The Family and Poverty

How’s this for a mind-blowing statistic: I just read in the Economist (so it must be a conservative conspiracy, right?) that ”Americans who finish high school, work full-time and wait until they are 21 and married before they have children have only a 2% chance of being poor.” Holy shit, right? That can’t possibly be true. Two percent?! I mean seriously, if you care about solving poverty, this statistic should blow you away.

 Especially because, as the Economist points out, all three are relatively simple criteria. Right? I mean, none of them requires your parents to be wealthy. None requires you to be of a certain gender, or race, or to be born in a nice neighborhood. Anyone can finish High School. It may be hard to get the job you want, but getting a full-time job of any kind isn’t impossible. Ok, I know, the economy sucks. Especially for us young people. But unless you insist on only taking the jobs that you want, that advance the career you want, getting a full-time job isn’t that hard. And anyone can wait until they are 21 and married before having kids. 

If you do all three of those relatively simple things, you are almost guaranteed not to be poor. Which means that nearly all of America’s poor do not satisfy these three criteria. I was absolutely floored when I read that. Because these three statistics point out the root causes of poverty in America. They have to, don’t they? 

Let’s look at these three stats again a little more carefully. The first is a failure of education. There is absolutely no excuse for kids to be failing High School. Short of having a serious brain disability such as downs syndrome, every single American teenager is fully capable of succeeding in High School academically. Let’s be honest – High School in the US is not exactly demanding.  Just ask the South Koreans – compared to their schools, US High Schools are a walk in the park.

Yet many are not graduating. In fact, only 57% of Black students in the class of 2008 graduated (I mention Blacks in particular because the Economist article bemoaned how Blacks in America are falling farther behind, and thus provided additional statistics on Blacks. Also, this week is the 50^th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr’s speech). That is an atrocious statistic. So about half of Blacks are already out of the running to make it in the 98% not poor category. 

The second statistic indicates a dual failure of education and the economy. The job market, especially for young people, is still really tough. The economy is out of recession, but it doesn’t really feel like it, the way the unemployment rate has stayed high – and that disguises millions of Americans who have given up on looking for a job or are on permanent “disability” because the jobs they qualify for no longer exist in America. Additionally, we’re not educating our young people to have the skills to compete in a rapidly changing labor market. 

As painful as it is for many to hear this, the third and final statistic is, pure and simple, a failure of old fashioned values and the family. Simply put, if you don’t have a baby before 21 and you get married, you qualify for the magic group of Americans that aren’t poor. Other statistics support this assertion: the Economist also reports that “fewer than 30% of children in the poorest third of white America live with both parents by the time their mother turns 40. Among the most affluent fifth, around 90% of children live in a household with both parents. Marriage has become a fault-line dividing American classes.”

When you consider that today 72% of Black children are born out of wedlock, you’re looking at nearly three-quarters of Blacks are already out of the running for candidacy in the “golden group”.

The importance of marriage and family are heightened further when you consider that the single most important statistical indicator of a child’s academic success is the level of education of the child’s mother – indicating that parental involvement, instilling the need for academic excellence and following up actively on a child’s progress, is extremely important. So the first issue – a failure of education – is really a family issue in disguise.

The gist of all this is: 

1.       1. We have identified three issues that are near-perfect predictors of non-poverty – and therefore provide powerful insight into poverty

2.       2. Of those three issues, two are directly linked to marriage and family. If you consider that Black unemployment is only 14.4% (14.4% of Blacks fail to qualify for the “golden group” by virtue of category 2), compared with 43% who fail to graduate High School and 72% that fail to wait till 21 and get married before having kids, these two marriage-related factors are the most important of the three.

Now, let me be clear on one thing: I hate it as much as anyone else when right-wing conservatives preach “family values” from their high horses; especially when what they really mean is “homosexuals are destroying America.” But there is simply no denying the facts: the family is the strongest guarantee against poverty. Strong families are – by far – the most potent antidote to poverty in America. 

The problem is that I’m not sure that the federal government can do much in terms of policy to promote strong families. But that’s clearly where the secret to conquering poverty lies.

Drones: a double-edged sword?

Hello Salon,

It's been pretty quiet on the Salon lately. I came across an article that seemed both highly relevant and quite likely to break the silence. At the very least, I think it's a provocative issue that deserves some real discussion and debate. And let me start by saying that I think there are a lot of legitimate points to be made on the issue and that it is multi-faceted, so any and all perspectives are encouraged.

My final class for my Middle East Studies MA is called Counter Terrorism. This past week we have been discussing the use of drones as a CT policy tool, and I read a very well-written and well-argued piece by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. I've reproduced it below, but the link is here:

In defense of Obama’s drone war

The nation’s vexation over the morality and legality of President Obama’s drone war has produced a salutary but hopelessly confused debate. Three categories of questions are being asked. They must be separated to be clearly understood.

1. By what right does the president order the killing by drone of enemies abroad? What criteria justify assassination?

Answer: (a) imminent threat, under the doctrine of self-defense, and (b) affiliation with al-Qaeda, under the laws of war.

Imminent threat is obvious. If we know a freelance jihadist cell in Yemen is actively plotting an attack, we don’t have to wait until after the fact. Elementary self-defense justifies attacking first.
Al-Qaeda is a different matter. We are in a mutual state of war. Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa declaring war on the United States in 1996; we reciprocated three days after 9/11 with Congress’s Authorization for Use of Military Force — against al-Qaeda and those who harbor and abet it. (Such resolutions are the contemporary equivalent of a declaration of war, as evidenced in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War.)

Regarding al-Qaeda, therefore, imminence is not required. Its members are legitimate targets, day or night, awake or asleep. Nothing new here. In World War II, we bombed German and Japanese barracks without hesitation.

Unfortunately, Obama’s Justice Department memos justifying the drone attacks are hopelessly muddled. They imply that the sole justification for drone attack is imminent threat — and whereas al-Qaeda is plotting all the time, an al-Qaeda honcho sleeping in his bed is therefore a legitimate target.

Nonsense. Slippery nonsense. It gives the impression of an administration making up criteria to fit the president’s kill list. No need to confuse categories. A sleeping Anwar al-Awlaki could lawfully be snuffed not because of imminence but because he was self-declared al-Qaeda and thus an enemy combatant as defined by congressional resolution and the laws of war.

2. But Awlaki was no ordinary enemy. He was a U.S. citizen. By what right does the president order the killing by drone of an American? Where’s the due process?

Answer: Once you take up arms against the United States, you become an enemy combatant, thereby forfeiting the privileges of citizenship and the protections of the Constitution, including due process. You retain only the protection of the laws of war — no more and no less than those of your foreign comrades-in-arms. (Indeed, David French, senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, suggests stripping such traitors of their citizenship, thereby formalizing their extra-constitutional status.)

Lincoln steadfastly refused to recognize the Confederacy as a separate nation. The soldiers that his Union Army confronted at Antietam were American citizens (in rebellion) — killed without due process. Nor did the Americans storming German bunkers at Normandy inquire before firing whether there were any German Americans among them — to be excused for gentler treatment while the other Germans were mowed down.

3. Who has the authority to decide life-and-death targeting?
In war, the ultimate authority is always the commander in chief and those in the lawful chain of command to whom he has delegated such authority.

This looks troubling. Obama sitting alone in the Oval Office deciding which individuals to kill. But how is that different from Lyndon Johnson sitting in his office choosing bombing targets in North Vietnam?

Moreover, we firebombed entire cities in World War II. Who chose? Commanders under the ultimate authority of the president. No judicial review, no outside legislative committee, no secret court, no authority above the president.

Okay, you say. But today’s war is entirely different: no front line, no end in sight.
So what? It’s the jihadists who decided to make the world a battlefield and to wage war in perpetuity. Until they abandon the field, what choice do we have but to carry the fight to them?
We have our principles and precedents for lawful warmaking, and a growing body of case law for the more vexing complexities of the present war — for example, the treatment of suspected terrorists apprehended on U.S. soil. The courts having granted them varying degrees of habeas corpus protection, it is clear that termination by drone (a measure far more severe than detention) would be forbidden — unless Congress and the courts decide otherwise, which, short of a Taliban invasion from New Brunswick, is inconceivable.

Now, for those who believe that the war on terror is not war but law enforcement, (a) I concede that they will find the foregoing analysis to be useless and (b) I assert that they are living on a different and distant planet.

For us earthlings, on the other hand, the case for Obama’s drone war is strong. Pity that his Justice Department couldn’t make it.

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

I don't want to make too many comments before turning the matter over to the Salon for debate and consideration. But let me say this: despite the temptation to take easy pot shots at President George W Bush's "war on terror" I don't think the notion of being at war with terrorist groups can be so nonchalantly discarded. And I think that Krauthammer's judgement that going after terrorists abroad is not law enforcement. If it isn't war, then I'm not sure we have a term for it yet.

Anyway, what do you all think about drones and drone use? A lot has been written on the subject, so I look forward to reading the articles you find enlightening and cogently argued. I think that the invention of the drone has forever changed warfare. What do we need to know and do to adapt to this revolutionary change?

Have at it, and I look forward to reading your comments!

- Cincinnatus

Is "laptop activism" a good thing?

Is “laptop activism” a step forward, or a step backward?

I recently got an email from Rolf Skar, the epically-named Green Peace forest initiative guy, announcing that, because of support for online campaigns, two major victories have been won this year already. First Asia Pulp and Paper – the largest deforester in the world, I think – has agreed to stop cutting Indonesian rainforest and to switch to sustainable forestry. If they follow through (and they might not) this would be a huge victory. Second, Yum! (the company that owns lots of fast food brands like KFC and Taco Bell) has officially released new company policies that (again, if followed) would prevent any of its sub-companies from using pulp or paper products from rainforests. Again, a huge victory.

The victories came after a couple of years of concerted public action and pressure from Green Peace, and initiatives that I and millions of other Americans (mostly young people, too) signed onto. And almost all of it was done online. Sure, I contribute about $15 a month to Green Peace in support of initiatives like this one, but even that transaction takes place automatically, online.

Pete has also been engaged in online activism, through the Move On program, to save the forest behind his house in San Franciso from destruction. I don't know if he has been successful, but I sure signed it – electronically, of course.

My question is this: all of this activism seems and sounds great. But is it? I mean, I feel that my generation (people born at the tail end (the last two decades or so) of the last century), is more socially aware and active than any other in human history. Yet at the same time we are, hands down, the laziest generation to walk the Earth. We spend almost all of our time on our laptops, browsing the net, writing emails, updating Facebook statuses, etc. We rarely get out and do anything in the real world.

So which is better? Can increased online activism replace real-world activism? And by that I mean marches, strikes, protests, civic engagement, volunteering in the community, participating in local politics, voting, etc. Sure, more of one doesn't necessarily mean less of the other, but it seems that things are headed that way. I mean, if young people could vote online, you'd see turnout among the young go to 100%. But ask people my age to go to the local polling station (even finding out where it is located is often too much) and stand in line for an hour and turnout plummets to what it is (roughly 50% - a pathetic figure).

Does the increase in online activism more than cancel out our lack of willingness to get off our computers and engage with people and problems face-to-face? What do you guys think?

Spiritual But Not Religious

As this is my first blog post in an eternity, I have a bizarre desire to write on a perspective I actually have very mixed feelings on. Recently, an article in the NY Times was published by a Jewish Rabbi, assessing the topic of spirituality and religiosity. According to the article, almost 1 in 5 Americans identify themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” In other words, they have some feeling, some intuition of something greater, but feel allergic to institutions.

I think I must have this allergy.

In fact, I am certain I developed this allergy at a very young age. Perhaps it's like peanuts and eggs, where it is argued whether early introduction creates tolerance or an allergic reaction. The jury is still out on that.

The rabbi goes on in the article to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of being religious. The idea of being part of a religious institution involves submitting your will to others, especially those you disagree with. According to the rabbi, institutions can be slow, plodding, dictatorial. They can both enable and shield wrongdoers. I have experienced and seen this on a broad level as well as on a very personal level.

Yet the rabbi argues that it is only through the lens of a community organized by religious institution that we can effect change and mobilization on spiritual matters. I have also experienced and seen this.  There is something profoundly, well, spiritual about a meeting.  It involves individuals trying together to sort out priorities, to listen and learn from one another, to make a difference.

I uphold this completely! Individuals coming together for a common good is powerful! What do you do, though, when the premise does not allow for discussion? Or if there is discussion, it is only to point out your wrongdoing, to gently and lovingly correct your missteps. Does "listening and learning", as he says, only work within strict parameters in religion? I have a feeling that as a reformed Jew, he probably does in fact encourage healthy debate. Nothing negative, I'm sure, as that would squash any positive spirit about a religious meeting. With more traditionally static institutions, though, what avenue for listening and learning should instead be traversed? Is it impossible in very large institutions? Should we merely accept that change can only be very, ponderously slow? That may be reasonable, as anything large and structured is generally slow to change.
Peering a bit further, however, what if it is assumed that dynamism in thought might actually corrode at the strength of the institution to enact positive change? I have a feeling that by "submitting your will to others", this rabbi did not mean to never hope for something different. What light can be shed on this seeming dilemma?

He says, spirituality is an emotion. Religion is an obligation. Spirituality soothes. Religion mobilizes. Spirituality is satisfied with itself. Religion is dissatisfied with the world.
What do you do when this dissatisfaction with the world is not in line with your own dissatisfaction? And how does one balance dissatisfaction with the institution over its potential for good and improvement?

His last statement is beautiful. If only all religious institutions could espouse this viewpoint: Being religious does not mean you have to agree with all the positions and practices of your own group; I don’t even hold with everything done in my own synagogue, and I’m the Rabbi. But it does mean testing yourself in the arena of others.

I do not want to pose my own feelings too much on this issue, rather would like to hear your thoughts on this topic. I mostly have questions I would like answered! Haha, or help in answering, as I don't think there really is one solid answer. I will ask one particular question that is most important to me, then hope that you will expound on your own feelings on everything, not just this question. How does one reconcile these two: accepting that you won't be able to agree with the institution on everything, while at the same time not sacrificing those who are marginalized or put to spiritual isolation?

Have at it, brainiacs of most brilliant introspection!!! ;)

---------
Here is the article, if you want to read the full length version.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/21/viewpoint-the-problem-with-being-spiritual-but-not-religious/?iid=op-article-mostpop1

A new start: let's be sober

Hello friends,

I know all of you who are authors on this blog, though you may not all know each other. That's fine: you'll get to know each other here!

I thought I would get our juices flowing with something of a cop-out post mixed with a healthy degree of shameless plug: instead of sharing a provocative, thoughtful article I found on the interwebs, I'm sharing one of my own posts, from my blog :P read it here.

As the one of the purposes of the Salon is to seek truth, I thought it was relevant. I mean it when I say that we're never completely right about anything. We see through a glass, darkly. The perfect light of pure truth won't come until the next life. So while we're sharing our thoughts and beliefs and making our voices heard, let's keep a spirit of humility, admitting the limitations of our understanding, and an openness to additional light and truth.

As always, comments actively encouraged! Feel free to check out the rest of my blog if you wish (another shameless plug!). It's just my personal musings, so read at your own risk :)

Cincinnatus

The hole we're all in

Hello again everyone! It's been a long time since there's been any activity on the salon. I've been busy sticking my head in the sand, trying to get through school. And I imagine everyone else has been painfully busy with life as well. My internship this summer includes as a major task watching the news and keeping my boss updated, so I find myself more able to plug into issues of relevance that are prime subjects for discussion in the salon. So here's to a revival of debate and discussion!

I just read a New York Times editorial by Thomas Friedman (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/opinion/01friedman.html?hp) that's worth reading. He describes the disastrous "Bin Laden Decade" from 2001 to 2011 in which the US, Israel, and the Arab World all dug massive holes for themselves - holes that we're all going to have to dig ourselves out of, eventually. But now we're far less capable of doing so then ever.

For instance, the UN in 2002 published a report on development in the Arab World which basically said the region had three obstacles to overcome: a lack of freedom, a lack of quality education and knowledge, and a lack of women's development and participation. I think the UN report was right on - those are precisely the region's most pressing and fundamental problems, and solving them will do more to help overcome all the other problems rampant in the region (unemployment, religious extremism, etc). But the ten years spanning 2001-2010 saw dictators clamp down ever tighter on their people's freedoms across the Arab World, while education continued to be lacking, and women's rights eroded steadily, or maintained their ground but did not advance. All of this, of course, thanks to US foreign policy in the region which placed anti-terrorism efforts above tackling the REAL problems.

In the US, our good friend George W Bush simultaneously cut taxes, increased spending on health care, and then started two unbelievably costly wars. If anyone is to blame for the massive level of US debt (now more than 65% of GDP, and due to rise well above 100% in the next few years), it is George Bush. The recent recession isn't helping things either, making it ever harder to make the necessary changes to put our country in the position to pay down the debt, or at least hold it steady at a reasonable level (the EU accession criteria for new potential member states includes debt levels not higher than 60% - under these rules, if the US were a European country, we wouldn't be allowd to join the EU). And, of course, our dearly beloved politicians, instead of tackling the REAL problems (ballooning debt and an aging population), prefer to attack each other, because it's always easier to criticize an opponent than to solve difficult problems.

Finally, Israel has had years of peace, stability, and a willing negotiating partner
(Mahoud Abbas has been the president of the Palestinian Authority since 2005) to solve its existential crisis by withdrawing from the occupied West Bank and gaining recognition of a Jewish state in exchange for its reciprocal recognition of a Palestinian one. But rather than seize the opportunity to act, another dear friend of ours, Benjamin Netanyahu, has let the historic - and probably never to return - chance slip away in exchange for continued popularity at home. He has aggressively pursued Jewish settlement in the West Bank (there are now approximately 600,000 Jews living in the occupied territory), a move that has strengthened support for him and his party in the shor-term, but which leaves the question of Israel's legitimacy (as well as its claim to be a genuine democracy) up in the air for later generations of leaders to deal with. After all, if you don't want to deal with the REAL problem, what's better than putting it off for others to solve later on? It's certainly easier to do that than solve it yourself.

So that leaves us all standing in deep holes, with scant resources with which to extricate ourselves. The next decade will tell if political leaders in the Arab World, Israel, and the US can generate the courage, strength, and authority necessary to finally address and solve the real problems - and believe me, there are no easy fixes when it comes to REAL problems; the solutions are painful, difficult, and take a long time to bear fruit. It's a good sign you're addressing the core issues if the solutions are painful and long-term. No one is going to like it, but it's the only way out of the hole. So (speaking to our esteemed leaders), any takers?

Islamiphobia

I can't help but feel part of the problem I detest while posting this blog entry. Rehashing on the topic of the New York mosque only adds to the insanity that is the islamiphobic dialogue polluting our media. In reality people should have left the incredibly narrow minded opinions of a bigoted minority die in quiet solitude. This post is then generated in hopes that the chaotic hate spewed in America may one day be extinct. My own words fail me in describing how such unreasonable hatred is shredding America apart and I feel that I must borrow on Charton Heston's speech. Below is an abridged version of Heston's NRA speech he made in Colorado shortly after the Columbine tragedy. I think the truth found here about the NRA issue speaks just as well for the mosque issue:

********************************************************************************************************************************

They say, "Don't come." I'm sorry for that. This is our country. As Americans, we are free to travel wherever we want, in our broad land. I guess what saddens me the most is how that suggests complicity. It implies that you and I and 80 million honest gun owners are somehow to blame. That we don't care as much as they do. Or that we don't deserve to be as shocked and horrified as every other soul in America mourning for the people of Littleton. Don't come here. That's offensive. It's also absurd. Because we live here. There are thousands of NRA members in Denver and tens upon tens of thousands in the state of Colorado.

I see our country teetering on the edge of an abyss. At its bottom brews the simmering bile of deep, dark hatred. Hatred that is dividing our country. Politically. Racially. Geographically. In every way, whether it's political vendettas, sports brawls, corporate takeovers, high school gangs and cliques. The American competitive ethic has changed from "let's beat the other guy" to "let's destroy the other guy." Too many, too many are too willing to stigmatize and demonize others for political advantage, for money or for ratings. The vilification is savage.

This harvest of hatred is then sold as news, as entertainment, as government policy. Such hateful, divisive forces are leading us to one awful end: America's own form of Balkanization. A weakened country of rabid factions each less free, united only by hatred of one another. In the past 10 days we've seen these brutal blows attempting to fracture America into two such camps. One camp would be the majority, people who believe our Founders guaranteed our security with the right to defend ourselves, our families, and our country. The other camp would be a large minority of people who believe that we will buy security if we will just surrender these freedoms. This debate would be accurately described as those who believe in the Second Amendment versus those who don't. But instead it is spun as those who believe in murder versus those who don't.

But we're not the rustic reckless radicals they wish for. No, the NRA spans the broadest range of American demography imaginable. We defy stereotype, except for love of country. Look in your mirror, your shopping mall, your church or grocery store. That's us. Millions of ordinary people and extraordinary people. War heroes, sports idols, several U.S. presidents, and yes, movie stars. But the screeching hyperbole leveled at gun owners has made these two camps so wary of each other, so hostile, and confrontational and disrespectful. On both sides. It is forgotten that we are first, Americans. I am asking all of us on both sides to take one step back from the edge. Then another step. And another. However many it takes to get back to that place where we are all Americans. Different, imperfect, diverse, but one nation, indivisible. This cycle of tragedy-driven hatred must stop. Because so much more connects us than that which divides us. And because tragedy has been and will always be with us. Somewhere right now evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it. But each horrible act can't become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very bill of rights that binds us. America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction, when an isolated terrible event occurs, our phones ring demanding that the NRA explain the inexplicable. Why us? Because their story needs a villain. They want us to play the heavy in their drama of packaged grief. To provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food. The dirty secret of this day and age is that political gain and media ratings all too often bloom on fresh graves.

Reporters perch like vultures on the balconies of hotels for a hundred miles around. Cameras jockey for shocking angles, as news anchors race to drench their microphones with the tears of victims. Injury, shock, grief and despair shouldn't be brought to you by sponsors. That's pornography. It trivializes the tragedy it abuses. It abuses vulnerable people, and maybe worst of all, it makes the unspeakable seem commonplace. We are often cast as the villain. That is not our role in American society, and we will not be forced to play it. Our mission is to remain, as our vice-president said, a steady beacon of strength and support for the Second Amendment, even if it has no other friend on this planet. We cannot -- we must not -- let tragedy lay waste to the most rare and hard-won human right in history. A nation cannot gain safety by giving up freedom. This truth is older than our country. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin said that.

Now, if you disagree, that's your right. I respect that. But we will not relinquish it or be silenced about it, or be told, "Do not come here. You are unwelcome in your own land." Let us go from this place, from this huge room, renewed in spirit and dedicated against hatred. We have work to do, hearts to heal, evil to defeat, and a country to unite. We may have differences, and we will again suffer tragedy almost beyond description. But when the sun sets on Denver tonight, and forever more, let it always set on We, the People. Secure in our land of the free and home of the brave.

-------- Charlton Heston, April 1999

Response to Dan

I'm sorry to break the tradition of making a response in the form of a comment to the original post but I find jumping to the comments to read further about a discussion to be too tedious so I'll defer from normal practice tonight. Also since this blog is hardly being populated enough to be crowed I don't think it matters much.

First and foremost I'd like to make clear that my interpretation of Dan's post as more of a display of disgust of bureaucracy rather than government itself. I feel like Dan's point could have been made much stronger if he had used the many factual stories of bureaucratic failure that already exist in history rather than conjure a lop-sided story. I can concede to Dan's argument with the many examples where government bureaucracy has failed American citizens terribly- the Katrina hurricane, the healthcare for 9/11 responders, and many more.

It is the form of Dan's argument, however, that causes my disagreement. I could go on and on about his exaggerated examples and stories and attempt to counter them by ridiculous examples of my own. I could give examples of how large government bureaucracies have provided me extraordinary services that counter his desires of community providing my needs. (Oh how I would love to sarcastically turn Dan's debate on it's head by giving the example of student loans). But rather than falling tragically into the pitfall of shouting our own rational points at each other I would rather lend to this conversation my beliefs on the "morality" of taxes and my thoughts of my opposition.

From my limited ability to understand the position of those whose opinions are opposite of mine I believe that their opposition spawns from desire to protect their personal freedoms and maintaining fairness. I can understand how one may feel that their personal freedoms are being restricted by increased taxes. No one ever cares to see their hard work taken from them and taxes definitely impose the restriction of choosing where your money goes. I can also understand the want to not have the money that you earned fairly spent in a way that you do not wish it to be. And, to the point of fairness, I can strongly support the upset caused when injustice is left to stand. There are several examples flaunted by the media of undeserving people siphoning off money from governmental support. Perceived unfairness drains my natural ability to be a productive worker at my job as I work with a person creates a large difference between the ratio of the amount we work and the amount we each get paid. But the extent of my ability to empathize stops here.

In my mind these "restricted freedoms" and unfair leeching are more than bearable in exchange for what I am getting in return. I live in America- it is a gift that I can not fully conceive how advantaged I am for having it. To have the privilege to live in this nation is something I wish I'll never stop appreciating. It is the knowledge of this privilege and how I have never "earned" this privilege that causes my desire that more people, people that are undoubtedly more deserving than I am, come to have the same privileges. This want makes me believe taxation is moral. How else are those less fortunate than me ever to come to know the pleasure of knowing that they will have a meal every night, the comfort of having a roof over my head, the ability to seek any career that I can possibly desire, and the knowledge that someday I'll be able to provide these same privileges to my own children? I believe that my part in keeping this system working is to become a hard working individual who returns the resources which he used to get his success back to the society which enabled him to get there. Rather than view tax as a despicable restriction I view it as a token of appreciation for all that I have gained with out any effort for I know I will earn more than double than what I do deserve.

Further I feel like my philanthropic views of taxing should strike a chord of my christian brethren. Why insist on narrowing your vision to those who are unfairly benefiting from your tax money and not rather appreciate all those who truly benefit from taxes? Even if I am wrong about the number of people who abuse the system I'm still convinced that helping even just a few of those in great need is far better than thwarting a majority who are stealing. I can agree to trying to find ways of preventing injustice but I refuse to believe that there is any benefit in doing so if it even harms one soul in need. I am willing to give up one latte per week, a video game a year, or even wait a few years to get that flashy sports car if that means someone gains the opportunity to even start thinking about "sacrificing" the same things that I am now.

What really causes people to hold dear to fairness and their material gains? Is it fear of bureaucratic blunders or fear of unfairness that provide doubts to a system that strives to provides equal privileges? Let there be bureaucratic mistakes. Let there be those who succeed by stealing my charity. I would rather live with those errors and live in a nation that hopes to provides opportunity to everyone.

With all my disagreement of Dan's post there is one thing that he wrote that sings with truth: the need to strengthen community. I have always admired the LDS's ability to build strong, helpful communities and I can only hope that this ability will seed to the rest of the nation. I believe that you can hardly strive to build a better nation with the relief that tax money brings alone. However, the combination of strengthened communities and governmental help can be the effervescence that raises this nation to greater heights.

So why Dan- why everyone else- why not start now? Besides Dave being a text messaging buddy with Obama, not one of the people I know are either politically or socially active in their communities. If there are injustices in the political world or in your communities that disgust you I assure you that actions are far more powerful than words.

The Guiding Principle of Government

This post is largely the product of chats with Sui Sin Far, as well as a highly engaging and meaningful conversation Big D, Duane and I had recently around the kitchen table. The exchange of ideas was inspired by Russell's post (see "The only other thing as dependable as death…"), and initiated by the question, "What is the moral basis of taxation?" Our discussion touched on many things, but eventually centered on the the role of government. While I am far from feeling that my ideas are fully formed - and they are far from set it stone - I feel that they consolidated somewhat in my mind during and since our exchange and are worth sharing in the Salon. I earnestly hope that they will merit a sincere review, and that others will feel emboldened to share their own ideas. The ultimate goal, of course, is to initiate dialogue - in the belief that through the exchange of ideas the truth will become more evident.

What is the role of government? What are its obligations, its duties? How can it most efficiently be executed? The true answer to the these questions must be found on a case-by-case basis, and any attempt to apply unyielding, theoretical solutions to every problem is bound to be ineffective at best, and fail at worst. It is valuable, however, to develop a general framework - a lens, if you will, through which each problem can be analyzed and brought into focus. What follows is an attempt to elaborate such a framework, which is perhaps best accomplished by telling a story.

A farmer went into his fields to work one morning, eager to prepare for spring planting. So great was his zeal, however, that he broke his plow in short order, and was thus unable to continue his work. Fortunately, there was another farm very near to his, whose owner had been even more eager than he and had already finished plowing his field. Surely, the farmer said to himself as he walked to his neighbor's front door, surely my neighbor and friend will lend me his plow, seeing my need.
To his surprise, the neighbor refused, saying, "Don't you know? There's the regional storehouse; they will be able to help you. We all contribute a portion of our harvest each year to purchase equipment for instances just like this. You will be able to use the plow they have there to prepare your fields. Don't bother me for mine - helping you isn't my responsibility; I fulfilled my responsibility when I gave a portion of my harvest to purchase the equipment at the storehouse."
The farmer could only agree with his neighbor, and asked where the storehouse was located, and found that he now had to travel many miles to the provincial capitol.
Upon arriving, the farmer went to the storehouse and asked the foreman permission to borrow a plow. Go to the bureau of equipment management, came the reply. After addressing a clerk at the front desk of the bureau, the farmer was referred to yet another clerk seated at a desk in a different office. The farmer was there informed that the only clerk authorized to deal with plows was not in the city at the moment, and would not return soon. Having traveled long to reach the storehouse, the farmer was obliged to wait.
When finally the authorized bureaucrat arrived, he refused to grant the farmer's request on the grounds that his claim was unsubstantiated without an investigation into the incident. "We've had many like you requesting permission to use our equipment," the man said. "Many of them are only trying to avoid purchasing their own, and in order to ensure that only those who legitimately need aide receive it, we must conduct an investigation."
"But my plow broke," the farmer protested. "We'll have to verify that," the bureaucrat replied. An investigation will be launched to look into this."
"But I will lose valuable time to plow my fields."
"That can't be helped. This is the only way to ensure fairness. Fairness is our objective, and that demands that your claims be substantiated."
The farmer returned the next day, expecting to meet the investigation team and return to his fields. The bureaucrat looked at him in surprise and informed him that it would be many more days before the investigation was approved, and then available investigators had to be found. "Everything must pass by the appropriate channels" the bureaucrat said, with pride. So the farmer waited.
Eventually, the investigation team and the farmer returned to his fields, whereupon they called on his neighbor to substantiate the story of the broken plow. The neighbor promptly did so, and the team returned to the capitol.
Much time passed, and no word came to the farmer. Finally, a letter arrived, informing him that his request had been duly granted, and he could come and pick up his temporary plow. The farmer hurried to the capitol and returned to his fields in haste, but he arrived only as the first early snows of winter began to fall.
As the farmer looked on in despair at his fields filling up with snow, his neighbor came to him and remarked, "I suppose it might have been better to let you use my plow after all."

The moral of the story is that problems are best solved at the smallest possible level where a solution is available. When problems occur, our first resort should be to turn to our family and our friends. If they are unable to help, then we should turn next to our local communities, then local governments, then state governments. And then, if each of these is unable to provide an effective solution to our problem, after all else has failed we should seek a solution at the hands of the federal government - for in such a case only they have the power and the means to adequately address the issue. But this, of course, only happens rarely; and when it does, the issue has already been analyzed and discussed and various solutions attempted, so that by the time it reaches the level of the federal government, its role has become clear to even the most casual observer, and nothing remains except to effectuate the evident solution.
Law enforcement is a good example of this process. If a boy shoplifts at a convenience store in rural Arkansas, the best solution is not for the head of Homeland Security to appoint a taskforce to track the boy down, conduct a thorough investigation, wire-tap the home, and finally - after garnering sufficient evidence - move in and make the arrest. Nor should the Chief of Police for the State of Arkansas be involved. In all likelihood, it isn't necessary for even the local police to get involved. It is enough for the owner of the convenience store to speak with the parents of the boy and allow them to discipline their child, teach him about civic responsibility, and make restitution to the store owner. This problem is best solved without any government involvement whatsoever.

Now, I understand that there are indeed problems that cannot be solved at the family, local, or state levels. A mass murderer who travels quickly from state to state, or a crime ring that extends across the nation requires law enforcement at the national level - a Federal Bureau of Investigation. Indeed, some problems cannot be adequately resolved at the national level and require a global solution; terrorism and world hunger are two such issues.
But even in these cases, the principle remains: always solve problems at the lowest level where a solution is available. Governments are a necessary evil. At most, I believe they have but few responsibilities and obligations and should not step beyond them except under extraordinary circumstances. These are:

1. To establish a constitution which sets forth the rights of every citizen of the country, and to see that these rights are protected.
2. To create and promote peace and provide for the security of its citizens from foreign invasion and oppression.
3. To create laws according to the consent of the governed and to ensure their impartial enforcement.
4. To enact policies to ensure the well being of the economy.

Outside of these duties, the changing needs of each community are to be met at the lowest level possible - ideally, at the grassroots level.
History is full of examples of great leaders who met their society's needs in this manner. Martin Luther King Jr. saw injustice and took action himself, without waiting for the Federal Government to lead the way. He led a movement that caught the attention of the entire nation, and though he held no political office was one of America's most influential leaders. When necessary, the Federal Government did act to help solve the problem of racism and segregation; but it did so in response to the actions of members of the local communities where the problem was rampant. No policy maker in Washington cooked up a plan to end segregation and fight racism. Indeed, I doubt if the Federal Government possessed - or has ever possessed - the kind of power that Dr. King wielded; certainly no policy maker or government policy could ever have had the effect on American society and that Dr. King did.
Mahatma Gandhi never held public office after his return to India and the formal end of his career as a lawyer. Yet he was more powerful than any Indian politician could ever hope to be. Indeed, had he held office in the national government of India his influence may well have lessened, not increased. His solution to every problem was to appeal to the people - to work with them, pray with them, and seek solutions to India's problems in the vast, untapped power of each individual.
What we need today is less government, and more community. Fewer laws bureaucrats, policies and policymakers; more active communities and stronger families. There is power in the mantra, "be the change you want to see in the world." And I believe that in the collective efforts of individual citizens - all of us - to address today's and tomorrow's challenges in our families, our communities, and our states, the great problems facing our nation will be resolved - with less government, not more.
Just as we all too often look outside of ourselves to find the source of our problems, we too often look far afield for the solutions. In fact, both are nearer to home than we think. In the end, perhaps President Kennedy said it best: "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

The only other thing as dependable as death...

I recently found this article from The New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/08/16/100816ta_talk_surowiecki

I'm mostly posting in hopes to get a response out of Duane. Duane was engaged in quite the conversation with Dave and I the night Dan flew in to see Melanie. I can only hope to revive such an debate as the one that died that night. I might be curious to see what my other, more "moderate" Blatters take from this article.

In Response to Sui Sin Far...

How interesting that they are so particular with grammar structure and use! It's ironic that in the more international (and one would perhaps assume more educated) Majuro, there is less exactness with their native language than in Ebeye. Or perhaps flexibility is actually a result of being slightly more international (though not necessarily more educated).

Improvement and development of a first and second language definitely makes other language acquisition so much more doable! It's like math - you build a foundation and you can progress from there ... but only after the foundation has been solidified. And the more sure that foundation the more you can add on top! I also feel that the study of more than two languages, especially of different grammar structures, really helps acquisition of them all and even more. This seems counter-intuitive because you might think there's only so much room in the brain, but now that I've been studying Korean a little, my French and (heaven knows how) my Russian are surfacing in weird ways. Language and the brain are so fascinating and bizarre and truly unpredictable.

Now as for those who claim they're supposedly "fluent" in 50+ languages, I wonder if they're quacks or if they follow the pattern of my last theory...

PS - I'll comment soon on my profile pick. If it's still the right fit... ;)

As a first post, I'm not sure what font to use. Russell will undoubtedly have much to say with regards to whatever selection I make.

In the spirit of choosing pen names of philosophers, I feel we should honorably take note of the great choices already represented in the Salon. Firstly, Cincinnatus is a very just and accurate portrayal of Danny's good, wise, and morally upright character. I think maybe wikipedia should simply say "replace all" where the word Cincinnatus is found and then "insert Daniel":

His abandoning of his work to serve Rome, and especially his immediate resignation of his absolute authority with the end of the crisis, has often been cited as an example of outstanding leadership, service to the greater good, civic virtue, and modesty.

Here's the full story: Cincinnatus was regarded by the Romans, especially the aristocratic patrician class, as one of the heroes of early Rome and as a model of Roman virtue and simplicity. A persistent opponent of the plebeians, when his son was convicted in absentia and condemned to death, Cincinnatus was forced to live in humble circumstances, working on his own small farm, until an invasion caused him to be called to serve Rome as dictator, an office which he immediately resigned after completing his task of defeating the rivaling tribes of the Aequians, Sabinians and Volscians.

Another pen name has been taken from the great philosophe, the Shizzle. I really have no comment to make with regards to Sun's choice other than that it basically means, "for sure". I think this is an apt description of Sun, at least in part, being loyal and honest as he is. It also exploits Sun's hidden talent for rapping and "Michael Jackson-good" dance. It's true... someone bring a camcorder by some evening and peer through the window.

Big D is perhaps a representation of David's love and admiration for "the dad", as well as his eventual intended usurpation of the surtitle. (this is you, right Dave?)

I'm still debating. =)

What is the world coming to? Clubbing

This post is the first article in my social commentary column entitled, “what is the world coming to?” Contrary to first impressions, this column is not intended to be uniquely pessimistic or critical. Rather, I intend to comment on our society as it is now, and project my ideas, predictions, and aspirations about the future – the direction our society is headed.
The subject and content of this article are based on a personal experience I recently had. This means, of course, that I am not likely to present here an objective, comprehensive view of the social issues discussed. Rather, the observations made are highly influenced by my experience, but as a consequence the article is much more honest and down-to-earth than a purely theoretical, academic treatment. As a further disclaimer, I intended this narrative to be humorous. I have no idea if I have succeeded or not, but, for the record, that was the goal. I hope, at the very least, that it will spark a discussion – the Salon has been rather quiet lately; only two voices so far have been heard. I anticipate hearing many more in the future.

So don't ask me how, but I got coerced into going “clubbing” with most of my roommates and friends from physics. There are a dozen or so of us living in the same, fairly small dorm building; all of us are doing research this summer in physics or bio-physics. The guy who was organizing the outing (Brian) was really persuasive, and above all, persistent. And when he asked me to go, everyone else had turned him down except one girl, so I felt bad for him. Yeah, I can be easily suckered into doing things, if you can't tell. I had visions of sitting at a table, drinking something non-alcoholic, and chatting with friends. It didn't take long for me to realize that wasn't likely to happen.
Eventually, a group of eight or so of us heads to a club (Necto, I think), but one of the guys in our group (Jason) was already drunk and they wouldn't let him in, so we went to a club called Fifth Street something or other. It was a dirty, dingy place, and only my friends pulling me along by the arm convinced me to enter. I felt like I was entering a haunted house, only the monsters inside weren't paid to scare you. The dance floor (if you can call it that) was full of guys grinding girls' asses (pardon the language, there's really no more appropriate word here), who were themselves wearing dresses, skirts and shorts so short that there really wasn't anything to get in the way. I think my group were the only people actually dancing. I felt like I was in the interior of “the great and spacious building.” 
But if that were all, I could have found some enjoyment loosening up from my nerdy, uptight self and dancing with my friends. Except they all got drunk (except one, a twenty-year-old girl from rural Michigan whose parents are highly religious and fairly conservative); that they got drunk did not bother me – it's no business of mine telling them how to live, after all. But as soon as they were drunk, they started giving me a hard time for not drinking, as if staying sober is an insult to every drunk around you.
Even worse, in my book anyway, my friends started giving me grief for not finding girls to grind with, as if that were a mandatory part of being in a club. "You have to have a girls butt in contact with your crotch for at least 15 minutes of every hour you're here or we'll throw you out!" One of the guys I was with was totally convinced I was gay by the time we left. He asked me the question several times, and was satisfied only after I insisted emphatically that I indeed was.
The most pathetic part of it all was how disgusted the girls I was with got as the night went on. We were there dancing till they stopped playing music at 2AM, and there were only a couple dozen people left in the club; thing is, all the guys were drunk as hell and even hornier and looking for a girl to take home. The guys in our group were mostly drunk, too, so most of them didn't notice how nervous and vulnerable the girls with us were feeling. One of them grabbed onto my arm and wouldn't let go until we left the club. Brian had to point out everyone in our group several times to irritable drunk guys to mark them as "off limits" or "sexually unavailable" or else they would never have left the girls in our group alone. It actually felt really scary and creepy, and I'm a guy! The girls I was with were really grossed out and disgusted, I could tell. I was ashamed of my gender, to say the very least. 
So we manage to make it out of the club without losing anyone, only to find Jason (names changed to protect the not-so-innocent) kneeling in the street in front of two attractive, very drunk girls who were sitting on the curb waiting for a taxi to take them home. He was begging them to come back to his place and have sex with him. Out loud, in front of a dozen or so people who had just come out of the club. There conversation was along the lines, 
"Come home with me." 
"No, I don't sleep with just any guy." 
"Oh, yeah right!"
"What do you think I am, a slut? I've only ever slept with 6 guys."
And so on and so forth. Brian (drunk as he was) had to go "cock block" his friend by starting a conversation with the girls in which he talked about his lovely mother back in NYC and the hobbies she has (sewing, knitting, etc). Josh got very angry and said some nasty things about Brian's mother. But it worked. We finally got him to give up on the girls.
Then came the long walk home. It was a long enough walk just getting from point A to point B, but drunks don't walk in straight lines, on either small or large scales. So we ended up going to points C, D, E, F, back to C, on to H, did a loop back to E, and then a couple of us went one way, three went to go 'swimming' in another direction, and that left me standing in the middle, worried about them all, but unable to leave the sober girl by herself on S. University street at 3AM to walk back to our dormitory alone. So I went with her and got home without any of the others. Before that, however, I got verbally attacked by an extremely drunk Jason for being Mormon. Apparently, having someone around who didn't believe in imbibing huge amounts of liquid poison and having promiscuous sex rained on his parade. I tried not to take it personally because he had been hammered for the past 6 hours straight. 
I apologize for the unpleasant nature of the story, but I felt it was significant and worth sharing, somehow. It was my most epic "clubbing" experience to date; I thought I could be a nice guy and watch out for my friends while they had fun getting drunk, but I learned for myself that “clubbing” is a lifestyle that doesn't suit me at all, and is really no fun – despite what everyone says. Next time I'm invited I will have a thousand reasons (some tactful, others offensive) not to go. Hopefully my friends won't ask, and if they do, I hope they will give up after I give them the tactful reasons not to go. Otherwise I'll just let them have the truth straight, "on the rocks," so to speak.
The social significance of the story? Well, this is best illustrated by a counter-example, an event that occurred – oddly enough – the very next night. I decided after the grimey club fiasco of the previous night to spend the evening in intellectual pursuits. I walked to Borders Books, found a comfortable armchair, and read a book until the store closed at 11:00 PM. While walking home (with a new book under my arm) I passed a small grassy field near my research building where a handful of college students my age were playing frisbee. I watched them as I walked by, and one of them called out to me, inviting me to join them. It turns out they had just concluded religious services at a universalist Christian church composed mainly of college students at the University of Michigan – most of whom, in turn, were of Korean descent.
Eventually, a sizeable number from their group showed up, and we played ultimate frisbee for nearly two hours, until almost 1:00 AM. Afterwards, they invited me to attend their religious services and social activities, which I enthusiastically accepted. I was impressed by the easy, friendly way they interacted – both among each other and with me. I enjoyed myself infinitely more with them than I had the night before at the club; and what's more, it cost me nothing, whereas the club charged a ten-dollar entrance fee, and I escaped without paying more only because I didn't drink anything while I was there.
These experiences led me to ponder the nature of entertainment in our society. Somehow, conventional wisdom holds that the less morally palatable an activity is, the greater its entertainment value. But my own experience has taught me the contrary: that the most rewarding social activities are those that don't transgress moral boundaries. It is entirely possible to be thoroughly entertained by wholesome, friendly interaction. I wonder what can be done to promote such a concept of entertainment; hopefully before it is lost entirely to a society that is ever increasingly enamored with the morally perverse.

A response to Dan

Excellent first post, Dan! Dan has a talent for writing, especially for writing stirring movie critiques. I do have to mention, however, Dan did misuse the word mockumentary. I'm unsure if either Dan didn't understand mockumentary's actual definition or if his mislabeling was used as a satirical writing device. Both movies that Dan labeled as mocumentaries are, in fact, not. Mocumentaries must employ the stylized documentary effect in a fictitious manner to qualify for the genre. Some works that are included in this genre are This is Spinal Tap and loosely The Office (they use interview like segments within the show to have have an appearance of non fiction). Therefor Thank You for Smoking should be considered a political, fictional movie while Bowling for Columbine would be classified as a documentary.

That aside, Dan's post masterfully invokes more than just just reviews of films. I'm unsure where to to begin as his writing was packed full of ideas. I think choosing to review Dan's assessment of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is a good place to start as it segues into my following point fairly well. I can agree with Dan that Michael Moore does present his documentaries with monoscopic viewpoints but that fact can't be used to dismiss his works entirely. From the formally referred movie, I agree with Moore and his thoughts on how absurd it is for anyone to own a fully automatic weapon of any sort. I'm unsure of how the discussion of automatic weapons falls into the second amendment debate, but as for me I'm in favor of having strong gun regulations which still permits people to obtain, carry, and use firearms.

I'm sort of drifting as Dan's post was not centered on gun control. Rather, it was more focused on one major thing: personal responsibility. This is ironic as Moore's Bowling for Columbine was of the same subject. While many left wing nuts understood from his movies that no one should own a gun it was, in fact, not Moore's point. In his movie Moore actually compares gun ownership and gun violence in other countries with gun ownership and gun violence in the United States and concludes that there is no connection between gun ownership and gun violence. Moore's movie asked for the same self accountability which Dan was sought within his post. Moore investigates some of the hypotheses of what would cause two teenagers to go on a killing rampage. People wanted to blame violent video games, Marilyn Manson, or even the violent history of the United States. Moore debunks this when he compares the statistics of America's gun incidents per capita with these other stats only to find that other countries are similar to America yet only have 100 times less incidents. Who is to blame? I believe Moore get's it wrong by assessing the availability of guns and ammunition in the U.S. with too much blame. Still though, his movie starts to examine all of the factors that contribute to the enormous number of deaths to firearms in America and shows that no one is willing to accept blame for their part. Parental supervision? K Mart selling over the counter ammunition? The school bullies? Name one person who stepped forward to admit fault.

Jumping to big corporations continues my thoughts on people wanting to remain faultless. I have no debate with Dan over the purpose of big corporations. I wouldn't think anyone would be so dull to believe that big corporations were made to spread joy throughout the world. I can appreciate that these large companies not only bring a vast number of jobs to our economy but also allow for cheaper prices and technological advances. Dan seems to agree with me that we couldn't live the way we do without them. However, I cannot agree with who Dan blames in the tobacco wars. I'll take Dan's assessment in two parts: are people trying to get free money, and has the tobacco companies "not escaped." First about tobacco not escaping, I'm unsure if I could ever conceive any amount of money to be comparable to losing a loved one to cancer. Nor could I stand the pain of lung or throat cancer for "$276,000,000,000". It's also hard to feel bad for a giant corporation paying out money when they are generating billions of dollars in revenue each year from a product that kills people. The tobacco's killing product leads me to my second point- people smoking to get free money. I'd agree that when someone chooses to start smoking it is a completely personal and independent choice. Not once have the tobacco companies been found to forcibly put a cigarette into someone's mouth and make them smoke it. Yet still it was the tobacco companies who created the smoking culture we have now. They have paid millions to advertisers, and movie producers to make smoking look cool. Now that they have hooked one generation on smoking it has only made it easier to catch the next generation. Even still they have made a product that is already addictive even more entrapping. Here's some quick research that I found of what they add (I've lost the source):

Additives are used to make cigarettes that provide high levels of "free" nicotine, which increases the addictive "kick" of the nicotine. Ammonium compounds can fulfill this role by raising the alkalinity of smoke.

Additives are used to make cigarettes more "attractive" and "palateable"

Sweeteners and chocolate may help make cigarettes more palatable to children and first time users; Eugenol and menthol numb the throat so the smoker cannot feel the smoke's aggravating effects

Additives such as cocoa may be used to dilate the airways allowing the smoke an easier and deeper passage into the lungs exposing the body to more nicotine and higher levels of tar.

Some additives are toxic or addictive in their own right or in combination, and when additives are burned, new products of combustion are formed and these may be toxic or pharmacologically active.

Additives are used to mask the smell and visibility of side stream smoke, making it harder for people to protect themselves and undermining claims that smoking is anti-social.

There's one final point that completely nulls the case of people purposing smoking cigarettes to collect on litigated money- people would be required to spend a large sum of money to buy cigarettes to get to the point of collecting money, effectively making the whole process pointless.

I think what Thank You for Smoking points out, and what one would question after thinking about why the U.S. government would allow for this macabre cycle of tobacco companies profiteering from a lethal product, is the absurdity of lobbyists. It is only through lobbyists and other spin monkeys that such a product as cigarettes are allowed to be sold in the United States. Really, the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement should be taken into the perspective of America being doped into allowing big tobacco to pay $206 billion dollars to remain in a profitable, yet deadly business.

I'd finally like to conclude with my thoughts on regulations of big corporations. I felt as if some of Dan's thoughts in his post touched on this subject and would like to discuss it further. I'm unsure on Dan's official stance on this subject but I presume from what I read in his post he's fairly more conservative than I am. I, however, do not misunderstand people to believe that the only ill will towards large corporations is the of distain of their non charitable profiting. Let me stress that I agree with Dan in that businesses are obviously in the business of making money and those who disagree are those whose companies fail. I can also feel the same resentment, one that I assume Dan feels, of the many frivolous lawsuits where people have claimed money due to their own stupidity (McDonalds making them fat, people getting burned from coffee - who'd have thunk?) However, forming an opinion of the situation based on these minority cases is as silly as those documentaries which paint the world in black in white. Companies have, and will bend, break, and tweak the laws to stretch their income. It is this law modification that cause me to believe in regulations for corporations. My thought is that if one can justify regulating the personal life of the citizens of the United States, why is it so far fetched to do the same for businesses? If the government deems that drugs should be illegal then why is setting regulations for corporations illogical? Regulations are necessary protections for preventing situations of corporations needing to be, "held responsible for the consequences of their actions," and therefor stop the repercussion of big corporation failures before they happen. I'd rather have the stiffened economy caused by regulations than big blowouts like the recent financial crisis or even the tobacco companies settlement. I'd relate this comparison of citizenly/corporation regulations to that of traffic speed laws. I'd rather force citizens to drive a reasonable and safe driving speed while they get to their destinations rather than making them responsible for their actions of driving too fast and killing a family after the fact (just as I'd rather a company earn their profits in a regulated manner rather than causing the economy to bubble and collapse). I am of course not naive to the fact that regulations only work the best in ideal situations. From this belief that there is no perfect system in which corporations can conduct business in a fair manner I become more distraught every time when corporations are not held to the fullest extent of the consequences of their own actions.

Next post: My own move critique! This time it will be about a classic movie: The Seventh Seal by Ingmar Bergman.