Mom and Dad, This Tantrum's For You

Whenever my wife or I pick up our 2-year old, Lydia, the babysitter consistently has the same thing to report. "She was perfect." Despite our constant worries that she is going to misbehave while we are gone, she rarely ever does.  While this can be a relief to hear, it can be frustrating when our little angel throws her first temper tantrum as soon as we get in the car. It's like she has been saving all the rage inside of her for us. Aren't we special.

This is normal. Lydia may be perfect for an entire weekend for Grandma and Grandpa, but as soon as we walk in the door she is screaming. The worst time of the day can be right after we pick her up from the sitter. I didn't get that this was normal in the beginning, but I get it now. In fact, it naturally should make sense. After all, adults can do the same thing.

Much like adults do, toddlers often treat the ones they love the worst. When all day long they have to be out of their comfort zone, they are forced to keep most of their emotions at check. At work, I keep my emotions at check all day, and usually unleash them on my poor wife every night. "Venting," I believe, is the technical term for this.

Why Lydia gets home, she has a list of demands. This often includes watching cartoons, chocolate milk, her favorite doll and blanket, and help putting on her slippers. Oh yeah, and she wants all of these things NOW. We do our best. We try to teach her the virtue of patience, but come on….she's two. She throws a massive temper tantrum that most likely is regularly heard by our neighbors.

It does get old, but really what she's saying when she throws those tantrums every night is "I missed you guys" and "why the heck did you leave me all the day long?" As crazy as this sounds, she is also saying "I love you." It's true. The way I know she loves us more than anyone else is the fact that she unleashes all of her rage, sadness, and joy on us. We see the true Lydia because she is most comfortable with us. Because she trusts us so much, she knows she can let everything out, and it may be painful for us to go through, but she is much better off for it.

I think every relationship needs that kind of passion. Fellow parents of toddlers should welcome these tantrums with open arms. It just means your child loves you. In fact, the worse your child acts around a person, one can argue the more the child loves that person. I'll try to remember this every day about 5pm. 

In celebration of the upcoming 150th anniversary of The Gettysburg Address, here is brand new Story Time with Mr. Beat video about its humble beginnings.

Find me on Google Plus

Google+

How to Think Critically

Critical thinking is hard. That's why so many people avoid doing it. It's easier for someone to just be satisfied with their current beliefs, but one should never be satisfied. People who love learning and searching for the truth are constantly thinking critically about everything.

Critical thinking is so particularly important, however, because if you are an excellent critical thinker, you should be able to teach yourself how to do anything without the help of anyone else. You're not just building knowledge when you critically think, you're taking knowledge to a new direction that you've never been before, or perhaps no one else has ever been before.

Critical thinking is hard, but if you can do it well, every new obstacle life hits you with should become less and less of a big deal. Here is my guide to thinking critically.

In order to know how to think critically, you must first understand what "critical thinking" means. It's ironic, because you kind of have to critically thinking to come up with a definition of critical thinking- there are literally hundreds of different definitions of critical thinking out there, and many of them are quite complex.

I have studied several of these definitions, and, believe it or not, Wikipedia's definition was the most satisfying to me:
"A way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false."
However, because synthesizing is an important part of critical thinking, I would add to that definition: "Creating new claims based on reason and evidence."

So the complete definition of critical thinking is: "A way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false. Creating new claims based on reason and evidence."

So, let's critically think about that definition of critical thinking. Wait a second, did I just blow your mind?

First of all, we need a claim. May I get an example of a claim from a member of the audience?

Ok, here is the claim: Football is the most popular sport in the United States. 

First of all, I know what you're doing right now...and stop it. Just stop it. Your bias about football has already crept in. Most of you think you know the answer already. This brings us to the first step of critical thinking:
1. Suspending judgement
Ignore all biases you have about football, popular sports, and the United States. Clear you head and attempt to be entirely objective about the claim. In other words, keep an open mind.

2. Gather Information About the Claim
Before you gather evidence, you first need to establish criterion for the claim actually means. For example, how does one define a sport's popularity? Is it based on how many people watch it on TV? Is it based on how many people attend the games? How about the number of kids you play in little league? What about the celebrity statuses of players playing professionally or in college? What brings in the most money?
Everyone agrees what the United States is, but there is still is some debate about what a "sport" is.

Now you need to research facts both support the claim and don't support the claim. How much evidence out there supports it? There are a lot of polls that support it. With a simple search on the Web far more results come up from credible sources that this is true. The Super Bowl is the most highly rated sporting event each year. However, the evidence is not overwhelming conclusive. For example, more people attend Major League Baseball games than the NFL, NHL, and NBA combined.

3. Consider the Credibility and Biases of Your Evidence
How reliable are all of these places where you're getting the information? Most information you find in Web searches can be traced back to one source. For example, when I Googled "Football the most popular sport in the United States," nearly everything that appeared referenced a Harris Interactive poll conducted on the claim. Well, who is Harris Interactive? It turns out they're a respectable market research firm, and they seem credible based on their history of research on various topics. What about the poll? How accurate was the poll? It only asked a sample of Americans- 2,176 adults, to be exact. How were these people chosen? How were they asked the question? Were the people who conducted the poll at Harris fans of football? Did they ignore their biases? What about the data from ESPN that more people attend baseball games, by far, than NFL, in a given year? Why would ESPN like baseball to be just as popular or more popular than football?

4. Analyze and Evaulate the Evidence
Next, prioritize the evidence based on its credibility and its relevance. Some evidence may not be as relevant to the statement, and such evidence should be given less attention. Weigh the countering evidence against one other. Are there clearly more facts that support the claim or are there clearly more facts that don't support the claim? You should throw out any evidence that doesn't go either way.  Depending on how deep you want to go, this can be a tedious process, so look for patterns in the evidence. Often, you're going to come back to the same basic facts in a variety of sources, because, frankly, most people are either too lazy or don't have the resources to do their own research, so they'll often do what you're doing to get their information.

Most people agree that the best forms of evidence are primary sources, which are first hand accounts from people's experiences. Professional journals are also great sources, especially if they are peer-reviewed, meaning other experts in a related field are scrutinizing the articles in them. But no source is perfect, because every source comes from a human beings, and human beings are not perfect, in case you haven't figured that out yet.

Anyway, there are probably not a whole lot of peer-reviewed articles about the popularity of football in the United States out there, so I shouldn't focus too much on that. Just remember to make sure your evidence is from a wide variety of sources.

5. Construct a Conclusion Based on the Evidence
It will be rare when all the evidence completely backs up a claim. Heck, even gravity is still just a theory. Most of the time, there are shades of gray when it comes to the truth, and we just have to accept that. Therefore, when you construct a conclusion based on the evidence, you'll usually be choosing between if a claim is sometimes true, partly true, or false. If you gone through all the steps so far, you should feel very confident about your conclusion.

So, is football indeed the most popular sport in the United States? Based on reason and the evidence, I would say it is partly true. More specifically- mostly true. There is a lot of solid evidence supporting the claim. The Harris polls has consistently tracked this to be true each year they have asked the question for the last 47 years. Other polls corroborate the Harris polls, and statistics like video game sales, the amount of money spent on high school and college football, and the number of sellout professional football games all point to football being number one in the U.S.

However, there are some caveats to the claim. Baseball, basketball, soccer, and softball all have higher numbers of kids who play little league. Also, more people attend Major League Baseball games than the NFL, by far. I suppose if the claim were "More people play football than any other sport in the United States," the results would have looked very different.

Even if my conclusion isn't spot-on, at least I went through the process of critical thinking to reach it, and that's what it's all about- the process. Critical thinking begins with our ability to ignore prejudice and suspend judgement, and it's never meant to be something that's instantaneous. We must take our time when critically thinking.

Critical thinking has a higher purpose, usually to solve a problem. A lot of people are so good at doing it that they don't even realize they are doing it. Like anything, it takes much practice. It's a skill that has to be constantly exercised and refined. In writing this, I have spent a lot of time critically thinking about critically thinking, and one thing stood out as I thought about writing this- if you are able to easily critically think, you can learn anything you want to. And with access to the internet, the possibilities are endless. Although it's important to remember that collaboration always helps learning, you would technically never need another human being to be your teacher. If you can think, you can learn from a teacher. If you can critically think, you can teach yourself. Learn on!

What should Electric Needle Room's new album be called?

What should Electric Needle Room's new album be called?

How to End Racism

How To End Racism

It's amazing to me that racism still exists in the 21st century. At the same time, it doesn't surprise me at all. Media outlets often love to cover racism because any perceived conflict generally causes more people to watch their programming. People in power generally are delighted to see the masses divided, too. What better way to divide the masses than to fool them into thinking they are radically different? Unfortunately, racism persists. Any rational person should be disgusted at racism, though I see seemingly rational people express racist things all the time. Most of the time, they don't even realize they're doing it. For most, it's become more under the surface.

How do we end racism? I think I have a solution, and it first begins with knowing what the actual definitions of "racism" and "race" are. The most popular Web definition of racism is such:

" 1. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
2. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief"

I like that definition. It has two parts. One, that it's a belief that one race is better than another. Very few people today, at least in the United States, would openly say that one race is better than another. The second part talks about prejudice, discrimination, and antagonism directed at someone based on such belief. Here, the belief potentially becomes an action.

Prejudice, which nearly every human being who exists has been guilty of at one point or another, is fairly common, not only with race, but with things like age, socio-economic status, gender, and sexual orientation. Think about it any time in the past when you met somebody new. Did you have certain feelings about this person based solely on their appearance? We can be prejudiced to people we know very well. For example, I assume my wife is going to act a certain way when I tell her something. Assumptions and prejudice are related. And so are stereotypes.

Think back to the beginning of this video when you first saw me. There I am. Man, I remember that part of the video like it was just minutes ago. Oh yeah, it was. Some of you stumbled across this video not knowing who I am or not knowing anything about me...but you already had feelings about me. First of all, you probably noticed I have lighter skin color. Some people would classify me as a Caucasian, or simply just "white." You probably had feelings related to this, especially with the topic of this video being "How to End Racism." Also, you probably noticed my haircut, or my glasses, or maybe what I was wearing, and were judging me from the very start, without truly knowing anything about me. Then again, some of you watching this video know me very well, and perhaps you can predict exactly what I am going to say....................next. Wow, you're good.

Discrimination is something my students confuse with racism all the time. They think it's the same thing. It's not. Discrimination is the unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice, so you can be discriminated against for a lot of things, such as age, socio-economic status, gender, and sexual orientation. Fortunately, discrimination on the basis of race in the United States today is rare, at least blatant discrimination. Discrimination that's "under the surface" does persist. The best example I can think of is hiring practices. It's not legal, but again, it's usually under the surface. Remember, it wasn't that long ago in the United States that de facto discrimination was legal based on race. 

Antagonism might be the simplest part of the defintion to understand. Basically, if someone acts upon their beliefs about race, that's obvious racism. This seems to be the most rare today, but it does exist whether you see it or not. The last documented lynching in the United States that was brought on by racism occurred in 1981. That wasn't that long ago, because I was born that year, and I'm not that old. 

But what about the term "race?" It's fascinating to me because it was essentially a term invented to make one group of people justify that they were superior to another group of people. It's troubling to see the definitions that show up for "race:" 

Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics

• - people of all races, colors, and creeds

A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group

• - we Scots were a bloodthirsty race then

The fact or condition of belonging to such a division or group; the qualities or characteristics associated with this

• - people of mixed race

A group or set of people or things with a common feature or features

• - some male firefighters still regarded women as a race apart

A population within a species that is distinct in some way, esp. a subspecies

• - people have killed so many tigers that two races are probably extinct

(in nontechnical use) Each of the major divisions of living creatures

• - a member of the human race
• - the race of birds

A group of people descended from a common ancestor

• - a prince of the race of Solomon

Ancestry

• - two coursers of ethereal race

Notice how only the first definition mentions physical characteristics, which is the race that most of us think of. In particular, we tend to think of skin color. But how ridiculous is that? I can change my skin color by going outside all afternoon in July or by visual effects with some nifty video editing. 

First of all, pure "race" does not exist, genetically speaking. We have good ol' science to prove that. The Human Genome Project, the international science experiment which attempted to map the DNA of every human being to ever exist, had one important conclusion: "race," as we know it, does not exist. They said different genes for physical traits, such as skin color, and hair color, can be identified between individuals, but no consistent patterns of genes of the approximately 20,500 genes found in human beings exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. 

What's crazy to me is that there is absolutely no evidence that anyone even used the term "race" or anything like it before the Middle Ages. In the late 1400s and 1500s, it was the Europeans who first began use the term to justify their enslavement of people they encountered who had darker skin pigmentation in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. What did they use to justify enslaving people with darker skin color? Passages they read in the Old Testament of the Bible. So racism and race are relatively new phenomenons. 

So you've been patiently waiting for my solution to end racism. If every human being did these three things, and taught their children to do these three things, racism, at least as we know it, would cease to exist. 

1) Acknowledge race has no genetic basis, and was a term invented by one group people to justify that it was superior to another group of people. 

Absolutely everyone needs to know this, and it should be taught at a very young age. 

2) Acknowledge that you did not choose your physical characteristics, and you shouldn't have too much pride in your physical characteristics. 

Sure, you can tan, you can dye your hair a different color, you can have plastic surgery, or you can change your diet or exercising habits. The bottom line is, you did not choose the physical characteristics you were born with. Isn't it silly to be extremely proud of physical characteristics you were born with? On the flip side, why on earth would you think negatively about the physical characteristics of someone else when they were also born with such characteristics?

3) Stop using the term "race" to describe a person. 

I do not define myself by "race." Not only do I feel it is an outdated term, but why should I limit how I define myself to simply the physical characteristics that I have? Isn't that a bit, superficial?  We are all multifaceted, complex, unique individuals, with many different characteristics. Why should I limit to describe myself by saying I'm a white guy? Or, kind of peach guy? Or a blue guy? Or a green guy? It's ludicrous. Labels are dangerous, anyway. Sure, they come in handy, and there is definitely a time and place to use labels, but they should never define anyone. 

In conclusion, I want to share a new definition of "racism" that I came across, from The American Journal of Color Arousal, that they came up in reaction to the Human Genome Project findings:

"A "racist" is "a person, organization or institution continuing to believe in, advocate, perpetuate or passively accept the proposition that there are separate 'races' among the human species, in spite of all of the well-known Human Genome Project evidence that separate human "races" do not exist."

So there you have it. The first thing we need to do is educate people that there is only one race- the human race. 

The Theodore Roosevelt Song

The William McKinley Song

Story Time With Mr. Beat - The Exodusters

Pickle Juice!

Story Time with Mr. Beat - The Nullification Crisis

The Franklin Roosevelt Song

Story Time With Mr. Beat - The Lawrence Massacre

The Jimmy Carter Song

War Hawks and Chicken Hawks

War Hawks Usually Have Never Been to War

James Madison was wealthy his entire life. After his father died, he inherited his thriving tobacco plantation, which, at the time, was the largest in Orange County, Virginia. In fact, Madison's dad had also inherited the plantation from his dad, Madison's grandfather. Madison was 24 years old when the American Revolution began. Like many of his contemporaries, he joined the military to fight the British to gain independence. As educated and high on the social ladder as he was, he was automatically placed as commander of the Orange County militia. However, due to poor health, he never saw any active military service.

Flash forward to 1812, and Madison, as commander in chief (aka the President) was practically begging Congress to go to war with Britain again. Many in Congress did not want to declare war. In fact, they called Madison and others, like Henry Clay, "war hawks," for trying to push the country to war when it was in no way ready for a war.

A more appropriate term for Madison and Henry Clay might be "chicken hawks." That's the term reserved for those who pushed for war yet never served. This is a common pattern throughout history- the ones in charge who often push for war almost always never experienced combat first hand. They may have been in the military (usually as a high ranking officer or in a militia state-side), but never stood on the battlefield and witnessed their best friend's head get blown off by a cannon.

It doesn't stop with James Madison. Most of the Presidents who have been war hawkish had little combat or even military experience.

After the War of 1812, the next major war the United States fought was the Mexican American War. Before the conflict began, it was President James Polk who aggressively pleaded with the American people that they had to go to war with Mexico. In fact, Polk was such a proponent of going to war with Mexico, he technically invaded Mexico because both countries claimed different borders. Polk never even became close to fighting in a war himself. He did join the Tennessee state militia as a young man, but only for a short time, and never saw any action.

Next up is a man you may recall by the name of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was willing to go to war to keep the country united, and at all costs. What were the costs of what would be known as the American Civil War? Just over 620,000 lives and over a million casualties. This is a man who said the war must go on even after thousands of his soldiers were going down each battle. And yet, Lincoln never saw combat himself. The only military "experience" he had was serving as a volunteer in the Illinois militia in the Black Hawk War (you know, one of the wars against Native Americans who fought because they think the United States took their land, or something). Anyway, I want to stress again that Lincoln never fought in battle. 

After the Civil War, the next war the United States found itself in was the Spanish American War. The President at the time was William McKinley. After the Maine exploded off the coast of Cuba on February 15th, 1898, most Americans blamed Spain and called to go to war against them. They were influenced by yellow journalism and corrupt people in power with shady interests. McKinley was hesitant, and insisted that a court of inquiry first determine whether or not the explosion was accidental. McKinley did not want to go to war with Spain, and he never called for it, but Congress declared it anyway.

McKinley was one of the few Presidents who actually saw action on the battlefield. He was shot at many times in the Civil War, and probably witnessed some horrible things fighting at the Battle of Antietam, things that he never would forget. It's reasonable to conclude his traumatic experiences in war caused him to be hesitant to go to war with any country, let alone Spain, who had a weak military at the time. Granted, McKinley did approve invading and taking over the Philippines as a "prize" of the Spanish American War, but at least in the beginning he was hesitant, and again, public pressure got to him.

The next major war the United States was involved in was World War I. While war was raging in Europe in 1916, Woodrow Wilson ran for a second term as President with the slogan "he kept us out of war." After he was re-elected, he had a change of heart, and decided the United States could no longer remain neutral  He asked Congress to declare war, and they did. Because a lot of Americans weren't too excited about fighting in such a massive war, Wilson did something that hadn't been done since the Civil War- he began a draft. He also borrowed billions of dollars of money printed by the brand new Federal Reserve Bank to pay for the war. Millions died from a war that was supposed to end all wars, which obviously didn't. The United States lost 117,465 people to the war. 

By the way, Woodrow Wilson had absolutely no military experience whatsoever. Although he had never put on a uniform himself, he was the commander in chief indirectly responsible for 117,465 American deaths.

The next war-time President, Franklin Roosevelt, never saw combat, but did serve in the Navy as a high-ranking civilian. Hey, it's better than nothing, and I'll give FDR a break- the U.S. was clearly attacked by Japan, and of course he had to ask Congress to declare war against them. Did FDR know Japan was going to attack ahead of time? Perhaps, but it always seemed evident that FDR was very anti-war and would do anything to avoid it. 

Harry Truman served in combat in World War I in the Army. As President, he made the tough decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan, and then asked Congress just a few years later to send troops to aid South Korea in what became known as the Korean War. I will also give Truman a break because he served heroically and he was also President during a turbulent time- the early stages of the Cold War.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, the next President, was a military man for most of his life. Once in office, he brought the troops home from Korea, and kept the country out of war during a tumultuous time. The last thing he warned about before he left office was the military industrial complex, which is more powerful than ever today.

John F. Kennedy, the next President, was a hero in World War II, receiving a purple heart for saving lives. However, he did begin to send troops to Vietnam, making the same mistake Truman did trying to "save" countries from the Soviet Union's brand of communism. There is quite a bit of evidence that shows JFK wanted to bring the troops home, though, right before he was assassinated.

After JFK was assassinated, Lyndon Johnson dramatically increased the number of troops in Vietnam in what became known as the Vietnam War. But first, here's a little about Johnson. He was a domineering, career politician who always had high ambitions for power. His only military "experience" came from becoming a commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve. When the U.S. entered World War II, Johnson was in Congress, and asked for a combat assignment. Instead, he was sent to inspect shipyard facilities within the country. Later, he was assigned by President Roosevelt to join a survey team of the Southwest Pacific. Johnson was riding in a plane that he and some others say was attacked by Japanese fighters but survived. However, other people, some who were actually on the plane, say the plane turned around due to plane troubles before ever encountering enemy aircraft. Regardless of whatever really happened, this would earn him the Silver Star, the military's third-highest honor.

Did LBJ ever experience combat first-hand? No. However, LBJ arguably holds much of the blame for the deaths of 58,220 American soldiers and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of others.

Let's jump to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the War on Terror, which has been a priority for the U.S. military since 9/11. George W. Bush was a President who led two wars, one which was very unpopular. His background in the military included a gig as a pilot for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. He never experienced war. Heck, he never even went to Vietnam.

Dick Cheney, who served as Secretary of Defense for four years under Bush Sr, played a key role behind the scenes in the War on Terrorism as Vice President to George W. Bush during his tenure. Cheney never served his country in the military. In fact, he received five draft deferments during the Vietnam War.

George and Dick were indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of them civilians. 6,664 American soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11. Drone bombings around the world began with George and Dick. They routinely ignored international humanitarian laws, justifying torture and suspending habeas corpus in the name of security against terrorists. They justified a bloated military and bureaucracy that limited freedoms and invaded privacy.

Americans were fed up with war by 2008, so they elected a new President who promised peace. However, four and a half years later, they are still waiting for peace. Today President Barack Obama's foreign policy looks identical to Bush's, except Obama has expanded the ineffective drone attacks and approved killing Americans without trial. He also signed legislation saying suspected terrorists were not entitled to due process. Civilians are routinely killed in the name of ending terrorism today just as they were under the Bush administration. The United States has expanded its War on Terrorism to other countries, including, but not limited to, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Mali,and Niger. Obama got credit for ending the Iraq War (by the way, the U.S. still has large military bases there), but Bush was planning on doing that anyway. The fact remains that Obama is just as hawkish as Bush was when it comes to war. In fact, Obama is probably more of a war hawk.

Oh yeah, Obama has no military experience.

Although there are exceptions, nearly every commander in chief who was a war hawk either never served in the military whatsoever or never had any combat experience. Chances are, if someone experiences the horrors of combat first-hand, they are extremely less likely to support going to war at a later time. War sucks. The sad thing is that today, more so than any other time in history, there is a higher percentage of  people involved with the war business who have never seen combat than ever before. Even soldiers who use drones to bomb targets on the other side of the world are disconnected from the reality they are creating. Yes, the military industrial complex is alive and well, and it's mostly because of chicken hawks who are either so out of touch with the nightmarish consequences they have created or they are sociopaths.

Electric Needle Room is the 1,536th best band in the world (Mockumentary)