I think I need insurance for my health insurance. I need to pay a third party to step in and help out in case the rates for my individual policy keep climbing to exorbitant levels despite me being in perfect helth. Oh, and also for the fact that should something disastrous happen, my current provider could drop me like a bad habit because I'm not on a group plan.
When I questioned the representative why my rates keep going up despite my good health and lack of claims, she informed me that they have to compensate for "all the claims being made." Wait, I thought this was my individual insurance. If I don't get the benefits of a group plan, why do I need to be a part of the draw backs?
She went on to explain that they are a "not for profit" organization. Interesting, I think we may have found the root of the problem. Are we not in a capitalist society? Maybe if they were trying to "make a profit" their services would make sense and they would treat customers with respect.
28.7.09
US Soccer Tickets
The U.S. will be playing El Salvador in a World Cup 2010 Qualifying match at Rio Tinto Stadium on September 5th. If you are interested in getting good seats before they go on sale to the public, comment or email me before Thursday. It is a truly amazing sports experience. The passion, speed of play, and technical ability displayed in these games is second to none.
22.7.09
Confronting Superficiality with Superficiality
First off, I'm pleasantly surprised with the response from my first philosophy post. It spurred some very interesting discussion and insight. Who knew weeds would stir up such varied and interesting thoughts? I hope the discussion continues, and I hope to post some more ideas over the next little while.
I came across an ad the other day for a new reality series by FOX called More to Love. Apparently, it is basically "The Bachelor" with the exciting twist that everyone on the show (including the bachelor and all the contestents) is substantially overweight. The advertisement kept using the phrase "real women" as it showed generic show clips of talking heads, romantic moments, drama, etc.
It really bothered me, and it took me a minute to figure out why. I don't have anything against people who are overweight, but there was something fundamentally wrong with the message. They were attempting to confront superficiality while being completely superficial. For a show that's trying to play the "beauty lies within" card, why would the first requirement of any contestant be body type? Because someone eats too much and doesn't exercise enough, they are a more genuine and "real" person than someone who takes good care of their body? What does that say about me? I am underweight according to doctor's height and weight charts, does that mean I am an exceptionally fake person? (Don't answer.)
FOX, you got this dead wrong. The show may turn out to be a hit (it probably will), but it is clearly sending the wrong message. I wonder if the producers at FOX are really that naive to miss the huge flaws in the show's concept. I tend to think there is a target audience they are feeding with the kind of things they want to hear. Despite their pretensions, I don't think the producers really care what they are conveying as long as people watch. What do you think? Am I wrong here? Am I overly sensitive as an underweight person?
I came across an ad the other day for a new reality series by FOX called More to Love. Apparently, it is basically "The Bachelor" with the exciting twist that everyone on the show (including the bachelor and all the contestents) is substantially overweight. The advertisement kept using the phrase "real women" as it showed generic show clips of talking heads, romantic moments, drama, etc.
It really bothered me, and it took me a minute to figure out why. I don't have anything against people who are overweight, but there was something fundamentally wrong with the message. They were attempting to confront superficiality while being completely superficial. For a show that's trying to play the "beauty lies within" card, why would the first requirement of any contestant be body type? Because someone eats too much and doesn't exercise enough, they are a more genuine and "real" person than someone who takes good care of their body? What does that say about me? I am underweight according to doctor's height and weight charts, does that mean I am an exceptionally fake person? (Don't answer.)
FOX, you got this dead wrong. The show may turn out to be a hit (it probably will), but it is clearly sending the wrong message. I wonder if the producers at FOX are really that naive to miss the huge flaws in the show's concept. I tend to think there is a target audience they are feeding with the kind of things they want to hear. Despite their pretensions, I don't think the producers really care what they are conveying as long as people watch. What do you think? Am I wrong here? Am I overly sensitive as an underweight person?
14.7.09
Argument for the Exsistence of God: Part 1
I posted the other day about wanting to explore some philosophical/metaphysical ideas. Then, I realized that I don't have any time to research to support my writing so I thought I would take a more simplified and sometimes comical approach to the subjects. In the time since, I have come up with a pretty strong and simple argument for the existence of God.
First, I'll start with a definition of Evil. Evil describes someone or something that is morally reprehensible, completely selfish, causing harm or destruction.
To find a perfect, tangible example of evil, one must only walk out his or her front door. Somewhere nearby there exists a weed. A plant whose entire existence is self serving, destructive, and reprehensible. Anyone with any experience gardening would have a hard time arguing in behalf of any redeeming qualities of weeds.
From here it is easy. We have tangible and irrefutable evidence of the existence of evil. Evil can not exist without good, just as darkness cannot exist without light. Else what is darkness? The ultimate goal of evil things is to administer pain and misery to our existence. Good seeks
to uplift and bring joy to our existence.
Here's where the discussion kicks in. Is it enough at this point in the argument to say that God exists? We've established tangible physical evidence that evil exists, therefore can we deduce that tangible physical good must exist? Does this argument require an "earthy" example of something that is completely good in opposition to the complete evil that weeds represent, or can we argue that God is the tangible, ultimate good?
First, I'll start with a definition of Evil. Evil describes someone or something that is morally reprehensible, completely selfish, causing harm or destruction.
To find a perfect, tangible example of evil, one must only walk out his or her front door. Somewhere nearby there exists a weed. A plant whose entire existence is self serving, destructive, and reprehensible. Anyone with any experience gardening would have a hard time arguing in behalf of any redeeming qualities of weeds.
From here it is easy. We have tangible and irrefutable evidence of the existence of evil. Evil can not exist without good, just as darkness cannot exist without light. Else what is darkness? The ultimate goal of evil things is to administer pain and misery to our existence. Good seeks
to uplift and bring joy to our existence.
Here's where the discussion kicks in. Is it enough at this point in the argument to say that God exists? We've established tangible physical evidence that evil exists, therefore can we deduce that tangible physical good must exist? Does this argument require an "earthy" example of something that is completely good in opposition to the complete evil that weeds represent, or can we argue that God is the tangible, ultimate good?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)