There is nothing like a great horror movie to get the blood pumping. Occasionally, however, a horror movie transcends the genre and contains much more important subtext and depth that makes the experience worth watching multiple times. Thus, in honor of those movies that can both scare and convey some artistic expression, I give you the Top 10 Horror Movies...Ever.
1. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (The Original)
2. The Exorcist
3. The Shining
4. Nightmare on Elm Street 1 (Of course, not much subtext, but brilliantly scary)
5. Rosemary's Baby
6. The Ring
7. The Hills Have Eyes (The Original)
8. Scream
9.Candyman
10. Night of the Living Dead
(Others Receiving Votes: Amityville Horror (Original); The People Under the Stairs; Alien and Aliens; Evil Dead; Halloween and Halloween II; Psycho)
10/31/09
Your Quote for the Day
Advertising is a racket, like the movies and the brokerage business. You cannot be honest without admitting that its constructive contribution to humanity is exactly minus zero. - F. Scott Fitzgerald
10/30/09
Humanity, Punishment, and Confusion
I have been thinking about the gang rape in Richmond, CA that I mentioned the other day, and have been thinking long and hard about crime and punishment...and, as Durkheim would predict, I am revolted, disgusted, and have a strange bloodlust for the perpetrators and the bystanders. But, I am also a humanist and with time I have come to question my own feelings about this and my own opinion about retribution. What would restore the situation to normalcy? My initial feeling was public castration for the actual rapists, and some serious public humiliation for the bystanders. Personally and on a side note, regardless of the punishments doled out, I don't think age should be a factor in our decision-making. Biologically and neuro-psychologically we are wired to feel sympathy for others, and the actions these boys pursued (especially after 2+ hours) at some point become meditated and the morality of the situation obvious. There is nothing I have read or seen that convinces me otherwise. I am also sympathetic to the "blame society" model, because the anger/aggression of these boys derives in part from their socioeconomic status, the pressures of being a teenager, and likely unstable familial relations. But, they are actors with a conscience and the power to make decisions like anyone else; they made a decision.
Thus, we return to the question: what is the right punishment? I said castration and humiliation. An eye for an eye would say they should be brutally raped while others watch; castration may be too light of a punishment. Or, metaphorically, castration and scooping one or both eyes out of the bystanders would send a message. But, are these the answers? How do we distinguish American human rights from those of Arab, African, or Asian nations which routinely torture, abuse, or otherwise use insane forms of punishment for the crimes? Does deterrence even work (evidence in Texas and the number of murders commmitted vis-a-vis the highest rate of capital punishment suggests a weak link)? I don't know...
Am I being weak, or too liberal in suggesting other punishments? Realistically, the situation cannot be restored. This girl is screwed for life. She will never be able to have normal relations with men, nor will she be able to deal with most people. She will live her life terrified of the dark, of alleys, of strangers, and of life itself. She is fifteen...she still has two more painfully embarrassing years of high school...then perhaps college. What is in store fore her? And, does castration really fix this? Does the death penalty fix this? I don't have an answer (though I am curious to hear what you think). I am too middle of the road perhaps to be a good judge. Part of me says take them out back and shoot them, but that becomes a slippery slope. Who else do we just pass judgment on immediately and kill or painfully torture? In most countries, where habeous corpus does not exist, no one questions the systems efficacy despite the fact that people commit crimes everywhere regardless of potential punishments. And, I don't think this particular case warrants preventative measures because I think it is a 1 in a million chance that after prom anyone would do something like this. But, man....it makes me really, really sad. My brother has two daughter. As if raising children wasn't difficult enough, now I have to think about this. If I keep writing, I will talk myself into the original punishment I feel they deserve. Bring back the public hangings?
Thus, we return to the question: what is the right punishment? I said castration and humiliation. An eye for an eye would say they should be brutally raped while others watch; castration may be too light of a punishment. Or, metaphorically, castration and scooping one or both eyes out of the bystanders would send a message. But, are these the answers? How do we distinguish American human rights from those of Arab, African, or Asian nations which routinely torture, abuse, or otherwise use insane forms of punishment for the crimes? Does deterrence even work (evidence in Texas and the number of murders commmitted vis-a-vis the highest rate of capital punishment suggests a weak link)? I don't know...
Am I being weak, or too liberal in suggesting other punishments? Realistically, the situation cannot be restored. This girl is screwed for life. She will never be able to have normal relations with men, nor will she be able to deal with most people. She will live her life terrified of the dark, of alleys, of strangers, and of life itself. She is fifteen...she still has two more painfully embarrassing years of high school...then perhaps college. What is in store fore her? And, does castration really fix this? Does the death penalty fix this? I don't have an answer (though I am curious to hear what you think). I am too middle of the road perhaps to be a good judge. Part of me says take them out back and shoot them, but that becomes a slippery slope. Who else do we just pass judgment on immediately and kill or painfully torture? In most countries, where habeous corpus does not exist, no one questions the systems efficacy despite the fact that people commit crimes everywhere regardless of potential punishments. And, I don't think this particular case warrants preventative measures because I think it is a 1 in a million chance that after prom anyone would do something like this. But, man....it makes me really, really sad. My brother has two daughter. As if raising children wasn't difficult enough, now I have to think about this. If I keep writing, I will talk myself into the original punishment I feel they deserve. Bring back the public hangings?
Some Reading for your Morning Cup 'O' Joe
- A good article attacking the old "deficit" is always bad voodoo economics...
- A smart roundtable regarding the Tea Party and its benefits and/or costs to the GOP
- An interesting Op-Ed asking the question of whether Feminism has made people happier or not...It does not seem to be a clear answer, but some interesting discussion points for the water cooler
- An Op-Ed discussion Obama's tenacity or lack thereof...ties in with a blog post I wrote a week ago regarding my concerns for Obama, or of Obama
- A smart roundtable regarding the Tea Party and its benefits and/or costs to the GOP
- An interesting Op-Ed asking the question of whether Feminism has made people happier or not...It does not seem to be a clear answer, but some interesting discussion points for the water cooler
- An Op-Ed discussion Obama's tenacity or lack thereof...ties in with a blog post I wrote a week ago regarding my concerns for Obama, or of Obama
Your Quote for the Day
Confusion of goals and perfection of means seems, in my opinion, to characterize our age. - Albert Einstein
10/29/09
Signs of Crumbling Morality or Bad Survey Technique...You Decide
While reading the LA Times this morning, I came across an interesting article on the Josephson Institute which is an organization committed to ethics. Strange, indeed. I have yet to see the survey or its methodology, but the results are startling. 7,000 people from various age groups were questioned about their morality and asserted that "today's youth [are] cynics who are aware that their behavior crosses boundaries but believe it is necessary to succeed." Now, before I go on and before I give you my opinion, keep these basic principles in mind. First, adults and older people in general tend to forget the past even when it is written down. Second, older people always (and I can get you quotes from Roman or Greek times, ancient China or Mesopotamia) lament a long lost golden age. And third, people generally lie on surveys, either consciously or unconsciously (the reasons why will be discussed below).
Assuming the survey is accurate here are some findings. (1) Teens (17 and younger) are five times as likely than those older than 50 to lie and cheat when they believe it is necessary to success (51% v. 10%). The younger group is also four times as likely to lie to their boss and three times as likely to keep change mistakenly given to them. (2) Young adults (18-24) were more likely to lie to a spouse than 41-50 year olds (48% v. 22%), make an unauthorized copy of music/video (69% v. 27%), and misrepresent themselves or omit a fact in a job interview (14% v. 4%). The conclusions some are drawing is that unethical behavior is molded early, which is probably true to a certain extent. The survey itself offers no theoretical discussion or interpretation of the data aside from the conclusion I just noted.
First, let's look at the data (and I am sure there is more, but the report has yet to be released). Taking the 18-24 versus 41-50 year-old groups first, it is possible to dismiss this data for a number of reasons. What does "lying" entail? Are we talking about concealing another lover, or just telling your wife you are working when you are hanging out watching TV? This word is loaded and unclear. And, my best guess as a sociologist, what it means to a person in their early twenties and someone who has been married for 10+ years is very, very different. A person tells their significant other so many small, white lies that by the time you are older, a lie comes to mean something much more grave. "What does my butt look like in these jeans?"; "Do I look fat?" Or, how about trying to plan a surprise party and telling your significant other a bunch of lies to keep them off the trail? Clearly, lying is subjective and changes over time. I would imagine 41-50 year-old people feel a lie is something that will damage the relationship, whereas younger people probably consider any non-truth regardless of impact a lie. The disparity of unauthorized music is nonsense. Any person with a VCR in the 1980's made tapes of TV and movies; cassette tapes also allowed people to transfer vinyl, make mix tapes, and dub friends music. There are few if any people who have not done this; or make a CD for their car. Again, the words are the key to this question, as is the level of awareness. In the 1980's it was nothing to make tapes and in the 1990's it was nothing to make a CD, -- but, we all know the FBI warning on movies and on the backs of CDs and records, yet ignore it because it is for personal use. The internet has changed this in many ways. No one has to buy the CD or movie you plan on making a copy of for personal use. But, more importantly, the number of high profile trials of companies like Napster have made this issue much more salient for teens and young adults. Older people still think don't consider what they did to be illegal, despite the contrary. And, all I have to say about the misrepresenting yourself in a job interview is thank god the numbers are so low. That may be the truest statistic; the discrepancy, without looking at the data, is probably not statistically significant which means you cannot really interpret the actual difference between groups.
Now, for the 17 and younger group v. the 50 and older group. Re-read the principles I stated above. The third one especially is important. We know that people lie on surveys. Sometimes people overestimate or underestimate their behavior (you know you do too, so don't try and hide it). We also know people are rational and when taking a survey will often tell the surveyor what they think he/she wants to hear. We also know that norms are very well socialized in a lot of people, and they will often answer in normative fashion rather than as accurate reflections of their behavior. And, of course, depending on the administration of the survey, we know people outright lie sometimes. Either way, respondents are not likely to give good answers to questions like: would you cheat or lie if necessary. For younger people, they are likely to either tell the truth because they care less and don't feel social pressures the same way, or overestimate it because they have not been in enough situations to discover whether they would or would not do the things they think they will. In fact, their answers may be more a reflection of what they think older people, or the average person would do. This is bad. Most kids see their parents cheat on their taxes, try to get out of speeding tickets, take short cuts, and do other things. They learn from them. If only only 10% of adults lie and cheat, then where do the 51% of the teens learn these behaviors? Blaming friends and the media may account for some of the discrepancy, but surely not all of it. Of course, I feel it is probably a reflection of their understanding of the world.
Conversely, older people lie all the time. The results prove this. It is unlikely that only 10% of the American population cheats on their taxes. Again, the words hold different meaning to different age groups based on life experience or lack thereof. I find it hard to believe that these people do not lie to their boss on a daily or weekly basis. What constitutes a lie, its severity, and its consequences again are very different given peoples' age and experience.
More generally, what does this survey tell us? Well, it tells us that Americans are like most other homo sapien sapien, primates, and other animals in that they will generally do what they need to succeed. It also tells us that society does a pretty good job of socializing at least 49% of its members (and, likely higher) to act ethically and morally. That is a reasonable number. In fact, I would assume based on the age-based biases I noted earlier, the number is likely higher -- somewhere between the two age groups' responses. As a professor, I see a cross-section of students who cheat and lie all the time. They do this because they learned it early on: to survive in the current educational system rife with test after test, and an ultra-competitive job market hit hard by globalization and a recession, one must do what they must. Kenneth Lay and Enron don't help; nor do athletes and owners fighting over millions of dollars; nor do reality TV stars hitting it big for having no talent; nor rappers singing about their money, their fame, and their narcissism. And most importantly, the fact that every adult lies to their kids about Santa Claus, where babies come from, about fights and divorces, about everything that is not "kid-oriented" does not help. People lie. They cheat. And, their children witness these things...go figure.
Assuming the survey is accurate here are some findings. (1) Teens (17 and younger) are five times as likely than those older than 50 to lie and cheat when they believe it is necessary to success (51% v. 10%). The younger group is also four times as likely to lie to their boss and three times as likely to keep change mistakenly given to them. (2) Young adults (18-24) were more likely to lie to a spouse than 41-50 year olds (48% v. 22%), make an unauthorized copy of music/video (69% v. 27%), and misrepresent themselves or omit a fact in a job interview (14% v. 4%). The conclusions some are drawing is that unethical behavior is molded early, which is probably true to a certain extent. The survey itself offers no theoretical discussion or interpretation of the data aside from the conclusion I just noted.
First, let's look at the data (and I am sure there is more, but the report has yet to be released). Taking the 18-24 versus 41-50 year-old groups first, it is possible to dismiss this data for a number of reasons. What does "lying" entail? Are we talking about concealing another lover, or just telling your wife you are working when you are hanging out watching TV? This word is loaded and unclear. And, my best guess as a sociologist, what it means to a person in their early twenties and someone who has been married for 10+ years is very, very different. A person tells their significant other so many small, white lies that by the time you are older, a lie comes to mean something much more grave. "What does my butt look like in these jeans?"; "Do I look fat?" Or, how about trying to plan a surprise party and telling your significant other a bunch of lies to keep them off the trail? Clearly, lying is subjective and changes over time. I would imagine 41-50 year-old people feel a lie is something that will damage the relationship, whereas younger people probably consider any non-truth regardless of impact a lie. The disparity of unauthorized music is nonsense. Any person with a VCR in the 1980's made tapes of TV and movies; cassette tapes also allowed people to transfer vinyl, make mix tapes, and dub friends music. There are few if any people who have not done this; or make a CD for their car. Again, the words are the key to this question, as is the level of awareness. In the 1980's it was nothing to make tapes and in the 1990's it was nothing to make a CD, -- but, we all know the FBI warning on movies and on the backs of CDs and records, yet ignore it because it is for personal use. The internet has changed this in many ways. No one has to buy the CD or movie you plan on making a copy of for personal use. But, more importantly, the number of high profile trials of companies like Napster have made this issue much more salient for teens and young adults. Older people still think don't consider what they did to be illegal, despite the contrary. And, all I have to say about the misrepresenting yourself in a job interview is thank god the numbers are so low. That may be the truest statistic; the discrepancy, without looking at the data, is probably not statistically significant which means you cannot really interpret the actual difference between groups.
Now, for the 17 and younger group v. the 50 and older group. Re-read the principles I stated above. The third one especially is important. We know that people lie on surveys. Sometimes people overestimate or underestimate their behavior (you know you do too, so don't try and hide it). We also know people are rational and when taking a survey will often tell the surveyor what they think he/she wants to hear. We also know that norms are very well socialized in a lot of people, and they will often answer in normative fashion rather than as accurate reflections of their behavior. And, of course, depending on the administration of the survey, we know people outright lie sometimes. Either way, respondents are not likely to give good answers to questions like: would you cheat or lie if necessary. For younger people, they are likely to either tell the truth because they care less and don't feel social pressures the same way, or overestimate it because they have not been in enough situations to discover whether they would or would not do the things they think they will. In fact, their answers may be more a reflection of what they think older people, or the average person would do. This is bad. Most kids see their parents cheat on their taxes, try to get out of speeding tickets, take short cuts, and do other things. They learn from them. If only only 10% of adults lie and cheat, then where do the 51% of the teens learn these behaviors? Blaming friends and the media may account for some of the discrepancy, but surely not all of it. Of course, I feel it is probably a reflection of their understanding of the world.
Conversely, older people lie all the time. The results prove this. It is unlikely that only 10% of the American population cheats on their taxes. Again, the words hold different meaning to different age groups based on life experience or lack thereof. I find it hard to believe that these people do not lie to their boss on a daily or weekly basis. What constitutes a lie, its severity, and its consequences again are very different given peoples' age and experience.
More generally, what does this survey tell us? Well, it tells us that Americans are like most other homo sapien sapien, primates, and other animals in that they will generally do what they need to succeed. It also tells us that society does a pretty good job of socializing at least 49% of its members (and, likely higher) to act ethically and morally. That is a reasonable number. In fact, I would assume based on the age-based biases I noted earlier, the number is likely higher -- somewhere between the two age groups' responses. As a professor, I see a cross-section of students who cheat and lie all the time. They do this because they learned it early on: to survive in the current educational system rife with test after test, and an ultra-competitive job market hit hard by globalization and a recession, one must do what they must. Kenneth Lay and Enron don't help; nor do athletes and owners fighting over millions of dollars; nor do reality TV stars hitting it big for having no talent; nor rappers singing about their money, their fame, and their narcissism. And most importantly, the fact that every adult lies to their kids about Santa Claus, where babies come from, about fights and divorces, about everything that is not "kid-oriented" does not help. People lie. They cheat. And, their children witness these things...go figure.
Your Quote for the Day (And My First Blog)
Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are dead...and, because I am feeling a sense of irony this morning: Cynical realism is the intelligent man's best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation.- Aldous Huxley
Two quick things: Below the two lists on the left-hand side of the blog's page, you will find a "Followers" button. I have no idea what this means, but I think it will send you notifications of new blogs. You may or may not want this. However, if my blog has been at all interesting and you do like it, please become a follower. Also, feel free to comment, reply, argue, etc. I don't really know what I am doing yet, and am working through this process. I am trying to bring some laughter -- albeit darkly at times -- to people. I am also trying to raise awareness when possible of the strange mechanics of American and global social life...I hope this has been good.
Second, I would like to say one thing about capitalism as a shitty system. Why is it that if I do not pay my cable bill by the date they tell me to, I get a finance charge, but when the cable is down and the internet is down and I cannot use the service I am paying for, I get long waits on hold and little to no sympathy from customer service? In a just world, they would credit my account for services not rendered. Just something to consider this morning.
Two quick things: Below the two lists on the left-hand side of the blog's page, you will find a "Followers" button. I have no idea what this means, but I think it will send you notifications of new blogs. You may or may not want this. However, if my blog has been at all interesting and you do like it, please become a follower. Also, feel free to comment, reply, argue, etc. I don't really know what I am doing yet, and am working through this process. I am trying to bring some laughter -- albeit darkly at times -- to people. I am also trying to raise awareness when possible of the strange mechanics of American and global social life...I hope this has been good.
Second, I would like to say one thing about capitalism as a shitty system. Why is it that if I do not pay my cable bill by the date they tell me to, I get a finance charge, but when the cable is down and the internet is down and I cannot use the service I am paying for, I get long waits on hold and little to no sympathy from customer service? In a just world, they would credit my account for services not rendered. Just something to consider this morning.
10/28/09
Invention of the Week: The Camera and Photography
I would like to raise my glass to you, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce, for inventing the first permanent photograph in 1826. While you were certainly not the first person to think of such a thing (that honor belongs to Johann Heinrich Schultz who figured out that a silver + chalk + light = darkened images in 1724), you made the all important innovation that would eventually come to shape American and global society in ways previously unimagined. In reality, your contribution would give democratic nations the teeth they were lacking. When Matthew Brady (and lesser knowns Alexander Gardner, George Bernard, Timothy O' Sullivan, and James Gibson) began photographing the American Civil War, they changed the way wars were understood and perceived by the public. While the TV and Vietnam may have changed the military's strategy in terms of warfare and protecting soldiers, Niépce, your invention afforded the public sphere a window into the good, the bad, and the horrifying aspects of warfare. To be sure, your invention has lost its power in the face of the internet and, before that, television, let's be honest: your innovation changed the face of governance and the terms of war. Committing atrocities could potentially leave a fingerprint that would provide the world with evidence.In addition, the camera beyond Niépce's contribution altered the way time would be understood by people. The past was always a murky subject, and while writing allowed cultural knowledge to be stored, transmitted faithfully over time, and reinterpreted, the camera appealed to the sense most honed in homo sapien sapien: vision. No longer did one have to hear stories about their great-grandparents or their dead uncle, but no they could match the face to the name and the story; no longer did one have to endure a long-distance relationship and long courtship sans some image to remind them of the objection of their affection; and no longer did people have to strain to remember what they looked like as a baby, a teen, a young person, or a middle aged person...it could be preserved.
And, I cannot hesitate to mention the more contemporary iteration of cameras and their use: instant gratification! Without the camera, where would we be? How could we go out to a bar, club, dinner, or anywhere and not take a picture or ten or hundred to post on Myspace and Facebook immediately after the event (or with Blackberries and iPhones, immediately after the picture is taken)? I cannot even remember what it was like to go out and enjoy myself without a flash in my eyes, without some strange picture showing up the next day reminding me of something I had forgotten...or, god forbid, having to bring my film to the drugstore and wait a whole 24 hours to get the prints...How did we ever survive?
So Niépce and your predecessors...I salute you! And so do the millions of teens and college-aged kids who use your invention three or four times a day to update their profiles on a seemingly infinite number of networking sites!
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The Good: 7 out of 10 Americans think Sarah Palin is unqualified for the office of the presidency. Hooray!!
The Bad: There are too many Dems opposing the plan making a filibuster likely, and making healthcare tough.
The Ugly: The Dem's Joe Wilson, Alan Grayson is a total moron who makes my arguments about Republicans being morons almost moot.
The Bad: There are too many Dems opposing the plan making a filibuster likely, and making healthcare tough.
The Ugly: The Dem's Joe Wilson, Alan Grayson is a total moron who makes my arguments about Republicans being morons almost moot.
Your Quote for the Day
The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry. - Ernest Hemingway
10/27/09
I Smell Bullshit
Second, and more germane to contemporary issues, he has threatened to filibuster the health care plan Reid (who I dislike also) is pushing. Not just abstain or vote no, but filibuster. And, not just attack the final plan and the final vote, but he won't even vote for cloture, or the movement of the bill from Reid's desk to the Senate floor for debate and then a vote of passage.
I smell bullshit Mr. Lieberman. You, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska are all guilty of...hold your breath...it's coming...douchebaggery -- a common crime of politicians. You four, and especially Mr. Lieberman are guilty of it beyond belief. 60% of the public want a public option. That is a fact at this time. Up from 54% in August, which means people have been convinced. Why would you be against it? Oh yeah, you are afraid of not being re-elected. You all are a bunch of trained monkey. You know why I am beginning to like Harry Reid who I would have also accused of douchebaggery only two weeks ago? Its because he is really reviled in Nevada and is looking at a likely ouster in 2010. When politicians smell their demise, they act in ways that reflect their true feelings instead of kowtowing to every interest group for re-election. He has nothing to lose, and perhaps he is at peace with that. Maybe by acting decisively he will win next year because his constituents will see him as being strong and as enacting legislation that has been a long time coming, and actually does benefit the poor white fuckers who keep voting Republican despite the Republican party exploiting them (another blog unto itself). Hey Lieberman, just quit; or, shut your damn mouth. You are irrelevant. You were a vice-presidential candidate on a losing ticket; you lost a primary in your own party, of which you have belonged for a long time; and, no one likes you on either side of the aisle. So, go home and just be lame. Stop bothering everyone.
Update: I did a bit of research and found some interesting stuff. First, health professionals and the insurance industry are ranked 7th ($1,041,362) and 8th ($1,036,070) respectively in campaign donations over his career. Second, in terms of individual donors, Purdue Pharma is 4th -- most of which was donated between 2003-8 for his re-election ($150,100), Aetna is 9th ($112,618), and Pfizer is 11th ($85,190). His voting record, during Bush II's administration is not much better...
Why Do I Hate Humans
I was led to believe that schools were the sacred environments, like protective wombs for students. In truth, they should be. Children, vulnerable human beings, go to school to become educated -- whatever that may mean. But, schools are horrible, horrible places. I just read about some girl in California (of course) who was assaulted and raped after prom for over 2 1/2 hours...read that again: 2 1/2 hours. Are you kidding me? Three guys supposedly were the assailants, but 15 people sat there and watched the whole thing without doing anything about it...as if it was porn on their computer. Say what you will about the ultra-white, middle-upper class school I went to in Michigan; complain about the lack of diversity and the class boundaries between my high school and the other cities high school; complain about whatever you want. This shit never happened in my school, and ironically enough, it is unlikely to happen. It always happens in California, or some other big, crazy urban environment. (Incidentally, small, suburban schools give way to armed students killing kids). I am all for due process in the courts, but some crimes seem heinous; that there will be defense attorneys lining up to defend these kids and some liberal watchdog groups saying the 15 year old kids involved didn't know any better makes me hate people even more. Let's just go back to the old days for cases like this: throw them in a lake with a stone tied to their legs; if they float, then they are innocent, if they sink...oh well. Think about this: if that was your daughter, or friend's daughter, or someone you knew well...how would you feel? I say we castrate these people publicly. While we are at it, I have a solution to cleaning up and fixing the LA schools: it is called the scorched Earth method. Let's go, round up all gangs -- Mexican, black, Asian, white...whatever -- and just put them on an island. We can film it as a reality show as they brutally kill each other while also cleaning up the crime problem. Then, kids who want to learn or want the opportunity to learn can go to school without being afraid of being shot, robbed, coerced into joining a gand; families can feel safer; and we can try and start this over again. Too extreme?
Obama Support
For those who cannot stand the new calls of Nixonian politics being lobbed at Obama, the only way to counteract these in daily conversations is with history. Humans have short memories; Americans have the memories of fruit flies -- 24 hours or less. So, here is a link to an article at Politico to remind us of Bush and Gingrich's actions that were similar to Obama's refusal to meet with Fox News...some ammo for your morning water cooler talk.
Chris Farley and Advertising
I saw the most disturbing thing on sunday while watching football: an ad with Chris Farley doing some routine from a movie he and David Spade was in. The disturbing part? David Spade was sitting on the couch, as he did in the movie, and talking to and about Chris Farley as he was jumping around. Spade acted as if he was still alive and they were literally in the room together. I find this problematic on two levels.
First, Spade was supposedly his best friend. How could he even consider doing this? Second, who the hell gave this company (I have trained myself to block out ads, so I don't even know what it was for) the legal right to use Farley's image? And, I suppose, third, who green lighted this? Using a dead person to sell products is just morally wrong. Business schools, which teach "ethics" that are typically ignored by people under real life situations who are also taught to maximize profit -- often a contradictory goal -- should be ashamed.
First, Spade was supposedly his best friend. How could he even consider doing this? Second, who the hell gave this company (I have trained myself to block out ads, so I don't even know what it was for) the legal right to use Farley's image? And, I suppose, third, who green lighted this? Using a dead person to sell products is just morally wrong. Business schools, which teach "ethics" that are typically ignored by people under real life situations who are also taught to maximize profit -- often a contradictory goal -- should be ashamed.
Your Quote for the Day
An argument fatal to the communist theory, is suggested by the fact, that a desire for property is one of the elements of our nature. - Herbert Spencer
10/26/09
Further Evidence of Adverse Effects Coming From Television
Evidently, putting your children in front of the television is a bad idea...shocking, right? I had told my brother to not purchase the Baby Einstein video because a study demonstrated that children who watch it actually learn less words than their counterparts. Just today, I read Disney is refunding parent's money for purchasing it. (Here and Here).
Other studies are finding more and more links to television watching and decreasing attention spans as they get older. Australia has begun to adopt guidelines suggesting children under the age of 30 months watch little to no tv, as studies are demonstrating poor vocabularies, poor attention spans, and aggressive behavior (Here).
Another study of 3 to 8 year olds found that TV was linked to significantly higher blood pressure in children, regardless of their weight. Ironically, other sedentary behaviors like using the computer were not significantly linked. Furthermore, researchers estimate children see 10,000 or more food ads per year (the average person sees close to 3500 ads per day...not just on TV), which likely promote unhealthy lifestyles and contribute to our youth's obesity problem.
I guess we should all take heed. Reading is good, TV is bad; outdoor activities is good; TV is bad. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize this. It is good that there is increasingly good empirical evidence demonstrating the bad things TV does to children. I suppose anyone with a kid or young people around and have watched them watch TV knows they essentially become retarded...
Other studies are finding more and more links to television watching and decreasing attention spans as they get older. Australia has begun to adopt guidelines suggesting children under the age of 30 months watch little to no tv, as studies are demonstrating poor vocabularies, poor attention spans, and aggressive behavior (Here).
Another study of 3 to 8 year olds found that TV was linked to significantly higher blood pressure in children, regardless of their weight. Ironically, other sedentary behaviors like using the computer were not significantly linked. Furthermore, researchers estimate children see 10,000 or more food ads per year (the average person sees close to 3500 ads per day...not just on TV), which likely promote unhealthy lifestyles and contribute to our youth's obesity problem.
I guess we should all take heed. Reading is good, TV is bad; outdoor activities is good; TV is bad. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize this. It is good that there is increasingly good empirical evidence demonstrating the bad things TV does to children. I suppose anyone with a kid or young people around and have watched them watch TV knows they essentially become retarded...
Slow Day at the Office
I suppose this blogging thing requires vigilance. Today was a slow day: stocks plummeted, Obama produced little new, the Senate predictably said the public option would be out there, I taught two classes, and the baseball world took a deep breath in preparation for the World Series.
Moreover, I am personally digging deep into some work. I have been trying to balance two projects. The first is meant to convert my dissertation into a book, something much more challenging than I had anticipated. And the second is a much larger project that is looking to explain the Axial Age, and apply this general theory case-by-case. This is where I think I may lose some of you, because you might be more interested in my political ideas/harangues, as well as my other random thoughts. But, today, I am going to go sociological on your asses...sorry.
Here is the thing: how do I talk about institutions in a way that is accessible to a larger audience whilst staying true to my sociological audience? Colloquially, we use the word institutions do describe everything: the Presidency, Yale or Harvard university, the handshake, In 'N' Out Burgers, marriage, patriarchy, democracy, capitalism...You get the point. But, when considering this list or whatever else pops into your mind, what exactly is an institution? Clearly it is something enduring; something that we cannot imagine not existing. In sociology, unfortunately, we make the same mistake. But a science strives for precision in its concepts, otherwise it risks ambiguity and problems when seeking explanations. Some of my colleagues don't believe in definitions, or social science for that matter. Choosing to ignore social forces that are unalterable, they opt for critical theories that propose utopian societies that cannot exist because of the simple social forces that are unalterable! Moreover, the obfuscate their arguments with 50-cent and $1 words that make them appear really intelligent, but actually enhance the vagaries of their discourse. Thus, we come to the problem: what is an institution?
This is what I study, essentially: the evolution of human institutions from 10,000 years ago to today. Institutions can be defined as constellations of individual and corporate (group) actors organized around and by universal human concerns and their adaptive satisfaction. In other words, actors -- like people and groups -- become distributed in social space based on their relative access to resources like power, prestige, love, or wealth. An easy example: parents are "vertically" higher in status because of their relative access to important resources in relationship to children; each child, likely based on age criteria, are also distributed differently in social space. But this brief discussion could also be used to define a group like McDonald's, a family, or a Church. What distinguishes an institution is that it consists of a bunch of groups who are oriented towards satisfying some universal human concern. Six institutions appear ubiquitous: kinship, polity, religion, economy, education, and law.
Each institution historically is the physical and symbolic location of a particular concern: kinship-biological/cultural reproduction; polity-defense, resource management, and internal conflict resolution; religion-communication with the supranatural and the moral order; economy-subsistence, both production and distribution; education-knowledge and truth; and law-justice/conflict resolution. These are real institutions. They vary in terms of their autonomy, or how distinct the actors, resources, and rules are in relation to each other. In a hunter/gatherer society, some 10,000 years ago, there were no full-time political actors like a president or king; there were no full-time religious actors, though shamans occasionally existed part-time or as patrons for clients; and there were no lawyers, judges, or courts. As societies grow in size and density, so does the complexity of the society. Conflict resolution and justice, for example, become problematic when there are greater numbers of people, living in denser settlements, and they become ethnically, occupationally, socioeconomically, or religiously heterogeneous. As these concerns become more frequently expressed, legal actors become more distinct from other types of actors. In a modern society like the U.S., we have lawyers, doctors, clergy, politicians, CEOs, teachers/professors, students, mothers/fathers/children, and artists. Each one of these roles are distinct in behaviors, appropriate time and space for which these behaviors are expected or obligated, sanctions for misbehavior, and unique symbolic elements -- that is, doctors wear ________ whereas judges wear _______? The fact that all of you can answer that the same way means that these roles have symbolic meanings distinct from each other.
Am I boring you yet? I hope not, because you might be asking me who cares? Well, sociology first emerged to answer the big question: why do people make the decisions they make and set the goals they set? Or, why do some people choose line of action to achieve a goal whereas someone else may choose a different one? Institutions exist to channel our behavior. It limits the decisions we make, the goals we set, and the lines of action available to us. Someone who derives a lot of their self-worth from being a professor rather than a father/mother or citizen, is more likely to orient their attitudes and actions towards the educational institution. Which means they are going to seek out social circles where their professor identity is likely to be activated; they are likely to understand problems or perceive things through the lens of a professor, even when the problem or event falls outside of their jobs. Another example may help: a judge who derives the majority of their wealth, power, and prestige from their legal role is more likely to make legal decisions based on legal principles vis-a-vis a judge who is less committed. Does this play out in real life? Yes. In very high profile case recently which pitted the Dover (Pennsylvania) School System against some people who felt intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution, we saw an Evangelical judge act counter commonsense. Most people, liberals especially, would be inclined to assume he would rule in favor of his religious values; instead, in his ruling he acknowledged these values, but noted the legal principles precluding him from allowing intelligent design into the classroom. Sociologically, this is relevant because commonsense is often wrong. A theory of institutions allows us to better predict, as well as understand/explain, the behavior of individuals and groups more empirically...
I am done now.
Moreover, I am personally digging deep into some work. I have been trying to balance two projects. The first is meant to convert my dissertation into a book, something much more challenging than I had anticipated. And the second is a much larger project that is looking to explain the Axial Age, and apply this general theory case-by-case. This is where I think I may lose some of you, because you might be more interested in my political ideas/harangues, as well as my other random thoughts. But, today, I am going to go sociological on your asses...sorry.
Here is the thing: how do I talk about institutions in a way that is accessible to a larger audience whilst staying true to my sociological audience? Colloquially, we use the word institutions do describe everything: the Presidency, Yale or Harvard university, the handshake, In 'N' Out Burgers, marriage, patriarchy, democracy, capitalism...You get the point. But, when considering this list or whatever else pops into your mind, what exactly is an institution? Clearly it is something enduring; something that we cannot imagine not existing. In sociology, unfortunately, we make the same mistake. But a science strives for precision in its concepts, otherwise it risks ambiguity and problems when seeking explanations. Some of my colleagues don't believe in definitions, or social science for that matter. Choosing to ignore social forces that are unalterable, they opt for critical theories that propose utopian societies that cannot exist because of the simple social forces that are unalterable! Moreover, the obfuscate their arguments with 50-cent and $1 words that make them appear really intelligent, but actually enhance the vagaries of their discourse. Thus, we come to the problem: what is an institution?
This is what I study, essentially: the evolution of human institutions from 10,000 years ago to today. Institutions can be defined as constellations of individual and corporate (group) actors organized around and by universal human concerns and their adaptive satisfaction. In other words, actors -- like people and groups -- become distributed in social space based on their relative access to resources like power, prestige, love, or wealth. An easy example: parents are "vertically" higher in status because of their relative access to important resources in relationship to children; each child, likely based on age criteria, are also distributed differently in social space. But this brief discussion could also be used to define a group like McDonald's, a family, or a Church. What distinguishes an institution is that it consists of a bunch of groups who are oriented towards satisfying some universal human concern. Six institutions appear ubiquitous: kinship, polity, religion, economy, education, and law.
Each institution historically is the physical and symbolic location of a particular concern: kinship-biological/cultural reproduction; polity-defense, resource management, and internal conflict resolution; religion-communication with the supranatural and the moral order; economy-subsistence, both production and distribution; education-knowledge and truth; and law-justice/conflict resolution. These are real institutions. They vary in terms of their autonomy, or how distinct the actors, resources, and rules are in relation to each other. In a hunter/gatherer society, some 10,000 years ago, there were no full-time political actors like a president or king; there were no full-time religious actors, though shamans occasionally existed part-time or as patrons for clients; and there were no lawyers, judges, or courts. As societies grow in size and density, so does the complexity of the society. Conflict resolution and justice, for example, become problematic when there are greater numbers of people, living in denser settlements, and they become ethnically, occupationally, socioeconomically, or religiously heterogeneous. As these concerns become more frequently expressed, legal actors become more distinct from other types of actors. In a modern society like the U.S., we have lawyers, doctors, clergy, politicians, CEOs, teachers/professors, students, mothers/fathers/children, and artists. Each one of these roles are distinct in behaviors, appropriate time and space for which these behaviors are expected or obligated, sanctions for misbehavior, and unique symbolic elements -- that is, doctors wear ________ whereas judges wear _______? The fact that all of you can answer that the same way means that these roles have symbolic meanings distinct from each other.
Am I boring you yet? I hope not, because you might be asking me who cares? Well, sociology first emerged to answer the big question: why do people make the decisions they make and set the goals they set? Or, why do some people choose line of action to achieve a goal whereas someone else may choose a different one? Institutions exist to channel our behavior. It limits the decisions we make, the goals we set, and the lines of action available to us. Someone who derives a lot of their self-worth from being a professor rather than a father/mother or citizen, is more likely to orient their attitudes and actions towards the educational institution. Which means they are going to seek out social circles where their professor identity is likely to be activated; they are likely to understand problems or perceive things through the lens of a professor, even when the problem or event falls outside of their jobs. Another example may help: a judge who derives the majority of their wealth, power, and prestige from their legal role is more likely to make legal decisions based on legal principles vis-a-vis a judge who is less committed. Does this play out in real life? Yes. In very high profile case recently which pitted the Dover (Pennsylvania) School System against some people who felt intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution, we saw an Evangelical judge act counter commonsense. Most people, liberals especially, would be inclined to assume he would rule in favor of his religious values; instead, in his ruling he acknowledged these values, but noted the legal principles precluding him from allowing intelligent design into the classroom. Sociologically, this is relevant because commonsense is often wrong. A theory of institutions allows us to better predict, as well as understand/explain, the behavior of individuals and groups more empirically...
I am done now.
For Californians, Those Interested in California, or those Interested in Good Journalism
Just read a great article on California in The New Republic addressing California's present and future. It is full of interesting stuff on education and economy, so if this is not your bag avoid it. It is also a long read, though, so be prepared.
Your Quote for the Day
"...[D]emocrats believe that justice implies equality--and so it does, but only for those who are equal, not for everybody. The oligarchs, on the other hand, believe that justice implies inequality--and so it does, but only for those who are unequal, not for everybody. Both sides judge erroneously...because such judgments affect their own interests, and most men are rather bad judges where their own interests are involved...." - Aristotle
10/25/09
Reason #34 Why Jon Stewart is a Good Guy
I was thinking about this old Jon Stewart Crossfire appearance, and decided to find it and post it. If you haven't seen it, please watch...it occurred during the 2004 election and Jon Stewart takes it to Tucker Carlson. If you have seen it, enjoy a stroll down memory lane.
Strange, But True
-A 75-Year Old woman in Saudi Arabia has received 40 lashes, 4 months of imprisionment, and deportation for having two men in her house, one of which was her nephew. (Here)
-In Iowa, a man was arrested after he called another man a zombie and punched him twice. (Here)
-A man in Virginia was busted for being naked...in his own home...alone. (Here)
-Taiwan has a restaurant in which you literally eat whilst sitting on toilet bowls...the list of food is pretty gross too. (Here)
-In Iowa, a man was arrested after he called another man a zombie and punched him twice. (Here)
-A man in Virginia was busted for being naked...in his own home...alone. (Here)
-Taiwan has a restaurant in which you literally eat whilst sitting on toilet bowls...the list of food is pretty gross too. (Here)
Afghanistan
Should Obama send more troops? No. Simply put. My reasons are not the standard set; though I can see the analogies between Vietnam and the current "quagmire," I can also see the differences. I also am not a fully committed pacifist even though I do believe we should try and solve problems sans force whenever possible. I do think that some groups require military force, but only as a last resort.
Here is my reasoning. On the one hand, George Bush diverted his attention nearly three years after committing to Afghanistan, yet continued to "fight" there quite ineffectively. On the other hand, the U.S. is truly at a crossroads of epic proportion, not to unlike the point that Rome was at as a Republic when Caesar and then Augustus transformed it so it could survive another half millennium.
Let's look at the first point. There are no such things as short wars. Admittedly, World War II was five years for the U.S.'s involvement, but in a hundred years, when historical time becomes compressed, WWII will look much more like the continuation of WWI. Indeed, many wars last thirty years despite the typical interregnums between actual fighting. The causes of WWII lie deeply rooted in the resolution of WWI. Vietnam, despite not being defined as a conflict, was also 15 years long or more if you consider the time we were there with soldiers dying. Thus, wars are long. But, it is also rare that one war is shelved or pushed in the periphery to fight another; a strategy Bush chose to pursue for many, many benign and nefarious reasons. The outcome of this strategy has likely lengthened the amount of time we will have to realistically spend in Afghanistan both in terms of fighting and stabilizing. Who is our enemy? It was the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but now it is becoming just Al Qaeda, with some olive branches being reached out to the Taliban. What is our strategy? More troops? Not going to work. Not only did the Russians and British fail before us, but using conventional tactics does not work in a country like Afghanistan where the neighbors, Iran, Pakistan, and the Caucuses are not exactly pro-American or willing to build a wall on their borders. This is bad. If we had remained vigilant in the early stages, a surge may be useful, but because we neglected this front for so long I don't know how it is really worth it.
You might respond by saying we owe it to the Afghani's to do this. We don't owe anyone, except the Iraqi's who did not attack us and whose infrastructure we destroyed in the process of preemption. The Afghani's live in little nucleated villages that function more like chiefdoms than city-states or provinces; chiefdom politics are much different from Americanized/Western politics...translation: better to leave these people to deal with their problems customarily than try to impose some nonsensical system on them.
The second reason should draw attention to the U.S.'s steady decline in hegemony since it lost Vietnam. Our political and economic clout have drastically ebbed, and all that is left is our military power built up during the Cold War and our cultural hegemony. People wanting to buy Levi's jeans, though, does not lend itself to leverage in politico-economic realms. We are a paper tiger, with a big dick. The parallels with Rome are thrown in sharp relief when we consider how they used their military more and more near the end of the Empire's efficacy to subjugate little territories rather than defeat challengers. Short of nuclear war, we could not defeat China without losing a lot of human lives, which means they have leverage. Thus, we fight proxy wars like Rome did to gain resources like oil that the Chinese will need. By owning them, we have economic bargaining chips that seem like good substitutes for military power. But here is the rub: that is exactly what the Chinese want. The more committed we are to foreign incursions, the more resources have to be diverted from the American people to some foreign universe, its population, and its infrastructure. Wars and geopolitical power are eroded when countries spend lots of time stretching their imperialist grasp far from home. Look at the examples: Egypt, after the First Intermediate Period, became an imperialist state stretching as far as Mesopotamia; in Mesopotamia, Sargon's Akkadian dynasty (see a prior post), Hammurabi's Babylon, the Assyrian, neo-Babylonian, and Persian empires all did the same thing. China's dynastic upheavals offer similar examples, as does Greece under Alexander and then later under Athenian rule; Russia during the Cold War. The examples are endless actually. Why?
Stagnation in political expansionism has its costs. Political systems require material resources to sustain their goals, activities, and actors. The best way to secure this is through expansionist policies as the government can become a powerful landholder who can either "lease" the land, sell it outright, or let people use it but tax them. That is revenue. The spoils of war also help prop up the aristocracy who are given things to keep them from revolting against the ruling class. In modern US, this happens all the time. The contracts given to Halliburton, for example, are no different from a king parceling out some land to a noble or landed gentry to pacify them, increase their wealth, and buy their allegiance. Defence contractors are not the same as the aristocracy of feudal times, but they certainly exhibit similar qualities in terms of their relationship with political elite.
I digress, however. The point I am making is fighting these wars and diverting our human and material resources thousands of miles away means that schools, hospitals, and other vital social services will eventually become neglected. In economic crises, like the one we are in right now, the first things we stop funding are schools. Ironically, schools and education are one way to combat the changes in the economic landscape. But, as many founding fathers and Greek philosophers recognized, democracy has a very easy path to despotism and tyranny. When warfare becomes routine or necessary to the political elite, the consolidation of vital resources become exacerbated. Few benefit, other than the modern aristocracy. War produces security fears which are met through the restriction of rights (e.g., the Patriot Act); power increasingly becomes centralized, and soon bad things happen.
I don't think we are going to become autocratic, nor do I think we are going to collapse like Rome...but, we are headed the direction Britain took in the late nineteenth century/early twentieth century, decline. This will be hard for Americans to accept because we like cheap goods and services; we like thinking we are the best. But, a state is like all living things: it grows, blossoms, declines, and decays. The question our generation faces is: do we want to go down with the pedal to the floor or nice and steady? I for one prefer the latter to the former, and advocate what George Washington once advocated...let's avoid unnecessary foreign entanglements because they only lead us down a dark path. War is an ugly business which only profits a few people. Certainly not the pawns on the chess board in Afghanistan.
Here is my reasoning. On the one hand, George Bush diverted his attention nearly three years after committing to Afghanistan, yet continued to "fight" there quite ineffectively. On the other hand, the U.S. is truly at a crossroads of epic proportion, not to unlike the point that Rome was at as a Republic when Caesar and then Augustus transformed it so it could survive another half millennium.
Let's look at the first point. There are no such things as short wars. Admittedly, World War II was five years for the U.S.'s involvement, but in a hundred years, when historical time becomes compressed, WWII will look much more like the continuation of WWI. Indeed, many wars last thirty years despite the typical interregnums between actual fighting. The causes of WWII lie deeply rooted in the resolution of WWI. Vietnam, despite not being defined as a conflict, was also 15 years long or more if you consider the time we were there with soldiers dying. Thus, wars are long. But, it is also rare that one war is shelved or pushed in the periphery to fight another; a strategy Bush chose to pursue for many, many benign and nefarious reasons. The outcome of this strategy has likely lengthened the amount of time we will have to realistically spend in Afghanistan both in terms of fighting and stabilizing. Who is our enemy? It was the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but now it is becoming just Al Qaeda, with some olive branches being reached out to the Taliban. What is our strategy? More troops? Not going to work. Not only did the Russians and British fail before us, but using conventional tactics does not work in a country like Afghanistan where the neighbors, Iran, Pakistan, and the Caucuses are not exactly pro-American or willing to build a wall on their borders. This is bad. If we had remained vigilant in the early stages, a surge may be useful, but because we neglected this front for so long I don't know how it is really worth it.
You might respond by saying we owe it to the Afghani's to do this. We don't owe anyone, except the Iraqi's who did not attack us and whose infrastructure we destroyed in the process of preemption. The Afghani's live in little nucleated villages that function more like chiefdoms than city-states or provinces; chiefdom politics are much different from Americanized/Western politics...translation: better to leave these people to deal with their problems customarily than try to impose some nonsensical system on them.
The second reason should draw attention to the U.S.'s steady decline in hegemony since it lost Vietnam. Our political and economic clout have drastically ebbed, and all that is left is our military power built up during the Cold War and our cultural hegemony. People wanting to buy Levi's jeans, though, does not lend itself to leverage in politico-economic realms. We are a paper tiger, with a big dick. The parallels with Rome are thrown in sharp relief when we consider how they used their military more and more near the end of the Empire's efficacy to subjugate little territories rather than defeat challengers. Short of nuclear war, we could not defeat China without losing a lot of human lives, which means they have leverage. Thus, we fight proxy wars like Rome did to gain resources like oil that the Chinese will need. By owning them, we have economic bargaining chips that seem like good substitutes for military power. But here is the rub: that is exactly what the Chinese want. The more committed we are to foreign incursions, the more resources have to be diverted from the American people to some foreign universe, its population, and its infrastructure. Wars and geopolitical power are eroded when countries spend lots of time stretching their imperialist grasp far from home. Look at the examples: Egypt, after the First Intermediate Period, became an imperialist state stretching as far as Mesopotamia; in Mesopotamia, Sargon's Akkadian dynasty (see a prior post), Hammurabi's Babylon, the Assyrian, neo-Babylonian, and Persian empires all did the same thing. China's dynastic upheavals offer similar examples, as does Greece under Alexander and then later under Athenian rule; Russia during the Cold War. The examples are endless actually. Why?
Stagnation in political expansionism has its costs. Political systems require material resources to sustain their goals, activities, and actors. The best way to secure this is through expansionist policies as the government can become a powerful landholder who can either "lease" the land, sell it outright, or let people use it but tax them. That is revenue. The spoils of war also help prop up the aristocracy who are given things to keep them from revolting against the ruling class. In modern US, this happens all the time. The contracts given to Halliburton, for example, are no different from a king parceling out some land to a noble or landed gentry to pacify them, increase their wealth, and buy their allegiance. Defence contractors are not the same as the aristocracy of feudal times, but they certainly exhibit similar qualities in terms of their relationship with political elite.
I digress, however. The point I am making is fighting these wars and diverting our human and material resources thousands of miles away means that schools, hospitals, and other vital social services will eventually become neglected. In economic crises, like the one we are in right now, the first things we stop funding are schools. Ironically, schools and education are one way to combat the changes in the economic landscape. But, as many founding fathers and Greek philosophers recognized, democracy has a very easy path to despotism and tyranny. When warfare becomes routine or necessary to the political elite, the consolidation of vital resources become exacerbated. Few benefit, other than the modern aristocracy. War produces security fears which are met through the restriction of rights (e.g., the Patriot Act); power increasingly becomes centralized, and soon bad things happen.
I don't think we are going to become autocratic, nor do I think we are going to collapse like Rome...but, we are headed the direction Britain took in the late nineteenth century/early twentieth century, decline. This will be hard for Americans to accept because we like cheap goods and services; we like thinking we are the best. But, a state is like all living things: it grows, blossoms, declines, and decays. The question our generation faces is: do we want to go down with the pedal to the floor or nice and steady? I for one prefer the latter to the former, and advocate what George Washington once advocated...let's avoid unnecessary foreign entanglements because they only lead us down a dark path. War is an ugly business which only profits a few people. Certainly not the pawns on the chess board in Afghanistan.
Your Quote for the Day (Two For One Special)
If you come to a fork in the road, take it. & If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.- Yogi Berra
10/24/09
Fact or Fiction
Found a cool site today called snopes.com that looks to find evidence supporting or refuting urban legends. For example, did Frank Zappa eat shit on stage? Evidently not. It turns out that it is also not true that Mama Cass chocked on a ham sandwich leading to her death; she evidently suffered a heart attack likely caused by her obesity. Another myth that I always thought was true concerned Phil Collins' "In the Air Tonight" which was rumored to be written about a guy who Phil witnessed watch a kid drown to death. Also false.
In the truth department: Sly Stallone's acting debut was in a porn; Led Zepplin did use a mud shark on a willing female...
In the truth department: Sly Stallone's acting debut was in a porn; Led Zepplin did use a mud shark on a willing female...
Random Links for the Day
1. Ironic Link of the Day: India has begun to institute sexual education to its junior/senior high kids. The government is a little wary of this new education. Why is this ironic? Well, India is only the birthplace of the Kama Sutra and Tantric forms of sex meant to reach enlightenment...
2. Sticking with the sex tip, it seems conventional wisdom wins again: sexual satisfaction in women leads to greater levels of happiness in general...amazing...(Here)
3. Further evidence of the impartiality and fierce independence of the Israeli Supreme Court...another example of why democracy is always superior to other "cracies". (Here)
4. For a break from the inanity of modern living, I present to you the Onion. (Here)
2. Sticking with the sex tip, it seems conventional wisdom wins again: sexual satisfaction in women leads to greater levels of happiness in general...amazing...(Here)
3. Further evidence of the impartiality and fierce independence of the Israeli Supreme Court...another example of why democracy is always superior to other "cracies". (Here)
4. For a break from the inanity of modern living, I present to you the Onion. (Here)
History Lesson of the Week
Westerners would instantly recognize the myth of Sargon's birth: his mother was a high priestess (and his father was unknown) who had him in secret. To conceal his birth, she placed him in a basket and sent him upstream where a woman retrieved him and he became a gardener. The story diverges from the Mosaic legend here. For some reason, a king appointed him cupbearer. Subsequently, the king had a dream that Sargon would usurp his throne. It is unclear how he became king, or how he was able to subject other city-states to his rule. But, we know that c. 2334 BCE, he had become emperor of the "four corners of the world."
Sargon's achievements are numerous. For one, he provides future political entrepreneurs a key innovation in the pursuit of legitimacy: he invented a new capital city, Akkad. He built it anew, assigned a local deity to the city whose power was supreme over the entire region, and drew his bureaucrats from their natal homes to live in the new city. He separated the bureaucrats from kinship influence, one way to reduce corruption. Nearly every powerful king since then has chosen a new capital or built a new capital to demonstrate their divine power and control over nature and the people. A second innovation came when he made his daughter Enheduanna, the high priestess for a key god. The reasons behind this political move was to secure a degree of power over the temple, the priests, and control their ability to put his power into check. Obama did something similar to Hillary Clinton.
Upon Sargon's death around 2215 BCE, his son tried to keep the empire together. As is typical, the son fails to a large degree, but Sargon's grandson Naram-Sin does succeed at pulling it back together and expanding it. In a serious power grab, Naram-Sin declares himself a god; as such, the temples, which were literally considered the houses of the gods, belonged to Naram-Sin and the priests were officially under his purview. By the end of his rule, modern day Iran had already begun to revolt, the priests were likely pushing against his rule as well, and Naram-Sin's son Shar-Kali-Sharri survived about 20+ years before the empire brokedown into small, city-states.
Sargon's legacy does not live on today for numerous reasons. Because of this, I chose to highlight his impact this week. His political innovations, origins myth, and tactics survive today. But, his name and legacy are shrouded by historical ignorance. So, Sargon, I salute you.
Lamenting the Lost Art of Comedy
I was considering reviewing Couple's Retreat, which I went to against my better judgment last night. The movie, despite some initial laughs, a good cast, and an interesting premise was predictable, lost its energy by the middle, and was everything I hate about recent comedies. So, instead of a review I offer a nostalgic analysis of the bygone days of good comedy.
You might be asking, what is wrong with the comedy today? Here is the basic answer: the love story between the protagonist and the main lady grow more and more central to the movie as it continues. In other words, the first half is loaded with classic bits, great one-liners, and good physical stuff; the second half becomes increasingly about the idiot overcoming some personality based obstacle and making his love life work. Recent examples include Wedding Crashers (which almost made it to the end, but became a sap story), Road Trip, nearly anything with Ben Stiller (e.g., Along Came Polly), Adventureland, anything with Luke Wilson, and anything with actresses named Kate. My reply: who cares?
The old comedies were great because that is what they were. Plain and simple. Caddyshack. Original screenplay focused heavily on Danny Noonan, the caddy, but with an all-star cast and a great director the movie made the love story a background element that makes very little sense in the context of the big picture. Airplane!? Naked Gun? Both had love stories, but the love stories were actually so insane that they were easily integrated in the surreal nature of both movies. Animal House also had a minor love story, but a dysfunctional one at best. The National Lampoon Vacation series? No love story because Chevy Chase was already married. Mel Brooks flicks? Same thing. In the Young Frankenstein, Gene Wilder's character is down with Teri Garr's, but the movie's plot takes precedence. Here is where it drops off. Adam Sandler flicks, pre The Wedding Singer, were good with the love story not hurting the plot...Austin Powers also succeeded, but the last two were questionable for other reasons. Will Farrell may be the only true comedian left. Anchorman, Talledega Nights, and Step Brothers all stay away from love stories dominating them.
Here is the problem. I don't think comedy and romance can't comingle. But, I believe that mature adult movies serve that genre the best. Sideways or Annie Hall demonstrate this quite clearly. But, I feel that directors and writers don't have enough funny ideas to drive an entire movie, so they resort to building into the first movie and second movie. Of course, in the Hollywood drive to reach bigger sets of demographics it cannot hurt to include women in the audience, but please, please, please. When I want to laugh, I want to laugh all the way through. Old School is awesome become it sustains its energy despite Luke Wilson's attempts at ruining it.
You might be asking, what is wrong with the comedy today? Here is the basic answer: the love story between the protagonist and the main lady grow more and more central to the movie as it continues. In other words, the first half is loaded with classic bits, great one-liners, and good physical stuff; the second half becomes increasingly about the idiot overcoming some personality based obstacle and making his love life work. Recent examples include Wedding Crashers (which almost made it to the end, but became a sap story), Road Trip, nearly anything with Ben Stiller (e.g., Along Came Polly), Adventureland, anything with Luke Wilson, and anything with actresses named Kate. My reply: who cares?
The old comedies were great because that is what they were. Plain and simple. Caddyshack. Original screenplay focused heavily on Danny Noonan, the caddy, but with an all-star cast and a great director the movie made the love story a background element that makes very little sense in the context of the big picture. Airplane!? Naked Gun? Both had love stories, but the love stories were actually so insane that they were easily integrated in the surreal nature of both movies. Animal House also had a minor love story, but a dysfunctional one at best. The National Lampoon Vacation series? No love story because Chevy Chase was already married. Mel Brooks flicks? Same thing. In the Young Frankenstein, Gene Wilder's character is down with Teri Garr's, but the movie's plot takes precedence. Here is where it drops off. Adam Sandler flicks, pre The Wedding Singer, were good with the love story not hurting the plot...Austin Powers also succeeded, but the last two were questionable for other reasons. Will Farrell may be the only true comedian left. Anchorman, Talledega Nights, and Step Brothers all stay away from love stories dominating them.
Here is the problem. I don't think comedy and romance can't comingle. But, I believe that mature adult movies serve that genre the best. Sideways or Annie Hall demonstrate this quite clearly. But, I feel that directors and writers don't have enough funny ideas to drive an entire movie, so they resort to building into the first movie and second movie. Of course, in the Hollywood drive to reach bigger sets of demographics it cannot hurt to include women in the audience, but please, please, please. When I want to laugh, I want to laugh all the way through. Old School is awesome become it sustains its energy despite Luke Wilson's attempts at ruining it.
Your Quote for the Day
An American monkey, after getting drunk on brandy, would never touch it again, and thus is much wiser than most men. - Charles Darwin
10/23/09
CarHenge!!!
+443.jpg)
+471.jpg)
+469.jpg)
Mandatory Civil Service? A Good Idea?
Here me out before passing judgment. In Israel (among other nations), every guy/girl has to be in the army for a certain number of years. Forget forced armed service, and focus instead on two or three years mandatory civil service. The possibilities are limitless. First I will look at how it would work, theoretically, and then look at its benefits.
Every person would have to give service time, rich or poor, to local, state, or national governments. Exams could be administered to better place the person in terms of their aptitudes, skills, and likes/dislikes. A minimum pay scale (a good one) would be established that would actually benefit those who are poor by probably giving them more economic power and freedom; for those making more money than the minimum, they would receive the equivalent pay with a maximum ceiling meant to prevent tax payers being unfairly burdened. Because everyone had to participate, employers would either voluntarily or by law be forced to suspend the persons job and give it back to them at the end of the service, unless the person wanted to change their career and become a full-time public servant. Civil service, of course, can be a wide ranging set of things: local/state/national politics; armed service; engineering; construction of public goods; etc. There would be an age minimum/maximum that would force people to delay it while pursuing an education and a family, but would not allow them to delay it for too long.
Among other things, I think it would be beneficial for a number of reasons. First, by giving one's time and seeing what it is like to participate in local, state-level, or national politics, the individual will get a better feel for how the system works. Second, by getting a better feel s/he will appreciate what s/he has, be more inclined to protect it, and be more sympathetic to others trying to protect it. Third, the complexities of politics would be laid bare to those participating in it, and the tendency to polarize and practice politics of absolutism would more likely give way to politics of responsibility. Fourth, knowing that the person you are dealing with in other settings has given their time and energy, or will be sacrificing this soon will hopefully increase the tendency towards civil discourse. It is a way of creating a bond, forced no doubt, but positive. Furthermore, while 2-3 years sounds like a lot, it would be the best way to give back to a society which provides jobs, wealth, subsistence, entertainment, affection, and the satisfaction of a wide range of other needs. It would be hoped that the rhetoric between the left and the right, between liberal and conservative, and between majority and minorities would give way to a healthier, more fulfilling discussion focused on improvements. Knowing everyone is contributing in similar ways, albeit temporarily, would likely make other social services appear more deserved regardless of one's class position. The rich could not say "why should I give anything to these people, let them earn themselves." Well, they are earning and so are the rich people by giving up a little of their time/energy.
Something has to change before we give in to anger, fear, and the dark side. We can continue to celebrate the Glenn Beck's, Limbaugh's, and Pelosi's, or we can look for true and efficacious ways to reach across the various divides in American civil life. If not, we will only hasten our own destruction which seems inevitable given the nonsense of American media, politics, and the tainted civil sphere...
Every person would have to give service time, rich or poor, to local, state, or national governments. Exams could be administered to better place the person in terms of their aptitudes, skills, and likes/dislikes. A minimum pay scale (a good one) would be established that would actually benefit those who are poor by probably giving them more economic power and freedom; for those making more money than the minimum, they would receive the equivalent pay with a maximum ceiling meant to prevent tax payers being unfairly burdened. Because everyone had to participate, employers would either voluntarily or by law be forced to suspend the persons job and give it back to them at the end of the service, unless the person wanted to change their career and become a full-time public servant. Civil service, of course, can be a wide ranging set of things: local/state/national politics; armed service; engineering; construction of public goods; etc. There would be an age minimum/maximum that would force people to delay it while pursuing an education and a family, but would not allow them to delay it for too long.
Among other things, I think it would be beneficial for a number of reasons. First, by giving one's time and seeing what it is like to participate in local, state-level, or national politics, the individual will get a better feel for how the system works. Second, by getting a better feel s/he will appreciate what s/he has, be more inclined to protect it, and be more sympathetic to others trying to protect it. Third, the complexities of politics would be laid bare to those participating in it, and the tendency to polarize and practice politics of absolutism would more likely give way to politics of responsibility. Fourth, knowing that the person you are dealing with in other settings has given their time and energy, or will be sacrificing this soon will hopefully increase the tendency towards civil discourse. It is a way of creating a bond, forced no doubt, but positive. Furthermore, while 2-3 years sounds like a lot, it would be the best way to give back to a society which provides jobs, wealth, subsistence, entertainment, affection, and the satisfaction of a wide range of other needs. It would be hoped that the rhetoric between the left and the right, between liberal and conservative, and between majority and minorities would give way to a healthier, more fulfilling discussion focused on improvements. Knowing everyone is contributing in similar ways, albeit temporarily, would likely make other social services appear more deserved regardless of one's class position. The rich could not say "why should I give anything to these people, let them earn themselves." Well, they are earning and so are the rich people by giving up a little of their time/energy.
Something has to change before we give in to anger, fear, and the dark side. We can continue to celebrate the Glenn Beck's, Limbaugh's, and Pelosi's, or we can look for true and efficacious ways to reach across the various divides in American civil life. If not, we will only hasten our own destruction which seems inevitable given the nonsense of American media, politics, and the tainted civil sphere...
Top Ten Greatest Comedies Ever...You Must Watch Them All..
1. Caddyshack
2. Monty Python's The Search for the Holy Grail
3. Fletch
4. National Lampoon's Vacation
5. Animal House
6. Old School
7. Anchorman
8. Happy Gilmore
9. Young Frankenstein
10. Sleeper
(Others Receiving Votes: Kentucky Fried Movie; National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation; Blazing Saddles; Billy Madison; 40-Year Old Virgin; Hangover; Bananas; Naked Gun 1 and 2 1/2; Swingers; Love and Death; The History of the World, Part 1; Airplane!; The Life of Brian)
2. Monty Python's The Search for the Holy Grail
3. Fletch
4. National Lampoon's Vacation
5. Animal House
6. Old School
7. Anchorman
8. Happy Gilmore
9. Young Frankenstein
10. Sleeper
(Others Receiving Votes: Kentucky Fried Movie; National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation; Blazing Saddles; Billy Madison; 40-Year Old Virgin; Hangover; Bananas; Naked Gun 1 and 2 1/2; Swingers; Love and Death; The History of the World, Part 1; Airplane!; The Life of Brian)
Your Quote of the Day
Not the torturer will scare me, nor the body's final fall, nor the barrels of death's rifles, nor the shadows on the wall, nor the night when to the ground the last dim star of pain, is hurled but the blind indifference of a merciless, unfeeling world. - Roger Waters
10/22/09
Further Adventures in Statistical Nonsense...Or How I Learned to Ignore Most Americans
As John Adams once said, "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right...and a desire to know." This sentiment has been echoed time and time again. Thomas Jefferson remarked, "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them by education."
Thus, we come to our data; data, about which, Robert M. Hutchins would have this to say: "The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."
*Only 53% of Americans know that Congress has sole power to declare war, with close to 40% thinking it is the President's right
*Only 27% of Americans know that the First Amendment bars the U.S. Government from making any religion the state religion
*56% of Americans knew Paula Abdul was a judge on American Idol compared to 21% recognizing a famous line belonging to Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address
*24% of College Graduates knew what the Lincoln-Douglass debates regarded
*Only 64% of these same graduates could name the three branches of government
*Over 70% of respondents failed the exam, getting less than 60% right; and the average student received a 47%
*Not on the survey, but I routinely ask my students who is third in line if the president and vice president died...I would say 3-6 people out of every 130 students know the answer to this question. Remember Alexander Haig?
Thus in ignorance, George Bernard Shaw's words ring truest: "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."
Thus, we come to our data; data, about which, Robert M. Hutchins would have this to say: "The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."
*Only 53% of Americans know that Congress has sole power to declare war, with close to 40% thinking it is the President's right
*Only 27% of Americans know that the First Amendment bars the U.S. Government from making any religion the state religion
*56% of Americans knew Paula Abdul was a judge on American Idol compared to 21% recognizing a famous line belonging to Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address
*24% of College Graduates knew what the Lincoln-Douglass debates regarded
*Only 64% of these same graduates could name the three branches of government
*Over 70% of respondents failed the exam, getting less than 60% right; and the average student received a 47%
*Not on the survey, but I routinely ask my students who is third in line if the president and vice president died...I would say 3-6 people out of every 130 students know the answer to this question. Remember Alexander Haig?
Thus in ignorance, George Bernard Shaw's words ring truest: "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."
Your Quote of the Day
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. - Hunter S. Thompson
10/21/09
Why Obama Has Me Worried
Here is the best case scenario: Mr. Obama, as he did often during the campaign, is patiently outwaiting his opponents. There is some plausibility to this scenario. He has been called "ceberal" as both a slight and a compliment, but it has often been earned because of his deliberate nature. But, if one were to take a machete to the media portrayal that he and his campaign have been loathe to challenge, what we really find is a very dangerous, Machievillian politician who plays a game of manuever. He does not come straight at his opponents until (a) he is ready and (b) they have put themselves in a weakened position. He realized Clinton's head-on health care strategy would be disasterous so he chose to let the legislature produce a bill, ultimately forcing them to compromise and make the bill not "his" in direct terms of ownership, but rather a bill under his stewardship...further enhancing his status. In fact, every legislation he has championed has followed this strategy. So, why am I nervous?
First, my analysis may be totally off and I am reading into his actions my own hopes and desires. Second, being president and running for president are not the same thing. Third, by definition his strategy of "listening" to all sides carries serious potential pitfalls. Republicans, conservatives, and authoritarians share in common the distinct ability to hierarchicalize power and decision-making in ways that come across efficaciously. Of course, this intensified consolidation and centralization carries the seeds of its eventual demise, but it does work. Obama, democrats/liberals, and any others unknowingly following Habermas' theory of rational discourse invite dissension, conflict, and tension as means to producing more powerful syntheses. The old dialectic. The risk, of course, is confusion, uncooperative factioning, and a weakened argument due to a lack or ambiguous center. This phenomenon is exacerbated by a 24-Hour news cycle and an internet rife with misinformation, angry Tea "Baggers," and the immediate replies opponents can launch.
I imagine health care will get passed by Christmas and Chanukkah, but at what cost and consequence? Will the Democrats pass this, raise the ire of the electorate and be run out town? Or, will their final show of cooperative effort be rewarded with minimal attrition? The mid-terms are a long way away and my short life has allowed me to internalize the fact that one month in political talk is a life time (think about how long ago the August Tea rebellion seems two months later). On the bright side, if Obama only succeeds in getting this legislation and the environmental legislation passed and then loses his congressional majority and eventually becomes a one-termer, I think we can say his presidency was a success. Certainly not what many hoped or envisioned; had you asked me, however, if we would have close-to-universal health care in my lifetime, I would have likely replied no. Now, if only we could just pull out of these wars....
First, my analysis may be totally off and I am reading into his actions my own hopes and desires. Second, being president and running for president are not the same thing. Third, by definition his strategy of "listening" to all sides carries serious potential pitfalls. Republicans, conservatives, and authoritarians share in common the distinct ability to hierarchicalize power and decision-making in ways that come across efficaciously. Of course, this intensified consolidation and centralization carries the seeds of its eventual demise, but it does work. Obama, democrats/liberals, and any others unknowingly following Habermas' theory of rational discourse invite dissension, conflict, and tension as means to producing more powerful syntheses. The old dialectic. The risk, of course, is confusion, uncooperative factioning, and a weakened argument due to a lack or ambiguous center. This phenomenon is exacerbated by a 24-Hour news cycle and an internet rife with misinformation, angry Tea "Baggers," and the immediate replies opponents can launch.
I imagine health care will get passed by Christmas and Chanukkah, but at what cost and consequence? Will the Democrats pass this, raise the ire of the electorate and be run out town? Or, will their final show of cooperative effort be rewarded with minimal attrition? The mid-terms are a long way away and my short life has allowed me to internalize the fact that one month in political talk is a life time (think about how long ago the August Tea rebellion seems two months later). On the bright side, if Obama only succeeds in getting this legislation and the environmental legislation passed and then loses his congressional majority and eventually becomes a one-termer, I think we can say his presidency was a success. Certainly not what many hoped or envisioned; had you asked me, however, if we would have close-to-universal health care in my lifetime, I would have likely replied no. Now, if only we could just pull out of these wars....
One Man's Movie Review: Interiors
In an effort to balance my harsh critiques and biting sarcasm, I feel it necessary to present positive things as well. Thus, I turn my attention to an old Woody Allen movie, Interiors (1978). It is not a funny movie, nor is it a quick, up-tempo movie. It is slow, deliberate, and emotionally intense. Unfortunately, it came after the success of Annie Hall and Manhattan, and was considered unwatchable by many critics; it was subsequently lost to the dustbins of history. However, I give this movie two thumbs up and feel it is a necessary and important piece in his career. Dramatically better than his 80's dramas, but lacking the comedic bite that made the audience feel better about the tragic outcomes of many of his characters. Nothing is resolved (and I will not spoil anything of the movie).
It is a patient movie that really is a character study revealing the true depths of sadness, depression, and negative affect surrounding one particular family, but really addresses the general malaise found underneath the surface of most families. The three daughters reflect three different coping stategies for the harsh realities of familial life and for the way people reconcile the process of growing up and becoming adults like their parents. Our parents' failures reflect our own. Indeed, Allen gives us the most powerful window into the human condition in Interiors because he holds nothing back. Choosing a large, nearly empty house on Long Island speaks volumes to the emptiness of external appearances. For the characters, that house was filled with good and bad memories, but its exterior had not survived the elements. One can imagine how the one character whose exterior was vibrant and intense was treated by the director and his characters. If you do not like slow movies, sad movies, or movies that require some attention...don't watch it. Otherwise, watch an underrated masterpiece.
It is a patient movie that really is a character study revealing the true depths of sadness, depression, and negative affect surrounding one particular family, but really addresses the general malaise found underneath the surface of most families. The three daughters reflect three different coping stategies for the harsh realities of familial life and for the way people reconcile the process of growing up and becoming adults like their parents. Our parents' failures reflect our own. Indeed, Allen gives us the most powerful window into the human condition in Interiors because he holds nothing back. Choosing a large, nearly empty house on Long Island speaks volumes to the emptiness of external appearances. For the characters, that house was filled with good and bad memories, but its exterior had not survived the elements. One can imagine how the one character whose exterior was vibrant and intense was treated by the director and his characters. If you do not like slow movies, sad movies, or movies that require some attention...don't watch it. Otherwise, watch an underrated masterpiece.
Priceless
Explicitly wishing for the death and destruction of the entire Israeli people and state. Cost: Minor Global Indignation and Chest Beating
Firing Rockets Across Sovereign Borders and Targeting Children. Cost: Two Sentences in a U.N. Report
Occupying a relatively non-violent people and exiling their religious leader. Cost: Some liberal Westerners throwing a concert and putting bumperstickers on their car...but, no UN Human Rights' Resolutions (and having a seat, ironically, on the council)
Having a vibrant female sex slave industry, oppressing the majority of your citizens, and hoarding your oil money in the hands of a tiny, tiny minority. Cost: Nothing...also having a seat on the Human Right Council.
Instituting racist policies meant to starve the 600,000 people you hate. Cost: Nothing...have you ever even heard of Zimbabwe?
Having the only democratic nation in a region filled with Despotisms, having an Arab-Israeli serve on a Supreme Court that is radically independent of the Legislature, and holding regular, fair, legal, and transparent elections regularly. Cost: Being one of the only countries condemned by said UN Human Rights Council...fifteen times in two years (while Sudan, who clearly is in the midst of genocidal warfare and has killed millions more than every Israeli-Arab conflict ever will, has never been condemned); being the only country who has an annual review of it human rights....the resolution was sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and passed in 2006 29-12 (and five absentions); receiving 249 UN resolutions concerning your activities since 2000 (while the Second Congo War, which killed 4 million plus only constituted 56 UN resolutions); and, finally, in its first year of existence, the UN Human Rights council passed 7 resolutions, all of which were against Israel and has been the antagonist in 9 of the last 22 (07-08). Really?
Having Israel around to blame your own failures in leadership and harsh human rights' records? Cost: Priceless
You mean to tell me that when Syria killed 23,000 Palestinians in the '80s, or when Jordan massacred hundreds of Palestinians, or when these countries rountinely oppress their own people, the UN Human Rights Council or General Assembly has nothing better to do? For instance, in 1991 Syrian representatives at the Commission on Human Rights accused Jews of using the blood of Christian children in their rituals; the PLO representative in Geneva, Nabil Ramlani, used the same forum to accuse Israel of injecting 300 Palestinian children with the AIDS virus. In 1984, during the UN Human Rights Commission conference on religious tolerance, Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al-Dawalibi said that "The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity." I suppose when you are busy killing your own people slowly and oppressing your women, it is good to have a Jewish country in your general vicinity...I'm just saying...
Firing Rockets Across Sovereign Borders and Targeting Children. Cost: Two Sentences in a U.N. Report
Occupying a relatively non-violent people and exiling their religious leader. Cost: Some liberal Westerners throwing a concert and putting bumperstickers on their car...but, no UN Human Rights' Resolutions (and having a seat, ironically, on the council)
Having a vibrant female sex slave industry, oppressing the majority of your citizens, and hoarding your oil money in the hands of a tiny, tiny minority. Cost: Nothing...also having a seat on the Human Right Council.
Instituting racist policies meant to starve the 600,000 people you hate. Cost: Nothing...have you ever even heard of Zimbabwe?
Having the only democratic nation in a region filled with Despotisms, having an Arab-Israeli serve on a Supreme Court that is radically independent of the Legislature, and holding regular, fair, legal, and transparent elections regularly. Cost: Being one of the only countries condemned by said UN Human Rights Council...fifteen times in two years (while Sudan, who clearly is in the midst of genocidal warfare and has killed millions more than every Israeli-Arab conflict ever will, has never been condemned); being the only country who has an annual review of it human rights....the resolution was sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and passed in 2006 29-12 (and five absentions); receiving 249 UN resolutions concerning your activities since 2000 (while the Second Congo War, which killed 4 million plus only constituted 56 UN resolutions); and, finally, in its first year of existence, the UN Human Rights council passed 7 resolutions, all of which were against Israel and has been the antagonist in 9 of the last 22 (07-08). Really?
Having Israel around to blame your own failures in leadership and harsh human rights' records? Cost: Priceless
You mean to tell me that when Syria killed 23,000 Palestinians in the '80s, or when Jordan massacred hundreds of Palestinians, or when these countries rountinely oppress their own people, the UN Human Rights Council or General Assembly has nothing better to do? For instance, in 1991 Syrian representatives at the Commission on Human Rights accused Jews of using the blood of Christian children in their rituals; the PLO representative in Geneva, Nabil Ramlani, used the same forum to accuse Israel of injecting 300 Palestinian children with the AIDS virus. In 1984, during the UN Human Rights Commission conference on religious tolerance, Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al-Dawalibi said that "The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity." I suppose when you are busy killing your own people slowly and oppressing your women, it is good to have a Jewish country in your general vicinity...I'm just saying...
Your Quote for the Day
The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny; flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary government; and the glory of God to the temporal interest of the clergy. - David Hume
10/20/09
The Problem with Statistics...
I was reading CNN's ticker, as is customary during my morning caffeine injection, and I remembered a post I always wanted to write, but I had no blog to write it in. Today, CNN noted that 9 in 10 Americans think Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons. My first thought, and I am not lying, was this: 9 in 10 of my college students do not even know where Iran is. In fact, in 2006, a study conducted by National Geographic found that 37% of Americans between the ages of 18-24 could find Iraq on a map, even after 3 years of war! If that sounds bad, check this out: 50% of those same kids couldn't find New York...and the media has the nerve to report what Americans believe we should do, or think we know!?!
I realize the internet has given new life to news programs whose appeal had been lost because it required (a) some degree of attention and (b) some degree of historical consciousness because it allows the "everyman" to participate in the reporting of news. A sort of democratization of the media, if you will. But, I have two questions: who are these people and are their opinions really worth trusting. I blame, to a certain extent, post-modernism for this shift from respected authorities who have spent their lives trying to learn a subject to wikipedia-driven, morons who are distrustful of any intellectualism and feel their opinion matters as much. I've got news for you: polling Americans and then using those polls as evidence for anything beyond the general ignorance of the people or the lack of intellectual rigor in American society is nothing but a slippery slope. People are stupid.
Nothing has changed since the first city-states formed some 5,000 years ago in Mesopotamia, China, and Egypt. The vast majority of people not only don't have time to learn about stuff beyond pop culture, but they clearly do not want to learn anything more because it would take too much time. Besides, as Huxley envisioned the world, it is often better to just be a Gamma or a Delta and revel in your base desires and sensationalism. Thinking, reading, and critically analyzing only hurts your brain. Now, don't get me wrong. The plebians are an important element of any society. They grow food, they clean schools, they become pornstars, and they do other manual labor. They are the backbone of society; they are to be respected and taken care of (universal health care anyone?). Giving them their opinions equal weight to anyone else, however, is beyond their scope of contributions to society. I wouldn't hire a clown to fix a leak in the john, would you?
I realize the internet has given new life to news programs whose appeal had been lost because it required (a) some degree of attention and (b) some degree of historical consciousness because it allows the "everyman" to participate in the reporting of news. A sort of democratization of the media, if you will. But, I have two questions: who are these people and are their opinions really worth trusting. I blame, to a certain extent, post-modernism for this shift from respected authorities who have spent their lives trying to learn a subject to wikipedia-driven, morons who are distrustful of any intellectualism and feel their opinion matters as much. I've got news for you: polling Americans and then using those polls as evidence for anything beyond the general ignorance of the people or the lack of intellectual rigor in American society is nothing but a slippery slope. People are stupid.
Nothing has changed since the first city-states formed some 5,000 years ago in Mesopotamia, China, and Egypt. The vast majority of people not only don't have time to learn about stuff beyond pop culture, but they clearly do not want to learn anything more because it would take too much time. Besides, as Huxley envisioned the world, it is often better to just be a Gamma or a Delta and revel in your base desires and sensationalism. Thinking, reading, and critically analyzing only hurts your brain. Now, don't get me wrong. The plebians are an important element of any society. They grow food, they clean schools, they become pornstars, and they do other manual labor. They are the backbone of society; they are to be respected and taken care of (universal health care anyone?). Giving them their opinions equal weight to anyone else, however, is beyond their scope of contributions to society. I wouldn't hire a clown to fix a leak in the john, would you?
Invention of the Week: Cunieform Writing
The Veil of Truth
Question: Why is it always Republicans who say insane shit, then retract it by saying things like "I didn't know this was racist," "I didn't mean it in that way," or just plain, "oops"? I realize Democrats are morons too, but the crazy things that dribble out of the mouths of Republicans is alarming and belies a much larger malignancy in a significant proportion of human beings.
I am all for free speech, and encourage Republicans to keep saying nonsensical things. It provides me with more ammunition for discussions in my class, as well as positive feelings about my own conscience, which appears sanctimonious in the face of their diarrhea of the mouth.
I am all for free speech, and encourage Republicans to keep saying nonsensical things. It provides me with more ammunition for discussions in my class, as well as positive feelings about my own conscience, which appears sanctimonious in the face of their diarrhea of the mouth.
Your Quote for the Day
The secret of staying young is to live honestly, eat slowly, and lie about your age. - Lucille Ball
10/19/09
An Open Letter
To The Person In the Fast Lane Going Slow,
Thank you for going 5 miles under the speed in the passing/fast lane. When I am driving home or driving somewhere else, there is nothing more that I enjoy than seeing open road while not being able to make use of it. Perhaps you haven't seen the signs that are posted everywhere saying, "Slower Traffic Keep to the Right." Or perhaps you just do not care about other people on the highway. When people swerve out from behind you, speed up, and cut you off they are sending you a message as clear as the middle finger. Unfortunately, you will unlikely heed their message.
Do you want to know what I find most ironic about you? You will drive in the far right lane until you are 1/10 of a mile away from your exit. You will then proceed to erratically change up to three lanes without checking your mirrors, using your turn signal, or paying attention to anyone else. You do realize they post signs telling when you are a mile or two away from your exit, right? You are the only reason I like police officers, even if they are never around when you are acting like a tool.
Sincerely,
The Guy Getting Road Rage
Thank you for going 5 miles under the speed in the passing/fast lane. When I am driving home or driving somewhere else, there is nothing more that I enjoy than seeing open road while not being able to make use of it. Perhaps you haven't seen the signs that are posted everywhere saying, "Slower Traffic Keep to the Right." Or perhaps you just do not care about other people on the highway. When people swerve out from behind you, speed up, and cut you off they are sending you a message as clear as the middle finger. Unfortunately, you will unlikely heed their message.
Do you want to know what I find most ironic about you? You will drive in the far right lane until you are 1/10 of a mile away from your exit. You will then proceed to erratically change up to three lanes without checking your mirrors, using your turn signal, or paying attention to anyone else. You do realize they post signs telling when you are a mile or two away from your exit, right? You are the only reason I like police officers, even if they are never around when you are acting like a tool.
Sincerely,
The Guy Getting Road Rage
Your Quote of the Day
Reality seems valueless by comparison with the dreams of fevered imaginations; reality is therefore abandoned - Emile Durkheim
One Man's Movie Review: Law Abiding Citizen
Disclaimer: I hate Hollywood action movies, especially those featuring Gerard Butler and Jamie Foxx.
This movie epitomized everything wrong with Hollywood. A movie with a moral premise, an ethical precept it wished to convey; two "superstar" actors to help deliver audiences to preach said message; the complete and utter bastardization of the moral premise for three reasons. First, practically speaking, a movie like this sans excess blood and explosions is like a suddenly impotent 22 year old in the face of his first threesome. Second, Butler and Foxx are two beautiful and untalented to stoop to the level of depth necessary to convince the audience. Third, and endemic to Hollywood and its general politics, is the fact that morals are a convenient truth that look better at the beginning of the movie but become blurrier and blurrier as it goes on (Spoiler Alert).
Background: Two guys randomly(?) break into Butler's house. One of the rapes/kills his wife and ten(?) year old daughter. Jaime Foxx is an asst. DA who is trying to keep his 96% conviction rate up so as to become the future Philadelphia DA. The killer agrees to rat his friend out in return for Murder 3 (5 years in prison). Foxx's mentor tells him he can win the case in trial, but Foxx seeks the death penalty for one and the Murder 3 for the other. Butler does not understand and gets depressed/angry. Movie fast forwards ten years.
Was Butler a good guy or bad guy? The movie made him out to be the good guy, seeking substantive "justice" in the face of what our legal system dispenses as formal and procedural justice. Of course, he does randomly dispose of his cellmate in order to be transferred to solitary. But, I suppose this fit his character because the cellmate was likely "evil" and therefore a sacrificial lamb. But, by the end, Butler who was this brilliant assassin who was known for devising cool ways to kill people while being far away, made so many mistakes that it gradually became less and less realistic (not too mention that he bought land near the prison and spent ten years digging a hole from said property to each solitary cell and building doors in anticipation of his lockup and cell murder). The thing was, he was trying to teach us a lesson that justice cannot be considered justice if it is solely reliant on formal principles. Indeed, formal principles give the best chance of the law being applied equally across cases, but it is far from the Solomonic justice that human's and their neuroanatomy seem to demand. But, at the end, when Foxx (without his first name, doesn't his last name seem pornstar-esque?) foils his last plan to kill the mayor of Philly and a whole slew of Justice Dept. people, the lesson Foxx was supposed to learn...the lesson Butler spared him above all others (he killed everyone else remotely connected to his case) was...you might want to sit down for this: "I no longer make deals with murderers." Seriously!?! Are you kidding me? You just killed eight people, told Foxx you wanted the lesson to be "biblical," and now that Foxx understands this simple lesson you are content. As those flames slowly engulfed his beautiful face and the music/slo-mo highlighted your cheekbones, the audience realized it had been duped. Thanks Hollywood for giving us another example of your pseudo-social messages wrapped in nonsense.
This movie epitomized everything wrong with Hollywood. A movie with a moral premise, an ethical precept it wished to convey; two "superstar" actors to help deliver audiences to preach said message; the complete and utter bastardization of the moral premise for three reasons. First, practically speaking, a movie like this sans excess blood and explosions is like a suddenly impotent 22 year old in the face of his first threesome. Second, Butler and Foxx are two beautiful and untalented to stoop to the level of depth necessary to convince the audience. Third, and endemic to Hollywood and its general politics, is the fact that morals are a convenient truth that look better at the beginning of the movie but become blurrier and blurrier as it goes on (Spoiler Alert).
Background: Two guys randomly(?) break into Butler's house. One of the rapes/kills his wife and ten(?) year old daughter. Jaime Foxx is an asst. DA who is trying to keep his 96% conviction rate up so as to become the future Philadelphia DA. The killer agrees to rat his friend out in return for Murder 3 (5 years in prison). Foxx's mentor tells him he can win the case in trial, but Foxx seeks the death penalty for one and the Murder 3 for the other. Butler does not understand and gets depressed/angry. Movie fast forwards ten years.
Was Butler a good guy or bad guy? The movie made him out to be the good guy, seeking substantive "justice" in the face of what our legal system dispenses as formal and procedural justice. Of course, he does randomly dispose of his cellmate in order to be transferred to solitary. But, I suppose this fit his character because the cellmate was likely "evil" and therefore a sacrificial lamb. But, by the end, Butler who was this brilliant assassin who was known for devising cool ways to kill people while being far away, made so many mistakes that it gradually became less and less realistic (not too mention that he bought land near the prison and spent ten years digging a hole from said property to each solitary cell and building doors in anticipation of his lockup and cell murder). The thing was, he was trying to teach us a lesson that justice cannot be considered justice if it is solely reliant on formal principles. Indeed, formal principles give the best chance of the law being applied equally across cases, but it is far from the Solomonic justice that human's and their neuroanatomy seem to demand. But, at the end, when Foxx (without his first name, doesn't his last name seem pornstar-esque?) foils his last plan to kill the mayor of Philly and a whole slew of Justice Dept. people, the lesson Foxx was supposed to learn...the lesson Butler spared him above all others (he killed everyone else remotely connected to his case) was...you might want to sit down for this: "I no longer make deals with murderers." Seriously!?! Are you kidding me? You just killed eight people, told Foxx you wanted the lesson to be "biblical," and now that Foxx understands this simple lesson you are content. As those flames slowly engulfed his beautiful face and the music/slo-mo highlighted your cheekbones, the audience realized it had been duped. Thanks Hollywood for giving us another example of your pseudo-social messages wrapped in nonsense.
10/18/09
I Smell Bullshit
I plan on making this a regular feature. There is nothing more maddingly frustrating then seeing or reading some talking head, politician, or other public figure say or write something completely insane. Unfortunately, the media rarely calls bullshit because it is a broken institution. Sarah Palin's vice presidency, for instance, is a perfect moment. There is no question in my mind that she is insane (and I am not a dem or repub, just a concerned citizen). The media should have immediately called Bullshit! on her, but they didn't. Some things are just so clear.
Here is my first victim of Bullshit!: To the entire so-called "Tea Party," I call Bullshit! The media shouldn't even give you the time of day. Most likely, your entire group and people who sympathize with your goals and means to achieving them, probably represents a tiny sliver of the US. Here is the deal, you are stupid people whose lack of understanding of history, politics, and reality are only rivaled by your average waistsize. The original Tea Party was composed of a bunch of colonists rejecting a government that did not give them representation. You have representation...they are called your representatives. If you have a problem talk to them. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans support the things you are actually against, and that is why your representatives are not likely to listen to closely to you. But, I would like to thank you anyway for making our civil sphere more volatile, less rational, and even more self-serving.
Here is my first victim of Bullshit!: To the entire so-called "Tea Party," I call Bullshit! The media shouldn't even give you the time of day. Most likely, your entire group and people who sympathize with your goals and means to achieving them, probably represents a tiny sliver of the US. Here is the deal, you are stupid people whose lack of understanding of history, politics, and reality are only rivaled by your average waistsize. The original Tea Party was composed of a bunch of colonists rejecting a government that did not give them representation. You have representation...they are called your representatives. If you have a problem talk to them. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans support the things you are actually against, and that is why your representatives are not likely to listen to closely to you. But, I would like to thank you anyway for making our civil sphere more volatile, less rational, and even more self-serving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)