Well they have finally confirmed what I have kind of known for a long time. It does not pay to be a nice guy. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/mean-guys-finish-first-least-paychecks-193159172.html Okay I have thought about it in terms of romance but it is probably true in financial matters as well.
My observations is that this study is correct. In a society in which we have interaction of nice people and pushy, aggressive people that the pushy aggressive ones tend to win out. Not every time of course. Sometimes their aggressiveness irritates those around them and they lose out. But it is naive to think that the rude often gets their way because people rather give in to them than have to deal with them.
Would it not be great if we could push those who are overly demanding and be more sensitive to the nice people around us? Perhaps those who are not nice would learn to be nice to get their way instead of being aggressive to obtain what they want. Would that not be a better society? Too bad that is not the way it is.
I consider myself a nice guy. At least I am when I am not blogging. When I read stuff like this it tempts me to be more of an irritant so that I can get what I may believe I deserve. Try to find ways to put pressure on the Dean and others in the college unless they pay me better. But that is not me. And I do not want it to be me.
I think that niceness has its own rewards. I like being a nice guy. Even if it means that I do not get the pay increase or nice job perks. Even if it means that I may be taken for granted some in my friendships and relationships. I rather like the person I am than become a rude person, gain from other people but not like myself. Somehow when they assess about whether nice people have a better life they may not be able to measure the satisfaction gained being good to other people regardless of whether you are "paid" for it.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
Bummer!!
Those of you not in Texas probably know that we have been undergoing quite a heat wave here. In fact we were on pace to set a new record. The old record was 42 straight days where the high temp was 100 or over. Until yesterday we had 40 straight days of such temps. But yesterday it was only 94 degrees. Bye bye record.
I am actually disappointed that we did not get the record. I figured that we had undergone so much heat already that why not get something for it. I was looking forward to getting a t-shirt " I survived the record heat of 2011." Guess I will have to just satisfy myself with another longhorn t-shirt now.
It was kind of surreal hoping for more heat yesterday. I was really wanting the record. Before you just think I am crazy consider this. I can curse this terrible heat wave we have undergone or I can just laugh at it. When given the choice of cursing or laughing I choose to laugh. I just do not want to start another streak of 40 plus days of heat over 100 degrees. At least not until next summer.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
I am actually disappointed that we did not get the record. I figured that we had undergone so much heat already that why not get something for it. I was looking forward to getting a t-shirt " I survived the record heat of 2011." Guess I will have to just satisfy myself with another longhorn t-shirt now.
It was kind of surreal hoping for more heat yesterday. I was really wanting the record. Before you just think I am crazy consider this. I can curse this terrible heat wave we have undergone or I can just laugh at it. When given the choice of cursing or laughing I choose to laugh. I just do not want to start another streak of 40 plus days of heat over 100 degrees. At least not until next summer.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Christian Terrorist?
Much has been made of the claim that Anders Behring Breivik is a Christian terrorist. A few months ago I blogged about Muslim terrorist and pointed out that a certain percentage of Muslims are dedicated to violence. The only thing we can do with them is kill or imprison them. That begs the question of whether there are Christians who are dedicated to violence. Those that we must either kill or imprison. It can be argued that Breivik is one such person.
As I often see it, such a statement is only partially true. It does not seem to me that Breivik is a good example of a Christian terrorist. The citations I have seen in his "writings" indicates that he is discussing a cultural Christianity and he sees Christianity more as an anti-Islam system than a intrinsic belief system. A better example would be Paul Ross Evans who was convicted of attempting to bomb an abortion clinic. He openly talks about having a Christian motivation for his actions.
Christian terrorists do exists. But they are very few and far between relative to Islamic terrorists. That is not a politically correct statement but it is a true one. Any reasonable, knowledgeable person would make that conclusion. But it is of interest how fast the media was to tie Breivik to Christian terrorism. They were not so fast to tie Major Nidal Hasan Islamic terrorism. The same New York Times that ran the "Christian Terrorist" headline for Breivik barely mentioned the Islamic faith of Hasan as his motivation in the body of their stories even though he shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he did his shooting.
Why this unequal treatment.?Here I must engage in speculation. I think that there is an eagerness to argue that there is an equal level of Christian terrorism as there is Islamic terrorism. Perhaps some individuals hostile to religion want to show that all religions are equally violent. Others may believe that Muslims are victims in a Christian society and so it is not fair to point out that there is more violence tied to contemporary Islamic terrorism than contemporary Christian terrorism. Either reason is a distortion to reality and hampers us as we try to deal with violence.
Finally, I know that it may be considered Islamophobic to point out that Islamic terrorism is more prevalent today than Christian terrorism. That is too bad since if we do not recognize this difference then we are hiding from reality. If I am walking by myself on a dark street and notice five men coming behind me I will be a little more scared than if I see five women walking behind me. That does not make me anti-male but just that I am aware that men are more likely to commit violence than women. Likewise let us be honest about the reality of religious terrorism today.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
As I often see it, such a statement is only partially true. It does not seem to me that Breivik is a good example of a Christian terrorist. The citations I have seen in his "writings" indicates that he is discussing a cultural Christianity and he sees Christianity more as an anti-Islam system than a intrinsic belief system. A better example would be Paul Ross Evans who was convicted of attempting to bomb an abortion clinic. He openly talks about having a Christian motivation for his actions.
Christian terrorists do exists. But they are very few and far between relative to Islamic terrorists. That is not a politically correct statement but it is a true one. Any reasonable, knowledgeable person would make that conclusion. But it is of interest how fast the media was to tie Breivik to Christian terrorism. They were not so fast to tie Major Nidal Hasan Islamic terrorism. The same New York Times that ran the "Christian Terrorist" headline for Breivik barely mentioned the Islamic faith of Hasan as his motivation in the body of their stories even though he shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he did his shooting.
Why this unequal treatment.?Here I must engage in speculation. I think that there is an eagerness to argue that there is an equal level of Christian terrorism as there is Islamic terrorism. Perhaps some individuals hostile to religion want to show that all religions are equally violent. Others may believe that Muslims are victims in a Christian society and so it is not fair to point out that there is more violence tied to contemporary Islamic terrorism than contemporary Christian terrorism. Either reason is a distortion to reality and hampers us as we try to deal with violence.
Finally, I know that it may be considered Islamophobic to point out that Islamic terrorism is more prevalent today than Christian terrorism. That is too bad since if we do not recognize this difference then we are hiding from reality. If I am walking by myself on a dark street and notice five men coming behind me I will be a little more scared than if I see five women walking behind me. That does not make me anti-male but just that I am aware that men are more likely to commit violence than women. Likewise let us be honest about the reality of religious terrorism today.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Thursday, July 21, 2011
A Plan Please
In my last post I blasted the Republicans for being unwilling to work with President Obama on the debt ceiling. I stand by my criticism of them. However, I would be remiss if I did not also point out the fact that the Republicans have at least presented a plan out to the public. First, it was the plan from Congressman Paul Ryan. Now they have recently passed a plan through the House of Representatives that requires a balanced budget. I may have issues with the plan but at least it is out there, which is more than what we are getting from our president.
Why have we not seen the Democrat plan? Are they not capable of putting together a plan to solve the debt ceiling crisis? Of course they are. The fact of the matter is that they do not want to put out a plan. Once you put out a plan then the opposing political party can attack the specifics of the plan. It is smart politics to let your political opponents produce a specific plan that you can attack while you stick with generalities. The Democrats are playing smart politics with this ploy.
But they are not contributing to solving our problem. Perhaps this is what is really wrong with us. It is not that our political system is creating our economic problems, although that might be the case, but it is that our political system does not provide incentives for us to solve those problems. Republicans want to keep the Tea Party people happy and thus take tax revenues completely off the table. Democrats want to keep their political advantage and so will not produce a workable plan. Both are playing politics instead of finding solutions.
And do you wonder why I refuse to be either a Republican or a Democrat?
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Why have we not seen the Democrat plan? Are they not capable of putting together a plan to solve the debt ceiling crisis? Of course they are. The fact of the matter is that they do not want to put out a plan. Once you put out a plan then the opposing political party can attack the specifics of the plan. It is smart politics to let your political opponents produce a specific plan that you can attack while you stick with generalities. The Democrats are playing smart politics with this ploy.
But they are not contributing to solving our problem. Perhaps this is what is really wrong with us. It is not that our political system is creating our economic problems, although that might be the case, but it is that our political system does not provide incentives for us to solve those problems. Republicans want to keep the Tea Party people happy and thus take tax revenues completely off the table. Democrats want to keep their political advantage and so will not produce a workable plan. Both are playing politics instead of finding solutions.
And do you wonder why I refuse to be either a Republican or a Democrat?
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Can we be adults about this?
Everyone agrees that we will have to raise our debt limit. But the Republicans want a deal with no increase in revenue but plenty of spending cuts. The Democrats want revenue increases and will do some spending cuts as long as Social Security is off the table. So we have had an impasse with neither side really serious about getting a deal.
But then recently President Obama showed that he is serious. He put Social Security on the table for debate. Now it has been up to the Republicans to put revenue increases on the table as well. It did not even have to be tax increases. It could have been the closing of the tax loopholes for revenue increases. Funny thing happen on the way to the compromised. The Republicans decided to play games instead of cutting a deal.
To be sure not all of the Democrats were willing to have Social Security on the table. Pelosi and a lot of the liberal Democrats were gearing up to fight Social Security cuts. But President Obama decided that trying to fix our budget was more important then trying to have a political issue. It is too bad the Republicans did not want to do the same.
For the Republicans stopping President Obama from enjoying political success was more important than solving our problems. It is similar to what the Democrats did to Bush. Obstructing the president of the opposite party seems to be an American tradition.
But the problem with that tradition is that in situations like this we as Americans can not come together to compromise and find solutions. Even as I praise President Obama in this current situation I can not forget that he voted against raising the debt ceiling when President Bush wanted it. We have to get past just trying to stop the other party and look at compromises that can solve the problems of our country. Is that too much for a troublemaker to ask?
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
But then recently President Obama showed that he is serious. He put Social Security on the table for debate. Now it has been up to the Republicans to put revenue increases on the table as well. It did not even have to be tax increases. It could have been the closing of the tax loopholes for revenue increases. Funny thing happen on the way to the compromised. The Republicans decided to play games instead of cutting a deal.
To be sure not all of the Democrats were willing to have Social Security on the table. Pelosi and a lot of the liberal Democrats were gearing up to fight Social Security cuts. But President Obama decided that trying to fix our budget was more important then trying to have a political issue. It is too bad the Republicans did not want to do the same.
For the Republicans stopping President Obama from enjoying political success was more important than solving our problems. It is similar to what the Democrats did to Bush. Obstructing the president of the opposite party seems to be an American tradition.
But the problem with that tradition is that in situations like this we as Americans can not come together to compromise and find solutions. Even as I praise President Obama in this current situation I can not forget that he voted against raising the debt ceiling when President Bush wanted it. We have to get past just trying to stop the other party and look at compromises that can solve the problems of our country. Is that too much for a troublemaker to ask?
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Getting away with it - Part 2
No I did not plan on having a part 2 to my last blog. Then Anthony Wiener happened. Now what can this sorry episode add to my general point. I did not think he added much until I heard the hot dog say "I am taking full responsibility for my actions."
Really hot dog? Full responsibility would have been to come clean as soon as information started to come out. Full responsibility would have been not to blame conservative media for his trouble when he knew he was guilty. Full responsibility would not have dragged his wife though this mess by getting help when he saw he had a problem. The way hot dog handled this is anything but full responsibility.
Now why did not hot dog take full responsibility. The answer is simple. He thought he had a chance to get away with it. Put yourself in his position. You have seen politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, have sex scandals and get away with it by blaming their political enemies. So you can either come clean and pay the consequences of your actions. Or you can use the tried and true method of shifting blame onto others and maybe get away with it. You know shifting blame may work because people from your party want to blame their political opponents and may overlook evidence that you are guilty. Come on and be honest. Which choice would you make?
Hot dog made his choice because he reasonably thought he had a chance to get away with it. What if he knew he would not get any support from his fellow Democrats for lying? That his they would be suspicious from the very beginning and would have demanded that he have an external investigation of his "hacked" account. He would have had an incentive to been honest in the first place. (By the way this is not an attack on the Democrats. I have no doubt that Republicans would have initially covered for their own in the same manner).
We live in a society where people do not always react with their better angels and so we need social sanctions that go beyond merely defending the interest of our social groups. Just like we need Democrats to not merely blame Republicans at their first opportunity, but to hold their own accountable, we need to be aggressive in challenging those in our own groups. I like to see a culture where we are driven more by larger principles of honest and fairness rather than tribal loyalty. Such tribal loyalty encourages members of our own group to use our prejudices and stereotypes so that they can engage in immoral deeds and then manipulate us to get away with it.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Really hot dog? Full responsibility would have been to come clean as soon as information started to come out. Full responsibility would have been not to blame conservative media for his trouble when he knew he was guilty. Full responsibility would not have dragged his wife though this mess by getting help when he saw he had a problem. The way hot dog handled this is anything but full responsibility.
Now why did not hot dog take full responsibility. The answer is simple. He thought he had a chance to get away with it. Put yourself in his position. You have seen politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, have sex scandals and get away with it by blaming their political enemies. So you can either come clean and pay the consequences of your actions. Or you can use the tried and true method of shifting blame onto others and maybe get away with it. You know shifting blame may work because people from your party want to blame their political opponents and may overlook evidence that you are guilty. Come on and be honest. Which choice would you make?
Hot dog made his choice because he reasonably thought he had a chance to get away with it. What if he knew he would not get any support from his fellow Democrats for lying? That his they would be suspicious from the very beginning and would have demanded that he have an external investigation of his "hacked" account. He would have had an incentive to been honest in the first place. (By the way this is not an attack on the Democrats. I have no doubt that Republicans would have initially covered for their own in the same manner).
We live in a society where people do not always react with their better angels and so we need social sanctions that go beyond merely defending the interest of our social groups. Just like we need Democrats to not merely blame Republicans at their first opportunity, but to hold their own accountable, we need to be aggressive in challenging those in our own groups. I like to see a culture where we are driven more by larger principles of honest and fairness rather than tribal loyalty. Such tribal loyalty encourages members of our own group to use our prejudices and stereotypes so that they can engage in immoral deeds and then manipulate us to get away with it.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Getting away with it
Not a good year for the Govenator. Arnold step down as Governor of California with terrible ratings. And now he may lose his marriage because he decided to fool around with the help. Let me get this straight. The baby of the housekeeper was born about the same week as the baby of his wife. So at the same time he was impregnating his wife he was... well you get the picture. He clearly can not say that he was having an affair due to lack of sex by his wife. This guy had it all. A great career, beautiful wife and kids, money, fame. He still may have had some political career but that is gone now. His marriage appears to be toast which is going to effect his relationship with his kids. He will still have money but he may now be famous for things he does not want to be famous for. All for a little role in the hay. Why would he risk so much for what is really so little?
Then there is the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. You remember him. The IMF leader who is about 70 years old but has sexual urges so powerful that he had to go ahead and rape his maid. Wow. What a great decision that was. This guy was going to challenge for the presidency of France before he decided that rape was a better political move than say hiring a prostitute. Not that I am condoning prostitution but why did he not just do that? The French would have forgiven him for that. Instead he has lost his political career and maybe his freedom because he could not "control" his sexual impulses. As old as he is even a five year sentence may be a life sentence. So from a non-moral but practical standpoint what do you think is smarter - rape a maid or hire a prostitute?
Ever wonder why some men do dumb things. And men seem to do it a lot in the sexual realm. Anybody remember John Edwards threatening his presidential candidacy so that he could have an out of wedlock kid. All while his wife is fighting cancer. I do not want to just focus on men as I have seen women do dumb things and throw away great opportunities as well. Usually they do this trying to save a dumb guy that they "love" but they are being dumb nonetheless. But why people can be so short sighted is something that is worth thinking about. These cases of men trading in their families and careers for a sexual encounter is one of the best ways to show this tendency.
I have a theory about this. I think that Arnold, Dominique and John did their stuff because they thought they would get away with it. They were powerful men who thought that their power would shield them from the consequences of their actions. Those actions show what can happen when people think that there are no consequences for their actions. Murders kill because they think they can get away with it. Thiefs steal because they think they can get away with it. When you see the worst of human behavior you are seeing those who think they can get away with what they are doing.
Sociologist talk about social control in society. That is aspects of our society that compel us to behave. When there is no social control there is the potential of human horror and we see that all the time. Ever wonder what you would do if you could get away with it. What would you take? Who would you oppress? How would you punish those you hate? You may not want to think about that. Those can be an uncomfortable thoughts to have. But if we can truly engage in self-introspection then when we truly are in situations where we think we can get away with evil we may decide to restrain ourselves and live by our true principles. Just saying.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Then there is the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. You remember him. The IMF leader who is about 70 years old but has sexual urges so powerful that he had to go ahead and rape his maid. Wow. What a great decision that was. This guy was going to challenge for the presidency of France before he decided that rape was a better political move than say hiring a prostitute. Not that I am condoning prostitution but why did he not just do that? The French would have forgiven him for that. Instead he has lost his political career and maybe his freedom because he could not "control" his sexual impulses. As old as he is even a five year sentence may be a life sentence. So from a non-moral but practical standpoint what do you think is smarter - rape a maid or hire a prostitute?
Ever wonder why some men do dumb things. And men seem to do it a lot in the sexual realm. Anybody remember John Edwards threatening his presidential candidacy so that he could have an out of wedlock kid. All while his wife is fighting cancer. I do not want to just focus on men as I have seen women do dumb things and throw away great opportunities as well. Usually they do this trying to save a dumb guy that they "love" but they are being dumb nonetheless. But why people can be so short sighted is something that is worth thinking about. These cases of men trading in their families and careers for a sexual encounter is one of the best ways to show this tendency.
I have a theory about this. I think that Arnold, Dominique and John did their stuff because they thought they would get away with it. They were powerful men who thought that their power would shield them from the consequences of their actions. Those actions show what can happen when people think that there are no consequences for their actions. Murders kill because they think they can get away with it. Thiefs steal because they think they can get away with it. When you see the worst of human behavior you are seeing those who think they can get away with what they are doing.
Sociologist talk about social control in society. That is aspects of our society that compel us to behave. When there is no social control there is the potential of human horror and we see that all the time. Ever wonder what you would do if you could get away with it. What would you take? Who would you oppress? How would you punish those you hate? You may not want to think about that. Those can be an uncomfortable thoughts to have. But if we can truly engage in self-introspection then when we truly are in situations where we think we can get away with evil we may decide to restrain ourselves and live by our true principles. Just saying.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)