AiS Human Topics Blog

Oil Tax Increase

2010-05-24T22:33:00.000-05:00

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

2010-05-23T16:31:00.000-05:00

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?

2010-05-23T10:14:00.000-05:00

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

2010-04-27T15:13:00.001-05:00

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!

2010-04-13T20:46:00.000-05:00

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?

2010-04-11T11:52:00.000-05:00

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

2010-03-20T10:13:00.000-05:00

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

2010-03-19T20:46:00.000-05:00

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

2010-03-14T15:09:00.000-05:00

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

2010-03-06T21:16:00.000-06:00

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

2010-02-27T14:40:00.000-06:00

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...?

2010-02-20T15:21:00.000-06:00

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

2010-02-15T10:58:00.000-06:00

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

2010-02-07T18:47:00.000-06:00

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

2010-01-27T21:45:00.000-06:00

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?

2010-01-23T17:02:00.000-06:00

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

2010-01-07T20:16:00.000-06:00

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?

Do they help?

2009-12-12T14:35:00.000-06:00

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.)

"Settlements"

2009-12-05T16:28:00.000-06:00

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.)

Bad Idea? I think so.

2009-11-26T13:52:00.000-06:00

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?

Soldiers versus Survivors

2009-11-21T16:18:00.002-06:00

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?

Smiles

2009-11-15T09:22:00.001-06:00

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?

Racism against Arabs

2009-11-07T17:51:00.002-06:00

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?

George Orwell...Animal Farm

2009-10-28T17:07:00.000-05:00

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

Suadi Arabia: Friend or Foe?

2009-10-25T12:40:00.002-05:00

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?

Justice of the Peace vs. Interracial marriage

2009-10-16T21:28:00.000-05:00

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.

Ambidextrous

2009-10-14T21:50:00.000-05:00

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?

Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T16:16:00.000-05:00

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.

Religion and Slaveholding

2009-10-04T15:14:00.000-05:00

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?

Praise Obama!

2009-09-27T17:57:00.000-05:00

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.

Reality

2009-09-16T21:20:00.000-05:00

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?

Criminals as good guys

2009-09-12T16:29:00.000-05:00

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.

The Condescending Guilt Complex

2009-09-03T21:53:00.000-05:00

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.)

Decriminalization of drugs - in Portugal

2009-08-30T14:06:00.000-05:00

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?

Post #1

2009-08-28T14:52:00.000-05:00

First Blog ever!

American Studies is awesome!