Sarah Palin, for real?

So, billed previously as Alaska’s hottest governor, and probably Wasilla City Council’s hottest councilperson, Sarah Palin has been named to the VP slot on McCain’s ticket.  Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not discriminating because I’m against pretty faces in politics, but chiming in at 44 years old, she is even younger than Barack Obama. Needless to say as well, she has literally no experience in national, let alone international politics. On these two notes, Barack Obama has been relentlessly torn at by his republican opponents. But to McCain’s loyal groupies, these don’t matter, as long as you’re the Vice President, despite the age and fragility of John McCain himself and that he even said publicly that his VP would be one who could take the helm at a day’s notice… just in case, you know.

Sadly, it is all a cheap ploy to pick up some votes from undecided middle-ground women and socially conservative women. It’s not about bringing change to Washington as she claimed – and allow me to digress slightly here – she pretty much stole the Obama campaign slogan for change in her acceptance speech. McCain’s platform has never been about change. It has been about maintaining strong military presences in the middle east, staying dependent on oil regardless of its source, and continuing to think the US can unilaterally use brute force to police nuclear materials, dictators, and rogue states while taking on huge debts from China and not acknowledging the emergence of China as a new superpower. Yes, that is indeed, change. Although, Palin does openly support overturning Roe v Wade and endorses the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools, and even create a constitutional amendment creating legal restrictions on who can love one another and get married. So, actually, I correct myself here, she does promote change – change being a regression to the 1950’s. Hooray.

Now, back to her as a woman candidate. It is a ploy to gain some ground with some of McCain’s weaker demographics. It’s not genuine, though. She claims herself to be a feminist and praddled on about Hillary (rightfully so) and her accomplishments in the democratic primaries, and said that the women of the nation aren’t done yet. She proudly thinks she will be the first female high office executive in our nation’s history, and yet said nothing about what she wants for women in this country.  Even Joe Biden mentioned closing the pay gap between men and women in his acceptance speech. It would be one thing if this was reversed and she was announced first, and Bidon, appealing to the undecided women voters made a stab for support in such a way. But it wasn’t like that at all, he genuinely said that without political prompting in his speech, and Sarah Palin just said she is going to shatter the glass that Hillary Clinton scratched.

In terms of strategy, it was a sound decision, and one that probably seemed good at the time. I have my doubts about it’s payoff come November, but we will see. She is detached enough that young moderate voters might actually see her as bringing about political reform; she has socially conservative views which will help bring about the “religious right” but she isn’t openly faith-guided in her politics which will help with the seculars as well. Her track record isn’t particularly sound, but I think McCain might be hoping she has been far enough under the radar that there won’t be enough time to air all of her questionable policies before the election.

I said this of Bidon, and it certainly applies to Palin. It’s not about the person or position of the vice president. We all know that the VP is a glorified non-voting Senator who is just next in line. Dick Cheney has set a high bar in vice presidential meddling, but that will probably remain the exception and not the rule. So it’s not about who is filling the role as VP, but about how it affects the electability of the team. Obama made a choice to help the apparent weak spots in his campaign instead of choosing another “we want changer,” or someone influential in a battleground state or demographic. McCain has chosen to pick someone who will be a counter to the public’s hesitation on his age, and pick up key weak demographics in his campaign.  We’ll see how it goes.

On an eye-rolling note, the die-hard McCain suppoters are even going so far as to say that this is just simply in his nature as a Maverick. Don’t be fooled, this is a purely calculated political dance. McCain may “shoot from the hip,” and that may appeal to some voters. I, however, would rather be represented to the rest of the world by a deeply thoughtful, insightful, intellectual president who weighs what he says and what he does before “shooting.”  Esepecially after Dick Cheney’s now legendary shooting (ooh, cheapshot!).

The Switch: Political Parties and Progressiveness

What did you call me? A progressive?! I’m not sure if I’m offended or pleased…

America’s two political parties have, in a sense, switched places. The party formerly known as conservative is now the party interested in pushing new frontiers and reshaping the world, reshaping old business models, and getting involved heavily in global affairs. Yes, you heard me. The republican party can now proudly be called the party of progressives.

Take for example, outsourcing of customer support call centers to other countries. The republican party is in favor of allowing American companies to take jobs overseas; using the capabilities of global telecommunications, companies can outsource call centers and throw a big wrench into old business models that were limited by long-distance telecommunications costs. The democratic party is interested in protecting American jobs and keeping companies from fully taking advantage of the capabilities of new technologies.

Obviously, the republican party is also greatly interested in playing a large role in international events – being involved in conflicts that don’t involve America necessarily. Now the democrats could be considered the isolationists: wanting to decrease the size of the military, keeping focus on domestic concerns, letting other countries duke it out, so to speak.

In defense, climate change is a big deal, and the more we can do to improve our ability to move forward into the twenty first century with our green foot forward, the better. Additionally, we will need some time to fix all the things that have been neglected for the last 7 years. Namely, Americans.

Really, there is a lot to be said for both sides, but it can’t be denied how labels can change right from under our noses.

Another Post About 9-11

Had I not been reminded a few times yesterday about the looming shadow of today, I could have forgotten that which today marks the six year anniversary. I think I saw one flag at half-mast today. I didn’t really watch much TV today, which is to say, I watched slightly more than I usually do (big fat none). Nothing was said while I was watching; surprisingly no commercials used it as a shameless marketing device.

I remember immediately after it happened I wanted people to refuse to talk about it. I wanted people to just observe the unfolding events, mourn, and say nothing. That was certainly not the case. Immediately there were all sorts of wild speculations about liberation fronts, neo-Oklahoma City bombers, the CIA, the complete breakdown of society, et al. I was in high school when it happened (my first tell of my age I think I’ve made in my blog), and I remember immediately following, about 10 people were called to the office. Someone said that they were being called down to be told their parents had died. It was too soon; I knew it couldn’t be the case, but what if it was? It just made me want to be in denial longer. Not out of denying the reality of the day, but denying the wild, whispered ruminations.

This is sort-of akin to my treatment after the Virginia Tech shootings.  Even know, when people take sagely or knowingly, pretentiously and callously about either the shootings or 9/11, it makes me annoyed or even angry. I’m not one of those “get over it” people, but in some ways, that is what people need to do. For some, trying to probe and scrutinize a tragedy must be a sign of greater compassion or insights into the human condition.

So where do we go from here, then? Do we continue to remember in marginally declining amounts each year? Will 9/11 always represent this sense of weightiness and somberness that we have experienced on these days in the past years? Will our post-modern skepticism win out and we will explicitly decide to refute the sense of mourning as an empty self-conscious form of coping?

The Examined Life

I wrote this brief essay last autumn under the title: Socrates Had it All Wrong.  I have made some edits and corrections since then, but this is the gist of it.

The examined life is not only not worth living, but not living at all. Socrates said that the wiser man is the one who comes to realize the breadth of his ignorance. The fool is the one who doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. While this may be true – the contemplative man is wiser and more modest, it is ultimately a terrible fate. It is tragic really.

The path to wisdom is to contemplate your ignorance and realize how much of it there is? Socrates said that the unexamined life is not worth living. Think on this though: when are you most unhappy? When you are thinking on a negative past experience or thinking about the negative state of things. When are you most happy? During the times that “fly by.” Why? Because you’re not thinking. Thinking sort of interferes with experience. Reflection and metacognition are removed from the actual experience of living. Camus wrote that Sisyphus poured himself into his task, learned to appreciate the rock and the very ceaseless aspect of his eternal duty.  This awareness of the problem allows us to move beyond it.  Learning to appreciate the toil of our modern lives in this light is really the process of learning to live. He also vividly details the toil of the inexorable task, the recurring moment when Sisyphus turns to see his rolling rock, and contemplates his torment. This reflection is as futile as it is unpleasant. The idea that ignorance is bliss is recurring, even though it is often portrayed as negative and the bane to civilized democratic society. The fact that it recurs must mean that it is worth considering. So how now can the unexamined life be that bad?

The Stranger is a miniature dialectic for this entire argument: in the first half, Meursault lives his life without thought or contemplation. It is only through confinement and the trial that he is forced to reflect on his life. This process leaves him unfulfilled and angry, as he explodes at the Chaplin before his execution. While Meursault is arguably not a complete person for having such shallow thoughts and emotions (if any at all), he at least lives a happily innocent life.

So what is the verdict?  Probably that I overthink everything.

Creation of Identity; Dichotomy no. 1

How is identity constructed?  Without going into specific philosopher’s answers to this question, I’ll just throw out two seemingly contrasting ideas.

On one hand, there are those who say identity is completely extrinsic.  We are defined only within the constructs of the society of which we are a part.  One could say, “I am a woman; I live in the United States; I am an American libertarian; I am kind and charitable; I strive to learn something new each day; I wish for social justice; etc.”  Besides all these things only being described by language which is obviously a social construct, they all exist in reference to the larger community.  Someone who has no clue what a woman is, what the United States is, what a libertarian is, what kindness and charity are would not know who this person is at all.  All of these qualifiers depend on some sort of external context.

On the other hand, some say that there is an internal self that just simply isn’t described by words.  Everything we use to describe ourselves to each other is an external reference, but there is an underlying true self.  In a sense, you know yourself through and through, even if no one else does.  It would be impossible for me to describe the thought process of such a person, but think of it as knowing your email password.  Unless you picked something incredibly simple, it is unique to you, you created it, only you know it, and it has never existed before.

Take a moment to reflect and try to identify yourself.  Do you think you exist only in relation to other people and your relative temporal-spatial existence? Do you know yourself and can say you have an identity which is projected through extrinsic and referential qualifiers?  Are the words you use to describe yourself actually your identity, or are they mere linguistic reflections of your true but indescribable identity?

Support The Troops

I got an email from a friend of mine about the need to support the troops. The email compared the hardships a hypothetical “you” feels with the hardships a soldier serving in Iraq. Here are a few excerpts:

You stay up for 16 hour.
He stays up for days on end.

You take a warm shower to help you wake up.
He goes days or weeks without running water.

You put on your anti war/don’t support the troops shirt, and go meet up with your friends.
He still fights for your right to wear that shirt.

You’re angry because your class ran 5 minutes over.
He’s told he will be held over an extra 2 months.

You make sure your cell phone is in your pocket.
He clutches the cross hanging on his chain next to his dog tags.

You see only what the media wants you to see.
He sees the broken bodies lying around him.

You sit there and judge him, saying the world is probably a worse place because of men like him.
If only there were more men like him.

If you don’t support your troops well, then don’t repost, it’s not like you know the men and women that are dying to preserve your right…

This is not some humble request from some ubiquitous entity known as “the troops” to be respectful; this is a bunch of absurd tear jerking comparisons someone thought it would be appropriate to slap together and turn into a chain email. Everyone has their own challenges, and it is wrong to say that your challenges don’t matter because someone else faces different challenges. It is wrong to say that someone’s struggles matter less because someone else struggles more. Life isn’t measured by comparisons unless you want to try to shame someone, like this attempts to do.

This email is cavalier enough to assume we all run around wearing “fuck the troops” t-shirts and criticize soldiers in our spare time and then live self-indulgent, hateful lives. But, it’s not bold enough to mention the politicians who started the war; the politicians and business war profiteers who are financially benefiting from the war; the military officials who signed stop-losses on soldiers; the politicians who won’t set specific objectives, goals, or deadlines.  No, this email tells you that it is your fault the soldiers are shaken awake by mortars and forced to stay months after their contract is over.  It is clearly your fault “the troops” don’t have enough food, water, or supplies (or combat armor).

I would like to go line by line and rail against this email, but it would be far too long and some are too easy.  The clutching the cross next to his dog tags sure is a heart-breaker, isn’t it?  It definitely evokes images of Platoon or Saving Private Ryan in my mind.  Must be absolutely true, because obviously all of the troops are devout Christians who pray to Jesus while clutching their cross on the battlefield.

These are the sound-bytes that are hurting free speech in this country.  The nation needs to learn that dissension is not unpatriotic.  Dissension is part of the democratic process – the very thing we are attempting to instill in other countries.  It’s true that not every nation grants as much liberty as the United States, but it doesn’t mean that your right to disagree is some cushy privilege that you don’t deserve since you aren’t serving in the military.  I dare not even imagine what the country would be like if everyone who wanted the rights provided for in our founding documents was required to actively serve in the military.  Criticizing the government, in the situation we’re currently faced with, is support for the troops.  Supporting the troops means criticizing the government that uses stop-loss tactics and doesn’t provide adequate armor. Supporting the troops means criticizing the government that attempts to increase troop levels arbitrarily with no end in sight and no clearly defined goals or objectives.

—

Not to drag this out much further, but the “anti-war/don’t support the troops shirt” line made me kind of laugh, actually.  Does anyone have a “don’t support the troops” shirt?  I’m not sure I have ever seen one.  Though, I have seen plenty of yellow ribbons with the affirming version of the catchphrase on plenty of SUVs.  Maybe, instead of paying $1 to a charity for a yellow ribbon sticker, you could not drive an SUV that fuels the instability that fuels the war.  Does anyone else get angry, and I mean really ANGRY when you see a shiny pick-up truck or SUV (that has clearly never seen a day of heavy hauling) with a “Support the Troops” sticker planted 12 inches above the exhaust pipe that churns out, literally, TONS of CO2 every year?

Conformity and the Myth of Dissidence

We all know the type – the swaggered, slightly-rugged, liberal and outspoken contender to all things establishment. We know them by their typical self-identified labels – rebels, nonconformists, Bohemians, those who claim to be original, fresh, real, those who fight the establishment, those who think they are fighting the establishment, and so on.

It isn’t a new idea, but it seems to bear repeating particularly at college campuses. How many people do you know that claim to be against the establishment, to be nonconformists, and silently leading some plight against the oppressive government (that so happens to partially fund the university as well as offer low-interest loans to such noble freedom fighters)? How many of you have friends who have college-aged kids that profess their love for the Earth and they would give up their lives to defend the freedom of a single wronged individual halfway across the world? I would imagine some of you reading this right now believe you oppose the man or whatever else you convinced yourself of – and of which all your similarly minded friends agree.

The truth is, and I stress I know this is not a new idea, that there is no such thing as a nonconformist by definition. Likewise, there are almost no, if any at all, nonconformists by “practical interpretation.”

The idea of a nonconformist is someone who opposes the norm, goes against the grain, or marches to the beat of a different cliche or whatever. The point in all of these, is that they define themselves by conformity. If you go against the norm, you are still self-defined by the norm. If you go against the grain you still go in a direction dictated by where the grain goes. I know this is a technicality, but it applies to real life too.

I know of a young man who believes studying humanities or politics to be wrong because those who do are merely cogs in the system that oppresses them. To become a government employee is fit for mindless and brainwashed sheep. Unsurprisingly, he is a student also, but believes his field of study – related to numbers and math – is neutral and the weapon of those who fight the system. Regardless of whether or not math is trendy or rebellious or whatever, he still is a piece of this machinery he calls the university. I find it endlessly ironic that he studies humanities on the side, but as a way of “enhancing” his outlook and enjoyment. Although unfit for a superior beatnik mind like his own to study in depth as a means to make a living down the road, he studies them for his own personal enjoyment of the finer things in life.

Like it or not, being part of the counter-system that thinks it opposes the system, is still part of the system. You are still defined by the masses even if you actively fight such labels. Living “off the grid” a la Terminator 3 doesn’t make you any less part of the grid. While I would like to be able to say I am completely original, true to myself, and unique, I am merely another cog writing a blog. I am a “blogger” despite the fact I hate the word “blog” and abhor the “blogosphere.” My voice against the popular voice is just part of the soundscape. My voice in support of the popular voice is just another sliver of the masses.

How Much Judgment is Enough?

There is no question about it, everyone judges. How, about what, and to what degree is it acceptable or even right? It is easy to attach a negative label to judgment; to call someone judgmental is almost instantly regarded as an insult.

But is judgment really that bad?

To judge something is to hold it in some kind of relative position against something else or a set of values. It is impossible to say anything is good, bad, right, wrong, beautiful, emotional, or valuable without judgment. This is what I mean by “everyone judges.” I believe it is impossible to be completely indifferent, detached and rational about all things, or to be completely so about even one thing. To even discuss or ponder anything is to place some form of importance on it and elevate it above something else ponderable.

That said, what is the place of value judgments in our lives? If you are opinionated like myself, you probably have made many value judgments and comparisons if not out-loud, in your mind. To be opinionated is to make strong judgments and to judge your own judgments as important or at the very least, more correct.

Now the question is, how right is it to proclaim such opinions? Does it really matter what you believe compared to what your neighbor believes? I bet you probably think it does matter, and I’m not going to tell you that it doesn’t. Allow me to ask, Why? Why does it matter what you believe, and why does it matter how your opinions relate and are perceived by others?

If you and your neighbor believe different things from one another, is there a point to having an argument, knowing neither of you can or will change each other’s mind? I used to believe, and still do somewhat, that there was a value in debate, as both parties could have a sort of dialectic and come to some sensible middle ground and each discover new territory. Honestly speaking though, besides learning what your counterparts believe, how much does such a discussion change or influence your perceptions and beliefs? When is the last time a discussion with someone who believed something far different from you changed what you believed and made you believe in this sensible middle ground? A Christian and an Atheist aren’t going to come to a mutual understanding that God is suffers from the same precarious predicament as Schrodinger’s Cat.

Besides the futility of boldly making value statements, is it even right to? Is it really in your responsibilities as a person to try to influence others? Reality is subjective, people construct their realities different from each other, and perceptions make all the difference. A person who has lived a completely different life from yours cannot possibly understand even a simple statement about the rightness of any value like compassion in the same way you understand it (again, with the futility). Is it my place to even tell you what to believe about values? I’m not entirely sure. What makes me an expert or even a voice worth hearing? Even if I was some sort of expert on the subject of opinions (laughable), does even that make it right?

This entry isn’t designed to prove some point or convince you, the reader, of what to believe, but perhaps it should serve as some sort of meta-judgment. I am denying the correctness or absoluteness of a judgment normative value about judgments. I question myself right now, as I sit about to hit the “publish” button, should this even be made public? Is it my place to tell you what to believe, justify my opinions, or attempt to influence your own way of thinking? Beyond that, is it even worth it? It really is a futile endeavor. Even if I do turn your world upside down, so to speak, what does that even mean in the big picture?

VT Shootings: The Nation . . . Reacts

I’m assuming everyone who has found this blog has probably heard about the incident at Virginia Tech on Monday, 16 April, 2007. I am not writing about the incident, but that isn’t to say that I am trivializing it. It was a terrible day, but nothing I could say about it could possibly have any meaning to those who have been affected by it. However, I would like to talk about the reaction I have noticed from most of the people I have encountered.

I do believe many people who are talking about the incident are, in fact, trivializing it. Those who were affected by it have very little to say about it. It is personal, it is meaningful, and those affected don’t need to rush out to proclaim loudly that they were affected in some way. It is everyone else who have suddenly become psychology experts that have the most and the least to say.

The first thing I saw on the news when the story broke was a girl describing the killer as emotionless. Since then, I have heard countless people say that the killer must have been some cold-blooded sociopath who felt nothing and lost his humanity long ago. I also hear the same people talking about how his writing was so disturbing and graphic, and only a complete psycho could have written such things. I believe anyone who can write something that can invoke such an instant visceral reaction from readers cannot possibly be emotionless. How can someone who wrote something with such passion as to scare people out of the gourd ALSO be a cold-blooded, unfeeling, inhuman monster?

That isn’t to say he wasn’t a monster, but to draw such conclusions from a witness describing him as such is premature.

I read in a book about war that when people are made to kill, they turn their victims into objects, in order to rationalize and accept the destruction in their minds. If their victims are objects, it is okay to destroy them. I read that that is why you read in German WW2 accounts that the Nazis non-chalantly performed sick and inhumane acts, even laughed while engaged in the genocide. Perhaps their minds had long ago made the switch and turned their targets from humans to objects. This certainly doesn’t make it any less wrong, terrible, or horrifying, but it sheds light on how people can possibly do the things they do.

To touch on the writing for a moment: it is cliché to say that hindsight is 20-20, but its true. Many news stations are having a field day with the killer’s writings – as he was an English major and all. He wrote about violent and hurtful topics: abuse, murder plots, and hatred, among others. People are now saying that we should have caught him earlier, and known that he would do something unspeakable from how telling his writing was about his psyche.

Much more seriously graphic and violent stories are written all the time across the country. It is nothing new for college students, or even high school students to write about violent topics. Violent stories are absolutely nothing new, or else horror movies and slashers would never be produced – who would write the screen plays?

It is easy to say that the writings were telling after the fact, but the truth is that violent stories are nothing new, and I’m positive that English teachers encounter questionable topics in their student’s writings all the time and think little of it. Except now, people will think something of it. I worry about the kind of response this will have in the academic world in the coming months. What kind of censorship is going to take place? How many students will unjustly find themselves forced to sit down with counseling services because they wrote about an abusive stepfather or sketched a crime scene?

I recently spoke with a family member of a friend who told me flat out that the killer should have been locked up long ago. They (he/she) told me the English teacher knew long ago about the extremely violent tendencies of this student, and clearly something had to be done. It is now being reported that somewhere along the line, a psychiatrist claimed the student was a danger to himself and others. This has only fueled the 20-20 hindsight fire further. I would like to see the last time a university sent one of their own tuition-paying, nearly-graduating students to an involuntary psychiatric ward. I would like someone to explain to me how such a thing could possibly have gone down.

Lets say a good school somewhere in the southern US kicked out a student who received good enough grades, was nearing graduation, and had a clean criminal record with no history of violent actions. Lets say the university went further and recommended to police that the student be detained and locked away in a mental institution for being a suspected psychotic, sociopathic potential killer. How would such a course of events been seen as justified or even close to acceptable?

Again, it is a cliché for a reason, but hindsight is 20/20. There is no way anyone could have known or predicted this unless he or she was willing to speculate there are killers all over the country in high schools and colleges based on the same reasons for suspicion as applicable to Seung-hui Cho.

Going a step beyond people pointing fingers, why ARE people in such a hurry to make excuses and excise themselves of responsibility? I don’t think people need to feel responsible; it was indeed his own actions, choices, and motives. However, people shouldn’t be so quick to make excuses. It is not the time to pass the blame or hold your hands up and plead ignorance.

It isn’t the time to rationalize this off into absurdity or compartmentalize it into something so isolated from reality. This was terrible, but it is reality. It is what happens, and it is what can happen again. This isn’t something we can push aside because we don’t think we can deal with it, and it isn’t something we can pass the buck and say it is someone else’s problem. There is mourning, sure, but there can also be inspiration and a newfound understanding of the fragility of life. There are things to be learned, individual lessons that people can take from this.

On another note, something I have noticed is the lack of meaningful respect paid to the victims. I have seen many elaborate banners and images created by students at other schools to pay homage to Virginia Tech. I see the VT letters filled with the flag of another school, and set atop school seals, or flags, or ribbons, which are also set atop seals or flags. I wonder what people who spend their time creating these images hope to achieve. How bad off do you have to be to seek attention by creating the most elaborate VT homage banner?