Study: Conservatives Don’t Know that Colbert is Joking

https://i0.wp.com/www.ugo.com/tv/shows-to-watch-in-2008/images/stephen-colbert.jpgOhio University did a study, with math and numbers, that conservatives didn’t know that Colbert on the Colbert Report is joking.  You can read about it here, or if you want to read the actual study, go here.

From the abstract of the article:

This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert’s political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism. Finally, a post hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert’s political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion.

I can’t believe someone did a study about this.

Posted in Humor, Politics | 4 Comments

Seriously, why isn’t America worried about. . .

THE TALIBAN!!  Based on all the newscasts, the Taliban are 60 miles away from Islamabad.  So far, I’ve only seen Anderson Cooper do a story on it.  As for the rest of the news programs, they only mention it at the ticker on the bottom.  This is a shame.  You can read the story here, but I want to add that this is seriously going to affect global policy if the Taliban makes it to the capital.

As the story suggests:

Some 400 to 500 insurgents consolidated control of their new prize, a strategic district called Buner, just 70 miles from the capital, Islamabad, setting up checkpoints and negotiating a truce similar to the one that allowed the Taliban to impose Islamic law in the neighboring Swat Valley.

However, the Pakistani government isn’t doing much of anything:

At the same time, the police and paramilitary forces have proved too weak to stand up to the militants. In Buner, desperate residents had resorted to forming their own militias, as much to keep out the military as the Taliban. That effort, too, has now failed.

If the Taliban reach the capital, they would have more power to enforce Sharia law and have a better outreach.  At the same time, guess how many nuclear weapons Pakistan has?  Exactly.  Why is it that when there are threats, no one pays attention?  Bin Laden made his threats to America in 1998, but no one listened (except for the Clinton administration, but everyone thought he was creating a diversion because of the Monica Lewinsky thing).  And now, the Taliban are threatening again, but alas, no one is paying attention (except for inside figures in Washington).

My prediction: if this keeps up, the Taliban will reach the capial by Christmas.  When that happens, India will go to war and from there, the world will start waking up again.  But let’s wake up now!  It’s scary stuff but no one’s paying attention.

Posted in News, War | 5 Comments

I’m Staying for Another Year

Many of you knew that I applied to grad school this year.  After receiving a couple of acceptances, I have decided to defer once again and stay in Utah.  The decision was pretty much a financial one.  Because of the economy, I can’t afford grad school right now.  Luckily, I had to option to defer and I will for sure be going next year starting in fall 2010.  In the meantime, I’ll be teaching in Utah for another year.

This year, I’m going to try and look at the school I got accepted and see what classes they offered if I did go.  That way, I’ll try and get the books and read along with the class.  Of course, there’s no one to talk to about what I’m reading, but maybe this blog will offer up a way to get a conversation going.

In the end, I’m just letting everyone know about my plans for grad school and the situation: I’m staying for another year.

Posted in Education, Grad School, Teaching | 7 Comments

The Benefit of Dirtying your Hands

Today is the first day of mowing my lawn for the year. https://i0.wp.com/www.clipartguide.com/_named_clipart_images/0511-0811-1117-4219_Gardener_Mowing_a_Lawn_Clip_Art_clipart_image.jpg I wasn’t too excited, but it needs to be done.  As I’m mowing the lawn, the mower gets clogged with grass.  I have to bend down, take out the bag, and stick my hand in the chute to get all the grass out.  At first, I was trying my best on not getting dirty; I just wanted to mow it quickly and then get in the shower as fast as I could.  I even contemplated putting gloves on so that I wouldn’t have to dirty up my hands.  However, I realized that the only way to get the grass out quickly was to dive in, get the excess grass out, then continue on.  When I did it, I was annoyed.  But after doing it a few times, my annoyance went away and I noticed that I got more involved with mowing the lawn.  In fact, I actually enjoyed mowing the lawn.

When I finished mowing the lawn, I looked more in my yard, and started pulling weeds out.  I got out the shovel and pulled out the biggest one that I couldn’t pull out with my hands.  I look over my lawn and start making plans in my head of what needs to be taken out, what plants to put in when I have time, and what other lawn work needs to be done.  I was in the zone of taking care of the lawn.

So what brought this new attitude?  I, at first, didn’t want to mow the lawn.  But in the end, I ended up pulling out weeds and shoveling dirt out.  The answer comes down to dirtying up my hands.  As soon as my hands are dirty, I’m thinking, “Ahh, my hands are dirty, you might as well keep going.”  But it’s not as if this was a bad thing.  I was in the zone to work on my yard.  With this, I was thinking of some other metaphorical hand-dirtying.

When I teach a class, I look over my notes before I do so and I get in the zone to teach the material.  I get excited about it.  When I get out of a philosophy conference, I’m psyched to read/write philosophy with more inspiration.  When I listen to great music, I get inspired to bust out my own violin and start playing.  These “hand-dirtying” techniques are motivational tools.  It gets me psyched and in the zone of whatever activity I’m doing.  I can remember when I was younger when I played soccer.  I stayed away from the ball because I didn’t want to get too involved.  However, there was a moment when the ball came to me and I kicked it.  After that, I chased after the ball as much as I could.  I was sweating hard and was getting dirty.  I thought, “I’m already getting dirty from this, I might as well go all the way.”  It seemed like a waste to get dirty for nothing.

That’s the beauty of it.  Once you’re dirty, you don’t want that dirt to go to waste.  You want to milk it as much as you can.  If you want a great motivational tool, it isn’t speeches, it isn’t music (unless you’re trying to psych yourself for some recital piece), and it certainly isn’t forcing yourself to do the activity (after all, have you tried to force yourself to do calculus, for example?).  The awe-inspiring motivational tool is dirtying your hands.  This is what gets you psyched, this is what gets you in the zone.  This pushes you forward and makes you want to complete the activity.  I always look forward to teaching my philosophy classes because I’m always reading philosophy.  I’m dirtying up my hands and in the zone.  When I read about running and how the pros do it, I’m dirtying up my hands and in the mood to run.  When I want to have a good race, I “dirty up my hands” by stretching and doing a few sprints.  When I want to go to an art gallery, I “dirty up my hands” by reading some of the artists’ background before I head to the gallery.  Dirtying up the hands is what moves us.  Perhaps this is why people lead a mediocre life: they don’t even try to dirty up their hands.  Why should they?  They don’t want to get dirty.  But dirtying up the hands is the difference between the heroic life and the couch potato.  Dirtying up the hands is the difference between what Kierkegaard calls “the existing individual” as opposed to the individual who is just merely existing.  Dirtying up the hands is what Nietzsche calls the Übermensch (the overman) as opposed to what he also calls the untermensche (the last man).  Dirtying up the hands is living an engaged life.

Don’t just live in the world; engage yourself in it.  You can only do this by dirtying up your hands.  It’s better to have a life of struggles, conflicts, battles, worthy opponents, and experiences rather than a dull, average life.  Even suffering is better than just sitting back, drifting in the mediocre herd.  The first step to escape from the average world to heroic life is dirtying your hands.

Posted in Paper Topic, Values | 2 Comments

Movie Review: Dear Zachary

I haven’t done a movie review, but this movie was so powerful and well-done that I had to review it.  I literally cried during this and I hardly ever cry at movies. https://i0.wp.com/www.soundonsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/1zach.jpg
The movie starts off by introducing us to Andrew.  Andrew is the victim of a murder and the filmmaker was his best friend.  Thus, the filmmaker (Kurt) goes through his old memories and interviews old friends to make a documentary about Andrew.  Kurt does such a wonderful job of introducing Andrew that you feel like you already know Andrew.  Andrew’s killer was his girlfriend.  However, she skipped to Canada.

In order for her to get extradicted and come back to the United States, Andrew’s parents literally move to Canada to fight for justice.  However, there’s another wrinkle to the story: the girlfriend is pregnant and Andrew was the father.  Now with the baby involved, the film changes from a documentary about Andrew to a documentary for Zachary, Andrew’s son.  Thus, we literally know Zachary through his birth and upbringing.  Andrew’s parents now become grandparents and they want to visit Zachary all the time.  Of course, the girlfriend says no because they don’t have custody.  Eventually, there comes a point where the girlfriend is off on bail and thus the grandparents and the girlfriend both share Zachary.

Just imagine that!  You are sharing your grandchild with the killer of your child.  What comes after that is truely amazing and shocking.

The documentary comes to head when the grandparents are still fighting for justice and they want to change the legal system in Canada about setting bail for murderers.  Their anger is so visceral that you feel the anger along with them, joy when they do, and always crying when they do.  Your heart seriously goes out to them.  You leave away thinking the same thing that the grandfather does about the girlfriend, “That woman is a fucking bitch!”

Even though the movie was about Andrew and Zachary, it’s more than that.  It involves the viewer because now you’re involved and you feel like you are a friend with the grandparents.  This movie is probably one of the best I’ve seen in 2009.  Seriously, you have to check it out.

Posted in Movie Review, Rights | 2 Comments

Dead Aid: Why Foreign Aid to Africa is Not Working

I haven’t read the book, but I would love to.  Unfortunately with my busy schedule, I don’t think I will for a while.  Perhaps if my students decide to talk about environmental issues and consumption, then I’ll quickly get it and assign a few chapters out of it.  However, I’ve been trying to keep up with what the argument is about.

To see Dambisa Moyo give her argument (along with various other thinkers, including Peter Singer), see it here:

The first 20 minutes is Moyo and the last 20 is Singer.

Her argument is very persuasive, in that giving aid to Africa isn’t working.  The reason why is because the aid is actually being funnelled to these corrupt governments.  After all, to give a state aid, the state must give it to the state, in other words, the government.  It’s a government to government funding.  The problem is that when the African government receives the aid, the governments become more corrupt and they keep the money.  With this, the government gets richer whereas the rest of the Africans gets poorer and poorer.

To see in her a humorous role on the Colbert Report, go here.

George Ayittey has said the same thing where you can see his interview here. It’s the same type of argument: aid to Africa isn’t working.  If you want to help Africa, then it must come down to the people, not the state.  You can see it here:

As soon as I read her book, and Singer’s book as well, I will give a book review and compare these two ideas.  It’s an interesting concept that I really didn’t think about before.  She’s also going against the grain because when we think of helping the African nation, we think of giving them more aid.  However, Moyo is saying that it’s actually hurting the Africans.

Posted in Economics, Environment, Peter Singer | 2 Comments

On Open-Mindedness

What does it mean to be open-minded?  There’s this assumption that to be open-minded, you must accept everything that comes your way.  People always say, “Well, you’re not being open-minded.”  But that’s illogical.  Being open-minded means that you’re open to the possibility, but you have counter-evidence to contradict those claims.  To those that say, “well, that’s just being closed-minded” is a fallacy.  The clip below explains it better than I can:

Hopefully, we can gain more clarity and open-minded discussions in the world instead of falling on fallacies, hyperboles, and rhetoric.

Posted in Education, Paper Topic | 2 Comments

Cosmos on Hulu

Carl Sagan’s show called Cosmos is on Hulu here.  All episodes are there.  Very remarkable!  Check it out.

Posted in Science | Leave a comment

Tea Parties On April 15th

So today is tax day and many Americans are rallying around waters to rebel against the government by planning a tea party.  Supposedly, it’s supposed to copy the Boston Tea Party before the Revolutionary War.  To me, this is ridiculous.  In the olden days, when you dumped tea in the waters, it was a symbollic statement because dumping tea made the English lose money.  However, if you’re dumping tea, the American government isn’t losing money; YOU ARE!  You’re buying the tea, and then you’re wasting it.  In fact, this just boosts the economy of where you’re buying the tea from.  Since most tea probably comes from China, having a tea party boosts the Chinese economy.  What irony!

At the same time, I realize that having a tea party on Tax Day is supposed to represent the anger that the American people have towards the Obama government.  But this Tax Day is when you file for taxes in 2008.  That was when Bush was in office.  So, if one is going to be consistent, they should have the tea party on April 15, 2010 and the tea must somehow come from the government (instead of some company).  I think that a true rebellion would be to take the bailout money from the government and burn it on April 15, 2010.  However, I don’t think any state will do that.  In fact, if anyone does that, Americans will find that person stupid.  So much for rebellion in America.

Posted in Culture, Economics, Government, History, News, Politics | 4 Comments

Book Review: Palestine Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter starts off by talking about the promises in the Camp David Peace Accords.  Egypt has fulfilled it’s promise; Israel, however, has not fulfilled it’s promise toward Palestine as was stated by the Camp David Accords.  From here, Israel gets the blame and Carter shows that from the 1980 to the current times, Israel has taken advantage of the Palestinian people.

https://i0.wp.com/www.hiiraan.com/news/2007/apr/images/Jimmy-Carter.jpg

What is fascinating is that he talks about events behind the scenes.  I found it interesting about his talks with various leaders on both sides to see what they had to say.  Going throughout history, Carter lays out various plans, wars, and strategies that both sides (and us) have offered.  At each moment, the Palestinians are portrayed as the good guys and the Israelis have faulted.

The book ends with Israel building a wall that’s within the West Bank which Carter considers and apartheid because it’s confining the Palestinians in their own territory without basic human rights.

The tone of the book was awkward.  I felt like I was reading a book at a seventh grade reading level.  However, the book also assumes that one is familiar with the conflict in the Middle East.  In some places, Carter is right.  The Israeli world has been unfair to the Palestinians.  For example, the Oslo Accords seemed to have an unfair advantage to Israel because they kept a lot of the land, and Clinton blamed Arafat for that.  However, there are a lot of things where Carter is naive about.  For example, the Israelis are building a wall.  Carter claims it’s because of apartheid purposes.  However, I think the answer is obvious: the Israelis are looking for security.  By building a wall, you impede Palestinian suicide bombers from entering into Palestine.  To be fair, Carter does admit that, but he thinks that the main motivation for building the wall was to gain more land.  This is too naive!  It’s about security!  I know that Carter wants to play the peacemaker here, but he must realize that security is the main issue in these dealings, not land.  Sure, Israel would give up land in exchange for security.  But for the Israelis, they want a guarantee that security will happen first.  They’re not going to give up land because having that land is a buffer zone for security.  Even the Golan Heights, which Carter says belongs to Syria, is a place of security.  There are too many things here that Carter ignores in his history and it’s a shame that he does so.

Many people have commented that since it was Israel’s fault, Carter is considered an anti-Semite.  I think that’s a silly remark.  Carter is not an anti-Semite.  He deeply cares about the people involved in the Middle East.  I think he is right when he says that the animosity is because of our outlook on Israel.  But when it comes to history, Carter is ignoring the facts.  I would still recommend to reading it, however.

To get a glimpse of what he’s saying, check it out:

Posted in Book Review, Politics, Respect, Rights, War | 4 Comments