I was going to post a blog piece about how religion is not behind conflicts, but really what's the point? This seems to be the main issue where the religious and non-religious can really agree. It is also a patently false premise. People use religion as a tool, not to control the minds of others, but to get what they want. It is the equivalent of using the passive voice to express unintentional acts of brutality (i.e. The knife went in. or The gun went off.)
If God wanted a piece of land for Himself he'd just make it. If God wanted to force you to convert, He'd be able to just break you. If there is no God, than we'll just find some other reason to beat the hell out of one another. What scriptures do we look at to push for peace or war, tolerance or ostracization, good or evil? What do we mean when we say these things? We never ask though because that would require the hard decision of giving up what we wanted. And when we cannot break free of what we say we believe, we hold God accountable for our own failure.
False Christians and unquestioning skeptics figured out long ago who the fall guy was. I have seen Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, Black and White, kill in the name of their father when there wasn't an ounce of conviction in their bones except power and pride. We are all after the wrong person when we crucify God, perhaps we would best to crucify ourselves a bit more. If I were to say that however, I should have the whole world allied against me ... and they would do so in the name of whatever it is they worship.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Saturday, December 27, 2008
I didn't write much.
(I don't feel like editing this blog post.)
I was going to post a blog but its two o'clock on Sunday morning and I can't think of anything new to say. I was going to talk about waking up every morning with a sense of existential dread about the mysteries the world held counterbalanced with my fear of all the stuff I actually needed to accomplish; but I pretty much summed it up in that one sentence. After the shower and stepping out the door for work, I am usually over my mental incapacitation so long as I am busy.
It is odd how some distractions are beneficial and some are detrimental. A writer trying to write a piece is quite different from the writer being driven mad by all the thoughts in his or her head. In the former case, distraction is a killer; in the latter, the savior. C.S. Lewis said that sin is like playing a note in a song at the wrong time. It isn't that the note is wrong, its just not its place. I suppose distractions are a lot like that too. In fact most all of life is like that. Perhaps were all just comedians looking for the perfect timing? Perhaps we are all just taking ourselves a bit too seriously?
Anyway, I have got some sleeping to accomplish.
I was going to post a blog but its two o'clock on Sunday morning and I can't think of anything new to say. I was going to talk about waking up every morning with a sense of existential dread about the mysteries the world held counterbalanced with my fear of all the stuff I actually needed to accomplish; but I pretty much summed it up in that one sentence. After the shower and stepping out the door for work, I am usually over my mental incapacitation so long as I am busy.
It is odd how some distractions are beneficial and some are detrimental. A writer trying to write a piece is quite different from the writer being driven mad by all the thoughts in his or her head. In the former case, distraction is a killer; in the latter, the savior. C.S. Lewis said that sin is like playing a note in a song at the wrong time. It isn't that the note is wrong, its just not its place. I suppose distractions are a lot like that too. In fact most all of life is like that. Perhaps were all just comedians looking for the perfect timing? Perhaps we are all just taking ourselves a bit too seriously?
Anyway, I have got some sleeping to accomplish.
Friday, December 26, 2008
The Greatest Gift I Never Got.
Grenache |grəˈnä sh |
noun
a variety of black wine grape native to the Languedoc-Roussillon region of France.
• a sweet red dessert wine made from this grape.
"You know you guys didn't have to get anything for me," I said, and unlike most people during the holidays I actually meant it. Christmas in my family is another day with God. He really doesn't need to reinforce it on December 25th. "I really am not expecting anything."
"I know but Seth really wanted to get you a bottle of wine," my friend told me. Seth was her brother and though I had met him only once, I had instantly like him. He seemed like the kind of guy who appreciated genuine people.
"Well that was nice of him," I said, "but I really don't need anything."
"It was really funny," my friend went on telling me in her kitchen as we poured glasses of Riesling, "Seth was asking everybody, 'Don't you have any grenache?' We had all of Meijers looking for a bottle of it. He was like, 'It's Phil's favorite.'"
Many people know that I developed an interest in wines. I think this is pretty much because I was jealous with so many people having an hobby like model railroads or video games or stamp collecting. So, I have delved into writing and photography, cooking and wine drinking. I remember the first wine I ever had was in communion, and it is a miracle that I continued to be curious after that because if there is anything that can turn one off wine drinking it is probably communion.
Years later I went to college at a dry campus. Yes, a college with no alcohol sounds like watching an Hollywood Blockbuster with no special effects, but in reality without the distractions one does have a clearer idea of all the things going on. Still, I think ... it messed me up a little bit though because I was more interested in learning about alcohol after that.*
When I went to Spain I had a sangria that was quite possibly the worst sangria of my entire life; and yet I wanted to know exactly if there was a great wine. I had drank all the beers that one could, but I was still curious about this next step. When I got back from my trip, I went to the local wine section of my favorite grocery store in Cincinnati, Jungle Jim's, and asked what I should have next. The answer was that I should try this Spanish wine called Vina Alarba.
That wine will always be my favorite because it made me love wines. It is made from the grenache grape, but actually that is not its real name. The French called it that when they took it over the Pyrenees and started planting it in the Languedoc-Roussillon region.**
In Spain, where it is likely to have originated, it is called garnacha. It is still one of the most planted grapes there, but is not really well-known over here in the new world. It is also beautiful.
It's tastes are not subtle, but rich and bold. They are not heavy with the ether of alcohol, but rich with the flavors of the grape itself. In Spain's hot dry climate one can tell that this is a grape that is a survivor. It clings to every drop of rain that falls in that arid climate and concentrates and treasures its flavors deep in its berry. When the wine is made you know that it is a survivor and that it is rich with character.
"Oh wow. I'm really appreciative, but you can't find grenache around here," I began slowly as I realized the thought that had gone into this gift. It was a search for a grape that I had mentioned only once to a friend who I had met only a couple of times. I continued, "I have only seen it mixed with another grape around here. You have to go pretty far to get a bottle."
"Well, he tried to get it for you," she went on, and smiled as she said it.
"I know it sounds trite," I said, "but its the thought that counts."
Gosh, what a trite saying is! It is overused as people get us gifts for which we have no use (and even less room). We say it to people who miss parties or events. We even mutter it about failed attempts at things. Its a throw-away phrase like, "Thank you." or "Have a nice day." or even "How are you?". When I was a child, such words were so empty. When I was child, I tried to mean words the words in those phrases or I tried to really care about the cards people attached to my presents; but to be truthful, I just wanted the swag. What card could ever compare to a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle action figure wearing an hockey jersey or a Transformer? When your a kid, you appreciate the objects; I guess when you get older you appreciate the thought.
None of us like to be forgotten, especially by friends and strangers. Like the song, "Auld Lang Syne," we wish not to be the forgotten through the mists of "Days Gone By." Memories of people seem to be shorter and shorter; and we forget loved one's; but we hope that we can make up our shortcomings as good friends when they get a brief biography of the past year in a Christmas card.
However, it is the kindness of brief friends, the re-occuring "touching base" of old friends, and unexpected phone calls; that really make this world a beautiful place. Christmas presents and holiday letters are well-and-good, but they lack the pure kindness of person who lives up to the honest to God cliché, "Well, it's the thought that counts."
* I never fall in love with anything without full participation of my neurons. The irony of alcohol is that it negates the proper functioning of the neurons; and is a joyful paradox, kind of like talking about a square circle; which exists and doesn't at the same time. Or perhaps it is more like trying to make it to zero Kelvin or hit terminal velocity or get to absolute singularity.
** Can you see now why I love wine? When is the last time that a bottle of Mountain-Dew ever had such an interesting history?
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Things I Thought When My Brain Was Off
I don't really do this, but my imagination was piqued earlier in the week and also tonight, so I did the unthinkable (literally, I had to stop thinking), I read some of Richard Dawkins' quotes. Okay, okay, there is a danger in reading quotes and a small diatribe; but hear me out, I didn't get them from any Christian web sites so I guess it counts.
Of course Dawkins makes some decent points, but the problem with some atheists and theists (unfortunately usually the most vocal ones of these groups) is that they believe they have made and/or are making the "slam dunk" argument; that after this argument there will be no more debate on the issue of religion and it will be over and done, Amen.
I think that is what makes some of these atheists so jaded. I once heard the story of a wealthy philanthropist who worked his whole life at something and when he accomplished his mission, he was angry and jaded because there was nothing left to do. Or, how about the fact that Martin Luther wrote a scathing anti-semetic work that embarrasses we Lutherans to no end and is completely unjustifiable, simply because the Jews wouldn't become Christians after the yoke of Rome had been removed. What is the similarity between the two stories? Though one person was disappointed with what he perceived was success and the other was disappointed with what he perceived as failure; both men put too much stock in their own achievements and win or lose became all that there was.
I think Mr. Dawkins puts too high a value on his own achievements, and that makes him look like a fool to a great many people (except his disciples). It allows him to go into areas of which he has no expertise (philosophy, literature, sociology). Then he says that that particular area is not important at all. This can make you a lot of enemies. However, Mr. Dawkins acts like a brash young bully rather than a person who really cares about his beliefs or, as he might say, "the facts". Mr. Dawkins overlooks the fact that in regards to the humanities he can allow himself to be outgunned and outclassed by simple bachelor's degree students. His hubris is his greatest failing, not his lack of zeal.
No one should debate Mr. Dawkins because there really will be no rational debate involved. I will give you an example. I once had a supervisor tell me I needed to get something done. It didn't make sense, so I asked why I needed to get it done? This person replied that he was in charge and, with all due respect, I shouldn't question it.* Mr. Dawkins seems to ignore a lot of things in his quest to be the world's smartest person. Ironically, the thing he ignores most is the fact that for every invective he levels against Christianity and belief of any kind for his own ego boosting, he is reinforcing the faith of every Christian and making his argument weaker by building it on his own very human understanding.
I wish Mr. Dawkins the best. I hope he finds a civil and intelligent way of debating with people, but until he does, I am thankful that the atheists will never have a foe worthy of the Christian's notice.
*In the hierarchy of things not to tell a philosopher, this is near the top. In the hierarchy of things not to tell an American, this is also near the top. Finally, under no circumstances should you tell a Christian this, just ask the Roman Catholic Church.
Of course Dawkins makes some decent points, but the problem with some atheists and theists (unfortunately usually the most vocal ones of these groups) is that they believe they have made and/or are making the "slam dunk" argument; that after this argument there will be no more debate on the issue of religion and it will be over and done, Amen.
I think that is what makes some of these atheists so jaded. I once heard the story of a wealthy philanthropist who worked his whole life at something and when he accomplished his mission, he was angry and jaded because there was nothing left to do. Or, how about the fact that Martin Luther wrote a scathing anti-semetic work that embarrasses we Lutherans to no end and is completely unjustifiable, simply because the Jews wouldn't become Christians after the yoke of Rome had been removed. What is the similarity between the two stories? Though one person was disappointed with what he perceived was success and the other was disappointed with what he perceived as failure; both men put too much stock in their own achievements and win or lose became all that there was.
I think Mr. Dawkins puts too high a value on his own achievements, and that makes him look like a fool to a great many people (except his disciples). It allows him to go into areas of which he has no expertise (philosophy, literature, sociology). Then he says that that particular area is not important at all. This can make you a lot of enemies. However, Mr. Dawkins acts like a brash young bully rather than a person who really cares about his beliefs or, as he might say, "the facts". Mr. Dawkins overlooks the fact that in regards to the humanities he can allow himself to be outgunned and outclassed by simple bachelor's degree students. His hubris is his greatest failing, not his lack of zeal.
No one should debate Mr. Dawkins because there really will be no rational debate involved. I will give you an example. I once had a supervisor tell me I needed to get something done. It didn't make sense, so I asked why I needed to get it done? This person replied that he was in charge and, with all due respect, I shouldn't question it.* Mr. Dawkins seems to ignore a lot of things in his quest to be the world's smartest person. Ironically, the thing he ignores most is the fact that for every invective he levels against Christianity and belief of any kind for his own ego boosting, he is reinforcing the faith of every Christian and making his argument weaker by building it on his own very human understanding.
I wish Mr. Dawkins the best. I hope he finds a civil and intelligent way of debating with people, but until he does, I am thankful that the atheists will never have a foe worthy of the Christian's notice.
*In the hierarchy of things not to tell a philosopher, this is near the top. In the hierarchy of things not to tell an American, this is also near the top. Finally, under no circumstances should you tell a Christian this, just ask the Roman Catholic Church.
A Christmas Message
Christmas is upon us once again. Day in and day out we feel the unbearable weight of it all. There is a tension in this season unlike any other time of year a dark and cruel undertone behind the veneer of holiday platitudes about "peace" and "happiness." We are told that people behave better, have some common kindness, and a spirit of joy permeates us at this time of year. If this is the case than may I say two very important things. First, if humans are capable of such sentiment for a period of less than one month, why are they incapable of it for the rest of year? Secondly, they are incapable of such a sentiment for a period of less than one month.
I have driven on roads and been cut off by cars that any other time of the year would have yielded to me out of common kindness. Now that natural inclination to kindness is supplanted by the Macy's Christmas special homing patterns. I have seen people not tip or thank or return the greetings of lowly retail peons, because they were too busy trying to purchase the requisite presents for friends and family. I have even seen good people* get shunned when people talk of Christmas plans with other friends when this lonely soul is in their midst. In fact it is striking how many times it is the non-Christian's "merry Christmas" is heard as opposed to the Christian's.
All the time Christians "fight for their rights." "Keep Christ in Christmas" we say, or "Those atheists are trying to remove this or that from our town's Christmas." Yet, Christmas is not so much about what is done, but rather it is about what has been done for us. All our secularization of the holiday hasn't been able to remove the common theme: God loved the world and he sent his Son. No one brought God any gifts that he used to win our salvation. No one deserved to have God move into the neighborhood. And no certainly showed the holy family any kindness or gave them any tips or invited them to stay with them or even let them merge into traffic. The Gospels don't tell us of any human providing them with anything of use at all, and yet everything turned out okay.
And the gifts provided by the wise astrologers and songs of praise given by the shepherds all disappeared under the vast waves of history; but what remained was one gift, not earned by the laws of "naughty or nice" and not just given to the people who let people merge into busy intersections on Black Friday. The gift of peace on earth and unending happiness and reunion with God was given to the harried Christmas shopper who forgets the meaning of Christmas while at Wal-Mart or forgets to invite a friend to a holiday party. God, you see, has a way of reaching us even in the midst of Christmas.
* Not that ascribed moral worth should in any way dictate the benevolence that we should show to our fellow human beings.
I have driven on roads and been cut off by cars that any other time of the year would have yielded to me out of common kindness. Now that natural inclination to kindness is supplanted by the Macy's Christmas special homing patterns. I have seen people not tip or thank or return the greetings of lowly retail peons, because they were too busy trying to purchase the requisite presents for friends and family. I have even seen good people* get shunned when people talk of Christmas plans with other friends when this lonely soul is in their midst. In fact it is striking how many times it is the non-Christian's "merry Christmas" is heard as opposed to the Christian's.
All the time Christians "fight for their rights." "Keep Christ in Christmas" we say, or "Those atheists are trying to remove this or that from our town's Christmas." Yet, Christmas is not so much about what is done, but rather it is about what has been done for us. All our secularization of the holiday hasn't been able to remove the common theme: God loved the world and he sent his Son. No one brought God any gifts that he used to win our salvation. No one deserved to have God move into the neighborhood. And no certainly showed the holy family any kindness or gave them any tips or invited them to stay with them or even let them merge into traffic. The Gospels don't tell us of any human providing them with anything of use at all, and yet everything turned out okay.
And the gifts provided by the wise astrologers and songs of praise given by the shepherds all disappeared under the vast waves of history; but what remained was one gift, not earned by the laws of "naughty or nice" and not just given to the people who let people merge into busy intersections on Black Friday. The gift of peace on earth and unending happiness and reunion with God was given to the harried Christmas shopper who forgets the meaning of Christmas while at Wal-Mart or forgets to invite a friend to a holiday party. God, you see, has a way of reaching us even in the midst of Christmas.
* Not that ascribed moral worth should in any way dictate the benevolence that we should show to our fellow human beings.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
The Human Problem
It is common to hear people lament the "divisive" nature that religion plays in our world today. Voiced by John Lennon's "Imagine" and Vladimir Lennin's "Russian experiment," people blithely accept that if we can just get rid of religion life will be a shining utopia. Recent events in India or the vast embarrassing history of humanity make such visions seem like a good idea. If only we could figure out how to get people to stop believing in God and start believing in one another life would be grand.
There is of course a catch to this though; and it is not God I can assure you. It is the human problem. "Imagine philosophy" and "Bolshevik politics" do not believe in a God. If there is no God, than it is humans causing all the suffering and pain in the world. If that is the case, than are human beings really worth saving? I mean, we are nothing more than carbon blueprints that only appear to "know" things. We don't even have ourselves. Indeed any rock we excavate or log we burn has just as much value as we do; this deduction seems preposterous and I have an hard time believing it.
However, even if I were to ignore that glaring flaw, how can I really love creatures as deeply troubled and messed up as myself. We do not share. Lennon lived in the Dakotas while the poor died on the streets of New York. At the same time in Russia, the Communist elite lived like kings while others were being dragged off to Siberia. Therefore this is not a religious problem, but a problem with humanity. Human beings have to be free to do the right thing, something that the Judeo-Christian religion has stated right from the beginning. To be forced or coerced into doing the right thing makes the allure of doing evil seem like a virtuous rebellion.
Meanwhile people kill because ... well, why? Borders are crossed and religions are offended? Folks Christianity has never backed any country and we can all say that Christ "humbled himself and became obedient to death -- even death on a cross." Translation, first, God has been mocked and is big enough to handle our little slights and second, I doubt God really needs us to avenge him. So while we kill in the name of God, we should note that God died for our "good" name.
This leads me to my main thought. There is nothing laudable about humanity. Even if we aren't unfortunate enough to be in places where our lives are in constant danger, we do live in a world where our wills butt up against other people's wills. The subtle anger and malice of people eats away at everyone's soul day in and day out. People kill in so many ways be it behind the back comments or sarcastic put downs that there really is nothing do be said in our favor. In fact I often wonder why God even bothers keeping us around and if there is no God, why not just be done with us all together. We have done nothing to commend us.
The answer is, I am afraid, an unpopular one even with me. I was ransomed and saved. I like to think of it like this: There are some very awful cars that cost a great deal of money. They break down a lot and have extremely high costing replacement parts, but people pay a fortune to own them. My little Geo Prism is a great car but isn't worth nearly as much. Why is that? Simple economics: People ascribe higher value to things that aren't necessarily worth the cost. In this regard, God has made a serious blunder. He offered his deity as sacrifice to creatures who don't deserve it.
I know it is pointless or foolish to actually love people for their intrinsic value, there is nothing really lovable. I just happen to love that which is perfect, and that which is perfect sets an unusually high price on humanity, so I am stuck loving this beautiful mess. In other words, if there were no religion, there would be no people worth living for. This option is something not worth imagining.
There is of course a catch to this though; and it is not God I can assure you. It is the human problem. "Imagine philosophy" and "Bolshevik politics" do not believe in a God. If there is no God, than it is humans causing all the suffering and pain in the world. If that is the case, than are human beings really worth saving? I mean, we are nothing more than carbon blueprints that only appear to "know" things. We don't even have ourselves. Indeed any rock we excavate or log we burn has just as much value as we do; this deduction seems preposterous and I have an hard time believing it.
However, even if I were to ignore that glaring flaw, how can I really love creatures as deeply troubled and messed up as myself. We do not share. Lennon lived in the Dakotas while the poor died on the streets of New York. At the same time in Russia, the Communist elite lived like kings while others were being dragged off to Siberia. Therefore this is not a religious problem, but a problem with humanity. Human beings have to be free to do the right thing, something that the Judeo-Christian religion has stated right from the beginning. To be forced or coerced into doing the right thing makes the allure of doing evil seem like a virtuous rebellion.
Meanwhile people kill because ... well, why? Borders are crossed and religions are offended? Folks Christianity has never backed any country and we can all say that Christ "humbled himself and became obedient to death -- even death on a cross." Translation, first, God has been mocked and is big enough to handle our little slights and second, I doubt God really needs us to avenge him. So while we kill in the name of God, we should note that God died for our "good" name.
This leads me to my main thought. There is nothing laudable about humanity. Even if we aren't unfortunate enough to be in places where our lives are in constant danger, we do live in a world where our wills butt up against other people's wills. The subtle anger and malice of people eats away at everyone's soul day in and day out. People kill in so many ways be it behind the back comments or sarcastic put downs that there really is nothing do be said in our favor. In fact I often wonder why God even bothers keeping us around and if there is no God, why not just be done with us all together. We have done nothing to commend us.
The answer is, I am afraid, an unpopular one even with me. I was ransomed and saved. I like to think of it like this: There are some very awful cars that cost a great deal of money. They break down a lot and have extremely high costing replacement parts, but people pay a fortune to own them. My little Geo Prism is a great car but isn't worth nearly as much. Why is that? Simple economics: People ascribe higher value to things that aren't necessarily worth the cost. In this regard, God has made a serious blunder. He offered his deity as sacrifice to creatures who don't deserve it.
I know it is pointless or foolish to actually love people for their intrinsic value, there is nothing really lovable. I just happen to love that which is perfect, and that which is perfect sets an unusually high price on humanity, so I am stuck loving this beautiful mess. In other words, if there were no religion, there would be no people worth living for. This option is something not worth imagining.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
You win some, you lose some.
Sigh, the Phillies won the World Series. Don't get me wrong, I love the National League. I feel like too often we get beaten in the All-Star game by that other league. Still...and I apologize to all my Phillies-rooting Phanatics out there, I usually do root for the underdog.
But the real reason I am writing this is not to congratulate the Phillies or console the poor Tampa Bay Rays who will have to retreat to their high seventy-degree paradise. Rather, as the game wrapped up tonight, I turned to my dad and uttered that one word that hangs over my beloved Cincinnati Reds like a pall: Pitching. One baseball expert put it best by saying that "pitching wins games and hitting keeps butts in the seats." The Reds can have a very fine group of hitters, but it doesn't mean anything without the requisite pitching staff.
The great tragedy or comedy, depending on who you ask, is the fact that Cincinnati has known this for years. Yet, nothing has been done about this. We wring our hands and lament it, but we are unwilling to make the necessary changes (i.e. budget or valuable player trades) in order to get better and move forward. I can attack and criticize my hometown all I want, but I realize that it is really a lot like my own life.
I look at people around me and how my friends move forward by sacrificing that which is truly unnecessary. I know the problems and have an hard time fixing them. Someone once said that admitting you have a problem is the first step, but I'd add that first steps really don't amount to much of a journey without the requisite next steps. Sometimes our sins are just too comfortable. So are beds I guess, but sooner or later you're going to have to get up and go.
The key is to just accept there are going to be rough spots in the outside world as well as in our own psyche, and that rarely will everything unfortunate visit us at the same time and not to worry when they do because there are bigger things than our worries. Meanwhile we can still be happy that there are things like the World Series and especially baseball.
But the real reason I am writing this is not to congratulate the Phillies or console the poor Tampa Bay Rays who will have to retreat to their high seventy-degree paradise. Rather, as the game wrapped up tonight, I turned to my dad and uttered that one word that hangs over my beloved Cincinnati Reds like a pall: Pitching. One baseball expert put it best by saying that "pitching wins games and hitting keeps butts in the seats." The Reds can have a very fine group of hitters, but it doesn't mean anything without the requisite pitching staff.
The great tragedy or comedy, depending on who you ask, is the fact that Cincinnati has known this for years. Yet, nothing has been done about this. We wring our hands and lament it, but we are unwilling to make the necessary changes (i.e. budget or valuable player trades) in order to get better and move forward. I can attack and criticize my hometown all I want, but I realize that it is really a lot like my own life.
I look at people around me and how my friends move forward by sacrificing that which is truly unnecessary. I know the problems and have an hard time fixing them. Someone once said that admitting you have a problem is the first step, but I'd add that first steps really don't amount to much of a journey without the requisite next steps. Sometimes our sins are just too comfortable. So are beds I guess, but sooner or later you're going to have to get up and go.
The key is to just accept there are going to be rough spots in the outside world as well as in our own psyche, and that rarely will everything unfortunate visit us at the same time and not to worry when they do because there are bigger things than our worries. Meanwhile we can still be happy that there are things like the World Series and especially baseball.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Hi, I'm a Mac ... and, I'm Sorry
(An attempt at a short blog.)
I once got into an argument with my uncle (nothing very heated, mind you) about a recent ad campaign by the vacuum company Dyson. At the end of the advert, the founder of the company said, "I just think things ought to work properly" or something like that. My uncle said it sounded arrogant, I countered that it just stated facts.
Following the rather ... oh lets face it, bad Seinfeld advertisement series released by Microsoft; the company and their ad firm have decided to try and resurect the PC from its bad image by showing that millions of people around the world (some ninety-five percent of the human population that owns a computer) runs Microsoft. This overlooks a couple of central themes. First, it is an all too blatant appeal to popularity fallacy. Second, it ignores that PCs have been getting bad marks for crashes, viruses, and generally just "not working properly."
This is not the hardware's fault on the whole (though I have owned a Dell that only gets to be plugged in from time to time). Most PCs have very similar components and do virtually the same thing. However, the modern PC has a major design flaw: its operating system. It isn't that the Window's operating system is flawed or bad or anything like that. These things can be fixed. It is that it is so inherently flawed, bad, and problematic; and that no one at Microsoft thinks that instead of fixing their deservedly tarnished image, they ought to try and fix their products.
In this Microsoft typifies corporate arrogance. They feel that instead of working to make things better, they should not be challenged. Instead of fixing what is the problem, they decide instead to try and "fix" how the problem is perceived.
My friends, I do not have the best job and I am not a graphics designer or scientist; but I do have an amazing computer that has lasted me longer than any computer I have ever owned. It is coming up on four years since I purchased one of my best investments. My last virus was over four years ago (on my Dell), my last hardware fix was over four years ago (on my Dell), the last time I had to restart my computer because of a blue screen of death was ... well you get the picture. My parents have a computer from longer ago than mine. My dad bought a computer recently and it shows no signs of slowing down. This is because all of these computers are Apples.
When people ask me what kind of computer they should buy, my answer is simple, buy a Mac. It doesn't crash, it doesn't get viruses, and it runs as fast years down the line as the day you got it out of the box. To me the choice is obvious. (Ironically it is also obvious to the ad company that runs Microsoft's campaign, for they too, you see ... run the Mac computer.)
Hello, I'm a Mac, and I'm sorry.
P.S. - If you have time and are interested you can also download Linux. It is free, but it is harder to use. Oh yeah, unlike Windows it won't crash, get viruses, etc. Odd how many operating systems out there don't mess up on an hourly basis.
P.P.S. - Yes, that is the blue screen of death leading into my blog post. Lest we get lulled into a false sense of security and happiness by all those "happy" Window's Users, let us not forget what we are "really" dealing with. (Other options were the Mac and PC guys, a video of Windows messing up whenever Bill Gates unveils something, or the MCP from Tron.)
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Words Have Meaning
Some of you may know of my increasing obsession with words, language, and its vital importance to how we live our lives. I’d like to focus on three words in particular namely: love, freedom, and sacrifice. These words seem to be or have been words bantered about recently. The latter two seem more important in our culture today than the first, but the first one is still used a lot today and in its time was the word of choice. In fact, it may actually demonstrate a generation gap.
Love
The Oxford English Dictionary says that love is “an intense feeling of tender affection and compassion.” It is important to know definitions, if for no other reason to know how inapplicable they actually are to our everyday usage. If we were to talk to an hundred people on the street, we would most likely end up with nearly as many definitions. Words have different meanings for different people because words are not solid things. They are socially agreed upon symbols. Imagine if you will a boat anchored in the water. It will move about on the surface of the water but stay relatively rooted to that spot. Words behave in much the same way.[1]
The main problem with people is when they believe, very firmly, that a certain word is no longer a symbol but an actual thing. In this way people cannot come to a common understanding because they are unwilling to yield on their notions of definitions.
A prime example is that of homosexuality.[2] Many people say we are to love homosexuals or that homosexuals love members of their own sex. However, we are fighting a battle of differing definitions. A Texas Baptist may differ greatly with a San Francisco homosexual on the definitions of not just erotic love, but of agape love as well. The problem comes when both sides refuse to see that the other person has a different definition. One of these definitions may indeed be tied into the deeper undercurrent of the laws of nature[3] and thus truly be called “right,” but that does not mean that we are to dismiss someone out of hand because they have a different definition. Indeed we are to “love” them so much that we try and practice our definition in such a way that they see it as so self-evident.[4]
Equally dangerous to holding too structured a definition, is to act as if such definitions do not matter. Back in the sixties such things were common. Love was the buzzword, but did it really mean anything to anybody? The definition was so mercurial that it actually didn’t have any substance at all. Therefore it wasn’t anything in which we could believe. That was the point. By ignoring the definition, you could have more and more people under one tent. What does that mean though? It’s not real community. Thus, reality imitated the word. A hollow group for a hollow word.
Freedom
Today’s word of choice is freedom. Yes, change and hope are popular, but they are not as important as freedom. The definition of freedom from Encarta is that it is “ a state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any, or to any undue, restraints or restrictions.” It is manifestly obvious that no person on earth (with the possible exception of sociopaths) feels that absolute freedom a good thing.
However, we see that we run into the same problems with freedom as we do with love. Whose definition do we choose? Take for instance the very broad (almost cartoon-like) definition of freedom that I will give about the Democrats and Republicans. The cartoon depiction of Democrats is that they believe in freedom for sexual preference, religion, and lifestyle; whereas the cartoon Republican will believe in freedom for business practices, taxation, guns, and the like. The odd thing that neither side sees is that they both believe in freedom for different things. They are morally outraged that the other side would impede upon their freedom.
We know that these definitions of freedom only go so far though. The definitions that we give of freedom seem many times to be shallow and apparent excuses to allow us to do what we want to do. We accept it, not because we believe in freedom per se, but because we have a “gentlemen’s agreement” that we will look the other when you want something; a sort of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch your back” attitude to rights and freedoms.
The true freedom needed in America is something that will not harm the civil population and should not be rooted in any religion per se, but must be rooted in the common culture which may spring from a certain religion. Our acceptance of some freedoms and rejection of others can become hypocritical and it is important that we do not overly condone or overly condemn other people’s desires.
From this we understand that freedom is pretty hollow. A culture rooted in Confucism or Islam or Hindu may have a completely different notion of freedom. And, to be frank America is not, has never been, and should never be a completely free country. The anarchy of three hundred million little gods imposing their will to power in the name of hollow freedom is a Hell too horrible to imagine. Freedom is marketed though because it ties in with our ego and that ties into our pride. The wise person knows the danger of pride, whereas the fool will buy into the lie of contentment at the price of happiness.
Sacrifice
Sacrifice today is cheap. It can be bought and sold…literally. When President Bush told us to fight terrorism, he said we could do this by going to Disney World. This made many Republicans grown and gave many Democrats more ammunition; but the fact is that we all believe that we are sacrificing something while not really sacrificing anything at all. In many ways, however, true sacrifice flies in the face of freedom. You cannot have true freedom if you feel the need to sacrifice and you cannot have sacrifice if you place freedom at the forefront of your goals. Yet we hear all the time about sacrifices for freedom. We are told to respect the sacrifices that soldiers make for freedom. The irony of this is that we pay lip service to their sacrifices and yet make none on our own. We talk a great deal about the heroism of those fighting, but we don’t even do the smallest of things: like thanking a soldier.
And we can’t say that going to Disney World is a sacrifice or that paying the real cost of gas is a sacrifice or that this thing or that thing is a sacrifice. A real sacrifice would be to give up eating chocolate because of the slave labor that is used to produce it or not buying from China because of the horrible human rights abuses. We could set up public funds for colleges to do research for cleaner energy or volunteer at that local boys and girls club / food pantry / habitat for humanity project. We could spend less time glued to the idiot box while spending more time with family, books, and community. We could even sacrifice time and money to get that next degree. That is sacrifice.
Now this is not to say that Americans don’t give. Americans donate time and money on levels that other countries don’t understand. While I think more of our budget should go to foreign and domestic aid, I believe that Americans give more on a private level than most anyone else in the world;[5] but let us not pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves that we are wonderful individuals when most of us (yes us, because I am as guilty as the next person) don’t sacrifice nearly as much as we really believe we could.
Sacrifice becomes a pharisaical word. We believe we can fulfill moral requirements when we have made the proper sacrifices. However, we know that a change of heart is the only place where true sacrifice finds its beginning and ending. We have even begun fudging on the definitions of sacrifice. It has moved from what have you done because you had a change of mind and body and heart to what have you done to what have you done without to did you not buy that thing you wanted because you couldn’t afford it to did you go to Disney World and sacrifice your budget so the terrorists won’t win? I don’t want to live in a world where that is the definition of sacrifice. Ironically sacrifice has been having a pretty universal agreement. Most people believe they have done or are doing enough and some believe they can never do enough.[6]
If, as the dictionary puts it, sacrifice is “a giving up of something valuable or important for somebody or something else considered to be of more value or importance,” can we really say there is anything we have sacrificed or will sacrifice? I suppose the great irony of America is that until it knows what it really values above everything else, it will never know sacrifice and no matter what it may sacrifice, it will never measure up to that unknown something.
Humanity will always wrestle with definitions and the thoughts behind the words. Words like sacrifice, freedom, and love are hard to define. A big danger comes about when we forget that words aren’t really the things they are describing but rather signs that point towards these things. A great example is the word car. When I say the word car you may think of a different car than that of which I am thinking. The question is who is right and how much does it matter? Love, freedom, and sacrifice matter to the American and individual psyche; but we should never hate because someone has different definitions. We can disagree with others and even hate their definitions, but in reality we are all humans trying to grasp at the deeper meanings of words and their importance to our daily lives.
[1] So do mathematical symbols and numbers, but that is another story.
[2] Oh yeah, I can just see it now. Everyone is going to be getting all ticked off and ready for a battle. It’s like someone broke a glass at a crowded restaurant. Now I am not going to argue homosexuality, primarily because I don’t care to do so at this moment. I am not interested in it in that way, but I may write a blog post about it in the future.
[3] Do not for a moment pigeon-hole me into a close-minded Christian camp because I speak of the laws of nature. People from Aristotle to Kant have discussed the laws that govern human beings souls as being co-equal to those that govern the natural world. One does not have to be a Christian to believe that such things exist.
[4] Neither camp has been too good with demonstrating their definition of love properly.
[5] If I could have data on this, I would be one happy Phil.
[6] A Christian believes that there is only one sacrifice that we can make and that we can never truly make it by ourselves and on our own.
Love
The Oxford English Dictionary says that love is “an intense feeling of tender affection and compassion.” It is important to know definitions, if for no other reason to know how inapplicable they actually are to our everyday usage. If we were to talk to an hundred people on the street, we would most likely end up with nearly as many definitions. Words have different meanings for different people because words are not solid things. They are socially agreed upon symbols. Imagine if you will a boat anchored in the water. It will move about on the surface of the water but stay relatively rooted to that spot. Words behave in much the same way.[1]
The main problem with people is when they believe, very firmly, that a certain word is no longer a symbol but an actual thing. In this way people cannot come to a common understanding because they are unwilling to yield on their notions of definitions.
A prime example is that of homosexuality.[2] Many people say we are to love homosexuals or that homosexuals love members of their own sex. However, we are fighting a battle of differing definitions. A Texas Baptist may differ greatly with a San Francisco homosexual on the definitions of not just erotic love, but of agape love as well. The problem comes when both sides refuse to see that the other person has a different definition. One of these definitions may indeed be tied into the deeper undercurrent of the laws of nature[3] and thus truly be called “right,” but that does not mean that we are to dismiss someone out of hand because they have a different definition. Indeed we are to “love” them so much that we try and practice our definition in such a way that they see it as so self-evident.[4]
Equally dangerous to holding too structured a definition, is to act as if such definitions do not matter. Back in the sixties such things were common. Love was the buzzword, but did it really mean anything to anybody? The definition was so mercurial that it actually didn’t have any substance at all. Therefore it wasn’t anything in which we could believe. That was the point. By ignoring the definition, you could have more and more people under one tent. What does that mean though? It’s not real community. Thus, reality imitated the word. A hollow group for a hollow word.
Freedom
Today’s word of choice is freedom. Yes, change and hope are popular, but they are not as important as freedom. The definition of freedom from Encarta is that it is “ a state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any, or to any undue, restraints or restrictions.” It is manifestly obvious that no person on earth (with the possible exception of sociopaths) feels that absolute freedom a good thing.
However, we see that we run into the same problems with freedom as we do with love. Whose definition do we choose? Take for instance the very broad (almost cartoon-like) definition of freedom that I will give about the Democrats and Republicans. The cartoon depiction of Democrats is that they believe in freedom for sexual preference, religion, and lifestyle; whereas the cartoon Republican will believe in freedom for business practices, taxation, guns, and the like. The odd thing that neither side sees is that they both believe in freedom for different things. They are morally outraged that the other side would impede upon their freedom.
We know that these definitions of freedom only go so far though. The definitions that we give of freedom seem many times to be shallow and apparent excuses to allow us to do what we want to do. We accept it, not because we believe in freedom per se, but because we have a “gentlemen’s agreement” that we will look the other when you want something; a sort of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch your back” attitude to rights and freedoms.
The true freedom needed in America is something that will not harm the civil population and should not be rooted in any religion per se, but must be rooted in the common culture which may spring from a certain religion. Our acceptance of some freedoms and rejection of others can become hypocritical and it is important that we do not overly condone or overly condemn other people’s desires.
From this we understand that freedom is pretty hollow. A culture rooted in Confucism or Islam or Hindu may have a completely different notion of freedom. And, to be frank America is not, has never been, and should never be a completely free country. The anarchy of three hundred million little gods imposing their will to power in the name of hollow freedom is a Hell too horrible to imagine. Freedom is marketed though because it ties in with our ego and that ties into our pride. The wise person knows the danger of pride, whereas the fool will buy into the lie of contentment at the price of happiness.
Sacrifice
Sacrifice today is cheap. It can be bought and sold…literally. When President Bush told us to fight terrorism, he said we could do this by going to Disney World. This made many Republicans grown and gave many Democrats more ammunition; but the fact is that we all believe that we are sacrificing something while not really sacrificing anything at all. In many ways, however, true sacrifice flies in the face of freedom. You cannot have true freedom if you feel the need to sacrifice and you cannot have sacrifice if you place freedom at the forefront of your goals. Yet we hear all the time about sacrifices for freedom. We are told to respect the sacrifices that soldiers make for freedom. The irony of this is that we pay lip service to their sacrifices and yet make none on our own. We talk a great deal about the heroism of those fighting, but we don’t even do the smallest of things: like thanking a soldier.
And we can’t say that going to Disney World is a sacrifice or that paying the real cost of gas is a sacrifice or that this thing or that thing is a sacrifice. A real sacrifice would be to give up eating chocolate because of the slave labor that is used to produce it or not buying from China because of the horrible human rights abuses. We could set up public funds for colleges to do research for cleaner energy or volunteer at that local boys and girls club / food pantry / habitat for humanity project. We could spend less time glued to the idiot box while spending more time with family, books, and community. We could even sacrifice time and money to get that next degree. That is sacrifice.
Now this is not to say that Americans don’t give. Americans donate time and money on levels that other countries don’t understand. While I think more of our budget should go to foreign and domestic aid, I believe that Americans give more on a private level than most anyone else in the world;[5] but let us not pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves that we are wonderful individuals when most of us (yes us, because I am as guilty as the next person) don’t sacrifice nearly as much as we really believe we could.
Sacrifice becomes a pharisaical word. We believe we can fulfill moral requirements when we have made the proper sacrifices. However, we know that a change of heart is the only place where true sacrifice finds its beginning and ending. We have even begun fudging on the definitions of sacrifice. It has moved from what have you done because you had a change of mind and body and heart to what have you done to what have you done without to did you not buy that thing you wanted because you couldn’t afford it to did you go to Disney World and sacrifice your budget so the terrorists won’t win? I don’t want to live in a world where that is the definition of sacrifice. Ironically sacrifice has been having a pretty universal agreement. Most people believe they have done or are doing enough and some believe they can never do enough.[6]
If, as the dictionary puts it, sacrifice is “a giving up of something valuable or important for somebody or something else considered to be of more value or importance,” can we really say there is anything we have sacrificed or will sacrifice? I suppose the great irony of America is that until it knows what it really values above everything else, it will never know sacrifice and no matter what it may sacrifice, it will never measure up to that unknown something.
Humanity will always wrestle with definitions and the thoughts behind the words. Words like sacrifice, freedom, and love are hard to define. A big danger comes about when we forget that words aren’t really the things they are describing but rather signs that point towards these things. A great example is the word car. When I say the word car you may think of a different car than that of which I am thinking. The question is who is right and how much does it matter? Love, freedom, and sacrifice matter to the American and individual psyche; but we should never hate because someone has different definitions. We can disagree with others and even hate their definitions, but in reality we are all humans trying to grasp at the deeper meanings of words and their importance to our daily lives.
[1] So do mathematical symbols and numbers, but that is another story.
[2] Oh yeah, I can just see it now. Everyone is going to be getting all ticked off and ready for a battle. It’s like someone broke a glass at a crowded restaurant. Now I am not going to argue homosexuality, primarily because I don’t care to do so at this moment. I am not interested in it in that way, but I may write a blog post about it in the future.
[3] Do not for a moment pigeon-hole me into a close-minded Christian camp because I speak of the laws of nature. People from Aristotle to Kant have discussed the laws that govern human beings souls as being co-equal to those that govern the natural world. One does not have to be a Christian to believe that such things exist.
[4] Neither camp has been too good with demonstrating their definition of love properly.
[5] If I could have data on this, I would be one happy Phil.
[6] A Christian believes that there is only one sacrifice that we can make and that we can never truly make it by ourselves and on our own.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Arguing about Water
I recently went to Columbus with a few of my friends. There are times where I can hold a wrong opinion in the face of overwhelming reason and data. That day was just such an occasion. On the car ride one of my friends stated that businesses, governments, and organizations were worried about water shortages and that it was quickly developing into a crisis on par with our current oil problems. She was saying this as a way to get a conversation started with all of us in the car, and most likely, especially with me. I knew it was a problem, but I really hated to agree with her.
What caused me to contradict her? Why did I have to win an argument even if I was wrong?
I countered by explaining that water was the most plentiful resource available and that desalination plants were advancing by leaps and bounds. I pointed out that people had similar misgivings about the amount of food that we have, and that current thought holds that our food supply will be okay until we hit about twenty-five billion people. Anyone with a modicum understanding of logic will see the above two fallacies.
My main problem wasn't the data itself, but rather what was being done with that data. Do the corporations actually use it to fix the problem, or do the governments, or does the populous; or do we gnash our teeth in our ivory towers and lament how we are all going to die in an hot, or dry, or foodless, or oilless world. If society is the individual writ large, than my own lamanentations about how insurmountable my own problems are should dictate that I would be better solving my problems than complaining about them. Human society would be best to learn this as well. I get agrevated by the doom and gloom of problems; and, I suppose, I would like things to be rosey and happy all the time like a bad movie.
So when the problem was brought to my attention, I argued against this friend of mine even though I had known her view to be correct. It is sad to admit this error in myself. I had argued her point a week or two earlier. I wasn't in control of the conversation and therefore my pride for wanting to hold the winning position trumped my desire for truth.
This is a common story with human relations. Bush's stance on the Iraq war, the Neocons' stance on the economy, or the Democrats' strong position on various social issues; show that our desire to be right will not only trump what is right but even our own notions of what is right. Admitting we are wrong means others are our equals or our superiors. In a world where we have become like God, we feel a need to set up a strata where we are on top; and being wrong means we are not perfect.
The irony is that the same sensation to tell my friend she was wrong was the same as our desire to not admit the problems with water, or oil, or global warming. I wish I could admit being wrong more often even with my friends.
What caused me to contradict her? Why did I have to win an argument even if I was wrong?
I countered by explaining that water was the most plentiful resource available and that desalination plants were advancing by leaps and bounds. I pointed out that people had similar misgivings about the amount of food that we have, and that current thought holds that our food supply will be okay until we hit about twenty-five billion people. Anyone with a modicum understanding of logic will see the above two fallacies.
My main problem wasn't the data itself, but rather what was being done with that data. Do the corporations actually use it to fix the problem, or do the governments, or does the populous; or do we gnash our teeth in our ivory towers and lament how we are all going to die in an hot, or dry, or foodless, or oilless world. If society is the individual writ large, than my own lamanentations about how insurmountable my own problems are should dictate that I would be better solving my problems than complaining about them. Human society would be best to learn this as well. I get agrevated by the doom and gloom of problems; and, I suppose, I would like things to be rosey and happy all the time like a bad movie.
So when the problem was brought to my attention, I argued against this friend of mine even though I had known her view to be correct. It is sad to admit this error in myself. I had argued her point a week or two earlier. I wasn't in control of the conversation and therefore my pride for wanting to hold the winning position trumped my desire for truth.
This is a common story with human relations. Bush's stance on the Iraq war, the Neocons' stance on the economy, or the Democrats' strong position on various social issues; show that our desire to be right will not only trump what is right but even our own notions of what is right. Admitting we are wrong means others are our equals or our superiors. In a world where we have become like God, we feel a need to set up a strata where we are on top; and being wrong means we are not perfect.
The irony is that the same sensation to tell my friend she was wrong was the same as our desire to not admit the problems with water, or oil, or global warming. I wish I could admit being wrong more often even with my friends.
Monday, July 21, 2008
The Curse of the Men of Silver
[Disclaimer: A friend approached me and reminded me that many of my generation were dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I believe the war in Iraq is an inexcusable quagmire and that some people have discredited our military by their conduct over there; I have been more than impressed by the zeal shown by those fighting for a democracy and working to rebuild a very broken country. I believe the lion's share of soldiers are good and honorable people who more than anything believe in the ideas behind this country. They are the good thing about this war and one of the few glimmers of hope to be found in such a regrettable mess. It is because of them that this war has not been a complete loss and they have proven that victory can sometimes be seen even in the darkness of defeat. I hope that their example will be the starting point for a deeper understanding of what once was great about this nation and could be great yet again.]
"So, why do people fight anyway? Perhaps the meaning of human existence lies within their will to fight. People feel a sense of accomplishment through battle. And its also a fact that the ones actually fighting are never perceived as being tainted."
- Katsuyuki Sumizawa
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Translation: Who watches the watchmen?
- Juvenal
In Plato's Republic, Socrates is asked who should lead his shining new Republic. Socrates answers that the Republic should be led by philosopher kings whose rule is enforced by soldiers to ensure that the people live happy, prosperous, and orderly lives. The philosopher kings are the men of gold. The soldiers are the men of silver, and the average people are the men of bronze.
First off, as a philosopher myself I can assure that nothing would be worse for a country than to be led by philosophers. When we are not lost in thought and undecided on an issue, we are ideologues arguing the most curious things with a frightful zeal. I suppose that it would be best to have people of wisdom and moral courage ruling, but this is a given for what all societies truly want deep in their heart of hearts. America is a country ruled where the leaders are chosen by the people and there is a strong blend of all these classes. The people try to elect those who will be the wisest.
However, what are we to do with the soldiers? In our current society we seem to have a perverse view of the military. We civilians lust for the destruction of enemies and see them as nothing more than objects. We have objectified the enemy so much that now we can no longer talk to them, but rather we look at them as obstacles in our way to victory.
The great shame is that we view our soldiers in such an horrible way as well. They are the flip side of this. Trained to be weapons, they must be stripped of pity for the people against whom they fight. When a war is just, this is a sad sacrifice to ask anyone to make. When a war is unjust, it is damnable act by those who lead. In essence, war is state sanctioned murder. Murder is wrong, accept when worse things can arise from it's going unpunished. Even the just wars (World War II or the reprisal to attacks from Afghanistan) leave us with the ultimate horror of asking young men and women to commit murder so as to protect others.
The shabby treatment of soldiers in this country is inexcusable. Our country has failed our military in three very large ways. First, we have allowed war profiteers to gain large sums of money for doing virtually nothing. Secondly, we have not worked hard enough to promote peace throughout the world so as to end the threat of war. Third, and most shamefully, we have cried crocodile tears and talked a great deal about the sacrifice of veterans; while turning a blind eye to what we can really do to show our gratitude.
If we really mean to look out for our citizens who are willing to fight for us, we should make sure that they are best equipped for wars which we pray will never happen. We don't do this though. And when they return, they are never thanked by people who see them in uniform.
Instead we are fortunate enough to turn them into objects. (Perhaps living in this age of materialism has made everything and everyone an object.) However, a soldier is viewed to be a tool of war like a tank or a plane. They are the "smart chip" in the machines or infantry; and not an human being. That is how we get to sleep at night. That is how we are able to deal with all those parts of the statistic. The people dying in wars are nothing more to us than the scrap metal of an incinerated humvee or apache helicopter or any other war machine. God help us when enemy and protector are nothing more than a tally for how a war is progressing.
So what is a soldier's duty. A soldier is a person who must only be called upon when the country is in its darkest hour. They must prepare for a job that they should never ever have to perform; while in the meantime working to prevent the ultimate horror from occurring. They should be asked, as they have so often in the past, to built the infrastructure of this country and the rest of the world. They should trade in their precious time for the promise of this country to give them a solid education. They should receive loyalty from those who lead them and are protected by them (namely the United States people and its government).
It is a testament to how fortunate we are, that we have never seriously contemplated a military coup. It seems the most ludicrous notion in the world that the military would overthrow our government, and yet most of the world is used to this kind of behavior.* When one really thinks about this, one is amazed with the loyalty that is found in those who serve; and dismayed by the lack of loyalty found in the body public with regards to its military.
Let me be honest. I am not a jingoist who believes in the unsullied purity of the American soldier; but I am a realist who knows that as long as there are evil people willing to perpetrate evil wars, it is best that we have a strong protection against them. Those who fight for what is good deserve to be encouraged for and in their endeavors. They are fulfilling a dangerous job and it is up to us assist them as best we can.
*This of course was another precedent set by the first president. When military officials were preparing to establish General Washington as the military dictator of America; he cooly stared them down and we have been without such a threat ever since.
"So, why do people fight anyway? Perhaps the meaning of human existence lies within their will to fight. People feel a sense of accomplishment through battle. And its also a fact that the ones actually fighting are never perceived as being tainted."
- Katsuyuki Sumizawa
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Translation: Who watches the watchmen?
- Juvenal
In Plato's Republic, Socrates is asked who should lead his shining new Republic. Socrates answers that the Republic should be led by philosopher kings whose rule is enforced by soldiers to ensure that the people live happy, prosperous, and orderly lives. The philosopher kings are the men of gold. The soldiers are the men of silver, and the average people are the men of bronze.
First off, as a philosopher myself I can assure that nothing would be worse for a country than to be led by philosophers. When we are not lost in thought and undecided on an issue, we are ideologues arguing the most curious things with a frightful zeal. I suppose that it would be best to have people of wisdom and moral courage ruling, but this is a given for what all societies truly want deep in their heart of hearts. America is a country ruled where the leaders are chosen by the people and there is a strong blend of all these classes. The people try to elect those who will be the wisest.
However, what are we to do with the soldiers? In our current society we seem to have a perverse view of the military. We civilians lust for the destruction of enemies and see them as nothing more than objects. We have objectified the enemy so much that now we can no longer talk to them, but rather we look at them as obstacles in our way to victory.
The great shame is that we view our soldiers in such an horrible way as well. They are the flip side of this. Trained to be weapons, they must be stripped of pity for the people against whom they fight. When a war is just, this is a sad sacrifice to ask anyone to make. When a war is unjust, it is damnable act by those who lead. In essence, war is state sanctioned murder. Murder is wrong, accept when worse things can arise from it's going unpunished. Even the just wars (World War II or the reprisal to attacks from Afghanistan) leave us with the ultimate horror of asking young men and women to commit murder so as to protect others.
The shabby treatment of soldiers in this country is inexcusable. Our country has failed our military in three very large ways. First, we have allowed war profiteers to gain large sums of money for doing virtually nothing. Secondly, we have not worked hard enough to promote peace throughout the world so as to end the threat of war. Third, and most shamefully, we have cried crocodile tears and talked a great deal about the sacrifice of veterans; while turning a blind eye to what we can really do to show our gratitude.
If we really mean to look out for our citizens who are willing to fight for us, we should make sure that they are best equipped for wars which we pray will never happen. We don't do this though. And when they return, they are never thanked by people who see them in uniform.
Instead we are fortunate enough to turn them into objects. (Perhaps living in this age of materialism has made everything and everyone an object.) However, a soldier is viewed to be a tool of war like a tank or a plane. They are the "smart chip" in the machines or infantry; and not an human being. That is how we get to sleep at night. That is how we are able to deal with all those parts of the statistic. The people dying in wars are nothing more to us than the scrap metal of an incinerated humvee or apache helicopter or any other war machine. God help us when enemy and protector are nothing more than a tally for how a war is progressing.
So what is a soldier's duty. A soldier is a person who must only be called upon when the country is in its darkest hour. They must prepare for a job that they should never ever have to perform; while in the meantime working to prevent the ultimate horror from occurring. They should be asked, as they have so often in the past, to built the infrastructure of this country and the rest of the world. They should trade in their precious time for the promise of this country to give them a solid education. They should receive loyalty from those who lead them and are protected by them (namely the United States people and its government).
It is a testament to how fortunate we are, that we have never seriously contemplated a military coup. It seems the most ludicrous notion in the world that the military would overthrow our government, and yet most of the world is used to this kind of behavior.* When one really thinks about this, one is amazed with the loyalty that is found in those who serve; and dismayed by the lack of loyalty found in the body public with regards to its military.
Let me be honest. I am not a jingoist who believes in the unsullied purity of the American soldier; but I am a realist who knows that as long as there are evil people willing to perpetrate evil wars, it is best that we have a strong protection against them. Those who fight for what is good deserve to be encouraged for and in their endeavors. They are fulfilling a dangerous job and it is up to us assist them as best we can.
*This of course was another precedent set by the first president. When military officials were preparing to establish General Washington as the military dictator of America; he cooly stared them down and we have been without such a threat ever since.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Notes upon the first few minutes of a movie I turned off.
No one needs to tell history majors of the inanity of war or its tremendous influence on human affairs. We know. We've studied them. Most wars are shallow, pointless, and stupid. People justify them then and later generations will justify them. In my opinion World War I, the Spanish American War, the War in Vietnam, and a myriad of other wars did nothing but spill a lot of human blood in the name of high ideals while in reality it was mere blood-letting of some anger and hostility. War is usually pointless and it is a rare and very fine leader who can keep the general banality of human nature from indulging in a base desire on par with denying poor food or the helpless assistance.
That being said, sometimes war is necessary. It is a nasty and abysmal thing, but still a necessary evil. It is not my desire to here-in discuss when war is justified and when it is not. Rather, I wish to discuss something I recently watched.
I had heard good things about Flags of Our Fathers. I had really wanted to see it when it was released. I had thought the movie would be a good study on guilt as one group goes home at the price of others who really did the deed. I will not by any means discredit Mr. Eastwood's ability as a director. I will lay siege to this movie.
Flags of Our Fathers, or atleast the bit I saw, is a jumbled mess. It starts in the dreams of an old man, and yo-yos between past and present to a degree that hardly lets one have grasp of anything. In fact that would be the main point of the movie. One feels as if nothing is real. There is no right and no wrong. The soldiers fight and die on the beach for nothing. The heads of state want to win a war just to win a war. There were no concentration camps, there were no brutal Japanese, there were no real points to this war. It was just some foolish old men sending men to die needlessly.
My generation applauds this kind of talk. It is not because of some noble enlightenment about the nature of war and its cost. (To believe that is such damned nonsense if you just look at the practical lust we have about mutilations and cruelty in our films.) Rather it is that my generation wishes to see itself as the best generation. We would rather tear down the edifices of our grandparents so we did not have to look at them. We have accomplished nothing in our lifetime except the acceleration of the destruction of the environment, the continuation of the banality of our culture, and the destabilization of world order. That is just to name a few things. When did my generation sacrifice? When did my generation give? When did my generation really practice costly grace?
It doesn't matter though because revisionist historians tell us that our grandparents were just as banal as we were. This war they fought in the forties didn't really mean anything. You see they were either saps or scoundrels. The former believed all that nonsense about ridding the world of tyranny and the latter was just in it for all they could get.
I cannot respond to such a world-view because it falls so far out beyond the pale of reality as to be considered in the realm of Lewis Carroll. We have seen the Japanese catching babies upon bayonets and holding our soldiers in zoos or working them to beyond the point of death. We know of Germans leading people to incinerators or perpetrating horrible "experiments" upon them. We had tried to appease these monsters and they forced us to have to launch a crusade upon the darkness. If there had been another way, we would have done it; but there was no other way except brute force.
Were there evils on our side? Of course there were. The internment of American citizens who happened to be of Japanese origins is a deep blemish on our country's honor. Our treatment of African American service men was bad enough, even without the stark contrast with the German soldiers we sent back to be "prisoners" in the South. That is what makes America such a unique country. We freely admit where our mistakes were. However, it also invites countries with less developed senses of "guilt" and notions of "atonement" to label us as just as vile.
But let us Americans be perfectly honest. We live in the greatest country in the world and we are inheritors of an honorable legacy. It is a legacy of ideas and ideals. A country were imperfections were written down right beside achievements; and this is where I find fault with Flags of Our Fathers.
It is a film glorifying nihilism. Nobody really believed anything. The soldiers really didn't believe in the war. They didn't believe in right and wrong in essence. They were just along for the ride history was giving them. Do me a favor, talk to a veteran from that war and ask them if that is what they really believed. Perhaps you could read some history and find the truth of the matter.
This was a war that had to be fought. It was a war that could have no appeasement save total victory by the allies. There would be other wars where the two sides could compromise, but this was a war between absolute good being represented by flawed human beings and absolute evil being represented by flawed human beings. This film would be wise to take heed of such truths and not trade the heritage of a nation for a cheap forgiveness of my current pathetic generation.
That being said, sometimes war is necessary. It is a nasty and abysmal thing, but still a necessary evil. It is not my desire to here-in discuss when war is justified and when it is not. Rather, I wish to discuss something I recently watched.
I had heard good things about Flags of Our Fathers. I had really wanted to see it when it was released. I had thought the movie would be a good study on guilt as one group goes home at the price of others who really did the deed. I will not by any means discredit Mr. Eastwood's ability as a director. I will lay siege to this movie.
Flags of Our Fathers, or atleast the bit I saw, is a jumbled mess. It starts in the dreams of an old man, and yo-yos between past and present to a degree that hardly lets one have grasp of anything. In fact that would be the main point of the movie. One feels as if nothing is real. There is no right and no wrong. The soldiers fight and die on the beach for nothing. The heads of state want to win a war just to win a war. There were no concentration camps, there were no brutal Japanese, there were no real points to this war. It was just some foolish old men sending men to die needlessly.
My generation applauds this kind of talk. It is not because of some noble enlightenment about the nature of war and its cost. (To believe that is such damned nonsense if you just look at the practical lust we have about mutilations and cruelty in our films.) Rather it is that my generation wishes to see itself as the best generation. We would rather tear down the edifices of our grandparents so we did not have to look at them. We have accomplished nothing in our lifetime except the acceleration of the destruction of the environment, the continuation of the banality of our culture, and the destabilization of world order. That is just to name a few things. When did my generation sacrifice? When did my generation give? When did my generation really practice costly grace?
It doesn't matter though because revisionist historians tell us that our grandparents were just as banal as we were. This war they fought in the forties didn't really mean anything. You see they were either saps or scoundrels. The former believed all that nonsense about ridding the world of tyranny and the latter was just in it for all they could get.
I cannot respond to such a world-view because it falls so far out beyond the pale of reality as to be considered in the realm of Lewis Carroll. We have seen the Japanese catching babies upon bayonets and holding our soldiers in zoos or working them to beyond the point of death. We know of Germans leading people to incinerators or perpetrating horrible "experiments" upon them. We had tried to appease these monsters and they forced us to have to launch a crusade upon the darkness. If there had been another way, we would have done it; but there was no other way except brute force.
Were there evils on our side? Of course there were. The internment of American citizens who happened to be of Japanese origins is a deep blemish on our country's honor. Our treatment of African American service men was bad enough, even without the stark contrast with the German soldiers we sent back to be "prisoners" in the South. That is what makes America such a unique country. We freely admit where our mistakes were. However, it also invites countries with less developed senses of "guilt" and notions of "atonement" to label us as just as vile.
But let us Americans be perfectly honest. We live in the greatest country in the world and we are inheritors of an honorable legacy. It is a legacy of ideas and ideals. A country were imperfections were written down right beside achievements; and this is where I find fault with Flags of Our Fathers.
It is a film glorifying nihilism. Nobody really believed anything. The soldiers really didn't believe in the war. They didn't believe in right and wrong in essence. They were just along for the ride history was giving them. Do me a favor, talk to a veteran from that war and ask them if that is what they really believed. Perhaps you could read some history and find the truth of the matter.
This was a war that had to be fought. It was a war that could have no appeasement save total victory by the allies. There would be other wars where the two sides could compromise, but this was a war between absolute good being represented by flawed human beings and absolute evil being represented by flawed human beings. This film would be wise to take heed of such truths and not trade the heritage of a nation for a cheap forgiveness of my current pathetic generation.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Clinton’s Magical Fairyland of Doom
I wasn't going to write this blog. I was going to calmly let all this pass, but given the fact that I have no women who regularly read my blog, I guess I am safe to say what I am about to say. I am rather disheartened by the support that some women are giving Hillary Clinton, despite her clear self-centered nature.
Men do a lot of stupid stuff, that is true. We can get very enamored with large televisions and the newest gadgetry. We have been known to continue down roads without asking for directions. The stereotypical male is pretty awful.
Fortunately we don't live in the land of stereotypes. The world isn't written by a cosmic sit-com author, based on ingrained biases handed down in some dusty book.* We live a life filled with lots of people who do things outside of what they are supposed to be doing. We have democrats who are gun activists. We have Republicans who are working feverishly to save the environment. I have known responsible corporate leaders, honest politicians, and one or two math majors who didn't bore me to tears.
Women have a lot of stereotypes too. Turn on the television and see if you can find them. There is the "angel of the household" stereotype where mom has to look after everyone in the family. (Dad is relegated to the biggest child status.) We have the double standard motif where a guy is allowed to be promiscuous, but not a girl. (It still exists.)
To be honest, the stereotypes women have are probably a lot more intrusive than the one's that men feel. Men are regarded as uncouth idiots, but it really doesn't effect our jobs or our leisure. Women have had a tradition of really having to work hard to get where they are. The generations of suffragettes and female workers who tirelessly fought to gain equality under the law of nations and law of economics is truly a triumph for all of humanity. It does not belong to females alone, but to all people.
That is why it sickens me to see a snake-oil salesmen come in and usurp history.** I would vote for a myriad of other women before I would vote for Ms. Clinton and the women of this nation should too. She is not a populist and she doesn't care about the needs of women. And even if she did care about these things, it would not qualify her one bit to be president of the United States of America. Pandering to the public with a platform of bread and circuses is neither helpful or safe; and unless I missed my guess the president is supposed to be the president of all Americans, not just people of his or her own cliche.
It is also disgraceful the way Clinton has insinuated, and her followers have out and out said, that Barack Obama is ahead because he is a man. (He won, but you will never hear a Clintonite or Clintonian or whatever they are say he's won.) That is the most utter nonsense I have ever heard in my life. If that was the case, the democrats wouldn't allow a black man to be the nominee either. They would've picked someone smarmy like Jon Edwards or someone crazy like Denis Kucinich because they are white. The democrats had a lot of white guys to choose from this year. If it comes to elections being about picking people like us, the democrats decided to be a little on the brave side. (It is a pity that they weren't more brave in actually backing their nominee.)
For all her faults and flaws, Ms. Clinton seems to have served her constituency quite admirably. I suppose she will be a fine legislator. Her problem is that she doesn't want to be a legislator, but rather she wants to have power. She has lied about her credentials, her record, and her rival. I suppose if they had been very good lies, she might make a decent president, but the lies haven't even been that good.
The thrust of my blog post is this, stereotypes are fine as rubric. They help create a sort of order to our lives and allow us to organize things, but when we ignore facts in order to adhere to our stereotypes than we are living in a fantasy world and a dangerous one at that. Ms. Clinton is doing just this. She is reinforcing the stereotypes that men are evil and out to get her, you cannot trust Mr. Obama because of his race, and that the people of money only got that way by screwing everyone else out of their money. Such broad stereotypes are not believed by the Clintons, but they are used to manipulate those who WANT to believe in these nefarious cabals. It would be wise of Clinton supporters to trade in what they want to believe for what they need to believe.
* We must ban together and find the actual stereotypical sit-com book. My bet is that it is in the L.A. public library and has its own private group of librarians who take calls from stymied second-rate authors about how to get a character in and out of trouble. "Oh, he's a man," one declares, "have you had him burn down the house while trying to cook dinner?" Another says, "well, she is a blonde and we all know that means she's a ditz, so have her mispronounce some words and do a few cheers." When we find this book we must destroy it. We will have to go without television for a few weeks, but it will be worth it. Then again, the stupider parts of society will probably not know how to behave without the "sit-com reference"
** I am not going to write "herstory" because history and his are based off of two different linguistic branches. "His" is an old english word and "history" is from Latin, no doubt brought over by the Norman French. So once again, blame the French.
Men do a lot of stupid stuff, that is true. We can get very enamored with large televisions and the newest gadgetry. We have been known to continue down roads without asking for directions. The stereotypical male is pretty awful.
Fortunately we don't live in the land of stereotypes. The world isn't written by a cosmic sit-com author, based on ingrained biases handed down in some dusty book.* We live a life filled with lots of people who do things outside of what they are supposed to be doing. We have democrats who are gun activists. We have Republicans who are working feverishly to save the environment. I have known responsible corporate leaders, honest politicians, and one or two math majors who didn't bore me to tears.
Women have a lot of stereotypes too. Turn on the television and see if you can find them. There is the "angel of the household" stereotype where mom has to look after everyone in the family. (Dad is relegated to the biggest child status.) We have the double standard motif where a guy is allowed to be promiscuous, but not a girl. (It still exists.)
To be honest, the stereotypes women have are probably a lot more intrusive than the one's that men feel. Men are regarded as uncouth idiots, but it really doesn't effect our jobs or our leisure. Women have had a tradition of really having to work hard to get where they are. The generations of suffragettes and female workers who tirelessly fought to gain equality under the law of nations and law of economics is truly a triumph for all of humanity. It does not belong to females alone, but to all people.
That is why it sickens me to see a snake-oil salesmen come in and usurp history.** I would vote for a myriad of other women before I would vote for Ms. Clinton and the women of this nation should too. She is not a populist and she doesn't care about the needs of women. And even if she did care about these things, it would not qualify her one bit to be president of the United States of America. Pandering to the public with a platform of bread and circuses is neither helpful or safe; and unless I missed my guess the president is supposed to be the president of all Americans, not just people of his or her own cliche.
It is also disgraceful the way Clinton has insinuated, and her followers have out and out said, that Barack Obama is ahead because he is a man. (He won, but you will never hear a Clintonite or Clintonian or whatever they are say he's won.) That is the most utter nonsense I have ever heard in my life. If that was the case, the democrats wouldn't allow a black man to be the nominee either. They would've picked someone smarmy like Jon Edwards or someone crazy like Denis Kucinich because they are white. The democrats had a lot of white guys to choose from this year. If it comes to elections being about picking people like us, the democrats decided to be a little on the brave side. (It is a pity that they weren't more brave in actually backing their nominee.)
For all her faults and flaws, Ms. Clinton seems to have served her constituency quite admirably. I suppose she will be a fine legislator. Her problem is that she doesn't want to be a legislator, but rather she wants to have power. She has lied about her credentials, her record, and her rival. I suppose if they had been very good lies, she might make a decent president, but the lies haven't even been that good.
The thrust of my blog post is this, stereotypes are fine as rubric. They help create a sort of order to our lives and allow us to organize things, but when we ignore facts in order to adhere to our stereotypes than we are living in a fantasy world and a dangerous one at that. Ms. Clinton is doing just this. She is reinforcing the stereotypes that men are evil and out to get her, you cannot trust Mr. Obama because of his race, and that the people of money only got that way by screwing everyone else out of their money. Such broad stereotypes are not believed by the Clintons, but they are used to manipulate those who WANT to believe in these nefarious cabals. It would be wise of Clinton supporters to trade in what they want to believe for what they need to believe.
* We must ban together and find the actual stereotypical sit-com book. My bet is that it is in the L.A. public library and has its own private group of librarians who take calls from stymied second-rate authors about how to get a character in and out of trouble. "Oh, he's a man," one declares, "have you had him burn down the house while trying to cook dinner?" Another says, "well, she is a blonde and we all know that means she's a ditz, so have her mispronounce some words and do a few cheers." When we find this book we must destroy it. We will have to go without television for a few weeks, but it will be worth it. Then again, the stupider parts of society will probably not know how to behave without the "sit-com reference"
** I am not going to write "herstory" because history and his are based off of two different linguistic branches. "His" is an old english word and "history" is from Latin, no doubt brought over by the Norman French. So once again, blame the French.
Friday, May 30, 2008
My Great Big Freakin' Mistake.
Congress just looked into the fiscal responsibility (or lack thereof) of the United States Military. For those of you who don't know, the U.S. carries a big stick. According to the latest information I could get from Wikipedia, America spent 489.20 billion U.S. dollars on its military or better yet $489,200,000,000. The United Kingdom, number two in Nato, spent 38.4 billion U.S. dollars on its military. France came in at 29.5 billion U.S. dollars.
I don't mind my government taxing me. I don't even mind it being a little higher than it already is. I just like for people to use the same responsibility they'd use for themselves. For instance we wouldn't blindly spend $320,000 per laborer when we don't even know what they do. We wouldn't fork over five million dollars for special vehicle training when we don't even know what the company is doing period. The New York Times wrote all of this in their most recent article.
In short, I would like to know that the technocrats and bureaucrats are putting in an honest days work for an honest day's wages. The libertarians are all wet if they believe we need a smaller government, we need a more streamlined government. One where money is as intelligently used as if it were the person's own bank account.
Which leads me to my biggest problem. We aren't even that good at managing our money. According to spurious information from that oracle known as the internet, 80% of Americans are two missed paychecks away from disaster; and about 40% spend 110% of their paycheck. (For those of us who aren't math majors, I can assure you that 100% is an amount that you can get from a paycheck, and the extra 10% probably comes from fairy land or China.) I tend to look down on these people who spend so foolishly, until I look at my credit card bills and realize I am darn close to being one of them.
It is very humbling to realize that something like thriftiness, which you have prided yourself on, isn't necessarily the whole truth about yourself. How easy it is to live a blind life free of worry about who we are. In some ways I could justify my faults saying things like, "while I was in college and high school I couldn't buy all the stuff I wanted" or "I know I'll use this doohickey and it won't be on sale for very long."
It is funny how much we live a bifurcated life with a clear line of demarcation for God's plan for our lives and our plan for our lives. And it is amazing that such a lie as a private life apart from God, a room of our own as it were, was something that we would enjoy, let alone have at all.
So in the end, for me it is back to savings accounts, Roth IRAs, and not buying every electronic gizmo that is advertised. It is about not eating out so much, conserving my gasoline, and learning to be happy with what I have. I suppose that if I could do this, I would be a better individual not just financially, but holistically. Perhaps our technocrats could learn this lesson. But not from me, I'm still learning it.
I don't mind my government taxing me. I don't even mind it being a little higher than it already is. I just like for people to use the same responsibility they'd use for themselves. For instance we wouldn't blindly spend $320,000 per laborer when we don't even know what they do. We wouldn't fork over five million dollars for special vehicle training when we don't even know what the company is doing period. The New York Times wrote all of this in their most recent article.
In short, I would like to know that the technocrats and bureaucrats are putting in an honest days work for an honest day's wages. The libertarians are all wet if they believe we need a smaller government, we need a more streamlined government. One where money is as intelligently used as if it were the person's own bank account.
Which leads me to my biggest problem. We aren't even that good at managing our money. According to spurious information from that oracle known as the internet, 80% of Americans are two missed paychecks away from disaster; and about 40% spend 110% of their paycheck. (For those of us who aren't math majors, I can assure you that 100% is an amount that you can get from a paycheck, and the extra 10% probably comes from fairy land or China.) I tend to look down on these people who spend so foolishly, until I look at my credit card bills and realize I am darn close to being one of them.
It is very humbling to realize that something like thriftiness, which you have prided yourself on, isn't necessarily the whole truth about yourself. How easy it is to live a blind life free of worry about who we are. In some ways I could justify my faults saying things like, "while I was in college and high school I couldn't buy all the stuff I wanted" or "I know I'll use this doohickey and it won't be on sale for very long."
It is funny how much we live a bifurcated life with a clear line of demarcation for God's plan for our lives and our plan for our lives. And it is amazing that such a lie as a private life apart from God, a room of our own as it were, was something that we would enjoy, let alone have at all.
So in the end, for me it is back to savings accounts, Roth IRAs, and not buying every electronic gizmo that is advertised. It is about not eating out so much, conserving my gasoline, and learning to be happy with what I have. I suppose that if I could do this, I would be a better individual not just financially, but holistically. Perhaps our technocrats could learn this lesson. But not from me, I'm still learning it.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Googling the Language of Hypocrisy
It is impossible for any organization or corporation or even an individual to make it to the top without some bit of tarnish being applied to his, her, or it's reputation. Google is no exception. In many ways they have been a paragon of virtue in an otherwise less than virtuous area, namely business. Google has done a great many things of which to be proud. They have been incredibly innovative what with the more efficient search engine, Google Maps, the open source Android mobile phone operating system, and the backing of cloud technology*. The motto of the company is: Don't be evil.
However, YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, has allowed Islamist videos to be posted on their web site. This has earned them the ire of Senator Joseph Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He says it is "offensive." For it's part YouTube took down several of the worst videos, but kept others up stating that it "encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view."
What is freedom anyway? Webster's dictionary puts it this way: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action and Oxford says freedom is: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Both are completely right, but who would want to live in a world like that? Absolute freedom is, as Hobbes would no doubt say, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." It is a very nasty world to say the least.
Yet, we don't talk about about freedom that way. Instead we use some sort of vague and undefined feeling to describe freedom. In this way freedom can be whatever we want it to be. Although human beings love order, we want to control that order and thus in rides the ill-defined freedom.
However, as George W. Forell points out in his commentary on the Augsburg Confession, "Many people believe that order is the mortal enemy of freedom, and that those who advocate freedom must of necessity oppose order of any kind." He goes on to state that we all live in order and find disorder (i.e. absolute freedom) appalling or dangerous. Using the example of a family he puts it this way. "Only if a family operates according to some generally observed rules are the individual members free to eat and sleep, to work and play. A totally chaotic family would mean that the children starve, the father loses his job, and the mother her mind. You have observed such families in operation, but they hardly strike you as examples of freedom."
The aspect of freedom that YouTube and Google are talking about is free speech. Free Speech is an amazing privilege and responsibility. It is not a right though. The U.S. Constitution doesn't list freedom of speech as a right per se. We have it as a right in so far as we use it responsibly. The examples of taking free speech too far in the areas of yelling fire in a crowded theater or libeling someone in a news article are freedoms of speech, but in an irresponsible manner.
Furthermore, we find that even this criteria is wanting. Words are powerful. In fact words are so powerful that the Bible describes Jesus, part of the triune God, as The Word. Philosophers talk about words all the time. Descartes said, "I think therefore I am." This fundamental knowledge is manifestly about words for he cannot even declare anything without them. Ludwig Wittgenstein puts it this way, "The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for."
Language and words are terribly important. In post modern society, however, there is a rebellion against what is known as the Numinous. (That is something that cannot be described but exists none the less.) There are reasons why we have abandoned the Numinous and there are excuses as well. (It would take far too long to enumerate them here and now.) However, it is a safe assumption that it was a very poor mistake. For the truly dangerous and powerful people in the world are those who don't understand the thoughts behind the words, but can manipulate the rules. The truly great men and women are those who approach language with fear and trembling.
The vast majority of us though don't have respect for what we have here. Language comforted America in a cemetery in Gettysburg. Language drove a country to soar to the moon. Language inspired a country at war with itself that it could believe in a dream that would allow us all to sing "in the words of the old Negro Spiritual: Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty we are free at last!" Words lead to freedom, freedom does not lead to words.
I have also heard language misused and misshaped. It can cause pain between loved ones and rend nations apart. Language carries ideas, and ideas always have consequences. No word is unimportant. As Wittgenstein put it, "a new word is like a seed."
But, back to Google and YouTube. It is doubtful that the Islamists will get any recruits from showing pictures of downed U.S. planes and speeches in Arabic by it's so-called "leaders." It is also dubious whether or not it is transferring any information this way.
The thing that is certain is this, it serves no good purpose. What could possibly be the positive outcome of showing these images or allowing these images to be shown. The Islamists are seen as freedom fighters who are fighting against American Imperialism. We also fear the loss of loved ones fighting over there, but not because of rational and logical reasons, but simply because of fear itself. We allow vile and ludicrous ideas to enter into America and around the world. Freedom requires responsibility to lead people to make choices that are correct.
YouTube may advocate that a large town hall breeds a symphony, but we know what history has taught us. Disparate voices of hatred and bigotry lead to a cacophony that swallows up what is good and right and happy. Some ideas can be discussed, but we can all agree that the wanton killing of people who are trying to rebuilt a broken country (and yes a country that was broken by those people) is wrong. We can ask ourselves which is a better country, a country built of freedom tempered by order or a country built on order tempered by fear. We know we prefer a country where people are judged not by their race or family or tribe or religion but by the contents of their message is far superior to a country ruled by cliques and power grabs.
However, even ignoring these common pleas for decency, I charge Google with hypocrisy of the highest degree. As I have said, freedom must come with order. However, order without freedom is just as dangerous. Google has a completely different way of speaking to China. China has put blockers on certain Google searches. The average Chinese person cannot access the great documents of the founding fathers or indeed any other documents that pertain to Western Free Order. The powers and culture that allowed Google to exist are ignored and scrapped when it comes to Chinese dogma.
So Google is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. It gives lip service to "Freedom" while ignoring it in China. It talks of not being evil and yet allows those who do it day in and day out to broadcast what they have done. It is driven by the benefits of a free and yet orderly culture, but doesn't have the faintest clue of the history of the culture which gave birth to it. All things end up with a little dirt after the fall, but we are fools to think that wallowing in the mud will make us clean.
* These are web based applications that have their storage on a site outside of the computer. For instance, Google docs is a word processing application that runs off of a website and saves the information to that web site.
However, YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, has allowed Islamist videos to be posted on their web site. This has earned them the ire of Senator Joseph Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He says it is "offensive." For it's part YouTube took down several of the worst videos, but kept others up stating that it "encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view."
What is freedom anyway? Webster's dictionary puts it this way: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action and Oxford says freedom is: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Both are completely right, but who would want to live in a world like that? Absolute freedom is, as Hobbes would no doubt say, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." It is a very nasty world to say the least.
Yet, we don't talk about about freedom that way. Instead we use some sort of vague and undefined feeling to describe freedom. In this way freedom can be whatever we want it to be. Although human beings love order, we want to control that order and thus in rides the ill-defined freedom.
However, as George W. Forell points out in his commentary on the Augsburg Confession, "Many people believe that order is the mortal enemy of freedom, and that those who advocate freedom must of necessity oppose order of any kind." He goes on to state that we all live in order and find disorder (i.e. absolute freedom) appalling or dangerous. Using the example of a family he puts it this way. "Only if a family operates according to some generally observed rules are the individual members free to eat and sleep, to work and play. A totally chaotic family would mean that the children starve, the father loses his job, and the mother her mind. You have observed such families in operation, but they hardly strike you as examples of freedom."
The aspect of freedom that YouTube and Google are talking about is free speech. Free Speech is an amazing privilege and responsibility. It is not a right though. The U.S. Constitution doesn't list freedom of speech as a right per se. We have it as a right in so far as we use it responsibly. The examples of taking free speech too far in the areas of yelling fire in a crowded theater or libeling someone in a news article are freedoms of speech, but in an irresponsible manner.
Furthermore, we find that even this criteria is wanting. Words are powerful. In fact words are so powerful that the Bible describes Jesus, part of the triune God, as The Word. Philosophers talk about words all the time. Descartes said, "I think therefore I am." This fundamental knowledge is manifestly about words for he cannot even declare anything without them. Ludwig Wittgenstein puts it this way, "The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for."
Language and words are terribly important. In post modern society, however, there is a rebellion against what is known as the Numinous. (That is something that cannot be described but exists none the less.) There are reasons why we have abandoned the Numinous and there are excuses as well. (It would take far too long to enumerate them here and now.) However, it is a safe assumption that it was a very poor mistake. For the truly dangerous and powerful people in the world are those who don't understand the thoughts behind the words, but can manipulate the rules. The truly great men and women are those who approach language with fear and trembling.
The vast majority of us though don't have respect for what we have here. Language comforted America in a cemetery in Gettysburg. Language drove a country to soar to the moon. Language inspired a country at war with itself that it could believe in a dream that would allow us all to sing "in the words of the old Negro Spiritual: Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty we are free at last!" Words lead to freedom, freedom does not lead to words.
I have also heard language misused and misshaped. It can cause pain between loved ones and rend nations apart. Language carries ideas, and ideas always have consequences. No word is unimportant. As Wittgenstein put it, "a new word is like a seed."
But, back to Google and YouTube. It is doubtful that the Islamists will get any recruits from showing pictures of downed U.S. planes and speeches in Arabic by it's so-called "leaders." It is also dubious whether or not it is transferring any information this way.
The thing that is certain is this, it serves no good purpose. What could possibly be the positive outcome of showing these images or allowing these images to be shown. The Islamists are seen as freedom fighters who are fighting against American Imperialism. We also fear the loss of loved ones fighting over there, but not because of rational and logical reasons, but simply because of fear itself. We allow vile and ludicrous ideas to enter into America and around the world. Freedom requires responsibility to lead people to make choices that are correct.
YouTube may advocate that a large town hall breeds a symphony, but we know what history has taught us. Disparate voices of hatred and bigotry lead to a cacophony that swallows up what is good and right and happy. Some ideas can be discussed, but we can all agree that the wanton killing of people who are trying to rebuilt a broken country (and yes a country that was broken by those people) is wrong. We can ask ourselves which is a better country, a country built of freedom tempered by order or a country built on order tempered by fear. We know we prefer a country where people are judged not by their race or family or tribe or religion but by the contents of their message is far superior to a country ruled by cliques and power grabs.
However, even ignoring these common pleas for decency, I charge Google with hypocrisy of the highest degree. As I have said, freedom must come with order. However, order without freedom is just as dangerous. Google has a completely different way of speaking to China. China has put blockers on certain Google searches. The average Chinese person cannot access the great documents of the founding fathers or indeed any other documents that pertain to Western Free Order. The powers and culture that allowed Google to exist are ignored and scrapped when it comes to Chinese dogma.
So Google is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. It gives lip service to "Freedom" while ignoring it in China. It talks of not being evil and yet allows those who do it day in and day out to broadcast what they have done. It is driven by the benefits of a free and yet orderly culture, but doesn't have the faintest clue of the history of the culture which gave birth to it. All things end up with a little dirt after the fall, but we are fools to think that wallowing in the mud will make us clean.
* These are web based applications that have their storage on a site outside of the computer. For instance, Google docs is a word processing application that runs off of a website and saves the information to that web site.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Dismantling the Party for a Victory
Today, I had a revelation. Hillary Clinton wants to go to the primaries. I tried desperately to figure out why this would be. I mean honestly, she cannot win. It would take a miracle and a super strong swing from her party to actually accomplish this goal. Mr. Obama has the nomination in hand. So why go all the way? It will only hurt her because the Democrats would blame any loss in November on her.
That is when it dawned on me. Democrats are Americans, and Americans have notoriously short memories. Indeed much like goldfish. Okay, here's what will happen. Clinton will face off against Obama. She is going to push him further and further into the left. She will do this by painting him as a lefty and also trying to "out-left" him. Like a game of chicken, both are going to be hurtling and hurtling closer to a precipice of left-ism.* The reason for this is that both candidates need to have the approval of their party's base. Left by himself several months ago Mr. Obama could've gotten both the base and the vast American moderates handily. It is now up in the air. Mr. Obama will have to swerve, after Ms. Clinton's inevitable exit, back towards moderatism in order to win the general election.
It is hard to know if this will be possible since Clinton has wrapped herself in a mantle of populism. (And not the good kind from the turn of the century, the one that panders to the average person whispering honeyed words into his or her ear.) She has deprived Mr. Obama of a very crucial group of people especially, namely, the Reagan Democrats. She has divided the party between what she erroneously portrays as his Harvard snobbery and her down-home charm. It is really sickening. It is like how Alexander Hamilton was portrayed as an elitist and Thomas Jefferson as a man of the people. When in reality Mr. Hamilton was a person who tried to elevate his fellow countrymen, just as he had elevated himself from poverty and obscurity; while Jefferson rested upon, not his laurels, but the laurels of greater people in his feudal estate of Monticello.
Mr. Obama has worked with the poor in intercity Chicago; while Hillary has been married to a president. If we were a developing South American quasi-dictatorship, than I would say this is to be expected, but unfortunately we are the greatest nation in the world with the richest history of democracy.
So what, she can't win the nomination. Obama will go into the election without the support that we would expect the Democrats to have. And that is where Clinton has laid the trap. It is a win-win for her. If Obama wins in November, then all is well. The Democratic party will completely ignore what happened all through the summer. No big deal. However, if Obama loses, then she will be able to say "I told you so" to all her doubters and to the Democratic party. She is creating a myth (just as she has about all her victories this primary season). She will then be able to be a stronger candidate the next time around.
This is possible because the Democratic leadership is extraordinarily weak. (Just look at how the super-delegates haven't backed candidates en mass. Even as things look inevitable, they do not dare risk looking like failures.) It is also a weak confederation rather than a strong coalition like the Republican party.
In four years' time, if Obama doesn't win the election, Clinton will create a myth that the Democrats lost their way and backed Obama when they should've backed the heir apparent, namely, Hillary R. Clinton. And that is what this is all about for Ms. Clinton: entitlement. Her precious nomination was challenged by another person. So, she cried in New Hampshire because it was all slipping away from her. And the women thought she was crying because the "big bad men" had ganged up on her. So she ran with it, pushing forward on the worse parts of human nature: victimhood, solidarity with a group, and a touch of racism.
So with Mr. McCain gobbling up the independents and even Reagan Democrats, Mr. Obama is fighting a two-front war. On top of that he is having to placate his own party, a job he should not have to do at all. He has to babysit the Democratic elite and keep the far left happy, while Clinton carves out his voting blocs and delivers the nomination to McCain, knowing that he will not be strong enough in four more years. Then she will have neutralized threats like the upstart Obama and the Republican party. After this, she will cobble together a coalition through empty promises and half-truths and dub it "the third way."
I am not a conspiratorial person, but I know what I have seen from Mr. Clinton. I know she is of the same ilk. I also know her promises are not legit. I know her half truths and lies to get her out of trouble. Revelations, however, are usually not some fitful dream, but based on facts and past observations.
* Do not assume that because I talk about "left-ism" or absolute "left-ism" I do not have certain left leaning feelings. I am for a lot of the policies on the left. However, they are trying to be cartoon versions of their party and not real live human beings. That is what the Clintons always have been though.
That is when it dawned on me. Democrats are Americans, and Americans have notoriously short memories. Indeed much like goldfish. Okay, here's what will happen. Clinton will face off against Obama. She is going to push him further and further into the left. She will do this by painting him as a lefty and also trying to "out-left" him. Like a game of chicken, both are going to be hurtling and hurtling closer to a precipice of left-ism.* The reason for this is that both candidates need to have the approval of their party's base. Left by himself several months ago Mr. Obama could've gotten both the base and the vast American moderates handily. It is now up in the air. Mr. Obama will have to swerve, after Ms. Clinton's inevitable exit, back towards moderatism in order to win the general election.
It is hard to know if this will be possible since Clinton has wrapped herself in a mantle of populism. (And not the good kind from the turn of the century, the one that panders to the average person whispering honeyed words into his or her ear.) She has deprived Mr. Obama of a very crucial group of people especially, namely, the Reagan Democrats. She has divided the party between what she erroneously portrays as his Harvard snobbery and her down-home charm. It is really sickening. It is like how Alexander Hamilton was portrayed as an elitist and Thomas Jefferson as a man of the people. When in reality Mr. Hamilton was a person who tried to elevate his fellow countrymen, just as he had elevated himself from poverty and obscurity; while Jefferson rested upon, not his laurels, but the laurels of greater people in his feudal estate of Monticello.
Mr. Obama has worked with the poor in intercity Chicago; while Hillary has been married to a president. If we were a developing South American quasi-dictatorship, than I would say this is to be expected, but unfortunately we are the greatest nation in the world with the richest history of democracy.
So what, she can't win the nomination. Obama will go into the election without the support that we would expect the Democrats to have. And that is where Clinton has laid the trap. It is a win-win for her. If Obama wins in November, then all is well. The Democratic party will completely ignore what happened all through the summer. No big deal. However, if Obama loses, then she will be able to say "I told you so" to all her doubters and to the Democratic party. She is creating a myth (just as she has about all her victories this primary season). She will then be able to be a stronger candidate the next time around.
This is possible because the Democratic leadership is extraordinarily weak. (Just look at how the super-delegates haven't backed candidates en mass. Even as things look inevitable, they do not dare risk looking like failures.) It is also a weak confederation rather than a strong coalition like the Republican party.
In four years' time, if Obama doesn't win the election, Clinton will create a myth that the Democrats lost their way and backed Obama when they should've backed the heir apparent, namely, Hillary R. Clinton. And that is what this is all about for Ms. Clinton: entitlement. Her precious nomination was challenged by another person. So, she cried in New Hampshire because it was all slipping away from her. And the women thought she was crying because the "big bad men" had ganged up on her. So she ran with it, pushing forward on the worse parts of human nature: victimhood, solidarity with a group, and a touch of racism.
So with Mr. McCain gobbling up the independents and even Reagan Democrats, Mr. Obama is fighting a two-front war. On top of that he is having to placate his own party, a job he should not have to do at all. He has to babysit the Democratic elite and keep the far left happy, while Clinton carves out his voting blocs and delivers the nomination to McCain, knowing that he will not be strong enough in four more years. Then she will have neutralized threats like the upstart Obama and the Republican party. After this, she will cobble together a coalition through empty promises and half-truths and dub it "the third way."
I am not a conspiratorial person, but I know what I have seen from Mr. Clinton. I know she is of the same ilk. I also know her promises are not legit. I know her half truths and lies to get her out of trouble. Revelations, however, are usually not some fitful dream, but based on facts and past observations.
* Do not assume that because I talk about "left-ism" or absolute "left-ism" I do not have certain left leaning feelings. I am for a lot of the policies on the left. However, they are trying to be cartoon versions of their party and not real live human beings. That is what the Clintons always have been though.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
A Review of the Movie "Crash".
Disclaimer: I am tired and may not have written too coherently.
I have not been having too much luck with movies this year. I tried to watch "300" and turned it off after the rather risqué scene in the Persian Headquarters. Tonight I attempted to watch "Crash." For those of you who don't know, "Crash" was the Oscar winner of a few years back. I remember there was big stink because everyone thought it would be "Brokeback Mountain," but it was "Crash" which is just as awful I can assume.*
The forty minutes I saw of "Crash" (and I know it was forty minutes because watching my DVD player's numbers tick up was more enjoyable than the movie on the screen) were filled with the un-artful dialogue I had grown accustomed to hearing while I was working as a ramp agent for the airlines. The main difference was that there was more cohesion in the sentence structure of people who had never graduated from college than there was in this script from allegedly educated people.
Anyway, ignoring dialogue (the apparently lost art of screenwriting), "Crash" follows the exploits of a city of angry stupid people. They say angry stupid things, get into angry stupid fights, and in the end it is a dystopian "Pay It Forward." The problem with many such dystopian ideas is that they can have very flat characters in the face of such an horrendous monolithic evil. It can sometimes work. But, it especially won't work if you take dystopian characters and put them in the middle of a freakin' character driven movie. That is just asking for trouble.
The movie was also filled with the characters that Hollywood considers avant-garde, but the rest of the United States calls cliché. You have the racist little trophy wife, the African American thugs, the racist cops, the good black man, and a myriad of other characters who are defined by the color of their skin first and their character second. I understand that Paul Haggis was attempting to show us how racism exists in all of us and we must something something something. You know how if you hear something enough times, it becomes just background noise. Yeah, that is "Crash" for you.
We hear the same shrill pseudo-psychology that passes for great insight in Tinsel Town. Nothing changes here in America, no one learns anything, and we all go home and feel better about ourselves for watching a movie about racism. (Guilt atoned by a few dollars at the movie store.)
It is a movie of the typical formulaic anger put forth as genius by Hollywood. Many movies in Hollywood work of a perverse interpretation of postmodern existentialism (trust me I have studied real postmodern existentialism for my major in philosophy). Here is how it goes, your subconscious is your real self. Your desires and appetites are what make you who you are, and your poor little beaten up rational self is just cleaning up after it all day long.
This of course is what Hollywood wants you to believe so that you will do things based on emotion (i.e. buy stuff you don't need). However, if we have learned anything from history people rise above their surroundings usually because of rationally pursuing an intellectual course of action. The lies we tell others are many times more real than the person we are. We just don't tell lies to fit in or not to be thought bigots. Many good people tell lies because they know the lie they are telling is more true than what they believe. They want to believe in what they do not believe because they know it is true.
We all have bad experiences with certain groups. A man may have a bad relationship with a woman. A person of one religious persuasion may have have a bad incident with another. Perhaps we have dealt with one person from a certain race that didn't treat us well. It doesn't matter. We have to keep certain things secret and we have to believe what is beyond our own experience, because we believe that there are deeper truths than our own experience leads us to believe. And human beings are not strong enough to believe right off the bat, but rather have to believe things that they don't understand by themselves. In other words, people have to fake 'til they make it.
Hollywood has a nasty habit of being self-congradulatory. It talks about how it has been edgy and forward thinking, but it can do this because it is also the industry that controls the information of its own history.
Watching this movie reminded me of a quote my parents are fond of repeating, "There is nothing worse than a stupid mean person." If that is true, than perhaps the only possible thing worse than that, is a movie of a bunch of stupid mean people.
* I should say that I never saw Brokeback Mountain. It just didn't appeal to me to watch it.
I have not been having too much luck with movies this year. I tried to watch "300" and turned it off after the rather risqué scene in the Persian Headquarters. Tonight I attempted to watch "Crash." For those of you who don't know, "Crash" was the Oscar winner of a few years back. I remember there was big stink because everyone thought it would be "Brokeback Mountain," but it was "Crash" which is just as awful I can assume.*
The forty minutes I saw of "Crash" (and I know it was forty minutes because watching my DVD player's numbers tick up was more enjoyable than the movie on the screen) were filled with the un-artful dialogue I had grown accustomed to hearing while I was working as a ramp agent for the airlines. The main difference was that there was more cohesion in the sentence structure of people who had never graduated from college than there was in this script from allegedly educated people.
Anyway, ignoring dialogue (the apparently lost art of screenwriting), "Crash" follows the exploits of a city of angry stupid people. They say angry stupid things, get into angry stupid fights, and in the end it is a dystopian "Pay It Forward." The problem with many such dystopian ideas is that they can have very flat characters in the face of such an horrendous monolithic evil. It can sometimes work. But, it especially won't work if you take dystopian characters and put them in the middle of a freakin' character driven movie. That is just asking for trouble.
The movie was also filled with the characters that Hollywood considers avant-garde, but the rest of the United States calls cliché. You have the racist little trophy wife, the African American thugs, the racist cops, the good black man, and a myriad of other characters who are defined by the color of their skin first and their character second. I understand that Paul Haggis was attempting to show us how racism exists in all of us and we must something something something. You know how if you hear something enough times, it becomes just background noise. Yeah, that is "Crash" for you.
We hear the same shrill pseudo-psychology that passes for great insight in Tinsel Town. Nothing changes here in America, no one learns anything, and we all go home and feel better about ourselves for watching a movie about racism. (Guilt atoned by a few dollars at the movie store.)
It is a movie of the typical formulaic anger put forth as genius by Hollywood. Many movies in Hollywood work of a perverse interpretation of postmodern existentialism (trust me I have studied real postmodern existentialism for my major in philosophy). Here is how it goes, your subconscious is your real self. Your desires and appetites are what make you who you are, and your poor little beaten up rational self is just cleaning up after it all day long.
This of course is what Hollywood wants you to believe so that you will do things based on emotion (i.e. buy stuff you don't need). However, if we have learned anything from history people rise above their surroundings usually because of rationally pursuing an intellectual course of action. The lies we tell others are many times more real than the person we are. We just don't tell lies to fit in or not to be thought bigots. Many good people tell lies because they know the lie they are telling is more true than what they believe. They want to believe in what they do not believe because they know it is true.
We all have bad experiences with certain groups. A man may have a bad relationship with a woman. A person of one religious persuasion may have have a bad incident with another. Perhaps we have dealt with one person from a certain race that didn't treat us well. It doesn't matter. We have to keep certain things secret and we have to believe what is beyond our own experience, because we believe that there are deeper truths than our own experience leads us to believe. And human beings are not strong enough to believe right off the bat, but rather have to believe things that they don't understand by themselves. In other words, people have to fake 'til they make it.
Hollywood has a nasty habit of being self-congradulatory. It talks about how it has been edgy and forward thinking, but it can do this because it is also the industry that controls the information of its own history.
Watching this movie reminded me of a quote my parents are fond of repeating, "There is nothing worse than a stupid mean person." If that is true, than perhaps the only possible thing worse than that, is a movie of a bunch of stupid mean people.
* I should say that I never saw Brokeback Mountain. It just didn't appeal to me to watch it.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Quoting Dylan to Prove a Point.
Oh God said to abraham kill me a son
Abe said man you must be puttin me on
God said no, abe said what
God say you can do what you wanna but
The next time you see me comin you better run
Well abe said where dyou want this killin done
God said out on highway 61
- Bob Dylan, "Highway 61"
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
- Bob Dylan, "Gotta Serve Somebody"
No one has embodied the words "Rorschach blots" quite like Bob Dylan. We hear a lot of stories of people who say they actually got what Dylan meant about something, only to find out that he was re-inforcing something that they believed. Quotes are like that, so are data, essays, tests, and so much else. One person looks into the heavens and remarks, "There has to be a God," while the person next to first states, "I just can't agree."
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though whatever your dogmatic stripe, I am sure you can feel it is at times. We have all this evidence. See, it is looking us straight in the eyes. How can you not believe in global warming or the trinity or government cover-ups or the myriad of pieces that make up the whole known as our soul? When we are rebuffed or challenged, we shake our heads, and just say that the other person doesn't get it.
So, are we to abandon reason simply because we cannot prove our reasons to another person? Of course not. For one thing, what are we trying to prove, the reasons or the thing in which we believe? Secondly, there is nothing more humbling and therefore nothing more glorious than the realization that we do not have all the answers to something...especially somebody else's problems. Think of all the things we can't fix. In the end, the thing in which we believe becomes more true precisely because we cannot prove it.
To us this sounds like an horrible predicament, and I admit that it is indeed. But, comfort is not the same as goodness or happiness. We have to come face-to-face with the simple reality that reality is far, far too complex for anybody to figure out completely. This humility is the root of what it really, truly means to be human. When all of our systems and all of our data let us down, we are left face to face with the fact that we believe something and that this "something" is beyond us.
As a Christian I become more and more aware daily that I cannot "win" people to Christ. What could I do? Can I argue my reasons for what I believe? (As if my facts could persuade anyone.) Can I expect people to relate to my stories? (As if their lives and struggles are the same as my own.) Can I browbeat, cajole, threaten, or bribe someone to honestly and truly believe what I believe? (As soon as my back is turned they will follow what they wish to follow.) If my pride were the lie that I clung to, I would surely perish; and my pride is exactly what allows me to think that it is I who will turn people to my way of thinking and my beliefs.
Human beings yearn to trust, but desire to rule. We want to be loved, but how often do we lord it over someone the moment we are let into the other person's heart. Or you can look at how cruelly we rip minerals from the land, and yet feel miserable when the world throws our lives into chaos. Lives and civilizations rise and fall from this simple arithmetic; love, then pride.
And so we write volumes upon volumes as to why some civilization failed while we ignore the precarious state of our own; or perhaps, a little closer to home, we ignore our friends and our families and only take from them what we want when we want it while making up excuses as to why we did what we did. We believe first and reason later. We do this with everything. I know I harp on the point of faith being beyond reason over and over again, but it is true; at least that is what I believe. Though you know, I can't really prove it.
Abe said man you must be puttin me on
God said no, abe said what
God say you can do what you wanna but
The next time you see me comin you better run
Well abe said where dyou want this killin done
God said out on highway 61
- Bob Dylan, "Highway 61"
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
- Bob Dylan, "Gotta Serve Somebody"
No one has embodied the words "Rorschach blots" quite like Bob Dylan. We hear a lot of stories of people who say they actually got what Dylan meant about something, only to find out that he was re-inforcing something that they believed. Quotes are like that, so are data, essays, tests, and so much else. One person looks into the heavens and remarks, "There has to be a God," while the person next to first states, "I just can't agree."
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though whatever your dogmatic stripe, I am sure you can feel it is at times. We have all this evidence. See, it is looking us straight in the eyes. How can you not believe in global warming or the trinity or government cover-ups or the myriad of pieces that make up the whole known as our soul? When we are rebuffed or challenged, we shake our heads, and just say that the other person doesn't get it.
So, are we to abandon reason simply because we cannot prove our reasons to another person? Of course not. For one thing, what are we trying to prove, the reasons or the thing in which we believe? Secondly, there is nothing more humbling and therefore nothing more glorious than the realization that we do not have all the answers to something...especially somebody else's problems. Think of all the things we can't fix. In the end, the thing in which we believe becomes more true precisely because we cannot prove it.
To us this sounds like an horrible predicament, and I admit that it is indeed. But, comfort is not the same as goodness or happiness. We have to come face-to-face with the simple reality that reality is far, far too complex for anybody to figure out completely. This humility is the root of what it really, truly means to be human. When all of our systems and all of our data let us down, we are left face to face with the fact that we believe something and that this "something" is beyond us.
As a Christian I become more and more aware daily that I cannot "win" people to Christ. What could I do? Can I argue my reasons for what I believe? (As if my facts could persuade anyone.) Can I expect people to relate to my stories? (As if their lives and struggles are the same as my own.) Can I browbeat, cajole, threaten, or bribe someone to honestly and truly believe what I believe? (As soon as my back is turned they will follow what they wish to follow.) If my pride were the lie that I clung to, I would surely perish; and my pride is exactly what allows me to think that it is I who will turn people to my way of thinking and my beliefs.
Human beings yearn to trust, but desire to rule. We want to be loved, but how often do we lord it over someone the moment we are let into the other person's heart. Or you can look at how cruelly we rip minerals from the land, and yet feel miserable when the world throws our lives into chaos. Lives and civilizations rise and fall from this simple arithmetic; love, then pride.
And so we write volumes upon volumes as to why some civilization failed while we ignore the precarious state of our own; or perhaps, a little closer to home, we ignore our friends and our families and only take from them what we want when we want it while making up excuses as to why we did what we did. We believe first and reason later. We do this with everything. I know I harp on the point of faith being beyond reason over and over again, but it is true; at least that is what I believe. Though you know, I can't really prove it.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
The Grass is Greener
They say the grass is always greener on the other side, and I would be inclined to agree with them if my cursed intellect wouldn't get the better of me all the time. Single people lament their married friends. College kids wondering "now what?" seem to look enviously at their compatriots making a killing or at least a living. I often want a little more faith, or wealth, or at the very least some tip from the fates who seem so unwilling to bless me.
However, when I examine my life I have to admit that I am more blessed than I can even imagine. Air, food, and a very good nation are things to be thankful for; but these things escape my mind all too often. We want more and more, and I often wonder why our appetites are not fulfilled by the gifts that we always have laid at our feet.
I suppose it is because I act like a glutton that I am not thankful. I make deals that if I just have one more thing that I do not have, then I will be happy. When I was younger, allowances and paper-route money came in such a small trickle; but I would save up for some video game or any number of things. I remember the happiness of finally being able to buy that item I desired, and yet I experienced more happiness in fulfilling the goal than in the item I would buy. Now, with such items being so easily bought, I wonder if I have lost the subtle joys that come softly and without fanfare, from patiently waiting.
There is a Yiddish proverb, that says, "God will provide, but only if He would until He does." I feel that way so much of the time. Patience is taught us by being patient. It seems comical that we learn so fully how to do something by doing that thing; but life seems to be built like that while our society seems to recoil at such tough earned knowledge.
I know that there are things I do better than my friends or gifts that my friends look upon as enviously as I look upon theirs. I know the deep sadness of the void that visits my heart, but I also know there are worse things than not getting what one wants.
In the story "The Monkey's Paw," a family is granted wishes by a sacred relic. However, while they get their heart's desire, they do not get it the way they expect. They wish for money, and the parents only son is killed at work, allowing them to collect a check for the sum. How often do we look back on our lives and feel glad that our dream wasn't granted us? If you are anybody like me, you spend a lot less time thinking about how glad you are for plans of yours that fell through, than you do dreaming about about the green grass in someone else's lawn.
However, when I examine my life I have to admit that I am more blessed than I can even imagine. Air, food, and a very good nation are things to be thankful for; but these things escape my mind all too often. We want more and more, and I often wonder why our appetites are not fulfilled by the gifts that we always have laid at our feet.
I suppose it is because I act like a glutton that I am not thankful. I make deals that if I just have one more thing that I do not have, then I will be happy. When I was younger, allowances and paper-route money came in such a small trickle; but I would save up for some video game or any number of things. I remember the happiness of finally being able to buy that item I desired, and yet I experienced more happiness in fulfilling the goal than in the item I would buy. Now, with such items being so easily bought, I wonder if I have lost the subtle joys that come softly and without fanfare, from patiently waiting.
There is a Yiddish proverb, that says, "God will provide, but only if He would until He does." I feel that way so much of the time. Patience is taught us by being patient. It seems comical that we learn so fully how to do something by doing that thing; but life seems to be built like that while our society seems to recoil at such tough earned knowledge.
I know that there are things I do better than my friends or gifts that my friends look upon as enviously as I look upon theirs. I know the deep sadness of the void that visits my heart, but I also know there are worse things than not getting what one wants.
In the story "The Monkey's Paw," a family is granted wishes by a sacred relic. However, while they get their heart's desire, they do not get it the way they expect. They wish for money, and the parents only son is killed at work, allowing them to collect a check for the sum. How often do we look back on our lives and feel glad that our dream wasn't granted us? If you are anybody like me, you spend a lot less time thinking about how glad you are for plans of yours that fell through, than you do dreaming about about the green grass in someone else's lawn.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
A Response to an Atheist
(I thought for quite some time about how to write this blog or even if I should. The long and short of it is that it doesn't make a bit of difference in the long run. We believe what we believe. Eventually God will show me the answer of how to prove my Faith to others. But until then, I can only say that when I think of Atheism, these are the main problems with their arguments.)
It is all about faith; life that is. Reason is a tool of our human faith, whatever that faith may be, our reason is that tool. If I am a Christian, Buddhist, Shintoist, Atheist, Muslim, Jew, Pagan, and so on and so on and so on I have faith above reason. And the cool thing about life is the fact that each and every one of us has faith in something be it science, God, nature, or whatever. And most of us have varying degrees of faith in all sorts of things or more faith in a certain field for something than in others. So, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive propositions. They are different tools of humanity that perform different tasks; and whatever notion of reality you may hold, you can respect that this is most certainly the case.
A good example of how faith works is in the case of medicine. I am a philosopher (and if ever there was something to be proud of...being a philosopher is not it). I know nothing of medicine. However, I have trust and faith that doctors know what is wrong with me when I am sick, and to have faith in their ability is to have faith in something I do not know or see. I am also a Christian. I am sick with problems in my head and soul that I know exist. I trust in experts to see the solution to my problem and give me a remedy for it. If you think you have found the remedy in some other faith (even if that faith is the non-existence of God), that is well and good. However, as of late, many atheists have gone about saying they believe in reason over faith.* Even if this were possible, it would be saying my reasoning or reasons are better than your reasoning or reasons. Yet Christians and Buddhists and what-have-you-ists all have reasons for their beliefs. The atheist has done nothing to discredit the theist, but has forced him or her to become more entrenched in their reasons or, worse for the person making the charge, explore the opposing reasons and discredit it.
So, atheism stands on the same legs of faith that theism does; namely: faith. However, if we are to explore atheism's claims of superior reasons, we are left with another problem. With atheist logic, God gets caught in several catch-22's in the realms of miracles or interference. The Christian** believes in miracles because they make logical sense. If there is a God more powerful than the created world, and Who lives outside it, would He not want the world to function a certain way? Miracles happen when He makes the world sync more in tune with His will than it normally does. The Christian accepts that the world is sin sick and that reality is not operating as it should. (In fact this is the general consensus with ALL belief systems, the question is how to fix it.) A prime example would be with my braces I had put on my teeth when I was younger. I believe that only a lunatic would say that my teeth should be allowed to naturally grow the way they would, so we place things that shouldn't go there on our teeth to straighten them out; namely: braces. Each and every day we manipulate every aspect of the world and ourselves to fix problems. Here begins one of the catch-22s God finds Himself in. If He is always interfering, than He is loathed for not allowing us to freely do anything. When He doesn't interfere, He is judged as cold and heartless. (We usually base this on our own sense of timing, which isn't as reliable as we pretend it is.) God cannot win in this scenario. And, upon further examination we come face to face with a frightening truth. If God did things on our timing (even assuming our timing was correct), we are left with a God who is weaker and more pathetic than us which is totally contrary to what we would expect God to be like. It would be as if aliens came to earth and were incapable of understanding simple machines such as the wheel or screw or inclined plane and couldn't talk and were complete infantile in their reasoning. How could this be? It is completely illogical. If God can create things ex nihilo, he will be smart enough for miracles.
The second catch-22 is that of miracles. I don't know how the world was created. God could've taken seven days or it could be imagery to explain things. (The odd belief among some atheists or Christians or a plethora of adherents to other religions, that we must take everything in these books as literally true is both un-imaginitive and intellectually insulting. If we are capable of such things like imagery, why wouldn't the ancients be? It is an intellectual arrogance nowadays to think ourselves knowing new secrets in the art of writing. The average American high schooler may know a great deal more about electricity and computers than people of the ancient world, but our knowledge in the humanities is always among equals.) However, let us assume that the Bible is in fact literally the case that...say...Moses parted the Red Sea and led the Israelites out of Egypt.
Science says this is plausible. You see an island volcano blew up and the shock-waves would've clouded up the sky (plague of darkness), released iron into the water (turning the Nile red as blood and killing sea animals), and eventually drawing a bunch of water back up to it, and then releasing it back in a shallow enough body of water. Well, here is where the theists would be stymied, because the Red Sea isn't shallow enough. But the Sea of Reeds is in fact that shallow, and usually is mistranslated as the Red Sea. So, science proves this event is plausible.
Here an atheist would say that this proves that things can happen naturally without a God. This is the main philosophical problem that the atheist runs into. If a miracle is impossible to prove at the time, he or she says that the writers must have been liars or some such. However, when it becomes verifiable in a natural world, the atheist then says the event must have been true, but the people were mistaken for believing in God. This is extremely problematic for the atheist though, since while the conclusions have stayed the same, the propositions have not. Usually scientific atheists (since atheism has many different denominations) state that deductive reasoning is the only way to go, but here it would appear that the premises and conclusions are irrelevant because of the faith of the atheist.
The point I am making is that the world is filled with beliefs. This is a key component to humanity. It is impossible to empirically prove or disprove the existence of God through this sort of reasoning unless your faith is in this reasoning, if not the point is moot. As one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, Ludwig Wittgenstein put it: That which we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence. Logically we cannot prove or disprove God from this scientific standpoint anymore than I place a picture from a t.v. signal under a microscope in order to see the molecules in the actor's flesh.
Faith is usually seen as something that is always fighting against reason, yet this is complete foolishness since it is faith that propels reason. We believe there is a cure for cancer even though we don't know where it is. We believe we can find some way to better power our vehicles, even though reason is quiet about this as well. To rid ourselves of faith is to rid ourselves of the engine of reason.
*This is hardly possible, because to believe is to have faith and that violates the law of noncontradiction (~p ^ p : Not something and something at the same time).
** I will hereafter use Christian as my example, since I am a Christian and it will be less cumbersome than trying to use counter-examples from other faiths as well.
It is all about faith; life that is. Reason is a tool of our human faith, whatever that faith may be, our reason is that tool. If I am a Christian, Buddhist, Shintoist, Atheist, Muslim, Jew, Pagan, and so on and so on and so on I have faith above reason. And the cool thing about life is the fact that each and every one of us has faith in something be it science, God, nature, or whatever. And most of us have varying degrees of faith in all sorts of things or more faith in a certain field for something than in others. So, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive propositions. They are different tools of humanity that perform different tasks; and whatever notion of reality you may hold, you can respect that this is most certainly the case.
A good example of how faith works is in the case of medicine. I am a philosopher (and if ever there was something to be proud of...being a philosopher is not it). I know nothing of medicine. However, I have trust and faith that doctors know what is wrong with me when I am sick, and to have faith in their ability is to have faith in something I do not know or see. I am also a Christian. I am sick with problems in my head and soul that I know exist. I trust in experts to see the solution to my problem and give me a remedy for it. If you think you have found the remedy in some other faith (even if that faith is the non-existence of God), that is well and good. However, as of late, many atheists have gone about saying they believe in reason over faith.* Even if this were possible, it would be saying my reasoning or reasons are better than your reasoning or reasons. Yet Christians and Buddhists and what-have-you-ists all have reasons for their beliefs. The atheist has done nothing to discredit the theist, but has forced him or her to become more entrenched in their reasons or, worse for the person making the charge, explore the opposing reasons and discredit it.
So, atheism stands on the same legs of faith that theism does; namely: faith. However, if we are to explore atheism's claims of superior reasons, we are left with another problem. With atheist logic, God gets caught in several catch-22's in the realms of miracles or interference. The Christian** believes in miracles because they make logical sense. If there is a God more powerful than the created world, and Who lives outside it, would He not want the world to function a certain way? Miracles happen when He makes the world sync more in tune with His will than it normally does. The Christian accepts that the world is sin sick and that reality is not operating as it should. (In fact this is the general consensus with ALL belief systems, the question is how to fix it.) A prime example would be with my braces I had put on my teeth when I was younger. I believe that only a lunatic would say that my teeth should be allowed to naturally grow the way they would, so we place things that shouldn't go there on our teeth to straighten them out; namely: braces. Each and every day we manipulate every aspect of the world and ourselves to fix problems. Here begins one of the catch-22s God finds Himself in. If He is always interfering, than He is loathed for not allowing us to freely do anything. When He doesn't interfere, He is judged as cold and heartless. (We usually base this on our own sense of timing, which isn't as reliable as we pretend it is.) God cannot win in this scenario. And, upon further examination we come face to face with a frightening truth. If God did things on our timing (even assuming our timing was correct), we are left with a God who is weaker and more pathetic than us which is totally contrary to what we would expect God to be like. It would be as if aliens came to earth and were incapable of understanding simple machines such as the wheel or screw or inclined plane and couldn't talk and were complete infantile in their reasoning. How could this be? It is completely illogical. If God can create things ex nihilo, he will be smart enough for miracles.
The second catch-22 is that of miracles. I don't know how the world was created. God could've taken seven days or it could be imagery to explain things. (The odd belief among some atheists or Christians or a plethora of adherents to other religions, that we must take everything in these books as literally true is both un-imaginitive and intellectually insulting. If we are capable of such things like imagery, why wouldn't the ancients be? It is an intellectual arrogance nowadays to think ourselves knowing new secrets in the art of writing. The average American high schooler may know a great deal more about electricity and computers than people of the ancient world, but our knowledge in the humanities is always among equals.) However, let us assume that the Bible is in fact literally the case that...say...Moses parted the Red Sea and led the Israelites out of Egypt.
Science says this is plausible. You see an island volcano blew up and the shock-waves would've clouded up the sky (plague of darkness), released iron into the water (turning the Nile red as blood and killing sea animals), and eventually drawing a bunch of water back up to it, and then releasing it back in a shallow enough body of water. Well, here is where the theists would be stymied, because the Red Sea isn't shallow enough. But the Sea of Reeds is in fact that shallow, and usually is mistranslated as the Red Sea. So, science proves this event is plausible.
Here an atheist would say that this proves that things can happen naturally without a God. This is the main philosophical problem that the atheist runs into. If a miracle is impossible to prove at the time, he or she says that the writers must have been liars or some such. However, when it becomes verifiable in a natural world, the atheist then says the event must have been true, but the people were mistaken for believing in God. This is extremely problematic for the atheist though, since while the conclusions have stayed the same, the propositions have not. Usually scientific atheists (since atheism has many different denominations) state that deductive reasoning is the only way to go, but here it would appear that the premises and conclusions are irrelevant because of the faith of the atheist.
The point I am making is that the world is filled with beliefs. This is a key component to humanity. It is impossible to empirically prove or disprove the existence of God through this sort of reasoning unless your faith is in this reasoning, if not the point is moot. As one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, Ludwig Wittgenstein put it: That which we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence. Logically we cannot prove or disprove God from this scientific standpoint anymore than I place a picture from a t.v. signal under a microscope in order to see the molecules in the actor's flesh.
Faith is usually seen as something that is always fighting against reason, yet this is complete foolishness since it is faith that propels reason. We believe there is a cure for cancer even though we don't know where it is. We believe we can find some way to better power our vehicles, even though reason is quiet about this as well. To rid ourselves of faith is to rid ourselves of the engine of reason.
*This is hardly possible, because to believe is to have faith and that violates the law of noncontradiction (~p ^ p : Not something and something at the same time).
** I will hereafter use Christian as my example, since I am a Christian and it will be less cumbersome than trying to use counter-examples from other faiths as well.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Read a Freakin' Book People
It was all like hell. Rain, snow, everything but frogs falling from the sky. Needless to say I was depressed. We were in a phase three weather alert at one point and I couldn't go anywhere even if I wanted to go anywhere. What is one to do when no one has nowhere to run? I recommend reading.
Before the move to the Hocking Hills region of Ohio, I was as addicted as anyone to television. Fortunately I now am without two of my favorite channels: Cartoon Network and MSNBC. There are nights when I miss Chris Matthews or some new anime that Japan finished watching about three years ago, and I might even be tempted to watch the flickering goodness of the idiot box if not for another wonderful inconvenience: the writers' strike.
Now, I don't know who started it or who was right; but I am certainly glad it happened. I am an American and as such I have a right to life, liberty, and the attention span of a mayfly. I liked certain shows (Chuck, Monk, and Big Bang Theory), but with no "writers" there were no new shows.*
For awhile I have been beating my head against the wall trying to figure out what to do with my spare time. (I still have some of that.) These passed two weekends really forced me to ask the tough question of what to do with my free-time. Being left alone with my thoughts is not a pleasant experience. Usually either my thoughts or I will invariably tick the other side off and a mental screaming match will ensue.
However, after forcing myself to sit down and read the books that I constantly tell people I am reading. (I have a confession, I am not as big a reader as I pretend to be. It is my one little indulgence in the realm of dishonesty. Well that and I am from a small planet orbiting somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse.) However, I do try and read a lot now rather than turning on the tele. I have been retreating to my room for adventures in theology, mystery, and the occasional op-ed.
All-in-all reading is like any worthwhile thing we do, we have to make time for it, even when it would be easier to do something similar but less rewarding with that time.
* I should say that given the calibre of most shows now-a-days, I doubt that a writers' strike should've been too great an impediment to the production of a show...or a movie while we are on the subject.
Before the move to the Hocking Hills region of Ohio, I was as addicted as anyone to television. Fortunately I now am without two of my favorite channels: Cartoon Network and MSNBC. There are nights when I miss Chris Matthews or some new anime that Japan finished watching about three years ago, and I might even be tempted to watch the flickering goodness of the idiot box if not for another wonderful inconvenience: the writers' strike.
Now, I don't know who started it or who was right; but I am certainly glad it happened. I am an American and as such I have a right to life, liberty, and the attention span of a mayfly. I liked certain shows (Chuck, Monk, and Big Bang Theory), but with no "writers" there were no new shows.*
For awhile I have been beating my head against the wall trying to figure out what to do with my spare time. (I still have some of that.) These passed two weekends really forced me to ask the tough question of what to do with my free-time. Being left alone with my thoughts is not a pleasant experience. Usually either my thoughts or I will invariably tick the other side off and a mental screaming match will ensue.
However, after forcing myself to sit down and read the books that I constantly tell people I am reading. (I have a confession, I am not as big a reader as I pretend to be. It is my one little indulgence in the realm of dishonesty. Well that and I am from a small planet orbiting somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse.) However, I do try and read a lot now rather than turning on the tele. I have been retreating to my room for adventures in theology, mystery, and the occasional op-ed.
All-in-all reading is like any worthwhile thing we do, we have to make time for it, even when it would be easier to do something similar but less rewarding with that time.
* I should say that given the calibre of most shows now-a-days, I doubt that a writers' strike should've been too great an impediment to the production of a show...or a movie while we are on the subject.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Talking with Others
This isn't some deep insightful blog post about the secrets of learning. You can close out and try some other page for that. This is just a simple thought I had recently. For the longest time, I was asking questions without listening to the answers. I like what I have to say. I think I am relatively insightful and usually spend a lot of time just analyzing everything. One can take this to the extreme though. A person can disregard all the opinions that another person says because they fall outside of the realm of that person's logic. Or, one can do what I do, read too much into something.
I have never been that great in literature because I honestly don't see what the writer is trying to get across. (For all of my love of Eliot's J. Alfred Profrock, I cannot for the life of me understand it's meaning without a trained English scholar standing over my shoulder. Alfred Molina's character in Spiderman 2 remarks that, "Eliot is more complicated than advanced science.") I have probably been rooting around at the philosophical ramifications of someone's statement or perhaps I have been trying to move it towards areas I find more entertaining. They are just trying to have small talk. How does one perform this..."small talk"? The fact is I probably fail to let my friends be themselves.
I am a bit tired right now, and I hesitate to lump all people in this rather large net, but I think most of us are guilty of this. We wish to paint our friends as we would like to see them. We fail to really listen to them except when they have a problem we can solve and then we can play god.
I probably sound very dark and gloomy about all this, but I am really happy. There are great challenges in talking to friends and that should excite us with all its adventure. But we all have friends too. That is such a great thing, because it shows how we live in a very forgiving world that gives us quirky people who like our own quirkiness. Maybe that is my insight for tonight?
I have never been that great in literature because I honestly don't see what the writer is trying to get across. (For all of my love of Eliot's J. Alfred Profrock, I cannot for the life of me understand it's meaning without a trained English scholar standing over my shoulder. Alfred Molina's character in Spiderman 2 remarks that, "Eliot is more complicated than advanced science.") I have probably been rooting around at the philosophical ramifications of someone's statement or perhaps I have been trying to move it towards areas I find more entertaining. They are just trying to have small talk. How does one perform this..."small talk"? The fact is I probably fail to let my friends be themselves.
I am a bit tired right now, and I hesitate to lump all people in this rather large net, but I think most of us are guilty of this. We wish to paint our friends as we would like to see them. We fail to really listen to them except when they have a problem we can solve and then we can play god.
I probably sound very dark and gloomy about all this, but I am really happy. There are great challenges in talking to friends and that should excite us with all its adventure. But we all have friends too. That is such a great thing, because it shows how we live in a very forgiving world that gives us quirky people who like our own quirkiness. Maybe that is my insight for tonight?
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Exodus of the Values Voter
This year the conservatives blew themselves apart. I will say that as a staunch moderate, this was one of the best things I have seen in awhile. Neo-conservatives and Militarists have lamented the fragmenting of their party, democrats have crowed with glee as if they had actually done anything to punch a hole in the rival party, and news periodicals are running around like so many Chicken Littles declaring the sky is falling in their neo-yellow-journalistic fashion. I admit that part of me misses the old conservative party (they were a fun lot of straw-men), and who knows, perhaps this year is nothing more than a minor hiccup. We may still see the Grand Old Party pull itself together under some new leader flying an old banner. I hope not, but I don't know.
Perhaps the most interesting group that has undermined the Republican Party has been the evangelical Christian vote. Once a sure thing for the Republicans, it is now becoming either an ignored or hard-won vote. So many of my friends who I considered dyed in the wool Christian Republicans are telling me that they voted for Obama in the primaries. Also, during many of the primaries, those who consider themselves value voters and voted Republican evenly split among the leading candidates. The vote is therefore no longer up for grabs so much as the voters. It is not a cohesive voting block like it was even just a few years ago when Bush was running for a second term.
One of the oddest and most frustrating things is the mainstream media's asinine and intractable stance on viewing this group of people as they did only a few years ago despite being faced with facts. One example of this was when those poll numbers showed candidates Romney, Huckabee, and McCain were pretty evenly split in picking up the Conservative Christian vote. The numbers could not have varied more than a point each (and then one has to factor in that there were probably margins of errors at play as well). While this was running, the media talked of the Evangelical voters as if they were all going out in droves to vote for Huckabee (the evangelical vote). Another key thing to look at are the results from New Hampshire, a staunchly un-evangelical state. Huckabee came in third, but with much higher numbers than expected and even eclipsed the numbers of those who consider themselves Conservative Christians. How can a group of people who are supposed to report the facts, have so obviously or intentionally missed these facts?
The answer is that most people do not know how Christians really think. It is true that the evangelical voters have been on cruise control for far, far too long. But now that there is a sea-change, why are we unwilling to adapt our understanding of this group to the change?
Ironically, it was Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama who best tapped into the change that was sweeping across the demographic. Now, I am not saying these two came anywhere near one another where policy was concerned. However, both reached beyond the cliches of their party for the most part.
I will leave Mr. Obama alone for the moment, and focus more on Mr. Huckabee. I admit to being an early supporter of Mike Huckabee. As he progressed, I found him a less and less desirable option for president. (I disagreed with certain views about gun control, taxation, military budget, as well as other issues.) However, I agreed with him fully about how one's faith (regardless of what that is) should play an undeniable part of one's leadership. His faith got him into trouble with the more unsavory members of his party. (How dare he raise taxes to help the poor in his state. How dare he offer college tuition for the children of illegal immigrants. How dare he put his faith ahead of his party.) Perhaps Mr. Huckabee is to be more of a prophet than a president. God uses unlikely people to speak messages. Huckabee voiced the growing concern among evangelicals about issues such as the environment and poverty. (The main people within the Republican party who are looking at environmental issues are the evangelicals.)
This year is the Democrats to lose. As Democratic strategist James Carville put it, "The good news for the Democrats is that the only way we can lose this election is if we talk ourselves out of it; and the good news for the Republicans is that we just may be able to do it." The reason for democratic ascendency and evangelical discontent is in large part due to the failure of Mr. Bush.* Neo-cons and Militarists hold tightly to the old regime, while the Conservative Christians strike out on their own. I do not know how history will look back on this election or if it will acknowledge this exodus from a party, but it would be wise for us to rethink our positions just as this group has. They have proven that it is better for there to be thoughtful change rather than foolish uniformity. The Republican party may have split apart at the seems, but it will be interesting to see what comes next.
* It should be noted that Mr. Bush has stated that he is an Evangelical Republican as well, and yet he does not rank too high amongst the Christians with whom I have talked.
Perhaps the most interesting group that has undermined the Republican Party has been the evangelical Christian vote. Once a sure thing for the Republicans, it is now becoming either an ignored or hard-won vote. So many of my friends who I considered dyed in the wool Christian Republicans are telling me that they voted for Obama in the primaries. Also, during many of the primaries, those who consider themselves value voters and voted Republican evenly split among the leading candidates. The vote is therefore no longer up for grabs so much as the voters. It is not a cohesive voting block like it was even just a few years ago when Bush was running for a second term.
One of the oddest and most frustrating things is the mainstream media's asinine and intractable stance on viewing this group of people as they did only a few years ago despite being faced with facts. One example of this was when those poll numbers showed candidates Romney, Huckabee, and McCain were pretty evenly split in picking up the Conservative Christian vote. The numbers could not have varied more than a point each (and then one has to factor in that there were probably margins of errors at play as well). While this was running, the media talked of the Evangelical voters as if they were all going out in droves to vote for Huckabee (the evangelical vote). Another key thing to look at are the results from New Hampshire, a staunchly un-evangelical state. Huckabee came in third, but with much higher numbers than expected and even eclipsed the numbers of those who consider themselves Conservative Christians. How can a group of people who are supposed to report the facts, have so obviously or intentionally missed these facts?
The answer is that most people do not know how Christians really think. It is true that the evangelical voters have been on cruise control for far, far too long. But now that there is a sea-change, why are we unwilling to adapt our understanding of this group to the change?
Ironically, it was Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama who best tapped into the change that was sweeping across the demographic. Now, I am not saying these two came anywhere near one another where policy was concerned. However, both reached beyond the cliches of their party for the most part.
I will leave Mr. Obama alone for the moment, and focus more on Mr. Huckabee. I admit to being an early supporter of Mike Huckabee. As he progressed, I found him a less and less desirable option for president. (I disagreed with certain views about gun control, taxation, military budget, as well as other issues.) However, I agreed with him fully about how one's faith (regardless of what that is) should play an undeniable part of one's leadership. His faith got him into trouble with the more unsavory members of his party. (How dare he raise taxes to help the poor in his state. How dare he offer college tuition for the children of illegal immigrants. How dare he put his faith ahead of his party.) Perhaps Mr. Huckabee is to be more of a prophet than a president. God uses unlikely people to speak messages. Huckabee voiced the growing concern among evangelicals about issues such as the environment and poverty. (The main people within the Republican party who are looking at environmental issues are the evangelicals.)
This year is the Democrats to lose. As Democratic strategist James Carville put it, "The good news for the Democrats is that the only way we can lose this election is if we talk ourselves out of it; and the good news for the Republicans is that we just may be able to do it." The reason for democratic ascendency and evangelical discontent is in large part due to the failure of Mr. Bush.* Neo-cons and Militarists hold tightly to the old regime, while the Conservative Christians strike out on their own. I do not know how history will look back on this election or if it will acknowledge this exodus from a party, but it would be wise for us to rethink our positions just as this group has. They have proven that it is better for there to be thoughtful change rather than foolish uniformity. The Republican party may have split apart at the seems, but it will be interesting to see what comes next.
* It should be noted that Mr. Bush has stated that he is an Evangelical Republican as well, and yet he does not rank too high amongst the Christians with whom I have talked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)