While walking to the Metro today on my way to work I watched hundreds of urban denizens walking around with the noticeable iPod white headphones and it got me thinking. I started thinking about the murder of NY Times journalist David Rosenbaum, who lived here in DC. What especially got me thinking about it was that the neighborhood it occurred in, while not the same as mine, nor even that close, is in many ways similar. Here in Foggy Bottom we have quiet streets, lighted walk ways, and relatively quiet nights, at least as far as crime goes. The same could and is said about the neighborhood where Rosenbaum lived. The most recent details to emerge about this case include that Rosenberg was found wearing headphones.

The Cult of the White Headphones, they hold services at the Church of St. Jobs, caused me to think that perhaps these people, any person wearing headphones while walking in the city makes themselves nothing more than a target. This past summer there was the heartbreaking case of a young child killed in Brooklyn for his iPod, and it’s happened in other places as well. So I can only wonder, as they bumble down the street with their iPods or any other headphone based device are we just walking around oblivious with an advertisement around our necks for robbery?

Now, don’t get me wrong, I love my iPod, but I don’t use it when walking around, I tried it once during freshman year but I felt toolish and it just didn’t sit well with me. Now I don’t mean to sound like an alarmist or anything, the fact of the matter is if you go and wear your iPod you’ll probably be fine. But the recent death in a relatively quiet neighborhood had me thinking that maybe if he hadn’t had his headphones on, maybe if he hadn’t appeared to be ignorant of his surroundings he might not be dead. Perhaps he would have heard them coming and could have walked toward the front door of a house scaring them off, or he could have walked faster. Even still, perhaps if he seemed like he was aware and just walking around he wouldn’t even have been targeted in the first place. Of course we can only speculate, but it definatley seems plausible.

Murder and crime aside, the entire issue speaks to a different yet related trend. Why do we feel the need to walk around with these headphones on ignorant of our neighbors and society. Increasingly it seems like the iPod is coming to represent the best in technological advancement, but also a continued decline in community, at least when walking around in a city. I’ve sat in classes with students listening to their iPods, every where I go someone is listening to their music. I wonder if these people are even enjoying their music, or is it instead becoming a simple necessity, something to preoccupy ourselves with, while we ignore a world going on around us.

Whenever the yearly tradition of American Idol comes around I wonder whether or not we’re going to hell in a handbasket.  Yet, we’re not the only nation of dolts.  A recent British survey suggests “more than one in 10 young Britons would quit school to become tomorrow’s tabloid star.”

Thank you England.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/12/curious-word-honor.html

You should read this post at Balkinization–it’s brilliant. In particular, it brings to the forefront one of the largest unspoken dilemmas of modern politics and philosophy: pragmatism vs. aspiration. As John McCain is quoted in the above as saying, “It’s not about who they are; it’s about who we are.” Whether or not you think torture is permissible, how we approach the problem speaks volumes about our qualities as a nation and a culture. See my previous post for more on this.

Food for thought: “Intelligence sharing between Europe and the United States certainly won’t grind to a halt but European political elites are coming under increasing pressure from their angry publics to distance themselves from any U.S. practices that infringe on human rights and international law. That spells trouble for European intelligence officers who cannot say with certainty how the intelligence they share will be used by their U.S. counterparts.”
–democracyarsenal.org [emphasis mine]

Intelligence cooperation has apparently been the unspoken backbone of political goodwill between Europe and the United States, even during moments of tense policy debate. That our stance on human rights could affect that backbone is troubling as well as unforeseen.

I mention this merely to provide more context for the human rights/terrorism defense debate, which rages unabated–and apparently unprogressed–in the news. What other practical considerations ought to be included when we weigh the hefty philosophical and moral burdens of sullying our souls through torture? Such actions are, I believe, like abortion: even on those occasions when they are both permissible and better than the alternative, they are NEVER to be wished for. No one is ever either pro-abortion or pro-torture; such choices are merely, as Winston Churchill might have said, the worst options except for all the others.

Both photos courtesy of Reuters, via the NY Times, these are pictures of Stanley Tookie Williams when he was first sentenced to death and committed to jail, and of him today, hours before his lethal injection.

With the same basic facts as Zac’s post on Mr. Williams, co-founder of the Crips gang, I have a different question: Why do we use prison as a punishment? Rehabilitation? Punishment? Deterrence? Protection? How many of these goals does it actually serve? What are the good reasons for putting someone behind bars–to wit, depriving them of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness–for any length of time? How about for a year? For two years? For twenty? For fifty? Is fifty years worse than the death penalty?

Have we ever considered alternatives? Would such alternatives be viable if it meant not depriving prisoners of their youth while still punishing and exacting payment for society?

Again: Why do we use prison?

The bulk of the NYTimes Magazine this week is taken up by The 5th Annual Year in Ideas. I have pulled out the most pertinent for TwoDems:

Branding Nations

Cartoon Empathy

Conservative Blogs are More Effective

Fair Employment Mark, The

Laptop That Will Save the World, The

Totally Religious, Absolutely Democratic Constitution, The

We are going to try and be back again. I’m going to most likely blog a lot in the coming days on observations from the last month I have not been making. I have an interesting CJR article to share, and the Yale Law Review had a great article on Brown v. Board I’d love to share.

Firstly, one of my favorite moments in a given week is when the NY Times magazine comes out on Saturday evenings. This week the opening
essay is a piece by Jim Holt on Science. I think it is difficult for those of us who love science to often think about this one. But as he points out:

As for the great ruck of ordinary Americans, they are merely uninterested in, or perhaps bored by, science. Only one in five has bothered to take a physics course. Three out of four haven’t heard that the universe is expanding. Nearly half, according to a recent survey, seem to believe that God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years. Less than 10 percent of adult Americans, it is estimated, are in possession of basic scientific literacy.

The National Defense Education Act of 1958 (and what it got reauthorized as) had scientific education of America as a huge component. But some how it seems clear that never happened. We were able to create the best collections of minds in the world (something we may soon find to be not true) but I gather that we never actually did educated most Americans on the basics of science. I personally am an education nut and imagine a world were we force many Americans to take what is currently the college prep curriculum, so that everyone can have some grounding in the history of literature, this country, and the sciences. Education really will be the difference between our success and failure in the coming decades. Science and god are perhaps difficult to rectify, but it will be more difficult to rectify the decline of the American Empire in twenty years because the godless Chinese realized that engineering and science was the path toward global dominance.

Science isn’t easy, but we don’t need Americans to be scientists. We need teachers, texts, tests and standards that encourage just a few more people to be scientists and engineers. We need those same things to just make people science literate. As Larry Summers once said:

Science: you know, we live in a culture … that if you didn’t know the name of five plays by Shakespeare, you would be embarrassed to admit it. But if you didn’t know the difference between a gene and a chromosome, that’s a technical subject. Your doctor knows, so it’s OK. I don’t think that’s going to work for the next 50 years. I don’t think it’s going to work. I think science is too important to leave to scientists.

Beyond that you should just read the essay.

The Associated Press has an article regarding scientists at Harvard who are fusing skin and embryonic stem cells in order to create stem cells that wouldn’t need to be harvested from unused embryos. I think this shows just how bad things have gotten for our scientific community.

On the one hand you can say this is great that scientists are finding ways to get around using the stem cells that many in the hardcore religious right, including the President, object to. This despite the House of Representatives sending legislation to the Senate that would open up more research in the field, by changing the original law that limited the amount of lines. The President, of course, has promised a veto on any such legislation.

More than that though, I feel this is a waste of time. Unfortunately due to the President’s policy, scientists are forced to spend more time finding a way to get the materials they need instead of focusing on the research that should be done. Meanwhile in a laboratory in South Korea advances are being made every day that change the way we understand human biology and may one day lead to revolutionary treatments. Not in America though; because of what amounts to a religious edict from the government, our scientists, some of the brightest in the world, can’t perform the research they want. The research many Americans want and need.

As was pointed out the opposition comes from the hardcore religious right. Unlike other religious issues that draw almost 50-50 splits, the opposition in this case tends to the minority of the population. In fact public opinion on the matter of stem cell research falls strongly and in some polls overwhelmingly in the pro-research camp. The most recent poll was conducted by Gallup; the details were:

“Do you think the federal government should or should not fund research that would use newly created stem cells obtained from human embryos?”
Should: 56%
Should Not: 40%
Unsure: 4%

The House clearly gets the message and acted toward the position that has broad support from Americans. Now, we need to see if the Senate will follow suit and even the example of Majority Leader Bill Frist in supporting this legislation.

Finally, I’d like to take issue with the bias in this particular Associate Press article, their references to stem cells are buttressed with the typical talking points of the religious right on the matter.

that could lead to the creation of useful stem cells without first having to create and destroy human embryos.
[...]
Those social concerns are reflected in the Senate’s looming debate over a House-passed bill to force taxpayers to fund stem cell research that would destroy human embryos, legislation President Bush has promised to veto. Bush and many fellow conservatives believe it is immoral to create embryos only to destroy them, even in the name of scientific progress that could cure or treat diseases afflicting millions of people.

The article doesn’t even come close to the simple fact that the stem cells used, aren’t being created for the purpose of research. Instead most come from embryos scheduled and planned to be discarded. So while President Bush can talk about his snowflake children, he doesn’t seem all to concerned with the six to seven embryos that were ‘destroyed’ in the process of trying to implant just one, or the embryos that get discarded every day. Those embryos that the President is fine with destroying could lead to medical breakthroughs, I don’t know about you, but I call that supporting the cause of life.

From the Onion: Evangeical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory

Last night, after dark, the remains of Hunter S. Thompson were blasted into the sky out of a gonzo logo shaped cannon.

There he goes. One of God’s own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.

Rest in peace, Doc.

If you recall after the passing of Hunter S. Thompson, Doctor of Journalism, it was made known that he wanted his ashses launched out of a cannon. Well, it seems the good doctor always gets what he wants.

From the Aspen Daily News:

WOODY CREEK – An armored truck hauling the pulverized remains of Hunter S. Thompson was en route to Owl Farm on Tuesday afternoon as swarms of workers sweated the last details of the offbeat writer’s ballyhooed funeral service.

The bulletproof truck is needed to ensure the public’s safety, according to Anita Thompson, the late author’s wife, because Thompson’s ashes have been sealed inside the tops of dozens of fireworks that will explode above his property on Saturday. Actor Johnny Depp is funding the event, which organizers estimate will cost roughly $2.5 million, to fulfill the vision that Thompson detailed in a 1978 BBC documentary and to his friends and family leading up to his suicide. Seated in front of his typewriter, Thompson shot himself in the head Feb. 20. He was 67.

I mean, it does sound kinda cool to go out with blazing fireworks in the mountains of Colorado.

And thus, should be illegal to be used by restaurants, at least that’s what NYC would like to see happen. I mean the article pretty much stands for it self, trans-fats make people fat, so restaurants should stop using them as a public service.

This is the natural continuation of what happens when paternalism goes unchecked; NYC is famous for its smoking ban, and now wants to continue making healthy decisions for restaurant patrons. It should be noted that some action is already being taken, nationwide.

The Food and Drug Administration has already targeted trans fats. Nationwide, all foods containing the chemically modified oils must be labeled beginning next January.

I think that labeling is really as far as you want to go, I don’t want government in the business of telling a chef what not to use when he’s cooking my food that I pay money for. If nothing else the labels should achieve the goal of informing the customers, and sure many will not read it, but that’s really their own fault then isn’t it?

Now if anyone is going to say we should help the children, well this stuff can and should be removed from public school lunches but that’s as far as we can go, additionally in gym and health classes teach children about the warnings, the habits they develop as children will determine what they do as adults.

I’m not surprised by this at all though, and hope that NYC will stop it from happening, if for no other reason then keeping government off my plate. This is almost as bad as a NJ law that prevents restaurants from cooking my steak medium rare; I know what’s good for me and what’s bad for me, and I also know what’s delicious. I know some readers in NJ will call me on that, the truth is that many finer establishments willingly break that regulation because, well, their customers are happier that way and they get bigger tips.