I haven't written for my blog for a long time partly because I've been working on freelance articles and other projects, but mainly because (as I expected) I was having trouble deciding on topics that would be relevant. I initially thought I could always write about books, if nothing else, but I felt it was more important to submit those to the freelance site I write for currently.
However, as my new blog title suggests, I'm now going to try and focus more broadly on social, scientific, and still literary issues. I freely admit that I have no extensive training in any area save literature, but besides being open to counterarguments, I feel inspired by an Edward Said book I read recently, which encouraged people to not feel bound by specialties, to be willing to risk being wrong instead of remaining silent.
So I'm going to be quite seriously going out on a limb, again at the title suggests, on many issues, but I'll always say what I honestly feel and, as always, hope anyone reading this knows that I care far, far less about posting my opinions than I do hearing others, perhaps even supported by professional expertise.
Enjoy!
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
To Those Who Defend Ignorance
Dear (insert your name here),
As I write this blog post, I frankly feel disheartened and disturbed because, after a discussion with some people earlier today, it became clear to me that my belief that knowledge about certain subjects is fundamentally important and good is not held by many. In fact, I've begun to think I may be in the minority.
Lest I sound hyperbolic, I'd recommend anyone reading this to go to youtube and search for "Lunch Scholars." In this video, students are asked random questions, and the results are pathetic. One girl thought that the Vice President of the United States was Osama bin Laden.
To be clear, I don't think the Internet is evil nor do I deny that technological changes have radically altered our culture - for instance, in most cases it is more important now that someone know how to find an answer than derive the answer him or herself. This doesn't bother me in the case, say, of a high school student interested in English using a calculator to do trigonomatry problems. But I'd hope that, even if you use a calculator to add, you still know how to add.
Most would probably agree that basic math skills are necessary but, sadly, it's hard to find a consensus about the importance of much else. Literature is all but considered useless except to those who are born with a love for stories and language, history is considered irrelevant to the present, and science is considered important only if you intend to become a scientist. I don't mean to say these generalizations or any specific anecdotes I could provide are conclusive evidence, but they do indicate a disturbing trend.
What I want to do here, rather than try to draw conclusions based on statistical information (all of which, incidentally corroborates the theory that we are growing less and less proficient in most, if not all, academic areas), is defend knowledge to those who would defend ignorance.
In the first place, there is a practical advantage to knowing certain information. Take history - without a general understanding of the past, it becomes impossible to take reasonable actions in the future. Moreover, if the public had no concept of anything that had happened in the past, not only would they be easy prey to the more manipulative and ruthless among us, but it's easy to see how society could erode completely. Secondly, I simply don't believe that everyone fact-checks everything they hear. Dictionary.com may exist, but does everyone instantly look up the meanings of words they don't know?
I don't intend to say much more partly because I don't want nor would dare to try and put myself in the position of explaining the value of knowledge as a concept and partly because I honestly find it difficult. I believe I could hold my own in a debate say about abortion, capital punishment, or religion, but what could I say to someone who argues that there is no such thing as logic? that freedom is evil? that the world doesn't even exist? I know these arguments have been had, but for me, the more basic the concept, the harder it is to explain. If, for instance, you believe slavery is good and freedom evil, then I don't know where to even start. Perhaps I just need to learn more/become a better debater.
In any case, my final point is that, while many I've spoken to talk about how impractical most knowledge is in relation to their everyday lives, my response is that life can be far more than simply the exercise of survival-based rituals. True, you could spend your life only eating, drinking, reproducing, and watching TV, but you don't have to, and the benefits that learning offers are as real as any other pleasure. Feeling proud of a hard-earned accomplishment is a far greater feeling than the fleeting happiness that comes from indulging in junk food. Knowing that you have mastered a subject puts you in a much better position than someone who has to look up the most basic facts. And, most importantly, by learning and discovering passions that make you an individual, you are able to take part and shape the subjects themselves - something those who think the Vice President is Osama bin Laden are unlikely to ever do.
Have I adequately argued for the importance of knowledge? I don't know - perhaps it would take much more than a single blog post to prove a point I believe to be obvious and, if so, I'm happy to have that conversation through comments. But I will say that in a time when the most basic ideas of right and wrong are constantly being tested, and more forces than ever before are hard at work to deliberate mislead the public (while those who are meant to protect against them are by and large incompetent), I believe it is vital to encourage intellectual growth, for it will not only ensure the continued maturation of humanity, but may even hold the only hope left of an enlightened society that celebrates constructive knowledge and not destructive ignorance.
-Matt
As I write this blog post, I frankly feel disheartened and disturbed because, after a discussion with some people earlier today, it became clear to me that my belief that knowledge about certain subjects is fundamentally important and good is not held by many. In fact, I've begun to think I may be in the minority.
Lest I sound hyperbolic, I'd recommend anyone reading this to go to youtube and search for "Lunch Scholars." In this video, students are asked random questions, and the results are pathetic. One girl thought that the Vice President of the United States was Osama bin Laden.
To be clear, I don't think the Internet is evil nor do I deny that technological changes have radically altered our culture - for instance, in most cases it is more important now that someone know how to find an answer than derive the answer him or herself. This doesn't bother me in the case, say, of a high school student interested in English using a calculator to do trigonomatry problems. But I'd hope that, even if you use a calculator to add, you still know how to add.
Most would probably agree that basic math skills are necessary but, sadly, it's hard to find a consensus about the importance of much else. Literature is all but considered useless except to those who are born with a love for stories and language, history is considered irrelevant to the present, and science is considered important only if you intend to become a scientist. I don't mean to say these generalizations or any specific anecdotes I could provide are conclusive evidence, but they do indicate a disturbing trend.
What I want to do here, rather than try to draw conclusions based on statistical information (all of which, incidentally corroborates the theory that we are growing less and less proficient in most, if not all, academic areas), is defend knowledge to those who would defend ignorance.
In the first place, there is a practical advantage to knowing certain information. Take history - without a general understanding of the past, it becomes impossible to take reasonable actions in the future. Moreover, if the public had no concept of anything that had happened in the past, not only would they be easy prey to the more manipulative and ruthless among us, but it's easy to see how society could erode completely. Secondly, I simply don't believe that everyone fact-checks everything they hear. Dictionary.com may exist, but does everyone instantly look up the meanings of words they don't know?
I don't intend to say much more partly because I don't want nor would dare to try and put myself in the position of explaining the value of knowledge as a concept and partly because I honestly find it difficult. I believe I could hold my own in a debate say about abortion, capital punishment, or religion, but what could I say to someone who argues that there is no such thing as logic? that freedom is evil? that the world doesn't even exist? I know these arguments have been had, but for me, the more basic the concept, the harder it is to explain. If, for instance, you believe slavery is good and freedom evil, then I don't know where to even start. Perhaps I just need to learn more/become a better debater.
In any case, my final point is that, while many I've spoken to talk about how impractical most knowledge is in relation to their everyday lives, my response is that life can be far more than simply the exercise of survival-based rituals. True, you could spend your life only eating, drinking, reproducing, and watching TV, but you don't have to, and the benefits that learning offers are as real as any other pleasure. Feeling proud of a hard-earned accomplishment is a far greater feeling than the fleeting happiness that comes from indulging in junk food. Knowing that you have mastered a subject puts you in a much better position than someone who has to look up the most basic facts. And, most importantly, by learning and discovering passions that make you an individual, you are able to take part and shape the subjects themselves - something those who think the Vice President is Osama bin Laden are unlikely to ever do.
Have I adequately argued for the importance of knowledge? I don't know - perhaps it would take much more than a single blog post to prove a point I believe to be obvious and, if so, I'm happy to have that conversation through comments. But I will say that in a time when the most basic ideas of right and wrong are constantly being tested, and more forces than ever before are hard at work to deliberate mislead the public (while those who are meant to protect against them are by and large incompetent), I believe it is vital to encourage intellectual growth, for it will not only ensure the continued maturation of humanity, but may even hold the only hope left of an enlightened society that celebrates constructive knowledge and not destructive ignorance.
-Matt
Saturday, February 4, 2012
The Atheism Book I'd Read, But That Doesn't Exist
(NOTE: In this post, I am going to fall back on Penn Jillete's differentiation between an atheist and and agnostic as answers to separate questions. "Is there a god?" The logical answers is, "I don't know." In this sense, I am an agnostic. "Do you believe in a god?" "No." In this sense, I am an atheist, since whether or not I say, "No," or "I don't know," I am not in the technical sense a theist, which seems to me to be necessarily someone who answers that question with a "Yes," even if he or she qualifies it with admitting that his ways aren't always understandable, or something to that effect)
Like many atheists, I enjoy watching clips of writers like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins debating priests, rabbis, or other religious leaders. Hitchens, in particular, is so knowledgable of religious texts and the history surrounding each religion's development, especially in the case of the three monotheisms (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), that it's always a thrill to see him use the very words of these texts to show how brutal, bigoted, and frankly ridiculous most of the tenets of faiths are.
And yet, just glancing over this first paragraph, I already sense that anyone reading this, whether they agree or not, would label me a "militant atheist." I find this a bit sad since the real harm the term does isn't in what it says about me, but that it often ends any discussion before one can begin. If I am seen by a person of faith to be a militant atheist, than it's highly unlikely he or she will listen to whatever else I have to say under the assumption that I will merely spew vitriol about their beliefs and that nothing he or she might say can change my mind. There is also a kind of close-minded ignorance implied, as if a militant atheist is so committed to their ideology (as if there were such a thing as an official atheist ideology) that he or she is unable to appreciate the possible good points a religious person might bring up. It's almost the equivalent, in terms of what it does to a conversation and the minds of those conversing, to seeing someone as a militant racist - would you be interested in sitting down to have a discussion with such a person - and even if you were, would you be able to stop for one minute thinking how vile it was that someone could consider people superior or inferior based on something as meaningless as the color of their skin? I know I wouldn't.
Therefore, as I am against much of the totalitarian and society-damaging effects of religion, I find it difficult when confronted by someone of faith of having a fair hearing since the fact that I am an atheist willing to profess my non-belief and disdain for the worst atrocities that have their roots in religion (which is almost all it takes to be considered militant) leads them to a number of conclusions. Among them are that I am equating the most extreme of adherents with the many people of faith who go peacefully about their daily lives and that I am determined to impose my unbelief on them. I haven't even mentioned the fact yet that, simply by being an atheist, many suppose it is impossible to have any set of morals at all or that my non-belief must mean my world view is inherently nihilistic.
I have no intention of rehashing arguments about religion that have been written and argued for centuries by some of the wisest people ever to live, especially as I sincerely have no desire to change your view on the matter (though I admit that I think the world would be better off without it, that doesn't mean I'm willing to impose on someone of faith since that would mean committing one of the crimes I find many religious people guilty of - namely, imposing religious teachings into school curriculum, etc.). What I am interested in is postulating some questions that I don't feel have yet been addressed in the so-called "New Atheism" movement.
Regarding the celebrity atheists out there, I have only read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins and "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. I suspect I'd find "god Is Not Great" to be interesting and informative, but seeing as I already agree with the premise, there seems little point in reading the book (though maybe I will in the future). The time seems better spent reading something like the Book of Mormon or the Koran to better understand what the other side is talking about.
However, (and correct me if I'm wrong and such a book does exist) I've been a little disappointed that most of the major atheist books focus primarily on using scientific evidence to debunk the assertions of holy books (such as that the world was created only 6,000 years ago) or on pointing on the most outlandish aspects of said books. Now, that isn't to say I don't think it's important to have some scientific understanding of the world or be willing to point out what religious texts actually say even if its uncomfortable (such as the many genocidal acts in the Bible), but I wonder how successful such an approach is in the long run. Speaking for myself, my gradual move from being a teenager who fervently believed in the teachings of Catholocism, was an alter boy, and who seriously thought at times about becoming a priest was the result of many events and researching other religions and, of course, atheism. In the end, I found that to live my life meaningfully, morally, and happily didn't require me to think that I'd go to Hell if I didn't pray the rosary every night (which I did for many, many years, often going to sleep terrified that I'd somehow slipped up and only prayed the Hail Mary forty-nine times instead of fifty and would be duly punished) or that I needed God's directions to tell me what was moral or not in the first place, it became gradually apparent that holding onto my faith was equivalent to keeping my training wheels after I'd already learned how to ride a bike without them.
What I'd like to see, then, is a book that discusses theism and atheism from a more personal, emotional perspective - one geared toward the millions, if not billions, of people who would say all this talk about terrorist attacks and genocide is irrelevant to them because their faith is something they rely on simply to live a good life. Why do they believe? I doubt it's because every one of them has concluded the science is in their favor. A more interesting question would be why faith is a virtue at all, while using scientific facts is seen at minimum as irrelevant and at worst disrespectful or even militant. Another question I'd like to see explored more is why people feel they need a faith at all, or what they fear would happen if they were to abandon it, seeing as I highly doubt most people would instantly go out murdering by the dozens if they suddenly decided there was such person as Moses, with his two tablets (although I did once meet someone who did say that, if the Ten Commandments didn't say murder was wrong, he would see no problem in murdering anyone who disagreed with him). And finally, speaking as someone who believes that stories and literature reflect what's most human about us, I'd like to see arguments about if or how the emotions we experience when we read something we truly love might be related to the emotions we experience reading compelling sections of the Bible, or the Koran, or the Talmud, etc. I don't mean to sound facetious at all when I say that I truly believe one could give an articulate sermon on the importance of friendship, of realizing that we can sometimes help others even if we can't fully take on their burden, and of more generally not letting our inability to appreciate pain someone else is undergoing prevent us from doing what we can for him or her by citing the scene in "The Return of the King" where Sam carries Frodo, who is weighed down by the Ring, on his back, since he cannot carry the Ring itself. Of course, you could also talk about Simon of Cyrene, during the fifth station of the cross, assisting Jesus on his way to Golgatha, but I wonder if the same points could not be made.
Anyway, this is an enormous topic I can't hope by to simply begin discussing in a single post, so I'll wrap up by saying that I would be interested (assuming one doesn't exist) in such a book that looked at the personal life of a moderate believer rather than marshelling scientific facts or pointing out destructive acts in holy texts as a way to push the conversation further and also help phase out the useless term "militant atheist."
As always, feel free to comment or generate a discussion,
-Matt
P.S. I hesitate to admit that I almost didn't write this post at all because simply admitting you are an atheist is seen by many as awful in itself. I'm sure that if certain people I know read this, they will be horribly disappointed and even worried about me (and my soul). But, within reason, I don't like to do or not do things simply due to fear, so rather than stay quiet, I intend to use this blog to do precisely what it was meant to do - act as a platform for me to present my ideas to anyone who is interested and reflect what I am genuinely thinking and feeling at a particular point in my life. My non-belief may anger some, but just I am free to believe what I want, they are free to be upset or agree with me. And frankly, I wouldn't want it any other way.
Like many atheists, I enjoy watching clips of writers like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins debating priests, rabbis, or other religious leaders. Hitchens, in particular, is so knowledgable of religious texts and the history surrounding each religion's development, especially in the case of the three monotheisms (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), that it's always a thrill to see him use the very words of these texts to show how brutal, bigoted, and frankly ridiculous most of the tenets of faiths are.
And yet, just glancing over this first paragraph, I already sense that anyone reading this, whether they agree or not, would label me a "militant atheist." I find this a bit sad since the real harm the term does isn't in what it says about me, but that it often ends any discussion before one can begin. If I am seen by a person of faith to be a militant atheist, than it's highly unlikely he or she will listen to whatever else I have to say under the assumption that I will merely spew vitriol about their beliefs and that nothing he or she might say can change my mind. There is also a kind of close-minded ignorance implied, as if a militant atheist is so committed to their ideology (as if there were such a thing as an official atheist ideology) that he or she is unable to appreciate the possible good points a religious person might bring up. It's almost the equivalent, in terms of what it does to a conversation and the minds of those conversing, to seeing someone as a militant racist - would you be interested in sitting down to have a discussion with such a person - and even if you were, would you be able to stop for one minute thinking how vile it was that someone could consider people superior or inferior based on something as meaningless as the color of their skin? I know I wouldn't.
Therefore, as I am against much of the totalitarian and society-damaging effects of religion, I find it difficult when confronted by someone of faith of having a fair hearing since the fact that I am an atheist willing to profess my non-belief and disdain for the worst atrocities that have their roots in religion (which is almost all it takes to be considered militant) leads them to a number of conclusions. Among them are that I am equating the most extreme of adherents with the many people of faith who go peacefully about their daily lives and that I am determined to impose my unbelief on them. I haven't even mentioned the fact yet that, simply by being an atheist, many suppose it is impossible to have any set of morals at all or that my non-belief must mean my world view is inherently nihilistic.
I have no intention of rehashing arguments about religion that have been written and argued for centuries by some of the wisest people ever to live, especially as I sincerely have no desire to change your view on the matter (though I admit that I think the world would be better off without it, that doesn't mean I'm willing to impose on someone of faith since that would mean committing one of the crimes I find many religious people guilty of - namely, imposing religious teachings into school curriculum, etc.). What I am interested in is postulating some questions that I don't feel have yet been addressed in the so-called "New Atheism" movement.
Regarding the celebrity atheists out there, I have only read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins and "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. I suspect I'd find "god Is Not Great" to be interesting and informative, but seeing as I already agree with the premise, there seems little point in reading the book (though maybe I will in the future). The time seems better spent reading something like the Book of Mormon or the Koran to better understand what the other side is talking about.
However, (and correct me if I'm wrong and such a book does exist) I've been a little disappointed that most of the major atheist books focus primarily on using scientific evidence to debunk the assertions of holy books (such as that the world was created only 6,000 years ago) or on pointing on the most outlandish aspects of said books. Now, that isn't to say I don't think it's important to have some scientific understanding of the world or be willing to point out what religious texts actually say even if its uncomfortable (such as the many genocidal acts in the Bible), but I wonder how successful such an approach is in the long run. Speaking for myself, my gradual move from being a teenager who fervently believed in the teachings of Catholocism, was an alter boy, and who seriously thought at times about becoming a priest was the result of many events and researching other religions and, of course, atheism. In the end, I found that to live my life meaningfully, morally, and happily didn't require me to think that I'd go to Hell if I didn't pray the rosary every night (which I did for many, many years, often going to sleep terrified that I'd somehow slipped up and only prayed the Hail Mary forty-nine times instead of fifty and would be duly punished) or that I needed God's directions to tell me what was moral or not in the first place, it became gradually apparent that holding onto my faith was equivalent to keeping my training wheels after I'd already learned how to ride a bike without them.
What I'd like to see, then, is a book that discusses theism and atheism from a more personal, emotional perspective - one geared toward the millions, if not billions, of people who would say all this talk about terrorist attacks and genocide is irrelevant to them because their faith is something they rely on simply to live a good life. Why do they believe? I doubt it's because every one of them has concluded the science is in their favor. A more interesting question would be why faith is a virtue at all, while using scientific facts is seen at minimum as irrelevant and at worst disrespectful or even militant. Another question I'd like to see explored more is why people feel they need a faith at all, or what they fear would happen if they were to abandon it, seeing as I highly doubt most people would instantly go out murdering by the dozens if they suddenly decided there was such person as Moses, with his two tablets (although I did once meet someone who did say that, if the Ten Commandments didn't say murder was wrong, he would see no problem in murdering anyone who disagreed with him). And finally, speaking as someone who believes that stories and literature reflect what's most human about us, I'd like to see arguments about if or how the emotions we experience when we read something we truly love might be related to the emotions we experience reading compelling sections of the Bible, or the Koran, or the Talmud, etc. I don't mean to sound facetious at all when I say that I truly believe one could give an articulate sermon on the importance of friendship, of realizing that we can sometimes help others even if we can't fully take on their burden, and of more generally not letting our inability to appreciate pain someone else is undergoing prevent us from doing what we can for him or her by citing the scene in "The Return of the King" where Sam carries Frodo, who is weighed down by the Ring, on his back, since he cannot carry the Ring itself. Of course, you could also talk about Simon of Cyrene, during the fifth station of the cross, assisting Jesus on his way to Golgatha, but I wonder if the same points could not be made.
Anyway, this is an enormous topic I can't hope by to simply begin discussing in a single post, so I'll wrap up by saying that I would be interested (assuming one doesn't exist) in such a book that looked at the personal life of a moderate believer rather than marshelling scientific facts or pointing out destructive acts in holy texts as a way to push the conversation further and also help phase out the useless term "militant atheist."
As always, feel free to comment or generate a discussion,
-Matt
P.S. I hesitate to admit that I almost didn't write this post at all because simply admitting you are an atheist is seen by many as awful in itself. I'm sure that if certain people I know read this, they will be horribly disappointed and even worried about me (and my soul). But, within reason, I don't like to do or not do things simply due to fear, so rather than stay quiet, I intend to use this blog to do precisely what it was meant to do - act as a platform for me to present my ideas to anyone who is interested and reflect what I am genuinely thinking and feeling at a particular point in my life. My non-belief may anger some, but just I am free to believe what I want, they are free to be upset or agree with me. And frankly, I wouldn't want it any other way.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Good News!
Hey (insert your name here)!
I just got my second acceptance to be a freelance writer for another site!
I don't have much more to say other than that from now on I'll be putting links to my news and literary articles here on the blog.
Hope you have a great day!
-Matt
I just got my second acceptance to be a freelance writer for another site!
I don't have much more to say other than that from now on I'll be putting links to my news and literary articles here on the blog.
Hope you have a great day!
-Matt
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Who's Better? - Roth or Auster?
Dear (insert your name here),
For those of you who don't know, Philip Roth and Paul Auster are considered to be among the greatest living American writers at work today. Roth, whom Harold Bloom has referred to multiple times, including in his fairly recently published book "Novels and Novelists", as among the four greatest American writers alive (the other three being Don DeLillo, Cormac McCarthy, and Thomas Pynchon). He is known particularly for his first book, "Goodbye, Columbus", his extremely provocative fourth novel, "Portnoy's Complaint" (which caused a sensation because of its blunt sexual content), and later works, including his many Zuckerman novels, "Sabbath's Theater", "American Pastoral", "The Human Stain", and others. He's also won practically every award there is to win.
I admit I don't know as much biographical information about Paul Auster because I've only just begun going through all his books. But, and this information can be found on the bio page of any of his works, he has won a number of awards for his fiction, poetry, and memoirs and is known for "The New York Trilogy", "Moon Palace" "Leviathan", "In the Country of Last Things", "The Music of Chameleons"...and honestly those are the only five (seven if you could the trilogy as three separate books) I've been able to get through so far.
THE DEBATE
On the one hand, Roth and Auster are writers that are so different that seems almost pointless to try and compare them. However, their difference brings up an extremely important question to me, and that is - what do we value more in a novelist, the ability to explain ourselves or the unknown? To explain the difference, consider Fyodor Dostoevsky and Jorge Luis Borges. Dostoevsky, whether you like him or not, has been praised for his study of mankind, of what makes us us, and of all the paradoxes inherent in all of us. Borges, in contrast, is famous for exploring exotic questions and creating fascinating mental puzzles. For example, one of his short stories deals with the discovery of a secretly imagined world with its own kind of mathematics, literature, philosophy, and so forth. Reading his work not only stretches but strains the imagination.
Roth belongs unquestionably to the group of writers who, like Dostoevsky, are most interested in investigating us. Actually, it would be more accurate to say he has been most interested in investigating himself, considering that the majority of his novels deal with Newark, Jews, young Jewish intellectuals, Jewish writers, and sometimes even Philip Roth himself (for a pretty funny piece about this habit of his, check out this blistering criticism of him). Some have seen his occupation with himself and his home as a sign of weakness, but there is nothing inherently wrong with focusing work on a particular setting (it worked for Joyce, Hardy, and Faulkner). I bring this famous aspect of his work up simply because I believe anyone interested in post-WWII literature and/or Jewish literature more generally must read Roth.
Auster, on the other hand, is a totally different creature. Whereas it's easy to place Roth in the company of writers working during or immediately before his time, Auster's colleagues are Kafka, Dostoevsky, Sartre, Camus, and Kierkagaard along with other writers of other times and nationalities. Whereas Roth writes about American Jewish identity, Auster is concerned with identity itself - specifically its breakdown. I am now reading my fifth novel by him, and I am still amazed by how vividly he can describe the ways in which we can lose ourselves and also question what it is that makes us us - our work? our friends? our family? our beliefs? Auster's characters lose all of these and more until they are reduced physically and mentally to practically nothing. And that's when they begin the process of becoming someone new or find out just how terrifying nothingness is when it begins to define your own self.
So who's better? While I am more interested in who you like (and why, of course), I have to go with Auster. I fear I have been overly simplistic in my description of the two, but in the interest of keeping things concise I'll limit myself to saying that for all Roth's skill in analyzing and describing a particular person and place, there is something very small about his narrative world. Earlier, when I mentioned how he explored American Jewish identity, I could almost hear his defenders say that, no, he explores human identity. Maybe, but I've read eighteen of his books, and for the most part the same ideas are expressed over and over, and frankly, I've only really enjoyed about nine of them. Some, like "The Professor of Desire", or "The Anatomy Lesson" are simply too obsessed with the character of Philip Roth (though both books are about someone very much like the author). While there are only a few of his books I really loved, most are interesting enough that I don't mind reading them if I can't think of anything else at the moment. However, Auster is consistently great and the fact that his themes are drawn more from psychology and philosophy rather than a particular cultural epoch makes his world seem as vast and mysterious as Roth's is small and highly specific.
So there's my opinion - both are talented writers, but if I had to choose between reading a novel by Roth or Auster, the choice would be easy, since one of the most fun things about reading for me is not knowing where the author will take me, or who I'll end up as when I finish.
What about you? Feel free to comment below because, as I said, I realize I've been very narrow in my discussion thus far and so would be more than happy to go into detail about particular books or topics concerning either author.
Thanks for reading and have a good day and/or night,
-Matt
NOTE:
I have good news and bad news that is, oddly enough, directly caused by the good news. The good news is that I was recently hired to contribute news and political stories as a freelance writer for a website and will hopefully be able to write literary articles for another. In fact, the writing sample I submitted to the second site was about a particular Auster novel. However, assuming I get accepted, that means that any political or literary articles I write for them cannot be posted here. This is a little annoying for me, since part of the fun of this blog is getting to talk to you about what is on my mind at any moment. Despite the fact that I may have to refer you to other sites rather than simply be able to offer you content here, I will do my best to keep contributing at the same pace here as I will there.
For those of you who don't know, Philip Roth and Paul Auster are considered to be among the greatest living American writers at work today. Roth, whom Harold Bloom has referred to multiple times, including in his fairly recently published book "Novels and Novelists", as among the four greatest American writers alive (the other three being Don DeLillo, Cormac McCarthy, and Thomas Pynchon). He is known particularly for his first book, "Goodbye, Columbus", his extremely provocative fourth novel, "Portnoy's Complaint" (which caused a sensation because of its blunt sexual content), and later works, including his many Zuckerman novels, "Sabbath's Theater", "American Pastoral", "The Human Stain", and others. He's also won practically every award there is to win.
I admit I don't know as much biographical information about Paul Auster because I've only just begun going through all his books. But, and this information can be found on the bio page of any of his works, he has won a number of awards for his fiction, poetry, and memoirs and is known for "The New York Trilogy", "Moon Palace" "Leviathan", "In the Country of Last Things", "The Music of Chameleons"...and honestly those are the only five (seven if you could the trilogy as three separate books) I've been able to get through so far.
THE DEBATE
On the one hand, Roth and Auster are writers that are so different that seems almost pointless to try and compare them. However, their difference brings up an extremely important question to me, and that is - what do we value more in a novelist, the ability to explain ourselves or the unknown? To explain the difference, consider Fyodor Dostoevsky and Jorge Luis Borges. Dostoevsky, whether you like him or not, has been praised for his study of mankind, of what makes us us, and of all the paradoxes inherent in all of us. Borges, in contrast, is famous for exploring exotic questions and creating fascinating mental puzzles. For example, one of his short stories deals with the discovery of a secretly imagined world with its own kind of mathematics, literature, philosophy, and so forth. Reading his work not only stretches but strains the imagination.
Roth belongs unquestionably to the group of writers who, like Dostoevsky, are most interested in investigating us. Actually, it would be more accurate to say he has been most interested in investigating himself, considering that the majority of his novels deal with Newark, Jews, young Jewish intellectuals, Jewish writers, and sometimes even Philip Roth himself (for a pretty funny piece about this habit of his, check out this blistering criticism of him). Some have seen his occupation with himself and his home as a sign of weakness, but there is nothing inherently wrong with focusing work on a particular setting (it worked for Joyce, Hardy, and Faulkner). I bring this famous aspect of his work up simply because I believe anyone interested in post-WWII literature and/or Jewish literature more generally must read Roth.
Auster, on the other hand, is a totally different creature. Whereas it's easy to place Roth in the company of writers working during or immediately before his time, Auster's colleagues are Kafka, Dostoevsky, Sartre, Camus, and Kierkagaard along with other writers of other times and nationalities. Whereas Roth writes about American Jewish identity, Auster is concerned with identity itself - specifically its breakdown. I am now reading my fifth novel by him, and I am still amazed by how vividly he can describe the ways in which we can lose ourselves and also question what it is that makes us us - our work? our friends? our family? our beliefs? Auster's characters lose all of these and more until they are reduced physically and mentally to practically nothing. And that's when they begin the process of becoming someone new or find out just how terrifying nothingness is when it begins to define your own self.
So who's better? While I am more interested in who you like (and why, of course), I have to go with Auster. I fear I have been overly simplistic in my description of the two, but in the interest of keeping things concise I'll limit myself to saying that for all Roth's skill in analyzing and describing a particular person and place, there is something very small about his narrative world. Earlier, when I mentioned how he explored American Jewish identity, I could almost hear his defenders say that, no, he explores human identity. Maybe, but I've read eighteen of his books, and for the most part the same ideas are expressed over and over, and frankly, I've only really enjoyed about nine of them. Some, like "The Professor of Desire", or "The Anatomy Lesson" are simply too obsessed with the character of Philip Roth (though both books are about someone very much like the author). While there are only a few of his books I really loved, most are interesting enough that I don't mind reading them if I can't think of anything else at the moment. However, Auster is consistently great and the fact that his themes are drawn more from psychology and philosophy rather than a particular cultural epoch makes his world seem as vast and mysterious as Roth's is small and highly specific.
So there's my opinion - both are talented writers, but if I had to choose between reading a novel by Roth or Auster, the choice would be easy, since one of the most fun things about reading for me is not knowing where the author will take me, or who I'll end up as when I finish.
What about you? Feel free to comment below because, as I said, I realize I've been very narrow in my discussion thus far and so would be more than happy to go into detail about particular books or topics concerning either author.
Thanks for reading and have a good day and/or night,
-Matt
NOTE:
I have good news and bad news that is, oddly enough, directly caused by the good news. The good news is that I was recently hired to contribute news and political stories as a freelance writer for a website and will hopefully be able to write literary articles for another. In fact, the writing sample I submitted to the second site was about a particular Auster novel. However, assuming I get accepted, that means that any political or literary articles I write for them cannot be posted here. This is a little annoying for me, since part of the fun of this blog is getting to talk to you about what is on my mind at any moment. Despite the fact that I may have to refer you to other sites rather than simply be able to offer you content here, I will do my best to keep contributing at the same pace here as I will there.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
"RIP Bill (of Rights)" - my night at Occupy
Dear (insert your name here),
Before I get into discussing my recent experience at an Occupy Wall Street event and my thoughts on SOPA/PIPA and Chicago's proposed ordinance that would dramatically affect protesting rights in the city, I want to make something very clear. I will not deny that I have some deeply felt ideological beliefs, which naturally inform my political opinions, but I have no intention of making this a partisan blog in either content or spirit. To be less esoteric, take the following example: you and I are meeting for the first time and one of the first things that you hear about me is that I love Glenn Beck. Now, if you are liberal-minded, this one comment may be enough to cement your impression of me negatively. Likewise, if I start extolling Keith Olbermann or Bill Maher, you (assuming you are conservative) might have an equally negative impression.
That is why I will avoid saying that I like any particular party or politician. I don't even want to stoop to basing arguments on some vague sense of patriotism (if you don't agree with me you must hate America!). The reason isn't that I don't have certain politicians I admire and hate, parties I favor over others, or have a certain regard of the U.S. It's also not because I don't want to immediately bias you for or against me, though I certainly don't want to do either. Rather, I truly don't believe such things as parties or people matter in the grand scheme. From my perspective, the only things that do matter in society are governmental policies and their impact. Obviously, there can be some overlap - a converative might have a vastly different opinion regarding social security than a liberal. But they might not, and either way, if y0u're sincerely concerned with making the country a better place, than what you should be focused on is analyzing social security on its own terms, which might result in you thinking what would be best to do correlates with what your presumed political enemies want to do, too.
This approach, I realize, can only go so far. Any political stances, just like our day-to-day actions, are necessarily the outgrowth of certan fundamental views - I will no more think it wrong to purposefully hurt an innocent person if I value the welfare of others than I will think it wrong for the government to interfere with other nations if I am a strict isolationist. Perhaps even these examples leave room for dispute, but arguing for the superiority of relative versus absolutist morality is best left for another post I have in mind regarding religion.
Now, on to Occupy Wall Street:
Regardless of what side you're on, the very name Occupy Wall Street is bound to cause a reaction, whether it be pride or aggravation. Personally, I am more in favor than not of the group if only for two reasons (though I could probably think of more if I gave myself more than two seconds to think) - first, that Occupy is against corporate personhood due to the damage it has and is doing, and second, because they are in favor of environmental sustainability efforts that are vital to preserving our world (if you don't believe in global warming, well, we unfortunately will just have to part ways on that point - though I will probably do another post soon about that).
But you might say, as my first commenter just did, that despite what I may think Occupy stands for, Occupy itself has not made it clear that it stands for anything. This is perfectly reasonable opinion, as it has been the primarily criticism in the media since its inception.
To address this issue, I'll first mention that I am currently reading a book/journal of a reporter who has been with the group since last September that documents its development. While I have only just started, already I can see what many instinctively realize, for in an early section, a small group of people forms to discuss what their list of demands should be and immediately they realize that each has their own view of what is most important.
But this is not a sign of weakness. If one were to form a group dedicated to saving the earth from natural disasters, and it was deemed necessary to rank what actions are most crucial for survival, what would your list look like? Would you want to fight first to stop pollution by establising a carbon tax (which gets into corporate regulation), prevent the extinction of bees, end deforestation, begin weaning ourselves off of our dependency (or addiction, as Bush 43 put it) on oil, etc. etc.? I haven't even brought up what might be required to prevent a meteorite from obliterating us - and on that note, it would be wise to consider space colonization as a viable solution as well, which would bring up a host of difficulties, not least of which would be feasibility (I strongly suggest anyone reading to look up the challenges to reaching Mars, where evidence of water - from the past, of course - was recently discovered).
The problem isn't just that the variety of environmental threats facing us simultaneously today require a variety of solutions, but that they are all tied together in intricate ways. Now think about how much more difficult it would be to compose a ranking of what is most important to helping American when, in addition to all of the things I just said (which could fall under the single category of "conservation"), others would also feel homelessness was a pressing issue, or the housing crisis, moral decay (which from personal experience I know for a fact some believe is the most serious issue), corporate influence on elections, geremandering, racism, sexism, economic regulation (or deregulation), and on and on and on and on.
Yet somehow, Occupy has indeed found a way of forming a general declaration of its members. So, instead of saying anymore about what I support or what I think the group stands for, I'll let the group stand for itself.
The following is taken from the official Occupy Chicago site, at http://occupychi.org/about-us.
---------------------------------------
Mission Statement
“Occupy Chicago is here to fight corporate abuse of American democracy in solidarity with our brothers and sisters around the world.”
Declaration of Nonviolence
“Occupy Chicago reassures its members and the public that we are a social movement dedicated to nonviolent action.”
Our Declaration Of Occupation
We gather together in solidarity with the global movement of which we are a part to express the same feeling of mass injustice felt by people of all walks of life, all political and social backgrounds, and all cultures around the world. We repeat and affirm the statements in the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City, unanimously adopted by the General Assembly of Occupy Wall St. on September 29, 2011.As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.They have sold our privacy as a commodity.They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.This list of grievances is non-inclusive.To the people of the world,We, Occupy Chicago, urge you to assert your power.Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.We pledge to do the same.To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.Join us and make your voices heard!
---------------------------------------
I'll leave you, the reader, you decide what to make of that. However, allowing for the fact that it is fighting for many reasons, what I do hope is that it dispells any notion that the group as a whole has absolutely no idea what it is fighting for. Additionally, I believe that there are no firmly set goals (save for what has been said above and a general antipathy to corporate influence) and its lack of a figurehead are at this moment benefits instead of detriments.
But I'll also leave that for another post because what I want to finish with is a discussion of the ordinance proposed by Mayor Rahn Emmanuel and SOPA/PIPA.
I began, for reasons that I hope I made clear, with discussing Occupy in general, but from now on anything I write about the group (or politics at all for that matter) will be centered on specific issues. With that in mind, I'd like to say that whether or not you are for or against Occupy at the moment, consider the following issues they were particularly vocal about two nights ago and decide whether you support them here.
For anyone who doesn't know, the ordinance that the mayor proposed originated with the NATO and G8 Summits, which is being held in Chicago. Its proponents wanted to increase the penalties and regulations regarding protesting during the duration of the summit, but now Emmanuel has made it clear that the changes are to be permanent. These changes would, among other things, raise "the fine for "resisting or obstruction the performance of a police officer" exponentially and lumps both active and passive resistance as tshe same", would require "a permit to even gather on the sidewalk", close public places after dark, and allow protests only between 8:00 am - 10:00 pm (once again, I am referring to information taken from news sources on Occupy Chicago's official site).
Ideological sounding or not, I strongly believe that the right for citizens to protest is vital to a healthy democracy, and while this ordinance would not eliminate the right of people to protest, it would make it severely more difficult. Besides, we've all already seen the havoc between protesters and police, including the incident on a college campus where students who were simply sitting on the group were pepper sprayed. It does trouble me when the government overtly acts to curtail the ability of people to protest, if only because I believe such efforts are doomed to backfire. Does anyone actually believe that limiting the rights of people to express themselves will bring about a more submissive society (which in itself should never be a goal)? If you do, at the risk of sounding snotty, I'd refer you to any violent period in world history.
I don't wish to sound alarmist, if only because I fear it will weaken my credibility, but I do believe that any attempt to infringe on the rights of people to protest goes against the spirit and even wording of the Bill of Rights. And on that note, I was disturbed during the event to see people cursing and jeering speakers, most of whom were merely calling for the preservation of the Bill of Rights. Even if you don't want or don't agree with Occupy on some issues, why jeer someone who is arguing for your rights? Equally disturbing was when a woman, who was offered a copy of the Bill of Rights by an Occupy member, replied, "Shove it up your ass."
I'm more than happy to discuss this issue further with anyone who wishes to, but for now I'll close by letting you know that the ordinance, in a slightly weaker version, did indeed pass.
Finally, I want to express solidarity with Occupy on the other main issue brought up at the event - SOPA/PIPA (which are essentially the same, save that PIPA is the Senate version of the "Stop Online Piracy Act").
Before I go into what I dislike about this bill, I need to mention a site that might seem utterly unrelated - Khan Academy. There is no website I spend more time on or enjoy more than this. It is basically an online school, teaching dozens of subjects ranging from algebra to chemistry to history and computer science. The lessons are in the form of short lectures where the voice of founder Salmon Khan talks to you while writing on a blackboard. It is an incredible site that I'd recommend to everyone, whether you are five or ninety.
Just before writing this post, I was listening to one of these lectures when I suddenly noticed, as I went to pick another, that he had posted a lecture on SOPA/PIPA. As always, Khan clarified a subject that was formally difficult to comprehend.
While I'll mention the highlights, I'd suggest everyone go to http://www.khanacademy.org/video/sopa-and-pipa?playlist=American%20Civics, where he gives the full speech. If you don't have eleven minutes, however, I'll note the following:
The act is meant to give those who have their copyrighted material used on foreign sites a way in which to petition the government to shut the site down. While its intent may seem fine to you, it can lead to many "creepy" (as Khan puts it) consequences.
To be blunt, it's a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy that assumes guilt until the party is proven innocent (the exact opposite of our system of due process). For example, Khan explains that under section 103 of the bill, were someone to post a link on a his website that led to copyrighted material, someone could easily get the entire Khan Academy shut down. This is because all the plaintiff would have to prove is that the site "facilitated" or "enabled" a user to get to the copyrighted material. And in this example, the site is technically enabling you to get to said material. Another problem is that, to overturn the verdict, the defendant would have to prove the plaintiff "knowingly materially misrepresents" the case, meaning they purposefully lied about the site or that the site does not actually link to copyrighted material. Obviously, in the Khan Academy example, neither one of these exceptions apply, since the plaintiff was right that the message board link did link to copyrighted material. I haven't even mentioned that the bill also forces, on the threat of being shut down as well, advertisers, payment services, and search engines to discontinue services with the site immediately, which means a plaintiff could easily bankrupt a site long before it had the chance to theoritically challenge the verdict - a challenge almost guarenteed to fail. And this is all because of a post some random person put on a message board on a site dedicated to educating people around the world. If this isn't frightening enough, or you just don't like Khan Academy, consider that under this same bill the government could quickly shut down Youtube, Google, Wikipedia, or even websites of national news networks.
I could say more, but if you really want to learn about the issue I'd recommend the Khan video and individual research. Of course, as with the ordinance issue, I'm happy to continue to conversation if need be.
That post was much longer than I expected it to be, but "so it goes" (that was Kurt Vonnegut, in case anyone is intending to shut down this site and wants to use that quote as evidence I stole his words). At least, because of my long-windedness, I ended up generating a number of ideas for future posts.
Talk to you again soon,
-Matt
Before I get into discussing my recent experience at an Occupy Wall Street event and my thoughts on SOPA/PIPA and Chicago's proposed ordinance that would dramatically affect protesting rights in the city, I want to make something very clear. I will not deny that I have some deeply felt ideological beliefs, which naturally inform my political opinions, but I have no intention of making this a partisan blog in either content or spirit. To be less esoteric, take the following example: you and I are meeting for the first time and one of the first things that you hear about me is that I love Glenn Beck. Now, if you are liberal-minded, this one comment may be enough to cement your impression of me negatively. Likewise, if I start extolling Keith Olbermann or Bill Maher, you (assuming you are conservative) might have an equally negative impression.
That is why I will avoid saying that I like any particular party or politician. I don't even want to stoop to basing arguments on some vague sense of patriotism (if you don't agree with me you must hate America!). The reason isn't that I don't have certain politicians I admire and hate, parties I favor over others, or have a certain regard of the U.S. It's also not because I don't want to immediately bias you for or against me, though I certainly don't want to do either. Rather, I truly don't believe such things as parties or people matter in the grand scheme. From my perspective, the only things that do matter in society are governmental policies and their impact. Obviously, there can be some overlap - a converative might have a vastly different opinion regarding social security than a liberal. But they might not, and either way, if y0u're sincerely concerned with making the country a better place, than what you should be focused on is analyzing social security on its own terms, which might result in you thinking what would be best to do correlates with what your presumed political enemies want to do, too.
This approach, I realize, can only go so far. Any political stances, just like our day-to-day actions, are necessarily the outgrowth of certan fundamental views - I will no more think it wrong to purposefully hurt an innocent person if I value the welfare of others than I will think it wrong for the government to interfere with other nations if I am a strict isolationist. Perhaps even these examples leave room for dispute, but arguing for the superiority of relative versus absolutist morality is best left for another post I have in mind regarding religion.
Now, on to Occupy Wall Street:
Regardless of what side you're on, the very name Occupy Wall Street is bound to cause a reaction, whether it be pride or aggravation. Personally, I am more in favor than not of the group if only for two reasons (though I could probably think of more if I gave myself more than two seconds to think) - first, that Occupy is against corporate personhood due to the damage it has and is doing, and second, because they are in favor of environmental sustainability efforts that are vital to preserving our world (if you don't believe in global warming, well, we unfortunately will just have to part ways on that point - though I will probably do another post soon about that).
But you might say, as my first commenter just did, that despite what I may think Occupy stands for, Occupy itself has not made it clear that it stands for anything. This is perfectly reasonable opinion, as it has been the primarily criticism in the media since its inception.
To address this issue, I'll first mention that I am currently reading a book/journal of a reporter who has been with the group since last September that documents its development. While I have only just started, already I can see what many instinctively realize, for in an early section, a small group of people forms to discuss what their list of demands should be and immediately they realize that each has their own view of what is most important.
But this is not a sign of weakness. If one were to form a group dedicated to saving the earth from natural disasters, and it was deemed necessary to rank what actions are most crucial for survival, what would your list look like? Would you want to fight first to stop pollution by establising a carbon tax (which gets into corporate regulation), prevent the extinction of bees, end deforestation, begin weaning ourselves off of our dependency (or addiction, as Bush 43 put it) on oil, etc. etc.? I haven't even brought up what might be required to prevent a meteorite from obliterating us - and on that note, it would be wise to consider space colonization as a viable solution as well, which would bring up a host of difficulties, not least of which would be feasibility (I strongly suggest anyone reading to look up the challenges to reaching Mars, where evidence of water - from the past, of course - was recently discovered).
The problem isn't just that the variety of environmental threats facing us simultaneously today require a variety of solutions, but that they are all tied together in intricate ways. Now think about how much more difficult it would be to compose a ranking of what is most important to helping American when, in addition to all of the things I just said (which could fall under the single category of "conservation"), others would also feel homelessness was a pressing issue, or the housing crisis, moral decay (which from personal experience I know for a fact some believe is the most serious issue), corporate influence on elections, geremandering, racism, sexism, economic regulation (or deregulation), and on and on and on and on.
Yet somehow, Occupy has indeed found a way of forming a general declaration of its members. So, instead of saying anymore about what I support or what I think the group stands for, I'll let the group stand for itself.
The following is taken from the official Occupy Chicago site, at http://occupychi.org/about-us.
---------------------------------------
Mission Statement
“Occupy Chicago is here to fight corporate abuse of American democracy in solidarity with our brothers and sisters around the world.”
Declaration of Nonviolence
“Occupy Chicago reassures its members and the public that we are a social movement dedicated to nonviolent action.”
Our Declaration Of Occupation
We gather together in solidarity with the global movement of which we are a part to express the same feeling of mass injustice felt by people of all walks of life, all political and social backgrounds, and all cultures around the world. We repeat and affirm the statements in the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City, unanimously adopted by the General Assembly of Occupy Wall St. on September 29, 2011.As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.They have sold our privacy as a commodity.They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.This list of grievances is non-inclusive.To the people of the world,We, Occupy Chicago, urge you to assert your power.Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.We pledge to do the same.To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.Join us and make your voices heard!
---------------------------------------
I'll leave you, the reader, you decide what to make of that. However, allowing for the fact that it is fighting for many reasons, what I do hope is that it dispells any notion that the group as a whole has absolutely no idea what it is fighting for. Additionally, I believe that there are no firmly set goals (save for what has been said above and a general antipathy to corporate influence) and its lack of a figurehead are at this moment benefits instead of detriments.
But I'll also leave that for another post because what I want to finish with is a discussion of the ordinance proposed by Mayor Rahn Emmanuel and SOPA/PIPA.
I began, for reasons that I hope I made clear, with discussing Occupy in general, but from now on anything I write about the group (or politics at all for that matter) will be centered on specific issues. With that in mind, I'd like to say that whether or not you are for or against Occupy at the moment, consider the following issues they were particularly vocal about two nights ago and decide whether you support them here.
For anyone who doesn't know, the ordinance that the mayor proposed originated with the NATO and G8 Summits, which is being held in Chicago. Its proponents wanted to increase the penalties and regulations regarding protesting during the duration of the summit, but now Emmanuel has made it clear that the changes are to be permanent. These changes would, among other things, raise "the fine for "resisting or obstruction the performance of a police officer" exponentially and lumps both active and passive resistance as tshe same", would require "a permit to even gather on the sidewalk", close public places after dark, and allow protests only between 8:00 am - 10:00 pm (once again, I am referring to information taken from news sources on Occupy Chicago's official site).
Ideological sounding or not, I strongly believe that the right for citizens to protest is vital to a healthy democracy, and while this ordinance would not eliminate the right of people to protest, it would make it severely more difficult. Besides, we've all already seen the havoc between protesters and police, including the incident on a college campus where students who were simply sitting on the group were pepper sprayed. It does trouble me when the government overtly acts to curtail the ability of people to protest, if only because I believe such efforts are doomed to backfire. Does anyone actually believe that limiting the rights of people to express themselves will bring about a more submissive society (which in itself should never be a goal)? If you do, at the risk of sounding snotty, I'd refer you to any violent period in world history.
I don't wish to sound alarmist, if only because I fear it will weaken my credibility, but I do believe that any attempt to infringe on the rights of people to protest goes against the spirit and even wording of the Bill of Rights. And on that note, I was disturbed during the event to see people cursing and jeering speakers, most of whom were merely calling for the preservation of the Bill of Rights. Even if you don't want or don't agree with Occupy on some issues, why jeer someone who is arguing for your rights? Equally disturbing was when a woman, who was offered a copy of the Bill of Rights by an Occupy member, replied, "Shove it up your ass."
I'm more than happy to discuss this issue further with anyone who wishes to, but for now I'll close by letting you know that the ordinance, in a slightly weaker version, did indeed pass.
Finally, I want to express solidarity with Occupy on the other main issue brought up at the event - SOPA/PIPA (which are essentially the same, save that PIPA is the Senate version of the "Stop Online Piracy Act").
Before I go into what I dislike about this bill, I need to mention a site that might seem utterly unrelated - Khan Academy. There is no website I spend more time on or enjoy more than this. It is basically an online school, teaching dozens of subjects ranging from algebra to chemistry to history and computer science. The lessons are in the form of short lectures where the voice of founder Salmon Khan talks to you while writing on a blackboard. It is an incredible site that I'd recommend to everyone, whether you are five or ninety.
Just before writing this post, I was listening to one of these lectures when I suddenly noticed, as I went to pick another, that he had posted a lecture on SOPA/PIPA. As always, Khan clarified a subject that was formally difficult to comprehend.
While I'll mention the highlights, I'd suggest everyone go to http://www.khanacademy.org/video/sopa-and-pipa?playlist=American%20Civics, where he gives the full speech. If you don't have eleven minutes, however, I'll note the following:
The act is meant to give those who have their copyrighted material used on foreign sites a way in which to petition the government to shut the site down. While its intent may seem fine to you, it can lead to many "creepy" (as Khan puts it) consequences.
To be blunt, it's a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy that assumes guilt until the party is proven innocent (the exact opposite of our system of due process). For example, Khan explains that under section 103 of the bill, were someone to post a link on a his website that led to copyrighted material, someone could easily get the entire Khan Academy shut down. This is because all the plaintiff would have to prove is that the site "facilitated" or "enabled" a user to get to the copyrighted material. And in this example, the site is technically enabling you to get to said material. Another problem is that, to overturn the verdict, the defendant would have to prove the plaintiff "knowingly materially misrepresents" the case, meaning they purposefully lied about the site or that the site does not actually link to copyrighted material. Obviously, in the Khan Academy example, neither one of these exceptions apply, since the plaintiff was right that the message board link did link to copyrighted material. I haven't even mentioned that the bill also forces, on the threat of being shut down as well, advertisers, payment services, and search engines to discontinue services with the site immediately, which means a plaintiff could easily bankrupt a site long before it had the chance to theoritically challenge the verdict - a challenge almost guarenteed to fail. And this is all because of a post some random person put on a message board on a site dedicated to educating people around the world. If this isn't frightening enough, or you just don't like Khan Academy, consider that under this same bill the government could quickly shut down Youtube, Google, Wikipedia, or even websites of national news networks.
I could say more, but if you really want to learn about the issue I'd recommend the Khan video and individual research. Of course, as with the ordinance issue, I'm happy to continue to conversation if need be.
That post was much longer than I expected it to be, but "so it goes" (that was Kurt Vonnegut, in case anyone is intending to shut down this site and wants to use that quote as evidence I stole his words). At least, because of my long-windedness, I ended up generating a number of ideas for future posts.
Talk to you again soon,
-Matt
Monday, January 16, 2012
Here Comes Pepper Spray...
Dear (insert your name here),
As I sit here, writing this post, I'm a little nervous. I probably shouldn't admit this, especially as I just spent a few minutes convincing my Grandpa I wasn't worried at all...but I don't think any of you will tell him.
The reason I'm nervous is that tomorrow I'll be going to my first Occupy Wall Street event, where I plan on interviewing participants and writing about the experience tomorrow night. While I don't plan on storming the Bastille (assuming the Funeral for the Bill of Rights - the name of the event - culminates in that), I've heard enough stories about copys pepper spraying people in the eyes and beating up civilians peacefully assembling to be, at the very least, wary.
However, I'm still going. For one thing, like most liberal-minded people, I generally support what Occupy Wall Street is doing. The fact that I do support them in a cause that I personally believe to be very important in restoring some semblance of equality to the country should, one would think, be enough to get me out in the streets. So why haven't I gone to a single event? Am I just a coward?
In a word, yes. Now, I'm sure that my friends who also have said they support the group have their own reasons for not going, but speaking personally I have been worried about what might happen if I went. For example, as I more or less said before, while I've never had pepper sprayed into my eyes, I don't think I'd like it. But beyond fear of physical harm, I also worry about what being arrested would mean for my future. Would it prevent me from getting another good teaching job? It's these kind of concerns among others that have kept me home, watching passively as thousands suffer for causes I believe in.
But the very fact that my inaction stems from these fears is what has compelled me recently to seriously consider attending at least one of these events.
I won't pretend to know everything about the movement (I recently bought the book "Occupy!" to educate myself). Nor do I pretend to know what will happen. All I know is that it's been a long, long time since a social cause really inspired me, and in what I can only describe as a sense of solidarity with those who have been taking the risks I've avoided for some time now, I feel that I owe it to those I support to not just do so from my couch. Besides, I almost feel I'd be paying a tribute to Christopher Hitchens, whose willingness to be water-boarded so as to write an article about the subject puts my situation into perspective.
I'll close by asking you to wish me luck (especially about the not being pepper sprayed) and ask you, what do you think? Am I being too hard on myself or have I really been a coward? More importantly, why have you or have you not gone to an Occupy Wall Street event? This last question is really aimed for those who support it, though obviously those against are welcome to respond. I plan on writing continuously on politics, but remember, keep it civil.
I hope to hear from you so I can learn more about why people have and have not attended and I'll be sure to share all the highlights with you tomorrow night.
Have a good night,
-Matt
As I sit here, writing this post, I'm a little nervous. I probably shouldn't admit this, especially as I just spent a few minutes convincing my Grandpa I wasn't worried at all...but I don't think any of you will tell him.
The reason I'm nervous is that tomorrow I'll be going to my first Occupy Wall Street event, where I plan on interviewing participants and writing about the experience tomorrow night. While I don't plan on storming the Bastille (assuming the Funeral for the Bill of Rights - the name of the event - culminates in that), I've heard enough stories about copys pepper spraying people in the eyes and beating up civilians peacefully assembling to be, at the very least, wary.
However, I'm still going. For one thing, like most liberal-minded people, I generally support what Occupy Wall Street is doing. The fact that I do support them in a cause that I personally believe to be very important in restoring some semblance of equality to the country should, one would think, be enough to get me out in the streets. So why haven't I gone to a single event? Am I just a coward?
In a word, yes. Now, I'm sure that my friends who also have said they support the group have their own reasons for not going, but speaking personally I have been worried about what might happen if I went. For example, as I more or less said before, while I've never had pepper sprayed into my eyes, I don't think I'd like it. But beyond fear of physical harm, I also worry about what being arrested would mean for my future. Would it prevent me from getting another good teaching job? It's these kind of concerns among others that have kept me home, watching passively as thousands suffer for causes I believe in.
But the very fact that my inaction stems from these fears is what has compelled me recently to seriously consider attending at least one of these events.
I won't pretend to know everything about the movement (I recently bought the book "Occupy!" to educate myself). Nor do I pretend to know what will happen. All I know is that it's been a long, long time since a social cause really inspired me, and in what I can only describe as a sense of solidarity with those who have been taking the risks I've avoided for some time now, I feel that I owe it to those I support to not just do so from my couch. Besides, I almost feel I'd be paying a tribute to Christopher Hitchens, whose willingness to be water-boarded so as to write an article about the subject puts my situation into perspective.
I'll close by asking you to wish me luck (especially about the not being pepper sprayed) and ask you, what do you think? Am I being too hard on myself or have I really been a coward? More importantly, why have you or have you not gone to an Occupy Wall Street event? This last question is really aimed for those who support it, though obviously those against are welcome to respond. I plan on writing continuously on politics, but remember, keep it civil.
I hope to hear from you so I can learn more about why people have and have not attended and I'll be sure to share all the highlights with you tomorrow night.
Have a good night,
-Matt
Why I Don't Hate Blogs Anymore
Dear (insert your name here),
I don't know if you've had this experience, but when I am about to write something (such as this blog post), I am often overcome with a kind of mental paralysis. It's not that I don't know what to write about - actually, the problem is quite the opposite. A million thoughts are going through my head at once, and not in some kind of chaotic jumble either. I see all the connections so that I'm sure, once I start writing, everything will come out clearly and precisely.
The only snag is the whole starting to write thing...
I hate first sentences. I don't even like that one. But anyway, before I start qualifying my qualifications, I'm going to get to the point.
I love to write and I want to get into the habit of writing more often. In fact, I'd like to write at least one blog post a day.
And that's why I'm writing to you, my hypothetial reader. I'll confess that I've never really liked the idea of a blog mostly because I think it requires that the author be arrogant enough to think his or her views matter so much that they need to be preserved on the Internet. But the more I started thinking about my irrational bias against them, the more I realized what I didn't like wasn't the format itself but the way some people go about writing them.
I have no interest in being didactic or showing off whatever talents or obscure knowledge I might possess or think I possess. Instead, I'd like this to be (and at the risk of being David Foster Wallace-y with all these parenthetical remarks, I'll say that I hope this doesn't come off as corny), more of a conversation, or endless Q and A session.
That reminds me - I recently realized that a lot of my interests revolve around pursuits with no end point. For instance, I'm mildly addicted to chess, am trying to read everything ever written, love learning to play new instruments, etc. etc. - all of which can't ever be finished since I'm limited both by time and what I can actually mentally and physically accomplish. Rather than change, I'm going to add to this list (I also really enjoy lists) blogging.
Before I officially begin, I'll mention a few last things. First, my name is Matt, I'm currently an adjunct instructor at a community college teaching a writing course, and I'm interested in too many things.
Now I'd like to know about you. Really. As I said, I don't want this blog to be just about me, so I'm going to work to make each of these posts more of a question or launching point for a discussion in addition to ending them with direct questions to you.
Should any of the topics I address interest you, I'd love to hear your opinions and hopefully we can get a conversation (or more preferably a debate), going. Naturally, I don't want talks to devolve into mean-spirited arguments...but I digress.
Oh - actually, I'm at the end. So there it is. I hope you enjoy what you find and that I get to hear from you soon.
Thanks for reading,
-Matt
I don't know if you've had this experience, but when I am about to write something (such as this blog post), I am often overcome with a kind of mental paralysis. It's not that I don't know what to write about - actually, the problem is quite the opposite. A million thoughts are going through my head at once, and not in some kind of chaotic jumble either. I see all the connections so that I'm sure, once I start writing, everything will come out clearly and precisely.
The only snag is the whole starting to write thing...
I hate first sentences. I don't even like that one. But anyway, before I start qualifying my qualifications, I'm going to get to the point.
I love to write and I want to get into the habit of writing more often. In fact, I'd like to write at least one blog post a day.
And that's why I'm writing to you, my hypothetial reader. I'll confess that I've never really liked the idea of a blog mostly because I think it requires that the author be arrogant enough to think his or her views matter so much that they need to be preserved on the Internet. But the more I started thinking about my irrational bias against them, the more I realized what I didn't like wasn't the format itself but the way some people go about writing them.
I have no interest in being didactic or showing off whatever talents or obscure knowledge I might possess or think I possess. Instead, I'd like this to be (and at the risk of being David Foster Wallace-y with all these parenthetical remarks, I'll say that I hope this doesn't come off as corny), more of a conversation, or endless Q and A session.
That reminds me - I recently realized that a lot of my interests revolve around pursuits with no end point. For instance, I'm mildly addicted to chess, am trying to read everything ever written, love learning to play new instruments, etc. etc. - all of which can't ever be finished since I'm limited both by time and what I can actually mentally and physically accomplish. Rather than change, I'm going to add to this list (I also really enjoy lists) blogging.
Before I officially begin, I'll mention a few last things. First, my name is Matt, I'm currently an adjunct instructor at a community college teaching a writing course, and I'm interested in too many things.
Now I'd like to know about you. Really. As I said, I don't want this blog to be just about me, so I'm going to work to make each of these posts more of a question or launching point for a discussion in addition to ending them with direct questions to you.
Should any of the topics I address interest you, I'd love to hear your opinions and hopefully we can get a conversation (or more preferably a debate), going. Naturally, I don't want talks to devolve into mean-spirited arguments...but I digress.
Oh - actually, I'm at the end. So there it is. I hope you enjoy what you find and that I get to hear from you soon.
Thanks for reading,
-Matt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)