A Modern Def'n of Equality - Access is a Better Determinant than Biology

An excerpt from "ff21st" Chapter 12 pps. 277-278

---------------------------

Up until the attempt on my life, I more or less proposed the thinking that humanity was equal by the standards of the United Nations.  I did, however, hold some deep reservations that everyone was actually equal in terms of contribution to society, and of value to others on an individual level.

To me the sole determinant of equality should simply not be the fact that you biologically exist.  Not to create a lousy analogy, but there is still a common phrase in use, which people who have contributed little use in terms of validation, in comparison with those who have contributed significantly more.  That phrase is:  “their shit stinks the same as mine.”  My typical response to this assertion is to say “if your sole criterion for valuing another human’s relevance is the smell of their excrement, then you are right.”

The one area where I do fully believe there should be equality is in terms of “equality of access” and this principle I hold dear.  Every individual should have access to the ability to earn a living.  Every individual should have access to basic healthcare and medicine.  Every individual should have access to clean water, food and shelter.  Every individual should have access to free movement around the globe.

I do not look at these as innate rights, rather ones that we as evolved citizens of the US should strive for, not only for our fellow Americans, but for people around the globe.  I don’t consider there to be any other equality claim other than the access points.  Every individual with their basic needs taken care of, now has the ability to live where they want, earn a living, choose how to live their life.  They must find their own way which to me is the true life experience.  Of course, even now as we approach 2050 there are still many parts of the world that have to improve in all of these areas.

Two and a Half Men

Chapter 8 -- Two and a Half Men    p.195

------------------------------

Personally, I recall that I had been a fan of Two and a Half Men, but I always cringed somewhat with the concept of a show about a household where a child was being brought up without much supervision and the complete lack of parental discretion that was being exercised.  In Two and a Half Men, Charlie Sheen’s character was uncle to the youngster involved and he was a forty year-old alcoholic, womanizer who floated through life yet received all the rewards that society at the time could offer.  He had a beach front house in Malibu, beautiful women, nice cars, essentially the ability to be totally selfish in his actions.  His brother was considered an amusing sidekick who was divorced, broke and generally just a bit of a square.  He usually tried to do the right thing by his son, but was ostracized by his brother for being such a loser.  The son grew up on TV to be portrayed essentially as someone with no intelligence and no prospects for the future.

Upon a personal collapse by Charlie Sheen, Ashton Kutcher was put into the role.  He was a youthful internet billionaire who had the mind and social awareness of a teenager.  The son at this point was relegated to making bathroom humor and being a dopey young adult who smoked a lot of pot.  The producers of the show, at this time, chose that the father’s character should become somewhat mentally unstable and had him in and out of stressful conditions until the show went off the air in 2015.  The show tried many tactics to keep up viewers and resorted to the bottom of the barrel, I thought, when they introduced lesbian grandmothers.