You may have noticed that in my essays, I have frequently come up against a virtually intractable problem. I have noted on numerous occasions that the generation that suffered through Vietnam was the same generation that eventually sent us to Iraq and Afghanistan (I'm looking at you, John Kerry); humanity continually makes the same mistakes over and over again.
I am currently working on an incredible project: I want to stop this vicious cycle, at least in the United States. I am devising an educational program to do just that, and it will be my longest essay to date (currently it is six pages long, single-spaced; I estimate it will be 15-20 pages long). Children are the future. I know that is a cliche, but it is true by the sad fact that adults are mountains of prejudices, and are unable to reconsider the world around them, having had their youthful idealism sucked right out of them as soon as they left college for the "Real World." It is this impotent complacency that makes the world what it is and perpetuates its harsh condition.
I may or may not be updating this blog as I work on this project. It was to actually be a blog post until I discovered just what I was doing. I currently do not know whether or not I will post the project here when it is finished.
This project is ambitious, and it may turn out to be impossible: No one has ever undertaken this before and had it actually work. The society devised in Plato's The Laws was never implemented, but I do not have the burden of creating a society from scratch. In fact, I want to perpetuate this society, but fix the most egregious problems. Can I do it? Do I know enough about how things work? We will soon find out.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
Some Decaying Old Man Claims That the World Will End on May 21st. He Should Know--Just Look at Him!
For about 2 months now, a certain percentage of the population of the United States has been following a shambling corpse of a televangelist who claims that the world will end next Saturday, May 21st, 2011. It is worth noting that this particular decaying corpse has previously claimed that the world would end in 1994, but has admitted he was wrong simply because he "hadn't read Jeremiah."
Basically, the premise is that next Saturday is the 7,000th anniversary of the Flood in Genesis (not the one from Halo, but that would be much more awesome/terrifying, as it involves mutated space zombies instead of just a ton of water).
There are five basic theological problems with the idea of the world ending on Saturday: 1) God never indicated that he eventually wanted to annihilate us all a second time (in fact, he tells Noah that he won't ever do that again), and, by extension, God learns from his mistakes; 2) We really don't know how many generations have passed in the Biblical timeline even if some of us believe it to be literally true, and this is important because the Old Testament measures time by generations, not years; 3) The number 7 has significance for Numerologists, but few others; 4) (also the most important) The Biblical Old Testament is completely rearranged, it differs significantly from the order of the Jewish Tanakh, therefore, such predictions are impossible; and 5) Jesus' apostles believed that he would return within their lifetimes but he never showed up.
The rationalist arguments as to why Harold Camping should be placed in an insulated nursing facility are that 1) He was wrong in 1994, 2) He frequently says bizarre and irresponsible things (by my standard, anyway), and 3) people have been predicting the end of the world since it began, and all of them have been flatly wrong.
The only argument one could make in favor of Harold Camping's prediction is because of his physical disposition: He appears emaciated and more or less dead already, so his proximity to his death may give him privileged information. But old and sickly people are often delusional, and he may be clasping to what little he has left of his mind, and he has no proof that what he believes is actually correct beyond his own bizarre interpretation of the Bible.
This leads to an interesting point: Just why are people so eager to see their world end? This is the only home we have, why would we want Jesus to burn it? Jack Miles writes on page 268 of God: A Biography,
It has always been fun to speculate that civilization as we know it would collapse. I know that I enjoy zombie movies, dystopian novels, and exploring an annihilated United States in the Fallout series of computer games. But it is an entirely different matter when people begin to believe that these ideas are factually true.
Why should we have to suffer through the Christian fundamentalist nonsense again? In response to the dumbassery of the Bush administration, Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, assault on women's rights, Terri Schaivo, and the enormous campaign in favor of gay rights, because the liberals began fighting back, because they dialed it up to 7, the Christians have to dial themselves up to 12, when they started at 9. When Americans start supporting gay rights and fighting back against Creationism in public schools, they want to feel vindicated in their own way: "How could we lose America? Surely God will annihilate it now that they're all hedonists!" Even though most of the country is still religious. As Michael Shermer wrote in The Science of Good & Evil in 2004, "If America is going to Hell in an immoral handbasket, it is happening at a time when church membership is at an all-time high and a greater percentage of people than ever before proclaim belief in God"2
The irony is that it is these people who took us in the wrong direction in the first place, and continue to try to steer us further to the right, and only seem to get angrier when the voices of reason fight back.
This entire escapade is motivated by bitter and resentment over staggering political losses, evident of a slash and burn attitude toward America: It isn't going their way anymore, so they want to see it destroyed. So what looks to us as some fun little game--riding Winnebagoes across the country telling people the Rapture is going to be a lot of fun is really a subtle code for "We're losing elections and if you keep supporting gays, we'll tell God on you!" But God hasn't been seen for more than 2000 years.
1) Miles, Jack. God: A Biography Vintage Press. (C) 1995. NY, NY
2) Shermer, Michael. The Science of Good & Evil. Henry Holt. (C) 2004. NY, NY
Basically, the premise is that next Saturday is the 7,000th anniversary of the Flood in Genesis (not the one from Halo, but that would be much more awesome/terrifying, as it involves mutated space zombies instead of just a ton of water).
There are five basic theological problems with the idea of the world ending on Saturday: 1) God never indicated that he eventually wanted to annihilate us all a second time (in fact, he tells Noah that he won't ever do that again), and, by extension, God learns from his mistakes; 2) We really don't know how many generations have passed in the Biblical timeline even if some of us believe it to be literally true, and this is important because the Old Testament measures time by generations, not years; 3) The number 7 has significance for Numerologists, but few others; 4) (also the most important) The Biblical Old Testament is completely rearranged, it differs significantly from the order of the Jewish Tanakh, therefore, such predictions are impossible; and 5) Jesus' apostles believed that he would return within their lifetimes but he never showed up.
The rationalist arguments as to why Harold Camping should be placed in an insulated nursing facility are that 1) He was wrong in 1994, 2) He frequently says bizarre and irresponsible things (by my standard, anyway), and 3) people have been predicting the end of the world since it began, and all of them have been flatly wrong.
The only argument one could make in favor of Harold Camping's prediction is because of his physical disposition: He appears emaciated and more or less dead already, so his proximity to his death may give him privileged information. But old and sickly people are often delusional, and he may be clasping to what little he has left of his mind, and he has no proof that what he believes is actually correct beyond his own bizarre interpretation of the Bible.
This leads to an interesting point: Just why are people so eager to see their world end? This is the only home we have, why would we want Jesus to burn it? Jack Miles writes on page 268 of God: A Biography,
"An Apocalypse is a cryptic revelation of imminent destruction to be followed by a definitive divine intervention at the end of time. Historically, apocalypticism is a kind of weed sprung up in Judea from the charred earth of failed prophecy. Its predictions are coded and otherwise elaborately mysterious in part to mislead the Judeans' and later the Jews' foreign oppressors, in part to renew the nation's own belief in God's power and its national uniqueness when all evidence seems to point the other way"1.So why now? Over the past decade we have seen a nearly unceasing series of destruction, from 9/11, the tsunami in Indonesia. the Haiti earthquake, Hurricane Katrina, the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, the earthquake off the coast of Japan and the imminent collapse of the Fukushima reactors, and I am sure that there are more than a few other events that I have omitted here. Also, do not forget that the May 21st prediction is not the only apocalyptic conspiracy theory in circulation: December 21st, 2012 is also apparently a date for annihilation.
It has always been fun to speculate that civilization as we know it would collapse. I know that I enjoy zombie movies, dystopian novels, and exploring an annihilated United States in the Fallout series of computer games. But it is an entirely different matter when people begin to believe that these ideas are factually true.
Why should we have to suffer through the Christian fundamentalist nonsense again? In response to the dumbassery of the Bush administration, Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, assault on women's rights, Terri Schaivo, and the enormous campaign in favor of gay rights, because the liberals began fighting back, because they dialed it up to 7, the Christians have to dial themselves up to 12, when they started at 9. When Americans start supporting gay rights and fighting back against Creationism in public schools, they want to feel vindicated in their own way: "How could we lose America? Surely God will annihilate it now that they're all hedonists!" Even though most of the country is still religious. As Michael Shermer wrote in The Science of Good & Evil in 2004, "If America is going to Hell in an immoral handbasket, it is happening at a time when church membership is at an all-time high and a greater percentage of people than ever before proclaim belief in God"2
The irony is that it is these people who took us in the wrong direction in the first place, and continue to try to steer us further to the right, and only seem to get angrier when the voices of reason fight back.
This entire escapade is motivated by bitter and resentment over staggering political losses, evident of a slash and burn attitude toward America: It isn't going their way anymore, so they want to see it destroyed. So what looks to us as some fun little game--riding Winnebagoes across the country telling people the Rapture is going to be a lot of fun is really a subtle code for "We're losing elections and if you keep supporting gays, we'll tell God on you!" But God hasn't been seen for more than 2000 years.
1) Miles, Jack. God: A Biography Vintage Press. (C) 1995. NY, NY
2) Shermer, Michael. The Science of Good & Evil. Henry Holt. (C) 2004. NY, NY
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Osama bin Laden: The Reigning Hide & Seek Champion
On Monday night at around 10:30-11:00 EST, I learned that we have killed Osama bin Laden. Unlike everyone else, though, I was a bit ambivalent about his death.
There is no question in my mind that the SEAL team that stormed his compound did the right thing by ending it there and then, but to me this victory rings hollow in that Osama bin Laden accomplished more than simply the deaths of 3,000 innocent people.
Politicians profited immensely from the attack, and were able to pass legislation that would have normally been unpopular. President George W Bush passed the PATRIOT Act soon after the World Trade Center attack, which made us subject to sweeping and nearly Orwellian security measures. In 2001, we invaded Afghanistan, and in 2003, George W Bush and his administration, with the GOP institution following, made the erroneous case that Saddam Hussein was connected to al-Queda. We, despite objections from the United Nations, preemptively invaded Iraq.
During the previous decade, despite cheerleading for the troops overseas, Americans consumed even more gas with bigger cars, and our domestic car manufacturers failed to create more efficient vehicles. With the focus on global climate change and the fabricated 'controversy' associated with it, few people saw petroleum consumption as a national security issue.
Socially, Americans became increasingly paranoid and suspicious of others (especially Muslims). Ten years later, a proposed Islamic Cultural Center in NYC has come under enormous fire, despite the fact that there are already a significant number of mosques in the area, as well as a large Muslim population. This backlash was motivated primarily by paranoia and suspicion. Many Americans claim that Osama bin Laden had taught them everything they need to know about Islam, and I already stated how unfair this is previously, when I asked whether or not it was fair to say that Jerry Falwell and the larger GOP taught me everything that I need to know about Christianity.
In response to Osama bin Laden America under George W Bush had a knee-jerk reaction that went far beyond trying to find him and began to erode its very democracy. In Guantanamo Bay, the United States held--and continues to hold--terror suspects outside the bounds of the Constitution. There, detainees are tortured psychologically and held indefinitely without charge. Unfortunately, Obama has thus far failed to close Guantanamo, but that is mostly in part because Americans are uneasy about holding terrorist suspects on American soil. Are we afraid that our Constitution is insufficient to protect us? Would it not be good for our image to hold Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a Dostoevskyan trial in a demonstration of the superiority of our values in the face of religious nihilism?
That we will not, that we are afraid of a fair trial for the most evil people currently walking on this Earth, points to the stark possibility that Osama bin Laden has already won. We have tried one of the most evil ideologies human civilization had ever seen in the Nuremberg trials, and won. Why can we not do that again? Furthermore, that we are celebrating his death is evidence of the possibility that we have become the very monsters we are fighting. I completely understand that it was necessary and convenient to kill him at his compound, but that is nothing more than a necessary evil. It is not *good* that we killed this man--it is never *good* to kill any man, even if it may be necessary. But our celebration of his death--our jubilation--is unequivocally vile. This is America, home of the free, land of the brave. We are supposed to be decent, if docile, people. But our behavior is not indicative of our values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But then again, maybe it never was.
Truly, is our reaction to Osama's death any different from our previous behavior? Was there ever a time when we treated the enemy--the Other--with at least some decency as a society? No, there was not. We came to the New World and profited from the subjugation of the native population. When that population was almost completely destroyed, we joined the Dutch in the Slave Trade, and in spite of our stated values and intentions, there was left a gaping chasm between what we said and what we did. When the Puritans came over from England because of oppression, they immediately began imposing their views upon everyone else, repeating the exact same tactics they suffered under in their homeland. Even among white people, each new demographic that arrived in this country was reviled: The Irish Catholics, the Germans, the Jews, etc. But each in turn eventually joined with the majority, if only to turn around and join in the oppression of the new Other. In fact, what do we see today? African-Americans, who have had fought the greatest uphill battle for civil rights in the history of the country, have turned around and joined their white counterparts in the oppression of homosexuals. In fact, these were the same kinds of people who sixty years prior wanted to deny them basic civil rights. Globally, no other kind of oppression brings more different people together than the oppression of homosexuals. All three monotheistic religions condemn homosexuality, so it is the only issue upon which nearly every group--no matter their religious or political differences--can come to a tragic consensus.
It is actually quite logical then that after World War II, we have had medium- to full-scale conflicts in 4 countries, financed rebel fighters that would eventually turn around and attack us, and all the while used buzzwords like "Freedom" and "Democracy" when the truth is that the only freedom we want to preserve is our own freedom to continue to enjoy lower gas prices.
Should we give up, though? Should we simply accept it, muttering to ourselves "c'est la vie", doing nothing to change who we are? No. The truth is that we have made some progress: We recognize that what we've done in the past was wrong and we have become much more tolerant than we were previously. The problem is that we currently do not possess the mechanism by which we can understand what we will do in the future we may be wrong. For all of our tolerance, however, it appears that someone has to be oppressed, much like capitalism generally, where the low prices we enjoy at Wal*Mart must come from someone's $0.50/day wage. It is very unfortunate, however, because tolerance doesn't have to work like that. In fact, then it really isn't tolerance at all when it is banking on intolerance toward someone else. There is no 'currency' of tolerance, it doesn't have to be compensated for.
How do we solve this problem; a problem as large and complex as human nature? How can we ensure that we do not simply repeat the behaviors and attitudes of our predecessors? What, exactly, is the root of understanding? Would it be possible to instill an unwavering respect towards others regardless of who or what they are in our children? And most important, how do we ensure that they do not fall into the traps their parents and grandparents fell into before them? For it is a great tragedy that the generation that suffered in Vietnam would send their children into Iraq and Afghanistan. Are we damned to repeat their mistakes, too?
There is no question in my mind that the SEAL team that stormed his compound did the right thing by ending it there and then, but to me this victory rings hollow in that Osama bin Laden accomplished more than simply the deaths of 3,000 innocent people.
Politicians profited immensely from the attack, and were able to pass legislation that would have normally been unpopular. President George W Bush passed the PATRIOT Act soon after the World Trade Center attack, which made us subject to sweeping and nearly Orwellian security measures. In 2001, we invaded Afghanistan, and in 2003, George W Bush and his administration, with the GOP institution following, made the erroneous case that Saddam Hussein was connected to al-Queda. We, despite objections from the United Nations, preemptively invaded Iraq.
During the previous decade, despite cheerleading for the troops overseas, Americans consumed even more gas with bigger cars, and our domestic car manufacturers failed to create more efficient vehicles. With the focus on global climate change and the fabricated 'controversy' associated with it, few people saw petroleum consumption as a national security issue.
Socially, Americans became increasingly paranoid and suspicious of others (especially Muslims). Ten years later, a proposed Islamic Cultural Center in NYC has come under enormous fire, despite the fact that there are already a significant number of mosques in the area, as well as a large Muslim population. This backlash was motivated primarily by paranoia and suspicion. Many Americans claim that Osama bin Laden had taught them everything they need to know about Islam, and I already stated how unfair this is previously, when I asked whether or not it was fair to say that Jerry Falwell and the larger GOP taught me everything that I need to know about Christianity.
In response to Osama bin Laden America under George W Bush had a knee-jerk reaction that went far beyond trying to find him and began to erode its very democracy. In Guantanamo Bay, the United States held--and continues to hold--terror suspects outside the bounds of the Constitution. There, detainees are tortured psychologically and held indefinitely without charge. Unfortunately, Obama has thus far failed to close Guantanamo, but that is mostly in part because Americans are uneasy about holding terrorist suspects on American soil. Are we afraid that our Constitution is insufficient to protect us? Would it not be good for our image to hold Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a Dostoevskyan trial in a demonstration of the superiority of our values in the face of religious nihilism?
That we will not, that we are afraid of a fair trial for the most evil people currently walking on this Earth, points to the stark possibility that Osama bin Laden has already won. We have tried one of the most evil ideologies human civilization had ever seen in the Nuremberg trials, and won. Why can we not do that again? Furthermore, that we are celebrating his death is evidence of the possibility that we have become the very monsters we are fighting. I completely understand that it was necessary and convenient to kill him at his compound, but that is nothing more than a necessary evil. It is not *good* that we killed this man--it is never *good* to kill any man, even if it may be necessary. But our celebration of his death--our jubilation--is unequivocally vile. This is America, home of the free, land of the brave. We are supposed to be decent, if docile, people. But our behavior is not indicative of our values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But then again, maybe it never was.
Truly, is our reaction to Osama's death any different from our previous behavior? Was there ever a time when we treated the enemy--the Other--with at least some decency as a society? No, there was not. We came to the New World and profited from the subjugation of the native population. When that population was almost completely destroyed, we joined the Dutch in the Slave Trade, and in spite of our stated values and intentions, there was left a gaping chasm between what we said and what we did. When the Puritans came over from England because of oppression, they immediately began imposing their views upon everyone else, repeating the exact same tactics they suffered under in their homeland. Even among white people, each new demographic that arrived in this country was reviled: The Irish Catholics, the Germans, the Jews, etc. But each in turn eventually joined with the majority, if only to turn around and join in the oppression of the new Other. In fact, what do we see today? African-Americans, who have had fought the greatest uphill battle for civil rights in the history of the country, have turned around and joined their white counterparts in the oppression of homosexuals. In fact, these were the same kinds of people who sixty years prior wanted to deny them basic civil rights. Globally, no other kind of oppression brings more different people together than the oppression of homosexuals. All three monotheistic religions condemn homosexuality, so it is the only issue upon which nearly every group--no matter their religious or political differences--can come to a tragic consensus.
It is actually quite logical then that after World War II, we have had medium- to full-scale conflicts in 4 countries, financed rebel fighters that would eventually turn around and attack us, and all the while used buzzwords like "Freedom" and "Democracy" when the truth is that the only freedom we want to preserve is our own freedom to continue to enjoy lower gas prices.
Should we give up, though? Should we simply accept it, muttering to ourselves "c'est la vie", doing nothing to change who we are? No. The truth is that we have made some progress: We recognize that what we've done in the past was wrong and we have become much more tolerant than we were previously. The problem is that we currently do not possess the mechanism by which we can understand what we will do in the future we may be wrong. For all of our tolerance, however, it appears that someone has to be oppressed, much like capitalism generally, where the low prices we enjoy at Wal*Mart must come from someone's $0.50/day wage. It is very unfortunate, however, because tolerance doesn't have to work like that. In fact, then it really isn't tolerance at all when it is banking on intolerance toward someone else. There is no 'currency' of tolerance, it doesn't have to be compensated for.
How do we solve this problem; a problem as large and complex as human nature? How can we ensure that we do not simply repeat the behaviors and attitudes of our predecessors? What, exactly, is the root of understanding? Would it be possible to instill an unwavering respect towards others regardless of who or what they are in our children? And most important, how do we ensure that they do not fall into the traps their parents and grandparents fell into before them? For it is a great tragedy that the generation that suffered in Vietnam would send their children into Iraq and Afghanistan. Are we damned to repeat their mistakes, too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)