'roid rage

DocBrain has been pointing out the similarities between professional wrestling and politics for some time. The latest news brings more of this to light.

• Chris Benoit murdered his wife and son, then took his own life. What a tragedy! Underneath it all, something drove him to this action. Was it some type of frustration at work, as he was recently reassigned to a different wrestling schedule (ECW) and did he consider this a demotion? Did he take it out on his wife and child? Or, was there friction in the home? Was his wife argumentative, hostile, questioning, and nasty to him? Did he react violently to her provocations? Go over the top? Did he kill his son because of Fragile X syndrome? Did Chris carry Fragile X? Chris was a wrestler trying to live in the real world. Reality crashed down on him.
• Randy Cohen, ethicist, donates to moveon.org and finds no ethical conflict between this and ethics. While a person can have biases, and perhaps all of us should have some biases, as these are the lessons of life, one cannot pose as one with an open mind. This is one of the quandries of ethics...being passionate about rightness and yet open minded. It would seem perfectly obvious to anyone involved in ethics that extreme bias makes you too uncentered to have equipoise. Randy tried to pull the kayfab, where what you pretend to be is not what you are. This is what drives the world of pro-wrestling.
• Elizabeth Edwards calls Ann Coulter to ask her to stop the over-the-top criticism of her husband. Yet, did she call on her husband to stop the over-the-top criticism of obstetricians? How about of George W. Bush? Or of Republicans? Did she publically address Whoopie Goldberg's tirade 3 years ago? Or any of the over-the-top comments by multitudes of Edwards supporters and fellow Democrats and liberals? "Bush lied". What has Elizabeth Edwards said about that? Many liberals oppose the war in Iraq as being a self-serving conflict that brings jobs to Halliburton and oil to the US through big oil companies. Yet, Elizabeth Edward's comments can only be seen as self serving on behalf of her husband. If liberals and Democrats want to see our country be more altruistic, then they should step up to the plate and be more altruistic in their critique of the shrill voices. Edwards was responding to the insults of a true political-wrestling icon by calling her out. I can hardly wait for the bra and panties match! Right here in [fill in the name of your town]! Holla if you hear me!
• Rosie O'Donnell dresses her daughter up like a little soldier. Of course, the wrestling fans remember "Major Gunns"... WCW's attempt to sexualize and exploit the image of military women. Rosie, is this an attempt to get a reaction from the men who fancy both little girls and military women? Or, perhaps an attempt to get your daughter some "recognition" like Lohan, Hilton, or Spears? Rosie, this costume has been done before in pro-wrestling. Find something else to copy.

The great disillusionment

Thomas Freedman has said that the world is flat, by which he means that communicating across the world is as easy as communicating across the hall. With this flattening has come the realization that traditional news sources do not have a monopoly on the truth.

Many people had come to believe that the traditional sources of news were fair and balanced, but as we seem to have found out, this is not true. Some tellers of stories suppress information, alter details for more impact, or even outright lie to make their point. So, to counterbalance this (by providing some additional facts and different biases) other sources have sprung up. Initially, this was mainly Fox News and conservative talk show hosts, but as time has moved on, more people have stepped up to the plate. Bloggers and people with cell phones at the scene of events have given new perspectives.

The latest trend is going to be full exposure of the political process. It may turn out that our worst fears are correct about most politicians. Just what effect this will have on the political process is still unknown, but DocBrain thinks that there will be a flattening of the political world. As more is known about the inner workings and inner souls of our politicians, we will expect more from our elected officials than just lip service to some idealistic platform and "business as usual" once the election is decided. DocBrain predicts the eventual demise of the two party system in the USA, as people break free of old habits in favor of building a better America.

People can decide based on knowledge or passion. Passion usually is in terms of fear or trust. People can choose based upon self interest, enlightened self interest or altruism. Whatever people decide, at least they won't be under the deceptions foisted upon them by the current system.

As this presidential campaign warms up, we are already seeing the diffusion of information through alternative sources. The impact of seeing our candidates in candid moments will undoubtedly lead to more opportunities for finding Achille's heels. Blunders, gaffes and other miscalculations will not be able to be suppressed. We will not be surprised to find more deceptions than just suppressing past foibles such as infidelities and drug use or current pandering such as changing your way of speaking to connect with different people. We will become acutely aware of the difference between reality and image.

If the movie "The Matrix" is an allegory, we will now be able to see through the sham that is the political arena to the reality underneath. This liberation will produce fear and suspicion, but will also enable us to truly move ahead.

A sick idea

Why do people get sick? There is probably no good single answer to this question. The standard answers are as follows:

• Genetics. If you have a specific genetic code, you will get a genetic disease. Some examples are: Tay Sachs, Down's Syndrome and Charcot-Marie-Tooth, and there are many more. The degree of penetrance can be variable, however, and sometimes can be modified by environment (i.e., Lorenzo's Oil)
• Acquired. Something happens during our lives and we get sick. It could be trauma, aging, contagion, toxic exposure, or internal disturbance.
• A mixture of genetics and acquired.

So, the thinking person asks "How can I avoid or delay getting sick?" DocBrain believes that you need to consider probability as well as luck. Luck can be good or bad. Probability is the way of looking at what increases or decreases the chance of getting sick. While only 15% of cigarette smokers get lung cancer, it is still many times greater than the risk for non-smokers. If this statistic leads you to not smoke, you have adjusted your probability, but of course not your luck. At present, there is no known way of adjusting luck, unless you believe in "lucky charms".

Lastly, you can choose how to deal with adversity when it strikes. Evidence suggests that a positive attitude can be beneficial. Certainly, it can lead to prolonged quality of existence.

Choices

Do we ever really make choices?

A. Some people believe that, during the course of our lives, each of us makes choices, some personal, some that impact others. These choices can be evaluated in terms of society as either good or bad, and the choices say something about us. Some believe that each of us acts by using either logic or emotion to come to a conclusion, and that each act is our own choice. It is the duty of parents and teachers to instruct our youth as to right and wrong, and then the duty of each of us to choose right. Our acts are our own, and we should learn from them.

B. Others believe that we never really make choices, so we are not responsible for the apparent good or bad that happens to us. We never really do good or bad, we just act according to the pressures on us. The factors that lead to apparent choices are larger than us and include: genetics; evolution; psychology; external social pressures and influences; and luck. A person who commits a wrongful act is merely a messenger conveying the evils of society. You really are never responsible for anything that happens to you, as where you are internally is not of your own doing, and the external circumstances around you are also not of your own doing. If we use laws to change society or to change people, we can reduce wrongful acts.

Here are some comments:

• How can we know about the truth of either of these contentions? In science, we use statistics, so can we use them here? For example, children are certainly most likely to fall into the B camp. Lets look at divorce. Divorce is much more common than it was 50 years ago. Children who grow up in homes that do not have a father figure are much more likely to attempt and commit suicide. So, using B, we should enact laws that prevent divorce. Yet, many of those who believe in B oppose limiting divorce.
• We are involved in a war in Iraq mainly because of the policies of the current administration of which, as President, George W. Bush is the leader. He used his internal beliefs and external circumstances to bring us to where we are now. Yet, many who see B as the way of the world, throw blame at President Bush and even call him evil. Just because he is an educated and priviledged white man doesn't mean that he is any different from the rest of us in terms of being able to overcome the B influences. So, if one truly believes in B and opposes the actions of the current administration, one would explain President Bush's actions in those terms and would suggest a leader with a different set of biases and experiences who would take us in a new direction.
• Those who espouse B often seem to use it only as a way to get votes or score points, with no attempt to look at it scientifically or to apply it universally.
• Those who follow A often fail to consider the elements in B, which can have some influence. For example, there is little evidence that homosexuality is a choice in the same sense as choosing what car to buy, whether to rob a bank, or even what religion to follow. Yet, many who believe in A believe that laws should somehow limit what homosexuals can do, such as marry.
• Some choices are largely determined by B and have no absolute right and wrong. These include: religious choice; abortion; end of life decisions. What disturbs some who believe in B is that those who espouse A try to control some of these, leading to a fear that those who believe in A really want to control all of these.
• One current issue, illegal immigrants, is a case in point. Have these people chosen to disobey our laws and should they be punished in some way or have forces beyond their control driven them here? A's believe that the arduous journey to come here indicates the action of free will against the laws of our land. B's believe that the circumstances and internal makeup of these people made their acts no more free will than bees flying to fragrant flowers. One would not squash a bee for following it's instincts.
• DocBrain finds the B logic belittling and the A logic often too confining.