RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
scottmil's comments:
on Finding Work
Yes, I have noticed this. It seems the more religious you are, the better chance you have at getting the job or the contract. I have come in contact with many businesses, in the last several years, that all seem to be networked through their churches. I find this very unsettling, but it must be working for them. Now we have a whole new form of discrimination to worry about. Not to mention all the Jesus fishes I have seen on the marketing materials of small businesses.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Finding Work
I have a feeling that a lot of the wrong people are the ones that end up getting the jobs. The biggest liars and fakers are the ones that get hired first. Really, you have to sell yourself out and pander to the stupidity of people in HR, and the lame power hungry managers, to ever get hired. If everyone is such an insider and such an expert on the ‘science of HR’ then what is the point anymore? We just end up back where we started, hiring blindly, or hiring people that smile the most in the interview, and are the best at conversation, which rarely equates to their ability to perform on the job.
All this how-to-market-yourself smut is disgusting. All these programs and services teaching people how to be the best liars they can be----way to go! The idea that people applaud this approach and think it is sophisticated and intelligent is even more disturbing. Everyone is so entitled, from the people doing the hiring to the people getting hired. I feel sorry for anyone having to look for a job in this slick rat race we have created. My heart especially breaks for older people having to look for work, I don’t know how they stand a chance. There is no room for error or difference anywhere. We have all this technology and all these ways to locate the best rat for our companies, but few things are really improving, employees aren’t improving, they are just learning how to look the part.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Health Care Changes
There is a free market in medicine and isn’t that one of the main problems with it? From the human side it is a necessity, but from the economic, business side, it is managed like a for-profit luxury. That intersection, is exactly, the problem. The inherent function of medicine is not one that works entirely well under a free market exactly because one cannot generally shop around for it, so the free market is, indeed, free to function as it likes, but we are not inherently free to have the luxury of shopping around for services that our lives might depend on. Essentially the economics of medicine are so free that they had the power to get rid of our choices, just like you can ‘democratically’ vote in a dictator. The characteristics of what medical care is, that it is a service, not a product, and what it means to us, inherently make it incompatible with a free unregulated market, because we are too desperately enslaved to going on living.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Health Care Changes
No it is not, I believe, some plans will cover these services. I find it to be at odds, that many of the same people that advocate a moral responsibility for people to ‘get healthy’, also advocate alternative medicine that is often not evidenced-based. I think it sets a poor example and waters down the message---using science when it suits them, especially when it suits their ideology of blaming others, but then not applying the same scrutiny to their own actions, because they want to continue to believe in their own ironic myths.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Health Care Changes
Another way we can save money on the consumer’s end is by restricting coverage of non-evidence-based medicine. It is absurd to cover services that are not clinically shown to be effective. Perhaps, this is also part of the consumer’s irresponsibility that everyone likes to talk about, such as all these people who visit Naturopaths and Chiropractors. How did something as faith-based as religion ever manage to get covered under some insurance plans? This is not progress.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Health Care Changes
Say everyone gets all healthy by shopping at Food Front what difference is this going to make to the actual costs of healthcare? Well, insurance companies may have to put out less money for services, and they will make more money, but are they going to start lowering the rates? All these methods seem to address is how insurance companies can save money. But they don’t directly address the costs themselves. They simply put the burden of efficiency on the consumer.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Health Care Changes
We need to find a way for health-care itself, or for the specific medical services, to cost less. It is so tiresome to hear over and over again about all the irresponsible people allegedly costing everyone so much money. This is the primary cost-cutting method that everyone seems to talk about, it is generally represented as the entire problem. I understand the reasoning behind it, and that some of this kind of efficiency is necessary, but it is certainly not the whole problem, and probably not even half of the problem. I have to assume this focus is because many reformers work in the industry, and the industry doesn’t want to become more efficient or make less money, it just wants us to cost less. What about the hospitals, the doctors, the providers, the facilities, the drug companies---they are the people creating the bills, they are the people charging so much money in the first place? And, as many people have said on this blog we are not going to achieve anything substantive without a single-payer system. Our current healthcare legislation is only going to accomplish cost-cutting on the consumer’s end. It is not going to adequately address why services are so expensive.
And, of course the smug public loves this blame-the-irresponsible route, or blame the over-eaters, or blame the smokers. Even the liberals eat this nonsense up. We have exchanged one kind of moralism for another, and this moralism is even easier because we have statistics to back it up.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on More Topics on Think Out Loud?
<--Not that you asked for ideas, but it could be exciting to focus on general topics that help educate or get people thinking about how they approach the world. In a similar way that a liberal arts education attempts to develop a well-rounded education, and really a well-prepared and informed person. What is going on in the sciences, what is new in philosophy, what are the current trends in art. Maybe even go so far as to have an educational (or lecture) series, where you interview professors or thinkers on topics, about what is the current thinking in their area, or how has that discipline changed, or what might the average person need to know. An in-depth series about morals and ethics in the modern world, how people go about living their lives. There is so much that could be said, and discussed about topics higher up (or lower down, depending on how you look at it), at fundamental levels that is not being said in the public sphere. We seem to repeatedly focus on the end results and miss the whole process leading up to that thinking, we miss the parts that challenge us on what we think we know. It also might be interesting to incorporate criticism into shows on the arts---interview the author or artist and then have a portion of the show dedicated to different (possibly opposing or contradictory) viewpoints on the work from critics. Or if you have a show on a topic like unions (as you did recently), break the show up into the practicalities of what is going on in the news, and then devote a portion of the show to the larger context or principles of why unions?, or the philosophy and history of unions---you could apply this sort of idea to so many areas of discussion.
Anyway, perhaps I am dreaming, but I think the show is doing well as it is, maybe it would be best to improve what you already have going, instead of chopping things up to quicken the pace. It kind of seems like it could be a superficial and fast remodel, and perhaps a dumbing down, that if anything might just decrease discussion. Maybe that is not the intent, and what ever you do, I hope it works out well!
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on More Topics on Think Out Loud?
There was nothing at issue with the old format of Think Out Loud. I assume it is being changed because it is assumed to be broken. Or else it is just to keep things current, but even keeping things current, is a comment on the past. If there was a problem with the old TOL it was never the length, or that one topic was too little for an hour, it was how that hour was handled and what topics where chosen. Lately the show seems prone to choose topics, or relate topics to what is going on in the news, and often the local news. Often there isn’t much conversation to be had on these local news topics, and sometimes the show seems torn between deciding whether it is covering the news or whether it is trying to start discussions related to the news. What you can end up with, is a show trying to find something interesting to say, about something that is perhaps not that interesting to begin with. In other words you are looking for something to talk about in matter-of-fact areas, that don’t inherently invite much discussion.
What is great about TOL is its holistic approach to conversation, it seems to take seriously the views of guests, callers and online commenters. Which often has the potential to feel like the community is actually taking part in a discussion, and in the end it is. It must be challenging, and a lot of work, to tackle a show of this scope on a local level. If the show has any problems many of them may simply be related to the resources of a local community, there are only so many potential people to participate in a show on a statewide level, whereas a show like Talk of the Nation has an entire country of listeners that can participate. In my opinion, the show has so far been very successful.
I feel in order to keep in line with the name of the show, more emphasis could be placed on promoting discussions that involve critical thinking or abstract skills. The show might have the potential to be seen as a follower rather then a leader, if it is always trying to relate things to a news item, and it could seem forced. And, sometimes these topics are so esoteric, that they are kind of a bore. Can’t the show generate its own discussion? What often happens on your blog is people want something more in-depth to discuss so they turn to topics loosely related, it is not just that they get off topic, but sometimes the topics just can’t hold their own as presented. And perhaps it would be good to get away from trying to make the show about local issues, unless those local issues are controversial or worthy of a ‘thinking’ discussion. Or if you want to do a show with multiple topics, maybe have a show once a week (or every so often) about local issues. -->
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Northwest Passages: Chelsea Cain
What a fun hoax.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Strategic Default
I don’t believe your guest understands the nuance of morals. Strategic default-ers are still morally responsible, but they potentially have an excuse to take another action. It is similar to part of what goes on in a Sophie's choice. Weighing the equation to decide whether to default does not get rid of the moral responsibility, nothing will, but it might provide them with a justification to act differently.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Strategic Default
It would potentially make sense to be morally against strategic defaults if the consumers were entirely to blame for the defaults, or if it was a one-off event. These defaults are occurring because all sides took on unnecessary risk. The financial institutions created the riskiest of products that allowed, or provided, a defective and unsustainable architecture. This bad engineering allowed the markets to collapse; and, following suit the housing values further collapsed. You might say that consumers are indeed, morally responsible for their actions, because we are all (generally) morally responsible for our actions, but the players of the financial institutions are also morally responsible for their actions. Consumers don’t have much of a choice, it may be a hard choice, with no great outcome---but at this point, it is a utilitarian choice, that is attempting to judge the path that causes the least harm. If the bank played no role in the market collapse, the consumer might have different moral obligations, but they are both guilty. Nothing will negate the moral responsibility, but there are definitely viable excuses for strategic defaults, that allow the consumer to weigh one action over another to seek the lesser of two evils.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Food Access
The weight problem in America has little to do (if anything) with high fructose corn syrup, non-organic foods, non-whole grains, chemicals or any other substance. The weight problem is primarily caused by eating too much. People got fat in America because they could, because they could afford to, and because we mistakenly applied principles of economic efficiency to the human appetite. We used the sales tactic of ‘buy one, get one free,’ in order to incentivize and keep consumers satisfied that they were receiving an ever-increasing value. The quality of food did not improve much, but a perceived better value was achieved through bigger portions.
Gradually, during my rather short lifetime, I have noticed as the years have gone by, you can get bigger and bigger meals and beverages for the same price.This same thing happened with most products sold in America---socks, cars, televisions, refrigerators, toilet paper, and on and on. And the same kind of marketing through an increase in volume or quantity, was also applied to food. How do we get the customers to keep coming in? We give them added value by increasing the quantities, by giving them a larger quantity of the same item for the same price. And that value for money equated to more food and larger meals. This weight problem has so little to do with the ingredients or the way things are grown and prepared, and it is troubling to hear people endlessly, and unproductively, toiling over all these ancillary ideas that have nothing to do with the problem.
Americans didn’t exactly get greedier, or at least not arbitrarily, they are in a way products of their own circumstances, good fortune and economic successes, they merely kept receiving an ever increasing value through more-and-more in almost all aspects of life. Manufacturing processes became more efficient, agricultural practices became more efficient, so the average person was able to get more for less. No one stopped to think, and we rather innocently, never made the distinction that food was something we did not need an ever increasing amount of, because the human appetite for food is based on a finite physical capacity and should not be turned into something elastic.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Food Access
Why are we so obsessed, or interested, with people being overweight, or even unhealthy for that matter? What difference does it make to most of our lives, well, with the exception of it potentially costing us more money? Is it not believable that the majority of us are motivated to stop obesity for altruistic reasons, that we are centrally concerned with the well-being of our fellow humans and want to prolong lives. At the gut level it is more likely about controlling behaviour or dictating what people ought to do, because we view their actions as morally irresponsible, and we don’t like people living that way. We view their physically unhealthy habits as a reflection of who they are as people, we view it is a lack of self-control and greediness, so we want to stop their behaviour, and not for their personal health, but because we want to change the way they live, or even who they are.
On a personal level, when I have took notice of someone who is obese, I don’t recall ever thinking something like ‘oh the poor thing, they are so unhealthy, I hope this excess weight is not going to shorten their life or cause weight related health complications.’ What might motivate feelings toward them is something like: this person is self-destructive, and not that I am sorry they may destruct, but rather that their behaviour is, well, rather pathetic to me, it seems desperate and I don’t like that desperation in another person. And, rather then feeling sympathetic or concerned, generally the feelings are more likely that of annoyance. From reading comments on this page, on previous topics about weight, and the general tone in public discussions it is clear that the majority of us are not primarily interested in the health of overweight people because we talk as if they are disgustingly repulsive. And, they might also see this weight issue as a physical reflection of what they already imagine is going on in the minds of a good portion of Americans, that they are greedy pigs who only care about themselves. This is really an ideological issue that has so little to do with health.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Food Access
It is hard to give this idea of a ‘food desert’ much credit. As if one (or any) arbitrary mile makes all the difference in the world between being fat and skinny. How can this conclusion ever be supported by objective facts? There are so many possible variables involved in why or why not people may be obese. And, even more specifically why or why not poor people may be obese. Perhaps poor people are not as active. Perhaps poor people don’t put as much emphasis on appearance. Perhaps poor people are not as well educated about health. Perhaps poor people are unhappy and find comfort in food. And, the list goes on and on for both sides.
There is a troubling theme that occurs in discussions such as these, we repeatedly try to find reasons to negate personal responsibility, by finding outside sources, outside circumstance that are to blame for these humans’ present condition. But we only seem willing to apply these ideas to the physical world, which is really to say the easy targets. And, generally we make more exceptions for people in poverty or the underdog. But then the very same people (myself, often included) make few concessions in regards to intelligence, or the ethics of individuals. It surrounds odd ideas like these: There is a choice in being fat, but there is no choice in being poor. Rich people are fat by choice, but poor people don’t have a choice but to be fat. Stupid rich people are bad, but stupid poor people are good. Rich bigots are bad, but poor bigots are understandable. Perhaps, we think rich people should know better, because they might have the luxury of a better education, or they just have ‘luxury’ in general so they should be more generous. Then we also go on to say ‘that rich people aren’t very intelligent, because if they were intelligent they would have better ethics,’ and even more awkwardly, we say, ‘if they were truly intelligent they wouldn’t be that rich in the first place.’
In the end we seem to be more willing to chalk up problems manifest in the physical world, to external causes, and problems of the mental world to internal (personal) causes. But don’t all the problems stem from the same place? And aren’t these alleged two worlds inseparable, if they are separate at all?
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on International Students in Oregon
The certainty of an ideology is not the issue, it is the quality of the ideology that is the issue. If liberals, or anyone else for that matter, are not certain if they want to enter into wars it is because war is an evil. And, many want to be certain that when they do enter into war, it can rightly be called the lesser of two evils, rather then being the greater of two evils.
It would be fair to say that freedom is often a relative concern for many of us. For example, religions have freedom, but their freedoms are tied to and sometimes restricted by other laws. And, really, laws and governments are themselves necessary to keep our freedoms in check, to keep our freedoms from conflicting with the freedoms of others.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on The Culture of Pimping
Idiots worship this pimp culture. So what? A book about what idiots value? What is the goal of this topic? I can’t decipher it. In what part of society are pimps exalted? Certainly no part I have ever been part of. Apparently, the part of society that values the pimps is the problem. Pimps have been glamorized by the folks dumb enough to also be pimps. What a great load of sociology this is. It is quite possible that if pimps became at all glamorous, it is because they hang out with hookers. The business depends, centrally, on the human physical world, and sex generally ends in the realm of the glamorous. If anything, hookers are equally as romanticized by our society as pimps are. I can understand the need to say that pimps are bad, but find a better way to do so, then hinging it on some half-baked idea about the lure of 'pimp culture.'
Uh, how about we make prostitution legal?
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on The Role of Unions
2. Teachers don’t advance society they merely perpetuate the status quo, they teach what has already been taught, what has already been decided. They are not the ultimate makers of society. In a way they do the dirty, rote, repetitive work. Yes, it has a role---yes, there can be an art to it---yes, it is important---but, teachers will always be the chicken, never the egg. There are others out there, doing, and creating, the things that build and expand our civilization, and teachers are the ones that help the next generation learn those things. Knowledge had to be created, or figured out, before it could be taught. And, so much valuable learning occurs within the mind, and is self-created. And, so much learning occurs by being challenged by other competing ideas. There are many ways in which we learn, and they don’t all require the formality of a teacher. What we really admire is the education itself, this is what we value, and there are many ways to acquire an education that don’t directly require a physical teacher. We value the acquisition of knowledge, it is this act of learning that is important to human civilization, teachers can guide students through this, and expedite the process, but they are not the knowledge itself, it is this knowledge that is of ultimate importance.
Then we have the question of what about all the teachers in the world that teach asinine topics, like the strategies of war? Or, the instructors at the terrorism training camp? Are those not the teachers you mean? Just the teachers that teach the things you believe are valuable? Of course this line of thought is extreme, but it leads to a valuable point. It is not the teaching that is important, but rather what is being taught.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on The Role of Unions
Iolo,
1. What are you saying exactly? Or where do your ideas lead? That teachers are better then doctors? Hum, what about the teachers that teach doctors to be doctors? So, they are also better then the doctors they teach? Sounds like a futile occupation, if what you give birth to is always employed in an inferior profession to you, unless of course your pupils decide to become teachers! Are the teachers at Harvard inferior to the teachers are PCC because they are better paid? Following the reasoning that teachers are even better then they already are, because they could be making more money elsewhere, or because they sacrifice to be teachers, leaves us with the question of why raise their salaries, because in the process we would degrade their selfless-worth.
And, how many teachers are full of ego? And, how many teachers chose the path as a first option? And, how many teachers have dreams outside of teaching and would give up the profession if only they could? And, how many teachers are driven by an overwhelming zeal and thrill for education, the advancement of civilization, and an altruistic goal that motivated their decision to join the profession? I don’t criticize teachers, you choose to applaud and exalt them, I choose to say it is a fine profession, but it is no better then many others. Teachers don’t exist in some bell jar, they are dependent on many others, like we all are. Computers can do much of the jobs of teachers, yes, right now! I am not proposing that as acceptable or preferable solution, but it shows the limits of their functional value.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on The Role of Unions
For as many teachers as I liked, I disliked an equal number. There is nothing particularly noble about the profession, or any more noble the most other professions. I don’t understand the need for some people to view teachers as sacred cows, or why they revere them so. I think much of this love for teachers is an illusion, because of the inherent aspect of what teaching is, in a way it is the ultimate in customer, or human, service. The job description and the dynamics themselves create this illusion. Sort of in the way you might fall in love with your shrink, it is nothing the shrink is actually doing, it is just the inherent function of the relationship, to me this dynamic is similar to what goes on with teaching. When it is done well it makes us feel great, but if it is done poorly it can make us feel intense frustration. Learning or education is fundamental to human development, to human life, and teachers assist in this process, and we tend to confuse the process with the people carrying it out. Really what is important is the actual ‘teaching,’ the teachers are merely the ones who carry this out. I don’t dislike teachers, and generally find myself aligned with them, but I don’t think they should be deified---people writing the textbooks or building the schools, or serving the lunches are also important. Teachers are closer to the front lines and because of this we, perhaps unfairly, hold them in higher regard.
posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context
