Monday, September 24, 2007
Health & Wellness: Bowing down to the Health Insurance Industry
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Pornography and the End of Masculinity
Thats probably why the conclusion the author makes is what really rang true for me:
As is often the case, this paradox can be resolved by recognizing that one of the assumptions is wrong. Here, it's the assumption that U.S. society routinely rejects cruelty and degradation. In fact, the United States is a nation that has no serious objection to cruelty and degradation. Think of the way we accept the use of brutal weapons in war that kill civilians, or the way we accept the death penalty, or the way we accept crushing economic inequality. There is no paradox in the steady mainstreaming of an intensely cruel pornography. This is a culture with a well-developed legal regime that generally protects individuals' rights and freedoms, and yet it also is a strikingly cruel culture in the way it accepts brutality and inequality.
The pornographers are not a deviation from the norm. Their presence in the mainstream shouldn't be surprising, because they represent mainstream values: The logic of domination and subordination that is central to patriarchy, hyper-patriotic nationalism, white supremacy, and a predatory corporate capitalism.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Sick of Sicko?
I should point out, however, that I have yet to see the movies, but I have been following it to some degree (mostly on the Daily Show and a YouTubeish copy of Colbert). It seems to me that Moore's whole point is not "what are the conditions of the country that has good health care" (France and Cuba in his movie) but why is it that their health care is so much better than ours? Indeed, even CNN was so taken aback that they felt the need to attack Moore who fought back and actually forced CNN to admit they were wrong! I'm not sure if its because CNN (and other news agencies) are on the payroll of the medical industry as Moore claims, but you know something? It wouldn't surprise me! Remember, just like HMO's, the news media are run by private for profit corporations and get a lot of their funding from the aforementioned medical industry.
As I said, I have not seen the movie. I do plan to see the movie, in which I will post my comments once I have seen it. Just remember that people who operate on a profit motive have a tendency to only care about maintaining that profit and more often than not, do NOT have YOUR interests in mind! Think of it this way, if firefighters were market based and not publicly funded, and putting out a fire in your house depended on if you have "fire insurance," how would you feel if they came, and stood their looking up your insurance report trying to find a reason NOT to put out the fire in your house while the whole time, you're standing there arguing with them trying to convince them that you have insurance and they should put it out? Based on Moore's appearance on Colbert and Daily Show, that seems to me to be what the movie is about. In any case, I will go see it, and Mr. X has not dissuaded me in anyway. If anything, I'm even more interested than before!
Friday, July 06, 2007
Clarification
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Evolution, Schmevolution
So, my thoughts on this issue? Simply put, evolution is fact, not theory. A statement echoed by Carl Sagon in his award winning PBS series Cosmos (which is being rebroadcast on the Science Channel). Dr. Sagon, and many others in the fields of Biology point to nature for their examples of evolution. There is far too much biodiversity and too many living examples of evolution. Even now, when we have mapped the human genome, we have found that we are genetically related to every living creature, plant or animal, on this planet. Seems plain to me that if there were a Supreme Being who directly created us out of clay molding as the Bible suggests, there would be absolutely no gentic similarities whatsoever. What attributes to the lack of acceptance of such a proven concept? Well, two reasons stand out in my mind. One, a fundamental lack of understanding of just how the evolutionary process works and two, the fact that your mind has to think logically and scientifically to understand the evidence presented. I will attempt to explain it in a understandable way.
The first problem is that human arrogance leads us to believe that we are the end result, that the idea is we went from monkeys, to hominids, to neanderthals, to modern humans. Creationists grasp on this concept and point out that the fossil records show many of the "links in the chain" occurred at the same time, the most prominent example being that for a period of about 10 or 20 thousand years, neanderthals and modern humans (cro magnon) co-existed. However, according to evolution, this is not how it works. The key to evolution is diversity. Even Darwin knew that. To continue to use neanderthals and cro magnon's as examples, our species and the neanderthal species were two branches on the same bush, as were the other hominids. Essentily the human bush. Cro magnon (us) had the benefit of being the only branch that survived (although recent evidence suggests that another branch of humans, pygmy humans or "hobbits" as some have called them, who were approx. an average of 1 meter tall, had survived until roughly 13,000 years ago whereas neandthals died out roughly 30,000 years ago). Apes, which Creationists are fond of saying that we Evolutionists claim we descended from them, would be a completely seperate bush, with Gorillas, Orangotans, and the various other species of primates being being branches of the primate bush. Its more accurate to say we descended from a common ancestor, an animal that was neither monkey nor human but had features of both. At some point they would have diverged into the two bushes of today, the monkey bush and the human bush. Carl Sagan had a very good explanation of how evolution works, relating artificial selection (human selection) to natural selection (see the story "The Mystery of the Samurai Crab" Cosmos 2, Chapt. 3, 10 min.).
The second road block to understanding evolution is a bit more difficult to overcome. You can't educate everyone on biology, science, etc so that they can understand these concepts. The simple fact is that people have an easier time believing in what is easy for them to understand. To most people, a supreme being creating humanity is an easier concept to grasp than understanding the underlying biological principals that lead to the evolutionary process. But when you read (or listen) to Carl Sagan's explanation of how the evolutionary process functions, he describes it in a very beautifully simple way that (hopefully) most "lamen" people could understand (if they would listen). In today's world of uncertainty, we need to turn to people who provide a well thought out, fact based explanation using scientific concepts and principals, rather than listening to people who comfort us with lies and misinformation (whether or not they believe in such rubbish). Sometimes fact is truer than truth.
In conclusion, I'll leave you with this final quote:
"Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dodzhansky, 1973
Update (2/13/2008):
I found video's to The Daily Show's series Evolution, Schmevolution. The first is a video of a panel he did with experts in Evolutionary Science, Religious Creationism, and some nut hippie. If you do a search for "Evolution" you'll find some interesting clips on The Daily Show website.
Daily Show: Evolution, Schmevolution Panel
Google Pages
![](http://www.google.com/images/logo_sm.gif)
Google has seen fit to include me in its programme of building webpages using its Google Pages feature. You'll find the link below. I'll also be posting a link on the page I created to this blog. I am an engineer by trade but I will begin speaking out on the ideals and beliefs that I hold. The information I present here and on the Google Page represent my beliefs but are based on information I recieve from various sources...including some of the web links you see on here and in the Google Page site. Some information will be based on programme's I watch on things like the Science Channel, Discovery Channel, PBS, and various other TV programme's. Also a few radio programme's such as NPR's "To The Point." So...enjoy!
My Google Page
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Stuff on My Mind: The Rich
I don't want to get too heavily involved in my friends rants or Kiyosaki's articles. My first point, and one of the things you can get from the column, is that the rich are in control, getting richer, and using every means in the book they can to make sure they stay in control while the rest of us our out of control. Kiyosaki also mentions of a book called "The Dollar Crisis" by Richard Duncan that talks about the impending devaluing of the Dollar. Another thing that I suspect is around the corner. You already have an idea of it based on the fact that the Euro is now stronger and potentially the replacement currency for the dollar. I mention this because it leads to my next point, which is that based on this and other things I've heard, this can potentially cause an economically catastrophic event the likes of which can make The Great Depression look like a miniscule recession. One of my problems with American Capitalism (note that I am not attacking Capitalism itself, just America's version) is the fact that it requires that there be poverty. Most rich people might say "its part of life, like huricanes and tornato's," the whole social darwinism idea. I say that is bullshit. Darwins purpose was to explain nature, where as capitalism is a manmade concept. Like our forefathers, I believe everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How is poverty happiness? But also, I believe everyone has the right to basic needs such as food, water, and shelter, regardless of what they are or are not capable of. Our ancestors had it but had the ability to do it themselves. Now, too many people do not have it and either do not have the skills to get it on their own or are prevented by law.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Stuff on my Mind...Rich Good Poor Bad?
Another thing that bothered me was how she said she was against taxing the rich because then there would be "no incentive to invest money." She follows the "Reganomics" approach, give the rich tax breaks so they'll invest it and it trickles down to everyone else (aka Trickle Down Economics). NEWS FLASH...only upper middle class people invest. Rich people don't invest because THEY'RE ALREADY RICH!!! They don't NEED to invest when they have 7 figure salaries! You give them tax breaks, and they'll just hoard the money!! I say tax the damn rich people because it forces them to take social responsibility for many of the problems they themselves have caused; growing disparity between the haves and have nots, environmental damages, a large population of people whom everyday is a struggle to survive, to name a few.
Her flawed approach is typical right-wing propaganda, "work hard and you'll be rewarded." Truth is, that only works in a few cases. Most cases, its who you know, and how underhanded you are. You can't be a moral person, and become rich.
She also enjoys pointing out how conservatives are all about less government involvement. If thats true, then how come these same guys are creating laws like the Patriot Act and trying to undermine Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, and, more importantly, the Bill of Rights? Truth is, they are for less government involvement...in corporate interest. Corporate executives would love to be able to turn back the clock 100 years to the days before employee rights and protections, so they can force children to work and employees to work 18 hours/day 6 days/week for pennies. Also to the day where if there is an on the job injury, they just toss the employee into the streets and hire a new person, leaving the injured guy to fend for himself. I could go on and on.
I advocate more government involvement in the corporate world, and less involvement in my world (read the individual). Stop treating corporations like individuals and treat them for what they really are, seperate institutions that need to be monitored, regulated and enforced so that they do not take advantage of the rest of us. Do not monitor, regulate and enforce me (again, read the individual). Uphold the Bill of Rights and Civil Rights for individuals.