So Long, Smokers

Tomorrow, a ban on smoking in public buildings will go into effect here in Champaign. Although I support the efforts of the C-U Smokefree Alliance, we all have to remember that the implementation of this ban isn't a cause for celebration. Any time we decide to give up some of our rights, we have to ask ourselves why and truly come to an understanding of the situation.

With the smoking ban in place, people now have no options if they ever want to go to a bar or restaurant with their friends and smoke a cigarette. Having to go outside whenever they want to smoke is not the same thing. What if it rains, or if the temperature is -6 degrees Fahrenheit outside, like it is now? A loss of freedom can also be felt from the business owners' perspectives. If they want to allow smoking on their property, or if they just want to set a certain mood to their establishment, why should they be prevented from doing so?

Arguments can be made for a loss of freedom by nonsmokers. "Your right to smoke ends at my right to breathe clean air," some may say. It is true that secondhand smoke has been shown to cause cancer and other health problems, and that many people find the smell of cigarettes unattractive or even nauseating. It is also true that smoke permeates buildings and is capable of lowering the property values of business owners. However, all of these arguments are not reasons to ban smoking; they are arguments for keeping apart those that smoke and those that don't want to smell smoke.

People are capable of a variety of comfort levels when it comes to secondhand smoke. Some may go to the bars, tolerate the smell, and accept it as a part of the bar scene. Others may enjoy the smell and feel that smoking sets the ambiance for bars. Whatever a person's opinions may be, there are ways that everybody can coexist in our society without a unilateral ban on cigarettes. When a person doesn't like smoke, they just need to stay away from smokers; if a person likes to smoke, they need to be careful not to be obtrusive with their smoke. If a person doesn't like smoky bars, they could just stay away from those bars. If they really want to drink at bars but don't like the smoke, they could ask bar owners to ban smoking or attend smoke-free events at the bars. If enough people follow through with these actions, the market pressure would force businesses to make a decision. Business owners would then be given the opportunity to weigh the lost revenue and property values of not banning smoking against the lost business and ambiance of banning smoking.

Ideally, everybody could be informed about the effects of smoking, and everyone could be able to make informed decisions based on analyses of every aspect of the issue. The problem is that much of the time people get used to the status quo and don't fully entertain alternatives. The reason why bars probably haven't switched to nonsmoking by themselves already is that it's hard to imagine what bars would be like without smoking. The reason why people probably haven't petitioned bars more fervently to end smoking is that they find it hard to believe bars would voluntarily ban smoking.

In my opinion, smoking bans are the last resort for times when people refuse to heed or even believe the health risks of tobacco and secondhand smoke. I believe that a better alternative to the smoking ban would have been a temporary ban on smoking, so that patrons and business owners could see the effects of nonsmoking and then make an educated decision on whether or not to continue the practice. Remember: the government can only have the powers that we allow it to have, and by letting it ban smoking for us, we are letting them impose their views on all of us while we continue to lose some of our own rights.

Zenger and the Jury

I was browsing my various news sources yesterday and came across this little tidbit. The situation is absolutely ridiculous. Apparently, a few years ago a 17 year old guy had oral sex with a 15 year old girl in the state of Georgia. The sex was completely consensual. The guy says so, witnesses say so, the girl says so... and the prosecuters agree. So why is this guy currently serving ten years in prison without a chance for parole? At the time, the girl was a minor, and so was the guy. At the time, the law in Georgia said that it was a misdemeanor for two teens to have intercourse, but it was a felony for them to have oral sex. It is undeniable that that their actions are in conflict with the law, but how does one fix this situation? This was obviously a place where jury nullification should have been applied.

In short, jury nullification is the power of a jury to acquit a person on trial if they do not agree with the law. If the people in a jury don't think a law is just (such as in the case above), they can decide to disregard the law and find a person not guilty. Why is it then, you may ask, do judges instruct juries to look only at facts and to base their decision on the letter of the law? Why are people in and around a courthouse not allowed to be informed of jury nullification? If juries have the power to nullify a law based on their conscience, why do judges instruct them to apply the law, not their conscience? To understand these questions, one must recall a bit about US history.

Our Founding Fathers, being afraid of a powerful government, made our country a federation and wrote the Bill of Rights to limit the power of government. As a result, every American today knows the three branches of government that give us separation of power: legislative, executive, and judicial. Before a law can become enacted and enforced, the law must pass through each of the branches for approval and follow a system of checks and balances. However, very often people forget that our constitution provides a fourth trial for laws to pass through: the jury.

Our constitution begins with the words "We the people", meaning that the constitution is given power "by the people" and that the government serves "for the people", to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln. After giving certain powers to the federal government, the ultimate decision on the justness of law is given to the people in the form of a trial by jury. According to our Founding Fathers, such as John Adams and John Jay, jury nullification is not just a power, but a right of the people. Look it up on Wikipedia if you don't believe me.

In that case, why has there not been more information about jury nullification in our country? Well, the power of a jury could be abused just like the power of any of the three branches of government, *cough* such as the executive. For example, nullification could be used to acquit white supremacists of murder charges, if the members of the jury were friendly to the defendant. As another example, nullification could also be used to excuse draft dodgers. The facts in the latter example are pretty clear: the law says one must serve in the military if drafted, but the person was drafted and did not serve, so he is in violation of the law. The only way to fight a draft dodging charge would be through jury nullification. Yes, nullification can be abused to acquit a guilty person, but at the same time, it can't be used to find a person guilty of a crime that they are not guilty of; a judge must overturn a guilty decision if the jury's verdict clearly contradicts the law.

Now, if jury nullification is a necessary power implied by the Constitution, but it is not endorsed by the legal system, how has it been preserved within our system? First of all, jurors cannot be punished for the decision they make on a case. Secondly, double jeopardy laws say that a person, once acquitted, cannot be tried for the same crime twice. These two points together preserve the power of a jury to nullify an unjust law.

Obviously, jury nullification isn't a power to be used lightly. Nowadays, jurors are not informed about it in the courtroom, and people aren't even allowed to pass out information about nullification near courthouses. However, this does not make any of this information less valid. Please, keep jury nullification in mind the next time you're called for jury duty, and be ready to act as a responsible citizen should.

Yellow Fever

The other day, I was talking with a friend about the concept of yellow fever. (For those unfamiliar with the term, it refers to a non-asian person having a sexual preference for people of east asian descent.) We observed that white men seem to prefer asian women more than white women seem to prefer asian men; it is undeniable that there are more white male/asian female couples than there are white female/asian male couples. When trying to figure out the mechanisms of sexual preference when it comes to asians, we hit upon the idea that sexuality (surprise, surprise) and the way it interacts with asian-american stereotypes in our society serve to perpetuate yellow fever.

While we were trying to figure all this out, we had to first ask ourselves why yellow fever was an issue at all. In one regard, attraction to a specific group of people or type of person is a completely normal, and possibly necessary, part of life. Some people prefer tall people, others like large breasts, still others look for long hair. More to the point, a lot of people date only within their own ethnic groups, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, as generations of exposure to a certain set of features (skin color, hair type, bone structure) may have made those features more desireable to people. It's obvious that human sexuality comes in many forms, so the preference for a certain characteristic is not, in itself, usually a problem.

Now, why is it any worse for a white male to like asian women than for an asian male to like asian women? I would argue that it's not a person's perspective that makes yellow fever an issue, i.e. it's not one guy being asian that makes it okay for him and the other guy being white that makes it not okay. Where it becomes an issue is when the preference for a specific characteristic (e.g. ethnic group) is taken as the redeeming or rejecting criterion for determining sexual attractiveness. This may seem harsh and kind of obvious to most people, but many times these processes operate subconsciously.

When talking about yellow fever, one must address the effects of asian american stereotypes in our society. Early on in this country, asian males were portrayed as awkward and subservient, or as the evil conniving genius. What, then, are the legacies of yellowface images, Charlie Chan, and Fu Manchu? These images project asexuality onto asian males. These days, we are left with the image of the asian math nerd (which incidentally is rarely depicted as female), and the continuing stereotype of asian males as asexual. What about asian women? They're typically portrayed as china dolls (think Miss Saigon) or as dragon ladies (think Lucy Liu in Kill Bill). This situation presents the opposite problem; asian women tend to be oversexualized.

These stereotypes, having been socialized into each of us, would then serve as mechanisms to drive sexual endeavors if they are not properly addressed. Asian girls would seek nonasian guys as a response to the socialized asexual perception of asian guys, and nonasian girls would shun asian guys for the same reason. Interestly, gay asian males are understood to have broached the issue of sexuality, so they would be understood to not be asexual and would not suffer the effects of this stereotype.

After realizing how asian american stereotypes can affect our lives, the question becomes: how do we use this information to improve the situation? This is a hard question to answer. Merely understanding what the stereotypes are and how they affect us is a huge start; we can then learn to recognize these processes going on around us and actively question them. In the end, we just need to learn that a certain set of characteristics (in this case, being asian) is just one part of who a person is, and that when we make decisions based on this limited piece of information we are missing an opportunity for a relationship, whether it be professional, friendly, or romantic.

Positive Warming Feedback

A few days ago, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the time on their Doomsday Clock ahead by two minutes. It is now five minutes until zero hour (midnight). Their decision was made in light of the growing threats of nuclear proliferation and global warming.

It disheartens me to see so many people neglecting, even refusing to believe the issue of global warming. Unlike the threat of nuclear proliferation, which most people find easy to understand, global warming is often written off as an effect of El Nino or the North Atlantic Oscillation. Although these weather phenomena can be used to partially explain the warm winter weather this year, the fact remains that in the past year, we have found evidence in many places of global warming being a real force.

The scariest part about most of this evidence is that the odds are not in our favor. Melting ice caps that decrease the amount of sunlight reflected by the Earth, increasing temperatures and melting more ice. Boiling peat bogs that release thousands of tons of methane into the air each day. Deforestation. All of these things come together to form a massive positive feedback loop causing temperatures to go out of control. If these cycles are real, now is not the time to ignore global warming.

What annoys me the most about people denying the issue is that this denial can only be used as a reason not to change. The thing is that nobody is expecting everyone to make an overnight switch to alternative forms of energy; we all need to work together to find a suitable solution. Acknowledging global warming can only help us stay vigilant and prepare for problems in the future. Besides, it couldn't hurt to activate some measures to slow the growth of global warming. Some things, like turning off lights and setting the thermostat a few degrees lower in the winter, are simple to do. Other things, like biking to work or using public transportation, are lifestyle changes. For my part, I've started advocating the use of compact fluorescent bulbs at home. They last much longer and use 1/4 the energy of an incandescent light bulb, with no significant difference in lighting ability. Best of all, they end up saving you money.

Most of the things people do are done to secure a person's way of life. We work, we fight, we make choices each day to ensure the safety of our lives and the lives of our descendants. How, then, can we neglect such a large threat to our livelihood as global warming? Put another way: what use is there in fighting over land, money, and honor if Earth will soon become unlivable?

The Namesake

Over the weekend, I watched an episode of 24 for the first time ever. There was an interesting moment when Ahmed Amar (Kal Penn from Harold & Kumar) says to a friend, "You're my best friend, and you don't even know how to pronounce my name. It's not a-MED, it's ACH-med." What makes the line interesting, though, is that it reminded me about all the conversations I've had recently about the pronunciation of peoples' names. In the US, there seems to be a tendency to Anglicize foreign names. Wang is pronounced 'wang' instead of 'wong', which is closer to the original pronunciation. A name like Naruto is pronounced 'naRUto' instead of the original 'NAruto'. The trend can even be seen with Kal Penn because his birth name is Kalpen Modi, which indicates a preference for an Anglicized name. What makes a person's name, and what does that name and the pronunciation of said name reveal about the person?

A name is a word by which a person can be identified, and one is usually given to a child at birth. When these names are given by the parents, they are usually used to represent the parents' aspirations for the child. However, later in life the names also become an indication of a person's background and history. If a person's name changes, some people might lament this loss of history.

The thing is, as people grow and the people around them change, their names will probably change and may even become replaced with entirely new names. Christophers become Chrises, Roberts become Bobs, and Elizabeths become Bettys. Some people become known by their last name, and some people acquire a nickname. Not only that, but people can be known by different names depending on the people they are speaking with.

In the end, it really comes down to a matter of personal preference and comfort. For example, a person might be called one name by their family and close friends, but might find it very strange if an acquaintance called him by that name. There is a good book out there called The Namesake, by Jhumpa Lahiri, which brings up this issue. In the case of 24, when a name like Ahmed is pronounced a-MED by a person, it shows that this person is comfortable with that pronunciation even if it is not what Ahmed prefers. If neither Ahmed nor his friend brings up the question of the preferred pronunciation, it shows that the discomfort of bringing up the issue is not worth the comfort of a correct pronunciation. In this case, maybe sometime down the line their friendship would reach a better comfort level and the correct pronunciation would come to be used.

I find that if there ever is a question about what name to use or how to pronounce that name, there is usually no harm in asking for clarification.

Grammar Nazism

I have to admit: I'm a bit of a grammar nazi. It's not like I'm a stickler for rules or anything; I just like to avoid confusion. Imagine a scenario where you stick a slice of bread into your toaster and then sit down in front of your computer to chat on AIM. A little while later, a friend IM's you and says, "You're toast." Now, instead of you remembering that you've forgotten your now-smoldering toast, you get into an argument with that friend over the slight to your dignity while your house burns down around you. This situation could have been avoided if your friend had used proper grammar and said, "Your toast!"

Okay, I admit the above scenario is a bit far-fetched, but you get the idea. The biggest reason why grammar is important is because language is our primary form of communication. Everybody needs to use a language in order to communicate with others, and as a result, people are constantly being judged based on the kind of language that they use. If a person calls a can of Sprite "pop" instead of "soda," you can assume the person is from the Midwest. If a person's speech is peppered with expletives, another type of assumption is made. Grammar usage is just another form of this judgment.

One of the grammatical errors that peeve me the most is when a person writes something like "You're car is faster then there car." (If you don't know why that sentence is incorrect, take a look at this site, or better yet, get yourself a good grammar book; I think Strunk & White is still the standard.) When mistakes like that are made, not only is it confusing for the reader, but it shows the reader that the writer never bothered to correct a trivial error. It reflects badly on the writer. I've actually seen lab reports handed in that contain the there/their/they're error, and at the university level, that is a mistake that should never be made.

I occasionally get flak for correcting others' grammar. "You know what I mean, so it doesn't matter," they say. However, the problem usually is not that I'm uncomfortable with the grammatical error; I could not care less if a stranger wants to display their ignorance. I tend to speak up when it is a friend or acquaintance that makes the mistake, and I do so with the hope that they will not make the error when it might actually matter.

As a side note, in the last paragraph I have used the word "their" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun. I understand that it is not technically correct grammar, but I believe it is important to not perpetuate the sexism that is inherent in our society. I also understand that it is gradually gaining acceptance as a correct use of grammar.

Smoker's Corner

It's interesting how much tobacco plays a role in our perceptions of others these days. Recently, I've noticed that when people talk about others, they often add that the person smokes as a way of putting them down. For instance, the other day I was speaking with some friends about another friend with whom we had fallen out. Somebody said that he wasn't doing so well and was hanging out with a disagreeable crowd. Another friend then said, "Oh, and he's smoking now too."

What does the use of tobacco really reveal about a person? Yes, it might indicate that the person has an addictive personality, and some people would even say that smoking shows weakness in a person (either from succumbing to peer pressure or not having the willpower to quit). I, for one, would be hard-pressed to make the latter judgment, not having been addicted to tobacco myself. What else could you say about a person that uses tobacco? Could you determine a person's level of intellect, or judge a person's emotional stability? Do you know anything about their interests and hobbies? These are things that you won't find out about a person until you actually talk to them, and letting one of their habits determine your entire perception of them will only impede that communication. I mean, even though I probably wouldn't make out with a person that regularly smokes or dips, I wouldn't let that stop me from getting to know them. If the smoke bothers me, I'll ask them to stand downwind or stay away until they're finished.

These days, I find it hard to believe that a person doesn't realize that cigarettes contain known carcinogens and radioactive elements, and that tobacco use is the "single most important preventable risk in human health in developed countries" (CDC). Not only that, but it is also an expensive habit to maintain. If, given all that information, a person decides to use tobacco, we just have to realize that the person made a choice, and that the act of using tobacco itself certainly does not make someone a bad person.

Proverbs 11:29

Creationists confound me. It's not that I have anything against people teaching the biblical story of creation. If anything, I think there's an innate beauty in the stories, and their simplicity lends themselves to an easy understanding of the world for those that aren't ready for more, i.e. children. However, I think there is something wrong with the system when there are still adults today that believe that dinosaurs, much like unicorns and leprechauns and dragons, are creatures of fantasy.

Over three years ago, the superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park tried to block the sale of a creationist book that claimed the Canyon was made in a few thousand years, as opposed to the millions of years that a great many forms of evidence suggest. The National Park Service, a federal organization, intervened and in order to quell any objections, they said that there would be a review of the issue. Three years later, this book is still being offered for sale alongside books explaining the age of the Canyon using evidence from the world around us.

Just to shed some light on this hypocrisy, the current policy of the NPS says: “The interpretive and educational treatment used to explain the natural processes and history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes.”

The age of the Grand Canyon has been estimated using a variety of methods, all of them continually making observations, creating hypotheses from these observations, testing these hypotheses, and making more observations while an explanation that makes sense is formulated. This process is known as the scientific method, and when a method like this leads humanity to great advances in medicine, physics, and technology, I tend to believe in its results.

These days, a person can walk around town with protection from measles, mumps, and rubella while listening to their iPod and talking on their cell phone. How does this person remain oblivious to the scientific methods that were used to develop all these technologies, while adamantly refusing to believe something as relatively simple as the age of the Grand Canyon? When people reject millions of years of geological history by fiat, they might as well reject all the technologies that make our world what it is today.

Personally, I feel like a person can listen to the biblical story of creation, interpret it metaphorically, and still get all the value that both religion and science have to offer on this issue.

It Begins...

Have you ever had so many thoughts that you didn't think your mind could contain them all? Did you wish you could share those thoughts with other people? I would imagine everyone that starts a blog has felt these things, and I've decided to join the fray. The idea is to update at least twice a week and to talk about current events in the world. My main interests are science, technology, politics, society, and philosophy, so those will be the main topics discussed in this blog, but I thought I'd use the first entry to discuss my reasons for starting this blog.

Too many times in my short life have I felt like people were just going through life on cruise control. Eat, sleep, work, and don't rock the boat. Rinse. Repeat. But why do people do the things they do? Should people do the things they do? How do we judge whether something should be or not? Where do we even go to begin looking for answers? I think that all through our lives, we do our best to answer these questions, to varying degrees of success. Although I can't pretend to know these things, I do know that in an attempt to understand a little more about life, we can use our experiences in life and the things we see in the world around us. My only hope with this blog is to share my observations and ponderings on life and maybe, possibly reach a higher understanding of life, the universe, and everything (and don't tell me it's 42). Fumbling in the dark, really. But isn't that all that anyone can reasonably be expected do?