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.