Republicans Reveal Attitude Toward The Future

The rhetoric that accompanied Obama's election included much from the downsized Republicans about looking forward to working with the new president and coming to grips with national problems in the spirit of a fresh start. However, the stimulus package---which may well be too big---has forced the Republicans to declare themselves. We're hearing a lot about wanting more tax cuts---almost exclusively tax cuts---in lieu of spending in the form of direct aid. This is a Republican mantra now. Tax cuts. The question, of course, is really this: what good are tax cuts when you're already buried in debt? Granted, it frees up (theoretically) money for critical and immediate payments, but if the idea is to put people back to work tax cuts are not the solution. Because corporate America is mired in over-leveraged debt burdens that must be paid down before something mundane like hiring can happen. Tax cuts, therefore, won't have any kind of immediate impact on the jobless rate. In time it might, depending on several other factors, the most significant of which would be a newfound corporate sense of ethics which would prevent them from continuing the pillage of their own capital for all the things that have gotten us into this mess in the first place. Labor is at the bottom of the ladder of what they see as important---hence the tongue lashing Obama gave them for paying out bonuses while asking for federal aid. As for working people? What good does a tax cut do someone who isn't paying taxes because he or she has no income? But this was to be expected. It is an attitude born out of the mixed priorities of what has become the Right, one of which is fiscal responsibility (I used to support Republicans on this count) the other of which is the more Libertarian view (borne of the Grover Norquist faction) that government is always the problem and must be pruned back radically. Hence tax cuts, in order to curtail revenues in order to force the government to reduce its size and, one must realize, its influence.

Continue ReadingRepublicans Reveal Attitude Toward The Future

To what extent are homophobic men attracted to other men?

In this age of Ted Haggard, the question is an obvious one: To what extent are homophobic sexually attracted to other men? This January 2009 Scientific American article explores the research regarding these two variables. There appears to be a correlation.

Continue ReadingTo what extent are homophobic men attracted to other men?

The American war against telephone poles

In a short article entitled, “The War on Telephone Poles,” the February 2009 edition of Harper's Magazine includes a fascinating excerpt from an essay by Eula Biss, which was originally titled "Time and Distance Overcome” as it appeared in the Spring issue of Iowa Review. Biss's article is a terrific example of the human tendency to resist long-range change that would substantially improve the community as a whole. As she clearly documents in her essay, many people ferociously opposed the erection of telephone poles back in the 1880’s. Whatever their stated reasons (aesthetics and defense of private property were often argued), the real reasons for resisting telephone poles were timeless: fear of change combined with a warped sense of the importance the individual in relation to his or her community. The Biss essay reminds us that Americans have long been quite capable of harpooning critical community-building endeavors in the name of individual freedom. We don’t fight telephone poles anymore, but this destructive tendency is one we still see in modern day America. Only a small bit of Biss's essay is available online. The basic idea presented by her essay is that in the 1880s, numerous people (including elected officials and newspapers) ferociously opposed the erection of telephone poles. They argued that telephone poles were ugly. They characterized telephones to be considered playthings of the rich.

Continue ReadingThe American war against telephone poles

Should we slap warning stickers on our friends to avoid picking up their bad habits?

It seems to me that people who are obese seem to spend lots of time around with other people who are obese. Smokers tend to pal around with other smokers. This raises an important question: Do friends cause each other to pick up bad habits? Not that I’m claiming it to be intentional, but do people pass bad habits to their friends through some form of social osmosis? Allow me to begin with a story that embarrasses me. When I was 18, I met a guy named “Ray” who was smart, funny and an accomplished athlete. Ray also had a noticeable tic . He sporadically jerked his head whenever he talked with others—he did this several times per minute. I spent some time with Ray while visiting my then-girlfriend at college back in the 70's. After a few days up at her college, I noticed that I was starting to exhibit the same tic. I can assure you that I didn’t do this intentionally. When I noticed the problem I consciously forced myself to stop doing it, lest it became an ingrained habit. Did Ray’s bad habit cause me to pick up my new bad habit? Based on the timing, there’s not much doubt in my mind. Similarly, I’ve noticed that when I like someone and I’ve spent considerable time with them, I sometimes start talking like them, picking up their dialect, their expressions, their gestures and their vocabulary; the clues are usually subtle but often undeniable. I’ve caught myself doing this dozens of times over my life.

Continue ReadingShould we slap warning stickers on our friends to avoid picking up their bad habits?

"To restore science to its rightful place"

It's not that I'm infatuated with the words of Potus44, but Barack Obama's inaugural address (that I've already addressed) hit quite a few notable notes. One of which was the promise to "restore science to its rightful place". He also said,

"Promoting science isn't just about providing Resources-it's about protecting free and open inquiry... It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient - especially when it's inconvenient.

That's a breath of fresh air, indeed. But the real question and challenge will be: What exactly is this Rightful Place? The previous administration acted as though they believed that science belongs after political expedience and the Bible, not necessarily in that order. They fired or censored anyone whose carefully calculated conclusions disagreed with their prejudged opinions. It will be a long time cleaning up the resulting mess. Mike the Mad Biologist posted: To Restore Science to Its Rightful Place, We Need to Redefine Elitism. In brief, science is not easy to follow once you reach the discoveries of The Enlightenment and beyond. It takes a certain amount of education and dedication to know good science from pseudoscience. And this is anathema to American principle of Democratic Populism, the idea that all men are not only "created equal", but are in fact equal.

Continue Reading"To restore science to its rightful place"