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.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)