I’ve been here in Quito, Ecuador for 3 days now and it’s really made me think a lot about poverty. Growing up I had a much different perspective on this topic. I thought everyone could get straight A’s in school because I did and helping people through charity didn’t make sense because they should be helping themselves. My, have I changed over time.
When I think about the United States, I think about all the people I know who deride poor people as dumb and/or lazy. It’s their own problem — they should take the “personal responsibility” to solve their problems. But it’s not just their problem, it’s a problem that involves everyone. Increasingly I think there is a problem with the gap between the haves and have-nots in the US. Have you seen the resurgence in the Dow, but unemployment doesn’t budge?? Part of that is companies have learned to deal with less through the recession and with new “technology” it reduces the number of people you need to hire. But also, companies are stockpiling cash and returning it to the shareholders as opposed to some of the people who work on the front-line in the company. As a result, all the CXOs get paid more and more, while the blue-collar workers continue to struggle. Hence, more wealth gets concentrated in the top 5% of society.
For some of my more conservative friends this is no issue — the CXOs worked for their money. But I think the problem happens when society is too skewed and there are not realistic opportunities for those in poverty to move out of it. It reminds me of a Malcolm Gladwell book ( I think Outliers) that talks about the differences between kids from affluent families and those from low-income families. As it turns out, the differences in kids between these groups lies with the summer enrichment that they receive. Whereas kids from affluent families go to summer camps, have books to read at their disposal, etc — kids in low-income families don’t have such opportunities. Basically, poor kids forget more stuff than rich kids over the summer break. For me, that’s where the problem lies — if our rich are too rich and our poor are too poor, then I think society breaks down because people don’t have a realistic chance of making it up the economic ladder. Our country was built on the concept of the “self-made man” — anyone who works hard enough can move up in society. I’m afraid we’re headed the opposite direction.
Coming back full circle, what should we do about poverty? As I sit here in Ecuador, it’s obvious that the poverty here is much different than in the US. Kids in poverty in the Us have a better chance of moving up than kids here. Even so, poverty is prevalent everywhere because it is inevitable in a roughly capitalistic society. Poverty is simply defined as those who live in the bottom 5/10/15% of society. Therefore anyone with the specific goal of eliminating poverty will always fail. You can raise the standards and prospects of people, but there will always be people at the bottom. However, it’s not to say that even though people will always be in poverty that we shouldn’t help them. In fact, I think a lot of people in the US have the mentality that we shouldn’t give a lot of aid to foreign countries — why should we spend money on those who live outside our borders and don’t pay taxes? It’s not realistic to say that we should be helping everyone, but I think we should help more people because while everyone is not a US citizen, everyone is a human. In addition, I understand we need to make sure incentives are aligned so we aren’t the welfare state for the rest of the world. We must help people who want to be helped and make sure they don’t take advantage of our charity.
2.15.2011
1.23.2011
On Cutting The Government
Over the past 6-9 months I've been thinking a lot about the changes that are happening in politics as some people get more agitated about the size and scope of federal and state governments. The biggest development is the rise in influence of all the "Tea Party" conservatives who are hell bent on reducing the size of government by cutting spending, eliminating "non-essential" services, and trying to "right-size" the government.
As I've listened to all the rhetoric, I don't think it's all such a bad idea at it's core. The government should be run like a business. Like any business, you have revenue (taxes) and you have costs (services). If these two components get out of line for too long, it becomes an unsustainable situation. Somebody has to pay somewhere (or you just print more money -- but that's a different story).
However, while I'm all for getting rid of "waste" in government, I don't think that some people really understand what happens when you cut "waste". Because when you cut parts of the government, you are cutting jobs. When you cut jobs, people get pissed. And when people get pissed, they change their votes. So while some might contend that the 2010 election was a indictment against President Obama for all of his "budget busting" bills -- I think the more realistic answer was that everyone was pissed because they didn't have a job. In his campaign he talked about changing healthcare -- it's not like weren't expecting changes in this area.
Back to people being pissed -- when you cut the government, you are cutting jobs. Right now the unemployment rate stands at 9.1%, while the "real" unemployment rate stands to be much higher -- at some something like 15%-20% after you factor in all the people who have quit searching for work and those who are underemployed. Let's say you get the chopping block out and start cutting programs (jobs) -- where do you think that unemployment number is heading?? It's certainly not going to be a good number.
The other way to "right-size" the government is to reduce the benefits that it gives to people. Everyone loves to say they want to cut government spending, but when you actually give them some options, they won't touch any program that will have an effect on them. And that's the problem -- Medicare and Social Security are the biggest drivers of the future budget, but no one has the desire to make a real change to them, because they affect so many people. In the end, you have everyone cursing any potential tax increase, but nobody wants to pay. It's not a good combination.
I think people need to be realistic and pragmatic about how to reduce the deficit. The bi-partisan group in Obama's fiscal commission recommended spending cuts and tax increases that draws ire from both sides of the aisle.
Will someone finally listen to them?
11.04.2010
In The Mirror -- Poem
Originally written in 4/2010
They're all so conservative
Off that George Bush shit
Stickin' to what Palin says
Palin's on Fox
Yeah that's the hot news
Got up and left her state
Right out of the blue
Hit the book tour with the one she didn't even write
Ghostwritten by others who haven't lived her life
Soaking up the spotlight, living in the fame
Going rogue
Sparking movements
Charging people money that's insane
On to the Tea Partiers, who hate on Obama
Putting 'staches on his face
Sparking up the drama
One jab, two jabs, they think he's going down
Little do they know that they're just a bunch of clowns
Throwin' him under the bus
Callin' him socialist
When you say those wordsDude you're so ignorant
They're led by GB
Yeah I'm talking Glenn Beck
Callin' Obama all the names
Just to get the ratings check
All day it's Maoist, Socialist, Marxist, Progressive
All Barack is doing is helping the most oppressed men
Yeah he's on the left, but not way in left field
Look at the fighting in his party on the healthcare deal
Public option's out. Abortion restrictions tightened.
This was a centrist bill, whether or not you like it
Back to Glenn Beck, no I'm not done yet.
Always putting progressives down from his TV set
What's wrong with the prospect of a better place?
Clean water, clean Earth, let's clean up this place
Somehow that makes me a Maoist controlling everyone
Let me turn the tables on this one troubled man
He tells me man is fallen
Points to the Holy Book
He says all of our laws come from these ideals
If you don't believe in them
You're an enemy of the people
How is that any different from a theocracy?
Imprinting on minds how life's gotta be
That's not the nation that I grew up in
Read the Founders words
It's in plain text man
3.20.2010
On Abortion Among Black People
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/us/27race.html
I've been thinking about this article for almost a month now. I don't even know where to start.
Basically anti-abortion people are reaching out into the black community in order get more "inroads with black audiences". They hired a black woman as their minority outreach coordinator. After that, they posted billboards around Atlanta that say "black children are an endangered species" and started a website. They call abortions "womb lynchings". Apparently, since 40% of black pregnancies end in, Planned Parenthood is "preying" on these people.
This might be my conservative side (if that really does exist), but this whole situation is an issue of personal responsibility with black people. Pulling out the victim card and calling it a "conspiracy" is beyond reckless. Nobody told you to have sex. Nobody told you to have unprotected sex that leads to children. Nobody told you to not use birth control (maybe because Planned Parenthood doesn't exist in your area). You made your own personal decision. You have to live with the consequences.
If you end up with an unplanned pregnancy, you're making your own decision on what you want to do. Nobody can force you to have an abortion. Even if someone were to "mislead" you into an abortion, in the end it's your own decision. Maybe your information was flawed, but again, that's your own problem. People know what they're getting into with abortions. It's pretty transparent. Instead of complaining about a conspiracy, maybe these people should advocate for more birth control or just general sex education (since we can't teach that in schools without the right wingers going crazy).
And I'm not one that is saying people should be having abortions left and right. We can reduce the number of abortions by giving people contraception and giving them the education on how to use the correctly. In the end, you would have fewer "womb lynchings" since black women wouldn't have as many unplanned pregnancies. But, aren't condoms an endangerment to the "black species" as well??? Aren't they "killing" black people as well?
On Theories
I will try to make this one short. This post was inspired by Chapter 1 (Only A Theory?) in "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Richard Dawkins.
Somewhere along the way people got confused on what the word theory means. There are two general uses of the word. One is in a scientific setting, while the other is used in the general vernacular. If you look at the Oxford Dictionary, you will find the precise definitions for the meaning that I'm referring to.
- Theory (Scientific) - A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
- Theory (General Vernacular) - A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.
After looking at these two definitions it is apparent that they mean completely different things. For example, in the scientific realm there exists the theory of gravity, which is the set of facts and observations that make up our views on the laws of attraction between bodies. On the hand hand, if one of your friends has an interesting theory on why his or her significant other broke up with them, then that person is using the term theory as more of a conjecture. You can see that while the words are the same, the meanings are not interchangeable.
Therefore, when people try to label certain scientific ideas as "only a theory", they reveal their ignorance for using the proper meaning of the word. Who in their right mind would call the theory of gravity "only a theory"? While it is true that our ideas on gravity could be proved false at any time, our ideas on gravity are called a theory because they have withstood all the challenges that scientists have put against it. There are NO scientific facts. Anything can be disproved at any time. Therefore, putting forth the argument that something is "only a theory" and until it is proven as a "fact" it is just a conjecture, is meaningless. Arguments like that reveal an ignorance about the scientific method.
If you're going to use the word theory, please use it in the correct context and don't try to use it to falsely slander well-established scientific ideas.
2.25.2010
On Healthcare Reform & Civil Rights History
A lot is being made about the Democrats plan for health-care reform. One minute it looks like they have their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which means they can push through whatever they want. The next minute, they lose Kennedy's seat, and everyone says healthcare is dead. The next minute, everyone starts talking about reconciliation as a way to only need 51 votes in the Senate to get the bill. Then, you have Republicans calling reconciliation a "back-room deal" even though they used those tactics when GWB was in office.
It's apparent that something needs to change with healthcare. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the bill needs to have this or that. I haven't looked at all the numbers. And most people haven't. So, it annoys me when people cling to their Glenn Becks of the world and just repeat what they say (ex: public option is bad), when they haven't performed the analysis themselves. I'm not saying the public option is good either. I'm saying I DON'T KNOW. Is that such a novel concept?
Now, people are looking at the polls and saying that less than 50% of people are in favor of the health plan. These are the same citizens that hated the stimulus, but loved all the individual tax breaks and incentives that it created.
However, the biggest thing I think about is, who cares about public opinion? Obviously it is an election year and the Democrats are nervous about losing their seats, but sometimes on an issue you have to go above public opinion. Do you think when the Supreme Court made its decision on Brown v. Board of Education that >50% of citizens agreed with it? Hell no. It took 10 YEARS for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to finally become law. Why did it take so long?
By the early 1960s, the nation s congressional history contributed to growing legislative pressures for a comprehensive civil rights law. Although political pressures prevented President John F. Kennedy's administration from proposing legislation to Congress in 1961 and 1962, the President took steps to ensure minority rights in voting, employment, housing, transportation, and education by executive action. (link)Political pressure = motherfuckers in Congress from the South + public opinion. That means that the public didn't want black people to have their Civil Rights, because if politicians would have voted for it in 1954, then would have lost votes in the subsequent election. It wasn't until the early 1960s that public opinion changed somewhat and allowed the legislation to go through.
The National Opinion Research Center discovered this change of attitude in a sample survey of northern whites in 1963. The Center determined that the number who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30% in twenty years, to 72% in 1963. The proportion favoring school integration had risen even more impressively to 75%. (link)How does this all tie together? All I'm saying is that someone needs to grow some balls in Congress and pass something that going to rein in costs and create the incentives for lower-cost healthcare. I'm not saying that I know what the solution is, but the alternative (doing nothing) doesn't look too promising either.
2.04.2010
On Free Will
I'm reading a very interesting book right now called "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by Steven Pinker. I never really took any psychology classes in high school or college, so many of these concepts that the author discusses are new to me. Basically, the book hinges on the argument that you don't just come into the world as a "blank slate" ready to be molded into anything. According to Pinker, you come into this world with some predetermined tendencies (based on genetics) that interact with the environment to create the person you are.
You quickly come to the problem of free will. As a side note: I like to ask the various religious persons that I meet how they rationalize all the "evil" or "bad things" in the world. The typical response that I get is that God gave us free will and since we're inherently evil, humans choose to do bad things and create the evil in the world. To which I say, what about natural disasters?? I would say that things like the recent earthquake in Haiti are pretty "evil" or "heinous" acts that have no human component. No amount of me doing any number of bad things is going to create an earthquake. Or is it?? According to Pat Robertson, Haiti made a pact with the devil and that's the reason the earthquake happened. Wonderful.
Moving on to more logical arguments, I still wonder about the concept of free will. According to Pinker, identical twins are VERY alike. In traits such as verbal, mathematical, and general intelligence, introversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience. They are similar in behavior related gambling, divorcing, committing crimes, getting into accidents, and watching TV. And among various idiosyncrasies like giggling incessantly, giving interminable answers to simple questions, and dipping buttered toast in coffee, they are SIMILAR. And these traits are apparently whether they were separated at birth or not.
The question becomes: if there are certain traits that are ingrained in you, then how much free will do we have? Pinker paints this scenario:
"Imagine that you are agonizing over a choice -- which career to pursue, whether to vote, what to wear the day, how to vote. You have finally staggered to a decision when the phone rings. It is your identical twin that you never knew you had. During the conversation you find out that he or she has just chosen a similar career, has decided to get married at the same time, plans to cast a vote for the same presidential candidate, and is wearing a shirt of the same color -- just as the behavioral geneticists who tracked you down would have bet. How much discretion did the "you" have in making the choices actually have if the outcome could have been predicted in advance, at least probabilistically, based on the events that happened in your mother's Fallopian tubes decades ago?"
How much choice do you really have?
Secondly is the story of Phineas Gage. He was a railroad worker from the 19th century who survived a terrible accident that sent a spike into his cheekbone, through his brain, and out the top of his skull. He survived with his perception, motor skills, memory, and language intact. But as one of his co-workers said, "Gage was no longer Gage." A piece of iron had turned him into a different person, from courteous responsible, and ambitious to rude and unreliable. Years later we find out that the injury damaged a part of his brain that is related to reasoning about other people.
Let's say that after Gage's incident he went and killed some people. He did some bad things because he no longer had the faculties for reasoning with other people. But if we put him into jail and "rehabilitated" him, it would have made absolutely no difference. He was forever changed and not capable of reverting to his former self. Sending him to jail to "think about his sins" would been pointless.
The thing is, there are many people today who do some no so great things. We send them all to jail and when they are released, many people revert to their previous behavior. Maybe these people can't make their own decisions because of various genetic or environmental factors. What if they don't have the free will to change? And how does this reconcile with the typical Judeo-Christian view that a person exercises free will and is responsible for their own choices?
12.10.2009
On The Paradox of Choice -- Related To Happiness
I've become hopelessly addicted to watching TED videos lately. Two of them have been of particular interest:
The Paradox of Choice -http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html
Why Are We Happy -http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html
The first one about the paradox of choice was of particular interest. It pretty much encapsulates a lot of ideas that I've had recently about happiness. This is where my inner "socialist" comes out. How can I explain this?
We all act in our own self interest. Today we don't have to make all of our own food, make our own clothes, build our own houses, etc. We have decided to divide our labor and specialize into different fields of interest. I am a technology consultant. You might be a doctor or a flight attendant or a customer service rep. We each try to do the job to the best of our ability and we benefit from everyone else who specializes and we exchange the money from our jobs for goods and services from others. This is how our economy works.
Although this format may try to maximize efficiency in our economy, does it really make us all happier? I'm convinced that everything we do is to increase our happiness. Every action we take is an attempt to increase our happiness.
In the labor market, we all act in our own self interest. We pick the jobs and/or careers that we think are best and will maximize our earnings and wages relative to our interest in the job. We we specialize into different fields more or less independent of what others think we should do (obviously we would want to pick jobs that have a decent demand for their goods and/or services).
When we're in each of our respective professions, we are generally trying to maximize our earnings. Our companies are doing the same thing. So when we offer products and/or services to our customers, we're trying to get the most money we can get out of them. We are NOT trying to maximize their happiness. Curiously, the more choices we offer them, the more confused they turn out to be.
Example:
You go to the grocery store looking for some salad dressing (as the video stated). You get arrive to the arrive, and OH CRAP, there are a ton of dressings here. Which one should I get? I wonder which ones tastes the best? If I choose this one, will it be good? Will I regret buying this salad dressing if it's not good?
I'm convinced we each ask ourselves variations of the same questions for each purchase we make. There's not just one option. There's tons of options! How to pick?
This is the source of our unhappiness. Not necessarily being unhappy, but just less happy relative to the situation if we didn't have so many options. Excessive options confuse people and lead them to question their decisions. This is not to say that SOME choice is good, but I'm just saying that if we had fewer choices, then we would be MORE happy.
Again, I'm trying to say that since we are all acting in our own self-interest within the professions that we work in, we're trying to maximize our earnings and not thehappiness of customers. This leads to an aggregate decrease in happiness due to all the options people have.
In the video, Barry Schwartz says that is there were more "income redistribution", then we would take some of the excess choices from the rich people and give them to the poor people, who would actually benefit from more choice. I think this idea is problematic, but very interesting. It's problematic in its implementation, because who wants Uncle Sam coming for more of their money? But if Uncle Sam did, maybe they (richer people) would actually be happier...
This ties into the second video question why we are happy. It very nicely reinforces my point that people who have more options question themselves more and have more an internal struggle in their daily lives.
Example from the video. You have a class of photography students who get to choose 2 pictures from their collection of 10 to be blown up and framed. For half of them, you tell them that they should choose one of the two pictures and they will have 3 days to change their mind about the choice. For the other half, they must make one final decision on the picture that they will choose. Who do you think is happier, the people with our without the choice? Turns out the people who are stuck with their initial choice are happier. Whoa. Doesn't work out like you think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope these videos spark some thoughts in your mind. They sure did for me. I think that if we all step back and accept that people in our industrialized nation are somewhat paralyzed by all the choices that we have and think about all the good we could do by giving those in other countries more choices, we would ALL be better off. It's amazing. Life wants to be simple.
10.24.2009
On The End of Capitalism
After 6 months of reading it on and off, I finally finished the book Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life. I've always wanted to learn more about him, and at 750 pages, I definitely learned more about him and Cuban revolution than I ever did before.
One thought that stays with me is the idea that eventually capitalism might end. Maybe our brand of capitalism is not sustainable. Maybe it needs to be changed. Now before you sit there and call me a brain-washed, socialist bastard, just hold on a second. I think we're all trained from day one here in the United States to say that capitalism is the best thing since sliced bread and everything else will fail. That really neglects the situation for all the people in the developing nations around the world. Because especially today, we are wealthy at their expense. So while we sit here and watch our football, go to our malls, and spend money we don't have, there are millions are people who really don't have anything.
This brings me back to 2 summers ago when I went to Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize. One day at breakfast there was a Christian group (about 20 deep) that were having breakfast at a table near me. They had come to this country to visit and were saying their various prayers. I just couldn't help but ask myself, do they ever wonder how they ended up in the United States and most people live in poverty and have a daily struggle. How do you reconcile that with the idea of a "loving God"? I just can't erase that memory from my mind.
There's this huge gap that we have created between the developed and developing nations of the world. The question I keep asking myself is: will our technological prowess eventually end scarcity of most essential items?
I'm not saying this is going to happen tomorrow or 1 year from or even 10 years now. I'm saying in the distant future, will everyone be able to have essentially what they need? We will be so efficient and advanced in everything to the point where we are abundant with the necessities for living life. To me, at that point capitalism doesn't really make sense. In capitalism, you need a steady stream of new products. People need to buy things over and over to keep the economy going. For example, look at our "recession". The savings rate went from .5% to 4.5% and we've had a complete shit show in the economy. HELLO. People are actually saving money and not spending it on crap. But, that's the thing. For capitalism to work, you need people spending money. When we don't, the whole thing goes completely to hell. When you got those stimulus checks from G-Dub, he didn't want you putting them into the bank. He wanted you to spend it and keep yourself in this cycle of debt that is all-too common in our country. He doesn't want you to save money in a recession, especially with 70% of our economy being consumer spending-- see Paradox of Thrift.
My question is, will we ever be so efficient and advanced that we don't need to buy any more crap? Will we have everything that we need? But if that were to happen, not many people would have jobs. Capitalism just wouldn't work.
Thoughts?
One thought that stays with me is the idea that eventually capitalism might end. Maybe our brand of capitalism is not sustainable. Maybe it needs to be changed. Now before you sit there and call me a brain-washed, socialist bastard, just hold on a second. I think we're all trained from day one here in the United States to say that capitalism is the best thing since sliced bread and everything else will fail. That really neglects the situation for all the people in the developing nations around the world. Because especially today, we are wealthy at their expense. So while we sit here and watch our football, go to our malls, and spend money we don't have, there are millions are people who really don't have anything.
This brings me back to 2 summers ago when I went to Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize. One day at breakfast there was a Christian group (about 20 deep) that were having breakfast at a table near me. They had come to this country to visit and were saying their various prayers. I just couldn't help but ask myself, do they ever wonder how they ended up in the United States and most people live in poverty and have a daily struggle. How do you reconcile that with the idea of a "loving God"? I just can't erase that memory from my mind.
There's this huge gap that we have created between the developed and developing nations of the world. The question I keep asking myself is: will our technological prowess eventually end scarcity of most essential items?
I'm not saying this is going to happen tomorrow or 1 year from or even 10 years now. I'm saying in the distant future, will everyone be able to have essentially what they need? We will be so efficient and advanced in everything to the point where we are abundant with the necessities for living life. To me, at that point capitalism doesn't really make sense. In capitalism, you need a steady stream of new products. People need to buy things over and over to keep the economy going. For example, look at our "recession". The savings rate went from .5% to 4.5% and we've had a complete shit show in the economy. HELLO. People are actually saving money and not spending it on crap. But, that's the thing. For capitalism to work, you need people spending money. When we don't, the whole thing goes completely to hell. When you got those stimulus checks from G-Dub, he didn't want you putting them into the bank. He wanted you to spend it and keep yourself in this cycle of debt that is all-too common in our country. He doesn't want you to save money in a recession, especially with 70% of our economy being consumer spending-- see Paradox of Thrift.
My question is, will we ever be so efficient and advanced that we don't need to buy any more crap? Will we have everything that we need? But if that were to happen, not many people would have jobs. Capitalism just wouldn't work.
Thoughts?
7.24.2009
7.08.2009
On Morality
I'm not sure if this is an entirely new idea...I'm sure someone else has already thought about it.
It's new for me though.
I've been thinking a lot about morality lately. How do you know if you're doing the "right" or the "wrong" thing? How can you potentially come up with a set of rules that everyone should live by in order to be "moral" people?
I've decided morality only exists in our minds.
Imagine the state of nature. There is no government. People are their own independent nations. I contend that in this scenario, there is no right and wrong. Might means right. Whoever is stronger is going to end on top. I'm not saying that people in the State of Nature should be going around killing everyone and such things, I'm saying that if they felt like doing it (because of a dispute over resources or whatever), then it is totally permissible to do so. Who is to tell them that what they are doing is wrong?
Now obviously we don't live in the State of Nature. We have a government. We forfeit some of our individual freedoms to come together and form a society. Humans and prehuman species formed societies and groups a long time ago. They decided they were better off as a group than by themselves. Over time, we have become used to the concept of forming such groups. We have become used to understanding that certain actions go against the formation of our society. If we steal, then we are not playing our part in society.
Ok, here it is----morality really is the instinctive voice in our head that tells us what is right and wrong. I contend that we all know what right and wrong is. It's just that a number of us ignore the voice in our head and do what is more pleasurable. That voice in our head is evolution talking. We have been wired to know that certain actions go against our society. Stealing, killing, lying, etc.
We can obviously know that stealing, killing, lying and bad things to do. We shouldn't do them because, again, they are going against informal contract that we signed in order to be a part of the society. So for the more shaky and complicated areas, how can we know what is right and wrong?
Here is my rule. For something to be wrong, if greater than 50% of society were to act in a similar way to the one in question, ask yourself would society be able to exist?
For example, if greater than 50% of people lied all the time, then society couldn't exist. We wouldn't be able to trust one another. That is whole basis of society. If greater than 50% of us were killers, then obviously at least half of us would be dead, so that wouldn't be a good thing.
So what do you think? Is this the only rule of morality that we need?
It's new for me though.
I've been thinking a lot about morality lately. How do you know if you're doing the "right" or the "wrong" thing? How can you potentially come up with a set of rules that everyone should live by in order to be "moral" people?
I've decided morality only exists in our minds.
Imagine the state of nature. There is no government. People are their own independent nations. I contend that in this scenario, there is no right and wrong. Might means right. Whoever is stronger is going to end on top. I'm not saying that people in the State of Nature should be going around killing everyone and such things, I'm saying that if they felt like doing it (because of a dispute over resources or whatever), then it is totally permissible to do so. Who is to tell them that what they are doing is wrong?
Now obviously we don't live in the State of Nature. We have a government. We forfeit some of our individual freedoms to come together and form a society. Humans and prehuman species formed societies and groups a long time ago. They decided they were better off as a group than by themselves. Over time, we have become used to the concept of forming such groups. We have become used to understanding that certain actions go against the formation of our society. If we steal, then we are not playing our part in society.
Ok, here it is----morality really is the instinctive voice in our head that tells us what is right and wrong. I contend that we all know what right and wrong is. It's just that a number of us ignore the voice in our head and do what is more pleasurable. That voice in our head is evolution talking. We have been wired to know that certain actions go against our society. Stealing, killing, lying, etc.
We can obviously know that stealing, killing, lying and bad things to do. We shouldn't do them because, again, they are going against informal contract that we signed in order to be a part of the society. So for the more shaky and complicated areas, how can we know what is right and wrong?
Here is my rule. For something to be wrong, if greater than 50% of society were to act in a similar way to the one in question, ask yourself would society be able to exist?
For example, if greater than 50% of people lied all the time, then society couldn't exist. We wouldn't be able to trust one another. That is whole basis of society. If greater than 50% of us were killers, then obviously at least half of us would be dead, so that wouldn't be a good thing.
So what do you think? Is this the only rule of morality that we need?
On Marriage For Life
The institution of marriage seems to be increasingly inadequate and dated.
In the US today, the base rate for getting divorced is 50%. That means that 1 out of every 2 marriages will end in divorce. That's a lot of divorces I guess. I was listening to a story on NPR about the reason for the prevalence of divorce in the United States. It said that the US uniquely values two traits -- individuality and the bond of marriage. Many countries value one or the other, but the US values both. So it's kind of a schizophrenia with two core values that are in conflict with each other.
And then you hear the religious conservatives blast off about how our morals are getting worse and we're not upholding Christian values and blah blah blah.
When Christianity and most of the religions today were first formulated, people didn't really have that many options for potential mates. There was no Match.com or Craigslist or the club down the street or anything. There were few options around them, and they took advantage of those options that were available. But today, you can potentially communicate with a much wider group of people. You can find people around the world, and have a relationship with them. So our options have increased. So we're still a pretty individualistic society and species and now we have more options for mates. What else did you think was going to happen?
It has nothing to do with "the decline of our morality." It has to do with options. We have more of them. And if your wife or husband isn't treating you right, then you're going to find a better option. That's what you SHOULD do. So this whole expectation that you're going to magically love someone forever once you get married and you should only be with them, is just complete nonsense. It doesn't consider actual reality. Most people just don't have any self control. Look at our credit card debt. It's ridiculous. People buy shit they can't afford all the time.
This whole concept of marrying someone for life I think is reserved for a small group of people. People who actually have self control and those that have adequately tested their relationship and compatibility beforehand. You can't just know someone for 6 months, get married, and then expect it to work forever.
EVEN THEN, you're missing the other factor of PEOPLE CHANGING. You are not a static machine. Every single day...every single minute...things are happening that are changing you. Over time those changes add up. People change and have newer interests or different personalities. So your relationship has to be flexible enough to accommodate those potential changes.
In the law we now have this concept of marriage that creates these sticky situations when people inevitably breakup. Who owns what? Who gets the kids? What we need is a more flexible legal relationship between people that actually mirrors reality. Because people breakup. And that's not changing any time soon.
In the US today, the base rate for getting divorced is 50%. That means that 1 out of every 2 marriages will end in divorce. That's a lot of divorces I guess. I was listening to a story on NPR about the reason for the prevalence of divorce in the United States. It said that the US uniquely values two traits -- individuality and the bond of marriage. Many countries value one or the other, but the US values both. So it's kind of a schizophrenia with two core values that are in conflict with each other.
And then you hear the religious conservatives blast off about how our morals are getting worse and we're not upholding Christian values and blah blah blah.
When Christianity and most of the religions today were first formulated, people didn't really have that many options for potential mates. There was no Match.com or Craigslist or the club down the street or anything. There were few options around them, and they took advantage of those options that were available. But today, you can potentially communicate with a much wider group of people. You can find people around the world, and have a relationship with them. So our options have increased. So we're still a pretty individualistic society and species and now we have more options for mates. What else did you think was going to happen?
It has nothing to do with "the decline of our morality." It has to do with options. We have more of them. And if your wife or husband isn't treating you right, then you're going to find a better option. That's what you SHOULD do. So this whole expectation that you're going to magically love someone forever once you get married and you should only be with them, is just complete nonsense. It doesn't consider actual reality. Most people just don't have any self control. Look at our credit card debt. It's ridiculous. People buy shit they can't afford all the time.
This whole concept of marrying someone for life I think is reserved for a small group of people. People who actually have self control and those that have adequately tested their relationship and compatibility beforehand. You can't just know someone for 6 months, get married, and then expect it to work forever.
EVEN THEN, you're missing the other factor of PEOPLE CHANGING. You are not a static machine. Every single day...every single minute...things are happening that are changing you. Over time those changes add up. People change and have newer interests or different personalities. So your relationship has to be flexible enough to accommodate those potential changes.
In the law we now have this concept of marriage that creates these sticky situations when people inevitably breakup. Who owns what? Who gets the kids? What we need is a more flexible legal relationship between people that actually mirrors reality. Because people breakup. And that's not changing any time soon.
On The Value of Philosophy
I think the study of philosophy is infinitely valuable for the people of our society.
"Well, but in philosophy you don't really learn anything. It's not that applicable to life. Why is the practice of contemplating my existence really important?"
Here's the thing...previously before the advent of the Internet, people who knew a lot of facts were thought to be "smart". If you could recite the encyclopedia or the dictionary or pass off random facts, then you were "intelligent". Today it's different. What the hell does it matter if I know the capital of everyone country in the world? I can look it up in 2 seconds on Google. Today we have tons and tons of information at our fingertips. To me, in the evolution of our society, "intelligence" is going to change to be the ability to synthesize that information and use it effectively for one's use. Therefore, given a set of facts or information you need to use your logic (what a concept) to formulate a conclusion.
Philosophy is the basis of having a solid logical base in one's mind. If you cannot understand philosophy, then you cannot be logical. Everything in philosophy flows from a set of premises and arguments to a final conclusion. So if you cannot rapidly analyze an argument or a set of data to make an inference about it, you fail. Nobody cares anymore if you know tons of shit that you can look up on Google. It just doesn't matter.
So today in our high schools there is no philosophy. We're too busy teaching kids about math, reading, history, etc. Now some of those are important. You need a solid math base. A solid reading base. A solid writing base. But besides those basics, NOBODY REMEMBERS ANYTHING AFTER AWHILE. You just remember the general tidbits. I took a class on Texas history in 7th grade. I can't tell you jack shit from that class. Davy Crockett went to Texas somewhere in there. Other than that, I don't remember anything. And I actually paid attention in class. I can't imagine the people that don't.
So my proposal is that everyone needs to learn some philosophy. Because learning about philosophy is just learning about how to analyze an argument and be logical. That's it. That's a lot more useful than all these random ass facts that teachers make you memorize and somehow that's "learning." That is NOT learning. Multiple choice tests have fostered this culture of just cramming and then circling letters on a test to indicate learning. You need oral essays and presentations and writing compositions. Instead of shoving facts down kids throats and telling them to regurgitate them back, you need to ask them, "what do YOU think about it?" That's real learning. And we don't do enough of it.
"Well, but in philosophy you don't really learn anything. It's not that applicable to life. Why is the practice of contemplating my existence really important?"
Here's the thing...previously before the advent of the Internet, people who knew a lot of facts were thought to be "smart". If you could recite the encyclopedia or the dictionary or pass off random facts, then you were "intelligent". Today it's different. What the hell does it matter if I know the capital of everyone country in the world? I can look it up in 2 seconds on Google. Today we have tons and tons of information at our fingertips. To me, in the evolution of our society, "intelligence" is going to change to be the ability to synthesize that information and use it effectively for one's use. Therefore, given a set of facts or information you need to use your logic (what a concept) to formulate a conclusion.
Philosophy is the basis of having a solid logical base in one's mind. If you cannot understand philosophy, then you cannot be logical. Everything in philosophy flows from a set of premises and arguments to a final conclusion. So if you cannot rapidly analyze an argument or a set of data to make an inference about it, you fail. Nobody cares anymore if you know tons of shit that you can look up on Google. It just doesn't matter.
So today in our high schools there is no philosophy. We're too busy teaching kids about math, reading, history, etc. Now some of those are important. You need a solid math base. A solid reading base. A solid writing base. But besides those basics, NOBODY REMEMBERS ANYTHING AFTER AWHILE. You just remember the general tidbits. I took a class on Texas history in 7th grade. I can't tell you jack shit from that class. Davy Crockett went to Texas somewhere in there. Other than that, I don't remember anything. And I actually paid attention in class. I can't imagine the people that don't.
So my proposal is that everyone needs to learn some philosophy. Because learning about philosophy is just learning about how to analyze an argument and be logical. That's it. That's a lot more useful than all these random ass facts that teachers make you memorize and somehow that's "learning." That is NOT learning. Multiple choice tests have fostered this culture of just cramming and then circling letters on a test to indicate learning. You need oral essays and presentations and writing compositions. Instead of shoving facts down kids throats and telling them to regurgitate them back, you need to ask them, "what do YOU think about it?" That's real learning. And we don't do enough of it.
On Homosexuality And It's Naturalness
Time and time again I hear the same argument from people about homosexuals.
"It just doesn't seem right. It's not 'natural'. How would we have gotten here if everyone was gay?"
This argument is really bad.
For example...condom use is a relatively recent phenomenon (apparently they were first invented 400 years ago). Everyone uses condoms and other forms of contraception because they don't want a billion kids running around. But condoms aren't "natural" either. They are preventing a male's sperm from entering a woman to continue our species. If everyone used condoms or other contraceptives (correctly) then we would have no more kids.
You end up at the same question, "How would we have gotten here if everyone used contraceptives?"
The point is, just because something is not "natural" means nothing to whether it is a morally permissible or "correct" action. Obviously there are other arguments against homosexuality (all of which are equally bad), but the next time someone tells you homosexuality is not natural, just slap for me please.
"It just doesn't seem right. It's not 'natural'. How would we have gotten here if everyone was gay?"
This argument is really bad.
For example...condom use is a relatively recent phenomenon (apparently they were first invented 400 years ago). Everyone uses condoms and other forms of contraception because they don't want a billion kids running around. But condoms aren't "natural" either. They are preventing a male's sperm from entering a woman to continue our species. If everyone used condoms or other contraceptives (correctly) then we would have no more kids.
You end up at the same question, "How would we have gotten here if everyone used contraceptives?"
The point is, just because something is not "natural" means nothing to whether it is a morally permissible or "correct" action. Obviously there are other arguments against homosexuality (all of which are equally bad), but the next time someone tells you homosexuality is not natural, just slap for me please.
6.21.2009
On Ownership
How do you really own something? Are the things that we "own" really ours or can someone else have a claim on them? For example, I purchased the computer that I am currently using with my money, but is it really mine?
Let's take a step back. Going back to when the settlers came to the New World, they found a vast land inhabited by the Native Americans. With any basic knowledge of US history, you will know that the Natives were pushed further and further west as the Americans took hold of the land. To rationalize the acquisition of land, the concept of Manifest Destiny emerged. Basically, the story goes, it was ordained by God that the United States needed to have all the land from coast to coast. So, the Natives were thrown off their previous land, and we had events such as the Trail of Tears.
Now I'm not going to debate that the Europeans/Americans did some pretty bad things in killing lots of Natives, spreading their diseases, etc. But my thought is: was it really that wrong for the Natives to be moved to new lands? Did they really OWN their previously inhabited land?
My thought is that they didn't really own it. To me, ownership is contingent on some powerful body being able to back you up if someone tries to take your property. For example, if I take your computer, and there is no US government to back you up and send the police after me, then do you really have a claim on that computer? In this situation we are in the State of Nature and might means right.
In my view the Native American Nation had sovereignty over a certain space of land, but after losing battles to the Europeans/Americans, the sovereignty was transferred away from them to Great Britain and later the United States. Thus, ownership was transferred, so how could the Native Americans' land really be "stolen"? They had no one to turn to in order to enforce their claim on the land.
What do you think?
Let's take a step back. Going back to when the settlers came to the New World, they found a vast land inhabited by the Native Americans. With any basic knowledge of US history, you will know that the Natives were pushed further and further west as the Americans took hold of the land. To rationalize the acquisition of land, the concept of Manifest Destiny emerged. Basically, the story goes, it was ordained by God that the United States needed to have all the land from coast to coast. So, the Natives were thrown off their previous land, and we had events such as the Trail of Tears.
Now I'm not going to debate that the Europeans/Americans did some pretty bad things in killing lots of Natives, spreading their diseases, etc. But my thought is: was it really that wrong for the Natives to be moved to new lands? Did they really OWN their previously inhabited land?
My thought is that they didn't really own it. To me, ownership is contingent on some powerful body being able to back you up if someone tries to take your property. For example, if I take your computer, and there is no US government to back you up and send the police after me, then do you really have a claim on that computer? In this situation we are in the State of Nature and might means right.
In my view the Native American Nation had sovereignty over a certain space of land, but after losing battles to the Europeans/Americans, the sovereignty was transferred away from them to Great Britain and later the United States. Thus, ownership was transferred, so how could the Native Americans' land really be "stolen"? They had no one to turn to in order to enforce their claim on the land.
What do you think?
6.04.2009
Update: On Virtues
So, just as I make my post, I find perfect article for what I'm talking about.
According to this controversial study, it's not just humans who know what right and wrong is. It's animals. Which isn't surprising considering we are animals. We're not the supreme being that rules the world.
So when you think about morality, maybe there are some absolute truths. Those truths being ones that are necessary for not only humans to have societies, but also animals around the world. It's obvious that humans and other animals such as wolves, coyotes, etc that are mentioned in the article will have some differences on what is right and wrong, but is it possible that at the most basic level, our different species can agree that some things (like random murder) are just wrong.
I think that if it was just you...you were the only person in the world, then nothing could really be right and wrong. It's up to you, you're the only person who can decide. But once you start introducing other people into the mix, then it becomes important to decide on a few basic rules that will govern society. That's not to say that everyone will follow them, but everyone NOT following them will lead to the destruction of the society. Therefore, from an evolution standpoint, there is basic sense of morality that is in everyone of us. Our ancestors decided to form groups and have basic societies. So maybe it ends up that the little voice in the back of your head that tells you that you are doing the wrong thing is really your DNA telling you that you're doing something against the fabric of society. People aren't always going to follow the rules, but I think that everyone of us knows what the right thing to do is, whether or not we choose to do it.
"Prof Marc Bekoff, an ecologist at University of Colorado, Boulder, believes that morals are "hard-wired" into the brains of all mammals and provide the "social glue" that allow often aggressive and competitive animals to live together in groups."
According to this controversial study, it's not just humans who know what right and wrong is. It's animals. Which isn't surprising considering we are animals. We're not the supreme being that rules the world.
So when you think about morality, maybe there are some absolute truths. Those truths being ones that are necessary for not only humans to have societies, but also animals around the world. It's obvious that humans and other animals such as wolves, coyotes, etc that are mentioned in the article will have some differences on what is right and wrong, but is it possible that at the most basic level, our different species can agree that some things (like random murder) are just wrong.
I think that if it was just you...you were the only person in the world, then nothing could really be right and wrong. It's up to you, you're the only person who can decide. But once you start introducing other people into the mix, then it becomes important to decide on a few basic rules that will govern society. That's not to say that everyone will follow them, but everyone NOT following them will lead to the destruction of the society. Therefore, from an evolution standpoint, there is basic sense of morality that is in everyone of us. Our ancestors decided to form groups and have basic societies. So maybe it ends up that the little voice in the back of your head that tells you that you are doing the wrong thing is really your DNA telling you that you're doing something against the fabric of society. People aren't always going to follow the rules, but I think that everyone of us knows what the right thing to do is, whether or not we choose to do it.
5.31.2009
On Virtues
Where do virtues come from? How do you know what is really right and wrong in this world? How could you truly know if an action was "correct" or "incorrect"?
I was having a discussion with one of my colleagues the other day about this. He didn't really end up telling me where he thinks our virtues as humans come from (he would probably say God -- which I deny). Before the church, and the Internet, and books, and newspapers, how did we come to settle on a group of ideals that people are supposed to have to be a "good" person.
As I was talking with him, it all became clear to me. It has to be related to our DNA and our evolutionary history. Because if humans our ancestors engaged in mass cannibalism, deceit, theft, etc. then a human society could not form. If you have an excess amount of people that do things to the detriment of others without even thinking about it, you won't have a functioning society. You'll have anarchy. So maybe in our evolutionary history, certain traits (we call them virtues) have been selected for and as a result, most of us inherently understand these virtues, because accepting these them has helped form our society. I think that most people know what the "right" thing to do is, but acting on it is different.
So then what becomes "right" and "wrong"? Something that is "right" would have to be related to the virtues that lead to the formation of our society (ex: honesty) and something that is "wrong" would undermine those virtues.
I'll have to think about it this more.
I was having a discussion with one of my colleagues the other day about this. He didn't really end up telling me where he thinks our virtues as humans come from (he would probably say God -- which I deny). Before the church, and the Internet, and books, and newspapers, how did we come to settle on a group of ideals that people are supposed to have to be a "good" person.
As I was talking with him, it all became clear to me. It has to be related to our DNA and our evolutionary history. Because if humans our ancestors engaged in mass cannibalism, deceit, theft, etc. then a human society could not form. If you have an excess amount of people that do things to the detriment of others without even thinking about it, you won't have a functioning society. You'll have anarchy. So maybe in our evolutionary history, certain traits (we call them virtues) have been selected for and as a result, most of us inherently understand these virtues, because accepting these them has helped form our society. I think that most people know what the "right" thing to do is, but acting on it is different.
So then what becomes "right" and "wrong"? Something that is "right" would have to be related to the virtues that lead to the formation of our society (ex: honesty) and something that is "wrong" would undermine those virtues.
I'll have to think about it this more.
5.23.2009
On Abstinence-Only Sex Education
I've been thinking a lot about this topic lately.
I get irritated when I think that our government is allegedly separate from the church, when it is in fact more closely united than people like to believe.
The case in point is the current federal spending on sex education for our nation's youth. In 2005, the federal government spent $170 million on abstinence-only sex education. That is the only type of sex education that the federal government (then under the Bush Administration) would spend money on. It might be fine to spend money on such programs, if they actually worked. Look at this graphic from this study (1) on abstinence programs.
People in the abstinence program were no different than people who did not participate. Sure, this is only one study, but if these programs were working, I would expect there to be an actual effect in making teens have less sex. But, the complete opposite is true...the programs have no effect. So, if they have no effect, then why do they continue?
It's because of the church. The church tells you that people need to abstain from having sex until your married. And that's fine. The church can tell you to do whatever you want. But that doesn't stop the fact that with my actual tax dollars on the line, the government is funding programs that are not proven to work. The only reason that they are still being used is related to the power of the church.
I just think we need some 21st century sex education. People who take abstinence pledges when they are teens and participate in these programs, don't change their behavior. And by ignoring the inevitability of teens having sex, you don't educate people on proper birth control options, leading to more teen pregnancy in our country and more sexually transmitted diseases. All because you don't believe in telling people about condoms? According to the Texas Freedom Network on this topic (who are probably a bit biased), teen pregnancy costs Texas taxpayers $1 billion a year. That's a lot of money that could be saved by giving our teens the appropriate information.
Another study released by Congressman Harry Waxman in 2004 (2), showed that abstinence-only curricula:
(1) - http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf
(2) - http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf
I get irritated when I think that our government is allegedly separate from the church, when it is in fact more closely united than people like to believe.
The case in point is the current federal spending on sex education for our nation's youth. In 2005, the federal government spent $170 million on abstinence-only sex education. That is the only type of sex education that the federal government (then under the Bush Administration) would spend money on. It might be fine to spend money on such programs, if they actually worked. Look at this graphic from this study (1) on abstinence programs.
People in the abstinence program were no different than people who did not participate. Sure, this is only one study, but if these programs were working, I would expect there to be an actual effect in making teens have less sex. But, the complete opposite is true...the programs have no effect. So, if they have no effect, then why do they continue?It's because of the church. The church tells you that people need to abstain from having sex until your married. And that's fine. The church can tell you to do whatever you want. But that doesn't stop the fact that with my actual tax dollars on the line, the government is funding programs that are not proven to work. The only reason that they are still being used is related to the power of the church.
I just think we need some 21st century sex education. People who take abstinence pledges when they are teens and participate in these programs, don't change their behavior. And by ignoring the inevitability of teens having sex, you don't educate people on proper birth control options, leading to more teen pregnancy in our country and more sexually transmitted diseases. All because you don't believe in telling people about condoms? According to the Texas Freedom Network on this topic (who are probably a bit biased), teen pregnancy costs Texas taxpayers $1 billion a year. That's a lot of money that could be saved by giving our teens the appropriate information.
Another study released by Congressman Harry Waxman in 2004 (2), showed that abstinence-only curricula:
- Contain false information about the effectiveness of contraceptives
- Contain false information about the risks of abortion
- Blur religion and science
(1) - http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf
(2) - http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf
4.19.2009
On Capitalism
Lately I've been thinking a lot about the status of our economy and world. How did we get into this mess? How are we going to get out of it?
Barack Obama has been accused (by various media outlets and commentators including Fox News of course) of implementing "socialist" programs that are going to weaken our country in the long-run. "We can't have universal health care, because it's going to cost too much." "Why should we (the rich) have to pay for that?" However, there is a an inherent flawed assumption in any argument that says the US in becoming a socialist state. The assumption is that you can only have either capitalism or socialism -- nothing in between. It completely ignores the FACT that economies/governments lie on a spectrum or even a grid among different ideologies.
Enacting new government programs does not make us automatically a socialist society over night. Sure, maybe it's a step in that direction, but the way people talk about it these days, we will be like Cuba in no time. Therefore, calling the US "socialist" is irresponsible and ignorant at best. Secondly, let's address another inherently flawed assumption, that the US is a purely capitalist state. It's just not true. Purely capitalist states wouldn't have governing bodies over our markets (Securities and Exchange Commission), libraries so anyone can read (buy your own damn books), the public school system (why should I be paying for your kid to go to school), etc. In a capitalist state, everyone would fend for themselves. However, let's just get it out there....capitalism FAILS in the end. The market is not perfect....only in your economics classes. If markets were rational, then we wouldn't be in the financial mess that we're in. Markets cannot regulate themselves. So if you say that markets can fix themselves, ask yourself why someone would buy a house for $500,000 that is now worth $350,000. Sure, now the person has a $150,000 loss and that's their problem. But, if the market was actually efficient and rational, they wouldn't be in the situation in the first place. The market doesn't know everything.
Another thing -- people who think that capitalism is the be all, end all solution, apparently haven't looked around the world. They haven't looked at all the countries that have been looted for their resources, they haven't looked at all the people starving and hungry, they haven't taken a step outside of anything that they know. So while they drive their Hummers, drinking their fancy wine, and living in the McMansions, please just tell them to give one thought to the other people who didn't have the same opportunity. "Oh, but those people are just lazy" -- this is the classic line from the capitalist pig. People don't have opportunity around the world, they can't get credit, and most importantly, they dont have a good EDUCATION.
Education is the most important thing a person can acquire. But a comprehensive, (non-biased) education is not widely available around the world. Hell, in such an advanced nation such as ours, we still have people being influenced by wackos who tell us that condoms don't prevent AIDS and evolution is a myth. Former President Bush's Every Child Left Behind Act crippled our country for eight years. So while his friends at Exxon Mobil and Halliburton had windfall profits at taxpayer expense, the future of America was slapped in the face with a substantial level of education.
Coming back around, Obama is magically becoming a socialist in the eyes of the loony conservatives because he wants people to actually have a good education and have healthcare. A successful nation needs these two things to be successful in the long-run. Why is that hard to understand. More on the socialism at another time....
Barack Obama has been accused (by various media outlets and commentators including Fox News of course) of implementing "socialist" programs that are going to weaken our country in the long-run. "We can't have universal health care, because it's going to cost too much." "Why should we (the rich) have to pay for that?" However, there is a an inherent flawed assumption in any argument that says the US in becoming a socialist state. The assumption is that you can only have either capitalism or socialism -- nothing in between. It completely ignores the FACT that economies/governments lie on a spectrum or even a grid among different ideologies.
Enacting new government programs does not make us automatically a socialist society over night. Sure, maybe it's a step in that direction, but the way people talk about it these days, we will be like Cuba in no time. Therefore, calling the US "socialist" is irresponsible and ignorant at best. Secondly, let's address another inherently flawed assumption, that the US is a purely capitalist state. It's just not true. Purely capitalist states wouldn't have governing bodies over our markets (Securities and Exchange Commission), libraries so anyone can read (buy your own damn books), the public school system (why should I be paying for your kid to go to school), etc. In a capitalist state, everyone would fend for themselves. However, let's just get it out there....capitalism FAILS in the end. The market is not perfect....only in your economics classes. If markets were rational, then we wouldn't be in the financial mess that we're in. Markets cannot regulate themselves. So if you say that markets can fix themselves, ask yourself why someone would buy a house for $500,000 that is now worth $350,000. Sure, now the person has a $150,000 loss and that's their problem. But, if the market was actually efficient and rational, they wouldn't be in the situation in the first place. The market doesn't know everything.
Another thing -- people who think that capitalism is the be all, end all solution, apparently haven't looked around the world. They haven't looked at all the countries that have been looted for their resources, they haven't looked at all the people starving and hungry, they haven't taken a step outside of anything that they know. So while they drive their Hummers, drinking their fancy wine, and living in the McMansions, please just tell them to give one thought to the other people who didn't have the same opportunity. "Oh, but those people are just lazy" -- this is the classic line from the capitalist pig. People don't have opportunity around the world, they can't get credit, and most importantly, they dont have a good EDUCATION.
Education is the most important thing a person can acquire. But a comprehensive, (non-biased) education is not widely available around the world. Hell, in such an advanced nation such as ours, we still have people being influenced by wackos who tell us that condoms don't prevent AIDS and evolution is a myth. Former President Bush's Every Child Left Behind Act crippled our country for eight years. So while his friends at Exxon Mobil and Halliburton had windfall profits at taxpayer expense, the future of America was slapped in the face with a substantial level of education.
Coming back around, Obama is magically becoming a socialist in the eyes of the loony conservatives because he wants people to actually have a good education and have healthcare. A successful nation needs these two things to be successful in the long-run. Why is that hard to understand. More on the socialism at another time....
3.10.2009
On Freedom of Speech
Have you ever thought about how important freedom of speech is? Not just thought about it a little, but REALLY thought about it? I think it is easily the important liberty we have in this country. However, it is increasingly being encroached upon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1: The new Obama administration is swiftly undoing some of the damage George Bush's administration completed over the past 8 years. For starters, Obama has unsealed documents showing how the Bush administration came to the conclusion that it had unfettered power to unequivocally:
The development of the term "terrorism" presents an easy vehicle for creating a persistent state of war. You're always watching your back because you can't tell who is a "terrorist". Maybe they have dark skin. Maybe they speak a funny language. But the point is, with "terrorism" the war is never over. That gives the President perpetual unlimited powers since it is generally recognized that the President can do a lot more during "wartime". So you have this term (similar to Communism from the early 20th century) that is used to elicit fear in people and convince them that their civil liberties are not important. You end up with a situation where speech really isn't free. Going against the "war on terrorism" ends up being treason. There's nothing wrong with criticism. Squashing it is against very fundamentals of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 2: In a recent development, the United Nations is considering adopting a proposal that will effectively make it illegal to make "blasphemous" remarks about religion -- particularly Islam. Christopher Hitchens said it all when he called it totalitarianism. Islam advocates a certain theory of the world and if you don't accept it by questioning it or doing anything that could be CONSIDERED questioning, then that's wrong. Have I been caught in a time machine? Is it really the year 2009? Are they serious?
It's very similar to the "hurt feelings" argument that is continually being propagated around the world and here in the United States. If I say anything that hurts your feelings -- especially in a religious context, then that's wrong. That's blasphemous. But here's the implicit and incorrect assumption -- my feelings don't matter. I can just as easily say that any of your beliefs are offensive to me -- even if they're not. Just because something is offensive to a group of people, doesn't make it wrong.
Imagine a group of people in Europe back in the 1500s (around the time of Galileo). Let's imagine that this group had a core fundamental belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Now if Galileo comes along and proves that the Earth in fact revolves around the Sun, if you accept the "hurt feelings" argument, then it would have been blasphemous for Galileo to make such an outrageous claim. Think about all the people's feelings who could be hurt!
It ends up being plain ridiculous to say that if something might hurt someone's feelings, then it shouldn't be heard. And look at this gem -- an editor of a Indian newspaper was ARRESTED for REPRINTING an article that was critical of Islam. Apparently he violated the Indian Penal code with his, "deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings". Wow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 3: Richard Dawkins' recent trip to Oklahoma University almost didn't happen if it were left up to one of the Congressmen from the state. The is the actual text of a piece of legislation that Todd Thomsen advocated:
This is censorship defined. To say that Richard Dawkins "demonstrates an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking" and then try to limit what he has to say, is exactly INTOLERANT in itself!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Freedom of Speech" is increasingly being encroached upon. If you don't let your voice be heard about your Constitutionally given rights, then they will disappear. Speech cannot be limited. Everyone has to be heard. Otherwise, we would live in a nation where people are actively persecuted for their dissent with the popular beliefs of the time. Do we want Big Brother to tell us what to think and do we want to call each other comrade?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1: The new Obama administration is swiftly undoing some of the damage George Bush's administration completed over the past 8 years. For starters, Obama has unsealed documents showing how the Bush administration came to the conclusion that it had unfettered power to unequivocally:
"Wiretap the Internet and telephone calls with virtually no limitations, restrict free speech, and use the U.S. military domestically against suspected terrorists" and "the president must be able to use whatever means necessary to prevent attacks on the United States; this power, by implication, includes the authority to collect information necessary for its effective exercise."Big brother was watching you. If you said anything over a phone call (that was being tapped to "protect our country") that could be construed as potentially "terrorist", then you could have the FBI knocking on your door.
The development of the term "terrorism" presents an easy vehicle for creating a persistent state of war. You're always watching your back because you can't tell who is a "terrorist". Maybe they have dark skin. Maybe they speak a funny language. But the point is, with "terrorism" the war is never over. That gives the President perpetual unlimited powers since it is generally recognized that the President can do a lot more during "wartime". So you have this term (similar to Communism from the early 20th century) that is used to elicit fear in people and convince them that their civil liberties are not important. You end up with a situation where speech really isn't free. Going against the "war on terrorism" ends up being treason. There's nothing wrong with criticism. Squashing it is against very fundamentals of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 2: In a recent development, the United Nations is considering adopting a proposal that will effectively make it illegal to make "blasphemous" remarks about religion -- particularly Islam. Christopher Hitchens said it all when he called it totalitarianism. Islam advocates a certain theory of the world and if you don't accept it by questioning it or doing anything that could be CONSIDERED questioning, then that's wrong. Have I been caught in a time machine? Is it really the year 2009? Are they serious?
It's very similar to the "hurt feelings" argument that is continually being propagated around the world and here in the United States. If I say anything that hurts your feelings -- especially in a religious context, then that's wrong. That's blasphemous. But here's the implicit and incorrect assumption -- my feelings don't matter. I can just as easily say that any of your beliefs are offensive to me -- even if they're not. Just because something is offensive to a group of people, doesn't make it wrong.
Imagine a group of people in Europe back in the 1500s (around the time of Galileo). Let's imagine that this group had a core fundamental belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Now if Galileo comes along and proves that the Earth in fact revolves around the Sun, if you accept the "hurt feelings" argument, then it would have been blasphemous for Galileo to make such an outrageous claim. Think about all the people's feelings who could be hurt!
It ends up being plain ridiculous to say that if something might hurt someone's feelings, then it shouldn't be heard. And look at this gem -- an editor of a Indian newspaper was ARRESTED for REPRINTING an article that was critical of Islam. Apparently he violated the Indian Penal code with his, "deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings". Wow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 3: Richard Dawkins' recent trip to Oklahoma University almost didn't happen if it were left up to one of the Congressmen from the state. The is the actual text of a piece of legislation that Todd Thomsen advocated:
WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma; and
WHEREAS, the invitation for Richard Dawkins to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma on Friday, March 6, 2009, will only serve to present a biased philosophy on the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other divergent considerations rather than teaching a scientific concept.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.
This is censorship defined. To say that Richard Dawkins "demonstrates an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking" and then try to limit what he has to say, is exactly INTOLERANT in itself!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Freedom of Speech" is increasingly being encroached upon. If you don't let your voice be heard about your Constitutionally given rights, then they will disappear. Speech cannot be limited. Everyone has to be heard. Otherwise, we would live in a nation where people are actively persecuted for their dissent with the popular beliefs of the time. Do we want Big Brother to tell us what to think and do we want to call each other comrade?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
