Raising Bullies

So I heard about a book that came out recently called "How to raise a bully" or something like that. Some people obviously don't need to read it because they're doing a great job raising bullies already.

I just don't get it. You don't stand by and do nothing when your child is pushing or punching another child. You also don't respond to a child's violence with violence of your own. You don't teach your child to be nice to others by hurting them when you are angry. Several times I've seen a little kid get violent, and then Mom or Dad comes and grabs them by the ear and drags them away or yells at them, or even hurts them like they did the other child. What does this teach them? "My parent hurts others when they are angry." Children are the ultimate copycats. Of course they will become violent when they are angry. When someone takes their toy. When someone doesn't give them a toy they want to play with. Parents should model the behavior that they want to see. First, try and resolve the issue through communication. Having a child say "I'm sorry" and make amends any way they can is a good start. Kids need to know what they did wrong, why it's wrong, and what the future consequences are of repeating the same action. Time out is a great way to have a cool down period for kids.

Punishments should be meted out when kids know they've done something wrong and what it is. As parents, we often get stressed out, and the limits of what we allow our kids to get away with get reduced drastically. We end up punishing them because we are stressed or angry and not because they did something wrong. If he jumped on the couch five times and goes into time out on the sixth, even though you never told him to stop after the first five times, is it fair? Only if he knows well that jumping on the couch is punishable by time out. When a child gets punished because their parent is upset, what does that teach them? "I'm in trouble because Mom is mad", not "I'm in trouble because I did something I shouldn't have done."

You don't just let them fight it out when they both want a toy. Survival of the fittest or rule of the strong is fine if we're dogs or monkeys. We aren't! It teaches kids that they can have what they want if they are stronger than others. A great motto for a tyrant, a dictator, or a bully. Figure out who had it first, and make the other wait for a few minutes. Most of the time, one or the other will lose interest in the toy, and the conflict is over. Communicating their wants using words with the child that has the toy and not force might be a good habit to get into!

Play fighting is great between daddy and kids, but when that's the only way they know how to play, and other kids start getting hurt, it's a problem. When kids don't know when or how to turn it off, it's a problem. When daddy says it's alright, because it doesn't hurt him when his little boy hits him, he needs to realize that his 'tough' attitude might not be shared by the one year old baby that may be the next target. Doing nothing or encouraging violence by reciprocity makes it seem ok, and if it's ok to hit daddy, then why isn't it ok to hit other kids?

Rich and Poor

My original purpose in this blog was to talk about the idea of a flat tax to replace the current stepped tax brackets that are used in the United States presently. I want to first talk about the relativity of wealth or poverty. It’s always interesting to me that nearly everyone thinks of themselves as ‘middle class.’ I knew a guy once that made $400,000 plus per year. When confronted with the opinion that he was rich, he said “no, I know a lot of guys that have way more money than I do.”

Others, like myself, may live in poverty, making far less than the established guidelines for poverty, and yet, we consider ourselves middle class. The idea of class originates in Europe from what I know, and was used in a time when class positions were not easily changed. Here and now many of us may make minimum wage when we are teenagers or even in the twenties, and make more than $100,000 per year later in life. Of course class wasn’t and isn’t just about income. It’s about culture. And in any case I hate class. The idea of some people being better than others because of the way they were raised. It continues to exist to some degree here, but thankfully, I believe it is much less prominent than in previous times or in other places. In any case it is all relative.
An Alexander the Great or a Julius Caesar did not have the internet. He did not have air conditioning. He did not have his choice from hundreds of different food items at any given time. He did not have a car. He didn’t have living quarters free from bugs. He didn’t have over the counter pain killers. While he may have had tailor made clothing, there weren’t a wealth of materials to choose from. He didn’t have TV or movies or video games. These are differences between him and us, and it is us in the enviable position of being the “haves”. Not only are these differences between peoples in ancient times and us, they are differences between us and others that are living and breathing right now. There are people that don’t have any of these things, and there are probably hundreds of millions of them. I just put $10,000 into the annual income cell at http://globalrichlist.com/ If I’d made that amount last year then I would be richer than 86.69% of people on planet earth. The reason that this is the case is that money is not evenly distributed… AT ALL!!! Look at the income graph below:
Graph from: http://benbyerly.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/how-rich-are-you/
According to this site, anyone that makes more than $47,500 per year is within the top 1% of income earners on the planet. The median income, which would be the one at the number 3 on the graph, is $1,700 per year.

Looking at annual income is one way to look at the disparity. Looking at ‘wealth’ is another. Looking at wealth, we look at the total value of assets minus total value of debts. There is some correlation with annual income, but not as much as you’d think. 40% of Americans own 1% of America’s wealth. 1% of Americans owns 38% of America’s wealth. The 40% (like me right now) are not saving any money, and have roughly equivalent income and expenses, and if they start making 100 times more money, they will start having 100 times more expenses. The other groups actually save and invest money in most cases, or have an inheritance in a few cases.

So the question is, are you getting compound interest, or paying compound interest? It’s not entirely coincidental in my opinion that the graph showing the increase of money with interest over time looks a lot like the annual income graph above. $100 per month for a year isn’t $1,200. At 7% interest, it’s $1,284. Not much right? At 5 years it’s $7,384. At 10 years it’s $17,740. At 20 years it’s $52,638. At 40 years it’s $256,331. At 50 years it’s $521,983. At 60 years it’s $1,044,560. That is $72,000 in money you put in over 60 years, and $1,044,560 you get out. Do you have $100 per month? Once I have a career job later this year, I’m going to put a lot more than $100.00 into savings/investments per month.
When I was in my second year of college, after my mission to Colombia, I had a friend that was single and raking in the money, and he didn’t know what else to spend it on. I was taking a personal finance class at Utah Valley State College (now Utah Valley University) and showed him the magic of compound interest. When he moved out, he had been getting interest on $1,000 per month invested for a number of months. If he does that for 40 years at 7% interest, he’s up to 2.6 million dollars. I should have charged him for my services.

I think having money helps, whether you want it for yourself or you want to help others. It won't bring happiness, but it can allow you to do a lot of good in the world. Anyway, there’s a major huge ginormous article split into 10 parts called “The United States of Inequality” by Timothy Noah on Slate.com: http://www.slate.com/id/2267157/ I’m going to read it now. It sounds interesting. More interesting to me than writing more blog.

2011 Football schedules for Utah and BYU

I was wondering what the schedules looked like for 2011, and they weren't easy to find. As far as I can tell, BYU's is still incomplete.

The above cartoon is from: http://gunshooting-bbqer.blogspot.com/


2011 Utah Football Schedule

Sept. 1 Montana State

Sept. 10 at USC

Sept. 17 at Brigham Young

Sept. 24 bye week

Oct. 1 Washington

Oct. 8 Arizona State

Oct. 15 at Pittsburgh

Oct. 22 at California

Oct. 29 Oregon State

Nov. 5 at Arizona

Nov. 12 UCLA

Nov. 19 at Washington State

Nov 26 Colorado

Utah scheduling information from:
http://utahutes.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/110510aac.html


2011 BYU Football Schedule

Sept. 3 at Ole Miss
Sept. 10 at Texas Longhorns
Sept. 17 University of Utah
Sept. 23 Central Florida
Sept. 30 Utah State
Oct. 8 ?
Oct. 15 at Oregon State
Oct. 22 ?
Oct. 29 ?
Nov. 5 ?
Nov. 12 ?
Nov. 19 ?
Nov. 26 ?
? Idaho
? New Mexico State
? San Jose State
? at Hawaii
? at Louisiana Tech

BYU scheduling information from:
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-11/mtn-west/2011-byu-cougars-football-schedule.php

Thoughts on Meat and Grass

I have similar views on meat and grass. They are both great. But they are also both over-utilized. Kind of a default in meals or landscape planning. I think changes would be beneficial in both cases. Let's start with meat:

Meat comes from animals. These animals lived for a certain length of time before they were killed for their meat. During their lives, they had to eat to grow. This usually means grains, like corn, wheat, etc. How much acreage of these grain plants are used just to feed animals that will in turn feed us?
http://www.extension.org/faq/4027

The link above reviews how the numbers vary, from 2 pounds of corn per pound of cow, to 20 pounds of corn per pound of beef. In any case, I'll just say 10 pounds of corn makes one pound of beef. So a 1/4 pound burger requires 2.5 pounds of corn that the animal fed on. Obviously a guy eating corn will be responsible for less acreage of corn planted to feed him than a guy that eats beef. So for our meat we have all the processing and space required of cows, and all the processing and space of their grain feed required. Eating lots of meat is costly for the environment, as compared to eating grains.

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/lappe01.htm

According to the previous link, 1/2 of all our harvested acreage goes to livestock feed. It also compares eating grain-fed animal meat to driving a cadillac. The quantity of land required to support meat production is one reason not to eat so much meat. I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't see any pressing need to become one, but I do think that we could cut down on the amount of meat in our diets.

My second issue with meat is the huge disconnect between the living animal and what we put in our mouths. It is my personal opinion that every person should have to kill a cow before they eat beef, kill a chicken before they eat one, etc. This makes a lot of people queasy. But seriously. People that are willing to eat dead animals should be willing to appreciate that they are responsible for killing dead animals. We need to be ok with that. I think if everyone killed an animal once or twice, or even watched a video of it, maybe people would find it easier to consume a little bit less meat. I think consuming less meat is a good idea. Especially for me, because I can be a pretty hard core carnivore sometimes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-cor1uZ2AM&feature=related

The above is a link to Overlooked: The lives of animals raised for food. May bring tears to your eyes. Anyway, I think it's a good thing to see. More and more people are decreasing their consumption of meat, and I think it helps in terms of money, health, and the environment.

As far as grass is concerned, think about it. Why do we have to have it everywhere? Why grass and not something else? It's soft underfoot, but we put in sikewalks and try not to walk on it. Some might say it looks nice. I think maybe we are raised to think this. But think about it, if you're going to have a landscape portrait on your wall, would you rather have one of grass, or plants native to your area, or other plants? You don't see many huge portraits of grass. As the matter of fact, I've never seen any. There may be grass in a portrait, but it is never the focus of the piece.

The guy in the following link thinks grass is analogous to debt. We have both because we want to have what others have: http://www.debtreductionformula.com/blog/history-of-grass-lawns/
I don't have any problems with grass. It's a good place for a picnic. It's a good place to walk bare foot on. It's a good place to run and throw balls and play. But think of all the places that have grass in them. It's not just areas that are used for these things. You see it in lots of places that people never are meant to walk on. Here at University Village, there are huge swaths of areas between parked cars and buildings, and between roads and fences, and behind buildings... places that no one wants to walk, or picnic, or play, when there are so many better areas away from the cars.

Now consider how much it costs to water all of this grass. How much time and effort it takes to mow the lawns, use fertilizer, weed killer, etc. All the digging for sprinklers. Grass gets used in places like Utah where it is too dry, and so it costs more than in other areas. And yet we do it. Because everyone else does.
When I go up to research park to the clinic on my bike, there's this tiny little patch between properties that is untended by people. At some times of the year, there are sunflowers. There are also purple flowers, white flowers, yellow flowers, and a number of green plants. There are mice there, and maybe some snakes. A number of birds are always about there too. There are bees and bugs, and all kinds of little things. At some point it will get 'developed' and all this will disappear. And it will become grass and cement. I don't think grass can compare, and cement certainly can't.

Politicians

There are a lot of people that will attack politicians as a group for being dishonest. I believe most politicians are good people, that want to do what they think is right. The system that we have makes it difficult for politicians to be very honest, because everything they say is reduced to soundbites, and mostly only relayed to the public if there's some major gaffe, announcement, or change in policy.

It is easy now to listen to only one political party, and this can lead to people not understanding or wanting to understand differing viewpoints. If a person is conservative, Fox news and talk radio provide voices of agreement. A liberal person may watch MSNBC, read the New York Times, and view the Huffington Post. In both cases, these voices of agreement reflect what a partisan person thinks and adds similar perspectives to provide a world view. It turns into an echo chamber where the individual's views are all they hear, and so hearing their own opinions convinces them that their views are correct. And it makes it difficult to understand others' viewpoints.

I don't believe there ever was a true "golden age" where the news sources were objective, but I do think that in depth coverage of issues by people who aim to provide objective information is possible. Personally I always check my own views against what I imagine a person in a very foreign country might think about an issue, and then what a person that lived 2,000 years ago might think about the issue. These others may not always be right, but they do add perspectives different to my own, especially about the relative importance of the issues...

In the interest of full disclosure, I must confess, one of my goals is to get a didgeridoo into all that I do. I just think that we should all sit down and discuss civilly the things that really matter. Lets talk about the issues. Not about a gaffe. Or a scandal. Lets talk about the laws that we're making.

I think it's unfortunate that talking about the negatives of a political opponent may help more than talking about a candidate's own strengths. To some degree, I think this is necessary. Who is going to tell me what's wrong with a candidate if not his political opponent? But often it ends up that all candidates speak poorly of each other, and we never learn the positions and positives of the candidates. And then it becomes the lesser of two evils, instead of 'who is going to do the greatest good.'

I think the best thing to do to improve the political system is getting involved. Listen to opposing viewpoints, and understand where they come from. I think democrats tend to accuse republicans of believing that everything is black or white, while republicans think democrats don't stand for anything. I think in life there are advantages and disadvantages to every position. There are shades of gray. But at the end of the day, there is a 'best' option, and then there are other options. Thinking that one party has a monopoly on being right seems ridiculous to me.

And please don't write off all politicians because they are politicians. There's a way to get elected, and it's by promising what voters want. I think most of us that get to meet one up close find out that they are actually good people, regardless of party affiliation.

Jeff's Golden Age

The Myth of a Golden Age

There’s this idea that I see that pops up quite often. And it’s my pet peeve of the day. It goes something like this: A sports fan says “I wish it was like the good old days, when the players were good people, didn’t care about the money, etc.” Or a teacher says “The education today is so much worse than it was when I was in school. Kids don’t learn as much, and don’t care, and there were no problems with drugs, or violence, etc.”

Babe Ruth and Joe Jackson

I call it the myth of the golden age. It was a time when everything was great and perfect, and there were few bad things going on. Life was simple and easier back then. Most of the time, I see it when people are talking about their childhood. I think it’s not a question of what the times were like back then, but a question of what the person remembers and perceived during that time. When you’re five, and the world is new, and every day is full of interesting wonderful things, it can seem like the world is perfect. You are not aware that your parents have problems. You have no idea that the world has problems. You are only exposed to the good things. You didn’t worry about work, or your own kids, or your future, or money. I think childhood really was a golden age for most of us. But these conditions were our conditions, and not the conditions of the world, or our own homes. The other thing is sometimes the golden age is the time when we are first exposed to a subject that we come to know quite well. For me, sports had a golden age in the 90s. It was all about the 49ers and the Cowboys. It was the Dream Team and Michael Jordan. Nothing else can match up. But I’m sure that if you ask someone 20 years older, they’ll give you a golden age about 20 years earlier.



I think that in general we talk about how terrible the world is, and what a mess we are in, both as a country and as a planet. But really, I think we’ve never had it better. We have cell phones and internet. We have cable and satellites. Microwaves and central air conditioning. We have pressurized water, hot and cold. We have sewage systems. We have electricity, and light. We know where to build and how to build, and we have bigger homes than at any other time in history. We have more knowledge at our fingertips. Democracy has never been stronger over the entire earth. Several decades ago, we had MAD (mutually assured destruction) policies with the Russians. All of civilization could have been destroyed within a matter of hours. We know about environmental destruction now. There was slavery, and then institutionalized racism, and then illegal discrimination, and now we have a black president. The US has never really been stronger when compared to others, than in these past two decades. We have a strong safety net for the less fortunate. Each is able to get educated and pursue happiness according to his or her desire and ability. Many problems that were once ignored or considered too unimportant to focus on now receive detailed attention. There is focus on making the future better than the present. Has there ever been a society as free from hunger and malnutrition as our own? Has there ever been a time when the less fortunate are so well looked after that their biggest concern is obesity? We don’t worry about having clothes, or having enough clothes. Some worry about clean and new looking clothes. Many worry about style. I think that today is the real golden age.

Cookware materials

I've decided to post a blog about cookware materials. Islena and I have gone through quite a few pots and pans, and every time we go to look for "good" ones to replace the ones that are falling apart, we get into the same dilemma. Are we buying more of the same low quality pots and pans?

Knowledge is half the battle my friends. Go Joe!

So here's... I can't paste from my word document. Foiled again by COBRA!

I got it! Enjoy!

Basic Materials

Cast iron:
The Good: Cast Iron sears meats very well. It maintains steady heat long after the heat source is gone. It is also a good heat conductor, disbursing heat well. It can be heated up as much as you want. It’s inexpensive. It is good for blackening food, stir-fry, braising, casseroles, browning meats, slow cooking, frying, and baking. The best types of pans to get in cast iron are skillets and dutch ovens.
The Bad: Cast iron heats up very slowly, and may need to be preheated for a couple of minutes before use. It needs to be seasoned, although many are sold pre-seasoned. It is slightly reactive, so it may get the taste of previous meals, and give a taste of iron to food. It rusts, gets pitted, and may shatter if it falls just right. Food sticks to it, and it is very heavy. Being seasoned reduces reactivity, food stickiness, rust, etc.
Subtypes:
Coated with enamel. Maintains heat conduction and reduces disadvantages. Hard porcelain enamel coating provides a permanent finish and prevents reacting with foods. It may come in many colors. It doesn’t need to be seasoned. It can be cleaned however you want. It may lose the non-stick quality as compared to seasoning, and it may not brown as well. They can also be more expensive.
Carbon Steel. Isn’t really a type of cast iron, but it can be treated the same way. You will most likely encounter this material in a wok. It was traditionally used in Asia. A good carbon steel wok should be solidly built and quite cheap. Proper care will make it last a lifetime.

Copper:
The Good: Copper retains heat well, and will last for a lifetime. It is the best heat conductor of the common metals used for cooking. It’s good for delicate sauces and preferred by many professional chefs. It was traditionally used in continental cooking. Thicker is better, up to multiple millimeters of thickness, but it becomes very expensive.
The Bad: Copper cooking ware is the most expensive of all. Copper itself is highly reactive, so it is lined with tin, stainless steel, nickel, etc. Copper needs more maintenance, it is not dishwasher safe, it shouldn’t be air-dried (to prevent spotting), must be polished regularly, and the lacquer finish must be removed before its first use. Any lacquer stripper should work. Copper is poisonous. If acidic food touches copper or is heated touching copper, it will result in significant health issues. Very thin exterior layers are mostly for show and to charge more, and have no actual cooking value.
Subtypes:
Tin lined copper. This is the traditional choice, but will wear over time and requires retinning. It is soft, and if the pan becomes too hot, it will melt. Finding a shop to retin may be difficult. Tin discolors over time.
Nickel lined copper. Much harder than tin, and will last a great deal longer before wearing away, but cannot be replaced.
Stainless steel lined copper. Generally more expensive, but never needs retinning.

Stainless steel:
The Good: Stainless steel is rust-free, easy to clean, durable, stable under very high temperatures, non-reactive, resistant to wear, and light weight. It won’t tarnish or get nasty over time. Metal utensils can be used with it.
The Bad: The bad thing about stainless steel is that it has poor heat conduction. It is medium priced. Pans that are stainless steel-only tend to be very cheap, thin, and they warp easily, meaning less contact with burners, and even more uneven heating of food.
Subtypes:
Copper core. Copper sandwiched in stainless steel. May be very high quality. Very expensive.
Aluminum core. To increase stainless steel's heat conduction, aluminum is often sandwiched between an internal and external layer of stainless steel. In a high quality pan, this layer extends all the way up the sides, not just the bottom. Very good but expensive.
10/18. Represents high quality. 10% nickel for more shiny metal, 18% chromium to prevent corrosion.

Aluminum:
The Good: Aluminum is a good heat conductor, second only to copper. It is also inexpensive.
The Bad: It is reactive, interacting with food, and flavors some dishes. It is a soft metal that will deteriorate over time. It easily scratches. Some cheap aluminum pans warp quickly, are thin, and are prone to hot spots.
Subtypes:
Anodized aluminum. This means the Aluminum has been treated to prevent reactivity. The exterior is then called aluminum oxide. It is much less reactive. You still don’t want to make pickles in it or store tomato sauce overnight in it. It transfers heat well and doesn’t warp. It takes time to warm up, but it evenly disperses heat throughout the pan.

Glass/Ceramic/Pyrex:
The Good: You can see the food inside the dish while it’s cooking without lifting the lid. It also retains heat fairly well.
The Bad: May be damage during extreme temperature changes. It may shatter if you put cold water in hot pan. Food tends to stick to it a lot. They shatter if dropped, and glass lids may warp, which makes it useless for any dish that requires good closure.
Subtypes:
Pyrex. It’s more resistant to cracking than others of this type.


Teflon/Non-stick/new materials:
The Good: The good news is that, yes, it does make food stick less. If you’re doing a low-fat diet, you can use less oil than you otherwise would. They are also easier to clean than the metals.
The Bad: Non-stick materials don’t last very long. You have to use wooden/plastic utensils to avoid damaging the lining for most of them. Teflon, at least, breaks down at 500 degrees, and turns to a gas that kills birds. The non-stick will eventually fail, and when it does, you have to go out and buy another pan.
Subtypes:
New Calphalon, Circulon, Scanpan. Some newer materials give a long guarantee on the non-stick and are ok for metal utensils.



Important Qualities/Definitions

Tinning: The process that grafts a thin layer of a metal, like stainless steel, onto copper. This keeps the copper from reacting with acids in food, and from getting into food generally. Tin will last around ten years before it needs to be replaced by a specialty shop.

Seasoning: The surface of a pan, inside and out, is treated with a layer of vegetable oil or shortening. The pan is covered in it, and then it is baked to seal the fat into the pan. This will stop reactivity and corrosion, and will give a non-stick surface. Seasoning breaks down over time and has to be repeated. Wash and dry the pan thoroughly, lightly rub shortening into the pans surface, and bake the pan in an oven at about 300 degrees for an hour to an hour and a half.

Conduction: Good heat conduction allows for even cooking. Poor heat conduction means different areas of a pan are at different temperatures. Think of a 10 foot by 10 foot thin sheet of metal with a heat source beneath it. A poor heat conductor will be very hot right above the heat, and cool very close by. A good heat conductor will be fairly hot right above the heat source, but will also be fairly hot in the surrounding areas.

Reactivity: Copper, aluminum, and to a lesser extent cast iron, are "reactive" metals. That means they will chemically combine with certain foods, usually acidic ones, and this will alter the flavor and color of the food you’re preparing. This may mean consuming high levels of the metal as well. For some reason, copper is great for mixing egg whites, but reactive in almost all other situations.

Recommendations before buying: Make sure the lid fits snugly. Is the handle oven safe? Will it stay cool on the stove? How is the handle connected to the pan? Screws may come loose. How does it balance with something heavy in it in terms of comfort, ease of handling, and balance? Does the pan fall over when it’s nearly empty because the handle is to heavy or long? Does it have/need handles on both sides?

Premarital sex and divorce rates

Twice at the University of Utah, it was suggested in classes that I was in that waiting for sex until after marriage was sheer stupidity. Students said 'how could anyone leave something so important with a big question mark until after the wedding iteself? After all, sexual compatibility is important.' Or something to that effect.

Being a believer in Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, it is my belief that God has commanded his children to have no sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. This includes premarital sex (fornication), post-marital sex with other partners (adultery), sex by yourself (masturbation), and sex with others of the same gender (homosexuality).

I also believe that God commands things because they are right, not that they are right because he commands them. That being the case, there should be something demonstrably bad about breaking commandments. I think it should be obvious that we can't expect strong scientific evidence for everything that Heavenly Father says as soon as He says it, but I believe that over the long term, His commandments are for our good. And this is one example.

Science has shown that God is right in the case of not having sex before marriage, in purely temporal marital duration terms. For a believer, my claim that 'God is right' isn't very interesting... it's like saying the sky is blue. Even for the atheist or the agnostic (at least the well-educated ones) it isn't a surprise that "traditional belief systems evolve in a highly beneficial way to their adherents."

Many studies have shown that those that have sex before marriage have a somewhat higher risk of divorce. Apparently the group of those that have had sex before marriage is much larger than the group that hasn't.

So why the divorce rate difference? In my view, sex is like a bond. In a marriage, there are multiple relationship bonds or links. Living together, friendship, sex, experiences together, maybe intellectual similarities, personality similarities, etc. So more bonds is good. The person who doesn't have the sex and living together bonds, but still has enough relationship bonds to get married, gets those two more links for their relationship when they get married. More bonds, less divorce.

So that's one reason of mine on why God commands his children not to have sex outside of marriage. Of course it's not an all or nothing thing. It's not 100% divorce for premarital sex and 0% for the premaritally faithful. I can't find any of the actual studies online for free at the moment, but I'd guess there's only a few percentage points greater probability of divorce for those who don't wait.

The same research also shows some other interesting factors. Women who only had sex with the person they married had the same rate of divorce as those that waited until marriage. Women with multiple premarital partners obviously had a significantly higher rate of divorce.

In the thick of thin things & the slow movement.

Over the past few years I've thought about the ways that I and others use time. During the industrial revolution it wasn't uncommon for people to work 100+ hours per week. Among those that don't make a living wage, working more than 50 hours per week is still common. Indigenous peoples often 'work' only 1 to 3 hours per day. The time that it takes to find food.

So what do we do with all of this spare time? I think most of us pay homage to the gods of the screen or of song. I waste way too much time playing video games, checking news, and facebooking. I'm 8+ books behind, as in, I own the books, I just haven't read them. But I think there is a fairly simple and objective way to distinguish between time wasted and time well spent. It has something to do with permanence.

I think blogging, improving relationships, learning things, teaching things, producing things, etc. is usually time well spent. The difference in time well spent and time wasted for me is how useful will this time be for me in a few years. Many kinds of entertainment and some kinds of socializing really aren't very useful in the long run.

A lot of people talk about how, although all kinds of inventions supposedly give us more time to do what we want, really no one has time to do anything because we are so busy in this 24/7 world. I don't believe that. I think that when a person feels that way, it's usually because they are wasting pretty much all of their free time. Then they don't have time to think, plan, prepare, or remember. I think we need quiet times to think as people. I think the lack of sleep or unhealthy sleep schedules, like those retards that write blogs at 1:00 AM instead of sleeping (me), can add to this effect.

Having kids also reduces free time drastically, but I think a parent's increased motivation to succeed, what they learn through raising children, and how they change are all positive steps most of the time, and they make up for the lost free time and more.

Earlier this evening I saw a couple that I home teach laying in the grass reading books. I was so jealous. One day I will do that. Even if I have to wait until Christian turns 10 or 11. Sleep calls. I must answer. Good night.

Jeff

It's on like Donkey Kong!

There's news of a group that has sent names, addresses, SSNs, birthdates, etc. of 1,300 people to media and government outlets in Utah. According to the anonymous creator of the list these are all people that are illegal. The news says that it is likely that someone at the department of workforce services or another state entity has been gathering these names and information during the course of their work. This is an illegal and unauthorized use of information. Not everyone on the list is illegal. How would you feel if your name, address, SSN, and birthdate was sent to all of these groups. If this list is publicized, then everyone on it has a chance of being victimized by identity thieves, vigilantes, and others.

On KSL one article that supposedly dispels myths about illegal immigration says the following:
With an issue as volatile as illegal immigration, it is important to have the facts. Getting the facts, though, isn't easy, primarily because so many voices cloud the emotional discussion with simplistic bumper sticker rhetoric and hearsay.

KSL applauds our sister news organization, the Deseret News, for a recent article exploring "the myths and realities of illegal immigration," and for astutely researching and declaring what is fact and what is fiction. Here is a sampling:

"Illegal immigrants cause most local crime, crowding prisons." Deseret News reporters found the statement to be categorically false.

"Illegal immigrants are taking away jobs." Mostly false, according to Deseret News research.

"Illegal immigrants don't pay taxes." Some do, some don't was the conclusion.

"Americans spend billions to educate children who are here illegally and crowd our schools." Again, the reality arrow points toward that statement being mostly false.

"Billions of dollars a year are spent on Medicaid for illegal immigrants." That statement, too, according to the Deseret News is false.

KSL welcomes this in depth look at a very contentious issue. We encourage you to read the entire article in the paper's June 27 edition. You can find it online at www.deseretnews.com. We hope you'll do it with an honest desire to better understand the hot-button issues surrounding the immigration debate.

The comments section of this story was capped after 20 comments. As far as I could tell, all but one or two of the posted comments were posted be people that are extremely angry and vehemently opposed to this article on illegal immigration. The level of sentiment against these immigrants is scary. They are called dogs in one comment, and parasites in another. Several of the comments passed judgment on 'them' by referring to names in databases or experiences with hispanics. These comments pass judgment on hispanics in general, with no reference to legal status. When a person has strong negative sentiments against a race of people, what is that called? I call it racism.

I have lived and been friends with many hispanic people, mostly because of my Spanish speaking abilities and my wife Islena. Hispanic people are as good a people as are white people. There is no way that I could tell the difference between legal and illegal immigrants, unless they told me or papers were checked. I believe this is because illegal immigrants, taken as a whole, are not bad people. In any large group of people there will be criminals. Just like anyone else criminals who are illegal should be punished according to their crimes. In this case, if we can get rid of criminals by sending them to a home country, then let's do it. But the action of crossing the border without documentation doesn't make them criminals. Any more than not using your turn signals when changing lanes, jay walking, speeding, or setting foot on private property without permission makes you or me a criminal.

The infraction itself is equally benign. It is a law meant to maintain societal order that is broken. It is a problem. It needs to be resolved. There are some really bad people that we really don't want in this country, and there are some really good people that we really do want in this country. There are some illegal hardened criminals, and there are some illegal 2 year old girls. Illegal hardened criminals in the United States are just as exposed and subject to our justice system as legal hardened criminals. Probably even moreso.

The laws on the books are inadequate to do what is right. If you ask me in person, I'll tell you two stories that I know of personally, of people that are/were illegal that should be legal. You will agree with me that the wrong action was taken, and it was taken in accordance with our laws.

There is so much anger and hyperbole on this issue that it sickens me. People blame the illegal immigrants for ruining the economy. They want someone to blame. Apparently the big corporations, bad lending practices, and the housing bubble aren't enough. People are calling them names that are dehumanizing. That is stage 3 of the 8 stages of genocide. I don't say that to imply that the country or the government would ever participate in genocide. But some individuals, left to their own devices, might certainly take murderous actions. Google "8 stages of genocide." It's interesting stuff.

People are saying that the 'illegals' are responsible for a high crime rate. This is where they invariably forget to distinguish between hispanic and illegal. In either case, those stubborn facts and data saying that they are not more criminal are brushed aside. The only statistic that I've seen (about hispanics, not illegals) that indicates that they do have a higher crime rate is obviously the result of a long search through crime statistics to pick out one rare type of crime for one year for one area. Cherry picked.

People say that the illegal immigrants steal their identities. One or some illegal immigrants may have done this. But we need to remember that there are several groups involved in this type of crime. Most illegal immigrants involved in this kind of crime are part of a scenario, where one guy or group obtains a long list of social security numbers. They are called 'Miqueros.' They will hang out on a street corner, and wait for illegal immigrants to come up and ask for 'papers.' The miquero assures the immigrant that they only sell SSNs etc. from dead people, so that no one will be harmed through this criminal transaction. The illegal immigrant then uses this id. Most of them will do the best they can to build and protect their credit using this false documentation. They will buy cars and houses, making payments and living their lives, etc. This is unfortunate, and it is criminal.

There is a very different type of crime, which is identity theft to steal money, where people steal others' identities to take out loans, get all they can, and then leave these others with the debt. This type of crime has no relationship to the illegal immigrant needing false papers. The illegal immigrant wants to treat their false paperes very well and very carefully, because they may be good people, but even if they aren't, to avoid any suspicious eyes and law enforcement that is brought in by stealing others' identities for illicit financial gain. My understanding is that the great majority of people that commit the more destructive kind of identity theft are citizens, born and raised, of the United States of America.

I don't understand this fixation that people have of race as a primary predictor of criminal activity. The statistics don't back it up. The attribute most associated with crime is gender. You want to reduce crime by taking action against a whole group, let's take all the men out. The second best predictor of crime is age. If you want to reduce crime, put all the 18 to 25 years olds in jail. So I ask "Why do we skip these attributes when deciding what group to be angry about and go directly to race or ethnicity?" To me it is very clear. We skip gender and age attributes because they are close to us. We are male, or were or will be 18 to 25 at some point. What is the attribute that represents the greatest difference between the angered citizen and the criminals in their minds? Race or ethnicity. We associate ourselves as white and legal and good, and them as minority and illegal and bad.

When we see someone that is white and criminal, we think "stupid criminal" and don't attach it to any other association. When we see someone that is minority and criminal, we connect the picture or name to the stereotype that we already have, and it reinforces the racist belief. I'm sure this phenomenon has a name. I don't know what it is. I saw a news article several weeks ago about a crime that made no mention of names, races, ethnicities, or legal status, and there was a disturbingly high number of comments made by people who were already 100% sure that the perpetrators were from one minority group or another.

I find it really upsetting the way that so many people who are completely unaffected by illegal immigration in any way can find the time to be so hateful. To me it is the result of the echo chamber effect. A person feels one way, and only listens to others who feel the exact same way. Everyone is saying versions of the same thing to each other, and the people involved see it as inherent evidence that their views must be correct. That is all they hear. They begin to feel very strongly against those of the opposing viewpoint. They simply cannot understand how any rational human being could hold the opposing view.

Of course sometimes I may be quite one-sided in my opinions, as you've read. But just for the record, I don't think that all illegal people should be unconditionally legalized. The borders do need to be sealed, as much as is possible. I do think we need to recognize that a total seal is impossible. I think the best way to stop drug trafficking and violence is to stop the problem at its source. The source of the problem is the American people who want and pay for drugs. The way to stop the problem is by educating young Americans in school about the entire issue. As far as stopping terrorist cells coming across the border, the main border to worry about is 1) airports, 2) Canadian border. Honestly, if you were a terrorist, which border would you cross, the northern border that is almost totally unprotected, or the southern border that has never been protected as well as it is now? I mean seriously...

Back to defending my objectivity and neutrality... as if that's possible. :) After the borders are protected as well as can be done (and the best terrorist protection isn't border guards, it's education and PR in the Middle East) right. So, after the borders are protected, then illegal immigrants who are here should have to pass a number of hurdles to become legal. Have committed no crimes. Have paid taxes. (Don't tell me none of them do. Some do. I know this to be fact.) Pay some monetary penalty to cover costs of legalization. What else? Anyway, after all of this is done, then better workplace verification laws need to come into play. This will take care of the good people. But those that are wanted for crimes, or broke more laws than just crossing, won't come forward. Those that need legitimate work will be forced out. Those that don't need legitimate work will be caught only through regular law enforcement channels, as is done currently.

I don't know. It just seems like, to me, the 'crime' of illegal immigrants was crossing a physical line. The federal government didn't say they could cross it, and they did. To me, the act itself is no more serious than stepping into a yard with a keep off sign posted, or going 66 in a 65 mph area. The penalty (being kicked out) for this crime is fine for a person that's been in country a week. The penalty for the child that grew up here, or even the parents that have lived most of their lives here, doesn't fit the crime. Maybe there should be a statute of limitations at least, like there are for more serious crimes. A couple of decades maybe. Or, say, if a person has demonstrably lived for more than half of their life here, then they can (having passed all hurdles) become residents.

Why waves of attacks in Afghanistan?

I was wondering why the insurgent forces in Afghanistan planned a bunch of attacks at the same time, instead of keeping up a steady stream, and I realized that it was similar to 18th century European tactics, when you wanted all of your soldiers in a line to fire at the same time.

I always thought that it was tactically stupid to have everyone fire at the same time because some targeted enemies will get hit several times, while others won't be hit. If they fired one after another in a never ending line, the guys that get hit go down, and the next guys aim at someone that was still standing.

Both 18th century and Afghan warriors recognize something. War isn't won by killing all of the enemy. It's about morale. In the 18th century, seeing a guy drop every second wasn't nearly as frightening as seeing twenty guys suddenly fall over at once. You didn't have time to watch and see them fall one after the other anyway. But you would notice when twenty guys fall over at once. The enemy in Afghanistan realize they can never win be killing all of the allied forces. The only way they can win is by demoralizing the nations of their enemies. They don't do the waves of attacks to destroy the enemy completely. They do it to get on the news. Every news article about dead American/allied troops strikes a blow at the morale of the enemy. There are few/no news articles about single/small attacks. It's only big/coordinated waves of attacks that give them the news stories.

For allied forces as well the war isn't about killing every single enemy combatant. It's about killing/capturing leaders, and convincing others' to defect from the cause by offering better opportunities. Still it would be extremely difficult to change the areas that have always looked to leadership from tribal chiefs to suddenly change and recognize a federal government from a far away place.

Superman ice palaces. and the singularity of data.

Everyone seems to be putting cool pictures on their blog. This one is from the edge of a glacier near Tierra del Fuego. I think it's in Chile.

Here's another picture. It's from when I made my first Crystal Superman palace, on Lake Baikal, the biggest (holds the most water) lake in the world. Can you guess what country it's in?

These are some of the broken pieces from my first ice palace. It was destroyed by my arch-nemesis. Aahh the memories of lake Baikal... But that was in the good old days before 'Nam.

Anyway, so I'm writing a goals baselines and methods document for the Speech and Hearing Clinic where I pay money to give therapy to clients who pay money to receive therapy, and I'm reviewing the previous semester report, and I see the phrase "Data were taken..." This is the classic English teacher versus Linguist situation... Should it be "Data is/was" or "Data are/were."

The English teacher (and most SLPs, and most other people) will say the word data is plural, and the word Datum is the singular form. Since "data" is (are:) plural, then data are or were taken is the correct form, and data is or was taken would be worthy of a derisive laugh. Or haughty chuckle.

The hardcore linguist (and me) would say "NO!" The reason for this is only understandable based on a series of facts, which will be presented right now!

1st, language is arbitrary. there's nothing about the written letters B-L-U-E or the spoken word "blue" that is inherently related to the color. English speaking society communally teaches and treats the word as a meaningful symbol. It is the fact that English speakers connect the word to the color/concept that makes the written and spoken blue mean the color. If the English speaking world were to use "Shazam" for blue, then it would mean the color/concept, and would be just as valid. For example "I like the shazam ice in your awesome picture Jeff!"

2nd, all languages change over time. Olde English (Ealde Englisce in Olde English) is very different, and almost entirely unintelligible, for English speakers today. The way they spoke then worked just fine for them. The way we speak now works fine for us.

3rd, there can't be a set in stone rule that says what is correct or incorrect in a language. It is arbitrary, and it changes over time. In some other European languages, there is an official body that makes rules to govern the language. This doesn't work of course, because the language changes over time, and the governing bodies invariably mandate that the 'proper' way to use the language is the way that it was used decades ago.

4th, while there can't be a right and wrong, there can be, and there always is, higher status and lower status dialects. This is unfortunate. It's also unfortunate that the 'correct' rules to follow for the language always are, or quickly become, the rules of the higher status dialects.

5th, the purpose of language is to communicate. The purpose of language should not be to determine or enforce status differences among speakers of different dialects of a language.

6th, since no one can say what is objectively right or wrong, the only way to determine what should be used in a given case, is to use what is the most commonly used and commonly understood form. This will be the best way to successfully communicate with the largest number of people. It will change over time, and that's ok.

Finally, to get back to the data issue. I've found that by googling different forms, I can objectively see which are more common, and therefore which should be used. I googled "Data is" in quotation marks and got 70 million hits. I googled "Data are" in quotes and got 35 million hits.

Clearly, "Data is/was" is more common. The dictionaries say "data" is plural, but it is used as a singular case noun. What it is is what it is. The dictionaries are perpetuating the way it was used decades ago, and aren't accepting its newer and most common form. The dictionaries are WRONG!!!

SLPs are in an unusual neutral area between the English teachers that like to prescribe how language should be used, and Linguists that like to simply describe how language is used. The SLP, while educated in many ways similarly to a linguist, makes a job of moving people with abnormal language or speech skills into the normal language or speech skills category. I think that many SLPs naturally revert to 'English teacher prescriptionism' for the English language too much, and forget the basic theoretical principles that are fundamental to the understanding of all languages.

It is unfortunate that the prescriptionists are so well represented in the educational establishment. I think that many people conform to the old rules to avoid being looked down on by others. As an SLP, it would be hard to have my use of language criticized. But I would rather be criticized than follow empty rules. When my supervisor tells me that I should have written "Data were collected" instead of "Data was collected" in my document, I'm just going to... probably write an angry blog about it and do what she says. Come on, she's the great giver of good grades after all. And I need good grades like an American needs bottled water. :) I spent two minutes thinking of that last phrase. I like it.

Peace out y'all!

Why urine rocks!

I was just on www.sciencedaily.com and there is a research article talking about how a simple urine test may be able to diagnose autism in the future. So awesome! My fascination with the properties of urine has increased dramatically over the past four years.

On inpatient rehab, I catheterized hundreds of people. It involves a red rubber catheter tube going up the urethra into the bladder. The sphincters are thus opened, and out comes the urine. But this must be done in a clean fashion, otherwise a urinary tract infection may be caused. Urine is clean you see. Not dirty. Getting dirty stuff in the bladder is bad.

Urine has been used by many peoples to wash their hands. The reason you get diaper rash or whatever with prolonged contact on the skin is because urine is like a cleaning material. Like bleach or something.

It is still best practice, if you're ever have an open wound and no cleaning materials, to urinate on it. This will help clean the wound.

Many years ago there were no good ways to test blood sugar in diabetes patients. So how did the doctors know blood sugar levels to provide treatment? They tasted the patient's urine! It's true!

Urine has been used in gun powder, dyeing clothing, and fertilizer. Urine gets used to diagnose a lot of different diseases and conditions. Urine rocks!

My new blog...

So up until now all posts were copied from my myspace blog. What can I say, I'm following the blogging bandwagon over here. I like connecting to others' blogs, and that they can connect to mine. Maybe that can be done at myspace, but I couldn't easily see how. So here I am.

Nostradamus & 2012

Monday, November 16, 2009

Nostradamus, 2012, and the book of Revelation Current mood:flapable Category: Religion and Philosophy So I saw this show on History channel the other day, called the Nostradamus effect. Being that I'm way interested in history, the farther back the better, I thought it would be cool. Nostradamus lived some hundreds of years ago. But it's not about history. It's about predicting the future, the end of the world, you know, that kind of thing. The reason I really dislike the program is that it makes Nostradamus into some kind of prophet. I can't understand how anyone who has a good command of the facts could believe that. Nostradamus wrote quatrains. Four line segments of poetry. Supposedly, each quatrain is a prophecy of some future event. First of all, as far as I know, there is no chronology at all for his thousands of quatrains. One may deal with 10 years in the future, and the next may deal with 300 years in the future. Nothing in the quatrains, or in their order, helps to know a time period, except for his abstractions "When the bloodied sun setteth, recently unveiled from its blotted path..." The whole thing is full of abstractions and meaningless symbols. If I were to write down thousands of quatrains, using language that is specifically abstract in order to broaden the possible interpretations, and then have people read through the thousands of quatrains after any world event, looking for specific quatrains that could be viewed as predicting the event, I'd probably become famous for it. In the Nostradamus entry on wikipedia it actually goes through the books published recently supporting his 'prophetic power' and lists how each book tries to interpret events just prior to its publication as fulfilled prophesies of Nostradamus. Speaking about a couple of quatrains that supposedly predicted the World Trade Center attacks on September 11th, 2001, a critical commentator says "Where were the guys that knew about this on September 10th? They should be thrown in jail for not doing anything to stop these attacks." His sarcasm is obvious. They weren't doing anything in particular on September 10th, because they had no idea anything was going to happen. Looking at the real quatrains that are claimed to predict the Sept. 11th attacks (there are some fake ones on the internet) it is quite difficult to believe that they predict anything. In any case, even if they were real, there are no cases where anyone has actually been able to predict an unexpected future event with them. It's always ALWAYS always after the event takes place that people say that Nostradamus predicted it. Compare this to the book of Revelation. There are symbols in the book of Revelation, but they are more concrete. It is a dragon with seven heads, ten horns, and seven crowns. Not a shadowy, mystical, could mean anything and is only mentioned once thing. There is a chronology in the book of Revelaton. The next verse usually continues the theme of the previous verse. It is often obvious that they refer to the same thing. Usually what comes in the next verse can be understood to follow chronologically, or take place at the same time, as the previous verse. One may or may not understand the particular symbol in the book of Revelation, but it is clear that each symbol is part of a greater whole. With Nostradamus you don't get any of that. They say Nostradamus predicts the end of the world in 2012. The reason that he predicts the end of the world is because the Mayans predicted the end of the world (the end of a cycle of their calender) in December of 2012, and hey, Wouldn't it be cool if the Mayans, and Nostradamus, and whoever else we can think of, all were predicting the end of the world at the same time? Now lets look through the thousands of quatrains that Nostradamus wrote and find one that we can interpret to predict the end of the world in 2012. And they couldn't even do that. They found some "signs of the end" that were similar to other people's "signs of the end," including those of the book of Revelation, and said, "well, they must be talking about the same times, and since the Mayans say it's 2012, then that must be when the end time is." I realize that those that take Nostradamus seriously are a very tiny minority. It just upsets me that History Channel gives that group a bull horn. And if you do take all the 2012 and Nostradamus stuff seriously, don't tell me. It will be hard for me not to make certain unkind judgments about your intelligence.

Snooty people like me (or such as myself, as it were)

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Snooty people like me Category: Writing and Poetry Honestly, why do we feel the need to criticize others' use of language? I will now criticize others' use of language. Efficacious is just the snooty way to say effective. In most of the dictionaries, they're synonyms. So when the PhD researchers say that efficacious means something that is effective only in a laboratory or research setting where the environment is controlled, whereas the term effective itself is to be used to describe something that is effective in a real world setting, I say... no. In English, no one person or group of experts has the right to redefine words. As Edward Shannon Davis quoted "What it is is what it is." I think I've dealt with how language is learned and the social contract that is involved in a previous blog. Experts have no right to redefine words. The word 'adolescence' has a definition learned by each of us after hearing the word used in context many times throughout our lives. That is what it is. Some expert can't come and say that it's something different. And anyway, as far as I know, effective and efficacious have the same history. They come from the same root word, just through different channels. Middle English and Old French or something like that. I honestly don't think that you'll ever hear someone say "It may be efficacious, but is it effective? You might read in a research article something like "X treatment is efficacious in research studies, but its effectiveness in clinical use has not been validated." The words are always used with context, because most people need the context. And if the words have to include context to be understood by most readers, even graduate level readers, then the difference is imposed rather than accepted through common usage. (I apologize for my simplified punctuation, I'm on strike against colins, semicolins, dashes, and other rare and complex punctuation) There isn't a real need for the word efficacious when the context must be included anyway. So my feeling is that people use efficacious to sound smart. That's what it's for. To separate the brilliant intellectuals from the commoners like ourselves. Why else do we have graduate programs, if not to drop the fact of completion in everyday conversation. Are you still in school? Why yes I am. I'm studying Speech Therapy. Wow. Is that like a Masters degree? Why yes. yes it is. I bet the pay is great. Actually it's terrible, considering the years of hard labor and suffering...

Spanish in the USA

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

A quick note on the Spanish language in the USA Category: Life I just wanted to say a few things about the 'invasion' of the Spanish language in the United States. Just like every wave of non-English speaking immigrants into this country, the people that have come here will not all learn English. Almost all of those that don't will feel badly about it, but some of them are not so young, and it's hard to learn a language later in life. Guess what percentage of their children that go through the US school system will learn English? If anyone has any other numbers than 100 %, I'd like to hear their reasoning. English is not in danger. It has never been more spoken, by number of speakers, or by percentage of the world population that speak it. If every Mexican in Mexico came to the United States, leaving that country with no people left, English would still be the most spoken language in the US. It's not a loss of the English language that we should fear. Across the world, there are somewhere around 6,000 languages. This number is much smaller than the number of languages several hundred years ago. In another 50 years or so, there will be around 3,000 living languages left in the world. Here in the United States, there are around a dozen to two dozen (I think) languages of native peoples that have not been taught to the children for years. These languages will die with the elders of these groups. My experience with the children of native Spanish speakers here in the USA is that the children learn and speak English, and understand but often speak very little Spanish. Many of those that I have met are ashamed of their heritage, because they see the stereotypes as they grow up. They are not a rising and dominant generation wanting to force the Spanish language on others. While native Spanish speakers will always speak to me in Spanish whenever I speak to them in Spanish, their children will reply to my Spanish with English. My children are being raised bilingual. Islena and I speak almost all Spanish to our kids, and already they speak mostly English to us. She is sad to think that they probably won't teach Spanish to their children. It is natural for them to speak English to us, although we speak Spanish to them. Nearly everyone they know understands English, and nearly everyone but us speaks to them in English. My family, TV, local friends, in church, on the street, and in school. It's all English. To raise them bilingual we have to do all Spanish all the time, and we will have to spend some summers in Colombia. I just want to say, to those that are afraid that our English language is in crisis, that there is no reason to fear. There are others, who were raised in other languages, that will sadly not teach these languages to their children. These are the languages that are in crisis. I also think that the people that tell us to be afraid for our language in this country, for the most part, are doing it for other reasons. Some are racists, and want us to hate others, or at least to fear them. Some just want this fear to be another reason to support discriminatory policies. Just like the KKK uses incorrect arguments against African Americans, some others use language as an argument against Latinos. OK. Rant over.

Job Hopping

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Job hopping Category: Jobs, Work, Careers Several weeks ago I was updating my references for work, and there was one reference in particular that I felt good about at the time, but now don't feel so good about. It was a previous supervisor that I had. We got along well, but I really didn't like the job. There was a time when I thought that I'd never get a job (or career, for you uppity types) that I could handle. I had left several jobs because I couldn't really perform. Well, I could perform, but I felt like I wasn't really doing the world any good, and I couldn't keep myself motivated to work hard. I found myself looking for excuses to quit. I felt like maybe I was just the kind that would never have a long-term, fulfilling job. My two most recent jobs have not been like that, and now I recall a third. They are being a nurse's aide, a rehab therapy aide, and before, an English as a Second Language teacher. These have been jobs that I have really enjoyed. I could do them for the rest of my life and be happy. I haven't wanted to quit. I haven't been in any danger due to low performance. In my case, I think that it's really just that I feel like I can make a significant contribution to helping others become better. It makes me feel good. I'm sure that when I'm a speech therapist, it will be the same. And thinking about how, if I'd never found these jobs, and wasn't in school to be a speech therapist, I would probably by extremely depressed, and feel worthless as far as my usefulness. I have judged others, and I think that most of us do, based on their ability to have a successful career. People that have gone from job to job won't have the money, and will be seen as failures to some degree, by others in society. Those that have had success monetarily, or have been steadily employed over long periods, are seen as dependable. I think that some of these people that have not had success, have been like I easily could have been. Maybe it's not really some moral failing, but rather just that they've never found the kind of employment that allows them to feel successful and happy about working. What do you think?

Poverty in the USA

Originally posted by Jeff December 21st, 2008

Poverty In America
Category: News and Politics

Isn't that a great title? Sounds like a news report. Did I rip that off of something else?

I was thinking about poverty, and being poor. I've never considered myself poor, but an average annual income of $ 12,000 over the last seven years is pretty much rock bottom, or even further, for a lot of people.

So I am the face of poverty. But not really. I have never been without a roof over my head, unless I wanted tent flaps instead. I have never been hungry for lack of being able to get food. I have never been without clothes. I've had a car for all but... nope, I've had a functional car since I got my first after my mission eight years ago. I eat out with my family. More than I would like to admit. I have a phone, high speed internet, comcast cable. We see movies. I think there are a lot of people that the government considers poor, that are not really poor, by my definition.

My definition of poverty is someone that goes hungry sometimes. Someone that may not always have a roof over their head. Someone that doesn't have enough clothing to stay warm. There are people like that around us. I think that they legitimately need help! While it is true that many of them are addicted to drugs or alcohol, have significant cognitive impairments, and often have significant difficulties with behavior, I don't think that these are reasons for us not to help them. It is not for us to judge them. I don't think that we should say "he could get help if he really needed it," or "did you know that begging on the corner gets you $80,000 a year?" or "There's all kinds of help out there, he shouldn't be here." One of my favorites is "We shouldn't give them fish, we have to teach them how to fish, and then they can feed themselves." While I agree with this to some extent, Christ didn't teach people how to fish, but he did give them fish. In any case none of us take our own advice and actually 'teach them how to fish.' But this isn't the main them of my blog.

The definition of poverty that I've heard is anyone that is below 2/3 of the average annual income. So if the average income is 36,000 then anyone making under 24,000 is poor. Or if the average income was 900,000 a year, anyone making below 600,000 would be poor. Or if the average income was 6 dollars a year, anyone making under 4 dollars a year would be poor. I don't like this definition of poverty. The effect of this definition is that when the difference between the highest income earners and the lowest income earners increases, there is more poverty. When the difference decreases, there is less poverty. This is regardless of how much the lowest income earners are actually making. They may have gone from 6 dollars an hour to 18 dollars an hour, but if the rich increased by more than triple their annual income, then poverty increased. Or if the very rich start getting much reduced income, but the poor's income stays the same, they may get kicked out of the poverty bracket anyway.

I think that this is why such a majority of the 'poor' consider themselves to be middle class. In reality, the differences between the majority of them and the middle class are not huge. Maybe more debt problems, less healthcare coverage, little or no savings, and (possibly) not owning a home. The lifestyle other than this is pretty much the same. These may be significant, but the difference is nothing compared to the guy on the street begging for a place to stay the night.

Unfortunately, this view that we are considered poor not according to our needs, but according to how well we stack up with others in the community, has been internalized by many in our culture. I knew a guy that was making between 300,000 and 500,000 each year, and someone commented to him about how he was so much richer (for you rich people, read "wealthier") than the rest of us, and he said, "Oh, there are a whole lot of people that make more money than I do! I'm really not that wealthy." Regardless of how much money anyone makes, they can always look at someone else and say that they are not very rich.

My problem with this is that it is very pessimistic. I've read news article about how the poor are getting poorer in the last few decades. That's wrong! So poor we have cell phones, internet, computers, and multiple cars? This country has never been so prosperous! (pretend I wrote this two years ago:)

The other problem is that when we feel like we aren't doing so well as others, we really aren't going to be thinking about the people that are starving to death in other countries. If I consider myself poor, then I'm not going to send money down to needy people in Colombia. I need the money. Thirty bucks a month can feed one child. Is there anyone that can't afford that? On www.feedthechildren.org $10.00 a month can help feed one child. Thirty bucks can feed three.

Juvenile Punishment

From December 2nd, 2008 myspace blog posting

Juvenile Punishment (Copy of my entry in a Psychology of Adolescence online posting)
Category: Goals, Plans, Hopes

I think that these newer findings that the brain is not fully developed in adolescents don't change anything. Everyone has always known that adolescents are less mature. The fact that we can now point out exactly what areas of the brain are later developing only proves that government has been right to treat juvenile delinquents more gently. Maintenance of the status quo is also indicated by the inverse statement. These areas of the brain are partially developed. They know right from wrong. They make many correct decisions. They shouldn't be let off the hook, either.

Having a sentence that is less severe than an adult sentence is not the same as letting them off the hook. This will be their first time in detention. Away from their family and friends. Punished because of what they have done. They're not there laughing it up because they didn't get an adult sentence. I'm sure it is the biggest life crisis they have ever faced. In addition to punishments that are less severe than adults, I think that change is much more likely in the juvenile. They absolutely need rehabilitation, community service, counseling, vocational preparation, therapy, education and GED work, etc. While I think calling them first time offenders is wrong (it's the first time they were caught and successfully prosecuted), I also think that they need to know that there is hope that they can change and choose a better life. We need more of this, both for adolescents and adult "first time offenders." While the rehabilitative aspect is very important, I don't agree with removal of the normal detention punishment. It needs to remain.

Those with a history of offenses are a different issue. Those that are a danger to society fully deserve every year they get. Seeing a child rapist in the news a while ago that was a repeat offender that had been let go made me sick. I'm all for the death penalty for those that deserve it, and prison till death for those that don't. I would hope that the life in prison people would have been through the whole rehabilitative gamut and, having repeated their crimes, I don't think any more money should be spent on them.

Trying to determine all the factors that made the juvenile do what he did, and reducing his punishment according to their number and severity is impossible. You can take any juvenile, or criminal for that matter, and write a laundry list of "causes" for what he or she did. If every criminal has the list, and you think that they should all get reduced sentences because of it, the end result is an across the board shortening of sentences. That doesn't fix anything. Whether they were raised in bad neighborhoods, or had abusive parents, or were addicted to drugs, or whatever, there will always be something.

I also think that having reduced sentences for major offenses and normal sentences for minor offenses is indefensible. You can't be fully responsible for theft and less responsible for murder. It is also impossible to judge how mature a teen was, to affect choice of consequence for the crime. It may be possible to develop a fairly good test to judge this, but it wouldn't be possible to prevent a knowing youth from throwing the score. Actual brain activity scans would also not work for this, as many adult criminals may scan as teens, and my understanding is that the person being scanned is given things to think about while the scan is done to get the correct areas to light up. Again, willing cooperation is needed.

People that are in prison need to work, in my opinion. The government is paying about 50,000 a year for each one. I think they should have at least several options, but I think they need to work. Working can help a person respect themselves. It can keep them out of trouble. It can help them learn the habit of doing honest work for money. It can give them knowledge of a vocation, so they'll have an option when they get out. It would help defray the cost of their confinement. It could give them a little bit of money when they get out so they don't end up sleeping on the streets, and so they have a full stomach as they look for a job when they leave.

I think the purposes of prison need to be looked at more closely. I think that 20 years is not really a greater punishment than 10 years in prison. Once you're beyond the first several years, social ties become less significant. If the person needs to be in prison for the rest of their life, then let's put them in prison for the rest of their life. If we hope to rehabilitate them, I think many years of prison is going to have the opposite effect. They need to be punished, and I think a significant amount of solitary time is good for several reasons. It provides time to think and choose a better course. It reduces the amount of time socializing with other prisoners, and reduces the spread of criminal ideas and prison gangs. If any change is to happen, it won't take 20 years to do it. Do it fast and get them back out into the real world. For prisoners' mental health, the reduction in social time with other prisoners needs to be balanced with an increase in time doing the full range of rehabilitative activities. Let's get them back on the streets with all the tools they need for a successful life.

Too Big to fail

From my myspace blog on November 26, 2008. I'm in the process of moving the 8 or 9 postings over, so all my blog will be here now.

I'm really annoyed by the companies that are too big to fail. I agree that they are too big to fail. They need to be helped, so they don't destroy innocent areas of the economy when the fall. I also think they are too big. Let's cut them in two or three parts, and then next time, we can let them pay for their own mistakes. These companies that are too big to fail are also too big to promote market innovation, and I think there is a lot of evidence that they actually reduce innovation. They are also too big to compete fairly. When you have a large percentage of an entire market, you become a maker of rules, not a follower of rules. And it becomes extremely easy to destroy smaller competitors by making end user costs artificially low in the area of competition until the competitor is out of business, and then jack up the prices to wherever you want. I think there needs to be a percentage number of market share that a business is allowed to have, and when it is surpassed, I think the company needs to be split. I think that, whatever the percentage, when people begin to say that the company is too big to fail, the company is too big!

Of course there are issues with splitting companies. Who has the authority to split an international corporation? No one. But they do have control in their own countries. I think it's something that the UN could handle, and now is the perfect time to do it.

Some of the reasons that there are many that hate the United States in other countries involve us being the source and home of many of these faceless and inhuman corporations. I think it was one of our corporations that decided to stop working with local governments to make water treatment plants in Africa, because it was more lucrative to sell them bottled water. The people in these areas either pay more for bottled water, or they have to risk drinking untreated water. The corporation and its investors get money, the people of Africa get diseases.