Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Obama Derangement Syndrome
The Work World
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Cynical Commentary II
Thanks for the positive comments. I have to admit though, reading through it later, I thought the whole thing could have been edited down a whole lot and structured much more tightly. I assure you, the only reason parts of it sounded even halfway decent was due to the fact that this post allowed me to integrate a couple of separate ideas that I've been kicking around for a few years. The immigrant nation vs. ethnic nation and Huntington strands of thought in particular.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Cynical Commentary about Torture Commentary
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Torture and the American Identity
It's really a great conversation starter.
I've vacillated on just about every aspect of this issue over the past several years. Is it ever effective? If it is, can it be justified? If/when it's justified, is it then also morally permissible?
I eventually came to the conclusion that, although not being in the industry I could never know for certain, it seemed that enought people believed there to be value to gain from the now euphemistically rephrased "enhanced interrogation techniques" that there were probably times when such action was effective. When that was the case, when lives were on the line, then torturing the one whose knowledge could prevent the coming atrocity was justified. I even came to what I decided was a very mature worldview; that torture was not morally justified, but when it was necessary, men and and women could willingly choose to sacrifice their dignity and morality for the good of the nation, knowing full well the consequences of their actions, and knowing that they should, and would be prosecuted for them. It was all very nice and honorable, with what, in my world view, is the ultimate personal sacrifice thrown in to top everything off. And it was wrong. In every god damned sense, it was wrong.
Over time, I came to revise my belief based on two concurrent but separate tracts of thought. First on the dry and uncontroversial basis of the very effectiveness of physically torturing someone. The more I read, the more I learned, the more I critically thought about the issue, the less compelling the need for torture seemed. As much as I enjoy watching 24 (as does, apparently, Bill Clinton, oddly enough), the series has had one effect on the American political debate that's as unbelievable as it is unjustified. We're now at a point where Republicans try to explain that the Democrats don't understand the real world, and to emphasize their point, they site Jack Bauer. Wha?! When one of the primary pieces of evidence supplied by one side of a debate is a fictional character in a fictional world, I can be pretty confident that something has gone awry in the universe.
Dick Cheney has exemplified this mentality. But the thing is, to get to the point where you have a suspect in custody ready for interrogation, you must already have a very strong handle on the situation. I was never able to articulate this idea very well, but Stratfor put it very effectively earlier this week when they wrote:
"A great deal of tactical information on the individual — what he knows, the organization he works for and that organization’s activities — is all necessary to get to that point. This is rarely the case in either police work or the intelligence community — and if authorities did have that much highly specific intelligence, the time-consuming process of torture is rarely either necessary or an efficient means of gathering further details."
So torture as an effective means of coercion just doesn't seem to pan out. Full stop, right? Wrong. Because the effectiveness is just one aspect of this story, and arguably it's the less important one. Because even if it were justified by the information to be gained from a suspect, the question would still remain: Is this morally right?
The answer shouldn't even be a question. Shephard Smith put voice to what so many people were thinking earlier this week when he exploded on camera in indignation as the two men he was on stage with debated the legality of torture. As he so effectively pointed out, it's not a question of legality. Of Bybee's memos or executive directives. It's a question of who we are. The Right (and I use that term not in its historical context, recent or otherwise, but in the current"Rush Limbaugh-Republicans" sense of the word) claims that, as Americans, we need to fight for American values. This is true, and thirty or forty years ago, is why I would have been a Republican, when the alternative was a wishy-washy cultural relativism. Ronald Reagan, the Right's hero, in championing a treaty banning torture, understood this in a way that is today lost. However, the Right today often seems to be concerned not with defending America the idea, the ideal, but America the place.
Now America is a place; its people and its position in the world has been defined by its geography, but Americans have never been defined by where their fathers and mothers were born and bred. This immigrant society that we have is what sets countries such as the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand apart from almost every other nation on earth. Now this ideal hasn't always been perfectly followed; in the U.S. alone, there's a long litany of resentment and persecution towards the 'other'. Native American genocide and/or forced relocation, Slavery, Jim Crow, NINA, Yellow Peril, the list could go on for another page and a half. But in the end, America has always (and, as time has gone by, more consistently) come back to the belief that being an American isn't about your ethnicity, your creed, your faith. It's about a mentality. A set of principles. It's about an idea.
Being accepted as an American is, in most places, far easier than becoming an American. That's not an oxymoron. Legally becoming a citizen takes many years, cards of various hues, and mounds of paperwork. Being accepted as an American is fairly simple. In this society, people are accepted as Americans simply by wanting to be an American. Though the government aspires otherwise, that is obviously and manifestly not the case in, say, France, or most of the rest of Europe. This cultural trait is one of the great strengths of our country. Nearly as important, the U.S. has an uncanny ability to take in new peoples, add their culture to the American fabric, and create a new and ever evolving culture for all, one that the immigrant's children have historically readily adopted, even if doing so was more difficult for their parents. America is kinda like a good version of the Borg.
So what is America then? America is its people, and those people are, again, defined by a mentality and set of principles. America is an idea. I accept that this makes America an inherently weaker entity than most other nations on Earth. About five years ago, I picked up Samuel Huntington's (of Clash of Civilization's fame) latest work, Who Are We?, due solely to his previous work. The gist of the book's argument is that America has to reembrace Protestantism, or we're headed down a path towards two nation's, one Hispanic and non-aspirational, and the rest of us. His argument is that America, as a nation based on an idea rather than an ethnic history has an inherent long-term weakness. Now I disagree with his assessment on several fronts, but I concede the central concern of a divide opening between people of different backgrounds. I concede his concern, but I reject his central hypothesis.
America is and can a remain a country that exists based on its ideals, on its promise, and on its purpose. I love America, not because I was born here. I love this country because it is a nation that accepts all comers. Because it is a nation that exists not for the sake of existence, but exists to embody and puruse the ideals on which it was founded, and on which we have been raised. Torture in the name of preserving America is not only unjustified. It's an oxymoron.
Science, Faith, and Intellectual Dishonesty
After almost a decade are we actually reaching agreement on the science as a religion question? That is cause for astonishment. I'll agree with you that the titular heads of the two schools of debate are not normally in the same league wrt intellectual honesty. I also recall, to reuse the stem cell example, that the major proponents caveated their arguments. However, they were perfectly happy to allow others to make more exorbitant claims (an argument I advance for the simple reason that the public debate does not and never has been as nuanced as were the proponents of the research in their public statements).
That leads to another line of thought, and one I'd like to get your opinion on. When you were discussing the Mos Def/Christopher Hitchens smackdown, and Ta-Nehisi Coates' assault on the the failure of the 'elder' generations to educate the younger ones and force them to grow intellectually, you also seemed to promoting the utility of using those who agree with you, but for the wrong reasons to advance your own stance.
I'm not sure where you stand on this, but the thing is, once I thought about it, I realized that I agree with both of the assertions I thought you made. In other words, I'm a hypocrite on this issue (though not a delestivus, since I'm acknowledging it :) ). I get intensely agitated when someone makes a statement without backup; the bar mentality that you expect out of undergrads and the uneducated. Into this category I place such pearls of wisdom as "The Republicans just want the oil", "Democrats want to take our guns", "Dick Cheney controlled the White House, because Bush is a moron", and "Of course there was a conspiracy [9-11, Kennedy, whatever]. The [insert favorite group here]
A brief aside is in order here, one which ties together the current discussion as well as the science as a religion tangent. I was recently out in the field with a coworker when she started talking about a test that you can have done for ~$125 that the Discovery Channel has been hawking for several years now. It involves swabbing your mouth to get some genetic samples and then sending them off for testing. The results will then tell you your genetic history.
Allright, cool. Interesting idea. I raised the point though that only a few years ago, there was a mini-controversy when it was revealed that the several companies involved in this business tend to provide different histories for the same genetic sample. In other words, the science isn't complete yet on this one, as we're still developing our collective understanding of humanity's genetic history. When I raised this point, my coworker said, and I swear this is almost verbatim, "Yeah, that's true, but I trust them, and you have to start somewhere." I asked why I should trust the results from her company and not some other company, to which she replied that these guys were professionals. Pressing her further, she explained that she's read up on this topic and has experience that I lack which makes her more trusting of the results. This experience, I shit you not, is a couple of undergrad courses in genetics she took...over 25 years ago. It's equivalent to my asserting a detailed knowledge of Gregor Mendel because I completed a worksheet on the genetic qualities of peas in a High School chemistry class. I about lost it, and actually accused her of treating science as her own religion, as we've been discussing.
The main point of this story is that I agree that we have an obligation to educate those who might agree with us, but for the wrong reason. In fact, I agree that genetic testing can reveal our deepest ancestry. I don't think we can tell with any deep degree of accuracy exactly where we come from yet (nor do I particularly care about the results myself, but that's a different rant), but I've little doubt a consensus will be reached fairly quickly on how to proceed. However, I also follow your other line of argument in my daily life. That people are better off holding the point of view I hold, even if it's for the wrong reasons, than following the alternative.
In other words, like you say, "as long as they're voting the way I want them to", I don't argue that much. I've displayed this tendency in arguments with you in the past. We'll be discussing something, and a third party will agree with some contention I'm making, but for reasons that I don't think are particularly compelling (this has been the case with Q on a couple of occasions). I don't break and say "yeah, you're right, but at the same time you're wrong". No, no I continue to hammer my point home, using the support of the third party to wear down my opponent. It's intellectually dishonest, and something I really need to address in the future.
- DH
P.S. I really wish I could come up with something quantifiable to back up my still gestating assertion that a majority (or at least a plurality) of people in this country treat scientific work with the reverence normally reserved for the supernatural, but I haven't yet managed to do so. If you come across any evidence, either for or against, I'd be very interested in seeing it. I really dislike making unsubstantiated claims based only on my gut, and this one's definitely a doozy.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Are we all really equally responsible for this debt?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Science as Religion II
Computer Update
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Of Computers and PETA
On another note entirely, I was horrified earlier this week when I discovered that I agreed with PETA on something. The Colbert Report did a piece on the emerging science of growing meat in the laboratory, and spent some time interviewing the head of the organization; you know, the lady who wants her flesh fried in a public place upon her death so that people will realize that human and animal flesh is essentially the same thing, and it's morally wrong to eat either.
PETA is offering $1M to whomever comes up with a viable method of growing meat in the lab. Now I think growing my steak and cheeseburger is a fantastic idea, yet I seem to be pretty much alone in this. Most everyone I've ever discussed the topic with (it's a great conversation starter...) finds the entire concept disgusting. Growing meat seems like a fantastic idea though. We no longer have to waste resources on gargantuan numbers of farm animals, and as an added bonus it may slow the destruction of the Amazon as the need for the multitude of continually migrating ranches would evaporate. In addition, meat has a very large energy content (not to mention protein content), which, as I understand evolutionary biology, is why the smarter animals tend to be the meat eaters. Human evolution sped up once we became omnivores. Meat is therefore a very important food item. It's scarcity in places makes it a luxury though, leading to diminished statures and health. There's a reason politicians from Henry IV to Herbert Hoover promoted the idea of a chicken in every pot as a prime of community development. Growing meat could radically expand the number of people who could enjoy such luxuries.
...Still, now that I learn that I and PETA are in agreement on something, I'm forced to rethink my position. Maybe all those people who I decided Just Didn't Get It have a point? The alternative, that PETA may actually be right about something, is a concept almost to horrible to contemplate.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
BHO & Congr. Leadership Parte Tres
On Part the First, P, you're absolutely right; as I recall, you were postulating that President Obama's popularity, in conjunction with his obvious intelligence and (I think) even-handedness would ensure that he would hold the upperhand in the never ending contest between the Executive and Legislative branches. I admit that I hadn't viewed the administration's having the bill wholly crafted by the House in the same light as you P. I can see where you're coming from though, even if my gut tells me that my original interpretation seems more likely. I suspect that's because of the different lenses through which we each view Obama so early in his Presidency, before he's really had a chance to define himself. As an aside, I tend to believe, as you do, that he truly does want Republican support for his measures. My imagined rationale for that urge is however filtered through the same aforementioned lens, so I tend to view that in a more cynical light. Does he want their input, or is he trying to avoid conflict for it's own sake?...Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. After eight years of on-high pronouncements from the White House, I welcome a move in the opposite direction.
Moving on to the second point, the work of Deng Xiaoping should be required study at the undergraduate level for any liberal arts student. I may have issues with some of his political decisions (I hail from a nation that prizes individual liberty and free choice, so I'm naturally going to be condemnatory on issues ranging from Tiananemen to Tibet), but his economic policy directions were foresighted and help lift, in a very real way, hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But I digress.
President Obama is a pragmatist, he's not a raging lefty and, you're right, he makes me look exciting. He's an incredibly boring 40-something with a beautiful family whose greatest political aspect is that he's got the charisma of Bill Clinton, without the sleaziness...also, it helps that he's never performed an exorcism. I still believe that the existing evidence points to his being too pragmatic. That being said, your defense of his career from the 2004 convention forward during our drink at that restaurant following the Maher/Coulter smackdown was well thought out, and I freely admit that his only real 'sin' since that time has been hubris which, again, is needed in a politician and is after all what's brought us to this (happy) day. I think the greatest threat at this point is that the President begins to believe his supporters' claims that he rose clean and pure from the depths of the political cesspool, held aloft by the seraphim of Hope and Change. He doesn't seem to be falling into that trap though, much to his credit.
On the final point, thanks for your perspective there P. Truly; I appreciate it. On the God front, I've been trying to refine that argument of late, figuring that after nearly a decade, it was getting a bit stale. I readily admit that science, in its pure form, is not a faith. Aristotle, al-Haytham, Bacon, Galileo, and so many others made sure of that over the long and arduous development of the scientific method. However, just as no rational third party observer would equate the religious thought and depth of Thomas Aquinas with that of Joe the Plumber, neither do I think that you can honestly equate the stereotypical faith the majority of the population seems to place in scientific achievements with the steadied rationality of the men and women working to make the discoveries and inventions that add to the collective body of human knowledge.
Two examples to try and better articulate that. The recent stem cell debate has been led in large part by those claiming that the things are likely to be a panacea for all manner of ills, from Alzheimer's to paralysis to retinal degeneration. They're a blank slate onto which people pour their hopes and dreams. Talk to the men and women in the field, and the response is far more measured. They believe in the technology (as do I), but also believe it has firm limits. But that's not what people want to hear. They want to believe that 'scientists' will be able to use this latest alchemical concoction to cure whatever ails or may ail them. You find a similar mentality in the less urgent realm of climate change. Republican or Democrat, both firmly believe that science will magically find a way to solve the issue by devising new economically sound power generation tools; the foolishness over 'clean coal' springs immediately to mind.
Humans crave certainty. Even those who believe in a higher power tend to attribute to modern science abilities it is not likely to possess. In this way, science is treated as a religion, with 'scientists' taking on the role of the High Priests. We ask the priests to solve our problems, and offer up tithings to them as they beseech the Gods. Is this a perfect analogy? No, of course not. Science actually stands a chance of succeeding in solving whatever issue it's attacking, wheras Zeus and Ahura Mazda very rarely bothered to stop the plague or bestow more advanced defensive weaponry on their worshippers. But my contention, poorly worded though it may be at 2:00 in the morning, is that this is how science is treated and viewed by the vast majority of the population. Thoughts?
Friday, March 20, 2009
Trials and Tribulations of Building A Computer
Monday, March 16, 2009
BHO and Congr. Leadership II
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Meet The Press and Defense Secretary Gates
"President Obama is somewhat more analytical and he makes sure he hears from everybody in the room on an issue, and if they don't speak up he calls on them.
President Bush was interested in hearing different points of view but didn't go out of his way to make sure everybodt spoke if they hadn't spoken up before."
This response really grabbed my attention, and increased my respect for the President significantly. President Obama follows a style of leadership that I truly believe is essential to bringing out really good ideas and, if my former Kellogg professors who've come from high leadership positions are correct, it's the best way to lead a corporation, and, I should think, a country as well.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Roland Burris and the Chicago Clergy
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Citys.Clergy.Plans.2.946816.html
P, you wrote a fairly scathing piece soon after the election lambasting a number of Chicago's African American clergymen for corruption and racial politics. I really don't see any of this changing in the forseeable future.
These men (and, branching out, women if we include some of the aldermen who have, in so many words, proclaimed that anyone who calls for Burris' impeachment is a racist pig) sincerely believe that a man should be judged not by the content of his character, but by the color of his skin. I truly believe they do. They're an affront not only to Dr. King's signature message, but to one of the core principles of President Obama's campaign. And they're an affront to me.
I wonder, what incites more raw anger and speechifying in me? Venality, dishonor, and an utter lack of humility (as displayed by both Former Governor Blagoevich and Still-Senator Burris), or racist ideology and incitement (as represented by the aforementioned clergy and aldermen who dishonor their positions)? You've known me for years P. Either of these stand out as being especially notable? I ask because I've noticed that, under normal conditions, I'll calmly debate or discuss just about anything. However, whenever someone displaying either of the above-mentioned personality traits comes to the fore in the news cycle, I start seething with an unacceptable anger bordering on rage.
President Obama and the Congressional Leadership
It was noted that the President's speech earlier this week was a (largely) nonpartisan affair, and P observed that the President's efforts to reach across the aisle, in combination with his general demeanor helps him see just why the Republican's lionize Reagan (brief aside: Reagan is the 'best' Republican president ever? His achievements top those of Lincoln? Really?).
It was that very nonpartisan tack that got my attention. P and I had a debate several months ago on how successful then soon-t0-be President Obama would be in implementing his agenda. No surprise, I was more reticent than he. One of the points P raised at the time was his belief that President Obama would rope the Senate and House to his will, or, more prosaically, that he wouldn't allow them to drive policy. I don't recall if I offered my opinion on that belief or not, but I felt that this was in no way a sure thing.
One of my key concerns over the President, and it's one that I admittedly developed after reading one too many John Kass opinion pieces in the Chicago Tribune, is that the President has long had a key personality characteristic that I've also identified in myself, and have strove over the last few years to begin modulating. That is a desire to see all viewpoints of an issue, and to craft a decision that appeals to everyone. Now that sounds nice, but this characteristic can also be phrased thusly: The tendency to roll over.
As much as I respect and genuinely like him, the President has never been what one might call a profile in courage. While in the Illinois Senate, he very obediently towed the party line (correct me if I'm missing something in his State House experience here P), and certainly never gave Emil Jones any trouble. Now, this can be viewed as biding his time and building his power base; it certainly worked for Al Smith as he worked his way through Tammany Hall around the turn of the last century in a much more corrupt atmosphere (and Smith himself was certainly more than a _bit_ corrupt, unlike the President). Still, absent any evidence to the contrary, I have the unmistakable impression that President Obama isn't able to put his foot down all that often.
This belief has been accenuated by the stimulus bill. P, you noted in the "I'm not in the tank for Obama...." post that this is really a House bill, rather than one from the White House. You also asked why the President doesn't simply "put the screws to his own party", given that he has a mandate why they, contrary to the rhetoric, do not. I'm asking the same question. Months ago we argued over whether President Obama would bring the congressional leadership to heel. Right now it seems that they're driving him. Perhaps this will change as the administration gets its legs under it, but as of the end of February, 2009, it looks to me as though President Obama is continuing in a fine tradition of deferring to others at every vital juncture.
...
...
...
A brief addendum. All that being said, I remain impressed that the administration itself isn't held hostage by the far left. The very fact that the Left is wailing and gnashing their teeth in frustration and contemplating new protests (told ya they'd go off the deep end P; I don't think it matters though, as the President has solid support among the mainstream) gives me pause in my previous analysis. President Obama's cabinet selection was, by and large, top notch, and with the exception of the Treasury department, which is itself currently horribly understaffed through no fault of Secretary Geithner, they're doing what I consider to be a fine job.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Address to Congress II
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Address to Congress
Although there was certainly more empty rhetoric than necessary, alongside declarations without means to fulfill the promises they made, I was thoroughly satisified with the speech. It's nice to watch a President treat his audience as adults, and I felt the address touched on a multitude of important issues. In the final analysis, I think the President struck the right tone throughout.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Judd Gregg and The Republican Establishment
That being said, as of this evening and on a purely emotional level, I no longer have any sympathy for the GOP, and spitefully hope to see them suffer further electoral disaster next year. I'm furious with Gregg for withdrawing his nomination. He's apparently done so because he suddenly realized that he'd be serving a Democratic president, and Republicans can't work with Democrats. On anything. If they do, they'll be contaminated. Or something.
The GOP demanded Democratic aquiescence during their eight years in power; even when the Dems held control of the Congress. Once the Democrats gained complete and total control over both the legislative and executive branches, the first thing President Obama did (against the advice and desire of many of his supporters and colleagues) was make a serious attempt to break with his predecessor and reinstitute a true bipartisanship of the kind that's been dying since, to my mind, the beginning of the Clinton administration. He not only talked with the Republican leadership, he actively inserted their ideas into his stimulus package; the Republicans even praised the man for it. And then they refused to vote for the package, apparently because it wasn't the package that they would have created had they been in power (which is the only bill worth supporting, apparently).
Gregg's recusal is a symptom of a dying party. The GOP can revive itself; indeed, it most certainly will at some point, just as both it and its Democratic compatriot have done countless times before when it seemed that the end was nigh. But right now, the Republican Party is on a witch hunt; punishing all those who don't have the ideological purity that they demand, and viewing any compromise with the oppostion as being tantamount to apostasy. This is an idea that's been far more thoroughly (and superbly) developed by Andrew Sullivan, but it's one that I now finally, and completely, subscribe to.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
I'm not in the tank for Obama.....
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Che IV
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Che III
The Sum of All Fears, wherein the novel's Arab terrorists are morphed into Hollywood's catch-all baddie group; unrepentant Nazis. Presumably because it's unwise to use current events to frame your generic bad guys.
Che, of course, for the reasons discussed previously.
Finally, foremost in my mind at the time of my last post, Guillermo Del Toro's El Labirinto del Fauno (Pan's Labyrinth). Captain Vidal has to be one of the most revolting characters I've ever seen. The man has no redeeming qualities, and is a truly excellent slate on which to paint the full horror of mid-twentieth century fascism (or, hell, fascism during any time period). At the same time though, the communist resistance fighters are portrayed as just about the purest, most virtuous band of heroic freedom fighters cinema has ever graced us with. Now I've no complaints with that; Vidal was the movie's antagonist, and the resistance fighters played well off of him in the traditional 'absolute good vs. absolute evil' that's such a hallmark of film. I'd be shocked to the core though if I ever saw a movie where the roles were reversed.
To these works are added the more common films that do, in fact, simply feature actual 1940's era Nazis as the main antagonists; last month's Defiance for one, alongside one of the best movies of all time, Schindler's List.
In contrast, I couldn't think of any halfway recent western film that details communism as being an equally brutal system (not that this means anything; I may well be overlooking a treasure trove of material that blows my assertion out of the water). You make a valid point in positing that this may simply be a result of our cultural identification with Hitler as the embodiment of evil, a characterization that is certainly accurate. I also take your point that we just don't hear much about Russia in general, given that the European theater in WWII was apparently won, as we all know, by a group of dedicated American farmboys who jumped off of the boats and instantly fixed everything (though oddly enough now that I think about it, that is, in actuality, how the Pacific theater was won...).
I remain curious as to whether these two points are the dominant explanation for the seeming disconnect between the treatments of fascism and communism. While impossible to empirically test (which of course renders this conversation rather pointless), I would very much like to know how much Hollywood's latent guilt over its complicity in the advent and growth of McCarthyism, coupled with the European left's flat-out refusal to condemn communism in any sort of meaningful ideological way, plays into the differing treatments between the two extreme ideologies.
As an aside, the best film I've seen which takes time to point out the madness of communism (as opposed to protesting against more 'pedestrian' authoritanianism, as does Richard "Free Tibet!" Gere's Red Corner) is a Chinese film; Farewell My Concubine. While an excellent movie, watching it has to rank up near the top of my "Most Depressing Ways to Spend 3 Hours of My Life" list. The movie starts off by showcasing the wretched life common people had to live in the dying days of the Republic of China. Then, the Japanese invade, and things get worse. Then the nationalists retake power at the end of the war, and the lives of the main characters descend to levels of sadness that plumb new depths...And then Mao enters stage left and the Cultural Revolution begins, and you seriously begin wondering how any person could maintain their sanity in such a situation. Highly recommended.
Che II
Monday, January 26, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Che
Why is it in Hollywood that only Fascists are ever Evil? Is it just too hard to accept that the ideological extreme on the left is just as horrific as that on the right?
Meet the Press - Race in America
I suspect I was overly critical of the Chief of Staff, again, due to my natural antipathy towards his political style. That being said…
I agree with your take on Smiley vis a vis his interaction with Gregory. He’s a man who doesn’t want to acknowledge that his time seems to be passing (incidentally, you’re mistaken in maligning Anthony Evans. The Ambinder article incorrectly identified him in the first draft you read; they’ve since issued a "Sorry, our bad" retraction).
Interestingly enough, the strongest takeaway I had from that discussion came from Washington D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty. Mayor Fenty related a story to Gregory of an Obama fundraiser he was attending at some point during the recent campaign. A white gentleman in his 50s was speaking to the crows and said "You know, to all of us he'll be the first black president. But to our kids and the younger generation, he's just the president."
Now, I readily acknowledge that President Obama’s victory most assuredly resonated with the African American community of all ages (as P can attest to after our many discussions on the subject), and I won’t argue that there wasn’t a certain amount of "hey, just watch us; we _can_ elect a black guy!" chutzpah from the under 35s, but all in all, I agree with the unnamed gentleman's sentiment. I know it's certainly how I view our President.
In the article, Cornell Belcher asserts that we're not yet a post-racial society, given the red-swath crescent across the deep South that I first saw discussed on Sullivan’s blog shortly after the election. However, I have a different takeaway here than does Mr. Belcher, and it ties back into P's point that the Blacks-As-Eternal-Victims ideology that's been peddled by so many self-appointed African American may now be on its way out. I think that our country is moving towards the post-racial society (at least as it pertains to the classic Black and White dynamic) as the nation’s demographics slowly but methodically shift, and I would hold that the deep South holdouts are simply emblematic of a time now passing into history. I view it as akin to Sparta during the closing century of the Roman Republic (and presumably through part of the Empire period as well), during which the Roman elite came on vacation to gape at the oddly anachronistic Spartans as they continued their ancient ways; a people who time had passed by.
Generation Y, whatever they're calling the newest generation, and parts of Generation X all have come of age of will come of age in an era when the battles of Dr. King are as much ancient history as World War II, and certainly The Great War was for the Boomers. I think all three of us began really following the vagaries of national politics during our High School years of the mid to late 90s, which means we've spent almost 15 years watching the Boomers fight the culture wars (yes, this is something of a tangent. Sorry). The reason those issues have less poignancy now isn’t because one 'side' has conceded defeat. It’s because more and more voters are coming of age who simply don’t care about these old issues. Those many decades of battles created a social dynamic that’s a mix of the ideals of both sides, and on which we came of age. A middle ground was long ago reached on most of these issues, it’s just that the warring factions didn’t notice. Put more simply, Hippies are as deserving of Cartman’s wrath as Christianist zealots are of our disdain. In the same way, the era of Creflo Dollar and Jesse 'Whack-a-Nut' Jackson is finally passing, thanks both to the demographic shift and to new leaders, most prominently the President, who refuse to play this tired, old, damaging, and divisive game.
5th Congressional District Special Election
Friday, January 23, 2009
The Philosophy of Energy Policy
Sunday, January 18, 2009
MTP Jan 18 2008
Rahm Emanuel on Meet The Press
I was particularly incensed by his response to Gregory vis a vis Roland Burris. Gregory brought up the hypocrisy of Obama's , followed by Burris' being sworn in a week later. Emanuel parroted (repeatedly) that Secretary of State White had signed the papers, so the last roadblocks to now Senator Burris' inauguration had passed. He very carefully avoided acknowledging that Burris was seated specifically because President-elect Obama told Senator Reid to, in essence, hurry up and roll over, as the Democrats are so notoriously good at doing. He proceeded to point out that he wasn't qualified to offer an opinion on whether Governor Blagoevich may be a tad corrupt. He then got angry when Gregory pushed him on the Burris issue.
I keep contrasting the political styles alongside, presumably, the philosophical underpinnings and base-level emotional states of the President-elect and his Chief of Staff, and am surprised by the degree to which I deeply respect the one and abhor the other. On the flip side, President-elect Obama undoubtedly needs hard-nosed men and women to help push his agenda, and now that Emanuel seems to have dropped his quest to find a placeholder for his congressional seat allowing him to return to the House in two to four years, he can be a very effective head of the administration and pointed tool in the Presidential arsenal.
At the great risk of rambling (now known, I've decided, as mission creep) perhaps my distaste for Emanuel is simply a result of the man's embodying two of the qualities I personally find so disquieting; his purposeful lack of civility and tendency to demonize his opponents, alongside his support for a man, Senator Burris, whom I hold in complete and total contempt due not to his unimpressive record in public office, but rather to his decision to accept the Senatorial appointment, apparently, simply because he so very much wanted to be able to add the honor "Senator" to his resume. I respect Rep. Danny Davis a great deal for refusing that same appointment due to Blagoevich's corruption and imminent impeachment.
Morality and Divinity
This has actually long been a key question in my mind, and the fact that I haven't put more effort into resolving it isn't exactly a mark in my favor. Although the following arguments are now well over two millennia old, I fall back on them because my experience with any philosophers past the Classical era is sadly deficient.
Plato's moral musings (which Kant, if I understand his work correctly, later expanded upon) were brought about at least in part in response to his dislike of the Sophists. In this case, they held what I now refer to as the "teenager worldview", believing that truth is relative, and thus there can be no absolutes. It's a common refrain among young would-be philosopher kings, and I distinctly remember struggling with the concept myself for a few months in our undergrad days once the idea had finally occurred to me.
I imagine Q can add more insight into this discussion (I really need to actually devote some real time to not only reading The Republic but actually sitting down and studying it), but as I understand it, Plato felt that morality was a function of human rationality and the innate human urge to gather in communities. Ergo, because moral actions promote secure and harmonious societies, man is naturally inclined to codify and follow them. I'd ask either of you to call me out on this interpretation though, because I've done no study whatsoever on the work, and so cannot in any way lay claim to accurately interpreting it. Hell, I haven't even perused the damn thing for almost a decade.
Of course, if I'm interpreting Plato correctly, that still leaves gaping holes in the question of moral universality; I'd like to hear how Kant addresses some of these, if he does. Most notably, what of moral absolutes that are not necessarily required for the 'good' of society (essentially, things that you don't find in the 10 Commandments, which by and large can be read as a laundry list of things people shouldn't do if they want their society to hold together)? Plato for one probably thought nothing of slavery, while Greek society of that time is, when you boil it all down, one big NAMBLA recruitment tool. It's only later that we as a society, heavily influenced by those self-same Greeks, decided that slavery and sexual relations with children were not only wrong, but were morally repugnant on a level equalled by little, if anything else. At the time both were viewed as integral pieces of a functioning civilization.
Given that then, can there be a universal morality independent of both a higher power and the ethical mores of a particular society?