Laurie Sobel posted an entry about research that found that over half of Americans have changed their religion at least once in their lifetime. As I'm very intrigued by religion and sociology, Laurie's post definitely peaked my interest. Laurie correctly assesses that this is a product of the free market society we live in and the unbelievable accessibility of information. At the end of the article, Laurie says she "don’t see the new data results as an immediate reason to be worried about the direction of our society." I completely agree with her.
People changing religions indicates an openness to and acceptance of different religions. This can only be a positive for our society. In addition, this openness may influence the role religion plays in politics. Over the course of my lifetime, I foresee religion becoming less and less significant as a political tool. 50 years ago, people had to conform to the religion of their communities/families or they were excluded. Now, no one cares what religion you choose. The relationship between religion and civic society is not nearly as integrated as it was only a generation ago. I think that it's a good thing that this relationship is gradually breaking down. Religion's affect on politics is detrimental. Regarding religion, I'm happy with the direction our society is moving in.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Bob Dylan...New Album
I recently listened to a feature on Bob Dylan's new album, "Together Through Life," on NPR. First, I must say, Bob Dylan is by far my favorite human being ever, so this post may be somewhat biased. The new album, as NPR observed, "feels like a chess record from the fifties." Its certainly quite different than anything Dylan has released over his prolific career. Although it still has that blues sound Dylan has been heavily experimenting with over his last 3 albums, it sounds much more "old-timey." The accordian plays prominently throughout the record and the addition of a new guitarist to the recording sessions certainly altered the sound and dynamic. I haven't listened to the entire record yet, but, from what I've heard, I'm completely in love (and I'm not one of those fans that loves everything my favorite artist releases).
NPR, like almost every rock-and-roll publication, gave "Together Through Life" a raving review. The unanimous positive feedback has, in its debut week, jolted "Together" into the number 1 spots on both the US and UK album charts. It astounds me that for over forty years, one man can continuously delve into a seemingly unlimited well of creativity and create some of the best and most important music of our times. The first single off of "Together Through Life" can be found here.
NPR, like almost every rock-and-roll publication, gave "Together Through Life" a raving review. The unanimous positive feedback has, in its debut week, jolted "Together" into the number 1 spots on both the US and UK album charts. It astounds me that for over forty years, one man can continuously delve into a seemingly unlimited well of creativity and create some of the best and most important music of our times. The first single off of "Together Through Life" can be found here.
CNN vs Fox News
In watching both CNN and Fox News, their differences become instantly apparent. One of the most important differences is that when gauging "America's" reaction, CNN, although liberally leaning, provides a more balanced perspective in terms of the guests that appear on their programs and the variety of opinions they expose. Fox's guests, on the other hand, are almost all conservatives. And when a liberal is invited on one of Fox's programs, its purpose is usually so that the liberal is outnumbered and his/her opinion is, thus, marginalized and perceived as wrong. I can't honestly say that CNN doesn't do the same thing. However, when CNN does it, it's far less extreme and obvious than when Fox does it.
For straight news, I prefer CNN because I feel that it's more objective. But for "interpretation" I enjoy watching Fox more. When I watch news commentary, I don't want my opinion to be reinforced. I know what my opinion is. Having someone agree with it is boring. I'd rather watch someone with the opposite opinion. I believe that listening to one who disagrees with me and finding out why he/she does strengthens my opinion more than listening to someone whose opinion is compatible with mine. Although I definitely get irritated watching Fox News for too long, its coverage and commentary is more entertaining and illicits a more passionate reaction from me simply because I usually disagree with it.
For straight news, I prefer CNN because I feel that it's more objective. But for "interpretation" I enjoy watching Fox more. When I watch news commentary, I don't want my opinion to be reinforced. I know what my opinion is. Having someone agree with it is boring. I'd rather watch someone with the opposite opinion. I believe that listening to one who disagrees with me and finding out why he/she does strengthens my opinion more than listening to someone whose opinion is compatible with mine. Although I definitely get irritated watching Fox News for too long, its coverage and commentary is more entertaining and illicits a more passionate reaction from me simply because I usually disagree with it.
The Hypocritical Juggernaut that is Sean Hannity
Let me first say, I absolutely love watching Sean Hannity. I disagree with almost everything he says and even more with the way he says it, but I, nonetheless, love watching his show for nothing but its comediac element. The hypocrisy that spews from his mouth is absolutely priceless. In a recent piece on the actress/comedienne, Janeane Garofolo, regarding comments she made accusing the "anti-tax tea party protesters" in Washington as racist. Although she may have went overboard in accusing "all of the protesters" as racist, she certainly had a point in referring to the slogan "What You Talkin' Bout Willis" as racist.
Naturally, this comment is completely overlooked by Hannity and instead he attacks her comments as "ridiculous and insane" and "gross generalizations." This from the same man who, later in the piece, asserts that Garofolo's isolated comments "seem very characteristic of the left." Hannity is the king of generalizations. The guy can't go more than two minutes of air time without placing a comment, figure or event within the context of some kind of grandscale, ambiguous problem, often characterizing them as products or results of a situation created by "liberals" or "the media" or "society" (can we get more general?).
Please, Sean Hannity, try a little bit harder to be more specific so you can atleast uphold some semblence of responsible journalism. When one makes comments like, "Now America's moving from a free market economy to a socialist economy; I don't think that anybody who understands economic systems can deny that," one usually has to substantiate such a bold assertion with some kind of evidence, even if it is contrived (which I'm sure it would be if it were even presented). I guess Sean Hannity's "gross generalizations" are acceptable, though.
Naturally, this comment is completely overlooked by Hannity and instead he attacks her comments as "ridiculous and insane" and "gross generalizations." This from the same man who, later in the piece, asserts that Garofolo's isolated comments "seem very characteristic of the left." Hannity is the king of generalizations. The guy can't go more than two minutes of air time without placing a comment, figure or event within the context of some kind of grandscale, ambiguous problem, often characterizing them as products or results of a situation created by "liberals" or "the media" or "society" (can we get more general?).
Please, Sean Hannity, try a little bit harder to be more specific so you can atleast uphold some semblence of responsible journalism. When one makes comments like, "Now America's moving from a free market economy to a socialist economy; I don't think that anybody who understands economic systems can deny that," one usually has to substantiate such a bold assertion with some kind of evidence, even if it is contrived (which I'm sure it would be if it were even presented). I guess Sean Hannity's "gross generalizations" are acceptable, though.
Noam Chomsky vs William F. Buckley, 1969
By far, one of my favorite YouTube clips. In this clip, two of the greatest debaters of the 20th century, Noam Chomsky, the consummate political dissident and intellectual, and William F. Buckley, the champion conservative commentator, faced off. The debate centers around the question of whether American military intervention has historically been "disinterested," in that its purpose was to squash a possible threat that had yet to materialize but whose potential could be devastating, or whether military intervention has been motivated largely by imperialistic circumstances, in that the nation who is the subject of intervention could economically benefit the United States.
Chomsky is incredible in his analysis of history and his skills in debate. He has so much relevant information at the tips of his fingers and utilizes it beautifully throughout the debate. Buckley, although clearly very intelligent, seems somewhat misinformed (and is infact corrected by Chomsky several times for historical errors) and at loss for a clear, strong argument.
Chomsky is incredible in his analysis of history and his skills in debate. He has so much relevant information at the tips of his fingers and utilizes it beautifully throughout the debate. Buckley, although clearly very intelligent, seems somewhat misinformed (and is infact corrected by Chomsky several times for historical errors) and at loss for a clear, strong argument.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Supreme Court: F-word and S-word
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the network stations are subject to FCC penalties for the use of "fleeting expletives," or isolated curse words, on their programs (namely, the f-word and s-word). In an Op-Ed piece published by the New York Times, Adam Freedman argues essentially the point I will make: that the Supreme Court is completely out of touch with contemporary language.
If the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the FCC because it feared that not doing so would open a pandora's box of cursing on network television, I would have been fine with this. Although I think this is the real reason for its ruling, the Supreme Court, in its ruling, eloquently argued "that it was 'entirely rational' for the F.C.C. to conclude, as it did, that one particular curse 'invariably invokes a coarse sexual image.'" Nothing could be further from the truth. I may be alone, but if someone uses the f-word in a non-sexual context near me I usually just think that person is angry/frustrated/not thinking about sex at all. Obviously Justice Scalia who, little known fact, grew up under a rock, next to a monastery, during the Reformation, disagrees with me and conjurs up the most vulgar, society-shattering, disgusting sexual images when he hears the f-word. Sounds like just the type of moral-arbitrator this country needs.
If the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the FCC because it feared that not doing so would open a pandora's box of cursing on network television, I would have been fine with this. Although I think this is the real reason for its ruling, the Supreme Court, in its ruling, eloquently argued "that it was 'entirely rational' for the F.C.C. to conclude, as it did, that one particular curse 'invariably invokes a coarse sexual image.'" Nothing could be further from the truth. I may be alone, but if someone uses the f-word in a non-sexual context near me I usually just think that person is angry/frustrated/not thinking about sex at all. Obviously Justice Scalia who, little known fact, grew up under a rock, next to a monastery, during the Reformation, disagrees with me and conjurs up the most vulgar, society-shattering, disgusting sexual images when he hears the f-word. Sounds like just the type of moral-arbitrator this country needs.
"I Want to Save Your Life"
Wow. In browsing a few feminist blogs in hopes of finding a post that interested me, I stumbled upon one of the most ridiculous ideas/promos for a television show I've ever come across. In a post at the blog feministing.com, the blogger discusses a new WE show called "I Want to Save Your Life." The show is basically about a super creepy guy who essentially stalks "overweight" women, monitoring their lifestyle/eating habits, in hopes of "saving their lives" from their almost certain impending dooms because of their eating habits. I don't even know where to begin. This show is wrong on so many levels.
First of all, when visiting WE's page for this show, one is met with the slogan "Charles Stuart Platkin (sweet name-"the diet/life/pyschological/all-knowing expert") will help you look inside, to change the outside." So basically the show's premise is promoting the idea that an unqualified expert whose written a few diet books (congratulations!) with no credentials in pyschology is going to "look inside" to get to the bottom of why a woman chooses to eat a sundae. Just what women need: a self-righteous, condescending prick who, by the way, is not a woman and, therefore, lacks the first idea about how women feel about body image, self-esteem, etc. to tell them what their problems are and how they should live their lives! For the women's network to even consider such an idea is beyond me. Maybe this guy's intentions are pure. Maybe he does want to help women who are unhappy with their lifestyles. But creating a show where you stalk women and suspiciously take notes on their day-to-day activities while lurking in the shadows, only to solemly confront them when they walk in the door with a pizza (an actual clip from the promo) is degrading, outrageous, and infuriating (and I'm not even a feminist...well, atleast not til now). I hope this guy drowns in a vat of chocolate syrup.
First of all, when visiting WE's page for this show, one is met with the slogan "Charles Stuart Platkin (sweet name-"the diet/life/pyschological/all-knowing expert") will help you look inside, to change the outside." So basically the show's premise is promoting the idea that an unqualified expert whose written a few diet books (congratulations!) with no credentials in pyschology is going to "look inside" to get to the bottom of why a woman chooses to eat a sundae. Just what women need: a self-righteous, condescending prick who, by the way, is not a woman and, therefore, lacks the first idea about how women feel about body image, self-esteem, etc. to tell them what their problems are and how they should live their lives! For the women's network to even consider such an idea is beyond me. Maybe this guy's intentions are pure. Maybe he does want to help women who are unhappy with their lifestyles. But creating a show where you stalk women and suspiciously take notes on their day-to-day activities while lurking in the shadows, only to solemly confront them when they walk in the door with a pizza (an actual clip from the promo) is degrading, outrageous, and infuriating (and I'm not even a feminist...well, atleast not til now). I hope this guy drowns in a vat of chocolate syrup.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Companies Lying About Global Warming
In a blog entry entitled "A list of companies who supported lies about global warming," Colin Beavan discusses a New York Times article published Apr. 23 that provides evidence to support the claim that Global Climate Coalition, an organization representing a significant number of Fortune 500 oil, automobile, and energy companies, knowingly misinformed policy makers and the public about the detrimental effects of global warming.
According to Revkin: "a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted."
Notable companies exposed include American Petroleum Institute, Chevron, Chrysler, DuPont, ExxonMobil, Ford, General Motors, Goodyear, Shell, Texaco, and US Chamber of Commerce. The influence and power these companies wield cannot be understated. Their interests are represented by the most high-powered lobbying firms who throw millions of dollars worth of campaign contributions at policymakers. If this isn't enough to influence political "opinion," it's now clear that these companies fabricated science to "legitimize" their position. To be honest, I'm not surprised at all. I wouldn't expect anything less from our country's largest corporations. Instead of leading or atleast following the push to cut CO2 emissions, our country’s “leading” businesses were actively trying to sabotage the most important task of our generation (and the next few generations). Unfortunately, the efforts of these companies may have stunted progress for as much as twenty years.
According to Revkin: "a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted."
Notable companies exposed include American Petroleum Institute, Chevron, Chrysler, DuPont, ExxonMobil, Ford, General Motors, Goodyear, Shell, Texaco, and US Chamber of Commerce. The influence and power these companies wield cannot be understated. Their interests are represented by the most high-powered lobbying firms who throw millions of dollars worth of campaign contributions at policymakers. If this isn't enough to influence political "opinion," it's now clear that these companies fabricated science to "legitimize" their position. To be honest, I'm not surprised at all. I wouldn't expect anything less from our country's largest corporations. Instead of leading or atleast following the push to cut CO2 emissions, our country’s “leading” businesses were actively trying to sabotage the most important task of our generation (and the next few generations). Unfortunately, the efforts of these companies may have stunted progress for as much as twenty years.
Reaction to Huffington Blog
I recently read a blog entitled "The Lies Of (And To) Elizabeth Edwards" on huffingtonpost.com. Its author, Lee Stranahan, essentially holds Elizabeth Edwards partially responsible for her husband's deception of his supporters while he was running for President. Stranahan says that since Elizabeth knew of John's affair and did nothing to alert the public of his infidelility, which is, of course, her civic responsibility, she is accountable to those deceived. Obviously, I disagree with Stranahan's opinion. To expect Elizabeth to "come clean" on her husband's actions and, in doing so, destroy his political career and attract an even more intense scrutiny of her marriage is completely unreasonable. She is in no way responsible to voters; her husband is. This is especially true regarding a matter as personal as her marriage.
I'm not agreeing with how the Edwards' handled this situation. If Stranahan wishes to attack John Edwards, I have no problem. However, it is not his place to assert that Elizabeth Edwards is somehow responsible to the public in sharing the most personal and difficult aspects of her marriage.
I'm not agreeing with how the Edwards' handled this situation. If Stranahan wishes to attack John Edwards, I have no problem. However, it is not his place to assert that Elizabeth Edwards is somehow responsible to the public in sharing the most personal and difficult aspects of her marriage.
"Girls Next Door"
The image of women portrayed in shows like "Girls Next Door" is certainly an unhealthy one, especially in the context of its impact on young girls. An article published by BBC News a few years ago relays results of a study conducted by the American Psychological Association about the effects of "sexualisation" on young girls. According to the article, sexualisation "was defined as occurring when a person's value comes only from her or his sexual appeal or behaviour, to the exclusion of other characteristics, and when a person is portrayed purely as a sex object." I can't think of TV show that better illustrates this definition than "Girls Next Door." Eileen Zurbriggen, chair of the group conducting the study and associate professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said, "We have ample evidence to conclude that sexualisation has negative effects in a variety of domains, including cognitive functioning, physical and mental health, and healthy sexual development."
Opponents of this theory will argue that girls can intelligently filter out things like "Girls Next Door" and realize the unrealistic and shallow nature of them. However, media is subconsciously interpreted. The image of women portrayed in magazines, TV, and film is subconsciously processed, interpreted, and stored. This is even more true for young girls than for adults. Although it is virtually impossible to change the image of the thin, tall, blonde, busty woman, as it pervades almost every form of media, it is possible to better communicate to young girls how one-dimensional and shallow this image.
Opponents of this theory will argue that girls can intelligently filter out things like "Girls Next Door" and realize the unrealistic and shallow nature of them. However, media is subconsciously interpreted. The image of women portrayed in magazines, TV, and film is subconsciously processed, interpreted, and stored. This is even more true for young girls than for adults. Although it is virtually impossible to change the image of the thin, tall, blonde, busty woman, as it pervades almost every form of media, it is possible to better communicate to young girls how one-dimensional and shallow this image.
A History of Bush's Interrogation Program
The recently released White House legal memorandums documenting the Bush administration's interrogation program has created quite a stir in the media and in Washington. A New York Times article published May 3rd depicts the major public and private events that led to its eventual demise. The article cites the report published by John L. Helgerson, the CIA's inspector general, on May 7, 2004 as one of the program's first major stumbling blocks. In the report, Helgerson raised questions about the legality and overall effectiveness of the interrogation methods and the program as a whole. Even more devastating, Congress' bill passed the following year banning "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" effectively crippling the program implemented by the CIA and the Bush administration. With the "enhanced" interrogation techniques all but finished, the debate within the White House shifted to the question of what to do with the CIA's remaining prisoners. Eventually, a Rice-led side defeated the Cheney-led side, and the prisoners were moved to Guantanomo Bay. However, in July 2007 Cheney and his supporters scored another victory when a Bush executive order reinstituted many of the previously abolished techniques and "preserved the secret jails" whose legality had been hotly debated. Within a month of Obama's presidency, however, the aforementioned secret jails and Bush's interrogration program were terminated.
Above all, this article highlights the remarkable divisions and disagreement that existed within the Bush White House. The picture I have is of two constantly feuding sides with separate, often selfish agendas, and George W. Bush stuck in the middle, hopelessly trying to appease both parties. Although this view is obviously over-simplistic, time after time I've read articles and stories that suggest something embarrasingly similar to this dynamic.
Above all, this article highlights the remarkable divisions and disagreement that existed within the Bush White House. The picture I have is of two constantly feuding sides with separate, often selfish agendas, and George W. Bush stuck in the middle, hopelessly trying to appease both parties. Although this view is obviously over-simplistic, time after time I've read articles and stories that suggest something embarrasingly similar to this dynamic.
ABC World News
On Friday, I watched ABC's World News hosted by Charlie Gibson. Shockingly, "Swine Flu Hysteria" wasn't the lead story. Instead, Justice David Souter's announcement that he would be retiring at the end of the court's current term opened the program. Predictably, swine flu updates followed, as they had been the program's lead story for the past week. Short segments on a speech Hillary Clinton had given, a photo showing Fidel Castro wearing a pin with American and Cuban flags, Chrysler's restructuring plan, the weight loss drug, Hyrdoxycut, being recalled for being linked to liver damage, and updates on the flooding in the Midwest.
In terms of importance, the stories were, as they often are, out of place. Arguably, the last two stories are currently affecting the greatest number of people. However, they are far less sensational and "big" as the swine flu craze and Souter's impending retirement, Obama's reaction to it, and Souter's potential replacements.
In terms of importance, the stories were, as they often are, out of place. Arguably, the last two stories are currently affecting the greatest number of people. However, they are far less sensational and "big" as the swine flu craze and Souter's impending retirement, Obama's reaction to it, and Souter's potential replacements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
