Today I heard the first musings of "the start of the holiday season," and I accordingly felt the first pangs of being pissed off at it. Having been at college for four years, I've heard plenty about how much the so-called season, as it stands, sucks. I've also heard people tell me why it sucks, and most explanations centered around a hatred of corporate America. I'm always the one to say, "It's not the corporations but the consumers; they're the ones who actually buy that junk."
Still, I get pissed off. But in my case, it's precisely because I really like Christmas. Sure, the incessant ads and promos irritate me, but the truth is that I don't like being bored of Christmas before December 1. And that's what happens. So I may as well wish the world a merry Christmas while the sentiment lasts.
Merry Christmas.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Discrimination Frenzy
The word "discrimination" has driven the American people into so blind a rage that they've mostly forgotten its real meaning.
Two definitions from dictionary.com (link):
Listening to WNYC just a few minutes ago, I heard a story about a man in Georgia who was convicted of aggravated assault and sent to prison. The man was wheelchair-bound, and as his cell lacked facilities for people of his category, such as grab bars, he claims to have sit in his own waste for days and to have been left to sleep in his wheelchair for weeks. Accordingly, he sued (I don't recall the defendant - most likely the prison, the prison system, or the state). Having lost his case in lower courts, he appealed to the US Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it.
The man's lawyer made a public statement which WNYC aired, in which he claimed that the behavior of his client's captors constituted discrimination solely on the basis of disability.
This is bullshit.
The very problem in this situation is failure to discriminate: the disabled man was afforded a cell identical to those of other inmates and was treated in exactly the same manner. The essence of his argument is - or should be - that the state must treat people of his category (those in wheelchairs) differently than people capable of walking, and that they failed to do so.
Thanks to the discrimination frenzy, however, a man claiming not to have been the subject of discrimination would be dismissed as a lunatic or a racist. So he's gotta make the opposite claim, when the details of his case clearly make it false.
In the lawyer's defense, the laws themselves may be at fault. But if they are written such that organizations not granting special treatment to the disabled are guilty of "discrimination", then they too are children of the frenzy.
The moral of the story: Discrimination is not, by itself, bad. It's often necessary and proper, even good. Other examples: elite universities discriminating on the basis of intelligence; employers discriminating on the basis of skill; certain magazines discriminating on the basis of gender; liquor stores discriminating on the basis of age; and consumers discriminating on the basis of price. There are comparatively few forms of discrimination that one should consider bad.
Perhaps, this has turned into a rant. Sorry.
For the record, I hope this guy wins his case, but not on the basis of these bullshit laws and his lawyer's bullshit claims. The specifics of his incarceration do constitute cruel and/or unusual punishment, which the constitution prohibits (8th Amendment). I'm no lawyer, and the legal system does not always abide by the rules of logic, but this is how I believe the Court will ultimately rule, though not in such simple terms.
Two definitions from dictionary.com (link):
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.An example:
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice...
Listening to WNYC just a few minutes ago, I heard a story about a man in Georgia who was convicted of aggravated assault and sent to prison. The man was wheelchair-bound, and as his cell lacked facilities for people of his category, such as grab bars, he claims to have sit in his own waste for days and to have been left to sleep in his wheelchair for weeks. Accordingly, he sued (I don't recall the defendant - most likely the prison, the prison system, or the state). Having lost his case in lower courts, he appealed to the US Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it.
The man's lawyer made a public statement which WNYC aired, in which he claimed that the behavior of his client's captors constituted discrimination solely on the basis of disability.
This is bullshit.
The very problem in this situation is failure to discriminate: the disabled man was afforded a cell identical to those of other inmates and was treated in exactly the same manner. The essence of his argument is - or should be - that the state must treat people of his category (those in wheelchairs) differently than people capable of walking, and that they failed to do so.
Thanks to the discrimination frenzy, however, a man claiming not to have been the subject of discrimination would be dismissed as a lunatic or a racist. So he's gotta make the opposite claim, when the details of his case clearly make it false.
In the lawyer's defense, the laws themselves may be at fault. But if they are written such that organizations not granting special treatment to the disabled are guilty of "discrimination", then they too are children of the frenzy.
The moral of the story: Discrimination is not, by itself, bad. It's often necessary and proper, even good. Other examples: elite universities discriminating on the basis of intelligence; employers discriminating on the basis of skill; certain magazines discriminating on the basis of gender; liquor stores discriminating on the basis of age; and consumers discriminating on the basis of price. There are comparatively few forms of discrimination that one should consider bad.
Perhaps, this has turned into a rant. Sorry.
For the record, I hope this guy wins his case, but not on the basis of these bullshit laws and his lawyer's bullshit claims. The specifics of his incarceration do constitute cruel and/or unusual punishment, which the constitution prohibits (8th Amendment). I'm no lawyer, and the legal system does not always abide by the rules of logic, but this is how I believe the Court will ultimately rule, though not in such simple terms.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Creating and Adding Value
This is the key to making $$$, no? The one common way to create value is to do what your boss tells you to do, if you have a job, as I soon will. But there are many more interesting ways to do so. For instance, I could add Google AdSense to this blog, and in 40-50 years I'd have the $100 balance necessary to receive payment. But what else?
This has preoccupied my mind for the last 5-10 minutes. It's not about the money; in fact, I really just want to display some entrepreneurial creativity.
This has preoccupied my mind for the last 5-10 minutes. It's not about the money; in fact, I really just want to display some entrepreneurial creativity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)