State of emergency

I realize the following quotation doesn't inspire great political commentary. Quoting it seems more emotional and reactionary, but there is a point. Several days ago, the White House released a press statement stating we would be in a national state of emergency for another year. The national state of emergency has been in place since 2001, the year of the terrorist attacks. I'm not amazingly surprised by the general idea, despite some flaws in its merits, but I'm more interested in why has the U.S. been in this state for this long?

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 18, 2008

Notice: Continuation Of The National Emergency With Respect To Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, Or Support Terrorism

RSS Feed White House News

On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, I declared a national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706). I took this action to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks in New York, in Pennsylvania, and against the Pentagon committed on September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks against United States nationals or the United States. Because the actions of these persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States, the national emergency declared on September 23, 2001, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 23, 2008. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

September 18, 2008.

Interesting

Here's a random, interesting site to check out when you have some time to kill. It's a web site that gives short anecdotes to honest questions. It wasn't harsh enough where it seemed like I was a voyeur, peaking in on a confessional. It wasn't so tame where I thought I was reading a one-page sectional in a Reader's Digest.

http://commonties.com

Presidential race

I tend to read small bits or news, here and there, regarding the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Like past presidential election years, I tend to remain undecided until approximately 1 months before the actual election. Again, like in past years, I have a bad taste in my mouth as the candidates are excreting their talking points and, in some cases, informational entertainment spots.

Despite the campaign system being mostly broken:
1. Campaign finance corruption.
2. Campaign lobbyist corruption.
3. Emphasis on pointing fingers rather than solving issues or accepting responsibility (see: economy).
4. Emphasis on polarizing issues (abortion, Iraq, death penalty, stem cell research) since the candidates are so close to each other on almost every other issue.

That being said, I like to usually watch the presidential debates. It's an opportunity for, at least, a little straighttalk regarding the meat of the campaigns...

How will each candidate tackle foreign policy (see: Iraq)?
How will each candidate tackle the economy (see: Housing market, weak dollar)?

So here is the tentative schedule:

September 26, 2008: Presidential debate with domestic policy focus, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS
October 2, 2008: Vice Presidential debate, Washington University, St. Louis, MO
October 7, 2008: Presidential debate in a town hall format, Belmont University, Nashville, TN
October 15, 2008:Presidential debate with foreign policy focus, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

I'm interested to see how the candidates discuss the recent real-estate mortgage crisis (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) and financial sector problems (Merril Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG) and how it impacts the economy. I, hope, for the sake of the U.S. economy, they discuss more about their plans to strengthen the economy rather than pointing party-line fingers. This is a bi-partisan issue and should be treated as such.

Hip-hop

Hip-hop, it rocks. It's not just the basic idea that I love. It's the entire foundation.

Creating music? DJ'ing.
Creating lyrics? MC'ing.
Creating dance? BBoying
Create art? Graffiti

Now, graffiti isn't as interesting to me, but I respect the art and style of it. The music is just contagiously good when created by the right mind.

Here's what I don't get. I notice there's a huge contigent of hip-hop artists who are labeled by the industry and consumer public as "alternative" hip-hop: Jurassic 5, Del the Funky Homosapien, Kool Keith, and hundred of others.

Why are they called "alternative"? Some of these artists are doing some new, innovative music, while others are just showcasing hip-hop at its roots which is fantastic.

Commercially marketed hip-hop has strayed so far from its roots. We have MCs who, if you notice, don't even call themselves MCs. Many popular hip-hop artists aren't even rhyming. They are yelling or singing. It's close to a rhythm and blues derivative than anything else.

Hiphop is about culture, but more specifically the art that springs from that culture. If the foundation of that art is considered alternative, than I guess I'm a fan of the outcast.

Critical thinking

One of the things which tends to annoy me in critical discussion is a lack of long-term thinking. In general, we are a "what can you do for me now?" society. We see this general line of thinking in a number of areas, both specific and generalized.

Take the idea of self-destructive behavior - People, often, exhibit signs of self-destructive behavior in lieu of working to create something. Why? Because creating something takes effort. It's hard work. For a simple example, it's easier to tear down a house than it is to build one. Gravity can manage most of the work for you. It also takes less time.

I sympathize. I truly do. I'm both a destroyer and creator.

However, the problem I want to make note of isn't about how people choose to self-destruct. It's about the people who choose to self-destruct and refuse to acknowledge the positive rewards from doing hard work. Hard work is a long-term solution. Hard work is undergoing some pain now to reap the rewards in the future for yourself, others, or future generations.

The CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) turned on today. I knew there was a general public hubbub that this machine could mean the end of the world. How did that hubbub spread wildly? The answer is ignorance and fear. The societal spread of information in this case is interesting to me in the sense that it doesn't matter whether or not the CERN Large Hadron Collider will destroy the world (with astronomically high probability, it won't), the issue is how people, both in the media and also general public, sensationalized the idea it could and the outcry that resulted.

Why did the media sensationalize the risks (or non-risks depending on your viewpoint) of the LHC? They did it for the same reason most media outlets sensationalize. It's a more exciting read. More excitingreads cause a higher emotional response. Marketing shows that a higher emotional response from information outlets result in higher circulation and, in turn, a higher bottom line.

Why did the general public respond to the sensationalist media reporting in a sensational way? They did it for the same reason most people respond sensationally. It's easier to understand "the world is going to vanish from existence" than it is to understand the physics behind the LHC. The amount of energy slammed against the Earth on a daily basis from space is astronomically higher in amount than any energy that could be generated by the LHC.

I started reading on CNN about user comments regarding the LHC project. The majority of comments expressed moral outrage stemming from religious beliefs. Other comments revolved around the large amount of money that was spended on the project, that it would be better suited to spend on other endeavors (usually world hunger and our precious children). Those issues are important (especially our precious children), but it still shows lack of understanding. Scientific research isn't about instant gratification. It's about making best-effort observations given previous knowledge, and then altering existing knowledge or creating new knowledge based on these observations. That's it. Scientific research usually has no practical output, except when you wait many years if not decades for innovators to apply that research in a useful way. It got me thinking about how many useful things I use on a day-to-day basis that was the result of scientific research - a computer, my water bottle, the internet, a light-emitting diode, glasses, a cellphone. I'm pretty sure none of these devices, even at their most primitive idea level, whether it be a CPU, a piece of plastic, a chemical reaction, a sound wave were discovered in a day. The research takes time. It takes work.

Anyhow, the following are some choice bits...

First, some strawman arguments:

"A 9 billion waste! Same as America another waste of taxpayers dollars spent on "what is on Mars" the French no different. The people of this planet Earth need medical research on Better Health Conditions and a cure for Cancer..to have and enjoy a better quality of life!!"

"I am all for learning more about the universe. BUT, I think there are more important things in this life than finding out how the universe came to be. There are starving children, homeless people that cant even get back on their feet beacuse of Hurricanes and other weather tragedies we are faced with in these times. Maybe we should put more into helping people, than researching things that the only benefit would be... "Oh, so thats how that happened!" I mean think about what $9 Billion could do for your fellow man!?!?!?"

"How many hungry people could have been fed? How many destitue people could have gotten needed medicine. Bunch of self-centered, oblivious scientists with a big shiny toy."

"What a waste of money, we have so many problems and worries on earth. As mentioned in another email, starving children, helpless and starving animals! Just to push their own ego to find what in the end?!"

Next, how about massive conspiracy theories:

"makes you wonder why governments have poured so much money and are showing so much interest in this. Manipulating and controlling mankind with the current inventions of destruction is not enough......."

Finally, sensationalist responses based on misinformation:

"So we are now creating black holes right here on earth. When will we learn that we don't need scientists to create a new type of nuclear bomb?"

My blood started to boil after reading these comments, but then I went back to a state of calm, rebuking myself internally. I responded emotionally and sensationally in the same way and I got annoyed with myself as a result. The one comfort I responded with, in turn, was that I was critical enough to realize that.

Television

It has been a long time since I watched a large amount of television. So, I surprised myself by watching an enormous amount of it last night. I don't have a hatred of television. I just find that talking to friends or playing on the Internet to be more rewarding for me. That being said, while switching between cuts from Generation Kill, a recent series produced for HBO, I watched an hour long show on the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Yes, that Large Hadron Collider. The basic idea about the Large Hadron Collider is that it will speed up an enormous amount of molecules in multiple directions (close to the speed of light), and then let the molecules smash into each other to see what occurs. I recognized the show was dumbed down for your average viewer (me), but it gave an interesting introduction to some of the general research that will be occurring - discovery of new matter (smaller particles and dark matter) being the most interesting aspect.

There is some fear and panic in the world regarding the Large Hadron Collider. The fear being that some of the experiments could result in the creation of a tiny black hole. When the word black hole is mentioned, panic ensued and some public groups were not pleased with the possible idea of a black hole consuming the Earth. The vast majority of scientists discounted these claims stating that the odds of creating a black hole were miniscule and even if one were to be created, it would be so small that it wouldn't have the energy to maintain its structure and would dissipate.

It was a good show. It surprised me. The industry use of television doesn't interest me as much as poking around on the Internet. I think it comes down to two reasons:

1. Interactivity

There is little to none in television. I can't talk to other people using the same medium like I can do on the Internet (via VoIP). The counter to this argument is that you can watch television in the same room as friends and family. That's true and that can make the experience more personal, but there's more to it than just communicating about your sensory experience. I can experience participation within Internet activities. I can talk in a chat session. I can play a multiplayer game. I can write a blog. I am contributing the actual content.

2. Choice

I have to offer some sort of prayer that what I want to watch will be available as I sit down on my couch in front of the television. This isn't as true as it used to be though. First with VCRs, and more recently with DVRs (digital video recorders) and on-demand content, I now have more control over what I can watch which is fantastic. The ability to choose television programming will, hopefully, continue to be more prevalent in the coming years.

Food for thought, probably just my own though.

Impressively enough, after reading some news sites this morning, the Large Hadron Collider is scheduled to be turned on today.

Across the street

A long time ago, my Mom sternly told me since I was too young that I was not to cross the main street several blocks away unless I was led across the street by a trusted adult. As a rule of thumb, I took my mother's warnings seriously.

One day, I really wanted to visit the small arcade at the nearby bowling alley. The trouble with this thought is that it was across the main street. I decided to make a break for it one day. I rode my bike down my residential avenue, then approached the busy road. I waited for the light to changed, sprinted across the main broadway on my bike, then continued double-time to the confines of the bowling alley and arcade.

I sprinted not only for my safety, but because I was terrified. I was terrified of being alone across the street and also of disobeying my mother's orders. I had a feeling of extreme paranoia that someone was watching me. I envisioned someone I knew, even an acquaintance of my mother would come up to me and find me out. That never happened though.

My anxiety got to be too much and I didn't stay long -- not more than 20 minutes. I got on my bicycle and rode back to my house as quickly as I made my original way. I was relieved to come home, but also had a feeling of shame.

I am wound too tight.