Slow-Cooked Cultural Change

There are very few occasions when people are willing to admit that they are wrong. It is human nature to defend the principles and values that we deeply believe in, and when certain ideologies are deeply ingrained into our thoughts so much so that we associate them with our hearts, we are likely to set aside logic and reason in favor of feelings and subjectivities to justify our behaviors.

America is a country where freedom and equality drive the rules and regulations of our country, but the very nature of a government requires some degree of relinquishing personal freedoms. Absolute freedom is anarchy or the independence that stems from complete isolation from society. Anytime humans interact with one another, a power or authority structure that develops, which innately means that someone is infringing on the absolute freedoms of another. Therefore, instead of arguments for absolute freedom, we attempt to take into consideration these different power levels to create rules and regulations that are just, even if that defies the majority opinion. Brown v. Board of Education may not have been what was popular, but it was right. Affirmative action does create a system where protected classes are given an advantage in situations of equal merit, but that is only to balance out the social limitations caused by discrimination that restrict their opportunity and freedom to pursue the American dream in the first place.

One would be hard-pressed to find an issue where every American unanimously agreed. Even with the influence of manipulative social pressures which influence some to give the politically correct answer whether they believe it or not, there will always be someone who see things differently, and assuming these beliefs don’t infringe upon others, then isn’t everyone entitled to have their own thoughts? This is why it is so hard to change the culture (the values and beliefs that influences behaviors) of an individual, an organization, and especially an entire nation. Principles take time, the influences of trusted individuals, and sometimes even a drastic, life–changing event to create lasting change, so it’s no surprise people are reluctant to embrace things like sustainable living even though they think going green is a good thing. But what might be surprising is that racist tendencies still exist in America almost 50 years after the civil rights movement, and even though the election of the first black president shows incredible progress, it would be foolish to say our country is free from discrimination

If culture could be easily influenced, I am sure that Obama would have revolutionized our nation because, by all accounts, he is exactly the type of leader – a charismatic, altruistic ideologue - who should be able to bring about change. If Thursday’s health summit was any indication, Obama’s efforts to change the Washington culture by emphasizing legislation for the people and not for the politician have failed. After seven hours of discussion and deliberation, the only positive outcome was that Obama finally put his stamp on health care reform after taking a passive stance on the issue for almost a full year. Unfortunately, the participating Republicans further showed their disinterest in working to get a bill done, insisting that comprehensive health care reform is simply unmanageable since they are unwilling to compromise. For a bill that would already be considered by an objective analysis to be pretty conservative, the reluctance of the republicans is entirely a political ploy to both make the dems look incompetent and to receive some extra funding from corporate America for the 2010 elections. Obama can do a lot of things but mandating a cooperative culture in Washington DC is wishful thinking, and even the seeds of hope he’s planted will be choked to death by the infertile sullied soil of politics.


Our President has also encouraged individuals to consider pursuing a more sustainable America. In his State of the Union address, Obama suggested that regardless of whether one believes in global climate, the future of business is green, and he’s not even talking about money. Our resources will run out, our health will suffer from pollution and pesticides and inorganic chemicals, and the corrosion will corrupt the natural beauty of our great nation. We are going to need to structure our cities more efficiently to better use our limited space through high density development, invent and implement practical, cleaner energy, and accept stewardship as practical and necessary for anyone who wants the next generations to enjoy the same pleasures that we do today. Unfortunately, even though green has become fashionable (tons of businesses are greenwashing their products to market out to this trend), it is often times skin deep. Most people either really don’t understand the conservationist philosophies, are too inconvenience to practice it in their own life, or assume that someone else will deal with it later. Sure, it’s trendy to buy environmental bags, but it defeats the purpose if you buy them once and never reuse them. Quite simply, live simply, buy locally, and embrace a sustainable, waste-minimizing lifestyle. I know its going to escape our consumer culture, and progress is being made, but I just hope we don’t get our reality check to late to change.

If we think change is taking forever in these areas, how long has racism been in our country? Even though the 1860s marked a time of freedom from slavery and the 1960s contributed a push towards true equality, we have hardly escaped from racial prejudices. The “Compton Cook Out,” a party thrown by college students less than a mile from the campus of the University of California in San Diego, received nationally attention for its racially-charged facebook invitation. UCSD continued to be bombarded with racial tension after the controversial student group The Koala defended the Cookout while using the n-word on UCSD’s student-run television. The rope that really broke the camel’s back was the noose found hanging in one of the University’s libraries on Thursday. Black students, who make up less than 2% of the UCSD’s student population, have been joined by many of their peers on campus and around the nation to protest these acts of racism and call to the school, who seems more concerned with how these events are going to effect recruiting more than race relations, to action. The acts, which have been condemned up in Sacramento by the Governator, are currently under investigation by the school.

Growing up in Los Angeles, I’ve been exposed to people of a wide spectrum of colors from diverse backgrounds, and naively I hoped Generation Y would overcome past prejudices and judge people as individuals with unique personalities and experiences. I guess I was wrong. Not that I approved of the racial slurs used by my grandfather, but I realized that correcting him did nothing since those thoughts had been engraved into his vocabulary since the ‘20s and that my reprimands were falling on deaf ears. As people age and experience life, they tend to become more firmly rooted in their virtues and beliefs, making them much less flexible. Those who aren’t steadfast in standing behind their principles are seen as weak, and its hard to get people to change these. Alas, though, hope remains even though Obama hasn’t inspired an immediate transforming. Since culture can change from the bottom up, but it is going to take every enlightened individual to hold his neighbor accountable to inspire a revolution of thought, and while it may be difficult, no efforts are futile. As the seeds fall from a single tree to sprout more seed-baring plants, every American has the ability to change our nation.

Hallelujah, freedom of speech!

Legalize It: How Marijuana Can Save California

In order to clarify any sort of potential biases that could affect the following post, let me first go ahead say that I do not and will not smoke marijuana either recreationally or for medical reasons, regardless of its legal status. Between my asthma and personal preference to retain sound judgment and a clear conscious whenever possible, it’s not something for me. However I am not one to impose my opinion on others. After all, I’m no expert in pharmacology nor should I tell anyone how they must spend their free time until it infringes upon the rights of others.

To legalize, or not to legalize, that is the question. As the subject of archives of music, plenty of apparel, a plethora of blogs and diggs, and so much more, this topic is nothing new to the public discourse, but rarely do politicians make it a serious issue in fear of alienating a large demographic of voters who are morally opposed to the use of the plant. Ever since the flower children of the sixties, every subsequent generation has become increasingly more open minded to use of marijuana, especially in Los Angeles where there are more medical marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks coffee shops. While it is impossible to predict the number of Californians that smoke pot (check out this compliation of street names for marijuana) legally or illegally, there is a significant enough consumer base to justify the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act (AB 2254) proposed by Assembly Tom Ammiano of San Francisco. With the state budget deficit stacking higher and higher despite huge cuts to social programs, California’s politicians will have to seriously consider whether taxing and legalizing marijuana, the state’s largest cash crop at approximately $14 billion, is in the best interest of the state.

There’s a laundry list of explanations as to why California could benfit from decriminalizing marijuana. In a state where balancing the budget is nearly impossible thanks in part to the infamous Prop. 13, the retired judge James Gray suggests that on top of the new source of tax revenue, the state would save close to a billion dollars since the state would no longer have to arrest, prosecute, and imprison non-violent offenders. Currently, marijuana makes up 47% of all drug related arrests, 88% of which are for possession.

The state would also be able to track the distribution of marijuana, helping the DEA and police crack down on underage consumption of marijuana since it would follow alcohol’s precedent and remain illegal to purchase or possess for those under the age of 21. Since it is commonly agreed that marijuana is most harmful when it is consumed while the mind is still developing, this will focus the efforts of law enforcement in the right place. Additionally, some of the tax revenue would go towards marijuana education and rehabilitation programs, again mimicking successful trends to curb abuse and encourage safe and responsible use of marijuana through healthier means like edibles and vaporizers.

Decriminalization would also destigmatize the safe medical use of marijuana and encourage more research on the medicinal use of pot. After a 20 year period where almost no research was done on the subject, the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research was created in 2000 and has shown promising health benefits in treating a number diseases and ailments with marijuana. However, the state funding for the Center is almost depleted, and researchers are hoping its success will encourage the Federal Government to provide the grants needs to keep the successful program afloat. As more information is learned and the public becomes more accepting of the many medical uses of pot, doctors from all walks of life will feel more comfortable prescribing the drug to the patients, allowing a greater number of Californians to reap the medical benefits of marijuana.

Legalization is accordant with California’s claim to being a political pioneer of civil liberties. Marijuana laws are just another way that citizens see the government as overstepping their jurisdiction and unnecessarily treading upon personal freedoms. In a time when the public trust toward the government is already dwindling toward historic lows, every step to restore the state’s images must be taken in order to retain democracy. By appeasing the wants and needs of the people through the legalization of marijuana, Sacramento would work towards repairing its shattered image by lowering public contempt toward government.

However, despite all these things, there are moral arguments keeping AB 2254 from passing. Because of intense propaganda campaigns that have demonized the plant, rational arguments for the safe use of marijuana have been disregarded because of the moral stigma of the drug. Compared to many both legal and illicit drugs, the side effects for marijuana are relatively harmless. Users also do not have the dangerous withdrawal symptoms from physiological dependency commonly found in other street drugs.



With both alcohol and tobacco known to be far more dangerous than marijuana, doesn’t it seem logical that the safer drug be legal? Since history shows that the consequences of prohibiting the use of alcohol or tobacco far outweigh the benefits, decriminalizing marijuana would prevent a hypocritical situation where Americans could recreationally get drunk or smoke a cigarette, but not engage in the healthier behavior of smoking marijuana.

Some argue that since marijuana is a ‘gateway’ drug, that more people will be vulnerable to eliciting more dangerous drugs, but both scientifically and socially that argument falls short. Dr. Andrew Moral studied the issue, and his research showed that people who are predisposed to using drugs tend to use marijuana because it is more readily available. This shows that marijuana, contrary to the gateway argument, do not cause people to try hard drugs, but instead connects them with drug dealers. If marijuana was legally sold, pot smokers would be purchasing their product from reputable sources, and no longer need to enter into the world of illicit drugs.

All in all, it seems clear that politicians from California need to seriously consider its current drug policies and whether they are in the best interests of their constituents or even the government itself. The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act balances the budget, encourages the use of medicinal marijuana, furthers research on the effects of marijuana in both recreation and medical scenarios, promotes safer use, and expands civil liberties. Before writing it off as some hippie movement, rationally consider how the legalization of marijuana would benefit the common good.

For more information, check out the fascinating history of marijuana policy in America.

The Mirror Effect

Christopher Jacob asked whether celebrities are raising the bar of beauty to artificial standards, but maybe we should look at what causes America’s obsession with the rich and famous.

Heidi Montag is just one of many examples of celebrity narcissism in America and it's effects on our nation - most specifically our youth. While I'm personally not too familiar with her story, many reality stars could care less about their influence on society since they are so infatuated by their own pursuit of fame (which they equate to happiness), hat they are willing to do anything in order to make their dreams of stardom a reality. This behavior is reinforced by a media trying to do anything to stay above water by remaining relevant. For a magazine like People, which for years has been focused portraying the personal lives of the popular, it's no surprise that they are forced to cash in and publish an article on a reality television star.

Arguably the defining trend in television of the last decade, reality TV has exploded for 2 main reasons. First, this genre is one of the cheapest forms of programming to produce, so business executives love them. Second, they establish enormous audiences that feel a connection with these 'real' people, and seeing these 'average' Americans become elevated to stardom keeps the American dream of fame and fortune alive for their massive audiences.

People think, "Well, if Paris Hilton can be famous and she has no talent, why can't I?" To do this, they can use the Internet to post blogs, pictures, videos, etc. and try to get the world to pay attention to them. They create what is almost like a celebrity internet persona using the web to try and capture their dream of fame, and with more sites like youtube, twitter, flickr, and facebook becoming more and more popular, their potential Internet audience grows every day. These psuedo stars tend to extract different formulas of archetypes they’ve seen on reality TV and emulate the same behavior in an effort to achieve similar celebrity status. Typically, the most memorable reality TV characters are the controversial and outspoken manipulators, so naturally this is the behavior that is, to borrow a social psychology term, modeled by those who want to have similar success.


Another part of fitting into an archetype is having the right image, which is precisely why the number of plastic surgeries in America has soared in recently memory. By having a media that reinforces stereotypical definitions of physical beauty, individuals become discontent if they do not perceive that their own personal image coincides with Hollywood’s definition of attractiveness. And, after all, these individuals are trying to find self-worth through pleasing others, so they feel justified in suffering through their eating disorders or participating in self-mutilation, even if it is artfully done by plastic surgeons. The ends justify the means, right? I mean, isn’t the American dream all about working hard and overcoming obstacles in order to achieve your aspirations?

So, who really is to blame for all of this? Is it the fault of the celebrity for wanting to remain relevant? Is it the fault of the tabloids that encourage poor behavior in order to sell magazines? Should we blame the television industry for pleasing both their stock holders and their audiences by providing ‘reality’ television? Should we blame Glenn Beck… because we can? Should we blame capitalism (gasp!) for forcing businesses to pursue the most profitable endeavors regardless of what they may be doing to our society as a whole? Can’t the government do something to regulate this filth?

Well, fortunately for capitalism and my safety (disagreeing with gun-totin’ uber extremists, sometimes known as tea-partiers, can be hazardous to one’s health), I’m going to go ahead and shift responsibility to the public on this one. Ultimately, without the consumer, there would be no audience and therefore no market. Ergo, if the source is removed, the vicious cycle never starts. But what’s the best way to do this without usurping an individual’s freedom to pursue happiness ?
By sparking a change in the consumer’s preference, Americans can shift their attention towards more enlightening forms of entertainment in order to help them better contribute to society. Often times, people read tabloids or watch reality television because they are bored or don’t know anything better to do. These sorts of activities are rarely rewarding and provide little to no personal development or benefit to society at large. Other times, people say they follow celebrities as a sort of escape from the stresses of their own personal lives, and while escapism can be a valid stress reduction technique, there are other coping methods which can serve the same purpose and be much more engaging. The apathy and disinterest in personal progression can be blamed by on a whole host of sources, but ultimately every American should be held responsible for their own actions and behaviors.

But if you or any of your friends are considering plastic surgery as a way of fixing your physical flaws, please consider consulting a professional psychologist before turning to a plastic surgeon. It is estimated that at least 1% of Americans suffer from Body Dysmorphic Disorder, a debilitating mental illness with serious health consequences if it goes untreated.

For more information on the subject, please pick up Dr. Drew Pinsky’s NY Times Best Seller, The Mirror Effect.

We're #1! We're #1!

And these are the people we owe 1 trillion dollars...

*Gulp*

The Sensational Intellectual

Today's most popular story on NPR.com is an article written about conservative blogger / businessman Andrew Breitbart and his various connections within the blogosphere. The story discusses how he has used anti-media rhetoric along with a great degree of sensationalism to promote the various blogs he's worked on, which include both the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post (ironic, ain't it?) as well as his own blogs. Any time Breitbart is questioned on the authenticity of his blogs, he resorts back to his ideological attack dog tactics. He claims to be simply practicing a "new kind of journalism," but Clark Hoyt of the New York Times sees a different picture.

"It is primarily, I believe, aimed at trying to score ideological points... It is not about the broader mission that I think organizations, like the Times, set for themselves — which is broadly informing the public."

Well, I personally cannot argue that he's not broadly informing the public since he's been able to garner plenty of attention, though I do question the integrity of the tactics he uses.

Personally, I prefer to get my entertaining education from sources that provide both perspectives. For example, check out this informative collaboration between the most unlikely duo in hip-hop...



What a breath of fresh air...

Freedom from Reality: The Digital Individual

“Free at last, free at last. Thank God all mighty I am free at last.” While taking some time to reflect on life earlier today, I popped in MLK’s famous I Have a Dream. To this day, goose bumps run down my spine every time I hear Dr. King and his powerful rhetoric of peace preached on the doorstep of democracy. Yes, I know I’m two weeks late in addressing the influence of the Martin Luther King, and I’m sure what I’m saying is nothing that hasn’t already been conceived before, but sometimes, repetition is necessary to emphasize significance (See Keith Olbermann). What Dr. King did in the sixties through his non-violent protests epitomized the American democratic process at its best, and while there have been many imitators, there have been no emulators. While it’s shameful that as of 50 years ago our nation failed to grant equality through civil rights, the elections of our first African-American President shows an extreme amount or progress. This does not imply that prejudice does not exist in our nation, but that we are on the right track towards a more perfect union.

So what does it really mean to be free? Does it mean that everyone can do what they please? Does it mean that people are judged by content of their character and not based on the tone of their skin(“I don’t want a black president!” v.s. “Is Barack Black Enough”)? Does it mean that they will be free of persecution for being different? Everyone has their own definitions and interpretations of the concept of freedom and how it affects the fundamental purpose of a government. For myself, I feel like everyone has the rights to the implicit freedoms derived from the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as declared by our founding fathers. The government’s responsibility is to facilitate these freedoms and protect others from infringing upon them. I used the term implicit to try and make a blanket statement in order to avoid this turning into a discussion of 2nd amendment freedoms. These sorts of things have been argued for years – literally 230+ - and while it is a necessary discussion, everything has a proper time and place. That is not the objective of this post.

When the concept was formulated in my head more than 400 words ago, this post was to be on the subject of Internet being a means to pursue pseudo-freedom through the power of anonymity. On the Internet, people are truly able to create their own personal identity however they please. With the aid of limitless sources, individuals can fabricate their own unique instance of themselves and paint (or photoshop) their preferred image onto the minds of an audience. This is facilitated on the Internet as dating sites, social networks like facebook and twitter, blogs, games like Second Life, etc. give people get the chance to play god. By simply perusing the web and reading an assortment of blogs, I have found myself concocting images of individuals in my own head based on the contents of the information and its presentation. Already being someone who over analyzes everything and attempts to assess the psyche of others to understand what they’re thinking and how these processes work, this tendency of mine is amplified online because of mysterious nature anonymity of the web as well as the lack of physical social cues like rate, tone, and volume that help bring understanding and meaning to words. While these various figments of my imagination are beneficial for me in that they help me give value and voice to a post since I have created a human on the other side writing these things, I know that a single, predetermined post is a terrible judge of character.




This sort of thing can even be said by trying to analyze my character based on my first few posts. I would have to say that my constant discussion of the importance of the media and its portrayal of figures and information probably points to a general interests in this field sparked either by a love of the idealist view of journalism or simply because of a love of my country (forcing me to follow ‘politics’). If brevity is the soul of wit, then I might assume from my posts that I am not a very clever guy, but upon further inspection I would change that critique from witless to thorough but unorganized. Because of the multiple references to The Daily Show and the Colbert Report, I can assume that I’m probably a liberal or moderate with an appreciation of clever critiques of culture through comedy. I can assume that I’m either impatient, sleep deprived, a bad typer, apathetic or a combination of these based on the numerous spelling typos (spelling mistake). The simple format of the site says that I’m either practical / efficient or that I’m just not familiar enough with html and coding. The point is that a lot of inferences can be extracted from blogs without any sort of explicit biographical information given. As I contribute more and more to this site, a more comprehensive character analysis can be completed, but this still doesn’t create a true correlation between my virtual persona and my actually qualities.

Can the Internet Identity be exploited for both good and bad? Can a connection to the World Wide Web potentially deteriorate someone own personal network? Are there sick individuals and predators lurking on the Internet waiting to take advantage of this opportunity at anonymity? The answers to these and many similar questions are yes, but is this not freedom? To be free from judgments based on uncontrollable genetic components might be very enticing to those who suffering from ‘real-world’ ridicule for being themselves. This may be the first time in someone’s life where they feel comfortable in their own skin. While there are certainly problems with this type of coping, it sure does sound a lot like the freedom from oppression preached by MLK…

So now I’ll go ahead and leave you with my song of the blog: Best Imitation of Myself by Ben Folds Five.
I hope this helps you understand TA Sattler a bit better. It is important to know the author so that you consider the biases and the perspectives I have and how those things might dictate my judgment.

By the way, I hate the game of politics. Even though it’s fascinating from a sociological and psychological perspective, it’s simply disheartening as an American at times seeing the ethics and morals of it all, especially in today’s government where bipartisanship may not be extinct, but is definitely an endangered species. However, you can’t say President Obama’s given up on working across the aisle…
.