Hi folks.
No one consulted me on this, but it seems that sometime between when I was a little boy and now, the default yuletide greeting changed from "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays".
This I believe is quite foolish and tacky. I will now outline several reasons why I think we should retain the greeting "Merry Christmas".
1) Why should people get offended by such a positive greeting? It's not like one is saying "I hope you have a lousy day on December 25th". People really need to lighten up. I wouldn't get offended by someone wishing me a Happy Kwanzaa; rather, I would just be mildly amused.
2) Christmas is a civic holiday which affects almost everyone in North American society. Whether Christmas should or not be a civic holiday is another debatble point, but given that it is, 99% of Americans will have a day off, and in this sense the holiday is equivilent to Labour day or Memorial Day (Victoria Day in Canada). But no one seems to mind if you say "happy Labour Day."
3) These days, almost everyone celebrates Christmas. It's part of mainstream American culture and any majority Euro-American would celebrate this holiday. What about the minorities?
a) African-Americans: They are Christians in very large numbers, and I would posit that Black Americans are very likely to celebrate Christmas, and would much appreciate being wished a Merry Christmas.
b) Hispanic Americans: even more heavily Catholic (Christian) than Blacks, I would say that almost 100% of Hispanic Americans celebrate Christmas
c) Native Americans: not that you often see these people, but these days they have in high numbers converted to Christianity and I would suggest a good 60%, if not more, celebrate Christmas.
d) Asian-Americans: 50 years ago, probably very few of them celebrated Christmas, but the globalisation of Christmas coupled with increased Christian conversion amongst Asians (especially Chinese) would suggest that today, large numbers of Asian-Americans (and even Asian-Asians) DO celebrate Christmas.
e) Jews: Traditionally, Jews never did anything for Christmas, as they have their own holiday this time of year (Hanukkah). However, Jews are a very small portion of the US population (about 6 million out of 300- or 2%), and are concentrated mostly in the NYC area. They are also increasingly secular, having embrased aspects of mainstream American culture- including Christmas. It is likely that fully 50% of Jewish Americans, especially the younger generation, celebrate Christmas to some extent. But either way, would they really be offended?
f) Arab-Americans: Well, first of all, there is a sizeable Christian Arab population that, presumably, celebrates Christmas. In fact, only about 20% of Arab Americans are Muslims; this numbers under a half a million for the ENTIRE country.
g) Athiests: OK, well it's unsure how many they number, and presumably they don't celebrate Christmas. IN practice, however, many athiests can appreciate the hibernal (or commercial) aspects of the holiday, and don't mind keeping a Christmas celebration. But if they don't celebrate Christmas, I would imagine they wouldn't celebrate Chanukkah or Ramadan for much the same reason, and i don't think a "happy holidays" greeting would cover them any better.
So what do we have? Most Americans are of European ancestry and celebrate Christmas. The two largest minorities: African-American and Hispanic, also celebrate Christmas in vast numbers, and would doubtfully object to "Merry Christmas". A third minority, Asian-AMerican, is growing in the numbers who adhere to Christmas traditions, to the point where nowadays almost all of them probably acknowledge Christmas in some way. A fourth and oft-ignored minority, native Americans, has embraced Christianity in large numbers, and therefore presumably Christmas.
THere are only three minority groups that could be problemmatic. There are about half a million Arab-Americans who aren't Christian; 6 million Jews, of which I can assume generously that 4,5 million don't celebrate Christmas; and an unmeasured number of Athiests who don't celebrate any holiday anyway, so wouldn't appreciate any Yuletide Greeting. In short, there are about 5 million out of 300 million people (or approx. 2% of Americans) who might actually be offended by the greeting "Merry Christmas".
4) Why Happy Holdays? So, what other holidays are there? Many people would point out New Years. That's legitimate, excpet that it's a full week AFTER christmas. I mean, who says "happy new years" in early December? I figure you have a full week between Christmas and New years with which to say "happy new years", there is really no need to combine the two holidays into one greeting.
Ramadan? Except that it's a) a month long, b) not always coincident with Christmas/December, c) doesn't seem like a holiday to say "Happy _____". Would you say "Happy Lent?". Let's not forget that Muslims are a very small part of America'S population.
Kwanzaa? Ok.... well ignoring for a moment the fact that it's a rather hookey holiday. Kwanzaa is AFTER Christmas, so I don't feel like the two need to be contradictory. Also, Kwanzaa is a holiday for African Americans who are heavily Christian and presumably celebrate Christmas (as well as Kwanzaa).
Hanukkah? This is perhaps the only case. But this is only some years. Some years it's as early as late november and early december, so there need not be any conflict. After all, you don't have to worry about wishing someone a happy Chanukkah 20 days after the holiday is finished.
Basically, either people celebrate Christmas, celebrate no holidays, or once every few years celebrate Hanukkah. If they celebrate Christmas, obviously, MC is an appopritate greeting. If they celebrate no holidays during this time, HH is no better than MC (they are equally bad). If you celebrate Chanukkah, then either it's well before Xmas and does not require a seperate greeting, or someone will accidently tell you Merry Christmas while your actually celebrating Chaunkkah, but in this situation who would actually truly be offended?
So before this becomes too long-winded, I want to wish my readers a Merry CHristmas.... and if you, like me, are also celebrating Chanukkah, then, Happy Chanukkah. And I don't imagine this applies to many of my readers, but happy kwanzaa, and all the rest.
Or, perhaps, I should just say "season's greetings".
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
On Soldier Worship
Ok, so there's something that's really really pissed me off for quite some time now. It's present in Canada too, but it's much much worse in the US. I'm talking about this cult of soldier worship.
During the presidential campaigns, the candidates (especially Republicans) say these things like: America is all about the young men and women fighting for your freedom. But it'S not only politicians: football commentators, news anchors, and even normal people driving their gaz guzzling SUVs perpetuate this cult of soldier worship. And it drives me crazy.
Don't get me wrong: I don't harbor ill feelings towards soldiers. And I would never say that I didn't support our soldiers. But I don't think it's necessary to worship, or even thank them. They are not fighting for my freedom- this is the biggest piece of bullshit I've ever heard. Quite simply, my freedom would be in no way affected in the United States had no soldiers anywhere, particularly Iraq. The only war in recent times that one could even make this argument is WWII- at least then the United States was actually attacked by an identifiable enemy, and faced a continued threat of attack.
You might say, but the US was attacked: 9/11. You're right. So, maybe I can add to this the allied efforts in Afghanistan- it's a minor stretch though because the perpetrators of those attacks weren't affiliated with the Afghan government; they were a rogue group of thugs that is currently disappated, but still present.
That said, the majority of the US troops are currently in Iraq. The Iraq war was not, is not, and hopefully never will be concerned with the freedom of Americans. The US invaded this innocent country on shaky pretences. Even if we accept as beneficial the fact that Sadaam is no longer in power, the idea that this affects average Americans is a total stretch. The notion that Sadaam had any ability to attack the United States is foolish, simply given the technological abilities of the country and its geographical location. Of course, this was 5 years ago, and Iraq is currently in a state of psuedo-civil war, which was incidently caused BY the very American soldiers we're forced to worship. By removing Sadaam from power, the country was placed into a state of anarchy, and the provisional democracy has yet to taken hold in the country. Sadaam was sort of the "glue" that held a very multi-ethnic country together- even if he did so with brutal means.
Alas, it seems futile to debate the relevance of the Iraq war, since these days few people would disagree with me. What I'm debating here is the worship of American soldiers, particularly those in Iraq. So, let me put this into a more organised fashion. Here is why I believe we should neither worship, nor even THANK America's soldiers- in Iraq or anywhere else.
1) No current US military operation is actually related to the freedom of individual Americans- particularly not that in Iraq. A possible argument could be made for Afghanistan; even in the last 100 years, the only other possible instance is WWII.
2) In fact, many of America's soldiers, particularly those in Iraq, are actually RISKING the freedom of Americans. Their invasion and ensuing occupation of the country is a source of hatred to many people; whether justified or not, this hatred indisputably fuels the ideology of fundemantalist terrorists. Ideologically, the terrorists become more powerful and more likely to commit 9/11 like attacks- on US soil. Of course.... I'm not suggesting that we blame US soldiers for this- they are obeying orders. We should blame the people who give the orders.
3) It is not rare to here of rogue soldiers. Abu Grahib is the most publicised example, but how many other cases are there of American soldiers who have raped, murdered, and pillaged? I'm not proposing that this is particularly common, but I don't think it's as rare as the media would have us believe- especially since we DO know about Abu Grahib. What I want to suggest is that Abu Grahib is not an isolated situation. If this is true, these soldiers are actually a symbol of shame and disgrace; one that we, as a country, should collectively and staunchly condemn, rather then praise and laud.
4) I guess people always forget this- but soldiers are employees of the government (ie, the taxpayers) and are doing a job, for which they are duly compensated. They deserve to be thanked no more or less than firefighters, teachers, doctors, construction workers, waiters, plumbers, football allstars, Hollywood actors, and electrical engineers. If you believe that everyone should be "thanked" beyond their compensation, just for doing their job correctly (for which they've already been paid), then go ahead and thank Bob the Soldiers, in addition to Steven Speilberg and Katy Perry. Otherwise, you are perpetuating the cult of soldier worship.
5) This cult becomes an ideological tool for greedy politicians. It is used to distract people from the lunacy of the wars they seek to conduct. It is also used by politicians to create an object of mutual worship, and in so doing forge an articial social bond between them, which helps to perpetuate their own quests for power. In short, this is a brainwashing tool for uneducated individuals to help power-hungry politicians to follow their own self-promoting and self-benefiting agendas.
To summarise: I believe that soldiers are normal people, like you and me. They are susceptible to the physical and psychological risks which accompany military operations. I absolutely believe that they deserve just compensation for their duties; I also believe that they receive just compensation for their duties. Beyond they, I believe they deserve nothing. I will not offer them my worship, nor my thanks. I wish them well; I hope they can see their families soon; I hope their overseas assignment could finish soon; most of all, I hope for their individual mental and physical well-being. Beyond that, I will not thank them anymore than I would thank Zidane. They should be treated as normal people. Those who commit crimes should be judged by a normal court of law. Those who slack off should be appropriately reprimaded. Those who excel should be rewarded and encouraged. I don't care to hear about this achievements during Monday Night Football, or the 6 o'clock local news.
During the presidential campaigns, the candidates (especially Republicans) say these things like: America is all about the young men and women fighting for your freedom. But it'S not only politicians: football commentators, news anchors, and even normal people driving their gaz guzzling SUVs perpetuate this cult of soldier worship. And it drives me crazy.
Don't get me wrong: I don't harbor ill feelings towards soldiers. And I would never say that I didn't support our soldiers. But I don't think it's necessary to worship, or even thank them. They are not fighting for my freedom- this is the biggest piece of bullshit I've ever heard. Quite simply, my freedom would be in no way affected in the United States had no soldiers anywhere, particularly Iraq. The only war in recent times that one could even make this argument is WWII- at least then the United States was actually attacked by an identifiable enemy, and faced a continued threat of attack.
You might say, but the US was attacked: 9/11. You're right. So, maybe I can add to this the allied efforts in Afghanistan- it's a minor stretch though because the perpetrators of those attacks weren't affiliated with the Afghan government; they were a rogue group of thugs that is currently disappated, but still present.
That said, the majority of the US troops are currently in Iraq. The Iraq war was not, is not, and hopefully never will be concerned with the freedom of Americans. The US invaded this innocent country on shaky pretences. Even if we accept as beneficial the fact that Sadaam is no longer in power, the idea that this affects average Americans is a total stretch. The notion that Sadaam had any ability to attack the United States is foolish, simply given the technological abilities of the country and its geographical location. Of course, this was 5 years ago, and Iraq is currently in a state of psuedo-civil war, which was incidently caused BY the very American soldiers we're forced to worship. By removing Sadaam from power, the country was placed into a state of anarchy, and the provisional democracy has yet to taken hold in the country. Sadaam was sort of the "glue" that held a very multi-ethnic country together- even if he did so with brutal means.
Alas, it seems futile to debate the relevance of the Iraq war, since these days few people would disagree with me. What I'm debating here is the worship of American soldiers, particularly those in Iraq. So, let me put this into a more organised fashion. Here is why I believe we should neither worship, nor even THANK America's soldiers- in Iraq or anywhere else.
1) No current US military operation is actually related to the freedom of individual Americans- particularly not that in Iraq. A possible argument could be made for Afghanistan; even in the last 100 years, the only other possible instance is WWII.
2) In fact, many of America's soldiers, particularly those in Iraq, are actually RISKING the freedom of Americans. Their invasion and ensuing occupation of the country is a source of hatred to many people; whether justified or not, this hatred indisputably fuels the ideology of fundemantalist terrorists. Ideologically, the terrorists become more powerful and more likely to commit 9/11 like attacks- on US soil. Of course.... I'm not suggesting that we blame US soldiers for this- they are obeying orders. We should blame the people who give the orders.
3) It is not rare to here of rogue soldiers. Abu Grahib is the most publicised example, but how many other cases are there of American soldiers who have raped, murdered, and pillaged? I'm not proposing that this is particularly common, but I don't think it's as rare as the media would have us believe- especially since we DO know about Abu Grahib. What I want to suggest is that Abu Grahib is not an isolated situation. If this is true, these soldiers are actually a symbol of shame and disgrace; one that we, as a country, should collectively and staunchly condemn, rather then praise and laud.
4) I guess people always forget this- but soldiers are employees of the government (ie, the taxpayers) and are doing a job, for which they are duly compensated. They deserve to be thanked no more or less than firefighters, teachers, doctors, construction workers, waiters, plumbers, football allstars, Hollywood actors, and electrical engineers. If you believe that everyone should be "thanked" beyond their compensation, just for doing their job correctly (for which they've already been paid), then go ahead and thank Bob the Soldiers, in addition to Steven Speilberg and Katy Perry. Otherwise, you are perpetuating the cult of soldier worship.
5) This cult becomes an ideological tool for greedy politicians. It is used to distract people from the lunacy of the wars they seek to conduct. It is also used by politicians to create an object of mutual worship, and in so doing forge an articial social bond between them, which helps to perpetuate their own quests for power. In short, this is a brainwashing tool for uneducated individuals to help power-hungry politicians to follow their own self-promoting and self-benefiting agendas.
To summarise: I believe that soldiers are normal people, like you and me. They are susceptible to the physical and psychological risks which accompany military operations. I absolutely believe that they deserve just compensation for their duties; I also believe that they receive just compensation for their duties. Beyond they, I believe they deserve nothing. I will not offer them my worship, nor my thanks. I wish them well; I hope they can see their families soon; I hope their overseas assignment could finish soon; most of all, I hope for their individual mental and physical well-being. Beyond that, I will not thank them anymore than I would thank Zidane. They should be treated as normal people. Those who commit crimes should be judged by a normal court of law. Those who slack off should be appropriately reprimaded. Those who excel should be rewarded and encouraged. I don't care to hear about this achievements during Monday Night Football, or the 6 o'clock local news.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
On Feminism
Feminism... what a strange issue to write about, especially considering that I'm a guy. I want to set something straight from the start- I have NO problem with feminists or feminism, except what I outline below. Personally, I support complete gender equality, and in my everyday interactions I see women as very much my equals.... different, by equal. I believe sincerely that any woman can accomplish anything that any man can, and vice versa, with the only exception being chidbirth (unless you're like that one guy who used to be a woman and still got pregnant....).
So what's my problem?
First thing.... a lot of times there's a double standard. Let me clarify. Do a survey of the women you know- see how many of them want to be considered as equals. My (non-feminine) intuition would suggest that almost all women DO want to be treated as equals.... and quite reasonably so. In no way would I ever advocate anything less than complete equality for women, and with women outnumbering men in universities these days, women are certainly aiming high.
Yet these very women.... most of whom are ambitious and want all the same opportunities as men.... often have a double standard, especially when it comes to men. Most women- I would posit somewhere between 7 and 8 out of 10- want a man who is a) taller than her, b) willing to make the first move, and c) will pay on (at least) the first date.
Sames reasonable, right? After all, it's always been like this- at least in modern western culture. But why IS this unreasonable in a feminist era?
A) Taller than her = Any girl claiming to be feminist, or wanting to be treated as an equal who insists that her man be taller than her is at best shallow and at worst hypocritical. You might say, but men ARE on average taller than women.... and this is certainly true. But that isn't to say that every man is taller than every woman- obviously this isn't true. And, as opposed to something like level of physical fitness, a man's (or woman's) height is something over which he has little, if any, control. So- we make the assumption that height is UNLIKE weight in that it is pretty much uncontrollable. Women may naturally be attracted to taller men becuase they believe such men are more able to provide them with protection..... fair enough, but that really throws the whole feminist thing out the window, eh?
B) Willing to make the first move = Now, I'm not saying that a man shouldn't be willing to make the first move in the mate-finding process, rather I'm saying that any woman who wants to be treated equally (I'm avoiding the use of the word feminist becuase I think it may have connotations among some ppl), should be willing to take the first movie. Purists would say it's the man's role to do this. Surely it was 100 years ago, but at this time women couldn'T even vote in the US! I think men should make the first move in a patriarchal society, but in a feminist era, this has to go out the window.
C) Pay on the first date = It is my opinion that in almost all walks of life, whoever initiates a certain meeting (let's use the convenient example of a dinner) should pay. This is simple etiquette- the person who asks is putting the asked person on the spot, and the latter may or may not have the means to pay for the dinner; it ought to be the responsibility of the person who initates to cover. I would make an exception to this for friends who go out on a regular occasion.... but with respect to a date, I certainly think that the initator should pay. Of course, it just so happens that usually the initator is a man, and in this case, the man absolutely should pay. But as I said, times are changing, and it is no longer fair for women to force men to make the first move all the time.... and in the case that the woman invites the man, she should pay. Of course, the guy should still offer at least twice to be polite, but she should not let him pay. Otherwise it's a glaring double standard, especially in an era when women typically make as much or more than men (I cite as two examples: my stepmother made more than my dad at the end of their marriage; my mother makes more than my stepfather).
My 2nd problem... the transition has not been made yet. I believe I can categories girls in three rough categories as to where they fall in what I will call "the feminist continuum".
The first category is the traditionalist. Women in this category are old-fashioned, and are willing to have the man in control- he is expected to provide and she is expected to listen. It seems ridiculous, but I think it may be more common than you might think.
On the other extreme is the feminist. This is the woman who believes in complete equality- that a woman can do anything, from becoming president, to playing professional ice hockey, to working in contruction. They also believe that chivalry is dead, and men are not expected, and are infact discouraged from holding the door, etc.
The middle category is where I believe most women fall, and is as I described above: somewhere awkwardly in the middle. Another way to describe it is: having her cake and eating it too.
Now I said my first problem with this feminist revolution is that middle category.... the second problem is the existence of these three categories. The fact is one cannot distinguish these categories on the first impression, and it has become ambigious what the proper role for men is.
Where do I stand? I'd say anywhere but in the middle. If it is my calling to step up and take the lead, then so be it. But, we live in the 21st century and times have changed. I believe that any given woman is as capable at anything as any given man. That includes things of physical strength, and many women have proven that they are capable of being stronger than most men. That includes national leadership, as many women heads of state have done quite well and proven themselves worthy for the position. There is no question in my mind that women are equal. But, not to sound viscious, now that they've gotten their equality, they need to be more responsible for it. Otherwise, they will just be "equal plus", which isn't really equal at all.
So what's my problem?
First thing.... a lot of times there's a double standard. Let me clarify. Do a survey of the women you know- see how many of them want to be considered as equals. My (non-feminine) intuition would suggest that almost all women DO want to be treated as equals.... and quite reasonably so. In no way would I ever advocate anything less than complete equality for women, and with women outnumbering men in universities these days, women are certainly aiming high.
Yet these very women.... most of whom are ambitious and want all the same opportunities as men.... often have a double standard, especially when it comes to men. Most women- I would posit somewhere between 7 and 8 out of 10- want a man who is a) taller than her, b) willing to make the first move, and c) will pay on (at least) the first date.
Sames reasonable, right? After all, it's always been like this- at least in modern western culture. But why IS this unreasonable in a feminist era?
A) Taller than her = Any girl claiming to be feminist, or wanting to be treated as an equal who insists that her man be taller than her is at best shallow and at worst hypocritical. You might say, but men ARE on average taller than women.... and this is certainly true. But that isn't to say that every man is taller than every woman- obviously this isn't true. And, as opposed to something like level of physical fitness, a man's (or woman's) height is something over which he has little, if any, control. So- we make the assumption that height is UNLIKE weight in that it is pretty much uncontrollable. Women may naturally be attracted to taller men becuase they believe such men are more able to provide them with protection..... fair enough, but that really throws the whole feminist thing out the window, eh?
B) Willing to make the first move = Now, I'm not saying that a man shouldn't be willing to make the first move in the mate-finding process, rather I'm saying that any woman who wants to be treated equally (I'm avoiding the use of the word feminist becuase I think it may have connotations among some ppl), should be willing to take the first movie. Purists would say it's the man's role to do this. Surely it was 100 years ago, but at this time women couldn'T even vote in the US! I think men should make the first move in a patriarchal society, but in a feminist era, this has to go out the window.
C) Pay on the first date = It is my opinion that in almost all walks of life, whoever initiates a certain meeting (let's use the convenient example of a dinner) should pay. This is simple etiquette- the person who asks is putting the asked person on the spot, and the latter may or may not have the means to pay for the dinner; it ought to be the responsibility of the person who initates to cover. I would make an exception to this for friends who go out on a regular occasion.... but with respect to a date, I certainly think that the initator should pay. Of course, it just so happens that usually the initator is a man, and in this case, the man absolutely should pay. But as I said, times are changing, and it is no longer fair for women to force men to make the first move all the time.... and in the case that the woman invites the man, she should pay. Of course, the guy should still offer at least twice to be polite, but she should not let him pay. Otherwise it's a glaring double standard, especially in an era when women typically make as much or more than men (I cite as two examples: my stepmother made more than my dad at the end of their marriage; my mother makes more than my stepfather).
My 2nd problem... the transition has not been made yet. I believe I can categories girls in three rough categories as to where they fall in what I will call "the feminist continuum".
The first category is the traditionalist. Women in this category are old-fashioned, and are willing to have the man in control- he is expected to provide and she is expected to listen. It seems ridiculous, but I think it may be more common than you might think.
On the other extreme is the feminist. This is the woman who believes in complete equality- that a woman can do anything, from becoming president, to playing professional ice hockey, to working in contruction. They also believe that chivalry is dead, and men are not expected, and are infact discouraged from holding the door, etc.
The middle category is where I believe most women fall, and is as I described above: somewhere awkwardly in the middle. Another way to describe it is: having her cake and eating it too.
Now I said my first problem with this feminist revolution is that middle category.... the second problem is the existence of these three categories. The fact is one cannot distinguish these categories on the first impression, and it has become ambigious what the proper role for men is.
Where do I stand? I'd say anywhere but in the middle. If it is my calling to step up and take the lead, then so be it. But, we live in the 21st century and times have changed. I believe that any given woman is as capable at anything as any given man. That includes things of physical strength, and many women have proven that they are capable of being stronger than most men. That includes national leadership, as many women heads of state have done quite well and proven themselves worthy for the position. There is no question in my mind that women are equal. But, not to sound viscious, now that they've gotten their equality, they need to be more responsible for it. Otherwise, they will just be "equal plus", which isn't really equal at all.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
What is Life?
Hey folks,
I'm sorry that I haven't posted in a while. There are three reasons for this. The first is that, with the US Election over, there isn't a whole lot of inspiration for new blog entries. The second reason is that school is in high gear, and I simply don't have time to put much thought into my blog (of course, I take off on Sundays, which is why I can update now).
But the real reason is more serious than all that. As some of you may know, I lost my dad about a month ago, and I really couldn't get myself to blog so shortly after his death. That said, in many ways, he has inspired the content for this entry.
Before going on, I will deal with some obvious questions. Yes, it is tragic that I lost my dad, but not altogether surprising. He was 68, and has had Parkinson's for about 11 years, and has been in quite bad health in recent years. Things kinda culminated in October, and his body just gave in, and he passed away exactly a month ago.
Dealing with my father's passing has really got me thinking about life in general. As I think about all the stuff my dad had amassed (much of which will be trashed or donated), and all the things we have to cancel (cable subscription, phone accounts), it just struck me- this stuff is so temporary. You gotta think that the people at the phone companies deal with this all the time... and what about funeral directors? This is a weekly occurence for them.
For me it emphasise the futility of amassing all this stuff- especially if it will just be trashed upon death. So, then, what is the point of life? In my 21-year-old opinion, life is about two things: a) about enjoying ourselves responsibly, and b) about making a difference.
A) Enjoying ourserlves responsibly. What does this mean? First, let me consider the "enjoying" part. Many people do believe in some sort of life after death (although my father did not). I'd be inclined to say that I do. However, there is no concrete evidence of this whatsoever. Either way you spin it, our time on earth is finite. No one really knows what will happen next. Perhaps nothing? perhaps hell? Reincarnation? "Heaven"? I'm not an authority. But what I do know is that our time on earth is numbered. We might as well enjoy the ride. What do I mean by this? I mean don't let anyone or anything stop you from doing what gives you gratification. The fact is, at least in North America, our lives are really a product of our choices. We all have the opportunity to get some form of postsecondary education and we have just an incredible range of choices and opportunities, it's just a matter of priorities, and if you really want something, then you should make it work! I'll give you an example. For me, travelling is a priority. People say, "but I don't have the money to travel". True point.... but, maybe you do? It's simply an issue of prioritisation. The average McGill student pays probably about $100/month more in rent than I do, and probably spends $50/month more on going out / drinking. Put together, that's $1800 per year, which is much more than my planned Reading Week trip to Guatemala. In short, travelling is something that makes me happy, and I'm willing to prioritise things in order for me to travel more!
It just bothers me when people aren't happy. Whenever someone is in a rut, the only thing stopping them from changing is themselves! Our lives are a result of our actions and choices, and so we might as well make the most of it.
So what about "responsibly". By "responsibly" I mean, to a) yourself, b) loved ones, c) other people, and d) the world/environment. So, while I think it's important to satisfy our own needs and desires, this must be done thought to economic and oecological sustainability, and the impact on our health and on other people. To this end, a text like the Bible (and many other religious texts) is valuable. While abiding to scriptures may seem counter-productve to "enjoying life" it really isn't. For instance, the preachings of Jesus are very much relevant to living a responsible life. We should think about the impacts that our actions have on ourselves, our loved ones, other people, and the world. When God puts restrictions on our sexual behaviour, He is really considering the complications sexual activities can cause pre-existing relationships, and perhaps even a newborn child. When God suggests taking the Sabbath, He is encouraging us not to overstress our lives. Etc. Etc.
B) Making a difference. I can enjoy myself all I want, but I would consider my life a failure if I didn't make some sort of difference. Think about it- if all I do during my life is gratify my own pleasures, what happens after I die? I fade into obscurity, and it quickly becomes as if I never lived. It is with the differences we make in someone else's life that our lives can persist, even posthumously. Fortunatley, this difference-making comes in many forms, as simple as the friendships we have. Perhaps we all dream of becoming president, or champions, or pop stars, but it can't happen to all of us- and there certainly are some things over which we have limited control. While we perhaps cannot change the contexts of our lives- some are born giften and some aren't- we can do the most with the cards we are dealt. To this end I invoke a poker analogy. Assuming you don't cheat, you have no control over the cards you're given. But, through skillful play, it is theoretically possible for anyone to win any hand with any set of cards against any other set of cards. So it is in life. I'm not saying that everyone can become millionaires with the right effort, but everyone can "win"- it just a matter of perception. Whatever circumstances you are in, if you life your life in such a way as to touch, impact, and inspire others- than you've already won. It really gratifies me to think that i can make a difference in someone else's life, whether it be by cooking someone dinner, or by giving to charity- it is one little thing that has in some way made someone's life- or at least someone's day- marginally better. The fact that I can have such a positive impact in this world is empowering and rewarding. Little things such as this may not life beyond the day, but done continually, it can have a much farther-reaching impact.
To summarise- I believe life should be about enjoying ourselves responsibly and about making a difference. We should life for the moment, and get the most out of our lives- we should see the world, or whatever else it is that puts a smile on your face. This should be done, of course, with thought and consideration. But perhaps most importantly, we should seek to leave some marked, positive impact on our world. This is my vision of a successful life. You are all, of course, welcome to disagree with it. Surely, I do not seek to tell you how to live your life- after all, everyone knows how best to live their own life. These are just some of my thoughts and I thought I'd share them with you.
Thanks for reading.
I'm sorry that I haven't posted in a while. There are three reasons for this. The first is that, with the US Election over, there isn't a whole lot of inspiration for new blog entries. The second reason is that school is in high gear, and I simply don't have time to put much thought into my blog (of course, I take off on Sundays, which is why I can update now).
But the real reason is more serious than all that. As some of you may know, I lost my dad about a month ago, and I really couldn't get myself to blog so shortly after his death. That said, in many ways, he has inspired the content for this entry.
Before going on, I will deal with some obvious questions. Yes, it is tragic that I lost my dad, but not altogether surprising. He was 68, and has had Parkinson's for about 11 years, and has been in quite bad health in recent years. Things kinda culminated in October, and his body just gave in, and he passed away exactly a month ago.
Dealing with my father's passing has really got me thinking about life in general. As I think about all the stuff my dad had amassed (much of which will be trashed or donated), and all the things we have to cancel (cable subscription, phone accounts), it just struck me- this stuff is so temporary. You gotta think that the people at the phone companies deal with this all the time... and what about funeral directors? This is a weekly occurence for them.
For me it emphasise the futility of amassing all this stuff- especially if it will just be trashed upon death. So, then, what is the point of life? In my 21-year-old opinion, life is about two things: a) about enjoying ourselves responsibly, and b) about making a difference.
A) Enjoying ourserlves responsibly. What does this mean? First, let me consider the "enjoying" part. Many people do believe in some sort of life after death (although my father did not). I'd be inclined to say that I do. However, there is no concrete evidence of this whatsoever. Either way you spin it, our time on earth is finite. No one really knows what will happen next. Perhaps nothing? perhaps hell? Reincarnation? "Heaven"? I'm not an authority. But what I do know is that our time on earth is numbered. We might as well enjoy the ride. What do I mean by this? I mean don't let anyone or anything stop you from doing what gives you gratification. The fact is, at least in North America, our lives are really a product of our choices. We all have the opportunity to get some form of postsecondary education and we have just an incredible range of choices and opportunities, it's just a matter of priorities, and if you really want something, then you should make it work! I'll give you an example. For me, travelling is a priority. People say, "but I don't have the money to travel". True point.... but, maybe you do? It's simply an issue of prioritisation. The average McGill student pays probably about $100/month more in rent than I do, and probably spends $50/month more on going out / drinking. Put together, that's $1800 per year, which is much more than my planned Reading Week trip to Guatemala. In short, travelling is something that makes me happy, and I'm willing to prioritise things in order for me to travel more!
It just bothers me when people aren't happy. Whenever someone is in a rut, the only thing stopping them from changing is themselves! Our lives are a result of our actions and choices, and so we might as well make the most of it.
So what about "responsibly". By "responsibly" I mean, to a) yourself, b) loved ones, c) other people, and d) the world/environment. So, while I think it's important to satisfy our own needs and desires, this must be done thought to economic and oecological sustainability, and the impact on our health and on other people. To this end, a text like the Bible (and many other religious texts) is valuable. While abiding to scriptures may seem counter-productve to "enjoying life" it really isn't. For instance, the preachings of Jesus are very much relevant to living a responsible life. We should think about the impacts that our actions have on ourselves, our loved ones, other people, and the world. When God puts restrictions on our sexual behaviour, He is really considering the complications sexual activities can cause pre-existing relationships, and perhaps even a newborn child. When God suggests taking the Sabbath, He is encouraging us not to overstress our lives. Etc. Etc.
B) Making a difference. I can enjoy myself all I want, but I would consider my life a failure if I didn't make some sort of difference. Think about it- if all I do during my life is gratify my own pleasures, what happens after I die? I fade into obscurity, and it quickly becomes as if I never lived. It is with the differences we make in someone else's life that our lives can persist, even posthumously. Fortunatley, this difference-making comes in many forms, as simple as the friendships we have. Perhaps we all dream of becoming president, or champions, or pop stars, but it can't happen to all of us- and there certainly are some things over which we have limited control. While we perhaps cannot change the contexts of our lives- some are born giften and some aren't- we can do the most with the cards we are dealt. To this end I invoke a poker analogy. Assuming you don't cheat, you have no control over the cards you're given. But, through skillful play, it is theoretically possible for anyone to win any hand with any set of cards against any other set of cards. So it is in life. I'm not saying that everyone can become millionaires with the right effort, but everyone can "win"- it just a matter of perception. Whatever circumstances you are in, if you life your life in such a way as to touch, impact, and inspire others- than you've already won. It really gratifies me to think that i can make a difference in someone else's life, whether it be by cooking someone dinner, or by giving to charity- it is one little thing that has in some way made someone's life- or at least someone's day- marginally better. The fact that I can have such a positive impact in this world is empowering and rewarding. Little things such as this may not life beyond the day, but done continually, it can have a much farther-reaching impact.
To summarise- I believe life should be about enjoying ourselves responsibly and about making a difference. We should life for the moment, and get the most out of our lives- we should see the world, or whatever else it is that puts a smile on your face. This should be done, of course, with thought and consideration. But perhaps most importantly, we should seek to leave some marked, positive impact on our world. This is my vision of a successful life. You are all, of course, welcome to disagree with it. Surely, I do not seek to tell you how to live your life- after all, everyone knows how best to live their own life. These are just some of my thoughts and I thought I'd share them with you.
Thanks for reading.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Updated Thoughts on US Election: Why a Republican victory would be surprsing
I don't want to make a pre-emptive claim at an Obama victory, but I believe this election will be historic either way. The historic implications of an Obama victory are obvious- the country's first black president. But the historic implications of a McCain victory??
It would be perhaps the biggest and most improbable comback in US Election history- at least in the last 70 so years.
The fact is, at this point, Obama has pretty much every possible structural advantage. The national polls: Obama has had a statistically significant lead for several weeks now. While his lead has fluctuated between 6 and 11 points, it has still been significant. WIth only two weeks left in this election, overcoming this deficit is not an easy task for McCain.
But it's actually the Electoral College that matters. For the sake of comparison, let's start with the 2004 map. It was actually closer than people might think.... if Obama won only every Kerry state, he would have 252 electoral votes (needing 270 to win, 269 to tie). It now seems extremely likely that Obama WILL win every Kerry State. In fact, as far as I know, McCain has actually conceded these states- except perhaps Pennsylvania and MAYBE New Hampshire. I'll talk about those later, but let's assume now, for the sake of discussion, that Obama wins.
It also seems exceedingly likely that Iowa and New Mexico will go for Obama, which pushes Obama to 264. This means that Obama, in effect, only has to win one of the following "red states" now considered as toss ups: Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. ALSO, winning only Nevada would mean a tie, which, given the current structure of the Legislative Branch, would likely be an Obama victory. In other words, McCain would have to win all 8 of these states in order to win the election. Indiana he should win. Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, and Florida might very well go for McCain as well. North Carolina is trending Democrat, but I still have a hard time seeing it vote for Obama, so lets give it to McCain anyway. That leaves us with Colorado and Virginia; in both states, polls show a 5-8 pt Obama lead- quite tough for McCain to win.
The only other possibility? Assuming that McCain wins all the states above EXCEPT for Colorado and Virginia.... in this case, he needs to win Pennsylvania- which will be tough given his current double-digit deficit, but apparantly he's going all out there. Winning NH, would give him leeway in Nevada, but this is an unlikely scenario.
In short, structurally speaking, there are only two ways in which McCain can feasibly win: either he wins all of: Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Colorado AND Virginia, OR he wins Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina AND Pennsylvania.
Even if these scenarios seem feasible, Obama has a few more advantages. Firstly, continued wall street volitility only helps Obama. Secondly, Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama is a pretty big blow to McCain's campaign. Thirdly, what is rarely talked about, Obama's campaign has a lot more money and can simply outcampaign the McCain people. Obama is even hoping to buy primetime airspace the week before the election! McCain, with limited resources, must scramble. He's also forced to campaign in states he earlier thought he would win, while conceding important blue states (eg, Michigan).
Not to say it's impossible for McCain... it just would be a remarkable turnaround. And with only two weeks left, something BIG has gotta happen.
It would be perhaps the biggest and most improbable comback in US Election history- at least in the last 70 so years.
The fact is, at this point, Obama has pretty much every possible structural advantage. The national polls: Obama has had a statistically significant lead for several weeks now. While his lead has fluctuated between 6 and 11 points, it has still been significant. WIth only two weeks left in this election, overcoming this deficit is not an easy task for McCain.
But it's actually the Electoral College that matters. For the sake of comparison, let's start with the 2004 map. It was actually closer than people might think.... if Obama won only every Kerry state, he would have 252 electoral votes (needing 270 to win, 269 to tie). It now seems extremely likely that Obama WILL win every Kerry State. In fact, as far as I know, McCain has actually conceded these states- except perhaps Pennsylvania and MAYBE New Hampshire. I'll talk about those later, but let's assume now, for the sake of discussion, that Obama wins.
It also seems exceedingly likely that Iowa and New Mexico will go for Obama, which pushes Obama to 264. This means that Obama, in effect, only has to win one of the following "red states" now considered as toss ups: Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. ALSO, winning only Nevada would mean a tie, which, given the current structure of the Legislative Branch, would likely be an Obama victory. In other words, McCain would have to win all 8 of these states in order to win the election. Indiana he should win. Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, and Florida might very well go for McCain as well. North Carolina is trending Democrat, but I still have a hard time seeing it vote for Obama, so lets give it to McCain anyway. That leaves us with Colorado and Virginia; in both states, polls show a 5-8 pt Obama lead- quite tough for McCain to win.
The only other possibility? Assuming that McCain wins all the states above EXCEPT for Colorado and Virginia.... in this case, he needs to win Pennsylvania- which will be tough given his current double-digit deficit, but apparantly he's going all out there. Winning NH, would give him leeway in Nevada, but this is an unlikely scenario.
In short, structurally speaking, there are only two ways in which McCain can feasibly win: either he wins all of: Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Colorado AND Virginia, OR he wins Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina AND Pennsylvania.
Even if these scenarios seem feasible, Obama has a few more advantages. Firstly, continued wall street volitility only helps Obama. Secondly, Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama is a pretty big blow to McCain's campaign. Thirdly, what is rarely talked about, Obama's campaign has a lot more money and can simply outcampaign the McCain people. Obama is even hoping to buy primetime airspace the week before the election! McCain, with limited resources, must scramble. He's also forced to campaign in states he earlier thought he would win, while conceding important blue states (eg, Michigan).
Not to say it's impossible for McCain... it just would be a remarkable turnaround. And with only two weeks left, something BIG has gotta happen.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Updated Thoughts on US Elections: Why Republicans are sinking lower, and why this is helping Obama
The following things have been heard at Palin and McCain rallies in the past week: "[Obama is a] terrorist!" "Treason!" "Off with his head" "Kill him!" i"m not making this stuff up. Read this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/more-hatred-at-rallies-of_n_133115.html, or you-tube it.
There are a few things that are striking about this. Most obviously, is the pure passion and hatred associated with this election. This goes back to a point I made in my prior entry, namely, how the US is in the midst of a culture war that very well could turn voilent. These comments have pure signs of hatred.... not polite disagreement... HATRED. It may or not be racially motivated, but even if it isn't, this is beyond disturbing. Even if you don't agree with his values of political positions, there is no reason to HATE Barack Obama. Obama, like McCain, is a normal human being, who has served his country. Obama is a loving husband and father. How anyone could say such hateful things about ANYONE is beyond me.
What's even more disturbing is the Republican response to this. At best, they've done nothing. Neither McCain nor Palin have publically condemned this. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe they didn't hear these shouts when they happened. It must be loud on stage, and someone like McCain has got to have a bit of difficulty hearing. But that doesn't mean they're unaware that these things were happened, given all the you-tube & CNN time they've received. Many Americans know about it, so surely they should as well. Obama certainly knows about it. Assuming they know about it, then they should PUBLICALLY CONDEMN this behaviour. They should run an ad, similar to the positive one they ran on the last day of the DNC, which shows that McCain respects and honours, but disagrees with Obama. This is a civil election, not an all out war, and it disgusts me. In my eyes, unless McCain publically condemns these horrible outcries, he has lost his honour. Paradoxically, some Republicans are blaming OBAMA for this: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/10/1529529.aspx. I'll dismiss that as absolute insanity.
The silver lining in this? Obama's response. Many candidates would be quite shaken by the things being said about him. What does Obama say? He says that he can handle one month of "character assasination", but Americans can't handle 4 years of more negativity. Obama has not blatantly backlashed against McCain. Yes, I'm not going to deny that there has been some negativity in the Obama campaign, but as I said in an earlier entry, nothing of this level. Obama ties McCain to Bush quite often, and he substantiates it with the fact that McCain really hasn't lined out a concrete policy difference from Bush, besides perhaps the minimal issue of "earmark spending". So in this sense, Obama's attack is valid. McCain being out of touch with the economy? Pretty valid when until just recently McCain didn't think the economy was much of an issue, and even now they are trying to turn the page on the economy, despite the fact that in the last week alone, Wall Street has lost about 25% of its wealth. So, I'd say Obama is very justified in this attack. Perhaps the worst attack on McCain is a jab at his honour, and the claim that he's erratic. This too is substantiated with recent events. How can McCain be honourbale when he launches blatantly false ads claiming Obama supports "comprehensive sex eduation for kindergartners" or that Obama "palls around with terrorists". This coming from a man who claimed he would take the "high road". So much for that. Erratic? How about the whole campaign suspension fiasco.... the contempt for Obama at the debates... the not-bringing-up Jeremiah Write, then bringing him up.... &c. &c. &c.
How does OBama respond to all this? He's cool, collected... in a word, presidential. Perhaps he has no "official" "executive" experience, but look at the campaign he's ran! In the face of adversity and viscious character assasination, perhaps worse than he'll ever receive as president, Obama has run a successful and reasonably clean campaign. Obama himself has been consistent and smooth. He clearly has respect for McCain. Even his body language in the debate, compared to McCain. He feels comfortable in his own skin. After all, you don't hear "kill him!" at Democratic rallies.
All of this has only hurt McCain. His polls have gone down drastically; Gallup has him consistently down by double digits on the national poll; CNN's current map shows that Obama needs to win only ONE of seven toss-up states, including states in which he's currently leading, such as Virginia, Nevada, Colorodo, and even Florida! And he only needs ONE of those!
Only one of three things could deliver a McCain victory.... (emphasis the word COULD). Firstly is a clear rout in the final debate. Given the previous debates this is quite unlikely. Obama is out-McCaining McCain in the debates, and I don't see anything more than a draw happening. Secondly is another 9-11 like attack, but with less than 4 weeks left this simply seems unlikely (although its possible that the Republicans would engineer one just to win the election- at this point, i would not put it beneath them). Thirdly, is the race issue. Are people lying to the polls becauuse they are ashamed to admit they would not vote for a black person? I would be surprised and utterly disappointed if this were the case. If nothing major happens in the next 4 weeks, and McCain wins, its quite possible this is the reason. In that case, it would be a national travesty worthy of lament. Not so much a McCain presidency, but the affirmation of the fact that the US has not yet emerged from its racist past. But, given that Obama was able to win the primaries against a very worthy and formidable opponent, I'd like to this this is unlikely.
Even if these things happen, a McCain victory just seems almost inconceivable now. The fact is... and what both candidates realise.... "it's the economy, stupid". Especially right now, and it won't change in less than 4 weeks, the US is in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. McCain is by no means an economic stalwart and does little to inspite people of his expertise and ability to revive the economy. And, whether this is fair or not, his association with the republican party that has been in power for 8 years is hurting him. This is not necessarily true, but Bush and the Republicans are seen as the cause of the current crisis... and the Dems are quite smart for pointing this out. Of course, Obama doesn't strike anyone as the economic specialist either, but ONLY by virtue of his association with the alternate party can he legitimately effect his message of change. Change, when the economy is in a spiral unseen in our lifetimes, is what people want. The fact is, in a volatile time like now, people will vote with their wallot, not based on obscure scandals.
There are a few things that are striking about this. Most obviously, is the pure passion and hatred associated with this election. This goes back to a point I made in my prior entry, namely, how the US is in the midst of a culture war that very well could turn voilent. These comments have pure signs of hatred.... not polite disagreement... HATRED. It may or not be racially motivated, but even if it isn't, this is beyond disturbing. Even if you don't agree with his values of political positions, there is no reason to HATE Barack Obama. Obama, like McCain, is a normal human being, who has served his country. Obama is a loving husband and father. How anyone could say such hateful things about ANYONE is beyond me.
What's even more disturbing is the Republican response to this. At best, they've done nothing. Neither McCain nor Palin have publically condemned this. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe they didn't hear these shouts when they happened. It must be loud on stage, and someone like McCain has got to have a bit of difficulty hearing. But that doesn't mean they're unaware that these things were happened, given all the you-tube & CNN time they've received. Many Americans know about it, so surely they should as well. Obama certainly knows about it. Assuming they know about it, then they should PUBLICALLY CONDEMN this behaviour. They should run an ad, similar to the positive one they ran on the last day of the DNC, which shows that McCain respects and honours, but disagrees with Obama. This is a civil election, not an all out war, and it disgusts me. In my eyes, unless McCain publically condemns these horrible outcries, he has lost his honour. Paradoxically, some Republicans are blaming OBAMA for this: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/10/1529529.aspx. I'll dismiss that as absolute insanity.
The silver lining in this? Obama's response. Many candidates would be quite shaken by the things being said about him. What does Obama say? He says that he can handle one month of "character assasination", but Americans can't handle 4 years of more negativity. Obama has not blatantly backlashed against McCain. Yes, I'm not going to deny that there has been some negativity in the Obama campaign, but as I said in an earlier entry, nothing of this level. Obama ties McCain to Bush quite often, and he substantiates it with the fact that McCain really hasn't lined out a concrete policy difference from Bush, besides perhaps the minimal issue of "earmark spending". So in this sense, Obama's attack is valid. McCain being out of touch with the economy? Pretty valid when until just recently McCain didn't think the economy was much of an issue, and even now they are trying to turn the page on the economy, despite the fact that in the last week alone, Wall Street has lost about 25% of its wealth. So, I'd say Obama is very justified in this attack. Perhaps the worst attack on McCain is a jab at his honour, and the claim that he's erratic. This too is substantiated with recent events. How can McCain be honourbale when he launches blatantly false ads claiming Obama supports "comprehensive sex eduation for kindergartners" or that Obama "palls around with terrorists". This coming from a man who claimed he would take the "high road". So much for that. Erratic? How about the whole campaign suspension fiasco.... the contempt for Obama at the debates... the not-bringing-up Jeremiah Write, then bringing him up.... &c. &c. &c.
How does OBama respond to all this? He's cool, collected... in a word, presidential. Perhaps he has no "official" "executive" experience, but look at the campaign he's ran! In the face of adversity and viscious character assasination, perhaps worse than he'll ever receive as president, Obama has run a successful and reasonably clean campaign. Obama himself has been consistent and smooth. He clearly has respect for McCain. Even his body language in the debate, compared to McCain. He feels comfortable in his own skin. After all, you don't hear "kill him!" at Democratic rallies.
All of this has only hurt McCain. His polls have gone down drastically; Gallup has him consistently down by double digits on the national poll; CNN's current map shows that Obama needs to win only ONE of seven toss-up states, including states in which he's currently leading, such as Virginia, Nevada, Colorodo, and even Florida! And he only needs ONE of those!
Only one of three things could deliver a McCain victory.... (emphasis the word COULD). Firstly is a clear rout in the final debate. Given the previous debates this is quite unlikely. Obama is out-McCaining McCain in the debates, and I don't see anything more than a draw happening. Secondly is another 9-11 like attack, but with less than 4 weeks left this simply seems unlikely (although its possible that the Republicans would engineer one just to win the election- at this point, i would not put it beneath them). Thirdly, is the race issue. Are people lying to the polls becauuse they are ashamed to admit they would not vote for a black person? I would be surprised and utterly disappointed if this were the case. If nothing major happens in the next 4 weeks, and McCain wins, its quite possible this is the reason. In that case, it would be a national travesty worthy of lament. Not so much a McCain presidency, but the affirmation of the fact that the US has not yet emerged from its racist past. But, given that Obama was able to win the primaries against a very worthy and formidable opponent, I'd like to this this is unlikely.
Even if these things happen, a McCain victory just seems almost inconceivable now. The fact is... and what both candidates realise.... "it's the economy, stupid". Especially right now, and it won't change in less than 4 weeks, the US is in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. McCain is by no means an economic stalwart and does little to inspite people of his expertise and ability to revive the economy. And, whether this is fair or not, his association with the republican party that has been in power for 8 years is hurting him. This is not necessarily true, but Bush and the Republicans are seen as the cause of the current crisis... and the Dems are quite smart for pointing this out. Of course, Obama doesn't strike anyone as the economic specialist either, but ONLY by virtue of his association with the alternate party can he legitimately effect his message of change. Change, when the economy is in a spiral unseen in our lifetimes, is what people want. The fact is, in a volatile time like now, people will vote with their wallot, not based on obscure scandals.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Why I believe the US may be on the brink of collapse
The US has seen its share of hard times. I think of the Civil War, when the country was torn apart at the seems. I think of the Stock Market Crash and the ensuing great depression, when unemployement was at 25% and many Americans lost their savings. I think of WWII and the constant threat of attack on US Soil. And I think of the Vietnam war- an internationally unpopular war which drained American military and financial resources.
My friends, regardless of who wins the November election (and you all know my biases), the US is showing ALL of these signs, and as far as I know, this is unprecedented.
Like in the years prior to the civil war, the US is undergoing a regionalistic culture war. In 2004, we all saw the Red State- Blue State map, and had a few laughs over it, but it has only gotten worse. Not since the Civil war has this country been so culturally polarised, to the point where there appears to be little room for compromise. We have people on the left who say they will move to Canada if the Republicans win, and people on the right who find the concept of supporting a liberal to be heretic. This is unsustainable. The closest in history we have ever come to this is in the 1850s, when people in two different parts of the country had fundamental differences as to the ideology and the future of the United States. And taht culminated in the bloodiest war in the country's history. Now, I don't believe the US is on the brink of physical civil war, but it is looking more and more like there may be a complete cultural meltdown.
Secondly, Wall Street is crumpling in a way we have rarely seen since the 20s and 30s. In fact, most experts would agree that we are in the worst econominc crisis since then. Despite the passing of a 700$ Billion "bailout", the markets are down massively today. Many people consider a depression "likely".
Thirdly, we face the constant (perceived) threat of attack on US Soil. Only twice since the early 20th century has the US been attacked in a major way: in 1941, and in 2001. After both cases, the US entered a war, and continued to face the possible threat of an attack. To this day, the individiausl who perpetrated the 2001 attacks are still present, and the threat of terrorist action still exists.
Fourthly, the US continues to be involved in a war which is tapping away militaristic and financail resources- a war which has (or had originally) little or no relevance to any real threat to the US.
Basically, if we consider these four things, the US is, right now, reliving 4 of its worst crises... simultaneously. This gives me reason to be scared.
The only thing I can conclude? I don't even know why Obama and McCain want to be president anymore. Whoever wins the election will inherit a giant mess, from which we may not emerge-or at the very least, we will surely not emerge unscathed.
My friends, regardless of who wins the November election (and you all know my biases), the US is showing ALL of these signs, and as far as I know, this is unprecedented.
Like in the years prior to the civil war, the US is undergoing a regionalistic culture war. In 2004, we all saw the Red State- Blue State map, and had a few laughs over it, but it has only gotten worse. Not since the Civil war has this country been so culturally polarised, to the point where there appears to be little room for compromise. We have people on the left who say they will move to Canada if the Republicans win, and people on the right who find the concept of supporting a liberal to be heretic. This is unsustainable. The closest in history we have ever come to this is in the 1850s, when people in two different parts of the country had fundamental differences as to the ideology and the future of the United States. And taht culminated in the bloodiest war in the country's history. Now, I don't believe the US is on the brink of physical civil war, but it is looking more and more like there may be a complete cultural meltdown.
Secondly, Wall Street is crumpling in a way we have rarely seen since the 20s and 30s. In fact, most experts would agree that we are in the worst econominc crisis since then. Despite the passing of a 700$ Billion "bailout", the markets are down massively today. Many people consider a depression "likely".
Thirdly, we face the constant (perceived) threat of attack on US Soil. Only twice since the early 20th century has the US been attacked in a major way: in 1941, and in 2001. After both cases, the US entered a war, and continued to face the possible threat of an attack. To this day, the individiausl who perpetrated the 2001 attacks are still present, and the threat of terrorist action still exists.
Fourthly, the US continues to be involved in a war which is tapping away militaristic and financail resources- a war which has (or had originally) little or no relevance to any real threat to the US.
Basically, if we consider these four things, the US is, right now, reliving 4 of its worst crises... simultaneously. This gives me reason to be scared.
The only thing I can conclude? I don't even know why Obama and McCain want to be president anymore. Whoever wins the election will inherit a giant mess, from which we may not emerge-or at the very least, we will surely not emerge unscathed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)