Posts
The New Zealand Parliament last week redecorated one of its Select Committee rooms (where MPs go to chat with members of the public about bills and whatnot) to reflect the positive contribution that New Zealand's 'Rainbow' community had made to New Zealand society. I'm not surprised if the opening of the 'Rainbow Room', which joins other rooms dedicated to minority groups in NZ society including women, Pacific peoples, Maori and Asians, failed to register on your news radar. After all, last week was also a week where American Banks realised they didn't have any money any more, where Thabo Mbeki was turfed out of the South African presidency to make room for Jacob 'Showers after sex cure AIDS' Zuma, and John McCain finally went senile. This Rainbow Room will hardly be noticed by anyone, in the world ever. It is the smallest of very small steps in recognising that LBGTI New Zealanders enjoy full citizenship in our country. Given that the New Zealand Parliament only recognised that deciding to say 'I LIKE PEOPLE WITH THE SAME GENITALIA AS ME', wasn't a crime against God and decency about 22 years ago, and only decided in 2004 that it was all good for a man to be buried next to the man he loved, I would have sympathised with the Rainbow Community if they had of compared the opening of the Rainbow Room to giving a litre of housepaint to someone who lost their home in Hurrican Katrina. Surely, a much more effective gesture would have been a campaign in primary schools to get small chidren to not use 'gay' as a swearword.
BUUUT, despite my grumblings about Tokenism, I still think that the opening of the Rainbow Room is a positive step forward for the Queer community in New Zealand. In essence the NZ Government is saying 'look, we know we persecuted you guys for your lifestyle choices in the past, and we know that we denied you guys rights that you as citizens were entitled because of your lifestyle choice. We are deeply sorry for this, so here is a small token to honour your contribution to society and to say that never again will your legitimacy as full citizens be compromised'. And I think that I would be correct in saying, if you take the hateful, spiteful Muppets of Richard Lewis's 'Family Party' out of the equation (and I wish I could), that the vast majority of New Zealanders would recognise the legitimate claims to citizenship that the Rainbow Community have. (This does not mean that all New Zealanders morally agree with all aspects of their lifestyles, but there is agreement that Rainbow New Zealands should not be persecuted for living this way).
Which is why I was surprised with the readers comments on this article . It seems that New Zealanders did have a problem with the Rainbow Room for two very different, quite baseless reasons.
The first reason was that 'ZOMG, Inflation has hit 5% and there is a war in Georghanistaraq - Now isn't the time to worry about silly little things like rooms for trannies'. It seems to be a common argument, especially amongst the right, that issues of citizenship do not carry nearly as much policy weight as important stuff like the economy and defence. The idea is that stuff will be dealt with in due course, but lets wait for a day when Parliament doesn't have anything else to do. Like maybe one day when it is raining. My response to this is that issues take on a differing levels of importance depending on your proximity and effect to them. That's why I'm way more excited about debates about a universal student allowance than my Grandma is, and why my Grandma is more worried about the rising price of spinach, starch and cat food than I am. For a straight, white Anglo-Saxon male like me and John Key, of course the issue of gay rights takes a back seat to pocketbook issues. But when your rights as a citizen are fundamentally limited because the goverment has decided that YOU are unacceptable to them, then not being discrimated against becomes fundamentally important. The Rainbow Room, for homosexuals who were forced to hide their homosexuality from the law prior to 1986, is an expression that those dark days will never come again and is the culmination of a long fight.
The second responseI found on the Stuff article, was more troubling. It was the view espoused by many heterosexual white males that if there was a room for gays, a room for Asians, and a room for chicks, why couldnt they have a room too? And on that note, Why couldnt there be a room which celebrated the nuclear, 2 parents - 2 kids family? I have two responses to this. My first is that Im sure if there was sufficient public interest in getting a 'family room' or a 'Barry Crump memorial room', Parliament would act on these wishes. But the fact there isn't, and hasn't been sorta reflects the fact why there shouldnt be a room at all. My second response is that all select committee rooms reflect parliamentary recognition of the contribution of groups in society that were previously discriminated against by law. Samoan families were raided in the seventies. Chinese had to pay a poll tax. Maori land was confiscated. Women couldnt vote. Homosexuality was once illegal. White heterosexual males have not been discrimated against by law, the law in fact for much of history has been based on the moral valuations of white heterosexual males - and what they do or do not find distasteful. While a 'male room' may satisfy the strictest definition of equality, it is a slap in the face to groups that have suffered past discrimination and compromises attempts to redress this.
So we should salute the Rainbow Room, and the statement it makes about the progressive values of New Zealand. To do otherwise - well, as my little sister would say...its a bit 'gay' of you, really.
A “Relations” 3-part Series - Part 1: On Women
Prefatory note: I’ve decided to do a series of posts that share a theme; this one and the next two. I was a little reluctant to do this, partly because I’m concern that I’ll be misinterpreted (in what I say or even about why I’m saying it). But I think, or at least hope, that that won’t happen.
"Despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, I have not yet been able to answer the great question that has never been answered: What does a woman want?" (Sigmund Freud)
When I was in the 5th grade, Carla C. said she loved me. Ever since women have thrown me for a loop. I’ve tried figuring them out on my own; I’ve turned to other guys; I’ve turned to girls; I’ve even tried the media – everything from books like ‘Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus’ to shows like ‘Sex and the City’. But, despite my efforts, I’m still no closer to figuring women out or how I should to relate to them. Chicks do and say things that are sometimes just surprising; things that I wouldn’t have done were I “in her shoes”. Now I think I’m already walking a fine line here. I can already imagine some girls starting to say things like: “you can’t generalize like that! It’s not women, it’s just individual people! Oh, and don’t call us chicks!” Well, sure. Some of the most reasonable people I know are girls; not everyone’s going to fit the mold. But I think I can still justifiably make sweeping generalizations (of the kind I want to make). I’m not being sexist or misogynistic here; my intent is the farthest thing for that. What I’m not saying is that women are irrational or whatever; what I am saying is that we (i.e. men and women) are, in certain ways, unsure about each other. And so what I want to try to accomplish here is: provide an account for why there (still) exists today a disparity between men and women; why there’s heaps of literature like ‘Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus’ and why so much of comedy is grounded on the differences between us.
Having said that, I can only speculate as to how things were between men and women before feminism (e.g. romantically, socially, professionally). But I’d imagine things were less confusing; people must have been, generally, clear on what to expect. Back then there were pretty clearly defined gender roles. As far as I’m aware, before feminism, there were also generally accepted social conventions which governed most of the different ways men and women related to each other. These conventions were commonly understood and, at the time, accepted. While some of those conventions or norms were unfair or inappropriate, men and women at least knew what was what. Feminism changed everything. First-wave feminism (as in, bra burning plus equality for women) destroyed the majority of these expectations and conventions, to the benefit of women and society at large. But a lot of those gains were largely eroded by the effects of second-wave feminism (as in, consensual sex between a man and a women, where the woman wasn’t the initiator, promotes the subjection of women… oh, and so does failing to spell women ‘womyn’). And even though there has been progress since then, there largely remains a gulf between the sexes: neither men nor women are sure about what to expect from the other sex or what constitutes appropriate behavior. At the core, this is why I think men and women often struggle to understand and effectively related to one another.
So our current environment is one which lacks clear and commonly accepted (and deemed acceptable) ways for men and women to relate to each other. The olde-time values are often asserted, not exclusively by religion, while the benefits sought by our cultural changes in the late 20th century are ambiguously stressed. Yet those ideologies are constantly conflicting with each other in that which indoctrinates our thinking: the old are as they ever were (reflected in Barbie dolls and in how some colors identified as being gender specific) while the new are commercialized and bastardized (through things like Dove’s ‘Campaign for Real Beauty’). The result is that we’re left without an understanding of what are reasonable expectations and acceptable ways to behave; people are struggling to relate to everyone qua person, rather than qua man or qua woman. The problem is compounded by people who feel justified in being hyper-sensitive under the banner of political correctness. The challenge we face is where to go from here. This relational problem, I think, will persist until we figure that out. Of course not all possible solutions are worthwhile. For instance a universal socially androgynous world might sound perfect but it’s unrealistically overly ideal and, I believe, a sour apple; it looks good in principle, but would be disappointing were we to have it.
Take special note, though, that I’m not presenting or discussing what feminism is, what it sought to accomplish, or whatever. All I’m doing is pointing out one of its effects: a vacuum between the sexes; a foundation of confusion. Ultimately, what I’m saying here is that we presently lack a proper understanding of how we should act around one another. And without that men and women aren’t equipped to understand or know what to expect from each other. This current state of affairs is why, I believe, women throw me for a loop at every turn. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.
A Sexual Position.
I realise my posts have been pretty heavy lately, showing videos of comedians crying, anguishing at the downfall of the American dream and the Palinbomb that threatens to scuttle my Obamadream. I guess I was scared that with the world ending and what-not, I needed to throw out some evidence that showed God, or Buddha or Captain Planet or whoever is in charge of the afterlife that I was a witty and opinionated kid that could really spruce things up around heaven. Anyway, long story short, the Large Hadron Collider is undergoing repairs (apparently some helium spilit) - so as I am freed from fearing my imminent destruction I can talk about what I've been wanting to talk about all along. Hookers.
Prostitution was legalised in New Zealand in 2003. It was pretty damn contentious when it was passed - cast, predicately, as a struggle of traditional morality against the progressive and dangerous forces of change. Arguments against the bill went something along the lines of 'It will undermine family values !! What will we legalise next- public parades with topless women in our streets! Will somebody please think of the children!!' Even in 2008, our media seems to get pretty excited everytime someone in a position of 'moral authority' is found to be moonlighting as a sex worker, and uses regulation government announcements about increased funding for tertiary education courses that reflect the job market to make banner headlines that scream 'ZOMG! THEYRE GOING TO FUND PROSTITUTE CLASS!!!1!', But to the best of my knowledge, New Zealand still exists - God has not smited us in a South-Pacific Sodom Style Smackdown. It isn't the job of the state to regulate the moral code of society and attempt to objectively determine what 'values' are good for all its citizens. The job of the state, in my view, is to ensure that all citizens are equipped with enough basic resources to be able to do what they damn well please. (or live according to their own conception of the good life, depending upon how lyrical I want to wax).
But arguments about the legality of prostitution should never be about whether it fits into an ethical or theological framework. This war over values, I think, detracted from the debate and lead to a law that is ultimately wrong and prevents our state from fufilling its other duty - to protect its members (no pun intended) from harm.
My biggest problem is that prostitution, in being legalised as a business, has been effectively lumped into the category of just another business. Therefore, as a business, prostitution is simply just a normal transaction between two fully informed fully consenting parties - just supply and demand, baby! I, a consumer, want bread -so I go to a baker and purchase bread at a price that she is willing to sell and where Im happy to buy. I, a consumer, want sex - so I go to a prostitute and purchase the use of her body at a price that she is willing to sell that I am willing to buy.
In most cases though, prostitution is not a case where both the buyer and seller in the transaction have the same level of 'choice'. While the buyer has made a decision that he/she have enough money, time and want to go out and pay money for a blowjob, the prostitute themselves is often someone who is forced into it through need to get money, often to raise a child, and has very little economic opportunites elsewhere. When kids are 5, they want to be astronauts or actors or firefighters or ponies. What they dont generally want to do is grow up and work in an industry where they, night after night, put themselves at the risk of a hideous STD and are forced to give up their bodily autonomy to some sweaty 350-pound, 44-year old Warhammer playing nymphomanic with a skin condition. People don't generally choose to be prostitutes for the lifestyle. They do it because they need the money.
Of course, the obvious response is 'well yeah, but people end up doing jobs that they dont like, or dont want to do, all the time, and the only reason they work those jobs is cos the money is so good, and they need that money to live. its called capitalism, u hippie.' Taking aside the unfairness of people like me being able to come to university cos Daddy had a bit of money stored in his mattress, and fuck around learning about Hegel's concept of geist, while people who didnt have the good fortune to have successful parents get to clean my toilet...this response just doesnt really work when it comes to prostitution. Sex is not a loaf of bread, or a sparkling toilet. (anyone who wants to make an appropriate metaphor linking all three things will be bought a beer, however.) It's different. It's different, because while all jobs require us to give up a right of freedom of movement, prostitution requires us to give up one of the most fundamental rights bestowed upon us - the right to bodily autonomy. The right that we do not allow any others to violate without our total free consent, and punish breaches of this right to bodily autonomy with our criminal justice system. I can't touch you - unless you tell me that I can. I can't kill and eat you - even if you asked me really,really nicely. And most crucially - I can't give you one of my kidneys in return for financial compensation, because we say that money is not something that can be valid consideration for the violation of this fundamental, incontestable right.
Yet, we're sweet about the routine violation of bodily autonomy the comes with the sex trade. To the point where, given that we have legitimized it as a profession, we would rather that young, vulnerable women (and men) are forced to subject themselves to the dangers of the job and the inability to choose who they give up the right of bodily autonomy too, instead of them signing onto a state-sponsored program of unemployment welfare. After all, our society looks down on the unemployed who 'bludge' off the tax dollars of hard working, employed citizens, when there is clearly work available in the labour market....
Prostitution forces the prostitute to give up the right of bodily autonomy in pursuit of the mighty dollar. Given the dangers that it subjects to the supplier, I do not believe it should be legitimized as a profession. But, that is not to say I am a fan of joining Pope-Bishop-ArchCardinal Tamaki and the loonies of Destiny Church (NZ's equivalent of the American evangelical movement) in calling for a return to the dark days of where a prostitute who was severely beaten and raped could not show up to the police station because she or he would be arrested on account of her job choice. So I'm going to suggest something quite controversial...that we recriminalise prostitution in New Zealand. BUT, when we convict people for the crime - we only convict the buyer. After all, the buyer in this transaction is the only person making a truly free and independant choice, not a choice subject to economic circumstances. So...even if there is a supply of prostitutes readily available (as there inevitably will be, no matter how many Merrill Lynch's collapse there will always be someone keen to be lynched by prostitutes, who may or may not be named Meryl - whether prostitution is legal or illegal, there are always people who will work for the money), the demander in the economic relationship knows they face criminal prosecution if they are caught. And the prostitute who is attacked by her client is able to seek appropriate justice in a court of law, without facing prosecution themselves.
This argument is probably filled with many holes, as I wrote this fairly quickly and its 2:17am. But I'd be pretty interested to get some debate going amongst both the readers of 'A word on failure' so let me know what you think.
And sorry for taking all the fun out of sex.
Alex
Prostitution was legalised in New Zealand in 2003. It was pretty damn contentious when it was passed - cast, predicately, as a struggle of traditional morality against the progressive and dangerous forces of change. Arguments against the bill went something along the lines of 'It will undermine family values !! What will we legalise next- public parades with topless women in our streets! Will somebody please think of the children!!' Even in 2008, our media seems to get pretty excited everytime someone in a position of 'moral authority' is found to be moonlighting as a sex worker, and uses regulation government announcements about increased funding for tertiary education courses that reflect the job market to make banner headlines that scream 'ZOMG! THEYRE GOING TO FUND PROSTITUTE CLASS!!!1!', But to the best of my knowledge, New Zealand still exists - God has not smited us in a South-Pacific Sodom Style Smackdown. It isn't the job of the state to regulate the moral code of society and attempt to objectively determine what 'values' are good for all its citizens. The job of the state, in my view, is to ensure that all citizens are equipped with enough basic resources to be able to do what they damn well please. (or live according to their own conception of the good life, depending upon how lyrical I want to wax).
But arguments about the legality of prostitution should never be about whether it fits into an ethical or theological framework. This war over values, I think, detracted from the debate and lead to a law that is ultimately wrong and prevents our state from fufilling its other duty - to protect its members (no pun intended) from harm.
My biggest problem is that prostitution, in being legalised as a business, has been effectively lumped into the category of just another business. Therefore, as a business, prostitution is simply just a normal transaction between two fully informed fully consenting parties - just supply and demand, baby! I, a consumer, want bread -so I go to a baker and purchase bread at a price that she is willing to sell and where Im happy to buy. I, a consumer, want sex - so I go to a prostitute and purchase the use of her body at a price that she is willing to sell that I am willing to buy.
In most cases though, prostitution is not a case where both the buyer and seller in the transaction have the same level of 'choice'. While the buyer has made a decision that he/she have enough money, time and want to go out and pay money for a blowjob, the prostitute themselves is often someone who is forced into it through need to get money, often to raise a child, and has very little economic opportunites elsewhere. When kids are 5, they want to be astronauts or actors or firefighters or ponies. What they dont generally want to do is grow up and work in an industry where they, night after night, put themselves at the risk of a hideous STD and are forced to give up their bodily autonomy to some sweaty 350-pound, 44-year old Warhammer playing nymphomanic with a skin condition. People don't generally choose to be prostitutes for the lifestyle. They do it because they need the money.
Of course, the obvious response is 'well yeah, but people end up doing jobs that they dont like, or dont want to do, all the time, and the only reason they work those jobs is cos the money is so good, and they need that money to live. its called capitalism, u hippie.' Taking aside the unfairness of people like me being able to come to university cos Daddy had a bit of money stored in his mattress, and fuck around learning about Hegel's concept of geist, while people who didnt have the good fortune to have successful parents get to clean my toilet...this response just doesnt really work when it comes to prostitution. Sex is not a loaf of bread, or a sparkling toilet. (anyone who wants to make an appropriate metaphor linking all three things will be bought a beer, however.) It's different. It's different, because while all jobs require us to give up a right of freedom of movement, prostitution requires us to give up one of the most fundamental rights bestowed upon us - the right to bodily autonomy. The right that we do not allow any others to violate without our total free consent, and punish breaches of this right to bodily autonomy with our criminal justice system. I can't touch you - unless you tell me that I can. I can't kill and eat you - even if you asked me really,really nicely. And most crucially - I can't give you one of my kidneys in return for financial compensation, because we say that money is not something that can be valid consideration for the violation of this fundamental, incontestable right.
Yet, we're sweet about the routine violation of bodily autonomy the comes with the sex trade. To the point where, given that we have legitimized it as a profession, we would rather that young, vulnerable women (and men) are forced to subject themselves to the dangers of the job and the inability to choose who they give up the right of bodily autonomy too, instead of them signing onto a state-sponsored program of unemployment welfare. After all, our society looks down on the unemployed who 'bludge' off the tax dollars of hard working, employed citizens, when there is clearly work available in the labour market....
Prostitution forces the prostitute to give up the right of bodily autonomy in pursuit of the mighty dollar. Given the dangers that it subjects to the supplier, I do not believe it should be legitimized as a profession. But, that is not to say I am a fan of joining Pope-Bishop-ArchCardinal Tamaki and the loonies of Destiny Church (NZ's equivalent of the American evangelical movement) in calling for a return to the dark days of where a prostitute who was severely beaten and raped could not show up to the police station because she or he would be arrested on account of her job choice. So I'm going to suggest something quite controversial...that we recriminalise prostitution in New Zealand. BUT, when we convict people for the crime - we only convict the buyer. After all, the buyer in this transaction is the only person making a truly free and independant choice, not a choice subject to economic circumstances. So...even if there is a supply of prostitutes readily available (as there inevitably will be, no matter how many Merrill Lynch's collapse there will always be someone keen to be lynched by prostitutes, who may or may not be named Meryl - whether prostitution is legal or illegal, there are always people who will work for the money), the demander in the economic relationship knows they face criminal prosecution if they are caught. And the prostitute who is attacked by her client is able to seek appropriate justice in a court of law, without facing prosecution themselves.
This argument is probably filled with many holes, as I wrote this fairly quickly and its 2:17am. But I'd be pretty interested to get some debate going amongst both the readers of 'A word on failure' so let me know what you think.
And sorry for taking all the fun out of sex.
Alex
In Praise of Experimentation
“How much can you know about yourself if you've never been in a fight?” (Tyler Durden, ‘Fight Club’)
Most of us love to try new things. As we should. Nevertheless some of us are more willing to take a walk on the wild side than others. Today I’m going to say why we should, generally, be more open to experimenting. I’m going to do that by painting a picture; and when conditions I describe below are met, I’d say you should just do it.
So, take Betty. Betty’s a pretty open and curious girl. She’s as adventurous as I think people should be; she’s done a lot of stuff and, in the process, learnt a lot about herself and society. While some of the stuff she’s done has ended up having detrimental effects in her life, she’s content since she knows that her experiences have made her a more complete and well-rounded person. But there’s stuff she hasn’t done; stuff I don’t think she should do. For example Betty’s never done any illegal drugs. Why? Because she’s never been interested in, or curious about, drug consumption; she lacks the requisite desire about it that’s necessary for her to consider doing it. As such, she shouldn’t experiment with drugs. The fact that she hasn’t done it isn’t sufficient for her to ought to do it; you shouldn’t try something just for the sake of trying it. For it to be the case that you ought to try something, you need to want to try it. That’s the key standard that needs to be met: if you’re curious about something, interested in seeing what it’s like, or whatever, you should do it.
Even when that standard’s been met, though, there are times when you still shouldn’t try something. Specifically, when you have a major deterrent to trying it. So, returning to Betty, she’s also never been in a brawl and she’s curious about what it’s like to fight someone. Here I’d say that she shouldn’t do it because she has a major deterrent: the harm that would be caused to others. But not every reason for not trying something qualifies as a major deterrent. There are also minor deterrents. No number of minor deterrents is sufficient reason for not trying something you want to try. An example of a minor deterrent might be, say, being worried about what others will think. So, if Betty has a friend, Jimmy, who enjoys being in fights the harm-to-others concern wouldn’t count as a major deterrent. Sure, it might still be a minor deterrent since it’s bad to hurt other people, but were Betty to want to fight Jimmy that wouldn’t be enough to prevent them from throwing some punches (since he won’t mind fighting her). Get it?
Figuring out when a concern or inhibition is a minor, rather than major, deterrent is the tricky bit. While it’s better to err on the side of caution, we can still be reasonably clear on where to draw the line. Thinking of an arbitrary objective standard might be the best means of figuring this out; Maybe a la a Rawlsian-esque Original Position: determine if a concern is major or minor from a position wherein you don’t know anything about yourself, you just know what you’re interested in trying and what the possible deterrent is – like if a stranger was considering trying that thing and had that concern, would you think she should try it anyway? (That’s a very ad hoc solution to this indeterminacy problem and, I’ll admit, I’m not sure how well it’ll hold up under scrutiny.)
Really, what I’m arguing for here is a slightly stronger position than I think most people have. Here I’m saying that, unless you’re either not interested/curious about trying something or have a major disincentive for doing it, you ought to do it. It’s through experimentation that you learn more about yourself; what you like, what you don’t like. And it’s one of the better ways to be able to form a meaningful opinion about something. (Note, though, that while it can often be helpful in understanding something, having tried it is not critical to having a meaningful opinion about it.) Putting my point differently, you could say that I’m arguing against being reserved; against holding back. Avoiding new experiences is a surefire way to stay naïve and sheltered. People who are naïve and sheltered, and want to stay that way, are dangerous. They’re hell bent on being narrow minded; they’re often the radicals who destroy tolerance. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.
NB: Learn More about the Rawlsian Original Position here.
The Serious Failin' of Sarah Palin.
I don't think I've ever been so obsessed with a woman. I've never spent so long on the internet, googling a woman's name, checking out her facebook page, seeing if she has a Myspace, wondering if there are any clips of her on YouTube. And I definitely have not felt so strongly about a woman before that when other people I know tell me they like her, I feel an almost irrestible urge to vomit over them and bludgeon them to death with a rock.
And more sadly, I've never felt more dissapointed in a man I used to strongly admire. But the metamorphasis of John Sidney McCain the Third from a man who valued principles, ethics and bipartisanship to a sad caricature of everything intelligent free-thinking human beings loathe about American conservatism was complete with his bone-headed, reckless and downright disastrous selection of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidental pick for the Republican candicacy.
What was he thinking? Did he think that turning on the LHC would end the universe, so was kinda fucking around,thinking his VP choice wouldn't matter? Did the routine operation to remove malignant melanoma tumours from his head, accidentally remove his brain too? How do you justify putting a woman with less foreign policy experience than ME (hell, I've taken a class in Foreign Policy Analysis at university), just one 73 year old 'heartbeat' away from being President of the United States? Has this woman even BEEN to Washington?
I'm desperately hungover, and am struggling to tone my bitter invective to a level where I will not upset small children, or get 'A word on Failure' placed on the CIA's watchlist (although,...then would I know at least one person was reading it). So I decided that someone far more qualified than me should discuss Ms. Palin, and could explain why you should be terrified.
But sometimes...the best argument against something...is to come in contact with the thing itself.
Surely, someone running as an 'agent of change' and a 'maverick' against the last eight years of disastrous failed policies and failed idealogy should probably know what it is that she is attempting to change. And Miss Palin is lucky I am hungover, because it means I am too lazy to find footage of where she claims to have fought against 'pork-barrel' politics (the idea of conducting politics according to what is in the immediate interest of your state, and your voters rather than in the greater good of America) despite the large subsidies recieved by citizens of her state of Alaska. Worst of all is her claim to be a staunch supporter of the 'pro-life' movement, holding up her choice to give birth to her special needs son, Trig, as evincing a committment to the cause. Firstly, Sarah - don't wax lyrical about your ability to make the right moral choice when this is a choice you seek to deny to all other American women. Secondly, what kind of monstrous bitch invokes the decision of whether or not to abort her mentally disabled son, on account of his mental disabilities, and actually uses this as a way of picking up votes within the religious right?
Lastly, the Palin pick is disturbing not for the serious issues it raises about John McCain's judgement and the ability of Sarah Palin to be ready on day 1, 2 or 1076...but for what it says about America. Because to my horror, the Palin pick has not been laughed off by the American electorate as some bad joke pulled by the closest thing US politics has to Grandpa Simpson....in large swathes Palin has been embraced, legitimised, even energising the conservative base with her committment to guns, god and foetuses. I have been told that Roe v Wade and the Second Amendment continue to have a noxious influence on the America psyche and 'the culture wars' but I never expected it to be so damaging (or depressing). In a year where the fall on Wall St is as damaging to the idealogy of capitalism as the fall of the Berlin Wall was to communism, where the Middle East dissolves further into a fractured, broken basketcase, where Putin reminded us all why Russians make the best Bond villians...the idea of democracy according to huge numbers of voting-age Americans is that elections should not be decided by who has the best plan to solve very real, very scary issues but instead by who you would rather have a beer with, and who you think best shares your 'values'.
Sarah Palin, may, as has be noted be America's very first VPILF. But if the American people are stupid enough to have her one step away from answering the red phone at 3am this time next year, then not just America, but the world...is fucked.
Alex.
And more sadly, I've never felt more dissapointed in a man I used to strongly admire. But the metamorphasis of John Sidney McCain the Third from a man who valued principles, ethics and bipartisanship to a sad caricature of everything intelligent free-thinking human beings loathe about American conservatism was complete with his bone-headed, reckless and downright disastrous selection of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidental pick for the Republican candicacy.
What was he thinking? Did he think that turning on the LHC would end the universe, so was kinda fucking around,thinking his VP choice wouldn't matter? Did the routine operation to remove malignant melanoma tumours from his head, accidentally remove his brain too? How do you justify putting a woman with less foreign policy experience than ME (hell, I've taken a class in Foreign Policy Analysis at university), just one 73 year old 'heartbeat' away from being President of the United States? Has this woman even BEEN to Washington?
I'm desperately hungover, and am struggling to tone my bitter invective to a level where I will not upset small children, or get 'A word on Failure' placed on the CIA's watchlist (although,...then would I know at least one person was reading it). So I decided that someone far more qualified than me should discuss Ms. Palin, and could explain why you should be terrified.
But sometimes...the best argument against something...is to come in contact with the thing itself.
Surely, someone running as an 'agent of change' and a 'maverick' against the last eight years of disastrous failed policies and failed idealogy should probably know what it is that she is attempting to change. And Miss Palin is lucky I am hungover, because it means I am too lazy to find footage of where she claims to have fought against 'pork-barrel' politics (the idea of conducting politics according to what is in the immediate interest of your state, and your voters rather than in the greater good of America) despite the large subsidies recieved by citizens of her state of Alaska. Worst of all is her claim to be a staunch supporter of the 'pro-life' movement, holding up her choice to give birth to her special needs son, Trig, as evincing a committment to the cause. Firstly, Sarah - don't wax lyrical about your ability to make the right moral choice when this is a choice you seek to deny to all other American women. Secondly, what kind of monstrous bitch invokes the decision of whether or not to abort her mentally disabled son, on account of his mental disabilities, and actually uses this as a way of picking up votes within the religious right?
Lastly, the Palin pick is disturbing not for the serious issues it raises about John McCain's judgement and the ability of Sarah Palin to be ready on day 1, 2 or 1076...but for what it says about America. Because to my horror, the Palin pick has not been laughed off by the American electorate as some bad joke pulled by the closest thing US politics has to Grandpa Simpson....in large swathes Palin has been embraced, legitimised, even energising the conservative base with her committment to guns, god and foetuses. I have been told that Roe v Wade and the Second Amendment continue to have a noxious influence on the America psyche and 'the culture wars' but I never expected it to be so damaging (or depressing). In a year where the fall on Wall St is as damaging to the idealogy of capitalism as the fall of the Berlin Wall was to communism, where the Middle East dissolves further into a fractured, broken basketcase, where Putin reminded us all why Russians make the best Bond villians...the idea of democracy according to huge numbers of voting-age Americans is that elections should not be decided by who has the best plan to solve very real, very scary issues but instead by who you would rather have a beer with, and who you think best shares your 'values'.
Sarah Palin, may, as has be noted be America's very first VPILF. But if the American people are stupid enough to have her one step away from answering the red phone at 3am this time next year, then not just America, but the world...is fucked.
Alex.
On Secrets
"Let me let you in on a secret. Zipcodes, they're meaningless." (Newman, 'Seinfeld')
We’ve all got secrets, bits of information concealed from others. That's a little too simplistic, so let’s expand our definition: For any conversation taking place between at least two people, a secret is a piece of information that at least one (but not all) of those involved in the conversation knows; information that those in the conversation who don’t know it would benefit in some way if they knew it. So, to clarify by example, I’d have a secret if I were having a chat with two friends and knew something about a mutual friend that (at least) one of the other members of that conversation didn’t know. But, were I having a conversation with someone else (e.g. a waitress at a café) that information about my friend wouldn't qualify as a secret. What’s most relevant here isn’t the conversations being had but, rather, the relationship you have with the persons your conversing with. The waitress wouldn’t be able to identify that information about my friend as a secret without additional information; additional information she doesn’t have because she lacks an appropriate relationship with me or my friend. Were I to mention the secret to her it’d be useless information and uninteresting to her. Note, though, that you can have a secret about yourself (for instance if you were a Republican who refrained from telling people that). While this operational definition may be problematic it’ll work for this post. I think we have a sufficient colloquial understanding of what secrets are to move to the next stage of this dialogue.
Some people love secrets. They love to know them and keep them; Or they love to share them. Others hate secrets. They can bear a burden of secrecy; they can create a wedge between friends and peers. While, for the most part, I do think keeping secrets is a bad thing there are instances when keeping secrets might be permissible. Gossiping is a kind of secret sharing that is bad. Here the keeping of secretive information is okay. Gossiping is not necessary and I’m against it. I’m not going to talk about it length (it’s more of it’s own topic); I only mention it as an instance when it’s better to refrain from disclosing information.
Having said that a lot more can be said about secrets than what I have time for here, so I’m going to have a sharper focus. I’m only going to explicitly talk about a specific kind of secret that are, generally, always best shared: ‘self-secrets’; secrets you keep that are about you, rather than about someone else. (However, prima facie, what I say about ‘self-secrets’ might hold true all secrets generally).
We, by and large, don’t want to hurt those close to us. Self-secrets (I’ll just call them ‘secrets’ hereafter for simplicity) sometimes impact people in hurtful ways. The cheating spouse has a secret from her adoring partner which would cause him great harm, were it disclosed. Having said that, when we boil it down, secrets are just a means of limiting communication. The disposition people have for keeping secrets deters honest and open communication; they prevent people from being identified as who they really are, what they’re really like, or what experiences they’ve had. You owe it to those you have close relationships with (those with whom you might keep a secret from) to show your true colours. People aren’t interested in getting to know a censored, politically correct, or abridged version of you; they want to get to know the real you. Or, if that isn’t the case, they’d be best off getting to know the real you. That’s what they deserve to know; that’s what you owe them. The importance we place on honesty, sharing, and open communication trumps any harm that would be suffered by the sharing of a harmful secret. Don’t forget that keeping secrets can be hurtful too; no one likes to be out of the loop.
Bear in mind that secrets aren’t necessarily bits of bad or negative information; they aren’t all hurtful. I would say that the vast majority of secrets aren’t harmful. You might keep other kinds of information secretive because of how the sharing of that information will affect you. Here it might be the case that they won’t want to continue the relationship if they know those things about you; or they will view you differently; or you just fear ill effects from the sharing of the secret (even if such ill effects would never come). But that’s an unsatisfactory and selfish reason to hide the truth. (And that, hiding the truth, is what you do when you keep a secret.)
To be clear I’m not advocating full disclose of everything about you to your friends and loved ones; that’d be too extreme. Nor am I suggesting that you gossip about yourself; that’d just be silly. We need to use our judgment, coupled with the nature and status of our relationships with those we are close to, to gauge when bits of information should be shared. What I’m arguing against is failing to share information when that standard has been met. I’m arguing that we should be honest and not be afraid of open communication. You should be yourself and make it the case that those around you know your true self. That’s something you should want. Being open and honest isn’t always easy to do, especially if you’re not used to sharing; doubly so if you’re embarrassed or not happy with experiences you had. Nevertheless those things about you are the things that made you who you are. Those that you are close with should want to know those details about you and value the contributions those details played in making you who you are. Otherwise, they're not worth keeping around.
The view I espouse here isn’t that controversial (at least I can’t see it as being controversial). All I’m saying is that people should communicate things about themselves when appropriate. The more interesting claim that I’m also, subtly, making is that we should be more willing to share information about ourselves. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.
Myth-Busting : The Election Edition.
My country, New Zealand, is going to the polls on November 8. And I'm bloody excited about it. Of course by all accounts this election looks like it could be a disaster; the right-of-centre National Party is currently sleepwalking its way to a huge victory over the incumbent centre-left Labour Party (seeking a historic fourth three-year term in government) despite a listless, gaffe-prone and uninspired performance in opposition and a refusal to announce any serious alternate vision for New Zealand. (Leading polls in fact show many people are basing their vote simply on the idea that it is 'time for a change'.) However, I remain excited by my country's election on November 8 because it represents, for the first time, the very real possibilty that New Zealanders will vote out of Parliament one of the most corrosive and divisive influences on New Zealand politics - Winston Peters and his New Zealand First party.
To gain representation in the New Zealand Parliament, a party has to acheive one of two things. Firstly they could recieve at least 5% of the national popular vote, thus ensuring it will recieve its vote's proportion of the 120 seats in the New Zealand Parliament. (Getting less than 5% will not net a party any seats, as they are held to be too small). Alternatively a member of the party could win one of the 70 electorate seats that NZ is divided into (based roughly on population). Based on some quirk in the system if a party member wins an electorate seat, they will get their proportion of the national popular vote in Parliament, even if it's less than 5%. Confused yet? (Seems the reason New Zealand isn't a world power isnt due to geographical isolation, a profound lack of people or a military that consists of the Whakatane Womens Patchwork Quilt Enthusiasts Association, their pet cats and a few swords left over from when Peter Jackson made Lord of the Rings. Nah, Its cos we spend half our electoral cycle working out who exactly it is we just elected to govern us.)
Anyway, the quirks in this system often mean that a major party is forced into a coalition agreement with a minor party - and make concessions to their electoral platform. One of these parties is the New Zealand First party. But New Zealand First is not built on a firm idealogical platform, like our Green (pro-environment) or Act (pro-business) parties, rather their only idealogy seems to be 'lets see which minority culture looks politically expendable, and starting a national 'debate' which is racist, derogatory and ultimately scary!'. And they have proved past masters at this. In 2002, they ran on a strong anti-Asian immigration platform,issuing press releases about dog meat appearing in our supermarket shelves, how immigrants polluted our country's values with their cultures, and how it was offensive for New Zealanders to have to hear people speaking Chinese while they waited in lines at banks. In 2005, their leader gave a chilling speech entitled 'The End of Tolerance', where he accused New Zealand's Muslim community of being involved in radical Islamic plots, and using their mosques to plan terror attacks. They have also run strong campaigns on the idea of ending all 'special privileges' (read: culture-based programmes) for New Zealand's indigenous Maori, and debunking free trade as leading to a corrosion of New Zealand values. An overarching theme of New Zealand First policy, and a line often used by Winston Peters in speeches is 'that New Zealand needs to return to a time when it had values WE COULD ALL BE PROUD OF, that time was the 1960's'.
A friend of mine once described New Zealand First as 'a party which gave old people an excuse to be racist.' He was completely right, but New Zealand First seems to also represent something far more cancerous for New Zealand Politics. Rather than offer an over-arching vision for the future, or a proposal to improve the well-being of New Zealanders, New Zealand First offers our country a myth. A myth of New Zealand that never really existed. A myth of a New Zealand that once existed in the past, where everyone believed in the same values. Of a small town New Zealand, where you knew your neighbours and could always leave the front-door unlocked. Where children respected their elder. I could go on, but the point I am trying to make is that New Zealand First builds up an image of a 1960's New Zealand that did not have all these problems, of crime, of unemployment,of 'diversity'.
Or course this halycon view of the past did not exist. And of course 1960's New Zealand was a complete suckfest to anyone who was not a straight,white Anglo-Saxon male (pre-Waitangi Tribunal, pre-Homosexual law reform, only 2 women in Parliament, no women judges). I would make the claim that in today's New Zealand, our greatest cultural strength is our diversity. That today's New Zealand offers far more potential for justice, for tolerance and for creativity than the 1960's ever had. And I will also make the claim that while today's New Zealand is the world that my generation is proud to live in, it is a New Zealand that my grandparent's generation will never really understand or never really know. And of course it is a New Zealand with problems. But that means that it is the task of politicans to confront the issues that this new New Zealand faces, as we attempt to atone for the injustices suffered by our indigenous peoples. As we embrace new immigrants from a variety of backgrounds. As we face up to the reality of the international market. As we acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, a man who wants to have sex with another man, is not an abomination against all our society holds dear.
The very worst thing that politicans can do is exacerbate the divisiveness and attempt to score votes on a platform of 'making the past the future'. Which is why, seven weeks away from the New Zealand election, New Zealand First sits at below 2% in the polls, and they seemingly have no chance of winning an electorate seat. Furthermore, their attempts to play 'the race card' and make Asian Immigration a center-peice of the 2008 campaign earlier this year was met with nationwide scorn. It's still a long way until election day, and plenty of time for Winston Peters to pull a poisonous rabbit from his hat of divisiveness. But maybe, in 2008, the voters will send out a message that they reject a sepia-tinted 'past you should believe in' and are ready to embrace New Zealand's future.
Alex.
(I realised when I was writing this post that a lot of what I am saying about NZ would be relevant to the American election. So if you want to make my thoughts on 'creating a national myth' as an alternative to building a vision for the future more relevant to people who have never heard of Winston Peters, Maori or New Zealand before - think Barack Obama vs Sarah Palin. Obama, product of a mixed-race relationship is someone who represents a new, cosmopolitian, multiracial America and would be a profound break with the past, and an exciting prospect for my generation. But he has struggled to convince voters, especially older ones, that he is in fact one of them, particulary in the wake of Sarah Palin's nomination to the vice-presidency. Palin, despite limited foreign-policy experience (beyond an ability to see Russia from her house), and a record that contrasts with her campaign image as a rabid reformer, has run on the idea that America needs to return to the days when it embraced small-town values, and was characterised by fervent religiousness and 'no racial problem'. The really scary thing is that even as New Zealand looks like it will cast aside this poisonous influence from our politics, Sarah Palin could ride this wave of nostalgia all the way to knowing America's nuclear codes....)
To gain representation in the New Zealand Parliament, a party has to acheive one of two things. Firstly they could recieve at least 5% of the national popular vote, thus ensuring it will recieve its vote's proportion of the 120 seats in the New Zealand Parliament. (Getting less than 5% will not net a party any seats, as they are held to be too small). Alternatively a member of the party could win one of the 70 electorate seats that NZ is divided into (based roughly on population). Based on some quirk in the system if a party member wins an electorate seat, they will get their proportion of the national popular vote in Parliament, even if it's less than 5%. Confused yet? (Seems the reason New Zealand isn't a world power isnt due to geographical isolation, a profound lack of people or a military that consists of the Whakatane Womens Patchwork Quilt Enthusiasts Association, their pet cats and a few swords left over from when Peter Jackson made Lord of the Rings. Nah, Its cos we spend half our electoral cycle working out who exactly it is we just elected to govern us.)
Anyway, the quirks in this system often mean that a major party is forced into a coalition agreement with a minor party - and make concessions to their electoral platform. One of these parties is the New Zealand First party. But New Zealand First is not built on a firm idealogical platform, like our Green (pro-environment) or Act (pro-business) parties, rather their only idealogy seems to be 'lets see which minority culture looks politically expendable, and starting a national 'debate' which is racist, derogatory and ultimately scary!'. And they have proved past masters at this. In 2002, they ran on a strong anti-Asian immigration platform,issuing press releases about dog meat appearing in our supermarket shelves, how immigrants polluted our country's values with their cultures, and how it was offensive for New Zealanders to have to hear people speaking Chinese while they waited in lines at banks. In 2005, their leader gave a chilling speech entitled 'The End of Tolerance', where he accused New Zealand's Muslim community of being involved in radical Islamic plots, and using their mosques to plan terror attacks. They have also run strong campaigns on the idea of ending all 'special privileges' (read: culture-based programmes) for New Zealand's indigenous Maori, and debunking free trade as leading to a corrosion of New Zealand values. An overarching theme of New Zealand First policy, and a line often used by Winston Peters in speeches is 'that New Zealand needs to return to a time when it had values WE COULD ALL BE PROUD OF, that time was the 1960's'.
A friend of mine once described New Zealand First as 'a party which gave old people an excuse to be racist.' He was completely right, but New Zealand First seems to also represent something far more cancerous for New Zealand Politics. Rather than offer an over-arching vision for the future, or a proposal to improve the well-being of New Zealanders, New Zealand First offers our country a myth. A myth of New Zealand that never really existed. A myth of a New Zealand that once existed in the past, where everyone believed in the same values. Of a small town New Zealand, where you knew your neighbours and could always leave the front-door unlocked. Where children respected their elder. I could go on, but the point I am trying to make is that New Zealand First builds up an image of a 1960's New Zealand that did not have all these problems, of crime, of unemployment,of 'diversity'.
Or course this halycon view of the past did not exist. And of course 1960's New Zealand was a complete suckfest to anyone who was not a straight,white Anglo-Saxon male (pre-Waitangi Tribunal, pre-Homosexual law reform, only 2 women in Parliament, no women judges). I would make the claim that in today's New Zealand, our greatest cultural strength is our diversity. That today's New Zealand offers far more potential for justice, for tolerance and for creativity than the 1960's ever had. And I will also make the claim that while today's New Zealand is the world that my generation is proud to live in, it is a New Zealand that my grandparent's generation will never really understand or never really know. And of course it is a New Zealand with problems. But that means that it is the task of politicans to confront the issues that this new New Zealand faces, as we attempt to atone for the injustices suffered by our indigenous peoples. As we embrace new immigrants from a variety of backgrounds. As we face up to the reality of the international market. As we acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, a man who wants to have sex with another man, is not an abomination against all our society holds dear.
The very worst thing that politicans can do is exacerbate the divisiveness and attempt to score votes on a platform of 'making the past the future'. Which is why, seven weeks away from the New Zealand election, New Zealand First sits at below 2% in the polls, and they seemingly have no chance of winning an electorate seat. Furthermore, their attempts to play 'the race card' and make Asian Immigration a center-peice of the 2008 campaign earlier this year was met with nationwide scorn. It's still a long way until election day, and plenty of time for Winston Peters to pull a poisonous rabbit from his hat of divisiveness. But maybe, in 2008, the voters will send out a message that they reject a sepia-tinted 'past you should believe in' and are ready to embrace New Zealand's future.
Alex.
(I realised when I was writing this post that a lot of what I am saying about NZ would be relevant to the American election. So if you want to make my thoughts on 'creating a national myth' as an alternative to building a vision for the future more relevant to people who have never heard of Winston Peters, Maori or New Zealand before - think Barack Obama vs Sarah Palin. Obama, product of a mixed-race relationship is someone who represents a new, cosmopolitian, multiracial America and would be a profound break with the past, and an exciting prospect for my generation. But he has struggled to convince voters, especially older ones, that he is in fact one of them, particulary in the wake of Sarah Palin's nomination to the vice-presidency. Palin, despite limited foreign-policy experience (beyond an ability to see Russia from her house), and a record that contrasts with her campaign image as a rabid reformer, has run on the idea that America needs to return to the days when it embraced small-town values, and was characterised by fervent religiousness and 'no racial problem'. The really scary thing is that even as New Zealand looks like it will cast aside this poisonous influence from our politics, Sarah Palin could ride this wave of nostalgia all the way to knowing America's nuclear codes....)
Against Bullshit
Prefatory note: After Alex’s last post, I feel forced to make a certain kind of post. Not that Alex’s post on 9/11 wasn’t good – it was great, well written, and worth saying. But it left the impression that our blog is caught in some kind of a tailspin of negativity. I want to get us out of this downward spiral but I can’t sensibly shift the blog to something completely different without seeming insensitive (or whatever). After all, his post set a specific tone. So I’m not going to blog about what I was originally going to blog about. Instead I’ll blog about something more… neutral-ish. Something which, I hope, will level us off and maybe even… dare I say… upwards towards redemption. (I’ll write that other blog some other time in the near future.)
Bullshit permeates our culture; our dialog; our day-to-day lives. It’s a kind of speech-act that’s used all too often. Our friends do it; people on TV do it; sometimes we even do it. And it’s crap. I don’t mean bullshit is crap because they’re both synonyms for poo-poo, I mean bullshit’s not a good thing. Before I get to why that’s the case let me explain the characteristics of the speech-act a little more.
Intuitively we might know what we mean when we say things like “that’s such bullshit”. But I want something a little more concrete than that; something more than how Justice Potter Stewart lamely described pornography: “I know it when I see it”. Bullshit intuitively has at least some relationship with what’s true. But it’s got a closer and more interesting relationship with lies. That relationship, though, isn’t such that one is reducible to the other. Bullshit is different than lying: As a bullshitter you might stumble upon the truth but as a liar you seek to make the listener believe something you know to be untrue. Liars traffic in truth-values. When lying you can utter false statements (your typical lie) or true ones (how we get lies of omission, for instance) in the enterprise of convincing the listener of a falsehood. This is in contrast to when you bullshit. Here you’re simply unaware or unconcerned with truth-values; here what you say isn’t what you necessarily believe, you’re just saying whatever works. People who bullshit are focused on how they represent themselves; liars are focused on establishing something as being true. But lying is nevertheless connected to bullshitting; they’re both deceitful. Lying just requires a different intention and bullshitting. Lying needs an intention to mislead the listener whereas bullshitting just requires that you have a neglectful attitude - producing bullshit is easier than producing the truth. In this way bullshitting is lazy; the conversational equivalent to dunking something in a can of paint instead of using a brush. Through this laziness we get empty talk: statements without any genuine or worthwhile content. Bullshit can be impulsive and can come when you talk without thinking; saying something for the primary sake of flapping your lips; it’s quick and careless. Or it can be elaborate and expansive; designed to confuse the listener - the politician who drones on in response to a question without really answering the question.
Bullshit is undesirable. Whether it’s the friend telling an overly embellished story; the anchorman rambling on to make the breaking news seem like something important when it’s not. From their view their contributing. But come on; they’re not. Their filling a void. Their grasping to keep your attention; to keep the focus on them. The expression of words and sentences is not good enough; the expectations should be higher. The standard of acceptability – the basis by which we should determine whether or not to listen to them – should be focused on the content of those words and sentences (rather than that there are just words and sentences being spoken). The content should be good for its own sake. Bullshit falls short of that threshold. Bullshit is vacuous.
All I’m saying is that instead of bullshitting people should only speak if they can contribute something meaningful or worthwhile. There should be a justification for why we listen to them. Being honest is valuable for it’s own sake. People who speak honestly are worth listening to. As are those who provide us with genuine information (worthwhile information, that is). Those we watch on TV should be important and have something meaningful to say. Otherwise we shouldn’t be listening to them. They should not be lazy and unconcerned with what comes out of them. They should say what needs to be said and say it concisely. Likewise for those we spend our time with. Those I spend time with should speak the truth or say something thought through (or both); not something said to fill an awkward silence. An awkward silence is better than listening to any verbal diarrhoea. Talking for the sake of talking is one thing. Talking for the sake of being listened to is another. I’m only interested in the former. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.
*NB: For more on this topic see “Bullshit and Philosophy” (Hardcastle, Gary L. and George A. Reisch (Eds.), Open Court Publishing, 2006)
“Why do we feel it’s necessary to yak about bullshit in order to be comfortable?” (Mia, ‘Pulp Fiction’)
Bullshit permeates our culture; our dialog; our day-to-day lives. It’s a kind of speech-act that’s used all too often. Our friends do it; people on TV do it; sometimes we even do it. And it’s crap. I don’t mean bullshit is crap because they’re both synonyms for poo-poo, I mean bullshit’s not a good thing. Before I get to why that’s the case let me explain the characteristics of the speech-act a little more.
Intuitively we might know what we mean when we say things like “that’s such bullshit”. But I want something a little more concrete than that; something more than how Justice Potter Stewart lamely described pornography: “I know it when I see it”. Bullshit intuitively has at least some relationship with what’s true. But it’s got a closer and more interesting relationship with lies. That relationship, though, isn’t such that one is reducible to the other. Bullshit is different than lying: As a bullshitter you might stumble upon the truth but as a liar you seek to make the listener believe something you know to be untrue. Liars traffic in truth-values. When lying you can utter false statements (your typical lie) or true ones (how we get lies of omission, for instance) in the enterprise of convincing the listener of a falsehood. This is in contrast to when you bullshit. Here you’re simply unaware or unconcerned with truth-values; here what you say isn’t what you necessarily believe, you’re just saying whatever works. People who bullshit are focused on how they represent themselves; liars are focused on establishing something as being true. But lying is nevertheless connected to bullshitting; they’re both deceitful. Lying just requires a different intention and bullshitting. Lying needs an intention to mislead the listener whereas bullshitting just requires that you have a neglectful attitude - producing bullshit is easier than producing the truth. In this way bullshitting is lazy; the conversational equivalent to dunking something in a can of paint instead of using a brush. Through this laziness we get empty talk: statements without any genuine or worthwhile content. Bullshit can be impulsive and can come when you talk without thinking; saying something for the primary sake of flapping your lips; it’s quick and careless. Or it can be elaborate and expansive; designed to confuse the listener - the politician who drones on in response to a question without really answering the question.
Bullshit is undesirable. Whether it’s the friend telling an overly embellished story; the anchorman rambling on to make the breaking news seem like something important when it’s not. From their view their contributing. But come on; they’re not. Their filling a void. Their grasping to keep your attention; to keep the focus on them. The expression of words and sentences is not good enough; the expectations should be higher. The standard of acceptability – the basis by which we should determine whether or not to listen to them – should be focused on the content of those words and sentences (rather than that there are just words and sentences being spoken). The content should be good for its own sake. Bullshit falls short of that threshold. Bullshit is vacuous.
All I’m saying is that instead of bullshitting people should only speak if they can contribute something meaningful or worthwhile. There should be a justification for why we listen to them. Being honest is valuable for it’s own sake. People who speak honestly are worth listening to. As are those who provide us with genuine information (worthwhile information, that is). Those we watch on TV should be important and have something meaningful to say. Otherwise we shouldn’t be listening to them. They should not be lazy and unconcerned with what comes out of them. They should say what needs to be said and say it concisely. Likewise for those we spend our time with. Those I spend time with should speak the truth or say something thought through (or both); not something said to fill an awkward silence. An awkward silence is better than listening to any verbal diarrhoea. Talking for the sake of talking is one thing. Talking for the sake of being listened to is another. I’m only interested in the former. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.
*NB: For more on this topic see “Bullshit and Philosophy” (Hardcastle, Gary L. and George A. Reisch (Eds.), Open Court Publishing, 2006)
Thoughts on the Explosion of History.
It's 1:15 am on the 12th of September 2008 (New Zealand time) , and I've actually just spent the last hour staring at my abestos-strengthened ceiling and thinking about the events of this hour, on this day in 2001. I remember reading an article the week after 9/11. It was called 'The Day History Exploded'. Seven years later, even as the anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks becomes less of a chance for a TV networks to spot ratings opportunities and unveil an all-new, all-sensational, all-American "documentary" and more of a time for quiet reflection, that title still seems apt. History didn't just change that day, it was completely upended in some sort of hideous real-life Jerry Bruckheimer movie and our world, our generation and our future has been dominated, and haunted by the attacks ever since.
I'm not sure if I should even write this. I had an amazing chat with a friend who grew up in New York, and was at school, in eighth grade (Year 8 or Form 2) the day of the attacks. While she was telling me about how there are people, even today who can't look at the Manhattan skyline - and telling me about just worrying and hoping that the people she loved would come home...suddenly my own 9/11 memories, with watching the footage on TV before I went to school, having a special assembly where the principal told us that things may never be the same, didn't just seem inadequate, they seemed downright offensive. I apologise therefore, not just from the poor grammar, spelling and sentence structure that comes from writing in the dark at 1:30 am, but for anyone who I offend, or upset, by trying to address these thoughts that have been swirling around in my head.
I guess one of the many themes, or sub-themes or sub-sub-themes of Paul and I's blog is to come across as two bitter kids, ultimately dissapointed in humanity, its apathy and consistent ability to put individual self-interest ahead of wider social necessities. (with all due respect, of course, to Mr. Adam Smith.) But in the very immediate aftermath of 9/11, those pessimistic assumptions of humanity were proved wrong. Look at the heroes created on that day, the firefighters, the police, the passengers on United 93.
On September 20 2001, John Stewart gave one of the most moving adresses I have ever heard. Since I found it sometime in 2006, I try to watch it every now and then, to remind myself that even in a country with a history as scarred, as contradictory and often, as infuriating as the United States of America's, the fact that they are societies built not on the visions of a tyrant, or a religious orthodoxy, or a theoretical end-point but on the consent of we, the people, and our conception of the good life and civic virtue is something worth cherishing, defending and celebrating. (Thus endeth the longest sentence ever.) Please, watch it, its uberawesome.
Jon Stewart, then a relatively obscure host of a relatively obscure TV show on an obscure Comedy Channel, outlined a vision of America that was defiant but fiercely proud of the values America stands for, and of the ability of humanity to endure. But there was another speech, also delivered on September 20, 2001 that recieved far more attention. This speech outlined an America that was defiant, but fiercely protective of its values, and of the ability of America to exact revenge. This speech was given by President Bush.
I couldn't find a decent video (at what is now 2:30 am, cos putting up that John Stewart video turned into a fucking disaster for a bloggingn00b) of Bush's speech. So, the supercool amongst you will have to be satisfied with the transcript. Both Stewart and Bush talked, and very eloquently, about the power of American ideals. But where the tone of Stewart's speech was 'America is grieving, but the power of the American ideal has already won', Bush's speech focused on 'America is angry, and through our power, the American ideal will win.'
At the crucial juncture in history, the Bush Administration chose to hunt down the masterminds of the attack, but not also consider the root causes behind the attack. The Bush Administration chose not to ask why there were scenes of Palestinians, Pakistanis and Afghanis parading and celebrating in the streets at the fall of the symbols of American capitalism. They chose not to consider the ideals of America, and whether this was indeed the image they projected to the world. The Bush Administration chose to 'confront', to claim the attack happened because of the notion that terrorists 'hate freedom', that the US would hunt down those states who supported terrorists, and would act alone if necessary. More tragically, personal liberty and equal opportunity and justice, the supposed cornerstones of both Stewart and Bush's America became concepts that were politically expedient in the face of 'protecting national security.'
Many of the worst excesses of the post-9/11 period (UN-bashing, American unilateralism, Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition) have now been rejected in American political discourse, either by a chastised and unpopular Bush Administration (led more by moderates like Condi, rather than the aggressive idealogies of say, Cheney) or by both candidates in the 2008 Election. But the damage to the US standing in the world, and the power of the US ideal has been done and is irreperable and will haunt Mr Bush to his grave.
I could have, and should have, made these points far more eloquently. And may have, except its now 3am. I guess Bill Clinton put it best when he said that the world was always more impressed with the power of the US example, than with the example of US power. The greatest tragedy of 9/11 was that this was forgotten, and the US example became not a triumph, but an embarrasment.
NB: I will NEVER write a post this long again.
I'm not sure if I should even write this. I had an amazing chat with a friend who grew up in New York, and was at school, in eighth grade (Year 8 or Form 2) the day of the attacks. While she was telling me about how there are people, even today who can't look at the Manhattan skyline - and telling me about just worrying and hoping that the people she loved would come home...suddenly my own 9/11 memories, with watching the footage on TV before I went to school, having a special assembly where the principal told us that things may never be the same, didn't just seem inadequate, they seemed downright offensive. I apologise therefore, not just from the poor grammar, spelling and sentence structure that comes from writing in the dark at 1:30 am, but for anyone who I offend, or upset, by trying to address these thoughts that have been swirling around in my head.
I guess one of the many themes, or sub-themes or sub-sub-themes of Paul and I's blog is to come across as two bitter kids, ultimately dissapointed in humanity, its apathy and consistent ability to put individual self-interest ahead of wider social necessities. (with all due respect, of course, to Mr. Adam Smith.) But in the very immediate aftermath of 9/11, those pessimistic assumptions of humanity were proved wrong. Look at the heroes created on that day, the firefighters, the police, the passengers on United 93.
On September 20 2001, John Stewart gave one of the most moving adresses I have ever heard. Since I found it sometime in 2006, I try to watch it every now and then, to remind myself that even in a country with a history as scarred, as contradictory and often, as infuriating as the United States of America's, the fact that they are societies built not on the visions of a tyrant, or a religious orthodoxy, or a theoretical end-point but on the consent of we, the people, and our conception of the good life and civic virtue is something worth cherishing, defending and celebrating. (Thus endeth the longest sentence ever.) Please, watch it, its uberawesome.
Jon Stewart, then a relatively obscure host of a relatively obscure TV show on an obscure Comedy Channel, outlined a vision of America that was defiant but fiercely proud of the values America stands for, and of the ability of humanity to endure. But there was another speech, also delivered on September 20, 2001 that recieved far more attention. This speech outlined an America that was defiant, but fiercely protective of its values, and of the ability of America to exact revenge. This speech was given by President Bush.
I couldn't find a decent video (at what is now 2:30 am, cos putting up that John Stewart video turned into a fucking disaster for a bloggingn00b) of Bush's speech. So, the supercool amongst you will have to be satisfied with the transcript. Both Stewart and Bush talked, and very eloquently, about the power of American ideals. But where the tone of Stewart's speech was 'America is grieving, but the power of the American ideal has already won', Bush's speech focused on 'America is angry, and through our power, the American ideal will win.'
At the crucial juncture in history, the Bush Administration chose to hunt down the masterminds of the attack, but not also consider the root causes behind the attack. The Bush Administration chose not to ask why there were scenes of Palestinians, Pakistanis and Afghanis parading and celebrating in the streets at the fall of the symbols of American capitalism. They chose not to consider the ideals of America, and whether this was indeed the image they projected to the world. The Bush Administration chose to 'confront', to claim the attack happened because of the notion that terrorists 'hate freedom', that the US would hunt down those states who supported terrorists, and would act alone if necessary. More tragically, personal liberty and equal opportunity and justice, the supposed cornerstones of both Stewart and Bush's America became concepts that were politically expedient in the face of 'protecting national security.'
Many of the worst excesses of the post-9/11 period (UN-bashing, American unilateralism, Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition) have now been rejected in American political discourse, either by a chastised and unpopular Bush Administration (led more by moderates like Condi, rather than the aggressive idealogies of say, Cheney) or by both candidates in the 2008 Election. But the damage to the US standing in the world, and the power of the US ideal has been done and is irreperable and will haunt Mr Bush to his grave.
I could have, and should have, made these points far more eloquently. And may have, except its now 3am. I guess Bill Clinton put it best when he said that the world was always more impressed with the power of the US example, than with the example of US power. The greatest tragedy of 9/11 was that this was forgotten, and the US example became not a triumph, but an embarrasment.
NB: I will NEVER write a post this long again.
On Being Jaded
"What happened in your childhood to make you believe people are good?" (Jack Donaghy, '30 Rock')
Alex and I are jaded. And since that seems to be a theme for our new blog I thought it’d be worthwhile to make my first post about that - what it means to be jaded. So here we go:
Let’s first define out terms. What does it mean to be jaded? Well, I’d say that you’re jaded when you cease to believe in the inherent goodness of people; when you realize and accept that the world is a nasty place filled with self-interested people. Cynicism springs to mind as being something similar, but the two aren’t really synonymous. Being jaded also says that you’re worn out or have beat down while being cynical doesn’t. Someone could be cynical but not jaded if he hasn’t been worn down (or whatever) but still has a certain attitude towards the motivations of others. An antonym of being jaded may be being naïve; at least insofar as someone who is naïve might think the world (and those in it) is inherently good. Naïve people lack the experiences that jaded people have had – experiences which demonstrate what people are really like deep down inside. Simply put, you‘re jaded if you have had your eyes opened to what people are really like through troubled times and have adjusted what you expect from people accordingly. (But don’t confuse being jaded with pessimism. Someone who is jaded isn’t going to necessarily be pessimistic. See below for clarification.)
Next, let’s look at why someone might be jaded; the kinds of experiences it takes to become jaded. While I can’t speak for Alex (i.e. why he’s jaded or even if he’d agree with what I say here about being jaded… I’ll leave it up to Alex to clarify his views in a post of his own.) Generally, being jaded will come out of trying times wherein you had reasonable expectations of how those around you will act. They could be friends, acquaintances, peers, colleagues, compatriots, or whatever. But whoever they are, and whatever the expectations were, they failed to meet them. When push comes to shove instead of coming through for you they looked out for themselves. Either because they were faced with their own difficult situation or for some other reason (e.g. apathy). Ultimately their reasons or excuses for failing to meet your expectations are irrelevant. The reasonableness of your expectations is key here. If you had unreasonable expectations that went unmet, that’s different. Then you wouldn’t be jaded you’d be something else. Possibly stupid. Or maybe arrogant. Regardless, in genuine jaded-making experiences the expectations held aren’t outlandish. And this ties into how these experiences make you jaded – the difficultly or stress you experience in handling the inability of those around you to come through for you when you needed them. Shock springs to mind, but doesn’t seem quite right. Something else. Something more permanent.
So is it bad to be jaded? Well I don’t think so. I think it’d be worse to be naïve. But everyone won’t be pigeonholed into these two groups (being jaded or being naïve); there’s plenty of space in between (and appropriate descriptive terms). It’d be hasty to say that you’ll be worse off when you become jaded. Rest assured, you’ll be different. You’ll be different since, more than anything else, the process of becoming jaded is a growing experience. It changes you from what you were into something else… something different. Don’t take that, though, as meaning that being jaded is a good thing. It’s more of a neutral kind of thing. Like going to university: Both of processes generally take a while and are processes that drastically change people. You might, through it, become a better person. Or you might just become a jerk.
To sum up, being jaded is, in my humble view, neither good nor bad. It’s just something that you are (or are not), depending on what has happened during your life; it’s a way of looking at the world. When you say that you're jaded, you’re saying two things: that you've had certain kinds of experiences and that those experiences affected you in a certain way. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.
*NB: I wrote this quickly with few revisions. While I tried to make it as readable as possible, more than anything else, I wanted it to have a conversational and informal style; not something thought through in detail. Rather a kind of snap shot from where I am. All/most of my posts will be like this, unless (or until) a sufficient number of people tell me to do it differently.
One small keystroke for Nelder, one great leap backwards for the marketplace of ideas.
I've always viewed those that keep solid, regularly updated blogs with an equal mixture of admiration and disdain. Admiration for people with enough confidence in their opinions and world-view to regularly put their thoughts to paper (well, internet), and take the praise and criticism that resuls. Disdain, because I often read their opinions and world-view while sobbing, my head buried in my hands and cursing the infinite beauty of human stupidity.
Still, I can't work out what I'm doing here. My previous claim to fame was sticking a mince and cheese pie between two peices of bread, and calling it a sandwich. For the most part I don't have opinions, I simply mash together stuff I read in the Economist, with stuff Geoff Robinson told me on Radio New Zealand National, with stuff I saw on the Daily Show and try and fool my friends I have formulated an erudite and insightful comment on the issue of the day.
I guess my reasons for starting a blog (or at least demanding to be a part of Paul Daniel's blog) are threefold. Firstly, it continues a stunning trend for me of getting involved in fads many years after they have passed their prime. (I was still trying to make ChatterRings chatter in 2002). In this case, I am getting involved in a fad just before the Large Hadron Collider blasts into the black holyness of oblivion. Secondly, I feel that rather than just criticising and plagarising the work of current talking heads, I should join the scrum, and offer my own thoughts about things I care about, or think I should care about. (Read: I actually just want to wring as many puns out of Sarah Palin's name as possible).
Thirdly, I am constantly amazed by how the internet, and in particular Web 2.0 is constantly forcing us to reimagine the way we think about communication and information. With the arrival of Youtube, debates about free speech and whether some things are suitable for the public eye have becoming virtually non-existent. Want to see Saddam Hussein hung? Fill your boots. Want to get in touch with your inner white supremacist? Treatfest. Want some top quality Nunsploitation pornography? Err...maybe thats a job for Paul. Not only has the internet taken the power of information control away from governments, but it has the power to remake politics and information as we know it. Sarah Palin was first floated as a Vice-Presidential pick by a blogger, blogging out of his mother's basement! (victory for Nerdocracy can be found here!) Ron Paul's bid for the Republic presidential nomination, based on a return to a libertarian 'MARKET YAY, GOVERNMENT BOO HISS' philosophy remains a 'revolution' largely based in cyberspace. (and just to show my total mastery with the link function, check out the revolution here.) But it shows the ability of the internet to bring together people united by a philosophy, and showcases the enormous potential of the internet to acheive a common goal.
Of course, the internet may lead a communication revolution, but it need not necessarily be a force for good. Of particular concern is the ability of people to get all news and information from web-sites that correspond to their particular world view, without ever coming into contact with the alternative set of arguments. This can merely serve to entrench and extremify people's current opinions, as if we are never exposed to the philosophy behind the alternative view , then we are unable to concieve of how it can have any basis in reality, and will be wholly unsympathetic to people who hold those views. One of the beauties of convential print media, is that it functions in some way like a village green, with rational discourse confined to only a few sources (and it physically hurts to type the word 'rational' when referring to the NZ Herald'), we are exposed to views we vehemently disagree with, but we are given the chance to respond to them, to try and convince others that they are wrong, and sometimes to have our own opinions. It is quite rational though, to presume that people will want to read, and watch information they agree with (apart from those of us that just find the mindless bigotry at fox news to be LOL), and it would be a tragedy to see the internet lead to a disassociation between both sides of the political spectrum.
So...I guess my third reason for wanting MY VERY OWN BLOG (in partnership with Paul Daniels) is that if everyone else is using the internet to show the lynching of dictators, nunsex, or simply aiming to destroy the concepts of political discourse and consensus....then I want MY slice of this tasty, destructive, all-powerful cyberpie.
Still, I can't work out what I'm doing here. My previous claim to fame was sticking a mince and cheese pie between two peices of bread, and calling it a sandwich. For the most part I don't have opinions, I simply mash together stuff I read in the Economist, with stuff Geoff Robinson told me on Radio New Zealand National, with stuff I saw on the Daily Show and try and fool my friends I have formulated an erudite and insightful comment on the issue of the day.
I guess my reasons for starting a blog (or at least demanding to be a part of Paul Daniel's blog) are threefold. Firstly, it continues a stunning trend for me of getting involved in fads many years after they have passed their prime. (I was still trying to make ChatterRings chatter in 2002). In this case, I am getting involved in a fad just before the Large Hadron Collider blasts into the black holyness of oblivion. Secondly, I feel that rather than just criticising and plagarising the work of current talking heads, I should join the scrum, and offer my own thoughts about things I care about, or think I should care about. (Read: I actually just want to wring as many puns out of Sarah Palin's name as possible).
Thirdly, I am constantly amazed by how the internet, and in particular Web 2.0 is constantly forcing us to reimagine the way we think about communication and information. With the arrival of Youtube, debates about free speech and whether some things are suitable for the public eye have becoming virtually non-existent. Want to see Saddam Hussein hung? Fill your boots. Want to get in touch with your inner white supremacist? Treatfest. Want some top quality Nunsploitation pornography? Err...maybe thats a job for Paul. Not only has the internet taken the power of information control away from governments, but it has the power to remake politics and information as we know it. Sarah Palin was first floated as a Vice-Presidential pick by a blogger, blogging out of his mother's basement! (victory for Nerdocracy can be found here!) Ron Paul's bid for the Republic presidential nomination, based on a return to a libertarian 'MARKET YAY, GOVERNMENT BOO HISS' philosophy remains a 'revolution' largely based in cyberspace. (and just to show my total mastery with the link function, check out the revolution here.) But it shows the ability of the internet to bring together people united by a philosophy, and showcases the enormous potential of the internet to acheive a common goal.
Of course, the internet may lead a communication revolution, but it need not necessarily be a force for good. Of particular concern is the ability of people to get all news and information from web-sites that correspond to their particular world view, without ever coming into contact with the alternative set of arguments. This can merely serve to entrench and extremify people's current opinions, as if we are never exposed to the philosophy behind the alternative view , then we are unable to concieve of how it can have any basis in reality, and will be wholly unsympathetic to people who hold those views. One of the beauties of convential print media, is that it functions in some way like a village green, with rational discourse confined to only a few sources (and it physically hurts to type the word 'rational' when referring to the NZ Herald'), we are exposed to views we vehemently disagree with, but we are given the chance to respond to them, to try and convince others that they are wrong, and sometimes to have our own opinions. It is quite rational though, to presume that people will want to read, and watch information they agree with (apart from those of us that just find the mindless bigotry at fox news to be LOL), and it would be a tragedy to see the internet lead to a disassociation between both sides of the political spectrum.
So...I guess my third reason for wanting MY VERY OWN BLOG (in partnership with Paul Daniels) is that if everyone else is using the internet to show the lynching of dictators, nunsex, or simply aiming to destroy the concepts of political discourse and consensus....then I want MY slice of this tasty, destructive, all-powerful cyberpie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)