Okay I want a new law. That law is that if you make at least one million dollars a year then you can not state that you are a slave. Why would I want such a law? Becasue then I would not have to read stupid statements from someone like Haynesworth.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Albert-Haynesworth-I-am-not-a-slave?urn=nfl-272374
I will go out and a limb and say that if I am paid 32 million dollar to play football for a few years then I am not a slave if they want me to come to practice. Even if 300 pound men are tossing my skinny butt around I will still not complain about being a slave. So I need to write my congressman to get that law in place.
On a more serious note, does not Haynesworth know how insulting his statement is for people who really are or were slaves? Has he read his own history to see how badly real black slaves were treated? Does he not understand that the horrors of slavery exists today? Yet he wants to claim that type of victimization to negotiate better working conditions. Hello. You make millions of dollars a year to play a game. I thought I had a dream job as a professor, but how can any job beat that working situation?
If it was just stupid athletes who use such exaggerations then it is easy to just laugh this off. But of course we see this all the time. I put Obama and Hitler into my Google search and come up with 6,180,000 hits. Nice. When I put Bush and Hitler in my Google search I came up with 5,96,000 hits. Stupidity knows no political boundaries. Do these people really know what Hitler did? Why are they not embarrassed by making such stupid comparisons? I am betting that most of them do not have the excuse of being a dumb athlete.
When we use such extreme language we cheapen the real horrors of slavery and Hitler. But that is alright since we get to demonize our opponent. After all pushing our cause is more important than an accurate assessment of reality. I have causes I believe in as well. I hope that truth and honestly will be more important to me than merely getting my way with manipulative accusations and exaggerations.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Can we have it all?
How many of us have everything we want? Not many huh? Even those who are rich in income often find themselves poor in relationships or spiritual comfort or health. Troublemaker has tried to live a holistic life. He has worked on being healthy physically, intellectually, spiritually and socially. I must admit that I do not have always a great social life but am pretty satisfied in the other areas of life. But that forces me to think if I only had a better social life then everything would be great.
But would it? What if I had that great social life? Would I not then start wanting something else. Perhaps even more academic success or a better relationship with God or more knowledge. I think I will never be completely satisfied. I will always want something more than what I currently have.
But that is alright. I do not think that we are on this earth to feel fully satisfied. When we are fully satisfied then we stop struggling to make ourselves or others better. If Troublemaker hits the lottery tomorrow (highly unlikely since I do not play the lottery) and was set for life financially then hopefully other financial goals will develop. Finding ways to channel money to causes I care about or setting up foundations will become important. But then I will need more money than just enough to take care of myself. I will need money to take care of these causes. So ideally even hitting the lottery will not satisfy me financially.
Or what about our social relationship. Ideally a person in a good marriage will not be satisfied. He/She will constantly trying to make the marriage better. He/she will constantly attempt to make life better for any kids in the marriage. Just because something is good does not mean that we can be satisfied that we have arrived in life.
This brings me to an important but troubling point. We are not meant to be satisfied. We are meant to strive. This does not mean that we have to be unhappy in our striving. In fact not trying to better ourselves whether intellectually, spiritually, socially or physically may lead to a laziness that creates a loss of meaning in our lives. As a society we should attempt to make the lives of people better around us and to make our own lives better. But we should not expect to be able to "arrive" at a point where no further improvement is needed. Sometimes it seems that some people have such unrealistic expectations. But would they really be happier if they had all their desires met and no longer st rived to make their lives better?
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
But would it? What if I had that great social life? Would I not then start wanting something else. Perhaps even more academic success or a better relationship with God or more knowledge. I think I will never be completely satisfied. I will always want something more than what I currently have.
But that is alright. I do not think that we are on this earth to feel fully satisfied. When we are fully satisfied then we stop struggling to make ourselves or others better. If Troublemaker hits the lottery tomorrow (highly unlikely since I do not play the lottery) and was set for life financially then hopefully other financial goals will develop. Finding ways to channel money to causes I care about or setting up foundations will become important. But then I will need more money than just enough to take care of myself. I will need money to take care of these causes. So ideally even hitting the lottery will not satisfy me financially.
Or what about our social relationship. Ideally a person in a good marriage will not be satisfied. He/She will constantly trying to make the marriage better. He/she will constantly attempt to make life better for any kids in the marriage. Just because something is good does not mean that we can be satisfied that we have arrived in life.
This brings me to an important but troubling point. We are not meant to be satisfied. We are meant to strive. This does not mean that we have to be unhappy in our striving. In fact not trying to better ourselves whether intellectually, spiritually, socially or physically may lead to a laziness that creates a loss of meaning in our lives. As a society we should attempt to make the lives of people better around us and to make our own lives better. But we should not expect to be able to "arrive" at a point where no further improvement is needed. Sometimes it seems that some people have such unrealistic expectations. But would they really be happier if they had all their desires met and no longer st rived to make their lives better?
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Friday, September 10, 2010
Some Free Speech Please
This morning while I watch "Morning Joe" on MSNBC I saw a strange alliance take place. Donny Deutsch, a far-left commentator and Patrick Buchanan, a well-known conservative, both agreed on a solution for Terry Jones - the pastor who wants to burn the Koran. They believed that for the sake of national security that if the pastor insists on going through with the burning that President Obama should use Federal Marshals to arrest Pastor Jones for the sake of national security and the lives that may be saved if Muslim do not riot. President Obama can then use his justice department to create some charge to hold Jones on. To this solution Trouble-Maker has only one word.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
If anyone thinks that I am sympathetic to Pastor Jones then they should read my last post. But such an action would clearly strike at the heart of freedom of religion and free speech. Those are two cornerstones of American democracy. It is not hard to defend freedoms with those we agree with or disagree with but are still acceptable. But where the rubber meets the road is when we have to defend these rights for those who are offensive, such as Pastor Jones. His actions are clearly religious in nature and the expression of a given idea about Islam. We can speak out against his actions all we want. But his actions are covered by constitutional rights and if we do not defend them now we may not defend them in the future.
And what sort of a future may that be. Will we arrest a pastor who speaks out against homosexuality under the guise of ridding our society of "gay bashing"? Will we confine a supporter of Afrocentric theology so that the clergy person does not incite inner city riots? Should we round up religious critics of the Afghanistan war in the name of "protecting the troops"? The type of rash action proposed by Deutsch and Buchanan is a short cut that sets a precedent that can not be easily erased. Religious viewpoints seen as acceptable today may not be seen as acceptable tomorrow. And once those viewpoints are not seen as acceptable then all sorts of governmental abuses become possible.
Trouble-Maker stands squarely on the side of free speech and freedom of religion. If those rights mean anything then they mean that the government does not use its power to squash religious expression and speech it does not want to have. Those of us outside the government can call Pastor Jones whatever name we want or boycott organizations we disagree with. Private citizens can react in whatever way they want to offensive speakers. The government has to stay out. In doing so we do not only protect the rights of Pastor Jones. We also protect our own rights to ridicule and minimize his stupid ideas about burning the Koran. By protecting Pastor Jones I ultimately also protect myself.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
If anyone thinks that I am sympathetic to Pastor Jones then they should read my last post. But such an action would clearly strike at the heart of freedom of religion and free speech. Those are two cornerstones of American democracy. It is not hard to defend freedoms with those we agree with or disagree with but are still acceptable. But where the rubber meets the road is when we have to defend these rights for those who are offensive, such as Pastor Jones. His actions are clearly religious in nature and the expression of a given idea about Islam. We can speak out against his actions all we want. But his actions are covered by constitutional rights and if we do not defend them now we may not defend them in the future.
And what sort of a future may that be. Will we arrest a pastor who speaks out against homosexuality under the guise of ridding our society of "gay bashing"? Will we confine a supporter of Afrocentric theology so that the clergy person does not incite inner city riots? Should we round up religious critics of the Afghanistan war in the name of "protecting the troops"? The type of rash action proposed by Deutsch and Buchanan is a short cut that sets a precedent that can not be easily erased. Religious viewpoints seen as acceptable today may not be seen as acceptable tomorrow. And once those viewpoints are not seen as acceptable then all sorts of governmental abuses become possible.
Trouble-Maker stands squarely on the side of free speech and freedom of religion. If those rights mean anything then they mean that the government does not use its power to squash religious expression and speech it does not want to have. Those of us outside the government can call Pastor Jones whatever name we want or boycott organizations we disagree with. Private citizens can react in whatever way they want to offensive speakers. The government has to stay out. In doing so we do not only protect the rights of Pastor Jones. We also protect our own rights to ridicule and minimize his stupid ideas about burning the Koran. By protecting Pastor Jones I ultimately also protect myself.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Short Term Thinking and Long Term Consequences
Okay. You never know where you are going to find new examples of stupidity. Take this for example.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
I mean come on folks. What do these good "patriotic" Christians think is going to happen when they get their kicks burning up the Koran. I think that a lot of the claims that what we do fuels Muslim rage is overblown. But this time the General is right. Do they remember the number of deaths that occurred after the Muhammad cartoons. Yes it is their legal right to destroy the Koran but it is just wrong for them to do it (kind of like the 9/11 Mosque situation but I digress).
But when you think about it, this is a good move for this church. They are a church of fifty people. Joel Osteen the pastor is not. This stunt has given them all sorts of national and even international news. I would be surprised if they remain at fifty people. There are plenty of others who hate Muslims who will cheer them on and support them. Some of these people may even join the church. So what is bad for the troops and certain to lead to death is actually a good move if this church wants to gain notoriety. What is it they say. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
This brings out a larger societal issue. Often what aids us, or our group, in the short run hurt a lot more people in the long run. The welfare cheat benefits his/herself in the short run. But in doing so make it harder for us to get the aid people really need in the long run. The factory gains in the short run from exploiting labor. But in the long run this exploitation sets up unions and government regulation that stifles the economy and eventually cuts into the factory's bottom line. We do not always do well with long range thinking.
We have lost some of the will to overlook short-term gain for the higher good of serving our society. There are a lot of reasons for this. But our notion of individualism and entitlement can lead to some horrible consequences if we are not careful. I hope this church reconsiders and does something that expresses their opposition to Islam in a more responsible and less flamboyant way. I also hope that more of us consider the good for the community and society to be at least as important as the good for us and our particular group.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Saturday, August 28, 2010
We are not all Muslims!!
A rather interesting link I found through a friend.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/allahu-akbar-michael-bloomberg-tells-ramadan-audience-we-are-all-muslims/
Obviously such a controversial comment will lead to a lively discussion. I will save the entire Mosque controversy for another time. But what I find interesting is the assumption by Bloomberg that all religions are the same. He does not mean he is a Muslim in that he prays five times a day and fasts during Ramadan. He is implying that all religions lead to a generalized sense of peace and acceptance. Nice thoughts. But is he on solid ground.
Now I get to be a troublemaker. All religions are not the same. And to imply such is an insult to those religions. It is intellectually dishonest to state that the monotheism of Islam is the same as the atheism in Buddhism. The Jehovah God in Judaism is quite different than the Adam-God advocated by Mormons. When we state that all religions are the same we rob them of the distinctive attributes they can offer to society and generally replace those attributes with our own values. We are in essence using religion to validate our own beliefs. Those of you with some sociological understanding will recognize some of Durkheim's argument about religion as a way to create culture cohesion in my assertion.
Bloomberg is not alone in pushing this notions that all religions are the same. But it is more emotional and political desire than cognitive wisdom that drives this idea. But we need to stop doing this. Let each religion speak for itself. Look at the good and the bad of each faith. Let us not merge all the faiths into some mushy pot of oatmeal. Many who would never tolerate such cultural assimilation as it concerns racial groups freely accept it as it concern religious beliefs. Those who belief want to keep their distinctions and it is an insult to try to take that away.
Of course if we accept the religious distinctiveness of Islam, Judaism, Christianity etc. then we have to recognize the possibility that some of these religions may be more violent than the others. Perhaps another aspect driving this need to merge all religions together is our PC need to avoid such unpleasant realities. We rather pretend that all religions produce the same level of functional and dysfunctional behaviors. But that is once again putting our head in the same for the sake of ideological purity. So it is honest to ask the question of which religions tend to produce the most violence. But I have stirred enough trouble for now. Only can cause so much trouble in a given blog. But maybe soon in future blog I will take an honest look at contrasting propensities for different religions to create violence.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/allahu-akbar-michael-bloomberg-tells-ramadan-audience-we-are-all-muslims/
Obviously such a controversial comment will lead to a lively discussion. I will save the entire Mosque controversy for another time. But what I find interesting is the assumption by Bloomberg that all religions are the same. He does not mean he is a Muslim in that he prays five times a day and fasts during Ramadan. He is implying that all religions lead to a generalized sense of peace and acceptance. Nice thoughts. But is he on solid ground.
Now I get to be a troublemaker. All religions are not the same. And to imply such is an insult to those religions. It is intellectually dishonest to state that the monotheism of Islam is the same as the atheism in Buddhism. The Jehovah God in Judaism is quite different than the Adam-God advocated by Mormons. When we state that all religions are the same we rob them of the distinctive attributes they can offer to society and generally replace those attributes with our own values. We are in essence using religion to validate our own beliefs. Those of you with some sociological understanding will recognize some of Durkheim's argument about religion as a way to create culture cohesion in my assertion.
Bloomberg is not alone in pushing this notions that all religions are the same. But it is more emotional and political desire than cognitive wisdom that drives this idea. But we need to stop doing this. Let each religion speak for itself. Look at the good and the bad of each faith. Let us not merge all the faiths into some mushy pot of oatmeal. Many who would never tolerate such cultural assimilation as it concerns racial groups freely accept it as it concern religious beliefs. Those who belief want to keep their distinctions and it is an insult to try to take that away.
Of course if we accept the religious distinctiveness of Islam, Judaism, Christianity etc. then we have to recognize the possibility that some of these religions may be more violent than the others. Perhaps another aspect driving this need to merge all religions together is our PC need to avoid such unpleasant realities. We rather pretend that all religions produce the same level of functional and dysfunctional behaviors. But that is once again putting our head in the same for the sake of ideological purity. So it is honest to ask the question of which religions tend to produce the most violence. But I have stirred enough trouble for now. Only can cause so much trouble in a given blog. But maybe soon in future blog I will take an honest look at contrasting propensities for different religions to create violence.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Why are Christian Colleges so White?
Christianity is suppose to be a religion for everyone. But is it well documented that Sunday morning is one of the most segregated time of the week. If Christianity is suppose to serve everyone then why can not people come together when they worship?
That is a question that more than a few theologians and scholars have been wrestling with. But I have another question that many have not thought about. It is one thing if Christians of different races worship in different places. After all there are many ways Christian worship can be organized and clearly some of these differences are linked to race-based cultural variations. But why are Christian colleges more racially homogeneous than other colleges. Education is needed by people of all races. People who worship a God that is not a "respecter of person" should not segregate themselves when it comes to getting an education should they?
I do not believe that Christians tend to create racially homogeneous colleges because of racism. Rather this is a good example of how our society is racialized in such a way that we reproduce the racial separation that we have seen in the past. We do this by where we live, who we marry and where we go to school. Christians have some cultural barriers that make it worse, but in reality they often just reflect the larger racial values in our society.
This is actually a question that I have studied and now have a book out on the subject. It is called Neither Jew nor Gentile and it has been published by Oxford University Press. In that book I not only look at the dynamics that create this racial segregation but also suggest some possible solutions. (One of my complaints of social scientists is that we are good at documenting problems but lousy at finding innovative solutions). If this is something you are interested in then check out the book. Here is a link where you can find it.
That is a question that more than a few theologians and scholars have been wrestling with. But I have another question that many have not thought about. It is one thing if Christians of different races worship in different places. After all there are many ways Christian worship can be organized and clearly some of these differences are linked to race-based cultural variations. But why are Christian colleges more racially homogeneous than other colleges. Education is needed by people of all races. People who worship a God that is not a "respecter of person" should not segregate themselves when it comes to getting an education should they?
I do not believe that Christians tend to create racially homogeneous colleges because of racism. Rather this is a good example of how our society is racialized in such a way that we reproduce the racial separation that we have seen in the past. We do this by where we live, who we marry and where we go to school. Christians have some cultural barriers that make it worse, but in reality they often just reflect the larger racial values in our society.
This is actually a question that I have studied and now have a book out on the subject. It is called Neither Jew nor Gentile and it has been published by Oxford University Press. In that book I not only look at the dynamics that create this racial segregation but also suggest some possible solutions. (One of my complaints of social scientists is that we are good at documenting problems but lousy at finding innovative solutions). If this is something you are interested in then check out the book. Here is a link where you can find it.
Okay so this is a little bit of a shameless plug. Yeah trouble-maker tries to sell his stuff too. But hey it is my blog and you are getting what you paid for. I will try to make the next blog a little less commercial.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The King
It is official. King James is no more. For those of you who have been living under a rock or have no knowledge of basketball I am of course talking about LeBron James. We have had to suffer the drama of where he is going as a free agent. And we got the answer. He got off his throne (which never really existed since he never won the title).
You see the great ones build their championships where they land. They convince others to come and play with them. That is the legacy of Magic, Jordon, Bird, Duncan and (I hate to admit it because I hate him) Kobe. LeBron decided that he would let Wade build the championship team. It does not matter if the Heat win the next 10 titles. They will be Wade's title and James just came to help. No King is just a helper.
I know it is easy for me to tell James to do since I never had such talent myself and was not faced with such a decision. It seems to me that one title in Cleveland when he is clearly "the man" is better than 3 or 4 with the Miami Heat. I guess I am a traditionalist when it comes to sports. I like athletes to stay put and remain in touch with their city. Oh for the good ol days.
No earth shattering, trouble-making declarations here. Taking a brief break from that. But just wanted to have my say on the whole LeBron situation. Will move on the more "meatier" issues with the next post.
Sincerely,
Trouble-maker
You see the great ones build their championships where they land. They convince others to come and play with them. That is the legacy of Magic, Jordon, Bird, Duncan and (I hate to admit it because I hate him) Kobe. LeBron decided that he would let Wade build the championship team. It does not matter if the Heat win the next 10 titles. They will be Wade's title and James just came to help. No King is just a helper.
I know it is easy for me to tell James to do since I never had such talent myself and was not faced with such a decision. It seems to me that one title in Cleveland when he is clearly "the man" is better than 3 or 4 with the Miami Heat. I guess I am a traditionalist when it comes to sports. I like athletes to stay put and remain in touch with their city. Oh for the good ol days.
No earth shattering, trouble-making declarations here. Taking a brief break from that. But just wanted to have my say on the whole LeBron situation. Will move on the more "meatier" issues with the next post.
Sincerely,
Trouble-maker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)