Zombies are bad at math

Have you ever given a zombie a calculus problem? Of course not! Why? Because zombies are bad at math. You'd never go to a brain-eating monster for help in your statistics course. A zombie wouldn't have the slightest idea how to find the hypotenuse of a right triangle; only a great fool would ask one how many sides a hexagon has.

And don't even get me started on algebra. If you walk up to a zombie and ask him to factor a polynomial, he'll look at you like you're out of your mind, and then shortly try to get your mind out of you.

Zombies are good for a few things. If you want some human brains eaten, zombies are the way to go. If you're looking for a fast way to spread a virus that will wipe out human civilization, you can't do better than a zombie plague. Heck, zombies are even good for fueling the plots for any number of movie and television franchises. But if you're in the market for something do some arithmetic, look somewhere else.

What does it mean to be objective?

You know what's really annoying? People who answer their own questions in writing. You know what else? Subjectivity. Subjectivity (named for the Roman philosopher Subjectavius) was formed out of a desire for the patricians of the Roman Empire to receive their news in a way that didn't include all the stuff they didn't want to hear about. Roman Phalanxes, the news-bearing section of the Roman army, learned quickly that if they only told about the victories and left out the defeats, the powers-that-be back home were a lot more willing to send them back with their pockets heavier with gold and their bellies heavier with festive feast fare.

Soon enough, civilian news organizations began to get in on the game, distributing as many versions of the news as they could find a market for. At the height of the trend, a Roman family could receive a newspaper declaring their loved one's victory over the lion in the Colosseum, mere moments after said loved one has been ripped to shreds upon the lion's gnashing maw.

Since this early history, subjectivity in journalism has been the mainstay, with media catering to every set of political, religious and ethnic opinions being produced across the world. Subjectivity isn't always as obvious as it once was; some media pieces can seem very fair to the untrained eye and still be rife with bias.

But all is not lost in this subjective world we live in. In recent years, there has been a growing movement to reclaim objectivity, to say to the world, "I'm going to tell you what's what without telling you what I want you to hear." This humble and magnificent blog is just one soldier (but probably like an admiral, at least) in the fight to restore the truth as it should stand: objective.

-Benjamin Miller


Any facts contained within this article are inadvertent and should be disregarded. The author apologizes for these mistakes.

Perspectives on Death

In the light of the string of recent tragedies (Japan, Libya, that kid who died after winning a high-school basketball game), I have once again been thinking about how much life is worth.
It is clear to me that every life is inherently valuable, but is it possible or preferable to consider one life more valuable than another? And if so, what standards should we use to differentiate one life as more valuable with another?

I think the inherent reaction of the mostly unprejudiced individual is to say that all lives are equal. After all, it is a founding principle of this country that "all men are created equal". This is what I agree with. And yet, in practice, I have found that the opinion of many that I have encountered is implicitly discriminatory in the value of life. In the story of that kid who died after winning a basketball game that I mentioned earlier, I have found many people saddened by the event, people who, as I might add, are emotionally independent to far worse xor equal tragedies. While this personally doesn't affect me — I, for one, find dying after winning a basketball game a pretty decent way to die, even at such a young age — I do find myself more concerned about the multiple tragedies in Japan than any other disasters, both recent and ongoing. I feel worse for a Japanese person dying than any African child, though I should value them equally.

I find this inconsistency troubling. I would like to continue to believe that all lives are equal and therein be able to dismiss anyone trying to make me feel bad about the death of a famous person or a particular group of people as no more worthy of my grief than starving children in Africa or executed political prisoners or babies dying of SIDS. It is in this way that I can avoid feeling negative emotion for something that does not affect me. But this real concern I have for the Japanese people along with my desire to be unaffected would require a degree of cognitive dissonance that I am not comfortable having.

I don't know what to do about this but I hope a solution will come to me.

I cannot stand insipidity

I have a pretty high tolerance for annoying characteristics: I can bear the overly religious, argumentative, and even, to a lesser degree, boring. But I cannot deal with insipidity and hold my tongue for too long. It is simply not in my nature.

Some signs of insipidity:
Repeating things after they occur with marginally different wording in an attempt to make them funny.
Attempts to dismiss criticism through ad hominem attacks.
Prone to use catch-phrases. Sometimes uses quotes from popular media or memes.
They like to complain about their life.
They often talk about the lives of celebrities.
They give the impression of being extremely fake. This is largely a result for their desperate need to belong, which requires them to adapt to whatever is cool at the moment. For example, one such person recently was talking about how "ghetto" they were during her childhood.
They're really into bad music, such as '90s pop music and mindless hip-hop.
They're just really stupid.
So used to going unchallenged in social circles that they may overreact when called out.

If you see someone who displays these characteristics, you can recognize them for the empty-headed fools they are. If these describe you, stay away from me, or sooner or later, my words will siege you.

An Argument for Lazyocracy

I recently failed to vote in UT's local student election. It's not that I didn't want to vote. Even though I'm certain my vote doesn't matter and most of the candidates don't seem any worse than any other (with the exception of UT's secret society "The Eyes of Texas"-backed candidates), I make it a point to vote whenever possible. The more I vote, I figure, the more my demographic will be catered to by whoever is elected. It's the same reason that Jewish voters have a larger political influence than their population- A higher percentage of them vote.
   The reason I failed to vote in this recent election was that I was simply so busy that I forgot. Voting, for all the attempts that groups have made to make it not so, is just too inconvenient. I wish I could just wake up, and while I'm getting ready for school, I would be offered the option to vote.
If between breakfast and the time it takes me to get to class, I could have a radio program read me the candidates' names, their positions on the important issues, and their qualifications, and I could call in and vote; if when I got to class, during my lunch break, an announcement would remind me and the rest of the school that we could vote online or at any of the convenient polling places in our area; if when I got home, my TV show was preceded by an advertisement that reminded me to vote and provided a venue for doing so; these would remove difficulty from the voting process and leave out only those who do not want to vote for specific reasons.

There are, of course, logistical issues with all of these, and I am not saying that a transition from our current system will be easy or, at this point, necessarily cost-effective and worth doing at this time. But I believe that this is a goal we should work toward.


If it were as easy to vote as it is to see a movie, and if society said that voting was an important thing to do as a citizen in a democracy, that would make democracy more fair. This is lazyocracy and, I hope, the future.

Reasons for Optimism

  As I was writing the post I had planned for today about delusions of grandeur among many teachers, it suddenly occurred to me that the tone of this blog has been fairly pessimistic and critical since it started X weeks ago. I do not consider myself a negative person, and most of my criticism, I believe, is well-founded. However, I do not consider myself a pessimist, so I thought this week, I'd talk about some good things in the world at present.

For example, though some naysayers have decried recent democratic uprisings in various Middle Eastern countries as potentially dangerous to U.S. interests, I find it remarkable that so many people oppressed by autocrats for such a long time are managing to fight for their freedom, though it may cost them their lives. At the time of this writing, the AP has reported that the half of Libya that is no longer under Moammar Gadhafi's control has already set up an interim government. That's pretty amazing, I think you'll agree.

  In my scholastic life, I am working harder and having more expected of me than ever before. On the other hand, every Tuesday and Thursday I work with a second grader at an elementary school on literacy activities, the end of which always consists of a joke. Part of the reason I came to the College of Education was that, unlike some other majors, it was clear that they appreciated an active sense of humor. And now, I get to bring back all my best jokes from my youth, jokes that I still incidentally find laughter-inducing. For some members of my cohort, I am the go-to guy for good jokes or joke evaluation. A recent gem: Why did the orange go to the doctor? He wasn't peeling well! Seriously, in how many other majors would my childish sense of humor be an asset?

Though I am critical of many things and people, I still live in the best country in the world. I eat fairly well, I am healthy, my family is healthy, I am happy most of the time, I have two fine jobs, a mind that keeps me amused and questioning, and am living through an exciting and eventful time in history that in almost no way directly affects me. I've got a great life.


Plus, I've got a mustache.

Death does not make you a better person

Last week, it was "Israel Shabbat" at Hillel, where along with Hillels across country, we were honoring some American guy who fought in the Israeli Army, came home and advocated for peace by organizing campus events (which, as I will likely post on later, is 7 times out of 10, a largely masturbatory gesture, especially when it is centered around something as nebulous as "peace"), and then was killed by a drunken driver.
And the reason we are celebrating this particular person, though one person said that I should say this out loud when I brought it up, is essentially because this guy happens to be dead.
I discussed this in a earlier post about the renaming of part of Martin Luther King Boulevard to the JJ Seabrook Bridge, and I'll say what I implied then: By virtue of dying, your accomplishments while living do not increase in importance. Or, to put it simply, death does not make you a better person.
   I'm not talking about martyrdom. People who die defending something they believe in are excellent fodder for honoring dinners and the like. I use the word "fodder" to emphasize what these people tend to become. While they may actually have believed in something during their lifetime, they have, in death, become only a symbol used for some political cause.    I am also inclined to question the efficacy of such a symbol. As in an example, I recall from many years ago in which an American went to great lengths to fight in the Israeli army and died in the line of duty, who became the topic of his sister's speech at an event I was attending. As I sat there in the auditorium listening to this guy's sister laud her late brother, I wondered the purpose of the speech. Was his example supposed to inspire me to go join the Israeli army? Was it saying, "Look at what he did for Israel, the least you could do is buy Israeli chocolate."? At least in my case (and I suspect, the case of many others in the room), I only felt some combination of annoyance that I was having to listen to this guy's dull story, jealousy that he was probably a better person than I and distraction by every other thing in the room.

In the case of the Israel Shabbat honoree, he doesn't even get to count as a martyr for dedication to Israel because he died by an unrelated incident. Despite this, it is expected that we should give him this special honor, while others who fight in the Israeli Army or advocate for peace are given no such honor, and indeed, are often overlooked entirely. I said something similar in the article directly preceding this one.

If the only reason someone is being honored is that they happen to have died after doing a good deed, perhaps the honor should be reconsidered.

The Magician With Short-term Memory Loss

I'd like to say some words about some people I know. Though I am hesitant to talk behind anyone's back, I would be willing to say these things to their faces, so I feel okay about it.
So, I'm listening to one of these people lamenting over his poorness and his current lack of funds. At one point, this guy says he has $9 in his bank account.
And yet this man works at one of the highest-paying jobs in low-skill labor. Where does his money go if it has appeared to disappear so suddenly?

I posit that this is analogous to a magician with short-term memory loss who goes, "Watch me make this rabbit disappear." and then moments later, "What happened to my rabbit?"
  Allow me to draw you a picture:
"Oh, I don't shop at Wal-Mart because I don't agree with them."- Our magician.
He buys organic food (albeit primarily supported by food stamps), a somewhat ironic move if you consider his other habits. Namely, he, on a daily basis, engages in a mass of cigarettes, hard liquor and beer consumption.
  Now, I'm not against having a good time, but couple this with the fact that he rarely, if ever, saves from his paycheck. When an unexpected financial emergency arose, he had nothing to fall back on.

This is the life of the magician with short-term memory loss. He has engaged in irresponsible (bordering on nonexistent) money management and yet becomes shocked when he ends up with no money. I'm not saying that this is a bad way to live your life (though it is not one I agree with), but if you are living it, don't be surprised by the results.

The Efficiency of Charity

Have you ever noticed that people who spend money to travel somewhere to go help others can't shut up about it?
  Last week, I heard a d'var about how someone spent their winter break on a program that had them travel to Miami to build and plant a garden for some inner city schools there. This is a pretty common sort of service project these trips accomplish and are, I assume, based on the assumption that the charity college students are most qualified for is manual labor. Except for the obvious labor inefficiencies, it all sounds pretty good when you look at it on the surface.

   Upon just a little closer inspection, however, many problems come to light. Consider, for example, the idea of traveling 1000 some-odd miles from Texas to Florida. Where that might be justified if the location to which you are traveling has been devastated by a major disaster that is sufficiently devastating that the available volunteers in the area is insufficient. Otherwise, the travel is unnecessary and possibly harming. There are ample opportunities for helping people in the Austin community (A Google search for "Austin Volunteer Opportunities" found 395,000 results), many of which have equal to or greater than need to the gardening needs of inner city schools in Florida. But do the people who go on the trips regular volunteers in their community? More than not, they perform zero to little community service in their daily lives, except where they are required to.
  And yet the people who actually make a difference in society by spending their time and money directly in their communities are rarely recognized for their actions, much less given a public platform to talk about their work, but if someone paid to travel someplace to do something that could more easily and efficiently done by others.

  This is my message to you, people who travel across the country to help people so they can brag about it later— Take a regular vacation and, if you really want to help people, try to make a difference at home, using the skills you have. People won't be as impressed as if you told them you plowed a field for some underprivileged Florida schoolchildren, but it is the right thing to do.






Note: I am not decrying the work of such organizations as Doctors Without Borders, Engineers Without Borders, or other groups that use their expertise to help those who are far more in need than anyone in the volunteer's local community.

Symbolism outside of literature is a largely masturbatory exercise

   At the MLK Day event after the march (see previous post), there were a series of speakers onstage alongside the soft rock, interracial band. The topic of these speakers was that they were lobbying to rename the bridge where Martin Luther King Boulevard goes over Interstate 35 as the J.J. Seabrook Bridge, after J.J. Seabrook, who along with a group of others lobbied for renaming 19th Street as "MLK Boulevard". What the others in this lobbying group did not do, however, is have a fatal heart attack shortly after working for the renaming, almost certainly for unrelated reasons. And apparently, though it comes as a great surprise to me, dying makes you a more moral person than staying alive, even when other actions performed are the same.

   I have no problem with the act itself of renaming a street to anything that is not obscene. It's the city's and citizens' business what they want their street signs to read. That is not the issue I have. What I found annoying was the immense self-congratulatory remarks the speakers at this event were making because they were changing the name of a part of a street to a allegedly great African-American leader. One might have thought they were ending racial inequality entirely by the way they were figuratively shaking each other's hands. And all this because of the great 'symbolism' of renaming this bridge. This symbolism, they professed, was to be an important and great accomplishment, something that really matters a great deal.

   This is where I feel that a few words about what I think about symbolism should be expressed. Symbolism is most useful in literature, and, to a lesser extent, in other forms of media, to say things in fiction without saying them outright. The primary reasons for this are either to avoid social censure for discussing the actual topic or to convince the reader of something that they might not otherwise accept using an analogy, which is the third most effective form of argument (More on effective arguing at some later date.) And sometimes, writers use symbolism just for fun.

   Symbolism in action, however, is, as the title of this post says, a largely masturbatory exercise. What does that mean? It means that it is an activity that has no other result than providing pleasure to oneself. In this way, while the people behind naming the J.J. Seabrook Bridge may feel that they have made a difference, their actions had no practical effects. Will black children with reading problems suddenly have increased literacy when they see the sign for J.J. Seabrook Bridge? Will a racist employer decide to finally hire a black employee once he drives over a road named after a black man? No, these will not happen, and I am not positing that the proponents of these renaming measure would say that these would be the case. Rather, I suspect that they are subscribing to the argument that having a public work named after a black man will inspire black students and allow them to look into the world and see something that is marginally more reflective of their own skin color. Whether or not this argument is valid, it is insufficient to justify the act. This a line from comedian Chris Rock that says that every city has a MLK street and that street is a violent and rundown area. When it comes right down to it, I would rather spend the money it would cost to rename a street toward building a community center (or some-such) for that same neighborhood.

So my position is: Rename the bridge if you want but see it for what it is— an exclusively symbolic and therein, largely masturbatory exercise.

Marching for Irony

I went to the Martin Luther King march during the previous holiday. Although it was an interesting experience, I was concerned and amused by the many ironies present at the event, and the implications of these ironies.
Here are a few:
1. Many people brought their dogs along with them and many police officers were present both around and in the march. Whereas MLK and his fellow marchers often clashed with police. Often, members of law enforcement would beat down and arrest protesters. Along with nightsticks, smoke grenades and fire hoses, police officers would often sic dogs upon protesters.

2. Before the march and at the festival after the march, there was an overwhelmingly large presence of public officials. During MLK's time, the movement was against the people in power (and the segregation laws they supported); now, the people in power are part of the movement.

3. Even the professed messages were filled with irony. There was an official making a speech who said something to the effect of "This is not a holiday based on consumption like so many other holidays." However, at the end of the march, when we arrived at a celebration ground, what did we see? - with the exception of a band and a children's area, there was only food trucks and people trying to sell us stuff. Make no mistake— All American holidays are about consumption, at least to some degree. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, but no matter how you feel about it, it's important to be honest about consumerism's role.

4.There were a surprisingly large number of kids of various ages playing around, which there isn't anything wrong with inherently, but is implicative of what MLK Day marches have come to represent. Consider that the marches of King were serious affairs where people would get beaten up by the police and arrested for trying to gain basic human rights. The joviality of children just demonstrates how much loss of gravity these events have taken on.

5. Also demonstrative of the holiday's departure from its original meaning is the preponderance of people marching for a cause other than the racial equality that King advocated for. The causes I saw were mostly liberal concepts as well: There were banners advocating a universal living wage and a high school, and people were handing out socialist fliers and fliers to other events.

6. What perhaps bothers me the most was the repeated and Christian religiousness of the whole affair. There were at least 2 prayers by Baptist ministers (alongside other minister speakers) which ended with the phrase "In Jesus' Name" While I aware that King was a minister, many of the people he marched with were not Christians. Of some note, a few somewhat famous rabbis marched alongside King himself. Additionally, I guarantee you that not everyone in the crowd was Christian. As a non-Christian myself, I felt the inclusion of an exclusionary prayer as part of the official docket made me feel unwelcome.
--

So what are we to make of this Martin Luther King Day March? There were 1000s of people marching and at the event afterwards, a larger group of people than I have ever been a part of, all people, to some degree, coming together to celebrate a great man's life and racial equality. But because of the reasons stated above, I believe the event has been warped from its original purpose and has become almost entirely meaningless.