Black Friday

A few black fridays ago I recall posting that it couldn't be more Ironic that black friday came the day after Thanksgiving.  I said that the most thankful day was followed by the most selfish.  I saw the stories, as many others did, of individuals being run over and killed during the black friday onslaught, and naturally was aghast and disgusted by what I read.  Reading those stories further confirmed to me how horrible and selfish people are.  Indeed, being a privileged outsider to such ritualistic festivities allowed me to look down on black friday shoppers with contempt, and elevate myself above them.  Yet the more I think about it, the more I realize how simplistic and pompous my thought and attitudes were.

Its natural and easy to judge behavior that one does not understand.  Since I was born into a prosperous family, I never understood why anyone went out on Black Friday and raced around like wild bandits for a sale.  Its seemed the only explanation was sheer greed.  However one day while at work it dawned on me, "what if all those people are no more selfish than you?"  I had met people here and there that went out on black friday to buy stuff on sale, and they seemed like average people, not greedy monsters.

Thinking about it, I put myself into their shoes and thought why they would go shopping on black friday.  Christmas was just around the corner, so naturally most people needed to buy presents for their friends and family.  The holidays can put a big strain on the family budget, especially for family's on modest incomes.  Extreme sales take place on black friday, so naturally many fathers and mothers and families shopped on black friday, hoping to get a great bargain on a gift that would normally be out of their price range.  They shopped not for themselves, but for those they cared about deeply.  In many cases, shopping on black friday was not a case of extreme selfishness, but of extreme selflessness.

When I analyzed it in the light of their likely motivations, the behavior became more reasonable.  The wholesale judging of black friday shopping was no longer reasonable or desirable to me.  Yet, what to do about all the terrible accidents that took place?  How does one reconcile that with the apparently more altruistic motivations?  Well, first, its not entirely altruistically motivated.  There is a tribal element to the whole thing.  People are competing with others to get grand bargains for the people they care about.  Therefore those outside their tribe, their family, their friends, are less valuable to them than those inside.

However I would like to counter, how different is that from behavior we have all exhibited?  How many times have you seen someone on the side of the road begging, and did nothing?  Indeed, once I was driving by and I saw someone laying down shaking on the side of the road, possibly having seizures, but I did not stop for him, I drove on.  Likewise when many saw someone run over from a distance, they probably did nothing, thinking, like I did, that someone's has called an ambulance, someone has done something, just not me.  I have things I have to do.  That person could be dangerous.

Pictures and anecdotal stories are deceptive things.
Be careful not to generalize off of them.

Finally I would like to point out that while those events are sensationalized on black friday, how often do freak events happen on just a regular basis?  How often during Christmas shopping do people get into terrible incidents that could have been prevented?  Unfortunately I could not find reliable statistics that broke down injuries by month or even better by day, but if there is a rise in the injury rate on black friday, I would say that most likely has to do with crowded conditions in most cases versus particularly ruthless and uncaring behavior.  As I explained above, the black friday shopper, on average, is no more selfish than your non-black friday shopper.

Indeed the main characteristic that seems likely to distinguish the black friday shopper from the non-black friday shopper is as I said above less concisely, income.  The non-black friday shopper simply has better financial security, therefore can buy the presents they want for those they love without having to resort to shopping on black friday.  In economics jargon, black friday is a form of price discrimination.  They know that those that don't have to won't bother with black friday shopping. Thus stores charge higher prices for those with a higher willingness to pay, then cut their prices on black friday (this applies to other sales as well) to sell to those with a lower willingness to pay.  In this way a store can maximize revenue better than if they were to just sell at one price.

The main point of all this is that there is often more to something than meets the eye.  Behavior that is alien to our own situation can often seem barbaric, but when one puts yourself in their shoes, often it turns out their behavior is not much different from your own.  This is not to say that all morality is relative.  I am not saying that at all.  There are black friday shoppers that are greedy and unthankful, just as their are shoppers that in general that are greedy and unthankful.  What I am saying is that its easy to misread people's actions from the outside, therefore we should not be quick to judge.  As is said in James 1:19 in the Bible, My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.

Isolationism and Iran: a Recipe for Nuclear Holocaust

American foreign policy these days is on no one’s radar.  Ever since the “Great Recession,” so to speak, Americans have turned inward and do not want anything to do with the rest of the world.  Combine this with 2 long winded occupations started back after 9/11, and you have a recipe for an extreme backlash against foreign intervention.  Nothing could have better encapsulated the mood than our reaction to Syria.  The use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians stirred little more than disgust from the casual American spectator.  All the naysayers instantly denied any intervention as pointless and counterproductive.  The general mood was that we should just let them kill each other because they are all Muslim extremists anyways. 

Despite past mistakes, overextension, and general war weariness, Americans must be careful not to become total isolationists.  Yes, Back in the day, we could afford to be mostly isolationist.   However back in the day foreign nations did not have nukes either. Now, a foreign nation can kill millions of Americans with the press of a single red button.  Yes, there are systems in place to try and destroy nuclear weapons before they get to our shores, but they are far from perfect and it ignores the fact that someone and detonate one from inside our own borders.  Its imperative to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of extremists that have no qualms over blowing up millions of Americans.

This brings us to Iran.  John Kerry, our secretary of state, has been negotiating with Iran to convince them to only use their nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and not to bulld nukes.  While some progress has been made since we have employed devastating economic sanctions against them with the help of our U.N. partners, there is still a real danger that Iran will just go for broke and develop a nuclear weapon.  Indeed its not clear if Iran really has any intention of halting its nuclear program if an agreement is reached or if they are just using the talks as a delaying mechanism to buy them time to build a nuclear weapon. 

What I am afraid of, is that if push comes to shove, America will not resort to force to destroy the weapons.  In the 90’s Bil Clinton goofed and let both North Korea and Pakistan obtain nuclear weapons, which has extremely complicated the world situation.  Letting Iran get nukes would be far worse than either of these countries.  Iran funds Hezbollah, a terrorist organization in Lebanon which would have no qualms with deploying nukes, and it funded terrorists in Iraq as well during that conflict.  If Iran had nukes, they could possibly funnel them to terrorist organizations that could wreak all kinds of havoc, if not even try to detonate one in the United States, or blow up Israel more likely. 

Last but not least, letting Iran obtain nuclear weapons would lead to a domino effect.  Other countries, seeing America’s weak resolve would want their own nukes, which would further destablize the world and increase the chances of one actually being used.  In addition several of our Allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, would want nukes as a deterrent against  Iranian aggression. 

Allowing politically unstable  countries that support
terrorists to have nukes is a recipe for disaster.

Americans need to wake up to this very real danger.  Somehow American youth were motivated by a simple video to cry out against Kony, yet now we seem completely apathetic to this very real risk to our national security, not to mention the brutality of the Iranian regime.  Both humanitarians and practicers of realpolitik should not want Iran to get a nuke.  The world is simply not simple anymore.  America cannot simply “opt out” of world engagement.  Doing so would inevitably lead to nuclear proliferation across the planet, with disastrous consequences. 

I want to make it clear I understand that America has not always been on the right side in a conclict and that we have overreached many times before.  One easy example is with Iran. Before the current theocratic regime, we supported a widely unpopular and tyrannical Shah with military weapons and financial support.  That unfortunate event in history explains a lot why Iran now despises us, and why they would want a nuke in the first place.  Nevertheless, despite our mixed record, allowing nuclear proliferation around the world would be hugely irresponsible for the world’s sole superpower.  If there is one thing America should use its massive power and influence for, it’s to prevent nuclear proliferation.

P.S. Right after I wrote this up I saw that America and several other countries had reached a deal with Iran.  However history shows that countries don't always abide by their treaties (look at Japan and the Washington Naval Treaty signed after World War I).  America needs to be careful not willingly blind itself into believing its guaranteed that Iran will follow up on its end of the bargain.

Exit Stage Neither: Intellectualism and Indecisiveness

I have noticed that the more I learn about a a political subject the more muddled it usually becomes.  When I first read about it, it is easy to come to a quick conclusion about the right solution.  However, as I continue to dive deeper into the subject, the more muddled the issue becomes for me.  All of a sudden the righteous indignation I may have felt at first transforms into apathetic surrender.  I surrender to the overwhelmingness of all the different arguments and facts coming at me from all different directions.  In such cases it has been easy to become aloof about the whole thing.  Instead of partaking in the debate, its easier to simply exit stage neither (left or right).

I have noticed this among other overeducated people as well.  Its easy to become apathetic because one sees everything as a game of tradeoffs, with no real right or wrong answers.  However a part of me misses the days when I had the simple conviction of right and wrong.  I miss the days when I was part of a side, and when I could be in camaraderie with those that agreed with me, and when I believed it was my duty to help convert the wayward to my way of thinking.

See, the less educated almost always have far more confidence in their convictions.  And often this confidence converts into more ready action.  While action is not always desirable, surely it must be better than the resigned apathy I often feel.

I just read an article about a play that has been out about Lyndon Johnson, the American President during the 60's.  He was not a well educated man, however he had conviction and knew how to get what he wanted.  It compared him to President Obama, who is very well educated but often seems encumbered by his education.  He wins a lot on style points and making well articulated speeches, but often he seems to lack the aggressive assertiveness and conviction to get his agenda passed.  It especially came through in Syria.  While he believed that an airs strike was the right thing, he was hesitant to act.  He clearly thinks things through, and is a very analytical person.  However it often seems this same tendency that often comes with education can become a a crutch.

Acting quickly is not always best, I mean the way Lyndon B. Johnson impulsively handled the Vietnam War certainly was a disaster.  He didn't think through enough what really needed to be done to win the Vietnam War, and whether he was really prepared to do what had to be done.  Instead he improvised piecemeal as was his style.  He lacked the downrange vision to plan ahead.  I imagine President Obama would have been far more hesitant, and based on my pure conjecture, I doubt he would have escalated tensions and probably would have let Vietnam fall to the communists earlier on rather than let thousands die in what proved to be a pointless war.

The contrast between the two Presidents shows that education is very useful because exposure to different views forces us to grow up in our own beliefs.  If utilized properly education can help us prevent knuckle headed mistakes such as getting involved in wars without a clear goal in sight or the proper means to achieve whatever those goals might be.  Vietnam was a classic case of war without a definite goal.  Essentially we wanted to just keep killing the North Vietnamese until they stopped coming.  However they had been fighting for 2 decades before we came.  Anyone that studied the history should have known that their resolve would not have been diminished by the numbers of their dead.  Meanwhile the government did not anticipate how quickly Americans would grow fed up with war that had no end in sight.  We certainly need to learn from our mistakes and avoid repeating them.

However while everyone can agree we need to learn from our mistakes, it becomes sticky once we try to decide WHAT exactly we should learn from those mistakes.  Their is no single moral lesson to draw from the Vietnam War.  Hawkish Conservatives learned that if one finds a cause just, one better dedicate the necessary resources in order to win it.  In essence, what was needed in Vietnam was an all out war rather than the restricted one we had.  We restricted war to South Vietnam, while conservatives argued we should have invaded North Vietnam.  Likewise in present conflicts we need to, "Go Big or Go Home."  Meanwhile, dovish Liberals learned that we shouldn't get involved in foreign affairs because they are too costly in lives and are unlikely to achieve much.  In fact they may even do more harm than good.  When the Iraq war was going on both sides kept arguing whether to increase commitment or to withdraw, both drawing from the Vietnam War for their beliefs.  

The fact of the matter is that one can make a perfectly valid argument for either, and that ultimately what it comes down to is the values you had before you approached the conflict.  Conservatives were committed because they saw the Communists as evil and a threat to freedom.  The liberals opposed the war because they did not see the communists as the enemy, but capitalists.  Then the argument takes on a whole new layer of complexity.  Now its not just if the war was winnable, but if it was justified.  Essentially the argument for or against a war can be made from not just one but several different angles.  The complexity quickly becomes apparent the deeper one looks into an issue.

You might have noticed yourself doing this even as you have been reading this, as you have digested the arguments for or against the Vietnam War you may realize that its not so simple.  This realization may even lead you to wonder how correct your beliefs are about everything else.  Before you know it you find yourself questioning everything.  You keep looking for the argument that will blow you away but you cannot find it.  Eventually you decide just to believe what you want to believe, but your faith in what you believe will never be the same.  You are now the jaded skeptic.

I write all this simply to state that I do not wish to exit stage neither anymore.  I am going to try to throughly read the different sides on each issue then I will come to my own conclusion.  More than anything I am determined to come to a solid conclusion.  I know my faith in my beliefs my not be the same as it used to be.  I may no longer have that "child like" faith that Jesus praises in the Gospels (books in the Bible if you are unfamiliar), however I am determined not to passively float by in my beliefs as I have.  I have let too many questions float around in my head, and it is time to resolve them.  

Hayek, Hipsters, and Nazis

I was reading Hayek, a libertarian philosopher/economist/sociologist, because as of late I have been seriously questioning the basic assumptions of my political philosophy.  Therefore I have decided to start reading various thinkers of different political persuasions.  However, the funny thing was that while reading "Individualism and Economic Order" I came across this passage that struck me violently. The author while discussing individualism, whom is German, discusses his first encounter with English and American contemporaries:

 "I remember well how surprised and even shocked I was myself when as a young student, on my first contact with English and American contemporaries, I discovered how much they were disposed to conform in all externals to common usage rather than, as seemed natural to me, to be proud to be different and original in most respects...Again and again you will find the same surprise about this tendency toward voluntary conformity and see it contrasted with the ambition of the young German to develop an "original personality," which in every respect expresses what he has come to regard as right and true.  This cult of the distinct and different individuality has, of course, deep roots in the German intellectual tradition."

Hipster

........sounds to me like he was describing Hipsters!  I could barely believe what I was reading.  Keep in mind this was written in the extremely early 40's, while the goose stepping Nazis ruled Germany.  I could hardly believe that the land of goose stepping Nazis could possibly have been the source of Hipsterism.

In a way it makes sense.  Germany in the 20's was notoriously known for having thrown off the yoke of all past traditions and to have fully embraced "modernity" and "individualism".  It rejected all that came before the first War, believing that all of it is what threw the nation into the "Great War" in the first place.  Many Germans embraced a "YOLO" lifestyle you might say.  Living as fast as they could cause you never knew when a day might be your last.  Also being unhinged from the past, tradition, and religion, many Germans turned to a ultra rationalistic individualism in which Reason reigned supreme.  Essentially everyone did what was right in their own eyes.

Dude from 20's era German movie that looks like a Hipster...
in fact he looks strangely like the hipster in the other picture.

The problem with that was that there was a lack of conformity.  Yes I said it, a lack of conformity.  As Hayek mentioned above, he was surprised that the Americans and British, so enamored with individualism themselves, would be so conformist in dress and appearance.   However, he goes on that they were dedicated to a different breed of individualism, theirs focused on the individual as an actor in society that must make the best with the limited information he has, while the German individualism placed infinite confidence in the individual conscious to Reason (with a capital R).  The two types of individualism lead to very different conclusions.  The British version lead to a degree of conformity because it was practical for the functioning of society, while the German version lead to extreme differentiation.  Many Germans, trying to attain perfection, went whichever direction their own, and only their own, Reason took them.  Therefore extreme differences in opinion, dress, etc. was inevitable.

The extreme differentiation led to a chaotic condition in German society where different factions were absolutely convinced that they were right, and that their way was the only way (sound familiar at all?).  Since their own Reason was supreme, discussion was not necessary, they already knew they were right.  However such a condition is not very workable for a democracy.   In a democracy the people must be willing to work together to a degree.  If compromise is not an option and is seen as evil, then its inevitable that democracy cannot work.  In this case only a absolute despot can impose order, since society is so fragmented.  His one particular view that he believes is absolutely right, will have to be shoved down the throats of everyone else, all of whom believe that their view is absolutely right.

From extreme individualism to extreme conformity

Thus the extremely individualistic and rational Weimar Republic (the name of the German republic in the 20's) morphed into the extremely conformist and irrational Nazi Regime.  Everyone believed they were right, but this absolute trust in individual reason led to absolute chaos, the only remedy was absolute dictatorship.

There is my history lesson.  Now please keep in mind that is only one element to the story, I do not claim that this was the only factor in the rise of Nazi Germany.  It was multi-faceted for sure, but looking at it from this angle gives an interesting perspective on our own society.  Hipsters are just one example of the extreme social differentiation that has taken place in our country.  We take "just be yourself" to such an extreme that we don't believe that we should have to change for anyone.  Even though we all do conform very much so to most societal norms, we still hold on a pedestal the supreme individual.  We believe nothing is more sacrosanct than the individual will, just like pre Nazi Germany. Thus we hold on high individuals that we agree with such as Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton, as if their individual will was what shaped America into what it should be.  Its also explains why we so utterly and completely villainize those we disagree with politically, afterall we are all absolutely right.

However I would like to offer some hope as well.  Americans nowadays do not hold their own individual Reason as high as the pre Nazi German did.  Back in the day Reason and rationalism were held up as supreme, but nowadays its tolerance.  Most people, especially amongst the younger generation (the millenials), are much more humble about their own opinions, allowing room for much more finesse and doubt.  It would seem that at least in one category society is drifting away from the conditions for absolute despotism.  Nevertheless its hard to imagine this trend continuing indefinitely, because those that are more humble in their beliefs tend to get steamrolled by those assertive and confrontational (just look at Vladimir Lenin, seriously, perfect example, read a biography on the dude).  One can only wait for what is to come.  In any case it will be interesting to see how a society that is both extremely reliant on individual reason but is also extremely post modern and relativist will function in the near future.

P.S. just fyi I am not hating on Hipsters.  I just found Hayek's description of German students strangely like how one would describe a Hipster.  However I mentioned in the bottom paragraph that there is a very key difference between the two groups, mainly that Hipsters are tolerant and relativist in outlook while the German students Hayek was describing believed in the absolute ability of individual reason to find the truth.

The Elusive Art of Blogging

I will write about Toronto later, however I still need to upload my photos and I would rather include some cool pics with any article I write about that later.

So this post is going to be about the art of selling blog posts.  After writing blog posts for awhile one starts to notice what "sells".  Intriguing pictures sell.  Provocative titles sell.  Extremist rhetoric sells.  Pop culture sells.  Gossip sells.  Therefore the writer becomes torn between simply writing what pours from his heart and mind and writing what will sell.  Sometimes the two align, but often they don't.  I have had a number of articles that did "well" (as in a couple dozen views), and one that did really well. Coincidentally, the one that did the best, "Country Boys", my first post, was both heated in its rhetoric and about pop culture (I suppose people search on google far more for country boys than for Syria...).  Meanwhile my recent article on Syria did bad, only 6 views.  In it I was balanced in my analysis though I definitely made it clear where I stood.  It was political, and moderate, therefore, no views (Also I did not include a picture, another grievous error).

In many ways the battle a writer fights between his soul and his ambition reflects a larger debate on the influence of individual action in society.  I believe that a single individual can only have a voice in so far as he is willing to conform that voice to a group.  I am not saying that an individual cannot have a unique viewpoint and still succeed in writing or politics, etc., its just that the way he sells his message will have to be crafted in a way that society will accept it.  His argument or his beliefs will have to build off of where society already is.  If his argument requires dragging society too far from its place of origin, it will inevitably fail from simply being too cumbersome and complicated, even if in the end its the logical conclusion.

Here is an example, amongst "millennials" (my generation) it would be easy to argue for the legalization of all drugs.  We have been conditioned culturally to believe that individual freedom is absolutely sacred, plus we have a very negative view of government.  Both of these views makes it an easy step for someone to argue that all drugs should be legalized.  Meanwhile, if someone was to argue that cigarettes should be made illegal, most everyone in my generation would disapprove.  They would agree that cigarettes are bad, but that it is the individual's choice, even if second hand smoke along with  their poor health affects far more people than just the solitary individual who engages in the act.  Tie this with the implicit belief that government is unable to enforce almost anything (the failure of prohibition is bound to come up eventually, even if few if anyone has ever read about why prohibition failed), and you have a cocktail for complete failure for the anti-cigarrette activists.

The first argument is far easier to make amongst the millenials because of our cultural presuppositions.  In order for the anti-cigarette activists to make any headway, they have to prove that cigarettes are not only bad to the individuals involved, but that it hurts society as a whole, and that banning cigarettes is enforceable.  Its a far more formidable task, doable for sure, but would require a long struggle to change people's presuppositions.  Either that or they would have to find a clever way to sidestep the whole argument or align their movement in an entirely different ideological discourse (say try to make it an issue of inequality).

Sorry I digressed so much, but I believe this is vital to understanding the writer's dilemma, or really the activists dilemma.  One wants to stay true to one's beliefs, but often one must mold one's beliefs to the current culture to have any impact.  If I want to have a say politically, I would have to stay extremist in rhetoric to grab people's attention.  I would have to be indignant constantly, but then of course stay vague about any solution.  After all once you offer solutions you are bound to upset several of your readers.  Therefore just constantly go into raging fits about the latest political fiasco then voila! You will get views.

However doing so will essentially eliminate my voice.  While people  are reading my stuff, I am really not accomplishing anything.  I am simply filling demand in the market for political divisive bile (I know I have ranted before, but to be fair I was motivated by my own strong opinion, not a desire to get views).  I want to maintain my voice while still engaging mass society.  How in the world I will do that I do not know, but the answer must be out there, somewhere (If you have any ideas, feel free to share).

Syria: to Strike or not to Strike?

When it comes to foreign policy my views have changed radically from my youth.  I am in the same boat as millions of Americans that were once die hard hawks that believed America could and should spread democracy around the world, and have become embittered and disillusioned by 2 long, costly, and indecisive occupations.  Now many Americans that were once very enthusiastic about intervention overseas, now believe America should sit back and watch while all sorts of unmentionable atrocities occur.

This disillusionment has transferred itself over to people's views on Syria, and the recent debate over whether to intervene.  Assad, the leader of the regime, has used chemical weapons on his own people.  Back in the day, say 10 years ago, that would have provoked an outcry for intervention.  Nowadays most people just grumble about how military intervention of any kind or scale is a hopeless endeavor.

I believe we have learned our lesson, and rightly so, from our previous interventions of the last decade. We went in overly optimistic about how easily modern democracy will take root and spread in societies unaccustomed to it.  We also underestimated our enemies, believing they would cower before American might (In fact we were so confident we did not bother leaving troops to occupy towns we entered while moving through Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Guerilla fighters would come out and kill right after we left).  We have been humbled, and for the foreseeable future I doubt any American will be calling for some more nation building.

Nevertheless, I believe we have also over learned our lesson.  Many in America are veering towards extreme isolationism.  I believe whats going on in Syria is a case in point.  While its unclear whether the rebels are better than the Assad Regime, it is clear that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people.  Over the last century the world has strictly banned the use of chemical weapons, and I believe to let Assad get away with using them would be a clear signal to the more unsavory regimes around the world that using such a weapon is okay, and maybe perhaps would even encourage the development of more WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction).

Essentially I believe to not retaliate at all would be to open up a can of worms.  Once you let one get out, all of the worms are gonna reveal their ugly selves.  Regimes will know that chemical weapons no longer will stoke the West's ire.  In addition regimes like Iran may take it yet another signal that we won't do anything about their nuclear weapons program.

In addition while the chemical attacks so far have not been responsible for the majority of casualties.  If the regime gets desperate enough its very possible they could begin using them in even larger quantities than now, resulting in untold death and destruction.  We better makes its clear that using them is not allowed before such a travesty occurs.

Many may believe that killing with chemical weapons is no more terrible than whats already occurred in Syria.  a hundred thousand died before the attacks, why intervene now?  Well first off I already argued that the main reason is to prevent the proliferation of chemical weapons, but secondly, while chemical weapons may be an arbitrary line, I believe its an arbitrary line worth making.  I believe its necessary to at least hold back the violence what little we could, plus stoping chemical weapons attacks is a far more feasible goal that stopping all the violence in Syria.  Sending a few well targeted missiles could scare the regime into holding back their chemical weapons, while trying to stop all the violence would be almost insurmountable in comparison.

One more argument many are bound to make is that to strike at Assad would essentially be throwing in our support for the radical Muslims on the other side.  I believe that this argument misses the point.  The point of the attack would be to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons.  If he stops using them we won't strike anymore.  If the rebels start using them, we will strike the rebels.  Yes, I acknowledge that striking Assad could wind up helping the rebels, but in my opinion so be it.  I think upholding a principle and preventing the proliferation of chemical weapons, along with other WMDs, is a worthwhile goal, even if Assad's terrible regime is replaced by another terrible regime.

Americans should think twice before instinctively denying all intervention in Syria.  Punishing the regime for the use of internationally banned weapons would help reinforce international standards of humane treatment and hold back the proliferation of chemical weapons, and perhaps even nuclear.  Meanwhile, doing nothing would only encourage their use.  Punishing the regime does not have to mean American troops on the ground.  Punishing the regime does not mean we are siding with radical muslims, it means we are doing what little we can to prevent current, and future, atrocities.

The Iron Cage

Recently President Obama proposed a "grand bargain" to Republicans.  He proposed a corporate tax in return for infrastructure and education spending.   In the hyperpartisan atmosphere in congress of course it fell through.  However what struck me most was how Republicans opposed it because it would "hurt small businesses."  I will not go into the details of the argument, but what it pointed out to me most was the disconnected most Americans feel.  We are long past the age of small businesses, now large corporations rule supreme.  Americans long for the age when everything was smaller scale, from businesses, to community, to agriculture, to industry, to politics.  Yet why do Americans long for this?  Why are Americans so opposed to the giganticism that seems to be taking over every area of life? 

I believe the reason why lies behind Sociologist's Max Weber's "Iron Cage" theory.  Basically the theory proposes that in large bureaucratic organizations where tasks are more or less automated and systematized, the workers will feel estranged from their tasks and will be powerless to improve them.  In Weber's words:

"Rational calculation . . . reduces every worker to a cog in this bureaucratic machine and, seeing himself in this light, he will merely ask how to transform himself… to a bigger cog… The passion for bureaucratization at this meeting drives us to despair."

The increasing scope of various enterprises from churches to companies inevitably means that more people will have less of a say in their organizations, and that more power will be concentrated in the hands of a few.  I have made a simple illustration below to explain my point.

Small businesses:              Manager Owner 

                                 employee            employee

Larger business:                    Owner

                           manager                    manager

             employee    employee     employee    employee

The point of the pyramid scheme above is to show the degree of separation between those who make the decisions and those who work underneath.  In the hypothetical small business above, the employees can directly communicate to the owner, who calls all the shots.  Meanwhile there is a degree of separation in the larger business.  The employees have to go through the managers first.  

Now imagine this magnified a thousand fold and you will have what many large businesses are like.  The "cogs" at the bottom, have almost no say.  Meanwhile, power is more concentrated and less dispersed than it used to be.  While in the past when most businesses were smaller scale operations, there were more people making the decisions, dispersing power.  As companies continue to consolidate and increase in scope, a smaller and smaller segment of the population will hold a larger and larger proportion of power.

Its a hard theory to grasp but it explains a lot of the animosity and frustration we have in popular culture towards big business and the federal government.  A society where local politics and small businesses rule the land will inevitably be a more democratic society because power is more dispersed.  More people are making the decisions, and the people making the decisions are more intimately connected towards the people their decisions affect.  If the CEO of a fortune 500 company lays off thousands of his workers, most likely he knows none of them.  Meanwhile, the owner a small restaurant likely knows everyone who works under him on a personal level.  The more intimate connection will make him more likely to think twice before laying someone off.    

The unfortunate thing is that the inevitably result of our socio/economic/political system has been the increasing scale and giganticism of everything.  Instead of going to Joe's diner, we go to Mcdonalds.  While explaining exactly why this has been the result is difficult and beyond the scope of this article, its clearly happening nonetheless.  

I have talked about this in a very academic fashion so far, so to better relate it to everyone out there I will give an example.  Joe is a worker at a company with a net worth in the billions.  He is a tiny "cog" in the behemoth, but he values his work and wishes to do well, thinking maybe he can move up in the company.  However he notices that a certain process is inefficient and needs to be streamlined.  He mentions it to his manager and goes back to his work.  He continues to make a fuss, but ultimately his idea goes nowhere.  He never hears back about it, and eventually he settles into defeatism and just does his job.  Instead of suggesting improvements that will actually make a difference, now he settles for doing things that will create the impression he is a hard worker, like staying late, working through lunch, and being a yes-man for his boss.  

While some organizations are better than others, its inevitable that systemization and specialization of tasks that accompany bureaucratization create an entangled web of functionality.  Changing your tasks affect several around you, meaning that changing one simple process could mean that the whole system would have to be overhauled to implement it.  Say you file application forms, and you notice the applications are unnecessarily long.  You suggest cutting out some parts and simplifying the language.  However since the form goes to several different departments, such a simple improvement would require the approval and coordination of several departments to implement.  The seeming low scale importance of the reform, along with the scale of the task, would probably result in this proposal being ignored, not to mention office politics.  

In essence our collective voices feel weaker and weaker.  The smaller organizations that provided channels for involvement and decision making are disappearing, resulting in the estrangement of Americans nationwide from the power wielding institutions.  Americans long for the day of small businesses because unconsciously they are demanding more power over their own lives.  Americans are sick of feeling helpless, and cry out for empowerment.  Both parties manipulate this longing for votes, without almost ever delivering on the promise.  The reforms that government has passed have either empowered big business or big government, while largely doing almost nothing to empower the individual.  Americans are foregoing involvement in the decision making process, whether of their employer, or of their government, or of their church, because they feel like their voice has no say.  Implicitly we are saying that trying to change the world, yet alone our cubicle, is pointless.  We have no say anyway, the elites now decide for us.  Welcome to the Iron Cage.  

The Family Friend

He was and is a great guy.  When I was a kid we would go on bike rides around the park.  Back then that park was a big super exciting place, full of wonder and excitement.  We would find "secret" hideouts and chase down ice cream trucks.  We would have all sorts of grand adventures.  My mom and him also had a deep spiritual relationship.  They would pray together about all sorts of things.  He worked hard to practice his faith.  He always followed his principles, no matter how hard it was.

However despite how great of a guy he was, he lived and still lives in poverty.  I suppose by census standards he doesn't, but the amount he earns is barely enough to cover his necessities.  Indeed, he often keeps his air conditioner completely off on in brutal Texas for days.  In between payments on his used car and his rent, sometimes he manages to find some money for food.   He often would come over talking about how he had nothing to eat all day, due to the fact he literally had no food.  I am not sure how well he managed his finances, but with how little he made its easy to see how that could happen.  

There was a time he lost his job and went on social security.  He lived in government housing and was not allowed to make more than $16 otherwise he would be kicked out.  The management would have his room searched to make sure he was not earning "too much."  If he dared to succeed even a little bit he would be kicked back into the real world to struggle paying his bills.  

The system was entirely set up against him.  Indeed it would have almost been better for him to stay unemployed and live off of the government than to get a job.  Yet he wanted to work, and work he did.  He got a job and went back to earning a pittance that barely covered his needs.  

There is one more element to this story.  He was and is slightly mentally handicapped.  The fact he was economically "expendable" was of no fault of his own.  Yet the ruthless laws of economics determined that he could not earn a wage that would allow him some financial security.  In such cases, the community must step in to help.  

One form of "community" help was the government supported living situation I just described.  Ironically this program setup to help people in poverty does nothing to get them out.  Indeed, it seemed to work hard to keep them in, rather than help them get out.  I don't know how not allowing someone to  earn any money to earn government benefits helps them get on their feet at all.  All it does is trap poor people like my family friend in poverty.  After all, the rational choice honestly in several cases is to stay on welfare and forego the job market.  Yet in the long run, staying out of the job market prevents the welfare recipients from developing marketable skills, further ensnaring them in the system.

The other form of community help is the voluntary aspect.  Generosity that arises within the hearts of families, friends, and organizations for their fellow man.  The family friend was a man of faith and was a part of a church.  While he sporadically switched churches often, he did have a community of friends he met within such institutions that helped him get by.  My family would help him occasionally, and some other friends of his let him stay with them for a while.  Others would give him food occasionally. My family would let him feast whenever he came over.  His brother paid for him to go on vacation with him.  Such generosity came from the heart and was directed towards him because of his need, not because of his employment status.

I just wrote this to remind everyone that there are many people out there that are scraping by from day to day, and often have little resources of their own to get out of their situation.  Since often we isolate ourselves physically and socially from those "beneath" us financially, its easy to turn a blind eye to the problems of many.  Instead we comfort ourselves that charities and the government are taking care of the problem.  However the problem with these institutions is that the anonymous nature of their giving and policies guarantees that they will not specifically target the needs of their recipients to maximum effect.  Giving food to someone that has plenty of food for example, does little to alleviate their need for a working car, for example.  Thats why I think we must all be mindful of the role we play in the lives of those around us.  We are just as much each other's "safety net" as any government program or charity.

The Man code part 2

I just wanted to clarify why I wrote up the satirical "man code" post.  I wrote it to reveal how ridiculous   some male behavior is in the pursuit of proving their manliness.  Not ALL "manly" behavior is ridiculous.  I would like to clarify that.  I don't think that getting pumped up about working out or sports is wrong or ridiculous.  I enjoy working out and sports as much as the next person.  Their is nothing wrong in the stereotypically "manly" activities in and of themselves.  While I would take issue with anyone that believes such activities define manhood, I do not condemn those activities in and of themselves.  Bonding with your fellow men over sports is perfectly acceptable.

The only thing I take issue with on this note is when certain activities are deemed as manly and others as anti-manly.  A guy does not HAVE to watch sports to be a man.  A guy does not have to have big muscles to be a man.  A guy does not have to drive a truck or a muscle car or motorcycle to be a man.  Likewise, a guy can dance, sing, cry, be a nerd, etc. etc. and still be a man.  None of the activities I have mentioned should make you more or less of a man.

Yet its clear this is the way our society judges men.  Just look at the movie Napoleon Dynamite.  Its clear that what makes the movie funny, is that the protagonist and his accomplices are not "manly", as our society defines it (Though to its credit, it makes fun of the jock living in the past as well).  They are unathletic, and socially deficient.  Napoleon had other talents in the movie, but even then those talents are seen as hilarious because they are not "manly" talents.  Its clear that our society rips men apart when they do not measure up to the "man code."

Growing up in Texas I personally struggled with this through most of my life.  I never felt like I measured up to the "man code."  My interests and passions did not align with what defined manliness.  As a result I grew up very unconfident and insecure about who I was.  I would not open up to most people because I was afraid that if they knew the real me, they would see me as "unmanly."

Luckily I have learned since then that manliness is not defined by how loud I grunt, or how far I can throw a football, or by how into sports I am.  Likewise I have learned that I can be a person of faith and still be a man.  I have learned that my principles are not a weakness, but a strength.

So in addition to the categorizing of activities is the behavioral aspect.  This is the worst part of the man code and is the part I rip on the most in my satire.  The belief that real men don't cry is just one part of it.  The rest closely aligns with the ridiculous notion that what makes you man is your sexual prowess.  The more innocent victims you can conquer, the more of a man you are.  The less caring for others you are, the more of a man you are.  Being sensitive to others needs is a sign of weakness that must be eliminated.

In this I would say that its far harder to do the right thing.  It takes someone with a lot of moral fortitude and confidence to stand up for what is right.  It takes nothing to go along with the crowd.  It takes nothing to give into pressure from your fellow "manly" peers.  It takes nothing to be undisciplined and unruly.

Yet somehow the easy way out is apparently the manly thing to do.  I guess that makes it easy then.  Cause then any guy can be a "Man" without really doing anything.  Then with the man code, anyone can be forced back into step that dares challenge the comfortable definition of manliness that our culture preaches.  Guys can feel superior for doing the easy weak cowardly thing...what a strange culture we live in.

So I wrote the satire to challenge both notions of manliness.  One, that some activities are somehow inherently more manly than others.  Second, that real men act like monkeys with no restraint, while only sensitive sissies would bother doing something for anyone else besides themselves.  I know that many men don't buy fully into the man code.  Yet many by into one or the other parts of it.  Both parts are damaging to guys and to society as a whole.  The first unnecessarily destroys the confidence of many guys simply because of their personal preference and skill set.  The second unnecessarily bolsters the confidence of many guys for doing the easy weak thing, thinking only about themselves and their needs.  I challenge all the guys out there to think critically about what actually matters in life, and to redefine manliness in respect to that.

The Man Code

The man code.

Its an elusive thing.  Its not written down.  Yet it has such a grip over so many men.  Its a code of rules that guys think they must abide by to earn their right to have a penis.  If a guy doesn't abide by it, then any number of unutterable things may happen to him.  He may lose respect from his fellow guys, he may lose his edge among the ladies, worst of all, he may lose his manhood.

Its easy to breakdown the man code.  Here are the basics you must follow:

1) Only care about yourself, to care for others is to show weakness.  (One exception, you may care for a girl, as long as she is hot, and as long as you are doing it with the longterm expectation of sexual compensation)

2) Never, ever, use your brain.  To think critically about anything is to be feminine.  Make sure to state your opinions loudly and obnoxiously.  (If anyone says anything smart, don't try to understand it, just zone out then grunt as loud as you can to draw attention back to numero uno)

3) Don't reveal any emotion that may make you appear weak and/or sensitive.  In other words don't ever cry.  Anger is only allowed if its over a girl, or your favorite sports team.  Only be happy in a controlled fashion, you wouldn't want to accidentally slip into feminine behavior after all...that would be the end of the world.

4) Following up number 3, make sure to act like you don't care.  This is the general rule for behavior.  You must appear unconcerned about anything that does not immediately affect you.  This is necessary to keep up the egocentric/dumb persona that you are striving to achieve. (If necessary, let your mouth hang slightly open and keep your eyes fixed in a blank stare to indicate how bored you are by everything except your penis.)

5) Whenever you are around guys only talk about sports/sex.  Interest in any other topic will instantly kill any man points you had from the other 4.  In fact, it will probably undo all your progress.  Make sure to talk about women as if they are objects, and never indicate too much attachment to any particular woman, to do so would be to admit that you are loyal and won't cheat, which is heretical to the man code.

6) Be a douche bag.  This is probably the most important rule, and as long as you obey this one, I guarantee you will get the other 5 without even trying.

If you cannot live up to this list, then I am sorry, you will be forever banished from all things manly.  You will be forced to get good grades in school.  You will be forced to not impregnate and ditch women with your children.  You will be forced to focus on other goals besides getting laid.  You will be forced to be a successful and responsible human being.

Therefore get to work right now on being an irresponsible, reckless, egocentric douche bag before its too late to turn things around!

We all Need Some Fat, Including Business

I was reading the Economist (As my avid fans would recall I mentioned them in my last article) and this one article intrigued me.  It was called "In Praise of Laziness."  The main point of it was that many businesspeople are overworked, stifling creativity.  According to the article, "Teresa Amabile of Harvard Business School, who has been conducting a huge study of work and creativity, reports that workers are generally more creative on low-pressure days than on high-pressure days when they are confronted with a flurry of unpredictable demands."  This is funny, because the behavior of corporate America would make you think the opposite is true.  The goal seems to be to fill everyone's plate to the brim, and then some more until it overflows.  

Maximizing productivity while minimizing labor costs may squeeze some extra productivity out of your workforce, but ultimately in the long run this will cost in innovation.  It has been highly reported that American companies are leaner and meaner than ever before.  This is true but soon there won't be any fat left to cut off.  They have stripped down to the muscle, and if they cut anymore it will be self-destructive.  In addition to continue with this human anatomy analogy, while excessive fat (spare time), is bad for the body, some fat is necessary for its proper functioning.  In this case, companies need to remember that creating an innovative corporate environment will require allowing a little fat (spare time) for its workforce, to best allow unique ideas to develop.

The gains in productivity by corporations over the last 6 years were in my opinion an illusion.  An illusion created by the massive layoffs across corporate America during the recession.  The layoffs left behind only the most productive workers, plus those left were forced to work more if they wished to keep their jobs.  This is a one off gain.  It better be recognized as such.  Ultimately innovation drives growth, not busyness.  

In case anyone is skeptical of my claim that innovation drives growth, I will give 2 examples.  I will compare Dell with Apple.  While Dell did well for a long time, and was selling more computers than Apple, it lacked one thing, innovation.  It beat Apple a million times over when it came to cost and pricing, however Apple slowly generated innovative products that changed the fundamentals of the tech market, giving Apple the edge.  While Dell probably still sells more computers than Apple, I doubt anyone would argue Dell is the better run company.  

Therefore since innovation is the catalyst of growth (fyi I am ripping off the economist Schumpeter with the innovation centered growth model, check out his stuff if you would like to learn more), I think it would make sense if companies started to evaluate more on the basis of innovation and less on the basis of "productivity."  Too often, productivity is measured in how much work you did, whether or not it was done in the most effective way.  Mouse clicks and emails sent ultimately mean nothing.  Its the intangibles behind the numbers that matter.  However its hard to measure intangibles, so too often companies will place too much emphasis on measurable things such as emails and mouse clicks.  I believe that the companies that give their employees ample time and incentive to innovate will do the best.  How companies are to do that is out of the scope of this article.  But I hope you corporate workers or future corporate workers out there will consider this.

The News

Its funny, back in my college days I was oblivious of what was going on in the world from the day to day.  I mean it was bad.  Sometimes days would go by before I heard that a disaster happened, such as if a hurricane hit or whatever other bad things happen.  Just take your pick of international crises between 2008 and 2012 and I was probably far behind the curve in learning about it.  While I was learning a lot of stuff about the history of the world we live in today, and major issues our world was and is facing, often I didn't pick up on the specific happenings around me.  I thought, "Man, I better start watching the news or something."

Alas, while my heart might have been in the right place, being in the "real world," I have quickly learned that watching the news has left me more devoid for knowing the state of the world we live in.  At my work now, I get to watch the news all the time.  I mean, ALL the time.  Literally 8 hours out of every day the news is plastered in front of me.  Granted, none of us at work can hear it, so all we see are the headlines.  Yet it is clear just by the choice of topics I have seen that the news is not so concerned with informing its viewers as it is keeping their eyes glued to the TV.

What I mean by that last statement is that the news has become one dimensional.  While it still works on attracting viewers, which is something the news has always had to do, this is all news networks focus on now.  The news totally neglects its other responsibility, and that is to help its audience understand what is happening, and possible even why its happening.  This is the current format of the news:

Story A: Dude eats face, Zombie Apocalypse!

Story B: NSA spying on us, Secret Police?!?!

Aaaaaand that will be it.  It will create a lot of hype and hysteria over both incidents, then the media will totally drop both, move on to something else, and never even bother to explain the bigger picture behind both stories.  Instead the audience is left bombarded with horror story after horror story, and a feeling of helplessness over what can be done.  The news just keep showing how terrible everything is, without bothering to offer us food for thought over why such things are happening.  And if it does offer explanations, they are usually conveniently one dimensional to blame Obama or Bush, Democrat or Republican.  Therefore helping to create a culture where we demonize each other, where whoever does not agree with you is the sworn enemy that must be stopped at all cost.

This is the format that I soooo desperately wish the news would follow:

Story A: Instead of highlighting the fact that a guy ate someones face, use that fact to draw people in but then highlight the larger problems of drug use and homelessness. Investigate the bigger issues that lead to anecdotal extremes such as this story.  

Story B: Talk about the spying of course, but look at it within the larger context of national security, individual rights, and investigate the expansion of powers of the nsa since its creation.  

I know a lot of my disgust may come from being a history major.  As a history major I always want to know the story behind the story before I come to a conclusion.  Outrage is useless if it cannot be properly channeled at what actually caused the violation, which is usually not a quick fix, but more often than not stems from a long term development that does have an easy fix.  

However I think a lot of my disgust comes mostly from living in a free society, that seems to be paradoxically more and more ignorant of the world around us while having more and more access to info about the world than ever before.  The media, and in particular television news networks have not done anything to help.  

Yet I don't really know if its all their fault.  They may very well simply not have the luxury to spend time investigating these issues anymore. Afterall, Americans have more options for entertainment than they did 30 years ago, and now if we are even slightly bored we can change the channel to 1000 different options, or surf the web, which the options there are near limitless.  News networks may have to use a sensationalist format simply to maintain the viewers they have.

Whether or not its the fault of the news networks or of a desensitized society with no attention span, its clear to me that one can watch the news and have no better grasp of world than if you didn't watch it.  I have started turning to other sources to inform myself, and I would encourage you to do so as well.  The news networks may be a good place to go to as a starting point, however in my experience further investigation is usually needed to truly understand what you see on it.  However don't be discouraged by the ineptitude of the networks.  There are plenty of good sources if you want the news on a deeper level.  The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and the magazine, "The Economist," are great sources.   

Well there is my rant on the news.  Now go and read some real news.

Moments to Remember

I driving to workout this afternoon...then all of a sudden I noticed something...the sky was absolutely beautiful!  It was radiating this orange hue that fell spectacularly against the dark tree line.  I approached the stop sign after being momentarily distracted, then I thought to myself, "Maybe I won't go to the gym today, maybe instead I will enjoy this beautiful day."  I hesitated a moment, drove a little closer to the stop sign, then swung around a full 180 and headed straight to the park by my house.

I thought, "Hey, I can still workout, I will run outside and enjoy the breathtaking landscape."  So I got out of my car and started running.  I put on some music from my Ipod and started grooving.  I just ran, trying desperately to run closer to the heavenly glow over the horizon.  I was determined to get there, somehow, someway.

I soon broke from the rigid path that society had laid out for me to follow. I departed into the unknown, plunging deeper into the ether.  I felt my feet melting away into the grass.  My eyes clinged to the aura. My heart pulsated from exhaustion yet I kept running.  I don't know what was driving me on but I couldn't stop.

It was a very strange, seemingly spiritual experience.  I was suppose to be at small group, but I just couldn't go.  The last thing I wanted was to be chained down, locked inside a room yet again.  I wanted  to escape to somewhere timeless and infinite that my heart could roam.  I found just the place.  A place that has always been there, but seemingly never there at the same time.  It was just the park by my  house.  The same park I had been too a thousand times.  Yet something about that run was different.  Something about that park was different.  It was one of those things that you just had to be there.

What is it about such moments that make them so fleeting?  You cannot get them back.  They only come once.  There is no replicating them.  You know what I mean.  Those moments you never forget, for seemingly no reason.  Those moments that you look back fondly on but you can't quite put your finger on why.  Sure you give reasons, but the reasons are never good enough.  They never answer why that moment mattered.

Its funny, when I first started writing this, I was originally going to write about how we should all pause every now and then to admire the world around us.  I was going to rant how we, or at least I, don't spend enough time marveling at the world's beauty.  I was going to talk about how naturally it comes for children, but how so many adults let the worries of the world drag them down, and prevent them from simply pausing to take it all in.

Yet really my experience was not about that I realize.  It was about that connection we sometimes feel, to a world greater than ours.  Sometimes things in this world spark a longing for the beyond yet at the same time fill us with a peace about our own lives.  Nature is usually what sparks such moments of tranquil reflection for me, yet it doesn't have to be that.  It can be the beauty of your friends, or even the power of the human word.  Whatever it is, don't push such moments aside.  Let yourself run away in them while they last.  After all, there is no formula for it.  I don't really know why I wrote this.  Nevertheless I hope it touches someone out there.

Escapism

Welp...I have not posted anything on here in quite some time.  In fact, its been half a year!  Shame on me! 

Anyway, I have been thinking about this alot lately.  I felt like many of you might be able to relate to my thoughts on this, so I figured I would share, if you have any feedback, feel free to respond to this.

I feel like no other word better epitomizes my existence lately than "Escapism."  What is escapism? Well to state the obvious escapism is (per Webster himself)

"habitual diversion of the mind to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from reality or routine."

Ahhhhh escapism, thank the Lord hallelujah you exist!  You sure make mundane day to day living alot easier.  Though life is now mostly work, work, and more work, with a side of car payments, student loans, and long commutes, we can sedate the dreariness of dredging on with music, movies, tv shows, the internet, and much more!  Though our real lives are not much fun, we can live vicariously through other people on screens who are paid to have fun.  We can falsely stimulate our emotions with music to make life seem more exciting.  We can wage wars and go on epic quests all from the comfort of our couch in between shifts.  

Its funny that its not reality we live for, but the escape.  We dredge through our lives so we can watch someone else pretend to live the life we wish we had.  Whats worse is that the lives we see on tv often seem attainable, yet we decide to be content with our dreams just being dreams.  We are a nation of dreamers, not doers.  

The harsh truth of the matter is that most people pick the path of least resistance.  The path that seems to promise the greatest return at minimum risk.  However I am afraid in our culture too often we measure greatest return in dollar signs.  When we should be measuring greatest return in the happiness we bring to ourselves and others.  We have been trained to measure our own success in terms of money, when often in the pursuit of money we destroy who we were meant to be.  We become little more than robots molding our lives around the pursuit of money and the display of wealth.  We save to buy the biggest house, the fanciest car, and invest in ourselves to get the highest paying job.  Never mind that in the end we sacrifice all our time in the pursuit of all these things, and therefore have no time left to actually enjoy what we obtained.  After all, the point is not to enjoy what you have but to obtain as much as possible in a futile effort to prove our value.  This is reality for America.  

Since the reality does not deliver on its promise, we spend our spare time living in dreams.  We spend our spare time deceiving ourselves into believing we are living the lives we were meant to live, rather than the lives we believe we are forced to live.  Yet somehow we never challenge "reality."  We never challenge the conventional wisdom that tells us that money and power is everything.  We go one living splintered lives, forever restless, in tension with our very being.  

I would just challenge everyone, including myself, to begin thinking of ways you can pursue your dreams.  Just think, what is it about these shows that you like?  Why are these distractions more appealing than reality?  If its the friendships you see, then pursue that, if its the adventures they live, then pursue that.  Be bold, don't be content to let your dreams be dreams.  Make your dreams your reality.

Lincoln: Grappling with the Facts

I just saw Lincoln a couple of days ago.  As a history major I couldn't help but appreciate a movie that not only was set in a historical period, but also stayed close to what actually happened.  I do not claim to vouch 100% historical accuracy, however I do believe it was a breath of fresh air compared to most movies set in history, that seem to completely ignore history entirely.  And besides, the biographer of the book the movie was based on, Ronald C. White Jr., seemed to agree with the portrayal for the most part.  Indeed, he even approved of the depiction of the administration stooping to corrupt methods to win votes.  While of course Spielberg took creative license with the feel of the movie and his portrayal of the myriad of characters, he does not blatantly falsify anything.

This brings me to my point.  The fact the movie is accurate on the facts, means that we must grapple with those facts.  We cannot so easily dismiss them as just the fantastical imaginings of yet another raving director.  We have to face the real Lincoln, not the one we wish to remember.  We have to struggle with the fact that such an important piece of legislation was passed by "Honest" Abe with corruption and intrigue.  Indeed, Lincoln allowed the war to prolong to end it, resulting in more death and destruction, when peace was in his grasp.  The fact is, despite how easily we accept that anything "Honest" Abe did must have been justified, it is not quite that simple.  We cannot allow our American bias to accept these decisions unconditionally without deliberate thought.  I wish now to dive into the assortment of issues addressed in this film and analyze them.

First, it is no small thing that Lincoln's administration resorted to corrupt means to achieve the most noble of ends.  In the movie it acknowledges this but clearly trivializes it with its jovial portrayal of the men responsible for "convincing" the congressmen to vote for the bill or abstain.  They are running around bribing several members of congress, and the movie, by the tone it sets, creates an impression that this was not something to look down upon.  The fact is that the movie draws off of Lincoln's aura of perfection to justify this.  If Lincoln thought it was necessary, then it must have been worth it.  However, when one draws this line of reasoning further, it clearly falls apart.  We might not find bribery a big deal, but what about threats? What if the President threatened to remove members from office by force? What if the President used an "executive decision" to make slavery illegal? I do not believe anyone who reads this would argue for a dictatorship, no matter how benevolent the despot.  Then one must be led to question the Lincoln administration's actions.  What is acceptable within a democracy?  When does democracy end and dictatorship begin?  Is the principles of democracy ever worth violating for the greater good?  Indeed, the answer may be yes.  It may very well be that the ends justified the means in this case.  Nevertheless, it is critical we think about this, and not just blindly accept it as necessary.

Second, the movie makes it clear the war could have been ended earlier, if the North allowed the South to keep its slaves.  A delegation was heading North to negotiate peace, but Lincoln never intended to hear them out.  Again, this is something that all Americans have been preconditioned to accept as the right course of action.  Yet, why do we so naturally reject an earlier peace?  It may well have been worth making peace to spare the lives of thousands of men.  The fight against slavery then could have continued within Congress.

Both of these points of debate are clear throughout the entire war.  Indeed, the Federal government could have let the South leave peaceably, and prevented the catastrophic war that ensued.  Instead, the Federal government slowly expanded its power to fight the war, and as the war went on, the gloves were slowly slid off until the the art of warfare had degenerated into an all out brawl with no rules.  Endless land was ravaged in Sherman's infamous march to the sea.  The south was starved into submission by a devastating blockade.

After the war it becomes even more obvious.  The Federal government becomes dominated by one party rule, and the Republicans strive to limit franchisement in the South and preserve their power.  Indeed, Ulysses S. Grant's Presidency, who was the second President after lincoln, is infamously known by many historians as the most corrupt Presidency in our history.  The South was to suffer in poverty for the indefinite future, and the economic plight on many former slaves improved little as they were forced to turn back to their former owners for work.

If your blood boiled a little bit reading this, I am glad.  I want you to be upset that I dare challenge your comfortable self assurance that the Civil War was absolutely necessary and absolutely right.  I want to make you question if Abraham Lincoln was perfect, and to wonder if perhaps he did the wrong thing.  Its easy to rest in the Laurels of victory, its not so easy, to question what we assume to be right.  What we have been taught since birth to never question.  Let me make this clear, these are not necessarily my opinions on the matter, however I thought them necessary to bring up.  Next time you smugly revel in self righteousness, consider the unthinkable, that you may be wrong.