Education really is a silver bullet. It can be a cure for poverty, for violence, for crime. The problem is that information, much like speech, needs to be complete and unfiltered to be of significant value. That's the reason that children who are taught in authoritarian environments (think terror states and dicatorships) end up with a skewed version of "truth" and gain none of the benefits I mentioned at the top. In the United States, we've had many debates recently over what our children should be taught, and who should decide what to teach. Should educators decide what is relevant, or what is factually viable, or should people and the government decide what they do and do not want their children to know? Some people assume that if you teach a child about Evolution that they'll reject religion, or that if you teach a child about sex that they'll start having it. I can safely say that both of those are untrue.
After a two-week research study in Texas, they found that children who are given proper sex education (and not merely the "wait until marriage" part) are more likely to wait to have sex, and more likely to wait until they are married then children who aren't. What this says is that giving children information doesn't mean that they are going to put that information into practice, it simply means that having that information allows them to make responsible and informed decisions. With anyone and especially with children, telling them not to do something if only because you say so will only make them want to do it more. Explaining things to people and allowing them to make the decision on their own means that not only are they more likely to do the right thing, but because they came to the conclusion themselves, that they will understand it and stick to it.
If we truly live in an information age, then we need to start acting like it and stop trying to hide the unpleasant truths. Instead, we should be seeking to make sure that all avenues to information aren't blocked and that instead of just getting one person's opinions we are getting the whole truth. That means allowing open discussion, open exchange, and not restricting information simply because we don't like it or we don't think people can handle it. This also goes for politicians, pundits, and journalists who think that ignoring the other side of an argument will make it untrue.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Two Minus Three Equal Negative FUN!
My dad is a hardcore Republican; a card-carrying member. He used to tell me that he had been a Democrat when he was younger, but then I would joke that when he got older he got bitter and Republican. He didn't so-much appreciate that. Even though I almost never agree with his politics, he's a smart, well-educated man who was accepted to Rutgers and Princeton, and served in the Army, and for the life of me I can't understand why he seriously defends some of the people in his own party who are not only ill-informed, but dumb and actually working against his own party's platform. I used to tell him "Dad, I know you're a Republican and I think that's really cute and all, but really...George Jr...is that really the best you guys could come up with?"
Case in point: Today our president decided to use the full power of his office to veto a bill for the first time. What horrible, liberal, welfare-socialist bill was this you ask? It was supported by a 63-37 margin (253-193 in the house) and sponsored by those left-wing nutjobs....Arlen Spector and Bill Frist? Yes, the bill was put forth and supported by anti-choice Republicans, people who have agreed with the President nearly 100 percent of the time and are the cream of the neo-con crop.
This bill would have loosened regulations on funding for Stem Cell research so that diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's might one day be cured by using stem cells generated from discarded embryos. Whenever a women stores embryos at a fertility clinic, or has embryos taken out for in-vitro fertilization, the unused embryos are normally just thrown away, which no one seems to have a problem with and no one in their right mind considers murder (because if they did then women would be murderers at least once a month). However, studying or using those embryos to cure disease is, in the eyes of one G.W., apparently is equal to or worse than grabbing children out of their cribs and ripping their limbs off in order to create Frankenstein-like abominations. Believe me, Bill Frist isn't suggesting that we hold women down and take all of their embryos to do with as we please, and the Republican from Pennsylvania doesn't think we should be harvesting stem cells from fetuses in the womb. All they are suggesting is maybe we should look into saving lives that have already been created, born, and blessed by god by using cells that were going to be discarded anyway.
Bill Frist and Arlen Spector are both morally opposed to abortion, just like the President. And, agree or disagree, at least Bill and Arlen (and all of the Republicans that support this bill) recognize that life at least needs sperm, a womb, and about 9 months gestation. Is the President suggesting that every embryo is a life? If so, does he think that we should be striving to make sure that every single egg a woman has is given the chance to be fertilized and grown into a full-grown human? Not only is that idea silly, but its actually sort-of frightening.
Sure, go ahead, take those extra embryos and try to find a woman who wants to "adopt" it and use it to have a child; there are many infertile women who will jump at the chance. But, as a species, I think we have far more embryos than we ever could or even should use (oh the financial burdens of having hundreds of children each). Why not then use these extra embryos, already out of the womb and never intended to become lifeforms themselves, to save lives. I'm not suggesting we grow clones and steal their organs, and I'm not suggesting that we start draining women of the embryos they're not planning on using. I'm not even suggesting that we start mass-producing stem cells...I'm just saying why can't we do some research and see if it would even be possible to improve the health and lives of people that everyone on both sides of the aisle can agree are lifeforms. Not every embryo and every sperm is a life. There are many gray areas, but can we not all agree that as long as those two things stay separate that neither of them counts as a lifeform? When a man is murdered, you don't count all of his sperm as living entities, otherwise newspaper headlines would read "Apparent Suicide Kills Billions". Now that's just silly.
Also silly: For once I am agreeing with Bill Frist. BILL FRIST! The guy who thought the woman who's brain had literally shrunk was not brain damaged because he watched a videotape of her not moving. That Bill Frist. Thanks a lot George. You've got me siding with that guy. Just sign the damn bill.
Case in point: Today our president decided to use the full power of his office to veto a bill for the first time. What horrible, liberal, welfare-socialist bill was this you ask? It was supported by a 63-37 margin (253-193 in the house) and sponsored by those left-wing nutjobs....Arlen Spector and Bill Frist? Yes, the bill was put forth and supported by anti-choice Republicans, people who have agreed with the President nearly 100 percent of the time and are the cream of the neo-con crop.
This bill would have loosened regulations on funding for Stem Cell research so that diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's might one day be cured by using stem cells generated from discarded embryos. Whenever a women stores embryos at a fertility clinic, or has embryos taken out for in-vitro fertilization, the unused embryos are normally just thrown away, which no one seems to have a problem with and no one in their right mind considers murder (because if they did then women would be murderers at least once a month). However, studying or using those embryos to cure disease is, in the eyes of one G.W., apparently is equal to or worse than grabbing children out of their cribs and ripping their limbs off in order to create Frankenstein-like abominations. Believe me, Bill Frist isn't suggesting that we hold women down and take all of their embryos to do with as we please, and the Republican from Pennsylvania doesn't think we should be harvesting stem cells from fetuses in the womb. All they are suggesting is maybe we should look into saving lives that have already been created, born, and blessed by god by using cells that were going to be discarded anyway.
Bill Frist and Arlen Spector are both morally opposed to abortion, just like the President. And, agree or disagree, at least Bill and Arlen (and all of the Republicans that support this bill) recognize that life at least needs sperm, a womb, and about 9 months gestation. Is the President suggesting that every embryo is a life? If so, does he think that we should be striving to make sure that every single egg a woman has is given the chance to be fertilized and grown into a full-grown human? Not only is that idea silly, but its actually sort-of frightening.
Sure, go ahead, take those extra embryos and try to find a woman who wants to "adopt" it and use it to have a child; there are many infertile women who will jump at the chance. But, as a species, I think we have far more embryos than we ever could or even should use (oh the financial burdens of having hundreds of children each). Why not then use these extra embryos, already out of the womb and never intended to become lifeforms themselves, to save lives. I'm not suggesting we grow clones and steal their organs, and I'm not suggesting that we start draining women of the embryos they're not planning on using. I'm not even suggesting that we start mass-producing stem cells...I'm just saying why can't we do some research and see if it would even be possible to improve the health and lives of people that everyone on both sides of the aisle can agree are lifeforms. Not every embryo and every sperm is a life. There are many gray areas, but can we not all agree that as long as those two things stay separate that neither of them counts as a lifeform? When a man is murdered, you don't count all of his sperm as living entities, otherwise newspaper headlines would read "Apparent Suicide Kills Billions". Now that's just silly.
Also silly: For once I am agreeing with Bill Frist. BILL FRIST! The guy who thought the woman who's brain had literally shrunk was not brain damaged because he watched a videotape of her not moving. That Bill Frist. Thanks a lot George. You've got me siding with that guy. Just sign the damn bill.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Nothing Sells Tickets Like a Spectacle
Looking over the news coverage, I was shocked to see that people are using sensationalism and fear to boost interest in foreign affairs. Shocked. This sort of thing has never been done before, and it is a sure sign that the stalwart credibility of our national media is finally showing some flaws. I am, of course, being ironic. I am not at all surprised, though I really didn't see this coming.
Before any close election, and even the ones that aren't, you can always rely on the pundits to change the topic or skew the argument. The last Presidential election is a prime example of how the simple repetition of a few falsehoods was enough to make people think that a decorated war hero would be a poor commander or our nation, yet the man who led the country into a poorly planned war that the majority of Americans were opposed to at the time of the election would defend the nation with his own bare hands.
This time the numbers are much worse for the Republicans, so the tactics are a bit more grandiose. Turn to any news channel, any program, where a prominent Republican appears and they will most likely use the words "World War III" to describe the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, terror threats around the globe, and continued animosity with Iran and North Korea. You may ask how exactly that constitutes a world war when only two of those nations are actually fighting, and Iran and North Korea have been threats for a decade, while terror threats don't equate with the ability to carry out those threats. Not to say that all of these things aren't serious and shouldn't be of the greatest importance, but what I am saying is that a great disservice is done by using hyperbole and mischaracterization to incite fear and panic in the American people.
This is a time for diplomacy, for well-planned and restrained military action, for international cooperation and reform, and for complex issues to be treated accordingly. This is not a time to shout "fire" in a crowded theater so that everyone can be trampled and half of us burned to death. As soon as you say "World War III", you conjure up images of a nuclear holocaust and global annihilation. You also draw a clear picture of organized alliances where there are none. So, basically, what you do is turn a colorful and complex mosaic into a black and white cartoon where everyone is against us and everyone must be dealt with by force or else we are all screwed.
So, coming up to this next election, rather than discussing prudent strategy and necessary domestic reforms, rather than talking about ways to limit troop deployments and stabalize democracies, and rather than working to return to fiscal and social responsibility we are going to be talking about the Apocalypse and who you want at the helm of our John Connor/Omega Man/Beyond Thunderdome future...the unflinching Republicans who stay the course no matter what public opinion, reason, or the actual outcome suggests...or the weak willed Democrats who just want to be loved and give the world a hug. Does that sound over simplistic? Watch Meet the Press and listen to Newt Gingrich, because that's basically what they're setting us up for. They think we're ignorant and easily swayed, and you know what? They just might be right.
Before any close election, and even the ones that aren't, you can always rely on the pundits to change the topic or skew the argument. The last Presidential election is a prime example of how the simple repetition of a few falsehoods was enough to make people think that a decorated war hero would be a poor commander or our nation, yet the man who led the country into a poorly planned war that the majority of Americans were opposed to at the time of the election would defend the nation with his own bare hands.
This time the numbers are much worse for the Republicans, so the tactics are a bit more grandiose. Turn to any news channel, any program, where a prominent Republican appears and they will most likely use the words "World War III" to describe the Israeli-Lebanon conflict, terror threats around the globe, and continued animosity with Iran and North Korea. You may ask how exactly that constitutes a world war when only two of those nations are actually fighting, and Iran and North Korea have been threats for a decade, while terror threats don't equate with the ability to carry out those threats. Not to say that all of these things aren't serious and shouldn't be of the greatest importance, but what I am saying is that a great disservice is done by using hyperbole and mischaracterization to incite fear and panic in the American people.
This is a time for diplomacy, for well-planned and restrained military action, for international cooperation and reform, and for complex issues to be treated accordingly. This is not a time to shout "fire" in a crowded theater so that everyone can be trampled and half of us burned to death. As soon as you say "World War III", you conjure up images of a nuclear holocaust and global annihilation. You also draw a clear picture of organized alliances where there are none. So, basically, what you do is turn a colorful and complex mosaic into a black and white cartoon where everyone is against us and everyone must be dealt with by force or else we are all screwed.
So, coming up to this next election, rather than discussing prudent strategy and necessary domestic reforms, rather than talking about ways to limit troop deployments and stabalize democracies, and rather than working to return to fiscal and social responsibility we are going to be talking about the Apocalypse and who you want at the helm of our John Connor/Omega Man/Beyond Thunderdome future...the unflinching Republicans who stay the course no matter what public opinion, reason, or the actual outcome suggests...or the weak willed Democrats who just want to be loved and give the world a hug. Does that sound over simplistic? Watch Meet the Press and listen to Newt Gingrich, because that's basically what they're setting us up for. They think we're ignorant and easily swayed, and you know what? They just might be right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
