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.

To Profile or Not to Profile?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Marc Thiessen
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

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

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

This is before I even consider the effectiveness of torture.

A Whole History....

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

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
I's on Edjukashun - Texas School Board
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care reform

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

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

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

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

Are American Schools Dying?

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

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

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

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

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

Meds in ads...

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

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

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

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

Corruption in Government

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

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

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

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

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

Smut for Smut...

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

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

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

Overall I've come to two conclusions:

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

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

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

Act Like You care...

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

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

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

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

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

E Plurubus Unum

Our national Motto.

I wonder, out of many, what?

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

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

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

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

The Enquirer... Wins?

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

You Crazy Kids

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

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

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

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

Fighting For Something... Finally.

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

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

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

America's Next Top Republican Woman

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

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

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

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

Evolution Vs Revolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learn to conform

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

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

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

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