A Preemptive Election Response

The Who's classic song about political "change," found on my favorite Who album.



I am going to take a risk and start writing this before the election results are in. Based on all of the polling data, along with the simple fact that the President’s party usually does poorly in mid-term elections, I am assuming that the Democrats had their asses handed to them today. The Democratic wave of 2008, an event that some saw as a sign of a long-term political shift in our country, has been short-lived. It seems to be 1994 all over again.

Personally, I believed from the moment of Obama’s election that reports regarding the death of the Republican Party were widely exaggerated. When Obama defeated McCain, and Democrats achieved huge victories in Congress, it was not a sign that the nation had gone liberal. Instead, it was a response to circumstances. Due to events such as Hurricane Katrina and the ongoing Iraq War, George Bush’s approval ratings had been plummeting for some time. Then, when the financial system imploded, public anger was focused even more intensely on him. Republicans, the perceived party of big business, took more heat for the crisis than Democrats, and Obama was swept to the presidency. After all, before the full scale of the financial meltdown was clear, McCain and Obama were running pretty closely. But after the cataclysmic events of September 2008, it was pretty much all over.

The irony, however, is that the same circumstances that brought Obama and the Democrats to power have seemingly done them in. The economy has stabilized, but growth is very slow, and the unemployment rate seems stuck at just below 10%. My sense is that a more significant reduction in unemployment would have made big policies such as the financial stimulus, bank bailouts, and health care reform easier for the public to swallow. Also, more significant economic growth would have made the costs of these programs and the current deficit somewhat less daunting.

So has Obama been done in by circumstances largely beyond his control, the same circumstances that got him the job in the first place? Or would different policies have had a more positive result, and is he deservedly being blamed for failing to stimulate growth and for overstepping his mandate? We will never know for sure. Either way, politicians tend to bear the brunt of the public’s anger. Anyone not in a coma knows that our current mess was largely the result of foolish decisions made by the financial sector and the general public. Of course, you can’t vote out the real estate brokers, financiers, and foolish borrowers who largely caused the mess. So we vent our anger at the ballot box, hoping that throwing the bums out (again) will have some positive effect.

In my mind, however, our problems are largely systemic. We still have an overgrown financial sector consisting of banks that are sometimes even bigger than when they were “too big to fail” a couple of years ago. (At least their enormous recent profits can give us some comfort.) We have campaigns that are even more heavily funded by big corporations and other special interests, due partly to the “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision. And we have politicians on both sides of the aisle who seem unwilling to ask the public to make significant sacrifices in terms of tax policies or government spending. Replacing the current “bums” with the previous “bums” is not, in itself, going to do much about these issues. For today, however, voting is all that we can do. So I better stop writing now, eat a quick lunch, and get to the polling place before work. If I am going to write commentaries on our political system, I better participate in whatever little way that I can. If nothing else, it can be a way to vent.

This Too Will Pass

Here's an old Peter Gabriel song for people in the middle of hard times.



On Thursday afternoon, two days before my brother-in-law’s wedding, my stomach decided to stop functioning properly. I will spare you the gory details, but let’s just say that the idea of food was not particularly appealing for a while. When in that state, even the thought of my favorite foods was nauseating. Of course, I knew from past experience that everything would soon be back to normal. So sure enough, by Saturday, I was able to eat, drink, be merry, and dance as only a white boy can.

Today, it is over one hundred degrees outside. In the valleys and deserts of southern California, this is standard weather. Near the coast, however, extremes of weather are pretty rare, so it does not take much to get us Orange County people to start bitching about the heat. After a few days of this, it can be hard to envision a future in which I will be crazy enough to put on a jacket, wear long pants, or turn on a heater. Of course, in parts of the country where they have actual winters, it can probably be difficult at times to imagine ever being warm again. Even in Southern California, where winter is a slightly cooler version of spring, there are times where I long for a warm, sunny day. When we are in the middle of something, it’s hard to imagine that things could ever be different. This is in spite of the fact that we all know from past experience that life goes in cycles, and no matter how bad things may seem, the only guarantee for the future is change.

Right now, our country is in an extended economic winter. Fortunately, I have been spared (so far) from many of the negative effects of the current recession. Many others, of course, have not been so lucky. And while history may provide little immediate comfort, the fact is that economic cycles have been a reality of life for centuries. This is why you should never get too excited during the good times or depressed during the bad. It will always turn around, one way or the other. Unfortunately, it does not feel that way when you are still at the bottom. Now I could say that I know how struggling people feel, but that would be a lie. Neither I nor anyone else can figure out how someone is feeling at a given moment. Every situation is unique, and no one can (nor should) be talked out of his or her current emotional state. You literally have to be there, and reason in itself is not enough to get you out. But so long as the emotional problem is not physiological, reason can stop the emotions from taking over completely. Thinking back to times when you ate normally, were nice and warm (or cool), and had a (seemingly) secure job can also be helpful. Since life goes in cycles, there is no reason to believe that the bad times will last forever.

A Mosque Near Ground Zero? (The Message Sent by Protestors)

Here's a brief video about the controversy discussed in this post.

I have no conception of the suffering experienced by the friends and families of those who were murdered when the twin towers were destroyed. If I was in their position, the thought of a Muslim community center near Ground Zero might also strike a nerve. Still, I cannot help but give a simple and some would say insensitive analysis of the situation. By turning this into a major issue, the opponents of this construction project are sending a terrible and dangerous message to the Muslim world.

The “War on Terror” is supposed to be a battle against a behavior. It is not a war against a particular country, ethnicity, or religion. The behavior of the United States over the last nine years, however, has convinced many in the Muslim world that this is actually a war against Islam, the exact message promoted by Islamic extremist groups. Protests against this building project further create this impression. If Americans are angry about a mosque near Ground Zero, it indicates that they hold Muslims in general responsible for the September 11 attacks. So the only logical conclusion for Muslims is that many Americans actually consider themselves to be at war with Islam itself.

Some Americans who are angry about this project will deny this simple fact, and I admit that their motives for protesting against it may vary. Their various arguments and justifications, however, are irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is the perception that this controversy creates around the world. To limit the threat of terrorism, the only effective strategies are to find and neutralize current, potential terrorists and reduce the number of future terrorist recruits. Even more than the Cold War, this is at heart an ideological struggle. Potentially alienating hundreds of millions of Muslims and creating the impression that Americans are at war with Islam, therefore, is the most dangerous thing that can be done. Unfortunately, nine years into this “war,” many Americans still have much to learn. It’s bad enough that so many people still believe that conventional military operations are the best way to eliminate a non-military threat. But what is even more disheartening is that so many Americans have yet to even properly identify the enemy.

NBA Championships and Buddhist Philosophy

This is my favorite song from the album "All That You Can't Leave Behind" by U2.



So the Los Angeles Lakers won another championship after one of the roughest, hardest played, most intense games that I have ever seen. I felt like I was watching something in between a football game and a wrestling match (with some basketball thrown in). This game, along with the entire season, seemed so important when it was taking place, with the stakes particularly high because the Lakers were facing their ultimate rival, the Boston Celtics. This was a competition over future bragging rights as the greatest NBA franchise in history. Even Kobe Bryant, a guy known for being calm under pressure, would later admit that this game made him nervous. (He sure looked it; although it is hard to score when guys are constantly hanging all over you.)

You would think, therefore, that when the buzzer finally sounded, I would feel a sense of jubilation. After sweating through another wild season, and seeing those hated Celtics finally go down, I should have been overjoyed. Experiencing this moment was what it was all about, right? Strangely, what I felt was mostly a sense of relief. Some joy did begin to appear as the championship sunk in, but the thrill of ultimate victory was nowhere near as intense as some of the emotions experienced during the course of the season. So what is my problem? Have I been spoiled by the many previous Lakers championships over the years? Are negative emotions, particularly the fear of defeat, more powerful than the positive feelings of victory?

Like another recent post that mentioned basketball, this is not merely a self-analysis of Paul Swendson: psychotic sports fan. Believe it or not, there is a life lesson here. At many times in the past, when I have looked forward with great anticipation toward getting some object or having some experience, it turned out that finally possessing that item or achieving that goal was not quite as gratifying as I had expected. When I was a kid, there were times where I just had to have a certain toy, video game, electronic device, or some other thing. If I could just get my hands on it, then I would be forever satisfied. Then, if I finally got that special item, it was awesome (for a while). Of course, eventually it would be clear that possessing that ultimate object did not make life perfect. Therefore, only one logical course of action remained: get that next perfect thing. Then, as you have already figured out, the cycle of desiring and ultimate disappointment would continue.

I have also had similar experiences when traveling to different places, watching the latest blockbuster movie, or even getting married. Now I am not saying that these have been negative experiences. (So don’t go running to my wife to tell on me.) Like NBA championships and cool toys for Christmas, these are all parts of a long list of great memories. Still, no single acquisition or experience has ever been completely fulfilling, in itself, for any extended period of time. Somehow, I always fall back into day-to-day life, and I continue to be the same guy with all of his typical flaws and desires. I can guarantee you that when the next NBA season rolls around, even though the Lakers have won back-to-back championships (again), I will get pissed off every time that they lose a game. “What has anyone or anything done for me lately?” This could probably be written as an epitaph for the entire human race.

I do not remotely pretend to be an expert on Buddhism. My understanding, however, is that its original founder taught that all suffering ultimately comes from human desire. Human beings want things, and in some cases they do not get what they want, creating pain and suffering. The big problem, however, is that even when we get what we want, we will still be unsatisfied. Buddhism, like Hinduism, teaches that the world we experience is essentially an illusion, so the things that we become attached to in this illusory world can never satisfy us. The only thing that we can do, therefore, is to work toward eliminating desire. “The Eightfold Path” is the original self-help program, laying out a clear process toward the promotion of self-discipline with the ultimate goal of eliminating all desire.

Buddhism in its original form, however, is very hard, and most of us don’t have the time or the temperament to detach ourselves from the world and become a monk. What we can do, however, is grow a bit wiser as we age and stop looking for that amazing object, event, or person that is going to make everything just right. In other words, we have to stop behaving like children who are looking for that next perfect toy. Real joy comes from finding moments of fulfillment in everyday existence; from not being too attached or expecting too much from people, objects, and events; from looking beyond our selfish desires; and from realizing that life is about the journey, not just the destination. As I know from learning and re-learning these lessons hundreds of times, it is easier said than done.

Why Should We Care About a Bat Disease?

This is one of several great songs from Midnight Oil's environmentalist-oriented album "Earth and Sun and Moon." (I wanted to post the title track, but I couldn't find it online.)



I am going to take a little risk in this post. I, a history teacher, am going to talk a bit about science. And not only that, I am going to discuss a topic that I knew virtually nothing about until yesterday: bats. Last night, we went with the kids on a “bat walk.” It turns out that the sister of one of our friends is a well-known local bat expert, and she was putting on a presentation at a nature preserve down in Irvine. After her slide show that contained remarkable pictures showing the huge variety of bats in the world, we went on a walk carrying little sensors that could pick up the sound waves being put out by the bats as they were hunting for insects. You would hear this rapid clicking noise, and then, sure enough, a bat would quickly shoot by. It was pretty cool, and the kids had fun carrying little counters and clicking them in order to keep track of the number of bats that they saw.

There was one part of the slide show, however, that was disturbing. (Those who have disaster fatigue beware.) As we speak, an ecological disaster is taking place that is decimating the bat populations of the eastern United States and parts of Canada. A mysterious disease named “White Nose Syndrome” is killing bats at an alarming rate, virtually wiping out entire colonies and threatening the continued existence of certain species. I found four facts particularly disturbing: we do not currently understand what causes the disease; the disease is spreading rapidly, with a case recently turning up in Oklahoma; most Americans – like myself until yesterday - have ever heard of this disaster; and few resources are being spent on attempting to understand and contain this plague.

Here is a (somewhat out-of-date) video describing the disease. You can find other, longer videos on “YouTube.” (Just type in “White Nose Syndrome Bats.”)



If you are not a bat enthusiast or devoted environmentalist, then you might be wondering why you should care. It’s pretty simple really. Bats, like bees – another creature suffering from a mysterious drop in population – perform some very important functions. Bats that eat insects play a vital rule in keeping bug populations down. And when you consider the fact that some bat colonies number in the millions – there is a colony in Texas of 20 million - and that bats can eat more than their body weight in a single day, it is difficult to comprehend the jump in insect populations that will occur if bats nationwide are wiped out. This jump will represent more than a nuisance. Farmers in some regions are going to be facing a pest infestation nightmare, and all of us may be suffering someday in the form of higher food prices and an environment laced with even more potentially dangerous pesticides. We might also suffer if mosquitoes, one of the most effective spreaders of disease, get out of control as well.

Some bats, however, are not insect-eaters. There are many species of fruit-eating bats, and there are others that are mammalian versions of hummingbirds, sucking pollen out of flowers. And in the course of flying around and eating fruit and pollen, these bats play a vital role in either fertilizing flowers – like big bees – or pooping out the seeds of the fruits that they have consumed. Without bats, naturally growing species of numerous plants will also be decimated. This is why it is vital to try and stop the potential spread of this plague into the American southwest and the South American rainforests, areas heavily populated by bats that consume pollen and/or fruit.

Often, many Americans see the goals of economic growth and environmental protection as contradictory. You have to choose one or the other, and industrial development, by its nature, will sometimes have negative environmental effects. Others are starting to realize that “going green” may be more than just vital for survival. It can also be profitable. There is no direct evidence at this moment that humans have played any part in creating “White Nose Syndrome.” This disaster clearly shows, however, the connection between environmental degradation and potential economic catastrophe. At first glance, a bunch of dead bats seems like no big deal. But when you start to see the interconnections between different aspects of our ecosystem, you see how events in the natural world can come back to bite us (like a vampire bat, the mammalian version of a mosquito).

In the modern world, there is a tendency to think that we have conquered nature. Modern developments in transportation, housing, energy production, communication, agriculture, and medicine often make it seem like we are masters of our universe. Many of us have little or no personal connection to the natural world on a daily basis because we are shielded by our technology. Every now and then, however, Mother Nature reminds us that she can kick our ass. Usually this realization comes in the form of something big like a hurricane, earthquake, flood, or tsunami. Out of necessity, we then pour in resources to deal with the catastrophe. But what happens when a disaster is hidden from view and creeps up on us more gradually? Unfortunately, when we don’t experience a big shock to the system, there is a tendency to blow problems off. After spending paltry sums over the past few years trying to understand and possibly contain this bat plague, Congress has currently set aside nothing for this coming year. If this problem concerns you, it may not be a bad idea to do some research and contact your local Congressperson.

Like it or not, we humans are not masters of the ecosystem. We are part of it. And if we just stand by and watch nature go to hell, we may someday face some serious (and possibly unforeseen) consequences. Of course, some might see the rapid extinction of bats as just one more development in the process of evolution. Species rise and fall, and life goes on. Of course, if the natural world that we have grown accustomed to rapidly changes, we might also go down with the ship. We will then be just one more species swept aside in the evolutionary process of “survival of the fittest.”

Oil Spills and Greece's Ills

Here's a classic environmentalist song by Joni Mitchell. (She wrote it, not the Counting Crows.)



At times like these, I am reminded of why I am neither a devoted liberal nor a staunch conservative. Two of the biggest stories of the last few weeks have been the oil spill off of the Gulf Coast and the debt crisis in Greece. And while I do not pretend to be a person who fully understands the causes of these crises, I do recognize that each political faction, if it plays its cards right, can use one of these events as ammunition for pushing its views.

Liberal environmentalists would seem to have things easy these days. In order to demonstrate just how dangerous offshore oil drilling, weak business regulations, and an economy dependent on fossil fuels can be, all that they have to do is point people to the TV screen. The sobering fact is that the worst may be yet to come. Oil is still gushing in from under the ocean, British Petroleum’s various strategies for containing the spill keep failing, and we don’t know exactly what the impact will be when, where, or if the oil slick reaches the shore. Personally, I do not have a lot of faith in BP’s ability to “fix” this problem. They have had a string of recent disasters that many attribute to their tendency to cut costs whenever possible. I also question their willingness to pay reparations to those who will ultimately be harmed by this catastrophe. A disaster like this cannot simply be measured in financial terms anyway, and the environmental damage in some cases may be irreversible.

President Obama has said in the past that our economy needs to wean itself off of fossil fuels. Conveniently enough, when the spill occurred, Congress was revisiting once again the energy reform bill that has been languishing in Washington. If he is the liberal that many claim him to be, then he should be jumping all over this opportunity. Unfortunately for him, this spill has mostly created problems. Shortly before the spill, he officially supported for the first time the expansion of offshore oil drilling. Needless to say, this was not the greatest timing in the world. It is also in his interest to minimize the extent of the disaster. He does not, after all, want this to be his version of Hurricane Katrina. The fact that this oil spill was the result of oil industry incompetence while the Katrina fiasco was a combination of natural disaster and government incompetence will not stop Obama’s opponents from trying to pin this thing on him. It’s an effective way for the “drill, baby, drill” people to divert attention away from their own culpability.

Finally, President Obama has some big political battles ahead in dealing with financial regulation, immigration reform, and the budget deficit. And as anyone not blinded by political ideology has realized, President Obama is first and foremost a pragmatist. He wants to get things done, and he is willing to make compromises with powerful interests to do so. (See his proposal for expanded oil drilling and the health care bill, among other things.) In this partisan political climate, does he want to take on the oil sector with all of its economic and political clout? Ultimately, it may be public opinion that is the most important factor. And if public reactions to past oil spills can be used as a guide, then we are unlikely to see major changes to prevent future environmental catastrophes and to lessen our continuing dependence on fossil fuels. We tend to have a short memory, and many Americans have accepted occasional environmental disasters as an inevitable part of producing and distributing a resource that makes our lifestyle possible.

Conservatives would be wise to divert public attention to Greece, a country that has become the poster child for inefficient, bloated, overstretched government. As Greece teetered toward bankruptcy, there was a fear that a financial panic could result that would be reminiscent of Lehman Brothers’ collapse a couple of years ago. Only in this case, the problem was public debt instead of stupid private banks. If Greece defaulted, investors would take a hit, and people might wonder which country would be the next to go: Portugal? Spain? Italy? Investors would then be afraid to loan money to these countries, which would drive interest rates up and might precipitate their collapse.

Greece, as part of the eurozone, could not attempt to solve its problems by cranking out more currency. Also, as part of the eurozone, Greece’s problem became Europe’s problem. If eurozone countries could no longer make good on debts valued in euros, what might the impact be on this multinational currency? Apparently, the European Union decided not to find out, so they put together a one trillion dollar package to bail out Greece and other debt-ridden nations. But will this be enough, and will countries with big deficits be able to implement painful budget cuts and tax increases without causing massive public unrest? Street protests in Greece indicate that citizens used to public sector jobs, benefits, and services might not take this lying down.

The lessons for the United States seem obvious. Our ratio of debt to GDP is not much better than that of Greece, and it is only going to get worse if we continue on the current track. Will the United States be teetering on the brink of bankruptcy in a few years? Are Americans ready to make the painful sacrifices necessary to get the budget mess in order? In the United States, the Federal Reserve has dealt with our recent financial crisis by pumping currency into the economy, but at some point, this type of policy will lead to inflation and higher interest rates. In my home state of California, the parallels to Greece seem particularly clear. As a state without its own currency, California is obligated to pay its bills. But as everyone in this country knows, California is an annual budgetary basket case. Conservatives would point to this bastion of liberalism as the ultimate example of what happens when you have a bloated, inefficient government that scares businesses away with high taxes and excessive regulations. The public sector, particularly when it is filled with employees receiving excessive salaries and benefits, cannot indefinitely be propped up by the private sector. Real economic growth comes from the private sector, not government handouts.

Of course, in California, as in Greece, some will argue that the problem is not a system of government provided services. Instead, we are in trouble because of the corrupt, incompetent people who currently run the system. If we could just get better politicians, then things would improve. Of course, you could also make the same type of argument for the recent oil spill. The problem is not our fossil fuel based economy. In any industry, there are going to be people who occasionally mess up. Banning all oil drilling, like gutting the public sector, would be going too far. Unfortunately, this type of thinking can divert attention away from systemic problems and keep people focused on defending their ideology and trying to win elections.

Ultimately, politics is all about spin. Both sides want to make sure that their version of events becomes the more widely accepted “truth.” And the most important part of this game is making sure that the majority focuses on the event or issue that most naturally supports your ideology. Environmentalists want us talking about oil spills, and conservatives want us focused on budget messes in Greece and California. If you want to get a good sense of the political pulse of Americans these days, listen closely to see which stories people choose to notice.

Would Legalizing Marijuana be Bad for the Marijuana Business?

Here's a scene and song from "Woodstock" that I show to my Modern American History class.

A couple of weeks ago, I heard a story on “Marketplace,” one of my favorite NPR shows, that I instantly knew would inspire a blog post someday. (Click here for link. Scroll ahead to 19:45 to hear the story.) The story talked about the potential impact of a proposed ballot measure that may soon make marijuana fully legal here in California. As almost all Californians and many people throughout our nation know, my home state voted a few years ago to legalize the use of “medical marijuana.”  If this new measure passes, a medical referral will no longer be necessary to “light up.” Soon, “Dead Heads” throughout our west coast “Hippyland” may be breaking out into pot-induced songs of celebration and triumph.

So why would a story about marijuana be on a radio show that focuses on economics? It turns out that the legalization of marijuana may actually be bad for the marijuana business. This is particularly true up in Humboldt County, an area that prides itself as the “Napa Valley” of marijuana production. Because marijuana has been “illegal” for so many decades, this has kept marijuana prices artificially high. Its illegality has also added to its novelty status. As the pot-growing center of the ultimate rebel, hippy state, Humboldt County has drawn curious, sometimes weed-loving tourists for decades. If marijuana goes completely legal, its increased availability should reduce prices, and Humboldt will no longer be so unique. Marijuana’s new mainstream status may also lead to increasing regulations, a concept particularly offensive to people accustomed to underground operations. The “freedom” that comes with illegality will be gone. Medical marijuana use has already led to some of these trends, and full legality could be even more “devastating.”

There are so many possible angles for this story that it’s hard to know where to start. So instead of writing a long treatise about one or two key ideas, I am going to mention briefly several topics that could all be the subject of long, in-depth discussions:

1) Who has the power to regulate drugs, individual states or the federal government? It has been a while since I have read the entire Constitution, but I can say with some confidence that drug regulation is not expressly mentioned in the list of Congressional legal powers. Therefore, according to the tenth amendment, this power should be reserved to the states. Of course, the federal government has a long history going beyond the specific powers listed in the Constitution. (The federal government is a big fan, after all, of the “necessary and proper” clause.) So whatever California law may say in the present or future, marijuana is still illegal according to the federal government. At the moment, the President says that he is not going to pursue in an aggressive fashion those who use medical marijuana. In the future, of course, this could change.

2) Drug laws in our country are very arbitrary. Why should alcohol be legal while marijuana is not? You could make a good scientific case that alcohol is more damaging and addictive. (After all, when was the last time that you heard of a fight caused by weed? Bar fights, on the other hand, have a long and rich tradition.)  This seems to be more a product of social convention than of science. If Jesus had turned a shrub into a marijuana plant instead of water into wine, would our drug laws be different?

3) The fact that Humboldt County can pride itself as the “Napa Valley” of marijuana shows that marijuana prohibition is both a joke and a fantasy. If this region’s pot-related fame draws tourists from all over the world, how can that marijuana business be even remotely described as underground? As the experiment of banning alcohol during the 1920’s and early 1930’s demonstrated, people will ignore laws that they do not like (and that interfere with their fun). My grandfather grew up in Chicago in the 1920’s. He says that all kinds of people had stills in their basements. In some neighborhoods, the streets reeked of alcohol, and basement explosions were fairly common. He also said that it was fairly common to see the dead bodies that resulted from the gang warfare between competing bootleggers.  Eventually, the country realized that the negative byproducts of enforcement outweighed any positive effects of (limited) reductions in alcohol use. As any economist knows, if there is demand, suppliers will arise to meet it. And if the product demanded is illegal, it’s often the consumers and general public who suffer.

4) For the “Marketplace” story mentioned earlier, the host of the program interviewed a woman who had long been an advocate for the legalization of marijuana. But instead of lobbying for the passage of this upcoming ballot measure, she spent the whole time talking about the previously mentioned economic concerns of Northern California pot producers. Perhaps the marijuana producers, in spite of their fundamental belief that pot should be legal, should hire her to fight against this ballot measure. After all, they can make more money if the business stays “underground.” If they do this, they will have truly joined the American political system. For decades, special interest groups have been fighting for policies that only benefit themselves. These favors from the government often come in the form of various types of subsidies or of tariffs that protect their businesses from foreign competition. In the mean time, the general public ends up paying higher prices as a result of these policies that few of us even know about. As the host of “Marketplace” astutely realized, the government has been subsidizing marijuana producers for years by keeping their product illegal. If the woman interviewed does not want this job, I’m sure that there are plenty of lobbyists who would be happy to oblige. I wonder if the cigarette companies, pharmaceutical industry, or corn-based ethanol producers can loan a few.

 

Truth be told, the marijuana issue is not important to me personally. I have never been a pot smoker, heavy drinker, or consumer of any kind of mind-altering drug. I have enough trouble getting my brain to function when it is sober, so the last thing that I need is to pump a bunch of chemicals and crap in there. There are a lot of other Americans out there who also avoid drug use because they think it is stupid. This is why legalizing drugs is unlikely to turn us all into addicts. After all, most Americans today are not cigarette smokers and alcoholics. Others, however, are going to find a way to get high no matter what the government does. I have heard several times over the years that the biggest growth area in drug use involves the use of legal substances. So does this mean that I think that people should be able to buy PCP, LSD, and heroin at the CVS pharmacy? I have some reservations about that idea, although the advertisements would definitely be interesting. It definitely seems illogical, however, for marijuana to be lumped together with these much more dangerous and/or addictive hallucinogens and narcotics.

I can predict with some confidence what Californians will soon decide on this issue. We are, after all, a bunch of liberal freaks out here on the west coast. It will then be interesting to see what both people living in normal states and the federal government have to say about our latest adventure into freakiness.

Tiger Woods: What His "Fall" Can Teach Us.

This song by Jimi Hendrix kept coming to mind when writing this. Hero worship is a great example of building "Castles Made of Sand." 

Tiger Woods is one of a handful of people who has been able to dominate his sport through sheer talent and/or force of personality, a list that includes larger-than-life sports figures such as Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, Muhammad Ali, Jim Brown, and Roger Federer. Recently, however, his name has been added to a longer, less distinguished list of celebrities tarnished by scandal: OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, Michael Vick, Barry Bonds, and the list goes on and on.

This story has offended people on multiple levels. Some are obviously offended by his infidelity. (Many men, I suspect, are actually kind of jealous.) Others are more sympathetic toward Tiger and argue that his private life should remain private. Golfing skill earned him fame and respect, not the quality of his personal life. We should continue to focus on those skills that make him great and leave the rest alone. Still others ask the question that I find to be the most interesting and important: Why do we care? There are so many things happening in the world that merit more attention than Tiger Woods’ sex life. I sympathize with this complaint, but I also think that Tiger’s story demonstrates some very important truths. Tiger’s behavior, after all, is not the story. The story is the public reaction to his behavior.

The United States may be the most celebrity-obsessed nation of all time (although this is a trait that is not exclusively American in the modern world). Because people are trained from birth to constantly need some external source of entertainment, they end up worshiping entertainers. Now worship, some might say, is too strong of a word, but I find it very appropriate. Americans on average spend far more time, energy, and money on entertainment than they do on religious activities and institutions. They can often tell you more about sports statistics and contestants on American Idol than they can tell you about the Bible, and in my mind, actions speak louder than words.

The problem, however, goes far beyond spending huge amounts of time and money on entertainment. Many Americans, from what I can tell, show as much interest in celebrities’ personal lives as they do in the entertainment that these famous people provide. And in some cases, due to our modern obsession with “reality” TV, an individual’s personal life is the entire basis of his or her fame. Personally, I try to avoid celebrity “news,” and yet I often know which famous people are currently facing marital problems, struggling with weight issues, choosing the wrong fashion designer, or struggling to get pregnant. All that I have to do is go through the checkout stand at the supermarket to get a quick update. Just the other day, I was able to find out who had the best and worst beach bodies, and while I recognize the vital importance of this issue, those were some images that I (in some cases) really did not need to see.

So where does all of this interest in the personal lives of celebrities come from? One source may be the boredom and dissatisfaction that Americans feel with their own lives. By obsessing about celebrities, they get a chance to live vicariously through someone more beautiful and talented. In other cases, the problems celebrities face may actually cause average Americans to feel better about their lives. We may face marital problems, but at least we are not Tiger Woods. Of course, we may also be a society that is always on the lookout for idols and heroes. In an entertainment-crazed culture, this search naturally draws us to people with musical, acting, or athletic skills. But we want more. We want a human being that we can admire, so we are then unable to resist the desire to find out who this person is that entertains us so well. Unfortunately, idol worship directed toward entertainers will often lead to disappointment, and when it does, we make those celebrities pay in the tabloid press.

In addition to the tabloids and the public, certain companies have also decided to punish Tiger Woods. I remember seeing a chart in a newspaper once that showed the highest paid athletes in the world, and Tiger Woods topped the list to the tune of approximately $100 million in a single year. He made a lot of money winning golf tournaments, but it mostly came from advertising dollars. So why do advertisers dish out that kind of money to a guy who is not necessarily an authority on many of the products – watches, razors, cars, etc. – that he endorses? Part of the answer goes back to the celebrity worship mentioned earlier. I also believe, however, that famous people endorsing products, and advertising in general, is clear proof that the human race is not particularly rational. Because Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan is paid to tell us to buy something, does this improve the quality of the product? I hope that we will all answer no, and yet companies keep shelling out the big bucks. Are they that stupid? I doubt it. The truth is that we are apparently that stupid. Advertising does not appeal to human reason. It appeals to subconscious desires. So apparently, on some subconscious level, we believe that buying a Buick or wearing Hanes Underwear will improve our golf game or make us dunk like Michael Jordan. Celebrities project an image which appeals to our subconscious desire to be successful “like Mike.” This is why Tiger has been losing some endorsement deals. Tiger Woods’ appeal to consumers was not simply his golf game; it was also the positive, “family values” image that he projected. Kobe Bryant ran into the same problem a few years ago when he had his own sex scandal.  Kobe has shown, however, that you can eventually earn some of that reputation back. Will Tiger someday do the same?

Finally, in fairness to Tiger Woods, Magic Johnson, Kobe Bryant, Bill Clinton, Jonathan Edwards, and countless other famous, powerful men who have been unable to resist “temptation” at some point in their lives, it is important to note that these celebrities have opportunities that few men (or women) can ever fully comprehend. It is easy to be faithful when opportunities to cheat are not falling into your lap (pun intended). But if you are famous in a world of people who find fame irresistible, it can be difficult to keep “fighting them off.”  To paraphrase Henry Kissinger – a guy who claimed to get a lot of sex  –  “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” Ultimately, we humans are the same as all other animals, who are driven by the primal desire to get basic things like food and sex. The desire for lots of sex, in the end (no pun intended), may be one of the biggest reasons why people want to be famous in the first place. One of the biggest costs of this fame, however, is the privacy that Tiger Woods keeps requesting from the public. Privacy, however, is one thing that he gave up a long time ago and will never fully get back.

Why do Many People Hate Speed Cameras?

Here is a song called "905" by The Who. It is reminiscent of "A Brave New World" and is about a man living in a futuristic police state.

About a week ago, I was listening to a story on NPR about cameras that were being used by the state of Arizona to catch people who were driving too fast. This is a practice similar to the use of red light cameras here in California and in several other states. The focus of the story was on the anger that these cameras have generated in Arizona and on the many ways that people are expressing this frustration. One man drove around in a monkey mask to avoid being recognized in his car. A large percentage of the people who had received in the mail the more than $300 fine for speeding had not yet sent in their payments. There was even a case where a worker for the private company that maintains the cameras was shot and killed by a disgruntled motorist. Due to many complaints from citizens and from some government officials in Arizona, there is a good chance that these cameras may soon go away. Where does all of this anger come from?

I can think of several legitimate reasons why many people hate the concept of speed cameras. First of all, they feed in to the already common fear regarding the possible emergence of a “police state.” If traffic enforcement cameras become increasingly common and accepted, it may set the precedent for other types of law enforcement cameras in the future. At some point, there could theoretically be cameras watching our every move.

Second, there is good reason to worry that enforcement may not be fair. Will people who pass a camera on the freeway going 68 miles per hour receive the same fine as someone doing 90? On residential streets, enforcement could be even less fair because it is often difficult to even know the speed limit. Also, even if you assume that the driver is aware of the speed limit, it is so easy to lose focus for a few seconds and allow yourself to go a little too fast. Will law enforcement officials reviewing the camera footage show a little understanding toward drivers who were inadvertently slightly speeding? Living, breathing traffic cops probably won’t stop you when you are going 45 MPH in a 40 zone. But what will the cameras be programmed to do? After all, you are technically speeding when you drive one mile per hour beyond the speed limit.

Others might question the motives behind these speed cameras. State and local governments are strapped for cash these days. In the name of law enforcement, have these cameras mainly been set up to raise some revenue? If the motivation is primarily economic, there will be a built-in incentive to catch as many people as possible. Very strict enforcement, therefore, could be the norm. The people mentioned in the previous paragraph who may have been slightly speeding could someday find a big traffic fine in the mail, and in many cases, these “speeders” may have actually put no one at risk.

I understand all of these fears, but I can’t help thinking that some of this anger is not so legitimate. All of us, in theory, recognize the need for a wide variety of traffic laws. People cannot be trusted to drive safely simply because they know that it is the right thing to do. We also recognize that the number of police officers is limited, so the highway patrol cannot catch most of the people who routinely break traffic laws. Cameras, of course, could change this equation. Now, in certain areas, there will always be “someone” watching. The roads should then be safer. Indeed, NPR reported in that story that traffic accidents had gone down in Arizona, and yet the people keep complaining.

This anger is one of many symptoms of a deep-seated ambivalence toward government in our country. We want the government to do its job, with public safety, according to many people, being its most important responsibility. Most Americans when asked would also agree that law enforcement officials should receive the resources that they need. Then, if government either asks for these resources or takes action to actually enforce laws that we all agree are necessary, we bitch about it. Deep down, we want the government to let us drive the way we want. They should enforce laws, but only when it is other people breaking them. After all, government should only go out and punish the truly dangerous drivers, something few Americans would ever admit to being. And of course, the government should never take away our God-given “right” to drive.

In many ways, the government cannot win. If they take strong measures to maintain public security or to deal with any other problems, we complain, particularly if their actions affect us personally. Then, if there are lots of traffic accidents, or if, “theoretically,” something crazy like a financial meltdown almost happens because of foolish borrowers and lenders involving themselves in ridiculous home mortgages  - and strange financial instruments that were built on a foundation of these bad mortgages - we blame the government and tell them to fix things. When financial institutions, real estate speculators, and unworthy borrowers were profiting from their risk-taking, they wanted government to both encourage this behavior and to not burden them with annoying regulations. Then, when the risk-taking stopped paying off, they often blamed the government and demanded a bailout.

Of course, it is difficult to find the right balance between too much and too little government. We want the government to provide many services but do not want to pay a lot of taxes. We want the government too keep us safe without infringing on our privacy and other personal freedoms. We want a government that prevents corporate abuses but does not regulate too much. Then, when things go wrong, we blame the government that we never wanted to do too much in the first place.

If the post-9/11 era has taught us anything, it is that we should be wary of a government that takes drastic measures in the name of keeping us safe. Personal freedom without responsibility, however, can also be a dangerous thing. There are lots of drivers on our roads who should not be out there. We all see them every day. Cars are too dangerous to allow just anyone to drive them. However, it is an unfortunate truth that strictly enforcing traffic laws and taking away the driver’s licenses of those who consistently break them will not earn politicians a lot of votes. Also, telling certain people that they may not be able to afford a home or requiring powerful financial institutions to follow certain rules can be politically risky. Unfortunately, many Americans, and possibly the human race in general, are shortsighted, self-centered individuals who do not want to be held accountable for their actions. I guess it is easier to blame the other political party or the government in general for everything and to keep making unreasonable demands.

Were Old People Always Old?

Click here for a video of The Who playing "My Generation." It's set to a montage of footage from the band's early history. The key line for this post is probably the most famous lyric from the song: "Hope I die before I get old." (Most of them didn't.)

I’ve seen a few advertisements recently for this Sunday’s Super Bowl half time show. Apparently, one of my favorite rock bands of all time, The Who, is getting together again for this year’s extravaganza. I had a few different reactions when I first learned of this. First of all, I was surprised that they had not gone into permanent retirement. After all, they have to be well past the age where many start collecting Social Security. The fact that they are getting up there in age also makes me worried about both their musical abilities and their personal safety. I remember hearing years ago that Pete Townshend was practically deaf from years of playing really loud concerts. Will he still be able to hear well enough to stay in sync with his band mates? Also, if he breaks into one of his windmill guitar moves, is there a danger that his shoulder will come out of its socket? And at the end of “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” when he attempts to smash his guitar into pieces, will he still be able to generate enough force to carry this out?

After some reflection, the logic of booking The Who became clear. Ever since Janet Jackson terrorized the world by flashing one of her breasts a few years ago, the organizers of the Super Bowl have been booking older, seemingly safer artists for their halftime shows: Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Petty, The Rolling Stones, and now, The Who. (You know that the world has changed when The Who and The Rolling Stones are considered to be “safe” acts.) These older artists, whose status is based on the quality of their music and not stunts like a “wardrobe malfunction,” seem less likely to offend anyone. So if god forbid they accidentally flash some private body part to the world, the emotional reaction of the audience is more likely to be repulsion than arousal. And let’s face it; repulsion offends far fewer people than arousal.

I also wonder about the oncoming reaction of the younger audience to these old men rocking out at The Super Bowl. I am sure that some of them are familiar with The Who. Classic rock still gets the attention of some young folks. Some unfamiliar with the band may also be impressed with what these guys can do. In their heyday, after all, The Who played stuff that was louder, harder, and more powerful than just about anything out there today. Still, I think that most of the youth will see some old guys doing old people music, something that is, by its very nature, uncool. Old people can’t do real rock music. Good music, after all, is played by people who know how to be bad.

There is a disturbing moment that all children must go through when they learn about the “birds and the bees.” When the concept sinks in that certain body parts must be placed into certain locations in order to produce children, an image pops into their head that is unavoidable: “If I am standing here, then my parents must have had sex.” Then, if they have the guts to follow this line of reasoning, there is an even more disturbing insight: “My grandparents also must have had sex.” Then, if they have healthy imaginations, other questions follow: “Is it possible that mom, dad, grandma, or grandpa had sex with other people before they got married. I wonder how experimental they were in exploring different ways to…” and then their brain shuts down due to psychological trauma, and they may possibly lose their lunch. It is probably best at that point for kids to convince themselves that mom and dad and grandma and grandpa only did it enough times to produce the kids that they had. It also lasted for a very short time and was not very good.

It is very difficult for young people to picture old people doing all of the fun things that society tells them are bad, whether it is playing wild music or having a good time ‘doing the nasty.” (My Uncle once told me that his kids thought that they invented sex.) This is partly because it is hard for young people to picture older people as ever being young. It is almost like they live under the delusion that older people came out of birthing pods as fully mature adults. The reality, of course, is that their parents and grandparents were young once, and their behavior was not all that different from modern day young people. They may have had moments where they drank too much, drove in an unwise fashion, accidentally set fire to their parents’ garage (which my dad did once), or, god forbid, disobeyed their parents.

Parents are partly to blame for this delusion. We recognize that we are role models for our kids, so we want to present the best image that we can. This includes, of course, giving them at times a somewhat edited version of our own personal history. A couple of weeks ago, I posted an essay called “The Battle Against Schoolhouse Rock (and other Childish Depictions of History.)” (See Blog Archive to the right.) There, I talked about society’s tendency to give kids a romanticized version of American History, which is understandable but can also be potentially harmful if taken too far. Is the same true when we give our kids a romanticized personal history? I will let you decide.

Whatever the case, through the course of writing this I have thought of another good reason for kids to study history. As I have said, it is difficult for us parents to be honest with our kids about our own past (or present). So instead of introducing kids to the fact that the world and the people in it are often messed up through the example of our own lives, maybe they could get used to what the world is really like by studying history. That way, when we as parents inevitably disappoint them, they won’t be so surprised. Sometimes, the opportunity to get a dose of reality about both their families and society in general might come up for kids simultaneously. I can imagine a situation where a kid is watching the movie documentary about “The Woodstock Festival” of 1969. There, in the front row, they might see grandma and grandpa half (or more) naked, smoking something that looks illegal, and having a great time listening to The Who.