The Problem With Getting Sick Is That It's Expensive

In addition to talking to my doc about depression, I also needed to talk to him about the stuffy nose I've had for eight or nine weeks now. It's severity comes and goes, but every day I've had a little bit of congestion. I've never had allergies, but it seems I may possibly could be sort of coming down with 'em. Or it's something else. Hard to say at this point. But he gave me a script for Nasonex. I've never used it before or known anyone who has which made for a wonderful surprise when the pharmacist asked me, "Did your doctor tell you that this costs $108?"

Uhm...WTF? He most certainly did not telling me I would be shelling out triple digits for some stuff to spray up my nose. Is it made out of cocaine or something? Is there any chance I could get instructions off of the GoogleTubes and cook some of this stuff up at home?

So, I shelled out over one-hundred dollars that I do not have for some spray crap that may or may not help. I'm sure it's hard for docs to realize how much money that is for a very poor single dad. It's human nature to slip into thinking that our life is normal and that everyone lives pretty similarly.

Understanding this, though, doesn't make me feel any better about paying $108 for a small bottle of stuff to spray inside my nose. Cocaine is probably cheaper.

The Problem With Depression Is That It's Depressing

I've been struggling lately. It's funny to me how most people who have been around me for the past few months undoubtedly have no idea. My daughters and mother probably do because they see me more often and at home where I'm more likely to relax and display my "true" feelings. Everywhere else I go I put on a face, the best face I can, because how can I say to my coworkers, my boss, and other people I interact with, "Sorry. I'm feeling really depressed right now so I'm not inclined to work on that project"?

I've had bouts of depression here and there before, but nothing like it's been lately. Many days I come home from work and sit in my room doing nothing. I come up and eat dinner and then go back to my room doing nothing. I get up and get something to snack on and then I sit...doing you guessed it, nothing. When I go to work I somehow manage to put forth a modicum of effort, but not enough for the growing work load I have. What this adds up to is that I've flunked the last two classes I took, gotten behind at work, haven't made a number of the doctor appointments I should have, haven't really cleaned my room in awhile, not taken care of a number of small things around the house, not gotten the oil changed on my vehicle, and a whole host of other things that I really should because I...just...don't...care.

This sucks. Mind you, I don't have any sort of suicidal ideations. I just have no will to do anything.



So, I finally got around to seeing my primary physician today. Do you know how hard it is to talk about stuff like this? I suppose you do if you've ever felt like this, but if you haven't, let me tell you, it's damn hard. I've been seeing this doc for four years now and I like him a lot, but that doesn't make it much easier to rip yourself open and spill your guts. I haven't hardly talked about this to my friends or my mother. And today I had to tell this doctor that I needed help, that I was crashing and needed him to help me come in for a smooth (or at least not so rough) landing.

He gave me a script for Prozac. This did not really make me feel better. In fact, I found it...depressing. I'm already taking three pills a day, one injection a day (two on Saturday), and I'm hooked up to a machine 24/7 that pumps stuff in me to keep me alive. The last thing I want is another goddamned med to take every day. A small part of me also can't help but think, "You mean to tell me you're taking a pill 'cause you feel sad? Man up, sissy! Get over it!" I know this isn't logical. I know that these drugs have a good purpose. I know that I won't necessarily be taking it forever. I'm sure once I'm taking it (or some other similar drug if this one doesn't work) I'll feel better, but right now I'm just feeling depressed about taking drugs for feeling depressed.

Expanding the Home to Make Room for More...Books

I like these people.

When the Ainsworths met their breaking point, they did something even bibliophiles might consider drastic: They bought the house next door, added a two-story atrium to bridge the 15-foot gap between the houses, and converted most of the neighbor's house into a two-story library with cherry shelves, a mezzanine, fireplace and a rolling library ladder.

"It's the pièce de résistance of the house," says Sue.

I must admit to some jealously. Check out the pics of their beautiful home/library.

Epistemic Closure

As usual, the best news source around nails it.

"I almost gave in and listened to that guy defend Islam with words I didn't want to hear," Gentries said. "But then I remembered how much easier it is to live in a world of black-and-white in which I can assign the label of 'other' to someone and use him as a vessel for all my fears and insecurities."

Added Gentries, "That really put things back into perspective."

Panhandlers With Credit Cards

A journalist hands out prepaid credit cards to panhandlers and documents the results.

Diet Pop and Diabetes

Several years ago before I started getting sick I made a conscious decision to try to start eating healthier. This included drastically reducing the amount of pop I drank. I drank a lot, mostly Pepsi (or as a I like to call it "nectar of the gods"), probably about a six-pack a day on average. As much as I loved it, it actually wasn't that hard for me to cut back. In fact I probably had one can a month if that.

Fast forward to May 2008. I'm diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and now I have no choice in watching what I consume (well, I suppose I do have a choice, but I digress). Beverages I must be extra careful with. Grab just about any drink nearby - milk, juice, tea, pop - and check out the label. What does it have? Carbohydrates. Carbs are the thing I have to count when I am eating anything to ensure I am giving myself the correct amount of insulin. The problem with carbs in liquids is that they are processed much more quickly than carbs in solids (which is why diabetics who are getting hypoglycemic are directed to drink something like orange juice). That means a diabetic's blood glucose level is going to spike up drinking something like this unless he or she is very careful.

Now, I still drink juices and such with meals, but what about between meals? I'm just like anyone else in that I drink something when I'm sitting at my desk or watching TV or whatever. And I'm just like most people in that I get tired of water and want something else from time to time. But I can't just mindlessly sip on juice or pop because it usually has quite a few carbs. If only there was something other than water that didn't have carbs...oh, wait..diet pop doesn't!

Before I came down with diabetes, I never went near diet pop. Give me the real thing! I'd tell myself thinking about the wannabe-stuff with contempt. Now, however, I had to swallow my harsh words and try it out if I wanted something other than water to easily drink. It turned out to not be that bad and I became hooked. Now I'm drinking a couple of cans a day and again thinking to myself I need to cut back. It may not have sugar, carbs, or calories, but diet soda still has health risks and I'm already sick enough as it is. I don't need to have more things go wrong with me.

I guess I'll just have to learn to love good ol' H₂0.

Weekly Secret

PostSecret

Understanding One Quadrillion

A helpful visual guide.

The Commerce Clause

Here is a ten-minute video from Reason.tv about the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and how it relates to the new healthcare bill.



Though I mostly support the healthcare bill, I do think this is a reasonable debate to have. My problem with this video is that it seems edited to make Erwin Chemerinsky come off as having wildly crazy theories while everyone else is rational and correct. Now, perhaps Chemerinsky does that on his own; but you wouldn't know it watching this video. It doesn't matter which side of a debate does this; it's wrong and it's irritating. If you obviously have the correct position, then letting the other side clearly articulate their ideas should not affect the strength of your argument.

But it seems pretty obvious that for most people, well-reasoned and polite debate is not the American way.

h/t: Radley Balko

Really Facebook?

Facebook (500 million+ users) is suing the people behind Teachbook (fewer than 20 users) over their use of "book" in their name. This is another sad example of the 500 lb. gorilla knocking the little guy around. No one is going to confuse the two or start thinking that "book" is somehow getting diluted. Which one do you think has the money for a court battle like this? Right. So, who wins nearly by default. Right. Sad but true.

Something Deserving of Protest

This is something actually deserving of protest.

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.

This is all sorts of fucked up. There's no other way to put such an egregious violation of basic civil liberties. As conservative (label alert!) as the current Supreme Court is, I can't see them letting this stand. God, I hope not, anyway. This and not the Muslim community center (not mosque) near (not on) Ground Zero is something that people should be up in arms about.

The Problem With Labels

Check out this discussion between Conor Friedersdorf and Conn Carroll on Bloggingheads in which they discuss labels and labeling (e.g. conservative, liberal,etc.) Specifically, Carroll likes them and thinks they are a useful shortcut. Friedersdorf disagrees.



I find myself much closer to Friedersdorf. Labels can be alright as long as people using them and reading (or hearing or whatever) them remember that they are not always accurate, that they are mental shortcuts that are not capable of fully describing a person.

Unfortunately, this typically does not happen. We divide everything into oversimplified black and white groups. As such, one label becomes a signal of good and its opposite becomes the moniker of the scary other, the bad (like...conservative and liberal). We form teams. The team you belong to is obviously the good team and so the other team is the enemy. That also means that someone supposedly part of your team who disagrees with you in some way must clearly not be on your team whatever you may agree on. He or she is apostate and must be cast out like Carroll does with Andrew Sullivan.

What this means is that a label can end up obfuscating just as often as it clarifies. A journalist or blogger or anyone writing for an online audience is typically trying to explain a topic or their views on said topic. If using a label is not going to aid in that endeavor, then it should not be used. Carroll's argument that these labels help him understand a writer and their biases and the "holes" in their arguments was just bizarre. A person's ideas should stand on their own. You shouldn't need to know what label they are in your world-view in order to judge the merit of the argument. Carroll's use of labels this way allows him to agree with anyone on his team whatever the merit of their position and disagree with someone with the wrong label in the same manner.

In fact the reason I don't like to call myself a liberal or a conservative or any other label is because it is too easy to make that a neat little box to put someone in and I don't feel like I fit in a box like that at least not politically. Some labels are okay - male (nothing confusing about that...for me), dork/nerd (uhm...I play Dungeons & Dragons, love Star Trek, read Lord of the Rings over and over, can recite quite a bit of pi off the top of my head, so there's no real disputing of that one), father (I've tried not claiming my two daughters; it didn't work). Maybe there are a few others that I can accept. But when it comes to politics, I think it's far too broad a subject and the labels far too meaningless to let one apply to me. Do I typically lean left? Yeah. Do I agree with orthodox liberals (whatever those may be) on everything? Definitely not. As Friedersdorf said, calling me a liberal would not tell you much about how I thought politically.

Fox Makes It Too Easy

Why can't the mainstream media demonstrate the same level of analysis that The Daily Show does on a regular basis? Watch in awe as they demonstrate the intellectual dishonesty that exists on Fox.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Parent Company Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Harve Bennett Interview

Harve Bennett is credited (along with Nicholas Meyer) as one of the saviors of Star Trek. After the enormous expense and lackluster box officer performance of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the prospects of further movies was grim. Bennett stepped up and with virtually no knowledge of Trek when he agreed to the project, he went on to make some very successful and good films. Naturally then, I hold him in high regard so it was nice to see an interview with him over at Trek's official site. Check out part one here and part two here. There was nothing really new in it to a junkie like me, but I enjoy hearing directly from people behind the scenes.

Is Curiosity Good or Bad?

Stanley Fish writing an opinion piece for the NYT says that curiosity is not so good.

That’s exactly what Paul Griffiths, professor of divinity at Duke University, is afraid of. Where Leach welcomes the enlargement of curiosity’s empire, Griffiths, who is writing a book on the vice of curiosity, sees it as a sign of moral and spiritual danger: “Late modern societies that are fundamentally shaped by the overwhelming presence of electronic media and the obscene inundation of every aspect of human life by pictures and sounds have turned the vice of curiosity into a prescribed way of life” (“Reason and the Reasons of Faith”). The prescriptions come in the form of familiar injunctions: follow the inquiry as far as it goes, leave no stone unturned, there is always more to know, the more information the better. “In a world where curiosity rules,” Griffiths declares, “unmasking curiosity as a destructive and offensive device . . . amounts to nothing less than a . . . radical critique of superficiality and constant distraction.”

...

In short, curiosity — sometimes called research, sometimes called unfettered inquiry, sometimes called progress, sometimes called academic freedom — is their God. The question, posed by thinkers from Aquinas to Augustine to Newman to Griffiths, is whether this is the God — the God, ultimately, of self — we want to worship. Given the evidence, including Chairman Leach’s address, the answer would seem to be yes.

I suppose it's to be expected that an attack on curiosity would come from a person of faith. I'm not sure I've ever seen someone criticize it from a secular point of view.

It's a shame because I think curiosity is one of the greatest assets of humankind. Curiosity has allowed us to search out the entire world and beyond. It has given us medicine and the computer and democracy. Yes, of course, no advancement of knowledge comes without a cost, but I think that the price has been worth it. We are better off in many ways (not all) than we used to be. We can't learn anything without someone being curious enough to ask, "How?" and "Why" and "What if?" Without learning comes stagnation. With stagnation comes regression. Soon we find we are barbarians. Would we be able to eliminate slavery and enact women's suffrage without curiosity? Hardly. Somebody has to question why we have these institutions and why we are keeping them. That takes curiosity.

Fish brings up going "too far" and crossing moral boundaries due to "insatiable" curiosity. But does that mean curiosity is a bad thing. Some people eat too much. Should we then declare food a bad thing, something to be avoided? Not likely. We learn to moderate ourselves. We teach our children how to respect boundaries. Avoiding it completely is cowardly.



It's also interesting that Fish condemns curiosity as something that "distracts men from the study and worship of God." But how are we supposed to learn about God if we aren't curious about Her? Wouldn't a lack of curiosity lead to apathy? I think it would. So, I think some level of curiosity is necessary for human growth whether spiritual or not. Now Fish may think much less curiosity is desired than I do, but I don't see how we can be fully human without the ability to be curious.

Now, I specifically avoided one of the biggest points of Fish's essay, that of Adam and Eve and Original Sin. Such a topic requires much more space than a blog post. Suffice to say that I don't think that the lesson he learns from that story is specifically applicable to humans today.

h/t: Sullivan

What a Stud

This made me laugh.



Source: Fail Blog

A Vote for Pac-Man

Some hackers demonstrate how easy it was for them to install Pac-Man on an electronic voting booth.

Check Out the Big Brain on Philly

The city of Philadelphia wants bloggers to start purchasing a $300 business license whether or not they make money because they "could" make money. In the annals of stupid ideas...

Zoom Zoom

Don't click this link if you don't have time to waste. National Geographic has created a series of beautiful pictures that you can click to zoom in and see the smaller pictures making up the larger one. Click on one of those to enlarge it and then click it again to zoom in on it and pick a different photo. A very cool idea indeed.

Teal and Orange

A film editor complains about color in Hollywood films.

Those of you who watch a lot of Hollywood movies may have noticed a certain trend that has consumed the industry in the last few years. It is one of the most insidious and heinous practices that has ever overwhelmed the industry. Am I talking about the lack of good scripts? Do I speak of the dependency of a few mega-blockbuster hits to save the studios each year, or of the endless sequels and television retreads? No, I am talking about something much more dangerous, much deadlier to the health of cinema.

I speak of course, of THE COLOR GRADING VIRUS THAT IS TEAL & ORANGE!!!

He's got a number of screenshots to show what he's talking about. I never really noticed before, but now I won't be able to watch any movie without looking for this.

Weekly Secret

PostSecret

Wow, there's certainly a lot of emotion here. Whenever I read something like this, my curiosity is piqued. What was this person's childhood like? What are they like now? Was their childhood as bad as they make it sound? Who knows? Whatever the story is, though, this person is clearly carrying some baggage.

What Is Multiple Sclerosis and What Is Its History?

Two questions I know you have been asking yourself. Well, maybe you have been if you have it or know someone who does. I just discovered these two videos on MS on just this very topic. The first explains exactly what MS is (or at least our current understanding of it) and the second is a history of the disease. Did you know that one of the first people we can definitely say had MS was Lidwina, a saint from the Netherlands in the late14th/early 15th century? Now you do.

This takes about ten minutes to get going.

Blame It on the Sunspots

I mentioned it previously, but I'll harp on it again because I think it is important. We all suffer when one political party is more interested in running cranks for office than intelligent, credible people. I mean, how are we supposed to tackle climate change and its numerous, complex ramifications when the GOP wants to put forward candidates blaming it on sunspots?!

Mid East Peace Talks Back On?

I hope so.

U.S. officials told Jewish community leaders on a private conference call this afternoon that they believe Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is on the verge of joining Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in accepting an invitation to resume peace talks.

But the officials acknowledged that details of the talks have yet to be finalized, plans for a presidential visit to the region remain unclear, and hopes of drawing other Arab leaders and Hamas into the process ride on the momentum of the talks themselves.

Copyright Law

Via Ezra Klein comes this very interesting TED talk on copyright law. She focuses on the fashion industry (which has very few copyright protections), but makes some broader points about copyrights that are well worth considering.



I think it would be quite fascinating to see what the video game industry looked like if there were fewer (or no) copyright protections.

The Executive Branch is Not the Only Branch of Government

Yglesias writes about the foolishness of blaming all government problems on Obama.

Something to add to the growing “what’s Obama done wrong” literature and the “what’s wrong with the ‘what’s Obama don’t wrong’ literature” literature is that too often these discussions seem to me to forget that the United States Congress is composed of free and equal human beings who are responsible for their own actions. For example, it may or may not be the case that a different approach on the part of Barack Obama or his staff would have caused Ben Nelson to do different things low these past several months, but it’s absolutely certain that had Nelson wanted to do different things that different things would have happened.

Given that to err is human, I think we can take it for granted that some errors existed in the White House’s approach to legislative negotiations. But it’s also clear that members have their own volition. A skeptical Blanche Lincoln could have responded to the $800 billion stimulus request by asking Barack Obama “what does Christina Romer think? will this really fill the output gap?” Vulnerable House members could have challenged Rahm Emannuel “if things turn out to be worse than you guys expect, we’re all going to lose in the midterms—wouldn’t it be more prudent to build in provisions for additional stimulus if necessary?” The members who insisted on exempting auto dealerships from the jurisdiction of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could have said “you know what, Michael Barr is right, this doesn’t make any sense; we should do the right thing and tell the dealers to stop whining.”

He calls the tendency for this the "soft bigotry of low expectations." I'd also say that it's easier to point to one guy to blame for something than to say, "Well, it was the fault of at least some of those people over there, some more than others."

It's Not the Teachers, It's the Culture

There's has been some interesting back and forth on Andrew Sullivan's blog recently about education and poor (primarily African American) communities. Some of his readers have come out strongly against the notion that teachers are to blame for under-performing students, claiming that the problem lies with families that don't care about school and rampant gang problems.

I'm not talking about single parent families, although that's an issue. (You've also got a lot of kids in group homes - that's worse than the single parent issue.) The real problem is that the “system” doesn't run the schools. Gangs do. I can't tell you the number of bright, upwardly mobile freshman who were determined to break the mold and get out of Compton but were waylaid by gangs. By junior year most of them are gone, afraid of being killed if they return to school, usually for some ridiculous breach of gang etiquette like looking the wrong way at a banger. I can see their faces now, lost in the miasma of the inner city. That's the real tragedy.

This is one of the reasons that when I think about how I would like to reform our education system, one of the things I would work on doing is breaking down the barriers between school and the rest of the community. Schools should be tightly integrated with the families of their students and the businesses in the area. Of course this isn't going to make gangs magically disappear, but I think it it's important for education to not stop at 3:00pm. This is also a great way to show students that learning is not limited to sitting in a classroom. Schools that are more integrated with the community at large can give students something to be a part of that isn't self-destructive like gangs and drugs are. It can help parents by giving their kids something to do while they are working.

This would require a major paradigm shift in how we think of education, but I think it is a necessary step (along with more individual curricula) in improving our schools and getting away from a model still based on medieval universities.

Of course, policies to deal with poverty would also help.

The Muslim Community Center Near Ground Zero

Because human beings were involved in the 9/11 terrorism acts that brought down the World Trade Center, I think it would be terribly insensitive for any humans to build anything near Ground Zero. We need to think about the victims here, you know. Yes, yes, I understand that human beings were also killed that day; but I think you're just dodging the real issue. Dirty, scumbag humans were behind the plot therefore no humans must be allowed to build there.

It's just that simple.

Weekly Secret

PostSecret

These are the fears that Republicans are becoming so adept at manipulating. It's sick and it's McCarthyesque (the manipulation, not the fear).

GOP Not Interested in Governing

Check out this bizarre segment on Anderson Cooper in which Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex) just makes stuff up.



Crap like this is actively harmful to our country. When you have one party (out of two) more interested in fear mongering, lying, and just generally saying whatever they think they need to say in order to return to power (see ACORN, the Muslim community center near Ground Zero, the Black Panthers, healthcare reform, and so on) then effective governance is virtually impossible. While I may typically lean liberal on many issues, I still think that a credible, (at least somewhat) intelligent opposition party is crucial for making government run better. Ideas, any ideas in any field, are honed and tempered in the fires of opposition. An opposition party should be saying, "Why not try X, rather than your Y?" And X isn't stupid stuff like repealing the 14th Amendment. It's a genuine, legitimate different approach to whatever problem is being addressed. In this way, genuine compromises can be achieved or at least the legislation can be changed to make it even better. I don't think that any one political party has a monopoly on the right answers. I firmly support vigorous political debate; it's healthy. But both sides need to have some integrity and intellectual honesty. Without it, debate is pointless.

So, what is it going to take for Republicans to grow up?

RPG Reunion

It's always nice to see role-playing and D&D getting good press.

It was Vickery who entered the contest to reunite the group. They had fallen out of touch over the years, but were excited to see each other and have another Dungeons & Dragons adventure.

"I definitely miss it," Howe said. "The thing that I miss most about it is just getting together with my friends. Hanging out, talking, making fun of each other. That sort of getting together doesn’t happen as often."

"And that’s why I feel that D&D will never be completely replaced by games like World of Warcraft or anything like that," Vickery added. “Because role-play is at its base a social experience. You can try to synthesize that with technology, but you can never replace the feeling of having four or five of your best friends around a table, rolling dice and talking."

The Star Wars That Wasn't

Check out this fascinating interview with Gary Kurtz of early Star Wars fame.

“I could see where things were headed,” Kurtz said. “The toy business began to drive the [Lucasfilm] empire. It’s a shame. They make three times as much on toys as they do on films. It’s natural to make decisions that protect the toy business, but that’s not the best thing for making quality films.”

Most interesting of all is the way Return of the Jedi was originally imagined.

“We had an outline and George changed everything in it," Kurtz said. “Instead of bittersweet and poignant he wanted a euphoric ending with everybody happy. The original idea was that they would recover [the kidnapped] Han Solo in the early part of the story and that he would then die in the middle part of the film in a raid on an Imperial base. George then decided he didn’t want any of the principals killed. By that time there were really big toy sales and that was a reason.”

The discussed ending of the film that Kurtz favored presented the rebel forces in tatters, Leia grappling with her new duties as queen and Luke walking off alone “like Clint Eastwood in the spaghetti westerns,” as Kurtz put it.

Kurtz said that ending would have been a more emotionally nuanced finale to an epic adventure than the forest celebration of the Ewoks that essentially ended the trilogy with a teddy bear luau.

I think this just confirms my idea that Lucas is a fantastic idea guy, but he needs people around him to hammer those ideas into a better shape. There's nothing wrong with that, of course; it's just too bad that Lucas became so big that no one was willing to say to him, "Uhm, that's dumb. What if we took that idea, though, and tried this." Certainly it couldn't have made the prequels any worse.

The Politics of Fear

Speaking of demagogues manipulating people through fear (and hyperbole).



Ben Quayle is scum.

UPDATE: Okay, maybe Ben Quayle isn't so bad. I mean, his horrible ad did produce this awesome parody.

The Uninformed Electorate

Thomas Jefferson was a staunch believer in informed citizens as demonstrated by these two quotes.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.

Imagine his consternation then at the results of a recent Pew survey. Americans were asked 11 questions about various current events. On average, people only got 5.8 questions correct! The questions are very simple, but people don't know the answers. What does that say about the state of our nation? We certainly seem to be living in an age where education and knowledge are disdained as elitist which is, I believe, a serious problem. We face serious, complex issues such as global warming. Naturally not everyone is going to be up to the task of solving things like this, but we certainly need most people to have a baseline understanding of events so they can't be manipulated by power-hungry demagogues more interested in advancing their own interests than the interests of the electorate at large.

Some people are always going to be smarter than others, but we should all demand of each other to be as knowledgeable as possible about as much as possible so that we can make informed decisions. People will naturally still disagree on things, but disagreement based on reasoned thought is much preferred to disagreement stemming from ignorance.

For the record I got 11/11 on the survey. I'm not bragging. The questions aren't hard and people should do better than 5.8.

Of Course Cops Don't Support Being Recorded

Radley Balko has written a lot about the trouble citizens encounter when they attempt to tape on-duty law enforcement. Today he posted an article in which he interviewed three law enforcement officials to get their take. Unsurprisingly they all support punishing citizens that record on-duty cops.

"You have 960,000 police officers in this country, and millions of contacts between those officers and citizens. I’ll bet you can’t name 10 incidents where a citizen video has shown a police officer to have lied on a police report," Pasco says. "Letting people record police officers is an extreme and intrusive response to a problem that’s so rare it might as well not exist. It would be like saying we should do away with DNA evidence because there’s a one in a billion chance that it could be wrong. At some point, we have to put some faith and trust in our authority figures."

We should have some trust in our authority figures, but we are fools if we don't take prudent steps to monitor them to ensure they are not abusing their position (if only their were some sort of appropriate Latin phrase for this).

The broader point I want to make, though, is that of course cops are not going to favor allowing citizens to record them. No one stands up and says, "I am in favor of more oversight of my activities." That's perfectly natural. No one goes to their boss and says, "Hey, can you stand over my shoulder a bit more to monitor what I'm doing?" No one wants to feel like someone else is scrutinizing their every move. But the more power someone has, the more important it is for checks to be on that person to ensure that abuse does not occur. Trying to criminalize the recording of officers while on the job only makes it look like the cops have something to hide, that they can't be trusted. And if they are doing their job properly, what do they have to hide?

This is, of course, to say nothing of the ludicrous notion that taking pictures and recording events in a public arena can in any way be illegal.

Weekly Secret

PostSecret

I think I've embraced mine for a long time, but it's only in the last few years that I have really come to be...proud of it (for a lack of a better phrase). I wouldn't want to be any other way.

Color America in the Age of Black & White

Check out this amazing series of color photos from the late 30s/early 40s.



Pretty amazing considering color had just been invented.

h/t: Radley Balko

Leadership

For a little over a year now I've had to deal with the Worst Boss Ever at work. Due to some restructuring and reorganizing, he became the manager of our department and it was disastrous. He has no people skills or leadership skills. At all. He knew everything ("With my HR/Risk Managment/Database/ background..." or my favorite "I worked security at a concert once.") He liked to throw around his title ("As I am the manager...") He lied frequently about things big and small. He didn't want anyone to do anything without asking permission first (including for example answering questions about incidental matters directly pertaining to my job). He couldn't stand any questioning or criticism of anything he decided. He talked down to everyone. He stopped talking to you if you called him on his bullshit and issued orders to you by proxy.

In short, he's scum and working for him was a nightmare.

Thankfully, he was recently removed from his position. Due to another restructuring (for "budget" reasons) he no longer has anyone working for him (but he got to retain his manager title *eyeroll*). This has had the magical effect of dramatically raising the morale of everyone in the department. I've also stopped looking for another job. It's made me think a lot about leadership, though, and how companies really seem to struggle to find good leaders.

The greatest leader ever.

I have risen to a leadership position in a number of the jobs I have worked. In fact, I was a closing shift manager at Taco Bell when I was 16. How did I earn these promotions? By working hard and being competent at my job. It wasn't necessarily because I displayed any leadership qualities. Did I receive any training on how to lead or manage people when I was promoted? Nope. I was thrown to the wolves and expected to succeed.

So, as it is, much of what I know about being a leader has come from my own trial and error and watching leaders around me. This recent manager of mine was kind enough to teach me a whole lot about what not to do. The thing is that nearly everyone has worked for or seen in action some really pathetic supervisor. Why is that? I would think that companies would have an incentive to provide training and direction on leadership skills to people in those positions, but they often do not. Competence at a non-leadership job somehow seems to translate into "This person has management potential."

Bad leaders don't just have a negative impact on the people working for them, but on the company as a whole. People are not as motivated so they aren't as productive as they could be. People leave to find other employment and another person has to be trained to take their position. Why wouldn't a company want to prevent this from happening instead of encouraging it by setting people up to fail?

Any leadership training will naturally have to include lessons learned from watching Kirk in action.

UPDATE: Fixed picture.

The Suburbs

Arcade Fire's latest album, The Suburbs, is out now and you can stream the whole thing on NPR. I've listened to it twice now and I think it is just as good as their first two albums, although I think it is like both of them in that it will take several listens to fully appreciate it.

It's the End of the World As We Know It

I got an interesting little pamphlet in the mail the other day from a group called Family Radio. In big bold letters on the front it proclaimed...

THE END OF THE WORLD IS ALMOST HERE! HOLY GOD WILL BRING JUDGMENT DAY ON MAY 21, 2011

I guess I don't need to worry about finishing school or going to work anymore, I thought as my feeble mind tried to come to terms with the fact that the world is ready to exit stage left.

I guess I shouldn't be amazed anymore by the lack of critical thinking in humans and our very short historical memory, but I am every time I see something like this. These people are apparently not cognizant of the fact that Christians have been predicting the imminent end of the world and the return of Jesus since about, oh, five minutes after he died. Check out this handy reference guide of apocalyptic predictions. I just pinched myself and indeed it seems the world has, in fact, not ended.

Oh, and my own calculations indicate the world will end on March 3, 2011, so you better hurry up and save your soul.

Here's another Chicken Little recently predicting armageddon.


He's probably just trying to sell books, though.

Christian eschatology and it's many forms has been fascinating to me ever since I read the Book of Revelation as a wee lad. I wonder how much of the constant predictions of the imminent end are driven by a fear of this world, a fear of this harsh, cruel world. The typical conception of paradise certainly sounds far better than what we have here. When you look at our world and it's many faults and hardships and battles, I imagine that some people just think, "Screw it! I don't want to deal with this. I want my buddy, Jesus (and his Calgon), to take me away!" People are good at doing everything they can to avoid hard things and pain. Being whisked off to heaven seems a good way to do that.

Oh, and my calculations indicate the world will actually end on March 4, 2011, so I hope you get right with JC 'cause I'm not wrong like all of those other people. Really.

Weekly Secret

PostSecret

It shouldn't be a secret that I approve of this notion.

Word of the Day: Snollygoster

A politician who will go to any lengths to win public office, regardless of party affiliation or platform.

This is definitely a word that needs to be used more often.

On Shaving and Facial Hair (Or Lack Thereof)

I'm on vacation from work this week. One of the best parts of not working is not shaving everyday. I dislike shaving; it's a pain in the ass. So, when not working I try not to shave much. It is nice, but the downside is that it is a painful reminder of my lack of facial-hair-growing skills. Today is the sixth day since a blade has touch my face and here are the pathetic results.

Here is a straight on shot.


I know what you're thinking. Shane, you said you haven't shaved in six days, but your face hardly looks different. Yeah, don't remind me.

So, here are my profiles.


Six days and look how little is there! It's very patchy (which is probably giving it too much credit) and there is clearly more on my left side than on my right. I suppose I should be grateful that I can grow what I can and I am, but it would still be nice if I could, you know, have a full face of hair if I wanted it. My dad can grow a jungle on his face in just a couple of days. Why couldn't he pass that on to me instead of the receding hairline?

Anyway, in just a few days I will have to return to hacking off the seven hairs on my cheeks (five on the left, two on the right) and then I can go back to pretending that I could grow a full beard if I really wanted to. I just gotta believe.

Bruce Bartlett, advisor to Reagan, Treasury official under Bush 41, and known liberal wacko has this to say about the current Republican party.

The Republicans don’t have any credibility whatsoever. They squandered whatever they had when they enacted a massive UNFUNDED expansion of Medicare in 2003. Yet they had the nerve to complain about Obama’s health plan, WHICH WAS FULLY PAID FOR according to the Congressional Budget Office. The word “chutzpah” is insufficient to describe how utterly indefensible the Republican position is, intellectually.

Furthermore, Republicans have a completely indefensible position on taxes. In their view, deficits cannot arise from tax cuts. No matter how much taxes are cut, no matter how low revenues go as a share of GDP, tax cuts are never a cause of deficits; they result ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY from spending—and never from spending put in place by Republicans, such as Medicare Part D, TARP, two unfunded wars, bridges to nowhere, etc—but ONLY from Democratic efforts to stimulate growth, help the unemployed, provide health insurance for those without it, etc.

The monumental hypocrisy of the Republican Party is something amazing to behold. And their dimwitted accomplices in the tea-party movement are not much better. They know that Republicans, far more than Democrats, are responsible for our fiscal mess, but they won’t say so. And they adamantly refuse to put on the table any meaningful programme that would actually reduce spending. Judging by polls, most of them seem to think that all we have to do is cut foreign aid, which represents well less than 1% of the budget.

He speaks a little better of Dems.

Consequently, I have far more hope that Democrats will do what has do be done. The Democratic Party is now the “adult” party in American politics, willing to do what has to be done for the good of the country.

But, then he says this.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Democrats have the guts or the stamina to put forward a meaningful deficit-reduction programme because they know—as I do—that it will require higher revenues. But facing big losses in the elections this fall I can’t blame them. That leaves us facing political gridlock between the sensible but cowardly party and the greedy, sociopathic party. Not a pleasant choice for those of us in the sensible, lets-do-what-we-have-to-do-for-the-good-of-the-country independent centre.

I think this means we're fucked.

Kay Hagan Knows What Is Important

Recognizing the accomplishments of athletes. This is what elected officials are for. Not for crafting substantive legislation on matters like the economy or war or anything like that. Nope. Recognizing the achievements of highly paid, very famous sports figures is what it is all about.

Or something.

h/t: Ezra Klein

Art vs. the Artist and Growing Up

Tasha Robinson has a great article on the AVClub discussing how our perception of an artist and what they have said or done may color our view of their work.

It’s hard to know exactly where knowing the context of a work—knowing about its creator’s history and goals—fades into bias, and an inability to see the work for itself. It’s hard to come to any piece of art without bringing our personal baggage with us. Ultimately, we all have to decide for ourselves whether a given film, show, book, or whatever is meaningful and worthy, and we do that with all the knowledge at our disposal, often more subconsciously than consciously.

But I still think that while we can’t help how we interpret something subconsciously, we can help whether we let an artist’s words or actions completely distract us from our own direct, personal reactions. And in the end, letting those things get in the way is unfair to ourselves, and to our own emotions. And it’s unfair to the art itself, and whatever it may move us to feel or think. Regardless of its intent, regardless of its creator’s behavior, regardless of what anyone else who experiences it says, something speaks to you or it doesn’t, all on its own.

It's a thought provoking piece and worth your time to read in full.

The main thrust of her topic is how what an artist says outside of their art can influence our perception of the art, though she also touches on an artist's actions (e.g. Mel Gibson). I've found that many books and movies I enjoyed as a youngster I now have a different understanding of or appreciation of whether or not I have learned more about its creator. One book, though, took on a much different tone for me after learning more about its author and reading it through more mature eyes.

I'm referring to Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. I read this book when I was eleven or twelve and fell in love with it. How could an intelligent, outcast kid not love a book about an intelligent, outcast kid who is tasked with saving humanity? I read it more than once and it became one of my favorites. I strongly recommended it to many people.

Then I grew up. I found out that Card has a strong dislike for Muslims. He doesn't like gay people. He wrote a book about evil liberals overthrowing the American government and the courageous conservatives that must restore things to their natural order. In short, I found him to have a rather despicable world view.

But, that wasn't going to change my love for Ender's Game. How could it? None of that stuff was in the book that I could recall. So, a couple of years ago, I decided to read it to my daughters. I couldn't wait to share one of my favorite books with them.

It was different this time, though. I still enjoyed it and my daughters certainly did, but I couldn't help but seeing his political beliefs coming through and frankly I found it appalling at times. This essay does an excellent job taking apart many of the problems with the book, but I want to focus on the one thing that really shined through reading it again. If you have not read the book (and I do encourage you to because despite its issues, it is a very engaging story) stop here because spoilers ensue.

As Ender becomes more and more isolated by his trainers and is put through more and more torture and more students die at Ender's hands, it becomes clear that the ends justify the means for the protagonists of the book. The climax of this is Ender's genocide of an entire race of aliens that humans had been at war with. Topping it off, in the denouement, while Ender is vilified for becoming the Xenocide, he is portrayed in a sympathetic light. He did just what he had to in order to save humanity. He also didn't know what he was doing because he thought he was still just training.

In the essay I linked to above, an interview with Card is mentioned in which he states, "I don’t really think it’s true that ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions.' Good people trying to do good usually find a way to muddle through. What worries me is when you have bad people trying to do good. They’re not good at it, they don’t have any instinct for it, and they’re willing to do a lot of damage along the way." This is a very scary road to go down. If a person has good intentions, can they really do no wrong? And, who judges whether or not a person's intentions are good? One person's good can be another person's bad. I see Card reading Watchmen and unequivocally applauding Ozymandias's actions at the end whereas Alan Moore makes the reader very uncomfortable if he or she finds themselves thinking that what Ozymandias did might be justifiable.

I think there are definitely lines that should not be crossed, that the ends most certainly do not justify the means. Reading Ender's Game when I was young, I did not see Card's beliefs shining through. But as I mentioned earlier, reading it through more seasoned eyes and after having read some of the vile crap that he spews, I have a more troubled outlook toward the book and frankly am appalled at many of the things Card stands for. I do think that art should stand on its own, that its meaning or interpretation is between the connoisseur and the art. However now that I know what I know about Card and now that I have grown up and learned so much more, I can't put that away and look at it the same way I did when I was twelve. I suppose a part of me longs for the naivete of my youth. A part of me wants to simply enjoy the story as a simple tale of a boy far more talented and intelligent than all those around him who must overcome adversity to save the human race.

It's a great story, but I'm saddened that it's not the same story anymore.

UPDATE: Changed the first sentence because by the time I got around to finishing this post, it was not today that Tasha's article was posted.

Weekly Secret

PostSecret

I can relate.

Humans Are Not Vulcans

This is a fascinating presentation by Dan Ariely.



This also brought to mind one of my favorite new blogs, You Are Not So Smart, which sets about debunking common knowledge that we take for granted.

The more we learn about ourselves, the more interesting we become. Stuff like this makes me think about how easily we can be manipulated in all sorts of subtle ways. I also found myself thinking about how I wasn't like this. I'm rational. I'm not like the mindless sheeple. And then I had to tell myself that, unfortunately, I'm human, too, and prone to this as much as anyone else. The important thing, of course, is to be cognizant of it, to do what we can to recognize our weaknesses and our failings and take steps to mitigate them.

If you are, you know, one of those weak-willed suckers that is.

Pathfinder Giveaway

Let's see...

1) I like Pathfinder.
2) I like free stuff.

So, when I found out that Troll in a Corner was doing a drawing for three Pathfinder rulebooks, I had to sign up. For those not in the know, Pathfinder is the spiritual successor to the Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 rule set. I have a pdf of the core rulebook and I love it (even though I haven't had a chance to play it).

My current group is playing Dark Heresy, but I'm hoping that when the current campaign wraps up, we can get some Pathfinder action going. Perhaps some shiny new books (*crossesfingers*) would be added incentive.

Quote of the Day

"We are more far more afraid of being racist than we are of being good human beings. And that is fucking cowardly." -Adam Serwer

The Differences in Educating Girls vs. Educating Boys

These are two fascinating studies.

He found that students who attended high school with high-achieving peers performed better at graduation, passing more of their final exams than students who went to the same school in a different year, when the crop of classmates was weaker. Intriguingly, the effect of high-achieving peers was much more positive for girls than for boys. Jackson's results suggest that boys may, in fact, pass fewer exams when surrounded by high-achievers, while girls' graduation exam pass rates are helped by having bookish classmates.

Essentially, it is very good for girls to be surrounded by smart classmates. It is good for boys, too, as long as their classmates aren't too much smarter than they are. Being surrounded by poor performers has a negative effect on both genders.

Studies like these are crucial for education and a way to guide educators in how to make their programs more effective. I read stuff like this and think about the possibility of separating boys and girls into different classrooms. Girls can be thrown together for the most part regardless of level. Boys, however, should be grouped with other boys on a close scale of ability so that no one of them is that much better than the others cutting down the gap between the "best" and the "worst."

Unfortunately the trends seems to be more toward teaching for tests in reading and math and not worrying about anything else. I'm curious to see if Race to the Top will produce anything good, but I'm skeptical that it actually will. For as much money as we spend on education and for as important as it is, you would think that there would be more willingness for bold experimentation especially as we see our country falling behind other developing nations in terms of student achievement.

Weekly Secret

PostSecret

MSM Fail

Thank you, Jake Tapper, for bringing this important story to light. Did the President Go to the Wrong Ice Cream Store?"

I will sleep better tonight knowing that ABC is on top of this.

Eulogies

Here are two stories that brought a touch of warmth to my cold, cynical heart.

A married couple dies within hours of each other. "Lou, I love you. I had a wonderful life. I'll see you in another place."

Author John Scalzi writes about the passing of the family dog. "And both times I did the same thing. I petted her head, slid out of the chair and on to the floor, and held my dog while I cried, letting her be the one to share both my joy and pain, so I could go on to what I had to do next."

Shocking Grandma

I have written about stuff like this before. A cop in Oklahoma tased an 87-year-old woman who wanted to commit suicide.

And so we meet Lona Varner, an 87-year old woman from the central Oklahoma town of El Reno, bedridden and respirating with the aid of an oxygen machine. In late December, her grandson called the police in fear that Ms. Varner was in the process of suicide. But the cops discovered that she retained an acute desire to take anyone who tried to stop her into the Void with her.

Newser reports that Ms. Varner kept a knife underneath her pillow and pulled it when the police entered her home. “If you try and get the knife,” she warned, “I will stab you and kill you. I killed four Japs in World War II, and I would not bat an eye killing you.” An ugly remark at an ugly moment, to be sure.

It was followed up by compounded ugliness. One of the officers reached for a Taser and used it on Ms. Varner, burning her to the point where she would require hospitalization. According to her lawyer, the police also “treated the frail woman brutally, ripping the flesh on her arms as they grabbed her.” Police have the right not to be harmed, without question. But is there a policeman alive who can’t disarm an 87-year old bedridden woman without the use of a stun gun?

One of the reason that stories like this make me mad is that it makes people (such as me occasionally) who carry Tasers look bad. The Taser is a great tool, but like any tool it needs to be used properly. And using it on an bedridden 87-year-old woman on oxygen is not the proper use of it, not when she only has a knife. If she had a gun, it could probably be justified. But this woman didn't. If an officer gets a cut on his arm getting a person like this under control, then he can chalk it up as part of the job.

Does that suck for the officer? Well, yeah. But it is the job of law enforcement to serve and protect. That carries risk. And this officer did not protect this woman. As Ackerman writes in the article "[t]here’s something about non-lethal weapons that encourages abuse." It's because they are easy to use. Point, shoot, and your target is on the ground, muscles locked, and screaming in pain. Anyone carrying a Taser needs to learn that they can't be used anytime the officer feels like it. There has to be justification. And you can't tell me that a bedridden old lady with a knife is a serious enough threat to justify an electric shock.

Fear in the Media

Greenwald has some questions about standards in the media.

So common is this appellation that a NEXIS media search reveals that the word "disgraced" appears extremely close to the phrase "Eliot Spitzer" (within two words) a total of 394 times:

The problem is that conservatives don't get the same treatment.

By blindingly stark contrast, ever since he got caught hiring prostitutes to wrap him in diapers while campaigning on the basis of Family Values, the word "disgraced" appeared within two words of the name "David Vitter" a grand total of 4 times -- all from small blogs:

[Newt] Gingrich was so described a grand total of 5 times, none from major news outlets:

Alberto Gonzales, who was forced to resign as Attorney General in the wake of a major Department of Justice scandal, and who was revealed as one of the earliest authors of pro-torture memos, has had that term applied to him a grand total of 17 times.

Glenn wants to know "[w]hat accounts for this extreme discrepancy." I think it boils down to fear. The media is scared of being portrayed as having a liberal bias, so they go out of their way to demonize people on the Left while soft-pedaling conservative politicians. The noise machine from the Right led by Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity make MSM media outlets cower in fear, worried that attacks from them will diminish their quickly dwindling audience. They don't realize that their extreme cowardice demonstrated in issues like this and their changing the use of the word "torture" is a bigger reason for their decline, not attacks from right-wing bloviators.

Polanski Won't Be Extradited

Switzerland announced today that they will not be extraditing Roman Polanski for his crimes committed here in the states. This is ridiculous, but not really surprising unfortunately. I struggle to understand it, though.

Why do so many stars support him? Why do so many people think that just because he is a great filmmaker (and he is) he should get a pass? Why does the horrific murder of his wife and unborn child mean he can commit a crime and get away with it? Why is the fact that he has been living in self-imposed exile from the US (to hide from the authorities) count as "punishment enough"?

I am appalled that anyone can support him. I have enjoyed his films, but seeing him get a standing ovation at the 2002 Academy Awards made me squirm. The applause was clearly not for the film, but for him as a person. He committed a crime; he should pay the price. If there were problems during the trial, that is what the appeals process is for. He pled guilty!

The other thing I would like to briefly address is the victim's wish that Polanski be forgiven and the case dropped. I can't imagine what this must be like for her and I have no doubt that she would like to put the entire matter behind her. The problem is that doing so only adds incentive for other criminals to run. Why stick around and potentially go to prison when you can run for thirty years and hope that all will be forgiven? Even if you do end up going to prison, that's a few decades of freedom to enjoy.

This whole case is a travesty of justice and we all lose when this happens.

But They Do It, Too!

Conor Friedersdorf discusses Glenn Beck and political discourse with Matt Lewis.


It's a good talk, but I really have to take issue with one thing Lewis says. At one point, after Friedersdorf says that he thinks it's a problem when people on the Right like Beck demonize the Left and make them out as being not people they disagree with, but people allied with our enemies. Lewis then says that it's not much different than what liberals were doing when Bush was around. In other words, "B-b-but they do it, too!"

You know who else makes arguments like this? Kids. My daughters do it all the time and I smack them down every time. Just because someone else has done something wrong, I say, does not mean it is okay for you to do it. I know other parents don't let their kids get away with this, either. So, why is it okay for adults to get away with this? Why can't Lewis or anyone else debating something one side or the other has done in politics instead say, "You're right. They shouldn't be doing that and I don't support that." Doesn't that sound more mature than pointing fingers at other wrong-doers?

I also wish that Friedersdorf had been stronger on the dangers of making someone you disagree with politically into the scary other. These people-one-step-removed-from-Hitler are people that we have to live with, work with, and, yes, compromise with. We don't live in a nation where one group always gets what they want. We have to be able to live together and accept that no one (no matter where you may be on the political spectrum) gets to have everything they want in terms of policy. And, if by some chance you (yes, you) get a piece of legislation that you think is perfect, just wait. Control of Congress will change and your favorite legislation will get changed, watered down, or repealed.

So, instead of making political opponents your enemies, how about we respectfully disagree, work on persuading them of the rightness of our actions (rather than the wrongness of theirs), and learn how to work together like adults.

Yeah, I know that sounds about as likely as "Imagine," but that doesn't mean it's not something we should strive for.

HT: Andrew Sullivan

Weekly Secret

PostSecret

Religious Studies Does Not Equate to Being a Minister/Priest/Pastor

A friend of my mother's asked me today if I was still majoring in Religious Studies. I said I was and she asked me if I planned to teach it when I got my degree. I said I might, but that there were other options I wanted to explore, as well. She proceeded to tell me about several members of her family who were ministers of some sort or had been to some sort of Divinity school. While she didn't come right out and say it, the implication was that she thought I might be interested in that, too.

Uhm, no.

In fact, I often tell people that my major is History because many people make the assumption that I want to lead a church when they hear Religious Studies. While I admire those who have that calling, I most certainly do not. In fact, I think I would make a rather poor preacher. I do have very strong personal beliefs, but they are just that. Personal. I don't even really share most of my beliefs with those closest to me.

My interest is in studying religion itself and how it works and what people do in its name. I find it fascinating. History is close enough to that so I don't quite feel like I'm quite lying (history of religion?) even if I do feel a bit guilty when I say that. I'm just trying to save them some confusion when I have to attempt to explain that my major is secular.

Faith vs. Science

Dreher writes about the problems with having blind faith in science.

We should be responsibly skeptical of authority -- not only religious authority, but scientific authority. We live in an age of Scientism, in which many people invest science with the power of ideology. Wendell Berry calls this "modern superstition," because people have given science the powers they used to give to religion. Berry wrote a fantastic book defending the integrity and value of art and religion as ways of knowing, against the idea that Science should be the undisputed master of all. He doesn't oppose science, but he thinks that all three ways of knowing -- art, science, religion -- must be understood as limited. The trouble comes when any one is elevated as supreme above all others, and their spheres.

I agree 100% that we should be skeptical of authority of all types. I don't think there is ever anything wrong with asking questions, with not accepting anything blindly. We have brains for a reason (to reason...hahaha...nevermind). No one who espouses any sort of thought about something should be upset with someone else asking them, "Why do you think that?"

However, I'm not sure it's accurate to say we live in an age of Scientism. More accurately we do live in such an age, but it's only different from every other period in human history in terms of what we have blind faith in. Having a skeptical, questioning nature is hard. In fact, it seems to go against human nature. We are wired to accept certain things and we don't want to think that our belief (in religion, in science, in whatever) could be wrong. That's scary. So, we blindly accept a premise, however we've come to it, and then cling to it with a fearful fury. Certainty is much more comfortable than its opposite.

In my mind, school is where we should learn to get away from this. School should be less about facts and more about thinking, reasoning, questioning. I would much rather have a kid graduate knowing the bare minimum of facts about say, the American Revolution, but with a strong ability to critically examine the entirety of it, its pros and cons, its consequences, and what it meant. The ability to think critically is a much more useful skill than rote memorization of facts.

One last thought on skepticism. Being critical of everything does not mean not believing in anything. It means being able to explain why you believe something, not just what you believe.

America's Rules

Glenn Greenwald kindly sums up the way things work here in America.

* If you torture people or eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by the criminal law, you receive Look-Forward Imperial Immunity.

* If you shoot and kill unarmed rescuers of the wounded while occupying their country and severely wound their unarmed children sitting in a van -- or if you authorize that conduct -- your actions are commended.

* If you help wreck the world economy with fraud and cause hundreds of millions of people untold suffering, you collect tens of millions of dollars in bonuses.

* If you disclose to the world evidence of war crimes, government lawbreaking, or serious corruption, or otherwise embarrass the U.S., you will be swiftly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and face decades in prison.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry reading that, but either way, it's patently absurd. We are living in America, right? Right?

Touching is Important

Here is a fascinating article from Discovery on how what we touch affects our judgment.

First off, in two experiments reminiscent of another study I’ve written about, Ackerman showed that holding a light or heavy clipboard can affect a person’s decision-making. In a study of 54 volunteers, those who clutched the heavier board rated a job candidate more highly based on their resume, and thought that they displayed a more serious interest in the job. They even rated their own assessments as being more important! However, the boards didn’t affect the recruits’ judgments on areas unrelated to importance, such as the candidate’s ability to get along with others.

In a second test with 43 volunteers, those who held the heavier boards were more likely to call for government funds to be spent on serious social matters like setting air pollution standards, over more trivial affairs like public toilet regulations. Again, the mere feeling of weight appears to influence the importance we give to matters.
...
Ackerman also looked at the influence of an object’s hardness. He asked 49 volunteers to touch either a hard block of word or a soft blanket, under the pretence of examining objects to be used in a magic act. Afterwards, when they read an interaction between a boss and an employee, those who felt the wood thought the employee was stricter and more rigid than those who touched the blanket (but no less positive). It doesn’t have to be the hands that do the touching either – when he repeated the same task with 86 volunteers who sat in either a hard, wooden chair or a soft, cushioned one, he found the same results. “We primed participants by the seat of their pants,” he writes.

The chair experiment also gave Ackerman the opportunity to test the effect of hardness on decision-making. He asked his recruits to place two offers on a $16,500 car, the second following a straight refusal of the first by the dealer. While the volunteers offered the same average amount at first, those who sat on the softer seats offered far more on their second go than on their first. That’s consistent with the idea that hardness has connotations of rigidity and stability. People who feel hard sensations are less likely to shift in their decisions. Harder chairs made for harder hearts.

This is really neat stuff and I can see companies and marketers using this to influence in all sorts of ways we won't realize.

Interestingly, just a few days before I read this I was thinking about the growing prevalence of hands-free devices. I began wondering how that would impact our understanding of and feeling toward these technologies. There is something about touching an object that helps us connect with it. Think about your car, the feel of the wheel in your hands, the gas pedal as you press it down, the gentle rumble (or not depending) of it as you drive it. This makes the car come alive in a way making it more than just a metal husk taking you from A to B.

I also wonder where this will lead. If we become more and more reliant on hands-free devices, how will that affect our relationships with other people? Will we value more the physical contact we make with loved ones (hugs, handshakes, and more) or will we place less emphasis on these as we become used to interacting with things without actually touching them? I don't know, but is something to think about while I physically press the keys on my laptop to type this.

Happy Fourth of July!

Montana Republican Party Fail

The Montana GOP just released their 2010 platform. It contains this doozy of a line.

We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal.

Aside from the fact that their is no way to "keep" homosexual acts illegal in Montana since they were decriminalized in 1997, I am baffled by conservative action against consenting adults. Aren't Republicans constantly railing against government intruding where it shouldn't? Don't they want smaller government? How does that square with outlawing homosexual acts?

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be outlawed. I don't like, burqas, toe jam, or bad rom-coms. I also don't think they should be illegal. Conservatism is supposed to be about dealing with the world as it is, not how you want it to be. Gays are here, they want relationships, and it doesn't hurt anyone. Someday these people will have to accept that.

HT:From Here to Eternity

Super Mario Crossover

Some clever soul recreated the original Super Mario Brothers video game as a flash game. The kick is that you can play through as other classic 8-bit characters such as Link, Simon Belmont, and Mega Man. It's so awesome, I can't believe no one else has done it before. Check it out here. Fair warning, though: don't click through if you have other things to do because this will consume a few hours at least.

Bonobos Are Clearly In League With Satan

Vanessa Woods at Psychology Today wrote an article on bonobos and how she believes their pacifist ways are the key to "[saving] the world." One of her readers, a pastor, took issue with the piece, however, because bonobos are quite promiscuous and not just heterosexually, either, but...homosexually so.

When I read your article about bonobos, I of course, thought of [my son]. He would love them. But, I had to ask the question, "Am I comfortable with him learning about bonobos and their behaviors?" It's a good question for me to ask myself. If I'm honest, I would say my first reaction was to shield him from these animals because of their behavior. This wouldn't be uncharacteristic for us, since there are lots of animal behaviors that are difficult for a four-year old to understand (i.e. mating, violence, etc...). However, what's different about this particular behavior is that in an orthodox biblical position, homosexuality is a sin... but animals don't sin. We don't typically place animals in a moral category. In other words, they don't do righteous acts or unrighteous acts. So...what am I to make of these animals that engage in homosexual activity?

It seems to me that this behavior reveals a sense of brokenness in the natural world. Paul spoke of the unnaturalness of homosexuality, "men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men..."(Rom. 1:27). So, what he says is unnatural, now looks to be natural! But, just as natural disasters aren't normative, neither is homosexual activity within animals. The creation itself is marred with the effects of sin (i.e. death).

You can read the entirety over there, but this is the meat of it. It's nice that this guy didn't condemn the bonobos to the depths of hell, but his email still leads to some troubling conclusions. He says that the bonobos can't really sin because they are animals, but that their homosexual acts are indicative of a broken world. But, why would God allow an animal to be acting in a "wrong" manner because of what a couple of humans did? Yes, I know one can easily ask why we are paying the price for the mistakes of Adam and Eve, but I feel one can make a more likely logical argument for that than for the punishment of animals. And while bonobos are quite close to us genetically and very smart, they don't have the intelligence and reasoning capability of a human.

All of which is to say that I have a hard time ascribing the actions of an animal to human sin.

Everyone Should Have a Pet Like This

Well, everyone cool anyway.

AT-AT day afternoon from Patrick Boivin on Vimeo.