Yes, there is going to be a lot of talk about Harry Potter in the nude. Daniel Radcliffe is starring in a play during which, apparently, he performs a “lengthy, nude sex scene”. Live.
Some quick background: this is a play which was put on stage in the 1970s and is returning. I don’t know where it played before but it will be in England this time (it is implied that was its venue last time). It has sold a great number of advance bookings, and was controversial in the past, too. I have not heard what the scene in question involves.
There are all the expected arguments on both the “for” and “against” sides. As expected, many parents are upset that Harry Potter’s star is going to do something like this, and the answer is “don’t take your kids to see it”. The typical pro-and-con argument about the appropriateness of this kind of material revolves around free speech (though I doubt there’s much actual dialog during the objectionable parts) vs. decency (though this is not being done in a public place - and is probably less graphic than what happens in R-rated movies). And lets face it. There are a lot of guys who would love to be in a position to have guaranteed sex that many times a week. And to get paid for it!
Radcliffe did not want to portray Harry Potter. He was a phenomenal child actor with a brilliant career ahead of him and didn’t want to be thought of for one single pop-culture role, nor be type-cast into those roles in the future. Other actors and actresses have gone through similar identity crises and come up with similar solutions (Victor Victoria and Julie Andrews, anyone? At least Radcliffe’s scene in this play is not gay...)
The fact is that pornographic movies are legal. What makes plays so different is the fact that, just like packaged meat in a supermarket shields us from the source product animal, seeing sex or nudity on a movie or television screen dehumanizes it. I think what many of us shy away from is that we actually do believe (or perhaps simply recognize) that seeing nudity on screen is less stimulating than it is in actual person - so seeing live pornography is obviously more stimulating than seeing a filmed version.
This play is going to be a hit or a failure on its own. The cliché “no publicity is bad publicity” applies, but what would be more interesting to me is to see just whom the audience is. Claiming a million pounds sterling (did I reference British currency correctly?) in pre-release sales is impressive has often seemed to me as clever as touting a movie’s gross ticket sales in dollars. How much does the ticket cost? How many people actually went to the movie compared to how many could have gone to the movie? By doing actual math on ticket sales we discover that a “blockbuster” movie reaches a surprisingly small audience. But who goes? Only those who could have been counted on? That’s fine. But don’t assume that everyone likes something simply because a certain, small sector of society does. (see my upcoming post: Megaphone Mathmatics)
All I ask is that people be prepared to pay the consequences of their actions. What you expose yourself to enters your thought. The thoughts you own thereafter are yours to be challenged with. How you project yourself to the rest of the world affects how they think about you. You can’t demand that people think differently, you have to accept that opinion is formed outside your control. You can try to influence it, but you can’t demand that everyone see things your way. Where they don’t, you have to be prepared for their reactions. Even if their reactions seem out of all reasonable proportion to you.
There are cultures where the exposition of any part of a woman besides her eyes - to anyone not her husband - can be punished by death. If you are going to be so alien to their way of thought that you are willing to not only show a woman, live, fully naked, performing lengthy sexual acts whether by herself, with a man, or even with her husband, you cannot be intellectually honest with yourself and be surprised when they believe your entire culture is deserving of death and damnation.
Does this mean you stop what you are doing, repress who you are? That is one answer, though it is not necessarily the answer I would choose (certainly not in all cases). Whatever your answer is, you had better be prepared for the revulsion, hatred, “misunderstanding”, and eventual violence you are going to engender.
And if you decide to continue “being who you are” or “exercising the right to express yourself in a free society” I don’t ever want to hear you tell me you want me to try to reach out and understand my enemy. Just be glad others like me are willing to fight this enemy you created because we believe in the freedoms we believe you are abusing.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
My Immigration Angle
From my perspective, there are two parts to The Immigration Issue.
First:
Cliché and annoying as it is coming from people who misuse this statement, this country was founded by so-called immigrants. Now, it is only a cliché, and as such it is provable wrong - there was no “country” to which to immigrate, we were actually refugees to begin with, pioneers with a vision, willing to risk everything including the wrath of the greatest superpower of the age in order to carve out a better life.
Please note: the country was not actually founded by those hearty, enterprising, desperate HARD WORKING people, but two hundred years later by people who had been born here, raised here, and lived most of their lives here (except for those who visited other places because we had made such a success of ourselves we could travel). There are no “Founding Immigrants”, it is the Founding Fathers. This is not to downplay immigrants. Why?
I would say ‘let us go back to one of the most robust stretches in American History’ but the fact is, part of my point is going to be there is only a short stretch of time that has NOT been robust. Let us analyze the role of immigrants, ignoring present day. First, it might come as a shock to Americans that immigration is not actually normal. There have been very few examples throughout history of people immigrating. There have been very few places worth immigrating TO. Always, it has been opportunity which has drawn the immigrant. The opportunity that only comes when one is free.
Immigrants came to this country with a clear goal in mind: to achieve. It wasn’t that every pair of feet that trod across Ellis Island dreamed of becoming famous or opulent. And it wasn’t the dream of opulence or fame that immigrants brought to us. We already had that in heady measure. What immigrants brought was the truth. The awful, gut-wrenching, heart-rending, shocking truth that in so many places in the world, there was not freedom. They came from places where they could NOT choose what they wanted to be when they grew up - they were TOLD. They could NOT save up for retirement, they weren’t PAID. They were part of a machine, a cog or a lever, a bolt or a hard piece of frame. The lucky few who escaped came to America filled with the energy and knowledge that now they could work for their own benefit - for the benefit of their children! Their efforts were not going to be stolen by some overlord, but they could actually save up! If they had a talent or a skill, they could pursue that instead of being forced into baking or blacksmithing or tanning. If they had a talent or skill for baking or blacksmithing or tanning, they could do it their way and excel!
Immigrants came and filled out this country with drive and determination. They came with the endless years and generations of enforced humility before them - the humbling recognition that sometimes you were part of a greater whole. If you were lucky, you got to choose what part, and the greater whole served you. If you were normal, you were forced into a place and shape and the greater whole served some remote, dangerous piece.
Today’s average American, if we are to believe the evidence paraded before us in the media (unfortunately, both old and new media), has lost sight of this. Today’s average American is not filled with the passion to achieve. We have gone from expecting to enjoy the fruits of our labors to expecting to enjoy the fruits of someone else’s labors. We don’t need to see the slaves toiling away, the parts of the machine, we don’t need to force our neighbors to work for us, but we all want to be the overlord. The one who does not work, but only receives.
Then, tragedy of ironies, we flail around our space screaming out in idiotic pain and misery that our life has no meaning - and often chose the worst causes and meanings to which to attach ourselves. But that is another blog (wow I am now in the habit of figuring out my next blog posts by the tangents in my previous).
That is part one. The essential role of immigration and immigrants. I have known only one immigrant with certainty and closeness. He became an American Citizen before my very eyes. He was an immigrant from Lebanon, full of amazing stories told with almost fearful humility. He arrived at JFK Airport with eight dollars and a suitcase. He spoke English before he came. By the time I met him he had put himself through school, taught himself a skill (webmaster, before that was popular) and was perhaps the most technically knowledgeable amongst us. He had a Brazilian girlfriend and they seemed very good together. I will never forget the day he was sworn in as an American Citizen. The light and fire in his eyes overflowed until they were a part of me, too.
Second:
Discrimination. Yes, I will use that word. It used to be a good word, and some little bit of its intended meaning remain. When you tell someone, after eating a delightful food, viewing an amazing painting, or enjoying some other impressive luxury, they have discriminating taste, you are complimenting them. They chose wisely. To discriminate used to mean to choose wisely. Now it has been turned into an ugly word to suggest exactly the opposite.
We (again I mean to include conservatives, though liberals are welcome to exclude themselves) are not attempting to discriminate by race, by gender, or even by sexual practices (with some legal limits). But we do need to be more discriminating. How? What is the measure? What could this blogger actually mean?
Actually, I think there is a very simple line, though it is not one that is easy to see, and it is possible to dissemble your way across the line. The simple discrimination should be: do you wish to come to this country with the classic immigrant’s vision - that is, do you come here to work hard and be rewarded by yourself for yourself?
Unfortunately, too many people now cross the boarder to be provided for. They come here to be rewarded, but not by themselves, nor for themselves. They come without intention to build anything, nor to leave anything, but to consume - too often without contributing anything in return.
Yes, many people come here expecting to work. Many people do tough jobs that the elite in this country feel is beneath them. Those are the ones who get held up as the “normal” entrant to this country. Though it would be nice to pray that such is true, the fact is that they are still not the immigrants we seek.
Have you checked out Australia’s immigration policy?
I have.
First:
Cliché and annoying as it is coming from people who misuse this statement, this country was founded by so-called immigrants. Now, it is only a cliché, and as such it is provable wrong - there was no “country” to which to immigrate, we were actually refugees to begin with, pioneers with a vision, willing to risk everything including the wrath of the greatest superpower of the age in order to carve out a better life.
Please note: the country was not actually founded by those hearty, enterprising, desperate HARD WORKING people, but two hundred years later by people who had been born here, raised here, and lived most of their lives here (except for those who visited other places because we had made such a success of ourselves we could travel). There are no “Founding Immigrants”, it is the Founding Fathers. This is not to downplay immigrants. Why?
I would say ‘let us go back to one of the most robust stretches in American History’ but the fact is, part of my point is going to be there is only a short stretch of time that has NOT been robust. Let us analyze the role of immigrants, ignoring present day. First, it might come as a shock to Americans that immigration is not actually normal. There have been very few examples throughout history of people immigrating. There have been very few places worth immigrating TO. Always, it has been opportunity which has drawn the immigrant. The opportunity that only comes when one is free.
Immigrants came to this country with a clear goal in mind: to achieve. It wasn’t that every pair of feet that trod across Ellis Island dreamed of becoming famous or opulent. And it wasn’t the dream of opulence or fame that immigrants brought to us. We already had that in heady measure. What immigrants brought was the truth. The awful, gut-wrenching, heart-rending, shocking truth that in so many places in the world, there was not freedom. They came from places where they could NOT choose what they wanted to be when they grew up - they were TOLD. They could NOT save up for retirement, they weren’t PAID. They were part of a machine, a cog or a lever, a bolt or a hard piece of frame. The lucky few who escaped came to America filled with the energy and knowledge that now they could work for their own benefit - for the benefit of their children! Their efforts were not going to be stolen by some overlord, but they could actually save up! If they had a talent or a skill, they could pursue that instead of being forced into baking or blacksmithing or tanning. If they had a talent or skill for baking or blacksmithing or tanning, they could do it their way and excel!
Immigrants came and filled out this country with drive and determination. They came with the endless years and generations of enforced humility before them - the humbling recognition that sometimes you were part of a greater whole. If you were lucky, you got to choose what part, and the greater whole served you. If you were normal, you were forced into a place and shape and the greater whole served some remote, dangerous piece.
Today’s average American, if we are to believe the evidence paraded before us in the media (unfortunately, both old and new media), has lost sight of this. Today’s average American is not filled with the passion to achieve. We have gone from expecting to enjoy the fruits of our labors to expecting to enjoy the fruits of someone else’s labors. We don’t need to see the slaves toiling away, the parts of the machine, we don’t need to force our neighbors to work for us, but we all want to be the overlord. The one who does not work, but only receives.
Then, tragedy of ironies, we flail around our space screaming out in idiotic pain and misery that our life has no meaning - and often chose the worst causes and meanings to which to attach ourselves. But that is another blog (wow I am now in the habit of figuring out my next blog posts by the tangents in my previous).
That is part one. The essential role of immigration and immigrants. I have known only one immigrant with certainty and closeness. He became an American Citizen before my very eyes. He was an immigrant from Lebanon, full of amazing stories told with almost fearful humility. He arrived at JFK Airport with eight dollars and a suitcase. He spoke English before he came. By the time I met him he had put himself through school, taught himself a skill (webmaster, before that was popular) and was perhaps the most technically knowledgeable amongst us. He had a Brazilian girlfriend and they seemed very good together. I will never forget the day he was sworn in as an American Citizen. The light and fire in his eyes overflowed until they were a part of me, too.
Second:
Discrimination. Yes, I will use that word. It used to be a good word, and some little bit of its intended meaning remain. When you tell someone, after eating a delightful food, viewing an amazing painting, or enjoying some other impressive luxury, they have discriminating taste, you are complimenting them. They chose wisely. To discriminate used to mean to choose wisely. Now it has been turned into an ugly word to suggest exactly the opposite.
We (again I mean to include conservatives, though liberals are welcome to exclude themselves) are not attempting to discriminate by race, by gender, or even by sexual practices (with some legal limits). But we do need to be more discriminating. How? What is the measure? What could this blogger actually mean?
Actually, I think there is a very simple line, though it is not one that is easy to see, and it is possible to dissemble your way across the line. The simple discrimination should be: do you wish to come to this country with the classic immigrant’s vision - that is, do you come here to work hard and be rewarded by yourself for yourself?
Unfortunately, too many people now cross the boarder to be provided for. They come here to be rewarded, but not by themselves, nor for themselves. They come without intention to build anything, nor to leave anything, but to consume - too often without contributing anything in return.
Yes, many people come here expecting to work. Many people do tough jobs that the elite in this country feel is beneath them. Those are the ones who get held up as the “normal” entrant to this country. Though it would be nice to pray that such is true, the fact is that they are still not the immigrants we seek.
Have you checked out Australia’s immigration policy?
I have.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Children vs. Adults
I have had several disciplinary problems with my children lately. Perhaps other parents would consider me intolerant, because they’re not the kinds of problems that would even make the stereotyped parent’s radar. I had to take a toy away because they were using it to hurt each other emotionally.
I wondered why. I feel like I have been working constantly to get them to treat each other with respect, and to THINK before they do something. It has not happened. It’s like trying to hold back goo. It simply oozes around the barrier and continues on its merry way. Perhaps a little slower, but you can’t stop, you have to constantly scrape it back.
My definition of the difference between adults and children (or at least between adult behavior and childish behavior) became clear in a moment.
Childish behavior constantly tests the limits without regard for consequence.
Adult behavior knows where the limits are and the consequences for crossing over.
This doesn’t mean adults don’t push the limits, or even deliberately cross over, they just do it knowingly. They know they pay the consequence in one way or another and made that bargain.
It also doesn’t mean children push the limits and cross over them every time - they don’t know where the limits are and at the best of times have only a hazy concept of what the consequences are (much clearer is that they have survived to this point without much damage). Sometimes they fall short of the limits. Don’t worry, they’ll stand back up and charge headlong towards the line again.
This has little to do with a person’s age. It has a lot to do with their experience and wisdom. A lot of adults behave like children, and a few children behave like adults.
Where do parents fit in? They’re trying to define the limits for their children. Even the bad parents do this to dome degree, they just choose too few limits and those are generally poor examples of life’s limits. Parents are up against a dual, limited time-line. They have to teach these limits before their children move out, and they have to teach these limits before the children destroy themselves. Some of us feel the pressure.
I wondered why. I feel like I have been working constantly to get them to treat each other with respect, and to THINK before they do something. It has not happened. It’s like trying to hold back goo. It simply oozes around the barrier and continues on its merry way. Perhaps a little slower, but you can’t stop, you have to constantly scrape it back.
My definition of the difference between adults and children (or at least between adult behavior and childish behavior) became clear in a moment.
Childish behavior constantly tests the limits without regard for consequence.
Adult behavior knows where the limits are and the consequences for crossing over.
This doesn’t mean adults don’t push the limits, or even deliberately cross over, they just do it knowingly. They know they pay the consequence in one way or another and made that bargain.
It also doesn’t mean children push the limits and cross over them every time - they don’t know where the limits are and at the best of times have only a hazy concept of what the consequences are (much clearer is that they have survived to this point without much damage). Sometimes they fall short of the limits. Don’t worry, they’ll stand back up and charge headlong towards the line again.
This has little to do with a person’s age. It has a lot to do with their experience and wisdom. A lot of adults behave like children, and a few children behave like adults.
Where do parents fit in? They’re trying to define the limits for their children. Even the bad parents do this to dome degree, they just choose too few limits and those are generally poor examples of life’s limits. Parents are up against a dual, limited time-line. They have to teach these limits before their children move out, and they have to teach these limits before the children destroy themselves. Some of us feel the pressure.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Doing and Undoing
I think most of us (meaning the conservatives) are still grumbling about the lack of balls shown by our so-called leaders when we send them to Washington. The last election (as many have already said before me) was not about liberalism winning, it was about conservatism sending a message. It was only part one, however, and if conservatives don’t carry the day in 2008, the lesson will not only be lost, it will be mangled to the point of ruin.
But I digress.
Even before I get to my point.
I think what rankles me the most about the differences between conservative and liberal leadership is the boldness. Liberals spent a lot of time learning to be bold. In fact, that’s all they’ve got. Their ideology is sophomoric and impractical - fails every time it is tried and usually at staggering cost impossible to count fully (war on poverty? DDT?) - but they have arrogance and boldness. I’m not saying I want our leaders to be the asses their leaders are, but I do want SOME arrogance and boldness. Why?
What happens is that when liberals are given power (earned or not) they immediately set out to UNDO what was done before them. They actually have the audacity (being ironic here, because quite frankly I don’t blame them, nor do I think it is audacious) to undo policy they don’t like, based on the claim that they have been elected to enact their agenda.
GO FLIPPIN FIGURE.
So. Where are the conservative leaders who are willing to be this bold and arrogant? Have they learned at ALL from the lessons of 2006? They were weak, they were uninspiring, they did not lead, they did not advance their agenda.
Go with bold. Go with vision. Run on the platform that when you get to Washington you’re going to undo what the Democrats are attempting right now (with only President Bush, embattled by the very essence of empty boldness: the aptly named drive-by media, to stand against them). Be prepared to support the difficult (but by no means unpopular, despite the twisting of the mouthpiece) war. Overall and specific parts of the war. Be prepared to address the staggering immigration problem. Do we want immigrants? Yes. Do we need immigrants? YES - the kind that came and shaped this country to begin with. I will post about this in the future. Do we need an open border across which uncounted and unchecked people can cross? No. We do not. It would be NICE, but we do not. Speak truth to bold, arrogant idiots with nothing but loud volume on their side.
You will get elected.
UNDO what they have done, ADVANCE our agenda.
You will stay elected.
But I digress.
Even before I get to my point.
I think what rankles me the most about the differences between conservative and liberal leadership is the boldness. Liberals spent a lot of time learning to be bold. In fact, that’s all they’ve got. Their ideology is sophomoric and impractical - fails every time it is tried and usually at staggering cost impossible to count fully (war on poverty? DDT?) - but they have arrogance and boldness. I’m not saying I want our leaders to be the asses their leaders are, but I do want SOME arrogance and boldness. Why?
What happens is that when liberals are given power (earned or not) they immediately set out to UNDO what was done before them. They actually have the audacity (being ironic here, because quite frankly I don’t blame them, nor do I think it is audacious) to undo policy they don’t like, based on the claim that they have been elected to enact their agenda.
GO FLIPPIN FIGURE.
So. Where are the conservative leaders who are willing to be this bold and arrogant? Have they learned at ALL from the lessons of 2006? They were weak, they were uninspiring, they did not lead, they did not advance their agenda.
Go with bold. Go with vision. Run on the platform that when you get to Washington you’re going to undo what the Democrats are attempting right now (with only President Bush, embattled by the very essence of empty boldness: the aptly named drive-by media, to stand against them). Be prepared to support the difficult (but by no means unpopular, despite the twisting of the mouthpiece) war. Overall and specific parts of the war. Be prepared to address the staggering immigration problem. Do we want immigrants? Yes. Do we need immigrants? YES - the kind that came and shaped this country to begin with. I will post about this in the future. Do we need an open border across which uncounted and unchecked people can cross? No. We do not. It would be NICE, but we do not. Speak truth to bold, arrogant idiots with nothing but loud volume on their side.
You will get elected.
UNDO what they have done, ADVANCE our agenda.
You will stay elected.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Monday, January 15, 2007
Auto Mechanics, Lawyers, Computer-Guys, and Reporters.
I speak as a computer guy. I got into the industry back in the early 90s when they were revered - everyone wanted a computer guru and they were treated with respect. They did everything right, they learned their stuff, they did have some cool toys, but they didn’t abuse anyone’s trust and they were worth their weight in silicon chips.
Then, as happened with Mechanics and Lawyers before us, the industry went through a horrid change. Part of it could have been that because we were all making good money and were treated well within our respective companies the field was flooded with people who saw only the money and the respect. People didn’t see the work any more. They weren’t interested in making computers work right or help their clients, they were interested in an IT salary, a corner office, and a bunch of great toys connected to the internet.
Computer guys took on the connotation of cheating, sneaking, money-spending whirlpools who surfed for dirty pictures when we weren’t playing video games on company time and property. We couldn’t be bothered to show up to help our actual clients, and even at $50k salaries we couldn’t answer basic questions that your co-worker could have solved for you in seconds.
Computer guys are making a slow comeback, but at more realistic expectations. It has become the search for the right computer guy, not just any computer guy. Companies do treat excellent computer workers well, but they don’t give that respect and money away any more. Entry-level talent is put in entry-level positions. Competition has brought the average salary down realistically.
I don’t work in computers any more. But I am seeing the same cycle now attacking journalists. They are where computer guys were about five years ago. I can see it in myself - basically a news consumer of the first order. No longer do I go to the news just to find out what is going on in the world. I am forced to sift through news sources to find the one that presents that news in a me-friendly way. This (of course) pissess off my political opposites, just as I think they’re hopelessly misinformed by their own reporters. We are trying to consume the same news, but we’re more interested in shaping what we see to match what we already thought that the very consumption of news has become a competitive sport - the kind you hear about in the stands of Great Britain where the fans beat each other bloody and senseless.
I don’t know what the solution is. The accusations are the same on both sides. I will say what I feel and I bet that’s exactly what a liberal would say about me. I believe if they actually read the raw news, got real numbers - numbers that spoke the truth rather than being manipulated to an agenda - they would agree with me. I believe they speak with raw emotion - emotion that was shaped by someone else to play on nothing more than their guilt - ironically guilt they shouldn’t even have. Facts don’t seem to be important to them, only the story.
Where does this come from? Is it some insidious plan? Is it the leftovers of an Anti-American organization that was defeated but its momentum still rolls on (such as the KGB, which may make a horrid comeback)? Or is it actually greed - a news organization that twists facts into the most sensational headline it can in order to suck people in and make them read (so that they have numbers to show their advertisers)?
I don’t know, but the bottom line is that, like Car Mechanics, Lawyers, and Computer Guys before them, the field of Journalism is sinking and has still not hit its low point.
Then, as happened with Mechanics and Lawyers before us, the industry went through a horrid change. Part of it could have been that because we were all making good money and were treated well within our respective companies the field was flooded with people who saw only the money and the respect. People didn’t see the work any more. They weren’t interested in making computers work right or help their clients, they were interested in an IT salary, a corner office, and a bunch of great toys connected to the internet.
Computer guys took on the connotation of cheating, sneaking, money-spending whirlpools who surfed for dirty pictures when we weren’t playing video games on company time and property. We couldn’t be bothered to show up to help our actual clients, and even at $50k salaries we couldn’t answer basic questions that your co-worker could have solved for you in seconds.
Computer guys are making a slow comeback, but at more realistic expectations. It has become the search for the right computer guy, not just any computer guy. Companies do treat excellent computer workers well, but they don’t give that respect and money away any more. Entry-level talent is put in entry-level positions. Competition has brought the average salary down realistically.
I don’t work in computers any more. But I am seeing the same cycle now attacking journalists. They are where computer guys were about five years ago. I can see it in myself - basically a news consumer of the first order. No longer do I go to the news just to find out what is going on in the world. I am forced to sift through news sources to find the one that presents that news in a me-friendly way. This (of course) pissess off my political opposites, just as I think they’re hopelessly misinformed by their own reporters. We are trying to consume the same news, but we’re more interested in shaping what we see to match what we already thought that the very consumption of news has become a competitive sport - the kind you hear about in the stands of Great Britain where the fans beat each other bloody and senseless.
I don’t know what the solution is. The accusations are the same on both sides. I will say what I feel and I bet that’s exactly what a liberal would say about me. I believe if they actually read the raw news, got real numbers - numbers that spoke the truth rather than being manipulated to an agenda - they would agree with me. I believe they speak with raw emotion - emotion that was shaped by someone else to play on nothing more than their guilt - ironically guilt they shouldn’t even have. Facts don’t seem to be important to them, only the story.
Where does this come from? Is it some insidious plan? Is it the leftovers of an Anti-American organization that was defeated but its momentum still rolls on (such as the KGB, which may make a horrid comeback)? Or is it actually greed - a news organization that twists facts into the most sensational headline it can in order to suck people in and make them read (so that they have numbers to show their advertisers)?
I don’t know, but the bottom line is that, like Car Mechanics, Lawyers, and Computer Guys before them, the field of Journalism is sinking and has still not hit its low point.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Bulls, Dogs, and China Shops
This post was almost called:
Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, and a book called Exile.
But I believe we can all agree that was too clunky. Don't know if my current title is any better.
You know, we Americans have been compared to many things. Sometimes we’re the teenagers on the block. Sometimes we’re the gigantic, well-meaning dog with the huge, sweeping tail (or bull in a china shop if you prefer). Sometimes we’re so repressed that we try to enforce our “Puritan Values” on others. Sometimes we’re such degenerate consumers that our products are a vile plague designed to corrupt civilization. The world continues to try to understand us.
That’s okay. We’re likewise trying to understand the rest of the world.
I read this book called Exile, a fascinating story about an American Jew caught up in a Palestinian terrorist assassination. Over and over again I found a compelling theme: characters in the story would try to explain their plight to this American, explain their position and their hatred (which was usually portrayed not so much as hatred as determination, but it was hatred when applied). Over and over again the American would ask a counter-question or even offer an immediate solution. One that, to me (an American of course), made perfect sense. The characters in the story would even say that the American didn’t get it - that it would never work.
I could see, though this was not a comedy, that the American wanted to pause, eyes to the side, hands stuffed in pockets, realizing that there was going to be no mutual answer because a mutual answer was not wanted.
I can understand that the world is frustrated with America and Americans. While our own country is not perfect (and I can get in major trouble stating from where I believe the biggest problems come) we do believe in finding mutual answers - not necessarily compromises, but answers. We believe that it is possible not so much to sacrifice as to change.
Americans are not only free to change, they are encouraged to do so. We have the liberty to uproot ourselves and start somewhere else. We actually spiritualize things into thoughts, or concepts. That is to say, we take the time (often short enough, I will grant you) to think about what we really want - what it represents, not what it physically is - and find a way to achieve or acquire the qualities we’re looking for. We see many solutions, many goals.
In American phraseology, the problem more or less comes down to our classic argument about means and ends. To the ends justify the means or do the means justify the ends? This gets to the core about what frustrates us about the world, and what frustrates the world with us.
In general, I would say that Americans put means ahead of ends. We certainly have our goals, or ends, that we wish to reach, and we strive for them, but the ends do not justify the means - the means have to be acceptable as well. In fact, the end may be redefined along the journey. In general, it seems that the strife or conflict that confuses us are those issues where the participants believe not only that the ends are fixed, unchangeable, but that they must be reached by specific means, which can be ends in and of themselves.
Yes, our solutions seem oversimplified to others. Their problems seem over-complex to us.
In the end... which would you rather have?
Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, and a book called Exile.
But I believe we can all agree that was too clunky. Don't know if my current title is any better.
You know, we Americans have been compared to many things. Sometimes we’re the teenagers on the block. Sometimes we’re the gigantic, well-meaning dog with the huge, sweeping tail (or bull in a china shop if you prefer). Sometimes we’re so repressed that we try to enforce our “Puritan Values” on others. Sometimes we’re such degenerate consumers that our products are a vile plague designed to corrupt civilization. The world continues to try to understand us.
That’s okay. We’re likewise trying to understand the rest of the world.
I read this book called Exile, a fascinating story about an American Jew caught up in a Palestinian terrorist assassination. Over and over again I found a compelling theme: characters in the story would try to explain their plight to this American, explain their position and their hatred (which was usually portrayed not so much as hatred as determination, but it was hatred when applied). Over and over again the American would ask a counter-question or even offer an immediate solution. One that, to me (an American of course), made perfect sense. The characters in the story would even say that the American didn’t get it - that it would never work.
I could see, though this was not a comedy, that the American wanted to pause, eyes to the side, hands stuffed in pockets, realizing that there was going to be no mutual answer because a mutual answer was not wanted.
I can understand that the world is frustrated with America and Americans. While our own country is not perfect (and I can get in major trouble stating from where I believe the biggest problems come) we do believe in finding mutual answers - not necessarily compromises, but answers. We believe that it is possible not so much to sacrifice as to change.
Americans are not only free to change, they are encouraged to do so. We have the liberty to uproot ourselves and start somewhere else. We actually spiritualize things into thoughts, or concepts. That is to say, we take the time (often short enough, I will grant you) to think about what we really want - what it represents, not what it physically is - and find a way to achieve or acquire the qualities we’re looking for. We see many solutions, many goals.
In American phraseology, the problem more or less comes down to our classic argument about means and ends. To the ends justify the means or do the means justify the ends? This gets to the core about what frustrates us about the world, and what frustrates the world with us.
In general, I would say that Americans put means ahead of ends. We certainly have our goals, or ends, that we wish to reach, and we strive for them, but the ends do not justify the means - the means have to be acceptable as well. In fact, the end may be redefined along the journey. In general, it seems that the strife or conflict that confuses us are those issues where the participants believe not only that the ends are fixed, unchangeable, but that they must be reached by specific means, which can be ends in and of themselves.
Yes, our solutions seem oversimplified to others. Their problems seem over-complex to us.
In the end... which would you rather have?
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Mogadishu Moments
Americans may not be the ones to win the War on Terror.
Paying attention to Somalia?
Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, and the episode known as “Black Hawk Down” was not recognized at the time by the world at large as a turning point in the War on Terror - where terrorists learned how to fight the Mighty United States. This admission came later.
Mogadishu is once again in the news, and may very well represent another turning point in the War on Terror.
Let’s clear something up:
While I do believe that the United States is one of the biggest targets for terror (our only rival for that dubious distinction is probably Israel) we are by no means the ONLY target for terror, and because we are not only separated from the hot spots of the world by massive oceans and tremendous distance but we are actually very effectively protected (I must grudgingly admit) by politicians who have no desire to see us wiped out (they only desire to be in power so they can claim the victory and vision, thus perpetuating their power), we are a very difficult target.
Thus (if you could untangle that paragraph) there are other targets for terrorism worldwide. The fact is that most terrorism uses Islam as one of its rallying cries, but I don’t believe terrorism has anything to do with Islam - it is merely using that religion as many religions (including Judaism and Christianity) have been used to inflame people who would otherwise shrug. Terrorism has to do with political power, oppression, and tyranny.
The United States can be a leader in the War on Terror - but we cannot win it. Why? Because the essential ingredients to winning the War on Terror are the same as were required for the war in Vietnam. Terrorists must be denied a hiding place, and they must be un-made. These two things can be done in America - but only on a limited scale. Why? Because we have only a limited terrorist problem. Oh, we have terrorists right here (blowing up SUV dealers, shooting abortion doctors, causing race riots, etc.) but they are amateurs and peons compared to terrorists who take down office buildings, bomb embassies, cause genocide.
Terror as a concept cannot be defeated by normal, material means - the ultimate elimination of terror ca only be a spiritual struggle. However, the kind of terror we’re talking about when we say the War on Terror can be defeated - but it must be defeated where THAT kind of terrorist can find hiding places and where those terrorists can be un-made.
Such an example is happening before our eyes - Ethiopia (and you had better examine your own stereotypes or assumptions about that country, because I guarantee it is nothing like it was in the 80s) has gone into Somalia and ousted terrorists - or at least is fighting them effectively.
We cannot go into every nook and cranny and root out terrorists. The world must do this. Our efforts may seem the loudest, most controversial, most visible, and may be perceived as the most effective, and we may have to be the (often maligned) leader in this cause, but the fact is that the WAR is going to be won by dozens of countries fighting their own little battles against the forces in their neighborhood. It is going to be won by the people of towns, cities, and villages kicking out or healing the violent in their midst.
If the Viet Cong had found no villages in which to hide, Vietnam would not have gone down the way it did.
The problem is, and I believe it is a natural, big problem, that it takes courage to stand up to the violent. Whether they are violent with weapons, or violent with words, it is not easy to stand against them. The War will be won when enough people find that local courage.
Paying attention to Somalia?
Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, and the episode known as “Black Hawk Down” was not recognized at the time by the world at large as a turning point in the War on Terror - where terrorists learned how to fight the Mighty United States. This admission came later.
Mogadishu is once again in the news, and may very well represent another turning point in the War on Terror.
Let’s clear something up:
While I do believe that the United States is one of the biggest targets for terror (our only rival for that dubious distinction is probably Israel) we are by no means the ONLY target for terror, and because we are not only separated from the hot spots of the world by massive oceans and tremendous distance but we are actually very effectively protected (I must grudgingly admit) by politicians who have no desire to see us wiped out (they only desire to be in power so they can claim the victory and vision, thus perpetuating their power), we are a very difficult target.
Thus (if you could untangle that paragraph) there are other targets for terrorism worldwide. The fact is that most terrorism uses Islam as one of its rallying cries, but I don’t believe terrorism has anything to do with Islam - it is merely using that religion as many religions (including Judaism and Christianity) have been used to inflame people who would otherwise shrug. Terrorism has to do with political power, oppression, and tyranny.
The United States can be a leader in the War on Terror - but we cannot win it. Why? Because the essential ingredients to winning the War on Terror are the same as were required for the war in Vietnam. Terrorists must be denied a hiding place, and they must be un-made. These two things can be done in America - but only on a limited scale. Why? Because we have only a limited terrorist problem. Oh, we have terrorists right here (blowing up SUV dealers, shooting abortion doctors, causing race riots, etc.) but they are amateurs and peons compared to terrorists who take down office buildings, bomb embassies, cause genocide.
Terror as a concept cannot be defeated by normal, material means - the ultimate elimination of terror ca only be a spiritual struggle. However, the kind of terror we’re talking about when we say the War on Terror can be defeated - but it must be defeated where THAT kind of terrorist can find hiding places and where those terrorists can be un-made.
Such an example is happening before our eyes - Ethiopia (and you had better examine your own stereotypes or assumptions about that country, because I guarantee it is nothing like it was in the 80s) has gone into Somalia and ousted terrorists - or at least is fighting them effectively.
We cannot go into every nook and cranny and root out terrorists. The world must do this. Our efforts may seem the loudest, most controversial, most visible, and may be perceived as the most effective, and we may have to be the (often maligned) leader in this cause, but the fact is that the WAR is going to be won by dozens of countries fighting their own little battles against the forces in their neighborhood. It is going to be won by the people of towns, cities, and villages kicking out or healing the violent in their midst.
If the Viet Cong had found no villages in which to hide, Vietnam would not have gone down the way it did.
The problem is, and I believe it is a natural, big problem, that it takes courage to stand up to the violent. Whether they are violent with weapons, or violent with words, it is not easy to stand against them. The War will be won when enough people find that local courage.
Amniotic stem cells and Babylon Five
I remember a trip I took to California to visit a relative. I was on the Atkins Diet at the time and had lost 40 lbs. I explained to someone (who had asked me about it) how according to nature, meat seemed the best thing for our body. Not to ignore other foods, but to focus on meat. She said “between that and Stem Cells, our generation may live forever”. I had never heard about Stem Cells - this was several years ago. It seemed to me my goal was not necessarily to live forever (a lot of religious issues interpose here that would make a different blog entry) but I thought it (and still think it) unlikely medicine is going to find a way for us to live “forever”. Much longer lives, sure - but forever?
I also remember an episode of Babylon Five (a series I really enjoyed, though I did not see all of it) where some alien had a technology that would make humans immortal - but in order to become immortal, each human would have to kill another human. One half of the human race would become immortal at the mortal expense of the other half. I am trying to remember if this alien was doing this out of some twisted motive because she wanted humans in chaos, but I don’t remember.
The argument about Stem Cell Research, before I even heard about stem cells, has never been about stem cells. The idea is that pure cells can be injected into a person’s body to replace damaged or corrupted cells (an oversimplification, but I believe accurate enough for all that). This seems to me innocent enough, and a technology that could really have some amazing effects on health.
Unfortunately, there are a few issues that cloud that clear concept. We search for the truth, being interested, and we are presented with stories that are actually about something else - this is not always the fault of the media (though sometimes I do blame them directly). People, who I believe are essentially afraid of presenting their honest truth or beliefs, have learned in order to get what they want they have to find something semi-related to what they want, something that people will get behind, push that very hard, and when they get a victory, proclaim that it automatically supports what they REALLY want.
Abortion is almost always the hidden topic, though homosexual issues are treated the same way.
Abortion advocates recognize that while most people start in the middle of the abortion debate. It’s easy to see how pregnancy not only dominates a woman’s life (and is quite often unplanned) but can be terrifying. There is no biological function which prevents a woman becoming pregnant because she’s not ready for the life change it produces. Before it is born, a baby is hidden from view (very fuzzy pictures from sonar technology aside). Just what it is or looks like is nearly impossible to conceive. Removing it, like a tumor or other growth, seems impersonal and logical enough. Just like most medical procedures, however, once it is looked into - once someone really takes the time to consider what is happening, an overwhelming majority will turn away from it.
That had to be the first victory in a long series of battles - advocates for abortion had to make it not only avoidable, but actually discouraged to educate people (especially the women who were making this huge decision) about abortions themselves. The overwhelming majority? Women. Women who see that we’re not talking about a tumor or a growth, but a tiny human being, a life-to-be, and that the procedure itself is frightening, disgusting, startling.
It’s interesting how many therapies we support, but there is so little focus on post-abortion syndromes. When a woman, who was discouraged from learning about what was going to happen, suddenly has HAD it happen, and has to deal with it.
The latest battle (and I am skipping the most famous of the battles, and so many in-between) is the so-called ban on Stem Cell Research.
The ridiculousness of the whole battle is that the premise itself is completely distorted and flawed. There is no ban on Stem Cell Research. Stem Cell Research is encouraged as a whole. One branch (and, it might be pointed out, the only branch that has shown absolutely zero results, while other branches have already cured diseases) is under attack: Embryonic Stem Cell Research. And it is only under attack, it is not even banned. There is absolutely no ban on the research itself. There is only a limit on the amount of government-supported research. A LIMIT, not even a BAN. So now, a LIMIT on government spending on ONE branch (and a sketchy one full of controversy) is now characterized as a BAN on the whole concept.
Why is this? Because abortion advocates have seen Stem Cell Research as their latest semi-related issue, a cause they believed they could present that people would accept - after all, who does NOT want to cure diseases, to improve health, to live longer lives? We love to solve mysteries, to overcome challenges, to see and do and experience more. Long, healthy lives are very conducive to that end. Abortion advocates have counted on two things: first, that we would be so interested in the ends, that we wouldn’t care about the means; second, that we would not be able to separate the various branches of the research - that they could characterize all successes in stem cell technology as coming directly from aborted babies.
We have seen many advances from Stem Cell Research. Some advances appear startlingly miraculous - revolutions in health. They have, to this point, ALL been the result of stem cells that came from the patient themselves. Adult stem cells - custom made by the body in question, and therefore perfect for that body - successes go unheralded because they do not advance abortion - and the focus on Stem Cell Research was begun by and is fanned by abortion advocates.
Now we hear that there is a new branch of Stem Cell Research based around birth (as opposed to abortion) that can produce cells nearly identical to embryos. The fluid in which an embryo develops (dare I say “lives”?) is a natural enough place to look for the building blocks of life and health.
I do not believe this issue will go away. Even if an insane proportion of advances in Stem Cells come from non-embryonic sources, and in the long run embryos are discounted as a reasonable place to find viable stem cells, just one victory - just one example of where an aborted embryo provides health to an adult - will be used to justify all abortions. Once that has been done, the abortion crowd will move on to another cause, leaving this industry alone to do better work.
Here’s the question: how much of this viable technology will be damaged and tainted by the struggle that has nothing to do with the core of its mission? How many people will feel uncomfortable using stem cells (even if they come from a source completely innocent of abortion implications - or even a source that encourages birth)? How many people will live with horrible guilt after stem cell treatment? Even worse: how many people will feel a twisted glee or euphoria at using them as though they have advanced their lives at the expense of another?
Move over Science Fiction. Babylon Five itself may not be floating in space, and aliens may not be trying to enrich themselves at the cost of half the population, but thanks to abortion advocates, we are forced to ask these very same questions.
So. Remember we’re not talking about combat, crime, or potential violence - you’re not asked to kill someone charging you with a knife, shooting at you with a gun, threatening to rape you, or even blow up buildings in your country - we’re talking about a life that has not threatened you in any way. Would YOU increase your own life span if it meant killing someone else?
I also remember an episode of Babylon Five (a series I really enjoyed, though I did not see all of it) where some alien had a technology that would make humans immortal - but in order to become immortal, each human would have to kill another human. One half of the human race would become immortal at the mortal expense of the other half. I am trying to remember if this alien was doing this out of some twisted motive because she wanted humans in chaos, but I don’t remember.
The argument about Stem Cell Research, before I even heard about stem cells, has never been about stem cells. The idea is that pure cells can be injected into a person’s body to replace damaged or corrupted cells (an oversimplification, but I believe accurate enough for all that). This seems to me innocent enough, and a technology that could really have some amazing effects on health.
Unfortunately, there are a few issues that cloud that clear concept. We search for the truth, being interested, and we are presented with stories that are actually about something else - this is not always the fault of the media (though sometimes I do blame them directly). People, who I believe are essentially afraid of presenting their honest truth or beliefs, have learned in order to get what they want they have to find something semi-related to what they want, something that people will get behind, push that very hard, and when they get a victory, proclaim that it automatically supports what they REALLY want.
Abortion is almost always the hidden topic, though homosexual issues are treated the same way.
Abortion advocates recognize that while most people start in the middle of the abortion debate. It’s easy to see how pregnancy not only dominates a woman’s life (and is quite often unplanned) but can be terrifying. There is no biological function which prevents a woman becoming pregnant because she’s not ready for the life change it produces. Before it is born, a baby is hidden from view (very fuzzy pictures from sonar technology aside). Just what it is or looks like is nearly impossible to conceive. Removing it, like a tumor or other growth, seems impersonal and logical enough. Just like most medical procedures, however, once it is looked into - once someone really takes the time to consider what is happening, an overwhelming majority will turn away from it.
That had to be the first victory in a long series of battles - advocates for abortion had to make it not only avoidable, but actually discouraged to educate people (especially the women who were making this huge decision) about abortions themselves. The overwhelming majority? Women. Women who see that we’re not talking about a tumor or a growth, but a tiny human being, a life-to-be, and that the procedure itself is frightening, disgusting, startling.
It’s interesting how many therapies we support, but there is so little focus on post-abortion syndromes. When a woman, who was discouraged from learning about what was going to happen, suddenly has HAD it happen, and has to deal with it.
The latest battle (and I am skipping the most famous of the battles, and so many in-between) is the so-called ban on Stem Cell Research.
The ridiculousness of the whole battle is that the premise itself is completely distorted and flawed. There is no ban on Stem Cell Research. Stem Cell Research is encouraged as a whole. One branch (and, it might be pointed out, the only branch that has shown absolutely zero results, while other branches have already cured diseases) is under attack: Embryonic Stem Cell Research. And it is only under attack, it is not even banned. There is absolutely no ban on the research itself. There is only a limit on the amount of government-supported research. A LIMIT, not even a BAN. So now, a LIMIT on government spending on ONE branch (and a sketchy one full of controversy) is now characterized as a BAN on the whole concept.
Why is this? Because abortion advocates have seen Stem Cell Research as their latest semi-related issue, a cause they believed they could present that people would accept - after all, who does NOT want to cure diseases, to improve health, to live longer lives? We love to solve mysteries, to overcome challenges, to see and do and experience more. Long, healthy lives are very conducive to that end. Abortion advocates have counted on two things: first, that we would be so interested in the ends, that we wouldn’t care about the means; second, that we would not be able to separate the various branches of the research - that they could characterize all successes in stem cell technology as coming directly from aborted babies.
We have seen many advances from Stem Cell Research. Some advances appear startlingly miraculous - revolutions in health. They have, to this point, ALL been the result of stem cells that came from the patient themselves. Adult stem cells - custom made by the body in question, and therefore perfect for that body - successes go unheralded because they do not advance abortion - and the focus on Stem Cell Research was begun by and is fanned by abortion advocates.
Now we hear that there is a new branch of Stem Cell Research based around birth (as opposed to abortion) that can produce cells nearly identical to embryos. The fluid in which an embryo develops (dare I say “lives”?) is a natural enough place to look for the building blocks of life and health.
I do not believe this issue will go away. Even if an insane proportion of advances in Stem Cells come from non-embryonic sources, and in the long run embryos are discounted as a reasonable place to find viable stem cells, just one victory - just one example of where an aborted embryo provides health to an adult - will be used to justify all abortions. Once that has been done, the abortion crowd will move on to another cause, leaving this industry alone to do better work.
Here’s the question: how much of this viable technology will be damaged and tainted by the struggle that has nothing to do with the core of its mission? How many people will feel uncomfortable using stem cells (even if they come from a source completely innocent of abortion implications - or even a source that encourages birth)? How many people will live with horrible guilt after stem cell treatment? Even worse: how many people will feel a twisted glee or euphoria at using them as though they have advanced their lives at the expense of another?
Move over Science Fiction. Babylon Five itself may not be floating in space, and aliens may not be trying to enrich themselves at the cost of half the population, but thanks to abortion advocates, we are forced to ask these very same questions.
So. Remember we’re not talking about combat, crime, or potential violence - you’re not asked to kill someone charging you with a knife, shooting at you with a gun, threatening to rape you, or even blow up buildings in your country - we’re talking about a life that has not threatened you in any way. Would YOU increase your own life span if it meant killing someone else?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)