In My Own World

Main Character Syndrome

2009-09-22T19:43:00.000-07:00

While growing up I was always told that the blood I saw in movies was actually ketchup, that it was all just pretend. I was comforted to know that these people really didn’t get hurt or die. It was just pretend.

Switching momentarily to another point, why is it that when we watch a movie we cannot help but put ourselves in the place of the main character? We cannot help but image what it would be like to confront the same situations. We consider what we would have done instead. I admit that I also do this. It’s fun.

There is, however, one problem with doing this. You see in movies, there are two major types of characters: main characters, and everyone else. Everyone else includes supporting characters, extras, etc. The problem is that in movies the lives of these extras mean nothing. Nobody EVER cares what happens to them. Their very purpose is to make the main characters look better, stronger, smarter, cuter, more handsome, or more talented. These characters are to do this at any cost to their own character. Without any doubt in movies the world truly does revolve around the main characters. Is it any wonder why it’s so appealing to escape reality for those two hours and imagine our own selves in such fortunate circumstances?

Well, just as the blood and gore we so often see in movies is fake and imitated, so too is the status quo and glamorous life of the many main characters. Unfortunately, there’s nobody to remind us of this and we tend to live our lives at times with that same disregard for others. We tend to treat others as extras.

When one says “everything happens for a reason,” I feel it’s a manifestation of this way of thinking within the individual. It’s as though they really believe that everything is happening with them in consideration, as though they are the main character in life. When people view themselves as the main character in life, they tend to think that everything that happens in life is because of them, or, with them in mind.

A Handful???

2009-07-30T17:44:00.002-07:00

When listening to the radio today I heard a conversation between the radio host and a man who oversees the wildfires for the state of Utah, particularly the southern part of Utah. When asked by the radio host if any of the fires Utah has had, season-to-date, have put any houses or other structures in any danger, the man said that there actually have been some fires that put structures in danger. He estimated that there has been “probably a handful” so far this season. Well, I’m not quite sure that “a handful” is a very accurate way to describe a number of wildfires. I mean, how many wildfires IS a handful? Considering not even one wildfire comes close to fitting in a person’s hand, I found this to be a strikingly odd way to describe this amount. Now Skittles I can see. MMMMmmmmmm!!! I can fit about forty skittles comfortably in my hand. I don't think I'll ever try to see how many wildfires can fit in my hand though. I'll leave that up to the wildfire experts.

Just Throw Money At It

2009-04-29T09:55:00.002-07:00

When corporations go through difficult financial times, they usually undergo massive layoffs. Why? Because this is a short-term fix to a cash shortage. Basically, it gives the corporation just enough time to find the real cause of its low profitability so it can change its strategy to become profitable again. The layoff is not the solution to the underlying problem, but merely gives the company a break from massive financial obligations so it can better recognize where it is losing money. The benefits from the layoff are almost always temporary, usually up to one year, but seldom long-term or sustainable.

This is what's going on with GM right now. Only in this case massive layoffs will not free up enough cash to afford the time necessary to create a workable strategic change. This is why the government is stepping in to help. The hope is that with money lent by the government, GM will have the time necessary to create a solution to its underlying problem. My hope is that GM actually understands what that problem is and that there is a solution available. Otherwise we will witness a terrible waste of precious tax dollars.

Off and on there have been uproars concerning the lack of decent after-school programs for inner-city kids to help them avoid hanging out on the streets into the evening hours. Proponents of better after-school programs lobby for more and more money to build and create such programs for children whose parents work into the evening leaving nobody at home for the children. Often the children end up finding their own “after-school programs” in the streets with gangs, doing drugs, and committing crimes. Similar to massive layoffs, throwing money at this problem by creating amazing after-school programs will only be a short-term fix to a much greater problem. If the underlying problem, parents not being home when their kids get home from school, is not fixed, then after-school programs will only be a short-term fix.

Just as massive layoffs throw money back at the corporation for a short-term relief, throwing money at many other types of problems tends to have the same short-term relief affect. With inner-city children not having at least one parent home when they finish school for the day, an after-school program will only benefit a child for so long. Eventually the child will tire of the program, as he/she had done with the many other substitutes they had tried before, and end up back on the street. The real solution, or strategic change, is to have a parent at home. The reason so many children are not able to have a parent home is because they only have one parent. This parent must work in order to put food on the table. In a one-parent family, this is understandable.

The strategic change which needs to happen is for parents to either stay together while they have young children or for both parents of a split-up marriage to take an active role in tending to their children during this stage of their lives. Ultimately, fathers of these children need to start accepting responsibility. The illegitimacy rate of inner-city fathers is through the roof. Throwing money at the problem by means of creating after-school programs for youth will do nothing to address the underlying cause: illegitimacy. After-school programs will help temporarily, but unless there is a plan of action to correct the underlying problem, then money should never be spent on short-term fixes.

The most recent example of just throwing money at a problem and hoping it gets fixed is what is going on right now in our government. With a national deficit already at $1.3 trillion dollars, President Obama has laid out a “strategy” that would double this deficit in 5 years, and triple it within 10. Talk about throwing money at the problem. And what is this problem that he’s trying to solve? Health care, creating jobs, energy inefficiency, saving the planet, etc.

There are numerous examples of people wanting to simply throw money at problems and hope they go away. But like we see in corporations, if there is no plan of action to change the strategic focus or direction of the underlying cause of the problem, then money can only be a short-term fix at best. Money should only be used after either a plan for a strategic change has already been established, or a genuine commitment has been made to establishing a plan for a strategic change to the underlying cause.

By-the-way:
A real solution to saving the planet, if that’s what everyone is really so worried about, would be the complete extinction of the human race. If they haven’t figured out yet that the presence of humans on Earth tends to “wear out” the planet, then they are pretty blind. No matter what we do, however, we’re going to continue to wear it out. No amount of money will change that. No energy-saving plan will slow it. Throwing money at these issues by tripling our national debt, I’m afraid, will not even produce a short-term fix, not to mention any type of long-term or sustainable change.

The War on Capitalism

2009-03-31T16:02:00.002-07:00

Why is it that all-of-the-sudden capitalism is bad? Why is it that all-of-the-sudden products with no demand, businesses that are unprofitable, and people who are unsuccessful are no longer allowed to fail? Why is it that our society feels that the way things are now is the way things SHOULD be? Why is it that our economy refuses to progress? Why is it that we feel we need to remain stagnant at THIS point and not any other time?
I can’t even imagine what our way of life would be like today if our current political and economic administration had been in office in 1980, 1960, or 1940. Would we still be driving DeLorean cars? Would we still be listening to music on 8-tracks or record players? Would there still be an enormous dot.com industry? After all, we can’t let these products fail!!! Why didn’t we bail out AMC? Why didn’t we bail out the 8-track and record industry? Why didn’t we bail out the dot.com industry?
The answer is that substitute products/companies/industries arrived on the scene that pushed these former, less efficient and less demanded, products out of business. In other words, we allowed capitalism to work. Was this a bad thing then? Apparently not because we let it happen. Is it a bad thing now? Apparently someone thinks it is because we’re now trying to limit the benefits of capitalism. We’re trying to limit the progress of innovation and efficiency. We’re trying to keep less efficient and less demanded products around.
So, I ask again. Why the sudden change? What is so different about now? Why don’t we let capitalism continue the way it has been and see where it takes us. Let’s see how much better our way of life can get.

Unions - The Devil's Cure

2009-03-21T09:52:00.001-07:00

Wal-Mart just shelved out $2 billion dollars in bonuses to hourly workers. Unlike the AIG bonuses totaling more than $200 million, the “purpose” of the Wal-Mart bonus was to avoid a union takeover, at least according to Democrats who feel that a business is corrupt if not unionized. So why are all the butt buddies of these unions now mad that Wal-Mart is actually accomplishing what the unions wanted Wal-Mart to accomplish all along? It’s because Wal-Mart has done it without them. They claim it’s a defensive strategy to avoid unions altogether.

Well, here lies the problem. Unions claim to be interested in the welfare of the employees. So, if that really is true, that they are interested in the welfare of employees, then why does this make them mad? What I don’t understand is why the unions aren’t happy that Wal-Mart has given these bonuses. If Wal-Mart is now doing what the unions were going to force them to do anyway, then shouldn’t the unions be happy? But they’re not! And they are not happy because they do not care if Wal-Mart’s hourly employees get a bonus or not. They don’t care one bit about Wal-Mart employees, or any company’s employees for that matter. The reason the unions are mad is because they are now that much closer to not receiving the outrageous annual union fees that Wal-Mart would be forced to pay them. They are mad that they might not get the chance to do to Wal-Mart what they’ve done for the auto industry, and that sickens them.

By seeking out profits in the name of charity and concern for American employees, unions are one of the most hypocritical, self-interested organizations that exist.

Bonuses

2009-03-21T09:46:00.002-07:00

There has been so much negative publicity in the media recently about the amount of bonuses being paid to TARP companies. I can understand the frustration of the many people who reason that if these companies are in the condition to need TARP funding, then why should any of their employees receive bonuses? Aren’t bonuses supposed to be paid as a reward for profitability? I understand this concern 100%. However, having worked at a bank myself, and having been in the identical circumstances as many of these employees, I have a slightly different view, and point-of-view, toward these bonuses.

At first glance one might think that there could be no justification for paying a bonus to an employee of an unprofitable company, such as those needing TARP funding. I mean, how could one justify that? It’s insanity to think of, right? Well, think of it this way. TARP monies were paid to these companies as a means of providing the financing necessary to help them to become profitable again. Well, what was it that caused these companies to become unprofitable in the first place? It sure has heck was not bonuses being paid to their employees. I hope anyone would agree with me on that. Now, one might think that every dollar paid toward bonuses could have been retained and plowed back into the company in place of the TARP monies, however, there is still one point that is being neglected.

True it is that bonuses retained could substitute for tax payer money having to be paid to them now, but let’s consider the condition these companies would be in today had their employees not received the bonuses that they did. I strongly believe that the companies that are now receiving aid from the government via TARP would be in much worse conditions today, had their employees not been given the incentive provided by bonuses. I believe that these companies would be worse off today, and that we, as tax payers, would be fronting a lot more via TARP than we currently are.

My point is that the media never considers the other side of the story. They never consider what the effect will be of taking away these bonuses. AIG and other companies thrived for many many years providing bonuses to their employees. Bonuses are an essential part of an effective and profitable company. If the compensation plans of these companies receiving TARP funds are anything like mine was, then roughly 25% of their annual income is generated from bonuses. That doesn’t mean that they get a base salary like anyone else and then these bonuses are the icing on the cake that most Americans without bonus opportunities never see. That is not the case at all. In reality, these base salaries are merely 75% of the typical American salary, and the bonus makes up for the rest. If a bank worker does not get their bonus, then they are typically making roughly 25% less than the typical salaried employee.

Ultimately, TARP companies need to still be allowed to receive their bonuses or there no longer exists any incentive to be even as profitable as they have been. Taking away employee incentive to be profitable is not going to fix anything. Like I said earlier, it was not the payment of bonuses that caused these companies to be in the mess they are currently in, and taking away these bonuses is not going to fix the problem.

An Inconvenient Toot

2008-12-11T20:16:00.005-07:00

(This is a section from Glenn Beck's, "An Inconvenient Book."

In a UN report on climate change in November 2006 it was said that livestock and the industry revolving around it are responsible for 18 percent of all greenhouse gases when measured in CO2 equivalent. That's more than the entire worldwide transportation sector...Livestock is responsible for 65 percent of a less publicized greenhouse gas - nitrous oxide - that warms the planet 296 times more than CO2. In addition, livestock's "natural emissions" (when they pass gas) produce methane, which warms the planet 23 times as much as CO2. In addition, because methane cycles out of the atmosphere in less than one-twelfth of the time that CO2 does, avoiding meat is a far quicker and more effective way of cutting greenhouse gases.

Green-Washed California

2008-12-11T20:10:00.002-07:00

It is extremely ironic that the “green-washed” state of California made two headline news articles today. “California budget deficit to hit $41.8 billion by 2010;” and “California adopts sweeping global warming plan: Backers predict energy savings, new jobs (remember this part about new jobs); critics worry about upfront cost.” Why is it that California, “already a national leader in solar power,” just can’t get it? Its massive investments in “curbing warming emissions” have contributed substantially to its economic dilemma. It’s a known fact that humans are responsible for a minute portion of Earth’s (not just California, but the 6 billion people on the planet) emissions causing global warming. Even if every single person, of the 6 billion people on Earth, were to stop 100% of their current emission production, it would only stop next to nothing of the Earth’s emissions. Yet the confused Californians think they can actually have a positive effect on global warming at the expense of their state’s budget.
The latter article says, “California's plan comes at a time when governments around the world are struggling with a financial crisis that threatens to undermine efforts to fight climate change. California itself is facing a forecast budget gap of $41.8 billion through June 2010. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said the state's climate law will stimulate the economy, said Thursday that California was providing a roadmap for the rest of the country.” Well good for you, Arnold and California, good for you. But don’t ask the rest of the nation to bail you out for it. Don’t expect Americans to pay for your delusional spending!
In the same article it was said that, “Republicans, some small businesses and major industries that will be forced to change their operations say jobs could be lost, companies might leave the state and energy prices will skyrocket. ‘The deepening recession has affected businesses throughout the state,’ Amisha Patel, a policy advocate at the California Chamber of Commerce told the board Thursday. ‘The reality of climate regulation is there will be costs.’" Thankfully at least someone has a sense of what’s really going on.
I really can’t say I’m surprised that California is having such a hard time managing its state’s budget when a Hollywood movie star is at the head of it. Every star in Hollywood would love to get their hands on a state’s budget to push their crazy liberal views. Such a tragedy!
In the former article it was said that, “California is projected to run out of cash in February and may have to issue IOUs for its bills. It is obligated by law to pay employees, schools and its debts, but it could halt payments to vendors who provide services such as the gas for California Highway Patrol vehicles, food service in prisons and utilities for state offices. State Treasurer Bill Lockyer also said that unless lawmakers agree to take action, the state would have to stop financing $5 billion in infrastructure projects next week, which could mean a loss of about 200,000 jobs” (What? A loss of jobs?). This entire situation is just one example of how the global warming scandal is only hurting the economy while doing literally nothing to prevent global warming.

Same-sex Marriage A Civil Rights Issue? What?

2008-11-19T21:52:00.004-07:00

The only way the approval of Proposition 8 could be overturned is on the basis of civil rights. Homosexuals believe that their inability to wed one another is a violation of their humane civil rights. I believe that this is preposterous. I do not believe that marriage is a civil right period, heterosexual or gay. For homosexuals to claim that their civil rights are being violated is extremely offensive to those in this world who really are having their civil rights violated. Think about the people in North Korea who are suffering. For homosexuals to compare themselves to these people is completely selfish and self-absorbed. I am not black and am still offended that homosexuals compare their inability to wed to slavery. Slavery is a civil rights issue. Preventing homosexuals from obtaining a piece of paper that says they are married is NOT a civil rights issue.

Relationships

2008-11-19T20:29:00.004-07:00

Can an avid skier who has no interest in dance have more fun at a dance competition than he would skiing? Can an avid dancer who has never skied have more fun skiing than she would competing in a dance competition? I would say the answer to both questions is a definite no! However, both the skier and dancer can have enough fun doing the other activities to make them worth doing. In relationships, couples are often confronted with the challenge of deciding what to do together for dates and activities that will bring them both the most satisfaction. They both agree that regardless what they do, as long as they do it together, they will both be happier than had they done the same thing separately. For the sake of comparison, one could quantify this happiness, or utility, of being together as providing a payoff of 2 units of utility to each person in the relationship and a payoff of 1 unit of utility for doing their preferred activity. Of the two activities they have to choose from, both of which in this case are mutually exclusive, they will have a payoff of 1 from doing the activity that they want to do if they do it alone, but will have a payoff of 3 from doing the activity that they want to do if they do it with their significant other.

The problem is that, since they can’t do both activities in the same night in this case, one of the two must sacrifice that additional payoff of 1 unit of utility in order to still have the payoff of 2 units of utility which comes from being with the other person. If they were to cancel the date and both were to do the activity that brought them that payoff of 1, then both of their overall payoffs would be 1 instead of at least a payoff of 2. The problem is illustrated in the graph above which shows that the best case scenario will provide one person with an overall utility of 3 and the other a utility of 2. Which person gets which utility will depend on the activity chosen. As shown in the top left grid, if the dancer chooses to go skiing with the skier, then she will have a payoff of 2 units of utility (because she’s with him) and the skier will have a payoff of 3 units of utility (because he’s skiing and with her). The bottom left grid shows that if the dancer chooses to go skiing alone while the skier chooses to go to the dance competition alone, they both will have a utility of 0. The bottom left grid shows the overall utility of the dancer as being 3 units of utility while that of the skier being 2 units of utility. This comes from the dancer doing what she wants to do with the skier and the skier doing what the dancer wants to do, but still being with the dancer. The top right grid shows the payoff to each person if they were to call off the date and just do their own thing alone. They will both end up with a utility of 1 in such a case.

The solution is not really a solution at all if this dilemma is faced only once, but merely a matter of deciding who is going to sacrifice that extra payoff of 1 to be with the other person. If this dilemma is repeated indefinitely, as is the case in relationships, then the best solution would appear to be to randomly choose which activity to do for the first date and then switch back and forth throughout later dates, thus making the average payoff to each person the same. It is possible for a date to provide payoffs of 3 to both people. In fact, this is actually more common. As couples find more and more common interests to participate in, they will have more and more options for what to do together. For example, if the skier and the dancer also like to ice skate, then if they choose to go ice skating together they will both have a payoff of 3 (2 from being together, and 1 from doing what each enjoys).

God is Not a Genie

2008-11-15T15:13:00.003-07:00

I have met a disturbingly many people in my life who said that the reason they believed that there was a God was because they received the answer they wanted to a particular prayer. They reasoned that since they got what they asked for that there had to be a God. One simple example I have heard more than once is, “My relative was in the hospital and I prayed that he/she would recover from their illness and they did, therefore I believe in God.” Conversely, I have met a disturbingly many people in my life who said that the reason they did not believe that there was a God was because they did not receive the answer they wanted to a particular prayer. One simple example I have heard more than once is, “My relative was in the hospital and I prayed that he/she would recover from their illness and they did not, therefore I do not believe in God.” But this alone, I believe, is not a secure foundation upon which to build a testimony of, or belief in, the existence of an omniscient being which created the Earth and everything in it. For what happens when the same individual asks for something else later and doesn’t get it? Well, they are then just as justified in disbelieving in God for the same reason. I call this line of reasoning the Genie concept.

It’s important to not let seeking answers to prayers become a form of sign seeking. If we base our testimony in God only on the fact that a prayer was, possibly coincidentally, answered the way we wanted, then we may one day be surprised if we so need His help again and not receive it the way we hope. An example of this dilemma is shown by a simple story of a surfer and a farmer. This is a story only: A surfer, preparing for a competition, prays every day that there will be good weather on the day he is to compete. He is praying that there will be no rain whatsoever. The day before the competition is to be held, a farmer of a field of crops to the side of the beach that the surf competition is to be held, prays desperately for rain to come the next day. For if it doesn’t rain that next day all of his crops will die from an on-going drought. The next day comes and the surfer is still praying for sun and the farmer for rain. So what is God supposed to do? If he allows rain to fall and save the crops of the farmer, then the farmer will surely praise God and believe in his supreme existence. But the surfer, on the other hand, will curse God and disbelieve that he even exists. So what should God do? Or should he do nothing at all and just let nature run its course? Assuming God does just let nature run its course and the devastating drought continues, is the surfer justified in believing in God anymore after this experience than he did before? And at the same time is the farmer justified in disbelieving in God anymore after this experience than he did before?

My solution to this dilemma is an understanding that regardless of the outcome of a prayer, that outcome will always be God’s will. Whether we get what we’re asking for in the way we want is not as important as the extent to which we are willing to acknowledge and accept God’s will. It is not my place to tell anyone that they should not believe in God and that is not my purpose in making this point, but it is my hope that we will strive for a more substantial reason for faith than a mere, possibly coincidental, answer to a prayer which turned out in our favor.

I love this quote from the Bible Dictionary: “Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God, but to secure for ourselves and others blessings that God is already willing to grant, but that are made conditional on our asking for them.”

Technology & Guns Are the Victims

2008-11-15T14:36:00.001-07:00

It irritates me when people attack the internet, technology, and anything else they can for their own lack of self control. They Google porn and then attack the internet for providing it to them. You can’t condemn something that helps so many people because you lack the self control to deal with it. This is similar to the gun control issue where proponents of tighter gun control laws actually believe that such actions will decrease the murder rate. They hate guns because some people choose to murder others with them. But what if the murderer decided to use a scalpel instead to murder someone? Would these same illogical people propose scalpel control laws as well? The problem is that scalpels, which could be used as murder weapons, can also be used to perform life-saving surgeries. Similarly, guns, which can also be used as murder weapons, are essential to having an effective police and security force. They also make for enjoyable recreational activities when used responsibly.

Reverse Discrimination

2008-11-08T11:51:00.000-07:00

The equal rights movement was begun to stop the discrimination of various institutions based on skin color. The objective behind this movement was not to create atmospheres of diversity within organizations and institutions, but rather to eliminate the judgments on skin color and background as a basis for acceptance. With quotas being used quite extensively to create diversity in the workplace and school our society is no different now, after the equal rights movement, than it was before. Only the emphasis has changed. It’s just as “popular” now to consider race as it was before equal rights, only this time to promote and take pride in diversity and inclusion rather than segregation.
Diversity and inclusion, as opposed to segregation and exclusion, sounds so much better and less offensive, however, the means to each end is the same. For a company, such as Wells Fargo, to boast in its diversity, with respect to race and sexual orientation, is only boasting in its use of race and sexual orientation as a means of qualification to work at its company. It’s basically saying, “Hey, look at us! We’ve succeeded in building the most diverse team of any company by not letting too many of any one color or sexual orientation be hired.” The same concept applies to universities with quotas to promote racial diversity. It sounds great and all, unless you’re the typical white male applicant for admission. The means to achieving this diversity comes at the same expense as the means to achieving mass segregation. It is that of judging others on race.
Reverse discrimination is nothing more than a condescending patronization of a once looked-down upon group of people. As it applies to special interest groups such as gays/lesbians, non-whites, women and others all in the name of diversity, reverse discrimination does just the opposite of what equal rights legislation was intended to accomplish. Quotas to create diversity in schools, clubs, and the workplace are no different from rules established to create segregation. Both quotas and rules of segregation cause such institutions to consider race or sexual preference, etc when deciding qualifications for acceptance. Neither such quality nor attribute should hold any merit for most organizations in terms of placing people for work, school, etc.

The Misunderstanding of Diversity (Coming from a White Male)

2008-11-07T16:47:00.000-07:00

It irritates me to hear so many times that diversity refers to anything different from the “white male.” Why is it that when people refer to diversity they always use the “white male” as the benchmark for which to compare? Is it just because I’m in America, which was founded by the white man from Europe, that I always hear this? I get the impression that the farther away from the “white male” you are, the more diverse you are. But this simply is not true. Diversity is not defined as being different from the “white male.” Diversity is completely relative.
A black woman is diverse compared to a white man, true, but that white man is just as diverse compared to the black woman. It’s not that the black woman is diverse, but rather, they are diverse. Neither one is more diverse than the other, but rather, they are diverse in comparison to each other. In this case, they are diverse when it comes to gender and skin color. A company in China does not boast about how diverse it is because its workforce is 95% Chinese. A company in Ghana does not say, “Wow, look how diverse we are. 95% of our workforce is African, or Ghanaian.” But if a company in America employed 95% Asian or 95% Ghanaian, then I am confident it would consider itself a diverse company. What’s funny is that a company in America employing 95% white males would definitely not consider itself diverse.
So why do so many people consistently refer to the “white male” as the benchmark? Again, is this the case only in America, where the majority has been historically white? If so, then diversity is defined by the general masses as being inclusive of minorities. Since the white person in America has, for so long, been the majority, people view diversity as being inclusive of as many people who are not the typical white person. Diversity is therefore defined as the extent to which one diverts from the majority.So, is this a healthy and correct definition of diversity? Or, is this an ignorant way to view diversity? Here is one last thing to consider. In the last month I have attended two separate speeches on diversity. In both cases the speaker talked about how diversity referred to so much more than just the color of one’s skin. They expounded on how people can be diverse with respect to many other things too: gender, nationality, sexual orientation, background, abilities/disabilities, culture, values, ideals, etc. In this last speech the speaker said to the entire audience (made up of 99.9% white people) that we were all as diverse as any other group of the same number of people. So, this being the case, how come in both speeches the speaker was black? How come in this last speech, the person asked to give the opening prayer was the only black person (the .1%) in attendance? Was it a desperate attempt by BYU to portray an attribute of diversity? And if so, then why ask a black person? According to both speakers diversity is not about the color of one’s skin. I don’t understand this hypocrisy of diversity presentations.

Public Restroom Privacy

2008-11-04T20:51:00.000-07:00

Public Restroom Privacy

With the recent legislature in California legalizing same-sex marriage an entire range of issues come to light. By the government basically sanctioning the appropriateness of such marriages it is sending the message that attractions between individuals of the same sex is appropriate and normal. With this in mind let’s look at a completely separate situation which deals with the same concept. If public restrooms and locker rooms are segregated on the basis of gender due to the inherent attraction between the two sexes and the ease of sexual abuse available in shared rooms, then why, when it’s just as normal for men to be attracted to men and women to women, are any restrooms or locker rooms shared by more than one person regardless of the gender? If it’s just as normal to have same-sex attractions as it is to have opposite-sex attractions then there exists the same opportunity for sexual abuse within men-only and women-only restrooms as there would be in opposite-sex shared restrooms. If opposite-sex shared restrooms are inappropriate then I don’t see why same gendered restrooms are any better.
In light of this new legislature I feel it appropriate to lobby for a law requiring one-individual restrooms and locker rooms in all buildings and on all properties where restrooms and locker rooms are provided. Such a law is the only way to ensure complete privacy and discourage as best as possible the illegal act of sexual abuse when using restrooms. Such a law would require all restrooms and locker rooms to have a lock on the outside door regardless of the number of stalls within them. Good luck Proposition 8!!!

Alcoholism vs Religious Dedication

2008-11-04T20:44:00.000-07:00

Alcoholism vs. Religious Dedication

When I was living in Washington D.C., I was asked one evening by a girl at the club my friends and I were attending why I wasn’t drinking (alcohol). When I told her that it was because of my religious beliefs she thought I was strange and weird. So, for fun, and to satisfy my curiosity, the next time I was asked by a girl at a club why I wasn’t drinking I told her that I was a recovering alcoholic. This girl’s response was completely different. She told me how responsible and brave I was. She respected me so much more for not drinking due to alcoholism than did the other girl due to my religious beliefs.

Gift vs Money

2008-10-21T08:12:00.000-07:00

Gift vs Money

When it comes to getting gifts for people I always have the hardest time deciding what they will most want. Perhaps I’m just not thoughtful or caring enough to really determine what people would enjoy. Regardless of the reasons for it, I prefer to just give money instead. So to justify my lack of consideration toward choosing a gift I provide the following theory: to give a gift of anything other than money is to assume that you know as much, or more, about the wants of the recipient of the gift than they do. You make the statement that you know better than they what they would have purchased with that money if given the opportunity. To give money as a gift in place of what you thought the recipient might want, is always a better alternative.
Now, some make the argument that if the gift given is thoughtful enough, then that fact alone could be worth more to the recipient than the financial benefit. I agree with this entirely. That is why I usually stick with money. I am not always thoughtful enough to compensate for the money wasted on the gift. Occasionally I have effectively pulled off this trick, but only in this case is the gift better than money.
So why do we so often give gifts that we are not entirely sure the recipient will even appreciate? In discussing the economics of altruism, the author of a textbook answered this question this way, “I suspect that the correct answer is somehow connected with the hostility to money, especially in personal interactions, which seems typical of our society. Consider, for example, the number of men who would think it entirely proper to take a woman to an expensive restaurant in the hope of return benefits later in the evening, but would never dream of offering her money for the same objective. Many readers find this particular example a disturbing one, in part because it seems to imply that conventional dating is simply a disguised form of prostitution (Economics of Love and Marriage, Ch21).” So is the answer that hostility is shown toward money in general? Personally, I think not. However, the author gives an interesting example. I believe that people who give gifts instead of money like to think that they are considerate and thoughtful of other people and do so as a way to make them feel better about themselves. It’s as if they have to prove to themselves, and everyone else, that they really are thoughtful. In this sense, giving a “thoughtful” gift instead of money can actually be a selfish act.

Support Says A Lot

2008-10-09T18:02:00.002-07:00

Support Says A Lot

I find it absolutely hilarious that Hollywood stars and pop stars even bother to get involved with politics. I firmly believe that when these liberal groups get involved with politics they are actually helping the conservative movement, including Republican candidates. I don’t see how terrorists, Hollywood stars, P. Diddy, BET, MTV, and Madonna can help the liberal cause by showing their support. Especially for those moderates who are too lazy to study candidates to see what they really do believe, it just seems that all they need to do is look at those who do support the individual candidates and they will find all they need to know.
When Ahmadinejad and Bill Ayers support a presidential candidate, you have to wonder what that candidate believes to draw such support. When BET and MTV support a candidate, it should cause people to wonder what that candidate believes to attract such a crowd.
I don’t believe that any person supported by P. Diddy, Madonna, Paris Hilton, and especially terrorists, should ever be considered as a candidate for President of the United States of America. This is not a rip on Obama. I feel sorry for the guy that these non-intellectuals and Frat Party type organizations are giving him a bad name by showing their support for him. But at the same time it makes me wonder what it is that Obama is going to do, if elected President, that makes these shady organizations and people so happy.

Southern Border Issue

2008-10-04T15:01:00.002-07:00

Southern Border Issue

This border issue...what a joke!!! If all of the sudden all the soil in Mexico turned to solid gold, and everyone from the U.S. immediately started flooding into the country to take it, would Mexico not do the same thing??? Would they not put up a wall??? Except, Mexico would probably shoot us on site, not give us a nice meal and a ride back home. Many Mexicans value our education and various freedoms as more valuable than gold and try their hardest to get in here legally, and when can't, try illegally. We are not in the wrong by trying to protect our borders.
Some make the ludicrous argument, “But, look how many people die trying to come here?” Huh? That’s one more reason we should build the wall. Does the fact that some people die while committing a certain crime mean that we should legalize that crime or make it easier to commit? Should we take security cameras out of banks? Should we take the barb wire off the fences of prisons because it makes it too dangerous for the inmates to break out with it on?
Others make the ludicrous argument, “But, they’re doing those jobs nobody else wants.” So that justifies committing an illegal act? I don’t buy this excuse whatsoever. We seemed to manage just fine before. If the United States can’t figure out how to manage economically without the illegal immigrants from Mexico, then we have much bigger problems as a nation. All that this cheap labor accomplishes is to create more Nintendo time for deadbeats and justify irresponsibility. It also allows people to get work, or a service, for next to nothing while at the same time ripping off the government from tax money. No true Christian would succumb to this anarchist act which supports the breaking of our land’s laws. Put another way, a true Christian would neither cross our border illegally nor patronize an illegal by paying them for services offered.
A recent article on MSNBC.com said, “The downturn in illegal immigration has created labor shortages throughout the United States and several states are considering temporary-worker programs, especially in agricultural fields, where produce is going bad.” Shoot, well that really sucks! I mean dang. All those companies that were operating illegally by hiring illegal immigrants are now going to suffer for their crimes. We can’t have that. My word!
The article goes on to say, “Mexicans in the U.S. are starting to send less money home, too.” It almost came across as though this was a bad thing. This is reason to celebrate a wonderful start to a hopeful victory over this incessant problem. It is actually a good thing when less of our nation’s earned income is shipped to other economies to be used up. We want the money worked for in our country to be recycled back into our economy. That’s how an economy works.
Not at all to my surprise, the article proceeds to discuss the ever increasingly difficult trek it is for these criminals to come here in the first place. Once again, so that means we should make it easier? The greater the degree of difficulty of committing a crime shouldn’t necessitate a change to, or removal of, the law which made it a crime.
One ridiculous quote, this time from one of the criminal immigrants caught in the process, “‘The United States is where those without resources go,’ Luna (the criminal) said at the Nogales bus station, where he was waiting to return home. ‘That was a little door we still had open. But they are closing it, and now we don't know what we will do.’” Door you still had open? Open? The door was never opened! You guys kicked it down!
Mexicans for some reason have this misguided idea that our nation owes their nation due to their third world status and our wealthy status. That, just cause we’re rich and they’re struggling, we owe them. I just can’t understand why the Mexicans expect favoritism granted to them simply because they share a border with us and none of the other third world countries do. Mexicans living in Mexico are so much better off than so many other third world civilians. Why should they benefit disproportionately from those other countries through illegal mass immigration to our country just because they share our southern border? Then when these illegal Mexican immigrants get here they demand amnesty. Why grant illegal immigrants from Mexico amnesty when no other country had the opportunity to get it by flooding our border as easily? We can’t give in to their demands for favoritism.
Another thing that irritates me even more than illegal immigration itself is the fact that legal and illegal immigrants will gather to protest our nation’s actions taken to make the crime more difficult. How lunatic is that? They’ll actually protest it! One protester “carried a giant hand-painted banner depicting a man being handcuffed by immigration agents and a little girl crying and saying, ‘Where is my family?’” I have the hardest time not cursing when I here such ludicrous bullsh*t! Of course that’s going to happen when that poor child’s father dragged her for miles and miles through desert in an illegal attempt to provide a better life for his family. I admit her father’s intentions were good, but were his actions to break our laws and put his family in danger in hopes of achieving this better life responsible? Is a single mother justified in engaging in the dangerous and illegal business of prostitution in order to provide for her family? And even if she does it anyway, should she have her child in the very home she’s committing the crime? I would say this is a similar situation in principle to that of a Mexican bringing his family to the U.S. illegally. Both are only trying to provide a better life for their family, but are at the same time putting their family’s lives in danger.
Another point argued by the immigrants, this time a legal permanent resident, “‘Our people, we pay taxes, we pay the same as a citizen,’ said Tesillos, (who) has a permanent residency card. ‘Maybe the new president can see this point, and do something for us,’ he said.” If the legal immigrants don’t like the terms under which they come here they don’t have to accept them and come. The U.S. as a nation has the right to set the terms they wish for such immigration. Take it or leave it. But don’t take it and then complain about it not being fair!
Then these illegal immigrants from Mexico try playing the bigotry card on us and accuse us of being racist toward the Mexican people when we try to put up a wall on our southern border or reject amnesty bills. It makes sense they feel this way since Mexicans make up the vast majority of our illegal population. But, this being the case, why would we tighten security around inspection of cargo ships from Europe instead as a means to cutting down on illegal immigration in general? If you want salt on your food you don’t reach for the pepper shaker. It has nothing to do with racism when Mexicans are the vast majority of violators. But good luck convincing someone of this who goes out and protests our making of illegal acts harder to commit. This kind of person already lacks the sense to understand.
Just recently a friend of mine shared a point about illegal immigration that I’ve not yet discussed (I know, there’s actually another one). A coworker of his mentioned that since everyone who is in this country legally today is here as a result of their ancestors at some point migrating here that we should allow free and unaccounted for migration. This has got to be one of the dumbest arguments for illegal immigration yet (which is probably why I didn’t bother before to bring it up). Of course everyone came to this country through migration, including Columbus. Such migration was not against established laws in an independent country with borders. It was to an unorganized land mass. Thanks to our ancestors we have this, wonderful above any other, country. The fact that our ancestors at some point migrated here, most legally I’m sure, does not justify illegal immigration. And for those who disagree with my point here I have one question for you. Try not to feel too stupid, please. Which country was NOT first inhabited through migration? The world’s existence didn’t begin with every country already organized with established boundaries and peoples and then masses flooded already established borders of the United States. Every country before ours was created in much the same way, as far as migration goes. And then what did they do? They established what Afghanistan and Pakistan have been fighting over for years now. Borders!! How funny is that? But, no, we should do away with all borders and just allow free travel and exchange of economies worldwide.
This argument is so ludicrous that it kills me to even waste my time and thought on it. To claim that illegal immigration should be legalized because we all are in America due to migration of some sort is to say that we should open all borders worldwide. This would create an equilibrium over time of economies causing the entire world to live in worse than Mexican economies. I say worse than Mexican economies because the majority of the world, population wise, even today, is living in worse than Mexican standards. An equilibrium of all economies would hurt even Mexicans. I don’t think this is what the Mexicans are trying to create by coming to our country illegally, however, those in America who are against this act being illegal are in support of creating this type of world economy.

My Political View

2008-10-04T14:53:00.000-07:00

My Political View

Generally speaking I would classify myself as a republican when it comes to political issues. This may not be very surprising since I also consider myself a devout Christian and very religious person, however, when I view politics and the issues we all face as a nation, I like to take an atheistic approach to them. In other words I like to “take God out of the picture” and then see how I feel about certain issues. Surprisingly enough I still feel the same way toward moral issues when viewing them as an atheist as many people do who are influenced by their pastors and religious organizations. To me it is not at all surprising to see that the sides of moral issues taken by most religious republicans also are the sides of those issues which are most beneficial to individuals and societies together.
When it comes to such issues as abortion, homosexuality and illegal immigration, it has been proven over and over again that the costs to society of allowing abortion, encouraging homosexuality and failing to crack down on illegal immigration far outweigh the “benefits” which come from the alternatives. Benefits, such as women’s rights to choice, peoples’ freedom of expression, and a better lifestyle for the less fortunate, are sugarcoated expressions to help people feel better about not taking responsibility for their circumstances and actions. Such “benefits” are nowhere near adequate to compensate for the costs paid by our economy.
The psychological trauma and financial burden caused to society from the legalization of abortion, not to mention the increased spread of disease through increased unprotected sex, far outweighs the benefit of allowing women (and men) the choice to be responsible for their actions or not. The increase in the spread of AIDS by men who have sex with men, and the financial burden on the social security to treat this illness, is not worth dealing with just to allow freedom of expression to those who refuse to get help with their problems. And illegal immigration, well, the name alone should speak for itself: illegal. Unfortunately, there are still some people in the US, pretty much all of San Francisco, who have not realized that something that is illegal is bad. Yes, it’s true that many people in Mexico are less fortunate than many people in the US, but is it really fair that Mexicans should benefit by the opportunity to sneak into our country simply because they share a border with us? What about the people in Africa, Somalia, and parts of ASIA? The people in Mexico are still living like kings compared to many others in the world. And it is not fair to label people who are opposed to an illegal act as bigots.

The Short Cut

2008-10-04T14:47:00.002-07:00

The Short Cut

While attending Utah State University I noticed an eye-sore in what was once a beautiful section of grass called the “Quad.” The Quad was a fairly large section of grass divided into four sections by two perpendicular sidewalks. It was conveniently located in the middle of campus between several of the more commonly used buildings. It turned out that the two most frequently used buildings were situated on opposite sides of the quad in such a way as to make it slightly “inconvenient” to stick to these perpendicular sidewalks when making the short trek from one to the other. The eye-sore I noticed was a diagonal trail which had been trampled, over time, into a corner of one of the four sections of grass. Due to the frequent cutting of this corner by students, over time the grass had worn down until there was nothing but dirt forming a straight diagonal path (commonly referred to as a “Cow Trail”) from one end to the other.
Since I was one of the many students who was required to make this trip between these two most commonly used buildings, I had the opportunity of watching as this trail was developed throughout the semester. During the first couple of weeks I noticed as many students would cut across this section. It was interesting to see how they would always follow in a straight line even before the trail was visible. Over time the trail became more and more visible until it was literally a dirt path. I’ve thought about that particular Cow Trail many times and have come up with the following analogy.
The plot of grass represents who we are individually as far as our personality, integrity, dignity, etc are concerned. Each time we take a “short cut” with respect to decisions we make in each of these areas of who we are, it is like taking a short cut diagonally across this plot of grass. Each short cut taken across the lawn by itself is not enough wear and tear on it to cause a noticeable change in its appearance. However, after enough times a short cut is taken across the lawn in the same area, eventually a Cow Trail is cut into the grass. Similarly, each time we take short cuts with respect to our integrity, the consequences of each short cut by itself may not be severe enough to be visible to others or ourselves. It can be especially difficult to notice the effects they have on our integrity overall. However, over time these short cuts can and will eventually lead to very noticeable character flaws, or character Cow Trails, within ourselves if we don’t stop taking them in time.

Mooches

2008-10-04T10:22:00.000-07:00

Mooches

INTRODUCTION:

My type of personality is such that I panic if I’m not completely prepared for something. I will go to great lengths to ensure that I am prepared to the fullest. Many times I go a little overboard on my preparations, but I never view those efforts as wasted. I am a big fan of the notion that, “It is better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.” The purpose of this paper is to discuss, however, a notion held by others of, “It is better to not buy one and save time and money than buy one when I could just use somebody else’s.” This is the notion of mooching.
Many times throughout my life I’ve been accused of being selfish and greedy (and I am to an extent) because I’ve given of my substance grudgingly or not given at all. But most of the times I get labeled this way it is because of my not wanting to impart specific things to someone that I feel are more detrimental to that recipient that they receive what they’re asking for. I’ve collected some examples of these items as well as some of the situations I’ve encountered with them, and from these it is clear to see how the recipient is worse off just getting every time they ask for these particular things.
The main focus I want to maintain in this paper is two-part. The first is that just because I don’t give to a mooch what they ask of me, whether I have enough for the mooch and myself already or not, does not mean that I am selfish. My reasoning here is simply that just because I have enough for me and the mooch at that given time, if I give to the mooch now, then I’ll have to go get more for me next time. Even though it appears as though my giving to the mooch will not hurt me cause I have extra it really will hurt me in the long run for things that we use on a regular basis. If I have to give to the mooch every time the mooch needs it, then it will add up very quickly. I am not selfish because I am prepared and want to stay prepared. I am reminded of the parable of the ten virgins when I think about this first part of my focus.
The second part of my focus can be summed up with the Army’s slogan, “Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and feed him for life (close enough).” If I continue to give to the mooch every time he needs it, then the mooch has basically found a way to get that thing free of effort and money at my expense and the expense of others. Others’ expense because usually mooches drift from one victim to another so as to not be noticed. Unlike the Army’s slogan, however, I am really not concerned that the mooch is not learning how to provide for himself, but rather that the mooch will not provide for himself. The mooch refuses to become prepared himself when he can just get what he needs from others.
Now, in discussing this concept of mooching it can sound like what I’m saying could apply to bums on the street who are in dire circumstances and need. When I say mooch, however, my definition of such is not a person who is completely helpless and dependent on others for every need. I define a mooch as someone who is completely capable of providing for a certain need, but who instead will “borrow” that need from others due to what I believe is laziness. Mooches are not created from unfavorable circumstance, but rather from unfavorable ethic. I do not define a mooch as someone who genuinely borrows something that they would normally provide for themselves but rather someone who borrows something to avoid the burden of providing for himself.

BODY:

I. Stamp Abusers

So enough with the introduction and now for the fun. Let the games begin. My first example of a mooch is what I refer to as the stamp abuser. When I got to the age where I was going to be required to use stamps on a fairly regular basis, I found it such an inconvenience to go to the post office, or other place that sells stamps, every time I wanted to mail something. So, as is my nature, the next time I had to buy a stamp I bought a whole book of them. It made sense to me. Even though I didn’t need them all at that time, I was inevitably going to use them all eventually. I wanted to avoid the unnecessary trip next time I needed a stamp. I wanted to be prepared. Well, as my introduction to this paper pointed out, all I really did was make myself the perfect target for mooches. I had created the perfect victim in myself because not only was I at the time in my life when I was starting to use stamps on a fairly regular basis, but so were all of my peers and friends. I learned very quickly to not let others know that I had an entire book of stamps because then I became the provider of stamps for everyone else. It was with the stamp abusers that I first really noticed my distaste for mooches in general because it got to the point where I was giving away more stamps than I was even using myself. It was getting out of hand very quickly.
Now, here is a devious trick that mooches use. They play the “I’ll pay ya for it” game. And it works really well at first. It works at least until you realize that the entire reason you bought the book of stamps was not to get a discount in buying them in bulk, but to avoid having to make the trip as much. There’s nothing a mooch can do to repay you for the trip you already made to get the book of stamps. The trip has been made and the effort has been done. This is a tactic mooches use that I call “taking your mind off the real reason you don’t want to give of your substance by satisfying a simpler reason.” It works very well and it worked on me at first too until I noticed what was going on. I started charging exact change for stamps and was blowing through my stamps like crazy. I still ended up having to make that trip over and over again to replenish my stash. And that’s when I noticed their tactic.
It got to the point with stamp abusers that I had to make a rule that if anyone wanted to borrow a stamp from me that they would have to repay me with a stamp later, not with $0.39 (the price of stamps at the time). This way the mooches were required to actually make a trip themselves to get stamps and hopefully buy a book so as to be prepared themselves next time they needed one. With this solution of course I was accused many times of being selfish, but I stuck to my guns anyway. The solution worked and I guess the stamp abusers reasoned that if they were going to have to make the trip anyway to pay me back that they might as well just do it then. I had finally achieved success over these mooches and forced them to take responsibility for themselves.

II. Quarter Thieves

I must admit that I lied earlier when I said that it was with stamp abusers that I first really noticed my distaste for mooches in general. It was actually with quarter thieves when I first noticed my distaste for mooches, but there was actually a substantial gap in time before I started noticing mooches again. I was in sixth grade and at our middle school there was a little candy room where students could buy various candy usually for $0.50. Like many of the other kids I often asked my parents for the change each day so I could get something. Well some of the students started to realize that if they went around asking other students if they had an extra quarter, then all they had to do was have success with two of them and they could get candy every day for free. It was when I realized what these kids were doing that I first really learned what a mooch was. And I did not like it at all. It did not seem fair at all what they were doing. They could sound so convincing too. After all, they just needed one quarter from you. Many kids had extra change on a fairly regular basis so these mooches were quite successful.
Unfortunately my experience with quarter thieves did not end in middle school. It was around the same time I was becoming frustrated with stamp abusers that the quarter thieves reappeared. This time they weren’t after candy, however. At the apartment complex I lived in while going to college we had to pay for our laundry at the complex laundry mat. It was $1.00 for a load of wash and $0.75 for a load to be dried. Well, once again I liked being prepared for whenever I realized I needed to do laundry so I went to the bank and got $10 in quarters. I felt so smart until my roommates noticed them laying on my dresser in my room. As soon as they needed to do laundry and didn’t have quarters, it was so much easier for them to just borrow mine and pay me in bills. So once again I realized too late that this was only going to lead to more frequent trips to the bank for quarters. I had to make the same rule for my quarters as I had done with my stamps. An eye for an eye, a quarter for a quarter.
My last real significant experience with quarter thieves happened right around the same time as the second. It was in college and my roommates and I would always go wash our cars together at the quarter wash down the street on Main. It was only a quarter to start the thing, but you never had enough time for a decent wash with just one. You could get by with two quarters, but I preferred to use three. Well my roommates knew you could get by with two, so when we would go and I was all prepared with my three quarters and they had come unprepared with only one, they would insist that I give them what they called my “extra” quarter. But it was no extra quarter to me. But how selfish and big of a jerk would I look to my roommate to insist that I wash my car with three and he just not wash his car at all (you really couldn’t wash it completely with just one quarter)? So I had to give him my third quarter.
This last example with the car wash didn’t happen as often as the other examples of mooches I’ve come in contact with but it was easier to recognize right away because I had been through some of the others already enough times.

III. Cell Phones

During this last summer I had a roommate for about a month who did not have a cell phone. Okay, first of all, who doesn’t have a cell phone. The kid was 24 years old. Well we happened to work together for that month and every time work needed to get in touch with this particular kid they would call my phone and ask for him. When I asked him why he didn’t have a cell phone he said that he didn’t feel that he needed one. He said he didn’t want to have to pay for one. This was quite interesting as I noticed some of his other spending habits which really didn’t seem more important than a cell phone. Anyway, there was this one particular weekend when he was getting ready to move that my phone rang more times for him than it did for me.

IV. Textbook Bandits

There is a genius practice among college students of sharing textbooks. They go in together on purchasing books for classes they share and split the cost as many ways as they can get people to join. This way each student alone does not have to foot the bill for the over-priced, required books. This practice, though genius, is not mooch proof however. And it is obvious to see why. Keep in mind that the key phrase is “split the cost.”
It seemed every once in a while that some random classmate would approach you after class, or somehow mysteriously run into you at the library, and ask if he can copy the required reading out of your textbook because the bookstore was sold out, or he left his book at home, or he lost his book, or his friend is borrowing his book, etc. Regardless of the reason presented, the real reason is that he had no intention of ever purchasing the book for himself, but rather to make his way around the class throughout the semester approaching students to make copies of required reading assignments. In my point of view, this type of individual is a mooch. This is not a very common mooch in most people’s day-to-day life, but is a very real situation for many college students.
Like other types of mooches, the textbook bandits get off with, not only not having to pay for books that are required for class, but also not having to experience the wonderful task of searching out and buying books before the semester and trying to find a buyer to sell them to after the semester. Mooches skip this burden by mooching off fellow students who were responsible enough to buy their own. But, once again, the only person who would ever turn down a textbook bandit would have to be a very selfish one.

V. What do the Welfare system, Law of Consecration, and concept of mooching all have in common?

The law of consecration is such that everyone’s possessions basically belong to everyone else. Any new possessions acquired by any member of such a society are immediately deemed the possession of all. In order for a society to succeed at living such a law each member has to contribute and be selfless toward their contributions. Such a society would of necessity have to be free of mooches and of that mindset altogether. Mooches would tear down any hopes of accomplishment and progression. Each member would have to be actively contributing whatever possible.
The US welfare system is such that particular individuals, who the government feel qualify, can receive special rations of goods or monies to help sustain life. In many cases these individuals do not work, nor do they help to contribute to the system. These people are the consumers in the system while the working class is the provider. In such a system each working member of the society is required to pay a portion of their income toward it and then the system will ration out what’s needed. Many people refer to this system as just a government way of allowing people to mooch off society. If such is the case in welfare, then a direct comparison can be made with mooches in the law of consecration.
The total amount consumed through welfare, both through funding to enable it to run and through direct consumption of goods by it, represent the amount which would be consumed by mooches in a society practicing the law of consecration. Or, put another way, if we want to determine roughly how much mooches would consume in a society practicing the law of consecration, then we can get an idea from looking at the current welfare system established in the US. I don’t see why the amounts would be drastically different.