Children Never Get a Chance to Be Themselves

I didn't research anything yet. I also have a bias. I haven't heard a convincing argument against causal determinism. I believe determinism rules the universe whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not. My ideas are stemming from my denial of free will.

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

A little more background, I have a 13 month old child. Observing her develop sparks many ideas about parenting, education, learning, etc. My daughter, Jamie, has been a hilarious baby. Jamie knows how to work a crowd. She picks up what makes people laugh and what gives her positive feedback. She loves laughing and positive feedback. I don't think this makes her unique or special.

Readers should know what I mean by "true" or "own personalities." Writing philosophy is tough. Terms and words need to be unpacked, defined, and or explained. I'll try to be concise. I'm going to stick with the terms baby, child, and parent to sum up the interactions between children and whoever provides them care.

Today's Rant: Children are sculpted by their parents/caregivers/family/environment, so babies/children have no chance to develop their own/true personality.

The Argument (I'm working on this. It's a mess)

1) Genes and environment produce behavior and personality.

2) If parents dictate environment, offspring cannot create their environment.

3) If parents condition offsprings' behavior, offspring cannot create their personality.


Conclusion: Parents and genes dictate offsprings' personality.

The Reasoning and Analysis

I'm not suggestions that people's behavior or personality do not change or evolve later in life. I also know that friends, society, profession, schools etc. have huge impacts on personality.  But by the time these events take place, offspring have been sculpted so finely by parents, environment, and genes that offspring have no agency in their personality or identity. I'm saying that, Jamie, you, and I have no influence over who we are. Our identity and personality is determined

My daughter is confirmation bias for my predisposition.

I watch Jamie, and she laughs because we laugh. My wife and I especially are creating her sense of humor. Something happens; Jamie looks to us; we tell Jamie if it is funny or not; Jamie laughs or doesn't.

One day Jamie randomly or accidentally made a noise. I don't know what the noise sounded like, but my brain processed it close to "was dat." Of course, I started mimicking and pointing to Jamie, which reinforced Jamie learning to say "was dat." It was hilarious and random, but it became part of her personality and our relationship. I could have ignored it. I could have heard something different. I could have thought that wasn't. This might be a counter example to my argument, but the point is I not Jamie reinforced and conditioned us to.

Little things like this happen all the time. Now that Jamie is 13 months I can see how much I influence her. Jamie started head banging dancing last week. It's pretty awesome, and everyone loves it. So she keeps doing it. This along with everything else is teaching her what is funny.

I'll admit, I don't have full control over Jamie. I wish I did. When she gets hysterical, she has this unbearable screech. It's terrible and gives me a headache. But this behavior, and a few others, we try to change and condition.

Still I can't help think when I see her interact, how much "thank you"s, "no Jamie"s, clapping, cheering, etc shape her. She conditions us too, of course, but we condition her more.

How much does each of my actions affect her? How many behaviors that I inhibit would have lead to x identity or personality?

There isn't a double blind study to run. She doesn't have an identical twin that we could not condition. And I'm not worried. My worldview doesn't care much. But it's a trip to think about. What if I was more compassionate or tolerant of her cries and screeches? Would she develop into a more "true self?" I don't believe in a true self/personally, but it's a term that captures my idea best.

That's good enough. Please leave a comment if you're interested. I can add explanations where they are needed.

Jimbo Out

3 April 2022

This sounds like a bunch of nonsense now. I mostly agree with the ideas, but this isn't going to convince or change anyone's mind with a different idea.  


Jimbo out again

Tupac, Biggie, and 90s Gangsta Rap

29 May 2020 Update: listen to the 3rd season of the podcast Slow Burn. It is all about Tupac, Biggie, and 90s gangsta rap. I would recommend listening to episodes 1-7 of Slow burn season 3 then watch the series Unsolved and finish the Slow Burn episodes.

I'm on a serious Tupac Shakur and Christopher Wallace murder kick. This week I binge watched Unsolved: The Murders of Tupac and The Notorious B.I.G. We are working on guests to join us for Unsolved. Click here for our Spoiler Free Minisode or the Extended Discussion.

I have been scouring for responses to the series by some of the main living characters like Puff Daddy, Snoop Dogg, Suge Knight, and or Biggie's mother Voletta Wallace. Here is the best of what I found after hours of articles and videos.

Puffy's involvement is very shady. I'm searching but cannot find any response by Puffy to the USA series Unsolved. He has denied involvement in both the NYC and Las Vegas Tupac shootings. A NPR interview: What Did Sean 'Puffy' Combs Know? provides reports of Puffy's involvement.

Snoop Dogg responded to the series Unsolved. He denied knowing anything about the gangster activity of Dearth Row Records. Snoop Dogg did confirm the accuracy of the New York shooting at the set of Tha Dogg Pound "New York New York" music video. The series Unsolved surprised Snoop Dogg, but you should hear Snoop Dogg tell the story himself (video below too) when asked about Suge Knight.

Suge Knight is a couple years into a 28 year sentence for manslaughter. I cannot find any responses from Suge Knight to the series either. His manslaughter incident resulted from another hip hop beef between Knight and the NWA movie Straight Out of Compton.

Voletta Wallace put out a statement claiming to know who killed her son, but that the LAPD was covering up the murder. I cannot find any statement from Voletta Wallace in response to the series, so I tried messaging her. I didn't get any response. It is very possible the accounts I found, aren't hers.

Greg Kading, main character in Unsolved and the LAPD officer assigned to the 2006 task force investigating the homicide of Biggie Smalls, was a writer and producer for Unsolved. Before the series he wrote a book called Murder Rap, which inspired a documentary of the same name. In a Reddit Ask Me Anything, Greg Kading states the most important facts. You can read/follow his top comments. Or if you want further details, watch or listen to the best Greg Kading interviews below.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfRgR717he4?start=2813]

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf2Fu8pe2eM]

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQCk_cYI9GM]

peace,



Jimbo Out

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

I have a close friend that is a Christian apologist (Christian apologetics is a branch of theology that defends Christianity against objections). For years he has been using the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to prove the start, end, and creation of order and chaos. The first time he used it, I was unfamiliar with the concept. Since then I have looked it up several times, and I always have difficulty grasping and retaining what the 2nd law of thermodynamics means.

I finally understand it where I can briefly explain. This first part is more informational than a rant, but I'll post it anyway. This is a slightly modified email I sent. My rant will be below!

I used three videos from Khan to refresh (I recommend watching all three for a better understanding), along with an occasion google search to confirm my understanding was mostly accurate. I recently read a book called The Order of Time, it had the best description of the 2nd law I came across at the time. 

Info on the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics

The 2^nd law of Thermodynamics explains that, “we don't see a spontaneous transfer of heat from cold areas to hot areas… What we do observe is that if [we] were to put ice water in the middle of a room at room temperature, [we’re] gonna see the other way. [We’re] gonna see transfer of heat from the warmer regions to the colder regions.” The law is based on the transfer of heat from warm/hot to cold.

The transfer of heat leads to entropy. The 2nd law explains that entropy in a closed system only increases. Most scientist would consider the universe a closed system (deist that believe God interferes with the universe would make our universe an open system, and the 2nd law wouldn’t apply). If we consider the universe a closed system, the universe is constantly increasing in entropy. As the space of the expanding universe increases, so does the possibilities of different states. Therefore, the greater possibilities leads to greater entropy. The average temperature of the universe decreases, but the entropy increases because there is more space/possibilities of ordered states.

Rant Time

Christian apologists love the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It gives them a scientific argument for their God. Here is a good argument by Jeff Miller, a Christian apologists who has a PhD in engineering, click here for his article. It isn't bad.

"There are only three possible explanations for the existence of matter in the Universe. Either all of the mass/matter/energy of the Universe spontaneously generated (i.e., it popped into existence out of nothing), or it has always existed (i.e., it is eternal.). Without an outside force (a transcendent, omnipotent, eternal, superior Being), no other options for the existence of the Universe are available. However, as the Laws of Thermodynamics prove, the spontaneous generation and the eternality of matter are logically and scientifically impossible. One possible option remains: the Universe was created by the Creator."

Miller is referencing the first law of thermodynamics that states, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Miller's argument is still bad. He says the first two possible explanations are logically and scientifically impossible, but guess what? So is the remaining possibility. 

(side note) Lawerance Krauss wrote a book arguing how a universe could appear from nothing, and he is a theoretical physicist. So there must be some scientific possibility.

Miller makes a couple assumptions that are unsupported. The Big Bang theory describes the first moments in the universe, but it says nothing about what happened before. It's not that implausible to think the universe could have existed in some form prior to the big bang and rebanged. Also he describes the eternity of matter. Matter didn't exist in the first moments according to the big bang. Miller needs to explain more.

This is my problem with the few Christian apologists I know. They cherry pick science. Miller did too. He only applied scientific and logic to the arguments he was destructing, not his own. This is bad philosophy.

My friend who started my rant doesn't believe in science. Any science/theories that conflict with his beliefs result from wild conspiracies by secularists and atheists. 

Conclusion

My rant is losing steam, and in all honesty, I don't care. I'm in some universe, however it started, and knowing how it started and who did or didn't create it, isn't going to improve my life. Rant out!

Jimbo

Book Review: Gmorning, Gnight!: Little Pep Talks for Me & You Gmorning, Gnight!: Little Pep Talks for Me & You by Lin-Manuel Miranda

Gmorning, Gnight!: Little Pep Talks for Me & You by Lin-Manuel Miranda
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

If you like the author, you might like this. If you like poetry, stay away!

I can't believe the person who wrote Hamilton would publish this.

The poetry is plagued with cheesy and simplistic writing. I don't follow his twitter, but i think he writes sappy tweets and his fans love them? So he published them as a book? Without revising them, of course? And if that's not what he did, it reads like it.

Then there are little illustration for each page. People complain a lot about Rupu Kuar, this is much much worse.

View all my reviews

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is the darker, more offensive, and more political version of Seinfeld. Instead of Jerry's house, the show takes place at the bar. Otherwise both shows are full of hilarious selfish bad people. Always Sunny ventures outside the basic sitcom format and is constantly pushing the limits. Later seasons are more hit and miss, but it's still my favorite TV show all time. I look forward to and watch every episode.

Why the List?

My friend Mo was a big part of me getting into It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. After recently recording for the pilot "The Gang Gets Racist," I was shocked to hear that Mo, and Drew, have lost touch with Always Sunny since returning from the Peace Corps.

This list is for Mo, Drew, and any one new or returning to Always Sunny.

Newbies, below is a nice starting point to guide you into Always Sunny. There is no right or wrong way to watch Always Sunny (really the order doesn't matter) as long as you're watching. Starting at season one is fine, and the pilot is strong, but like many shows, the writing and characters evolve and developed a lot over the seasons. Also Frank, Danny DeVito's character, joins the gang in season 2.

My suggested gateway episodes.

1. "The Gang Goes Jihad" s02e02- this is the first season with Frank. You really could just start with season 2.
2. "Dennis and Dee Go on Welfare" s02e03- like many of the episodes the title explains it all.
3. "Sweet Dee's Dating a Retarded Person" s03e09- this is a prequel for "The Nightman Cometh." See where the musical, dayman, and nightman were born.
4. "The Nightman Cometh" s04e13- this was my intro to the show. We watched it over and over one weekend, and I fell in love with these scumbag characters. Charlie writes and directs a musical.
5. "Mac and Charlie Write a Movie" s05e11- this could very much be titled "Mac Gets Racists again." The Gang makes a Lethal Weapon movie which is actually pretty good.

Welcome back Mo! 

This is the best of what Mo and Drew missed the last few years. These are the episodes that keep me full of that special feeling I got watching Always Sunny in the Peace Corps.

• Stack these two bad boys together, both episodes are The Gang playing Chardee MacDennis: "Chardee MacDennis: The Game of Games" s07e07 and "Chardee MacDennis 2: Electric Boogaloo" s11e01.
• "Reynolds vs. Reynolds: The Cereal Defense" s08e10- classic gang nonsense and dynamics!
• "Flowers for Charlie" s09e08- very cool parody of Flowers for Algernon, and this episode was written by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, the creators of Game of Thrones.
• "The Gang Makes Lethal Weapon 6" s09e09- this is a sequel to the above mentioned "Mac and Charlie Write a Movie" s05e11.
• "Dee Made a Smut Film" s11e04- this episode is such an awesome critique of art. Dennis' conclusion on art is the best.
• "The Gang Turns Black" s12e01- a parody of Quantum Leap turned racist musical, it's The Gang at their best once again.
• "The Gang Goes to a Water Park" s12e02- horrible people doing horrible things at a water park with a fun Usual Suspects reference.
• "Hero or Hate Crime?" s12e06- Mac officially comes out of the closet!
• "A Cricket's Tale" s12e09- this is a Cricket solo story (just for Drew). It actually takes place within the other episodes of the season every time Cricket meets up with The Gang.
• "The Gang Escapes" s13e02- The Gang does an escape room challenge.

Suggestions are welcomed!

Who Has the Right to Tell Stories?

Once again, my disagreement with Jessica Gao has inspired another rant. This time, who has the right to tell certain stories. Spoiler, I do have a personal bias. My podcast, Pilots and Petards Podcast, discussed this issue at the end of our Episode 24 The Crown. We ended up in a disagreement regarding Dana Schutz painting. This rant is my response to my cohosts Mo and Drew.

I'm arguing people have the right to any story they want to tell. It can be done in bad taste, but they still have the right. I fully support freedom of speech even for the most despicable speech. Let the audience decide.

Tolstoy is famous for being a man who can write women characters. Should he have never written Anna Karenina because he isn't a woman? Should Harriet Beecher Stowe never have written Uncle Tom's Cabin? Or the king of white men telling other people's stories Howard Zinn.

Dana Schutz, last year, received a ton of criticism for her painting "Open Casket" of Emmett Till (Bob Dylan also wrote a song called The Death of Emmett Till in 1962). From the articles I read, the main problem is Schutz is profiting from black suffering. The protesters claim that the painting is wrong and should be censored because Schutz has no right to that story because neither her nor her family experienced Till's suffering or similar. Many protesters requested the painting be destroyed.

Schutz responded saying, she doesn't know what it is like to be black in America, but she does know what it is like to be a mother. Schutz paints, and as a painter she was inspired by Mamie Till's experience. Like Beecher or Zinn, her painting may reach people that wouldn't learn about this story, and those viewers may gain a greater understanding of race, injustice, and the cruel history for people of color. I see those potentials as positives.

I don't think Schutz painting was in bad taste. I browsed the Whitney Biennial 2017, (it appears they did switch Schutz's painting) but if you look, I think you would agree the diversity of artists is well represented. This leads me to disagree that Schutz is stealing black artists jobs by painting Till's experience. I see her as spreading the story.

Schutz is on our side too. If I had to display a Emmett Till painting, I'd look for an African American artist. But if I had to display a Schutz painting, I wouldn't rule out "Open Casket" because she is white.

Here's the rub. I wrote a poem with a voice of a Mamie Till type character. It was inspired by my love of African American Lit, social injustice, and scientific speculation for a cure of aging. I could have made my characters white trash, but voices came to me from characters like the one I wrote. I tried to be thoughtful and respectful in my portrayal, and I spent several hours writing, revising, and thinking about my short poem to get it right at the time.

I didn't live the experiences I created, but I have witnessed aspects of it. Poor people gain access when profits are right. My characters could have had any poor person's voice, even a poor voice my family personally knows. Maybe if I rewrote this poem today, it would. But at the time, I felt and I was motivated by the voice I choose. This is, in my opinion, my best poem. If someday I should publish a poem or collection, I'd hate to have to leave my best work out because I didn't have the right skin.

I didn't even really argue my original point. But if you are here looking for guidance, write whatever story moves you, and attempt to do it in good taste. Research, empathize, think, and do your best to make a piece of art worthy of engagment.


Jimbo out!

Apu and "No Good Read Goes Unpunished"

Background

 

The Simpsons finally addressed (kind of) the issues of Apu's character being racist stereotypes in episode 15, season 29, titled "No Good Read Goes Unpunished." The response is more than likely to the uproar from the 2017 documentary titled The Problem with Apu. NPR, along with many other sources, wrote articles condemning the simpsons' "No Good Read Goes Unpunished."

I watched the Simpsons episode in full; I read the NPR article, "The Simpsons To 'The Problem With Apu': Drop Dead;" and I listened to the latest Whiting Wongs episode called "He's Brown and Everyone's Yellow." I didn't see the documentary which is fine for my current purpose.

My responses were motivated by Jessica Gao's response because I feel she overlooked a few things from the episode. NPR certainly dropped the ball in their article. Below are my talking points that were ignored by Whiting Wongs and NPR.

 

The Title

The title is "No Good Read Goes Unpunished." In general, the simpsons are implying that offending people is part of entertainment. I disagree. I do get the point and I think it is a valid argument that could be made. I will not be addressing that argument.

Throughout the episode there are several allusions to this topic from both positive and negative points of view. As Gao mentioned, the simpsons tried to be South Park, and I agree they missed.

What punishment are the simpsons referring to? A punishment for past offenses? Or their current punishment after the airing of this show? Or even a future punishment to come?

Apu's Presence

Apu was in the show twice and both times was voiceless. That's interesting to note. I'm avoiding a interpretation because it could be interpreter many ways.

The Art of War

The Art of War is one of the most iconic war books ever written. It is philosophical and I would argue very much a source of Asian wisdom. Both Homer and Bart read The Art of War in this episode. The simpsons writers could have chosen any book to solve Bart and Homer's feud. Was the Art of War picked because of its mainstream popularity, or are they focusing in on the deception idea towards Apu? The topic of deception is a focal point in the first chapter of the Art of War.

This is a clever deeper meaning into Apu and apologizing, but the point is too ambiguous. Which viewers/characters are the simpons trying to deceive?

With No Apologies 

With No Apologies is a memoir by Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was a senator who ran for President in 1964. He is famously remembered for opposing the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

This is a tasteless reference, surprisingly NPR and Ms. Gao missed it.

Lisa is reading this book prior to Marge coming into her room. This is a big foreshadow that the simpsons will not be apologizing. Using a book that represents an old racist white guy not apologizing... Well that does sounds a lot funnier now. Still, it is a very cheap shot. One people won't even notice. Seems odd. I'm sure someone is getting a big kick out of it.

Marge's Rewrite 

We cannot rewrite all the wrongs of the past. As viewers we can accept or reject the works in the context of their time and place in history and or society.

Marge's book is boring because the characters are too perfect due to her attempt to make the story inoffensive.

The simpsons are addressing the larger issue of not offending anyone. This simpsons think there is always someone who will be offended, that's a fair point. Writers, comedians, and entertainers have to decide how many people they are whiling to offend to produce their performance/product.

Homer's Victory

Ironically, Homer becomes like Ned to win the war against Bart. This could be interpreted as a psuedo apology. Ned is boring and inoffensive. Homer becomes Ned. Homer beats Bart by being inoffensive. This is where South Park would have killed it. Stan or Kyle would have made a soliloquy about what they learned and it'd be funny

Conclusion

If you don't like the simpsons don't watch and don't talk about it. 

What is the balance between entertainment and offensiveness? How many liters of brown tears are worth x amount of laughter?

I don't know the answer. People can and should be able to say whatever they want. If you or I is offended we should judge the person accordingly. In a show, such as the simpsons, we can ignore it if it is too boring or too offensive. If the simpsons cannot find the correct balance they will seize to be on TV in the future.

The simpsons have zero moral duty to its viewers. The question is how many people are they willing to piss off vs please.