Britney Spears - Radar (Manhattan Clique Club Edit)

Sarah Palin: Her Own Worst Enemy

Sarah Palin is her own worst enemy. On the one hand by she demands money to speak at an Iowa conservative political event most Republican politicians would fight for.

And then she chastises CBS for "providing a forum to propagate lies," saying "consider the source of the most recent attention-getting lies - those who would sell their body for money reflect a desperate need for attention and are likely to say and do anything for even more attention" (Levi Johnston in case you missed the thinly veiled reference). This in spite of the fact that she quit office after she was paid $1.25 million for her book deal of course. And after she railed against death panels (an untrue concoction of her own mind entirely).

So lets recap: She's paid $1.25M for a book deal, then leaves office, writes book, lies about death panels, calls Levi Johnston a liar, backs up this label by because he's getting money to pose in a magazine, but demands money to pose/speak in front of people?

It sounds like she's jealous of Levi's attention! Sarah Palin has certainly proved she's willing "to say or do anything for even more attention." I honestly hope Republicans don't pick her as their hopeful for 2012 - she's proven poised and ready to self-destruct at any moment. I prefer a democracy with GOOD candidate choices. Not one that's good, one that's a time bomb, and the standard mix of third-party choices. Of course if she is the nominee then maybe disillusioned Americans of various political leanings might get behind a third-party candidate in a way that's quite meaningful. But I digress....

If anyone seems desperate to stay in the media's attention I say its Sarah Palin. She did have her brief media hiatus upon leaving office... to focus on her book/collaborate with Lynn Vincent. But now she's back and ready to be the center of attention again (probably hoping to drum up more hype for her book).

DVD Sales Drop: Studios Panic

Because of the drop in DVD sales, studios are looking to ways to stop losing money. Their plan is to block dvd rentals for a month to boost dvd sales. The logic is of course reasonable. Currently upon release consumers can 1)Buy 2)Rent 3)Steal 4)Copy or 5)Borrow dvds. Most people will generally fall under the Buy or Rent category. Thus if the studios removing the Rent option for a month that will lead to less consumer choice and more demand for the Buy category (of course in actuality the demand for Stealing + Copying + Borrow will rise as well, though probably to a lesser degree). This should result in higher DVD sales.

Now I understand the interest in maintaining high profits and the concern the industry has for falling DVD sales, but I don't think that this is their only option. It is a decent option provided they make good on the speculation that they offer lower prices to rental outlets (a month after retail release) - at least that way (ideally) consumers willing to wait a bit longer (you know after it was in theaters first-run and second-run, after its been on pay-per-view, after its been available for purchase, when it finally makes its way to the rental outlets) would be rewarded with a lower cost. In practice of course whether rental companies will lower their rental fees in accordance with their price break remains to be seen. But nevertheless there are definite payoffs to such a plan.

An alternative plan could be to find a way to get their hands in the rental pot: for example charging rental outlets a licensing fee per rent a la TV syndication. Of course verifying rental numbers could be difficult. The benefits for finding a way into that market is that they can still regain profitability but not have to limit consumer choice. I mean, let's face it: a sudden shift in film distribution and exhibition could lead to consumer disillusionment and frustration if the studios don't finesse their way through the change.

At least they're trying to innovate in their own way, and seem to be doing a better job than the music industry. I gotta give 'em that credit!

T-Mobile Realizes: Keep It Simple, Stupid!

FINALLY! T-Mobile joins Sprint's game with a clear, reasonably priced rate plan. Thank you T-Mobile! I'm already happy with Sprint, but it's refreshing to see another carrier moving towards simplicity...just please stick with it. Verizon plans seem more clear and reasonable than in the past I'm happy to say.

AT&T care to join the movement? Or are you too busy battling the FCC and milking your iPhone-devotees to care?

Mozilla Firefox Mobile - Everywhere You Are

Open Source Voting

FINALLY: Open Source Voting software. Electronic voting is a great new frontier for democracy. Private companies making black box voting machines are NOT good for America. The electoral process needs to be open and transparent. I think there needs to be a paper receipt for the vote to ensure the possibility to physically backup and verify a vote (I haven't verified of the software as proposed by the OSDV produces said receipts, my internet is being temperamental). But all in all I think this direction is great!

Rich/Poor

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address Jan. 20, 1961

Profound Love/Profound Hurt

"A profound love between two people involves... the power and chance of doing profound hurt." -Ursala K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness

Everything Bad is Good for You - Steven Johnson

Everything Bad is Good for You by Steven Johnson

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This book offers a powerful look at popular culture and the ways it has improved human cognition throughout society. This stands in stark contrast to the typical view that popular culture is dumbing down society. I like the way Johnson pulls in a variety of arguments from different aspects of the Sciences and the Humanities - - but I think if the book had better structure this multidisciplinary look would have helped the argument even more. That said the book offers a well-reasoned and critical look at popular culture and addresses the implications of our media-saturated society. I hope that parents can understand the book's premise that even popular media offer different benefits to a child's development. I think this is especially true when intermixed with other media and parental corregulation. Although this book falls short of being a parenting must-read because it doesn't directly address parental issues on the whole, it does have powerful and important implications for parents. It does an excellent job of making its argument against a pessimistic criticism of popular culture while refraining from being overly optimistic by using clear reasoning and supporting facts.

The main criticism I have for the book focuses on its structure. I feel the argument would have been better expressed if structured around clearly defined chapters and points rather than the vague part I/II. Also I feel that Johnson could have started out with a stronger and more clear thesis overview. He developed the argument well and clearly at the end of the book, but the beginning of the book felt choppy and lacking focus. The thesis and main points laid out at the beginning of the book provided an adequate but unremarkable framework for the book as a whole.

View all my reviews >>

Logo

Borderline Personality Disorder

An essay I wrote for PSYC 1 a few years ago:

Borderline Personality Disorder

The Borderline Personality Disorder is one which has much controversy and uncertainty

since it’s inception. While fragmented, the genealogy of the disorder has lead to many opinions about it and therefore treatment options. Ultimately theories surrounding Borderline Personality Disorder are varied, but each offer intriguing and promising glimpses into the mind, for those with and without the disorder alike.

Borderline Personality Disorder has been looked at from many different angles since at least the 1950’s. The original terminology described it as on the borderline between neurotic and schizophrenic psychotic. While modern conceptions of the disorder has shifted in many elements and there isn’t a clear consensus, the general model still looks at it in a similar manner. The disorder is primarily characterized by extremely polarized thinking, unstable interpersonal relationships, negative but unstable affect, low but unstable sense of self, impulsivity, manipulative suicide attempts/threats, and low achievement. Typically the individual is able to function, but the disorder comes out in extremely polarized thinking. This leads them to have unstable and critical self image, rocky and turbulent interpersonal relationships, and often depression associated with these two issues.

Most doctors agree in the biopsychosocial view of the development of the Borderline Personality Disorder. Also most agree that a key trigger or stressor in the onset is an overwhelming feeling (and fear) of abandonment stemming from unstable and unreliable familial interactions, and often abuse (sexual, physical, or verbal). The qualities correlate highly with the disorder, and it is theorized that such experiences is what pushes the individual into a more regressed and polarized worldview.

Individuals with the disorder tend to have a pressing fear of abandonment. It is largely this fear, and their polarized expectations and interpretations of others’ actions which leads them to have unstable, intense, and short-lived friendships and relationships. They tend to have negative but not flat affect. And they express anger, bitterness, damandingness, sarcasm, and sometimes rage. They tend to be very self-critical with their opinion of themselves dependent on other people. As such, they have extreme abandonment anxiety and have crashes in their self-image upon the dissolving of an interpersonal relationship. Another indicator of a Borderline person is extreme impulsivity. This is most often seen through patterns of serious periodic alcohol or other substance abuse, and often in sexual promiscuity and impulsivity. Furthermore while the borderline patient tends to be able to function, they have low achievement often despite apparent talent and potential. This seems to be a manifestation of the “black and white” thinking and a fear of and sensitivity to failure.

The guidelines to diagnose a patient with Borderline Personality Disorder according DSM-IV-TR (1) criteria:

“A pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by fiver (or more) of the following:

1. Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment
2. A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation
3. Identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self
4. Impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating)
5. Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior
6. Affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days)
7. Chronic feelings of emptiness
8. Inappropriate, intense anger, or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights)
9. Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or sever dissociative symptoms

Note: (1) and (4) exclude suicidal or self-mutilating behavior (covered in criterion 5).”

If diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder, treatment options that have been shown in randomized controlled trials to be effective are psychoanalytic/psychodynamic therapy and dialectic behavior therapy. These have weekly meetings with an individual therapist, one or more weekly group sessions, and meetings of therapists for consultation/supervision. Additionally, treatment can include pharmacotherapy to help deal with symptoms. Such an option would start with SSRI or related antidepressants, and then can be augmented with more antidepressants, low-dose neuroleptic, and Clonazepam, and if that doesn’t work then the treatment can be changed to MAOI, ultimately adding or switching to Lithium, Carbamazepine, or Valproate.

While controversial, Borderline Personality Disorder has proved to be an important part of Psychology. It is often difficult to diagnose or see because the individual can maintain seemingly normal functioning, but unfortunately if left untreated the disorder can become destructive.

Incorrectly formatted bibliography:

• American Psychiatric Association – Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder
• Fine Ph.D., Reuben – Current and Historical Perspectives on the Borderline Patient
• Gunderson M.D., John – Borderline Personality Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder: A Clinical Guide
• Judd Ph.D., Patricia and McGlashan M.D., Thomas - A Developmental Model of Borderline Personality Disorder
• Links M.D. M.Sc. F.R.C.P.(C), Paul – Family Environment and Borderline Personality Disorder
• Paris – Borderline Personality Disorder

BlackBerry Messenger: It's an Addiction!

Refuge of Incompetence

"...one does have to learn to look at art. But it's up to the artist to use language that can be understood. Most of these jokers don't want to use language you and I can learn; they would rather sneer because we 'fail' to see what they are driving at. If anything. Obscurity is the refuge of incompetence."

- Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

BBM 5.0

I'm loving the new Blackberry Messenger 5.0 ... It has improved message threading, avatar support, barcode contact sharing (which i haven't used yet). It also looks like it improves the sharing of files/pictures and the like.

Now if only BB OS 5.0 would be officially released...and a facebook app update was released...and the browser would get flash support...I forgot where I was going with this...

All the Good

"I can not do all the good that the world needs, but the world needs all the good that I can do" - Jana Stanfield as quoted in Jane Roberts's 34 Million Friends of the Women of the World

Socialism in America

Alright so all this talk about Obama bringing socialism to the good ol' US of A begs the question: What is socialism? Let's start with a definition of Socialism (from dictionary.com)

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

It also begs the question what is capitalism? (also from dictionary.com)

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production,distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

So in America are there any parts of our society that fall squarely in the socialism definition - - are their any elements of capital, land, and services that are maintained and controlled by the "community as a whole"/Government?

Well there certainly is Social Security. No doubt most people would accept that's socialistic in nature. Of course that has long been wrought with issues and most anti-socialists would raise that as an example of what's wrong with socialism.

What other goods/services are provided by our government of by and for the people?

How about education?

Traditionally America has been very proud of our educational system (although that's waned in recent years). A core tenet of our Democratic/Republic is that we need an informed citizenry. Enter: Public Education. The issues with the current system do exist, but to advocate a capitalistic route to education sounds absurd: Private Schools only. Only those kids whose parents can afford to send their children to school will receive an education. Is that really the kind of America you'd want: One where vast segments of the population might remain illiterate? One without opportunity for all children? Is that honestly a way to rebuild our economy? I think not. I think that the problems of our public education systems notwithstanding, a socialized approach to education better serves our nation than a privatized one.

What about the providing for the common defense the preamble of the US constitutions calls for?

America is proud of our Military. We have a strong military that ensures our freedom and safety. But our military is not privatized. Their prowess is helped by the valuable efforts of private industry to be sure, but at its heart the US military is great because it is socialized. Private citizens don't hire their own militias to wage the US' wars. The United States of America as a whole provides for the military through funding and direction. Defense and safety is not privatized in America. It is socialized. Of course the government does contract with private contractors - but it does so socialistically. Wealthy individuals don't pay for a military to ensure only their own freedoms. Each American supports and pays for a common defense. This also feeds over into the police officers who are socialized to ensure the rule of law and order for all. When criminals are incarcerated, the prisons, and indeed entire justice system, are run for the benefit of the entire society - - ownership and control lies with the people/community as a whole (as mediated by the government and juries) not by private individuals or corporations.

Also in the defense vein are firefighters. People don't (anymore) purchase fire protection from private entities. Communities have socialized firefighting for the good of the community as a whole.

On the commerce side america has a publicly run postal service. It helps businesses, the press, our democratic process. Although it has it's share of financial woes it serves an important role in America (and still allows for its private competition to thrive alongside while guaranteeing a minimum service!).

America also has a great interstate system and city roads for transit and commerce - and yep they're socialistic in nature! The roads are paid for (through taxes) and controlled (through driving/road codes) by the community. People don't pay for access each time they pull out the driveway. They aren't privately controlled. Even toll roads which are paid for are generally not privately owned and operated. (of course their are some privately owned roads and access-ways - but those are the exception, not the rule and generally they still defer to the laws and community standards for public roads). Imagine if every time you wanted to go to the store you had to pay a fee to Big-Road-Co. That would certainly hinder commerce and hurt the economy as a whole. Moving goods across the country could prove to be a costly endeavor. Roads are socialized. They are even often essentially a subsidy for private companies who are able to provide their goods/services cheaper and more efficiently.

Speaking of transit, the airways are publicly owned and controlled. Private companies fly the skies, but they do so under the guidance and control of the government. The skies are socialized to ensure that transcontinental flights can travel without having to secure rights from the landowners down below (as declared by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court in US v. Causby) or some other entity that owns the skies. The socialized control of the sky is also down to ensure safety.

Does anyone advocate removing these socialist policies? Do they want to stop providing for the least of society? Do they want to stop supporting public education so our nation's children can be unequivocally left behind? Do they want to stop funding our military in favor of private security so that only the wealthy can have their freedoms protected? Do they want to privatize all transit so many people can only afford to become recluses?

Do they want us to become TRULY capitalistic with no government controls over safety, monopolies, or other unscrupulous business practices? True and pure capitalism is simply un-American.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of socialism in America. But I hope it demonstrates the absurdity in using a denunciation of “socialism” to induce fear and resist change. That is not to say the we do need change. It's just to point out that saying “...but the president's plan amounts to socialism...” is a profoundly ignorant and paper thin red herring of an argument.

America is not a capitalist nation (it's never been). America is not a socialist nation (it's never been).

America is... America and must (continue to) take the best bits of capitalism, the best bits of socialism, and the best bits of any other theory around to keep making us great!

American Capitalism

Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story was overall a decent and worthwhile documentary. At times it was choppy and almost frustratingly tangential and was (as expected) not an unbiased dive into the deep waters that are economic theory. It made excellent points and had quite a powerful punch. People who dislike Michael Moore films should probably stay away as it fully fits into his stereotypical documentary style.

The film gave examples of what I'd call "euconomics" - economic endeavors that succeed monetarily, ethically, and democratically. I firmly believe if more companies adopted principles of euconomics (that businesses ought to enhance the wellbeing of ALL their employees, not just the shareholders; and strive to enhance the wellbeing of their consumers as well) they would succeed in the marketplace to the benefit of all. I believe the main issue in unrestrained capitalistic democracy/republic (such as ours) is the power of dollar stifles democracy through various forms of corruption (some sinister and overt but often insidiously subtle corruption). This is a core piece of the films premise: the contradiction between one-dollar-one-vote and one-person-one-vote.

If people are able to take this film for what it is: a critical look at capitalism run amok - - an opinion piece of documentary film-making and NOT an unbiased evaluation of the issues they can learn a lot from the film. If they take the time to research the issues raised in it to reason their own informed opinions they will be better Americans. But realistically I know that people who are blinded by their own mis- and/or pre- conceptions will either despise the film and refuse to take in its value or blindly follow it's message as gospel. Neither of which I believe are good for America, and neither of which (I hope) are the goal Michael Moore had in mind. I hope/believe Michael Moore wants to inspire a more vivid and critical look at the many issues our nation faces - - not just blind committal to one ideological framework or another.

So my advice: look at the film (as with any documentary - even the ones that better purport to be unbiased) as an opinion piece. Read the film as an editorial that is well-reasoned in good faith. Feel free to disagree - just do so with logic and thoughtful reasoning. Maybe even consider how you'd construct your own opinumentary (okay maybe that's a bad neologism but you get the idea!)

Livvi Franc - Now I'm That Bitch (Nevins Rhythmic Club Edit)

Anjulie - Love Songs (Bimbo Jones Club Edit)

Econ. Majors

"There are only two types of educations: 1. Useful 2. Useless. If you're foolish enough to get one of those useful educations, such as an engineering degree, everything you learn will be obselete in five years. The rest of what you learn for the remainder of your life will come from reading brochures from vendors. That's why I majored in economics. With economics you never have to worry that your degree will become less relevant over time. I mean, how the hell could it?"

- Scott Adams, The Dilbert Future

"Nixon DID turn out to be shifty and untrustworthy in the end."

"That first Nixon-Kennedy debate has long been cited as the founding moment of the triumph of image over substance - among all those TV viewers who thought Nixon's sweating and five-o'clock shadow made him look shifty and untrustworthy. But what if we've had it wrong about that debate? What if it wasn't Nixon's lack of makeup that troubled the TV watchers? After all, Nixon did turn out to be shifty and untrustworthy in the end. Perhaps all those voters who thought he had won hafter they heard the debate on the radio or read the transcript in the papers simply didn't have access to the range of emotional information conveyed by television. Nixon lost on TV because he didn't look like someone you would want as president, and where emotion IQ is concerned, looks don't always deceive."

Steven Johnson - Everything Bad is Good for You