Each day I check to see the ongoing developments in the case of Trayvon and the public outcry for justice. Recently there has been a flurry of what is essentially mudslinging, making comments on his school record, his suspensions, his possession of a baggie of marijuana residue, and his suspension(s) one of which was related to graffiti on school property. At the same time that all of this is going on in virtually every media outlet, I come across a post that a friend of a friend has made on their Facebook demanding a public outcry for justice of a man and his girlfriend who were brutally murdered and suffered, in additional to other brutal act, the removal of the man's penis, as well as being set on fire. Now of course, this little outcry tries to play the racial card and state that it did not get media attention because of the fact that it was black on white crime, not white on black crime, despite the fact that Trayvon's gunman was half Latino, making this not quite white on black crime. All of the arguments I just mentioned hold little value. Firstly, simply because a teenager has decided to perform vandalism and marijuana related offenses, does not indicate that they are a violent person or a hoodlum in general. At most, it suggests that they experiment with substances (like a lot of teenagers) and that they make poor decisions that were most likely performed in the company of questionable friends who make equally poor, immature decisions (like a lot of teenagers). Half of the individuals I went to high school with almost ten years ago were occasional users of marijuana, and I know of quite a few that made some stupid decisions that involved theft, vandalism, and other petty crimes. None of those individuals however were general hoodlums and only a few ever went on to commit substantial criminal acts to my knowledge. To say that Trayvon's behavior in his teens is an indicator that he was more or less asking to be shot in self defense of a mugging is a very far stretch, if not absurd. As far as the racial issue is concerned, there is none. This case and the prosecution (or lack thereof) of Trayvon's shooter is a case of justifiable self defense, Florida's "stand your ground" law, and other general gun control issues. If the incident had occurred in another state that requires perceived threat of robbery, rape, or threat to life, Trayvon's shooter would probably be in custody as we speak, guilty of using excessive force in self defense. These issues have nothing to do with the unfortunate murder of the other individual, and while the other crime is a brutal atrocity, it is one that is likely to gain little media attention due to the lack of controversial issues surrounding it. There are plenty of individuals that are brutally slain each year, but their murders gain little media attention because at the end of the day, they are a simple murder case, with a victim, an offender, and a murder weapon. Perhaps they were killed by a knife, perhaps by a gun, or perhaps they were drawn and quartered by horses in the assailant's backyard and their remains strewn about the countryside. At the end of the day all three of those crimes are murder. There are no gun laws, or self-defense statures, or controversial political topics that could be invoked, and as such, the story makes for poor news. Should all of those crimes be investigated? Most definitely. Should all of them be pursued and the offenders prosecuted to the furthest extend of the law following a trial by a jury of their peers? Certainly. All of those cases however do not demand a dog and pony show however, nor do they demand a tabloid-like presentation of the case that is broadcast to every media outlet. News is, after all, a source of entertainment as well as facts; something made very evident by the flashy and noisy introductions to the nightly news and each section of it. If anything, such massive media attention takes something away from the case as it makes many individuals tired of hearing about it, and as their interest fades, so do their emotions associated with their stance on the issue. The take home message is this: if you want justice, facts, and the closure of a case, pursue the case in the legal system as much as you can, stand up for issues which you believe in, and obtain your news from a minimally glamorized source like NPR. If you want to laugh, cry, and be entertained, turn on the news; but do not start to whine when the story you were expecting to hear doesn't make the 10PM headlines.

Read More

Individual accountability

As time draws closer and closer to the supreme court hearing regarding the health care reform, or Obamacare if you want to call it that, more and more people are coming out of the woodwork to oppose it. After reading a nice editorial regarding the health care plan, I feel as though they side stepped around the true underlying issue. In the editorial, the issue is raised that a lot of people are misinformed about the policy, and that the Obama administration failed at conveying the correct information about the bill. It touches on how the reform was initially a Republican idea and that the administration embraced it hoping that it would be accepted by both parties alike; an assumption that turned out to be quite wrong. If you strip away most of the issues surrounding the bill and it's support or opposition though, you get to the real issue at hand: people are horribly misinformed. Not only are they misinformed, but they have built strong arguments and feelings around misinformation, and now are even less susceptible to changing their minds because now the actual facts go against everything they know to be true. How is it that in this day and age people can be so misinformed about an issue, one which is a piece of legislation that is publicly available for viewing in its raw form? Simply put, people are lazy and ignorant. I'll admit, the phrasing of any piece of legislation can be difficult to understand, redundant, and a boring read. However, like classical English literature, if you read it carefully enough, look up the words you do not understand, and ponder the issue, you'll be able to understand the general concepts, if not more. But how many people actually take the time to read the primary literature? Not very many, even though internet access to the bill is available, and most Americans have access to the internet in one form or another. Primary literature aside however, one can find a myriad of summaries of the bill that lack any sort of opinion or political slant. Yet most individuals do not seem to have read such simple summaries, and instead opt for the bias left-wing or right-wing opinion articles that not only skew the facts, but omit some completely. On top of this, the number of articles and summaries of the bill are at least equal to the number of videos or news clips that do an equally poor job of explaining the bill, simplifying the information even further and attempting to make it fit into a 30 -60 second video clip. Which do you think most individuals would pick to read or view? The article or the video? Most likely, and assuming people are as lazy as they seem nowadays, I think most individuals will watch the video clips from their news source of choice, with their bias of choice. Once they've digested the equivalent of a one paragraph tweet of information, they'll begin building their own views and opinions, sharing them with others, discussing them with like minded individuals, and solidifying their stance on the matter. But their stance is so fundamentally weak that it is laughable. It's not weak because of their own left or right leaning bias, it's weak because most opinions floating around out there or gaining substantial attention are based on only a few hand picked facts mixed with a lot more misinformation. When did people become so lazy and apathetic that they ceased to read most or all of the information on a subject before forming their own opinions? When did ignorance become something almost prized, preferring misinformation and editorials to actual facts as boring as they might be? Sadly, these same individuals comprise the voting majority, and as such, make decisions and place votes based on their bare minimum, partial understanding of subjects. When this country was founded, voting rights were limited to land owners, and voting rights were tarnished by sexist and racist limitations. Now, all races and genders can vote, and the voting age reflects the age that one is able to die for one's country. But why are voting rights extended to individuals that lack critical thinking skills? Why are voting rights extended to those that favor ignorance and the quick/easy route over the longer and more involved, but more factual route? No one should be prevented from voting because of their color, gender or sexual orientation. However, the village idiot's opinion should not be counted with the rest. If an individual would rather read a tweet than the actual text before making a decision; if an individual would rather not look up a word's definition to understand a text more fully; or if an individual would rather jump on a bandwagon than form their own opinions, then that individual should not have to right to vote. This country has thrived due to democracy, but what progress can be made with an uneducated lazy populace? Decision making should be done by rational, logical, critically thinking, educated adults; not by individuals who solely rely on 30 second news clips for all of their information. We need to educate our nation so that it can thrive; but until those individuals are capable of making unbiased logical decisions, they should not be allowed to shape their country's future.


UPDATE:

Here is a perfect example of the type of individual that should not be allowed to vote until they up the number of dendrites that are firing at any given time:
http://now.msn.com/entertainment/0319-funny-mph-video.aspx

Read More

GOP Primaries

Recently I've been checking in on the ongoing statistics and results from the GOP primaries. It goes without saying that checking in on the democratic primaries is something that is not even necessary since Obama will be running for re-election. As usual the news and papers, websites, and tweets are all a buzz regarding who seems to be the current potential candidate for the 2012 election. Mitt Romney is of course the logical choice as many news sources put it, while Santorum is the moral favorite. I would really like to understand just WHY Santorum is the moral favorite. Better yet, I would like to know why exactly an individual's personal beliefs carry any weight whatsoever when it comes to a presidential candidacy. It really makes no sense whatsoever to put any weight on personal beliefs when choosing a candidate. The presidency is simply a job; granted a very important job with global impacts, but ultimately it is just a job. When considering any individual for any job, most employees want to see their employment history to determine whether or not this individual is reliable, on-time, and overall shows the potential to be a good employee. An employer will also look at the individual's education and work experience to determine if they are qualified for the job, and to help determine their ability to excel at the tasks that will be given to them. Similarly, it would be illegal for an employer to deny employment to any individual on the basis of their gender, race, or religion. This same approach should be used to determine the value of a presidential candidate. We need to analyze each candidate on an employment basis. Does the candidate have previous leadership experience and how did they perform while in that role? Does the candidate follow through with their plans and projects or do their waiver and falter (this should not be confused with the necessity of playing politics and making concessions and compromises)? Does the candidate possess education and work experience relevant to their proposed position as president? These should be the factors we analyze. Yet for some reason or another people will choose a candidate based on their perceived ability to share a beer with the individual, or the individual's religion and personal code of ethics. Person ethics should have virtually no bearing on decision making on a national scale. What right does ANYONE have to push their personal ethics on an entire nation by means of laws and legislation? They have the DUTY to make services and choices available to their citizens enabling them to live their lives according their their own personal code of ethics and beliefs. They should pass legislation that enables each citizen to attend whatever religious services they desire, to have, or not have procedures done in accordance with their own views. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: these are the three things that the laws and legislation set forth by our government should enable. Not the pursuit of happiness according to the elected official's (or official's party's) beliefs and ethics. The elected candidate should be capable of performing these duties and ensuring these rights for citizens. Yet here we have a soon to be presidential candidate, running in the primaries, who has publicly stated that the separation of church and state disgusts him. The last time I checked that is a personal belief, one that goes against the founding principles of this country, and should damn near exclude any individual who believes that from holding ANY public office in this country. If you ran a slaughterhouse would you want to hire someone who publicly states that meat is murder? If you ran an environmental group would you want to hire an individual who publicly states that global warming is a myth and alternative energy is pointless? I highly doubt it. How these extremist   hack jobs ever get elected to any office and begin to progress through our political system is a testament to the education and critical thinking ability of the average American and the average American in the states that support them. Is Mitt Romney the right choice then? I'm not sure, I would have to analyze his experience further. Is Obama? Again, I would have to compare Obama and Romney and see who is the better qualified candidate and who would maximize every individual's ability to live according to their own beliefs and not get forced one way or another due to bias legislation. Is Santorum? No. If anything he would be a wonderful candidate for a conservative PTA organization, or even a pastor or Christian youth group. However a man like Santorum should NEVER be allowed into any office while his beliefs continue to go against our founding father's basic principles that were devised in an attempt to escape persecution from the British government. Unless of course we want the United States to become an increasingly hostile and bias place to live, and show the world yet again that our principles can be bent or outright ignored at anytime that we feel it is necessary.

Read More

Federal funding and the average commenter

So I read an article today on NPR that discussed how birth control ultimately saves tax dollars. It puts forth very simple arguments that are based solely on cost analysis and how a given policy that costs XXX dollars ultimately saves taxpayers XXX dollar due to the reduction in unplanned pregnancies, and ultimately, babies that are born into households that are either ill-prepared to handle them, or are downright incapable of handling them. The article was quite well written, and provided a very unbiased analysis of this ongoing controversy regarding coverage of birth control and family planning services by employers and tax payers. It doesn't matter what side of the fence you lean on, or what color flag you fly when it comes to politics; numbers speak for themselves. Anyone who has ever read about, or performed any branch of the sciences know that ultimately, the data speaks for itself. True, accidents happen, miscalculations are made, and a thorough analysis is always needed. However, at the end of the day, if the data goes against (or with) your current hypothesis, you have to give it some credit. That being said however, one would be quite surprised to read the comments that begin to flow following the article. Thanks to the ability for anyone and everyone to comment, we now see a nice image of just how uneducated, ignorant, and oblivious some people can be. People begin raising all sorts of slippery slope fallacies about how if we pay for contraception and family planning that we're one step closer to imposing a 1-child policy like China. Or then there are the individuals who feel it is necessary to go on and on about Obamacare and the liberals forcing their ideals down their throats regarding birth control. The last time I checked, there are all sorts of subsidies and uses of federal funding that I don't necessarily agree with. However, it ultimately is for the good of the whole and so you take the good with the bad. You implement funding and policies that enable people to live their lives according to their own beliefs without forcing something upon them one way or another. Think of it like education. The federal government provides subsidies for colleges and higher learning institutions nationwide; because of this funding, college tuition are lower than they would be without them (expensive instead of ridiculously expensive). By doing this, more individuals are provided the opportunity to attend college, and pursue their own goals, without forcing everyone to go to college. Every citizen has a share of their tax dollars going to this federal subsidy, however as we all know, not everyone goes to college. Some individuals simply don't want to, and that's fine. That is their choice and they have made it. If we replace education with birth control and family planning, there is no difference. More individuals who wish to take advantage of birth control and family planning services are allowed to do so, while those who do not, don't. Everyone pays in, and those who want to utilize the services do so according to their own beliefs and needs. The same could be said for many other funding issues and law making controversies. Simply because something is legal or funded does not mean that you are FORCED to perform that legalized act or use the funded service. Farming is highly subsidized, however I have never been approached my a government agent instructing me to be a farmer "OR ELSE." Yet here we see countless Americans, many of whom are probably registered voters, clamoring on in a very tabloid like fashion about conspiracy this, liberal that, Obamacare this, etc. etc. The opposite side of this coin remains the same for left-leaning individuals who start freaking out about legislation and spending policies that go against their grass roots nature. Both sides need to realize that the world will never be completely conservative, or completely liberal. NEVER. As such, we have to have everything in balance, where government functions to maintain the safety of the state, while allowing each individual to live their lives as they choose. It's the reason we have religious freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom to bear arms. Unfortunately, it seems as though some people have stopped enjoying being an adult and would rather have a government entity make their lifestyle choices for them. If that's what they want, to be treated as a child, then fine. But children are not allowed to vote, and neither should they. Besides, would you rather pay a little for some federally funded condoms now, or pay a lot more when all of those ill-timed babies grow up to be the next generation of Walmart shoppers that sell their food stamps for liquor and suck up welfare money like a gap toothed sponge?

Here is the original article:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/03/06/148042609/how-birth-control-saves-taxpayers-money

Read More

Post-It Notes On Gas Pumps

No doubt, if you've been on any social networking site or have looked through a few various web sites you've come across an image of a post-it note on a gas pump. It says something along the lines of gas prices being high is a direct reflection of our current administration, and that everyone who had voted for "hope" and "change" and every other single word advert that came out in 2008. Of course there have been some pro-democrat and pro-Obama responses to this, but both sides have the entire picture horribly wrong. When I say wrong, I don't just mean incorrect, but also jaded and horribly ill-informed and under educated. I was a biology major. My training and education in economics begins with my own personal budget making and ends with principles of macroeconomics from my freshman year of under grad. I know that I do not have the background in local, national, and international economics to make an accurate assessment of the underlying causes for increasing or decreasing gas prices. I know there are directly proportional to the prices of crude oil, and that those prices fluctuate not only with political climates, but also consumer demand and manufacturer supply. That being said, I could not be more amazed at the stupidity of these individuals attempting to cry foul and rally the troops in support or opposition of our current administration. When Clinton was in office, gas was well under $2.00 a gallon in the Bay Area of California, and it remained that way into my high school years when Bush Jr. took office in 2000. Under Clinton's administration various international and political events occurred, as they did under the administration of Bush Jr. Yes, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars started during Bush Jr.'s administration, and one would obviously conclude that the strain that both of those events put on international relations and the global economy, gas prices went up. But also, despite every political climate and international event, time went on as well, and economies improved and worsened, and inflation occurred as it always does. Inflation increased the price of gas as well, and then we add some corporate greed into the mix, and various increases and decreases in consumer demand, and we see even more how volatile the price of gas is. Then for some reason (note my lack of economic knowledge here), following Obama's inauguration in 2008, gas prices dropped down by quite a bit. The factors that contributed to this sudden decline are as numerous as the factors that contributed to its sudden increase at various times from 2000-2008. Then the US suffered a recession, and many other nations suffered hard economic times as well (we still are suffering, this isn't a past event quite yet). I do remember from my econ class however that when an economy takes a nose dive, its currency can devalue. That combined with normal inflation can make things quite more expensive. As a result, and as a result from many other factors, gas has crept back up again and is now nearing $3.70 a gallon in the Midwest. However, I also don't recall a gallon of milk being almost $4.00 as well back in 2008, or 2004, or 1999 for that matter. I also remember at the end of the 90's when I could get a value meal at a fast food joint for about $5. Can you see what I'm saying here? Ragging on one administration or another for increasing gas prices is like blaming the current administration for traffic on your morning commute. Because everyone knows, if the economy wasn't recovering there would be fewer people with jobs, and then there would be fewer people commuting to work, and I wouldn't be stuck behind this damn Honda right now. Damn administration and their traffic supporting policies. So the next time you decide to start making A relate to B when there are 1,000 other contributing variables, think twice. It only makes you seem less intelligent. As for the people who jump onto the bandwagon because of these battle cries....if person A is an idiot, and person B follows them blindly, I think that makes person B even less intelligent, if not a lobotomized lemming.

Read More