Well, this was going to turn into some ingenious post, cannibalizing my own pursuit of life and everyone else around me. But the slightly intoxicated diatribe turned into a slightly uninspired loss for words. So I’ll save you from my inability to reestablish my point of view with a little prose:

I was once you, I am you, I will be you: I regret every moment and I despise every second. I was the idealist youth, I am now the young, I will soon lose the ability to distinguish fact from fiction, and I will consequently act on my flawed logic for the rest of my existence. Welcome to your homogenized, desparate American life. You have as much to look forward to as I do.

Moving on, I never wrapped up some thoughts on a noteworthy event. Some lost thoughts by Jeffrey Stottlemyer about a Levy/Kristol/Fukuyama event:

This evening I attended an event at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Service, downtown, a dialogue between Henri-Bernard Levy and William Kristol, with Francis Fukuyama moderating. Three influential thinkers, for sure. Warned even by my father of Kristol’s extremism, he came off intelligent and, indeed, eloquent (though squarely in the conservative camp). It was refreshing to listen to a rational, informed commentary on conservatism, even if I strongly disagreed. Be made some admittedly astute comments. At one point, he stated that Lenin was analytically superior to Marx, as he, correctly, believed proletarian revolution would occur wherever there was sufficient political will. The culmination of capitalistic society, seen at the turn of the century in the fully industrialized nations of Western Europe, was not the breeding ground Marx believed it would be. Rather, the agrarian backwater of Russia proved the catalyst. A debatable statement (the bit about analytical superiority), but one I am inclined to agree with.

However, admitting Kristol’s eloquence and coherence, I came away in Levy’s camp. Though Levy was sometimes hard to follow, his discussion of the role and duty of an intellectual seemed particularly insightful. He stated that an intellectual’s role is to submit unceasing critique, the classical gadfly. At first Levy left his statement in very general terms. He was helped, however, by Kristol’s rebuttal, after which Levy expounded on his original statement with greater lucidity. Kristol said “intellectuals” (in quotes even in his talk, a symptom of typical conservative distrust of the label…a distrust at times well founded, but abused by most current proponents), and the habits of objective criticism and prophecy, are at times (grudgingly) necessary, but that when it comes to policy making, one must take ones head from the clouds and make some real life decisions.

This argument plays well with a large demographic, but I believe, and Levy said something similar, that the two functions (hypothetic pondering and objective criticism versus decision making, policy creation) should not, indeed cannot, be separated. To claim that there is a demarcation between reality and philosophy, to me, is dangerous business. Concepts like collateral damage and real politick infused definitions of national interest (see: Reagan’s Latin American freedom fighters) are close behind such a realist assertion. The results are philosophically unacceptable, and thus, in my opinion (and Levy’s), cannot be viable.

In short, Kristol eloquently defended falsely utilitarian policies that beget disenfranchisement for those on the bottom, self-aggrandizement by those in control, and an avoidance of any policy implications, often intangible and far away (physical or socioeconomic) and thus easily ignored. Levy spoke on behalf of rational liberalism, humane and humanitarian. He spoke of the true duties of a state, as opposed to the false precept of government on as local a level as possible and with little interference by meddling national or international behemoths. Such a precept is no longer tenable, and though Kristol, I feel, truly believed in what he said, he is wrong.

Levy’ discussion of poverty summed up the difficulties of his worldview, but reinforced its necessity. Asked if poverty was the new irreconcilable force in international politics, taking the place of the Cold War’s ideological divide, he answered a qualified yes and no. Acknowledging the fact that poverty had always existed, and that man will likely, almost certainly, never eradicate it, he emphasized the necessity of fighting it, of trying. This is the catch. There are no certainties, other than, perhaps, failure. There are no defined endings. However, we must try; we must fight for what we know is good in the midst of the absurd. That is the duty of the intellectual, and it is our collective duty as well. It is the only tenable path.

I’d like to emphasize before I get into this how much I hate white people.

That being said, I think it’s important to understand that people aren’t inherently bad. Criminals aren’t born criminals etc..

The way I, and a large portion of the psychological community, see it, people are products of two things commonly referred to as nature and nurture. There’s a certain degree to which genetics (nature) plays a role in determining personality and mannerisms, but I think there is a larger degree to which a person’s environment (nurture), affects development.

Nurture is kind of a misnomer, because our environment has, for the most part, been far from nurturing. However, the environment, as it is, has been most callous, in my opinion, to the minorities of the world. It’s a statistical fact that minorities, at least in America, succeed at a lesser rate. This cannot be, and is not, an inherent affliction of people with certain skin colors. It’s a social complex that is a big part of our (ahem) nurturing.

That complex has many roots. I believe, the most pertinent of these roots to this issue is the human tendency to compartmentalize, especially under socially stressful situations.

The youthful mind doesn’t like change or differences. We cry when we are deprived of the warmth of the womb, we are upset when our parents exhibit unexpected or unknown characteristics, and, certainly, we don’t deal well with differences amongst our peers.

So, when people encounter differences as noticeable to the senses as race, they are highly susceptible to categorizing (stereotyping). And since often times these encounters occur in socially anxious situations, the categorization tends to be negative as a result of one’s fear or discomfort.

Mentally, people assign categorical roles to things (like people) based on their categorical prejudices. These prejudices oftentimes lead those who are assigned such roles to fulfill them. It’s very much like peer pressure, but instead of the goodie two shoes being pressured into smoking weed based on common usage, the fat kid gets pressured into eating gross things because simple-minded people think fat kids like to eat everything. In the same way, minorities tend to fall into certain negative roles based upon common, negative expectations.

So, choice is a funny thing. Do people choose who they are? Or do social and inherited factors lead them to a certain self? I think it’s a little of column “A” and a little of column “B,” but behavior amongst the various types of people should definitely be looked upon with more compassion and understanding. Hopefully with a little mindfulness, we can nurture our environment—our society—into a more nurturing entity. Whuddya say?

Oh yeah, Just kidding about that white people comment. Sorta

“When I think I have it bad, or when I’m feeling down or complaining or trying to place blame on certain things, I think about what Christ did for me.” — Scott Stapp

Scott, as we know, is the raging drunk slash hypocrite Jesus freak lead singer of Creed. And now he has very own sex video!

Well, since becoming a statistic in frictional unemployment, a lot of shit has gone down but I haven’t had the focus to put them into one post. But here is an attempt:

A RUN DOWN OF THE ABSURD

Haiti had UN run elections and guess what? They’re disputed! Or they were, until diplomats decided on the winner. Isn’t this just a repeat of 5 years ago, and when will people learn that enforced “democracy” in third world countries doesn’t work?

I wrote a long piece about the cartoon controversy that led to riots and a few deaths, unfortunately it is still on my company computer. Most say this is about a ‘cultural divide’, but that is just a cop out for those less informed (not to mention that one common theme of exploiting this whole affair has been technology). Where are we seeing the greatest ‘reaction’? Countries like Syria, Iran, Pakistan — economically and politically backwards and undeveloped nations that are ruled autocratically. For these countries, utilizing a far away demon to cast blame and deflect criticism is a great tool among their own political turmoil. This is not a reaction of the people, but a manufactured maneuver on the politically powerful in the Middle East, and exploited on this side of the globe by the military boogieman who love to envoke 9/11 to increase military spending.

There is a lot to learn: the NYTimes has a great piece on the power of imagery. Salon also does an excellent field observation of reactions in Morocco, a country predominately Muslim but did not have a violent reaction towards the West.

Oh yah, Dick Cheney shot a Republican fundraiser during a ‘hunting’ trip, Hillary Clinton compared the House to a plantation, Fox News calls domestic spying, ‘terrorist survelliance’, and the military has gotten so desparate, it does recruiting at prisons. Mmm, I’ve woken up and smelled that delicious freedom coffee.

What part of No More 9/11’s don’t you understand, Constitution Boy?