March 25, 2008
Snopes (run by spammers?)
I'm constantly getting e-mails from friends and family that are... annoying to say the least. I think I've finally gotten to the point in life where I can resist the urge to reply, instead simply deleting and moving on. Today, however, I deleted but couldn't move on. I needed to vent and you are my victim. Sorry.
It's just that I can't believe the utter lack of skepticism that otherwise intelligent people have when they read that Applebee's will give you $50 for forwarding a chain letter (one of the e-mails I received this morning), or that Mr. Rogers was a trained sniper, or that entering your PIN in reverse will call the police.
It's not like it's difficult to find out whether these things are hoaxes or not. I knew the chain letter this morning was BS, but assuming I hadn't, all I would have had to do was type "Applebee's $50 certificate" into Google for an instant answer. This is virtually as fast as hitting the "forward to everyone in my freaking address book to clog their inbox" button in your e-mail client.
Someone should write an e-mail plugin that ties in with a database like Snopes, Urban Legends @ About.com, Break The Chain, Truth or Fiction, VMyths, scambusters.org, hoaxbusters... well, you get the picture. There are dozens of these sites. I think the extraordinarily credulous and extraordinarily lazy might benefit from an automatic scan (or a manual "check veracity" button - but maybe they're too lazy for that?) telling them whether or not they should forward e-mails that will clutter inboxes and annoy curmudgeonly skeptics like me.
Anyway.
I have to mention this classic xkcd strip (click to enlarge):
Speaking of xkcd, here are a couple of other classics...
25 Mar 12:38 | Link | Category: Humor, Opinion & Thoughts, Technology & Computing
March 12, 2008
Payday Lenders
In the last five or ten years, I've noticed check cashing and payday loan centers popping up everywhere. Their astronomical fees and interest rates amount to usury, and it's quite outrageous that they exist -- and seem to be flourishing. (Their annual interest rates are often in the hundreds of percents. In a finance class I took, we calculated one rate at more than 700% annually.)
A recent WSJ article reports that "lenders are increasingly targeting recipients of Social Security and other government benefits, including disability and veteran's benefits." According to the article, data show that "many payday lenders are clustered around government-subsidized housing for seniors and the disabled." Check out the graphics in the article to see the clustering.
Oddly, payday loan centers also seem to be more prevalent in conservative Christian states. A geographer at Cal State Northridge (the one mentioned in the WSJ article) and a law professor at the University of Utah recently published a paper showing a correlation between payday lenders and the Bible Belt and Mormon Mountain West:
"Our research showed that the correlation between payday lenders and the political power of conservative Christians was stronger than the correlation between payday lenders and the proportion of a population living below the poverty line," Peterson explained.
Why so little concern about regulating payday lenders on the part of these politicians, given the admonition against usury in the Bible? Here is the authors' explanation:
"When the Christian Right allied itself with conservative Wall Street business interests in the 1980s and early ‘90s, consumer protection law was placed to the side as an inconvenient sticking point. The laws allowing an astonishing number of triple-digit-interest-rate lenders throughout most of the Christian South and Mormon West are a legacy of that political alliance."
They're probably right. But I wonder if part of the explanation is deeper than an "inconvenient sticking point" in an alliance stretching back only twenty-five or thirty years. While the hot button issues (abortion, gay rights, etc.) for evangelicals and fundamentalists are part of the so-called Fourth Great Awakening, the doctrinal outlook of many groups -- like Baptists, Methodists, and especially Adventists and Mormons -- is largely rooted in the Second Great Awakening. In an article for the latest edition of Reason, Ronald Bailey writes the following about the Second Great Awakening:
These revivalists completely rejected Calvinist predestination in favor of free moral agency, arguing that anyone could be saved by God's grace if he struggled fiercely against sin. Evil arose from an individual's conscious choice, not, as Calvin had claimed, from his innate depravity. Since everyone was free to choose good or evil, the revivalists located the source of social problems in individuals. "Lurking in this view," Fogel writes, "was the belief that poverty was the wages of sin."
From this viewpoint, then, the source of the problem is not money changers but rather the weak, sinning individuals who patronize them. I suspect that's part of the explanation for the disinterest of at least some conservative Christian lawmakers in addressing the problem of payday lenders.
As to whether they're right or wrong to have such a lack of concern for desperate, ignorant (or 'just plain stupid') folks who turn to payday loan centers... it's something that could framed in modern political ideology and argued at great length. I'm simply pointing out that it's a reflection of a fairly long history of American religious and political thought concerning individualism and the source of social ills.
(For related fun, see Check into Cash into Tequila, where someone counted the steps between check cashing locations and liquor stores.)
12 Mar 0:09 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Politics
February 10, 2008
Mitt's Concession Suspension speech
As you might've guessed, Mitt Romney's departure from the GOP race has been a big story around these parts. Since I have an inexplicable habit of watching the local news, I've seen his concession speech a number of times. Every time, I get very irritated and have to resist the urge to curse at the television set. (Thanks to Jon Stewart, I know I'm not alone. See below...)
The speech, like so many Romney appearances and speeches, was peppered with trite GOP slogans and buzzwords (so much so that it makes me wonder if the "suspension" of his campaign was not Romney's idea as much as it was a stern request by party officials). I think this might be a reflection of his greatest failure as a presidential candidate, and one of the principal reasons his campaign never garnered majority support. As one of the columnists in the conservative, church-owned (i.e., usually pro-Romney) local newspaper opined, the "real" Mitt never showed up in the campaign. Regardless of whether or not this is completely true, there is no doubt Romney painted himself as "the conservative candidate" when his record clearly indicates he is (or was) not. From the same column:
In the end, in his never-ending quest to get votes and be all things to all people, he allowed Rush and Sean, those fading virulent talk-show superstars, to paint him as an arch-conservative when anyone who watched him win the governorship of Massachusetts — not to mention who watched him get along famously with Salt Lake's liberal mayor Rocky Anderson in the Olympic years — knows he's no conservative. He's the absolute king of the moderates. He proved that during our Olympics, building bridges, bringing people together, working within the system, considering all positions, creating solutions.
I'm not sure why Romney chose the campaign path he did. I suspect he and his staff simply calculated that it was the most viable path to the presidency. (It might have been, if not for Mike Huckabee.) But it's problematic when a candidate's stump speech rhetoric clashes so starkly with his record.
Like Romney's so-called JFK-speech (which I complained about in December), the 'campaign suspension' speech hit upon all the same tired themes we've been hearing from social conservatives and talk radio goons for years now. (The Democrats want to surrender to terrorists; pornography, welfare, and gay marriage are ruining the country - not disastrous wars, political corruption, woefully inadequate education, or dependence on foreign oil; etc.) Come on, Romney... you must be smarter than that. If you're not, you certainly do not deserve to be the Republican nominee, now or ever.
Watch Jon Stewart's brilliant analysis of the speech:
(Update: Fixed YouTube link. When they take it down again, try the official one. The followup story about what gay marriage has done to Massachusetts is pretty funny, too.)
10 Feb 21:05 | Link | Category: Humor, Opinion & Thoughts, Politics, Video
January 21, 2008
May your dreams be realized
From FAIR: The Martin Luther King You Don't See on TV (via Cynical-C).
I have quoted some of the text below:
But after passage of civil rights acts in 1964 and 1965, King began challenging the nation's fundamental priorities. He maintained that civil rights laws were empty without "human rights" — including economic rights. For people too poor to eat at a restaurant or afford a decent home, King said, anti-discrimination laws were hollow.
. . .
By 1967, King had also become the country's most prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and a staunch critic of overall U.S. foreign policy, which he deemed militaristic. In his "Beyond Vietnam" speech delivered at New York's Riverside Church on April 4, 1967 — a year to the day before he was murdered — King called the United States "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
From Vietnam to South Africa to Latin America, King said, the U.S. was "on the wrong side of a world revolution." King questioned "our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America," and asked why the U.S. was suppressing revolutions "of the shirtless and barefoot people" in the Third World, instead of supporting them.
In foreign policy, King also offered an economic critique, complaining about "capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries."
You haven't heard the "Beyond Vietnam" speech on network news retrospectives, but national media heard it loud and clear back in 1967 — and loudly denounced it. Time magazine called it "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi." The Washington Post patronized that "King has diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people."
In his last months, King was organizing the most militant project of his life: the Poor People's Campaign. He crisscrossed the country to assemble "a multiracial army of the poor" that would descend on Washington — engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience at the Capitol, if need be — until Congress enacted a poor people's bill of rights. Reader's Digest warned of an "insurrection."
King's economic bill of rights called for massive government jobs programs to rebuild America's cities. He saw a crying need to confront a Congress that had demonstrated its "hostility to the poor" — appropriating "military funds with alacrity and generosity," but providing "poverty funds with miserliness."
21 Jan 21:51 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts
January 2, 2008
America's Vainest City?
Forbes looked at the country's 50 most populous cities and compared the number of plastic surgeons per 100,000 people. The city topping the list? Salt Lake City.
Part of the explanation may be that the University of Utah's medical school offers residency in plastic & reconstructive surgery. However, Salt Lake residents also spend more on cosmetics, hair coloring, skin care, and the like than residents of other cities. Residents of Oklahoma City (a similarly sized city), for example, spent about $175,000 on hair coloring vs. $2.2 million for Salt Lake City, and $400,000 on skin care products vs. $4.4 million for Salt Lake City. So it seems the medical school alone doesn't explain the high rating. (I would like to know if they studied just Salt Lake City rather than the whole metro area, though I suspect the results might be similar either way. It would also be interesting to see income information. People with more disposable income will obviously have more money for cosmetics and surgery. Also, surgeons per 100k does not equal procedures per 100k.)
What's interesting to me is that this result is considered "shocking" -- because, I presume, of Utah's (well-deserved) conservative reputation. But I think they're missing two important points.
First, 'conservatives' (whatever that word might imply) are no less obsessed with manufacturing the perfect look than anyone else. For example: Watch Fox News for more than a few seconds, and you will be bombarded by bimbos female anchors with fake hair and breasts. This exercise should quickly disabuse you of the notion that only those 'crazy Hollywood liberals' think women should look fake and overtly sexual. (For more fun, take the Fox News Anchor or Porn Star Quiz). People in every society care about good skin and a figure that conforms to notions of attractiveness. Plastic surgery was once restricted to the elite because they had lots of money, needed to look young for career and/or status, and were perhaps more willing to break taboos. Now cosmetic procedures are cheap and ubiquitous -- why should we be surprised that they're prevalent in conservative Salt Lake City?
Perhaps there's still this sort of perception: "But wait, isn't Salt Lake City full of dowdy old-time Mormon housewives who wear homemade dresses and spend their days sewing and canning fruit?" This is, of course, untrue. I would argue that there are aspects of Mormon culture that, in a modern setting, actually lend themselves to "vanity". One is that the social organization and practices increase the pool of neighborly acquaintances and bolster gossip networks, fanning normal status competition ("keeping up with the Joneses" writ large). Another is the patriarchal power structure, which leads - as one should expect - to the exhortation that women should bear as many children as possible. (To put it bluntly, a woman's value is measured primarily by the number of children she has.) This increases pressure on a woman before she has children and also means she needs extra help looking young and attractive after having so many.
I would need more detailed information to really convince myself that Mormon cultural characteristics drive the results of the ranking, but there is one way in which I'm sure they are a primary factor, at least indirectly. It's the second point I think the "shocked" folks at Forbes are overlooking: Salt Lake City is full of young people.
In the old days it was mostly old, affluent women who got plastic surgery - they needed to look young to maintain attractiveness and status, and they could afford it. But with cosmetic procedures dropping in price and losing their taboo (indeed, becoming the "in" look), it should be absolutely no surprise for the young to latch onto them. And Utah's a relatively young place. Lots of young people means lots of young adults (i.e., adults of mating age, ~18-45) who have a strong desire to be considered sexually attractive. According to the U.S. Census, the median age in the U.S. (2000) is 35.3. The median age in Utah is only 27.1 and Utah Valley, just south of Salt Lake City and the most predominantly conservative, Mormon county in the nation, has a median age of just 23.3. (Oklahoma City, mentioned above, has a median age of 34. I also looked up the median age for all of the top ten 'vainest' cities on the Forbest list. Salt Lake was the youngest.)
I know of many young (and 'conservative' and 'religious') women around here who have had cosmetic procedures (and not for a cleft lip or a droopy eye). From all appearances, it's a booming business. My parents receive an advertising circular (ironically and annoyingly titled Hometown Values) that features some sort of cosmetic procedure on practically every other page, including cosmetic dentistry, teeth whitening, laser hair removal, tanning, permanent makeup, pedicures, day spas, hair salons, surgical weight loss procedures, cosmetic surgeons, and more. I chuckle every time I see it in their stack of mail (and then grumble about the goddamned craze over the word "values" that people still haven't gotten over).
So, is Salt Lake City really 'vain'? Maybe. It wouldn't surprise me in the least. And if it is, I suspect much of the reason is those crazy Hollywood liberals young people and middle-aged mothers who lost their shape when they had children.
02 Jan 18:36 | Link | Category: Human/Primate Evolution & Behavior, Opinion & Thoughts
December 7, 2007
Governor, you're no Jack Kennedy
Anyone notice how different Romney's "JFK speech" was from JFK's?
So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.
...
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute
Freedom requires religion
...
Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
...
We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season
...
Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.
It seems pretty obvious that the speech was simply an attempt to pander appeal to conservative Christians who are flocking to crazy ol' Huckabee.
(See also: Video of JFK's speech, John Nichols op-ed and that classic moment from the '88 debates.)
07 Dec 15:39 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Politics
December 1, 2007
Pope: Atheists behind greatest cruelty
An item about Pope Benedict XVI caught my eye at the J-Walk Blog. In a 76 page encyclical letter, Ratzinger lays into atheism, saying that it has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice.
The document is erudite and eloquent, and I share the concern about technology, wealth, and ideology (though I would add religious ideology). But like so many scholarly books and writings, it feels like a studiously crafted bit of clever but essentially empty wordplay. And it confirms that the Roman Catholic Church still hasn't come to grips with any of the intellectual and political changes that have occurred over the last 300+ years. (Of course, it took them until 1992 to make up with Galileo.) So they fall back on the pain and suffering caused by Marxist regimes.
Contrary to popular opinion, Marxist political ideology is not synonymous with atheism. And the argument that atheists are evil and single-handedly responsible for all the horrors of the 20th century is really tired. (I might expect it from a second-rate high school debate squad, but surely the Vatican can do better.)
I certainly suspect it's easier for Ratzinger to point the papal finger at the atrocities committed in the name of Soviet nationalism than at the atrocities committed in the name of German and Italian nationalism, in which the Catholic Church and its adherents were totally complicit.
Really, though, there's not much point in spending too much time attacking or defending any political ideology or religion. It seems they've all caused plenty of pain and suffering. (Actually, the best defense can be mounted for atheism since it's not a political ideology or a religion, but I'll leave that to others.)
When it comes down to it, I think ideology - religious and political - is essentially icing on the cake. If you're really interested in the ultimate roots of human behavior, biology provides the most satisfying answers. Human tendencies toward ingroup bias and coalitional behavior, for example, make more sense from an evolutionary perspective than any other. And as far as sweeping statements about what group of people causes the most violence, warfare, and "cruelty", here's one that actually holds: Across human societies in both time and space, it's men.
Why? Look into it and you'll find it's not because they're all atheists, Marxists, or even Catholics.
01 Dec 14:45 | Link | Category: Human/Primate Evolution & Behavior, Opinion & Thoughts, Science
June 5, 2007
"I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book"
No playlist for May.
Don't panic.
(There'll be one for June. Maybe even a week or two early.)
Silence will now resume.
But first, a lovely quote I just saw as I was perusing news stories...
"If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it." - Mike Huckabee, candidate for President of the United States. (Video clip here or below.)
I guess I should be glad that I'm "welcome to do it." Listen, Mike... I hate to break it to you, but not only are you a descendant of primates (pl.), you are a primate. Your children, your wife, your constituents... they're all primates, as dirty and scary as that might sound to you. And if your god made you in his image, he must be a primate too. I mean, seriously. Have you looked in a mirror lately??? (We all know "even the president of the United States sometimes must have to stand naked.") Maybe he's never been to a zoo.
And the quote in the title of this post is also absurd. (As if the essence of what we are matters only in some inconsequential eighth-grade science book, but not to arguably the most powerful man primate on the planet.)
Fools.
05 Jun 21:32 | Link | Category: Human/Primate Evolution & Behavior, Opinion & Thoughts, Politics, Science, Video
September 8, 2006
Katherine Harris, part of today's American revolution
One of my favorite topics for blog posts is the idiocy of individuals running for or holding public office. This is obviously a topic for which there is no shortage of subjects. But one person who keeps popping up on the radar again and again is Katherine Harris. (You may remember her as the Florida Secretary of State - and co-chair of W's Florida election campaign - during the Bush vs. Gore fiasco.)
Last year, I mentioned how she supported spending the state's money on investigating how something akin to Kabbalah Water could help prevent citrus canker from destroying trees. It didn't work. (Incidentally, Madonna is lobbying to save the world through the use of Kabbalah Water as a treatment for nuclear waste. You never know... maybe it works better on nuclear waste than citrus canker?)
Anyway, Harris continues to amuse. She's been in the news quite a bit lately (mostly for her mismanaged, fiasco-ridden campaign). What I most enjoyed were the nuggets of wisdom found in her interview with the Florida Baptist Witness. Like this:
The Bible says we are to be salt and light. And salt and light means not just in the church and not just as a teacher or as a pastor or a banker or a lawyer, but in government and we have to have elected officials in government and we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers.
Hmmm... Lots to say about that, but mostly I'm just dying to know how God is choosing our rulers. And if He is, why are our rulers doing such a terrible job? And is He choosing rulers of other countries? Anyway, moving on... let's look at some of her other comments from that interview...
On rights for homosexuals:
Civil rights have to do with individual rights and I don’t think they apply to the gay issues. I have not supported gay marriage and I do not support any civil rights actions with regard to homosexuality.
Gays are not individuals. Duh. Are they even humans? (Sarcasm aside, check out this clip of Jon Stewart and Bill "The Gambler" Bennett. I could quibble with a couple of Stewart's arguments, but I love the parts where he explains to Bill that gay people are 'part of the human condition' and that divorce is not caused because 50% end in 'gayness'.)
When asked if abortion is "a moral evil":
Yes. Because it’s a life, it’s a life. Life begins at conception.
Of all the good and bad arguments against abortion, "life begins at conception" is possibly the worst. What about the countless numbers of human zygotes and embryos (and fetuses) that are spontaneously aborted every day by women's bodies? Is that a moral evil? Think of all the lost souls! (Also, I suspect Katherine eats meat, as I do. What does she think of the 'morality' of killing and devouring a fully-developed, sentient mammal?) I don't want to delve into the issue of abortion because there's so much to say. But it's just worth pointing out that her particular argument is one of the silliest.
Since she has already told us that church-state separation is a "lie," and that our rule of law derives from the 10 Commandments, her views on electing Christian candidates should come as no surprise:
If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin.
Wow. Perhaps it should be added that if you are electing her, then in essence you don't give a shit about the long-forgotten notion that U.S. senators should have some ability to think. And apparently Republican voters in Florida don't give a shit (or the competition was even worse): Harris easily wins GOP Senate primary in Florida.
Interestingly, "state GOP leaders tried to talk Harris out of running for the Senate, citing fears she would lose to Nelson while spurring a large November turnout by Democrats, which would hurt the entire Republican ticket."
An interesting article about her is up at Salon.com.
Katherine Harris, thank you for amusing (and enraging) me today.
08 Sep 0:20 | Link | Category: Current Events, Opinion & Thoughts
August 2, 2006
Are you happy?
Back in December of '04, I mentioned an article from Wired in which Daniel H. Pink argued that along with metrics such as GDP, happiness should be considered an economic indicator. It was an interesting argument. (Read it if you haven't.)
Recently, I've noticed a couple of related stories. One was from last week, about research that created the "first world map of happiness." According to this study, Denmark is the happiest country in the world. The U.S. came in 23rd, Britain 41st, and France 62nd. The D.R. of Congo, Zimbabwe, and Burundi were at the bottom of the list.
However, according to another national happiness index (by Nef), Denmark is 99 and the U.S. is 150th. The tiny south Pacific island nation of Vanuatu rates highest in that list. (The Nef study is interesting because it takes consumption of planetary resources into account and shows that "well-being [does] not have to be linked to high levels of consumption.")
It's not really surprising that there are such widely divergent views of how to calculate so-called 'gross national happiness'. (This quote is telling: "He admitted collecting data based on well-being was not an exact science, but said the measures used were very reliable in predicting health and welfare outcomes.")
How do you define happiness? (Or worse, quantify it?) Ask anyone what happiness is, and you'll usually find that they don't have a very simple answer. Plus, answers will vary from person to person and culture to culture. (It usually involves comfort, health, love, family, environment, etc., but the relative importance of each seems to vary quite a bit.)
Despite the difficulty (or impossibility?) of measuring happiness, I think "how happy are we?" is a crucial question for humanity, and this sort of inquiry seems useful and important. When you look around at.... well, everything we do, all the frenetic economic activity, all the resource extraction and energy consumption, all the airplanes and barbie dolls and newspapers and pets and electronics and grocery stores and pipelines and multinational corporate mergers and media conglomerates and refrigerators and junk mail... it only makes sense to ask what the end purpose is or should be (or if indeed there should even be an end purpose in mind, but that's a topic for another day).
Humans are in the interesting position of feeling like we should be driving for something more than mere survival & reproduction. Much like the answer to what happiness is, I'm sure the answer to what the end purpose of our activities should be varies greatly from individual to individual, culture to culture. But I think most people would say that part of the purpose for all of this hectic high-energy human activity should be happiness... whatever it is. My general view is that humanity should have at least three major long-term ambitions and goals. The primary one should still be simple survival, which is far trickier than it sounds. If we can manage to stick around, we should aim for increased happiness and increased understanding of ourselves and our universe. Survival, happiness, knowledge, wisdom. No doubt it's difficult to balance all those things and find an equation in which they all fit correctly. With some care, and perhaps some thoughtful tradeoffs, the hope is that ultimately they can all go hand in hand.
02 Aug 0:45 | Link | Category: Current Events, Opinion & Thoughts, Science
June 16, 2006
Lynn A. Westmoreland
Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, a bold and visionary leader from Georgia, has worked hard for his constituents. While he apparently has yet to introduce any original legislation during his term, the press releases on his web site show he has been busy... for example, voting for ANWR drilling and opposing legislation to designate Bill Clinton's birthplace a national historic site.
Before entering the U.S. Congress (in January '05), he introduced "common sense" legislation in Georgia to place the Ten Commandments in government buildings in the state. If you use the search feature on his web site, you will see that he has continued to co-sponsor and support various related bills in the U.S. House.
Stephen Colbert recently interviewed Mr. Westmoreland for his compelling 'Better Know a District' series. Westmoreland, a self-professed devout Christian, eloquently defended his case.... oh, wait.... actually, he could not even cite the Ten Commandments, instead stumbling around and badly paraphrasing three of the easiest ones.
Check out the very funny interview here: QuickTime (9 MB) or Windows Media (12.3 MB).
All I can say is... this is why I love Stephen Colbert. We all know that plenty of members of Congress (from both sides of the aisle) are incompetent and boneheaded. But at least when Colbert exposes it, he diverts me from anger and depression by making me laugh a bit.
Update: John points out that Westmoreland co-sponsored a bill in Georgia calling on the state assembly to commend Mel Gibson on 'The Passion of the Christ'.
It's nice to know our wise legislators are hard at work solving the serious and vexing problems facing our nation.
16 Jun 22:18 | Link | Category: Current Events, Humor, Opinion & Thoughts, Video
June 12, 2006
Last week's best quote
From June 8th's Late Show with David Letterman monologue (listen here) comes this:
Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was the world's most unhinged lunatic. He's dead now, so that moves Ann Coulter up to first place.
Right on, Dave. When I worked at the library, patrons checking in/out books by right-wing pundits and demagogues like Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly et al. seemed to have an urge to share their excitement over the material. (I always had to smile approvingly because it was my job to be nice to everyone, even the spaced-out woman with five screaming children whose appearance made the entire staff run to the back room and hide in terror.)
I read a few of the books to see what the fuss was about. Most caused lots of eye-rolling and head-shaking but were still readable. Coulter's, though, were nearly unreadable, leaving me incredulous and disturbed. I think the best policy with someone like that is to ignore they exist. I've generally adhered to that policy (only two mentions in the history of this blog, one to point out the awesome Ann Coulter action figure), but Dave's joke was so on target I had to share it.
Update:I'm giving in to bad desires and continuing to mention Coulter when I know I shouldn't, but for an example of why I consider her an ugly figurehead of stupidity and ignorance, read this interview to see how she claims knowledge about subjects in which she clearly knows nothing, blaming everything on her favorite expletive liberals (and what exactly she means by that generic term I'm not sure even she knows):
Cybercast News Service: Most people consider evolution to be a branch of science, or at least a scientific theory, yet in "Godless," you refer to it as a "cult" and a "fetish." What is your basis for calling it that?
Ann Coulter: There is no evidence that it is true. The fossil record contradicts it, and it is a theory that cannot be disproved. Whatever happens is said to "prove" evolution. This is the very definition of a pseudoscience, like astrology. (Of course, I would say that. I'm just a Capricorn, aren't I?)
No evidence?! Contradicted by the fossil record?! It can't be disproved?! Amazing. What the hell is she smoking? All I can say is that it must be interesting to experience the marvelous beauty and diversity of life with your eyes closed and your head up your ass, Ann. (Sorry. It's very hard for me to see someone so ignorantly dismiss the theory that holds all of biology together, shapes life in such seemingly miraculous ways, and is supported by such a wealth of evidence.) She goes on to describe evolution as "the official state religion" used by "the liberal clergy to force small school children to believe in a discredited mystery religion from the 19th century -- evolution -- in order to prepare them to believe in the nonexistence of God, one of the main goals of the American public education system."
I've listened to raving madmen on the street who are not only far more entertaining, but far more insightful than Ms. Coulter. Why are they homeless and she makes millions? There's the real shame.
In an e-mail, a friend compared Ann Coulter to an Internet troll ("someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion"). I thought that was the perfect description.
Unfortunately, it seems no one really knows or agrees on the best strategy for dealing with trolls. Meaning we'll probably be stuck with the lovely Ann Coulter seeking attention for years to come. Bleh. Let's hope I don't revisit this topic for a very long while.
12 Jun 23:21 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Science
May 3, 2006
Colbert's D.C. Truthiness
If you haven't seen the video of Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, you can grab a copy from Crooks and Liars.
People far and wide have been weighing in on this. I happen to be a huge fan of Colbert's brand of satire and irony, especially since he adopted the right-wing talk show pundit persona. So I basically agreed with Salon's Michael Scherer, who said:
It was Colbert's crowning moment. His imitation of the quintessential GOP talking head -- Bill O'Reilly meets Scott McClellan -- uncovered the inner workings of the ever-cheapening discourse that passes for political debate.
I also liked what Joan Walsh had to say:
Colbert's deadly performance did more than reveal, with devastating clarity, how Bush's well-oiled myth machine works. It exposed the mainstream press' pathetic collusion with an administration that has treated it -- and the truth -- with contempt from the moment it took office. Intimidated, coddled, fearful of violating propriety, the press corps that for years dutifully repeated Bush talking points was stunned and horrified when someone dared to reveal that the media emperor had no clothes. Colbert refused to play his dutiful, toothless part in the White House correspondents dinner -- an incestuous, backslapping ritual that should be retired.
Update: Video of Bush's reaction to Colbert's Press Secretary audition sketch (interesting between about 2:50 and 3:30)
03 May 23:35 | Link | Category: Humor, Opinion & Thoughts, Video
April 22, 2006
The Decider, or How I Beat Rolling Stone to the Punch
More than two weeks ago, I wrote:
I think I've mentioned Helen Thomas before... back in 2002 I wrote about her statement that Bush was the "worst president ever". I agreed somewhat, but wondered how he really compared to others traditionally considered poor presidents (Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Ulysses Grant, etc.). But the more time George W. Bush spends in office, the more I start to think she might've been on to something back then.
This week, the latest issue of Rolling Stone showed up with this cover story: The Worst President in History?
The article is fairly interesting, so take a few minutes to read it. I was unaware that a survey of 415 historians in 2004 (back in much better days) found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Twelve percent - the same amount who called Bush a success - said he was the worst president in history.
One thing I picked up on was the fact that many of the other traditionally low-ranked presidents (like Buchanan, A. Johnson, and Hoover) only served one term. What sort of failure on the part of the U.S. citizenry and U.S. political system led to GWB being elected twice (even if barely)?
22 Apr 16:07 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts
April 8, 2006
Little Boxes
Back in the 60s, Malvina Reynolds wrote a fine little ditty called Little Boxes about conformity and how we are put in (and how we put ourselves in) 'little boxes' (made of ticky-tacky), both physically and mentally.
If you haven't heard the song, here's a copy of her singing it (MP3, 2 MB).
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky tacky
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same,
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
And the people in the houses
All went to the university
Where they were put in boxes
And they came out all the same
And there's doctors and lawyers
And business executives
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
And they all play on the golf course
And drink their martinis dry
And they all have pretty children
And the children go to school,
And the children go to summer camp
And then to the university
Where they are put in boxes
And they come out all the same.
And the boys go into business
And marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same,
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
The message is just as appropriate a critique of contemporary American culture as it was of mainstream 50s/60s culture. But more than that, I think it highlights the human tendency - even drive - to conform and fit in. Any social grouping requires certain rules and norms to function, so it's not surprising. Even people in 'nonconformist' subcultures and 'counter'-cultures often end up little boxes like so many others. There are some spoofs of the song that point this out. Like the Beatnik Version:
And they're all nonconformists
And they all dress just the same
And they go to the university
And they major in philosophy
And they're all deep thinkers
And they all think just the same
And they all read their Sartre
And they all read their Kierkegard
And they all talk about it
And they all sound just the same
Or this one I found on Google:
And the women all wear over-alls
And grow organic vegetables
And their jewelry comes from Pakistan
And it all looks just the same
Still, many times when I drive past a new modern-day Levittown gobbling up the countryside or hear people talking about their little year-by-year formula for a happy, successful life I often start humming "Little Boxes".
I'm also quite fond of this additional verse:
Politicians, politicians
Politicans making promises
Politicians, politicians
Politicians all the same
There's republicans and there's democrats
And there's liberals and conservatives
And they're all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all sound just the same
08 Apr 17:09 | Link | Category: Music, Opinion & Thoughts
April 7, 2006
Should we talk about the government? (Hi... hi, hi... hi)
Ah... politics. So much to talk about. I thought about writing a long series of paragraphs on Tom DeLay, but I think Studs Terkel summed it up pretty well the other night when he said that DeLay had "made the best career move of his life -- quit public life and became a private servant, which he's been all his life."
There was also the UAE ports fiasco, but I think Jeff Greenfield summed it up pretty well by pointing to the fact that it had more to do with xenophobia than safety. Read With port deal dead, do you feel safer?
So maybe I'll move on to George W. Bush. Where to begin... The recent developments in the Plame/Libby case are pretty amusing. I doubt it will lead to anything (Salon.com's Tim Grieve writes more about what the documents do and do not prove), but it's yet another item to add to the steaming pile of all things rotten with this administration. (Maybe we should limit presidents to one term to avoid the second-term scandals that inevitably pop up.) It's amazing that this administration has been able to get away with so much corrupt, negligent, and potentially criminal behavior without anyone (except Russ Feingold) calling for any sort of acknowledgement or accountability. People were (rightfully) upset when the Clinton administration got away with things, but this administration makes the Clinton folks look like a bunch of silly lightweights.
Last month, I remember looking at a blog where the author asked readers to come up with a list of every 'idiotic' thing President Bush has done in the last five years. I've lost the link, but a good example is an outdated list of 100 mistakes from May 2004. Needless to say, there's now much more to add to the list.
Ah well. At least people seem to be reaching the breaking point with Bush & Co. If you missed the guy at the town hall meeting the other day, here's part of the transcript (you can see a QuickTime video clip here):
Q: You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my own behalf. You are --
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not your favorite guy. Go ahead. (Laughter and applause.) Go on, what's your question?
Q: Okay, I don't have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that I -- in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate, and --
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: No, wait a sec -- let him speak.
Q And I would hope -- I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself. And I also want to say I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I'm saying to you right now. That is part of what this country is about.
THE PRESIDENT: It is, yes. (Applause.)
Q And I know that this doesn't come welcome to most of the people in this room, but I do appreciate that.
Helen Thomas was sent thousands of flowers after grilling the president at a press conference a few weeks ago. (Oddly, the campaign to send the flowers was started by a woman who lives in a suburb of Salt Lake City. Go, red states!) I think I've mentioned Helen Thomas before... back in 2002 I wrote about her statement that Bush was the "worst president ever". I agreed somewhat, but wondered how he really compared to others traditionally considered poor presidents (Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Ulysses Grant, etc.). But the more time George W. Bush spends in office, the more I start to think she might've been on to something back then.
But fear not. The Bush dynasty will roll on. Check out George W.'s nephew, Pierce, being interviewed on the Today Show. I actually agree with him somewhat, but... wow. Georgetown has (or rather, had) some really sharp students. I'm sure he got in based on his academic merits. (Please please please don't follow in your uncle's footsteps, Pierce. Y'knowhatI'msayin?)
And finally, a page to supplement the always entertaining Complete Bushisms: Keep up-to-date on your Bushisms with Fresh Dubya from DubyaSpeak.com.
Now that I've surely pissed off at least a few of you, my job is done so I think I'll go see a movie.
07 Apr 18:18 | Link | Category: Current Events, Opinion & Thoughts
Should we talk about the weather? (Hi... hi, hi)
Today, it's 60° F and sunny. Yesterday, we got slammed by biggest spring storm in more than thirty years. This isn't terribly unusual... springtime in Utah is often an adventure in extremes.
But it seems like everyone I talk to thinks the weather is increasingly baffling. Even the old-timers who have seen it all. Are we actually beginning to experience the symptoms of global warming as climates begin to shift? Or are we just using global warming as a convenient way to explain weather we don't like?
I first started gobbling up information on global warming about eight years ago, after reading two essays by Carl Sagan entitled "Ambush: The Warming of the World" and "Escape from Ambush". (You can find copies in his final book, Billions & Billions.) It didn't take much digging to convince me of the reality and ramifications of increasing global temperature.
More than ten years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests there is a discernible human influence on climate." (Even without all the evidence that has piled up in the last ten years, scientists in 1995 stated that there was a 90 - 95 percent chance the observed warming was not caused by natural climactic variability.)
A few weeks ago, Time Magazine published a cover story about global warming that was... well, old news to anyone who has done even cursory research into global warming. The reactions to this "news" item were pretty interesting. George F. Will, for example, wrote an article blaming "big crusading journalism" for calculating to produce anxiety among Americans. In it, he recalls how scientists and media in the 60s and 70s warned of the 'coming ice age', essentially arguing that we should dismiss their current warnings because they're just chicken littles trying to scare us. He mentions a one degree temperature rise, but conveniently fails to mention so much else (for example, the fact that at the current rate that Earth's temperature is rising, by 2100 it will probably be 4 degrees warmer than it is now, with the Arctic at least as warm as it was 130,000 years ago).
I don't think it's a case of the media simply manipulating and frightening people. The fact is that large-scale climate change is very serious business and any sane person should be a little frightened by the uncertainty of it. The global mean temperature is changing faster than at any time since we started this whole civilization business. (Ask an anthropologist or historian for examples of climactic/environmental change ripping a society apart at the seams and you'll get a laundry list of examples.) The world's poorest will be hit first and hardest, but global climate change will affect all humans and a great variety of other life (arguably all life - ask any biologist about how climate shapes life). Remember, the difference between an ice age and an interglacial interval is only 3° - 6° C.
There's no question that the mean global temperature is steadily rising. To me, the key uncertainty is how resilient global climate systems are. In other words, is there enough negative feedback to balance positive feedback? The Time article mentions an example of positive feedback:
One of the reasons the loss of the planet's ice cover is accelerating is that as the poles' bright white surface disappears it changes the relationship of the Earth and the sun. Polar ice is so reflective that 90 percent of the sunlight that strikes it simply bounces back into space, taking its energy with it. Ocean water does just the opposite, absorbing 90 percent of the light and heat it receives, meaning that each mile of ice that melts vanishes faster than the mile that preceded it.
There's also negative feedback. For example, an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere might cause plants to grow faster and intake more CO2, reducing severity of the greenhouse effect. Another example would be that as the planet heats up, more water will evaporate, forming more clouds which in turn reflect sunlight and help keep things cool.
There's incredible complexity, so making predictions of what will happen is extremely tricky business. (If you want to contribute to the climate prediction effort, check out this site.) But I think the inescapable point is that things are changing, and they seem to be changing rapidly. As Sagan points out in his essay:
The faster the climate is changing, the more difficult it is for whatever homeostatic systems there are to catch up and stabilize. I wonder if we're not more likely to miss the unpleasant feedbacks than comforting ones. We're not smart enough to predict everything. That's certainly clear. I think it's unlikely that the sum of what we're too ignorant to figure out will save us. Maybe it will. But would we want to be our lives on it?
Anyway. I'm rambling. I started out wondering if the odd weather everyone is noticing is real or imagined. I still don't know. But I do know that global warming increases the chances of having bad weather. All computer models show that global warming is accompanied by increases in bad weather (drought inland, flooding near the coasts, hotter/colder weather locally, etc.). We humans like to think we're smart and resilient, and I suppose we sometimes are. But we depend on the stability of our planet's environment and we haven't done a very good job of paying attention to it.
The most unsettling thing of all is that politicians and corporations are the only ones who will be able to affect truly significant change. I wonder how long it will take and how bad it will have to get before they start to even think about it. Meanwhile, the polar bears are disappearing, the Caribbean coral continues to die, and weird things are happening with phytoplankton. (What happens when you mess with the base of the food chain?)
07 Apr 12:00 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Science
February 1, 2006
Who IS reading in America?
(I promise this will be the last post about literacy.)
We've already established that a good chunk of college graduates are "illiterate." Is this yet another sign that Americans are reading less and less?
I don't know that I have much insight. I can say from my time working in a public library that the fluffy stuff is what gets checked out... but it's probably always been that way. (This reminds me of the time a young man was checking out a John Steinbeck novel. I was having a brief conversation with him about it, when another clerk walked by and seemed flabbergasted that the guy was reading it for fun. He smiled and said, "Well, Dan Brown's not for everyone, I guess." Damn, I felt like hugging that guy, since I had checked out about fifty thousand copies of The Da Vinci Code in the previous hour.)
What does it mean when high-achieving college students are reading less proficiently than their counterparts a generation ago? Are we slowly becoming a nation of non-readers?
This isn't the first time I've seen a red flag raised. Ten years ago Lewis Lapham heralded the death of literature in a published letter to his nephew (himself an aspiring writer) in Harper's magazine. I wondered then, as I do now: Could this be true?
Schurmann points out that he's "always found literacy and literature outside the mainstream and in the private corners and cracks of society. Below Manhattan, in the city's subway system you can find more readers of classical and contemporary literature than you can in all the city's libraries." He concludes that "it's society's outcasts who will continue to treasure and reproduce literature."
I have no answers for the Department of Education. I'm not sure if a "proficient reading level" is even that important for students in higher education. To Mr. Lapham, however, I would say that literature seems to come from the dysfunctional edges of culture and society.
(When he writes about Hemingway and Wilde and Flannery O'Connor, it reminds me of a fantastic Nick Cave song, There She Goes, My Beautiful World.)
It's an interesting take, and I think he makes an excellent point. Of the people I consider amazingly well-read and broad-minded, I would guess off the top of my head that the majority either never went to college or dropped out. (I also know a fair number of grad students who are just amazingly clueless. [Remind me to share my story about the linguistics grad students sometime.]) I think this says something about intelligence, conformity, the educational system, society's fringes and subcultures, art & artists (literary and otherwise), and many other things. I need to toddle off to bed, so I can't get into it... but it's food for thought. Mmmmm... tasty.
01 Feb 0:02 | Link | Category: Libraries & Digital Information, Opinion & Thoughts
January 31, 2006
Why the United States lacks engineers
I've already had several interesting conversations about my last post. I'll spare you the details, but one person pointed me to this interesting article: Confessions of an Engineering Washout.
I relate to a lot of the story. I had originally intended to become an engineer of some sort, though it wasn't because I was naturally drawn to it. My verbal test scores were always higher than my math scores... but since both were fairly high, my family and counselors somehow convinced me that it was a great idea to become an engineer. (They were wrong, but I can't say I blame them for trying... it would be a good way to make a living, and that was their primary concern.) Unfortunately, I hated most of the classes and found the whole course of study to be completely uninspiring.
Anyway. The author's advice is compelling:
If you want more engineers in the United States, you must find a way for America's engineering programs to retain students like, well, me: people smart enough to do the math and motivated enough to at least take a bite at the engineering apple, but turned off by the overwhelming coursework, low grades, and abysmal teaching. Find a way to teach engineering to verbally oriented students who cant learn math by sense of smell.
...
Engineering professors are perfectly happy weeding out undesirables with absurd boot-camp courses that conceal the inability of said professors to communicate with words. Fewer students will pursue science and engineering majors, and the United States will grow ever more reliant upon foreign brainpower to design its scientific and manufacturing endeavors.
He's probably right. (Not that these changes would've saved me... I'm too excited by history, biology, behavior, and the rest.) In the end, I still think the best advice is to avoid telling students what they should focus on until well after they've had a chance to try out a little of everything.
31 Jan 23:42 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts
Illiterate College Grads
About ten days ago, I read a news item about a study showing that a fairly sizeable percentage U.S. college graduates lack basic skills (such as "analyzing news stories and other prose, understanding documents and having math skills needed for checkbooks or restaurant tips"). The American Institutes for Research conducted the study. (Read their press release or read the entire report in PDF.)
The results of the study are sobering. Astounding. Scary as hell. How, pray tell, are these people getting through college without the ability to "interpret a table about exercise and blood pressure, understand the arguments of newspaper editorials, compare credit card offers with different interest rates and annual fees or summarize results of a survey about parental involvement in school"??? Even in my freshman year, I doubt I could have scraped by without those kinds of skills. (Then again, maybe it's easier than I think to coast through school getting shitty grades.)
How about this: "Almost 20 percent of students pursuing four-year degrees had only basic quantitative skills. For example, the students could not estimate if their car had enough gas to get to the service station. About 30 percent of two-year students had only basic math skills." Again, I'm floored... and I'd like to know what schools these people are attending. At my university, all students are required to take two basic quantitative reasoning courses, and students pursuing a B.S. have to take two more additional 'quantitative intensive' courses.
For years, my principal complaint with the higher education system has been that it often fails to actually educate people in terms of exposing them to new ideas, incubating thought, and providing a basic framework for connecting different disciplines and ideas. (If you can't figure out how everything connects, what's the point? The world will never make sense in any large sense.)
But now I find out that colleges aren't even succeeding in educating people in terms of basic skills they need to get through life. It makes me want to scream.
And if the supposedly 'educated' demographic in the U.S. lacks basic skills, what does this say about the country and its future? I've previously ranted about the need for "a sea change in U.S. political dialogue and thought" predicated on "critical-thinking skills, better education and open, inquiring, skeptical minds" along with "knowledge of history and an appreciation and understanding of the rest of the world."
Now, it seems, our college graduates can't even understand arguments in editorials or figure out a tip at a restaurant.
We're sooo screwed.
31 Jan 18:12 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts
January 24, 2006
Falwell, Robertson, or Bin Laden?
I found this cool little quiz through The J-Walk Blog:
Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Usama Bin Ladin have a lot in common. Take the quiz and see if you can identify statements by each of these "leaders."
I scored 10 out of 20.
24 Jan 9:11 | Link | Category: Current Events, Interactive, Opinion & Thoughts
November 10, 2005
Hey, Pat: Jesus Thinks You're A Jerk
Lately, Pat Robertson seems to have been in the news a lot. This can be fun at first. Pat's always good for a laugh. For example, I was fairly amused when he called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez ("Who Would Jesus Assassinate?"). And earlier today, I had a link in the Quick Links section to an entry at Pharyngula titled Either Pat Robertson is insane, or God is, which linked to a parody about Pat Robertson blaming the tornado in Indiana on Warren Beatty. It was funny because despite the story's absurdity, PZ and most of the commenters missed the fact that it was a parody. (Sadly, it wouldn't surprise anyone if he really did say something like that.)
But as I read about about Robertson warning Dover residents about God's wrath because they didn't support 'intelligent design', I realized I wasn't laughing. I think Pat's prominence in the media lately has pushed me into the dreaded state of Pat Robertson overload in which one recognizes the true power this man wields and the monetary reserves he draws on and the many poor souls who actually take him seriously. Pat Robertson overload is bad because he ceases to be amusing and becomes intensely irritating - even frightening. I don't often enter this state, but when I do, it's not good. I figure writing this post will help me vent so I can quickly get back in the amused-by-Pat mindset.
So here are some fun links for you:
- A collection of Pat Robertson quotes - lots of good ones.
- I Hate Pat Robertson - a fine blog dedicated to Mr. R.
- Pat's Biography from rotten.com
- Perhaps the most entertaining site of them all, the official Pat Robertson site
I find it truly astounding that more people don't see right through Mr. Robertson (not even the Chief of Police). He's a so-called "Christian" with a $200 million - $1 billion net worth who shrilly condemns others, suggests that a nuclear weapon exploding at State Department HQ would be good for the country, tricks the poor, old, and uneducated out of money through television, etc. etc. When I was a kid, my Mormon sunday school teachers warned of 'priestcraft'... I think Pat Robertson would be a shining example of that notion.
Last night, I was watching a TV show about Jesus (one of those silly programs where they interview religion professors, theologists, archaeologists, and the like as they try to determine 'who Jesus really was'). It struck me that Pat Robertson (the "Christian") is the embodiment of nearly everything Jesus so simply and eloquently spoke out against. (I believe this is known as 'irony'.) I really suspect Jesus would be appalled at all the religions that use his name... but particularly appalled at Robertson and his ilk.
(By the way, the title of this post comes from a Frank Zappa song that poses the truly timeless question, "Did he really choose Tammy to do his work?")
10 Nov 22:51 | Link | Category: Current Events, Opinion & Thoughts
October 27, 2005
Asimov on libraries
From Isaac Asimov's memoir:
Now, when I read constantly about the way in which library funds are being cut and cut, I can only think that the door is closing and that American society has found one more way to destroy itself.
27 Oct 21:50 | Link | Category: Libraries & Digital Information, Opinion & Thoughts
September 10, 2005
Another ironic twist on "freedom"
Four years after 9/11, 10,000 people will march in Washington in a patriotic "Freedom Walk" sponsored by the Pentagon. (I know the Pentagon was hit on 9/11, but is it really appropriate in any way to have a military-themed rally on Sept. 11th?)
Some fun facts about the Freedom Walk (from the Daily News and WP):
- The walk has Defense Department backing
- Anyone who did not sign up for the event by yesterday will not be allowed to enter the fenced-in route from the Pentagon to the National Mall
- Those who try to join the march without registering and refuse to leave will face arrest by the U.S. Park Police
- The route will be lined with four-foot-high snow fencing to keep it closed and "sterile"
- The U.S. Park Police will have its entire Washington force of several hundred on duty and along the route, on foot, horseback and motorcycles and monitoring from above by helicopter.
- It's billed as a memorial to victims of the 2001 terrorist attacks AND a show of support for those serving in the military
- It will be topped off with a concert by country singer Clint Black, known for his pro-troops anthem, "Iraq and Roll"
- The tight security is necessary to ensure the safety of VIPs, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
- One restricted group will be the media, whose members will not be allowed to walk along the march route
Sounds like freedom to me! (Aside from the lack of synchronized marching, of course.)
Look, I understand the reasons for the security precautions, but what does it all say about the state of our country? And how much more ideologized can "freedom" possibly become in the U.S.?
10 Sep 23:48 | Link | Category: Current Events, Opinion & Thoughts
September 4, 2005
Katrina
The finger-pointing and second guessing started immediately after Hurricane Katrina dissipated and we all got a sense of the scale of the destruction and suffering. In a way, I hate to join in because I do feel that such discussion (especially in the wake of a natural disaster) should wait until relief efforts have been successful and the wounds have at least started to heal. However, there are links I'll lose and thoughts I'll forget if I don't post them now, and I suppose it's never too early to start figuring how to more effectively prevent/handle disasters in the future. Anyway, let me preface the rest of the with this link: Hurricane Katrina Help Center - information on volunteering and donation.
I think one of the biggest questions on everyone's mind is how the hurricane could wreak such havoc in a Western nation - indeed, the wealthiest nation on the planet. I think many people are forgetting just how powerful this storm was and how quickly it developed. However, it's worth noting the lack of preparation.
Terrible predictions of what would happen to New Orleans in the event of a strong hurricane have been made for years - just check out this extensive Wikipedia entry. The levee system has a been a disaster waiting to happen for decades, and for just as long experts have been aware that without major changes, New Orleans would face flooding if any of the levees failed. (Look at this elevation diagram.) The politicians - whether because they have selective memories or are lying outright - would like us to think nobody knew what might happen. Bush has the gall to say "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." Completely wrong. Bill Clinton got in on the act, too: "I'm telling you, nobody ever thought it would happen like this."
It seems like scientists and planners are always harping on us about impending disasters... and because most of them don't happen in the short spans of time we humans tend to concern ourselves with, we just ignore them or pretend we were never warned in the first place. Even when similar disasters are recent, we refuse to accept the possibilities and probabilities of more disasters. Case in point: Last year was the worst hurricane year in decades. Experts started writing scenarios like this: What if Hurricane Ivan Had Not Missed New Orleans? (an eerily accurate prediction of Katrina). Interestingly, federal hurricane control and funding for New Orleans - which had already "slowed to a trickle" - was the lowest ever in 2005. I doubt extra funding would have helped in time for this hurricane, but the point is that our priorities have been dreadfully out of order (and getting worse) for a long time. Particularly damning: "In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article." And this, from June, 2004: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."
Also damning is the fact that officials in New Orleans were well aware of the risks of such a hurricane and failed to have an adequate evacuation plan in place. They knew New Orleans had one of the highest poverty rates of any major U.S. city, and they knew that 27% of households - 120,000 people, did not have private transportation, one of the lowest percentages of any major U.S. city. Yet they failed to have an adequate evacuation plan. (Then, FEMA director Michael Brown proves how out-of-touch officials are by saying much of the death toll will "be attributable a lot to people who did not heed the advance warnings" - people who couldn't get out!)
There's lots more to talk about, but I don't have the time. Maybe I'll find time later to reflect on the way natural disasters shake up the stratified social order and expose the inequalities and deep dysfunction in our society that is normally hidden from view. There's also global warming's arguable effect on such natural disasters -- it seems that we're also blithely ignoring this most pernicious of threats. It's also interesting to note that the ballyhooed post-9/11 "homeland security" has been a complete and abject failure. Lots of topics to explore... too little time.
Anyway, here are a few extra links before I shut up:
- Katrina is case where laxity cost dearly
- Paul Krugman: A Can't-Do Government
- United States of Shame (one of Maureen Dowd's venomous columns that actually makes some good points)
- A Disaster Foretold
- A National Disgrace
I'll leave you with this heartwarming quote from Dubya (video):
The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch. (Laughter.)
... and all the great orators simultaneously roll in their graves.
04 Sep 12:00 | Link | Category: Current Events, Opinion & Thoughts
August 30, 2005
The Undergraduate Experience
Watching the freshmen make their way around campus during fall semester always reminds me of my first year of college so many years ago. I thought it would be a breeze considering my high school record and full scholarship, but I was completely unprepared. Unfortunately, that first year also coincided with other messiness in my life, which didn't help matters. (I know it's easy to mock the idea of people dropping out of life for a few years to "find" themselves, but I completely support it.) Anyway, there I was... an immature, lonely kid thrown into a major I didn't like, taking classes I wasn't interested in. Those of you who know me are probably aware that when something doesn't interest me, I will completely ignore it... which is exactly what I did. My attendance during that first year was embarrassingly low. I didn't enroll the next year, and it took me a long while before I felt like coming back.
It's odd to look around and realize that a quarter of these freshmen won't make it past the first year, and only half will end up with degrees. (Then again, at my rate, I won't be getting one for a long while either.) Last April, John Merrow wrote a great (and lengthy) piece for the New York Times about the experience of being an undergraduate at the University of Arizona -- a school larger than mine, but relatively similar. The Times is charging for the article now (don't get me started on my rant about that obnoxious policy), but here's an MS Word version I found through Google: The Undergraduate Experience. It profiles several students and details various failings and successes of such universities. At the end of the article, one of the "successful" students offers this bit of advice:
"Get out of your comfort zone. You learn so much more when you have to change what you're doing, than if you just came in and said, 'Well, this is me and I'm always going to be like this and I'm always going to study this.' If you think that way, then you never stop to question whether that's what really you're supposed to do. Relax. You haven't lived 20 percent of your life. What's the rush?"
I completely agree with this sentiment. Among other complaints I have with the secondary education system in general (some private colleges excepted) is that students are set on a path of study while still in high school. The main goal of college becomes quickly plowing through four years of courses so you can hopefully make more money when you get out. The notion of spending time expanding your mind and discovering yourself has become archaic and clichéd, which is really a shame.
A more recent story that caught my eye was an anthropology professor who decided to take a year and live as an undergraduate, in an attempt to better understand the experience. A somewhat obvious observation that ties in with what I just said:
Small also said she found current undergraduates faced more pressure to pick a major that readily translated into a job that could pay off student loans.
Travis Shumake, student body president and a senior at NAU's School of Hotel and Restaurant Management, said he sees that all the time -- students choosing his program because it provides the "fastest results at the highest income."
Small said her generation wasn't as career-oriented in college.
"It was an era of anti-materialism. It was kind of nerdy then to talk about careers," she said. "Now, different things are nerdy."
Another obvious observation:
She found some of the coursework tough and had to seek tutoring for a class far outside her field of study. "It was a hectic life," she said.
No shit. I've got a very full schedule this semester, and I have three or four courses that are already killing me. I'm a week into school and I'm already behind, without time to have any semblance of a life (or sleep, for that matter). Ugh. You're probably wondering the same thing I am, which is: Why am I wasting time typing these boring thoughts on my pointless web site? I think I'm trying to distract myself from my studies, but I really should get back to my boring reading now.
30 Aug 12:00 | Link | Category: Human/Primate Evolution & Behavior, Opinion & Thoughts, Site/Life News
August 15, 2005
Is My Child Becoming Homosexual?
I found an amusing, depressing article from James Dobson's "Focus on Your Child" site, via Cynical-C. (Dobson is the wingnut who runs Focus on the Family, a site which would require many paragraphs to comment on.)
Here are some warning signs that your child is becoming homosexual (try not to laugh):
- A strong feeling that they are "different" from other boys.
- A tendency to cry easily, be less athletic, and dislike the roughhousing that other boys enjoy.
- A susceptibility to be bullied by other boys, who may tease them unmercifully and call them "queer," "fag" and "gay."
- A tendency to walk, talk, dress and even "think" effeminately.
Happily, Dr. Dobson informs us that homosexuality is preventable and reversible!
How does one even begin to comment on this? I think I'll just direct you to Fafblog's better ways to tell how gay your son is.
Oh, I suppose I shouldn't joke about it, considering all the lost, gutted souls that result from this kind of repressive cultural ideology. But what else can you do? There's no way to easily change notions of gender in Western society that are so old and deeply ingrained. Certainly reason won't work. And even highlighting other cultural approaches probably won't work (because ours is superior, of course!)... which is too bad. In an anthropology class last semester, I read an interesting excerpt from The Spirit and the Flesh, a book by Walter Williams about the Native American berdache tradition. I can't find an online copy of the exact excerpt I read, but suffice it to say the Native American approach was radically different from ours, taking what we consider negative and regarding it as positive. A berdache was often endowed with special powers. From Williams' book:
"Since no cultural system can explain everything, a common way that many cultures deal with these inconsistencies is to imbue them with negative power, as taboo, pollution, witchcraft, or sin. That which is not understood is seen as a threat. But an alternative method of dealing with such things, or people, is to take them out of the realm of threat and to sanctify them."
It's always enlightening to see what approaches other cultures take (or, rather, took when they still existed)... something that is sadly impossible for folks like Dobson who know their way is the one and only right way. (Today's broadcast over at Focus on the Family: "Ergun Caner shares his amazing testimony of becoming a Christian after being raised by an Islamic leader in a devout Muslim family.")
15 Aug 16:11 | Link | Category: Human/Primate Evolution & Behavior, Humor, Opinion & Thoughts
July 14, 2005
The Speech the President Should Give
Sarah Vowell has been writing clever, funny op-eds for the New York Times (temping for Maureen Dowd who is on "book leave" and hopefully taking her sweet time to finish that book). I really enjoyed yesterday's piece, Vowell's take on John Kerry's recent The Speech the President Should Give.
I particularly liked what she said about Jimmy Carter's ominous "malaise" speech in which he tried to break the hard truth to Americans, noting that "There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice":
Those frank words, coming out of a presidential mouth, are shocking. It will be difficult, but think back and try to remember an America dependent on foreign oil, an America with high gasoline prices, an America consumed with crises in the Middle East. And imagine you feel there is nothing you, the average American, can do. Then your president goes on TV and instead of saying you can do something vague like "stay the course," he tells you that there is something small and practical you can do. You can carpool!
These days, there's just something refreshing about reading through Carter's clear-eyed political suicide. Daydreamer though I am, I have never expected a president to solve our chaos. It's just nice to know that once, one of them acknowledged it.
14 Jul 22:58 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts
June 29, 2005
The Lost Liberty Hotel
I was alarmed by the Supreme Court's recent ruling on personal property seizures. I agreed with almost everything in Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent. (Should I also mention my surprise at being in agreement with Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas?) I personally know of several powerful local politicians who have made momentous planning decisions and are intimately connected with developers & development companies. Why should property seizure be left solely to their "good judgement" regarding public benefit? Hmmm.
Anyway. I chuckled at a news item I read today about a critic who wants to replace Justice Souter's home with a hotel. He wrote a fax to leaders in Souter's New Hampshire town stating that "the justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare." Beautiful.
29 Jun 22:32 | Link | Category: Current Events, Opinion & Thoughts
Flag Burning
Regarding those nutty folks in the House of Representatives and their recent approval of a flag burning amendment, I think I have to agree with Jaf's assessment. See also: What does happen when you burn an American flag?
29 Jun 22:27 | Link | Category: Current Events, Opinion & Thoughts
The Drapes have been removed!
Say what you will about Alberto Gonzalez, but hey - at least he removed Ashcroft's silly drapes from the Spirit of Justice statue in the Great Hall. Now if we could just get him to reconsider his belief that the war against terrorism "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners," we'd be making some real progress!
29 Jun 22:03 | Link | Category: Current Events, Opinion & Thoughts
May 25, 2005
Light Therapy
The rain dissipated last week and summer finally showed up to play. Today I was driving through the city on my way home from class (the car's top has been down all week, of course, with doors to follow soon) still basking in the warm sunshine, and I realized I've been far more happy and energetic during the past week than I have been in a very long time. Nothing's really changed in circumstances or thought patterns, so why the good mood?
Oftentimes when I'm in one of my dark moods, friends will suggest that the weather is playing a role. I usually shrug it off as coincidence because I can usually pinpoint something else that has me feeling glum. (Or at least I can pinpoint something that propelled me into a sullen state into which I then get stuck.)
Now I'm starting to wonder if my friends are right and my moments of dolefulness are sometimes connected to weather and light. A quick survey of memories from the last few years does seem to reveal that I'm (more) cynical, pensive, and - let's face it - miserable during wintertime, and I tend to enjoy and pursue life more during the summer. In the last several years I've also developed a noticeable sense of antipathy towards winter that I never possessed before. So I seem to know - even if I don't really know - that winter doesn't always agree with me anymore. (Apparently I'm not alone. As much as 25% of the population at middle-to-northern latitudes of the U.S. experience "winter doldrums".)
So. Next time my friends prattle on about S.A.D., melatonin levels and such, I won't be so quick to dismiss them. I'll definitely be taking note of my moods when winter rolls around this year. In the meantime, I intend to fully enjoy my warm sunny months of light therapy.
25 May 12:00 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Site/Life News
March 30, 2005
The Era of Exploitation
Bob Herbert of the New York Times noted something last week:
Congress is in recess and the press has gone berserk over the Terri Schiavo case. So very little attention is being paid to pending budget proposals that are scandalously unfair, but that pretty accurately reflect the kind of country the U.S. has become.
...
We may be locked in a long and costly war, and federal deficits may be spiraling toward the moon, but the era of shared sacrifices is over. This is the era of entrenched exploitation. All sacrifices will be made by working people and the poor, and the vast bulk of the benefits will accrue to the rich.
I was reminded of a chapter from Michael Lind's Up From Conservatism, a book that, while sometimes overtly ideological, contains several well-written thoughts and arguments on this and other topics. From an excellent chapter entitled "Soaking the Middle":
Since the 1960s, I have argued, the United States has undergone both a realignment and a revolution... The revolution has been a quiet, slow-motion social revolution—the consolidation of a new national overclasss, and the growth of its predominance in both the economy and American politics. Although the conservative political realignment was not the direct result of the rise of the overclass, the economic interests of that class have been served very well for the past quarter century
...
There are no longer any American conservatives who, in the tradition of Edmund Burke, defend a hereditary elite of rich and powerful families, "great oaks" benevolently spreading their shade over us deferent shrubs. The right, we are told again and again, is the party of the people, of the common man, the enemy of the "elites." In reality, of course, most wealthy Americans have made their money the old-fashioned way: mom or dad died. But you would never know this from conservative propaganda, which treats entrepeneurs and inventors, rather than the hereditary rich or corporate executives, as though they were typical of the rich in America.
...
An older, traditional, patrician conservatism believed in noblesse oblige. The privileged, it was thought, should set an example of sacrifice for the lower oders. The attitude of the present generation of American conservatives is more like that of John D. Rockefeller, who reportedly once said, "God gave me my money."Today's conservatives run for office as populists, and then govern on behalf of the plutocracy.
30 Mar 11:31 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts
March 29, 2005
Terri Schiavo. Again.
I'm not trying to turn this site into a 24-hour cable news network, but I need to share a couple of links with you. I'll try to be brief.
The first actually has to do with the news networks. Last week, The Daily Show aired an excellent segment on the Schiavo case, highlighting such absurdities as Fox News using TV psychic John Edward as an expert guest. The other networks aren't much better. I've found that Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are always talking about the same story whenever I tune in (which is why I now avoid doing so). It's sickening, really, but the only positive reaction is to laugh at it. Get the Daily Show clip here (Windows Media, 3.9 MB), or the torrent here.
I also have to mention that sad specimen Tom DeLay again. See, it's amazing how politicians find it so easy to act differently depending on whether they can use a situation for perceived political gain. In 1988, DeLay's father was seriously injured and the family faced a decision over life support.
There were also these similarities: Both stricken patients were severely brain-damaged. Both were incapable of surviving without medical assistance. Both were said to have expressed a desire to be spared from being kept alive by artificial means. And neither of them had a living will.
In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die.
Unfortunately, DeLay isn't as easy to laugh at as John Edward. (If you'll allow me to repeat what I said earlier earlier, he's simply nauseating.) Update: Good article on this by William Saletan of Slate.
Finally, brettd of Kuro5hin wrote a pretty good Op Ed on the general facts of the situation.
I really truly hope this is my last post on this topic (no promises).
29 Mar 23:52 | Link | Category: Current Events, Opinion & Thoughts
March 23, 2005
I guess I had to comment sooner or later...
Matters like quality of life and right to die are very personal and very tricky, and the Terri Schiavo situation is particularly difficult. I can understand why it has been problematic. I don't know enough of the specifics to offer substantive comment on the case itself. But I do have few comments on the absolutely appalling response of politicians to the case.
In a memo distributed only to Republican senators, the Schiavo case was characterized as 'a great political issue' that could pay dividends with Christian conservatives, whose support is essential in midterm elections such as those coming up in 2006.
(Isn't it disgusting watching the politicians jump all over this situation? Seeing the attention they're giving this case also makes me wonder why they're so inattentive when it comes to, say, multitudes who die needlessly because of inadequate healthcare in this country, innocent people dying every day in Africa and elsewhere, and a laundry list of other human crises.)
Looking through my local newspaper today, I noted that even in my extremely conservative community, there's fairly overwhelming support for Michael Schiavo's case and for removal of the feeding tube. That makes me even more baffled as to why the GOP leadership seemed so eager to make a mockery of our judicial system (and tenets of their own platform). It makes me think they're out of touch with reality (even 'reality' in a haven of religious conservatism like Utah), but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that -- I seem to understand this country less and less as time goes by.
Read a transcript of Tom DeLay's comments at a Family Research Council meeting last Friday, and see if it doesn't make your stomach churn. The man is nauseating and incredibly dangerous.
Anyway... I should probably stop ranting and go write a detailed living