The Ethics of Time Travel

In 2009 Stephen Hawking threw a party, but didn’t reveal the date, time, or place to anyone until after it already occurred. It was a simple time travel experiment; if people of the future with functioning time machines came across the invitation they could prove to our present society that time travel is eventually possible by going back and showing up to the party. Unfortunately, no one showed up.

If someone had, though, they would have maybe hung out only to chat a bit with the great physicist before going back home (after all, the invitation was only for a short party). Assuming Hawking convinced us that he really was visited by someone from the future, the only predictable effect the visitor’s appearance would have would be demonstrating that we will someday achieve the ability to travel back in time. Because we’re already trying to figure out today how to make time travel possible, a brief conversation at the party wouldn’t really change the course of history. Maybe her consumption there of a few cupcakes would mean a few more cupcake wrappers in a landfill than there otherwise would be, but the world would continue pretty much as it normally would.

But not all trips into the past would leave such a small footprint. When and where a traveller shows up, how long he stays and what he does all contribute to how much he’ll change the course of history. If someone goes back in time to the side of some lonely country road, flags down a car, and asks the driver for five bucks to pay for a meal, the driver may leave without enough money to fill up his car and arrive on time to meet his date at a restaurant. Because he misses her and doesn’t get another opportunity to see her again, he can’t go on to marry her and start a line of descendants that ultimately produces the person who plays a key role in preventing a nuclear armageddon.¹ Borrowing that five bucks could mean covering the world in mushroom clouds.

That seems like a pretty extreme example, but tiny happenings have had huge impacts on the course of history. When Corporal Barton W. Mitchell picked up a random envelope of cigars on a campground that had been recently abandoned by Confederate soldiers in 1862, its contents gave the Union intelligence that helped it win the bloody, but crucial Battle of Antietam. That victory was huge for the Union and even gave President Lincoln the confidence to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Today’s only super power could conceivably be two different countries had Mitchell paid a little less attention to where he was walking.

So it’s not hard to imagine that going back in time, even very briefly, could inadvertently change the course of history in a major way. If going back in time can cause so many potentially awful changes, could going back at all be morally permissible? If someone went back to assassinate Hitler as he was gearing up for World War II, he may succeed, but could inadvertently provoke, say, a psychotic Nazi colleague to take up the mantle and initiate a war just as devastating. Even good intentions could lead to bad outcomes.

But say someone does have the ability to go back and kill Hitler as he’s gearing up for war and does so, and averts World War II entirely. And say the guy going back somehow knows for certain beforehand that he’ll pull it off well enough to avoid igniting a conflict just as bad or worse. Does that assurance make it permissible? While some different people will inevitably die because of the new circumstances (maybe someone who would originally have been fed in the military was instead a civilian who died of hunger), the person’s trip back saved the lives of millions and millions of people.But because of the trip, millions, if not billions, of people to live since wouldn’t have been born. There would be others in their places, and the time traveller would go back to find many, if not most, of his friends and family to be very changed or different people entirely. People who had good fortune and happiness in the normal course of history could instead have poor lives in a new history — he may save millions, but he hurt some of those who were to originally be just fine.

I think the ethical permissibility of the travelling example from the last paragraph could come down to individual opinion and values. Would changing the natural course of history, even to prevent an enormous amount of suffering and thus completely transforming what constitutes the present, be okay?

But going back and changing history like that effectively kills off the possibility of what would have been. If Hitler had been killed early on, what we think of as the 1940s to the present would only be considered one random story within alternate history fiction. To put it another way, imagine that Hitler was originally going to be killed early on, but some psychopath from the future went back in time and saved him. The natural course of history, then, does not include a World War II or a Holocaust and all its lingering effects, but one of relative peace. That course to us today, however, is moot because we never experienced that would-have-been peace. So if what could have been peace stopped being a possibility because of the traveller and the alternate history of a World War II became the real and only course of events, does it matter to those of us in the relative past if someone goes back in time to change something? Would it matter more if we today knew who the meddler from the future is and what exactly she’d done?

I think the risk of screwing something up and making things worse than they otherwise would have been is enough to make travelling back to the past at least a bit unethical. Perhaps if we have good intentions and could be absolutely sure that everything will go well it would be okay since no one could know what life could have been like otherwise. But then again if someone from the future appears in the past then it seems to me like it would be a foregone conclusion that he’d have to go since the trip’s already happened — his appearance compels the trip and he may not have a say.

At the very least, time travel’s something that should probably be heavily regulated should we ever figure it out.

¹ The person who would go back to borrow the five dollars could be killed by that nuclear war she caused before getting the chance to go back in time in the first place. So this doesn’t get too messy or convoluted, I’ll ignore time travelling paradoxes and the like in this article to simplify things.

This article was originally published at Medium.com with the subtitle "Would it be morally permissible to meddle with the past?"

George Zimmerman vs. Tyson Gay

Back in July I woke up one morning to the news that George Zimmerman was found not guilty of both second-degree murder and manslaughter. The verdict of one of the most publicized trials in recent memory was one that was deeply unsettling for many people around the country while the trial itself helped to reignite debates over gun-related issues. It was a trial whose outcome would mean a lot to many, many people and had the potential to have an impact on the dynamics of American society.

I was disappointed when I heard the verdict, but I did not think too much of it afterward. A little later on that morning I heard some other news: U.S. sprinting star Tyson Gay tested positive for doping and was out of the World Track & Field Championships. To this news I felt much more disappointed, even going so far as to vocalize my disenchantment in a rare Facebook post, and spent the rest of the day trying to resign myself to the fact that there was now virtually no chance of seeing an American 100 meter champion and new national record.

While Gay's fall from glory is a huge disappointment for American track fans, it is a relatively minor disappointment compared to the Zimmerman verdict...or at least it should be. While Gay may very well never win another world championship nor set another record, he never killed an unarmed teenager like Zimmerman — he never ended a life nor has he shattered a family's life. While his positive test may help trigger debate about bettering drug testing in his sport, cheating athletes are not as dangerous nor degrading as gun violence or racial profiling — two problems that the trial had the potential to spark reform for.

So I should have been more upset by the Zimmerman verdict than Gay's doping revelation, but I wasn't and I have to ask myself why. I've never been racially profiled to my knowledge, no one I'm close to has ever had serious problems with racial profiling to my knowledge, and I nor no one I'm close to has ever had a problem with gun violence. I was, however, a four-year track and field athlete who follows the sport closely and admire many of its stars. Seeing one of my favorite athletes turn out to be a doper is naturally going to hit home more than the Zimmerman verdict.

Despite my heart's inability to reflexively muster up as much disappointment and frustration for the Zimmerman outcome, my brain still knows that that was really the issue that deserves the most attention. It's not just in myself, however, that I see this kind of disproportional administration of focus, but in everyone. Television media, which can be argued as a representation of what the public wants to watch and hear about, are another good example. On July 16, at least 23 primary school students in India died after eating a pesticide-contaminated lunch. Violent protests followed. While this did receive some news time in the U.S., TV media were focusing much more on the imminent birth of Prince William's first kid. Despite the shocking deaths of young Indian schoolkids and the resulting violent protesting, the media, and very likely many of its viewers, were more keen on reporting and learning trivial tidbits about the royal baby.

While most people cannot relate to British royalty as closely as I can relate to track & field, I figure that story still hits home for people closer than deaths in the village of Dharmashati Gandaman. The differences between the two stories' real human consequences, however, like in Zimmerman vs. Gay, are stark. The Indian deaths highlight serious problems in nourishing millions of children around that country and should help spark efforts to better the incredibly important lunch program. Nothing of urgent importance rides on the birth of a baby.

While we're all more than entitled to our own interests and hobby-horses, an obsession with the royal baby or a deep disappointment with our sports stars, we should all keep in mind that there are other stories and incidents, often remote from our locations and hearts, that deserve proper attention not just in the news, but from ourselves. It's important that we make an effort to understand why stories like the Zimmerman trial and the Indian schoolkid deaths are significant and try to honestly treat them as such. The consequences are going to be more important.

A Quick Thought on the Political Spectrum and Age

Speaking rather generally, young people tend to be more liberal while older people tend to be more conservative. Why is that? Do people just become more conservative when they age or something?

Well, over time we've seen the country (and, I guess, most countries out there) become more liberal. By that I mean the U.S. (and most of the rest of the world) has gradually been achieving progressive goals as time goes on; in 1863 Lincoln proclaimed all the slaves of the South free, in 1935 Social Security became the country's first national welfare program, in 1954 the Supreme Court ruled "separate but equal" unconstitutional, and in 2013 DOMA was effectively overturned, to name some examples.

So what was considered liberal, say, 60 years ago is probably now considered conservative. Even the very conservative folks of today would have seemed liberal and progressive at some point in the past. Maybe, rather than shifting to more conservative positions with age, people continue to hold the same positions but appear to become more conservative as the country around them becomes more progressive. A young liberal today may see his or her progressive goals reached soon, but will watch as the country gradually goes further than his or her objectives into territory that now makes him or her appear conservative.

So while I think people may become more conservative with age relative to society, they themselves are not shifting to more conservative positions.

Being Comfortable with Ambiguity

During my freshman year of college I took an introductory course to ethics. We learned Aristotle’s, Kant’s, and Mill’s theories of ethics and how they believed one should arrive at a moral decision when needing to make some sort of choice. While the three theories were all pretty different from each other, the three men all had one thing in common: They believed that there was some sort of comprehensive, reliable system one could use to always make ethical choices in life.

None of their systems are perfect, however. Eventually one will come across a circumstance that the theories can’t satisfactorily address. It became clear to me that, with the effectively infinite scenarios that could require one to try to reach a moral decision, there just cannot be one simple (or even complicated) ethics equation one can plug the situational variables into and reliably come up with a morally sound answer.

So my view on morality is that it is not absolute and there is no special equation we can rely on to tell us what is right. Morality to me is not a clear-cut thing  —  there’s probably a right answer to the majority of our moral choices, but we have to examine each choice individually, our judgement based upon some basic moral principles we find just, utilizing the principles we believe are most relevant to the decision at hand. The best moral answers to decisions can be arrived at in different ways (i.e., ambiguously).

Not having a clear, reliable formula for morality is fine for some, but appalling to others. Many (if not most) atheists, for example, don’t mind at all not having a specific moral equation and are comfortable with examining choices on an individual basis and trusting that others can do the same and still be moral. Very religious people on the other hand much prefer to see people use the often strict moral guidelines of their respective holy books and teachings, effectively appealing to authority and not making a moral decision at all.

The nonreligious in this case are more comfortable with moral uncertainty. For different reasons, including a distrust of archaic scriptures and self- or institution-proclaimed moral authorities, these people are generally more laid back in this respect and trusting of others’ ability to make autonomous moral decisions. The very religious, however, are not so trusting; one often hears them warning that without belief in God and his moral teachings society would become completely morally bankrupt and partake in all sorts of unchecked violence and debauchery. Obviously, with the very religious, there is a fear of a moral gray area that their nonreligious counterparts are comfortable dealing with  —  a gray area where they often think almost anything goes.

It’s not just morality, though, where we see this divide between the very religious and the nonreligious; we see it in science too. There are many phenomena that science has yet to fully explain, from the the mystery of dark matter to exactly how life began on Earth, that devout believers must have answers to. The very religious, probably more often than not, attribute them to the hand of God  —  there’s currently no perfectly concrete theory to describe it so it must be God.¹ Boom  —  a solid answer and no more uncertainty to worry about. This is common even when science is quickly honing in on specific answers that demonstrably do not need a god behind them. Atheists on the other hand tend to be just fine not knowing the exact answers to these questions as well as the notion that morality is a human construct (likely with some basic memes built in by evolution) in a universe where morality is not inherent. The incomprehensibility of, say, much of the nature of quantum mechanics, which can leave us with as many new questions as answers, is not worrisome for atheists in the way it is for the religious.

How comfortable one is with uncertainty also helps determine whether one is politically/philosophically/attitudinally conservative or liberal. The definition of a conservative is one who favors the status quo; in other words, a person who wants to stick to policies whose effects and dynamics are already known. While liberals and progressives generally know what kind of changes they want to enact and how they think they will pan out, they obviously proceed with at least some degree of uncertainty if the policy changes are different from anything tried before. A discomfort with the uncertainty of how society will be is an important factor in why conservative folks do not feel comfortable changing the status quo.²

One specific political example worth mentioning could be drug legalization. Conservatives generally do not favor legalizing any drugs (the status quo) and prefer to continue making their possession, transportation, and transactions a punishable offense.³ Whether or not it’s the optimal policy for deterring drug use, it is what conservatives are most comfortable with. Many liberals, however, want to see many, if not all, drugs decriminalized and their victims treated rather than punished. While there is no clear idea of what the effects of such a huge change will be and whether or not it will deter drug use,⁴ liberals are still comfortable with this uncertainty if their goals are legalization and treatment rather than punishment.

While, as a whole, conservatives and the very religious (two groups that have some definite overlap) tend to be more uncomfortable with ambiguity, there is one particular ambiguity that the latter at least do not at all seem to mind: the way God supposedly works. Specifically, I’m talking about when, in theological discussion, people declare, “God works in mysterious ways.” While there is a strong desire to stamp an answer on mysterious phenomena, once God is credited as the answer, we need not worry further  —  this new uncertainty that arises suddenly becomes acceptable.

It’s understandable why people seek to banish ambiguity from their lives; it’s comforting knowing what exactly we should do and how exactly the world works. People have always striven to explain the world and the phenomena in it with simple, precise formulas and systems, from the Pythagorean theorem to mass-energy equivalence. It makes our lives simpler. Perhaps it is a matter of brain chemistry that causes some of us to be comfortable with these kinds of uncertainties and some of us not to be. Another possibility I believe to be pervasive throughout society is indoctrination, primarily religious and philosophical; people are all too often brought up being told that not knowing is inherently wrong if those who are telling them claim to have answers. Perhaps, in this more modern, secular, and progressive world that has evolved, many of us consider not necessarily knowing something nor strictly committing to a system perfectly fine. We trust ourselves to do the right thing and know there will be no punishment for admitting, “I don’t know."

¹ Of course, a fear of uncertainty or ambiguity is not the only reason most of the very religious decry an ongoing pursuit for answering questions that holy texts already claim to answer. Being told and told and told since childhood that God is responsible for everything often motivates the religious to reject the idea that we don’t yet have certain answers.
² Of course, a fear of uncertainty or ambiguity is not the only reason most conservatives decry liberalism. Disdain for items of the liberal/progressive agenda such as more government regulation on business and same-sex marriage often motivates conservatives to want to maintain the status quo, if not revert back to older policies.
³ One could even go so far as to say that conservatives originally wanted to criminalize drugs because of their fear of the uncertainty of what their effects could have on society when they were still relatively new.
⁴ It’s not entirely true that there’s no clear idea of what the effects of drug decriminalization and treatment would be; Portugal initiated these things ten years ago and drug abuse there has been cut in half.

This article was originally published at Medium.com with the subtitle "Ruminating on which kinds of people are comfortable with not knowing and which aren’t."

Perceptions of Adulthood

When I was a kid, adults sometimes seemed like a whole different species from my peers and me. Sure, they were taller, older-looking, and worldlier, but it was their behavior that seemed so peculiar. Adulthood seemed to be so refined — reading the newspaper, talking to friends about how business is going, doing taxes, partaking in romance. It seemed strange to me that those were things that adults enjoyed or understood. I, instead, enjoyed reading stories with pictures and talking to my friends about what cool things we’d do if we were superheroes … you know, fun stuff.

These things adults talked about and did seemed wholly uninteresting and complicated. What was it about the workings of business that made the topic so fascinating to talk about? How on earth does one acquire and maintain a bank account and health insurance? — two examples of responsibilities I did not look forward to having one day because there appeared to be so many hoops to jump through, bewildering paperwork to sort out, and all the related things to learn. My parents seemed hyper-intelligent to be able to juggle and complete such things while carrying on an in-depth conversation on mortgages (whatever the hell that was). How did one possibly learn and begin to appreciate such tasks and topics?

Adults also appeared to lack certain characteristics I would notice in myself and other kids. For example, while I doubted my ability to someday be able to handle these complicated responsibilities, adults seemed to take them all in stride. Grown-ups did not appear to suffer from very many worries or uncertainties that we kids were prone to having. While I could point out someone on the playground and say, “That kid there's just not sure how to approach dealing with such-and-such kid problem,” I doubted someone every needed to say about an adult, “That guy’s just not sure how to deal with such-and-such adult problem” — they just always knew what to do.

As I grew older, though, I obviously began to better see the gradual path that wound its way from childhood behavior and ability to adulthood behavior and ability. Rather than being a tall, rigid wall meant to somehow, someday be suddenly scaled, the difference between kid and grown-up transformed more into a gradual process, one that became easier to notice once I began to become more like an adult. In elementary school, I could not imagine myself partaking in high school prom — who wanted to dance with a girl and all that mushy stuff? When the time came, however, I could not imagine myself forgoing it. A hole had gradually been carved in that formidable wall between child and adult and I was glimpsing and understanding the other side and how and why that hole had been carved.

Now, as a 20 year old university student, I still have yet to set up my own health insurance and I still laugh and joke with my roommates if someone rips one, but I understand the interest in talking work and how to manage my bank account. I’ll be be speaking with a friend and find myself talking about what kind of hours we need to work in order to pay for food and rent or why Los Angeles is not fit for certain modes of public transportation and I’ll realize that we have been casually chatting away about topics I used to watch my parents and other adults speak of, topics I used to write off as boring and overly complicated, if not pointless. It was an interesting realization — I was now on the other side.

As I have grown and immersed myself in the responsibilities and dynamics of adulthood I also discovered that adults are not the perfect beings who always know how to approach or deal with any circumstance or problem that comes their way. Financial, familial, or and a whole host of other issues can and do leave adults at a loss for what to do. Grown-ups can suffer from emotional and behavioral faults the way their youthful counterparts can and when I finally began to interact with them on an adult-to-adult level it became clear that they can indeed be fallible.

All-in-all, experiencing adulthood has altered my childhood perceptions of it in two main ways: The sometimes intimidating, complicated responsibilities are indeed doable and serve as an interesting, purposeful topic of conversation and no matter how old one gets, one will at times have to wrestle with uncertainty and be imperfect in the way one goes about life. As a kid, not only do adults treat us differently and act differently toward us from the way they treat and act towards other adults, but we do not often perceive, whether we do not bother to or because it’s hidden from us, the way adult life works below the surface. Before maturing, learning, and developing skills that can only come with time and experience, adult responsibilities just do not seem interesting and are certainly not relevant yet.

I imagine someday my own kids will think of me like how I thought of my parents and all I’ll be able to do is smile and tell them it will all make sense with time.

This article was originally published at Medium.com with the subtitle "The evolution of a child’s perception of adulthood into experiencing its characteristics firsthand."

Thoughts on the Decathlon

Decathletes are generally considered fantastic all-around athletes. They can run fast, jump high, and throw far and the world record holder, currently the U.S.'s Ashton Eaton, is colloquially known as the greatest athlete in the world. While I think it's awesome that track and field has a combined event competition that tests athletes over the span of athletic areas, I personally would kind of like to see some changes made to this ancient competition.

The events contested in the decathlon are the 100 meters, long jump, shot put, high jump, 400 meters, 110 meters hurdles, discus throw, pole vault, javelin throw, and 1500 meters. While it does span much of the athletic spectrum, I think if we really want a multi-event competition that is representative of all of track and field as a whole, it should be changed.

The decathlon is made up of four track and six field events. It makes sense to me that it should equally cover the two sides of athletics and have five of each. Half of the field events in the decathlon are throwing events, and, while they're all different in the object thrown and how these objects are thrown, I think the competition could be made more representative of athletics if one of these three were dropped and replaced with a running event. My choice would would be to drop the discus; shot put and javelin are probably the more iconic throwing events.

In its place, I would put a distance event. While 1500 meters may seem sufficiently long, especially to guys training predominantly for strength and speed, it's only 15% the length of the longest track race. For the world's best all-around athletes to show that they can really live up to that nickname, I would add in either the 3000 meters or even the 5000. If it's the 3k, then I would drop the 1500 down to the 800 because the 3000 could be argued to be middle distance like the 1500 (and 800) and would probably be better paired with a shorter, more different mid-d race. (The 800, while only a lap longer than the already contested 400, is very different from the sprint). If it's the 5k, a fully long distance race, then I'd keep the mid-d 1500.

While I think these changes would make for a decathlon more representative of the athletics spectrum and would prove someone to be more of an all-around athlete, there are some obvious problems with changing it. Officially changing even one of the events would automatically outdate all the scores and records of the current decathlon — it would be starting all over again because the point scales could not be compared with different event(s) being contested.

Not in foreseeable future will the decathlon be altered, but if it ever is, I hope it'll span the whole athletics spectrum and cover a longer distance. I don't think anyone would doubt that great long distance running is a prominent and undeniable form of athleticism.

A Short Complaint About the State of Society

While there are a lot of things about the U.S. and post-industrialized society as a whole to be proud of, there are still things I read about that really disappoint me — things that make me wonder how we let ourselves fall into these situations and mindsets.

A firm called Public Policy Polling ran a poll asking participants whether or not they believed in a variety of different conspiracy theories. A whole 37% of Americans think global warming is a hoax. Twenty-eight percent believe in a "new world order." A fifth believe vaccines actually cause autism and 13% truly think the president is the Antichrist. An estimated 12.5 million believe lizard people control politics. I kid you not. One has to ask oneself, how the hell do so many people come to believe such ridiculous things? We're one of the most advanced nations on Earth yet we have millions and millions of citizens who actually believe things like Barack Obama is the Antichrist and there are lizard people, whatever the hell those are supposed to be, in our government. If that doesn't make you want to hit your head into your desk, I can't imagine what will.

Another sad state of affairs, this one affecting the whole world, is the ownership of our genes. Yes, the ownership of the tiny things inside us that make us who we are. Almost a fifth of our genes are under patents held by various companies, including those genes that are the key to terrible diseases like Alzheimer's. That means that anyone who wants to study, do research or experiments on, legally own, or do any other work with a patented gene has to get explicit permission and direction from the gene's patent holder. Any resulting scientific or medical breakthroughs are owned and controlled by the patent holder. Want to get your genes tested to make sure you don't have something awful like breast cancer? You can go only to the patent holder and pay their likely exorbitant prices. Despite the patent holders' claims that this encourages innovation, I imagine that any person in their right mind would see this as wrong — or at the very least suspicious and unfair. Companies should not have exclusive control over one of the most fundamental components of our bodies.

Again, while there's a lot to be proud of in modern society, bewildering things like Americans' liability for believing preposterous conspiracies and our allowing companies to patent and completely control anything to do with our genes can only make one wonder what is wrong with us.
 

A Dream Movie Probably Wouldn't Be That Cool In Reality

A frustrating thing I sometimes experience in the morning after I wake up is my inability to immediately remember a dream I just had — often one that I somehow know deep down was cool, fun, or vivid. Eventually it'll come back to me, sometimes being randomly prompted by a thought, a sight, or a sound, and I can go through in my mind what happened. It would be so much easier (and cooler) if I could just record what played through my mind during the night and watch the film the next day. Even though the feelings I experienced during the dream would be lost and probably only partially recovered by my mind's reaction to reviewing the sights and sounds I had experienced, having a retrievable library of my subconscious' adventures would be an interesting way to possibly further connect with and learn about myself.

As far-fetched as this science fiction-esque library seems, it is something that will likely become a reality in the coming decades. There are computers now that can quickly observe and learn a person's brain activity and then roughly reconstruct a simple image or word a person is shown based on how their mind's eye sees it, as demonstrated in this Through the Wormhole clip. With the incredible pace technology is advancing, I would not at all be surprised if in the next twenty years we have actual videos of dreams.

In the above clip, Morgan Freeman tells us that the scientist performing these experiments believes that "we will be able to record our dreams as full-color, high definition movies." While I'm sure we'll eventually be making full-color movies out of our dreams, I highly doubt they'll be in high definition. During a dream we certainly believe that what we're seeing is reality (unless one is, of course, lucid dreaming) and reality is obviously in high definition experience. But when we recall our dreams and think about the sights we saw they're not really that high-def. At least from my dreaming experience, we more or less are focusing on one small visual at a time, a friend's face, a car moving toward us, the handle of the umbrella we're holding on to so we can fly. Everything else around us that we're not strictly focusing on is fuzzy and often blurs together our surroundings. Places and things around us often have little detail, at least compared to reality, and the details we are aware of are usually fairly vague. Even the the things we are specifically focusing on visually in a dream can sometimes be fuzzy or vague.

So if we were to record a dream and play it back, I doubt it would be super exciting to watch. Between all the fuzziness; jerky, sweeping changes of view; and narrow foci, it could be more of a perplexing and disorienting movie than we might otherwise imagine. It would seem perfectly normal while we're asleep, but very likely would not resemble at all even the most surreal dreams sequences we see in film and television.

Sound, the other important part of a dream that could someday be captured on video, would probably also be as disappointing in a movie as the visuals would be. From my experience, background sound in dreams, if there happens to be any, is not reality's background sound like chirping birds while walking outside or the TV while inside or crunching popcorn while in the movies, but very soft, vague noise that doesn't really signify anything in particular. Meaningful sound in dream, such as words you're speaking or that are being spoken to you, are often spaced out between dreams — in other words, there's a lot of just visuals and maybe soft, vague background noise between sounds you're really paying attention to. This would make a dream movie even stranger as it will mostly be visuals with perhaps some of the soft, vague noise here or there.

Last night I drempt at one point that I was in some apartment trying to maneuver a sleepwalking former track teammate back to his bedroom. He was rather uncooperative and we were having a short, reasonably coherent argument as I tried to shove him back down the hall. I can't remember exactly what we said, but, despite my mind at the time clearly understanding the words and what they meant, it was not as solid and clear a verbal exchange as one would find in real life. Our minds already know what they want to hear from our dreams and their characters and what we actually hear is probably just an audible representation of these ideas; our brains hear from the sounds what it wants to, but an external recording of it could possibly hear only audible gibberish. While many of the things we hear in our dreams, especially words, appear very clear, if they were to be perfectly recorded and played for our conscious ears they would likely sound fuzzy and a little incoherent.

A video of a dream would likely be blurry and vague visually, snapping quickly between scenes. Audibly, it would likely be fuzzy and a little incoherent, hardly giving viewers who didn't have the dream a better idea of what the visuals represent. What we see on the tape could appear much more perplexing and disorienting than how it felt while we were asleep. The actual story going on might be very hard to discern unless you're the person who drempt it and recognizes some of what you see and hear in the video. As great as our memory of reality is, when we don't have actual visual and auditory stimuli, as when we're dreaming, our mind can only simulate an incomplete, blurred movie for our entertainment. Still — if I got the chance to record a dream and then watch it, I totally would.

Placing a Limit on What is Humanly Possible

People love predicting the limits of various phenomena, particularly human limitations — the most advanced technology we can create within a set time, how high we can climb a mountain before needing oxygen to go on, and how much water we can drink in a minute before  flooding our internal organs enough to die, to name a few. While some of these are fairly concrete predictions that always seem to accurately predict how far a human can go when tested, there is a class of predictions for human limitations that has come up short in the past and could very likely continue to come up short in the future: human speed and endurance in regards to running.

It was once thought that it was not humanly possible to run a mile in under four minutes — that no body could keep up a pace of fifteen miles per hour for 5,280 feet. It was kind of like a medical limit, like how a body could only take so high a temperature before keeling over. But on May 6, 1954, the impossible was achieved when Roger Bannister crossed the line in 3:59.4. Part of the reason why his world record became one of the greatest physical achievements in history was because so many people were convinced it was impossible. Today, the record has been lowered to 3:43.13 and thousands of men have broken the barrier; Steve Scott did it a record 136 times, five American high school students have done it, and Kenyan Daniel Komen doubled up on it with a sub-8:00 two mile. A once viable human limit has been completely shattered and proven wrong and called into question some other limits people had ascribed to track and field.

Another well-known race that gets its limits predicted is the men's 100 meter. Before Usain Bolt first became the most electrifying sprinter in the world, statisticians generally thought that  9.45 seconds was the fastest possible time a human could cover that distance in. That's why his second 100 meter world record of 9.69 at the Beijing Olympics was so surprising — while it was only a 0.03 second improvement from his first WR, statisticians believed such a time wouldn't come until nearly 2030. In the following year's World Championships in Berlin he astounded people when he dropped his time by an incredible 0.11 seconds. Many people now, including Bolt, think the records will stop at 9.4.

While that's still 0.18 away and Bolt and his quickly improving teammate Yohan Blake, the two best in the world, are unlikely to drop that much time (in a single race at least), I see no real reason to assume a human will never run under 9.4. Bolt, like Bannister before him, proved that every once and a while an amazing athlete will come around and run an incredible race that forces us to completely rewrite what we think is humanly possible to run. For all we know there could be an eight year old prodigy out there waiting to amaze the world with a 9.35 or a 3:39. Whenever we think we've nailed down limits on our running speed and endurance, someone eventually either breaks them or suddenly comes close enough to show that they should only be taken very lightly.

While a definitive limit like 4:00 or 9.4 can't really be trusted, there are of course some times that (non-genetically modified) humans will never run, such as a 2:00 mile or a five second 100 meter. The less extreme the limits we try to set, though, the less reliable they become.

Unlike 100, 50, or even 25 years ago, we have an incredibly good idea of how an athlete has to train and prepare to get the best times possible. This and the gradually increasing access people around the world have to track and field participation inevitably mean that world records will be achieved at a slower rate as we already know what to do and have most everyone really capable of breaking one with the access they need to do so. Just check out the WR progression for the mile: it was broken quite frequently until the '90s when Hicham El Guerrouj ran his 3:43 in 1999. It hasn't been broken since. Accurate times for this race, however, have only been recorded for about 150 years and, considering that we'll probably be running it far longer into the future than that, we're bound to break it again and for all we know it could come within a short period of time. The chance that the fastest human to ever be born for a specific event having already completed his or her career is unlikely.

The point is that as legit and solid as many of these limits seem, they could be abruptly shattered by one fantastic athlete and quickly reveal to us how wrong we are about our abilities. While 9.4 seconds may appear to border on unnaturally quick, once another Usain Bolt breaks it we will be forced to reevaluate our predictions and what is humanly possible. That's what makes world records so great — they're meant to be broken eventually and trying to set a specific, ultimate record will likely fail at some point in the future. It does, however, provide great motivation for athletes out to prove the naysayers wrong.

If I've learned anything from my time as an athlete it's that this same mentality can be applied to us as individuals, no matter how good a sprinter or distance runner one is. Telling yourself that you can't run faster than a certain mark will make it difficult to ever improve because you never know when everything will go just right and you'll do what you didn't previously think was possible.¹ Rather than limit oneself, one should keep an optimistic open mind and continue to perform as best one can. Limits are always the first obstacles to achieving greatness.

¹ There are obvious exceptions. If you ran a four-flat in college, don't go around when you're 60 years old thinking you could dip down to 3:59 if you really believe in yourself.

Using the Words "Hate" and "Evil"

Two words that get thrown around a lot nowadays are "hate" and "evil." Whether you read them online, hear them on TV, or speak them to your friends, these two words, particularly "hate," are clearly a fairly common part of our vocabulary. While many people don't really regulate their use of these words — they often throw them out there without much thought — I prefer to attach some guidelines to my use of these supposedly potent words.

Dictionary.com defines "hate" as "to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest." Now I'm well aware of the existence of hyperbole and the benefits it has for getting across messages, but I feel like saying "The class is so difficult — I hate Professor Smith" is a bit unnecessary. Call me oversensitive, but using very negative hyperbole like that to describe people probably does not reflect one's true feelings (the hypothetical student very likely does not actually hate Professor Smith). Saying things like "I am totally in love with these shoes/that waitress/the scientific method" is also hyperbole, but it has the potential to introduce more happiness and compassion into the world, rather than contempt (or, in the more-often-than-not case of using "hate" when it doesn't reflect one's actual feelings, the potential for contempt).

Continuing the Professor Smith example, I would instead say "I don't like Professor Smith — he's not a very nice man and he makes the class too hard." I feel as if saying "I hate him" would imply that there is nothing at all about him that could be redeeming or likable and that he is intentionally a malicious person. And it's not just people I hesitate to say I hate, but people's efforts and creations too. For example, I don't like country music, but would never say "I hate Garth Brooks' songs." There's nothing inherently bad about them — I just don't find them at all pleasurable to listen to. I also find it distasteful to use it to describe animals, who do not act out of spite, with words such as "I hate dogs" or "I hate the way dogs always need attention."

When it comes to things that aren't people, organizations, and people's hard (or not so hard) work, I'm fine with using "hate" as hyperbole because it doesn't direct contempt or possible contempt at people and things that very likely don't deserve it. Examples include "I hate it when I bring the wrong notebook to class" or "I hate it when it rains during cross country practice" or "I hate toast." Sure it's more than likely that you don't actually feel extreme aversion or hostility for bringing the wrong notebook, running in the rain, or bread that has been browned due to exposure to heat, but you're not, by using "hate," demeaning anyone or their work.

Wiktionary defines "evil" as "Intending to harm; malevolent." It describes people like Adolf Hitler and
Anders Behring Breivik, people who one can hate without invoking hyperbole. Like "hate," using "evil" as hyperbole introduces unnecessary contempt into the world when the world really doesn't need any more. More often than not, I hear it used to describe politicians. Particularly fringy right-wingers have called President Obama evil (in their defense, many have duped themselves into honestly believing he's out to destroy America and embodies the definition of "evil") and I've heard many times my family members refer to Republican politicians as evil when they hear about them on the news. While politicians often take actions we believe are the opposite of what the country needs, they're taking them because they believe it's what is right (even if it's not), not because they hate the country. Many awful positions are held and acted upon by politicians, but very, very rarely do they cross the line of being evil.

There are certainly people out there, however, who are hateful. Fred Phelps is a great example. He routinely condemns various groups, particularly homosexuals, with vitriolic rhetoric and would not be happier if the people he despises were to disappear from the face of the earth. Mitt Romney, despite statements such as his 47% comment, is not. Sure, you can argue that he didn't care about 47% of the country's vote or that his economic policies were not geared toward helping middle-class families, but he never stated his dislike of the middle-class nor would he have enacted policies specifically meant to hurt them. Saying someone or something is "hateful" should be avoided if it invokes hyperbole, otherwise the inaccurate phrase will only serve to hurt people rather than speak the truth.

So next time your professor, boss, or peer says or does something you don't really like, maybe take a moment to consider how serious a transgression it actually is.

Facts Aren't What They Used to Be

When I was a kid I learned early on in school about the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are things that are unquestionably true: George Washington was the first U.S. president, Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system, Tom Brady has the record for most single-season passing touchdowns. Opinions are people's subjective views on something: checkered curtains are ugly, George W. Bush was a bad president, calculus is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. It was always easy to tell the difference between the two, facts were facts and opinions were opinions.

I feel like today, however, as I pay more and more attention to big issues in arenas such as politics and science, facts are disputed to an incredible degree. The veracity of things that seem like they should be clearly true or false (or at least easy to find out whether they are true or false) are seemingly argued about more than ever. Take, for example, global warming. The best climatologists in the world, after careful a study of the planet that included the accumulation and analysis of all the necessary data and evidence, agree that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," that there is no doubt the Earth is gradually warming up. It's been found to be as much a fact as Jupiter's position as the biggest planet in the solar system is. Despite such a sound conclusion, however, only 67% of Americans in an October 2012 poll believe there is solid evidence of global warming. Obviously there is a lot of misinformation being pushed by hard-core denialists and those who don't stand to benefit from widespread acceptance of these facts, but how do a whole one-third of Americans dispute the best climatologists in the world's conclusive findings? Why can't facts just be facts?

Another great example were the 2012 presidential debates. Mitt Romney would make one claim and President Obama would immediately label it false; Obama would make another claim and Romney would immediately label it false. These claims they made involved previous statements they made publicly and how the math in their respective economic plans adds up — claims one would think are so easily proved true or false that the candidate actually lying about a disputed point wouldn't dare try to deceive the public so blatantly. (All the disputed claims from the campaign, conventions, and debates kept reputable sites like FactCheck.org quite busy.)

One particularly frustrating instance of people claiming something's factual only to have their opponent immediately claim it false was the California General Election Official Voting Information Guide. Just about all of the propositions required further reading into their pro and con arguments for me to make an informed decision and pretty much every single one had their two sides claiming the other's facts are false.

Argument Against Repealing the Death Penalty: "Department of Corrections data suggests abolishing capital punishment will result in increased long-term costs in the tens of millions, just for housing/healthcare."

Argument In Favor of Repealing the Death Penalty: "An impartial study found California will save nearly $1 billion in five years if we replace the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole."

Thanks guys, that totally helped.¹ When you have both sides claiming the other's facts are incorrect, it becomes near-impossible to make any kind of confident decision. Unless the writers of these arguments focus on the most minute of subtleties,² one side is either in denial of a verifiable reality or one side is knowingly lying.

It appears that if facts, even easily verifiable facts, do not suit a party's purpose, then the party will willingly lie to further their agenda. This is possibly best evidenced by Paul Ryan's R.N.C. speech back in August; his address was so riddled with falsehoods and disputations of veritable facts that it was even lambasted at Fox News. And people will buy objections to verified facts too, as evidenced by the global warming poll. It's not just frustrating to watch, but sad as well.

Whether or not the disagreement over verified and legit facts is intentional, people will continue to lose out because of it. People will make misinformed political decisions, often important ones; people will refuse to believe in concrete science, undermining their own intellect; people will be unnecessarily confused about what really did happen and what is really happening right now. It really demonstrates the importance of making the effort to verify people's claims and to not blindly follow anyone.

¹ My vote to repeal it was based on a moral decision rather than a fiscal one, but you get the idea.
² Kinda like when one channel claims their show was "voted the best new prime-time network sitcom" versus another another claiming their shows was "voted the best new network sitcom of the summer."

Why Do We Still Have to Have Medieval-Minded Politicians?

I mean, sure, it's Georgia, but still. The state's tenth district's Representative Paul Broun is a prime example of what the title is talking about. There are a frightening number of federal politicians in the US, many of them with considerable power and influence and most commonly found in the House, who appear to be right out of the Dark Ages with the way they speak, act, and vote. Last month, Broun said at the Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman's Banquet in his home state that the theories of evolution and the big bang as well as the science of embryology are "lies straight from the pit of Hell." Most people probably expect an anti-scientific sentiment from the Bible Belt, even from its politicians, but Broun's statement, to the cheers of his reality-challenged audience, are easily comparable to what you would expect to hear from the people in power from the medieval times.¹ Why, in 21^st century America, are well electing politicians who believe that one of biology's strongest theories, one of cosmology's strongest theories, and a whole field of science are Satan-inspired fabrications?

As alarmingly misguided as Congressman Broun is, he still has the right to run for public office and so a lot of the blame for his regular admittance to the House chamber is on his constituency. As advanced as the US is in many areas of society and technology, Broun's repeated reelections unfortunately show that part of the American public is stuck in a woefully medieval mindset that condemns anything that contradicts a fundamentalist view of their religion. The Roman Inquisition would have felt the same way about Galileo and Copernicus' support for heliocentrism.

Broun went on to falsely describe himself as a scientist, state his belief of a 9000 year old Earth that "was created in six days as we know them," and affirm his conviction that the Bible "teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society." Wanting to follow some of the tenets of one's religion is one thing, but to actually eschew mountains of scientific data that show the planet is half a million times older than a shoddy archaic estimate is beyond the scope of reasonable public servant qualifications. Many people would be rightfully concerned if a member of Congress vowed to try to help steer the federal government in a direction wholly dictated by the Bible,² in direct contradiction to the Constitution's Establishment Clause, but obviously there are enough people in Georgia's tenth who agree with these incredibly ignorant convictions to elect people like Broun to probably the most powerful legislative body in the world.

What kind of country can function reasonably in modern society if all its politicians were to not only eschew basic science, but tell the public it is all a lie from Hell? What kind of moral person would want to live in a country run by a book that, if followed as closely as Broun implies, would perpetrate a whole host of human rights violations on its own citizens? There is no way for any nation to progress in any form if statements as appallingly ignorant as Broun's are allowed considerable influence on its direction; everything from science to civil rights will gradually erode until society conforms to an incredibly narrow point of view that is intellectually (and ethically) on par with some of the most backward nations of today. Fortunately, there are not enough of these politicians to considerably degrade the progress we've made over the last few centuries and my hope is that beliefs such as evolution being a Satanic falsehood and the Earth being 9000 years old will eventually disappear as the public more fully embraces reality.

As long as various pockets of the country continue to deny perfectly sound fields of science and believe in the most archaic (and silly) of scriptural notions then we will continue to have these medieval-minded politicians exert their misguided and reality-challenged beliefs on our society. In this day and age and in this society, this is very sad (and scary) indeed.

¹ Especially concerning is that someone as amazingly ignorant as Paul Broun is on the House Committee of Science, Space, and Technology. Yes, the House Committee that addresses science has someone on it who actively denies some basic tenets of biology and cosmology.
² Much of which, as acknowledged by many a devout Christian, explicitly promotes practices that would be considered appalling in modern, civilized society.

Deferring Gratification to Make a Better Future

Like common sense and physical fitness, deferring gratification seems to be something Americans appear to be better at on an individual level than on a collective level. On an individual basis we're know for excelling at working tireless hours all year long and saving up our money to eventually enjoy a nice vacation or retirement, but on a collective basis we're only on the level of stopgap spending bills to keep the government functioning for a few months¹ and other actions that focus on keeping us comfortable in the now instead of in the future. Even though the immediate discomfort deferred gratification can cause when applied to national political issues can be formidable, at some point we're going to have to embrace it to some degree in order to ensure the US is put on a long-term path to prosperity.

The area that is perhaps most relevant here is education. You hear people all the time, from average citizens to Democratic and Republican politicians, saying how kids, teenagers, and college students are this nation's future, yet nothing is really being done to effectively help this future. In California, for example, even the brightest university students are struggling to develop themselves into what the country will undoubtedly need (and demand) due to the incompetence of those who run the universities and those who run the state. As long as the American people as a whole and their elected representatives can't keep the future in focus long enough to take steps to ensure its success, education will continue to be allowed to fall to the wayside as we concentrate on issues that will eventually become problematic without the insight of well-educated citizens.

Part of this problem could have to do with the age of the people who have the power to make the biggest impact on the nation's approach to education. With the average age of members of the House and Senate being in the mid-50s (with the oldest member being 89), there might not be a lot of motivation to do much for, say, 2030. Many politicians and bureaucrats won't be around for very long after that and trying to help make it a better place won't affect their futures too much. But it's not all their fault; the nation as a whole sucks at delaying gratification as well. If the people see their politicians making some (even necessary) sacrifices now to ensure a more prosperous future, they're going to get upset and yank them from their coveted offices. As important as enjoying and acting in the now may be, focusing exclusively on it is not going to do well by tomorrow and getting a country of 314 million to change its mindset is not an easy task. (And hopefully it won't take a disaster to do it.)

Even if steps to improve and promote education aren't taken, the US will likely still continue to move mediocrely forward into the future without much issue. The thing is, as I interpret it, part of the point of the United States is to constantly strive toward a better future for its people. Doing a lot more for education and the bright young people who will benefit from it and eventually lead the country will not require drastic actions and defer enough gratification as to throw the country into turmoil or severely restrict today's potential for prosperity, but it will likely require a bit of sacrifice.

There are millions of young people around the country, as young as kindergarten kids and as old as PhD students, who have the ingenuity to create innovative ideas that will make the US a prosperous place. If extra spending  that will defy budgetary requirements is required to truly foster education, then that can be made up for by the fruits of such spending and sacrifice; the better educated who will have had a solid environment where they can intellectually and creatively flourish without worries and restrictions will very likely produce new and insightful ways of making the spending and functions of government unprecedentedly efficient and more than make up for what we might have to do to create a world-leading 21st century society. A countless number of fields, from medicine to transportation to entertainment, will benefit greatly from generations of people who are allowed to get the best education possible.

Funding for elementary, middle, and high schools as well as colleges and universities will have to be increased in order to achieve this and that might require a certain amount of cuts to other things that don't impact our future as much as education does (the amount of cuts will depend on how far over the budget politicians choose to let spending go). A huge part of this will be making post-high school education affordable. You'll often hear it said about health care that the system should be people only getting the care they can afford — in the US, people should get the best education that they're qualified for.² With schools and colleges able to provide the best education they can and with students able to learn, flourish, and innovate without fear of having to pay off a boatload of debt, a future of improved efficiency, creativity, solutions to global problems, and intellectual achievements is not only possible, but inevitable. Again, this will require some sacrifice today: the very wealthy will likely need to pay higher taxes, corporations will lose their tax loopholes, and cuts might affect certain areas of the budget. Truly investing in and fostering education, however, will, as I've already said, more than make up for this and can actually create a cycle that will eliminate the need for making burdensome sacrifices for education: innovative and creative people will make more efficient ways to go about funding and running a whole host of things and will lessen the need for sacrificial cuts. All these benefits, though, will only happen if we take the time to truly recognize the importance of education and the positive impact it will have on the future by deferring gratification and giving it the proper treatment and attention it deserves.

One philosophy we often see with students of higher education is idealism and fostering this philosophy will be important in using education to create a prosperous future with fewer problems. Even though full-blown, starry-eyed idealism is not really practical for solving all of today's and tomorrow's problems, having a sizable amount of it is more important than many people would think. Idealism is the engine of progress — without it there is no substantial motivation to move forward and fix the problems we face. Any well educated student, however, should be endowed with enough realism to combine the two to markedly improve the country and help remedy the issues we combat in an innovative and practical way.³ Not being afraid to tackle any of the problems we face, believing that solutions are possible, and being allowed to combine properly-appreciated ingenuity with a society-fostered passion for innovative improvement will result in the progress we need and should have.

If one person can work tirelessly and put off deserved rewards for years so he or she can live prosperously later in life, the US as a whole should be able to make some small sacrifices here and there and defer gratification in order to produce a future that is prosperous and enjoyable for everyone. The way to make any kind of decent progress in this day and age is to have a well-educated pool of citizens ready to use its resourcefulness and creativity to craft an innovative, efficient, and better society and the only way to do this is to foster education and give it the proper attention and appreciation it deserves.

¹ Even though it's politicians who, in this case, have difficulty imagining the country existing very far into the future (with the exception of the their reelections), we're the ones who put them in office.
² Meaning, someone with who's smart enough to get into Harvard and gets accepted there shouldn't have to worry about drowning in debt to be able to live up to their intellectual and creative potential.
³ And if you're still worried about naïvely optimistic students, I'm sure there will always be more than enough realism (and cynicism) in the country to keep any "rampant" idealsim in check. 

Recapturing the Past Through Music

The other day I was driving to work and playing my old iPod over the radio when Franz Ferdinand's "Lucid Dreams" began playing. A few times throughout the song, the feeling of sitting on a loud, creaky school bus that was merging onto the 5 Freeway on its way to a high school cross country meet flitted through my mind. It's a hard feeling to describe; the experience of just heading out to a meet seemed to very briefly supersede the experience of driving to work. The last time I was on a bus heading to a cross country meet would have been close to two years ago, but the post-punk revival sounds of Franz Ferdinand somehow brought the long-gone feeling rushing back into me, if only for a brief moment or two: leaning against the window, hearing kids yelling and squirming, sipping from a refilled water bottle as I contemplate the competition, the bus's engine straining as it tops Hamburger Hill.

It seems like most of the Franz Ferdinand songs I have have this effect. I think it's because I was really into their music around sophomore year of high school and would probably listen to it often on bus rides to cross country meets. For some reason, though, of all the times I've listened to one of their songs or another, the moment that many of their songs capture for me is a bus ride to a cross country meet. Music seems to have this amazing property of clinging onto not just the visuals of a time when you happen to hear it, but the feeling of being where you were as well.

It's interesting because the reason behind what feeling or experience gets captured is not always obvious. When I hear MGMT's "Kids," for example, I think of a summer running camp in Big Bear a few years back where I first heard it. It makes sense that I go back to the nighttime outdoors of Pine Summit when I listen to that neo-psychedelic beat or the relevant scene in Yellow Submarine when I hear "Eleanor Rigby."  But the only reason I can think of that makes me recall part of a typical bus ride to a cross country meet when I hear, say, "40 Ft," is that I happened to be really into Franz Ferdinand's music at the time. Similarly, when I hear Far East Movement's "Like a G6" I go back to sitting outside a local Starbucks with some friends before heading to class. I think it must have been at the height of the song's popularity, but I don't remember being that into the song at the time.

The uniqueness of different songs, I think, is what could primarily allow them to sometimes so vividly recapture an experience or feeling we've had. Sure songs can sound similar, but the lyrics, vocals, beat, and various instruments and how they're played combine for an enormous assortment of different tunes. Nothing else sounds like "Like a G6" so it was able to attach something completely unique to an otherwise routine, unremarkable Starbucks visit and allow me to recall the experience of sitting outside the coffeehouse early that morning. It shows how incredibly complex the human mind is as it can take a three or four minute piece of multifaceted sound and associate it with any sort of loosely connected experience or feeling to the point of momentarily reliving it.

With memories often being made up of only flashes of images and sounds that can be diluted and even altered, recapturing the past through music, a cultural love affair thousands of years in the making, is a nice way to relive a feeling or experience, mundane or extraordinary, for even a moment. Cross country meets were some of the best times of my high school career and genuinely feeling the experience of heading out to them (even if it wasn't nearly as fun as arriving and racing) is pretty neat. So next time you're out having the time of your life and wish there was a way to download parts of it onto a device, maybe play a favorite song that has yet to establish any significance.

Diluting Democracy

For all the political beliefs and practices that I disagree with, there aren't all that many that truly irk me to the point of writing a post on a blog that's admittedly supposed to be predominately about philosophical and mental mysteries. The recent trend of effectively diminishing the democratic power of the vote, however, pisses me off enough to do so. Despite this trend being pushed pretty much entirely by only one political party (and its associated ideology) for what appears to be only for increasing its numbers in elected positions, I'll try not to be too partisan in this article (as inherently difficult as this will be).

This trend, as I see it, formally began with the 2010 Citizens United ruling that I wrote about in June. The Supreme Court ruled that, via the First Amendment, corporations (and unions) could not be restricted in their independent political expenditures. This allows corporations (and unions) to pour unlimited amounts of money — millions or even a billion dollars if they wanted to — into super PACs in order to sway the election in favor of their candidates. Flooding elections with unprecedented amounts of money can not only be used to destroy a candidate the corporations don't like (and could therefore unfairly cause voters to dismiss the candidate), but will undoubtedly cause candidates to fall nicely in line with the corporations' often not-so-average-person-friendly agenda (see that June article for a more complete analysis). Voters will not have a fair or honest crop of candidates to pick from nor a fair or honest campaign to observe if the effects of Citizens United are allowed to continue (and these effects are already being seen). This ruling, which is opposed by 80% of respondents to a Washington Post-ABC News poll¹ (which included Democrats, independents, and Republicans), will lead to corporations in effect buying elections. Democracy diluted.

The political action committees that these corporations pour their money into are the super PACs. They don't give directly to candidates and their campaigns nor their parties so they can spend as much as they like and as if they were actually coordinating with them. It's not just corporations who are exploiting this, however. Individuals can bypass the normal limits on donations when they give to super PACs since they're not giving directly to a candidate or party (most super PACs operate like they're part of a candidate's campaign anyway, so these people are effectively supporting candidates directly). This allows exceptionally wealthy individuals who have their agenda or beliefs at stake to try to buy the election the same way corporations can. Giving all this extra influence in an election to a select group of individuals and corporations is not at all in the spirit of democracy that this country was founded on.²

The more recent dilution of democracy has been the efforts in various states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee to enact voter ID laws in order to prevent voter fraud. Supporters of these efforts contend that non-citizens, people voting twice, and disenfranchised criminals among others are committing their respective frauds during elections and that these laws are necessary to prevent them. When a huge investigation was done that examined every alleged case of fraud that the investigators could get from all 50 states — over 2000 in all — they found that "while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent." Regarding voter impersonation, a whopping ten cases were discovered to be legit. Pennsylvania's new law meant to combat this nearly nonexistent threat will, according to a recent report by the state, affect 9% of eligible voters because they don't have the proper IDs now needed to participate in their democracy (the number is an incredibly 18% in Philadelphia). When this is the case, such laws cannot be reasonably motivated by honest concern about voting fraud — they're a partisan effort to inhibit voters from an opposing party. According to a Daily Show segment that humorously and succinctly discusses and sums up this assault on voting rights, in the states afflicted or soon to be afflicted with these laws, 25% of African-Americans, 20% of Asians, 19% of Latinos, 18% of 18-24 year olds, 18% of seniors, and 15% of those earning under $35,000 annually don't have the required IDs. All of these groups are minorities and almost all generally support the same political party. Preventing what could easily total in the millions of people from voting in order to stop an infinitesimal rate of voting fraud is preposterous (and that is pretending that that is what it's supposed to be about). All this accomplishes, other than putting a lot more politicians of the benefiting party in office, is to degrade democracy in America. People shouldn't have to go out of their way to get an ID in an oft-convoluted system in order to exercise one of the most basic human rights on the planet.

The final tactic meant to suppress voting was by shortening the early voting period in certain counties in Ohio (this is the one tactic that fortunately did not spread beyond one state). What's really incensing isn't that it's being done, but being done only in a select number of counties while others are getting their early voting period lengthened. In another Daily Show segment, Jon Stewart again explains concisely and humorously how Ohio's Secretary of State broke individual county ties on whether to shorten or lengthen the counties' early voting periods in order to benefit his party (fortunately the outcry was so great that the Secretary was forced to agree to uniform early voting periods). Even though the Secretary claimed that individuals would still get their vote in if they really cared about it enough, there was still absolutely no reason (outside of creating an unfair advantage for his party) to lengthen some counties' early voting while shortening others. Whether they're about to leave on an out-of-country vacation, have difficulty getting to the polls due to work or disability, or some other reason, cutting the already established period for people who need to vote early will only dilute the voting pool and inhibit the democratic process.

The frightening thing is that these tactics meant to dilute democracy across the United States are becoming increasingly blatant. With Citizens United you could try to argue that it is a First Amendment issue even though the obvious drawbacks are terrible for the democratic process, as four-fifths of the electorate can plainly see. With these new voter ID laws, supporters could once claim that they are necessary to combat voting fraud, but it's been conclusively proven that the laws will disenfranchise millions more than they will stop and has shown to be a thinly veiled attempt to suppress voters on one side of the aisle. And with Ohio's devious ploy to cut the early voting periods of counties that vote one way while lengthening those of counties that vote another, no real reason was given — just a politician using his power for his own party's gain. It seems as if these people are becoming increasingly unafraid to show their desire to restrict the rights of voters who will vote against them. Instead of "let's let the people decide whether or not our agenda is what's right," it's "screw the other side, we'll degrade the whole country's democracy in order to get our way."

The United States was the world's first great democracy since the Roman Republic two millennia ago and to see partisan tactics meant to suppress it for political gain is appalling, sad, should be infuriating to everyone — even those who's preferred politicians will benefit from it. Even though there are plenty of people I strongly disagree with on many issues out there, I still want them to have the right to vote that they deserve and to vote under the same conditions and without the threat of corporations and extremely wealthy individuals buying and swaying elections and candidates. To dilute this nation's democracy like this is in complete opposition to what America was founded on and a cheap, unjust ploy that should not and cannot be tolerated by anyone.

¹ Scroll to question number 35 for the poll.
² The supposed suppression of free speech by limiting donations, even to super PACs, is discussed in my June article in case you're concerned. 

Does Reality Have a Political Bias?

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Or so said the great Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. If you're liberal, then you're very likely to agree with his statement. If you're conservative, you'll disagree  and believe that reality has a conservative bias.¹ With both sides passionately believing that reality share's their own political bias, how do we find out which ideology works best in the world? Is it even possible?

Liberals will tell you that a tax increase on the very wealthy will benefit the country and economy, more gun control will make society safer, and that same-sex marriage is healthy — not detrimental — for America. To them, the signs point to a country that is better when socially liberal and progressive policies are in place and that enacting conservative policies and principles will only devolve the country. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that more regulation on businesses and corporations hurts the economy, gun control actually does not make society safer, and that same-sex marriage is wrong and will corrode the concept of marriage in the US. A typical conservative will assure you that their ideology is necessary to keep the country morally upright and in good shape and that the evidence points to liberalism as a detrimental ideology for the country. With both sides claiming that the evidence supports their beliefs, how on earth are we supposed to know which policies would really be best for us?

Of course, parts of each ideology, particularly with social issues, are not always supported strictly because their believers think they are what's the very best for the country's prosperity. Many conservatives oppose the use of contraceptives not because they think they will have a sizable negative affect on the country's prosperity, but because they prefer total abstinence and/or dislike the idea of inhibiting female fertility.² So sometimes these political biases might not be attempted to be projected by their holders onto reality's possible bias.

The most accurate and nonpartisan method of determining whether reality has "a well-known liberal bias" or a conservative bias is to amass a boatload of empirical date and see which ideology creates the more beneficial and prosperous trends.³ For example, one could examine gun laws in countries all over the world and see how their varying stringency matches up to their rates of gun violence. Places with higher and lower government regulation on business can be compared to see which come out more prosperous and how positively or negatively affected its citizens are by the subsequently allowed or disallowed business practices. Social issues will undoubtedly be the hardest to measure. Maybe for same-sex marriage, one could look at the happiness of a citizens in nations that both allow gay marriage don't allow it and also see how morally upright a country is (say, by how much they give to charity among other factors).⁴ The people of these countries could also be polled on how paranoid they are that polygamy, human-dog, and human-shoe marriages will come about as a result of legalizing same-sex marriage (to see if the likely detrimental "slippery slope" hypothesis is valid). The different possible stances on social issues like same-sex marriage and abortion that a country could take may not affect the overall prosperity and virtue of a nation as much as, say, economic or health issues would, but hopefully a large enough trend could be measured to come to a conclusion.

The problem here, however, is that both sides already utilize what are supposed to be the same statistics for their own ideology and come out with wildly different conclusions. A liberal politician will claim that a liberal economic policy has been overall beneficial to the country while his or her conservative counterpart will claim that it has been overall detrimental. Sites like FactCheck are helpful in seeing through much of the deceiving political spin that both sides espouse, but an ultimate conclusion on whether a liberal or conservative policy is truly the most beneficial to the country is harder to construe from them. So unless a huge and completely independent and assuredly nonpartisan study is done with all the various trends in many different countries, coming to a solid conclusion will be nigh impossible. For now, personal opinion on how a society should be run and how it should act is largely the only weapon the two sides have in convincing others that reality share's their political bias.

Even though reality is likely some sort of mix between the two sides, getting people to accept an ultimate and undeniable conclusion based on solid evidence is going to be harder than coming to the conclusion in the first place. Even if a liberal is shown that heavier regulation of guns makes the country less safe, he or she will be hard-pressed to accept a freer flow of guns in society. Similarly, if a conservative is shown that allowing homosexual couples to marry actually resulted in a noticeable betterment of society, he or she will be reluctant to embrace the expansion of civil rights. Convincing people with strong opinions (political, religious, and the like) that they're wrong or that at least they don't believe in what's best can be like trying to teach calculus to a dog. It's excruciatingly difficult and the subject probably doesn't want to participate. Even with indisputable evidence, confirmation bias will likely take over on both sides and many liberals and conservatives will not be able to come to terms with whatever bias there could be in reality (that is, if their beliefs run contrary to the findings). We see this all the time in politics, religion, and a whole host of other realms where people strongly disagree; unfortunately evidence isn't always the trump card in a disagreement — even though it should be.

This can be illustrated the following way (with generalizations). Conservatives see President Obama as a man trying to implant socialism in the United States, trying to turn the country towards his radical ideas no matter the cost, and an all-around awful (if not evil) guy. They're convinced that Republicans in Congress obstructing his harmful agenda are doing what's best for the country. Liberals, on the other hand, see the President as someone who is doing his best to improve the country and not trying to introduce a radical agenda. They're convinced that Republicans in Congress are maliciously obstructing his work for the sake of opposing him. Both sides are often diehard in their views of the President, his goals, Congressional Republicans, and their goals and can't imagine how their counterparts across the aisle can be so supportive of the side they so dislike. Motivation is harder to prove or disprove than policy results, but proof that one or both sides isn't really bad (or are in actuality bad) wouldn't really do much in the way of changing liberals' and conservatives' minds.

So this begs the question: Is trying to find out whether or not reality has a liberal or conservative bias even worth it? I would say so, at least for myself, even if there are some people I can never convince. These people who can't be convinced will still see reality as agreeing with them which almost renders the real possible bias of reality pointless if there are enough of these people. If liberals truly believe that only liberal policies are beneficial and enhance prosperity and conservatives truly believe that only conservative policies are beneficial and enhance prosperity, then there are, effectively, two general coexisting realities. I mean there is, obviously, one objective reality, but if two different groups are unwavering in holding their beliefs to be consistent with the way reality works, then finding out reality's true bias seems pointless, at least for purposes of convincing others.

Even though I figure reality's probably a mix of ideologies, I, of course, believe reality has a bias consistent with much, if not all, of my own beliefs. It sounds contradictory in a way, but I think my beliefs are superior (as others who feel the opposite think their's are superior). At the same time, there are so many who hold the opposite beliefs to mine that there must be something there that reality favors.

So for the time being, however, there is no effective and objective reality with a certain political bias that demonstrates how one ideology is empirically better than the other. For all intents and purposes, society's pretty much stuck with two while the individual has their one.

¹ And if you're centrist, you probably want both sides to stop trying to call dibs on everyone else's reality.
² Or, as a sarcastic liberal might add, they just don't want people to enjoy themselves too much.
³ I do something similar in an article on which countries could be considered the best in the world.
⁴ Other variables that can affect this would have to be worked around to ensure that the observed trend is caused by the allowance or the non-allowance of gay marriage. If gay marriage hurts a society morally, we would expect those countries that allow it to have worse trends in moral things like giving to charity.

London Olympics Predictions

   For the first time in 64 years, the Olympics are being held in London. The Games of the 30^th Olympiad will feature incredible athletes from previous games as well as exceptionally talented up-and-comers who will no doubt wow the lucky attendants and viewers and light up the island of Great Britain. Millions, if not billions, of people all over the planet will tune in to watch for two weeks as participating nations set aside their differences amid a spike in patriotism and compete in various sports. It's one of the few things that makes me feel sincerely patriotic and in this article I'll outline my predictions for the track events¹ — the sport in the Summer Games I'm particularly keen on. The sprints will see the continued rivalry of the US in bright red and the Jamaicans in their yellow and green, while the distances will once again pit the red and green of Ethiopia against the green, red, and black of Kenya. If I'm correct, there will be numerous personal records, including five new world records.

100 METER DASH

   Of the eventual eight finalists on the women's side, it would not surprise me if at least half of them hail from Jamaica and the United States. The three Jamaicans going, Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce (10.70), Veronica Campbell-Brown (10.76), and Kerron Stewart (10.75), all ran under 11 seconds in their trials to punch their tickets to London and will be extremely formidable opponents to anyone in the world. Their biggest threat, however, comes in American Carmelita Jeter, the second fastest woman of all time, who has run 10.64 seconds as a PR. Looking for a medal in the event as well is another American (and one of my favorite athletes), Allyson Felix (10.92), who will be competing in the 100 on this level for the first time ever.
   Despite formidable competition from Jamaica, I think the current fastest woman in the world will once again show why she has that distinction and win her first Olympic gold with the steadily improving Fraser-Pryce second and the reigning Olympic 200 champ third.

GOLD: CARMELITA JETER (USA) — 10.64

SILVER: SHELLY-ANN FRASER-PRYCE (JAM) — 10.67 

BRONZE: VERONICA CAMPBELL-BROWN (JAM) — 10.74

   Just as competitive or more so than the women will be the men. And yes, the final will undoubtedly feature the one and only Usain Bolt (unless, of course, he false starts in the earlier rounds — which would be probably even more tragic than his false start in last year's World Championships final). The fastest man ever's biggest rival will be his own training partner, Yohan Blake (9.75), who's been mercilessly smashing everyone's expectations and is slated as the only person who could upset Bolt (9.58), especially if he gets a better start.² The 22 year old has launched himself into the position of fourth fastest human in history in the 100 and second in the 200. Hoping to crash this Jamaican party are the American duo of Tyson Gay (9.69), the American record holder in the event, and Justin Gatlin (9.80), who's been unbeatable this year. Although Gay has been coming back from an injury that caused him to not go after the 200 gold, I think he'll still have a strong performance while Gatlin will set another PR. France's Christophe Lemaitre (9.92), the only Caucasian to ever go under 10 seconds in the event, will be looking to upset. Another person to look out for is Jamaica's Asafa Powell, a former world record holder. Even though he generally under-performs in huge races like the Olympic finals, you can't ignore a guy who's sprinted to 9.72. With so much talent likely to be crammed into the final, some amazing times will undoubtedly go down.
   Usain Bolt is still Usain Bolt after all and I think he'll rise to the occasion as always and put on a spectacular show and set another world record while showing his training partner who the world's best really is. Although I don't expect him to PR, Gay will likely dig deep and nab the last medal.

GOLD: USAIN BOLT (JAM) — 9.55 WR

SILVER: YOHAN BLAKE (JAM) — 9.65

BRONZE: TYSON GAY (USA) — 9.70

200 METER DASH

   Fraser-Pryce (22.10) and Campell-Brown (21.74) will be back for the 200 along with Sherone Simpson (22.00) and will make up one side of a titanic clash with Americans Jeter (22.11), Felix (21.69), and Sanya Richards-Ross (22.09). Felix is the fourth fastest woman in history in the 200 and Richards-Ross holds the second fastest time in the world this year (after Felix's recent PR). Both countries would love a sweep and I think they will exclude athletes from any other country from medaling. This year, though, I think the US has the advantage and will be making a big statement in the world of women's sprinting.
   I cannot see anyone beating Felix and I bet she dashes to another PR as she wins her first non-relay Olympic gold. With the way she's been performing lately (her performances and training have recently been compared to Michael Johnson when he was setting records), Richards-Ross will, I think, sprint to a second place despite also going after 400 gold while Jeter will snatch third.

GOLD: ALLYSON FELIX (USA) — 21.66

SILVER: SANYA RICHARDS-ROSS (USA) — 22.05

BRONZE: CARMELITA JETER (USA) — 22.06

   Like how he did in his national trials, Yohan Blake (19.26) will try to beat Bolt (19.19) again in the half-lap race. The two sprinters are the best the world has ever seen in the event and there is pretty much no doubt, barring some sort of DQ or a fall, that they will go 1-2. American Wallace Spearmon, Jr (19.65), who was DQ'd in Beijing for a lane violation during his bronze medal victory lap, will be looking for redemption and should be in good contention for getting that elusive third-place  medal. Lemaitre of France (19.80) will be another contender. Like the 100, the sheer talent present in the top runners here will result in some epic times being thrown down.
   To supplement his 100 win, I think Bolt will grab a second 200 Olympic gold and defy the naysayers to break another WR. Blake should lower his already outstanding best to finish a relatively close second with Spearmon pulling out an inspirational bronze performance. 

GOLD: USAIN BOLT (JAM) — 19.16 WR

SILVER: YOHAN BLAKE (JAM) — 19.19

BRONZE: WALLACE SPEARMON, JR (USA) — 19.63

400 METER DASH

   Like they so often do, the United States will be fielding some excellent athletes, including American record holder, another one of my favorite athletes, and gold-favorite Sanya Richards-Ross (48.70). Christine Ohuruogu of Great Britain (49.61) and Americans Dee Dee Trotter (49.64) and Francena McCorory (50.06) are other athletes to watch out for. If Allyson Felix were competing here instead of the 100, she would probably also be in medal contention.
   Unless she falls or is DQ'd, I can't imagine Richards Ross losing in her best event. Even doing the 200 as well shouldn't stop her from a huge performance that I bet will result in a sub-49 second finish. McCorory, who's been steadily improving and seems ready for another breakthrough will, I predict, come second behind her teammate while Britain's Ohuruogu nabs the bronze.

GOLD: SANYA RICHARDS-ROSS (USA) — 48.95

SILVER: FRANCENA MCCORORY (USA) — 49.85

BRONZE: CHRISTINE OHURUOGU (GBR) — 49.90

   As on the women's side, the US will be fielding some outstanding quarter-milers. LaShawn Merritt (43.75), the fifth fastest person ever to run one lap of the track, will be leading the American charge and is the favorite to win another gold. Tony McQuay (44.49), the phenomenal collegiate runner out of the University of Florida, will likely be right up towards the front in the final close to Merritt. Kirani James (44.36), Grenada's 19 year old phenom who beat Merritt in last year's World Championships, could easily grab a medal as well and could be the event's biggest dark horse.³ Great Britain also has an excellent 400 sprinter in Martyn Rooney who has gone 44.60 before. Although I doubt he'll make the final, South Africa's Oscar Pistorius (45.07), "Blade Runner," will be the first double amputee to ever compete on the track at the Olympics. I would really like to see him do well. I have a feeling that London could boast one of the fastest finals in the 400 we've ever seen.
   The likelihood of Merritt getting beaten is probably on par with Richards-Ross getting beaten. The guy has amazing stamina and an unrivaled finish and will achieve a very impressive time on his way to an easy victory. James I think will show the world he's the next Merritt or even Michael Johnson when he likely takes second with the collegiate McQuay acquiring his first Olympic hardware.

GOLD: LASHAWN MERRITT (USA) — 43.73

SILVER: KIRANI JAMES (GRD) — 44.28

BRONZE: TONY MCQUAY (USA) — 44.40

800 METER RUN

   Several different athletes from several different countries could pull out the win in the women's 800. The top American is Alysia Montaño who has a PR of 1:57.34 and Russia have very quick half-milers in Mariya Savinova, the reigning world champ at 1:55.87, and Ekaterina Kostetskaya at 1:56.67. Caster Semenya, the South African who stunned the world by winning the 2009 world final in Berlin before becoming the center of a humiliating controversy regarding her gender, has run a time almost half a second better than Savinova and looks to be ready to make another statement. Kenya's Pamela Jelimo, who won her country's trials and has a blistering PR of 1:54.01, will be a huge factor in the race. Of all the races I've predicted so far in this article, this one's top three are probably up for grabs the most.
   It's hard to imagine anyone beating someone who just recently almost broke 1:54, so Jelimo gets my pick for the gold. Semenya should power her way into second with the Russian Savinova almost living up to her World Championships performance to get third.

GOLD: PAMELA JELIMO (KEN) — 1:55.4

SILVER: CASTER SEMENYA (RSA) — 1:55.7

BRONZE: MARIYA SAVINOVA (RUS) — 1:56.8

   The men's side, I believe, will be one of the most exciting finals on the rubber oval. Kenya's brilliant David Rudisha, who broke the world record twice in one week back in 2010, will, I think, break it again and lower his time of 1:41.01. Despite a wealth of talent to join him in the final, I cannot imagine anyone even coming close to the 23 year old as he dashes down the home-stretch toward his first Olympic gold. With his powerful stride and his ability to run from the front, Rudisha will likely lead the half-mile race from start to finish, extending his lead all the way. The event's top American, my favorite 800 guy Nick Symmonds, says he's going for gold and will be a potential medal-winner (unless Rudisha goes down in the race, though, Symmonds will pretty much have no chance of earning gold) and I think will lower his PR of 1:43.76. Despite always coming from the very back to finish high up with that great kick of his, I think Symmonds will force himself to run in the middle of the pack during the first 600 meters in order to set himself up for a competitive finish. Another very talent runner is Sudan's Abubaker Kaki who has done 1:42.23 and has pretty much established himself as the world's second best 800 runner after Rudisha.
   So after Rudisha's likely world record, I think Kaki will assert his own dominance over the rest of the field with a near-PR. If he digs really deep, I can see Symmonds utilizing that funny running form of his to kick his way to bronze. He's ready, I think, for his first Olympic medal.

GOLD: DAVID RUDISHA (KEN) — 1:40.9 WR

SILVER: ABUBAKER KAKI (SUD) — 1:42.3

BRONZE: NICK SYMMONDS (USA) — 1:43.6

1500 METER RUN

   Like the 800, the women's 1500 is a very open race. At the 2011 World Championships, the top nine finishers were all from different countries and were separated by all but three seconds (surprisingly, none of the nine were Kenyan and only one was Ethiopian).  The Americans have three superb middle-distance runners to lead the western hemisphere assault in Morgan Uceny (4:00.06), Shannon Rowbury (4:00.33), and Jenny Simpson (3:59.90 — she is the defending world champ). Hannah England of, yep, Great Britain (4:01.89) was the world runner-up last year and will certainly be in contention for a medal as well as Spain's Natalia Rodríguez (3:59.51). Kenya's top athlete going into the preliminaries, Hellen Obiri, has run a 3:59.68 which is right up with the best non-Africans listed above. Ethiopia's top runner, though, Abeba Aregawi, threw down a huge 3:56.54 only a couple months ago and is likely going to run very close to that again in London. Right behind her is teammate Genzebe Dibaba who threw down her own 3:57.77 just before.
   Because of that recent 3:56, I feel that Aregawi will win her first Olympic final with her teammate Dibaba second. Morgan Uceny has, I think, the ability to break the east African assault on this mid-d event and finish an impressive third.

GOLD: ABEBA AREGAWI (ETH) — 3:58.9

SILVER: GENZEBE DIBABA (ETH) — 3:59.6

BRONZE: MORGAN UCENY (USA) — 4:01.0

   Like they always do, Kenya will be the country to beat in the "metric mile." Tall and lanky world leader Asbel Kiprop, who just ran a personal best this past Friday of 3:28.88 (which converts to about a 3:45.5 mile) is likely the favorite to win and will be joined by formidable countryman Silas Kiplagat who has done only about half a second slower. The US will be fielding tiny Leo Manzano (3:32.37), defending world bronze medalist Matthew Centrowitz (3:34.46), and towering Andrew Wheating (3:30.60). Of these three, I think Centrowitz has the best chance of bringing a 1500 meter medal back to the States. Nick Willis of New Zealand will be another competitor to look out for — the Kiwi has a PR only a second and a half off Kiprop's.
   The thing about 1500 meter finals, especially on the men's side and on big stages like the Games, is that it's often slow until the last lap where it becomes a kicking competition. This'll make it harder to predict not just the places, but the times. At last year's World Championships, this race tactic allowed Centrowitz to pull off a surprise third and could let some more surprise finished happen. Although it can be frustrating watching athletes not try to go after PRs, it usually makes for one hell of an exciting finish.
   Despite some quick teammates, I think Kiprop will continue proving he's currently the best 1500 runner in the world and win his second Summer Games gold with Kiplagat finishing on his heals. Nick Willis might just try to revive the great Kiwi distance running tradition as I think he'll grab the bronze.

GOLD: ASBEL KIPROP (KEN) — 3:35.3

SILVER: SILAS KIPLAGAT (KEN) — 3:35.5

BRONZE: NICK WILLIS (NZL) — 3:35.9

5000 METER RUN

   East African women will factor into this twelve and half lap race much more than they will in the 1500. Vivian Cheruiyot will be Kenya's top athlete — and with a PR of 14:20.87 will be hard to beat. She'll be joined by former Texas Tech Red Raider Sally Kipyego who boasts a PR only ten seconds slower. As they so often do, these Kenyans will be facing off primarily with their Ethiopian rivals which include Meseret Defar (14:12.88), the second fastest woman in history over 5k. World record holder Tirunesh Dibaba of Ethiopia will be a reserve athlete and will compete only if one of her 5k teammates cannot. America's best hope in getting a medal will likely be national record holder Molly Huddle who has a best time of 14:44.76.
   With Defar being history's number two, it's probably wise to pick her as a medalist and I think she'll do so with a gold and season best. Cheruiyot will give her a run for her money, I bet, and will finish a close second with teammate Kipyego third.

GOLD: MESERET DEFAR (ETH) — 14:29

SILVER: VIVIAN CHERUIYOT (KEN) — 14:30

BRONZE: SALLY KIPYEGO (KEN) — 14:32

   If I got the chance to compete in the Olympics, this is the event I'd choose. The final here will contain a staggering amount of talent from a whole host of countries. The reigning world champion is Great Britain's Mo Farah (12:53.11), the Cockney-accented British 5k and 10k record holder. He has a fantastic kick and will almost undoubtedly win the hosting nation a medal. From across the pond, Farah will have to contend with my favorite distance runner, 37 year old Bernard Lagat (12:53.60), who holds the American records over 1500, 3000, and 5000 meters and American 10k record holder Galen Rupp (12:58.90). Although Rupp won the US trials, Lagat has a kick to match Farah's and will be a huge threat to the whole field (Rupp definitely cannot be counted out either). These Westerners, however, will have a huge challenge to meet from Ethiopia who have Dejen Gebremeskel (12:46.81) who finished third behind Farah and Lagat at last year's World Championships, Hagos Gebrhiwet (12:47.53), and Yenew Alamirew (12:48.77). Few things are more intimidating in distance running than having all three of a country's competitors' PRs within two seconds of each other. Despite such intimidating times coming out of the world's most populous landlocked country, Kenya probably won't be too phased. Isaiah Kiplangat Koech (12:48.64) just ran the fastest time ever on Kenyan soil on his way to a high altitude record and will be joined by Edwin Soi (12:52.40) and Thomas Longosiwa (12:49.04). 

   Despite faster times from Ethiopia and Kenya (especially Ethiopia), Farah, Lagat, or Rupp could still pull out a win providing they run a very tactical race and time their moves just right. Unless the runners go out looking for sub-12:50 times, I think the race will remain bunched at the front until the end.
   Farah, though, should repeat his World Championships performance with an impressive kick over Lagat to win. Lagat should take the silver as he has his best Olympic 5k finish to date with Gebremeskel third.

GOLD: MO FARAH (GBR) — 12:55

SILVER: BERNARD LAGAT (USA) — 12:56

BRONZE: DEJEN GEBREMESKEL (ETH) — 12:57

10000 METER RUN

   Once again, this will be a race between Kenya and Ethiopia. Cheruiyot (30:48.98) and Kipyego (30:38.35) are going for the double in the two longest track events and will be joined by Joyce Cheruiyot. Ethiopia will have Olympic 10k record holder Tirunesh Dibaba (29:54.66), Beleynesh Oljira (30:26.70), and Werknesh Kidane (30:07.15). The United State's best hope would have been Shalane Flanagan, who holds the national record in 30:22.22, but she left her 10k qualification to focus on the marathon. This one will still be difficult for me to call.
   Dibaba is so far ahead of the rest of the field that I think she'll easily win another Olympic gold with her compatriot Oljira second. Kipyego, I'm predicting, wins a second bronze medal.

GOLD: TIRUNESH DIBABA (ETH) — 30:12

SILVER: BELEYNESH OLJIRA (ETH) — 30:22

BRONZE: SALLY KIPYEGO (KEN) — 30:32

   The men's side will be just as or nearly as competitive as the 5000. Farah (26:46.57) and Rupp (26:48.00) will be back with the former looking to avenge his heartbreaking second in last year's World Championships and the latter being the fastest runner of non-African decent in the history of the race. The Ethiopians have so much talent in this 25 lap event that their three competitors are all different from the competitors they had at the last World Championships. Top of the list is the one and only Kenenisa Bekele — the world record holder in both the 5000 and the 10000. The man is a two-time Olympic gold medalist and a four-time world champ all in the 10k alone and boasts an unreal PB of 26:17.53.⁴ Even though he's run far under the radar this year, he's easily the most dangerous man in the race and will be competing alongside his older brother Tariku (27:03.24). Kenya will field national champ Wilson Kiprop (27:01.98), Moses Masai (26:49.20 — his sister Linet is also a fantastic 10k athlete), and Bidan Karoki. Representing tiny Eritrea, another east African nation, is 5'3'' Zersenay Tadese who holds the world record in the half-marathon and has the second quickest PR in the field at a blazing 26:37.25.

   Like the 5000, if this race doesn't go out fast — say, sub-26:50 pace — then the front will likely be bunched until until the finish and the best kickers will come out on top.

   As much as I'm sure he would like to outkick an Ethiopian for a 10k title, I don't think Farah can beat Bekele. I think the WR-holder will have his breakthrough race en route to another Olympic victory and continue to demonstrate his dominance in distance running. Tadese should finish quite well and I think he'll round out the medalists.

GOLD: KENENISA BEKELE (ETH) — 26:44

SILVER: MO FARAH (GBR) — 26:46

BRONZE: ZERSENAY TADESE (ERI) — 26:47

3000 METER STEEPLECHASE

   2011 world champion Yuliya Zaripova of Russia (9:07.03) probably stands the best chance of taking the gold away from Kenya or Ethiopia this year. The east Africans she'll be up against, though, have times very, very close to her's. This includes Kenya's Milcah Chemos Cheywa, who has a PR 0.11 seconds slower, and Ethiopia's Sofia Assefa and Hiwot Ayalew who have bests of 9:09.00 and 9:09.61, respectively.  A north African will also be in medal contention with Tunisia's Habiba Gribi who finished second behind Zaripova last year in the World Championships and has a best of 9:11.97. Two of the US's three competitors, Emma Coburn and Shalaya Kipp are student-athletes at the University of Colorado and, although I don't think they will finish in the top three, will continue to demonstrate the excellent coaching of Mark Wetmore. With many of these top steeplechase runners running some of their best races quite recently, it'll be interesting to see how the final goes tactically and who can come out on top.

   Looking at how she's progressed each year, I'd say Cheywa will win it. Assefa should come a close second while Zaripova will finish third to receive her first Olympic medal. I have feeling the top three or four finishers will all be pretty close to each other at the line.

GOLD: MILCAH CHEMOS CHEYWA (KEN) — 9:05

SILVER: SOFIA ASSEFA (ETH) — 9:06

BRONZE: YULIYA ZARIPOVA (RUS) — 9:06

   On the men's side, this is very likely Kenya's best event. They love to dominate the most exotic race on the track and head into London with the best three athletes in the event. Last year Brimin Kipruto ran a 7:53.64 — one one-hundredth of a second off the world record — and seems like a good pick to be the favorite. He's joined by Ezekial Kemboi (the current world champ) and Abel Mutai who have respective PRs of 7:55.76 and 8:01.67. The best country to challenge this utter dominance might just be France who have Mahiedine Mekhissi-Benabbad who has two previous season bests in the 8:02s and Vincent Zouaoui-Dandrieux who has a best of 8:14.75. Ethiopia's top athlete will be Roba Gari who a couple months ago posted a PR of 8:06.16. The United States is fielding a relatively young steeplechase squad which include Evan Jager (8:17.40), who has close to zero experience in the event despite becoming national champion, and Princeton's Donald Cabral (8:19.14), who is the reigning NCAA champ. Even though both should PR in London, I doubt either can bring home a medal.
   I think Kenya will continue their utter dominance in the 3000 steeplechase by sweeping gold, silver, and bronze with Kipruto, Kemboi, and Mutai. My bet is that the three run together behind a couple leaders through a little over half the race before taking the lead for themselves and working together to the finish line.

GOLD: BRIMIN KIPRUTO (KEN) — 7:55

SILVER: EZEKIAL KEMBOI (KEN) — 7:56

BRONZE: ABEL MUTAI (KEN) — 7:56

100 METERS HURDLES

   The shortest hurdle race on the track may prove to be one of the most exciting women's races of the Games. The US will be fielding three great athletes in Dawn Harper (12.47), Kellie Wells (12.50), and Lolo Jones (12.43). Harper, who won the US trials and the 2008 gold, is probably one of the favorites here while Jones is in the process of making a long comeback after clipping the penultimate hurdle in Beijing and finishing a disappointing seventh. I'd really like to see her do well this year and hopefully make it all the way to the finals. One person to definitely watch will be Sally Pearson from the Land Down Under. The Aussie has a fast PR of 12.28 seconds — 0.07 off the world record and is quick enough to be probably the most likely candidate for gold. Another athlete to look out for is Tiffany Porter (12.56) of Great Britain.
   As good as the American athletes are this year, I think the defending world champ Pearson will win the gold in impressive fashion. Harper, I bet, will take the silver a while back with Wells third.

GOLD: SALLY PEARSON (AUS) — 12.28

SILVER: DAWN HARPER (USA) — 12.45

BRONZE: KELLIE WELLS (USA) — 12.47

110 METERS HURDLES

   This should be one of the most exciting races of the Olympics with the potential to set a new world record. Current WR-holder and Beijing gold-medalist Dayron Robles (12.87) of Cuba will take on China's fantastic (and monstrously competitive) Athens gold-medalist (and second fastest ever) Liu Xiang (12.88) and two outstanding Americans in the laid back defending world champ Jason Richardson (12.98) and up-and-comer world indoor champ Aries Merritt (12.93). American record holder David Oliver (12.89) surprisingly didn't qualify at the trials and won't get the chance to take on the rest of the world's best. While Robles has been running relatively so-so times for the past few years and Liu has only recently finished healing from injury, Richardson and Merritt have been hitting some of their very best times quite recently and will likely be at their best in the final.

   After tying the world record at the Prefontaine Classic (albeit with an illegal head wind⁵) in June, I think Liu is finally back in shape to win another Olympic final. Robles, though, should put up a great fight even though I think he'll lose his WR and come up second. Richardson, I think, will use the luck that he's saved up from refusing to cut his dreads and nab the bronze in a big PR.

GOLD: LIU XIANG (CHN) — 12.86 WR

SILVER: DAYRON ROBLES (CUB) — 12.89

BRONZE: JASON RICHARDSON (USA) — 12.91

400 METERS HURDLES

    Probably the favorite in this race is American Lashinda Demus, who has a PR of 52.47, is the reigning world champ, the American record holder, and the third fastest 400 hurdler of all time. It will take one hell of a performance to beat her in the final. The best person to challenger her will be Jamaica's Melaine Walker who has a best time of a twentieth of a second faster and won the gold at the last Olympic Games. Russia's Natalya Antyukh (52.92) should be in medal contention as well as another Jamaican — Kaliese Spencer, who has a PR of 52.79.
   Despite Walker having a faster PR, I think Demus will officially establish herself as the world's best current 400 meter hurdler with a winning time close to the WR. Walker, though, should finish second in a great time with Antyukh third.

GOLD: LASHINDA DEMUS (USA) — 52.39

SILVER: MELAINE WALKER (JAM) — 52.41

BRONZE: NATALYA ANTYUKH (RUS) — 53.01

   The United States dominates the men's longer hurdles race the way the Kenyans dominate the men's steeplechase. Six of the last seven golds here have been awarded to Americans with a complete medal sweep four years ago in Beijing. There's hardly a doubt in my mind that this will continue in London. The favorite here is Angelo Taylor (47.25) who finished first in both Syndey in 2000 and in Beijing and is looking for a very impressive third gold in the event. Joining him is two time world champ Kerron Clement (47.24) and Michael Tinsley (48.02), the latter pretty much taking Olympic regular Bershawn "Batman" Jackson's spot on the team. The biggest threat to an American 1-2 (or even 1-2-3) finish could be the Welshman David "Dai" Greene who won last year's World Championship race and has a best of 47.84. Thirty-four year old Felix Sánchez of the Dominican Republic, who won the gold in Athens, is coming in with a PR equal to Taylor's and could be someone to keep an eye on even though he's relatively old. Another to look out for will be South Africa's LJ van Zyl (47.66). Without a doubt, the final will be packed with talent and some fast times will be recorded on the clock.

   Even though he's 33, Angelo Taylor has been looking really good as of late and will, I think, take home his third gold with an impressive performance and his usual strong finish. Right behind him, though, should be Clement who will give the US it's fifth medal in the event in two Olympics. David Greene should grab the bronze in another PR.

GOLD: ANGELO TAYLOR (USA) — 47.29

SILVER: KERRON CLEMENT (USA) — 47.31

BRONZE: DAVID GREENE (GBR) — 47.78

4x100 METERS RELAY

   Like the 100 and 200, this will be a race between the US and Jamaica. Despite the Americans having the likes of Carmelita Jeter, Allyson Felix, Tianna Madison (10.96), and Jeneba Tarmoh (11.07), the combination of Fraser-Pryce, Campbell-Brown, and Stewart should be enough to take the win. To make matters worse for the US, their 4x100 always manages to screw it up in the final — whether it's one of the runners's randomly tripping or just fudging up a hand-off, the Americans oftentimes can't keep it together. They did, however, manage to pull off the win in the 2011 World Champs to beat Jamaica by 0.14 seconds. Even though the island nation will be fielding the same four athletes that they did a year ago, their individual 100 times are good enough for me to give them the advantage. Other countries with good 4x100 teams include France, Ukraine, and Russia.
   Predicting times for these will be difficult and I'll have to go off of previous performances and individual 100 meter PRs. First, though, should be Jamaica with the United States close behind. I'll say Russia gets the bronze. And this is assuming the Americans can finish the race.

GOLD: JAMAICA — 41.55

SILVER: UNITED STATES — 41:59

BRONZE: RUSSIA — 42:28

   You only really need one word to sum up this race: Jamaica. With three of the four fastest men to ever live on their relay team, the only way another country will win gold is by either Bolt, Blake, Powell, or Michael Frater (9.88) doing something to DQ their team or just falling or dropping the baton. Even a perfect and miraculous performance from another country will not be enough to top the men in yellow and green. The favorite for silver here will be the United States...but this comes with a huge caveat: Like the women, but worse, the US men are fantastically consistent in blowing it in the final of a major race — in fact, I'm not sure I've even seen them complete the race since I started paying attention to track.⁶ They've dropped the baton, passed too early, stepped out of their lane, and even tripped on another country's guy's foot. As much as I'd love to see the US medal, I have a really tough time seeing them complete the race (let alone completing it legally). Even though Jamaica's performance will steal the show, the race for bronze should be very exciting with so many countries good enough to take it. France, the tiny islands of Saint Kitts and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago, and Great Britain all have a shot at medaling.
   For the third time in four years, Jamaica should set the world record (by way of shredding the current one into itsy-bitsy pieces) and win by a ridiculous margin (especially if the US doesn't finish). Assuming the United States manages not to botch their race again, they should take the silver in an impressive time (even though it might not look impressive due to Jamaica). As much as I'd like to see Great Britain finish third (even though they got the US DQ'd a few years ago), I think France will nab the last medal.

GOLD: JAMAICA — 36.90 WR

SILVER: UNITED STATES — 37.50

BRONZE: FRANCE — 38.10

4x400 METERS RELAY

   As always, the favorite in this race is the United States. With Richards-Ross undoubtedly anchoring, it will be extremely difficult for another country to pull out the win. And unlike their 4x100, the US can finish this relay (it is, admittedly, a much easier relay to hand-off in). The biggest threat to the US's continued domination in this race is the other sprinting giant, Jamaica. They finished second to the States in the last two World Championships. Other traditionally great 4x4 teams include Russia, Great Britain, and Belarus. 

   The US should be almost a shoe-in for the gold with Jamaica getting the silver and Russia with the bronze. Even if they're not leading with 200 left, Richards-Ross will power the United States to the win.

GOLD: UNITED STATES — 3:17.5

SILVER: JAMAICA — 3:18:5

BRONZE: RUSSIA — 3:19.4

   In high school, this was always the most exciting race to watch. For the US men, the 4x4 is a lot like the 400 hurdles — they always dominate it. In fact, every world record  ever set but one has been by the US.⁷ This year, it shouldn't be any different. The combination of world number one LaShawn Merritt with Florida's Tony McQuay, USC's Bryshon Nellum, and very likely Angelo Taylor (maybe they'll put in Kerron Clement for Nellum — who knows) will result in another Olympic victory. And like the women's 4x4, the men can complete the relay. With Merritt at anchor, even being in second or third with as little as 100 meters to go shouldn't be a problem thanks to his phenomenal stamina and kick down the homestretch. Like the race for bronze in the 4x100, the race for silver here will be exciting with many countries good enough the take the runner-up spot. These include Jamaica, South Africa, Great Britain, Germany, Belgium, Kenya, Poland, and the Bahamas.
   As usual, the US men will win this race with outstanding performances in each leg. I think Merritt will manage a sub-43.50 split as he runs away with the victory. I'll say Jamaica will get second and South Africa, hopefully with Oscar Pistorius running a leg, a close third.

GOLD: UNITED STATES — 2:56.2

SILVER: JAMAICA — 2:59.9

BRONZE: SOUTH AFRICA — 3:00.0

¹ I'll confess that I could not find the trials results for every country that have an athlete I mention so I have to presume that a few of these athletes qualified for the Olympics.

² Blake actually beat him in both the 100 and 200 finals of the Jamaican Olympic trials.
³ The guy ran a 46.96 when he was 14 years old — I kid you not. That's over ten seconds faster than my personal best (and I was 18 when I did it).
⁴ That's an average of 4:13.9 per mile for 6.2 miles.
⁵ If you race in a fast enough tail wind (100m, 100H, 110H, or 200m), your time won't count as a world record, national record, etc. since the wind is considered fast enough to physically assist you in your race.
⁶ At the 2009 World Championships in Berlin, the US actually completed the race, but were disqualified after Great Britain pointed out that they had a lane violation during the race — one of the American runners stepped a smidgen out of his lane.
⁷ Or a team from the US, such as Stanford University in 1931.