Sadly, I have not gotten to read Transparent Society - we don't have it at the library, and currently I am mere pages from finishing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, so I don't think I would've gotten through it in time for this post anyway. I did however go to his site, though I could only get through the first page before trying to decide between taking a cyanide pill now, or letting the government take me out when I try to run.
Though we may live in a society where technology puts some power in the hands of the people, what do we use it for? To post stuff like this. While it's useful for embarrassing celebrities or holding politicians responsible for off-color remarks, what good has it really done? You could argue that blogs are the ultimate weapon of the people - a chance for us to share ideas and rally around them, but I know what crap I write about. And even if we were in such a dystopian society, why would we even still have the internet? A lot of countries right now restrict what their citizens can gain access to - imagine if it were worse.
As far as a 1984 Orwellian government - I'd have to agree that we're closer to something like that happening. Wasn't Winston's job in the book to go back through and rewrite newspaper articles and historical documents to fit it to the present - like the war that keeps changing enemies - sound a little familiar? Now, I'm sure there's not an administration that couldn't be accused of a little spin, but the fact that a war with Afghanistan quickly turned into a war with Iraq, which looked like it would turn into a war with Iran or Syria - it's ridiculous! Wire-tapping, raising themselves above the Constitution - it's scary to think about.
Switching gears (well, sort of), has anyone else seen Minority Report? I actually kinda liked it when it came out, but Tom Cruise is all kinds of scary crazy now, and it angers me a little to watch his movies. Short synopsis for anyone who hasn't seen it - it's the future, and TC works for a section of the government called precrime. There were triplets born who could see the future, so the government captured them and used them to predict future crimes. TC's job was to take the flashes of info and decipher them, hopefully in time to stop the crime from ever happening. (Yeah - how much would that suck? Getting jailed for a crime you didn't even have a chance to commit.) One day, while doing his job, TC gets a flash, and he's in it, so he goes on the run - there's more, but that's the basic scenario. But that is my ultimate horrifying glimpse of the future - that and V for Vendetta - oh and Children of Men. (Hopefully if that is indeed the future, we'll have a V as well)
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
You don't go out looking for a job dressed like that? On a weekday?
I don't mind so much anymore when people ask what I do. I can be reasonably proud that I work in government and that I am a Budget Analyst. No, it's not the most exciting job. But it's a management position, and it makes me seem professional. I do get annoyed when people say to me, after I say what I do, "oh, you must like numbers." No, motherfucker, I don't actually like numbers. It's just my job. In fact, I hate numbers. I'm not good at math. Recently, someone asked me to come up with a percentage increment for the past ten fiscal years. Now, I know how to do percentages for certain things. But I didn't know how to take ten years of numbers and make a percentage increase for each year. I had to look it up online. And then I found the answers on a high-school math help site. I'm that bad. I also own Math for Dummies (it is hidden strategically in my office). I don't like numbers. I don't have to. Being a Budget Analyst doesn't necessarily have to do with numbers (it's more looking at accounts, budgeting for the next year, writing impact statements, working on legislative priorities that have a budgetary impact, etc.). So that question gets annoying. But I am much more proud than when I used to work in the library many years ago- I hated telling people that. They used to just go "oh." And I hated working there. I was such a piss-on. I wasn't even allowed to talk to my co-workers; it was like elementary school. That was bullshit.
It was much more fun, though, telling people when I worked at the mental health center as a behavior technician. There were lots of stories I had to tell from that job. Seeing the people being Baker Acted. Having to learn to take people down to the ground and pull their pants down so the nurse could give them a shot to knock them out. All the times I got bit and had to get tetanus shots (I don't know if I could could on my hands the amount of times I had to get tetanus shots). Having a kid try to stab me with a marker--one of those smelly ones that are obviously not sharp. I smelled like blueberry for several days and that was hard to wash off. Having to take down a 300 pound man with about seven staff members who was so high from crack that it took four shots before he even calmed down (those shots usually knocked someone out immediately). Those were great stories, and I still have some great party stories. But that was also not what I wanted to do with my life.
It doesn't bother me too much to have someone ask me what I do. What always bothers me is having someone ask me what church I go to. I get that none down here, but in Northern Florida that was always the first question (second one was usually Gators or Seminoles?). I hated that. I met someone recently that thought I listened to country music because I'm white (it's South Florida after all). But I am pretty proud of what I do; I like my job, and I'm very proud of the fact that I work in the field that I am going to school for. But being automatically asked "oh, you must love numbers" is annoying.
Glenn, I for one an very proud of you for your going into poetry. I remember when you were torn between doing that and going in to something that you might not want to go into but you'd go into because other people would want you to. I had a whole time period when I was going to go into a field that I would not have enjoyed just to go to college and make money- I know I'll never make shitloads of money going into government, but I'm happy with what I do.
It was much more fun, though, telling people when I worked at the mental health center as a behavior technician. There were lots of stories I had to tell from that job. Seeing the people being Baker Acted. Having to learn to take people down to the ground and pull their pants down so the nurse could give them a shot to knock them out. All the times I got bit and had to get tetanus shots (I don't know if I could could on my hands the amount of times I had to get tetanus shots). Having a kid try to stab me with a marker--one of those smelly ones that are obviously not sharp. I smelled like blueberry for several days and that was hard to wash off. Having to take down a 300 pound man with about seven staff members who was so high from crack that it took four shots before he even calmed down (those shots usually knocked someone out immediately). Those were great stories, and I still have some great party stories. But that was also not what I wanted to do with my life.
It doesn't bother me too much to have someone ask me what I do. What always bothers me is having someone ask me what church I go to. I get that none down here, but in Northern Florida that was always the first question (second one was usually Gators or Seminoles?). I hated that. I met someone recently that thought I listened to country music because I'm white (it's South Florida after all). But I am pretty proud of what I do; I like my job, and I'm very proud of the fact that I work in the field that I am going to school for. But being automatically asked "oh, you must love numbers" is annoying.
Glenn, I for one an very proud of you for your going into poetry. I remember when you were torn between doing that and going in to something that you might not want to go into but you'd go into because other people would want you to. I had a whole time period when I was going to go into a field that I would not have enjoyed just to go to college and make money- I know I'll never make shitloads of money going into government, but I'm happy with what I do.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
this is your brain on drugs...
Hi everyone, new guest blogger Laurie here. I don't think anyone has introduced me yet (where's the love, people?), but I thought I'd intro myself so I could weigh in on this topic. Obligatory blurb about me: Like many of the kiddos here on BSG, I grew up in L.C. Florida, but left after high school for college, subsequently earning a BA in English Lit and a BFA in Studio Art from Florida State University. I relocated to Brooklyn two years ago, and have loved every second of it. I currently work in business development at a mid-sized tv network that I promise you've never heard of, but I'll be starting as a student at Brooklyn Law School in the fall. You can check out my personal blog, Sleeping in Brooklyn, here. So on to the topic at hand!
Just last week I read a story in Elle (yeah, I know sorry but that's where I read it) that basically argued that most people who try or even regularly use narcotics and/or other drugs won't become addicts.* This of course, flies in the face of decades of "Just Say No Dare Common Sense" public education, but it's also much closer to the truth of drug and alcohol use than any of the terror filled edicts we're normally bombarded with by various drug "authorities." Having been around the block with a pretty wide range of drugs from alcohol to opiates I can attest than no, the average person won't become a raving drug fiend the moment they take a bump of blow at a party.
Traffic offers a great example. The pretty upper middle class WASP girl chases the dragon once and is whoring herself to her big black (so much to say about the race depictions here, but that's a topic for another day) dangerous drug dealer in the ghetto 45 mins later. I'd have to argue that this is an extremely unrealistic picture of addiction. I'd also have to argue that there is an inherent danger in miseducating the public with regard to addiction.**
The real trouble with drugs is when the tiny percentage of people who have "addictive personalities" get their hands on them. The New York Times had an interesting article recently about what personality traits are commonly found in addicts and it's worth checking out before they make it TimesSelect. One thing that I find strange is how difficult it is to find statistical evidence on the internet that indicates what percentage of the American population is actually addicted to drugs. An extensive internet search this morning turned up all kinds of "drug abuse up X%" kinds of things, but they always fail to establish what the benchmark was before the rise. If heroin abuse is up 50% but it still represents only .67% of the population then that's worth noting. The aforementioned Times article simply says "many millions." I can't remember where I saw it, but somewhere I came across a figure that stated that 20 million people in the U.S. Even if the number was actually 20 mil then that's only 6% of the population. However, I have the impression from other websites that even this is a gross exaggeration (that number probably includes cigs and alcohol, too). I found an interesting little blurb about this here where the author states that "obviously, the government can't say how many genuine addicts there are, and the 3.6 million number seems like a tremendous overestimate based on counting anything approaching regular use of heroin, crack, cocaine and other drugs, both actually measured and estimated."
So what's my big point, right? Well, my point is that we need honest facts about addiction in order to have an honest public debate about it's dangers. Slate has several articles about this topic that are worth a read, especially this one about "the best anti-pot ad ever." Do a keyword search for "drugs" to turn up more like these.
A couple of concerns here that I won't get entirely into (this is a blog after all and I've already written WAY too much here), but that I'd like to throw out there to get you thinking a bit:
- "Dangerous" things entice people, especially teens, and when you convince people drugs are super dangerous it only entices them more.
- People who choose to use drugs cannot protect themselves if they don't understand what the actual dangers of using those drugs are. This is related to...
- When people know you are lying to them about some things, they will assume you are lying to them about everything else. With drugs, this could lead some people to assume all the bad things they hear about drugs are false or exaggerated.
*They cited studies and I would throw in quotes here were it not for the fact that I left my copy of the magazine at a friend's place and he's in California all week and there doesn't seem to be a copy of the article anywhere online. Sorry but that's life.
**Actually I'm of the opinion that there's an inherent danger in miseducating the public on any topic. Educate your citizens well, give them the facts, and let them make their own decisions, I say. Don't get me wrong, I haven't become a Libertarian. I firm in the belief that the people should be governed, but I also think that the people should decide how they are governed, not the elite ruling class (hello almost exclusively rich, white, male Congress).
Just last week I read a story in Elle (yeah, I know sorry but that's where I read it) that basically argued that most people who try or even regularly use narcotics and/or other drugs won't become addicts.* This of course, flies in the face of decades of "Just Say No Dare Common Sense" public education, but it's also much closer to the truth of drug and alcohol use than any of the terror filled edicts we're normally bombarded with by various drug "authorities." Having been around the block with a pretty wide range of drugs from alcohol to opiates I can attest than no, the average person won't become a raving drug fiend the moment they take a bump of blow at a party.
Traffic offers a great example. The pretty upper middle class WASP girl chases the dragon once and is whoring herself to her big black (so much to say about the race depictions here, but that's a topic for another day) dangerous drug dealer in the ghetto 45 mins later. I'd have to argue that this is an extremely unrealistic picture of addiction. I'd also have to argue that there is an inherent danger in miseducating the public with regard to addiction.**
The real trouble with drugs is when the tiny percentage of people who have "addictive personalities" get their hands on them. The New York Times had an interesting article recently about what personality traits are commonly found in addicts and it's worth checking out before they make it TimesSelect. One thing that I find strange is how difficult it is to find statistical evidence on the internet that indicates what percentage of the American population is actually addicted to drugs. An extensive internet search this morning turned up all kinds of "drug abuse up X%" kinds of things, but they always fail to establish what the benchmark was before the rise. If heroin abuse is up 50% but it still represents only .67% of the population then that's worth noting. The aforementioned Times article simply says "many millions." I can't remember where I saw it, but somewhere I came across a figure that stated that 20 million people in the U.S. Even if the number was actually 20 mil then that's only 6% of the population. However, I have the impression from other websites that even this is a gross exaggeration (that number probably includes cigs and alcohol, too). I found an interesting little blurb about this here where the author states that "obviously, the government can't say how many genuine addicts there are, and the 3.6 million number seems like a tremendous overestimate based on counting anything approaching regular use of heroin, crack, cocaine and other drugs, both actually measured and estimated."
So what's my big point, right? Well, my point is that we need honest facts about addiction in order to have an honest public debate about it's dangers. Slate has several articles about this topic that are worth a read, especially this one about "the best anti-pot ad ever." Do a keyword search for "drugs" to turn up more like these.
A couple of concerns here that I won't get entirely into (this is a blog after all and I've already written WAY too much here), but that I'd like to throw out there to get you thinking a bit:
- "Dangerous" things entice people, especially teens, and when you convince people drugs are super dangerous it only entices them more.
- People who choose to use drugs cannot protect themselves if they don't understand what the actual dangers of using those drugs are. This is related to...
- When people know you are lying to them about some things, they will assume you are lying to them about everything else. With drugs, this could lead some people to assume all the bad things they hear about drugs are false or exaggerated.
*They cited studies and I would throw in quotes here were it not for the fact that I left my copy of the magazine at a friend's place and he's in California all week and there doesn't seem to be a copy of the article anywhere online. Sorry but that's life.
**Actually I'm of the opinion that there's an inherent danger in miseducating the public on any topic. Educate your citizens well, give them the facts, and let them make their own decisions, I say. Don't get me wrong, I haven't become a Libertarian. I firm in the belief that the people should be governed, but I also think that the people should decide how they are governed, not the elite ruling class (hello almost exclusively rich, white, male Congress).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
