01-07-2010
Prompt: 32
A country needs enemies, real or imagined, in order to maintain its identity.
Describe a specific situation in which a country might not need an enemy in order to maintain its identity. Discuss what you think determines whether the existence of enemies is necessary for a country to maintain its identity.
A country needs enemies, real or imagined, in order to maintain its identity. That phrase is the credo of the neo-conservative movement in America. A while ago, some clever fellows figured out that the only way to keep the white-bread, “gee-whiz mister,” culture afloat was to monopolize on the idea of good versus evil. From these minds came phrases like “freedom fighters,” to rename the much less heroic sounding, “guerrilla terrorist forces.” From freedom fighter, to freedom fries, to threat level orange, to the war on terror. All of these things were carefully engineered by people with a vested interest in projecting the idea of an enemy, real or imagined.
In a way, it is true that manufacturing fear creates a tightly knit community of Americans. Scared ignorant ones, but at least they are more likely than ever to stay at home eating twinkies and watching pay-per-view. That culture becomes so dependent on the media to tell them how safe or unsafe they are, that they do have a certain identity. The question is whether that identity is worth having at all. Considering how macho we Americans tend to think of our selves, it is almost comical to think about how scared we have become. I would assert that the situation in which we do not need an enemy is the one that we’re in right now. Who needs this awful identity anyway.
What determines whether this doctrine of fear and domination that the neo-cons use is necessary, is the tolerance of the people. Too much money and too many industries rely on the fear of a real or imagined enemy to let it fade away, so it is—again—up to the people to avoid becoming consumers of a dangerous idea. If we as a people can stomach being led around like doomed cattle by the idiot ruling class then, yes, we do need an enemy to make that seem okay. However, if people want to be free of the confounded fear machine that we’re all a part of, then next time someone tells you that there is someone out that is going to get us, that we need to tighten security and hold close to our loved ones… Go ahead and laugh at them, or spit in their face. Its up to you.
01-06-2010
Prompt: 31
There are times when an individual’s private acts should become a public concern.
Describe a specific situation in which an individual’s private acts should not become a public concern. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the acts of an individual should become a public concern.
Privacy is relative. The very culture that we live in prohibits true privacy. Social animals can no more have true privacy than fish can survive on land. With that in mind, an individual’s so called private acts are only a matter of varying degrees of privacy. Those varying degrees are dependent on the culture to which that person belong. Our culture, individualistic though it may be, requires people to behave within a certain framework of civility and law. In our culture, the fate of the masses ultimately depends on the actions of the individual, so issues of consequence must be brought to the attention of the public so as to preserve order.
There are, however, many things that are of little consequence to society as a whole. Dreams, aspirations, tastes. My interest in the TV show House versus my non-interest in the show Bones and the fact that I intend to watch one and not the other are examples of information that is of no concern to the greater society in which I live, so that information can remain private. In other words, society has a right to information which threatens it in some real way, and no right to information that does not.
The decision to involve the public in private matters is dependent on the parent culture’s need to know. If a culture, like ours, depends on laws and morals to uphold itself, then the need to know on the part of the public is based on those morals or laws. In our culture, for instance, it is against the law to steal money from someone else. If our culture is to uphold itself, it must collectively be made aware of thieves’ actions in order to meet its standards. This concept becomes much more complex in a culturally diverse country like the USA, however it does hold up as a generally useful rule of thumb when deciding whether private matters should be made public.
01-05-2010
Prompt: 30
Advances in communication have led to a loss of personal privacy.
Describe a specific situation in which an advance in communication might not lead to a loss of personal privacy. Discuss what you think determines when advances in communication lead to a loss of personal privacy.
100 years ago, people would have never dreamed of all of the complex communications that are now available. In those simpler times, people had very little to worry about in terms of identity theft because the majority of transactions were done face to face, not to mention locally, where people were more likely to know each other. Today, everything from government paperwork to groceries can be done without the most vague interaction between two or more people. In addition, people from the time before cell phones had what some people might call the privilege being unreachable by friends and relatives any time that they wanted.
Technology can’t be held entirely to blame though. It is the burden of the subscriber to choose to turn their cell phone off if they feel molested. Conversely, the useful and necessary advances in technological communication are supported by, while sometimes lacking, a just-as-high-tech field of identity protection. Most people will find that, generally, ones privacy and identity can be protected with minimal attention and effort.
It may be the fault of advanced communication that many of the new privacy problems exist, however these problems are inevitable in a global, heavily interconnected world. New forms of communication will open new holes, just as new technology will close them. These new forms of communication will reduce privacy, just as self control on the part of the consumer will increase it. It is unlikely that anyone would protest, at the very least, the usefulness of a cell phone, and likewise continued expansion of communication mediums will open up even more useful channels. Ultimately it is up to the user of any service or technology to regulate their own use of it in a way that is concurrent with their own privacy philosophies.
1-4-2010
Prompt: 29
The courts should punish the guilty according to the nature of the crime.
Describe a specific situation in which the courts might justifiably take circumstances into account when punishing the guilty. Discuss what you think determines whether the courts should consider the crime or other factors in order to decide punishment.
Too often over the course of human history, people have been condemned by courts on grounds that, in retrospect, seem paltry. Socrates comes to mind as an exemplification of the the out-and-out ridiculousness of condemnation on intellectual and political grounds. The state of the current American court system, however, is far more difficult to pass conclusive judgment on.
The fact is that courts do punish people according to their crimes. Each crime has a minimum and maximum sentence which the court has the ability to choose from. This system, while elegant in a way, does have flaws. The principle of having guidelines for sentencing is admirable, but unfortunately does not guarantee any amount of justice. This is shown by executive ‘scandals’ such as Enron, in which billions of dollars were more or less stolen with the relatively small trade-off in jail-time. On the other hand, the extremely harsh treatment of drug addicts in the court system shows a obvious slant towards the condemnation of the destitute.
Applying a one-size-fits-all mentality to the court system is, of course, not possible. Courts have to take circumstances into account because there are such a wide variety of situations coming at them. The difference between murder and manslaughter, though they are both forms of homicide, are worlds apart, and courts have the difficult task of sorting out those problems. Circumstances must, in those instances, be the central consideration.
The extent that people are judged more so by their crime than by their intent must be a reflection of the severity of the crime in the eyes of the parent culture. Ultimately, our culture is responsible for the actions of the courts. With that in mind, it is important that, in addition to the court system being more vigilant for the desires of its people, people must be vocal and active in the enforcement of their cultural values. In the absence of cultural pressure, however, courts must simply use their best judgment for punishment based on the crime and the circumstances.
12-07-2009
Medicine – Part 3
Having talked a little bit about the holistic side of medicine, it is only fair for me to send up the mainstream medical culture.
I believe that at the heart of medicine’s problems are the expectations of a jaded culture; people in my generation are growing up in a world where, with the exception of a reasonably large list of problems, doctors can fix almost anything. The last few hundred years have seen medicine go from little more than witchcraft, to a highly scientific and useful system. A few hundred years ago, people would die from conditions that we now consider to be minor. My generation is growing up thinking that car accidents and gun shot wounds are not lethal injuries. With expectations that high, of course the medical system will fall short.
Aside from mere perceptual inadequacy, there is a glaring issue in medicine: the rapid progress, and overwhelming success of the medical field has made practitioners reckless. This situation has far reaching repercussions, from using treatments that are worse than their targeted disease, to simple over treatment of mild problems. It is ultimately up to doctors and other practitioners to set the example for the ignorant masses. People must be made to understand that medicating is not always the best or even correct solution to a problem. Even if people don’t want to hear it, it is the educated medical practitioner who has the responsibility to make sure that patients understand.
One of the biggest problems afflicting health-care is that it is a profitable industry. As long as the health-care system is propped up as an economic centerpiece, there will be non-productive backlash at the expense of the patients. Pharmacology, for instance, will be over-funded because it is very profitable, whereas home remedies and common sense will be stifled because they don’t make any money for anyone. The way that patients and treatments are used as commodities is a much bigger topic which I can’t cover yet here, but I will.
One of my most burning questions is whether this situation is an inevitable result of our culture, or an unfortunate result of a corrupt industry. Given proportional success, would holism become just as reckless and destructive as medicine?
11-30-2009
5: What do you learn from massive sleep deprivation?
Sleep is a strange thing. Being the self conscious folks that we are, one would think that we would be more aware of sleep and how it works. I drive an ambulance; that means that for the last four and a half years, I have slept erratically at least 3 days a week. This schedule has changed my sleep patterns to the point where I can’t even sleep through the night when I’m not at work anymore. The emergency services business goes beyond pushing the boundaries of sleep cycles, and just plain rewrites them. I have heard military folk say that they have adapted to a 4 or 5 hour sleep cycle, and I don’t doubt that they have. However the sleep deprivation that we in EMS are subjected to is worse than just systematic deprivation. Our deprivation is the equivalent of electroshock treatment directly to the center of our circadian rhythms. No regularity whatsoever.
One thing that I have learned from living as I do is that there are well defined points where one can or cannot function without sleep. Each activity has its own limits. Heavily cognitive activities are the first to go, in other words, even a few hours of lost sleep can completely change your ability to think clearly, make decisions, and solve problems. Next comes dexterity; fine motor tasks start to become dull and confusing. Try staying up for 48 straight hours and then remember your PLL’s (Rubik’s cube thing) which are mostly muscle memory. Lastly goes the equilibrium. The ability to maintain the most basic motor function such as standing, walking, driving.
The second thing that I have learned from the loss of sleep is that people are always willing to do it for less money than it is worth. A great many of the most sleep deprived jobs work for minimum wage or close to it. Being in the working class like that can be stressful because if you complain, someone else is always right behind you, ready to take your job for even less money. Also, ironically, the only people who can maintain a sleep deprived lifestyle are people who make enough money to take ample amounts of time off, which rarely includes the working class.
The strange thing about this phenomenon is that people don’t seem to care. People are all too willing to mortgage their health and wellbeing away for a menial job that works nights, like mine. The irony is that until people begin to stand up for themselves and their wellbeing, nothing will change about the way workers are abused. People must be made to understand that no type of sleep deprivation is worth minimum wage, and that the only way to rectify the situation is to demand better hours or better pay.
11-24-2009
2: What do you love about your relationship?
I almost never ask myself the question, “what do I love about my relationship with Rebeca?” It seems redundant since there are so many things. In general, however, I can narrow down a few general things that I really love and appreciate about it.
My relationship makes me feel very safe. Throughout my life I’ve battled with tough insecurities that I have allowed to jerk me around. My demeanor all through my teenage years was dictated by my relative impression of what everyone around me thought. My relationship taught me that I have my own intrinsic value, and not to look outside myself for approval. Also having a constant reminder that I am attractive and lovable is a plus.
Something unique about Rebeca and I, as opposed to other relationships that I have had, is that I am completely comfortable around her. I don’t feel that I have to put on any kind of a show to keep her happy. All I have to do is be myself. This is an aspect of relationships that was lost on me as a teenager. Perhaps due to my own insecurities, I assumed that the only way to get someone to like me was to act like I was someone other than myself. Glad to have that idea out of my head.
Finally, I love having a close friend. That is exactly what she is, my best friend. We know everything about each other, and always come to each other for emotional and moral support. She looks up to me, and I to her. I love the way she is focused and level headed when it comes to big decisions that I would jump on irresponsibly. She appreciates that I know how to do just about everything that comes up; the list goes on.
I am very grateful for the relationship that I have. I recognize how rare it really is for people to truly get along with one another, and that seems to be exactly what we’ve been doing for (one month shy of) 4 years now. I couldn’t ask for a better partner, friend, roommate, fiancée. And I don’t intend to.
11-23-2009
To be fair, I should note that I am not a fan of Macs either. There is something patronizing about them that bothers me enough to avoid buying one: “Here you go you dummy, this computer requires no intelligence at all to use.”
Just trying to be fair.
1: What do you hate about Microsoft?
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that I hate Microsoft. Although as an extremely large and wealthy company, they do make themselves a prime target. My feelings toward Microsoft essentially break down into deep feelings of disappointment. Microsoft, while one of the most successful companies ever, has done nothing but produce low grade, embarrassments of products since its inception.
We had a 286mgHz computer when they first came out. Windows 3.1; it was a marvel, really. I would play crude video games on it, which was pretty remarkable since Playstation hadn’t even come out yet. My early impression of Microsoft was that they had done it! Of course, at the time, I didn’t know that a GUI like Windows was an old idea; not Microsoft’s, not even Apple’s, it was stolen from the good people at Xerox. None the less, when I was first introduced to Microsoft, I was absolutely floored.
My admiration turned to dependence when I got a little older and became a “gamer.” The need for a 16 bit operating system drove us all to get windows 95 for the computers that we already had. And, I guess, that’s kind of what we’ve all been doing ever since. “Well, we already have the computer. Why not just put the new OS in it?” 95: fail, 98: better… still fail, Me: fail, XP: small step forward from 98… too-little too-late. The point here is that Microsoft started with a stolen operating system and somehow, with its market cornered, dominated the game for years even with bad product after bad product.
Now, with Macs coming back into favor, “Windows” and “PC” have become dirty words. This would seem like the fitting end to a dysfunctional monarchy, but it is only a silent tell of how things work in America: you don’t have to be the best as long as you have a monopoly and a good PR team. That is what really bothers me about Microsoft; they had every opportunity to release superior product and corner the market in an honorable way, but they didn’t. They just fed off of their undeserved success for 20 some years, and now… well Windows 7 comes out soon.
11-17-2009
Medicine – Part 2
Having tread with the practitioners of the two extremes of health-care, I have formed a few opinions about the feud between holists and main-streamers. I intend to give as close to equal amounts of thought to both sides, but growing up in my family, I have had to defend one side (the main-streamers) more often the other one. So, bare with me.
My hypothesis is that people are lazy. The enemy of holistic living has never been science or medicine, but rather our culture itself. People always want the greatest results for the smallest effort. People want to feel good, but they don’t want to have to do anything to get it. Why else would there be such proliferation of drugs (legal and illegal) in our culture. Medicine is charged with the difficult task of taking care of all of these lazy people in the most efficient and compassionate way possible.
On the scientific end of things, I see scientific minds acting snarky about holistic beliefs. This practice perpetuates the problem and is by no means noble, but I think that I can explain it. Some people would like to think that science is a religion, but it is not. Science is a way of thinking about things and a way of doing things, which I suppose is the reason for people thinking that it is a religion. Its basis is skepticism; things must be proven before they can be assumed to be true in a scientific mind. In this way, science clashes with religion in the same way that it does with holism. The most important factor surrounding science is to avoid having faith in things that cannot be proven.
Many aspects of holism exhibit varying amounts of pseudo-science. Pseudo-science is something that is presented as factual when it hasn’t—or can’t be tested and proved. For instance, I take supplements from my chiropractor that have no scientifically proven basis to work. I take them because he says that they will help me. In other words, I take them on faith. This practice would appall a truly scientific mind. This is because, even if I feel improvement of my symptoms, it could be any number of factors that caused the improvement, including the placebo effect.
Scientists understand that there is real danger in taking things on faith. Faith related decisions have led to countless atrocities in the world over the last 2000 years. Being in a relatively enlightened age, we have the responsibility to test and prove any and all wisdom—especially when it is directly related to human health.
11-16-2009
I have been finding myself irritated about health-care. Not just the ridiculous political fight over health insurance, but even more generally about how best to take care of people. I travel in two very different circles of people. One that sees the emergency room every day and deals with sick people, and one that probably wouldn’t mind if doctors and hospitals just vanished off of the face of the earth. For the purpose of convenience I will label these groups mainstreamers and holists. I do not pretend that these are accurate or appropriate names for these groups of people, but I need names so there they are.
First, let me show my impression of the extremes of each side. A mainstreamer is someone with unfailing confidence in medicine. If a doctor was to tell them something, they would believe them. They are completely indoctrinated into the medication culture. Sick? Take cold medicine. Tired? Take awake medicine. Sad? Take happy medicine. I believe, based on my experience as an ambulance operator that the majority of people subscribe to the mainstream style belief, if not entirely, then almost entirely. Holists, on the other hand, take on the opposite belief structure. If a doctor were to tell them something, they would be unlikely to believe them. They are generally indoctrinated into the holistic medical culture; chiropractors, herbal supplements, healthy diet and so on. These people represent the minority based on my experience so far.
I consider myself a centrist, in as far as medicine goes. I don’t really take anything at face value from anyone. When my doctor tells me something, I usually give it about the same amount of trust that I do my chiropractor, which is a fair amount. I don’t usually take cold medicine unless I’m at work and unable to take time off. I avoid sleep and mood related medications at all cost, but I will take ibuprofen of acetaminophen for a headache. I also have a diet that is better than average, but by no means perfect.
Now here is where I become irritated. Mainstreamers mock holists, and holists ignore mainstreamers. What bothers me is that mainstreamers don’t question anything about conventional medicine while holists ignore scientific information. Both sides are off their rockers! Mainstreamers must recognize that medicine is a practice, and doesn’t have everything figured out; holists must stop denying that there is in fact useful information available through conventional medicine. This topic makes me so frustrated that I can hardly stand it!
