IEHA CEU Form

41 and Done?

The global community was made privy today to the depravity of a mad man obsessed with power. Muammar al-Gaddafi, in an effort to suppress the spate of anti-regime sentiment, called out his army of thugs, and has been utilizing it's entire repertoire on unarmed civilians. These assets include small arms fire; large caliber, fully-automatic air-mounted machine guns; strafing fighter jets; and an unconfirmed call for aerial bombing. Three points worth mentioning are the continuation of protests in the face of such violence of action, the switching of allegiance to the protesters on behalf of upper level Libyan officials, and the coincidental disappearance of the Colonel since he ordered the execution of his peacefully protesting, unarmed countrymen. It is expected that many in the developed world will not appreciate the gravity of this situation, or perceive the ebbing complacency of the Muslim world with those that smear their image across the globe. The questions generated by this situation are boundless. I suppose the question - following Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain, Morocco, Algeria, and now Libya - is who's next...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to "Power to the PeaceFUL" as posted on Disparate Thought, the following is composed...

Paragraph 1: I agree people of the world have gained a new found respect for the power of peaceful demonstration, the capricious nature of morality playing a role in global response, and modern communication media being perhaps the most powerful player in global awareness. That said, the power of people en mass will always wield some level of "power". The caveat is whether or not this power is enough to oppose violence of action through the use of modern weapons on behalf of the leaders and governments mentioned in the post (see Libya). Contemporary morality may dictate what protests are against (State invasions, rape and murder, corrupt governments, collective bargaining, etc...), but I do not feel it defines the essence of the movement itself. That is to say the act of peaceful protests en mass are perhaps being used to make a stand against some action determined to be unjust by current standards of morality; however, the resolute action of peaceful demonstration itself would certainly hold significance, if not all out emboldened power, even in the absence of "modern morality". The action, in and of itself, transcends time and moral vicissitudes. Finally, in regards to the geographic interconnectedness of our time allowing for ease of movement for revolutionary behavior from one location to the next, I agree. It is a fools endeavor to argue against this point. I would question how much help this connectivity gives to political singularities?

Paragraph 2: My first question is who is divesting themselves/speaking in opposition? I can honestly state that while much of the world has made a conscious decision to maintain a holding pattern on Libya's current situation, it certainly is not tantamount to speaking in opposition of a peaceful demonstration, nor is it speaking in favor of an oppressive regime. This point makes me wonder whether it is accurate to hold nation states to the same moral hierarchy as individuals. It makes sense to utilize the same moral scale interchangeably between nations and individuals as most people have a propensity towards projecting their axioms and dogmas upon larger populations. However, given the disparities between the environments within each exists, it stands to reason the morality may also differ. Should we follow the logic of morality being temporally nebulous, why then, given the completely different threats and opportunities facing each, is it not possible their moralities follow different paths as well? Is there a level at which a nations self-preservation necessitates it's divergence from the practices of which it preaches? Few individuals require out strategizing others in daily life, while this is nothing short of normal for most countries.

Paragraph 3: The post stated democracy was predicated on the presumption that the majority view is morally superior, displays an affinity towards free markets, and tend to be self-correcting through open and honest elections. To the first point, let me say supporting the will of the people is not tantamount to assigning that will to a given level of morality. It is nothing more than believing laws, when given a group setting, are better suited to follow the will of the people and amended as to allow for the protection of the minority. Giving equal representation to all parties and attempting to allow for every individuals needs is not practical, nor do I believe the outcome desired. Secondly, democracy and capitalism are not synonymous (see Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Anarchist Catalonia). To say that democracy is predicated on capitalist beliefs is not accurate. It should be mentioned that venture capitalists will view destabilized governments as potential business opportunities. While not inherent, thus making the definition of democracy inculpable, business interests guiding political actions seem to have become endemic in our democratic society. As for the majority view being self-correcting, I do not see the relevance of this argument, as it implies the majority view is inherently flawed by stating open and honest elections allow it to correct itself. If the majority view is to be the founder of said elections, and open and honest elections allow that view to be heard and manifested, the result would likely be congruous to said view, with no "corrections" required or desired.

The final point to which I will write is the given examples of what democracy is not. To say that democracy is inherently oppressive of the minority views gives an obvious negative connotation to the concept. I contest in the absence of this feature, a government enters a slippery slope which allows for the complete consideration of all views, likely to the detriment of it's own citizenry. Kowtowing to the minority views is impractical and I think it unwise to allow law to be driven by a singular minority view (see oligarchy).

All of this aside, I agree the events as of late are an inspiring portrayal of the human spirit and the power of peaceful movements en mass. I do not see militaristic intervention as an inherently flawed policy with no utility. I do recognize its overuse as detrimental and counterproductive. While Egypt is an example of "sitting this one out", Libya hangs in shades of gray.

The Power of Peace?

In recent weeks, the Egyptian people rose up, and seemingly toppled their authoritarian regime of thirty years. It is not the mere fact that they defiantly took to the street for two-and-a-half weeks, nor the passion with which they did it. It was the peaceful means by which they did it which sent shock waves throughout the Middle East and beyond. To see such change occur in the absence of suicide bombers and general violence in a part of the world where peace is viewed not as a standard, but rather as an impossible dream. While there are many reasons for which the uprising occurred - Tunisia, the death of a young dissident - it's infectious behaviour has began a new chapter in the Middle East's history. Multiple other leaders in the area have began to cede to the demands of the people. Some have done this willingly, and others are still using the power of local and corrupt security forces to quell the growing masses. The question at this point is whether or not they hold onto the ground they have gained, and forge a new path, or if recent events will be seen as a 'blip' on the radar years from now?

John Deere Stock: Up, Up, Up...

Flash Player 9 or higher is required to view the chart
Click here to download Flash Player now

View the full NYSE:DE chart at Wikinvest

retarded fishfrogsquirrelmonkey

Are We There Yet?

Let me start by first giving you the answer - NO! Next, allow me explain where "there" is. "There", my dear readers, is the point at which people stop trying to prove their beliefs, or disprove the beliefs of others in the hope of convincing someone else to adopt their religious views (this could be regarding the full contingent of ideologies as well).



THE IMPETUS -

Recently I was visiting a good friend of mine in a land far, far away. After an evening perfectly balanced between friends, fun, and copious amounts of libations, many of the guest had absconded to the shadows of the city in the hopes of thirty minutes of true love, or simply a concession to the unrelenting circadian rhythms within us all. It was then that I found myself in a small kitchen with two family sized bags of Doritos and another one of my good friends - Mr. X. I have chosen to call him Mr. X because I am not sure he wants his name published for all to see, and I have always wanted to use a clandestine name to enhance the effect of my stories. Now, it should be said that Mr. X had chosen a bag of original cheddar Doritos, while I, the more rebellious yet greatly accepted flavor of Cool Ranch (although this has no bearing on the story as a whole, I like comparing our disparate tastes in Doritos to our disparate religious views).

Although I cannot recall exactly how we got on the topic of religion, we did, and thus the journey began. Unfortunately, the specific details of the conversation elude me; however, what I do remember is rather than having a conversation on religious views, I was having to defend my religious affiliations against his singular postulate - how could I call myself a Christian when I did not follow the Bible literally? I tried to explain to him that fundamentalism was not at the root of all Christian's beliefs, and there is nothing wrong with picking and choosing what you deem literal, and what you determine to be a fictitious anecdotal donut with a creamy moral filling (as it is, after all. about defining INDIVIDUAL beliefs. It seemed his reading of the Bible at a young age led to fear a "God" that was described only as having wrath and vengeance. He has since chosen the path of Atheism, and that is perfectly fine with me; however, by trying to have me define my religious ethos so precisely, so as to have it fall definitively on one side of his 'judgement line' (i.e., right vs. wrong) or the other, he has single handedly undone any prior claim of being open-minded. Let me explain...

A truly open-minded person would not try to monopolize the talking points of a conversation in order to serve their factious needs by funneling the other party into a singular 'yes or no' situation. He or she would not choose to enter into a discussion with the sole intention of proving the other person wrong (at no gain to either party), but rather would seek to better understand the other person by asking specific questions in order to illuminate the core ethos of that person. This is not to say that disagreements of their own accord, work against the goal of mutual understanding; however, there is a stark difference between statements that begin with "I see where you are coming from; however, I would contend...", and "you're wrong because..." The subtle differences founded in ones intentions can make or break a potentially intellectually stimulating and enlightening conversation. That being said, Mr. X came into the conversation in the hope of either proving that I was not a "true Christian", or forcing me into conceding some facet of my beliefs (neither of which happened); ergo, he approached the conversation closed minded and I truly feel nothing was gained by either party because of it.



The Moral Of the Story...


- Preferring Cool Ranch Doritos is indicative of an open-minded, welcoming, and knowledge seeking personality, while Original Cheddar is indicative of a close-minded, accusatory, and pedantic personality. (actual results may vary depending on everything other than the Doritos).

FAITH...WHAT THE HELL IS IT?

After my conversation with Mr. X, I stumbled upon a book owned by another one of my friends...We'll call him Jake (because that's his name). The book was entitled "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and was essentially a manifesto arguing against the existence of God. It was the combination of the conversation and the book that led me to start trying to identify what exactly it was people like Mr. Dawkins, or Mr. X were trying to achieve by attempting to disprove a greater existence, and why the opposing sides could not seem to find a middle ground upon which to build mutual understanding. After much thought, I have come up with some of the major points of contention, responded to these issues using my beliefs as a guide, and tried to define a few concepts so as to help the overall process of communication. First, the definitions.

FAITH - I have decided that faith is a belief in something that not only does not require proof to thrive, but may actually strengthen when evidence surmounts against it.

CHRISTIANITY - A religious faith associated with a strong belief in the teachings of Jesus and the words of the Bible. There are many different variants of Christianity, with beliefs ranging from 100% certainty that every word in the Bible is fact (fundamentalism) to an appreciation for the values taught and themes found within the Bible and placing no association between the words found in it's text and fact.

SCIENCE - The use of methods and principles to establish a clearer picture of how the world, and all of its different nuances , works.

#1) How can one claim to be a Christian when he/she doesn't accept every word in the Bible as fact?

- As previously stated, Christianity presents itself in many different ways. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, there are more than 33,820 different Christian denominations. To further divided these denominations, there are more than twenty different Catholic Churches (Roman, Greek, Ruthenian, etc...). This extreme diversity within the label of Christianity is, in my opinion, due to an overall agreement among Christians that there is a larger force, 'God', playing a role in the workings of the universe; however, there are subtle differences among the varying denominations as to what role that is, or how best to celebrate 'Gods' presence. The same logic may be used to explain the separate churches within each of the denominations. Thus, I contend it is logical to reason that within each of the churches are many different individual souls/minds that have their own unique understanding of the Bible and, based on personal experiences and axioms, choose to live out there lives using the teachings of the particular church to which they belong as a guiding light and not a tethered leash.

#2) You claim to be an accepting religion; however, you will not allow someone to walk in off of the street and receive the Eucharist because they are not an official "member" of your faith.

- This one is a little more complicated for me as I have some part of my mind that agrees with the statement; however, through thinking about how to address it for this Blog, I have come to terms with this practice and will try to convey my reasoning through an anecdote. Suppose you are a passionate artist putting your life's energy into various different creations which you feel represent you. Another artist friend of yours asks if they could have one of your works to better understand your approach to art and to show others. You decided to give him what you consider to be your greatest piece for two reasons: he is a friend and you would like to give him a meaningful gift, and if your work is to be seen by others, you want to achieve the greatest first impression you can. Because this piece means so much to you, you feel it necessary to give a little background on the work (tell the story of how you came up with the concept, how much time and effort you put into it, and maybe what you hope others will see when viewing it) in order to avoid anyone taking for granted a gift which you hold so dear. It is the same with the Roman Catholic Church. When someone from another denomination or Church attends our ceremonies, while we welcome them with open arms, we are not willing to give up our greatest gift, the Eucharist, until they have had the chance to hear our story and tell us if they view it as we do. If so, it is shared openly, if not, we are simply not willing to part with something sacred to us just for a test ride. While slightly dictatorial, I hope my point is well received.

Can You Feel It?

Well, I haven't been actively involved in this Blog as inspiration and divination have eluded my degenerating mind and soul. Worry, doubt, and apathy have furtively crept into my being, slowly assimilating me into the status quo culture within which I exist. However, a sour pill has evoked an emotional dictum from deep within the mental abyss...WHAT THE FUCK AM I DOING?

A little history on myself - I was born. Now that you are up to speed, I proclaim my current lot in life is creating cognitive dissonance within me, as I struggle between a cliche' career (pays the bills, benefits the common wealth, great benefits, and guaranteed pension), and a path more in line with my interests, degree, and desires. It was at this location, before the proverbial crossroads, my muse appeared.

While conducting my monthly Facebook check (the frequency of my presence on Facebook is dictated by my antipathy for "social networking websites", and my desire to stay in touch with the lives of those I care about), I read about a friend of mine who had recently made the decision to re-enter the world of academia in the pursuit of a degree in Environmental Engineering. It was at that moment Zeus tapped me on the shoulder with a lightning bolt and jolted me back to life. In that single instant, my personal axioms exploded to the surface, shook off the apathetic cobwebs, and placed themselves once again on the front lines of my war against the 'daily grind'. I realized I wanted to be an Environmental Engineer or some other professional with a direct impact on the world. I long for the pursuit of knowledge, have lost touch with my desire for intellectually stimulating conversations, and want to be more than just another banal citizen. I want to partake in the world around me, and do it on my terms. No longer will I play musical chairs in the hopes that I can sit in a room within which sound debate and civil discourse is taking place; but rather, be a voice in that room. To recall what exactly it is that I believe in and how best to aid that movement. An important admission is my willingness to concede a Thoreauesque label, as I may need to continue in my current job so as to have the means by which to seek my intellectual freedom and comprimise the alternate career path; however, never again will a day go by that I do not benefit my mind or soul in some way.

I am refreshed, rejuvenated, and now that I have found the means by which to forge my path, I simply say - I love Scotch!!!