Entrepreneurship has become the new word for bullshit

         There is a new buzzword being thrown around my campus and it's Entrepreneurship. I can't count the amount of vacuous discussions I have to listen to about the "virtues" of entrepreneurship. To top it all off the University seems intent on pouring thousands of dollars into various entrepreneurial programs. The only question I have amidst all of this hysteria is whether anyone actually knows what entrepreneurship is? I mean can anyone give me a hard definition for Entrepreneurship? The scary thing is that there are some here on campus who think they can. From what I learned in high school, entrepreneurship is supposed to be something that's undefinable. Anything could possibly be in the realm of Entrepreneurship, that's what makes it so magical and gooey at the center. When we have organizations "teaching" entrepreneurship, unless all they're saying is "do something" then they're distorting the free spirited nature of entrepreneurship.
      But who cares? Entrepreneurship in America is probably the most unbecoming part of our history. Yes, I said it. American entrepreneurship, which is often our claim to fame and economic security, is a farce. The entrepreneur isn't the content creator, instead he often takes the ideas from people around him and then forces people to pay for them. Let's take for example one of the greatest entrepreneur's of all time: Thomas Edison. For the sake of time and because he explains it far better than I do, go check out this comic about Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla, http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla. It explains how awesome Nikola Tesla was and the true nature of the entrepreneurial spirit in Edison. In fact, this comic has given me a good definition for entrepreneurship today: "the only thing [entrepreneurship] truly pioneered is douchebaggery." So in short entrepreneurship for all intents and purposes is simply the study of douchebaggery.
     Entrepreneurs are the one uppers in the world. They want to play the game and they're willing to do what ever it takes to get there. Gone are the days of risk and reward. Entrepreneurs are taught that you make the game as fair for you as you possibly can. This means taking out other businesses. This means being deceitful and deceptive. Entrepreneurs rarely make content. They simply frame it and then ship it off.  Let's take a top 10 list of entrepreneurs and see how many of them has actually invented something novel.
list from: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5519861/#.UVL_kjeFX68

1. King Croesus- this is one of the few people on the list who actually created something. He created money. This doesn't surprise me since the only thing entrepreneurs study is douchebaggery and the creation of money for the purpose of putting yourself in a lavish lifestyle (which is exactly what he did) is the most douchebag thing I can think of.

2. Pope Sixtus IV- made people pay for sins. Again sins have always existed. Just making people pay for it isn't novel.

3. Benjamin Franklin- another one of the few legitimate entrepreneurs here. I probably wouldn't even call him an entrepreneur, but give him the benefit of the doubt.

4. P.T. Barnum- created the modern circus. Circuses have always existed, he just commercialized them and made it so that more people payed him for it. A classic entrepreneurial move.

5. Thomas Edison- refer to article above

6. Henry Ford- Ford falls into the same category as Edison. A man who invented nothing, but found ways to streamline everything.

7. Benjamin Seigel- invented Las Vegas, again douchebaggery

8. Ray Kroc- founded McDonalds. Oh wait, no he didn't he, bought them out and then stream lined them. The burger joint to begin with wasn't special and because of him we have scores of obesity within this country (not only because of him, just being dramatic is all)

9. H Ross Perot- hired by two government organizations to do "data processing". While I'm sure that's a critical faculty in American business now, I'm not impressed by him, but impressed by the US gov for jumping on the wagon earlier.

10. Steve Jobs- apple is special, but not all that special. Most of apples success has come from their ardent branding of their product. Sure Jobs created modern typography (through a humanities course by the way), but other than that most of apples achievements are purely that of the aesthetic and profit.

      So, we've just proven that the entrepreneurs in our country are mostly ass hats, who probably shouldn't be the people we ask our kids and ourselves to strive to be like. The question then remains: who should we honor and respect? Well should've seen this coming.

Artist

When I use the word artist, I use it in the most broad sense possible. Artist are the people who explore the unknown. The ones who tussle with new notions and consistently fail. Artists are scientist before their experiments. Artist are inventors and innovators, who are driven by pure knowledge. Writers that work to explore the human condition. These are the people who take risks. These are the people who potentially live their lives in agonizing poverty because they are never fully credited for their work (mostly due to the antics of the douchebag entrepreneurs). They are the claim to fame for America. 

Does this mean everyone should be Artist? No. You don't have to take on that herculean task of exploring the unknown. But you should at least respect those who choose to attempt it. More importantly, don't respect entrepreneurs in their current function. If entrepreneurs start doing more innovating and less douchebaggery, maybe they'll be respected too. 

      

Why the "friendzone" can be a punishment

              The friend zone  a metaphysical prison where one finds themselves shunned from the romantic possibilities of another. The friendzone is typically ascribed to men, when in fact all people have the ability to end up in the accursed friendzone. The reason I've suddenly felt compelled to write about this is because my friend put up a comic, http://www.buzzfeed.com/hnigatu/13-reasons-why-nice-guys-are-the-worst?fb_action_ids=10151290471369355&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151290471369355%22%3A215322128592936%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151290471369355%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map, (wow that was an annoying link to put on this) that hilariously details why the stereotypical "nice guy" is just a self pitying manipulator, who is trying to siphon sex through guilt trips and false unconditional affection. This "nice guy" doesn't actually care about the woman he is trying to woo, and instead engages into these relationships (I'm using relationship without romantic implications here) with the inherent expectation of sex (or other things e.g. love, companionship, more sex). Before I explain why this is a mere caricature of what happens, I would like to point out that the description given above can pretty much categorize all men. When a man engages in a relationship where he has deemed romantic potential, he does so with the expectation that he will receive the things listed above (well some of them at least). He might not receive these things and may come to the conclusion that he doesn't deserve them, but there is no initial difference between the mindset of a "nice guy" and a regular guy; the only differences are set off after the relationship has begun to take its course. So I guess this one goes out to all the "nice men" and "nice women" out there, who have now been thrown under the bus with this idiotic indictment of justified disappointment.

          First, the characterization of the "nice person" (in an effort to not make this a male dominated conversation I will be using person as often as my normative patriarchal tendencies allow) as a person who cares very little about the partner they are trying to woo is just an over sweeping generalization. There are plenty of nice people who care deeply about the person they're trying to woo. In fact, this is where the root of their disappointment comes from. They believe truthfully that they care far more about the person in question than the person that person is currently with. Sometimes this is just subjective evaluations made with clear bias for themselves, but other times nice people have to watch their special someone be disrespected and hurt on a consistent basis.

        It doesn't help that the special someone tends to use the nice person as an emotional crutch. A "nice person" is often elevated far higher than their other friends. Frequently, they'll put that person above other friends because this person is far more consistent and always seems to be there for them. It never crosses the special someone's mind that this consistency might be motivated by something other than friendship. Likewise, it never crosses the mind of the nice person that their actions could be misinterpreted as something merely done out of friendship, since they're clearly doing more than their special someone's other friends. Both are in the dark with regards to how the other feels, until finally when things between that special someone and their partner stabilize (either through a breakup or a fixing of problems), they find themselves at an impasse in regards to their relationship.
     
         This impasse tends to work out in two scenarios. Either the special someone broke up with their partner and begin to use the nice person as an emotional restorative point, which they usually rebound from, leaving the nice person feeling used. Or the special someone finds themselves working things out with their significant other, prompting the abrupt end to the usefulness of the nice person, leaving the nice person feeling again used. In both scenarios, the common factor here is that the nice person is being used as a substitute for what is typically a companion specific faculty. You expect your significant other to be there for you emotionally on a much higher level than that of your friends. When you're going through problems, the person who goes above and beyond should be that of your significant other. The biggest issue comes when your significant other is the root of those problems, which leads to the introduction of the "nice person", who definitely cares about you on a personal and friendship level, but also feels they are doing what's necessary not only to be a good friend, but to be a suitable replacement.

       Of course anyone who has any experience with relationships knows that as a rule of thumb you shouldn't try to engage in a relationship with someone who is currently in one. But that doesn't stop people from developing feelings for one another. And when someone is going through tough times in a relationship, often that is when they let their guard down the most. This emotional connection that seemed to be natural from the account of the "nice person" is actually just a product of distress. The special someone feels like this is clear, but the "nice person" never catches on (or never wants to catch on). Again, miscommunication riddles their friendship, leading to the conceptualization of the punishment known as "the friend-zone".

         People need to get real though. Both "nice people" and special someones have elated their self-importance far too much and both contribute to why some people have been raging on this topic. First, "nice people", you are not always the best person to be in a relationship with. There are plenty of legitimate reasons your special someone doesn't view you romantically. Don't think that because they complain to you about partner x, that there are no redeeming qualities to that person. On to the special someones in the world, your friendship, while nice, isn't the most amazing thing in the world. Considering that friendship is probably one of the most common relationships people engage in, having yours added to the list really isn't that much more special than the friends "nice people" already have. So when a "nice person" complains, it's not that they don't treasure your friendship, it's that they have plenty of others to take its place.

        I've been at both ends of the stick and I have to say I think both parties are idiots. I think "nice people" can definitely be jerks, but special someones can definitely take advantage of people as well. So in the end my final suggestion is to be more like me by: 1. not investing emotionally in people who are in relationships 2. not allowing people to become your exclusive comforters while you go through relationship issues 3. being more awesome. Follow those 3 tenets and you'll find yourself never having to deal with the nonsense of being friend-zoned or applying the friend-zone to someone else. 

Gun control: Framing the Debate

           In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre and countless other massacres it seems that yet again, the American political machine has awoken to unleash its wrath on gun legislation and in part gun owners alike. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, the legislation that's going to be passed in these next few months will be legislation that significantly limits gun owners' access to their second amendment right. However, it's important to emphasize that limit and deny aren't the same thing. From the chatter that has been surrounding legislation and with the current legislation passed in NYS, gun owners aren't going to be denied their right to bear arms, they are only going to be restricted in the way they can access it. But instead of there being any meaningful dialogue concerning whether some provisions that are being suggested/passed are effective or not, both camps (gun enthusiast and everyone else) have firmly planted their feet down, refusing to make any compromise. This makes slight sense for gun enthusiast, who for the most part have no way of stopping originally strict anti gun states from going down even harder on current gun legislation. Everybody else however have what I can only gather as an emotionally induced stubbornness, that has stopped any meaningful conversation surrounding what policy will be most effective to help prevent a massacre like Sandy from ever happening. In this post, I'm going to touch on all sides of the debate. First, I'm going to put forth my view of a Gun enthusiast's gripe, affirming their rights in some cases, while completely disagreeing in others. Second, I'm going to touch on where new legislation (mostly using the NYS example) is significantly failing and what provisions could be made to better to address the shortcomings. I've got to be honest, I'm incredibly anti- gun, especially in regards to my home, NYC. However, spending time in University of Michigan has shown me that there are, in my opinion, semi legitimate claims to the access of weapons.

In animo legis

          You can't have any meaningful conversation concerning gun control without joining the conversation surrounding the second amendment and what it meant. While I don't pass myself off as an expert, I am an undergraduate majoring in Political Science, so I know something concerning the constitution and its "proper" application. When we look back at the second amendment the commonly cited reasoning behind the amendment was to prevent the unlawful take over of government, specifically alluding to the tyranny of the British. The amendment itself first starts off with no mention of citizens' rights to bear arms and instead talks of a state's right to a well regulated Militia (a right that has probably been restricted more so than one's right to bear arms). Then the amendment enumerates the part of the amendment that gun enthusiast cling on for dear life. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This statement has been debated by political scientist and law professors alike for decades. One common argument (an argument I vehemently disagree with) is that the right to bear arms is situated in the context of a militia  and that the founding fathers never intended for all individuals to bear arms. Another argument is that amendments, such as the second amendment, can grant several different uses and meanings, forwarding the notion that the amendment both allows for the people to arm themselves individually and as a militia. For the sake of not being stubborn and making an argument that holds little weight in validity, let's assume the second interpretation is the one we'll be using for our preliminary understanding of the amendment.
          Even after we've agreed on this interpretation, people still have plenty to argue about when it comes to the language of the amendment. What constitutes as "infringed"? Is restricting akin to "infringing". Gun enthusiast will argue that any limitation is an infringement upon their right to bear arms, and in a lexical sense they're right. But when we see the application of such infringement in the law, clearly too many gun restriction provisions still exist for anyone to honestly argue that infringement is an all or nothing condition. Furthermore, there is argument over what constitutes the right to "keep and bear arms". One can argue that the decision to make a distinction between "keeping" and "bearing" applies that it's unlawful to restrict one's ability to carry a weapon anywhere. Others can argue that this was just semantics and that one's ability to have arms in their house and public property is sufficient in meeting both provisions.
         While, I have opinions on both of these debates, I think both are superseded by an even more important question. I mentioned before the commonly cited reasoning behind the law. I think the animus legis (for those of you who are not versed in latin or legal jargon, this means "spirit of the law") is the most essential part of a law. If the law isn't functioning to carry out what it was intended for, then it should be revisited (insofar that it should be given a new animus) or it should be scrapped. The animus legis of the second amendment was a safeguard against tyranny, that supposed an armed population cannot be forcibly coerced by an unjust government. The question that I think most people on both sides don't want to bring up is whether this safeguard is a facade in the 21st century. Are people truly safer from the unfair abuse of the government with these weapons at their side or are they just giving themselves false reassurance? The truth of the matter is that the military complex that is the United States can at anytime, wipe out our entire population (if it ever fell into such disarray). No amount of assault weapons or semi automatics will stand a chance against the American legion. So when people describe their owning of guns as a civic duty to protect their country from the abuse of government, I begin laughing. The government can wipe out entire city populations, militia or no militia. I would never expect it to do so and I hope others don't either because if we did believe there was a legitimate fear behind the U.S. governments propensity for tyranny, then we shouldn't be arming ourselves, we should be pushing for the disarming of the army that has a significant fire power advantage over us.
       A more sensible strain of argument  that could be forwarded as a critique is the use of fire arms as a protection from a police state. Sure the army can kill us, but we don't frequently get invaded by our own army. The police on the other hand, can become incredibly corrupt and violent. This argument to an extent is legitimate, too bad most of the people griping about gun control don't fit into the category of those who have a legitimate bone to pick with the police. In fact, the group that has consistently in our history had their rights infringed upon by the police are minorities, often people of color. This is primarily a problem in inner cities (in modern day America), where gun laws are the most strict. Minorities frequently have to defend themselves from corrupt cops and do have a legitimate claim to defending themselves in the animo of the second amendment. And there are some minority driven gun lobby groups that are complaining. But the NRA, which is the major player in the gun lobby, is reflected primarily through the mouthpiece of their director: a white upper middle class male. Their claim to arms is that of the delusional citizen, who believes he is making his country safer by urging everyone to carry dangerous weapons.
     
   Legitimate uses and restrictions
      So to be able to move forward on the gun debate, we need to stop acquiescing these ridiculous claims to the second amendment. This blanket protection of the right to bear arms is impractical (since there is no way one can protect themselves from the tyranny of government with arms) and potentially immoral (if you're using your arms only to maintain the delusion of upholding freedom). After we've gotten rid of the second amendment hoopla, the gun question becomes more tangible and therefore more open to reasonable discussion regarding restrictions and legitimate uses. If we think of legitimate uses of guns, we'll find that the list is pretty bare. The only two I can realistically think of are defense and hunting. I'm defining legitimate as something that provides a tangible benefit to an individual. One might think I'm over simplifying the usefulness of guns, but I really don't think I am. If you could give me a good example of any other use for guns besides hunting and defense, then please tell me. What's unfortunate is that while one of these legitimate uses is very effective on what it sets out to do, the other might be detrimental to its overall goal. Let's begin with defense since that is most frequently engulfed in debate.
       The claim to using guns for self defense is a swiss cheese argument that on paper might seem to make sense, but in practice is ignorant of how ridiculous it really is. Plenty of studies show that a gun is effective in being able to deter criminals at the scene of a crime. This makes sense, people don't enjoy getting shot. However, a question of how many crimes are perpetrated due to the access afforded by the personal use of guns is a more important question. What does it matter if Matt can save himself from getting robbed if Mary and Mike both end up getting robbed in the process? Furthermore, this "arm yourself" initiative essentially undermines what should be the first legitimate line of defense for citizen, the police. This was explained best in a NYT opinion article by Jeff McMahan when he states,"

 The logic is inexorable: as more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes more a matter of self-help, and the unarmed have an increasing incentive to get guns, until everyone is armed. When most citizens then have the ability to kill anyone in their vicinity in an instant, everyone is less secure than they would be if no one had guns other than the members of a democratically accountable police force."  McMahan NYT 2012          

 He explains in the following paragraph that the entire process is akin to a nuclear arms race. The comparison couldn't be any more spot on. And since the shot of one gun won't cause mutually assured destruction, there's a high likelihood that deterrence won't be effective.
        So when the question of personal defense comes up, we need to have the debate surrounding this crucial tradeoff. The way I view it is that the main purpose of society is to avoid the devolution into self armament. But there is some legitimacy in the opinion of heralding personal access to self defense over society's defense. Self preservation should be sought by individuals in the manner they think best. This is why the debate surrounding guns for personal use is so hostile. Both sides are in the business of preserving themselves and their families and anyone threatening their ability to do so, in their minds, is inadvertently threatening their life.
      The final argument for guns is hunting. This is by far the most legitimate claim to weapons. People enjoy hunting and they deserve to be able to engage in the recreational practice as long as they don't harm others in the process. Ways that this could be effectively implemented without gun ownership is the creation of hunting lodges that houses guns at places where people can hunt, designating more stringent hunting areas and putting limits on what kind of guns can be used for hunting. Among hunting culture, often the most powerful guns (i.e. powerful in the sense of effective at taking out human targets) aren't necessary or at times useful for hunting. This means that hunters are probably going to be the easiest group of gun enthusiasts to incorporate in future restrictions. This is the group that gun control supporters need to target. Not all hunters are ardent supporters of assault rifles. Many of them just want to be able to use their bolt action rifle in peace. If there is anyone that can be accommodated in future policy it's those who use guns for recreational purposes (this includes but isn't limited to hunting, skeet shooting, firing ranges, etc).
   
 The need to engage in the debate
    Many might consider this entire exercise pointless. What's the purpose of debating? The conservative response to your arguments are clear: 1. The Founders intended the 2nd amendment to be for personal defense (a historically incorrect assertion, but one that will be made nonetheless). 2. Guns make people safer, regardless of what you say. I know that I can protect myself with my gun. 3. There are plenty of hunters who use assault rifles, making your restrictions hurt them the most. But I think even in the face of such staunch disagreement, engaging in this conversation makes it so that the debate around gun legislation has actual tangible talking points that can be supported by fact. One can easily refute my claim that guns make you less safe with studies that show otherwise. I can then engage with that material and look it over myself. This process of giving tangible speaking points by which people can exchange information allows the debate to take on a substantive nature, which will hopefully lead to a better end result. Regardless, it's better than what is occurring now. Meaningless semantics that are emotionally charged and irrationally driven. We need to be able to ask the tough questions.