Psychology and Politics

Posted on October 7, 2013 | Leave a comment

ThumbnailI wrote a post a few days ago about the government shutdown that struck a nerve with a few people. Personally, I don’t mind disagreement as long as the those disagreements are based on well-thought arguments and evidence rather than emotional and ideological pleas. And I’ll still say whatever I want here because it’s my website and my soapbox.

One thing I noticed that struck people in particular was when I referred to a “tyranny of the minority.” There were disagreements trying to point out the conservative viewpoint is not in the minority, including among conservatives in the U.S. Congress itself. They claim that they represent the interests of the majority of Americans.

One thing that’s very clear right away is how incorrect this is and there’s a single piece of evidence that shows this clearly: Elections! If a majority of Americans agreed with the conservative wing, why are they not elected to and in charge of all branches of government? We just had a major election cycle last year where the Democrats kept control of the Senate and the White House and lost seats in the House of Representatives, despite gerrymandering of districts. Clearly, it is not true that the majority agree with conservatives in this country, at least not at this time. And I don’t accept an argument of a silent majority, because if a majority is silent, then it’s useless.

However, that is not the point I want to make with this particular post. What struck me about the reactions was the rational disconnect that seems to follow a lot of people when it comes to politics. Evidence shows that conservatives are not in the majority at this time among the general population, yet they insist that they are. This isn’t unique. Liberals will also claim the same thing when conservatives are in control of the government.

It’s a phenomenon that I personally find fascinating. Aside from the intensity with which people disagree over politics nowadays, what is it that causes this particular disconnect? Part of me believes that, to start, political beliefs are themselves irrational regardless of where someone falls on the political spectrum. Politics, by nature, have to be based on ideologies at a fundamental level. Even liberal ideas such as feeding the homeless (yes, it is) are, I will admit, irrational at their core. There’s not anything I would stand to gain personally. It’s a spiritual benefit one gains from helping their fellow man. In that regard, Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy is, admitted, the most rational belief in an absolute sense.

But that’s not to say that it’s right. I and many others find Objectivist ideas abhorrent on multiple levels. So, I’m admitting that my own political beliefs are not entirely rational if my beliefs were somehow based entirely on self interest. Instead my beliefs are based on a desire to benefit everyone, to help the downtrodden, further science, promote the free exchange of ideas, and further humanity’s progress. And I can dig my heels in pretty hard over my beliefs.

So, why do people act so irrationally over their beliefs, no matter how irrational we know they are, or try to convince ourselves they are rational? And why the insistence that someone is part of a majority when they’re not? I personally believe that most conflicts of this nature stem from a basic “Us vs. Them” mentality in the age old competition for resources. Unlikely some, I don’t believe that religion is the major source of conflict. Take religion out of the equation and people would still find reasons to fight because it’s really about resources.

Convincing one’s self that their part of the majority likely comes from the desire to be part of the dominant group. People like an underdog, but not necessarily being part of such a group. With the U.S. as divided as it seems to be at this time, it’s easy to convince one’s self that they’re part of a majority and that their majority factor is simply silent. But, like I said, a majority is useless if silent, so it’s very difficult to argue it on any practical level.

I’m currently reading a book that came out last year called The Righteous Mind, which is about this subject in particular. I’ll be reviewing it once I’m done, and interested in the conclusions that the author draws.

In the meantime, however, the Dodgers game is getting very intense, behind one run in the eighth inning, so I’m too distracted to continue with this post.

Leave a comment

Posted in Rants

Tagged , , , ,

Pardon My Politics: Shut It Down!

Posted on October 1, 2013 | Leave a comment

ThumbnailI’ve been meaning to say something about this, but I’ve been dealing with some health issue for the last few days which has made my thinking and writing process a little slow. Fortunately, I’m one of the people who is lucky enough to have insurance already. But I still wanted to get my opinion on record here, so I’m going to keep this short and sweet.

There’s a lot of arguing going on over the current government shutdown. And a lot of that arguing is grossly misinformed, and very much along the political lines that have divided the U.S. in recent years. I’ve made it clear in the past that I don’t have much love for the Democrats because they sold their souls along time ago. But let’s get something out of the way, and I’ll explain why: This is a Republican shutdown of the government, and they are solely responsible for it, not the Democrats.

As many know, this shutdown occurred because of a refusal to negotiate the Affordable Care Act (AFC), more commonly referred to as Obamacare. There’s just one problem with this previous statement: There’s nothing to negotiate.

The AFC was created and voted in by representatives who were elected by the people. The voters kept a lot of these people in office, including the President. The law was challenged in the Supreme Court and upheld. The AFC is law, voted in by representatives of the people and determined to be Constitutional.

So, what do the Republicans do? They act like petulant children and when they can’t win by following the rules of the game like everyone else, they throw the game board up in the air and storm out of the room.

There were constant complaints that the Democrats in the Senate and the President were refusing to negotiate over this (not that the President really has much to do with what was going on in the legislative branch, but whatever). But, again, there was nothing to negotiate. It was already voted in, signed into law, and passed the Supreme Court. So, instead the GOP essentially takes the government hostage.

There have been a number of teabagger Republicans who have are now lauding this move as what they’ve been working toward all along and there’s strong evidence that this is indeed the case. Republicans have been proposing resolutions to support individual portions of the government. In other words, the parts they want to keep. If you remember back during the 2012 election cycle, several Republicans openly stated departments that they wanted shut down. Since they couldn’t do that directly, they  have instead shut the whole thing down and are attempting to revive only the parts they want. Hence the reason the Democrats are fighting on this, because if they give on this point, the Republicans have no reason to negotiate anymore.

Leading up to it, I think it was pretty clear that people didn’t really understand what a shutdown of the government actually meant. The name itself sounds like all that’s happening is that the legislature simply won’t be in session and not get paid. Actually, the exact opposite is the case. Their pay is secure during the shutdown. A more apt name for it would be a shutdown of federal programs. Programs that support children and the needy. Programs that keep national parks and monuments open. Programs that are cleaning up toxic sites. And furloughing the low level workers, so they are forced to stay home without pay, or in some cases continue to work with no pay. The only people getting hurt by this are the little guy. If there is ever going to be a time where the Two Americas concept is going to come to the forefront, it will be now.

There are now reports of dissent in the Republican ranks and that a majority of the House is willing to vote on a clean resolution to end the shutdown. However, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), our illustrious and orange Speaker of the House, refuses to bring such a resolution to a vote. Again, petulant children, attempting to implement a tyranny of the minority, and quite literally holding the livelihood of millions hostage for their demands. In most other contexts, the GOP would have likely been declared a terrorist organization by now. Okay, maybe that’s a little extreme, but it’s not that far off.

So, when people try to blame the Democrats and the President for not negotiating, it’s concerning that there’s not much of an understand of the political process. Again, there was nothing to negotiate. The law was created and voted in using the established and agreed upon rules of the Constitution that they so claim to love. Except when it’s inconvenient, like now.

Leave a comment

Posted in Rants

Tagged , , , , , ,

Book Review: My Brief History

Posted on September 13, 2013 | Leave a comment

My Brief HistoryMy Brief History by Stephen Hawking

My rating: 2.5 of 5 stars

How does one review someone’s life? It’s probably one of the harder things to do, especially with such an icon as Stephen Hawking. I’ll admit that I’m one of those people who has a copy of A Brief History of Time, but I haven’t read it yet (I’m going to, I swear!).

My Brief History by Dr. Stephen Hawking is his personal memoir. For those who don’t know who Stephen Hawking is, he is a theoretical physicist, cosmologist and the Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at the University of Cambridge. He predicted the radiation emitted from black holes (Hawking radiation), and has worked extensively on a grand unifying theory. Some consider him to be the smartest man alive. He also has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), more commonly known in the United States as Lou Gehrig’s disease, which has left him paralyzed in a wheelchair and only able to communicate through a speech synthesizer.

The first thing the reader will notice is how short his memoir is, which may trouble the reader. This apprehension is not without merit. Hawking discusses his family and early life, his studies at school, developing his theories, and how he eventually became a Director at Cambridge. And all this in a very small space.

It’s difficult to criticize a memoir without feeling like you’re criticizing the person’s life. So I’ll emphasize that my criticism of My Brief History is only a criticism of this book, not of Hawking himself.

The problem is that this book feels very rushed. Hawking talks about his life, and even discusses when they discovered he had ALS and how it’s progressed over his life. But he glosses over a lot of the detail. If you’re looking for an in-depth description of what it’s like or his feeling about living with a serious and progressing disability, you’re going to be sorely disappointed. Hawking spends comparatively much more time describing the thought process and work that went into his scientific theories that made him famous. He gives some background on what went on behind the scenes while writing and publishing A Brief History of Time, but nothing really juicy or controversial.

Coming away from this memoir, it feels like Hawking wasn’t really that into writing it. It’s clear what he’s most interested in talking about (science), but doesn’t seem that interested in discussing himself personally. He does say that the public focus on his disability has made him a little uncomfortable, and he wouldn’t mind if people simply focused on his work, but he also recognizes that it gets people paying attention to scientific achievements. It feels like he wrote this book more for demands to know more about him personally than any real desire to tell his story.

If you’re looking for anything new or revelatory about Dr. Hawking, you’re going to be disappointed. It’s a very concise memoir that’s mostly devoid of any controversial content, which is what most memoir-readers are going to look for. I suppose this says something about Dr. Hawking’s character, that he’s led a good life and been mostly focused on his work. But at the same time, the reader might feel like this book is a waste of time to read, with only minor gaps in what we already knew about him being filled in. However, when looking at Dr. Hawking’s work, whether time can actually be wasted is beyond the scope of this review.

My Brief History earns a very middle-of-the-road 2.5 black holes out of 5.

Leave a comment

Posted in Book Reviews

Tagged , , , ,

Book Review: Hemlock Grove

Posted on September 13, 2013 | Leave a comment

Hemlock Grove: A NovelHemlock Grove: A Novel by Brian McGreevy

My rating: 1 of 5 stars

All right, let me get one thing out of the way: Yes, I read this book because of the Netflix series. I have a sick compulsion to read books that movies or television shows are based on so I can understand the source material and supposedly have a greater appreciation for the adaptation. Note the use of the word “supposedly.”

Now for a second disclosure: I have not finished watching the Netflix series yet. I’m about halfway through it at the time of this writing. While the Netflix show seems relatively faithful to the source material…well, that’s not necessarily a good thing. I’ve delayed writing this review because I’ve had trouble figuring out a nice way to describe how much I disliked this book (for example, I was going to mention how this book is on par with Twilight but with homosexual undertones, but saying this book has undertones would be giving it too much credit for subtlety). I wouldn’t go so far as to simply rewrite Roger Ebert’s infamous review of “North,” but this book is still pretty bad.

Hemlock Grove by Brian McGreevy primarily follows Peter Rumancek, a Gypsy teenager who has recently moved to the town of Hemlock Grove (and the novel’s resident werewolf) and meets rich kid Roman Godfrey, who Peter identifies as an upir. While there’s no direct explanation what an upir is until the end, it doesn’t take much work to figure it out. After some gruesome murders of local teenage girls, the two decide that it’s up to them to find out who is responsible. Why them and not the police? Because we wouldn’t have much of a story then, would we?

This where things begin to fall apart and fast. These two teenagers are actually stupid enough to think that it’s up to them to solve these murders. Aside from the supernatural element that they detect, why them? It doesn’t help that these characters are never made out to be smart in any other respect. Roman is a pompous, self-centered rich kid and the only person he cares about other than himself is his sister, Shelley, who has her own mysteries, and his cousin Letha, to a lesser extent. Peter has some street smarts. Some. But he doesn’t have much else other than his werewolf sense powers.

A big problem with this novel is that it doesn’t take much work to figure anything out. The references to classic monsters of horror are numerous, and pretty much slap you in the face (Shelley is a blatant reference to Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein). While I am ragging on it, this is probably the most clever part of the book. The author also drenches the prose in symbolism. You can’t get away from it, but it doesn’t add anything to the book. It adds no mystery, and is nothing but a distraction without any real payoff. It becomes obvious very quickly who the killer is. As for other side stories, these don’t provide much mystery or payoff, either.

Now, I’ve seen mysteries that aren’t really mysteries before, and these tend to be used as character vehicles, so while we don’t get attached to the story, we still want to follow the characters. But with Hemlock Grove, I didn’t want to follow the characters, either. They’re just so stupid and unlikable. Roman is a spoiled rich brat, Peter is rather two-dimensional, Olivia Godfrey is just a nasty control-freak, Letha is a ditz, and Dr. Pryce (guess who he’s a reference to) is a creep. The most interesting and sympathetic character is Shelley, because she’s the only one that shows any real character development. And she doesn’t even talk.

Overall, Hemlock Grove is a bloody mess. While there are a couple of minor elements that could be called clever, the characters and story are so dumb and predictable that I would have to say this book should be skipped. Don’t fall prey to my problem. You don’t need (or should even want) to read the source material if you’re only interested in the Netflix series. Move along, and avoid this one.

Hemlock Grove by Brian McGreevy earns 1 Ouroboros out of 5.

Leave a comment

Posted in Book Reviews

Tagged , ,

Book Review: Kitten

Posted on September 12, 2013 | Leave a comment

KittenKitten by G. Arthur Brown

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Who needs a fourth wall?

Not G. Arthur Brown, and especially not in Kitten, part of the 2012-2013 class of the New Bizarro Author series, meaning that this is his first published book. As a freshman effort, how does it stack up?

In Kitten, you really get two stories. The first story follows Amaand (not a mispelling), a mother who is concerned about a dead girl with perfect teeth (or undead, as she is a result of her father-in-law’s experiments) visiting her son, an ex-husband who very publicly tells everyone about how he feels she wronged him, and a strange man called the Collector who has an unhealthy interest in the dead girl, her son, and her son’s kitten that is not a kitten but rather a weird deformed squirrel thing that vomits postal stamps from around the world. That’s just one story.

The other story involves the kitten who is not a kitten, although now it’s a kitten, wandering a strange land after being forcibly removed from the previous story into his own story and trying to find a way back to the original story. Still following me? There are lots of pop culture references in this one, and Brown seems to like playing with the reader this way throughout much of the book.

That bring me to the odd feeling that this book gives the reader. Aside from being the most surreal of this year’s class of NBAS books, it’s also an experimental novel on a fundamental level. Brown’s characters acknowledge the reader more than once without directly addressing them, and acknowledge the writer of this story. The characters even realize that they’re characters in a story. It creates this weird meta feel which makes the book genuinely unpredictable. At times, the story even comes off like it could have been one of Brown’s fever dreams. Just look at the cover!

The editing is actually pretty good, something that’s been an issue in the bizarro genre on more than one occasion. Does this make it a good novel? Not in and of itself, but if you’ve read my previous reviews, you’ll know that poor editing is a pet peeve of mine, and that’s something that I can’t fault this book for.

If you’re looking for something that’s not just weird but downright surreal, but at the same time is relatively tame compared to most bizarro books when it comes to sex and violence, you’ll have a good time with Kitten. However, if this is not something you’re looking for, you will probably not get much out of it. The book definitely has a certain charm and a sense of fun, but it takes a particular mindset to get into it. Aspects of the story do remain incomplete, but for the purposes of this book and the story the author wanted to tell, it remains relatively self-contained. This is his world after all, something which we get reminded of. While not perfect, Kitten is worth the short time it takes to read, even if it could trigger fever dreams of your own.

Kitten by G. Arthur Brown earns 4 international postage stamps out of 5.

Leave a comment

Posted in Book Reviews

Tagged , , , , , ,