Why do we care?

It's a question I have asked myself many a time. Or more specifically, I sometimes look at certain people, who go through life never caring about others, with only themselves in mind; the stereotypical frat bro, jock, princess, what have you; and I wonder what it would be like. To never be burdened with the question of how your actions might affect someone else. To care only about your own well-being and pleasure. Because as cynical as I may be about humanity as a whole, I still have faith in my belief no one could do the things some people do, if only they understood the consequences. That is, I want to believe that, save for a very, very small minority, that no one makes the conscious choice to be evil, to be a horrible person.

This is why I could never be one of those people. Because whether I like it or not, I notice. I notice how an action might hurt someone. I notice that what I want may sometimes cause someone else misfortune. I notice, that while this life is most definitely not a zero-sum game, there are times where helping myself means holding someone else back.

Which brings us back to the real question behind these hypotheticals. Why do we care? Or perhaps the question is, why do we choose to do things that are not to our benefit, in order to help someone else out? After all, genetically speaking, shouldn't our main priority always be self-preservation?

This is something I've put a fair amount of thought into, and at least for myself, I think I have an answer. Other people may have their own reasons, but this is mine; pursuing my own happiness alone, with no consideration for others, will never be enough. In the end, it feels meaningless. It's not worth the trouble. Even if I could make myself happy, what would be the point? Why should I care?

This has nothing to do with a lack of self esteem. I don't want anyone to think that any of this means I have an issue with self worth. It is simply that, when one looks at the grander scheme of things, personal advancement alone becomes so minute. No, what I need is the ability to impact not just my own life, but the lives of others as well. Because life is not a zero-sum game. And so, it should be possible in the end to improve not just yourself, but those around you as well.

This is why I care. This is why I give a damn. And this is why I will never stop giving a damn. Because if at the end of my life, I can say that I have had a positive influence on even just one other soul, then I can die happy, knowing that there are now two people with marks in the win column, and not just one.

What you don't know about what you eat....and why it might not actually hurt you

So, who else has heard about the pink slime debacle? For those who haven't heard the term, it refers to beef trimmings (which would otherwise be discarded) which are mixed into ground beef. These trimmings consist mostly of beef fat, and is part of how the lean meat percentage is controlled in each package (typically from 80% up to 95%, with leaner beef being more expensive). What's got the public in an uproar is the way these trimmings are treated - with ammonium hydroxide - to kill bacteria, which has the side effect of producing a visible pinkish 'slime'. The pink slime is still beef, although mostly beef fat, and has been altered in no way other than the anti-microbial treatment.

When this information was published, many people went nuts, demanding that the product be taken from the shelves, decrying the use of the chemical, and questioning why companies didn't list it as an ingredient. Many supermarkets have been pressured into either pulling the product, or introducing labels to the packaging.

So the question is this. Is the pink slime actually detrimental to health, and if not, what's the big deal? Ammonium hydroxide is classified by the FDA as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). This puts it in the same category as many common preservatives, as well as many vitamin/nutritional supplements (a full list of GRAS substances can be found here). In other words, these are ingredients that are consumed on a daily basis, ingredients that have been confirmed by a panel of experts as being safe to consume.

Of course, no one is infallible, and the possibility remains that maybe, this method of treatment is detrimental to human health. If that is the case, however, it certainly hasn't made a noticeable impact, at least compared to other problems caused by bad nutrition. How long do you think pink slime has been around? A year? 2? 5? Try almost 20. If you've had a burger at any point in your life, you probably consumed pink slime. Estimates suggest that almost 70% of all ground beef sold in the US contains the pink slime. Pretty much all US fast food burger chains use meat with the stuff, with almost 20% content in some cases (which makes sense...compare fast food burger patties with grocery store patties, and you'll find that the taste/texture is most comparable to the 80% lean beef, aka 20% fat). Over the past 20 years, no link has been made between pink slime and any health problem, no cases of it causing any illness.

The usage of ammonium hydroxide started as a response to E. coli outbreaks. When it was introduced, tests showed that it effectively eliminated the bacteria. Without it, the trimmings that are included in ground beef would be discarded, a not insignificant amount of waste.

When it comes to our food, just about everything is treated in some way, unless it has an organic label (and even then, the laws regarding labeling leave a few loopholes). Flour is bleached with peroxides, chlorines, or other chemicals to achieve that pure white color, and also to help improve the texture of baked goods. Sorbic acid, sulfites, and others are used in many canned or boxed foods as an antimicrobial preservative. That soda you're drinking? It probably has caramel coloring, which often contains ammonium compounds or alkalis. And let's not even get into some of the stranger additives. Red 4 (aka Carmine)? It's made from crushed beetle shells. More commonly known, but still shocking to some, is that gelatin is made from animal hooves.

The point here is, we do a lot to our food. Sure, it may not be natural. But these practices developed for a reason. Here, it's all about preservation, and making food safe to eat. By banning pink slime, the trimmings that get treated and sold would have to be discarded, as they are typically more likely to be contaminated. The ammonium hydroxide treatment eliminates bacteria, making it safe to consume without having to worry about getting sick. While there is certainly something to be said for eating food that is as close to its natural state as possible, the concept of 'natural' is perhaps at the same time a bit overblown. Let's face it. Barely anything we do as humans today can be considered 'natural,' from technology we use daily, to modern longevity (life expectancy has consistently risen over time), to all medical practices, down to the basics like cooking our food or purifying water. We do these things, because although unnatural, they are beneficial. So perhaps, sometimes ignorance really is bliss. After all, people ate their burgers happily for years before news of pink slime scared them into action. Maybe sometimes, it really is better just not to know. And if you do want to know, make sure your reactions are informed, lest we fall prey to the witch hunt mindset, and start burning things simply because we don't understand them. We've all seen how that worked out for humanity.

Editorial: In Trayvon Martin's death, ugly echoes

That's the title of an editorial piece that was published in USA Today the other day. Click here to see the article.

I fully agree with the title. I think it's absolutely ugly how people are calling for Zimmerman's blood, how so many people are assuming he's a racist, because he shot a black youth, with no other evidence to go on. I think it's ugly, the way race is being used as a weapon, to shut down all rational discussion, to make it seem okay to place a $10,000 bounty on a man's head, and drive him into hiding, fearing for his life. I think it's ugly the way the media places a bad mugshot of Zimmerman next to a photo of a smiling Martin, clearly taking one side already. 

If you didn't read the editorial, the writer tries to compare this case to Emmet Till. How, exactly, is a 60 year old hate crime in any way relevant? Till was murdered by racists who didn't like that he whistled at a white woman. But here? Speculate all you like, but Zimmerman says he fired out of self-defense. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Why are people so quick to assume that he is lying? 

I think it's irresponsible how the media portrays only one side of the story. Go through the major newspaper outlets, and all you'll find is one article after another speculating on Zimmerman's racism. They headline quotes from Martin's family and friends, but offer no rebuttals from Zimmerman's relatives. And people buy into this. Thanks to the media, outrage over this case has been fueled to a fever pitch.

Here's the facts, as far as they are currently known. Zimmerman saw Martin, then followed him after calling 911. According to witnesses, the two got into a fight, during which calls for help were heard. While it is unclear from reports who did the shouting, close friends of Zimmerman say it is his voice calling for help in the 911 recordings. An anonymous witness stated that Martin was on top, beating on Zimmerman during the fight, and corroborates that the voice was Zimmerman's. In the end, Zimmerman fired 2 shots, one of which hit and killed Martin.

Yeah. Sounds like blatant racism to me. /sarcasm.

Did Zimmerman overreact when he fired his weapon? Maybe. Was Zimmerman guilty of profiling when he first decided to follow Martin, saying that Martin "looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something? Probably. But that is not racism. Would you feel more threatened by a labrador or a rottweiler? How about a middle aged man in a suit vs a teen wearing a hoodie with his pants dropped halfway to the ground? Are you more willing to trust someone who just stepped out of a brand new car, or a rusty van with blacked out windows? We profile everyone and everything in the world. Whether our expectations fit the reality or not, it's how we make sense of our surroundings. A famous example is the candidate quiz:

Candidate A consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day. 

Candidate B was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of brandy every evening.

Candidate C is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any illicit affairs.

Who didn't pick C, only to find out they chose Hitler, over Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt? But there is nothing wrong with that choice, because every moment of every day, we have to make choices based on whatever little knowledge we have. And most often, when encountering someone you don't know, that knowledge is limited to visual appearance. Zimmerman made a choice. And now, he's being punished for it.

I get it, okay? Black people have been discriminated against, have suffered terribly at the hands of whites in the past. And yes, racial inequity has not been completely eradicated. But don't you think it's about time to start letting go of this grudge? Maybe it's time to stop assuming every white-on-black incident is a case of racism. Those were the actions of dead men. Maybe, instead of dwelling on the past, it would be more productive to look to the future. Success, status, respect. Those are things that are not simply given. They are earned by those who work for it. Use race as a tool to get what you want, and people may offer you their sympathy, and their pity, but nothing more. Let's face it. The black community is not one that holds the highest of reputations in the minds of many people (again, this is not inherently racism). But if you make your own path forward, instead of asking for reparations for past wrongs? Then you earn the respect, and trust of the masses. It may be hard, and it may not be fair, but such is life. No one ever said it would be easy (and if they did, well, they lied. Sorry).

Oh, and a note to the media; I don't care how slow of a news day you have. Report on how nothing happened today, how the most interesting piece of news you could find is a picture of a cat sitting in a box, for all I care. Just don't try to create news when it's not there.

The editorial article ends with the question "If Zimmerman were black and had shot a white, unarmed 17-year-old, would police have let him go?"

To which I ask, "If Zimmerman were black and had shot a white, unarmed 17-year-old, would anyone have even heard his name?"

I Would Found an Institution....

Hey guys, I've got a great idea! Y'alls know how there's always all these special interest groups everywhere right? Well, you know who doesn't have one? White guys! Let's call it the Association for White Evangelist Sons Of Manly Men, or AWESOMM! It's even got a great acronym, it'll be sweet!

What's that? What do you mean I'm a racist, bigoted, sexist chauvinist pig? I'm just looking out for the average joes out there! Why do you hate me now? Where did that even come from?

See, here's the thing. I look around campus, and there's a group for just about everything. There's Black Students United (BSU), the Society of Women Engineers (SWE), the Central American United Students Association, Chinese Student Association (CSA), Korean American Student Association. It gets even more specific; there's a Jewish Russian Club, a Black Law Students Association, Society for the Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science, Women in Public Policy. You know what there isn't? A club for whites. Or a club for men (frats being excluded here, since for one thing, there's the female counterpart, sororities, and besides, frats aren't about male advancement, like the other clubs being talked about).

Why is that? Can you imagine the uproar, if someone actually tried, around here, to start a club that was for white men only? They'd be compared to the KKK in a heartbeat. And yet, we hold up activist groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) as paragons of diversity, herald them as champions of social progress. If I were to start an organization with the express purpose of helping only white men, I would be immediately blacklisted as a racist, a sexist, a bigot, and any number of other less than savory things. Yet this is exactly what these existing groups do; they work for the sole purpose of advancing their constituent groups, over the interests of other groups.

I think it's time to stop being so apologetic. We are so afraid of coming off as politically incorrect, that we happily buy into this idea that racism, or sexism, or any other -ism, only works one way. If I were to say that I choose to avoid a certain city district because of its high crime rate, I run the risk of getting called a racist, simply because that district is dominated by African American residents. Never mind the high homicide rates, or the storefronts with smashed windows, and the rampant vandalism everywhere. No, obviously I just hate black people. And the thing is, we let people get away with politically charged accusations like that. We back down from people who make such ridiculous assertions, because being called racist or sexist is political death. Those accusations stick, warranted or not, and forever tarnish your reputation, no matter what you do. And that is only made worse by the fact that we like to take the side of the "little guy," if only because it seems like the right thing to do, regardless of the situation.

When was the last time you questioned an accusation of sexism, or racism? I remember once, a speaker came to talk about women's rights and rape. Specifically, she talked about how if a man were to have sex with a woman who was drunk, that it constitutes rape, because she could not give proper consent while intoxicated (since you know, intoxication = impaired decision making). When asked, "What if the guy is drunk too?" she replied with a comment about how men don't try to have sex with a pencil sharpener (insert obligatory tiny penis joke), and are therefore clearly not too drunk to make a conscious choice. Everyone laughed, and she moved on with her spiel. Except.....does that logic really make sense? After all, I would posit the question: do women try to have sex with a knife when drunk? I think not, and therefore, unless the man forces himself on the woman (which is then actually rape), then clearly, she made the conscious choice too. So why is it then the man's fault, when she decides in the morning that hey, maybe that wasn't such a great idea? Why shouldn't the woman take equal responsibility in her actions, if she considers it a mistake? Because you know, the only other explanation would be to assert that women are incapable of making that decision, and oh wait, that's the exact opposite of equality.

I'm not saying that whatever -isms have been eradicated from society. Far from it. I don't believe it ever will be. However, I would say that, depending on how you define it, there's either a hell of a lot more or a hell of a lot less than people seem to think. As a general rule, only whites are ever accused of racism, only men singled out as sexists. But to define it so broadly as many people do, then it must be acknowledged that for every racist Caucasian out there, there is an equally racist Black, or Hispanic, or Asian; for every chauvinist man who thinks women belong in the kitchen, there is a female feminazi just as ready to denounce all men as useless wastes of space. I've heard Hispanics rant about how dirty and smelly blacks are, seen black kids bully a white kid for being white, read about women physically abusing their husbands. Racism and sexism exist universally; it is only a matter of which cases we choose to notice.

So you know what? Let's do it. I, an Asian American male, do hereby found this association for socio-political equality for white men, an association which will be open to free-thinkers of any and all races, genders, religions, orientations, etc. Let us accept no judgement on our morality, for we have nothing to fear, nothing to hide, and nothing to apologize for. Let's find out just how far the truly bigoted are willing to go to shut down our voices. And it will be AWESOMM.

When Opportunity Knocks....

So! No real post this week, but just wanted to share some exciting news. I recently applied to be on a new show on Discovery called Top Engineer. Apparently, they liked my app, and they asked me to submit an audition video! Just sent it in the other day, so here's hoping. With luck, y'alls will be able to see me on TV, competing for the title of Top Engineer! Funny thing is, shooting for the show (if I do get in) runs straight through all of my finals and graduation. So either I'll have to get some exceptions from my professors, or I'll get to say that I dropped out of Cornell [redacted] University to compete on Top Engineer. Seems legit to me.