Can an Oppressor be Free?

This is a question which has been asked for reasons I mostly reject. I do not simply reject the answers, though surely I do for many, but I reject that the question, as posed, be asked. Assuming that a question is intended to be productive, it must be decided upon amongst rival answers. These rivalry of answers implies that an Oppressor may either be Free or Not, or some combination or alteration.

However, by definition an Oppressor is Free. Surely, true statements may be posited as the answer to the question. Yet one of these answers the questions. Rather they are statements regarding oppression or freedom.

Within each sentence is a modicum of scope. The question of, “Can an Oppressor be Free” relates the concepts of Oppression, the Oppressor, and the Oppressed. With the concept of Oppression inescapable, it’d be unwise to assume the scope to be anything other than the oppression which permeates every element of the sentence.

If then, we are talking of the Oppression which the Oppressor enacts, then by definition his is Free of it. An actor is not the action he commits. An actor is not the result of the action he commits. An actor exists before and apart from the action he commits, and is the reason for its existence.

This is not to say that one’s actions cannot bear effects upon the actor; suicide demonstrates this in no uncertain terms. However, their actions contain a temporal aspect. The actor exists before the action. The actor does the act. The Oppressor Oppresses.

The question proposed therefor does not ask whether the effects of an actor may come to involve the individual who committed them, but whether the actor is Free to commit that action. The fact that the Oppressor is an Oppressor indicates success in their venture of Oppression, and answers in no uncertain terms, that yes the Oppressor is Free.

Does the Act of Oppression restrict the Oppressor’s Freedom?

That is an entirely different question, but is no more productive. Undoubtably, yes. Any action, by definition, makes some change to the actor’s enviroment if only psychologically. And, any change alters the situation in which future decisions are made. This is opportunity cost, and not only does choosing Yes prevent you from choosing No at the same time, it prevents you from all things which would require you to have chose No at that time. This limited scope of future decision, is a restriction of the Actor’s Freedom.

How?

Now there is a question. How requires you to analyze relationships amongst choices, actors, and the enviorment. It’s these connections which can provide value.

Why shyness is not as good as outgoingness.

You must assume you are right, without this assumption your foundation and thereby logical substance is inferior to your position.

You must assume you are right, in order to advance your position

All you are is all you’ll be.

Be yourself. If you’re not, then who will? And if no one will, then did you ever exist?

The role you played will live without you, but you won’t.

Shyness.

It is better to be shy than outgoing.

Being shy it mistaken by those of lower intelligence as lower intelligence. To them, decreased frequency of outgoingness is the result of a low frequency of good ideas.

Rather shyness is really the tendency to assume one’s ideas are not good enough. It is the level of confidence you have in your ideas, and says nothing about the quality of the ideas. After all the discussion of shyness vs.  outgoingness is only relevant if the individuals being compared are of equal ability.

But confusing a more-capable person’s decreased frequency of activity as an indication of a diminished capability, they feel brotherhood for them. These individuals will ally with the shy. Those who nonetheless realize the reality of shyness will similarly feel a sense of brotherhood.

The reason for that is, the shy do not claim to be better. In assuming ideas are not good enough, they demonstrate humility, a trait favored by the less intelligent as it is an open hand of brotherhood to them, one which is not necessary. In addition to the open hand of modesty, they will respect the more intelligent shy because their ideas are better this in its self is a reason, and strengthens the meaning of the modesty.

But more than allowing for support by those who are less able, it allows for parity of power with those of greater ability.

Acting, the defining aspect of outgoingness, takes time. It takes energy, and as soon as you commit to acting you must drastically reallocate effort from judging whether it is a good idea to judging how to employ the idea, judging how others will react, and judging the next idea. Further, it changes the circumstances. With a new idea presented additional input can not be determined to be related to the previous or current idea.

The individual who has not acted knows all their input is in response to the previous action. Yet, while the outgoing devoted attention to acting, the shy continued to think and presumably came up with better ideas.

The better idea provides an advantage as responses may be based on better information. Since responses to the outgoing’s actions must occur after their actions, the delay is inconsequential.

The does not mean that there is not a point where shyness fails to benefit over outgoingness. Specifically this is the time where further thought does not further the idea.

But in general terms, shyness is better than outgoingness.

Schrödinger’s Woman

I’ve heard it from several self-proclaimed feminists and even just a few women, so when  read http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger’s-rapist-or-a-guy’s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/ I believe that it is true women constantly fear being raped.

The author does a great job of explaining how to approach a random girl, and what thoughts make this necessary. It’s a brilliantly simple piece which puts to words a clear yet incomprehensible experience.

That said, the situation is flawed. Women should not constantly fear being raped or killed, unless they’re constantly in a particularly dangerous situation. But despite how they may feel, most are not in such a situation. Their sex does not make them so weak that they are no longer the author of their fates.

What makes women weak is their gender(and the law). Women continue to be raised as this concept of a indefensible child, constantly prone to rape and murder, and entirely lacking control of others.

Surely, they are raised to go to school, and learn about the world, and study medicine, and go on to great professions and serve in public office, but not to live their own life. For, the central aspect of living one’s life is controlling it, and so long as an individual is raised that others are in control of their body, they will forfeit control of it to others.

Violence is a fact of life. It is something all children should be aware of, but no child should be raised to believe they are particularly more vulnerable than others. Yet, women are.

Strength is a thing of the past. To a degree more true than ever before, firearms are capable of equalizing physical strength.

Yes, you cringed at the idea of women carrying pistols, but it was not because of the violence. The violent rape and murder of women is already the topic of discussion, to turn the tables should alleviate tension. To cringe at the thought of women carrying guns, means you cringed in defense of women’s gender role.

Whether you were raised to despise those capable of violence or merely to fear violence it’s self, you are inaccurately viewing the world.

Violence is. Despite the news and movies, violence is real. It is not something which occurs only in distant war-zones. Not even war-zones need be distant. Violence is an every day fact of live. Your roommate may grab a kitchen knife and kill you at any time.

If this makes you worried, please don’t be. I do not say this to make you fear, but exactly the opposite. Because violence is real, you must understand it, you must be able to handle violence and deal it out.

Our Economy (before the Oracle’s unilateral edits)

Capitalism is a straw man. From the day Marx first put pen to paper though the day I am so doing here, it has never existed. To the extent it has existed, it does so in the hearts and minds of those who value freedom, not as a perception of how it is, but of how it ought to be.

To be perfectly frank, the claim that America follows free-market principals so absurd it is unworthy of debate. It is a more logically and morally defensible to claim that the holocaust was a hoax. For at least there one is not denying what currently rests upon our retinas.

If “… socialism is based on governmental regulation of the economy, control of property through a democratically elected government, extensive public assistance and limits on accumulation of private property.” to what extent is America not socialist?

Is the mere lack of limits on private wealth enough to qualify a country as “capitalist”?

No. If you find fault in our economy, then you are finding fault in socialism.

Property is controlled through democratically elected government. A “landowner” is not free to build as he or she wishes on that land. They must receive permission in the form of permits and zoning. When they do, they must build the structure in accordance to the rules set forth by the government. If they wish to operate a business on “their” land, they must seek permission. If they seek to paint “their” house, in many places, they must receive permission to do so. If the government wishes to take “their” land for any purpose, be it a road or a shopping mall or a park, it may do so.

More than 1.3 Trillion dollars, or over 44% of the federal government is spent on public assistance in the form of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

If they do receive permission to operate a business, and acquire a license to do so, they must operate it in accordance to the regulations. They do not have discretion in who they may serve. Food must be prepared in accordance to health codes.

Vehicles must have hoods of a particular height, roofs with a particular crush weight, seatbelts, airbags, the gas tank handle on the dashboard icon must correspond to the location of the tank on the vehicle, it must make an annoying noise if you do not use the seatbelt. They must sell vehicles at such rates as to attain an average fuel efficiency stipulated by the government.

We have a terrible economy. It’s not because of capitalism. It’s not because of communism. It is because of the bastard child of the two, the system which claims a free market but makes one that is anything but.

The General Welfare

There was a time where government claimed divine right. It was the moral and just position of the King to rule over the people, as that was what god was perceived to ordain.

This time has passed, and yet government remains, not because it exists as its own independent moral “good”, but because it is useful to the citizens of it. As our constitution decrees, it exists to promote the general welfare (amongst other things), and this is its use.

However, utilitarianism, the pursuit of the general welfare, is not the moral end all. If the whole has to go the way of the majority, then there would be no back-up plan. If the whole turned out to be wrong and the general welfare of the people ended up not to be, then so would the few’s welfare be ruined despite their intent in the right direction.

The morality of utilitarianism depends on the morality of its ends. To state that the moral option is the greater good, presumes that we know what the greater good is. However, we do not know what the greater good is.

At the end of the day, utilitarianism claims that the ends justify the means.
Others claim the means must also be moral in themselves.
But no one claims the means justify the ends.

And as such we must limit the degree to which we compel others to peruse our “general welfare”. For, our general welfare may not be the ends we hope them to be, and no unjust means can right an unjust end.

The Danger of Irrationality

I’ve previously written about the value of irrationality as with the value of rationality, so I find it time to apply this.

Love is irrational as they say, and I believe it is true. Love is not something one chooses or decides to feel, it is not a thought or conclusion you can reach. No amount of logic, no matter how powerful or watertight it is, can give the slightest sway to it. Love does not play by the rules. It just is(even if you can’t tell).*

It is one example, probably the most glaring, of the beauty of irrationality. It is an example of humanity in that it does not make sense.

Yet, no matter how strongly, or just how, it manages to exist, the irrational feeling does not change the truth. There is a world outside of ourselves. There are actual consequences. If nothing else there is a lion which bites you, and blood, and pain, and death. Whether or not you choose the rational decision, the rational outcome will occur. Love cannot make bread from dirt. Love cannot cure HIV. Love can make you happy, but that’s close to all it can do.**

It is not always easy to choose between your feelings and your thoughts. You can very well cognitively know what is right while simultaneously knowing the opposite on some level. Love may be(or may always be) so deep that it defines truth. The truth is your love, and your logical thoughts and conclusions are just perceptions from the world around. Love, however, is perceived not as a perception of the external world, but it is the external world. Love is. Love it what is out there beyond all our senses, and when our senses deny what we feel/know to be true it is irrational to choose them. It becomes irrational to choose the rational option.

It is a hard decision to make. It is harder still because people are not a switch which can be turned on or off. They must be pushed away, they must be hidden from sight so as to hide the truth, the love, that may forever remain within. However, to do what “has to be done” this must be done.

Though it is never easy, the decision is sometimes clear. For example when someone cheats, one often knows, they must break up with them. It is a plain test, if A then B. Yet sadly, this is not always the case. Sometimes A + F + G + E also equals B, even though no individual cause in enough.

Here is is immeasurably harder to do the wrong thing… the thing you cognitively know you must. Letters do not add. An A plus an E is nothing other than an A plus an E.

It is not an enviable position to see these letters before you. They all point in the same direction, but only you can decide what they add up to. And when they add up to B, there are only two options. Do B, or get rid of some letters.

Either you must go against the love you know in your heart to be true, you remove the letters, or you walk knowingly into the fire you’ve concluded awaits you.

*Of course it can be in different magnitudes. Maybe it’s dimensional.

** And happiness can in turn increase the odds of you staying with your partner, and increase your children’s survival rate, which can in turn increase the likelihood of the population’s irrational attraction to other individuals.

Life Through Wide-Angle Glasses

In class we talked about an experiment where participants were given cameras to take pictures of a set of locations, and since the pictures are still different though of the same place, there is other information which the picture taker recalls as opposed to those which they didn’t take. This leads to a bigger reaction for the picture t hey did take verses the one they did not.

Well, in thinking tonight I realized how very true this really is. Of one occurrence or object there are many vantage points. There are numerous views and each person can see it differently. However, even within the same exact position, there are many perspectives. From the focus, to the film-type, to the exposure, blur, zoom.

The internal settings, the things which have happened to the camera prior to the shutter-button being pressed can make two pictures more dis-similar than those from greatly different locations.

This is of course, an analogy for the human mind. We see things differently, and our impressions are not only determined by where we are when it occurs and what we see, but by how we see it. As we over or underexpose our recordings we miss details, we wash away the the bad or fail to see the good.

But as HDR photography demonstrates, these otherwise “poorly” exposed photos can show what’s hidden within irrationally bright, and creeping dark corners of a bi-polar scene.

What should we do? Well, if we are creatures searching for the truth outside of ourselves the we should take all the information we have into account. We should take several shots. We should get the big picture, look into the details, investigate the dark corners, and investigate the blinding brights. No impression is the hand which caused it. We do not have direct access to the truth.

The birth of rationality

It is my recent realization that we are upon the cusp of a great shift in the views of the American people. I do not mean the views as a whole, but in the way they tend to distribute between and amongst the extremes of ideals.

To explain, I ask that you image the world views of Americans from 1865. The Civil War has ended, Lincoln shot, trains crisscross the nation and a level of humility is had by most. We are the most advanced creatures, but are just the same creatures. We ride on the backs of horses, and government is is just that. It is a word expanding upon the root to govern, and the laws of the nation are an act, established, yet in progress. The question of basic civil rights is clearly in view, no matter how individuals feel about them, or the role of their government.

But just the same, look at America over the 1900s. Look at those who were born in 1890, those who were born in 1940, the lives of Americans from 1890 all the way through 1980. The world was a drastically different place, while change as always been present in life and death, never so has it been so extreme, so irrational. The technological developments alone are mind numbing, and not just metaphorically so.

In fact, my central argument here is that these changes, which rocked the minds of American people, ultimately disturbed their world-views.

Firstly, the American experience has always been accompanied with a healthy suspicion of government officials, actions and roles. However, as the depression came and lives were overnight thrown 50 years backward, a change happened: FDR was elected four times. What does it say for an individual to be elected four times? It demonstrates nearly unwavering trust in government? It shows a willingness of that government to utilize the public’s trust?

This trust went so far that it went full circle, instead of individuals becoming suspicion of government, the government became suspicious of the public. The public was accused of communism. Individuals forfeited their power over government.

Moreover, while common sense ruled the day and Vietnam turned the tides of unwavering trust into unwavering distrust, a new element arose; moral judgments. Accused Communists were not people who believed a system to be effective, but were traitors, they were morally corrupt, they were immoral. So too did the government become immoral when Nixon left office.

And through it all, government grew. It grew it size. It grew in cost. It grew in perceived stability to the point that by the 1990s it seemed immutable beyond the cyclical changing of hands between Republicans and Democrats.

Yet we know this is not so. While the destruction of American government would be a fool’s bet, its fundamental change should be of little doubt. These beliefs about the world which have developed from roughly 1890 to 1980 are irrational.

As life shows, irrational things occur. Things beyond our comprehension fall from the sky and alter our world. However, there are times where you must recognize an asteroid for the rarity it is and continue life without letting it alter your views on the world. It’s our short lifespan, which prevent a century’s long change from appearing in context, it prevents us from living as rational beings.

It is only in this generation where rationality will re-emerge. We know of unbelievable economic failure, we know of unbelievable economic gain. Yet more, we’ve felt moderate economic stress. We understand the irrational trust in government which prevailed for 30 years and the irrational distrust which encompassed the following 20.

But life goes on. People are born and people die. Don’t trust government but don’t distrust it. Just recognize it for what it is, people for who they are, and judge for yourself, not for or from others.

Freedom Means the Freedom to Fail.

When I was a child, I do not know how old, I recall I was playing on the beach. The situation has blurred over the years, yet still I recall it was the most terrible thing I have ever experienced, even today. I was playing with my toys and my sister, if I remember correctly, when without notice a wave swept in. The wave pushed my sister over, it knocked over my toys, spilling them everywhere and pulling them with it back into the ocean, and I reached for my toys, but it did not work. The arms of my mother swept me and my sister up. Yet, I watched them so slowly, yet slow quickly be pulled out to sea. As I cried for them, I begged my mother to let me get them. I begged her to get them herself. I begged her to at least try, even if it was impossible. I could not blame anyone for the actions of the sea. Yet, distraught with fear and the sight of my sister in the wave she would not do either of those things. She scolded me for going after the toys instead of my sister. She scolded me for making the wrong decision. This was about 17 years ago.

I still remember, though thankfully it is not so clear, how the feeling I felt was so distressing. It was the first time I had ever felt anything like it. It was a mixture of guilt, with a hint of shame, a touch of anger, and, mostly, a feeling I have never heard described. It was the first time that I realized; I had been prevented from acting. It was the first time I could not make a decision. I was completely and entirely unfree.

I knew it was the wrong decision, I realized that afterwards, but just the same, I was prevented from trying to save the toys. I was not allowed to make the wrong decisions.

The fact of the matter is, to be free; you must have the freedom to make the wrong decision.

I have argued before that Public Health Care is a bad policy. I have argued it is inefficient. I have argued it is harmful. However, the outcome of this and other debates aside, it makes no difference. Even supposing God were to speak directly which the whole of mankind and tell us what the just and moral option is, the decision is only one we can make for ourselves. It is as unjust for us to force others into the just path as it is for them to follow the unjust path.

If an individual’s decision does not harm others then it is theirs to make, regardless of whether it harms them.

Isn’t that what we really mean by freedom?

The popular logic suggests that if “the brain is the end all be all” of cognition and decision making then there cannot be free will. The arguement goes that if there is no spritual soul, then the decisions are made by a piece of meat, and the decisions are simply the computed output of a stimulis through an admittadly complicated machine. However, since it is no more than a machine, it cannot have “free will”. Ultimately, to have free will, decisions must not be the necessary outcome of ecents. To be “free” the same exact situtation at the same point in time must be able to occur differently.

However, to take that postition means what? If to be free requires a seperation between cause and effect then nothing is free. Since all thing are the direct and necessary result of their conditions, the entire of concept would be meaningless.

Yet, “freedom” is not a meaningless word. “Free will” means something. It is something worth dying for for many. “Free will” is then likely a concept created by humans to explain the non-understood portions of other’s, and I suppose even our own, decisionmaking.

But why would this be necessary? If it is an abstract term such as ‘i’, then it must serve quite the purpose. We assume that an organism’s will is what they want. Thus this magical thing making decisions is, while incomprehensible to us, is what the organism wants. It would help as, even your prediciton of their behavior turns out to be wrong then it shows your perception of their wishes, or free will is wrong. Just the same though, it works if it’s just a chunk of meat. The chunck of meat is deciding based upon it’s history and what it has been conditioned to respond to. It is acting on, essentially, what it wants.

At the end of the day I callenge the assumption that the necessary result of stimuli is not a free response. I challenge the assumption that the whole of something cannot be more than the sum of it’s parts. Rather, if something can act in such away that nothing at or below it’s level can effectively deal with it’s actions, then that capable body is it’s own being. It is an entity acting beyond the control of others. It is, while recieving stumulis from others, not controlled by others. It makes decisions, and acts, in a fasion no one truely knows.

Isn’t that what we really mean by freedom?

The Real Goals of the So called Public Option

The foremost problem with the Public Healthcare Debate and propositions is that they do not seem to have a goal in mind. They have a problem which they wish to address. Everyone knows what they don’t want, but few are saying what they do. They just don’t want what we have. Of course, they can’t even elaborate on what we have.

The goals I’ve heard are as follows:

1. To get everyone insured.

2. To decrease the price of insurance.

3. To decrease the public expenditure on healthcare by doing preventative treatment.

It is clear, that an insurance program which does not aim to turn a profit should have an advantage against those that do. Just like how credit unions have an advantage over profit-run banks.

Theoretically if a “Public Option” were implemented, it would serve as competition. If companies are making more profit than they need, then they would lower their profit margins to prevent customers from switching to the public plan.

To promote such an option assumes that the market is not working. It assumes that there is either no effective competition and/or that buyers are not acting rationally.

The argument has been suggested that the latter is true. Specifically the author of one article stated that when healtcare is in question, and therefore people’s lives, those people are willing to pay any amount for care. Hospitals and doctors are thus able to charge whatever they want because people cannot and will not negotiate. So the argument concludes that a middleman is needed, such as insurance companies, to decide what is a reasonable price. I suppose insurance unions could work just as well, where profit is not the goal.

While this could explain why prices are high, it doesn’t because middlemen are in place. We’ve gotten so far away from the capitalist system of paying for goods and services that we’ve just about let the terms “Health Insurance” and “Health Care” become synonymous.

The prices that insurance companies pay are not the high prices that are in question. The prices in question are the premiums for insurance. So it appears that the market is not keeping the price of insurance down.

To decide exactly how the market is failing, we must determine a few things. First, is there a monopoly? As far as I believe, not quite. There are not a whole ton of providers, but there are several. Secondly, is there price collusion? Very likely. In fact, that’s certain. For it there wasn’t then someone would undercut the other and it would decrease. Assuming it’s not already at the bottom.

However, why is a government run plan necessary? This is a question I do not have an answer to. USAA for example does not make a profit for its owners. Its members are the owners and excess funds are reimbursed back to them. Thus they are negotiating with hospitals and doctors to provide the lowest possible rate. They are not making a profit. I am unable to see how prices could be any lower. In all honesty this suggests that the price of Health Insurance from USAA is the lowest that level of care can be, and that the market is working properly. A government plan will not make USAA’s expenditures lower. It will not scare them into living with fewer profits.

The third goal could be relevant here. While although “free” public health care would not decrease the cost of insurance for those with the plan or with their own private plans, it could decrease public expenditures on emergency care if preventative treatment was implemented.

Yet, while it ‘could’, I’m not convinced it would. Rather, while it may do so when compared to traditional private health insurance which charges deductibles for doctors visits, it would not when compared to non-insured individuals. For an individual who must pay for their own care, the cost of treatment provides a great incentive to stay well. It provides a reason not to take risks with your health, if any more were needed. However, if one argues that all actions are already taken to prevent further injury, then allowing for more doctors visits will not bring that level of protection to above 100%.

Ultimately, it seems that there is only one way where a “Public Option” will save anybody money.  Specifically, of the cost of care is paid out of the general revenue of the government, then the premiums will be paid based on tax rates. As a result those who make more money would pay more for the same level of care as those who make less.

This train of thought indicates that the first goal is the real one at issue here. Specifically, if it were to be paid with general taxes or other non-flat taxes, then the public could not be allowed to opt out. If they were allowed to opt out, then those who make more money would opt out and rather than paying the government to insure them and another individual, would pay another company to just insure them and would pocket the difference. This would mean that those who made less money would end up having to pay for their own care.

Confirmation Bias

It’s not usual or intended for this blog to be of religious topics, but since these modest* words may be considered in other lights, I’ll let it pass.

But as I was saying, there are times where you have an epiphany, even if that word is to grand for the experience you had. It could be so minor as the recollection of a sin or grudge long forgotten but remembered in the midst of the Lord’s prayer. It could be something truly modest which confirms your belief.

Yet as you dwell on the issue for a moment you remember the confirmation bias; that what you look for is what you find, not because it’s true, but because that’s what you see. And for a moment you have doubts as to whether your experience was noteworthy at all.

Well, I’d just like to mention that the bias works both ways. While god may be seen in things he doesn’t touch, he may be ignored in things he does. If you seek to doubt an event, if you seek to find your own biases you might just confirm that those biases exist. At the end of the day; be rational. Take everything with a grain of salt, yet continue to listen none-the-less.

*Ok, the diction and prose doesn’t exactly sound like it tries to be modest. But I accidently do that when trying to be specific/true to what I mean. That doesn’t mean it works…

Reasonable Psychosis

Humans are relatively predictable beings. Although not relatively when compared to the predictability of gravity or such, they are predictable in that they respond to stimuli. As a matter of fact, when it comes to experiencing trauma as a child such as rape or abuse, their reactions are extremely predictable. This leads to the idea that, if the reactions to each and every input could be cataloged and understood, thus understanding the nurture aspect, and similarly for the biological nature of men, then every action of man could be understood entirely and he thereby entirely be controlled through stimuli imposed by others.

After all, that is the direct result of understanding; control. As the study of science and physics masters the physical world, so does the study of man’s reason master man. But this I feel cannot be done, because as we see with many, there is this great thing called psychosis. Where one’s actions are predicted and their outcomes therefor under the control of another, the benefit of reason is lost. When reason fights reason, the more capable always win. They are able to predict the actions of the other. But when reason is objected to, and when it is thrown away, the opponent loses his edge. Where the weak are by definition disadvantaged, the selective use of psychosis, allows for them to negate the effectiveness of the powerful’s logic.

When you act illogically, and i don’t mean as a predictable response to te inability to act otherwise, but truely illogically, when you have no reason to harm yourself and yet do, and take risks which provide yourself no benifit, when you take the less likely course, not because you think your enemey won’t, but simply because.. rather just simply. You gain a 50:50 chance. If he, by knowing you, knows your actions, then you are destine to fail. But if you remove from your own hands, from his hands, from logic’s hands, the ability to decide, when appropriate, you create a chance where none existed.

Hello World!

Hi, welcome to my new blog. I’ve decided that rather than have a jumbled mess of blog entries, some of a personal and others of a political nature, all intermixed together, I’ll just set this one up; plus it offers the benefit of allowing for exporting so I can later shift to personal hosting if necessary. Anyway, if you’re interested in my personal blog check it out: blog.myspace.com/mygodarethereanynamesleft

I’ll also note that every blog before this one has been transfered over, so the actual dates of writing differ ranging from December 2005 to just recently. Chronological order, however, has been mantained while skipping un-related posts.

on friendship

Everyone knows what friendship is. I’m in no peculiar position to lecture others on the nature of friendship. Indeed my perspective is just that, and is apt to miss much of that which other perspectives may clearly see. But in the nature friendship, of literally having one another’s back, I feel it is important to let others know what I see so that, as a community, a complete outlook may be had.

For me, friendship is talking to another guy; on the phone, on the verge of tears, for 2 hours, without anyone calling you gay. It is having one another’s back. It is meaningful; not just in that it carries the weight of others support, but that it carries the weight of other’s respect and reputation. Unlike family, friends may be chosen. You are not born into them and throughout life many may, as with family, come to let you down.

But it is for this reason that you are judged by the company you keep; for no wise man would knowingly keep company with scoundrels. Indeed, doing so would subject him to the danger of being their next victim; whether intended or not, and with this the case, it may be presumed that those who keep company with scoundrels either support their actions or are ignorant thereto.

Now of course, we are imperfect beings and are destine to commit wrong at some point. That said, humanity can only excuse so many actions, and the severity and frequency must be taken into account when judging whether an individual is good company. Yet, most importantly it is assumed that no malicious intentions were present. I mean, of course, if they were then it would be downright stupid to forgive the act. Of course, for those of whom such actions are unheard of, even fairly sever offenses may be forgiven in appropriate disapproval is displayed (and the inverse is also true).

on morality and accomplishment

to define accomplishment is most elementarily to meet goals, it implies more than mere progress. And while our society tends to assume that those goals which ought most be reached are those we set for ourselves. Yet as the books and professors clearly profess, there are many other goals which may be accomplished. There are goals and obligations which society and family and country and neighbor place upon you. There are morals and values which the church and society hand down to you, and which we supposedly have cast aside in favor of our self-determined sense of morality. Yet while these morals and goals may well be arbitrary, that is really, not a point that’s in question. Indeed that is MY very point. Who or what organization is to attribute validity and substance to the accomplishments we wish to seek? Is not the church’s morality equally arbitrary? Is it because the church claims it’s truths to be irrevocably certain? Is it because they are based on underlying principal? What if those principals are wrong? What if the value of the whole is not greater than the value of its parts? What if those parts are not quantitative? I am not a number! My value is not. You may claim I am the definition of ego, but I am society. Society exists for me. My accomplishments are not those things which others decide they want of me. My accomplishments are those things I demand of myself. If others are so disturbed by the fact that I do not live up to the obligations they hold me to then that is that. They can choose not to interact with me. They can choose to do whatever they want. In ignoring their wishes of me, I make clear exactly that. I do not want part of that society. Is my morality any less valuable than yours? I would suggest that it is not. I would expect that all men would respect one another’s morality and goals. But indeed, if you choose not to respect mine, I do not really mind; fortunately we life in a society where your beliefs do not bear any consequence on me.

Of course, if you try to change that…