Hookup Culture

This is an extremely well written opinion piece on the culture of "hooking up" in college. In it, the author makes very valid points about the way that hooking up makes us feel, and why it makes us feel that way. He argues that most of the pleasure people derive from hooking up still comes from the intimacy we feel in the situation, and that sex and emotional attachment are permanently tied. 

The relevance of this article is spot-on. His examples and anecdotes fit the situation precisely. His audience is college students, so his examples detail things that do go on in college hook-up culture. He puts the reader in situations many college students have found themselves in and simply asks them: where is the pleasure coming from? People who have been in the situation can recall their previous experiences, and people who haven't still get a good idea of what he's talking about.

His claims are also very sufficient. Like I said, he gives numerous examples, all touching on a slightly different part of the culture and drawing pretty much the same conclusions from all of them. He argues that the emotional attachment is there because the pleasure comes from the exclusivity of the moment, the fact that the other person is giving themselves to only you, and he also argues that based on that, the more that commitment gets detached from sex the less it means anything. One by one throughout his piece, he attempts to destroy all credible reasons why hooking-up is a good thing. It attempts to detach sex from commitment and fails, it demeans women (who throws away her sexual power--the ability to refuse sex until a man proves himself to her), and it's claims of "no-strings-attached" attempts to convince us that love is divorced from sex.

The argument is also very open. He's not trying to demean others who choose to hook-up, but instead convince them that maybe they should rethink why hooking up makes them feel so good. If it really is the exclusivity and emotional connection that gives them pleasure, why not pursue a serious relationship? Based on the article, I'm sure someone who disagreed with any of his points would have room for a discussion with Jack Grimes, as it seems he is genuinely interested in the issue of the hook-up, and not just his opinion on it.

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

As I was watching the inaugural address on Tuesday, I was mostly very pleased with our new president. One thing that I couldn’t fully wrap my head around, however, was the large amount of disrespect and near spite that Obama showed to the Bush administration in his speech.
It’s obvious that we had a unpopular president in Bush. He left office with the lowest poll ratings in modern history. But that doesn’t mean that Obama has to essentially rub that in his face when he is sitting only a few feet away. His speech should have been a time to look forward, not back.

Obama only mentioned Bush’s name once, in the required thank you at the beginning, but it was pretty obvious that some of the things he said were direct shots at the former president. Saying that “we are ready to lead once more,” and criticizing “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” These aren’t criticisms of average Americans; these are shots at Bush, who Obama took shots at relentlessly during his entire campaign. There isn’t an inaugural address in recent memory where the incumbent has criticized the lame duck in such an obvious manner.

Bush has been helpful, courteous, and respectful throughout the entire transition process, can’t we show him a little respect on his first day
as a former?

Aesthetics

Postrel makes several claims in her article about “The Aesthetic Imperative.” The first, most obvious one is that now, more than ever, aesthetics matter. She is arguing that 21^st century humans are not about conformity and utilitarianism, but instead about customization and the appeal of how things look to us. She also argues that just because this is happening, it doesn’t mean that there is a universal opinion on what has good aesthetics, or that everything is beautiful, but simply that we are expecting good design to be used across the board—even in things that traditionally serve as pure function.

The data presented to back up these claims is fairly extensive. She quotes experts like the former president of the Art Center College of Design saying “we are by nature—by deep, biological nature—visual, tactile creatures.” She also provides a personal example of a shopper buying a stylish (and highly priced) iMac computer saying “Aesthetics, whether people admit it or not, is why you buy something.” This is particularly true in the computer buyers’ case because a Dell computer with similar features often costs hundreds less, but lacks any sort of pleasuring aesthetics. In addition, she makes

The bridges she uses are mainly associative. She is saying that these aesthetics are important to us because they bring up deep personal, emotional, and sometimes universal feelings. Most people are universally drawn to the big-eyed Disney animals because they remind us of babies, which we have an innate attraction to. Some of us might like pop music because it reminds us of our youth, but others may appreciate instead the catchy melodies on purely musical terms. She is saying that since we’re such visual and aural people, these things matter to us a great deal.

I think that the visual world is extremely important. I’m one of those people who will pay thousands of dollars for a computer simply because it looks cool, and also someone who values form as almost equal to function. When buying a car how it looks is equally as important as how it drives, and I am happy to have hundreds of different models to choose from to fit my individual style. Style is important to me—and I’m willing to show that with my wallet.

The Westboro Baptist Church

The Westboro Baprist church has no right to call itself a Baptist or Christian church. Regardless of the fact that most of its members are highly religious, it practices none of the kindness and compassion called for by Jesus or the bible. They operate under the assumption that God exists, and the possibility that God, if he does exist, feels human-like hatred towards homosexuals.

They also possess such hatred toward any people who are different from themselves that it almost makes me sick: Jews, Muslims, foreigners, etc.

The arguments they make on their website are terrible at best. Statements like “Any god-fearing person should realize that God hates fags” and that the Roman Catholic Church is a “fag” church doesn’t even begin to sway me in their direction, all their arguments are are name-calling and speculation.

I feel extremely mad about this church and its standpoints for multiple reasons. First, I carry the cultural premise from my Buddhist parents that God isn’t a tangible thing, he isn’t a specific being, and doesn’t have the ability to feel, let alone hate. He is just present in everything, flowing through all life as a supreme connecting force. I have also been raised in a community and family that is open and friendly to people in all walks of life, including homosexuals. I have an aunt who is a homosexual, and I have a strong relationship with both her and her partner. So for me, when I see people using God as an excuse or a mouthpiece for their intolerance to other groups of people, it makes me sick. The people who compose the Westboro Baptist “Church” are the ones who hate fags, and while they are allowed to feel whatever way they please about others, claiming that they are doing this in God’s name is just plain wrong.

It seems clear to me from their website and promotional material that these people aren’t in to having a conversation. Any arguments that I would make to them about the fact that homosexuals can’t control their sexual orientation or that they are pretty much the same as heterosexuals will just label me as a “fag-enabler.” These people aren’t out to have a conversation or a debate about their beliefs, they are just there to make as much noise as possible and to make the family and friends of deceased homosexuals feel as badly as possible.
If we follow the Christian belief, God created every single one of us. My one question that I would ask to this “church” given the chance, is if he did indeed create us all, why would he create something he hates? People are largely born homosexuals; they don’t choose to become gay. So if God created us, God also created some of us to be gay and he obviously doesn’t hate them.

I doubt the argument would go over very well with them.

Minor Analysis Paper #1

Medical marijuana has been a hotly debated issue for many years now. As more and more states have made the decision to legalize the drug for medical use, the federal government has maintained its status as a schedule 1 substance, having no recognized medical uses. States like California, Washington, Colorado, and 11 others have passed bills allowing for doctors to prescribe marijuana to their patients, but they are going directly against federal law. This means that the DEA and other federal agencies are fully allowed to treat people who grow and sell medical marijuana as ordinary drug dealers, and can prosecute them as such.

In an editorial in the New York Times, the board argues that the federal war on medical marijuana has “escalated out of control.” They give Ed Rosenthal’s case as an example, a man who was convicted of charges that carry a five-year minimum sentence despite the fact that he was acting within state and local laws. His marijuana farm was for sick people, they argue, and he should not be prosecuted as a big time drug dealer. Another editorial, in the Boston Globe, argues the same basic point: these people are sick and need medicine, and some of the time marijuana fits the bill perfectly.

The federal government, on the other hand, obviously doesn’t approve of these state laws. This whole debate is created around the fact that the DEA claims that federal law trumps state drug laws under the commerce clause of the constitution. They also argue that medical marijuana can contribute to recreational marijuana activity and gangs. Since the average marijuana dispensary sells over a pound of it a day, they sometimes might have to go the “back-alley” route to get enough of it to fulfill their demand.

What the Federal Government doesn’t seem to realize is that a full embrace of medical marijuana would solve most of the problems that they have with it. I support the full legalization of medical marijuana, and think that if the federal government embraced it we could see distribution become safer and less tied to the black market. In addition, taxes on the drug could be a gold mine for Washington considering marijuana is sometimes referred to as the U.S.’ number one cash crop, ahead of even corn.

In the Boston Globe editorial, the article makes several fairly simple arguments. The editorial board takes the problems that the federal government has with marijuana and one by one knocks them down. The argument that medical marijuana helps swell the illegal drug market is countered by the fact that morphine has been “prescribed by doctors for years with no corresponding surge in its availability on the street.” The board also argues in defense of state’s rights, saying that the commerce clause doesn’t apply because the drugs aren’t usually transported across state lines, and some of the time no money even changes hands. There is also an emotional appeal with the example of Angel Raich, who suffers from an inoperable brain tumor and may die without access to marijuana, but her home was raided anyway.

Reading as a doubter, there are definitely some holes in the argument. Comparing marijuana to morphine is silly, as morphine just isn’t a street drug. You never hear of people using it to get high. If medical marijuana were allowed at the federal level, there would almost definitely be an increase of illegal marijuana for recreational use. In addition, the drug is transported over state lines frequently, and money almost always changes hands in a transaction of it. There are also researched medicines for the various medical conditions that people use marijuana for, and most of the time they’re healthier than inhaling raw combustion material.

As a believer, there are also some very strong arguments. They cite an example of research that shows marijuana has been shown to relieve symptoms caused by “cancer, AIDS, and glaucoma,” by “reducing nausea and vomiting and improving appetite.” They also make the case that decreasing states’ rights, which may be necessary for things like the new deal and expanding civil rights, has to be stopped when it’s used to deny citizens medically necessary care. These are all very strong arguments that appeal who care about other people and want the practice of medicine to be as complete and effective as possible.

Most newspapers have come out in support of medical marijuana, and for good reasons. Most newspapers are also left leaning, which could describe their collective agreement on this topic. But as more and more states have a majority of people supporting this medicine, the conversation seems to be between most of the country and the federal government. Newspaper editorials can’t do much to change the opinion of the President, and even representatives and senators who support it are scared to make it known out of fear that they’ll be labeled “soft on drugs.” These articles are aimed at convincing enough people that marijuana is a valid form of medicine, and hoping that such collective knowledge will help change something in Washington.

What the Inauguration Means to Me

As we rapidly approach Jan. 20, the anticipation for this event grows greater in me each day. Not only is this the first president whom I had a personal say in electing, it is the first time in as long as I can remember that I am proud of my country. Being 21 years old, my entire adolescence was spent with Bush at the helm. I spent my teenage years in a liberal town learning to hate the man. From the election scandal to the Iraq war to the utter ignorance of almost any culture besides the western one, I was surrounded by people who didn't approve of the country we lived in and its actions.

The inauguration will change all of that. To me, it means the hope that we will be able to change our image in the world, to change our anti-science policies and backwards thinking sexual education programs. It means a fresh slate to prove once again that we are the greatest nation on earth. It means that if I'm traveling I won't be embarrassed anymore to say that I'm an American, but instead be proud of it.

Michelle Obama

Michele Obama's speech was a carefully planned piece of rhetoric. It is clear to me that she knew exactly who she was targeting and how she wanted to pull them in and and characterize her husband in a positive, almost heroic light.

The target of this speech was, obviously, the average American. The undecided people that late in an election cycle are largely lower-income people who are seeking to pick the candidate who they can relate to the most. Most politicans in this country, however, are seen as a higher class, with additional privleges and entitlement to high positions of office. In her speech, Michelle Obama puts forward stories and anecdotes that aim at lowering the two of them down to a more average level. She talks about how both of them are very family-orinted people who worked hard for where they are in society at this point, but mostly came from low or middle income households. This provides her audience with something to connect with the two of them over, and gives them hope that just because your last name isn't Bush, Kennedy, or Clinton, you can still achieve whatever you want. She is also putting forward the view that her values are the same as the average American, and those are the values that matter: hard work, dedication, and respect.