Thursday December 7, 2006 - 6:49PM EDT
Watching one of those elephant documentaries now. Their behavior is such like people sometimes it is astonishing. Every time I see these animal documentaries it makes me think about how for the longest times humans saw animals as separate from themselves. I think that as we've come to observe more and understand more animal behavior that the arrogance of humans to assume that they are something particularly special in this world is sickening. We are just another creature on this planet who have a particularly advanced brain. That is it. Well that may not be it, but for the moment it is the most logical way to look at it. The fact that humans have imposed their own emotional standards on the functioning of the world is lamentable. Animals aren't stupid beasts that are simply filler for this world to make it beautiful or be used for whatever need we can come up with.
Thursday November 30, 2006 - 3:14PM EDT
Read this articleOptical brain pathway delay? What the fuck. Brain science has a long way to go. Now I am no brain scientist obviously but I've thought about deja vu quite a bit. And not just thought I've done some research into brain function so I am not just coming up with baseless thinking. I never heard the optical pathway theory or the comment about familiarity section of the brain. My layman's theory on deja vu is this. Deja vu is simply a false memory. It is what happens when your brain processes input that is similar enough to past memories to trigger parts of the memory just enough to initiate a phantom conscious recall of the memory. However it is not a strong as actual recall and hence the weird feeling that we know it but we don't. I came to this theory after thinking about how I felt when deja vu happened and the environment around me when it happened. What I found is that inevitable many of the times I felt deja vu if I analyzed the situation and I could find varying degrees of similarities to past memories. Basic things like the shape of the room I was in to the time of day to the people I was around. The similarities were slight but more times than not if I broke down a situation there was something I could distinct pick out as being a real part of my past memories. It was after reading Jeff Hawkins
On Intelligence that I reinforced my idea to a certain extent and gave me a scientific basis for my theory. This is not something I would be my life on but I think it is a least a good start to do some real research. Jeff Hawkins describes his theory of neocortical function and a memory predictive framework. Meaning that our neocortex (the part of the brain that handles all the thinking) functions based on predicting outcomes based on past experience. It predicts by processing input through a complex forward and reverse feedback hierarchy. The most basic forms of input though is not accessible by our higher conscious though. For example when we hear a word we are not really hearing a whole words but a complex rapid serious of air vibrations against a bone in our ear the translates them into a virtually infinite combination of electrical pulses.. So then what the brain does is take those electrical pulses and processes it through the predictive hierarchy until it gets to a level high enough to fire enough neurons to forms what we call a word. When I read about that theory I thought my deja vu theory would fit in with that. The minute inputs the we recieve through our senses although extremely varied are probably remarkably similar in many cases. The wider variation that we get is caused by our brain processing and organization. Almost forgot one key point the Jeff Hawkins made in his theory. It was that the brain doesn't store discrete pieces of information like a computer harddrive. Since it recognizes things on a very low level like the amplitude and frequency of an electrical impulse it only needs to store that particular electrical impulse once. However that particular impulse could be a part of any number of memories. So a full memory is contingent upon the organization of these impulses not each discrete one. This is important because it means that one particular impulse could be part of both the memory of your favorite video game and the memory of your most hated food. Also Jeff Hawkins mentions that when our brain processes memory it uses a weighted scale to go through the hierarchy. It does simply look at each impulse and see if it matches perfect what we have in their already move to the next level of organization. Our brain looks at the impulse and sees if it is a close enough match and if it is it moves it to the next level. This means that on occasion that it might not be the correct match but the next level still gets told it is.
So back to deja vu. Remember I said that when I analyzed my deja vu situations I found similarities to past memories however minute they were I had some prior memory of something in the deja vu situation. If we apply that neocortical theory then it makes sense. What is happening is that those similarities are being sent too far up into the hierarchy until they get to the memory stage so it seems like you are recalling something. But what is likely that although it is strong enough to invoke a memory it is not strong enough to fully realize it. Memories are not discrete things in our mind they are a complex hierarchal firing of patterns of neurons. With that said then you can understand how if deju vu is the false recognition of input too far up the hierarchy then you would get something like a memory but not an actual one. I would honestly love to do a study on deja vu. I bet I would find that in every single deja vu situation we could pick out similarities from past memories. I think even refine an experiment to the point were I could invoke deja vu without people detecting consciously that I it was done on purpose. The question in my mind is what kinds of inputs invoke deja vu. Inputs in a higher level sense. Like time of day, or colors, shadows, spatial relationships. And also does it vary from person to person what kinds of input invoke deja vu? Are certain people more susceptible to deja vu with certain kinds of input? Are certain kinds of input more likely to invoke deja vu?
At the end of the article I linked to, the university rep said he would love to see neuroimaging of someone during a deja vu situation but it is hard to produce on command. Neuroimaging would be awesome to look at and I think in the right setup you could get someone to have them on demand. Actually I am going to email this guy just to see if he will respond and see if he can maybe point me in the right direction to further research.
Tuesday November 28, 2006 - 10:24PM EDT
Generally I am not a big proponent of overt national pride or overt pride of any kind. But today I read a shocking article that makes me proud to be part Venezuelan. Alright so any pride of being Venezuelan here is secondary and laughably unimportant in relation to what I am about to tell you but I just thought I would mention it. Here is the article snippet.
Unlike with most U.S. electronic voting machines, Venezuelans will get paper receipts that verify their choices were properly recorded, and must deposit them into boxes before leaving the polls. After Sunday's vote, election officials monitored by representatives of each candidate will count millions of the paper receipts for comparison to the electronic totals. - full article
Holy crap is all I have to say. Of all the crappy things that go on in Venezuela it looks as if they finally got voting right. Not that it is a big deal but their systems looks like it kicks the crap out of anything in the United States. The best part about it is that they were able to implement this in only 2 years. What the fuck did the US do in the 4 years they had, a whole lot of nothing. They even have network connections for the machines and are disconnecting the connections during voting. Then digital thumbprints to simply check that you didn't vote multiple times, that is so simple and brillant. This is certainly the best system I've seen yet. This story makes me ashamed to be apart of this crap we call a voting system in the United States. If establishing a voting system in Venezuela is the first step towards turning that country around then maybe Chavez's rule will not have been all bad, just mostly bad.
Monday November 27, 2006 - 1:03AM EDT
As various leftists take hold in South America and different people come into power in various countries around the world. The sense that I get is that people are just supporting bankrupt ideology. No particualrly compelling leaders have come to prominence. All we have are various ass clowns who represent political ideas that are old and ineffective. So whereever the populace is tired of one ideology they just vote for the other. Our recent elections are an example of that. What made me think about this was how a spate of republican politicians have stated something to the effect that republicans need to get back to regan and his ideals. First off when people start talking about getting back to something it usually is not a good sign and can be indicative of the last legs of ideology. But what is particularly funny about this call for back to regan is that in the 20 years since that man's ideology came to prominence it has failed at every turn to produce substantial and meaning change for all but a small number of people. So it is laughable for anyone to say we should get back to that. Also on a side note why people give regan so much credit for his role in the cold war. His fanatical supporters like to say he ended the cold war. What a load of trash. The cold war was ended when the Soviet Union fell and that happened from the inside with the hard work of a lot of dedicated people in the soviet union. Regan was just a circumstantial beneficiary, I feel like people do extreme dishonor to those that actual worked to end the cold war by putting regan at the forefront.
So as these leftist leaders come to power in South America I just laugh.
Friday November 10, 2006 - 9:32PM EDT
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061110/sc_nm/mali_manuscripts_dcI have come to lament the lack in my education of African history. A few years back I saw part of a documentary presentation on an ancient civilization of Zimbabwe. It made me think about how many other things I didn't learn about Africa other than slaves came from there and the north was conquered by the Moors. I think the lack of education of their ancient history and standing as groups of people who developed civilizations as learned and advanced as anything from Europe, the Americas and Asia contributes to a servile opinion of the people there. I can't help to think were the world would be if European colonists hadn't thought the peoples of Africa to be only slightly better than apes, savages. Being someone who has grown up in America and been taught a mainly Western centric view of history, the chances that I did get to study others history I always wanted more. Specifically in relation to the whole world. I wanted to know while colonists were settling America what were the Chinese doing or Indians. I think though that I probably got more education in other histories beyond western culture than the average student but when I think about it now, it still wasn't enough.
I was watching a documentary on Mayan civilization last night. Certain aspects of their knowledge of astronomy we have only just caught up to in the last 200 years, while they had essentially mastered it centuries before us. It is kind of ridiculous that we can't figure out how or why the people that came before us did things. Makes me wonder whether our current civilization will be lost to the next. Probably not but it is not completely out of the question.
Monday November 6, 2006 - 4:03PM EDT
One hears the mantra denouncing materialism in all its forms many places. I've gotten tired of hearing anybody talk about it anymore. While people will use a variety of methods to voice their opinions against materialism. The sum of the whole rest of their lives supports it. The problem is that some think materialism is narrowly defined as gross excess. So if they speak against that then they are speaking against the whole problem. Damn clowns and their simplistic analysis of things.
Monday November 6, 2006 - 4:34AM EDT
I woke up this morning to video clips of Saddam Hussein cursing the verdict and his consequent death sentence. I had left the TV on last night when I went to sleep. It was just plain weird to wake up hearing this man repeat stuff angrily while a voiceover from the network broadcast provided commentary. Why such intense attention was paid to what I think most people saw as a formality was odd to me. Then I was hearing that some politicians in the U.S. were going to use this as symbol of doing good in Iraq. I was like that idea is ludicrous to even suggest someone would do. But then flipping through the channels I caught one of those news talk interview and some politician was doing just that. I was like dude, come on, even I give people more credit than that. I can't believe anyone of sound mind would look at Hussien's death sentence as anything symbolizing progress or success. Frankly I don't even know why anyone covered it as more than a footnote to the clown who robbed the local liquor store last night.
Voting and buttfucking - comments(22)
Monday November 6, 2006 - 4:24AM EDT
I posted about how the clowns in power or those who have any power in relation to voting reform seem to be stumbling over their own assholes when trying to find a decent electronic voting method. They form all these fucking committees and groups to try and figure out what a high school class could do in an hour. A high school class in India or China mind you, American kids are out of their league when it comes to a tough problem like this. Little harsh, yeah. Anyway I read on slashdot about some clown coming up with this "new" voting system that is verifiable. I just about shit my pants 3 times over. I used to have a modicum of respect for slashdot and its crowd. Now I know that they encompass all the rest of the slack-jawed trogloditic morons. Little harsh, you bet. So about this so called voting method. This is nothing new, it is what any respectable computer nerd who actually possesses intelligence instead of singular obsession with computers that appears like intelligence to people who don't know anything about computers would come up with after about 5 minutes of pondering this "tough" problem of electronic voting. As I watch the parade of fools on TV talk about voting and look helpless to solve issues I wonder what planet I am on. Some tout fraud as the real problem and tell us that the solution is people carrying voter id cards. That solution is so fucking stupid that I can't even dignify it with a response. Mainly because their solution is wrong because it is done backwards. I am waiting for the people who believe in that to pull their heads out of their ass in an acrobatic two step. Then there is the lack of standardization in machines. Why in the fuck do we not have national standards for voting. I thought the 50's and 60's taught us that people left up to their own machinations when it comes to voting fuck shit up. You'd think something like that would be so easy that you wouldn't need standards. Think again. There are some other issues that I forget at this moment so I will move on.
I'll mention it now. The title of this posting is pretty damn obscene. Not sure how many times I've had such an obscene post title. Maybe none, maybe a few times. Anyway the reference is to that pastor who recently caused a dust-up with the seeking of a massage and buying of the ice (smack, crank, speed, meth). Sure I could have used a more appropriate term but ah well, fuck it. I could give a shit about who this guy is to begin with, I was just like leave the dude alone if he wants to buy ice and have buttsex that is his choice. Although I wouldn't necessarily support the crank purchasing. I sort of held back forming any strong opinion on the situation although I had an idea. Then it came out that he admitted to "sexual immorality". By his own words mind you. That is what confirmed it for me. It is immaterial now whether any details of his encounter with this escort come out beyond what he has already admitted to. I see it in this light now. The guy is probably gay and not only has he had to hide it his whole life but he has gone a step further and demonized it too. The man must be in complete turmoil inside. The fact that the term "sexual immorality" is probably a code word for being gay is saddening. I just hope this hasn't fucked up his mind so much that he went and did something truly immoral and disgusting. This whole thing will probably fade away pretty quickly. I just wonder how this guy will live out the rest of his life.
Thursday November 2, 2006 - 3:43PM EDT
We I need to revise an elaborate on many things in my previous post because I need a to study economics much more.
Thursday November 2, 2006 - 3:20PM EDT
Economics is a strange thing sometimes. That statement is a horrible way to start this. Lets just get right to it. There seems to be only a few people in the history of economic study that had poignant paradigm shifting ideas that actually worked out in real life. The rest of the clowns are simply following the example of these few as if they have been given the key to all economic reasoning. That is a major gripe of mine when it comes to economics. Particularly those clowns on all those cable TV shows touting their learned methods as the way things are. Maybe it is simply the nature of the field that gives people such blind confidence in certain concepts. Understanding the wide ranging effect that economics has on even the most mundane of things in our life is hard to grasp. I don't think it is something that the majority of people recognize. On the flip side there are people who are so utterly enamored with the world of economics that they only think within it confines and ignore reality. They believe that the economic solution is the solution to all ills.
What I am trying to get at is how there are so many people today who look at our current system and think it holds the solutions to the problems we face today. I look at the system and see something wholly inadaquate to move us forward much farther then we are now. This whole post came up when I read an article today entitiled "Productivity slows, wage pressure mounts". I then thought about the so called "good" economic news that comes out that certain people like to tout as signs of stability and progress. I also thought about a comment Al Sharpton made in an article saying that while some would view certain economic news as signs of prosperity he asks why 11% of African Americans are still unemployed and why little progress has been made on social issues in the black community. Although he is looking at just a subset of America it gives him a hold on reality and a pragmatism in interpreting economic signs that I think a lot lack. Some people have such faith in the numbers to reflect what is really going on that when the numbers look good they assume that it is also reflect in the reality of the people's situation. What I think history has taught in reference to economics is that you can't soley really on your formulas and numbers to be accurate all the time. You need to be prudent in comparing numbers to reality because they really are two different things.
One thing that isn't taken into account many times in this kind of economic discussion is the changing standards of the populace. The collective psyche of the people has major impact on economics and you can't codify that in a formula easily. While a level of progress may have satisfied the people at one point it may not be so effective the second time and third and forth and so on. What I see though is that some economic experts will stick so close to formulas and numbers that when dissatisfiaction with the progress the numbers shows is voiced those that are dissatisfied are criticized for being ignorant of whatever the popular or prevailing economic thinking is. They are seen as not looking at the numbers correctly. Which is correct. But the real issue is that the formulas no longer reflect reality accurately.
I am no economic expert obviously but I am going to try and give an example of what I am referring to when I say the numbers don't reflect reality. Every once and a while I'd hear about better than expected unemployment figures and some would point to it as a sign of economic recovery. Unemployment figures have become a major indicator of the economy and you often hear them quoted. Besides the fact that I think there is some major issues with how those numbers are determined I ask myself a few questions when I hear unemployment statistics touted as some kind of realiable indicator of anything. I first ask myself what segment of the population do those numbers refer to. Is it a diverse cross section or does employment affect disproportionately certain groups? Secondly with the stagnation of the minimum wage for so long does lower unemployment rates have as much effect it had in the past. Just because those people are working doesn't mean that they have that much more economic power. I think the significance of unemployment numbers in relation to economic strength would probably become diluted with lower wages and maybe even more diluted with lower wages on the lower end of the spectrum (low minimum wage). Alright enough of this. I need food.
Wednesday October 25, 2006 - 5:29AM EDT
I think about it almost everyday. Especially when I drive through a bad neighborhood or read something about them. How pathetic it is that any human on this planet thinks they "care". The shit that goes on is a shame that everyone carries. To ever think that the system we live in now is actually working is loserball talk. I can't ever shake the feeling that a lot of the choice and progress that some enjoy is at the expense of a disproportionate amount of other people. That is our history in many cases and that is unchangeable. But to think that we still accept that as the standard today is ludicrous. That is why I sometime think the solution to what we deem as problems are not ones of pragmatism in the answer. I think there is plenty of pragmatic answers. To me it seems that there needs to be a paradigm shift in how people view human interaction in a larger society. I mentioned it before, but the small tribe mindset still is dominant. The idea of protecting your smaller group at the sacrifice of other groups. We either have to expand that smaller tribe to be much bigger or come up with something different to protect our genes. I don't know, it is just still pathetic that these clowns who call themselves leaders on this planet can't get shit right.
Sunday October 22, 2006 - 7:14PM EDT
Many are predicting a power change in congress to the Democratic party. While I don't agree with a lot of the republican ideology I can't say that I agree with a lot of the Democratic idelogy either. Instead of simply a power change there needs to be total reform in congress. It needs to start with outlawing lobbying. I still can't fathom how anyone lets lobbying occur. It is such a blatant skirting of the spirit of democracy and our country's laws regarding fairness in democracy. Our voting process also needs to be updated because it is horribly ineffecient and vulnerable to such duplicity. So while I'll welcome the change unless the new guys begin to implement real reform it is hard to celebrate it. People are really getting sick an tired of government mistakes and ignorance of the people. It a shame that there are only two options. It is very disheartning even that political parties have gained such dominance that individuals within the party must bow to party philosophies instead of doing what is best for their constituents. I'd favor a more disjointed organizational heirachy when it comes to most of our government official positions. It has become to much of working for the party instead of for the people and I don't know how that will change.
Friday October 20, 2006 - 3:51AM EDT
I sometimes think about what is referred to sometimes as the rise of hip-hop culture. I didn't used to think much of it until after my history of slavery class. In reference to hip hop culture rising to mainstream dominance it makes me feel as if the cultural influences of african american slaves have finnally been recognized. While hip-hop is clearly not representative of all African American culture it is the first time that something recognized as distinctly African American is given equal footing with the rest of recognized dominante culture. While irish and italian influences have long taken their place as mainstream recognized pieces of the american cultural landscape it wasn't until hip-hop that any African American influence were given equal thought. It is almost shameful when you realize how long Africans and their descendants have been apart of america.
Tuesday October 17, 2006 - 4:42AM EDT
Two posts ago I made mention of a company switching their office to solar power as a show of a real change in thinking about way to make things better. Well today I read an article that Google is going to get 30% of their power for their HQ complex from a new solar facility. I'd love to have seen it be 100% but you have to start somewhere and this is a good start. It will be hard however for other companies to copy them right away because they have so much spare cash they can afford an investment like this. I hope that they follow through with it and develop this idea further. If the eventually get 100% of their power from solar that would be awesome. Even extending environmentalism to a goal of not producing any waste from the facility at all. Everything is recycled and everything that they purchase will be from recycled goods. That would be an admirable thing. But I don't want them just to do it because they have the money. If they could do it in such a way that it could be reasonably copied by everyone. Allow them with their massive resources to work out the kinks so to speak in reaching such goals and making them standards.
Friday October 13, 2006 - 1:14PM EDT
I just read an article about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Basically it went over how it occurs among non-human animals and has been reliably documented. It also makes mention that it may have not been documented until recently because people's prejudice against the behavhior might have ignored it in animals. The article made a quick mention of how homosexuality seems to be a genetic dead end. I almost let that statement pass but then I thought about it for a second. Homosexuality is not sterility so technically it is not an genetic dead end. Also when I think of mating practices of other animals there are far more unappealing situations for many creatures than a human homosexual might experience mating with one of the opposite sex. Black widow males are killed after mating in most cases. What is more unpleasant than that. I think that it could have been possible for humans to develop into homosexuals as the norm and still be successful. It seems unlikely but you definately cannot rule it out as impossible.
Friday October 13, 2006 - 4:19AM EDT
Haven't really been writting posts for a while. I used to write everyday. My seemingly insurmountable workload is the reason. It seems utterly hopeless sometimes. I just can't get things done fast enough. I need a personal assitant or business manager or something along those lines. Problem is though I don't make even close to enough money to even think about doing something like that seriously. In fact that idea is fantasy world illusion. I'm just bad at organizing my affairs. I can grasp organizational techniques and big pictures things easily but when it comes to just calling people back and managing my time I am terrible at it. I guess personal assistants don't help with that.
I used to be of the mindset that a benevolent person could with enough money enact great change in the world. I now not of that mindset. I wonder even how I came to such a naive conclusion. How much has Mr. Gates changed things in this world with all his billions? Or any other person with their billions. I think about what my politics teacher said about the immense power of ideaology and a recent article I read on the founder of craigslist.org.
The article was about how he wasn't thinking about selling his company to someone else which would be worth probably billions. It is a recognized internet name and it is profitable and has been for some time so there is real value there. In the article Mr. Newmark made a comment saying that he could sell his company for a boatload of money then find a cause to support. But remarked that it takes a lot of time and money to find a cause to support. I don't know whether it was a bit tounge in cheek but I think it was a worthwhile remark that made me think. He was expressing his happiness with the current situation and that suddenly have tons of money would do very little for him and probably very little for anyone else even if he did find a cause. Obviously he makes a very nice living in his current situation but his lack of desire to take wealth to an extreme when it is readily available was refreshing especially from those involved in running internet companies. His stance definately makes me pause for a second when thinking about Google and what they have done up till now. Everyone loves them for every reason imaginable right now and with their great resources from going public they have done or tried to do some good things. That is the path they chose. But is it the best one?
I seriously think about whether it is or not. With the "don't be evil" motto they want to champion a certain philosophy. I often hear the arguement about expansion and having great resources being a great benefit allowing you to do more. Certainly it appears that way on the surface and it isn't often questioned. But I am begining to question that kind of thinking. I wonder that instead of using brute force resources to enact change that more clever methods can't be found. Maybe instead of measuring company success in monetary units it can be done another way. Large company profits only go to benefit a small number of people (maybe larger when you factor in public stock ownership). Also the benefit is only concrete in relation to monetary wealth. Other secondary affects vary so widely that you can't say that having a lot of money would be beneficial at all sometimes. What if ,a company, instead of reaping massive profits do something else. Like raise wages within a company or improve employee healthcare. These are simplistic statements that are more complex in their true nature but that doesn't mean they don't deserve thought. Could a company, through exceptional employee treatment grow that way. Or maybe through hyper-effecieny. Or even fanatical environmental responsibility. All these are very rough ideas floating around in my head. I think about Google spending so much money of buying YouTube (of which was stock not cash). But what if they or any company for that matter used resources like that to do something like... I'm not even sure. Something I'd have to think about. Maybe use that money to take a step in trying to make sure all the eletricity they used came from renewable resources. Or screw it, maybe just building a mini solar power plant to provide power to their building. Could a company say, hey we are going to factor into our costs paying more for electricity that is infinately more plentiful and reliable than what we have now. I have no idea of the feasability of such a thing but it would be interesting for somebody to even just experiment with it just to see.
Friday October 6, 2006 - 1:22PM EDT
One of the most disgusting things in America today is the minimun wage. If someone works a minimum wage job they don't make enough to be considered above the poverty line. How pathetic is that. Anyone who wants to trumpt raising yourself up by your bootstraps and working for a living over social programs is living in a fantasy world. It is still no excuse but you wonder why poor peole turn to illicit methods of income. Because at the basic minimum of honest work that the government says is good you still are in poverty. Then these business clowns keep saying it would damage small business. That is absolutely insane. Clowns just got used to paying their workers garbage. Besides I think most reputable small businesses who are cheap asses pay more than the minimum wage anyway.
Friday October 6, 2006 - 4:40AM EDT
Well apparently a fence is going to be built along some portions of the border between Mexico and the U.S. I lauded Michael Chertoff a while back for calling the fence idea a bad one but he had no power in the decision. Since when has fencing (and the cameras and guards and sensors and whatnot) between countries ever been a reliable method of...well of anything for that matter. First of all it just isn't feasable to cover every inch of the border at all times so there are going to be holes to get through. Second of all the money they put into the fencing will be another half-assed effort so they will never even come close to implementing a fence plan that will be effective. This is just the most assinine solution to a legitimate problem. I can't think of anytime in history throwing up a fence between territories actually worked. Fuck even the Great Wall of China didn't work and that was the biggest fence project the world has ever seen. Alright that is not a good analogy and one that I don't know much about but still something to think about in relation.
This whole issue of immigration has connections back to NAFTA and that brilliant piece of legislation. This free trade agreement was in theory supposedly going to foster economic growth across the region because of the lack of tariffs for certain goods result in cheaper goods in one area while increasing exports in another. There can be other nuances but that is the basic gist. Theory and pratice are two different things. It could have worked if practiced in a different way but it wasn't. All it has done is give the US cheaper goods and make a whole bunch of people complain about the lack of low level manufacturing jobs. The main dissappointment is the lack of substaintial economic growth in Mexico that was supposed to benefit from exports. The problem was that Mexico didn't have much to export in the first place so all NAFTA did was allow US based companies access to cheap labor without the additional cost of import tariffs. Native Mexican industry didn't benefit, mainly because there wasn't much there. All that grew in Mexico was small patches of low-wage jobs in which most of the economic stimulus associated with those jobs flowed back to the United States. NAFTA did so little for the Mexican people that it might has well have done nothing.
Some may see it as, well we tried doing it the right way before now we need to build a fence because that didn't work. The issues with that kind of stance was that we tried before, but it wasn't the right way. I think we would all agree that the best way to stop the kind of illegal immigration that goes on is to help make Mexico not such a bad place when it comes to working and economics. The solution is simple enough but the effort to reach it is not. Building a fence is just giving up. It is not a real solution. It is not going to stop illegal crossing outright and it does nothing to address Mexicos economic problems which are the ones that needs to be solved. Also when one thinks of civilizations and cultures who have built fences either figurative or literally it can often marks the begining of decadence. The signs of decline in various aspects of American culture are already apparent. This fence probably won't turn into another symbol of decline but the historical symbolism is undeniable.
Sometimes you wonder when ideas like this pass muster what the hell are people doing.
Wednesday October 4, 2006 - 4:09AM EDT
I caught 60 minutes the other night which is weird because I never watch that show. I wasn't paying much attention to it while working on something else. Until Andy Rooney came on for his final piece. He was saying something about food which was mostly ridiculous until his last few words when he said something along the lines of maybe in the future we as humans would all find it so barbaric to grow animals just to eat them that we would all be vegetarians. I think about some of the horrific things that are done to animals that are food. That it is sort of strange that we differentiate between animals we consider food and not food. That we would criticize other cultural groups for eating an animal we don't and call it weird or barbaric. I think about how in previous times in American history peacocks were eaten as preferred over turkeys. Strange, right? The way we pick and choose animals to eat seems to have mostly to do with practicality then any kind of high philosophical reasoning. While growing up I never used to really think about it but over the last few years or so I have slowly come to see to treatment of animals we raise as food as something quite disturbing. I don't see eating meat as intrinsicly bad because that is a normal occurance throughout the animal kingdom. Improving that treatment is not high on the list of priorities however, because there are so many other pressing issues but it is not something that should be ignored forever.
Monday October 2, 2006 - 5:04AM EDT
The title of the post is kanji for elephant. In japanese at least, it might be a slightly different one in Chinese. Anyway that is neither here nor there. I remeber watching this documentary on elephants that were killing rhinos for no reason in a wildlife sanctuary and they didn't know why. The documentary went on to explain that these elephants were in "musk" for extended periods of time. Musk is a state of arousal for male elphants that corresponds with mating and mating season. Elephants in musk act very different and will destory trees and rip up vegetation as shows of dominance. Problem was that these young male elephants were continually in musk and took out their agression on rhinos, simply slaughtering them for no reason. There was no competition for food or water. What they found out was that these elephants had been put in the reserve as young elephants without any older males. The older males were culled because there was no place for them and they thought that the least they could do was save the young males to save the younger generation of elephants. So these males grew up in herds without older males. Females dominate elephant herds so I think they thought that the older males were less important to keep around when they were running out of space or money. To fix the problem with these young males being in musk and being hyper agressive they introduced older males from other reserves slowly to keep the younger ones in line. The young ones would try to attack the older males at first but were easily beaten back by the older ones. Eventually the younger males dropped out of musk and lost their agressiveness and the random rhino killings stopped. In wildlife preserve all across africa during their creation older males were culled and young males were allow to grow up without their influence so the problem of these violent elephants has been repeated in other reserves.
Why did I go through that story? Why is it important? It only really struck me when I saw violent crime comitted by young human male adolescents. Though many have been calling out the lack of strong male presence in young african american males lives for a long time it never occured to me how much a problem it really is and not just with young african americans anymore. The recent spat of stories of teenagers beating up homeless people seem like an exact parallel to the elephant story. Except when reading these stories of the kids beating up homeless I never hear anything about father figures and little about parents in general. I just read about the bemoaning of violent cultural influences like video games and movies and people asking themsleves, baffled, why this stuff happens.
After seeing the elephant documentary I wonder when I read those stories about the fathers. I'd just like to know what the relationship with the father was. I don't want to oversimplify things but could some of this violet behavior by young males be prevented by strong fathers. Could it be caused by absent, abusive or just plain bad fathers. Not just fathers but whoever takes the male lead role or roles. Sometimes you hear the anecdotal statement that females leaving the home has ruined the family. Has that statement been a symbol of the wrong group taking the blame for something seriously wrong? Is it the silent decline of mature male dominance that really has done serious damage to the family and society. I can say with some certainty that cultural male role models have changed over my lifetime as things like that do. I know that when I look at male role models now there seems to be a common theme of infidelity or promiscousness. Many times when one looks at some man held up as an example of manliness they are sullied by some kind of sexual infidelity or held up for sexual prowess.
I think there is so much here to discuss that isn't discussed enough. Feminism help break the shackles of gender bias and helped to define women more broadly and strongly in society. It also brougt into the common discourse the idea of questioning and examining female roles. Where once it was relgated to a standard based on tradition it was now up for discusion which lead to the improvment of even the traditional female roles. Males have still not had such a renaisance in their traditional roles. What I think we have seen is a more organic discussion arising from more openness in questioning things in general. Also what is kind of ironic is that some questions of male roles have been off shoots of changing female roles. Such as men staying in the home while the woman works. There is also the perceived conflict of machoness and sensitivity. It has been difficult in modern pop cultural to seriously define both aspects in a single person. A man can find it difficult to fill both roles and maintain a favorable standing in the minds of all people. Its like you can't be a cry baby and tough guy at the same time. I feel like I am starting to get a little cliched so let me reformulate my thought. The question of what defines a admirable, no not even admirable. The question of what defines a good man has not come up for discussion in the public discourse or in popular cultural references. While something like Sex and the City can ask multiple questions on female roles and be demonstrative of women trying to figure it out. A show like Two and a Half men simply define two male roles and have them duke it out to the death. In that show the two characters are who they are and can't do much about it. I am not articulating this thought correctly. It all comes back to the elephant thing and teenage boys commiting violent acts. Ok, pop culture-wise women have gained the ability to at least question or challenge the role they play. Men in many ways have not. Is it that lack of choice the gives rise to roles skewed in either direction to an extreme that is detrimental to society. Being strong and macho has become being violent and overbearing because for a man there is no other way to go sometimes. I'm not sure. I just lament the fact that what is held up as male role models is pathetic sometimes yet it is still celebrated. I don' tknow, The Nyqill is kicking in, time for bed, and more work tomorrow.