Oil Tax Increase

Apparently new legislation recently went through Congress increasing taxes on petroleum, a tax paid by the oil companies. While I agree with the intended purpose of this legislation (raise money to take care of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico), I worry about the long-term effects on other things. For example, couldn't this cause a spike in gasoline prices? Oil companies will now be making less money per barrel, so it is fully possible that they will raise gas prices to make up for that loss. Unintended consequences plague all government actions, and the article I read even quotes Christopher Guith, vice president of the Chamber of Commerce's energy institute, as saying, "There hasn't been any sort of deliberation on" how this legislation would impact the economics of the country.

As I said above, I agree that money needs to be raised to clean up the oil spill, especially because BP does not seem to be doing much in that regard. However, I am concerned that there was no deliberation even on the laws most obvious, unintended consequences. Am I being paranoid or quite reasonable? Any one who has more information on this legislation, please feel free to share said information with me.

Words and Phrases We Avoid

My last post, which was mostly abour Obama, got me thinking about the Secret Service. One, that they are not that Secret, everyone knows they're there and two, that they could be referred to as the S.S. An agency that works directly for the man in charge and its title can be shortened to S.S. I find it intriguing that this is not seen as a problem, even while most people in theis country would be up in arms if someone dared call them socialist. Both the S.S. and Socialism have very bad connotations in the minds of most Americans, but only the latter appears to consistently provoke a response. I can't help but wonder why. The S.S. and Socialism both "belong" to former enemies of the U.S. Does a stronger reaction against the term 'socialism' mean the U.S. had and has a greater dislike of Russia than of Nazi Germany? Does that mean that anti-Semitism is seen as more okay than Socialism?

I really do not know the answer, but it keeps bugging me. Any help in understanding this is, of course, appreciated.

Obama losing his Jewish constituents?

Earlier this week, Obama had a meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel, Beyamin Netanyahu, which, I dare say, was a disaster (mostly for Obama). While I do not like their slant on the issue, Times Online provides a good explanation of what happened. Obama was, quite frankly, rude. He simply got up and left during a meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister and later uninvited him from dinner. Such behavior to a major political leader can be seen as an insult to said leader's country, or, in this case, even said leader's entire nation (i.e. a large percentage of Jews around the world are upset).

While upsetting Israel is not that big a problem for the U.S., in and of itself, Obama has also upset a large number of his Jewish constituents. Even back in 1974, when many recently-immigrated jewish families had yet to earn large sums of money, Jewish donors gave what amounted to ~75% of donations to the Democratic party*. Even if the number has gone down, pissing off even a few of these huge donors will damage the Democratic party and its ability to fund candidates. Without this funding Democrates will have a harder time winning elections, because, whether we like it or not, money spent on advertising is closely linked to winning elections.

If Obama does not scramble to make up for his insult to Netanyahu, he may well have destroyed his chances at a second term.


*http://www.davidduke.com/general/michael-collins-piper-jews-donating-70-to-80-to-democrats-gop-not-far-behind_1983.html

Stress Overload = strange headache

This weekend I got a very bizarre headache, that has not entirely gone away (it comes and goes, with little corrolation to much of anything). The only cause I can think of that makes any sense is stress overload. Now, why is the headache 'bizarre' and why can stress be the only cause? The headache is bizarre because, for the most part, it is not painful. It is like feeling light-headed and wozy, but, instead of the room spinning, my vision going black, or lossing my hearing, is feels like different parts of my brain are on a variety of little boats on a stormy sea. Yes, it feels like my brain is beginning to feel seasick. Such an unusual headache is generally generated entirely by one's imagination and little else could be the cause, besides stress overload.

My bizarre headache prompted my to think about the mechanisms that probably over-react to cause a negative physical reaction to stress. Are they evolutionarily sound when not exaggerated? Were they once usful, and now remain only because humans have learned how to cope? Or was the negative physical reaction to stress selected itself?

I thought about all that yesterday, but today I was reminded, looking through my readings, that a similar question can be posed about autism? Was autism itself selected for? Were less eccentric versions selected for and autism is the unfortunate extreme? This, in turn, relates to society's view of autism and its 'usefulness'. There appears to be a debate now over whether or not to try to rid the world of autism, to remove the autism gene(s), if it becomes possible. The very fact that there even is a debate shows a shift in attitude towards autism. Before, it was nothing but a horrid disease; now, it could be something highly useful to keep in the gene pool.

More Focused...Finally!

At last, I have a better sense of what I am doing for my Junior Theme (I still hate refering to it as a Junior Theme, it has sucha negative connotation).

Why has society's attitude towards autism changed since the syndrome was first identified?

My research so far has already shown me that America has had a great shift in the last fifty or sixty years; from institutionalizing autistics to the creating of the School Support Program-Autism Spectrum Disorder by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services (Autism Spectrum Disorder and the Inclusive classroom).

I would like to try and research possible societal motivators to explain the drastic change over a mere few decades. Perhaps there was some anti-Instituionalization movement that I have yet to read about. Changes never come about without cause.

Junior Theme Blog?

I'm not sure how we are supposed to blog about our Junior Themes, so I guess I'll figure it out as I go.

I am, and have been for a while, very interested in Autism Spectrum Disorder; especially in how people react to it. Let me explain what I mean. I am interested both in trying to understand how an autistic's mind is different from my own, how they cope with being autistic, and how they see themselves and others and in understanding how others, nonautistics, react to those with autism and how they themselves are affected by these autistic people in their lives. Using famous autistics as a focus of my paper seems, to me, to be a good way to be able to fulfill requirements and research what I am interested in.

I have already read a long article on the "do vaccines cause autism?" controversy and the last chapter of Oliver Sacks's An Anthropologist on Mars, which focuses on Temple Grandin, a high-functioning autistic woman who is famous in her own fields. perhaps the most interesting thing I have learned through my reading so far is that it is quite likely that the majority of people with autism have far more visual thinking than a nonautistic does. As of yet, I am not entirely sure what this means for one's thought processes, but it sounds fascinating.

The Power of Words

As I looked through the comments on Doc Oc's most recent blogpost, This Just In: Texas Rewrites U.S. History, I was reminded of our class's  apparent fear of the phrase "Junior Theme". We insist on not speaking of it, or calling it by a different name and this seems quite similar to Texas's treatment of "capitalism". Both terms, "Junior Theme" and "capitalism" gain a more forceful and frightening negative connotation as we refuse to use them in ordinary speech. (Rather reminiscent of You-Know-Who, a.k.a. Voldemort, isn't it?) I find this Power by Disuse utterly fascinating because words also gain Power by Overuse. We call our country the United States of America, as if we are speaking of an entire two continents, rather than a portion of one continent. By repetition, it is often accepted without question. For a few years, the previous administration of the U.S. government had the general population convinced that Saddam Houssein had Weapons of Mass Destruction, as another example. To my final point, I am simply frightened by the sheer Power of Words. Maybe words are the reason humans are the dominant species, hmm?

What other example can you think of for the Power of Words? Any other modes words have of gaining power?

Health Care Reform, for better or for worse

The long awaited health care reform is currently in the compromise stage between the Senate and the House. It is now over 2000 pages long and it appears that part of it contains a limitation on an individual's ability/right to contract with a doctor. To clarify, to my understanding, this means that an individual would no longer be allowed to see any doctor they want and would no longer be allowed to pay out of pocket. Such a system is likely to create "areas of service" for doctors, where only patients in a certain area, or with a particular health insurance provider, can come to see them, and where the patients can only see the doctors in their area, or that their health insurance is willing to work with. This system is reminiscent of Canada's health care system, where doctors only get paid for a certain number of procedures, meaning that their monetary incentive to do more, and help more patients, is gone. And we must remember, many Canadians cross the border to the U.S. to see doctors.

A poll I found, by Fox, who I admit are skewed against the current plan anyway and, therefore, I take it with a grain of salt, said that 50% of the people polled were against the health care bill as it is now, 20% are confused and 30% are for it. As I said, the poll was by Fox, so I suspect (and estimate) that a more accurate poll of the country right now would show between 30-40% against, the same precent for, and between 20-40% confused as to what exactly the bill is changing, adding, removing, etc.

What do you think of the current reform? Is my comparison with the Canadian system accurate? Do you agree with my estimate percentages? If not, how do you think the country can be broken down?

To Cancel or Not to Cancel

By now we have probably all heard about Constance McMillen and how her high school cancelled prom. Whie I think that the school did the wrong thing by cancelling prom, I feel that they were fully in their rights.

First of all, as the article linked above says, the school cancelled prom a week after receiving a letter from the ACLU. While barring McMillen from coming to prom in a tux with her girlfriend is discriminatory, cancelling prom punishes everyone equally. I believe that this particular action was taken out of fear of a lawsuit, not discrimination. Second, while, and I will say this again, I think the school was wrong to ban McMillen from attending prom as she wished, it is fully possible they were trying to avoid scandal and angry parents; we have to remember that this high school is in Mississippi, not Chicago. If McMillen and her girlfriend had gone to prom together, it would probably have at least been local news for a while and could have caused trouble for the school's administration.

I feel we also need to remember that while the ACLU is arguing  on a basis of equality laws and freedom of expression, institutions, such as schools, do have the right to have dress codes and other rules of conduct. At the very least, not allowing McMillen to go to prom in a tux was fully within the school's rights. Also, the school is under no obligation to host prom. I believe they should just pay back any students that have already bought tickets, end of story; no more arguing, no more chaos.

Now that you have heard my view of this, how do you think should win the case? Should McMillen's lawsuit succeed? Or should the school be allowed to function as usual?

Response to Disaster

It appears to be earthquake season and I doubt anyone likes this season at all. Haiti's 7.0 earthquake wasn't even two months ago and just a week and a half ago was the 8.8 earthquake near Santiago, Chile. The damage in both countries was, and is, huge. The Chilean eathquake was far stronger (the scale for earthquakes is, I believe, logarithmic), yet the damage and death toll is worse in Haiti. I wondered why.

The best answer I have come up with so far is that the major factors are the amount of money and the organization within the government. Haiti is a very poor country with an incredibly corrupt government, unfortunately for its citizens. Chile, on the other hand, is a working democracy with a stable economy. The cohesion of the government in Chile is a probable explanation for why the army responded quickly and efficiently. With a fragmented government, organized rescues are near impossible. The relative wealth, on another note, is correlated with the earthquake-proofness of a large number buildings. Buildings in Haiti were frequently shabbily-made and buildings in Chile, at least in central Santiago, are specially designed to withstand devastating earthquakes.

Can anyone think of any other major factors that could explain the discrepancy between the force of the earthquake and the damage and death toll?

Opportunities by Class

Early this week, we filled out a quiestionnaire in class, Mythology & Identity The US And Us (Bolos and O'Connor). I found #5, and my answer to it relative to the majority in our class, very interesting. Each 'question' was in the form of a statement and we were to pick whether we Strongly Agreed, Agreed, Disagreed, or Strongly Disagreed.

#5 was: Each of us has the ability to make our life better.

The majority in our class Agreed with this statement. I, however, Disagreed. I believe the discrepancy is probabaly because I interpreted the question a bit differently, or I have simply had different experiences (the more likely in my opinion). But, back to the point. I disagreed because I think some people's lives just can not be improved in any way (ex. permanently scarred and bitter people). Also, there are people who do not have the tools, nor the knowledge of the tools, they need to improve their lives (ex. children in high-crime, low-income areas may never be exposed to the possibility of college, even as a dim and distant option. College would be helpful in getting these children out of their crime-laden neighborhoods). So, no, not everyone has the abillity to make their life better.

I wonder why so many students agreed with #5, so any possible explanation would be greatly appreciated, as I would like to understand the other side's argument.

Racism or...?

The past couple of weeks we have talked a lot about racism in class. It is hard to say that racism is truly gone, but hardly anyone in class rbought up any other reasons as to why African Americans in this country seem to still be doing worse on average than European Americans.

What about the society, the household, one is brought up in? An anecdote is not really proof, but I'll tell you this story anyway. On the maternal side of my family, my mom was the first to get any education past high school. For as long as anyone of my relatives can trace back, that side of my family has never had much money or education, so where did my mom get the idea that an education is important? Her parents always highly valued it, holding great respect for those that were more educated than themselves.

Many African-American families are similar in that they lacked money and education as far back as the family can trace (and farther), but, to my knowledge, many of these families do not have the same feeling that an education is something the entire family should work to, should desire to have.

As I stated above, few people would say that racism is gone (and I am not one of those few), but I believe that the other factors should get their due. The nature vs. nuture debate is still raging, though no one will deny that nurture has some significant affect. I do not know what the relative weight of household upbringing is, but I do not doubt that it is large.

What other factors can you think of that may contribute to the current disparity between the different races?

Jewish Democrats

Why are so many Jews in this country Democrats? (note: this does not include my own family, we dislike both Democrats and Republicans - often equally) My educated guess, made from my knowledge of jewish culture and political parties in the U.S., is that these Jews support the more fiscally involved government (a.k.a. socialism) and the more liberal social policies. What confuses me most is the high precentage of Democrats amongst the Jews living here in the North Shore. Democrats are far more likely to increase taxs on the upper-middle class bracket that they are a part of, so why vote Dem.?

A behavior I have indirectly noticed from my parents stories about their Jewish friends and colleagues is that quite a number of them have moved some of their money to Israel, which apparently has more money in its banks than Sweden or Suadi Arabia. (Unfortunately, I do not seem to be able to find this information on CIA Factbook a second time. I will keep trying to find it and may edit this post later.) This may explain how these same upper-middle class Jews can vote for the very Democrats that will pass the laws to take more of their money.

Other groups also seem to have strong affiliations with one party or the other. Any thoughts on those groups and why they choose the party they choose?

Roe v Wade

Last week in class we went through our last Herstory (history from the womens' prespective) presentations, one of which was Roe v Wade, the famous Supreme Court case that reduced the legal restrictions on abortion. Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner links the decision in Roe v Wade, or, more specifically, the increased right to have an abortion, to a reduction in crime. I wonder what else is linked to abortion rights.

To my knowledge, more secular communities are more likely to be for abortion rights and the opposite is true for more religious communities, and this is regardless of which religion one is discussing at the time. I have also noticed that more secular communities tend to have more womens' rights. So, I began to wonder whether non-religiousity or womens' rights are linked to abortion rights and to what degree. I, personally, believe that both greater womens' rights and greater abortion rights are strongly linked to non-religiousity. A third observation I have made is that secular societies, that have less worship of either god or a person (a "Great Leader", for example), tend to be more prosperous, more financially stable.

If memory serves, during the Roe v Wade presentation, I made a comment linking womens' rights and a country's prosperity. Mr. O'Connor, in polite teacher fashion, shot it down. My question is: why? Did we simply have to move on with the class? Was I taking the conversation in a direction that was too controversial? Did he think I had no proof? Or did he simply disagree with my statement?

O'Connor and Bolos themselves encouraged us to pay attention to their biases via their options for a Final Exam essay. They opened the door, so let's step through it.

Obama's State of the Union

Just ten minutes ago, I finished listening to Obama's first State of the Union Address. It left me with far more questions than answers and the feeling that if he succeeds in even half of what he seems to be promising, I will be compelled (by my own opinoin of politicians) to worship him as the greatest president of all time - he will not succeed, at least not that much. He has promised budget cuts, but never explained where these cuts will come from, so I wonder how he'll keep that particular promise.

While the address left me quite somber as to the prospects of our government, one line of Obama's will leave me laughing for ages. "We cannot wage a perpetual campaign," he said, speaking of Congress; but look whose talking, campaigner extraordinaire! Much of what Obama has done all year was campaign. Any level of hypocrisy, no matter how small, should be avioded at all cost by a political figure as important as the President of the United States.

In class, we were asked to pay atention to what garners applause. Sorry, Bolos and O'Connor, I did a bit of the opposite. I noticed, when Obama spoke of removing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" laws for gays in the military, that the military personnel in the front rows, right up near Obama, didn't raise, didn't applaud, in fact, they were all frowning; and while I have hypotheses as to why, I would still love to know what others think of this.

Racism or Class Prejudice?

Yesterday, in class, we discussed racism in Huckleberry Finn. In the process we touched upon racism against African-Americans in today's America. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) for racism, made by Harvard researchers, was brought up. An African-American friend of another student in our class (Lizzy) apparently, according to the IAT, is racist against African-Americans. One of our teachers, Mr. Bolos, explained this by saying that this friend of her's had probably absorbed our racist culture, while if a white -America got the same result, it means that he/she is racist. I hope I misheard or misinterpreted what he said.

I just took the IAT for racism. It asks you to fill out a questionaire, mostly questions about age, education, and location, and match words and pictures to the correct category. First, you match good and bad words with the categories Good and Bad, then pictures or blacks and whites with the categories European-Americans and African-Americans. Afterwards, they combine Good with European-American and Bad with African-American and have you match words and pictures, then they switch the combination and you match the pictures and words again. Their calculation for your preference for one race over the other is based off how quickly you match the words and pictures in the different combinations. My result: moderate preference for White-Americans.

I am not surprised, but not because I think I am racist. I believe I have a class prejudice against those who live in this country's slums and projects and ganglands; I get uncomfortable, and sometimes scared, around people who dress "gangsta", especially when passing through said areas. This combined with the fact that a large percentage of the people who live in these places have dark skin is the most likely explanation for my results on this test; and, I would argue, a very good explanation for why many people, especially of the population that would take such an online test, have a preference for whites over blacks (54% of participants had a moderate to strong preference for whites).

The Butter Battle Book

Most of my favorite books growing up were Dr. Seuss books. One of them was called the Butter Battle Book. I found it funny how the two sides were stupid enough end up at a stalemate (a word I did not know at the time) where each side had a ultimate weapon that would entirely destroy the other side. This weapon was a small black ball, that if dropped, would detonate. One member of each side was assigned to hold this weapon and drop their's as soon as the other side dropped it. (A full summary can be found at this wikipedia article.)

This sounding familiar?

Looking at the story again, in my mid-teens instead of 4 or 5, I can see a frightfully obvious metaphor for the Cold War and the arms race. The Butter Battle Book has no resolution. Everyone continues to live in fear. It is an anti-war book. The hidden moral of this story is not so hidden...at least to those old enough to understand it. Perhaps I am alone in this, but when I was first read this story, and when I started reading it myself, I simply found the story amusing. I saw nothing wrong with the ultimate weapons, ready to drop. I just found it stupid to hold the weapons forever, wouldn't they get tired? They might drop them by accident. That's just dumb.

The discrepancy between the age at which I first heard the story and the age at which I understood it as an anti-war story makes me wonder just who the 'hidden' message was for; perhaps it was actually meant for the parents reading the book to their offspring? Are there other hidden morals and messages in childrens' stories that may be meant for the parents?