I like "old sayings" they remind me that venerable, common sense thinking will endure despite the temporary stupidity of society. Today the one about people cursing the darkness vs. lighting a candle came to mind.
A friend of mine emailed me to tell me about a hilarious book. I don’t really feel like advertising for it so I’ll leave out the title (if you really want to know you can email me). The book is about the differences between men and women. The author likes to think of herself as a feminist but I’m going to go ahead and give the rest of the feminists in the world a break and assume that this woman is beneath them.
I have no problem with the topic of the book. I have no problem with the idea behind it. What I do have a problem with is the fact that half hearted attempts at inteligent discussion such as this are accepted and profitable.
The book points out several of the shortcomings of men, takes a few jabs at our culture, and then... that's it... Nothing more, no suggestions about how to bridge the divide, no proposals for the future, just the complaints and sarcasm. Just in case you think I'm the only one who feels this way about the book...
"In the end, though, one wishes [this book] went beyond simply grocery listing examples of sexual disparity to offer concrete suggestions for change." --Kim Hughes
Kathryn Harrison of The New York Times pretty much sums up the uselessness of this kind of book. "...smart remarks are reductive and anti-ruminative; not only do they not encourage deeper analysis, they stymie it."
Why do we read books written by people who are too lazy to propose solutions or offer suggestions? Why do we give a crap about what people have to say if all they are going to do is complain?
Here is my suggestion... We should refuse to read crap like this. We should refuse to listen to people who offer criticism without contribution. Perhaps publishers and authors will start to realize that we want to read books that do more than complain. Perhaps the authors and scholars who are willing to put the required time and effort into their work will start to make their way to the front of the bookshelf.
This wouldn't bother me as much if the only side effect was the inconvenience of having to sift through shelf after shelf of crap to find a good book at Barnes & Noble. Unfortunately, this is one of the things that (in my opinion) is "wrecking America."
Specifically this has an overwhelming influence on politics in our country. This intelectual laziness has reduced our political process to a name calling contest. If I want my idea to prevail, all I have to do is point out the flaws in your idea. I don't have to support my own argument, I don't even have to have an argument. I can just tell people what a jerk you are and I'll win.
I'm not ok with this. We need to stop listening to poeple who offer no solutions. They say that a society that lives by the "eye for an eye" policy will end up a society of people with one eye. I say that a society that listens to complaints without solutions will end up a society with nothing but problems and people who complain about them.
...please make it stop...
Friday, March 30, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Drinking Songs
Why is it I always have drinking songs stuck in my head? Seriously, I've never had so much as a wine cooler in my life but I could sing along with almost any sailor who came to port. I blame my roommates.
Thanks to Johnny and Shane for two of my favorites...
"Here's to brother [insert name]" and "Dos... A Beer... A Mexican Beer."
Thanks to Johnny and Shane for two of my favorites...
"Here's to brother [insert name]" and "Dos... A Beer... A Mexican Beer."
Monday, March 26, 2007
Accidents
I’m starting to wonder if people really know what “accidental” means. When I was just a young pup the word “accidental” was used to describe things that occurred unexpectedly or by chance. If something happened, no matter how unfortunate, which was painfully foreseeable nobody would be dumb enough to call it an accident.
So this brings me to tonight’s news. As usual, one of the lead stories was about Anna Nichole Smith. Apparently the autopsy came back. With bulletproof hair and shiny white teeth the talking head announced that Anna Nichole died because of an “accidental drug overdose.” Then, without even the slightest hint of irony the newsman went on to say, “Doctors say Anna Nichole took a sleeping pill along with at least 8 other prescription medications.”
Now I’m no pharmacist, and I only made it through 1 year of pre-med, but I dare say I have enough experience with those little orange-ish bottles to know that taking a sleeping pill on top of 8 prescription drugs is probably not a good idea.
Obviously there are circumstances which would make taking that many drugs “normal.” However, since I doubt Anna Nichole was sitting in intensive care after undergoing multiple organ transplants and chemotherapy, I just don’t see how she could be taking that many pills and not know she was going to end up foaming at the mouth on the bathroom floor.
If you ask me (which you must have because you’re reading my blog) I’m going to go ahead and say it was an intentional overdose. Not intentionally fatal, but intentionally beyond the recommended normal use taking in to account drug interactions and other factors.
So unless she slipped and fell into a giant Willy Wonka and the Pharm Factory vat-o-dope, let’s just say “Anna Nichole Smith died due to a fatal drug overdose.” We don’t have to say accidental, just an overdose.
So this brings me to tonight’s news. As usual, one of the lead stories was about Anna Nichole Smith. Apparently the autopsy came back. With bulletproof hair and shiny white teeth the talking head announced that Anna Nichole died because of an “accidental drug overdose.” Then, without even the slightest hint of irony the newsman went on to say, “Doctors say Anna Nichole took a sleeping pill along with at least 8 other prescription medications.”
Now I’m no pharmacist, and I only made it through 1 year of pre-med, but I dare say I have enough experience with those little orange-ish bottles to know that taking a sleeping pill on top of 8 prescription drugs is probably not a good idea.
Obviously there are circumstances which would make taking that many drugs “normal.” However, since I doubt Anna Nichole was sitting in intensive care after undergoing multiple organ transplants and chemotherapy, I just don’t see how she could be taking that many pills and not know she was going to end up foaming at the mouth on the bathroom floor.
If you ask me (which you must have because you’re reading my blog) I’m going to go ahead and say it was an intentional overdose. Not intentionally fatal, but intentionally beyond the recommended normal use taking in to account drug interactions and other factors.
So unless she slipped and fell into a giant Willy Wonka and the Pharm Factory vat-o-dope, let’s just say “Anna Nichole Smith died due to a fatal drug overdose.” We don’t have to say accidental, just an overdose.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Con Law II: An illustration of the problem.
I just had a nice little heart to heart with my Con Law professor. Yesterday he came out in class and said a few things about the students who sit on their hands and say nothing. It was a not so thinly veiled shot at the kids who dislike his liberal rants but don't want to be harassed in class. Some of them went to the Dean. I wasn't surprised. It's just another example of the problem with U.S. Politics today.
You see... People hate each other. They don't just disagree, they hate, and classrooms like ours are only making the problem worse. You're going to create a divide when a professor stands at the front of the room saying things like "are there any [members of political party] who aren't evil?" or "I have come to the conclusion that all [members of a political party] are evil."
Some people say that he's just speaking his mind. Some say he's just telling it like it is. I say he's being an ass and he needs to take a look at the bigger picture. The gridlock created by partisan politics is a HUGE problem. On the large scale we have one half of the nation willing to do anything just to make sure the other half doesn't get its way. This is productive.
Let's take the most popular issue of the last few decades... Abortion... One side says, "No abortions, never, not ever, for no reason whatsoever." The other says, "Abortion when, how, where, and why I want. No notification, no consideration, no regulation." Does anybody really agree with eather side? Does anybody really feel that having an abortion is like ordering a burger? NO. Nobody wants to see an increase in abortions. Ask the folks at Planned Parenthood. Their whole goal is to promote education and responsibility so we don't have to have abortions.
Does anybody really believe no abortions ever? What about when it will kill the mother to give birth to a child that can not possibly survive? What about a 12 year old girl who was raped by her father? Do we really believe there is NEVER an occasion when abortion might need to be available as an option.
But those are the choices we're left with. Abortions for all or abortions for none.
Why is it so? Because nobody has enough respect for their political oponent to sit down and actually try to come up with a resolution that may require some compromise. We'd rather cut off our nose to spite our faces.
I think it sucks. I think it is up to those who stand in positions of authority to do something to stop it. People wonder how these talking heads with radio shows make money... It's because that's the culture we're promoting.
So here's my suggestion... Let's be big enough to be the first ones to exercise a bit of self restraint. Let's put away our pitch forks, swallow our hate, and recognize that this kind of division will only lead to the ultimate failure of our government.
Perhaps in a few years we'll have two or three candidates running for political office in this state who happened to attend the same law school. Perhaps they had spirited debates in class but still had a healthy respect for each other and a cordial social relationship. Perhaps they'll run tv ads about issues and not about how one candidate wears red underwear while dancing naked on a burning American flag.
Perhaps we'll have people talking about their differences rather than defacing signs in the stairwell...
Just a thought... Maybe I'm wrong...
Footnote
Wow... The Prof came out today and pretty much repeated our conversation. I will have to take back many of the horrible things I've said about him.
You see... People hate each other. They don't just disagree, they hate, and classrooms like ours are only making the problem worse. You're going to create a divide when a professor stands at the front of the room saying things like "are there any [members of political party] who aren't evil?" or "I have come to the conclusion that all [members of a political party] are evil."
Some people say that he's just speaking his mind. Some say he's just telling it like it is. I say he's being an ass and he needs to take a look at the bigger picture. The gridlock created by partisan politics is a HUGE problem. On the large scale we have one half of the nation willing to do anything just to make sure the other half doesn't get its way. This is productive.
Let's take the most popular issue of the last few decades... Abortion... One side says, "No abortions, never, not ever, for no reason whatsoever." The other says, "Abortion when, how, where, and why I want. No notification, no consideration, no regulation." Does anybody really agree with eather side? Does anybody really feel that having an abortion is like ordering a burger? NO. Nobody wants to see an increase in abortions. Ask the folks at Planned Parenthood. Their whole goal is to promote education and responsibility so we don't have to have abortions.
Does anybody really believe no abortions ever? What about when it will kill the mother to give birth to a child that can not possibly survive? What about a 12 year old girl who was raped by her father? Do we really believe there is NEVER an occasion when abortion might need to be available as an option.
But those are the choices we're left with. Abortions for all or abortions for none.
Why is it so? Because nobody has enough respect for their political oponent to sit down and actually try to come up with a resolution that may require some compromise. We'd rather cut off our nose to spite our faces.
I think it sucks. I think it is up to those who stand in positions of authority to do something to stop it. People wonder how these talking heads with radio shows make money... It's because that's the culture we're promoting.
So here's my suggestion... Let's be big enough to be the first ones to exercise a bit of self restraint. Let's put away our pitch forks, swallow our hate, and recognize that this kind of division will only lead to the ultimate failure of our government.
Perhaps in a few years we'll have two or three candidates running for political office in this state who happened to attend the same law school. Perhaps they had spirited debates in class but still had a healthy respect for each other and a cordial social relationship. Perhaps they'll run tv ads about issues and not about how one candidate wears red underwear while dancing naked on a burning American flag.
Perhaps we'll have people talking about their differences rather than defacing signs in the stairwell...
Just a thought... Maybe I'm wrong...
Footnote
Wow... The Prof came out today and pretty much repeated our conversation. I will have to take back many of the horrible things I've said about him.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Academic Snobbery
I had an interesting thought in class today. This is news for many reasons: First, because I was actually thinking during class; Second, because something in class was interesting.
Today we discussed the famous Terry case. This is the case that made it legal for police officers to stop random citizens as long as they have an articulable, reasonable suspicion that something is up. Unfortunately, I can look at 90% of the population and find a way to articulate my reasonable suspicions about them. Oh well… At least it’s not “papers please.”
Anyway… One of the interesting bits of trivia the professor chose to share with us while introducing the case was the employment history of the arresting officer (McFadden). Our professor explained that McFadden had been a “beat cop” for 30 years. The state used this information to show the reliability of Officer McFadden’s instincts and testimony. My professor took another road.
Apparently one of the many rock solid truths we can all learn from television is that every cop in America dreams of being a detective, every detective a chief, and so on. My professor implied that since Officer McFadden had been a lowly beat cop for 30 years there must be something strange about him. Why was he not a detective? Perhaps he was a “bad cop” who couldn’t be promoted? Maybe there were disciplinary problems? Why would anybody ever want to keep the same job for 30 years?
Well here’s the thing…
My professor is wrong on multiple levels. First off… McFadden was a detective. Not that it really matters, but it is good to get that little inaccuracy out of the way before we start.
Second. What kind of snob assumes that anyone who is not constantly in pursuit of some advancement in the workplace is somehow flawed? Just because you feel the need to compete and constantly climb in order to feel good about yourself doesn’t mean the rest of the world is that way. The notion that a person must perpetually attempt to advance in his or her profession is not a universally held value. There can be any number of reasons why an honorable and capable person would be content in their position. I have ancestors who are excellent examples of this.
In my opinion, this is just another example of the complete disconnect between academia and the real world. Guys like McFadden are what keep the world going round. It may be a totally foreign concept for some but there are people who wake up every morning, go to work, and then come home in the evening without spending several hours pondering the countless ways in which they could advance themselves in society. Some people might actually like their jobs. Some might only work as a means to provide for some other more important pursuit. Maybe McFadden loved model trains, or had a family, or was actively involved in a youth volunteer program.
This paternalistic concept of knowing what someone else “should” be doing with his or her life is a joke. This is the same thinking that causes people to shy away from noble professions because they fear others might think they have sold themselves short. What if I want to be a public defender for the rest of my life? Will I be a bad person if I never make partner in a big firm or become a professor at a law school? What if my wife with her two masters degrees decides she wants to be a stay at home mom?
The idea that McFadden’s apparent lack of ambition should somehow be a part of the analysis of this case is absurd. Get over yourself.
Today we discussed the famous Terry case. This is the case that made it legal for police officers to stop random citizens as long as they have an articulable, reasonable suspicion that something is up. Unfortunately, I can look at 90% of the population and find a way to articulate my reasonable suspicions about them. Oh well… At least it’s not “papers please.”
Anyway… One of the interesting bits of trivia the professor chose to share with us while introducing the case was the employment history of the arresting officer (McFadden). Our professor explained that McFadden had been a “beat cop” for 30 years. The state used this information to show the reliability of Officer McFadden’s instincts and testimony. My professor took another road.
Apparently one of the many rock solid truths we can all learn from television is that every cop in America dreams of being a detective, every detective a chief, and so on. My professor implied that since Officer McFadden had been a lowly beat cop for 30 years there must be something strange about him. Why was he not a detective? Perhaps he was a “bad cop” who couldn’t be promoted? Maybe there were disciplinary problems? Why would anybody ever want to keep the same job for 30 years?
Well here’s the thing…
My professor is wrong on multiple levels. First off… McFadden was a detective. Not that it really matters, but it is good to get that little inaccuracy out of the way before we start.
Second. What kind of snob assumes that anyone who is not constantly in pursuit of some advancement in the workplace is somehow flawed? Just because you feel the need to compete and constantly climb in order to feel good about yourself doesn’t mean the rest of the world is that way. The notion that a person must perpetually attempt to advance in his or her profession is not a universally held value. There can be any number of reasons why an honorable and capable person would be content in their position. I have ancestors who are excellent examples of this.
In my opinion, this is just another example of the complete disconnect between academia and the real world. Guys like McFadden are what keep the world going round. It may be a totally foreign concept for some but there are people who wake up every morning, go to work, and then come home in the evening without spending several hours pondering the countless ways in which they could advance themselves in society. Some people might actually like their jobs. Some might only work as a means to provide for some other more important pursuit. Maybe McFadden loved model trains, or had a family, or was actively involved in a youth volunteer program.
This paternalistic concept of knowing what someone else “should” be doing with his or her life is a joke. This is the same thinking that causes people to shy away from noble professions because they fear others might think they have sold themselves short. What if I want to be a public defender for the rest of my life? Will I be a bad person if I never make partner in a big firm or become a professor at a law school? What if my wife with her two masters degrees decides she wants to be a stay at home mom?
The idea that McFadden’s apparent lack of ambition should somehow be a part of the analysis of this case is absurd. Get over yourself.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
What have YOU done for America?
Have you ever heard an argument between two people about US politics where one throws down the "I served my country, what did you ever do for America" trump card?
It is an interesting thing for me. In part I get tired of that crap. I don't really feel like any one person's ideas are more valuable because they have given up some part of their life in serving the country.
On the other hand, I do feel a bit annoyed by people who enjoy the freedoms our nation provides but have never really given anything back to the nation. Some argue that they have voted or protested or recycled faithfully but to me it's just not the same.
This is why I propose a 2 year service requirement for those who want to vote or enjoy other "premium" citizenship benefits.
No... I'm not suggesting that everybody has to join the Army. I think everybody should be required to "serve" for two years. People can chose to go build homes for the homeless, provide medical care to the poor, teach in public schools, etc...
There would have to be some sort of Americorps organization keeping track of the service. It would have to be controlled by some kind of legislative oversight (to keep the rich kids from "serving" at country clubs).
I think this would do a whole lot of good. Nobody would be able to say that they are more or less worthy of citizenship, we could get a whole lot of stuff done for the disadvantaged population and people would be forced to leave their little social bubbles and meet their countrymen.
I like it...
Of course there are all those pesky constitutional issues about depriving people of liberty but then again, we could apply that part of the constitution only to those who have served...
I'm brilliant.
It is an interesting thing for me. In part I get tired of that crap. I don't really feel like any one person's ideas are more valuable because they have given up some part of their life in serving the country.
On the other hand, I do feel a bit annoyed by people who enjoy the freedoms our nation provides but have never really given anything back to the nation. Some argue that they have voted or protested or recycled faithfully but to me it's just not the same.
This is why I propose a 2 year service requirement for those who want to vote or enjoy other "premium" citizenship benefits.
No... I'm not suggesting that everybody has to join the Army. I think everybody should be required to "serve" for two years. People can chose to go build homes for the homeless, provide medical care to the poor, teach in public schools, etc...
There would have to be some sort of Americorps organization keeping track of the service. It would have to be controlled by some kind of legislative oversight (to keep the rich kids from "serving" at country clubs).
I think this would do a whole lot of good. Nobody would be able to say that they are more or less worthy of citizenship, we could get a whole lot of stuff done for the disadvantaged population and people would be forced to leave their little social bubbles and meet their countrymen.
I like it...
Of course there are all those pesky constitutional issues about depriving people of liberty but then again, we could apply that part of the constitution only to those who have served...
I'm brilliant.
Monday, March 5, 2007
RIP Thomas Eagleton
Thomas Eagleton 9.4.1929 - 3.4.2007
US Navy Veteran
Harvard Law Graduate
Youngest Attorney General in Missouri State history
Missouri Lieutenant Governor
US Senator
Professor of Law
Even has a courthouse named after him...
But not good enough to be:
Candidate for Vice Presidency of the United States of America
Apparently Mr. Eagleton's fatal flaw was seeking medical attention for "physical and nervous exhaustion." He sought help for depression. Newspapers and critics seized upon his past medical history and eventually Eagleton had to step down.
He could have just kept it under his hat. He could have used alcohol or drugs to self medicate (although many accused him of alcoholism). Perhaps he could have engaged in some other maladaptive behavior to find release from his inner unhappiness... But wait... That would have made him... Just like every other politician in US history.
Why is it America will condemn a person who takes a couple of Prozac a day to deal with a legitimate medical condition but put full faith in a person who voluntarily chooses to occasionally depress their nervous system and get pissed drunk?
Well... It's not like it mattered anyway... McGovern went down in flames against Nixon. Fortunately America chose to elect a candidate who was a big fan of full disclosure. Just imagine the horrible things that could have happened if we had elected a person with a mood disorder.
US Navy Veteran
Harvard Law Graduate
Youngest Attorney General in Missouri State history
Missouri Lieutenant Governor
US Senator
Professor of Law
Even has a courthouse named after him...
But not good enough to be:
Candidate for Vice Presidency of the United States of America
Apparently Mr. Eagleton's fatal flaw was seeking medical attention for "physical and nervous exhaustion." He sought help for depression. Newspapers and critics seized upon his past medical history and eventually Eagleton had to step down.
He could have just kept it under his hat. He could have used alcohol or drugs to self medicate (although many accused him of alcoholism). Perhaps he could have engaged in some other maladaptive behavior to find release from his inner unhappiness... But wait... That would have made him... Just like every other politician in US history.
Why is it America will condemn a person who takes a couple of Prozac a day to deal with a legitimate medical condition but put full faith in a person who voluntarily chooses to occasionally depress their nervous system and get pissed drunk?
Well... It's not like it mattered anyway... McGovern went down in flames against Nixon. Fortunately America chose to elect a candidate who was a big fan of full disclosure. Just imagine the horrible things that could have happened if we had elected a person with a mood disorder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)