A guy on Metafilter quoted Richard Feynman (he’s a damn smart Nobel Prize Winner in Physics who is pretty much responsible for CalTech being famous right now) as saying “A scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.” Since everyone knows I already think that linguistics-genius and crazy social activist Noam Chomsky’s opinions are about as valid as the anarchists smoking pot downtown, I’m going to add this up-and-coming Professor/Media Darling Geoffrey Miller to my “avoid what they say” list.You can tell a scientist is using his scientific brilliance to advance his positions when they try to sound scientific in their research methods, but still use the type of “loaded phrases” which no newspaper would ever let fly. Miller has some interesting ideas about happiness, specifically that 90% of the world rates themselves as “happier than most people” and that income doesn’t matter. Great hypothesis, and probably true. He neglects, when talking about money, though, that *change in income* matters. A poor guy who gets a windfall of cash is almost certain to gain in happiness. Likewise, a happy guy who becomes poor will become less happy. In that sense, money matters a lot. Miller is one of those “Consumerism is the greatest evil ever!” and “America is bad for the rest of the world” type guys. These are the type of guys who think other people’s lives are their concerns. If consumerism is so bad, why does Miller have a website? Buying an “Enya” CD, growing dreads and growing your own vegetables doesn’t make you a non-consumer. Miller talks about “oppressed third world people”, etc., etc., and about how America (and the rest of the first-world) need to take other nations “hopes into account” when we make our decisions.
Guess what? No one in Nigeria gives a damn about whether their decisions affect us. No one in Laos cares whether the shirt he is sewing is making me happier in the United States. Now, by no means do I think we should run rampant through the environment and through people’s lives. But minority reactionaries in other countries (such as the bin Laden’s, or the elders in Iran who’s policy is entirely opposite what most of the population want) should not dictate how the world is run. For instance, sweatshops. Know why no one dislikes sweatshops in the third-world? Becuase nearly all of them pay much better and provide better working conditions than any job available from local companies, that’s why. Sweatshops are the reason that Korea and the Asian Tigers were able to begin their explosive growth in the late 20th century. No one at Levi’s is whipping children, for chrissakes.
I’m not sure where I’m going with this, but I think my main point is that I totally disagree with the “Consumerism leads to a lack of conscience.” Maybe I’ve living in some kind of Dickens-esque dreamworld where most people are decent to each other, but it seems to be that they are. And owning a company, despite what the far left think, wouldn’t make me, or nearly anyone I know, suddenly turn into a heartless fool. A final interesting fact: Both polls I’ve seen about the subject have said that Americans, and especially Europeans, are *far more likely* to believe that “the spread of Western culture” is a major concern in the third world. People in Mali eat at McD’s because it’s fast and cheap; same reason people do in the United States. People in Indonesia watch “Lord of the Rings” not because America has oppressed them, but simply because we’re putting out a better movie than the native Indonesians. I don’t say that Finland is oppressing me because they put out a damn good Nokia cell phone. Every culture has positives and negatives, *including* the US. There *are* some aspects of our material culture that others want…simply because they’re good.
So I said that was my last comment, but I have a little more: The whole “protect the third world” thing reminds me a lot of affirmative action. Anti-discrimination laws are a *great* thing, and taking people’s backgrounds into account for college/jobs is also awesome, but affirmative action isn’t. It’s basically saying that some people, because of their race, can’t cut it in the normal market, which is just as discriminatory as blatant racism. The “protect the third world” thing, now a bastion of Green Party-type folk, much like affirmative action, is just as racist. It’s saying that people in the third world can’t be trusted to keep the good aspects of their culture and not the bad. Everyone in India knows where MTV is from, but they watch it anyway, because they like it. If something in India’s local culture were better, they’d watch that too.
One more analogy: No one in the rest of the world is upset that racial segregation, family farms and little houses on the prairie are going away in America. It’s generally accepted that we have better ways to accomplish our societal goals that these. The “culture we’re destroying” in the third-world is very similar, with a similar conclusion. Too strong identification to a culture, in the US or elsewhere, leads to xenophobia. Great segue to the next thing I was thinking about.
We had a “Human Rights Day” at the hill on Wednesday, with a bunch of speakers. I got one guy who taught a course on the Israel conflict. Too strong identification to a culture is what has led to this problem. For crimey’s sake, the Israelis and the Palestinians are relying on arguments such as “We were here 3000 years ago”. The people arguing weren’t alive 3000 years ago. It’s quite possible most of their ancestors weren’t even from the area. The whole Israel deal is quite hard to find a solution for. Both the Palestinians and the Jews have lived there, on and off, over the last many millenia. Both have a valid claim. But, right now, I think the *best* (not the optimal, which is what it seems the impossible goal everyone is trying for happens to be) solution would be a secular nation with an international name. For instance, “Shalom” is Hebrew for peace, “Salaam” is Arabic. How about a country named “Shalaam”, to be written in both arabic and Hebrew script. On second thought, that sounds like a movie that would star Shaquille O’Neal, but you get the idea.
As for the nation itself, it should be secularized. History has shown us that separation of church and state in the middle east has been the best road to peace and stability. Both Jewish and Islamic holidays should be celebrated. The government should be dualist, with one parlaiment and two heads of state (one from Arab, one from Israeli, elected from only those constituencies, with no voting from one not registered in either party). In a vote of less that 60% majority, both heads of state would have to agree, or the vote would be vetoed. On a vote of more than 60% in the parlaiment, only one head of state would need to agree to sign the bill. The United States should stop financing the weaponry of the region. It is close enough to Europe than an international army could be deployed if a foreign nation invaded. All systems would have to be integrated: No religious schools, no religious anything. This isn’t perfect, but I think it’s the best way to solve the problem.
My personal feeling is that the Balfour Declaration was a mistake, though. Israel had absolutely no right to exist (though it’s too late now to go back and change history). They are as bad as any racist nation: Their very national ideology is racism (i.e., “This is a nation for the Jews”). Founding that nation in an area where people of another religion already lived was an awful idea. It’s like the world giving Mississippi to the Illinois to found as a “nation for the Mormons”. After all, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and their mormon church, were kicked out of Nauvoo in the early 1800’s. How do you think that would fly with the protestants who make up most of Illinois, if they were to be treated as second-class citizens like the Arabs are in Israel? Not too freakin’ well. And some people say to the Arabs, “Just move to Jordan or Egypt.” Do you think the people in Chicago who’ve spent generations building their wealth in Illinois are just going to leave? Of course not!
I’m almost done talking about politics. Here’s my last jab at the far left: Why do they insist American foreign policy is “all about oil” or “all about the economy.” You idiots! It’s fun to ignore the facts, but why not just look at world history. In Yugoslavia, we supported the Kosovans. Supporting Serbia and Milosevic was *much* more in our economic interest. In the Middle East, we throw money at the Israelis. If all we cared about was the economy, we’d just let the Arabs take over Israel and improve our relations with the totalitarian regimes over there. Even look at Kuwait, the most common example: Kuwait has far less oil that Iraq. While it’s significant, we’d have been much better off just to let Hussein take Kuwait. In the Caucusus, we’re telling Russia to stop being so harsh on the Chechyan secessionists/terrorists. Letting Russia crush them would increase stability in the oil-heavy region, which would be to our economic benefit. We aren’t doing that. Even back in World War II: We supported China against Japan in the late 30’s. American money was far more tied up in Japanese interests than in China, so the economic choice would have been to support Japan in World War II. Such a policy would have saved thousands of American soldiers’ lives too. If anyone sees a flaw with this hypothesis, please let me know, cuz I still don’t understand where the hell the far left gets the idea that oil is all we care about.
Oh, now I know why! This National Post (the New York Times of Canada) article talks about how chicks tend to go for crazy leftists far more than libertarian or even moderate types. It’s a really funny article, and the author and me are about the same politically, so check it out (the NDP is the Canadian equivalent of something like that Green Party, btw).
On a lighter note, check out The What Kevin Smith Character Are You? Test. I got Holden, from Chasing Amy, ironically the only KS movie I haven’t seen. Ah well.
So I’m 18 now. I registered to vote as an independent. Still haven’t bought any porn, cigars or lotto tickets. Dunno why, heh. I think I’ll do something that I didn’t used to be able to do this weekend, just because I can. The only noticeable change is that I talk about politics more. Heh, or maybe that’s just today. Party on Saturday night, it’ll be something fun (though maybe just something like going bowling or movies or who knows), everyone’s invited. If I forget to call you (I’m lazy like that), ring me up. If you know me enough to know my phone number, you can assume that you can come, heh.
I found two books I really want. One is called The Future of Ideas. I learned doing my senior project that Congress is allowed to contradict itself with copyright law (and that the courts have allowed them to avoid a lot of the Copyright Clause in the constitution), but I don’t get how anyone that believes in libraries can think that Napster and the like are illegal. The Constitution says that Congress can define exactly how the “Exclusive right” a copyright holder has can be applied (such as for how long and all that). This “Exclusive right”, as far as books are concerned, only applies to the right to sell, since I can share a book at a library. Isn’t sharing music that same? Selling music copyrighted by others is bad, of course. You have a right to make money off your creations if you want. But the goal of copyright is to increase total wealth of knowledge (though incentive, not just sales, though). Clarifying what “exclusive right” means would do a lot, and this is, I think, the same thesis that the book has. The second is called Empire. It’s getting popular against the “intellectual” types as a “revival of Marxism”, since everyone, especially Fukuyama, believe that socialism has already been tried and failed. It’s interesting, though, as it explains the psychology behind the types of people that hate globalism and all that. One of the writer’s is in prison, which might explain his disdain for current authority, heh.
Anyone else into movie architecture? They need to make a good book about this. Some of the coolest architecture I’ve ever seen has been in movies and videogames. I’m playing Final Fantasy X right now (awesome game) and the architecture is great. Same with the movie “AI”. I love the city Naboo in the new Star Wars movie. How come these types of buildings are never built? I want a house like some of them, heh. So here’s a theory I was thinking of: Know how almost everyone agrees that American architecture is “ugly” (and modern architecture period)? I think the problem is that we’re too spread out. We don’t have to be dense like even small villages in old Europe. Thus, every house is separated. There’s no continuity. Cities should be built as a planned whole, not as organic parts.
MP3 Prime Cut: La Mia Bonna Stella by Mikimix
Our school has a CD library in the library now, and one of the CD’s was this Italian rap track, of all things. It’s pretty good. The guy can flow in Italian, heh. Other good non-English rap: “Sang Fezi” by Wyclef, in French; “Dr. Dodoverde” by Cypress Hill, which is Dr. Greenthumb done in Spanish; and “Die Leute” by Funf Sterne deLuxe, a German group.MP3 Prime Cut Extra: “Jammin’ Units (Dream With Noise Version)” by Global Youth ft/ Jah Meek
Cool d&b/jungle track. Ooh, I’m gonna take it for this one, but try “Maria” by Ricky Martin. It’s a samba track that reminds me “The Cup of Live”.
