two things that annoy me...

recently, i've been pondering two things that we should stop doing right now.

the first thing that we must do is stop looking for human hypocrisy in order to invalidate human ideas. what i mean is the trend (not even a little bit new by the way--just perfected) of attacking the person presenting the idea rather than understanding the idea itself on its own merits. i was listening to the sean hannity radio show again the other day, and he was almost giddy with delight about a report he had put together about environmentalists. not about environmentalism, but about environmentalists. he made allusions to some people who talked about carbon footprints or global warming or something along those lines but flew around the world in private jets rather than flying commercial. but, it doesn't stop there. i haven't listened in a long time, but i'm sure that commentators on air america radio are having a field day with the recent spate of republican elected officials having sex scandals. party of family values? i think not. anyway, rather than taking these cases on individual basis, both sides are guilty of making sweeping judgments about (in this case) all people who call themselves environmentalists, but also about the ideas espoused by those same people.

i think this is patently different than questioning someone's motive--say, in the case of profit or power. this is saying because you flew on a private jet all environmentalists are nuts and, oh by the way, your ideas are bullshit. i think that it's important to know who is talking to you and for whom they work. it's important to understand you have to understand the money trail for particular think tanks, authors, lobbyists and talking heads in general. but, it is something entirely different to reduce the substance of someone's ideas to character issues.

the other thing that annoys and is closely related is the manner in which many arguments are framed. i caught the tail end of the neil/neal boortz broadcast one day last week, and i was struck by the absurdity of what he was saying. he was talking about why the consumer tax would never be passed, and he was talking to someone that had called in to the show. anyway, he was saying that the reason we would never see the consumer tax enacted was because liberals in government don't want to give up the power they have over the population. the argument being that the manipulation of the tax code to induce certain behaviors is an intoxicating power to liberals--only. the thing that is preposterous isn't the obviousness of that incredulous lie. the thing that is preposterous is that instead of focusing on revamping the idea, you subvert the concept of the marketplace of ideas (where ideas "compete" with one another, and, as the theory goes, the best idea "wins"). rather than allowing the idea to flourish on its own, you focus on the acquisition of power in order to force your idea down the collective throat of america. you also subvert part of that evolutionary process...the process where ideas come into contact with different philosophies and are changed for the better.

i feel that i've lost my train of thought here...i'll refine and extend these arguments in posts to come. nodnod

technorati post claim or claim post or whatever

Technorati Profile

redemption

redemption is a powerful word and is a powerful concept. i have a question about it tonight though. can redemption exist in a society that has nearly perfected the storage and access of information? i mean forgive and forget is a phrase that meant something in the past. think about the things we do for a minute. we're inundated right now with video clips and photos and sound bites of princess diana on this, the ten year anniversary of her death. her kids see her on tv or on the front pages of newspapers on a very regular basis. what must it be like to be bombarded with images of your mother constantly? we used to be ABLE to forget. i never thought it would be a luxury to be able to forget something or someone. photos will fade with time. you can even forget the sound of someone's voice with time. can you ever get to a place of peace or do you just become desensitized?

what does that mean for people in the public (most notably, most recently, michael vick) who screw up? can they ever redeem themselves in the public eye when anyone with an ax to grind can set up a website splashing their crimes all over the public discourse? jail in america is not meant to be therapeutic. we don't send people to jail here to cure them of addictions or compulsions. we don't send people to jail to give them an opportunity to better their lives. it is pure punishment. but, i thought that part of the deal with punishment is that once you do suffer the consequences of your actions that was it. you're done. your slate is wiped clean (except that you can't vote, can't get a decent job, don't have much of a shot to get into college unless you lie on your application...but set all of that aside), and you start again.

wait, i'm mixing topics. i don't want to talk about the penal code in america and how we treat those who transgress against us. i want to talk about the persistence of information and what that does to us.

um, right...splashing their crimes all over the public discourse? this line of thought started weeks ago when the vick story broke, but it really applies to anyone who (for whatever reason) draws a great deal of media attention to themselves--actor, athlete, politician, whatever. there are some things that are unforgivable, sure. lying about the reasons for starting a war. that's unforgivable. i don't mean to be...disingenuous? is that the word i want? i guess...i don't mean to denigrate the things that dumb celebrities do by comparing them to what i think the bush administration did. i don't mean that. i just mean we should collectively apply some perspective.

*sigh* off track again.

i just would like for us to take a minute and think about what it means that a person can't leave the past in the past. what does it mean for the concept of redemption when a person literally cannot ever again enjoy the luxury of simply forgetting the dumb shit they did in the past? i think that it means we leave the idea of redemption behind and shift to the control of information and who has access to it. recently, walmart was burned for editing it's own wikipedia entries. not that they don't have the right to edit factual content about them in a public forum. they had walmart employees posing as unaffiliated denizens of the net leaving positive remarks on their wikipedia entry (to combat the thousands of negative rants that had been posted). instead of seeking to REDEEM themselves in the public eye, they simply go about trying to change information. they (and others like them) are stuck in this absolutely EVIL catch22 situation--they can't redeem themselves because of the persistence of information (perhaps justified in this case), but if they're caught pursuing the one avenue left open--the manipulation of information--then they are vilified as a corrupt entity.

how often do we see this on talking head shows on TV? i heard some shit the other day on the sean hannity radio show that almost made me total the car. i don't think that i am misrepresenting his position when i say that sean hannity is a STAUNCH supporter of the bush administration...and, it's policies, including the use of torture in the interrogation of suspected (not proven, suspected) terrorists or those linked to terroism. we can quibble over what he meant by the word 'torture,' but he did say it. i actually listen to his show more than i should. so, bear all of that in mind. he's talking on the radio the other day about the soon to be ex-senator craig because apparently, the police release a tape of his interrogation. hannity talks about the ALLEGED (his words) crime despite the fact that craig plead guilty in a court of law. hannity says, and i quote, "i'm uncomfortable with the aggressiveness of the interrogation..." implying that the senator was bullied into pleading guilty to a crime he didn't commit? obviously, the officer conducting the interrogation was standing far too close for comfort. how ridiculous is it for hannity to sincerely make this argument when his record on related issues is clearly right-wing? hell, his stance helps define the right-wing.

i say all of that to make this point. there isn't the possibility of redemption in this case. there is no possibility that craig is going to come out and say, "yep. i did it. i'll pay the fine and do some community service. what i do in my bedroom is my business. butt out." there's no way he is going to admit that he did anything wrong because that is yielding in the battle to control information or at least the perception of information--which is what hannity was doing a fine job of on his radio show on that almost fateful day. they are waging word-war over our perception of the facts.

so, true spiritual transformation and redemption or cynical (and not even a little bit subtle) manipulation of the public's perception of factual information. *shrug* who can say?

on the nature of love...

or, at least the expression thereof.

i've never understood, and understand even less now, why the greatest expression of love that most men can muster is the willingness to beat people up and/or shoot at people? or why other people seem to think that is an admirable sentiment? i don't know. it's part of a larger question that i touched on with my post on violence as a tool of instruction. violence and the willingness to do violence as a admirable quality. *shrug* you know, of course, i would defend my life and the lives of my wife and child, but i don't go around crowing about my ability to do so. nor, do i hold that up as the shining example of my love for my family. i mean, in a lot of ways, that's like bragging about graduating from high school, or not having a prison record, or taking care of your kids (yes, i am channeling chris rock and i am proud of it). crack fiends in jail graduate from high school. so what? the same holds true for defending your family or your home or whatever. of course you would defend your home. do you want a cookie? if you want to be a father then you have to show up every single day and pull your weight. i mean, love is washing your kids diapers (without using kitchen gloves by the way--how much of a stud am i?). love is apologizing for losing your patience with him at three in the morning. love is the details of life not the grand gestures. to be honest, grand gestures are easy. they're so easy they've become cliche. they've become so cliche that if i go into a flower shop to buy flowers on a day that isn't a holiday, i can bet money on the clerk asking me what i did. i mean, they are nice, don't get me wrong. coming home with a new toy for the baby or flowers for the wife. yeah, that stuff is nice and you should do that every once in awhile. that may be what your child remembers, but it isn't how you prove your love, and your child will understand that when they become parents--the way i did. thanks pops. 'preciate ya, ma. i am beginning to understand the lifelong dedication it takes to raise kids and have a successful family.

dichotomies...

spare the rod, spoil the child. why does it have to mean whupping the shit out of your kid? why can't it just mean, "be disciplined, be steadfast?" you don't have to hit your kids to get your point across and believe it or not, more often than not, it just gets in the way of the lesson you're trying to impart. violence should be reserved for expressions of rage (be it passionate or cold-blooded)--violence should not be used as a tool of instruction. at least, not in the general case...if your field of exploration is a naturally violent one then violence has a place as an instructional tool (soldiers, pirates, ninja warriors, etc.).

and, on the other hand, why can't parents BE the damn parents? why can't they look at their child and say, "you know what, i understand that you're upset. you're going to have to get over it." i'm pretty sure that i say that to elijah every single day. i say it because i'm the parent, and i set the boundaries that govern his life. i engage elijah in the decisions that create his day, in as much as i can--he's one and a half. it is something that we will do more of as he becomes older and can understand reason. but, that engagement comes with the caveat that you have proven and continue to prove that you can handle that kind of responsibility. i mean, i think that it is just as bad and wrongheaded to be a dictator in a child's life as it is to give them too much freedom. being a parent is like constantly walking a tightrope that you can't see. parenting is a constant process of letting go.

being a good parent isn't about a system or a book (though i will be the first to admit that books and systems and lots and lots and lots of advice is helpful). i think being a good parent is absolutely the same as being in a good relationship. it's about honesty, trust and communication. it's about understanding who YOU are before you try to understand the anyone else. it's about understanding that you'll never be able to hold them as close as you do on the day that they're born, and you have to be ok with that.

My little man...

the other day i was outside of a restaurant with elijah--he'd been freaking out because he didn't understand that he couldn't have the french fries from another table. to be honest, i don't understand why we can't have them either, but there you have it. anyway, i was outside with him and this elderly couple walk by and the wife says, "oh what a pretty boy!" she looks at me and says, "oh, i'm sorry. i meant what a handsome boy. we don't call little boys pretty." she smiles and goes on her way. that's happened a lot...i guess i shouldn't be puzzled by it--i find that 7 years later, i'm still astounded by how different the world outside of warren wilson is. it never would have ever occurred to me to care whether or not someone called my son beautiful, pretty, handsome or whatever.

erin and i were talking about gender issues and identity today. i was saying that i never really know what to say to people when they say something like, "oh, he's just being a boy." elijah is incredibly sensitive to our moods and our attitudes. i can't help but think that he would easily pick up behavioral double standards. being an ass isn't acceptable, i don't care what your gender is. but, it frightens me to think about how far this attitude and double standard can push our tolerance. i don't know. maybe i'm complicating the issue, but i don't think that a lot of people really think about what casual words like that mean to a brand new mind. elijah is like an antenna hooked up to an amplifier. he takes what we say and do, distills it, and incorporates it into himself. he's even begun to mimic the way i stand at rest. how can i not pay more attention to how we approach gender identity? at what point does biology end and socialization begin?

like i said, maybe i'm overthinking the issue, but it is something that i worry about.

every week...

over the past few days there have been four articles in our local newspaper about the rising sea level. the article made one argument that i found compelling. it doesn't really matter why the seas are rising or why the climate is changing. what's most important to our (humanity--the Earth will be fine. freshwater marshes will become saltwater marshes but we'll starve) short term survival is that it IS changing. there aren't any policy changes we can make in the near term that will affect climate in the next 50 years or so (at least, i wouldn't think, i'm no expert), so why are we in such a bind over green taxes and fuel efficiency and the like? right now, it just doesn't matter. at the very least, the changes underfoot now are inevitable. we've missed the tipping point in terms of talking about reversing climate change or the rising seas. those things are happening and will run their full course--we should be talking now about how we're going to adapt to those changes.

the two biggest obstacles to our finding balance with the environment is population growth/movement and the exportation of pollution. i've talked about population as a social and economic issue before in an earlier post, but (as with all human activity) there is an environmental component as well. in countries that progressed through demographic transition, the populations are relatively stable. the birth rate and the death rate (barring significant social upheaval) are equal. now, take a country like mexico that seems to be stuck in a cycle of poverty and skyrocketing birth rates. not only does the mass exodus of mexican citizens to the north ameliorate a lot of social/economic problems, but also, mexico (or any 3rd world country with population mobility) as an entity will never have to face issues of inherent carrying capacity and population stability.

our half-assed policies with regard to pollution control will simply turn pollution into a commodity. any regional policy that attempts to control pollution will simply move that polluting process to a less regulated area. i mean...that seems pretty straightforward, right? how is it possible to have a pollution control policy that isn't world-wide? how can you turn down kyoto in favor of regional pollution credits and lukewarm tax incentives?...

i've been "working" on this entry for awhile now. i think that i'll go ahead and publish it--it's never going to be perfect. *chuckle*

...to be continued.