What are you laughing at?

In this week’s issue of Nature Magazine (subscription only, but you can read the public-access editor’s summary here), Tony Reichhardt reviews how researchers quantify happiness. He presents quite a few interesting facts, which are certain to make you more engaging at those holiday parties. The most shocking is that more money doesn’t actually make you happier – as long as you make more than 50 to 90 thousand dollars a year. Below that level, it does. Given that in 2004, real median household income was $44,389, one might speculate that the real median American was somewhat unhappier than, say, your real median CEO. So much for the root of all evil – take that 1 Timothy vi. 10!

Second, according to a study of 3,014 adult Americans undertaken by the Pew Research Center, when asked “How happy are you these days in your life?”, 50% of respondents reported being “pretty happy”, while 34% said they were “very happy”. Another 10% wanted to know why Pew had preschoolers writing the questions for their surveys.

You have to go to the data presented on the Pew website to get to the really good stuff. For example, did you know that Republicans are happier than Democrats? Plus, it has nothing to do with the fact that they were surveying in October and November of last year – it’s been true since Pew started collecting data in 1972. Hmmm…1972.. what was going on back then? Nothing like the loss of a generation’s innocence to bring you down. (I’m assuming that Gilbert O’Sullivan’s “Alone Again (Naturally) reaching #1 on the charts made everyone equally depressed.) It’ll be a while before we know how the last election’s results effect national happiness, but I’ve got a pretty good idea. It’s been almost three weeks now, and I still can’t stop smiling. When I think about Rumsfeld being forced to resign, I actually giggle!

-superawesomestuff

Breaking News

NBC and MSNBC decided over the weekend “after careful thought” that the correct terminology for the situation in Iraq is ‘Civil War.’

“Several analysts said NBC’s decision was important as the administration would face more pressure to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq if the U.S. public comes to view the conflict as a civil war.” – Reuters Story

So we can thank NBC (80% owned by General Electric and 20% owned by Vivendi who also own Telemundo and Universal Pictures) for bringing some sense of reality to the MSM public discourse.

One has to ask: Why would GE turn on the Neoconservative White House/Pentagon? I thought they had the same goals.

In a related story, Kofi Annan said today that Iraq is “almost there,” referring to civil war.

We have known that Iraq has fallen into civil war for some time now. We knew they were very likely to since shortly after the US invaded. It’s about time someone in the MSM caught up with us.

-tekstone

A Question for Free Market Freaks

If so many Americans believe in ‘Free Market Capitalism’ – for that is surely the loudest voice in the room – then would they consider balancing the scale by supporting ‘Free Market Individualism’?

I suspect not.

If a corporation can be expected to police itself, then should not an individual be expected to police him or herself? Would it not be in the best interest of an individual, family or community to police itself much like it would be for a corporation? Is this a ridiculous idea? Perhaps.

But I would venture to wager that a corporation – or even an entire industry – would fail to properly police itself if it felt it could get away with it. I would have already won that wager as history has proven. Here is an impressive web site in case you cannot recall any instances of corporate malfeasance: http://malfy.org/

I ask you, my fellow citizens: Why is it considered acceptable to discuss the government’s regulating such personal things as ‘gay marriage,’ ‘a woman’s right to choose,’ and ‘a person’s right to get high if he/she wants to’ — yet politicians and pundits alike seem to avoid discussing real regulation of corporate actions and behaviors – behaviors that cause harm on a global scale, from climate change to economic strife? Would that lead us down the dark path toward the dread ‘Socialism’ or the evil ‘Communism’?

I doubt it.

So let’s have that dialogue. If senior fellows at right-wing think tanks can justify a ‘laissez faire’ approach to our capitalistic economy, why then can’t they accept a ‘laissez faire’ approach to the way you and I want to live our lives – our personal lives? Literally translated, ‘laissez faire’ means ‘let do’. Either let me do what I want with my life, or subject corporations to the same level of limitations.

If they want to try to justify ‘regulating’ our personal behavior, then let’s make them ‘regulate’ the behavior of the many corporations that impact our lives in such tangible and profound ways – dare I say rule our lives. I want the supply of gasoline to be regulated so that it is not subject to the greedy whims of petroleum companies who tighten supply to increase price.

I want corporations to be as afraid to pollute the environment or mistreat employees as I would be to sell a pound of cocaine in front of the DEA’s headquarters. Tell me, what’s wrong with that?

- tekstone