C is for Controversy

In a humorous news story out of New Zealand reported by Reuters, two teenagers (Anna Devathasan and Jenny Suo) appear to have busted the claims of drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) concerning the product Ribena. Ribena, a syrupy drink marketed mainly to children, supposedly contains blackcurrants with four times the vitamin C as oranges. Instead, the young ladies found that Ribena contains nearly no vitamin C at all, and that one commercial brand of orange juice in New Zealand contained four times as much Vitamin C as Ribena. The young ladies brought their research to the attention of the company, but it was ignored until the research reached New Zealand's Commerce Commission, which has charged GSK with fifteen counts of various malfeasance, with potential fines around $2.1 million.

This particular humorous case raises some interesting questions about drug labeling. Companies like GSK are extremely powerful, with drug marketing efforts (through direct commercials as well as employing doctors as drug peddlers) that may not serve the interests of the consumer at large. After all, the two expenses that continually outpace the rate of inflation are health care and higher education.

One of the ways in which drug companies like GSK were thought to be superior to snake-oil peddling alternative medicines/vitamin supplements is that medicines were supposed to contain a humorous array of comments about varying results and side effects and so forth. That is, products that drug companies market are supposed to be honest, at least to the level of honesty we would expect from buying used cars from a dealer (with an automobile manufacturer's logo over his business) rather than from a guy on the side of the road.

However, it appears that a product marketed mainly in British nations (it first achieved fame as a drink distributed to British youth during WWII) is merely an overly expensive form of soda rather than a health drink of any kind. Make of that what you will. However, give praise to two plucky and creative young people in New Zealand for their work in refuting some spectacularly false claims about the health benefits of a drink marketed by a drug company. The world needs more people like those two, because it has all the snake oil salesmen it can handle.

A Truly Scattered Post

Well, given that this blog only shows a small part of my life (though sometimes a larger part than is probably wise), it might be nice to know what this particular blogger is up to when he is not ranting about something or commenting on bizarre events in the world. This post is meant to give a look into the scattered and very random life that is my own. Consider it three very odd posts in one with very little connection, except that they have to do with my life and what I am up to currently. So, here goes.

Nathan's Passive Investment Portfolio

I decided to begin with the weirdest and most ephemeral of the three mini-posts. Last year I started a Roth IRA, because I am rather skeptical about the solvency of Social Security for my generation (thanks to overly greedy Baby Boomers, but that is a rant and I'd like to avoid that if possible during this entry). Deciding it was better to take personal responsibility for my retirement, should I ever want to rest, or ever live that long, I opened a Roth IRA with my tax refund last year, shortly before I turned 25. Since my employer had no retirement plan, I made my own. So far it is doing pretty well, and had over 10% gains for last year. I calculated the amount of money the account would have if the amount in it right now were compounded at 10% until I was 65, and the amount was around $170,000, so I was pretty pleased with that. Of course, now my employer is starting a 401(k) plan, so my financial planning gets a little more complicated now that I have my own Roth plan as well as the deferred plan from my employer. Since my employer will match 50% of the first 4% of my income that is contributed into the 401(k) plan, I figured it would be good to just put 4% into that and continue my regular contributions into my Roth IRA. Between the two, I should have a decent amount set for my passive portfolio income. Now I can look for more active investments to add to the list. I'm not one to put all my eggs into one basket. Rather, I am a person who likes to diversify to reduce risk rather than put all my eggs into one basket (real estate, tech stocks, krugerands, etc.).

White And Nerdy

Okay, Weird Al Yankovic made a song in "White And Nerdy" that suits me a little too well, I suppose. I think I just may be a little bit too nerdy for my own good. How so, you ask? Well, if all goes as planned (and that is never a given in my world), I just may be adding another major to my graduate studies. I suppose I can never leave well enough alone. Right now I am already an MSEM (Master's of Science in Engineering Management) student also going for two graduate certificate programs at the University of South Florida (Technology Management and Total Quality Management). Well, being the uber-nerdy person that I am, I am seeking to add another program with a thesis option, because I suppose I am a glutton for punishment (and, to be honest, a chance to write about third parties in modular engineering and their role in increasing efficiency in building approvals is too good to pass up). Remember that I am a person whose undergraduate major at USC was civil (structural) engineering and whose minor was history. My interests are wide and finding ways to keep myself sufficiently involved in all (or most) of my interests while fulfilling key personal ambitions on my personal five/ten year plan is a difficult task. I do seem to like it that way, though, so there's no reason to complain. It just makes my life rather complicated.

Some Theological Comments (But No Rants About Dead People, I Promise)

Ever since the C.S. Lewis Society Annual Banquet I went to on Thursday night, I have been doing some C.S. Lewis reading (finishing "The Great Divorce" and "Mere Christianity" since then). There are a few things about C.S. Lewis' writing, particularly in "Mere Christianity" that I found quite fascinating and worthy of discussion. First, the concept of Sehnsucht (German for some mystical longing for a place one has never been but knows one belongs, such as the Kingdom of God) inspired me to write a sonnet. Within us all is a God-shaped hole, a longing that can only be fulfilled by our Creator, and when we try to fill it by other means, we commit idolatry by keeping ourself from the one being who can fulfill our needs. It is sad that so many of us try to fill our longings with sex, drugs, alcohol, money, and the like. The second part about C.S. Lewis' writing in both "The Great Divorce" and "Mere Christianity" that deeply moved me was his writing about how God judges the behavior of believers. A quote that made me cry from "Mere Christianity" (page 215) follows:

"There is either a warning or an encouragement here for every one of us. If you are a nice person--if virtue comes easily to you--beware! Much is expected from those to whom much is given. If you mistake for your own merits what are really God's gifts to you through nature, and if you are contented with simply being nice, you are still a rebel: and all those gifts will only make your fall more terrible, your corruption more complicated, your bad example more disastrous. The Devil was an archangel once; his natural gifts were as far above yours as yours are above those of a chimpanzee.

But if you are some poor creature--poisoned by a wretched upbringing in some house full of vulgar jealousies and senseless quarrels--saddled, by no choice of your own, with some loathsome sexual perversion--nagged day in and day out by an inferiority complex that makes you snap at your best friends--do not despair. He knows all about it. You are one of the poor whom He blessed. He knows what a wretched machine you are trying to drive. Keep on. Do what you can. One day (perhaps in another world, but perhaps far sooner than that) He will fling it on the scrap-heap and give you a new one. And then you may astonish us all--not least yourself: for you have learned your driving in a hard school. (Some of the last will be first and some of the first will be last)."

I could not read those paragraphs without thinking both of them applied to me--both as greatly gifted and greatly cursed. Perhaps we are all a bit that way. The third aspect of C.S. Lewis' writings that I found most interesting was his conception of the Trinity. He compared it to the bond between God the Father and Jesus Christ, and said that it was sort of a "group identity" much as is found in a family or corporation. In the chemical sense, that would be the same as a bond between two or more atoms (whether an ionic bond or a covalent one). That bond is what God offers to us (and that we can in no way deserve). While I disagree that this bond is itself a person, except in that fictitious sort of personhood that corporations have, the conception I have of the Holy Spirit is not really different from his. If C.S. Lewis captured what Trinitarians believe when they refer to the Holy Spirit, as that spiritual bond that joins us together with God in His family, then the disagreement becomes one of semantics rather than a different conception of the nature of God. I found that to be most interesting, and enlightening. As such, I thought it worthy of comment.

From Russia With Love

When writing my occasional world events blogs, I do not generally like to write about nations that are particularly large or important (since I figure there are already plenty of people who write about such events and are much better able to put them into a coherent picture than my anecdotal sort of style). However, I have been rather troubled by recent events in Russia, and this blog will deal the dark return of Soviet ways on Russia's brave defenders of truth and liberty. The following short comments will relate to some of the more threatening and ominous signs coming out of Russia that the bad old days are returning.

The Soviet Defenestration Returns

I once wrote a historical essay called "The Defenestrations of Prague," and found three important ones in history. The third was the assassination of Jan Masaryk. It is interesting because the Soviets threw him out of the window of his own house and then claimed it was a suicide. The same thing happened on Friday, March 2nd, when Ivan Safronov, a 51 year old Russian journalist who was critical of the military establishment was found dead after a fall from his fifth-floor apartment. He apparently made some enemies after embarassing Russia's military establishment by publishing articles demonstrating the failure of Russia's experimental Bulava intercontinental missle.

Till Death Do Us Part

A mother and daughter set of Russian immigrants who came over the United States in 1989, Marina (age 48) and Yana (age 25) Kovalenskaya, flew to Moscow last month from their home in Los Angeles to attend a family wedding. There, they apparently met up with enemies, because they ended up sick with Thallium poisoning. They were transferred from their hotel room to the American embassy hospital, and from there to the Sklifosovsky clinic, Moscow's top emergency hospital (according to Guardian Unlimited). Thallium poisoning was apparently favored during Soviet times as a poison, but it is unclear how these two women became targets for assassination. Perhaps it hardly matters.

Welcome To Russia

You'd think that with all of the assassination attempts going on that Soviet-type thugs would be too busy to harass young artists, but you would be wrong. Ivan Ushkov, age 33, is part of Russia's "lost generation," the generation that dealt with the fallout from the fall of the Soviet Union while other generations got rich and found positions of power in the new regime. He is a photographer and artist, who takes (and draws) pictures that demonstrate the dark truth behind Russia's rather phony and glamorous facade. He's a man after my own dark heart, but apparently that sort of dark truthtelling is a bit dangerous in St. Petersburg, Russia, these days. His first Moscow showing was cancelled and he has dealt with bogus police investigations of his art studios because he portrays an image of Russia that threatens the interests of the powerful. Of course, I will let this fine gentleman have the last word about the false positive picture Russia's leaders try to promote, "They are smoking their own dope, basically." Indeed. Another comment of his is also insightful: "But if you don't watch television or interest yourself in politics then very soon politics could get interested in you." Very true also.

Lest We Forget

Since Dateline did such a lovely and thorough job on researching the strange assassination of Russian journalist and Kremlin critic Alexander Litvineko, I will not write about it here (as it is too well known for my blog). That said, it is worth mentioning that dark truthtelling is becoming a rather dangerous occupation on Russia. Russia killed more journalists last year than any other nation besides Iraq and Algeria. Worse, many of these appear to be the work of those closely allied to the Russian government, a very ominous trend. Those of us in the West, and in the United States in particular, should not forget that we have our own rather brutal Cold Warriors here as well. We should not be naive to think that if the world's attitude towards truthtelling darkens that we will not be affected by it at all. If the perceived need for security ever trumps our concern for freedom (especially to tell the truth, often an unpleasant thing), then we will suffer greatly, especially those of us with quick pens and big mouths.

Next Time, Bring Some Chocolate

Okay, I know I just posted earlier today with one of my more serious-type blog entries, but an unusual and obscure news article involving a small European nation was too rich to pass up:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_fe_st/mistaken_invasion

I'm sure that somewhere, some company that sells maps (think Rand McNally or Thomas Guides or Google maps) is just salivating over the opportunity to turn this into a really bad commercial that I will have to add to my YouTube favorites list. How often do soldiers on military exercizes wander by accident into neighboring countries? Hopefully, not very often.

In fact, this particular incident, as unintentional as it is, marks the first Swiss invasion of anywhere since 1521, when the Swiss were feared all over Europe for their fierce armies of pikemen, and when they were defeated in battle around Milan. After that the Swiss Guard could be seen in the Vatican City area, but mostly for show (obviously pikemen are not so feared militarily nowadays). The Swiss, except for being invaded by Napoleon in 1798, have been at peace since then making excellent watches, chocolate, and serving as the bank deposit headquarters for would-be billionaire dictators all the world over. Who knew they harbored secret desires to take over their tiny neighbor, the Grand Duchy of Liechtenstein, which happens to be the last surviving principality of the Holy Roman Empire.

Perhaps the Swiss were concerned that the little nation, whose population of 34,000 is only slightly larger than that of my hometown of Plant City, would defeat them in the preliminaries for Euro 2008 (a highly competitive soccer tournament). Perhaps the nation of Liechtenstein, which has no army, was too tempting of a target for Swiss operations of "regime change."

Of course, it appears that it was just some lost soldiers who couldn't follow directions in the dark and refused to admit they were lost. I've done the same thing myself (most notably in the Wilderness of Virginia), and the worst it ever did for me was waste a couple of hours worth of time and gasoline in impenetrable forests that are so bad that two Civil War battles were fought there when large armies got lost near Catherine's Furnace among the second-growth forests (Chancellorsville in 1863 and the Wilderness in 1864).

At any rate, at least there are no hard feelings on both sides. One would hate for the Swiss to face a nasty UN resolution for aggressive acts against its peaceful neighbors. We wouldn't want that to happen...

When Is Greed Good: An Examination of Enlightened Selfishness

I plan on doing a lot more research on this topic this evening for my Erev (Friday Evening) Bible Study, but the following are some thoughts I am trying to organize beforehand. Former American President Ronald Reagan said that "Greed is good," and has been widely lampooned since then. Selfishness is widely considered to be a highly negative quality, and the supposed narcissism of my generation has come under rather undue criticism from Baby Boomers (perhaps the most harmfully selfish generation in the entire existence of planet earth, if environmental scientists and moralists can be believed). Adam Smith stated that we do not trust the generosity of the butcher (or any other merchant) but his self-interest. The research of humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow sought to demonstrate that in certain circumstances selfishness was an act of altruism because benefitting the self also served to benefit others as well. Jesus Christ seemed to indicate the same thing when he stated that those who were not faithful with unrighteous mammon would not be faithful with much either (a paraphrase). The question is therefore: in what circumstances is selfishness good?

At first blush, this question may seem quite proposterous for some people. Many people do not consider selfishness to be positive at all, especially the selfishness of others (all of us are at least a little bit selfish ourselves). When we feel jealous about the success of others, and are insecure about how we are loved and respected, we are behaving selfishly. When we try to hoard money and resources and knowledge for ourselves rather than give them generously, we are also behaving selfishly. Most would agree with me, I suppose, that these types of selfishness would be bad. This is the sort of selfishness that seeks to increase one's own at the expense of other people (through shortchanging them as is common in the actions of businesses towards their salary/pension obligations, tax obligations, and social obligations). No one, save an overly greedy and wicked sort of person, would consider this sort of greed to be good.

What kind of greed is good then? When Adam Smith referred to the self-interest of the butcher (a stand-in for merchants in general, businesspeople who make their living by providing goods and services to paying customers), he seems to be referring to the fact that when a company seeks to meet the highest customer standards at the lowest price, both the customer and business benefit. The customer benefits by having his or her needs and wants fulfilled, and the business benefits by receiving profit on the transaction (as well as the possibility of future profit as satisfied customers tend to be creatures of habit and return to the same businesses over and over again so long as their standards are met). In this case, the selfishness of the merchant (the desire for profit) was benevolent because it served to help the customer as well.

This, then, provides the way out of the false dilemma of selfishness versus generosity and an environment where acting to benefit ourselves benefits others, and acting to benefit others benefits ourselves. This world is what Maslow (and others) would call an enlightened world. In an enlightened world, success, wealth, honor, and love are not zero-sum concepts, where one person must suffer if another benefits. Once an environment becomes synergistic (where gains in one area trigger gains in other places as well, to the benefit of all in the system), then we can gain enjoyment from the good we do to others, and acting for ourselves will serve to benefit others. In these cases selfishness is not a bad thing at all--and it cannot be separated from the benefit we are bringing to others as well. Both generosity and selfishness (taken as personal enjoyment and personal benefit) are intertwined into one.

In order for selfishness to be good, however, we must build an environment where what benefits us benefits others as well, and vice versa. This sort of environment would increase the connections that people have with each other, and would mean the sharing of gains we have with others around us, and vice versa. In such a realm of mutual generosity and love and respect, what benefits one benefits all, and there need not be a hostility or jealousy about the good that happens to others, so long as everyone shares in its benefits. This can be true of families, churches, businesses , and societies, indeed even the whole world. It is only the case, though, when we start from the premise that all human beings are worthwhile and valuable and important simply by being human beings, and that the human beings who are yet to be born are deserving of the same pleasures of this earth that we who now inhabit hte earth are. Such enlightened selfishness is not wicked at all. The question, though, remains: can we behave so righteously ourselves as to make enlightened selfishness possible for ourselves and those around us?