Hidey ho Gelbs, since you're off in Mexico doing your thing and pissing off communists everywhere, thought I'd let you in on a little tiff on the hill recently. The all and ever knowing Bullsheet documented a righteous debate between secularity and religion, but what was this cause of this dissonance? The upstart Denison Secular Student Alliance, responsible for posters splayed across campus shouting the faults of Religion as a town crier in the Dark Ages.
The argument for secularism is simple as near as it has been displayed to me, "Religion is responsible for all of the world's conflict": a blanket statement in a world of absolute hyperbole, so it fits in quite well. The problem with this blanket statement lies in its implications, and what this implies is that there has been no war or conflict EVER in the history of society by way of political aspiration or liberty. No this has NEVER happened NOT EVEN ONCE. If you honestly believe this is true, then I should not be forced to listen to an ignorant and ill-informed opinion. Multiple Revolutions in South America (Calling all Castros again) have come as a result of economic injustice. Then the argument follows that the injustices fueling the war must have been as a result of religion. This is not true, absolutely and positively false. What Secularists are referring to is Religion captured in the hands of bigotry. Hitler was not a fervent Catholic, but he'll be damned if the Church will oppose him in his own country. And so the clerical collars followed Hitler in his demonic work. Human cowardice should not be mistaken for the ineptitude of religion.
I myself do not affiliate with any specific religion, but that does not mean I look down on those who do. Religious organizations have the ability to support a community, but also the ability to destroy its humanity. The fate of religion and spirituality lies in the hands of humans, they cannot be destroyed and thus must be harnessed properly. Besides, secularists are also making the assumption that conflict is a bad thing...
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Government-Funded = Free ... right?
The New York Times reports today that college tuition costs in the U.S. have outpaced inflation for the ninth straight year. As Times articles go, this one is pretty neutral on what should be done, but a few fallacies are implied. The first one, which is revealing because it's completely ignored, is the notion that the price basket offered by college tuition fees has not remained constant. In other words, they don't even suggest the possibility that tuition today is different than it was, say, 15 years ago.
If average car prices were rising faster than inflation (and I have no idea if they are), lots of people might note that the average car today is pretty sweet compared to a similarly-priced car 15 years ago. 15 years ago, cars with anti-lock brakes, air bags, CD players, power windows, etc., were fairly spiffy. Today, most of those features come standard, even on the cheapest vehicles, so manufacturers might be forgiven if the average price of their product has increased slightly.
Similarly, schools today offer vastly different educational experiences today than they did twenty, fifteen, or even nine years ago. The school I attend (purely anecdotal evidence here) has installed at least two really fancy, really expensive buildings in the last nine years. One of them is so nice inside that I'm certain it has drastically changed the way physical science majors study. The library now offers the equivalent of a full subscription to several hundred academic journals, many of which have been hugely beneficial to me at around 3:45 AM during finals. Our entire campus recently had wireless internet installed. Granted, some of these upgrades can come from alumni donations or other sources. But I doubt very much that schools have just been jacking up prices without altering the product they sell in any way. On top of the changes, I would be shocked if the professors here haven't been getting pay raises all the while.
Sadly, failure to acknowledge the possibility of a change in the market basket offered by today's colleges and universities is not the Times' most egregious omission. The article is basically about a study someone actually bothered to do, revealing the following:
"The changes in tuition at public institutions closely track changes in financing they receive from state governments and other public sources ... When state and local support for public colleges declined over the last seven years, tuition and fees rose more quickly, and as state support has grown of late, the pace of increases fell."
Let's make sure I have this right: when the government pays producers to make their product, those same producers can lower the number consumers see on the price tag? Unbelievable! Trouble is, someone's still paying for college tuitions every year for every student, regardless of the size of the checks households actually send. When the government does it, everyone in the whole country pays for college kids like me, from students and parents of students to total recluses living nowhere near civilization. When individuals pay, they do it because they really care whether they themselves, their children, their friends, or their relatives gets an education and graduates. I like the latter system much better.
I'm not saying governments shouldn't provide some help for qualified students without the means to pay for higher education. I'm just saying that free education doesn't exist, and neither do free discounts on education, no matter what we do to bury the costs amid other government asset seizures.
If average car prices were rising faster than inflation (and I have no idea if they are), lots of people might note that the average car today is pretty sweet compared to a similarly-priced car 15 years ago. 15 years ago, cars with anti-lock brakes, air bags, CD players, power windows, etc., were fairly spiffy. Today, most of those features come standard, even on the cheapest vehicles, so manufacturers might be forgiven if the average price of their product has increased slightly.
Similarly, schools today offer vastly different educational experiences today than they did twenty, fifteen, or even nine years ago. The school I attend (purely anecdotal evidence here) has installed at least two really fancy, really expensive buildings in the last nine years. One of them is so nice inside that I'm certain it has drastically changed the way physical science majors study. The library now offers the equivalent of a full subscription to several hundred academic journals, many of which have been hugely beneficial to me at around 3:45 AM during finals. Our entire campus recently had wireless internet installed. Granted, some of these upgrades can come from alumni donations or other sources. But I doubt very much that schools have just been jacking up prices without altering the product they sell in any way. On top of the changes, I would be shocked if the professors here haven't been getting pay raises all the while.
Sadly, failure to acknowledge the possibility of a change in the market basket offered by today's colleges and universities is not the Times' most egregious omission. The article is basically about a study someone actually bothered to do, revealing the following:
"The changes in tuition at public institutions closely track changes in financing they receive from state governments and other public sources ... When state and local support for public colleges declined over the last seven years, tuition and fees rose more quickly, and as state support has grown of late, the pace of increases fell."
Let's make sure I have this right: when the government pays producers to make their product, those same producers can lower the number consumers see on the price tag? Unbelievable! Trouble is, someone's still paying for college tuitions every year for every student, regardless of the size of the checks households actually send. When the government does it, everyone in the whole country pays for college kids like me, from students and parents of students to total recluses living nowhere near civilization. When individuals pay, they do it because they really care whether they themselves, their children, their friends, or their relatives gets an education and graduates. I like the latter system much better.
I'm not saying governments shouldn't provide some help for qualified students without the means to pay for higher education. I'm just saying that free education doesn't exist, and neither do free discounts on education, no matter what we do to bury the costs amid other government asset seizures.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Poor People are Cute/Quaint/Satisfied
Disturbingly common among the anti-trade, anti-growth, anti-business, environmentalist liberals of the world is the belief that poverty is somehow a part of people's culture. Their disproportionately large fear of cute, starving brown people losing ties to a "unique way of life" is often used as justification for the prevention of growth. Growth often spurs cultural change (not to mention increased standards of living), and rich people evaluating poor ones from afar want the world's impoverished to stay exactly as they are: poor and different.
But to get back on track, I started this post with the intention of writing about Cuba. Everybody's favorite communist dictatorship appears to be on the precipice of a regime change, assuming Castro kicks the bucket sometime soon. Way back in the 1950's Castro promised his people democracy. Then he decided - and this is basically the premise upon which all communism is founded - that the experts, meaning he and a few close pals, really knew what was best for the country. He appointed himself to 50 years of dictatorship, which is a lot like democracy, just without all those pesky rights, freedoms, and elections. Therefore, most sane people, including myself, are looking forward to the day Cuba gets to choose a new system. Still, a future of democracy and freedom is far from inevitable in Cuba, even after Fidel has bought the farm. For that reason, among others, people like Erik and Bridget from Minneapolis need to shut the fuck up.
Erik and Bridget are dreading the inevitable days of Castro's demise. They're worried that American business will ruin Cuba's flavor or quirky appeal, since the loss of either would really put a damper on their next vacation. Once the trade embargo is lifted, Erik and Bridget will no longer be able to feel like sneaky little Russian spies stealing into enemy territory. They'll have to board a plane in an American city and suffer through a flight to Havana along with hundreds of other gringos and Cubans, and that simply won't do. You see, Cuba, where many people live on less than 10 dollars a month, is "forbidden treasure," according to Erik, and he'll rue the day that those nasty Americans come and piss all over his cute little food-rationing booty. He adds: "It will be so Americanized in a few years. Just like Cancun."
The horror!
Three things, Bridget and Erik:
First - I'm not one of them, but lots of people really like places like Cancun, as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of people who go there each year. These people include many Mexicans, who have managed to avoid turning into Caucasians or frequenting Applebee's restaurants despite the raping their culture has been subjected to by us Amurricans.
Second - Lots and lots and lots of people are ready and willing to sacrifice a little bit of their culture in favor of job opportunities and increased income. That's how people change their lives, by being able to decide what they value, and by acting accordingly. Believe it or not, places like Tokyo, New York, Sydney, Paris, Copenhagen, Montreal, Hong Kong, Dublin, Amsterdam, Barcelona, and Chicago share some things, such as Hard Rock Cafe, McDonald's, and a majority population of well-fed, rich people, but the similarities pretty much stop there.
Third - Fuck you. Seriously. If a country like Cuba is lucky enough to become "Americanized" over the next few years, by which I mean prosperous, your only response should be one of happiness at the knowledge that more people in the world can enjoy the standards of living you so arrogantly take for granted. Frightfully sorry to have inconvenienced you out of your fav' vacation spot, but for millions of people actually living there, Cuba is a long way from paradise.
For Americans, spending money in Cuba is supposed to warrant a $55,000 fine. I think the trade ban is stupid, but here's hoping Erik and Bridget get nailed for every penny.
But to get back on track, I started this post with the intention of writing about Cuba. Everybody's favorite communist dictatorship appears to be on the precipice of a regime change, assuming Castro kicks the bucket sometime soon. Way back in the 1950's Castro promised his people democracy. Then he decided - and this is basically the premise upon which all communism is founded - that the experts, meaning he and a few close pals, really knew what was best for the country. He appointed himself to 50 years of dictatorship, which is a lot like democracy, just without all those pesky rights, freedoms, and elections. Therefore, most sane people, including myself, are looking forward to the day Cuba gets to choose a new system. Still, a future of democracy and freedom is far from inevitable in Cuba, even after Fidel has bought the farm. For that reason, among others, people like Erik and Bridget from Minneapolis need to shut the fuck up.
Erik and Bridget are dreading the inevitable days of Castro's demise. They're worried that American business will ruin Cuba's flavor or quirky appeal, since the loss of either would really put a damper on their next vacation. Once the trade embargo is lifted, Erik and Bridget will no longer be able to feel like sneaky little Russian spies stealing into enemy territory. They'll have to board a plane in an American city and suffer through a flight to Havana along with hundreds of other gringos and Cubans, and that simply won't do. You see, Cuba, where many people live on less than 10 dollars a month, is "forbidden treasure," according to Erik, and he'll rue the day that those nasty Americans come and piss all over his cute little food-rationing booty. He adds: "It will be so Americanized in a few years. Just like Cancun."
The horror!
Three things, Bridget and Erik:
First - I'm not one of them, but lots of people really like places like Cancun, as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of people who go there each year. These people include many Mexicans, who have managed to avoid turning into Caucasians or frequenting Applebee's restaurants despite the raping their culture has been subjected to by us Amurricans.
Second - Lots and lots and lots of people are ready and willing to sacrifice a little bit of their culture in favor of job opportunities and increased income. That's how people change their lives, by being able to decide what they value, and by acting accordingly. Believe it or not, places like Tokyo, New York, Sydney, Paris, Copenhagen, Montreal, Hong Kong, Dublin, Amsterdam, Barcelona, and Chicago share some things, such as Hard Rock Cafe, McDonald's, and a majority population of well-fed, rich people, but the similarities pretty much stop there.
Third - Fuck you. Seriously. If a country like Cuba is lucky enough to become "Americanized" over the next few years, by which I mean prosperous, your only response should be one of happiness at the knowledge that more people in the world can enjoy the standards of living you so arrogantly take for granted. Frightfully sorry to have inconvenienced you out of your fav' vacation spot, but for millions of people actually living there, Cuba is a long way from paradise.
For Americans, spending money in Cuba is supposed to warrant a $55,000 fine. I think the trade ban is stupid, but here's hoping Erik and Bridget get nailed for every penny.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Diego Rivera: Artist, Ignoramus, Communist
I recently took a weekend away from my five-month stay in Guanajuato, Mexico where I am currently studying abroad to visit el Distrito Federal, or as most Mexicans refer to it, Mexico. Sort of like if Americans called Washington, D.C. "America" or "The United States." Anglophones like me generally know it as Mexico City, and it's only a 300-peso, 6-hour bus ride away from my school. So two fridays ago, when a friend of mine in my 11:00 grammar class asked me if I wanted to grab a cab with her to the bus station at 3:00 that afternoon, I happily accepted. I rushed home to pack after class, crammed everything I could into my trusty black EMS backpack, called my parents, called my girlfriend (not living with me in Mexico), and ran back to the town center to meet my friend. Nine hours (construction), two cab rides, and three badly dubbed movies later, we were in the heart of one of the biggest cities in the world.
The first night didn't get started until after midnight, and it ended before 2AM. Both of us were pretty exhausted and hoping for an early start, so we settled for a few beers in the bar-filled section of town near our hotel. The next morning we met up with a Swedish lesbian couple from my school back in Guanajuato and started trying to do as many typical, touristy things as humanly possible.
Knowing nothing whatsoever about Mexico City prior to my arrival, I was completely at the mercy of the three women leading me around with guide books and subway maps. That said, I knew that I really wanted to get a chance to check out some Diego Rivera murals. I had seen pictures and various reproductions of some of Rivera's work, most of which I thought was very interesting and beautiful. For that reason, I was excited to go to the Teatro de Bellas Artes, where our taxi driver had told us there would be an unveiling of a recently-moved Rivera mural to go along with the many others already covering the walls of several government buildings.
I saw Rivera's murals at both the Palacio Nacional and the Teatro de Bellas Artes, and I saw more of his stuff when we went to the house he shared with Frida Kahlo. In each of those places, I was amazed by the energy and life that truly emanate from each of his pieces. I suspect that many critics think of Rivera's style as a bit crude, but when you are standing in front of a fresco that's 80 feet wide and 35 feet high, full of bright colors and impassioned historical figures the size of trucks, it's hard not to be impressed. However, what shocked me the most about Rivera's work was not the scale or the vividness of the colors, but rather the frequency of his proud, blatant representations of communism and its leaders, often juxtaposed by a gray, dreary, miserable United States, complete with factories and Standard Oil signs. Several of the paintings show Lenin himself, leader of the masses against injustice and poverty. Fine.
I understand communism's appeal, especially if you live in a place like Mexico and believe (mistakenly) that your country has tried free markets and elections and failed. Diego Rivera spent most of his life in a desperately poor country with a corrupt government pandering to the desires of a select few business elites. When he showed support for communist movements in his work or traveled to Russia to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the October Revolution's success, I'm about 95 percent certain that he believed the movements he admired would fight against the status quo and create more justice, equality, etc. The status quo of early 20th century Russia and Mexico (and the vast majority of the world) was a truly miserable thing, so I completely sympathize with the desire for change. What I cannot understand or justify is the amount of support that Rivera continued to show for communism well into his later life (he died in 1957). His house, which I assume has been largely redone since his death, is literally covered with socialist and communist propaganda, including framed portraits of the two men - Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong - responsible for more deaths than any other pair of human beings this century, perhaps ever.
Anyway, I had been pretty good for most of the day, trying my best not to reveal my strong ideological feelings about the bombardment of bullshit to which I had been subjected. But finally, on our last stop at the Palacio Nacional, leaning up against the marble railing next to a Swedish lesbian, staring Lenin right in the face, I let loose this gem:
"Good call, Diego. The Russians got it right. Definitely chose the best system."
Immediately I could tell I had said the wrong thing. The girl turned to me, stiffened her spine, stared me straight in the eye, and retorted:
"I'm not sure you can say that our system has worked out any better," and walked away.
For the record:
Russia GDP/capita (at purchasing power parity) 2006, after roughly 20 years of supposed reform: $12,200
World Rank: 82
United States GDP/capita (at purchasing power parity) 2006: $43,800
World Rank: 10
20th century famines responsible for the deaths of over 5 million people:
China: 1
Russia: 1
United States: 0
But hey, at least they were better at something.
The first night didn't get started until after midnight, and it ended before 2AM. Both of us were pretty exhausted and hoping for an early start, so we settled for a few beers in the bar-filled section of town near our hotel. The next morning we met up with a Swedish lesbian couple from my school back in Guanajuato and started trying to do as many typical, touristy things as humanly possible.
Knowing nothing whatsoever about Mexico City prior to my arrival, I was completely at the mercy of the three women leading me around with guide books and subway maps. That said, I knew that I really wanted to get a chance to check out some Diego Rivera murals. I had seen pictures and various reproductions of some of Rivera's work, most of which I thought was very interesting and beautiful. For that reason, I was excited to go to the Teatro de Bellas Artes, where our taxi driver had told us there would be an unveiling of a recently-moved Rivera mural to go along with the many others already covering the walls of several government buildings.
I saw Rivera's murals at both the Palacio Nacional and the Teatro de Bellas Artes, and I saw more of his stuff when we went to the house he shared with Frida Kahlo. In each of those places, I was amazed by the energy and life that truly emanate from each of his pieces. I suspect that many critics think of Rivera's style as a bit crude, but when you are standing in front of a fresco that's 80 feet wide and 35 feet high, full of bright colors and impassioned historical figures the size of trucks, it's hard not to be impressed. However, what shocked me the most about Rivera's work was not the scale or the vividness of the colors, but rather the frequency of his proud, blatant representations of communism and its leaders, often juxtaposed by a gray, dreary, miserable United States, complete with factories and Standard Oil signs. Several of the paintings show Lenin himself, leader of the masses against injustice and poverty. Fine.
I understand communism's appeal, especially if you live in a place like Mexico and believe (mistakenly) that your country has tried free markets and elections and failed. Diego Rivera spent most of his life in a desperately poor country with a corrupt government pandering to the desires of a select few business elites. When he showed support for communist movements in his work or traveled to Russia to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the October Revolution's success, I'm about 95 percent certain that he believed the movements he admired would fight against the status quo and create more justice, equality, etc. The status quo of early 20th century Russia and Mexico (and the vast majority of the world) was a truly miserable thing, so I completely sympathize with the desire for change. What I cannot understand or justify is the amount of support that Rivera continued to show for communism well into his later life (he died in 1957). His house, which I assume has been largely redone since his death, is literally covered with socialist and communist propaganda, including framed portraits of the two men - Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong - responsible for more deaths than any other pair of human beings this century, perhaps ever.
Anyway, I had been pretty good for most of the day, trying my best not to reveal my strong ideological feelings about the bombardment of bullshit to which I had been subjected. But finally, on our last stop at the Palacio Nacional, leaning up against the marble railing next to a Swedish lesbian, staring Lenin right in the face, I let loose this gem:
"Good call, Diego. The Russians got it right. Definitely chose the best system."
Immediately I could tell I had said the wrong thing. The girl turned to me, stiffened her spine, stared me straight in the eye, and retorted:
"I'm not sure you can say that our system has worked out any better," and walked away.
For the record:
Russia GDP/capita (at purchasing power parity) 2006, after roughly 20 years of supposed reform: $12,200
World Rank: 82
United States GDP/capita (at purchasing power parity) 2006: $43,800
World Rank: 10
20th century famines responsible for the deaths of over 5 million people:
China: 1
Russia: 1
United States: 0
But hey, at least they were better at something.
What is this newfangled contraption?
This crazy thing that I have been invited to join? Is it some new form of record keeping, perhaps actively updating to the point that its speed and accuracy diminishes all contributions from the printing press? It is a strange falcon that weaves the gyre of this embryonic notion. Can it be nurtured into something more, greater than hypothetical pipedreams made into reality?
How the fuck should I know?
How the fuck should I know?
Signs of Dissent in Chavez's Paradise
Yesterday, some crazy Venezuelan radicals had the gall to destroy a beautiful tribute to revolutionary socialist Che Guevara. What a bunch of assholes, ruining Chavez's soon-to-be dictatorship's efforts to further idolize a murderer of thousands.
Note to Chavez: next time you want to immortalize your buddy Castro's right hand man, try making something out of stone.
Much more to come on this blog about Che and other idiot communist assassins like him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
