People love to hate other people for being untalented. I, sadly, am no exception to the rule, for I too partake in such guilty pleasures as laughing at American Idol contestants, giggling to myself mindlessly when hearing drunk people karaoke, and watching MTV's 'Made.' It is, for some reason, a common fact among humanity that seeing other people 'lower' than our own talents somehow makes us feel better; perhaps this is some form of biological imperative in that we realize if 'singing' and 'dancing' well makes us more likely to survive, we're much more likely to survive than that pretend hip-hop dancer over there.
However, there are moments that, for whatever reason, we automatically ascribe bad characteristics (e.g. she can't sing, he can't dance) based solely on what we see. Humans, myself included, are oftentimes so quick to judge based on looks, or personal wants, or preference that we miss some of the greatest talents of our time simply because we weren't looking. By now, everyone knows who Susan Boyle is; ten or twenty years ago, she was just an anonymous face in the crowd. Of course, this form of judgment based on a social stigma transcends merely looks and goes in further; white boys can't rap, guitar players can't understand music, sociologists can't understand hard science. Some really are simply because an object embodies qualities we would not expect normally in someone proficient in the craft and others are actually true due to deep, underlying reasons.
Musical stigma is perhaps the biggest and most widespread one, but perhaps the most prominent is that between classical music enthusiasts and everyone else. Classical music is to many, the pinnacle of musical talent in performance and composition, containing complicated riffs and emotions and ensembles that are simply ten times larger or more than popular music groups. People who have been raised on classical music sniff that other genres simply do not have the depth of display and consequently, have given rise to a mentality of classical music being elitist and completely unapproachable. I'm not even speaking about this in terms of music theory as much as I'm speaking just in terms of perception; certainly, people in classical music today study for years with drills hours and hours a day would believe that little pop singer who took a singing lesson once a week could never understand real dedication to the craft.
Classical music is one of my favorite genres, and the first song I ever cried to upon a listen was by Rachmaninoff. The soaring melody with a gorgeous, rhythmic counter was overwhelming and I admit I started bawling like a little baby. Good music is rooted deeply in the core of humanity's emotional consciousness, and thus, has the potential to inspire any form of emotion from within ourselves. Certainly, this was due to the complex expression, the years of performance practice, the knowledge of how to actualize something as unquantifiable as emotion into counted notes, time, and measure.
Or was it? Recently, I had an emotional reaction to another piece of music; the ending performance in Glee.
I never truly believed that classical music was beautiful because it was the 'highest form of art.' If music, so deeply rooted in emotion, should be judged by the emotional inspirational capacity it contains then certainly classical music contains many gorgeous pieces but every type of music has the capacity to inspire emotion. Sometimes, it's not about how complicated the notes are or how deep the rhythm is, or how much screaming there is or how many guitar parts but simply about how much emotion is placed into the work for it to blossom. As I sat watching Glee and felt the tears on my face, I was somewhat amused that something as simple as a bunch of actors and actresses performing some pop-culture song as a musical would strike me enough deep enough to cause such a response. Maybe it was because there is a beauty in performing with so much emotion that you don't care whether people hate it or dislike it, or even if it sounds beautiful to anyone else but yourself.
Sure, that kid on American Idol might suck to us, and probably could use a few years of lessons and, yeah, should be a bit less defensive when it comes to dealing with how horrible he is but at the same time, you gotta admire the guts he has for performing with the 100% he's got. Perhaps he deserves a gold star not because he was particularly dedicated, or because he was good, but because he was willing to drag the oldest form of music out from himself into the world. Purely artistic expression, with no regard to accepted standards or judgments and only for the sake of birthing something new into the world.
Today is not raining but is mad warm, so I'm staying home to watch Glee again. For the umpteenth time. Man, I wish I could sing.
Cheers.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Sham-WOW!
The reference in the title and how it has to do with my subject matter today might not be very clear (read: obscure like Shakespeare's diary or any joke made by a Trekkie), so I'll just say it out right. The answer is mildew.
Why do we want to buy Sham-WOW (it'll make you say Wow every time!)? Because the cola starts to come out. Because we don't want our carpets to stink from spilled beer, dog pee, and soy sauce. Because we don't want to see it fester, decay, and suddenly reappear one day as a giant, smelly stain that makes you wish you bought Sham-WOW.
People are like this too.
I recently had the pleasure of reading a blog of my friend, in which the author eloquently and rather brazenly decided to tear new holes into 'unfortunate people' who lack the learned skill of empathy. The contention is simple; one who does not share parallel, applicable experiences with someone else is incapable of showing an innate understanding. This is clearly a bad thing, and thus, people should experience tears and bleeding hearts in such a way that they can truly appreciate a real happiness. As an observer (as best I can be, at any rate), I cannot find fault with this train of logic and in fact in some ways, subscribe to this ideal.
However, as I perused the post a second (and then a third, fourth, fifth, and sixth time), I noticed something else. The author makes a secondary claim that those who lack this form of empathy are inherently judgmental. While tiptoeing between phrases that reside between Sarcasm Town and Insultingville, the clear message is that should one understand another person's pain, they would innately know that comfort is the proper response when confronted by someone else's situation. As a corollary, people who willingly grow intimate in terms of feelings and emotions are asking only for understanding and this 'empathy.' The author continually makes the claim that those who lack empathy are oftentimes judgmental, a mentality that those who have experience pain and suffering a la MLK Jr. or Anakin Skywalker cannot and more importantly, should not have to tolerate.
I first scrunched up my nose. I then laughed. I then had a few gulps of Pepsi while my pet bird fell asleep on my shoulder as she often does.
I haven't really written on the subject of pain precisely because it is so subjective, but I do know that for as many people there are in the world, there are just as many mindsets on the matter. People view experience in different ways but one thing that I do believe is common is that we all feel pain and suffering. Sure, my level of suffering cannot compare to that of certain people, and vice versa, but to judge someone's lack of empathy is based on how closely they come to your experience is innately wrong. This would have offended my sensibilities a bit less had it not been written quite so closed to the chest in a semi-confrontation chiding manner, but suffice it to say that a big fat context was needed.
The main gripe, however, is the fact that those who are emotionally open willingly towards people only ask for comfort; a pat on the back, scratch on the head, soft-baked chocolate chip cookie. While it is understandable that people have a 'happy place' against whatever trauma that happens in the world, this mindset implies heavily (both for the author and a more general populace) that it is a requirement and worse, it should be composed only of cushions and compliments. Although normally I am not against a form of 'buffering,' I cannot condone it in this context. Why? The hypocrisy is outstanding.
People have to feel pain to understand pain, sure. But people all deal with pain in different ways. Some people, yes, require a happy room with toys and mommy and time to heal their battered egos; others merely push through it with tenacity. Still others dwell on pain, giving rise to emo children and anyone who listens to Marilyn Manson (I kid, of course). And still others simply accept the pain and the consequence, and move on. Perhaps the author was not so much berating the lack of empathy as a lack of a parallel solution; in this case, happy place. There is little basis inherently in claiming someone doesn't understand pain, and this lack of a clarification doesn't showcase how much the author was possibly mistaken as much as a lack of understanding of others. Pot calling the kettle black, although I suspect that this is closer to pot calling kettle black when the pot is blind.
The kettle might not be black, then.
I talked about communication before and stated how my favorite pets (after my cockatiel, of course) were often birthed from misunderstandings. This is a case, however, that is even further rooted down; an inability to understand a person's world view. We might not agree with everyone else's viewpoint on the world (there are many that I simply cannot condone) but we can at least do our best to understand them. If a misunderstanding in communication is the mildew, then this fundamental disconnect between two perceptions is the festering cola underneath that manifests only after so much time. It is not a matter, then, of examining a statement or changing words but a matter of scrutinizing mindsets and changing viewpoints.
I was reading a speech by some guy named Vonnegut, in which he stated that if Jesus was alive in modern times, he'd probably be persecuted just as heavily. How very, very true. The idea of acceptance is so counterintuitive to so many things, from competition to judgment, from law to war that if Jesus was alive today, we'd lock him up as some kind of lunatic. Yet, perhaps these are tenets that we should strive to live by more and more. Grace. Acceptance. Perhaps not a lack of arrogance, but a sense of understanding. Otherwise, words like the beloved cited author's become more and more commonplace; more and more mildew begins to stink from the various things spilled and lost and ignored.
Bet you wish you bought a Sham-WOW then, huh. I know I would. This is why I try cleaning up my spills as fast as possible!
Today is sunny but because my pet bird is lazy, I too am lazy but not lazy enough to not clean up the pepsi, should I spill any. I unfortunately after all, do not own a Sham-WOW.
Cheers.
Why do we want to buy Sham-WOW (it'll make you say Wow every time!)? Because the cola starts to come out. Because we don't want our carpets to stink from spilled beer, dog pee, and soy sauce. Because we don't want to see it fester, decay, and suddenly reappear one day as a giant, smelly stain that makes you wish you bought Sham-WOW.
People are like this too.
I recently had the pleasure of reading a blog of my friend, in which the author eloquently and rather brazenly decided to tear new holes into 'unfortunate people' who lack the learned skill of empathy. The contention is simple; one who does not share parallel, applicable experiences with someone else is incapable of showing an innate understanding. This is clearly a bad thing, and thus, people should experience tears and bleeding hearts in such a way that they can truly appreciate a real happiness. As an observer (as best I can be, at any rate), I cannot find fault with this train of logic and in fact in some ways, subscribe to this ideal.
However, as I perused the post a second (and then a third, fourth, fifth, and sixth time), I noticed something else. The author makes a secondary claim that those who lack this form of empathy are inherently judgmental. While tiptoeing between phrases that reside between Sarcasm Town and Insultingville, the clear message is that should one understand another person's pain, they would innately know that comfort is the proper response when confronted by someone else's situation. As a corollary, people who willingly grow intimate in terms of feelings and emotions are asking only for understanding and this 'empathy.' The author continually makes the claim that those who lack empathy are oftentimes judgmental, a mentality that those who have experience pain and suffering a la MLK Jr. or Anakin Skywalker cannot and more importantly, should not have to tolerate.
I first scrunched up my nose. I then laughed. I then had a few gulps of Pepsi while my pet bird fell asleep on my shoulder as she often does.
I haven't really written on the subject of pain precisely because it is so subjective, but I do know that for as many people there are in the world, there are just as many mindsets on the matter. People view experience in different ways but one thing that I do believe is common is that we all feel pain and suffering. Sure, my level of suffering cannot compare to that of certain people, and vice versa, but to judge someone's lack of empathy is based on how closely they come to your experience is innately wrong. This would have offended my sensibilities a bit less had it not been written quite so closed to the chest in a semi-confrontation chiding manner, but suffice it to say that a big fat context was needed.
The main gripe, however, is the fact that those who are emotionally open willingly towards people only ask for comfort; a pat on the back, scratch on the head, soft-baked chocolate chip cookie. While it is understandable that people have a 'happy place' against whatever trauma that happens in the world, this mindset implies heavily (both for the author and a more general populace) that it is a requirement and worse, it should be composed only of cushions and compliments. Although normally I am not against a form of 'buffering,' I cannot condone it in this context. Why? The hypocrisy is outstanding.
People have to feel pain to understand pain, sure. But people all deal with pain in different ways. Some people, yes, require a happy room with toys and mommy and time to heal their battered egos; others merely push through it with tenacity. Still others dwell on pain, giving rise to emo children and anyone who listens to Marilyn Manson (I kid, of course). And still others simply accept the pain and the consequence, and move on. Perhaps the author was not so much berating the lack of empathy as a lack of a parallel solution; in this case, happy place. There is little basis inherently in claiming someone doesn't understand pain, and this lack of a clarification doesn't showcase how much the author was possibly mistaken as much as a lack of understanding of others. Pot calling the kettle black, although I suspect that this is closer to pot calling kettle black when the pot is blind.
The kettle might not be black, then.
I talked about communication before and stated how my favorite pets (after my cockatiel, of course) were often birthed from misunderstandings. This is a case, however, that is even further rooted down; an inability to understand a person's world view. We might not agree with everyone else's viewpoint on the world (there are many that I simply cannot condone) but we can at least do our best to understand them. If a misunderstanding in communication is the mildew, then this fundamental disconnect between two perceptions is the festering cola underneath that manifests only after so much time. It is not a matter, then, of examining a statement or changing words but a matter of scrutinizing mindsets and changing viewpoints.
I was reading a speech by some guy named Vonnegut, in which he stated that if Jesus was alive in modern times, he'd probably be persecuted just as heavily. How very, very true. The idea of acceptance is so counterintuitive to so many things, from competition to judgment, from law to war that if Jesus was alive today, we'd lock him up as some kind of lunatic. Yet, perhaps these are tenets that we should strive to live by more and more. Grace. Acceptance. Perhaps not a lack of arrogance, but a sense of understanding. Otherwise, words like the beloved cited author's become more and more commonplace; more and more mildew begins to stink from the various things spilled and lost and ignored.
Bet you wish you bought a Sham-WOW then, huh. I know I would. This is why I try cleaning up my spills as fast as possible!
Today is sunny but because my pet bird is lazy, I too am lazy but not lazy enough to not clean up the pepsi, should I spill any. I unfortunately after all, do not own a Sham-WOW.
Cheers.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Thinking inside the Box
Browsing Facebook generally yield gems in the form of games I can play to waste time, news events about friends and people I don't remember, and occasionally a 'who are you' when I encounter someone I've friended, but do not know. However, tonight it yielded a wonderful Youtube video involving Bill O'Reilly discussing with a student about the harmful discrimination of a teacher against Christians.
Link to the Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdRGo5rAm54
Let's go over the facts. From as far as I can gather from the news piece (and I'm going to use this Youtube video as the basis for facts on the initial case tonight), a teacher, Dr. James Corbett, reaches Advanced Placement European History in a manner that focuses heavily on religion- including espousing upon the bad influences of religion with phrases such as 'If you put on Jesus glasses, you can't see the proof.' One of the students, Chad Farnan, a sophomore at the time coming from a Christian religious background, was so offended by the statements that he decided to sue the school system (under the establishment clause, stating that any public official cannot show hostility towards a given religion). Within the interview, the lawyer on air with Chad states that the teacher in question has an 'Atheist club' and 'numerous people' who state this teacher has done harm to good people everywhere, with a case that turned a daughter into an 'intolerable know-it-all.' Clearly, Dr. James Corbett is wrong, as the audio tapes (which the student did secretly) prove.
Frankly, this is bullshit.
Do I approve of Dr. Corbett's remarks, first of all. I can't say because the tapes are taken completely out of context. Unfortunately, in order to properly judge statements, one must also make mention of the context in which said remarks are spoken in. I could clearly admit to any number of crimes on a given day, but if I was outside on the street with a bunch of my dorky friends saying 'I killed someone yesterday,' it's extremely difficult to say that is at all anything other than a frivolous statement. These statements are not in context. European History is wrought with instances where religion was a major influencing factor, from setting up the groundwork for the Protestant Reform and the Enlightenment to directly financing movements such as the crusades and the Renaissance. For a teacher to remark that the best way to get 'peasants to oppose something that's in their self-interest' is religion, if taken in the context of a lecture on say, medieval times, is simply put, not at all offensive. It is a reasoning that has firm, historical basis and thus, should be taken as such. I simply cannot fathom how the statement about Jesus glasses blinding people, when taken from the same 'pool' of statements as this one, can be taken as anything being more than provocative. Sure, it's a head turner, but is it offensive?
Not in context.
There are two counterpoints to my point; one is that the context is wrong, and one is that context doesn't matter and empirical statements do. Because no context was provided to me in the video that I am using as my source for facts on this case, I will respond only to the second point. Appropriately enough, it shall be with another video.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E&feature=related
Time: About 1:55
No double standards with me. I'm applying context as a crucial factor in judgment here. Lest all conservatives want to argue that McCain's defense of Palin's position is invalid because it is also applying context, my point's going to stand.
The larger theme in all of this, of course, is the 'fairness' mindset that is being stated in this particular video. Take, for example, O'Reilly's cheeky comment towards Chad asking him if he asked Dr. Corbett why they weren't explaining 'the other side.' The same sort of reasoning applies to people who believe creationism (which is not, for the record, a legitimate scientific theory because it violates falsifiability and hence, should be discussed elsewhere) should be taught alongside evolution in schools. Certainly, as modernism and post-modernism begin to shift the world away from 'traditional values,' one might easily apply the 'fairness' mindset to conservative and argue for the balance; however, to apply 'fairness,' one must see if it was consistent with the past forms of conservatism. Did conservatives argue for social equality towards gays, lesbians, and transgenders because it would be fair? No. Did conservatives argue for evolution to be taught in schools along side the Bible during the Scopes trial? No. Did conservatives argue that prayer in school might, you know, offend people who aren't Christian? No.
How can conservatives plead for 'fairness' when they haven't shown a tolerance- no, a precedence for 'fair thinking' in their own historical past? While I applaud socially laissez-faire conservatives (e.g. those who believe people should be allowed to live as they choose, but apply conservative values to themselves), I cannot tolerate the 'old school' conservatives who believe in a standing mantra of 'our way or the highway.' One has no right to plead for anything one has not shown in the past and in this case, the heavy right wing has no foot left to stand to argue fairness. Instead, their use of 'fairness,' particularly in this case, shows only a willingness to manipulate the mindset of many in order to secure the position of a single sect of people. I cannot and do not condone this.
Following up on this story, I am pleased that while the teacher did not get off completely scot-free, he did only get convicted on one of the more than twenty comments caught on audio tape. I am somewhat disheartened that it wasn't a complete dodge, but reading that the statement was simply denouncing Creationism for being 'religious, superstitious, nonsense (a position I, as a someone interested in science, share from both my experiences and readings),' I will state that semantics do make it seem anti-Creationist and hence, anti-Christian and while my contextual reading will lead me to believe it to be a simple statement of fact, others might not readily agree. Fair enough.
What I am more worried about, however, is what this conviction will do for the state of education and for the state of free-thinking. This case presents a massive blow to education, as it essentially provides a precedence for limiting what teachers can or cannot say. To learn isn't simply a matter of rehashing old ideals from those who know better, but is also a process in which a youngster makes his own worldview, affirming and rejecting concepts based on solid foundational knowledge as well as personal and shared experiences. However, silencing teachers in this manner limits what sorts of viewpoints children can be exposed to and hence, reduces the overall variety of things one would be able to learn. I understand that to many parents, educators, conservatives, and even liberals, this is not inherently a bad thing; we should 'teach what is [we think] is right,' as opposed to 'teach everything.' However, is this really fair? I guess the essential question for me here is the following.
Shouldn't we trust our children enough to make the right decision? And if it opposes us, shouldn't we first see if we have been mistaken, rather than to denounce their choices as wrong?
As one can see, I am very much a belief in free thinking- that is, with heavy logical rigor and sound basis. This case and the subsequent verdict present to me a very compelling fear; one in which only one dogma unites the world and variance of thought dies out like some sort of poison. Such a stifling metaphysical mindset is sure to bring about unity, but at the cost of difference, color, and most of all innovation. As an outside observer who delights in comparing the viewpoints of the many, this would truly be my anathema.
Today is not raining, and therefore, I am not lazy. Hence, I would like to leave with two caveats- just little things I was thinking of, instead of my normal message.
The question is simple; 'If you believe in 'fairness to all (which I never stated, but let's say I do),' do you believe Creationism should be taught in schools?'
Of all the questions to ask me, this one took some time but I finally arrived at a single conclusion; absolutely. However, Creationism is not science for various reasons; it should not be taught alongside scientific theories but rather, either used as an example of what science is not (that is, theories are exclusively things that can be proven wrong). It should also be taught in humanities courses as an interesting construct that is used to bolster a return to social ideals, and probably in law courses too to study the impact of seemingly secular idealisms with heavy religious influence upon our current laws; this would impact, I would think, education the most. This also brings me to my second caveat of the night.
Dr. Corbett was convicted because of his statement against Creationism violated the Establishment Clause, which stated that a public figure cannot show hostility against a religion. I am not an expert on law, nor will I profess to be anyone other than a simple user of 'if p then q' statements but, doesn't this ruling suggest that Creationism is equivalent to religion? And not so much 'suggest' and 'explicitly state' and if so, doesn't that mean that any movement to teach Creationism alongside evolution in schools has a legal precedent going against it inherently? It's an interesting thought to consider and I welcome anyone capable to enlightening me more about this.
Cheers. From outside the box.
Link to Corbett's final end: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/corbett-religion-court-2387684-farnan-selna
Link to Corbett's editorial on the subject: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/students-myth-socrates-2399735-think-parents
Link to the Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdRGo5rAm54
Let's go over the facts. From as far as I can gather from the news piece (and I'm going to use this Youtube video as the basis for facts on the initial case tonight), a teacher, Dr. James Corbett, reaches Advanced Placement European History in a manner that focuses heavily on religion- including espousing upon the bad influences of religion with phrases such as 'If you put on Jesus glasses, you can't see the proof.' One of the students, Chad Farnan, a sophomore at the time coming from a Christian religious background, was so offended by the statements that he decided to sue the school system (under the establishment clause, stating that any public official cannot show hostility towards a given religion). Within the interview, the lawyer on air with Chad states that the teacher in question has an 'Atheist club' and 'numerous people' who state this teacher has done harm to good people everywhere, with a case that turned a daughter into an 'intolerable know-it-all.' Clearly, Dr. James Corbett is wrong, as the audio tapes (which the student did secretly) prove.
Frankly, this is bullshit.
Do I approve of Dr. Corbett's remarks, first of all. I can't say because the tapes are taken completely out of context. Unfortunately, in order to properly judge statements, one must also make mention of the context in which said remarks are spoken in. I could clearly admit to any number of crimes on a given day, but if I was outside on the street with a bunch of my dorky friends saying 'I killed someone yesterday,' it's extremely difficult to say that is at all anything other than a frivolous statement. These statements are not in context. European History is wrought with instances where religion was a major influencing factor, from setting up the groundwork for the Protestant Reform and the Enlightenment to directly financing movements such as the crusades and the Renaissance. For a teacher to remark that the best way to get 'peasants to oppose something that's in their self-interest' is religion, if taken in the context of a lecture on say, medieval times, is simply put, not at all offensive. It is a reasoning that has firm, historical basis and thus, should be taken as such. I simply cannot fathom how the statement about Jesus glasses blinding people, when taken from the same 'pool' of statements as this one, can be taken as anything being more than provocative. Sure, it's a head turner, but is it offensive?
Not in context.
There are two counterpoints to my point; one is that the context is wrong, and one is that context doesn't matter and empirical statements do. Because no context was provided to me in the video that I am using as my source for facts on this case, I will respond only to the second point. Appropriately enough, it shall be with another video.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E&feature=related
Time: About 1:55
No double standards with me. I'm applying context as a crucial factor in judgment here. Lest all conservatives want to argue that McCain's defense of Palin's position is invalid because it is also applying context, my point's going to stand.
The larger theme in all of this, of course, is the 'fairness' mindset that is being stated in this particular video. Take, for example, O'Reilly's cheeky comment towards Chad asking him if he asked Dr. Corbett why they weren't explaining 'the other side.' The same sort of reasoning applies to people who believe creationism (which is not, for the record, a legitimate scientific theory because it violates falsifiability and hence, should be discussed elsewhere) should be taught alongside evolution in schools. Certainly, as modernism and post-modernism begin to shift the world away from 'traditional values,' one might easily apply the 'fairness' mindset to conservative and argue for the balance; however, to apply 'fairness,' one must see if it was consistent with the past forms of conservatism. Did conservatives argue for social equality towards gays, lesbians, and transgenders because it would be fair? No. Did conservatives argue for evolution to be taught in schools along side the Bible during the Scopes trial? No. Did conservatives argue that prayer in school might, you know, offend people who aren't Christian? No.
How can conservatives plead for 'fairness' when they haven't shown a tolerance- no, a precedence for 'fair thinking' in their own historical past? While I applaud socially laissez-faire conservatives (e.g. those who believe people should be allowed to live as they choose, but apply conservative values to themselves), I cannot tolerate the 'old school' conservatives who believe in a standing mantra of 'our way or the highway.' One has no right to plead for anything one has not shown in the past and in this case, the heavy right wing has no foot left to stand to argue fairness. Instead, their use of 'fairness,' particularly in this case, shows only a willingness to manipulate the mindset of many in order to secure the position of a single sect of people. I cannot and do not condone this.
Following up on this story, I am pleased that while the teacher did not get off completely scot-free, he did only get convicted on one of the more than twenty comments caught on audio tape. I am somewhat disheartened that it wasn't a complete dodge, but reading that the statement was simply denouncing Creationism for being 'religious, superstitious, nonsense (a position I, as a someone interested in science, share from both my experiences and readings),' I will state that semantics do make it seem anti-Creationist and hence, anti-Christian and while my contextual reading will lead me to believe it to be a simple statement of fact, others might not readily agree. Fair enough.
What I am more worried about, however, is what this conviction will do for the state of education and for the state of free-thinking. This case presents a massive blow to education, as it essentially provides a precedence for limiting what teachers can or cannot say. To learn isn't simply a matter of rehashing old ideals from those who know better, but is also a process in which a youngster makes his own worldview, affirming and rejecting concepts based on solid foundational knowledge as well as personal and shared experiences. However, silencing teachers in this manner limits what sorts of viewpoints children can be exposed to and hence, reduces the overall variety of things one would be able to learn. I understand that to many parents, educators, conservatives, and even liberals, this is not inherently a bad thing; we should 'teach what is [we think] is right,' as opposed to 'teach everything.' However, is this really fair? I guess the essential question for me here is the following.
Shouldn't we trust our children enough to make the right decision? And if it opposes us, shouldn't we first see if we have been mistaken, rather than to denounce their choices as wrong?
As one can see, I am very much a belief in free thinking- that is, with heavy logical rigor and sound basis. This case and the subsequent verdict present to me a very compelling fear; one in which only one dogma unites the world and variance of thought dies out like some sort of poison. Such a stifling metaphysical mindset is sure to bring about unity, but at the cost of difference, color, and most of all innovation. As an outside observer who delights in comparing the viewpoints of the many, this would truly be my anathema.
Today is not raining, and therefore, I am not lazy. Hence, I would like to leave with two caveats- just little things I was thinking of, instead of my normal message.
The question is simple; 'If you believe in 'fairness to all (which I never stated, but let's say I do),' do you believe Creationism should be taught in schools?'
Of all the questions to ask me, this one took some time but I finally arrived at a single conclusion; absolutely. However, Creationism is not science for various reasons; it should not be taught alongside scientific theories but rather, either used as an example of what science is not (that is, theories are exclusively things that can be proven wrong). It should also be taught in humanities courses as an interesting construct that is used to bolster a return to social ideals, and probably in law courses too to study the impact of seemingly secular idealisms with heavy religious influence upon our current laws; this would impact, I would think, education the most. This also brings me to my second caveat of the night.
Dr. Corbett was convicted because of his statement against Creationism violated the Establishment Clause, which stated that a public figure cannot show hostility against a religion. I am not an expert on law, nor will I profess to be anyone other than a simple user of 'if p then q' statements but, doesn't this ruling suggest that Creationism is equivalent to religion? And not so much 'suggest' and 'explicitly state' and if so, doesn't that mean that any movement to teach Creationism alongside evolution in schools has a legal precedent going against it inherently? It's an interesting thought to consider and I welcome anyone capable to enlightening me more about this.
Cheers. From outside the box.
Link to Corbett's final end: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/corbett-religion-court-2387684-farnan-selna
Link to Corbett's editorial on the subject: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/students-myth-socrates-2399735-think-parents
Sunday, May 3, 2009
It'll be over a thousand years ...
As my cockatiel was sitting on my shoulder, I was surfing the web and came across a very interesting little article that occurred somewhere in Canada. Apparently, a Caucasian boy decided one day to verbally spar with a quiet Asian kid, and then thought that shoving and a punch to the face was an effective way of proving he was right. Unfortunately, said quiet Asian kid was also a black belt and retaliated by breaking the Caucasian kid's nose. When the police became involved due to a call from the school administrators, only the Asian was charged with assault because, well, despite the bruise he probably received from a punch to the mouth, the Caucasian ended up with (what I imagine to be) a stream of blood and a reason to get plastic surgery.
Clearly, this article tells all of us not to pick of Asian people, for they are all capable of beating our asses down. Just joking. Really.
The more serious side of me has to applaud the quiet Asian boy for not only not throwing the first punch (which many people do end up doing from being verbally assaulted) but for also fighting back in the first place. Oftentimes, it is all too easy to let things remain the status quo (particularly if one is being attacked or something) and the tendency for people to crawl into a fetal position and hope that it ends some point soon is perhaps the worse way to handle such situations. In cases such as racism, bullying, and abuse, the tendency to 'hope it would just go away' is all but a death sentence. I realize that my opinion on this goes against the code of behavior for pretty much every single school (that is, walk away and tell a teacher) but every person has the right to defend themselves against abuse.
Teachers oftentimes become pacifists; after all, a teacher cannot really 'endorse' one side over the other for they are supposed to remain impartial. This is a consequence of the 'fairness' mentality that has swept over most of America (and probably Canada as an extrapolation) and most people; in this case, however, it does not provide an equal level playing field for two sides but makes an authority figure in school unable to really do anything. Take for example, this case; should a teacher support the Asian kid for beating down the white kid in self defence, no matter how justifiable this mindset may be, it's easy for angry parents to accuse him of promoting school violence and anarchy. If a teacher supports the calls for assault charges, or even decides that the 'innocent until proven guilty' mantra should come into effect as a rational defense for the Caucasian until there is proof, then he is hung as a racist and a bigot. Either way, teachers and subsequently all 'authority figures' in the school, lose face, influence, and most importantly of all, credibility. This sort of rational logic applies not only to an educational microsphere, but also to society as a whole.
But are pacifist 'walk away' measures really the best way to solve things?
True, certain types of griefers (like internet trolls) say provocative statements more for a personal compensation rather than a real hatred, and hence are best dealt with by walking away. People like these tend to lose interest very quickly and end up moving to the next thing that they can irritate; to them, the feeling of getting a rise out of someone else and hence, holding them at a severe disadvantage by maintaining a somewhat manipulative control on the situation, is the thrill and the high. Most griefers aren't so much dangerous as they are annoying, and the wise person who does not wish to deal should, in fact, just walk away.
But some people show real and palpable hatred and express this through either verbal or physical assault. Because their motivation is no longer in seeing your reaction, but in expressing their particular views on the matter, you ignoring such things is very much unlikely to prevent them from continuing harassment. To make matters worse, emotions oftentimes tie heavily into these viewpoints, making rational discourse nearly impossible. You're not going to make them see the error of their ways by talking and offering them tea and crumpets. You can, however, instill a primal fear of getting hurt into them to make them stop.
This brings us to a gray area. If it is resolved that people have a right to defend themselves against abuse, assuming that the abuse has already occured and the victim hasn't thrown the first punch, what sort of response is reasonable? Obviously should the Asian kid have shot his assaulter, we'd all be reading about a very different situation. Similarly, if the Asian kid just mouthed back, we probably wouldn't be reading about it at all. While the former qualifies excessive force, and the latter probably a wimpy response, what ideally should he have responded with? Was breaking the attacker's nose too much, or too little?
Everyone has judgments on this, but in my personal opinion, I believe that the proper force is a single action that properly responds to the instigating action in terms of seriousness of response without causing collateral damage. For example, shooting one's attacker, while clearly a show of seriousness, causes death as collateral damage and hence, is inappropriate. Mouthing back, meanwhile, while causing little collateral damage, does not show one is seriously offended enough, particularly in a case of physical abuse. Going from my personal judgment, therefore, I believe our little Bruce Lee was fully justified in throwing a single punch as payment for a single punch (although I would be tempted to break another bone as a 'just in case' warning shot).
(Yes, I know he's Korean.)
Ultimately, it's up to people to judge for themselves when they should take action against an aggressor. One thing I cannot stress enough, however, and I say this to all the abused wives, victims, and little kids in playgrounds getting beat on by that older kid, is that no response is the same as hanging a 'Thank you, come again' sign around your neck. Just make sure that if you decide to do something about it, you act responsibly and only insofar as to warn someone that his or her actions are not going to be tolerated further.
Today is raining, but I'm probably going out. Hence, I am lazy, but not lazy enough to not defend myself if someone decides to use my head as a punching bag.
Cheers.
Link to the Article: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/04/28/9272411-sun.html
Clearly, this article tells all of us not to pick of Asian people, for they are all capable of beating our asses down. Just joking. Really.
The more serious side of me has to applaud the quiet Asian boy for not only not throwing the first punch (which many people do end up doing from being verbally assaulted) but for also fighting back in the first place. Oftentimes, it is all too easy to let things remain the status quo (particularly if one is being attacked or something) and the tendency for people to crawl into a fetal position and hope that it ends some point soon is perhaps the worse way to handle such situations. In cases such as racism, bullying, and abuse, the tendency to 'hope it would just go away' is all but a death sentence. I realize that my opinion on this goes against the code of behavior for pretty much every single school (that is, walk away and tell a teacher) but every person has the right to defend themselves against abuse.
Teachers oftentimes become pacifists; after all, a teacher cannot really 'endorse' one side over the other for they are supposed to remain impartial. This is a consequence of the 'fairness' mentality that has swept over most of America (and probably Canada as an extrapolation) and most people; in this case, however, it does not provide an equal level playing field for two sides but makes an authority figure in school unable to really do anything. Take for example, this case; should a teacher support the Asian kid for beating down the white kid in self defence, no matter how justifiable this mindset may be, it's easy for angry parents to accuse him of promoting school violence and anarchy. If a teacher supports the calls for assault charges, or even decides that the 'innocent until proven guilty' mantra should come into effect as a rational defense for the Caucasian until there is proof, then he is hung as a racist and a bigot. Either way, teachers and subsequently all 'authority figures' in the school, lose face, influence, and most importantly of all, credibility. This sort of rational logic applies not only to an educational microsphere, but also to society as a whole.
But are pacifist 'walk away' measures really the best way to solve things?
True, certain types of griefers (like internet trolls) say provocative statements more for a personal compensation rather than a real hatred, and hence are best dealt with by walking away. People like these tend to lose interest very quickly and end up moving to the next thing that they can irritate; to them, the feeling of getting a rise out of someone else and hence, holding them at a severe disadvantage by maintaining a somewhat manipulative control on the situation, is the thrill and the high. Most griefers aren't so much dangerous as they are annoying, and the wise person who does not wish to deal should, in fact, just walk away.
But some people show real and palpable hatred and express this through either verbal or physical assault. Because their motivation is no longer in seeing your reaction, but in expressing their particular views on the matter, you ignoring such things is very much unlikely to prevent them from continuing harassment. To make matters worse, emotions oftentimes tie heavily into these viewpoints, making rational discourse nearly impossible. You're not going to make them see the error of their ways by talking and offering them tea and crumpets. You can, however, instill a primal fear of getting hurt into them to make them stop.
This brings us to a gray area. If it is resolved that people have a right to defend themselves against abuse, assuming that the abuse has already occured and the victim hasn't thrown the first punch, what sort of response is reasonable? Obviously should the Asian kid have shot his assaulter, we'd all be reading about a very different situation. Similarly, if the Asian kid just mouthed back, we probably wouldn't be reading about it at all. While the former qualifies excessive force, and the latter probably a wimpy response, what ideally should he have responded with? Was breaking the attacker's nose too much, or too little?
Everyone has judgments on this, but in my personal opinion, I believe that the proper force is a single action that properly responds to the instigating action in terms of seriousness of response without causing collateral damage. For example, shooting one's attacker, while clearly a show of seriousness, causes death as collateral damage and hence, is inappropriate. Mouthing back, meanwhile, while causing little collateral damage, does not show one is seriously offended enough, particularly in a case of physical abuse. Going from my personal judgment, therefore, I believe our little Bruce Lee was fully justified in throwing a single punch as payment for a single punch (although I would be tempted to break another bone as a 'just in case' warning shot).
(Yes, I know he's Korean.)
Ultimately, it's up to people to judge for themselves when they should take action against an aggressor. One thing I cannot stress enough, however, and I say this to all the abused wives, victims, and little kids in playgrounds getting beat on by that older kid, is that no response is the same as hanging a 'Thank you, come again' sign around your neck. Just make sure that if you decide to do something about it, you act responsibly and only insofar as to warn someone that his or her actions are not going to be tolerated further.
Today is raining, but I'm probably going out. Hence, I am lazy, but not lazy enough to not defend myself if someone decides to use my head as a punching bag.
Cheers.
Link to the Article: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/04/28/9272411-sun.html
Friday, May 1, 2009
Dance Dance Revolution!
A few days ago, I had the pleasure of standing on the side of the road drinking a Venti iced caramel macchiato (my personal favorite for sunny days) while watching two very interesting groups of people on opposite sides of the road. As security guards and police barricades lined the middle of the street to prevent both cars and streakers from dashing on by, I noticed that I wasn't the only one watching the spectacle. In fact, a variety of people had apparently decided to squander some of their time doing the exact same thing.
The 'event' was a demonstration held by two apparently opposing groups; one consisted of flags filled to the brim with Stars of David and the other, signs denouncing said Stars for various reasons. Chief among them was the prevention of 'Peace in the Middle East,' being bigoted, racism, and various other atrocities that one would only see in a Quentin Tarentino movie or in Halo 3. As the protestors shouted slogans back and forth, some of which were clever and others which were lame (and felt like they belonged in a brainwashing day camp for tots), I was struck by a few very interesting observations. Well, only one really interesting one and a bunch of not-so-important things.
They were singing and dancing. Yes. Singing. And. Dancing. While waving signs that contained enough propaganda to make any Communist state proud!
It is no secret that the Middle East is a hub of conflict, grudges, religious ideology and one or two other things, and it is also not a secret that peole have extremely strong opinions on what should be done, who should do it, and most importantly, who gets to plant that nice little flag. I won't even begin to try and explain either side given my complete lack of expertise on just about every aspect of what's actually going on, but I do know one thing; people are dying. Seems like a simple enough statement, but it isn't one that should be taken lightly. Over control for this land, people have gotten blown up, maimed, bled dried, murdered, killed, and any sort of horrible, horrible adjective you can think of. Without even knowing the entire situation, I can say at the very least that killing is probably something people should avoid in mostly all circumstances.
But the protestors who are championing relief to these acts were singing and dancing. While people in the world were getting slaughtered in the name of whatever or whoever, students safe in their cushioned little city were singing and dancing as a way to 'pave change.' To a humble observer like myself, this wasn't so much insulting as it was somewhat disheartening. Has the face of protest and activism become so diluted and lazy as to merely become a group of singing (and dancing!) students cheering for something which is completely beyond their control?
The idea of activism and demonstration brings up images of the Million Man March, of protestors violently fighting back against the authorities, and of a blatant honesty that these men and women somehow believed would save the world. Though I, as much of an impartial observer as I try to be, tend not to always agree with such viewpoints on many social issues, I can at least admire their gall and their spirit to fight for something they truly believe to be correct. It is foolhardy, to be sure, and somewhat stupid in the long wrong if it turns out that you're a) wrong or b) horribly misguided in reading social trends, but it does take guts and courage; qualities that are in low abundance in modern times along with second cousins chivalry and romance. The idea that someone would become a martyr, a symbol of personal struggle as metaphor for the whole, is both awe-inspiring and stupid at the same time.
However, the idea of someone singing and dancing as a symbol for that same ideal is simply stupid. If I were to base my viewpoints on student activism from this single incident alone, I would easily conclude that to these Starbucks-drinking Nietzche-quoting Limp Bizkit-listening students, a protest is more like a giant rave and the world will change not from blood, or tears, or sweat, but from a new music video of a song with bad, recycled lyrics.
Today is raining heavily, so I am lazy. With chinese food.
Cheers.
The 'event' was a demonstration held by two apparently opposing groups; one consisted of flags filled to the brim with Stars of David and the other, signs denouncing said Stars for various reasons. Chief among them was the prevention of 'Peace in the Middle East,' being bigoted, racism, and various other atrocities that one would only see in a Quentin Tarentino movie or in Halo 3. As the protestors shouted slogans back and forth, some of which were clever and others which were lame (and felt like they belonged in a brainwashing day camp for tots), I was struck by a few very interesting observations. Well, only one really interesting one and a bunch of not-so-important things.
They were singing and dancing. Yes. Singing. And. Dancing. While waving signs that contained enough propaganda to make any Communist state proud!
It is no secret that the Middle East is a hub of conflict, grudges, religious ideology and one or two other things, and it is also not a secret that peole have extremely strong opinions on what should be done, who should do it, and most importantly, who gets to plant that nice little flag. I won't even begin to try and explain either side given my complete lack of expertise on just about every aspect of what's actually going on, but I do know one thing; people are dying. Seems like a simple enough statement, but it isn't one that should be taken lightly. Over control for this land, people have gotten blown up, maimed, bled dried, murdered, killed, and any sort of horrible, horrible adjective you can think of. Without even knowing the entire situation, I can say at the very least that killing is probably something people should avoid in mostly all circumstances.
But the protestors who are championing relief to these acts were singing and dancing. While people in the world were getting slaughtered in the name of whatever or whoever, students safe in their cushioned little city were singing and dancing as a way to 'pave change.' To a humble observer like myself, this wasn't so much insulting as it was somewhat disheartening. Has the face of protest and activism become so diluted and lazy as to merely become a group of singing (and dancing!) students cheering for something which is completely beyond their control?
The idea of activism and demonstration brings up images of the Million Man March, of protestors violently fighting back against the authorities, and of a blatant honesty that these men and women somehow believed would save the world. Though I, as much of an impartial observer as I try to be, tend not to always agree with such viewpoints on many social issues, I can at least admire their gall and their spirit to fight for something they truly believe to be correct. It is foolhardy, to be sure, and somewhat stupid in the long wrong if it turns out that you're a) wrong or b) horribly misguided in reading social trends, but it does take guts and courage; qualities that are in low abundance in modern times along with second cousins chivalry and romance. The idea that someone would become a martyr, a symbol of personal struggle as metaphor for the whole, is both awe-inspiring and stupid at the same time.
However, the idea of someone singing and dancing as a symbol for that same ideal is simply stupid. If I were to base my viewpoints on student activism from this single incident alone, I would easily conclude that to these Starbucks-drinking Nietzche-quoting Limp Bizkit-listening students, a protest is more like a giant rave and the world will change not from blood, or tears, or sweat, but from a new music video of a song with bad, recycled lyrics.
Today is raining heavily, so I am lazy. With chinese food.
Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
