Musing of Free Speech and the Tennessee Football Coach

One of my loyal conservative clients posted this about a Tennessee Football coach fired for producing a song critical of President Obama:

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=12989255

I post this because it illustrates an important issue. Hand in hand with freedom of speech, if you are going to have it, is the reality that at times, you may not like the way other people chose to exercise that freedom and in fact, you may be offended be them. But offense is taken, it is not given. And if we all went around censoring our speech and expecting others to do the same, we would have a society governed by benighted, tyrannical and ignorant minds.

That being said, while I don't agree with the politics of this coach nor what I think is crude and uncivil, I cannot deny that it is a clever and a most likely effective method of conveying his beliefs.

If he was in a public school, which it appears he was, he could not be fired for this and would have a rock solid civil rights case. Since some conservatives don't think people should sue for $, he could at the very least bring suit to be reinstated.

As to myself, I am currently a loyal Pres. Obama supporter, but I am first a
defender of the constitution and would give my life to defend this
man's right and all Americans' right to freedom of speech. Everyone
has a right to express themselves, even in manners that might cause
others to take offense.

Some of us are forgetting that. Some of us are also too frightened of forces in our world that kill and use fear of death to silence others. This is because at first they intimidate, maim and kill those that are ostensibly less politically correct, less tolerant and less diplomatic than we are, so we denounce and chide the victims of these intolerant forces and assuage and soothe those that think they have a right to kill when they decide to take offense, claiming God or some higher right justifies their behavior. But mark my words, if we don't stand up for those that so express themselves, the wrath of the small minded will then be focused on us for the slightest affront or the most innocent of comments.

Due to this risk, while we may state we do not agree with these more strident voices, we should more fully censor and condemn those who seek to silence them by abusing their powers or by using the excuse that they act in the name of some higher power.

Cultural Lessons from Parking Violations

Diplomats that attend the UN in New York had, in the past,complete diplomatic immunity. In the book I am listening to written by David Brooks, he talks about a study that reviewed all parking and traffic violations of diplomats from different countries. Those countries who rated poorly on the transparency and corruption index stacked up enormous parking and traffic violations (including Kuwait and many Middle Eastern countries), where as countries rated very favorably regarding their transparency and corruption had very few, if any, parking and traffic violations. Apparently this was irrespective of the particular position or social and economic status of the diplomat. So what does this tell us about culture, if anything?

To Slim Down Our Kids and Make Our School Economically Independent, Turn All Schools Into Multilevel Marketing Companies

According to the high pundits of the pundits and the sanctified critics of the critics, as to human frailty and weakness, or let's just say it, down right depravities, one is insufficiently wise to counsel another on overcoming such failings unless he or she has descended to similar depths of depravity; and, one is not sufficiently vetted to editorialize upon the shortcomings of our public figures or others unless he or she devoid of any character flaws.

Although experience can endow great insight and piety can bestow superior moral gravitas, I do not put stock in either opinion. Nevertheless, both these conscious and often unconscious sentiments give me pause enough to feel compelled to intone this disclaimer. I am not pious enough nor depraved enough to claim the moral superiority of those who deserve our veneration (and I know this is no revelation to many of my friends, family and not-quite-friends who need not verify this); nor have I mapped out the territories of all seven of the deadly sins--but there is still time for both.

Still, as an American, it is my God given right to have an opinion, and to share it with all those who might stumble upon it. With that out of the way, let me further confess that since the end of high school wrestling (for which I engaged in mildly undisciplined weight variances of about 7 pounds), my weight has not varied more that 10 pounds, except for a period of one year when I took a small step toward the slippery slope of nutrition supplements and added creatine to my diet and bulked up 15 lbs, but then stepped away from the brink, when the muscle wasn't worth the disadvantages it accompanied.

So, big flippin' deal. Yet, here's my point. America is one of the fattest countries in the world. Others are trying to catch up. They've seen what we have and they want it. But, some say it's not to be emulated and must be arrested. So they pass laws barring school from serving soda pop during lunch if they want to keep getting federal funds. Then they fine them for doing so (as has occurred in Davis County). Then the school complains, as it should, and points out that the fines will just hurt the kids by losing both the federal funds and the money from the soda pop sales and therefore the school must cut its art and music programs which rely upon these funds (as has been threatened in Davis County).

But isn't there a deeper problem? Why are we so undisciplined that our schools have had to rely upon soda sales to fund its programs? Why don't we just sell crack and have a higher profit margin, as apparently one principal did back east at an elementary school? And why do we always take it out on the music programs, which have been shown to improve math acuity? Any way, back to fat.

Could it be that we are fat because we don't want to spend our money on school programs, we want to spend it on new and improved processed foods and then since we don't want to spend it on school, we think, "hey, I have a great idea, since we're buying all this food, let's just buy it at school and let them have the profit?!" I have a better idea. Let's turn all of our schools into multilevel marketing companies and give our kids an education being obnoxious multi-level-marketers?

Anyway back to fat. Can't we all collectively just exercise some freedom of choice and back away from that unhealthy food, contribute more to our schools, and pull the machines out of them and leave the heavy hand of the law free to police more important things like the upsurge of illegal U turns? Ok, that is enough stream of conscious-William-Faulkner-mumbo-jumbo. And yes, my shoulder is much better.

A Salute to Our Troops

A salute to all our troops, past, present and future and to those who support them.

I served during the First Gulf War (stateside) and was greatly enriched by the experience.

The duties and honors of service are enriched and the politics of war improved when all of a nation's children bear the responsibilities of service.

Have you served? If not, why not?

Everyone should serve who can, and everyone should strive to act and vote in manners that only put our troops in harms way when it is required and unavoidable to make us safer at home and when our brothers and sisters in other lands are being indisputably and indiscriminately murdered and it is practicable and within our capacity and means to end such suffering in a manner that is limited and brings about greater civility and peace.

Religiousity in Women Equates to a Lack of Sexual Exploration?

In David Brook's book about humans as social beings, he cites studies that indicate religious women are less likely to be sexually creative or adventurous (he was a bit more graphic but in good taste).

However, the professed or stated religiosity of men had little correlation with their sexual adventurism. (The context of his comments suggested this was within monogamous relationships or was irrelevant).

If this is in fact true, the interesting question here is, while there are various rational explanations for this difference between the sexes, is it less sexually adventurous/creative women have a greater affinity towards religion and vice versa or is it the religious teachings and upbringing influence women's sexual interest?

I would imagine like many things in life that both exert their influence. Interested in feedback. (Please don’t engage in any graphic disclosures or comments. This is meant to be serious inquiry of great importance, at least for us men).

Social Creatures Eat More

I have been reading [well really listening– but reading sounds less lazy] David Brooks' book about humans as social beings. He cites studies that indicate we eat more in proportion with the number of people we eat with.

Alone we eat less. With someone else we eat a little more. And in larger groups we even eat more food.

Besides a number of other deductions that can be drawn from this information, it seems that often eating is a matter of pride and ego. We deserve not only the big home and the big car but the big plate of fatty, sugary, tantalizing and exotic foods. We think we can and have a right to indulge in recreational eating and avoid its adverse consequences (weight gain and pocket book shrinkage) just like we wrongly perceive that others can.

It also may be a matter of our instincts of competition. Like hungry sharks or wolves, we fight to get our fair share before others--an emotional reaction as well as physiological reaction to eating.

So, consciously vow to check your ego and pride at the door when you go out to eat. Eat to live don’t eat to compete, over-recreate or show you're the top man/woman in the social hierarchy

The Poor vs the Insured in Our Medical System

Over the past few months, I have read over 1,000 pages of medical records of various claimants seeking disability benefits, and here’s the crazy thing about our system—what you already may know.

The very poor wait until their health conditions have reached crisis stage, they go to the emergency room, they have every test known to medical science, the docs patch them up as best they can, tell them to follow up with a recommended doc, which they don’t do because then they have to pay up front and they can't afford it, the docs write them prescription for medicine they never fill, send then out into the world, until they crash again—never paying much if anything for their care.

Studies show those who follow this routine are more likely to become disabled and their work histories are more inconsistent. While the the insured enter the system gradually, their care is more precise and pin pointed and they endure chronic illnesses longer and when disability is inevitable, they enter the system much later in life.

I realize this is anecdotal, but you all would probably be alarmed at the extensive care the poor get that is untimely, ineffectual and often is probably excessive because their isn't a relationship of trust nor a foundation of care between the doc and the patient that make the art of medicine more precise. Does it make any sense?

Today I had a client on of mine on Medicaid who is in end stage renal failure who explained he can’t get on the waiting list for a transplant because Medicaid won’t pay for a dental exam. I don’t know, just seems odd.

A Civil and Decent Society

Herb Cowan, large vegetable farmer and apparently reincarnated said:

"Even when I lived in a piss-poor village in 17 A.D., (although it may have been called a "charitable" act), we villagers were still "expected" to help out (not if we had a hankering to do it, but expected) when fellow villagers had any of their large arteries or veins spurting blood and they needed medical assistance.

Even then it was highly frowned upon and frankly not tolerated to walk away from some poor sucker bleeding to death, even if he or she was the town's least productive denizen. And we never felt like our pockets were being picked for lending a firm hand over the wound, because if some Roman Soldier accidentally gouged out one of our eyes or some wild beast severed a limb, we expected the same from our fellow villagers.

In fact, one villager once got banished for failing to come to the aid of another when a wild animal had ripped open his gut.

As a civil and decent society, some things are just worth pulling together on."

Why North Americans Hate Dandelions and Prefer Grass Lawns

North Americans hate dandelions and prefer monospecific grass lawns for these reasons: 1) humans have a genetic, inherent, instinctive and visceral animus toward anything that is as tenacious, ubiquitous and successful as we are, 2) because the communists, in a infernal and insidious plot, long ago planted the idea that a monospecific grass lawn was the bees knees, desirable over all earth's other greenery and 3) in the early Edenic language Bible, it was not the serpent that beguiled Eve, but the bowerbird which God banished to Australia after he threw Eve and Adam out of the Garden of Eden when Adam, (in order to please Eve after her mind had been beguiled and polluted by the bowerbird), started logging large expanses of the Garden and planting monospecific lawns and learning how to golf.