The Home of Steven Barnes
Author, Teacher, Screenwriter


Friday, October 16, 2009

Rush and "O"

The Justice of the Peace who denied a marriage license to an integrated couple made the national news. People squawked: "where is this Post-racial America?" Well, two things. First of all, you can't really get to Post-racial. This stuff is hard-wired in. Second, when I was a kid, or even twenty years ago, there wouldn't really have been any flurry about this. The fact that everyone is up in arms about something that was totally common a generation ago is about as "Post-racial" as you're going to get. Come on, people! We're doing the best we can.

##

People ask: what can I do to help? In issues like this. And I'm sure that those who strive for Women's Rights, Gay Rights, and so forth are asked the same thing. I generally just advise people to be good, raise their children well, and watch what you say and do if you can't change how you feel. Now, I just ask people how long they want to live, and sincerely wish them health and happiness and all of those years...and then to die. Because what changes this stuff is time, and the roll of generations who are not invested in the pain of the past. Sorry, but I've stopped trying to change adults.

One thing to remember, however: the people who claim to be "race neutral" or "they don't see race" are, at very best, deceiving themselves. Compare to a man or woman who says that they "don't see gender." It's nonsense. But one group profits by this delusion: racists. If they can just get the people of good will to pretend to "not see race" then they won't notice the automatic tendency of human beings to side with "theirs" and against the "others." In this arena, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for people of good will to pretend not to be human.

And if you'll notice, the most vicious demagogues protest most loudly that they "don't notice race." Yeah, right. If you want to know if Limbaugh could possibly be an honest person, look at two things, please:

1) his weight struggle

2) his miserable history with women.

Two-thirds of his life is totally out of whack. His career is through the roof, so there is no reason he could not spend all the time he needs to address his emotional needs and wounds. If he chooses not to do that, then he is clearly stating his priorities, his value hierarchy.

##

By the way, Oprah has a very similar effect on my b.s. meter: the weight and her very public, very strange relationship with Stedman fairly radiates "unprocessed emotional baggage." In some ways its worse with "O" because she makes a huge case that we can heal if we have the right resources, find the right mentors and teachers, do the right exercises and eat the right foods. The subtextual message is: no, you can't. It is impossible to actually heal, really change, even if you have the resources of the most powerful woman in the world. This is very unfortunate, and gives millions of people excuses for not handling their business. "Well, if Oprah can't do it, why should I be able to..?"

Unfortunate, because in many ways she is one of the most powerful advocates of health and change we've ever had in the media.

##

Ah, balloon boy stole the news cycle. It was amusing to hear some of the folks complaining about all the coverage, as if we aren't programmed--or hard-wired--to:

1) care about danger to children.

2) pay special attention to a dangerous thing we have never seen before.

This, of course, was both. I am amused by the "why won't the news pay more attention to the things I care about politically?" I would fear for our species if we didn't drop everything to watch a flying saucer carrying away a child. What in the hell would we be?

##

"Before forming your `Master Mind' alliance, decide what advantages, and benefits, you may offer the individual members of your group, in return for their compensation. No one will work indefinitely without some form of compensation. No intelligent person will either request or expect another to work without adequate compensation, although this may not always be in the form of money."

I recently communicated with an old friend who has been offered genuine and exciting opportunities to advance his/her career. Unfortunately, there is no support at home, and in fact, the spouse in question is dragging feet, fearful of change, fearful that if his/her partner advances, he/she will be left behind.

Totally predictable. There are several things here.

1) if you are in a committed relationship, it is not necessary to leave your partner in order to advance your life, in most cases. You MAY need to stop reacting to their childish, selfish, sabotaging behavior. As long as you are loving and honest and compassionate, not "rubbing their nose" in the fact that they can't keep up with you. Do you think Einstein's wife could keep up with him in physics? Do you think it mattered? Now, one thing is clear here: it is harder when women outperform their husbands, than if husbands outperform their wives. Try not to make the mistake of blaming "insecure men" for this. If you do, you are part of the problem. As a species, we have embraced some reproductive strategies that aren't great for us as individuals.

If your partner loves you, and is an adult, they will want you to rise to your highest good. If they don't love you, or are not adult, there are problems that have nothing to do with gender. Relationships change and grow. This is a natural part of life, and we have to maintain communication and a loving open heart. People are genuinely afraid of abandonment: both men and women have walked out on their families. We have to be compassionate as well as ambitious. Be careful before you say "till death do us part." That kinda implies the obligation to make extraordinary effort.

2) If you can reach outside your marriage or circle of close friends to find role models and master mind allies, it is totally possible to maintain your relationships and still find the support you need. But you do need to have things to offer the desired ally. If not money, there is knowledge, friendship, honest feedback...there are so many things. Honest admiration for accomplishment has earned me the time of some extraordinary men and women. Heck, offering to buy a meal will get you time with most people. What will you exchange?

ᅠIf you are in a relationship with someone who will not change, who also objects to your change, you may have to think carefully if they work to sabotage you. What would you do if a mate tried to get you on drugs? Or encouraged you into prostitution? Or theft? You DO have to be careful to be true to yourself. I've seen men and women stay in horrible relationships with crazy people because that was the promise they made. They struggled to keep their families together under horrific stress...because that was the promise they made. These are heroes, especially if they manage to keep their honor and sense of self, their "soul' if you will, even under such pressure.

I refuse to believe that these people are unique. And if you can maintain a relationship under tremendous negative pressure, doesn't it make sense that you can also do it as you reach for the stars?

The point is that you mustn't allow a current committed relationship stop you from reaching for your dreams. You can bring the person along with you, you can isolate that part of your heart and allow them to remain as they are, or if necessary you can leave. But we have an obligation to fulfill ourselves so long as we do not violate the rights of others, or trash our honorable duties. When you die, you will go in the box by yourself. When you are in your death bed, looking back over your life, I think that the most meaningful things in life will be the contributions you have made, the people you have loved, the dreams you fulfilled. The degree to which you have honored the heart of the child within you. That fulfillment can be attained without being cruel to those who love you, and need to know you love them in return. This, I believe with my whole heart.

Any disagreement?d

45 comments:

Marty S said...

On the race issue I completely agree with you. I was eight when I decided that the best thing I could do to erase prejudice was to race my kids to have less of it than I do. I also agree on the boy in the balloon episode. It makes me feel good that the public would be so concerned about one child.
On the question of following your dreams, I don't agree with you so much. At least for me, family and relationship come before all else. Besides if both parties in a relationship have dreams and they aren't identical, then the relationship can't survive unless at least one is willing to compromise and how often will both parties dreams coincide well enough to not interfere with each other.

Marty S said...

oops! That should have been raise my kids.

Scott said...

Marty, *great* typo. ;-)

My grandfather loved his wife. Some of his friendships lasted fifty years.

But what he was proudest of was the men - German officers - he'd killed in WW2.

Up until I was sixteen he'd tell me stories about Germany; the food, forests, art, architecture, clothing, dancing, music...

After I turned sixteen I started hearing little anecdotes about the war; that was a completely different set of stories.

Mike Ralls said...

>Come on, people! We're doing the best we can. <

It's still useful to make examples out of people who cross the line, and a public official refusing an interracial marriage because it's an interracial marriage definitly qualifies. If he had said it in his home, I'd still think he was wrong, but he would have a right to say it. But by stating it in his official position, he was giving his own personal beliefs the weight of the law/the government/the society/etc, and that's a big no-no. By slapping him and slapping him hard we show others who sympathize that it is not acceptable to act in an official capacity on those beliefs, and that's for the good.

Amanda said...

Thank you for this post. This is my first visit to your blog, and the stuff you wrote about relationships and partners really resonated with me.

I've had some inner dialogue with myself in regards to partners and how mine fits in my life currently. He doesn't hold me back, but he treats me as if I am against everything he sets to do.

Pagan Topologist said...

I think Oprah Winfrey could just as easily be viewed as proof that some people are just destined to be heavy. No, they cannot violate the laws of physics, but the other health costs of keeping their weight down make it dangerous to do so. She has certainly lost weight, but even with a full time trainer she cannot keep it off.

It is not a foregone conclusion that the reasons are psychological; they could just as easily be rooted in her physiology, so that she would be quite ill if she insisted on maintaining an body energy budget which would maintain a low weight. As you often point out, such an energy budget does exist. That does not prove it is wise for everyone to follow such a plan.

Mike Ralls said...

>she cannot keep it of

"Will not", is not the same as cannot. I have fluctuated to obese levels a couple of times in my life now. Currently I am in the "fit" category. If I don't remain in that category and go back to obese _yet_ again, that does not mean I cannot remain fit. If it's possible to be fit for a month, it's possible to be fit for a year, you just need to keep doing the things that keep you at fit for a year (or two, or ten or twenty) instead of for just a month.

>so that she would be quite ill if she insisted on maintaining an body energy budget which would maintain a low weight<

Any scientific evidence to back up that position? That is, is there any actual medical condition that makes women sicker if they eat enough calories to remain under a 32% body fat or men for under 25%?

Dan Moran said...

I like words like that --

raze, raise -- pronounced the same, exactly opposite meanings.

Resign, re-sign ... not exactly opposite, but close.

~~~~~

Mike, isn't that the worst? I've been up over 220 twice in my life -- over 230 once, for about a month -- I normally hover around 205. There's just nothing worse than knowing, flat-out and no excuses, that it's nothing but your own slobbiness and lack of self-discipline that got you there.

Pagan Topologist said...

Yeah, if you can hang from a chinning bar for five minutes, there is nothing to keep you from hanging there for 40 days. Just do the same thing for 40 days you did for those ten minutes.

Dan Moran said...

I'm not a big fan of metaphor. "This is like that" is usually a gag to permit people from adddressing what "this" really is.

Staying fit is not, of course, like hanging from a bar for forty days.

Mike Ralls said...

> There's just nothing worse than knowing, flat-out and no excuses, that it's nothing but your own slobbiness and lack of self-discipline that got you there.<

Actually, for me on the personal level, what was worse was that I didn't know. I was in complete and utter denial that I was obese.

Hmmm . . .why are my pants tight? I don't know, must have shrunk over time.
Hmmm . . . why am I so tired all the time?
I don't know, maybe it's allergies.
I'd have pictures taken of myself and go, "What's wrong with this camera? That's a bad picture, because I don't look like that."

This denial prevented me from addressing my problems, so IMO it was worse than knowing and feeling bad that my weight was my responsibility.

Mike Ralls said...

>Yeah, if you can hang from a chinning bar for five minutes, there is nothing to keep you from hanging there for 40 days.<

Not a valid analogy. I can find scientific articles in one minute saying how the build up in lactic acid in your muscles make exercising for longer than X a bad or impossible idea. Can you find one saying how eating calories / exercising enough to keep yourself under 32/25% body fat for a month is fine, but for a year or twenty is bad?

BC Monkey said...

If you want to know if Limbaugh could possibly be an honest person, look at two things, please:

1) his weight struggle

2) his miserable history with women.

Two-thirds of his life is totally out of whack. His career is through the roof, so there is no reason he could not spend all the time he needs to address his emotional needs and wounds. If he chooses not to do that, then he is clearly stating his priorities, his value hierarchy.


Steve, I'm assuming that you will apply the same standard to Bill Clinton? Ted Kennedy?

Is is just one of the two factors that make you question the possibility of his being an honest person, or do both of them have to be present?


Note Steve that you are moving your goalposts for considering Limbaugh a bad person. First it was that he was dancing around racism. Now it's being fat and woman troubles that make him a dishonest person.

Will you support similar sanctions that are being applied to Rush to anyone else in the public square who is fat and has trouble with the opposite sex?

Pagan Topologist said...

To my knowledge, no one has funded multi-decade studies of weight control. They would likely be considered unethical, since to be scientifically meaningful, it would be necessary to keep the subjects essentially imprisoned so as to control what they ate.

It is the same problem on a smaller scale, that Marty once pointed out about global warming. There is, strictly speaking no scientific evidence for global warming caused by human activity. Obtaining such evidence would require a sample of a few dozen identical planets which we did different things to for a few centuries and carefully tabulated the climate changes on each. Come to think of it, make that several thousand, since we need to control for unexpected variations in the energy output and spectrum of the star the planet orbits.

AF1 said...

Limbaugh told a black caller to remove the bone through his nose once.

And gleefully played Barack the Magic Negro on his show.

Among other things.

He gets no sympathy from me.

Dan Moran said...

Mike,

I suspect denial is more comfortable day to day, but agreed, it certainly does make it less likely you'll deal with the issue.

Anonymous said...

"Steve, I'm assuming that you will apply the same standard to Bill Clinton? Ted Kennedy? "

Can't speak for Steve but...

I will!

I don't trust or believe any of them.

Ah, but which Clinton you ask?

Either of them! ;)

(though for the record, I do trust and believe Obama. and McCain for that matter.)

Anonymous said...

"but the other health costs of keeping their weight down make it dangerous "

???

You're going to need some facts to back that up; 'specially seeing how it runs contray to, oh just about all medical advice.

Scott said...

Current medical evidence is that overweight - BMI 25-30 - is healthier - lower all-cause mortality - than 'normal' weight - 18-25 - and MUCH healthier than underweight - <18.

Obesity - BMI 30+ - is problematic, though the 30s appear to be safer than underweight. Morbid obesity - 40+ - appears to be the riskiest weight range.

Anonymous said...

Scott, I think that just shows that BMI isn' very well thoought through. Almost anyone who is in decent all around shape (as oppossed to cardio/endurance exclusive)is going to fall into the 'overweight' category due to muscle mass and bone density. Doesn't mean they are actually 'overweight' in the conventional sense of the word. I would far rather see % body fat used as a base of reference then BMI.

Ethiopian_Infidel said...

"Ah, but which Clinton you ask?"

I actually have a great deal of respect for Hillary Clinton, who usually appears tough, shrewd and savvy. Of Steve's top three success criteria, she's certainly attained the career and physique (bet she was quite the looker back when Bill first courted her). As attested by various biographies, she fixed her sights on power during the 60's, and has doggedly pursued her ambitions ever since, even at the cost of relationship success. Which suggests another topic: When is it acceptable to sacrifice any of the Big 3 (relationship, career, health) for any other?

Steve Perry said...

Yep. BMI is a ratio, has nothing to do with fitness, only height-to-weight. When Schwarzenegger won the Mr. Olympia contest, he would have been rated morbidly obese using the BMI standard. So would most Olympic athletes in dozens of sports, including the sprinters, gymnasts, and divers.

It's that same thing Barnes talks about -- any time somebody brings up the subject, the defenders of obesity step up and start throwing rationalizations.

There is a small percentage 3-4% of folks who have medical reasons why dieting to lose weight is passing difficult. The other 96-97% might have other reasons they consider valid, but they don't speak to medical dangers.

Lynn Gazis-Sax said...

On the question of following your dreams, I don't agree with you so much. At least for me, family and relationship come before all else.

I'd say, it depends. If I'm breadwinner, I don't think I should follow my dreams at the cost of jeopardizing the family finances; someone depends on me, and I'm no longer in the same position as when I was young and single and could take those risks without harm to someone else. In that case, I need to look for the best way to fulfill my dreams and still pay the bills, even if that means compromising some on the dreams.

But if what's holding me back is the fear of outshining my husband, then at a certain point I may need to go ahead anyway (similarly, he shouldn't be held back in anything for fear of outshining me).

Scott said...

"Yep. BMI is a ratio, has nothing to do with fitness, only height-to-weight."

More to do with fitness than the number on the scale, to be sure; someone else suggested bodyfat percentage; that's more reasonable, certainly. My favorite metric is waistline; excess visceral fat is bad for you, excess subcutaneous fat just means you or your ancestors probably lived in a cold place.

"When Schwarzenegger won the Mr. Olympia contest, he would have been rated morbidly obese using the BMI standard."

No he wouldn't; 6'2", 225# is the upper end of overweight (BMI < 30), not obese, let alone morbidly obese.

"So would most Olympic athletes in dozens of sports, including the sprinters, gymnasts, and divers."

No again, the three sports listed above would be overweight, not obese, let alone morbidly obese.

Weightlifters (especially superheavies), throwers, heavyweight fighters... those guys would be obese by BMI standards.

"It's that same thing Barnes talks about -- any time somebody brings up the subject, the defenders of obesity step up and start throwing rationalizations."

Evidence suggest moderation, not a visible six-pack. Leaning out further than, say, 15% bodyfat might help sport performance or aesthetics, but that's not what we're talking about here, right?

"There is a small percentage 3-4% of folks who have medical reasons why dieting to lose weight is passing difficult. The other 96-97% might have other reasons they consider valid, but they don't speak to medical dangers."

I'd say Oprah's tried pretty hard, wouldn't you?

Steve Perry said...

A) Ahnahl is not six-two, but a hair under six-one. I once met the man and looked him right in the eyes. I know how tall I am.

B) He was way past 225 pounds when he won those titles. He lost thirty pounds to play Conan and his weight in the first one of those movies was 235 lbs, At 265 and six-one, his BMI is 35.

I don't know how hard Oprah has tried to keep the weight off, nor, I suspect does anybody here. And not being able to keep the weight off speaks to something other than not being able to get rid of it all all, doesn't it?

If I had to guess, I'd suspect that Oprah gets busy and the diet goes away, but that's all it would be, is a guess.

If you are carrying too much excess fat, and we all know what that is, then it is unhealthy. Not everybody needs to look like Kate Moss, but you know too fat when you see it, and if are pinching five or six inches of flab at your waistline, you know that's not good for you.

All the smoke and mirrors can't hide that.

Scott said...

Gospel according to wikipedia, 6'2", 240# competition weight, 260# off season weight.

Taking his off season weight, he is obese, but not morbidly (40+ BMI) obese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Olympia#1970s


Weight's just not a good number to use. If you have a 40" waistline, it's not all muscle, honest; you have an unhealthy excess of visceral fat. If you have a 34" waistline, fat is not a health problem for you, even if you're a superheavy.

Steve Perry said...

Um, wikipedia and gospel don't really belong in the same sentence. I used to follow all this stuff when I was pumping iron. These numbers are wrong. And if I am standing facing somebody and shaking his hand, I can tell if he's taller than I.

Doesn't matter, anyway. BMI is horse-hockey.

Anonymous said...

So, someone who is over-weight and has a miserable history with women must be incapable of being honest with themselves or others? Sorry, Steve, can't agree. I think Limbaugh can be judged safely enough by his words and actions. As far as Oprah goes, Hmm, so one of the most wildly successful women in the world is still a human being with struggles and failings like everyone else, that's comforting I Think. If someone is fit and good with relationships, one can assume that they have social skills and some self discipline to workout. That's a far cry from a divining rod into someone's soul and character. Ive known a couple monsters in a Max security prison, who have great bodies and significant others who are dead sure hubby is an innocent lamb. Pagan: i think people some people have a harder time than others, also being fit is not the same as being thin. my B.M.I. is around 27 - 29 not ideal, but i am somewhat fit, and yes i am struggling to improve myself. Whether or not i succeed, i believe there is value in the struggle, not simply the accomplishment. My judgment and decisions may not always be the best, but insofar as i can i strive to be a man of character. I don't think a problem with weight or relationships would invalidate any of that. Oprah may have problems practicing what she preaches but what she preaches still has value i think. What works for one may not for another. I might be wrong, but neither Buddha or Confucius are depicted with six pack abs and they were considered to be fairly enlightened.

Langdon

Anonymous said...

"At least for me, family and relationship come before all else."

Well then isn't that your dream? My wife and son are certainly two of mine.

"My favorite metric is waistline; excess visceral fat is bad for you,"

I should have thought of that earlier when I attacked BMI, I remember seeeing a few years back that waist measurement was looking like the best predictor for a lot of health risk. I absolutley agree with you this time.

holly_dynamo said...

Lagdon
What an excellent post. Similar thoughts & ideas were flying around in my head but I had not the skills to convey them, & I thank you.
Also, just want to say I love your blog Mr Barnes.

Holly (New Zealand)

Anonymous said...

I enjoy Steve's blog also and the 101 forum. langdon

Marty S said...

I love the Schwarzenegger, discussion. If we can't trust the net/wikipedia on a simple fact like an individual's height/weight, what makes anyone think we trust the information we find on subjects like UHC where everybody has an axe to grind?

Marty S said...

Oh and Scott you really can't believe what you read on wikipedia. This is a link to a bio of Russ Berrie, who gave the world Russ bears and made millions off of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Berrie

Ten percent of it is true. According to the article he was a street kid from the Bronx who made it big on his own. Actual fact is he is related to my wife and his multimillionaire father who provided him with money and connections was a guest at our wedding.

suzanne said...

"what makes anyone think we trust the information we find on subjects like UHC where everybody has an axe to grind?"

this is an assumption.
And it's astrue for those who are against health care reform
as those who are for it - in its limited fashion

some folks actually do their homework
and post facts and
honest thinking

Scott said...

"Oh and Scott you really can't believe what you read on wikipedia. This is a link to a bio of Russ Berrie, who gave the world Russ bears and made millions off of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Berrie"

No it's not, it's a link to a company description, no founder bio.

Draw your own conclusions about which sources to trust.

Marty S said...

Scott: Sorry about that. My wife had read the article about her cousin about six or eight months ago and it had a whole description of his childhood and how he founded the company that was false. I remembered her telling about the article, found it, assumed it was unchanged and cut and pasted the link. We just actually look at it and apparently all the bio stuff has been removed.

Anonymous said...

RE: Clintons

"... Hillary Clinton, who usually appears tough, shrewd and savvy... she fixed her sights on power during the 60's, and has doggedly pursued her ambitions ever since, ... is it acceptable to sacrifice any of the Big 3 (relationship, career, health) for any other?"

What about integrity? Shouldn't that factor in somewhere?

olddude said...

Ophray-I wonder if her problem is that she is Ophray with more money and power thsn god and never has to do much herself. Too many trainers and consultants makes it difficult to make the final and consistent commitmentat the volition level.
Hilary-I laughed at that one because the context she was being discussed in was more along the lines of someone you would like to sleep with rather than be governed by. Most of us ignore the integrity part until the passion wanes.

Josh Jasper said...

A journalist reporting on the Secret Service says that death threats against Obama are up 400% from the threats against Bush.

The secret service is running out of budget and manpower to investigate and deal with threats to the President, according to the Boston Globe.

If we were living in a post racial America, Obama would be just as safe as any previous President, right?

Steven Barnes said...

Marty--
Dreams should be discussed before marriage. If a dream changes during marriage, and both partners keep their commitment to the relationship, isn't that a part of the dream? And if they change, that suggests that they weren't very adult before they got married. And relationships are all about compromise. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Steven Barnes said...

Oprah herself admits that she buries herself in her work, skips her workouts, and overeats as a reaction to stress. Sorry, but it's very obviously psychological.

Steven Barnes said...

I'm not moving goal posts, BC Monkey--you are. I said that the 2/3 "out of whack" meant he wasn't HONEST. I didn't say it made him "Bad." Isn't it obvious that Ted Kennedy was dealing with some kind of major crap (weight and alcohol), and Clinton as well (apparent sexual addiction). But I don't know what their "deal" was with their spouses. As far as I know, they had open relationships. If they had been divorced several times, I'd definitely mark that. Clinton was overweight, but never actually obese that I saw. Teddy? Definitely blown out in his physical arena. That's 1/3. When it gets to 2/3 my antennae twitch pretty hard. I gave the example of Oprah, and that should have told you that I'm not picking political sides on this.

Steven Barnes said...

"If someone is fit and good with relationships, one can assume that they have social skills and some self discipline to workout. That's a far cry from a divining rod into someone's soul and character. Ive known a couple monsters in a Max security prison, who have great bodies and significant others who are dead sure hubby is an innocent lamb"
You seem to have missed my point, Anonymous. It is that if 2/3 of your life is blown out, you can either blame the environment, or you can take responsibility. You talk about "Monsters" in prison. All right: such a person is automatically blown out in 1/3. They may have great bodies, and spouses that support them, but that doesn't make them healthy. The 1/3 is still broken, right? And broken big time. A supportive spouse means NOTHING unless I have reason to believe that that spouse is a very healthy person. Go right ahead and believe that our circumstances are disconnected from our actions. But I don't think you'll maximize your potential for a healthy life.

Steven Barnes said...

Oh! And regarding Oprah: I think that she doesn't just "get busy." I suspect that she is hyper-sensitive to the needs of her audience. When she loses weight, she LITERALLY starts getting mail and responses that her audience can't identify with her, that she is too perfect. I think that this causes her pain, and she deals with this pain by slipping her self-control leash. In other words, she has herself in a pretty negative loop that allows her to make hundreds of millions a year. She's being rewarded for parading her wounds...not to fix them. And she is giving a bad message there: that even if you are a billionare, you cannot heal. Well, not if your fortune is based on being unhealthy, no.

john said...

Yeh,,,well the problem with racism is that it's not absolute or objective. Like...if youre dating a Buddhist and a fly lands on your arm...is it OK to squash it??

Racism is a subjective kind of prejudice because what offends one does not offend another. It gets into rights and whose rights are abused or who doesnt have rights who ought to. Then we have the human rights bureaucracy telling us what rights we need to have. Any hey...not everyone wants everyone else's rights.