Choose the Most Correct Response

My parents had their annual Grandchildren's Day this past weekend. It's nice to see the family, but I feel mostly out of place at these gatherings (I am not a grandchild, nor do I have a child that is a grandchild). Oh well, it's family time, and that is nice. My mom mails us an itinerary each year, with all of our activities (including a slot for "visiting" scheduled). It's kinda funny, I used to make scheduled itineraries like that when I was a kid, if I was especially excited about the events of a particular day. I seem to remember being made fun of because I had scheduled a whole 30 min. just to eat cereal in the morning.

I'll just blame that on the fact that most kids lack a clear concept of time. Otherwise, why would they consistently ask on road trips, "Are we there yet?" again and again, after having been told (likely over and over) how long it would take to get there? Well...I can think of other reasons too.

But while I'm on the subject of concepts that mature with age, I think I'll get into the real topic for today: Free Speech. First off, whenever I come to my parents house, I love to go through old books and papers in the basement. I happened to be intrigued this time by some volumes of a series called Out of the Best Books that used to belong to my Grandma Banks. Each one is a compilation of essays, poems, short stories, etc. for LDS families. Specifically, this series was created for a program of Relief Society cultural refinement back in the 60s. There are six volumes that begin with personal values and self-worth, then move on to marriage and family relationships, and then our role in the community.

In the spirit of Independence Day, I decided to read a section in the fifth volume about Freedom. I was particularly impressed with an essay by Walter Lippmann, "The Indispensable Opposition." His views on the value of opposition are very similar to that of the LDS church. He concludes that opposition is essential in order for us to arrive at the truth of a matter, or to more knowledgeably form our own opinions. I would like to share a paragraph:

"We miss the whole point when we imagine that we tolerate the freedom of our political opponents as we tolerate a howling baby next door, as we put up with the blasts from our neighbor's radio because we are too peaceable to heave a brick through the window. If this were all there is to freedom of opinion, that we are too good-natured or too timid to do anything about our opponents and critics except to let them talk, it would be difficult to say whether we are tolerant because we are magnanimous or because we are lazy, because we have strong principles or because we lack serious convictions, whether we have the hospitality of an inquiring mind or the indifference of an empty mind. And so, if we truly wish to understand why freedom is necessary in a civilized society, we must begin by realizing that, because freedom of discussion improves our own opinions, the liberties of other men are our own vital necessity."

I think I'm probably guilty of missing the point of free speech. There are times when I treat the opinions of others like a game of Monopoly. I graciously wait while each player takes his turn, but am all too anxious for my own turn, so I can bankrupt them all with my newly constructed hotel on Ventnor Avenue. Of course, that didn't end up working the last time I played Monopoly. Well...getting at my point now, the right of free speech is much more than a fair and equal opportunity for everyone to express their own opinions, it is a right to continuously question and investigate what we feel is right, and to act on it.

I mentioned a few months ago that I participated in a panel on campus discussing what educational experiences have been the most valuable to me in school. I spent a bit of time talking about how important my experience in debate class had been. When the class began, I had very fixed opinions about many topics, but through the course of two years in hearing opposing views, arguing opposing views, and researching opposing views, I felt less certain about some issues, and in my opinion, was the better for it.

In a way, my answers to various questions now take on the form of those found in multiple choice questionarres, with the direction: choose the most correct response. Those tests are full of decent answers. The world is full of decent answers. But our freedom of speech goes beyond respect and tolerance, and extends to helping ourselves and others find the most correct answers for our lives. This perspective really does make the concept of free speech much more unifying and liberating to me. Anyhow, the essay is worth reading.

Can You Say, "Revive Nuclear Power"?

Last week the topic of my Science in Society class discussion was, "Is it time to revive nuclear power?" Before I expound on my position, I just want to say that I really love the concept behind this book series from which our professor selected our text book. It's called Taking Sides. It presents opposing viewpoints in all sorts of topics from history, politics, science, and economics. There's 50 of them! However, I'm not sure how optimistic I am about the quality of the content chosen for the compilations. For instance, the YES side for the nuclear power debate is basically just a letter from the head of a nuclear plant facility to the chairman of the Department of Energy for more money and extended liscensure. So...perhaps that's why I didn't find it too compelling. We joked in class that we wanted to compile our own book for the class, and call it Taking Better Sides.

I think that the only arguments that I felt really warranted a renewed look to nuclear power would be the reduction of pollution and greenhouse gas emission to the atmosphere, and a greater variety of fuel sources so that our dependence on natural gas doesn't leave us vulnerable to price spikes (which we are quite familar with). Beyond that...? Do we have anyone that is very informed on nuclear power reading? Care to argue the point? If not, I'll simply direct readers to these enlightening comic books on the subject. ---->

On the NO side, I find myself very concerned about the inevitability of some human error, the transfer and ultimate storage of nuclear waste, and the terrorist threats from reprocessing facilities. While some of the students in my class felt that the example presented about the reactor that exploded in Ukraine decades ago was an isolated incident, and that our safety regulations and staff training are much better now, and in this country, I'm still concerned very concerned about safety issues. The possibilities of catastophes bear enough weight that their slim probabilities don't phase me as a sufficient argument.

The opponent to nuclear power also brought up the fact that dealing with nuclear waste is, at present, an unsuccessful effort. If we can't deal with it now, why add to the problem? A U.S. storage site at Yucca Mountain, for example, is a completely unsuitable place for nuclear waste. First of all, it is in the third highest region in the country for seismic activity. The rock is also extremely porous, so much so that radioactive material from past bomb testing is already reaching the aquifers below. Now, scientists aren't stupid. This was a political decision. I'm convinced that if nuclear power suddenly gains speed, that politcal interests could pose additions threats. Again, this is just another kind of human error.

Also, some of the reprocessing plants for nuclear waste, aimed at recycling it basically, have been postulated to attract terrorists. The waste has plenty of plutonium that can be used for making nuclear weapons. In the 70s, India created its first nuclear weapon this way. This is pretty disturbing. In fact, because the Bush administration was worried about this kind of threat, they invested in a technology that would make this plutonium even more radioactive, to deterr terrorists from attempting to handle it. That disturbs me too. There are just too many dangers here that I don't think we should choose to risk. So, can you say, "Revive nuclear power"? Former President Bush can't ;)

Anyway, while I walked away from these readings very much convinced that nuclear power is not the best answer to the energy crisis...I'm not sure what is. I felt that the con position here would have been even stronger if better alternatives were explored, and not just mentioned. Renewable resources and simply be more prudent in our use of energy were suggested. While I don't have that much confidence in the amount of energy we are currently getting from renewables, I think it is worth a lot of effort and funding to explore. I would love to see solar energy technologies take off.

In other news, I found out that Rocky is doing well. He didn't have to get surgery after all! I'm pretty happy about that. I also wrote a letter to my legislators yesterday in opposition to the 19% budget cuts proposed for higher education in Utah. There is a rally at the capital tomorrow that I wanted to go to, but I've got student teaching applications due this weekend, and I need to get signatures and such for them. I watched four documentaries this week: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Super Size Me, Super High Me, and A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash. Those were interesting. I'll have more to say about at least that first one later on.

Rank the Reprobates

So, I was thinking about this activity that I did in one of my classes last semester where we read a story and ranked the characters from 1-5 as to who we personally thought had the worst moral character. It was so interesting to see the differences in everyone's answers. You can really learn a lot about people's values. Good thing we weren't graded by response, because my ranking was practically the opposite of the instructor's. I'd like to hear what anyone reading thinks. Here's the story:

Once upon a time there lived a girl named Abigail who was in love with a boy named Gregory. Gregory had an unfortunate accident and broke his glasses. Abigail, being a true friend, volunteered to take them to be repaired. But the repair shop was across the river, and during a sudden flood the bridge was washed away. Poor Gregory could see nothing without his glasses, so Abigail was desperate to get across the river to the repair shop. While she was standing forlornly on the bank of the river, clutching the broken glasses in her hands, a boy named Sinbad glided by in a rowboat.

She asked Sinbad if he would take her across. He agreed to do it on condition that while she was having the glasses repaired, she would go to a nearby store and steal a transistor radio that he had been wanting. Abigail refused to do such a thing and went to see a friend named Ivan who had a boat.

When Abigail told Ivan her problem, he said he was too busy to help her out and didn't want to be involved. Abigail, worried about Gregory, and feeling that now she had no other choice, returned to Sinbad and told him she would have to agree to his plan.

When Abigail returned the repaired glasses to Gregory, she told him what she had had to do. Gregory was appalled at what she had done and told her he never wanted to see her again.

Abigail, upset, turned to Slug with her tale of woe. Slug was so sorry for Abigail that he promised her he would get even with Gregory. They went to the school playground where he was playing ball and Abigail watched while Slug beat Gregory up and broke his glasses again.

This is how I responded:

1. Gregory- Surprised? I think telling a friend that you never want to see them again (and meaning it) is horrible. Ironically, without his glasses, he got his wish.
2. Abigail- She'll do anything for love and for revenge. Scary.
3. Sinbad- He preys on the weak and desperate to get what he wants.
4. Ivan- Not a great friend if he doesn't want to be involved with her problem.
5. Slug- He might be further up on the list if he hadn't beaten up the first guy on the list.

Though, it doesn't even really say that Gregory really considers Abigail a friend, or if Abigail always wants a ride on Ivan's boat, or how badly Slug gave Gregory a beating, or if Sinbad needs a transistor radio to help some other unfortunate soul. And I can't do this activity at all keeping in mind that these are children. So, I ignored that point. Anyway, my point is, there are a lot of factors that influence how we judge people (all different), and more importantly a lot of things we don't know altogether.

Science or Bad Science Fiction?

I ran into this list of the top 10 most scientifically inaccurate movies on the Yahoo homepage a while ago, and it was both amusing and thought-provoking. Firstly, these were the movies voted for:

1. Armageddon
2. Independence Day
3. Starship Troopers
4. The Day After Tomorrow
5. The Core
6. The Matrix
7. Jurassic Park
8. Total Recall
9. Outbreak
10. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

For a look at the inaccuracies of each, you can read it for yourself here.

The most humorous to me was the Starship Troopers inaccuracy.

"Could a band of cave-dwelling, preverbal giant insects really have the sophisticated mathematics and technology to hurl a rock millions of miles through space to crash into Earth? Plus, 70% of the planet's surface is covered in water, so they only had a 3 out of 10 chance at even hitting solid ground, let alone a major city like Buenos Aires."

Slim odds. Still, I find it easier to believe than Indiana Jones surviving a nuclear blast completely unharmed. I'm so glad that there are others who won't let that one slide. Too ridiculous. Moreso than mind-controlling alien skulls made out of crystal?! Yes! I have absolutely no problem with wacky alien plot lines. I figure, we can't prove that aliens do or do not exist at all, let alone what their skulls are capable of. That leads me to the Independence Day argument, which was very thought provoking. They mentioned that if a ship that is truly 1/4 the size of the moon were to hover above Washington D.C., the city would have been destroyed by giant tidal waves or earthquakes due to the gravitational force on it.

Hmmm...earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, cities being washed away in the sea? Sound familiar? It's in Revelations, people! And the moon becoming as blood? You know how the moon looks red during a Lunar Eclipse? Let's say that we get a giant spacecraft blocking the sun's rays from reaching the moon instead of the Earth. There you have it, your bloody doomsday moon. Although...that really would require a spaceship that is actually the size of the Earth. It could happen! At least it is more likely than that whole non-lethal nuclear blast nonsense. Of course, my opinion is a little biased. I have actually seen an unidentified flying object before. Right outside my bedroom window, in fact. I'm sure the aliens would have used their superior intellect and technology (a.k.a. magic) to erase this photo from my phone (and the fiery image from my brain!) if they didn't think I'd use it to instill fear in my fellowmen. And so, as not to betray their infallible (a.k.a. vindictive) trust, I say, "Be afraid, be very afraid."

I SEE YOU

Imagine that you are walking the bustling city streets of Manhattan. Usually you tend to ignore the giant billboards, whose bright colors, through over-exposure, have amazingly become as bland as hospital walls to you. But today you pass a digital billboard, with crisp high definition advertisements that seem to change just as someone new passes by. Your interest piqued, you take special notice in walking past it, and see the advertisement suddenly change to one for your favorite restaurant. And the featured image happens to be your favorite dish.

No, that could never happen...really, you might think. In reality, it may actually happen in the not-too-far-distant future. In reality, this technology is underway. In reality, something like it exists today. According to an article in The New York Times, some billboards are being equipped with cameras that are gathering information, about YOU. Okay, perhaps not your thoughts, feelings, and inner-most shames and wishes, but in the very least it is capable of tracking age, gender, physique, and interest in the billboard (by gauging how long you look at it).

The article claims that the makers of these devices are not using actual video recordings, but software that can determine these characteristics of individuals by such sophisticated means as calculating the distance between facial features, among others. At present these measures are designed to distinguish gender, but in the future it may be used to distinguish race as well. If you ask me, I think that this is much creepier than regular ol' video recording. Can you imagine the price of this magic billboard? Though, of course, they are trying not to invade the public's privacy. "Phhfff," I scoff.

And just as the scenario suggests, the goal here is to target the ad specifically to the passers-by. Yeah, and you thought ads at the movies ticked me off. They do. However, this is going too far, to dangerously...dystopian proportions. At least, it would be if the profiling technology could become as accurate as a retinal scan. AND if the advertisements tempted us to our damnation. That is of course if you don't have too much trouble picturing CEOs with pitch forks, horns, and a tail. Hmmm, maybe this IS something to worry about.

Although I hope you've gotten a disturbing glimpse at what advertising has become, you ought to know that I like to be over-dramatic at times, and that I hate marketing. But if you are interested, I suggest you check out the article.

Am I the only one that can hear

the voice of Sauron piercing my brain?

"I SEE YOU!"

No End In Sight

Recently I've become a member of Netflix, and I love the service. In fact, I've actually been renting documentaries lately, as I'm acknowledging a bit of a shift in my interests the last few years. Yes, I like non-fiction, and yeah, documentaries rock. But it's not a very popular genre at the video store or on Redbox.

Anyway, this weekend I got No End In Sight in my mailbox. If you haven't heard about it, it is a documentary featuring clips and interviews with those involved and opposing many courses of action in the war with Iraq. I wish I had seen it sooner, and I wish it had come out sooner, honestly. I knew that things with the war weren't going well, and a lot of suffering on both the part of Iraqies and our soldiers seemed very needless. But, I admit, I didn't know very many details. I admit also that I generally stay away from the news. I had a professor a while ago who kept up very well with what was going on in the world. Each day when I'd come into work, I'd ask how he was. And often he'd say, "Terrible! ___ people died in ____ today." It made me depressed. I didn't want to feel terrible about something I couldn't control.

Anyway, I feel no worse after watching this documentary. Once again, I knew things were bad, I just didn't know details. After watching, I was irrate to discover that so many bad decisions were made by people who did not consult with others, especially those with much more experience in the matters of their decisions. Here's a few things that particularly upset me:

1. The decision to disban the Iraqi military was very arbitrary, unsupported, and the results devastating. Thousands of soldiers no longer had money for their families. You can't really afford to live without money.
2. The Pentagon alone was responsible for post war reconstruction, and none of them really knew what they were doing. They ignored most of the proposed ideas, in several well-prepared volumes, by those who had experience.
3. President Bush did not even read the Executive summary of the report written on the state of the people in Iraq. It was one page long.
4. 18 billion dollars was proposed to help the reconstruction efforts to provide the people of Iraq with food, water, electricity, etc. A year after the proposal only one billion was spent, and very little after that as well.
5. One of the men they interviewed on the street said that things were bad under Saddam, but that things were worse now. Now, that's a comment that ought to put things into perspective!
6. The government knew where a large storage facility of weapons were being kept, but they "didn't have enough men to guard it." In consequence, the opposition in Iraq who were angry with us were able to get a hold of these unguarded weapons. And unfortunately, many US soldiers were killed as a result.
7. Donald Rumsfeld...wow, what an @** ****.

However, the efforts of the mass majority to do what is right in the matter of this war is also very apparent. There are many more people to praise than criticize for certain. However, when the control lies in the hands of those who made mistakes, and these mistakes affected the lives and well being of so many people...one can really only focus on the negative here.

It's a documentary I feel everyone should see. Check out the trailer.

And I will make an effort to keep up with the news now, for crying out loud! Also along these lines, I also apologize to my dad for having made fun of him for only watching C-Span. I'm pretty sure I was watching crap like Saved By the Bell in those days. Wonderfully patient fathers...I love my dad :)