Gun "Debate"...More Like Adult Shouting Contest

There are a handful of issues in the United States that have dilapidated into petty skirmishes akin to children bickering on the school yard. The gun debate follows this line of thought. Rarely have I witnessed such asinine perspectives. Both sides have flooded the nation with their propaganda, and neither seem willing to find common ground. This theme, unfortunately, is all to common throughout today's polarized society.

First and foremost, my biggest issue with this topic is the preconceived notion that you are either completely for or against guns. Follow the media and the politicians to see the absolutism in full effect. If you bring up gun control, then you are automatically anti-Second Amendment. If you like guns, then you are some nut who's a danger to society. No one thinks grey. It's all black and white. You cannot create an honest and open debate if you automatically assume what your opponents are thinking. 

Won't someone think of the children.

Fueling this trend is the propaganda. Gun control advocates never hesitate to throw victims of violence to the forefront of their message. President Obama surrounded himself with those effected by the Sandy Hook shooting while pushing for new legislation. Michael Bloomberg, and the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, do the same ad after ad. Rarely do these statements dig deep into the issue. It is an attempt to blind the viewer with emotion. This emotional trap, however, is the only thing that truly annoys me from the pro gun control side.

Leading the opposition is the ever powerful NRA. This organization is loaded with cash, caters to a small percentage of the populace, and flexes their political muscle frequently. They are not shy about their position, and openly threaten politicians who disagree. They even have a rating system to indicate which leaders are fighting their battles that directly determines how much money the NRA contributes to future campaigns. Often spokesmen for the organization mock those who oppose their policies because they have the power to put pro gun advocates into government. The NRA's influence and power gives it the ability to push arguments that would sink faster then an anvil in an academic debate.


Pro gun groups love to blame everything but the weapon for national atrocities. Videogames, Hollywood, mental health, and more are the culprits. I'm not denying that some of these contribute to violence in our society. Mental health in particular seems to be a huge issue as many of the recent mass shootings indicate. Unfortunately, the vast availability of firearms enable these ill individuals, if they so desire, to easily cause greater damage. This topic highlights the problems with our current mental health system in addition to the dangers of having millions of guns across the country.

The other culprits seem at best indirectly involved with gun violence. Yes movies and videogames glorify guns, are incredibly violent, and can influence your behavior to a degree. Yet the studies in favor of the NRA's thesis have been widely debunked. Currently there's no direct link between these medians and gun violence.

The advocates in favor of firearms call foul on these critiques  They claim ideas counter to their own are funded by the giant coffers of the entertainment industry, and can't be trusted. There are two wealthy sides fighting to cover their own assets. Who are you going to believe? The Hollywood millionaires, or the NRA? Both sides glorifies the use of guns. Only one side produces the actual product, and protects ownership.

Wayne LaPierre

Another talking point for the NRA is arming more people. After Sandy Hook their CEO, Wayne LaPierre, suggested arming teachers. His classic line of late is, "The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun. Is a good guy with a gun." Let's roll with this idea. 

Who exactly is this good guy? A cop? Teacher? Perhaps an armed civilian? Which would you prefer in a public shootout? Currently most people don't have to go through the proper training necessary to use a gun in a crisis. This has the potential to be extremely dangerous. Friendly fire is no joke. Just ask a veteran. 

To prevent a populace of untrained armed civilians perhaps we should take a page from Israel. Make everyone serve in the National Guard for two years. This will provide the needed training, and having people serve in the military rings truer to the full text of the Second Amendment. 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When the next mad men goes on a shooting spree we can respond with a nation of soldiers. We could even give everyone a gun when they leave the military. Thus ensuring the safety of our armed nation. 

Obviously not everyone is going to want to sign up for mandatory service in the National Guard. This is only a suggestion to ensure gun owners are able to act accordingly during a crisis. I'm positive that other solutions exist. Just as I'm positive untrained gun owners can be just as dangerous as the criminals they are trying to stop.

Probably the most asinine argument put worth by firearm advocates is the need to resist a tyrannical government. When I first heard this I thought it was a bad joke. Next you'll be hearing justification for gun ownership because of the pending zombie apocalypse. The United States spends more money on the military then the next twelve nations combined. Shotguns and hunting rifles won't do jack shit against fighter jets, helicopters, and tanks. Look at the incident in Waco, Texas if you want a semi-recent example of how futile it would be to fight the US armed forces.


In closing I will bring up one last topic of interest--Australia. In 1996 the government passed the National Agreement on Firearms. Many of the rules can be found in America with a few exceptions. Self-defense, for example, is not an acceptable reason for issuing a license to buy a gun. Also the types of guns you can own are very strict, and the government issued a buy back program for banned weapons. The results of this legislation is as controversial as any topic related to gun violence, but one statistic stands out to me. Australia has had zero mass shootings since the law has gone into effect. 

Can we eliminate all gun violence in America? No. Can we stop mass shootings? According to

Australia the answer is yes. This is a complicated issue that has no silver bullet solution. The problem is we won't reach a solution at all if we don't try anything, and are generally unwilling to work together on this topic. 

The examples above are just a taste of the whole argument. There's a lot more to this then what's been written in one blog post. I didn't go into detail about any of the recent legislation put forth to reduce the legal size of clips, increase background checks, and ban assault weapons. I'm not entirely sure more legislation is needed on gun control, and would rather focus on enforcing and/or reanalyzing the current laws. Also, I didn't provide a comprehensive pro/con list. I only mentioned topics I found interesting or asinine.

The Sixteen Percent

Registered voters in the city of Los Angeles comes to 1.8 million. Voter turnout for the most recent March 5th, 2013, election was 16%. That's 288,000 people that have made major decisions that effect your future.* Even if the numbers are off by a few thousand, or even hundreds of thousands, I can confidently proclaim my utter disappointment with non-voting Angelenos.

This election will directly effect my neighbors lives. Top positions were up for grabs in this city ranging from mayor and city council candidates to the board of education. If you have a child in a public school. If you drive on a street with pot holes. If you live in a city where you question development projects and the allocation of money. If you complain about your home town in anyway, and didn't vote, then please take a look in the mirror before you start bitching to the rest of us.

How difficult is voting? Mail in ballots ensures even the laziest of voters can do their civic duty. Polling places are abundant, and open for thirteen hours on election day. News can be obtained from a variety of sources. Voting guides are sent to all who are registered. That's not even taking into account the barrage of advertisement accomplished by the candidates.

Los Angeles mayor candidates: Only two remain. 

Local politics have a greater impact on your day-to-day lives then anyone in Washington. Fire. Police. Medical emergency response. Water and power. Construction. Education.** These are civic services we all see or use frequently. Why wouldn't you want a say in how they operate, and vote for the local leaders of these organizations?

Personally I think it's pretty pathetic given how important this city is to the nation and the world at large. Perhaps we're too cool for school. Too hip for politics. Or maybe we just don't give a fuck. Either way this city has numerous problems, and the leaders of tomorrow have been dictated by 16% of the voting populace. Democracy for the few at the expense of the many.***




*Throughout this post the use of "you," "your,", and "we," refer to registered voters in the city of Los Angeles.

**From NPR: "The results are worse for the two educational races -- LAUSD and L.A. Community College District -- the turnout there hovered in the 6 to 7 percent range."

***Almost feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy for the conspiracy minded individual. 

Really Rad Robots

Robots are a key component to modern life. Drones, and other unmanned vehicles, are used in military operations to help ensure friendly causalities remain low. Factories of all shapes and sizes rely on a cornucopia of automated machines to handle tasks previously done by humans. Entertainers for decades have used fully mechanical creations in a variety of medians. The relationship between robots and humans will continue to develop in new and exciting ways. Two of the more promising advances involve health care and emergency response.

The Atlantic (March 2013), featured an article "The Robot Will See You Now" by Jonathan Cohn. In it he highlights some of the technology awaiting us in the doctor's office of tomorrow. My favorite quote provides a distinct analogy any nerd can understand. "Think Dr. McCoy using his tricorder to diagnose a phaser injury on Star Trek, not the droid fitting Luke Skywalker with a robotic hand in Star Wars."

In place of a tricorder imagine Watson. No. Not the sidekick of some British detective. The IBM super computer that decimated the best Jeopardy minds our kind could muster. Instead of taking all of Trebek's money, Watson will be helping medical professionals diagnose patients.

Now some of my readers may be thinking that Watson is not a robot. To a certain extent this is correct. Watson does not have physical capabilities like a human. Yet the ability to learn from past experiences makes this machine exceptional. The tech behind Watson will also be invaluable for future robotic breakthroughs. What good is hardware without the software to run it?

Watson can process up to sixty million pages of text per second. Medical literature produces up to thirty-thousand articles a month. Adding to the complexity is the source material. Doctors across the globe, and throughout history share their knowledge through their own unique business practices. The information is diverse and vast. Cohn writes, "In medicine, it consists of physician notes dictated into medical records, long-winded sentences published in academic journals, and raw numbers stored online by public-health departments."

It doesn't take a genius to realize the impossibility of any medical professional assimilating all the data in his or her profession. With Watson they can utilize its processing power to quickly analyze relevant information, and hopefully boost the accuracy of the diagnosis. Remember that Watson learns from past mistakes, which means it's just a matter of time and practice before improvements take hold.* Tools like this can also help doctors think outside their field of expertise, and avoid professional tunnel vision.

Watson is not the only medical tech being explored around the world. The demand for doctors far out weighs the supply, and robots may be the answer. Obviously certain tasks will always need the human touch, but ask yourself something. If you needed immediate medical care, and the only option was a medical robot, then would you really turn down the help.

"In Brazil and India, machines are already starting to do primary care, because there's no labor to do it," says Robert Kocher, an internist, a veteran of McKinsey consulting, and a former adviser to the Obama administration. 

Again this isn't a Star Wars scenario with a fully automated labor force at your local hospital. Humans will have their place in medical practice, but you may see more technicians on future check ups. Especially in parts of the world where doctors are few and far between.

The other exciting development in robotics focuses on emergency response. Popular Science (February 2013) has an article titled, "How to Build a Hero," that highlights some of the more recent robotic advancements.

In every major disaster first responders face dangerous scenarios to save the lives of others. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is working to change the playing field. In October of last year the Robotics Challenge began offering a two-million dollar prize for the team that prevails in two competitions. The first is in December of this year, and the second is in 2014.

One group comprises of Virginia Tech's Robotics and Mechanics Laboratory, the University of Pennsylvania,  and two commercial robotics firms. Prototype after prototype will hopefully lead to the development of what will be called THOR, or Tactical Hazardous Operations Robot. (This field sure loves their acronyms.) Simultaneously the group is working on SAFFiR--Shipboard Autonomous Fire Fighting Robot--for the Office of Naval Research.

The two projects over lap significantly. The researched used for THOR can, and will be, applied to SAFFiR. Both require robots that can navigate in poor visibility, on unstable ground, and neutralize hazards like fire or radiation leaks. The old proverb, however, rings true. You have to learn to crawl before you can run. The teams primary concern at the moment is mastering mobility, and improving overall speed. This is easier said then done.

The human body stills kicks the lug nuts off any robot today. Nicolaus Radford, deputy project manager for NASA's Robonaut project, explains.

Replicating our own triumphant, two-legged, two-armed physiology with steel and lithium-ion batteries is difficult to do. Humans are fifteen times more energy-efficient at walking than the best humanoid robots, and human fat stores energy at thirty times the density of batteries. 

The quote says it all. Robots consume more energy in addition to being slower and less stable. So don't freak out robot apocalypse aficionados. We are a long ways off from Terminators, or the anthropomorphic robots seen in I-Robot.

Radford's point is also a driving force behind non-humanoid robotic designs. One of the more famous example is Boston Dynamics' BigDog system (see video). There is also NASA's Robosimian that utilizes four general purpose limbs. Brett Kennedy of NASA argues, "...robots don't have to be restrained by our evolution." Having the machine perform properly under dangerous conditions is the priority. Can something akin to a spider bot navigate a power plant better then a humanoid? We shall see as the DARPA Robotic competition unfolds.

Developments in robotics will continue to revolutionize our modern society. More lives will be saved during natural disasters. Robots can literally go where no one has gone before. More patients will get treatment, and medical professionals will have tools utilizing some of the most advance artificial intelligence to date. Watson, THOR, SAFFiR, and BigDog are just the next step in this greater journey that started decades ago, and I'm thrilled that their are groups of passionate intelligent people pushing all of us along.


Sources: Popular Science, February 2013 & The Atlantic, March 2013






*Watson, however awesome, cannot satisfy the demands of global health care alone. It needs help. One of the major support tech groups are smart phones. This seems like a no brainer. More and more people are walking around with powerful cell phones that can be used to track a variety of medical data. Similar to a credit card reader, attachments can be used to measure blood pressure, insulin levels, and maybe even STDs. (Although having to urinate near my touch screen seems unpleasant at best.) Instead  receiving vague answers from patients like--"I feel OK, I guess."--professionals can review hard data. Amazing.

USA Unites Over Sports and Little Else

Fair warning to any and all readers. This post is a tad more cynical then usual. 

The modern political division of the United States arguably began with the Nixon-Kennedy election in the 1960s. Hippies vs. Workers. Left vs. Right. Pro-choice vs. Pro-life. Liberal vs. Conservative. Thanks to our government, political parties, and the mass media this is how most, if not all, questions are framed. There are only two sides to every issue. Rarely, especially over the last decade, do both sides come to a consensus and/or compromise.

Yet there are moments of unity. The people gave a collective cheer for the moon landing. Watched the Berlin wall crumble together through televised broadcasts. They worked as one during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and took to the streets celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden ten years later. Most recently sports fans, from all parts of society, decried the NFL behemoth for failing to negotiate with the professional referee union.

Take a look at the last paragraph. It speaks volumes to the value system we have in this nation. There are a host of issues, both domestic and abroad, that require action. There is unrest in the Middle East. The EU is in dire trouble, and Europeans are rioting in the streets. The recession may technically be over (the GDP has not declined for two or more consecutive quarters), but the aftermath is still baring down strong on the American people. Infrastructure and education are still in decline. Unions are losing their collective bargaining rights. Minorities face new discrimination in the guise of voter ID laws. Debates continue about women's reproductive rights. We can't even agree if health care is a privilege or a right.

The nation has a hell of a time uniting to tackle any of the above, but can rally with the best of them once their precious sport is jeopardized. People flocked to social media sites like Twitter and Facebook. The mass media jumped on this story as if it was a cure for cancer. Both candidates for President chimed in as well. All agreed that the professional referees were preferred over the amateurs, and that the NFL should do what is needed to make that happen.

We can agree about referees in a multi-billion dollar industry, but we can't form a consensus about numerous issues that are infinitely more important. Even recent events, like NASA successful landing of Curiosity on Mars, seems insignificant to the masses when compared to the fervor over NFL refs. Americans will unite in times of war. We will marvel at our own progress. And we will most definitely have a fair and balanced football game every Sunday. Everything else is open to endless debate.

People Pay for Pike's Pepper Spraying

On November 18th, 2011, Lt. John Pike peppered sprayed non-violent protestors at UC Davis for blocking a campus road. Below is the video that captured the chaotic scene.

A few months shy of a year later, two relevant events have recently unfolded.

First, the Yolo County District Attorney's Office stated that it will not seek criminal charges against Pike, or any of the other officers involved. Their report concluded, "Viewing the incident through the totality of the circumstances, there is insufficient evidence to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of force involved in the November 18, 2011 pepper spraying was unlawful and therefore warrants the filing of criminal charges."

The report also claims that although Pike's actions were, "not objectively reasonable," they acknowledge that he "believed that they and their prisoners were surrounded by a hostile 'mob,' and that the pepper spraying was necessary to clear the pathway so that the officers and their prisoners could leave the Quad safely."

Second, the University of California has agreed to pay a million dollar settlement to the victims. $730,000 will be given to the plaintiffs, and $250,000 will cover the attorney fees.

To summarize, Lt. Pike is not being persecuted, and the tax payer gets to pay for the legal fallout. The only repercussions for his actions was the loss of his job at the University, and the tainting of his reputation from the viral video. I believe this is not enough.

Look at the video above. The hostile mob is not violent. The chaos occurs after Pike sprays down the protesters  Yes. The officers have a difficult job, but the moment any side shows violent behavior their argument is cheapened. As hard as it may have been they could have lifted the protesters up and out by hand. Use as many cops as needed, but do not attack them with pepper spray, rubber bullets, or tasers.

An officer caught using excessive force is nothing new. Cops during the civil rights movement infamously attacked protesters with high pressure water cannons and attack dogs. In the 1990's, Rodney King was beaten by a number of officers who also escaped criminal charges. More recently in Oakland, an officer shot and killed Alan Blueford under very suspicious circumstances. Will we ever see a government maintain a police force that doesn't abuse their power?

Pike, and his bosses at UC Davis, violated the first amendment rights of the protesters to assemble peacefully. If the students had turned violent, then my sympathy and anger would not be so acute. But they didn't. They were sitting and chanting. Pike is seen crossing over the protesters multiple times then casually unleashes the pepper spray. Until police are held accountable, this incident and thousands like them, will continue to destroy peoples faith in law enforcement and government.

Untied States of Hodgepodges, Mishmashes, and Miscellanies

The ever ridiculous Sarah Palin, and other less nutty individuals, like to argue that the Founding Fathers goal was to form a Christian nation when they signed the Constitution. Today we have lost sight of that ideal, and according to supporters of christiannation.org this country must return to our religious roots.

The evidence that the United States is a Christian nation is razor thin. I much prefer the melting pot cliche. We are the Untied States of hodgepodges, mishmashes, and miscellanies. 

Stephen Colbert

Christianity is a huge influence throughout the history of the United States. However, it's hardly the sole driving factor for any action or event. Economic opportunity, for example, has tremendous influence throughout our nations history. People didn't go west to find God (well maybe the Mormons did). They went to find a lively hood that could support themselves and raise a family.

Also, Christians are not the only religious group in this great nation. Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Star Wars nerds, and more all worship in their own way; often with less violence than other nations. To ignore this diversity is unacceptable. It's a part of our country, and it's not going anywhere.

A number of the Founders were Deist. They believed in a God, but had a hard time with pre-destination and religious organizations. This doesn't mean that there were no religious individuals at this time; there were plenty. But for the first time in western history there were people predominately using science to explain the world around them. This Era of Enlightenment had a huge impact on many of the Founding Fathers and the formation of the Constitution.


Below are a list of quotes from some of our famous Founders. I believe they denote skepticism of religious influences in government. The quotes also indicate an acute awareness of the churches bloody history. They give a clear indication that a number of the Founding Fathers were not attempting to form a nation based on any religion. 


--------------------

Franklin:

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." -in Poor Richard's Almanac

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." -in Poor Richard's Almanac"

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

"I looked around for God's judgments, but saw no signs of them."

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it."

Madison: 

"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points.  The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others." -James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty", edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN 0-8975-298-X. pp. 237-238 .

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?  In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people.  Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries.  A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

Adams:

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation.  But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"      -letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" -letter to Thomas Jefferson

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

Washington:

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.  Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated.  I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." - letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself." -Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, Feb. 1800

Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian...  He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments.  Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary...  Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]

Paine:

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church" -The Age of Reason


Jefferson:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.  This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." - to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever."

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."    -letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity.  What has been the effect of coercion?  To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.  To support roguery and error all over the earth."       - "Notes on Virginia"
--------------------


This list shouldn't be considered all encompassing. Our ancestors beliefs and ideals evolved throughout their lifetime. Franklin, for example, gets more religious as he ages (which isn't unheard for any individual). There are also other Founders who wanted a Christian nation, but didn't have enough support to make it so. Palin, and other liked minded people, should recall that even in the beginning we were the Untied States of hodgepodges, mishmashes, and miscellanies. 

Good Stuff

Thought I share a recent Facebook conversation from the other day. Good stuff.

Starts off with me:

I think we are all too complacent--myself included. As outraged as I get at the current state of government (especially in CA and the Federal level) I do not protest. I do not care to loose my job, or possibly go to jail. I have a roof over my head and food in my fridge. My family is safe. I don't want to jeopardize this.

So what do I do? I write to government officials only to receive the standard reply letter. I vote for the same two parties, who's been bickering with each other for decades, hoping that this time around things will be different. Then I act surprised when events continue to move in the same direction they've always gone.

I'm starting to wonder if there is anyway to change this country. Those in power have figured out this game very well. We'd need something unprecedented. Like the entire population of a city or state refusing to pay taxes or to work until their government gets to work. This probably won't happen though because we are all too comfortable and we don't want to make the sacrifices needed for such an act.

The most interesting reply:

Have you looked inside to see what can change?

My reply to the most interesting reply:

Inside myself? I can attempt to be more proactive and less complacent. I can join existing organizations to see if I can make an impact, or even run for office. Josh the lobbyist! 

Inside the system? I can only guess at what needs to be changed. Resources and research would be needed to make a truly informed argument. Of course that won't stop me from typing the rest of this fun rant :)

From my limited perspective I think there is tons of room for improvements in education and infrastructure. The tax code needs an overhaul, and there could be better oversight of government aide programs. The healthcare system is equally expensive and horrendous. I believe everyone should have the right to healthcare, and I'm open to suggestions on how to make that happen.

The defense department needs to stop chasing the imaginary dragon (aka big air/sea war with China), and focus more on projects like AFRICOM and COIN. It also be nice if we stopped propping up dictators/terrorist that eventually come to hate us. Mexico should be our highest priority. Creating a united North American continent would be a historic milestone, and could solve many of our current immigration "issues."

Alternative energy solutions must be explored and executed (Presidents since the dawn of television have been making this empty promise). There are also many environmental issues that could use greater attention. Politicians should wear jackets with patches indicating who's funding their career--like those NASCAR guys. Citizen United is one of the worse Supreme Court decisions in this countries history.

At the state level CA needs to get rid of the way laws are written. Having every law go to vote is bogging down everything. Most voters don't have the smarts to balance their own pocket book let alone balancing one of the worlds largest economies.

Geez I could probably keep going, but I'll stop here. Good questions Mr. Houston. Got me thinking, and I like that. None of these issues are simple, and the solutions are obviously complex. Please don't take any of the above as the right answer. These are only thoughts and opinions from one slightly buzzed man. (I am pretty awesome though.)

A reply to my reply to the most interesting reply:

Perhaps the most sensible reference I can reply with would be Gandhi's famous quote, "Be the change you want to see in the world." Simple, and incredibly useful. 

It's not my desire to change your perspective ... at the very least, I would hope my comment can shed light on the potentials that lie within you and the rest of humanity. Believe it or not, you have more power than you realize. YOU are the one you've been waiting for.

If joining a movement is where you feel your energy would best serve, then my thoughts would say to follow that inclination. The same goes for voting, paying taxes, and doing everything else a sensible citizen of a nation in this world feels obligated to be doing ... but definitely realize that submitting to these issues and giving them power by believing that there is no way out leaves you powerless.

Know your potentials! Know yourself! and also, don't take it all so seriously ;)

I love well thought out mature conversations. A rare gem found in the dung pile that is the internet. 

Indiana Diamond & The Crusade Against Agriculture

Jared Diamond is an intriguing individual. His novel, Guns Germs & Steel, is a must read for anyone interested in the history of civilization. His ability to blend multiple disciplines provides a convincing, and often more complete, perspective of the past.

Ten years before GG&S, Diamond wrote an article for Discover Magazine entitled, The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race. In this piece he argues that human history has not been a "long tale of progress." He believes that, "hunters-gathers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting life style in human history."Agriculture lead to, "the gross social sexual inequality, the disease and despotism, that curse our existence."

Diamond argues that one of the pinnacles of modern society was a huge mistake responsible for the horrors of life today. Specifically he states agriculture begets bad health because of diet, crop failure, and disease. He also blames the adoption of farming for the development of class division. The myopic outlook found in these four pages threw me for a loop--especially when compared to his later work. The points of interest are all over the place with a clear bias towards hunter-gather societies.

One of the authors arguments is that H&G's (hunters and gatherers) are "better off" then farmers because of the amount of hours worked. Hadza nomads of Tanzania only work about fourteen hours a week for their food. Other bushman range from nine to twelve hours a week. The author fails to mention the amount of time the average farmer works in seven days for that region.

Why not include the amount of hours worked on a farm? What century of farming are we talking about? Do modern farmers toil in the field like our ancestors, or do they use ever advancing technology to minimize labor? A more objective argument, with clearly set parameters, would go a long way to legitimizing the authors' point of view.

Diamond continues his article by praising the diet of H&G tribes, and rightfully argues that farming staples alone do not provide the necessary nutrients for a healthy lifestyle. He also mentions the devastating effects of crop failure giving the Irish potato famine as an example.

Yes. Consuming corn, wheat, and other staples alone will result in a number of health issues. Fortunately agricultural societies are often accompanied by robust trading economies. There are also modern organizations that provide disaster relief to areas effected by crop failure. This minimizes starvation, and trading helps diversify our diets. Diamond keeps the farmer in an isolated bubble, and fails to mention the various interactions that occur in any segment of human history. He also makes the assumption that nomadic societies had little to no issues with starvation. Hard to prove either way without written records, and a limited amount of archaeological data.

The lack of information is a huge problem with many of Diamonds' theories. He mentions breakthroughs in science. Skeletons can be used to determine age, height, gender, and can even indicate what diseases our past brethren have suffered. With enough skeletons people can deduce what an ancient society was like.

As amazing as these breakthroughs are they do not paint the entire picture. Can we tell if someone was blind or deaf? Suffered from the common cold, allergies, or had skin problems? Can we tell if they were happy in preliterate societies? Unfortunately we cannot accurately determine a societies overall level of health with the available data for much of our known history. This is why I have an issue with the authors overgeneralization. With the right evidence everything he knows today can be disproven tomorrow, and I believe the author does not make that clear.

Diamond also picks and chooses which data to compare. He looks at skeletons, and lifespans, of early farmers versus more experienced hunter and gatherers.

"Life expectancy at birth in pre-agricultural community was bout twenty-six years, but in post-agricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."

Why is he comparing the novice with the well versed? I would imagine early nomads would have had their own issues starting out. After centuries of learning these groups would have figured out a thing or two about surviving. Comparing the experienced hunter-gatherer with the inexperienced farmer does not support Diamonds argument very well.

Also, the average age of agricultural societies today is much longer. Why not compare modern farmers to modern hunter-gatherers, and ancient farmers to ancient hunter-gatherers? A more compelling argument would indicate an initial dip in the quality of life before the advancement of agricultural techniques. Not a blanket statement about nutritional stress and infectious disease.

In regards to disease, the initial boom in infections (because of close quarters and domesticated animals) eventually creates a stronger immune system. As argued in Guns, Germs, & Steel, Native Americans were susceptible to European diseases because they lacked close contact with domesticated animals and past epidemics like the Black Death. In Europe, there were centuries of infectious exchanges between animals and humans, which eventually created an immune system strong enough to travel around the world. How does this improved immune system develop in a world of hunters and gatherers?

Health issues aside, Diamond is right that farming has produced the class system we know today. He is quick to highlight negative aspects like sexism, tyranny, and class division. Something that is well documented throughout our history. What he doesn't bring up are the advancements in communication, technology, and medicine.

Once again overgeneralizing leads to misnomers about nomadic and agricultural societies. The author makes it seem like these issues didn't exist until farming occurred. I highly doubt hunter and gatherers were free from assholes. No man ever judged a woman because of her gender before picking up the plow? No bushman sought to gain power through illicit means, or lead through power and fear? Hunter and gatherers were no less human then you or me. They were vulnerable to the same temptations and fallacies.

Then there is the positive side of the class system and agriculture. The advancement in technology, medicine, and communication is unheard of in pre-agrarian societies. Diamond mentions art, which is significant. Art, however, didn't put a man on the moon. Art hasn't eliminated polio from most of the world. Civilization itself came from farming, and I would argue the pros far out weigh the cons.


Jared Diamond brings up some valid points, but his theories are overzealous at best. He is too quick to demonize the farmer, and ignores the positive impact agriculture has had throughout history. These short comings, and his bias towards nomadic culture, hinder the effectiveness of his arguments. A more balanced approach to both H&G and farming societies is needed to truly understand the lessons of our past. 

Hiatus!

To my faithful readers!

Do not fret. Eventually I'll start writing again for both my blogs. Life has been rather busy--moving, work, nightlife--leaving little time to devote to digital ink. I do, however, have a few things on the writing "To Do" list.

For Videogames a'la Snerts, I am thinking about incorporating other entertainment based interests. I'm a huge Simpsons fan, and I do watch the occasional movie so don't be surprised to see posts along those lines. In general this blogs content will remain light and nerd-centric. The heavier topics will be found on my other blog.


The reason for this change stems from my personal goal to spend less on videogames each year. I haven't had Gamefly since November 2011, and I'm not about to start buying every new release like I did during college. This doesn't mean I'm abandoning the hobby. Just scaling it back. Expect to see posts about the DLC content for Batman, MW3, and Deadspace 2. I will also continue to write about trends in the industry.

Past to Present a'la Snerts will continue to feature more thought provoking content. Topics will range from the Arab Spring to energy development and local politics. This, however, may change has time passes. In general the goal is to write more on the topics that really make me think and are grounded a bit more in reality than the entertainment business.


There you have it. My excuse for avoiding writing, and some goals for 2012. As always any feedback is welcomed. The semi-great Snerts has opinions about everything. Send an email with topic suggestions if you so desire.

Stay awesome everyone!


--Snerts

The Arab Spring Continues

November16th, 2010

Earlier this year protests erupted across North Africa and the Middle East after a Tunisian man named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself ablaze. Like most people, the demonstrators are seeking a better life. They are tired of corruption, failing economies, and dogmatic leadership. This sentiment is also echoed in the West. Violence and frustration has been clearly denoted in the United Kingdom, and the Occupy Wall Street movement currently occurring in the United States. This post, however, will focus solely on the recent events in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen.

Hosni Murbarak

Much has happened since my last post about Egypt. The once proud Hosni Mubarak has been charged with murder and taken to court. Lying on a stretcher, in poor health and within a cage, he watched as the proceedings deteriorate into an all out brawl. Lawyers on each side were literally exchanging punches instead of arguments. Despite his decades of harsh leadership many are still loyal to the ex-dictator, and there is much internal debate about his persecution.

Outside the courtroom the people continue to protest. Yes, this may seem odd to the outsider, but Egyptians are still weary of the interim military government. They are frustrated with the slow progress, and concerned about certain recent events. Since Mubarak left office thousands of military trials have taken place, and a number of people have been incarcerated.  Alaa Abd El Fattah, for example, is a blogger who has been jailed for encouraging violence against the military. According to a number of sources his incarceration is unwarranted.

There have also been vicious attacks between the Coptic Christian minority and the Islamic majority. Churches have been burned. Mosques have been bombed. One incident involved a group of Christian protesters seeking protection against future aggression to Church property.  Some vagabonds threw gasoline bombs at the protesters who were apparently blocking the streets. The confrontation occurred late Saturday, quickly escalated, and was not quelled until Sunday. Dozens were killed and hundreds were injured. These types of acts will continue to fan the flames of decent making the creation of a new Egyptian government increasing difficult.

Victorious!

In Libya, after months of intense fighting, the rebels have captured and killed Muammar Gaddafi with the support of NATO. My prediction that Europe and the United States would not intervene was thankfully wrong. Now comes the tough part--nation building. As the United States has learned in Afghanistan and Iraq this is not an easy task. The many factions in Libya will have to work together and unite for the good of the nation. This will be a slow messy process that could easily go astray by another strong military leader. Libyan's may also find tight purse strings in the West with the consistently dismal European and American economies. (China and the East may have to step in on this one.)

Yemen: Madness!

Now on to Yemen and Syria. In both nations foreign support boils down to harsh words and economic sanctions followed by inaction. Yemen is especially dis-concerning. Al Qaida has been very busy in this gulf nation at times taking over entire towns in the south. Add to this deadly mix an opposition force resisting a government crackdown, and you have a recipe for instability. Until the political house is in order people will continue to die and the economy will falter further. President Saleh has repeatedly stated that he will not transfer power, and until he does I fear this bloody mess will persist.

A similar scenario can be found in Syria. President Bashar al-Assad refuses to step down, and has initiated a brutal government crackdown. The United States, and other nations, have enacted sanctions against his rule with little effect. Even the Arab League has revoked Syria's membership, and if the crackdown does not cease within the next three days they too will issue economic sanctions. All the while the death tole and violence continues to increase.

Syrian Protesters

Western powers are unlikely to step into Yemen or Syria. President Obama will continue to use his favorite toy--drones--to take out whoever he sees fit. He will not commit American forces to another war after championing the withdrawal from Iraq--and hopefully soon Afghanistan. NATO is still dealing with Libya, and seems unlikely to shift their attention elsewhere. According to Al Jazeera, the UN has it's hand tied in regards to Syria because of Assad's strong relations with Russia and China. In Yemen, the UN continues to send myopic compromises that satisfy no one, and it is highly dubious that any serious action will be taken.

Boy o' boy what a mess. Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen will not see their situations improve anytime soon. This, however, is not unexpected. Nation building is a long difficult process that takes even longer when done under the guise of a democracy. With the right leadership these nations can join the West and East in Americanized Globalization; further shrinking the Gap.

I am thrilled to be witnessing such dramatic change from one of the most dogmatic parts of the world. I am also continually optimistic that the sacrifices of these protesters will eventually lead to a more prosperous Middle East/North Africa. Patience and perseverance are key. After all it took the United States dozens of wars and a civil rights movement (over 150 years) to get where it is today.