"Deserving"

I’ve railed a few times here about the lack of compassion people feel toward those less well-off than themselves. The perception that social programs like welfare are simply enabling people who are otherwise perfectly capable of getting and holding a job is common. If not for welfare, those same people would get off their duffs and get jobs and become productive members of our society.

Reagan began this latest war on welfare and the poor back in the ‘80s by planting the idea that there were lots of people who were gaming the system and using tax dollars to buy steaks and drive expensive cars. “Cadillac queens,” he called them, convincing a nation that they were being played for a fool. 

No, that's not Mumbai, that's Detroit

 Let’s forget race for a moment and just concentrate on the people. Welfare was created to help those who lacked the fundamental abilities needed to hold a job[1]. Without getting into skills (which are things you learn), what are those abilities? Two come immediately to mind:

1.       Ability to be subordinate (without losing pride)

2.       Ability to take satisfaction in doing a good job

Yes, those are in order of importance. You may never have considered these as abilities, but I assure you that you will never be able to keep an entry-level job, especially in this economy, without both of them.

If you’re really poor, chances are that you’ve been treated poorly, and you probably don’t like it too much. One of the requirements of any entry-level job is that you’re able to take massive amounts of crap from someone who sees you as a necessary evil and a tool. You’ll be condescended to, pushed around, and told to do things you really, really don’t want to do. And all for the least amount of money the law allows. This is how work starts for most everyone and it's hard for anyone. If you can’t pass this level, you’ll never advance to Level 2.

The reason taking pride in your work is so vital is that it will be your only motivator for most of your entry-level career. You’re probably not going to be paid commission, or given a promotion or pay raise in a reasonable amount of time, and you’re probably not going to get a lot of positive feedback. So what’s going to keep you coming back day after day to a job that pays you less than welfare?

If you have those things, good for you.  You’ll probably do really well, at least on Level 1 of the world of work. But where did you get those abilities? Were they instilled in you by parents who role-modeled those behaviors? Or were they simply a gift, given to you in a toolbox handed to you at birth?

Many people think they worked for these abilities. Nonsense. They were either given to you as part of your genetic makeup or they were drilled into you by people who knew you’d need them. The idea that you chose them and worked for them shows a drive that can only be innate.

What if you never had that? What if your parents never knew how to give that to you because their parents never gave it to them? This, friends, is the cycle of poverty. If you’re not stuck in it, thank your god or your parents, but you did not work for those abilities, and you did not choose them. They were given to you.

Pride, intelligence, perseverance, creativity, communicativeness, assertiveness, drive, competitiveness--these are the things that have allowed you to succeed, and they were all given to you. They are gifts, and they are necessary to acquire any of the skills you need to do anything professionally rewarding or worthwhile.

Do you honestly think you owe those less fortunate nothing?  Are you so selfish that you believe that you deserve your lot in life and that they deserve theirs?

---

[1] For the sake of this article, let’s assume we’re talking about people who are mentally and physically fit.

The Reason for God

A few years ago, when I was working to figure out my views on faith, religion, and God, I heard about Pastafarianism. This is a gag dreamed up by atheists who wanted to thumb their noses at the notion of God. Their deity was the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the most ridiculous mascot the atheists could come up with.

The problem with this is that all they really did was rename God. Buddha, Ala, Yahweh--a god by any other name still serves the same purpose. The details change, the appearance of His earthly presence reflects the cultures He inhabits, but in all cases God, through the prism of religion, provides some really important things, especially for primitive cultures.

The basics for any religion must address three things:

1.       Structure

2.       Consequences

3.       Understanding

Structure (laws, rules)

Is it okay to murder someone? Rape another man’s wife? Steal? All religions offer guidance on these issues, which we now think of as moral issues. But thousands of years ago, there was no central and agreed-upon set of morals. Before civilization, murder, indiscriminate sex, and theft were called survival skills. Religion came along and said, “Look, if we’re going to live together, we’re going to need everyone to live by some basic rules.” I imagine that lots of people said, “Says who?” What better authority than an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing (but invisible) God.

Consequences (justice)

So what if you break some of these nifty new rules that were designed to keep the peace? Law enforcement wasn’t exactly a refined science then, and most people got away with just about anything. Unless you were caught standing over a body, with the bloody knife in your hands, there really wasn’t any way to prove you did anything. So most people were above man’s law.

But what if the invisible man who knew and saw everything, and had infinite powers, was going to get back at you after you died? Death was no longer an escape, but a time when all of your bad deeds would be tallied up and you were charged accordingly. Might you behave differently then?

Just when you thought a life filled with misery, pain, and struggle was coming to an end, you were going to be punished in ways you could never have imagined. God provided a sense of justice to societies completely unable to provide it on their own.

Reason and understanding for the incomprehensible

This is familiar territory for me, so I don’t want to spend much more time on it, but we, as a race, have an innate need to understand things. What causes volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tornados? Thousands of years ago the knowledge about such things was so far out of reach that there was really nowhere to put questions about it but the God Bucket. Things in the Bucket, religion tells us, are things we needn’t worry about and needn’t understand. Well, that’s a relief.

I guess my point is that there’s a reason so many religions are so similar: they all fulfilled the same purpose. They provided things necessary for a society to exist and for people to coexist by implanting the idea that there were unseen and powerful forces at work and that He knows when you’ve been sleeping, He knows when you’re awake, and He knows when you’ve been bad or good.

So be good, for goodness sake.

Auto Erotica OR: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Kia Optima

Let me say up front that I’ve only had my car for a few days and about 150 miles, but I researched the purchase for months before pulling the trigger and have owned enough cars to have opinions I consider worthwhile. Then again, doesn’t everyone think that?

I'm an avid reader of customer reviews for pretty much everything I buy and I find them to be an interesting study of human behavior, particularly when it comes to reaction to adversity. In addition to being influenced by a variety of things, including personal experience, age, and expectations, reviews are where peoples' true colors really shine through. If two people have a problem, and it was handled with a return or repair, one person might compliment the company for handling the problem so efficiently. Another might look at things differently, saying, "DO NOT BUY! THIS IS THE WORST THING IN THE UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Like I said, reactions to experiences vary. 

Of course then there's the other side of the coin: those who want to convince you that this is the greatest ________ on the planet because that would validate their decision to buy one. They apparently get bonus points or a commission or something if they convince you to buy one too. 

And then there are the expectations. What were you expecting going into this purchase? Having come from the retail side of business I can tell you that peoples' expectations of the world's cheapest anything are often comically out of whack. 

So, let's apply some common sense expectations to my review of the 2011 Kia Optima. Is the Kia Optima quiet? Does it have a smooth ride? How’s the gas mileage? Compared to what? 

I traded in a 2003 Honda Accord EX-L V6 with 73k miles on it, so my experience with this car will be colored by that. I was also considering the Hyundai Sonata Limited and the Ford Fusion. My experiences with the Optima are also going to be shaped by my experiences with those cars. But I was NOT considering a Jaguar or Lexus, and I didn’t trade in a Mercedes.

I bring this up to provide context for my review and maybe to thumb my nose at people who say that they have been unhappy with the Optima because it wasn’t as quiet/smooth/powerful/whatever as their last car, which cost twice as much.

I opted for the Optima knowing that, compared to both the Fusion and the Sonata, it had a firmer ride and was less quiet. But both of those things connect you to the road, which is a good thing for a car that’s supposed to be sporty, even if not a sports car.

But compared to my Accord, it is far quieter, and the ride is firm but controlled. I will say that the steering that so many have complained about truly does lack feel. I didn’t think it would bother me, and it doesn’t most of the time, but the first time you take on a winding road, you get why that matters. So that’s a genuine negative for me, but not a deal-breaker.

I was also concerned about the blind spot created by the wide C-pillar. I needn’t have been. The car has larger-than-I’m-used-to side mirrors and visibility out the side windows is just fine.

The engine is a bit rougher than the V6 in my beloved Accord, but that's typical for a four, and the power truly is adequate. I opted to not get the turbo because power off the line is more important to me, and although the turbo would have given me more total horsepower, out-of-the-gate power would have suffered for the smaller engine.

The engine uses a gas direct-injection technology that boosts power and improves mileage. The Optima and its sister the Hyundai Sonata claim they'll get 24/34, which is excellent for cars this size. But I suspect that was achieved with the Eco mode on. I'll explain. 

Look on the steering wheel and you'll find a button marked "Eco." Press that and the engine seems to become a bit more sluggish, and the transmission shifts a good deal sooner than it would normally. This, of course, is designed to make the car more fuel efficient. It also serves to take all the fun out of driving. Fortunately, I'm not always looking to have fun, and there is a very big part of me that loves to save money, which this does. Just yesterday I gave the car its first full tank of gas and I'll be curious to see what kind of numbers I can get out of it. 

Of course no review of the Optima would be complete without some mention of the styling and the value. Both of which, I believe, will make it a contender on a level that not even Kia could have predicted.

The body is beautiful enough to make a supermodel jealous, and I firmly believe that in stark contrast to the Sonata, the styling will stand the test of time. It’s sculpted and muscular and makes you feel more attractive just driving it. Or is that just me? 

As for the features, I got an EX with every toy but the turbo for under $25k. That’s a fantastic value no matter how you look at it, and it’s less than I paid for my Accord nine years ago. Below you'll find some of the more notable features in my ride: 

Navigation: I really bought this less for the navigation than the ability to control everything from the sound system to my phone on a large touchscreen. It was way worth it. 

Panoramic sunroof: I didn't actually want this, but Kathie loves it and I'm sure there will be summer evenings when I'll enjoy it too. 

Heated/cooled seats: I've had a few cars with heated seats, but this one has heated rear seats. And then there's the crotch cooler. I've tried the cooling function a few times now and I have to say that I think I'll really enjoy it when it's warm outside. 

Heated steering wheel: Yep. I'll just let you stew on that one for a bit. 

Memory seats: This is a new one for me. On the driver's side door, there are two buttons. Press button 1 and the driver's seat moves to the position I have chosen. Press button 2, Kathie's profile, and the seat back moves up, the seat moves toward the steering wheel, it rises . . . I think there are nine adjustments that can be customized, and this remembers just how you like 'em all. 

USB input: This one's my favorite, and it's one of the big reasons I got the Technology Package. Since the car has a USB input, I bought an 8GB thumb drive and loaded it up with all my favorite music. Now I can play anything, anytime, all controlled through the touchscreen display. Who needs a CD changer?

This is a seriously good car. It’s not perfect, but if you’re looking for a car that’s both practical and just a little fun to drive, this is seriously good.

Crocodile Fat

A few years ago it was all the rage for pretty, thin talkshow hosts to put on a fat suit and go out in public to better understand how differently (badly) fat people were treated. Former supermodel and current whack-job Tyra Banks did it, and there were a slew of others around the same time who chose this path to easy ratings greater understanding.

Forgive me for being a tad snide about this, but while these stunts make for good publicity, they do absolutely nothing to increase understanding what overweight people actually feel.

The problem is that there are a couple levels to this. Let’s call them internal and external.

I think dressing up in a fat suit to experience discrimination first hand is probably admirable. You’ll see that you’re invisible to the opposite sex, looked at with distain by most, and treated rudely by people who think of you as weak and unworthy of consideration.

But I imagine that the people watching these shows, and those thin people pretending to be fat, must be thinking some version of this:

Man, being fat is really hard. I’m out of breath, my legs and joints hurt, and people aren’t treating me with the respect and deference I’m used to. Why in the world would anyone do this to themselves?

I’m pretty sure about that sentiment because that’s what I would say if I were forced to be ridiculed as a drug addict, alcoholic, or gambling addict. Why are you throwing away your family and your life? Stop it!

Today we add a new wrinkle: a personal trainer has deliberately gained 70 pounds so he can empathize with his overweight clients. I’m betting that he’s dying to stop eating like that, and he can’t wait to get the weight off. It probably goes against every impulse to eat the way he’s been. He said as much in a recent interview:

"It’s been very tough physically, mentally and emotionally to let myself go like this. The first couple of months were the hardest. I felt like I was going through withdrawals, just like any other addiction. I was jealous seeing people running, going to the gym, and being in shape."

And therein lies the problem.

He will understand his clients’ physical challenges better, and he has probably gotten a pretty good idea of how being fat changes the way people perceive and treat you, but he will always lack that one last piece of the puzzle, the one thing that would help him understand why his clients are fat.

Sadly, he’ll have his 15 minutes of fame, and may even be able to parlay that into wealth through a book deal, TV show, or public speaking engagements--all made possible by people who think he understands them. In reality, he only understands why they really should buy his book.

 -Doug

Corporations Are People Too

Mitt Romney got a lot of press for saying this to a crowd recently, but it reflects not only a growing sentiment, but a recent Supreme Court ruling as well.

Romney explained his comment by saying that corporations are made up of people, so of course they’re people. Like so many things coming from the festering gob of the Right these days, that makes perfect sense …for about three seconds.

At the fourth second, you realize that there are three major problems with this thinking:

1)   The people who make up these corporations already get a vote. Why are they voting again?

2)   Corporations have the power and money to exert more influence than nearly any individual, thereby overriding the wishes of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people.

3)   Political decisions made by corporations aren’t made by the people who make up the corporations, but by the people who control the corporations. That’s a really significant difference that drastically changes priorities.

 The job of the decision makers in a company are decidedly myopic, with a laser focus on sales, output, and profits. Maybe that’s as it should be--shareholders think so--but that perspective (responsibility?) will severely skew your views on a wide range of issues, like:

• Health care: Should companies pay more to offer their people better coverage?
• Pollution: Should companies spend a little more to reduce CO2 emissions?
• Minimum wage: Should companies offer their workers a livable salary?
• Unions: Should companies allow workers to band together to improve working conditions?
• Safer working conditions: Should companies be required to provide better training and equipment to reduce workplace injuries?[1]

 I think we all know how a company’s workers would vote on these issues, but how about the companies? Would their millions go to a candidate who supported these issues, or one who opposed them?

 And how much money will the employees, the working people, of these companies be able to contribute to counteract the efforts of their employers?

 If companies are people, shouldn’t racecars be allowed to run the 100-yard dash? I mean, there’s a person driving it, right? It all makes perfect … hey, wait a minute. 

---

[1] You might argue that companies would support this, but that actually bolsters my point, since avoiding workplace injuries reduces downtime, worker compensation claims, and training costs.