A Society of Evil Faces

   Some of you (probably none of you) may remember my post, The Face Of Evil.  I feel as though I left some of my argument unexplored.
   There were those whom it seems easy to argue for, like the Nazi who asked for forgiveness and showed remorse. A little more difficult to justify are those who felt no remorse, those who had no morals, a subject also touched upon by Wiesenthal.
   Consider this rather abstract idea: all “morals” are social constructs.  Are there not societies that have glorified slavery, incest, polygamy, polyandry, group marriages, pedophilia, female circumcision, female inequality, racial inequality, prostitution, torture and other seemingly perverse institutions?  It seems imperceptive of a well-educated American to argue that our morals are inherently right.  I do agree with most all of the morals promoted by my society, but it would appear that judging the morals of other societies is not only questionably immoral in and of itself (the possible beginnings of colonialism) but also very difficult as you have been indoctrinated in some sort of society.
   An easy argument to refute my last argument is that no one is killed because of any of the aforementioned “perverse institutions.”  Who are you to judge which is more “immoral,” enslaving and torturing another human or killing him?  What, on a fundamental level makes murder the most capitol of all crimes?
   It seems odd that as Americans we are so fast to judge, when we do so many things that are immoral.  When was the last time you bought something made in a sweatshop.  Our country was started by a genocide, according to the UN definition  of Genocide(see article 2: C, D, E).  Some might argue that the 300 year difference excused the founding fathers’ actions.  On the contrary, the difference in years shows how American morals have changed and how susceptible we are to a change in morals.  You may argue that on a fundamental level, the civil rights movement was a good thing, but why.  Is there a fundamental reason that we should all be equal or is it engrained in my society? 
   My rabbi argued that,”anytime one society seeks to extinct or remove another society, that is wrong,” regardless of morals.  Does this mean that our country was founded without morals? If our country was founded without morals what implications does this have on the way we “govern” and “spread democracy” throughout the world?

A Wartime President

A moral question: should a president who has never served in the military, and therefore has no idea of the complexities of battle and its dehumanizing effects. 

   All the presidents that I am old enough to have lived through never served in the military.  Bill Clinton was involved in his little ROTC scandal and that was about as close as any of our presidents got to serving.  I know what your thinking, no, the National Guard isn't closer than what Clinton did.  Clinton may or may not have cheated the government (depending on where you stand on the issue) with his own cunning whereas Bush used his father's clout.
   Despite Bush's (rather embarrassing) history in the military, he had no problem calling himself a "Wartime President."  He has no idea what serving in the military, how can he know how to act as a Commander-in-Chief.  To me this seems like asking a pig farmer to pilot a plane... set up for disaster. 
   My big problem with this term is that being a good army leader is so much more than understanding strategy, it is understanding how deploying an extra 21,000 troops (as Obama did earlier this year) tears apart families, friendships, and lives; sometimes for a few months or years, sometimes for an eternity. 
   Clinton, in his relatively infamous letter to the ROTC recruiter, he states that he was against the war in Vietnam and strongly implies that he is against all war.  It seems hypocritical that years later, as president, he attacked the Balkans now that he isn't the one doing the killing or in the way of death.
  It seems not only Obtuse for Bush to call himself a "Wartime President"but also really quite offensive to all the people who are actually wartime leaders.  The people who go and risk their lives blindly for us, regardless of the questionable values behind a war.

Selling a Story

   After talking about how School House Rock is telling a Story of America and that it was bought by Disney, it brought me to the great irony of the Disney Company.
   Based on one of America's father figures, almost any documentary that you see on television will be quick to speak of his pioneering attitude, his imaginative ideas, and his Fatherlike respect for all children of America.
   He was also a white supremacist, outspoken anti-Semite, and was a large patron of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, also known as the German Nazi Party.  Admittedly he did stop contributing money after WWII broke out, but he was nonetheless a man who was certainly not what we remember him as. Don't get me started on the Disney Princess idea.
   When I think of Walt Disney I think of him smiling riding around on the train in his back yard.  I don't think of a man who would today be considered part of a fringe group.
   Look at the 1946 Disney Film, Song of The South.  No longer sold, as a means of telling the Disney myth, this film has some of the most racist depictions of African-Americans you will probably ever see. 
   I think that we should alter our image of Walt Disney.  He was a great man who inspired all children to be whatever they wanted to be.*

*Not applicable if you are Black, Jewish, Native American, gay, Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Indian, Communist, or any not aforementioned non-white.

A Word Delegate...?

   I was recently made aware that America has a Poet Laureate.  If you are as oblivious as me, your first question was probably, what is a poet Laureate?
   Well a Poet Laureate is a government appointed official, usually also a poet, who composes poems for state events and such.  I still don’t really understand it.
   America doesn’t have a bureaucrat for most arts, so why do we have an official poet.  I think that the fact that there is an “official” poet in the US says a lot about this (arguably dying) art form.  Its standards are too rigid.  That was why I was glad to learn that the newest Laureate, Kay Ryan, doesn’t adhere to classic poetic standards.  He argued that nearly every well thought  word choice is a poem.  Therefore, add slogans are poetry, so are music lyrics.
   I couldn’t agree with him more.  I think of so many beautiful songs that could be read as poetry.  I see so many beautiful words that are near poetic.  As we row down the North Shore Channel, we come across a wide array of graffiti, one memorable one says in large red letters, “MONEY P****Y WEED.”  The word is not censored on the side of the bridge. I don’t see any reason why this isn’t poetry.  I can't help but think, if the simple, yet complicated word choice of “The Red Wheelbarrow” is a poem, the above statement isn’t.  They are both a  series of words chosen with the express intent to mean more than simply the what is written.

Is The Internet Making us Stoopid

   In my recent post, The Murder of Discourse, I fear I may have been too hard on the plethora of options that Americans have when choosing different media outlets. We have many public forums of the internet, whether it is Wikipedia or a blog or Twitter or the “MyFace.”
   Like the Atlantic article, is Google making us Stoopid, says, the internet is changing the way we process information. I’m not sure if it is for the worst. I think it is important that people take a step back and think, “Am I adding positively to this debate, or subtracting from it.” If you find yourself, on either side of the political spectrum, rioting and yelling blasphemous claims, it is probably time to take a break and really ask yourself what you are fighting for.
   I love to argue and debate my position. I don’t like to argue for the sake of solely changing the view of others, but also because I enjoy exploring my own views. Yesterday, while struggling to understand the ideas of social constructs and their relation to morals in America I found myself arguing with a friend on the way to rowing practice. Despite the fact that I was perturbing him, I continued to argue my point because the more I argued, the more I understood and honed my vision and theory of the topic. I think if more people could calm down and realize that their arguments are useful to themselves as much as others, and that as Americans we are all working to make the nation better, we could create a powerful and compelling national dialogue on this great new interweb.

The Face of Evil

   For Jewish confirmation class (much the same as a Christian confirmation) we read a book called The Sunflower.  This “true” story takes place in the middle of WWII and the author, Simon Wiesenthal, is a Jew in a concentration camp in Poland.  He is approached by a nurse.  The nurse brings him to a Nazi guard who wishes to apologize.  I’m not going to say what happened as the book is a really great 98 page read.
   As we talked through the complexities of the story, I found that I was the only one who would forgive the Nazi.  I couldn’t help but notice that, almost every story of the holocaust painted Nazis as monsters and Jews as helpless creatures.  I have no argument that the Jews were helpless creatures, the atrocities committed on them were horrible.  Bare with me, I believe a large number of The Nazis were equally as helpless.
   I couldn’t help but think that 95% of the people I was discussing this book would have joined the Nazi party had they been in the same position as the now expiring Nazi guard.  I know it seems taboo and terribly disrespectful to all the people who were brutally slaughtered, but I feel terrible for all the helpless children who were talked into the Holocaust.

   Before you judge me or my views, take a look at the sociological implications and basis for my response to the book, maybe look at the famous Zimbardo Prison Experiment in a Stanford University basement, pictured to the left.

The Murder of Discourse...?

   A Few Days ago, a posted a blog entitled The Death of Discourse.  I felt that I had left the story only half told, as I never truly explained where I believe this social problem came from.
   People seem to think that Modern technology, namely the internet along with the mediums that it has presented us with are a positive addition to the many ways that us Homo-Sapiens  communicate.
   Unfortunately, as the (mildly inappropriate)  Infomania clip below portrays, Blogs and twitter have a habit of taking complex issues and oversimplifying and even degrading them; there is a reason why pundits are on TV and not normal people; they know what they are talking about.






   Not only are Nancy Pelosi’s sexual organs irrelevant to her ability to work as a successful Speaker of the House, but it is also extremely degrading to intelligent, professional woman to hold them to criticism that a professional man that was disagreed with would never be held accountable to.
   So people without any real training voice their unfiltered rage on the internet.  Where, though, does this rage come from.  No, its not CIA implants in our brains.
   It’s the 24 hour news cycle.  In order to keep viewers, 24 hour news cycles need stories that are constantly enthralling and emotionally rousing.  This means playing to people’s hatred and fear and turning it into ratings.   Its much easier to watch MSNBC and hate the republican party in every way.  As I’ve said in my earlier post, The O’reilly Question, is this really what is best for our country?
   Furthermore, are we Americans really that thick and used that we will pander to the opinions of "our" news mediums.  
   My opinions are mixed throughout the irrelevant political spectrum.  I don't believe waterboarding is torture.  Without a doubt it is immoral but that doesn't void the fact that Americans have been SIMULATING torture for years.  Real torture is what the Japanese of WWII did.  I also believe that abortion before the baby grows itsa own heart is moral.  By looking through the simplified fog of modern politics, we can see a much more copmplex series of questions in a clearer, yet more difficult light.
   Let's be honest though, we'll stay polarized because simple groups are much easier for politicians to handle and much easier for the new to exploit, can you imagine if there were hundreds of different visions of America, hundreds of different MSNBCs and FNCs, the market share to vast for any one news station to handle.  So, it appears, we will have to choose a party, and get our yelling voices ready.

The Death Of Discourse?

   A lot of people point to Kanye West's breakdown at whatever award show when he said whatever idiotic thing he said as proof of the degradation of discourse in the US.  Really!?  This is the best example you can think of. 
   I think that the death of discourse has been upon us for a long time and been evident in social events much more pertinent than a man who wears sunshade glasses' actions.  Lets start with what I mean by death of discourse.  I mean that Americans don't know how to argue politely anyomre.  We only see people we agree with and therefore we never know the proper way to act around those that don't agree with us, as seen in a documentary that I saw recently, called Split: A divide in America.  It speaks of how America's voting habits have become more and more polarizing between the blue and red.
   One doesn't have to look at voting patterns to see that American arguments have degraded into ridiculous caricatures that in no way further an argument.  A friend of mine likes to wear his Obama is a socialist.  When I ask him to explain any reason for the shirt and its message, he simply says that he doesn't want to start an argument.  Why would anyone where such a controversial shirt without being prepared to back it up with some sort of logical argument.  Furthermore, whats the point of holding an opinion whilst being to lazy to voice it.