How will We Be Remembered

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

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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...

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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...

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

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

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?

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...

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.