In September, 2005, I traveled to London to attend a conference. While in London, I visited Westminster Abbey. Bury Darwin: A Deep Dive into the Historical and Political Context It is hard to imagine a place more rich in history--there was so much to see. But I made sure that I took the…
Mark Foley is a political whore, like most of his elected peers in Washington, DC. Yes, this post is yet another plea for radical campaign finance reform.
Our country appears to be going down the tubes and for the most part it is not because of perverts like Mark Foley are trying to seduce young boys. The reason we are really in trouble is because hundreds of elected officials (Mark Foley among them) are perverting our Constitution by acquiescing in our corrupt (though technically legal) election system.
How often do you hear a politician discussing an issue in a way that makes intuitive sense to you and seems straightforward? Not very often, in my experience. Almost all political conversations emanating from DC are contorted by money. That is why very little political dialogue makes sense to those who are not closely monitoring the flow of contributions. The result is that we the citizens are getting is a steady stream of legislation geared toward helping big contributors (mostly big companies) at the expense of individual citizens.
Today, Salon.com featured an article about Mark Foley, a known sex pervert. Foley has also been busy perverting our electoral system (as have most other elected federal officials) by taking big money from corporate interests and working hard to reward those contributors. Since Foley himself happened to be in the news already, Salon.com made him today’s poster boy in an article demonstrating that political/financial quid pro quo is alive and well.
The Salon.com story …
What have they done with the word “simple”? It appears that they have corrupted “simple” to the point that it means the opposite of what it used to mean (They also done this to the words “essential” and “needs”). Why do I say this?
Just Google the phrase “simple living” or “living simply.” You’ll see many websites preaching the virtues of living “simply.” Many of these “simple living” websites tell us how to re-organize our massive amounts of stuff or how to spend our money wisely when we buy more stuff. Some simple living sites recognize that many of us have many times more stuff than we need. Relatively few sites sternly warn us that our culture blinds us to the fact that most of what we own, possess or desire is frivolous and unnecessary.
Many preachers of simple living fail to focus on a distinction I was taught in grade school: needs versus wants. I was taught that needs are things you truly can’t do without. In this category I would put a toothbrush, a pair of simple shoes and an outfit of clothing not suitable for “showing off.” How much more than that? For a long time, I have struggled to find a good definition for “needs.” Here’s my best shot for now: imagine that floodwaters are rising and that you have one hour to save only the most important things out of your house by placing them into one subcompact car. Those things are your needs. Everything …
With the obesity epidemic at its current rate, we can easily conclude that a lot of people have a lot of truly excellent excuses not to eat properly and exercise. In my experience, two particular excuses take the cake, so to speak: "I don't have time" and "I can't afford…
I recently spoke with a friend who was having difficulty making a major decision in his life. I suggested to him that he might be struggling because he is a talented fellow who might therefore have too many options.
After we concluded our conversation, I recalled reading a well-written book called the Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less (2004), by Barry Schwartz. This delightful book incorporates many findings of cognitive science and the psychology of decision-making. His main point is, indeed, paradoxical:
As the number of available choices increases, as it has in our consumer culture, the autonomy, control and liberation this variety brings are powerful and positive. But as the number of choices keeps growing, negative aspects of having a multitude of options begin to appear. As the number of choices grows further, the negatives escalate until we become overloaded. At this point, choice no longer liberates, but debilitated. It might even be said to tyrannize.
When Schwartz speaks of tyranny, he reminds us that we live in a society in which you can find paralyzing members of choices even at the supermarket. Why is it that we need 16 types of instant mashed potatoes, 75 types of instant gravies, 120 different types of pastas sauce 16 versions of Italian dressing, 275 types of serial and 64 formulas of barbecue sauce? We face similar numbers of choices when we choose retirement plans, medical care, careers, where to live and who to be.
Modern society has done this to …