The Electoral College Student

A Progressive Manifesto - Vol. 1

2011-10-21T22:59:00.012-04:00

I'm trying something new. Please let me know if you like this format! This political digest may take over most of my blog from now on.

A Progressive Manifesto – Vol. 1

In This Volume: George Lakoff suggests a positive vision for the Occupy Wall Street movement. The LA Times ponders how the brutality of natural selection may be a bad match to underpin any sort of caring society. David Sirota has another great reason why there’s too much money in politics. David Frum makes Jon Huntsman look like conservative orthodoxy, but appears to have Stockholm Syndrome. Who knew—austerity is a disaster and the elites are for it? OWS considers firmly rejecting potential political allies – they should go ahead and do it if they want to fail as a movement.

Andrew Cuomo defends the 1%, ruins the legacy of his father. The rise of Herman Cain illustrates the nihilism of the modern conservative movement. Laurence Lessig at Daily Kos debunks conservative ‘class warfare’ rhetoric for all time…FOR ALL TIME! Robert Reich, as usual, provides some needed clarity and encouragement for progressive fellows. Occupy Wall Street considers more demands than Dr. Evil in Austin Powers or Dr. No in the original James Bond. And finally, The New Republic realizes that Occupy Wall Street is ultimately successful because, unlike the Democratic Party, it has a spine.

Lakoff: How Occupy Wall Street’s Moral Vision Can Beat the Disastrous Conservative Worldview – “The alternative view of democracy is progressive: Democracy starts with citizens caring about one another and acting responsibly on that sense of care, taking responsibility both for oneself and for one’s family, community, country, people in general, and the planet. The role of government is to protect and empower all citizens equally”

Paying a price for Darwinism in the marketplace – “But success in Darwinian terms typically depends heavily on relative performance, and attempts to occupy scarce slots atop any hierarchy inevitably provoke wasteful, mutually offsetting arms races. It's an important point, since the modern conservative's case for minimal government rests on the presumption that competition always promotes society's welfare. But our best understanding of how competition actually functions, as Darwin's work makes clear, supports no such presumption.”

David Sirota: W. enters my wife’s schoolboard race – “When the same elites who fund federal elections start pouring unfathomable sums of money into our community’s school board races, it robs us of the last promise of democracy: the hope that while wealth and power dictate federal and state policy, every person can still have a small impact on his or her own local community.”

David Frum: My Party Is Wrong On The Most Urgent Issue Of The Day…But I’m Sticking With It Anyway – “The pattern is this: Behind each professed rationale, offered as an objective statement of fact, there is one sort of conservative presumption and/or agenda item which is the real reason for Frum’s continued allegiance.”

The Very Serious Austerians – “I hope this piece is widely read among the Villagers, particularly among the journalists. I suspect that the vast majority of them simply think that deficit fever is some sort of received wisdom and haven't ever thought to put the pieces together before. This piece spells it out for them…Austerity vs Prosperity is the essence of the fight right now and it's finally being engaged. No thanks to the political class.”

Sophisticated Strategery – “I'm not a big fan of Ronald Reagan, but I thought he was very politically canny for saying "I don't endorse anyone, they endorse me." That's how the OWS should see it too. It's fine if those sympathetic to either political party endorse their agenda --- and it doesn't mean they endorse the political party in return. In a process like OWS, you can only be co-opted if you want to be co-opted.”

Religious Services – “Just in case anyone disputes the idea that protecting the wealthy is a religious commitment of certain politicians, think again. This man just compared a principled opposition to the death penalty to opposing taxes for the wealthiest among us. Is Cuomo a lapsed Catholic who's taken up Randian philosophy? She thought taxing the rich was immoral too.”

The Cain Conundrum – “Bipartisanship as we have known it is dead. It is not coming back…The issues that separate the country are much more fundamental than simple race resentment and minor disagreements over tax and spending policy, issues that could be resolved by a greater effort to listen to and understand the other side. The divide is profound and existential.”

Who is waging class warfare? – “Those striving for some measure of social and economic justice mean to hurt no one. Creating some balance in the income gap and the distribution of wealth will not cause anyone to go hungry or homeless or to lack adequate health care. Those using every possible means to deny some measure of social and economic justice are hurting people. They are deliberately and unconscionably perpetuating the causes of immeasurable unnecessary suffering. So who is waging class warfare?”

Robert Reich: The Rise of the Regressive Right and the Reawakening of America – “Progressives believe in openness, equal opportunity, and tolerance. Progressives assume we're all in it together: We all benefit from public investments in schools and health care and infrastructure. And we all do better with strong safety nets, reasonable constraints on Wall Street and big business, and a truly progressive tax system. Progressives worry when the rich and privileged become powerful enough to undermine democracy.”

Occupy Protesters’ One Demand: A New New Deal—Well, Maybe – “Even if neither the blueprint nor the New New Deal goes anywhere with the larger crowd, they could still help Occupy Wall Street figure out what it wants to be. In many respects, they represent two idealistic extremes: a fairly concrete set of national policy proposals, and a looser, more localized set of goals. The ultimate consensus at Zuccotti Park may end up somewhere in the middle.”

Why A Majority of Americans Are Getting Behind Occupy Wall Street – “So what’s driving it? Broadly speaking, it’s the belief that inequality of wealth and power is out of control and is undermining the welfare and future of the “other 99 percent.” This is a powerful idea and liberals should welcome it, since it happens to be true and accords with much of what liberals have been arguing for decades. And liberals should welcome OWS’ popularization of the idea even more because, on their own, they’ve had shockingly little success making economic inequality a fighting issue.”

Links From the Wilderness: 9/30/11

2011-09-30T14:17:00.004-04:00

Greetings! I am starting a new blog series called "Links from the Wilderness". Occasionally, I will post links to political stories and columns that intrigue or infuriate me, along with my best snark. Enjoy!

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/09/30/does-barack-obama-think-america-needs-viagra-his-malaise-moment-arrives/

Barack Obama really does not know how to be President. He doesn’t know how to lead. He’s doomed. What the hell is he thinking? America’s “gone soft”? That’ll go over about as well as Phil Gramm’s “we’re in a mental recession” comment did in 2008.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/euro-crisis-the-biggest-story-in-american-politics-and-nobodys-talking-about-it.php?ref=fpa

The political paralysis of seemingly every government in the world right now is beyond staggering to me.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/29/332152/perry-budget-cuts-teacher-financial-aid/

What a hunk! That Rick Perry! And people say conservatism isn’t an anti-intellectual philosophy. Perry will “teach” ‘em.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/29/332360/boehner-coli-food-safety/

What was it that Boehner said awhile back? “A stronger government is a weaker American people!” Objection: a weaker government is a sicker American people.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/29/331788/maine-student-voter-intimidation/

Many Republicans generally don’t believe in protecting the weakest and most vulnerable among us, but they do believe in protecting them from the right to vote.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/gingrich-argues-god-must-exist-because-peopl

If I believe in anything in this vast, indifferent Universe…I believe that this headline speaks for itself.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/09/30/is_christie_too_fat_to_run_for_president.html

Michael Kinsley and Eugene Robinson.

Answer? No. This is disgusting: not Christie’s girth, but the gall of these “reporters” for making Christie’s weight an issue. Kinsley and Robinson show their ugliness by rolling around in the muck in this story.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/29/1021379/-Charles-Koch:-Social-Security-for-me,-but-not-for-thee?via=blog_1

Charles Koch thought Social Security and Medicare were good enough for Friedrich Hayek, but apparently it’s not good enough for us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/krugman-phony-fear-factor.html?_r=2

Paul Krugman’s still tired of trying to reason with you people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/the-affordable-care-act-w_b_987056.html

The Affordable Care Act: the law nobody knows about. :(

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/college-inc-top-harvard-o_n_985699.html

Income inequality tears at the fabric of universities. But who is surprised? Universities exist to serve an elite Establishment, not to teach people how to think and live for themselves, or even to “educate” people.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/29/1021400/-Wall-Street-executives-watch-protests-while-drinking-champagne-from-balconies-(literally)?via=blog_1

Let them eat cake! (Let them drink champagne!)

That's all for today, folks! Come back next time for another installment of "Links From the Wilderness". This progressive is outta here.

one hundred trillion synapse man

2011-08-07T00:13:00.000-04:00

"one hundred trillion synapse man"

better faster stronger

this structure will endure

but not as it has endured

as I have never stood still

this repository contains

experiences and protein sequences

fit for a life, fit for a deluge

of stimuli and images

I am a vessel

there is no flesh and blood

there is no hair and sweat

there is only an impeccable order

descending through the generations

descending through matter in the limbs of my body

minute insights concealed in my membranes

subtly spawned genetically or environmentally

these handed-down tendencies essentially

compose a parade of uncertain moments

passing insubstantially

judge me by my activity

coursing through my neurons

the chemicals concocting my pride

the pathways diverting my anger

a streaming tide of unknown reaction

flowing without pause

expanding the caverns beneath the surface of my thoughts

I may not have a direction

I have a cause and I have a reason

dismember my love

find the anxiety which provokes it

you will notice the tension

your birthright and mine

there is a crack and a schism

never relinquish that

that is life itself

- Alex Abbott

The Problem of "Capital T" Truth

2011-08-02T10:59:00.003-04:00

I'm not good at making complicated things simple to explain. Rather, I'm much better at making simple things complicated to explain. Perhaps this is why I'm arguably a better poet than a philosopher, or a better philosopher than a poet. As I have so far failed to explain, this post may be somewhat confusing -- but if you could bear with me for a few moments, I promise that it will make sense!

In the Gospels of the Bible, Pontius Pilate asked an eternal question to Jesus: "What is truth?" This is the very question I am confronting today.

A professor of mine once asserted that all philosophical and religious discussions are like the artwork of the sculptor Alexander Calder. I realize you may not be familiar with this artist, so here's an example or two of his work -- which I hope you will examine closely, for within the nature of his art lies a key point about the nature of truth.

To claim that something is true is an action of the human observer, requiring the use of the human mind and the use of communication. In this way, the act of defining truth depends on the person who gives you their own definition of truth. Every truth claim depends on a variety of assumptions and preexisting beliefs. In an Alexander Calder sculpture, each piece in the sculpture is connected to the piece before it - each piece of the artwork is dependent on the other pieces which it rests upon. So, truth is like a sculpture which contains an entire chain of pieces -- with all of the pieces depending on the piece attached to them to maintain their form.

Because the human interpretation of truth depends upon other conditions, it is difficult to state with certainty what is true. This problem may seem obvious, but the problem has quite a few ramifications for ideas in philosophy and religion which may not be so obvious at first.

In the past, when I attended a discussion group with a friend of mine and his pastor, I gained the opportunity to hear their perspectives on Christianity. Both of them are evangelical Christians, and while they don't speak for all evangelical Christians, they do seem to represent some widespread views. When we were discussing the resurrection of Jesus, the pastor kept pressing me as to why I did not accept the truth of Jesus's resurrection.

The truth? I do accept the truth of Jesus's resurrection...in one sense. I accept that the story is relevant, that the story has positive and inspiring qualities, that the story helps people live a better life. I do not believe the account of the resurrection of Jesus is literally true. That I do not literally accept the resurrection story of Jesus bothered my friend's pastor to no small end. The pastor kept trying and trying to goad me to accept the absolute, literal truth of this event, for which I believe there is no definitive evidence.

And then...I start to wonder why I want evidence for the story of the resurrection of Jesus. When I was talking to my girlfriend (who is a more liberal Christian) about my conversations with my evangelical friend, she asked me why I wanted evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. She stumped me.

After talking for far too long (to avoid my consternation), I realized that I didn't really need any evidence for the resurrection of Jesus...in a sense. I told my girlfriend that I asked for evidence of Jesus's resurrection because my friend and his pastor sought to convince me of the "Capital T" Truth of the resurrection. What's the difference between "Capital T" Truth and other truth? "Capital T" Truth is empirical, requires evidence, and is absolute and rational. There are other truths which are symbolic, mystical, and full of mystery...full of, faith.

I'm not against mystery. As Carl Sagan said, when I contemplate that I am a conscious being, living in a Universe so vast and so sparsely populated (as far as we can tell) with beings like us, beings that are self-aware, I feel an ecstasy and a sense of wonder akin to religious feelings. I do not deny these feelings, as so many religious people I know may assume - as I am asked how I can witness the beauty of our world and not believe there is something more there. On the contrary, I do feel that there is something more there, but I don't call that something "God". What tickles me, though, is whether these feelings are really truth? And why should I believe certain feelings and not others?

Why should I follow one religious path or another? Why should I put one label on my feelings of awe and mystery and not another label? On the basis of feeling, most of the world's religions appear roughly indistinguishable to me - not equivalent, but indistinguishable. I'm not naive enough to paper over the vast differences between religious traditions. What bothers me is how I am supposed to know which one is for me, if any of them are for me - and do I trust my feelings enough to leave them in charge of my choice?

My evangelical friends try to tell me that their god is the author of "Capital T" Truth, that his son Jesus died for my sins - and that there is "Capital T" Truth-friendly evidence which can demonstrate this to my satisfaction - or so they claim. Really, to believe their claim I have to first accept the validity of the Gospel writings, and the letters of Paul, and the Old Testament, and...eventually, it just turns out to be another Alexander Calder special. There are so many claims I have to accept before I can accept the last claim I've heard that I can never sufficiently unravel the truth.

Where does all of this speculation leave me? It leaves me where I started, asking "what is truth?", just as Pilate must have asked all those years ago. I still do not accept any one religion as my own, because I am fine with my secular morality and secular mystery. If someone wants to convince me to join another religion, they'll have to wait. I have my own feelings and my own mind to sort through first. I'm going to try to discern the truth as well as I can, and if religion seems to hinder that search for truth, then I will proceed without it. I'm not convinced that any religion has the "Capital T" Truth, and if I don't need that kind of truth, then I'm not convinced that I need religion, either. Why put a label on something that belongs to all of us?

I've stuck with one kind of faith or another plenty of times, but I can't say that it's the world's only truth, and I'm not even sure that it's true at all. It's just what I have...or don't have. Faith is like life: it will find a way to thrive even in the darkest, harshest, or most obscure places. You can call it all sorts of things depending on where you find it, but it's really the same thing. Despite all the superficial differences and confusing trappings, truth (based on faith) is the same everywhere - it just appears in a surprising number of ways. It's not relative, either - it's just really complicated and hopelessly messy. There may be greater and lesser truths, more closely or loosely matching your assumptions, even if there's no one "Capital T" Truth - and some assumptions are so monumental and so broad that, in practice, they are almost the same thing as what we would call "objectivity".

As I said at the beginning, I have a knack for making the simple to be hard, and the hard to be simple. For those who are wondering what the most direct point of this may be, I say this: because truth can only be assessed according to your own perspective, it is the duty of every person to investigate what is true. If each individual pursues truth as well as he or she can, we may never have the "Capital T" Truth many of us seek, but we will have more truth than we have ever had before, and that truth will set us free -- as Jesus could have said to Pilate.

Simplicity Followed By Awe

2011-06-22T16:25:00.051-04:00

"Things used to be simple. There was one universe, and our galaxy was one among billions within it."

This is the first sentence from Marcelo Gleiser's column on NPR entitled "Multiverse Metaphysics".

If only things were simple! To understand that our planet lies in a solar system situated in a galaxy with more solar systems alone than we can imagine, and then - that there are billions of galaxies in our Universe...is this so simple after all? I think about the controversies surrounding Galileo and Kepler in their day, wondering what scientific discoveries will ascend from heresy to simplicity in the next 500 years?

I think about Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" TV series. I think about his wonder and fascination toward the magnificent intricacies of nature. A realization strikes me - awe is far more important than simplicity. I must resist simplicity.

A few days ago, I posted a column by Adam Frank of NPR on Facebook explaining how poetry can reconcile science and the sacred. Frank's column argues powerfully that science is a direct route to experiencing the sacred. This sacred awe is vitally important for the vitality of human life.

Because of its essential role in creating meaning for our lives, awe is fundamental to our shared humanity. To feel awe can be more important than understanding. Further, awe undermines understanding - to engage in awe is to admit a lack of understanding and to admit new possibilities amidst a mysterious unknown. One of my friends on Facebook, after I posted Frank's article on science and the sacred, complimented me for recognizing - as a non-religious person - that science and the sacred are compatible.

I have struggled to respond to that compliment, because I cannot accept it wholeheartedly. While I agree with my friend that science and the sacred are compatible, I do not agree that science and religion are necessarily compatible. There is a stark difference between the religion of awe and mystery, and the religion of simplicity and understanding. I believe that the first kind of religion is entirely compatible with science, but that the second kind of religion hopelessly distorts and undermines science.

To be fair, I also believe that the nonreligious can abuse excessive certainty - that a fundamentalist confidence in one's own understanding is just as dangerous to science as religious dogma. Any kind of strict adherence to simplicity annihilates both true science and true spirituality.

All too often, organized religion asserts a monopoly on fact and truth - while it asserts that there is only one way to live - and asserts that the course of existence is pre-determined and set by divine law. Science asserts, by searching for answers, that the world is unknown to it - while evolutionary theory demonstrates compellingly that life is a flowing and diverse tide, responding in different ways to a diversity of pressures and dangers - and asserts that existence can change rapidly and has done so constantly throughout its history.

There is no ducking the differences between science and organized religion, which have developed as organized religion has denounced and opposed science. I believe that it is far better to confront those differences than it is to leave them unaddressed in silence. However, confrontation does not have to become arrogance - the best confrontation occurs in humility, when people confront what they do not or perhaps cannot know, and a find a way to live within that mystery. Both true science and true spirituality actively confront that void and derive meaning from that mystery.

Where organized religion and dogmatic rationalism insist on muting mystery, disparaging differences, and attacking ambiguity, I must walk another path. I must seek other answers. I leave the road of simplicity to travel the road of awe.

E Pluribus Unum

2011-06-11T16:28:00.071-04:00

E Pluribus Unum - Out of many, one. The first national motto of the United States.

I am currently reading Howard Zinn's book "A People's History of the United States", as well as James W. Loewen's book "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong". Reading these two books has reinforced my understanding that every person, without regard for tradition, ethnicity, or class, wants opportunity: an opportunity to thrive as an individual, an opportunity to serve as a member of a welcoming community, and an opportunity to fulfill his or her potential as a human being.

These two books have also showed me once again that American history is a tale of how some people were able to seize opportunities for themselves, how some were denied opportunities, and how some people resisted oppression and prejudice to create new opportunities which had never been imagined before. American history is the legacy of overlapping identities - a process called syncretism, described in Loewen's book as "blending elements of two different cultures to create something new" (Lies, 102).

Syncretism, in its power to combine different cultures and traditions into a greater and more vibrant whole, represents the finest qualities of America. Autonomy. Individualism. The power to decide for yourself. Democracy is the same process of deciding among new choices and options which syncretism uses to create new cultures -- so is capitalism. American encounters with new ideas, and our resulting new creations, give birth to ever sharper and more inclusive societies and economies. Pluralism is the lifeblood of America.

America's mass society is controversial, and there are many public voices who wish to soften or silence it. Traditionalists, the precursor to today's social conservatives, argued that people in a more diverse and less tightly rooted society are more isolated and alienated. These arguments are the start of the movement which complains that traditional values are declining, and unfairly labels those Americans - perceived as foreign and unpatriotic - as lesser citizens, and less worthy of participating equally in America's democratic and economic life.

The ever changing values of America are a strength of our society, and this change is not only compatible with America's political and economic values - this change is essential to preserving those values. A pluralistic and diverse society provides choices for individuals to accept or embrace, and this act of choice is a radical offering. It is a vast departure from previous political and economic arrangements of human history. In nations without these new encounters, confrontations, and choices - without syncretism and pluralism - capitalism becomes feudalism, and democracy becomes dictatorship. Every element of civic life becomes stagnant, and the rule of the public transforms into the rule of the elites. The ancient hierarchy which our Founding Fathers despised and risked their lives to oppose will be viciously restored once syncretism and pluralism are attacked and diminished.

The fight for democracy is the fight of the individual and the community against the hierarchy of the elites and those who would replace the rule of the many with the rule of the few. The greatest danger to a democracy is not that elites will directly deny the rights of the public - the greatest danger is that elites will indirectly deny the rights of the public in such a gradual fashion that no one will notice what has happened until it is too late to reverse the trend.

Elites indirectly rob the public of their ability to participate in democracy when corporations and the highest members of government erode the rule of law by ignoring what the laws say and acting outside the bounds of the law.

Elites rob the public of their rights when individuals cannot choose new alternatives. When there is inadequate funding for education at all levels, when there is rampant unemployment, when people are afraid to start their own businesses because they can't get health insurance, the energy and vitality of our country atrophies. When people have no other options, they will accept their position in society without question. This passive acceptance is poisonous to American greatness.

The consistent rule of law, the ability for all individuals to have equal opportunity to participate in the economy and in their government, and an acceptance of pluralism are all necessary to sustain a thriving democracy. When these three principles are no longer defended, and become degraded, democracy begins to decay.

However, there is nothing else that I can say which will show you what these principles look like in action, other than to give you the best example I have:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Me Lover's Pizza With Crazy Broad

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

A man of Lithuanian and Latvian descent loves Italian pizza from New York City! What could be a better example of syncretism and pluralism leading to American greatness? What could be more authentically American than this?!

Fighting Authority In the Name of Spirituality

2011-06-07T19:51:00.003-04:00

Recently, I attended a talk by author Brian McLaren, a figure in the emergent Christianity movement. He was wondering why religion and spirituality can seem so distant from one another. Frankly, I am beginning to expect that religion and spirituality are destined to remain in conflict, when I think about the nature of the relationship between religion and authority.

I can't help but consider another recent religious encounter of mine. After I befriended an evangelical Christian classmate last semester in a political theory course through some friendly bickering about politics and religion, he insisted that I join him in a discussion group with his pastor. I may have to write a separate blog post or two about that evening later, but for now, what strikes me from the conversation is the pastor's declaration that "Christianity cannot be about morality". The pastor reasoned that since multiple religions not only allow, but encourage, their followers to lead what most people agree to be a moral life, that Christianity cannot primarily be meant to enforce morality.

Finally, I have been reading "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong, and as I told my girlfriend, the major lesson I have learned from Armstrong's book is that I must never again generalize about any religion. With that lesson in mind, I will say that Christianity is a diverse vehicle for many interests and ideas, not only about God, but about humanity. Because Christianity comes in so many forms, perhaps that alone makes it unlikely that spirituality could coexist peacefully with other values.

It is evident that religious teachings contain moral content - even if that content is difficult for its followers to decipher, or if it is difficult for people in the 21st century to decide how to apply the advice of prophets and poets from thousands of years ago. Yet, I tend to agree with my evangelical friend's pastor that in many ways, religion is not just about morality. Another important part of religion I wish to explore is religion's justifications and support for authority.

I do not have a hard time envisioning religion as a set of community standards and practices which can define the values and the identity of a community. Perhaps the process of trying to reach a better understanding of God/gods mirrors the process of individuals trying to reconcile their own interests with the interests of their communities.

When the religion of a community echoes the identity and the values of a culture, it is not surprising that the existence of people who do not embrace the dominant religion would feel threatening, and frighten a society. Perhaps, to those members of the dominant religion, the people rejecting the local religion are also rejecting the local culture, tradition, and identity. Perhaps, from their perspective, those unbelievers are literally destroying the social fabric itself, which provides their lives with meaning and purpose.

If you believe the Gospels, you will witness how the Jewish authorities of Jesus's day mistrusted Jesus and deeply felt that his actions were undermining and eroding the local culture. When Jesus overturned the tables at the synagogue, when Jesus spent time with tax collectors and women of unfavorable reputations, when Jesus associated himself with the despised officials of imperial Rome...when Jesus did all those things, he was acting against his culture and tradition, undermining not only the power of his culture, but the stability of its authorities.

If you believe the Qu'ran, you will witness how Muhammad (pbuh) was chased from Mecca to Medina. His insistence that there is only one God, instead of a multitude of gods, must have absolutely driven people mad with anger and resentment. Why would someone interfere so radically and wildly against society's most dear and sacred practices? Why would someone callously seek to destroy the elaborately devised system of religious tribute and tradition which had been so carefully maintained?

How can spirituality coexist peacefully with authority? Authority thrives when individuals do not question their relationships. Spirituality thrives when individuals question everything, in the name of greater awareness, understanding, and closeness to God or other forces. It is impossible to practice religious mysticism in a condition of blind and passive acceptance. Where is the mystery in the faith then? Where does the mystery go, when the Emperors and the kings and the Presidents tell you exactly what to believe?

No thanks. Because I refuse to accept the religious answers of a majority of my society, I will probably never win a political office, and many members of my culture will despise me and wonder how I could be a moral and loving person - but I will remain free to help create a new social fabric. I will remain free to help expand human cooperation, respect, and brotherhood, in any way that I choose - just as Jesus and Muhammad (pbuh) chose to do, at the risk of their possessions, their families, and their lives, so many years ago. As those prophets chose before me, I choose to exercise the authority of freedom and true spirituality.

Is Evolution Consistent with God's Love? (Part Two)

2011-06-04T14:23:00.000-04:00

In my first post, I stated that I do not see a contradiction between the stories of creation in Genesis and evolution. However, I also said that the question of whether Christianity and evolution are compatible hinges on the question of love: if it is the Christian god which made the world through evolution, is that a loving god? Is a belief that the Christian god created the world through evolution compatible with the idea of God's love?

The world is fallen. I have been informed of this state of affairs often, especially while attending church the first 18 years of my life, and I have heard this claim repeated many times in the sermons I have read and heard since that time. It's perhaps one of the three central claims of Christianity, besides God's creation and the resurrection of Jesus - one of a holy trinity of selling points for the faith.

It's also true. Earth is a mess. People are selfish, and take little care of anyone other than themselves. In fact, people are even catastrophically bad at protecting their own interests, over the long-term. Humans beings are usually short-sighted and indifferent to others at best, and cruel and vindictive to others at worst.

I do believe that Earth is fallen, that there is rampant evil in the world, and that the Genesis narratives are fully compatible with God creating us through evolution. So why am I not a Christian?

The biggest reason I can't accept both Christianity and evolution is that I don't agree that the Christian idea of redemption makes sense in a world created through evolution. In a world of chaos and evil, the idea of a loving God as a redeeming and uplifting force in human life has great appeal. However, I find that this message of redemption in Christianity is often undercut by other parts of Christian belief. By itself, it is hard to resist the allure of redemption - but paradoxically, what seems to be an excessive focus on human brokenness ruins the message of redemption for me.

I can't believe that a loving god created people broken, and then would blame people for their own brokenness, when their mistakes are many times the result of an evolutionary process which people claim God started. A God who created humanity through evolution created broken people. Perhaps the Garden of Eden story is an allegory, even more so than most orthodox Christians are willing to admit. Perhaps all the story is saying is that when humans rely on their own knowledge, they are broken, and need another force - like God - to redeem them. I find it hard to disagree with this message. It's simple, and true, and profound.

On the other hand, a lot of Christians go a long way to tell me that every "sinful" act of humanity is a choice, a direct choice to rebel against God. It's not just that humans cannot rely on themselves and need another force for redemption, but that humans have actively chosen to betray God, who created them perfectly, and is perfect himself. This, I cannot believe. I believe that humanity is broken at some fundamental level, and that there is a need for redemption. I cannot go the extra step and believe that human brokenness is directly the fault of humanity - if there is also a God which created people through evolution, a process which in its indifference leads to errors and a steep learning curve.

If the Christian god created humanity through evolution, then humans have been created in a way that would make "mistakes" - how could our brokenness be a choice? If evolution and Christianity are both true, then it feels like God chose for us to be broken, and then judges us for our brokenness. What kind of redemption is that?

Evolution is generally an indifferent process, with no goal of design. People forget the brutality of natural selection, and the seemingly arbitrary ways the human body (as well as all other living things) have been arranged. Evolution is not a perfect process, so how could I expect humans to be perfect? Could a god who created humans through an imperfect process expect humans to be perfect?

Do people choose to be selfish, and choose to do evil? Yes, and it is hard for me to disagree that people could be judged for those choices. But a loving god should redeem humanity because we are lost - and god helped us lose our way. If there is a God, this God must have a higher purpose for creating humans through evolution. Perhaps this process of errors and mistakes serves a divine purpose. Perhaps God wants us to experience what it's like to be wrong, what it's like to learn and grow. Learning requires mistakes. Maybe God didn't want us to be perfect. Of course, that explanation also rejects most of orthodox Christianity, but I'm not sure how else to reconcile a god who judges human for their actions - actions which happened to be set in motion by evolution, a process people claim was authored by God.

I cannot settle for the standard Christian explanation of God's judgment, God's love, and accept evolution, too. Although I am not a Christian for other additional reasons, if I am going to accept Christianity and evolution as compatible, I must accept a different view of God's intentions. If God intentionally used a process to create humanity that would leave people vulnerable to their worst impulses, then the traditional idea of a perfect God creating perfect humans who actively rebel against God to create sin makes no sense.

If God used evolution, as imperfect as it is, and the Christian god exists, then God must have a higher purpose for our mistakes, rather than simply judging us as if we were supposed to have the right answers all along. Since I am not a Christian, I may not be the best person to discern what that higher purpose may be. However, I have a guess. Perhaps there is a God, who wants us to learn from our mistakes and develop a morality which comes from an awareness of our dependence on others. If humanity had to learn about morality through a broken process, perhaps God is letting us experience this brokenness for a reason. I'm still not convinced that both evolution and Christianity are true, but it's far more plausible to me than the explanations I'm used to hearing.

It's Not About You, Until It Is

2011-06-02T20:03:00.004-04:00

Once again, David Brooks has written a column which has provoked me. In a way, David Brooks is an ideal antagonist for me, because he is the prophet of the conventional wisdom: he sums up popular opinion so well that I cannot resist challenging him, even though I disagree, and I give him credit for writing about topics that are challenging and difficult issues.

This week, Brooks writes about the troubles of recent college graduates. Since I am currently in college, this is a subject that, if it is not near and dear to me, is still at least terrifyingly relevant.

Examining the poor employment prospects for recent college graduates, Brooks laments that today's graduates have been "ill served by their elders". He also notes that the lives of these graduates have until now been "perversely structured", because these young people are part of "the most supervised generation" in history, yet they "will enter a world that is unprecedentedly wide open and unstructured".

I find it handy to understand that Brooks is writing about two major problems in this column. The first problem is that college graduates have been sent into a more open and less structured world with little preparation to handle such an environment.

Brooks's second major complaint is that college graduates are terribly mislead by the claims of "baby-boomer theology", which encourage graduates to "chart your own course, march to the beat of your own drummer, follow your dreams and find yourself". There is too much focus on the individual, Brooks declares: being an adult means making commitments and tying yourself down, not focusing on limitless possibilities.

Brooks states that while society "preaches the self as the center of a life", it is instead true that tasks are at the center of life, and that people are fulfilled by engaging tasks. He finally asserts that the purpose of life is not to find yourself, but to lose yourself.

I disagree with David Brooks not because I think he's necessarily wrong, but because I think his view is short-sighted and limited. I have two major objections.

First, I noted earlier that Brooks raises two major points in his column. Are they contradictory? Brooks said that the world is more open and unstructured than ever before. Does he support this trend? He doesn't say in this essay, but I have read enough David Brooks columns to assume that he does. Brooks is one of those conservatives who loves to talk about how innovation and free trade work together to create a better world. Somehow, Brooks scorns the idea of individuals focusing on new possibilities - when these individual choices are the engines which drive innovation in a free society.

In a world which depends on new ideas, in a world which depends on competition, isn't it a good idea to focus on limitless possibilities created through individual potential? When people pursue their own aims, isn't that what leads to discovery and growth? You can't have effective capitalism without people who follow their own course, at times. When everyone in a society accepts their role without question, that's a feudal hierarchy or an oligarchy or a dictatorship. That's not democracy, and it isn't a free market. A strong economy and a strong democracy both require some degree of individualism.

Second, does Brooks understand why baby boomers might spend so much time talking about individuality instead of just the passive acceptance of authority? Does he remember the struggles for civil rights? It is not a coincidence that the baby boomers who grew up during the 1960's and 1970's would promote greater individualism, after experiencing a period where society has suppressed the rights of minorities. How can a generation learn to blindly accept authority when that authority is oppressive? How can you teach a generation to simply lose your self when an overly restrictive society has already too often disregarded the selves of women, ethnic and racial minorities, and the poor?

There is a balance in life between the order of authority and the freedom of the people, and there is a balance between what is good for an individual and what is good for a community. The "baby boomer theology" may be a reaction to a distortion of that balance. Now, perhaps, the balance is distorted again - but let's understand why it is that way before we judge too harshly. Living in a society where everyone is told to "lose yourself" is just as bad as living in a society where everyone is told to "find yourself". If everyone surrenders to authority, there will be tyranny. If no one surrenders to authority, there will be anarchy. The most effective and enduring society will choose a middle ground.

America's Exceptional Leadership

2011-05-15T18:06:00.033-04:00

America is special. America is called to lead the world in liberty and freedom. America is not just special in the way that each country is special. No, America is even more than that. America is exceptional. America is special in a way that no other country in the world can assert.

From John Kennedy to Barack Obama, from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, this belief in American exceptionalism is a central belief of the leaders of both political parties. The belief in American exceptionalism is unchallenged and unopposed in the United States. Disagreement with American exceptionalism is suppressed, mocked, and generally understood to belong only to the political fringes, to be found only on the outside edges of the relevant American political debates.

There is no possible way that I could oppose American exceptionalism. Listen to any politician heap praise upon it: what do you hear? You will hear praise for liberty, praise for freedom and openness, praise for competition and the free market of ideas, praise for pluralism and choice, praise for America's moral leadership, a leadership made possible only by the most free and most democratic society in the world.

American ideas are the best in the world. The American way of life is the best in the world. America is therefore, obviously, the best country in the world. What a disaster, what a tragedy it would be, if the world were not led by its best and strongest nation? The leaders and politicians in America can't stand to imagine that any other nation is superior to America, or that any other nation should lead the world besides America, or that any nation should exercise more influence and power than America.

There is simply no way I could oppose American exceptionalism, as it is depicted by American politicians. If American beliefs are so superior to others, and if America is only acting in the world to defend and spread those beliefs, then it would be foolish for me to oppose America standing up for those beliefs!

All is not what it seems. The theoretical American exceptionalism lavishly praised by politicians is a far different animal than the American exceptionalism actively practiced in reality. The American exceptionalism which now exists is the exceptionalism of economic strength, the exceptionalism of raw power and military might, and the exceptionalism of authority and ideology over law and responsibility. Current American exceptionalism is a creature of fantasy and propaganda.

America is not exceptional because it encourages liberty - it is exceptional because it can deny the liberty of others (imprisoning without trial, torturing, and ordering assassinations of American citizens without due process) and ignore the consequences. America is not exceptional because it encourages openness - it is exceptional because it dismisses and attacks those who disagree with its policy, while criticizing other nations who act in the same ways (mercilessly prosecuting whistleblowers who expose fraud and journalists who expose corruption). America is not exceptional because it encourages competition - America is exceptional because its economic policy is corrupt and narrows the path of prosperity (reducing equality of opportunity by rewarding the rich with tax cuts and slashing social safety nets). America is not exceptional because it encourages democracy - it is exceptional because it has supported dictators (such as Hosni Mubarak) who have suppressed democracy and persecuted those who protest against them.

However, I refuse to abandon American exceptionalism. If America wishes to be a leader in the world, to be a leader of freedom and liberty with a legitimate claim to moral guidance and direction - then Americans must demand that their government adopt and practice a new kind of American exceptionalism. America must not use its force and influence to merely gain power for its own interests, but must instead accomplish the things its politicians so forcefully endorse but do not pursue: greater liberty, greater freedom, greater choice, greater openness, and greater democracy, under the law, with true equality for all people.

America must be exceptional in its compassion, in its empathy, and in its forgiveness. America must be exceptional in its patience, in its purpose, and in its sacrifice. If America is fighting three wars to remain a great nation, let's be entirely sure what kind of greatness is worth the lives of our soldiers and the lives of innocent civilians in the countries where we fight. Isn't it a waste to destroy so many lives if all we are doing will only ensure that America remains a great economic power or a great military power? Isn't it a tragedy that so many lives have ended in the name of naked brute force and the almighty dollar alone?

There is no more exceptional sacrifice for a cause than the relinquishing of a human life. Perhaps Americans should remember that unrelenting fact before demanding further sacrifice of that highest kind for any cause which is less than fully exceptional.

For the good of the world, and for the good of its own people, especially for those sent to fight and die in our conflicts, America must be exceptional in its adherence to law, exceptional in its concern for the well-being of its own people and for the peoples of other nations, and exceptional in its undying commitment to the principles of freedom and liberty which have justified, but do not yet govern, American actions.

Doubt and Atheism as Faith

2011-05-13T12:44:00.022-04:00

Comparisons between religion and atheism are typically more a matter of rhetoric than logic and a matter of emotion more than measured analysis. There is not a single assertion about religious or philosophical thought which will not offend someone. While I will do my best in this post to be fair and consistent, I am certain it will inevitably disturb. If that possibility is too much for you, please do not read what follows.

I am continually disappointed that people parade their own knowledge and their own experience as the pinnacle of absolute truth. I am thankfully not alone. There are both religious and non-religious people who agree with me that each person should express his or her own views in humility, taking caution to remember the limited perspective and knowledge of each human being.

People of many creeds and traditions have adopted and cultivated an active sense of doubt. While individuals often disagree on which things they doubt and which things they accept, there is a consensus that each person should doubt all opinions equally and persistently.

Some people who are not religious believe in doubt so strongly that they refuse to claim belief in any faith. Those who would undermine the supremacy of doubt as a value often reply that doubt itself is also a faith, as strong as any religion. This accusation begs the question of what constitutes a faith.

It is difficult to say with any certainty precisely what faith is, which is fitting, given the difficulty in providing any absolute definition of an individual faith, such as Christianity or Islam. I realize it is dangerous to claim that beliefs are a faith before I have discovered what makes something a faith. I must admit I already have assumptions about what makes a belief a faith.

For me, a faith begins as an idea. An idea is some sort of guess about the world, some kind of hunch. A belief is an idea that one accepts strongly, and I view faith as an even stronger form of belief. Doubt is definitely a belief, because it is a pervasive idea with an extremely high number of applications. I disagree, though, that doubt alone is a strong enough belief to be a faith.

When I was in a class called "Contemporary Political Thought" last semester, a friend of mine and I had a very similar argument. He claimed that "if you state that all truth is provisional, you have asserted an absolute truth, so you can't really say that everything is provisional because it self-contradicts". I responded by stating that if the idea that truth is provisional can itself be contradicted by evidence, then it is not an absolute claim. The test of absoluteness is not whether a belief claims that it applies universally, but whether it could be hypothetically overturned by evidence at some point and then no longer apply universally.

I believe that a faith is something that claims to apply universally, but cannot be demonstrated by evidence. A faith is a belief so strong that it cannot be falsified by evidence; it is beyond even contradiction or non-contradiction. No one can challenge it rationally. This distinction is why atheists will turn funny colors and foam at the mouth a little bit if you claim that atheism is a faith. Perhaps a very strong atheism is a faith - I agree that the non-existence of any supernatural or metaphysical presence cannot be falsified by evidence. However, a weaker atheism, which asserts that only as a condition of the lack of evidence for supernatural forces, that one should not accept supernatural forces, does seem entirely different from the concept of a faith, in that its conclusions are not so strong that they could never be challenged by direct evidence.

That so many religious people claim that "people of faith" are every bit as capable of doubt as non-religious people is fine. It's a valid claim. By definition, you can only doubt a belief that is falsifiable. I also believe, however, that it is worthy of debate whether a person should believe in something which no possible evidence can disprove. I do not have any problems with this sort of belief on principle, as long as its practitioners acknowledge that it is a belief beyond the bounds of rationality and non-rationality. When people use their religion to make scientific or historical claims, those claims entirely undermine the concept of faith. A religion underpinned by scientific or historical claims should not be recognized as a faith, but as an ideology.

And in practice, religious ideologies often use their untestable claims to support actions which damage and hurt peoples' lives, because the ideology claims absolute superiority for itself and does not act in humility, and does not recognize its own limited knowledge. Very strong atheism is one of these negative ideologies, and also harms people - I already accept this to be true. When people absolutely believe that religion is a negative force in the world, there is much good and positive benefit that is ignored.

It is important to state, however, that atheism and doubt are not necessarily a faith. If you wish to challenge atheism, please challenge it not with insults, but with a response to its claims. Just as it is not fair to insist that religion should be accepted unless it meets the standards of rationality, it is unfair to insist that atheism is necessarily a faith. By definition, it is true that faith is not necessarily about evidence, and that atheism is not necessarily a faith. When challenging an idea, one must first understand what the idea means, and then challenge the meaning of the idea as it is understood by those who accept it. Only once you have responded to the claims of an idea that it actually makes, should you pretend to have made a serious intellectual challenge!

Is there anything directly wrong with faith? Not necessarily. Sometimes, there are questions people have about meaning, about values, about things outside the boundaries of science, which are almost impossible to answer but demand an answer. Occasionally, there are questions which may never have one right answer that can be rationally confirmed. Perhaps some moral and ethical principles are a faith - but perhaps they are not a faith. Perhaps there is rational evidence available to ground our values and ethics. May we never know for sure? Certainly. That's why I'm not certain.

Is Evolution Consistent with God's Love? (Part One)

2011-05-12T11:15:00.004-04:00

Both Christian fundamentalists and ardent atheist popularizers assert that evolution and religious faith are incompatible. Both forces assert that an individual cannot accept a full understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection and accept the truth of Christianity.

When I was in high school, two friends of mine kept asking me how I reconciled evolution and God. I was a liberal Protestant, and they were vocal atheists. I swore up and down that their critiques unfairly represented my idea of God.

My friends would repeatedly ask me other things such as "how can you be a Christian if the Bible hates gay people?" or "how can you be friends with us if the Bible tells you not to mix with nonbelievers?". I kept telling my friends that the Christianity I affirmed was all about the love of God - with all other principles below it. The love of Jesus came to replace the focus of the Old Testament, which was solely on God's laws, instead of God's love.

I believed that loving people without regard for their sexuality expressed God's love. I believed that befriending people without regard for their religious ideas expressed God's love. I also believed that God used evolution to create the world, which He loves.

I still believe that an intelligent and perceptive reader of the Bible is under no obligation to accept that God could not have created the world through evolution. The stories in Genesis, properly understood, are literary narratives, not literal accounts. The interpretation of the creation stories Genesis has never prevented me from reconciling Christianity and evolution.

What has prevented me from reconciling Christianity and evolution is God's love, the same thing which allowed me to say I believed I could love people without regard for their sexuality or religion. I do believe that the Christian God could have created the world through evolution - I do not believe that a loving God could have. This is the biggest question for me on the subject of evolution and Christianity: is a Christian God, who creates our world through evolution, a loving God?

Racist. Sexist. Homophobes.

2011-05-10T20:35:00.001-04:00

I love college. Part of why I love college is because I am fortunate enough to revel in new experiences, to hear new ideas and grasp their implications, and to discuss and expand my ideas with other people who have different backgrounds or values.

I am currently enrolled in a class called "The History of the Modern Conservative Movement". I decided to take this class because it was in my major, and also because I am an avowedly fierce liberal. I wanted to hear the "other team's" take. I wanted to better understand conservatives and their ideas.

My professor, politically speaking, can match my liberal beliefs with his conservative beliefs, blow for blow. He doesn't usually advocate for his beliefs in class, but rather uses the lectures to deliver an understanding of events which the "conservative movement" would espouse.

I am extremely committed to understanding other people's beliefs. How so, you may ask? I agreed to take this class once a week from 8:10 PM to 10:40 PM at night. That's right - PM, not AM. Honestly, it's probably a good thing, because if I was more awake, it would be harder to restrain myself from vehement disagreement (just kidding, just kidding).

Several weeks ago, I was listening to our professor deliver his lecture, when he lamented that conservatives are constantly, unfairly portrayed and vilified by the media and by liberals as "racists, sexists, and homophobes".

Is this an unfair accusation? No, I believe it is an entirely fair charge. I find plenty of evidence to substantiate the accusations.

Please observe the virulent, entirely over-the-top outright hatred for President Obama. The demeaning, racially-charged nicknames. The implied foreignness and otherness expressed in the ridiculous campaign to assert that the President was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii.

Note the ludicrous statement by Senator Jon Kyl (R-what else?, AZ) that women could receive pap smears at Walgreen's, that 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion, a blatantly false exaggeration, even if it was "not intended to be a factual statement" - which itself is a ludicrous assertion.

Even worse are the efforts of Republican Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana to end all public funding for Planned Parenthood in his state, an action which displays an outright contempt for women's health.

Bemoan the foul river of accusation and negative portrayal of homosexuals. The statement of a Tea Party leader that a condition for raising the debt ceiling should be the reinstitution of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the removal of woman from the military. Witness the absolutely stubborn and close-minded refusal by many people to recognize that you are a human being with the same fundamental rights, no matter what gender you are or who you love.

That's not all. Let's tackle some other "unfair accusations" conservatives have decried.

My professor also resented that conservatives have been labeled as "reactionaries".

Let's examine the mad-cap rush to screw the poor and the elderly and reward the rich, evidenced not only in the provisions of the Paul Ryan plan, but in Republican economic policy over the last 30 years. See the rampant hypocrisy in the fight over deficits: Republicans insist that the deficit is an immediate and overwhelming problem, but refuse to take any steps to raise revenue. An absolute refusal to raise taxes is as reactionary a stance as any in American politics; if that stance is not reactionary, then the word itself has lost all meaning.

Conservatives will stop being called racists, sexists, homophobes, and reactionaries only when they purge the elements of their coalition that are racist, sexist, homophobic, and reactionary! A mere whitewashing and meaningless rebranding of history (and language itself) may work in some isolated cases, but Americans will ultimately see through the charades, if President Obama and other liberals will quit relenting their positions, commitments, and promises.

I'm not only speaking as a liberal, but also I speak as an American. Our country cannot allow the whitewashing and implicit censorship of our political and historical records. We cannot allow our history to perish from the Earth, or our democracy shall soon follow it.

The Poem Not Written

2011-05-09T21:51:00.009-04:00

The Poem Not Written

I once tried to write a modern poem.

It was well struck –

Plucked like the string of a harp.

Dammit, that's one old object.

If you harp on my diction,

My words will metastasize.

A modern poem should mesmerize -

A quick hit to the gut,

An ephemeral sensation.

Ephemeral sounds old, too:

The humor is there

In the strangeness of our times,

That time’s very passage

Should fall behind the prevailing tides.

My words are lusty, light, and quick -

And it’s the style to speak before I think,

And style must go before I think.

The Prism of all Beauty

2011-05-04T01:17:00.021-04:00

I must warn you, that I am not the type for revelations. But who is? Have you ever met someone who’s had a revelation who was the type for it? Or heard of someone? Of course not – revelation in its very nature is entirely unexpected. Archimedes never expected to solve calculus problems in his bathtub, as I am sure his neighbors never rightly expected to see a naked Archimedes running wildly through the streets. And yet, I have had a minor revelation. I was sitting in my bed, thinking about the movie “Up”, and how it hit me so close to home, when I realized something important.

Humor is distance. It is the distance between pain and reconciliation - it is the path a beam of light travels from emptiness to solid form. Humor is a prism – you can see the light running through it and view at first-hand all the colors of human emotion. In that emotional distance, you can see everything: tears and sadness, regret, happiness, betrayal, excitement, anxiety, joy.

Humor is a way to cover up the void, or at least, to cover up what seems to be a void. But the secret to humor is that there really isn’t a void there, after all. I mean, it may seem that way once or twice, or maybe a few times, but when you keep checking, the void disappears. I’ll show you what I mean:

There’s a void, and it could be empty. And you would say, why is the void always empty? And I would say, why does it matter – look how quickly it fills again. The void just fills and refills, the finite running through the infinite, the light running through the prism and allowing its reflections to bounce off of all objects.

Or you would say, why do you suppose there is a void at all? Isn’t there always something filled, so how could it be empty? What kind of a fool would you have to be to believe in an empty space? That’s the joke, really – the joke is that it doesn’t actually matter whether there is an empty space or not. It really doesn’t matter whether there is a void or not, at the end of everything, mostly because it’s always being filled…whether it’s filled with love or compassion or sympathy or understanding or brotherhood…it doesn’t really matter what was there before, but only what is going into it.

And I suppose that’s why I am a humanist. I see light pouring in from all sides – although I must acknowledge I do not know what was here before. For me, it is a mystery – and it is enough to say that there is a void and that it is being filled up, like the beginning of a joke followed by a punchline, or despair followed by consolation. And I see all kinds of beautiful strains of light pouring into the world, beautiful stained glass revelations from every creed and tradition, overflowing with wisdom and compassion.

Before I was here, there was nothing to tell you what I am telling you. Now I am here. That is enough for me. I know my family and friends will ask me, how can you see the light in this world and not acknowledge its beauty? Please believe me, I do. It is beautiful, and ghastly, and haunting.

I can imagine it with some difficulty, as is usually fitting for these sorts of experiences. I begin to imagine that everything which has ever been imagined does not exist. Then it exists, and it is incredible, and stunning - and then I realize, too, that none of it may ever exist again. I don’t know where it comes from, and I don’t know where it’s going. All I know is that I am surrounded by this beautiful light and I want to fill this seemingly empty and desolate canvass with all of its gorgeous shades and pastels, to pass something surreal through that great void and create beauty again.

The Salvation of Mystery

2011-04-30T12:53:00.032-04:00

The other day, I finally realized what post-modernism signifies. Post-modernism introduces an ambiguity, an uncertainty, a series of paradoxes into the understanding of everyday language and experience. I have witnessed a profound distaste for this probing and inquisitiveness, and I have directly shared this hesitation.

For a long time, I have viewed forms of post-modernism as empty, meaningless, and unnecessarily skeptical. To ask things like, 'what is the meaning of truth', 'who is the Other', and 'who are the People in "We the People"'? What's the point?

This rogue questioning seems to be a silly exercise - it ignores finding a solution to problems such as violence and poverty in favor of analyzing how we discuss problems such as violence and poverty.

Besides, isn't focusing on the problems themselves enough? The human race does, after all, have a great expertise for solving problems. Humanity has exercised a tremendous capacity for knowledge and discovery. Should I reject or cast doubt upon the workings of science and technology which have brought such monumental greatness and convenience into my life?

I am disturbed by the urgings of post-modernism, but I have realized something: I need this disturbance in my life -- and I have not yet begun to be disturbed enough.

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword." - Jesus, Matthew 10:34

Today, societies have unprecedented access to knowledge of the external world around us. From the smallest imaginable wonders reached through nanotechnology to the eerily beautiful images shown from the largest echoes of space by the Hubble Telescope, humanity has a more significant grasp on reality than ever before.

Or so we think...and so we tell ourselves.

I have started to embrace post-modernism because it demands that we re-ask these questions of ourselves. So let me ask you again, not what kind of grasp you have on reality, but what kind of grasp reality has on you?

Said another way: Do you have an internal knowledge of yourself which equals your knowledge of the external world?

"What is truth?" - Pontius Pilate, John 18:38

Many post-modernists have expressed skepticism about the existence of a universal and absolute truth. Many religious people have expressed strong dismay about post-modernism because of this skepticism. Religious figures have reasoned that any skepticism about a universal truth would naturally extend to skepticism about the truth of religion, which is often claimed to be absolute and universal in nature.

I believe this skepticism of skepticism is unwarranted. (Skepticism of skepticism? Isn't that just the kind of unnecessarily complicated phrase a true post-modernist would use? What is it about post-modernism which erodes the use of language? What better evidence that what questions does in fact erode!)

The skepticism (from religious people) of the skepticism (of post-modernists) is not warranted because both religion and post-modernism share some of their most important values and perspectives on the world.

Mystery Enters the World

I'm not a Christian. But I am willing to accept that a fellow named Jesus very likely existed at some point, and could have done many of the things described in the Bible.

In the Gospels, Jesus vigorously questions the religious authorities of his day. The Pharisees constantly attempt to pin Jesus down on legalities to destroy his credibility.

Jesus denied that the prominent religious figures of his day had a monopoly on universal and absolute truth. He did not come to ease their understanding - he did not come to reassure their prejudices - he did not come to bring peace, but to bring a sword, and he did not come to bring simplicity, but to bring mystery.

Both religion and post-modernism introduce a mystery and an uncertainty into our mundane, everyday world which forces individuals to confront the structure and meaning of their inner-most, firmly-held beliefs and attitudes.

Both religion and post-modernism can lead the pilgrim into a voyage of re-examination, from which emerges a new life full of vitality and hope.

Mystery's Final Ascension

Where is the hope from mystery? Where is the light in this darkness?

The answer is the power of human imagination. Both religion and post-modernism imagine new meanings and new interpretations of life - both envision new alternatives to choose, and actively confront humanity with those choices.

Both religion and post-modernism resurrect what they divide: beneath the multiplicity and diversity of meanings lies a common connection. As words and concepts used to segment and oppose human beings are undermined, a new possibility of existence is realized.

No more Jew and Gentile, no more man and woman...

No more I and Other, no more black and white...

Both post-modernism and religion can free individuals from oppression and encourage them to see beyond the superficial differences which all too often consume humanity, to see new conditions of human life, where all individuals are free to pursue their creative potential as human beings.

Both Jesus Christ and Friedrich Nietzsche can tell you that underneath truth, there is life.

What Are Liberal Values?

2011-04-28T19:18:00.039-04:00

What Are Liberal Values?

I am currently taking a class called "History of the Modern Conservative Movement". My professor is an ardent conservative. He usually does not engage directly in political arguments during class, but he occasionally challenges liberal ideas in an indirect and subtle way. He'll offer a conservative attack on a liberal idea, and then say "this is what conservatives tend to think, not necessarily what I think - and you're taking this class to hear the conservative view, so here you go".

My professor addressed the following challenge to liberals during the first month of class, and I have been considering how to answer his questions since then:

"A conservative recognizes the same rights that have been traditionally recognized by thinkers such as John Locke: life, liberty, and property. Also, a conservative believes that these rights are not given by the government - but by an external source. I always want to ask liberals this: what is your vision of the country? Where would you stop if you could have your ultimate wishes? Conservatives know what kind of country they want - with the protection of the same traditional rights which have been the heritage of America since the Founding. But liberals keep trying to create new 'rights'. Where will you stop? You can see that there may be a kind of validity to Hayek's argument that once citizens depend on the government for more and more 'rights', the government can become oppressive."

Why do liberals keep trying to invent new rights? This is the wrong question.

What's the right question?

Why aren't conservatives doing more to preserve and secure the rights they cherish?

That's the correct question.

Securing Our Rights

Life. Liberty. Property. That's a celebrated trifecta - a trilogy - a trinity - and it seems simple and convenient enough to understand. If you're an American, you heard about it from Thomas Jefferson, who scribbled something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" once upon a time.

Isn't it enough that the government assist individuals in their pursuit of these three things? Why should the government do otherwise? Government is inherently oppressive - the less it does, the better the country.

Point taken - let's start there. Suppose you want to establish a government solely devoted to ensuring the rights of life, liberty, and property. Let's assume that the government should only intervene in cases where the public cannot accomplish a task effectively on its own, and the task relates directly to one of our big three times: life, liberty, or property. For each right, let's assess the capacity of individuals to secure the right on their own, without the intervention of government, and see if it's plausible for a government to take any additional measures to secure those rights.

Life

The right to life is the right to personal security. If society is enmeshed in a condition of anarchy and lawlessness, the right to life may be extremely difficult to secure. Can private citizens secure law and order successfully without the aid of a government? Perhaps - to a limited extent and for a small scale. A voluntary association of citizens could access a certain supply of small arms and protect a smaller area. However, most people lack the resources to defend themselves against more threatening fears, such as a conventional military or terrorist attack.

Another option is to establish a corporation which individuals pay to protect them. However, it would be difficult to distinguish in an emergency who paid dues and who did not. Further, by failing to address a public threat only because someone did not pay for protection, there could be harm to those who did pay. It would be far more practical to establish a police force or a military. I feel that this assertion is non-controversial, and that the majority of conservatives would agree with me on this.

Liberty

Liberty is a difficult concept to understand. It's not a tangible object, like life or property. Alexis de Tocqueville noted this in "Democracy in America", when contrasting public support for liberty and equality: because equality is more tangible and easier to understand, there is a danger that the public will always favor measures which bolster equality at the cost of weakening liberty.

Unfortunately, the problem is even worse than de Tocqueville imagined. The public also is liable to favor measures which bolster security at the cost of weakening liberty. However, this assertion cuts across many political ideologies. I know conservatives and liberals who are wildly opposed across political issues who would make this same argument regarding the dangers of abandoning liberty in the name of security. The funny thing about this phenomenon is that it is completely foreseeable. The culprit here is that there is a wide variety of definitions of liberty.

I told you liberty was a renegade. How many possible human activities can you imagine? That's how many definitions of the word 'liberty' exist today.

Rights as Restraints

This quibble over the meaning of the word 'liberty' leads me to an important point about the understanding of rights: many of the Enlightenment thinkers believed that rights can only be secured when the actions of other people are restrained. My professor for History of the Modern Conservative Movement put it this way: "our Founders believed that with every right comes a certain responsibility".

It's no wonder liberty is preposterously hard to grasp - it's an internally contradictory concept. Every person who uses the word 'liberty' has a hidden assumption of which kinds of behavior citizens should have liberty to choose. Generally, it has been suggested that the proper limit on action should be taken when an action would infringe on another person's life, liberty, or property. Said another way: you can basically have the liberty to do what you want until you take away someone else's liberty.

Let's assume we can decide that the type of liberty we should protect is the kind that does not take away someone else's liberty - that's a simple enough definition. Now let's return to the original premise of our discussion: what should be done to secure liberty (as we have defined it), and who should be in charge of those efforts?

Reconsidering Liberty

To secure liberty as we have defined it (that individuals should have the liberty to do all things which do not remove someone else's rights) - let's try to identify some actions which may or may not violate liberty, and decide on that basis whether they are permissible. To secure liberty, we should want to stop actions which erode it.

Does abortion violate rights? If the fetus is a person, then it has a certain set of rights which should be considered. However, the mother is also a person who has a certain set of rights, too. When does the personhood of the fetus eclipse the right to liberty a woman has over her own body?

Does the death penalty violate rights? If a person has been convicted of murder, that individual has already violated another person's liberty. Should the government violate a person's rights just because he or she did it first-isn't that fighting a wrong with a wrong? Or, should the government remove the liberty of a criminal to protect the liberty of the public?

Does a ban on online gambling violate rights?

Does a ban on marijuana violate rights?

Does a ban on same-sex marriage violate rights?

I hope you are beginning to understand the difficulty of weighing liberty against other rights. It is an extremely serious and delicate matter to consider just how far a government should act to limit the actions of individuals in order to protect the liberty of other citizens. Where is the balance between the greatest freedom of action and the strongest possible security of the rights of others?

I have heard conservatives argue this one way and I have heard liberals argue this another way, but both sides should agree that the question is a matter of balance and difficult to discern.

A Return to Our Premise

I mentioned earlier that there are two questions hanging over this exploration of rights:

1. Why do liberals keep trying to invent new rights?
2. Why aren't conservatives doing more to preserve and secure the rights they cherish?

It may appear that liberals accept a broader number of rights besides the major three enumerated traditionally: life, liberty, and property. However, I reject this view. I believe that liberals have a different perception of what is necessary to preserve and secure life, liberty, and property.

A liberal assumes that each right is dependent on a host of others. A liberal has a more extensive idea of what each of the three traditional natural rights entails.

If a bank forecloses on my home because they offered fraudulent mortgage terms, my right to property is violated.

If a corporation imported goods from China which contained poisonous lead, and I fall ill from ingesting it, my right to life is violated.

If the institution of public education is dismantled, and my ability to participate in civic processes in an engaged manner is therefore lacking, my right to liberty is violated.

A 'right to health care' is a right to life. A 'right to education' is a right to liberty. A 'right to consumer protection' is a right to life and a right to property, depending on the case. This is obvious, intuitive, and self-evident to liberals.

Does it make sense that these things are natural extensions of the rights to life, liberty, and property? Can a coherent notion of the rights to life, liberty, and property exist without guaranteeing those conditions which allow them to flourish?

A liberal doesn't want new rights: a liberal wants to secure the rights we have, and is dismayed when conservatives refuse to act to protect those rights for all Americans.

psychoanalysis

2011-04-28T08:50:00.000-04:00

"psychoanalysis"

present an issue clearly and concisely

get a new perspective

probably just a lunatic

maybe that means trouble for me

a more interesting connection there

short and to the point

reject everything up to this point

can I give a more spirited defense

a certain product of history

a critical eye to the reasons you believe

very illuminating

stay on board

standing alone

on a metaphysical plane

closer to the real world

a better idea for life

actual life-happenings

because it’s easy and simple

so much more than that

take it and expand it

so many aspects of life

very abstract principles

life is like a box of chocolates

come to terms with reality

become silent and face our own existence

what if I were one of these thinkers?

in what way would I have responded?

culturally ingrained in us

we have to understand why

reactions and responses

something very different than what I was exposed to

unusual

it goes back farther than that

I was shocked

I’ve got thick skin

you’ve got to be able to dish it out as well as take it

now it sounds like bullshit

real convincing

don’t start throwing things at me

it’s got its good and bad things

the nuts and bolts

probably my fault

a springboard to rant

time-bound

focused on a specific period and a specific grievance

very frenzied

stops and starts

a double value...a figure paradoxical

2011-04-26T14:15:00.001-04:00

"a double value...a figure paradoxical"

kneeling

suffering

revolting against what's happening

grab the truth in that moment

can't verbalize it

different views

desire to come to the truth

a bold undertaking

forever and as of this morning it hasn't been resolved

you can't grasp otherwise

unveil a secret to something that you can't have

can't explicate it in words

make preparations

the teacher says my appointed time is near

truly I tell you one of you will betray me

you have said so

this is my body

poured out for many

fruit of the vine

drink anew

bring into the present

with his right hand

hands have to be washed

there's so much here

a whole process

raising the body above the earth

holy and pure

let me just interrupt you

going to be assaulted

my appointed time is near

not a regular guy

heavens opened up

you've experienced the future

touched eternity

part of a greater drama

at the same time

that resignation

belongs to a higher truth

a new truth

I'm just coming up with this now

puzzling

all these conflicting forces

gestures lead the eye

we have a new truth in the universe

the whole world is coming into that truth

let's go onto the next

when you come into it

it overwhelms you

we look at it as outsiders

give me an insight

you said absolutely nothing right now

no deeper meaning

you have your tension but it's not fulfilled yet

coming close but not quite touching

the truth versus the betrayal

a love-hate relationship

what do they have in common?

participating in a drama which is going to give God to mankind

two wires just about to touch and set off a spark but they don't

that's as far as I can see in this

an illusion retained in shadow as to a moment unborn

2011-04-18T08:55:00.003-04:00

"an illusion retained in shadow as to a moment unborn"

despair and hope

always together

blood and new life

this side is lighter and that side is darker

participate in the passion

co-existence of despair and hope

blood, death, and life

open to redemption

darkness into light

death passes into resurrection

despair comes into hope

it is now real

the end of darkness is not darkness

you have life after death

this is what I think

heaven is already present

a single truth

between life and death

articulated in different dramas

it's the same truth

collapse into it

it's already happening right now

it's even stronger

this is it

everything's pushed towards you

you are encountering this and becoming part of it

absorbing those who look upon it

* This is another found spoken word poem, which I have composed this time courtesy of Professor Gershon Greenberg and his Meaning and Purpose in the Arts class, from lecture and discussions of April 14, 2011. The same other stipulations which I mentioned as a footnote to my last found spoken word poem apply here.

** The title of this poem is an excerpted sentence fragment from Leo Steinberg's essay of artistic criticism about Leonardo's Last Supper, "The Seven Functions of the Hands of Christ".

Dear Editor

2011-04-11T00:53:00.003-04:00

"Dear Editor"

So you’d like to personally invite,

With dull generic forms that lack insight,

Yours truly to watch revealed beauty

Derived by editorial duty.

Your magazine, loaded with amazing

Works you selected – although encasing

The realms of ideal form – excludes poor me.

So you’d love me to attend your party,

To affirm your submitters’ work – indeed! –

As your lifeblood; though mine, you did not need.

Since I’m skeptical that you can’t respire

Without my poems, which you don’t admire,

I somehow lack the pretense required

To believe my presence is desired.

long story short

2011-04-08T08:45:00.004-04:00

"long story short"

binary of two forces

one force in opposition to another

a multitude of different oppositions

understand the power dynamic

just about anything

share those resources

a cultural bias at work

asserting itself

totalizing itself

homogenized to look this way

differences are papered over

giving the face of something that should be feared

looking at that lens at work

close the borders

try to alleviate

suffering from the disease

as the other or as the same

determine the motivations

lack of education

this is why we help

the notion is transformed

remains in place

establishing what it meant

distinguished itself

define ourselves

a region of the world

imagine one that would not do what he opposes

interconnected as it is

sovereign within its own sphere

we have some kind of obligation

we are going to make judgments

the paradigm through which we think

considered itself the center of the world

there is no homogenous, totalizing group

there is some truth in this

you need to just get used to it

you are born in a world and you can accept it or change it

language is elastic

accidents

mistakes

not the end-all, be-all

the body of work

a major weakness

a system that allows them to come about in a fast manner

you are involved in the process

I am still making decisions

as a matter of form

at some point you have to evaluate me

I think that’s where I’m going

I hope we are able to tie up our loose ends

humor me

pretend you’ve learned something useful

* This is a found spoken word poem which I have composed, courtesy of Professor Shanaysha Sauls of American University and her Contemporary Political Thought class, and reinterpreted from the lecture and discussions in class on April 7th, 2011. The words and sentence fragments themselves, as far as I am able to record them, are accurate and in chronological order, although I have heavily excerpted and fragmented them for poetic quality and themes.

** I would prefer to present the text of this poem in a format which is center-aligned, but I am not sure if this is possible in Blogger.

Affirmation

2011-03-27T15:45:00.000-04:00

"Affirmation"

It’s a slap in the face to see what blooms

When a cold snap rustles against my cheek.

Harsh winds resent my gumption which presumes

That Spring’s in the world; as the love I seek

Is yet still-born as it is unfolding,

This new life bears witness to a shiver.

As I endure callous Nature’s scolding,

The chill recedes as I redeliver

A verdict upon blustery despair.

My vision swells, sense reawakening

The thankfulness that I will persevere

Among this resilient, budding, pulsing,

Lively, joyous struggle: all-consuming,

Never ending—always overcoming.

A New(er) Poem: Testify

2011-02-22T19:45:00.000-05:00

"Testify"

On haunting, starry nights in Bethlehem,

Plucking out an eye, rather than an ear--

Prophets, priests, and poets attest their craft.

But some, ensnared by patterns and pictures

Of airy canvass, instead seek palettes

Divinely gripped with pastel-plastered hands.

In vistas beneath the Arc de Triomphe

Of the mind, there a forgotten mystic

Applies a glimpse of passion by his brush:

Some speck of love and trauma depicts the

Highest joy in this transitory world--

That change is the one medium of love.

The brush flickers, embers burning boldly.

Their glow reveals an ever hidden spark

Which burns in those whose darkness lights the sky.

Surrender, Surrender (But Don't Give Yourself Away)

2011-02-20T14:30:00.001-05:00

"Surrender, surrender, but don't give yourself away". - "Surrender", by Cheap Trick, © 1978

I have already affirmed the contest between change and stability as the greatest conflict in human life. Many other essential conflicts of human existence spring from this: the contest between the individual and society, between individuals and a relationship, between individuals and their religion, between individuals and morality, between individuals and ideology.

What does it mean to exist in such confusion? What does it mean to be an individual when one's very existence can only be defined in terms of its attachment to other, larger groups? What does it mean to live as one person in a world dominated by forces greater and more complex than any single human being?

It's fun to pretend that individuals can live only for themselves. We're all rational human beings, with perfect information at our disposal, considering all our options carefully, and then making the best decision for us. Our thoughts, our beliefs, our actions, our language, and the very words we use to express our innermost sensations, belong primarily to us first and foremost: they're not products of our environment, the groups to which we belong, or any long and tedious processes over which we have little to no control. We individuals like to imagine that we are more powerful than we are, but we are wrong.

What is the price of this knowledge? Have we sold our uniqueness and worth as individuals? Have we given away the sanctity of a precious human life?

No. We surrender, and surrender, but we do not give ourselves away.

I surrender to those groups in which I belong, to all those groups which make my life possible and meaningful. My parents, my family, my peers, everyone I've ever met: you gave me norms, values, ideas, words, and symbols -- you equipped me and gave me my power, gave me my ability to interpret this world and to shape it in my own image. And yet, this image toward which I shape the world is not just my own, but it also belongs to all of you, because you have given me the image of the world which I hold now.

I surrender some of my desires and goals, my resources, my aims and ends, because I have agreed to participate in a project which is greater than myself. When it is late at night and there are no cars in the streets, I stop at traffic lights until I receive the proper signal. I register for the Selective Service, which means I am eligible to be drafted into the military should my country ever decide again to mandate citizens to fight its wars. This summer, I worked a minimum wage job in the fast food industry to help pay for college, and some of my earnings went to pay taxes which support an entire system of government.

But I do not give myself away. Because who am I anyway? After all, I am society; I am a relationship; I am a religion; I am a morality; and I am an ideology. I express my individuality through the collective character I share with others. I accomplish my individual goals and ambitions because I am motivated by values which are instilled in me by other people, that I share with other people, and which serve common ends and common interests. A true individual must always, when acting in his or her own interest, strive to remember how this interest is inseparably and inextricably linked with the interests of others.

Yes, I am in one sense a self-made man. But I'm not the only self that's made it.

Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Wish to Live

2011-02-19T17:35:00.001-05:00

What are the highest values in life? What ideas provide guidance for the best possible living? What is the inspiration which accords the best template for living, for fully realizing our potential as human beings?

Friedrich Nietzsche mentions the "will to power" as a force which has "succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life". Is this "will to power", though, merely a description of how the world works, of how life exists, or is it also a normative statement (an outline of how life should be lived)? Should we live only according to our instincts? Does living against the pattern of our instincts hopelessly obscure and defeat life itself? Or, rather, does life only begin to soar once it transcends our basic instincts for higher goals?

Which parts of the "will to power" should be embraced by society? Nietzsche repeatedly asserts that those conditions which enable life to flourish should be promoted. But what does it mean for life to flourish? Does life flourish when it is restrained, or when it is constricted; does life flourish only when it is maintained and managed, or only when it is free and independent? What does it mean to preserve and enhance life? And what kinds of life does Nietzsche value?

Nietzsche objects to those who place more emphasis on suffering in this life, in exchange for a better future life, than on experiencing life in the present world. But for many people, the experience of life essentially contains suffering - and suffering really can be described as the origin of life. Perhaps suffering is the main mode of life, after all: not the "will to power", but the "will to suffer" predominates, or perhaps the "will to power" is also a "will to suffer". Lastly, perhaps Nietzsche is not really against an acknowledgment of suffering, but merely disagrees as to what manner people should direct their suffering.

A preacher here on campus has suggested that God created the world in an act of love as suffering. I have heard it said, "to love someone truly, you must allow them to have the chance to make you suffer".

Did God create the world in an act of love as suffering? Even if there is no God, is this the essential state of our world as it exists now? Does all the world in the world owe its existence to some form of suffering?

And who would punish a lover for one's own love, if there is a God who has created such a world? Jesus in the Gospels tells the parable of the prodigal son. The father allows the son to experience life on his own terms, and allows the son to suffer the consequences of his actions. Would a loving God allow us to suffer merely as a consequence of Its actions, merely because a world was created wherein we humans were given this life which has built itself upon our suffering?

To love is in part to suffer. And suffer I do, as we all do...adrenaline, oxytocin, estrogen...coursing through the channels of my soul, of every "soul". Chemicals corrode my soul, yet they restore my body. My body atones for my soul. These hapless emotions, what poor excuse of a being am I? Too far gone in this world. Too near-sighted for the things to come. Not spiritual enough. Too human.

That lustful glance is the adultery of my spirit. But not to glance is the adultery of my body. To glance, to live: to commit adultery of the mind, or the heart? I have been ripped to shreds and torn apart, glued together again, haphazardly...this is the way life has developed over billions of years, ripping and tearing itself apart, to time and time again, build things that are newer and stranger, odd and more odd are these evolved creatures, these "thinking things" that are called human beings. This is the worst and the best that I am. I give my love, I give my pain, and I give my innocence...all in the name of life.

This is what God gave me, if it was indeed a divine gift...my own freedom, my own shame; my own love, my own suffering. All that and less: some of the things He gave me I'm apparently supposed to disown. In the name of a Higher Life. In the name of a Higher Love, and a Higher Truth.

Pilot washed his hands before he condemned Jesus. Did God wash His mind in the hormones of our psyches before condemning us?

If God exists, then God should commend evil instead of condemning it, for this evil has propelled us to life. We love ourselves. We love our family. We love our tribe, our sect, our friends. This is evil, since we love them for their suffering, because only that has brought us into this world and continually sustains us. Perhaps someday, when we remember the suffering that endures and surrounds us, the suffering that has created life in all its stark beauty and terror, then we will love our neighbor as ourselves, most of all because they suffer as we suffer.

February Evening

2011-02-11T00:17:00.000-05:00

I tread lightly, as I am underneath a luscious purple sky on a vivid, frigid evening.

I do not belong here. I am a vagrant: I am the monk wondering aimlessly through the desert. This hermit does not belong there. He has taken a vow of silence. His words do not belong there.

A few of the street lights are broken, extinguished. They do not belong here. The night has returned to its splendor; it is uninterrupted, free, and hidden once again.

The trees are illuminated, their branches all too barren and exposed. The leaves do not belong here. They have had their splendor; for now they have vanished, though more will take their place.

And so it is with me. The streets are empty and devoid of life, but in just a few hours, they'll be thronging with cars and buses and people, haphazardly making their way. And the streets will not belong to me.

I tread lightly, for underneath me is the residue of abandoned civilizations and demolished ecosystems.

I do not belong here. I am a wonderer: as I glance toward the ever distant stars, I remember that I have traveled a path I cannot reverse. I am star stuff, glimpsing at my past, in swirling points of light. But I do not belong there.

For a countless time I walk alone, unnoticed. I do not belong here. The sun rises and the day reigns, the spring arrives and the leaves regenerate, and I am not required.

The past is illuminated, its branches barren and exposed. Its accounts do not belong here. They who walked and wondered and spoke have had their splendor; for now they have vanished, though more will take their place.

And so it is with me. My tongue is still and devoid of speech, but for just a few moments, my words will be thronging in ears and minds and memories, haphazardly making their way. And my words will not belong to me.

What I'd Say If I Used Twitter: Part One

2011-02-10T17:20:00.000-05:00

I have a Twitter account. I don't use it. If I used it, then I would say things...

...like this:

I have failed the Turing test.

*

I got 99 problems. / Pointless math homework.

*

I have a dream / sicle.

*

Forgive them their syntax. / They do not know what they.

*

Yes we can / tuna

*

All your base / belong to Richard Pryor

*

We're all going to die / eventually

*

Caught in a bad romance. / Get a lawyer.

*

You bet your life / sentence

*

Necessity is the mother / word to Edison

Living and Knowing Anxiety

2011-02-07T20:20:00.001-05:00

Anxiety does not know itself and cannot know itself. Anxiety often barely knows what it fears: it knows the object of its fear well enough, but it does not fully know why it fears. Sometimes, it doesn't even fear that which it claims to fear, but something else entirely.

Oh, many times before I have canvassed a room with fear, tangoed with tension, waltzed with it across corners and over the ceiling tiles, my eyes averting faces, my mind averting anything but the beckoning of fear itself...

I have several friends who can be quite insecure, bemoaning their loneliness and lack of friends. Yet, through their defensiveness, they push people away because of that very insecurity. Sometimes I wonder how often I have done something similar.

How sad and disappointing it is that we so often reach out for a human connection, any kind of connection, and find ourselves grasping empty space.

What's in that space? What lurks between human beings who float indifferently, through the routine, glued to iPods and iPads and cell phones? What exists beneath us, underneath that unheralded territory? Perhaps you will forgive me for navigating to the edge of the map, toward those places long populated but rarely mentioned.

I have this desire to share my most embarrassing foibles and my most dispiriting tales of mishap and woe, to more fully share my overdramatizations and misunderstandings. I don't indulge myself, yet those are the stories of my life - those are the stories of the times that I've most often grown, and triumphed, and overcome.

As human beings, we all have a certain amount of fear, anxiety, and tension which we try to handle on our own. We all have a certain number of stories and secrets we may wish to share, but do not know how to reveal. We all have our hidden histories, our inner torments, our daily distortions.

What would happen if we brought this abyss into the daylight? What would happen if we stretched our shadows into shade? Our shared temptations and struggles could be the refuge for our continued living. I, however, must retreat from this talk of darkness and dimness, at least for a moment.

For all that I have said, anxiety still does not know itself. Sometimes I feel that if other people knew what I had been through, no matter how trivial or mundane, that it would be easier to feel strong and authentic. But I also tell myself again and again that I can't depend on an unknowable sense of how other people may view me for my feeling of well-being.

I know we're all trying to get by. I know I'm not the only one.

I'm not perfect. I'm a human being. And I wish I could allow myself the liberty of being one more often.

My Doubt, My Threat, My Appetite

2011-02-04T16:22:00.000-05:00

The band Jimmy Eat World wrote a song that I'm in love with: "My Best Theory", from their album "Invented". A brief snippet of the song goes:

"My doubt seems fine/
My true desire/
My threat/
My appetite"

Outstanding lyrics.

Doubt is many things. It is my annihilation. It is my preservation.

Doubt erodes, a steady stream of questioning which removes the face of well-worn notions, and it sculpts a new impression in old surfaces.

Doubt in its own nature embodies the biggest and most substantial conflict we know of: the chasm between permanence and stability, and change and chaos.

Every human being is a product of change. We originate as embryos, progressing through many stages, until a fully-grown adult form is realized. Each facet of our physical body is in flux: a multitude of cells appear and die each day within our body. Each facet of our consciousness and personality changes, too: throughout our interactions with other humans, we are molded and crafted in accordance with our fellow human beings. Their being is ours.

We depend on change to sustain us. If the seeds for our crops remain seeds, then we die. If the water which feeds many of our reservoirs remains snow or ice, then we die. If the rain which waters the crops remains water vapor in the sky, then we die.

Is it really true that we look for things to stay the same? We are surely blind to the immense changes which surround us in their exquisite insignificance.

We owe everything we have to change, but we seek to ground our lives in eternal truths. To doubt these truths, to chip away at them, is a betrayal of the truths towards which we aim. Our lives are bigger than this trivial nonsense. "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter", such great religious authorities as Yoda from Star Wars inform us.

Yet what exactly are we considering when we ponder these eternal truths? Our messages and teachings come to us from specific historical eras, and specific cultural contexts. Is it really appropriate to allow the message of Jesus, for example, to remain stale for two thousand years, when he castigated the religious leaders of his day for allowing the laws to become stale within their own hearts?

We humans express our knowledge and our truth through what we actively partake. We partake the body and the blood of truth, when we speak its voice for our times, when we allow our own doubts to refine and distill our beliefs and our values.

Doubt threatens to undo everything, but doubt also allows us to remember everything. Doubt allows us to exercise our faith, to propel ourselves upward, to participate again in the sacred enterprise - we are captivated by it and refreshed by it. We remember. We remember both why we believe now, and why we believed in the first place.

Certainty cannot exist without doubt, nor without change: for if we do not doubt, if we do not risk the possibility of change, then we forget why we are certain in the first place. When we forget to doubt, then we lose ourselves entirely. Our own desire for certainty enables change to erase ourselves: we become clean on the outside, but rotten within. Oh, you hypocrites, you brood of vipers...

Religion and Social Consciousness

2011-01-23T15:54:00.015-05:00

I'm participating in a book study of Kevin Roose's book "The Unlikely Disciple". So far, I have only read the first two chapters, so there is no need for any spoiler alerts. However, if you've read the book before, please don't tell me what happens! I want to keep a fresh perspective.

During discussion in our study group today, I heard two rather broad, very compelling questions which I would like to discuss further on this blog.

1. Agnostic college student Kevin Roose transfers from east-coast, secular Brown University to Jerry Falwell's evangelical proving grounds at Liberty University for a semester to discover a greater understanding of evangelical Christianity. However, to fit in without giving himself away as an outsider, Kevin adopts a double persona as a fellow evangelical Christian. Is this double life justified?

I believe Roose had no other choice but to adopt the character of an evangelical Christian if he really wanted to obtain an insider's understanding. Was this choice a duplicitous one, a charade, a fraud? Maybe, to some extent - but I accept that his choice was no more a lie than the choices most people make every day. Why are any of us Christian, Muslim, Jewish, agnostic, liberal, libertarian, conservative, socialist, etc? Can we honestly embrace our own ideas as superior without honestly trying to understand all of the other alternatives which surround us?

Most individuals adopt convenient labels and narratives to use in their everyday lives with less thought than Roose puts into his pseudo-identity. How we do know that we are not defrauding ourselves? How do we know that when call ourselves something, that we are being true to ourselves, and whether we can really accept what we claim to be true?

Further, I think the only good way to understand someone else's ideas or values is to understand their experiences - or, even better, share some of their experiences. It really is futile to ponder someone's arguments or points without understanding why and how the person arrived at that place. Roose is doing the best he can to genuinely understand evangelicalism - he walks in their path and sees with their own eyes, instead of merely tracing their footsteps and following the breadcrumbs left in their wake, as so many other people content themselves to do and believe that they have a good understanding when they most assuredly do not.

2. Do you believe that Roose's beliefs will change during his time at Liberty University? Will he convert to evangelical Christianity, or even modify some of his beliefs to those of his peers? Why or why not?

To me, after reading just the first two chapters of "The Unlikely Disciple", it's inevitable that Roose will change many of his ideas as a result of spending a semester at Liberty.

But why should he change? Doesn't he already have many of his own well-established ideas, honed over the course of his entire life thus far?

Perhaps.

However, there is a key observation I must make to establish why I believe change is inevitable for Kevin Roose: that consciousness is a social product, evolving constantly with changes in one's environment and interpersonal interaction.

I'm currently enrolled in a philosophy course called "Persons and Selves". The last two weeks we've been discussing at various points how an individual's consciousness is shaped by a person's relationships with other people - that a person who is isolated eventually will begin to lose his or her personality, and that individuals gain much of their consciousness and sense of personhood as a reflection of the acknowledgement which they receive from other people.

I predict that by immersing himself in an environment dominated by evangelical Christianity, that Roose will experience a changing consciousness as he is recognized by other Liberty students for his actions as an evangelical, and that over time, he will slowly feel more and more attuned to those forms of recognition, so that his beliefs will shift in a way which accords with his social environment.

The consciousness of a human being is not a static product. You are not who you were as a young child or as an adolescent. You're not who you were a year ago, or a week ago. You're not even who you were yesterday.

I'm not on the record as someone who is very religious. But maybe there is a possibility that there is some kind of divine force in or behind our Universe. I believe that if there is a sort of animating force, akin to what is understood widely as God, that this God-like force most likely is a Process, which works through other things in the world.

Look around us: everything is in flux, and nothing is ever the same. Heck, that's what it says in Ecclesiastes (and on classic rock stations, if you like The Byrds). There is a season...for everything under the Sun, for agnosticism at Brown, for who knows what at Liberty, for hoping the Jets win so you can laugh at the New England Patriots, to ruing the day one said that because the Jets have just demolished one's favorite football team in the playoffs...

Return of the Journal-i: the Literati Strikes Back

2011-01-12T16:03:00.006-05:00

Who has two thumbs and hasn't written a post on this blog in two calendar years?

Me!

Okay, since that awkwardness is out of the way for now, here's something I wrote on Facebook that I would like to re-post here.

"Thoughts on Comedy, Grief, and Human Existence"

I'm taken with the idea of grief as a sacrament, something through which the sacred passes; a vessel for humans to connect with something deeper which can be found within each individual.

I have long felt the same way about humor: that almost all absurdity in life is in extension a commiseration, an empathy, which springs from somewhere deep within us all - that the catharsis of laughter and comedy itself is really a transformation of our isolated, personal pain into a shared, expanded empathy that radically connects us to other beings in a profoundly new and meaningful way each time it occurs.

We encounter a new understanding of each others' experiences, a new relationship of shared joy and wonder at the vast depths of empathy which can be found in any of us, summoned against the potential agony of deep suffering and trauma.

In these ways, comedy and grief are identical: each brings from the deepest wounds of life, astonishment at our shared journeys and our shared perspectives. They produce a sympathy internal to us which directs us externally, to a shared life which is common to us all. They produce a shared transcendence of suffering, where a dramatically altered and expanded understanding of human love and human experience is possible.

Humor and grief at their best are the shared sufferings of other people, reflected and redirected through the prism of human compassion. They are expressed as exceedingly passionate and raw realizations of our shared human predicament. These revelations of grief and humor are both somewhat profane and somewhat sacred. But most thoroughly of all, they bear witness as a fulfillment of the highest which can be expected from the human condition. They are a positive and enduring testament to the power of the most decent and kind stirrings within the human soul: empathy, sympathy, compassion, and understanding.

Yet Another Poem: penumbra

2009-10-20T15:58:00.004-04:00

"penumbra"

whoever has eyes

glistening when immersed with light

steps crossing every path taken

one by one sounds and sights cascade

whoever has ears

echoing the vibrations of a multitude

voicing the interactions

in every wave of reaction

voicing the interpretations

let them see

each discordant note

recording the interdependence

conducting all perceptions through all others

conceive mere chaos

set movement into motion

let them hear

each particle drifting

diverse elements colliding

matters become but do not remain solid

understandings comprehend the mixture

underpinning every formed perception

lies among infinite shadowy traces

Another New Poem: sacrament

2009-10-02T16:35:00.003-04:00

"sacrament"

breaking this body

I've dared to share

all vulnerabilities align

far better possibilities

allow chance

to overcome paralyzing insecurity

overwhelming my body

crying out for acceptance

expecting honesty

the highest form of intimacy

destroying the exterior

pulses of sensation

never feeling but merely felt

dejected ignored desperations

signify the only solution

beginning when you embrace

each mangled tinge of doubt

this in the remembrance of me

Glenn Beck Gets Owned

2009-09-30T16:13:00.002-04:00

"Honestly Glenn, I can think of plenty of things to fill the void of hate and fear left by religion in this country."

By the way, have a fantastic International Blasphemy Day! This entry is dedicated to all those who strive to ensure and protect free speech and free criticism of ideas everywhere.

Two Brand New Poems

2009-09-29T22:43:00.007-04:00

I have composed two poems in the past week which I believe some of my readers may enjoy.

blank

the expression in your face

innumerable complexities comply

in the inherent order of systems

unknown to unsophisticated observers

reflecting upon the impossible

probabilities begin to resolve

understandings between us deflected

beyond the level of first impressions

dictate confusion and deception of appearances

consist of mere summations

present that which cannot be reconciled

acknowledged unrevealed depth

lurking near every thing formed

in ignorance which cannot contemplate

the feelings residing there

shattered

what frame can possibly support

the structure of narratives

society envisioned

individual interactions

never cease mingling

I may never stand out

of the way of contemplation

let alone

by my own perspectives

hesitate to be assimilated

by the viewpoints created

through our collective minds

enslaved to a reality

brought forth under subversive thoughts

propose demolitions of all windows

smashed and broken misconceptions

replaced the caresses

falling toward those who are willing

to follow the leap of imagination

bursting through the only obstacle

remaining is not breaking free

I'd really appreciate any constructive feedback you may have. Thanks!

Lyrical Life: Dialogue

2009-09-22T23:37:00.003-04:00

I'd like to share with you the lyrics from Part I of the song Dialogue by the band Chicago. This song was originally written in 1972, but the lyrics are still as fresh and relevant as ever:

"Are you optimistic, about the way that things are goin'?"

"No, I never, ever think of it at all."

"Don't you ever worry when you see what's goin' down?"

"Well, I'm tryin' to mind my business; that is no business at all."

"When it's time to function, as a feelin' human being, will your Bachelor of Arts help you get by?"

"I hope to study further, a few more years or so; I also hope to keep a steady high - woo, yeah, yeah."

"Will you try to change things - use the power that you have? The power of a million new ideas?"

"What is this power you speak of, and the need for things to change? I always thought that everything was fine - everything is fine."

"Don't you feel repression, just closing in around?"

"No, the campus here is very, very free."

"Don't it make you angry where war is draggin' on?"

"Well, I hope the President knows what he's into - I don't know. Whoo, I just don't know."

"Don't you see starvation, in the city where you live? All the needless hunger, all the needless pain?"

"I haven't been there lately - the country is so fine. My neighbors don't seem hungry 'cause they haven't got the time - haven't got the time."

"Thank you for your talk - you know, you really eased my mind. I was troubled by the shapes of things to come."

"Well, if you had my outlook, your feelings would be numb. You'd always think that everything was fine - everything was fine."

The Politics of Fear and Ignorance: Legacy of George W. Bush

2009-09-08T17:53:00.003-04:00

I remember for the last eight years, I always questioned everything that President Bush did. Now I begin to notice how President Obama is also being questioned...however, maybe I am misguided here, but it seems that a lot of things that Bush was criticized for...I don't know...actually happened?

So healthcare is a secret plan to take away our guns? Of course, I remember those who suggested that Iraq was a secret plan to take away their oil, so I am not blind to the crazy partisan rhetoric on the left. Of course, I'm still not sure why we went into Iraq...

It seems plausible to me to say that Obama's plan is inefficient, to say that it's expensive, to say that it's wasteful, to say that it favors corporations over the rest of the country...I may not agree with those points, but those are constructive criticisms. To say that, however, Obama has ulterior motives that he is hiding, is a bit paranoid, I think. Further, where is the evidence? When has Obama said that he has a revulsion for guns? Has he done anything yet in his administration against firearms? What is the reasoning behind these fears?

People believe all kinds of crazy things, so I am not that surprised. We've got people who believe the U.S. government directly caused 9/11, people who believe that Obama was born in Kenya, people who think the moon landings were a fake, people who think the biological diversity of our planet can be crammed into the last few thousand years, people who think Obama is indoctrinating children with the same kind of speech that Bush 41 and Reagan made, and many other strange and unusual things.

America is a funny country. If you beat prisoners, you get off scot-free (see Abu Ghraib). But if you beat dogs, you get to go to prison (see Michael Vick). Do we really believe that dogs are more important than people who live in other countries?

And do you remember the gospel story where the Samaritan women asks Jesus to help her, and he says that he is only there for the chosen, and then the foreign woman pleads with him for a scrap from the table which even the dogs would eat? Can we not spare a table scrap of mercy and justice for the other human beings with which we share this planet?

Sometimes, it seems like America is obsessed with "the other". Barack Obama is "the other". People who live in cities are "the other". People who are Muslim are "the other". People who live in other countries are "the other". People who are gay are "the other". People who are intellectuals are "the other". What happened to give me your tired, give me your poor, give me your huddled masses, yearning to break free?

And yet I remember the American heritage of anti-immigrant sentiment. We hated the Irish, and we hated the Chinese, and hated the Eastern European, and made laws to limit the number of people from these groups who could immigrate to the United States. We interned thousands of innocent Japanese civilians during WWII because we were afraid of them.

America has been afraid for far too long. There is too much fear in America.

George W. Bush played on the public's fears, with his Orange Alerts and his war peddling (weapons of mass propaganda??) and his "Axis of Evil" rhetorical ploys, and this is his legacy: the political discourse in America continues to be poisoned with insecurity, anxiety, and blame.

I once thought that Barack Obama could be the kind of President to stand above all this, to inspire our country and renew our confidence and optimism, to lead with intelligence and vigor and honesty, to move our country in a more open and less fearful direction. Now I am not so sure.

The Challenge of Human Thinking

2009-08-31T18:26:00.002-04:00

Does society allow those with depression to properly heal themselves?

I think about all the Van Gogh's and Hemingway's of the world. Too often, we're not expected to worry about ourselves, but rather we're expected to conform to the pre-existing patterns, expectations, and stereotypes of our individual cultures.

I believe that part of what's lacking is an understanding that society benefits from an improvement in the individual composition of its members.

The proverb "charity begins at home" sort of sums up my larger idea. We can't help others until we help ourselves; we can't take good care of anyone else unless we can also take good care of ourselves.

Sometimes, it's hard to focus on the more abstract parts of our lives, and society often makes it difficult for us to do that, but I think those who are able (and have the leisure) to do this, provide a great benefit to everyone else through practical innovation and cultural benefits.

Just as society is basically a bunch of individuals, I think it reflects the judgments of each individual human being. As each human is pretty bad at thinking about anything but immediate and short-term causes and effects, society as a whole shares this same blindspot.

I think it is the duty of every generation to spend some effort contemplating "unconventional wisdom". I believe that we need the status quo to retain the efficiency of past generations, but I also believe that we need modification to improve the efficiency of the status quo. Someone has to knock down and rebuild or shift the partitions of human thinking to renovate and expand the library of human knowledge.

I relish living in a time during human history when innovation and creative thought are held in relatively high esteem.

Almost every successful leader in history that has made a profound impact on the world, has made their mark by seizing the inherent optimism and hope of human beings and then harnessing their combined faith to build new and remarkable institutions and empires. How much has the depression of a leader such as Abraham Lincoln contributed to the course of history? His melancholy may have helped save the Union, and given him empathy to hold together a fragile republic during a time of chaos.

It is up to us to recognize the impact that history and science have on the events which are unfolding now so that we can improve our lot. That's what a leader does. And yet, intellectualism is a crime and ignorance is a virtue in modern American politics. I am depressed already.

Depression: Adaptation or Malfunction?

2009-08-30T18:48:00.003-04:00

This article from Scientific American suggests that depression may play a different role in human behavior than had been previously imagined.

I found this article to be both intriguing and quite fascinating. Please read it for yourselves, and let me know your thoughts.

We've All Got a Birth Certificate From Kenya

2009-08-28T18:11:00.003-04:00

Why I Love Rocky (Embracing Desperation Part Two)

2009-08-17T23:48:00.009-04:00

Sylvester Stallone's film Rocky is an American classic, and I must profess my admiration of the title character, Rocky.

Rocky is a boxer down on his luck, who comes out of nowhere to make an appearance in a title bout with champion Apollo Creed.

Americans have long embraced the underdog, but that is not the only reason I identify with Rocky.

Rocky is a somewhat stereotypical boxing/sports flick, but Rocky the character has great lines.

"Why are you a fighter?" "Because I can't sing or dance."

So many of us are terribly repressed and insecure. So many of us are moody and lack confidence. So many of us are too withdrawn and shy and think we've got nothing to say to anyone.

I have a lyric for everything. I think music is a proxy for the irritation of being alone with my own personality. My life feels like a Jackson Pollack painting. I'm just pouring everything out and letting everyone else say what it means, and I'm not really sure that it even means anything at all.

I emphatically agree with Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young that "fear is the lock and laughter the key" to the heart. I really do believe that.

There are so many people that are paralyzed by fear. Am I one of them?

There are so many people that wish not to be alone.

That's what Rocky wishes.

I love what he says to Adrian:

"I always knew you were beautiful."

That's how I feel - about everything, about the absurdity and uncertainty of my life and my existence, and my pursuit and perseverance not only of it, but in it.

Why do I persevere? To prove I'm no chump, just like Rocky. Rocky's not paralyzed by fear, even though he's terribly insecure. He just keeps on fighting.

"When the truth is found to be lies, and all the joy within you dies, don't you want somebody to love? Don't you need to somebody to love? Wouldn't you love somebody to love? You better find somebody to love."

Great Jefferson Airplane lyrics, there.

Fear and lust, there they are again. I wrote about those two things on this blog many months ago, and still those two specters pop up yet once again in my thoughts. Is this all there is to existence? Embracing desperation, indeed.

And that's what Rocky does. And that is why I love him.

He embraces desperation. He has no chance with Adrian, no chance against Apollo Creed, no way to make it in this world -- and what does he do?

He's desperate, so he keeps going anyway. I love Rocky.

Embracing Desperation

2009-08-11T00:26:00.004-04:00

“Most men lead lives of quiet desperation,” - Thoreau.

Why do people lead lives of desperation? What are we desperate for? What do we want? What are our desires?

I think our desires, I think our desperations, give us a reason to live. I think if you cultivate that desperation, if you manage it and direct it, it will become productive.

I think our society overwhelms us with cheap antidotes to our desperation that are not worth the price. I think we sacrifice too much of our long term potential for short-term gratification.

I think we should acknowledge freely that much of our lives is spent in a state of desperation, but I think this desperation, this longing, can lead us to produce acts of beauty and kindness.

I think this desperation can leads us to be empathetic. It can also lead us to be single-minded and selfish.

We are nearly always desperate: so what are we going to do about it?

I think society refuses to acknowledge our desperation. It doesn’t sell. It’s not glamorous.

It’s been said that the truth will set you free. Perhaps, but more likely: the truth will set you adrift. But is that such a bad thing - isn’t that what freedom means? Isn’t that what freedom is – bearing some responsibility to set your own course?

Our desperation is our reason for being. Our quest for truth is our reason for knowledge: its absence compels us to find it.

When we don’t have something, that’s when we want it. If we never lacked, we would never have the joy of finding anything. Of course, if we never lacked, maybe we would have a different joy. It all depends upon whether we can appreciate what we have and where we are. If we didn’t lack, but could still appreciate our condition somehow, I don’t think we would be worse off.

Yes, we’re so desperate and gullible and afraid. That’s why advertising and propaganda succeed.

Yet it brings us together, and it tears us apart. We’re all desperate and gullible and afraid.

We all lack – we all find. It brings us together.

Quiet desperation is chronically undervalued – it’s used as a slur. It’s used as the symbol of the mid-life crisis. Life is crisis – life is change – life is transience. Why can’t we recognize and accept this?

We should accept nothing less than lives of quiet desperation.

Desperation is the basis for action – I think Thoreau wants us to be active. I don’t think he’s maligning the act of desperation so much as he is saying that it is not all that is necessary – that there is more to it than that.

If all we did was stay in the state of desperation, we will fail. That is what I believe he is trying to say, and I agree with that.

We can’t just experience desperation; we’ve also got to act. But our desperation can serve as our foundation for our actions.

But what kind of foundation are we building? Exactly what do we desire and why?

Most of our lives are not built on a strong foundation. What kind of desperation are we dealing with?

There are many corrosive desperations: fear and paranoia abound.

You can never be sure where you are. Sometimes, you do something with the best of intentions and it turns out horribly wrong.

If we never think about our desperations, and we leave them alone, then everything else that we do will be worse, because our desperations are what lie at the beginning of everything. We must check ourselves and our desperations because they are the foundation of everything we do.

We must ensure that our desperation is used for the benefit of others and not for ourselves alone.

The Politics of Attitude

2009-06-29T23:19:00.003-04:00

You don't like it - you frown on it. Whenever it is mentioned, you have a visceral distaste. Many would say that you're unnecessarily critical of something that almost everyone finds useful, and that many people find essential. In fact, if it didn't exist, a lot of us wouldn't be here.

What am I talking about?

Sex?

Guns?

The answer is: both.

It seems that a lot of people have a very strong opposition to the idea of guns, or to the idea of sex, and tend to overlook situations where each could play a positive influence. There are a lot of people who take extreme positions against guns and against sex in both parties. It's time that we had a realistic, responsible, mature attitude about these things: as a country, we should realize that there are proper and safe ways to use and enjoy both items I have mentioned.

However, some folks are just doggedly determined to oppose both wherever they appear.

We don't need to abhor sex, or guns: we don't need to control them, we need to promote safe behaviors and encourage learning so that when people use these things, they'll know what they're doing.

For those who are reticent to approve of sex education: would you leave a loaded gun lying around your house, especially if you had children who knew nothing about firearms?

Of course not - that would be negligent.

Some people don't like guns - some people don't like sex very much, either. Fine. That's your personal preference, and you have the right as an American to have that preference. But don't impose your morality on me just because you are disgusted by other citizens' affinity for either quantity.

Our guiding principle should be that as long as the public safety and welfare is not infringed, individual liberty should be protected. That should be something to which everyone can consent.

We Aren't Special

2009-06-15T18:11:00.002-04:00

As members of humanity, as citizens of this planet, we really do need to just get over ourselves.

When Newt Gingrich proudly stands and says, "I am not a citizen of the world", what does he think he means?

Where was Newt's car manufactured? Where did his clothes come from? Where does his food come from? Where do his beliefs come from? Everything that makes Newt, Newt, is inextricably linked to all of the other human beings on this planet.

Each and every one of us is a citizen of this world.

We inhabit this fragile, precarious global civilization - our hopes, our dreams, and our futures are intermingled and intertwined, for better or worse, with all of the other frightened, nervous wrecks who call this planet Home.

What we do affects everyone - what everyone else does affects us.

Americans tend to be a lot like the famous character Alfred E. Newman who starred for so many years in the magazine Mad.

"What, me worry?"

I give President Bush credit for good things that he did - AIDS funding in Africa being a prime example.

But there are too many members of his party that just don't give a damn about what happens in other countries.

We have heard for the last eight years (ever since 9/11) how much of a threat Iran could be. Bush listed Iran as one of the three "Axis of Evil" nations along with Iraq and North Korea.

We have heard about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad since he became President of Iran four years ago. We have heard about his threats against Israel and his denial of the Holocaust. We have heard about his advocacy of programs to develop nuclear technology.

Recently, we heard about the upcoming elections in Iran, where Mousavi challenged Ahmadinejad. Then we heard the reports that Ahmadinejad had "won" re-election.

But what have we heard since?

American news coverage of the resultant protests in Iran has been curiously silent.

All we hear about is what may threaten us - but when the Iranian people stand up for themselves, we don't hear about it.

And why haven't we heard about it?

Could it be because too many Americans are not "citizens of the world" and that news networks believed that Americans wouldn't be interested in the story?

A definitive answer may not be forthcoming - but this is at least one example of how detached many Americans are from the events which transpire in other countries.

People call Americans arrogant. Maybe the shoe fits?

We could do better by asking the shoe thrower.

Strict Interpretation?

2009-06-15T17:33:00.004-04:00

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Is it curious that some argue that strict constructionism be applied in the interpretation of the First Amendment, but not for the Second Amendment? And is it not also curious that some argue that strict constructionism be applied to the interpretation of the Second Amendment, but not for the First Amendment?

The NRA would likely contend that the 2nd Amendment extends thoroughly to individual rights. Many gun control advocates reply that the Amendment is really meant just for the more limited sense of a "well regulated Militia".

Many conservatives have argued that the 1st Amendment is more limited - Congress is only prohibited from establishing any one kind of religion, not prevented from establishing religious influence in general. Yet many others would reply that the 1st Amendment is really meant to protect all other kinds of individual rights in a broader sense of application.

So, those who argue that the 2nd Amendment should be applied broadly to individual rights, but not the 1st Amendment, why so? Also, those who argue that the 1st Amendment should be applied broadly to individual rights, but not the 2nd Amendment, why so?

I am not declaring or asserting that it is impossible to make such a justification - I just find it rather curious to seize onto a strict constructionism in one instance and seemingly abandon the same stance in another comparable instance.

Above all, please show your work. Thank you!

What Do We Want From Politicians?

2009-06-14T17:38:00.003-04:00

I hope that this entry does not read as a rant, and that impression is not intended -- but if that is the impression that is perceived, please consider that I have given fair warning from the beginning.

What does American society demand from the individuals who aspire to hold the most powerful executive office in the country, the Presidency of the United States?

Many attributes are sought in a capable executive - as a leader of America's bureaucracy, as the commander of the military, and as the foremost of our diplomats, enormous levels of skill, experience, and ingenuity are required.

However, many Americans seem to care mainly about things which I charitably define as "extraneous".

No, I don't want a President I would feel comfortable having a beer with.

We admire Lincoln because of his sober decision-making. In fact, he was a teetotaler.

Not that there's anything wrong with drinking -- but there's nothing wrong with refrain or sober responsibility, either.

I find it absurd and insulting that candidates like Hillary Clinton felt that they had to drink shots with "the people" in places like Crown Point, Indiana so they could be perceived as a "regular gal" or a "regular guy".

There are rituals which candidates must undergo perpetually -- certain constituencies, more powerful than others, must be appeased. These shamans of popular faith control the bedrock values of our society...

But I'm not talking about Rick Warren. I'm talking about Ellen DeGeneres, I'm talking about Oprah, and I'm talking about Larry King.

If we focused more on the candidates' qualifications and less on their dancing skills, I think this would be a better country for all of us, propelled by a more informed and cautious citizenry.

Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with Ellen, or Oprah, or Larry King, or even Rick Warren, that is inherently bad.

I just believe that politics is not the ideal territory of popular culture - or maybe I just resent the dancing.

Empathy for Conservatives/Our Shifting Moral Values

2009-06-05T22:11:00.004-04:00

I have been thinking about the differences between how liberals and conservatives tend to perceive the world recently.

I have made a realization which has given me increased empathy for conservatives.

What will society be like in 100 years? 50 years? 20 years? What difficult and thorny ethical questions will arise due to new technology unveiled within the next few decades or centuries?

New advances in technology can be scary stuff, raising difficult ethical questions. I thought about how I would feel in a future society...how afraid I would be if I thought that the moral paradigm and the traditions of my society were eroding and deteriorating before my eyes.

And that is when a powerful observation struck me: this fear of erosion and deterioration may just be exactly how many conservatives feel today.

I now understand why people would be afraid of changes in society which could possibly be unnerving and apprehension-inducing.

The struggle that we all share is navigating a course between tradition and modernity. This, I believe, is the great moral struggle of every generation of humanity.

We have struggled to define our moral values in each civilization, in each society, and in each generation of human history. We witness this phenomena in the movement to end slavery, the 20th century civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, the controversy over abortion, the controversy over the death penalty (and which forms of execution are cruel or unusual and who should be executed or not), the struggle over gun control, the struggle over communism, the struggle over fascism, and the clash of other religious and political ideologies.

What is morality? What defines when an act is moral? Who defines it? Conservatives and liberals are largely answering the same questions -- they just tend to seek the answers in differing places.

We have a changing moral paradigm. Some people would deny this, but I contend that I have presented enough evidence to confirm this phenomenon's occurrence.

Conservatives and liberals tend to argue over which course to follow on the continually revising moral paradigms of human history. Conservatives seem to be largely guided by "tradition"; liberals seem to be largely guided by "modernity". Neither of these concepts is particularly well-defined; both seem quite nebulous. Neither concept seems to be a clear or resolute guide for future action; neither concept is fully coherent. Both ideas seem equally capable of badly misleading our decision-making. I do believe that over-adherence to either idea will produce disaster.

What is tradition? Yes, we learn from our mistakes, and we have derived ideas and beliefs to help us avoid them. I admire conservatism for trying to preserve our heritage of knowledge and experience and hedging against futile attempts to subvert our best practices. However, since our environment is continually shifting and evolving, there are many occasions where we find ourselves in need of new and inventive approaches for a changing world. I admire liberalism because I believe this way of thinking provides the capability to arrive at such bold solutions.

I must admit, conservatism is awfully appealing to me at times. I like the notion of sticking with tested and broken-in ideas over radical departures from known strategies. I am an incremental thinker; I have never been good at "out-of-the-box" thinking. When I make decisions, I try to build upon the best information that I have. Before I will try a new approach, I tend to re-try older approaches first to see if they work better. I tend to avoid risk in my personal life.

So why am I more liberal than conservative? I don't know for sure. Perhaps it is a function of when I grew into politics. I believe in change. I believe that we have adhered too much to tradition, and that we need new ways of thinking. The way we treat the environment, the way we treat minorities and the poor, the way we treat foreigners, the way we treat homosexuals -- the traditional approaches are not good enough for me. I want to go in another direction.

I have empathy for conservatives, but it has been apparent to me for many years that our country needs to travel in another direction. There are many policies which the Democrats espouse about which I am either ambivalent or with which I disagree. I do not know whether Obama's economic policies are sound. I am, as I have been for most of my life, largely ambivalent about the abortion debate, embracing neither the strong pro-choice nor the strong pro-life position. I wish that the Democrats would move faster and more radically on healthcare and gay rights.

The battles of the future will define and guide our moral values, just as they have in the past. I eagerly await further full and vigorous participation in the debates to come.

On Perpetual Fear

2009-05-25T23:40:00.004-04:00

I have been pondering human emotion lately. I think the main two emotions which predominantly motivate humans are fear and lust.

I am thankful for both. If not for the intervention of these two things, I may not exist.

However, it seems apparent to me that our society relies too much upon fear.

When people who are afraid, follow those who wield fear, and use fear to convince others to join them, then I also become afraid.

No one should have to live in perpetual fear.

Society generally expects parents to be loving to their children. I agree that a moderate dose of respect for parents and authority figures, which could be also called fear, is healthy. However, if I only do something because I fear someone, then I believe that I am acting for the wrong reasons. If parents create an environment where their children are perpetually terrified of them, then most authorities would label that to be psychological child abuse.

No one should live in perpetual fear.

We inhabit a vast, exciting world with a multitude of opportunities and diversions. As an American, I am fortunate to live in a country where I have the opportunities and rights to pursue my ambitions and goals...I am thankful for the commitments of those who have sacrificed on this Memorial Day holiday. I am thankful to those who sacrificed so that I would not have to live in perpetual fear of an earthly dictator.

What a strange and terrifying, but eerily wonderful world we inhabit.

Michael Steele is Not Very Bright

2009-04-28T13:09:00.004-04:00

Current National Chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, threated Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter after he voted for the stimulus funding a few months ago.

Steele tried to warn Specter that the party would withdraw support from Specter if he did not tow the party line. Insurgent conservative candidate Pat Toomey threatened to unseat Specter in the Republican primary in 2010.

Now Arlen Specter is a Democrat!

Steele's cajoling has backfired. Terribly.

I am reviving this blog (for now) to state for the record just how amazed I am at the sheer incompetency of Michael Steele and his organization.

Thanks for the filibuster-busting 60th vote in the Senate, man! We Democrats really appreciate the help!

See's Candies

2008-12-13T22:14:00.004-05:00

My friend S. says that our room looks like California in the early evenings.

My college roommate is from California. "No Cal" as he jokingly refers to Northern California.

Sometime ago, (as many college students do), he received a care package from home. It contained a variety of snacks and other edible goodies.

One of the items which he received was a small rectangular box of See's Candies. I'd never sampled See's Candies before, but the name resonated in the corners of my mind.

I used to listen religously to a jazz music program ("Riverwalk jazz, live from the landing) on public radio that was sponsored by "See's Old Time Candies". I remembered the name of the sponsor because it seemed so quaint and unusual -- almost like something to which Garrison Keillor would compose a satiric ode as an inspirational sales pitch. So it was a bit of a shock to sample the real thing.

I am writing this entry at the same time I used to listen to Riverwalk jazz -- the hour of ten o'clock in the evenings on Saturday nights. It seemed like an unusually late hour around the age of twelve when I started listening to Riverwalk. I almost never missed an episode until I was fifteen and I discovered Saturday Night Live. (Shame on you, Lorne Michaels -- it's not even that good of a show anymore; it wasn't good then, either.)

It's intriguing to think about the past, to delve into our previous experiences. Just one simple token can remind us all of a whirl of old emotions, experiences, and memories.

To paraphrase Forrest Gump's infamous conclusion:

"Life: sometimes I remember it by a box of chocolates."

Happiness: Filling the Void

2008-12-09T22:31:00.003-05:00

What makes us happy?

I've seen an interesting theory on happiness recently.

Someone said that all human beings have a void inside of us. We need to fill this void, and if we don't, our sense of purpose and our sense of meaning will atrophy. We fill it with work, we fill it with family, we fill it with music, we fill it with causes, we fill it work consumerism, and all kinds of other things, both tangible and intangible.

Some people say it's a bad thing that we have this void, but I disagree. I believe that our void motivates us. As a common proverb says, hunger is often the best seasoning.

What makes each of you happy? Do you believe that this "void" theory makes any sense? How do you fill your void?

Thanks for sharing your opinions.

Economic Crisis?

2008-12-06T20:30:00.003-05:00

Hello, followers and friends.

I apologize for not updating this blog for the last several months. I have been extremely busy in my personal life. I will try to post here semi-regularly again, but I can make no promises.

So what's brought me back here again?

It's the economy, stupid.

I'm afraid that our economy is a disaster.

Will the stimulus/bailout packages work? Can the government be the solution? I don't know, but I do have my doubts.

What ails our economy?

We have too much debt, individually and collectively. We're broke. The United States is broke.

So what do we do? We keep spending and spending and spending...but we're still broke.

When FDR launched his New Deal programs, the United States of America was a creditor nation. Now we are a debtor nation. We just don't have the same leverage anymore that we once did. Saudi Arabia, Japan, China, and India essentially own us right now.

So we keep spending more money...that we don't possess. When you're in a hole, isn't it generally a good idea to first stop digging?

I recommend that we cut the size of government. I recommend that we quit bailing out failed institutions. It is a painful remedy indeed but I see no valid alternative.

The solution to our debt problem is more savings and more production, and less consumption. Of course this is going to make the recession worse. But our current course of action is going to make the recession even worse in the long run. By continually spending money that we don't have, we compound the damage which has already occurred. We must stop.

I'm afraid that we'll have to let this recession continue...because there's nothing we can do to stop it.

Plumbers Never Come on Time

2008-11-01T04:36:00.002-04:00

Apparently Sen. John McCain threw a rally and Joe the Plumber forgot to show up.

That makes sense, since he also forgot to pay his taxes, or become an actual licensed plumber.

Three more days...make sure you vote for Obama/Biden '08.

End the pathetic incompetance and misguidedness of the last eight years.

That's all for my end.

Now go do your thing -- VOTE!

Joe the Plumber

2008-10-16T03:44:00.003-04:00

Need I say more?

He is clearly the next Bruce Lee of the plumbing industry.

I mean, really, how does it feel right now to be..."Joe the Plumber"?

It can't possibly be as bad as having to be "Joe Sixpack"...but at least "Joe the Plumber" is a real person. I'm glad there's no such person alive to be Joe Sixpack...bearing the stigma from Palin's association would be a terrible ordeal.

See, Gov. Palin doesn't even represent real people. As in, actual people who exist.

She just makes up make-believe people. No wonder she's out of touch.

But John McCain, Sen. McCain, he cares about real people.

People like...Bill Ayers. Sen. McCain cares a lot about Bill Ayers. He talks about him all the time. Well, actually, McCain just said not so politely in this debate that he doesn't care for Ayers. Well, so much for that.

McCain cares about people like...Jeremiah Wright. Well, at least his supporters seem to. They've kept mentioning him over and over again.

McCain cares for people like...Cindy McCain. Right?

If he is elected, no matter how low his approval ratings may fall, he'll always have the support of his wife.

Then again I imagine, Laura Bush has already asked her husband President Bush if he could please come up with some new kind of coherent plan for alternative energy. She said, "I know you love to clear brush for use as a domestic energy source in Crawford, but I'd rather have you stick around the house and stay out of trouble."

Oh, and I believe that fictional exchange between George and Laura is a paraphrase of Calvin Trillin. I keep thinking that I may have seen some kind of joke that resembled this before.

A Return to (or Revenge of) the Internets!

2008-10-12T00:20:00.003-04:00

I am back to writing my blog again after a brief hiatus. I want to thank everyone who has been patiently awaiting new entries. I want to assure you that more material will shortly be forthcoming.

Right now I am listening to the song "For What It's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield. A classic: a beautiful song with meaningful lyrics.

"There's something happenin' here.
What it is, ain't exactly clear.
There's a man with a gun over there.
Tellin' me, I got to beware.

I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin' down.

There's battle lines bein' drawn.
Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong.
Young people speakin' their minds.
Gettin' so much resistance, from behind...

It's time we stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin' down.

What a field day for the heat.
A thousand people in the street.
Singin' songs, and a-carryin' signs:
Mostly say, Hoo-ray for our side.

It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin' down.

Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
Step outta line, the man come and take you away.

We better stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's goin' down.
(repeat chorus)....."

Absolutely brilliant song.

-- On an unrelated note, has anyone seen Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) lately? Don't look for him in Michigan.

Yes, the Republican Party still has a candidate running in the race for President. Despite an ever-widening margin for Democratic candidate Barack Obama in key toss-up states causing them to lean in his favor, and an ever narrowing margin in many Republican states causing them to become toss-ups, McCain is continuing his negative, unsubstantive, counterproductive character attacks. And his Vice Presidential candidate is still Gov. Sarah Palin? Really? And he expects us to take him seriously?

Did any of you see the last Presidential debate? Sen. McCain seems to have enmeshed himself in a profound state of confusion. He's trying to be humorous, and failing remarkedly at this task. Fail.

Personally, I believe Tom Brokaw would be a tremendously able Secretary of the Treasury. At one point, Brokaw asked McCain whom he would appoint to the office, and McCain blurted out the response, "Not you, Tom." That's no way to treat an old friend. Kudos to Brokaw: he conducted an impartial debate even though he is friends with Sen. McCain. Yes, and many of you didn't hear about this. But we really shouldn't have. It's a ridiculous action for either candidate to ever complain about the format or the moderator of a debate, because these things are negotiated by the candidates themselves. They only have themselves to blame.

Exodus from Wall Street?

2008-09-29T22:39:00.003-04:00

As a distraction from the current hemorrhages on Wall Street, here are my thoughts on the song "Exodus" by Bob Marley.

**The instrumental introduction at the beginning of the song is one of the song's best parts, but obviously I'm going to do a poor job of describing it here, so I'll just skip that part.

"Men and people will fight you down"

As long as self-interest to be protected has existed, various kinds of oppressors have flourished. Whether it be religious oppression, political oppression, social oppression, economic oppression: oppression has been a dominant theme of human history. We have all sought an escape from some form at oppression at a specific time in our lives, even if we sought refuge from a mere kindergarten bully. It's important to stand up for ourselves: to stand up for what we believe, what we value, what we cherish.

"Let me tell you, if you're not wrong...then everything is alright"

If you firmly uphold a set of convictions, you can resist oppression. If what you believe is worth holding your ground for, then even if all kinds of trouble befalls you, you can take satisfaction in knowing that you are ultimately in the right on the matter. If you have some reaffirming principle, you can take courage in your beliefs and use them as an anchor to keep yourself steady during ordeals which you may face.

"So we gonna walk...alright...through the roads of creation"

No matter who we are or what we believe, we all walk through the same planet. We all inhabit the same world. We all enjoy this creation, regardless of creed or race or any other consideration.

"We the generation"

Each generation has its own responsibility to improve the world that has been passed to it. Each has a special dictate to fulfill its duty to create a better world. We have to hold ourselves accountable for our actions, because we're the only people we've got, and this is the only world we have.

"Trod through great tribulation"

All of us deal with great stresses and disturbances during our lives. Some of us are surrounded by extreme violence, sadly, through circumstance and events beyond our control.

"Open your eyes"

What kind of life is this for us if we refuse to acknowledge what's going on all around us? We can't live with blinders. It paralyzes us. When we examine our lives, we see both great wonders and great tragedies. Enormous responsibility lies with those who are the most knowledgable about our world. For having once opened our eyes to the world, closing our mind at the same time is a most dangerous step. We cannot learn new knowledge in one area of life and unlearn it in yet another area.

"And look within"

As we move through this world, interact with other people in our lives, it is essential that we learn something about ourselves in the process, or we are moving blindly. Who are we? It is a fundamental question posed to us by our very existence as people. So why not take some time to look inwards? It might help us understand how those around us act; it might help us turn outwards, and empathize. If we can understand at least one human being, that is, our own person, then we have a much improved chance for understanding other ones.

"Are you satisfied (with the life you're living?)"

Are you? I'll let Bob Marley ask this one. Because if you're not, then you really need to start doing something about it.

"We know where we're going; we know where we're from"

Unless we truly appreciate our background, we cannot appreciate our future. But I discussed this quite a bit in my last post. But it's great to have tradition, and connections to a larger community. Not all of us have that. And most of don't know where we're going. I don't.

New Format: Marley All the Time (just kidding)

2008-09-29T13:34:00.009-04:00

This blog is going to a new format.

My first entry under the new format:

Why Bob Marley Is Really Phenomenal

Listen to the song "No Woman No Cry".

Actually, here are some lyrics:

"I remember, when we used to sit..."

Already, he's talking about the urge for community that we all share. Think back to your earliest memories, to your family gatherings. Hopefully you have these memories: everyone is sitting together, sharing, gathering, being together in one another's presence.

"Good friends we've got and good friends we've lost, along the way"

How we can ever appreciate what we have if isn't for our friends? We need people to share our disappointments with, people to share our problems with, people to talk to when we are depressed. Just as importantly, we need people to rejoice with, people to laugh with, people who share in our successes and desire for us something better even than what we desire for ourselves. This is what love is.

"In this great future, you can't forget your past"

No, we can never forget all of the things that have shaped us as individuals, or as societies. Every time a person comes into our lives, we shape, and are shaped, by that person. Each of us has a profound impact on every other one of us. We are all fundamentally interdependent. And this is true not only for us, but it's also true for the events in which we participate during our lives. Each event is interdependent; it has a cause, and it will be a cause of some other events in turn. We really cannot afford to forget our past.

And pleasant memories make a sad present bearable; sad memories make a pleasant future all that much sweeter to enjoy. We are bound to remember the people who have brought us to where we are, for no one can ever get anywhere alone in this world. We have to remember who we are, so we can be happy. For how we can fulfill ourselves as individuals if we don't even know who we are, or where we come from? For where we come from is so essential to building us just as we are. That's why Marley's nailed this point.

"So dry your tears, I say"

Crying is good. It is good for us; it is a good way to heal; it is a good way to show how we care, to empathize with others who we love and care for. I've cried before, more than a few times. And there's nothing wrong it.

But we can't just be sad all the time. We have to live. Sometimes we have to fight to live. Sometimes we have to hold onto all of what we have just to get by, just to stay together. But there are always things we should do. There are always thing to be done. We have to live life.

"Then we would cook oatmeal porridge, of which I'll share with you"

Again, another reference to community. And there are few things in life more communal than eating. How do you feel when you eat alone? How do you feel when you eat with other people? As long as we have existed, we have eaten together. This underscores that we all do have something in common, really. We all need nourishment. We all eat. Food is a common denominator we all share.

"My feet is my only carriage, so I've got to push on through. But while I'm gone, I mean, everything's gonna be alright"

Wow, this is a pretty substantial thought. One of my favorite song lyrics of all time. To address this section properly, I'll have to address it as a whole.

I think what Bob Marley's saying, is that he is his own support, and that he is using what he does have to the best of his ability. He only has his feet to walk with. He's making a statement about trying to live with the abilities given to us as people. Some of us are better at some things than others are. Given what we have, we have to keep going regardless of circumstance. And pushing him along, in this journey, is a strong sense of optimism. Things are going to turn out well. Things are going to get better. It's a powerful statement on how to live one's life. The whole song really comes down to this section. It's an amazing message: a resounding message of perseverance, optimism and determination.

***Note: If any of you want me to, I can tell you how I feel about Marley's song "Exodus", which is another meaningful song to me, another one of my favorites from his work.

The World Is Alive With Music

2008-09-25T13:39:00.005-04:00

I was taking notes in history class today, and my professor noted the exodus of southern conservative Democrats from the Democratic party, and I was reminded of Bob Marley's Exodus:

"Open your lives and look within: Are you satisfied (with the life you're living?) We know where we're going. We know where we're from."

That is a great song for so many reasons. It makes me think about my identity: who am I? What do I think of the direction of my life right now? It's a great song for anyone in transition, anyone who is moving somewhere; a great reminder to remember where you've been, and where you're from.

Another great song for this kind of reflection, is Up Around the Bend by Creedence Clearwater Revival:

"There's a place up ahead, and I'm goin'. Just as fast as my feet can fly. Come away, come away, if you're goin'. Leave the sinkin' ship behind."

I love CCR. Fortunate Son is a great song, too:

"Some folks are made to wave the flag, oh, they're red, white, and blue."

That has nothing to do with this topic; I just think it's a great song.

There is so music that talks about people traveling, or being in transition. There is a great musical tradition for it. I love that about music, that you can identify with it at different points in your life, but the same song can mean completely differents things at different intervals and in different contexts. I love the emotion and the thought that a song can evoke in one's mind. I love songs: but I am constantly frustrated by my total inability to remember any lyrics.

Those lyrics I just gave you I had to look up on Google, actually. It's annoying because when you talk to people about music, they'll never believe that you listen to anything unless you can quote lyrics from it.

Which is funny, but I know why people do this: because a lot of people say that they like music when they actually don't, just to fit in or be seen differently. Our tastes in music identify us, and people relate to each other based on the type of music they listen to most often. So of course one would want to make sure that there wasn't a false basis in relating to someone by making sure that someone really does like the music he says he does.

But I just can't remember lyrics, probably because I'm nearly obsessed with not butchering them. I like to know what music is saying, because music says a lot to me. I take music very seriously, even when I use it to relax. I believe that music says a great deal to everyone, but I am definitely greatly affected by my music. It influences the way I think and react to things, the way I see the world. So I want to know what I'm listening to. I'll even look up the lyrics to a song to see what it's saying. This is why I don't like music that is hard to decipher.

It seems to me that a lot of music that is popular now is about nothing; it doesn't mean anything. And when it does mean something, it's usually something stupid.

Music is all around me, the rhythms and beats and melodies of songs are like words in my imagination. I feel the beat is expressing certain emotions; the restlessness of Gershwin, the determination of Bob Marley, the exhuberance of a Strauss waltz. Most popular music just doesn't tell you any of these things. There's something missing. There's no soul. Just like laughter, music is a part of our soul. It defines who we are. And I believe that our music today says a great deal about who we are, and it's not good news.

PO'd by PC: Political Correctness is Not OK

2008-09-22T12:55:00.010-04:00

There is a certain place for political correctness.

*Whoa: double take here*

Didn't I just infer that political correctness is a terrible, terrible thing that must be avoided? The title of this entry says so, right there a few lines above what you're reading now! "Political Correctness is Not OK".

Well, the issue of political correctness is not a black-and-white one. You don't even know what political correctness is, do you? Everyone complains about it, but what is it?

It's a slippery concept to define: I see two basic types of political correctness.

There is a place for respect of others that a certain type of political correctness attempts to create. One kind of political correctness is motivated by a desire for an openness in politics and a political system that can be free for all citizens, no matter what their background, status, or ethnicity may be.

I am a fan of moderation, but I am not a fan of moderation for its own sake; just as I am not a fan of extremism for its own sake.

John McCain spent five years in hell: a Vietnamese prison camp called the "Hanoi Hilton" where he was brutually tortured.

Barack Obama is black. He has faced racial bias and prejudice against him just because of his appearence and his background for his entire life.

A second kind of political correctness wants us to refrain from attacking either candidate.

"You can't possibly criticize Sen. McCain because of his impeccable service to our country."
"You can't possibly criticize Sen. Obama because of all the obstacles he has overcome in life."

Guess what? It's our job to criticize these people! They're running for President of the United States of America!

Why aren't questioning these people? Or for that matter, we should question the people who are questioning the candidates.

It's taboo to question Sen. McCain's health. However, he would be the oldest person we've ever sworn in as a first-term President.

How ridiculous the United States is becoming: if can't criticize John McCain for his age because he's old, when can we criticize for his age?

This criticism hasn't stopped Sen. McCain from criticizing Sen. Obama for his age, for his "youth and inexperience".

Also, Sen. McCain has a plethora of health problems, such as a serious form of recurrent melanoma, and he refuses to give unlimited access to his medical records.

But it's unfair to criticize the Republican candidate for health problems he developed while in defense of his country.

No, it's not unfair. American citizens want to know if his health problems are going to prevent him from being an effective President. It doesn't matter how he developed them.

And yes, I'm also going to address Sen. Obama.

I can criticize him as much as I want to. If he's equal to Sen. McCain, then I have the right to give him equal criticism.

If we have been truly fighting for equality, then why do we continue to treat people inequally? First, we saw this with Sen. Clinton: she said it was unfair to judge her on the basis of her gender, but she used her connections with female supporters to win votes. The same holds true for Sen. Obama and African-American voters. Furthermore, the same is also true for Sen. McCain and older voters.

You know what? People vote other people into office who are like them. Read Mark Williams' blog: http://markopher.blogspot.com/

Because he's right. Not much of our political process is centered around the issues. (See entry "Politics".)

America is a diverse country of diverse interests and its not unusual for different groups of Americans to play their own interests against one another. In fact, it's par for the course. Political correctness, in its most malignant forms, is not designed to build a political dialogue that respects all people; it is designed to prevent a serious political dialogue from forming in the first place. The great thing about our country is that we don't want to upset anyone. 95% of our Representatives are re-elected; yet only 23% of Americans approve of the job that our Congress is doing (Fox News-Opinion Dynamics, 9/8-9/08; PollingReport.com). I believe that it's time we start getting upset at someone and do something for a change.

In Defense of Fruit-Wielding Maniacs

2008-09-22T12:21:00.003-04:00

As you may be able to deduce from the headline of my blog, I am currently a college student.

On my campus, there is one major dining hall that students where students go to eat.

Many times after I have ate a meal there, I grab one or two pieces of fruit and carry them back to my dorm room. Students are allowed to do this; whether this is because of benign neglect or just a tradition, I am unsure.

It never feels quite right as I walk out of my dining hall carrying a piece of fruit in each hand. I suggested to one of my friends how bizarre I look when carrying fruit on the way back from dinner the other day. She said it would be easier if I stored the fruit in a purse!

I am just not a guy who wears a purse. I'm sure she was joking, though something tells me that she was at least partly serious.

Then she said to wear baggy pants. I imagined how people would react to that:

"I thought eating more fruit would cause you to lose weight?"

Overall, I am satisfied with the current arrangement of my fruit-transportation. I will continue to be a fruit-wielding maniac for the foreseeable future, as long as I can have the pleasure of grabbing a banana before I go to class or sitting on a wooden bench and devouring a golden apple in the shade, as a result of my efforts and the sacrifice of my self-image, or whatever is left of it.

Outrageous Politics from CNN.com

2008-09-20T16:52:00.002-04:00

The following story is from CNN.com. This shows you just how ridiculous our politics have gotten in this country lately. However, I think it's hilarious that if Sen. John McCain tries to cozy up to Ohio State fans because of this, he may lose Michigan fans in the process.

Biden in hot water with some Ohioans
Posted: 07:30 PM ET
From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

Biden may have upset some crucial swing state voters.

(CNN) — Joe Biden's off-the-cuff remarks on the trail have at times taken the Obama campaign off-message, but the Delaware senator's latest riff just may have landed him in hot water with voters — and die hard football fans — in a key battleground state.
Speaking to members of the University of Delaware football team Friday morning, the Democratic VP candidate said he thinks the Fightin Blue Hens (1-1 this season) could thrash a certain team from Ohio.
"I was out in Ohio," he said while fiddling with a football in his hands. "I told the folks in Ohio that we'd kick Ohio State's ass!" (It remains unclear if Biden actually ever told Ohio voters this.)
Biden, a proud University of Delaware alum, was clearly trying to rally his Division 1-AA team ahead of their match-up with Furman this weekend, but the comments couldn't have come at a worse time for faithful Buckeye fans who saw their team suffer a 35-3 trouncing at the hands of USC last weekend.
The comments also come as polls show the race in Ohio could hardly be tighter: A CNN poll of polls in the Buckeye state shows Obama holding a slim 1 point lead there. Close enough, presumably, that enough angry OSU fans could just make the difference — at least that's what Republicans are hoping.
The state GOP is already attacking the Democratic ticket over the comments, as well as his comments yesterday suggesting it was patriotic for some wealthier Americans to pay higher taxes.
"As if his comments about it being a patriotic duty for Ohioans to pay higher taxes weren't bad enough, now Biden is taking pot shots at the Buckeyes," GOP State chair Bob Bennett said. "Barack Obama and Joe Biden must really think they can win this election without Ohio, because they're doing their best to lose it with stupid comments like these. Keep talking, Joe."
David Wade, a spokesman for Biden said, “I think this episode explains exactly why we’ll win Ohio: Joe Biden is loyal to his home team, and John McCain is loyal to President Bush."
"We forgive the Republicans on this one, though," he added. "After watching John McCain flip flop on everything from taxes to torture, they’re just mystified by someone who takes a position and sticks with it.”
UPDATE: Michigan Democrats, fans of OSU arch rival University of Michigan, weighed in on the back-and-forth, calling John McCain a "Panderer in Chief" for recently purchasing Ohio State apparel on a campaign swing.
"John McCain won't be hailing any victors on Election Day if he thinks Michigan fans will let this recent pander slide," said Liz Kerr, a spokesperson for the Michigan Democratic Party.

The Power of Laughter

2008-09-18T19:08:00.012-04:00

I love humor. I love to laugh.

I've always been fascinated by what makes other people laugh, and why people laugh both more and less in certain situations.

Why does laughter exist? What is its purpose? In the Bible, God laughs at Abraham and Sarah when they do not believe Him when He says that they are going to have a child, that Sarah is going to bear a son in her extreme old age. The name of their son, Issac, is translated as "God laughs". That is the only reference to laughter that I have found in the Bible. I am curious as to whether laughter is mentioned in other religions' scriptures and holy texts.

I believe that to laugh is to be fundamentally human. It is, along with reasoning and consciousness, one of the foremost sensations of life as a human, as I see it.

We laugh at the awkward in our lives, when we perceive things as out of place in the universe in some way. We chuckle at comedians in loud outfits. We chortle at John Belushi's impression of a zit, when he shovels food in his mouth and blows it back out again. It takes a special acumen to be funny. Things that threaten us or other people we care about are almost never funny, with the rare exception of a few types of gallows humor (but this is an exception that proves the rule.)

We never almost joke about disasters such as the Titanic or the Hindenburg. We don't joke about hurricanes, mudslides or earthquakes.

Gallows humor occurs when we ourselves are threatened by something, and we choose to make light of our own situation. For example, take stand-up comedian Ron White's "airplane" routine. A classic example of gallows humor:

Ron White and a fellow passenger are sitting next to each other onboard an airplane. The pilot informs the passengers that one of the engines has failed, and that the plane may need to make an emergency landing. White's comrade is incredibly nervous, and tells White that he doesn't want to die. "What are we going to do?" the frantic passenger asks White. But White isn't worried. "Hey, I bet we'll beat the paramedics there by at least thirty minutes."

Another example of gallows humor: "I really hope the activation of the Large Hadron Collider doesn't cause a black hole to form that swallows the entire Earth. Of course, if it does, that means I won't have to use the new Facebook."

People do joke when they need to reduce stress in their own lives, but there is a clear line between self-deprecation and deprecation of others that cannot be crossed in comedy.

Things that are strange to us are often hilarious. Things which are controversial to us are often the funniest of all. It appears that comedy is a way of reducing our anxiety levels with things that are hard to cope with. But there are only certain things that are hard to cope with that we find to be funny. Many people find sex to be very funny. Some people find violence to be very funny, but a great number of people could never laugh at violence. A few people find humor in death, but a large majority of people could never even summon the nerve to think about laughing at death.

When I am depressed, I laugh. Many people laugh when they can no longer cry. Sometimes, I laugh without realizing why. It is as if it an echo from the deep depths of my soul making its way into the objective world. My despair resurfaces as laughter. Or laughter resurfaces as despair, once I realize the larger thing that is happening to me that is making me feel the way I am. As soon as I have to confront my feelings, the situation immediately loses its humor. Laughter is a reprieve; it is an escape. It is a way to avoid anxiety, and to release and cope with anxiety that we have stored up through our lives.

I know that many people ask themselves, "What would Jesus do?" And that is a valid question. I often ask myself, "Would God laugh?"

I've always wondered what makes God laugh. If He exists, then surely He invented it, because He created everything in the universe, as asserted by the Book of Genesis, in the Bible. Would He laugh at death? sex? violence? someone tripping on a banana?

He created a way to die, He created sex; He even created banana peels. Would He laugh if someone replaced the words "Caution: Wet Surface" on the sign with a picture of a person falling down on it with the new words "This is Sparta!"? Would He cry? Would He tear up at all of the poverty and destruction and neglect and abuse in His world? According to the Bible, we are made in His image; we somehow manage to both laugh and cry at the same time. So far, I have thought of one reference to God laughing in the Bible, and I can only think of one instance where God cries in the Bible. Jesus weeps in the New Testament Gospel (John 11:35). It is the shortest verse of the entire Bible: "Jesus wept."

I find it very intriguing that before God became human, He could only laugh, but as soon as He became one of us, He cried.

Altruism: Absolute Folly or Universal Principle?

2008-09-15T13:12:00.022-04:00

In today's society, cynicism prevails. The common wisdom holds that everyone is looking out for their own individual self-interest first. People say, "It's a dog-eat-dog world."

In a complicated world of competing interests and agendas, why not simply look out for number one? Isn't everyone else doing that?

Besides, it's a world dictated by the survival of the fittest, isn't it? Taking the effort to help someone else, sacrificing something you have to accomplish an end greater than yourself; what's the point in that, in a world where the strongest survive, and the weak perish? Altruism in this context appears to be futile and hopelessly naive.

This is a fundamental foundation of modern thought. But it is incomplete. Yes, the science of evolution demonstrates that those who are best equipped to survive, will prevail. However, there are a broad number of instances where altruism (the act of doing something that does not benefit one's self or is harmful to one's self, but that does benefit others) can be observed to be an essential part of the greater order of the universe.

The instinct to help others in ingrained in the human psyche. There are countless examples of other animal species who also act "altruistically". Ants form colonies to ensure the survival of all, lions are organized into prides, primates such as chimpanzees live in social communites devoted to taking care of one another. Even slime molds display a form of altruism.

Myxomycetes (plasmodial slime molds) have a life cycle that involves two feeding stages. The first stage consists of single-celled amoebae. The second stage consists of the plasmodium. To form the plasmodium, the single-celled amoebae merge together to form the multi-cellular plasmodium structure. "Under favorable conditions, the plasmodium gives rise to one or more fruiting bodies containing spores. The spores of myxomycetes are for most species apparently wind-dispersed and complete the life cycle by germinating to produce the uninucleate amoeboflagellate cells" (http://www.discoverlife.org/20/q?search=Eumycetozoa).

Even in our own bodies, the law of altruism is clearly demonstrated. "Apoptosis, or programmed cell death, is a normal component of the development and health of multicellular organisms. Cells die in response to a variety of stimuli and during apoptosis they do so in a controlled, regulated fashion...Apoptosis...is a process in which cells play an active role in their own death" (http://www.sgul.ac.uk/depts/immunology/~dash/apoptosis/). Some cells die, when they have surpassed their usefulness, so that an entire organism can continue living.

Sacrifice is an important concept in any proper understanding of society. As natural rights philosopher John Locke stated, humans sacrifice their unlimited freedom to use certain rights that they are born with in order to live in an ordered society that protects those rights from being infringed upon by other people.

In a world where life can be "nasty, brutish and short" (Hobbes, Leviathan), a community centered around individuals sacrificing their own energies and time and resources to achieve common ends may be the most efficient and practical way to ensure the well-being of human beings. Altruism remains the best and most effective method of survival.

Because after all, it's not really a dog-eat-dog world out there. It's more like a pack-eat-dog kind of world.

A Single Leaf

2008-09-14T21:07:00.001-04:00

A question for all of you:

Does a single leaf, on a single tree, in a forest, hold any larger or significant importance? If it does, why does it? If it is irrelevant, why so?

This is a query I came across today, and I think it would be interesting to see how different people answer it.

Please explain your choice.

Check the Bottom of This Page

2008-09-11T19:28:00.001-04:00

My last post was a revised version of an older draft, so when I published it today, it was placed according to the date I started it, so it is not the top entry as it should be.

Please go down to the bottom of your screen and read my new entry "Every Game Has Its Rules".

Thanks. I really appreciate your encouragement. Please keep reading.

September 11th -- the seven year itch

2008-09-11T13:16:00.002-04:00

Today is the seven year anniversary of September 11th, 2001, the day of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the crash of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

When I went to class today, we discussed our memories of that day. Like the JFK Assassination or the attack on Pearl Harbor for previous generations, almost everyone who has lived through that day can recall where they were and what they were doing when they heard about the attacks.

I remember that I was a sixth-grader, taking the Indiana Standardized Test for Educational Progress, as mandated by President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" policy.

I was taking a reading comprehension test for ISTEP, when my teacher received a cell phone call. I looked up to her at the front desk, listening to the conversation.

"Hello? What's happening?

Oh my God!"

She grabbed the remote control, and ran over and turned on the television.

"What's going on?" we asked her.

"There's been an attack on the World Trade Center" she informed us.

We sat, immobilized, staring at the smoldering ruins of the buildings we could see on the television, over a thousand miles away.

I still had to take that stupid test. Mindlessly, filling in bubbles, watching America under attack before my eyes. It was a surreal experience.

We all joked by the end of the day that the terrorists weren't going to attack our small town. We were laughing because that was the only way we could make any sense of it.

It was too impossible to believe.

I remember eating in our cafeteria, sitting on the hard wooden benches, contemplating what was happening with people who wouldn't give me the time of day any other day of the year. But that day, we were all mystified by the attacks and bewildered by what was happening, together.

That afternoon, my 6th grade teacher pulled down her giant map of the world, and showed us her conspiracy theory. She pointed to countries that she said didn't like America, and explained her belief that Yasser Arafat, Omar Kadaffi, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden had simultaneously coordinated to bring devastation to the United States.

All of the school's activities were canceled. I came home on the bus, and saw my mother standing in the garage. She never came home that early. Of course, my dad was still at work. It could be the freaking apocalypse and his employer would still make him come into the office.

It was a Tuesday. The next evening, I went to confirmation at my church. My pastor led us in silent prayer as we lit candles to remember the victims. I remember when she prayed for the terrorists who did this as well as the victims who suffered in the attacks. She drew some criticism for that at our church, but I thought it was the right thing to do.

Soon after the attacks, anti-Muslim prejudice spread throughout the country. My church hosted a leader from the local mosque to talk to us about Islam. It was my first real encounter with Islam, though now some of my closer friends are Muslim.

I remember the second anniversary of the attacks; that day stands out in my memory just as clearly as the day of the attacks itself. September 11th, 2003.

I was in eighth grade. Every day, we would start the day with announcements. Our principal called for a moment of reflection to honor the victims of the attacks. While we were supposed to remember the victims, a country song called something like "Never Forget" was playing over the intercom. I suddenly felt a surge of emotion.

The song referenced that America must never give up the fight, but the fight I felt it was referencing was the war in Iraq, which I was strongly against, and that I was strongly convinced had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. I was deeply offended by the playing of this song, and the connection it made between the victims of 9/11 and the misadventure in Iraq. I was very angry. On the day of 9/11, I felt a sense of surrealism, as if it wasn't actually happening to me, which was in part true, because I was so physically far away from the center of attacks, and emotionally far away because I was a child and so naive. But on 9/11/03, I was genuinely angered. I was personally offended. These people at MY school were playing this song that offended MY point of view. I know no one died from that song, but I am telling you this because I feel it is an interesting anecdote about how people view events in their lives, and how they make emotional connections to those events.

Fair and Balanced? No, I Touch The World With Insanity

2008-09-11T00:20:00.000-04:00

Cable news network MSNBC has replaced Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann for hosting their elections coverage. They have been replaced by David Gregory (Represent!)

Anyways...the reason they were replaced as hosts (and they're still there, they're just commentators now), is because they were just commentators to begin with.

Really, I could've done their jobs. And I'd have done it for a lot less than they would have. Talk about fiscal responsibility.

Matthews and Olbermann are NOT journalists. That is the main point. They never were to begin with, they are not now, and they never will be impartial, fair-minded journalists. Never gonna happen.

I like Olbermann, I love watching his show; but he is not a journalist, he is an entertainer. If I wanted real news...crap, where would I go for real news?

Would I go to CNN? Home of Wolf Blitzer...whose show "Situation Room" spent three days covering the death of Anna Nicole Smith during the most violent phase of the Iraq war. Home of Campbell Brown...whose qualifications as a journalist are scarcely more apparent than yours or mine...

Olbermann and Matthews give you opinion. Joe Scarborough gives you opinion. Bill O'Reilly gives you opinion. Lou Dobbs gives you opinion. They ALL give you opinion. NONE of them are real journalists. They all have their own agendas.

Even when the cable networks try to stick to genuine news, even their presentation of that is becoming more and more dubious. I have noticed recently that CNN has picked up a dirty habit from Fox News. Yes, I have watched Fox News before. It wasn't pretty.

CNN now has these little boxes at the bottom of the screen that say "Fact:...." and then pretend to give you a fact relevant to whatever they're talking about. I hate those gimmicky things. If it's relevant, they would have told you about it in the story, when they were giving you NEWS. What they are giving you in the box at the bottom of your screen is not news; it is propaganda, just like the kind you can see in the boxes if you've watched Fox News.

The "Facts" they include are almost always slanted or biased in some way, whether it's CNN or Fox. Whether either network interviews someone, they always include a little box by the side of the person's head listing their qualifications and other useless stuff. What's that supposed to do? Make me think the person on TV is some kind of expert? CNN and Fox (MSNBC, too) always have these people who come on TV just to tell me that they're better than I am. Military experts, political experts, economic experts. And what do they tell me? Not one d*** thing. So thank you, cable network news, for giving me the delusion that I'm actually learning something of value even when you've long since ran out of actual news to go cover. (Also, the boxes at Fox are especially nauseating. For example, when they have a story about Barack Obama, a box on the bottom of the screen will say "he'll be the first President who's spent time in a Muslim country" and they always refer to him as "BHO", to emphasize his "foreignness". Most McCain supporters have good reasons to back their candidate, but FOX NEWS is flat out racist. Bottom line. I can't make this stuff up.)

Hey, maybe the networks could spend time investigating government waste or fraud. Blah. Not interesting enough to the viewers. CNN usually sounds like they decide what to cover based entirely on focus groups. It's so fake. Haven't you ever watched CNN before when they keep saying "Economy: Issue Number One"? It's like they asked people...what do you care about?

"Uhhh, I dunno. I guess gas is expensive. Let's complain about something we know nothing about and blame people for it who can't do anything about it whatsoever."

CNN needs to stop babying Americans and go cover something relevant, not just what people want to hear. Do you know what one of the purposes of media is? To inform people.

People should not be informing the media. That, as John McCain would say: that, my dear, dear friends, is a broken system.

Make Me An Instrument of Your Peace, Part Three

2008-09-10T14:22:00.000-04:00

As promised, here are more quotes from Kent Nerburn's book "Make Me An Instrument of Your Peace". These quotes are about faith:

"Sometimes we must be satisfied just to touch the cloak of God -- to brush against great spiritual truths with our own spiritual gifts, however humble they may be."

"Faith is the great leap across the chasm of the unknown into the uncertain darkness. It is the capacity to step with confidence where there is no knowledge, to move forward in the darkness toward the light, however small that light may be."

"When we show others that we, too, struggle with doubt but continue to walk forward in faith toward that distant and unfathomable light, we meet them in the shadow of their uncertainty and bear witness to the worthiness of their struggle. We strengthen their courage to reach out for the cloak of God in their own way."

"We must witness what we can and point that witness toward the light of God. Feed the hungry, comfort the lonely, visit the sick, assist the fallen -- whatever it is that we can do to increase the light of goodness, that is where our witness begins."

For our next installment, we'll be covering despair.

Hardon Collider...Oh Yeah!

2008-09-10T01:19:00.000-04:00

Today, the Large Hadron Collider is being activated.

What is the Large Hadron Collider?

It is the biggest particle accelorator in the world. It speeds up particles, and then collides them, and then studies the aftermath to learn answers to fundamental questions about physics.

I could tell you about it in achingly mind-numbing scientific detail, or ask my blogger friends to, or you could just go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM

Great, isn't it?

Unless it somehow causes a black hole that swallows up the entire Earth...just something to think about.

By the way, if you're a bartender, it'd be great to make a drink called the "Hadron Collider." Especially if that black hole forms....

"Sh**. World's ending".

"Fine, pass me a 'Hadron Collider'".

Lol.

I Can't Get No Satisfaction

2008-09-10T01:10:00.000-04:00

Frankly, I am tired of the Republicans' B.S.

And I am so relieved that the convention is finally over.

Mitt Romney said, "there has never been a day in my life where I have not been proud of my country".

Really? Were you proud after Abu Ghraib, Gov. Romney? Are you proud that we torture?

I'm proud of America, don't mistake me. But we're not perfect, contrary to what Gov. Romney would have us believe.

We have a government, that is a beacon of freedom. But that government, is an imperfect beacon. It is an imperfect government. We send mixed messages to the rest of the world through our actions, which are not always the highest embodiment of the ideas we tell ourselves that we stand for.

Our government is the type of government that needs to be continually challenged. Our government is only as strong as the people behind it. There have been many days in my life that I have not been proud of the American government, or policies of our government, and by extension, America itself. So I am guilty....of having a conscience.

Thank you, Governor Romney. Show us you really care about what America stands for next time...instead of just pretending you care, and using your faux patriotism to grab more votes.

"U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" is not a coherent worldview.

Make Me An Instrument of Your Peace, Part Two

2008-09-06T01:52:00.001-04:00

I am going to include some enlightening quotes from this book which I have introduced to you:

"The farther we travel down a certain path in life, the more that path shapes us and affects our heart and spirit. If we set our foot upon the path of darkness, we will walk into darkness. If we set it on the road to light, we will walk toward the light. It is a fundamental law of the human heart."

"With each passing day, and each refusal to seek reconciliation, we become more callous and closed to the possibility of reconciliation. And the wound caused by the injury becomes more and more a part of our being. If we seek healing, it is true that the wound still may become an awful scar. But at least life goes forward."

"Our lives brush clumsily against the lives of others. A wrong word, a rash action -- these are as much a part of our lives as the caring gesture and the loving touch. We are all guilty of them; we all receive them. There is no surprise when they come, issuing forth either from us against others or from others against us. The only surprise is that we never ceased to make such errors and that we have such difficulty forgiving them when they are committed against us by others."

More quotes will be coming in the next installment.

Make Me An Instrument of Your Peace, Part One

2008-09-03T00:00:00.000-04:00

"When we try to understand God we are like children trying to hold sunlight in our hands."

This is the opening sentence to Kent Nerburn's book "Make Me An Instrument of Your Peace".

This book describes how one may live a life according to the spiritual guidance that can be found in the Prayer of St. Francis:

"Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred let me sow love.
Where there is injury let me sow pardon,
Where there is doubt, faith,
Where there is despair, hope,
Where there is darkness, light,
And where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master,
Grant that I may not seek so much to be consoled as to console,
To be understood as to understand,
To be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in forgiving that we are forgiven,
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life."

I am going to be adding a series of posts to this blog in the next few days containing different quotes from Nerburn's book that I have found enlightening. This should certainly give us some pause for reflection, which I try to do from time to time in this blog.

Watching the Republican Convention

2008-09-02T18:07:00.000-04:00

I am watching the Republican Convention this week, starting tonight. Right now I am listening to television commentary about the Convention.

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis says that McCain will "lower your taxes and give you more choices for your life".

Did Sen. McCain do enough vetting on VP candidate Gov. Sarah Palin? Did McCain make an "impulsive" decision? As I have written, there have already been many controversies about Gov. Palin, including the pregnancy of her 17-year-old daughter. Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama says that children of candidates should be off-limits, and that his mother had him when she was 18.

The theme of this week's Republican convention is "Country First".

They're Not Code, They're More...Guidelines

2008-09-02T01:46:00.000-04:00

Hey, I'm gonna shock you:

You really shouldn't believe everything I'm saying.

I know I confuse you by alternately asking you questions and then telling you what I think.

No longer.

We're moving to an (almost) all-question format. I'll still tell you what I think, but from now on please feel free to question everything I'm saying.

For example, if you want to say that Palin is a great pick because she stands for the values of everyday Americans, and then you want to cite her experience as outweighing Obama's, go ahead with it. I'm encouraging this dialogue, whether I agree with it all or not.

So just to make it clear: trust no one under 30 (gigs). :p

Leggo My Eggo, Mr. Media!

2008-09-02T01:23:00.000-04:00

News broke this week that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.

How do you think this should reflect on Palin, if at all? Does this change your opinion of her? Does it damage your opinion of her? Does it strengthen your opinion of her?

Should the media be covering this at all?

Palin has previously gone on record as being in favor of abstinence-only sex education, which I think is something that should be noted in this discussion.

Does anyone think McCain could pull a George McGovern? (In 1972, Democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern pulled running mate Thomas Eagleton from the ticket because of a previously undisclosed history of mental illness.)

It'll also be interesting to watch the Republican National Convention this week proceed as the country attempts to deal with the effects of Hurricane Gustav. I am wondering how this will effect the Republican convention. It may actually help them, in a strange way. It gives the Republican Party an excuse to have Pres. Bush and Vice Pres. Cheney refrain from speaking at the convention, when the two men are extremely unpopular and reflect quite negatively on Republican candidate John McCain. I'm interested to see what the Republicans are going to say they stand for this week.

I believe the Democratic convention could have gone better, but I believe that the Democrats mostly succeeded in presenting a clear vision of an American future. Now I wonder what alternative the Republicans will present this week, after the (mostly) failed efforts of the last eight years, and that is a generous assessment from me. One important thing about the Palin selection that I forgot to mention initially, is that her selection is a strong signal as to the kind of Republican party Sen. McCain hopes to mold in the coming months, and years possibly, if he is elected.

Palin is a fundamentalist Christian, who is also strongly pro-business. Her selection solidifies McCain in many voters eyes as a prototypical neoconservative candidate. While this realization may awaken and energize the conservative base, it should also re-awaken independents to McCain's true ideology. I believe that McCain's choice shows most American voters that he is prepared to stand for the exact same politics as his predecessors have perpetrated on the American people for the last eight years.

Save the Whales, Wail on the Humans?

2008-09-01T16:04:00.000-04:00

I have decided to make this blog more interactive. We don't have enough discussion, so from time to time I'm going to give you something to talk about. Here's an article that might pique your interest:

"Against Environmentalism

By Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D.

There is a grave danger facing mankind. The danger is not from acid rain, global warming, smog, or the logging of rain forests, as environmentalists would have us believe. The danger to mankind is from environmentalism.
The fundamental goal of environmentalists is not clean air and clean water; rather it is the demolition of technological/industrial civilization. Their goal is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life; rather it is a subhuman world where “nature” is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion.
If the good of man were the aim of environmentalists, they would embrace the industry and technology that have eradicated the diseases, plagues, pestilence, and famines that brought wholesale death and destruction prior to the Industrial Revolution. They would embrace free enterprise and technology as the only solution to the relatively minor dangers that now exist—minor compared to the risks of living in a non-technological world.
But by word and deed, they demonstrate their contempt for human life.
In a nation founded on the pioneer spirit, they have made “development” an evil word, attacking the man-made as an infringement on pristine nature. They inhibit or prohibit the development of Alaskan oil, offshore drilling, nuclear power—and every other practical form of energy. In the name of “preserving nature,” they undermine our quality of life and make us dependent on madmen like Saddam Hussein. Housing, commerce, and jobs are sacrificed to spotted owls and snail darters. Medical research is sacrificed to the “rights” of mice. Logging is sacrificed to the “rights” of trees. No instance of the progress which brought man out of the cave is safe from the onslaught of those “protecting” the environment from man, whom they consider a rapist and despoiler by his very essence.
Nature, they insist, has “intrinsic value,” to be revered for its own sake, irrespective of any benefit to man. As a consequence, man is to be prohibited from using nature for his own ends. Since nature supposedly has value and goodness in itself, any human action which changes the environment is necessarily branded as immoral. Environmentalists invoke this argument from intrinsic value not against lions that eat gazelles or beavers that fell trees; they invoke it only against man, only when man wants something. The environmentalists’ concept of intrinsic value is nothing but the desire to destroy human values.
“The intrinsic theory,” charges Ayn Rand, “divorces the concept of ‘good’ from beneficiaries, and the concept of ‘value’ from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself” (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 21). But, in fact, she observes, “The concept ‘value’ is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?” (The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 16)
Values exist in a hierarchy, some being pursued only because they are means to other, higher ends. This implies the existence of an ultimate end that grounds the hierarchy. “Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means. . . . It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible” (The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 17). Things qualify as good or evil, valuable or detrimental, only insofar as they serve or frustrate the ultimate value; and the ultimate value is one’s life. “Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life” (The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 27).
The ideal world of environmentalists is not 20th-century Western civilization; it is the Garden of Eden, a world with no human intervention in nature, a world without innovation or change, a world without effort, a world where survival is somehow guaranteed, a world where man has mystically merged with the “environment.” Had the environmentalist mentality prevailed in the 18th and 19th centuries, we would have had no Industrial Revolution, a situation environmentalists would cheer—at least those few who might have managed to survive without the life-saving benefits of modern science and technology.
The expressed goal of environmentalism is to prevent man from changing his environment, from intruding on nature. That is why environmentalism is fundamentally anti-man. For, in reality, man as such is an “intrusion” on the status quo of nature. Only by intrusion can man avoid pestilence and famine. Only by intrusion can man project long-range goals and control his life. Intrusion improves the environment, i.e., man’s surroundings. Man’s life requires productive work, which, as Ayn Rand described it, is a process of “shaping matter to fit one’s purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one’s values” (Atlas Shrugged, p. 937).
In the environmentalists’ paean to “Nature,” man’s nature is omitted. For the environmentalists, the “natural” world is a world without man. Man has no legitimate needs, but trees, ponds, and bacteria somehow do.
They don’t mean it? Well, heed their words, for the consistent environmentalists openly announce their goals. Writes philosopher Paul Taylor:
Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo Sapiens, not only would the Earth’s community of life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interests, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty “Good riddance!” (Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, p. 115)
In a glowing review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, biologist David Graber writes:
Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet....[The ecosystem has] intrinsic value, more value to me than another human body or a billion of them....Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989, p. 9)
Such is the naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of people. A more malevolent, man-hating philosophy is unimaginable.
The guiding principle of environmentalism is self-sacrifice: the sacrifice of longer lives, healthier lives, more prosperous lives, more enjoyable lives, i.e., the sacrifice of human lives. But an individual is not born in servitude. He has a moral right to live his own life for his own sake. He has no duty to sacrifice it to the needs of others and certainly not to the “needs” of the non-human.
To save mankind from environmentalism, what’s needed is not the appeasing, compromising approach of today’s conservatives, who urge a “balance” between the needs of man and the “needs“ of the environment. To save mankind requires the wholesale rejection of environmentalism as hatred of science, technology, progress, and human life. To save mankind requires a philosophy of reason and individualism, a philosophy which makes life on earth possible: Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism."

Every Game Has Its Rules

2008-08-30T20:09:00.004-04:00

Sometimes the idea strikes me that life is just like an intricate series of games.

As children, we play games to mimic adult behavior, as training for the realities of adulthood.

But sometimes I wonder about the reasoning behind individual actions. Some of the things we do a certain way because we are taught, but other times we do things a certain way because of our own instincts.

But everyone plays. Even adults. But the people who use the term "play" the most of all, are young adolescents, teenagers, college students...those making the transition from childhood to adulthood.

Don't believe me?

Did you ever play in the band? Did you play football? Or are you just a player, straight up?

We won't let people associate with us unless they follow a strict series of rules, which more often than not is a very good thing for us.

For example:

Want to be my friend? Don't be rude. Don't annoy me. Don't antagonize me. Please respect my feelings. Please respect my personal space. Please respect my belongings.

Those are all very simple and obvious rules, because friendship is one the least complex relationships that we form as humans. That is why very small children can be friends, because the game does not require an overwhelming amount of skill or technique.

Other relationships (games) are more difficult, and the closer you get to someone, the more difficult it becomes to play the game, and the more rules you must follow.

I am strongly interested in evolution, and how the human brain works, specifically. I believe that the way we act is in very large part determined by evolutionary precedent, in a much bigger way than we have previously realized.

Based on previous experiences and our own intuition, we define rules for our own protection before we will enter into any kind of relationship or friendship with another human. Everyone has their own rules, some greater, some lesser than the norm. I believe that humans practice natural selection much more than we realize. Other animals have specific mating patterns, and we say, hogwash, we don't; I choose who I want. But no, we very much do have specific mating patterns. These rules we create (and/or are born with) are the patterns we follow: not every single detail of these rules is specific to everyone, but everyone tends to form these patterns (rules) in the same way.

Human females have their own rules, as do human males, just like the individual genders of other species have their own generalized sets of rules. Just like in any other game, he who knows and follows the rules, wins the game: speaking strictly from the standpoint of evolution.

Those who do not know the rules, or cannot learn them, or cannot follow them, are eliminated. Just like in any other game. If you don't know the rules to Monopoly or Battleship, or you are incapable of learning the rules, or if you don't follow the rules or know the strategy, you're going to get killed. The same lesson applies for humans.

I hope this reasoning hasn't completely blown your minds. You'll need them later.

Believe Half of What You See And None of What You Hear

2008-08-30T17:22:00.000-04:00

I have heard recently from several people that they believe that Sen. John McCain's selection of a female running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is patronizing to women. However, I also believe that Walter Mondale's selection of Geraldine Ferrarro was also patronizing to women under this standard. To say otherwise, I believe, would be a double standard.

Soon after Gov. Palin's selection, I heard several TV commentators say that Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, will have to "take it easy" on Gov. Palin "because she's a woman". That attitude in and of itself is far more patronizing than any past or current action by candidates McCain or Mondale.

I am loosely a feminist, I guess. I'm for female equality; but I refuse to advance female superiority. By that sarcastic statement, I mean that if women want to be really equal, they must take the same treatment that men do. I think Biden should go after Palin, with everything in his arsenal. It's only fair. That's what he would do to any male candidate. Real equality cannot allow itself to be obscured beneath a facade of chivalry.

In lighter news, I went to the zoo today! I saw lions and tiger and (pandas). It was fun, a glorious day, though I wish it hadn't been so hot so more of the animals would have come out.

Zoos are sometimes depressing, though. When the animal enclosures obviously aren't large enough, one feels great sadness for the animals. It's a strange feeling for me, I don't care that much about animal treatment, but I can't help but wonder. By the way, read the book "Life of Pi" by...well, search for the title and you'll find it. Amazing book, excellent comparison of animals in zoos and people in society, which is such a great comparison to make, because people are animals, after all.

I was listening to Marvin Gaye's song "What's Going On?" earlier. Marvin Gaye is a great artist. This particular song though, it's really a protest song of the Vietnam war. And I was thinking, about how much protest music was written during Vietnam, and how embraced it was in popular culture. As unpopular as the war is now, I can't imagine that many people either writing or listening to protest music about the war in Iraq. Our culture has changed, and I'm not convinced that it's gone in a positive direction. It's one of many sad notes, and it's even sadder that it's been silenced.

Sweet Band Names Usher in Blaze of Glory

2008-08-30T02:24:00.000-04:00

Just in case any of you are musicians, here are some killer names for your new group I've come up with:

-Architects of Modern Physics
-Swan Song of Blood
-State of the Union
-Devil's Advocate
-To Be Announced (really, anytime someone hasn't scheduled a band yet, they'll think it's you...think about its potential)

You know what would be really great? A parody of John McCain written by a musician named Emcee 'Cain. Wouldn't that be completely awesome?

"If there's terror in the house -- Emcee 'Cain!"
"Do you want a man or mouse? -- Emcee 'Cain!"

I heard a few weeks ago that Barack Obama's favorite song is "Gimme Shelter" by The Rolling Stones. Not a bad choice, except that the song references rape, murder, and lyrics such as "war, children, it's just a shot away." Not such a great thing to draw attention to if you're an aspiring President...and not the best way to connect to "middle America" voters. Sure, you may like the song, as I do, but do you really want to remind Americans of the skeletons of the Vietnam era? We all know exactly what happened to the last Presidential candidate who did that...John Kerry...who was defeated.

John McCain's campaign says that he is a big fan of the artist Usher. Right. I'm sure John McCain is a huge fan. Come on, really? I'd pay to see John McCain listen to Usher. Actually, it'd be priceless.

Have I mentioned that I love Rep. Robert Wexler (D., Florida)? Anyone who is vaguely familiar with the show The Colbert Report will know exactly what I'm talking about. But just as importantly, Wexler is a strong voice on issues of the environment and holding the government accountable for its actions. Congress's failure to exercise its basic duty to monitor and restrain the Executive Branch is one important reason why the American people have lost even more faith in Congress recently than they have in the Bush Administration.

If any of you are fans of Brad Neely's George Washington video, I feel obligated to tell you that he also has a hilarious video about JFK. It's not on YouTube, so you'll have to go to superdeluxe.com. Search under "JFK" or "History Lesson No. 1".

McCain Selects Running Mate, Soulmate Still Open for Suggestions

2008-08-29T13:47:00.001-04:00

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the expected Republican nominee, has chosen young Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), to be his running mate on the 2008 Republican ticket.

It's an intriguing selection by McCain, a sign that the candidate may actually possess a few keen political instincts. I know commentators have said that VP picks don't really matter, but if McCain had selected Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty (Gov. of Minnesota, R), I could have today virtually guaranteed McCain's defeat in November. With the selection of Gov. Palin, McCain somehow continues to actually have a chance of victory in a campaign that his opponent's party is heavily favored in, in a year where anti-conservative, specifically anti-Bush and anti-neocon sentiment, has appeared to reach an all-time high.

So why does the choice of Palin, a relatively obscure figure in national politics, provide McCain such a solid boost in the political standings?

Gov. Palin is female. Her selection is obviously an overture to disgruntled supporters of former Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton. Also, Palin came into office as the Governor of Alaska by defeating an incumbent Republican who had plentiful connections to big oil in the state, while she promised to clean up Alaska's political system. Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens (R) recently came under criminal indictment for his (alledged) deals under-the-table with an oil services company to provide him free services in exchange for his support. Alaska Rep. Don Young (R) was also charged.

So Gov. Palin carries some serious "reformer" street cred by helping to clean up Alaska politics. It's important for McCain to continue calling himself a reformer so he can avoid the stigma of the Bush-Cheney administration the Democrats have consistently tried to tie him to. One Democratic speaker observed this week that "McCain and Bush are awfully close lately" and joked about the Republican convention meeting in Minneapolis/St. Paul, the "twin cities".

Palin, while holding a solid conservative record (pro-life, pro-NRA, pro-oil), apparently lessens the appearance that McCain is just "a twin" of George W. Bush.

And as I have previously stated, it really doesn't hurt that she is a woman.

If any of you readers are former and/or current supporters of Sen. Clinton, I'd love to hear your thoughts on McCain's selection of a female running mate.

It poses an interesting quandary: what's more important to Clinton supporters, electing a woman to high office by voting for McCain-Palin, or promoting liberal policies and stopping the conservatives by voting for Barack Obama?

Or is Palin just conservative enough to appear anti-feminist despite being a woman? Or is one of the ultimate goals of the feminist movement, to empower women, ultimately more important than petty political differences between parties or ideologies? This is clearly a chance for a new generation to define the feminist movement. If you are a woman, and a feminist, what's important to you? What would you like to see in America to improve it for women?

I do believe that McCain's selection of Palin was a great political move, but it is up to history, and ultimately up to this generation, to decide what her selection means for women, and for America as a whole.

White Collar, Blue Collar, Just Don't Pop Your Collar

2008-08-28T23:45:00.000-04:00

This past week, the Democratic Party convention held in Denver, CO electrified millions of Americans, and the Republican Party convention possesses the potential to electrify millions of Americans as well: in anticipation of better TV viewing once the NFL season starts in a few weeks.

Barack Obama is now the official Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. For his running mate, he has selected Democratic Senator Joe Biden, of Delaware. A man who once plagiarized parts of a speech from a British parliamentarian, a man who composes every sentence with the following elements: a noun, a verb, and an onslaught of cops, firefighters, teachers, and line workers.

Obama's rationale for selecting Biden appears to be Biden's ability to connect with "blue collar" citizens, who in many cases just happen to be "cops, firefighters, teachers, and line workers". Also, Biden has considerable experience in foreign policy. He went to Georgia recently on a diplomatic mission. He is also the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee. He openly refers to his wife as "drop dead gorgeous". A fortuitous catchphrase for a possible Vice President?

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have once again come mindnumbingly close to outdoing each other: fortunately, this time the contest is between which of the two politicians could deliver a more effective speech at the Denver convention. Both Sens. Clinton and Obama were freakin' amazing at the podium. Obama had so many great one-liners, I wondered if he could have a chance on "Last Comic Standing". Perhaps he should share a timeslot on NBC with George Bush's new show, "Last Neocon Standing".

I'm glad Senator Clinton was able to make it Denver A-OK. Unfortunately, she couldn't rid herself of her jumpsuit and escape from incarceration in time to make her convention appearance. Orange pantsuit? Really? Orange really isn't her color...who does she think she is anyways? Tom Ridge? John Ashcroft? Fashion Homeland Security Alert: Level High!

Barack Obama said the word "change" a grand total of fifteen (15) times during his speech on Thursday night at Invesco Field. For a 42 minute speech, that's not actually a bad ratio by Obama. He typically uses the word so many times in speeches that listeners begin to wonder if the change he promises at the end of a speech hasn't itself changed since the beginning of his speech.

In the next day or two, expected Republican nominee Sen. John McCain is expected to choose his running mate on the GOP ticket. Prospective candidates to ensure McCain's victory include, but are not limited to:

Master Yoda (Pro: strong resolve against terror)

(Con: violates classic rule "never pick a VP who looks better than you do")

Edward Cullen (Pro: stops loss of the youth vote to Obama)

(Con: reinforces McCain's old age by picking 117-year-old)

Rihanna (Pro: female, African-American, more popular than George Bush)

(Con: ...one heartbeat away from the Presidency)

Emeril Lagasse (Pro: promises to "kick it up a notch" in war on terrorism)

(Con: too many cooks in the kitchen?)

Mitt Romney (Pro: counteracts Obama as another "candidate of change")

(Con: owns more flip-flops than Kerry, also from Massachusetts)

Salutation and Introduction

2008-08-28T19:50:00.000-04:00

What is this wondrous series of tubes I spy?

Before I proceed to arbitrarily dump material on these tubes, I feel that a (somewhat) brief introduction is necessary.

I am a poli. sci./history major/aspiring writer.

This is a place for me to note my random thoughts and observations that occur to me. I will attempt to explain why I am writing these down.

To begin with, "Teleprompter" is kind of an Internet alias of mine, in an ironic sensibility. I view it as the culmination of the gaping disconnect between politicians and average citizens that the teleprompter has become the hallmark of the governing class. Between the politicians who are out of touch with the needs of typical American citizens, and the civic ignorance of most Americans, the teleprompter stands as the ultimate symbol for the current dysfunction of our democratic process in the United States.

I believe in the power of the average citizen to stand up for justice. I believe in the power of comedy to reveal and demolish hypocrisy, lies, and double standards. I strongly believe in the ability of a few well-reasoned and able citizens to come together to affect change when it is so desperately required.

This will certainly not be limited to the serious; this will certainly not be all about politics. This will be about living and life in general, slapstick and sarcasm and satire. I may note some things of interest that happen to me, or memories that are lodged in my psyche, or notable things I observe.

Most of all, I just hope someone will read this. Welcome!