Thursday, July 10, 2008

A Tour Through Time

(State of CI: No, the blog's not broken. I disabled comments on this one. I'm also still on the river, unless the rattlesnake-catching was successful, in which case I'm probably at a hospital in Utah. Anyone who thinks it's awful that I'm joking about this can check out the most recent Bubblegum Psychology Today.)

The Trafalmadorians can look at all the different moments just the way we can look at a stretch of the Rocky Mountains…it is just an illusion we have here on Earth that one moment follows another one, like beads on a string, and that once a moment is gone it is gone forever. ~Billy Pilgrim in Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse –Five

I’ve been thinking about the nature of Time ever since I was a little kid and started thinking about traveling through it to meet George Washington and things like that. I don’t know exactly what Time consists of, but I do have a few ideas.

I believe Time exists in a sort of space, on some plane not included our three dimensions. The Earthling vision of time is as a line on the conventional XY graph, a very straight line – beads on a string. In this vision, time travel is completely impossible since there is no “past” to return to and no “future” has been created. The line is a ray existing only up to the present, and the future is an infinite plane of points, of which only one will occur. This vision is what muddies up the concept of free will – if time is a straight line, then only one thing will ever occur, regardless of the infinite possibilities. You have complete control until the present, and once things occur, they become inevitable. Here time is like a zipper, one very tiny line moving at a steady pace, obliterating every other possible point on the Y axis as it passes the X point. The only way for time travel in this version to occur is if every passing moment repeats itself over and over, suspended on that line, hovering in fourth-dimension space like a broken record. Thus, travel into the past would be possible, but travel into the future would not, and the traveler would have no power to change anything, as the line had already been drawn. It would be like re-watching an old movie. I work with this version of time to live in the commonly shared reality to do things like go to school and relate to other people.

"Each clump of symbols is a brief, urgent message - describing a situation, a scene...there isn't any particular relationship between all the messages...when seen all at once, they produce an image of life that is so beautiful and surprising and deep. There is no beginning, no middle, no end, no suspense, no moral, no causes, no effects. What we [Tralfamadorians] love in our books are the depths of many marvelous moments seen all at once."

There’s also the personally experienced Time – every moment individual to the awareness of its existence. Here every person has their own string of beads that doesn’t connect to any others, and the present is nowhere but where they themselves are. Every one is directly straight like Earthling Time, but may become tangled or crossed with another, and all go in the same direction suspended in the same space that is shared Time, where fate is housed. Here Time travel is tricky since one may only move along his/her string of beads, but it is intensely connected to everyone else’s, and probably only possible in the individualistic “unstuck in time” sense of Slaughterhouse-Five.

Then there’s my synaesthetic Time, existing of its own substance but within the space we also exist in, a rolling, moving, round and colored sequence suspended in our world and cycling through. Here “traveling through Time” makes as much sense as “traveling through toaster” or “traveling through speech”. It is comparable to (my) thought; substance immaterial existing in space material. It’s visual and concrete. This is how I see and understand clocks, calendars, schedules and sometimes other people when I get frustrated.

"If you know this," said Billy, "isn't there some way you can prevent it? Can't you keep the pilot from pressing the button?"

"He has always pressed it, and he always will. We always let him and we always will let him. The moment is structured that way."

Other versions allow for time travel, future predictions, and parallel realities. Time may exist on a plane beyond the Z axis, meaning it runs alongside our reality but is not made up of the same stuff as our reality. This version allows for belief in a God who exists outside of Time, supremely eternal and wholly unaffected by Time. It allows for time travel by moving around in the space Time exists in, not by moving around in Time. Here, Time is a large plane like the Rocky Mountains with our reality running like a thread through it or along it, borrowing and diluting its substance to make a line of seconds and minutes and hours to organize things in our dimension. This allows for parallel realities, threads that branch off or double back. Because Time exists in space, it can assume shape, creating cause-effect webs, new realities, and moving over to make a space for God. Moments spread out and interact with other moments, and none are more valid or more present than any others. The moment we are on is one point on the big plane, with Time stretching out all around us. This Time can be stood back from, seen, understood, manipulated. This allows for free will and time travel because it is a less restricted version. Time travel is possible here but it would take some serious human invention, since it would involve moving outside of our linear reality. We can stand on top of the Rocky Mountains because we’re made of the same stuff they are, but to move in the space that Time exists in we would have to change our fundamental nature somehow – become water in order to truly move within the ocean. To imagine this, flip space and time around. You can stand in one place on the floor, but the rest of the floor still exists even when you're not standing on it, because it exists in space and time, like we do. If time existed in its own space, it would be like the floor, with every part of it existing with its own nature simultaneously.

This version of Time is so beyond our understanding and our human limitations, and I think it’s this break in perception that frustrates theology and cosmology and quantum physics and all that. We as people invented linear time so our watches would mean something, and then we applied this Earthling construct to things that aren’t limited like we are – God, or the universe. Trying to understand those things in our terms of Time is like trying to understand color in terms of sound. Applying our human perception of Time to things not bounded by it is like trying to find the factory where stars are made (I mean human Henry Ford assembly-line factories, don't say "nebula") or trying to figure out how God breathes. That’s why I think the whole Creation debate is meaningless – we’re trying to place God somewhere on that XY line when He’s the graph paper and the pencil too. It is this version of time that I see as analogous to the human mind – infinite, existing in space, characterized by its relationships and connections.

It was about people whose mental diseases couldn't be treated because the causes of these diseases were all in the fourth dimension, and three-dimensional Earth doctors couldn't see those causes at all, or even imagine them.

Recommended Reading

Wake Forest University: The Nature of Time

Timeless Reality: The View From Nowhen

Linear and Dimensioned Time

New York Times: Time in the Animal Mind

Vice Magazine: "Time" is exchanged/turned into art within a Mexican prison(Caution: photo of a guy in underwear; possibly not-nice sidebar links.)

Monday, July 7, 2008

Thou Shalt Do As I Say, Not As I...Say

(State of CI: I'm on the river! This is another ghost-post. Sorry I'm missing the IB scores freakout, but I think Bro's rattlesnake-catching should provide a similar atmosphere.)


That is a pretty fantastic Jon Stewart clip highlighting the slippery slope that is using Leviticus in public theology. I've been thinking a lot lately about the rules that people follow in the name of religion and how twisted and re-interpreted everything gets - especially in terms of modern Christianity and how it's represented in the media and politics (which in this case are basically the same thing) and the self/community-appointed leaders who take it upon themselves to interpret the Bible and tell us all what God wants us to legislate - I mean, do.

These verses imply that re-interpreting the Bible's rules according to what seems right at the time is perfectly okay - that "right" is a fluid, flexible concept that changes with culture, with the individual, and with the circumstances:
Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these requirements.
Romans 14:23 If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
1 Cor. 6:12 You may say "I am allowed to do anything," but I reply, "Not everything is good for you."
1 Cor. 11:16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, all I can say is we have no other custom than this, and all the churches of God feel the same way about it. (About women covering their heads)
1 Timothy 2:2 I do not let women teach men or have authority over them.
These seem to say that God's law is to do what is "right" and that we as humans have a lot of wiggle room when it comes to deciding what is and isn't right. According to these, cultural norms and changing situations can affect what it means to be a follower of God. One main idea of Christianity is that "Jesus lives", which isn't just a neat catchphrase but also a reflection of the faith - if the role model is still here among us; still existing and growing alongside our world - then it makes sense that the religion modeled after Him would also be able to "live" and grow and change. By this definition, homosexuality is no longer a sin because it's becoming accepted, and swearing may not be a sin if it's tolerated within a certain social circle, and with proper physical and emotional protection, certain sexual behaviors might be alright as well. It's also a personal thing - if I believe that not swearing brings me closer to God, then swearing may be sinful for me, but to a Christian who's trying to "life-witness" or doesn't believe in that power of language, it might not be. This allows for an individual faith and less judgment among people regarding how everyone else should behave. Keep in mind a lot of these verses are in the context of witnessing, with the idea being that "within certain parameters, whatever it takes to love on people and relate to them is right by God" - which could mean that God prefers a Christian to laugh along with dirty jokes rather than play the blushing-virgin act if it's going to make them and the faith seem more accessible and less stiff, judgmental and boring.

These verses imply that it is not - that only God really gets to know and gets to decide what is truly "right", and that the nature and the letter of the law never change, regardless of personal feeling or cultural circumstances:
1 Cor. 4:3-4 I don't even trust my own judgment on this point. My conscience is clean, but that isn't what matters. It is the Lord Himself who will examine me and decide.
1 Cor. 9:21 (about fitting in and hanging out with nonbelievers) But I do not discard the law of God; I obey the law of Christ.
Romans 12:2 Don't copy the behaviors and customs of this world...
2 Timothy 2:19 The Lord knows those who are His...Those who claim to belong to the Lord must turn away from all wickedness.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to... teach us what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do right.
1 John 2:4 If someone says "I belong to God," but doesn't obey God's commandments, that person is a liar and does not live in the truth.
One thing I remember strongly from synagogue is the idea that God never ever ever changes. He is eternally the Lord and He'll never change His mind or decide to do things differently. This is one way in which He is set apart from humanity. The God of the Old Testament lays down serious, strict laws with harsh punishments for not following them - and even if one believes that Christ's death cancels out this covenant, the idea that God means business when it comes to rules still transfers through the testaments. So does this mean every specific rule in the New Testament is of the "do not pass Go, do not collect $200*" variety, even if those in Leviticus aren't anymore? (*My mom says that when she wants us to do something NOW and to do it WELL and to do it WITHOUT WHINING.) 

These verses imply that questioning the currently accepted interpretations of the Bible is okay:
Romans 16:17 Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset faith by teaching things that are contrary to what you have been taught* (*referring to the original teachings of Jesus and the Apostles)
1 Timothy 4:2 These teachers are hypocrites and liars. They pretend to be religious, but their consciences are dead.

These verses imply that it's not:
1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men.
Romans 13:2 He who rebels against the authority (established by God) is rebelling against what God has instituted.
The tricky part here is figuring out whose authority is endorsed by God and whose is "false." Jesus warns that liars and false teachers will gain great followings and that Satan can disguise himself as an "angel of light"; so how is one to figure out whether or not Bush and Dobson are really qualified to speak with God-given authority? My honest opinion is that their teachings should be checked against the Bible itself, and that if they contradict Biblical teachings, then they are a devil in angel's clothes. The problem is this process tends to go backwards - Dobson says "being gay is evil," and people manage to read that into the Bible, even though there's no verse that says exactly that in the New Testament. It seems kind of unfair of God to say "go with what feels right to you, unless of course it's wrong." I think, though, that most of the "authority" referred to in the bottom posts refers to political, not religious authority. Today that issue is muddied with the combination of political/religious leadership - further evidence to support the fact that the Church is not a political organization and should disentangle itself from Washington asap.

One of my favorite teachings is that Judeo-Christian morality isn't for pushing on non-believers but only for holding fellow believers to:
1 Cor. 5:12 It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to just those inside the church who are sinning.
To me, this lines up perfectly with the slogan "Against gay marriage/abortion? Then don't get one." We can believe something is wrong, but nowhere in the New Testament does it say "force nonbelievers to follow our rules." It says "try and get nonbelievers to believe;" but it always says to do this with gentleness and love. Nowhere does it ask or equip the church to get involved in politics or laws. This isn't exactly relevant here, but I like it.

Then there are the verses that imply that the laws of the Old Testament have been obliterated, but which do so in a roundabout way that tends to also imply something much more obtuse:
Romans 7:4 The law no longer holds you in its power, because you died to its power when you died with Christ on the cross.
1 Cor. 9: 20 ...even though I am not subject to the [Jewish] law
Galatians 5:4 For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ!
Colossians 2: 14-23 He canceled the record that contained the charges against us...Don't let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink...such rules are mere human teaching.

There's also the fact that most verses about sex refer only to "sexual immorality," "sexual impurity" or "lustfulness" - and the only specific NT examples of How Not To Use Your Parts are intercourse outside of marriage, incest, and going to prostitutes. Somewhere along the line people decided that this meant any sexual behavior outside of marriage (maybe barring kissing) and certain types of speech and clothing. What would have happened if it was interpreted differently - if people decided "immorality" and "impurity" just meant things that felt wrong or were dangerous or hurtful - like unprotected sex, rape, or sex without honest emotional awareness/commitment? What if the interpretation was that those rules were for health and protection and that thanks to contraceptives and methods of preventing STDs, maybe now intercourse outside of marriage is okay if one is careful, safe, healthy, loving and responsible about it? This jives with "Christianity as a personal, living faith" but not with "God as an unchanging, all-knowing being." Why has our culture evolved to allow Good Christians to drink after 21, to wear shorts and not cover their heads - to enjoy plenty of freedoms not allowed to Christians hundreds of years ago - but the rules that didn't change were sexual? Of all the Thou Shalt Nots in the NT, almost all of them are forbidden because they hurt people (slander, lying, killing, stealing, etc.) but sex isn't allowed just because it's "dirty"?

So what do you guys think? Is the Bible open to interpretation? Do "right" and "Godly" mean the same thing for everyone or is it an individual distinction? Do cultural changes and norms have any bearing on how faith should be expressed? Who gets to decide what God says is okay two thousand years after He last explained things to us? What, exactly, is sin? How much of a jerk is Mr. Dobson? 

Thursday, July 3, 2008

To Have Seen Nothing

(Every concrete memory I have from going under for my wisdom teeth)

The doctor tells me to squeeze his fingers and I know it is only to help get the IV in my vein but I imagine he is holding my hand to help me feel better. I am staring down the mask on my nose at its dark pink interior, trying to decide if it smells like anything, inhaling to determine odor, not because someone is telling me to. The last thing I hear is the beep beep beep of the heart monitor, which sounds just like it does on TV and I think how clichéd, how stereotypical. I picture the green blinks and listen to the beeps and think, that sound is me. I am crying and the nurse I do not like is telling me to stop, which is exactly what I wake up to, so I don’t realize it is over until she says I can go home when I calm down. Nothing is visible, not even the blackness of closed eyes. I give up trying to see anything and wonder what shoes I am wearing. Someone asks me what color Gatorade I want and I become aware of a refrigerator without seeing its glow or hearing the seals pop as it opens. I don’t feel my mouth move or hear the words but I know I am saying “I don’t care, I don’t care,” which is a lie because I only like red, but I am scared and angry and desperate to go home and trying to sound like an adult so I say “I don’t care” when I really want a red one. The nurse I do not like says, “give her whatever we have the most of,” which makes me mad because it isn’t nice and sad because I know it will not be red. I know she is talking to someone, but I can’t hear them. I have no idea whether I am sitting or standing, moving or staying still, and I try to determine what shoes I am wearing because I cannot remember and it is something I want to know. Everything I know comes from an inside-out awareness, since all I can see or feel is a fuzzy nothingness and I can’t hear anything except the voice of the nurse I do not like, which comes sharply purple and brown through one side of the nothingness. Then hands I think are my dad’s but hope are not because I know I am a mess and it is embarrassing.

(Next thing I know, I’m waking up to a dislocated jaw and a purple Gatorade. I wore my green Converse high-tops. I apparently managed to take them off and change into PJs before getting into bed, but I have no memory of this, or of the car ride to my house.)

Monday, June 30, 2008

Big Brother's little sister Big Pharma

Since theocracy is the rule of God or its priests, and democracy the rule of the people or of the majority, pharmacracy is therefore the rule of medicine or of doctors. ~Thomas Szasz

I was at the doctor’s the other day, and I saw something incredibly disturbing. In the examination room, there were at least seven drug or drug company logos – on two wall calendars, a clock, a clipboard, two posters and a pen. If you’ve been into any doctor’s office lately, it’s hard not to notice the immense amount of drug-branded swag that’s everywhere.

Boris Sidis was a man after my own heart – a psychologist in the early 1900’s who spoke out against what he saw as social diseases (war and eugenics, to name a few) and was in great opposition to mainstream psychology and especially intelligence tests. He published The Psychology of Suggestion: A Research into the Subconscious Nature of Man and Society, the full text of which can be found online here (beware: annoying site layout). Experiments discussed towards the center of this page illustrate that people’s minds jump immediately to what they saw the most or what they saw last.  It is not a stretch to imagine that a doctor is more likely to prescribe the drug that immediately jumps to mind because it’s on the pen being used to write the prescription.

(Don't believe me? Say silk three times. What do cows drink? Most people will give an answer they know is wrong because it rhymes with the last word they said and because they have it mentally associated with cows and drinking. Now apply this concept to doctors. Scary stuff.)

The “results” section of this experiment report contains this observation: It was observed that the inclination to brand name prescribing was more and there were occasions when prescribing by generic names would have reduced the cost of treatment.

This study found that Although it is widely supposed that pharmaceutical advertising accounts for rising CCB use, this is the first study to substantiate that advertising patterns are consistent with this claim. Pharmaceutical companies devote substantial resources to drug advertising, despite assertions by physicians that they pay little attention to advertisements. Only 3% of physicians surveyed by Avorn et al described drug advertising as a "very important" influence on their prescribing practices. Beliefs regarding 2 index medications, cerebral vasodilators and propoxyphene, however, corresponded more closely with advertising claims than with published scientific evidence.

Here’s the issue: humans are suggestible. The more you see something, the more ingrained it becomes into your mind and the easier it is to access immediately. This means that doctors who see the same drug logo constantly, associating it with convenience and charity when it’s printed on useful gifts, are more likely to prescribe that drug. The more they do this, the more money the drug company gets to continue advertising in this manner, and the vicious cycle continues.

What we can do about it: Know your stuff. Be wary when you’re prescribed anything, and ask questions to make sure the doctor has thought this through. What are the alternative drugs and how do they compare in terms of price and side effects? Has it been shown to be the most effective drug for people in your exact condition (co-existing conditions, age, gender, etc.) by independent research, not the research of drug companies? Remember that for most involved, this is about your money, not your health.

 Recommended Reading:

Dangerous pushing-for-profit of atypical psychiatric drugs

Money trumps the rights of patients as mental hospitals are encouraged politically to prescribe expensive new drugs not proven to be an improvement

"Pushing Prescriptions" - a report on pharmaceutical lobbying

American Medical Student Association scorecard on "conflict-of-interest" policies regarding gifts from drug companies

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Shakespeare In Bed

(A quick scene sketch, that's why there's no beginning/ending. Inspired "cute" by  a discussion "smart" about Ayn Rand.)

Charles Dickens would be a boring lover, I decide. I’ve only ever read David Copperfield, but I remember incredible dullness and traditional gender roles, both of which equal lights-off missionary.

“Really?” He hasn’t read any Dickens, so he takes my word for it. “Okay, Sylvia Plath.”

“Totally neurotic, but probably wild too.”

He agrees. “Switch in a moment from on the floor with ten cans of whipped cream to you want to put what where?”

I laugh, but I feel somewhat guilty gossiping this way about someone I see as a kindred spirit, so I change authors again. “Joseph Conrad. I bet he was really smooth.” He hasn’t read Conrad either, and we’re both still a little stuck on Plath’s virgin/whore dichotomy, so I throw in Mary Shelley. “She had to have been crazy.”

“Oh, definitely. Shakespeare.”

“Thought he was way better than he was.”

“Seriously? The guy could get you off by whispering!”

“I don’t know about that. I’m sure he was great at pillow talk, but high expectations almost always disappoint.” I know it’s blasphemy to see Shakespeare as anything less than a stud, but he had to have an ego, and a guy with self-confidence and the linguistic ability to express it has almost no chance to live up to the anticipation he talks up.

“Fine.” There’s a pause while we envision more authors between the sheets. This all started with his observation that Ayn Rand seems preoccupied with hands and violence. He comes up with one before me. “John.”

I’m confused. He quickly clarifies. “Really gentle and attentive. Definitely, because those are the aspects of Jesus he focuses on the most.”

He’s right, but I’m not about to delve into a discussion of the sexual personalities of Biblical figures. My imagination is bizarre and distracting enough in church already. I exhale softly, a substitute for ignoring him, and roll over. The phone, hot with power from the charge cord, burns into my ear. I’ve got one. “O’Henry. Good the first time, but the same thing every time afterwards.”

“Good? Had to be boring and preachy.”

“How much O’Henry have you read? You know he had to have had that one signature move that was great, but overused.”

He describes one, “you mean like that?”

I blush, grinning. “Yeah. But even that would get old after a while. Poe.”

“Oh man. Master of kink.”

“You sure? He seems like the shy type.”

“Those are the ones you’ve got to watch out for.”

“But he married his cousin.”

“Um, case in point.”

“I dunno, he still seems like the type who might want it but wouldn’t have the guts to ask.”

“I’ll give you that, but once things got going…”

My mental image is a modified cask of amontillado. I need a quick subject change. I curse my school for not assigning the Classics – all I can come up with are contemporary authors he hasn’t read, and the conversation lulls into quiet.

Monday, June 23, 2008

"Communism" vs. communism

I have a serious issue with Misters Stalin, Mao and Castro. They’ve provided a baseless foundation for countless moronic “arguments” against perfectly legit social reforms. Marx and McCarthy aren’t off the hook either.

There have been plenty of teachings that discuss the evils and dangers of loving money, mistreating lower classes, and not sharing. Judaism teaches farmers to not harvest the corners of their fields because everything belongs to God, which means people need to share. The food growing in those corners is available to any poor or any travelers coming through (Lev. 9:9-11*). Christianity teaches self-enforced class equality (1 Cor. 9:22**) and need-based sharing of resources (2 Cor. 8:14***). Respected Buddhist teacher Atisha is quoted as saying “The greatest achievement is selflessness. The greatest worth is self-mastery. The greatest quality is seeking to serve others…The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything.” Sounds a little like Stalin’s calls to selfless loyalty and the Communist concept of eliminating ownership.

But do you hear people screaming “THAT’S JUDAISM!” when we discuss welfare programs? “THAT’S CHRISTIANITY!” when we lament the gap between the lower and upper classes? Or “THAT’S BUDDHISM!” when we propose that materialism, possession, and money might be harmful to certain aspects of society (like privatized medicine?) No. People immediately bristle with “THAT’S COMMUNISM!”

I’ll be the first to concede that terrible, terrible things were carried out in the name of Communism. But people being morons doesn’t change the ideas they’re ostensibly pushing. Remember the Crusades? People don’t claim “THAT’S CHRISTIANITY!” when we hear about tortures and abuses at Gitmo. This is because Christianity has had better PR and more people have read enough of the Bible to realize that it’s not about the Crusades. There are aspects of what we know as Communism that are awful – repression of individuality, elimination of religion, etc. We need to step far away from all this and start from scratch, because sharing our toys and empowering the common man (or to use a word with some connotations, the proletariat) are very good things. Unfortunately, one can hardly propose any measures to push for these without being accused of Communism. People make it sound like socializing medicine is going to bring Zombie Stalin back from the grave to start killing people.

Here’s the issue: plenty of good ideas have gotten bad reputations, enough so that identifying something as Communism today counts as an argument to shut it down, when in reality the detractor has failed to establish “Communism = Bad” as a premise for their argument.

What we can do: stop letting faulty language and definitions get in the way of innovations in social reform. Refuse to allow new ideas to be labeled “Communism”, or use “Stalinism” or “Marxism” as a stand-in for what most people describe as “Communism”. Be educated enough to call out this faulty premise, and be confident enough not to back down as soon as you’re accused of being “Communist”. And keep a watch out for Zombie Stalin.

* "When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the corner of your field…you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger."

**“When I am with those who are oppressed, I share their oppression”

*** “I only mean that there should be some equality. Right now you have plenty and can help them. Then at some point they can share with you…in this way, everyone’s needs will be met.”

Recommended Reading:

Stalin discusses language and Marxism

Lenin's summary of Marxism to compare with the stated goals of today's mainstream Public Welfare Foundation

Modern-day anti-Bush program that was founded by today’s Revolutionary Communist Party

McCarthy rallies against Cold War Communists

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Red City

(Inspired by this picture: 

which I think I found in Found Magazine but now can't find in their archives.)

[piece removed because it was submitted for publication]

Monday, June 16, 2008

Freedom & Fear

State of CI: Woo guys I'm in Baltimore at orientation! This post is posting itself! Creeeeepy.

I've talked on here before (June 9: "God & Guns & Gays, oh my") about ideologies people think are conflicting that have really nothing to do with each other, but what about the ones that truly do? This essay really doesn't have a thesis like my others, but instead is a discussion of some things lately that have made me struggle, torn between two strongly-held convictions. Here, some examples and explanations of why I feel the way I do, and an invitation to all of you to weigh in. 

Here is a New York Times article on "thinspiration" materials online - videos and other web content encouraging anorexic behaviors, referred to by supporters as "pro-ana lifestyles". The article mentions that France is considering criminalizing the creation and posting of these materials.

This article discusses new laws that would criminalize "cyber-bullying" like the kind that led thirteen year old Megan Meiers to take her own life.

I'm a writer, and I love words more than anything. I value freedom and I'm familiar enough with history to know that then the government starts trying to prevent certain types of expression or speech, that it's a very very bad sign. So I feel like I should be ardently against these laws, which essentially limit free speech. Should we be held responsible for another person's actions if they could be linked to things we say? What about the claim that the man who shot John Lennon linked his crime to The Catcher In The Rye? Does CSI teach criminals to evade investigators the same way thinspiration teaches girls to be self-destructive? If a man is standing on a rooftop because his girlfriend dumped him and someone else yells "jump, loser!", are the yeller or the girlfriend criminally responsible for his death if he does jump?

But it's not that simple. I've been in situations dealing with someone who is dangerously self-destructive, and I know how terrifyingly, desperately helpless it is. From that perspective, anyone who can get to them before you has the power, and they either become the villain (as in the creators of the videos) or the hero (for example, those executing something like a 5150, which for the record I'm less conflicted about - they suck). When someone you love is in danger, it's easy to agree with the suppression of certain liberties. This is how oppressive governments rise to power so easily - instilling in the population fear of an enemy that's worse than the government. Giving up freedom for security is very often an easy choice. 

I've also been the victim of bullying, and it feels beautifully just to see that other people want to make sure that bullies pay for the damage they do. What those people did is so obviously and clearly wrong that it's easy to make the leap to believing that it should be legally punishable, without really considering the sociopolitical ramifications.

As a self-defined smartsy intellectual radical, I feel like a total sell-out by feeling so ambivalent about these laws. From a purely intellectual standpoint, I'm opposed to them all, but emotionally, I don't know. Criminalizing thinspiration and cyberbullying will offer peace of mind and some sort of protection for certain people and/or those who love them; and no amount of ethos and logos can overshadow the pathos of that argument, especially for me.

Then there are these ads, which make my head spin - I despise guns, but I'm also a tiny female terrified of getting pushed around (or worse). I'm getting whiplash from the viewpoints in direct opposition to my own appealing to emotions very familiar to me.

So what do you all think? Should I have exploded by now as a result of these internal contradictions? How big of a role should emotionally charged fear play in these decisions as opposed to rational thought? How fair is it to appeal to emotion when trying to gain support for legislation? How legal should it be to encourage someone else to engage in dangerous activities? Should everything that is wrong be illegal? Where is the line between freedom of expression and criminality? How slippery is this slope and does that matter?

(One of you should recognize the majority of this discussion. And because I promised, this post now contains the words "cute" and "smart".)

Recommended Reading:



Thursday, June 12, 2008

Control

State of CI: I've decided that every Monday is essay day and every Thursday is not-essay day! This is to keep me from driving you guys nuts with five consecutive "Things That Annoy Me" posts and it's also a self-experiment for me, because having to come up with something creative every week will push me to actually create and it will also push me to be brave and post things that suck without spending months revising and polishing them. I will not allow myself to make excuses for them or comment on them besides a short introduction. Because there's no better place than the internet to uncomfortably push your personal boundaries! 

(Sketch stemming from the title prompt "discipline"; could be a companion piece to Porcelain)

The kitchen was dark and shining, utensils and white countertops reflecting the dim light. He followed me into the glowing room and our bodies soaked up the light, blotted it up from the darkness, smudges against the sterile shine. The location was mine – my house, my kitchen – but his presence robbed my home of any promise of safety. This was neutral battleground now.

“Just go home.” I wanted him out. Instead he stood in front of the refrigerator, looking at me. I leaned back against the counter, my fingers curling hard around the edge, tips pressed against the rough unfinished marble of the underside. My mind saw him leaving, getting into his car and driving home alone. We would talk later, separated or in the light, somewhere else.

“No. We need to talk about this.” The “we” startled me. There was nothing cohesive about our presences in the kitchen. We were two people very apart from each other. Any needs were individual.

“Get out.” I knew he wouldn’t. I had already anticipated his move towards me, his face momentarily illuminated by the square of light thrown by the streetlight through the small window. The fear was nameless and primal – not a fear of him, but a fear of his closeness, of my situation, of the circumstances. Fearing him was impossible, but my breath caught upon hearing his so close to mine.

“We’re going to talk about this.” He looked down at me, eyes shining with determined emotion.

“There is nothing to talk about. It’s not the time. Please, just go.” My words fell fast and jumbled, my voice quickening with my breaths. His hands pressed on top of mine, the sharp edge of the counter slicing into my palms. I did not push back, refused to acknowledge what was happening by fighting it.

“I’m not leaving.” His knees leaned hard into my thighs. My teeth ground against each other. A strange feeling of double experience overcame me – the certainty that he could not hurt me coupled with the threat that he would. I kicked my heels against the cupboards under the counter, leveraging myself up to sit on it. His hands pulled back from mine and we looked at each other, now at equal heights.

I needed him gone. I found myself tensely caught between fight and flight, without option, desperate. The game had changed and surrender now meant victory. “I’m sorry.” The words were dead, hollow, only a battle strategy, a move to re-establish security. I looked down, trembling, channeling fright and rage into convincing contrition.

It was enough. He turned to leave, flicking the lights on as he left. I lowered myself down onto the tile. Both of us had lost, an inevitability after we crossed the threshold that made a win impossible. I stood in the flatly lit kitchen devastated by the loss, slowly regaining my sense of control. The engine of his car whispered into motion outside my door and I heard him leave.

Monday, June 9, 2008

God & Guns & Gays, oh my

I am a hypocritical moron. I did something the other day that I am incredibly angry at myself over – something that other people do to me all the time, and that I hate.

I’m a Christian Jewish liberal gun-hating pro-choice pro-gay rights evolutionist creationist. I sympathize with both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict and I think anarchy, democracy, and communism are all pretty nifty ideas. I think legalizing marijuana makes a lot of sense but I don’t touch caffeine. I trust lawyers over doctors and I’m a feminist who adores guys. And I hate when people assume that since I’m a smartsy liberal I’m an atheist; or that since I love Jesus I hate gays and the Clintons. Any time I want to discuss my views I have to explain or excuse them first, and this is beyond frustrating to me. I feel like I have to prove myself by preaching to the choir before I can make any points. The things listed above shouldn’t have to be contradictions – beliefs and views do not come as a one-size-fits-all bargain bundle pack – but people think they are because they’ve been presented that way.

So I was thoroughly ashamed when the other day I (wrongly) assumed that a libertarian-leaning atheist was rabidly pro-choice. Turns out that the question of human life and its origins, rights and value isn’t religious or political, but personal – and I knew that, I really did, but I allowed myself to be brainwashed by the blue vs. red mentality we have going on, and I jammed my foot into my mouth quite uncomfortably.

This is why I get so annoyed at the democracy of personalities we have constructed in America. No one human is a perfect package, and the way we have the system set up, it doesn’t exactly lend itself to finding the best candidate for the job as president. We don’t have Executive Branch scouts out finding and auditioning the best and brightest minds – we have mostly rich kids from privileged families rising to the top. The way I see it, there’s more of an equal selection process to cast the next star of Final Destination 908 – and they aren’t expected to write, direct, or produce; but a presidential candidate is expected to hold balanced and “complementary” views on economics, military actions, social policies, etc.

When we force all these decisions to fall to one or a few human beings, we cheat ourselves out of democracy. True democracy votes for ideas, not people. The focus on Obama’s pastor is a perfect example – instead of squabbling over his influences, his past, his ideals, we need to demand a game plan we can say clearly “yes” or “no” to. I don’t want to sit around and speculate about his inner psyche – he should tell us what exactly he would do in certain situations and we should judge that. It is, of course, then our job to hold candidates to that standard – lying is not nice, and when Bush denies saying something that he’s been filmed on camera saying, there should be more of an outcry. That’s the closest we can realistically get to voting for ideas and decisions over people. Ideally, there would be a neutral Executive who carried out the wishes of the masses: every morning there would be new issues on the table (“Should we declare war: yes or no”) to decide on. This would be true democracy and it would allow people to be more informed and involved. What we have now forces the bundling of ideas I discussed before, which is frustrating. I’d like to be able to vote for a candidate who will carry out true Christian values in office – “purity, understanding, patience, kindness and love” (2 Cor. 6:6) – but I think today those who claim to be furthering God’s agenda are getting it pretty wrong (and they endorse a religion that encourages me to say this: Romans 16:17-18*).

So here’s the real issue: people come in unique packages capable of thinking for themselves, and thinking independently on every separate question. Objectively, owning guns for self-defense has nothing to do with whether or not you support the right to a homosexual marriage and neither has any impact on whether you think the Iraq war is right. This is why politics of personality is dangerous and damaging to democracy.

What we can do about it: refuse to participate. Only engage in discussions about candidate’s relevant political ideologies, and shut down any gossip about “omg Hillary Clinton’s hairdresser has a gay goldfish” (DISCLAIMER: I made that up) by pointing out its irrelevancy. We’re stuck with a system that unfortunately forces personality politics, but supporting legislation that regulates campaign donations/spending is a step in the right direction. And spread the awareness that leaders/ideas don’t get to dictate entire belief sets by refusing to make assumptions and allowing ourselves ideological flexibility, considering separate issues separately.

*"Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people’s faith by teaching things that are contrary to what you have been taught…Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests."

Recommended reading:

New York Times: Taking their faith, not their politics, to the people

The Washington Post: Communion denied for supporting pro-choice Obama

Focus on the Family's response to the claim that one can simultaneously be gay and Christian

New York Times: Liberal explains why he's against same-sex marriage

One reporter's take on an unconventional juxtaposition of views