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.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
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?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
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...
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...
Friday, May 1, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
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?Monday, March 9, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
