Class Difference

I mentioned a while ago in a blog that I think there is a definite class system in the United States.   Depending on who you talk to, there are varying number of "classes" within our country.  The number doesn't matter so much as the fact that it is hard to move up in the class system.  It is relatively easy to move down, yet moving up is always a struggle for people.  But I don't necessarily want to talk about the class system again today.  I simply wanted to bring that up as part of an intro.  Coinciding with the class system is people's perception of those within the different classes.  I am sure that almost everyone who is reading this is familiar with the Occupy Movement which in large part has fizzled out due to lack of direction and purpose.  Part of the Occupy mantra was differentiating between the 99% and the 1% in the United States.   While I think it is almost impossible to infiltrate, if you will, the top 1%, I have a problem with how the differentiating process characterizes, or at least seems to, those who have too much money.  People essentially take those in the 1% and cast them as greedy, over zealous, elite individuals who are not in touch with the reality of the 99%.  This is probably true in part due to the amount of money they have and the lack of financial issues that they have to deal with, however, if we take away the dollar sign from the labeling of the 1% and simply look at them as people, we will find a whole different picture awaiting us.  Our society, for those who live in seclusion, is largely driven by money, those who have a lot, and those who don't.  People draw different conclusions about the people who are associated either with a lot of money or a little.  There seems to be a general consensus that those with excessive amounts of money are stuck up, removed from society, and don't want to associate with those individuals who have very little.  On the flip side, we also view those who have very little as worthless, having a lack of drive, and overall destitute.  While there is some grain of truth to those perceptions, to take it as indicative of the whole would be like taking a pinch of sand from the beach, putting it in your hand, and calling that pinch of sand the whole beach; it just flies in the face of reality. 

As a contractor, I have the somewhat unique ability to travel between the classes, not so much as move between them, but rather pay visits to different classes.  I have worked for those with way too much money and also for those with a lot less.  Unfortunately, I have never worked for those with very little as they can not afford my work, but I have volunteered and helped out with community outreach campaigns to help those in need.  So having dealt with people from all walks of life, from those who own private islands to those who live on the streets, I can honestly say that there is not that much difference between anyone (except for money and possessions).  The impression that anyone with a lot of money is stuck up is flat out wrong.  There are those in the upper class who want nothing to do with people who make less than them, do not travel in their circle, and do not drive a Mercedes; however those do not represent everyone who has money.  I have run into many more people with money who are down to earth, friendly, and willing to have a conversation with me.  Similarly, the perception that people who have almost nothing are all screwed up is also not true.  Having volunteered in soup kitchens and handing out essentials on the streets of Bridgeport, I have come to see that what these people need most is someone to talk to.  When you strip away money, possessions, and all the worldly things we like to label people with, it turns out that we all have similar struggles and we all just want someone to talk to.  All it takes to get people to open up is to treat them as humans, not as someone from a different class, but simply as humans.  If we have a preconceived notion about how someone will act when we meet them, then they will most likely act that we because we ourselves have not opened ourselves up and stripped away our assumptions.  I have had down to earth conversations with people who frequent the soup kitchens to those who own the private islands.  There is very little difference between who they are other than what they wear and the amount of money they have.  Despite that, they are the same. 

I was going to say that its amazing that people still have this view of the way people should be based upon what they own, how much money they have, and where they live.  However, its really not amazing when you look at society and the way people act.  I think it would be beneficial to our society if we all took some time to meet people who are different than us.  I have been fortunate enough to see a little of all the classes, yet I know that I am an anomaly when it comes to that.  Not everyone can just drive up to a mansion and start having a conversation with someone.  I occasionally get a call and do just that.  However, everyone can and should volunteer their time to help those in need and when helping them, engage them in a conversation.  Most people, especially those with very little, just need someone to talk to about what their lives and what they are going through.  Oddly enough, its the same way with those who have money; often times they just want someone with an open ear to talk to and share their story with.  The struggles are essentially the same when you boil it down.  Everyone deals with stress and everyone needs help to get through it.  What we really need to do is cast aside our class system and get back to treating each other as equals.  Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.  For now, I will do my part and listen to people when they need to talk, ask them questions about their lives, and do my traveling between the classes. 

Stupid Football Refs

Now that the replacement refs are gone, I feel I need to comment on the ridiculous nature of the whole ordeal.  First of all, let me just state that I have never been a big fan of football.  I watch the superbowl once a year (or I at least attend a superbowl party) and that is pretty much about it.  I don't keep track of who is doing what, what team is winning, what players are even out there; its just not my cup of tea.  So with that said, I think it is pretty fair to say that all my comments here are from an outsider looking in.  From my understanding of the whole issue, garnered mostly from listening to the radio in the morning and seeing the latest on Facebook and what not, a big part of the ordeal was over money and how much the regular refs were getting paid.   The top earning officials make over $100,000 a year for a part time job.  It all came down to the fact that they wanted more money and the NFL didn't want to pay them more money.  On top of that, the refs apparently wanted to receive a pension for their work reffing football games.  Pensions?  For part time work?  If only the rest of the country could be so lucky to get pensions for working a part time job.  To be perfectly honest, this whole mess between making more for reffing a game and receiving a pension for a part time job when most of the refs have well paying full time jobs is just ridiculous.  This issue just goes to show how out of touch with reality this culture of football really is.  When there are thousands of people without work and struggling to make ends meet, the refs don't want to work their part time job because they are not making enough and not getting a pension (or whatever the stupid issues really are, I don't care).  What it all boils down to is greed and another stupid union getting in the way.  Football, as we have seen over the past few weeks, is obviously far more important than any war or upcoming presidential election.  After all, when you have the replacement refs getting more press time than Obama or Romney, you know something is wrong with this country. 

What bothers me even more about this whole ordeal is the anger exhibited over the replacement refs.  As I mentioned above, I don't watch any regular football games, the only one I watch is the superbowl.  However, I feel like I have watched a few games over the past few weeks just by the comments I have heard and seen about the replacement refs.  I have heard about some of the botched calls, the stolen game, the blah, blah, blah.  I remember when I used to play sports when I was younger and we had to deal with a bad ref.  I had a big temper back then and used to start yelling and cussing when bad calls were made.  I know things are different now, but back then, the coach used to tell me to get past the refs and play the game.  Granted, you make money to play football in the NFL, but it is still a game.  Regardless of whether you win or lose (obviously teams like to win), you still get paid at the end of the day unless you perform horribly over the course of the season (and then you still get paid because your under contract).  Let me say that one more time, football is a game, it is not life despite what some people may think.  Perhaps if everyone took a little time to remember that, there would be a little less stress and anxiety when a team that should have won, loses or vice versa.  Yet all this hyper reaction to replacement refs and this super fan fanaticism doesn't really surprise me.  When I see football fans devote an enormous amount of their time to watching football, playing fantasy football, and immersing themselves into a team that just wants their money, it kind of makes me sick.  All we are doing are creating a false crew of icons for younger children to look up to.  The more young kids see their parents talk about and admire these football players, the more their children will follow their lead and get immersed into the whole football culture.  If you want to be realistic about it, the chances of any one person actually playing for the NFL are slim to none and yet it attracts so many fans its ridiculous. 

OK, so I know I went off a little and I know that football is merely a diversion for many people from real life, but I still think that whole culture is a little ridiculous.  There are so many more worthwhile activities that one could potentially participate in, yet two to three maybe four times a week (I honestly don't know how many football games are played in a week), people gather themselves in front of a big black rectangle and sit entranced for three hours as two teams throw a football and run up and down the field in short spurts.  If you think about the actually game and all the rules involved, it is one of the slowest moving games there is.  I feel that I have said enough on this topic, probably angered too many die-hard fans, and wasted enough of my IQ actually thinking about football.  But before I go, I just want to reiterate my biggest issue I had with the whole replacement ref scandal.  That issue is that it took precedence over every other meaningful issue that we are dealing with.  It took the headlines from the economy, the upcoming election (which is a farce), and turmoil around the world.  I know, we can't necessarily do anything about the big issues, but we could at least educate ourselves as to what is going on around the world and in our own country rather than stare and cheer at a TV showing meat heads crashing into each other at full tilt.  On second thought, there is a way we could improve the football game so that I would actually watch.  Here is my thought.  We build higher walls around the field, perhaps 12 feet tall, and place one starved lion on the field with the football players and see what happens.  They would have to play the game as normal except with a lion trying to eat them.  Now that would be entertainment. 

Good Night Reparative Therapy

Personally, I hadn't even heard about reparative therapy until this morning when I read an article in the NYTimes.   It turns out that reparative therapy, at least in regards to the issue in the article, is a small segment of the psychological world that should be put to rest.  So what was the article about you ask?  Well, I am working my way there.   In California, there has been a ban put on reparative therapy as used to cure homosexuality.  This therapy, largely developed in California, has been used by a wide array of people to try and cure their children and young adults of homosexual tendencies.  It shouldn't come as a surprise that some conservative religious groups have been utilizing or rather pushing this type of therapy as a "cure" for homosexuality.  Have we retreated to the 1800's where you had traveling medicine men touting the latest cure for everything from anger to epilepsy to diarrhea?  There is a good segment of the psychiatric community that considers this sort of therapy to be complete and utter quackery.  I couldn't agree more with them, at least in regards to its utilization to "cure" homosexuality.  Part of the reason that a ban was put on this sort of therapy is that those it had been utilized on had a tendency to sink into depression and were more likely to consider or actually commit suicide.  I think that most rational and learned people would at this point agree with me and most of the world that homosexuality is not something that can be cured.  Rather, it is something you are born with.  Whether it is genetics or something else, we can't get rid of those feelings and if we try, we are in essence denying who we really are.  I have had a good number of homosexual friends over the years and I wouldn't change anything about them.  Yet, there are still those within society, both the United States and worldwide, that consider homosexuality a deviance from the norm, a disease, something "curable".  Well, I have news for those people, homosexuality is not going away anytime soon. 

Aside from this sort of therapy being largely detrimental to the mental health of those it has tried to "cure" of homosexuality, I find another large problem with religious groups pushing people and parents to utilize it.  While I can not speak for every religion and their teachings, I think in general, most religions teach that we should be accepting and welcoming to others regardless of their sexual preferences, their skin color, or anything about them.  It shouldn't matter what a person desires, or what their tendencies are, we are supposed to welcome them and accept them.  I find that for the most part, those conservative religious sects who speak out against homosexuality and consider it to actually be a sin are distorting scripture, re-writing it to their own benefit, or simply making it say what they want it to.  I find their actions to be morally reprehensible.  Who are they to judge if a person is unworthy or not depending on their sexual preferences.  If a person comes to any church with an open and willing heart, than that should be all that matters.   By perpetuating their agenda of eradicating homosexuality, they are in fact doing more harm than good, both to themselves and to those who are gay and lesbian.  By pushing homosexuality to the fringes and outright condemning it essentially says that those who are homosexual are not worthy, are sinners, and should be ashamed.  Yet, maybe that is what these religious sects are trying to do, keep those away they do not want within their walls.  If that is the case, then they are doing a good job.  Only time will tell if these religious offshoots will prevail and actually last.  As long as there are quacks who think that homosexuality is a sin and that it is curable, then I guess maybe they will be around for a while.  I hope not however.  What they need is a little enlightenment and perhaps a little more of an open heart. 

While I have been railing against this reparative therapy, I must offer their own defense of its use.  Those who support this type of therapy and who have vowed to fight the ban have said that one of the main reasons for its use as a "cure" for homosexuality is that in many cases, those who have homosexual tendencies have been victims of sexual abuse when they were younger.  While this might be the case in a few instances, I highly doubt that the majority of those who have homosexual tendencies were sexually abused as children.  If that were the case then we are in serious trouble.  But its not, so lets move on.  The excuse given is merely a vain attempt to keep this sort of therapy alive and functioning.  I wonder how many people who have gone to be "cured" of their homosexuality have done so on their own volition.  I would think that the number would be really small if that were the case.  It would seem that in most cases, people who have received reparative therapy have been pushed, goaded, or pulled their by others.  Shame on them.  I don't know to what extent reparative therapy is used country wide, but at least it is banned in California.  I only hope that in respect to "curing" homosexuality, is banned countrywide.  It is time to move out of the dark ages and see the light.  Homosexuality is not a disease, it is a preference that people are born with and something that we can't be eradicated despite the efforts that some people make to do so.  Acceptance is key.  The more we can open ourselves up to accepting them and everyone who is different than us, the more we can come closer together as a society.