Life Goals:

1. Adopt a child

2. Be a foster mom

3. Live in five non-English speaking countries

4. Learn French, Spanish, and Chinese.

5. Travel to one foreign country every year

6. Always be volunteering for at least one organization

7. Have a meaningful, enjoyable career

8. Save enough that can spend retirement years volunteering at an orphanage

9. Learn how to cook vegetables

10. Don’t die 

The Life of Julia

So the democrats are doing this “The Life of Julia” campaign. It has issues. For those who don't know, "The Life of Julia" depicts all the benefits Julia will get from the government thanks to Obama. You can check it out at this link: “The Life of Julia” It seems like it was planted by the opposition, it’s that bad.

For one thing, what should you name a stock-figure woman, whose main relationship seems to be with the Government? I'll give you a hint: not the same name as the the main female protagonist of 1984. Fun fact: When you type in "the life of julia orwellian", you get 4.3 million hits. Obviously, I'm not the only one who would find the naming ironic.

Also, you can’t just have a system of free riders. I’m as supportive of government funded education and health care as the next person. Considering my political leanings, perhaps more than the next person. But the average citizen needs to contribute to society the same amount they take out. In other words, the average citizen cannot be Julia. From age three to age 65, all she does is take from the government.  If they had just mentioned Julia's tax rate, that she paid without complaining about how the government never does anything for her, I'd be okay with this campaign. It's hard to argue with the Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, after all : ) But the relationship depicted is very one-sided.

It’s pretty obvious this campaign is trying to capitalizing on its gender gap. That's fine, I just wish they'd leave 1984 allusions out of it.

In Defense of Careers

No, not real careers. I wouldn't know much about those anyway. I mean, career tributes in the Hunger Games. I first read the Hunger Game series on my flight back from China, and I got so absorbed in the book, it probably made the people stuck in the seats around me uncomfortable. Admiration for Americans was not increased. 

Sadly, it has not stood up so well to a second reading (but the movie was awesome!) Mostly, it bothers me in the hunger games how the career tributes don’t really make sense as the psychopathic murderers they are portrayed as. It bothered me enough that I have written this post to defend imaginary characters. So here it goes:

Even if only the career tributes win the Hunger Games, each individual career only has a 5/6 chance of winning. Therefore, the careers likely volunteering for their own deaths. They may have better odds than the other tributes, but the careers  are still facing a likely death for the honor, glory, and profit of their district (the districts get food parcels if their tributes wins). Sure, the most noble thing to do would be to refuse to play, by suicide perhaps. But nobody choices that, so you can’t vilify the careers for trying to survive. Everyone else is too, they’re just doing a worse job.

Also, the career districts are just as much victims as the normal districts. Yes, the fact that the career tributes have been brainwashed into thinking their lives are worth sacrificing for entertainment is wrong. However, the districts have little choice but to look at it as a district vs. district game instead of a district vs. capital game, and, in that context, it’s smarter to train your tributes so they at least have a chance. In addition, the fact that careers volunteer means that they are protecting someone else, someone less prepared in their district, from dying. The fact that the careers  actually kill people isn’t as bad as it seems – 23 people are going to die no matter what, so all you can do altruistically is save the life of one person (by surviving until only you two are left, and then offing yourself.)

In conclusion, the career tributes are just as much a victim as anyone. I understand why Katniss would still try to kill them, if only out of self defense, but there is no point in demonizing them. And it’s weirdly convenient how the careers wipe out everyone Katniss would have to feel bad about killing. 

I'm (relatively) moral!

I don’t like books that just preach to the choir. They make their opponents into strawman and, therefore, they are simply not convincing. Besides, I don’t need to be told what I believe, I already believe it. For this reason, I really like the work of Steven Pinker. He can take very complex things like the brain (How the Mind Works), language (The Language Instinct), and evolutionary psychology (The Blank Slate) and makes it interesting and persuasive (at least to me).

I’m currently reading his latest book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined. I’m still at the very, very violent part of the decline of violence, where Pinker explains how people justified the violence at different time frames. It’s very interesting/scary to see how it would have been to believe that extreme violence is okay if you’d  been raised that way. You hope you would have the empathy, the logic, or the courage to somehow be ahead of your time. But most people aren't ahead of their time, by definition.

Consequently, it makes me really happy that I’ve been raised right. I don’t mean in relatively inconsequential things like belief in gay marriage, separation of church and state, or vegetarianism (my parents are against the last thing anyway). I mean in things like being against stoning homosexuals to death, creatively torturing infidels, and slowing burning live cats for fun.

The fact that the majority of people today would consider torturing a blasphemer to death to be unethical behavior goes to show that we, as human beings, have made progress over the centuries. The fact that the majority of people used to consider torturing a blasphemer to death to be entertaining goes to show that we may owe at least some of our morality to our environment. Isn’t that just a little terrifying?

Sure, I’d like to think that, were I alive back then, I’d be the lone voice for anti-torture, anti-murder, anti-child sacrifice, but when the majority of people do bad things, you’re statistically likely to be part of that majority. That’s basic math.

Witch Burning:
Now me: It's wrong.

Dark Ages me: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Exodus 22

Capital Punishment:
Now me: It's wrong.

Dark Ages me: Rules are rules are rules.

Slavery:
Now me: It's wrong.

Dark Ages me: The Bible says it’s okay so long as you show some restraint. “When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.” Exodus 21

Conversion by Torture:
Now me: It's wrong.

Dark Ages me: Sure, it hurts now. But what’s a couple of day of agony followed by death to an eternity of bliss? You’ll thank us later.

Human Sacrifice:
Now me: It's wrong.

Dark Ages me: Yes, one person has to die, but now we’ll have rain!

The Best and the Worst

“We like people for their qualities, but we love them for their flaws” I always thought that quotes was by Eleanor Roosevelt, and it’s somewhat disappointing to find out that it’s from some movie call “Hellboy” instead. I guess it’s still a good quote. I do think that qualities and flaws of a person are often a different side of the same coin. Flaws are often the qualities, but taken too far and applied too generally. I have, of course, made a chart to illustrate my point.

Quality	Heads	Tails
Assertive	You always know where you stand with them.	They can be selfish/greedy
Bird of a Feather	You’re on the same wavelength, and need to explain yourself is minimal	You don’t have someone to pull the other way when you really need someone on the saner, less neurotic end of the tug rope
Friendly	They’re friendly (duh)	You never know if they are being nice because they like you or because they are just nice to everyone
Rude	They’re refreshingly honest	They can be hurtful
Conscientious	They are very moral, reliable people.	You have to spend a lot of time reassuring them that some things are okay to let slide, and, no, it does not make them a  horrible person
Sensitive	They notice when you are down about things, and are understanding	They are easily hurt or offended and they hold grudges.
Independent	They don’t need you.	They don’t need you.
Perfect	They’re perfect!	They can be depressing to be around and compare yourself with