own a refrigerant recovery franchise but I'm always coming up with ideas for other businesses because it's just something I like to think about. Since I can't pursue any of these ideas I thought I'd share them on this blog from time to time and if anyone finds one of them interesting they can feel free to take it.

A lot of the most successful businesses over the last decade have been based on the internet. Facebook and Google are two that come to mind. The main reasons that these businesses are so successful is because they stay so user friendly and organized. Other reasons are that they network people and pitch services in a more personal manner because they can tell you "Hey your friend John used this service, you should use it too." People are a whole lot more likely to use something if they know a friend of theirs used it and was pleased. So far this has worked wonders for internet based companies. Many other companies have benefited greatly by using the viral marketing that Facebook offers. Other than the marketing, I have yet to see some of these ideas cross over into other industries. Technology is also becoming more and more affordable as time goes by.

The business idea that all of this led me to was to model a restaurant after Facebook. It could be called anything but my first thought was Pizzabook or something similar. My thought was that the inside could be painted in a Facebook theme with walls that people could write on with erasable marker. There could be sections of walls to put pictures of customers. Other sections, where customers could leave fliers for their businesses or interests, (ex. local real estate agent, upcoming concerts, etc). The restaurant would be clean, simple and small. I'm not really a design kind of guy, but you get the idea. I think it would fit in perfect in a college town. I actually had the idea when I was at Otto's pizza in Tempe, which is right next to ASU. I imagine a place that is a free wireless hotspot that makes it a great off campus place to study or hang out. It would be a coffee shop as well as a simple restaurant with a small menu and good food. I think people would find it new and fun to eat somewhere where you can write on the walls and leave your pictures up.

Technology integration would also need to be a key factor in a restaurant themed after FB. I envision a computer monitor at each table so that people could access the restaurants FB page which is where they would peruse the menu and order. The photo album could have a picture of each item on the menu so that people could see what it looks like when it comes out of the kitchen before ordering. I know this isn't a new idea but I don't see very many restaurants with pictures of everything they serve on their menu.  This would also allow customers to "like" dishes that they order and when friends of theirs come into the restaurant they would be able to see which items their friends have ordered and liked. Customers could also write on the restaurants wall and be more interactive than with a traditional restaurant. Servers could either IM w/ the tables to take orders or even do a video call w/ the tables to take orders. This would allow a server to handle more tables at one time and would cut down on a lot of wait time by eliminating walking back and forth between tables and the kitchen to place orders. Once a server takes orders they can have bussers deliver food and keep drinks full. There could also be flatscreen tv's on the wall that have slideshow's playing of whatever customers might find interesting.

Anyway, I think this would be a new idea that would take successful aspects of online industry and apply them to things in real life that people do on a daily basis. I think people would find it creative and very enjoyable as long as the food and service is good.

Simple Living

One of the best ways to be happy is to eliminate material items in your life that cause stress. I can't tell you how many people I know that live in nice houses and look like they've got everything together but they are some of the most stressed out people you could ever meet. Sometimes I think we need to take a look at what we really need and don't stress out about other stuff. Society tells us we need things that we really don't need at all like nice cars, nice houses, nice furniture and expensive toys. We don't really need any of that stuff and not having it can actually make you a more likable person and save you a lot of money.

Think for a second about times you've been spending time with people that own a car that's so nice that they don't want you to eat in it because you might get crumbs on the seat. It's so minor that you might not even recognize it but having nice things decreases their functionality. What if this was something that was listed on the amenities when purchasing a vehicle - Dual front side air bags, power windows, sun roof, 5 star crash rating, impossible to eat in... Impossible to eat in? That would actually really be a drawback if you thought of it that way but we don't. We buy it anyway and then just don't eat in it because we want to keep it nice. The functionality is effectively decreased due to the niceness and the outcome is the same as if you bought a car that was impossible to eat in. Eating in a car isn't where it stops. You probably wouldn't want to take it camping or do a whole host of other things with it. The end result is that you stress, even if it's only a little, about keeping your car nice. If this is the case wouldn't it be better to have a functional vehicle that didn't cause you stress? It would save you money, get you where you need to go and allow you to be a little more relaxed and easy going. The only drawback is that other people would see you in a less expensive vehicle. Do you really want to associate with people who care what kind of car you drive? Simplify, and reduce stress!

How about nice houses? I can remember going to certain friends of my parents houses when I was a kid. Everything was clean, expensive, and well protected. I couldn't play or do anything I wanted to do because I might track mud in the house or break something. The adults had to constantly watch and keep kids in line so that stuff didn't get broken. I think everyone would have had more fun if they had cheap stuff they didn't have to worry about and just let everyone have a good time, adults included.

I was at my moms the other day with my sister and her two sons, ages 4 and 3. My mom bought a big bag of plastic balls, the kind that used to be in ball-pits at McDonald's before everyone started caring about germs. It was always a fun game for me to throw the balls at my two nephews while they ran all around the house. All that changed the day my mom bought a big flat screen tv. I started throwing balls and was immediately told to stop by my mom and when I tried to keep playing my sister and brother jumped in and told me to quit too. Don't people realize that having fun and children being able to play and laugh is infinitely more important than a flat-screen tv? That tv caused stress and reduced fun. Why in the world would anyone want something that does that?

The points I'm trying to make with this blog are that you can't afford it if you can't break it and not care, you shouldn't buy it if you're going to try so hard to keep it pristine that it reduces the functionality of whatever you are purchasing and you shouldn't buy expensive things that you'll stress over so much that it will take away from things that are more important. Think about these things when you're buying stuff. Ask yourself if you'll be more happy without it if you just let it go. Being happy is more important than having cool stuff.

Racial Tension

So there has been a ton of racial tension in AZ lately. So much so that I almost feel like I need to go out of my way when hanging out with Latinos that I don't know very well to make them feel comfortable. It didn't used to be like this a few years ago. Now it seems like there are so many white people getting angry over immigration that when I meet someone from south of the border they seem skeptical of me because they assume I'm anti-immigrant. I'm definitely not anti-immigrant but I'm not really pro-illegal border crossing either. Having people meet you and automatically be skeptical sucks no matter who is at fault! What I want to do with this blog post is analyze the issue and try to come up with solutions that cause people to start getting along again, not necessarily to voice my opinion.

Everyone take a second and think about the following virtues: Justice and Mercy. Seriously, think about it for just a second and try to decide which one is better. If you chose justice, do you think that it is wrong to be merciful? Or do you only value justice over mercy? And if you chose mercy, do you think that it is wrong to be just? Or do you merely value mercy more that justice? These are important questions because the answers can have a profound effect on how you view others and how you solve relational problems.

I think much of this race issue could be solved if people understood the other sides point of view a little better. I imagine that most of the anti-immigrant camp, at least in this circumstance, is valuing justice over mercy. It does makes sense, America is a nation of laws that need to be followed. If a country can't enforce it's laws then it can't keep it's citizens safe. Keeping citizens safe is a primary goal of a well functioning government. The conclusion for people that value justice over mercy is that the lawbreakers need to be brought to justice. The obvious solution is to reverse the crime - people came in illegally, send them back. It's as simple as that. I'm not making an argument right now, I just want pro-immigrant people to really understand this reasoning because in most circumstances it is very sound reasoning. Rules are a fundamental part of white American culture. As a white American I can attest to that. I started learning to strictly follow rules before I entered kindergarten and when I didn't follow the rules I got swatted with what my parents called a switch. It was a long thin stick like plant that used to grow next to the nectarine trees in my backyard. This is the culture that a lot of these people grew up in so be reasonable with them and take the high road if you think they are overbearing. The issue is becoming so polarizing that the pro-immigrant side can't see the anti-immigrant side for anything other than a bunch of hate mongers. This isn't true though, following/enforcing rules is just the culture that they grew up in. It is very important to them, so please do not return perceived hate with more hate. Understand that they are only acting according to their culture and be the first to bury the hatchet and show them kindness.

Now to the anti-immigrant group. If you are valuing justice over mercy in regards to this issue, what was your answer to the question "Is it wrong to be merciful or do you only value justice over mercy?" It's hard for me to imagine people saying that it is wrong to be merciful so I'm going to go ahead with the presumption that most of you value justice over mercy but that it's not wrong to be merciful. If I am mistaken here I'd love to have it explained to me how it can be wrong to be merciful and I mean wrong in a moral sense, not just the wrong choice. So, if I am correct so far and many of you do not believe that it is wrong to be merciful, why do I see so much anger? A large part of the pro-immigrant side just wants to be shown/show mercy to people who were destitute and traveled across a desert in search of a better life. Again, I'm not trying to make an argument for undocumented immigration, I just want white America to understand where these people came from and to think about that before getting so angry. Finding peace and getting along with people is something I value and believe is beneficial to everyone. Many of the undocumented immigrants came from conditions that we have never even come close to experiencing. They don't just go to bed a little hungrier than we do but it's not that big a deal. I know people that have been locked in a room for days and only given a coffee can to defecate in. This persons mother fled from her husband into the U.S. and became a prostitute in order to escape the horrors from where she came. Again, I'm not getting emotional and trying to justify anything but there is a misconception among the anti-immigrant group that these people are coming over here to hurt us and take our jobs but that's not the case most of the time. It's easy to be mad at someone who does that. It's harder to be mad at someone who is escaping conditions that we all know we'd do anything to escape as well. So my message to the anti-immigrant camp is to consider these things before you respond with anger. That only makes the problem worse. That's what makes the Latino at a party I went to last Saturday look at me with skepticism in his eyes. Try to understand the helplessness of the situation that they are in and at the very least don't let anger be an ingredient in the solutions you come up with.

Now, I've talked a lot about justice and mercy so far. Both of these are good ideals. I've never heard anyone say justice is bad or mercy is bad. They are both good but they are opposite, there needs to be a balance of justice and mercy. To much justice and you end up with a dictatorship. Too much mercy and you end up with anarchy. We need to ask ourselves where we are now and what is a possible solution? But we need to focus on a solution instead of a fight. The anti-immigrants want to close the border, deport all the undocumented immigrants and some of them want to change the 14th amendment so that children of undocumented immigrants wouldn't receive citizenship. I see a few problems with this. First is deporting so many people would cost a ridiculous amount of money and resources and in all likelihood wouldn't be feasible. Should we really attempt something that has next to no chance of success and is more likely to cause bigger more violent problems? I think a reasonable person would find a different solution. About the 14th amendment being repealed so that children of undocumented immigrants wouldn't receive citizenship, have you considered the long term affects of something like this? Think about how bad conditions in America could get 2 or 3 generations from now if we had millions of illegal people who were not immigrants, they were just illegal because 60 years ago their ancestors came here uninvited. They'd be a permanent lower class and a cancer to society because they would have no opportunity. I really don't think that's a reasonable solution either. The pro-immigrant solution might be to offer amnesty and allow undocumented immigrants a chance to work and better their position in the world.

So what kind of a solution is possible for an issue this messy and complicated? Should it be a solution of Justice? Because the only way I can think of to hand down justice to a group of 12 million people is to do it by force. Is it really worth that? Is crossing the border really a crime that warrants such a drastic solution? Or should it be a solution of mercy? If it's not morally wrong would it really make anyones life worse to show mercy to a group of people that are mostly poor? Let's not consider a solution that is the worst case for the opposition no matter which side you are on. Lets consider a solution that is best for everyone.

Micah 6:8 (New International Version)

 ⁸ He has showed you, O man, what is good.
       And what does the LORD require of you?
       To act justly and to love mercy
       and to walk humbly with your God.