Down With GroupThink

One Side Attacked Me and the Other Began Negotiating Terms of Surrender

2011-08-02T23:32:00.007-04:00

Vote away Congress, playing with lives as the toys of ideology and elites. Where’s my Social Security, my medical care, my living wage, my freedom from borrowing under duress?

And the President, with the white flag of surrender permanently attached to his forehead. Fight the callous zealots! Rip away the façade of populism to expose the sneering elitism! Now I need my bailout and my bonus, or am I small enough to fail?

Forget Boehner, Reid, Pelosi, and McConnell. They’re all at a table, celebrating a job that was never worth doing. Two with most everything they wanted, two just get to move on.

Sweet champagne for baby Boehner and bitter beer for the coward Obama. Three cheers for economic reformation! And shrugs to the quiet masses.

They will all be driven home tonight, jobs awaiting them tomorrow. Succeed or fail, 90% will be re-elected.

Death, celebrated

2011-05-02T21:08:00.001-04:00

It is the strangest thing, this campus. Full of hippies, hipsters, fogies, and nerds all trying to be correct and sensitive, all celebrating the end of a life. I am not sure how to feel, balancing victory with respect for death, and it is that balancing that keeps the line of my mouth straight...mostly straight.

I walked through the commons last night - everyone standing and talking when most sit and stare at computers. Is this what it takes for us to be social?

I want to mention that he was living in a mansion two hours from a capital and close to a military academy. I'd like to discuss the appearance that the house was too secure and the activities too furtive for someone to have not had an idea. Maybe it matters that Obama made this a priority and maybe - just maybe - it matters that someone was killed as a shield.

From there, I could write about leadership flaws, partisanship, even problems with international relations, practical and academic. But I really just want to express my confusion. It was a moral victory, a vindication, closure (maybe) and a show of dominance and victory. But bin Laden didn't really matter that much anymore and people are celebrating his death like it's the end of the wars rather than just being death. But maybe the moral victory is significant enough and maybe the symbolism is great enough. Beyond it all, though, remains a simple truth, that death, celebrated, is unnervingly strange.

Video Interlude - An absolutely brilliant representation of the day's ultimate economic debate

2011-04-30T13:38:00.003-04:00

Part 1

Part 2

God and the existential Catch-22

2011-04-25T02:21:00.001-04:00

So in the midst of all my mind-crunching work, I am having an existential crisis. Intrigued? Well, click on good sir/madam/other

I am agnostic. I think it is possible that there is a god or gods but I simply don't know; I am open to the possibility of any belief system being true, atheism included. My existential crisis is as follows:

Let's say there is a God. The Christians' God, for argument's sake. God is good. God is benevolent. God does not want me to go to hell.

There is a hell. It is a hell for sinners and not believing in God as the one and only true god is a sin - perhaps the worst sin. Those who choose a life of sin are damned for eternity and those who do not believe in the Christians' god live a life of sin.

God is also all-powerful. So, if God wants us to be sinless, why does God not make us sinless? Why does God not create people with complete belief in God and whatever belief system is the correct belief system?

According to the Christians I have talked to, I have to take a leap of faith. I have to choose to believe in God, the end.

I ask again, what is the point of that? It is all-important and yet left to the whims of the imperfect? I am answered, God gave us free will to choose for ourselves. I ask why God gave us the free will to choose God or sin and I am answered that God is ineffable.

But this is not enough for me. I need evidence, proof, because this is a revolutionary life choice, something that will change me and my experience completely. Did God not also allow me the faculties of logic?

But there is no evidence. It is written down and that is all. You choose to guess.

But what if I guess wrong? What if I guess Christianity and Islam is the right choice? What if I guess Islam and the answer was Protestantism? How do I know which to choose? And what if none of them are correct and I change my life for an eternity of oblivion or another religion's purgatory? Should God, the all-knowing and all-powerful, not - at least - provide more evidence than a book that's thousands of years old, translated across multiple languages, and interpreted through people whom it calls imperfect and fallible?

Moreover, isn't that type of thought process incompatible with the type of thought process God requires of us in order to believe in God? How do I know to abandon the former for the latter?

You must take a leap of faith. Guess.

Anyway, many different faiths sustain people in their lives; it feels right for them but for most religions, it is wrong. So why does this:

end in this, for so many people:

Probably
Tags: SOUTH
PARK more...

Update

2011-04-18T13:57:00.002-04:00

Alright, so here's the deal. I have my final school project due on May 3 and, believe it or not, that's a very tight deadline right now. Plus, I'm working 20-40 hours a week at my job so I don't have time to post right now, unless you guys want to hear about types of methodologies and things (some of) my co-workers do that piss me off. Actually, I don't want to write about any of that.

Anyway, I have a bunch of half-written posts I might have time to finish but I'm not sure if I'll have that time.

Don't forget about me and follow me on Twitter so you know when posts go up. Or email me (DownWithGroupThink@gmail.com) and I will let you know. Peace!

The Round-Up #12

2011-04-10T15:23:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the Round-Up. Throughout the week, I tweet links to anything unique or funny that I find online, via DWG's Twitter feed, DownWithGT. Then, every week or two - typically on the weekend - I post the 3(ish) most unique or funny tweeted pages. So, without further ado, here, ladies and gentlemen, is the Round-Up #12

This is an article about how Belgium's lack of government. It's not really like the situation here in the US but it's interesting how limited is the role of Belgium's government anyway. It certainly appeals to the Libertarian in me.

And this explains how the American Dream has been perverted by peoples' desire for perfection. Can you be people "whose husbands will be power brokers, whose children will score 2,400 on their SATs and who will be playing competitive-level tennis, whose careers will be skyrocketing, whose fortunes will be growing?" No? Then there's rapidly becoming something wrong with you. (although I might add that you're not perfect unless you're happy and many of these people are too busy and stressed maintaining the facade of perfection to be happy)

And hey, take a break and play this puzzle game. Fun and addicting. You know you want to.

I wish people were smart

2011-04-07T00:44:00.000-04:00

I wish people were smart. I wish that when I talked, they listened and responded constructively. I wish that intelligence was assumed so that there was no need for people to defame all else as "stupid" or disparage themselves by pointing out "fails."

I know that people have the ability to think and think deeply. I think that in many cases they work too hard to do so. But I think they should at least acknowledge when they decline to use their intellect. No more do I want to hear someone tell me one thing, refuse to listen to me explain another, and tell me I'm wrong. Engage or admit inability to judge.

The thing is, judging is rampant. Everyone judges all the time. Sometimes I think that it has become a past time, what with every action and every comment being examined for flaws and stupidity. When did we lose the ability to accept without determining rightness? Why does everyone feel this need, as if judging all proves intelligence?

Everyone's a critic and a critic is no more than a nay-sayer. To be truly intelligent is to know when you don't know and to understand when you don't understand. So when I hear something defamed as "stupid," I wonder whether that word might be better applied to the defamer, although I much prefer "willfully ignorant."

Video Interlude - Sick hip-hop video

2011-03-29T01:29:00.003-04:00

Hey, it's better than doing my lit review

The Round-Up #11

2011-03-27T16:54:00.001-04:00

Video Interlude - The 3 funniest dunks I found on YouTube

2011-03-22T22:23:00.003-04:00

The Stolen Laptop

2011-03-17T00:13:00.000-04:00

It is surreal. My mind is empty. Deep and hollow. This isn't disbelief. I believe but it was never real. I know but I don't comprehend. I go through the motions.

It isn't traumatizing or emotional. It is just ... nothing. Really? Yup, I tell myself. Really, I ask again a minute later. Maybe it is all the hiccups, irritations, and infuriations of the last six days. Perhaps I have had my fill. When the tow driver pointed to the nail in the tire, I reached the point where it is all funny. The saturation point. You can't be irritated because it is simply the tide of nature rocking back against you.

Now, it is past that and what do you do when the saturation point is exceeded? It is just ... numb. It is disbelief. At one moment, anger, yelling. At the next, laughter followed by a blank stare. I over-dramatize because I am looking for description through the veil of that stare. If that makes sense.

One upon another and this moment is exceeded in ... whatever it is ... by the next, already. The next irritation, promising to stretch until ... whatever.

The Round-Up #10

2011-03-12T17:26:00.001-05:00

Welcome to the Round-Up. Throughout the week, I tweet links to anything unique or funny that I find online, via DWG's Twitter feed, DownWithGT. Then, every week or two - typically on the weekend - I post the 3(ish) most unique or funny tweeted pages. So, without further ado, here, ladies and gentlemen, is the Round-Up #10

I want to start with an effort to change often un-thought-about lives: Unheard in New York, an organization that has given four homeless people in New York access to Twitter "to help [them] speak for themselves" ...

... and dip quickly into negativity with a criticism of Glenn Beck done with old Donald Duck cartoons (if it crashes, I suggest trying another browser or refreshing the page) ...

... before getting a little more positive, as one writer envisions the Egyptian uprising as a key step toward a Middle East without borders ...

... and ending with a joke: a flowchart of what baseball team you should root for.

Video Interlude - Jon Stewart on what American workers really need to do to appeal to corporations

2011-03-11T16:19:00.000-05:00

Video Interlude - Representative Keith Ellison (D - MN) testifies at the Muslim Radicalization Hearings

2011-03-10T18:05:00.000-05:00

For context, Rep. Ellison is Muslim.

The Link-Up Issue 2: Sex In All Its Sexiness

2011-03-06T18:15:00.001-05:00

Welcome back, says the Link-Up, I know it's been a while. Just blame it on this stupid blogger who's so up his own [we'll get to that later] that he can't sit back and let other people do the talking.

Oh, suuuuure, he set up that awesome Twitter feed for my home, and he's writing those stupid Round-Ups (*cough* inconsistently *cough*), but can't he sit back for a minute and pay some modicum of respect to that whole "deference to the experts" thing?

But I'm back anyway so let's make it a good one. He found that sex lecture at Northwestern thing so interesting that he started looking up what people are into. Popular fetishes, what people are writing about the state of sex in the US, etc... It's kinda weird but hey, I'm back out in the world so who am I to complain?

Alright, look, USA. I know you're weirded out by sex. Hopefully, not when you do it, but definitely when it's talked about in public. Why is talking about it necessary? It seems strange to talk about it. It just seems kinda inappropriate. Etcetera. I grew up in this country. I know that even liberals in the most liberal parts of the country don't want to talk about sex. I know everyone avoids it so no one has to talk about it so no one does talk about it etc...

But here's the thing: Sex is natural. Sex is fun and if not, then - not to be imposing - but I would recommend you try to find out why. Sex is relaxing. Sex is...sex is just awesome and there's nothing wrong with that. Many of us love it and everyone can love it (although the older you get the harder it is, probably). We don't talk about it because this country is rooted in religious conservatism (I think) and that religious conservatism is making sex awkward for a lot of people. Personally, I say start talking about it, be more comfortable with acknowledging that everyone does it, and see life become more fun. Sex. Sex. Sex. Sex is awesome. I like sex. All my friends like sex (precluding those who haven't done it yet, but I'm sure they will all love it; yes, northeast, there are virgins at non-religious colleges). Sex!

Dude, come on!

Sorry. So I saw this article about a woman and man who attended a BDSM seminar at Northwestern, with the intention only of answering questions. Apparently, they thought the video shown was lame so the woman got naked and her boyfriend used a kind of dildo (AH! I saw you squirm! Hang in there, this'll get more intellectual-like) to bring her to an orgasm. I read somewhere that she wanted to demonstrate that the female orgasm is real (I hope that isn't necessary). The woman has said that it wasn't meant to be a big story but, hey, it's sex and it's public and it happened at a respected university. We hate to talk about sex...but we love to talk about sex...or complain about it...whatever.

So let's just read about it. With apologies to the homosexual community, who are woefully underrepresented in this post (if you care, you can always post a link or comment; If I think it's interesting, I'll tack it onto the end of the post), pick your starting point: Slate, where they got a bunch of sex columnists to submit the one most nagging question they have never been able to ask about sex. The Most Interesting Sexxy Award goes to Dan Savage, the Most Philosophical to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, and the Most Likely to Make the Ladies Laugh to Ian Kerner.

Or, AskMen, where they have compiled a list of mens' top ten kinks. I never even thought of some of these as fetishes (fingernails? oh, maybe that's why fingernail painting is so rampant) and some always seemed too weird to be mainstream (this really would make you leave). The most strangest thing though? A lot of men like to be dominated. Like, not softly asked to do something, but spanked, penetrated and whipped. Very interesting.

Side Note: Did you notice that? I didn't. Women can dominate and be penetrated but penetration is on my list of examples of how men are dominated during sex. Here's an article about how pleasurable penetration can be for males (it's how you get to our G-spot) and how to do it properly. In a bit of irony, I feel compelled to state that I have never tried it.

But let's move on. How about the meaning of a man penetrating a woman from woman's point of view and a man's? To the man, I would like to write that I don't thinK the desire to penetrate generally comes from an anger at women; I think it comes from a biological desire to dominate but that that desire can take forms across the emotional spectrums. To the woman, I would like to write that women can be dominant while being penetrated and perhaps women who are afraid of penetration should do so. Perhaps they could start by being on top? Maybe hold the guys wrists or something. I think it seems possible.

Wow, it does feel weird to write about sex when I know it'll be published but let's read some myths about female orgasms. Did you know that G-spot stimulation can make a woman want to pee really badly? Have you ever thought of asking your lover to masturbate in front of you to figure out what she likes?

Then, maybe some "male pleasure positions." And, to round out this advice mini-section, the 6 mistakes men and women make. Um, ladies, it says right there on the bottom of the latter's first page that we don't even notice half the things you obsess over when trying to look beautiful or sexy.

Ok, that's a lot of links. Two more though, then I'll let you go. First, why we should rethink the age of consent, as William Saletan argues that a 17-year-old who has oral sex with a 15-year-old should not face the same punishment as a 53-year-old who has sex with a 5-year-old. Second, why senior homes should be much more lax in how they treat residents who want to have sex, as Daniel Engber argues that it should be seen as healthy and natural rather than exploitative and gross.

But if you do want to stick around, I would like to write a couple of replies to a couple of quotes in that article about the demonstration at Northwestern:

"I bet a few of the parents of these students wouldn’t mind taking a paddle to the clowns running this university-turned-S&M theater." (Michelle Malkin)

First of all, one demonstration does not constitute "S&M theater." Second, while I'm sure many parents will be angry, a university is supposed to be a place where people are free to challenge conventions and explore new ideas. S&M may not be new but it certainly is a marginalized idea, and I would be angrier at my school if it didn't allow professors and students to voluntarily explore the idea through whatever means they felt appropriate. And sex, no matter how expressed, is certainly central enough to human nature for the reasons for learning about it to be self-evident.

"I can't for the life of me figure out what the intellectual value of this exercise was supposed to be. I'm also afraid to ask what the homework assignments are like." (James Joyner)

Mr. Joyner started by accepting this because it was voluntary but then felt the need to qualify with the above, which means he is just another guy willing to tentatively accept something that makes him uncomfortable but simultaneously dismiss it for being "weird." Second, if you can't figure out what the intellectual value is, then do some research, ask, or withhold judgement rather than dismissing by admitting ignorance. Ditto for the homework assignments comment, since you so deftly admitted you know nothing about something while dismissing that something. Also, I somehow doubt that the homework assignments involve making people have sex or making people watch sex, but to be honest I would hope that "human sexuality" students would be encouraged to see multiple expressions of the act they are studying.

"If there is informed consent before this happens and none of the University's money is going to this, I don't think I would care even if I had a child enrolled in that school." (Aaron Worthing)

Again, I was always under the impression that universities were supposed to be bastions of learning. Shouldn't we celebrate our money paying for explorations of the unexplored?

And anyway, why can't we withhold judgement? It was voluntary. I tweeted with the lady in question and she said it wasn't meant to be a big deal. So I think the question is this: in an extracurricular seminar in which attendance was voluntary, and in which a number of students chose to watch a demonstration of what they were there to talk about, why do so many people with no connection to the incident feel the need to judge and judge harshly?

Note: As with all Link-Ups, feel free to submit your own links. I will update this post with any I think add to it.

Two Metaphors for the Israel-Palestine Conflict

2011-03-03T19:28:00.005-05:00

Two Hagglers and a Lemon

The seller starts at $100, expecting to negotiate downward, and the buyer starts at the highest price s/he can pay. The seller is confused when the buyer won't offer more and eventually becomes frustrated when the buyer won't cooperate. The buyer keeps offering the most s/he can pay and becomes frustrated when the seller won't understand this. There is deadlock and no sale, and a passing observer becomes frustrated because s/he sees just one lemon on a healthy tree.

Two Parties and Two Threats

One party says "If you threaten me, I will hit you in the stomach." The other says "If you hit me in the stomach, I will hit you in the stomach."

Video Interlude - Sir Ted Robinson on the nature of the educational system and what to reform

2011-03-03T18:39:00.000-05:00

This is a TED talk and a collection of films on education can be found at Festival-of-Films.com

The Round-Up #9

2011-03-01T21:37:00.001-05:00

Welcome to the Round-Up. Throughout the week, I tweet links to anything unique or funny that I find online, via DWG's Twitter feed, DownWithGT. Then, every week or two - typically on the weekend - I post the 3(ish) most unique or funny tweeted pages. So, without further ado, here, ladies and gentlemen, is the Round-Up #9

And today, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to a very special version of the Round-Up, where "very special" means that for once I really am sticking to three links.

一 Kay Hymowitz, author of "Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys," writes at The Daily Beast that men are generally angry at women and that she understands why: women covet and routinely find equality - if not superiority - in the social and working worlds but routinely expect men to act superior in dating and sex, as if the rise of women were irrelevant in romantic and/or lustful settings; they want chivalrous relationships but only and exactly when they want it

二 Joanna Weiss at boston.com wonders why so many Americans experience a "worker-on-worker ire" where they demean and bemoan unions, even though it is unions that have achieved many of the rights that afford so many of us comfortable lives.

三 And finally, at TechZene you can see a very attractive graphic that explains how Facebook is worth twenty billion dollars

Video Interlude - Francis and the Lights

2011-02-27T21:17:00.004-05:00

Random design I did for class

2011-02-17T17:35:00.002-05:00

(after the jump)

This is an exercise with Adobe Illustrator where you

pick two or more letters

arrange them in some pattern so that the pattern is too large to fit on a 3x3 art board

Crop the pattern so as to put it on a 3x3 artboard

Create another 3x3 art board with the same pattern but with inverted colors

create a pattern on a 9x9 template with those two 3x3 art boards

The Round-Up #8

2011-02-13T01:40:00.001-05:00

Note: Well, it looks like I wrote #8 a couple of weeks ago but forgot to post it. However, there haven't been a lot of Round-Up worthy links since then so let's just go with this.

Let's start with the talk of the international town: Egypt. At the Atlantic wire, you can see excerpts of an instructional pamphlet handed out to protesters, while at Salon, you can find a report that al-Jazeera is better than American news outlets at covering the unrest. The former is quite a lesson in protesting under unfriendly regimes, while the latter begs the question: given their geographical and cultural proximity, shouldn't they be?

And with two links used already, we move to - and finish with - sports. At SB Nation, you can find an article examining why Jay Cutler was called a wuss two weeks ago, and at Hoopism, you can find a time vs. score graph of all dunks from all NBA dunk contests, with videos of most of them. The latter is awesome and the former begs the question: isn't playing in an NFL game proof enough of toughness?

And as a bonus, you can click over to the Onion, where they are reporting that wealth inequality is now the 8th wonder of the world. Peace!

Egypt: History's Great Microcosm and Metphor for US Foreign Policy, and the Impossible Dilemma Therein

2011-02-08T00:28:00.002-05:00

At its inception, the United States was a neutral nation. George Washington wanted to see no foreign entanglements because he knew that such arrangements could be disastrous for a country in its infancy. For most of our history, we hewed to this policy as closely as we deemed possible. We avoided what had been the downfall of many great nations and what bankrupted so many of our European cultural allies.

However, when the United States began to find itself with a growing ability to shape the actions of other countries, we began the process of conveniently forgetting the lessons of President Washington. Starting perhaps with Latin America, the United States began brandishing its newly developed big stick.

Today, our foreign policy is the opposite of what we started with, without equivocation. For both better and worse, we have embedded ourselves in more of the world’s problems than I have time to count. And if we did not already know it, Wikileaks exposed to us our own hubris in expecting the world to accept our involvement. Like the bad aunt in a family comedy, we let our opinion be known - righteously and imperiously.

The biggest problem we have found is that our interests and our national morals often conflict. We have spent a century preaching freedom and a decade turning our serious face to the Middle East and its lack of democracy. Meanwhile, we spent a century supporting dictators and a decade being delicate with dictatorial allies in the Middle East. Our leader even held one of their dictators’ hands and we even forthrightly declare our intention to devastate the people who elected Hamas in order to depose the government.

Which brings us to Egypt. Partly for historical ties and partly for timeliness, Egypt represents our dueling interests coming around the back and kicking us in the ass. Our balancing act between helpful dictators and America’s grander goals is failing spectacularly. One day, the Secretary of State declares support for the friendly dictator. The next, and without a hint of embarrassment or restitution, she is declaring support for the upstarts.

And yet, it is more complicated. Our support for dictators and our general expectation of involvement has more than angered a large radical fringe of a certain religion. Our self-righteousness, peachiness, and willful ignorance of our own faults has – wonder of wonders – encouraged these people to lash out. You see, our culture may make them hate us but it is our imperiousness and unrelenting presence that makes us the target. Coming full circle to one of history’s most convenient microcosms and metaphors, the likely next Egyptian government is one of radical Islamists.

So, what are we to do? At first glance, it would seem that declaring unequivocal support for the protestors is a convenient and highly public way of declaring our intention to make everything right. At second glance, we see the Muslim Brotherhood. Their unrelenting hatred of us leaves us no choice but to support Mubarak at all costs. However, that unrelenting hatred is largely the result of our support of dictators and, more importantly, our expectation of involvement.

You see the problem?

What's Our Problem?

2011-02-03T17:52:00.017-05:00

I am so pissed. America doesn't think anymore. My fellow Americans are not stupid. Perhaps if they were, all this silliness could be excused. I am pissed because my fellow Americans are - increasingly - willfully ignorant.

The stunning ignorance of our elected representatives is on display once again. Representative Michele Bachmann has confidently declared that all of our Founding Fathers were resolutely opposed to slavery and worked tirelessly to end it. This is blatantly false, as many Founding Fathers owned slaves, and the Constitution, albeit for purposes of political compromise, implies that slaves were each 3/5 of a person.

Meanwhile, Sean Hannity invited a radical Muslim cleric onto his show only to shout over the man. Rather than engage a representative of a large and growing segment of the world's population, Mr. Hannity opted to retire to a few simplistic points while his "guest" calmly attempted nuanced argument in support of what could have been interesting points. In a microcosm of the entire interview, the end featured the cleric calmly stating Mr. Hannity was acting immaturely but that he wished for a more substantive conversation in the future. Mr. Hannity called the man a "sick, miserable, evil SOB." Whether this is true or not, who would an impartial viewer sympathize with? For that matter, has the cleric come away with an understanding and respect for an alternative viewpoint?

I find this troubling not because I believe the cleric to be a good man. I haven't the slightest idea, thanks to Mr. Hannity's diatribe poorly masked as an interview. I find this troubling because I could write all day and night about incidences of public figures or officials displaying strikingly stunning ignorance or an apparent allergy to anything accept total agreement with any point s/he makes.

I wish desperately for the attitude of Ed Koch, who once said "if you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist." Well, we need a psychiatrist and we need a history lesson united by the common theme of "I may not agree with what you have to say sir, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

No, actually we just need a history lesson. Let history teachers march on Washington! Let them set up a podium and lecture Congress all day for a week. Perhaps then we will be reunited with our historical ideal, if not always practiced, of listening to each other. Let us be reunited with the idea that history, for better or worse, must be acknowledged so that the future can be better.

We cannot continue to allow people to get away with stunning ignorance and allergy to thought. This cannot be a recipe for success in this county. The Sean Hannitys and Michele Bachmanns must experience nothing less than ridicule for taking their damaging predilections to public office and the public debate. They must be ridiculed for embarrassing us as Americans.

Thought has become passe and this must change by whatever means necessary. Otherwise,
the United States is no longer exceptional and we will continue to live through the downfall of the great American era.

Where I come from, the highest compliment you can pay someone is to say they are down to earth...

2011-02-01T18:37:00.001-05:00

I understand why being "down to earth" is a valued trait but I don't understand why it is valued so highly. Being down-to-earth is to be average, slightly uncreative, and largely unadventurous. Why is this not a trait to be accepted pleasantly rather than wished for actively? After all, those who improve our future condition are the opposite of down-to-earth. They have ideas that are derided as fantastical but rather than bring their ideas down to us, they bring us up to their ideas.

Not being down-to-earth is meeting the woman in the red silk dress or the man in the pressed white suit. It is jumping off that cliff and swimming through those curious fish. It is what you have always dreamed of but never risked wishing for.

Those who are the most fun or the most inspiring or the most adventuresome, those we admire as children but sometime learn to forget because ... well, because ... are the ones who left the common world because of all the things we, the down-to-earth, complain about but accept as fact. Accept the world as opinion, and it becomes a much more wondrous place.

So pay me a compliment. Tell me I am not down to earth.

(concluding sentence modified from - and post inspired by - two lines in the superb movie, "The Tourist" (2010))

The Round-Up #7

2011-01-24T23:15:00.001-05:00

Welcome to the Round-Up. Whenever I something interesting, funny, or unique online, I post it on DWG's Twitter feed, DownWithGT. Then, every weekend or so, generally on the weekend, I post a list of the 3(ish) most linkable pages and call it the Round-Up. Number seven after the jump.

Today's Round-Up is a hefty smorgasbord of interest and insight. Set aside some time and sit down with a hot chocolate. You could be a while.

We start at the ever-famous Onion, where three mock reports reveal more about America's political and news climates than "serious" reporting could. There is the report that it's going to take more than an inconceivable act of violence for the country to rise above petty politics, the projection that the intense conflict in the Ivory Coast may rise to the status of news blurb, and the analysis of pundits that finds they are disturbingly adept at getting inside the mind of the Tucson shooter.

Let us now dispense with the purely negative article, which suggests that there are too many opinions available and that we must question any political environment where so many people can find multiple new ideas every day of the week and where so many people seem to feel a need to have an opinion on everything.

Then we can move on to Slate's listing of the most interesting questions sent to them that they either couldn't or wouldn't answer, including such thought-provokers as whether 3-D glasses work on cats and whether it's legal to booby-trap your house.

Finally, we find the blog of Walter Russell Mead and finish with two similar pieces. The first examined liberalism and argued that in America the liberals of the 20th century are fast becoming conservatives by continuing to support the same government structure that made them liberals yesteryear. The other asks whether we have reached the pinnacle of development and suggests we in the US have much untapped potential for satisfaction and happiness.

Ah, I See That the World is a Mess

2011-01-18T21:58:00.004-05:00

This post, about the Wikileaks revelations, is no longer timely and what follows is a polished version of an unfinished draft. However, I have a perfectly valid excuse for not finishing it (my computer crapped out and I only just got a new one) and a perfectly good post so screw it.

In America, we have been told many times the story of how the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War created a new view of politics and an era of cynicism that stretches through the present day. It was these two events, we are often told, that proved to Americans that their leaders were not only fallible, but also sleazy, underhanded, and entirely untrustworthy.

However, we were still left with the idea that the world's leaders were at least usually intelligent and, in some way, usually capable. We may have been forced to recognize the unforgivable personal faults of leaders but we were at least left with the possibility that these leaders would not walk us off the edge of a cliff...not unknowingly, at least.

But this too is now a shattered illusion. Take a mental trip around the world as revealed by WikiLeaks and you find an international community of leaders populated by sycophants, evil and creepy manipulators, and generally inept leaders.

The Nukes

There is one leader who is intelligent, creative, dedicated, and somewhat selfless but his name is Kim Jong-Il and he uses his intellectual faculties to run the world's most unpredictable nuclear state. He may be selfless but he is selfless in his liberal use of aggressive force to adjust expectations for his son's reign. He may be sharp but that asset is used to vex world leaders trying to insure peace.

But perhaps this unpalatable reality is regrettably acceptable for the leader of a nuclear state, because at least we have predictability in a singular will to survive. We need only wade cautiously into volatile Pakistan to find a situation that is scarier for its volatility and friendliness to Islamic terrorists. Here we find a de facto tripartite ruling alliance between the intelligence services (ISI), the military, and the elected government. The powerful military may dislike the pro-Western proclivities of the elected government and the intelligence service is more likely to support the Taliban and al-Qaeda than the US & its allies. Meanwhile, the elected government may be in favor of fighting the Taliban because of its leader's relatively pro-Western proclivities but that leader is crippled by his fear that opposing factions may assassinate him should he be seen as too cozy with the US. Say the Saudis: "We think 10 times before approaching them.

Now travel to Iran, where the man some had hoped was bringing at least a slightly moderating voice - Ayatollah Khomeini - may be drug addicted and bi-polar, with little political power and concerns only for the well-being of his sons. That leaves the ever-extreme Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who apparently presents the most liberal voice of his inner circle. And, ah yes, Iran may be purchasing goods for enhancing its nuclear capacity from North Korea.

And Still, the Fools Will Suffer No Criticism

We might be excused now for wanting to visit a friendlier state in search of some R&R. So let us not travel to France, where President Nicolas Sarkozy is a man whose frequent discontent turns quickly to wrath and whose wrath is feared above all by those positioned to criticize. Descriptions convey the image of a man whose mercuriality has him bouncing around issues while pulling in his wake scared advisers who only want to keep him happy.

In fact, let us not bother with Europe at all, where leaders scramble over one another for the chance to hang onto President Obama's coattails. Even the UK, America's best friend and closest confidant, should be viewed warily as it undergoes a radical austerity reform led by yet another supposedly unimaginative leader.

The Stubborn Fool Who Plays Chess With Superpowers

From Europe, travel south across the Mediterranean to Libya and observe Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution Moammar Gadhafi. This anxious and paranoid man sees the world only through advisers who value above all not criticizing their BLGOR.

But with this man, don't be satisfied with the facade of plastic surgery and skittish advisers. There is something slightly sinister, as Gadhafi has played poker with more powerful nations and each one folded. He exercised significant control over Canada, scared Switzerland, and coerced the United Kingdom. Somehow, he manages to be a shrewd negotiator and colossal wielder of power while being paranoid and insulated from adverse information. Something seems amiss but that missing nugget of information seems just out reach.

And the Colonialists Continue to Find New & Inventive Ways of Colonizing

Lost among all this, though, is that wherever we go, we never quite leave America's sphere of influence and we never quite see that influence holstered. Take Austria, where the US acts angry, offended, and even incredulous that the country's leaders want nothing from the US and would much rather be a neutral nation where constructive negotiation can happen. They don't want to be a country desperately trying to claw onto the global power struggle and drag itself up and this infuriates the US because, well, the US is too used to getting its own way.

The Round-Up #6

2011-01-11T05:19:00.001-05:00

Note: Hopefully, non-Round-Up posts will resume this week. My old computer died about a month ago and I should get another soon.

Welcome to the Round-Up. Whenever I something interesting, funny, or unique online, I post it on DWG's Twitter feed, DownWithGT. Then, every week or so, generally on the weekend, I post a list of the 3(ish) most linkable pages and call it the Round-Up. Number six after the jump.

Andy Kessler at the Wall Street Journal thinks that the primary driver of progress and economic productivity is now the video game industry rather than the military-industrial complex. You might think that Call of Duty and XBox are no more than tools of recreation but the technology used to create them is increasingly desired and admired across economic sectors and already found in "revolutionary" products like the iPhone.

Bobby Johnson of Technology Review wants to explain why the Web has been "showing its age." The need for things like Flash and plug-ins are an unnecessary byproduct of the outdated HTML and are even more damaging now that mobile devices can't handle them. However, there is a group that is working on another creating a coding system for the Web that meets modern needs. An in-depth explanation of the Web and what is being done to improve it.

Unfortunately, you need to sign up to view the article. Technology Review will let you read three articles for free if you do sign up and I suggest you make this one of them.

Jared Wade at Sports Illustrated's Point Forward remembers past NBA players' signature moves (ie, Shaq's dunk) and wonders which of today's players have on-court signatures. Some - like Brad Miller's pump fake - are boring but many - like Rajon Rondo's ridiculously smooth pass fake - are can't-miss.

Here, is an article about a homeless man who used his voice to find quick fame and possibly a lucrative job.

The Round-Up #5

2010-12-26T18:06:00.001-05:00

Come one, come all! The US federal budget is yours to compose!

2010-12-12T23:30:00.087-05:00

Save us, ye who fears neither the wrath of entrenched interests nor the shellackings of a fickle public

I did this (scroll down, I had to move the image so it doesn't conflict with the sidebar):

The Long Version

Badges: safety net, economic stimulus, and green energy, though I think safety net covers health & wellness and green energy can cover energy independence

Cards:

Bring troops home gradually
Cut military spending by 10%
End No Child Left Behind
Reform and reduce farm subsidies
Give prize for cheaper car battery
Keep Bush tax cuts for all but rich
Reform and hike corporate taxes
Increase Social Security taxes for the wealthy
Cap and limit greenhouse gas emissions
Tax private equity, hedge fund managers
No breaks for extractive industries
End breaks for big oil
Simplify and raise Medicare fees
Increase Medicare costs for wealthy
Tax high-premium health insurance plans
Require and subsidize health insurance
Cut rates for private health plans in Medicare
Simplify Medicare payments
The public option
Raise the Social Security age
Cut Social Security for the wealthy

Notes

Didn't ground the space program because hopefully one day we'll be able to inhabit another planet. And hopefully we will have learned our lesson about planetary vulnerability.

Didn't cut pork barrel spending because that spending benefits a lot of people beside politicians.

Eliminated Bush tax cuts only for the rich until the economy picks up, at which point all tax cuts should expire.

50 cent gas tax should be added when alternative fuel transportation becomes more viable.

Notice how cap and limit greenhouse gases lowers the debt more than taxing carbon dioxide?

Added the contest to create a better car battery as part of what I think should be a national effort to develop alternative energies. The US has the potential to produce an astonishingly high level of alternative energy. Such an effort could be a jobs creation program, a way to replace the now-failed auto industry, a way to bring production industries back to the US, a way to create national unity through a unified national effort, and an energy independence program all rolled into one policy endeavor. And, ah yes, we could establish a new national strength and safety net for years to come. Before China does all that first. Now all we need is a strong, inspiring, progressive leader. Huh, could've sworn...

Similarly, notice how the card for taxing extraction industries mentioned how integral these industries are to the US economy. Tax them and develop new forms of energy!

There's so much I wanted to add to the budget!

The Round-Up #4, featuring one (Ron Artest) link YOU MUST READ

2010-12-11T01:06:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the Round-Up. Throughout the week, I will be posting links to the most interesting, funny, and/or unique articles I read on DWG's Twitter feed, DownWithGT. Then, on the weekend, I will post links to the 3(ish) most interesting, funny, and/or unique articles I tweeted. Here, ladies and gentleman, is the Round-Up #4:

There are two matters that made it to this week's Round-Up. Let's start with China so we can end on an indisputably positive note. China is a bit fake. It puts on a front of economic growth that is greater than the nation's actual growth and masks its growing pains. It turns out, though, that China has even created ghost locations where the government pours money but which are not actually used. The country's GDP goes up and China's economy looks stronger but it is, ultimately, misrepresentation. Presumably, China will eventually have a wealthier population that will use these locations but for now we can gawk at the ghost towns and malls in the world's next economic giant and superpower.

But how about some (quasi-) news that is pure, unadulterated entertainment? Read this, about what it was like for one reporter to spend a day with Ron Artest. It's probably not what you expect. There are so many amazing anecdotes and quotes in here. I'm tempted to list them but that would desensitize the reader to amazing. I'm tempted to slip one in, like , but that would be cheap and make that part of the article seem a bit bland. I'm tempted to write something about him but everything is said in the best possible way here. I'm tempted to collect all Ron Artest's most entertaining and inspiring moments in a Link-Up but that is also now unnecessary. Ron Artest is amazingly crazy, self-aware, brilliant, entertaining, down-to-earth, incomprehensible, inspiring. Make time to settle in and read this.

The Round-Up #3

2010-12-03T21:57:00.002-05:00

Welcome to the Round-Up. Throughout the week, I will be posting links to the most interesting, funny, and/or unique articles I read on DWG's Twitter feed, downwithgt. Then, on the weekend, I will post links to the 3(ish) most interesting, funny, and/or unique articles I tweeted. Here, ladies and gentleman, is the Round-Up #3:

Note: I am not going to link to any articles about WikiLeaks because there are too many interesting ones to list here and because so many major publications have already compiled them anyway. If you really need direction, I've been using Der Spiegel's page.

Link 1 (On brilliance bowing to conventional wisdom): Howard Schultz is a brilliant man. He created Starbucks using his intuition and instincts. He didn't need statistics and he didn't take the normal path because he didn't need to and that is how Starbucks was able to distinguish itself from all other companies. Its creator was simply intelligent enough to eschew the wisdom of the day and be better off for it.

But now that the recession is affecting Starbucks, Mr. Schultz is hiring people with normal ideas and normal ways of gathering information. He is allowing these data-mongers to draw him into the box he had so successfully ignored without any fight other than the occasional expression of regret. Predictably, Starbucks is slowly becoming like every other company, as data overwhelms analysis and intuition. I have no special love for Starbucks but I mourn the willful submission of great intelligence to normalcy.

Link 2 (On what President Obama may really want to tell us): What if Barack Obama became so frustrated with the stubbornness of Republicans and the fickleness of the public that he sent us an e-mail telling us exactly what he thought of us, the public? What would it say? What would it contain? I don't think the Onion is far off.

Link 3 (On how I knew the truth about aliens before the scientists did!): At the end of my long response to the mid-term elections, I went on a brief tangent about how we need to stop assuming where aliens can and can't exist based on how similar other celestial bodies' are to our own. It's entirely possible that we could find alien life on a planet we could never survive on. Well, scientists are starting to come around. Finally!

An Open Letter to the President Expressing My Deep Appreciation

2010-11-28T03:51:00.006-05:00

Mr. President,

You were, during the campaign, a blank slate on which the voters wrote their expectations, ignoring the expectations of others as if they were written in invisible ink or not written at all. And yet, instead of following the etchings of any group, you are what you said you would be - a liberal, compromising pragmatist who values accomplishments - however small - above all. You are simultaneously what everyone wants and what no one wants.

Or, rather, you are not pure enough for anyone. You are the President we say we want rather than the President who will receive more "yes" responses than "no" responses to the question, "Do you approve or disapprove of the way the President is handling his job?" We say we want change and change in politics but we are not yet ready to appreciate the nuance of true governing. We are not ready for the nuance to leave the meeting and stand at the podium.

Perhaps you are ahead of your time and perhaps your time would never have come; perhaps you should have created your time. Perhaps you are still learning and perhaps you truly are naive. But I want you to know that I appreciate you. I appreciate your dignity and your effort, your respect of nuance and preference for achievement over spotlight.

I may not always agree with you but I am glad you are the President. I am glad for your courage and calm in the face of multiple potential catastrophes. I see you as a man building protection against disaster while repairing damage already done and reassuring the people behind you, even if the last listed is your last concern. You are a man who could make history if only you found the time to tell the right historians.

An egotist in all likelihood, a snob probably, you are the hope of a nation despite your failings and because of your virtues. I only ask the world of you before you realize how different we are from the ones you called upon for votes, understanding in hard times, and national unity.

The Round-Up #2

2010-11-27T13:28:00.002-05:00

Welcome to the Round-Up. Throughout the week, I will be posting links to the most interesting, funny, and/or unique articles I read on DWG's Twitter feed, downwithgt. Then, on the weekend, I will post links to the 3(ish) most interesting, funny, and/or unique articles I tweeted. Here, ladies and gentleman, is the Round-Up #2:

Link 1 (On guilty pleasures and calories:what do we lose if we lose enjoyment and pleasure from eating and drinking?everything): Here's the thing: Americans obsess over their health. Dieting, counting calories, Atkins. The list goes on and will continue to grow for some time. Here's the other thing: America is not an exceptionally healthy nation. Really, the thing is, obsessing over health makes us less healthy. Enjoyment of life is the missing ingredient so indulge yourself sometimes.

Link 2 (Having Congress ratify treaties is unwieldy. so lets get the president to avoid congress): Some countries have the head of their legislature negotiate treaties while some make legislative approval a mere formality. But when the US comes to the table, you know you have to negotiate a treaty with the President, then wait for the President to negotiate with the legislature. James Rubin wants to change this and will tell you how.

Link 3 (Tim Berners-Lee's (credited w/ creating the internet) fascinating article on modern dangers to the web & net neutrality): The Web we take for granted is once again in danger. But this time, instead of coming under the control of AOL, it is coming under the control of a variety of companies like Google and Apple. These companies could section the Web into a number of exclusive clubs, thereby ending the once endless era of free and open exchange. And that's not all...

Link 4 (article and discussion on how to use data to improve daily life ie find commute times from properties and list them): There is a lot of data out there and a lot of potential for data gathering. It's time for us to stop relying on subjective perceptions and rely even more on data to improve our lives. Let's start by calculating commute times from properties that are on the market and move on to having individuals analyze what makes them happy. Article complete with continuing reader discussion on various ways we can use data to improve our lives.

The Round-Up #1: The week's top links

2010-11-21T20:54:00.003-05:00

Welcome to the Round-Up. Throughout the week, I will be posting links to the most interesting, funny, and/or unique articles I read via DWG's Twitter feed, downwithgt. Then, on the weekend, I will post links to the 3(ish) most interesting, funny, and/or unique articles I tweeted. So, here, ladies and gentleman, is the Round-Up #1:

"Maybe doing "stupid" things shows intelligence": About psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's study that suggests intelligent people are more likely to try drugs. Kanazawa's theory is that intelligence evolved as a way to deal with environmental factors that humans are not accustomed to...namely by just doing it. If this is true, does it mean that intelligent people are more likely to do things most people dismiss as stupid?

"Is it time for the US to have a king?": The presidency is too much. To lead a nation while embroiling oneself in the political mud? To provide a moral compass while engaging in backroom deals? Impossible. We need one leader and another head politician. One to sweep us off our feet and the other to deal with the politics.

A more interesting article on this here.

"SB Nation's Andrew Sharp on Cam Newton and how to fix the NCAA": The NCAA is pretty strict in keeping its players unpaid and many people don't like this. Andrew Sharp thinks the players should be paid and that there should be a salary cap - and he knows how to get it done. As for education, these guys are basically majoring in their chosen sport.

"global warming not a big deal?There r cheap ways of dealing w/ it.+humans r very adaptablehave 2 changing environments": There are better ways to deal with global warming than doing all of that green stuff. For starters, we should start using a lot more white paint in our cities to keep out the excess heat they currently attract. Anyway, why worry about climate change when humans are so adaptable to varying climates?

THIS is the intrigue I want to see in international relations. Alex Eichler, The Atlantic Wire: I am really having a honeymoon with the Atlantic Wire.

Fifteen percent of all internet traffic went through Chinese servers for eighteen minutes, most of which was going to or from seemingly important sites, i.e. Army, Navy, Senate... Why? On purpose? What do they want? I don't know but its bleepin intriguing. By the way, US cyber security is very bad.

This article can't be accessed unless you have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal. I don't but I read that the author perceives a decline in whistling in society and uses the article to wonder aloud what that might mean. Probably worth a read if you have an online or print subscription to WSJ.

Updates

2010-11-17T23:47:00.006-05:00

- DWG is now on Twitter, which you can see to your right. Mosly, I'm going to use it to post links to interesting or funny articles I find. Then I think Ill post some sort of roundup or something at the end of the week with the most interesting/funny. Well see
- The DWG Manifesto is now posted. The link might wander around the page a bit but right now it's up top. If you don't see it, you can use your browser's search function to find "The Down With GroupThink Manifesto."
- DWG now has an email, which is also at the bottom. Im willing to update people on when I post on certain topics, answer questions, etc...

Mine and others' thoughts on the midterms

2010-11-03T22:43:00.011-04:00

In case you haven't heard, one of the most heated midterm elections took place yesterday and...made everything a bit murkier. The Republicans will hold a slight majority in the House while the Democrats will continue to control the Presidency and the Senate. No one can tell you what it means and only the next two years can tell you what will happen, but why let that stop you from traversing political analysis's lands of dis-imagination, repetitive rhetoric, and confidently clueless speculation to discover the interesting and the entertaining? Read on, intrepid one, read on.

-In an environment where so many people want to tell you what the election results mean for the nation, the President, and both parties, let us not forget that, rather than a sinle national referendum on any issue, these elections were many different votes for specific offices in specific states and localities. While there is no doubt that national discontent played into many races, it also shouldn't be forgotten that state and local issues were undoubtedly at play in all elections and that many Americans' votes were not decided by their opinions of national trends and politicians who don't represent them.

- I don't remember where I found this poll but, before the election, it was expected that, for a majority of likely voters, Barack Obama's performance would not be not the deciding factor.

- On the other hand, is it not even clearer now that the Congress is more a national institution, the actions of which have sweeping national consequences, and less a collection of localities and states, the representatives of which should vote only in the best interests of those states and localities?

- Perhaps the Democrats' poor showing was good for them and bad for Republicans. Now, Tea Partiers and the rest of the Republicans will have a harder time claiming that they have nothing to do with the countries woes. I guess we'll see in 2012.

- Ezra Klein argues that, even though the Democrats' lost in more ways than one, the loss was worth the quality of the work done in the 111th Congress. These past two years have showed that Obama and the Democrats do have some courage. They passed health care reform and financial reform with the full knowledge that effects would not be felt by these elections and that they could suffer losses because of that. Let's hope the Democrats learn the right lesson from the last two years - Courage and one year's losses should trump treading water and maintaining a majority for the purpose of being the majority (read: vain prestige).

However, shouldn't our politicians be rewarded for taking a long-term view rather than being voted out because of it? After all, short-sightedness by our lawmakers and leaders is the primary fuel for debt and deficit. Can we, as a nation and as localities and states, take a long-term view when electing our representatives? Or should we extend terms for our leaders to provide more incentive to take a long-term view?

- This year's elections were pretty standard. The President's party tends to lose seats in both houses in the midterm elections. One way to look at this is as a natural balancing of power in a nation committed to centrist politics. Another way to look at it is as a dismaying trend in a political system reliant on lasting majorities to achieve significant accomplishments and, as John Judis briefly opines, a trend that undercuts any chance at political leadership.

- On election day, I posted this, which was partially about why you should vote for someone even if you're told that person will lose. It turns out there is statistical evidence to back some of that up, as Jonah Lehrer explains a study that show pundits don't know jack.

Notable ballot measures
- In Oklahoma, voters passed a referendum to ban judges from using Sharia law. Newt Gingrich called for such a law to be passed on the federal level. I know some of the concern is over the establishment of such courts in western Europe but don't we have the 1st amendment and our own traditions for that? Plus, do you think we sound a little too jittery?

But then: some Muslim leaders in Oklahoma plan on appealing. Not that I'm afraid they're terrorists, but why appeal if you want America to retain American principles? It seems like a silly measure to pass but one that could easily be ignored for how unneccesary it is.

- In Arizona and Oklahoma, initiatives passed declaring that individuals and businesses cannot be required to purchase healthcare. A similar measure passed in Missouri in August. These are being dismissed by the national media as entirely symbolic and toothless but we'll see in the coming years if any lawsuits arise to challenge these provisions, which are central to the law. I wouldn't be surprised. Colorado voters rejected such a proposal.

- Since I posted about the measure, I should tell you that the California initiative that would have made marijuana almost as legal as alchohol failed.

- Floridians passed a referendum calling for an amendment to the US Constitution that would required a balanced federal budget. With the rise of the Tea Party, we should see more such talk in the near future. Personally, I think the federal government should be allowed to run budget deficits, as it is the government of last resort in emergencies such as financial crises and natural disastors, as well as being our only resource for fighting wars. Also, the debate over whether smaller deficits are sustainable is ongoing and (I think) the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency makes deficits more likely.

- Denver voters rejected an initiative to create an Extra Terrestrial Affairs Committee but a leader of the effort asked for patience, noting that national health care for all took 18 years. Sidenote: If space is infinite in size, isn't it next to impossible that we are the only living organisms here? Plus: A while ago, I asked a scientist why it seems to be taken for granted that aliens couldn't inhabit a planet without conditions similar to earth's - my logic being that since we know precisely zip about any extraterrestiral life that might exist, we know precisely zip about what conditions they can live in. The guy said that it's basically a guess because we have to work off of something.

If You Care, Go Vote!

2010-11-02T18:31:00.001-04:00

According to the news, the Democrats are going to lose a lot of races today and there really isn’t anything anyone can do about it. There simply aren’t enough “contested seats” that are “leaning Democratic.” Personally, I wonder if this analysis creates its own reality where early poll results that favor certain candidates empower those candidates’ supporters to gel quicker and be more vocal, while disempowering candidates whose potential supporters aren’t inspired by a losing candidate. Today, I hope that the analysis does not discourage supporters of candidates already slated to lose from voting anyway.

The only fact is that no one has won anything yet. CNN/New York Times polls and exit polls do not determine winners; only votes do and those haven’t been counted yet. If you care, let your voice be heard. If you support a candidate, go out and vote for him/her or be left wondering if s/he lost because you and others thought s/he couldn’t win.

And don’t tell me your vote doesn’t count. If it doesn’t, then neither does any vote for anyone. Everybody gets one vote, including Tea Partiers, Democrats, and your politically insane friend.

If you care, go vote!

Pot & Holder: Will the Federal Government Force the Failure of a "Legalization Experiment?"

2010-10-31T00:03:00.001-04:00

The state of California will soon be voting on whether or not to have the nation's most lenient pot laws, via Proposition 19. Among other things, the Proposition is intended to legalize the growing and smoking of certain amounts of marijuana. The substance would still be regulated, as activities like driving while high and smoking in public places would be prohibited. It also does not legalize the distribution of pot, but rather allows for local governments to do so. Fact sheet available here.

Supporters' talking points include increased tax revenue and, as San Jose Police Chief Joseph Macnamara believes, a decrease in crime that would in turn allow for a productive reassignment of many law enforcement resources. Critics' talking points include that P19 is poorly written and will lower the quality of pot, as well as that it will constrict employer regulations of pot use, unintentionally allow people to drive or operate heavy machinery while high, and be ineffective at allowing the collection of taxes on Miss Mary. Interestingly, someone says an undercover agent told him/her that Mexico's drug cartels hope Prop. 19 is voted down because they fear they would otherwise lose half their revenue.

(Controversy after the jump!)

But never mind all that! The big bad wolf is here and he's gonna blow this shit down. On October 13, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote a letter stating that the Justice Department will "vigorously enforce" federal pot laws if Cali votes yes on P19. The "experiment" would therefore be doomed before it begins because the federal government would be maintaining the illegal status of pot, thereby precluding any possible benefits from legalization.

This should worry anyone who believes in relaxing marijuana laws. The multi-layered complexity that would be created by Holder's proposed actions would make it easier for politicians and other national figures who oppose legalization to paint it as a failure. In our ADD soundbite news culture, figures like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh would probably - with the knowledge that many people would not be subjected to that pesky "context" thing - cite the lack of benefits accrued and reference that a drug most people are uncomfortable with was legalized while conveniently ignoring that the Justice Department maintained the drug's illegality. They would then declare that this "reckless experiment" was a dismal failure.

The most popular line of attack would probably be to show that a vibrant criminal culture still surrounds marijuana, conveniently omitting that dealers still have to avoid "vigorous enforcement." There might also be a not-so-subtle undercurrent of questions about what happened to all the tax revenue the state was supposed to collect and possibly even a hint of dissatisfaction with the lack of income reporting by the guaranteed-100%-evil dealers. Tell me you can't hear these said by some self-righteous blowhard betting that his audience will remain ignorant of the reality of the situation:

"This reckless experiment made marijuana more available but did not make our families any safer!"

"Even if California collected taxes on marijuana - which it doesn't -, would it really be worth the safety of your children, who are in no less danger now than they were a year ago?"

"Not a single drug dealer has reported his income and our state has collected zero dollars in taxes! What happened to all the great new programs we were supposed to see?"

Submissions will be appreciated

A-Rod Sucks! and other musings

2010-10-23T02:32:00.006-04:00

On Friday, the New York Yankees lost to the Texas Rangers and hence lost the entire American League Championship Series, their last round before the World Series, or championship series. The last Yankee to be called out? A-@#$%&^! ROD!!!!!!!!!!

I'm a Yankee fan. Baseball is boring but the Yankees could make me cry (in the postseason). And as a part-time Yankee fanatic, I learned A-Rod Hate like it's my native language. Watching Mr. Maybe-The-Best-In-The-League play was fun because I knew there would be something to hate and Alex just couldn't disappoint. The man would achieve all of his .300 batting average when the Yankees didn't need him and get the other .700 in the situations they wanted him for.

More than that, though, it's just fun to hate on baseball players (and other athletes) for their in-game shortcomings. For those of us who don't appreciate the intricacies of pitches and think statistical analysis is dull and misses the point, baseball is fun partly because we can yell about A-Rod and argue with each other about whether he is a savior or baseball's Satan. I relished every A-Rod screw-up for the opportunity to argue that this perennial all-star and sure-fire hall of famer wasn't worth the uniform he was wearing. It's the passion, man.

So, jeez, how must that last out have felt for Rangers fans? Did you know that A-Rod played for them in the early 2000's after signing the most lucrative contract in sports history (10 years, $252 million)? Did you know that they traded him to the Yankees three years later because they couldn't build a winning team around him and couldn't build a better team while honoring his contract? Did you know that that Rangers may have been experiencing a possible slide into bankruptcy because of his contract but still had to agree to pay $67 million of A-Rod's remaining $179 million in order to trade him?

How about that the Rangers are still paying that $67 million even though A-Rod has since signed another, more lucrative, contract (10 years, $275 million) that is the new "most lucrative contract in sports history?" Or that the Rangers will still be paying him eight years after the Yankees are done paying the second contract? Or that A-Rod the A-[cough] was listed as Texas's biggest unsecured creditor in a bankruptcy claim and objected to the plan put forth in that claim because of the money the team owes him?

Yes, Alex Rodriguez signed the most lucrative contract in sports history to be the centerpiece of a championship Rangers team but was traded after three years because Texas was losing more games than it won and that is the least of it. In the trade, Texas agreed to pay part of the contract that was forcing them toward bankruptcy and are still paying even though Rodriguez is on another team and another ludicrously lucrative contract. Currently, Rodriguez is ensuring that the Rangers pay every penny of what they owe him and playing against them while they pay him. So you can see why that last at-bat might make all this a bit sweeter for Rangers fans: they saw their team make its first ever World Series by striking out the man who embodies, and in no small part helped cause, Texas Rangers failure and who expects to be paid money he could never spend from a contract he doesn't need while he plays the damn team.

P.S. I realize this is not all A-Rod's fault. The Rangers shouldn't have agreed to that contract, Alex Rodriguez is entitled to his money, and the Yankees didn't lose because of one man; there were two outs in the bottom of the ninth, there was no one on base, and the Yankees were down five. But, man, that was fun.

The Link-Up Issue 1: The Mid-East Peace Talks

2010-10-11T01:20:00.009-04:00

With this post, I am trying out a new idea. I take an issue in the news that interests me and present a number of links, behind which are interesting perspectives or ideas about the issue that are not commonly seen in American media. Let me know what you think.

Please note that I want to update this blog with some reader-submitted links, anecdotes and perspectives. If you do not want what you say posted under "Reader Contributions," please write this in your comment.

This issue of the Link-Up focuses on the Mid-East peace talks. Please note that I am not taking sides, as I don't think either side is entirely in the right. However, I do realize, now that I am about to post this and go to bed, that I did not adequately represent the views of Israelis or even those of Palestinians living overseas or in the West Bank. If you have a link to contribute, please leave it in the comments section and if I think it provides a fresh perspective, I will add it to this post. Obviously, your opinions are also welcomed. Anyway, some background I find interesting below, but first you might want to glance at this map to see the relative positions of Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank:

We seem to have forgotten that Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party are not entirely legitimate leaders of the Palestinian territories. Hamas won a fair Palestinian election but Israel, because of Hamas's violently radical views and activities, used a number of methods, including withholding Palestinian tax revenues, to force out Hamas and appoint Fatah the majority party. Hamas then forcibly took control of the Gaza Strip but left Abbas and Fatah in control of the West Bank. Without passing judgment on any party because of the extreme complexity of the situation, it seems to me that, in the West Bank, there is an illegitimately elected government with power afforded by Israel and international recognition; In the Gaza Strip, there is a legitimately elected government in the Gaza Strip without international recognition that is struggling to create and maintain internal power despite being denied most international aid.

Here, you can read the opinions of a number of Gazans interviewed by al-Jazeera. Most of the interviewees feel that Mahmoud Abbas is at best not a legitimate representative of the Gaza Strip and at worst not a legitimate representative of the Palestinian territories. I wonder, then, what would happen if a peace deal really was reached. How much would Abbas try to get the Gaza Strip in the deal? Would the deal even apply to Gazans if the Strip remained under the control of Hamas? Would Gazans respect all aspects of the deal given if they feel they had no representation during its making? Additionally, what does it say about our media that this issue has barely been covered if it has been at all, and that very few people seem to talk about it?

This article starts from a similar take on Hamas not being included but has an interesting perspective on Hamas not seen in a lot of Western media.

Don't forget, though, that Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist and does have a militant wing. Israel and the US do have good reasons for disrespecting the organization and trying to end its reign. At the Middle East Youth Initiative, you can find a couple of possible ways to include Gaza in the talks without involving Hamas. There is also an interesting because it shows the importance of Gaza as an economic hub of any Palestinian state.

Speaking of what concerns would arise if Palestine were to be a nation, if the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are to become one nation, the founders of that nation would have to deal with the issue of Palestine being non-contiguous; the two areas are not connected and anyone moving from one to the other would have to pass through another country, probably Israel. This could lead to a number of problems, like a lack of national unity and radically different economic situations. This proposal, by the RAND Corporation, revolves around a train line that would go through every major city and an international airport to be built. I don't know how they would handle the line passing through Israel. You can also find information here.

At World Public Opinion, you can read about the opinions of people across the world on the conflict. I didn't spend much time reading this, but it seems that most people think no one is doing this well. Who woulda thunk it?

I lost one link but it basically stated that these peace talks cannot be entirely legitimate as as long as the US is so involved. The US is the most powerful nation and, because of its alliance with Israel, creates an imbalance of diplomatic power that discredit the talks and possibly make the Palestinians less willing to cooperate because they feel the need to counter-act the American presence.

And that's it. Don't forget to leave any links, advice, or opinions you want to share.

Reader Contributions:

An anonymous commenter submitted this link to a New York Times timeline of Mid East peace talks complete with links to more in-depth commentary.

Political debate mocks itself and a Nate Robinson video tangent

2010-10-01T14:29:00.015-04:00

I can't get this video on the front page, so you gotta hit Read More to see it

In case you're not sure, from left to right: Russell Westbrook, Andre Iguodala, Josh Smith

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you succeed in political debate today. Notice the leading mention of substantial income loss to suggest expected emotion and, more importantly, to frame the debate for the viewer. Notice the numerous mentions of theme to insure that "HALF THEIR INCOME" is what viewers will remember. Notice the deft cut-off as Iguodala begins to offer an unexpectedly thoughtful opposing argument, complete with a return to theme. Well played, Mr. "Interviewer."

For what could have been said were Iguodala and co. interviewing an unprepared Rick Santorum (host, not interviewer), check this out.

On a lighter note, Nate Robinson is probably a really, really fun guy (those shoes are Shaq's by the way)

Which reminds me:

and

HOLY @$!# ! CARMELO ANTHONY?

2010-09-25T00:22:00.004-04:00

This is huge people. The New Jersey Nets might get Carmelo Anthony, one of the best players in the league.

For clarity's sake, let's look at how the trade seems to stand:
Nets get Carmelo Anthony and possibly DJ Augustin
Nuggets get Derrick Favors, Andrei Kirilenko, and picks from (probably) Jersey
Bobcats get Devin Harris
Jazz get Boris Diaw

If you're ready and willing, here's that again with each player's current team:
Nets get Carmelo Anthony (Nuggets) and possibly DJ Augustin (Bobcats)
Nuggets get Derrick Favors (Nets), Andrei Kirilenko (Jazz), and picks from (probably) Jersey
Bobcats get Devin Harris (Nets)
Jazz get Boris Diaw (Bobcats)

Part 1: The Trade

Reports indicate that the Nets will lose Derrick Favors, their 2011 1st rounder, and Devin Harris. That's too much. It leaves them with a two-player core of S'Melo and Brooky BroPez (I'm sick of formula nicknames like KD, CP3 and D-Wade so this is my contribution) and no avenue for improvement. They can't sign anyone significant because they used their cap space on Anthony, they can't trade for anyone significant because they have no significant assets, and they can't draft anyone significant for another year because they don't have a 1st rounder. They will improve this year and stagnate next.

Admittedly, one of their young players, i.e. Terrence Williams or Anthony Morrow, could show great promise and either become great or be traded for a really good player but in all likelihood, the roster is filled with role-players who won't be, and aren't valuable enough to land, an excellent third player. Given the NBA's history of teams overpaying for marginal talent in the hopes of riding stars to championship contention (sources: ~~Turkoglu~~ ~~Jermaine O'Neal~~ ~~Shawn Marion~~ Toronto's roster in Toronto, Kenyon Martin in Denver [intwesting], Shaq in Phoenix, etc...), the Nets will probably find a way to give too much in money, players, and/or picks for someone with over-hyped potential or one above-average year and make themselves playoff fodder. Come to think of it, Harris has one great year and Favors is an unproven talent. Maybe Billy King can be the smart GM in this by keeping the pick.

However, if the Nets retain either Harris or the pick, they should be golden. If they keep Harris, they have a Big Three and a great young supporting cast. If they keep the pick, they could draft a star. They can also trade for a really good player by sending Harris away outright or packaging either with a young talent like Morrow.

The only remaining question is if a deal can get done if the Nets withhold Harris or the pick and I think it can if Jersey chooses the pick. If New Jersey forgets Augustin (he's not worth it), Charlotte is left getting Devin Harris for Boris Diaw (effectively chump change, sorry dude) and has to give up something else. Denver knows it won't get equal value because (A) Anthony has demanded a trade, (B) Anthony can turn off teams by refusing to sign a contract extension (his current contract expires after this season and he can then leave with his team receiving no compensation), (C) no team ever gets equal value for its best player and (D) the Nuggets have already pursued, as primary compensation, talent inferior to Favors in Joakim Noah. Assuming Charlotte is amenable, superstar talent, a decent role player with a massive expiring contract providing future cap flexibility and mid-level picks should get the deal done. Who knows, maybe someone can convince Utah to throw one of its picks over its shoulder on the way out.

Part 2: The S'Melo/BroPez Nets

Since we all know that all of this will come to pass, let's take stock of the new Nets' assets: We've got two stars in Anthony and Brook Lopez, young role players in Morrow, Williams, and Travis Outlaw, a reliable backup guard in Jordan Farmar and a draft pick that will probably be lottery or mid-round. Everyone is young enough to be good after a couple of lottery and 1st-round-playoff-exit seasons and the Nets have the assets to acquire another star in the draft or a trade.

Of course, it's possible that acquiring Anthony will make the Nets another team that's just good enough to make the playoffs but not good enough to really contend and not bad enough to rebuild. Besides the aforementioned hope of acquiring another star, Brook Lopez! Brook Lopez will be a better player than anyone the Nuggets put around Anthony. He plays the most or second-most important position in basketball, already put up better numbers than Nene, basically equaled the aging Chauncey Billups's PPG, and surpassed J.R. Smith's PPG. Without using advanced stats (of which I am not a fan), I would say that Lopez was generally more productive than Billups or Smith because his good and improving rebounding and defense outweigh any of Smith's or Billups's non-scoring contributions.

In my entirely uninformed opinion, no middling playoff team has had a fringe superstar who is one of the best scorers in the league, one of the best centers in the league, and the nebulous third very good player I've been alluding to. Basically, everything hinges on that draft pick. Who woulda thunk it?

It's Just Too Much

2010-09-20T21:34:00.001-04:00

Blogger's Note: LOOK AT ME, I POSTED AGAIN! WHOPPEEEEEEEE!

It seems like everywhere I turn, with every suggestion I make, I find calm and peaceful statements of “That’s too [adjective]” or “Let’s just sit and play video games/sit at a café/sit and watch a movie…” Sit Sit Sit. It’s calmly and peacefully driving me insane.

Everyone wants to be passive. They use just and too as a way to avoid exertion or pushing the boundaries of what is most readily available and comfortable. It’s easier to sit in the comfort of your home or drive to a nice café then to bike or hike, especially in our current culture of immediate comfort; you do not need to go anywhere or do much to avoid boredom because basic distractions are a click or a short drive away. So, justs become more popular and toos less so.

Thing is, you know that just playing video games/watching a movie/sitting on the grass will be satisfying. Justs are nice, enjoyable, and relaxing. They are the safe option, the one that will never disappoint and that is…nice.

Often, though, there is no real excitement in a just, only the addiction of something you know will never fully disappoint. You know there’s always some enjoyment in the familiar so why bother with the unfamiliar? Why take the risk of the unknown, no matter how slight that risk is?

Sometimes, though, these slight enjoyments can become banal. It can be more fun to abandon what's simply comfortable to run and jump and catch balls and goof off playing some sport and do stupid shit and take risks. You can come up with any number of adjectives for these: too dangerous, too stupid, or too immature perhaps. But what about fun, exhilarating, or ultimately harmless? Sure, cliff diving or a spontaneous drive to a city might sound dangerous or generally unlikeable in some vague, undefined way but how many people do you know who do things that are too extreme/impulsive/whatever have been hurt or really didn’t enjoy themselves? It’s all a matter of perspective and maybe if you tried some toos, your’s would change.

Toos are not inherently superior to justs but the two can work in tandem to create a more enjoyable life through more fun and rewarding experiences. One of the best feelings is pushing yourself to a limit and realizing you are strong enough to handle it. A close second is sitting down afterward and relaxing. It feels great, for example, to take a tough route up a mountain and then to sit down with a sandwich and drink on top of that mountain but neither would be the same without the other. The hike wouldn't be as rewarding without the promise of the sandwich and the drink wouldn't be as refreshing without the memory of the trek. You need just enough toos but not too many justs.

Subject: Lack of Posts

2010-09-17T15:38:00.001-04:00

A quick excuse/apology to those who check this blog for updates: My responsibilities changed significantly this month and in re-balancing my schedule I have been neglecting to post. I've got a few posts I want to put up but haven't had time to finalize. Hopefully, one will be up this weekend and I will be more diligent in the future. We'll see.

What Is Nature?

2010-08-30T18:50:00.004-04:00

Note: Apparently, my post about the NYC mosque was confusing so please let me know if you don't understand what I'm talking about

People see nature as separate from themselves and everything around them. It is an almost abstract concept, something that can be found in designated areas and far-off lands. Nature is what you find when you stray from the path in your local park. It is what you see in pictures of the Amazon rainforest or pictures of Africa that don’t feature starving children.

But nature is everywhere and nature is everything. Nature is the building you sit in while you read this. It is your clothes and the car you drive. It is even the laptop you use at work or school. Nature is not an abstract concept nor is it anything you can separate from your everyday life or your surroundings. Nature is the world in its entirety.

You see, we like to think of certain areas, such as natural parks, as being nature but really nature is nothing more than the earth’s processes, whether that is cats reproducing or the wind blowing in a certain direction. We are part of these processes because we interact with everything around us. By laying concrete, building, driving, importing, etc…, we change everything around us. Everything on this planet interacts and that is nature.

When I have tried to express this before, it has been confusing for people so take an example: the block I live on. Once, it was full of trees, animals, maybe even people. Today, it is driveways, pavements, houses and people. In the intervening time, it was developed from one to the other but did it, during that time, cease to be a part of nature? It, and especially its development, still affect many things typically thought of as natural, like the air everyone breathes. For better or worse, it is an integral part of the ecosystem, including the people and animals that live in the houses, the trees on and around it and even how rainwater settles. So basically, we cannot separate ourselves from nature, only change nature to better suit our wants and needs.

The point here is not to warn about impending doom but to begin to create a new understanding of the world. We are the dominant species and are physically changing the world to better suit ourselves (admittedly, not everyone is but be quiet, I’m making a point here). While certain areas are freer from human development than others, our changes and the way we live alter the earth and her processes without separating us from them. Instead of thinking about nature as separate, we must begin to think of nature as everything, including ourselves and our constructs because that is the simple truth.

Our Wierd Culture Pt. 1

2010-08-11T00:34:00.003-04:00

On "Muslim-West Relations"

2010-08-02T01:04:00.010-04:00

Unfortunately, the terms being used in the shouting match over the founding of a Muslim community center and mosque in a building hit in the 9/11 attacks are “Muslim,” “mosque,” and “9/11” instead of “terrorist,” “Muslim,” and “difference.” It was not Muslims that attacked the country but radical Muslims and just as with Strom Thurmond and Republicans, the fringe can neither be considered representative of the whole nor dictate the treatment of the whole. To do so means alienating those who would be friends, strengthening those who are enemies and turning away those who may become friends or enemies.

Each of the groups see the other as taking an uncertain place in its existence, where the balance of that relation can be upset toward antagonistic as readily as it can toward friendly. Instead of being called a provocation or a demonstration of a lack of sensitivity, the founding of a Muslim community center could be seen as tipping the balance of the relationship in the right direction. It would be a great testament to inclusion if it was celebrated as such.

But "improving Muslim-West relations," as called for on the Cordoba House’s website, should not be necessary. Muslims and the West are not groups with an inherent need for improved relations or even relations at all. Unlike Muslims and Christians or the US and China, Muslims and the West do not make up a greater whole; they do not fall under the same heading. A nation that prides itself on diversity should not bat an eyelash when the members of a group with a radical fringe attempt to go about their normal business because it simply knows that the group is part of the national whole and cannot be understood by the actions of its fringe. In other words, it would be the grandest symbolism if nothing were made of the proposal.

The Imaginary Industry

2010-07-22T16:49:00.002-04:00

As far as I can tell, the idea behind money is this: Since we can rarely trade our goods and services for the goods and services of others in a fair and equal trade that nets both parties something they need (think: sports teams trying to trade stars like Vince Carter for “equal value” in draft picks and players), we need a medium, something incredibly fungible that has equal value no matter the trade. We need money.

So it would seem to stand to reason that all the money existent in the world today should be representative of all the goods and services present. But I can’t shake the feeling that people’s concept of money has become so detached from the actual concept that money has become an entity entirely separate from what gives it value: what we have offered others in exchanges. Some of the wealthiest among us have become so by trading money for money and in doing so made money into an industry.

This money industry has created debt, the valuable asset, where debt, what should be avoided when possible, used to reign supreme. In so doing, we have incorporated debt into the very fabric of money so that we are no longer playing with money; we are playing with the promise of money, an asset that can be created at will as long as trust, “old-boys’ club” inclusiveness, or ignorance/ignoring of what money should be is present. Basically, we trade promises for promises, which are parlayed by the traders into goods and services so that we are trading our goods and services for…nothing.

But it ALWAYS comes back to bite us in the ass. What is a bubble bursting? A bubble bursting is when the holders of the promise of money ask for the amount promised in real money and the givers of the promises do not have that money. Undoubtedly, any holder of the promise will have given a promise to another party on the understanding that a promise they hold will eventually become money. But soon, each successive party realizes the promises they hold are nothing. Then, like tiny, unseeable pinpricks, each successive promise disappears. And the bubble bursts.

Is it worth it? Undoubtedly, the creation and inflation of the money industry was economic growth, that seemingly unassailable indicator of prowess, success and societal well-being. It is the new alchemy, creating wealth where the ingredients of wealth did not exist. But the drawbacks occasionally seem…too much. Eventually, everyone realizes the money we thought we had never really existed in the way we thought it did. We earn less, lose jobs, sometimes the country nearly collapses. While once many unexpectedly experience lavishness beyond comprehension and many more find the resources for a few extra nights out, in the end all of us find ourselves utterly, completely, undeniably, screwed.