http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/08/scott-walker-ethics-compl_n_832722.html
No doubt by now most people have heard about the gutsy and dare I say epic prank call made to Governor Walker of Wisconsin by a left wing internet personality posing as one of the conservative billionare Koch brothers. For those who haven't, it's a must hear, and quite frankly just a tad disturbing.
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/politics/scott-walker-20-minute-prank-call-feb-23-2011
That's the full phone call, in it the Governor says a large number of remarkably unsavory things, including discussions about considerations he made to infiltrate the protests to cause trouble.
Now the Wisconsin Democrats are filing ethics complaints concerning campaign finance violations in connection with the phone call. They're also planning a recall attempt later in the course of the Governor's term, as well as recall attempts on many of the Republican Legistalors. But what I yearn for is the simplicity of the Parliamentary style, where a simple vote of confidence can determine whether the populace thinks that things are on the right track or, if they're not, immediately remove the leader of the government.
I also think the Presidential style is far inferior to the Parliamentary style as a whole. Of the multitude of countries that have declared themselves free in the last two centuries, and subsequently established Presidential democracies, only four including the United States have lasted more than 30 years. The Presidential system is ripe for corruption at the uppermost levels of government. Broad powers in the hands of a single figure, who gives their word that they will step down at the end of their term or seek reelection, sounds remarkably like a dictatorship to outsiders when you consider the fact that in most of these situations nobody has the power to make the leader step down. Now, I don't doubt that in many cases these fledgling countries are led by great men of vigor, foresight and wisdom, but it's certainly only a matter of time until someone seeks to use the office for personal gain, and you have a Mubarak or a Ghaddafi on your hands. Dissemination of power is the only sure way to prevent its abuse.
PS. Yes it's 3:44 AM at the moment, no I don't plan on sleeping tonight, and yes I just drew a connection between Walker and Middle East Dictators.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
Hypocrisy runs rampant, and the games continue.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/28/eric-cantor-dismisses-job-loss-report_n_829336.html
The Republicans are trying to pass a budget that shaves off 61 billion dollars. They're arguing that the Federal Government can't afford to spend as much as it is right now, and that this will help. The 61 billion dollars in question however, seems to be aimed largely at things the Republicans don't like, and independent analysts say that these cuts will actually harm the economy, rather that aid it (as usual with Republican budget proposals and tax plans).
This seems to me to be a purely partisan assault on what few welfare systems we have, it's political hackery. I can guarantee you the Republicans don't actually give a flying f*** about the deficit, and I can do this with simple math. The Republican's proposed "major budget cuts" are 61 billion, which sounds like a lot. The estimated Federal Budget is 3.82 trillion dollars. That is a lot. Lets do the math, $61000000000 out of $3820000000000 is about $0.0159. That means that the proposed Republican budget cuts amount to 1.6% of the total Federal Budget, heck it's only 3.7% of the budget deficit (the difference between the budget revenue through taxes and such and the total expenditures). If we cut military procurement in half, that's the number of brand spankin new toys for the military in half for the year 2011, that would save the federal goverment 68 billion dollars. That's 7 billion more than the entirety of the Republican Tax plan, and it doesn't even touch R&D, construction, energy, maintenance and operations, or the portion of the budget alloted for military personell. This is just saying "Our planes that are four generations ahead of the rest of the world can last another year." But the Republicans aren't willing to say this, for that matter, nobody is.
We've held ourselves hostage this time, the public opinion is that our extended military actions across the face of the world are necessary, but we don't want to pay for them. We're outspending ourselves at a phenomenal rate, and the politicians just want to be elected again, so they don't dare suggest scaling down everything military or raising taxes except on a rhetorical level because their opponents will chew them into small pieces and use them as fertilizer.
The Republicans are trying to pass a budget that shaves off 61 billion dollars. They're arguing that the Federal Government can't afford to spend as much as it is right now, and that this will help. The 61 billion dollars in question however, seems to be aimed largely at things the Republicans don't like, and independent analysts say that these cuts will actually harm the economy, rather that aid it (as usual with Republican budget proposals and tax plans).
This seems to me to be a purely partisan assault on what few welfare systems we have, it's political hackery. I can guarantee you the Republicans don't actually give a flying f*** about the deficit, and I can do this with simple math. The Republican's proposed "major budget cuts" are 61 billion, which sounds like a lot. The estimated Federal Budget is 3.82 trillion dollars. That is a lot. Lets do the math, $61000000000 out of $3820000000000 is about $0.0159. That means that the proposed Republican budget cuts amount to 1.6% of the total Federal Budget, heck it's only 3.7% of the budget deficit (the difference between the budget revenue through taxes and such and the total expenditures). If we cut military procurement in half, that's the number of brand spankin new toys for the military in half for the year 2011, that would save the federal goverment 68 billion dollars. That's 7 billion more than the entirety of the Republican Tax plan, and it doesn't even touch R&D, construction, energy, maintenance and operations, or the portion of the budget alloted for military personell. This is just saying "Our planes that are four generations ahead of the rest of the world can last another year." But the Republicans aren't willing to say this, for that matter, nobody is.
We've held ourselves hostage this time, the public opinion is that our extended military actions across the face of the world are necessary, but we don't want to pay for them. We're outspending ourselves at a phenomenal rate, and the politicians just want to be elected again, so they don't dare suggest scaling down everything military or raising taxes except on a rhetorical level because their opponents will chew them into small pieces and use them as fertilizer.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
QUICK! HYPERBOLIZE EVERYTHING!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/22/jon-stewart-wisconsin_n_826384.html
Jon Stewart had a particularly good segment here, covering the union protests in Madison, Wisconsin. One part of it caught my attention in particular, regarding the tendencies of the major news outlets.
Most of the news stations are comparing these protests to the recent protests in the middle east, the one exception being Faux News, who are comparing it to -- spin the wheel of insane comparisons -- I'm guessing Nazi's. Now, in regards to the statements about the similarities between the protests, Jon said exactly what I was thinking. "Uh, they're not the same in any f&#%in way, shape or form."
The major news outlets can't seem to help it, they make hyperbolic statements like they're going out of style, and the best part is they're completely oblivious to the fact that they do so. Lets compare the situations, Egypt was under the rule of a dictator for 30 years, with severe repression of their freedoms, and under the rule of a government who could and would essentially kidnap you at gunpoint for any reason at all, without the benefit of a trial. The protestors in Madison are fighting against what amount to budget cuts in comparison. The protestors in Egypt were shot, the rough count is 400 dead. There is little to no chance of loss of life at any of these protests in Madison, unless you happen to be allergic to drums. The protestors in Egypt overthrew a government, and kicked a ruler of 30 years out of office. The protestors in Madison are just trying to stop a bill. Do you see what I'm getting at? To draw parallels between the two is absurd. Not everything in the universe is related, unless you're playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, and Kevin Bacon the protests are not.
Jon Stewart had a particularly good segment here, covering the union protests in Madison, Wisconsin. One part of it caught my attention in particular, regarding the tendencies of the major news outlets.
Most of the news stations are comparing these protests to the recent protests in the middle east, the one exception being Faux News, who are comparing it to -- spin the wheel of insane comparisons -- I'm guessing Nazi's. Now, in regards to the statements about the similarities between the protests, Jon said exactly what I was thinking. "Uh, they're not the same in any f&#%in way, shape or form."
The major news outlets can't seem to help it, they make hyperbolic statements like they're going out of style, and the best part is they're completely oblivious to the fact that they do so. Lets compare the situations, Egypt was under the rule of a dictator for 30 years, with severe repression of their freedoms, and under the rule of a government who could and would essentially kidnap you at gunpoint for any reason at all, without the benefit of a trial. The protestors in Madison are fighting against what amount to budget cuts in comparison. The protestors in Egypt were shot, the rough count is 400 dead. There is little to no chance of loss of life at any of these protests in Madison, unless you happen to be allergic to drums. The protestors in Egypt overthrew a government, and kicked a ruler of 30 years out of office. The protestors in Madison are just trying to stop a bill. Do you see what I'm getting at? To draw parallels between the two is absurd. Not everything in the universe is related, unless you're playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, and Kevin Bacon the protests are not.
Monday, February 14, 2011
I don't even...what is this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/14/republican-war-on-contraception_n_822843.html This article, posted on the liberal news/opinion site Huffington Post, with the expected slant toward the pro-abortion activists, but it was unclear on a couple of points, so I went elsewhere to check.
http://www.azprogress.org/content/take-action-gop-proposes-complete-elimination-us-famly-planning-program-title-x?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AZProgress+%28Arizona+Progress%29
This seems to be another site with a liberal slant, doesn't seem that many conservative sites have picked up on this, but it also supports the story, saying House Leadership is calling for a complete cut of the Title X program in the budget for FY 2011. As posted in the first article, Title X was "Enacted in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act, the family-planning program was designed to focus on low-income Americans. The preventive-health services it provides include information and access to contraception, earning the ire of social conservatives."
Now, I understand controversy over abortion itself, I personally don't have a coherent opinion on the subject, but being male it also doesn't really apply to me. It's not my body, and thus I am of the opinion that I shouldn't have a say on the matter, and neither should anyone else who is not in possession of a female reproductive system.
However, what this article and this debate is discussing is cutting contraception for poor families based on moral grounds. If you wanted to argue the virtues of the government funding said contraceptives, I could go for that, I'd be happy to have that debate, but since the enaction of this piece of legislation social conservatives have been attacking it based on moral grounds. The thing of it is, I think it's more socially irresponsible to NOT use contraceptives than it is morally reprehensible to use them. Numerous studies comparing families who planned to have children and families who weren't planning on it have shown a clear increase in the quality of health, education, and in many cases crime rates between the two sides. The argument that contraceptives leads to more sex (especially among teenagers and young adults) simply doesn't hold water; we're human, chances are if you show us a monkey wrench it's going to lead to a line of thought ending in sex. Contraceptives don't lead to more sex, they lead to more safe sex, and with the number of venereal diseases floating around in the general population that is a very good thing. It's fiscally responsible, arguably socially responsible, and definitely responsible in regards to health to use contraceptives.
I thought we'd settled this argument with science long ago...
http://www.azprogress.org/content/take-action-gop-proposes-complete-elimination-us-famly-planning-program-title-x?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AZProgress+%28Arizona+Progress%29
This seems to be another site with a liberal slant, doesn't seem that many conservative sites have picked up on this, but it also supports the story, saying House Leadership is calling for a complete cut of the Title X program in the budget for FY 2011. As posted in the first article, Title X was "Enacted in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act, the family-planning program was designed to focus on low-income Americans. The preventive-health services it provides include information and access to contraception, earning the ire of social conservatives."
Now, I understand controversy over abortion itself, I personally don't have a coherent opinion on the subject, but being male it also doesn't really apply to me. It's not my body, and thus I am of the opinion that I shouldn't have a say on the matter, and neither should anyone else who is not in possession of a female reproductive system.
However, what this article and this debate is discussing is cutting contraception for poor families based on moral grounds. If you wanted to argue the virtues of the government funding said contraceptives, I could go for that, I'd be happy to have that debate, but since the enaction of this piece of legislation social conservatives have been attacking it based on moral grounds. The thing of it is, I think it's more socially irresponsible to NOT use contraceptives than it is morally reprehensible to use them. Numerous studies comparing families who planned to have children and families who weren't planning on it have shown a clear increase in the quality of health, education, and in many cases crime rates between the two sides. The argument that contraceptives leads to more sex (especially among teenagers and young adults) simply doesn't hold water; we're human, chances are if you show us a monkey wrench it's going to lead to a line of thought ending in sex. Contraceptives don't lead to more sex, they lead to more safe sex, and with the number of venereal diseases floating around in the general population that is a very good thing. It's fiscally responsible, arguably socially responsible, and definitely responsible in regards to health to use contraceptives.
I thought we'd settled this argument with science long ago...
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Torture, it's not right, but...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/donald-rumsfeld-harsh-interrogations_n_820118.html
This article is about Donald Rumsfeld making some statements in preparation for his book release. The statements revolve around his being "suprised and troubled" by some of the "harsh interrogation" methods used, but he believes it saved lives. The article is short, concise, and lacks any sort of opinion within the text or even interpretation of the article, which I must say is a rarity on the Huffington Post, as they're a pretty outspoken liberal bunch.
I've never been certain where I stand on the issue of torture. I mean on an idealogical level I know exactly where I stand, and that's firmly against it, on a moral/idealogical level it's absolutely abhorrent. The problem with this is, the world doesn't work that way, there are threats and dangers and some information can only gotten through people and then only through coercion. While I may be willing to risk my personal safety rather than torture people--I would rather be tortured myself than submit another human being to that--it's not about me. The choice that has to be made by those in charge of this thing is between their own morals and the safety and security of three hundred million people. Honestly I'm not sure if I could make that choice, it seems selfish in that case to NOT torture the guy, the pain of one man weighed against the lives of millions? But then, if we do go that route, that "necessary evil" as some people have called it, we start becoming the monsters they decry us as being in the first place.
Back in 2011, right after the World Trade Center, Osama Bin Laden released a statement to the effect of "I will scare them so badly they willingly sacrifice every liberty and freedom they have, and every moral highground they claim for safety." Yes that's paraphrased, I can't remember exactly what he said, but the fact remains that between our torturing of prisoners who are denied any rights, trials, and in many cases so much as a lawyer, and our curtailing of our own freedoms here at home, suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretaps, ect, we have proven ourselves to be incredibly easy to frighten. We as a society have become afraid of our own shadows in a sense, we are terrified for our own security and will do everything we can to maintain it and in doing so have given Bin Laden the only victory he claimed to seek. And yet who are we to risk the lives of our fellow citizens? When taking the moral highground is selfish, and defending our bretheren requires evils to be done, which then shall we then choose? I would like to say I'd stick with the moral highground, but any man who truely cares for the people around him would probably take the evil upon himself to save them. I don't like it, and I wish it weren't so, but it seems more and more to be the truth to me. If you're the kind of person that believes in Heaven and Hell this is literally a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't," with no easy solution.
This article is about Donald Rumsfeld making some statements in preparation for his book release. The statements revolve around his being "suprised and troubled" by some of the "harsh interrogation" methods used, but he believes it saved lives. The article is short, concise, and lacks any sort of opinion within the text or even interpretation of the article, which I must say is a rarity on the Huffington Post, as they're a pretty outspoken liberal bunch.
I've never been certain where I stand on the issue of torture. I mean on an idealogical level I know exactly where I stand, and that's firmly against it, on a moral/idealogical level it's absolutely abhorrent. The problem with this is, the world doesn't work that way, there are threats and dangers and some information can only gotten through people and then only through coercion. While I may be willing to risk my personal safety rather than torture people--I would rather be tortured myself than submit another human being to that--it's not about me. The choice that has to be made by those in charge of this thing is between their own morals and the safety and security of three hundred million people. Honestly I'm not sure if I could make that choice, it seems selfish in that case to NOT torture the guy, the pain of one man weighed against the lives of millions? But then, if we do go that route, that "necessary evil" as some people have called it, we start becoming the monsters they decry us as being in the first place.
Back in 2011, right after the World Trade Center, Osama Bin Laden released a statement to the effect of "I will scare them so badly they willingly sacrifice every liberty and freedom they have, and every moral highground they claim for safety." Yes that's paraphrased, I can't remember exactly what he said, but the fact remains that between our torturing of prisoners who are denied any rights, trials, and in many cases so much as a lawyer, and our curtailing of our own freedoms here at home, suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretaps, ect, we have proven ourselves to be incredibly easy to frighten. We as a society have become afraid of our own shadows in a sense, we are terrified for our own security and will do everything we can to maintain it and in doing so have given Bin Laden the only victory he claimed to seek. And yet who are we to risk the lives of our fellow citizens? When taking the moral highground is selfish, and defending our bretheren requires evils to be done, which then shall we then choose? I would like to say I'd stick with the moral highground, but any man who truely cares for the people around him would probably take the evil upon himself to save them. I don't like it, and I wish it weren't so, but it seems more and more to be the truth to me. If you're the kind of person that believes in Heaven and Hell this is literally a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't," with no easy solution.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Egyptian Revolution
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/anger-in-egypt/
I've got a lot to say about what this situation says about any number of things, primarily what it says about the Egyptian people, what it says about American news organizations, and what it says about our governments international relations.
Al Jazeera's coverage of this has been good, far far better than any of the american news agencies, but I think they've lost something that all news agencies should have: objectivity. Listening to the correspondents and anchors and special guests it becomes clear that there is absolutely no doubt in the organization's mind that the protestors are in the right and that Mubarak is in the wrong. Now, I agree with that, but I'm not a journalist, in order to properly report on something one must remain aloof from the situation and report only the facts, and to pass along rumor and hearsay as such, and most importantly to leave your own opinion out of it. However, despite my professional criticism of them, I am really enjoying watching their coverage BECAUSE of their bias.
American news organizations were very slow to pick up on this story. Sure, you go now to MSNBC, Huffingtonpost, Drudge, FOX, and CNN.com and they headline the page. To be fair, Drudge has been following this from very early on, that's just the kind of thing he does. But back on day 3, when things were really getting fired up in Egypt, and the curfew was imposed, you didn't hear a peep about it on any of the major US networks. I'd like to get full BBC and English Al Jazeera here in the states, simply because as far as news organiztions go they are far better than their American counterparts.
I'm really proud of the Egyptian people, it takes a lot of guts and a lot of anger to do what they're doing, and so far they've kept these protests pretty peaceful. The reports of looters are coupled with reports that the looters are plain clothes policemen, Mubarak supporters, and generally people who are trying to make the revolution look bad. The young men of the communities are banding together to ensure the safety of their neighborhoods, and before commandos took defensive positions at the National Museum they had formed a human wall to try and keep it safe. But for the rest of the world our big question is "what next?" I mean yes, you've overthrown a dictator, congratulations, but who's going to fill the void? Outsiders want a secular government in the region, which is why we supported Mubarak for all those years. The alternative seems to be an Iranian style government, which puts far too much power in the hands of one man, and the West doesn't want the Suez to fall into the hands of that kind of government.
The United States government in particular has supported Mubarak despite his many faults, because an evil friend seems to be preferable to no friend in that part of the world. Egypt has been one of our best allies in our conflicts over there, and we loath losing that. But this isn't about us, this is about the people in Egypt, this is about their rights and their freedom, and not about us fighting people who can barely fight back. On an idealogical level I don't like the fact that we've supported Mubarak for so long, but on a political level I can understand why we did.
I've got a lot to say about what this situation says about any number of things, primarily what it says about the Egyptian people, what it says about American news organizations, and what it says about our governments international relations.
Al Jazeera's coverage of this has been good, far far better than any of the american news agencies, but I think they've lost something that all news agencies should have: objectivity. Listening to the correspondents and anchors and special guests it becomes clear that there is absolutely no doubt in the organization's mind that the protestors are in the right and that Mubarak is in the wrong. Now, I agree with that, but I'm not a journalist, in order to properly report on something one must remain aloof from the situation and report only the facts, and to pass along rumor and hearsay as such, and most importantly to leave your own opinion out of it. However, despite my professional criticism of them, I am really enjoying watching their coverage BECAUSE of their bias.
American news organizations were very slow to pick up on this story. Sure, you go now to MSNBC, Huffingtonpost, Drudge, FOX, and CNN.com and they headline the page. To be fair, Drudge has been following this from very early on, that's just the kind of thing he does. But back on day 3, when things were really getting fired up in Egypt, and the curfew was imposed, you didn't hear a peep about it on any of the major US networks. I'd like to get full BBC and English Al Jazeera here in the states, simply because as far as news organiztions go they are far better than their American counterparts.
I'm really proud of the Egyptian people, it takes a lot of guts and a lot of anger to do what they're doing, and so far they've kept these protests pretty peaceful. The reports of looters are coupled with reports that the looters are plain clothes policemen, Mubarak supporters, and generally people who are trying to make the revolution look bad. The young men of the communities are banding together to ensure the safety of their neighborhoods, and before commandos took defensive positions at the National Museum they had formed a human wall to try and keep it safe. But for the rest of the world our big question is "what next?" I mean yes, you've overthrown a dictator, congratulations, but who's going to fill the void? Outsiders want a secular government in the region, which is why we supported Mubarak for all those years. The alternative seems to be an Iranian style government, which puts far too much power in the hands of one man, and the West doesn't want the Suez to fall into the hands of that kind of government.
The United States government in particular has supported Mubarak despite his many faults, because an evil friend seems to be preferable to no friend in that part of the world. Egypt has been one of our best allies in our conflicts over there, and we loath losing that. But this isn't about us, this is about the people in Egypt, this is about their rights and their freedom, and not about us fighting people who can barely fight back. On an idealogical level I don't like the fact that we've supported Mubarak for so long, but on a political level I can understand why we did.
Monday, January 24, 2011
We're not safe, and that's ok. ENGL 1323-010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/moscow-airport-explosion-_n_812981.html
Most of you have already heard about this, there was a blast at Russia's largest airport on the afternoon of January 24th (Russian local time). The blast killed (at last count) 35 people, and while that utterly stinks it reminded me of a thought process I'd had long ago.
I'm going to speak in generalities here, partially because obviously I don't have all the facts and partially because, for the sake of my argument, the specifics are irrelevant. Danger seems to be a necessary component of our lives, in the absence of danger is complacency, and when we're complacent, we stop advancing, we stop creating. When we look around us and we say, "we are safe, all is well, and I don't have to do anything to maintain this status of safety" I think the creative portions of our minds slow down or stop altogether. Looking back at the millenia of human history, some of our greatest advances have been made in times of extreme distress as a species. Some of our greatest tragedies and travesties have occured under these same conditions, depending on which way the prevailing human psyche was leaning at the time, but I think they both stem from the same basic creative force. Some of our greatest technological and social achievements have come from truely unpleasant times. We defeated smallpox at a time when the world was ready to go to war with itself and risk the complete obliteration of all life on earth. Minorities achieved total legal equality in America at a time and in a part of the country that was taught to hate them simply because of what they were. In the Middle Ages in Europe, also known as the dark ages, knights created a code of chivalry to try to protect the weak and the poor, instead of just taking over the world as they were clearly capable of doing at the time. Many of them were not good men, but the simple fact that the idea was there indicates that in that time of utter chaos and near anarchy, someone was concerned about their fellows, instead of just themselves. We've done horrible things too in the same conditions, but it takes at least as much creativity to do evil as it takes to do good. And why were these things done? Because we looked out of our homes, and our caves, and our castles, and saw the world wasn't safe, and were driven to do something because of that, for good or ill.
So when a politician or a law enforcement officer or somebody comes on telivision or radio and says "don't worry, you shall be kept completely safe from the forces of x by the resources and efforts of y", a small part of me doesn't want them to. I want to feel the world as it really is, because it's NOT safe, it's a big, dirty, disease ridden, anarchal, beautiful place and without feeling it as it is I could not be driven to interact with it as I otherwise would. I'm ok with a bit of danger, and I'm ok with being asked to help counter the danger directly, because to truely comprehend the task at hand or the foe who threatens one must come face to face with it.
We're not safe, and that's ok, because when we're not safe, we do something about it.
Most of you have already heard about this, there was a blast at Russia's largest airport on the afternoon of January 24th (Russian local time). The blast killed (at last count) 35 people, and while that utterly stinks it reminded me of a thought process I'd had long ago.
I'm going to speak in generalities here, partially because obviously I don't have all the facts and partially because, for the sake of my argument, the specifics are irrelevant. Danger seems to be a necessary component of our lives, in the absence of danger is complacency, and when we're complacent, we stop advancing, we stop creating. When we look around us and we say, "we are safe, all is well, and I don't have to do anything to maintain this status of safety" I think the creative portions of our minds slow down or stop altogether. Looking back at the millenia of human history, some of our greatest advances have been made in times of extreme distress as a species. Some of our greatest tragedies and travesties have occured under these same conditions, depending on which way the prevailing human psyche was leaning at the time, but I think they both stem from the same basic creative force. Some of our greatest technological and social achievements have come from truely unpleasant times. We defeated smallpox at a time when the world was ready to go to war with itself and risk the complete obliteration of all life on earth. Minorities achieved total legal equality in America at a time and in a part of the country that was taught to hate them simply because of what they were. In the Middle Ages in Europe, also known as the dark ages, knights created a code of chivalry to try to protect the weak and the poor, instead of just taking over the world as they were clearly capable of doing at the time. Many of them were not good men, but the simple fact that the idea was there indicates that in that time of utter chaos and near anarchy, someone was concerned about their fellows, instead of just themselves. We've done horrible things too in the same conditions, but it takes at least as much creativity to do evil as it takes to do good. And why were these things done? Because we looked out of our homes, and our caves, and our castles, and saw the world wasn't safe, and were driven to do something because of that, for good or ill.
So when a politician or a law enforcement officer or somebody comes on telivision or radio and says "don't worry, you shall be kept completely safe from the forces of x by the resources and efforts of y", a small part of me doesn't want them to. I want to feel the world as it really is, because it's NOT safe, it's a big, dirty, disease ridden, anarchal, beautiful place and without feeling it as it is I could not be driven to interact with it as I otherwise would. I'm ok with a bit of danger, and I'm ok with being asked to help counter the danger directly, because to truely comprehend the task at hand or the foe who threatens one must come face to face with it.
We're not safe, and that's ok, because when we're not safe, we do something about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)