I realized in watching the inauguration and Obama’s speech that he is the first modern president, the first president of the 21st century. Bush was very much a typical, almost the ultimate, president of the old guard, the old mentality.
But so many things have changed in the last few years, everything from the internet and the ways we communicate to technology and energy to the types of wars we fight. And I feel that a large part of America, and probably the rest of the world, have been operating under the assumption that things aren’t substantially different, we’re just using different tools.
But the tools we have are so drastically different that they alter everything about how we interact and look at the world. I feel like things have been changing so quickly over the last five or so years that knowing where we are has been impossible- the state we’ve been in is the state of constant change.
But Obama is the first major political leader from any country that I’ve heard presenting the issues in terms of how radically new the challenges and solutions will be.
It’s not that this is a new idea- as he said, the same human characteristics are needed to deal with it as they have ever been- it’s just that every few hundred years, the playing field changes so much that we have to change how we think. And when these changes first occur, the initial response is always fear and resistance. It’s not until someone comes along and openly embraces these ideas and changes that people can get over their initial reticence. It was true of Copernicus and the heliocentric theory of the galaxy, it was true of Galileo, it was true of the Gutenberg printing press, it was true of the Industrial Revolution, and it’s true of the new world of the internet.
You can’t operate in secrecy if everyone around the world can see what you do (Guantanamo).
You can’t wage a war like it used to be done (Iraq).
And you can’t shy away from the technologies of the future (gas and car companies).
Obama seems to understand and embrace these necessities. And everything about his words and his demeanor says that he is ready to help this country embrace and not fear them.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Who asked you? I mean me!
I got asked to write my thoughts on what Obama would need to do, and in what order, once his presidency begins, so I thought I'd put it up here as well...
It does seem like we’re in a pretty confused place, no? War, depression, energy problems, global over-population, and rampant fundamentalism (on every side). It almost feels impossible to know where to begin.
And maybe that’s part of the problem. Any one of these issues by itself could be cataclysmic. How do you decide which to respond to first, when they are so intertwined that you can’t respond to any one in isolation?
At the same time, these are all symptoms of even larger problems. For example, you’ve got to stop the economic meltdown as soon as possible, but the real issue is that we don’t make anything. Everything is done either better or cheaper somewhere else. So our economy is just a service economy- we offer each other services, from banking to law to entertainment. No wonder the stock market fell apart, it’s based on fluff!
And nobody can deny that war, energy problems, and religious fundamentalism are all deeply intertwined. They’re all related to our inability to change. I mean, really, we know that we need to move to alternative energy sources, for liberal environmental and for conservative national sovereignty issues. We need to be able to control our own energy needs, and do it in a way that is both renewable and non-detrimental to the planet we live on. This seems like one of the most obvious things we could say. And somehow we haven’t done it. Even though it’s caused us to go to war, and fomented a lot of hatred against us, we are still resistant.
So here’s my thoughts- after dealing with our current economic crisis, Obama should make our country the leading producer of alternative energy. Everyone around the world is going to need it, no one has claimed the market yet, we’ve got the space and the resource to do it, and it will enable us to drastically cut back our military presence abroad and our dependence on people who don’t particularly like us. And it’s something that conservatives and liberals can get behind.
The other issue that needs to be dealt with is the pervasive feeling of powerlessness. It feels like our overall confidence in humanity’s ability to make positive changes is at an all-time low. Corporate fraud, political corruption, genocides and religious zealotry- who are we supposed to turn to anymore? And I think the response to powerlessness is two things- apathy and violence. People either respond by turning away or by getting angry. And so while many of us in America hope change will happen, but sit back waiting for someone else to do it, many in other countries give up on the political system as a means of change and resort to violence, terrorism, and genocide.
We need to feel confident in the human race’s ability to lift itself up. That we don’t always have to give in to our greed and violence, that we can participate in our own lives and the lives of those around us, and actually have the ability to make things better.
And I have no idea whether or not Obama can do it, but he caused a greater surge in hope and belief through his election than I have seen in a long time.
It does seem like we’re in a pretty confused place, no? War, depression, energy problems, global over-population, and rampant fundamentalism (on every side). It almost feels impossible to know where to begin.
And maybe that’s part of the problem. Any one of these issues by itself could be cataclysmic. How do you decide which to respond to first, when they are so intertwined that you can’t respond to any one in isolation?
At the same time, these are all symptoms of even larger problems. For example, you’ve got to stop the economic meltdown as soon as possible, but the real issue is that we don’t make anything. Everything is done either better or cheaper somewhere else. So our economy is just a service economy- we offer each other services, from banking to law to entertainment. No wonder the stock market fell apart, it’s based on fluff!
And nobody can deny that war, energy problems, and religious fundamentalism are all deeply intertwined. They’re all related to our inability to change. I mean, really, we know that we need to move to alternative energy sources, for liberal environmental and for conservative national sovereignty issues. We need to be able to control our own energy needs, and do it in a way that is both renewable and non-detrimental to the planet we live on. This seems like one of the most obvious things we could say. And somehow we haven’t done it. Even though it’s caused us to go to war, and fomented a lot of hatred against us, we are still resistant.
So here’s my thoughts- after dealing with our current economic crisis, Obama should make our country the leading producer of alternative energy. Everyone around the world is going to need it, no one has claimed the market yet, we’ve got the space and the resource to do it, and it will enable us to drastically cut back our military presence abroad and our dependence on people who don’t particularly like us. And it’s something that conservatives and liberals can get behind.
The other issue that needs to be dealt with is the pervasive feeling of powerlessness. It feels like our overall confidence in humanity’s ability to make positive changes is at an all-time low. Corporate fraud, political corruption, genocides and religious zealotry- who are we supposed to turn to anymore? And I think the response to powerlessness is two things- apathy and violence. People either respond by turning away or by getting angry. And so while many of us in America hope change will happen, but sit back waiting for someone else to do it, many in other countries give up on the political system as a means of change and resort to violence, terrorism, and genocide.
We need to feel confident in the human race’s ability to lift itself up. That we don’t always have to give in to our greed and violence, that we can participate in our own lives and the lives of those around us, and actually have the ability to make things better.
And I have no idea whether or not Obama can do it, but he caused a greater surge in hope and belief through his election than I have seen in a long time.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Monkey Wars
Religion has been a cause for a lot of division. But often it's an excuse.
Really, I think the only way there would be no wars is if there were no countries (no groups big enough to have wars).
But that's a bit difficult, no?
No countries is tricky.
But really, for whatever the distinction, religion, country, skin color, whether or not you have stars on your belly (the star-bellied sneetches who live on the beaches), as long as there are big enough groups who will back one person's ideas, you're gonna have war. If two people disagree, vehemently, and can't find any way to solve the situation, they might get into a fight. At worst, maybe they'll kill each other. But if each of them has thousands of followers, you get a war.
It seems like the two simians closest to humans are the chimpanzee and the bonobo. The two of them, in fact, are quite similar to each other as well.
Chimpanzees, like us, are patriarchal societies. And are one of the only animals besides us who have wars, who have big groups getting together to fight one another.
But bonobos are matriarchal societies. And they have no war. They don't even really have much fighting. They are an impressively sharing species.
Oh, and they have sex. Lots of sex. With ever possible combination of bonobo they can find. Male with female, male with male, female with female, in the family, out of the family. Seems the only ones who don't get to have sex are the babies (they wait until six months old or so).
I'm not saying, I'm just saying
Who's your daddy? Maybe who's your mommy!
Really, I think the only way there would be no wars is if there were no countries (no groups big enough to have wars).
But that's a bit difficult, no?
No countries is tricky.
But really, for whatever the distinction, religion, country, skin color, whether or not you have stars on your belly (the star-bellied sneetches who live on the beaches), as long as there are big enough groups who will back one person's ideas, you're gonna have war. If two people disagree, vehemently, and can't find any way to solve the situation, they might get into a fight. At worst, maybe they'll kill each other. But if each of them has thousands of followers, you get a war.
It seems like the two simians closest to humans are the chimpanzee and the bonobo. The two of them, in fact, are quite similar to each other as well.
Chimpanzees, like us, are patriarchal societies. And are one of the only animals besides us who have wars, who have big groups getting together to fight one another.
But bonobos are matriarchal societies. And they have no war. They don't even really have much fighting. They are an impressively sharing species.
Oh, and they have sex. Lots of sex. With ever possible combination of bonobo they can find. Male with female, male with male, female with female, in the family, out of the family. Seems the only ones who don't get to have sex are the babies (they wait until six months old or so).
I'm not saying, I'm just saying
Who's your daddy? Maybe who's your mommy!
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Stock Market in the First Place
The stock market has always been a strange thing to me. I mean, the value of the stock of a company has only minimal relation to the actual value of a company. I mean, a stock can go up twice, three times, even six times its value in a day. You can't tell me that company is actual worth six times its value in a day. It sure as hell hasn't made six times as much stuff.
So, you've got this system in which an abstract relationship to money begets more money. In other words, abstract projections on monetary change begets real money which begets real change.
Companies have to base their corporate planning on how to maintain or increase their stock valuation in a quaterly basis. So, the amount that other people will decide that they are worth in play money somehow translates to what they actually are worth. Companies can go backrupt selling the same amount of product that they were selling yesterday if their stock plummets.
What?
That just doesn't make any sense to me.
And the fact that companies have to worry about their short term bottom-line more than their long-term one in order to maintain their stock values is one of the stupidest business models I could possibly imagine.
How could a model that says you should only think about were you will be in three months and ignore where you will be in three years possibly be considered even functional?
This is not some guy, just out of college, not wanting to think any further than the next three months. That's fine.
This is a company which makes something, brings in and expends millions of dollars, and has lots of people working there. It's the business model of a four-year-old.
All for the dictates of a speculative game. Which is all the stock market is. A fucking game. Not based on what a company does, how "good" or "bad" they are, either morally, socially, or economically, but based simply on how much other people want to buy and trade invisible insignificant amounts of ownership of a company, but don't want to have any involvement with the company itself.
Does a stock broker buy Boeing because he has ideas on how they should build new airplanes?
No wonder the stock market is falling apart.
It shouldn't have stayed together this long in the first place.
Time for a new economic model, for fuck's sake!
So, you've got this system in which an abstract relationship to money begets more money. In other words, abstract projections on monetary change begets real money which begets real change.
Companies have to base their corporate planning on how to maintain or increase their stock valuation in a quaterly basis. So, the amount that other people will decide that they are worth in play money somehow translates to what they actually are worth. Companies can go backrupt selling the same amount of product that they were selling yesterday if their stock plummets.
What?
That just doesn't make any sense to me.
And the fact that companies have to worry about their short term bottom-line more than their long-term one in order to maintain their stock values is one of the stupidest business models I could possibly imagine.
How could a model that says you should only think about were you will be in three months and ignore where you will be in three years possibly be considered even functional?
This is not some guy, just out of college, not wanting to think any further than the next three months. That's fine.
This is a company which makes something, brings in and expends millions of dollars, and has lots of people working there. It's the business model of a four-year-old.
All for the dictates of a speculative game. Which is all the stock market is. A fucking game. Not based on what a company does, how "good" or "bad" they are, either morally, socially, or economically, but based simply on how much other people want to buy and trade invisible insignificant amounts of ownership of a company, but don't want to have any involvement with the company itself.
Does a stock broker buy Boeing because he has ideas on how they should build new airplanes?
No wonder the stock market is falling apart.
It shouldn't have stayed together this long in the first place.
Time for a new economic model, for fuck's sake!
Saturday, November 29, 2008
You're Right, You're Beautiful, A Response II
I really enjoyed this comment. It's not too often someone accuses you of leading people onto the path of madmen or beasts (who knew I had that power in the first place?)
Nonetheless, the problem I have with this comment brings up an interesting point to me- the difference between right thought and right action. They aren't necessarily the same thing, and learning to differentiate between the two can be a necessary step in figuring out how to make your way in our brief time.
Adrian's basic argument (which follows), as far as I understand, is that individuals' choices on beauty do not take into account the need, and subtlety, that comes with social interaction. On a most basic example, a psychopath who believes that killing others is beautiful should not simply follow his aesthetic choice and start killing people, that his aesthetics without the lens of shared human experience is a dangerous path, ignorant of morals or social necessity.
Well, yes, I do agree.
But here's the thing-
What you think about beauty shouldn't be your method for determining action. Just because I think something is beautiful has nothing to do with whether I should or shouldn't act on that impulse- it just means that I have my own opinion that is as valid an aesthetic opinion as someone else's. Just because I think some girl is beautiful doesn't mean I get to rape her if she doesn't want to sleep with me. And the methodology of choice for beauty and for action are just different things.
I think too many people take the lens of what they believe without adding the lens of how to apply it to reality. Political ideals are one thing, but it's a much more difficult and subtle, and not to mention useful, thing to try to figure out a way to make others understand it. And so many people take their view and use it to disdain other views (my way is right, other people are stupid).
I just meant that everyone should feel satisfied that what they think is beautiful (themselves, or anything else), is as true as anyone else's opinions. How people choose to act upon this, or any other ideal, is a whole separate matter, and up to them. A serial killer might genuinely think killing is beautiful, and for him it might be. That just doesn't mean he should act on that.
i have a very hard time with your line of thought.
you leave us all mad men, or wandering beasts.
left to ourselves and no one else, sealed in solipsism, the world is indeed as beautiful as the individual's imagination.
and without the bearings against the longitudes of another, with no heed that i am alive relative to the breath of life, i am, therefore i am, because i exist only for myself.
let me be clear because what you say puts all of us in danger of its absence: a monstrous warlord of sudan sees mutilation of a generation, beautiful. his young apprentice sees the absolute brutality of the leader beautiful. i imagine the careful cabal to systematically rape, decimate, then obliterate a race of people might have the same geometric beauty of fractal art for his lieutenants.
beauty can be in the physical world as in ideas, in perception to poetry. but not in everything. and if not everything, then not from everyone.
no, some things are ugly. universally, objectively ugly. perhaps it is difficult to know objective beauty, but it is not so hard to know that there is divine ecumenical revulsion. and therefore, everything cannot be beautiful and everything cannot be right.
Not for humans. That's what separates us from monsters and madness. among humans, there is a shared consciousness or perhaps a shared spirit, tenuous as much as it is real.
step outside, its possible. but you leave behind from that consciousness the equally shared reason and empathy. without that, you're only right because of your ability to negate others by brute strength or size. beasts grazing on a different plane of existence i wish no part of.
Nonetheless, the problem I have with this comment brings up an interesting point to me- the difference between right thought and right action. They aren't necessarily the same thing, and learning to differentiate between the two can be a necessary step in figuring out how to make your way in our brief time.
Adrian's basic argument (which follows), as far as I understand, is that individuals' choices on beauty do not take into account the need, and subtlety, that comes with social interaction. On a most basic example, a psychopath who believes that killing others is beautiful should not simply follow his aesthetic choice and start killing people, that his aesthetics without the lens of shared human experience is a dangerous path, ignorant of morals or social necessity.
Well, yes, I do agree.
But here's the thing-
What you think about beauty shouldn't be your method for determining action. Just because I think something is beautiful has nothing to do with whether I should or shouldn't act on that impulse- it just means that I have my own opinion that is as valid an aesthetic opinion as someone else's. Just because I think some girl is beautiful doesn't mean I get to rape her if she doesn't want to sleep with me. And the methodology of choice for beauty and for action are just different things.
I think too many people take the lens of what they believe without adding the lens of how to apply it to reality. Political ideals are one thing, but it's a much more difficult and subtle, and not to mention useful, thing to try to figure out a way to make others understand it. And so many people take their view and use it to disdain other views (my way is right, other people are stupid).
I just meant that everyone should feel satisfied that what they think is beautiful (themselves, or anything else), is as true as anyone else's opinions. How people choose to act upon this, or any other ideal, is a whole separate matter, and up to them. A serial killer might genuinely think killing is beautiful, and for him it might be. That just doesn't mean he should act on that.
i have a very hard time with your line of thought.
you leave us all mad men, or wandering beasts.
left to ourselves and no one else, sealed in solipsism, the world is indeed as beautiful as the individual's imagination.
and without the bearings against the longitudes of another, with no heed that i am alive relative to the breath of life, i am, therefore i am, because i exist only for myself.
let me be clear because what you say puts all of us in danger of its absence: a monstrous warlord of sudan sees mutilation of a generation, beautiful. his young apprentice sees the absolute brutality of the leader beautiful. i imagine the careful cabal to systematically rape, decimate, then obliterate a race of people might have the same geometric beauty of fractal art for his lieutenants.
beauty can be in the physical world as in ideas, in perception to poetry. but not in everything. and if not everything, then not from everyone.
no, some things are ugly. universally, objectively ugly. perhaps it is difficult to know objective beauty, but it is not so hard to know that there is divine ecumenical revulsion. and therefore, everything cannot be beautiful and everything cannot be right.
Not for humans. That's what separates us from monsters and madness. among humans, there is a shared consciousness or perhaps a shared spirit, tenuous as much as it is real.
step outside, its possible. but you leave behind from that consciousness the equally shared reason and empathy. without that, you're only right because of your ability to negate others by brute strength or size. beasts grazing on a different plane of existence i wish no part of.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
You're Right, You're Beautiful, A Response I
So I received a whole bunch of responses to this one, so I thought I'd address a couple in successive blogs.
Joseph Turian said...
Second of all, that's kind of the point, no? I'm not saying that you should agree with anyone else, just that you have to respect the fact that, outside of your own little subjective world, they are just as right as you are. Similarly, anyone else's little subjective world is no righter than yours. Which means you are completely entitled to hate other people's perspectives. I certainly do. The list of things that other people think are beautiful that a) nauseate me b) just plain old confuse me or c) actively piss me off is fairly high. But that doesn't mean that I can't acknowledge they are at least right for themselves (even if I think it shouldn't be right for anyone else!).
And yes, this is trying to take an objective stance on everyone's subjective stances. But one of the things I value very much is the idea of appreciating that other people are as much fully developed people as you are. I don't think you can ever really know what someone else is thinking. But the moment that you are fully aware that they are as real as you are, when they move from background moving scenery to fully aware existent thinking feeling people (and I don't mean in the abstract, I mean in terms of your own subjective understanding of the world), is one of the most beautiful and most connected feelings you can have.
And my point about subjective beauty is just to push that idea along. Respect for the fact that someone else goes through the same process that you do, even if they come out in a whole different place, is a good step towards understanding they are just as human as you are. And not any more human, either.
My personal views lean towards the politically liberal, by and large (in case you haven't figured this out). But among the most important experiences I've had have been conversations with intelligent rational conservatives. I don't agree with them, but I at least have to respect that they have a consistent logic to what they believe, and that it's as sincere and honest for them as it is for me.
I've had some interesting thoughts on the differences between conservatives and liberals of late, but more on that later...
Joseph Turian said...
Second of all, that's kind of the point, no? I'm not saying that you should agree with anyone else, just that you have to respect the fact that, outside of your own little subjective world, they are just as right as you are. Similarly, anyone else's little subjective world is no righter than yours. Which means you are completely entitled to hate other people's perspectives. I certainly do. The list of things that other people think are beautiful that a) nauseate me b) just plain old confuse me or c) actively piss me off is fairly high. But that doesn't mean that I can't acknowledge they are at least right for themselves (even if I think it shouldn't be right for anyone else!).
And yes, this is trying to take an objective stance on everyone's subjective stances. But one of the things I value very much is the idea of appreciating that other people are as much fully developed people as you are. I don't think you can ever really know what someone else is thinking. But the moment that you are fully aware that they are as real as you are, when they move from background moving scenery to fully aware existent thinking feeling people (and I don't mean in the abstract, I mean in terms of your own subjective understanding of the world), is one of the most beautiful and most connected feelings you can have.
And my point about subjective beauty is just to push that idea along. Respect for the fact that someone else goes through the same process that you do, even if they come out in a whole different place, is a good step towards understanding they are just as human as you are. And not any more human, either.
My personal views lean towards the politically liberal, by and large (in case you haven't figured this out). But among the most important experiences I've had have been conversations with intelligent rational conservatives. I don't agree with them, but I at least have to respect that they have a consistent logic to what they believe, and that it's as sincere and honest for them as it is for me.
I've had some interesting thoughts on the differences between conservatives and liberals of late, but more on that later...
Obama!!! A Response
So, I received this from a friend of mine, and thought I'd share it (especially since he asked me too!). I must confess, I would have been pretty psyched to see this on the street at night...
Hey, this is Jason the guy that designed ism's CD layout and various other ism things on and off the web. Anyhow, I read your blog regularly and I thought you and your blog readers might enjoy my latest project. My boss wanted to project a huge Obama sign on the front of our building...well I took it to the next level. Please check this very short video out...another designer and I illustrated and animated the entire thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz8zPAp11dE
Hey, this is Jason the guy that designed ism's CD layout and various other ism things on and off the web. Anyhow, I read your blog regularly and I thought you and your blog readers might enjoy my latest project. My boss wanted to project a huge Obama sign on the front of our building...well I took it to the next level. Please check this very short video out...another designer and I illustrated and animated the entire thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz8zPAp11dE
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
You're Right, You're Beautiful
Check this...
First of all, take your pick- I’m going to use beauty as the example, but it applies just as well to any of the others. The question is subjective vs. objective
1- Subjective beauty is true. Right? I mean, if I think something or someone is beautiful, it’s true for me. There’s no real questioning of that. You might disagree, but you have to acknowledge that my subjective opinion is true for me.
2- Objective beauty is untrue. Or at least, unknowable. Either there is no such thing as objective beauty (do you think there’s actually an objective answer as to who is the most beautiful woman in the world?), or else there’s just no way for us to have any contact with it. Even if you managed to briefly touch objective beauty (somehow, you manage to be right that your living room chair is the world’s most beautiful chair), how would you ever know? What possible abilities would you have to tell the difference between your opinion and some sort of external idea that is “true”?
3- If subjective beauty is true, and objective beauty is untrue, or at least irrelevant and unknowable, then universal beauty must be true. As in, if there isn’t any objective beauty, then everyone’s subjective beauty is equally true. It’s true for you, and that’s it. Maybe a better way of saying it is that everyone’s sense of beauty is only true for them, and therefore outside of yourself, your opinion has no more meaning than anyone else’s. Therefore, you have to acknowledge that, except for your own personal tastes, anything that anyone thinks is beautiful is as true a statement of beauty as any of your feelings on the matter. If that’s true, then you have to conclude that everything is equally beautiful, except in terms of your personal opinion. The guy who selected which design New York City was going to use for its garbage cans might very well have thought it was the most beautiful garbage can around, or even the most beautiful possible? How can you be sure he didn’t?
So, everything you think is beautiful, is. And everything you think isn’t, someone else might think is, and so is. So no matter what, you, and everyone around you, is right. And I think that’s beautiful.
First of all, take your pick- I’m going to use beauty as the example, but it applies just as well to any of the others. The question is subjective vs. objective
1- Subjective beauty is true. Right? I mean, if I think something or someone is beautiful, it’s true for me. There’s no real questioning of that. You might disagree, but you have to acknowledge that my subjective opinion is true for me.
2- Objective beauty is untrue. Or at least, unknowable. Either there is no such thing as objective beauty (do you think there’s actually an objective answer as to who is the most beautiful woman in the world?), or else there’s just no way for us to have any contact with it. Even if you managed to briefly touch objective beauty (somehow, you manage to be right that your living room chair is the world’s most beautiful chair), how would you ever know? What possible abilities would you have to tell the difference between your opinion and some sort of external idea that is “true”?
3- If subjective beauty is true, and objective beauty is untrue, or at least irrelevant and unknowable, then universal beauty must be true. As in, if there isn’t any objective beauty, then everyone’s subjective beauty is equally true. It’s true for you, and that’s it. Maybe a better way of saying it is that everyone’s sense of beauty is only true for them, and therefore outside of yourself, your opinion has no more meaning than anyone else’s. Therefore, you have to acknowledge that, except for your own personal tastes, anything that anyone thinks is beautiful is as true a statement of beauty as any of your feelings on the matter. If that’s true, then you have to conclude that everything is equally beautiful, except in terms of your personal opinion. The guy who selected which design New York City was going to use for its garbage cans might very well have thought it was the most beautiful garbage can around, or even the most beautiful possible? How can you be sure he didn’t?
So, everything you think is beautiful, is. And everything you think isn’t, someone else might think is, and so is. So no matter what, you, and everyone around you, is right. And I think that’s beautiful.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Two Steps forward, Take a break?
The problem with technology is that progress means we make it easier and faster to do something that used to be more difficult.
The problem is that this means we get lazier in relation to each of these things.
The problem is that we still have to do them, we just have to spend so much less time and energy doing them.
And then they don't really matter anymore.
And then what are we left spending our time doing?
The problem is that this means we get lazier in relation to each of these things.
The problem is that we still have to do them, we just have to spend so much less time and energy doing them.
And then they don't really matter anymore.
And then what are we left spending our time doing?
Monday, October 20, 2008
High Fructose Corn Syrup, Response
1 comments:
-
The risk of becoming obese is 40% higher among children who have one obese parent. For this reason it is extremely important to educate children to eat correctly since the first years of life. All these consequences must spur parents to improve and make children’s lifestyle more healthy. http://www.phentermine-effects.com
He was traveling for work in the outskirts of Denver, didn't no the area, and decided to go to some fast-food place for lunch. While he was there, he saw a family come in- a mother, grandmother, and three daughters, aged 7, 11, and 15 (or so). The mother ordered the same super-sized (or equivalent) meal for each of them. And when neither the 7 nor 11 year-olds could finish the meals, the mom said to finish their food because there are starving people in africa who would do anything for so much food. The moral being, if you don't finish all of your food, you are wasteful and insulting all of the people who don't have the opportunities that they have.
It kind of struck me when he said this, that I remember hearing that phrase when I was a kid. That seems to be just one of those American parental phrases (or was when I was a kid)- "finish your food, there are starving people in ______________"
I think the ideas that foment obesity in America are much more deep-set than people (or at least I) thought. They go back to America's idea of itself as the land of plenty, the land of wealth. And just as the American Dream has gone from, if I work hard then I can give my children a better life, to, I want and deserve more now without having to do more- so has the American idea of the land of plenty and opportunity turned into the idea of the land of excess and indulgence.
Maybe we're all making each other fatter.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
And in the news today...
As I often do in the mornings, one of my first activities was to check google news. The top three international stories were as follows…
1- McCain needs a big push in the upcoming debate to stop Obama’s momentum.
2- Madonna and Guy Ritchie to announce divorce.
3- Fighting at Thai-Cambodia border kills 2 people.
Really? That was number 2? Subsequent headlines that didn’t make the top three include:
The breakdown of talks between Georgia and Russia (and so possibly more violence)
A drunk man tries to hijack a Turkish plane.
Firefighters’ ongoing struggle to contain the fires burning down LA.
But Madonna trumps all that.
America, Fuck Yeah!!!
1- McCain needs a big push in the upcoming debate to stop Obama’s momentum.
2- Madonna and Guy Ritchie to announce divorce.
3- Fighting at Thai-Cambodia border kills 2 people.
Really? That was number 2? Subsequent headlines that didn’t make the top three include:
The breakdown of talks between Georgia and Russia (and so possibly more violence)
A drunk man tries to hijack a Turkish plane.
Firefighters’ ongoing struggle to contain the fires burning down LA.
But Madonna trumps all that.
America, Fuck Yeah!!!
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
A Political Phew
So, another presidential debate. And I do agree with what every commentator that I saw subsequently said- that McCain did nothing to change people’s opinions in this debate. Whether you think McCain or Obama won, McCain, being behind, had to achieve a goal that he didn’t reach.
But, more than that, it was refreshing to hear the two of them talk because neither one is an idiot. At least they both have a good command of the English language, and an comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. So much better than a monkey for president! For me it’s genuinely a relief to have two actual candidates (alright, alright, with the exception of Sarah Palin!).
And I do more agree with Obama, and I do really think that, for where we are right now domestically and internationally, what he offers in terms of hope and change is truly necessary- but I will say here that I think John McCain would make a good president. I don’t think for what we need right now, but generally a smart passionate qualified candidate.
In politics, everyone keeps talking about “crossing the aisle” and being “bi-partisan” like it’s the impressive few that manage to do it. Well, besides the fact that this should be the norm (it seems to be part of the job description, in fact), really “crossing the aisle” (which is a really weird quasi-wedding reference, by the way) means respecting qualified people and their ideas. As long as people say my candidate is great and yours is terrible, there’s not really going to be any actual debate or dialogue. Saying I cross party lines but people on the other side don’t know what they’re talking about is somewhat contradictory.
So I will say what most of my friends won’t- McCain is a qualified candidate. I’m not gonna vote for him, I hope you don’t, and I really hope he doesn’t win, but at least the choice this year is between legitimate candidates.
But, more than that, it was refreshing to hear the two of them talk because neither one is an idiot. At least they both have a good command of the English language, and an comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand. So much better than a monkey for president! For me it’s genuinely a relief to have two actual candidates (alright, alright, with the exception of Sarah Palin!).
And I do more agree with Obama, and I do really think that, for where we are right now domestically and internationally, what he offers in terms of hope and change is truly necessary- but I will say here that I think John McCain would make a good president. I don’t think for what we need right now, but generally a smart passionate qualified candidate.
In politics, everyone keeps talking about “crossing the aisle” and being “bi-partisan” like it’s the impressive few that manage to do it. Well, besides the fact that this should be the norm (it seems to be part of the job description, in fact), really “crossing the aisle” (which is a really weird quasi-wedding reference, by the way) means respecting qualified people and their ideas. As long as people say my candidate is great and yours is terrible, there’s not really going to be any actual debate or dialogue. Saying I cross party lines but people on the other side don’t know what they’re talking about is somewhat contradictory.
So I will say what most of my friends won’t- McCain is a qualified candidate. I’m not gonna vote for him, I hope you don’t, and I really hope he doesn’t win, but at least the choice this year is between legitimate candidates.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Water-Boarding, The Follow-Up
So, the follow-up to my water-boarding experience. After we did the water-boarding for the video, people immediately started responding to it. As a result, the director of the music video we did for “Sacred Cows” called me up and said that we had to shoot more water-boarding footage, since we only had one real scene of it, and it was all from five feet away or so. We needed a few close-ups of it.
Well, I wasn’t exactly excited, but I understood her point and agreed to do it. After all, in spite of your very unpleasant the experience was, I had gone through it, was fine afterwards, and so how bad could doing it again be?
So, a few days later, I found myself driving over to her place around dusk to shoot more water-boarding. And my entire body was shaking. My hands just wouldn’t stop. I kept telling myself to get some control. I mean, I had already done it once, I had survived functionally, and I’m a martial artist, which is all about control of the mind over the body. And no matter what I just couldn’t stop the shaking.
I guess no matter how much my mind had gotten over the experience, my body was not ok with doing it again. No matter what I thought.
Well, I wasn’t exactly excited, but I understood her point and agreed to do it. After all, in spite of your very unpleasant the experience was, I had gone through it, was fine afterwards, and so how bad could doing it again be?
So, a few days later, I found myself driving over to her place around dusk to shoot more water-boarding. And my entire body was shaking. My hands just wouldn’t stop. I kept telling myself to get some control. I mean, I had already done it once, I had survived functionally, and I’m a martial artist, which is all about control of the mind over the body. And no matter what I just couldn’t stop the shaking.
I guess no matter how much my mind had gotten over the experience, my body was not ok with doing it again. No matter what I thought.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
My World Issue
The main cause worth fighting?
World Stupidity. Collective stupidity, which breeds fear, violence, and apathy, is the main cause of almost all the shit I think needs to change with the world. To gain self-knowledge is to gain knowledge about how everything else should fit into the world. And if you don't have an understanding of yourself and your values, you are extremely susceptible to someone else convincing you to just follow them, to buy into someone else's dupe. The people in control don't want to change (why would they, they're in control?) and the people who aren't have been convinced that someone else is supposed to be taking care of stuff. And the people who acknowledge this situation either turn away in disgust or respond with violence. The number of people I know who deeply care but expect someone else to do something about it while they sit at home and complain staggers me. Instead of doing something, people sit down at a computer and write some stupid blog. whoops/.
World Stupidity. Collective stupidity, which breeds fear, violence, and apathy, is the main cause of almost all the shit I think needs to change with the world. To gain self-knowledge is to gain knowledge about how everything else should fit into the world. And if you don't have an understanding of yourself and your values, you are extremely susceptible to someone else convincing you to just follow them, to buy into someone else's dupe. The people in control don't want to change (why would they, they're in control?) and the people who aren't have been convinced that someone else is supposed to be taking care of stuff. And the people who acknowledge this situation either turn away in disgust or respond with violence. The number of people I know who deeply care but expect someone else to do something about it while they sit at home and complain staggers me. Instead of doing something, people sit down at a computer and write some stupid blog. whoops/.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
We walk alone, but not lonely
-
The hardest step in a thousand mile journey is the first. You should let your readers know that the journey doesn't have to begin alone. That's why some really like your music. The reason for the journey is often the same. Your songs reinforce that. The encouragement that solitude is not solipsism. Though at some point in the journey, you and I know it must inevitably be walked alone.
I just couldn't agree more. It's easy to push the idea of how much we all need to make this journey ourselves, and forget how difficult, how scary a process it is. But there are a lot of people trying to do this, and it's in everyone's interest in this process to help each other out. We all must walk alone, but that doesn't mean that people can't help us along the way, even if it's just telling us that it's worth our time and that the issues faced while doing it are things that other people have gone through.
It is such a tragedy to me that the way so much is structured in our society, it is so difficult to make this first step. So much is pushing in the opposite direction. You need to not only have a desire and an inclination to find your own path, you must also have the strength to go in the opposite direction, the will to say yes when everyone else says no.
Some people will be able to do this process no matter what. Some people will never have any interest in this process. But there are so many people who could do it if they had the chance, if there wasn't so much pressure to stay where you are.
We all walk alone, and the moment we realize that, we can all share in it together.
Thanks for understanding, Bernie
A Political Dupe
While we all know that to some extent we are being duped by the powers that be (politicians, media, etc.), it recently occured to me that maybe one of the ways is in the very myth that is perpetrated about what a politician actually is.
In spite of all the controversy, corruption, back-stabbing and other stuff that goes on in politics, on some level we are still presented with the image that most politicians are smart people who care about the interests of the country. Maybe not more than their own self-interest, but that at least the majority of them are smart and care about how our government works.
That is, until I saw a Daily Show recently in which they interview a representative from a rural section of Georgia (I don't remember the exact area or person's name, but that's not really important). The guy was an absolute idiot. I mean, an unbelievable idiot. That didn't even have to do anything to make him sound funny.
So, I started thinking. What if, rather than most politicians being smart and passionate, most of them are in fact dumb. As in below average intelligence. Because, to be honest, the people I know that have all the qualities I would want in a political leader have absolutely no interest in being in politics, by and large. The intelligence, honest, integrity, broad-mindedness, dedication, and humility (it is called for public servant for a reason) needed, in my mind, to make a great leader, rarely adds up to a person wanting to run for office.
In fact, what I find the most necessary qualities are a bull-headed dedication to follow your team, a willingness to play dirty to ensure that you win, and the ability to pounce when you smell blood. I don't even think intelligence is a necessary quality in a politician. Probably a useful one, probably one that would allow to you to succeed over others, but not a necessary one. And integrity, dedication to the country and its best interests? Pretty clearly not necessary (or no longer necessary).
What I'm saying is that it's entirely possible that most politicians are the people who were bullies in high school, or maybe the second- and third-in-command to the main high school bully. People who are used to fighting for their self-interest, bullying others to make their own role more secure, and a willingness to follow whatever keeps them in their rung on the ladder.
I definitely don't mean to say that all politicians are stupid bullies. In fact, I very much think that some of the people currently running for the "Big" office are in fact quite intelligent and qualified (although not all of them). Just that maybe we've all been convinced that politicians are supposed to be noble, smart, and dedicated, and it's just the few that ruin it for the rest. Maybe it's the opposite. It certainly provides an interesting perspective on the whole process.
In spite of all the controversy, corruption, back-stabbing and other stuff that goes on in politics, on some level we are still presented with the image that most politicians are smart people who care about the interests of the country. Maybe not more than their own self-interest, but that at least the majority of them are smart and care about how our government works.
That is, until I saw a Daily Show recently in which they interview a representative from a rural section of Georgia (I don't remember the exact area or person's name, but that's not really important). The guy was an absolute idiot. I mean, an unbelievable idiot. That didn't even have to do anything to make him sound funny.
So, I started thinking. What if, rather than most politicians being smart and passionate, most of them are in fact dumb. As in below average intelligence. Because, to be honest, the people I know that have all the qualities I would want in a political leader have absolutely no interest in being in politics, by and large. The intelligence, honest, integrity, broad-mindedness, dedication, and humility (it is called for public servant for a reason) needed, in my mind, to make a great leader, rarely adds up to a person wanting to run for office.
In fact, what I find the most necessary qualities are a bull-headed dedication to follow your team, a willingness to play dirty to ensure that you win, and the ability to pounce when you smell blood. I don't even think intelligence is a necessary quality in a politician. Probably a useful one, probably one that would allow to you to succeed over others, but not a necessary one. And integrity, dedication to the country and its best interests? Pretty clearly not necessary (or no longer necessary).
What I'm saying is that it's entirely possible that most politicians are the people who were bullies in high school, or maybe the second- and third-in-command to the main high school bully. People who are used to fighting for their self-interest, bullying others to make their own role more secure, and a willingness to follow whatever keeps them in their rung on the ladder.
I definitely don't mean to say that all politicians are stupid bullies. In fact, I very much think that some of the people currently running for the "Big" office are in fact quite intelligent and qualified (although not all of them). Just that maybe we've all been convinced that politicians are supposed to be noble, smart, and dedicated, and it's just the few that ruin it for the rest. Maybe it's the opposite. It certainly provides an interesting perspective on the whole process.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
High Fructose Corn Syrup, the campaign
I recently saw this tv commercial that just blew my mind.
The commercial opens with two mid-30s/40s moms. One is pouring a drink out of a big jug of purple drink. The other mom watches and then says, “I guess somebody doesn’t care what goes in her children’s bodies.” And the other one says, “What do you mean?” The first mom says, “That drink has high fructose corn syrup in it, you know how bad that is!” The second mom says, “Oh yeah, and what’s so bad about it?” When the first mom stammers, the second mom continues, “That it’s made from corn? That it’s all-natural?”
Then the commercial tells you about it’s website, HFCSfacts.com, telling people to go find out for themselves.
The basic idea of this commercial is, you’ve been told stuff from a bunch of different sources, but do you really understand it? If you don’t, then maybe you’ve been duped. The fallacy of the argument, “if you don’t understand something, then it’s probably a lie,” is such an insulting statement that has gone on in a number of different directions. I’ve heard the same thing about global warming (can YOU prove it? Oh, you don’t have any specific facts? You’ve bought in to the lie of global warming), and a general methodology of republican ad campaigns (does this guy seem too smart? Do you not understand what he’s doing? Come vote for the regular guy, the guy you understand already, the guy you could go have a drink with- sound familiar?).
On a brief sidetrack, why would you want someone to be in a position of leadership over you that you don’t think is smarter than you? If they are, wouldn’t it make more sense for you to be the leader instead? So, anyone feel like they are qualified to be president?
Basically, this whole thing is predicated on the idea that most people don’t really have any information of their own, they get all of it from someone else, so they have no foundation to launch any sort of counter. The pro-HFCS woman didn’t say, “Who is your information from? Mine is from here. Let’s compare.” She said, “You don’t understand your information? Wherever it came from, it must be wrong.”
Go out and find your own information on the subjects you talk about.
So, then, I thought I would research HFCS a little further, and provide some websites for people to look from.
The basic idea, as I’ve seen it, is that there are two main problems with HFSC-
1- HFCS contains a higher percentage of fructose than does sugar, fructose has been proven to be bad for the body in a whole number of ways, some of which include increases hunger and the desire for more fatty and sweet foods. In this way, HFCS as a substance is directly responsible for its health affects.
2- HFCS is not particularly any worse than sugar is as a sweetener. The problem is that it has been used to increase the sweetness of given items. As in, companies have decided to put much more of it in than used to be done with sugar. And, because of its form and ease of use, it can and is used in a number of foods that didn’t use to have anywhere near the same quantity of sweetener before (like bread). In this case, the problem is not HFSC in particular, it’s the amount that it is used and the pervasiveness with which it is used.
There seems to be quite a bit of debate on this subject. Quite a bit of the debate that agrees with point 2 is funded by such groups as the Beverage Institute (go figure). Either way, everyone agrees that the increased amount of sweetener is one of the main causes of American obesity, among other health problems.
Point being, at best (for HFCS), you should avoid goods that contain it because they will be so comparatively sweet that they can lead to health problems. At worst, you should avoid goods that contain it because at least one of the ingredients in it will make you fat, sick, and possibly give you cancer.
Here are some websites.
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v11/n11/abs/oby2003179a.html (an article about the increase in sweetness in our diet)
http://www.hsibaltimore.com/reports/nutrition_cereal.html?gclid=CKHu6-yI1ZUCFQK2Ggod80yjXw (an article from the health sciences institute about the health dangers of high fructose corn syrup in breakfast cereals)
http://www.ehealthforum.com/health/topic117606.html (an article on why HFCS is bad and in fact causal for people with fibromyalgia)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/18/FDGS24VKMH1.DTL (an article from the SF Gate that gives a good overview of the health problems)
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v12/n11s/abs/oby2004277a.html (an article from the obesity research journal on how different types of sweetener affect obesity)
And let’s not forget the HFCS website, http://www.hfcsfacts.com
Incidentally, the only scientist referred to on their website, G. Harvey Anderson, has a articles written by and research funded by the beverage institute http://www.beverageinstitute.org
Oh, and for more information on corn's relationship to all of the things we eat, read "Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan
The commercial opens with two mid-30s/40s moms. One is pouring a drink out of a big jug of purple drink. The other mom watches and then says, “I guess somebody doesn’t care what goes in her children’s bodies.” And the other one says, “What do you mean?” The first mom says, “That drink has high fructose corn syrup in it, you know how bad that is!” The second mom says, “Oh yeah, and what’s so bad about it?” When the first mom stammers, the second mom continues, “That it’s made from corn? That it’s all-natural?”
Then the commercial tells you about it’s website, HFCSfacts.com, telling people to go find out for themselves.
The basic idea of this commercial is, you’ve been told stuff from a bunch of different sources, but do you really understand it? If you don’t, then maybe you’ve been duped. The fallacy of the argument, “if you don’t understand something, then it’s probably a lie,” is such an insulting statement that has gone on in a number of different directions. I’ve heard the same thing about global warming (can YOU prove it? Oh, you don’t have any specific facts? You’ve bought in to the lie of global warming), and a general methodology of republican ad campaigns (does this guy seem too smart? Do you not understand what he’s doing? Come vote for the regular guy, the guy you understand already, the guy you could go have a drink with- sound familiar?).
On a brief sidetrack, why would you want someone to be in a position of leadership over you that you don’t think is smarter than you? If they are, wouldn’t it make more sense for you to be the leader instead? So, anyone feel like they are qualified to be president?
Basically, this whole thing is predicated on the idea that most people don’t really have any information of their own, they get all of it from someone else, so they have no foundation to launch any sort of counter. The pro-HFCS woman didn’t say, “Who is your information from? Mine is from here. Let’s compare.” She said, “You don’t understand your information? Wherever it came from, it must be wrong.”
Go out and find your own information on the subjects you talk about.
So, then, I thought I would research HFCS a little further, and provide some websites for people to look from.
The basic idea, as I’ve seen it, is that there are two main problems with HFSC-
1- HFCS contains a higher percentage of fructose than does sugar, fructose has been proven to be bad for the body in a whole number of ways, some of which include increases hunger and the desire for more fatty and sweet foods. In this way, HFCS as a substance is directly responsible for its health affects.
2- HFCS is not particularly any worse than sugar is as a sweetener. The problem is that it has been used to increase the sweetness of given items. As in, companies have decided to put much more of it in than used to be done with sugar. And, because of its form and ease of use, it can and is used in a number of foods that didn’t use to have anywhere near the same quantity of sweetener before (like bread). In this case, the problem is not HFSC in particular, it’s the amount that it is used and the pervasiveness with which it is used.
There seems to be quite a bit of debate on this subject. Quite a bit of the debate that agrees with point 2 is funded by such groups as the Beverage Institute (go figure). Either way, everyone agrees that the increased amount of sweetener is one of the main causes of American obesity, among other health problems.
Point being, at best (for HFCS), you should avoid goods that contain it because they will be so comparatively sweet that they can lead to health problems. At worst, you should avoid goods that contain it because at least one of the ingredients in it will make you fat, sick, and possibly give you cancer.
Here are some websites.
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v11/n11/abs/oby2003179a.html (an article about the increase in sweetness in our diet)
http://www.hsibaltimore.com/reports/nutrition_cereal.html?gclid=CKHu6-yI1ZUCFQK2Ggod80yjXw (an article from the health sciences institute about the health dangers of high fructose corn syrup in breakfast cereals)
http://www.ehealthforum.com/health/topic117606.html (an article on why HFCS is bad and in fact causal for people with fibromyalgia)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/18/FDGS24VKMH1.DTL (an article from the SF Gate that gives a good overview of the health problems)
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v12/n11s/abs/oby2004277a.html (an article from the obesity research journal on how different types of sweetener affect obesity)
And let’s not forget the HFCS website, http://www.hfcsfacts.com
Incidentally, the only scientist referred to on their website, G. Harvey Anderson, has a articles written by and research funded by the beverage institute http://www.beverageinstitute.org
Oh, and for more information on corn's relationship to all of the things we eat, read "Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Clarity, Alabama
So there’s this guy driving down the road in rural Alabama. It’s late at night, and as he drives, he looks over to his right and sees a long run of chain link fence and a sign on it that says:
Alabama State Psychiatric Ward
Well, that kind of flips him out, but he keeps on driving. He only gets a few feet further, though, when he gets a flat tire. He pulls over, gets out and starts to change the tire.
All of the sudden he hears something and turns around. There’s a guy on the other side of the fence, clinging to it, staring at him with wild eyes. And the guy doesn’t speak.
Needless to say, the guy is getting more and more worried. Enough so that his hands are shaking a little, so that when he takes out the lug nuts from the flat tire, he drops them and they fall down a grate.
So now he’s flipping out.
“Oh shit! What do I do now? I’m in the middle of nowhere, next to the Alabama State Psychiatric Ward, there’s this crazy guy starting at me, and I’m stuck without a tire!”
He thinks to himself. As he’s standing there, he hears a voice from behind him.
“You know, you could just take one lug nut off each of the other tires. Then you’d have enough lug nuts on each wheel to drive off. It might not be perfect, but it would certainly be good enough to get to the nearest town and get them replaced.”
The crazy guy says, still standing there with his wild staring eyes, clutching the fence.
“Oh, um, wow, you’re right. That would work. Thanks.”
“Well yeah, I’m crazy, not stupid.”
Alabama State Psychiatric Ward
Well, that kind of flips him out, but he keeps on driving. He only gets a few feet further, though, when he gets a flat tire. He pulls over, gets out and starts to change the tire.
All of the sudden he hears something and turns around. There’s a guy on the other side of the fence, clinging to it, staring at him with wild eyes. And the guy doesn’t speak.
Needless to say, the guy is getting more and more worried. Enough so that his hands are shaking a little, so that when he takes out the lug nuts from the flat tire, he drops them and they fall down a grate.
So now he’s flipping out.
“Oh shit! What do I do now? I’m in the middle of nowhere, next to the Alabama State Psychiatric Ward, there’s this crazy guy starting at me, and I’m stuck without a tire!”
He thinks to himself. As he’s standing there, he hears a voice from behind him.
“You know, you could just take one lug nut off each of the other tires. Then you’d have enough lug nuts on each wheel to drive off. It might not be perfect, but it would certainly be good enough to get to the nearest town and get them replaced.”
The crazy guy says, still standing there with his wild staring eyes, clutching the fence.
“Oh, um, wow, you’re right. That would work. Thanks.”
“Well yeah, I’m crazy, not stupid.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
So, everything you think is beautiful, is. And everything you think isn’t, someone else might think is, and so is. So no matter what, you, and everyone around you, is right. And I think that’s beautiful.
This is only from an objective perspective.
From a subjective perspective, I fucking hate what certain people think is beautiful.