Another summer without employment; this has become the archetype for me. Even when I am employed, I hold jobs with little impact upon any future career path, even though I have not had a job for 2 years now. The saddest part is that I have applied for jobs/internships for which I am actually qualified, and I probably will never hear back from those companies with a decision. Needless to say, I'm irritated.
So, why did I say it if it's needless to say? Perhaps it's necessary; I need to vent my frustration towards the total lack of opportunity for me to advance myself in some desired career in life. I'd rather not become a salesman, or a manager of a Wal-Mart, or a stock broker, even though those are the jobs I found that I was most qualified for at a recent job fair I attended. A major in political science is worth about as much as the paper on which my diploma will be printed.
What am I to do if I end up with a terrible job that lands me in a cubicle? Do I do all the grunt work, accept the alienating push of the labor forced upon me just for a measly salary with little to no prospects for my future? What the hell do I do?
I'm going to take a nap.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
An Ideology of Logic
A person's idiosyncratic ideology is formed by their experiences and socialization in life. Typically, if someone is raised in a background of poverty, they are more likely to view the world as unfair and weighed against them than someone who was brought up in relative affluence. Ideologies are always deeply entrenched because they are essentially the identity of the person in question; to question their ideology is to question their existence.
Thus, because questioning someone's ideology is construed as a personal attack, it becomes incumbent upon the individual to analyze his own beliefs based on whether or not they are grounded in fundamentally logical principles. As one would expect, almost no one willingly analyzes the root of their beliefs in an attempt to find inherent logic, and thus when confronted with an opposing ideology, the average person finds it quizzical and, in some cases, barbaric.
As with any line of logical thought, one must always analyze the premises behind the conclusion being drawn, i.e. whether or not they are fallacious.
A simple example is one's belief in government-funded social welfare programs such as social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. A belief that these programs are necessary is not necessarily rooted in altruism for-its-own-sake as many would believe, but is instead believed to be necessary because the covenant between the electorate and the government implies that the government has a standing responsibility to give a modicum of care to those who are unable to care for themselves. Some may believe in social welfare because they are naturally altruistic (though some would argue egotism, a tangential point), or some may believe in social welfare because of the belief that all people should be given a fair chance to succeed in society; others believe that ensuring the welfare of a segment of society would embolden society as a whole.
One who believes in a notion of "rugged individualism" would dismiss social welfare as enabling poor people to become slovenly and comfortable in their lives. This ideology comes with the belief in the "self-made man" and that those who want success have the means to achieve it. Essentially, this is a belief that there is a culture of poverty, in that it is a "community" of people who seek to take advantage of the social welfare system in order to continue a life of licentiousness.
Look at these two options. The one that you disagree with is likely to elicit some kind of reaction from you, which may be in the form of a facial expression, a snort, or a feeling of anger while reading it. This is perfectly natural; you are defending your viewpoint, your world. Before reading on, however, think about the position you favor, and answer these questions: From where does your belief originate? Are there overwhelming facts to support your belief? Does your belief follow a strict set of morals? If so, how are those morals defined? Why do you believe in this set of morals, i.e. why do you believe this set of morals to be superior to another?
These are tough questions to ask oneself, and it is quite understandable. My attempt here, though possibly irrelevant, was to open your mind to opposing ideologies and understand the reasoning behind them. Once the reasoning behind an opponent's ideology is understood, one's own ideology is better understood. This occurs because you would be able to parallel the underlying premises of the two ideologies. You may find, however, that you don't agree with the premises, in which case, don't blame me for anything at all. Please. I'm just a poor college student.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Thus, because questioning someone's ideology is construed as a personal attack, it becomes incumbent upon the individual to analyze his own beliefs based on whether or not they are grounded in fundamentally logical principles. As one would expect, almost no one willingly analyzes the root of their beliefs in an attempt to find inherent logic, and thus when confronted with an opposing ideology, the average person finds it quizzical and, in some cases, barbaric.
As with any line of logical thought, one must always analyze the premises behind the conclusion being drawn, i.e. whether or not they are fallacious.
A simple example is one's belief in government-funded social welfare programs such as social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. A belief that these programs are necessary is not necessarily rooted in altruism for-its-own-sake as many would believe, but is instead believed to be necessary because the covenant between the electorate and the government implies that the government has a standing responsibility to give a modicum of care to those who are unable to care for themselves. Some may believe in social welfare because they are naturally altruistic (though some would argue egotism, a tangential point), or some may believe in social welfare because of the belief that all people should be given a fair chance to succeed in society; others believe that ensuring the welfare of a segment of society would embolden society as a whole.
One who believes in a notion of "rugged individualism" would dismiss social welfare as enabling poor people to become slovenly and comfortable in their lives. This ideology comes with the belief in the "self-made man" and that those who want success have the means to achieve it. Essentially, this is a belief that there is a culture of poverty, in that it is a "community" of people who seek to take advantage of the social welfare system in order to continue a life of licentiousness.
Look at these two options. The one that you disagree with is likely to elicit some kind of reaction from you, which may be in the form of a facial expression, a snort, or a feeling of anger while reading it. This is perfectly natural; you are defending your viewpoint, your world. Before reading on, however, think about the position you favor, and answer these questions: From where does your belief originate? Are there overwhelming facts to support your belief? Does your belief follow a strict set of morals? If so, how are those morals defined? Why do you believe in this set of morals, i.e. why do you believe this set of morals to be superior to another?
These are tough questions to ask oneself, and it is quite understandable. My attempt here, though possibly irrelevant, was to open your mind to opposing ideologies and understand the reasoning behind them. Once the reasoning behind an opponent's ideology is understood, one's own ideology is better understood. This occurs because you would be able to parallel the underlying premises of the two ideologies. You may find, however, that you don't agree with the premises, in which case, don't blame me for anything at all. Please. I'm just a poor college student.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Painting Your Life
Every person, whether they realize it or not, has a central theme (called an invariant organizing principle in psychology) that runs throughout their life. It is not necessarily a theme in the sense of a movie, but rather it is a theme that dictates your predispositions in certain situations. These themes often show themselves in the work of artists or in the books of writers. Stephen King, for example, writes mostly of inanimate objects being the central antagonists of his books because, at a very young age, he witnessed a friend of his get hit by a train. He has stated that he doesn't remember the incident, but clearly it impacted his entire life.
So, I've come up with a little exercise to determine what theme runs throughout your unconscious processes. First, close your eyes. Actually, don't close your eyes yet because you have to read the rest of this. If you did close your eyes, shame on you. Close your eyes after reading this whole spiel. Anyway, close your eyes and allow your mind to wander for a minute or so. Once you feel that your mind is sufficiently meandering, imagine an empty, white room. The room can be of whatever shape your heart so desires since it is a representation of your mind. Once you see your room, paint the walls whatever color you feel most comfortable with. You don't have to paint a solid color; you could paint your own mural or a terrible drawing of a boat on water, whatever you so desire.
Once you've painted the walls, add pictures to the walls. They could be of family or artist's paintings, simple-framed or framed by the most elaborate scheme known to man. Once you have done that, populate the room with items you feel would suit YOUR room. This includes everything: furniture, technology, pets, a life-sized model of a stormtrooper, cars, snagglepuss, whatever. Finally, think of what people you would want in your room. It doesn't matter if they're dead, alive, fictional, or Justin Bieber.
If you've done this and can see your room clearly, congratulations! The color you painted your room best represents your overall character, with the pictures on the walls representing that which you most respect and/or treasure. The items in your room are your idiosyncrasies and unique characteristics, while the people are those you trust and/or care for the most.
There, I've just told you how to be introspective. I think you owe me 5 bucks. If this didn't work for you, there is another exercise you can do: find random images, not ones you've searched for, and write short 200-400 word stories about them. The stories should include what happened in the picture, what is happening, and what is going to happen. Write, say, 10 of them, and read them over to find a theme. Give them to friends, family, your dog to eat, whomever you so desire, and ask them to see if they could find a theme.
If that didn't work for you either, then go draw or paint something. If you lack the artistic ability to do either of those things, I'm not sure why you've been reading up to this point anyway. Stop it. Seriously, stop reading. There is nothing more for you here. If you are continuing to read this regardless of what I have previously typed, I believe that you have too much leisure time on your hands. Get a hobby. I have heard that baseball cards are becoming worthwhile again.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
So, I've come up with a little exercise to determine what theme runs throughout your unconscious processes. First, close your eyes. Actually, don't close your eyes yet because you have to read the rest of this. If you did close your eyes, shame on you. Close your eyes after reading this whole spiel. Anyway, close your eyes and allow your mind to wander for a minute or so. Once you feel that your mind is sufficiently meandering, imagine an empty, white room. The room can be of whatever shape your heart so desires since it is a representation of your mind. Once you see your room, paint the walls whatever color you feel most comfortable with. You don't have to paint a solid color; you could paint your own mural or a terrible drawing of a boat on water, whatever you so desire.
Once you've painted the walls, add pictures to the walls. They could be of family or artist's paintings, simple-framed or framed by the most elaborate scheme known to man. Once you have done that, populate the room with items you feel would suit YOUR room. This includes everything: furniture, technology, pets, a life-sized model of a stormtrooper, cars, snagglepuss, whatever. Finally, think of what people you would want in your room. It doesn't matter if they're dead, alive, fictional, or Justin Bieber.
If you've done this and can see your room clearly, congratulations! The color you painted your room best represents your overall character, with the pictures on the walls representing that which you most respect and/or treasure. The items in your room are your idiosyncrasies and unique characteristics, while the people are those you trust and/or care for the most.
There, I've just told you how to be introspective. I think you owe me 5 bucks. If this didn't work for you, there is another exercise you can do: find random images, not ones you've searched for, and write short 200-400 word stories about them. The stories should include what happened in the picture, what is happening, and what is going to happen. Write, say, 10 of them, and read them over to find a theme. Give them to friends, family, your dog to eat, whomever you so desire, and ask them to see if they could find a theme.
If that didn't work for you either, then go draw or paint something. If you lack the artistic ability to do either of those things, I'm not sure why you've been reading up to this point anyway. Stop it. Seriously, stop reading. There is nothing more for you here. If you are continuing to read this regardless of what I have previously typed, I believe that you have too much leisure time on your hands. Get a hobby. I have heard that baseball cards are becoming worthwhile again.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Monday, May 2, 2011
Reactions
I didn't dare to open a newspaper today. Not a single one drew my interest. I already knew the gist, and I don't care for the finer details. No two papers had the same headline, but they all screamed the same nauseating exuberance of a false victory. Some were a bit more explicit, as with the New York Post's "Got Him! Vengeance at Last! US Finally Nails the Bastard!", or the New York Times' hilariously objective "Bin Laden Killed By US Forces In Pakistan, Obama Says, Declaring Justice Has Been Done." I didn't read any article today. I simply didn't want to. I didn't want to read about the minutiae of planning the operation while coordinating with all the relative intelligence agencies, or reactions from Congress, or anything diverting attention away from the reaction of the American people. How are we to feel?
If I were anyone else reading this post, I would snort haughtily and say "I'm to feel incredible! A blow for justice in the world has been dealt, and we are now vindicated!", but I'm not anyone else. I can't celebrate death, even in the taking of someone described as "enemy number 1." I can't, and I won't. A man was killed who, believe it or not, was fighting for his convictions and his way of life, however strange that way of life would seem when juxtaposed with ours. Here was a man who witnessed American and Israeli forces killing Lebanese civilians without so much as a second thought, and so to him, his actions were justified. Above all, he was a man, not a monster.
To him, the United States was the monster. It was a monster constituted of avarice and disregard for human life, one composed of demons and only a modicum of respectable people. He was not evil, he was not, as a rather ignorant classmate of mine so eagerly spouted today, a "dirtbag," and he was not so different from every American in the wake of 9/11. His unfortunate experiences colored his perspective on life, just like our experience did for us. If you cannot understand that, I express my condolences.
Turning someone into an object is easy; all it takes is a certain disregard for their past and their personality. It requires a lack of empathy and understanding that is so easy to elicit when in times of duress, as we are so eager to ease the pain of any inflicted wound.
To celebrate the killing of an enemy is to condone death to those we deem as "enemies." Could this lead to a belief that the world is monochromatic, that everything is simply good and evil and that we are always on the side of righteousness? I don't know. Somehow, I'd rather not find out.
That's all.
If I were anyone else reading this post, I would snort haughtily and say "I'm to feel incredible! A blow for justice in the world has been dealt, and we are now vindicated!", but I'm not anyone else. I can't celebrate death, even in the taking of someone described as "enemy number 1." I can't, and I won't. A man was killed who, believe it or not, was fighting for his convictions and his way of life, however strange that way of life would seem when juxtaposed with ours. Here was a man who witnessed American and Israeli forces killing Lebanese civilians without so much as a second thought, and so to him, his actions were justified. Above all, he was a man, not a monster.
To him, the United States was the monster. It was a monster constituted of avarice and disregard for human life, one composed of demons and only a modicum of respectable people. He was not evil, he was not, as a rather ignorant classmate of mine so eagerly spouted today, a "dirtbag," and he was not so different from every American in the wake of 9/11. His unfortunate experiences colored his perspective on life, just like our experience did for us. If you cannot understand that, I express my condolences.
Turning someone into an object is easy; all it takes is a certain disregard for their past and their personality. It requires a lack of empathy and understanding that is so easy to elicit when in times of duress, as we are so eager to ease the pain of any inflicted wound.
To celebrate the killing of an enemy is to condone death to those we deem as "enemies." Could this lead to a belief that the world is monochromatic, that everything is simply good and evil and that we are always on the side of righteousness? I don't know. Somehow, I'd rather not find out.
That's all.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Death of Bin Laden
I decided to interrupt my intense (/hyperbole) studying to talk about this most recent and surprising development: Osama bin Laden, the most wanted man in the world for the last 10 years, has been killed by United States operatives in Pakistan. I'd just like to say that it doesn't matter. (Read on before you decide to vilify me.)
Osama Bin Laden, contrary to popular belief, was a reasonable man. No, I do not condone terrorist attacks, but I understood Bin Laden's reasoning behind his malice towards the United States. For a bit of historical context (very brief), Bin Laden hated the United States (and, of course Israel) because of their involvement in supporting Israel in the first Lebanon War (in 1982). Nearly 18,000 Lebanese civilians were killed by Israeli forces, and the United States never chastised Israel for the massacre. Thus, during this war, in Bin Laden's eyes, the United States and Israel declared war on Islam.
Some may choose to bring up the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and how the CIA financed the Mujahideen as to the US' "friendly relations" with Bin Laden; this is an example of Sun Tzu's "enemy of my enemy is my friend" axiom. The Soviet Union was the immediate threat, and in Bin Laden's view of Sharia Law, defense of the Islamic state (in this case, Afghanistan) was of the utmost priority. Bin Laden was by no means stupid.
Of course, nearly all those in the US who have barely paid attention to news and past history will trumpet the name of the United States, brandishing flags and nationalistic pride unto every orifice of the country. I choose not to celebrate the death of anyone, even an enemy, especially an enemy made out of the policies of my own home country. It is hubris at its worst, a kind of arrogance that will ultimately be the downfall of any person, as many will feel indestructible, believing that vengeance has been enacted against a man who plotted what he believed was justified retaliation. In this hubris, we doom ourselves to a self-fulfilling prophecy: we ignore history, we ignore contexts, and instead we only choose to see ourselves as inviolable and blindingly moral. Yes, an "enemy" of the US was killed, yes, this invokes a sense of victory, but do not be so ignorant as to believe that this is the end.
Because of Bin Laden's retaliation, George Bush launched his own sort of retaliation into not one but two Islamic countries; he reinforced US support of Israel and their oppression of Palestine, furthering the image of the US as anti-Islam; he doomed thousands upon thousands of people to death, blaming all of it on terrorism rather than accepting the consequences of past actions. What would have been a just retaliation against Bin Laden after 9/11? I don't know, but certainly invading 2 countries would not be it.
Many will cheer. FOX will tout the policies of the Bush-era as the main factor contributing towards Bin Laden's death, while others will likely discuss the CIA's missions and their logistics, expeditions, etc.; none of that really matters. Bin Laden was a symbolic figure, largely given the entirety of the blame for an attack that killed 3,000 US citizens. He was a scapegoat, and I do concede the symbolic victory for the United States in this action, but a victory it is not; a death does not a victory make.
We must accept that there will always be those who do not agree with government policies towards the Middle East (largely in its affirmation of Israel's statehood), and we must accept the consequences of the actions that those policies create. It is difficult not to desire vengeance, not to desire to have a declared enemy's body hanging from a town square, not to desire to kill every single supporter of those who support our declared enemy; however, we must always realize that we may actually create our own enemy without the common knowledge of citizens, and perhaps it would be best to reflect on that possibility before engaging in bloodthirsty retribution.
I suppose that's my position on all this brouhaha. It's not popular and it's not the same chest-thumping nationalistic attitude that many will brandish in the wake of this event. I don't celebrate death. I don't celebrate vengeance. I don't celebrate hubris.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Osama Bin Laden, contrary to popular belief, was a reasonable man. No, I do not condone terrorist attacks, but I understood Bin Laden's reasoning behind his malice towards the United States. For a bit of historical context (very brief), Bin Laden hated the United States (and, of course Israel) because of their involvement in supporting Israel in the first Lebanon War (in 1982). Nearly 18,000 Lebanese civilians were killed by Israeli forces, and the United States never chastised Israel for the massacre. Thus, during this war, in Bin Laden's eyes, the United States and Israel declared war on Islam.
Some may choose to bring up the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and how the CIA financed the Mujahideen as to the US' "friendly relations" with Bin Laden; this is an example of Sun Tzu's "enemy of my enemy is my friend" axiom. The Soviet Union was the immediate threat, and in Bin Laden's view of Sharia Law, defense of the Islamic state (in this case, Afghanistan) was of the utmost priority. Bin Laden was by no means stupid.
Of course, nearly all those in the US who have barely paid attention to news and past history will trumpet the name of the United States, brandishing flags and nationalistic pride unto every orifice of the country. I choose not to celebrate the death of anyone, even an enemy, especially an enemy made out of the policies of my own home country. It is hubris at its worst, a kind of arrogance that will ultimately be the downfall of any person, as many will feel indestructible, believing that vengeance has been enacted against a man who plotted what he believed was justified retaliation. In this hubris, we doom ourselves to a self-fulfilling prophecy: we ignore history, we ignore contexts, and instead we only choose to see ourselves as inviolable and blindingly moral. Yes, an "enemy" of the US was killed, yes, this invokes a sense of victory, but do not be so ignorant as to believe that this is the end.
Because of Bin Laden's retaliation, George Bush launched his own sort of retaliation into not one but two Islamic countries; he reinforced US support of Israel and their oppression of Palestine, furthering the image of the US as anti-Islam; he doomed thousands upon thousands of people to death, blaming all of it on terrorism rather than accepting the consequences of past actions. What would have been a just retaliation against Bin Laden after 9/11? I don't know, but certainly invading 2 countries would not be it.
Many will cheer. FOX will tout the policies of the Bush-era as the main factor contributing towards Bin Laden's death, while others will likely discuss the CIA's missions and their logistics, expeditions, etc.; none of that really matters. Bin Laden was a symbolic figure, largely given the entirety of the blame for an attack that killed 3,000 US citizens. He was a scapegoat, and I do concede the symbolic victory for the United States in this action, but a victory it is not; a death does not a victory make.
We must accept that there will always be those who do not agree with government policies towards the Middle East (largely in its affirmation of Israel's statehood), and we must accept the consequences of the actions that those policies create. It is difficult not to desire vengeance, not to desire to have a declared enemy's body hanging from a town square, not to desire to kill every single supporter of those who support our declared enemy; however, we must always realize that we may actually create our own enemy without the common knowledge of citizens, and perhaps it would be best to reflect on that possibility before engaging in bloodthirsty retribution.
I suppose that's my position on all this brouhaha. It's not popular and it's not the same chest-thumping nationalistic attitude that many will brandish in the wake of this event. I don't celebrate death. I don't celebrate vengeance. I don't celebrate hubris.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)