Taboo Plaza

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently released results from their survey on the religious-ness of Americans.  The study canvassed a sample size of 35,000 Americans 18 years and older.  A study like this provides good fodder for updating old stereotypes. 

Let's begin:

-The Baptist Church in America is apparently still segregated into "Evangelical traditions" and "Historically Black traditions." 
New stereotype: segregation is still a good thing if you're a Baptist.

-There's more Buddhists in the United States than Muslims.
New stereotype:  Buddhists are the new sleeper cells.

-There's fewer Jehovah's Witnesses in the country than Mormons. 
New stereotype:  Jehovah's Witnesses must be pretty loud since they seem to be everywhere!

The bulk of the U.S. Mormon population lives in 7 of 50 states.

-Arkansas has the lowest concentration of Catholics than any other state in the Union. 
New stereotype: Arkansasans hate Catholics.

-The highest concentration of American Jews is in New York and New Jersey.
New stereotype: Jews still control Hollywood, they just do it from New York and Jersey.

-12 states have the highest concentrations of people who either don't care about religion or didn't care about the survey.  Also, apparently Oregon is the most godless state with 27% of its population unaffiliated to a church, followed by New Hampshire and Vermont with 26%, Maine and Colorado are next with 25% of their populations being unaffiliated with a church.  Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine check in with 23% of their state's population being godless, followed by Arizona with 22% and then New Mexico, Nevada and California with 21% of their populations claiming no religious affiliation.
New stereotype: Oral Roberts should be less concerned about California.  Oregon is the real problem.

-It seems that Hindus should occupy the same portion of prejudice in the American mind as the Jew, because on the whole financially Hindus seem to be doing as well as the American Jew.
New stereotype: Today's Hindu is the Jew of 30 years ago.

-Jehovah's Witnesses should be lumped in with attendees of historically black Protestant churchs, because neither has much cash on them.
New stereotype: Jehovah's Witnesses like fried chicken and watermelon.

Muslims are the least likely to finish high school.

Mormons are the most likely to start college without finishing it.

Jehovah Witnesses are the most likely to finish high school without going any further in education.

Hindus are the most likely to have a post graduate degree.

Americans with an Orthodox faith are most likely to graduate college with a bachelor's degree.

Mormons are most likely to have four or more children; surprisingly, Muslims are next on that list and not the Catholics.

Jews are most likely to not have any children.

Thanks to the Pew Forum you can freshen up your bias.  Go out with good data to better understand why we don't like one another.



Current Affairs

In the headlines, John McCain reachs out to the conservative right in the form of "semi-acceptable" fringe radicalism.   Enter: John Hagee.

Reuters reports that Hagee advocates viewing Israel "as a blood-soaked battleground that will see the return of Jesus Christ."  CBS reports he "denounced the Roman Catholic Church as 'the great whore of Babylon' and 'a cult.' He blames it for the Holocaust and predicts its imminent demise."  He's consumed by a story that began 2,000 years ago.

His views are borderline enough for CBS to give him a less than glowing portrayal.




I'm sure Hagee's a great guy, but John McCain is reaching out to him as a political strategy.  A strategy that attempts to gain enough popular support to drive future government policy.  John Hagee can get a large bloc of people to the polls.  John McCain wants those votes today, where ten years ago he scoffed at these people.  McCain wants to control our future.

The choices we make today impact tomorrow, we must live as if we are already there.  The stories we tell one another create our reality.

Fox News reports, ExxonMobil "makes the largest corporate profit by any corporation, ever..."

They report "Exxon is making more than $75,000 a minute around the clock on crude oil prices that are at unjustifiable levels."  Then there's Warren Buffett.  I'm sure he's a gem of a guy.  He is credited with leaving his corporation- Berkshire Hathaway Inc.- with $44.3 billion cash for 2008.

As anyone might say, 'this is not a bad thing.'  If one day, I- or you as the case may be- could be there then this is a good thing.  Right?

Glen Tongue has been quoted saying Berkshire Hathaway Inc. has "kept this war chest of cash, rather painfully, for a decade, waiting for the opportunity he has now."  Glen Tongue "oversees $140 million of hedge fund capital at T2 Partners LLC in New York."

What is Glen hiding from behind that title?  That title is so inside you'd have to lock the door behind you to understand what it means.  Glen has also been quoted saying, "History demonstrates that his [Warren Buffett's] patience results in extraordinarily attractive opportunities for Berkshire."  It seems what Mr. Tongue is getting at is $44 billion-ish having been withheld from the U.S. economy by Berkshire Hathaway Inc. creates tremendous opportunities for Buffett to make a really good deal. 

In the grand scheme of things, we must accept as reality that the world's wealth is consolidated in the hands of the few.  I agree with economic freedom.  Less regulations.  In general, most any principle that generates more freedom.  It seems though, that freedom for the few should not come at the expense of the many. 

"Consumer confidence" is a hot buzz word right now.

The market is contingent on the consumer; however, consumers today don't have the kind of money necessary to stimulate the economy back into growth activity.  Did consumer's ever have the money to stimulate the economy into growth activity?  The federal government is giving American's money in May.  Money that was borrowed by the government, because the government doesn't have it to give.  This borrowed money is supposed to achieve growth in the U.S. economy. 

Will it achieve growth though?

According to Matthew Benjamin at Bloomberg.com, "Only 18 percent of respondents[to his referenced survey] said they will spend their rebate on purchases."

"History demonstrates that [Buffett's] patience results in extraordinarily attractive opportunities for Berkshire."

What might one do to the market with $44 billion?  So let's get back to, 'oh if that were but me.'  If you had $44 billion, would that be enough?  Could we discuss how much less would be enough without appearing rude?

A capitalist economy doesn't move without supply and demand.  The economy is nothing more than an abstract word for: people, citizens or subjects.  In plain terms, the people with money determine what gets done within the framework of any capitalist economy.  Offered-money is the demand that determines what will be supplied.  Hoarded-money demands nothing.

What is "consumer confidence" if it isn't measuring how much money everyday people are willing to call 'offered-money?'  The media is measuring the U.S. economy in terms of everyday people.  The people that are in the midst of something-like a recession or stag-flation, but it feels like the country's going into the toilet from certain perspectives.  George Bush's perspective is that the country's economy is essentially fine.

Warren Buffett advises people to not pay attention to the economy.  In fact, that piece of advise falls within the top four pieces of advise in "The Warren Buffett Way."

"Turn off the stock market
Don’t worry about the economy
Buy a business, not a stock
Manage a portfolio of businesses"

Other sage pieces of Buffett wisdom are:

-"Be fearful when others are greedy and be greedy when others are fearful." 

-Don't worry about how bad it's going to get because, "we always come out of it."

-“We do not have an unavailability of credit to people who’ve got reasonable credit demands, and it’s not expensive. We’re not in a credit crunch for those who have sound deals.” 

What does it mean when Warren Buffett talks about credit?  "Credit" can't mean the same thing for you and me as it does for Warren Buffett.  He has within his realm of control, at least $44 billion which leads to a bit of legal deception.  The $44 billion I've been speaking of is presumably Berkshire Hathaway Inc's money.  A corporation hides the names of many people behind the veneer of a legally-enforcable, individual-like concept, that in reality is nothing more than ink and paper.

$44 billion would help the economy.  So the question we must ask regarding our system and our belief is, how much is too much?  Is it acceptable to have more money than God?  Is it desirable? 

Who does it help?

We can argue on the part of competition that there should be no caps because it would dampen competitive spirits.  However, I wonder, would $1 billion not be an enticing goal for any free, competitive self?  What more in peace, comfort or relief can $2 billion provide for which $1 billion would not have already accounted?

Do the rich in this world pay enough?  Rush Limbaugh has argued the static pie argument for years.  Essentially he argues that just because one person has a lot doesn't mean that others are deprived from opportunity.  However, opportunity does not run the market.  The market runs on supply and demand.  Supply moves for the resources demand provides.  Buffett says, "we don't have an unavailability of credit to people who've got reasonable credit demands."

If he were a drug dealer he might be talking about fronting you an LB.  If he knows you and knows you're good to get him the money back, he'll give it to you before you break it up and sell it to a bunch of other people.  You'll make money.  He'll make money.  But first he must know you and like you. 

Buffett pulls the strings in this scenario and maybe that's the way it should be, but he now has an authority on par with the president and given the right scenario his authority might rival God's in the land of here and now.

Enough of that though, what happens when the demand dries up?  From Buffett's advise, I would surmise it's time to buy a business.  If only you had some money, because it's all a matter of perspective.  Your best bet would be to pay off your credit cards and save your money, because the people in charge of your country don't understand what you're dealing with.

Take, for example, President Bush's recent response to a question about out of control gas prices.

"Wait, what did you just say?" the president interrupted.  "You're predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?"

The perspective of the U.S. President is that he probably hasn't pumped his own gas for at least 7 years.  He makes $400,000 a year.  I'm relatively sure he hasn't seen his gas or electric bill since he assumed the presidency.  How much different do you think the perspective of Congress is?  They all make more than $100,000 a year.

Where does that leave the persepctive of the American people?  Are the American people merely locked into a social system that has been set up around corporate structures.  Is it a little disturbing that Berkshire Hathaway Inc. has three internal candidates to eventually succeed him [Buffett] as chief executive, and four candidates to replace him as chief investment officer"?

Fidel Castro, apparently, only had three people in mind to replace him.  Warren Buffett has seven. 

In terms of a country and in terms of what Buffett is in charge of, what is the everyday difference between Castro's control of a legal system and Buffett's control over an economic system?  Neither have been publically elected.  Neither has to turn over authority until they are ready.  Neither appears accountable to those outside their immediate areas of interest.

Once again, I'd like to clarify that I have nothing against Warren Buffett- I'm merely using him as an example of a phenomenon taking place in the United States of America.  Should Americans be worried to know that Buffett has had his intentions quoted as, "looking to invest more outside the United States...[and]...in such multinational companies as Coca-Cola"?

Where did his money come from and where does it belong?  That's a question for another day, but for the sake of today, how does the economy relate to the governance of this country- the United States of America?

Today our government is consumed by the economy, by finance, by abstractions of the people symbolized as numbers and dollar signs.  One simple resolution could correct many directions we are headed as a country. 

First the resolution: Abolish elections and establish random lotteries for federal office.  Shorten the terms.  Decrease the salary and run the country cheaper and more efficiently.

The idea may make you nervous, but think of what might be provided with a fresh perspective on old foundations.  If we truly propose to the world that we are a democracy, that implies that we are not afraid of our own citizenry.  We essentially trust one another.  As the country runs today, that seems to be an inaccurate motto.  Today government is inclusive and protecting the Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s of the world through corporate lobbyists.

The government is also protecting the John Hagee's of the world through status and prestige-giving.  Our selections of citizens within our government do not represent the people that I know.  They rarely represent people I have ever encountered.  Most Americans I know do not like to wear collars let alone coats and ties.

I don't see America in the American government.

Maybe if we included American citizens in our democratic system, we might come out with better decisions from our government.  The two-party system certainly isn't working to achieve any better results for the future of our country.  Lottery congressional seats, could the results from the perspective of governmental decision-making really be any worse?  It seems that most of the time, you really only need an opinion to serve as a good member of any legislature.

If this were the case, that we could truly separate control of our economic system from our social system (i.e. government) we could try to make changes that would have positive effects for more Americans, rather than just the Warren Buffett's who did exceedingly well as everyone else is hurting.

There's a price for living in civilization and we all must pay it.  There's a price for living in a country that allows everyone such great opportunities.  That price must be paid by everyone.  That price is not for merely the privilege of running water and motorways.  That price includes fees for being able to run your own business.  That price includes caring for the well being of those you will propose to profit from. 

If you think this last statement is incorrect, ask yourself- why must the FDA screen all food before hitting the American market if not to care for the well being of those you propose to profit from?

I saw a man at 7am this morning at Circle K, he was drunk as hell.  The guy was scruffy and dirty.  I didn't want to stand next to him because he looked like he stank and he was drooling.  There was no suspense.  He wanted change.  This guy needs help, but he's wandering the streets getting drunk, possibly pissing on himself and passing out in alleys.  He lives in America and he makes choices for living in America, and certainly there's a price. 

Bartleby the Scrivener paid the price of prison for preferring not to.  Is the homeless guy I met paying his own price? 

He made his choice as an American and now is he paying his price?  Sleeping in the streets.  Cold, drunk and clearly offensive to the majority of sensibilities.  He's paying his price now, because he's in a hole that is very difficult to get out of.  If I gave him $100 he still wouldn't have enough to get out of the hole he is in. 

I assume he is homeless.

I'm not making excuses for the guy, because I certainly wouldn't let myself fall to where he is; however, is that the price that he pays for being an American?  We all must pay one. 

There is a price for living in America.

We all must pay it, but at the same time we are the stories we tell one another.

Our Nation is Now Dumber for This…Thank You for Your Participation!

Recent media reports suggest reason to be concerned that children are playing the "choking game."

 According to the Washington Post, "At least 82 youths have died from playing the "choking game" since 1995, a new government report shows."

If you haven't done it, it is nothing more than causing hyperventilation.  In other words, kids are blacking out.  In my day, we use to just breath rapidly for 30 seconds and then have someone press on our chest with our back up against a wall. 

You will blackout. 

If you have an experience like mine, you might even slam your head off a washer or dryer as you fall to the floor like a lifeless lump.

Wouldn't it just be better to legalize marijuana and let your kids go to town with a Graffix bong?

Speaking strictly in terms of choice, it would be much better for your kid to smoke pot than get into crystal meth, huffing gas or cutting off the oxygen flow to their brain.  Drugs have been around as long as there has been a desire to get high.  We've found no way to get rid of the desire to get high and therefore we've found no way to get rid of drug use.

We should be better stewards to our fellow citizens.  Prohibiting all drugs does not get rid of drugs.  It merely drives the user underground.  Refusing to realistically differentiate between illegal drugs encourages the lack of realistic differentiation in the drug user.

We've got kids trying to choke themselves out rather than just smoking a joint.  We've got kids that equate the danger of marijuana to the danger of crystal meth. 

We lie to our children.

That's kind of sad.

Birthday Shout Outs (Mar 2nd to Mar 8th)

3/2
(1904) Dr. Seuss- This guy was brilliant.  In fact, I think he was cooler than the Beatles.  I dare you to name a better poem than "Green Eggs and Ham."
(1952) Laraine Newman- One of the original members of Saturday Night Live.

3/3
(1847) Alexander Graham Bell- A profound inventor.
(1959) Ira Glass- I've never seen the guy but I like what he does on the radio.

3/4
(1678) Antonio Vivaldi- He made beautiful music.

(1948) Chris Squire- Bassist and one of the front men for Yes.



(1951) Chris Rea- He wrote at least one song that was somewhat haunting.  That's quite an accomplishment.

(1963) Jason Newsted- He helped to keep Metallica relevant after the death of Cliff Burton.



3/5
(1955) Penn Jillete- A tremendous entertainer.

3/6
(1475) Michelangelo- There are few greater accomplishments than having people speak your name after your death.
(1906) Lou Costello- The funny guy in the Abbott and Costello comedy duo.

(1946) David Gilmour- Former guitarist for Pink Floyd- when they were on they were one of the best bands ever.

3/7
<Your name here- just do something worth talking about>

3/8
(1945) Mickey Dolenz- What can I say?  I'm a fan of the Monkees.
(1946) Randy Meisner- A founding member of the Eagles.

(1959) Aidan Quinn- I liked his work in "Reckless" but I'm not really sure why.
(1963) Kathy Ireland- Hottie.

Memory Lane

I started out as a kid in Michigan. 

A kid on the move. 

Playing in the grapevines.
Changing schools all the time.
Everyone else seems so fine.
Lots of parties. 
Many highs.
My childhood was one of a kind.

A kid on the move.

Belly Laugh

The Kids in the Hall were just bizarre, but these guys were hilarious when they were on.