The Virtuous Skank

“You're just really wondering 'are we gonna get hopped up enough to make some bad decisions?' ” (Vince Vaughan, 'Wedding Crashers')

Everyone from the Marquis de Sade to Bertrand Russell have written about the setbacks sexual morality suffered at the hands of Christianity – most notably the idea that sex play, except for reproduction, is something a morally good person avoids. And even though their work, coupled with such things as the feminist and 'hippy' revolutions of the 20th century, have helped over come a lot of those setbacks that doesn't mean all's fair. By that I mean while sexual activity outside of love or marriage shouldn't be considered necessarily immoral, but there does seems to be a right way and a wrong way to go about it... and the way in which a lot of sexually indiscriminate people are sexually indiscriminate seems to be done in an immoral way.

As I often do, let me explain through a few related example.

Take Boy A. He's a nice guy. But, unfortunately, he's got chlamydia. This doesn't stop him from having some fun when he meets someone new at a bar. I think most reasonable, morally centered, people would say he acts immorally if he doesn't tell his newly acquired “partner” of his condition. In failing to disclose that info he's putting his interests ahead of hers; that is, were she to find out he's got an STI, she might decide to pass on their prospective romantic encounter (something he doesn't wanna risk). But, in virtue of that possibility, he's got future-oriented obligations towards her. That is, he's got obligations towards her that go beyond their immediate encounter - even if they'd never see each other again. So we can say Boy A here is being unfair to her if he hides (i.e. fails to disclose) his condition. Note that this is a moral obligation on his part. Some might say that she's got the obligation to ask; but that'd be a prudential obligation for her own welfare. So while it might be foolish for her to fail to ask, she's not doing something morally wrong by failing to bring it up (whereas, because his obligation is moral in nature, he would be doing something wrong by failing to bring it up).

So I think that's pretty obvious. Let's look at a similar case where I think similar obligations crop up.

Take Girl Y. She's a nice girl. But, she's not interested in getting into a relationship; she's only interested in sex. Now it could be the case that the cute boy at the rave isn't looking for the same thing (he might be, say, looking for a relationship or just someone to make out with). In virtue of that possibility, it seems to me that she acts immorally if she fails to tell her new prospective partner what she's looking for from him and how her interests are limited to sex. That is, like Boy A, she's got future-oriented obligations: their encounter could have lasting repercussions for the other – for example, if he was keen to date her, imagine is dismay (and probable emotional harm) when she rebuffs him the next morning. So, again like Boy A, just because she's keen for a lil fun tonight doesn't mean it's okay for her to have it at the expense of someone else who isn't fully informed about where things are going to end. In failing to inform her new partner about the limits of her interests she's done something wrong here; if he were properly informed he might decide to just pass of the whole thing and, perhaps, try to find someone else whose interests match his own.

Having said that, there are 2 dissimilarity between the Boy A case and the Girl Y case: (1) For Boy A, he's the only one doing something wrong (his partner, assuming she's clean, isn't); whereas both Girl Y and her partner are likely both committing the same wrong. Neither of them, I presume, clarify the limits of their interests at the outset of their encounter. Nevertheless, they are both still being unfair to the other; the fact that both are treating the other unfairly doesn't excuse that behavior. (2) the harm Boy A might do to his prospective partner seems more serious that the harm Girl Y might cause. I mean, really, her partner will probably just end up being disappointed (whereas Boy A's partner might end up diseased). But that's not the point. Just because it's a smaller harm doesn't make it negligible. At the end of the day Girl Y is using him as a mean to an end – she's using him as a tool to get she wants.

So, what I'm saying is this: If you're a slut, that's only going to be okay if you do it right. And doing it right involves ensuring your new “partner” is properly informed. If you fail to do that, you've acted immorally.

Having said that, 3 last things to note: (1) while a lot of slut-type actions are done when alcohol is involved (and judgment impaired), that doesn't dismiss moral obligations. Just because you're too drunk to do the right things doesn't get you off the hook. (2) There's, surely, more to the story – that is, failing to meet the obligations I've discussed here isn't the only way you can be an immoral slut. (Can you think of others? Write 'em in a comment!) (3) It's, clearly, the case that it's imprudent for sluts to meet the obligations I've outlined here. But a lot of the time prudence and morality don't recommend the same course of action. Such is life: you can often do either the prudent thing or the right thing, but not both. …so long story short: if you can't be a morally good slut, you shouldn't be a slut at all. 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.

Keeping it in the Family : Why my family reunions will be awkward for everafter.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A Woman's Place

“We would rather have one man or woman working with us than three merely working for us.” (J. Dabney Day)

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of getting women in the workplace. And, to generalize, I'm pro gender equality. Why wouldn't I be? But sometimes the solutions that are employed to address gender relation issues just seem to go about things the wrong way. Firefighting is an excellent example.

Take Jenny. Growing up, Jenny always wanted to be a firefighter. Of course she's never been as strong as Jimmy, who also always wanted to be a firefighter. So, unfortunately for Jenny, when it came time for Jenny and Jimmy to take the required fitness test, only Jimmy passed; Jenny was unable to run the required 2.5 kilometers fast enough. So Jimmy gets to be a firefighter while Jenny doesn't.* What's wrong with this picture?

In short, nothing at all. But some people (whether they're idealists, feminists, Maoists, or just biochemists) might try to chirp up and call this outcome unfair. They might argue that having one fitness test for both men and women is inappropriate and discriminatory in virtue of the fact that women are genetically predisposed to have a lower aerobic capacity then men. That is, to appropriately promote equality in the workplace, women should take a different test - one designed for women, based on the typical capacities of a woman; i.e. one not as strenuous as the one men have to take.

Now, I reject this for a few simple reasons. For one, focusing on the capabilities of people taking the test is the wrong places to put the emphasis. At the end of the day, firefighters - regardless of whether the person is a man or woman – are going to be doing the same thing (e.g. carrying someone out of a burning building). Tests, such as the one necessary to become a firefighter, should be reflective of the job. I'm not saying the test should be representative of the hardest physical situation someone might find themselves in on that job; maybe it should be the average. I don't know. And I don't really care. That's not important. Because the responsibilities will be the same for someone in such a role regardless of their gender, the should be held to the same standards. That's what's important. So some solutions to some problems go about it in the wrong way – they seek to fix a genuine problem (e.g. there being too few women in the workplace) without addressing the core issues that actually cause the problem in the first. But, then, the idealists might ask: what would be the best (or even better) way to get women into the workforce in appropriate numbers? Especially for something like firefighting? I don't know. But just because I can't offer an alternative doesn't mean that my objection to these kinds of backwards solutions are unjustified. And so, even without a solution in hand that will work to fix the root problem, we should not employ such bad “solutions”.

Having said that, when you distill it, this post isn't so much about firefighters (or even women in the workplace); it's about women-only gyms. I'm not a fan of them. I understand that such facilities are there for women who don't feel comfortable exercising in the same environment as men. And I agree that it's important for everyone to be comfortable exercising. But here their comfort comes at too high of a cost. Here segregation is used as a the wrong means to a proper end. This solution doesn't seek to address the root causes for why some women aren't comfortable exercising around men. Women-only gyms promote the mentality that it's okay for women to not be comfortable in an environment where they should be able to feel comfortable. So, while initially looking like a good thing, is actually harmful. In short, women-only gyms (like different fitness tests for prospective women firefighters than prospective men firefighters) are like sticking a band-aid on a broken leg - it might look and feel like it's helping but, really, it's not; it's just letting the real problem fester and get worse.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is this: (1) we should try to address the real reasons which strain, and hold back the advancement of, gender relations; and (2) we shouldn't accept solutions that fail to do that, even if they might make things better in some limited capacity. 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: This example is loosely based on an actual case in Canada. See here for a real short news story about it.

It's Satire, Stew it? Why Jon Stewart's 'Jim Cramer' interview was dangerous and wrong.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Basic Cable Personality Clash Skirmish '09

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

This is how Jon Stewart reported Jim Cramer's appearance on NBC's 'Morning Joe'.


Last week, I ended a four year love affair, and in the end it was much easier to let go than I thought it would be. In simpler times, a more naive version of me had loved this man, had hung on every word he had said, had believed in him. He made me laugh, then he made me think, then he made me cry. I wasn't the only one who loved him, millions of people felt like I did, felt that through his sense of humour and sharp, beautiful wit, he was making our crappy lives a little better. He became someone that all of us thought we knew, that all of us thought we could rely on. I didn't see the destructive power of what he was doing until it was too late. I'm not sure he realised what he was doing to me, but he was twisting my emotions, distorting my view of the world, turning me into a cynical,bitter husk of a man who hated on the world he inhabited, and lost all respect for the very institutions of society. Worse, even as I realised what I had become, the intoxicating power of his words had even more people left in his thrall. This man is Jon Stewart.

I think I was the only person on the entire planet who watched Jon Stewart's now infamous interview with Jim 'Mad Money' Cramer last week and felt disgusted not just with Jim Cramer, but also with Jon Stewart. For those of you who missed it (and I strongly suggest googling the interwebs and tracking it down, it should be on Comedy Central's web site) the interview was a culmination of a week-long feud between Jim Cramer and the muppets posing as financial analysts that inhabit the CNBC financial news network vs. Jon Stewart, his Daily Show leviathan and what appeared to be every twitterer,bloggerer and casual facebooker on the entire fucking Internet. To watch the interview itself, is like watching the school bully struggle to read out his apology letter in front of the whole school - compelling viewing, but leaving you to feel desperately uncomfortable. Cramer was totally eviscerated, his credibility as a financial analyst, an expert and a man extinguished by a Jon Stewart acid attack on his previous financial advice, his dodgy past and on the sorry state of financial analysis in general. In all honesty, Cramer probably deserved it - he had after all built himself up as a master of the market whose advice could be trusted, when in fact he appears to have as much financial acumen as the homeless guy on K Road that has one giant dreadlock. But this interview was especially troubling for me because it cemented the role of Jon Stewart, comedian, as one of the most important and insightful figures on the political left. And worse, much of Stewart's criticisms of Cramer apply more to Jon Stewart himself.

Stewart's fundamental criticism of Cramer was that he would make statements he knew that people would believe and rely on, but when the advice he offered turned out to be wrong (and financially disastrous for those who had relied on it), Cramer would claim all he was really doing was providing a form of entertainment. And yet, the modus operandi of Jon Stewart, a clever and dedicated man surrounded by a cleverer and more dedicated team of writers, is to cleverly edit video clips of prominent politicians, media-types and politicised figures, take statements out of context and make that person look ridiculous. If you have ever watched his show, you will know he is very, very good at it. The best example of this was his clip that began the whole CNBC v Stewart feud, where he accused CNBC's reporter Rick Santelli of being vehemently against bailouts only when they reached ordinary Americans, not big business. (Santelli had been advocating against the proposed bailout for homeowners unable to pay their mortgage.) In fact, Santelli had voiced loud, vocal and continued opposition against all bailouts right from the very beginning.

And yet, even the most idiotic AUTU scholar on their first day of a 'Bachelor' of 'Communications' 'degree' knows quoting people out of context is terribly unethical journalism. (If I said to you 'I am disgusted that some people think women should not vote' and you quoted me as saying 'Women should not vote' and published it, I'd be suing yo' ass fo' defamation). Jon Stewart knows that people watch his show not as a source of comedy, but as a source of news. Despite this, he continues to maintain that he is not bound by a need for fairness and accuracy, because he is not a journalist, he is a comedian - hiding behind a veil of ' frivolous entertainment' when it is clear his show is relied on by people as something more.

At several times throughout the Cramer interview, Stewart loudly urged Cramer to stop treating financial reporting as a 'game'. But Stewart himself seems set on treating the news, institutions of government and politics as a game where he's the only player who really understands the rules and where everyone else is an idiot. It's dead wrong. I realise that Stewart is a satirist, and I realise that satire is an important medium for raising mass awareness about unsavoury aspects of government activity. (Apparently, people listen to you if they think you're gonna entertain, not bore them). But the lampooning of political figures shouldn't be an false attempt to undermine trust and confidence in people and institutions that have acted in a way that is just, ethical and efficient - just to gain cheap laughs.

Sometimes, it's hard to be on the left-wing of the political spectrum. For one thing, we are required to make progressive cases for unpopular social issues - speaking from personal experience, NOTHING kills a family reunion faster than asking your elderly great-great aunt 'If incest is consensual, what's the problem??!?'. And when members of the right-wing get together, it normally involves a country club with comfy chairs, free club sandwiches, and the children of the super-wealthy telling 'non-politically correct' jokes and drinking expensive cocktails paid for by Daddy's credit card. Left-wing get togethers traditionally take place in the rain, involve throwing shoes at tennis players, and are frequented by a bunch of middle-aged unemployed Marxists whose committment to remaining part of the proletariat is exceeded only by their non-committment to personal hygiene. But the hardest bit is dealing with a general unwillingness by members of the left to criticise one of their own when they are acting in a way that is unreasonable. And Jon Stewart is a liberal hero- a relentless critic of the Bush Administration. Everyone has their favourite Stewart moment, I replay his 9/11 speech every year. But that doesn't mean Stewart is immune to criticism. In his attacks on Cramer, he has overstepped the line between satire and unethical journalism. He must return to doing what he does best - making us laugh and making us think. And he must do it soon.

Alex


This is what actually happened.

Hey Fatty – Why don't You Have Another cheeseburger!?!

“Is she fat? Her favorite food is seconds” (Joan Rivers)

We all know that it used to be the case that smoking was socially acceptable; like 10 or so years ago. Before that, in the 60s or 70s, smoking was even considered cool. (Gaw!) But that no longer the case; now it's a social taboo. And one of the main reasons it's fallen out of favor is because of the harm it causes – not only to the smoker herself, but also to those around the smoker. It's to the point now that if your friend lights up you might say something like: “What the fuck are you doing man? That's a filthy habit and it's bad for you!” The funniest part about this is that the smoker will often reply: “Ya, dude, I know. Sorry. I totally gotta quit one of these days.” While it's her individual choice to smoke, it's not politically incorrect for the rest of us to chastise her for smoking; we're socially allowed to berate her for this lifestyle choice she's made.

But, oddly enough, it remains politically incorrect for us to single out and scold other harmful lifestyle choices people make; like being fat and unhealthy. I mean, if you see a 300 lbs woman walking away from the McDonald's counter with 3 Big Macs and an extra large coke (obviously all just for her), it's considered not okay for you say “Jesus, what are you doing lady?!? Are you looking to die of diabetes?”

The unhealthy lifestyle choices that lead to obesity, or even just being overweight, are harmful. But (like smoking) these lifestyle choices are also harmful to the rest of us. The health problems that come with obesity strain our health cares systems; our comfort is taxed when having to squeeze in to a seat next to a fat person on a plane or bus; and (if you'll let me be a lil crass) our field of vision is polluted by their lumbering size.

At the end of the day the problem with fat people stems, in large part, from the overindulgence culture of our contemporary western society – where quantity is valued over quality. And our social inability to address this problem is rooted in the trouble with political correctness – the idea that I'm not okay, and you're not okay; but we're okay, because it's okay for us to not be okay. Sorry, but that's bullshit. We should be held to the expectation to excel and be the best we can be (in all regards); not to resign ourselves to be content with our own mediocrity. We shouldn't be allowed to be crappy; by that I mean, political correctness shouldn't protect these kinds of decisions.

Sure, the tub lovers will pipe up with things like “some fattys can't help it, man, they're just big boned or it's in their genes.” And I don't contest that. But at the end of the day the fact that someone is big is a good indicator that they just aren't living a sufficiently healthy lifestyles. While this is an inductive inference, but it's a justifiable one. At the core my point is that they (as well as all of us, of course) should live active and healthy lifestyles. If someone looks big despite being appropriately healthy and active, that's okay (but unfortunate for him or her).

So, when you distill it, this post is less about what's wrong with fat people and more about what's wrong with poor lifestyle choices and the hypocrisy of considering some such choices acceptable (e.g. being unhealthy) while considering other to be not acceptable (e.g. smoking). We shouldn't be condemned for condemning the unhealthy people for being fat. 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.

Aid First

My last positive act to eliminate the world of poverty was a pathetic attempt to complete the '40 hour famine' was I was 11. I ate three packs of barley sugars (the only sustenance you are allowed to have) in the first two hours, was violently ill and spent the rest of the weekend recovering and eating my left-over Easter Eggs. I still made my Grandmother give me the $5 dollar sponsorhip, however, but I think I spent a dollar of it on a can of Fanta. Charges of hypocrisy, with respect to anything I say on the subject of foreign aid are therefore wholly justified. But at least I can claim to have done it on wholly altruistic grounds. That's more than can be said about the new aid policy of the New Zealand government.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully, a man whose name would not look out of place in a book by Lynley Dodd, recently announced a review of the governments aid policy and the structure of the government's aid dispensing body NZAID. That's all well and good, ministers newly settled into portfolios that they have coveted for the better part of a decade are want to produce a report that shows just how rubbish the last minister, and their political rival, was at doing their job. But, McCully's 'review' goes deeper than merely seeing whether aid money has been spent effectively - in fact McCully will not be satisfied unless he has changed the very definition of 'effectiveness'. He appears poised to take away the autonomous status of NZAID and subsuming this organisation with the umbrella of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, on the grounds that NZAID's stated goal of 'poverty elimination' has become too broad, and that aid dispensation should be directed to greater enhance New Zealand's foreign policy aims. In other words, New Zealand's aid money isn't 'effective' if it is helping some of the most destitute people on the planet drag themselves out of dire poverty, its only 'effective' if it in some way strengthens New Zealand's position on the world stage. For two reasons, McCully's policy is an unmitigated disaster.

The first reason is that judging aid on the criterion of 'poverty elimination' has a strong basis in morality. New Zealand currently gives aid money because it has determined that it has obligations as a good international citizen to improve the standard of living of those who are unfortunate enough to live in states less awesome than New Zealand, without an abundance of natural resources and a stable political system. (C'mon, the most important news story of the first three months of 2009 was the Prime Minister falling down the stairs).And, given that New Zealand's $480 million dollar aid budget is mostly directed towards Pacific micro-states that have almost been completely forgotten about by the international community in its scramble to save Africa, our country's aid money makes real difference in people's lives. McCully, in his role as Opposition spokesman for Foreign Affairs, expressed outrage that despite this large sum of money allocated towards our neighbours every year, Japan was able to make many of these states alter their stance on whaling (from wanting to save the whales to wanting Japan to eat the whales) through offering aid assistance, but making it conditional on this policy flip-flop. Furthermore, McCully believes that withholding aid from Fiji while it labours under the authoritarian command of Frank Banimarama would help speed up its return to democracy. He's probably right to be angry, and he's probably right that withholding aid would in the long-run return Fiji back to democratic status. But this doesn't make it ok to tie provision of aid to 'what's in the best interests of New Zealand'. Poverty eradication and improving lives must be the first,second and third priorities for aid - and it abhorrent that those most deserving could be denied the opportunity to meet their most basic needs solely because their state does not offer New Zealand key diplomatic, security or economic opportunities.

Even if you disagree with me on the 'moral basis' for aid, and think I'm some sort of liberal sociology-studying pansy who should get a job so he can afford to patch up his bleeding heart, tying aid to NZ's foreign policy goals is not only immoral - it is intransparent and inefficient. McCully came up with a pathetic and widely-derided example that the practice of throwing money out of a helicopter would be enough to satisfy NZAID's sole goal of 'poverty elimination' under the current regime. He followed this up with the tired old hobby-horse of the New Zealand conservative movement, that it was time aid was a 'hand-up not a hand-out'. While aid agencies are infinitely smarter than the money-throwing hippies McCully would desperately like to portray them as, maybe there is truth in the idea that NZAID's budget could be better used. But the big problem with McCully's strategy is that when aid programmes are focused not just on poverty eradication, but also on other goals - such as fostering commercial opportunities for New Zealand businesses, it becomes wholly impossible to assess how sucessful an aid programme was at satisfying any of its aims. The problem is that when aid becomes just another tool in the kit for satisying some inscrutable goal of NZ foreign policy the focus of aid distribution becomes too focused on creating programmes that make New Zealand appear a committed and legitimate donor, rather than focusing on programmes that are actually effective and get on with the core business of improving lives.

NZ's aid policy is in dire need of review. Despite our obligations to the UN's Millenium Development Goals that state we must set aside 0.8% of our GDP for foreign aid, New Zealand contributes a shameful 0.35% (and even this is a high-water mark, and vast improvement on previous years). And too often, New Zealand contributes only to short term projects, allowing aid-recieving governments to see aid as a one-off sweetener to their domestic budget rather than a long-term source of income that they can use to make extensive and badly needed infrastructural reforms. But despite this, NZAID has over the last decade transformed itself into an organisation that is adept at providing aid with is effective, humanitarian and easily harmonised into indigenous policy-making. That's why it is a shame that the stated goal of McCully's review is to reinvent the wheel, and demand that the only good aid is aid that advances NZ's economic, diplomatic and security agenda. It represents a step backward for New Zealand's international reputation as a good moral international citizen. And it represents a giant leap backward for the lives of the South Pacific's most poorest people. It must be abandoned.

Alex

A Time for Revenge?

“Revenge does not long remain unrevengd.” (German Proverb)

I wanna talk a bit about fairness today. More specifically, fairness when it comes to justice. What do I mean by that? I mean: when some wrong as been committed against you, what kind of response is fair? And I'm talking about the sort of wrongs that typically fall outside our legal system. So what I really want to chat about, specifically, is a kind of retributive justice – revenge. Strictly speaking, retributive justice is a theory of justice where the punishment for a wrong is proportional to the harm done by that wrong; “an eye for an eye” kind of thing. More informally, I think this is tantamount to saying (proportional) revenge is permissible.

We all seem to instinctively have a compulsion or desire for revenge; when you get harmed two wrongs certainly seem capable of making things right. But it also seems like a more robust conception of fairness should hinge on something more than revenge and, maybe, even consider vengeful acts impermissible. So what I want to find out is: how intertwined is our conception of fairness with the permissibility of reprisals? If vengeance seems so intuitively right, why is it that a lot of us intuitively think we shouldn't dish out revenge? Our dispositions towards apologies and forgiveness seem relevant here; but it’s prima facie unclear why saying “sorry” makes up for a wrong in the same what revenge might.

Okie dokie. Let look at a case: Meet Jimmy. Jimmy's a jerk. One day, Jimmy left his flatmate's (Jenny) bottle of orange juice on the counter with the cap off and all kinds of ants and bugs got all in there. Gross. Her OJ is now a waste. Is it fair for Jenny to intentionally leave some food product of similar value that belongs to Jimmy out so that it spoils? Hmm. Even though Jenny might think “Jimmy, ya jerk”, I don't think she's got the right to intentionally ruin something of his; even if the reprisal is proportional. (If you're a retrubutivist, you'll probably have the conflicting intuition here.) Even though this reprisal would be proportional, the harm suffered by Jenny hardly seems sufficient to warrant any kind of act that has the intent of harming Jimmy. After all, don't sweat the small stuff, right?

But it's a different story if we tweak the case so that Jimmy intentionally left the OJ out to spoil it. Even though this remains a small harm to Jenny, the fact that Jimmy specifically set out to harm her surely becomes relevant. But, even then, she may not be permitted to take revenge and set out to intentionally harm him inretaliation. A lot of people here would say things like "take the high road" or "be the bigger person" or whatever.

Alright, so what about a bigger harm? What if Jimmy deleted Jenny's PhD dissertation a week before she was going to submit it. In this instance, whether or not he intended to do it seems far less relevant (if at all). We could, maybe, say that Jimmy owed her a degree of diligence to not do something like that. While this “due care” kind of clause likely also holds in the OJ case, there it seems more trivial – there are more important things than the OJ. But destroying someone's near finished PhD is pretty important; that is, a dissertation is far more important to someone that their bottle of juice.

So, here, then, is Jenny permitted to retaliate? Hmm. Even now I'm unsure. But what if Jimmy wasn't sorry or apologetic for deleting her dissertation? Now it looks like a case of him not willing to make amends for the wrong he did. So, do that mean Jenny now has the right to “balance the books”? At this point, finally, my intuitions are starting to lean towards yes. But I have reservations.

Without getting into those reservations or looking at other case, here's what I think we got: taking revenge, while having a compulsion to do it, is generally inappropriate. It's often not something you should do because the harm is either negligible or because the wrongdoer takes steps to make amends. However, in other instances – where the harm isn't negligible or the wrongdoer refuse to make (appropriate amends) – committing some vengeful act may be permitted. Right? 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.

Just an Opinion?

While I don't want to put words in Paul D's mouth (or on his page, as may be more suitable here), I think it would be fair comment to say that we have both been struggling to come up with blog posts lately. Partly, this has been because we've been intensely busy with real world things (ok, Paul has been busy, and I've been playing a lot of Stick Cricket.) But I also think it reflects the difficulty, after nearly 6 months of blogging, of consistently coming up with issues that we think are interesting, presenting arguments that we think are well-reasoned and putting them out in the public sphere for anyone to read, analyze and tear to shreds. Again, I can't claim to speak for Paul - but when I first started blogging, I couldn't figure out if I was doing it because I wanted to gain a cult following of thousands of readers and be anointed as the liberal Rush Limbaugh of the internets, or if I was doing it simply because I wanted to create an 'opinion snapshot' of a certain period of my life, with reader comments being a exciting, welcomed but unintended byproduct of my spasmodic brainvomits. And I guess I still haven't decided why I'm doing this. Probably because its more fun than reading my Company Law textbook. (Yuck.)

I think the greatest tension I have found is between trying to write consistently, and trying to write perfectly. When I first started, I set myself a goal of two posts a week. In that regard, I'm a complete and utter fail - the James Buchanan of bloggers - but I've still tried to update regularly, because I figure its good for self-discipline, and good to ensure that my half of the blog doesn't collapse into disuse. That has led to several times when I've pushed 'Publish' on a post I'm not entirely happy with, or in many cases not happy with at all. Its one thing to expose your naked thoughts to the violent, swirling maelstrom of the internets, but its another thing to expose your thoughts when you convinced that what you are showing is wholly inadequate. Don't get me wrong, I'm inordinately proud of some of my posts - but there are others that the moment I read them over again the next morning, I cringe. I guess this is why I write, in a stream of conciousness style, very late at night, or the moment I wake up. I'm less picky then, even if I lose ALL ability to keep my word count within a readable limit (much to Paul's chagrin).

In a way, I'd like to think that through the constant verbiage that spills on this page, I'm contributing to the fine intellectual tradition of the 'opinion column'. In a sense, an opinion column is a first draft of history - the immediate responses of reasonably intelligent people (who are not, and should not claim to be experts in the field they write on) to a particular event or issue. By producing my opinion on a given topic, I'm taking a stance on the issues of our time, trying to convince other people like me of the cogency of my arguments or at the very least, fostering a reasoned debate which doesn't take place in a rarified academic circumstances, but between a couple of ordinary citizens who give a damn.

I realise that to a large extent, my previous paragraph was a manifestion of some Winstonesque delusions of grandeur. AWordOnFailure's readership is almost totally derived from friends I've bullied into checking it out, and people who googled the term 'Teen Harlot'. (Seriously. Although, I should add, both Paul and I always excited when we get comments from 'randoms from the internets', so thankyou 'randoms'.) But my delusions of grandeur shouldn't detract from the power of the opinion column to have real impact on public opinion and on the direction of intellectual tradition in a liberal democracy, generally. Which is why it is to the great shame of newspapers New Zealand-wide, that our current opinion columnists are lacklustre. Compare the columns that appear on the New York Times, with the columns that appear on the 'stuff' website (a collection of many major NZ newspapers). I'd encourage you to look at both those links, but the striking difference for me was that while the New York times columnists offered idealogically principled, progressive approaches to the big issues of our time, the New Zealand columnists were content to offer reactionary commentary,that was in line with the public sentiment and not a deep analysis of whether those sentiments should be ones the public should be proud of. (This is not say, that I think I am the great white hope of New Zealand journalism, and I alone could bring the light of awesomess to the dark cesspit of New Zealand opinion writing. If you have read my previous posts, I clearly couldn't. But unlike the people (and Michael Laws) who write for major newspapers - I don't get paid to produce flagrantly unprincipled drivel.) Maybe, I'm wrong. I do have a major case of AmericaEnvy that could cloud my judgement so I would be interested, as always, to hear what you think.

I started writing this post, because I felt I needed to write a post, and had no ideas where I would end up. I suppose my overall conclusion, 'having opinions is cool', isn't going to set the world on fire. But having opinions IS cool, and the opportunity the internet affords us to be able to give an opinion and put it in the public square (in our case, a squalid and ill-attended public square) is awesome with a capital O. I guess on that note, Paul and I have been trying for ages to get people to write a 'guest post' on an issue of their choice, which we'll put up on the blog for you. If anyone is keen, it would be much appreciated, it would great to get a plurality of different opinions on this blog, rather than just my hatred of Michael Laws and Paul's hatred of hippies. Plus, it's better than studying.

Alex



(lol, Ron Paul)