Mallard Fillmore - 03.29.07

Yesterday’s Mallard Fillmore reminds me of those news reports and comic strips that say something like “Only 12% of high school seniors could point to Afghanistan on a map”. These kind of stats are often combined with the number who could rattle of the most recent American Idol winner or the name of Paris Hilton’s dog. The point of such statistics is to show how out of touch American youth are with things that are important in the grand scheme of things, and therefore how globally sheltered they are and how apathetic they may be in the future about world issues.

This particular comic puzzles me somewhat, though, because I don’t quite understand how being ignorant of the ancient Jewish story translates into anything specifically harrowing. If the group polled was seniors in Christian or Jewish high schools, perhaps the point would be that these schools aren’t doing a good enough job of teaching the faith to their students, and that would make much more sense.

Would Bruce Tinsley maintain that all students should be taught stories from the Bible and other religious texts? What is it about this particular story involving Sodom and Gomorrah (which are two cities, by the way) that makes Tinsley so shocked that it’s not more well-known? I guess my main problem with the strip is that I don’t quite understand what Mallard is getting at.

I checked out Amazon to see the book Mallard was referring to. In the book’s description, it says:

“[The Author] begins this valuable primer by noting that religious illiteracy is rampant in the United States, where most Americans, even Christians, cannot name even one of the four Gospels. Such ignorance is perilous because religion “is the most volatile constituent of culture” and, unfortunately, often “one of the greatest forces for evil” in the world, he writes.”

Based on that and the rest of the description, it seems that the book is probably pretty even-handed. It seems that the author thinks that religious literacy is necessary in the same way that World History is necessary; it’s important to understand the past in order to fully understand the present, especially relating to various cultures around the world. In this, I absolutely agree. I feel like much of the semi-polarization between Christians and non-Christians in the US recently has been fueled by misconceptions of Christianity’s history and teachings, even by self-proclaimed Christians themselves. A better understanding of all religions would probably be beneficial to all, but if that’s Mallard Fillmore’s point in this strip, it’s not particularly clear.

As for keeping religion out of schools, quite frankly, I don’t see why religion needs to play a formal role in school. However, there’s no good reason to keep religion completely out of schools in an informal capacity (like a Bible club or a Muslim student group). In fact, it would seem that preventing those students who wish to participate in a religous activity would actually be taking away their First Amendment rights.

Despite what many people believe, the Bill of Rights actually says nothing about public schools, or even keeping religion out of publically-owned places and events. It simply keeps congress from respecting the establishment of a religion, or from preventing the free excercise of any religious belief. Preventing (voluntary) religious expression in a school woud seem to be going against the second part of it there.

Religion in schools (and other public places) is a hot button issue recently. What do you think about religion and public schools. Is it a bad idea to mix the two? Would it be breaking the 1st amendment to prohibit voluntary religious expression at school?

What about the book mentioned in the strip…. Do you think knowing religious history of religions you do not subscribe to are important to learn about for cultural reasons or for gaining a better understanding of others? I await your comments.

B.C. - 03.29.2007

Making fun of political correctness is very easy to do, but I don’t think that’s the point of this particular strip. B.C. sometimes stumbles over their punchlines, so I’m not completely sure if Hart is trying to say that political correctness is stupid or that politicians are never “correct”. I’m going to assume it’s the latter.

I can certainly understand the sentiment. When politics are involved, being “correct” always takes a backseat to looking good. A good politician knows that to get reelected, he or she needs to convince the public that they are doing a good job. Creating and voting for just laws that will result in the most good for the constituents falls by the wayside, while the politician spends his energy on passing bad laws that make a good sound-byte (”I voted for a bill that helps the poor.”).

In my home state of Maryland, the state Congress is constantly avoiding votes on major issues, like legalizing slot machines. Here, Democrats rule both houses, and their position would certainly win in a vote. If it came to a vote, though, the opposition might have something to use against them in the next election (”My opponent voted against legalizing slot machines”), so they simply refuse to vote on the issue. That way, no one can bash them for casting the wrong vote. Amazingly, this is considered good political strategy!

Polls show that the majority of Maryland residents are in favor of legalizing slot machines in the state. The bill was introduced by a Republican governor years ago, and the Democrats have been stonewalling ever since then to make him look bad. Even though the governor is now gone, it’s hard for them to change their positions on the matter without looking like fools, so instead, they simply refuse to vote.

Does that make sense at all? How can avoiding a vote on a popular issue be anything but bad? You would think that voters would take notice of this stupidity and do something about it, but they never do, and the politicians are well aware of this. Thanks to public apathy, legislators have free reign to do basically whatever they like. They do a few radio interviews where they argue unimportant issues, they mug for the camera whenever it’s around, and they rest easy knowing that they can do whatever they want, and the voters will never take away their seat.

It’s a sad state of affairs, and this same situation happens all over the country; even on a federal level. Is this just politics as usual, or is their something that can be done about it? Will bad politicians ever be held responsible for their actions, or is everything just fine the way it is now? Your comments are always appreciated.

I don’t think I’d believe it myself it I hadn’t heard it with my own ears. I was working in my home office yesterday, and my wife came down with a message. Jessica Brown from Congressman Tom Cole’s office had called, and apparently, he wanted to give me a National Leadership Award. All I had to do was return the call at 1-877-213-0603 and they would work on my press release.

My wife though maybe it had something to do with the many websites I operate online, but I immediately smelled a rat. I figured it was a Nigerian Scam of some sort, using a random name and a phony award to get people to fork over their money. In the end, I almost wish that’s really what it was. It turns out to be far more sickening.

First, I Googled the Congressman’s name, and it came up legit. There really is a Congressman Tom Coles from Oklahoma. Why would an Oklahoma Congressman want to give me, a resident of Maryland, an award? I searched for his name with Jessica Brown’s and found nothing. Next, I searched for the phone number they had left at which to call them back, 1-877-213-0603. That’s when the whole plot began to unfold.

It seems that I’m not the only one being called by Congressman Tom Cole’s office being offered a National Leadership award. It seems anyone who is a “small businessman” is being contacted and told they have won this award for helping to improve the local economy. I have no employees, and I work out of my basement. I’m not sure how I’m improving my local economy, but anyway…

It seems that a lot of people are being called by different people, all with the same message. The callers include Betty Lake, Kim McClain, Sandy Vandergrift, Elaine Praise, Vickie Bell, Robin Blankenship, Ashley Cameron, and more. The message is always the same, telling them that they have won a National Leadership Award and they need to call back so they can get started on their press release.

It turns out that when you call back, you are told that they are the National Republican Congressional Comittee, and they patch you through to a recorded message from Tom Coles about how the NRCC needs you to donate $500 to they can fight the Democrats and help small businessman such as yourselves. Your $500 donation will get you the award, your name added to a Wall Street Journal press release, and an invite to a dinner with the President.

Another blogger actually recorded the call, so you can see for yourself exactly how it all went down. It really disgusts me that a political party would stoop so low as to try something like this. It’s not exactly a scam, since I presume that you do end up getting the National Leadership Award (now we know what that’s worth), and your name in the Wall St. Journal, etc.

Still, this has got to be one of the sleaziest fundraising methods I’ve ever heard of. If a private company tried this or a charity, they would be condemned by everyone in sight, and hypocritical Congresssman would be the first to throw the stones.

If you read this site on a regular basis, you know that I’m have no affiliation with a political party. I am certainly not a Democrat, and this is not is not some kind of Republican bashing post to make Democrats look good. To be honest, I think the Democrats are capable of just as sleazy things. Nearly all politicians are, and that’s why politics is such crap!

Anyway, so that’s my story.  Leave a comment if you’d like and tell me what you think about all this.

Family Circus - 3.26.07

Mallard Fillmore - 3.23.07

Prickly City - 3.23.07

Non Sequitur - 3.24.07

Global Warming seems to be the Topic of the Week, as several comics have mentioned it in just the past few days. Billy from Family Circus is even cheering on it’s arrival. Hooray for Global Warming!

It seems everyone has an opinion on Global Warming, and unfortunately, that opinion is often stoked by politicians and other blowhards in the public eye. Research shows pretty definitively that average global temperatures have risen over the past several decades. Many scientists postulate that the reason for this increase invoves man’s presence on earth, and several things we’ve created, gasses we’ve emitted, etc.

Others stand by the hypothesis that the fluctuations in temperature are simply a normal variant in temperature, and are nothing to worry about. They think that in the millions of years since earth was created, a sample size of less than a few hundred years of any data and only a century of hard data is hardly sufficient to make an accurate assessment.

The fact that just 35 years ago, scientists and the media were predicting a new Ice Age says alot about the kind of assessment that can be made with such a small sample of data. Being the shameless sensaltionalists that they are, the media will take every opportunity to blow anything out of proportion, just so they can improve their ratings.

Looking at the problem objectively, either hypothesis could be correct. It’s absolutely true that the sample size we have to work with is far too small to make any definiteve judgements. Still, we are watching the average temperature increase before our eyes, and it’s not a terrible idea to be on the alert and perhaps alter some of our human practices just in case.

The real problem in the Global Warming debate, as well as most other political hot buttons comes down to the politicians. The best way for a politician to gain support for himself or his party is to get the public riled up about a specifc issue. Scaring the America public is even more effective, and both Republicans and Democrats are using these tactics quite often to gain support.

The Republicans have scared everyone about terrorists ending the world as we know it to promote their agendas. Now, the Democrats are scaring everyone about global warming ending the world as we know it. Both of these issues are potential problems, and both are issues that Americans should be concerned about, but instead of making a concerted effort to solve the problems, politicians are doing nothing more than scaring the public, and proposing a ’solution’ that will do very little to correct the actual problem. Now, the politician looks like the good guy, when he or she has actually impeded progress towards actually solving the problem at hand.

Does this sound familiar? The Republicans did it with the war on terror, the Democrats did it with global warming. Both parties have used the same tactic on countless other issues, and the result is always the same. The public is polarized into two camps, politicans get face time on television, and the issue is never actually solved. This happens time and time again.

So what do you think? Is Global Warming a real problem? Should we be devoting all of our recources to solving it, or just try to change our act a bit to stem any potential future problems? Or should we just not worry about it at all? Do you think politicians are to blame for making it a bigger deal than it really is, or are they the only ones really working to solve the problem?

Let me know what you think.

The Brilliant Mind of Edison Lee - 01.30.07

This comic strip often has a politically-themed punchline, but I rarely find it to be humorous. This particular strip is kind of funny, and it focuses on two things:

- The idea that corporations are only looking out for their own interests and will take advantage of anyone they can without caring one bit about their customers.

- The idea that consumers are so apathetic, they don’t notice or care that the companies are taking advantage of them in this way.

I think there is some truth to both of these ideas, but primarily the second one. Let me explain.

A company’s responsibility is to generate profits, particularly if the company is publicly owned. Obviously, all companies should act in an ethical way. That goes without saying. But to expect the company to be altruistic for no other reason than “to be nice” is a bit much. Some companies choose to be very socially aware, and some choose not to be. Joe consumer can easily support or reprove a company’s actions when the decide where to spend their money.
In a free market, nothing is more important to a company than it’s reputation. With the recent discovery of e. coli in Peter Pan peanut butter, consumers will be wary of that product for years, even though current batches are almost certainly safe. One bad batch of peanut butter will affect the profitability of ConAgra Foods for a very long time, as well it should. Other companies are taking note of the backlash generated here. If customers completely shun ConAgra’s brands, it will send a message to other companies; If you cut corners, and something bad happens, it will affect your profitability for ever.

If consumers simply don’t care, and go back to their normal shopping habits quickly, it will also send a message to other companies; Consumers don’t care enough to change their buying habits, even after hundreds of customers getting sick. There’s little reason to change the status quo.
As far as consumer apathy, I think it’s driven by downright laziness of the American public, not just in and of itself, but also in the desire of regular Joes to rely on the government to watch out for them, so they don’t have to bother being proactive themselves.

Too many times, I’ve heard people tell me how “evil” Walmart is and how the government should crack down on some of their practices, yet the very same people shop at Walmart, drawn in by their low prices. Every one of us has the power of the pocketbook, yet we rarely use it. If you feel strongly about Walmart’s hiring practices/low wages/limited health care/etc. being substandard, don’t shop there! Tell your friends not to shop there, and tell them why they shouldn’t. To just sit back and say “The government should do something about Walmart” is beyond ridiculous.

A corporation’s primary goal is to be profitable. If a company cuts corners in an unethical way to help them reach that goal, punishing them is as easy as taking your business elsewhere. Yet somehow, that’s too hard for most Americans.

It truly amazes me how apathetic Americans have become when it comes to being educated and proactive consumers. They want to rely on the government to regulate every industry for them, so they don’t have to think for themselves. Oftentimes, the regulation does little more than make companies jump through hoops, driving up the cost of goods and services for consumers.

So what do you think? Is consumer apathy making it easy for companies to screw over the American public, or is it allowing the government to regulate us to death? or both? or neither?

Do you think the government should be allowed to dictate how much a company spends on healthcare, or how much they pay employees, or who they hire? If so, do you think the same requirements should apply to small business with 5-10 employees for example? Is there a difference? Why or why not?

Lots of questions. I look forward to your comments.