Me Fail English? That's Unpossible.

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.

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.

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.

Someone Should Do Something About All the Problems

Adding to the list of election year stunts, the Republican majority has pushed the anti-Flag desecration Amendment to the floor of the Senate for debate. Let me clear up right at the front that anything I say is not an attack on Republicans only, especially since many of them are smart and decent enough to oppose this nonsense, and some Democrats are just desperate and dumb enough to support it.

This is another thing that I just don't understand. At least when people are opposed to gay marriage they have some sort of moral or religious reason to back it up; in this case I don't think "You shall not burn your own flag" fell anywhere near the Ten Commandments. Burning the American flag, or desecrating it, are forms of free expression, which is a foundation for, if not what our country stands for, than at least for the ideals we pretend to stand for. Do I think it's a bit misguided? Yes, if only because it's too easy a target and represents too many different things to serve as a proper protest in most cases. It represents our government in it's present form, it represents our history, it represents ideals that we strive for, and unless you are ready to protest all of those various things, all it does is make a mess of your argument and distract from whatever valid points you have. Also, it's incendiary (pun intended). Some people get irrationally upset over the burning of a flag, as though you had dug up a veteran and then burned the corpse. Perhaps it's because violent protests overseas often involve the burning of U.S. flags. So, really, if you're trying to make a legitimate argument, burning the flag immediately shuts a lot of people's ears and makes them equate you with a terrorist, so it's not an effective means of creating change. That's why I'm opposed to it. Otherwise, I think people should be free to do whatever they want with the flag.

Why? Well, because freedom of expression is a cornerstone of any democracy, and specifically ours, and ensuring that this right is protected is the only way to ensure that truth will be protected and change will be allowed to come when it is needed. Also, the desecration of a flag has no consequence other than a little smoke, so unless this is meant to protect the environment, it's foolish. Burning a flag is not some gateway rebellion that will lead to armed conflict, it is simply a symbolic way of expressing anger or disappointment.

Some people like to think that the American flag is some holy object, deserving of greater respect than our leaders or our laws, and certainly more important than even our Constitution. I had a professor in college who, not long after the September attacks asked our class how many people had American flags in their windows or on their cars. It was roughly 80-90 percent of the class. When he asked how many of us had voted in the Presidential election, it was four of us. Four out of 40. Clearly the 10 percent of us who weren't flag waving were too busy actually participating in the Democracy to participate in such shallow displays. If anything, I think it's more disrespectful to paste a photocopy of the flag in the window of your SUV. It's more tacky and insulting to print it on your t-shirt or as a design on your underwear. It's shallow and ironic to buy up cheap flags at Wal-Mart, made in China. If the flag is deserving of such protection as a Constitutional Amendment, then perhaps we should devote more time to protecting the things it stands for in our minds.

I think it's more damaging to the integrity of our nation and our flag to ban its desecration. The flag is a symbol. It is the physical expression of an idea or an institution. Are we saying that this expression should be protected, but that any counter expression should not? Are we saying that the good things about our country should be said loudly and proudly, but the negative things should be hidden and kept silent under punishment of law?

I think burning the flag sends the wrong message, but it is not my right nor the right of anyone else to tell people what message they want to send. If someone wants to express themselves this way, so be it. Make laws to ensure that it is done safely, or with precaution, but to make an Amendment banning any form of free expression certainly sends the wrong message, not only to us but to the world. When we are desperately trying to convince the world that we are great lovers of freedom and liberty, this is not the message we should be sending.

On a side note, if the Senate should get so far as to pass this, which I certainly hope they won't, then I think it should be amended to protect the flag from being defiled by hypocrites and cowards. In order to buy a flag, you should be required to take a test on the Constitution. You should only be allowed to buy flags made in America. You should be able to prove that, if you are over 18, that you voted in the last election, Presidential or otherwise, unless you were in the hospital or in the midst of battle. The right to own or display a flag should not be permitted for people who commit corporate crime or lie to the American people. The right to wave the flag should be kept from people who care only about the symbol and nothing about the ideas for which it stand. And, it should be kept from anyone who supports a war with a country that they can't point to on a globe.

Some People Just Don't Get It

When I was in France, I discovered the burden and the gift of a language barrier. Well, that's not entirely true. I first discovered it in high school. See, I attended a good and competitive middle school (well, comparatively). When I got to high school, I discovered that not everyone had that same benefit. For instance, since I had been taking typing and computer courses all through middle school, I was already proficient by the time I entered typing my Freshman year (it was required) and I was shocked to find that most of my classmates seemed to have barely even seen a computer before (keep in mind this was way back in 1995). Within a month, I completed every assignment the teacher had planned for the semester, plus a few she made up. After that, I spent the rest of the time goofing off and helping my friends cheat on their assignments. So, to get back to my point, I also found that I had a better vocabulary than most of these kids, so I had to dumb myself down to be understood most of the time. It was frustrating.

Anyway...France. With my limited knowledge of French, plus my insecurities about sounding like an idiot, it was burdensome to try and communicate for fear of not being understood (without resorting to English, which most of them spoke anyway). On the plus side, I found how great it is to be able to walk around and not have to listen to people's inane chatter all of the time because I couldn't understand them anyway. It was quite a shock when I came home and could no longer block out the ramblings of random people as they perused the aisles of Barnes and Noble.

Unfortunately, living in a heavily populated city, it is completely inescapable, especially when your iPod freezes up on you and you've finished the only book you were carrying (always bring a back-up). It's hard to say which is worse, the people who feel the need to express every thought they have as loudly as possible no matter how mundane ("This subway is so cold" "I had chicken for lunch, I like chicken.") or the people who try to hold lofty conversations about subjects they know nothing about.
The thing that really bugs me is that people just don't understand the world around them. Either they are not paying attention, ignoring the news, and stopping in the middle of the sidewalk, or they are willfully ignoring the world around them, choosing not to think about why it is that things are the way they are. I don't just mean on a global scale, I mean on a personal one. Do you know how much of the day I spend analyzing my own actions and the actions of others? Its a lot, and yet they can just stumble through life without a care, knocking into you and getting in your way, ruining your new suit and making a mess. Ignorance is bliss, but the greater bliss is in being completely self-centered but thinking otherwise. But anyway, let's talk about me.

Football Makes More Sense in Europe

That was one thing that always bothered me when I was a kid, the fact that what we here in the colonies refer to as football seems oddly named since the ball spends most of the time in someone's hand, and spends almost no time making contact with someone's foot. We just have to be difficult, though, don't we. It would be one thing if we invented the damn sport and gave it a different name than everyone else, but we didn't, and not only that, we don't seem to like it very much.

So why am I talking about Soccer? The obvious reason is that it's the World Cup once again, and my TiVo is eagerly awaiting me to finish watching the Iran v. Mexico game and to start watching the U.S. v. Czech Republic game. Its also a good time to reflect on the fact that, much like with our foreign policy, everyone else in the world seems to agree on this one thing, and we couldn't care less. I'm also amused by the fact that something exists that could allow us to say "The United States was defeated by the Czech Republic".

The thing I've always liked about Soccer is that it takes a great deal of skill and control. Running while also trying to manipulate a ball with you feet, and also defending that ball...that's nigh-on impossible for most people. Plus, play is more or less continuous. One of the most irritating things about American Football (aside from the fans and the music) is the fact that much of the game involves throwing the ball a few feet, then someone running with the ball a few more feet, and then that person being tackled followed by a minute or two of discussion and people dusting themselves off. I can understand the American love of aggression, but is it all that interesting when our desire to see someone assaulted by 5 other juggernauts should outweigh our desire to watch a sporting event where each play lasts more than a few seconds?

Maybe it's just me, though. I find most sports fun to play but boring to watch. One exception might be golf, which I find to be neither fun to play nor fun to watch. Pitch and putt, that's fun. Walking for miles on end to hit a tiny ball at a tiny cup tends to be less than thrilling, and it's hard to be excited by a sport which is a favored pasttime of the elderly. Even still, I can't entirely fault someone for playing it if it holds their interest, but watching it on television? You spend minutes just watching the person prepare to hit to ball. Minutes of a person just standing there, hunched over with their club, while no one talks or moves and nothing happens. Then they swing and we can neither see the ball nor where it went and as far as we're concerned they could have just planted a ball somewhere else and told us that's where it landed. It's mind-numbing.

What if we combined golf and soccer, or to be more precise, what if we played soccer on a regulation golf course? Two teams of 11 players kicking their way through sand traps and water hazards perhaps with an occassional golf cart driving through and taking out a player. Now that's a sport Americans can get behind.

Do These Effectively Hide My Thunder?

Whenever you step on a subway in New York City, you stand a good chance of being treated to a performance of some kind. In some cases it comes in the form of a well-rehearsed pan-handle. Often, it's the racist man with the suitcase full of bootleg CDs, or the tag-team duo of movie pirates selling DVDs of whatever terrible horror movie came out this week. The best though, and by best I mean 'the worst' just like 'bad' means 'cool', is the subway musician. My roommate once got to see a man perform acrobatic feats on the subway, and I would have much rather enjoyed that. No, this is the worst kind.

I should step back here and mention that I love subway performers, meaning those who perform in the stations and not on the trains. Its a nice cultural quirk to be able to step off a train at Times Square and see a talented musician performing a rythmic masterpiece on nothing more than a few overturned buckets, or wait for a train in the village with a violinist as your companion. It adds flavor to the day, but also has the added bonus of being avoidable if you don't particularly want to listen to it. You can walk to the other end of the tracks and continue your conversation or listen to your iPod. On the actual train, you are trapped. It's so confined and loud that not only can you not hear whatever music you were enjoying previously in your headphones, but you can't hear anything else over the noise. You can't concentrate enough to read, and in fact, your eardrums stand a good chance of rupturing. You can't leave the car because, in the confined space, they are blocking your way.

Sometimes its merely a few guys singing acapella, or one person with a boombox. What do I get? I get the two guys who step onto the train with 3 large bongo drums and two folding chairs so that they may block anyone from being able to get on or off the train, and they set up shop right next to me, as if to say "Fuck you, Chris, you're not reading another word, and don't even pretend to be able to hear Bruce Springsteen's new album (side note: it is excellent) They proceed to play an 8 minute percussive piece interspersed with occasional breaks during which they would yell out some phrase or object, seemingly at random. At first you thought they had some running theme as they shouted "Africa" and "James Brown", though by the time they got to "Pillow Cases" and "Backgammon" all semblance of poetry was lost. They were then distraught as they moved up and down the length of the train with hands outstretched that no one wanted to give them money for this performance which no one either wanted or enjoyed. They claimed we weren't "showing the love".

I believe in the impromptu performance. I believe in working your way up from nothing. I believe in struggling to survive on talent alone. I do not believe in expecting to get paid for forcing yourself upon people. First, it's rude to assume people want to listen to you, and to interupt their day and their ability to easily get on or off a subway in order to force them to listen. It's also rude to ask them for money when, especially in an urban area, they understand the idea of street performers; if they liked you and had money to spare, they would give it to you without being asked. Then, to act indignant that they don't pay you, as though they don't have bills to pay and mouths to feed with what little their real jobs pay them. Some of us work for a living, and even then don't have a lot of money to spare. If I stood up on the subway tomorrow and started singing "The Lusty Month of May", no one would pay me, and I'd be lucky to make it off the train alive, and I'd be foolish to expect otherwise.

It also reminds me of a time when I was in Philadelphia and my tire blew out. Pulled to the side of the road in a less than reputable neighborhood, I jacked up my car and changed the tire. A drunk on a nearby stoop called out to ask if I needed help (and no, I'm not just assuming he was drunk...he was holding the bottle and could be smelled from a block away). I politely said no thanks, and continuted my task. Once I was nearly complete, all but one lug nut put back on the new tire, he comes over and, despite my protestation, takes the tire iron out of my hand, turns the nut literally one final time, and then asks if I can give him some money for the help...help that was unnecessary, unwanted, and in fact not help. What happened to the American work ethic of hard work for decent pay and what happened to the idea of being a good samaritan? As a progressive, I believe in helping the least among us, and supporting people in their efforts to improve their situations. These people are not helping.