On Sarah Vowell

I first became acquainted (as in, I know some of her work, not as in we hang out) with Sarah Vowell through her contributions to NPR's This American Life. Yah, NPR, big surprise!

Whenever I'd listen to her contributions, I would always think, "what a weird voice. She should just write articles, not ever talk on the radio."

But now that I'm reading her book, The Partly Cloudy Patriot (which is painfully dated now that Bush is out of office), all I can hear is her voice, as if she's reciting these lines to me through the airwaves.

I've come to understand that Vowell's voice is what sets her apart from any other rambling girl, who feels the need to pour her bleeding heart out to the masses. (You know girls like that, don't you? *looks around nonchalantly, spots a mirror and staggers in shock*)

...
In unrelated news, I've been thinking about starting a podcast...

Conversation with a Young Conservative

The previous post opened with a bewildered statement about the existence of young Bay Area Republicans, but wasn't actually about them. This one was sparked by a conversation I had with one such person, but I certainly am not about to restate my bewilderment.

How I understand it:
Fiscal conservatism is a philosophy that at its core is about liberty (which is why the most staunch proponents of this theory call themselves libertarians). They believe people who earn their money should be allowed to decide how it is spent rather than forced by the government to sponsor programs that don't directly benefit them.

My friend posed a question to me: how do you feel about lazy people who don't contribute to society being supported by the money of hard-working people?

It was a hard question to answer, since socialism works on the principle that people contribute bits to the society to create a greater whole. The best answer I had was a counter question: what about people who live on dividends of the money they already have, and don't do anything useful for society? In the pure free market system where they pay little in taxes, these people aren't helping the society in any way. Think: Paris Hilton.

We sort of came to a stalemate at that point, but this post is in the result of "staircase revelations" -- when you continue thinking about something, long after the conversation is over.

I guess there are holes in any philosophy. I guess "lazy people" are the downfall of any Utopian society (barring fancy sci-fi technology ^_~). The reason I'm (what some would call) a socialist, rather than a libertarian, is quite simply because I have more sympathy for poor lazy people than rich lazy people.

Because for every lazy person who's living off the system, there are probably three hundred hungry students who need health care. For every person who supposedly has another baby to receive more welfare, there is are a hundred single moms who need to feed their kids.

I could end the post there, but I just want to add this: I read an article recently that lamented the $500,000/yr salary cap Obama wants to give CEOs of financial institutions who took bail-out money. And I quote,

"Five hundred thousand dollars... seems like a lot, and it is a lot... But in the neighborhoods of New York City and its suburban enclaves where successful bankers live, half a million a year can go very fast... Sure, the solution may seem simple: move to Brooklyn or Hoboken, put the children in public schools and buy a MetroCard. But more than a few of the New York-based financial executives who would have their pay limited are men (and they are almost invariably men) whose identities are entwined with living a certain way in a certain neighborhood west of Third Avenue."

Would you excuse me while I find a kleenex? I feel so sorry for these guys!

Look, this is just another reason why I don't feel sorry for the rich irresonsible people: they're the ones that got us into the financial crisis that we're in. I'm not saying the irresponsible poor people didn't contribute by buying houses they couldn't afford, but the educated rich people should've known better than to give them the loans. So then why are we giving all the money to the rich people? My socialist heart is fuming with righteous indignation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P.S. I also, in my heart of hearts, believe that when most of the lowest rung of society is living above the poverty line, the whole society does better as a whole. That's all, folks!

Better than Bush

*sigh*

So you'd be shocked to know this, but there are actually some Republican people out here in the Bay Area that are in my age range. I mean I know Cali has Republican people--look at our Governator, and our Prop 8! It's just so easy to assume they're all old people from Fresno.But as it turns out, there are young Republicans in California and some of them are even my friends.

I might be digging a hole for myself with this opening, cuz some of my Republican friends might be reading this. So this is where I underscore that this post isn't about young Republicans in the Bay Area. Just prompted by a few discussions I've had with them, here and there.

What this post is about is my ongoing relationship with our new President. (Lengthy aside: Not like, a relationship two people have, obviously, but more like when people say "I have a relationship with Christ." Wait no, not really. Cuz when people have a relationship with Christ, I'm pretty sure they have (imaginary?) direct interactions with Christ, whereas all I have are thoughts and opinions about Obama. Anyway...)

I'm pretty skeptical about Obama, and simultaneously hopeful, as outlined in the Hope post from January 21st, the day after the Inauguration. Well he's had about three weeks to show his character, and it's only fair that I respond.

What frustrates me about my Republican friends is when I say, "at the very least we can be sure he'll do better than Bush," and they respond with "nnyeeeeeeehhhhh, I dunno about that." Yes, that's the seed that prompted this whale of a post.

COME ON! WHAT DON'T YOU KNOW? Bush is like Harding and Hoover combined. How can it be worse than Bush?

You know what comforts me about Obama? It's so basic, so simple. It's how articulate he is. How often I find myself thinking, "yes, yup" whenever he makes simple sentences. It's something I find myself reveling in. I feel like that's something people in other countries must take for granted.

I grew up being confused how a bumbling idiot could make to the White House. I went through all of high school and all of college shouting to the world that dissent is patriotism, or (in my not-so-patriotic moments) that it is, at the very least, rational thinking, intelligence. Agreeing with the President is a weird feeling for me. I almost feel like I must be missing something, like I'm being unpatriotic by not feeling critical.

Does that even make sense?

San Jose Streets Outrage II

This has been happening to me a lot lately:

It's early morning, I'm tired and I'm late for class. I'm walking through the rainy streets, I can't wait to get to school and put down my stuff, get my schedule straightened out.... Some dude is sitting on his front porch (wth is he doing, anyway?), and he's like,
"Hey, you dropped something?"
I whirl around, startled. I didn't hear anything fall, so I'm looking at the ground in confusing. "Really?"
He says, "yeah, your smile!"

Or like the other day, I'm crossing the street. I'm rushing across in high heels, and some guy stops me. He's like "Smile! You're beautiful!"

I'm serious, this shit happens to me all the time. Why do people want me to be walking around smiling? Do they know what a person looks like, randomly smiling to themselves in the street? I'll give you a hint, it starts with "in" and ends with "sane."

Believe in Science!!

I'm taking some science classes and listening to a lot of science-themed radio, plus associating with a lot of scientists... well, it's just got me thinking. It's got me thinking about Pascal's Wager.

Quick summary: Pascal was a haughty atheist all his life, but became religious toward the end of his life just in case. He argued that he had nothing to lose, since God's existence could not be proved or disproved. If he died and turned out to be right--heaven. If he died and nothing happened--no harm done.
Clearly, there are many things wrong with this, but that's not the point of this post, so to move on.
"Pascal's Wager" has become a term that scientists use to refer to pseudoscientists. It is essentially the idea that when there is no definite scientific explanation for a phenomenon, any other explanation will do.

Well my concern is the anti-pascal's wager that I see so often in the scientific community. I don't mean the religious version from Richard Dawkins. What I mean is when scientists proclaim, "just because science can't explain it now, doesn't mean it won't in the future!"

If delving deeper into science has taught me anything, it is how tentative science can sometimes be. It's always changing, morphing. There are always arguments going on, so many people disagree on the "facts." Or what those "facts" prove. Sometimes it's just as hard to trust a scientific explanation, as it is to trust a supernatural one.

Okay, okay, that's a huge exaggeration. I didn't mean it, I swear. I really appreciate just how level-headed scientists are, compared to the pseudoscientists. It makes it way easier to trust them.

It's that blind faith that scientists often have. The blind faith that science will explain it all, eventually. It feels misguided and naive to me. Or egotistical. Take your pick.

Can we just get a little skepticism on both ends of the spectrum here? When someone proclaims, "God hates fill-in-the-blank," I want you to ask, "Where in the bible does it say that?" When someone says, "Evidence shows that fill-in-the-blank," I want you to ask, "What is the evidence for that?" You might be surprised what you find.