Charlie Kirk

fascism: a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition

1) I think the gun laws in the US are horrible. gun ownership should require permits, proper training, and regular psychiatric evaluations. I was incarcerated in a hospital because certain physicians felt I had an eating disorder and was a 'danger to myself or others' but any nutcase can come in off the street and buy a gun?

2) biologically there are only two sexes. I do not believe the concept of gender has any concrete definition. that is the problem; everyone has their own ideas about what it means to be a man or a woman and the difference in opinion is what causes the conflict. as somewhat of a 'tomboy' (and I believe my mother was also one especially in her younger days), I think I can identify with both 'genders'. I think it is probably a good thing to be able to empathize with people who are different from me. however, I'm not going to ask people to use different pronouns. English is difficult enough as it is and the concept of 'gender' as masculine and feminine is embedded in all the romance languages.

3) Mr. Kirk has a very quaint idea of what American society should be: one man, one woman, lots of kids, a picket fence, and a golden retriever. This is the idealized culture of the 1950s and I agree that generation was really the greatest before computers took over everything. that being said, I do not presume to tell anyone else how to live their lives or what should make them happy. it is not the role of the state to legislate morality. this is where fascism comes in, when the government attempts to force citizens to adopt a particular moral code and/or societal standards at the expense of civil liberty and to forcibly stamp out any opposition. Trump and his supporters (i.e. Mr. Kirk) are walking a very fine line in this respect.

4) no husband is that perfect. when Mr. Kirk asked his wife what he could do to be a better man, I would like to know what she said in reply. obviously, his widow is not going to divulge all of his faults on national TV. I would also argue that he was asking the wrong person. it is not his wife that Mr. Kirk is meant to serve. He should have been directing his question to God.

5) in Christian doctrine, it is wrong to murder but killing is acceptable in the context of self-defense. legally, this definition pertains only to direct attacks against one's personal safety but at the national and global level the societal definition is extended to include property (i.e. cities, territories, homes, etc.) and differences of ideology (i.e. Christianity, Islam, Communism, etc.). this is the primary justification for most wars and why soldiers are generally exempt from murder charges (unless in violation of the Geneva Convention which protects injured and captured combatants and civilians as well as those who serve them).

some FBI data suggests that hate crimes against trans-gender people are increasing. I think this is evidence that no one really likes them. they are viewed as strange, unnatural and make most other people uncomfortable in public places. even certain factions of the homosexual and feminist movements have rejected them because their mere existence undermines the validity of these other groups. it is not surprising that the trans-gender community is lashing out now that they have lost government protection; they are scared. regardless of the religious/philosophical rationalization for taking another human life, this is just basic human nature.

6) The right to an abortion has not killed a single human being*. The law does not force anyone to terminate their pregnancy; it is a choice each person is allowed to make for themselves. Access to this technology is critical in medically necessary cases (e.g. ectopic pregnancy). it is wrong to impose a particular moral standard on someone when that standard may require them to sacrifice their own life. Killing is justified when it is done in the context of self defense. sometimes it is necessary to kill an unborn baby to defend the life of the mother. in these cases, abortion is justified. however, it is impossible to legislate all possible exceptions and potentially tie the hands of doctors who must make split second decisions in emergency situations. abortion is just one more tool at their disposal when they are trying to save the life of their patients. the moral implications should not enter into the medical differential when the options are presented to the patient.

that being said, termination should always be the last option. adoption services, counseling, low income options for housing, and prenatal care should all be made available. however, these things are often not considered when people talk about abortion as the discussions are mostly centered around the philosophical definition of a human life. no thought is given to the practical implications of bringing that life into the world. ideally, this should be considered before an individual gets pregnant.

*member of the species H. sapien

7) religion and politics have no place in the public school system. this is a venue for teaching math, science, history (accurately, without bias), and the arts. the goal should be to enrich the mind so that each student can know the truth and form his own world view. instilling children with a moral compass is the role of their parents not a government informed school curriculum. if some parents have particularly strong political and/or moral views, they are free to home-school their children; this is probably a more effective method anyway.

Religion I

This may or may not be the first of many posts on the subject of religion.

Stephen Hawking said the existence of God is extremely unlikely. On the other hand, the possibility of evolution seems pretty unlikely as well. My concern, however, is more with the existence of a benevolent God and not just some senile old dude with a sick sense of humor or the matrix.

Biology tells organisms to take as much as they can now because the natural world is uncertain and scary, and they might not live much longer. The genius of homo sapiens, however, is that cooperation increases the likelihood of survival. This requires that individuals not only take but also give something in return, a concept evolutionary biologists call "reciprocity". The problem with reciprocity is that it requires a measure of "faith": I do something now but may not get anything in return until later. If I am nice to my neighbor, hopefully, in the future, he will be nice back, thus, benefiting both of us. Since pretty much all organized religions are simply various permutations of the Golden Rule (do unto others, etc.), this is a very effective way to foster reciprocity in large populations, which is the foundation of societies.

War and peace

After talking to a friend of mine who develops computer games, I had an interesting thought. Collaboration with others for mutual benefit makes people feel good. Oxytocin is released, the bonding hormone. In contrast, feeling like you must defend yourself from threats (real or imagined) creates stress. Epinephrin is released and, in chronic cases, the dreaded cortisol which leads to a myriad of health issues. Jesus had it right; love is the answer. Biochemistry does not lie.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has come to a head again since the recent attacks by Hamas. There have been numerous fake news and/or incomplete reports propagated by Israeli and United States media outlets that seek to villainize Hamas as a stereotypical Muslim terrorist organization. Israel is no better, however, similarly bent on eliminating Palestinians, and their retaliation has been equally brutal. (The IDF operates basically as government sanctioned terrorists.) To make a long story short, these two peoples have been fighting over this region that was originally Palestine since the Israeli-Arab war of 1948. It was then that the country of Israel was created giving half of the territory (the better, more economically prosperous, half) to a minority of Jewish citizens because the United Nations was trying to compensate for the mistreatment of Jews during World War II.

I believe terrorism is not psychological; it is economic. This is what happens when individuals are marginalized by society and are not getting their basic needs met: food and shelter. This is what has happened in Palestine since the Israeli occupation. This is why Hamas and all Palestinians are fighting, for their basic livelihood that has been taken away. It is also not entirely true that the majority of Palestinians support the radical actions of Hamas. When they came to power in 2006, a significant number of Palestinians were actually too young to participate in the process and various political shenanigans both during that election and since then have prevented further voting.

Granted, killing is never justified by either side (who started it is irrelevant) but Palestinians (and Israelis) are not purely evil men, incapable of seeing reason. In order to achieve a lasting peace, the economic dysfunction of the region must be resolved. Israelis and Palestinians must learn to work together for mutual benefit. (Release the oxytocin!)

Political Limerick

Everyone loves a good president

Who doesn't increase your tenement.

He knows DNA doesn't lie

And tells gender goodbye

Illegals go back where they're meant (to be).

Narcisism

I think humans have a natural tendency to want to be right all the time. When our behavior does not align with what we know to be true, we experience something called cognitive dissonance. The difference that distinguishes narcissists is how people deal with this feeling. Narcissists rationalize the situation until they have developed a belief system, potentially divergent from reality, that maintains their superiority. In contrast, normal people admit they have made a mistake, attempt to correct it if possible, and adjust their world view to hopefully decrease the likelihood of making the same mistake in the future.

Gossip Girl

Someone once asked me what I like to do for fun. Recently, I have been binge watching the series 'Gossip Girl'. I am trying to figure out how some people can go around plotting and scheming, eating whatever they want, drinking whatever they want (mostly alcohol) and somehow still managing to maintain perfect GPAs, extracurricular activities, and getting into the best Ivy league schools without being doubled over in pain or running to the bathroom all the time. In other words, how do the rich and famous manage stress without succumbing to incapacitating digestive issues?

Why Gossip Girl? Several years ago, I was presented with the natal chart of Blake Lively as an example of associating astrological prediction with personality. Aside from being good friends with Taylor Swift and occasional showing slightly too much cleavage, Blake seems like a pretty cool person who is surprisingly 'down to earth', raising four children with her husband (and their father), Ryan, of over ten years. Cudos on that anniversary, Blake. Hope you keep it up; menopause can be a bitch.

Back to the show...

When I see all those women (and men) at their high society parties and charity events, I wonder what is going on in their colons at that moment. As mentioned in a previous post, a person's microbiome can have a big effect on their personality which in turn, I understand, is affected by diet. I briefly considered spending a summer dumpster diving on the upper east side of New York, if they even have dumpsters. I think it would be very informative as I have heard astonishing statistics about the amount of food people throw away and rich people are probably the worst offenders.

Most of the research I have read about the correlation between gut bacteria and socioeconomic status assumes economics is the cause of the bacteria. However, new research on the gut-brain axis makes me wonder if the relationship is reversed. Is there a correlation between the microbiomes of the rich and famous and if I inoculate the colon of a poor person with a stool sample from a rich person, will the poor person become successful?

Healthcare

How to tell if your doctor is bad: no repeat customers
How to tell if your doctor is good: no repeat customers
How to tell if your doctor is rich: lots of repeat customers

Therein lies the fundamental problem with healthcare. The entire goal of the profession is to make money and that means selling something people want, but it isn't health. Rather, I think it is something more like an illusion of health that only makes people feel better for a short time.

Health insurance is also the ultimate example of socialism. The entire concept (of insurance in general) is based on everyone putting something in a giant pot based on probability and then only taking out what they need, hopefully not all at the same time. If you got out what you put in, you wouldn't need insurance and could just save your money and pay for healthcare yourself. The question is, will the chips fall in your favor? I think that is really the appeal of socialism, because everyone wants to feel like society has got their back. It is, however, a false sense of security because, eventually, you will run out of other people's money.