A SAMerican Blog

How will We Be Remembered

2010-05-27T12:01:00.018-05:00

For my last post, I wanted something interesting and poignant to talk about the way that Current American Society will be remembered. I thought that this would be a good summation of my blogging throughout the year.

The many great societies have had artists that have sustained the trials of time. Despite this, many of them probably would not have been chosen as those to succeed in the future during their time. The books of Charles Dickens were, if popular, the equivalent of a modern soap opera. Picasso was unknown. Moby Dick only sold 50 copies during Herman Melville's life.

Obviously, I have no idea of people who I think will be the next Picasso or Melville simply because my social awareness does not have that scope. I can, however, look at some ordinary pop-culture events and hypothesis which ones I think will be remembered in the future.

I think Peter Max is our artist (featured to the left).

As far as music goes, I can think of many different people who should become famous in the future, but musicians tend to be famous in their lifetime if they are famous in the future.

I think that Marilynne Robinson shows a lot of promise for being remembered. I hope that Dan Brown is not remembered, as his books are simply a mixture of the worst of human tendencies-- sex and violence.

As far as TV, I think that we may end up with shows like Dead Like Me and Dexter, which both appeared on premium channels and are my two favorite TV shows, representing American culture. They both have themes of agnosticism and humanism, which I think is a huge theme of America right now.

What do you think will be remembered in the future? Will people look at our books and CDs and laugh or call our time a renaissance?

What Do We Value

2010-05-26T12:01:00.000-05:00

I was listening to another Stuff You Should Know Podcast. This was about Nikola Tesla. We all know who Thomas Edison was: the inventor of electricity. In truth Nikola Tesla invented AC which allows us to use electricity more than a mile from the power station.

Thomas Edison, beyond being a great inventor, was a great businessman. This was so important because he was able to secure money and work make his inventions known.

Tesla had a large on many of the important discoveries of the day. Beyond the idea that the country could be hooked up to electricity, Tesla helped with the telegram and radio. More astonishing than that, to me, is the fact that he (in the 1800s mind you) described a system of wireless connectivity with telephone calls, music, stock markets, news, and messages in text.

So why did we not have a 4G network until 2010? Tesla was unable to secure the funding for his discoveries. He got some money from JP Morgan to look into this, but it was decided to be cost ineffective. Can you imagine what kind of undeveloped theories we are not exploring because we deem them not "cost effective?" Does capitalism always lead to the best technologies (because in this case, I would argue that it didn't)?

Too Much at Once

2010-05-25T12:01:00.000-05:00

I think our society has ADD. Maybe just I do. I can rarely stay interested in stories or tasks for extended periods of time.

Here comes a list of my neurosis:
When I watch a movie, I have to almost force myself to keep watching. When I watch television or a movie, I can rarely be held by just the story, and have to do something else at the same time (play solitaire on my phone, surf the internet etc.). I cannot just listen to podcast, I have to do something else (I am listening to one now). I rarely just sit and listen to music.The only entertainment that I do on its own is read, simply because my eyes cannot handle looking at both a book and anything else at the same time.

Do you find yourself over-multitasking? Do you think that as a society we are trying to do too much at once? Do you think that this comes from too many choices or from the fact that we have become used to too many stimuli?

Banks Too Big

2010-05-24T12:01:00.000-05:00

I am a big fan of usury... it allows our economy to function. My question is, is it becoming too big?

In a NPR report that I heard (though cannot seem to find, so take this statistic with a grain of salt) that about 1/4 of the U.S. GDP is banking. This seems crazy to me. People who are not in reality making anything are accounting for huge pieces of our economy. It is true that bankers are an integral piece of the economy; helping people who are producing real things to succeed. Unfortunately, I cannot stomach 1/4 of our economy.

On one of may favorite Podcasts, Stuff You Should Know, they talked about credit default swaps. They said that in 2007, the global GDP was 67 trillion and the value of credit default swaps in the world was 62 trillion. Essentially, insurance on other's bank investments is almost as big as the world economy.

I gotta ask- as a country are we investing our money in the wrong place? It seems like we are merely inflating the few inventions that we already have without innovating anything new.

Kagan's Sexuality?

2010-05-21T12:01:00.000-05:00

This is so irrelevant and inappropriate in every conceivable way. Trying to question a Supreme Court nominee over her record (or lack there of)is totally fair. Questioning a Supreme Court nominee over her sexuality is not.

I think that the Washington Post did the best job at crossing the line as made apparent by this Current TV clip:

Do you think that it is OK to childishly slander someone you don't agree with by rousing populist bigotry? (I understand that that question was asked in a way to produce only one question, but I don't care.) I think that this is the most extreme example of dirty politics and modern yellow journalism that I have seen in a while.

Do you think that Kagan's sexuality should be relevant to the debate? If yes, do you think that it was brought up in an appropriate way?

Kagan an Elitst?

2010-05-20T12:01:00.000-05:00

Elena Kagan is probably going to be confirmed for the Supreme Court. If she does, all of the justices will have gone to either Yale or Harvard Law School (one graduated from Columbia, but was originally enrolled at Harvard). On top of that, 4 out of the nine justices will have been from New York burroughs.

Now, I'm not one to worry about intellectuals running our country, but I have to wonder if Kagan, or the supreme court, are really able to represent a majority of America. New York, one of the most progressive cities in the union, seems overly represented. Beyond that, I would never argue that scholars at Yale or Harvard are unintelligent, but are they any less intelligent than someone at Cornell or Stanford or even a reputable state school like Illinois or Michigan?

I have no problem with the fact that all of the justices are incredibly bright-- some people argue that they are out of touch with America, but I think that truly intelligent people know what is best for our country better than us regular folk. I think that Kagan, who is undoubtedly an intellectual, will lead our country well.

I think that our country should be lead by intellectuals, not politicians. Though, someone could make ther argument that intellectuals tend to be more open to liberal ideas, and thus I agree with them. What do you think, should our country be lead by great leaders or by intellectuals? Why?

Constitutionality of Child Molesters Part Trois

2010-05-19T12:01:00.000-05:00

So practically, what should we do with child molesters. First, I am going to say that locking them up and forgetting them is not the theory that I posit.

First, there is no question that, according to a vast majority of our society, child rape is undoubtedly wrong (it is given the term child abuse). But then, is it fair to jail the people who are rapists. People do not choose to be child molesters; they do not choose the desire that they are burdened with. I don't think that they should be let directly into mainstream society. As this Wall Street Journal article points out, the recidivism rates of child rapists are not known for sure, but to lower recidivism as much as possible, there should be rehabilitation houses in lieu of prison time for child molesters. They should be set free when a trained psychologist, not a judge or jail officials, deems them ready.

I think that we need halfway houses, so to speak, for these sexual offenders. There are some that work quite well, both in ideological and practical terms. This seems to be "cruel and unusual" punishment to me. As my father, a lawyer, points out, jail sentences are in existence to punish, rehabilitate, and deter others. It seems unfair to punish people with pathological malnormities; like punishing an alcoholic for drinking. I can't imagine a reputable psychiatrist who would say that prison is a better way to rehabilitate than therapy. A jail sentence may deter some molesters, but not many as most molesters have pathological issues that make them want children; I do not need to be deterred from this and deterring men and women with these desires is not proving very effective.

It seems a hard decision to make, considering the children that may be at risk given a wrong decision. I think that, given the relative successes of the group therapy situations, that seems to be the most promising possibility.

Constitutionality of Sex Offenders Part Deux

2010-05-18T12:01:00.000-05:00

I talked about registries earlier in Constitutionality of Sex Offenders. Now, the Supreme Court has ruled (on Monday) that it is constitutional for sexual offenders who are considered "sexually dangerous" to be held indefinitely beyond their sentence. For More information, read this AP article.

At first glance, I couldn't help but think that this is outrageously unconstitutional. One of the tenets of our country is that every criminal sentence must be accompanied with due process (a trial and a judge's decision). I stand by the idealistic belief that this should be unconstitutional, but what about from a realist perspective? Does it make sense to treat "sexual deviants" this way?

Obviously, the biggest inhibiter of a real conversation on this matter is the emotions that run deep within it. There is no politician or judge or person who wants to appear to be "pro-child molester." So, before the next post on what we should practically do about child abusers, I am going to say that I am in no way "pro-molester," I am going to subscribe to a love the sinner hate the sin mentality. Essentially, I try to see beyond one of a person's many actions and to see them as a humasn being like myself. Thus, I am against the term "monster" that is often applied to child molesters.

What Constitutes Rape

2010-05-17T12:01:00.000-05:00

It is quite simple-- unconsented sex.

It gets a little hazier than that once you get into college-- or more specifically when you drink. Someone that my family knows was recently expelled from his college for date rape. Obviously, I am not going to defend a rapist, but I don't think he was a rapist.

Here is essentially how it worked out. Boy and girl get drunk. They have intimate relations, then fall asleep. After waking, neither of the two remember in vivid detail what had happened and the girl, understandably afraid and vulnerable, claims that she has been raped. Indeed, it makes sense that a girl cannot consent to sex when she is drunk. But, by the same logic, can't the man not consent to sex either.

One has to look at it in a rather archeic way, in order to justify the expulsion. You would have to say, it seems to me, that a man, who is more partial to sex than a girl, is the one who took power in the situation. This seems a little outdated to me. For something that is meant to liberate women (date rape policies) they seem to do just the opposite IN THIS CASE. Of course, there are cases of real date rape, but I am talking about a boy and a girl both getting intoxicated, then having intercourse. Should we blamwe this all on the man and assume that a woman is too feeble to have any say in the matter?

TV Everywhere

2010-05-14T12:01:00.000-05:00

Tivo is coming out with a new product, Tivo Premiere. It is basically the same as old Tivo, except that now you can use your Cell Phone (which, for many, can work as a TV) to schedule recordings. This got me thinking-- are our lives too saturated by TV. In class we talked about how the average person uses about 8 hours of screen time a day, I think that TVs are no longer what we intended them to be. Of course, I was not around when TV was invented, but from the stories of parents and folklore, the 4 shows a day were considered something important that the whole family would get together for.

Personally, I do not watch much TV with my whole family. One of my friend's families watches 24 together, but other than that, I can't think of anyone taking part in this antiquated ritual with their family. I watch TV alone or, if there is nothing better to do, with friends. I wonder what you think of TV, did it bring families together originally? Is it breaking families apart in modern life?

Mountain Top Removal Part Deux

2010-05-13T12:01:00.000-05:00

After we watched 30 Days in class (though I missed it, I was able to catch up through the discussion) I decided I might revisist my thoughts on mountain top removal. Mountain top removal is basically what it sounds like-- you take the top off of a mountain. After that, you are free to take the coal from the mountain. The downsides: it takes less workers, thus leaving miners (who have no other prospects) unemployed, and it is detrimental to the environment. The upside: it costs less (according to some estimates) and it causes far less fatalities (this is also contested as people die from drinking water contamination due to the crude nature of mining).

After the mining disaster in the beginning of April, I was forced to rethink my stance on mountain top removal, and at first I began to support it. I believe I was mistaken. On the one hand, the prospect of fewer tragedies like those at the Upper Big Branch mine is enticing. At the same time, I have to imagine that there are many more people dying quietly from the effects of contaminated drinking water. I think that what we need is to move to nuclear power. Not only is it relatively safer (though there have been fatalities), it is much better for the environment.

Wind farms and solar panels are simply not efficient enoug, so we will need to end up with some sort of waste. Thus, our only true choice is to cut back.

Gross National Happiness

2010-05-10T12:01:00.001-05:00

I heard about Bhutan setting up a thing called Gross National Happiness, in a Stuff You Should Know Podcast. The idea is that instead of Gross Domestic Product (which measures the economic success of a country) we should measure the contentedness of the people. For the official English website of Gross National Happiness click here.

Gross National Happiness, if you ask me, would not work in America. Whereas in Bhutan, a country populated almost entirely by Buddhists, the idea that happiness comes from within is acceptable, it is not this way in the States. Therefore, the idea that happiness can be attained independent of economic conditions is not nearly as acceptable in the U.S. as it is in Bhutan.

Essentially, whereas in the U.S. we may believe that happiness can be achieved through some product (a car, a vacation, a shirt etc.) Buddhists (orthodox ones that is) take a vow of poverty. Is this necessarily bad?

Some people may argue that the pursuit of material happiness will lead to an unending cycle of desire without satiation. In Bhutan, however, the Gross National Happiness, if everyone in the country is perfectly happy, can only reach 1 (on a scale of -10 to 10).

Is it possible to create a system in which people are actually sustainably happy?

Marijuana Express

2010-05-06T12:01:00.000-05:00

I was rewatching one of my favorite episodes of Vanguard, a documentary news program on Current TV. It was called Oxycontin Express and was regarding the illegal Oxycontin trade in Florida. (If you have time, I highly suggest that yhou watch it, it won a Peabody and is some great journalism.) It lead me to wondering about the illegal and legal drugs in the U.S.

Most people will tell you that Oxycontin, a psychotropic drug, is much more addictive than marijuana. At the same time, it does not do a better job than marijuna at easing pain, especially when you consider the lethargy that comes as a side effect to Oxycontin.

I have talked with many adults who are against marijuna use. One woman said that marijuna does terrible things to a developing brain. This may be true, though I have not seen any studies to back it up (if you have, tell me in the comments). At the same time, surely legal (for those of age, as marijuna would be if it were legal) are just as harmful. This woman also used vicodin, one of Oxycontin's brothers (very chemically similar) after a surgery-- is that any different than someone using marijuna after a surgery.

I guess I simply wonder, is it our simple stupidity and our resignation to believe whatever our government tells us is true the reason that we, as a nation, buy into the idea of illegalizing marijuna? I like to think that Americans are smarter than that.

New Immigration In Arizona

2010-05-05T12:01:00.000-05:00

Arizona has just made their immigration laws TOUGHER.

Most people that I know think that America should be open to immigrants. People who don't want to allow immigrants into the country apparently don't know two things
1) America was founded by immigrants.
2) There is no fundamental differences between "us" and "them." Immigrants are the same as us, just sometimes speaking in a different language.

After the governor of Arizona signed the law, protests started.

To be fair to people who believe that America needs tougher immigration reform, I do have an easy situation to look at immigration from an ideological standpoint. I live in a northern state far from the borders of the Mexican and southern and Central American countries that produce illegal immigrants. Most importantly, illegal immigrants do not effect me the same way that they do everyone. Sure, I pay for healthcare if an illegal alien shows up in an ER, but I don't have it that bad. My parents are both college educated. I plan on having a white collar job which will not be in competition with the majority of illegal immigrants.

What do you think of immigration?

Do Words Hold a Meaning?

2010-05-04T12:01:00.000-05:00

Coprolalia is what most people actually think of when they think of Tourettes. Coprolalia is when someone uncontrollably yells or utters an obscenity. This seems odd, considering my former belief that words are merely social constructs that we give meaning.

I guess what learning that Coprolalia is a true thing has lead me to a believe that words have meaning beyond what we give them. They are something bigger than that.

My question, then, is do you think that words get their meaning because of what we give them or is there something deeper? Is there a naturally cruel sound to the N word or the F word? Are these words biologically wrong, or do they just become so ingrained in our heads that they become socially unacceptable? As humans we have literally turned noises into emotions (I think).

In light of this, what do you think of censorship and political correctness?

Isreal Part Trois: Why We love Them

2010-05-03T12:01:00.001-05:00

Americans love Israel for three simple reasons, I think.

The first is that we (as a country) feel guilty for having waited so long to get involved in WWII, along with remaining neutral to the other genocides in the world (though ironically, some claim Israel is committing Genocide, according to UN statutes). We are able to look at the way we treated these other people and say, ooh, that's ok, we helped the Jews.

The second reason that we love Israel is that we love the underdog, even if we turn the underdog into an overdog. By giving Israel a huge amount of money and Nukes, we have turned them into the overdog. It doesn't matter, we can still cheer euphorically when they inevitably win all of their conflicts.

The third reason that Americans love Israel is the Conservative Movement and the Bush policy towards Israel. Most Evangelical faiths believe that all Jews should return to Israel. Most Conservatives prefer Jews to Muslims. Finally, and this is the big one, as most of the Jews in Israel immigrated from Europe, they are Caucasians. Can you imagine that, white allies in the center of the Middle East.

I don't know, though. Why do you think we let Israel getaway with anything?

Israel part deux: Why I am mad at Israel

2010-05-01T09:15:00.003-05:00

Netanyahu-- Not only did he announce new settlements in the West Bank the day of Joe Biden's arrival in Israel, he said what, if you ask me, is the most inflammatory statement ever. This is what he said of Goldstone:

"We face three major strategic challenges: the Iranian nuclear program, Rockets launched at our civilians and Goldstone."

I was really angry when he said this. I know that he put goldstone in the same group as Iran and Hamas because he justified their actions as opposed to forthrightly helping them, but I simply do not think that this was an acceptable thing to say. Dissent from within is what is supposed to set you apart from your enemies. If you lose that, you are left with nothing.

My fellow teacher at Sunday School was trying to argue that the UN was full of antisemites and biased against Israel (as evidence by the Goldstone Report). That seems like the most inflammatory comment I have ever heard. Simply look at what Israel gets away with compared to every other country in that area. They have a "secret" nuclear program. They invade disputed areas consistently without repercussion. They continue to hold the unwavering love of America (see my next post for that).

Someone said on NPR that Israel was a country run by the equivalent of all Mike Huckabees who believe they are fighting a holy war against the ungodly. That explains alot.

Goldstone

2010-04-30T12:01:00.001-05:00

The Goldstone Report, written by UN lawyer, Richard Goldstone. He was commisioned, by the UN, to look at war crimes during the 2008 conflict between Israel and Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

As someone who knew some people who fought in the 2008 conflict on the Israel side, I have a bit of bias (plus I am a jew), but I am finding it harder and harder to justify Israel's actions.

After the Goldstone report was published, essentially saying that both Hamas and Israel took part in war crimes, Goldstone life was threatened by several extremist jews. Beyond that, many people threatened to riot outside of his grandson's Bar Mitzvah. Having put alot of work into my bar mitzvah, I will say that that is a very rude thing to do (you have to learn a whole ne language and alphabet for one day). The rioters have no right to take away from the boy's day.

Now, a settlement ahas been reasched and Goldman will be going to the Bar Mitzvah, but I still have a problem with Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister (see tomorrw's post for that). I guess I am OK with this issue

Let's just lie...

2010-04-29T12:01:00.007-05:00

My biggest pet peave is when products claim to be "green" when there is indeed nothing green about them.

A good recent example is the world's cup coming up in South Africa. Now, ignoring the fact that this is a big deal for Africa to host it's first World Cup. The designers of the project claim that this will be the greenest world cup in history. They are aiming (albeit halfheartedly) for carbon neutrality. Of course, all of this is a lie. A report on NPR found that this game will have a bigger carbon footprint than the last 5 World Cups combined. Of course, some of that was due to the fact that this world cup is not in Europe, thus more plane travel will take place.

Here are just another list of things that I have seen that clame to be "green:"
1) An external hardrive
2) A shirt
3) Dog food

If you heard about the recent Energy Star debacle, you probably know that those are suspect, though my dad (who works for the EPA) assures me that Energy Star is being reworked.

So I guess, the only way that we can be green is to keep our old stuff. That is disgusting. Now isn't that just downright un-American?

Junior Theme Update (Seperation of Church And State)

2010-04-27T13:47:00.000-05:00

Kind of haven't done one of these yet, so here goes:

I feel like my junior theme is coming along quite well. I need to simplify my arguments a little and clarify some of the terms for the reader. Other than that, I think that (unlike most of the things I write) the focus is pretty good, though I will work on it. On top of that, I will continue to work on transitions and try to get my paragraphs and paragraph blocs into the most logical order.

I am still a little shaky on how I will conclude the theme. I think I will take a stand on the issue, seeing as how my essay covers a relatively controversial topic. If you trhink that I should or shouldn't, let me know.

Also, If you have a topic that relates to mine or you think that my topic woujld be useful for your paper, let me know in the comments.

How quickly we forget

2010-04-27T12:01:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Manuel Noreiga was extradited out of the US and into France. Personally, I would have expected a little more fanfare.

It is hard to believe that a man who was at one point the most hated man in America didn't even make it into the "Top Stories" of my New York Times App.

That brings me to a question: Does our society have communal ADD? We forget everything so quickly. Anyone who has ever been shortly famous will tell you how surprising it is how quickly the media forgets about them altogether.

I feel like, as a society, we are just looking for a new fad to focus on. Once a person is no longer interesting (or in Noreiga's case, a cruel dictator) we just don't care anymore. As Mr. Bolos and Doc Oc will tell us, we can only focus on so much. So then, is the world structured like our AS class that instead of following everything poorly, we follow a few stories closely.

Unexpected Consequences

2010-04-12T12:01:00.002-05:00

I want to talk today about unexpected consequences of legislature. I think that these give us a really interesting insight into the truth of a society.

For instance, a lot of people argued that the revolution in China gave women greater rights than they had before. Indeed, they did gain more rights; there is no more foot-binding.

But, the restrictions on children in China has lead to a great deal more men than women in China. By 2020, there will be 24 million more men than women in China.

Clearly, women in China do not have the rights that we had hoped.

Another example of an unexpected consequence is America's toughening restrictions on teenage drinking.

People expected this to lower underage drinking (obviously), but instead it increases the problem. As my parents will attest, there was drinking in their childhood, but not to the same extent as today. People did not binge in the way that they do today.

I think that this unexpected consequence speaks to the ethos of American youth. We want to be free from our cushy suburban lives and uber-wealth.

Are there any unexpected consequences that you can think of that provide insight into a culture.

Trust Me

2010-04-09T12:01:00.001-05:00

I was thinking the other day about the way that we are trusted by our government. We are trusted with 2-ton machines capable of killing instantly, yet we are not trusted with Marijuana.

We are trusted with Tobacco, which most doctors will agree has no real health benefits. At the same time, there are a huge number of medicines, which do have redeaming attributes, that aren't nearly as dangerous as tobacco, but are tightly regulated by the government. My face medicine, used to control acne, requires a prescription.

I have to ask myself, where does our country draw the line. There are so many things that, to me at least, seem so incredibly random, yet no one thinks to control cars, even though we only recieve a set of lessons as teens. Why are we considered to need to be "protected" from face wash, but not tobacco?

Are there any laws that seem random and a little useless to you? I would love to start a conversation about the real roots of our laws.

Loss of Values in America

2010-04-08T12:01:00.005-05:00

Nada Prouty was the perfect example of a CIA and FBI (before that) agent. She was a proud American and she loved her country.

After the CIA claimed that she was committing sedition for the enemy (Hezbollah) she was imediately removed from her position. Then the media began to attack her. She was coerced into admitting her guilt, then (for obvious reasons) her citizenship was revoked.

After new prosecuters looked into her case, they discovered that she was clearly innocent. This was a huge embarressment for the CIA; but it was nothing compared to what has happened to Prouty. Her citizenship cannot be restored, due to technicalities. Now, she faces being sent back to lebanon where many of the terrorists that she hunted would be waiting to kill her. The judge is delaying her deportation.

I can't help but wonder what this says about our country. In "America" we turned a person who has more faith in her country than I do and was willing to risk her life fighting against a cruel and unforgiving enemy; an enemy that she has a right to identify with. She lives with a tarnished reputation and a lost lifestyle.

NCAA loses

2010-04-07T12:01:00.000-05:00

I am watching the final game as I write this. Currently Duke and Butler are tied at 16. Personally, I prefer Butler 'cuz I love an underdog. By the time this is published, we will no doubt have a winner.

Honestly, I wonder if there really is a winner. The main argument for these sports and the recruiting that goes behind them is that a winning team will lead to more donations to the school by graduates. my dad informed me, however, that the school uses most of this money to pay for more sports.

Then, I wonder, what is the point. Maybe this gives people who wouldn't usually have the chance, the chance to go to college. It is a great equalizer, like I said yesterday. Then, I heard on NPR that only about 40% of college basketball players actually graduate. Basically, I can't see a point to this. If you do, tell me.

An Elitist Sport

2010-04-06T12:01:00.002-05:00

In a conversation the other day, someone mentioned that the reason that he enjoyed watching athletics so much was that it is a great equalizer. Regardless of race, SES, or family income, one is either good or bad at a sport.

This got me thinking, rowing is not by any means a cheap sport. A boat costs about $50,000. Then, you have to consider that nearly all of our competitions are out of state and require coach buses and hotel stays. Because of these expenses, New Trier is the only public school in the area and one in a handful of public schools in the country that has a team.

I will vouch for the team, saying that we do work quite hard, and that we are by no means a group of rich kids rocking back and forth on our boats. On the other hand, our competition is made up of mostly prestigious prep schools and extremely wealthy public schools. By excluding a huge population of the US are we making ourselves less of a sport than any other real sport.

This has huge impilications, when you consider that colleges get about the same amount of recruits for crew as they do for mainstream sports. Think about the way that this effects who gets into America's most prestigious institutions. What do you think of rowing? Can it even be compared to other sports?

Politics and Religion

2010-04-05T14:37:00.001-05:00

For my Junior Theme I am writing about the church and state kerfuffle. One of the books that I am reading is entitled, Why Politics Needs Religion by Brendan Sweetman.

Sweetman Argues that religion is merely a worldview in the same way that secularism is a world view. Essentially, the idea that one should be free to do anything so long as it only hurts you is the same as the idea that homosexuals shouldn't be married in that they both are based on worldviews.

A worldview comes from a balance of fact-based observations and things taken on faith. He says that the more of a worldview is taken on fact-based observations, the more rational. Then he says that religion and secularism (ie the idea of evolution and science-based meaning of life) are equally equally rational. I am not sure about that, but other than that, he presents an interesting argument.

I'll admit, I have a problem with politicians quoting scripture when justifying a certain piece of legislature. Maybe I should learn to accept a differing worldview and ask myself if I am merely quoting secular scripture.

What do you think? Do you think that religion should be given the same weight in public debates as logic?

Constitutionality of Sex Offenders

2010-04-05T12:01:00.002-05:00

As long as I am on the subject of constitutionality (see my last post), I thought I would talk about the other constitutional quagmire that is plaguing very few ears (unfortunately).

Many people would agree that if the government were to tell you where you could and could not live, based on things like nearby schools, stores, or restaurants, you would probably call fowl and call it what it is: unconstitutional. Why then, does no one argue that telling registered sex offenders where they can and cannot live is unconstitutional. The reason is simple, no one wants to be the politician who let perverts into their constituents neighborhoods.

Why do we not think about the fairness of these laws. Lets think of our term for sex offenders, pervert. In fact, the term pervert is quite offensive, if you ask me. Most therapists will agree that pedophilia and sex addictions are real things. Why, then, is it inappropriate to call someone with other mental disorders a derogatory name, but it is perfectly acceptable to call these people by such names.

Beyond the fact that "perversion" is a mental disorder (that some people can be "cured" of), there are many people who are sex offenders who can't live near schools but aren't pedophiles. In some states, a rape charge will put you on the same list as pedophiles, and I think that there is a big difference between raping an adult or a child (though I wouldn't call one "better"). There are also a multitude of cases of twenty-something guys or girls who had relationships with teenagers. After jail time, these people (who have already lost years of their life for a questionable reasons) now find that they have limited rights. You can't live near an elementary school because fifteen years ago you dated a 17 year old, that simply makes no sense to me.

Honestly, if I had kids, I wouldn't want a pedophile living next door, but that doesn't mean that I should have the right to tell this man where he can and can't live. I can tell my kids not to go to his house and I can even move, but telling him where to live is just not justifiable.

A note: I was going to put up a easily attainable map of all the "sexual predators" in the New Trier district, but made a conscious decision not to.

Constitutionality of Healthcare

2010-04-05T12:01:00.001-05:00

Someone brought up to me that the healthcare bill (probably a law by the time this is published) is unconstitutional. This is an interesting argument, I thought.

The bone that people pick with the bill/ law is that it requires you to buy healthcare insurance. This mandated healthcare, people say, is the only case in which people are forced into buying something that they may or may not want. I brought up car insurance, though a moment after saying that, I realized that one can simply choose not to drive. One can choose to be homeless without a job, and not pay taxes. Contrarily, one cannot choose not to live (suicide is illegal).

Personally, I think that mandated healthcare is, ignoring the constitution, the best way to cut down on insurance costs. Unfortunately, there is this idea that people love to pull out; they say, "it is a slippery slope." And indeed, I can see that argument. Many of the greatest dictators (like Hitler per-say) came to power not by a sudden coup, but by a gradual usurpation of power. (Just a note, contrary to the many satirically posted Obama with Hitler 'stache, I am in no way comparing Obama to Hitler.

So, then, is mandated healthcare OK. Can you justify mandated healthcare with the constitution in mind, or do you need to go outside of it? Do you even support mandated healthcare?

Abortion... Whose Choice is it?

2010-04-05T12:01:00.000-05:00

Instead of talking about a woman or the government's right to choose, I want to talk about a man's right to choose.

That sounds silly, but I was talking to a family friend who was relaying the story of his friend (that sounds really gossipy) whose child had just been aborted by his ex. The man's friend was really distraught and wondered why he had no choice as to his child's life.

I thought about this for a while, then I said, "who does more work, the man who donates the sperm to the woman, or the woman who does everything else." He responded that he wasn't sure if the sperm was being donated to the woman or the child.

That was a good point, then I thought of a metaphor. You have a house to be cleaned, both the man who unlocks the door to the house and the woman who actually cleans the house are necessary for the house to be cleaned. The difference is that after the man inserts his key, so to speak, he leaves the house to be cleaned by the woman. All the work will be done by the woman and the woman will get all the credit for cleaning (and rightfully so). If the woman decided to stop cleaning, it would be nobodies choice but her own, right?

What do you think of my allegory or my belief that a woman should have more say over an abortion than a man?

Do We Live in an Oligarchy?

2010-04-02T12:01:00.000-05:00

No, but we are closer to this than a dictatorship.

In 5/6 of the last presidential elections, the candidate who raised the most money won the election. The only acception is Clinton who raised less money than Dole but won anyway. Thus, if those who make more money win, those who give more money have more power to support the candidate of their choice.

This could be a coincidence, but I don't believe in coincidences. I would like to think that American voters are more free thinking than people who just look at ads and decide what to vote for, but I'm not so sure.

Personally, I like to get to know people that I vote for, and I know that I should expect the same from others that I do from myself. Because of this, I will play the assume that the president who gets the most votes also gets the most money by coincidence or simply because he has more supporters.

What, then, about small time politicians. Very few people look up the websites on judges and even state representatives. These people win because they are able to raise the most money. The people who get the "small time" political jobs are the ones who eventually filter to bigger things on a national scale.

So again, I ask, do we live in an oligarchy?

Do We Live in a Dictatorship?

2010-04-01T12:01:00.001-05:00

No, but there is one presidential power that should not exist. Personally, I don't think that the president should have the power to pardon.

Of course, I have nothing wrong with the yearly tradition of pardoning turkeys on Thanksgiving, but think of any other time that it has been used for a justifiable reason.

After Ford took over, he pardoned Nixon. Is this fair? Absolutely not. I simply don't see any argument for dictatorship.

I don't understand why, in a government with so many complex checks and balances, we have one many who has the ability to, on a wim, commune sentences. Nearly all presidents, in the last few days of their presidency, pardon a series of people of their political party. This isn't just at all. These are white collar criminals who committed serious crimes who get off scott free.

It seems odd that there is one man in the United States, which must have thousands of crimes a month, is able to pick a few of his buddies and essentially say, "it's ok, he is with me."

I know we are supposed to honor the constitution, but I don't see how this can be justified.

Should We Trust The Powerful

2010-03-31T12:01:00.002-05:00

You may have heard about the new book, No One Would Listen. The book was written by Harry Markopolos, who for years tried to tell people at the SEC about Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme. No one would listen for two reasons (that he claims).

1) Bernie Madoff is too big and powerful. Look at the people who invest with him. Look at the kind of money that he makes. It is simply impossible for someone this powerful to run a ponzi scheme.
--Markopolos claimed that Madoff's returns, a 45 degree angle, "are only present in geometry class." He wrote copious letters to different people in the SEC, but no one took his evidence seriously.

2) The SEC is run by incompetent lawyers. Instead of putting financial men in charge, the SEC put lawyers in charge. The lawyers didn't know anything about the way that the money buisness worked, and therefore found themselves unable to notice when financial men took diabolical liberties with the law.
-- On the daily show he said that he would "love to get in there and fire some people."

This makes me wonder, should we trust anyone merely because they appear "really good" at what they are doing. Let us take this moment to think of all the times that we took information on authority. Now, let's think about all the times that those people were wrong. It seems counterintuitaive, we want to trust the successful, but there has to be a better way to find people to trust.

See Me as an individual

2010-03-31T12:01:00.001-05:00

I see a theme in my last two posts, I have talked about the way that seeing people as individuals, instead of in groups, can greatly change your conscience thinking about them.

Why is it that seeing people as individuals, instead of groups of people makes such a drastic difference. There are many groups that I could say I am in: New Trier Student, Wilmette resident, Independent Liberal, Car Magazine reader, Rowing Team Member. But do any of these groups explain me as a person.

A few weeks ago I heard one of the most interesting stories that I have ever heard on NPR. It was a story about mothers of deceased Palestinian and Israeli combatants who met every so often. As one mother put it, "it took us no time at all to realize that we were all the same." I got goosebumps.

It really goes to show how much personalizing a situation can do. I went recently on an exchange program with Kenwood Academy on the South Side. I will admit, before going I had some stereotypes about inner-city schools. Most of them were blown away by the individuals that I met.

Why, then, if we are able to truly know people so much better seeing them as a single, do we continue to sort? I know that when I meet people I sort them into all kinds of categories based on their activities, gender, intelligence, and political views. Is this right, probably not. Why do I do it? If you sort people, Why do you do it?

Careless Lives Cost Talk

2010-03-30T12:01:00.001-05:00

In a book that I recently finished, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis makes arguments for living a "christian" lifestyle. At one point in the book, he urges Christians to live responsibly and "like a christian" because, "careless lives cost talk." This, of course, is a play on the war poster to the left.

I think that this is a really insightful way into the way that humans, myself included, judge groups of people. He said that when people see Christians acting poorly, it gives all Christians a bad name. That is definitely true, I would be lying If I hadn't ever seen a Pat Robertson quote and gotten mad at all Christians as one.

Is it fair to group people like this. On the one hand, Christianity is different than say race or gender. People do not choose these traits, but they do choose religion. If you have all chosen to be in this religion, you must all be like-minded, right?

That doesn't make sense, how can the millions or billions of Christians who subscribe to the words written in the Bible be assumed to have the same interpretations of the book, or even the same actions.

This seems to be something that I will have to work on: not judging whole groups en masse. Have you ever judged a whole group based on one person only to discover that you made a gross miscalculation?

Where does morality Come From

2010-03-29T12:01:00.011-05:00

The other day, on the way to crew, I was discussing with a friend where we thought morality comes from. A note, by morality, I mean a conscious feeling of right and wrong.

He said that this feeling of right and wrong "could be god... it is a possibility."

I disagreed. I am not going to speak of the varying of morals between societies. Instead, I said that because human's are pack animals, those of us who felt the most empathy for other humans lived and reproduced and natural selection had its way with the rest. To back this up even more, I pointed to the way that empathy in humans manifests itself. One does not feel nearly as guilty killing a thousand people across the world with a button as you would killing one man with a knife. This is because seeing the human face, and empathizing with it, causes your conscience to tell you you are doing something wrong. I said that people do good things for similar reasons; they see others in situations that they could imagine themselves in.

He responded with, "What do you think about people who give to charity anonymously to people that they have never met or seen." I think that there are two reasons for this. It makes you feel good about yourself and even if you haven't seen someone, that doesn't mean that you haven't imagined them.

Whose side do you take on this argument? Before you tell me, I am aware that this post was probably biased towards my argument.

Is Racism the same as seeing Race?

2010-03-26T12:01:00.000-05:00

I've been brooding over Harry Reid's comment on Obama's skin for Quite some time. Now, late as always, I think I've come to a conclusion about whether or not his comment was justified or even excusable. In case you have been living under a rock for a few months, he said that Obama had a real chance of winning the presidential election because he was, "light skinned... with no negro dialect unless he wanted to have one."

A lot of republicans called foul on this because their former majority leader, Trent Lott, was a strong supporter of a segregationist and therefore had to resign. The difference between the two is so striking, I don't understand why anyone would compare the two. Lott used a type of thinking that was outdated and not at all appropriate in our society.

Reid, on the other hand, realized that black politicians who tend to win are 'more white.' I think that this term is rather racist, because the term 'more white' tends to refer to things like using advanced vocabulary and living a bourgeoisie lifestyle.

I think that many Americans are aware of the fact that most black representatives are 'more white' yet are afraid to say so. Why? Well, it is much easier to ignore racism than to try to tackle it. Personally, I think that the real racism exists in our ideas about what is 'more white.' So, is Reid excusable? Yes, despite the use of outdated language he was saying something that is accepted to be true. Are we? Not yet. We consider Obama the first Black president despite the fact that he is half white. We are so far from 'post racism' that it scares me.

Literal Fear Mongering...

2010-03-25T12:01:00.000-05:00

A lot of people argued that the Bush Administration took part in fear mongering to push their agenda through. Of course I have my opinions on that, but what about companies fear mongering. Surely no one would buy into that...

Wait, of course they do. Lots of people buy security systems, yet I was unable to find any real study that found that there was any real correlation between being protected by a sercurity system and lowering your chances of being robbed. My family locks our doors and our house has never been robbed. There has been one robbery on my block in my lifetime, and that house had an ADT sign in the front yard.

Why do people buy in, lets take a look at the always relevant Sarah Haskins.

I would be willing to bet that the majority of people who have security systems are either single mothers or a couple and that very few are men. These comercials love to target women. Aparently it works, because they keep doing it.

The New Hippy

2010-03-24T12:01:00.001-05:00

I heard somewhere (probably NPR) though I can not seem to remember, that the Tea Party radicals are to conservatives what Hippies were for Liberals in the 60's.

If the Hippies helped influence many of the social reforms that have occurred in the past forty years, does this mean that in 40 years, we will have receded back into a reactionary state of formality and conservatism.

I obviously can't tell what the future holds, but I can make hypothesis from the past. Hippies are remembered for more than their great music and excessive drug use. They also dramatically changed American society. They helped with Civil Rights battles and marched for Vietnam.

How would our modern society differ without them, I can't know for sure but I'm willing to guess it would be far more conservative.

What do the tea partiers stand for? I don't know exactly. Do they stand just for smaller government or will we be seeing constitutional bans on abortion and gay marriage. I guess only time will tell, but tell me what you think the Tea Party stands for and how they will effect America. Because, one thing is for sure, they aren't going anywhere.

Healthcare Reform... Good or Bad

2010-03-23T12:02:00.000-05:00

I just found out that the healthcare reform bill has, indeed, signed into law. I smiled when I first saw it, then I realized that I have no idea what it is and I am supporting a party (the democrats) not a bill.

From my own research, I know that this bill will insure another 30 million or so Americans (though I am not sure how). It will also tighten restrictions on the way that insurance companies can ration coverage. Beyond that, I'm not sure that it does that much to change our country into a socialists state.

From my fiscally conservative mom, I have learned that this bill is "longer than sin" and that no one really knows what is in it. I would say that most bills are very long, so I'm not exactly sure what her argument is there. Also, I cannot corroborate that no one has read it. In fact, I found this eloquently laid out (if possibly biased) site that explains the bill in clear english and less than a page.

My dad tells me that this bill will help to lower costs overall for everyone. Instead of paying for the uninsured when you go to the emergency room (that is why you get charged $150 for an aspirin and a "walk it off"), we will more efficiently spread the money throughout the healthcare system in a way that will cut out waste. According to him, there is also a bipartisan think tank that concluded that the bill will save money compared to the current system. I can't remember the name, but I will ask him and update this post.

So overall, I think that the argument against the bill has been hyperbole. I am not a big fan of the social issues that republicans stand on, and therefore tend to prefer to disagree with them on fiscal issues as well (we all like to be told that we are right). According to this post, I think I support the bill, but if you have arguments to the contrary, fill me in.

How Much Money Makes You Happy?

2010-03-23T12:01:00.005-05:00

After we talked about it in class, it got me thinking; how much money makes you happy?

In many studies, it has been found that at a certain point, money stops making you happy. For instance, according to a recent international survey, slum dwellers in Calcutta rated themselves as about as happy as millionaires in America and Northern Icelandic Inuits rated the same as American millionaires. Then, does money buy happiness?

Well, to a point it is rather clear that it does, because the homeless in Calcutta were far less happy than American millionaires. So, what gives? Well, Harvard Professor, Daniel Gilbert says that it has been, "generally concluded that wealth increases human happiness when it lifts people out of abject poverty and into the middle class but that it does little to increase happiness thereafter."

I guess that makes sense, but with the fear of sounding terribly snobbish, there are certain quite expensive things that I love. My family is fortunate enough to have a summer cottage and a relatively expensive ski boat. I would say that while at our cottage in Wisconsin, I feel generally more content than in Chicago, not to mention that boating is also a very fun pastime, and gas for a V8 boat is not cheap.

Would I be less happy if we didn't have the boat and the house? I don't know. I have a few hypothesis as to the relationship between wealth and happiness:

1) those who are wealthy only believe that they are becoming happier, when in truth, they are becoming less and less content with what they have.

2) People who truly need money to feel happy, work hard and get it. One of my friend's dads came from rather meager means (lower middle class) and worked hard to get into law school then get a job at a private firm. I'm not saying that everyone who wants to be wealthy gets there, but a lot do.

3) People can naturally feel content with just one rung above what they have, so long as they have the general necessities of life (food, shelter etc.), therefore, I feel relatively content with what I have, but would not want less because I have had a taste of "the good life" and would not could not imagine having tons more (Buchanan type wealth).

What do you think? Does wealth cause happiness, or does happiness come from people's own desires (which for some may include wealth) or does wealth deter happiness? I would love to hear your hypothesis.

Resuscitation of American Schools...

2010-03-22T12:01:00.000-05:00

A few days ago I posted on the book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System in my post Are American Schools Dying. A few days later, I found out about this New York Times Article.

It appears that there may be a totally uniform rule of what students need to learn to pass each grade and eventually graduate. ON the one hand, this will certainely help create a better environment of equality for all schools, because they will all have the same graduation requirements.

On the other hand, I have to wonder if classes like our AS would survive. On top of that, will having the same graduation requirements really make American schooling equal. There is, to begin with, discrepancy in the way that classes are taught and tests are written. On top of that, at a competitive school like New Trier, students, I believe, will be more likely to graduate with classes that far exceed the graduation requirements.

So, I guess I don't support this standardization; it seems that it will do more bad than good. I think that what we really need is a total rethink of American eduacational values. We need to consider (and please respond in the comments) why we go to school, what an education is good for, if we want every student to receive exactly the same education, and if we want to reduce the succesfulness of our system to a few test scores.

To Profile or Not to Profile?

2010-03-19T12:01:00.000-05:00

Many people say that we should profile at airport security because the majority of people looking to attack America are Middle Eastern and men. Therefore, white blond women should not be searched at airports.

I understand the argument, though I didn't agree with it, until recently when I read this New York Times article about Colleen LaRose, a white blond woman from the suburbs of Philadelphia. She calls herself JihadJane online and she has not only contributed money to terrorist groups, but "expressed a desire to become a martyr for an Islamist cause." This, according to the New York Times, is part of a trend of Al Qaeda finding whites who will blend into society and join their cause.

To me, this is not only a little frightening (I'll admit, my internal racism was a little comforting), but it also proves just how global (or local) our enemy is. No longer can we cower in racism, we have to realize, and your granny will have to deal with the consequences that anyone, regardless of race could be an enemy. Colleen doesn't look very 'foreign' (and therefore frightening) in the top picture, but if she were dressed like she is to the left, would it become justifiable to strip search her in an airport? Does her turban make her a threat or is it the ideas stored within?

Ideals Vs. the Real World... a real fight?

2010-03-18T12:01:00.000-05:00

On The Daily Show about a week ago, Jon Stewart interviewed Marc Thiessen about the "torture memos" and America's interrogation policy and the newly dubbed "Al Qaeda 7."

The video is split into three parts and the first (which was the only that aired on TV) is below. To see the second piece, go here. To see the third, go here.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Marc Thiessen

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Reform

Torture is always something that I have been unsure about and this argument is really one of the best, most thoughtful arguments that I have ever seen (whodda thunk that that would be on Comedy Central).

I really want to hear what other people have to say about this. Personally, I love the idea that America is above torture and I definitely agree that we should only be OK with doing to "them" what we are OK if they do to us. I wonder, though, am I being to realist. This is an ugly world. I may not necessarily think that there is anything inherently right about America's campaign in the world, but I do think that we have a right to protect ourselves. On the other hand, we have been given many more resources with which to protect ourselves than our enemies and does that mean that we are unjustified in using "extreme techniques." At the same time, one could easily argue that we did not start this war, and that we were only responding to an attack on America. At the same time, you could say that the reason that we wrongfully attacked Iraq was because of enhanced interrogation and a coerced admission of connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. On top of that, many members in Al Qaeda are people who have been recruited after the US put the area into such disarray. At the same time, why does that justify their killing of civilians? No, so then where have I gotten, no where.

This is before I even consider the effectiveness of torture.

A Whole History....

2010-03-18T11:01:00.004-05:00

This is a response to Doc Oc's post on the Texas textbook legislation (say that ten times fast). Stephen Colbert did a piece on this recently and I thought it would make sense to bring this interview to light, especially seeing as how he used Eric Foner, author of our textbook, Give Me Liberty! as his guest.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

I's on Edjukashun - Texas School Board

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care reform

I think that we have all already heard about about the Texas School Board decision in Doc OC's Post (though this is a funny video). I liked his comment on "American Exceptionalism," though I think that most textbooks will have to write textbooks that are missing a few things.

I was a little surprised by the fact that Foner said, "Yes, it is [a complete history of America]" because I expected the author of the textbook that we used to be a little more knowing of its exceptions, though he does admit that all textbooks have exceptions a little later.

Foner talks about the "redemptive arc" of America and how we Texas makes it look like we started perfect and got better instead of starting with problems and working for something better.

What do you think of Eric Foner the man and what would he think of our class?

Are American Schools Dying?

2010-03-17T12:01:00.000-05:00

A book that has just come onto my radar and subsequently been added to my list of things to read is The Death and Life of the Great American School System. The LA Times Did a review that got me quite interested.

Diane Ravitch, the Author, was at one point a conservative when it came to schooling. She believed in scantron testing and 'accountability.' Now, she is a fan of O'colos style teaching, in that she prefers higher level thinking and synthesis. This change in heart has been summed up in her book.

She says that test based schools have a plethora of shortfalls, namely that they do not inspire students to learn. I couldn't agree with her more. I feel like if I knew that at the end of each book that we read in AS we would receive a test, I would look through the book trying to remember facts instead of synthesizing the symbolism of different passages.

I love the O'colos style of learning, but what about the privatization of schools. At one point, Ravitch was behind competition in the school market just like that in the economy. Now, she says that school should be codependent. I think that that is one of the most insightful things that she changed her opinion on. The last thing that we need is to have teachers competing between schools for test scores instead of collaborating on ways to inspire students to learn.

Overall, I can't wait to get my hands on this book, but I wonder what you think. Do you think that schools should be privatized and compete for government funding through tests?

Meds in ads...

2010-03-16T12:01:00.003-05:00

In class we talked about the way that Medicine, specifically prescription medicine, is advertised in America. Personally, I never understood this until I asked my mother in fourth or fifth grade. As she explained it, "people like to think that pills will fix anything, if they see an ad, they tell themselves that their peoblem is big enough for medicine."

What do you think are the implications of a pill dependent society? Personally, I am a big fan of medicine, it works much better than faith healing.

But what if people are taking too many pills. I take a large handful of pills in the morning. Except for one prescription that I was suggested by a doctor, I take mostly a series of Supplements (Vitamin B and Fish Oil) and Vitamins. But do I even need these. I don't know.

Meds also target women specifically, as my favorite TV commentator, Sarah Haskins points out.Is this any less justified?

Corruption in Government

2010-03-15T12:01:00.000-05:00

I remember hearing somewhere that people are less trustworthy of politicians now than ever before in America. Unfortunately, I was unable to corroborate this information with any sort of study or statistic, but I do think that we can take that as a truth.

This leads me to a question; why do we trust our leaders so little. I think that there are two reasdons that we trust them less now than ever before. I don't think that corruption has anything to do with it, government has always been a little corrupt.

The first reason that we distrust our politicians: the transparency of new technologies. In the time of "honest Abe" there were no TVs or websites or blogs or even radios. Because of this, the only way to hold meetings was behind closed doors where anything could happen. Without C-span, no one knows what happened (written reports can easily be fudged or not taken down for certain meetings). Beyond that, there is the ease with which old technologies are dispersed. Think about the number of books regarding government corruption come out every month. It is an astonishingly high number.

The second reason is the way that we believe our government is more corrupt is the shift in the way that we look at politicians. JFK was not considered corrupt by most of America. At the same time, many Americans would consider Mark Sanford or John Edwards or Bill Clinton corrupt. The truth is that all four of these politicians had affairs. We have changed our view of politicians from seeing them as professional figures to seeing them as celebrities that can be judged on every base of their life.

I definately think that having intensified views over our elected officials is important, but as I said in my post Elect The Unqualified, I think that personal lives are irrelevant to an elected official's credentials.

Smut for Smut...

2010-03-12T12:01:00.000-06:00

You may or may not have heard about this, but when I heard about it, I couldn't decide what I thought about it. Either watch the video below or, For a transcript, follow this link.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I am at most an agnostic, and I actually kind of find that I agree with the people who are doing this. If you have read any of the parts of the Bible or Qu'ran or Torah, you know that there are lots of things that contradict both the views of society and the views of other pages in that text.

Overall I've come to two conclusions:

1) Tucker Carlson was extremely biased when giving this interview and seemed to disprove the theory that MSNBC is made up of ridiculous liberals.

2) I have to wonder why we think that holy texts are so 'holy' and I think that trading these sacred texts for pornography is a great way to bring to light the way in which we should view 'holy' texts.

Do you think that this is appropriate. If not, fill me in.

Act Like You care...

2010-03-11T12:01:00.012-06:00

A few days ago, Stephen Colbert's guest, David Brooks, described elected officials as actors playing a role. He was referring to their cordial actions and 'discussion' of bipartisanship during the healthcare summit, but I think that representatives are just actors.

Elected officials have to act likeable. They have to act like they believe that everything they are doing is in the interest of the 'people.' Is there really a difference between a speech and a scene?

Then, what came to mind were all the actors-cum-elected officials. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ronald Reagan being the most notable.

The people who win elections are rarely the most qualified or the ones with the best fiscal plans, they are the ones that people hear and trust. Hilary Clinton didn't play the part of the woman of the house well enough and it cost her dearly. Sarah Palin played the role of housewife too much and didn't play the part of intellectual enough. I am not saying that it is a positive attribute of our democracy, but most political analysts will say the same thing about actors and representatives.

What are the implications of a government that is run by people pretending to care about what they are doing? Personally, I like to think that our government is made up of people who genuinely want to be there, but I don't really know.

E Plurubus Unum

2010-03-10T12:01:00.000-06:00

Our national Motto.

I wonder, out of many, what?

We weren't the first modern democracy. We weren't (by a long way) the first nation to see how backwards slavery was. We weren't (by a long way) the first to see how backwards racism was. We were certainely not the first country to invade others.

What makes us so special. I think it is the working attitude to make life easier that set America apart at its founding. It was built by pioneers who went to the new world to find a better life. Then it grew and immigrants came who looked for streets paved with gold. Now, people are willing to work in slave-like conditions to be in this country illegaly.

I think the problem is, we have made life too easy. Indicators? For one Baconnaise. Also, we have forgotten how hard working to keep our dream alive is. I'm not just talking about people of the North Shore, I'm talking everyone. During WWII, people brought their coins to be melted down to be made into bullets. There was such a sense of working to keep the American dream alive.

Now, the only way that we can think to keep our dream alive is to keep new citizens out. We enforce immigration laws so strongly, yet forget that these immigrants are our forefathers. We have been given to much in our Bacon-Mayonnaise covered youth.

The Enquirer... Wins?

2010-03-09T12:01:00.000-06:00

We were talking in class about the problem facing the members of the Pullitzer committee. On the one, as Doc Oc said, they uncovered an important story. On the other hand, they are kind of... what is the word I'm looking for... trashy.

I agree that the Enquier is trashy, but I don't think that the story that they uncovered is all that important. Before you accuse me of being partisan and only taking John Edwards' side because I tend to allign myself with liberals, let me say this. 1) He is a democrat from North Carolina, which is like a Republican from the North. 2) I have the same views on Mark Sanford's scandal.

The reason that I don't care about these stories is that they are totally irrelevant to the (in Edwards's place former) representative's credentials. If the story were considering a person who was trading sex with a corporate sponsor, I would definately consider it relevant. This story, however, is no different than what the Enquier usually publishes. After all, what is the difference between a Edwards' infidelities and Brad Pitt's?

I'll use my degree in the bedroom and kitchen...

2010-03-08T12:01:00.001-06:00

The clip below is not totally relevant. Look specifically at the Yaz commercial with the nightclub because something about that rang really true to me.

As we talked about earlier this year, there are many more women than men going to college. Despite that, women are outnumbered in almost every profression that requires a degree. Alot of women decide to put their careers on hold, as my mother did, when they have children.

I don't know if this is wrong, but the thing that prompted this was a mixture of our conversation about the usefulness of college degrees in class and the way that women (apparently) don't use them. After one girl uses her medical license for all that a woman with a medical license could do, Sarah uses her "useless" degree in English to talk about the Great Gatsby. Let's be honest, what else would women use a degree for.

I understand that I combined two subjects, so if this is confusing, just ask for clarification.

You Crazy Kids

2010-03-05T15:14:00.003-06:00

I was talking to my coteacher at sunday school and we got into a discussion about the way that children of today act compared with those of the past.

She said that her niece was incredibly disrespectful to her parents and never did what she was told. My Co-teacher blamed the informal style of the modern world. In school, teachers are constantly referred to as just Bolos instead of Mr. Bolos (and some teachers are referred to by only their first name. My grandpa, for years a member of The Standard Club in Chicago, left because they no longer require a suit and tie in lieu of just a sport jacket (they also now let women into many of the rooms that they weren't before). Our world is undoubtedly getting more informal.

I have a pretty informal relationship with my mother, but I'm not sure if this has had an adverse effect on me. I would like to think that I am a relatively good kid. I don't know if I am the exception or this woman's niece is the exception.

Is modern informality degrading children? Were you raised formally or informally and (as objectively as possible) how good of a kid are you?

Fighting For Something... Finally.

2010-03-04T12:01:00.002-06:00

In two recent posts (click here or here) I commented on the way that America had ignored human rights violations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. A few weeks ago, something was finally done in Iraq that seems to be with America's values.

Candidates with ties to the Ba'th Party, the party of Saddam Hussein, were for a long time not allowed to run. The government recently published a list of Ba'th Party members who would be allowed to run. Some candidates are still not allowed to run, but I think that this is a step in the right direction.

People had criticized the ban on Ba'th party members and those with connections running, calling it a ploy to remove unwanted candidates from office. Indeed, most people could find a link to the Ba'th party, which was for years the dominant part in Iraq. Even if it was only Ba'th party members who were banned, I wouldn't see the justification. People claim it is to remove the threat of another dictator, but isn't that the cost of democracy. You have to let anyone run, and hope that the people choose the right way.

America's Next Top Republican Woman

2010-03-03T12:01:00.001-06:00

Doesn't this just sum up most of my problems with conservative America. I have NEVER seen a similar photo comparing the physical attributes of democrat and republican men. This makes me really angry.

Assumably, this photo came out before the Palin dynasty, as she isn't on it. That makes this picture all the more ironic. First, you spend years complaining that Hilary Clinton doesn't cry, and putting out trash like this that is somehow meant to claim that republicans are better because they only hire bimbos, then you claim that Palin has been subject to a ridiculous amount of sexism.

Anyone who has ever watched Fox News will understand what I am saying. Not only are all the women ridiculously beautiful, but they are also given the most ridiculous fluff stories. Gretchen Carlson (a former pageant girl) always gets stories about hair care while her co-hosts get real stories.

I understand the reason that republicans do this; if you need to get some women to prove that you aren't sexist, why not get some arm candy?

Evolution Vs Revolution

2010-03-02T12:01:00.000-06:00

At the CPAC convention, Glenn Beck gave a speech where he argued that the only difference between revolution and evolution is the amount of time it takes. You know what, the grown man who cries and makes animated voices is right. He may have been part of the liberal elite until Fox News offered him a paycheck that was bigger than CNN's, but he knows what he is talking about.

That was sarcasm. I disagree wildly with Beck. Progression is what keeps our nation 'moving forward.' Let's take a look at countries that aren't as progressed as the US. Iran, beating your wife is legal, racism is sanctioned. It looks like what conservatives want for America is to make a mini Iran.

OK, that was unfair, maybe conservatives want monetary conservatism. Lets look at countries that have little restrictions on the way that companies do buisness. China (ignore their communist title, they have one of the most 'free' markets in the world) or India should be good examples. Sure, they may be getting all of our jobs, but what are they losing. Child labor is legal. There is an elite of far less that a half a percent surrounded by immense poverty. So, what republicans want is feudalism and child labor. I'm learning a lot.

Obviously this may appear unfair to say that republicans want all the things that as a nation we claim to abhor, but I don't know about that. I don't understand why republicans can't seem to notice that practical applications of total market freedom don't work and that what we really need is a balance of socialist (I intentionally didn't use a euphemism) and free market principles.

As for social reforms, Republicans, who count on votes from say women (and employ tokens like Palin) and blacks (and employ tokens like steele) can't say that they want to go back on those reforms, but they gotta keep as many as possible from getting through.

Unfair, probably, but I can't see any other explanation. Please, help me see.

Learn to conform

2010-03-01T12:01:00.000-06:00

According to a study referenced on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, Babies who are afraid of loud noises tend to be less likely to commit a crime than those who aren't afraid of the loud noises. It seems to me that because of this, we can reasonably come to the conclusion that people don't do what is 'right' because it is inherently right but because they are afraid of the repercussions of what is wrong.

What does this say about morals. I would say that most people believe that killing is inherently wrong. What if it isn't? What if the only reason that we don't kill is to remain safe from the "loud noises."

I have, for a long time, believed that there was something a little off kilter about our system of morals and the way that it varies from person to person. What if we are just wrong about morals. People claim that empathy is an important human emotion that allows social functions. Have you ever spent time with a "socialite." Not much empathy. Yet a socialite is able to very cunningly get friendships.

I guess, I don't know if there is anything that makes our morals inherently right. There have been a series of psychopaths who live 'fruitful' and 'social' lives. What if we aren't afraid to kill out of empathy but out of fear? What does this say about our society.

Women and Children in the News

2010-02-26T12:01:00.000-06:00

As we wrap up our unit on women and children, I have noticed a rather odd trend in the news.

Matt Lauer, on the earthquakes in Haiti said, "We have to wonder about the effect this will have on mothers and families." I understand that this was a terrible event, but this had a effect on everyone, not just women and children.

On NPR, when reporting ona suicide attavck in the Gaza Strip, the reporter went through the trouble to list the death toll, then the number of children killed and the number of women killed.

The children part I can understand (we see children as meek and in nead of our protection). I don't understand why we still put so much emphasis on women. Even though this is certainely not the worst case of sexism in our society, it is, to me at least, the most obvious. This type of blatant sexism is really unfair to both sexes. It, obviously, points out women as weak and makes it seem like their deaths are out of control. It also implies that we should have more sympathy for women. This is also kind of unfair to men, who have less emphasis put on their deaths and are meant to seem more justifiable to kill.

Follow the law, it's irrelevant anyway...

2010-02-25T12:01:00.000-06:00

I heard a piece on NPR about pinball machines a few weeks ago. They talked about how pinball machines have grown throughout American history. Until the 90's, they were still illegal in parts of the US. (the picture is of a raid in the 1940's)

It got me to thinking about the way that changing laws can change public opinion. Homosexuality at a time when it was illegal was seen as dispicable, now it is seen as "a lifestyle choice." It makes me wonder, do laws decide what is considered moral or is it the other way around.

The area that now holds Plaza Del Lago (pictured in 1950's below) used to be a seedy place because alcohol was served there. After it was legalized the stigma surrounding the area and alcohol remained into the 60's ans 70's (this comes from my mother who grew up in wilmette). Nowadays, it would seem odd to go to a restaurant that doesn't serve alcohol. I wonder if Marijuana will be viewed in a similar way in the future.

Which do you think comes first, a law or the moral sentiment that surrounds it? Could we change our entire society's moral code, in a few generations, by changing our laws?

Dumb Americans and our gas guzzlers.

2010-02-24T12:01:00.001-06:00

America is famous for using hideously inefficient cars. I, for one, drive my long wheel base Escalade to the bathroom when I am too lazy to walk. Now, times are changing. People are taking notice of small cars. People are tightening their proverbial belts.

The Ford F-series, for 33 years the best selling car in the world(really amazing when you consider that the US is its only market) has slipped from first.

We can all hope for small cars in the future, but I think NASCAR has shown the real importance of the oil crisis. They have started to look at ways to be green.

While F1 and the GP series in europe are using KERS and diesel and turbocharging, what are the Americans looking at: Injection. Not even direct injection, mere injection. To put this in perspective, the last production car to have a carburetor (the technology that injection replaced) was in the early 90's.

I think that this is a perfect allegory for what will become of American cars, we won't ever be in cars as small and efficient as our European counterparts. We will get better, but not by much. It looks like I'll start taking my short wheel base Escalade to the bathroom.

Let's ignore the facts...

2010-02-23T12:01:00.002-06:00

Republicans kep telling us that because it is snowing, global warimng is impossible. I don't understand how people believe this.

Not only are nearly all scientists in agrement that global warming is happening, but ontop of that, most scientists predicted that snowfall would increase. Warmer weather means more water vapor evaporates into the atmosphere, leading to more precipitation.

Beyond that, global warming is based on an average of what is happening across the world, not what is happening in one place. The Daily Show clip portrays this.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Unusually Large Snowstorm

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

I just don't understand why people will ignore the facts so pointedly. For someone who doesn't believe in global warming, do you want to ruin the world for your ancestors, are you simply stupid, or do you think you are smarter than all of the experts?

Let's Ask, You can Tell...

2010-02-22T13:22:00.000-06:00

John Mccain along with (it seems) the whole GOP believes that we should not lift the don't ask don't tell policy. The clip below, from infomania, is crude and not G rated (it appeared on cable TV but includes strong sexual reference and an excerpt from a piece of gay pornography). It does a good job of bringing up important points about the state of the don't ask don't tell policy.

I love the part where Brian says, "oh you're busy. I'll call you, no you call me." It sums up the dynamic of the relationship perfectly. These are people who are willing to die for our country (which I'm not sure if I would do) and we have the nerve to tell them that they aren't good enough unless they lie about themselves.

Brian also refutes the idea that if gays join the military there will be a sexualization of the battlefield. This statement has always confused me because aren't there women in the army. Beyond that, Brian says that it is ridiculous to think that people will join the army with the intention of 'sneeking a peak.'

I think that it is high time that we change this, even the joint chief of staff thinks so.

Who is Crazy?

2010-02-18T13:33:00.001-06:00

Yesterday in class we were talking about ways that people are qualified as crazy. By now you have probably heard of the man in Austin, TX, Joseph Stack, who crashed his plane into the building thgat houses the Internal Revenue Service.

Nearly every person that I have talked to thus far and every article that I have seen refers to the pilot as a 'crazy' man. I'm not sure if calling him that is fair (to us or him). This is a copy of a manuscript that he wrote (allegedly) and he makes some very interesting points. He talks about corporate big-wigs being bailed out as pertinent, but healthcare reform, which costs many more lives, is merely discussed. He was fighting to get financial equality for those disenfranchised by large corporations and the capitalist system. He is very well educated and is trained as an engineer.

I think that he may have been confused about how to make his argument but he was certainly not crazy. In fact, he didn't even choose the worst possible way to get his message across. You may say, "he injured (and possibly killed) 2 people. There is another person as of yet unaccounted for." My answer is that he was fighting for something that he believed would save many more lives. If you can justify war (especially the sort that targets civilians), surely you should be able to justify this.

In fact, this was probably the only way that he could get his idea across. If he had made a speech, no one would show up. He talked about fruitlessly writing letters to representatives. I don't think that this is the man is crazy, confused certainely, but not crazy. Calling him crazy is just easier...

Human Interest

2010-02-16T12:00:00.000-06:00

I was looking at the human interest section the other day when it occurred to me, every article is Human Interest.

Every story nowadays uses an interview with a person who is relevant to the story. If you are writing a story about layoffs, it is imperative to get an interview with someone being laid off.

Is this good or bad:

On the one hand, this keeps mere statistics from being overwhelming: "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." At the same time, it builds an extra, unnecessary layer of bias into stories.

Overall, I'm sure magazines and newspapers do this because it makes stories more interesting (meaning more money), but I can't decide if it is good for 'the state of journalism' or not.

Two Parties are no Party

2010-02-13T11:21:00.005-06:00

I get it; decrease the deficit, allow more personal freedoms etc. But that isn't what most republicans believe.

I get it; help the disenfranchised, expand government, limit personal freedoms. Again, not exactly what democrats believe.

I agree with alot of democrat principles, but I am starting to wonder why we have a two party system. To me, it seems like the parties have strict rules about fiscal policy (that they ignore) and then they just randomly decide on everything else.

It is nice and easy to have a simple polar split between democrat and republican. If you supported the War on Terror, you are a republican. If not, you are a democrat. Though there was little evidence of a need to be looking in Iraq, I'm not sure if invading Afghhanistan was a bad idea. I don't know who decided that war was a republican's job, and where does this come from.

On the same token, republicans who, by definition, should be giving more freedoms to the people, are limiting it. This all goes down to the deal that the reublicans made with Evangelicals. I feel like both of the parties make no sense. They have changed the definition of republican to those who want to keep their money, and don't want gays to marry. I don't get it.

Fighting for something...

2010-02-11T12:00:00.000-06:00

A few months ago I posted on the ironic child labor situation in Afghanistan in Fighting For Child Labor. In Iraq we face a similar ironic juxtaposition against freedom that makes me question what we are really fighting for.

Journalists in Iraq have nearly no freedom of the press. This story is so under reported that after googling, I could not find any acceptable articles to link to. If you want to hear about press restrictions in Iraq, listen to this War News Radio excerpt.

Most americans will agree that freedom of the press is a tenant of democracy. Why, then, would we allow a country in which we are trying to instill democracy to openly target journalists without so much as a peep from our journalist outlets let alone our government.

Obama has shifted our focus from Iraq, but this issue is much older than Obama's presidency. I think that, en masse, Americans have come to the conclusion that we don't care about freedom for Iraqis (despite calling it Iraqi Freedom) we just care about stability with a government that will secure low gas prices.

Sexism Around the World...

2010-02-10T12:00:00.000-06:00

By 2020 there will be 24 million more boys than girls in China. The reason for this is that parents who see that they will have a daughter decide that they prefer to have a son. They get the daughter terminated, as a result of China's controversial one-child law. I'm all for a woman's right to choose, but this seems really wrong. It is not only wrong from the viewpoint that people are choosing their children based on statistics, but it also says alot about the way that men are valued over women in Chinese society. Do you think that America would face a similar statistic if we implimented a one child law?

In Zimbabwe, about fifty percent of women believe that being beaten is justified if they burn a meal or leave the house without telling their husband. We rarely think of women accepting being beaten, yet this study lays out some pretty strong evidence that women can justify it to themselves. Is it more or less justifiable to beat a woman who considers it acceptable?

That's just the start, think of the rape rates in developing Africa and their connection to AIDs. Think of the way that women are treated in Iran.

Why, if there are so many clear exsamples of sexism throughout the world, do Americans try so hard to fix our double standards without once considering nthose of other countries. There are some charitites that help women in developing countries, but for the most part woman are left alone. Our government is more than happy to put pressure and sanctions on a country for seeking nuclear weapons or encroaching on a neighbor, but we rarely do anything about the women of the world. Is it a product of our sexism?

Is the government getting stoopid?

2010-02-09T12:00:00.002-06:00

You've probably never sat and watched C-Span. Neither have I. At least not alot. I do regularly see clips from C-Span and I find it rather amusing.

People will use graphs that look appropriate for second graders. It isn't just the graphs and ridiculous presentations, it is the juvenile quality of the discourse.

People don't seem to argue about important things, politicians make comments that they know will make good sound bytes. Making an eloquent argument about the way that public healthcare will lead to a lower quality of life may seem like a good way to convince people of your point, but shouting, "Hitler-Bama wants to kill your grandma" is actually much more commenly employed.

In a country with near hundred percent literacy and relatively high levels of education, why do we belittle all of our arguments to stupid one-liners.

I think we enjoy the comfort of the beliefs that our parents had, if we come from a democrat family, we will be democrats. But there is more than that, it makes the politicians job, something that should be very difficult, rather easy.

Bush waon the 2004 election amidst a questionable war by continuing to say that "the homosexuals want to steal your marriage." Well alot of good christians got scared and voted for GWB. It is easier to get angy and yell your points than to actually create a menaingful dialogue. God Bless America...

Elect the Unqualified?

2010-02-08T16:35:00.002-06:00

A little while ago, John Edwards admitted that he had a baby with his mistress. My first question is how is this going to effect the life of that poor child? My second question is why do we elect these people?

Why do we elect people like Rod Blagojivich who we can now see are totally corrupt. Do people become corrupt after getting into politics or do corrupt people get into politics?

There is some evidence that people give in to politics and corruption as their lives continue. There are lots of people who stuck by their guns early in their lives, then gave in to the politics of America. John McCain may have been a free thinking independent for the 2000 race who believed in helping Americans, by 2008, he chose Sarah Palin as his VP.

I was talking with one of my friend's fathers and he said that McCain did seem to actually do politics because he loved America. He said that most people get into politics to have their egos stroked.

Barak Obama, I believe, loves America. If he gets caught up in a real scandal (I'm not talking about Acorn garbage made up by right wingers) I don't think I will ever be able to trust American politicians again. The way that his voice is so compelling, his rhetoric so beautiful, I feel like he cares for reasons other than his political career. If he is lying, I don't know how I will ever be able to discern between political lies and sincere discourse.

The Purpose of College

2010-02-07T21:35:00.001-06:00

As I start my college search, one of my major factors is the scholarly mix of education that I will receive at a certain institution. Essentially, I want a liberal arts education.

I was thinking about how lucky I really am. Of course I realize that college is expensive, but I do not have as much pressure to succeed and earn money after college as many other college students. I was talking with kids at Kenwood Academy. I heard of the things that they were studying and they were all very specified (buisness or premed).

I realized just how lucky I am to get to en joy my undergraduate education and major in whatever my heart desires. I really have to remind myself, from time to time, that I won't have to worry about graduate school (except for keeping my grades up). What are you thinking about studying?

coming from a third generation of college grads, I feel like college is simply the next step in my life. I don't feel any pressure, and I have to feel lucky for that.

I just want to belong...

2010-02-05T13:36:00.001-06:00

People always say that families and groups of friends are important to live a socially viable life. In fact, it is a commonly upheld myth in our society that sociopaths spend their days alone in their basements.

This could not be more false. In fact, some of the greatest extroverts of all timer have been psychopaths. Hitler, Mussolini, and Al Capone were by no means introverts.

According to the US Justice Department, there are 21,000 gangs in the US with 70,000 members. It seems that social groups can be just as psychopathic as singular people, especially gangs. I don't know about you, but I don't see most things that gangs take part in (murder, extortion, rape etc.) are not socially healthy.

As I touched upon in my post, A Society of Evil Faces, many groups of people can believe in the same 'wrong' thing. Why, then, do we believe that groups are good when they can do so much wrong. Is it better to have a group of people all believing in something evil or have everyone come to their own conclusions about morality.

Votes for all

2010-02-04T00:05:00.000-06:00

The other day in ELS one of the special needs students mentioned that she was going to vote today. I was rather distraught by this.

On the one hand, every one clearly deserves the right to vote. It would be unfair to tell certain Americans that they could not vote. The ADA makes it very clear that everyone has equal rights in the US.

On the other hand, I can't help but think that the girl I am talking about does not have the mental capacity to discern who aligns with her beliefs.

On the other hand, do most "fully functioning" (if I can use that term) citizens really consider different candidates carefully. No, the best dressed and most eloquent speaking candidates always win.

I don't know what to think about this. If you have a thought, leave a comment.

Will the Economy Kill Expensive Cars?

2010-02-03T14:02:00.004-06:00

In my last post, I looked at the way that people love hybrids. Now, just think of the way that people love to tell us the world as we know it is ending.

I love car magazines, especially the editorial section. A popular topic of late is the impact that the economy has had on the absorption rate of cars, both expensive exotics and small, economical compacts. Everyone has come to the same conclusion: we will never buy expensive cars again, and we will all be driving cheap eco-boxes. I don't buy it.

Now I wasn't alive in the seventies, but from the vintage magazines that I have read, everyone said that we would stop buying expensive cars during the oil crisis. Everyone has said the same thing throughout every economic collapse since the birth of the car. From the great depression to the recession after the computer bubble burst. We westerners seem so oblivious to the fact that we just need to look to the past for patterns of the future.

The clip below is from the British show, Top Gear. Jeremy Clarkson laments the state of the expensive car in his review of the Aston Martin V12 Vantatage.

The next month three cars, each costing over a million dollars were revealed. The Lamborghini Reventon (pronounced rebenton) Roadster, Bugatti 16c Galibier, and Pagani Zonda Cinque. Beyond that, just before his review, the Bugatti Veyron Grand Sport Aston Martin One-77 had just been revealed. Until a few years ago, the idea of a multi-million dollar car would have seemed ridiculous. Now, in the middle of a recession, five new million dollar cars have been revealed. That is not even to mention the tens of cars in the six figure range that have recently been revealed, including the Rolls Royce Ghost, Mclaren MP4-12C, Bentley Mulsanne, Ferrari 458 Italia to name a few.

It seems that capitalist countries, especially America, will never lose our love with expensive, ridiculous cars. We will continue to spend money on ridiculous cars and other objects we don't need. Simply calm down and wait for everything to get better. While you are waiting, buy something expensive... you'll feel better.

My Friend, With a Ticker Symbol

2010-02-02T11:26:00.000-06:00

Recently, the supreme court ruled 4-5 to loosen restrictions on the way that corporations and unions are able to spend on campaigns. I get texts from CNN and when I got this, my heart sunk.

I'm not bothered by free speech, but corporations aren't people. Corporations are considered people by the law, hence the ruling. I don't buy it. A corporation is solely driven by profit. People aren't. A corporation is made up of a series of people who may have a large spectrum of political beliefs. A person is but one mind. A corporation has billions of dollars at its disposal. 99.99% of people do not.

According to the law, a corporation has to be driven to make as much money as possible. A corporation is therefore compelled, by the law, to support politicians with the express intent of loosened restrictions on their sector of the market. In America, it turns out that politicians already vote based on their political contrbutors. For instance, as shown by the graph, politicians are much less likely to support a public option if they get money from health care companies.

The last thing that we need in a world where nearly no one trusts politicians is a law that allows politicians to be literally bought off. If we want to restore trust in our politicians, we need to put strict caps on the way that corporations can contribute to campaigns.

Proletariat Uprising Anyone?

2010-01-29T13:34:00.000-06:00

In America, we tend to soil the disenfranchised in their own sick (so to speak), then blame them for their own problems. My solution: guerrilla war on the rich (note, that was sarcasm, I cannot be held responsible for any subsequent class warfare).

We capitalists hurt everyone in our way. One need only look at the inhabitants of Appalachia (including Obama's comments about them). On a recent Colbert Report (the clip is below), mountain top mining was discussed. Essentially what is done is instead of sending miners into find coal, mountains are just blown up to get directly to the coal. Not only does this contaminate the water and air, killing wildlife, but it also makes the people who live there sick. Why don't they use their coal miner checks. Mountain top removal requires far fewer workers, so they are left without jobs. essentially we have poisoned these people's habitat, poisoned them, and taken away their jobs.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Coal Comfort - Margaret Palmer

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Economy

Another example of capitolist greed: in 1965, the average CEO made 24 times more than a factory worker. In 2005, the average CEO made 262 times the average factory worker. Are CEOs in 2005 working harder than those in 2006; probably not. Before you think; ah, there are larger companies, hence more powerful CEOs in 2005. Yes, but the survey only looked at, "U.S. CEOs in major companies." Though it does not specify what is a major company, it is clear that the growing size of companies has a minimal effect on this. What is clear is that the little man is yet again getting the short end of the stick.

It seems that capitolism is not working as well as we always wished. It looks to be turning into feudalism, which we certainly don't want. An unobstructed market lead to a huge crash and the only thing that saved us was the government buying the major banks (a tenent of socialism). Glenn Beck seems so afraid of socialism. I know why; he is part of the tiny percent of Americans that would not benefit from it. I don't think that socialism would work in America, but surely some steps towards government control of the economy seem sensible.

An Elected Figurhead?

2010-01-28T11:34:00.002-06:00

Last night's State of the Union was chock full of rhetoric that he may or may not live up to. Most of what he was saying was not that amazing or precedent shattering, yet it stirred up a great deal of emotions within me. Then I remembered a Supernews clip below.

Despite the fact that this clip is poking fun at Obama's stoic and likable demeanor (and its effect throughout the world), I think there may be more to it. His beautiful speeches and brand have made America (and our interests) more popular across the world.

This was important.

Now he is using the same great public speaking ability to restore Americans' confidence in politics, the government, and the economy.

This is important.

It just all makes me wonder, is he anything more than a relatively powerless figurehead?

A club with 700 questions

2010-01-27T11:30:00.000-06:00

I have never been a fan of the 700 club. I will admit, sometimes I will watch it to try to understand Fundamentalist Christianity. I still don't get it.

I have a clip above of Pat Robertson saying something rather controversial about the Haitian disaster. After the worst natural disaster to hit the poorest country in our hemisphere, one would expect the host of a christian TV show like Pat Robertson to support the mainly Catholic Haiti. He didn't. In fact, he said that the Haitians brought this upon themselves, 'true story,' after a pact with the devil.

Despite the lack of proper citations, many of his viewers take what he says to heart. Why? well, Pat Robertson claims that he is a deity (which I don't understand to begin with) who has intense conversations with god. For instance, he has a part in the show where he will shout out something like, "a woman in Texas has just been healed of her epilepsy while watching this show."

If anyone who didn't claim to be connected to god made a claim like Robertson's, they would have no public outlet supplied to them. For instance Don Imus lost his media outlet after calling black women's basketball players at Rutgers, "nappy-headed hos." Fundamentalist Christians seem to be the only exception. Why does their audience let them get away with anything they want just by claiming the will of god. It reminds me of the famous bible quote, "and thou shalt exult in his name, by blaming 9/11 on abortionists and homosexuals and telling impoverished, disaster stricken countries that they made a deal with the devil."

Yeah Communism

2010-01-26T13:54:00.000-06:00

After I watched the TED conference clip that Bolos showed us yesterday, I could not remember where I had heard the name Barry Schwartz before. I got home and discovered that I had read his book, The Cost of Living: Market Freedom and How it Erodes the Best Things in Life.

His overall argument that we saw a piece of was that people have bought into the idea that free market principles work

He argues that markets do not work efficiently if people are willing to do anything to each other. When Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, he didn't expect the economy to become as faceless as it is today. He said, in book he wrote a few years earlier The Theory of Moral Sentiment, that what makes the market work is that there is a set of empathy. For instance, the butcher of the town can charge whatever he wants, competition will regulate that, but he won't sell poisoned meat.

People have seen Adam Smith's argument and said, "whatever we do for ourselves helps the economy." The problem is that this belief has changed the way that humans think about the way they should act. We have become less empathetic and the market will not work effectively in this manner. He wrote this book before the collapse, so it seems he was right.

It seems scary that one man's theory has changed so much about human empathy, but if you read his book it actually makes sense. I've always believed that capitalism was flawed, but I don't know if this is the solution.

Blame The Cars!

2010-01-21T13:35:00.000-06:00

In my recent post, "A Driving Narrative," I explored expensive cars and why people buy them. Now, those who want to buy a car face a greater enemy than cost. They must deal with the environment. In fact, there are many mistakes that people make while looking to reduce their carbon footprint.

The first mistake that people make is to buy into the negative narratives associated with a car. How many times have you heard that Hummers are the ultimate in fuel inefficiencies. In fact, the massive truck-engined H1 and V8 H2 are hideously terrible for the environment. In fact (little known fact) they literally club baby seals. The H3, on the other hand, is not as inefficient as you may think. The redneck gas-burnin' Hummer gets 15 city, 19 highway. That's not great. But then again, the Hummers numbers are nearly identical to the elitist, Volvo XC90. Put that in your latte and steam it.

On top of that, look at more than just your car for ways to be environmentally friendly. For every pound of red meat that you eat, you contribute about 19 pounds of carbon dioxide to the environment. A staggering number when you consider that an average is usually about 1/3 of a pound per mile.

How many self righteous Prius drivers know that the batteries in hybrids make their cars (over their entire lifetime) more damaging to the environment than many classic gas engines (including a hummer)? How many people who drive electric cars seem to forget that most electricity in the US is made from polluting coal plants? How many Prius drivers even use energy efficient light bulbs? I am willing to bet very few. It is much easier to sleep at night telling yourself that you aren't contributing to global warming because you drive a hybrid. Forget about the complex global interlinking of economies and technologies, that Prius badge removes you from all guilt.

"What, your car is propelled by gasoline, wait there as I sharpen my pitchfork and get an angry mob together."

24 to Save Us All...

2010-01-20T13:47:00.009-06:00

Well, the time of 24 is upon us again. I've never been a big fan of the show, but I have a friend who certainly is. His whole family gets together every time a new episode airs and watches the show together. It is such a cultural phenomenon that every time another friend of mine hears "beep-- beep-- beep," he thinks of 24.

The characters are flat and rather devoid of any sort of growth. The plot is predictable and full of holes. The cinematography and special effects aren't as good as similar movies. Why do so many people flock to TV screens to watch this?

We love the simplicity of it. There is nothing like White, Christian Jack Bauer taking down the terrorists. I can't say this show does much to help any ACLU member's cause. If I believed in conspiracies, I'd say that this show was made with the simple goal of dehumanizing terrorists. It makes torture cool and portrays nearly every Middle Easterner as an evil, heartless anti-American.

Americans like to think they are superior and that there are simple solutions to complex problems. Terrorism is caused by fanatics who believe that they are fighting a holy war in the name of Allah. People lured into terrorist regimes are lower class and disenfranchised (often by America's own economic policies with the Middle East). I think the reason Americans love 24 is that it gives us the chance to think we are the only good in a world full of psychopathic terrorists. It gives us a chance to think that one guy with a gun can save us all (forget the hundreds of civilians he seems to kill every day).

Let's be honest, nothing says American pride like archetypal, oversimplified killing of the foreign looking type. America, you should be so proud.

Let's forget politics... for now

2010-01-19T12:23:00.000-06:00

I was watching Face the Nation last Sunday and George Bush said, "now's not the time to focus on politics, it’s time to focus on helping people," about his joint venture charity with Bill Clinton for Haiti relief.

I was awestruck by this statement. Shouldn't every moment be a moment when helping people comes before politics. I just don't understand why our country, and indeed all countries, are so steeped in political battles that help no one. I guess what makes me angriest, is the way that Bush says it so plainly and no one says anything to dispute his statement.

Why do we need a disaster in another country to put helping people before our petty disagreements. Though I am aware that arguing against relief in Haiti would be daft, I am willing to bet that health care reform would save as many lives as relief in Haiti.

Haitians are not the only ones who need help. Why, then, do we unquestioningly (except Rush Limbaugh) feel the need to help the Haitians but not our neighbors? The answer is simple. Which is going to be a more frightening and compelling news story, the story about a man dying slowly and quietly from unnoticed cancer or a boy who had to throw his father's remains in a mass grave after he died from starvation? I think the boy is much more compelling, though they are both about two preventable deaths.

The media and senators choose to help the Haitians so unquestioningly because they would look like psychopaths if they didn't. It is much easier to ignore a silent killer than a natural disaster that leaves a city flattened.

New Mickey Means No More War?

2010-01-08T13:56:00.000-06:00

I read recently that Mickey will be getting a makeover. Mickey is really an integral part of The Disney Corporation, and it seems like a good enough idea to change him. My problem is with the way that he is being changed. It is all starting with a video game, called Epic Mickey, which will portray America's favorite cartoon mouse as a trouble making prankster.

At first I thought, "this reflects our societies growing dependence on violence and it is rearing its ugly head at a younger age." Then, I realized I was wrong. The reason for this new Mickey game and (in a bout of circular logic) the result of this new Mickey game is the decrease of violent tendencies in American children.

Let me explain. My friends 4th grade brother got in a scuttle with another student. They invited both children, all four parents, the teacher, the principle and a counselor in to deal with the fight. Eventually, in a moment of horribly corny symbolism, the two signed a peace treaty (I'm not joking).

Fifty years ago, this would most certainly not have happened (though I wasn't alive so I can't know for sure). Because kids are continually being told that violence is bad (a moral that I definitely can't argue with) they need a place to exercise their 'primal urges.' In walks the video game, guns (literally) a' blazing. Its also got a machete, four daggers, grenades, an AK-47, an assault rifle, and a few nukes for good measure, but I digress.

Basically, all the parents who complain that video games are making their children too violent, (at least in a passive area like the North Shore) shouldn't. So it seems COD Modern Warfare's controversial airport terrorist scene is decreasing violent tendencies... ok, probably not.

A Driving Narrative

2010-01-06T11:19:00.002-06:00

I have been trying to find ways to talk about cars in this blog for a long time and I have finally found a reason. Cars undoubtedly sell stories along with their marque. In fact, the other day, as my mother test drove a Jaguar, they told her that she would be buying into a lifestyle, not a car.

That is a big claim. Is there anything other than a sense of superiority that a nice car will give you. Well, some researchers in Canada believe that you get more than the brand in an expensive car, according to a recent study they conducted. I know what you are thinking, "do they have cars in Canada?" Well they do, and they put men in a Porsche 911 cabrio (costing around $100,000) and a Toyota Camry (costing about $20,000). The mens' testosterone levels rose in the 911, but didn't in the Camry.

So, it seems that an expensive car will, uhhhhh, stimulate a man. Does this excitement come from the knowledge that you are driving an expensive car or the superior road feel and acceleration. I don't know. As someone who loves cars, I like to think that people feel excited about expensive cars because they are great to drive, but, honestly, there are a lot of expensive cars that aren't very good. People buy them anyway. Why do people buy lexus RXs? There is a simple answer: they like a sense of superiority but for some reason don't want to enjoy an 'ultimate driving machine'.

Note: look at the photos I chose of each car; the Camry is in a subrban driveway while the 911 is moving at a pace in the triple digits on a track.

Christians Who Don't understand Christianity

2010-01-05T11:41:00.000-06:00

I found a link to this intriguing video with an interesting and thought out debate (note: the aforementioned is sarcasm) about healthcare on the Huffington Post which unfortunately cannot be embedded.

It isn't just that this video is rather funny, but that this simply ignorant connection that she tries to make between Christianity and health care is not at all supported by any evidence anywhere.

It really bothers me when people make a simple policy debate, about something like health care, and turn it into something not only unrelated but something that is sure to get like-minded people angry. I was talking to a man on a ski lift over break and he mentioned that Obama was a socialist. Intrigued, I asked him for his reasoning. He said that he had a socialist agenda, which is not very substantive. I pressed on-- I mentioned that many famous capitalists, like Warren Buffet, support Obama. He had nothing to say to support his argument. He was merely repeating what other angry Christians had said about Obama.

I guess what really gets to me about the clip is the way that this woman merely spouts buzz-words that are sure to get people riled up. People hear "genocide" and "killing old people" and "under god" and they get angry. Fictional genocide doesn't make me angry, a woman turning her Christmas lights off because of a bill that will drastically cut down government waste by streamlining health care, as well as provide less fortunate Americans with the chance to live makes me angry. Even more bothersome is that if 'Bunny' would look at the facts of the bill, she would realize it is supported by her religion. If I recall correctly, Jesus was big on helping the poor and curing the sick.

Check out this nun on The O'reilly Factor who seems to be the only religious person who can see the truth about her religion. She even laughs at Bill O'reilly!

Try your best... and Fail

2010-01-04T13:55:00.000-06:00

History books are chock full of people trying to further society, but, in my opinion, hindering human development. A paramount example is Charles Darwin, who, as we all know, came up with the theory of evolution. He was arguably partly responsible for the holocaust.

Though I don't like to assume that any group or action is inherently evil, I will assume that the Nazis were evil, though you can check out my posts, The Face of Evil, and A Society of Evil Faces for my views of "true evil." In assuming that the Nazis were evil, I can take the point that Darwins important scientific discovery actually caused genocide.

Nazis believed that they were aiding evolution by killing "inferior" humans in order for those who are superior to succeed. I can't help but wonder what Darwin would have thought of this. I think the reason that this theory caused so much horror (Nazism and American Eugenics) was that, to some, it disproved god (though I am not sure if I agree with that). That is the problem with science; it gives us power over our lives in a way that humans have never felt before. As an agnostic, I have had to accept a series of inherent principles of good and wrong. Without them, I would be lost. It terrifies me that other atheists and agnostics (arguably including Hitler) may not subscribe to the same idea of right and wrong.

The Biggest Question! (DOAC 11)

2009-12-22T09:35:00.001-06:00

On the Today Show the other day, Anne Curry said, matter-of-factly, that the biggest question raised by the tiger woods scandal is privacy during texting. Really? that is the biggest question raised by a man thought to be a moral bastion in a world of morally corrupt sports who happened to have a cornucopia of mistresses.

In my mind, the biggest question is "What?" followed by, "Why?"

I understand that Anne may have just been looking for a transition into the special on texting safety, but that's not what crossed my mind. I wonder why the aforementioned question was not what crossed the minds of The Today Show first.

I think that in America, infidelity has become far too commonplace. In a self professed monogamous society, is this the first sign of America abandoning its monogamous, puritan past. Are we all moving towards looking like Las Vegas, I just hope that I still have my sequins and feather hat.

Men & Women? Are we really that different?

2009-12-20T10:00:00.000-06:00

Answer: Yes.

This question came to mind the other day when I was listening to Wait, Wait... Don't Tell Me on NPR. During this news quiz show, one of the questions involved a test that was conducted as to what woke women up versus what woke men up. What was the number one noise to wake woman up? A baby crying. A baby crying didn't even make the top ten of things that wake men up. Do you think that women are programed by nature to be more alert to a child's needs or do you think that this has been imposed by society.

Even if I was convinced that this was caused by nature, I still wouldn't buy into the whole "women belong in the kitchen" theory. People love to argue for their moral beliefs with the ever beautiful statement: it is just natural. Whether you are talking about gay marriage or women's rights, one can never get away from that statement. But let's really think about all the things that modern homosapiens do that are "unnatural." We get married, that isn't seen any where else in the natural world. We use a toilet, no other animals do that (without human interaction). We eat cooked meat and can control fire. We make art. We use computers. We have complex emotions.

I guess what I am saying is that yes, in nature, women and men are different. But does it really matter?

Answer: No.

Are We Evil?

2009-12-18T15:29:00.001-06:00

I was catching up on Bolos' favorite NPR podcast, Radiolab, when I listened to one called, new normal. they talked about whether or not Americans believe we will always be at war.

Apparently, in the 80's, one in three said that "yes, we will always be at war." Now, though, they got about one in ten people who said "no, humans will never stop going to war."

The first story was about the male dominated society of baboons. Basically, in one of group of baboons, due to to extenuating circumstances all of the alpha males die. After they die, the women become outgoing towards new men trying to join the group of men. Basically this violent culture is transformed into a peaceful utopia where everyone loves each other and the hierarchy essentially dissipates.

If the baboons' idea of war changed, then humans can change their beliefs about wars. I guess I wonder if we could learn to love (without killing all those who are violent).

Merry Non-denominational Seasonal Celebration Everyone (DOAC 10)

2009-12-17T10:46:00.000-06:00

My gym teacher the other day started to talk about the Christmas break, then corrected himself by saying the holiday break. I don't really care.

I heard a rather interesting argument over the "holiday or holy day" debate. One of the pundits said that the phrasing is irrelevant. We forget that this time of year is about love and peace and family.

Now, I may not be as idealistic as him, but I do think that both terms are perfectly ok. In my mind, and no doubt some Christians will be offended by this, Christmas has split into two holidays. There is the one holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus and then there is the second. The second holiday is akin to valentines day: Americanized yet fun on the surface. The problem with holidays like this is that, when you get down to it, they are shallow, materialistic and culturally depriving.

I think that the fact that our loving holiday is marked by sales percentages and material giving says a lot about our society and where we are today. Basically, I couldn't care less about a Christmas tree at Macy's, I do, however, care about Macy's hawking their presents and telling us that they will make us happy.

Anarchy anyone?

2009-12-15T11:32:00.000-06:00

Recently in Pennsylvania, 4 police officers, along with two local teens, were charged with a racially motivated beating of a Latino illegal immigrant man.

This brings me to a question thst has bothered me for a long time: who can you really trust. Whenever I see a police officer I become afraid, as apposed to feeling sfae. I know most people will say that I am paranoid, and just like my parents told me when I was little, "they are here to protect us."

It does seem illogical, though, to give people who pass a simple drug, mental health, and aptitude test, a gun and a moral feeling of responsibility. I do think that there are lots of police officers who join the force to protect the people, but it seems that there is so much corruption, even in Chicago, whether it be a torturing police chief or gang style police beatings.

When was the last time you got pulled over and you felt like the cop enjoyed pulling you over because he or she got a sense of superiority. Everyone says that "if you get pulled over, don't start a fight." I understand why, this man got to meet "mr. Taser," but in a society that is built so strongly upon arguing with everything, why do we assign certain people who are 'untouchable.' I guess the only reason we put up with it is because we think that we would slip into feudalistic distopia run by warlords without them. My question is: what is the difference between police officers and anarchist war lords? "So, Anarchy Anyone?"

By the way, the Latino man, Luis Ramirez, is now dead due to his wounds from the beating. There have been no charges of murder.

Fighting for Child Labor?

2009-12-14T13:57:00.003-06:00

I was listening to War News Radio and they mentioned that a recent survey found that about 1/4 Afghan of children work. The US has, for a long time, stood against child labor. It seems obvious that if this statistic like this were true of the US, we would all do things to drastically change it to remove as many kids as possible from the workforce.

How, on the other hand, are we supposed to react to this clear violation of our morals in a nation that we are occupying. Are we supposed to ignore this human rights violation or do something about it. Of course, as these situations usually are, it is not as simple as a mere decision to ban child labor in Afghanistan.

First of all, our government does not have the jurisdiction to pass laws in Afghan. Aha, you may say, we have our lovely little puppet Karzai, as I blogged about in "A US Involvement..." The problem with Karzai is that he still has to appeal to his warlord friends, many of whom use child labor. On top of that, many children represent a large percent of their family's income.

I can't think of a solution to the situation; take the kids out of work and they go to school but starve. Leave the kids in work and they will never escape poverty without school.

It would appear that you are angry...

2009-12-14T13:41:00.000-06:00

I caught the tail end of a rather interesting piece on NPR while driving yesterday. They were talking about the way that Americans give up civil liberties during wartime (I know, how topical).

I listened in and the guy made possibly the best point I have ever heard. If you violate rights to avoid an attack, the majority of Americans will be angry that you attacked citizens' rights. If you don't do enough research into possible terrorists, the people will be angry that you did not avoid the attack; it's like catch 22.

There is a problem with this argument. Bush was told that "Osama Bin Laden is determined to attack US soil" about a month before 9/11. His head of security (appointed by Clinton) also added that Bin Laden may attack the world trade center with a plane, similar to the plans that clinton had thwarted a few years earlier.

Bush ignored the threats. Then, once we were attacked, he realized that the people wouldn't allow a second slip up like this. He overcompensated for his mistakes at the cost of innocent Americans.

It seems that the argument on NPR was well thought out, just flawed in that we may have been able to avoid the attacks had we had more foresight. I know that hindsight is 20/20, I just wish we could use examples of terrorist avoidance without civil liberties as a plan for the future.

A Timetable...?

2009-12-14T13:39:00.000-06:00

"we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender (until July 2011)."- Winston Churchill (kind of)

It seems like an odd idea to set a timetable for a war. I can't think of any time in history when America (or any country) has set a timetable for a war. What do you think that this says about our belief that terrorists are "the ultimate evil."

To me it says one of two things: either A) we have been lying about our beliefs about the war in Afghanistan. Or B) we are willing to compromise our safety against "the ultimate evil." Both seem rather frightening and I am not sure which I prefer. I think that if we are really willing to pull out of a country with an unstable government and Taliban insurgents, we need to take a deep look at ourselves and what we are willing to give up for our freedom. I'm not a big fan of the "freedom is not free" mentality, but we do need to ask ourselves: will we be able to do this right. Don't you think that it will dishonor those who have already died in the war to leave without stabilizing the area.

Am I guilty if I tell you this...?

2009-12-11T11:39:00.001-06:00

While writing my last piece, "Affirm the actions of College?" about affirmative action I felt compelled to write a similar justification for my statements. I deleted it before posting, but it got me thinking about this post. this is literally copy and pasted from the end of my last post:

"To prove I am not a racist, my father's side of the family came to the US in poverty as refugees of World War II."

Why did I need to write that. I don't know. I think it is similar to the idea that after someone tells a black joke they feel compelled that they have black friends. Race is a touchy issue and somehow claiming my relatives were persecuted is supposed to make me feel that I'm not racist. I don't understand why I wanted to say that. If you have any ideas that would help me understand my actions, please let me know.

I don't understand why having some sort of experience where you were subject to racism or classism makes you exempt from what you say. It's similar to Micheal Steele claiming that an attack on Obama isn't racist. He's black, so it must be OK. Who is Steele to speak for the entirety of a race as to what is OK? Who is Steele to speak for the entirety of oppressed groups? Who are hip hop moguls who think that because they are black, they have the right to move stereotypes for their whole race forward?

Affirm the Actions for College?

2009-12-11T11:36:00.000-06:00

For a long time I was against affirmative action based on race. It seemed unfair that someone from NT who happened to have been born a race other than white automatically got a foot up over me.

I am still a little bit iffy on the current idea of affirmative action. I used to think that it should be based solely on economic background, not race. Now, I think it should be based on a combination of both.

The reason for affirmative action was to allow more minorities to join the ranks of elite schools and townships. From this standpoint, we give minority kids a boosted chance when they are applying for college, and they subsequently diversify the "white" neighborhoods.

The problem at this point is that affirmative action will also apply to minority members of already elite families. It is not only unfair to give a fellow NT student who has had all the same opportunities as me a foot up, but it is also racist if you sit back and think about it. Overall, though, it just isn't practical at achieving the goal of affirmative action.

If you give all minorities the same advantage in getting into college, then the wealthy minorities will get into college and populate the wealthy townships. Basically, a few minority families were able to escape the cyclical poverty and the rest are trapped by the system that was supposed to help them.

I understand why we haven't changed the system. Anyone who suggests a change will be accused of being racist. I am not a racist, I just want the benefits to go to those who deserve it. I also want to see more equality between the class of races. The best way to do this would be to empower poor minorities, not wealthy ones.

Are Americans Getting Prettier?

2009-12-10T11:23:00.005-06:00

I'm not speaking about physical beauty. I am talking about the inner beauty of America. Technically, I don't think that we have become any better, but as the saying goes, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder."

Do other people see us as the "Ugly Americans" that we were a few years ago. Everyone loves Obama (except ahmadinejad maybe). This gives us "carte blanche" to say whatever we want. Essentially, what I am saying is that Obama could declare war on Switzerland and no one would care.

As the argument in the 'Supernews' clip below is presented, Obama has raised our approval ratings across the world (namely Europe). I wonder if he is simply saying the same things as Bush, but in an accent that isn't Texan. I don't know if that is a terrible thing. Technically, among the series of checks and balances and advisers that the president deals with, a president is more a figure head than a true leader. Technically speaking, I don't know if the president is actually important.

I think that he won the Noble Peace Prize because he changed the way extremists view America, not because he is really doing anything. Of course he did have that speech in Egypt.

Do you think Obama has done anything real, or do you think he is a figure head in America?

Given No Choice...

2009-12-09T13:31:00.003-06:00

The abstinence only programs have told you not to have sex. Well, if a stuffy old gym teacher tells me not to have sex, I am definately prepared.

Under the new Obama Administration, America has been faced with two options: continue the current federal funding of abstinence only programs or expand to classes that teach safe sex.

Both seem wrong to me, though I don't know what would be better. Abstinence only has been shown not to work; teens claim they won't have sex but then hormones take over and they have received no knowledge about safe sex.

Practically speaking then, safe sex doesn't work. Philosophically, I can see the problems with the sort of sex ed we have at NT. Basically they are saying "don't do this, but if you do, be safe." Kind of a mixed message.

I think that we should get rid of the idea that kids shouldn't have sex in public school health classes. Bear with me, the idea of abstinence until marriage is a strictly religious idea, therefore it seems like, in accordance with church and state, we should teach safe sex in school and leave messages about saving sex for parents and religious leaders. I recognize that this is never going to pass in a predominately Christian society, so I pick the lesser of two evils, and say ditch the abstinence only programs.

All in the Middle? (DOAC 9)

2009-12-09T11:41:00.000-06:00

My freshman year history teacher, Mr. Zilka, once said that 98% of Americans considered themselves to be middle class. I was thinking about this the other day as I was reading an article that talked about the inevitable tax increases on "the middle class" to come.

The fact that we have a huge majority of our nation that considers themselves middle class is really quite interesting and peculiar (in the Peculiar Institution sense). We are the only country in the world with such an undefined middle class. CEOs of medium sized corporations consider themselves middle class. At the same time blue collar workers consider themselves middle.

My first thought was that because of this we must have a great sense of intrinsic equality in the US (and I kept that belief until further thought last Saturday). Unfortunately, I'm not sure if this is true. I'm not sure if my life in the middle class is the same as someone whose family is not as fortunate as mine. Technically a kid whose parent works at a steel mine might say that he is middle class. I am undoubtedly middle class. So there are variations within the middle class...

I think the problem with my original response to the statistic can be found right there in my last paragraph. I "know" that I am in the middle class, so does the other kid. In the subcultures of America we have multiple definitions of "middle class."

I think the reason that we all consider ourselves middle class in the US is not because we believe we are equal. I think it reflects America's greed and consumer attitude. Our wealth is never quite good enough, we could always be richer. We could always have more.

I'm sorry where? (DOAC 8)

2009-12-08T13:31:00.000-06:00

"Grass Roots." That's where.

That term makes me crazy. I don't know why. Maybe it is the way that it has popped up in recent months.

Between Tea Bagging parties and the bragging right of being a maverick not from Washington, the term "grass roots" has become a bit overused. I don't know about you, but I think there's a reason that people voted for a graduate of Harvard and Columbia and not Joe the Plumber. They realize that education begets intelligence. Intelligence (in most cases) begets good leadership.

Everyone claims that east coast institutions are "elitist." If you are referring to the idea that the people there are the elite of society, then you are right. I want the smartest and most qualified person possible to lead my country. I don't care if the person leading my country drinks iced tea instead of soda (as one article during the campaign compared Obama to McCain). Honestly, It confuses me that the republicans, who believe in a trickle down theory, and therefore should commend frivolous spending, would be so fast to point out how Obama spends his money like an Elitist; "no monster truck for Pinko-Liberal-Obama, he bought himself a Preeeeeeus."

Furthermore, is there such a thing as grass roots. From my point of view anyone claiming to be grass roots isn't. Sarah Palin was referred to by McCain staffers as a "Prima Donna" and went on a $150,000 shopping spree when she was nominated for VP. That's not very "grass roots" behavior. As for those elusive Tea Baggers: the entire movement was started and continues to be supported (an indeed run by) the largest cable news network in the country... that is certainly not grass roots.

I think I figured out why I hate the term, "grass roots." It's because everyone who claims to be part of it is lying. Its kind of like being a hipster, except without the crazy parties. You do get a condescending tone for those in the "mainstream" though.