Fun Fact #37: Could "Hamsterdam" ever become a reality?

Editorials can be hit or miss. Sometimes the author just seems to whine and complain, but other times editorials can be thought provoking pieces that tackle some of the toughest issues in society.

This editorial, titled The Wire's War on the Drug War, written by the scribes of The Wire (some who are also extremely respected novelists) definitely falls into the latter category. As I mentioned in my previous post, our prisons are overcrowded with drug offenders and obviously something needs to be done. But I didn't (and still don't) have an answer to that question.

These esteemed writers suggest a rather controversial, though admittedly only partial, solution to that problem:

"If asked to serve on a jury deliberating a violation of state or federal drug laws, we will vote to acquit, regardless of the evidence presented. Save for a prosecution in which acts of violence or intended violence are alleged, we will — to borrow Justice Harry Blackmun's manifesto against the death penalty — no longer tinker with the machinery of the drug war. No longer can we collaborate with a government that uses nonviolent drug offenses to fill prisons with its poorest, most damaged and most desperate citizens."

They're basically saying that they will vote to acquit if they ever serve on jury for a drug trial (which is unlikely after writing this editorial), no matter what the evidence is (though acts of violence are taken into account). They argue that other "people of conscience" should follow their example.

I personally think that they make an amazingly good case considering it is such a controversial "solution". I don't necessarily agree with it but it's certainly a thought provoking concept. It's almost as though "Hamsterdam" (for fans of the show) would become a reality...

Fun Fact #36: Over 1% of the US adult population is behind bars

It's pretty common knowledge that the prison system in the US leaves a lot to be desired. Harsher punishments and sentences mean that the current prison population is at an all time high. A new non-partisan study reports that more than one in 100 adults are behind bars. This new record high makes the US a clear front runner in prison population rates; China, with a far larger population, comes in second. States are spending about $50 billion a year on corrections.

The statistics regarding minorities are even more mind-boggling: "One in nine black men ages 20 to 34 is behind bars. For black women ages 35 to 39, the figure is one in 100, compared with one in 355 for white women in the same age group". More than 10% of the young black male population is in prison.

The increased prison population could be attributed to a variety of things, there's no single dominating factor. But, as a future law student, one argument is particularly interesting. The amount of defendants who actually utilize a "true" trial has greatly diminished; most people are not tried in front of a jury of their peers (no matter what Law & Order would like you to believe). Many defendants choose to take the deals offered to them by judges (even if they are innocent) because they fear that turning down an offer would result in harsher sentencing if they're found guilty during a trial. Going to trial is risky; there's no guarantee regarding the outcome. Therefore, more defendants are probably going to prison (even for short amounts of time) than there would be if most defendants chose the trial route. And this could contribute to to the increased incarceration rate that we're now seeing.

The statistics I quoted would be somewhat acceptable if our correction system worked, but, fun fact, it doesn't work. A high percentage of people who come out of prisons just go right back in, it's a sad cycle. The violent and dangerous criminals should obliviously be incarcerated, but what about the non-violent offenders who make up almost half of the prison population? The article suggests that "less-expensive punishments such as community supervision, electronic monitoring and mandatory drug counseling might prove as much or more effective than jail".

I consider myself to be a moderate. I don't believe in letting all the non-violent offenders run free or anything like that because I realize "non-violent" may very well just mean "not caught doing anything violent". But something needs to change and I hope that our new president will be up to helping the states with that task. Spending billions of dollars to imprison someone, let them out, and imprison them again just doesn't seem like the best bet.

Fun Fact #29: Politics can be utterly confusing

I don't really know what I think should happen with politics. Things are really messed up right now and I cannot imagine anyone coming in and making everything "all better". People talk about the Clinton days as though they were the best times ever, the glory days of our recent political history. But people were complaining and bitching about things then too, politics was just as dirty and fake then as it is now. The Clinton days just look good relative to what Bush has done.

I think the vast majority of Democrats would be more than content with either Obama or Hilary, but I think they're also going to be disappointed. People are expecting huge changes and, as you say Gabe says, that's just not going to happen. Massive changes, the kinds people are are naively demanding and even thinking are going to happen, are way more of a risk than any politician will be willing to take. Big changes can be met with success but they can also be be met with total failure.

People say that Obama is not part of the "political elite" and his presence will shake things up, but I think that's total bullshit. He may not have started as a member of the "elite" but he sure is one now. He's smart and he knows our country wants an "outsider" but that he needs to be an insider to be elected. There's no way the Washington power players would be willing to accept someone like him if he wasn't going to play by their rules. Politics is all about playing the game correctly and Obama has proven to be a master at that with vague statements that provide assurance and hope but no actual promises or plans.

Democrats will get the same outcome with either Hilary or Obama. They'll be happy with finally having a Democrat as president for awhile but soon their hopes for something different will be crushed and they'll realize it's the same as always. Our country goes through cycles; right now we're in a downswing and people will get all excited when the economy inevitably picks up again whoever is in office will be praised and glorified. But our economy will start to falter again and then that person will be vilified.

Also, people seem to think that the President holds more power than he (or she?) actually does. The President is the figurehead of our country, the actual power lies in the cabinet that they pick and the officials that they appoint. And Hilary and Obama will probably be drawing their choices from the same, small pool of Democratic elites.

I would like to see changes, like some form of universal healthcare, but I just don't know how possible they are. The universal health care thing seems to be more of a dream than a reality and I will be amazed if it actually happens. It will take an amazing amount of compromise between all the key political players to even get something feasible on the table.

People often ask me what I would do and how I would change things, but, the truth is, I really have no idea. I don't even know much things can be changed. I don't even know if I like Hilary or Obama better. I really like following politics but it's not because I'm passionate about one candidate or another, I do it because I like watching the "game" that politics have become.

Fun Fact #28: I'd be humilated...

I was watching the news this morning at the gym and there was a report on the obesity epidemic. That in itself is nothing exciting, there's always a report on how Americans are eating themselves to death. This report used the typical footage of obese people walking around and eating, and, as usual, the footage avoided showing their faces to preserve their identity. But people can still recognize themselves and others without seeing a face.

Footage like is always on and I realized that there must be people that are innocently watching the news and then they see an image of their body being shown the represent someone who is morbidly obese. Can you imagine how horrifically depressing that would be?

I'm sure this has happened to quite a few individuals and I actually feel really badly for them. I wonder what their reaction would be?

I googled the term obese to find pictures to go with this post and realized that people could also come across pictures of themselves that way too. I just cannot even fathom what it would feel like to see your body alongside some medical article about obesity. I think I'd be totally and utterly humiliated.

These people must know that they're overweight, but I just don't think they'd be thrilled being with their "anonymous" image being broadcasted during a CNN report on America's gluttony.

Fun Fact #26: There's an obession with being "PC"

I've always been a news junkie and I like being informed of what's happening around me. The news for the past days has either been focused on the recession we are probably entering (or, according to some sources, already entered) or the current primaries. Economics isn't really my strong point, so I tend to focus more on the political side of things. Though those are admittedly tied together as voters realize that, once again, "It's the economy, stupid".

But while all the candidates are trying to explain how they'll fix the economy, Obama and Hilary have also been engaged in mudslinging fight against each other. They've each brought up the issues of race and sex, and, though they claim they want to focus on the issues, the personal attacks don't look like they're stopping.

The Weekly Standard, a neo-con magazine, printed an article entitled The Wages of Sensitivity. I don't usually read The Weekly Standard, as I find their ultra-conservative rhetoric too extreme, but this article touches on some interesting points about the Hilary v. Obama battle we're currently witnessing.

The article argues that the Clinton's helped define the political correctness in the 1990s that now defines much of the party's rhetoric, but they're being forced to undermine their own ideals in this current race. As the article states:

"In its campaign season from hell, the party of sensitivity has found itself in a head-banging brawl between a black man and white woman, each of them visibly loathing the other, in a situation in which anything said in opposing one of the candidates can be defined as hateful, insensitive, hurtful, demeaning, not to say bigoted, and, worst of all, mean."

I don't agree with everything the article says, but it's a good read that deftly analyzes the cut-throat atmosphere of the Democratic primaries among both the candidates and their supporters. All in all, it seems that people can, and will, take offense to almost any comment if they realize it can benefit.

Fun Fact #24: I don't want to get burned

The upcoming election has caused a lot of attention to be focused on my generation, the Millennials (ages 18-29), as we make about 20% of the registered voters. People are saying that our participation in the election could make or break a candidate like Obama. And while that is certainly a notable fact, I find the articles that seek to analyze the various attributes of the Millennials to be far more interesting. I like to compare the overall analysis of the group to myself and other Millennials that I know; it's almost like reading a horoscope, some parts seem right on but other parts just are just painfully off base or seem like idealistic thinking.

One of the better articles I've read was one MSNBC, "'Youthquake' Shakes Up Electoral Politics". I personally feel that the article does a nice job of looking at the various anxieties that seem to shape our generations views. People often wonder why our generation is not taking to the streets to protest the war, but I think that the lack of extreme protesting (at least relative to the social movements of the '60s) can be partially attributed to the growing focus on domestic problems that we're just watching get worse. We've seen our parents get burned by the economy and we don't want that to happen to us. These excerpts from the article summed up a lot my personal feelings about the current state of affairs.

They grew up during the greatest period of wealth creation in modern history, but watched their elders consume resources and run up deficits as if the party would never end. Then came the dot-com crash, terrorism, war, climate change. Epic uncertainty informs their world view. When asked to name the issues they care most deeply about, bread-and-butter concerns such as the economy, health care, and education routinely rank high.

As the government and employers shift more responsibility for benefits like health care and retirement onto the shoulders of individuals, many Millennials see themselves as unwitting victims. Although that trend has been building for decades, this may be the first generation to fully feel the great shift of risk in their bones.

Millennials, like many Americans, may have lost faith in the political Establishment, but they have utter faith in themselves and their wiki-inspired abilities to get things done.

People often ask me why I'm so "obsessed" with getting everything done so quickly and taking the most practical route (often at the expense of something more fun or exciting). A lot of people with a year to kill will travel Europe or do something exciting, I chose to work for a real estate company in Pittsburgh where I'd make good money but live a dull life. The article above discussed many of my reasons.

I've watched people get burned when they're too idealistic. I believe that I can achieve my dreams, but my dreams are based in reality. I'm not pretending that I could magically become a Supreme Court Justice, that just isn't in my reality. I want to do great things in my life, but everything is just so full of uncertainty.

People jokingly mock me for saying that I'd be willing to work for various "evil corporations", but I totally would assuming they offered me a benefits package and salary that would allow me the financial security that seems to be becoming more and more of rarity in today's world.

I consider myself to be a Democrat. I believe the health care and educational systems in our country are in dire need of repair and that we need to do something to revive the middle class. But I also believe we need to watch out for our own well-being because it looks like we're not going to have anything to fall back on but ourselves when the going gets tough.

Fun Fact #22: There's more than one "fun fact" in this post

So it's been forever since I posted a "fun fact", this is not due to a lack of "fun facts" but can instead be attributed to the fact that I've actually been super busy with various things. This will probably be a longish post due to all "fun facts" that I have to share.

1) I learned how to ski in early in December and I wasn't as truly horrible as I thought I would be. My biggest injury involved my toenail getting jammed into my big toe (thanks to some too small ski boots). It doesn't sound too bad, but it was really painful and gross looking. Even now, almost a month later, my toenail is dark purple/black. I was worried it was going to fall off, but I soon realized it was going to stay securely attached to my foot and decided to paint it dark pink to hide the hideousness. Sadly, the nail polish didn't hide it and the purple shows through making my toe look even weirder.

2)I've been flying tons since being in Pittsburgh, but my most miserable flight had to be the flight back to SD in December. My flight was delayed for hours in a barren section of the Milwaukee airport. There was truly nothing there and the people were so stereotypically Midwestern and nice that I didn't even have the heart to silent judge them. I've never been so bored in my entire life. But the airline somewhat redeemed itself by offering fresh baked cookies on board in place of the standard peanuts and pretzels.

3) I went to a Bat Mitzvah that proved to be the epitome of an NY Bat/Bar Mitzvah. It was super extravagant and over the top. I was sadly seated at the kids' table with my 13 year old sister. But I wasn't too annoyed because one of my other relatives, who is over 40, was also at the kids' table with me and my cousins. We were seated right next to some super loud speakers and I was basically deaf by the end of the party. But, on a more postive note, I was able to watch a bunch of awkward thirteen year olds do that stupid "Soulja Boy" dance. I feel as though it's becoming the Macarena of that generation.


4) The Bhutto assassination was probably the most newsworthy events that occurred during my vacation. I think it's horrible that Bhutto was killed and admire her for her courage in continue to campaign even though her assassination basically looked predestined. I think the media has made her into a martyr and, in the process, has glossed over a lot of her faults. Overly fawning obituaries of obviously flawed figures really irritate me.

5) The other major event was Obama's win in Iowa. I posted a few months ago that Hillary looked like the sure-fire Democratic nomination and it's amazing how much has changed in the past few months. Hilary has certainly fallen from grace and it seems like that it's just predicated to continue in New Hampshire, where Obama was leading by a significant margin in the last minute polls. Huckabee won the Republican race but I don't see that as such a big deal because it seems unlikely that he can carry it to a national win. I definitely hope that won't happen as he's one of my least favorite candidates.

6) Oh, and I noticed some graffiti on the way home from the gym. One wall had both "Vote for Kunich" and "Vote for Ron Paul" spray painted on it. I thought it was kind of cute their names were there together because though they are from different parties they do share some major similarities. Namely that they're both the total outcast in their respective parties and they have no chance at all of winning the nomination. And, most importantly, I dislike both them.

Fun Fact #11: "It's a Small World" is too small for this world

It's no secret that Americans are becoming more and more obese, it seems as though every day a new study is released proclaiming how dangerously fat Americans are becoming. But this article just struck me as especially sad because it declares Americans are too fat for one of my favorite childhood rides.

I chose this picture because it was the first one that popped up when I googled it and because I loved the stylish outfit that the couple in the center of the boat are wearing. I'm especially a huge fan of their matching hats (click on the picture to see them in all their glory), which I chose to include it even though it's obviously dated

"It's a Small World" was built in the 1970s (when Americans were lighter), and now Americans have become so heavy that the boats can't deal with extra weight and get stuck:

The Small World ride now must accommodate adults who frequently weigh north of 200 pounds, which it often cannot do. Increasingly, overweighted boats get to certain points in the ride and bottom out, becoming stuck in the flume.

The ride monitors attempt to leave empty seats on many boats to compensate for the hefty, but this routinely antagonizes the hundreds of paying customers waiting in line. When a boat does bottom out, a long line of other boats backs up behind it, their passengers slowly going mad from listening to the ride's theme song.

The ride monitors must then track down the stuck boat and attempt tactfully to help a rider or two to exit at one of the emergency platforms, which the riders in question do not always deal with graciously

The visual imagery this quote provides is just kinda sad, can you imagine being asked to get out off a ride because your extra weight caused the boat to get stuck? How awkward would that be? I've been to Disneyland countless times and "It's a Small World" has often stopped but I always thought the ride had just stalled for mechanical reason. I once saw some a heavyset couple getting off a boat when the ride had stalled, but I never realized that it was because they were causing their boat to sink and therefore delay the whole ride.

This article also totally reminded when Space Mountain was stopped when my family and I were on it It happened because a car with a lot of heavy people had gained too much momentum and was going too fast, it was about to hit a lighter car in front of them when the ride was stopped. All the lights were turned on, and I can promise that the ride is far scarier when it's lit because you realize how close the beams are to your head.

Fun Fact #3: We have really only known a Bush or Clinton in the White House

I'm still relatively friendless out here, so this blog is one of the only ways for me to share my "fun facts" with people. I've tried with my grandmother, but she's pretty hard of hearing and it basically resorted to me shouting random facts at her.

I have plenty of time at work to cement my status as a "news junkie" since my job has me attached to the computer for much of the day. I read this article, which I've linked to at the bottom, in "The Economist" a few weeks ago and a certain section has stuck with me. The article concerns Hilary Clinton and devotes a lot of time to analyzing the gender gap among her supporters and her of becoming president.

But the key quote, for me at least, wasn't about the gender gap, but was the following statistic: "Over 100 million Americans have never known anybody but a Bush or a Clinton in the White House," suggesting that "American political life is in the hands of a small group of insiders who are organized around semi-royal families."

It's an obvious fact when one looks at the presidential record, but it never really hit me until now. I know that Reagan was in office when I was born, but the only presidents that I truly remember are either a Bush or Clinton. And it increasingly looks like this trend is going to continue.

Obama continues to falter in the polls and the Republicans are struggling to find a candidate that the entire party could support. I personally believe that Giuliani is the only candidate that could beat Clinton in the national arena. I think he could easily siphon off enough liberal votes, especially against somethings as divisive as Clinton/Obama ticket (which many people are predicting), to take the White House. But a lot of Republicans don't even like Giuliani and the likelihood of him winning the Republican primaries is in no way a sure thing.

But then again, I really have no idea how this election is going to turn out. All of the front-runners have a potential major political liability attached to them. Clinton is a woman, Obama is black, Edwards will forever be associated with failed Kerry campaign, Romney is Mormon, Giuliani is socially liberal in a lot of regards, and McCain (who can barely qualify as front-runner these days)comes across as a flip-flopper.

Politics have always both fascinated and repulsed me. I would never pretend to be an expert in regards to them, but they're always interesting and make me think.

Article Link: http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9904609