It’s a media’s life…

As I have been soaking in the conversational milieu as the primary season looms on the political horizon it is remarkable how the media seems to focus and direct the attention of the nation.  Public opinion seems to follow the news far more than the news follows public opinion.  Naturally this is a situation that in unavoidable in a nation where the seat of government is thousands of miles away from some of the constituents.  But the situation is not good in my estimation for the following reasons.

Two major factors make this situation a negative one.  It seems that stories that appear in any single major avenue of news output make their way into the others shortly thereafter.  Amazingly, the attitudes towards the parties involved in any given story are normally very similar in subsequent renditions of the story unless you were to hear it from the “other side.” The ability of major news sources to spin a story largely in the direction in which it was already aimed is uncanny.  So, with the lack of departure from the first version, a single take gets trumpeted throughout the known world.  A situation such as this is conceivably the result of one or both of two sources.  The first possibility is a lack of evaluative chutzpah from the media correspondents, a possibility I find highly implausible.  The second option is that there is a remarkable unanimity among those who report the news.  This option of a homogeneous media structure is what I feel the more likely option.  Through whatever cultural or political means a great extent of the media ranks are of like mind giving rise to the commonly used designation of the “liberal media.”

The other observation that I have may be cultural as much as it is political.  For all intents and purposes the news is decidedly glum.  While no news is good news it seems that the converse is also true.  This is always shown in the amount of time given to a negative vs. a positive situation in the stock market.  When is the last time you saw a lengthy dialogue about how good the stock market will be in six months, or just how successful the government is being in, well, anything?  The negative is the only information that is newsworthy.  Comically, this is displayed in the one human interest story that the average NBC Nightly News show ends with each night, willing its viewers to have a positive outlook on life despite the negativity they have just been subjected to.  Truly, good news is no news.

The Silence of Reason

Science has claimed to have the corner on truth. Even as I sit here, I just saw The Colbert Report, on which a man maid the claim, “Science is truth.” This precarious position has come forth after a variety of factors have gone unchanged for years. These factors include

1. Science’s dominance of the classroom through the legal establishment of the non-religious answer to the meaning of life irregardless of the irreligious nature of the worldview from which it is derived.

2. Religious intellectuals’ nearly complete absence from the ranks of Occidental intelligentsia for the past 100 years.

3. Religious culture’s past and present refusal to engage the secular ideas.

The claim “science is equal to truth” is a tremendous overstatement, of course, but it is an overstatement that is, amongst the common American (maybe all of Western culture), widely held to be true.  This is despite that the realm of any supernatural religion is outside of the scope of science. 

Science is a search for patterns through a theoretical framework of investigation.  This framework is the scientific method and the patterns are the laws and theories found at the conclusion of the method.  The method is based off of sensory perception and is bound to the physical realm.  Supernatural religionists claim that the processes of the natural laws or theories are interrupted by miracles and that, while the higher/spiritual realm is able to be experienced, it is not in the measurable and repeatable way that the scientific method is based off of.

So,  religion is outside of the bounds of science yet is commonly considered to be the end all of truth: not a position I hope lasts.

Church and State

Now, this is a terribly important and controversial issue to title a post with but there is something that I think needs discussed.  Most people find that the separation of church and state is important for both bodies: the church people find it true for the church and the state people for the state.

There are two things that I have noticed however, as I have been reading some things about the Creation vs. Evolution debate. The fist is mainly semantic.  That observation is that the current public policy regarding creation vs. evolution has even gone outside the title for the debate.  The Church vs. State debate is better titled the Religion vs. Government debate.   If it were Church vs. State we would be talking about organizations, instead we are talking about ideas.

The second and more important observation  is that we have surpassed the wording that is in the Constitution.  The exact wording is

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof…”

The current way that these words are enacted is to prohibit the free exercise of religion inside of classrooms, namely Science classes.  The definition of Religious according to Merriam Webster is

1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or
deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
    2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious
order>
    3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful

Evolution is the answer to a question, the question where to do we come from.  But, it is not just that, it is the answer from a certain perspective.  That perspective is Naturalism or the idea that only nature or the physical world, the scientific world, exists. Science as a whole seeks answers that are based on observation, experimentation, and hypothesis.  Anything supernatural is therefore outside of its bounds, being not observable (beyond its effects i.e. religious experience) and certainly not being testable by experimentation.  The catch is that Naturalism, according to the above definition, is religious due to the fact that it names an ultimate reality.  That that ultimate reality is physical and therefore universally recognized blinds the eyes of the judicators who have overseen tests of the first Amendment.

Some will say that I have a false sense of religion, that religion is that which includes a god.  Well, aside from Webster above I would give you Buddhists to argue with.  Buddhism is not openly taught in schools yet Buddhists claim no God.

So, in answer to the Evolutionists: Take your religion out of Public Schools and I will let you keep out mine.

Art as Art Ought to Be…

As a continuance of my last post I want to delve into some of my views on artistic expression in light of the shift that I have undergone.

Art, in my opinion, is about communicating ideas, even if those ideas are confusion or randomness; without an idea behind it and the ability to communicate that idea all you have in a piece of what some deem art is a visual stimulus.

It is in this vein that I find the vast amount of contemporary art to be something of a confusion.  In an effort for something new and provocative movements like Cubism, Dada, and Impressionism play more to the immagination than to the mind and more to a bludgeon of color than to subtle hue variation.  I do not think that these methods of art are worthless because I find them most enlightening on the state of the contemporary mind.  They  do have the ability to communicate greatly in ways that realism is unable.

However, I find that the artists in these movements, in an effort to achieve artistic greatness went amiss by delving further from reality.  I suppose it is much more difficult to communicate across a canvas propositions when you limit yourself to realistic scenes.  Regardless, I find that the meaning taken from realism is richer, deeper, more subtle.  Not only this, I find that the communication is in a language that is universal, whereas there is more to be deciphered in a contemporarily styled painting.

I think this is first of all evidenced by the immortality of classical art.  In the classical period artists communicated to people through the images and scenes that their patrons and pupils were aware of, communicating emotion through facial expression and lighting, rather than the opaque coloration and blotches that seem to enrapture the modern soul.

It is in everyday life, through the common person’s body, face, and effects that I find the most art may be found.  The stories and emotions, the tragedies and ecstasies of Everyman are where the stuff of art truly lies.  It is here, in the depths of you and I, where lie all the thoughts and all the emotions that artists try, mostly in vain, to capture.  In a way then, art is merely a way of reflecting the lives that we know, of organizing it by color and stroke, and of prompting different ways of looking at it.  So, when I tire of glancing at blots and lines, shades and hues I go to the heart of art and walk a park glancing at faces or have a conversation with a worn man or woman.  In those scenes, in the stories and emotions that surrender themselves from the faces of my passersby, there is art as art ought to be.

My Determination

My life has been, thus far, something of an obedient one. I have learned well from the systems of thought that are prevalent to my culture and country. You see, I swallowed things like science and philosophy, intellectuality and rationality whole. Plato was right, I thought, and he probably said only a few things that Jesus wouldn’t have said had he been here longer and hung out with a different crowd.

And up until now I have come out of it smiling, that is until this past year . I have undergone a change that has given me a great deal more clarity in the way I see the world, clarity to see humankind’s efforts for what they are. You see, in my perspective, humans, for all their perceivably powerful methods such as science and philosophy, have failed to answer what I assume to be the most fundamental questions.

By traditional means, the question of What is only answerable up to a point. Why is almost silly to ask for a random conglomeration of particles, How is somewhat difficult to tell, you will hear. Who, well, who’s asking since I find myself largely unable to prove that you exist? Where and When, we find, are relative to some fixed point that may not exist in the first case and in the second to how fast you are going in relation to What.

So, with all of this failure it seems obvious to ask what there is left? I find there are four ideas that sum up my current position all having to do with what I believe I can know and find out.

One – Epistemic of Assurance
I renounce the skeptical epistemic that dominates my world. I take things as they are, without doubting those things that seem obvious. I take many things as self evident and refuse to play the skeptic’s game of proving everything.

Two – Epistemic of Complexity
While I take things at they are I do not in any way assume they are simple. If anything complexity is far more prevalent than simplicity.

Three – Epistemic of Mystery
There are mysteries and miracles underlying every basic thing.

Four – Epistemic of Incompleteness
Questions dominate the world more than answers. While there are some things that do not need to be questioned, they can be, and thus produce evidence of the mystery inherent to reality.

These principles do not discount science and philosophy. They are prolegomena to their usage, guiding assumptions by which I view those disciplines. It is with these ideas in mind that I continue to read and write, striving forward as best I am able.

Let us, good men, do something

The other night I viewed the movie Blood Diamond.  If there is one thing that viewing movies such as that one and others (i.e. Hotel Rwanda) teaches you it is that there are many conflicts, some, maybe most of which we know nothing of, that are doing grievous damage to thousands and thousands of people.  It prompted me to realize that after hearing of things like Invisible Children and being a part of the Acting on AIDs movement at Grace, I continue to do little.

So, in at least a passive way, I want to discontinue my lack of involvement.  This website has as the inspiration for its lead line a quote attributed to British MP Edmond Burke, the full text of which reads, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”  Let me at least do something.  That something is to encourage you, my few readers, to seek information that I have since sought.  I want us to open our eyes to the full reaches of the world and seek understanding of those places in it where men and women suffer.  Most of you know about places like Darfur and Rwanda.  There are many more places to know about and many more conflicts and struggles that are being waged.

In order to facilitate this terrible enlightenment I have written a page entitled “Do Something.”  In it I have two sections of links: “Information” and “Take Action.”  In the Information section there are links to two major resources that I have found: the Human Rights Watch World Report and the U.S. Department of State Report on Human Trafficking.  I encourage you all to read something from the World Report, pick a country you didn’t expect to see in it and read about some of the ways that people are being degraded around the world.  The Take Action section has links to many sites where more information can be attained but which are the organizations that do a number of things to combat some of the major social problems of the world.  I hope to fine tune this list as I go, to add to it, and to categorize it by cause.  Any additions to this page are welcome, please either comment or contact me for those with my email address.  I want to note that I have not fully researched all of these organizations so I do not necessarily agree with their individual stances.  What I do agree with is their desire to better the world.

There is much to be done.  Let us, good men, do something.

Let’s Be Serious… and Dusty Amendments

So, with all of the Republican candidates making many promises to cut spending one item that continually gets brought up is the “Line Item Veto.”  For those who, like me, need to look it up to make sure you know what it means a Line Item Veto according to Wikipedia is

the power of an executive to nullify or “cancel” specific provisions of a bill, usually budget appropriations, without vetoing the entire legislative package. The line-item vetoes are usually subject to the possibility of legislative override as are traditional vetoes.

Now, one thing that you will not hear a whole lot is that the Line Item Veto is something that was found unconstitutional  in 1998.  The Supreme Court found in CLINTON v. CITY OF NEW YORK that “in both legal and practical effect, the presidential actions at issue (the line item vetoes) have amended two Acts of Congress by repealing a portion of each.  …But there is no constitutional authorization for the President to amend or repeal (a bill).”  Moreover, “the constitutional return is of the entire bill and takes place before it becomes law, whereas the statutory cancellation occurs after the bill becomes law and affects it only in part.”  Thus, the Line Item Veto is dead without a Constitutional Amendment.

This is not something that you hear about when the candidates are taking the platform and promising the death of all pork barrel spending (a worthy cause might I add).  Where is the honest talk about the length we would have to go to secure this power, let alone the time it would take for the President to get to the point in which he or she could utilize it?

In my reading I also stumbled across an interesting tidbit, there are actually (if Wikipedia is right) three Constitutional Amendments that are technically still pending before the State Legislatures.   This is because if there is not a deadline set up by Congress when they pass an amendment it stands indefinitely until rejected or accepted by the States’ Legislatures.  That is why the 27th amendment was actually passed by Congress in 1789 and not approved and thus written into the Constitution until 1992, over 200 years later!  Click here to read the article.  Scroll down to the “Deadline Imposed on Ratification Process” section.

Talking Heads and Vague Language: Presidential Debates

Having just finished watching my second Presidential candidate debate today (two in a day: the things unemployment drives you to), I am amazed at how much can be said in those settings which belies the degenerated state of the American political culture.  There is much to be said for those who are willing to undergo the tremendous stress and for the most part failure that is a part of running for President.  All the same, however, we as Americans expect much from those who aspire to that high office.  The following are some of my observations as I viewed the Democratic and Republican, New Hampshire debates via YouTube.  The comments will mostly deal with the Democratic debate since that is the last one that I have viewed.

Every candidate has an immediate opinion on everything.  Even on some rather obscure questions (i.e. mandatory military service a topic not on the table and the role of a former President in the future administration) the candidates all had immediate answers, whether or not the question was one that they have likely considered before.  I am sure that what place former President Clinton would have in the future administration is something many have not considered and indeed should not be considering before they get the job.

Everyone acts as if they know everything.  No one says “I don’t know” ever.  One thing is nearly undeniable, the Presidency is a place of compromise and gray lines.  No President goes in and utterly dictates the direction in which things are going to go.  The statements made by all the candidates reflect a lack of respect for the information gathering/processing and decision making process that goes on in the White House.  To project a vision for America candidates seem to have to speak as if what they know now is all that there is to know, a fact which, due to Executive Privilege, is not likely.

Few candidates are good at focusing on the issues.  In an effort I assume to project their wide knowledge and holistic vision they make snappy comments on every question instead of dismissing what are unimportant questions.  It seems that the only way to focus on the issues comes across as just wanting to get their sound-bite in before (or after) answering the question that they have been posed.  I value the statement made by Baruk Obama when asked about English as the official language.  He answered that those are the kind of question that is meant to divide us and which are not the issue.  The issue is forming a sensible immigration policy.  There are some questions that a Presidential candidate does not need to answer.  When it came to answering questions I was impressed on the Democratic side by Senator Joe Biden’s practicality and common sense in his responses.  There are more than these two but they are the two that stick in my mind right now.

The sound-bite is all important.  In one instance a Democrat claimed that he would tell the Justice Department to declare something unconstitutional, which, strangely enough, is itself unconstitutional.  The hilarity of the claims that the candidates make to increase the rhetorical force of their statements can keep the intelligent listener entertained for all two hours of talking.

Republicans seem to be, for the most part, ignoring the terrible state in which we are viewed in the international scene.  Democrats are all about rebuilding trust with other countries because it is a counterpoint to the Bush Administration’s lack of coalition building and unilateral decision making.

I am scared that the situation Iraq will keep us as a country out of places like Darfur where, like Kosovo, we are both needed and able to go in, clean up, and get out in an efficient and time-effective manner.  I have a distrust in the UN for international peace keeping after its egregious lack of chutzpah in Rwanda and fear that it, as a body, is largely lifeless when it comes to moving troops to settings where they are needed with the authorization to do something.

I am convinced that the world changes once you walk into that Pennsylvania avenue building for the first time.  Candidates should stop projecting as if they have the first four years of their hypothetical Presidency scripted.

The Conflict

Here at Driven there is one thing that consistently comes up, the conflict between the older generation and the younger.  Nowhere is the conflict so profound (maybe other than at a college) than at a gathering of young adult leaders.  The talk centers on the differences between the older gaurd’s theology and social stances. 

The conflict makes me wonder, is this a tension that happens with every generation?  Is there something about this generation that makes us more antagonistic towards our elders?  Do we respect our elders as we should?

The conference blog is worth your time to check out. 

Culture and Social Problems

For those of you who have had cultural classes this may be old news to you. The rest of you, however, may want to read on.

Tuesday’s National Paper Edition of the New York Times leads with Running Guns to Gaza: A Living in the Desert” by Michael Slackman. In the article an Egyptian Bedouin is quoted as talking about the plight of him and his people, “There are two things here, there is poverty and there is smuggling.” He is referencing the situation that the region faces. There is a great deal of financial benefit from smuggling arms to Hamas militants in Gaza, this despite Israeli and Egyptian authorities’ concentrated effort to stop the business from taking place. The financial situation of the smugglers provides a sharp contrast from those who abide by the law. Poverty is all that is offered those not breaking the law due to the economic situation near the border of combat zone.

The choice to smuggle is “more about profit than ideology.” The people’s concern for their welfare supersedes their urge to follow the laws and be moral. This brings up the obvious question: How dire would the situation have to be before I too considered breaking the law?   Another consideration: Is there ever a situation where it is moral to break the law to preserve my family or my own life?

The first question is one, obviously of personal limits.  Stories from the Great Depression give a great deal of light to this, when you have Americans in situations similar to my own going through a terrible time economically.  Still, it is up to me to know when I would break.

The second is one of moral limits.  Where in the realm of authority, if at all, is the laws of men superseded by the commitment to preserve life?

Hmmm…