« March 2008 | Main | December 2007 »
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Trouble in River City
Have you ever wondered, as I have, whether we should bill ourselves as a “Christian Nation”? I’m not sure we should. In fact I’m sure we shouldn’t, but for reasons that are generally overlooked by people who care about such things.
It strikes me as passing strange that the majority of people who describe this country as “Christian” are evangelical Christians. You would think that group, judging from all their pious carrying on, would know better. But they don’t seem to. When they do get upset about “unchristian” tendencies in our country the target of their ire is almost always sexual. How much skin is showing, who’s doing what with whom, and so on. I suppose those issues are somewhat important, but remedies for sexual misbehavior are best kept to the realm of family and church. As a nation that is trying to be “Christian” we have much bigger fish to fry.
Here’s the thing. We have fundamental problems in trying to be a “Christian Nation”. The church has taught for centuries that there are seven “deadly” sins. These sins, if indulged in regularly, will make any serious spiritual progress very difficult. They are, in no particular order, Greed, Lust, Gluttony, Pride, Sloth, Envy, and Anger. Our economy is parasitically dependent on the science/art of advertising and marketing. Those disciplines strive, not to let us know where we can fulfill our material needs, but to convince us that we can fulfill our spiritual needs with material goods. To do this, they (marketers) regularly appeal to our Greed, Lust, Gluttony, Pride, Sloth and Envy. The only deadly left out is Anger, and any number of right wing talk show hosts take care of that oversight on a discouragingly consistent basis.
So, if your economy depends on violation of you most serious precepts for its ongoing prosperity, how “Christian” can it be? Now there’s an unchristian tendency worth getting upset about.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Gas on the fire?
Am I the only one who thinks that the “economic stimulus package” presently plowing its’ way through congress is a bad idea? I know, I know. Recession looms and our fearless leaders have to be seen as “doing something” about it. Republicans want to stimulate the economy because they don’t want to get to the November election with half the country out of work. Democrats will go along because they can’t afford (in November) to be seen as the party that blocked the “stimulus package” if half the country’s out of work.
It seems to me that the coming recession is the result of lots of factors, principal among them, our huge federal deficit. Our fearless leaders (fiscally responsible republicans all) insist on spending billions more than we have. In the seven years of their most recent reign our federal debt has risen from $ 5.7 Trillion to $9.7 Trillion! In the more immediate picture, the situation that has precipitated the present crisis is that many of us have taken out loans we can’t afford, and bankers, who should know better, have gleefully lent us the money! Again, spending money we don’t have.
The solution our “leaders” come up with? ‘Let’s spend $150 billion more (that we don’t have) and that will make it all better.’ Well…… it may stave off recession long enough to get the bozos re-elected, but in the end, it’s pouring gas on the fire. The saddest part of all this is that the bulk of this deficit bill will be with our children, and grandchildren, for a long long time.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Marketing Department Run Amok
There I was, minding my own business, watching a little mindless TV, and this advertisement appears. Evidently I need to buy a something or other pill so that my digestive tract will become that of a small baby, as apposed to that of a 61 year old--no longer small--man. The catch is I can only get the holy pill via a doctors prescription. So now I’m left in the position of scheduling a visit to the doctor, so I can tell him what’s the mater with me, and further aid the poor old soul by telling him what medication he should prescribe!
I wondered how this scheme could possibly work for the drug company that makes the pills in question until I read that they’ve been simultaneously working on my doctor to prescribe the same pills. In fact, it seems that in 2005 the various drug companies spent $7 billion (yes billion with a B) paying their representatives to visit doctors all the while pushing the latest and best the druggies have to offer. When the visits were over they (the drug company reps) left $18 billion worth of free samples of the aforesaid latest and best as added inducement to use the stuff.
My question is two-fold. In the first place what has any of this high-priced lobbying got to do with maintaining my health? I would hope that my doctor knows more about what's actually wrong with me than I do. That’s why I go to a doctor in the first place. I also hope that my doctor has enough professional self respect to prescribe the most effective and safest medication available; even if the drugs turn out to be generic (I’m not made of money you know). My second question is; do you suppose that this kind of marketing run amok might have something to do with the obscenely high cost of health care? Just a thought.
