The Biggest Question! (DOAC 11)

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?

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?

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)

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?

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?

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...

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...?

"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...?

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?

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?

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...

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)

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)

"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.

You can't choose your family, or can you? (DOAC 7)

I don't believe in love as anything beyond a social construct.  Love and subsequent monogamy is merely a construction of Judea-Christian beliefs.  I am aware that there have been a multitude of societies that have believed in different types of marriage and family, namely polygamy or polyandry, or didn't believe in marriage and subsequent families at all.  It seems ignorant that we would assume that our society automatically offers the best idea of family, which I talked about in "A Society of Evil Faces."

So, it seems I have accepted that there is nothing particularly "right" about our system of family arrangement. I am pro-gay marriage and have absolutely nothing wrong with single parents. I simply can't help but ask myself if there is something wrong with a society in which 50% of marriages end in divorce.

I still feel as though losing this family construct will have a detrimental effect on our society.   I don't know why.  Maybe it is all the studies that show that children of two parent families, that is a mom and dad, tend to  have lower rates of incarceration and addiction.

There are two hypothesis I have for these findings.  My first idea is that these children are affected by the subliminal social belief that those without two parent families are abnormal and therefore are emotionally scarred.  My second belief is that people growing up in poverty have higher chance of having a parent killed, and those in poverty  (unfortunately) tend to find themselves back in the cycle of poverty, which often includes jail and drugs.

I don't, however, believe that I will never get married.  There are lots of things that I accept as social constructs.  I believe that the idea that one shouldn't euthanize is a social construct.  I will not, however, become another Dr. Kevorkian.  I think that's the reason that I feel so attracted to monogamy, I've become indoctrinated by the social construct of our families.

I guess the question isn't can you choose your family, but should you choose your family?  By the way, the pictures are courtesy of awkwardfamilyphotos.com.

The wrong kind of economy... (DOAC 6)

I was walking through my backyard to the garage and I realized something.  I have become a part of this home.  I have more of a connection to this house than its numeric value.  There are three baby trees growing.  Each of the trees replaced a tree that had been in its spot for at least fifty years.  I was a part of this house's life.    I have had all of my life memories in this home.

Before the economic downturn houses were selling like hotcakes.  The housing companies sold people on "the American dream."  People were told that their dreams are cheaply built Mcmansions.  People were told to sell their homely split levels for brick, 4000 square foot, showcases.

I don't know about you, but maybe we have such a big problem with our economy because we are looking for the wrong kind of wealth.  If we all realized that working only for money does no good, we may finally become the wealthiest nation on the planet.

I realise that this whole post sounded quite cheesy, I am terribly sorry.

Religion and the USA 2 (DOAC 5)

I was thinking of Mr. Bolos' post, "Competing Narratives," on the influence of religion on "holy wars".  I can't help but wonder how much "bad" in the world religion has contributed to (or caused).  George W. Bush called our war in the middle est a "crusade."  Why, then as I pointed out in "Religion and the USA 1" do so many agnostics and non religious citizens of this country (where we are afforded the privilege of freedom of religion) go to church.

As an agnostic, I see other agnostic, questionably religious or liberal persons joining a religious group as contemptible.  I understand that people join religious groups for the community and the "morals" (don't get me started on religious morals), but that does not excuse religion of its shortcomings and corruption.

Whether you want to admit to yourself or not, giving money to a religious organization is the equivalent of giving money to a group of bigots with morally reprehensible valuables. Don't get me wrong, lots of good comes from religious groups (soup kitchens and other charities).

Unfortunately for the non-religious needy, a lot of the charities of religious groups only benefit people of that religion, for instance my temple seems to do a disproportionate number of service projects for other Jews (whether they be in Africa or Chicago or Louisiana).  If I told you that I was going to do some service projects for one specific ethnic group similar to mine, you would undoubtedly call me a bigot.

This is not even the worse bigotry and social growth retardation that religion is over and over involved with.  Religion is almost always used to battle against the civil rights of minorities and the disenfranchised. Whether it be slavery, minority rights, women's rights or gay rights, someone is always quoting the Quran or Bible or Torah.

If your Lion's club was associated with this much bigotry, you would certainly resign.

Then there is the AIDS problem in Africa (we all know about it).  What people refrain from speaking about is the way that the pope has instructed missionaries not to teach safe sex practices.  I agree with the pope, Jesus would prefer to have millions of poor, impoverished, AIDS stricken, parentless (dead from AIDS) children.

You may say that this is a religious problem, not an American problem. Unfortunately, as our country becomes more and more stooped in religious fundamentalism, it becomes a national problem.

Before recent years, Presidents never said they had been chosen by Jesus or that they are doing god's work.  People have never voted "as a christian."  More people go to church more often than ever before in US history.  It scares me that in an age when we have a slight grasp on truth, a vast majority of Americans will veil themselves in the blissful ignorance of religion.

Do we really need the naked truth? (DOAC 4)

I was watching 'Dexter', (as I blogged about earlier in 'A Dead Debate') and the plethora of full frontal, uninhibited nudity scenes.  I couldn't help but wonder if the nudity was there for artistic reasons or simply because it was Showtime and the director was allowed to do it.  I understand the point of having Dexter smiling while splattered with blood and pushing a meat cleaver into the chest of one of his victims.  It shows the contrast in his "family man" persona and his "dark passenger." 

It got me thinking.  What is it with Americans and our love hate relationship with nudity.  Sex sells, everyone knows that.  On the other hand, we've got the crusaders against nudity shutting down the many "inappropriate" adds or TV shows in the public forum.

Calvin Klein, arguably the initiator of thee nudity in the media trend, has had a long and storied past with nudity and adds.  "Nothing gets between me and my Calvins," the 80's catch phrase was not exactly PG.  Nor were the picture of Brooke Shields in the eighties.

Calvin Klein knows that risque adds will get the media spotlight because people will talk about how "morally reprehensible" the ads are while getting an excuse to show nudity on their shows or newspaper, look at this article or this one or this one.  It is a symbiotic relationship.  Calvin gets free coverage in the news and the news gets to show nudity; everyone wins.  But at what cost to our society?

Am I being old fashioned or socially normal? I honestly have no idea.  I don't know what I think about nudity in the morality.  The one thing I do know is that no matter how much we gripe about it, it won't go away.  Everyone wins in the current climate of sexual awkwardness.  There is money to be made from nudity, it's like pimping but mildly socially acceptable.

A Dead Debate? (DOAC 3)

I was watching "Dexter," a show on Showtime, the other day.  For those who don't know, Dexter is a 30 something serial killer who is personified in his relentless struggling for morality with what he calls his "dark passenger."

It got me to thinking about the death penalty debate. What ever happened to the death penalty debate?  Are we really that self centered with our thin pockets and wars that we stop caring about the moral imperatives that some prisoners on death row don't have the luxury of deferring.

I will say right now, I am against capitol punishment.  It seems odd that a lot of support for the death penalty comes from religious individuals.  The bible specifically states that killing is one of the worst things one can do.  Who do these people think they are to decide who will live or die? Were they ordained by "the creator" with this great power, or are they just sinners?

No, they are corrupt humans with biases and motives like the rest of us.

I understand that there are those who are literally too dangerous to be left in society.  I believe that the most logical solution is to have max security institutions for these people.  We can use these extreme cases of mental disorder to study possible treatments.

The biggest reason that I am against the death penalty is that a death punishment seems so petty and immature.  Every time I see a grief-stricken murder victim's family on TV asking for "justice," I can't help but think that this is an extremely unhealthy way to deal with grief.  How does, "you killed my brother, I want you dead," sound.  It sounds like a three year old.  We should forgive those who slip up in their lives, allow the perpetrator the possibility of parole in the future and try to move on with our lives.

On top of all this, death penalty is actually more expensive than just keeping people alive with life in prison (who'd a thunk).  I just can't think of any reason to be pro capitol punishment, yet we continue to defer this important debate because we have "too much on our plates."

The fact that most death row inmates don't get a vote in US elections makes this debate easier to put off as well.  After all, if it doesn't effect you personally, how could it be possibly be important?

Religion and the USA 1 (DOAC 2)

More people attend church or other religious services more often now than at any other point in US history (up a whopping 30% since 1990).  People love to say that our society is secularizing, yet it appears that we aren't.

Why then, would people claim that our society is secularizing.  It is probably because of truths that we have discovered.  We have discovered that most biblical stories are fundamentally at odds with science.  We have found that (whisper it now) intercourse may not be the forbidden fruit that we thought.  We have found that homosexuality, interracial marriage, divorce and many other ideals once seen as religiously immoral, are not actually immoral at all.

So, we have left god's side.  Why then do more people attend church than ever before.  I think that the main reason is that people like the "old fashioned" morals of church.  Who wants to raise their kids in a society with violence and sex running rabid. 

My sister, a professed atheist, vowed to take her children to Sunday School for "the community" and the morals.  I can't help but wonder why?  I understand that you want to indoctrinate your children (Brave New World, anyone?) into a society of similar ideas, but why would you want to do it through the (quite frankly) frightening religious stories.  The old testament is riddled with stonings and people offering their daughters to rape and their sons to die, perpetrated by "the good guys."  I would run from any religious building as fast as possible with my kids.

A Tidy Emotion. (DOAC 1)

ABC has a new program on.  It is called "Find My Family."  The idea of the show seems fine.  What is another reality TV show in our mirage of hundreds.  But this is different.  To me, this show portrays a growing trend; a trend of neat and tidy, hour long emotional outlets.

American society tells us that if you have problems, keep it to yourself.  This is one of the downsides of the the Thoreau and the "me first" ideology of America.  Thoreau taught us that we should get over our problems with others and try to internalize our emotions, goals, and failures.  The problem is that humans are pack animals.  We want to confide in others.

Enter the trashy, emotional reality TV show.  Its great because it gives us a way to release the emotions that we are too afraid to truly release.  Tears come to your eyes when the family reunites on a picturesque hilltop, a foggy background, the midday sun glistening over the lush grass (I'm not kidding, this is where they reunite).

The story of these family's reunions are not told because the director or writer or whoever does reality TV hopes you will feel sympathy, the goal is for the audience to feel empathy.  You may not have lost your brother when you were three, but the emotions so grandiosely portrayed between a separated brother and sister are accessible to you. You see their emotions and subconsciously channel it to your emotions.

This may seem fine, but I don't think so.  A society where our emotions need to run vicariously through others is not the sort that I want to live in.  It seems odd that we pay "professional therapists" hundreds of dollars an hour when we should be able to trust our family or friends with whatever we are saying.

How do we place blame?

NBA star Antoine Walker is a multimillionaire, though he came from much more humble roots.  He went to Mount Carmel High School, on Chicago's south side.

Recently, a series of buildings that his company owns were called 'slum housing' by the city.  I came across this story while fingering through the Chicago Tribune (which is something that I rarely do as I prefer internet news).  It seemed odd that we would blame Walker, a mere figurehead for a company which he is a hands-off investor.

It got me to thinking.  Most liberals will claim that the current economic downturn is Bush's fault.  Most conservatives will blame Obama's stimulus and Clinton's involvement in credit default swaps on the current economic downturn.  It seems odd that we can take a complex issue like an intricate modern economy and make it one or two man's fault.

I think that we do this because as  humans we love to blame.  Blaming a faceless mass like 'the system' is not personal enough we need a figure head.  Its a shame that we are so obtuse to true issues and choose to indiscriminately blame figure heads.  Its not only a shame for the politicians who want to make their county better, but also for us, the public that would benefit from a better country.

The same goes for Walker.  The Title of the article was that the "City Targets" Walker.  He may not actually have had any say over how his property was handled, but we wanted to find a face that we all could recognize, then run out to our sheds to sharpen our pitchforks and light our torches.... I have to go and get mine now.

The Cost of Wartime

On Meet the Press this morning a multitude of senators and representatives were talking about the expected decision of deploying more troops in Afghanistan.

In class we talked about the loss of human rights for civilians during wartime. What struck me about the talk of the war had nothing to do with the rights of civilians, but the rights of the soldiers. We assume that soldiers are human tools who have signed their life away for a country that they love.

In fact, there is a disproportionate number of minorities and impoverished Americans serving in the military. This is because those without a choice in their lives see recruiting tables, hear of a group that offers steady jobs and college tuitions, they see a great way to escape their life. It seems ironic that these people who have been disenfranchised by this country are the ones fighting for it.

The soldiers, of course, was not the topic of discussion. The one subject that continued to come up was the cost of each new soldier. The figure that was thrown around was that each soldier came with a price tag of about one million dollar, including the needed tanks guns and of course the salaries.

The pundits argued back and forth about how raising taxes on the upper class to fund the deployment would cost these recession-wrought families so much. Now there is the epitome of irony!

A Stolen Nobel Prize?

The other day, while listening to NPR, I heard a story about Nobel Peace Prize Winner (from Iran) Dr. Ebadi.  She claimed that the Iranian government had seized her bank accounts as well as her husband’s accounts.  She said that Iran had claimed tax evasion on her Noble Prize, but that Iranian law stipulates that there is no tax on Nobel Prizes.  She claimed that her work as a human rights lawyer threatened the Iranian government and that this was a part of their retaliation against her.

I decided that I would write a blog post about this, but I wasn’t exactly sure what to write.  I thought maybe I would do something on ethics, but I did some research anyway.

I found this article from the Tehran Times which gave a very different perspective of the story.  I found the differences in the story fascinating.  It is amazing that two different news bureaus from paradoxically different cultures could have such different views on the same story.  I find this as a prime example of the way we can tell our stories of history the way we want to.  It reminded me of the Supernews clip below, which is a show on Current TV.  Ignore the mildly immature jokes and focus on the story it tells of the American Revolution. 

American Gluttons or just American Idiots?

Michael Dresser (a radio talk show host) once said that " Thanksgiving is America's national chow-down feast, the one occasion each year when gluttony becomes a patriotic duty."

I couldn't agree with him less.  I think that Thanksgiving is not the only day when we are gluttons, everyday is.  I just ate a cup of ice cream, but that's not why I think that we are all gluttons.  Eating ridiculous amounts of food is just the tip of the iceberg.  As Americans, we have always looked for more.  Most of our families came here with the prospect of "gold paved streets" and "oppertunities for everyone."

Look at the differences in American culture and European culture.  While the Europeans have been driving small efficient cars for years, we have been driving cheaply built V8 gas guzzlers.  Its not just recent models, look at cars fifty or sixty years ago, the Giant Cadillacs of the 50s compared with the petite Mini Coopers, BMW Isettas or Citroen DSs.

We don't just drive big, we live big.  Mcmansions are a rare American trend as well.  This idea of more is always better runs through our entire culture.  Americans have always believed that the more you can buy, the happier you will be.  We borrowed money we couldn't afford to buy things we didn't necessarily need, look online for repossessed boats or other expensive "toys."

Our gluttony is not only bad for our economy, but also bad for our earth.  Think of all the energy our Mcmansions take to heat, think of how much gas is used  in our V8 SUVs.  I cant help but wonder what percentage of the time my family's two SUVs have one or two passengers (probably 70%-90% of the time).

Obama in China

   Barak Hussein Obama (you may have heard of him) is visiting China.  Mostly he'll be kissing the toes of our majority debt holders. This seems like a sensible enough action to take with the people who hold the strings to your proverbial purse.
   It is, however, a break with the foreign policy of his predecessors.  Bush and Clinton before him both picked over bones with China.  Clinton famously challenged China's questionable human rights policies and Bush accused the Chinese government of manipulating their currency to devalue American currency while strengthening their's.
   Some people see what Obama is doing as conceding power of one superpower to another; many have compared it the Europeans handing power to the USA.  I wonder why Americans are so obsessed with being the best.  I understand that our capitolist society creates a cutthroat mentality that those who aren't finishing first, are inferior, but we can certainly accomplish just as much good in the world, probably more, if we stop caring about being powerful. 
   I think that our largest concern with this visit shouldn't be power plays, it should be about getting human rights for the Chinese Citizens, isn't the reason we love our power because we love to spread freedom.  I think we should use the power that we have left to convince the Chinese to adapt to the world that they are about to takeover as a superpower.  They need to update human policy and environmental policy. 
   Obama may have said that a free internet strengthens a  country rather than weakening it, to me, it seems that the first well received American President in a long time, should use his influence to help the over one billion exploited citizens of China.

Abort The Health Care Plan?

   As many of you may know, the House of Representatives has passed a bill on health care reform.  Yeah, the pinko liberals are shouting.  Wait, there's a catch.  Funding for an abortion cannot be provided by a government subsidized insurance plan or government provided insurance plan, except in cases of rape, incest, or death to the mother.
   Nancy Pelosi called it the biggest infringement on Women's Rights of her career.  I happen to think that this is not an infringement on women's rights.  Don't get me wrong, I am hugely prochoice, obviously I don't relish in aborted fetuses, but I believe in a woman's right to choose over her body, at least before the baby has a heart beat. I simply think that this law doesn't really change anything.  If you want an abortion, pay for it yourself, buy private insurance, or buy insurance to accompany your government provided insurance. 
   There is nothing that I hate more than non-issues getting in the way of things that will help our country.  A single payer option will reduce waste in our medicare system, though I don't want to go down that path.  Nancy got a majority to agree with her and only had to give up a small concession, abortions that are done for convenince sake (ie when there was no rape, incest or possible harm to the woman).
   All this partisanship makes me wish Ted Kennedy were still alive.  It also makes me sad that both sides of the party would laugh at a great bipartisan leader like him by making something that will help ALL Americans about petty party lines.

A US Involvement...?

    My last post talked about US involvement in morals. What about US involvement in countries that we already have a large presence in and are already in the middler of instating a government (like... say... Afghanistan)
   Hamid Karzai finally (officially) won the 2009 election for president of Afghanistan.  Usually I would support a decision to allow a new democracy to try to come to its own conclusions.  What about a rigged election in a questionably stable country... I wish we would have done more.
   Karzai's main opponent, Abdullah Abdullah (yes his name is the same thing twice) made accusations of "ballot stuffing" and voter fraud.  The US urged Afghan officials to hold a recount (and they planned to), but I'm not sure if it was really enough.  Abdullah, sure they would come to the same conclusion withdrew from the race, as he said it would discredit Karzai's victory (I'm not exactly sure how that works or if it matters).
   Karzai's last term was wrought with scandal (including pacts with poppy growers and war lords).  Most Afghans believed he would win again because he was the US endorsed candidate in 2004 and, though we didn't officially endorse anyone, we would still have the power to rig the election.
   I'm not going to accuse my government of rigging a third-world election, but if it was rigged (and evidence makes that quite probable) then as the force keeping Afghanistan out of anarchy, we should use our power to make sure that democracy is truly being practiced.
   Karzai and his morally questionably "friends" used intimidation to keep political opposition from the voting booths, I think the best thing would have been for America to bust in and have a real election (god, I can't believe I'm saying this).

Disclaimer: Karzai is controversial and although I am not a fan he has done a series of good things for Afghanistan, helping the economy and he has (tried to be) a firm hand against terrorism, including criticizing US involvement with the taliban of the late 90's before it was "in vogue."  He was also at one point a member of the Taliban group, but later withdrew as it became to extremist for him.

A Society of Evil Faces

   Some of you (probably none of you) may remember my post, The Face Of Evil.  I feel as though I left some of my argument unexplored.
   There were those whom it seems easy to argue for, like the Nazi who asked for forgiveness and showed remorse. A little more difficult to justify are those who felt no remorse, those who had no morals, a subject also touched upon by Wiesenthal.
   Consider this rather abstract idea: all “morals” are social constructs.  Are there not societies that have glorified slavery, incest, polygamy, polyandry, group marriages, pedophilia, female circumcision, female inequality, racial inequality, prostitution, torture and other seemingly perverse institutions?  It seems imperceptive of a well-educated American to argue that our morals are inherently right.  I do agree with most all of the morals promoted by my society, but it would appear that judging the morals of other societies is not only questionably immoral in and of itself (the possible beginnings of colonialism) but also very difficult as you have been indoctrinated in some sort of society.
   An easy argument to refute my last argument is that no one is killed because of any of the aforementioned “perverse institutions.”  Who are you to judge which is more “immoral,” enslaving and torturing another human or killing him?  What, on a fundamental level makes murder the most capitol of all crimes?
   It seems odd that as Americans we are so fast to judge, when we do so many things that are immoral.  When was the last time you bought something made in a sweatshop.  Our country was started by a genocide, according to the UN definition  of Genocide(see article 2: C, D, E).  Some might argue that the 300 year difference excused the founding fathers’ actions.  On the contrary, the difference in years shows how American morals have changed and how susceptible we are to a change in morals.  You may argue that on a fundamental level, the civil rights movement was a good thing, but why.  Is there a fundamental reason that we should all be equal or is it engrained in my society? 
   My rabbi argued that,”anytime one society seeks to extinct or remove another society, that is wrong,” regardless of morals.  Does this mean that our country was founded without morals? If our country was founded without morals what implications does this have on the way we “govern” and “spread democracy” throughout the world?

A Wartime President

A moral question: should a president who has never served in the military, and therefore has no idea of the complexities of battle and its dehumanizing effects. 

   All the presidents that I am old enough to have lived through never served in the military.  Bill Clinton was involved in his little ROTC scandal and that was about as close as any of our presidents got to serving.  I know what your thinking, no, the National Guard isn't closer than what Clinton did.  Clinton may or may not have cheated the government (depending on where you stand on the issue) with his own cunning whereas Bush used his father's clout.
   Despite Bush's (rather embarrassing) history in the military, he had no problem calling himself a "Wartime President."  He has no idea what serving in the military, how can he know how to act as a Commander-in-Chief.  To me this seems like asking a pig farmer to pilot a plane... set up for disaster. 
   My big problem with this term is that being a good army leader is so much more than understanding strategy, it is understanding how deploying an extra 21,000 troops (as Obama did earlier this year) tears apart families, friendships, and lives; sometimes for a few months or years, sometimes for an eternity. 
   Clinton, in his relatively infamous letter to the ROTC recruiter, he states that he was against the war in Vietnam and strongly implies that he is against all war.  It seems hypocritical that years later, as president, he attacked the Balkans now that he isn't the one doing the killing or in the way of death.
  It seems not only Obtuse for Bush to call himself a "Wartime President"but also really quite offensive to all the people who are actually wartime leaders.  The people who go and risk their lives blindly for us, regardless of the questionable values behind a war.

Selling a Story

   After talking about how School House Rock is telling a Story of America and that it was bought by Disney, it brought me to the great irony of the Disney Company.
   Based on one of America's father figures, almost any documentary that you see on television will be quick to speak of his pioneering attitude, his imaginative ideas, and his Fatherlike respect for all children of America.
   He was also a white supremacist, outspoken anti-Semite, and was a large patron of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, also known as the German Nazi Party.  Admittedly he did stop contributing money after WWII broke out, but he was nonetheless a man who was certainly not what we remember him as. Don't get me started on the Disney Princess idea.
   When I think of Walt Disney I think of him smiling riding around on the train in his back yard.  I don't think of a man who would today be considered part of a fringe group.
   Look at the 1946 Disney Film, Song of The South.  No longer sold, as a means of telling the Disney myth, this film has some of the most racist depictions of African-Americans you will probably ever see. 
   I think that we should alter our image of Walt Disney.  He was a great man who inspired all children to be whatever they wanted to be.*

*Not applicable if you are Black, Jewish, Native American, gay, Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Indian, Communist, or any not aforementioned non-white.

A Word Delegate...?

   I was recently made aware that America has a Poet Laureate.  If you are as oblivious as me, your first question was probably, what is a poet Laureate?
   Well a Poet Laureate is a government appointed official, usually also a poet, who composes poems for state events and such.  I still don’t really understand it.
   America doesn’t have a bureaucrat for most arts, so why do we have an official poet.  I think that the fact that there is an “official” poet in the US says a lot about this (arguably dying) art form.  Its standards are too rigid.  That was why I was glad to learn that the newest Laureate, Kay Ryan, doesn’t adhere to classic poetic standards.  He argued that nearly every well thought  word choice is a poem.  Therefore, add slogans are poetry, so are music lyrics.
   I couldn’t agree with him more.  I think of so many beautiful songs that could be read as poetry.  I see so many beautiful words that are near poetic.  As we row down the North Shore Channel, we come across a wide array of graffiti, one memorable one says in large red letters, “MONEY P****Y WEED.”  The word is not censored on the side of the bridge. I don’t see any reason why this isn’t poetry.  I can't help but think, if the simple, yet complicated word choice of “The Red Wheelbarrow” is a poem, the above statement isn’t.  They are both a  series of words chosen with the express intent to mean more than simply the what is written.

Is The Internet Making us Stoopid

   In my recent post, The Murder of Discourse, I fear I may have been too hard on the plethora of options that Americans have when choosing different media outlets. We have many public forums of the internet, whether it is Wikipedia or a blog or Twitter or the “MyFace.”
   Like the Atlantic article, is Google making us Stoopid, says, the internet is changing the way we process information. I’m not sure if it is for the worst. I think it is important that people take a step back and think, “Am I adding positively to this debate, or subtracting from it.” If you find yourself, on either side of the political spectrum, rioting and yelling blasphemous claims, it is probably time to take a break and really ask yourself what you are fighting for.
   I love to argue and debate my position. I don’t like to argue for the sake of solely changing the view of others, but also because I enjoy exploring my own views. Yesterday, while struggling to understand the ideas of social constructs and their relation to morals in America I found myself arguing with a friend on the way to rowing practice. Despite the fact that I was perturbing him, I continued to argue my point because the more I argued, the more I understood and honed my vision and theory of the topic. I think if more people could calm down and realize that their arguments are useful to themselves as much as others, and that as Americans we are all working to make the nation better, we could create a powerful and compelling national dialogue on this great new interweb.

The Face of Evil

   For Jewish confirmation class (much the same as a Christian confirmation) we read a book called The Sunflower.  This “true” story takes place in the middle of WWII and the author, Simon Wiesenthal, is a Jew in a concentration camp in Poland.  He is approached by a nurse.  The nurse brings him to a Nazi guard who wishes to apologize.  I’m not going to say what happened as the book is a really great 98 page read.
   As we talked through the complexities of the story, I found that I was the only one who would forgive the Nazi.  I couldn’t help but notice that, almost every story of the holocaust painted Nazis as monsters and Jews as helpless creatures.  I have no argument that the Jews were helpless creatures, the atrocities committed on them were horrible.  Bare with me, I believe a large number of The Nazis were equally as helpless.
   I couldn’t help but think that 95% of the people I was discussing this book would have joined the Nazi party had they been in the same position as the now expiring Nazi guard.  I know it seems taboo and terribly disrespectful to all the people who were brutally slaughtered, but I feel terrible for all the helpless children who were talked into the Holocaust.

   Before you judge me or my views, take a look at the sociological implications and basis for my response to the book, maybe look at the famous Zimbardo Prison Experiment in a Stanford University basement, pictured to the left.