The events surrounding the earthquake in Haiti have given me a lot to think about lately. A few of those thoughts are below.
I have heard wildly varying figures on the number of people who have died, but even the most conservative numbers are breath-taking. Even if a low-ball number of 35,000 people is used that is still ten times the number of people who died in 9/11. Given the toll on those who survived as well it is impossible for me to fathom the human toll this earthquake has taken. It is hard to imagine a worse place on dry land that a major earthquake could have struck.
While pretty much everyone is moved by the humanity of the situation in Haiti, I think that most people are trained to value people of their own nationality a bit more than people of other nationalities. I am always reminded of this when some tragedy occurs on foreign soil and one of the first questions people have is how many Americans were impacted. I am sure that this sort of thing is not unique to Americans, but since I live in the U.S. that is what I notice.
One of the most moving stories I heard was of a two-year-old boy who was rescued after two days under the rubble. NJ is currently three and CD is currently one. I cannot imagine having either stuck for any extended time in a situation like that. It must have been pure torture not only for him, but for his parents as well. I don't want to think of all of those two-year-olds for whom the ending wasn't so happy.
A lot of hay has been made about cruise ships docking on Haiti ports after the devastation and continuing to provide use of private beaches. While on the face of it this sounds horrible, if this is something that locals rely on for income to survive, then it would seem like stopping the ships from docking would be more cruel than carrying on as they have been doing. I certainly do not know the whole story, though.
Having watched my share of The 700 Club as a kid, I am not surprised with the comments that Pat Robertson made about Haiti or why he would not have thought them so inflammatory before he spoke them. That does not change how stupid the comments were, though, or excuse the lack of an apology. Unless he had a direct word from God somehow to support what he said, which he is not claiming he did, then he is essentially filling the role of Job's friends in implying that this happened because the people of Haiti got on God's bad side. I really wish that Robertson was not one of the modern voices of Christianity. How does he keep getting an audience? His main role in life right now appears to be to drive people away from God.
Finally, because I don't want to end with a discussion of Pat Robertson, I would like to conclude with the question of how can we have such a destitute country so geographically close to our own country and do so little about it? I know neither Cuba nor Mexico, which are both closer, are rich, but my understanding is that Haiti is in a completely different league from the other poor countries in this region. The U.S. has also arguably had more opportunity to influence Haiti than most of its other neighbors as well. Maybe we are just concerned that we would turn it into a Somalia or something like that if we offered too much aid? Haiti doesn't appear to have the same tribal issues as Somalia, though, so it's a mystery to me.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
relational politics
Through the years I never really understood how people from different political parties came to the conclusion that it was a good idea to get married. Even more confusing to me were the high-profile relationships where people had, and still have, a vested interest in furthering the principles of their chosen party. As examples, the Arnold Schwarzenegger/Maria Shriver marriage and the James Carville/Mary Matalin marriage struck me as odd, though I certainly have never had enough information to know the dynamics of those relationships. In recent years I have modified my thinking about this.
Golden and I both have some strong political views about some topics, but I am amazed at how little we actually discuss political issues. If and when there are issues about which we disagree we may not even know what the other person thinks about the issue, let alone care about whether we are in agreement about the topic. I think I expected that marriage entailed a lot of discussion about politics because of the vast amount of conversational time that the married couple has to fill. I did not think of this as a good or bad thing, but I did figure it was inevitable.
While I do now understand how politics can be almost completely irrelevant to a married relationship, I do still think that there are some specific political issues that would be difficult to reconcile in a complicated situation. For example, differences on how the individuals feel about abortion could be the most major of issues in the event of a surprise pregnancy. For most issues, though, there are not an abundance of scenarios where a difference in viewpoints should affect my relationship with Golden. As a modern hypothetical example, if one of us supported the Democrats' healthcare reform plans and the other opposed it that would not really make any difference in our relationship. Our viewpoints on the issue will not change any major family decision that we could make and we very truly have little influence on the outcome of the issue anyway.
All of this is really quite academic because Golden and I most frequently agree when we even know each other's political views. It is nice to know that this is not something that is likely to hamper our relationship when we disagree, however. Having the freedom to focus on our important relational situations rather than getting bogged down in the things over which we have no control anyway is the absolute ideal.
Golden and I both have some strong political views about some topics, but I am amazed at how little we actually discuss political issues. If and when there are issues about which we disagree we may not even know what the other person thinks about the issue, let alone care about whether we are in agreement about the topic. I think I expected that marriage entailed a lot of discussion about politics because of the vast amount of conversational time that the married couple has to fill. I did not think of this as a good or bad thing, but I did figure it was inevitable.
While I do now understand how politics can be almost completely irrelevant to a married relationship, I do still think that there are some specific political issues that would be difficult to reconcile in a complicated situation. For example, differences on how the individuals feel about abortion could be the most major of issues in the event of a surprise pregnancy. For most issues, though, there are not an abundance of scenarios where a difference in viewpoints should affect my relationship with Golden. As a modern hypothetical example, if one of us supported the Democrats' healthcare reform plans and the other opposed it that would not really make any difference in our relationship. Our viewpoints on the issue will not change any major family decision that we could make and we very truly have little influence on the outcome of the issue anyway.
All of this is really quite academic because Golden and I most frequently agree when we even know each other's political views. It is nice to know that this is not something that is likely to hamper our relationship when we disagree, however. Having the freedom to focus on our important relational situations rather than getting bogged down in the things over which we have no control anyway is the absolute ideal.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
ten-year goals
Since my birthday that ends in a zero occurs a few months before the new decade* this provides me a double opportunity to review my last ten years and consider what I want to do with my next ten years. When I consider the last ten years, I am confronted by a lot of competing thoughts about how long and short the time has been. Ten years is a lot of time for things to happen, but it is also a short enough time to procrastinate on a lot of things that I thought I would have accomplished.
It certainly helps in my view of the last decade that about half was without kids and just under half comprises the time after we found out that we would have NJ. Life without kids is so much different from life with kids that I almost think of the past ten years as two separate decades. I am sure I am not the only person who has ever had that observation, though.
Ten years ago I was just completing college and did not really know what to expect from the ten years I had ahead of me. If I had to guess ten years ago what my next decade would include, I would have probably been selfish with my expectations. Few people want to talk about the responsibilities that they will take on more than the benefits for those responsibilities.
Interestingly, I am not much clearer on what my next ten years holds now than I was ten years ago. I know there are certain things that I would like to happen in the next ten years, but I always have a bit of trepidation about focusing too much on those. Sometimes those things that I would like to happen are just not possible or ideal and I don't want to be stuck ten years from now measuring the past decade by a standard that turned out to be unrealistic.
With all of that being said, I do have some generic goals for the coming decade. The problem is that they are not the types of goals that are easy to list. Very little is specific and measurable, some of it is private, and a lot of it is selfish. As an example of a selfish one, a goal of mine is to make more time to read and play video games. Some people would think playing more video games is a horrendous goal, but as someone who is highly strung and has had other priorities in the recent past I think the end result of doing this would be that I would be an easier person to deal with. It also represents a way for me to connect with NJ (I do have goals about connecting more with Golden and CD as well). Another goal is to, at some point, take the family to Florida to either Disney, or MGM, or Epcot, or something of that nature. If the finances for that do not work out, though, it may be better that that does not happen.
Something that I try to keep in mind with my goals is that something is only a worthwhile goal if I am willing to make a sacrifice to complete it. Graduating from a degree program qualifies as a goal because doing so requires a time and money sacrifice. Playing more video games only qualifies as a goal if I am giving up something else that I like in order to reach that goal.
Does anyone else have goals for the upcoming decade that are either the same as what has happened over the past decade or are a complete departure? I would love to hear about them.
* I understand that 2011 actually starts the decade, but does anyone really think in those terms? It is just a technicality based on the fact that there was no year zero.
It certainly helps in my view of the last decade that about half was without kids and just under half comprises the time after we found out that we would have NJ. Life without kids is so much different from life with kids that I almost think of the past ten years as two separate decades. I am sure I am not the only person who has ever had that observation, though.
Ten years ago I was just completing college and did not really know what to expect from the ten years I had ahead of me. If I had to guess ten years ago what my next decade would include, I would have probably been selfish with my expectations. Few people want to talk about the responsibilities that they will take on more than the benefits for those responsibilities.
Interestingly, I am not much clearer on what my next ten years holds now than I was ten years ago. I know there are certain things that I would like to happen in the next ten years, but I always have a bit of trepidation about focusing too much on those. Sometimes those things that I would like to happen are just not possible or ideal and I don't want to be stuck ten years from now measuring the past decade by a standard that turned out to be unrealistic.
With all of that being said, I do have some generic goals for the coming decade. The problem is that they are not the types of goals that are easy to list. Very little is specific and measurable, some of it is private, and a lot of it is selfish. As an example of a selfish one, a goal of mine is to make more time to read and play video games. Some people would think playing more video games is a horrendous goal, but as someone who is highly strung and has had other priorities in the recent past I think the end result of doing this would be that I would be an easier person to deal with. It also represents a way for me to connect with NJ (I do have goals about connecting more with Golden and CD as well). Another goal is to, at some point, take the family to Florida to either Disney, or MGM, or Epcot, or something of that nature. If the finances for that do not work out, though, it may be better that that does not happen.
Something that I try to keep in mind with my goals is that something is only a worthwhile goal if I am willing to make a sacrifice to complete it. Graduating from a degree program qualifies as a goal because doing so requires a time and money sacrifice. Playing more video games only qualifies as a goal if I am giving up something else that I like in order to reach that goal.
Does anyone else have goals for the upcoming decade that are either the same as what has happened over the past decade or are a complete departure? I would love to hear about them.
* I understand that 2011 actually starts the decade, but does anyone really think in those terms? It is just a technicality based on the fact that there was no year zero.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
kerr's folly
This is one of those blogs that I intended to type two years ago and started to put together around that time but I never really figured out how I wanted to structure it, so it collected dust for a while. I have got several like that from around the same year. That is beside the point right now, though.
Back when I started typing this I had just learned of a concept called "Kerr's Folly" in school, which describes an issue that has always intrigued me. Steven Kerr, who was or is a professor of management at the University of Michigan, wrote a relatively famous piece in 1995 entitled "On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B." The title sums up the concept nicely. All too often societies, businesses, individuals, and other entities believe expect a certain type of behavior but reward a contradictory behavior. As an example, we expect politicians to be representative of the common constituency, but we accept a system that requires someone be either independently wealthy or willing to accept contributions from whomever will give them in order to be elected. So, we are hoping for a representative who understands and responds to the issues of the common folk, but we reward millionaires and sellouts.
The concept was originally written for business and it is very applicable there. Investors demand long-term growth and stability but judge companies on quarterly results without regard to statistical variation. Management expects teamwork but rewards and punishes based on comparative individual accomplishment. Projects are expected to be completed with high level of quality but rewards are based on meeting time and cost goals.
I see the same sorts of things in life outside of business as well. People who feel mistreated lash out, thus guaranteeing that they will continue to be mistreated (or will start to be mistreated if they misunderstood their treatment before). People who desire friendships and deeper relationships become clingy, which encourages others to avoid them rather than befriend them. People expect their kids to have certain standards and viewpoints but they model opposing standards through their personal behavior and are inconsistent in enforcing the standards they preach.
I have always tried to pay attention as to whether I an providing incentives for people to do the opposite of what I want them to do. I don't know that anyone can be objective enough all of the time to really know what behavior he or she is encouraging, though. Do you pay attention to the behavior that you are encouraging in others to behave in your life as well? Do you have a reason not to?
Back when I started typing this I had just learned of a concept called "Kerr's Folly" in school, which describes an issue that has always intrigued me. Steven Kerr, who was or is a professor of management at the University of Michigan, wrote a relatively famous piece in 1995 entitled "On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B." The title sums up the concept nicely. All too often societies, businesses, individuals, and other entities believe expect a certain type of behavior but reward a contradictory behavior. As an example, we expect politicians to be representative of the common constituency, but we accept a system that requires someone be either independently wealthy or willing to accept contributions from whomever will give them in order to be elected. So, we are hoping for a representative who understands and responds to the issues of the common folk, but we reward millionaires and sellouts.
The concept was originally written for business and it is very applicable there. Investors demand long-term growth and stability but judge companies on quarterly results without regard to statistical variation. Management expects teamwork but rewards and punishes based on comparative individual accomplishment. Projects are expected to be completed with high level of quality but rewards are based on meeting time and cost goals.
I see the same sorts of things in life outside of business as well. People who feel mistreated lash out, thus guaranteeing that they will continue to be mistreated (or will start to be mistreated if they misunderstood their treatment before). People who desire friendships and deeper relationships become clingy, which encourages others to avoid them rather than befriend them. People expect their kids to have certain standards and viewpoints but they model opposing standards through their personal behavior and are inconsistent in enforcing the standards they preach.
I have always tried to pay attention as to whether I an providing incentives for people to do the opposite of what I want them to do. I don't know that anyone can be objective enough all of the time to really know what behavior he or she is encouraging, though. Do you pay attention to the behavior that you are encouraging in others to behave in your life as well? Do you have a reason not to?
Saturday, December 12, 2009
holiday busyness
I am well-documented in expressing my distaste for all of the responsibilities that come with the holidays. It is supposed to be a joyous time of year, but you have to jump through fifteen different hoops just to have done things right for the holidays. Christmas cards, decorations, gifts are all stresses more than they are things to bring families closer together or emphasize the importance of Christ, which are what the focus of holiday time should be anyway.
I remember really looking forward to Christmas as a kid, but the reasoning for that was pretty sound. It was one of my best opportunities to get toys and games, I got time off school, and I usually got the opportunity to play with cousins. I had no real responsibilities with the holiday, so the adults got to deal with all of the stress.
I have a theory that twenty percent of those who celebrate Christmas are holding the other eighty percent hostage. I think that twenty percent of people are so into the holidays that they are the ones listening to carols all year and putting up huge Christmas displays in their yards the day after Thanksgiving. They are the ones who put hours into creating their Christmas cards and send them to everyone they ever met. They are also the ones who figured out the popular gifts for the year in August and had them purchased before the rush (probably not as relevant this year, but you get the picture). I think that this twenty percent of people for whom this is a hobby rather than a responsibility sets the bar for the other eighty percent of the population.
To the eighty percent of the Christmas-celebrating population I say, "Enough!" Rather than describing people who would prefer to spend time home with their families watching TV or playing games than in a chaotic mall or holed up in the back room writing Christmas cards as apathetic Scrooges, we should aspire to be more like them. Of course, I say that as an apathetic Scrooge.
I remember really looking forward to Christmas as a kid, but the reasoning for that was pretty sound. It was one of my best opportunities to get toys and games, I got time off school, and I usually got the opportunity to play with cousins. I had no real responsibilities with the holiday, so the adults got to deal with all of the stress.
I have a theory that twenty percent of those who celebrate Christmas are holding the other eighty percent hostage. I think that twenty percent of people are so into the holidays that they are the ones listening to carols all year and putting up huge Christmas displays in their yards the day after Thanksgiving. They are the ones who put hours into creating their Christmas cards and send them to everyone they ever met. They are also the ones who figured out the popular gifts for the year in August and had them purchased before the rush (probably not as relevant this year, but you get the picture). I think that this twenty percent of people for whom this is a hobby rather than a responsibility sets the bar for the other eighty percent of the population.
To the eighty percent of the Christmas-celebrating population I say, "Enough!" Rather than describing people who would prefer to spend time home with their families watching TV or playing games than in a chaotic mall or holed up in the back room writing Christmas cards as apathetic Scrooges, we should aspire to be more like them. Of course, I say that as an apathetic Scrooge.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
prayer
I have never felt like I was any good at prayer. At different times it has felt like one of the three following things.
I have long felt that the key to understanding prayer is in Matthew 6:5-15, copied below from the NIV. I have also long felt that the emphasis that I have often seen placed on prayer in church environments has conflicted with what I read in this passage. Until recently, though, I had not taken the time to parse this and give it proper thought.
"...when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father..."
Don't make a show of it. This seems elementary, but when you think of a good prayer do you think of one that is a good speech or one that is humbly directed to the Father? I think that the emphasis on turning prayers into speeches has done more to discourage everyday people from praying than anything else because those oratory prayers make us think on some level that the quality of delivery is what matters.
"...do not keep on babbling like pagans..."
Length for length's sake is pointless. A genuine three-minute prayer is better than a fifteen minute prayer with no real communication with God. Prayers cannot and should not ever be judged purely on length.
"Do not be like [the pagans], for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."
To an extent this addresses my second and third annoyances from the beginning of this post. I can take my needs and wants to God and He will address those things that are really needs, so selfishness is not necessarily rewarded. Furthermore, God does not want me blathering on into boredom in an attempt to be heard. I can beseech God as long as I need to, but there is no obligation to pray into the point of boredom.
At this point Jesus gives an example prayer, opening it with the command, "This, then, is how you should pray." So, the Lord's Prayer which follows is an example of how I should pray. I think it is also important to note that since this prayer is meant as an example of an alternative to babbling like the pagans we should be careful not to just mindlessly rattle off the prayer without really meaning the words. Otherwise, we are babbling like the pagans and violating the very spirit of this passage.
"Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name..."
I am praying to and should acknowledge God. He is great and holy. To address my earlier concern in point one that God already knows that He is great and holy so why bother saying it, I think much of the value is in my understanding it through my saying it. Do I think about how great God is and what that means enough? Do I think about how holy God is and what that means enough? I should stop and consider this every time I speak to God.
"...your kingdom come..."
I should pray for God to do the work that He said He would do. Jesus spoke at great length about the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom represents the true Church, so I would interpret this as a prayer for that true Church to remain strong and to grow. Since the teaching in the Gospels about the "Kingdom" is relatively complicated, this is something that could be investigated further.
"...your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
I believe this is an indication that we should not be praying for what we want to happen, but for whatever God's will is to happen. Jesus provided the perfect illustration for this in Gethsemane: "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." I think there are some people who, if they were in Gethsemane with Jesus that night, would have chided Jesus for a lack of faith in not believing that the cup would pass.
"Give us today our daily bread."
I should request daily provision. Few things scare me more than this because comfort and luxury are not implied in any shape or form in this request.
"Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors."
I should request forgiveness for my shortcomings. Importantly, I must also not be harboring unforgiveness when I pray this prayer. I actually read this more as a focus on us forgiving others than a focus on God forgiving us.
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one."
I should pray that God guides me throughout each day and throughout my life. I should also pray that, in that guidance, I am steered clear of evil. If I had to choose, I would say that this is the most important part of the prayer.
"...if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."
It is part of the same passage and it bears repeating. The prayer itself is a meaningless charade if the person performing the prayer harbors unforgiveness. Your standing with God is a charade if you harbor unforgiveness.
- Patronizing, because God already knows He is great and knows that I know.
- Selfish, because I seem to go to Him most frequently for less than altruistic purposes.
- Boring, because what do you say to the One who knows everything?
I have long felt that the key to understanding prayer is in Matthew 6:5-15, copied below from the NIV. I have also long felt that the emphasis that I have often seen placed on prayer in church environments has conflicted with what I read in this passage. Until recently, though, I had not taken the time to parse this and give it proper thought.
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. "This, then, is how you should pray:" 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.' For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."What follows is how I break down and interpret this passage. The first few points have to do with the act of praying more than what is actually said.
"...when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father..."
Don't make a show of it. This seems elementary, but when you think of a good prayer do you think of one that is a good speech or one that is humbly directed to the Father? I think that the emphasis on turning prayers into speeches has done more to discourage everyday people from praying than anything else because those oratory prayers make us think on some level that the quality of delivery is what matters.
"...do not keep on babbling like pagans..."
Length for length's sake is pointless. A genuine three-minute prayer is better than a fifteen minute prayer with no real communication with God. Prayers cannot and should not ever be judged purely on length.
"Do not be like [the pagans], for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."
To an extent this addresses my second and third annoyances from the beginning of this post. I can take my needs and wants to God and He will address those things that are really needs, so selfishness is not necessarily rewarded. Furthermore, God does not want me blathering on into boredom in an attempt to be heard. I can beseech God as long as I need to, but there is no obligation to pray into the point of boredom.
At this point Jesus gives an example prayer, opening it with the command, "This, then, is how you should pray." So, the Lord's Prayer which follows is an example of how I should pray. I think it is also important to note that since this prayer is meant as an example of an alternative to babbling like the pagans we should be careful not to just mindlessly rattle off the prayer without really meaning the words. Otherwise, we are babbling like the pagans and violating the very spirit of this passage.
"Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name..."
I am praying to and should acknowledge God. He is great and holy. To address my earlier concern in point one that God already knows that He is great and holy so why bother saying it, I think much of the value is in my understanding it through my saying it. Do I think about how great God is and what that means enough? Do I think about how holy God is and what that means enough? I should stop and consider this every time I speak to God.
"...your kingdom come..."
I should pray for God to do the work that He said He would do. Jesus spoke at great length about the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom represents the true Church, so I would interpret this as a prayer for that true Church to remain strong and to grow. Since the teaching in the Gospels about the "Kingdom" is relatively complicated, this is something that could be investigated further.
"...your will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
I believe this is an indication that we should not be praying for what we want to happen, but for whatever God's will is to happen. Jesus provided the perfect illustration for this in Gethsemane: "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." I think there are some people who, if they were in Gethsemane with Jesus that night, would have chided Jesus for a lack of faith in not believing that the cup would pass.
"Give us today our daily bread."
I should request daily provision. Few things scare me more than this because comfort and luxury are not implied in any shape or form in this request.
"Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors."
I should request forgiveness for my shortcomings. Importantly, I must also not be harboring unforgiveness when I pray this prayer. I actually read this more as a focus on us forgiving others than a focus on God forgiving us.
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one."
I should pray that God guides me throughout each day and throughout my life. I should also pray that, in that guidance, I am steered clear of evil. If I had to choose, I would say that this is the most important part of the prayer.
"...if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."
It is part of the same passage and it bears repeating. The prayer itself is a meaningless charade if the person performing the prayer harbors unforgiveness. Your standing with God is a charade if you harbor unforgiveness.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
only in america
One list that I have come across several times in my time online is a series of things that could happen, "Only in America." A typical representation of the list is here, and common observations are that pizza can get to your house faster than an ambulance and that there are handicap spaces in front of skating rinks. The observation that has always stuck with me is the following, though.
The implications with the observation is two-fold. First, someone who orders double cheeseburgers and large fries truly has little self-control. Second, diet Coke is a lazy and ineffective means of offsetting the calories consumed in the burger and fries. I believe that both of these assumptions is false, so I would like to address them.
Double cheeseburger and fries
Is this really that much food? On a calorie for calorie basis I know that a burger and fries tends to be more expensive than most other equivalent entree options, but this does not mean that ordering the food equals a lack of self-control. Everyone splurges on some things, which can be healthy when it is controlled, so splurging on the double cheeseburger (rather than the triple cheeseburger) does not seem like such a big deal. It is a big deal if someone with a sedentary lifestyle orders the burger and fries every single day, but that scenario is not implied in the joke.
Diet Coke and calories
While I am sure that a diet Coke contains many things that are not good for the body, a twelve-ounce diet Coke contains just under 200 calories less than a regular Coke of the same size. The average adult would have to walk almost two miles to burn that many calories. Doesn't it make sense that the person who should order the diet Coke to trim those 200 calories should be the one who is splurging on the double cheeseburger rather than the person ordering a salad?
I like to think of this in budgeting terms. Let's say that I have budgeted to spend 800 calories this meal. If my double cheeseburger and fries gets me to 790 calories, I would have to drink the diet drink or a water to stay under budget. This is the same concept that if I have $800 to do repair work around the house, once I hit my budgetary limit and spend my $800 I have to only repair the things that can be repaired for free. It is not absurd to cut back in spending on one part of a renovation project to offset splurging in another part.
Why do I care? Because only in America... are the burgers so good.
"Only in America... do people order double cheeseburgers, large fries, and a diet Coke."It sounds good at first, and the reason it initially stuck out to me was that I thought it was more insightful than the other observations in the list the first time I read it. Upon further introspection, and the fact that I have started drinking diet cola with more frequency, I now believe that this observation not very insightful at all.
The implications with the observation is two-fold. First, someone who orders double cheeseburgers and large fries truly has little self-control. Second, diet Coke is a lazy and ineffective means of offsetting the calories consumed in the burger and fries. I believe that both of these assumptions is false, so I would like to address them.
Double cheeseburger and fries
Is this really that much food? On a calorie for calorie basis I know that a burger and fries tends to be more expensive than most other equivalent entree options, but this does not mean that ordering the food equals a lack of self-control. Everyone splurges on some things, which can be healthy when it is controlled, so splurging on the double cheeseburger (rather than the triple cheeseburger) does not seem like such a big deal. It is a big deal if someone with a sedentary lifestyle orders the burger and fries every single day, but that scenario is not implied in the joke.
Diet Coke and calories
While I am sure that a diet Coke contains many things that are not good for the body, a twelve-ounce diet Coke contains just under 200 calories less than a regular Coke of the same size. The average adult would have to walk almost two miles to burn that many calories. Doesn't it make sense that the person who should order the diet Coke to trim those 200 calories should be the one who is splurging on the double cheeseburger rather than the person ordering a salad?
I like to think of this in budgeting terms. Let's say that I have budgeted to spend 800 calories this meal. If my double cheeseburger and fries gets me to 790 calories, I would have to drink the diet drink or a water to stay under budget. This is the same concept that if I have $800 to do repair work around the house, once I hit my budgetary limit and spend my $800 I have to only repair the things that can be repaired for free. It is not absurd to cut back in spending on one part of a renovation project to offset splurging in another part.
Why do I care? Because only in America... are the burgers so good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
