Response to "Why We Fight" (missed Mar. 16 blog)

I find the claims of the author, William Bennett, that children are taught NEVER to use violence very difficult to believe. I know that children are taught alternatives to violence, usually to avoid schoolyard fights and neighborhood brawls...this is a good thing. Recently, the son of a friend was suspended from Hebrew school at his synagogue because he drew, in his notebook, several pictures of guns and battles and wrote the logo DEATH IS THE IDIOCY OF WAR. The teachers feared he was contemplating violence too much. His mother responded..we're Jewish, what's not violent about us? Take a look at the old testament, the holocaust, Israel, the fighting going on right now on the Gaza strip! She believes her 10yr old is sorting through his feelings about all of this, not getting ready to shoot someone. Children aren't stupid, they realize the difference between World Conflict and street violence. We should give them some credit.

Wrong about Crazy Love

I beg to differ with Steven Pinker's definition of romantic love. He confuses the term with the romantic pursuit invented by knights and ladies as a form of entertainment and flattery. The Romantic Infatuation he speaks of is, as he describes it, a form of addiction that begins in the brain. But the object of Romantic Infatuation is not always engaged in the pursuit. That's when its called stalking.

On "The Politics of Rescue"

Whether the USA likes it or not, we're the country with the most power and influence in the world today. I'm sure that no citizen of this country would have us stand by while innocent people are slaughtered in any country of the world. But, sadly we don't have the resources, and sometimes not the will to do otherwise. However, as Dr. Walzer suggests we should be the leaders in bringing about the end to the killing.

Response to...War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning

Of all the essays we read about war, this one speaks directly to the truth of its horror and attraction. Author Chris Hedges likens the emotions of war to an addiction to the excitement and glory of battle and the lust to banish the enemy. But like any other addict, there is a price to be paid, he says. It seems that war is sometimes necessary; to make a stand, to banish a dictator, to retain a way of life, to protect the innocent. But there is a psychological disconnect in the heat of battle, where killing is a worthy pursuit, or being killed is an honorable sacrifice. Like a drug addict or a drunk, the soldier chases his high to the exclusion of all realization of future consequences.

Response to global warming essays

Gregg Easterbrook's article from The Atlantic offers a very reasonable response to the emotional appeal of the Gore's Inconvenient Truth. The United States is a country of innovators and problem solvers, and he presents evidence that American solutions to past enviornmental problems have resolved some pollution issues. It makes sense that scientists and engineers should continue this trend.

But in my unscientific opinion, in the long term, we can never really save our planet, ourselves, or any other species we might kill with our destructive behavior, until we control our own burgeoning population. It seems logical that as the number of humans on the planet multiplies, so will our demand for, use of, and waste from, the natural resources required to feed, clothe and transport us. No matter what other measures we take to reduce pollution and conserve natural resources, overpopulation of the earth will overwhelm those efforts.

Response to various essays on Race in America

First I would just like to say that R. Dyers essay The Matter of Whitness is a real thought provoker for me. Oh my gosh, I'm White! Dyer is 100% correct in his observation that White Americans type everyone by their race except themselves! Hmmmm. This whole discussion is correlating very well with my Psy120 course, MultiCultural Psychology.

Who could ever read Dr. King's famous speech without reacting emotionally to his stunning words. Thankfully, times have changed since he changed us. It was deeply satisfying to see President Obama stand at the same spot on the mall, the day before his inauguration, and speak to a more racially mature America.

Progress has righted some wrongs from the past.

But I know that I am sometimes uncomfortable with a person of or another race. How much is it really a discomfort with multiculturalism? Do I react to the color of a persons skin, or is it just the strangeness of their culture that causes feelings of dislike and/or fear? Maybe some of both. Can I have an open discussion with a person of the African American race about our differences?...probably not, I'd be too afraid to ask the hard questions... like, what is it like to be you? Do you prefer to be referred to as "African American" or "black"? Do you dislike me because I am white? What questions would you ask me?

Well that' what progress is about, I guess. Take the risks, ask the questions, try to understand....change.

Response to ...Eugenics in the 21st Century

One part of the discussion that got my attention was the points made from the article by Dr. Zimmerman in The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, regarding germ line therapy. He proposes that parents may be ethically responsible for the children they have not yet conceived. Even today, right now, in 2009, we (as a Western culture) don't hold parents responsible for the health of the children already born to them. Yes, parents ought to be held liable for birth defects due to inutero abuse of their children as in cocaine-addicted babies or fetal alcohol syndrome, but we do not prosecute these parents. We do not prosecute parents who smoke, or don't maintain an otherwise healthy lifestyle. We allow the religious beliefs of parents to influence medical care; we don't intervene or control people with hereditary diseases from conceiving children. Some day in the future, germ line therapy may cure the biological ills of our race, but I doubt that it can perfect our behavior towards eachother.