Verbum Mentis

Nothing New for the G.O.P

2008-09-03T20:12:00.000-07:00

Tonight, the hopeful VP-to-be Sarah Palin took to the podium to deliver her acceptance speech. Understanding that this choice has been very controversial and as a result, this speech will determine the success of the GOP, more than a few people were certainly very anxious to find out what exactly she was all about. Apparently, she has too little experience or potential that her own party did not trust her to take on the big issues. She did a successful job of playing one of "the good ol' boys" (yes, the very same she claimed to have taken on), as Republican strategy has dictated for longer than most Americans can remember, but said little of any worth. What she did talk about was nothing new; rather, it was just the same tried-and-true lines past Republicans have used.
Energy dependence, for instance, took up a decent chunk of her time, but did not once talk about the development of alternative fuels, instead opting to discuss her 40 billion dollar pipe line in Alaska. Yes, the one that was highly controversial for its plan to destroy the fragile ecosystem of an Alaskan wilderness. She joined the other big names tonight in saying multitudes of mud against Obama, most of which based on groundless hearsay, including an out of place remark about his wish to drill the oceans, despite choruses of "drill baby drill!" encouraged by former speaker Rudy Guiliani. This flip-flopping is not new, of course, take the famed Bridge to Nowhere.
Not that her interesting positions on energy can be held against her. After all, if oil companies lose business due to alternative, clean, cheap fuels, her poor hubby will be out of a job. Isn't that important, in the grand scheme of things? Family, of course, is at the heart of her moral system. Perhaps that is why her daughter is now pregnant, because she did not have the time to spend with her. How can someone be expected to be in such a powerful position and still do a good job of parenting? Five, soon to be six children, one of whom has a disability, and she wants to lead America, as well? To throw her words back at her, there's a time for everything in its own right! Can she really handle it all?
Perhaps she can, for obviously she can come up with brilliant, politically shrewd comments about such things as the fake pillars in the background of the Democratic convention. All in all, it was a speech worthy of any high school beauty pageant (Miss Alaska, anyone?). I must be mistaken, I thought 90210 was last night.

-Modern Diogenes-

Obama, Rejoice

2008-08-29T16:24:00.000-07:00

Now that the big question about who will be Obama's VP pick has been answered, it's only natural that we now turn to McCain, and the answer is in: Sarah Palin.
Now, at first glance, Sarah Barracuda seems like a step in the right direction: a woman, who, given McCain's age and past health problems, could very well find herself leader of the nation, and just as history-making as Obama. Then, you look at her résumé. Her political background resides on being the governor of the most isolated state (no offense, Alaska, but you're not exactly the hotbed of American politics). If McCain's hoping to garner some votes from Hillary supporters, he's severely underestimating the power of things like reading and being able to make proper decisions. While I'm sure there are many people who will make that choice, but anyone who can look past the ovaries and see the issues will not, which, call me naïve, but I hope is most. She may be female, but she certainly isn't going to advance the female cause: she's a fiercly pro-life, gun-toting, evangelical conservative from a state that bases its entire revenue on oil, let's not forget.
The issue of her inexperience completely dwarfs Obama's. Way to go, GOP, but the best suit against Obama (one that certainly had many democrats about to turn) just flew out the window and crashed somewhere in the Arctic Circle. McCain, at least, has been known for his willingness to reach across the aisle (then again, so was Bush, so what do we really know?). All Palin has been known for is firing a state trooper who was divorcing her sister. Now, any redeeming qualities McCain may have had have been stomped on by this Huckabee Jr. he's chosen as a running mate.
Please, intelligent voters, look beyond her sex and see that she is in no way the progress she promises to be at first glance.
On a lighter note, this choice has almost guaranteed the election of a Democratic president and the end at last to many of the country's Bush-inspired woes.

-Modern Diogenes-

Don't Shoot the Driver

2008-08-10T23:00:00.000-07:00

A man, possibly guilty of nothing more than getting a legal job to support his family, including two little girls, is being painted as a leader of terrorism.
Salim Hamdan, bin Laden's driver, has been found guilty on charges of supporting terrorism because of his job. He may be guilty of supporting terrorism, but if he is, it's certainly not for trying to earn an honest living. If you want to condemn a man, get proof that what he has done is actually wrong and don't just blame by assosciation. Could it be that his own opinion on Osama bin Laden's methods and ideals made no difference when it came to feeding his family? You want to catch terrorists, great. But I'm sure a simple driver is much less of a threat than, I don't know, the leaders he was chauffeuring? Don't spend all the country's money and time on this! If he decided to blow up a building, that would be different. He didn't. If he was privy to some scheme to destroy half of the world, that would be different. He wasn't. This is ridiculous. Spend this effort instead on finding the people causing the trouble, and on checking Bush's policies that keep extending this long succession of failures.

-Modern Diogenes-

Impeaching Musharraf

2008-08-09T12:34:00.000-07:00

Let this be a lesson to all leaders who recklessly and selfishly let their countries fall to pieces while fulfilling their own lust for arbitrary and costly displays of military strength.

-Modern Diogenes-

Who's Infringing on Whom?

2008-07-07T11:28:00.000-07:00

Internet privacy: the issue that seems to be growing in controversy with every headline.
While this current dispute between Viacom and YouTube has brought it again into the spotlight, internet privacy has been a legal grey area since the beginning of the world wide web.
Copyright infringement will never be completely eradicated, and, while I admit it to be a big problem that needs solving, it should never come at the cost of the security and privacy of the ordinary individual.
We cannot allow this to be so. Our freedoms of speech and press are barely hanging on, though they be the things that distinguishes America. How can we sit by and let the liberty to watch YouTube videos, or write a blog, or check our email without having the shadow of Big Brother Government looming over us?

- Modern Diogenes -

If It's So Important, Why Delay?

2008-04-25T20:52:00.001-07:00

The news "breaking" about the nuclear facilities found in the Syrian desert is in fact not so new - the news that the installation destroyed several months ago was suspected to have been a nuclear plant has been known to Washington since the time of the Israeli air raid that destroyed it. There are two types of information: the sensitive kind that isn't released, and the important news that can be used to manipulate the general population, either through fear-mongering or through assurances of peace and well-being. So why, if this information is so important as to be used in the former sense of manipulation, was it hidden? Information concealed can hardly be taken seriously when it is announced that it must be dealt with immediately and given full support after such information has remained under covers for this long. Two conclusions may be drawn from this: either Washington is so incompetent as to have somehow missed the danger that now hangs so ominously over us all, or it was deemed insignificant enough to keep out of sight for a few months. I will make no pretense, after all, every government keeps a good many things from its citizens for this reason or that. However, when news like this surfaces, it appears to be a situation with less gravity than is purported, and seems like another thing ploy to gain support for the ongoing farce in the theatre of the Middle East.

-Modern Diogenes-

Chivalry and Sexism

2008-03-13T22:19:00.000-07:00

In an atypical break from the frenzy of the political world, I bring up a branch of the much-debated subject of classic courtesy and politeness, a group oft referred to collectively as chivalry. It has been seen traditionally as a set of customs, such as the opening of a door or the relinquishing of a bus seat, observed by men out of their view of women. What exactly this view is is the controversy. Is it a general respect for others? Is it an idea that women are weaker and need protection and help, or is it simply a meaningless set of rules that is observed but not really understood?
This notion of chivalry began, undisputedly, with sexist roots. However, it is important to remember the context. Women's rights movements brought the issue of sexism into the spotlight, but this was centuries earlier, when women were, as a general rule, considered inferior. Some women oversaw and managed estates, but even these were considered the estates of their husbands, fathers, or brothers and not their own. It was also a turbulent time. Society was built on the principles of protecting those beneath you and letting those above you protect you, in return for services, loyalty, or money. The idea of who was "beneath" sprung from the differences in duties. These increasingly distinguished differences led eventually to what we know as sexism, not because of the fact that difference was acknowledged but because such difference was used to elevate one group. It is the same with modern race issues; to refuse to acknowledge another's cultural or ethnic background is just as bad as to use it to discriminate against or persecute that person.
Now, women can vote, hold executive positions, and do anything a man can do. Yet we insist on picking out these differences to call another inferior, regardless of intent. To open a door to someone carrying a large package or to help someone when they need it is not to call them inferior, because it is a simply an action of helping anyone, regardless of race or gender or feature, who has need of it. However, to assume that because someone is a woman they must need a strong protector is demeaning, because it takes away belief in their ability to take care of themselves. It is, in a way, objectifying women, and while the majority does not consciously intend malice or even understand the concept of chivalry itself, plenty, at least subconsciously, believe that it somehow fulfills some need of theirs to be seen as more manly, an adjective they get by looking better in comparison to the "weak" or "soft" female.

-Modern Diogenes-

State of the Union

2008-01-28T20:20:00.000-08:00

Bush's speech left much to be desired. Topics that were addressed were not addressed in such a manner as to explain or propose any solution.
Yet, as anti-Bush as I may be, there was one shining moment in the State of the Union address, one of which I am overjoyed to see a politician finally so much as mention.

The people's trust in their Government is undermined by congressional earmarks — special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute, without discussion or debate. Last year, I asked you to voluntarily cut the number and cost of earmarks in half. I also asked you to stop slipping earmarks into committee reports that never even come to a vote. Unfortunately, neither goal was met. So this time, if you send me an appropriations bill that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half, I will send it back to you with my veto. And tomorrow, I will issue an Executive Order that directs Federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by the Congress. If these items are truly worth funding, the Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote.

To ask a group of the most self-serving and ambitious people in the country to voluntarily give up the easiest and most abused sources of power and expect good results is naive. Nonetheless, it needed to be said. Perhaps with such a threat those results really will happen. Perhaps that is naive in itself. However, to have someone give voice to the common view of the people who have to deal with the consequences is at least a step forward.

-Modern Diogenes-

A Time For Everything

2007-12-27T22:11:00.000-08:00

Today, amidst the usual turmoil and trouble due to upcoming elections, something has come to add to the chaos in a frightening way. The assasination of former Pakistani PM Benazir Bhutto has already had consequences felt everywhere. In an attack chalked up to rising insurgency, questions remain. The US seems to be taking an approach designed to keep everything relating to them peaceful and letting the rest fall as it may. Now, there are times when this philosophy is appropriate; this is not one of those times. The United States have been so busy policing the rest of the world that they have neither the resources, the will, nor the ability to judge when such assistance is really beneficial. The most the US has managed to do is express a wish for the elections to continue as planned, rather than aid the investigation and, if necessary, rethink their financial support, depending on the outcome of said investigation. With Bhutto dead and Sharif still refusing to participate, two out of three candidates are out. The boycott was proposed to promote legitimacy. The only thing different now is that Musharraf and his backers in the West can claim a sense of security, albeit shallow, by changing its focus from a resistance movement to an unfortunate happening that is meant to be mourned for a time and forgotten.
Order must be restored to the region. With rising militancy and acts of terrorism being joined now by increasing religious tensions in next-door India, something must change, but not the way we have been trying to do it. We have focused our attentions as a war in the Middle East, namely Iraq and Afghanistan. We will be in a sore place if we do not act in response. Keeping a single-minded attitude never solved anything. America may have backed the wrong plan of action, as evidenced now in current events. A different set of tactics is needed. Instead of backing a particular party or candidate, why not a system or establishment, such as the restoration of stability regardless of who leads the country we are dealing with? We made the same mistake in the Middle East, arbitrarily choosing sides in a matter that had little to do with us. At first it was simple: join the enemies of our enemies. After that it splintered out and our choices were poor, but still we pressed on with our ever-failing plan of action. This is a lesson history does not need repeating.

-Modern Diogenes-

Convenient Scapegoats

2007-12-10T20:11:00.000-08:00

This country has outdone itself in recent years. This title is not a good one, however. Rather, it is one of pathetic blame-shifting, one where we can claim to have perfected excuse-making to an art. Every action is the result of some motive, granted, and politics has never been an honest arena. However, when every move is justified by a loose and vague reply, suspicion begins to arise.
The Bush administration has always made it a point to brainwash the general public, but poorly executed repetition has rendered it useless and failing.
The UN was persuaded to send weapons inspectors to Iraq, with Bush hoping to find a publicly-announceable reason to invade. When no weapons were discovered, he relied on pure nationalism to gain support. And now, as it becomes clearer and clearer that the invasion is a failure, this popular support is losing hold in all but the most fervent "patriots", with such a title being bestowed upon his few remaining loyal lemmings in order to captivate their sense of duty.
The use of torture is now becoming one of those issues, Bush contradicting himself by both claiming it is a necessary evil to find and eradicate terrorism and then denying any such interrogation techniques. How convenient that the tapes that would provide definitive proof have been destroyed. The very fact that they have been destroyed only proves the crime. And yet we are back to utter denial.
The question of using interrogation techniques classified as torture on known criminals is not much a question at all. Part III, Section I, Article 17 of the Geneva Convention explicitly states "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever." Even in the case of peacetime, such measures exist. Part I, Article 3 says "To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons...Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture..."
Perhaps it is understandable, however. We would only be keeping with the current trend of believing laws only apply in select, opportune cases. Even in cases of civil disobedience punishment is accepted for the lack of compliance with a specific law. Must our leaders perform this self-serving routine of applying only the most advantageous of laws to themselves and discarding all moral and just boundaries, skipping above the surface of reproachment?

-Modern Diogenes-

Spare Change

2007-10-26T18:08:00.000-07:00

An old beggar was sitting on the street corner, holding out a cardboard sign that read "Homeless; Needs Food". A young businessman in a sharply pressed suit stopped by him and asked him, "What could I give you to improve your fortunes, old man?" "Please, all I need is some spare change for some food," replied the beggar. The man in the suit laughed and said, "Foolish man, haven't you heard that giving a man a fish will only feed him for a day? My spare change will only worsen your destitution." With that, he walked away, feeling good that he had saved the old man from a worse fate.
The next day, the old beggar on the corner died of cold and starvation.

Ah, how often we pursue the moral high ground without knowing it isn't the high ground at all.

-Modern Diogenes-
For A.K.R

No Longer the Forerunner

2007-10-06T14:29:00.001-07:00

It seems that America has fallen from grace in her obstinate ways. We are no longer the shining example whose lead others rush to emulate. In our backwards persistence to remain in the Middle East we show an awkward and foolish attempt to regain credibility in the world, a play that seems to be backfiring.
The UK has put forth a plan to reduce British troops in Iraq, and is now earning back some of its respect among the people who expressed distinct opposition to the initial invasion. America, when faced with the same growing dissatisfaction, instead pushes forward in a pig-headed refusal to see the detrimental effect it is having on popular support.
Patriotism was stirred up in 2001; the effect has begun to lose hold in all but the blindest citizens. The opinions of the publics are no more permanent than the latest fashion. To drag out the nationalistic speeches once more is growing tedious, and without a sudden turn around Bush will face being lost in the history books as nothing better than a pathetic warmonger who didn't know when to stop.

-Modern Diogenes-

Hypocrisy Of Freedom

2007-09-24T23:49:00.000-07:00

How is it that America can stand proud as a free country yet deny the rights it boasts to others? I am not referring to the invasion of Iraq under cover of establishment of democracy. I refer to the first amendment, the freedoms of speech and press. Such glorified rights of man, one of the most precious and the most important, has been denied in two recent incidents.
Following the example of hundreds of journalists, one of these which I address is the ad circulated by moveon.org, which, while considered grossly offensive, is in no violation of the law. First amendment freedoms protect, if not soften. The Bill of Rights did not come into existence to govern tact or propriety.
The other example I call, also widely reported on, is the visit of the president of Iran. Again, there is no call for the views expressed, but who are we to refuse the same courtesy we would show to any other? Surely any man with any shred of decency would listen to a presidential candidate of the other party before obstinately condemning. America has shamed herself by refusing to extend the courtesies her citizens die for to others. While we have the right to decide for ourselves our own views and positions, those positions mean nothing unless earned. The opinon with no counter will always be the one we accept. We have a duty to listen to our opposition, if only to validate our own ideas.
The age in which we are no longer able to form and justify our beliefs is a sad one indeed. 1984 may have been 23 years ago, but if we can no longer think and express freely, we can hardly claim to have escaped it.

-Modern Diogenes-

Acceptance of Manipulation

2007-08-28T23:42:00.000-07:00

How can the open-mindedness and justness of the United States of America be attested to under direction of manipulative fools? For those in charge seem to be nothing more than that, exploiting the malleable minds of the general populace!

A war can only be won with consent of the people. A leader is only a figurehead without the support of the public. Military or political majorities help to strengthen this power, but none can be regarded as truly influential without some form of persuasion over the people he rules. There are instances in which true victory is unattainable, for any infinite or finite period of time. Persistence for a cause in these times is foolish. Bush's handling of the situation in the Middle East falls easily under such a category.

Bush described the dangers of losing the war in Iraq in a recent press release:

"Extremists would control a key part of the world's energy supply, could blackmail and sabotage the global economy. They could use billions of dollars of oil revenues to buy weapons and pursue their deadly ambitions. Our allies in the region would be under greater siege by the enemies of freedom."

The purpose of this statement is not a warning. Extremists are fighting guerilla wars against themselves as much as other nations. The proposal that these wildly opposing forces might unite to dominate the world economy is irrational. The purpose of this statement is to cause fear in the minds and hearts of the American people. The whole of the Middle East, not at all exclusive to the true terrorists, is being painted as a haven of monsters under the bed.

Bush is simply preying on the tendency to paranoia so eminent in public thought. Discussions of the situation are consistently and thouroughly riddled with the bullet holes of unjust hatred caused by fear. Is this to be another witch hunt? How many people must die before we accept our own mortal limits and lose the self-delusion of godhood?

We are a young nation. What more right than the countries directly involved do we possess that allows us to constantly meddle in other affairs, just to demonstrate our power? We cannot possibly hope to rectify an issue that has been in existence since before the birth of Christ. How much more arrogant could we be, a rich nation of rampant gluttony and greed?

We are like children that pretend to know a thing simply because someone tells us it is out of our reach. We do not understand it. This lack of knowledge leads to fear of the unknown, one of the most powerful forces in history. Rather than promoting a fair comprehension and unbiased views in order to effectively solve the problem, our own government is promoting demagoguery and purposely inflating the prejudices already imprinted in every human soul! This leads to a heightened sense of nationalism, finding ourselves supreme and all others deserving only to be meddled with.

The Revolutionary War was the turning point that transformed unorganised colonies into a strong united nation. The catalyst was a common enemy. American colonists despised the superiority the British held over them as both the mother and senior country.

Our own current position is worse, however, for our nation is junior to many of those in the Middle East. Yet we have developed a distinct sense of pride and blind arrogance. What right have we to dictate the affairs of other countries, regardless of age or gorm of government? How are we different from the Communist empire we fought and loathed so dearly? Imposing our own government on every country we can get our hands on. I doubt that the Soviet Union saw themselves as the 'bad guys'. I doubt that Iraq, Iran, terrorists, and Al Qaeda believe that they are, either. In fact, we are the ultimate sin, the devil incarnate, for rebelling against a holy mission. How then can we be different?

Another quote: "The challenge in Iraq comes down to this: Either the forces of extremism succeed, or the forces of freedom succeed."

So this is it? We are freedom, we are perfect and just. They are a faceless, principleless, amoral mob of extremists. It is NOT 'America vs. the Middle East'. It is sects fighting, all of which we believe to be wrong and extremist. How can we possibly know who to ally with, then? Our efforts to maintain freedom have resulted in bloodshed so far.
What can time possibly solve? Remove troops from Iraq. It is not our place to interfere in a civil war in which we cannot even know which side is the correct side.

A complete transcript of the event can be found here.

-Modern Diogenes-

On Collective Isolation and the Middle East

2007-08-25T20:32:00.000-07:00

We are, by nature, a collective species. It is a trait of living things to organise and bond together in groups, schools, flocks, gaggles, or herds. We are hardly exempt from this rule of nature. This is a result of natural selection: independent animals often die. The sick or elderly are cast out, as they only hinder a group's development. Some animals will nurture and protect their weak. Humans are one of these species.

Society is easily broken down into little clumps, groups of people who know, trust, and rely on each other. Even the social misfits and loners often band together for support. People are organisers. They are sorters and gatherers, defining people by what they wear, who they know, what they do and what they say. And so we experience a strange meaning of the word "group". A more accurate definition would be "collective isolation", because that is what we do. We sort, and then separate. Humanity lacks unity and is a prime breeding ground for discord and chaos. Our self-contained communities rarely associate with others. This only creates sharper boundaries.

It is the same with a country. Geophysical features, such as mountains or lakes, separate areas. As a result, linguistic differences such as slang or dialects and slight cultural differences arise. These slight cultural differences attract a majority of people who follow or share that lifestyle. They soon outnumber those who do not, and the cycle of stronger boundaries begins again.
This effect is not as noticeable with the common thread of nationality binding it together, but it has a much more pronounced effect on, for example, a continent with multiple countries, where barriers such as language, habits, religion, or simple rivalry can mean that the countries develop at different rates. A country surrounded on all sides by mountains is likely to be less prosperous than one with seaports and easy trade with their neighbours. This does not mean that the latter is richer in resources. It is communication, something that is essential to unity.

Slight differences in a country quickly gather strength and turn into disagreements and eventually civil war. But those same differences among neighbouring countries can become even more serious.

We have a history of fearing that which is not familiar. We rally around a common interest and, as a community, stubbornly fight or ignore the issue. Which we choose is up to the community. Even if we know that we are acting irrationally or if our struggle fails, we come out of it feeling more content to know that our views are shared and that we have a sense of belonging.
Consider now the current situation in the Middle East. The struggle is a civil war, inflamed by differences in religions. The Westerner misinterprets this, assuming that because most of them are Muslim that it is a war on the rest of the world, the Muslim religion militantly and radically destroying everything they see. This is pure paranoia. Rather, it is many different sects waging guerilla warfare on each other. To think that we, as another country, can step in and miraculously amend problems whose roots have been slowly festering for a millenia is not only pretentious of us but completely absurd! It is a gross overestimate of our power and diplomatic capabilities.

Granted, it is not all about religious zeal. Part of that is political, but it is, again, local. There is no exit strategy yet and this is why: there is none to be found. None, that is, that would solve any issue, because of course there is always the option of retreat. We cannot go in and destroy the terrorists and be done with it, because we can never completely erradicate that extremist streak. We cannot destroy the 'bad guys' because we do not know who they are. We are just another group to add to the throng, another group to fight and be fought. Our presence is one of many that are doing nothing useful. The war we claimed to enter and the war we fight now are not the same. There is simply no justification for the presence of troops in the Middle East except for warmongers of leaders that do not know when enough is enough. Leaving would not be retreat, for that has negative connotations. Someone who enters a casino and leaves an hour later is not retreating or running, he simply knows when to stop, when he's done his job or when he knows that it is better to quit while he is ahead. Except that now we have passed the 'ahead' stage; our only hope now is to cut our losses. Any good leader knows that when there is no hope of victory retreat is the best option. We have already achieved victory. We have already accomplished what we meant to. Just as a leader knows when to back down, he knows that to linger in a battle zone when there is nothing further to improve is both stupid and insane. To throw resources into a bottomless pit to soothe the vanity of an incompetent leader playing God is just as foolish.

So now I step down from my philosophical perch and urge you to change this. It is no longer the time for observation. Now is when the wisdom gained from that observation must be tested and used. We must stop feeding the desires of maladroit militarists and our own pride. We have been brainwashed into believing that retreating shows weakness! This is wrong! The only thing it can show is enough intelligence to know when to quit! We do not appear strong. We appear foolish. The sooner we accept that the sooner we can pursue more effective means of solving our crises.

-Modern Diogenes-

The People's Government

2007-08-15T16:24:00.000-07:00

The individual should be at the heart of all systems of government. Not according to the wishes of one man; this would quickly be the downfall of any system that attempted it. A nation cannot revolve around the wishes and desires of any one person, but rather of all people, to be considered equally and justly. Our government officials represent us; but they are not perfect. Politicians are corruptable. Power itself provides reason enough for that. Our human greed leads us to constantly seek out opportunities of bettering ourselves and manipulating for our own ends.

Without these intermediators, however, the result would be anarchy. No human can possibly live long enough to hear and heed every word spoken, written, or thought by the populace of even a small country. Abolishing these positions would be foolish suicide.

In light of this paradox, what is there to be done? Being a citizen is not just rewards. With it is the responsibility for your country. Many people vote. How many take an active part to reform the weaknesses and corruption that every position of power inevitably has? I assure you, as will history, that no establishment is strong enough to resist some degree of decay.

Even the Catholic Church, which is seen by many as a perfect institute of God on Earth, has more than its share of blame over the course of history. If one believed to be so divinely inspired can have such blatant problems, can not a purely worldly one also?

The only way to rectify this is by constant checking by the fairest of critics, those who have nothing to lose. Did you think that people who stand to lose their posh careers are the ones to turn around and condemn it? The common people are the ones with the power.

This has been the mistake of rulers for centuries. They appease and put trust in the upper classes and ones with 'real influence'. Any stupid person with cause can start a revolution. When the ruler believes he has impunity with these 'common people' because the support of the rich or powerful is on his side, he runs a great and inevitable risk of losing it all to some uprising over taxes or land or religion.

Demand not a voice, for that you already have. Petition not to be heard, because you already have that potential. Instead use the power that is imbued in you as a human being and therefore an equal.

Do not allow yourselves to be ruled only by those can afford to do so.

However, we cannot allow ourselves to be governed by every hothead who interprets this freedom too seriously. If everyone was free to make what he wants of law then its point would be meaningless. There would be total chaos and anarchy. Choose your leaders carefully. They do not bend you to their wishes. You as the people must bend them, the civil servants that are called such for a reason. There is no war between parliaments and kings and presidents. There is war between countries. If you are being named as a part of the cause, be sure you believe in it.

Opposing factions like to tell things in black and white: agree with me or do not. Believe me or do not. This is only to prevent things from being complicated. Our opinions reside in the grey areas. You do not have to be an extremist or a straight-ticket voter. If you do not believe fully in the cause, amend the faulty parts before discarding it as a whole or accepting it with its flaws.

The governing body must be educated and capable, not just wealthy or of a family name. Any of you can stand up and declare yourself ruler. That does not mean that you are capable. If you cannot win the populace or prove yourself a good leader and tactician while keeping your ethics then you are not fit.

But even if you are not a leader, you can still use your words! Use the voice that you have been given and find solutions. If you believe in God, I say this: God does not look fondly on complainers who do nothing to stop the thing they complain about. If not for God then for the future. I can tell you simply that history sees such people as cowards.

-Modern Diogenes-

Letters, Part II

2007-08-05T12:31:00.000-07:00

The popular mindset is to accomplish things in stages: first prepare, then perform, then refine, etcetera. This is applicable to some things. It provides a clear outline of the steps necessary to achieve an end. For larger issues, however, this is wrong. Urgency takes precedence to accuracy.
This is especially true in matters of reform. The goal being at one position on the map, the road and all of the steps taken to reach it must go by suddenly and forceful in order to prevent retrogression. Change should not come about subtly. Eventually the objective will be reached, but with a loss of the lessons to society that follow in its wake.

All things do change, with time. However, leaving a matter up to time and the fickle nature of human growth is the same as condemning it, for the lesson will not have the same impact as it would have if carried to fruition thoroughly and properly. Sometimes the most effective means of persuasion is a sudden demand for such a persuasion. Restructuring a fallen way of thinking is not the work of one man alone, but starting it can be. So I call for it now. Laissez-faire may be a policy advocated by some as an ideal way to run the economy, but no one will claim it is the right way for an average person to deal with the problems posed by the government and society of the day. End the pattern of ignorance. If we pay no attention, no attention will be given to us in return.

Before change can take place, people must be both aware and sensitive to the cause. If they do not know or care about an issue it will not be corrected. It will be assumed that it is fine the way it is, and that public support is behind the problem.

Remember also that it does not matter to what gender, age, or race you belong. These things have no effect on the innate ability to think. Perhaps experience unlocks certain channels of the brain and new pathways of thought, as company influences point of view. That does not mean that the young do not have a high enough intellect or the elderly too far out of time! One should respect the wisdom of their elders, but everyone from children to adults has the ability to reason. If we choose not to employ this, then this is our downfall. What a sad world we should find ourselves in when no one chooses to follow a path of independent thought!

Ideas and personal philosophies are adopted from those around us. Adopted first and then refined to fit the character of the individual. In this, we are both alike and unique. We are unique in theory, because no one can say that the list of people whose opinions they regard is identical. However, after a few generations of this, the majority believes similar things, all a composite of their peer’s thoughts. After several such compromises, the variety begins to become endangered. In this we are the same. Do not make the fatal error as to assume that this means we are rendered incapable of producing intelligent, free thought. We have the same capacity as ever. As we find new awareness of our predicament, we open up further lines of thought, and so our capability grows.

The ‘safe’ environment is not always, in actuality, the safest. The environment that suits us best is that of constant change. As science would have it, a body at rest tends to stay at rest. In a stable world, nothing changes and it becomes increasingly difficult to progress. Everything that is in perfect balance is liable to stagnation, at least in the world of philosophy, society, and discovery. Our human adaptability is not made for such conditions. We thrive in conflict, to the point of inventing it ourselves in the absence of natural disaster. It provides us with the opportunity to see our potential. Seeing how far we have to expand, and realising that it is only the tip of the iceberg, inspires us. There is no limit to human ability. We have so much to learn, but we face the dangerous thoughts of believing we know it all.

The future is a story we must write ourselves. Unless we act now, our ending will not be a happy one. Push for independent thought. Push for free expression. So much of our ‘critical thinking’ is just a test to make sure the populace is thinking the same as the writers of government and education. This makes the public easier to maintain. Easier to please, easier to pacify, easier to control. Learn the facts for yourselves, but don’t accept the first opinion given as fact. The wider your company the broader your point of view will spread. Instead of thinking in absolute political parties and straight tickets, think moderate. Do not be an extremist for the sake of being such. Being supportive of the opponent’s views on one issue is not detrimental to your support of another’s view on a different issue. A singular party system is not the best solution. Complete support of any one thing is not healthy.

Form your own opinions, and stand by them. In this way you fight for independence from convention that dictates a single track of thought.

-Modern Diogenes-

Letters to a Decayed Society: Part I

2007-08-05T08:30:00.000-07:00

In addition to the atrophy of thought that has become so rampant in today's age, we have, as a whole, become physically atrophied as well. With so much technological progress, the lives of billions have suddenly become easier. A computer can do the processing work of a man much more efficiently, in much less time, and without requesting overtime pay.

Two things then happen. The first is that the average white collar worker finds himself inferior to a machine. This is ironic. It has been said that the painting can only be as good as the artist, but here we see otherwise. While computers are not perfect and have only a limited level of intelligence, they can certainly outcalculate any one person. I say it is ironic because the computer was designed and built by a person, as was the programme that allows it to perform as it does.

A computer, a television, a car, and a mobile phone are all just machines. Yet how we devote our time to them! Right now, I rely on this computer to carry my message around the world. Likely you, reading this, are relying on some form of technology to keep you informed on the world. Mobile phones have become more than telephones. You can surf the internet, watch a movie, listen to music, and ask it for directions.

These things are fine, when depended on in moderation. However, as human nature would dictate, moderation is not something many prefer to have. If there was moderation in the world, there would be peace in it. Nations might be able to solve things diplomatically, without the use of gunfire or violence. Of course, this sounds naive, but what is the definition of naive? Seeing something idealistically, no matter how far-fetched it is.

Of course world peace is ideal. The far-fetchedness of it lies in the fact that we can never just accept things in moderation. This does not neccessitate a spartan lifestyle. If we do not drink water, we will die. But, if we drink too much, we drown.

Humans are fragile. We are adaptable, but we are fragile. Most of the Earth is covered by water. We cannot survive in the water. Much of it is covered by inhospitable biomes. We cannot survive in the desert or the tundra. We adapt, though. You ask why, if there are so many things we cannot do, why are we considered (by ourselves, which hardly counts) to be the "best" or "most-evolved" species? Because even though the fish can live in the ocean, they cannot leave, either.

A temperature change of only a few degrees or a slight difference in the salinity, pH, or oxygen levels will kill them. And they do not go into the desert, or climb mountains. They are not adaptable. They are well-suited for one task. We are moderately suited for many things. We have the ability to explore, colonise, and expand. We develop. This is because of the moderation nature has bestowed on us. Humans are not creatures of specialty. Just because urban life is preferrable to some, Earth hasn't been formed into one huge metropolis. Who would farm? Where would we get our food and raw materials? How would we find the resources to invent or grow? The weakness of humans is the susceptibility to stagnation.

If we continue to be sedentary and docile, sooner or later we will find ourselves without progress. If machines overran a farm, the farmer would become as lazy as the rest. Things would get done, but nothing would get accomplished.

And what does get accomplished leads to destruction. Human nature is, instinctively and in its most basic form, warlike and animalistic. The ability to split the atom is one of the most important discoveries in science. But developing nuclear energy for power came second to the atom bomb. Granted, in a state of war, it always seems to be the most pressing matter at the time. However, the world is always in a state of war with something. War doesn't have to a crisis between countries. The wars on abortion, homosexual rights, immigrants, and the fight against war itself are much more dangerous, because they are at home. They tend to be cast aside due to "more pressing issues". It's time to realise that the most important battles are staring you in the face, to take initiative and fix it. It's more than taking sides and inflaming the problem; it's about accepting rather than ostracising your opponent.

However, that's an issue for another time. New developments are always used for the most drastic solutions, and if they fail it only creates for a worse disaster. We are quick to overstep our boundaries. But, isn't that what life is? If we never stretch ourselves, we will never know our full potential. The moment we have decided just what our limit is is the day that we have reached it, impeded by our own simple-minded pattern of thought. Sure, we get hurt sometimes when we are wrong, but we learn from our mistakes and move on.

That is our versatility. That is what separates us from fish, or horses, or birds. Animal instinct tells us what we are. Human nature tells us what we can be.

-Modern Diogenes-

The End of Thought

2007-08-05T01:38:00.000-07:00

For those of you well-acquainted with Greek philosophy, this story will strike a familiar chord:

Plato defined man as a "featherless biped", and was commended for such an insight. So Diogenes, another philosopher known for his poverty and the thought-style of cynicism, plucked a chicken and declared it "Plato's man".

While Diogenes did not, as no homo sapiens can ever truthfully claim, have a perfect set of doctrines, this example demonstrates perfectly the attitude that should be adopted by any student of philosophy. That is, the ability to separate empty statements from those with a valid meaning.

There seems to be a growing pestilence in the world of popular philosophy, and that is of finding clever combinations of words that are swallowed by the lay man as powerful words of wisdom, regardless of the value of actual statement. Language itself has become two things: a tool for the simple, everyday tasks of casual communication, and filler for everything between such.

Not everything will be, or is even meant, to be profound or insightful. If the internet suddenly found itself devoid of filler material and casual communication, we would stare at blank screens for much of the time.

But this is not where the problem lies. The problem is in the self-help books, dime-a-dozen Dr. Phils, and people in influential positions that make their profession manipulating words. Heads of state and politicians rarely say original things. They believe that the average person does not have the need nor the desire to listen to new thought. Perhaps this is true, sometimes. But the public also has an alarming lack of insight into some of the major issues of the times, from genocides to wars to the corruption of governments. Regardless of the opinions of myriads of conspiracy theorists, this absence of critical information is not due to elaborate cover-ups but the simple apathetic natures of people on the whole.

There are radicals and reformists as well as those who believe that the current path is comfortable, and therefore safe and stable. Subconsciously they all believe in the policy of "what I don't know can't hurt me". People in positions of power use this to their advantage, understandably. Underneath mudslinging and defaming their opponents, they know that the public can be led like sheep given the smallest trickle of information, enough that they can feel that they've made up and opinion, which causes patriotism and strong adherence to their cause, but not enough for them to make up an opinion counter to what will benefit them.

But again, the cunning of politicians is not to blame. They are opportunists, finding a good foothold and using it, as any sensible person would on their position. It is the public's fault, because despite the best measures put in place by those in control of the information, it does not stifle the individual's intelligence and ability to think for themselves. Sure, there is war and strife in the world, but for those not directly affected, not fighting on the battlefield, most people choose to pass it off like children dismissively saying that "the grown-ups will make it better". Why are certain individuals the "grown-ups"? Even adults make mistakes, contrary to the naivety of children. But we are not a nation, not a world, of children, or sheep to be led around. If we continue to be apathetic then we will continue to be taken advantage of! People are more than slips of paper in a ballot box. Information is the best weapon, or shield, rather, of the future. If a country disregards its constitution and forgets its laws, those who remember can do as they will, without fear of opposition, because while the rest look distastefully, they end up shrugging their shoulders and saying "if the government is doing it, it must be legal". In some countries of the world, rights are stifled. There is no freedom of press or speech, which turns into imprisonment of thought. The nations fortunate to have such ideals point out the injustices being done, without ever stopping to realise that the same thing is happening to them, if slower. Personal freedom is something that needs protecting, and that is not done by fighting against other nations that have no democracy, it is done by first reforming the trouble with yourselves.

This is not accomplished by blaming it on the cruel censorship of the government. Before you can reform the world, you must reform your own country, but even before that you must analyse yourselves individually. A thousand decaying threads are nothing compared to the rope of a hundred strong fibres. We need more strong fibres to rally around. Look at yourselves. Before you can remove the fleck in your neighbour's eye, you must remove the log in your own.

-Modern Diogenes-