Trent Ruble's Blog: The Other Way It Is , page 9

There's a Storm Brewing

Talking about the weather is a good way to start a conversation with a stranger because it's the one thing we all have in common. We enjoy it together or we suffer through it together. But, here in Fort Wayne, everyone's talking about the weather because it's becoming unbelievable.



I started to take notice when we received almost no snow this winter. I'm not complaining and I hope it's that way again next winter and then on. The lack of snowfall continued into spring making it the fifth least snowiest spring since record keeping began, falling behind four springs during which there was no snow at all. The most recent of those was in 2010 (National Weather Service).

By March it was almost summer like, wonderful actually. In fact, on March 21st, the temperature reached 87F making it the warmest March day on record (National Weather Service) and it didn't let up. May 27th became the warmest spring day ever at 96F. By the end of the season, the National Weather Service listed Spring 2012 as the warmest on record. In addition to being hot, Spring 2012 was the second driest in Fort Wayne's recorded history and that after the record was set in 2011 for the wettest spring (National Weather Service).

Now it's summer and it's also proving to be unbelievably extreme. The temperature on June 28th hit 106F, matching the all time high temperature for the city. The very next day a storm rolled through with wind speeds of up to 91MPH. This storm led millions to be without power across the eastern United States. In addition to these events, the drought has continued and is now classified as "extreme" (wane.com).

That brings us to today, the first day of the second half of the year. So far, so good! Well, except for the weather.

Image courtesy of Designed to a T.

Insidious Killer

Smoking cigarettes is about the dumbest thing a person can legally do. I don't mean to offend anyone by saying that as I have my own vices (see We're Fighting to Lose), but I cannot see one positive aspect to it. Even so, I tried smoking when I was younger just to see what it was all about, and because I was a total IDIOT! I am so lucky that I hated it because, otherwise, I'd be addicted.



I say it's a dumb thing because people today know full well the dangers of smoking, yet they try it, just as I did. My parents claim that when they started smoking in the early 1950s, they didn't realize how dangerous it was. I certainly can't make that claim. Not only did the coughing that came with the first cigarette tip me off to the harm being done, it was 1980 and, by then, everyone knew that smoking was a killer. What was I thinking?

Did I think of the possibility that I'd develop lung cancer? A male who smokes five or more cigarettes a day is 122 times more likely than a non-smoker to develop lung cancer (Lynne Eldridge, M.D.). That's a 6,100% increase in likelihood. Looking at the issue from the other end, 90% of lung cancer deaths among men are attributable to cigarettes. In addition, smoking causes many other types of cancer, including cancers of the throat, mouth, nasal cavity, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, kidney, bladder, and cervix, and acute myeloid leukemia (cancer.gov). If anything was ever more obvious, I don't know what it is.

Did I think about how I could have caused others to develop lung cancer? The Surgeon General of the United States estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2006, The United States Department of Health and Human Services).

Did I think about how I could have caused myself heart disease? Smokers are up to six times more likely to suffer a heart attack than nonsmokers (cancer.gov).

Did I think about how much money it would cost me over my life? As of June 15, 2012, the Indiana state minimum price for the lowest priced cigarettes I could find (Gold Crest) was $3.11 per pack (www.in.gov). At that rate, I would have spent $9,224.26 between January 1, 1980 and today smoking five cigarettes a day, if I'd lived that long. Another example of the cost of smoking is in the story told by my mother-in-law, Carol Bonner. She quit smoking in 1995 and, at the time, decided to put the money away that she had been spending on cigarettes. She eventually invested the money in stock and, in the years since, its value has grown significantly.

Did I think about how it would change my appearance? At webMD.com, one can view photos of identical twins. One twin doesn't smoke and the other does. The differences in appearance are dramatic. The smoker's face is clearly more wrinkled. According to webMD, this example is typical.

Did I think of how I would be tied to that fix I would need to satisfy multiple times a day? Satisfying that fix costs the state of Indiana $2.6 billion in lost productivity every year, according to a study by Ball State University (Indiana's News Center, June 19, 2012).

Did I think about how it would make me smell? My home? My car? And, how repulsed many would be because of it? Did I think about how some would see smoking as a line of demarcation, placing me with the lower class?

The answer to all those questions is, of course, "No." The only thing I was thinking was, "I wonder what it is about cigarettes that is so great?" I'm still wondering.

The good news is that smoking cigarettes among teenagers is down (Time Magazine, December 14, 2011), but the rate is still about 19%. Currently, it is illegal in Indiana and many other states to smoke (or more correctly; "possess") tobacco under the age of 18. That being the case, it would seem that a possible solution would be to raise the minimum age by one year each year until, eventually, it would be illegal for everyone to smoke. Who knows, with no one smoking the average life span could approach 120 years!

The Sacred Flow

I'd love to see our state and local governments establish the position of "motorists' advocate," or something similar. I envision a person of authority in this position. He or she would monitor construction sites and other intentional disruptions to the flow of traffic in order to ensure that motorists are not unnecessarily delayed. The work that highway departments do is vital, to be sure, but it is important for them to remember why they do the work in the first place and who it is they work for. They must make every effort to accommodate them (us), which I don't think is happening.

Here's an example of who they work for: Recently, one of my sons was headed to the other side of the city in order to take a very important and expensive test. But, as he was passing through downtown, he encountered road construction. The street he wanted to use was closed so he turned and, because he is a new driver and not yet familiar with the city, he was soon lost. He never did make it to the testing site. In this instance the construction and subsequent road closure was necessary, but the story serves to demonstrate how important it is for the flow of traffic to be facilitated and how a driver's time can be very valuable.



I remember working parades as a police officer and watching all the traffic back up at each of the blocked streets and thinking about how annoyingly troublesome it must have been for those drivers. I was especially concerned for the drivers of stopped semi-trucks and other business vehicles as I considered the money they were losing by the minute.

I am not saying we don't need road construction or parades (OK, maybe we don't need parades) and I know that the road work done by our government is very important and appreciated. However, I think it is extremely necessary for them to remember how important it is for each of the drivers to get where they're going in a timely manner, like it was for my son en route to the test. When those few minutes of delay are multiplied by the number of people involved, it very well might justify removing the barrels for the weekend, for example, or clearing an accident scene as quickly as possible.

There would probably be more complaints from the public about the issue if it weren't for the perception of insensitivity concerning worker safety. But, no one really thinks that any of us want to increase the danger for the workers. Actually, if we all knew the highway department was making a great effort to respect us and our time, there would probably be less frustration resulting in more consideration for the construction workers. So, maybe it would be more important for the government to pay for a "motorists' advocate" than overtime to the troopers lying in wait in construction zones to charge us double fines under the guise of safety. Note - I say "guise of safety" again not because I have no concern for the construction workers' safety. In fact, my own son works at road construction sites. I say this because safety is not the reason the troopers are there. Construction sites are dangerous indeed, but the real danger is not the speed of the vehicles (within reason, of course) which the troopers monitor, but in vehicles leaving the roadway or construction workers entering the roadway. This is instead a money making plan, thus reducing our respect of the entire situation.

It is unlikely that there will be a motorists' advocate anytime soon so, until then, I ask that the government consider the flow of traffic as the sacred life-blood of a community and that they make decisions under that assumption. We will always have construction delays, but there would be a lot less frustration if we knew you valued our time.

Image courtesy of sweetclipart.com

Death and Taxes, or Is it Death by Taxes?

Everyone knows that the only certainties in life are death and taxes. While the medical profession works in vain to keep us alive, at the same time draining our pocket, our American government drains our other pocket with an unfair tax system. Unfortunately, we must accept that we're going to die and, also, that our government needs some of our money in order to operate. But, I think we can all agree that it's time for a tax overhaul.



In 2008, Governor Mike Huckabee, while campaigning for President of the United States, proposed a national sales tax, known as the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org). The proposed sales tax would replace the federal income tax system. It seems like a radical idea but one that makes perfect sense. What makes a sales tax fair is that it would be paid by everyone making a purchase, including drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal aliens, terrorists, those paid "under the table" and anyone else currently cheating the system. This would make the total tax liability less for the rest of us.

In addition to those advantages, a national sales tax would encourage savings as there would be no tax on money not yet spent, it would eliminate the need for the IRS and the expenses involved in operating that behemoth which, again, would lower the total tax. That, in turn, means no more taxes withheld from our paychecks and no more complicated tax returns.

The only thing I would add to the plan is a rate freeze. Once the exact amount is determined, maybe after a trial period, it should be capped at that rate. If the government determines that a certain percentage is sufficient then it will always be sufficient as the amount of tax will naturally increase with inflation. An increase in the rate should never be necessary except in some emergencies and, of course, in cases of mismanagement.

The Fair Tax with a rate freeze. What's not to like?

Battle of the Ages

When I think about people who lived in the time before the Industrial Revolution, I'm tempted to think of them as less intelligent than those of us living today. They lived their lives with simple tools and knew nothing of microbiology or astrophysics. Their living conditions were rustic, to say the least, and their medical procedures simply scary. And, the way they treated one another was at times nothing less than barbaric. So, were they less intelligent?

I don't really know the answer but I suspect they were actually more intelligent. I say this because, although their accumulated knowledge was far less, they were still living in a world of the survival of the fittest, including the intellectually fit. Contrast that with the "everybody's OK" philosophy of today, which isn't entirely bad, but not good for perfecting the species. Here's an example: My wife was formerly employed by a group home for the developmentally disabled. There she was instructed that it is the right of the clients to have sex with one another and she was not to interfere. This is an extreme example but is indicative of the overall attitude of our tolerant and accepting society. This has to affect our gene pool.

Add to that our constant exposure to the chemicals and radiation in our environment, not to mention the destructive drugs that we intentionally ingest, all of which our forefathers never had to endure. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to suggest that our toxic surroundings could interfere with our brain function as well as our genetics.

The evidence would suggest that the ancients were at least no less intelligent. I say that because, even with all the technology and other accumulated knowledge we now have, we're still barbarians, just in a different way. We still kill each other in huge numbers through war, abortion and murder. In New York City alone, we employ 34,500 police officers just to help us get along with one another (www.nyc.gov). Lying and cheating is so common that no one is taken at their word. And, look how fat we are even though we know what causes it.



So, if we were to give the same IQ test to someone from the past who was known for their intelligence, such as Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519), and to someone from the present, also known to be intelligent, such as Stephen Hawking (1942- ), who'd score highest? I'm betting on Da Vinci.

You CAN Judge a Book by Its Cover

The process of using one's general characteristics to validate an action against them, also known as "profiling," has a negative connotation. That's because some in law enforcement have abused their authority in instances of illegal racial profiling whereby someone is stopped only because of their race. Some people now believe they're in danger of being stopped for "driving while black," for example, which would be an obvious injustice but, hopefully, not as prevalent as some fear.

But, profiling does not equal racial profiling and isn't illegal or even wrong. In fact, it can be helpful and, in some very important cases; necessary. The FBI's Behavioral Analysis Units use profiling everyday in order to solve an array of serious crimes. Conversely, we've all heard stories about how, in an effort to avoid profiling, airport security has detained grandmothers and children because they were the "7th" person in line. Meanwhile, those much more likely to be terrorists walk on through. A little profiling in those instances would have been helpful.

As a citizen with a family that, like all families, needs protection from criminals, I can tell you that stopping criminal activity is the priority. But, in law enforcement today, rather than profiling criminals, many police officers and, in some cases, entire police departments, use a "blanket policy" in deciding how to approach people or make traffic stops. In other words, they will stop anyone committing a violation. They do this for one or more of several reasons; they want to be fair, they want to generate revenue for their community, and/or they don't want to be accused of profiling. But, the traffic stop is a powerful tool in locating criminals, which I would like to think is a much higher priority than the revenue generating speeding tickets many officers are satisfied to write. If catching criminals is the priority, it would serve us much better if officers targeted their stops toward those most likely to be criminals. Of course, not everyone fits a profile. But, when you're attempting to locate the most terrorists or other criminals, wouldn't it make sense to look at those most likely to be criminals?

So, why do criminals look like criminals? I've been watching people now for about 50 years and, like everyone else observing human behavior, I've learned a lot about us. One thing I've noticed is that nearly all of us care about our appearance and that's what makes profiling work. We present to the world a persona that we want the world to see and, because of that, we can tell a lot about a person. People who dress and act like "rednecks," for example, probably are. No one else would want to look like a redneck. In the same way, people who aren't "criminals" likely wouldn't want anyone to think they are and would not knowingly dress or act in that way. The same is true of many types of people. So, when someone says, "You don't know anything about me," like I've heard countless times, he or she is only partly correct. Of course, there are some people, especially young people, who only dress and act the way they do because some star whom they admire dresses and acts that way. Of them I would say that admiring someone who wants everyone to believe they're a criminal is suspect in itself. A warning to those followers: Don't be holding dirty.

Another aspect of profiling is observing a person's associates. My mother used to say, "birds of a feather flock together," which means that people usually keep company with others similar to themselves. I've noticed that this is nearly always true. It's very similar to my wife's old proverb; "Show me your friends and I'll show you your future." These sayings are based on the truth people have been observing for years. But these old witticisms aren't always true. My mother also used to say, "You can't judge a book by its cover."

Looking Out for Number...Two?

If it weren't for our feelings of entitlement, we'd get along a lot better. It seems that everyone is quick to be offended when someone doesn't treat them the way they "deserve," or respect them just because they've demanded it. Maybe if we were more concerned with others than we are with ourselves, there'd be a lot less disagreement.

OK, the truth is; I'm guilty of feeling entitled to certain things as well. Sometimes, because of my age or experience, I expect not to be treated as a novice. I think that's normal, but it's not healthy for me or for society.

God tells us, through Paul's letter to the Philippians, to "do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Philippians 2:3-4, NIV1984). And, if we look at the way Jesus conducted Himself, we see the One who is most powerful submitting to those He created, at least while He was on the earth. Why can't I be more like Him? I want to be, but "I" keep getting in the way.



If I can't be like Him, then I can at least be like my grandmother, Dora Murphy Ruble. She was a humble lady whose name you won't find in history books or news stories. Grandma has been gone a long time now (she died in 1974), but while she was alive, she modeled herself after Jesus and, in doing so, had a way of making everyone think they were her favorite. It's because she concerned herself with their needs over her own. We really miss her.

Let's be servants. Not because we are subordinate, but because we love others. It will change the world.

We're Fighting to Lose!

We Americans are spoiled rotten. We're used to getting what we want, when we want it. The instant gratification to which we have become accustomed has led us into all kinds of addiction over the years. Now, on top of the drugs, alcohol, and sex that we demand; nearly 75% of us are overweight because of our gluttonous food addiction, including me (forbes.com).



I am not a scientific expert, but I have a lot of experience with human behavior. And, based on that experience, I can tell you that, even though we really hate being fat, we are not about to change the way we live. Every one of us knows what causes obesity and how to correct it, but we will never change our style of eating or increase our exercise until it becomes convenient to do so. That's just the way we are.

Education is the current preferred method of changing our behavior and it may work with children who have not yet established a lifestyle. But, for adults, education has been successful only in that we now know why we're fat. It has not and will not change our behavior. We're too stubborn for that. There are countless books trying to sell weight loss secrets and most of them have at least some information that will really work, at least temporarily. But, those tips will only work for those few who are driven to lose weight. I know how difficult that is as I have done it (and then gained it back). I also know that the overwhelming majority won't do it. I will tell you what the authors of those books won't: The only way we will ever become less obese is for someone else (scientists, dietitians, etc...) to do all the work while we reap all the benefits. By this I mean that we will not, as a whole, exercise more or eat less. And, we certainly won't eat things we don't like. So, scientists, get busy and find us a diet miracle!

Corporate America Wants Your Money

Business models have always called for company officials to do what's best for their companies. That's what investors expect. But, today's big companies have become so powerful that the very business model that created them has evolved into something more sinister. It seems that the officials have gone from doing what's best for their companies to doing anything it takes in order to make money. If it weren't for competition, there wouldn't be any incentive at all to consider public interest.

I realize I differ from my conservative friends on this issue. But, the greed and deception has become so common (and obvious) that I find it offensive and in need of redress. Here's an example: Companies hire lobbyists to convince lawmakers to vote in such a way that it will benefit the company they represent. Companies spend millions of dollars showering lawmakers with incentives, which is unethical at best. We all know this lobbying effort has nothing to do with what's best for the people of this nation but, rather, it has everything to do with what makes the most money for the company.

But, there is an even more obvious example of corporate greed and we see it everywhere (can everywhere be an understatement?) and that's in advertising. The content of an ad is, without fail, the most misleading, ultra biased information you'll ever see or hear. How can it be that every product is the very best? Or, can save you the most money? Our family mutes commercials in order to escape the onslaught of deception. So, considering this dishonesty, please substitute "we want as much of your money as possible" for any phrase in any advertisement. Actually, whenever a company speaks publicly, no matter what the words, the meaning is; "We want as much of your money as possible."

Sometimes companies try to trick us into believing they're good corporate citizens when, for example, they donate a portion of their retail price to a charity. But, we must remember that, when they suggest such a thing, they're still saying, "We want as much of your money as possible." They're not donating because the charity is a good cause. They're donating because they want you to believe that buying their product will help the charity and, therefore, you'll buy more of it, thus creating more profit for the big company. Otherwise, they would give that money back to you through lower prices and allow you to decide if and to whom you want to donate your money.

I clearly saw the scope of this problem when, as a police detective, I would routinely request information from companies during criminal investigations. The larger the company, the more difficult it would be dealing with them. Most of the time the biggest companies would simply refuse. If that happened I would request that the court issue a subpoena ordering the company to provide the information. I didn't have the authority to do this on my own; a judge had to sign each subpoena. But, regardless of the judge's order, the first thing a big company would do upon receiving a subpoena was to determine if they had to comply and, believe it or not, because of legal loopholes, many times they didn't. Many big companies actually employ lawyers to determine which subpoenas and court orders they must honor, regardless of the importance the information has to the investigation. You see, they are more worried about their image than they are about the criminal investigation. And, of course, this is because they don't want anyone to think that, by doing business with them, information may land in the hands of the police. Did they forget they want to be good corporate citizens? No, that was never what they wanted. What they want is your money.

Big business runs America so, of course, this situation isn't going to change anytime soon, if at all. And, no one can dispute that there are a lot of good products and services available. We just have to remember who we're dealing with and what they're saying to us.

Light Years to Next Door

I was looking up at the stars this week when I began thinking about how I will never get to visit any of them. I've always been interested in space travel and exploration, but I'm not an astronaut and can't afford a space vacation which leaves me stranded here. I often wonder about all that is out there that will never be explored. And, I wonder why God put it there. Maybe there are other inhabited worlds. Or, did God make all the heavens only so that our night sky would be beautiful? Or was it to guide people in the times before (and after) GPS? It could have been that God just wanted to display His power.

Modern telescopes have shown that there are billions, if not trillions, of galaxies; each containing billions of stars. And, we now know that many of the stars have several planets in orbit, making it likely that at least one other Earth-like planet exists somewhere in the universe. This leads many people to believe that there is not only life on another planet, but intelligent life.

The closest star to the Earth, other than the Sun, is Proxima Centauri, which is 4.23 light years away. The fastest space craft ever launched from Earth is Voyager 1, currently traveling at 39,000 MPH, and just now at the edge of the Solar System after traveling for 35 years (spacetoday.org). If it were traveling at that rate en route to Proxima Centauri, it would take 50,000 years to arrive (earthsky.org). And, of course, the life we're looking for may be much further away.



And the distance isn't the only obstacle. Other issues to be considered include man's inherent physical limitations involving lifespan, radiation exposure, and weightlessness. Space debris is another concern as a collision with even a minute particle at the speeds required would be devastating.

I think it's possible that there is another planet with intelligent life. But, if there is, what would God's plan for them be? Whatever it is, I don't think it involves us. I believe God has placed any possible aliens far enough away that we will never make contact. Instead, if we want to see an alien, we're going to have to visit a Marilyn Manson concert.