The Man Behind the Curtain

I find it fascinating how often we allow our philosophies to drive our acceptance of various interpretations of data.

That sentence sounds kind of strange, so let me explain.

Scientific data that lends itself to multiple interpretations. Social norms and conventions that seem to have sprung from anthropological evolution. These sorts of things are interpreted through the framework of our own philosophies. And it's amazing how infrequently we consider the little things that break many of our personal ideas or else fail to recognize the far-reaching implications of our attempts to explain these things.

For instance, let's examine a complaint that I hear quite frequently that lead one Charles Templeton to the explicit rejection of the notion of God in general and Christianity in particular. Templeton's chief complaint is that the universe is too broken and imperfect a place to have been created by any sort of loving God. It's an ancient argument that says God cannot be all-powerful and all-good because of the state of the world. Given that the world is screwed up, many people assume that God either doesn't care that it is (making him by no means good) or else he is incapable of fixing it (making him less than all-powerful, and as such, not God).

This is a pretty haughty stance to take.

When we look at the world and state "the world is screwed up," then by what standard are we making this judgment? To make ANY qualitative statement is to beg the question of a standard of judgment. Atheists frequently say "the universe is a savage and broken place, and that's just the way it is". If that's so, then how is it you say it's broken? If this were "just the way it is" then we have no room to proclaim this universe as being anything more or less than that. However, those who do not believe in God will often be those to most quickly point out the savagery of mankind and the atrocities committed in this world.

This is like rejecting a ruler because another ruler measures 12 inches to be slightly longer or shorter than the one being rejected. We've unconsciously selected a standard and rejected another.

If there is no right or wrong, then the universe could not be anymore imperfect than anything else, and as such, the non-existence of God would be acceptable in relation to the current state of affairs. But this isn't the case. We human beings recognize a universal right and wrong. We understand that there are standards by which we ought to behave and ought to live our lives.

The existence of that standard, something beyond Nature and the implications of the materialist view, is what one might call the cardinal difficulty of the atheist. Morality is in and of itself a powerful argument for the existence of something more than this universe, as it acts in contradistinction to instinct and unlike natural laws, allows for man to choose whether or not to obey.

There's tons more to say on the subject, but this is just what's been floating through my mind lately.

Mutual Respect

This post is likely going to offend some people. Frankly, I don't care. No, I don't have a clue how in the world I ended up thinking about this, or why it seems to be a relative non-issue to me (despite my particular stance on the subject) while everyone else who adheres to the same stance seems to be so militant and belligerent about it all. Throughout this post, I'll examine MY thoughts and beliefs on the subject. If you disagree, that's great, you're free to do so.

So, what in the world could I be talking about? What could a Christian blogger feel a bit odd about discussing on the web for fear of some tremendous backlash?

Yeah . . . that. Homosexuality.

I'll preface this by saying that if you came here expecting Fred Phelps-esque ire and offensive comments like "God hates [insert gay slur here]" then you came to the wrong place. I've grown up with friends who are gay (male and female), and while that doesn't give me any sort of authority or the right to make inappropriate comments, it does give me something of an experience base with members of the community about which I'm speaking.

I'm sick of the attitudes on both sides of this ridiculous argument.

Christians, let's get something straight - we're all sinners. Get off your high horse and recognize this. As Lewis said, "Unless Christianity is wholly false, the perception of ourselves which we have in moments of shame must be the only true one." We are fallen and despicable creatures and we really need to get over ourselves. Sinfulness is not a matter of degree, but a question of perfection versus imperfection.

We're none of us perfect.

That being said, gays, let's get something straight (no pun intended . . . God, that was BAD). Demanding that a Christian who views homosexuality as a sin (there are those who turn a blind eye to it, which is inconsistent with scripture) change his/her mind and accept it as not only your choice (which they should) but as equally valid on a moral/spiritual spectrum is akin to a Christian demanding of an atheist that he/she accept the existence of God and the role of Christ as savior as being a universal truth. You want to be treated as equals - I get that, and am behind it. I personally believe that legality shouldn't be influenced by a specific doctrine. While historically, the freedom of religion granted in the Bill of Rights applied more to governmental control over the practice of a specific religion, I do believe that if we as a nation are going to grow in a sense of mutual respect, then we need to keep religion out of politics, but be allowed to act from within the moral framework of our beliefs.

Basically, don't get pissy at a politician who says he isn't gay or doesn't support you 100%. Why should he any more than you should support heterosexuality? Now, the moment he makes something illegal on the grounds that his religion states it, then we might have some problems. Do religion and legality jive most of the time? Yeah, because morality is an absolute, but LAWS should stem from the natural evolution of a society - if it's theocratic (like the Jewish culture described in the Old Testament) then it should come from a religious base; if it's democratic, then it should stem from the will of the people.

I'm getting a little off topic though.

The fact of the matter is - we're both pushing to have our own opinion be accepted as fact by the other party specifically because we accept it as universal truth ourselves, and we're being petty.

Why is it we can't seem to accept that different people maintain different ideals? The acceptance of this does not imply that all ideals are equal or even correct, but the recognition of this fact it paramount to striking a decent compromise. Not "tolerance" inasmuch as "tolerance" tends to imply an acceptance of a differing ideal as being equally valid, but compromise and respect.

So where do we stand? Why are we getting our collective knickers in a knot? Any ideas?

On the same subject - let's get something worked out right now. It's a choice. Sexual attraction is deeply biological and (yes, I'll say it) even determined genetically. You ARE born with a specific attraction to males, females, or both. Attraction, however, is not sexual orientation. Sexuality is an active choice that incorporates emotion, reason, and biology. There ARE animals who are born with a tendency to attempt to mate with the same gender.

You know what happens to them though? They die out. Natural selection does occur, and an orientation that prohibits the passing of genetic material is NOT considered a beneficial genetic trait.

Because we human beings have the capacity to control our mating habits through reason, we can pass this on. Sorry evolutionists, I'm not on your side beyond the idea that beneficial traits get passed on.

Because we maintain the capacity for reason, we have the ability to countermand the genetic factors that lead to same/opposite sex attraction. A man who is attracted to other men and spends the entirety of his life leading a heterosexual lifestyle is in fact, heterosexual. The opposite is true.

Gays, it's not that you're "born gay" it's that your genetics make being gay the path of least resistance. One you might call "natural". Christians, while it IS a choice, don't get all high and mighty about it - how many Christian men cheat on their wives? How many of us make mistakes and decisions that are due to the influence of our carnal natures?

We need to accept this - it's ideological AND biological. It's nature and nurture. It's complex, and the attempt by both sides to boil it down to any sort of simple platitude is absurd.

Gays, straights, Christians, atheists, everyone - we're more alike than we give ourselves credit for, and we need to learn to live together even though we disagree.

Influencing Your Environment

I'm a teacher. At the moment, more on paper than in practice (hooray for a crummy economy), but a teacher none the less. As an educator one of the greatest hurdles I have to face from day to day is classroom management. Ask any student participating in a post-baccalaureate certification program what one portion of instruction seems to be immensely lacking, and they'll likely tell you the same thing: classroom management. It's one of the few areas in this career that is essentially taught 100% on the job.

I was somewhat fortunate, and had a fantastic cooperating teacher during my state-mandated student teaching time (and 2 years in-class experience prior to it).

Others are not so fortunate, and have to jump into something feet first with nothing more than the curricular indoctrination of their education professors. Full disclosure: I had some fantastic professors during my graduate work, and I had some less than fantastic ones as well. My frustration lies with those who were not only less than astounding, but also so full of themselves that they can't see beyond the method that worked for them when they were in a specific classroom at a specific time. Short-sightedness is infuriating, to be sure, but even more so when future educators are evaluated by the criteria of lousy foresight.

One of my courses in particular focused on instructional theory.

This is an extremely varied field of study, and for the life of me, I wish we had been able to investigate it further. Unfortunately, the professor I had subscribed to a specific theory whose foundations were firmly laid in the studies of socio-economic pressures and societal influences. This particular professor had a history in the classroom in a lower socio-economic status area of San Francisco and dealt with very specific ethnic and social problems within the context of the classroom. By approaching most of the lessons from this perspective, she was able to do some amazing work with these students.

I'm not trying to denigrate her accomplishments, by any means. But frankly, what's appropriate in the mid 1980s in San Francisco isn't necessarily going to be effective in Texas in the year 2010. God forbid that you mention that, though. Anyone who wrote a paper with the audacity to question the validity of these methods in this particular setting was struck down with a failing grade and the instruction to rewrite the paper. If you fell into lockstep with her ideals . . . guess what?

Yeah, right there, I became somewhat disillusioned with this professor.

One of the theories that we were supposed to investigate, though, was that of behaviorism. My wife could probably tell you more about it than I could, as she's the one with a degree in psychology, but I'll do my best to sum up. The behaviorist model of education was primarily developed by psychologist B.F. Skinner. For those who have some background in psychology, yes, that is the Skinner whose experiments focused on the conditioning of rats.

Rats. Kids. Same difference.

Skinner's ideas stem from a few basic assumptions, only one of which I want to look at right now. Simply put, it states: "Environment influences behavior".

Do I take issue with this claim? No. Do I think that we are often influenced by our environment? Yes. Of course. Violence in a home typically begets further violence, abuse begets abuse, and so on. However, what bothers me is the strictest application of this theory in the classroom. Teachers are taught a concept called the "locus of control" wherein the responsibility for a student's successes and failures is placed on either the student or the teacher. Teachers who maintain an internal locus of control seek to adjust their behavior and teaching in order to insure student success. Teachers without this specific locus like to place blame on their students (three guesses which one would cause a teacher to grade a paper down for disagreeing with a specific theory).

My personal take on it is that teaching and learning is a contractual obligation that both student and teacher enter into - a professional relationship, if you will. But that's a post for another day.

The real question is this: how does locus of control apply to classroom management, which is itself primarily influenced by student behavior? If Skinner is to be believed, then the environment (which is primarily under the control of the teacher) is the greatest influence on behavior. I respectfully disagree.

Teachers definitely have a responsibility to provide the safest and most productive environment possible for the student. However, for me, that environment is developed through respect and an adherence to an action-consequence model. Every action has a consequence, and every consequence is a logical extension of the action taken.

How does this compare to Skinner's idea? One could argue that this is the environment influencing the students' behavior, but I believe that is an unfair generalization. Environment and behavior should influence one another in a fluid (albeit well established) way. By establishing an environment in which consequence follows action, the student is now granted a modicum of power to influence his/her own environment.

I like to call this a duplication of loci. The teacher maintains the locus of control by establishing the rules (some teachers may seek to involve the students in this process, and I don't disagree), and the students are given a locus of their own by being handed the power to affect their environment. In my classroom, a student is the primary influence on his environment within the constructs of the rules. You want life to be easy? You want to have fun? You can.

How often do you suppose this can be specifically applied outside of the classroom? If we as a people were to take control of our responses, how might it alter our environment?

Movie Review: Inception

Given the nature of this film and the fact that the trailers have done an awesome job of not divulging the plot, this review is RIFE with SPOILERS. You have been warned.

I . . . uh . . . wow.

It's difficult with a film like this to know where to start. I'm tempted to comment on things that I've seen other reviewers mention, while at the same time wishing to jump into a deconstruction of the plot and an analysis of the imagery and film-making. Being thus tempted, I choose instead to start with a little bit of disclosure.

I'm a big fan of science fiction. Not the schlock and drivel that passes for science fiction these days (I'm looking at you, Roland Emmerich) but rather the cerebral, well written, labyrinthine passages of authors such as Asimov, Herbert, Clarke, and Card. I'm still looking forward to the day that the film Ender's Game actually gets made. For me, science fiction is often best realized through the format of the epic - a depth of story and wealth of information that rivals the most comprehensive set of encyclopedias. Typically, this sort of development requires the setting of a novel, or at the very least a film that pushes the limits of the average moviegoer's attention span.

Because of this, I'm pretty critical of the world of science fiction film - I trend toward films based on a more cerebral concept or else that are deep explorations of a more basic plot. Does this make me something of a pretentious fan? Yeah, probably so.

It also means that I'm also likely one of the specific target demographic of this film.

This film has brains . . . in great supply. And because of that, I love it. Absolutely, unabashedly LOVE it. This is the kind of film that a lot of people will probably walk out of scratching their heads in confusion; however, don't let that deter you. Moviegoers were pretty blown away by The Matrix when it first released, and I suspect that as time goes on, this will become another film that helps in defining the "new" boundaries of the genre. While highly complicated and complex, Inception is not difficult to understand. It's a relatively simple idea taken to some incredible extremes.

This being said, the film definitely doesn't look to make it easy on the viewer. I've gone over it time and again in my head, and frankly, I'm STILL going back and forth between multiple theories that I've developed, and I'm nowhere nearer to a conclusion. The film throws you into the middle of a wild concept and expects you to keep up.

So here's a quick rundown of the plot: Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) works for the highest bidder to perform corporate espionage. However, instead of breaking into buildings and cracking open safes and computer systems, the theft is accomplished by entering the mind of the target, designing a dream for the target to populate with his/her subconscious (including their secrets), and then literally stealing the representation of that secret (for instance, in the opening sequence, Cobb opens a safe and reads a document marked "confidential").

This process is called "Extraction", and is apparently commonplace enough that corporate heavyweights are trained in subconscious security.

After an extraction that goes somewhat awry, Cobb is approached by Saito (Ken Watanabe) his target and offered a chance to turn his life around - avoiding indictment for past crimes (it will be explained, I promise) and his current role in these extractions. Saito wants Cobb to attempt the reverse of "extraction". As opposed to pulling information out, Saito wishes for Cobb to implant an idea into a rival - a process known as "Inception".

This is the plot in its simplest form, and it's explored to incredible depth - including the difficulties inherent in the concept of introducing a subconscious thought from an external source, and the influence of said external source on the dreamer. The majority of the action of the film occurs in the mind of Cobb's new target, as he attempts the inception, with few "B" stories or subplots, and frankly this is one of the films greatest strengths. Christopher Nolan knows what story he wishes to tell, how bizarre and complex it will be, how much he can pull out of it, and how it would fall to pieces if anything more were introduced to the mix.

Visually, this film is a roller coaster ride. There were multiple times throughout the film (specifically the second tier of a 4-tiered dream sequence focusing on the endeavors of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character Arthur in a retro hotel setting) where I almost literally had to pick my jaw up off the floor. The cinematography is astounding, drawing on style and design from multiple genres to convey the different settings to the audience on a subtle (even subconscious - wink, wink) level.

While I could probably spend multiple pages ranting and raving about how much I loved this film, let me attempt to be more concise: the editing is fantastic (that a 10 second sequence can create half an hour's worth of suspense still amazes me), and the acting is superb (I've grown to respect DiCaprio more and more ever since The Departed and the depth and subtlety in this film are astounding).

Go see this movie. It's AMAZING.

Rough Day

Today was a difficult day. Despite sleeping well last night, I found myself just about ready to collapse at lunch time. So I went home, had a bite to eat, and promptly fell asleep on the couch until about 6 o'clock this evening - effectively ruining my day.

I'm not explaining this to gripe, but rather, to take a bit of time to try and allow some people into my own personal head-space.

Cancer is a tricky thing, and cancer treatment doubly so. I was very frustrated early on in this process to discover that almost every book focused on the subject at a local bookstore was aimed toward the caregiver/loved one and that they were almost all centered around dealing with loss/grief. Am I the only one who feels this is a little less than encouraging? There I was, suffering from the disease, looking for someone to relate to, and all I can find is the collective authorial assumption that I'm a goner and my loved ones needed to start coping.

Wow.

Fact of the matter is, treatment itself is a highly individualistic process. It's different for everyone. The frustrating and demeaning part of a lot of it is having to deal with friends who no longer feel they know how to approach you. I understand that it's a difficult thing to comprehend and cope with, and I don't hold that against my friends - they've done a fantastic job of being there for me. What I want to do is list a few of the general feelings and frustrations that you as an average reader may not be aware of when it comes to the emotional roller coaster that is chemotherapy.

Mortality - Come to grips with it. Please. Much of the frustration that a lot of cancer patients (most of whom are NOT terminal, mind you) experience stems from the fact that our circle of friends hasn't yet quite accepted that there could be someone among us that drops dead at any given moment. I accepted years before this mess that I have an expiration date. I know that my time on this earth is finite, and I don't weep or bemoan that fact, because I believe there is something better. Does that mean I ignore this experience in lieu of the more desirable one? No. I still enjoy every moment I have, and frankly, you should too. STOP looking at me like I'm the ghost of Christmas yet to come pointing at your own headstone.

I'm not made of glass - While weakness and fatigue are a fairly universal issue when it comes to chemotherapy, it's a good idea to recognize that I'm not going to shatter like a porcelain doll and that you don't have to walk as though on eggshells when you're around me. I take precautions of my own to protect myself, and I will ask for help when I need it. One of the first things that cancer and chemo break down is any sense of pride. I always considered myself to be a strong person, but the first time I woke up and found myself unable to move due to a lack of strength, I was reminded how feeble my human existence really is - and as such, I don't hesitate to ask for assistance.

Use the "C" word already - Say it with me: "cancer." Thank you. Avoiding the word makes me feel like the elephant in the room.

I don't feel normal - This is a big one. At no point once you start this process (and frequently before) do you feel normal. The best I've managed to achieve is about 70% of normal. Don't coddle me, but understand that I need extra time to adjust to the world around me, as my body is too busy fighting itself to be bothered with everything else going on.

These are the biggest ones, and I guarantee I could fill a book with other little complaints and such, but these are some good ones to understand and keep in mind when dealing with people who are going through this.

Power vs Authority

This morning as I climbed out of my truck, I noticed a little hitchhiker on my mirror. A small, translucent green spider sat there attempting to spin a web. How the little arachnid managed to hang on for dear life on a 4 mile trip down the freeway . . . I have no idea. However, as I contemplated squishing it for a moment, I was struck by something that's been floating around in my head for a while.

No, I didn't squish him - I did, however, evict him from my mirror and relocate him into the bushes.

To be honest, I don't know why the idea of squishing the spider made me think of what I did, but it fit well enough with the theme of exploring God and his nature over this week, that I decided to run with it for today's post.

One of the chief complaints I hear from intellectual dissenters to the Christian mindset is that God cannot be all-loving, all-powerful, and all-good and STILL allow the suffering that occurs in this world. This is a massive and overarching problem that is, in my opinion, best examined in C.S. Lewis's work The Problem of Pain and Peter Kreeft's Making Sense of Suffering. Pick them up if you've never read them, they're totally worth it.

The specific issue that I wanted to look at it the right of God as a creator over his creation. Philosophically, this is going to require that we beg several questions (I'm sorry, but to build this case properly, I'd likely have to write an entire book, and I have no intention of doing so on this blog) specifically that God IS the creator, and that his nature (personal, exists outside of space/time, etc) is that as defined by the Christian theology.

Have I made enough of you angry yet?

If I were to create an elaborate computer program, even going so far as to develop artificial intelligence. As the architect of this program, what rights do I have over it? Can I give it commands? Let's assume for a moment that I've also decided to take the idea of "playing God" a little further and grant the program free will - for the sake of avoiding confusion, I'm going to call the program "Bob". If Bob does something I don't like, can I alter his programming?

Yes. I have that right.

The question of whether or not I will/should is one that depends on my nature. Having granted Bob free will, my alteration of his program would be a direct contradiction of my nature as a benevolent creator (remember, we're taking the whole "playing God" thing to an extreme - I'm assuming that with my knowledge of the limited construct of Bob's world, I could fit the bill as all-knowing and all-powerful. My Christian perspective inclines me to pursue the "benevolent" part of that).

So if I, being a benevolent creator who has granted Bob with free will, refuse to alter his nature simply because of his actions as an extension of a right that I granted him, then why is it so odd to some people that God himself doesn't do the same?

It drives me nuts when people say that if God was all-powerful, He could just reprogram our DNA to select out the harmful aspects of our nature.

I take two primary issues with that statement - first, it presumes that we are purely physical creatures designed and controlled through DNA only. And secondly, it presumes an amoral God. God is nothing of the sort. He is perfectly moral, and just. The question of morality then falls into the realm hinted at by the title of this post - Power vs Authority.

Morality/immorality can be loosely defined as the enactment of power by one entity over another within the construct of authority. Is it immoral for a police officer to handcuff a criminal and place him/her in the backseat of a car? Is it immoral for a criminal to do the same to the police officer? The question boils down to that of authority.

Why don't we see more murders than we do? Individuals generally have the power/ability to take a life. We don't see it as often because we lack the authority/right to do so. This authority is granted through legal and social methods, but the concept extends to a universal platform.

There is a certain authority/right that God maintains that we as his creation do not. Imagine that I give Bob a friend (we'll call him Frank), and explicitly state that one of my rules is "no murder" and that if anyone breaks this rule there will be consequences. Now assume that Bob chooses (through the free will I've granted him) to ignore my rule and murders Frank.

Bob, how could you?

As stated earlier, it's not right for me to enact an internal change to Bob's nature to avoid him breaking my rules. However, do I have to right to erase Bob, or even more drastically, to erase his world? I believe so. I built it, and consequences were explicitly warned against. I have the power to do anything I want to within the construct of the world, but due to the nature of the relationship between me and Bob, I don't have the right to alter Bob's nature - precisely because I gave him that nature.

This feels a little incongruous, I'll admit, but it also demonstrates the respect and love that God shows toward us, that he will not go back on his word. I promised Bob free will, and ALL that it entailed.

Now, many people would claim that I'm not fulfilling my role as benevolent if I were to destroy Bob in this scenario. And they would be right, because in this scenario there is only Bob (there was Frank, but Bob screwed that up). Examining the broader reaching implications of such actions; however, tends to create a moral event horizon wherein the destruction of a smaller group is necessary for the ultimate good of as many as possible.

In a system where free will is allowed to grow, optimization does not mean that all things will work out for the best of each individual, but rather for the whole. We, being unable to perceive the whole (something that can only be done outside of the constraints of time) often find ourselves in the part of the system that suffers at the demands of ultimate optimization.

So, yeah, next time you think life sucks and you wouldn't have to suffer like this if God REALLY loved you, remember that perhaps your suffering is necessary for the salvation of multiple people. Puts a whole new spin on the question of selflessness, doesn't it?

Being an Effective Target

Earlier today, my wife and I were flipping around TV and as we passed the Turner Classic Movies (TCM) channel, she mentioned that they had an iPhone app and asked me if I had it. In fact, I don't. And in the next minute or so as I thought about grabbing it, I came to a specific realization - I shouldn't.

Why not?

Because frankly, I'm not a member of the target consumer group. I'm assuming that the app is more closely related to the specials that TCM runs from week to week and month to month. If I want to know what golden era movie star is going to be focused on in the month of Auguest, then yes, the iPhone app is a fantastic tool. This type of information, specific to the community of TCM fans, if targeted specifically to them. Assuming the iPhone app is free, then TCM is likely not receiving any revenue, and my lack of download doesn't hurt them.

Being a wise consumer eliminates a lot of waste, and a lack of waste can aid in the development of a strong economy. This is vital, especially given the current economic climate in the United States (I speak to the U.S. specifically because, frankly, that's where I live). Let's use an illustration to further investigate this - and understand, I'm a mathematician, not an economist. This simply makes sense to me, and I'm sure there are complications and things I'm not considering.

Assume for a moment that a company fabricates a product that it then sells. I suspect this works for middle-man type companies, but for the sake of simplicity, let's keep both production and sales in house. Maybe they make parts for mechanics working for cars, maybe they make adult-themed birthday cakes - it doesn't really matter. Assume also that we have a group of patrons who are not wise consumers (let's call them group A). These people do not recognize whether or not they are members of the target demographic. When they are shown a new product that represents a test market, every member of this group thinks the new item is amazing and fantastic and purchases one.

Oh, group A. You foolish, foolish people.

The company takes this data, and generates sales projections and production schedules from it. Given that group A have purchased the product in excess to their actual need, what exactly do you suppose will happen? Waste. Group A purchases this adult-themed spark plug (wait, I'm mixing something up . . . maybe it was a carburetor-themed ice cream cake) and 50% of them set it on a workbench, forget about it, and NEVER experience the need to purchase another one. This means that the company is going to produce twice as many of these things as it needs to in order to support true demand. This is great for the people who actually need the 4-cylinder home-install stripper pole (wait, what?), because an excess of supply and a lack of demand drive prices down . . . on that item. The problem then is that in order to recoup losses from the excess production, every other item in the store will jump, even if by only a few cents.

Do this a few hundred times, though, and eventually we effectively have in-store inflation. If you avoid all the "reduced items" you're going to discover that your dollar stretches a lesser and lesser distance. This leads to customer dissatisfaction and a potential loss in revenue.

Flip this around though, and look at a group of consumers that recognize whether or not they are a part of a target demographic (group B). Group B takes one look at that internal-combustion cupcake (note from the parenthetical commentator to the author: dude . . . you're weird) and those who need it know they do, and those who don't need it simply don't purchase it. The numbers lead to a production effort that allows for supply to more closely match demand. Now, yes, this does tend to keep prices from what we would call "bargains" but it also prevents the increase of price across the board that we saw with group A. Additionally, the company now doesn't have to deal with an over-investment in production as a factor in overhead costs.

Am I the only one who thinks that this would lead to a more stable economic model?

I've worked in sales, and one thing I've learned to do (and do relatively well) is to manufacture a need. By explaining to a consumer why they needed this new diesel-powered (whoa, hold it RIGHT THERE. I don't want to hear what twisted thing you're going to come up with next. I quit) . . . okay, then . . . this new item, I am able to generate a purchasing trend that more closely resembles that of group A than that of group B. This will not happen as frequently in locally owned and operated businesses who operate specifically to fill a need within the community - as a company, they are seeking to meet demand, not increase it unreasonably. National chains have an end-goal of increasing the wealth of the upper echelons of management, and don't seek to be a part of the solution.

This is where consumer responsibility comes in. While national chains are less likely to attempt to meet demand as opposed to inflate demand, they DO respond to purchasing trends. We as consumers should seek to recognize our roles as either belonging to a specific demographic or not. Who knows? Maybe we could help stabilize some of this economic shakiness.

Mr. President, how does that sound? Economic support sans government spending . . . almost sounds like a pipe dream.

(The commentator would like to apologize for some of the goofiness and/or tastelessness of the humor in this post. The author underwent chemotherapy today and is feeling a little off-kilter.)

The author would like to take state that if you get offended at the idea of an adult-themed anything that has more to do with your definition of "adult-themed" and your own imagination than it does my sense of humor.

(Touche)