It's 3:43 in the morning...

...and I haven't gotten anything done.

I have a paper due for my first-year seminar due on Thursday.  Basically, I have to take the article my group was assigned to present and summarize it in narrative form.  My first paper/presentation was a western conceptualization of a "land ethic."  Then I had an article on the "color blind principle," and now it's the "Contestation and Consensus" of the morality of abortion in Japan.

To be quite honest, I could really care less about the Japanese struggle and succeeding consensus in Japan on abortion.  I can, on occasion, get passionate about abortion, but the multiculturalism in this class is really starting to piss me off.  To use his own jargon, I am a structuralist, and my professor is not.  Another day I will explain what that means and why I think cultural plays a minimal role in shaping history.

Before I write these narratives, I usually take notes on the article with my computer.  From these notes I write most of my paper, but this article is so boring and I am so lacking motivation at the end of this semester that I have done next to nothing tonight.  I went to eat with some friends, came back, read the news, and texted a friend for a while.  Then I read the High Point Regional Board of Education minutes.  Yes, I was that desperate.

It's snowing outside, and it's coming down pretty heavy.  They might cancel classes if this snow doesn't turn to rain, but Wednesday is my day off anyway.  I may have to work on this paper tomorrow; I'm dozing off in the common room as we speak, so before my head smashes into the keyboard I'm going to go to bed.  If this message is inconhorent, I will fix it in the morning.

What I'd give to be a poet right now...

Today, in my college world, the mandatory freshman activities are finished.

1. No more icebreakers.
2. No more ceremonies.
3. No more workshops on rape, insanity, and the prolific substance abuse that will soon be commencing on campus.

I don't want to risk going into New York (City) just yet, so I've skipped that trip. I could go to the class council social, but why the hell would I want to hang out with the student council (now "student government") for more icebreakers and, of all things, food. I can have all the fairly acceptable food I want under my meal plan, so, ha! And then there's LollaNoBooza or something like that. Basically, they're trying to show the freshman, "Hey! You can have fun on campus without getting smashed!" But you see, since I'm a reclusive nerd, I need neither parties nor alcohol to have fun.

But really, I shouldn't be complaining. I'll brag instead. I've got it made. I got the ultimate meal plan (no limit on meals), the cool housing for the scholarship/honors kids, and a significant nerd/outcast population to mingle with when I so choose. So really, I'm doing pretty well after all.

Except for the fact that I have nothing to do for the next two days until I have my first class. So I'm in the library on the second floor, which, by the way, is straight out of the seventies (Orange carpeting?). Right now I think I'm the only person on the second floor. At 8:00 in the morning I think I was only the second person to have breakfast in the Pavilion (which serves two residence halls). Everyone else must be asleep.

I woke up a girl in the common room this morning. She was sleeping in chair with a blanket thrown over her because she has asthma and she's been having attacks and she doesn't want to wake her roommate up and have the roommate think she's dying. So the moral of the story is that things could always be worse (and some people have good reason to sleep in).

But still I'm sitting in the library with chairs and little tables around me that look like they got lifted from the children's section of the county library (Damn you, '70's designers, damn you!). What am I reading? The Great Financial Crisis, by John Bellamy Foster and Fred Magdoff. It's one of the books I bought (but have not yet been assigned) for this gen ed class called "Social Issues." I read the preface, which mentioned that much of the material for the book comes from pieces in Monthly Review, which is not only the publisher of this book but also happens to be a magazine with "an independent socialist voice," in the words of the authors. Now that's cool, it's okay to be a socialist. I myself am a self-classified socialist-leaning cynical capitalist. But I'm still trying to be a step removed from unwavering belief in what this book speaks of, just in case it's a little too radical.

I'm just trying to finish the introduction. I'm on page 18 and it ends at page 23. At first I picked up the book and started reading and said to myself, "Hey, this is pretty accessible prose. Should be an easy read." Oh, but to be sorely mistaken!

Flowing in these pages is economic doomsday rhetoric of stagnation and financialization, brewing with funky terms like monopoly capital that leave me totally clueless. Many names float around. John Maynard Keynes is apparently in some ways like Isiah, father (well, not literally...) of a race of economists as numerous as the stars. Or at least enough to fill up a conference room. And it seems like everyone referenced here was deeply influenced not only by Keynes but by Marx and/or a bunch of other people I've never heard of. A little more background on the other people would be nice, especially for faux intellectuals like me.

I've probably been exaggerating. I don't know if a political manifesto masquerading as a book on economics--which would a biased and deceitful book, and that's what I'm really afraid of--would easily become college course material. I hope not. But in any case, it's pretty dark and pretty dense material. I'm looking out the wall-to ceiling windows across from me, and occurs to me, what I would give to be a poet right now.

I'd look out the window instead and write some idyllic sonnet about the trees or nature. Or an epic poem about Andrew, the man who's friends with everyone. Maybe some haiku about orange carpeting and stolen furniture from the children's section.

I can't rhyme, or write imaginatively, or with imagery, or even with much creativity. For God's sake, I can barely understand poetry when I read it. But maybe then, if I were a poet right now, I wouldn't have to be intellectually concerned and fully engaged with stagnating production and out-of-control financialization.

Because to me, a historian has to understand everything, because everything contributes to history. Especially those detached forces that have a decisive impact on the daily lives of people and a direct control over the welfare of the state--namely, those forces described by economics.

Of course, you might not be much of a great poet in these times if all you knew were leaves of grass and cherry blossoms. So then maybe it isn't so easy being a poet after all.

The New York Times is online.
The OED is online.
And now the NewsHour is online.
My life is complete.

How to Write Stuff

1. Sit through a catastrophic graduation rehearsal.
2. Go home and eat hot dogs that don't taste very good.
3. Watch brother and sister kill terrorists on Xbox.
4. Watch SNL Digital Shorts that would make Ms. H.'s hair fall out.
5. Blast some of that Ode to Joy stuff.
6. Write stuff.
   

This I Believe

I have faced injustices directed against me; most people have, I’m sure. I might be able to tell you a few things about jerks, bullies, and generally irritating people, who usually find it amusing to make the socially awkward person angry. But to equivocate my mild feelings of irritation with most of the evils perpetrated in this world would be ludicrous. I have never seen the law leveraged against me, or stood the bigotry of my neighbors, or faced injury to life and property, or watched my people be systematically exterminated. No, what drove me to be so engrossed with justice and its subsidiary notions of morality, judgment, and punishment was not any failure of justice in my own experience, but rather a sense of societal duty that has grown upon me in recent years. This was not always the case. There was a time when good and evil were the rules of the grownups I abided for the sake of avoiding trouble.

I suppose that, even while I was young, I thought that justice was something that ought to be pursued as an end in itself. Yet what I took to be just were precepts taken from the people who made the rules—my parents and my teachers. It would not be until I approached adulthood that I asserted my moral independence. For if men and women recuse themselves from defining their own morals, they ought to recuse themselves from passing judgment as well, since they would apply a standard of morality that is not their own—a standard they cannot truly believe in if they have not made it their own—and render any judgment, by definition, ill-advised.

I have taken the task of making justice my own, and if we are to have fair and equal justice, then our framework must be universally applicable to all individuals under any circumstances. Reason and logic, detached from the differing biases and perspectives of conflicting entities, should be the building blocks of any universal framework of justice. To some extent, rational justice is possible, given a set of principles to build it off of. Yet it is these principles that undermine a truly universal justice, for any such principle proves itself to derive from sentiment, not reason. For these basic premises of justice—such as the rights to life, liberty, happiness, private property—man can still question and doubt—why should, for example, life or liberty be sacred, or why should anything be sacred at all? There is no self-evident truth in ethics, and thus, there can be no absolute morality. The notion of justice—at least fair justice—is absurd.

And yet, despite the inherent flaws in rational justice, I cannot help but to continue searching for moral answers. I hope a philosophical breakthrough might resolve justice’s fundamental flaws, but I confess I am driven, in the pursuit of moral definition and application, in the pursuit of justice, despite its absurdity, by nothing more than naive optimism—I am driven by the faith that there is a distinction between good and evil, and that we might judge here on Earth for the moral redemption of mankind.

Creepy

So, I'm kind of sick and tired of banner ads for TheGodMovie.com that keep cropping up on nytimes.com. Sorry, but, as much of a sceptic as I am, I'm not an atheist, and I'm really sick and tired of seeing this ad float onto my webpages. I don't want to suppress freedom of speech, either, but, at my wits end, I clicked on "Feedback" to see if there was something to report along the lines of "This ad really pisses me off."

No such luck. Out of curiosity, however, (and having read a reference to it a few days earlier) I click on "Visit the Ads Preferences Manager to learn more and customize which interest-based ads you see." I figured it would bring up some general categories of ads that Google put on pages that I could opt out of in case I really didn't particularly like cooking or something like that. Here's what I got instead:

Ford makes pretty good cars that, with the exception of the Mustang, are pretty lame. So they're wrong about that. But not much else. I guess they culled this from my New York Times traffic--not that difficult, considering they run the ads on the site, and plenty of other sites I must have surfed. But now I'm starting to understand why people freak out over Googleistic monopolies and privacy rights. 'Cause this is a pretty good list of my interests. I honestly, for all my nerdiness, never knew they could actually pull this stuff off.

You can opt out of tracking (at least with your current cookie) with Google, which I will do NOW, but Big Brother is still out there. It wouldn't surprise me if the tracking starts up again if I delete my cookie and surf a Google site again. Or if Yahoo, Microsoft, and God knows who else can do this kind of information tracking. Or if Google combines my Gmail, search data, maybe even Blogger to create a real good picture of me. It's not paranoid to think like that anymore. Now, right now, they aren't doing anything other than compiling data for ads and marketing. But what nefarious deeds does that leave the door open to?

AP Rage

So, after my lovely AP testing experience, I decided to take out some of my AP Rage by mowing large sections of the lawn with my non-self-propelled push mower. Then, sore and exhausted, I decided to finish the job in Grand Theft Auto IV, where I released more AP Rage in bullets and grenades for an hour and a half. All in all, I had two instances of six star wanted levels--very impressive feats, but then again, 1000+ rounds of SMG ammo in a (virtual) fast food restaurant will really take you places.

Now you must think I am a serial killer. All those violent video games---Halo, GTA, Mario Kart--must be getting to my head, and, as we all know, anything fun is subversive, immoral, and indicative of a serious mental disorder. But before you call in the cops and have me arrested or sent off to the loony bin, I want the opportunity to at least present my proposal for the next four weeks...please don't spoil my fun...

A Modest Proposal as to a Solution of the Plight of Women

Even after the enactment of equal rights laws for women, prohibiting many forms of official and unofficial discrimination; even after decades of efforts by leagues of feminists to attack sexism and misogyny in society; even after women, living and competing as de jure equals among men, do we find a lingering disparity between the sexes in American society. Unequal pay is merely the harbinger of what lies beneath the surface, in the minds of men and, indeed, many woman—a society where woman are still subjected to injury and perversion before altars and in bedrooms. The American society maintains a culture than housing artifacts of previous eras, so that now women are still, more often than not, portrayed submissive and docile, to defer to their bold, courageous, decisive men. Then, with this private sexism, it is only inevitable that it should spill into public and professional behavior—which it does, running the gamut from “glass ceilings” to workplace sexual harassment.

Nor should we expect that these evils of mankind shall come to pass soon. The height of feminism has come and gone. American conservatism, even if weakened in this economic downturn, has seen a rebirth ever since Reagan, and, while maintaining comparable existence in the wax-and-wane cycle of politics, has since has moved farther towards the right, where in the final analysis, platforms on “family” or “traditional” values will inevitably seek turn the clock back on the feminism. Feminism, too, has become negatively stigmatized and has even perhaps lost its stomach when facing a less and less egregious state of misogyny and discrimination, where finer distinctions are the subject of increased debate and litigation. If advocacy and politics have been the sources of positive change for women, then women face a serious crisis.

Women, if they are to protect themselves—for that, in essence, is the purpose of our rights and freedoms—must do more than “find a new tack.” There is nothing more I believe we can do to advance the feminism along the path it has taken without inciting damaging reactions against feminism. Heretofore, women have asked men to change themselves or force other men to act differently. But change is the source of the feminist reaction—and we cannot alter this fundamental aversion of man to change. Women, then, must protect themselves without inducing change. Let, then, men be themselves.

Women demanded rights and equality to protect them while under male domination, and perhaps men did not treat them fairly. There was, after all, neither a complete liberation of women nor a complete subjugation. Where liberation has to be achieved, subjugation might be realistic and successful, as it only reverses the fragile, resented liberative changes in society, returning to the comfortable subjugate attitudes that have dominated much of history, with the sole exception that men must be much more careful to treat women as they deserve. It would be self-defeating if women were allowed any semblance of recognized rights or dignity, for then that would negate the nature existence of such.

For example, any reasonable proposal (for, given the degree to which society has assimilated feminine involvement, however resented, there may be, justly so, competing plans as to the actual defemininezation of America) would probably keep women at home for most of their lives, where they might clean houses, please husbands, and bear children. Certainly such a demand would automatically resolve much of our sexist issues. If a woman is not to leave her house, then she does not obtain work—unequal pay and discrimination will no longer be an issue. If she does not receive an education, then concerns over opportunity and equality are moot. Not only is this extremely simple to implement, but also, in terms of women, the protection from the ills of society are only heightened through repression. In any state between the extremes of liberation and repression—such as the state of feminism in our society—women may be granted work or an education, but, being unequal in treatment in these places, women might suffer as they face the cruel world while it is slanted against them. On the other hand, if women, in the words of the great statesmen Adlai Stevenson, are “in the living-room with a baby in…[the] lap or in the kitchen with a can opener in…[the] hand,” their husbands inevitably provides for them and thus eliminate women’s perils of an independent existence.

Similarly, we might expect reductions in violence or harassment against women through their suppression. For example, in concurrence with many a expert opinion, I might suggest that women be reduced to the level of private property, on the thinking that men will treat them better, and defend them better, than if women were independent. If women are considered independent entities of their husbands, then a man can strike a woman; the woman is the only victim. But if women are extensions of their husbands—or, more appropriately, owners—like all other private property, then the man, if he should abuse his woman or allow other men to do so, would be, in effect, a victim through the damage of his property. Facing this sort of personal injury, he might vigorously protect and defend the women in his possession.

A Danish acquaintance of mine, a good-humored gentleman of much learning, upon hearing my suggestion for women, recommended that we ought to keep them in cages, releasing them only when needed, as has been common practice in Denmark for generations. And, as I told my good friend in earnest, while I respect the good Danish people and their nation, it was my feeling that women, even confined within the household, contributed much to the economic productivity of the country. At home, by cleaning, cooking, and tending to the children, women under my scheme would be freeing men from such responsibilities and thus allowing men to work longer and harder. In addition, with one of the primary responsibilities of women being to bear children, keeping women in cages might increase stress during pregnancy, and would also reduce, by their confinement, their physical health—for even the Spartans of antiquity trained their daughters vigorously so that strong women might bear strong children.

Some have questions the nature of my proposal and its similarity, in one respect, to that of the current situation of feminism. They note that, in both cases, women place their ultimate fates in men, and imply that perhaps women should assert control over their own fate—that in a move of solidarity, women quit crafting the image of allure and otherwise playing into the male fantasy; that they should show strength and dignity in place of vulnerable lewdness; that through what they do by themselves as women, they make themselves free as fact, not as a condition of male courtesy. As great as this potential state might be, I find little faith in the human will and determination, that it should run counter to currents and against what nature or practice would have them. And even if I could have such faith, what good would it be if I, a man, were to make such a scornful suggestion of women, only to be rejected in my ideas and ostracized as an individual? Thus, I resign and place my hopes not in men or women, but in the frailty and sentiments of humanity, whose natural course, I pray, might deliver men and women from the injustice in the sexes’ relations.

Maybe I should double-check the 'ole transcript...

Grades Fixed: An Allegation Shocks No One

Thoughts, anyone? Has the college game gone too far? Is this an epidemic? Why? What's the solution?

Orwell's World

In Huxley’s Brave New World, “social stability” is the foundational tenant for this society dictated by the state. To suppress the individual, and the problems that result from this inherently ego-centric construct, is to make the citizens members of a communal society, enslaved by their vices. Technology, consumerism, and promiscuity satisfy the desires of the flesh and the shallow needs of the mind, but there is no deep satisfaction, no purpose to life other than the cycle of work and pleasure. The vices of these peoples and their fulfillment will, for the most part, suppress the deeper thoughts and desires of man, for if man were to experience a sense that the shallow stimulation is not enough, and that if he were to pursue something much harder to obtain, like truth, faith, or love, then social stability would be compromised.

For “the Party” in Orwell’s 1984, power is the first and final objective. The Party seeks to maintain its dominance and thus the continuity of the current social order—a social stability to protect the outer and inner party, just as Huxley’s social stability protects the society of Alphas and their blissful ignorance. The Party also seeks to maintain power by crushing the individual; however, rather than providing immense luxury and escapism to suppress deep thoughts and sensations, the Party uses the forces of nationalism, hatred, fear, and manipulation to take the independent individual and make him wholly subject to the party will. By creating a state where the individual does not think, act, or even exist on his own accord, the individual is absolutely powerless and dependent on the all-powerful party; in turn, the individual, from his dependence, is driven back to the party, further reducing his individual power.

With the 1950’s, and the Cold War, 1984 seemed much more imminent than the light and carefree Brave New World. With the world always on the brink of destruction and, in the meantime, perceived enemies at home and abroad, the prosperity of the 1950’s could do nothing about the cloud of fear and insecurity hovered over Americans in the 1950’s. If nuclear war did not destroy America first, or if the Soviets didn’t subvert the free world and in its place, prop up autocratic communism, the Americans themselves, in loyalty programs and Senators named McCarthy, would bring 1984 to America. As the decades passed, nuclear Armageddon and subversion would be gradually replaced by real war and turmoil. The threat of autocracy would lessen and seemingly wither away with the Soviets. 1984, and the year 1984, came and went.

And in the years that Orwell’s vision was strong, American society was, ironically enough, sowing the seeds for Huxley’s world. The age of consumerism began in the 1950’s, and it has hardly faltered since then. While Orwell and his world declined, Huxley’s came to the forefront. For a book written in the 1930’s, Huxley is startling in his technological and social predictions. True, the world today is not nearly as grotesque as that in Brave New World, but American society has become more liberalized in its tastes and consumerized in its economics. Is there a downside to this, a blow to our individuality as in Brave New World? Is it not reasonable to see a suppression of deep individual considerations with the comforts and pleasures afforded by modern consumerism and liberality?

Those who would declare a Huxleyian crisis must take into consideration the enormous social and economic progress this country has made. Look at our schools. Look at our colleges. Look at our opportunity and prosperity. This is certainly a better world than at most other points in recent and not-so-recent history. More people know how to read and write. More people go to college, get jobs, own homes, and raise children with prospects better than that of their parents. Those who might enjoy the latest smut in Cosmopolitan or internet porn—phenomenon twenty or thirty years ago—may include those people who, had they lived earlier in the century, could not have read or operated machinery, let alone purchase such articles through discretionary spending. What these newly empowered people might be seeking is simply the modern form of persistent vice. Even Victorian heads of households—men, of course—sought sexual outlets outside of the home—namely, in brothels—in what was a socially accepted practice. These new sexual and sensual developments of the late 20th and early 21st centuries are not necessarily the harbingers of a new gluttonous, gaudy, promiscuous world order—it could simply be affording new avenues of participation in elemental desires to those who could not attain them in such a way before, reflecting the literacy and prosperity achieved. In other words, technology and industry has simply illuminated the dark ways of man, whereas before he satisfied his needs in subtler ways.

But is the prosperity of the past coming to an end? Have hard times come upon us? It is still too premature to make prophecies, but we known that the current economic crisis is one of the worst we have seen in a very long time. This world’s attempts at vibrovacs and scent organs and an infantile lifestyle have met the harsh economic reality, which tells us that such luxury is not yet tenable. Certainly, this blow to consumerism is a blow to a Huxleyian vision of the world, and the impact of the economic collapse on the everyday lives of the people is profound. Such an impact may cause political repercussions.

Hard times bring misery. And in the past, hard times have brought demands for relief, for answers, for solutions—and the demands of the people have been met by men imported straight from Oceania. Rallying hatred and nationalism, stamping the boot into the face of humanity, the Hitlers and Stalins of the world make 1984 as real as it will ever become. While, for now, this nation and the world have yet to reach the depths of Depression desperation, we must still be ever vigilant against tyranny. And as an exposition of the autocracy and its methods, we find 1984 to be relevant in these times.

Against Capital Punishment

If a person was killed or raped, it would be just for the victim or the victim’s family to seek revenge, to have the satisfaction of seeing those responsible put to death.

If we should have apprehended a criminal guilty of capital crimes, it would be just of us to execute the criminal for the protection of society and for deterrence against further capital crimes.

But not all just things should be done. Anything that we can justify can be considered just. It is the ultimate justice—the justice of a particular course of action when all the good and evil merits are taken into consideration— that should compel us to act.

The human being is not infallible; he may err in knowledge and action. Thus, a jury of men and women are tasked to determine guilt, expecting that a deliberative body might be less prone, as a whole, to making mistakes and showing bias. Then, in reaching a verdict, we ask them to convict only when guilt is known beyond any reasonable doubt, not absolute certainty; we acknowledge that we can never know the absolute truth. Even after a conviction, appeals can be made, resulting in a new trial or a reversal of guilt if innocence can be shown or, at a minimum, the guilt of an individual is dubious from the nature of the court proceedings. Juries and the rest of the justice system treat the accused unfairly, as it has in the past and will, no doubt, in the future. This can be the consequence of any number of things. In additional to the obvious vagueness and ambiguity that may be present in evidence and testimony, there can be corruption, tampering, and interference throughout the process. It is not difficult—rather, it is impossible to deem a criminal proceeding to be without error, nor is it ever certain that there will not be any new, exonerating details after the fact. For any convict, there is always the opportunity for him to prove his innocence, any convict except those condemned to death.

The death sentence ends the appeals and any possibility that the condemned will ever be innocent. We would hope that the many appeals and reviews the condemned always receive might be sufficient to root out the innocent, and that during the intervening time between conviction and execution, any new evidence would come to light—but we cannot be sure. There has never been a dead man exonerated (under the present system), but the opponents of executions are not at a loss to come up with suspect cases, and some condemned have been set free—prior to execution—based on new evidence that has come to light. How can we ever be certain that tomorrow’s forensic technology will not yield new insight? How can we discount the keen ability of time to settle men’s passions and subsequent bias over crimes? How can we say that there will never be a retraction, confession, conspiracy, that changes the way we should have seen the case? We cannot make such definitive assertions—we are only human. An imprisonment for life allows us to be ever skeptical and ready to see the truth; an execution requires that we be as definitive as the sentence imposed.

It would be in the best interests of the protection of the public if the threat of the repeat offender were definitely removed, but we must juxtapose the protective value of an execution against the threat it poses to the potential innocents on death row. We cannot say definitively that an individual in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison would not pose a threat to the public; human error could let him escape, just as human error could convict him wrongly. But could we not agree that the potential for human error is greater, much greater in the emotionally charged, arbitrary proceedings in a court of law than in the brick-and-mortal jail?

The public might also be protected if capital punishment acted as a deterrent against capital crimes. It might act as a deterrent to some individuals under some circumstances, or it might not. How can we tell? Obviously, those who commit capital crimes don’t think about the consequences that would follow in the likely event they are discovered and arrested. The capital criminals could be a special class of delusional people who ignore the inevitable consequences (while everyone else is deterred by them); or, they could also be normal people who would normally be deterred had it not been for the extraordinary circumstances under which they committed a capital crime. How can we justify capital punishment on the premise of a deterrent effect that may or may no exist?

When a person or a loved one is attacked or killed, it is understandable that victim or their loved ones should be enraged. We should alleviate their pain as much as we can. We can find the individual with whom we believe guilt lies, we can try him, and we can punish him. We cannot, however, kill the guilty. Grief is a terrible thing, but it will not kill the grieving. Death of the criminal will not restore their dead victims to life, nor erase the crime that has been committed. We should not, we cannot execute anyone with whom there is any shadow of innocence—which, in human justice, will always be cast. We must give dignity to life, and show respect to innocence.

The Oligarchy

Human beings set very high standards for morality, conduct, and achievements, but yet despite all of the compliance that self-assured citizens and nations boast of, we can find a great deal of failure and hypocrisy. Morally, anyone in the middle and upper classes should be ashamed to live their comfortable or even ostentatious lifestyles while masses of people at home and abroad live in unspeakable poverty. Politically, we find that democracy, still the rage, produces masses of squabbling politicians and bureaucrats propagating similarly unspeakable corruption and inefficiency—this is government of the people, mind you. And, finally, of intelligence, all one needs to do is to observe the ranks of unmotivated, practically uneducated students swarming schools at all levels. Let us refrain from further evidence of times present and past, and simply say that man is a yahoo, in the sense that Swift intended—a licentious, avaricious, cruel, and vile brute. And yet, in the greatest error of the modern era, we make these creatures sovereign, and masters of their fate, as well as the fate of the human race.

In order to create a truly harmonious society, power must be structured by the capacity to govern, acknowledging that all men are not created equally. In the course of human reproduction, most men and woman born will be of the lowest class of individuals. In poor and rich nations alike, they participate in the labor intensive-work; they are the peasants, the serfs, and the proletariat. Lacking the intellect and perception of the other classes, the low class is a crude bunch of people. Just above the low class is the middle class, a group marked by a capacity to understand and execute but not lead or plan. These individuals of the middle class come in fewer numbers then the low class. Then, by far the smallest is the high class. These people have the talent of leadership and genius in the affairs that concern them, accompanied by a virtuousness that does not grace any other class.

It comes not only as a natural consequence, but as a natural necessity for the strong to rule over the weak. If all the classes were empowered equally, then chaos would result. The unintelligent masses, subject to the whim, would overwhelm a representative government with politicians that were corrupt and deceptive in order to gain power or politicians that represented the misplaced priorities of the low class. Human progress—indeed, the even the security of that progress—could be jeopardized by the corrupting influence of the low class. But if the strong should rule the weak, the high class would make enlightened decisions and planning to be executed by a competent middle class bureaucracy. With the centralized planning and absence of cumbersome opposition, the ruling elite could easily allow massive leaps in our progress as a race.

We, the human race, has been striving for liberty and equality for centuries—but with the gross inequalities now—with poverty, suppression, racism even in these great times for democratic ideals, we may suspect that these ideals have failed us. Perhaps the prosperity and well-being of mankind will not lie in archaic notions of freedom and equality—perhaps it is the inequitable distribution of power, where those most fit to lead do lead, is to be the savior of mankind.

The POW to End All POW's

"It's the ones you think are great that let you down."
-The Monk

To my enthralled audience, I present the December 17 POW.

* * *

The shades of meaning in language can allow an author to render his ideas in a manner that complements his message or implies an entirely new meaning. Some might call the use of these shades an effective enhancement of language for the amplification of meaning. Other could say that such a method subversively manipulates through style rather than substance. Either could be applied to most language, depending on one’s perspective and the circumstances of the piece. Regardless of the ethics, connotative use of language can be used to great efficacy, as in Charles Krauthammer’s latest piece, “The Real Obama.” Krauthammer can dish out virulent cutthroat attacks, to the point that they can become ineffective by virtue of their unwarranted over-aggression. This column abandons most of the outrageous premises that undermined Krauthammer, choosing to rely on statements that attack through suggestive language.

Though perhaps he could have used a better word choice towards his end, Krauthammer is attempting to caste Obama as a “transformer,” which in context we may define as “one who creates transformations.” Though transformation may carry a positive connotation, Krauthammer argues that Obama can and will provide the profound change that defines a transformation—but it is change that would be radical and radically wrong. Furthermore, some of this imminent transformation has been deliberately obscured from the public in the space before the election and even now during the transitory period; hence, the piece is entitled “The Real Obama.”

In describing Obama’s ideology, Krauthammer states that Obama’s ideology is, at present, “largely opaque.” To the same denotation, Krauthammer could have said “Obama’s beliefs remain largely unknown,” but that would have certainly given a different, and less effective, connation to the phrase. Opaque, according to Oxford University Press, can describe something that is “hard to make out,” “not clear,” or “obscure.” Unknown implies that something exists, but we do not know where (as in where to find a fact). Opaque, on the other hand, seems to indicate that something exists and is accessible, but still eludes our understanding of it. It follow that if a person or their views cannot be understood (especially that of a United States Senator), then there is good chance that those views are deliberately obscured. From that, one could very well suspect that if some deliberately obscures, there must be something to hide—leaving us to speculate on what hides underneath the black veil.

Now, having set the stage for some dark insinuations, Krauthammer looks caste Obama as a politician engrossed in domestic policy almost to the exclusion of the pressing foreign, military, and domestic policies. Not only might the reader take alarm in that Obama, so Krauthammer alleges, has little to no “aspirations” in foreign policy or “commitment” to “economic” policy (both of which have positive connotations), he might be fearful that such transformational energy would be invested in domestic policies. Such policies could theoretically intervene, and possibly interfere, in the daily lives of American citizens. Then, Krauthammer states: “Their [the cabinet member’s] job is to keep credit flowing and the world at bay so that Obama can address his real ambition” (emphasis added).

Oxford would seem to define ambition as “An aspiration to be, to do.” That’s all well and good—how can an innocent aspiration be held against you— but then one should look at one of the older senses of the word: “An ardent (orig. inordinate) desire for distinction.” While this may not be primary sense of the word in this context, one must consider the effect that this other sense might have for the connotation of ambition. It might imply a more foolish or ruthless pursuit, than, perhaps, goal or aspiration.

Krauthammer makes his case that Obama wants to create a transformation. Then he argues that Obama has the “power” and money to make such a move. That is, since even the conservatives have thrown in their hat in the “intervention” (a controversial buzzword), and “experimentation” in the economy, since Obama was elected by an impressive mandate, and since Obama will work with a strongly Democratic Congress, he should not face significant partisan challenges to his plans (i.e., his power). As for money, Krauthammer points out, correctly, that the imaginable sums of money allocated to be spent have already leap over the prior fiscal bounds—does another trillion really matter? Krauthammer argues that the public demands for action will lead to expenditures of now-trivial sums of money by the Obama administration, unopposed, in a transformation. Yet, by specific instances of diction as well as the general tone of the piece, Krauthammer clearly opposes the nature and magnitude of the proposed actions.

I don’t doubt that Krauthammer’s clever use of diction was effective, or that his arguments were unsound, or his insinuations were not clearly conveyed. He constructs the piece very well, so that he gives a good account of what the other side is shaping up to be (but not actually defending them), and yet he fails to present his argument, his opposing viewpoint, in detail enough to be compelling. He gives no direct reasons as to what he thinks, what he purposes, and why he is right; unfortunately, with nothing better than vague insinuations about the president-elect, Krauthammer has not written an effectual piece.

Certified Authentic Rant

One month and two days ago, a sleep-deprived AP student brought forth on the library computer a new POW, conceived in Misery, and dedicated to the proposition that all Krauthammer posts fail equally.

* * *

In my studies of his material, Charles Krauthammer’s writing exhibits irksome qualities that consistently detract from his work, and in work of his I’ve analyzed, I’ve found his argument to effectual. Two flaws that I believe carry from column to column: his awkward language and, most importantly, his terrible tendency to stretch or misrepresent the facts most essential to his argument. It amazes me how some of his columns start out conceding and rational, only to degrade into lies, fearing-mongering, and worse. His most recent column is no exception.

Consider the language in “From Market Economy to Political Economy.” The stamp of Krauthammer is the strain between language that may be too informal and language that is too verbose. The essence of the first paragraph is that the country’s economy now revolves around politics instead of the markets. The word “you” occurs six times. Krauthammer’s basic structure is:

You did this.
You did that.
Now, you do this.
Now, you do that.

The error is not necessarily in the informality of the language. Although this is a column in the prestigious Washington Post, if Krauthammer feels that he can better communicate with his audience by using informal language, then he is welcome to do so. The only stipulation is to be consistent. In the second paragraph, Krauthammer prefixes “meta” to economics to form “meta-economics,” a new word that appears to mean, paraphrasing Oxford University Press, “the higher or fundamental kind of economics.” This is a classic Krauthammer-ism in both its (out-of-place) highly technical nature and its awkward purpose in the paragraph. While the word appears to function reasonably well in its placement, why invent a new word when conventional language or a simple rewording might make the statement clearer and more accessible? Why make an informal appeal, only to lead into very formal language? I suspect, based on his prior subversive manipulations of language, perhaps he’s attempting to get an edge from both formal and informal language simultaneously. In his current approach, he can theoretically gain directness when speaking to audience through his informal language, while maintaining the sophistication for purposes of awing his audience, or, more likely, to deliberately confuse and mislead (as he has previously done with the dangerous word, “Orwellian”). Pure genius, until, when one actually reads the column, one finds the transition between informal and formal unsavory and too abrupt in its execution.

This piece is not exempt from the Krauthammurian rule of dubious premises and non-sequiturs. In a repeat of the style from his last column, he follows the pattern of concessions (or, at least, rational reasoning) followed by (irrational) attacks. He effectively illustrates the how the markets follow the political situation by comparing the extreme market activity from November 19 to November 24. It seems that the markets acted in response to the political events—namely, bailouts and an assurance of continuity of the present policies. It may be reasonable to say that the government has taken an uncomfortably large step into the free market through the bailouts, weakening the all-important spirit of profit which, as unfortunate as it may be, is the sole motivation of the businesses that make this country prosperous. That, of course, in the Krauthammurian tradition, is not mentioned; in this instance, Krauthammer chooses the weak idea and the paranoid idea to be the ineffectual thrust of his attack. What can come out of massive government bailouts? Lobbying. The “economic distortion.” Really, Krauthammer, is that the best you can do? Lobbying is a nuisance. Action stemming from the lobbyists could be a problem, but the resultant “economic distortion,” the phrase he used without elaboration, does not give readers any sense or substantiation of why or how this distortion would occur.

The other reason, the paranoid reason, is such because it makes the Krauthammurian assumptions that a) Democrats will seize upon any power they have, and b) Democratic ambitions are earmarked for failure and consequent disaster. Yes, Krauthammer is correct in that our legislators and government officials, as the keepers of The Bailout, do have incredible power and leverage stemming from their position—but can they use it? Should they use it? Krauthammer complains that the officials chastise the banks for hoarding money, even though it is a fiscally conservative policy on part of the banks. He misses the point. People and businesses need credit, and whatever can be done to restore credit (thus preventing a downward economic cycle) should be done. Banks need to be around for this purpose—banks exist solely for this purpose. To preserve the banks for any purpose other than credit is a waste of the taxpayers’ dollars, and if banks hold onto money only for the purpose of self-preservation, then the taxpayers’ money is spent in vain. But even if officials want banks to loan to the public, there is little they can do about it, at least with the money already distributed. Krauthammer also believes, in a carryover from two weeks ago, that Democrats are out to remake Detroit into a green eco-monster that cannot be competitive. First of all, the whole notion of the auto czar (an official with powers to reorganize the automakers) may very well be dead. The automaker, particularly GM, are slashing and burning their operations to stay alive, and that, in conjunction with the production of green cars of solid manufacture, may in fact turn Detroit around. Krauthammer argues that those forthcoming electric cars are unfeasible; he quotes the estimated MSRP’s to prove his point. However, he is not taking into consideration how much they could save consumers when oil prices inevitably shoot up again in better times. He is not taking into consideration how much an electric car could do for our energy independence, and the national security concerns tied to it. Krauthammer is suspicious without justification, and so what he has said against the bailout, in the arguments that he used, amounts to little more than fear-mongering against the Democrats.

I’m sick and tired of reading Krauthammer. I disagree with him, but I cannot respectfully disagree with him. Time after time, again and again, he fails to address the issues, preferring to make up his own. Time after time, again and again, he deceives and exaggerates on the real issues by his language alone; that and his attempts to sound “folksy” are so weak and ineffectual it’s condescending to the intelligence of his readers. Skip The Post, get The Times. That’s my advice.