When is it okay to cheer or laugh that someone died? Or, are The Darwin Awards funny?

So, I ask you, when is it okay to cheer or laugh that someone is dead, or has died unexpectedly? Is it ever okay?

The question occurred to me while browsing the internet. Liberal media watchers noted that Conservative opinionist John Gibson was mocking actor Heath Ledger's death. Conservative media watchers noted that Liberal opinionist Lionel was mocking nature stunt-man Steve Irwin's death.

Regardless of my political make-up, I find both comments disgusting. When I hear that someone has died, I don't think of it as an opportunity to make a joke, especially if they are some kind of entertainer and nothing more. Apparently I'm some kind of mutant.

Now that I've gotten on my high horse, let's really put it to the test: what if a nasty person died? What if a sponsor of mass murder like George W. Bush died? Would that be something worth cheering or mocking?

That's a tough question for me. Knowing that George W. Bush is a key component in keeping the occupation of Iraq and all the death, sorrow and suffering that follows going, could his moving on be viewed as a good thing?

I think yes, but even so, it's not the sort of thing I would yuk it up about. It's just too sobering. The guy was the public face of a movement that smashed an entire nation, got lots of young Americans and lots of Iraqis of all ages killed. Some are probably dying as you read this. If Bush were to die, I don't think it would be time to roll out the goofy hat.

Maybe it's time to breathe easier, maybe hope that one death might put an end to the war or speed its end, but still, I'm always struck unlaughing by the question, how did we get here? How did things get so bad that a nutcase like George W. Bush became president and caused all this destruction? How did it come to pass that I'm relieved at the fact that someone died?

It reminds me of a guy I once heard interviewed who watched the execution of his daughter's killer. Did it make him feel better? No, he said, nothing is going to bring her back. Nothing is going to make me feel better. It was real for him, hypothetical for me, but in my hypothetical-speak, I can relate.

Still, we're talking about nasty people dying. The comments addressed at the top of this post are about entertainers who never harmed anyone. Maybe they were a little stupid in some way, but they didn't actively harm people. They deserve a little respect.

Which brings me to the Darwin Awards. In case you haven't heard, they're "awards" given out to people who die (thus supposedly contributing to human evolution) because of their stupid actions. I've never been a fan of the Darwin Awards. Stupid as the award-winners may be, they probably had loved ones who are really sad over their death. Is that worth laughing at? It's not like the person did something dumb and is going to jail or is severely embarrassed. The person is DEAD. I just can't find death all that funny. Can't we draw a line somewhere?

Some may think I'm being uptight, but I'll parry and counter that. The Darwin Awards are for lame-asses who think they're superior. Every great story in your life involves you as a potential contender for a Darwin Award. If you haven't done something crazy reckless and stupid, then you haven't lived! Any "I was so drunk and/or stoned" story is only good if it involves a brush with death, if it comes terrifyingly close to making you a Darwin Award winner. Then it's something to share the next time you're drunk and/or stoned.

You don't even have to be intoxicated, that just adds to the humor. What makes a good story is cheating death. When death wins, that's just another day at the office and who wants to laugh at that?

===

Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.

Reparations versus Apologies versus Equality. (or, What's Your Financial Age?)

My home state of New Jersey finally got around to apologizing for their practicing of slavery!

An apology (even one that's 100+ years late) is good. It's better than none, but it doesn't do much. Reparations, some form of money or government assistance might make this more than just a symbolic (and therefore, mostly meaningless) gesture.

Unfortunately, while I am totally in favor of the concept of monetary reparations, I have no idea how it would be implemented in any way approaching fairness. So much time has passed, so many generations are removed, it seems impossible to make up for slavery. Could any payment be looked at as anything other than an insult? Who is going to put a price on someone's life that way?

A lot of arguments against slavery reparations sound like this: "My parents came from (European Country) and they had only the clothes on their backs. They ran from oppression. They worked seven days a week, they lived off worms, etc. Why don't I get reparations?"

I don't want to take anything away from anyone's determined and hard-working immigrant ancestors. It seems likely that most people who move to a completely different nation are going to have a tough time. The difference is that for those of European ancestry, they were allowed to earn property and money the moment they hit America’s shores. The rule of law did not restrict them. African slaves were unable to earn anything and they weren't exactly volunteers.

African slaves whose descendants were later named African-Americans had what I call their "financial age" stalled. What is "financial age?" It's not just your age, but the age of your ancestors, from the moment the first one started acquiring money, property, etc. that was handed down to you.

Introductory Finance teaches that money grows over time. You invest it and it earns a little bit; now it’s more money and that earns more. Faster and faster, bigger and bigger. It accelerates, compounds, grows not linearly but geometrically. However you want to say it, if you put a little bit of money in the bank and don’t touch it for several dozen years, it will grow, and it will grow faster and faster.

Assume an African-American man and a European-American man came to America in the same year (say, 1800.) 207 years have passed since then. The European-American man's ancestors have been earning money that whole time. So his living ancestors have a financial age of 207. The African-American man's ancestors couldn't own property until 1865 say. So their financial age is 142. That's a 65 year difference, about 2 generations. As any glossy pamphlet from the bank will tell you, sixty-five years of compounding savings is a LOT of money. That's money that African-American's distant relatives were unable to pass on. Thanks to slavery, a white girl who is physically five years old is financially older than a black man who is physically 40 years old.

So I've made the case for reparations, but I can't figure out how to implement it. Especially when you consider adding women into the mix. How long were their savings delayed? How much younger are they, financially speaking?

Then think about the current struggle for gay marriage or civil unions. Civil unity (aka marriage) results in tax breaks, and all kinds of money savings. A few decades from now, when it is signed into law, finally, that gays are human beings too, due all rights of others, will there be talk of reparations that (once again) come too late? Will they have to settle for an apology as well?

It would be much simpler if we could just do the right thing now. Let's skip the apologies and the debate of reparations. Let's get everyone treated equally NOW.

===

Larry Nocella is the award-winning author of the novel Where Did This Come From? available at Amazon and Xlibris and other fine online book stores. Where Did This Come From? is also available as an eBook. For more info, visit Larry Nocella's website at http://www.larrynocella.com/.