Population

In 2008, I heard from a fellow undergraduate that population control was a major issue.  In fact, it was such a big issue that it was labeled non-partisan.  And when you can find a non-partisan issue, it's relatively easy to fix when you get the word out, right?  Right?  I know you're probably wondering why I'm asking and not telling you.  It's because the answer to that question is case by case.

I have been reminded of this issue more and more frequently throughout my life.  It comes up in history class, it comes up in philosophy, it comes up in domestic politics, and most recently it was brought up in a National Geographic video that I'd like to share, (don't worry it's short and you don't have to pay very close attention, but I think you will):

http://www.wimp.com/worldpopulation/

In other words, there are too many people in the world, given our ways of life.

The main concern I have after hearing all of these perspectives is that there is one thing standing in the way of progress, let alone resolution, for this situation in the United States.  The U. S. Constitution keeps legislation from doing things like fertility capping (as in China) or sterilization (as has been done in India).  These would impose inhibition of our declared right to pursue happiness, and in some cases completely violate human rights.

Now, what can be done with this non-partisan issue?  We're already doing it.  While government may not be good at most things, it has recognized this issue and made it a priority at both state and federal levels.  Illegal immigration, migration, and legal immigration is such a huge issue that this non-partisan issue is becoming partisan.  How?  Immigrants (such as those of Hispanic and Asian heritage) are becoming a larger and larger voting population, which translates into a louder voice for politicians to hear.  And as soon as one side took a stand on the non-partisan issue, the other side saw the opportunity to secure almost guaranteed votes on the growing minority population (which is projected to swell into the majority in a very near future).

In fewer words, the government recognized the detriment of overpopulation, attempted to do something about it, and it got infinitely and irrevocably worse unless something else changes.  We are currently headed toward one of many possible worst-case scenarios in which our pandering exclusively to votes rather than responsible and rational thought is becoming an acceptable political strategy.

I could end this with a joke or some reassurance, but I actually want people to stop what they're doing and think about this, even if you don't agree with anything I've said.

Highest Grossing Films

The wonderful world of radio brought cinema discussion into my ears one day.  They talked about the "surest" grossing genre in cinema.  They asked me to guess, and I couldn't get it.  Was it action?  Was it romance?  Comedy?  Romantic comedy?  Horror?  None of the above.  It's children's computer generated 3D.  Cars, Toy Story, Madagascar; you know them.  They are almost sure investments.  And that's what the entertainment industry has come to.  When was the last time you saw a very bad movie?

In other words: this is a result of the unstoppable power of capitalism.  Think about it: CGI (computer generated images) are only getting better and better, and while they are incredibly expensive you always get what you pay for, celebrity voice acting, and some of the best writing in the industry (capable of writing in clever quips for adults while captivating a child's mind) makes this enticing to every member of the family.  Investors want to be so safe and so sure in their risk, that risk is a minority factor.  This is the result of trial and error, perfection of a well-oiled money-making machine.  It's amazing!  However, the new battleground for innovation and creativity appears to be on television.  Shows like Spartacus, Game of Thrones, True Blood, and any CSI ever are where any entertainment seeker should look to have a good time that isn't based on numbers spewed from a diabolical mathematical formula.

Spartacus has to be the best historical fiction since Gladiator or The Patriot.  A heartbreaking tale off screen might pique your interest before anything else about the plot.  It breaks dialogue and relationship boundaries that simply cannot be done on the big screen, and entertains just as well and at times better than even the most seasoned franchises.

Game of Thrones is based on a series of novels by George R. R. Martin.  The man is a genius of sorts in his representation of less than ideal characters clinging to absolutely ideal character traits that unravel in unexpected ways.  The characters speak with such exact purpose and scale that you'll beg your friends to catch up to the newest season for their own sake.

True Blood is actually a bit of a formula, but it's not one people mind.  This drama series has revolutionized soap operas by combining fantasy style with romantic fantasy, and the blend has people forgetting when the next Twilight movie comes out on DVD.  The characters stand out to portray the desires of the lowest common denominator demographic, yet no one complains.

CSI is the new Law & Order.  The characters have more personal issues and have a modern perspective on moral situations with a solid base of old-fashioned justice.  Many people can tune into these shows at any 5 minutes and watch the rest, only to wish they had seen what was missed.  That's not to say that CSI doesn't play the numbers; each franchise is tailored to fit your personal interests and style - if you don't like any of them, then law & order style entertainment probably isn't for you.

If you haven't been watching television for a long time, then the DVD sets I could recommend would keep you busy for months, but I will say if you find yourself with even a bit of free time, believe me, these series can excite any emotion you've left idle in the interim.

Humanism vs. Christianity

This topic isn't going to be your usual let's hate believers, and it's not going to be an amateur apologetic piece.  This topic was inspired by two separate radio programs I heard on a long road trip which made me realize what educated people on both sides are doing with their time.

Humanists get together to have thoughtful discussions no less than annually, and they go over some of the more important topics (which inevitably involves a mention of religion).  They stressed the importance of self reliance.  A re-doubling of their personal efforts to find purpose in their life.  The group was entirely unanimous in their agreement that the task of finding meaning in life was completely up to the individual, and that it was subjective to each case, independent of any other, to succeed.

Christians have a similar discussion in progress as I found on another radio station.  Their dialogue is primarily given to them by trained leaders, such as ordained pastors.  This particular discussion addressed nearly every issue that humanists argue is the reason to reject religion.  Their response was somewhat counter-intuitive to the untrained listener.  What the speaker I heard spoke of was a re-doubling of their efforts to become better practitioners of Christianity; the response to criticisms of Christianity is not to compromise, but to become better Christians with "more Christianity" than before.

Now, before the gurus of either side can have their hand at this, I'd like to make it very clear that I'm aware of the obvious complications and problems that arise from that raw version of Humanism and the countless versions of protestant Christianity (some of which are comfortably within the definition of cult); as I said before, I'm not here to defend anything, I just want people to understand something very specific about each.  And there are two very distinct characteristics about the two that are worth mention.

First, they both talk about doing what they know how to do, but their ultimate aim is to do it better.  Both sides believe so strongly in their cause that they are willing to believe that any failure they've had previously is simply due to human error or some unknown ignorance.

Second, they both talk about each other, but never talk with each other (we all know each side talks AT each other).  This is likely the most problematic issue both groups face.  I say this because disregard for your opponent in any legitimate discussion is foolish, no matter the topic.  It appears that neither side has any intent on reconciliation, which is, in my personal opinion, pure shame.

In other words, regardless of what I think, it's important to take this into context.  A look into religion in politics during my undergraduate studies pointed out this issue in great length, and this circumstance is no different.  We have two factions polarized against one another to achieve their own aims, their own goals, regardless of what opposition may bring.  What we never see is collaborative efforts to bring to light common ground that plainly exists.  It is absolutely clear that both factions are acquiring the best chance they have at a meaningful existence.  This fundamental similarity ought to be enough to permit civil discussion and social progress.  Yet it goes undone.

If this matter was an easy fix, then it would have been done (notice I didn't say simple).  What I observe here requires the most trying individual feat to be had as a member of society:  to truly accept opposition as more than just that; we must understand that in the ways humans are most important we are also the same.  The differences remain trivial as they have for all of history.

The Electoral College

Most people immediately think about more interesting things and tune out the world when they hear the words "Electoral College," and I can't blame them.  It's a topic that gets glossed over with generalizations and the path of least resistance is often to consider it outdated in spite of its use today.

A brief-brief summary is the Electoral College is a group of representatives who vote based on the popular vote you cast (best-known example being presidential elections).  It's based on a winner-take-all system, so if you voted against the majority, your vote simply doesn't make an impact on the overall election.  Sounds crazy right?  Kind of makes you wonder why we still have it.  It's old and doesn't make sense today, right?

Bear with me while I attempt to bring us past that point where normally people go dead to the world hearing Charlie Brown's teacher.

In other words, the Electoral College is a clever check against the majority.  Wait what?  I know what you're thinking, I JUST said it kicked the minority votes out.  This remains true, but it's actually not designed to protect the minority within the state (or commonwealth).  Its design allows protection for the majority within the state against the national majority.

The best example I can give here is a fictional one: let's say the United States is made up of two states of equal population split right down the middle of the country.  This would give them equal electoral votes, as well.

Let's say the state on the left has a unanimous voting population.  And the state on the right has a very close division, but the majority votes against the left.  What the Electoral College does is protects the interest of the popular minority.  How cool is that?  I know, I know.  Not a huge improvement on the textbook version, but if minority rights or states' rights are important to you, now you know that the Electoral College is working for you!