It's pretty clear that I bear no great love towards the Church (capitalized for identification purposes only). That said, as with all things in this world, I cannot help but consider it from various perspectives, and try to get to some truth as I perceive it. What caught my eye this time was a confluence of Catholic-related news, highlighted by the Pope's visit in the US.
Pope John Paul II's pit bull cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, held mass in Yankee Stadium on his last day in the US. At that mass, he called on young people to dedicate their lives to God, basically to enter convents, monasteries, and seminaries.
Now let's think about that, and not laugh, shall we?
A day doesn't go by without yet another ridiculous, and sorrowful flap involving some priest somewhere. I get news from both Poland and the US, so I get to hear twice as many stories. Like the one from a couple of months ago, about the Diocese in Szczecin (Stettin) categorically denying that one of their former priests abused young boys, and this in the face of multiple victims' reports and accusations. The priest in question was already long gone from the diocese, of course.
There's the Boston mess from a few years ago. There's the Alaska mess, where entire villages were terrorized by itinerant priests sent to "service" the area. There are six bishoprics in the US that are currently in Chapter 11 bankrupcy because they cannot bear the strain of the payments to victims of sexual abuse who won cases against them. And then there's the one today of an entire class of seventh-graders who were told during a lesson by the priest that homosexuality is deviant and unacceptable. When a girl in the class disagreed (bringing new hope and rejoicing in my mind), the priest requested that they describe a homosexual act. She refused. When a boy agreed with the girl, the priest called him a homosexual, and asked that his mom show up for consultation.
The worst part about this last event is that the priest denied all of it on public television, in spite of the fact that an entire class of kids all heard the same, and agree to the letter. The conservative television tried to exonerate the priest, who compared his suffering with that of Christ, but the parents of the children protested loudly, and some correction was made. The end result? Some of the kids were pulled from the classes by their parents.
Some word of explanation to this. Polish kids are expected to attend religion classes (read: Catholic indoctrination) but can be excused from attending by the parents. Unfortunately, there is still such strong social pressure on the children and the parents, that few refuse attendance, and it takes some really extreme behavior to cause it.
But this post is not about Poland. There is another place I have, for rants about that. This is about Ratzinger, and his delusional request to today's American youth as the Pope.
The man is clearly conservative. He's brought back traditional mass (in Latin with the priest facing away from the congregation), he's made some off-color remarks about other faiths, and is pushing a return to "traditional" values in the church. This of course includes the issue of celibate priests, and male-only priests.
So when he asks America's youth to enter the priesthood, one has to wonder whether he's extremely confused about reality, or whether he knows something commoners like me don't. Maybe he knows there is a conservative backlash coming. Maybe he senses that there is going to be a return to traditional values after the excesses of the new millennium.
I prefer to bet that he's just very delusional, as many very old people are, and incapable of thinking "out of the box". He has spent many years lamenting the liberalization of all that he held dear, and now has a chance, a few decades too late, to try to institute his policies. In the meantime the world has passed him by, and the best one can do is to shake one's head in pity. And unless he's angling for a new generation of pedophiles to join the ranks of the church (after all, there aren't enough priests to go around any more, because frankly, why would anyone want to do that?), I'm not sure what good his appeal will do. If anything, it will swell the ranks of the Protestant churches, since at least there you can get married and have kids. Or be a female pastor.
The big percentage of the Catholic population in this country, the immigrants, are also going to quickly escape his holiness. After all, they come from regimes where the Catholic church often stands equal to the highest authority in the land, sometimes even higher. Now they come to a country where one can question (again, for a few years there things looked dicey), one can disagree with authority, and where one can speak out against injustice (to some extent, let's not get ahead of ourselves). Compared to the old country, these new freedoms help those who had no choice earlier to realize that they don't have to do as "Father Martinez" tells them. Their children, brought up traditionally, can't help but be exposed to the freedoms that maybe the parents don't fully understand. And so, the iron grip of the church is loosened on the society it used control absolutely in ages past, and potential priests go off into the real world, choosing other paths. And where the protection that the church offers, along with the ready access to innocent children draws those worst elements of society, thus reinforcing an already existing problem.
A final thought, a little off-topic. I'm glad my wife is a free-thinking open-minded individual. It makes life a lot easier. We recently had a conversation about Toby's birth, and whether it meant a baptism or not. If we were in Poland, the social, cultural, familial, and official pressures would be so strong, that it would be difficult to avoid a baptism within three months of birth. Here in America, we have a choice. This led me to thinking about how prideful Catholic baptism is. The church assumes that you will be a Catholic, and that it wouldn't even cross your mind to be anything else, and so, to ostensibly save your soul in case something tragic happens, you get baptised soon after birth, without any say in the matter.
If you read the bible, it in many places identifies baptism as a voluntary acceptance of Christ as one's Lord and Saviour, and a sign to the world that you have made this decision. I'm not sure about you, but last I checked, a three-month-old baby doesn't really have the capacity for such philosophy. And so the baptism after birth becomes yet another tool of the church to force conformance and acceptance of Catholic authority over the populace.
Bottom line is: Toby will get baptised when he decides he wants to. Sylwia and I will not make the decision for him. There are many choices out there, and we live in a multi-cultural, multi-faith country with freedom of choice.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Friday, April 04, 2008
Singularity
Am I the only one freaked out by the pace of communications technology progress? It takes a moment for me to realize that I was alive when instant communication with my entire social sphere was impossible. The concept existed only in sci-fi movies at best. Going to the store, and forgetting the list meant making the trip twice. Today, I just call the wife, remind myself what was on the list, and voila!
Late for a meeting? Not sure where to meet up? Catching up with friends out on the town? Nothing simpler. Just whip out the cell. How did people meet 20 years ago?
The thing is, that's about as far as my imagination takes me. A sure sign of getting older. I just discovered "twittering" as a concept. Actually, I was informed of what it was, after quizzically staring at the word in an article, and asking someone better versed in the medium. Why in the world would I want to tell the world in short blurbs what I was doing/thinking/feeling/expecting/dealing with/hoping/...? And how would I find the time to constantly update this information a dozen times a day or more? Don't these people work for a living?
I reached a few conclusions about this. No guarantee that they're correct, but they're mine. And, after all, I'm writing a blog, so obviously I expect someone to read what I'm writing, maybe.
Anyway, fact is, humans are lonely. And scared. And they feel insignificant in this big universe. So, having a voice that goes out as far as electromagnetic waves can carry it is reassuring. It makes us feel significant. I exist, hear me think!
And, I'm getting older. I always wondered how it was that a generational gap could exist. Weren't the ways of thinking of the young obvious and clear? Now I look at the behavior of teenagers and wonder how they could do what they do. How does one maintain a virtual presence one's entire day and night? How is it possible to function while having a dozen virtual conversations at once, while listening frantically to music clips, and finishing homework, and sending text messages, and twittering, updating your mySpace page, Facebook, etc? I'm relatively hip, I have a Facebook profile, and I know how to text, and use IM, and even have a blog, but my engagement is nowhere close to that of the future generation.
And social structures are changing faster today than at any time in history. The speed and ease of electronic communication is slowly erasing the need for direct personal contact. On one hand this is lamentable, and many have made the usual strong statements about the deterioration and fall of civilization. On the other hand, there are new forms of connecting that have created bonds at times stronger than the traditional ones. Look at World of Warcraft, and MySpace, and social networking in its various forms. You can more regularly let others know what you're about, you can represent yourself much more creatively, you can express what you would not normally be able to in words, and you can have a much broader audience than ever before. Aren't all these things positive? We're not losing social structures, we're broadening them in new ways. My generation is barely keeping up, my parents' generation is shaking their heads in dismay. So it was with the advent of radio, then television, and so on.
Politically, we're closer to true democracy than ever before. The lip service to "freedom" and "democracy" that America's leaders give is being debunked regularly. The above cannot exist without a well-informed populace, and if you control the information sources, you control the population. The US and North Korea alike are doing a good job at this. The difference is that in America there are so far no significant restrictions on information flow via the Internet. Anyone can write something, post it, and have it reach a wide audience. Duping the public is still possible, and happens regularly (reasons for invading Iraq, anyone?), but reality catches up with everyone much more quickly than in the past. It used to take 20 or more years for the facts to emerge. Today the scandals come out within months.
Of course this isn't yet true social democracy, we have a ways to go yet, but it's the first step. The mass consciousness that will manifest with the advent of the appropriate technologies will surprise the older generations. It already does. Why else are so many people caught with their pants down these days? Stephen Baxter's "Light of Other Days" is worth checking out for an example of how far this could go.
Finally, there is a new form of class divide, on top of the usual socioeconomic ones. That of technological haves and have nots. If you don't have a cell phone, you will soon be marginalized. If you live in the developed world, and do not have Internet access, you will soon be marginalized. If you think that all Internet users are beer swilling porn junkies, you're already marginalized (see Jaroslaw Kaczynski, leader of the PiS party in Poland).
It's an exciting time. And my son, arriving soon, will never conceive of an unconnected world. In his lifetime we will become permanently wired. Today's social networking will be as archaic in 20 years as card-driven computers are today. I hope I remain "hip" enough to keep up...
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Yet another Dirty Little Secret
The world's businesses are driven by the profit question to such an extent that we regularly encounter dirty little secrets being kept from the general public. We saw this with a number of products ranging from tobacco to various additives and processes. We can thank the FDA for helping control the worst excesses, but as with all other parts of the administrative world, the FDA too is heavily influenced by politics and the profit question, and so ends up pressured, under-staffed, and incapable of pro-actively dealing with many of the issues that it faces.
The latest one on the radar, and one getting increasing coverage (at least at the grass-roots level) is the presence of High Fructose Corn Syrup in practically everything, and its effect on human growth and development.
More and more studies indicate that the fructose component of sugar is extremely bad for the body. When it appears in HFCS, fructose has no obstacles from very quickly and directly being absorbed by the body, enabling it to wreak havoc on our systems much more easily.
I won't get into what HFCS does to the body, or what studies are out there to document this. Many documents out on the web already take care of this. For example, http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-2003Mar10?language=printer, and of course the ubiquitous wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup.
What I wonder about is why nobody is making the connection here? If you look at the rise in obesity in this country, and the rise of diabetes, and unhealthy children, and a variety of other nutritional problems, you will see a parallel for all those things with the proliferation of HFCS in our foods. Some will argue that lack of exercise, less movement, larger portions, etc., are to blame, and one can't pin the problem on just one thing.
Yes, I can agree with that, but one has to notice the warning signs which all point to a common factor, and start to wonder about it. Tobacco isn't the only cause of lung cancer. But heck, we know for sure that it is a leading cause.
Look at the comparison. Most European countries as well as New Zealand and a few others still use sucrose or other sugar forms instead of HFCS. The economies still make those a better choice for businesses there. (Here we have a HUGE corn farm glut, probably with appropriately large and strong lobby for D.C.) And in those countries the rates of obesity rise are nowhere nearly as high as those in the United States. We're known worldwide as a country of fat asses. There is no diabetes epidemic in Europe. The kids, who don't get that much more exercise than those in the US, are not lard butts from a young age.
Unfortunately even in those countries the landscape is changing as American food production business concepts make inroads into different cultures. Still, the progress of these problems is much slower, and will hopefully be nipped in the bud before it's too late for them as well. For us, all we have to look forward to is a country where subsequent generations end up with shorter life spans than this one, and with medical costs rising to the point where the country will no longer be able to sustain them, even if it didn't decide to allocate hundreds of billions of dollars on random wars half way around the globe. Let's hope the FDA catches on sooner rather than later, and starts introducing restrictions that at the moment are spearheaded by cities instead. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15020846/)
The latest one on the radar, and one getting increasing coverage (at least at the grass-roots level) is the presence of High Fructose Corn Syrup in practically everything, and its effect on human growth and development.
More and more studies indicate that the fructose component of sugar is extremely bad for the body. When it appears in HFCS, fructose has no obstacles from very quickly and directly being absorbed by the body, enabling it to wreak havoc on our systems much more easily.
I won't get into what HFCS does to the body, or what studies are out there to document this. Many documents out on the web already take care of this. For example, http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-2003Mar10?language=printer, and of course the ubiquitous wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup.
What I wonder about is why nobody is making the connection here? If you look at the rise in obesity in this country, and the rise of diabetes, and unhealthy children, and a variety of other nutritional problems, you will see a parallel for all those things with the proliferation of HFCS in our foods. Some will argue that lack of exercise, less movement, larger portions, etc., are to blame, and one can't pin the problem on just one thing.
Yes, I can agree with that, but one has to notice the warning signs which all point to a common factor, and start to wonder about it. Tobacco isn't the only cause of lung cancer. But heck, we know for sure that it is a leading cause.
Look at the comparison. Most European countries as well as New Zealand and a few others still use sucrose or other sugar forms instead of HFCS. The economies still make those a better choice for businesses there. (Here we have a HUGE corn farm glut, probably with appropriately large and strong lobby for D.C.) And in those countries the rates of obesity rise are nowhere nearly as high as those in the United States. We're known worldwide as a country of fat asses. There is no diabetes epidemic in Europe. The kids, who don't get that much more exercise than those in the US, are not lard butts from a young age.
Unfortunately even in those countries the landscape is changing as American food production business concepts make inroads into different cultures. Still, the progress of these problems is much slower, and will hopefully be nipped in the bud before it's too late for them as well. For us, all we have to look forward to is a country where subsequent generations end up with shorter life spans than this one, and with medical costs rising to the point where the country will no longer be able to sustain them, even if it didn't decide to allocate hundreds of billions of dollars on random wars half way around the globe. Let's hope the FDA catches on sooner rather than later, and starts introducing restrictions that at the moment are spearheaded by cities instead. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15020846/)
America's Saving Grace
In trying to deal with my general depression about the state of the world, and the USA in particular, I get encouraged each night while watching Jon Stewart, and each day when I discover people around me are also regular viewers.
Regardless of politics, views, level of conservatism or liberalism, one has to admit that Jon Stewart cares about where he lives. He's not just in the business to make money, or capitalize on sensationalism. He manifests true involvement and much of the frustration that surrounds me in daily life. This is probably at the root of the success of his show. It resonates with a dissatisfied public, one that is trying to find some rationality in a ridiculously greedy and convoluted world. Of course good writing and copious material provided by the W himself helps as well. Even so, back in Clinton's day, the show had the same level of level-headed insight and effective humor that it does today, the administration's political leanings didn't change that.
And what the show does offer is an exposure of how ridiculous the things that our government is doing are. Yet it does this with a care that belies the pain that hides behind the humor. I think this came out the most in the episode where Stewart was reviewing the American media's take on the Lebanese conflict recently. Each and every one of the "news" organizations focused on the "pain in our pockets" due to the rise in petrol prices due to the conflict. No mention of the fact that people were being displaced and were dying, getting maimed, their lives getting destroyed. They weren't really people after all I guess, since they weren't Americans. Any explanation of this treatment boggles the mind, and it was clear Stewart was on the verge of a breakdown even as he tried to put a humorous spin on the facts he was presenting.
Last night's edition of the show demonstrated to me once again that there may yet be hope. Pakistan's President Musharraf was on the show. Think about it! The president of a sovereign nation appearing on a US "comedy" program. While the O'reilly-type windbags are getting high on the smell of the administration's farts, Stewart is actually reaching out to the very people we need to hear from, so we can better understand the world out there. There was at least a dialog started with this man, and he was given a chance to express his opinions to the American public. And in fact, those opinions were not completely out of left-field, and were worth hearing. Not to mention that Stewart treated his guest with respect and consideration, as well as humor, something I'm not sure we'd see on Hard Ball.
As I fall into the deepest disappointment based on what I see going on around me, I am propped up by the thought that I can count on seeing someone else in this country express the same frustrations that I am experiencing, and that this person has an ever larger following among the American public.
Regardless of politics, views, level of conservatism or liberalism, one has to admit that Jon Stewart cares about where he lives. He's not just in the business to make money, or capitalize on sensationalism. He manifests true involvement and much of the frustration that surrounds me in daily life. This is probably at the root of the success of his show. It resonates with a dissatisfied public, one that is trying to find some rationality in a ridiculously greedy and convoluted world. Of course good writing and copious material provided by the W himself helps as well. Even so, back in Clinton's day, the show had the same level of level-headed insight and effective humor that it does today, the administration's political leanings didn't change that.
And what the show does offer is an exposure of how ridiculous the things that our government is doing are. Yet it does this with a care that belies the pain that hides behind the humor. I think this came out the most in the episode where Stewart was reviewing the American media's take on the Lebanese conflict recently. Each and every one of the "news" organizations focused on the "pain in our pockets" due to the rise in petrol prices due to the conflict. No mention of the fact that people were being displaced and were dying, getting maimed, their lives getting destroyed. They weren't really people after all I guess, since they weren't Americans. Any explanation of this treatment boggles the mind, and it was clear Stewart was on the verge of a breakdown even as he tried to put a humorous spin on the facts he was presenting.
Last night's edition of the show demonstrated to me once again that there may yet be hope. Pakistan's President Musharraf was on the show. Think about it! The president of a sovereign nation appearing on a US "comedy" program. While the O'reilly-type windbags are getting high on the smell of the administration's farts, Stewart is actually reaching out to the very people we need to hear from, so we can better understand the world out there. There was at least a dialog started with this man, and he was given a chance to express his opinions to the American public. And in fact, those opinions were not completely out of left-field, and were worth hearing. Not to mention that Stewart treated his guest with respect and consideration, as well as humor, something I'm not sure we'd see on Hard Ball.
As I fall into the deepest disappointment based on what I see going on around me, I am propped up by the thought that I can count on seeing someone else in this country express the same frustrations that I am experiencing, and that this person has an ever larger following among the American public.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
The Civilization Cycle
Someone recently mentioned an interesting fact in a brief conversation. Throughout human history we have seen the rise and fall of human civilizations and organizations, with each followed by a period of anarchy until stability and equilibrium are regained. This can be seen as far back as ancient Babylon, or as recently as the Soviet Union. World powers rise and fall, as do the ideologies, convictions, and morals of those powers. They each leave something behind, and it lives on in whatever comes after, but the original power ceases to be a factor, most of the time forever.
Of course my point and bearing have to do with the United States. There is a caveat in this case though, and one that may significantly affect the pace of the expected change. That caveat is technology. We are in the most technologically innovative period in history, and it is still accelerating. Everywhere you look, the entire world, not just a few countries, are changing and benefitting from the pace of progress. Communications have improved to the point that we live in much more of a global community than ever before. And so, transfer of information, ideas, and convictions is significantly faster than ever. Were Rome to exist today, I would wager that it would fall in a tenth of the time it really took.
The United States has had a very rich history considering how young a country it is. Borne out of a small group of ideologically diverse people who came to this continent to live out their beliefs, it quickly came to symbolize the concept of freedom and opportunity, and as such thrived immensely. Some will argue that the US was not a significant power until after WWI, but looking at the events of the 19th century one can see signs that this country was already well on its way to big things. WWI only accelerated this, it did not enable it.
After just over two centuries of existence as a nation, this country is starting to show signs of the inevitable decline. It lasted longer than the afore-mentioned Soviet Union, but its days may be just as numbered. And thanks to the amazing pace of technological development and progress, this decline will take a lot less time than it would have a half a century earlier, with potentially much more unstable consequences.
What are the factors of decline?
1. In my estimation, an ambivalent and deluded populace. The citizens of a country often firmly believe that things are still OK well past the time when they really are. Note the once again rising support for a President that has consistently proven incapable of governing wisely.
2. Cracks in the government system. While our system is still holding strong (see my other post on the amazing strength of the US constitution), it is showing signs of strain, and signs that it can no longer cope with some of the pressures placed on it. Challenges to rules that once formed the founding precepts of what this nation's ideals were all about, for example.
3. Widespread corruption. In this country this manifests itself mostly in the quest for position/power. Since the standard of living here is much better than any other place on earth, the issue isn't to rip off the populace to get rich. It's to retain one's influence and power as long as possible. Lobbies, "fund-raisers", constant campaigning, caring more about votes than issues, all these things are the sort of corruption I mean.
4. Inability to adapt to a changed world. Rome couldn't deal with the rising power of the northern tribes. Where it once held absolute power it was now being challenged, and didn't know how to deal with it. The US used to have a gentleman's agreement with the Soviet Union which ensured a balance in the world, and an established code of behavior that the two sides unconsciously (or consciously) agreed to. This is often parodied in spy movies, if you watch carefully. Now one side is gone, and the replacement doesn't play by the rules, and the US doesn't know what to do about it.
5. Isolation from the international community. America has been shunned before, and has also isolated itself from the world, but never while it was considered the leading Western Power. Now this country is increasingly losing international support. Only Britain, Australia and Japan, of the more significant (economy and influence-wise) countries out there are fully supportive of the US, and Britain is mostly in this state due to the government rather than popular sentiment (we'll get to see how this changes when Blair exits soon, to be replaced by a more conservative individual). The rest of the world is at least tentative, if not outright against the US. And the more worrying fact is that many of the countries that have been touted by the self-righteous US government as enemies of human rights are now garnering more credibility than the US itself. Iran has more merit in European circles than the US does. And the US has no choice but to conform with this view, as it can no longer afford a third war, thus validating this perception.
In fifty years we will be able to look back and identify the moment when the decline began. It will probably turn out to be sometime in the second half of the 80's, with the fall of communism. If the US is lucky, the decline will reverse, and this country will come out of it stronger than it was before, and more stable in the global arena. For some time at least. This would require amazingly insightful and strong leadership. But if the current trend continues, this country will quickly find itself out of favor in a global environment which is no longer mutually isolated, and is discovering very quickly that the odd country out is the US, not the rest of the world. There are two more years of the status quo before any healing can begin. All we can hope for is that the damage during these two years will be limited.
I expect there will be lots of blame to go around as well. I'm sure the British Empire blamed a lot of various external factors for the fact that it ceased very quickly to be a world power. In fact, most of the reasons can be traced to internal factors, and issues like those five listed earlier.
So, pull up a seat, get some lemonade, and watch the fireworks. Here's to the next fifty years!
Of course my point and bearing have to do with the United States. There is a caveat in this case though, and one that may significantly affect the pace of the expected change. That caveat is technology. We are in the most technologically innovative period in history, and it is still accelerating. Everywhere you look, the entire world, not just a few countries, are changing and benefitting from the pace of progress. Communications have improved to the point that we live in much more of a global community than ever before. And so, transfer of information, ideas, and convictions is significantly faster than ever. Were Rome to exist today, I would wager that it would fall in a tenth of the time it really took.
The United States has had a very rich history considering how young a country it is. Borne out of a small group of ideologically diverse people who came to this continent to live out their beliefs, it quickly came to symbolize the concept of freedom and opportunity, and as such thrived immensely. Some will argue that the US was not a significant power until after WWI, but looking at the events of the 19th century one can see signs that this country was already well on its way to big things. WWI only accelerated this, it did not enable it.
After just over two centuries of existence as a nation, this country is starting to show signs of the inevitable decline. It lasted longer than the afore-mentioned Soviet Union, but its days may be just as numbered. And thanks to the amazing pace of technological development and progress, this decline will take a lot less time than it would have a half a century earlier, with potentially much more unstable consequences.
What are the factors of decline?
1. In my estimation, an ambivalent and deluded populace. The citizens of a country often firmly believe that things are still OK well past the time when they really are. Note the once again rising support for a President that has consistently proven incapable of governing wisely.
2. Cracks in the government system. While our system is still holding strong (see my other post on the amazing strength of the US constitution), it is showing signs of strain, and signs that it can no longer cope with some of the pressures placed on it. Challenges to rules that once formed the founding precepts of what this nation's ideals were all about, for example.
3. Widespread corruption. In this country this manifests itself mostly in the quest for position/power. Since the standard of living here is much better than any other place on earth, the issue isn't to rip off the populace to get rich. It's to retain one's influence and power as long as possible. Lobbies, "fund-raisers", constant campaigning, caring more about votes than issues, all these things are the sort of corruption I mean.
4. Inability to adapt to a changed world. Rome couldn't deal with the rising power of the northern tribes. Where it once held absolute power it was now being challenged, and didn't know how to deal with it. The US used to have a gentleman's agreement with the Soviet Union which ensured a balance in the world, and an established code of behavior that the two sides unconsciously (or consciously) agreed to. This is often parodied in spy movies, if you watch carefully. Now one side is gone, and the replacement doesn't play by the rules, and the US doesn't know what to do about it.
5. Isolation from the international community. America has been shunned before, and has also isolated itself from the world, but never while it was considered the leading Western Power. Now this country is increasingly losing international support. Only Britain, Australia and Japan, of the more significant (economy and influence-wise) countries out there are fully supportive of the US, and Britain is mostly in this state due to the government rather than popular sentiment (we'll get to see how this changes when Blair exits soon, to be replaced by a more conservative individual). The rest of the world is at least tentative, if not outright against the US. And the more worrying fact is that many of the countries that have been touted by the self-righteous US government as enemies of human rights are now garnering more credibility than the US itself. Iran has more merit in European circles than the US does. And the US has no choice but to conform with this view, as it can no longer afford a third war, thus validating this perception.
In fifty years we will be able to look back and identify the moment when the decline began. It will probably turn out to be sometime in the second half of the 80's, with the fall of communism. If the US is lucky, the decline will reverse, and this country will come out of it stronger than it was before, and more stable in the global arena. For some time at least. This would require amazingly insightful and strong leadership. But if the current trend continues, this country will quickly find itself out of favor in a global environment which is no longer mutually isolated, and is discovering very quickly that the odd country out is the US, not the rest of the world. There are two more years of the status quo before any healing can begin. All we can hope for is that the damage during these two years will be limited.
I expect there will be lots of blame to go around as well. I'm sure the British Empire blamed a lot of various external factors for the fact that it ceased very quickly to be a world power. In fact, most of the reasons can be traced to internal factors, and issues like those five listed earlier.
So, pull up a seat, get some lemonade, and watch the fireworks. Here's to the next fifty years!
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
The American conundrum
The American state of mind is truly fascinating. On one hand there is an extreme superiority complex. On the other, there is such a deep naivete that no other country on the planet can probably boast similar. The two combined have led us to the current sad state of affairs. Here's how I see it:
Rumsfeld and Cheney, but mostly Rumsfeld, would be dictators by now, if it wasn't for the amazingly resilient and effective government system in place in this country. What those founding fathers put together is truly amazing, and merits much respect. Without their forethought we as a nation would never have survived and thrived as we have. And now there is an attempt to undermine the very thing that has enabled this country to survive for so long.
The war, the lies, the use of occurences beyond their control to justify their own agenda, all these things have come together to shed light on the ugliest side of this country. The stagnation and corruption in its highest levels. The pursuit of personal freedoms, successes, and wealth that has been a cornerstone of what this country stands for has been corrupted and twisted into an ugly beast by opportunists who realized that the system can be worked to their advantage. The fact that this country has always maintained a moral high ground (for better or worse) has now come into question.
The rest of the world no longer has the patience with the US. While the US meddled in much of 20th century history, no non-fanatic would ever say that the US isn't following a virtuous path. Here's the part about naivete. The virtuous path isn't always the right path, unfortunately, but this country fails to make that distinction in much of it's attitudes and behavior. But, more on that later. The fact is, this is the first administration to publicly get questioned on its morality. This is the first time in a long while that America is no longer the obnoxious self-important cousin from across the pond. They're now plain wrong, and acting immorally, evilly. That's a sharp turn for the worse. It's one thing to get laughed at for being obese and wearing tacky clothing, and acting like an idiot when visiting another country, it's entirely another to be shunned because you are an oppressor.
The problem is, the country's people coupled with the government system in place allow for this. That's the good and the bad of it. The people are naive. They believe that there is no propaganda, or are completely unaware of its existence. Propaganda is something that belongs in the oppressive totalitarian or communist regimes of the world, of course! As any immigrant can tell you, Americans are amazingly blind to the effects and influences of propaganda. When you live in an oppressive regime, you learn very quickly how to filter out the BS, and get the facts through the underground news networks. You learn to be distrustful of the official party line, and in so being, you in large part neutralize the effects of forced propaganda. In the US none of these factors exist. The American people are taught to trust and believe in their governments, and are taught to be forthright in their information processing. As a result they are deeply under the influence of the media, which is then used as a highly effective propaganda tool by those in the know. And Rumsfeld and Cheney are very much in the know.
So, you have a country full of people who believe whatever the government tells them. This is the bad, as witnessed by the universal support for a war with a completely irrelevant (to US political affairs) country based on fed information that was known to be wrong by the rest of the world the moment it was publicized. Witnessed by the willing public support of a bufoon in office manipulated by a marionette by those with real power and influence. Witnessed by ridiculous policies and missteps on various fronts, that were all glossed over and exused somehow. In any European country, the series of mistakes made by the American administration would have already resulted in a dismissal of the current government, and an institution of a new one. Not so here, where Bush and his cronies have recently regained their poll standings thanks to a widespread smear and fear campaign leading up to November elections.
How's that for a new slogan, to counter the "cut and run" rhetoric from the White House? Smear and Fear. Seems to fit very well.
On the other hand, you have a government system that, though being pushed to its limits, is holding strong, and shows hope for the future of this country and the world. A distribution of power that prevents a bunch of cowboy yahoos from doing whatever they feel like, a judicial system that's mostly independent of political affiliation, and a congress that, while completely in disarray, can still prevent some of the biggest mistakes from being made. The American system protects its citizens, allowing them to be naive and clueless, ensuring that even when they're making stupid decisions, the system and the country can survive and live on.
The system has its bad sides, of course. A terribly strong lobby that keeps politicians in its pockets is one problem. The fact that getting into politics costs huge amounts of money is another problem. There are a lot of very qualified people in this country whose only failing is that they don't have millions of dollars to spare on a campaign. As a result we get people like Bush. No one can tell me that Bush was the best possible candidate from the Republican party for the position. If that were the case it paints a very sorry picture of the make-up of the Republican party. Something that I'm sure some democrats will snicker at and agree is the case. I believe that there are quality people on both sides of the vague political divide, and don't really hold grudges against one or the other side. Both suck, and both are good, at different times and in different situations. The Democrats are spineless. The Republicans are out of touch with reality. Both sides are corrupt. Both sides will do anything just to stay in office, instead of focusing on what is important: The State of the Nation. But, both sides are there to ensure that we have a working government, and both sides are being held in check by the wisdom of this country's founders.
Rumsfeld and Cheney, but mostly Rumsfeld, would be dictators by now, if it wasn't for the amazingly resilient and effective government system in place in this country. What those founding fathers put together is truly amazing, and merits much respect. Without their forethought we as a nation would never have survived and thrived as we have. And now there is an attempt to undermine the very thing that has enabled this country to survive for so long.
The war, the lies, the use of occurences beyond their control to justify their own agenda, all these things have come together to shed light on the ugliest side of this country. The stagnation and corruption in its highest levels. The pursuit of personal freedoms, successes, and wealth that has been a cornerstone of what this country stands for has been corrupted and twisted into an ugly beast by opportunists who realized that the system can be worked to their advantage. The fact that this country has always maintained a moral high ground (for better or worse) has now come into question.
The rest of the world no longer has the patience with the US. While the US meddled in much of 20th century history, no non-fanatic would ever say that the US isn't following a virtuous path. Here's the part about naivete. The virtuous path isn't always the right path, unfortunately, but this country fails to make that distinction in much of it's attitudes and behavior. But, more on that later. The fact is, this is the first administration to publicly get questioned on its morality. This is the first time in a long while that America is no longer the obnoxious self-important cousin from across the pond. They're now plain wrong, and acting immorally, evilly. That's a sharp turn for the worse. It's one thing to get laughed at for being obese and wearing tacky clothing, and acting like an idiot when visiting another country, it's entirely another to be shunned because you are an oppressor.
The problem is, the country's people coupled with the government system in place allow for this. That's the good and the bad of it. The people are naive. They believe that there is no propaganda, or are completely unaware of its existence. Propaganda is something that belongs in the oppressive totalitarian or communist regimes of the world, of course! As any immigrant can tell you, Americans are amazingly blind to the effects and influences of propaganda. When you live in an oppressive regime, you learn very quickly how to filter out the BS, and get the facts through the underground news networks. You learn to be distrustful of the official party line, and in so being, you in large part neutralize the effects of forced propaganda. In the US none of these factors exist. The American people are taught to trust and believe in their governments, and are taught to be forthright in their information processing. As a result they are deeply under the influence of the media, which is then used as a highly effective propaganda tool by those in the know. And Rumsfeld and Cheney are very much in the know.
So, you have a country full of people who believe whatever the government tells them. This is the bad, as witnessed by the universal support for a war with a completely irrelevant (to US political affairs) country based on fed information that was known to be wrong by the rest of the world the moment it was publicized. Witnessed by the willing public support of a bufoon in office manipulated by a marionette by those with real power and influence. Witnessed by ridiculous policies and missteps on various fronts, that were all glossed over and exused somehow. In any European country, the series of mistakes made by the American administration would have already resulted in a dismissal of the current government, and an institution of a new one. Not so here, where Bush and his cronies have recently regained their poll standings thanks to a widespread smear and fear campaign leading up to November elections.
How's that for a new slogan, to counter the "cut and run" rhetoric from the White House? Smear and Fear. Seems to fit very well.
On the other hand, you have a government system that, though being pushed to its limits, is holding strong, and shows hope for the future of this country and the world. A distribution of power that prevents a bunch of cowboy yahoos from doing whatever they feel like, a judicial system that's mostly independent of political affiliation, and a congress that, while completely in disarray, can still prevent some of the biggest mistakes from being made. The American system protects its citizens, allowing them to be naive and clueless, ensuring that even when they're making stupid decisions, the system and the country can survive and live on.
The system has its bad sides, of course. A terribly strong lobby that keeps politicians in its pockets is one problem. The fact that getting into politics costs huge amounts of money is another problem. There are a lot of very qualified people in this country whose only failing is that they don't have millions of dollars to spare on a campaign. As a result we get people like Bush. No one can tell me that Bush was the best possible candidate from the Republican party for the position. If that were the case it paints a very sorry picture of the make-up of the Republican party. Something that I'm sure some democrats will snicker at and agree is the case. I believe that there are quality people on both sides of the vague political divide, and don't really hold grudges against one or the other side. Both suck, and both are good, at different times and in different situations. The Democrats are spineless. The Republicans are out of touch with reality. Both sides are corrupt. Both sides will do anything just to stay in office, instead of focusing on what is important: The State of the Nation. But, both sides are there to ensure that we have a working government, and both sides are being held in check by the wisdom of this country's founders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
