Calling for a new kind of "Fair and Balanced" reporting

Gregg Easterbrook had an interesting opinion piece in the June 13 WSJ: "Life is Good, So Why Do We Feel So Bad?". He details the various measures according to which life as improved, on average, for a large number of people. He admits areas of life on Earth where there are negative trends, but then asks why the overwhelmingly bad attitude of so many people, the doom-and-gloom reports that we all get at almost every turn, on almost every issue. He describes many of the reasons, before hitting on what I think is the biggest one, the ways news gets reported:

Whatever goes wrong in the country or around the world is telecast 24/7, making us think the world is falling to pieces – even when most things are getting better for most people, even in developing nations. If a factory closes, that's news. If a factory opens, that's not a story. You've heard about the factories Ford and General Motors have closed in this decade. Have you heard about the factories Toyota, Honda and other automakers opened in the U.S. in the same period? The jobs there have solid, long-term prospects.

The relentlessly negative impressions of American life presented by the media, including the entertainment media, explain something otherwise puzzling that shows up in psychological data. When asked about the country's economy, schools, health care or community spirit, Americans tell pollsters the situation is dreadful. But when asked about their own jobs, schools, doctors and communities, people tell pollsters the situation is good. Our impressions of ourselves and our neighbors come from personal experience. Our impressions of the nation as a whole come from the media and from political blather, which both exaggerate the negative.

The latter has never been thicker. Democrats insist Republicans are ruining domestic policy, Republicans insist Democrats are ruining foreign policy. Neither claim is true, but both reflect what we've been conditioned to believe: that America is in much worse circumstances than it actually is.

I really wish this issue would get raised more often. The only time I regularly hear it raised is on Fox News (or other right-leaning news outlets) when they talk about how "good news" stories out of Iraq are being ignored. That is fine, but the issue is far broader than just Iraq. The example given above is a good one: large layoffs are reported on, time and again, but incremental -- or even sudden -- increases in employment by a company are rarely mentioned. Or consider all the news about other negatives in our everyday lives: high gas prices, high food prices, high health care costs, crimes of various kinds, forest fires in California, massive natural disasters in Asia, and on an on.

With apologies to Fox News, wouldn't it be nice if we could get a new kind of "Fair and Balanced" in our news each night (and in newspapers, etc.)? Instead of 95% (my rough estimate) of the news being either negative or trivial/humorous, how about reporting regularly on truly good, life-affirming developments? And I don't mean altruistic, self-sacrifice stories -- those do get covered in various ways, in special news shows and so on. Rather, I mean things like how new inventions save us time and money, or how much value people get from various aspects of the Internet, or how good decisions made by CEOs and other business leaders have led to benefits for employees and stockholders, or how people in the US and some other countries are improving their lives because of the freedoms they have to make a life for themselves. The possible stories here are infinite... alas, I don't predict it will happen anytime soon.

Must Read: Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Speaking of books that changed my life (see my previous post)... I just finished reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book, Infidel. This book is one of the best, most interesting, and most important books I've ever read. (To read an overview of the book, see the Infidel page at the AEI site.)

If you are like I was until about a month ago, then you have perhaps heard of her (from the news several years ago) or of this book (it is a NYT bestseller). You have likely heard of Theo Van Gogh, perhaps only because he was murdeed by an Islamist in The Netherlands (after he and Ayaan created a movie critical of Islam's treatment of women in many countries and cultures). If you are like I was, then that is about all you know about her (which says something negative about the news media in this country!).

That said, rarely has a book impacted me in the way this book has. In fact, I had some trouble composing this blog posting -- as it seems no words describing this book, or Ayaan as a person -- will be sufficient. Simply stated, she is a heroine of the rational mind, of liberty, and of women's rights. Indeed, on that last point, while reading this book I found myself many times thinking: "If Ayaan Hirsi Ali continues her current work, then she should go down in history as one of the most important advocates for women's rights."

I strongly urge my friends reading this blog posting to go out and read (or listen to the audio version) this book, Infidel. If you are like me, you have a long list of books -- or a stack of books already purchased -- that are waiting for your time. I understand that. After you finish the book(s) you are already reading, I just urge you to read Infidel next.

This book was extremely educational for me -- it gives a first-person perspective, with many concretes, etc., that you just don't get from newspaper or TV news stories about the "war on terror", "Islamic radicals", and so on.

In reading this book, I found myself pausing every few pages to reflect on what I just read. At times I was shocked with horror; at other times I smiled as I learned of Ayaan's courage and followed her mental development. The writing style of this book is easy to read, but on a more substantive level, this book is both an easy and difficult book to read.

I want to thank Ayaan for this book and for her ongoing work (I look forward to reading her online articles), and my way of doing so is by writing this blog post, and sending out emails to friends, to encourage more people to read her book.

I could go on an on. Please, when you do read this book (notice I didn't say "if"), I hope you'll email me or blog about it -- as I'm interested in the reactions of friends to it, especially if they picked it up based in part on my recommendation and urging.

For more info on Ayaan Hirsi Ali, here are some good links to get you started:

• Ayaan's page at AEI - Includes links to her latest writings, events, etc.


• A good overview of Infidel - provided at the AEI site


• A good review of Infidel - by Gina Ligget, published in the March issue of American Atheist (thanks to NoodleFood, where Ligget is a blogger, for providing access)


• Ayaan speaking - A one-hour AEI event from Feb. 2007, first half her speaking, second half is Q&A (though when I tried the video version, I didn't get an audio -- so I only heard it as MP3 audio).


• Wikipedia for Ayaan Hirsi Ali - for general background, and also many links to interviews with her

LifeHacker: Books that Changed Your Lives

Over at LifeHacker (a really cool site, btw, that promotes improving personal productivity and "getting things done"), they did a poll: Books that Changed Your Lives. The results are in, and first place not surprising goes to the Bible, with 25 votes. But also not surprisingly -- at least not to me -- is Ayn Rand novels coming in second with a total of 23 votes (The Fountainhead 11, Atlas Shrugged 8, and Anthem 4).

This is not surprising for a few reasons. For one, her works are very influential and are often discovered by people in the late teens or during college, when many people are looking for things to "change their life". Also, this kind of poll result is quite common in America: The Bible comes in first place, and Rand's works come in second or in the top five somewhere. This famously happened in the early 1990s for instance, in a Library of Congress survey.

Those that really know me know that Rand's works would get my vote for such a poll question, so I'm pleased whenever I see her books rank highly like this.

Late again, but I'm now on Facebook

As I've said before, I am often late to the latest popular things. I was late to switch from VHS to DVD, late to get an iPod, late to blogging, and I still don't use a cell phone much at all. Adding to this list... Facebook. I've been meaning to get myself included at Facebook for a long time now, and last week I finally did it. It will take me some time to fill out my profile to my satisfaction, and to explore the many wonderful apps and widgets one can add. I'm having fun with it so far.

I've of course been on the more professionally-oriented social networking site LinkedIn, for quite a long time. But that is to be expected since I'm 34 years old, not 16 or 22.

Best Sidekicks

The March issue of Wired had a brief writeup of the Best Sidekicks of all time. Pretty good list!

On Manga

There are lots of things that I am behind the times on. Like Manga for instance. I've not gotten into these Japanese comic-style books, but I see now that they have become quite popular even here in the US. The November issue of Wired had an enlightening cover story about Manga, Japan, Ink: Inside the Manga Industrial Complex. And see also their sample Manga in that issue, which describes exactly what its title says it will: How Manga Conquired the US, a Graphic Guide to Japan's Coolest Export (as in Manga style, it is read from back to front and from right to left).

If you are like me, then you have been clueless about the rise of Manga in the US. So... next time you are at your local book megastore like Barnes and Noble or Borders, seek out the Manga section. Yes indeed, it is a top-level shelving category. The size of the Manga section will vary depending on the size of the store, but at the largest B&N branches it can be over ten bookcases of four shelves each! Quite popular it seems!

CHE Highlights

I've been getting caught up recently on The Chronicle of Higher Education from the past couple of months. Here are some items I found interesting for various reasons... worth a read if you have an interest in any of these topics (some require subscription to access directly at CHE's site, so I'll try to provide links to free versions online):

"Don't Require Colleges to Spend More of Their Endowments", an 11/9 opinion piece that responds to the 11/2 cover news story. Many good points are made about legal and other technical hurdles to government proposals to force Harvard or others with huge endowments to spend more of that money sooner. Nor is it likely that a group of government bureaucrats will know best how and when such funds should be spent. However, the biggest question isn't raised: why should government be telling colleges how to spend their endowments? This is not a proper use of government force! This essential moral point is, as usual in such situations, not brought up. Otherwise, this is a good opinion piece though.

"Are Sacred Texts Sacred? The Challenge for Atheists", a 9/21 piece by Carlin Romano. Lots interesting stuff here, including much that should give bible literalists pause to say the least. But I agree with the Letter to the Editor in the 10/12 edition, from John T. Goldthwait (Prof. Emeritus of philosophy at SUNY, Plattsburgh), that Romano "gets the rules of the debate wrong". Romano's conclusion and suggestion is that Atheists should be polite to believers, and that is fine as far as it goes -- but it doesn't go very far. No need for an atheist to go out of his way to cruelly attack believers and the texts they call sacred -- but that doesn't mean that critics (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al.) of religions and their texts can't go on the offensive in books or articles they write. Believers aren't forced to buy those books or read those articles if they will find them offensive. Here is part of Goldthwait's letter on this matter:

Romano writes, "That behooves atheists, then, to have a clear definition of the sacred... and also a clear definition of text or book." But it is not up to the atheist to supply those definitions. The believer is the one who has claimed that a text -- some version of either the Old Testament, the New Testament, or the Koran -- is a sacred text and a source of revealed religion. That is what needs proving... Romano suggests characteristics for a sacred text. However, he assumes that there are such things as sacred texts... If there isn't any God, what becomes of a text whose alleged value is that it relates to God? The believer has the responsibility to establish the meaningfulness of his claim by establishing the existence of the referent of this explanatory term. If he cannot thus support his claims, we do not owe him our attention. Romano has not put before us a serious challenge, but merely a nice lesson in politeness.

Agreed. I look forward to writing some further thoughts on concepts like "sacred" in the future, but for now, I'll let this go.

The Intellectual Responsibility of Educators. In this brief "On the Contrary" piece, David Horowitz takes on the issue of indoctrination in the classroom, and is critical of the new report "Freedom in the Classroom" from American Association of University Professors.

Veiled Politics, by Joan Wallach Scott (11/23). Some interesting background on an issue (Islamic women, the veil, and rights) that is big in Europe, but that we don't hear as much about as a major political issue here in the USA.

The Two Faces of Al-Qaeda, by Raymond Ibrahim (9/21). The author makes clear the two types of messages that Al-Qaeda leaders send, and the importance of the message intended for their own followers and would-be recruits (the radical, theological message and the anti-Western civilization message) as opposed to what is intended for Western readers (criticism of USA foreign policy, etc.).

Rigid Scholarship on Male Sexuality, by Camille Paglia (9/21). Though I'm usually only in partial agreement with her views, Paglia is one of those authors that I always find interesting to read (like Christopher Hitchens). This review of three related books on male sexuality didn't disappoint. I haven't read any of these books, so I can't say whether her analysis of them is on-target or not. But I did like her taking one of them to task for postmodernist jargon, fashionable namedropping, and making leftist-academic assumptions common in so many social science and humanities departments these days -- I trust Paglia's opinions on that issue, bigtime.

The Choc Doc, by Piper Fogg (9/14, Academic Life). An interesting article about Patrick Fields, a professor who studies and teaches about the history and culture of chocolate. Fields treats chocolate as seriously as many people treat wine.

Saudi Arabia Puts Its Billions Behind Western-Style Higher Education, by Zvika Krieger (9/14). This article gives a lot of info on the increased funding of higher ed in Saudia Arabia, including the creation of the first co-ed institution in the country, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology. While there are many good signs here, I consider the prospects for real success to be quite poor. The goal is to create a highly educated workforce, and more importantly, to create critical thinkers, creative thinkers, and entrepreneurs. That seems pretty unlikely, given the repressive and restrictive culture of Saudi Arabia (mostly because of its brand of Islam). Consider another university that is getting a lot of funding right now, in the hopes of reaching those goals:

Alfaisal [University] will also be coeducational, a big improvement for female
students, many of whom are taught by men through closed-circuit television at the country's women's colleges. Unlike at King Abdullah University, though, men and women will not be allowed to interact, in accordance with the country's legally mandated gender segregation. The university will have split-level classrooms, where women attend the same lectures as men but from balconies surrounded by one-way glass. An underground entrance for women — dropped off by their drivers — will lead directly to stairwells, elevators, and floors strictly segregated by gender. But since even those accommodations would raise many eyebrows in Saudi Arabia, Alfaisal is starting with male students only to gain social credibility first. "Philosophically, I would like to see women from Day 1, but the reality is difficult," Mr. Goodridge says. "We're probably a little ahead of where they're going."

Wow. They are going ridiculous lengths they are going to segregate the education of women from that of men. And that is just one example of why I just don't see how "throwing money at the problem" is really going to lead to major success. Consider this other blurb about Saudi Arabian culture:

But the country is a tough sell: Most public entertainment is prohibited (there are no movie theaters, for instance), alcohol is banned, and women must cover themselves almost completely in public and are not allowed to drive.

I have to agree with the Letter to the Editor from Ayesha Razzaque in the 10/12 issue -- it seems unlikely that we'll see major success in Saudi Arabia until significant cultural changes occur. A huge amount of educational content won't be taught, even at these new "liberal" schools, either because of outright bans or because of fear that the professor would get in trouble for even broaching the subject. How is free thought, critical thinking, creative thinking, and so on ever going to flourish in such a climate?

Few Things Annoy Me More Than Che T-Shirts

Not a lot of things really annoy or upset me in life. In fact, my personality is such that I often laugh at things that most others would never laugh at -- serious, horrible, bad things, which I agree are serious, horrible, and bad, but that are also so ludicrous that my initial reaction is just to scoff and laugh at them. I'm one of the few people I know who have that as a personality trait -- and for many people, it can confuse them at times.

But there are a few things that I don't react that way to, a few things that just immediately annoy, upset, or anger me. Any everyday object that has Che Guevara's image on it -- you know the one, the sillohuette-style image that is a modified version of Alberto Korda's famous photograph -- is one of these things for me. You see this image everywhere: most of all on T-Shirts and other clothing, but also on posters, coffee-mugs... just about common items that can have symbols or images applied to them.

When I see a young kid with a Che Guevara t-shirt, I just think: "You ignorant kid, don't you know what Che did, how many people he murdered and ordered to be murdered? Don't you realize what he truly stood for? Don't you realize the horrible, long-lasting, anti-democratic and anti-growth effect that the reverance for this man has had for the people of Latin America? Educate yourself and throw away that T-Shirt!"

For any adult of 30 years or older, especially anyone 50 years or older, that I see with Che-garb, the thoughts in my head are much stronger than just "you ignorant person". A couple of times I've almost struck up accusatory conversations with complete strangers over this issue -- something quite out of character for me.

What prompted this post today? Two short items in the October 13 issue of The Economist that I've finally gotten around to reading. First is the editorial "A Modern Saint and Sinner: Why the Che Myth is Bad for the Left" and then the short article about Venezuela's new education reforms that enforce socialist/communist ideological indoctrination (including a reverance for Che).

The Amazing Randi on YouTube

I was recently poking around YouTube and found the many great James Randi video clips where he debunks and shows to be frauds various supposed psychics and other mystics. Here are some worth seeing:

• James Randi exposes Uri Geller and Peter Popoff - I esp. love how Randi used radio equipment to expose the religious faith-healer Popoff as a fraud, and that Popoff then went into bankruptcy... alas, Popoff is back to his con-man ways, see below for the latest.
• James Randi exposes James Hydrick - this is classic... what a clown Hydrick looks like in his outfit, and then with his claims about why he can't perform during the test.
• James Randi explains Homeopathy - this stuff is such nonsense. So many believers in its effectiveness are so deluded. Placebo effect, anyone?
• James Randi on Astrology - short, but effective, refutation of astrology (as if it needs refuting, LOL)
• James Randi and a Medium - Randi manages to make some very important points in the Q&A in this one.
• Peter Popoff vs. James Randi 2007 - from Inside Edition. This covers his latest con, the Miracle Water nonsense. A great exposing of this criminal con-man! This one is the best of this group... if you just watch one of these, WATCH THIS ONE!

Genericized Brands or Trademarks

I recently tried to think of as many genericized brands/trademarks as I could (don't ask why, I forget now how it came up). It was an interesting exercise, and I was able to conjure up quite a few -- and after inquiring with some folks, I got a few more.

Having your brand or trademark become genericized is, of course, a double-edged sword. While it means your brand name is used all the more often in the languages in which it has been genericized, it also means it will be used to describe products from competitors, some of which might be substandard in various ways. At that point, a company's ability to differentiate their popular product or service is decreased. No doubt there has been plenty written about this phenomenon, by marketing experts or others, so I won't say anything more about it here (I suspect it gets covered, for instance, in the book Brand Aid).

Anyway, here is the list I came up with... the most obvious ones coming first:

• Kleenex
• Xerox
• Band Aid
• Q-tip
• Walkman
• Rollerblade
• Scotch tape
• Popsicle
• Post-It Note
• Velcro
• Listerine
• Frisbee
• Aspirin (coined by Bayer I think, trademarked in some countries)
• Tupperware

Then some that have been somewhat genericized in my opinion:

• Kodak -- was genericized in the past, when it was dominant in cameras
• Alka-Seltzer?
• Frigidaire in the past perhaps? I've heard people say this name as a generic term, in moments of nostalgia perhaps?
• Davenport -- I think that was once a brand name, or named for an inventor.
• Crisco?

I've read some articles in recent years about the name "Google" becoming genericized, and I've experienced that first hand as people say they will "google" something and then proceed to use Yahoo! or some other search site. I've also heard speculation that "iPod" might become genericized, but I don't think it has happened yet, as people who have non-iPod brand MP3 players tend to say that they have an "MP3 Player" not an "iPod".

And I'll also note that I've heard that in some countries "Coke" is genericized to mean any soda-pop beverage, or at least any dark-colored carbonated beverage. Is this true anywhere in the US? Or just other countries? To me, this is very strange. When folks sit in a restaurant and are asked what they'd like to drink, they say "a Coke", and the waitress then says "what flavor Coke? we have cola, root beer, or Dr. Pepper?" That would just seem very odd to me. For me, if I ask for a Coke at a restaurant, I expect to either get a Coke, or learn that they don't carry Coke, but do carry Pepsi. I don't expect to be asked if I want a root beer? And is this usage restricted to dark-colored beverages, or might one get a Sprite or ginger ale when they ask for a coke?

After some research, I found that besides "genericized brand", this type of word usage is one form of what is called a synecdoche (although the wikipedia entry for this seems to cover several different things, each of which could have its own term I would think, so I wonder if these are really all called "synecdoches").

Naturally, there is a Wikipedia entry for Genericization. And linked from there is a long list of such trademark names. I should have thought of a few included there, like chap stick, linoleum, thermos, and zipper. And if check it out, be sure to scroll down to see the much longer list of terms that are still trademarked but that might one day become so genericized that the trademarks would be difficult to enforce. And also interesting are the lists of genericized trademarks in languages other than English. And for a non-Wikipedia list, here is one for American terms.

120-Man Row Boats

My friend and colleague Basia, who continues her superb blogging from Chennai, India, has reported on an incredible boat race. Would you believe row boats with 120 men? Take a look at her amazing photos!

Wafa Sultan's 2006 Al-Jezeera Appearance

For some reason I thought I had blogged about this last year, but after doing a search of my blog it seems I didn't. So this isn't new material, just a late posting about something that I found amazing to watch.

In February 2006 Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American (Syrian-born) Psychiatrist, made this appearance on Al-Jezeera. Her thesis is that it is wrong to claim that we face a "clash of civilizations", but rather a clash between the mentality of the middle ages and that of the 21st century. She is extremely articulate and forceful in this speech.

For more information about her, see the Wafa Sultan entry at Wikipedia (with of course the necessary caveats about potential errors in Wikipedia content, esp. a controversial figure like Sultan). She seems to be a very courageous person!

Images of America from Arcadia Publishing

I wanted to give readers a brief recommendation of a paperback book series from Arcadia Publishing, which describes itself as "the leading local history publisher in the United States, with a catalog of more than 4,000 titles in print and hundreds of new titles released every year." The series is titled "Images of America". Follow the link for it from the homepage, or visit this page, and scroll down to the intereactive map to find books in the areas that interest you. There are thousands of titles, many focused on specific cities, towns, or regions of the USA -- or even just a city in a particular era.

I was introduced to the "Images of America" series because my uncle, George Stone, co-authored the book on Bristol, Tennessee/Virginia, and he sent me a copy a few years ago. Since then I've also gotten a copy of the "Perinton, Fairport, and the Erie Canal", since we live in Perinton (there is also a separate one "Perinton and Fairport in the 20th Century", which I hope to get a copy of sometime soon). These books are about 120 pages or so, and are composed of historical photographs with descriptive captions for each. They are interesting reading, and certainly serve well as coffee-table books. And with so many already published, you are just about guaranteed to find one or two that will be of interest to you: just search for the town/city where you live now, or the ones where you grew up, or any others of interest. And check for multiple titles in your geographic area -- for instance, the city of Rochester, NY, with a population of just over 200,000, has 12 separate titles in this series -- plus over a dozen more for surrounding suburbs like Fairport. That is a lot of historical coverage for just one metropolitan area!

I'll add that there are also over 100 in the similar "Campus History" series, though none yet it seems for my alma-mater, The University of Rochester. The Sports in America series also looks interesting, and it boasts nearly 100 titles at present. Other series include Then and Now, Black America, and Postcard History.

All of these books generally have a cover price of $19.99 - $24.99, so visit their site or Amazon, or visit your local B&N or Borders and go to the local books section to browse around (I assume they'd carry these).

The Colors of India

My friend and colleague Basia Kruszewska has recently compiled together over a hundred photographs from her travels in India and other Asian countries. They are arranged by color... that is, by the significant color in each image. To start the photo tour, start with Red. Then you can click on each color box at the top of the page to see the other colors' pages. Good stuff!

Muslim Yankees

The January 15th issue of BusinessWeek had an interesting article titled "They're Muslims, And Yankees, Too". Nothing to do with baseball, as Yankee here just means American. The article talks about a large segment of Muslim Americans, and then spotlights four individuals in particularly, devoting a few paragraphs each to their stories. I found these tidbits about Muslim Americans interesting:

...As a group, they offer a model of assimilation and material success. An astounding 59% of Muslim adults in the U.S. have a college degree, compared with only 28% of all American adults. Surveys show that median family income among America's Muslims exceeds the national figure of $55,800. And four out of five eligible Muslims are registered to vote, slightly higher than the overall rate.

And then these two paragraphs about one of the four profiled individuals (a newspaper publisher in Michigan) are insightful I think:

Siblani, a pro-business, anti-abortion Republican who drives a sleek black Mercedes and lives in a comfortable house complete with white pillars in front, helped organize Arab American support for George W. Bush in 2000. But the President's "war on terror" after 9/11 left him feeling that his adopted country had turned against Muslims. He abandoned Bush in 2004 and publicly branded the current administration the "Taliban in Washington."

Siblani reflects the complexity of American Islam, an intricate mixture of creeds and cultures: immigrant and native-born, devout and secular, moderate and radical. By comparison, most immigrant Muslims in such countries as France, England, and Spain have remained poorer, less well educated, and more marginalized. Europeans encouraged Muslim immigration as a source of menial labor, but until recently did little to integrate workers as citizens. And more generous welfare benefits in Europe allow Muslims and other immigrants to live indefinitely on the periphery of society. The American combination of a comparatively modest social safety net with greater economic opportunity appears to have drawn Muslims willing to adjust to new customs and acquire education needed for good jobs. So the ideologically motivated violence that has erupted in Muslim enclaves in Western Europe so far hasn't surfaced from within the U.S.

Indeed.

Rolling Stone on Tibet

I am currently getting a free subscription to Rolling Stone Magazine. We signed up for this when we visited the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame last August.

In the latest issue, there was a long article titled The End of Tibet. The subhead summarizes the main theme of the article:

As China tortures monks and drives Tibetans into poverty, many young activists are renouncing the Dalai Lama and resorting to violence. Is one of the world's most ancient cultures facing extinction?

I found the article to be quite interesting: full of anecdotes, and good descriptions of the egregious past (and to some extent, present) mistreatment of native Tibetans by the Chinese. There are clearly some biases in the article -- such as vague assertions of growing wrongs against Tibetans that might actually just be markets (or something approaching markets), technology, and capitalism being introduced by the Chinese. Not enough detail is given on these issues, so one can't tell from the article. And one doesn't get the sense that they are attempting to show both sides of the issues involved. Then again, in most the most egregious cases -- especially those of the past -- there really just is the one side that deserves to be heard, the other side being the Communist regime blatantly violating the rights of the Tibetan people (including torture, murder, and so on).

So I recommend the article as an interesting read at least. But my big question is this:

What is this article doing in Rolling Stone magazine? There was absolutely no connection whatsoever to music, or even entertainment more broadly. I guess I'm just new to this magazine -- it is extremely leftist politically, so I guess any favorite causes of the left can get lengthy writeups in Rolling Stone?

And this raises something, more seriously now, that I find curious. The entire Tibet/China situation is very puzzling when you think about it in terms of traditional political ideologies in the West. I mean, the activist left has for several decades fought to improve the lives of the Tibetan people, even striving to gain them independence... from... a brutal Communist regime. But... Communism and Socialism are, or at least were, the pride and joy of the political left. Remember all those in America and elsewhere who fell for, and created and perpetuated, the propoganda myths of how wonderful life was in the USSR and China, and how evil capitalism (and the USA) were by contrast. Not to mention academics who argued for (and a smaller number who still do argue for) the superiority of such statist systems.

And then there is the odd situation that by fighting to protect the culture of the Tibetan people, those on the left are actually fighting to preserve one of the most deeply religious cultures on the planet (or so it seems). And yet, in the US and elsewhere, the most religious tend to be on the political right, the conservatives. So why isn't it members of the American Republican party who are the most vocal about freeing Tibet -- since that would be both a fight for religion and a fight against communism, two things that American conservatives have long believed in. Oh, right... it is a different religion. Oops. I'm not asserting that no conservatives have stood up for the rights of Tibetans -- no doubt many have. But if the Tibetans had an ancient and deeply Christian-based culture, instead of a Buddhist one, presumably such conservatives from the West would be greater in numbers, and perhaps even leading the activist rallies for the Tibet cause?

Its enough to make your head spin...

Fascinating Travel Log of Iran

National Geographic Adventure magazine had an interesting article in its November 2006 issue: Iran: Travels in Hostile Territory. It is a bit long, but worth it.

Hammer and Tickle: Jokes under Communism

I was browsing around the Moving Picture Institute's website today. This is the organization that supports the production of movies and documentaries that have a pro-liberty theme. I noted one of their productions in this earlier blog post, namely the very provocative movie Mine Your Own Business.

But the main reason for this posting is that I followed a link from MPI's site and found this very well-written item from May 2006 in Prospect magazine, Hammer and Tickle. Here Ben Lewis tells the story of jokes under Communist rule in the Soviety Union and elsewhere. Read the article to not only laugh at the many example jokes he gives, but to also be amazed again at just how ridiculous and terrible communism and socialism are. I mean... people in the thousands put in jail for telling jokes? Hundreds of thousands? I could quote many very nice passages from this article, but I prefer to just recommend that you read the entire thing.

Don Parrish's Trip to 13 Countries in the Middle East

My friend Don Parrish went on a trip to 13 middle-eastern countries in 30 days this past fall. He is a member of the Travellers Century Club, which has a membership requirement that you have been to 100 or more countries! He recently posted his overview and highlights from this trip, which is a fascinating read with lots of great data about the countries he visited. See especially the section called "Overall Observations".

But that is not all... he is going to provide a separate report for each country he visited on this trip, complete with photos from each! He has started with Iraq, and if the others are anything like the one he tackled first, I can't wait to read them all.

And if you enjoy these trip reports, see his many others from over the years... starting with his outstanding one on his trip to North Korea (that's right... he went there recently... a rare event for an American). This one page is packed with so much great info and wonderful photos... a real gem. And see also his additional report on Arirang in North Korea, which includes amazing photos too.

Keep up the good work Don!

Art Bollocks and the Gibberish Industry

David Thompson has written an outstanding essay on the sad state of art criticism, postmodernism, and related trends in academia and other institutions. It is a very good read, and I was pleased to see the quotations from both Jeremy Stangroom and Ophelia Benson's Why Truth Matters, and even more so, from Stephen Hicks's Explaining Postmodernism. Hicks's book should be considered required reading for anyone interested in investigating the strange world of postmodernism.

In Praise of Chain Stores

Virginia Postrel has written an oustanding piece for The Atlantic, "In Praise of Chain Stores". She makes a great many valuable points, and the article isn't very long, so I encourage you to read the entire thing. But I especially liked this last paragraph:

The contempt for chains represents a brand-obsessed view of place, as if store names were all that mattered to a city’s character. For many critics, the name on the store really is all that matters. The planning consultant Robert Gibbs works with cities that want to revive their downtowns, and he also helps developers find space for retailers. To his frustration, he finds that many cities actually turn away national chains, preferring a moribund downtown that seems authentically local. But, he says, the same local activists who oppose chains “want specialty retail that sells exactly what the chains sell—the same price, the same fit, the same qualities, the same sizes, the same brands, even.” You can show people pictures of a Pottery Barn with nothing but the name changed, he says, and they’ll love the store. So downtown stores stay empty, or sell low-value tourist items like candles and kites, while the chains open on the edge of town. In the name of urbanism, officials and activists in cities like Ann Arbor and Fort Collins, Colorado, are driving business to the suburbs. “If people like shopping at the Banana Republic or the Gap, if that’s your market—or Payless Shoes—why not?” says an exasperated Gibbs. “Why not sell the goods and services people want?”

That Pottery Barn example really impressed me. Thanks Virginia!

Privatizing and Protecting Marriage

A few months ago the newsletter of the Independent Institute (simple called "The Independent") had an interesting blurb called "Privatizing and Protecting Marriage". Here it is in full:

The institution of marriage could better meet needs if couples had more options than taking or leaving the terms of marriage offered in the one-size-fits-all version provided currently by government, according to Doshisha University Law professor Colin Jones (“A Marriage Proposal: Privatize It”).

“Couples entering into marriage should be able to use a partnership agreement that is tailored to their own circumstances and aspirations, one that reflects the values and expectations that they themselves attach to marriage,” Jones writes. (An op-ed based on his article ran in the San Francisco Chronicle, January 22.)

Ending the government’s monopoly on marriage, Jones argues, would foster innovation in the design of marriage contracts, resulting in better legal and relationship counseling, better protection for children and spouses, and better marriages. Couples could select from a variety of marriage-document kits. They would also be free to form or join marital corporations— organizations, including churches, whose members share the same values about marriage—which might arise to cater to the needs of different kinds of couples.

This privatization of marriage, Jones further suggests, might also help defuse the controversy over same-sex marriage because opponents and proponents of same sex marriage would join separate marital corporations and thus would see their version of marriage protected. See “A Marriage Proposal: Privatize It”.

This is in line with my own views on the matter, which has come up for me whenever I've heard in the news all the controversy over "protecting marriage", the attempted constitutional ammendment, and so on. The one new thing here that I hadn't thought of is the idea of "marital corporations" as described above... an interesting idea.

I'm sure many religious conservatives would passionately disagree with most or all of the above. But I have yet to hear a good, rational argument from them on these matters. The one most commonly tossed out is that by allowing homosexuals to marry -- which they usually think would be wrong in and of itself -- you are starting us down the slippery slope to all kinds of insanity, a list they then immediately rattle off that usually includes at least polygamy, child abuse, and some kind of beastiality (a guy marrying a goat, or a woman marrying a frog that she thinks will turn into a prince or whatever).

Well, this is an obvious straw man argument against allowing homosexuals to marry. First, it doesn't deal directly with the rights issue for homosexuals at all. But second, the slippery slope makes no sense. Marrying a child or marry an animal would not be allowed, because children do are not eligible to have the full rights of adults that come from having full ethical personhood status -- and this is based on the rational faculty reaching a certain maturity level. On this basis, obviously animals would not be candidates to be wed to humans either. (I'll note that if intelligent, rational aliens were ever discovered on other planets, this criterion would permit a human adult to marry them, and that makes complete sense... why not?).

The point is that if two persons (as just briefly described) wish to marry, wish to commit to each other, and wish to have a particular joint legal and economic status as such in the eyes of the society in which they live... why shouldn't they be allowed to? Most today would agree that people should be "allowed" to marry other people from any economic class, race, ethnic group, and so on. It wasn't too long ago that this was not the case, but fortunately, most societies have gotten at least this far. But why not two homosexuals? And why not multiple men with one woman, or multiple women with one man (polygamy)? I see no rational reasons to disallow these -- that is, arguments based on the individual rights of persons (not on utilitarian grounds, and not to mention faith-based supernatural and mystical "arguments"). If you can think of any such arguments against homosexual marriage and polygamy -- that are based on the individual rights of adult persons -- I'd be interested to hear them.

Having said that, I'll note that I don't believe that married couples should be given tax benefits. This is a form of social engineering by the government. The point of marriage is mostly a private matter between the people getting married -- and a sign of commitment in the eyes of the society in which they live. It could (and perhaps should) also serve as a proxy for things like implicit permission for hospital visitation rights, default inheritance in the event of death, and so on. But marriage should not be a means to get tax benefits or other special treatment from the government (positive or negative).

On Bhutan

My friend and colleague Basia Kruszewska (about) maintains a fascinating blog named India Ink. There she describes her experiences, travels, and so on while working in India (we both work for Element K, a global e-Learning company). She started the blog back in 2003, so she has a wealth of great material online, and has actually drawn quite a wide readership beyond the humble beginnings of friends and family. This is in part because included in many of her posts are incredible photographs. Basia is a very talented photographer, and India -- and many other Asian countries she has visited -- provide ample opportunity to take photos of people, places, and things that most Americans and other Westerners (such as myself) will likely never see in person.

I wanted to mention her blog to my readers, in part because I think you will find it very interesting -- check out some fo her archived postings, especially those with the great photography. I would wager you could spend hours getting caught up her blog, and find every minute of it fascinating.

But in particular, I thought I'd plug her recent posts on her trip to the small and unique nation of Bhutan. See her posts on this subject here:

• A Quirky Little Country
• Where No One Wears The Pants in the Family
• Long Live the King
• Keep Those Traffic Lights out of our Country
• Buddhist Festival
• Flying Phallus
• Laid Back Ulcer Land
• Buddhist Bhutan

If you like that series, then I encourage you to check out some of her other postings. See the categorizations on the right (scroll down a bit, and see esp. the ones for her various travel locations).

My American Accent

I took the American Accent quiz. Here are my results... very accurate:

What American accent do you have? Your Result: The Inland North You may think you speak "Standard English straight out of the dictionary" but when you step away from the Great Lakes you get asked annoying questions like "Are you from Wisconsin?" or "Are you from Chicago?" Chances are you call carbonated drinks "pop."
The Midland
The Northeast
Philadelphia
The South
The West
Boston
North Central
What American accent do you have? Take More Quizzes

(thanks to Virginia Postrel for the link)

TV Catchphrases

CNN recently posted a list of 100 top TV catchphrases of all time (thanks to GeekPress for the link). Their list is a nice assortment from sitcoms, famous news items, and more. I tend to quote Seinfeld a lot, rather naturally, in everyday conversation. But of these top 100 catchphrases, the following are the ones I'm sure I've used in everyday speech where appropriate:

• "Bam!" (Emeril Lagasse, "Emeril Live"
• "D'oh!" (Homer Simpson, "The Simpsons")
• "Don't make me angry ..." (David Banner, "The Incredible Hulk")
• "Elizabeth, I'm coming!" (Fred Sanford, "Sanford and Son")
• "Good grief" (Charlie Brown, "Peanuts" specials)
• "Heh heh" (Beavis and Butt-head, "Beavis and Butthead")
• "Holy (whatever), Batman!" (Robin, "Batman")
• "How you doin'?" (Joey Tribbiani, "Friends")
• "I know nothing!" (Sgt. Schultz, "Hogan's Heroes")
• "Is that your final answer?" (Regis Philbin, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire")
• "No soup for you!" (The Soup Nazi, "Seinfeld")
• "Resistance is futile" (Picard as Borg, "Star Trek: The Next Generation")
• "Well, isn't that special?" (Dana Carvey as the Church Lady, "Saturday Night Live")
• "Whassup?" (Budweiser ad)
• "Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?" (Arnold Drummond, "Diff'rent Strokes")
• "Yada, yada, yada" ("Seinfeld")
• "Yeah, that's the ticket" (Jon Lovitz as the pathological liar, "Saturday Night Live")
• "You eeeediot!" (Ren, "Ren & Stimpy")
  

Schoolhouse Rock

There was a brief blurb in my local paper today about School House Rock! -- the series of 3-minute educational, musical cartoons that aired on Saturday morning TV from 1973-1985 . You can now buy the complete set of these on DVD. What amazed me was that there were 46 of these shorts! Since I grew up during the era that these played, like millions of other American kids these were a part of my childhood education. But when I tried to remember them, I could only think of a handful -- no where near 46 of them:

• I'm a Bill
• Electricity, Electricity
• The Preamble
• Elbow Room (about manifest destiny)
• The Great American Melting Pot
• Lolly, Lolly, Lolly get your Adverbs here
• Conjunction Junction

I didn't remember any of the math ones! See the Wikipedia entry for a complete list and lots of good background info and trivia. See also this website which provides some info and has .wav files for many of them.

On Justice and Who to Thank

Craig Biddle has a brief but powerful essay about the tradition of saying "grace" at the dinner table, especially during the Nov/Dec. holiday season. He argues for justice instead of grace, and proclaims that we shouldn't be thanking a supernatural being but rather the men and women who have done the great deeds that have produced the great ideas, inventions, medicines, and other goods and services that improve our lives. Since my teen years, this has definitely been my (often silent) sentiments during this holiday season.

Cochlear Implants = Genocide ?

I blogged a month ago about parents deliberately choosing to have deaf children.

No