Laziness

As you may know, I sometimes participate in Yahoo Answers. A user asked a question:

Why are 90% of Americans the size of a blimp?

That question was removed by the administrators, which is puzzling because I have seen far worse questions. But I had answered it before it was removed.

Because contrary to most TV commercials most Americans do *not* have an active lifestyle. In fact, most of the supposed time-saving aspects of our culture (such as microwave dinners) serve not to provide us with more active time, but to guarantee us more leisure time.

Most Americans lead sedentary lives of ease. We are taught from day one to do what is easiest. Any exertion that would set us in front of the crowd is subject to scorn and derision -> Why should that over-achiever make me look bad? We are all about conforming to the lowest common denominator, dragging as many people down with us as possible so that we feel safety in numbers.

Laziness is pervasive in American culture, not only physically, but perhaps more so mentally. Note how many people will get genuinely angry at someone who dares to point out spelling errors. Typos are one thing, but to never learn the difference between "their", "they're" and "there" is laziness at its zenith.

So, while your question is probably meant as a semi-trollish attempt to elicit denials or correct your bad mathematics, it does land close to the mark.

an actual email exchange

At work, our company uses a spam filter to help cut down on junk mail. This email was sent from an outside user to someone inside our company after they discovered our filter had blocked their email. He sent it to the original intended recipient, and cc'ed it to her manager, and the IT distro group.

You need to tell your IT guy to get a life. They seem to be to busy running around trying to justify there own existence playing big brother, and interfering in normal e-mail traffic.
All e-mail that leaves ***** is scanned by Symantec Internet Security (2006 edition).
[name deleted]
[company deleted]
[phone deleted]
--
------ Forwarded Message
From:
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2*** 07:53:50 -0800
To: <*****@*****.com>
Cc: <*****@*****.com>
Subject: Your email message was blocked

The following email message was blocked by MailMarshal:

From: *****@*****.com
To: *****@*****.com
Subject: FW: JUST FOR YOU !!!!!!!!!!!
Message: B438f1c8c0000.000000000001.0001.mml

Because it contains a sound file.

If you believe the message is business related, please contact *****@*****.com and request that the message be released. If no contact is made within 5 days the message will be automatically deleted.

MailMarshal Rule: Content Security (Inbound) : Block SOUND Files

NetIQ MailMarshal
Email Content Security

------ End of Forwarded Message

So I replied to him using our admin account:

From: Administrator
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2*** 9:48 AM
To: *****
Cc: *****
Subject: RE: Your email message was blocked

It would seem that your own company's IT staff have taken certain precautions with emails by using Symantec.

Our company also has certain policies that we follow to protect our users from viruses, worms, trojans, and spam. As you can imagine, we receive a lot of mail and therefore cannot inspect each one ourselves, so we use automation to do so. Certain email types fall into the category that tends to contain the aforementioned threats.

Examples of these types of emails are those that:
contain the text string 'FW:' in the subject
contain multiple exclamation points in the subject
contain a sound file attachment
of course there are many others which, again, is why we use software automation to check our email.

If you feel that discarding some emails is "playing big brother", I suggest that you go for one week disabling your virus software, pop-up blocker, spyware blocker, spam filter, and double click on each and every attachment you receive. Perhaps then you would feel differently about the existence of IT.

If, in fact, your email with the subject of "FW: JUST FOR YOU !!!!!!!!!!!" was "normal e-mail traffic" pertaining to business between ***** and *****, we will be more than happy to release the email from our quarantine.

Mr Sharpton

We all know it.
Al Sharpton is one of the most bigoted people in the world.

The reason that he can get away with it (contrary to the belief of many) is not because of the color of his skin. It is because he is a liberal that he has carte blanche to spout as much vitriol and hate as he wishes and still get a pass from the MSM. It is his ideology, not his race, that allows him to commit the very offenses that would draw swift retribution if uttered from the other side of the thought-spectrum.

Because Romney is a conservative, his religion is a point of discussion. No one seems to give a rip about Harry Reid. Who is Harry Reid you ask? Why, he's the Senate majority leader. You know, the Democrat majority. Oh yeah, and he's a Mormon.

Liberals are some of the most racist, sexist, bigoted hypocrites out there. A liberal thinks that if you are black, you can't take care of yourself. You can't succeed without some sort of help. You can't get into school, find a job, get a decent place to live, buy groceries, or make any important decision on your own. You must have your own community and clubs to belong to, your own awards shows and your own special set of 'leaders', Why? Because without Jesse and Al you wouldn't stand a chance. You are aren't good enough. 'The Man' Would hold you down.

I call BS.

This is treating a group of people like children. Children need the help of adults. They need to be fed, clothed, educated, and nourished emotionally. What happens to an adult when you consistently treat them like a child? You demean them and demoralize them. You take away their dignity and turn them into a dependant.

This is the current state of our welfare system in the United States. There are many people who will enter the welfare system and rise above it. They will work hard and motivate themselves to become independent. On the other hand there are those who will get caught in its seductive web of handouts and programs. Once you enter into the system, they want to keep you in it. You are encouraged to partake of more and more programs, not fewer. The system does not view itself as a stepping stone to betterment, but a way of life to be wallowed in for generations. So the deeper you sink into it, the harder it is to extricate yourself.

But back to the racist liberals. Not only do liberals enjoy dragging a whole segment of our population down into the quagmire of welfare, they treat every black person as if they need their socialist system to get from day to day. The very idea that black people need 'leaders', and affirmative action, and caucuses, and the NAACP's Image Awards makes it seem like being black puts you into some sort of exclusive club. That's: EX-clusive. Isn't that what segregation was all about? Let's flip it around. Suppose there were 'white leaders', and 'white programs' and 'the white caucus' in Congress, and the 'NAAWP White people's awards'.

But wait, you say, there *is* a NAAWP (founded by David Duke former KKK Grand Wizard). So how does the general populace look at this sort of thing, and how would we look at a white guy saying he was a 'white leader'? We would, and do, consider it abhorrent. These KKK guys are racist bigots. Are they concerned with the civil rights of white people, or about advancing white people? No, they exist because they hate black people. Why do they hate black people? Because they have different pigments in their skin.

What was it that Martin Luther King, Jr. said? Something about judging each other on the content of our character? How can this be done if there is constant reminders all around us that our society is hyper-aware of skin color? People of color have risen to positions of great notoriety. Those who are liberal seem to garner the most praise, while those who are conservative are denigrated and mocked in such racist ways that, if coming from a non-liberal person, would be grounds for immediate removal from whatever job they had.

Condoleezza Rice, being a conservative, was outrageously lampooned in political cartoons, and was called an Aunt Jemima by a white radio talk show host in 2004. I just checked that radio station's web page. He still works there. Do you think for one nanosecond that if this same guy had made this same comment about a liberal black woman, that he would have kept his job for three years? Try three minutes.

So there is a double standard out there. Check out Trent Lott's comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday party: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either". Since Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat, Lott's comments obviously meant that he supported Thurmond's position on segregation, and logically it follows that Lott must hate black people. So he was forced to resign his Senate position.

Al Sharpton, on the other hand, can say things like: ". . .I want to make it clear…that we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." This statement was in a demonstration responding to a Jewish man named Harari who owned a business in a building and raised rent on a subtenant's business who happened to be black. The building landlord (The United House of Prayer - one of the largest black landlords on 125th Street) had raised Harari's rent. Sharpton implied that Harari was trying to push out a black business owner because Harari must hate black people. So three months later, a black man storms Harari's business, shoots up the place, set fire to it, and eventually killed himself and seven others. Sharpton denied speaking at any rallies against Harari. But then tapes surfaced proving he had. He responded: "What's wrong with denouncing white interlopers?" If something similar happened after a conservative uttered such things, would not the charge be: "Hate speech leading to the deaths of seven people"? You be the judge.

Sharpton is unapologetic for most of the things he says. Evan after being proved wrong in the Brawly incident. Tawana Brawly falsely accused a former district attorney named Pagones of raping her. It was a terrible tale of abduction, rape, and using feces to write KKK on her. Sharpton said: "We stated openly that Steven Pagones did it. If we're lying, sue us, so we can go into court with you and prove you did it. Sue us—sue us right now." Pagones did sue – for defamation. The whole thing was found out to be a hoax. But only after death threats against him, and threats upon his child. Sharpton was ordered to pay $65K but refused. His friends eventually took up a collection and paid for him. He still refuses to apologize. Says Sharpton: "I did what I believed….They are asking me to grovel. They want black children to say they forced a black man coming out of the hard-core ghetto to his knees….Once you begin bending, it's 'did you bend today?' or 'I missed the apology, say it again.' Once you start compromising, you lose respect for yourself."

This is his attitude. To say whatever he wants and apologize for nothing. He demands apologies and retribution for the slightest hint that someone looked cross-eyed at a liberal person of color. He can incite people to riot, falsely accuse people of the most heinous of crimes, run his festering gob in front of cameras about injustices, and yet he is one of the worst offenders of what he decries.

He and his ilk are parodies of themselves. Unfortunately, they are doing damage to the race relations they pretend to advocate. This is no accident. They make their living on exploiting race disharmony, so it behooves them to continue to stir up hate and discord.

It shows how much of the 'Man' Sharpton turns out to be by encouraging self-destructive behavior and unproductive whining. There's your real news story: Who's holding you back? Who's the Man? Al Sharpton, that's who.

PBS Prejudice and Ignorance

Most of my comments are of a political vein or in relation to human nature, but today I will take a short detour.

As a follow up to my previous entry, and being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I thought I would make a few comments regarding the recent PBS show about my religion.

I admit not watching the entire thing. I actually turned it on halfway through the first night so I don't know what went on in the first hour, but the second hour was what I would consider almost completely anti-Mormon. The only reason an episode like the Mountain Meadows Massacre would be featured for half an hour is to imply that the church itself, and not some rogue members, was responsible for the murders. It offered the idea that the president of the church ordered the killings. It implied that the church members are mindless automatons that will blindly do whatever the church says up to and including murder. Although they did not go so far as to imply it, the insinuation that follows is that mormons are one step away from hijacking jets and flying them into buildings. The last half hour of the first episode was about polygamy. There are a lot of things I could say about this practice, and it is part of church history, but I felt that it was extremely misleading to show contemporary people who practice it. These people do not belong to the church. They probably never were members. It has been over 100 years since anyone in the church has practiced polygamy. Showing people from an offshoot apostate group is simply continuing the misconception that this practice is being done by actual mormons. In my opinion, this was the very reason they were shown. After all, its what people expected to see, so the filmmaker gave them what they wanted. This would be like showing a group of people calling themselves Catholics selling indulgences and persecuting people for saying the earth orbited the sun. Just because they call themselves Catholic and practice something that the Catholic church did hundreds of years ago, doesn't mean they are really Catholic.

The second night I watched even less. I watched for about a total of half an hour. What I saw was an ex-mormon featured prominently. Ask yourself what motive an ex-member of anything might have. Would they be more or less inclined to make their former association look good. The part I watched had her talking about the high council and implying that members are subjected to some sort of inquisition and then unjustly kicked out. Now, as far as I know, the vast majority of members do not ever deal with sitting in front of the high council, and if she had been called in and then excommunicated, it was probably because there was a good reason, and she was unrepentant. I couldn't figure out the reason why she gave a description of the attitude the members of the council had towards her afterwards. She said that they all shook her hand and were impressed with her. Was she saying that even though they were impressed with her they kicked her out for some hidden, sinister reason? Was she calling them hypocrites because she was impressive and yet still got kicked out? Seems to me like the most Christian thing to do after you excommunicate someone is show love towards them.

Anyhow, it reminded me of one of the talking heads shows on CNN: a liberal host, three liberal panelists, and one conservative sitting around a table. Most of the time the one conservative is simply a moderate, or perhaps one who isn't very articulate. One point of view dominates the discussion, while the other is there as a whipping boy made to appear foolish, or at the very best cannot get their entire message out, and the parts they can squeeze in edgewise are rebutted four times with no chance of response.

The parts of "The Mormons" I watched were just like that. A 10 second clip of the current president of the church explaining to the world that polygamy is not practiced by the church and those who are caught are excommunicated. Follow that up with 15 minutes of so-called 'fundamentalists' practicing polygamy. What is the average viewer going to take away? Just what the filmmaker wanted them to.

Maybe I watched all the wrong parts before I couldn't stomach any more. Maybe the parts I didn't watch were glorious endorsements of the majority of the members of the church. Maybe one day I'll catch it on a rerun to see.

---

But as an example of what I am talking about, I want to post the text of an article written by a journalist writing in the Courier-Journal out of Louisville, Kentucky. He talks about Mitt Romney and the PBS show, and gets at least 4 basic facts utterly wrong.

Mormon faith examined in two-night Frontline special
by
Tom Dorsey

Could Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, become America's first Mormon president?

Unless you're a Mormon and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you probably don't know much about Mormons except that they display amazing politeness when they come to your door or stop you on the street.

If you want to know what Mormons believe, and don't believe, check out a two-night, four-hour "Frontline -- American Experience" on KET2. "The Mormons" airs at 9 tonight and tomorrow night.

Many media outlets have said Romney's religion will be his biggest obstacle in getting elected. On the other hand, a lot of people in Massachusetts, who aren't Mormons, voted him into office, so it may be possible to overcome the hurdle as John Kennedy did in becoming the country's first Catholic president.

Romney wouldn't be the first major Mormon figure in American politics, though. Mormons have served in presidential cabinets. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is a Mormon, although the church has been much more identified with the Republican Party than the Democrats.

Four hours is probably too much for most people, but the project is an interesting exploration of what the documentary calls "one of the most compelling and misunderstood religions of our time."

The church was founded in the 19th century by Joseph Smith. He said the prophet Mormon, who lived in the Americas in 4 A.D., was told by God to compile the record of his people and their dealings with God into a book.

His son buried the work and then returned 1,400 years later as an angel telling Smith where to find it in 1827. Smith founded the religion, which had many controversial beliefs, not the least of which was that a man could have many wives.

The film points out that 19th-century Mormons suffered persecution, including the burning of their homes, the raping of their women and the confiscation of their property in Ohio, Illinois and Missouri. After Smith was assassinated in 1844, Brigham Young became their leader.

They later moved to Utah to establish their home base. The church has changed over the last two centuries and especially since World War II, when it began missionary work to expand its message.

The program says it is one of the fast-growing and richest churches in America per capita. Each member must give 10 percent of his or her paycheck to the church. There are close to 13 million Mormons worldwide, most of them in this country.

But Mormons remain a mystery to many of their countrymen and are still treated as outcasts by some out of ignorance. People love to hear the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sing Christmas carols, but church members remain an object of suspicion if not persecution.

Much of their image problem can be traced to plural marriage, which the church officially denounced long ago but which some members still practice. Rules that say only men can be ordained have been a hang-up for feminists, but that's a criticism they share with other faiths. So is their opposition to gay relationships.

The documentary suggests that the Mormon church, like other religions, may have to evolve to remain relevant and to expand while retaining its beliefs and identity.

This is what I expect will be the result of all the media attention given to Mormons. Ignorance on top of ignorance.

There is one thing I ask you. If you have questions about McDonalds, do you ask Burger King?

Depend on news stories, movies, or websites put together by non-members then expect to remain ignorant. If you want to know what mormons really believe, then go to www.mormon.org. If you want to hear about anti-mormon stuff, you'll find it and you will be satisfied because its what you want to hear.

Perspective

Lets pick any group of people and imagine four hours of film devoted to discussing them, but the film was put together by someone on the outside of the group.

For instance, let's say that you wanted to watch a film on American History put together by the Chinese. Ok. . . perhaps the Chinese are more antagonistic towards the US than most countries, so we choose maybe the British or Spain or Mexico. Or maybe the Native Americans. How about we let Canada do it?

See? No matter who is chosen, there will be certain biases brought to the table. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter". Lincoln's decision to send the Grand Army of the Republic to keep the South from seceding can be looked on as triumph of Union, or the death of State's rights.

A filmmaker's point of view will determine which facts they choose and in what light to place them.

Depending on whether you belong to the group or not, you may have differing feelings on an outsider presenting a particular group's culture, characteristics and beliefs. One may argue that in order to get a 'balanced' presentation, an outsider must do it, because in insider will tend to slant things their own way. This is perhaps true in almost all cases, but would not the converse equally be true? Won't an outsider slant things their way as well?

One of the best films I have seen is "Tora! Tora! Tora!" which showed both US and Japanese perspectives of events leading up to the attack of the naval base at Pearl Harbor. We got both points of view from separate film crews headed by US and Japanese directors.

Your point of view determines much of what you get out of a filmed presentation. By that same token, the point of view presented has a lot to do with the personal beliefs and biases that the filmmaker has.

So how do you know if a film presented as fact is actually fact? Consider: (for those of you who are Bible readers) The serpent in the garden told Eve a truth and accompanied it with a lie. Even if you are non-religious, or believe the story to be allegory, you can still see the value in this narrative. We learn that evil will often try to convince you of lies by packaging it alongside truths.

You should be skeptical. The commercials on TV with the Bill-Gates-alike as the "PC", and the younger, hipper kid as the "Mac" are a prime example of what I am talking about. The commercials imply that one of the advantages Macs have over PCs is that they are not susceptible to viruses or programming bugs. One simple search on Norton's product page will show you that they sell antivirus for Mac. Why would they do that if Macs are immune? And programming bugs can hardly be avoided no matter what platform a software is written for. Operating systems crash. It doesn't matter if it's Vista, OSX, some flavor of Linux or BSD, a human wrote it. Humans make mistakes. Humans write bugs into their code. The Mac commercials paint a picture of perfection, while making PCs seem like the stupid or boring choice.

Imagine how biased these films would be:
A Beef industry promo made by vegetarians.
A look at American benevolence made by Al Jazeera.
Taiwan's sovereignty discussed by the Peoples Republic of China.
Anything by Michael Moore

---

Remember that 'facts' can be presented in a myriad of ways. The way things are worded can be in ominous tones or optimistic, the colorization can be washed out or vibrant, the music can be plodding along in a minor key or trip along brightly. Context can be omitted, motives can be implied, statistics can be quoted. A person completely ignorant of a particular subject matter can end up worse than ignorant after watching a skillful lie wrapped in truths. It is done every day on a number of subjects. Global Warming is just one example.

The old adage is true: "Don't believe everything you hear", but perhaps a better way to phrase it would be:

"Don't believe everything you want to hear."