Politics, Religion, Sexuality, and Other Trivia

Special rights for heterosexual service members

2010-02-23T19:35:00.000-08:00

Many people lament the injustice of special rights that are given to minorities by Hate Crimes bills and non-discrimination policies. Minorities need to instead toughen up, suck it up (except in the sexual sense), and be man enough to tolerate the "insults" -- harmless comments meant purely in jest, in the spirit of mutual cultural understanding -- issued to them; these little "offensive remarks" are, after all, a fact of life, and anyway insignificant. Any attempt to prevent their expression would be coddling the victims and denying Constitutional rights to the perpetrators.

Interestingly, many of these same concerned citizens also are furious about the possible ending to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, for it would subject heterosexual service members to insufferable and de-humanizing agony -- the sudden onslaught of passing glances and lewd remarks (that is standard fare for women to receive from heterosexual men) from homosexuals in the locker room would suddenly deplete our soldiers of their morale, their will to succeed on the battlefield, their moral compass, and their patriotism. We must protect these poor straight soldiers because they might die if somebody checks out their ass.

The Federal Budget: Taxes Minus Expenditures

2010-02-01T13:31:00.000-08:00

Balancing the budget is a worthy cause. Republicans always stress the importance of fiscal conservatism, even when they often don't practice what they preach. Most troublingly and frustrating is the apparent oblivion on the part of many conservatives to the fact that the federal budget is determined by the total inflow of money (i.e., raised through taxes) minus the total outflow of money (i.e., spent on government programs like national defense, entitlements, education, and more).

Obviously, cutting expenditures will decrease the national debt. But just as obviously, cutting taxes will increase the national debt. There is nothing deep to this, nothing that should elude a fifth-grade understanding of mathematics or accounting. And yet it does: Today, Republican minority whip Eric Cantor said that Obama's budget "creates the largest deficits in history and imposes the largest tax increases in history -- at a time when our country can least afford it."

If you want to decrease the budget deficit, you might try not cutting taxes.

Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue"

2010-01-25T21:29:00.001-08:00

I've read Sarah Palin's book Going Rogue. To be honest, I have gained a slightly greater respect for her than I had before. Here are a few things for which I give her credit:

She grew up in a truly middle-class American family and became governor, the highest public office a state can have.
At least according to the account in her book, she managed to break an oil exploration deadlock due to corporate mismanagement and corruption, and even helped send some corrupt oil execs to prison.
The media gave her an unnecessarily nasty time after the failed 2008 RNC bid for president.

However, there also are numerous parts of the book -- and by implication her political views and world outlook -- that are awful. Here are the most annoying ones:

Same-sex marriage: She explains how she grudgingly granted health benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. The legislation was against it, but since the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in favor, Palin had to comply with the Court. Palin apologizes for her compliance in her book. I can almost see how someone could grudgingly oppose giving benefits to same-sex partners, maybe because they have a conservative view of marriage but otherwise think homosexuals are ok, but to grudgingly grant these rights is just annoying. (Page 143.)
Parental notification of abortion: Palin explains how appalled she was that, when her son was hospitalized, he could not even receive a glass of water without parental support. This incident "renewed [her] commitment to help change Alaska's parental notification law so that our daughters would have the same support and protection we give to our children in other medical situations." This argument misses the entire point of non-disclosure to parents. The point of not notifying the parents is to protect children both from unclean, illegal abortions and parents who might physically or psychologically harm the child for becoming pregnant. Obviously, if the child wants to tell her parents, the abortion non-disclosure laws will not prohibit that. Welcome to the real world, Sarah. (Page 169.)
Joining the military: Palin idealizes the military and is oblivious to the economic hardships that force young people in the USA to join it. People in the military "have a special quality that gives them a sense of honor and selfless duty. What else explains their choice, amidst so many other possibilities, to serve in the U.S. military?" Umm, maybe they had no other job options, no prospects for education, no health care, and no money? The members of our military deserve sincere respect for their real sacrifice. But they also should have the real option of not joining in the first place. (Page 181.)
Bad treatment by McCain staffers: Palin bitches about how badly she was treated by the McCain campaign staffers -- how little freedom she had to say what she personally wanted, and how she didn't like having to obey "headquarters"' orders. Welcome to the world of presidential politics, Sarah. If you didn't want to abide by the McCain Campaign's rules, you made the wrong decision when you said "yes" to run. (All over the book.)
TrigGate: Palin gripes about the "Trig Truthers" -- people who disputed that she was the true mother of Trig, her youngest son. This is just mildly ironic considering how she has labeled as legitimate the ridiculous Birthers' movement -- people who dispute Obama's natural American citizenship. (Page 347.)
The left-wing media conspiracy: She complains about the left-wing media, and how they concentrated on bogus Alaska ethics violations she insists she did not commit. Does the "Swift Boat" scandal ring a bell, when John Kerry's military career was decimated using complete nonsense as "facts". The left-wing has no monopoly on far-fetched accusations, Sarah.
The role of government: Palin complains how the Democrats will suffocate the economy by dictating to small businesses what they should do. In particular, Congress is dictating "your source of energy generation, and what kind of health insurance you must offer." Umm, yes, hopefully, they are. I do care that businesses cannot just choose the cheapest form of power generation -- e.g., coal -- and pollute the environment with it with no concern for fellow citizens. Believe it or not Sarah, businesses are driven by profit (and there's nothing sinister to this), not altruism, and government serves to make sure the business' interest does not infringe on other people's interests. Moreover, since employment is the only means through which most people can affordably receive decent health insurance in our country, I damn well want the government to tell my company that they have to offer reasonable benefits to its employees. (Page 358.)

Censorship on Al Jazeera

2010-01-03T22:34:00.000-08:00

AlJazeera.com allows readers to post comments at the bottom of their news stories, as do most other news sites these days. Today, when I attempted to enter what I thought was a perfectly valid comment, I discovered that they heavily censor any comments that users enter. In particular:

There can be no mentioning of religion.
There can be no mentioning of sexuality.
There can be no racism (understandable, though I imagine this amounts to prohibition of discussion of race in general).
There can be no misspelled words, presumably to prevent people from easily circumventing the above points, which people do anyway by assembling valid, non-forbidden words in creative ways, e.g., Islam = Is Lawn.

Below is an example of the kind of censorship they impose. Read the section about "Do NOT use special characters", etc.

Watching the "new"s

2010-01-01T11:36:00.001-08:00

It occurred to me today that, very often, the reason I read content from news sites, pundits' blogs, and even Wikipedia is not to broaden my perspective, but rather to deepen a belief I already hold. It would be nice to think I always use information to refine, change, or even abandon my existing beliefs under the guiding principle of rationality -- and indeed I do do this sometimes -- but while reading I also often (perhaps unconsciously, perhaps not) find a particular interpretation to support the perspective I already hold. Hence, the information does not serve as a "check" on the conviction of my beliefs, but rather only strengthens it.

Inability to verify anything

The phenomenon I described above is made all the more severe due to the crippling inability on my part (and anyone else's part) to personally and completely verify anything that anyone tells me that I did not personally witness. One news site says an event was caused by X; another news site it was caused by Y. One website says X happened; another website says Y happened. One website says X was the main tragedy; another website says Y was much more important or prevalent. Each side X warns its readership not to believe the propaganda of side Y.

I read a fair number of different news sources (CNN, NPR, Fox, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Mail & Guardian (South Africa), Al Jazeera), but I'm still not satisfied I know what the hell is really happening anywhere in the world.

Math notation in school

2009-12-01T23:09:00.000-08:00

While tutoring pre-algebra today it occurred to me that many school kids may be confused by the notation used in mathematics more than by the underlying mathematical concepts. Correspondingly, I'm wondering whether undue emphasis is being placed on the operational aspects of mathematics (how to manipulate mathematical expressions) and too little on the semantics (what the expressions mean).

As an example, today in math class we were practicing how to manipulate exponents, e.g.:

The rule says, "if you multiply two numbers with the same base, add the exponents."

On the other hand:

because of the rule, "if you raise a number raised to a power to another power, you multiply the two powers."

From my interactions with my students, I had the impression that the students were executing the rules blindly, with no understanding of why they were correct. Didactically I found it helpful (and hopefully they did too) to expand the powers of x:

so that the "addition" rule of exponents emerges naturally.

Room for Improvement

I'm imagining a different way (from what I'm used to) of teaching what exponents are: First off, the reason why you would ever multiply a number by itself should be exemplified clearly (I'll sweep this issue under the rug for now). Second, start multiplying several variables by themselves many times, e.g.,

Then say, "instead of having to write out all these x's, let's create a 'shortcut': when I write x^4, this means xxxx." (The carat ^ symbol was used in place of superposition because the Blogger doesn't allow it; sorry.)

The idea here is to make the students feel the pain of not having the notation - it takes too long to write. Then, show them the shortcut notation and how it saves them time and effort. I think this might help make the computation that is based on the notation (e.g., add the exponents) seem less arbitrary when it's taught.

Comment on Devine's warning of "permanent injury" when youth embrace their homosexuality

2009-11-28T10:50:00.000-08:00

Philosophy professor Philip Devine of Providence College wrote a book called The New Fuzziness (pp. 85-86):

Rorty's habit of announcing himself persuaded, without citing an argument, is also a political liability. One issue on which Rorty exhibits this trait is of special interest to educators. Adolescent sexuality is frequently unformed, and many adult heterosexuals have homosexual episodes in their past. Hence some parents are likely to fear that some educators will encourage young people involved in homosexual relationships (or even undergoing homosexual feelings) to label themselves as homosexual, to their permanent injury. Without so much as a hint of an argument, Rorty accepts Eve Klossofsky Sedgwick's inflammatory description of policies designed, well or badly, to prevent such counseling as "child abuse" (PP 2:138). In an area of life where strong feelings abound, the attempt to override some of them requires claims on behalf of reason that he neither makes nor is in any position to make.

The book as a whole actually looked quite interesting, but this particular paragraph I found irritating and somewhat offensive for a couple of reasons:

First, and most technically, I find it hypocritical for Devine to criticize Rorty for making claims "without so much as a hint of an argument," when Devine himself claims that "adolescent sexuality is frequently unformed" without providing any evidence supporting this claim.

Second, and more substantively, Devine implies that a teenager who labels himself as gay is inflicting "permanent injury" on himself. I have several problems with this claim: In my assessment, what people really mean when they say such things is that, if you're gay, then you're going to die of AIDS. Now, there is an undeniably strong statistical correlation between (male) homosexuality and AIDS, but to say that coming out as gay dooms you to a horrible death caused by AIDS is ridiculous given that the disease is highly (nearly completely) preventable. Other legitimately cited problems with modern gayness include drug use and promiscuity-induced sexually transmitted infections. Though there may be a statistical correlation (perhaps even a strong one) of these problems with homosexuality, there is nothing causal in the relationship, and I can only believe that greater societal acceptance of gays -- fostered by encouraging young people to accept their sexuality even when it disagrees with the norm -- will tend to decrease the problems associated with it.

The last possible source of "permanent injury" that I can imagine is the ridicule one risks when coming out. But to attack Rorty for encouraging young people to accept their sexuality for this reason is even more ridiculous because obviously by encouraging young people to accept their own, and others', homosexuality and other forms of non-heterosexuality, this form of "permanent injury" will be reduced and, hopefully, gradually eliminated entirely.

What I find most frustrating about Devine's paragraph, however, is the complete omission from consideration of the negative effects of not encouraging young people to accept their natural sexuality, i.e., telling our youth that they should really try to be straight. From first-hand experience I can say that trying to play the heterosexual role when it is not one's innate predisposition is harmful. In some cases, the injury may even be permanent.

Anti-gay rhetoric in the UCSD locker room

2009-11-28T10:45:00.000-08:00

From: Jacob Whitehill, Graduate Student, Computer Science & Engineering, UCSD.

Title: "No, it's not ok to ridicule fags"

Dear Editor [of UCSD Guardian],

I consider it an achievement of America today that it is generally considered unacceptable to maliciously ridicule or intimidate an entire ethnicity in public. Expressing disgust of gays, on the other hand, is merely considered "controversial"; though it may (rarely) raise an eyebrow, it will almost never trigger anyone to object to the speaker's message.

This evening at the RIMAC gym, while changing my clothes in the Men's Locker Room after working out, I overheard a rowdy group of 3-4 guys in the aisle next to me talking. At some point their conversation went as follows:

Person 1: "... is a homo."

Person 2: "Hey, what you got against gay people?" (apparently setting up the joke)

Person 1: "A lot! Hahahah!..." (punchline). Malicious laughter ensues.

To these dear gentlemen:

As perverted, aberrant, and pansy you may think us to be, no, you still can't use homophobic speech in public. Not in general society, and especially not at UCSD. If you replace the word "homo" with any racial epithet, I'm confident that even you would find it unacceptable to make that same joke.

Sincerely,

Jacob Whitehill

Grad student

PS: slamming the lockers unnecessarily is annoying as well.