Warning: I'm feeling very cynical...
I didn't really follow much of the "important" stuff happening at the summit. Not like I think the G20 countries are really doing anything that is actually helping the world economy. Most other people didn't seem to be following the serious things either, all the trivial things were much more exciting.
-Interesting Obama gave an iPod to the Queen. Really, an iPod? Couldn't they get something better, like some wine from California or some genuine Vermont Maple Syrup? I couldn't help but wonder about the content. It was filled with some of his speeches. Seems a tad arrogant to me. Not quite as arrogant as the what the royal family gave to them: signed portraits of themselves. (Maybe I should think of give someone a signed portrait of myself for a birthday gift; that would be a pretty funny.) They're probably not really that arrogant, but it does come across that way. I guess there was some music on there too, some of the Queen's favorite music. Oh, I can just imagine her headbanging to some music. Taking a jog and listening to something good. Maybe some Lil Wayne or Eminem. And perhaps a little T-Pain. Ha, the queen and an iPod. Wow, there's tons of potential for comedy there.
-I enjoyed the whole fiasco where Michelle Obama hugged the Queen. I'm glad they weren't offended. It was just a sign of "spontaneous mutual appreciation and affection", as the statement the Queen released said. Wow. That's a surprise, I didn't think that was the usual function of a hug. I'm so glad they cleared it up for me; I was pretty uneasy about the situation. I'm just glad the First Lady didn't have to release a statement like the Pope did years ago, "forcibly denying there was any physical contact". Thank goodness the pope understood how big of a deal it was. I mean, apparently the Queen is God or something. Nobody else is good enough to touch her.
-The whole royality thing seems kinda silly to me. Well, I suppose it's a nice tradition. It does make for alot of entertainment. It is a remnant and reminder of a more corrupt, authoritarian past though.
-I do think it would be pretty neat to meet the Queen. I wonder what she's really like. She should have a reality TV show. Maybe she could go to rehab for something. That would be hilarious. Or she could have a Bachelorette series.
-Thank goodness for the entertainment news programs. Of course I could hear all about the "hug" controversy everywhere else, since it was the top story on most "legitimate" news outlets. But I was able to see plenty on Obama's sneeze during one of his speeches, which they dubbed so affectionately "the sneeze heard 'round the world". I was also able to hear plenty about the fashion battle between Mrs. Obama and France's first lady, former model Carla Bruni. Apparently the French first lady stayed home because she was intimidated by Mrs. Obama and didn't know if she could win the fashion battle. (They said people prefer Ms. Obama brightly-colored outfits to Mrs. Bruni's more drab outfits right now.)
-Speaking of the news media, I wish they could pretend like they weren't in the tank for Obama. Surveying the London newspapers, and what from I saw on TV, you'd think he was Jesus or something. (The best headline I saw from the prominent Lodon periodicals was "Going Gaga for Obama".) I liked the title of CNN's special program: Obama's European Tour and the New World Promise. I'm still wondering what that promise is. I enjoyed watching a few minutes of the show. Basically a tribute to Obama, full of scenes from the trip, some of his inspirational words, repeated pictures of adoring fans, all set to music. (It was various popular rock songs, which was fitting since he's a rockstar.) Boy, I'd hate to see the coverage MSNBC had...
-I saw Obama gave a townhall meeting somewhere in Europe. Seems a little strange, but I suppose since people don't like the U.S. too much right now and all the G20 leaders are blaming the U.S. for the breakdown of the financial markets it's probably good he's trying to go and garner some support for America. It still seems a little bit like everybody's still in campaign mode. Though Republicans don't seem to be doing much of anything right now except for fighting over who is really the head of the party.
I'll turn off my cynicism now.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Baseball!
In honor of Opening Day, a few of my baseball-related thoughts:
Burning Questions for the Reds:
Will Willy Taveras and Jerry Hairiston get on base consistently enough for the big boppers?
Will Votto, Phillips, Bruce, and Encarnacion improve their average with runners on base and provide enough power to cut down the scoring gap with the Cubs?
Will young arms like Volquez, Cueto, and Bailey be solid for the whole year?
Will Harang and Arroyo return to form?
Will there be enough depth if there are again injury problems?
Sleeper Teams:
White Sox
Royals
Mariners
Braves
Reds
Giants
Most Interesting Team to Watch This Year: Yankees
Craziest Name: Jarrod Saltalmacchia
Best Managers: Tony LaRussa, Bobby Cox
Bold Prediction: Diamondbacks over the Dodgers in the NL West (okay, it's not that bold; I made it last season too)
Best Divisional Race: Mets vs. Phillies in NL East
Once again, it looks like my Rangers will score a ton of runs (wouldn't be surprised to see them break a thousand, which I guess is only half a ton), but it will all be futile as they again have one of the weakest pitching staffs in baseball.
Question: Is the new Yankee Stadium worth $1.5 million? Is is nicer than Safeco, AT&T, or Coors Field?
Burning Questions for the Reds:
Will Willy Taveras and Jerry Hairiston get on base consistently enough for the big boppers?
Will Votto, Phillips, Bruce, and Encarnacion improve their average with runners on base and provide enough power to cut down the scoring gap with the Cubs?
Will young arms like Volquez, Cueto, and Bailey be solid for the whole year?
Will Harang and Arroyo return to form?
Will there be enough depth if there are again injury problems?
Sleeper Teams:
White Sox
Royals
Mariners
Braves
Reds
Giants
Most Interesting Team to Watch This Year: Yankees
Craziest Name: Jarrod Saltalmacchia
Best Managers: Tony LaRussa, Bobby Cox
Bold Prediction: Diamondbacks over the Dodgers in the NL West (okay, it's not that bold; I made it last season too)
Best Divisional Race: Mets vs. Phillies in NL East
Once again, it looks like my Rangers will score a ton of runs (wouldn't be surprised to see them break a thousand, which I guess is only half a ton), but it will all be futile as they again have one of the weakest pitching staffs in baseball.
Question: Is the new Yankee Stadium worth $1.5 million? Is is nicer than Safeco, AT&T, or Coors Field?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Pro-Life?
I could have titled this blog "Abortion", but "Pro-Life" sounds much better, though the names are somewhat of a misnomer themselves. (It would be false to say that most who consider themselves pro-choice are not pro-life.)
I am conflicted on the issue of abortion. I have always considered myself pro-life, but I have frequently questioned whether I should be pro-choice, especially the last couple of years, because I am liberal on most social issues and I think the freedom of choice is very important. I don't AT ALL like the government interfering with people's personal lives.
While part of me values choice, I believe legalizing abortion can breed irresponsibility, because now girls/women/men can do what they want and simply have an abortion if they have an unwanted pregnancy. And I believe this extends beyond just sexual promiscuity. If sex and pregnancy are trivialized, then so is everything else. If one risky behavior is legitimized, than people are more likely to participate in other risky activities because it can create an overall attitude where one develops a convoluted view of responsibility and consequences.
Another thing that is wrong about abortion besides the fact that is it is simply wrong because it kills a human/potential human (which both my faith and logic tell me is wrong) is what the aborted could offer the world. Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, there have been forty-five million fetuses aborted in the U.S. Worldwide, there are somewhere between thirty-five and forty-six million abortions every year. Out of all these potential babies, what great things could they have done? There could have been the next great president, the next great scientist, a doctor that could find a cure for cancer, a great religious leader, great musicians, etc.
A part of the pro-choice argument that is often formulated is that babies born to mothers who didn't want them would be set up for a bad life, likely living in poverty with mothers who didn't want them. While this is a legitimate point, that should be considered, there have been lots and lots of individuals that have grown up in these conditions and have done great things.
Compounding matters is the question of whether abortion should be legal for rape victims or in the case where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. I do believe abortion should be legal in the second case. However, this situation is overblown. In reality abortion is almost never needed/used to save the life of a mother. I have no clear opinion on abortion rights for rape victims. On one hand, I don't think a baby should be penalized because their mother was raped. Obviously, the baby didn't choose to be conceived in a rape, so why should it be punished and killed for that? On the other hand, however, is the rights of the mother. The mother didn't choose to become pregnant and have a child. So why should they be forced to?
It is hard, or would be, for me to say I am pro-choice. I believe abortion is wrong, and it is very, very hard to me to support the freedom of one to do something that is wrong. Other "crimes", such as drug use, prostitution, etc, are victimless. The choice affects a consenting adult (or adults), but doesn't hurt someone else. Abortion, I believe, does hurt someone/something. I find the argument of choice a little bit difficult and an argument that is hard to find logic in. Most people who are pro-choice do believe abortion is wrong. Most wouldn't have an abortion themselves. The question, then, is why wouldn't they have one? The answer is likely because it is wrong. If one believes something is wrong, then why should someone else be allowed to do it? The logical answer is that they shouldn't. Yet, part of me feels that someone should have the right to do what they want, because it is a personal decision and I do strongly value freedom and the right of people to choice. The question could become, is the right of one to choose or the right to life of the fetus/baby more important? Of course, in that case, I value the right to life more. I, simply put, find the argument impossible.
Something else that leads me not to be pro-choice is the affect it has on women. Studies show that as many as 93% of women who get abortions regret them. The vast majority develop psychological problems. Women who have abortions are also nine times as likely to kill themselves.
On the flip side, however, something that would draw me to become pro-choice are the other affects abortion can have on women. Such as the consequences of abortions done illegally, or "back alley abortions". Abortions done illegally are often done by those who aren't medically qualified and are therefore more dangerous. Worldwide, more than 67,000 women die annually from illegal abortions. If women are going to get abortions anyway then why not legalize it so at least they can be done safely? This leads to the most important question: If abortion is illegal, does it really deter women from having abortions?
Does the legality of abortion really affect the number of abortions? The answer is probably not. Worldwide, the abortion rate among countries in which abortion is legal and not legal are about the same. That is the thing that really makes me think about being pro-choice. I simply believe there are more important things in determining the abortion rate than whether or not it is legal.
What I think should be done:
1. The adoption and foster care systems should be strengthened and improved. The foster care system should be simplified. Foster care parents should be provided more reimbursement and better training, since there is an incredible lack of foster parents. Of course, there are many other problems, but this is the most important in regards to abortion. (As a side note, nearly half of foster care children become homeless once they turn 18, and the majority also develop mental illnesses.) Improving the adoption system is even more important. Adoption should also be made easier and there should be more financial incentives to potential adoptive parents to promote adoption.
2. Sex Ed. A very important part of the abortion debate is sexual education. With better sex ed, we could prevent this situation entirely. We could prevent unwanted pregnancies before there ever has to be the decision whether or not to have an abortion. I don't agree with President Bush's support and promotion of abstinence-only sex education. I do think abstinence should be the basis of sexual education. It only makes sense. No matter what your religious beliefs, abstinence is the best and only sure way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. However, I think it is very unrealistic to believe that this is adequate. Many kids aren't going to be abstinent. So, it is crucial that they have the information they need to have safe sex and prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
3. More incentives to keep a baby. This goes directly to the problem of abortion rights for rape victims. First, we should offer better psychological counseling and support to women so they can deal with their rape and their pregnancy. Secondly, we should offer more education about having children to mothers so they are encouraged and prepared to have a child. (Both the psychological and educational support should be provided to the mother after birth as well.) Finally, more financial incentives should be offered. Many of these mothers who have unexpected pregnancies can't afford a baby. So it is important that we provide them financial support so they can maintain a good quality of life and properly care for their baby. This includes not only money for things such as food, housing, etc, be money for childcare, so the mothers are able to place their child a a nursery or daycare to continue their schooling and continue their work. Of course this is a slippery slope. This could be easily taken advantage of. Women could get pregnant just to get money. This could not only cost the government billions and billions, it could expand the welfare system, and create overpopulation. So it is imperative that there is the proper oversight. And there would have to be firmly decided upon parameters for who qualifies for these services. For instance, perhaps it may be that only rape victims and any minor could receive these services, but anyone over eighteen would have to become enrolled in a workfare program to qualify (which would cost them less than an abortion).
I don't know if there is more complex of an issue than abortion. There are so many factors. I may be one of the few people that doesn't have a clear belief whether or not abortion should be legal. I believe strongly, however, that the government can do more prevent abortions.
I also believe that it is imperative that people from both sides work together to cut down abortions. I know to many the question of the legality of abortion is huge. But it shouldn't be a roadblock for progress on the abortion front. Most people want abortions to be limited. Most want them to be rare. The stumbling block is the second word:legal. Most pro-choice people want abortions to be rare and legal. Most pro-lifers want abortion to be rare, but illegal. I would prefer if we focused on the importance of first word. Of course, it is highly unlikely that most people will ever work together to lower the abortion rate. People can't look past the titles of "pro-choice and "pro-life".
Notes:
If abortion is made illegal again, I believe that it should be doctors and abortion clinics, not mothers, who are charged with crimes. If one thinks abortion should be illegal, that would be the best way to stop abortion. The mothers would have already endured enough pain. It would be best to simply close all abortion providers.
While I may not be strong in may stance on the legality of abortion, I am very strong in the belief that late-term and intact dilation and extraction (aka partial-birth abortions) should not be legal. They are hideously barbaric.
If many people who say they are pro-life are, they should show it. They should do more than just believe abortion should be illegal. They should volunteer at a women's center, or even become a foster or adoptive parent.
I think being pro-life is much more than being anti-abortion, which I think many miss. I think issues such as poverty and AIDS are more important. They kill more people than abortion and kill people that are already born. Pro-life supports all kinds of life. Young and old. I will hopefully at some point post a blog expounding on what being pro-life really means.
I am conflicted on the issue of abortion. I have always considered myself pro-life, but I have frequently questioned whether I should be pro-choice, especially the last couple of years, because I am liberal on most social issues and I think the freedom of choice is very important. I don't AT ALL like the government interfering with people's personal lives.
While part of me values choice, I believe legalizing abortion can breed irresponsibility, because now girls/women/men can do what they want and simply have an abortion if they have an unwanted pregnancy. And I believe this extends beyond just sexual promiscuity. If sex and pregnancy are trivialized, then so is everything else. If one risky behavior is legitimized, than people are more likely to participate in other risky activities because it can create an overall attitude where one develops a convoluted view of responsibility and consequences.
Another thing that is wrong about abortion besides the fact that is it is simply wrong because it kills a human/potential human (which both my faith and logic tell me is wrong) is what the aborted could offer the world. Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, there have been forty-five million fetuses aborted in the U.S. Worldwide, there are somewhere between thirty-five and forty-six million abortions every year. Out of all these potential babies, what great things could they have done? There could have been the next great president, the next great scientist, a doctor that could find a cure for cancer, a great religious leader, great musicians, etc.
A part of the pro-choice argument that is often formulated is that babies born to mothers who didn't want them would be set up for a bad life, likely living in poverty with mothers who didn't want them. While this is a legitimate point, that should be considered, there have been lots and lots of individuals that have grown up in these conditions and have done great things.
Compounding matters is the question of whether abortion should be legal for rape victims or in the case where it is necessary to save the life of the mother. I do believe abortion should be legal in the second case. However, this situation is overblown. In reality abortion is almost never needed/used to save the life of a mother. I have no clear opinion on abortion rights for rape victims. On one hand, I don't think a baby should be penalized because their mother was raped. Obviously, the baby didn't choose to be conceived in a rape, so why should it be punished and killed for that? On the other hand, however, is the rights of the mother. The mother didn't choose to become pregnant and have a child. So why should they be forced to?
It is hard, or would be, for me to say I am pro-choice. I believe abortion is wrong, and it is very, very hard to me to support the freedom of one to do something that is wrong. Other "crimes", such as drug use, prostitution, etc, are victimless. The choice affects a consenting adult (or adults), but doesn't hurt someone else. Abortion, I believe, does hurt someone/something. I find the argument of choice a little bit difficult and an argument that is hard to find logic in. Most people who are pro-choice do believe abortion is wrong. Most wouldn't have an abortion themselves. The question, then, is why wouldn't they have one? The answer is likely because it is wrong. If one believes something is wrong, then why should someone else be allowed to do it? The logical answer is that they shouldn't. Yet, part of me feels that someone should have the right to do what they want, because it is a personal decision and I do strongly value freedom and the right of people to choice. The question could become, is the right of one to choose or the right to life of the fetus/baby more important? Of course, in that case, I value the right to life more. I, simply put, find the argument impossible.
Something else that leads me not to be pro-choice is the affect it has on women. Studies show that as many as 93% of women who get abortions regret them. The vast majority develop psychological problems. Women who have abortions are also nine times as likely to kill themselves.
On the flip side, however, something that would draw me to become pro-choice are the other affects abortion can have on women. Such as the consequences of abortions done illegally, or "back alley abortions". Abortions done illegally are often done by those who aren't medically qualified and are therefore more dangerous. Worldwide, more than 67,000 women die annually from illegal abortions. If women are going to get abortions anyway then why not legalize it so at least they can be done safely? This leads to the most important question: If abortion is illegal, does it really deter women from having abortions?
Does the legality of abortion really affect the number of abortions? The answer is probably not. Worldwide, the abortion rate among countries in which abortion is legal and not legal are about the same. That is the thing that really makes me think about being pro-choice. I simply believe there are more important things in determining the abortion rate than whether or not it is legal.
What I think should be done:
1. The adoption and foster care systems should be strengthened and improved. The foster care system should be simplified. Foster care parents should be provided more reimbursement and better training, since there is an incredible lack of foster parents. Of course, there are many other problems, but this is the most important in regards to abortion. (As a side note, nearly half of foster care children become homeless once they turn 18, and the majority also develop mental illnesses.) Improving the adoption system is even more important. Adoption should also be made easier and there should be more financial incentives to potential adoptive parents to promote adoption.
2. Sex Ed. A very important part of the abortion debate is sexual education. With better sex ed, we could prevent this situation entirely. We could prevent unwanted pregnancies before there ever has to be the decision whether or not to have an abortion. I don't agree with President Bush's support and promotion of abstinence-only sex education. I do think abstinence should be the basis of sexual education. It only makes sense. No matter what your religious beliefs, abstinence is the best and only sure way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. However, I think it is very unrealistic to believe that this is adequate. Many kids aren't going to be abstinent. So, it is crucial that they have the information they need to have safe sex and prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
3. More incentives to keep a baby. This goes directly to the problem of abortion rights for rape victims. First, we should offer better psychological counseling and support to women so they can deal with their rape and their pregnancy. Secondly, we should offer more education about having children to mothers so they are encouraged and prepared to have a child. (Both the psychological and educational support should be provided to the mother after birth as well.) Finally, more financial incentives should be offered. Many of these mothers who have unexpected pregnancies can't afford a baby. So it is important that we provide them financial support so they can maintain a good quality of life and properly care for their baby. This includes not only money for things such as food, housing, etc, be money for childcare, so the mothers are able to place their child a a nursery or daycare to continue their schooling and continue their work. Of course this is a slippery slope. This could be easily taken advantage of. Women could get pregnant just to get money. This could not only cost the government billions and billions, it could expand the welfare system, and create overpopulation. So it is imperative that there is the proper oversight. And there would have to be firmly decided upon parameters for who qualifies for these services. For instance, perhaps it may be that only rape victims and any minor could receive these services, but anyone over eighteen would have to become enrolled in a workfare program to qualify (which would cost them less than an abortion).
I don't know if there is more complex of an issue than abortion. There are so many factors. I may be one of the few people that doesn't have a clear belief whether or not abortion should be legal. I believe strongly, however, that the government can do more prevent abortions.
I also believe that it is imperative that people from both sides work together to cut down abortions. I know to many the question of the legality of abortion is huge. But it shouldn't be a roadblock for progress on the abortion front. Most people want abortions to be limited. Most want them to be rare. The stumbling block is the second word:legal. Most pro-choice people want abortions to be rare and legal. Most pro-lifers want abortion to be rare, but illegal. I would prefer if we focused on the importance of first word. Of course, it is highly unlikely that most people will ever work together to lower the abortion rate. People can't look past the titles of "pro-choice and "pro-life".
Notes:
If abortion is made illegal again, I believe that it should be doctors and abortion clinics, not mothers, who are charged with crimes. If one thinks abortion should be illegal, that would be the best way to stop abortion. The mothers would have already endured enough pain. It would be best to simply close all abortion providers.
While I may not be strong in may stance on the legality of abortion, I am very strong in the belief that late-term and intact dilation and extraction (aka partial-birth abortions) should not be legal. They are hideously barbaric.
If many people who say they are pro-life are, they should show it. They should do more than just believe abortion should be illegal. They should volunteer at a women's center, or even become a foster or adoptive parent.
I think being pro-life is much more than being anti-abortion, which I think many miss. I think issues such as poverty and AIDS are more important. They kill more people than abortion and kill people that are already born. Pro-life supports all kinds of life. Young and old. I will hopefully at some point post a blog expounding on what being pro-life really means.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Personality
I took a personality test and again I came up with the same result...I'm an INFP (aka "healer" or "idealist"). I don't know why I'm interested in taking personality tests since I always get the same thing. If anyone is interested in the description of an INFP, you can read either:
http://www.personalitypage.com/INFP.html
or
http://www.keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=keirsey&f=fourtemps&tab=3&c=healer
Both links should also provide profiles of all of the other personality types...
I find it interesting that even though INFPs are only between 1 and 4.5% of the population, they are very overrepresented in the arts. Also intriguing is that they tend to be drawn to unconventional ideas and things.
The best thing I see about INFPs is that they can "find the good in almost anything or anyone". The worst thing is that they sometimes aren't logical or develop high standards sometimes difficult for themselves or others to fulfill.
http://www.personalitypage.com/INFP.html
or
http://www.keirsey.com/handler.aspx?s=keirsey&f=fourtemps&tab=3&c=healer
Both links should also provide profiles of all of the other personality types...
I find it interesting that even though INFPs are only between 1 and 4.5% of the population, they are very overrepresented in the arts. Also intriguing is that they tend to be drawn to unconventional ideas and things.
The best thing I see about INFPs is that they can "find the good in almost anything or anyone". The worst thing is that they sometimes aren't logical or develop high standards sometimes difficult for themselves or others to fulfill.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Spring
Spring officially starts soon and summer is just around the corner. I made a short blog of things I like about Christmas, so here are a few of the things I like about Spring:
-warm, sunny days
-colorful flowers
-trees with leaves
-Spring Break
-baseball!
-going barefoot
-driving with the windows down
-crops being planted
-nature walks and hiking
-visiting fun places
-Easter
-short rain showers
-the smell of freshly cut grass
Yes, I'm enjoying the little things...
Monday, March 9, 2009
Sociology
I would like to study cultural or historical sociology formally sometime. A few topics that interest me:
-How religion progresses generationally (how it is passed down from generation to generation)
*Socioeconomic Determinism in general
-Development of classes and class identity
-entertainment/how leisure time is spent
-educational system
*Social Institutions in general, such as education, religion, family, and economy
-taboos
-appearance in different societies, such as hair and clothing
-convergence of cultures and assimilation
-myths and folklore, especially non-western
-treatment of the mentally ill and prisoners in society
-subcultures and countercultures
-social norms and mores
-third world economic systems
-development and evolution of cultural revolutions/upheavals
-architecture and art as a reflection of social attitudes and values
One subject I am particularly interested in is Post WWII/1950s culture, especially in the United States. I am especially intrigued by the baby boom and suburban life and how it lead to the counterculture movements in the 1960s and changes in religion, the arts, social values, and change in gender, racial, and sexual relations.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Arguing With Atheists
I've come to believe that arguing over the existence of a deity is fairly fruitless. Many atheists have a bitterness against religion that even losing an argument would never let them overcome their doubts. Agnostics are often more interesting to debate with, partially because I agree with some of what they have to say (I was an agnostic for a short while) and because their argument is often logical and not so categorical.
I think an intelligent person could make a good argument on either side of the existence of God discussion. Minds are rarely ever changed, because I don't think God can be contained or understood to an argument. The very nature of such a deity makes their existence a complex concept to comprehend. All issues surrounding epistemology and metaphysics are difficult and nearly (if not definitely) impossible to prove. It often boils down not to who has the better argument, but who is smarter or the more skillful debater.
I don't think we can look to logic to find God. Not that a belief in Him (or Her) is illogical. But as I stated, the attributes of God make Him/Her impossible to totally understand. He could never be understood through an argument. I believe to understand God and to believe in the existence of God, you must experience God. You can argue with someone, but you can't make anyone have this experience. They must discover it themself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
