Security v. freedom

This month's poll (Aug 11 to Sept 11) asks whether you, if given a choice, would choose either security or freedom. In political quizzes, security and freedom are often metered as polar opposites: 'security' to the extreme is an authoritarian police state, the greatest 'freedom' is a sort of libertarian anarchy with neoliberal economic policies.

In other words, people choosing to die for freedom are choosing freedom over security. People willing to give up basic democratic rights for a dose of safety — real or imagined — are the kind of drones who are fine under a dictatorship (until they realize how bad it is — if they do — and the rest flows from there), or at least fine with the principles of one.

The people are sure to demand security. But it's the government's duty to insure freedom and not to entertain the more irrational wishes of the public and exploit their irrationalities for own power or wealth. Time and time again the general population chooses security over freedom, often after being coned by governing leaders; time and time again they regret that choice. Freedom's benefits are reaped over time, whereas security's effects are seen instantly: 'no new attacks' or 'attack stopped, but threat still there'; people are scared away from their own freedom.

Coincidentally, since the poll will end on the sixth anniversary of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks upon the United States, the limiting of freedom for the sake of security — and vice versa — will be something to think about all the more. The freedoms of people are often limited during wartime; following 9/11 the Bush administration, and other governments around the world, worked to curb certain liberties in the name of security. The abuse of power under the deceiving namesake of 'security' is yet another thing to think about: we've seen it under a rainbow of despots, from the Emperors of Ancient Rome to McCarthy in Cold War-era America.

Does one need security to allow freedom to flourish? Or is true security granted only when freedom exists? Can the two coexist — even in theory?

Also coming up in a little less than a month is the one year birthday of In Perspective.

Wisdom and superiority

Briefly: Wisdom in superiority? The intelligentsia and anti-intellectualism in society

Let me start out by stating I see no problem with some elitism in intellectualism as long as thinkers say practical (if theory is not the subject matter), often dare to stray from their cozy spot on the Ivory Tower, and let new, fresh, capable members of the intelligentsia in: the only requirements being interest and ability to contribute. Many intellectuals deny that they are intellectuals, seeing it as an elite and high-class club. It should not be a 'club' with conservative practices that only lead to back-treading, like dynastic practices or arbitrary and irrelevant requirements for 'membership' — sexism, racism, and class discrimination are historical examples of suppression of thinkers or potential thinkers, not to mention politics and the ever chaotic chance ('luck'): for example, the chance that the next great philosopher is hit by an astroid on his or her walk to university.

I can only venture a guess to why the public perception stereotype of intellectuals is of an elderly white male: because that's how the major thinkers throughout Western history have been portrayed. The ability to succeed is often directly tied to how one fits into society. A black woman in 18th century Britain is unlikely to be recognized as a great thinker, even if she somehow succeeds in a way that deems her to be deservedly called so. Because of the racial and gender prejudices of the time she is unlikely to be in a higher class, less likely to be learnt, and less likely to have the time or education or money to write a thesis on emotional desire.

The burden of the intelligentsia — the backbone of thinkers in a society — is to renew the flow of genius; to sustain their intellectual progress. The geniuses we know of of today and throughout history are only a small sample of the actual genius potential within human civilization. Put simply the conditions need to be right for one to rise to the intellectual level of an Einstein or Hobbes. One's socio-economic status also plays a role. Little Johnny may have the capacity to be the next Kant, but he needs to work in the factory to support his family, etc.

Of course one need not be the next Kant to be an intellectual keeper of one's society, history, and culture. Some measure of elitism, as I said before, is needed to maintain a progressing society, rich at least somewhat in thought, with the intelligentsia at the forefront of that group of 'elite' intellectuals.

They say everything has an opposite — and that goes for intellectualism too. Curiosity is an innate human aspect, varying from person to person like creativity and intelligence. We must trust for intellectuals to harness that curiosity using both creativity and rational thought. A very interesting paper I found while researching this post, “Why is there anti-intellectualism?”, had the following conclusion(s):

* Humans are innately curious, but it is mostly a low order curiosity concerned with immediate gratification of a particular desire to know, and mostly oriented toward immediate practical results.
* There is no persuasive evidence that any societies have ever had a high proportion of people who were deeply curious in a systematic, disciplined way.
* The curiosity and creativity of children is very superficial.
* Our own culture supports systematic and disciplined inquiry better than just about any other in history, but even so there is a great deal of hostility toward it by people who feel their values threatened, see it as a waste of time that could be better devoted to more immediate goals, or resent the status and power it carries.

Whether anti-intellectualism represents the backlash to things people cannot understand, thus they choose to remain ignorant, is a fairly controversial matter. Are people so irrational they can embrace ideas like pseudoscience while rejecting the real thing? As the aforementioned paper stated,

What possible benefit do people get from clinging to demonstrably false ideas? Why did the same society that flocked to Star Wars decide only a few years earlier that the real adventure of going to the Moon was too expensive to sustain? Given the wealth that innovation and inquiry have brought to our society, why are education and inquiry so grudgingly supported, and so often regarded with suspicion?

If, supposedly, people so naturally love to learn, why would they reject those whose life passion is thinking?

I hope to dive further into the matters of intellectualism, especially of its role — today and historically — in society, and of the philosophical nature of human thought that manifests itself in such topics. This post is only an outline of sorts.

The nature of pure government and the absolutes

Pure communism looks nice on paper, and works in theory, but not practice. Not only is that kind of equality impossible, it gives the supposed-to-be-government-less state too much power — and we all know how greedy people are with power. Big governments and free markets are not compatible with communism, but the former shows up when It also only works, so far, with small isolated groups.

Democracy, on the other hand, is not collectivized like communism and works best with less government power, bulk, and intervention and freer markets. Democracy works much better in practice than communism, but essentially guarantees that the people — or at least those who can vote — will only be absolutely equal in one aspect: the right to vote.

Pure democracy, like pure communism, also does not work well on a large scale and can be more easily overthrown in times of war (see Ancient Greece/Athens' time of pure and direct democracy). Pure libertarianism and anarchy are very impractical, for there will always be people who want to be in charge and will rise to the top. Just as it is not our nature to fully collectivize en masse, it is not our nature to have neither leader nor government. If you put a group of people with no knowledge whatsoever on a deserted island, you can easily bet that one or two or a limited number will vie for the leadership of the group. Maybe there will be a power struggle; maybe the group will split. No matter what there is no way each individual in that group would maintain their status as equals in terms of power.

It seems that with humans, the absolutes or pure governments — whether pure libertarianism (ie no government) or some form of ultra-authoritarianism (nearly absolute government) — can only exist on paper. Even when they are twisted in a way so those absolutes can exist in a semi-absolute manner, have their been any cases when a government supposedly providing pure 'freedom' (former example) or 'security' (latter example) worked well? No. Absolutes, like pures, are theoretical. And when there are attempts to implement them in real life — e.g. absolute good, absolute evil, pure communism — the end product is usually bad.

This is a post in this blog's Ideas about Democracy series. Next planned topic in the series: 'What's better, and more important in a democratic society and government in general, the individual or the group? Which should be served primarily and which is more rational in political matters'

Weighing organized religion

Religion can help more on a local, individual scale; whereas it harms more on a wider, organized scale. A personal faith is more empowering on one than an alliance to a religious body or movement. When used in political ways, organized religion only injects another power flow.

Religion can help by giving people a sense of being and to help others, on the other hand it also is the cause of many wars and vices against those of differing belief systems. Faith needn’t need rules. Even with religion, a devout follower may not have the fervor to outreach and make positive religious influence on society — especially if their faith does not preach such altruism or good rules.

Rule of thumb: there is no need for moral politicians; only ethical ones. Morals are personal or religious; ethics are legal and, thus, carry a weight of rationality and objective sense morals cannot. Nonetheless, both morals and ethics — especially in a religious sense — are opinion.

Would we be better off without religion? Probably. Historically, religion And it is an unneeded byproduct of the human psyche. Though it does take much creativity and brainwashing skill to become a religious leader, or to even create a religion.

Religion is embedded in human civilization, and mostly it has done little good. Soon after the days of Christ religion became used as a tool of empires. It halted human progress and resulted in the deaths of many in the Middle Ages, when it was still a tool of the state. Slowly religion and politics parted ways but they continue to be useful together for those wishing to acquire power.

Before the time of widespread empires of religion, society did benefit from the spreading of knowledge religion provided, and the wider values it instilled. In ancient times religion spawned the growth of societies into states resulting in progressive peoples. As one blogger noted about the "benefit of organized religion from a social or anthropological perspective",

...it goes without saying that historically-speaking, religion has been a massive force for good in human civilization.  Jared Diamond, in his book Guns, Germs and Steel, notes that there’s plenty of anthropological evidence to suggest that it wasn’t until we saw the transition from mere tribes to chiefdoms that organized, socially-relevant religion came into existence.  Sure, Diamond notes, religion existed beforehand, but it was merely concerned with personal piety and had little social significance.  So, with Chiefdoms, for the first time we began to see the phenomenon of a distant ruler which necessitated a ’state’-sponsored religion.

In short, Diamond notes that the collective and cooperative peaceful existence of large numbers of people was made possible in the first instance by organized religion.  What is more, this large, organized and peaceful existence of a large number of people was what made agriculture, aqueducts, education, literacy and exploration all possible.

What is scary is how people can follow their religions leaders to a point which they would be willing to die for them, and kill other innocents in the process. The many wasteful wars fought over beliefs is another indicator of religion's dangerousness. However, people fight over land and items, and that isn't an argument alone for the abolishment of property. Right now — especially in more fundamentalist hotbeds like much of the Muslim world and parts of America — religion is used as a tool of political/religious leaders to radicalize the population and kill many while collecting more power. In the US it is used to slow down essential scientific (and societal) progress (e.g. stem cells) and acts as a powerful special interest (e.g. Christian right). In the Mid-East, religion is the prime ideal extremists use to complete their objectives.

Of course there would still be violence if there was no (organized) religion, or what we see as organized religion. But if not for religions like Christianity and Islam, the human civilization would be more developed and less distraught than it is in its current state. The vast majority of the world's people are religions. I respect a person's right to be religious; but that doesn't mean I have to respect their chosen beliefs. However I'm not going to kill them over their beliefs.

technorati tags: muslim+world, USA, terrorism, radical+religion, organized+religion, society, christianity, empire, history, extremist+ideology

Teletubbies equal gay?

Here's the culprit:

How unimaginably evil. Don't be fooled by his innocent caricature, this guy is out to get you.
Some facts/things to consider about this vile character:

The late Rev. Jerry Falwell, in all his craziness, once attacked the Telletubby named Tinky Winky.

A malevolent homosexual wishing to make your kid gay in some way or another? A menace to your child's morals and heterosexuality? ...Or an innocent young children's TV character?

The Polish government is quite worried about a certain television show. No, its not because of sexual content or violence, or any other inappropriate content for that matter. Their worries stem from what is perceived as homosexuality exhibited in a TV show aimed at children not even old enough to write.

BBC News:

A senior Polish official has ordered psychologists to investigate whether the popular BBC TV show Teletubbies promotes a homosexual lifestyle.

The spokesperson for children's rights in Poland, Ewa Sowinska, singled out Tinky Winky, the purple character with a triangular aerial on his head.

"I noticed he was carrying a woman's handbag," she told a magazine. "At first, I didn't realise he was a boy."

EU officials have criticised Polish government policy towards homosexuals.

Ms Sowinska wants the psychologists to make a recommendation about whether the children's show should be broadcast on public television.

Poland's authorities have recently initiated a series of moves to outlaw the promotion of homosexuality among the nation's children.
...
One radio station asked its listeners to vote for the most suspicious children's show. Some e-mailed in, saying that Winnie the Pooh had only male friends.
...
Poland was criticised recently after its education ministry announced plans to sack teachers who promote homosexuality.

Last month the European Union singled out Poland for criticism in its resolution condemning homophobia in the 27-member bloc.

Even if the show did 'promote a homosexual lifestyle' — which it obviously doesn't — wouldn't that be fine considering the countless shows that promote purely heterosexual 'lifestyles'?

Before I get to the whole 'there's something wrong with being-gay' part, or rather my argument quashing the 'evil homosexual agenda' homophobia, let me just say this: Kid's aren't going to turn gay from watching the Telletubbies, nor any other television shows. The same applies to the fact that one will not turn magically into a gay fashionista by watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. And you certainly won't likely become the next Sherlock Holmes by watching all the crime dramas you can.

Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice, and it certainly is not a dangerous ideology being imposed involuntarily. In fact, if a parent — in Poland or anywhere else — does not think their child should watch a certain TV program, all they have to do is press a button. It's hard to grasp how somehow the perceived homosexual qualities of the Telletubbies — which doesn't even have sex nonetheless things that would imply a character's sexual orientation — are malevolent, a menace to their children so large that the government needs to step in and take care of the problem! In addition, this homophobia, while not uncommon, emphasizes the public in belief in gender role stereotypes (e.g. that a guy with a purse is gay, just because he has a purse). Something as simple as stopping with a click of a button should not create this much stir; nor should the government care if Tinky Winky has a handbag and an upside-down triangle on the top of his head; or whether he's a boy or a girl, or whatever he is. None of that is a danger to Polish children.

The EU is right to denounce Poland's state-sponsored human rights abuses and homophobia. However the United States and many other countries have the same problems of homophobia and not accepting differences as Poland. And it's not only the government — it's society too. There is rampant homophobic nonsense echoing from governments everywhere too, and a state's politics greatly shapes its society and its qualities, for better or for worse. Considering America is more developed, open, democratic, and liberal than Poland, one would hope it would also clean up its act. It's pitiful, the state of LGBT rights in the US.

With Poland (still) being bullied by its neighbors to the east and immediate west, Russia and Germany, over energy resources this time loosing political support from other countries and the European Union is not a good thing as Polish political policies go down the drain.

It is now — and has been — completely known that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it's biological.

Thank goodness we have the Polish government to protect our young's sexual orientation...

technorati tags: teletubbies, gay, homosexual+agenda, homosexual+lifestyle, children's+tv, television, poland, society, polish+government, human+rights, EU, european+union, USA, united+states, tinky+winky, politics, entertainment, television

Public opinion in America

The sociopolitical fabric of a nation, as charted through a Pew study...

The following is a summary of the findings of a Pew Research Center report on American public opinion and political trends, with my own insight of course. I skimmed the full 112-page report (the last 30 or so pages are just raw numbers), which you can find in PDF form.

American public is changing for the better. However, the changing demographic and much of the population, is politically apathetic. The still-widespread apathy explains why more polarized thinkers take action; there are more conservatives than there are liberals when one gets to either side. The middle is the section that is shifting towards a less traditional, more secular, more rational mindset. The middle is also unsure of itself and is losing confidence over what power they can exercise over their own government. The solution is simple: actually do something. Instead of complaining about your unrepresentative government, elect a different one or push your current one. At the moment, the special interests or polarized politicos dominate Washington. It doesn’t need to stay that way.

This latest Pew study is very informative and lays down some notions that most Americans — including the younger generations — are becoming more conservative, more intuitional, more religious, in a nutshell everything people like Rush Limbaugh, Sam Brownback, Dick Cheney, and James Dobson want them to be.

Americans still have a long way to go. They need to regain confidence in the power of the people instead of just lamenting their poor government, which, inevitably, always happens in a developed democracy.

Overall, this report projects good news and bad news about the course America and its people are taking and their views on such a course — for me at least. I've heard some say this poll is good news for Democrats; some say its good news for moderate Republicans.

The study also points out that Republicans are largely more conservative than Democrats are liberal; and that there are more conservatives interested in politics than liberals. Still, roughly half (Democrats and Republicans averaged) of those polled think `immigrants threaten American customs`, only emphasizing a need for proper education, especially in politics and history. People must have forgotten that their grandparents or their parents or their parents were immigrants. For example, a large number of Americans are of Irish or German heritage, and have ancestors who immigrated to the US only relatively recently (late 1800s, early 1900s). More on the immigration issue here, and more coming soon.

The government should help people in need and take responsibility of the needy, a good majority say. A lesser majority hold the above view, even to the point where debt is incurred from the government programs to help the needy (e.g. welfare, public health). In addition, many think a public health system is in order.

In foreign policy topics, Americans now finally view "getting even", i.e. employing 'an eye for an eye' strategy just isn’t a good idea. This complements the downward trend in the number of Americans who think peace is best achieved through military force — another slightly counter-intuitive notion.

There is also a decent dip in the overall percentage of people who think the US should remain active in world affairs, though the number is still in the 80s. The number who completely agree that America should keep active internationally has dropped from 50 percent in 2003 to 42 percent now. Bad news does come with that statistic: more and more Americans are developing isolationist sentiments.

The falloff in strong support for an active U.S. role
in global affairs is consistent with other Pew surveys over the past two years showing a decline in support for internationalism among the public. In “America’s Place in the World,” conducted in the fall of 2005, 42% said they believed the U.S. should “mind its own business” internationally – the highest percentage expressing that sentiment since the mid-1990s, after the Cold War, and the mid-1970s, following the Vietnam War.

That survey found that the growth in isolationist sentiment was largely concentrated
among Democrats. However, the values survey shows that both Democrats and Republicans are less likely to completely agree that the U.S. should take an active role on the world stage than they did four years ago. Similarly, the percentage of conservatives – regardless of party – who strongly favor an active U.S. stance in world affairs has fallen from 53% to 39% since 2003; this is comparable to the decline in strong support among self-described liberals (11 points).

I myself am an internationalist. However, that does not mean I think the United States and other powers should be able to meddle in other countries affairs, especially if the results are negative and there is no sufficient reason for the interference. Between the expansion of global free trade — like it or not — and the international exchange of ideas being fuelled by the Internet and the rise of developing countries, and the need for international awareness to take action in and prevent things like genocides and civil wars with mass implications (even to a country’s interests), isolationism is less of an option now than it was in the American know-nothing era between the two world wars. For economic, humanitarian, political, and security reasons, a global mindset is needed and, because of the aforementioned, the United States needs to stay active in international affairs. People need to realize the activity is not the problem, it is what that activity is that is the real problem: failed policies and bad politic. America doesn’t need to be less involved in world affairs to prevent another Iraq, it just needs to change its policy and policy-makers.

Americans are less confident, still patriotic but a bit less so, and still believe they should fight for their country, even if they don’t agree with what they are fighting for. Only a third overall believe torture is never justified, and the younger think it is more justified than the older. A majority still think preemptive force is justifiable. Americans are tough and fairly closed-minded on immigration, one of the few views kept constant since the Pew study of 1992. There has been a small boost in the number of people who view immigrants as a serious threat to traditional, all-American customs. Xenophobia is still popular, and, along with isolationism, are major sociopolitical threats to American progress in many ways.

Around one in ten is agnostic, atheist, or non-religious.

The survey also finds steady – if slow – declining support for traditional or conservative social values, in such areas as homosexuality and the role of women in society. This movement has been apparent on most of the six different measures of attitudes on social values, but is more evident when looking at the questions collectively (these values measures do not include opinions about abortion).

In 1987, about half of the survey’s respondents (49%) gave conservative answers to at least four of the six questions. In 2007, just 30% did so.

Keep in mind this is just a poll: one public study. It is a study put together by a reputable source, yes, but its results, like the results of many similar reports of public opinion and politics, should be taken with a grain of salt.

This report states the number of social conservatives is declining from the levels of the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, there have been studies that suggest otherwise, including those looking at an increasing number of evangelicals and members of the religious right. No doubt the religious lobby is as powerful now as ever and the evangelical vote is more likely to be captured than the moderate vote because of the rampant apathy and feelings of a lack of options in the mind of the general public.

A majority of people still oppose gay marriage in any form. The death penalty also still has public support by a good majority. For the first time ever recorded in one of these Pew studies, a majority of people (51 percent) completely agree with the idea of interracial relationships. The number who agree (but not "completely") is at 83 percent, compared to a meager 48 percent in the 1987/1988 report. The government does not benefit people, its programs are usually inefficient and don’t have good outcomes, elected officials do not care about me or what I think — these are three statements most people, according to the study, agree with.

Most think governmental regulation of business is bad; the statistic is up dramatically for Democrats and down a bit for Republicans, possibly because of scandals similar to Enron. Companies have too much say in government, make too large of profits, and do not usually act in the public interest, say a majority of people polled. There are corporate skeptics of `evil` companies like Halliburton and ExxonMobil. On the whole, more young people view the success of business as a direct correlation to the success of America as a country. We are seeing less ethical, more commercialized young people (i.e. Gen Y), who are, at the same time, less religious and socially conservative. On socioeconomic issues, like government helping the needy and prevention of warrantless activity, blacks are more progressive than whites.

People view the political intelligence of the people as down. Also, most believe in the obligation to vote and interest in local politics is at a high. Far more people are afraid of personal information collected by business than government. Nearly 40 percent think warrantless searches should be allowed of "people like me" who may have terrorist leanings. 40 percent believe some civil liberties must be put aside in order to fight terrorism.

A very large majority of people believe in "stricter laws and regulation" to protect the environment.

Why are we obsessed with terrorism?

Throughout this month, I will be posting excerpts of my lengthy paper "The War on Terror and the Fire Paradox", as mentioned in this post. Here is one such excerpt...

One underlying cause for the terrorism/counterterrorism culture is the public’s obsession with terrorism.

Do you want the ultimate in political change tactics, whether it is terrorism or counterterrorism that causes that change, using fear as a tool? To be able to do so, one must first understand why people are so drawn to terrorism.

Global health, the environment, climate change, poverty, AIDS, water, and other issues are far more pressing than terrorism. It kills relatively few and should be minor in the eyes of the public, right?

Like plane crashes, terrorism is unpredictable, sporadic, spontaneous, sudden, often human-caused, mysterious-seeming; and, unlike plane crashes, unscientific. It has no rationale — or so observers think.

People's obsession with terrorism helps explain why politicians use it against their own people — whether in original terrorism or a spin on the original (i.e. some form of counterterrorism) — and why extremist rebels use it in the first place.

Here is a (partial) list of why people, and their news media, are so attracted to terrorism:

Abstract in nature (like politics and religion);

People cannot grapple with terror like other health/sociological threats;

It is political; ties into human emotion and politics;

Violence and fear (like some crime stories);

Personal attachments (could this happen to me?);

Some sort of sexiness (from all the hype);

Shocking, spontaneous;

Deep connection to inner-psyche (exact cause is unknown, explaining speculation);

Does not develop (like a disease or something like that), unpredictable (things that happen suddenly produce more attraction, coverage);

Human interest (goes psychologically deep);

Accomplishes motives of fear and attention, like martyrs do;

The act of understanding why people use terrorism, or trying to leads to more obsession with terrorism itself;

Superficially evil, perfect villain, but more layers lie beneath (like with an onion);

The change it creates, human obsession with change or lack thereof;

I.e., deals with change — a constant source of human interest;

Unlike many other crimes;

I.e., often committed with no specificity (can have a target, but no intent on target like with a common murder, for instance, in which which the killer has a reason for the death of the specify person they kill);

Just the word "terrorism" is extremely political and emotional, holding strong connotations depending on one's subjective, often political view of the word and the related semantics.

The ‘fire paradox’ and terrorism, part 1

One of the main causes of terrorism — modern and historical — may well be the fight against terrorism, counterterrorism. Battles launched in the name of terrorism or against the name of terrorism often have the same affects: causing both sides to recruit for their pro- or counter-terrorist causes. One of my main doctrines, if you will, of the Middle East and elsewhere is that vengeance leads to vengeance. An eye for an eye is a ludicrous notion; why would one what everyone to be blind, including one’s self? This all relates to something called the fire paradox. This paradox is often used to describe how the fight against naturally reoccurring wildfires just leads to more of them — in greater number and voracity. I also apply it to counterterrorism, especially in the Middle East. Not to say we should not try to slow the rise of terrorism at all, but the way countries like the United States and Israel go about their anti-terrorism efforts is self defeating and creates more destruction on both sides.

Many counterterrorism efforts just lead to the spread of terrorism and the movement’s growth, much like how the efforts against natural fires only worsens them in the future. Osama Bin Laden is not a tree; but you get my point. Also the real fire paradox sometimes calls for intentional fire-starting; prescribed burning, if you will. In no way am I saying we should promote terrorism, but many counterterrorism efforts do just that.

Briefly: The fire paradox, applied to the Middle East situation.
The Gaza and West Bank problems will not go away until Israel and the US stop trying to destroy what they see as the problem, thus elevating the real problem. It is like with wildfires. Scientific data shows that the more people try to stop and put out wildfires, the greater in extremity and number those fires will be. The term — which I just found out existed after I wrote it down as the title of this post (aww man, another thing where I wasn't the first to something) — "fire paradox" was coined by European scientists launching a project to work on the ecological problem related to fires. This paradox applies to aspects of the situation in the Middle East, especially to what is going on in Iraq and Israel-Palestine. What Israel's decades-old policy does is destroy "terrorists", but the way they go about doing so creates a greater number of these "freedom fighters" who fight harder than ever.

Just by chance, there was an article in this month's Harper's on the misgivings of counterterrorism. I came up with the idea to do this post back in November, but, because of my laziness, I now have some good material to work with (i.e. that article).


Song stuck in my head right now: "Jenny Was A Friend Of Mine" by The Killers.

technorati tags: fire+paradox, counter-terrorism, terrorism, politics, middle+east, israel, palestine, iraq

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day for those both in and outside of the United States. Martin Luther King (1929-1968) was one of the greatest Americans ever — one of the most influential people to modern human society — and his eternal legacy lives on. King played a great role in the civil rights movement which finally led to real freedom for African Americans, even though black Americans had been emancipated nearly a century before the civil rights movement kicked into full swing in the mid-20th century. King was a Nobel Peace Prize-winning civil rights advocate trying to change society for the better through means of nonviolence. He rekindled the flame of rights for minorities in the United States and all over the world. His "I have a dream" speech (video) inspired a nation and a civilization to look at the mess of racial injustices. Yet, even today, Hispanics and blacks and Arabs are being segregated against — even unnoticeably — in the United States' continued racist struggles (poverty, racial terrorist and crime stereotypes only enforced by parts of the US media, social injustices and disliking someone just because they are different from you all play a role, along with economics and the misunderstanding among some white Americans about immigration); Arabs are restricted in Israel because they happen to look like the people launching rockets at Haifa and blowing themselves up in Israeli-occupied areas of Palestine; this does not really have to do with skin color, but still: the anti-semitism all-too-common throughout the world; the label of Middle Easterners as barbaric and Africans as poor, helpless, and self-destructive by a largely wealthy but ignorant and uneducated western public only relying on false stereotypes; just had to add this one to the mix: Michael Crichton likening global warming to eugenics (take it however you like); South Africa still getting over the days of white-only rule; ... it is not hard to find examples of racism and prejudice around the world, even in young children, as well as many other uncontrollable factors of human beings. Obviously homosexuality is also something looked down upon. A person being gay and expressing or even letting on their sexual preference is only a latent version, adapted for the modern day, of a person being black in the days of widespread lynching. But at least sexual preferences and religion can remain superficially latent; the color of your skin cannot.

In conclusion, have a good Martin Luther King, Jr. day. It will be a good day for historical reflection, however painful that may be. Every year it is always an interesting experience as the nation remembers the injustices prevalent in our society in the past — and even the injustices continuing today. He had a dream, a dream that has yet to become a reality, but we're getting closer and should not loose sight of the goal of human equality, tolerance for others, freedom for all! We are clearly still at a point in history when how one looks is a major factor in how one is perceived, especially when that relates to the color of one’s skin. Dr. King, your dream isn't true yet, I, for one, hope for us to get it as close to a reality as possible.


Articles on MLK:

Wikipedia:

Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was a famous leader of the American civil rights movement, a political activist, and a Baptist minister. In 1964, King became the youngest man to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (for his work as a peacemaker, promoting nonviolence and equal treatment for different races). On April 4, 1968, Dr. King was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. In 1977, he was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter. In 1986, Martin Luther King Day was established as a United States holiday. In 2004, King was posthumously awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. He was known as a great public speaker.[1] Dr. King often called for personal responsibility in fostering world peace.[2] King's most influential and well-known public address is the "I Have A Dream" speech, delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C..

TIME 100:

It is a testament to the greatness of Martin Luther King Jr. that nearly every major city in the U.S. has a street or school named after him. It is a measure of how sorely his achievements are misunderstood that most of them are located in black neighborhoods.

Three decades after King was gunned down on a motel balcony in Memphis, Tenn., he is still regarded mainly as the black leader of a movement for black equality. That assessment, while accurate, is far too restrictive. For all King did to free blacks from the yoke of segregation, whites may owe him the greatest debt, for liberating them from the burden of America's centuries-old hypocrisy about race. It is only because of King and the movement that he led that the U.S. can claim to be the leader of the "free world" without inviting smirks of disdain and disbelief. Had he and the blacks and whites who marched beside him failed, vast regions of the U.S. would have remained morally indistinguishable from South Africa under apartheid, with terrible consequences for America's standing among nations. How could America have convincingly inveighed against the Iron Curtain while an equally oppressive Cotton Curtain remained draped across the South?

Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Martin Luther King, Jr.

born January 15, 1929, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.
died April 4, 1968, Memphis, Tennessee

original name Michael Luther King, Jr. Baptist minister and social activist who led the civil rights movement in the United States from the mid-1950s until his death by assassination in 1968. His leadership was fundamental to that movement's success in ending the legal segregation of African Americans in the South and other parts of the United States. King rose to national prominence through the organization of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, promoting nonviolent tactics such as the massive March on Washington (1963) to achieve civil rights. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1964.

Nobel Prize for Peace


I will not be able to post tomorrow, sorry. Check back mid-week for updates to the blog!

technorati tags: MLK, martin+luther+king+day, martin+luther+king+jr, civil+rights, society, racism, profile, united+states, african+americans, history

Centralizing power, "us against them" throughout history

ESSAY: Centralizing power
Religious and governmental institutions throughout history.

Move people against others (e.g. those different); partisanship to garner support.

"Us against them" and "either you are with us or against us". "They are bad — because they are different."

Utilizing few to have power over many instead of many over few.

For example, in Nazi-era Germany, for instance, the government rallied against the Jews, showing them as an “inferior race”. However, the Nazis also used the fact that Jews tended to be more well to do than most other Germans to strengthen their anti-Semitic ideals. Any rational person able to break free from society’s hold on their mind and opinions would see that the calling Jews inferior and pointing that that they are richer is both contradictory and self-defeating. However desperate people (many Germans at that time) along with centralized power and strengthening that power by blaming things on others and showing them as the enemy helped Hitler in his quest for domination — however psychotic it may be. Saying ‘we are good, they are bad’ can be a good way to strengthen one’s power and legitimacy, obviously it can also backfire. It depends on the circumstance. Some humans are lucky enough to be able to see through some of the blinders those in power — or those trying to get into power — put in place. Sometimes these people are not powerful enough to break through the system anyway. That is where information, communication come in. The spread of information can either bring down or support an establishment; communication and this flow of knowledge is not always non-exclusive, but if it is made available, it is often utilized — to the dismay to those in power (unless they are appreciated by those with access and control over such information).


[tagname]

Young children and racial prejudice

Here is an interesting article:
Prejudice at Age 6

By age 6, many kids are well schooled in societal prejudice. In fact, children associate white workers with higher status jobs.

By age 6, many kids are well schooled in societal prejudice. In a study, researchers interviewed 92 African-American first- and sixth-graders from varying socioeconomic backgrounds about job status and their own interest in particular occupations.

Children from all economic backgrounds associated white workers with jobs that they saw as higher in status. Furthermore, when asked about unfamiliar and even imaginary jobs such as a "tenic," someone who organizes and marks handicapped parking spaces, children rated careers pictured with white workers above those depicted with black workers or a mixed group.

"It's troubling that children in our society take race as something that defines the status, importance, and pay of jobs," says Lynn S. Liben, professor of psychology at Pennsylvania State University and coauthor of the study, published in Developmental Psychology.

Liben also found that poor children in the sixth-grade group showed less interest in high status jobs such as a doctor or airline pilot, which they saw as occupied primarily by whites. She speculates that underprivileged children in particular may "self-select" away from high status jobs because they assume a lack of access to the education and resources needed to attain them.

By the age of 11 or so, a child will finally be able to understand abstract concepts like politics and religion — though the age and the understanding differs from person to person. However, by then (age 11) it may be too late. The socialistic, familial, and otherwise biases imposed on him or her might have already made an impression that would last a lifetime. There are some (like me) who can break free from these kinds of social constructs of opinion and form their own, even if basing off of those around them and what they have been taught, experiences, and shoved into their minds.

I will be writing more on society — and individual opinions — soon. I've been busy lately but will try hard to post some this weekend.

technorati tags: children, psychology, science, society, social, opinion, prejudice, race,

American or not American... that should not be the question

Who is to decide what is American and not American? What makes something American or un-American? Who is to judge the traits of people in the US, and how they fit into their country, labeling them right or wrong, out of line or in line with their nation's values. The US was built on an assortment of people with an assortment of traits — and that building continues today. Ironically its those people who have been the targets and scapegoats of many campaigns of bigotry in the name of righteous[-seeming] causes, being different is a handicap for many humans. Like with many other nations, the mixing of peoples has created a melting pot of sorts throughout the centuries. We do not need a Senator Joseph McCarthy (former Republican from Wisconsin) — with his paranoid, fear mongering, and outright despicable Cold War-era Un-American Activities Committee — nor do we need another political or religious figure telling us whether our traits and beliefs are American or un-American. There is nothing, besides the fact that the US is not a communist state, making communism un-American; there is nothing making gun control un-American, though the Second Amendment of the Constitution might be brought into play; there is nothing making the death penalty un-American, even if it be inhumane and against much of modern society's standards of human rights. However, more and more groups, especially from the rising fundamentalist religious right, are placing extreme condemnation on anyone from homosexuals to journalists for not being American. The only 'American values' are the ones various demographics and peoples create — in addition to government PR. Much hate speech and polarizing rhetoric is being elevated to a point that makes bigotry sound like too nice of a word (to describe it). Not only is there this wedging of various people, one also has to endure the swaying of a nation from 9/11 and the ensuing fear-mongering for political gains; exploitation in the so-called war on terror. Like with McCarty's crusade, there is this "with us or against us" attitude coming from the government, but much of the work on that front has been done by Americans themselves, being reinforced by the government in their effort to drive out dissenters, as in the Bush administration's "war on terrorism". If one speaks out against Israel, one is labeled antisemitic; if one speaks against the wrongdoings in the so-called war on terror, one is called a terrorist or terrorist supporter. This kind of polarity and labeling is quashing reasoned thought and moderate discourse on important topics in American society. Not only that, but — in many cases — it drives up nationalism, which can only lead the US down the wrong road. Education and a better job by the news media and especially the government (at all levels) may help drive down some ignorance, but most of all, a lot of Americans need to wake up from their sensationalist, ignorant, pop culture drivel-filled attitudes.

technorati tags: mccarthy, bush, society, americans, united+states, usa, nationalism, identity, war+on+terror, fear+mongering, israel, terrorism, education, opinion

Essay on identity, political correctness, and the uncontrollable factors of one's life

Though I consider myself centre-left, liberal in modern, relatively conservative America, I do not believe in affirmative action. Is it not hypocrisy to fill up positions that would be for those possibly better suited for them with people who are minorities — just because they are of “minority” ethnic status? Keep in mind there is no “average American” (you can’t have 2.2 children), though the vast, vast majority of those living in the United States describe themselves as “average”. Another issue I have been dealing with is that of identity. If I were black, or African American, would I care more about African American civil rights in the US, or anywhere with those of African descent? Race is something that is biological. Although the term “race” sometimes makes people forget we are all of the same race; we are all humans… for the sake of this writing, I’ll ignore that semantic aspect.

Traits that are biological are — for the most part — uncontrollable factors by us, as is gender, etc. We have seen what happens when people change the color of their skin or modify the sex of their body, and that receives a usually-bitter response from society in general. If we are to look at each other in a way where we cannot change these biological and uncontrollable traits, and many times it is scientifically impossible to do so, should the fact that I am not black hinder me from caring about the human rights of those who are not of the same close descent as me? Although I think you are what you are, people should be able to do those things to their body unless it is endangering themselves or the livelihood of others.

Since the era of African American civil rights, largely in the 1950s and 60s, all of America seems to be stuck in a time warp. Of political correctness — which is often hypocritical and irrational, like religion —, of viewing others as equal even though many think otherwise, of not questioning how Americans are supposed to look at things and keeping the status quo. Although I am not totally against political correctness, it does stifle free thought and free speech in ways I obviously do not promote. This era of excessive close-mindedness needs to come to an end, as does the one oppressing homosexuals, which is quite tantamount to past oppressions of those of African descent, et al. (See my views on gays in this post and this one, more soon.)

So, my question is this, does someone view the world differently for being different via an uncontrollable factor, e.g. being black instead of white? Even if they are not treated differently (which is sadly unlikely, even in this day in age)? Even if they can dissociate themselves from racial and other uncontrollable factors’ generalization and stereotypical labels from society as a whole?

technorati tags: politically+correct, race, racism, affirmitive+action, identity, society, essay, in+perspective, clearthought, race, gays, thinking, united+states, black, white, african-americans, being, life, sociology, opinion, politics

Thoughts on homosexuality, part 2

See part 1 too.

There is hard evidence (from studies other than the linked one too) that homosexuality is biological. It is something, like being black (for example), that one cannot essentially control. You are born with it. As I said before, you cannot really tell from how someone looks whether they are gay or not; that does not keep people from scorning gays. It is quite easy to compare the current atmosphere of contempt for gays to Nazi propaganda attacking those of the Jewish faith, see here. Everything from control and wealth to abnormality to un-Biblical/un-Christian arguments were plastered by the Nazis to Jews and my the religious right to homosexuals.

Like in the civil rights era, many sensible Americans are having trouble connecting to how someone can be different from them, and can still receive the same rights. Those who were brought up with contempt for those different feel this way especially so. The truth is, there have been many historical figures that were most likely gay (Leonardo da Vinci, possibly Abraham Lincoln, et al). There is nothing new with being gay, there is nothing wrong with it, homosexuality is not only isolated to the human species, and, while being gay can hinder procreation, maybe that's just how nature intended it. As humans, there are many things we cannot grasp — period. How someone can be gay is not one of them, but why nature created that wired homosexuality in their genes is a conundrum — like multiple dimensions and the finer points of relativity and metaphysical existence — that we can't understand. It will take time for moderate Americans to accept homosexuality, but hopefully the government can give them a push in the right direction, like the (at the time) liberal US Supreme Court did for African Americans in the 1960-70s.

Here and here are two of many Amnesty International reports on human rights abuses to homosexuals. Sadly, it is not hard to find more.

Most of the above can apply to bisexuals too.

Just as a clarifier, I am not homosexual myself, but do know some who are. I was raised to neither like nor hate homosexuals.

"Thoughts on homosexuality, part 3" will most likely be about the politics of homosexuality, in the United States and elsewhere.

technorati tags: gays, lesbians, lesbian, gay, homosexual, homosexuality, biological, biology, lincoln, da+vinci, bisexuality, opinion, society, jews, nazi, nazis, racism, sexism, descrimination, civil+rights, blacks, procreation, human, brain, mind, clearthought, in+perspective

Thoughts on homosexuality, part 1

You learn something new every day, you know.

Well, one of the new things I learned today is that homosexuality is akin to adult bed wetting and fear of flight — put bluntly: gays are still mental cases. Well that is what the Pentagon thinks.

Pentagon guidelines that classified homosexuality as a mental disorder now put it among a list of conditions or "circumstances" that range from bed-wetting to fear of flying.

The new rules are related to the military's retirement practices. The change does not affect the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits officials from inquiring about the sex lives of service members and requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.

While it is not my view whatsoever, I believe that people — especially in the ethnically (etc.) shifting melting pot of America — seem to always [think they] need someone to discriminate against, attack, and use as a scapegoat, and portray as a symbol of evil. Throughout American history it has been Native Americans, blacks, hispanics — many of which are still discriminated against today. Also, the British, Jews, Germans, Irish, and more have also been discriminated against, but for cultural and national, not biological or color (noticeable), reasons.

Racism, sexism, just content for those different from the supposed norm. Gays, however, stand out. Today they receive arguably the most bad rap in the US than any other group. Just as being black is biological, so, as it has been proven, is homosexuality. One of the problems is you cannot [usually] tell if someone is gay or lesbian from just looking at them. While at least the Pentagon has moved homosexuality from a mental disorder like schizophrenia to a "condition" like bed wetting, it is probably political correctness and superficial beurocracy, not a policy change, that is causing this to happen.

As an example: recently there was a soldier... who was gay. What really made this man, Bleu Copas, important was the fact he could translate Arabic, a skill that is much needed in the US government and military (especially in these times). He was kicked out, pretty much unexplained, from the military. The official story was that he was a danger to his peers and had homosexual lovers. The US military and much of American society in general still holds the notion that gays are lower than them, that they distract easily, are weak, are girly, have stronger sexual attraction to other men than men to to women, etc. By the way, this soldier was outed by a series of anonymous emails.

technorati tags: gay, homosexual, lesbian, opinion, blue+copas, military, united+states, usa, society, news, in+perspective, clearthought, pentagon