The Olympics

The Olympics are a truly wonderful thing, uniting the world in good sportsmanship and friendly competition. However, I always have to wonder if they don't wind up being exploited as a purely political spectacle wherein the competing countries try to assert their superiority and world domination.

It was part of Hitler's plan in designing his master race to develop super athletes who would dominate the Olympic games and thereby prove to the world that Germany was in a position to conquer it's enemies.

There is always political intrigue surrounding the Olympic games themselves, including where they are hosted. This year's games were certainly no exception as all eyes were on China and how they would handle opening their country to foreign influences.

Though there is undoubtedly a great deal of politics and posturing involved with the Olympics, the good far outweighs the bad. The world unites for moments of triumph and cheers together each victory. Though some countries clearly dominate certain sports, it's usually pretty equally distributed throughout all the various sports and events represented, giving each country their own unique opportunity to shine.

This year's Olympics will be remembered for many things, including the phenomenal, almost superhuman Michael Phelps, the murder of a former Gold Medalist's father on Chinese soil and the unrest between Georgia and Russia. Hopefully they will be remembered primarily as a time when the world set aside it's differences and came together as spectators for one of the most thrilling competitions of our time.

Is truth absolute or conditional?

That depends. Your definition of truth determines whether it is absolute or conditional. Online reference Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) gives 12 different definitions of the word truth, which leaves a lot of room for gray areas as far as a definitive answer goes.

Anything that is so hard to define would logically be conditional, depending on a person's perception of what it even means. One definition given by Dictionary.com is "an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude." Obvious to whom? Accepted by whom? If it's not obvious to 100% of the population and not accepted by 100% of the population, does that mean it can't be the truth? That definition in and of itself imposes a conditional quality on truth.

Another definition given in the same reference is "agreement with a standard or original." Who determines the standard by which we judge whatever is in question? Did everyone agree on that standard or just the majority? And what about those things to which the original is long gone and cannot be qualified or quantified? This definition is particularly troubling for those who would say that truth is absolute because it implies that everything true requires proof. Some things that the majority of people hold to be true can clearly not be proven in any way, shape or form. Not to open up a religious debate, but what about the existence of God? What standard or original can be offered to determine the truth of His existence? People either believe or disbelieve in the truth of the existence of God by faith which cannot be scientifically measured or proven, therefore making it conditional.

Yet another definition of truth is "conformity with fact or reality." This leaves room for the gray areas of things that do not conform, fall outside the norm or "defy reality." If things that are outside the norm and do not correlate to our shared concept of reality cannot be considered truth, then that creates a whole other set of conditions on it. Who decides what is normal and conforms? In the past the definition of normal was what fell within the majority. That leaves the minority unaccounted for, yet that minority still exists.

By definition, truth is conditional. If it weren't we wouldn't ever have to apply common qualifying terms like "absolute truth" because that would be the only kind. Those who argue that truth is absolute, therefore, are actually making just the opposite argument without even knowing it. And that's the honest truth.

Should books have ratings like movies to warn parents about inappropriate content?

What is inappropriate and who will decide? If we allow a ratings system on books, we will be accepting yet another nail in the coffin of freedom of speech in this country. It is the responsibility of parents, not the government, to decide what is and is not acceptable for their children.

Books and other forms of writing are part of the free exchange of ideas that make this country great. Our liberty relies on our ability to put forth opposing ideas so that people can decide for themselves which of those ideas make the most sense to them. We do not always agree on what ideas are "right," but we must agree that our freedom to express any idea we choose is one of the underlying foundations of a free, democratic society.

If parents are so concerned that their child could possibly read something that they feel is inappropriate, they have several options that do not include a rating system on books to make it quick and easy for them. Parenting is not quick and easy and it is not the government's responsibility to do the parenting. When parents chose to bring children into this world, they did so with the full knowledge that they would then be responsible for those children for at least 18 years. This includes being responsible for shielding their children from any influences they feel inappropriate.

Instead of a rating system, parents can take a look at what their children are reading. If they're too lazy to read the whole thing, they can skim it to make sure they feel it's appropriate. They can also suggest and provide books they have read, guiding the child toward the ideas they feel appropriate. Since small children aren't going to be reading books with a lot of big words and lofty ideas, it seems we're talking probably more about teens here. A novel approach toward parenting might be to let your children read something you don't necessarily approve of and have a mind of their own. Discuss it with them and see how they feel about it. You might just find that the child has enough sense to take a positive message from even something you feel is negative.

With Homeland Security and various other assaults on our civil liberties, a book rating system would just be one more surrender of our freedom. It's horrifying to think that some of the great classics we all grew up on could possibly be deemed inappropriate for young readers, denying them the chance to explore new and different ideas.

In a time when reading and writing skills are deteriorating rapidly, the rating system also seems to be a sure way to discourage reading and exploration of ideas and philosophical concepts. We, as a society, should encourage all our citizens to hunger for knowledge and to gain some of that knowledge by reading books of any kind, not arbitrarily narrowing the list of what is acceptable.

Many of the greatest works of American literature would more than likely be restricted to young readers by such a system. After all, couldn't "Moby Dick" be considered a little violent? There is a murder in "Of Mice and Men." Will we ban anything with the slightest bit of sexual content? What about swear words? Surely children will need to be protected from "The Holy Bible" for all of these reasons, as well.

These may seem like radical views, but these are the things you need to consider before you jump on the bandwagon of support for implementing a ratings system on books. Books have always been one of the purest forms of expression and the way the marketplace of ideas is expanded and enriched. We may not always agree with the content or the message, but we must fight to the end to protect the rights of those who write and those who read books of all kinds.

Some of the greatest lessons we have learned are from reading books filled with vile, revolting content. Think of the works of Hitler. We read these not to become like him, but to get a glimpse into the inner workings of the mind of a madman and learn important lessons on how to keep history from repeating itself. If we are forced into ignorance, we will also surely be damned to repeat the mistakes of the past.

To read more of my articles, click below:

Easy ways your family can go green - by Bruce W. Coffman - Helium

Easy ways your family can go green - by Bruce W. Coffman - Helium



Concerned about your environmental impact? Looking for a few easy ways to "go green?" Here are a few no-nonsense tips that won't crimp your style but will help you be a little more eco-friendly.

Should consumers boycott the big oil companies? - by Bruce W. Coffman - Helium

Should consumers boycott the big oil companies? - by Bruce W. Coffman - Helium

Why can't politicians keep it in their pants?

According to an Associated Press report today, John Edwards has admitted having an extramarital affair. While I personally don't care who anybody sleeps with, It does make me wonder why politicians in general just can't seem to keep it in their pants?

Click here to check out the article. Then, give your thoughts. Let's get some discussion and debate going on this. What do you think about it?

Do people tend to base election votes more on emotion or reason?

The vast majority of people tend to base election voting decisions on emotion, rather than reason. This is an unfortunate reality that both political parties have figured out and tap into in their political advertising and campaign speech messages.

If you are in any doubt of the fact that emotion is a key factor, think of the millions of dollars in advertising that go into political campaigns. Then take a moment to think about the political ads you have seen. Did they talk about the issues or did they make emotional appeals to voters by either showing the "good guy" with his wife, kids and dog and talking about what a wonderful, church-going family man he is? Or, perhaps they showed a particularly unflattering picture of the "evil" opponent and tried to scare you with talk of his "radical views" or "reckless spending history."

You hardly ever see a campaign ad or hear a campaign speech that is purely factual rather than emotionally charged. This is partially because all advertising is geared toward the lowest common denominator and kept to about a 6th grade level. The people behind the advertising seem to think that none of us is capable of making an informed decision based on information alone, so they need to prod us along with emotional appeals.

If you don't think political speeches are a form of advertising, listen closely to one the next time you hear it. It is an extended advertisement meant to influence the way you will vote and nothing more. Here are where the emotional messages become especially charged. You will hear the politician patting himself on the back in subtle ways about what a good person he is and throwing spears at his opponent on usually personal issues that have nothing to do with politics but much to do with painting a picture of him as a "bad" person.

Though there are many of us who are intelligent enough not to rely purely on emotion, the sad fact is that the majority of people will resort to "gut instincts" or emotional responses which have been colored by the advertising messages they have been fed. This is no way to choose a political candidate, especially one as important as a President, but it happens in this country every four years.

If these emotional approaches didn't work so well and influence so many voters, they wouldn't be used so widely. So, in a way, we've done it to ourselves by responding to them. It's time we started demanding the facts and actually finding out what the candidates' stands are on important issues instead of voting based on fear or who has the nicest family picture.