friday morning hits

quick hits for the day:

yesterday supreme court struck D.C. ban on handguns.... here's the actual decision....
-- Obama's response is um...er...interesting...

Also, here is a summary of semi-important people's reaction to the decision....

and just to mix things up a bit... i'll throw a little global warming/climate change news in ...No, i haven't started drinking the Al Gore Kool-Aid ... but this isn't something we should scoff at either...

FYI...

p.s. i moved my Proust Questionnaire responses to my other blog ... trying to keep them organized ;-)... it seemed more fitting for that one, since its more of an off-topic site....

pouting in a corner...

a quickie ...
apparently Dr. Dobson, who if you aren't aware, is apparently the Official Spokesperson for all that is right and true, is pissed off at Obama...
man its a good thing that Dobson is urging people to vote for McCain as an alternative then, right?
oh wait. Forgot that he is apparently too saintly to vote this year.
Great strategy though... "his" Republican candidate(s) didn't get nominated, so he decides to question the "religiosity" of McCain while simultaneously condemning Obama...that way, no matter who wins, Mr. Dobson can sit back and tell his listeners "I told you so."
Great civics lesson for you young people too... despite what your parents tell you, whining and pouting when you don't get your way, is apparently the "courageous" thing to do.
I'm not arguing against whether Dobson's comments against Obama were well-founded or not... both men made valid points, and i need a whole new post to sort that out. However, his political/civic irresponsiblity is absolutely despicable. This is easily one of THE most important, most politically and socially signficant elections that we have had in america since at least the 1980 election. There is so much at stake, ranging from the War in Iraq, to appointments in the Supreme Court, to healthcare policy to strategies dealing with the impending energy crisis, to immigration, to same-sex marriage, to foreign relations with Iran and Syria and N. Korea.
You want an election to NOT vote in? Try in 1996, Dole vs. Clinton. But 2008? Ridiculous. There is too much at stake, and yet Dr. Dobson is using his position of influence as a rallying cry for Christians to further become simply a sub-culture on the American Scene. Not vote for the President? Give me a break.
Congratulations Mr. Dobson, for proving yet again that the Founders were so incredibly wise to put in checks and balances creating a separation of church and state to protect BOTH institutions from each other.
This genuinely ticks me off....

an uneasy truce....

so there is a truce set in Gaza .... i wish i could say that this really could be the start of something significant on the peace front....
but i doubt it.

an interesting corollary to this article is this story that i found...

sometime soon i shall type up a full fledged middle-east post...

Men's Studies 101

So a very good friend of mine sent me this link to enjoy...http://men.msn.com/articlees.aspx?cp-documentid=7542349&GT1=32001

... and of course my all-too-often-over-analytical-brain decided to write a quick post about what i foresee to be a potentially bigger "philosophical" issue behind this mostly light-hearted list...
I took one women's studies class as an undergrad (stop laughing!), entitled "Women & Politics." We covered the political implications, the history, and the many different elements of modern feminism. As tempting as it would be to spend lots of time blogging about THAT class... i think what i took away the most was essentially one question: What about the men?
Now i realize that there have been plenty of jokes about having "men's studies classes"... but in all seriousness - i do believe that perhaps one of the most overlooked consequences or side effects of the incredible progress of the women's rights movement has been an ever expanding identity crisis for men. Its interesting to watch just how incredibly different the perception of what men should be, and what it means to be "a man" have changed over the last three to four generations (Baby Boomers to GenX to Generation Y). Before i go any further, i want to clarify that i am not at all suggesting that the women's rights movement of the 20th century wasn't on the whole long overdue, and incredibly necessary; on the contrary, the secondary status that women had in American society and the strict gender roles that were assigned to them are inexcusable. What I am getting at is as society has moved on past these old roles for women, the natural consequence is that we've also had to move on past the old roles for men as well... and i honestly believe that has left a very significant vacuum in the male search for identity and understanding what it means to "be a man."
I see firsthand - from my own father to others his age, to my coworkers, to my peers, to the kids who are growing up with my little siblings -- that so many of us guys no longer no "how to act." We have a society that on the one hand is constantly telling guys that they need to tone down their testosterone, to be gentler, more mild...and at the very same time is criticizing men for not taking charge, not stepping up to take on more responsibilities, for not being aggressive when it counts. i come from a generation that was raised to understand that women were more than sex objects, more than superficial beauty and appearances - and yet i feel that this same generation, perhaps more than any of our predecessors, is constantly bombarded and obsessed with image, unrealistic standards of "beauty", and unabashed sexual objectification in every advertisement, every pop song, every billboard. To say that guys today are sent mixed messages is clearly an understatement.
So getting back to the list... i like the concept. The idea that there are certain accomplishments, certain traits or qualities to be attained or developed that will truly enhance me not only as an individual but as a man. And the fact that i can take similar ideas and pass them along to the young men that i will influence - be it my siblings, or future children, or any young person i have the privilege of interacting with. I think i take this especially to heart as a young black man. Now those of you who know me even just decently well know that i am never one to 'play the race card.' But i think the facts are undeniable -- no other group is suffering more directly and more obviously from a lack of positive, strong male influence than African-Americans. Single-parent homes, with either a mom or grandmother struggling to make ends meet, are far too common. The replacement of positive male role models with either rap stars or gang members is far too tragic. Young black males need more than "lists" from Esquire -- but i think the underlying principle behind such lists represents a good start. Those of us men who have been blessed with better opportunities should be doing everything in our power to actively pass along a new set of standards, a new set of goals to a lost generation. A set of standards that acknowledges the incredible progress of the past century by honoring and respecting women as equals in the classroom, the playground, the workplace, and the home. But also a set of standards that pushes us as men to value such traits as integrity, loyalty, courage, and responsibility.
anyways.... time to climb off the soapbox....

thanks a lot, Augustine.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Politics are not the task of a Christian.
Gandhi: Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.


The underlying contradiction behind these two ideas has been bothering me ever since i first started reading Augustine in college...

I'm not always sure where i stand... i mean i tend to be more Gandhi than Bonhoeffer.... but there are times.... when the world of politics, even good politics, seems to be completely incompatible with the world of faith....

oh my head hurts...

this ain't 1980...

At long last...
so many thoughts... so little time...
--- first just some thoughts on a recent memo that some consultants sent out to Republican leadership - http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/05/22/a_republican_memo_the_deepest.html#jump

Soo...apparently the GOP is hurting from its identification with George W. Bush? No way! This reminds me in a sense of Scott McClellan's "shocking" revelations ...The Bush administration had a vested interest in pushing for the Iraq War? No way! Sarcasm aside, i think this memo represents some valid points/principles that the Republican leadership absolutely needs to hold on to. This is a party that is truly is suffering from "brand identification" issues... and while i could probably write pages of my responses to the various points made in the memo, i just want to highlight one that has continued to strike a chord with me....
"The final image problem the Republican brand is suffering is a perception fostered by the media of being intolerant. The media has assisted in helping Democrats by saying that the Republican Party is closed to moderates while Democrats are now open to conservatives such as Heath Schuler, Travis Childers, and others. This turns off swing voters who may be conservative on pocketbook or defense issues but more moderate on social issues. Another key issue to the base in which the media and Democrats have cast Republicans as intolerant to great success has been immigration reform. While this issue remains a fissure issue, Democrats have been able with the media’s assistance to paint Republicans as anti-Hispanic and against all immigration. A key message that has been missing in this argument is that the Party is against illegal immigration but for legal immigration."
This is at the very heart of my argument for the return of "Compassionate Conservatism." As one of those "swing voters" I feel that this analysis of the GOP image problem is dead-on, and could just as easily be applied to main-stream evangelical Christianity -- where its members are being increasingly cast as "intolerant" and known more for who they are against than for Whom they are supposed to be living for.
The GOP leadership needs to get over itself, and take a good hard look at what it is that the American people are NOT getting from the party. I genuinely believe that especially with my generation ("Generation Y" , the current 20-somethings, and Gen-X, the current 30-40 somethings) we are so tired of the same rants, the same fear-monging, the same blame-games.... This is not to say that the Democratic Party, or its new Figurehead (Mr. Obama) are necessarily the answers, as much to say that they have done a much better job of really attempting to connect with the issues and underlying concerns that are bugging so many of us. I am personally skeptical of Obama's campaign for "Hope" (more on that in another blog posting, i promise), but i admire the fact that atleast he has tried to tap into the general feeling among americans that we need a revitalized government, with revitalized leadership. And the Republican party as it stands doesn't even come close to offering this. I think some of the leadership realizes this, as we were pounded constantly during the primary season with worshipful calls back to "Reaganism" and a return to "True Conservatism." While the idolation of Reagan is a little ridiculous, he represented the absolute zenith of the GOP in terms of its relationship with the American voters. News flash to GOP leadership: Reagan is dead, and he's not coming back. As Conservatives, i think the inherent tendency is to constantly "look back" at the "good ole days." Well, here in the post 9/11, technology-driven, globalized society that we are living in, i think we need less longing looks in the rear view mirror...and more attention on the direction we are heading in right now, and into the future. Until the GOP can deliver a platform with a clearer vision for our present and future, it will continue to be a party associated with backwardness, defensiveness, and good ole-fashioned reactionary-ism.... and it will continue to struggle to compete for the attention and votes of our generation....

On Veterans Day

Thank you
I don’t want to be political.
Or trite.
Here’s what I want to say:

Thank you.
To every vet.
To every reserve.
To every serviceman and servicewoman on duty.
To their families.
I can’t thank you enough.

Today was Monday.

Millions of us Americans woke up this morning to yet another day.
We yawned, we drank our coffees, we groaned about yet another week of work or school.

Thank you for your incredible sacrifices so that we could work and learn freely.

So that we could go about our mundane lives and enjoy the Veterans Day sales or the federal holiday.

Thank you.

If I am lucky enough to ever have children, one of the things that I want to pass on is this gratitude.
For the vets who have protected us from some of the greatest dangers and evils history has ever known.
For those on active duty, whether stationed at home or abroad, who continue to keep us safe.
For the reserves, those who are willing to serve at a moments notice.
For the families who have let these men and women do their jobs.

I am grateful. And I want both my generation and the next to feel the same.

Happy Veterans Day.

"the future of freedom"

Part of the earlier rant deals with the sense of dissatisfaction with the current political environment which I believe is shared by many across the country. Not in an irresponsible, anarchical way, but from the fact that “the American people” are tired of the games, of the status quo, of a government (especially legislature and executive) that has continued to disappoint and underachieve.

Fareed Zakaria has a great little book titled “The Future of Freedom.” In it, he asks some very pointed questions, and in the tradition of Tocqueville, takes an open and honest look at some very “American” ideals that we take for granted w/o a second thought – democracy and liberty.

Here’s the leading question he poses, and I believe he gets close to what we are currently struggling with – both here at home, and across the globe:

“But what if liberty comes not from chaos but from some measure of order as well – not from unfettered, direct democracy but from regulated, representative democracy? What if, as in much of life, we need guides and constraints? And what if liberty is truly secure only when these guardrails are strong?”

And later he continues by qualifying – “To undertake a restoration is not to seek the return of an old order. We like the democratic changes that we have lived through and cherish their achievements. The goal is liberal democracy not as it was practiced in the nineteenth century but as it should be practiced in the twenty-first century. Democratic societies need new buffers and guides, designed for modern problems and times.”

The essential philosophical question that is both implied here and is more explicitly stated elsewhere in this book is this – can there be such a thing as “too much democracy”? I’m going to cheat and give you Zakaria’s answer – Yes.

Zakaria is NOT advocating for the end of democracy. And neither am I for that matter. But I earnestly believe in this concept of needing a restoration of balance in our political system. We need a press that is not only critical – but is discerning and responsible. We need religious organizations and groups that are actively engaged in society. We need a revitalization of both civic pride and activism – extending above and beyond corporate lobbying and wealthy neighborhoods fighting to create their own cities and counties.

These are the “buffers and guides,” in my opinion, that Zakaria is advocating for.

I’ll return to this later…

so...whatever happened to compassionate conservatism?

P.S. Props to a friend of mine for helping me think "out loud" :)

Why is helping the poor a mantra not used more by conservatives and the “religious right”?

Obama has tried to push for a more “crossover” audience – the religious… arguing that the Republicans shouldn’t have the monopoly on this particular “idea” or movement… While I could debate or discuss this point…It made me think of a related issue – why is it that “liberals”/Democrats seem to have the market on the idea of helping the poor and the disadvantaged?

For too long I think candidates have hid behind mantras like “Reaganomics” and “free market principles” and the ever popular claims of “socialist welfare” and not provided answers to the critical problems that millions of Americans face every day. Michael Moore is an idiot, and a farce, but you don’t need an overhyped “documentary” like “Sicko” to realize that all is not well in our country.

Nearly 8 years ago, George W. Bush ran a campaign with the seemingly oxymoronic slogan of “Compassionate Conservatism.”

Someone needs to bring that crap back.

Ok that sounds ridiculous.

I know.

No I have not lost my mind. And no you won’t be seeing any W Stickers on my car.

But really….think about this. There are roles society should play in helping those who need it. The key word in that phrase is of course “society” – which I purposely used rather than “government.” I’ll get back to that.

For the religious conservatives, for the evangelical Christians… If we neglect the fatherless, the widows, the destitute… we are in essence neglecting Christ himself. Don’t take my word for it – take His ( references). Our priorities are so mixed up. We spend so much energy bashing the “popular culture” and and fighting the Hillary Clintons and Michael Moores of the world. We’ve got advocacy groups and legal teams that fight the good fight on capitol hill.

Where are we on fighting the good fight for the welfare moms? For the fatherless children on the streets? For those who are struggling with alcoholism and drug addictions? For the teen parents? For the families who can’t afford even basic health care?

Our job is not to make excuses – nor is it to judge the circumstances and situations of others. It is not to set up yet another empty program – or give another empty speech.

We are called to serve.

So don’t sell me another political ad, nor do I want another Christian “leaders” anti-liberal rant on the radio or television…. Here is a radical idea want to hear from a candidate: How are you planning to truly effect change for those that need it most? How are you going to rally communities and individuals to rise up and make a difference?

A brief explanation

"It is the collision of the two, divinity and depravity, that meet ... i believe art aspires to this. when it happens it is a moment of the divine stepping into our human experience. it is our ascending. it is his descending." ~ david crowder band

this is an incredible concept, especially in the context of art... I'll explore this more later!

garden state philosophy

warning for those looking for a nice, well-crafted blog post: most of these are just scattered notes that i jotted down while re-watching Garden State the other day; at some point if i get bored enough (lol) i will get these into a coherent a lil essay perhaps..but for now, here's a few of those thoughts.
- Themes of : My generation (American Twenty-somethings, born in the 80s, raised in the 90s) suffering not from fear (1950s) or rebellion (60s) or anger (70s) or even greed (80s-90s)...instead there seems to be a prevailing culture quasi-pyschological phenomenon of what i'll call "Numbness" (see in the movie Andrew's "headaches" and his own comments about numbness) - it is this feeling of Emptiness and our attempts to satisfy these feelings that i believe will truly define my generation more than perhaps any other quality or issue; compare our use of drugs today versus 15, 20, 30 years ago -- so many of us have been prescribed (or otherwise inclined or obligated) to somehow synthesize happiness with neuropharmeucticals (think Prozak and friends) - there was even a direct reference in the movie to Huxley's Brave New World, to prove my point (more on that later)...
We hate the hypocricy of our current religious environment, and many decry the existence of God (or any higher being for that matter) - but yet it is difficult to deny that many do in fact wish that He (or Someone like Him) did exist, and somehow cared about our petty, insignificant lives (a concept that many find too fantastical or good to be true) - think about Andrew's character and his semi-religious perspective vs. Sam's agnostic-pragmatic view that "this is all we have."
our friendships are both a blessing and a curse, as we crave companionship and people who can "understand" - but are so often ultimately disappointed because our natural human flaws. (see Andrew's old friends)
we desire so much to be unique, to be different, to carve a name for ourselves - but we have a generation or two above us (our parents) who for the most part push on us little more than mediocre and "safe" ambitions and goals (the best intentions not withstanding - see in the movie Andrew's dad!)
we are misunderstood very often.
our parental relationships, which are so critical, and which deep down each one of us wishes was as good as possible - are too often dysfunctional and badly flawed. Dads are endangered species. (see Andrew's overbearing/misguided father, Sam's lack of a father altogether). Mothers are too worn out to truly be able to reach out and offer the hug that each of us, regardless of our age, occupation, or gender, truly needs sometimes.
we need hugs.
we misunderstand ourselves sometimes, and spend so much of our life confused as to what it is that we really want, where it is that we really want to go, and who exactly we should be.
in relationships, we can desire to find That person, who we can be safe with, who we can - no matter where we are- enjoy the feeling of "home" with - but we have no idea how to find that person, and mix up sexual frustration with deep-set desires for true intimacy.
there is a saying "we laugh because we cannot cry." i think for many of us, we get to a point of numbness, a point of "routine" if you will, that allows for neither laughing or crying. We desperately want a reason to do both (see Sam's comments to Andrew in the bar).
to be continued...
i'll talk about Zach Braff's analogy that love is letting someone blow their nose on your sleeve ;-).... i know, i'm a tease... :)

ambition

i want to be great.
not Great - with an impressive title, or the adoration of my peers...
but great...taking advantage of the opportunities to rise above the chronic mediocrity of my world, my society...grasping hold of the concept of leading by example, and leading by service...
during job interviews, i've been asked the question in various forms regarding what i ultimately want to do in life - what am i striving for?
i want greatness. to be able to achieve what has yet to be grasped, to make a difference in a way that has never before been done.
greatness.

Hegel once postulated that that human history has been driven by our desire for recognition; Francis Fukuyama argued that the unstoppable movement of liberal democracy was the final frontier in this regards because it provided the best means for individual recognition.....regardless of whether you buy into the "End of History" theories, the observation about our desire and need of recognition remains valid.... to me, these philosophers are inadvertently agreeing with a very basic relationship/psychology principle about human nature

"Never forget how much you are loved and admired."
"To be manifestly loved, to be openly admired are human needs as basic as breathing. Why, then, wanting them so much ourselves, do we deny them so often to others?" - both from Arthur Gordon's "A Touch of Wonder."

What a deceptively simple concept this is! And yet I'm almost embarrassed at how little I have shown affection for those closest to me over the past few years. I know in my own life the incredible value that a simple word or act of encouragement or understanding can bring.

oh leo...

two posts in one day...exciting, no? :-)...this is actually from a fantastic email exchange i had over the break, so this is a, um, recycled mini-post....:-)

...going to back to War and Peace, I think I might have found one of the most significant parts in the whole novel– near the beginning of Part Three, Tolstoy writes “Man lives consciously for himself, but is an unconscious instrument in the attainment of the historic, universal, aims of humanity. A deed done is irrevocable, and its result coinciding in time with the actions of millions of other men assumes an historic significance. The higher a man stands on the social ladder, the more people he is connected with and the more power he has over others, the more evident is the predestination and inevitability of his every action. ‘The king’s heart is in the hands of the Lord.’ A king is history’s slave. History, that is the unconscious, general, swarm-life of mankind, uses every moment of the life of kings as a tool for its own purposes.”
At first glance, I felt almost as if Tolstoy was stating the obvious – of course every thing we do has a ripple effect/chain-reaction that is much broader and deeper than might at first be evident – this is an idea that has been brought up and re-hashed for ages (e.g., the rather odd movie “The Butterfly Effect” that came out a few years ago). However, after some thought, and then reading the following Tolstoy quote (“Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will, is in an historical sense involuntary, and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity.”), I realize that there is something much more profound at work in Tolstoy’s historical “philosophy,” particularly his emphasis on the role of individuals in positions of power, and the thought-provoking concept of being an “unconscious” part in a movement/process whose goal or main end is simply impossible to ascertain."

whew. this deserves a follow up too. dang it. i've already got homework assignments for my blog ;-).

a brave new world?

currently reading Fukuyama's "Our Posthuman Future" for Crowe's Public Policy class...i read it junior year and found it interesting, but its been more enlightening so far this second time around. Some thoughts from Fukuyama's first chapter struck me last night. He states that the "aim of this book is to argue that Huxley ["Brave New World"] was right, that the most significant threat posed by contemporary biotechnology is the possibility that it will alter human nature and thereby move us into a "posthuman" stage of history. This is important...because human nature exists, is a meaningful concept, and has provided a stable continuity to our experience as a species. It is, conjointly with religion, what defines our most basic values" (p.7).
This is a very serious claim being made by Mr. Fukuyama, and I can not even begin to give it justice through a simple blog. I will note though, that Fukuyama includes within human nature both the good and the bad, the desirable and the undesirable. Feeling lonely or depressed, experiencing pain and suffering, are all qualities of human nature that at our deepest roots each one of us would earnestly like to be freed from. But to accept human nature as being vital and worth preserving, Fukuyama argues that we are in essence accepting these bad qualities along with the feelings of love, happiness, and so forth. Attempting to eliminate the undesirable qualities from human nature could prove to be disastrous - Fukuyama points to Huxley's "Brave New World" and notes that the "happiness" and "health" that the people experience is in fact soul-less and empty. They abdicated their status as humans for the sake of a freakishly hollow "paradise."
I'm not quite sure exactly what i think about this... while i agree completely that a comprehensive acceptance of the existence of a unique "human nature" will have to include the good and the undesirable (pain, loneliness, etc.), and also that there are potentially dangerous tendencies that are inherent with biotechnological advances...i'm not sure if i should look with suspicion at every new advance in pharmacology - is there a "middle ground"?.... i might analyze this more later, in addition to possibly discussing a little about the role of "modernity" (modern science, modern philosophy, etc.) in our changing perception about nature....
...and to think - this was just from the first 8 pages of Fukuyama's book - its going to be an interesting semester....

Well its a brand new year, a new semester ... and a new blog...LOL. Not really, but I really have wanted to revive this blog - for some reason this one just feels more "serious" than xanga *shrugs*...so I shall put a little more effort into this one....
seeing as how class awaits me in just a few moments, I'll have to post more later on. Briefly though, here's a question that I have been pondering since hearing it for the first time yesterday (from "Who Moved My Cheese?," an odd, but rather thought-provoking little inspirational work): "What would you do if you weren't afraid?" ... look past its simplistic initial appearance and I hope that you will realize that this is truly a soul-searching question. How am I being held back by fear? There are so many limitations that I have unconsciously placed on myself because of fear...

A late nite poem

couldn't resist! a t.s. eliot poem!

THE BROAD-BACKED hippopotamus
Rests on his belly in the mud;
Although he seems so firm to us
He is merely flesh and blood.
Flesh and blood is weak and frail,	5
Susceptible to nervous shock;
While the True Church can never fail
For it is based upon a rock.
The hippo’s feeble steps may err
In compassing material ends,	10
While the True Church need never stir
To gather in its dividends.
The ’potamus can never reach
The mango on the mango-tree;
But fruits of pomegranate and peach	15
Refresh the Church from over sea.
At mating time the hippo’s voice
Betrays inflexions hoarse and odd,
But every week we hear rejoice
The Church, at being one with God.	20
The hippopotamus’s day
Is passed in sleep; at night he hunts;
God works in a mysterious way—
The Church can sleep and feed at once.
I saw the ’potamus take wing	25
Ascending from the damp savannas,
And quiring angels round him sing
The praise of God, in loud hosannas.
Blood of the Lamb shall wash him clean
And him shall heavenly arms enfold,	30
Among the saints he shall be seen
Performing on a harp of gold.
He shall be washed as white as snow,
By all the martyr’d virgins kist,
While the True Church remains below	35
Wrapt in the old miasmal mist.

back again....

Hey... After a semester-long hiatus from the blog-community, I am returning.... finals are this week, so i should actually have time to post.....
first and foremost thought - rest in peace, dr. amy jo johnson.... you will be sorely missed, probably more than you ever would have known.... berry has lost one of its best, and there really is no true way to replace such a loss....