tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-42435110320459074832024-03-13T01:46:45.060-05:00unKommon SenseBecause there's nothing at all common about itunKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-84049796208039743702013-01-30T17:50:00.001-06:002013-01-30T17:50:44.367-06:00Until the next Newtown....a psychiatrist's frustration. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBDwLI_09gUk-vOOcXT4RehVBgaP3prlDR3eMeH-kevi7gkTu8LFhBT_TcNxePXAgDiST5UkL0VuRLUohuIQ15UY9Px3nsfPGgrEBD0cBWfmNIZte4xQOR5O8LTDlh3382WbCtj0yej3YX/s1600/vigil.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="177" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBDwLI_09gUk-vOOcXT4RehVBgaP3prlDR3eMeH-kevi7gkTu8LFhBT_TcNxePXAgDiST5UkL0VuRLUohuIQ15UY9Px3nsfPGgrEBD0cBWfmNIZte4xQOR5O8LTDlh3382WbCtj0yej3YX/s320/vigil.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">It has been more than a month since the
tragic shooting in Newtown Connecticut. I have been listening to the
pundits and newsies talk about what could have possibly prevented the tragic
murders. </span><span style="font-size: 13.5pt; text-indent: 0.5in;">One huge faction is arguing
that better gun control will prevent tragedies and one strong rebuttal to that
argument has been that more attention to metal health issues will save us. I hear
the arguments that gun control isn’t going to prevent any tragedies, and it is
not my intention to prove or disprove that notion. As
a psychiatrist currently working in community mental health, I just
want to mention you might not want to put all your eggs in the mental health
basket either. Let me explain:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Today at a community mental health
facility I had two patients. One patient is a charming good looking young man,
who on the surface doesn’t look like anything is bothering him, but he has
auditory hallucinations that torment him and tell him not to trust his family
and to kill them before they kill him. Today I spoke to his mother who told me her
and her kids and grandchildren sleep in locked rooms afraid of what he may do
on a whim. When medicated he is pleasant cheerful, and very funny; but he
isn’t taking his medication and today in this state he is anything but, and
quite scary. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The second patient I had only one brief
encounter and didn’t know very well. The report I got was he had been reportedly
discharging a firearm in his neighborhood 2 days ago. I was told that he had
been refusing his medication for weeks, and was held up in his apartment
talking to the walls and yelling out the windows. The field agents who are
charged with visiting his home and making sure he is ok were able to get him to
come to the clinic by telling him they were taking him grocery shopping. Through
a lot of hard work the community agents were able to bring these two men into
the clinic for evaluation. Given the report of how these men were acting in the
community I decided it would be safer if they were admitted to the hospital to
have their medications adjusted. They both demonstrated demonstrable danger to
others and potentially themselves. Sounds simple enough. Wrong. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">It is usually the job of the sheriff's
office to pick up involuntary commitments in the community, so I filled out the
paperwork for involuntary commitment and called the sheriff's office. My call
was answered by a less than courteous dispatcher who told me they were in
middle of shift change and they would not be able to send someone out until 7pm.
It was 4:30 pm.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I explained that I had a staff of mostly
females and that the patients were potentially dangerous when
agitated. I let her know they were only here begrudgingly and it was
only a matter of time before they became agitated. The dispatcher
then transferred me to a shift manager whose disposition made the
first person's curtness seem pleasant by comparison. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I again explained the situation
and asked if someone could please transfer the patients to the nearest
hospital. She rudely told me that shift change wasn’t until seven and even then
I would have to demonstrate the patients had been given medication to calm them
30mins prior to their arrival. I attempted to explain that as a private
clinic I have no medication to give the patients. We are not a hospital or ER
with shots to give agitated patients. She said then she would not send anyone.
"So, you want me to send my deputies into danger with a violent 'crazy. person?"
,she asked. I explained these people with mental illnesses (not crazy people)
were in need of medical help. The people who went into the community to get
them were not trained, nor armed. Yet they went into the community to retrieve
them, even with the knowledge that one may have been potentially armed. But she
was telling me trained police officers with weapons and restraints could not
handle two unarmed men?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">As she was refusing to help one of the
patients turned to the other and said "It's a trap, they're trying to lock
us up". At which point both men began to get irate. I explained this to
the person on the phone who heard this but still wasn’t moved one inch towards
caring. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I then hung up with her and called 911.
The 911 dispatcher, who at least was pleasant, explained that it was the
sheriff's department's responsibility to
transport involuntary commitments and that by law they could not. She
said she would at least send a patrol car over to assess the situation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;"> The patrol officer did arrive promptly,
and he too was at least polite. By this time one of the two men saw the police,
thus confirming his suspicion that he had been duped. He began cursing and pacing
angrily. He was now visibly agitated, but thanks to the great community worker
was able to be calmed. The officer who witnessed this suggested that now that
the patient was calm and one of my workers should transport him to the
hospital. When asked if he could at least follow them to the hospital he, again
politely, said no. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">We then had to call off duty male staff in
to ride with the female staff and patient to the hospital. Meanwhile the other
patient, who introduced the idea of a mass conspiracy, began to rock in his
chair, mumbling how he’d be damned if he was going to the hospital. The police officer and I were sat and berated
the sheriff’s department for not doing their job. The officer agreed that it
was a shame that mental health services were in shambles. He talked about the
time he spent as a community support officer. He went on to say that the
sheriff’s office should have sent someone urgently despite being in the middle
of shift change. It was in the midst of this conversation that the empathetic
officer who just spent five minutes talking about his understanding of the
broken mental health system informed me that he was leaving. He told me he had to get back to his patrol.
I asked him what I was supposed to do if these patients became violent while we
waited the still whole hour left until 7pm. He responded that if they did
become violent we could then call 911 and THEN someone would come.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Around this time some of our male staff
arrived and the calmer patient was able to be taken to the hospital leaving me,
two female staff members, and the patient who 2 days ago was reportedly
shooting in his neighborhood. Some more
male staff came and I had to leave them untrained, unarmed civilians with the
patient to wait for the trained armed sheriff’s office. Time 7:05<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I wish that I was just venting about one
bad experience with one bad county with one bad system, but I can’t. In my
short career I have worked in two states three cities and numerous different
counties and it is sad but I have had the same experience with the relationship
between law enforcement in mental health in each of those settings. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I don’t want to touch the gun control
debate that has come up since the last mass shooting, but I do notice that each
time one of these tragedies comes up people mention mental health as the failed
barrier that should have protected society from these tragedies. And I only
mention the gun control debate in the same breath as mental health because I
feel it is futile to say the current status of mental health care in this
country will offer any help in the same way that it is viewed the status quo
with regards to gun control will offer any addition safety to society at large.
The major similarity between both discussions is that as soon as a great tragedy
occurs we get really amped up to change the world. We posture and talk really
grand for a moment and then nothing happens.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Why nothing really happens is because the
problem is very complex and difficult to solve. In this story better
communication between law enforcement and mental health services needs to
happen. It can’t be just one department that is responsible to responding to a
crisis if that department can’t be responsive 24 hours a day, and then an
emergency department who is trained to handle potentially violent situations abdicates
that responsibility to civilians when the situation is inconvenient for
scheduling. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">Coordination is one small facet of the
problem but it is deeper still. Even when law enforcement agencies are
cooperating there is no place to take acutely agitated patients. Mental health
institutions have gradually been decreased over the last three decades. There
are fewer and fewer long term treatment facilities. As a result, most acute
inpatient hospitalizations are for less than a week and then patients are sent
back into a community that is ill equipped to support them. Because they are poorly supported with poor
outpatient care they bounce back very frequently which creates a jam in ER’s
across the country. Because ER’s are overflowing, there is more pressure to
discharge patients quickly (not to mention the financial pressure to discharge
quickly, but a separate conversation). Poorly stabilized patients decompensate
quickly and end up back in the ER which starts the cycle all over again—
leaving mental health providers very frustrated.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">The legal system is equally frustrated
because the patient who aren’t in the revolving door of
ER->hospital->community->ER often make detours in the justice center. Jails
aren’t equipped to handle serious mental illness so they try without success to
access the above mental health system and find it just as jammed as described.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">I really started this article to vent
about a horrible incident I had, but my frustration wasn’t because of the time
I lost that day or necessarily with the rudeness of some of the people I
encountered. My main frustration was that as I sat and reflected the day’s
event I came up with more problems than I had solutions for. Ultimately all of
the solutions I could come up with involved the expenditure of monies. Most of
this country considers things that improve living conditions for poor and indigent
(which most of the severely mentally ill population falls under) entitlement
spending. But I cant help to see it differently. Money spent to decrease social stressors
(assisted living, vocational training, community support staff etc, and access
to medical care, etc) is not philanthropic, it is self preservation. Poor
social support and substance abuse more than triples the likelihood of violence
in mentally ill population. Yet if I
suggested spending money on the above no bills or referendums would pass, no
media outrage would occupy the 24 hour news cycle, nobody would care—until the
next Newtown. That’s what frustrates me.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-468257751201883862012-08-16T13:38:00.000-05:002012-08-16T13:38:00.324-05:00The Race Card:Politics "Draw Four"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioVNJm_OX5lpHQMyA7MSz3syfA1iRC707CH6rSuPywtS525v-_GqdOlhJejE086B_jaNyG7y1nLaRe0toXaAB4m9mYU-rkEur6Hx55UolEKnkhPLDkLKmhgXEtM43P0_NuIU-gHQ4ui28H/s1600/draw4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioVNJm_OX5lpHQMyA7MSz3syfA1iRC707CH6rSuPywtS525v-_GqdOlhJejE086B_jaNyG7y1nLaRe0toXaAB4m9mYU-rkEur6Hx55UolEKnkhPLDkLKmhgXEtM43P0_NuIU-gHQ4ui28H/s400/draw4.jpg" width="85" /></a></div>
Lot of talk right now about Joe Biden's most recent 'gaff'. Joe said the following
<br />
<blockquote>
“We got a real clear picture of what they all value,” Biden said. “Every Republican’s voted for it. Look at what they value and look at their budget and what they’re proposing. Romney wants to let the — he said in the first hundred days he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, ‘unchain Wall Street.’ They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”</blockquote>
There has been a lot of talk about the context of the comment having racial under tones. People on the right have been in an up roar about the comment being an under-handed way of calling their ticket racist. Was it?<br />
<br />
MMMmmmm, Maybe.<br />
<br />
Let's go back to 2008 when many on the right accused Obama supporters of "Drinking the Kool-Aid" when referring to people overly buying into the "Hope and Change" rhetoric of his campaign. Now there was a lot of people on the left that felt "Drinking Kool-Aid" was hidden racism because of the association between blacks the derogatory "Chicken and Kool-Aid" stereotype of African Americans. People on the right defended that comment stating "Drinking the Kool-Aid" was a reference to cults that would carry out suicide pacts by drinking poison laced punch. Which is a true allusion, and an apt metaphor when applied appropriately.<br />
<br />
During that time people on the right where pleading, "Please don't automatically assume racism when we make statements!". And people on the left were just as adamant when insisting "Please don't ignore the undertone of statements made".<br />
<br />
Flash forward four years.... and my-oh-my what a role reversal we see here. Now we have people on the left saying "Hey look at the context of what he said before assuming it was racist!" And people on the right playing the same race card they once claimed was over played!
Could Joe Biden have been insisting that Romney/Ryan ticket was intent on reinstating slavery and there by racist? Yeah, if you believe conservatives call Obama Socialist because saying Nigger is passe. Or could he have been making an allusion to financial slavery as he claims? Well Yeah, if you believe "Drinking Kool-Aid" is simply an allusion to following with blind faith and was not used with any racial undertone.<br />
<br />
Let's face the truth there are plenty of racist people on both sides of the isle, and from time to time their views will seep into the nation discourse. And there is some real racism that has to be confronted. The only way we are going to be able to get to the point where we all realize things can be taken many ways depending on context. And we have to address each issue with empathy and understanding, not over-reaction and defensiveness.<br />
<br />
As for "the race card", and who gets to play it. Think about it like this: when it comes to politics the race card is just like the "Draw Four" in a game of UNO. It is best played when you are behind in the game to change the color of the game. And no matter if you are sitting to the right or to the left, anybody at the table will play it if it helps them win.<br />
<br />
<br />
Makes common sense to me.
unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-16091670307478478492011-12-15T11:11:00.009-06:002011-12-19T18:58:27.628-06:00Unpopular things that need to be said about the hazing incident at FAMU<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXZ-daP_ahj4ARkUY2ghjr8xb4frYPj_mCHo0Opdxk0wTWvIiCO43Tr76neSvpXCu1lk6EYqmtqdXQp-M1XQafhnhCWYXZ8gAM7iadMgnJeU4872BvoCZB1Zlt0t7AhPCyrEAfcjfzBFfl/s1600/believe+in+FAMU.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 256px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXZ-daP_ahj4ARkUY2ghjr8xb4frYPj_mCHo0Opdxk0wTWvIiCO43Tr76neSvpXCu1lk6EYqmtqdXQp-M1XQafhnhCWYXZ8gAM7iadMgnJeU4872BvoCZB1Zlt0t7AhPCyrEAfcjfzBFfl/s320/believe+in+FAMU.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5688008498749337762" /></a><br />First of all I have to say I am truly saddened by the loss the family of Robert Champion has endured. It is truly tragic when I young life is prematurely ended for any reason. I think many are finding solace in that it is shinning the light on a tradition that has being going on for years and definitely needs to be addressed.<br /><br />That being said I think there are important parts of the discussion that are being left unsaid. <br /><br />First off there is a difference between a victim and a participant. If a person is walking down the street and some nefarious character jumps out of the shadows and beats you, then you are a victim of assault. On the other hand if you sneak out in the black of the night to go to a secret meeting where you know you will be beat, and you submit yourself to dangerous activities then you are a participant in that activity. Both end in injury, but only one scenario has a victim. <br /><br />Some have suggested that Mr. Champion and other participants in hazing rituals, though willing participants, aren't responsible for their actions because of the intense peer pressure they face trying to gain acceptance by those already in the organization. Some have even gone as far as to liken the drive to belong to these organizations to a woman who is an a abusive relationship. It has been said that a woman in an abusive relationship is so endeared to the abuser that she submits to and even defends her attacker. And so will people desperately trying to gain social acceptance to various organizations<br /><br />However the analogy lacks validity for two reasons. One dating is not an illegal activity you don't enter into a relationship knowing that you are doing something you shouldn't be doing. However the same cannot be said about hazing. All participants, the hazer and hazed, know they are doing something illegal. In most cases they have signed documents acknowledging not only will they not participate in hazing, but also that they would report it if they encounter it. I don't think any rational woman would date a man if he handed her a paper saying "Warning I may beat you"<br /><br />The second reason dovetails from the first. Since the activity is illegal how is peer pressure a justifiable excuse for breaking the law? What other crime can you commit and blame peer pressure: burglary, drug trafficking, prostitution? Could a person who is found with a stolen TV in his car stand in front of a jury and say he stole these things to fit in with his friends expect leniency for his crimes? That was rhetorical, ignorance of the law isn't even a justifiable defense in a court of law in America; so peer pressure definitely can't be.<br /><br />Speaking of peer pressure, Mr. Champion was a 26 year old man, and a drummajor. That is important for two reasons. As a 26 year old he was not a child. The 19 year olds he allowed to haze him are children. He was an adult (at 26 I was in residency responsible for lives of my patients). As an adult he should have been setting the example for the youth other parents assumed a leader of the band would set. The responsibility goes even farther in that he was a drummajor, a designated leader of the band.<br /><br />Another issue I would like to address is the school's culpability in this manner. Again it depends on the details of what happened, and I admit what I say here maybe later not the case. But if the case is that Mr. Champion allowed himself to be hazed is the school responsible?<br /><br />I have heard the argument that the school knew about the culture of hazing on its campus therefore it was negligent in protecting the students from hazing. I agree that the school has a responsibility to protect its students, and I fully understand America's outrage at the perception that the school should have done more to ensure Mr. Champion's safety. And if it turns out the school was negligent in anyway to protect that safety they should be held accountable. <br /><br />But what if the school provided anti-hazing workshops to educate the students on what hazing is and what to do if you encounter it, and all members of the band sign documents acknowledging they understand these rules; and what if the school appropriately disciplines all students found to be participating in any of these activities--if all this is true what else could have been done?<br /><br />Would we be having this same conversation if Mr. Champion had overdosed on heroin, even if a fellow student had sold it to him? Of course we would still be saddened by the loss of life. And yes, we would still want justice brought to those who supplied the illegal drugs. But we would be openly acknowledging the bad decisions that also contributed to his untimely death and we would be only holding those directly involved in the transaction responsible.<br /><br />Suing a school because you got hurt by the hazing you chose to participate in, is like suing your drug dealer because your crack made your teeth fall out. If you decide to smoke crack and you overdose you don't get to sue your drug dealer. So how come you can if you choose to submit yourself to hazing and you get hurt?<br /><br />I am not trying to vilify Mr. Champion. His death is a tragedy that should not have occurred. Nor I am in anyway trying to justify the practices that ultimately led to his death. However, I do not believe we can begin to have an honest discussion about how to end hazing with out addressing all of the issues in the problem. <br /><br />Educating the public against the dangers of breaking a law and punishing those who break it are about the only two things a society can do to protect its citizens. You can't punish with out educating, nor can just punish some involved and not others; and expect your solutions to work. And despite doing both of those well, there will be times a society still breaks those rules. <br /><br />Just make sense to meunKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com56tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-90451730789590049922011-06-09T09:09:00.004-05:002011-06-09T11:25:10.737-05:00Why I Dont Care About Anthony's Weiner, and Neither Should You<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipU96N3BAtZpE4Gay4WaDQt4JwxxhJJV1HwJeEFEymkUAR0buU1ljKZfQiYzzYmldD0fUkNC_gVXTrt741pcdrx-LO7kHs00MAovDtXuL8uVgDWrUbhsZ7w1JDwZ_o4QuDd0E9z9PznDzr/s1600/sad+man.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 136px; height: 110px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipU96N3BAtZpE4Gay4WaDQt4JwxxhJJV1HwJeEFEymkUAR0buU1ljKZfQiYzzYmldD0fUkNC_gVXTrt741pcdrx-LO7kHs00MAovDtXuL8uVgDWrUbhsZ7w1JDwZ_o4QuDd0E9z9PznDzr/s320/sad+man.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5616256724623488754" /></a><br />I think it is sad state of being to have to admit my wife has probably seen Anthony Wiener's penis more times in the last week than mine. I mean that thing has been everywhere the last week. I think yesterday it surpassed Hannity as the biggest dick on the air.<br /><br />But, I don't understand why this is a scandal. If I were his wife, I would get it. You sent half naked pictures to bunch of women....scandalous. But I am not his wife, so why do I care which part of his anatomy he sent to which person? Oh, I understand why politicians make a spectacle about it. Using any chance to use any situation as an opportunity to shift political leverage makes sense, politically. I get that, but what I don't understand is why the American people go for it every time.<br /><br />This isn't a partisan issue for me, it isn't even a political issue. I said the same thing about all the hoopla made over Brett Farves 'friend' showing up all over cyberspace and in punditry. People's personal life and professional life should be separate, but we don't allow that. Why?<br /><br /><br />Honestly, the last time you went to Subways and ordered a sandwich were you more concerned with how well your sandwich was made, or whether or not your "sandwich artist" had looked at porn the night before? I am betting you were watching your food. And you should be. What does what Jared did when he is at home have to do with making me a 5 dollar footlong? Absolutely nothing. So why is it we get so concerned about what other people in other professions are doing in their personal lives?<br /><br /><br />Personally I think it is because we all need to get a life. Or specifically pay more attention to the one we have and not the one we feel we should. I guess I need to clarify. The reason we hold these celebrities, preachers, politicians, athletes etc to these higher moral standards is we know we could never obtain them ourselves. We project these subconscious desires for moral perfection, we unconsciously know are unobtainable, on to external representations of ourselves and call them "role models"<br /><br />So when these role models inevitably fail, they become representations of our own failures. But since we cant vilify our own iniquities we turn on our fallen heroes with a righteous indignation. I mean who wants to look at mirror when they can look out a window?<br /><br />The psychology of it makes for excellent mechanism to distract people, but it shouldn't. If you are an athlete all I want you to do is show up an score points. If you are an actor all I want you to do is show up and entertain me. If you are a politician all I want you to do is show up and vote the way you said you would. What depraved thing you do on you own time does not, should not concern me; unless it interferes with you showing up and doing said task.<br /><br />Role models will all at some point fail us in some way. I wonder why this is surprising to anyone. Human nature is predictable. No one is above it. Politicians, athletes, preachers, actors, etc are just people and are going to make the same mistakes that all people make. I think the folly in all of this is that we as a society expect them to be superhuman in their ability not to.<br /><br />Common Sense to me.unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-17453311145088251072011-02-08T14:07:00.003-06:002011-02-08T14:10:17.914-06:00Why is it constitutional to force doctors to treat someone, but unconstitutional to ask people to pay?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi66D0HYfq8hBWY2F9L4p262OSg07K5OgkkoNNnZSdPBoaaP1GqfJ21B71CrHcck6yE1lNx8Fa25iKkRdMsXuGtq-9ksKBTJyUtr8fLBkIu-2tmR1bnRxOx6Lq0gSgGC_WllI1do2JM-tDf/s1600/obamacare.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 242px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi66D0HYfq8hBWY2F9L4p262OSg07K5OgkkoNNnZSdPBoaaP1GqfJ21B71CrHcck6yE1lNx8Fa25iKkRdMsXuGtq-9ksKBTJyUtr8fLBkIu-2tmR1bnRxOx6Lq0gSgGC_WllI1do2JM-tDf/s320/obamacare.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5571413464217775042" /></a><br /> <br />Not a long one from me today, but a serious question. Everyone has the right to emergent health care. No ER can turn anyone around based on their ability to pay. Which means that the law is forcing physicians to provide a service to people regardless of their ability to pay. And this is true if you go to a private ER or Public so you cant say people's taxes help prop this.<br /><br />So it is ok, nay constitutional, to force private citizens to perform a public service, yet one cornerstone of the argument against the health care reform is that it is unconstitutional to require individuals to buy insurance that would cover their utilization of this service? What about the people: nurses, doctors, and administrators, responsible for providing that service? Why do they bare all the responsibility for the cost of providing these services, but not the people utilizing them? I don't understand.<br /><br />Right now there is much debate about protecting the individuals right to their financial sovereignty. Some argue "The government has no right to make someone buy a product", right. (I don't get since I have to buy car insurance). But if it is the case and the government shouldn't be saying how we spend money, shouldn't they also not be allowed to say what service private citizens and businesses provide?<br /><br />I don't think most people would argue that we should turn away people in emergent situations. Most feel as a society we owe it to people to provide them life saving measures when needed. But let's keep the equation fair. If we feel this is something we as a society should be providing our citizens, let's be equitable about how we spread the burden of providing these services. Or we could decide as a society we don't want to provide that service at all. After all if you are starving, there is no law saying a restaurant should feed you, our medical system could work the same way. If some had their way it would.....unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-19559199901057043522010-06-23T19:51:00.001-05:002010-06-23T19:55:59.162-05:00Does Obama hate White people?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6lLNa-NsqzdUqCFm6oCFOAMDRGm7lgHOGrwLq9BW79nWvUm6Oq2Pvqps1FTooX_bcbUBLkJI6efRXs0bcYL4hYuQlivfbfDC-SyqckgM50vh6ywpOyubwZ-0wU6JQAy7nA3xGQLNJz3y4/s1600/OBAMA-white-people.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 295px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6lLNa-NsqzdUqCFm6oCFOAMDRGm7lgHOGrwLq9BW79nWvUm6Oq2Pvqps1FTooX_bcbUBLkJI6efRXs0bcYL4hYuQlivfbfDC-SyqckgM50vh6ywpOyubwZ-0wU6JQAy7nA3xGQLNJz3y4/s320/OBAMA-white-people.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5486137581570744482" /></a><br />Actually for some, I think this question shoots to the heart of one of the problems in our political climate.<br /><br />Before in history when someone disagreed with the president it was assumed it was because of policy. No one had to wonder if it was because of race. Well most Americans didnt have to worry.<br /><br />Now we are at the first point in American history where the majority race is confronted with the concept (real or imagined) that the president may not have their personal interests at heart because of race.<br /><br />Deep down inside we all have parts of us that feel a certain way that is unacceptable to our conscious self. We protect our conscious self from those feeling through various defense mechanism. One of my favorite is projection<br /><br />Projection<br />a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people. <br />In other words. If you deep down inside feel like you hate your sister, but consciously you know it is unacceptable to hate your sister. You may begin to feel your sister hates you.<br /><br />We all have prejudices that are born of our life experiences: how we were raised, our past interactions with other, and how we perceive others have been treated. Yet in many instances society tells us that our prejudices are inherently wrong-- evil. When truth of the matter its not the prejudices that are wrong, but how we condition our responses to them.<br /><br />Yet these prejudices do exist in all of us, but consciously we feel that is wrong. Prejudice is a bad word right? Synonyms with racism and bigotry, right? Therefore I can understand how if that is lurking beneath the surface of our minds whenever those thoughts creep up near the conscious we have to do something before it pops up. And we do. We get rid of it, even better we give it to the thing that is causing us so much discomfort.<br /><br />I would be guilty of grossly over generalizing if I stated I felt that this was the reason for all of the disagreement regarding the current administration, but I would be equally remiss if I didn't wonder how much it contributed to the intensity of the dissent.unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-78297913917705741602010-06-23T19:33:00.003-05:002010-06-23T19:44:20.481-05:00Listen up Libs and cons: There is enough hyprocisy to go around<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3gwUOJ5m5qa0KlT3lS06rMrWIJ-502xHHQayr17L5QAIxjebY0i5UMrDrhzTUf9dRcT23dwpPpA5mbKn2cRWWTXX5HDo-Q6EczEihK3l19N77z2QQIFSi9gBg8Tr6ZvvQqx3tLeA8f3F0/s1600/hypocrisy.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 256px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3gwUOJ5m5qa0KlT3lS06rMrWIJ-502xHHQayr17L5QAIxjebY0i5UMrDrhzTUf9dRcT23dwpPpA5mbKn2cRWWTXX5HDo-Q6EczEihK3l19N77z2QQIFSi9gBg8Tr6ZvvQqx3tLeA8f3F0/s320/hypocrisy.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5486134523139519234" /></a><br /><br />I sat playing with my two year old while CNN was playing in the background during the Senate vote to bring the healthcare reform bill to the floor. Not the nail bitter I think it was made out to be, but interesting enough. As I listened to the punditry dribble what constitutes post-election debate, I heard abortion was once again a line being drawn in the sand as, Tina Fey's 30 Rock character would put it, a "deal breaker".<br /><br />This is nothing new; the topic is divisive and a hardline issue for many who are single issue voters based on abortion alone (which I think silly, but to each their own). But there I sat listening to the panel discuss the vote along political lines "Conservative" senator this and "Liberal" senator that. I began to wonder something. And maybe its just me; but isnt there a lot of contradiction within these political ideologies?<br /><br />Ok. the right of the spectrum is against abortion. Yet the same group that professes the inherent preciousness of each life is the same group that is the biggest proponent of the death penalty. Is life only precious at the beginning? This is also the same group usually opposed to welfare which in most cases is designed to help take care of the "not aborted" babies. The right professes to oppose government intervention yet endorses heavy regulations when it comes to drugs,gambling, prostitution, abortion --the areas where the most intimate decisions regarding personal choices are involved.<br /><br />Now the left side of the spectrum supports abortion. Yet the same group that does not feel life in womb deserves ultimate protection quivers at the thought of people taking the life of those which have committed heinous crimes against others. The left proposes that people should have personal liberty, based on personal responsibility, when it comes to drugs, prostitution, and abortions, but baulks when it comes to guns and again when asked to enforce personal responsibility when it comes to crime and welfare.<br /><br />As ideologies liberalism and conservatism seem to have predetermined stances for the majority of issues facing this country. I always find it interesting that a person could be wholly one or the other on each of these issues without running head on to some of these inherent contradictions.unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-14766275818919502162010-02-15T10:21:00.005-06:002010-02-15T10:40:52.699-06:00Tort reform might save me money, but will it save you any?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRlnEcZA68RYe9XgvLDUBhznpI0wM9iz_OziNHX9ngtZwkpBguonfZPPda6ma8xQjFoVVEggfMtMJy0qJKIN_5m9WrP3SyJgW_VAa3wbYLmVPJgoq9u2cAnG0ek5H4Vh9kivwNuaXEz9QR/s1600-h/doctor-money2%5B1%5D.JPG"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 133px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRlnEcZA68RYe9XgvLDUBhznpI0wM9iz_OziNHX9ngtZwkpBguonfZPPda6ma8xQjFoVVEggfMtMJy0qJKIN_5m9WrP3SyJgW_VAa3wbYLmVPJgoq9u2cAnG0ek5H4Vh9kivwNuaXEz9QR/s200/doctor-money2%5B1%5D.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5438510492310189714" /></a><br />As a doctor I am all for limits on personal injury or tort reform. Limits may ultimately lead to reductions in my malpractice insurance. Good for me, but I don't think it is going to be as big a cost saver to the system as people think.<br /><br />I agree tests and treatments are sometimes ordered frivolously, but that is not all because the doctor is scared of being sued. Well, maybe it is. But that fear comes from the general public's expectations and it's influence on standard of care.<br /><br />For an example of this is look, what happened last year when a body looked at mammogram recommendations. When the group looked at the recommendations for how often screening should be done the whole country got in arms about possibly changing the recommendations. Because even if studies shows you have to screen 1000 extra people to catch one extra cancer (being facetious) society wants those screens. Nobody wants to be that one in a thousand who isn't caught.<br /><br />Now in order for tort reform to be effective for the public, and not just for me, there would have to be reform in the practices of medicine. This would involve looking at standards of care to see the cost/benefit/risk ratio of doing certain test in certain situations, or when to or not to treat certain conditions. Sound like the "death panels" the dems were accused of creating, right? But how else are you going to change the culture in medicine?<br /><br />The funny thing is when dems mention creating bodies to evaluate these risk/benefit ratio's they are called death panels. When repubs call for tort reform which will ultimately lead to the creation of the same panels they aren't death panels anymore.<br /><br />I think we need to look at the overarching similarities between both sides proposals. Finding the commonalities between the two points of view should make it easier to find compromises--makes sense to meunKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-91660844359629529432010-02-11T21:44:00.005-06:002010-02-11T22:04:58.112-06:00Not everybody at a Tea Party event is racist, but....<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghaENUmEuu20TJY7HdVomfqAhd8Cg3nhFNZ1kFTlIm5m41T5iqfI9UFOfZ7r5nbLc2b4RjDUhqg_ybu4SPHLP4R4TCvrAlZlpx5ZKpAsRX_Wi5u85Xu85rdVi6wYbLQ64KE-GVKXjHqxyv/s1600-h/teaparty_robertson_racist_sign-682x1024.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 163px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 251px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5437202440879073746" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghaENUmEuu20TJY7HdVomfqAhd8Cg3nhFNZ1kFTlIm5m41T5iqfI9UFOfZ7r5nbLc2b4RjDUhqg_ybu4SPHLP4R4TCvrAlZlpx5ZKpAsRX_Wi5u85Xu85rdVi6wYbLQ64KE-GVKXjHqxyv/s200/teaparty_robertson_racist_sign-682x1024.jpg" /></a><br /><div>I have read many stories about the Tea Party movement suggesting that their is a hidden tinge of racism beneath the outrage of the movement.</div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Ok, now I have to say that I don't think that just because you are a member of the "Tea Party Movement" that means you are automatically a racist. But standing next to the guy holding the Obama sign with him a bone in his nose doesn't help. Now I have heard the defense that "just because I am at the rally and some people are racist doesn't make me a racist". I actually agree. </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>But I was thinking about something: Remember during the 2008 elections when everybody kept saying how racist Obama must be because he attended Jeremiah Wright's church?And remember how anti -American Obama was at that time because he "palled around" with terrorist Bill Ayers? </div><br /><div></div><br /><div>Now I only mention this to point out how silly we let the partisan spin, spin us. You are guilty by association as long as they aren't people you associate with? Doesn't make sense to me</div>unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-61807767480417520342010-01-23T12:27:00.004-06:002010-01-23T12:43:29.750-06:00I dont think Congress would know what a compromise was if instead of slapping them in the face it lightly kicked them in the butt....<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0ZGTMSp476pmyUC7_-F0dsKEu5U4NgHD_XIPP7lXOyPo1_lsztErViYKPNHr4No2FGVrDaQl1xM264Eor-I79h7xpFvmcD-ufDHWZ-QX9Fg31OXmiV1EevMau9hb1IBhmgV3Ab-rpV5F7/s1600-h/handshake%2520clipart.gif"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 198px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 200px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5430006350717243202" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0ZGTMSp476pmyUC7_-F0dsKEu5U4NgHD_XIPP7lXOyPo1_lsztErViYKPNHr4No2FGVrDaQl1xM264Eor-I79h7xpFvmcD-ufDHWZ-QX9Fg31OXmiV1EevMau9hb1IBhmgV3Ab-rpV5F7/s200/handshake%2520clipart.gif" /></a><br /><br /><blockquote><strong>Compromise </strong><br />1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands</blockquote>.<br /><br /><br />That seems a simple enough concept, so why is it so hard to get our Congress to grasp that?<br /><br />My biggest problem with the whole healthcare debate isnt that I am not getting everything I wanted out of the bill. It is just that I dont feel that I am getting anything for those things that I wanted but are disappearing. I dont expect to get everything I want that is not true compromise.<br /><br />There is no true compromise going on. In a true compromise I would expect to hear one party say what they previously were not willing to accept that they will now accept given condition X is met. I have yet to hear that from the republicans.<br /><br />From the the democrats standpoint I would expect them to say we will only make X concession if doing so would gain support for Y. I havent seen that either. Not across the isle. In the democratic party there has been compromise because of a few "blue dog" democrats trying to tenuously hold on to purple seats.<br /><br />With all do respect to President Obama, Ried, Gibbs et al., I dont want you all to slow down on healthcare. I think more than three decades is slow enough. What I want is you guys to sit down to at a table on TV and say: "If I give serious tort reform a try, will you try a form of some kind of public option? Two possible responses<br /><br />1) Yes," ok lets bang this out" or 2) No: "Ok reconciliation and I'll holler back in 2010, and 12"<br /><br />Sounds simple, makes sense to me.unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-53151792552299590142009-12-04T12:51:00.002-06:002009-12-04T12:54:00.355-06:00Being a celebrity dosen't make you a role model<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeqxkm6R4tbEWdi8WkMtxO2SGuhflxF_BKdoXs04WxMusCHabTJreYlTizQUq2ijwdY3BaBKe8fwt1B14KjRRzlQFl-x8s_juiOKQvuGuBe0h25LHME4DIQPXDERkwMxepv08kpyzfM3OZ/s1600-h/role_models06.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 160px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeqxkm6R4tbEWdi8WkMtxO2SGuhflxF_BKdoXs04WxMusCHabTJreYlTizQUq2ijwdY3BaBKe8fwt1B14KjRRzlQFl-x8s_juiOKQvuGuBe0h25LHME4DIQPXDERkwMxepv08kpyzfM3OZ/s200/role_models06.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5411456204757079506" /></a><br />There has been a lot of talk about Tiger Wood's affairs and society's "right to know". <br /><br />Personally, I think it is a sad commentary on the life of the average American being so unfulfilled that our only release is to delve as deeply as we can into the fantasy that is celebrity to give our own sad existence hope and validation. <br /><br />It is not the job of the media to unearth all the dirt of a person's life just because they "are in the public eye". I only expect Tiger Woods to be a great golfer. I dont have any expectation that he should be an exemplary person as well. We give celebrities too much importance by holding them up to this super standard of role model. I think people should be judged on the job they are supposed to be doing and nothing else. <br /><br />If you are an athlete I want you to be good at your sport, I dont care how much you call your mother. <br /><br />If you are a politician I want you making good policy, I dont care if you go home and download porn. <br /><br />If you are a singer I care if your voice cracks, not if you smoke it. <br /><br />Nobody follows the cook from your favorite restaurant home to find out if he cheated on his taxes. If his food is good you eat at the restaurant. <br /><br />If Gatorade and Nike want to make it look like their products make you better athlete's then stick with Tiger. If you want to make it look like Gatorade and Sumo clubs will make you a better more moral person then get another person. <br /><br />The reason people keep failing as role models is they never should be one in the first place. All people are human and capable of the same errs as the next man. The fallacy becomes when we allow ourselves to believe that because one person is better at some sport or acting that they will behave differently than the rest of humanity. And as long as we hold that expectation we will continue to be disappointed. Makes common senseunKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-89298469161344550162009-09-16T14:53:00.005-05:002009-09-16T14:59:09.163-05:00There is no such thing as "Reverse Racism"<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiZg8q3Y-_BJ9FuiW-NWcw1apRwZwq4lo3KkwGJMpehXx-HCP90y21r0uolaGk-F2EOVf7XYPfGAZ-TVOPh9wWK4ElVvkkYWc5DKyRU54CKlJ5hxkgZ3cuYCnj-wRHk3_R5RXWSlgFq6cd/s1600-h/vlcsnap-410621.png"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiZg8q3Y-_BJ9FuiW-NWcw1apRwZwq4lo3KkwGJMpehXx-HCP90y21r0uolaGk-F2EOVf7XYPfGAZ-TVOPh9wWK4ElVvkkYWc5DKyRU54CKlJ5hxkgZ3cuYCnj-wRHk3_R5RXWSlgFq6cd/s200/vlcsnap-410621.png" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5382157278652074450" /></a><br />Not going to be a terribly long article.<br /><br />I just want to point out Reverse Racism doesnt exist. I mean the term is used alot but there really is no such thing. There is only racism. <br /><br />The term Reverse Racism implies that racism is supposed to only go in one direction, typically thought as from whites to non whites. To call it reverse racism when it happens the other way implies that it is not supposed to happen in that direction. It says hey it was OK when it was happening to everyone else but now its a problem, its own special problem. <br /><br />Now I am not suggesting that whites arent facing discrimination in today's society, but I just reject the notion it is any different than the same thing other minorities have been facing all along. Understand? Makes common sense to me.unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-36105376880065515182009-09-16T09:49:00.005-05:002009-09-16T14:34:24.363-05:00There are no such things as "Inalienable Rights"<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW0Xpi9gPm8_GsJ0_dj8AM3N_JTWd9pz_l_Rx_HonXzyq1ur3eunFQTfpI5Qx_sqGoDYaUIhwgcxjM14zZ5KWV4XK1bGXi1S8ecuYyAno-54Hu4i2Ma0FhkDoEhRZ2XOLW46L9me0XhIwm/s1600-h/wethepeople.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW0Xpi9gPm8_GsJ0_dj8AM3N_JTWd9pz_l_Rx_HonXzyq1ur3eunFQTfpI5Qx_sqGoDYaUIhwgcxjM14zZ5KWV4XK1bGXi1S8ecuYyAno-54Hu4i2Ma0FhkDoEhRZ2XOLW46L9me0XhIwm/s200/wethepeople.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5382150850720904386" /></a><br />One idea that has been circulating around the blogashpere is that health care is not a natural right of man, so we shouldn't feel obligated to offer every citizen health care.<br /><br />This got me pondering what constitutes a "natural right". After many arguments with many people a premise begin to arise that there are certain rights that are "natural" to man based upon them being inherent by man's existence,and health care just was not one of them. <br /><br />But I believe we as a society decide what rights should belong to the members of our society. I fail to see how any one right is due any one individual by virtue of being born man. And therefore, I fail to see why health care could not be considered a right of society, the same as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". <br /><br />The following discourse is why I reject the premise that only certain rights are "inalienable" or "natural" (forgive me if long winded)<br /><br /><br /><strong>In the natural state of Man there are no "rights" </strong><br /><br />The first point of contention I have with the premise that only certain "rights" are natural is the choice definition of a "natural right" as being something one is inherently born with. In order to understand why this is a point of contention for me, you have to understand my frame of reference for man's "natural state". <br /><br /><br />Natural State of man refers to: <br /><br /><blockquote><em>State of nature is a term in political philosophy used in social contract theories to describe the hypothetical condition of humanity before the state's foundation and its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. In a broader sense, the state of nature is the condition before the rule of positive law comes into being, thus being a synonym of anarchy. </em></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Essentially what this means is man is born into a state of anarchy, and because of his capacity for reason moves towards society. Man in his natural state is void of morality he is driven simply, as classical psychologist like Freud would put it, by id (aggression). In that state there is no consideration for anything but one's own self preservation. You are hungry you eat. It doesn't consider the source of the food or the morality of how it is acquired. <br /><br />Liken it to a lion in the jungle. When it is hungry it kills and eats a gazelle. It doesn't stop to consider "Is it just to the gazelle?". In nature only thing guaranteed by virtue of being alive is death. I guess one could argue that in a natural state one has ultimate right only confined by one's ability. I could concede that ability = right in that scenario. However, I prefer to think of it as absolute freedom, since freedom to do something and the privilege to do so are different. I will come back to that. <br /><br />A common rebuttal to this "natural state" is that it is purely a hypothetical condition and man naturally moves towards society. While I think it is observationally true man does move toward societal existence, I don't think one can say absolutely that 1) the natural state doesn't exist as a precursor to that movement and 2) even if there is natural movement towards society the path is not universal. Therefore the constructs used to define and govern society aren't "inalienably" natural. These are important points elaborating on them will bring me to my second point <br /><br /><strong>Rights(privileges) are arbitrary social constructs </strong><br /><br />First, I should clarify: by arbitrary I don't mean randomly assigned, but rather, arbitrary in the sense that what constitutes a right in a certain society may not be considered one in another. And different societies use different values and mechanisms to establish what is a "right" in that society. <br /><br />The purpose of society is to achieve in the collective what would be difficult to achieve as an individual. Earlier I equated ability with freedoms. In nature you are "free" to do what ever you have the "ability" to do. In order for the collective to move forward the individual sacrifices some of these freedoms to the collective in order for the collective to move forward. Pretty basic social contract stuff. <br /><br />In surrendering our ability to do whatever we want, pure freedom, to the collective; we gain order. As a collective we decide 1) what personal limits on freedom are acceptable 2)what we expect to get from the collective in return for accepting those limitations. These two things ultimately result in what is permissible and expected of a society, and they are determined by the majority consensus of that society. Therefore they are dynamic, evolving, and malleable, but not inherent, nor universal. <br /><br />One criticism against this premise has been that accepting the philosophy behind the social contract meant conceding that the government dictates rights, not the people. I would argue that depends on how a society constructs it government. <br /><br />In a monarchy, dictatorship, or theocracy(possibly) it would be true that the government decides what is a right. But this is not so in a democracy or a republic. If the argument was as Americans there are certain rights we as Americans should hold as "inalienable", I might be inclined to disagree less. However to state that privileges of one society should be ubiquitous to every society by virtue of humanity, is a more contentious point. And one I feel leads to imperialistic beliefs on how other societies should behave. <br /><br />The last point that I wanted to touch on was the notion that because man is moral certain rights are innate. <br /><br /><strong>Morality can be a basis for a right, but is not the right itself</strong> <br /><br />What constitutes morality or a sense of right and wrong is dependant on culturally learned experiences. Take a two year old. Those who have children will tell you a two year old has no sense of possession everything is "mine". There is no sense of right or wrong about stealing until that is explained to them. The two year old is neither amoral or moral until experiences carve out a value system. Morality can serve as the basis for establishing a privilege, but is not an absolute that predicates one. <br /><br />Lastly, <br /><br /><strong>Health care can be a "right" of Americans if we all say so </strong><br /><br />Perhaps the whole reason I like the philosophical and nearly esoteric discussion on rights is this: We as a society decides what should or shouldn't be a right in our society. We should base these decisions on what is good for the whole of a society. Because when society fails to act on the best interest of the collective, the individual gaining nothing from society, rejects it limitations on personal freedoms and anarchy ensues. <br /><br />Makes common sense to me.unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-46008454635961827472009-09-16T08:52:00.006-05:002009-09-16T09:00:34.898-05:00If you lose your current insurance plan under "Obamacare" dont blame the government, blame "the free market".<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiK4GGWToHrc6BYlJjHfAcUZYHTd_1MMulfxmALZl9HGrS0cmIiCVsA86cQUkEPb3NbWq-adbmNMUGXXGSrxeXNAj8-Tb_iZQ8zQBy2duM2HC-5dpNJGH99lD3Ir1CQT2ZB16kDJ_mq9RJD/s1600-h/mug-barackobama.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 80px; height: 80px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiK4GGWToHrc6BYlJjHfAcUZYHTd_1MMulfxmALZl9HGrS0cmIiCVsA86cQUkEPb3NbWq-adbmNMUGXXGSrxeXNAj8-Tb_iZQ8zQBy2duM2HC-5dpNJGH99lD3Ir1CQT2ZB16kDJ_mq9RJD/s200/mug-barackobama.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5382064276066078914" /></a><br />PolitiFact.com rated Obama's assertion: <br /><br /><a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/11/barack-obama/barack-obama-promises-you-can-keep-your-health-ins/">"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."<br />As half true.</a> <br /><br />They point out that there is no provision requiring employers to take a public option, but acknowledge many employers would opt for that plan if it is cheaper. <br /><br />Given the fact that in order to lose the health care you have the employer would have to opt for the cheaper plan, is it the government's fault if you end up with a new plan?<br /><br />I dont believe it is. It is capitalism, it is choice, it is common sense to me.unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-28804993666965268632009-03-31T13:02:00.004-05:002009-09-16T08:48:35.411-05:00Why liberals and conservatives are both blind<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpdx2gMyHLZtuqbqnOYUXDXGS_n1wSQwhsXGI-8FuhE4GabQgsoSeeZwfOQgycVvWTvF9-eVhr0O3z18gq0WqP-SLDMz0c7ZLGbbJNi2euQkYVRfgmiCXCZmkvqtzTDbb1we-lm4WV3yLX/s1600-h/blind-722874.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpdx2gMyHLZtuqbqnOYUXDXGS_n1wSQwhsXGI-8FuhE4GabQgsoSeeZwfOQgycVvWTvF9-eVhr0O3z18gq0WqP-SLDMz0c7ZLGbbJNi2euQkYVRfgmiCXCZmkvqtzTDbb1we-lm4WV3yLX/s200/blind-722874.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5319414706038802866" /></a><br /><br />Not too long ago I wrote an article titled "America needs a bad guy". In it I discussed division in American society as a reflection of our own internal division projected outward. I was trying to explain how because of our on needs we create villains to give ourselves an out for the internal negativity we cant consciously face. Pretty deep,huh? Well I thought so. <br /><br />But then I got to thinking about society and the current political climate and it dawned on me: Most politicians just aren't that bright. So why do we continue to villianize anyone who's opinion we can readily identify as different than our own? The answer became so obvious I was almost embarrassed I tried to make it such a deep abstract concept to begin with. Politicians keep the division up for the same reasons politicians do anything: power. <br /><br />You see I realize that it is in the best interest of politicians to create division so they can win elections. Think about it. Why would someone vote for you if you agreed with the person already holding the job? If they are doing such a good job then why would they need you? You could make the argument that you could improve on what they are doing, but that's a hard sell. You know what is much easier? Saying you are doing a BAD job and I could do better. <br /><br />People in this country are so focused on their side winning they lose focus on the real objective: solving the problem. I never (and I rarely use the word never) see on here somebody saying with what they agree on, when it come to the opposite side. Just whats wrong. All the things that get hype in the media are such small parts of what is really happening we miss progress. <br /><br />Take the last two spending bills. In the stimulus plan we spent almost a month talking about the 2% of the bill some governors objected to and not the 98% that most felt was needed. <br /><br />In the recent budget omnibus bill we are debating 1% of the total bill b/c of earmarks from both parties that were in place before the current administration. <br /><br />Now the flavor of the month is trying to figure which side is to blame on the few millions of dollars going to executives out of the billions of dollars given to the country that many haven't noticed the good news in the stock market's modest upswing. <br /><br />My criticisms aren't just with the right. The left is just as bad. Bush was heavily invested in Africa, a good thing. And NCLB (while my wife is a teacher and no fan) was a positive step in the right direction but instead of having a tone of what can we do to fix it. We just called the whole thing garbage and touted Bush a failure in education. <br /><br />The reason we do it is because politicians know they need division to win an election. How do you get in office if you agree the people there are doing a good job? So the goal becomes find something, anything with which to trash your opponent so we can win the next election. <br /><br />The problem with belonging to an ideology, be it conservative or liberal, is it becomes infallible like a religion. People tend to view everything through the the lens of that ideology and try to make it fit that specific view. It blinds them to the merits of the other side or even considering if that opposite view has any merit at all. They thunk it so it must be wrong. <br /><br />I refuse to label myself either way because I enjoy the panoramic view I get from the outside. Makes common sense to me.unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-46133880752690137232009-03-19T15:28:00.005-05:002009-10-19T14:28:29.309-05:00America Needs A Bad Guy<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuBRmYg3TW0yPnluLTOnY67fBbLN_exzUFHoy3b90a_DIAR6NdX3EODtf1zyxjdaabDzqQ8QoHwF5HGN3-Qh9EEF_M4kbHahkIYMojNTGLCK5AyRYk5bDgD1OdA1Z7Jrjp9i05Klmt_yvd/s1600-h/douglasamericanpresident.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 134px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuBRmYg3TW0yPnluLTOnY67fBbLN_exzUFHoy3b90a_DIAR6NdX3EODtf1zyxjdaabDzqQ8QoHwF5HGN3-Qh9EEF_M4kbHahkIYMojNTGLCK5AyRYk5bDgD1OdA1Z7Jrjp9i05Klmt_yvd/s320/douglasamericanpresident.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5315000109870993906" /></a><br /><br />One of my favorite movies is The American President, this one of my favorite quotes from the movie: <br /><br /><b><i>We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. </i></b><br /><br /><br />I chuckle to myself as I think about the current economic situation and our response to it. I chuckle not because there is much funny with the crisis facing our economy, but rather because it amuses me how much effort is spent at trying to figure out who is the cause, and whose idea won't fix it. <br /><br />I listened to President Obama talk about his hopes of bipartisanship and the coming together of our country into "one perfect union" . I listened and became optimistic, something very hard for this natural cynic to do. Then reality set it in, what was this going to change?<br /><br />All day on the news and around the net, I see people more and more divided. Divided along every line I could think of. Race, economic status, political ideology-- any way we can segregate ourselves we do. I began to ask myself why is that? Sorry for going Rodney King on yall with this cliche, but why "Cant we all get along"? <br /><br />Then it dawned on me, as great revelations do, while responding to a post. We need bad guys. Carl Jung pointed out universal patterns, called archetypes, that he observed in different cultures. Some guy writing about Jung states: <br /><br />The Shadow is the easiest of the archetypes for most persons to experience. We tend to see it in "others." That is to say, we project our dark side onto others and thus interpret them as "enemies" or as "exotic" presences that fascinate. We see the Shadow everywhere in popular culture. He is Batman. She is Spider Woman. It is the Ninja Turtles. We see it in popular prejudice as well. We "imagine" that the Black Man is our enemy; that Communists are devils. We incline towards Hawaii as the "land of paradise." We accept people uncritically if we perceive them as "Fair Haired." Of course, Satan is the great Shadow image of popular religion (Consider: the word only occurs 54 times in the entire Bible.) <br /><br />The Shadow is the personification of that part of human, psychic possibility that we deny in ourselves and project onto others. The goal of personality integration is to integrate the rejected, inferior side of our life into our total experience and to take responsibility for it. <br /><br />To put it simply, for us to see good in ourselves we must find evil in others. <br /><br />I think the reason we cant move forward as a society is because the system is made to create us the "bad guy" we so desperately need. We pick that bad guy depending on our point of reference based on how we identify ourselves. Since that with which we identify with has to be pure and perfect, we need a place to stick the bad that's left over. <br /><br />If you see yourself as peace loving, compassionate person, and think that is what is represented by being a liberal then for you the opposite must be a conservative and they must hate peace and compassion. If you see yourself as a responsible moral person and that is what you think is represented by being a conservative then liberals must be irresponsible and hate morality. You can put poor/rich, black/white, tall/short into the equation, but you get the picture.<br />We seek that with which we best identify, and hate what we see as not being similar <br /><br />Watching most "news" shows is like Orwells "15min" of hate in 1984 . In the story, the government showed everybody pictures of the enemy for 15 mins everyone booed and jeered and hated the enemy. We watch people like Bill O'Riely, Kieth Olberman, Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs. They tell us who is right and who is wrong. They tell us who to hate and why. The reality is that things aren't so black and white. There is no one true bad guy to point the finger at, only problems. The sooner we realize that the closer we will be to working on fixing them together. <br /><br />Makes common sense to me.unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-37920519910034680062009-02-19T09:27:00.002-06:002009-02-19T09:31:55.889-06:00Can I stop being so damn PC?!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlLy_ixi3A8XMKdH2vLNsOp4FdPx4lv6NixQwGqSqIEZyY2xd16v4LYjuw0ukvQ9kZHClw09FdPgFHvC-twdEtJ9E0K_R5GuUXXtAutzg5QPz8PKZ6Jatr2u_byvzDD__IyhaWDTSMjQMu/s1600-h/egg.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 162px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlLy_ixi3A8XMKdH2vLNsOp4FdPx4lv6NixQwGqSqIEZyY2xd16v4LYjuw0ukvQ9kZHClw09FdPgFHvC-twdEtJ9E0K_R5GuUXXtAutzg5QPz8PKZ6Jatr2u_byvzDD__IyhaWDTSMjQMu/s200/egg.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5304531618572434882" /></a><br />The cartoon published in the New York Post has drawn a lot of criticism for having a racist undertone found offensive by many people Black and non-blacks. The cartoonist himself has said that this was not his intention and many people to the defense of the cartoonist have said people need to stop being so sensitive. America is saying I am so tired of having to be PC all the time. <br /><br />My reply is fine. Stop. <br /><br />The first amendment gives you the right to express yourself openly and publicly. I would never be one to advocate infringing on that right. You should be able to say whatever you like.....so long as you can take the consequences ( I will come back to this point). <br /><br />You see the issue with being politically correct is not the intention, as most people I know have yet to develop ESP, but the perception. The only thing people can judge a statement or action is by how it appears to them. So while the cartoonists intentions may have not been racial it certainly gave many people the impression that it was. For the sake of argument I don't want to go into whether there was or wasn't deliberate insult in the cartoon--I am assuming there wasn't. This doesn't change the fact that many people found it very offensive. The debate seems to be whether or not people should or shouldn't have been offended, but why? You can no more change what offends a person, then you can what makes them happy. <br /><br />I could talk about the historical context of the use of monkey in relationship to blacks, I could analyze minutia about the picture to support the analogy to the president or to support the authors stated intention, but it really doesn't matter. No one has the right to tell people what does and doesn't offend them. That is akin to you stubbing you toe and me telling you to suck it up that doesn't hurt that bad. Who I am to quantify your pain? <br /><br />The key component behind political correctness is empathy. <br /><br />n. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives. <br /><br />Empathy is not sympathy, nor pity. It is recognizing how another person not in your shoes may feel or interpret a situation. It is stepping away from your vantage point to understand how another person could feel. It is severely lacking in our society. <br /><br />Now about that point I said I would get back to. You don't have to be PC not one day in you life should you choose not to, but you cant control peoples reactions to what you do. And telling people their reactions and feelings are wrong isn't going to help solve the problem, it didn't make your stubbed toe feel any better did it? <br /><br />If you don"t care about being perceived in any way act any way you choose. I like to curse. I find curse words to just be words, but I don't curse in public or crowds I don't know; not because I think cursing is wrong. I don't want to offend people. Now if you make me angry and find an explicative wandering in your direction, then obviously I no longer care how you feel. In either case I own up to my choice of wording. Being "PC" works the same way. If you don't care how you are perceived say, and act as you please, but if you care.............unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-9840611384468265302008-09-08T20:14:00.009-05:002008-09-19T13:17:48.676-05:00The economy, more Lipstick on a pig<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdaxoiglHhi8tr-vHVdgxJHtxIEJNmsgJV2whroUomG5QfAPPIj06aro51pi1899lASzjQuqKqP-i6Np4TS3hhHTEfim_MDnGJyqIErgkVdI8e32Ilsskqqs0VzKxrn8_ReOuD0UDBjdpF/s1600-h/lipstickpig.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdaxoiglHhi8tr-vHVdgxJHtxIEJNmsgJV2whroUomG5QfAPPIj06aro51pi1899lASzjQuqKqP-i6Np4TS3hhHTEfim_MDnGJyqIErgkVdI8e32Ilsskqqs0VzKxrn8_ReOuD0UDBjdpF/s200/lipstickpig.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5247770529679031698" /></a><br />One thing I have never understood is how giving relief to corporations translates into relief for the middle class without regulation from the government. This is a belief usually toted by the right and supported by Senator McCain<br /><br />One concept I don't understand is why people feel giving corporations tax breaks and benefits will stimulate the economy. This is nothing new that McCain is pushing. It was called "Reaganomics" by Reagan and "Trickle Down Economics" by Bush senior, Bush Junior would have called his tax policy something trendy had he been clever enough. But anyway the basic premise is this: You give big companies more money they will in turn create more jobs and the economy will grow. Now each administration of the three examples that I just mentioned: Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all had recessions during their terms. Why is that? If easing the load on the top was better for society shouldn't each of these administrations have been the most profitable periods in history?<br /><br />The answer is simple trickle down economics as a theory maybe sound, but so is communism as a theory. The problem is it is never implemented in its theoretical form. <br /><br />To put it simple for those of us who have siblings lets say mommy gave oldest brother $100 and said give your younger brothers some without saying how much you had to give them what would happen? In theory you would split your good fortune equally, but in reality what would probably happen, if you didn't pocket the whole thing, is that you would give your sibling the smallest amount you could without them telling mommy. Now if they never knew you got any money they would be happy for whatever you gave them.<br /><br />Same thing happens when you give industry breaks with the expectations it will improve society. Companies get to increase their profits, the shareholders get more profits and what do we get? We get to watch companies and shareholders increase their profits. Companies have already figured out in times of economic hardships they can increase productivity with out increasing work force (i.e production cost) by just making you work harder. They know when times are rough people are too scared of losing their jobs to complain. What's more is they don't have time to complain thanks to the extra work they have to do. Jobs still get shifted over seas because they can. Why would they reduce their profits by paying you minimal wage when they can go where there is no such thing? More money in big brother's pocket (and you thought big brother was the government.)<br /><br />Now on the other hand if you strengthen the middle class you create more consumers, thereby increasing demand for products and services which in turns increases the need for companies to expand to meet this demand by creating jobs. Simple huh, makes common sense to me.<br /><br />I started writing this post obviously before the big news of the markets crashing. Now McCain is all for governmental regulation of the market. I wonder if I would have never published this at all would he have changed his mind on Top down economicsunKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-67642933819885694482008-09-04T21:54:00.005-05:002008-10-20T13:17:05.146-05:00Why school vouchers wont work<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd1wM4-hMLgrc0V_gN_zXNCPAzGl4T1pxPEE7EDGR3GMhKI_FtNMh-g5hwbf4LIsJtNaLTVVnRTNjiUBMxPpC0HeaJCRxgLYt0QMO_Z1u5Dwz0zhOX6vzLJKFEChJclM07KP7t85m-tc5_/s1600-h/oliver.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd1wM4-hMLgrc0V_gN_zXNCPAzGl4T1pxPEE7EDGR3GMhKI_FtNMh-g5hwbf4LIsJtNaLTVVnRTNjiUBMxPpC0HeaJCRxgLYt0QMO_Z1u5Dwz0zhOX6vzLJKFEChJclM07KP7t85m-tc5_/s200/oliver.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5242370587983414386" /></a><br />The following is my response to a debate that me and a friend have been having on school vouchers he states states he is the product of public schools and goes on to say:<br /><br /><blockquote>"I believe make efforts to educate our children. I also however believe that there are students that are comfortable with the current enviroment and don't have a desire to gain more than athletic and social interaction within school."</blockquote><br /><br />My reply:<br /><br />Well, I too am the product of public education. One thing I would like to point out is you cant make the assumption that kids who dont take advantage of voucher arent "academiclly" focused as those who do. The problem is a lack of education. It is not a simple matter of lack of motivation.This is one fundamental problem I have with the right. Its the assumption that people dont succeed because they dont wont too. Trust me nobody who knows better wants to be ignorant. That is the definition of ignorance "the persitant lack of knowledge" People arent ghetto, hood, redneck white trash or whatever derogatory label that they might even assciate themselves with, because they like it. They are that way because they dont know any better. If you give a person a pig intestines their whole life they will love the taste and will teach their children to love its taste as well. And this would be acceptable unless by some chance they get to taste steak, then they would know there was something better. I know it seems as though I digress, but the point I am trying to make is that it is an incumbent responsibility of those of us who have made it to teach people who have fallen in love with the taste of chitlin that they too can have a steak dinner. And how can we do that if we take money from public school systems and from afterschool programs and the arts in poor so called "under performing schools". <br /><br />We cant solve a problem of the masses by giving opportunities to the few. Parent should have the rights to have their child educated. But they shouldnt have to bus their child cross city. Every school in America should be a good performing school. That is the only was the country can remain competive globally with foreign countries who consitently out perform us in education. Makes sense to meunKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-55556100772218334332008-09-04T14:38:00.011-05:002008-09-19T16:08:35.948-05:00Drug Wars (legal ones)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh20blbjYRRezxDdbNqjnAEnfi6QWhyH2Cr7hxgfdF_rTD7cYdXLdKbnT4XWoAHrvSIRW6IM4EXpn1wZRAA1cigAka7GDNVMhmQplj54rwZxUIt4L02kw1J5D-Rm54pM8orJ-KAK9BEWQbG/s1600-h/drug%2520price%2520cartoon.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh20blbjYRRezxDdbNqjnAEnfi6QWhyH2Cr7hxgfdF_rTD7cYdXLdKbnT4XWoAHrvSIRW6IM4EXpn1wZRAA1cigAka7GDNVMhmQplj54rwZxUIt4L02kw1J5D-Rm54pM8orJ-KAK9BEWQbG/s200/drug%2520price%2520cartoon.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5247763829292468066" /></a><br />There has been a debate going on in the country for the last couple of decades about the relationship between doctors and the pharmaceutic industry. <br /><br />My problem isnt that pharm companies "exert to much control" over my prescribing habits (by the way I am a psychiatrist.) It's that the common thought is I dont know how to handle commercials.<br /><br /><br />The argument has been made that drug reps should be limited in their exposure to doctors because of the amount of influence they exert over the prescribing habits of doctors. This has been supported by many studies in the medical literature for a couple of decades. And while statistically this is true I have yet to be impressed by any debate as to why this is a problem.<br /><br />It is true that drug companies expend a large amount of money in marketing drugs, and they would not be doing this if this didnt work--a given. But this is a capitalistic society so how else are drugs to be brought to market?<br /><br />Let me simplify. Now lets suppose Toyota came out with a new car next year, and lets supposed it had a new feature that allowed it to miraculously sense when drivers were sleep at the wheel and automatically pull over. Now this sounds like something that could potentially save lives and property. Now lets say that Toyota never made a commercial for this car. Further more lets say the makers of this new feature couldn't even tell other car makers they had invented this life saving feature. Could you picture this spectacular new car with this wonderful new feature sitting on a lot with no one aware of its existence. Would sound kinda silly wouldn't it? How would we tell people about this amazing discovery? Oh yeah commercials.<br /><br />The medicine industry is an industry, and just like every other industry in a capitalistic society the bottom line is profit driven. And while I am no big fan of pure capitalism managed health and pharmaceutics operate more on these principles without much regulation. While I do believe there should be some governmental regulation of these two jauggernaut industries, I dont believe we will see that change anytime soon given the sheer amount of money they can throw around Washington<br /><br />As a blog I read from <a href="http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/08/what_happens_if_pharmaceutical.html">The Last Psychiatrist explains</a>. The pharmecuetics industry and the field of medicine are inextricably linked. Aside from giving out pens and note pads, drug companies sponsor education conferences for doctors, buy text books for residents, and give lectures on new drugs. If they go who is going to fill the void? Academia?They get most of their funding from the government. Is the government going to pick up the tab? Expecting the government to do the research, and teach the doctors about the drugs is a big leap of faith. Our government wont even spend money to educate the masses in the public educational system do you really think they are going to spend money to educate the so-called educated? <br /><br />If we are going to talk ideals, let's assume the government was willing to impose regulations on these companies. With all the money it would take to lobby politicians do you really want to waste your fifteen minutes with a senator griping about a $0.25 ink pen or $15 lunch a doctor got to hear a talk about something that could potentially save your life? Or we should lobby decreasing restrictions on patent laws to get cheaper drugs to market quicker and increasing stringency on generics to make sure they are up to par with trade brands. If you could only hold patents but so long and generics were better this whole debate would be moot. If all medicines cost the same and worked just as well then it would decrease the motivation to create new ones that did the samething as the old ones. <br /><br />Now we are in this debate in the first place because in the past there were serious abuses of this relationship between pharm and physicians. Paying docs to enroll patients in studies, kick backs for prescribing etc. But now we have over corrected the problem by saying NO commercials. Seriously a pen is not a roundtrip ticket to Hawaii. A dinner talk on HOW THE DRUG WORKS is not a payment for prescribing it. We need to focus on the real problems between the pharmecuetics industry in the practice of medicine. We should focus less on "Did my doctor give me this medicine because he got a ink pen" and more on "Why doesnt my medicine cost the same as this pen" <br /><br />Makes common sense to me<br /><br /><br />I have to give a shout out to <a href="http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/">The Last Psychiatrist</a>. check it out, i put some of this post all throughout that blog.(in my comments, I'm no thief)unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-70213256572339863312008-08-29T14:50:00.015-05:002008-10-14T12:52:58.301-05:00Are there really only two kinds of Americans?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsL8oh3R9R2FPtVyxOQO3cKGd19esfS2dotv5f68pyaMA5UvRvHBjWibXbg_Qc-v9S3J-LV7_p5EvnMnip7RmT4GoFLxvFu8u8hwpYRHr_g_BMgilRpWb2TPHxW7OP8jWvr2tgQHXl1J4P/s1600-h/untitled.bmp"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhsL8oh3R9R2FPtVyxOQO3cKGd19esfS2dotv5f68pyaMA5UvRvHBjWibXbg_Qc-v9S3J-LV7_p5EvnMnip7RmT4GoFLxvFu8u8hwpYRHr_g_BMgilRpWb2TPHxW7OP8jWvr2tgQHXl1J4P/s200/untitled.bmp" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5255565974324031682" /></a><br /><br /><br />I initially started to name this Article "Throw your set up. GOP-v-Dems". I had this whole colorful tirade ready comparing our two party system, and the gang mentality we have when it comes to our allegiance to them, to the Crips and Bloods (you know red state vs blue, clever right?). But then it donned on me how incredibly offensive to the Crips and Bloods that would be. <br /><br />Well, I guess there are a lot of similarities between political parties and street gangs:<br /><br />1) They both act like they are concerned about the welfare of their members when they are really only concerned about those things that keep them in power:<br /><br />Like gangs political parties offer very little to its members. In gangs, the profit from its members( ie. corner dealers etc) goes to its leaders and is then redistributed. In politics the members of the parties contribute money in return the candidates the party chooses gets support, but all the constituents get are cookie cutter politicians who have to appeal to a base regardless of its members personal likings. Works great if you are running for office. In major parties you already have voters and money waiting there for you. But what do we the average voter get? A sorry consession. That's what we get. You get to settle for a politician who will have to tow a rigid party line with no room for independent thought. Which brings me to my second point<br /><br />2) They both demand you follow their ideologies with out question:<br /><br /> In a gang you are defined by how the gang defines itself. If you are a Blood, you wear what all bloods wear, think like all bloods thinks. I see very little difference between that and staunch party loyalists who tow party line ideals with little deviation(ever notice the dress of the parties at the state of the union, black suited GOP grey suited Dems?). Want a candidate who is pro-choice, and pro 2nd amendment, going to be hard to find. Want a candidate who supports drug legalization and wants tax reform, not likely in these two parties.<br /><br />3) They both fight over territory.<br /><br />Red neighborhoods versus blue neighborhoods; Red States versus Blue states-- Sound familiar? Gangs don't fight hard over areas they already control. Neither do political parties. This hurts the voters because campaigns concentrate on "swing states" areas that may or may not be representative of the majority of the country. Red states -v- blue states gives a feeling of disenfranchism to people who disagree with the politics of which ever state they live in. This re-enforces the also flawed system of the Electoral college which really has outlived its purpose. I would have to start another post to get into this good.<br /><br /><br />Well I guess the comparison between "Crips and Bloods" and "Dems and Pubs" is fair after all. Well, maybe since they are similar they can learn from each other. The failure of Congress to pass legislation on topics both sides feel are important, like energy, the economy, security; shows that currently political parties are more concerned about who gets credit for the solution, than the actual solution itself. I mean street gangs are able to call a truce and stop fighting when they see the need for the common good (although their common good maybe bangin' or drug dealin). <br /><br /><br />It seems to me that our political system would benefit from the same competition they say our free market needs. We need more independents and more groups to pick from, but in the meanwhile can our two parties call a truce and work for America? Seems like you should worry less about what "set you claim" and how you can solve America's problems-- Makes common sense to me.unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-30177608322199210412008-08-22T11:25:00.007-05:002008-08-25T15:25:21.230-05:00Guns don't kill, people. Dumb Cats with guns do<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG6oc4ezwr-riH1L-5xWnZNKPGcdnu9l51B2EVuJsi-TSbwuk233oxGwg2RGqyEilyhJOu1Wv4cvOyRR46JMRSbxGVq5Sq_p1lOY_gOCGOQ30otEHJ8qG_yIELZemZV11l0IQrhlv8jNP1/s1600-h/GunsDontKillPeople.bmp"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG6oc4ezwr-riH1L-5xWnZNKPGcdnu9l51B2EVuJsi-TSbwuk233oxGwg2RGqyEilyhJOu1Wv4cvOyRR46JMRSbxGVq5Sq_p1lOY_gOCGOQ30otEHJ8qG_yIELZemZV11l0IQrhlv8jNP1/s200/GunsDontKillPeople.bmp" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5237383984244754834" /></a><br /><br />This wont be a very long post. I just want to know why a ban on assault riffles and hand-guns is a bad idea to some people. I can buy into the hand gun for protection idea if there was evidence that possessing them actually saved anyone from crime. Think about the last time you saw "Hero" footage on the news of somebody stopping a robbery by pulling out a .44 and going Clint Eastwood on somebody. In fact the last couple of times when I have seen on the news somebody thwarting a theft they weren't armed. It is usually some grandma whooping the hell out of someone with her cane or a 7-11 clerk with a broom just telling the thief "NO!" and beating him with a broom.<br /><br />The truth of the matter, well in my opinion, is that if hand-guns and assault rifles were banned then there would be less hold ups. I could almost buy into low powered hunting riffles being legal for sport. I still think that would cut down on stick ups. I mean its not impossible to do, but it seems like it would be kinda hard to mug someone with a hunting riffle. Could you imagine Elmer Fudd trying to rob a Qwicky Mart?<br /><br />Again I'm not saying all guns should be illegal, just certain types. How would this help reduce crimes? Simple. If hand guns and assault riffles were illegal then it would decrease demand for production, resulting in less guns in circulation. Also guns recovered from illicit activities would be destroyed. This would also raise the black market cost for guns so maybe they wouldn't be as easy to get as boot-leg movies. Eventually some guns would be rare to come by until they are rare to have at all. Makes sense to meunKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-49139907231635460212008-08-15T15:37:00.008-05:002008-08-18T12:40:18.522-05:00God and Country?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUtdajJ_Go-uB3r-I-LIfChB3ml_gkW2QRoCHkXr9gnANmYb74-r1idHoty7tKM5_E7H1gtZUx-eV68g2AQJ9X6kGfQghNRN2L47tK_Ifmbo3ua62-uiJ__32bqrRZLYQ6BahDf9m8JEKB/s1600-h/state.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUtdajJ_Go-uB3r-I-LIfChB3ml_gkW2QRoCHkXr9gnANmYb74-r1idHoty7tKM5_E7H1gtZUx-eV68g2AQJ9X6kGfQghNRN2L47tK_Ifmbo3ua62-uiJ__32bqrRZLYQ6BahDf9m8JEKB/s200/state.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5235878086689702722" /></a><br />As I was getting dressed this morning, I was undergoing my usual morning lobotomy: CNN, Fox News, Headline News. While on CNN I came across a commercial advertising that the presidential candidates were having yet another forum on faith. Again each candidate had to explain to the American people that they are <em>faithier </em>than their opponent and that their <em>faithiness </em>qualifies them to lead our country. <br /><br />I often wonder why this isn't a more disturbing image to more people. People will often point out that our founding fathers were Christian and that Christianity is ingrained into our culture as Americans. They would be quick to pull out some form of currency and say "See, it says in GOD we trust!". And I wouldn't argue with them there. The founding fathers of this country were immensely Christian, and probably did view this country as one set on Christian beliefs. They also were elitist who's vision of America was from the reference of rich white men. Lest we forget the only people who originally could vote were land-owning white men, and they saw fit to call my great,great,great,great grandparents 3/5ths human, extending them a very christian reception to forced labor after that free cruise.<br /><br />But I digress. The original settlers established this country in refuge from governmentally instituted religious intolerance. In establishing our government they sought to ensure that the same religious intolerance that plagued them in England would not follow them across the Atlantic. Drawing on their experiences with a government(the king) instituted religion, they chose to separate church and state in order to protect their freedom of religion. The fact that they were only truly concerned with protecting Protestant Christianity is moot because in separating church and state, despite any apparent hypocrisy I might point out in their beliefs, they were smarter than themselves. In the constitution church and state are deliberately separated to maintain the integrity of both institutions. So why now are we trying so hard as a society to integrate them into one entity? <br /><br />Many people ask me,"Whats so bad about a candidate making decisions based on their personal moral compass or faith?". I say absolutely nothing. My problem isn't that people have deep religious views that they use to inform GOOD RATIONAL decisions. My problem is that the political climate today focuses more on rather the person has faith than the decision that faith is supposed to be helping them reach. The idea is if they are able to sell themselves as a person of high moral and religious value than people just assume they are making moral decisions in office without consideration of the actual issues of their campaign. My example of this is in 2004 on CNN a woman who lost her husband to, and had a wounded son returning from the Middle East conflict was interviewed. They asked her if she supported the war--no, If she felt the country was domestically better off --no, Would you vote for Bush again--yes, Why? "'cause he's a Christian."<br /><br />Again, I am a Christian myself and this isn't a suggestion that people shouldn't be allowed to profess their faith, but it should not be the premise on which we choose our leadership or expect our government to base law. More war, pain and suffering has been caused in history by people professing to be religiously moral people. We should let their acts and testimonial speak to their morality not the other way around. It was silly when Kennedy had to defend being catholic, and it is silly now to hear candidates now having to proclaim their personal faith. If people have good ideas that are in line with the issues you care about than would it matter if they came from a Christian, Muslim or Atheist? <br /><br />Makes Common sense to me.unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-10311206319693411922008-08-15T09:18:00.008-05:002011-06-09T11:29:40.232-05:00How to End Hazing, really<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3kEjY_1eGktN9CNtSauKaHmEtPaCzZgJJ2vy_AY1UVXxNsagq6cNowg481ovvfhCkGSAQpWZYu-kdDzuGfEwBhc_O_7YBgHr4DNw2S3gm6fszlP8rFbmeTtM1uHiMHXx4utRr_tGGXlBp/s1600-h/straight_paddle_270_381.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3kEjY_1eGktN9CNtSauKaHmEtPaCzZgJJ2vy_AY1UVXxNsagq6cNowg481ovvfhCkGSAQpWZYu-kdDzuGfEwBhc_O_7YBgHr4DNw2S3gm6fszlP8rFbmeTtM1uHiMHXx4utRr_tGGXlBp/s200/straight_paddle_270_381.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5234770201436657698" /></a><br />One man is a former student government president recruited to a fortune 500 company and new father. The other a doctorate of pharmacy candidate with numerous hours of community service. Neither man has any legal history, ever been in gangs, or trouble with the law. Yet both men are now currently in jail, convicted felons.<br /><br />How did this happen? It was the trial case of a law in Florida which made hazing a felony. As a member of a National Greek Fraternity, I get asked all the time How do we end the problem of Hazing on our campuses, but is this the solution?<br /><br />Hazing has a simple common sense solution. Punish everybody involved. The trouble we have with ending hazing on college campuses is that it focuses entirely on the so called "perpetrators" and creates a "victim". Parallels have been made to the victims of hazing to that of domestically abused women in that people subjugated to hazing are victims who are psychologically unable to defend themselves against their assault. As a psychiatrist, I cant wholly reject the notion that the need to fit in doesn't greatly influence a young persons mind. But also, you cant practically let a person off the hook for committing a crime simply because of peer pressure. Most people involved in hazing know way in advanced that what they are engaging in is wrong. I know in the case of my fraternity Kappa Alpha Psi, Inc.; young men sign contracts acknowledging that participation in hazing is wrong and promise to report if they encounter hazing. Plus, many college campuses hold workshops on hazing. Yet when ever there is a case like mentioned before it becomes "poor victim" and punish the "horrible criminal" that did this to you. <br /><br />Lets be real. A battered woman never walked up to her husband and said beat me silly. She didn't get a card on the first date that says beware I might be crazy and should I start beating you call the police. Yet no person involved in any hazing activity entered it thinking they were doing something legal. Yet when someone cries I have been hazed, we are quick to react harshly, but half-assedly. Punishing only half the guilty party is like raiding a crack house and sending all drug dealers to prison, but saying all the crack heads caught with a pipe in their mouth shouldn't get in trouble because their addiction "isn't their fault." They knew drugs were illegal. Society has taken every step possible to educate them on the dangers of drugs, yet they chose to light up anyway. Same thing with college hazings. People know better. My question is if the family of the person hazed is entitled to money for pain and suffering; why aren't they liable for breech of contract? And if those two young men are guilty of a felony crime punishable with two years of prison, Why isn't he sitting right by them?<br /><br />Want to end hazing? When you sue the organization for hazing, sue the people willingly subjecting themselves illegally to hazing too. When you expel students for hazing, expel students for allowing themselves to be hazed. Offer them the same punishment you offer everyone else involved. We need answers that don't make criminals out of people otherwise heading towards acheivement, nor do we need answers that don't hold EVERYONE involved in the problem accountable. <br /><br />Makes common sense to me.unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4243511032045907483.post-80521763680505379812008-08-14T10:02:00.002-05:002008-08-26T15:42:26.762-05:00Nigger please? To Nigger or not to Nigger?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidH85ppn82cebvXJMk0VKiRBRZeA8P0ZN78KX3-46lnRPsWFC8hxg-UdwLo-yZj2G1t0vbWtjcXjULRLKSBUPevz_ZGUqG51TW57TvXE-w4DLYGYtFowy5FgTDIjsVH1SnlHA72kiuBIXh/s1600-h/untitled.bmp"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidH85ppn82cebvXJMk0VKiRBRZeA8P0ZN78KX3-46lnRPsWFC8hxg-UdwLo-yZj2G1t0vbWtjcXjULRLKSBUPevz_ZGUqG51TW57TvXE-w4DLYGYtFowy5FgTDIjsVH1SnlHA72kiuBIXh/s200/untitled.bmp" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5234456670222700434" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I know this topic has been beat to death. Literally, seeing as the NAACP buried the term last year. But since I am new the the blogasphere, I feel like this is the perfect topic for me to pop my blogging cherry.<br /><br /><br /><br />I have never understood why this is such a controversial topic in America. It seems to me like it should be pretty simple. If your context allows you to say Nigger than say it; if it doesn't than leave it alone.<br /><br /><br /><br />What do I mean? Remember when you were in elementary school and they talked to you about using "context clues" to figure out the meaning of something you didn't understand. For example If I were to say "Johnny checked the lights before klubugging the house". You would automatically know what klubugging meant although I just made the word up. In that context you know exactly what I was implying by my word choice. The same thing applies to using the N-word, and by N-word I mean Nigger.<br /><br />To know if it is okay to use the word let your context i.e: the company you are in, and the intent in which you wish to use the word be your guide. I don't want to really get into the morality of using the word. I don't think there is an absolute right or wrong here. You really should apply the same principles you use when using any other curse word and believe me I fucking love to curse myself.<br /><br />Without getting into the rightness or wrongness of applying the word, I tend to wonder why non-blacks want "the right" to use it. Why do you want to use it so badly? Its not the "white supremest "racist people who this debate usually resonates with. They say Nigger unabashedly and with the intent they mean for it to have. It is usually the "I'm not a racist" person that feels like they are shut out of some part of the "black experience" they want to be included. Get over it! Personally I think it speaks to the strong sense of entitlement of the majority (or according to CNN the soon to be minority) in this country. Shouldn't you feel awkward using a term that doesn't apply to you in the same cultural sense of the people using it? I don't think I would feel right going up to one of my Hispanic friends saying Hey Essay! or bowing to every Asian I met. And besides trying to interject yourself into someone else's cultural "thang" to feel cool in mixed racial crowds is akin to your granddad showing up with you and your date telling you to "raise the roof!" <awkward!><br /><br /> If its an Asian Thang (math) let them have it, If its a Latino thing (low riders), let them have it. Ain't nothing wrong if its a Black Thang. White people you have your own thang (good credit)! I feel like this: Whats wrong with a culture having something unique to it that you are not privy to? Makes common sense to me.unKommon Sensehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14604165165624549822noreply@blogger.com3