There is this guy I know. I’ll refer to him as”M”.
M had a rough childhood, dysfunctional family, parents who should not have been parents, bounced around in the foster care system, trouble with authority, etc.. Your “typical” case of someone in that type of situation.
Fast forward to university days. M, being a member of multiple minorities, was afforded a full ride from various organizations: Federal Grants, State, etc.. Since M had trouble in his youth with authority and responsibility, his university years did not fare well. Failed classes, became friends with people who had similar outlooks on life (bad outlook) and became involved with groups that assign blame to others for his/her trouble. This became more and more ingrained into the mind of M as time progressed.
I became friends with M my junior year (2002-2003). At that time, M was in pretty bad shape overall; unable to keep his grades up, unable to hold a steady job, and had constant problems with others (ex girlfriends, fake friends, police, etc.). At that time, M was still on his campaign that reparations should be paid to decedents of slaves, Native Americans, etc (M having heritage in both areas). That was his sense of belonging. Over time, we became good friends, and we were roommates for one summer.
Fast forward to the present: M has now joined another minority. Like almost every other minority, this one has history of being wronged, and M, just as before, has adopted the victim mentality with this group. More so, he attacks people who belong to groups that historically have wronged his new found minority, and uses the catch all catch phrases to express his plight.
Why do I find this all that fascinating?
In all the time I have known M, he has constantly sought for belonging. Whether it was with family (trying to be identified as the oldest sibling), to the plight of a struggling student, to being absorbed into a minority with suffering that he could identify with. M could not operate without identifying with some group. Now, there is nothing wrong with identifying with some group, but if one’s life involves nothing else, that person becomes consumed by the need for that identity. On top of that, M feels the need to associate with all the wrongs of the past, and use it to justify the actions and mindset of the present. He seems to have this need to identify with suffering and blame.
While wrongs of the past can not be denied, using them as the means to define the present and future is not helpful. It can only create a cyclical environment, as following “the end justifies the means” can only harbor additional aggression in the long run.
My brother related the following story to me from his experiences as a resident:
He had an old man as a patient. In his words, this was “one of the nicest patients ever.” The procedure was a success, and when he came to, the first two statements he uttered were “shut up” and “motherf***ker”. My brother went on to say when someone comes out of a state of general anesthesia he.she is in a state of confusion, and typically say things that are normal to him/her, or that he/she is used to saying.
We all have our bad habits that we refuse to give up. This becomes a problem when the habit becomes an engrained (or engineered) part of daily life, a routine. These routines can be masked as long as one is in a constant state of consciousness regarding his/her actions. The problem arises when something is done in a knee jerk reaction form. As seen in the example above, the habitual nature of the elderly patient came out after being drugged (state of lowered inhibition).
With this in mind, it should be imperitive to ensure habits are constantly monitored to ensure that the habit:
Has little to no negative impact on the self/others
If a negative impact exists, the effect does NOT spread beyond the individual (i.e. the habit ONLY affects the person who has the habit)
Condition positive impacting habits to offset and negate the negative habit
Ensure positive impacting habits are maintained, as consistency is ideal with positive impacting habits
Of course, this list is not exhaustive, but just to show the general idea.
I’m in a constant state of awe seeing how people enter these elaborate debates across all different mediums on the internet. Due to the fear of bring branded non-pc, anti-Semitic, a fear monger, etc. people have turned to the anonymity of the internet. This anonymity offers a shield where anyone (or everyone for that matter) can display an extreme amount of indignation. It doesn’t matter what the person is advocating, everyone pits his/her indignation against the other’s indignation.
One of the common themes that comes up is how inequality is still thriving between men and women, and nothing will be resolved until the playing field is 100% even. The term “egalitarian” fits these individuals desire’s quite well. My response to that: Life (or reality) is not egalitarian.
No matter how someone will pit the argument, men and women are different. If we’re going to discuss topics where there should not be a difference between men and women (pay for doing the same work, access to resources, protection under the law, etc.), no argument there. Those things aside, there are fundamental difference between men and women (biologically). To list out two:
Men can not bear children
Men can not nurse
One can enter the more subjective differences between men and women, but that’s just asking for a fight. We can uses these two biologicially differences to extrapolate how they affect women, both in the short term and long term.
Consider two employees: one is male, and one is female. Both provide adequate work, and both are on par for promotions and pay raises. Assume now the female becomes pregnant. Now, by law, that female is afforded certain accomodations and also she expects a certain amount of flexibility from her employer to deal with her pregnancy and post birth. Now assume that you are the manager. You need to appoint someone to a potential managerial position, and it’s someone you need to depend on. You have no issues with either employee from a quality of work standpoint. You also have no issue with either employee from a soft skill perspective. The only defining point is you, as the manager, know that the female employee is at a stage in her life where she is building a family, and as such, there is the risk that she will be taking more time during the day to take care of family related matters. That, however, does not guarantee that she will be unable to fulfill her responsibilities, but there is an added risk that can’t be ignored.
Again, I am intentionally avoiding the more subjective issues (decision making, discipline, inhibition, etc.). Achieving a complete state of egalitarianism or equality is impossible. Men and women are different, and as such, the circumstances will always be different. There are certain situations where society can help bring down discriminatory practices, but in the end, business is business. If people are expected to operate in a completely objective manner, then each individual’s circumstances will dictate how others view him/her, and by default, no two people have the exact same circumstances.
Complete egalitarianism is not possible. Complete equality is not possibe. What we can do is strive for complete equity.
One aspect of the Internet is that it allows like minded people to connect on a global scale. One community that has grown in collaboration considerably is the Atheist community. An on going debate between groups/individuals is does God exist, or, is someone a believer in evolutionism or creationism. Often, the competing groups will use different methods of analysis to come to what each perceives (or believes, if that word can be used) to be a conclusion. One of the leading arguments to deny the existence of God is we have no “proof” recognizable by science, human interaction, etc. that shows the existence of a creator. Some of the main justifications used:
The Problem of Evil (Epicurus argument) – See link
Inability to prove religion by “human experience”
etc.
The group/people who believe in a creator give a handful of different responses ranging from:
The creator is beyond the comprehension of humans (i.e. concept of infinity)
He/she “feels” the spirituality because he/she embraces the religion
etc.
Modernity has taken the argument on a rather stark turn. Many people now use human experiences or anthropomorphic examples to “explain” God. The people who argue against the existence of God see this as a gold mine, as it falls directly into Epicurus’ argument of being an “incapable” God, or the argument that all things have an origin, and the concept of God is flawed because how can nothing before God?
My take on this: Ignore both arguments and consider the following:
Lots of things happen where we (people) have no input, it just happens. Some examples: digestion, waste excretion, coughing, child birth, immune system adjustment, etc.. If we look at the world around us we see other things that simply “happen” – bird/herd migration, shifting in animal/insect species, natural occurring food chain, familial/tribal ties with animals, etc.
Now using these things, let us examine the two sides of the argument:
Those who deny the existence of a creator claim that life began as simple, single cell life forms. Over eons of time, these life forms became more complex and by chance, were able to develop and form into all the various creatures we have today. From one cell operation – to a multi-organ complex life form that even today, science can NOT explain how all the parts actually work.
Those who accept the existence of a creator claim that God (or whatever deity) created all forms of life. God created the Earth, space, etc. and made it bountiful for creation to flourish. Another aspect of the argument is that this deity created humans from clay/dust/dirt, and made it the “best” of creation (i.e. a complex being with the ability to rationalize, make decisions based on predicted outcome, etc.).
Now lets use simple logic to try and asses this. In one case, we have everything happening by PURE chance. A simple life form born out of carbon, slowly but surely develops over time and becomes a MASSIVE array of complex life forms; again, all by chance.
In the other case, we have an entity that is above all life, something beyond human comprehension. This deity gave everything a “start”, and after that, things, for the most part over human history, proceeded at the will of the inhabitants. The origin of humanity, in this case, is accepted as a known.
In one hand, we have pure chance, and no scientific evidence that connects all the dots. Science claims that one day, all the answers will be known and it is ONLY a matter of time until the connection is made. In the other hand, science is irrelevant. Science is accepted as a powerful tool, and the ability to resolve many of the issues facing humanity, but not the tool to explain the “whole”. Perhaps the ability to explain the “part”, but not the “whole”. The “whole” can not be understood during one’s normal life.
From that perspective, for me at least, it seems that the chance of God is quite high. It appears to be more logical that something had a hand in life, because chance will always be chance. For the domino effect to have happened, all on its own, the conditions would have had to been perfect for each step to progress, and by that theory, we should still be progressing. The other case has no domino effect, aspects of evolution are accepted, species go extinct, some new species pop up from time to time. Something got the ball rolling, and after that (for the most part), the ball has been on its own.
I’m always amazed at the power of language and how certain words have the ability to convey certain messages. Part of this stems from being bilingual, more so when I find words that can not be adequately translated between two languages. The other part is from people who, for whatever reason, seem to ignore the meaning of the language when they either are bilingual, or only speak one language but choose to use words borrowed from another language as opposed to something in his/her native language that has much more meaning.
Examples:
Hi/Hello are simple salutations in the English language. Meaning wise, they are both pretty thin, but they are accepted as salutation.
Bye/Goodbye: Are simple bids of farewell in the English language.
If we turn to Arabic of Hebrew:
The Hebrew word Shalom(שָׁלוֹם), which can translate to peace, completeness, and welfare and the corresponding Arabic word Salaam (سلام ) which also can translate to peace, whole, safe, and intact. Both Shalom and Salaam can either be used as a greeting/farewell bid on its own or a part of a longer phrase.
Another, Adios (Spanish) is the contraction of “a” (to) and “Dios” (God), from the old Spanish phrase “A Dios vais” (”You’re going to God”, meaning to the Kingdom of Heaven). It is roughly equivalent to the English phrase “Godspeed” or “Go with God” (”Vaya con Dios”).
The English language has a farewell bid that follows these same lines, but is rarely used these days. Godspeed, as a word, is a wish for a prosperous journey, success, and good fortune. Or: From Middle English God spede (you), may God prosper (you).
Why I believe this is important? Language, in general, has very rich meaning. When one studies old languages such as Hebrew, Latin, Arabic, Greek, etc., one can find deep rooted meanings that can not be properly translated to other languages. There are many words in Arabic/Hebrew that when translated, lose aspects of the meaning they contain in the words; native language. Often times, a word of sufficient definition can not be found in other languages.
The other part that gets me is when people who speak a language that has deep rooted meaning in salutations/farewells and substitute that word or phrase for one that has no meaning. A perfect example is Arab speaking people. Regardless of religion, there are a number of greetings/farewell bidding that have meaning. From what I’ve seen over time, many people in Arab speaking countries, as well as in non-native Arab speaking countries will ditch those greetings and instead use more general, internationally recognized words/phrases (hey, bye), which usually are meaningless.
Some might say that the richness of language has partially been forgotten, that people only respond with these meaningful words/phrases because that’s how he/she was taught. In the end, whether or not you know what the word means, it still conveys a message and someone who understands it can/will appreciate it.
I recently attended a lecture about marriage at a convention. The convention covered a wide variety of issues, but all the sessions by this particular speaker were about marriage. The speaker was trying to provide a reference to what marriage means. He went on with all the things people say…
Some of the items he mentioned; Marriage is:
An agremeent/contract
The binding of two people
Two people becoming one
A relationship
etc…
To keep the audience engaged, he mentioned a few jokes throughout his sessions. One of his jokes really caught my attention as it defined how people view life today (from a modernity perspective). The joke went something like this:
A lady came to me and said she thinks she is ready to get married. I said how glorious is this day, do tell me, what has prepared you for marriage. The lady responded that she is established in her career, has her own car, and her own home all fully paid by her. I smiled and told her she was not ready for marriage, rather she was ready for divorce.
The audience graciously accepted the joke with its laughter, but that joke hooked me in. While it was quite funny, it was true. The modern (or Western) idea around marriage is that you need to ready from the materialistic aspect of life before getting married. Have degrees, money, be established, etc.. While these are valid, they are not catch all. The speaker went on to saying people are viewing marriage as means of convenience between two people, if it can work out. That many people enter into a marriage unwilling to move beyond the idea of independence and “my” priorities.
He concluded that these ideas are why we have so many failed marriages. The idea that we need to be independent in a marriage as opposed to co-dependent. When people enter into a marriage, that entrance is mainly an entrance into co-dependence on each other, no matter what each party’s preconceived notions were it does not change reality of marriage. Not accepting that reality accelerates the failure of the marriage.
It’s interesting when someone mentions something one might assume is common knowledge, when really it is not.
Reality has a harsh way of dealing with people who refuse to accept it. Regardless how well a person can build up his/her fake reality, it will catch up with them eventually…
We were having breakfast with some friends a few weekends ago. We were making the usual small talk, catching up, when we came up on a story that began in the summer. To give the full perspective, we’ll start there.
My friend and his wife went to the Caribbean during the summer to attend the wedding of the wife’s sister. It was a very elaborate (and expensive) wedding that the soon to be wed couple planned. Many people who attended were not happy with the situation, as they felt it important to attend the wedding, but were displeased with the arrangements (distance, cost, inconvenience, etc.).
Now on to why that’s important:
I asked my friend’s wife how her sister was doing with her husband. She signed in disappointment and my friend took the liberty of responding:
“She’s getting divorced. Her husband is addicted to porn and won’t stop”
Normally a statement like that would surprise me, but this this it only garnered a shrug. We, as consumers, enjoy detachment from society from time to time. We watch movies, listen to music, read books, and play video games. Often, there is a message conveyed in these mediums of entertainment and part of the message is some detachment from reality. The problem, as it appears to me, is people have a desire to live in this false sense of reality. It appears real, and people seem to think they can derive more joy from fake reality as opposed to reality.
Where does that leave society? Do people actually prefer to immerse themselves in a fake reality as opposed to live in reality? Is that sustainable? I know this much; it can’t be healthy to become addicted/stuck on an fake reality. Then, to top it off, withdraw from reality to spend as much time as possible in this fake reality…
Note: The false sense of reality can apply to anything, gaming, video media, music, etc.
Often times, people ask who speaks on behalf of group Y. Now group Y can anything, such as representatives of a nation, religion, city, minority, etc. It’s an on-going conflict between people who have different ideas and who has the to say “this is what group Y thinks.” Why is this relevant? I’ll get to that in a bit.
Three people convicted in connection with the infamous Bali Bombing of 2002 have been executed. For reference, here’s an article on the matter:
BY KAREN MICHELMORE AND MARIAN CARROLL IN CILACAP, CENTRAL JAVA
10/11/2008 11:13:00 AM
Islamic leaders have condemned the Bali bombers in a bid to quell religious tensions after the three militants died together at the hands of elite Indonesian police snipers in Central Java yesterday.Indonesia was last night on high alert for terrorist attacks and mob violence as hundreds of hardline followers gathered in the bombers’ home villages in East and West Java to bury the men responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings.
Authorities fear reprisals as news of the executions reverberates around the archipelago and world, and Australia has warned travellers to reconsider their plans to visit the world’s most populous Muslim nation.
The head of Indonesia’s top Islamic body, the Majelis Ulama Indonesia, denounced Amrozi, his brother Mukhlas and Imam Samudra, saying they had not died as martyrs as the three wished.
The head of the organisation, Umar Shihab, told website detik.com, ”To die as a martyr is impossible: people who kill cannot be said to be martyrs unless it is war.
”I think it’s not right. We are not at war.
”We are in peace and what they did, they killed Muslims.”
The three bombers died immediately and opted not to be blindfolded before their execution by firing squad, officials said.
Police were on high alert across Indonesia, particularly at shopping centres and embassies, which have recently been subject to bomb threats.
Hundreds of supporters chanted and tried to break through police lines in Tenggulun, East Java, to get close to the bodies of Amrozi and Mukhlas, which arrived by helicopter before being placed in two ambulances.
Hundreds of heavily armed police could not control the 500-strong crowd which surged around the ambulances.
Clashes broke out and the police were driven off the road amid shouts of ”Jihad!” and ”Get out!”
Similar scenes greeted the arrival, in the West Java town of Serang, of Imam Samudra’s body as it was paraded through the streets between his local mosque and graveyard, shrouded in a black cloth bearing a Koranic inscription in Arabic.
Members of a radical group headed by hardline cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, the co-founder of Jemaah Islamiah, who was jailed on a conspiracy charge related to the bombings before being released, pushed people aside to make way for the body.
Westerners in both villages were abused as ”infidels” and told to leave.
Earlier, as the bombers were taken from their isolation cells where they had lived for the past three years and been held under special conditions for the past week, they shouted ”Allahu Akbar!” or ”God is Great!”
Heavy storms cleared as the men were handcuffed and placed in separate trucks for the 6km journey to their execution site, an orange plantation in a disused prison on Nusakambanan Island, known as Indonesia’s Alcatraz, off Central Java. It is not yet known what their last words were as they were chained to separate 2m-tall poles, several metres from each other, and a doctor placed a marker over the exact position of their hearts.
Then groups of 12 specially trained police snipers lined up facing each of them. After receiving the final order from their commander, they simultaneously peppered the bodies with 5.6mm bullets.
Only one sniper in each group had a live bullet, a spokesman for the Indonesian Attorney-General’s Office, Jasman Pandjaitan, said.
The three condemned men did not put up a fight before their executions, he said.
”They were very cooperative,” Jasmine said of the convicted terrorists.
”They died immediately, a few moments after they were shot.”
The men had asked not to be blindfolded but did not give a reason for the request, he said.
Prosecutors informed the men last Wednesday about their impending date with the death squad, and they were moved into complete isolation on Friday.
”The three of them were asked if they had anything to convey: they didn’t convey any message,” Mr Jasman said.
After the three were pronounced dead, their bodies were taken to a health clinic for autopsy, and their bodies prepared for burial, in line with Islamic custom.
A brother of Amrozi and Mukhlas, Ali Fauzi, brought two 20m-long pieces of fabric from his home village in which to wrap his brothers’ bodies. The execution was said to be the most elaborate yet in Indonesia, with up to 1000 mobile brigade police on the island for security purposes.
Reaction was swift across Indonesia, and the world, after the state-sanctioned deaths of the men who killed 202 people, including 88 Australians, when they organised twin bomb attacks at nightclubs in Bali on October 12, 2002.
In Bali and Australia, the news brought relief to some survivors and families of Bali bombing victims but others feared reprisal attacks.
Former Adelaide magistrate Brian Deegan, who lost his son Josh in the bombings, said, yesterday, ”I have [a sense of] trepidation as to what might happen as a result of this.”
AAP, AFP
Reading that article, one might walk away thinking that Indonesia as a whole supports the people who were executed, and the execution might have been done to appease the “West”. Reading the article carefully, however, revels this little blurb:
The head of Indonesia’s top Islamic body, the Majelis Ulama Indonesia, denounced Amrozi, his brother Mukhlas and Imam Samudra, saying they had not died as martyrs as the three wished.
The head of the organisation, Umar Shihab, told website detik.com, ”To die as a martyr is impossible: people who kill cannot be said to be martyrs unless it is war.
”I think it’s not right. We are not at war.
”We are in peace and what they did, they killed Muslims.”
The article also mentions 500 people were there to receive the body. To put things in context, Indonesia has a population of ~237 million. Of the ~237 million, 204 million are Muslim. Also note that these ‘Ulama’ are the religious leaders of Indonesia, and it’s likely they represent the majority of the country.
Now, on to my point.
Here, you have a spokesperson who represents the majority of the population, and issuing a statement (which was stated before and was one of the reasons they were sentences to death), and it gets a little blurb in the article. While the rest is the article is about how this small group of supporters ran amok with the funural (noting that the government gave strict conditions to allow the families to bury the bodies, and the government was willing to recind that privilage when threats were made).
I find it ironic that some groups are allowed to be branded, while others get a free pass. No one can deny that Muslims were the responsible parties on 9/11, 3/11, London bombings, etc.. On the same token, other groups can’t deny what was attributed to the group that affected the public at large (Guatamal Contra, Operation Ajax in Iran, Colonial rule in N. Africa, etc.). Being human means we have a human history, and human history is wrought with very tragic things.
“Women totally dominate men of intellect and possessors of hearts.
But ignorant men dominate women, for they are shackled by an animal ferocity.
They have no kindness, gentleness or love, since animality dominates their nature.
Love and kindness are human attributes; anger and sensuality belong to the animals. ” -Rumi
The above quote strikes as one of the clear distinctions between progressive-modernity and tradition. To provide some background info, Rumi is a famous Persian poet (Muslim) who lived during the 13th century. To put things in perspective, 400 years AFTER Rumi said that the above quote was when the Salem Witch Trials took place.
Now I’ll go into details on why I made that last statement. Islam is constantly in the news/media today as a religion that promotes the following things:
Forced dominance of the religion
Subjugation of women
Violence
etc.
It would take far too long to go through all of the above. I might touch on the others later, but who knows.
To give some perspective on the time the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the Edictum Rothari, or the compilation of compilation of Lombard law, was promulgated. These laws were very detailed for its time. Some notable references with regards to women are:
Women could not inherit
Vigilantism, as it applied to killing women for her unchaste actions, was allowed
Women could not own land
Women were under forced wardship of men
etc.
I attended a World History lecture where the lecturer said around the time Islam was growing, there was a session held in Rome about the very nature of women. The meeting was to figure out if women were actually the same as men (from mankind), or if they were temptresses for Satan. I can’t find any details on this now. Should I find any I will update this post.
During the Seventh century women were subjected to many similar tribulations in Arabia. Much like Europe, families prized men as children, and female infants were often subjected to infanticide as female children “shamed” families. Once Islam became established women were given the following rights (still in the Seventh Century AD) :
Infanticide was forbidden
Women were allowed to own land
Women had financial rights
Males in families became the protectors of the female members
etc.
Now back to Rumi’s quote, which was made 600 years after Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) death. Here you have a man, who lives far from Arabia, and his claim that women are women dominate men of intellect. The counter side is that men without hearts will dominate women by force (subjugation). This type of man has the need to dominate in their relationships. They are devoid of of gentleness and kindness
Things like this get my blood pressure up as it just proves more and more why relativism is a complete sham, but that’s a post for another time.
I was in NYC the week before Christmas, 2007 for training. One of the most interesting aspects of the big cities are the types of beggars. The commons ones are as follows:
The drunk: trying to fill his last empty cup with some change to score another drink
The musician: who is sometimes quite good, and other times quite terrible.
The guy with the story board: always a good read
The artist: does something to attract attention (act as a statue, robot, etc).
There were two guys in NYC that stood out. One had a sign that said “I am the famous Italian singer (insert name I don’t remember)”. The sign had more than that, but that was the key point. He felt his best way to ask for handouts was to inform everyone of his identity (if that’s who he really was). Unfortunately, I was in a big crowd and did not have time to snap a picture. The second guy was not begging, but he was a bell ringer for The Salvation Army. Most bell ringers just smile and ring their bell. This guy (Hispanic guy, marginal accent) kept repeating in line with “give those something who have nothing, give something to people who need it” (among other things). Which was a pretty good and strong pitch.
I found a “residence” of sorts later on that same night. I don’t have the picture on me at this time, but I will update this post when I find it.
This past weekend (Sept 20-21, 2008), I was in Antwerp and Brugge, Belgium. Like any other large city, you had your various panhandlers looking for a handout. The “artists” are the ones that usually get my attention, with the musicians in second if they are doing something unique.
The guy on the left was playing some type of percussion instrument (Brugge). From a distance, I was under the impression someone was playing a harp. When I found the source, it was a guy with a UFO shaped metal… thing… that had depressions in the metal around the outside. He tapped the depressions to play the instrument, but to my naive ears, it sounded like a harp. In any case, it was something new to me so I tossed a couple a couple Euro coins in.
The artist was next (Antwerp). In the city center of Antwerp, there are a number of historic buildings, churchs, bell towers, statues, etc.. Next to one particular batch of statues was an individual who painted himself to resemble the statues, and with his eyes closed, it was a damn close match. A double take on the artist was required as was able to stand very still. Some kids attempted to fish their hands into his contribution cup, to which he broke his stance and slowly moved his cane over to brush their hands away. Since I was marginally entertained and I took a picture of him, I tossed a few coins in.
Some people complain that these people need to “get off their lazy bums and find a job”. In some respect, the artist or musician provides some for of entertainment and that could qualift as a job.
Anyway, here’s a video I shot with a digital camera in Inverness, Scotland of a street bagpipe player (May, 2005)
