I’m first of all thankful that I woke up this morning, alive, reasonably healthy, and all of my unnumbered days still awaiting me. I’m thankful, as I am nearly every day, that I woke up an American, the most imperfectly perfect community humans have thus far devised. I’m thankful that the poverty level here is so high (and I’ll be lucky to just scratch past that line this year) that it means I have to buy my headphones at Family Dollar instead of Staples, that I can only buy NY strip when it’s on sale, that I can only buy one or two songs a month online instead of a whole album and must content myself with hundreds of free pod casts, that because I can’t afford to fix my car (or, more properly, I can’t afford to insure it) I have to walk to my job, my college, my grocery store, my movie theater, my convenience stores, and my friends’ houses. I’m thankful that being poor in the United States only rarely means hunger, homelessness, and early death. Poor in the US almost never means lack of opportunity.
I’m thankful that I have friends who are more than willing to let me put my foot in my mouth. Friends who offer me rides when it’s cold, raining, even snowing. Friends who put up with me are pretty impressive people.
I’m thankful my parents are still alive. I’m thankful my sister and I only grow closer every year. I’m thankful I have a nephew, who’s just as strange as the rest of us.
I’m thankful there are more people alive than there have ever existed (despite all the problems that entails.)
I’m thankful that no matter what horrible things are happening at this very moment, there are far, far more kind, generous, selfless, and wonderful things happening as well.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Random Post in November
While finals still loom, the big crunch of my first semester is over. Multiple papers and tests coagulating on the academic calendar nearly gave me an aneurysm. I believe that one’s living space reflects a great deal about one’s personality, and even more so on a short term basis. Of late, my room has looked like a transfer station for municipal garbage collection. This would be greatly mitigated if I lessened my consumption of beer. I think that’s such a selfish positive, though. Despite the physical and mental costs of the functional-alcoholism I live with, bereft of beer bottles I’d have nearly nothing to recycle. Indeed, the more I drink, the more I’m doing my part to save the environment.
While I’ve lately entertained the embittering thought that, at 35 I’ve slept alone vastly more nights than I haven’t, I console my self with the thought (beer in hand) that I certainly don’t let the space on my bed go to waste. While the partner side of the bed (interesting that I still sleep on the same side of the bed as I did in my last relationship five years ago) is always home to some papers, notes, and a few books, of late it has swelled to include nearly every text I’m studying, covered like a smothered steak with the precious few clean clothes I’ve enjoyed the last two weeks. While still sleeping alone technically, a pile of knowledge that can’t dress itself at least feels like I’m sleeping with a clone of myself.
I have four internet classes this coming semester, which frees me up tremendously for more hours at work. What a delightful tragedy that I live in a summer resort area. I shudder to think how much my recycling will suffer.
Ah well, there’s hope on the financial horizon for fall semester next year. All my paperwork will be in order for application to every single possible scholarship, grant and award that I even remotely qualify for. One of note is an essay contest for Ayn Rand’s works. I had originally thought I’d be reading anthem, her mercifully brief novelette set in a far, dystopian future. Nay, nay, foo foo. The only one I qualify for is the $10,000 award, which is no small change, to write an essay on Atlas Shrugged. 1069 pages. Make no mistake, I’m a voracious reader, and a large tome is not even a consideration when I read (nor a series, much thanks to Stephen King.) I read Atlas Shrugged 15 years or so ago, so at least I’m familiar with it. Ayn Rand is an extremely interesting philosopher. She’s also an extremely pedantic writer. Arguments via fiction are rarely well-written. Sorry, Ayn, but you’re no exception. I do hope I win. $10,000 will just about cover the tedium of not only reading that overblown tome, but actually researching and analyzing it.
Interesting: since starting this blog and school, I’ve added nearly 200 words to the spell check on this computer. It’s a 2005 Sony. Very interesting how technology has inflated the English language in such a short time. Well, away to school, where today I will continue assembling my first Power Point presentation. Oh, but college and education is so way cooler than it used to be. For example, my biology teacher posts her lecture notes online in several formats, including those I can download onto my iPod. How f-ing sweet is that?
While I’ve lately entertained the embittering thought that, at 35 I’ve slept alone vastly more nights than I haven’t, I console my self with the thought (beer in hand) that I certainly don’t let the space on my bed go to waste. While the partner side of the bed (interesting that I still sleep on the same side of the bed as I did in my last relationship five years ago) is always home to some papers, notes, and a few books, of late it has swelled to include nearly every text I’m studying, covered like a smothered steak with the precious few clean clothes I’ve enjoyed the last two weeks. While still sleeping alone technically, a pile of knowledge that can’t dress itself at least feels like I’m sleeping with a clone of myself.
I have four internet classes this coming semester, which frees me up tremendously for more hours at work. What a delightful tragedy that I live in a summer resort area. I shudder to think how much my recycling will suffer.
Ah well, there’s hope on the financial horizon for fall semester next year. All my paperwork will be in order for application to every single possible scholarship, grant and award that I even remotely qualify for. One of note is an essay contest for Ayn Rand’s works. I had originally thought I’d be reading anthem, her mercifully brief novelette set in a far, dystopian future. Nay, nay, foo foo. The only one I qualify for is the $10,000 award, which is no small change, to write an essay on Atlas Shrugged. 1069 pages. Make no mistake, I’m a voracious reader, and a large tome is not even a consideration when I read (nor a series, much thanks to Stephen King.) I read Atlas Shrugged 15 years or so ago, so at least I’m familiar with it. Ayn Rand is an extremely interesting philosopher. She’s also an extremely pedantic writer. Arguments via fiction are rarely well-written. Sorry, Ayn, but you’re no exception. I do hope I win. $10,000 will just about cover the tedium of not only reading that overblown tome, but actually researching and analyzing it.
Interesting: since starting this blog and school, I’ve added nearly 200 words to the spell check on this computer. It’s a 2005 Sony. Very interesting how technology has inflated the English language in such a short time. Well, away to school, where today I will continue assembling my first Power Point presentation. Oh, but college and education is so way cooler than it used to be. For example, my biology teacher posts her lecture notes online in several formats, including those I can download onto my iPod. How f-ing sweet is that?
Friday, November 14, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Education Ideas
A tiny bit of Utopia
The Department of Education’s Budget for 2008 is 62.6 billion dollars. For those who don’t know me, what I’m about to propose will seem simplistic, if not ignorant. Rest assured, it’s nothing of the sort. It is presented in a simplistic manner, to be sure. But only for the sake of brevity do I risk such generalization here. I’m proposing the following based on an extremely complex infrastructure that includes not just our various and sundry systems of education, but our position in a tangled web of global economics, analysis of long term trends in business and international relations, with a generous smattering of historical perspective.
Let me just get right to the proposal.
1) This is a long-term, perhaps as much as 20 years, proposal. It could take that long to reap the full benefits, but this is investment money. This is an investment in the long-term health and stability of the U.S., and on a year-by-year basis, it’s a pittance of our Federal budget.
2) The short and sweet version:
A) Freeze spending at current level for Ed Dept.
B) Shrink Dept to 12.6 billion in allocations directly to schools and school programs. Require a 5% maximum overhead for operations, though I know it can be done for less.
C) The remaining 50 billion to be divided up into grants for scholarships. I’d do this in two ways:
I) 37.5 billion in direct 4-year package grants. The grants are scheduled at $100,000. This is how I arrived at that figure: http://www.collegeboard.com/student/pay/add-it-up/4494.html
This is a 4 year grant for 375,000 people per year. This is not to say you must attend a four-year program. I would be willing to be flexible in distribution. More on that later.
II) The remaining 12.5 billion to be distributed to existing scholarship and endowments. This is roughly equivalent to current spending on Pell Grants. Yes, there would be no more Pell Grants, but this way more than offsets the loss, at least in the long term it will. I propose here to endow 1250 private endowments, memorials and foundations, devoted exclusively to scholarship and financial aid for education awards, $1,000,000 per year for 10 years. No endowment would be eligible for the award twice (though I’d consider reviewing this if a good argument could be made.) This would endow 12,500 programs across the country with $1,000,000 over 10 years.
I have to run to class. I have a biology paper and an English paper to finish as well as math to get to, but I’ll try to expand on at least the rationale and benefit analysis for this tack tonight: no promises.
The Department of Education’s Budget for 2008 is 62.6 billion dollars. For those who don’t know me, what I’m about to propose will seem simplistic, if not ignorant. Rest assured, it’s nothing of the sort. It is presented in a simplistic manner, to be sure. But only for the sake of brevity do I risk such generalization here. I’m proposing the following based on an extremely complex infrastructure that includes not just our various and sundry systems of education, but our position in a tangled web of global economics, analysis of long term trends in business and international relations, with a generous smattering of historical perspective.
Let me just get right to the proposal.
1) This is a long-term, perhaps as much as 20 years, proposal. It could take that long to reap the full benefits, but this is investment money. This is an investment in the long-term health and stability of the U.S., and on a year-by-year basis, it’s a pittance of our Federal budget.
2) The short and sweet version:
A) Freeze spending at current level for Ed Dept.
B) Shrink Dept to 12.6 billion in allocations directly to schools and school programs. Require a 5% maximum overhead for operations, though I know it can be done for less.
C) The remaining 50 billion to be divided up into grants for scholarships. I’d do this in two ways:
I) 37.5 billion in direct 4-year package grants. The grants are scheduled at $100,000. This is how I arrived at that figure: http://www.collegeboard.com/student/pay/add-it-up/4494.html
This is a 4 year grant for 375,000 people per year. This is not to say you must attend a four-year program. I would be willing to be flexible in distribution. More on that later.
II) The remaining 12.5 billion to be distributed to existing scholarship and endowments. This is roughly equivalent to current spending on Pell Grants. Yes, there would be no more Pell Grants, but this way more than offsets the loss, at least in the long term it will. I propose here to endow 1250 private endowments, memorials and foundations, devoted exclusively to scholarship and financial aid for education awards, $1,000,000 per year for 10 years. No endowment would be eligible for the award twice (though I’d consider reviewing this if a good argument could be made.) This would endow 12,500 programs across the country with $1,000,000 over 10 years.
I have to run to class. I have a biology paper and an English paper to finish as well as math to get to, but I’ll try to expand on at least the rationale and benefit analysis for this tack tonight: no promises.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Science: The Atheist Agenda
Another point…
There’s a perspective among Creationists I’ve noticed, and it’s one they believe in and implicitly and explicitly promote. While evolution is their poster child for the explicit, the implicit is that science=atheism. The radicals in both camps have presented us with a false dichotomy; that it’s either science or religion, and not only never the twain shall meet, but they can’t even coexist.
Firstly, let me dispose of the myth of the “Atheist Agenda.” I’ve reviewed all the manuals I’ve been sent, reread all the literature and the handbook, and while the plans for aborting all unborn children and Federal funding for pornography are pretty detailed, I couldn’t find any encompassing agenda. Being only 2% of the world’s population, we all fit nicely into the Fortress of Godless Science for our monthly meetings. I brought up the lack of a published manifesto of our agenda. While we all agreed that the destruction of religion would best be brought about by voting Democrat, we still can’t agree whether to outfit the White House in Pottery Barn or Akia, nor whether when marriage is destroyed forever, should we force people to have one same sex partner or multiple ones. Oh, wait, I’m confusing that with the Homosexual Agenda. Either way, it’s the same every month: grand plans, but bicker, bicker, bicker and nothing gets done.
I couldn’t resist the satire. All the same, the point is that there is no Atheist Agenda.
Science is irreligious, sure. It doesn’t favor one religion over another by not dealing with the supernatural. Instead of revelation, science’s aim is to explain things by examination. You’re welcome to look at science through any lens you want, but no matter if you’re Buddhist, Muslim, Christian or atheist, the results will be the same for everyone. No matter who created the world, this is the world we ended up in, and that’s the world science deals with, not the next one. Naturalistic? Yes. Materialistic? In the strictest sense, yes. Science reveals we live in a world of atoms. Fine, now go to the church of your choice. Because of this non-religious bent, science indeed allows atheism. Bacteria and galaxies aren’t much interested in your religious, or lack of religious views. Facts are facts, and they’re pretty impartial I’ve found. But one thing science does not do is “promote” atheism.
Yes, there are out spoken atheists who are scientists. Remember, it’s just their day job. Decrying science because of them is akin to decrying Burger King because of an atheist fry cook. There are atheist bankers, bakers, race car drivers and (horrors!) schoolteachers. I highly doubt there’d be much call to abandon finance, bread, NASCAR and education because of them.
Yes, I realize that evolution doesn’t jive with the strictly literal interpretation of Genesis. This doesn’t mean science says there is no God and/or that the Bible is junk. What I’d like to point out to Creationists is that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the U.S. are not only religious, but the majority of them are Christian, and the overwhelming majority of them have looked at the evidence for evolution (it’s massive and corroborative across dozens of disciplines,) and not only agree with the interpretation of the evidence, but also haven’t batted an eye spiritually.
You aren’t by any chance implying that they’re somehow LESS Christian than you are, are you? Or that despite being endowed with the same spiritual protection, any Christian with higher education is somehow more susceptible to the sneaky wiles of Satan, are you?
Are you?
The study of science doesn’t make you hate God or become an atheist, any more than the study of other cultures makes you hate America, or the study of other religions converts you to those religions. Does this happen sometimes? Sure, but rarely. Do you want to stop vaccinating children because a miniscule number of children have reactions to the antigens and die? If this seems a harsh and unfair metaphor, my point is that vaccination saves millions of children’s lives (shame, shame, shame on those who advocate non-immunization of children. Not only is there not a shred of support for any of the chemicals in vaccines triggering the onset of a genetic disease after over a decade of research, but you seem to have forgotten that the diseases we vaccinate for MAIM and KILL children.) Science does an incredible amount of good (actually, people to good things with science: science is a method, not a system of morals and ethics and codes of conduct in any way comparable to religion,) so why worry about the rare spiritual crisis? People lose their way for a whole host of reasons, but not because they look at bacteria under a microscope. Incidentally, most people find their way back, so the issue approaches moot.
If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, you’re likely already comfortable with contradiction, so it surprises me that you’d hold back trust in other Christians supporting evolutionary theory, or astrophysics, or geology, or any other science. A reminder, if you fill a room with American scientists and throw a dart, you’re going to nail a Christian in the eye nearly 90% of the time. I would think at the very least you’d give them a hearing about what they say God’s doing with His universe.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
One of my papers...
For those who don't know, 1) Though I think I have 2 people who actually read this, I write as if the entire world is on the other end of this blog, and 2) I'm finishing my first semester back in school as a freshman (surprised that's not freshperson yet.) The following is an essay from my English Composition class.
Not-So-YouTube
Every second millions of people communicate with each other across the globe, using an ever-growing array of technologies that constantly evolve. Differences that have divided peoples for millennia could erode as the promise of global communications allows us to see each other for who we really are. But are we living up to that promise? Becky Roth, a student at Kansas State University, sows the seeds of doubt in, "Authenticity on YouTube", part of that school’s digital ethnography project. Weaving commentary and source footage from YouTube, a website of user-generated video content, she calls into question our assumptions about how we use technology.
The reality of global communications is that platforms, such as YouTube, provide us with the ability to shape who we wish to present to the world at large. We become producers of our own image, and carefully manipulate our own identity. We live entire lives online, separate from who we really are, blurring the distinction between entertainment and reality. Far from bringing the world together, YouTube creates a world of self-engineered celebrity and questionable authenticity, raising new barriers between people by casting doubt on identity.
LonelyGirl15, a home-schooled teenager with strict parents, was a phenomenon. Her story is the narrative thread in "Authenticity on YouTube", presented in a montage of video clips of her video log, other YouTube subscribers’ reactions to her, and news clips from mainstream media. At the height of her fame, she had over two million subscribers who followed her video log, until someone called into question her authenticity. Controversy erupted when it was discovered that she indeed was an actress, presenting a storyline crafted by three would-be screenwriters from New Zealand. Anger ensued and debate raged, portrayed in the latter "half" of the video as millions of YouTube viewers and posters struggled to define their expectations of honesty within a virtual community, wherein identity is infinitely malleable. Amidst this storyline, Becky Roth, via ghostly white text, suggests provocative questions on the nature of reality in a virtual world: Your "identity" and your real identity; which is the real you?
In the latter half of the video, respondents to the revelation of LonelyyGirl15 as a fabricated identity faction among "purists", who claim YouTube as a forum for "real" people, and the "creators", people who use YouTube as a vehicle for self-expression. It is in this portion of the video that masks become a prevalent motif. Some of the clips use literal masks, yet some simply shroud faces in black. One poignant example is that of an old man who takes on the persona of an old, opinionated man, with hat and glasses and a stereotypical speech pattern seen throughout Hollywood of the grumpy, opinionated old geezer. Moments later we see the creator of this character, a clean-cut, well groomed and articulate older American, who claims his character is "…just as much a part of me as I am." While asking mainly questions of us, Becky Roth at this point did venture an opinion: Creativity does not always replace reality. Indeed.
As many questions as are asked in the video, it suggested to me so many questions that were not asked, regarding how we perceive and present ourselves. Becky Roth’s questioning account of identity within the world of YouTube stunned me into looking hard at technology; how we use it, and how we interact with each other.
YouTube is a global video communications platform that invites us to create and share self-produced videos, and provides a comment forum for those who view them. YouTube is the logical result of a long evolution of technological innovation in how we, as people, connect with each other. Cell phones, many with cameras, text messaging, and internet access, allow us to carry on a two-way dialogue with the rest of the world no matter where we are. The internet provides email, chat rooms, discussion boards, and instant messaging with an unlimited number of people, allowing anyone on the planet with a computer and ever-growing internet access to communicate. Social networking used to be a matter of meeting people face-to-face. Now Facebook and MySpace are the paradigms for connecting with other people, who peruse our posted profiles like we flip through magazines at the dentist’s office. We keep innovating ways to communicate with each other and new ways to identify ourselves. It’s a natural, if not inevitable, progression to globalize face-to-face communication via the fusion of Internet and video.
What struck me is how we use YouTube to present our identity to the world. For nearly a century, we have used cinema and television to hold a mirror up to ourselves, portraying ourselves as we think we are, and as we think we should be: heroic, smart, beautiful, savvy, cool. We consume what we wish to be recreationally, and I think this has distorted what we assume to be reality. Have we turned every aspect of our lives into entertainment; scripting, rehearsing and editing "reality" in take after take? It’s said that art imitates life, but what happens when life imitates art? What happens in a culture obsessed with celebrity when the consumer becomes the producer? Enter, YouTube, a virtual community of people and ideas self-produced, polished, packaged and posted.
It’s said that you never get a second chance to make a first impression. On YouTube, that’s not true anymore. YouTube, a product of ever-cheapening and available video production and editing technology, allows anyone with software and a camera to rehearse themselves, and edit the lives they wish others to see countless times until who you wish to be becomes who you are. YouTube doesn’t just allow you to hide your warts but become someone who doesn’t even have them. In this environment, I believe the people who stake out YouTube for "real" people and not "fakers" are being unrealistic, if not naïve. Is there any difference between a scriptwriter penning your lines and you rehearsing your first YouTube video a hundred times before posting? Is trying to be as "real" as possible itself a form of production? Becky doesn’t answer these questions, but leaves us to think on them.
Beck Roth’s ethnography video on authenticity in the world of YouTube presents both thought provoking questions and implications. Using the narrative of an engaging girl’s story that proved to be manufactured, she calls upon us to call into question our own assumptions about ourselves and each other when communicating through electronic media, but most specifically, YouTube. What you perceive as reality is up to you, but assuming that sincerity is the rule in a virtual world of endless second chances, is naïve to say the least. YouTube shows that the technologies we embrace as mediums for honest cultural exchange are in fact a barrier to intimacy and the consequences an undiscovered country of more questions than answers.
Not-So-YouTube
Every second millions of people communicate with each other across the globe, using an ever-growing array of technologies that constantly evolve. Differences that have divided peoples for millennia could erode as the promise of global communications allows us to see each other for who we really are. But are we living up to that promise? Becky Roth, a student at Kansas State University, sows the seeds of doubt in, "Authenticity on YouTube", part of that school’s digital ethnography project. Weaving commentary and source footage from YouTube, a website of user-generated video content, she calls into question our assumptions about how we use technology.
The reality of global communications is that platforms, such as YouTube, provide us with the ability to shape who we wish to present to the world at large. We become producers of our own image, and carefully manipulate our own identity. We live entire lives online, separate from who we really are, blurring the distinction between entertainment and reality. Far from bringing the world together, YouTube creates a world of self-engineered celebrity and questionable authenticity, raising new barriers between people by casting doubt on identity.
LonelyGirl15, a home-schooled teenager with strict parents, was a phenomenon. Her story is the narrative thread in "Authenticity on YouTube", presented in a montage of video clips of her video log, other YouTube subscribers’ reactions to her, and news clips from mainstream media. At the height of her fame, she had over two million subscribers who followed her video log, until someone called into question her authenticity. Controversy erupted when it was discovered that she indeed was an actress, presenting a storyline crafted by three would-be screenwriters from New Zealand. Anger ensued and debate raged, portrayed in the latter "half" of the video as millions of YouTube viewers and posters struggled to define their expectations of honesty within a virtual community, wherein identity is infinitely malleable. Amidst this storyline, Becky Roth, via ghostly white text, suggests provocative questions on the nature of reality in a virtual world: Your "identity" and your real identity; which is the real you?
In the latter half of the video, respondents to the revelation of LonelyyGirl15 as a fabricated identity faction among "purists", who claim YouTube as a forum for "real" people, and the "creators", people who use YouTube as a vehicle for self-expression. It is in this portion of the video that masks become a prevalent motif. Some of the clips use literal masks, yet some simply shroud faces in black. One poignant example is that of an old man who takes on the persona of an old, opinionated man, with hat and glasses and a stereotypical speech pattern seen throughout Hollywood of the grumpy, opinionated old geezer. Moments later we see the creator of this character, a clean-cut, well groomed and articulate older American, who claims his character is "…just as much a part of me as I am." While asking mainly questions of us, Becky Roth at this point did venture an opinion: Creativity does not always replace reality. Indeed.
As many questions as are asked in the video, it suggested to me so many questions that were not asked, regarding how we perceive and present ourselves. Becky Roth’s questioning account of identity within the world of YouTube stunned me into looking hard at technology; how we use it, and how we interact with each other.
YouTube is a global video communications platform that invites us to create and share self-produced videos, and provides a comment forum for those who view them. YouTube is the logical result of a long evolution of technological innovation in how we, as people, connect with each other. Cell phones, many with cameras, text messaging, and internet access, allow us to carry on a two-way dialogue with the rest of the world no matter where we are. The internet provides email, chat rooms, discussion boards, and instant messaging with an unlimited number of people, allowing anyone on the planet with a computer and ever-growing internet access to communicate. Social networking used to be a matter of meeting people face-to-face. Now Facebook and MySpace are the paradigms for connecting with other people, who peruse our posted profiles like we flip through magazines at the dentist’s office. We keep innovating ways to communicate with each other and new ways to identify ourselves. It’s a natural, if not inevitable, progression to globalize face-to-face communication via the fusion of Internet and video.
What struck me is how we use YouTube to present our identity to the world. For nearly a century, we have used cinema and television to hold a mirror up to ourselves, portraying ourselves as we think we are, and as we think we should be: heroic, smart, beautiful, savvy, cool. We consume what we wish to be recreationally, and I think this has distorted what we assume to be reality. Have we turned every aspect of our lives into entertainment; scripting, rehearsing and editing "reality" in take after take? It’s said that art imitates life, but what happens when life imitates art? What happens in a culture obsessed with celebrity when the consumer becomes the producer? Enter, YouTube, a virtual community of people and ideas self-produced, polished, packaged and posted.
It’s said that you never get a second chance to make a first impression. On YouTube, that’s not true anymore. YouTube, a product of ever-cheapening and available video production and editing technology, allows anyone with software and a camera to rehearse themselves, and edit the lives they wish others to see countless times until who you wish to be becomes who you are. YouTube doesn’t just allow you to hide your warts but become someone who doesn’t even have them. In this environment, I believe the people who stake out YouTube for "real" people and not "fakers" are being unrealistic, if not naïve. Is there any difference between a scriptwriter penning your lines and you rehearsing your first YouTube video a hundred times before posting? Is trying to be as "real" as possible itself a form of production? Becky doesn’t answer these questions, but leaves us to think on them.
Beck Roth’s ethnography video on authenticity in the world of YouTube presents both thought provoking questions and implications. Using the narrative of an engaging girl’s story that proved to be manufactured, she calls upon us to call into question our own assumptions about ourselves and each other when communicating through electronic media, but most specifically, YouTube. What you perceive as reality is up to you, but assuming that sincerity is the rule in a virtual world of endless second chances, is naïve to say the least. YouTube shows that the technologies we embrace as mediums for honest cultural exchange are in fact a barrier to intimacy and the consequences an undiscovered country of more questions than answers.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
A political statement...
I got derided a few months ago for considering Obama as a way to improve race relations in the U.S. “Idiotic’” was the term I was lambasted with. This has yet to leave me as it was one of my best friends, whose opinion I greatly respect and value, agreement notwithstanding, who offered me this opinion of my opinion. He feels pretty passionate about the election, as do we all. I was a bit hurt that he implied it was the only reason I had, and it was a terrible reason at that. Having few feelings, I got over that within minutes, though I was miffed enough to think this of him: He’s a Christian and only voting Republican because it’s the party of the “religious” right, which I think is a ridiculous reason to vote for a candidate. Here’s how I see things:
Taxes: Taxes are a red herring. The real problem is spending and neither candidate is addressing this issue at all. A real leader would present us with the same options for our government that we have to face every day; namely, either, or. Especially in an economy such as this, with credit scarce and usurious interest when you can find it, all us Joe the Plumbers have to make tough fiscal choices every day. Somehow that doesn’t apply to our government, which borrows like it’s going out of style to pay for an amazing array of slightly necessary things. Lower taxes on everyone: rich, poor, small business and corporation. That’s real economic stimulus, not bailouts and insultingly small checks which are technically our money anyway. Obama would, in essence, raise taxes on the wealthy, punishing achievement and propagating the ridiculous class warfare politicians foist upon us as the norm. That’s envy folks, a pretty distasteful emotion. McCain would cut taxes on corporations (which technically don’t pay taxes…see the FairTax link,) which would also provide its own stimulus, but mentions nada about what needs to be cut. Both parties are tax and spend parties, with Republicans leaning towards excessive borrowing to appear less taxy than Democrats. Spending reduction is the real issue, not taxes, and neither candidate is addressing this because they know you don’t want to hear it and would swallow such a realist like a beer-soaked oyster. So to vote for someone based on tax policy is short-sighted to say the least. Remember, taxes are a red herring.
Foreign Policy: Fuck might makes right. It’s not working. A few religious radicals attacked us and we invaded two countries and doomed their populations to violence and death. What moral code are you living by that that disparity of reaction is justified? Please cite some source as to when we’ll be even. Neither war addressed the problem, which is Islam’s incredible difficulty adjusting to the modern world. They have the same problems Africa does, which is adjusting to a post colonial existence within arbitrary borders and left floundering without any investment in infrastructure and development. Europe had the benefit of the Marshall Plan. Neither the Persian states, nor Africa were granted that boon. Notice how many totalitarian regimes exist(ed) within the Persian states, then take a close look at Africa. A lot of similarities, huh? Poverty and despair are the problems, as they breed violence, racial strife, as well as political and religious extremism to deal with those issues. Bombing countries doesn’t deal with that at all, now does it? McCain and Palin are war-hawking about Iran and Russia. Enough! The State Department needs 10 times the budget it has. Building peace is incredibly hard and takes a very long time and long-term commitment. We need to make friends, not enemies. We are a wealthy and incredibly powerful nation (thus far,) and we should act like responsible, educated people. Not everything we do is right, either functionally or morally, so stop waving crosses and flags and act like civilized grown-ups who negotiate and compromise for mutual benefit. We should act with humility as the most powerful nation, by far, on this Earth, and not as the enforcer of our morality, come hell or high water and screw your culture and beliefs. Obama has my vote in this arena for two reasons: 1) The rest of the world likes him. We could use that. If you don’t care what the rest of the world thinks and think I’m a fool (at best) for that, then you’re living in 1947. 2) He has quite firmly stated he’s willing to talk with our enemies. So am I. How else will you understand if you don’t talk? Admittedly, understanding is no longer an American virtue. As for war, I’m tired of religious war. While perpetrated by religious zealots, make no mistake that September 11, 2001 was a political statement. The problems that motivated them are largely political. We have yet to deal with them politically. Plenty of people are anti-American. If you think it’s simply because they are Muslim, you’re ignorant beyond my ability to craft words.
Morality: Proclaiming your faith is just dandy with me and you’ll find no greater advocate of religious freedom than me. What sticks in my craw is focus on a “culture” war. “Moral” people make mistakes and bad decisions too. People of faith don’t appear to me to be any better at morality than anyone else. Wait, let me qualify this. Christians don’t appear to be any better at morality than Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Atheists or Pagans. Everyone has their radicals, everyone has their liberals, everyone has their moderates. What really appears to count is your situation: prosperity and security, generally, foster good behavior. If you have enough, you generally won’t steal. Affluent, educated people tend to be less promiscuous and have fewer children (though I staunchly believe the only morality regarding sex that counts is that regarding children and all that implies. If it’s simply a matter of consensual activity between adults, no harm done, please show me your anointment to dictate anyone’s sexual behavior.) Abortion is a horribly divisive issue and I’m torn about it. I envy anyone who has clear-cut convictions about it across the board. In most instances, I find it repellent. In some, I wouldn’t dare intrude and pity anyone who has to deal with that kind of choice. No one’s addressing the causes of needing abortions (other than only promoting abstinence without the benefit of a complete sexual education, sigh,) though Obama did mention that in one of the debates. That’s a first for me, and I’d be curious to see what he has to say about it in detail. But I’m sorry, these days the issue is relegated to the bottom of my cultural in-box.
Here’s what I think the REAL issues are:
International relations: creating more allies and/or fewer enemies, helping poorer nations develop (that’s a HUGE subject, more another day,) nurturing understanding and eliminating the causes of war, not just the people who might want to make it.
Global Economy: Not just ours, but ours is the lynchpin. I’m WAY Democrat regarding regulating the financial sector, but in what I think is a positive way. I have far better ideas than Washington does.
Infrastructure: It’s old and crumbling. How are you going to hold a “gays-are-the-cause-of-all-evils” rally if the bridge is out?
Energy: We need an Apollo-Program sized effort and investment (which, hmmm, would cause huge economic growth) to clean, green and diversify our energy infrastructure (decentralizing and diversifying it would make the Grid far less susceptible to natural disaster and terrorist attack!) Ahem, being the leader in green technologies would also go a long way towards improving our image.
Education: The single greatest long-term investment in peace and prosperity we can make. We need smart people to run the country, create the new energy technologies we need, mind the economy, design the infrastructure, deal with climate change and educated people contribute most to the wealth, health and growth of a nation. We need to teach, not to tests, but how to learn, critical thinking and creative thinking. Oh wait, that’s science. We should teach more of that (but better than the drudgery we pass out as learning currently.)
A minor intermission to address a crossroads with education and morality. W. once said we need to promote science and math as we do and will need ever more now and in the future. At the same time he’s said he’s for teaching Creationism in the science classrooms (oh be quiet. Intelligent Design is Christian Fundamentalist Creationism, period.) This is dichotomous at best and unbelievably (really, I find it incredible to believe) stupid at near-worst. Putting an uncritical, unassailable religious dogma into a curriculum that teaches critical thinking would be disastrous at worst, both for religion and especially science. This would hand our technological lead to any and all nations who wanted it in a box wrapped in purple velvet.
I suppose I should get to the race thing, but as I have to go to school soon, I have to cut it short. Blacks in America need an intelligent, educated, ambitious and inspiring role model, not another gangsta rapper. Just look at the news to see the hope in black high schooler’s eyes. That inspiration just might inspire more blacks to stay in school and continue on to higher education (good for the economy,) as well as reduce the sense of entitlement from centuries of racism on the part of white (Christian) America. So, we might see fewer gangs, less violence and drugs, lower pregnancy rates and an entire segment of our population raise itself out of despair and poverty to become educated and productive, and just might reduce the need for welfare programs, which would reduce government spending. It also just might get some racists to rethink their views of blacks as inferior, lazy and sucking off the government teat either via entitlement programs or exploiting affirmative action I think that would be a great thing. Anyone who thinks this is a stupid reason to vote for a black man has a moral code that puzzles me and as the above shows, apparently has no concept of the complicated calculus I base my political decisions on. This is unnerving in a good friend. In fact, NOT including this facet of possibility strikes me as either racist or unimaginative and living in complete denial of the reality of race relations in the United States, how divisive and destructive it is, and the potential for at least furthering the healing process. Voting for Obama because of his race and thinking strategically and MORALLY about the potential consequences is in fact a very GOOD reason to vote for him.
I need to continue the list of real issues that face the nation, in order to show where abortion, gay marriage and prayer in the schools (just to pick a few) really end up on the list of “actual, real, pressing and important issues that desperately need to be addressed in order to keep this nation going.” It’s a long and sometimes scary list, and they’re pretty fucking low on it.
Incidentally, Sarah Palin believes man and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time. Sorry, that completely disqualifies her to be a part of the Executive Branch. I want people in there who will deal with reality. The world is extremely complicated, not a fairy tale.
Taxes: Taxes are a red herring. The real problem is spending and neither candidate is addressing this issue at all. A real leader would present us with the same options for our government that we have to face every day; namely, either, or. Especially in an economy such as this, with credit scarce and usurious interest when you can find it, all us Joe the Plumbers have to make tough fiscal choices every day. Somehow that doesn’t apply to our government, which borrows like it’s going out of style to pay for an amazing array of slightly necessary things. Lower taxes on everyone: rich, poor, small business and corporation. That’s real economic stimulus, not bailouts and insultingly small checks which are technically our money anyway. Obama would, in essence, raise taxes on the wealthy, punishing achievement and propagating the ridiculous class warfare politicians foist upon us as the norm. That’s envy folks, a pretty distasteful emotion. McCain would cut taxes on corporations (which technically don’t pay taxes…see the FairTax link,) which would also provide its own stimulus, but mentions nada about what needs to be cut. Both parties are tax and spend parties, with Republicans leaning towards excessive borrowing to appear less taxy than Democrats. Spending reduction is the real issue, not taxes, and neither candidate is addressing this because they know you don’t want to hear it and would swallow such a realist like a beer-soaked oyster. So to vote for someone based on tax policy is short-sighted to say the least. Remember, taxes are a red herring.
Foreign Policy: Fuck might makes right. It’s not working. A few religious radicals attacked us and we invaded two countries and doomed their populations to violence and death. What moral code are you living by that that disparity of reaction is justified? Please cite some source as to when we’ll be even. Neither war addressed the problem, which is Islam’s incredible difficulty adjusting to the modern world. They have the same problems Africa does, which is adjusting to a post colonial existence within arbitrary borders and left floundering without any investment in infrastructure and development. Europe had the benefit of the Marshall Plan. Neither the Persian states, nor Africa were granted that boon. Notice how many totalitarian regimes exist(ed) within the Persian states, then take a close look at Africa. A lot of similarities, huh? Poverty and despair are the problems, as they breed violence, racial strife, as well as political and religious extremism to deal with those issues. Bombing countries doesn’t deal with that at all, now does it? McCain and Palin are war-hawking about Iran and Russia. Enough! The State Department needs 10 times the budget it has. Building peace is incredibly hard and takes a very long time and long-term commitment. We need to make friends, not enemies. We are a wealthy and incredibly powerful nation (thus far,) and we should act like responsible, educated people. Not everything we do is right, either functionally or morally, so stop waving crosses and flags and act like civilized grown-ups who negotiate and compromise for mutual benefit. We should act with humility as the most powerful nation, by far, on this Earth, and not as the enforcer of our morality, come hell or high water and screw your culture and beliefs. Obama has my vote in this arena for two reasons: 1) The rest of the world likes him. We could use that. If you don’t care what the rest of the world thinks and think I’m a fool (at best) for that, then you’re living in 1947. 2) He has quite firmly stated he’s willing to talk with our enemies. So am I. How else will you understand if you don’t talk? Admittedly, understanding is no longer an American virtue. As for war, I’m tired of religious war. While perpetrated by religious zealots, make no mistake that September 11, 2001 was a political statement. The problems that motivated them are largely political. We have yet to deal with them politically. Plenty of people are anti-American. If you think it’s simply because they are Muslim, you’re ignorant beyond my ability to craft words.
Morality: Proclaiming your faith is just dandy with me and you’ll find no greater advocate of religious freedom than me. What sticks in my craw is focus on a “culture” war. “Moral” people make mistakes and bad decisions too. People of faith don’t appear to me to be any better at morality than anyone else. Wait, let me qualify this. Christians don’t appear to be any better at morality than Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Atheists or Pagans. Everyone has their radicals, everyone has their liberals, everyone has their moderates. What really appears to count is your situation: prosperity and security, generally, foster good behavior. If you have enough, you generally won’t steal. Affluent, educated people tend to be less promiscuous and have fewer children (though I staunchly believe the only morality regarding sex that counts is that regarding children and all that implies. If it’s simply a matter of consensual activity between adults, no harm done, please show me your anointment to dictate anyone’s sexual behavior.) Abortion is a horribly divisive issue and I’m torn about it. I envy anyone who has clear-cut convictions about it across the board. In most instances, I find it repellent. In some, I wouldn’t dare intrude and pity anyone who has to deal with that kind of choice. No one’s addressing the causes of needing abortions (other than only promoting abstinence without the benefit of a complete sexual education, sigh,) though Obama did mention that in one of the debates. That’s a first for me, and I’d be curious to see what he has to say about it in detail. But I’m sorry, these days the issue is relegated to the bottom of my cultural in-box.
Here’s what I think the REAL issues are:
International relations: creating more allies and/or fewer enemies, helping poorer nations develop (that’s a HUGE subject, more another day,) nurturing understanding and eliminating the causes of war, not just the people who might want to make it.
Global Economy: Not just ours, but ours is the lynchpin. I’m WAY Democrat regarding regulating the financial sector, but in what I think is a positive way. I have far better ideas than Washington does.
Infrastructure: It’s old and crumbling. How are you going to hold a “gays-are-the-cause-of-all-evils” rally if the bridge is out?
Energy: We need an Apollo-Program sized effort and investment (which, hmmm, would cause huge economic growth) to clean, green and diversify our energy infrastructure (decentralizing and diversifying it would make the Grid far less susceptible to natural disaster and terrorist attack!) Ahem, being the leader in green technologies would also go a long way towards improving our image.
Education: The single greatest long-term investment in peace and prosperity we can make. We need smart people to run the country, create the new energy technologies we need, mind the economy, design the infrastructure, deal with climate change and educated people contribute most to the wealth, health and growth of a nation. We need to teach, not to tests, but how to learn, critical thinking and creative thinking. Oh wait, that’s science. We should teach more of that (but better than the drudgery we pass out as learning currently.)
A minor intermission to address a crossroads with education and morality. W. once said we need to promote science and math as we do and will need ever more now and in the future. At the same time he’s said he’s for teaching Creationism in the science classrooms (oh be quiet. Intelligent Design is Christian Fundamentalist Creationism, period.) This is dichotomous at best and unbelievably (really, I find it incredible to believe) stupid at near-worst. Putting an uncritical, unassailable religious dogma into a curriculum that teaches critical thinking would be disastrous at worst, both for religion and especially science. This would hand our technological lead to any and all nations who wanted it in a box wrapped in purple velvet.
I suppose I should get to the race thing, but as I have to go to school soon, I have to cut it short. Blacks in America need an intelligent, educated, ambitious and inspiring role model, not another gangsta rapper. Just look at the news to see the hope in black high schooler’s eyes. That inspiration just might inspire more blacks to stay in school and continue on to higher education (good for the economy,) as well as reduce the sense of entitlement from centuries of racism on the part of white (Christian) America. So, we might see fewer gangs, less violence and drugs, lower pregnancy rates and an entire segment of our population raise itself out of despair and poverty to become educated and productive, and just might reduce the need for welfare programs, which would reduce government spending. It also just might get some racists to rethink their views of blacks as inferior, lazy and sucking off the government teat either via entitlement programs or exploiting affirmative action I think that would be a great thing. Anyone who thinks this is a stupid reason to vote for a black man has a moral code that puzzles me and as the above shows, apparently has no concept of the complicated calculus I base my political decisions on. This is unnerving in a good friend. In fact, NOT including this facet of possibility strikes me as either racist or unimaginative and living in complete denial of the reality of race relations in the United States, how divisive and destructive it is, and the potential for at least furthering the healing process. Voting for Obama because of his race and thinking strategically and MORALLY about the potential consequences is in fact a very GOOD reason to vote for him.
I need to continue the list of real issues that face the nation, in order to show where abortion, gay marriage and prayer in the schools (just to pick a few) really end up on the list of “actual, real, pressing and important issues that desperately need to be addressed in order to keep this nation going.” It’s a long and sometimes scary list, and they’re pretty fucking low on it.
Incidentally, Sarah Palin believes man and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time. Sorry, that completely disqualifies her to be a part of the Executive Branch. I want people in there who will deal with reality. The world is extremely complicated, not a fairy tale.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
