I have been fascinated, lately, with various theories of cosmology. I have been watching documentaries, reading books, and studying online to try to understand (as well as possible) theories such as the big bang, relativity, and quantum physics.
The general acceptance of our time is that the universe had a beginning - the theory of the big bang - and has been expanding ever since. Through the theories of relativity, we also get the explanation of space being bent by mass, which simulates gravity. Also, we have the idea that the speed of light is a constant, always observed the same no matter how fast you are traveling in relation to the object that produced the light.
Several of these concepts are mind boggling, and I admit that I do not understand how these conclusions are reached (only that the theories are explained as having reached these conclusions).
Just as it took tremendous amounts of work and thought to come up with these theories, I cannot sit here and tackle each one and propose my own theories in a single blog entry. Therefore I shall try to keep it to one or two concepts at a time, even though they all interrelate. After all, the concept is to try to come up with some formula or theory that encompasses everything - some explanation that does not require exceptions.
That is the beauty, but also seems to be one of the major flaws of how we are going about explaining the cosmos, and I'm really not going to be much different, so no help there. The problem is that we are trying to come up with the theory that has the least holes, and as we find each explanation, put forth by truly spectacular and hard working minds, we latch on to and accept it until a theory with fewer exceptions earns enough adherents.
The bottom line is that for practical purposes in the every-day life we don't really need to know these things, though for deeper satisfaction we always seem to turn to greater questions - be they physical or metaphysical (or, as so many claim, some mixture of them both).
I am going to give the punch line at the beginning of the joke, so to speak, because I must do this in a disjointed (and probably interrupted) fashion. I will continue posts on politics, begin posts on hockey, and will be posting regarding science as well.
My belief is that the universe is actually four-dimensional, and I do not consider time a dimension. I mean there are four spatial dimensions. Most of us are familiar with the three dimensional terms length, breadth, depth. We can picture three dimensional objects, even render them in two-dimensional drawings. The question of where the fourth dimension goes, or the direction of the fourth axis, is somewhat more difficult to imagine. It can be imagined through extrapolation, which will be one of my next posts (if not the very next.
The difficulty in establishing this theory of mine is a lack of understanding about four-dimensional physics. Perhaps my hope is that through some of these posts, some of the physics can be figured out. Unfortunately, our experience appears to be largely limited to three dimensions, often simulating two or even one, but rarely (outside of Science Fiction) approaching four.
I believe, however, that even with some very basic and acceptable assumptions about four-dimensional physics, extrapolated from the growth from one-dimensional to two-dimensional, and from two-dimensional to three-dimensional physics, will allow us to produce very logical and simple explanations for how our own universe works - and make some interesting predictions about what we may find "out there".
I must also (laughingly) admit that I may, through these very posts, convince myself I am completely wrong. After all, Einstein convinced himself he was wrong even when he wasn't.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Blog's Cosmic Shift
Grab something heavy, or strap yourself into a stable chair.
This post is not about politics.
Other than to say it is not about politics, and to explain why.
I have told many people (including, I believe, this blog) that politics is my spectator sport. What I had not told too many people, though most of my closer acquaintances already knew this, was that politics became my spectator sport because I lost my other two sports right about the time I got really interested in how politics, from local to global, worked.
Well, I'm not exactly burned out on politics, as my blog will prove, but through a totally unrelated cosmic accident I rediscovered one of my other sports: Ice Hockey.
While I cannot claim to be a native born Texan, I have been naturalized by the authority of several native born Texans (based largely on the fact that I owned a pickup truck longer than most of them, have been in this state for a long time, and can out BBQ - the real kind, not grilling - most of them). I have also been given naturalization papers from several members of the Texas State Judiciary for services rendered to the State (it was tongue-in-cheek, but all the more precious to me because of it - I did some computer work for the state and we all had a blast).
Why is this important? Because I moved to South Texas, where there is very little in the way of NHL hockey. I have watched (and enjoyed) some of the local teams, but the players (if they're lucky) change rapidly and I couldn't get into the team as a whole, not to mention NHL hockey is the best of its kind. Just recently, and largely by complete random chance, my family and I tuned into a Dallas Stars game and got re-hooked on hockey. With only three games to go in the regular season, alas. We are doing well, but I doubt we will get very far through the playoffs. I want us to badly, but no doubt my positive energy is balanced out by other teams' fans who want their teams to advance just as badly.
Okay. Massive digression, but important, as you will see. Hockey is fantastic, but it takes a lot of time in the evenings (mostly) and due to the nature of the sport, you don't win every game (nor, with the exception of whoever wins the Stanley Cup, do you win all the playoff series). While this is good, and part of what makes the sport exciting, it means that while you are in the playoffs (which we now are) your team is likely to lose some very important games, leaving you feeling all grumpy and down.
So, rather than go to bed feeling disgusted with everything because some boob on the other team got a lucky bounce or break and scored a goal after a hard-fought overtime, proving that you've got the better skill but they've got the more frustrating luck, I decided to haul out some of my more interesting documentaries.
I downloaded some documentaries from the internet one year, burning them to DvDs as presents for friends and families (this was not the year I worked for the State of Texas - I could actually afford more expensive presents that year). I didn't get to watch them all, other than a quick scan through to check for quality and content, but they looked interesting.
While this post is now pretty much too long (it is all digression, to some degree, how bad is that?) I plan to post a little bit of my random, amateur thoughts about The Cosmos (I can't say that word without hearing James Wood's voice as Hades in the Disney version of Hercules). I have actually read several works about Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, and about various parts of quantum physics. I have a decent mathematic and physics background. However, everything I am going to say is amateur.
That disclaimer aside, I feel compelled to point out that several major breakthroughs in our understanding of the universe have come from people who were considered amateurs at the time they had their breakthroughs, and even "established minds" were considered completely off their rocker when claiming new theories about How Things Work.
I expect to find myself contradicting some of the greatest scientific minds of our time. I am not asking anyone to think that I am smarter than they, because I do not think I am smarter than they. But like the simpleton who solves the complex problem because it needed a fresh perspective, I do have some thoughts to share on these Cosmic Concepts.
Advice:
- Concepts covered can be confusing. Skip if they bore you, return to the comments section if you ask a question (I often reply to comments on this blog - I recommend returning to comments any time you leave one).
- I recommend lots of coffee while reading these posts.
- Not to be mixed with narcotics.
This post is not about politics.
Other than to say it is not about politics, and to explain why.
I have told many people (including, I believe, this blog) that politics is my spectator sport. What I had not told too many people, though most of my closer acquaintances already knew this, was that politics became my spectator sport because I lost my other two sports right about the time I got really interested in how politics, from local to global, worked.
Well, I'm not exactly burned out on politics, as my blog will prove, but through a totally unrelated cosmic accident I rediscovered one of my other sports: Ice Hockey.
While I cannot claim to be a native born Texan, I have been naturalized by the authority of several native born Texans (based largely on the fact that I owned a pickup truck longer than most of them, have been in this state for a long time, and can out BBQ - the real kind, not grilling - most of them). I have also been given naturalization papers from several members of the Texas State Judiciary for services rendered to the State (it was tongue-in-cheek, but all the more precious to me because of it - I did some computer work for the state and we all had a blast).
Why is this important? Because I moved to South Texas, where there is very little in the way of NHL hockey. I have watched (and enjoyed) some of the local teams, but the players (if they're lucky) change rapidly and I couldn't get into the team as a whole, not to mention NHL hockey is the best of its kind. Just recently, and largely by complete random chance, my family and I tuned into a Dallas Stars game and got re-hooked on hockey. With only three games to go in the regular season, alas. We are doing well, but I doubt we will get very far through the playoffs. I want us to badly, but no doubt my positive energy is balanced out by other teams' fans who want their teams to advance just as badly.
Okay. Massive digression, but important, as you will see. Hockey is fantastic, but it takes a lot of time in the evenings (mostly) and due to the nature of the sport, you don't win every game (nor, with the exception of whoever wins the Stanley Cup, do you win all the playoff series). While this is good, and part of what makes the sport exciting, it means that while you are in the playoffs (which we now are) your team is likely to lose some very important games, leaving you feeling all grumpy and down.
So, rather than go to bed feeling disgusted with everything because some boob on the other team got a lucky bounce or break and scored a goal after a hard-fought overtime, proving that you've got the better skill but they've got the more frustrating luck, I decided to haul out some of my more interesting documentaries.
I downloaded some documentaries from the internet one year, burning them to DvDs as presents for friends and families (this was not the year I worked for the State of Texas - I could actually afford more expensive presents that year). I didn't get to watch them all, other than a quick scan through to check for quality and content, but they looked interesting.
While this post is now pretty much too long (it is all digression, to some degree, how bad is that?) I plan to post a little bit of my random, amateur thoughts about The Cosmos (I can't say that word without hearing James Wood's voice as Hades in the Disney version of Hercules). I have actually read several works about Einstein's theories of special and general relativity, and about various parts of quantum physics. I have a decent mathematic and physics background. However, everything I am going to say is amateur.
That disclaimer aside, I feel compelled to point out that several major breakthroughs in our understanding of the universe have come from people who were considered amateurs at the time they had their breakthroughs, and even "established minds" were considered completely off their rocker when claiming new theories about How Things Work.
I expect to find myself contradicting some of the greatest scientific minds of our time. I am not asking anyone to think that I am smarter than they, because I do not think I am smarter than they. But like the simpleton who solves the complex problem because it needed a fresh perspective, I do have some thoughts to share on these Cosmic Concepts.
Advice:
- Concepts covered can be confusing. Skip if they bore you, return to the comments section if you ask a question (I often reply to comments on this blog - I recommend returning to comments any time you leave one).
- I recommend lots of coffee while reading these posts.
- Not to be mixed with narcotics.
Friday, April 13, 2007
How Gasoline Burns my Cookies
(and I don't even eat cookies)
The Liberal double-whammy is going to be a new phrase of mine. Here is an example (as brief as I can keep myself).
Today's gas prices. They're up another 11 cents even here in the Great State of Texas in just one week alone. Why? Because there is more and more demand in this country, and no more supply. Let's look at both sides of the equation, because liberals are screwing us both in supply and in demand.
The supply side is easy to see. First of all, liberals hate supply. Supply gets goods to the poor, the downtrodden, the very voters they depend upon. If people are supplied with what they need, they don't require government hand-outs.
How are they screwing us over gasoline supply? By the incredibly frustrating stance regarding our own oil. This country has tremendous oil reserves, and the ability to get that oil efficiently and with little to no damage to the environment. Despite this, we take as little advantage of our own natural resources as Mexico. For the same basic reason: corrupt government with a vested interest in keeping the poor in their poverty. Again and again liberals use "well meaning" cover stories such as protecting the environment (and they have to misrepresent both the environment and the damage in order for those stories to fly) to deny us our own oil. The net result? Poorer people can't afford gasoline. Poorer people like ME. My family falls into the Largest Tax Bracket (not paying any because we don't make enough money). Tell you what. Make me pay flat taxes, but let us drill for our own oil. I may even end up behind - but I will be blissfully paying my taxes as I sail through the gas station where it's once again below a dollar a gallon for 87 octane unleaded.
How are they screwing us over gasoline demand? Oh, you really shouldn't get me started on this one, but while they love to lambaste oil companies for record profits, they ignore the way those profits are made. Stay with me here:
Al Gore Style "Diet Coke" Illustration
I will try to make this as simple an illustration as possible. Let's say you make a fantastic drink. Let's say it has a snappy name that rhymes with Frapple. It's delicious, and it's expensive. Like, $2.50 a bottle (one serving). People everywhere are buying it. You crank up production, making more Frapple. People would rather drink it than Poke, Repsi, or even water. You have a fantastic quarter, selling one Frapple to every American, or 300 million Frapples. Congratulations, you just made $750million in gross receipts. Let's say you make $1 profit on each bottle (simplified for number purposes, make it as small as you want). You made a record-breaking 300 million dollars. Next year, the population has grown to 305 million people. You didn't change anything, except now you made $305 million dollars. Record breaking. Obscene? No. The result of greater demand.
"Diet Petrol"
When was the last time you used less gasoline? Honestly looking at it, how often have you driven less, used less electricity, heated your home less, etc? Not to mention: if you used fires to heat your home, aren't you belching more carbon into the air than a power plant would to provide you with heat? That digression aside, let's say there are 280 million people in the United States (as there were about two decades ago). Let's say the average person bought 10 gallons of gasoline a week. That's 2.8 billion gallons of gasoline a week. Let's assume there are 52 weeks even in a liberal's year. That's 145.6 billion gallons of gas a year. Let's divide that up into quarters, as "big oil" must report quarterly to the government. We're at about 36.4 billion gallons of gasoline per quarter. Over a decade ago. With fewer people. And no truckers. Just 10 gallons a week in your hybrid. Let's say (just for argument's sake) "big oil" makes about 20 cents per gallon (which is, I believe, a reasonably accurate estimate from what I remember reading from oil-antagonistic sites.) Set aside the fact that the government typically makes over a dollar per gallon, which is therefore five times what "big oil" makes on their own product (remember, the government doesn't do anything to earn that money, just taxes it) and let's say that was $7.2 billion for that quarter. What happens if Americans use the same amount of gas, "big oil" makes the same amount of profit per gallon, yes the F****N' government taxes the same amount per gallon, but we add Americans. Now there are 300 million of us instead of 280 million. The numbers run like this: 3 billion gallons a week, 156 billion gallons a year, 39 billion gallons a quarter, and $7.8 billion in profits. It sounds huge, and it certainly is a record, but it is because more people are buying the product, not because the amount per gallon has increased. I haven't even touched inflation, which points out we are paying half what we paid in 1979 (who was President then? was he a liberal?) if you adjust for inflation, so yes the numbers look huge, but due to inflation they should always go up!
See this chart for research:
Historical Oil Prices
How does this relate to liberals? Besides, of course, the pointed barbs I have used in the past couple paragraphs? They themselves estimate more than 20 million illegal immigrants are here in this country. Aside from the fact that they're using our schools, our social security, our medical systems, they are driving cars (whether they carpool or are driven by someone else) and using our resources. Yes, they may very well add to our economy, but they are also adding to the cost of goods because, just like us, they consume. They are people, not statistics, and they eat, drink, sleep, drive, etc. That increases demand.
I am not suggesting that you can simply remove 20 million people from our economy (though I do believe something must be done, even if it is not easy or politically correct) but if you did, demand would go down.
Liberals are 180 degrees out of phase with reality. They do damage at both ends of the problem, they are never the solution, and they would do more damage if they could.
The Liberal double-whammy is going to be a new phrase of mine. Here is an example (as brief as I can keep myself).
Today's gas prices. They're up another 11 cents even here in the Great State of Texas in just one week alone. Why? Because there is more and more demand in this country, and no more supply. Let's look at both sides of the equation, because liberals are screwing us both in supply and in demand.
The supply side is easy to see. First of all, liberals hate supply. Supply gets goods to the poor, the downtrodden, the very voters they depend upon. If people are supplied with what they need, they don't require government hand-outs.
How are they screwing us over gasoline supply? By the incredibly frustrating stance regarding our own oil. This country has tremendous oil reserves, and the ability to get that oil efficiently and with little to no damage to the environment. Despite this, we take as little advantage of our own natural resources as Mexico. For the same basic reason: corrupt government with a vested interest in keeping the poor in their poverty. Again and again liberals use "well meaning" cover stories such as protecting the environment (and they have to misrepresent both the environment and the damage in order for those stories to fly) to deny us our own oil. The net result? Poorer people can't afford gasoline. Poorer people like ME. My family falls into the Largest Tax Bracket (not paying any because we don't make enough money). Tell you what. Make me pay flat taxes, but let us drill for our own oil. I may even end up behind - but I will be blissfully paying my taxes as I sail through the gas station where it's once again below a dollar a gallon for 87 octane unleaded.
How are they screwing us over gasoline demand? Oh, you really shouldn't get me started on this one, but while they love to lambaste oil companies for record profits, they ignore the way those profits are made. Stay with me here:
Al Gore Style "Diet Coke" Illustration
I will try to make this as simple an illustration as possible. Let's say you make a fantastic drink. Let's say it has a snappy name that rhymes with Frapple. It's delicious, and it's expensive. Like, $2.50 a bottle (one serving). People everywhere are buying it. You crank up production, making more Frapple. People would rather drink it than Poke, Repsi, or even water. You have a fantastic quarter, selling one Frapple to every American, or 300 million Frapples. Congratulations, you just made $750million in gross receipts. Let's say you make $1 profit on each bottle (simplified for number purposes, make it as small as you want). You made a record-breaking 300 million dollars. Next year, the population has grown to 305 million people. You didn't change anything, except now you made $305 million dollars. Record breaking. Obscene? No. The result of greater demand.
"Diet Petrol"
When was the last time you used less gasoline? Honestly looking at it, how often have you driven less, used less electricity, heated your home less, etc? Not to mention: if you used fires to heat your home, aren't you belching more carbon into the air than a power plant would to provide you with heat? That digression aside, let's say there are 280 million people in the United States (as there were about two decades ago). Let's say the average person bought 10 gallons of gasoline a week. That's 2.8 billion gallons of gasoline a week. Let's assume there are 52 weeks even in a liberal's year. That's 145.6 billion gallons of gas a year. Let's divide that up into quarters, as "big oil" must report quarterly to the government. We're at about 36.4 billion gallons of gasoline per quarter. Over a decade ago. With fewer people. And no truckers. Just 10 gallons a week in your hybrid. Let's say (just for argument's sake) "big oil" makes about 20 cents per gallon (which is, I believe, a reasonably accurate estimate from what I remember reading from oil-antagonistic sites.) Set aside the fact that the government typically makes over a dollar per gallon, which is therefore five times what "big oil" makes on their own product (remember, the government doesn't do anything to earn that money, just taxes it) and let's say that was $7.2 billion for that quarter. What happens if Americans use the same amount of gas, "big oil" makes the same amount of profit per gallon, yes the F****N' government taxes the same amount per gallon, but we add Americans. Now there are 300 million of us instead of 280 million. The numbers run like this: 3 billion gallons a week, 156 billion gallons a year, 39 billion gallons a quarter, and $7.8 billion in profits. It sounds huge, and it certainly is a record, but it is because more people are buying the product, not because the amount per gallon has increased. I haven't even touched inflation, which points out we are paying half what we paid in 1979 (who was President then? was he a liberal?) if you adjust for inflation, so yes the numbers look huge, but due to inflation they should always go up!
See this chart for research:
Historical Oil Prices
How does this relate to liberals? Besides, of course, the pointed barbs I have used in the past couple paragraphs? They themselves estimate more than 20 million illegal immigrants are here in this country. Aside from the fact that they're using our schools, our social security, our medical systems, they are driving cars (whether they carpool or are driven by someone else) and using our resources. Yes, they may very well add to our economy, but they are also adding to the cost of goods because, just like us, they consume. They are people, not statistics, and they eat, drink, sleep, drive, etc. That increases demand.
I am not suggesting that you can simply remove 20 million people from our economy (though I do believe something must be done, even if it is not easy or politically correct) but if you did, demand would go down.
Liberals are 180 degrees out of phase with reality. They do damage at both ends of the problem, they are never the solution, and they would do more damage if they could.
Why Democrat Candidates Boycott Fox
It's the Clinton, stupid.
This article is a little more specific than most of my others, so I hope you don't get lost. Here is some quick setup:
In case you don't follow these things, Democrat candidates are refusing to show up on Fox News for debates. The debate is scheduled, Fox is chosen, time goes by, and when it's politically ripe, the candidate declares they will not show up for anything broadcast on Fox.
The first issue is what everyone focuses on: The fact that Fox is actually centrist, not conservative, and that the largest audience of Independent voters watches Fox News over all other news outlets. The candidates are therefore screwing themselves out of a chance to appear before the very swing voters they're going to need in order to secure the White House (a distant chance anyway, and growing fainter with every stunt).
The second issue, nobody seems able to answer. This stuns me because I believe I have the answer, and it is two-part.
The first part is obvious and disappointing. We're in the primaries. The candidates do not need the swing voters. They need only registered Democrats. Not only that, they need the insane, anger-addict Democrats that, like so many conservatives, want to see their candidates act boldly. They want to see them denounce President Bush, they want to see them canceling appearances on perceived conservative networks, they want to hear tough talk on the war or any other issue that takes their fancy. Independents (and this is why I will probably never be one) do not vote in primary elections. They do not belong to the party in question, so they can't vote for those candidates. After the primaries are over and we have a specific candidate (and my money is still on Hillary winning her nomination, though I would love to lose that bet) they will appear wherever a microphone and a camera are set up and running, regardless of whether or not there is a FOX placard on the side.
The second part is less obvious, and I could be wrong about this. However, we must dig back into the recent past and dredge up two names: Bill Clinton and Chris Wallace. The fact is that Bill went on Fox, and he was not only asked the questions Independents and Republicans want asked (or at least a very few of the tamer ones) but he looked terrible in the eyes of regular Fox viewers.
Remember, Bill Clinton is the brightest star in the Democrat universe. He's not only the pinnacle of their dreams (frightening thought) but considered their slickest talker, their smoothest guy, and unassailable. Slick Willie. The Teflon Man. He was slick and smooth through everything. If he appeared on Fox and looked that bad, there isn't one Democrat candidate that can show up and do better.
The Democrat candidates are in a tough spot, and I don't pity them in the least (they have made their own bed, dug their own hole, etc.) They are going to need to reach the very audience that tunes into Fox. While it is true that some of us are going to watch presidential debates no matter what network they're on, if Fox does get that network, their own base is going to want them to boycott - even an actual presidential debate! But they won't be able to. They may refuse interviews, or not show up on Fox shows, but they're going to miss the swing voters. Unfortunately, they are right - if they do show up on Fox, there is a good chance they're going to have to answer the very questions we want asked.
Sucks to be them.
This article is a little more specific than most of my others, so I hope you don't get lost. Here is some quick setup:
In case you don't follow these things, Democrat candidates are refusing to show up on Fox News for debates. The debate is scheduled, Fox is chosen, time goes by, and when it's politically ripe, the candidate declares they will not show up for anything broadcast on Fox.
The first issue is what everyone focuses on: The fact that Fox is actually centrist, not conservative, and that the largest audience of Independent voters watches Fox News over all other news outlets. The candidates are therefore screwing themselves out of a chance to appear before the very swing voters they're going to need in order to secure the White House (a distant chance anyway, and growing fainter with every stunt).
The second issue, nobody seems able to answer. This stuns me because I believe I have the answer, and it is two-part.
The first part is obvious and disappointing. We're in the primaries. The candidates do not need the swing voters. They need only registered Democrats. Not only that, they need the insane, anger-addict Democrats that, like so many conservatives, want to see their candidates act boldly. They want to see them denounce President Bush, they want to see them canceling appearances on perceived conservative networks, they want to hear tough talk on the war or any other issue that takes their fancy. Independents (and this is why I will probably never be one) do not vote in primary elections. They do not belong to the party in question, so they can't vote for those candidates. After the primaries are over and we have a specific candidate (and my money is still on Hillary winning her nomination, though I would love to lose that bet) they will appear wherever a microphone and a camera are set up and running, regardless of whether or not there is a FOX placard on the side.
The second part is less obvious, and I could be wrong about this. However, we must dig back into the recent past and dredge up two names: Bill Clinton and Chris Wallace. The fact is that Bill went on Fox, and he was not only asked the questions Independents and Republicans want asked (or at least a very few of the tamer ones) but he looked terrible in the eyes of regular Fox viewers.
Remember, Bill Clinton is the brightest star in the Democrat universe. He's not only the pinnacle of their dreams (frightening thought) but considered their slickest talker, their smoothest guy, and unassailable. Slick Willie. The Teflon Man. He was slick and smooth through everything. If he appeared on Fox and looked that bad, there isn't one Democrat candidate that can show up and do better.
The Democrat candidates are in a tough spot, and I don't pity them in the least (they have made their own bed, dug their own hole, etc.) They are going to need to reach the very audience that tunes into Fox. While it is true that some of us are going to watch presidential debates no matter what network they're on, if Fox does get that network, their own base is going to want them to boycott - even an actual presidential debate! But they won't be able to. They may refuse interviews, or not show up on Fox shows, but they're going to miss the swing voters. Unfortunately, they are right - if they do show up on Fox, there is a good chance they're going to have to answer the very questions we want asked.
Sucks to be them.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
The Underpsyche of War
Some random thoughts on the State of Things.
I believe the problem with current American politics is that:
1) Nobody particularly likes the concept of war. People die naturally and by accident every day, and they're even murdered every day. Things decay over time or are subject to fires, floods, earthquakes, etc. However in war the actual point is to kill the enemy and break their things.
2) Americans (and I would assume almost everyone) hate having enemies. We like to get along. Even our local squabbles, we'd rather not have confrontations, we'd rather get along.
3) Despite this, even the people who are against the war in Iraq know it is the only thing we can do, and that it is only a part in a much larger war. This causes a lot of problems, semi-consciously, for those who won't admit that they understand this. They hate the necessity enough that they're ignoring that it is a necessity. "Necessary Evil". They know there are no other solutions at this point - not that we aren't willing to try them, but that the other side isn't going to accept them. Anyone who thinks they will is either a moron, or has really buried the truth deep inside their psyche.
4) Politicialns are determined to exploit this fact for their own political gain. They play upon the fact that we don't like war, and that we wish there was another solution - they even perpetuate the false impression that everyone is like us - that we all think about life and solutions the same, so our enemies must (by the way, they do this while trying to tell us that diversity is our greatest strength). By so doing, these politicians are doing the opposite of their duty. They are not leading, they are not protecting us, they are confusing us and making it more difficult to solve our huge problems.
I believe the problem with current American politics is that:
1) Nobody particularly likes the concept of war. People die naturally and by accident every day, and they're even murdered every day. Things decay over time or are subject to fires, floods, earthquakes, etc. However in war the actual point is to kill the enemy and break their things.
2) Americans (and I would assume almost everyone) hate having enemies. We like to get along. Even our local squabbles, we'd rather not have confrontations, we'd rather get along.
3) Despite this, even the people who are against the war in Iraq know it is the only thing we can do, and that it is only a part in a much larger war. This causes a lot of problems, semi-consciously, for those who won't admit that they understand this. They hate the necessity enough that they're ignoring that it is a necessity. "Necessary Evil". They know there are no other solutions at this point - not that we aren't willing to try them, but that the other side isn't going to accept them. Anyone who thinks they will is either a moron, or has really buried the truth deep inside their psyche.
4) Politicialns are determined to exploit this fact for their own political gain. They play upon the fact that we don't like war, and that we wish there was another solution - they even perpetuate the false impression that everyone is like us - that we all think about life and solutions the same, so our enemies must (by the way, they do this while trying to tell us that diversity is our greatest strength). By so doing, these politicians are doing the opposite of their duty. They are not leading, they are not protecting us, they are confusing us and making it more difficult to solve our huge problems.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Open Letter to Sears
The following is a letter written to Sears based on an experience I had with them. Please note that the content has been changed to make the store and people involved anonymous in this more public venue.
I am writing to you today to express my concerns about the service and attitude I have received from Sears. I went to my local Sears. I was warmly received and worked with a good salesman. He helped me, and seemed knowledgeable. There was, however, a problem with my purchase - due to confusion about relative sizes, the wrong oven was ordered. My range hood, installed at the same time, fit nicely. The contractor took the old oven, the old range hood, and the wrong sized oven away.
So far, so good. However, everything began to unravel. I went back to the store to approve the purchase of the correct oven, which was the same price. I was informed that I would be paying a $40 trip charge due to the fact that the contractor had to go out a second time. I agreed, feeling I was partly responsible (though not wholly) for the wrong sized order.
Before the correct oven had arrived (in fact, it still has not been installed) I heard what I thought was my brand new range hood coming on all by itself. Bemused, I tried to figure out what was the problem. It turns out the contractor did not disconnect the old range hood fan, nor remove it (which I thought was part of the service - at least it says so on my contract). Since that time I have been unable to use my new range hood (needing to switch it off at the circuit breaker to keep the old fan from running loudly and continually). I contacted the contractor who said he would gladly come out and disconnect the old fan (but not remove it) when my new oven came in so they could do both things at once.
Trying to be a helpful customer, I agreed although I now have no oven and no range hood and have not for some weeks. I did, however, call my sales rep back and ask that, since the contractor was going to wait until they were coming out to install the oven to fix my range hood (and by my logic that meant they were going to make the trip to fix my range hood anyway) they shouldn't be charging Sears (who then shouldn't be charging me) for the trip charge of $40. I was told that, because they were going to be taking a big hit for the incorrectly ordered oven, my salesman's manager was unlikely to approve removal of the trip charge.
At this point I felt it only prudent to point out that it really wasn't a trip charge, it was a restocking fee. If I had been originally told it was a restocking fee I might have complained, but I would have seen the honesty and logic about it. Now that it is a trip charge for a trip the contractor had to make anyway in order to fix a problem, I feel more than a little cheated.
In addition is the fact that the contractor has no intention of actually removing the old fan from my old range hood. I can understand the attitude, because it is in a difficult place to reach and it has to be gross, but I paid the installation charge for this, which was supposed to include removing the old equipment.
I have purchased, to date, a vacuum cleaner, lawn mower, two refrigerators, an oven, a range hood, two different washers and three different clothes driers, and a dishwasher from sears, and these are the things I can just think of off my head. I believe I have purchased two televisions, various small appliances such as irons, clothing, and many other items from Sears.
At this point, I do not feel like shopping at Sears again. There are many other places to get my appliances, from Best Buy to Home Depot. I chose Sears because I believed you were the biggest outfit, one I could expect professional, inclusive, helpful installation and service from. I did not check prices, I did not shop around, I simply operated off customer loyalty. At this point I do not know what can be done to change my mind. I should not have had to write this letter at all. I do know I am going to want a new dishwasher soon, another microwave, a big-screen TV, a new lawn mower, and who knows what other things I haven't thought of yet that are going to need replacing. I doubt any of them are going to be purchased at Sears.
I am writing to you today to express my concerns about the service and attitude I have received from Sears. I went to my local Sears. I was warmly received and worked with a good salesman. He helped me, and seemed knowledgeable. There was, however, a problem with my purchase - due to confusion about relative sizes, the wrong oven was ordered. My range hood, installed at the same time, fit nicely. The contractor took the old oven, the old range hood, and the wrong sized oven away.
So far, so good. However, everything began to unravel. I went back to the store to approve the purchase of the correct oven, which was the same price. I was informed that I would be paying a $40 trip charge due to the fact that the contractor had to go out a second time. I agreed, feeling I was partly responsible (though not wholly) for the wrong sized order.
Before the correct oven had arrived (in fact, it still has not been installed) I heard what I thought was my brand new range hood coming on all by itself. Bemused, I tried to figure out what was the problem. It turns out the contractor did not disconnect the old range hood fan, nor remove it (which I thought was part of the service - at least it says so on my contract). Since that time I have been unable to use my new range hood (needing to switch it off at the circuit breaker to keep the old fan from running loudly and continually). I contacted the contractor who said he would gladly come out and disconnect the old fan (but not remove it) when my new oven came in so they could do both things at once.
Trying to be a helpful customer, I agreed although I now have no oven and no range hood and have not for some weeks. I did, however, call my sales rep back and ask that, since the contractor was going to wait until they were coming out to install the oven to fix my range hood (and by my logic that meant they were going to make the trip to fix my range hood anyway) they shouldn't be charging Sears (who then shouldn't be charging me) for the trip charge of $40. I was told that, because they were going to be taking a big hit for the incorrectly ordered oven, my salesman's manager was unlikely to approve removal of the trip charge.
At this point I felt it only prudent to point out that it really wasn't a trip charge, it was a restocking fee. If I had been originally told it was a restocking fee I might have complained, but I would have seen the honesty and logic about it. Now that it is a trip charge for a trip the contractor had to make anyway in order to fix a problem, I feel more than a little cheated.
In addition is the fact that the contractor has no intention of actually removing the old fan from my old range hood. I can understand the attitude, because it is in a difficult place to reach and it has to be gross, but I paid the installation charge for this, which was supposed to include removing the old equipment.
I have purchased, to date, a vacuum cleaner, lawn mower, two refrigerators, an oven, a range hood, two different washers and three different clothes driers, and a dishwasher from sears, and these are the things I can just think of off my head. I believe I have purchased two televisions, various small appliances such as irons, clothing, and many other items from Sears.
At this point, I do not feel like shopping at Sears again. There are many other places to get my appliances, from Best Buy to Home Depot. I chose Sears because I believed you were the biggest outfit, one I could expect professional, inclusive, helpful installation and service from. I did not check prices, I did not shop around, I simply operated off customer loyalty. At this point I do not know what can be done to change my mind. I should not have had to write this letter at all. I do know I am going to want a new dishwasher soon, another microwave, a big-screen TV, a new lawn mower, and who knows what other things I haven't thought of yet that are going to need replacing. I doubt any of them are going to be purchased at Sears.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Musicians playing Fear Instinct Instruments
Liberal messages work on most people by striking emotional chords and instinctual reactions on the knee-jerk level. By this very definition I must admit that there is something behind them. If we didn't have these emotional chords to play or these instincts, the messages wouldn't work.
What must be done is to examine why we have these chords and instincts, and how they are being used. It was said well by libertarian author Frank Herbert in his classic book Dune (paraphrase) Your awareness may be capable of controlling your instincts. Your instinct is to free yourself from a trap. An animal will chew its own hand/paw off to escape the hunter who laid the trap. A human will wait for the hunter, eliminate a threat to its kind, and use the proper tools to free itself from the trap.
A quick (sorry, I know they never are) aside into emotional chords. There are many chords to be played. You can play someone's emotions to soothe, to excite, to please, to arouse, to incite, etc. Most often chords are played in an impersonal group setting in order to incite someone or a group of someones into action. This can be done in any number of ways, from pleasure to fear. For political activism, positive emotions rarely spur people into extraordinary action, so negative emotions are used. Successful campaigns have been waged by playing on emotional chords that make us feel intellectual, informed, and reasonable - and they have had stunning success (smoking, for one). Unfortunately, once the professionals, those who are really good at this kind of manipulation, have been successful, amateurs who haven't got the patience or talent of professionals attempt to emulate them. Since they lack the skill, they go for more direct, offensive, bullying methods and switch from a passive fear with a lot of intellectual debate (whether based on fact or not) to active fear with no intellectual debate and made-up facts.
So, when I talk about emotional chords, I'm talking about the far-end negative chords that are being played upon so regularly today.
By and large, most of us like to avoid uncomfortable confrontations. We'd rather start from a position of strength and through the power of reason and our own oratory skills convince the other side we are right and have them join us. Preferably without raised voices, making friends rather than enemies, gathering supporters and allies so that people look around and say "wow, he's a real persuasive guy."
Activists play upon the assumption (and I believe they're right) that most of us would be terrified out of our wits (and possibly out of our bladders) to find ourselves in an actual combat situation. I was nearly mugged once, and I still feel shaky about it even though I escaped the situation unscathed, without loss, and without actually running away. I can't imagine what it would feel like to know that within range there were people with guns, rockets, and explosives who would love nothing better than to kill me, and that to defend myself I couldn't just find a clever way out of the situation, but might have to actually shoot someone dead. I don't know how I would react, and I am thankful it is unlikely I will ever be in that situation.
It is only natural to assume most people think as we do, and to be probably right. But I also believe that, if push came to shove, if I were a young, strapping man again, I would gladly take up arms, find that strength within me, and defend my country. I can easily see myself picking up a gun and deliberately shooting someone in the head if they were threatening my wife or children with direct, immediate, believable harm. And I don't even have to be young and strapping to see myself doing that.
The fact is that we have these animal instincts and emotional chords because it may be vital, in the first instant, to do whatever it takes to buy a second instant in which to think. Unfortunately, the instincts and chords that are being constantly played are always fear-based, and we're being asked to form opinions about (or even make decisions in the voting booth upon) long-range issues that require more than our first instant, instinct-driven, knee-jerk reactions and fear-based emotional chords. It is important for us to calm ourselves, let the fear wash over and through us, until only we remain and we can look at a situation with reason. It may be that the first course of action that presents itself to our panic-stricken mind is only going to lead to something worse. Not until we actually absorb the facts and the greater situation can we see the danger that lurks down that path (or recognize that there is no danger so we can take that path safely).
So the next time someone causes a fear-based, instinctual, knee-jerk reaction, realize you may be the unwitting instrument under someone's skilled fingers. Come to peace with yourself and see if there isn't a still, calm voice within that represents a higher, more intellectual, more honest and encompassing instinct.
Yes, I am saying that it is actually the liberals who are the fear-mongers. They are selling it in wholesale onslaught, and they're aiming for your knees.
What must be done is to examine why we have these chords and instincts, and how they are being used. It was said well by libertarian author Frank Herbert in his classic book Dune (paraphrase) Your awareness may be capable of controlling your instincts. Your instinct is to free yourself from a trap. An animal will chew its own hand/paw off to escape the hunter who laid the trap. A human will wait for the hunter, eliminate a threat to its kind, and use the proper tools to free itself from the trap.
A quick (sorry, I know they never are) aside into emotional chords. There are many chords to be played. You can play someone's emotions to soothe, to excite, to please, to arouse, to incite, etc. Most often chords are played in an impersonal group setting in order to incite someone or a group of someones into action. This can be done in any number of ways, from pleasure to fear. For political activism, positive emotions rarely spur people into extraordinary action, so negative emotions are used. Successful campaigns have been waged by playing on emotional chords that make us feel intellectual, informed, and reasonable - and they have had stunning success (smoking, for one). Unfortunately, once the professionals, those who are really good at this kind of manipulation, have been successful, amateurs who haven't got the patience or talent of professionals attempt to emulate them. Since they lack the skill, they go for more direct, offensive, bullying methods and switch from a passive fear with a lot of intellectual debate (whether based on fact or not) to active fear with no intellectual debate and made-up facts.
So, when I talk about emotional chords, I'm talking about the far-end negative chords that are being played upon so regularly today.
By and large, most of us like to avoid uncomfortable confrontations. We'd rather start from a position of strength and through the power of reason and our own oratory skills convince the other side we are right and have them join us. Preferably without raised voices, making friends rather than enemies, gathering supporters and allies so that people look around and say "wow, he's a real persuasive guy."
Activists play upon the assumption (and I believe they're right) that most of us would be terrified out of our wits (and possibly out of our bladders) to find ourselves in an actual combat situation. I was nearly mugged once, and I still feel shaky about it even though I escaped the situation unscathed, without loss, and without actually running away. I can't imagine what it would feel like to know that within range there were people with guns, rockets, and explosives who would love nothing better than to kill me, and that to defend myself I couldn't just find a clever way out of the situation, but might have to actually shoot someone dead. I don't know how I would react, and I am thankful it is unlikely I will ever be in that situation.
It is only natural to assume most people think as we do, and to be probably right. But I also believe that, if push came to shove, if I were a young, strapping man again, I would gladly take up arms, find that strength within me, and defend my country. I can easily see myself picking up a gun and deliberately shooting someone in the head if they were threatening my wife or children with direct, immediate, believable harm. And I don't even have to be young and strapping to see myself doing that.
The fact is that we have these animal instincts and emotional chords because it may be vital, in the first instant, to do whatever it takes to buy a second instant in which to think. Unfortunately, the instincts and chords that are being constantly played are always fear-based, and we're being asked to form opinions about (or even make decisions in the voting booth upon) long-range issues that require more than our first instant, instinct-driven, knee-jerk reactions and fear-based emotional chords. It is important for us to calm ourselves, let the fear wash over and through us, until only we remain and we can look at a situation with reason. It may be that the first course of action that presents itself to our panic-stricken mind is only going to lead to something worse. Not until we actually absorb the facts and the greater situation can we see the danger that lurks down that path (or recognize that there is no danger so we can take that path safely).
So the next time someone causes a fear-based, instinctual, knee-jerk reaction, realize you may be the unwitting instrument under someone's skilled fingers. Come to peace with yourself and see if there isn't a still, calm voice within that represents a higher, more intellectual, more honest and encompassing instinct.
Yes, I am saying that it is actually the liberals who are the fear-mongers. They are selling it in wholesale onslaught, and they're aiming for your knees.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Open Letter to Yahoo
Please note: this is the letter mentioned in my previous post (the one below this one).
I was an early acquirer of internet technology (1994) and one of the first users I knew of Yahoo. I registered my own websites when Yahoo was a "directory service" instead of a search engine and you submitted your links to a live person who reviewed your site. You had to choose categories in which you wanted your site listed. When Google came along, I refused to switch. When everyone says "just Google blah-blah and you'll see what I'm looking at" I've been telling them that I use Yahoo, and I'll find it just fine. I have been, since I have been looking things up on the internet, a huge Yahoo fan.
I am leaving Yahoo today, and I felt it only fair to tell you why. I may be lost in the background noise, nobody may ever read this comment, but I sincerely hope someone does. I am taking the time to do this only because I have been such a die-hard Yahoo user. Your service is not inferior, in fact I like the way things are laid out on Yahoo and that the home page contains more information. I will miss that every time I have to stomach that stupid word "google" (I mean, what lame, lucky ass thought that name up? It should be a laughing stock but somehow they managed to make it hip with half the world. I don't get it).
However difficult it may be to choke down the silliness that is Google, it will be easier than the anger I have been putting up with due to the so-called "stories" that someone at Yahoo has been not only deciding are factual (when they are at best a lopsided misrepresentation of someone's political agenda) but are crucial for me to read. I can understand Yahoo trying to get more clicks, trying to get more page views, trying to draw attention, but I am here to tell you that I used Yahoo as my home page, my work requires me to be on the Internet more than 8 hours a day, and it was not uncommon for me to have six simultaneous browsers open - all to Yahoo searches or the sites I found by searching on your service. I followed up on advertised links, I listed Yahoo as "how I found you" on websites, and I promoted you to my friends.
I sure hope you're getting huge benefit from parroting the political bile spewed up by acidic propagandists who hate this country, portray the miniscule minority (by that I mean less than one hundredth of one percent) as more important than the massive supermajority, who aren't interested in the facts, only in sensation and manipulation, and who are oblivious to the fact that they themselves are the reason people (and whole cultures), hate this country in turn. Not because of what they're saying about us, but the lifestyles they themselves choose and promote.
If you had chosen to break through "journalistic" lies and portray stories about the truth (by that I mean actual facts, not emotionally-driven feel-good drivel that goes so far away from solving problems that it makes them worse) and highlight the massive stacks of stories trying to find a voice, that site their sources, examine both sides of the issue and settle on the truth based on how things actually work or what numbers are being ignored by the other side, you could have been a champion for the millions and millions of us worldwide who KNOW something is wrong with what we're being told and would flock (as we do in greater numbers than ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN combined) to whatever outlets provide it to us.
I do not know what you can do to get me back. It is highly unlikely I will ever so much as look at your home page again. If you do manage some miraculous, whole-hearted change in your policy away from misrepresentation, my e-mail will not change - you can reach me there (note to readers: my e-mail was included during the process of contacting them). I would love to hear it and would go back to my unending, tireless campaign to get people to "switch back" to the originals.
Until then, look for me at Google.
I was an early acquirer of internet technology (1994) and one of the first users I knew of Yahoo. I registered my own websites when Yahoo was a "directory service" instead of a search engine and you submitted your links to a live person who reviewed your site. You had to choose categories in which you wanted your site listed. When Google came along, I refused to switch. When everyone says "just Google blah-blah and you'll see what I'm looking at" I've been telling them that I use Yahoo, and I'll find it just fine. I have been, since I have been looking things up on the internet, a huge Yahoo fan.
I am leaving Yahoo today, and I felt it only fair to tell you why. I may be lost in the background noise, nobody may ever read this comment, but I sincerely hope someone does. I am taking the time to do this only because I have been such a die-hard Yahoo user. Your service is not inferior, in fact I like the way things are laid out on Yahoo and that the home page contains more information. I will miss that every time I have to stomach that stupid word "google" (I mean, what lame, lucky ass thought that name up? It should be a laughing stock but somehow they managed to make it hip with half the world. I don't get it).
However difficult it may be to choke down the silliness that is Google, it will be easier than the anger I have been putting up with due to the so-called "stories" that someone at Yahoo has been not only deciding are factual (when they are at best a lopsided misrepresentation of someone's political agenda) but are crucial for me to read. I can understand Yahoo trying to get more clicks, trying to get more page views, trying to draw attention, but I am here to tell you that I used Yahoo as my home page, my work requires me to be on the Internet more than 8 hours a day, and it was not uncommon for me to have six simultaneous browsers open - all to Yahoo searches or the sites I found by searching on your service. I followed up on advertised links, I listed Yahoo as "how I found you" on websites, and I promoted you to my friends.
I sure hope you're getting huge benefit from parroting the political bile spewed up by acidic propagandists who hate this country, portray the miniscule minority (by that I mean less than one hundredth of one percent) as more important than the massive supermajority, who aren't interested in the facts, only in sensation and manipulation, and who are oblivious to the fact that they themselves are the reason people (and whole cultures), hate this country in turn. Not because of what they're saying about us, but the lifestyles they themselves choose and promote.
If you had chosen to break through "journalistic" lies and portray stories about the truth (by that I mean actual facts, not emotionally-driven feel-good drivel that goes so far away from solving problems that it makes them worse) and highlight the massive stacks of stories trying to find a voice, that site their sources, examine both sides of the issue and settle on the truth based on how things actually work or what numbers are being ignored by the other side, you could have been a champion for the millions and millions of us worldwide who KNOW something is wrong with what we're being told and would flock (as we do in greater numbers than ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN combined) to whatever outlets provide it to us.
I do not know what you can do to get me back. It is highly unlikely I will ever so much as look at your home page again. If you do manage some miraculous, whole-hearted change in your policy away from misrepresentation, my e-mail will not change - you can reach me there (note to readers: my e-mail was included during the process of contacting them). I would love to hear it and would go back to my unending, tireless campaign to get people to "switch back" to the originals.
Until then, look for me at Google.
Political Mixing Colors
I must confess myself confused this morning. Yesterday, across the top of a search engine (alas, I believe I am finally going to make the same switch everyone else has made, for this search engine has almost daily blasted headlines that annoy me - who wants to be annoyed before they even type in their search criteria?) a loud story about troops speaking out against the war seemed to be begging me to assume Bush is the bad guy, I'm wrong about everything, and there are no troops anywhere who like what they're doing.
Pardon me while I change my favorite search engine link... be right back...
Okay, that went poorly. I ended up giving them feedback they're never going to read, and blog-length. In order to appease my soul I shall make it an open letter by posting it here next.
Here was my point today, before I got carried away. It is similar to my earlier post about how the polls are completely wrong on Iraq (and there have been recent polls, apparently - though I'm having trouble tracking them down despite hearing about them on national radio - from polling companies not associated or affiliated with major news networks that support my theory completely).
The other side is desperate. They're seeing that their lies aren't working, that we are reading between the lines or getting our news somewhere else. They're doing everything they can to repair their damaged credibility, and they're doing it by changing their "sources". They are now going to the military to find people who are against the war. They've been trying to do this all along, but their sources have been discredited - retired generals who are die-hard liberals, discontented generals who were shunted aside because someone else could do the job better, generals who were denied their own war because they were promoted at the wrong time, etc. Now they've gone after the troops themselves.
I'm not denying that there are troops out there who dislike this war (and some of them any war is worth disliking). I know one of them myself, someone who joined the armed services and was taught Arabic before 9/11 (someone was on the ball) and who sent e-mails around about being against the war. Admittedly, I received ongoing and frequent e-mails from soldiers who were amazed about what good they were doing and begged us not to believe what is said on the news and only two from her, but they were disheartening. I replied every time that I was proud of what she was doing and sorry that it was stressing her out. So, I am not denying that there are legitimate members of our armed forces who actually are stressed out - or outright frightened - and I believe it is only natural to want to speak out from that fear.
However, while this story is running (from notoriously liberal sources) another story is getting grudging headline status, meaning it was on the home pages of news outlets everywhere, but they're not putting it as a "big four" story or something like that - you have to scroll down to the "other things we thing are important" section.
It states clearly that the Democrats in congress are backing off their plan (and campaign promise) to limit the President's wartime authority, or to outright repeal their vote to support the Iraq war. Not only has talk of "de-funding" the war died out, but now they're not even going to try to limit what President Bush can do.
I do think a lot of this has to do with the fact that, while the Democrats are definitely looking for ways (as they logically should) to increase their power and standing in government, they're actually not totally stupid. They can see the glowing symbols on the wall with Iran, and I believe in the back of their mind they'd love to see President Bush take care of that problem for them, or at least get it started, so they don't have to make the unpopular decision to take military action - yet they know it has to be done.
However, the link I am making is that if these stories about disaffected troops were really meaningful - that is, I believe it is heart-wrenching to think of anyone being thrust into a war zone who is terrified of being there, but let's pay attention to what percentage of the troops they really are (not how many they SAY are being them, but the actual, real numbers - how many of us have said "well, all my friends and I, and there are tons of us, agree") and whether or not their opinion is better or easier to support than other people in the same location and situation.
Perhaps put simpler, it is good to hear both sides of the story, but when you do that, keep in mind one side of the story may be told by a 3 to 12,401 ratio, and those three may be speaking without straight facts or any facts at all. I'm suggesting that we can tell which side is right by what the people in power, the decision-makers, are doing. Despite their own rhetoric that clearly supports the concept that the 3 are right, their actual actions are grudgingly in support of the 12,401.
Why is it we must read so hard behind the lines to find this truth?
Pardon me while I change my favorite search engine link... be right back...
Okay, that went poorly. I ended up giving them feedback they're never going to read, and blog-length. In order to appease my soul I shall make it an open letter by posting it here next.
Here was my point today, before I got carried away. It is similar to my earlier post about how the polls are completely wrong on Iraq (and there have been recent polls, apparently - though I'm having trouble tracking them down despite hearing about them on national radio - from polling companies not associated or affiliated with major news networks that support my theory completely).
The other side is desperate. They're seeing that their lies aren't working, that we are reading between the lines or getting our news somewhere else. They're doing everything they can to repair their damaged credibility, and they're doing it by changing their "sources". They are now going to the military to find people who are against the war. They've been trying to do this all along, but their sources have been discredited - retired generals who are die-hard liberals, discontented generals who were shunted aside because someone else could do the job better, generals who were denied their own war because they were promoted at the wrong time, etc. Now they've gone after the troops themselves.
I'm not denying that there are troops out there who dislike this war (and some of them any war is worth disliking). I know one of them myself, someone who joined the armed services and was taught Arabic before 9/11 (someone was on the ball) and who sent e-mails around about being against the war. Admittedly, I received ongoing and frequent e-mails from soldiers who were amazed about what good they were doing and begged us not to believe what is said on the news and only two from her, but they were disheartening. I replied every time that I was proud of what she was doing and sorry that it was stressing her out. So, I am not denying that there are legitimate members of our armed forces who actually are stressed out - or outright frightened - and I believe it is only natural to want to speak out from that fear.
However, while this story is running (from notoriously liberal sources) another story is getting grudging headline status, meaning it was on the home pages of news outlets everywhere, but they're not putting it as a "big four" story or something like that - you have to scroll down to the "other things we thing are important" section.
It states clearly that the Democrats in congress are backing off their plan (and campaign promise) to limit the President's wartime authority, or to outright repeal their vote to support the Iraq war. Not only has talk of "de-funding" the war died out, but now they're not even going to try to limit what President Bush can do.
I do think a lot of this has to do with the fact that, while the Democrats are definitely looking for ways (as they logically should) to increase their power and standing in government, they're actually not totally stupid. They can see the glowing symbols on the wall with Iran, and I believe in the back of their mind they'd love to see President Bush take care of that problem for them, or at least get it started, so they don't have to make the unpopular decision to take military action - yet they know it has to be done.
However, the link I am making is that if these stories about disaffected troops were really meaningful - that is, I believe it is heart-wrenching to think of anyone being thrust into a war zone who is terrified of being there, but let's pay attention to what percentage of the troops they really are (not how many they SAY are being them, but the actual, real numbers - how many of us have said "well, all my friends and I, and there are tons of us, agree") and whether or not their opinion is better or easier to support than other people in the same location and situation.
Perhaps put simpler, it is good to hear both sides of the story, but when you do that, keep in mind one side of the story may be told by a 3 to 12,401 ratio, and those three may be speaking without straight facts or any facts at all. I'm suggesting that we can tell which side is right by what the people in power, the decision-makers, are doing. Despite their own rhetoric that clearly supports the concept that the 3 are right, their actual actions are grudgingly in support of the 12,401.
Why is it we must read so hard behind the lines to find this truth?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Elections Matter, Yes. Results Matter More.
I have read an increasing number of articles over the past several weeks and months as Republican pundits and columnists chastise Republican voters for their attitude in the last election. The only good thing about this is that nobody is talking about it being a Democrat victory any more (the arguments for that don’t even rank “pathetic”).
What upsets me is that these columnists are waggling their fingers at the voters. It is true that I also feel the voters have a lesson to learn, that is the old cliché (and as much as I hate them, it is true) that if you don’t vote, that’s the equivalent to voting for the strongest opposition candidate. I voted in the 2006 election. Early. However, I feel the larger lesson is being lost here.
These pundits and columnists should be addressing their admonishments to the politicians who were “voted out of office”. This would be a non-issue if the officials we elected (and I have nothing to complain about with the four national politicians who represent me) actually represented us and our values.
The reason Republicans lost in the 2006 election was because they were dumbasses. They were stupid, spineless, unresponsive dumbasses who did not represent the desires of their constituents. You know, those people who voted for them in the first place?
Yes, it is true that the best place to defeat a poor representative is in your party’s primaries, not to have them lose in the general election and therefore transfer power to the opposition party, but I have two problems with this. First, it should be obvious to even the novice political spectator that it is very difficult to defeat an incumbent (for novices, that means the person who currently holds the office in question). A primary is rarely more than a formality when your party already holds the office being voted upon. If you really need me to reason that out for you, feel free to comment and I’ll expound. Second, the largest infractions against conservative principles were committed after the primaries. Several people have said (and with this I agree) that the two largest issues on the conservative plate are the war on terror and immigration.
Border security came up not in the middle of the primaries, but after the primaries were done and the general election was being contested.
I am not going to exonerate voters who did not go to the polls to support their candidates. I still believe you should vote. I do, however, maintain that the problem started not with these voters, but with the politicians who let them down.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Why the polls are wrong on Iraq
I do believe in our republic system of government. There’s a reason we don’t have a straight democracy. For a quick review, considering many people won’t understand the difference, a democracy is where the citizens (or the people who have a right to vote) actually vote directly on issues. There are cases where this is evident in our own government, such as propositions on a ballot, but for the most part our government is a republic. Instead of going to the people to vote on every issue, the government consists of elected officials (some appointees). We elect people to go to the centers of government in order to run the country for us (locally, regionally, and nationally).
Democracies are evident all through our country. Any club, association, church, or other group of people to which you belong and in which everything (or nearly everything) must be put to a general vote of the members is an actual democracy. However, our government is almost entirely republican (not the political party, but the system) in nature.
We are hearing a lot about congress’ deliberations about a resolution on the war in Iraq.
I hardly know where to begin. Yes, Iraq is a huge issue of our times - in my mind part of the biggest issue we face - however congress seems more than a little ridiculous at the moment. The reason seems obvious to me: they are not debating the issue, they’re debating how to debate the issue. Senators in particular (I believe because there are fewer of them) seem unwilling to take an actual stand against the war. They take a wishy-washy almost stand that says “I would be against this if it were possible to be against this, but I can’t because it isn’t.”
What is said into a microphone almost always requires reading between the lines. By their own admission the very senators who are not taking a stand now have informed us that in their jobs they must speak with nuance. They say it is because there are no right-and-wrong issues (and you can make a linguistic argument for that, though practical reality says otherwise) but the fact is they need to craft their message in such a way that they can (if this sounds familiar) be for an issue with a certain group of people and against an issue with another group of people.
Why? Because they (in particular senators) represent a large body of constituents, and as they are fond of prating through their megaphone (most media outlets) this is a “nation evenly divided”. While they want you to think momentum is swinging their way, the fact is if they are admitting it is a divided nation, they know a vast portion of the voting public is going to be unhappy with any solid stand they take.
So now we come down to it. Why the polls are wrong on Iraq. I have wanted to state this in two ways for a long time, so here they are (and see how this applies to so many issues of our times).
First: if public opinion were actually so clear cut, the politicians would have no problems taking a stand. Who cares what 30% of their constituents think if the other 70% are going to cheer them madly? If such a huge majority of, say, Hillary Clinton’s constituents (present, and the ones she hopes to represent after 2008) were actually against the war, she would take a firm, loud stand and win any election she cared to contest. The fact must be that there is no clear-cut majority against the war in Iraq.
Here we segue neatly into part two. The bridge is simple. Because the party in opposition feels it necessary to, well, ‘oppose’ (and pretty much oppose anything right down the line) they have to find a way to show that the party in power (and by that, they mean the party that was in power to make certain policies, and the party currently holding the presidency) is wrong. Unfortunately the message coming form the people isn’t that clear cut. So they attempt to create a position with enough ‘nuance’ to appeal to the greatest majority of voters. Therefore...
Second: the polls that were taken were not clear cut. The question was never “do you support the war in Iraq” or “do you approve of President Bush overall?” The questions were multiple choice, generally in graded format (strong support, slight support, neutral, against, strongly against) and with an “I don’t know” column people who are really screwed up can check. I only pay attention to polls that publish their questions and the statistics on not only whom was polled, but who responded. Therefore, the questions I saw were “do you feel we should ‘stay the course’ in Iraq?” or “do you feel our policy on Iraq should be changed?”
Well, I can tell you right now I support the war in Iraq. I feel it is crucial to our foreign policy, our standing in the world, and even our security at home. I believe success in Iraq will bring us closer to a world-wide solution for the overall war we face, and I believe that failure or even semi-success in Iraq will slow that progress down. However, I would have answered neutrally on ‘stay the course’ because I do not understand the connotation of the question. I believe we should stay there, but I believe the commanders on the ground should have plenty of room to maneuver, to respond and change as our enemy responds and changes. I would have also agreed that our policy in Iraq should change dramatically. I think we should start by taking an IED to the Rules of Engagement that our soldiers must currently face, unchain them, and let them go kick ass. That doesn’t mean they should be exempt from all restraint - I do believe innocents must be protected and soldiers to not have license to run amok, however I believe this is war, and their job is to kill the enemy. Not to rape and pillage, but to kill the enemy. Thoroughly.
So my answers, as a solid conservative and member of the Republican Party who supports President Bush (on this issue), takes amazing pride in our military and the greatness of our country, who - in short - would be considered a warmonger by my opponents, would have answered these polls in a way that the opposition party could construe meant I did not support the war in Iraq. However, if I had been asked direct questions: “do you support the war in Iraq” or “do you approve of the job President Bush is doing” I would have landed solidly on the “yes” side.
I believe our politicians are smart enough to know that’s exactly where the country is. They need to rally their own supporters, the people who select which Democrat is going to be elected in the primary, but that they recognize fully that a greater majority of this country supports President Bush and the war in Iraq than is against him or it.
Use your own gut (or nose, if you prefer). You can tell when a series of questions or events in the news does not feel or smell right. The fact is, you are probably more correct than you give yourself credit. I’m not talking about conspiracy theories (which are almost always wrong) but rather in politics and news reporting. It’s too bad the institutions that were designed to give us the greatest weapon against tyranny - information - now require us to become experts in interpretation and how to filter out bias.
Democracies are evident all through our country. Any club, association, church, or other group of people to which you belong and in which everything (or nearly everything) must be put to a general vote of the members is an actual democracy. However, our government is almost entirely republican (not the political party, but the system) in nature.
We are hearing a lot about congress’ deliberations about a resolution on the war in Iraq.
I hardly know where to begin. Yes, Iraq is a huge issue of our times - in my mind part of the biggest issue we face - however congress seems more than a little ridiculous at the moment. The reason seems obvious to me: they are not debating the issue, they’re debating how to debate the issue. Senators in particular (I believe because there are fewer of them) seem unwilling to take an actual stand against the war. They take a wishy-washy almost stand that says “I would be against this if it were possible to be against this, but I can’t because it isn’t.”
What is said into a microphone almost always requires reading between the lines. By their own admission the very senators who are not taking a stand now have informed us that in their jobs they must speak with nuance. They say it is because there are no right-and-wrong issues (and you can make a linguistic argument for that, though practical reality says otherwise) but the fact is they need to craft their message in such a way that they can (if this sounds familiar) be for an issue with a certain group of people and against an issue with another group of people.
Why? Because they (in particular senators) represent a large body of constituents, and as they are fond of prating through their megaphone (most media outlets) this is a “nation evenly divided”. While they want you to think momentum is swinging their way, the fact is if they are admitting it is a divided nation, they know a vast portion of the voting public is going to be unhappy with any solid stand they take.
So now we come down to it. Why the polls are wrong on Iraq. I have wanted to state this in two ways for a long time, so here they are (and see how this applies to so many issues of our times).
First: if public opinion were actually so clear cut, the politicians would have no problems taking a stand. Who cares what 30% of their constituents think if the other 70% are going to cheer them madly? If such a huge majority of, say, Hillary Clinton’s constituents (present, and the ones she hopes to represent after 2008) were actually against the war, she would take a firm, loud stand and win any election she cared to contest. The fact must be that there is no clear-cut majority against the war in Iraq.
Here we segue neatly into part two. The bridge is simple. Because the party in opposition feels it necessary to, well, ‘oppose’ (and pretty much oppose anything right down the line) they have to find a way to show that the party in power (and by that, they mean the party that was in power to make certain policies, and the party currently holding the presidency) is wrong. Unfortunately the message coming form the people isn’t that clear cut. So they attempt to create a position with enough ‘nuance’ to appeal to the greatest majority of voters. Therefore...
Second: the polls that were taken were not clear cut. The question was never “do you support the war in Iraq” or “do you approve of President Bush overall?” The questions were multiple choice, generally in graded format (strong support, slight support, neutral, against, strongly against) and with an “I don’t know” column people who are really screwed up can check. I only pay attention to polls that publish their questions and the statistics on not only whom was polled, but who responded. Therefore, the questions I saw were “do you feel we should ‘stay the course’ in Iraq?” or “do you feel our policy on Iraq should be changed?”
Well, I can tell you right now I support the war in Iraq. I feel it is crucial to our foreign policy, our standing in the world, and even our security at home. I believe success in Iraq will bring us closer to a world-wide solution for the overall war we face, and I believe that failure or even semi-success in Iraq will slow that progress down. However, I would have answered neutrally on ‘stay the course’ because I do not understand the connotation of the question. I believe we should stay there, but I believe the commanders on the ground should have plenty of room to maneuver, to respond and change as our enemy responds and changes. I would have also agreed that our policy in Iraq should change dramatically. I think we should start by taking an IED to the Rules of Engagement that our soldiers must currently face, unchain them, and let them go kick ass. That doesn’t mean they should be exempt from all restraint - I do believe innocents must be protected and soldiers to not have license to run amok, however I believe this is war, and their job is to kill the enemy. Not to rape and pillage, but to kill the enemy. Thoroughly.
So my answers, as a solid conservative and member of the Republican Party who supports President Bush (on this issue), takes amazing pride in our military and the greatness of our country, who - in short - would be considered a warmonger by my opponents, would have answered these polls in a way that the opposition party could construe meant I did not support the war in Iraq. However, if I had been asked direct questions: “do you support the war in Iraq” or “do you approve of the job President Bush is doing” I would have landed solidly on the “yes” side.
I believe our politicians are smart enough to know that’s exactly where the country is. They need to rally their own supporters, the people who select which Democrat is going to be elected in the primary, but that they recognize fully that a greater majority of this country supports President Bush and the war in Iraq than is against him or it.
Use your own gut (or nose, if you prefer). You can tell when a series of questions or events in the news does not feel or smell right. The fact is, you are probably more correct than you give yourself credit. I’m not talking about conspiracy theories (which are almost always wrong) but rather in politics and news reporting. It’s too bad the institutions that were designed to give us the greatest weapon against tyranny - information - now require us to become experts in interpretation and how to filter out bias.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Official Language
Okay, you can probably figure out what this rant is about. It builds on my recent post about immigration. Let me set up my frustration before I air it and talk about my solution.
I am a parent who home schools my children. I won’t get into their progress (other than to say it is certainly acceptable - my 10 and 11 year old boys have mastered most Algebra skills and I don’t even know what my daughter is talking about in Trigonometry) or my talent as a teacher (it is difficult to do day in and day out - to keep motivated, when I would rather be doing other things - and I really don’t remember Trig). Suffice it to say I was on the Texas Education Agency website this morning doing preparatory work for the upcoming week (fortunately they don’t read this blog so they don’t know the TAKS test is about to hit them - hee hee hee)
What has me all riled up is that I did this a few years ago (they didn’t do so well on the tests, actually) when I downloaded what I believe are the 2004 tests. This year I went back and was very excited to see that there are now answer keys - which will make my job easier (almost as easy as an overworked, underpaid, under-appreciated teacher with 20-30 kids?) My glee turned to ire as I saw double-listings for many of the tests I wished to download (for reference: the 2006 April tests). The double-listings? The Spanish versions of the test.
Now, I am going to be painted as heartless and cruel by liberals all across the land (and probably some people who claim to be non-liberal) but I do not believe our tests should be administered in Spanish. This country is run in English, and it should remain so. Though it was founded in English, wave upon wave of immigrants moved to this country in droves. We did not change the language to French, or Italian, or Gaelic, nor even did we cave and change the language to British! The immigrants who came here were so thrilled, so honored to be in this country that they took the time and effort to learn the language spoken by its already established inhabitants.
Now, before someone who actually has flames shooting out their eyes and clothing, smoke curling from their Birkenstocks, and an effeminate lisp tries to point out to me that there were other languages spoken here before the pilgrims colonized I will say this: if a group of people who speak, say, Arabic come over here, kick our ass, and conquer us I will either die defending this country or learn to speak Arabic if that becomes the official language.
It actually speaks to the overall point. The question becomes - who is integrating whom? If immigrants are coming here and changing our society, are they immigrating or conquering? How badly do they really want to be here? In my earlier post I pointed out that my impression of previous waves of immigrants is that they so loved this country that they were willing to come here, struggle to learn the language, begin with low-level jobs, work hard, and make something of themselves. They wanted to bring their talents here to make a better United States while the United States made a better them! Coming here, struggling to even communicate, working a low-paying, difficult job was an improvement for them.
If you want to open the borders and let whoever wants to migrate here do so, a stance with which I do not agree anyway, I would make this concession: this kind of stance would stand at least a small chance of working if we preserve that immigrant attitude which suggests it is going to be a possible climb, but it is going to be a tough climb.
You are discarding the sacrifices and struggles made by your own ancestors. Just because you’re not making it - because you were born here and into a society already steps above the struggles those immigrants faced before they got here - doesn’t mean the struggle didn’t happen, and doesn’t make it less important.
You are helping to create an ever-growing segment of our population that cannot understand a speech given by their own politicians. I can just hear the jokes about Americans who can’t understand what President Bush is saying now, but consider this: do you think people taking a TAKS test in Spanish would be better able to understand the smooth semicolons and suave style of President Clinton? Remember: President Bush can actually speak fluent Spanish. Who is going to be in the better position to sway?
I am a parent who home schools my children. I won’t get into their progress (other than to say it is certainly acceptable - my 10 and 11 year old boys have mastered most Algebra skills and I don’t even know what my daughter is talking about in Trigonometry) or my talent as a teacher (it is difficult to do day in and day out - to keep motivated, when I would rather be doing other things - and I really don’t remember Trig). Suffice it to say I was on the Texas Education Agency website this morning doing preparatory work for the upcoming week (fortunately they don’t read this blog so they don’t know the TAKS test is about to hit them - hee hee hee)
What has me all riled up is that I did this a few years ago (they didn’t do so well on the tests, actually) when I downloaded what I believe are the 2004 tests. This year I went back and was very excited to see that there are now answer keys - which will make my job easier (almost as easy as an overworked, underpaid, under-appreciated teacher with 20-30 kids?) My glee turned to ire as I saw double-listings for many of the tests I wished to download (for reference: the 2006 April tests). The double-listings? The Spanish versions of the test.
Now, I am going to be painted as heartless and cruel by liberals all across the land (and probably some people who claim to be non-liberal) but I do not believe our tests should be administered in Spanish. This country is run in English, and it should remain so. Though it was founded in English, wave upon wave of immigrants moved to this country in droves. We did not change the language to French, or Italian, or Gaelic, nor even did we cave and change the language to British! The immigrants who came here were so thrilled, so honored to be in this country that they took the time and effort to learn the language spoken by its already established inhabitants.
Now, before someone who actually has flames shooting out their eyes and clothing, smoke curling from their Birkenstocks, and an effeminate lisp tries to point out to me that there were other languages spoken here before the pilgrims colonized I will say this: if a group of people who speak, say, Arabic come over here, kick our ass, and conquer us I will either die defending this country or learn to speak Arabic if that becomes the official language.
It actually speaks to the overall point. The question becomes - who is integrating whom? If immigrants are coming here and changing our society, are they immigrating or conquering? How badly do they really want to be here? In my earlier post I pointed out that my impression of previous waves of immigrants is that they so loved this country that they were willing to come here, struggle to learn the language, begin with low-level jobs, work hard, and make something of themselves. They wanted to bring their talents here to make a better United States while the United States made a better them! Coming here, struggling to even communicate, working a low-paying, difficult job was an improvement for them.
If you want to open the borders and let whoever wants to migrate here do so, a stance with which I do not agree anyway, I would make this concession: this kind of stance would stand at least a small chance of working if we preserve that immigrant attitude which suggests it is going to be a possible climb, but it is going to be a tough climb.
You are discarding the sacrifices and struggles made by your own ancestors. Just because you’re not making it - because you were born here and into a society already steps above the struggles those immigrants faced before they got here - doesn’t mean the struggle didn’t happen, and doesn’t make it less important.
You are helping to create an ever-growing segment of our population that cannot understand a speech given by their own politicians. I can just hear the jokes about Americans who can’t understand what President Bush is saying now, but consider this: do you think people taking a TAKS test in Spanish would be better able to understand the smooth semicolons and suave style of President Clinton? Remember: President Bush can actually speak fluent Spanish. Who is going to be in the better position to sway?
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Art, and the freedom to express it.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)