Everyone is a Role Model

I don't really follow sports that much.  It isn't that important to me.  I only recently found out about Richard Sherman and how he is kind of an asshole at times, especially with post game interviews and whatnot.  Honestly, the section of his Wikipedia page is all I know about him.  But, as a result, Charles Barkley was on CNN today and I caught a snippet of an interview with him, referencing a Nike add he did several years ago.  In this add, he says that he isn't a role model.

Again, I don't follow sports or athletes at all.  I am going to address what Charles Barkley said in this ad and how he is just wrong.

If you don't know what ad I'm talking about, watch it here:

Now, I will admit that I agree with the basic point - that parents need to take a more active role in developing their children and be the first and foremost role model for their children.  I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.  But what he actually says about him being a role model just isn't true.

He is a celebrity.  He was in the public view, more so than a vast majority (I'm going to speculate and say probably around 99%) of other Americans for the mere fact that he was on national TV playing basketball for our entertainment.  Whether he wants to believe it or not, while he was playing basketball, he was more of a role model than most people ever are.  More than I have ever been, and more than I probably will ever be.

Why?  What makes a role model?  Well, to use the term pretty broadly, a role model is someone who is looked up to for any number of reasons.  His reason was his basketball ability and accompanying celebrity status.  And because of that, he became a role model for probably millions of young Americans who may not have had a good family life and found solace with their friends playing basketball, young Americans who did not see the value of education when they could be playing basketball, or young Americans that just enjoyed the game of basketball and played it and watched it as often as possible.  People watched him on and off the court.  My Air Force ROTC instructor is fond of saying, "You are always in a fishbowl."  And this is talking about officers on base, where there's a few thousand people around.  There's usually more people in most arenas on game day than there are people on a military base most of the time.

The point I'm trying to make is that everyone is a role model.  Everyone gets looked at by people to see if they are worth emulating in some way.  I am a role model to the underclassmen in ROTC.  I am a role model to my younger siblings.  People look up to me - either because I have a position of authority over them or because I am their big brother.  And how I act affects them.  If I were to wear my uniform incorrectly or messily, then that would give an implicit signal to the underclassmen that the uniform doesn't really matter.  If I act like a jerk, then that gives the signal to my younger siblings that being a jerk is okay.

But now think about someone like Charles Barkley!  I can affect a few dozen people during the week - he could reach several million over the course of a few hours.  And now that we live in an age of instant communication, what happens at one place can be known everywhere in a matter of hours, if not minutes.  Take, for instance, Justin Bieber.  He was recently arrested for driving under the influence, drag racing, and resisting arrest.  He admitted to police officers that he had been drinking, smoking marijuana, and taking prescription medication.  This happened overnight in Florida, and I knew about it when I woke up and turned on my computer that next morning.  (More and more information surfaces about him: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/29/showbiz/justin-bieber-toronto-arrest/)

Fortunately, I'm not brainwashed by the teeny-bopping sensation, and actually wasn't surprised at all.  But many of his fans probably were, and are in delusions that he is being persecuted.  #JustinBieberChangedMyLife is currently trending on Twitter.  He has enormous reach.  Fortunately, some of them seem to be either complaining about the fact that this hashtag is trending or are completely sarcastic about it.  But the fact of the matter is, 40 million people are affected, positively or negatively, by him.  He is, unfortunately, a role model.

Which is why the sentiments behind the Charles Barkley ad are so true!  Parents need to be more involved with their children's lives.  Their children need to become to sole focus of the parents' lives.  They need to teach them right from wrong, true and false, and how to discern between the two.  Parents also need to control what kind of message their children are getting from the media, so that they can get other people to aid them in this duty.  It is the primary responsibility of the parents, but the parents can get help where they need it.

Just remember, if there is anyone that would be considered subordinate to you, whether it be by age, authority, family position, profession, or life experiences, you are a role model.  You are sending a message to those people.  But the question is, what is the message you are sending them?

Tolerant Bigotry

We have come to an interesting point in history, at least in the United States (update 9 January: this is what I see in the news, in my friends, and my life).  We have reached a point where disagreeing with what is popular is seen as bigotry, and that in order to be tolerant, we have to agree with what other people say and approve of it.  This is most evident in the debate over same-sex marriage, but it plays out in other arenas too, especially politics and religion (and where those two mesh).  And more often then not, it seems like those accusing people of bigotry are the bigoted ones!

Please note that I am not, at this time, specifically discussing homosexuality or the same-sex marriage debate.  That will be discussed when it is more relevant in the news.  I will, however, use this issue as an example of what I am talking about.

Let's take a look at what these two words mean.  

Do you tolerate a sunny day?

Do you tolerate a delicious dinner?

These might be poor examples.  Generally, when the word tolerance is used, it is referring to people.  Let's look at some other examples.

Do you tolerate someone you like?

No, you embrace them as friend or family.

Do you tolerate someone with the same beliefs as you?

No, you reach out your hand and say, "Brother."

If you were to take a look at the definitions of tolerance at dictionary.com, there is nothing that implies approval or agreement in any definition.  In fact, one definition says that it is the ability to endure something, especially pain or hardship.  True tolerance is when both parties say, "I understand your position and still disagree based upon my values, faith, etc....  Let us agree to disagree and try to live together."

Now let's look at the word bigot.  By definition, a bigot is someone who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion, or is intolerant of any ideas that are not his own, especially or religion, politics, or race.  Let's try to identify some truly bigoted groups.

The Ku Klux Klan

Aryan Nations

The Westboro Baptist Church.

Any white supremacy group.

But the person who disagrees with you on an issue for any number of reasons is not necessarily a bigot.  Let's say you are a liberal voter, and you meet someone that votes more conservatively (both those terms are being used in their modern, political context in the US).  You are discussing the merits of a proposed bill in Congress, according to your disagreeing political values, which is of great importance.  One of you does not want it to pass, but the other one believes it needs to pass.  You could, in light of today's culture, call each other bigots.  But neither of you are bigoted because you disagree with each other on an issue that is very important.  Instead, because you understand each other's position and still disagree with it, you are tolerant.

The obvious uses of these words of late has been in the debate over same-sex marriage, where anyone who does not endorse it is bigoted and those that approve of it are tolerant.  Specifically, Christians that maintain that the Bible condemns homosexuality as sinful and marriage being between one man and one woman for life, and instead call for those who practice it to come to repentance and receive forgiveness are called bigots.  And rarely will those who do support the same-sex marriage movement take the time to understand our position.  But by demanding approval and endorsement by all, the same-sex marriage movement is the party that is bigoted.

The Bible clearly teaches that homosexual activity is sinful, and those who practice it are in need of repentance and forgiveness (see below for citations), just like all sinners.  And just as murder, perjury, and theft are all crimes, Christians could have pushed for the criminalization of homosexuality in the United States.  But we don't, generally.  Most Christian bodies will agree that, because of the minimal impact that sexual relations between consenting adults has on their neighbors, it does not need to be criminalized.

But, this isn't to say that we agree, approve, or endorse homosexual activity.  By no means!  We believe that it is still as much a sin as adultery, murder, theft, or lying.  I, personally, will let you continue in that activity.  But I will disagree with it.  That is tolerance.

British philosopher Gilbert Keith Chesterton wrote, "We call a man a bigot or a slave to dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end."  Because I have a belief, formed by those who have gone before me and has been passed down to me, that means I am a bigot according to the dogma of today, because that belief is unpopular.  But I am okay with that.  I will sit here in my tolerant bigotry.

Inspired by these two comics:
http://adam4d.com/bigot/
http://adam4d.com/tolerance/

Bible passages concerning homosexuality:
Romans 1:24-27: "24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:  Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
1 Timothy 1:8-11: "8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me."

Leviticus 18:22: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Legalization of Marijuana

Recently, the first stores legally able to sell recreational marijuana opened in Colorado.  Amendment 64 legalized the use of recreational marijuana in Colorado.  This was a contention issue then, and it still is.  There are a number of questions that need to be answered.  How can this state law and a conflicting federal law be reconciled, if at all?  What affect will this have on the society?  Will this increase the rates of usage?  Will this lead to more fatalities from accidents resulting from driving under the influence?  Is this a good thing?

Some of these can only be answered with time.  What I be sure of is one thing: the answer for the last question is NO.  Legal marijuana use is dangerous because it does indeed have effects that compromise the user's health and cognitive ability.

Many people will cite the lack of evidence about the harmful effects.  This isn't to say that it doesn't exist.  Cancer Research UK admits that some studies are inconclusive about whether smoking cannabis causes cancer, although we know that there are at least 50 of the same carcinogens that are in tobacco, but they also explain that it is difficult to study cannabis.  This is because many smokers mix it with tobacco, which we more or less know causes lung cancer, and because it is still illegal in many countries and users are reluctant to take part in the research.  Check out their fact sheet about cannabis here: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer#evidence

But the cancer risk is not what is so dangerous about marijuana.  It is the fact that it is a psychoactive drug that can alter the the state of consciousness of the user that should remain the primary argument against it.  The psychoactive effects of marijuana include euphoria, which is what users generally are seeking, but a general altered state of consciousness and impairment also accompany the high.  It can also have psychedelic or hallucinogenic properties.

One of the main arguments for the legalization of marijuana is that it is similar to alcoholic drinks, and the effect is more or less the same, in terms of impairment.  Well, even if that is the case, there is no easy way to test if it was used yesterday or last month.  The active ingredient in marijuana, THC, is converted to a similar, but different, compound after the smoke is inhaled, and the effect lasts longer than measurable levels of THC in the blood.  As a result, it is difficult to quickly, and accurately, test the levels of THC in the blood, unlike alcohol, which can be tested with relative accuracy in the field with a breathalyzer.  Because it is fat-soluble, THC and similar compounds will remain in the body for too long to determine when it was used.

The duration of the effects are also of concern.  Similar to alcohol, how long it affects you depends on a variety of factors.  When smoked, effects of marijuana last around two to three hours usually.  One study showed that the effects of smoking one marijuana cigarette lasted around 3.5 hours.  Acute effects were strong, but residual effects the following morning were minimal.  One cigarette induced clear impairment in individuals that lasted up to 3.5 hours, compared to one drink which has almost no effect on many drinkers, including myself.  Regular use, however, can induce paranoia and anxiety, and one review of currently available literature suggests that marijuana dependence is a real disorder that requires real treatment, and that it can indeed cause serious harm.

Because of the nature of the effects of marijuana, the difficulty in testing and determining when it was used, and the duration  period of a single marijuana cigarette, I do believe that it is not in the best interests of states or people to legalize its use.  My own bias and beliefs also lead me to make this decision.  The information we have is often anecdotal because we haven't been able to really study it the way we have other drugs.  But the way the people of Colorado voted for Amendment 64 shows that this is an issue that many agree with me on.  It passed with only 55% approval.  No doubt this will come up for a vote again in a few years.  By then, the people of Colorado will hopefully have answered the important questions that legalizing marijuana presents.  And hopefully, enough people will decide that it isn't a good thing, and that there will be data to support this.

Some places I got information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_drug_testing
http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/commonly-abused-drugs/commonly-abused-drugs-chart
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_64

A New Year's Resolution

Okay, so....

This is going to be something I try to do this year.  I'm going to try to talk about things at least once a month for 2014.  And that's about it.  The name of my blog comes from the word "blog" and a joke between my brother and I.  How does a pirate record his thoughts online?  With a bl-arrrrrr-g.

And now about me....I suppose.  I'm a mechanical engineering major at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln, and an Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet.  I would like to be involved in some aspect of the research, development, and procurement process for new technologies when I commission.  I am a Lutheran, so thoughts about my beliefs will probably be a topic at some point.  I like to run (sometimes) and I like to eat and drink beer (always).

The main topics for my blog are going to be what's going on in my life, theological thoughts, engineering enigmas, and rants if I can't think of anything else.  I really don't expect too many people to read this, it's just something I'm doing.  If you do read, enjoy!