Last night one of the biggest stories in the mainstream media was the discovery that the number of Americans who died from cancer decreased in 2003 and 2004. As it normally does, the media overhyped the news and made it seem more significant than it actually is. They described these statistics as a major breakthrough for medicine, making it seem like we are winning the war against cancer. But if you look at the numbers, it is not a major breakthrough.
In 2003 the number of cancer deaths declined by 369, and in 2004 the number of deaths declined by 3,014, with 553,888 deaths. A reduction in cancer deaths is a good thing, but the reduction in 2003 and 2004 is not large enough to describe as a triumph of modern medicine. If cancer deaths were dropping by 5-10% a year, that would be a sign that the medical community is making progress in fighting cancer. But the numbers in 2003 and 2004 are nowhere near that. If the cancer death reduction from 2003 to 2004 continues each year, it would take over 180 years to bring the death rate to 0. I don't think the American Cancer Society and the V Foundation are going to have to close their doors any time soon.
January 18, 2007
January 15, 2007
MLK Day
Today is Martin Luther King Day in the USA. Race relations have come a long way in the past 40 years, but there is still work to do. The major barrier to achieving true equality is that there are many white people in America who think that white people are superior to black people.
When I say many white people think white people are superior to black people, I don't mean it in a Ku Klux Klan/Nazi way. Most white people do not think black people are subhuman. Most white people don't hate black people. I think most white people subconsciously feel they are just a little bit better than black people.
If you want evidence that many white people think they are superior to black people, take a look at the affirmative action debate. People who are against affirmative action claim that it is unfair. They think people should be judged solely on merit when being considered for jobs and admission to elite universities.
Judging people solely on merit is a noble goal. It was Martin Luther King's dream, but it does not exist in corporate America. Being the most qualified candidate for a job does not mean you're going to get the job. You could get passed over for many reasons. Another candidate might have performed better in the interview. One of the other candidates might be a good friend of the hiring manager. The hiring manager might have been pressured to hire the CEO's close relative.
White affirmative action opponents have no problem with less qualified applicants getting chosen for jobs and admission into college. Hiring the CEO's nephew is fine. A university admitting a student because her father went to the school and donated a lot of money is OK. But if a less qualified applicant get chosen because he's black, they get upset. Why?
The answer is that white affirmative action opponents believe black people are inferior to white people. Slightly inferior, but inferior still the same. Getting passed over for a job by the CEO's nephew is OK because the CEO is a superior person. Getting passed over for college admission by the child of a rich alumnus is fine because rich people are superior. But getting passed over for a black person is considered an injustice. If these people thought blacks and whites were equal, they wouldn't be upset about getting passed over for a black person. They get upset because they got passed over for an inferior person.
When I say many white people think white people are superior to black people, I don't mean it in a Ku Klux Klan/Nazi way. Most white people do not think black people are subhuman. Most white people don't hate black people. I think most white people subconsciously feel they are just a little bit better than black people.
If you want evidence that many white people think they are superior to black people, take a look at the affirmative action debate. People who are against affirmative action claim that it is unfair. They think people should be judged solely on merit when being considered for jobs and admission to elite universities.
Judging people solely on merit is a noble goal. It was Martin Luther King's dream, but it does not exist in corporate America. Being the most qualified candidate for a job does not mean you're going to get the job. You could get passed over for many reasons. Another candidate might have performed better in the interview. One of the other candidates might be a good friend of the hiring manager. The hiring manager might have been pressured to hire the CEO's close relative.
White affirmative action opponents have no problem with less qualified applicants getting chosen for jobs and admission into college. Hiring the CEO's nephew is fine. A university admitting a student because her father went to the school and donated a lot of money is OK. But if a less qualified applicant get chosen because he's black, they get upset. Why?
The answer is that white affirmative action opponents believe black people are inferior to white people. Slightly inferior, but inferior still the same. Getting passed over for a job by the CEO's nephew is OK because the CEO is a superior person. Getting passed over for college admission by the child of a rich alumnus is fine because rich people are superior. But getting passed over for a black person is considered an injustice. If these people thought blacks and whites were equal, they wouldn't be upset about getting passed over for a black person. They get upset because they got passed over for an inferior person.
January 11, 2007
Why Do People Trust Bush to Fight the War on Terror?
I don't see how anyone could listen to the President's speech last night and trust him in the War on Terror. Look at the following excerpt from the speech:
Assuming al Qaeda is in Anbar, shouldn't Bush send more than 4000 additional troops there? If he was serious about winning the War on Terror, he would send enough troops to wipe out al Qaeda in Anbar.
And why is Bush trusting Iraqi and tribal forces to fight al Qaeda? He constantly tells us how important the War on Terror and the Iraq War are. He tells us that our civilization is in danger unless we defeat the terrorists. Why would Bush use Iraqi and tribal forces instead of relying strictly on American forces for something so important?
What is especially disturbing is that neither the media nor Democratic politicians question the way Bush fights the War on Terror. He showed in his speech last night that he is not serious about fighting terrorists, yet no one calls him out on it. People still view him favorably on national security and have no problem with him taking away our civil liberties. What is it going to take for these people to see how badly Bush is waging the War on Teror?
Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.
Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders - and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And, as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan - and we will not allow them to re- establish it in Iraq.
Assuming al Qaeda is in Anbar, shouldn't Bush send more than 4000 additional troops there? If he was serious about winning the War on Terror, he would send enough troops to wipe out al Qaeda in Anbar.
And why is Bush trusting Iraqi and tribal forces to fight al Qaeda? He constantly tells us how important the War on Terror and the Iraq War are. He tells us that our civilization is in danger unless we defeat the terrorists. Why would Bush use Iraqi and tribal forces instead of relying strictly on American forces for something so important?
What is especially disturbing is that neither the media nor Democratic politicians question the way Bush fights the War on Terror. He showed in his speech last night that he is not serious about fighting terrorists, yet no one calls him out on it. People still view him favorably on national security and have no problem with him taking away our civil liberties. What is it going to take for these people to see how badly Bush is waging the War on Teror?
January 8, 2007
Match.com 6 Month Guarantee
I have seen some Match.com television ads touting their 6 month guarantee. Sign up for a 6 month subscription. If you don't find someone during the 6 months, they will give you 6 more months for free. The terms for the most part are reasonable. You have to make an honest effort to meet someone by contacting at least 5 people per month. But I'm not sure why they need to protect themselves so much. I can't see people paying over $100 for a subscription and not do anything so they can get another 6 months. Although the terms are mostly reasonable, I see two problems with the guarantee.
The first problem is that Match.com reserves the right to cancel the guarantee at any time. If you signed up today, there is nothing stopping them from canceling the guarantee in June. It doesn't sound like much of a guarantee.
The second problem is that getting another 6 months of membership doesn't help much. Your best chance of finding someone is when you sign up because every person's profile is new to you. If you read through the profiles, contact the people you like, and make no connections, you're in trouble. You're going to be limited to people who recently signed up, which is a much smaller pool than the pool you started with. Your free 6 months isn't as valuable as the 6 months you paid for.
If you can't find someone special in 6 months with Match.com, what good are another 6 months? A real guarantee would be a refund if you don't find someone in 6 months. Then Match.com would be as interested as their subscribers in the subscribers finding true love.
The first problem is that Match.com reserves the right to cancel the guarantee at any time. If you signed up today, there is nothing stopping them from canceling the guarantee in June. It doesn't sound like much of a guarantee.
The second problem is that getting another 6 months of membership doesn't help much. Your best chance of finding someone is when you sign up because every person's profile is new to you. If you read through the profiles, contact the people you like, and make no connections, you're in trouble. You're going to be limited to people who recently signed up, which is a much smaller pool than the pool you started with. Your free 6 months isn't as valuable as the 6 months you paid for.
If you can't find someone special in 6 months with Match.com, what good are another 6 months? A real guarantee would be a refund if you don't find someone in 6 months. Then Match.com would be as interested as their subscribers in the subscribers finding true love.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)