This last week I have heard some of my classmates talk about the Names program, training to help out in the antibullying program that Freshman go through. I was reminded of another anti-... program. D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). I did not go through that program myself since I left my old school district before junior high, but my brother did.
Do D.A.R.E. and Names actually do anything to help people? Do they prevent drug abuse and bullying? We like to think that they do. It seems like they should. It seems like they might. It seems to work adequately, so why look for another method?
I have heard sceptics of both progeams, children and their parents, that claim the programs have an overall negligible, or even negative, effect. I do not know of any solid evidence to support these claims, nor do I have any to refute them. Despite the lack of hard proof in my possesion, I do believe the sceptics have a point; have studies (repeatable, large scale, studies) been done to prove that D.A.R.E. and Names actually decrease pre-teen/teen drug use and bullying, respectively?
Since I did not go through the D.A.R.E. program myself, I will not comment on it further; however, like most NT students, I went the Names progam Freshman year. For myself and, from what I could see, for my peers, nothing changed. Well, not quite. People were a bit kinder and more careful with their words for a month or two, but soon the majority of the student population was back to the bullying, coercing, norm. (Which goes steadily down as we become older and more mature.)
Questions: Why does no one make a study of the results? (Or, why can I not find a study?) Why do we even have these programs in the first place?................(I truly do not understand why.)
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
"Settlements"
Unfortunately I cannot link it because I do not know how to translate the article into English, but yesterday I read an article, in Hebrew, about the jewish West Bank "settlements".
(For those of you who like to analyze my use of quotation marks, I will explain "settlements". The word settlement, at least in this context, has the negative implication of wrongfully taking and settling land that belong to someone else. As of the end of the 6-day war in 1967, the West Bank has officially been a part of Israel. To my knowledge, all "settlements", villages, and towns in the West Bank are entirely legal.)
The official stance of the Israeli government regarding these "settlements" has changed from administration to administration. Prime Minister Olmert did not give many building permits. Prime Minister Netanyahu has given more. Despite this official difference, in practice, the "settlements" have been growing at a steady rate throughout. The majority of building permits issued to legalize the construction of housing units (apartments or houses) in the West Bank were and are issued by the local governments directly to local contractors who then just go ahead and build. So why is the federal government the one yelled at for the continued construction of "settlements"? Why does it matter what the federal government wants? Are the high-up politicians to squash the hopes of young families in the "settlements" who want their own home? Is the U.S.A., itself obsessed with housing everyone, going to continue to demand the federal government of Israel do this?
I wonder...
(I apologize if my bias ever offends anyone; however, I will not apologize for my bias. It is slight in most matters and my opinions are primarily based off fact.)
(For those of you who like to analyze my use of quotation marks, I will explain "settlements". The word settlement, at least in this context, has the negative implication of wrongfully taking and settling land that belong to someone else. As of the end of the 6-day war in 1967, the West Bank has officially been a part of Israel. To my knowledge, all "settlements", villages, and towns in the West Bank are entirely legal.)
The official stance of the Israeli government regarding these "settlements" has changed from administration to administration. Prime Minister Olmert did not give many building permits. Prime Minister Netanyahu has given more. Despite this official difference, in practice, the "settlements" have been growing at a steady rate throughout. The majority of building permits issued to legalize the construction of housing units (apartments or houses) in the West Bank were and are issued by the local governments directly to local contractors who then just go ahead and build. So why is the federal government the one yelled at for the continued construction of "settlements"? Why does it matter what the federal government wants? Are the high-up politicians to squash the hopes of young families in the "settlements" who want their own home? Is the U.S.A., itself obsessed with housing everyone, going to continue to demand the federal government of Israel do this?
I wonder...
(I apologize if my bias ever offends anyone; however, I will not apologize for my bias. It is slight in most matters and my opinions are primarily based off fact.)
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Bad Idea? I think so.
A few days ago I heard something about a "devout" muslim being appointed to a high position in the Department of Homeland Security, so I decided to look it up. This article is what I found. What I had heard is now confirmed. Arif Alikhan was appointed by Obama as assistant secretary in the Office of Policy Development in the Department of Homeland Security.
Why would Obama give a "devout" muslim a high level job with significant influence over our country's safety, especially so soon after the Fort Hood Shooting? Major Hasan was a psyciatrist at Fort Hood and advocated suicide bombing during lectures. He was known to believe in a violent sect of Islam, yet he was allowed, as other majors are, to carry his own firearm. It is possible that Alikhan's situation is quite similar, and could be far more dangerous.
Also, many Americans still fear muslims in general, and, to some extent, that fear is justified (unfortunately). Putting a "devout" muslim, who, it would appear, is far more likely to be jihadist, in a position to control America's safety is more certainly not one of Obama's wisest decisions. He probably wanted to say that he has increased diversity. In that case, why not appoint a devout Christian or Jew? Obama has made a mistake and his popularity continues to fall.
You call tell what I think of Obama's decision, but what do you think? Good or bad idea? Or something in between?
Why would Obama give a "devout" muslim a high level job with significant influence over our country's safety, especially so soon after the Fort Hood Shooting? Major Hasan was a psyciatrist at Fort Hood and advocated suicide bombing during lectures. He was known to believe in a violent sect of Islam, yet he was allowed, as other majors are, to carry his own firearm. It is possible that Alikhan's situation is quite similar, and could be far more dangerous.
Also, many Americans still fear muslims in general, and, to some extent, that fear is justified (unfortunately). Putting a "devout" muslim, who, it would appear, is far more likely to be jihadist, in a position to control America's safety is more certainly not one of Obama's wisest decisions. He probably wanted to say that he has increased diversity. In that case, why not appoint a devout Christian or Jew? Obama has made a mistake and his popularity continues to fall.
You call tell what I think of Obama's decision, but what do you think? Good or bad idea? Or something in between?
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Soldiers versus Survivors
I suggest reading this article before reading my post.
Does compulsory army service, which demands responsibility on all levels and provides great opportunities for making connections for the future, really explain how successful Israel's hi-tech industry is compared to its size? I am sure serving in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is great training for a huge number of different jobs and scenarios. In fact, I am fairly sure that nearly everything said in the above-linked-article is accurate.
But, just how much does serving in the army affect Israelis success?
What about the culture in general?
To quote one Israeli-American; "Necessity is the mother of innovation." In the case of Israel and Jews, "necessity" brings to mind the horrors of the Holocaust and how the inmates had, essentially, nothing. I would hazard a guess that a lot of Israel's success can be traced to the mentality of Holocaust survivors; "no one's going to help us, so we had better just help ourselves." People absorb most of their parents' opinoins, values, behaviors, and general mentality on how to deal with the world, so the idea of "I don't have something, so I'm going to make it myself" could easily pass beyond just the Holocaust generation.
Okay readers, your turn. Is the article right to say that the disproportionate size to hi-tech industry success ratio is due primarily to the draft and army system? Or am I right? Can this success actually be traced back to Holocaust survivors and their attitude towards life? Are we both wrong? Are we both right? To what degree? Lastly, any other theories?
Does compulsory army service, which demands responsibility on all levels and provides great opportunities for making connections for the future, really explain how successful Israel's hi-tech industry is compared to its size? I am sure serving in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is great training for a huge number of different jobs and scenarios. In fact, I am fairly sure that nearly everything said in the above-linked-article is accurate.
But, just how much does serving in the army affect Israelis success?
What about the culture in general?
To quote one Israeli-American; "Necessity is the mother of innovation." In the case of Israel and Jews, "necessity" brings to mind the horrors of the Holocaust and how the inmates had, essentially, nothing. I would hazard a guess that a lot of Israel's success can be traced to the mentality of Holocaust survivors; "no one's going to help us, so we had better just help ourselves." People absorb most of their parents' opinoins, values, behaviors, and general mentality on how to deal with the world, so the idea of "I don't have something, so I'm going to make it myself" could easily pass beyond just the Holocaust generation.
Okay readers, your turn. Is the article right to say that the disproportionate size to hi-tech industry success ratio is due primarily to the draft and army system? Or am I right? Can this success actually be traced back to Holocaust survivors and their attitude towards life? Are we both wrong? Are we both right? To what degree? Lastly, any other theories?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Smiles
Right now, I am reading a book called "Quirkology; How We Discover The Big Truths in Small Things" by Richard Wiseman, Ph.D.. In Chapter 2, one of the sections in titled "The Mona Lisa, Freshly Guillotined Heads, and the School Sisters of Notre Dame" and discusses smiles. It was a fascinating read.
Now, what's so fascinating about a simple facial expression? Well, I think we all know that there are different kinds of smiles and the main catigorization that can be made is between real and fake smiles. Wiseman demostrates something that I think all those who wish to deceive and those who wish not to be deceived should know. Chances are, you already know this. Genuine smiles go to the eyes, fake smiles are just the mouth. But it is not something in the eyes themselves, as some writers describe (ex. her eyes shone with joy). Looking only at the eyes, and not the skin around them, will tell you nothing. The real trick to deciphering a smile is the wrinkling around the eyes. (Maybe that's why the elderly seems happier to some people, their smiles look real.) A genuine smile gives the smiler crow's feet and often increased bagging/folding of the skin between the eyebrows and eyes as the eyebrows move lower.
There you have it. The simple and effective trick to know when a smile is genuine or fake. A great way to know if someone really likes you or is being nice to take advantage of you! Or maybe just to decipher someone's mood.
Are there other easy trick to knowing when a person is not being entirely honest?
Now, what's so fascinating about a simple facial expression? Well, I think we all know that there are different kinds of smiles and the main catigorization that can be made is between real and fake smiles. Wiseman demostrates something that I think all those who wish to deceive and those who wish not to be deceived should know. Chances are, you already know this. Genuine smiles go to the eyes, fake smiles are just the mouth. But it is not something in the eyes themselves, as some writers describe (ex. her eyes shone with joy). Looking only at the eyes, and not the skin around them, will tell you nothing. The real trick to deciphering a smile is the wrinkling around the eyes. (Maybe that's why the elderly seems happier to some people, their smiles look real.) A genuine smile gives the smiler crow's feet and often increased bagging/folding of the skin between the eyebrows and eyes as the eyebrows move lower.
There you have it. The simple and effective trick to know when a smile is genuine or fake. A great way to know if someone really likes you or is being nice to take advantage of you! Or maybe just to decipher someone's mood.
Are there other easy trick to knowing when a person is not being entirely honest?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Racism against Arabs
Hmm...why would an Israeli Jewish American be talking about racism against Arabs?
Good question.
I'm not entirely sure how the conversation came up, but, just like many of my previous posts, this post originates from a conversation with my dad.
It has died down a bit, but, ever since 9/11, many American residents became anti-Muslim, especially Arab-Muslim. This is a very unreasonable, if understandable (not justifiable), prejudice; even more so because, to my knowledge, more sects of Islam have preached peace longer than sects of Christianity.
But I said the prejudice is understandable, and so it is. All forms of prejudice can be understood, if taken from the proper prespective. Extreme Jihadists destroyed the Twin Towers and humans have a tendency to generalize and a need to lay blame. This combined led to rasicm against Arabs in the United States.
What of the other country I name as a part of my identity, Israel? If American racism is understandable, than Israeli racism should be even easier to comprehend. But to what extent? Jews, as favored scapegoats of many civilizations and eras, should hesitate to discriminate so widely.
Allow me to clarify my point. I do not disagree with the safety measures and laws put in place by the Israeli government that may discriminate. The vast majority of those truly do add to the safety of many Israeli citizens and I want my family to be safe. I, however, believe that discrimination against individual Arabs by individual Jews may be just a tad much. For example, Israelis (and Palestinians) treat a Palestinian's life as being worth less than an Israelis life. Now, to explain why I added the paraentheses to the previous sentence. The belief in the unequal value of lives probably comes from how the different cultures value being alive and the bodies of loved ones. Islam does celebrate martyrdom, so being alive is not quite as important. Therefore, the value of an individual palistinian life is seen as less by the Palistinians as a whole compared to an Israeli life as seen by Israelis as a whole. Also, a repeat occurrence that may continually enforce this inequality in value is the prison-trade. Israel will regularly trade over a hundred Palistinian prisoners to get back a soldier whom they are not even sure is alive. Both sides can, from this, be seen as equating ~100 Palistinians to a possibly already dead Israeli.
I, being Israeli, am likely to be a bit biased. Please let me know if you think it overly impacted my interpretations. Also, a question: what do you think of the unequal valuing of life? Are my assumptions right? Do both sides see a Israeli life as more valuable? Or am I totally off base?
Good question.
I'm not entirely sure how the conversation came up, but, just like many of my previous posts, this post originates from a conversation with my dad.
It has died down a bit, but, ever since 9/11, many American residents became anti-Muslim, especially Arab-Muslim. This is a very unreasonable, if understandable (not justifiable), prejudice; even more so because, to my knowledge, more sects of Islam have preached peace longer than sects of Christianity.
But I said the prejudice is understandable, and so it is. All forms of prejudice can be understood, if taken from the proper prespective. Extreme Jihadists destroyed the Twin Towers and humans have a tendency to generalize and a need to lay blame. This combined led to rasicm against Arabs in the United States.
What of the other country I name as a part of my identity, Israel? If American racism is understandable, than Israeli racism should be even easier to comprehend. But to what extent? Jews, as favored scapegoats of many civilizations and eras, should hesitate to discriminate so widely.
Allow me to clarify my point. I do not disagree with the safety measures and laws put in place by the Israeli government that may discriminate. The vast majority of those truly do add to the safety of many Israeli citizens and I want my family to be safe. I, however, believe that discrimination against individual Arabs by individual Jews may be just a tad much. For example, Israelis (and Palestinians) treat a Palestinian's life as being worth less than an Israelis life. Now, to explain why I added the paraentheses to the previous sentence. The belief in the unequal value of lives probably comes from how the different cultures value being alive and the bodies of loved ones. Islam does celebrate martyrdom, so being alive is not quite as important. Therefore, the value of an individual palistinian life is seen as less by the Palistinians as a whole compared to an Israeli life as seen by Israelis as a whole. Also, a repeat occurrence that may continually enforce this inequality in value is the prison-trade. Israel will regularly trade over a hundred Palistinian prisoners to get back a soldier whom they are not even sure is alive. Both sides can, from this, be seen as equating ~100 Palistinians to a possibly already dead Israeli.
I, being Israeli, am likely to be a bit biased. Please let me know if you think it overly impacted my interpretations. Also, a question: what do you think of the unequal valuing of life? Are my assumptions right? Do both sides see a Israeli life as more valuable? Or am I totally off base?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
George Orwell...Animal Farm
In class yesterday, we discussed Orwellian naming of the USA PATRIOT Act. This reminded me of one of George Orwell's books, "Animal Farm". As a child, I would watch an animated cartoon version, dubbed in Hebrew. A few years ago I read the book.
As I mentioned in my "Praise Obama!" post, my dad was born in the Soviet Union and, as such, knows a lot of the history of how the communist entity came to be. When analyzing both the book and movie, I realized just how analogous "Animal Farm" is to the Soviet Union's history. Both began with the overthrow of a tyrant (czar/farmer) and eventually, through many other analogies, suffer, under the rule of an oppresive dominant class, far worse than they did under the original tyrant. Orwell's brilliance is incredible.
"Animal Farm was written in 1945, a time when ideals of workers' rule were still popular among many in Europe. Making no direct reference to the Soviet Union, Orwell shows exactly how every system of the kind the Soviet Union attempted to institute will fail. I sincerely hope that those who have read "Animal Farm" understood how its story can be applied to all nations and states. This leaves me with one question: do others understand "Animal Farm" the way I do? Do you think it is truly a representation of all communist systems' doom?
George Orwell - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell
Orwellian - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian
As I mentioned in my "Praise Obama!" post, my dad was born in the Soviet Union and, as such, knows a lot of the history of how the communist entity came to be. When analyzing both the book and movie, I realized just how analogous "Animal Farm" is to the Soviet Union's history. Both began with the overthrow of a tyrant (czar/farmer) and eventually, through many other analogies, suffer, under the rule of an oppresive dominant class, far worse than they did under the original tyrant. Orwell's brilliance is incredible.
"Animal Farm was written in 1945, a time when ideals of workers' rule were still popular among many in Europe. Making no direct reference to the Soviet Union, Orwell shows exactly how every system of the kind the Soviet Union attempted to institute will fail. I sincerely hope that those who have read "Animal Farm" understood how its story can be applied to all nations and states. This leaves me with one question: do others understand "Animal Farm" the way I do? Do you think it is truly a representation of all communist systems' doom?
George Orwell - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell
Orwellian - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Suadi Arabia: Friend or Foe?
In class, both Thursady and Friday, we spent quite a bit of time talking about Iraq and the Middle East in general. I'm Israeli-born and I have family in Israel, so everything going on in the entire region is important to and rather emotional for me. This may be why I know something that many Americans do not. The men who planned and executed the 9/11 attacks were neither from Iraq nor from Afghanistan. They were not sent by Saddam or the Taliban. The men were Al-Qaeda, from Saudi Arabia. But wait just a minute. Aren't the Saudis our "friends"? That's exactly what they are, just "friends", allies, not really friends of our country.
Saudi Arabia is the greatest breeding ground for jihadists.
Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups sprung from its desert. True, they are not threatening everyone with nuclear weapons, like Iran, but Saudi Arabia is a large supplier of dangerously religious and violent people. I hope America's alliance with the home of Mecca is a case of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer".
A question for the reader: why do so few people know the origin of the 9/11 attackers?
Saudi Arabia is the greatest breeding ground for jihadists.

A question for the reader: why do so few people know the origin of the 9/11 attackers?
Friday, October 16, 2009
Justice of the Peace vs. Interracial marriage
Does a justice of the peace have a right to decide whose marriage licenses they sign? Apparently not. (Seems like a good thing to me.) This is the second article I saw on the topic in as many days. Bardwell, the justice of the peace in question says that "he doesn't marry [interracial] couples because he's worried about their children's futures." The article quoted many people who say that his refusal to marry these couples is racial discrimination.
Is it racial discrimination to make a decision based off one's knowledge of others' racism? Republican Governor Bobby Jindal wants Bardwell's license revoked immediately. I think this is may be too harsh, if Bardwell is truly acting in the best interest of any future children. However, I do not know the laws in this matter and a justice of the peace must obey the law.
But why is this particular instance such a big deal? Bardwell has denied other interracial couples their marriage licenses, and I am certain that there have been many other occurrences of justices (of the peace and others) breaking the law. I just hope that an attempt is made to treat all such justices fairly, since those who make the news tend to get a harsher punishment then those who do not.
Is it racial discrimination to make a decision based off one's knowledge of others' racism? Republican Governor Bobby Jindal wants Bardwell's license revoked immediately. I think this is may be too harsh, if Bardwell is truly acting in the best interest of any future children. However, I do not know the laws in this matter and a justice of the peace must obey the law.
But why is this particular instance such a big deal? Bardwell has denied other interracial couples their marriage licenses, and I am certain that there have been many other occurrences of justices (of the peace and others) breaking the law. I just hope that an attempt is made to treat all such justices fairly, since those who make the news tend to get a harsher punishment then those who do not.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Ambidextrous
Wandering aournd in my head, as I often do, I found a memory of a friend of mine complaining to me about how nothing is made for "lefties". Being a leftie in a right-handed world cannot possibly be the most convenient thing. Our right-handed individual desks at school are a good example. Lefties cannot rest their writing hand on an armrest as they write, unlike righties.
How does "handedness" come about? (I think it has to do with the dominance of the right or left hemisphere of the brain but I have no research to back this up.) Are you stuck with a dominant hand from birth? Or can you change it? Several of my leftie friends have told me that lefties are more likely to be ambidextrous than righties. If that it true, then why? I think it is because our society is oriented to right'handed people, from scissors to how we learn to hold a basketball for a freethrow shoot (right-hand : push and left-hand : guiding support). Many lefties just learn the rightie way of doing things.
So, being ambidextrous is useful for lefties, but what about for righties, like me? If losing a hand were a frequent occurrence, I would suggest that everyone teach themselves to be ambidextrous. Since that is not the case, righties really have no need for this skill. (But I am going to try anyway.)
What do you think of our right-dominant society? Should a greater effort be made to accomodate lefties?
How does "handedness" come about? (I think it has to do with the dominance of the right or left hemisphere of the brain but I have no research to back this up.) Are you stuck with a dominant hand from birth? Or can you change it? Several of my leftie friends have told me that lefties are more likely to be ambidextrous than righties. If that it true, then why? I think it is because our society is oriented to right'handed people, from scissors to how we learn to hold a basketball for a freethrow shoot (right-hand : push and left-hand : guiding support). Many lefties just learn the rightie way of doing things.
So, being ambidextrous is useful for lefties, but what about for righties, like me? If losing a hand were a frequent occurrence, I would suggest that everyone teach themselves to be ambidextrous. Since that is not the case, righties really have no need for this skill. (But I am going to try anyway.)
What do you think of our right-dominant society? Should a greater effort be made to accomodate lefties?
Friday, October 9, 2009
Nobel Peace Prize
The first thing I did this morning (yay! no school!), half-asleep, was turn on my T.V., since I had no desire to do anything more involved. My parents had left it on a news channel. In less than a minute I was wide awake, wondering if I was suffering from hallucinations. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Huh? I promptly turned off the T.V.
Just a few minutes ago, I found an article talking about much the same thing. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. I started wondering, who makes up the committee that decides who gets a Nobel? Is their a separate committee for each Nobel Prize? Does the Nobel Peace Prize mean anything, especially after a known terrorist, Yazar Arafat. recevied one? And what in the world did Carter and Gore do? And, finally, why is there no mention of a conservation/Republican winning a Nobel Peace Prize?
I have yet to find an answer to any of these questions and help would be appreciated.
But back to what I wanted to say earlier. Why did Obama receive a prize when the nominations closed 12 days after he came to office? He hadn't done anything yet. Then, I remembered. The committee had previously given Nobel Peace Prizes based off promises alone, as they did with Arafat. (I do not mean to say that Obama is in any way analogous to Arafat, just that the committee's behavior to both is the same.)
What do you think of Obama's award? Should he have gotten the Prize for his promises alone? Remember, the decision of who gets a Nobel is supposed to be based entirely on what was done before the nomination deadline, which was 12 days after Obama's administration took office.
Just a few minutes ago, I found an article talking about much the same thing. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. I started wondering, who makes up the committee that decides who gets a Nobel? Is their a separate committee for each Nobel Prize? Does the Nobel Peace Prize mean anything, especially after a known terrorist, Yazar Arafat. recevied one? And what in the world did Carter and Gore do? And, finally, why is there no mention of a conservation/Republican winning a Nobel Peace Prize?
I have yet to find an answer to any of these questions and help would be appreciated.
But back to what I wanted to say earlier. Why did Obama receive a prize when the nominations closed 12 days after he came to office? He hadn't done anything yet. Then, I remembered. The committee had previously given Nobel Peace Prizes based off promises alone, as they did with Arafat. (I do not mean to say that Obama is in any way analogous to Arafat, just that the committee's behavior to both is the same.)
What do you think of Obama's award? Should he have gotten the Prize for his promises alone? Remember, the decision of who gets a Nobel is supposed to be based entirely on what was done before the nomination deadline, which was 12 days after Obama's administration took office.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Religion and Slaveholding
In class on Friday, I said that slaveholding can be seen as a kind of religion. It was only a few hours ago now that I began to wonder exactly what religion is and just how similar it is to the slaveholding culture of the Old South around the time the Frederick Douglass was a slave.
Dictionary.com gives a number of definition for religion, the below definition seems the clearest and broadest to me:
--a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
If we are to use this definition, then an absolutely enormous number of things could be called a religion, slaveholding being one of them. Many slaveholders, "a number of persons", agree on a "set of beliefs and practices". This includes the belief in the inferiority of those of African descent, the slaveholder's right to unquestioned obedience, and, in a large number of cases, that the slaves are better off staying that way, that the slaveholding arrangement benefits everyone.
Do you think slaveholding could be seen as a religion? Or did I use too broad a definition?
Dictionary.com gives a number of definition for religion, the below definition seems the clearest and broadest to me:
--a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
If we are to use this definition, then an absolutely enormous number of things could be called a religion, slaveholding being one of them. Many slaveholders, "a number of persons", agree on a "set of beliefs and practices". This includes the belief in the inferiority of those of African descent, the slaveholder's right to unquestioned obedience, and, in a large number of cases, that the slaves are better off staying that way, that the slaveholding arrangement benefits everyone.
Do you think slaveholding could be seen as a religion? Or did I use too broad a definition?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Praise Obama!
Last night, after 11, I heard my dad laughing - loudly. I went to his office to see what was going on. He had found this video on youtube. Children, in a public school, singing in praise of Barack Hussien Obama.
So, why was my dad laughing?
He lived the first 12 years of his life in Moscow and he NEVER had to sing in praise of the premier (prime minister). All his classmates, along with himself, had to sing in praise of the party and the glorious nation, of course.
My dad laughed at how, in a 'free' country, public-school children are taught to praise the Great Ruler, while in the U.S.S.R. that didn't even last after Stalin.
After watching this disturbing clip, my dad and I watched Glenn Beck's and Sean Hannity's reaction-clips. Neither of us like Republicans any more than we like Democrats, which is not at all, but we agreed with most of what they each said, nonetheless. Beck and Hannity also brought to our attention the school principal's response to the outrage surrounding the video. She allegedly said that she "would do it all again". This is a principal of a public school. Just like with religion, she and the other staff are not supposed to demostrate their bais and indoctrinate the students concerning political beliefs.
It is my personal opinion that she should be fired effective immediately, especially because, according to Beck and Hannity, this was not the only praise-Obama themed activity she had the students do. Do you think she should be fired? Or should she be let off the hook because, after all, he is our President. (Hail Obama! *salute*)
Note: This post was not made with the intention of being anti-Obama.
So, why was my dad laughing?
He lived the first 12 years of his life in Moscow and he NEVER had to sing in praise of the premier (prime minister). All his classmates, along with himself, had to sing in praise of the party and the glorious nation, of course.
My dad laughed at how, in a 'free' country, public-school children are taught to praise the Great Ruler, while in the U.S.S.R. that didn't even last after Stalin.
After watching this disturbing clip, my dad and I watched Glenn Beck's and Sean Hannity's reaction-clips. Neither of us like Republicans any more than we like Democrats, which is not at all, but we agreed with most of what they each said, nonetheless. Beck and Hannity also brought to our attention the school principal's response to the outrage surrounding the video. She allegedly said that she "would do it all again". This is a principal of a public school. Just like with religion, she and the other staff are not supposed to demostrate their bais and indoctrinate the students concerning political beliefs.
It is my personal opinion that she should be fired effective immediately, especially because, according to Beck and Hannity, this was not the only praise-Obama themed activity she had the students do. Do you think she should be fired? Or should she be let off the hook because, after all, he is our President. (Hail Obama! *salute*)
Note: This post was not made with the intention of being anti-Obama.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Reality
In class today, I asked about how we were going to define 'fact'. The ensuing discussion/explanation starting me thinking, what is reality?
How do we know what is real if both history and memory are constructs? Every memory and each piece of history changes a little everytime we look at it, examine it. While pursuing this train of thought, I was reminded of something I have a memory of a friend telling me, or rather, asking me. What if what we think is reality, is all a dream? What if none of it is real? How do we know? I believe some people suffer from existential crises upon contemplating these question. This leads me to believe that I am out of the ordinary in being unbothered by the question of reality. (a.k.a. I am weird.)
Mr. O'Conner, if I understood him correctly, said that fact is what is strongly corroborated and/or agreed upon as fact by the majority of people. I believe that a similar definition can be used for reality. However, if that argument/definition does not work, I return to my standby explanation to myself whenever I wonder baout reality. "What does it matter? If everything is perception, then that is my reality, per definition and for the sake of my sanity"
My question: how do you define reality?
How do we know what is real if both history and memory are constructs? Every memory and each piece of history changes a little everytime we look at it, examine it. While pursuing this train of thought, I was reminded of something I have a memory of a friend telling me, or rather, asking me. What if what we think is reality, is all a dream? What if none of it is real? How do we know? I believe some people suffer from existential crises upon contemplating these question. This leads me to believe that I am out of the ordinary in being unbothered by the question of reality. (a.k.a. I am weird.)
Mr. O'Conner, if I understood him correctly, said that fact is what is strongly corroborated and/or agreed upon as fact by the majority of people. I believe that a similar definition can be used for reality. However, if that argument/definition does not work, I return to my standby explanation to myself whenever I wonder baout reality. "What does it matter? If everything is perception, then that is my reality, per definition and for the sake of my sanity"
My question: how do you define reality?
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Criminals as good guys
Earlier today I read an on-line article on Comcast news about a missing Yale student and it got me thinking. Who would best know how someone could have disappeared without anyone or any surveillance camera seeing her? Professional criminals, the more successful ones, anyway. Now, I am not suggesting that Ms. Annie Le, the missing Yale student, is a criminal. Rather, I am wondering how useful former fugitives-of-the-law could be.
An art thief, for instance, would definitely be able to spot a number of ways to get out of a building without being seen. At least, a thief that's good at what he/she does. What if former criminals, who already did their time or paid their fine, could be hired to help solve missing persons ,and other, cases? A criminal would have an easier time thinking like a criminal than a police officer would. In addition, it would give them a legitimate job, and thus, perhaps, lessen the likelihood of a return to crime.
Obviously, there are a large number of objections that could arise to such an idea, some of which are very legitmate worries that would have be addressed before police begin relying on ex-criminals. For one, how can you trust someone who made their living breaking the law? Using an ex-theif to find stolen merchandise may just be tempting them to steal it for themselves. Nevertheless, I think this could be a useful proposition the should be taken into serious consideration.
An art thief, for instance, would definitely be able to spot a number of ways to get out of a building without being seen. At least, a thief that's good at what he/she does. What if former criminals, who already did their time or paid their fine, could be hired to help solve missing persons ,and other, cases? A criminal would have an easier time thinking like a criminal than a police officer would. In addition, it would give them a legitimate job, and thus, perhaps, lessen the likelihood of a return to crime.
Obviously, there are a large number of objections that could arise to such an idea, some of which are very legitmate worries that would have be addressed before police begin relying on ex-criminals. For one, how can you trust someone who made their living breaking the law? Using an ex-theif to find stolen merchandise may just be tempting them to steal it for themselves. Nevertheless, I think this could be a useful proposition the should be taken into serious consideration.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The Condescending Guilt Complex
Today in American Studies, we spent most of our double period talking about the diction and bias of an excerpt from a apparently popular textbook - popular as in often used by U.S. History teachers around the country. Most of our focus was on whether the author was expressing a pro-Indian bais - which I believe he was - or another bias. The idea of the textbook as an apology to the Indians was brought up. To that I added the notion of condescension. The idea of a condescending apology is one I would like to expand on here.
It is something of a complex, the American tendency to blame everything on the whites and coddle formerly, and sometimes currently, oppressed and/or damaged minorities. (At least in words) In the excerpt we read in class there were particular words/numbers that made the bias quite clear. "Indians are Cheated" as a subtitle is a perfect example. Indians here are clearly the victims, being cheated by the horrible whites (because cheaters are always bad people). So, writing it this way can be viewed as a "self-humbling' apology. However, the fact that the Indians were cheated (not robbed, for instance) implies that they are stupid enough to be fooled, a downright condescending notion.
The "self-humbling" apology is in itself incredibly condescending. As Golda Meir, a former prime minister of Israel, is quoted as saying, "Don't be humble. You're not that great." Humbleness suggests that there is something to be humble about. Giving Indians a "self-humbling" apology can be viewed as blatently rude, more sophisticated and subtle, but similar to a child pointing and saying "ha ha, I beat you, dumbie!"
My question is why Americans accept this kind of thinking, frequently agreeing with it? (Though I doubt after reading this anyone would admit to that point blank.)
It is something of a complex, the American tendency to blame everything on the whites and coddle formerly, and sometimes currently, oppressed and/or damaged minorities. (At least in words) In the excerpt we read in class there were particular words/numbers that made the bias quite clear. "Indians are Cheated" as a subtitle is a perfect example. Indians here are clearly the victims, being cheated by the horrible whites (because cheaters are always bad people). So, writing it this way can be viewed as a "self-humbling' apology. However, the fact that the Indians were cheated (not robbed, for instance) implies that they are stupid enough to be fooled, a downright condescending notion.
The "self-humbling" apology is in itself incredibly condescending. As Golda Meir, a former prime minister of Israel, is quoted as saying, "Don't be humble. You're not that great." Humbleness suggests that there is something to be humble about. Giving Indians a "self-humbling" apology can be viewed as blatently rude, more sophisticated and subtle, but similar to a child pointing and saying "ha ha, I beat you, dumbie!"
My question is why Americans accept this kind of thinking, frequently agreeing with it? (Though I doubt after reading this anyone would admit to that point blank.)
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Decriminalization of drugs - in Portugal
This week's issue of The Economist contained an article about a study done in Portugal for the last 8 years. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized drug usage - decriminalized, not legalized - and the study shows that drug usage has gone down and the percentage of users going to rehab has gone up. For the lay person, this is undoubtedly good. What about the gangs that thrive of drug profits? With fewer customers for illegal drugs, what will the gangs turn to for a profit? I think the lack of money may encourage some gang members, or prospective gang members, to go look for a legal job that will probably get them more money than the damaged illegal drug market. But I am still left wondering what the rest will turn to?
Friday, August 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)