A musing Beam

Einstein spent a good deal of energy in his later years striving to convince people that nationalism was the greatest evil facing the world.  "Nationalism, in my opinion, is nothing more than an idealist rationalization for militarism and aggression." I think the root of the problem he saw lies in people's innate desire to feel part of a group and to form their identities around these group affiliations.  (It is easy to see many evolutionary advantages to this, so I won't try to belabor its purpose or existence.) One of the smallest instances of a tribe is a family unit. "Family comes first" is considered a positive value, even though that mantra means that other, more "deserving" people might be treated as secondary.  Others who are like you get added to your tribes.  This is often a really good thing -- your neighbors help each other, church members show up when you go to the hospital, your fellow bridge players give you a sense of being neede

I have a prediction:  The War on Drugs officially started by President Nixon in the early 70's will shortly be abandoned.  That's a good thing, and this entry will explain why. Before I get to that, though, why do I think it will end?  First, the Obama administration explicitly rejects using the term as unproductive.  Second, there are several states that are flouting the federal prohibition, with great public appeal.  Third, a substantial group on the Right (the Tea Party) has an ideology that goes squarely against the "war."  I think the next Presidential cycle will see a movement to federally repeal the prohibition of marijuana, and that may well be accompanied by the ability to use any of the prohibited substances medically.  At that point ... no more war.  I hope the next step would be to decriminalize drug use altogether (at least for adults). Now, on to why ending it is a good thing.  In a nutshell, it has high costs for these: 1) Finance, 2) Liberty, 3) De

The "Monsanto Protection Act" is discussed some, but (for the most part) for the wrong reasons.  Actually, I'm discussing it partially for the "wrong" reasons, too -- I wasn't that interested, but my cousin asked me to. Once I did some research, though, I thought it really was worth slamming. If you haven't heard, the "Monsanto Protection Act" is what many are calling a "rider" placed on a recent appropriations bill.  It says that the Secretary of Agriculture should ignore court rulings in a particular set of cases.  The scenario is when a plant has been preliminarily deemed to be unharmful, and therefore unregulated, by the Secretary, then later a court order tries to stay that determination. Critics are saying that this gives carte blanche to Monsanto, the largest plant genetic modifier, who no longer has to worry with the courts.  That's taking it a bit far -- the Secretary of the Agriculture is already making a determinat

Well, there are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the wheel of time, but book 14 was AN ending.  This article is about the nerds that understand what the heck that means.  (I warn you again later, but there are a couple of minor spoilers, mainly in noting what does NOT get resolved.) Okay, so Robert Jordan began publishing the Wheel of Time in 1990.  He passed away after the 11th book, and Brandon Sanderson (of Mystborn fame, among other novels) was brought on to finish the series.  He wrote the last 3 books, and they are among the best in the series.  I'm very glad that Sanderson wrote books 12 and 13, and I'm glad he wrote the chapter The Last Battle for book 14 ... but I wish that Robert Jordan had written another half a book afterwords, and I hope to explain why here. For those that love the Wheel of Time series, Jordan created characters that we often know better than our closest friends.  I can predict Perrin or Matt's decisions easily, and I felt l

This is the last in a 3-part series on the issues raised by the violence in Newtown, CT.  The first was on mental illness ( http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/12/issues-raised-by-newtown-pt-1-mental.html ), the second covered gun control ( http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2013/01/issues-raised-by-newtown-pt-2-guns.html ), and this one addresses our need to better handle the shifts in culture that our more connected world evokes. Our changing culture Our culture is changing in ways that make it easier for people to access materials with less social interaction. If I want to only read conservatives' posts, or jihadists', or Wiccans', or animal welfare rights advocates', or ...  I can comfortably do so.  I can watch snuff films without anyone knowing.  I can practice what it would be like to kill people in great detail by purchasing a video game, and I can order all of that online with relative anonymity.  Of course, I can also do all the neat stuff that we really lov

This entry is the second in a 3 part series on the issues raised by the horrific violence in Newtown, CT.  The first was on mental illness (http://t.co/NOJfvN6Y), and the last will be on cultural changes.  This one is on guns and gun control.  Unless you like legal stuff, feel free to skip the afterward on  the Constitution (it's marked). In summary, I think that Newtown gives us very little evidence about the need for changes in the way we handle gun laws.  It does give us a reason to pause and think, though, and so it is reasonable to take that time to inspect our gun policies and how we got there.  In the end, I think people should be able to defend themselves with small arms, and hunters should be able to hunt with them, with relatively little government oversight, but that significantly more oversight is good once we go very far into the assault weapon spectrum and beyond. An overview of a strategy The government should not be allowed to assume that most citizens cannot b