Since the economic crisis began and economists immediately starting citing individual overconsumption (in addition to Wall St. greed, the housing bubble, and bad government economic policies), there has been this sense of having to continue spending to get ourselves out of the recession. An article appearing in the New York Times today entitled "Our Love Affair With Shopping Malls is on the Rocks" put this point of view quite succintly: "If we don't spend, we don't recover." There's only one problem with this - it's totally and completely false. Let's take a minute and look at why.
The utter collapse of the financial sector has been one of the major reasons why this crisis has hit so hard. The banks don't have any money, which means that they're not willing to lend any money, which means that companies can't borrow any money, which means that companies can't undertake large investment projects such as building new factories or increasing R & D spending. When companies aren't able to take out loans for long-term investment, jobs aren't created. So how do we get around this problem?
SAVE!!! When we save money, it goes into the banks. This will loosen the credit market, meaning banks are more willing to make long term loans. When companies have more access to cash, they are more likely to undertake long-term investment projects. This will create more jobs, which will help the economy recover. For the argument that people won't put the money in the banks because they'll have to pay off credit card debt, I suggest that paying off credit card debt also loosens the credit market.
Interestingly, one of the major criticisms of the Obama stimulus package is that when people get the money, they won't spend it, but rather, put it in the banks. What people fail to understand is that money in the banks is a good thing. It's just as good as spending those dollars on a new pair of shoes. So the next time someone tells you that we have to spend, spend, spend to recover, get your bull-shit radar out and see through it.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Misinterpreting Ancient Greek Culture
Those of you reading my blog consistentely (hopefully I'm not speaking to imaginary people) may have found yourself wondering if my last two posts (Why Europe and Pol. Soc. vs. Philosophy) were related in any way. Before today, I would have said yes, but not all that much, but my reading of an opinion piece in the New York Times this morning jarred me into synthesizing the two.
In his column, "The Tipsy Hero," Alexander (good name!) Nazaryan wrote about the prevalence of alcohol (particularly wine) in Ancient Greek writings. His primary example was The Odyssey, Homer's epic poem about the great hero Odysseus. Throughout The Odyssey, there are countless references to wine and the pouring of libations for the gods. Yet it was not the wine which spurred me into cognitive action, but rather a throwawy parenthetical phrase inserted by Mr. Nazaryan: (in reference to the Greeks) "a people whose highest ideal was 'the examined life'."
Let us look back for a minute on Greek culture and see if "the examined life" was really their highest ideal. The reference to the examined life comes from arguably the most famous quote from The Apology, written by Plato, intended to be an account of Socrates' trial. Socrates, allegedly famously claimed that "the unexamined life is not worth living." To Socrates, this was no doubt true; he pursued people who thought they knew something around Athens trying to get them to examine if what they thought they knew was actually true.
The question remains whether this life examination was true of Greek culture in general, or merely Socrates himself. The answer is painstakingly clear. The Athenians killed Socrates for his beliefs and methods. They got so pissed off at him for biting (Socrates' term) them into self-reflection that the made him drink hemlock. This does not sound like the actions of culture intent upon reflecting. But this begs another question. If the Greeks weren't all about the examined life, why is it a commonly held belief in Western society that we are descended (culturally) from the Greeks in our enlightenment and wisdom (which is superior to the rest of the world's)?
When Western historians set about to explain why the West had reached a pinnacle of dominance in world history, they wanted a reason that justified their dominance. Saying, "we're dominant because we slaughtered, massacred, destroyed, exploited, conquered, and gave disease to the rest of the civilizations in the world" isn't particularly flattering to Western society. So instead, historians turned to the "rich tradition of thought and enlightenment" present in Western society with their foremost example being that of Ancient Greece and their philosophical glory.
It is undoubtedly true that the Greeks had a rich tradition of philosophy - a tradition that spanned many generations and dominanted monotheistic thinking (that of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim worlds) for over 1,000 years. Yet historians, in looking at Greek culture, misinterpreted the philosophic writings as representative of culture as a whole. Clearly, the Athenians were not "a people whose highest ideal was the examined life." To such nonsense is absurd (and irresponsible of the New York Times to print).
It may have been an ideal espoused by the philosophers of Greece, but the people were not of the same sentiment. Socrates himself noticed this phenomenon and commented on it in The Apology, the very same work Mr. Nazaryan must have been referencing. In a phrase commonly thought to be Socrates' opinions about most of the men of Athens, Socrates says, "My excellent man, you're an Athenian, you belong to the greatest city, renowned for its wisdom and strength; are you not ashamed that you take care to acquire as much wealth as possible - and reputation and honor - but that about wisdom and truth, about how your sould may be in the best possible condition, you take neither care nor thought?" Socrates here addresses Meletus, one of his accusers. Well, the jury (a group representative of the population) decided it was better to have people like Meletus running around caring about wealth, reputation, and honor, than it was to have Socrates around being obnoxious, but encouraging the citizens of Athens to examine their lives.
This goes to show the dangers of misinterpreting history and the dangers of not examining things in context. Yes, I agree, "the unexamined life is not worth living," but we must remember that this is the view of one man, and that he is not all men of his time and place.
In his column, "The Tipsy Hero," Alexander (good name!) Nazaryan wrote about the prevalence of alcohol (particularly wine) in Ancient Greek writings. His primary example was The Odyssey, Homer's epic poem about the great hero Odysseus. Throughout The Odyssey, there are countless references to wine and the pouring of libations for the gods. Yet it was not the wine which spurred me into cognitive action, but rather a throwawy parenthetical phrase inserted by Mr. Nazaryan: (in reference to the Greeks) "a people whose highest ideal was 'the examined life'."
Let us look back for a minute on Greek culture and see if "the examined life" was really their highest ideal. The reference to the examined life comes from arguably the most famous quote from The Apology, written by Plato, intended to be an account of Socrates' trial. Socrates, allegedly famously claimed that "the unexamined life is not worth living." To Socrates, this was no doubt true; he pursued people who thought they knew something around Athens trying to get them to examine if what they thought they knew was actually true.
The question remains whether this life examination was true of Greek culture in general, or merely Socrates himself. The answer is painstakingly clear. The Athenians killed Socrates for his beliefs and methods. They got so pissed off at him for biting (Socrates' term) them into self-reflection that the made him drink hemlock. This does not sound like the actions of culture intent upon reflecting. But this begs another question. If the Greeks weren't all about the examined life, why is it a commonly held belief in Western society that we are descended (culturally) from the Greeks in our enlightenment and wisdom (which is superior to the rest of the world's)?
When Western historians set about to explain why the West had reached a pinnacle of dominance in world history, they wanted a reason that justified their dominance. Saying, "we're dominant because we slaughtered, massacred, destroyed, exploited, conquered, and gave disease to the rest of the civilizations in the world" isn't particularly flattering to Western society. So instead, historians turned to the "rich tradition of thought and enlightenment" present in Western society with their foremost example being that of Ancient Greece and their philosophical glory.
It is undoubtedly true that the Greeks had a rich tradition of philosophy - a tradition that spanned many generations and dominanted monotheistic thinking (that of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim worlds) for over 1,000 years. Yet historians, in looking at Greek culture, misinterpreted the philosophic writings as representative of culture as a whole. Clearly, the Athenians were not "a people whose highest ideal was the examined life." To such nonsense is absurd (and irresponsible of the New York Times to print).
It may have been an ideal espoused by the philosophers of Greece, but the people were not of the same sentiment. Socrates himself noticed this phenomenon and commented on it in The Apology, the very same work Mr. Nazaryan must have been referencing. In a phrase commonly thought to be Socrates' opinions about most of the men of Athens, Socrates says, "My excellent man, you're an Athenian, you belong to the greatest city, renowned for its wisdom and strength; are you not ashamed that you take care to acquire as much wealth as possible - and reputation and honor - but that about wisdom and truth, about how your sould may be in the best possible condition, you take neither care nor thought?" Socrates here addresses Meletus, one of his accusers. Well, the jury (a group representative of the population) decided it was better to have people like Meletus running around caring about wealth, reputation, and honor, than it was to have Socrates around being obnoxious, but encouraging the citizens of Athens to examine their lives.
This goes to show the dangers of misinterpreting history and the dangers of not examining things in context. Yes, I agree, "the unexamined life is not worth living," but we must remember that this is the view of one man, and that he is not all men of his time and place.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Political Society's War Against Philosophy
The first of five brief essays for my political philosophy class. A bit scattered, but that is the nature of the assignment. Enjoy!
Philosophy and political society have long had a tumultuous relationship. Nothing manifests the struggle that frequently persists between the two better than the story of Socrates’ execution in The Apology, for this is the story of political society killing philosophy. “Why,” you ask, “would the state want to kill philosophy?” The answer is laid before us in this quote from Socrates, when he says, “My excellent man, you’re an Athenian, you belong to the greatest city, renowned for its wisdom and strength; are you not ashamed that you take care to acquire as much wealth as possible – and reputation and honor – but that about wisdom and truth, about how your soul may be in the best possible condition, you take neither care nor thought?”[1] The judgments that Socrates (and by extension, other philosophers) place upon the pursuit of various values frustrates many people not dedicated to the pursuit of something they (the philosophers) find valuable. In the excerpted quote, Socrates condemns those people in search of wealth, reputation, and honor, arguing that pursuit of wisdom and truth is more valuable, ergo better.
When I reflect on my valuation of the pursuit of wisdom and truth versus the pursuit of wealth, reputation and honor, I find that I am wholeheartedly in agreement with Socrates. This is in large part due to the profound influence of Emerson on my thinking. In his 1837 lecture before the Phi Beta Kappa Society at Harvard entitled “An American Scholar,” Emerson laid out a new paradigm for American scholarship. Previously, the American higher education system had simply taught the classics of European thinking, encouraging its students to become familiar with thinkers such as Rousseau, Locke, Descartes, and, coincidentally, Plato. Emerson encouraged the students to forge new ground, to disagree where appropriate, and to become “Man Thinking” with the explicit purpose of furthering the knowledge of mankind as a whole. In essence, Emerson argued that by gaining previously unknown knowledge, an individual scholar advances the human race for eternity.[2]
How then is this different from the pursuit of wealth? For one might argue that working to secure as much wealth as possible for oneself is beneficial to society. This is certainly the argument of capitalists. Yet there is a clear distinction between the pursuit of wealth and the pursuit of knowledge or truth. That distinction lies in the ephemeral nature of wealth, and, likewise, reputation and honor. While knowledge and truth remain for the rest of human existence, wealth, reputation, and honor can all come and go with time – reference the current economic crisis and the changing historical attitudes towards a figure such as Christopher Columbus.
There is good evidence to suggest that this conflict between philosophy and political society continues even today. When we look at the debate over what to teach in schools – Darwinian evolution vs. creationism – we seem a similar debate at work. Granted, the religious aspect of the Darwinism – creationism debate is slightly different. But it is still clear there is a group of people who feels that those goals should include the teaching of religious dogma. Similarly, there is a group of people wishing to deny the validity of theories suggesting global warming is taking place. These people feel that a rejection of the obtained knowledge allows for political society to achieve its goals more efficiently. In both of these cases, the modern day truth-makers, namely scientists, are coming under attack from factions of political society suggesting that the scientists’ work impedes political society from accomplishing certain goals. We see then, that the conflict between political society and philosophy is still vibrant today.
[1] Plato The Apology, 29e.
[2] Ralph Waldo Emerson, An American Scholar.
Philosophy and political society have long had a tumultuous relationship. Nothing manifests the struggle that frequently persists between the two better than the story of Socrates’ execution in The Apology, for this is the story of political society killing philosophy. “Why,” you ask, “would the state want to kill philosophy?” The answer is laid before us in this quote from Socrates, when he says, “My excellent man, you’re an Athenian, you belong to the greatest city, renowned for its wisdom and strength; are you not ashamed that you take care to acquire as much wealth as possible – and reputation and honor – but that about wisdom and truth, about how your soul may be in the best possible condition, you take neither care nor thought?”[1] The judgments that Socrates (and by extension, other philosophers) place upon the pursuit of various values frustrates many people not dedicated to the pursuit of something they (the philosophers) find valuable. In the excerpted quote, Socrates condemns those people in search of wealth, reputation, and honor, arguing that pursuit of wisdom and truth is more valuable, ergo better.
When I reflect on my valuation of the pursuit of wisdom and truth versus the pursuit of wealth, reputation and honor, I find that I am wholeheartedly in agreement with Socrates. This is in large part due to the profound influence of Emerson on my thinking. In his 1837 lecture before the Phi Beta Kappa Society at Harvard entitled “An American Scholar,” Emerson laid out a new paradigm for American scholarship. Previously, the American higher education system had simply taught the classics of European thinking, encouraging its students to become familiar with thinkers such as Rousseau, Locke, Descartes, and, coincidentally, Plato. Emerson encouraged the students to forge new ground, to disagree where appropriate, and to become “Man Thinking” with the explicit purpose of furthering the knowledge of mankind as a whole. In essence, Emerson argued that by gaining previously unknown knowledge, an individual scholar advances the human race for eternity.[2]
How then is this different from the pursuit of wealth? For one might argue that working to secure as much wealth as possible for oneself is beneficial to society. This is certainly the argument of capitalists. Yet there is a clear distinction between the pursuit of wealth and the pursuit of knowledge or truth. That distinction lies in the ephemeral nature of wealth, and, likewise, reputation and honor. While knowledge and truth remain for the rest of human existence, wealth, reputation, and honor can all come and go with time – reference the current economic crisis and the changing historical attitudes towards a figure such as Christopher Columbus.
There is good evidence to suggest that this conflict between philosophy and political society continues even today. When we look at the debate over what to teach in schools – Darwinian evolution vs. creationism – we seem a similar debate at work. Granted, the religious aspect of the Darwinism – creationism debate is slightly different. But it is still clear there is a group of people who feels that those goals should include the teaching of religious dogma. Similarly, there is a group of people wishing to deny the validity of theories suggesting global warming is taking place. These people feel that a rejection of the obtained knowledge allows for political society to achieve its goals more efficiently. In both of these cases, the modern day truth-makers, namely scientists, are coming under attack from factions of political society suggesting that the scientists’ work impedes political society from accomplishing certain goals. We see then, that the conflict between political society and philosophy is still vibrant today.
[1] Plato The Apology, 29e.
[2] Ralph Waldo Emerson, An American Scholar.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Why Europe: An analysis of Jack Goldstone's Theories
I have here posted my reaction to a reading of Jack Goldstone's book on the rise of Western dominance to the world. It's unedited, but enjoy:
In his brief volume on World History entitled Why Europe? – The Rise of the West in World History, Jack Goldstone lays out all of the traditional theories on why Europe and the United States became the dominant powers in world history and proceeds to debunk them. In the end, Goldstone lays out six reasons why Europe (and eventually the United States) became the dominant powers in the world. Of these six reasons, four pertain to science while the other two to religion. To go into all of the approaches discussed by Goldstone in detail would be a task for a book longer than Goldstone’s itself, so I will simply point out one or two reasons I find compelling and one or two I find less well-founded.
One of the major shortcomings of Goldstone’s argument is his treatment of European exploration and expansion. The crux of Goldstone’s argument seems to lie in the premise that technology developed by the West enabled them to conquer vast swaths of land. He states, “It was not colonialism and conquest that made possible the rise of the West, but the reverse – it was the rise of the West (in terms of technology) and the decline of the rest that made possible the full extension of European power across the globe”(69). While the importance of European technology cannot be underestimated in their conquest of first the Americas and eventually East Asia, disease must also be accounted for. Although Goldstone at first makes significant reference to disease, his conclusion (excerpted above) makes no reference to the role of disease. There is something contradictory here. Earlier in this chapter, Goldstone wrote that “it is difficult to know whether the death toll among Native Americans reached 90, 95, or even 98 percent… but it is clear that the devastation was unlike anything else known to world history”(63). I find this argument much more compelling. The disease which wiped out at least 90% of the population of the Americas allowed for European control and eventually colonization. The precious metals mined in this hemisphere were what initially allowed the Europeans entry into the Asian markets, for as Goldstone pointed out, prior to acquiring precious metals, the Europeans had nothing of interest to Asians. After gaining control of the Americas, Europeans used the raw materials here to further their trade with Asia and additionally, to improve agricultural practices to, as Goldstone consistently put it, “catch up” with Asia. Access to natural resources has been essential in the history of expanding economic production from the forest-clearing of the Roman Empire to the westward expansion of the United States and the oil-pumping in the Middle East and Venezuela. In looking at the broad trends in history, I find this resource-based argument more compelling than the idea that superior European military technology led to Western world dominance.
Another argument which I found to be somewhat fallacious was Goldstone’s rejection of Protestantism as having a significant impact on the rise of the West. Among his six concluding reasons for the rise of the West, Goldstone lists “a climate of pluralism, rather than of conformity and state-imposed orthodoxy, and of Anglican Church support for the new science”(169). Earlier, Goldstone had discussed how it was not Protestantism in and of itself that contributed to progress but this climate of openness in general that encouraged economic growth. The nations that achieved this climate of pluralism, however, were Britain and the Netherlands – two Protestant nations. For pluralism to exist, it took a challenge to the Catholic Church from somewhere, and that challenge came from Protestantism. Goldstone also fails to note that while the power of the major Catholic powers of Europe has been rather ephemeral, the power of the major Protestant powers has been longer lasting. While Spain and France both had brief golden ages (Spain in the 16th and France in the early 19th centuries), it is German and British influence that has been longer lasting. Goldstone’s evidence against Protestantism’s influence is the decline of the Netherlands as world power, yet this ignores the obvious reason for this – their limited size/population – compared with other European and world powers.
Historians have also offered other alternatives of which I found Goldstone’s rejections compelling. He seems to successfully refute the claim that different family norms played any role in the rise of the West. Similarly, I find his debunking of the theory that the political breakdown of Europe into competing nation-states attributed to rise of the West equally compelling. While Goldstone’s main argument seems to be that the rise of the West was the result of superior methodology and technology relating to science, and this argument is certainly valid, I find the arguments for Protestantism’s and America’s conquest much more convincing theories as to the rise to dominance of the West militarily, economically, and culturally.
In his brief volume on World History entitled Why Europe? – The Rise of the West in World History, Jack Goldstone lays out all of the traditional theories on why Europe and the United States became the dominant powers in world history and proceeds to debunk them. In the end, Goldstone lays out six reasons why Europe (and eventually the United States) became the dominant powers in the world. Of these six reasons, four pertain to science while the other two to religion. To go into all of the approaches discussed by Goldstone in detail would be a task for a book longer than Goldstone’s itself, so I will simply point out one or two reasons I find compelling and one or two I find less well-founded.
One of the major shortcomings of Goldstone’s argument is his treatment of European exploration and expansion. The crux of Goldstone’s argument seems to lie in the premise that technology developed by the West enabled them to conquer vast swaths of land. He states, “It was not colonialism and conquest that made possible the rise of the West, but the reverse – it was the rise of the West (in terms of technology) and the decline of the rest that made possible the full extension of European power across the globe”(69). While the importance of European technology cannot be underestimated in their conquest of first the Americas and eventually East Asia, disease must also be accounted for. Although Goldstone at first makes significant reference to disease, his conclusion (excerpted above) makes no reference to the role of disease. There is something contradictory here. Earlier in this chapter, Goldstone wrote that “it is difficult to know whether the death toll among Native Americans reached 90, 95, or even 98 percent… but it is clear that the devastation was unlike anything else known to world history”(63). I find this argument much more compelling. The disease which wiped out at least 90% of the population of the Americas allowed for European control and eventually colonization. The precious metals mined in this hemisphere were what initially allowed the Europeans entry into the Asian markets, for as Goldstone pointed out, prior to acquiring precious metals, the Europeans had nothing of interest to Asians. After gaining control of the Americas, Europeans used the raw materials here to further their trade with Asia and additionally, to improve agricultural practices to, as Goldstone consistently put it, “catch up” with Asia. Access to natural resources has been essential in the history of expanding economic production from the forest-clearing of the Roman Empire to the westward expansion of the United States and the oil-pumping in the Middle East and Venezuela. In looking at the broad trends in history, I find this resource-based argument more compelling than the idea that superior European military technology led to Western world dominance.
Another argument which I found to be somewhat fallacious was Goldstone’s rejection of Protestantism as having a significant impact on the rise of the West. Among his six concluding reasons for the rise of the West, Goldstone lists “a climate of pluralism, rather than of conformity and state-imposed orthodoxy, and of Anglican Church support for the new science”(169). Earlier, Goldstone had discussed how it was not Protestantism in and of itself that contributed to progress but this climate of openness in general that encouraged economic growth. The nations that achieved this climate of pluralism, however, were Britain and the Netherlands – two Protestant nations. For pluralism to exist, it took a challenge to the Catholic Church from somewhere, and that challenge came from Protestantism. Goldstone also fails to note that while the power of the major Catholic powers of Europe has been rather ephemeral, the power of the major Protestant powers has been longer lasting. While Spain and France both had brief golden ages (Spain in the 16th and France in the early 19th centuries), it is German and British influence that has been longer lasting. Goldstone’s evidence against Protestantism’s influence is the decline of the Netherlands as world power, yet this ignores the obvious reason for this – their limited size/population – compared with other European and world powers.
Historians have also offered other alternatives of which I found Goldstone’s rejections compelling. He seems to successfully refute the claim that different family norms played any role in the rise of the West. Similarly, I find his debunking of the theory that the political breakdown of Europe into competing nation-states attributed to rise of the West equally compelling. While Goldstone’s main argument seems to be that the rise of the West was the result of superior methodology and technology relating to science, and this argument is certainly valid, I find the arguments for Protestantism’s and America’s conquest much more convincing theories as to the rise to dominance of the West militarily, economically, and culturally.
Football Team of the Year
For those of you feeling overwhelmed by football, I promise that my next post will not be football-focused. But as promise, here I present my team of the year in my typically (hopefully) humorous fashion.
GK: Iker Casillas - there's just no one else. Thanks to San Iker, as he is called in Spain (mostly Madrid), Spain beat Italy on penalties in the quarterfinals of the European Championships. He was fantastic for the entire tournament. He also helped Real Madrid win La Liga (you have no idea how painful it is for me to include him for that). Clearly the Spanish knew, for it was he, not winning goalscorer Fernando Torres, who lifted the trophy in Vienna.
Centre-Half No. 1: Nemanja Vidic - Obviously my pick for World Footballer of the Year has to make my team of the year. Vidic just doesn't make mistakes at the back. I've never seen one - ever. Man U. won two trophies last year and while Ronaldo has gotten all the glory, Vidic was as important, if not more so in that accomplishment. He's been voted Serbia's best player abroad for three of the last four seasons. And as if keeping clean sheets weren't enough, he's also scored his fair share of goals, including some important ones (reflecting on the first against Chelsea, but that was this year so it's obviously not affecting my objective approach).
Centre-Half no. 2: Martin Laursen - Not on most people's radars, Laursen is the rock of Aston Villa's defense. Villa's success this season and last season is largely attributable to their solid defense (in addition to the emergence of Ashley Young and Gabby Agbonlahor) to which Laursen has been central (pun intended). Laursen scored more than twice as many goals as Vidic last year in the EPL as well.
Right Back: Daniel Alves - spent the end of last season finishing up his time at Sevilla, where he was remarkable. In the summer, he moved to Barcelona where this year, he has been even more fantastic. Already has 8 assists from right back. That's fantastic. Barcelona also have the best defensive record in La Liga this season.
Left Back: Patrice Evra - Although he plays for France, and they had somewhat of an off year, he won two titles with Manchester United. He's solid defensively and working with Ronaldo down the left he has absolutely terrorized opposing defenses. I simply cannot imagine a team with Evra and Alves playing down the wings. The attacking options would just be too plentiful. The only downside is the fracas with which he involved himself with the groundsmen at Stamford Bridge. One moment of idiocy, in this instant, doesn't negate a full year of brilliance.
Defensive Midfield: Marcos Senna - The second best defensive midfielder in the world, but Essien has been injured for the last five months, meaning he's simply missed too much time to be in the TotY. Senna was the lynchpin of Villarreal's success in their best ever season in La Liga - finishing 2nd. He is also widely credited with being Spain's best player at the European Championships. Additionally, he always plays with a smile. You just gotta love the guy.
Holding Midfield: Xavi - the best player for Spain at the European Championship, he was also of paramount importance for Barcelona last season and in the first half of this season. He sees passes other players just don't. Spain suffer from having too many of those players at the moment, but I'm sure Vicente Del Bosque, their new manager, won't complain about having to bring Xabi Alonso and Cesc Fabregas off the bench because Xavi's just too good to take out. That was Luis Aragones' decision in the summer and it worked. You have to imagine that a player who can relegate Fab and Alonso to the sidelines deserves to be in the TotY.
Right/Left Midfield: Lionel Messi and Dirk Kuyt... Just kidding... Messi and Ronaldo - the two best players in the world, by a long ways (sorry Torres), they just have to be the outside midfielders for the TotY. After Messi burned five Getafe players to score a goal in the Copa del Rey last year, then manager Bernd Schuster was quoted as saying something along the lines of "the only thing my players did wrong was not to foul him." That's how good he is. Despite being the bigger ass-hole per your comments, Ronaldo did score over 40 goals last season. He was the best (if not also the second and third best) attacking player in the world. He simply has to be included. Two trophies, a plethera of individual awards. How could you not want him on your team. Wait, don't answer that. I don't either, but damn, I just can't leave him out.
Attacking Midfield: Steven Gerrard. I know all of you who know I'm a Liverpool fan are wondering why there had yet to be a Liverpool player on my list (Pepe Reina's my 3rd string goalie and Jamie Carragher could warrant an honourable mention). Well, Stevie G.'s there, so have no fears. He scored I don't even know how many goals and the number of them in the closing minutes of games were truly remarkable. There were two players responsible for all of Liverpool's non-mediocrity last year and he was one of them. The other one is...
Forward: Fernando Torres. He's the best forward in the world - no debate about it. If I've offended any Swedish or Inter fans who think Zlatan Ibrahimovic should be there, I'm not remotely sorry because you're all off your rockers. Those Chelsea fans who think Drogba should be there should be wondering why Chelsea are in FOURTH right now. Drogba's not been able to produce in the last year. That's why. Those Man U. fans who somehow think Rooney should be there. Well, Rooney's class, but he simply doesn't produce the goals that Torres does. Adebayor? Van Persie? Raul? Del Piero? Pato? Toni? No No No No No No. In addition to scoring over 20 goals for Liverpool in the league last season, Torres bagged the winner against Germany in the final of Euro 2008 and a beauty of a goal it was too, beating Lahm and chipping the goalie fantastically. You couldn't ask any more of him. The combination of pace, power, and control is unmatched and his running off the ball is better than just about anyone else's in the game (reference David Villa's racing to hug Torres on the bench after he'd scored his third against Russia. He knew who had created his hat-trick).
Bench: Nihat, Benzema, Ribery, Schweinsteiger, Kaka, Mascherano, Capdevila, Puyol, Buffon (I know - it's a little oversized. Ribery, Nihat and Mascherano can share a seat though.)
Your criticism is not only welcome, it's expected. Who'd I leave out who deserves to be mentioned?
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Who's the Bigger Ass-Hole, Vol. 2
Cristiano Ronaldo vs. Robinho
Let me first begin by saying that the reason for the exclusion of Ashley Cole in this column is simply that he always wins. I can honestly say that Ashley Cole might win a "Who's the Bigger Ass-hole" column against Joseph Stalin. But that is neither here or there. I just wanted to let all you football fans know that this was not some oversight. No, today I'm comparing the ass-hole qualities of two of the game's pretty-boys, Cristiano Ronaldo and Robinho.
The holiday period was a great time for Ronaldo. He picked up the Ballon d'Or and World Footballer of the Year awards, among many others. When interviewed about winning the awards, Ronaldo "joked" that he could have finished 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in World Footballer of the Year voting. What an ass-hole! He didn't say, "Well, it was some very tough competition; there were many deserving players" (Messi, Torres, Xavi to name just a few). Instead he made a bad joke revealing his own over-inflated sense of self-importance.
As an aside, some people might have perhaps suggested Messi had his own little swing back at Ronaldo after he didn't name Ronaldo in his personal "team of the year." All that we can conclude about Messi's team of the year, however, is that he's simply gone quite loony. Selecting Petr Cech as goalie of the year after his poor performance at Euro 2008 (along with abysmal managing) cost the Czech Republic a spot in the quarterfinals seems somewhat remarkable as do his inclusion of Javier Zanetti and teammate Andres Iniesta in place of HIMSELF and Ronaldo. He also left off Torres, meaning that none of the players who finished 1-2-3 in World Footballer of the Year voting made his team.
Meanwhile, while Ronaldo was racking up awards and dishing out idiotic soundbites for the pundits to feed off, Robinho decided to take a vacation to Brasil without telling anyone at Man City. Manager Mark Hughes was going absolutely bonkers after Robinho hadn't turned up to practice for a couple days and they couldn't reach him on his mobile. (My personal sentiment is that Robinho just had to get away from Richard Dunne - his play would make teammates with even the most stable bowels get a bit nauseous.) Regardless, going AWOL, showing up, and not thinking it appropriate to apologize and admit one's actions immature seems to register pretty high on the ass-hole meter.
In case you were wondering, my pick for World Footballer of the Year would have been Nemanja Vidic. Rio Ferdinand's absence at the holiday period and Man U's continuingly solid defensive performances indiciate it is Vidic, not Ferdinand, who is essential to their defensive wall. My next column will give my team of the year.
Let me first begin by saying that the reason for the exclusion of Ashley Cole in this column is simply that he always wins. I can honestly say that Ashley Cole might win a "Who's the Bigger Ass-hole" column against Joseph Stalin. But that is neither here or there. I just wanted to let all you football fans know that this was not some oversight. No, today I'm comparing the ass-hole qualities of two of the game's pretty-boys, Cristiano Ronaldo and Robinho.
The holiday period was a great time for Ronaldo. He picked up the Ballon d'Or and World Footballer of the Year awards, among many others. When interviewed about winning the awards, Ronaldo "joked" that he could have finished 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in World Footballer of the Year voting. What an ass-hole! He didn't say, "Well, it was some very tough competition; there were many deserving players" (Messi, Torres, Xavi to name just a few). Instead he made a bad joke revealing his own over-inflated sense of self-importance.
As an aside, some people might have perhaps suggested Messi had his own little swing back at Ronaldo after he didn't name Ronaldo in his personal "team of the year." All that we can conclude about Messi's team of the year, however, is that he's simply gone quite loony. Selecting Petr Cech as goalie of the year after his poor performance at Euro 2008 (along with abysmal managing) cost the Czech Republic a spot in the quarterfinals seems somewhat remarkable as do his inclusion of Javier Zanetti and teammate Andres Iniesta in place of HIMSELF and Ronaldo. He also left off Torres, meaning that none of the players who finished 1-2-3 in World Footballer of the Year voting made his team.
Meanwhile, while Ronaldo was racking up awards and dishing out idiotic soundbites for the pundits to feed off, Robinho decided to take a vacation to Brasil without telling anyone at Man City. Manager Mark Hughes was going absolutely bonkers after Robinho hadn't turned up to practice for a couple days and they couldn't reach him on his mobile. (My personal sentiment is that Robinho just had to get away from Richard Dunne - his play would make teammates with even the most stable bowels get a bit nauseous.) Regardless, going AWOL, showing up, and not thinking it appropriate to apologize and admit one's actions immature seems to register pretty high on the ass-hole meter.
In case you were wondering, my pick for World Footballer of the Year would have been Nemanja Vidic. Rio Ferdinand's absence at the holiday period and Man U's continuingly solid defensive performances indiciate it is Vidic, not Ferdinand, who is essential to their defensive wall. My next column will give my team of the year.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Don't Feel Guilty
As I crossed the street (in the crosswalk) between the HUB and the academic quad today, there was a line of traffic waiting to cross. I sometimes feel guilty about making traffic wait and scurry across the street, but I just didn't have the energy shortly after 9 this morning. So that got me thinking on a way of justifying my inconsideration for the community.
As it turns out, there really isn't any reason to feel guilty for holding up traffic as you cross the street (at least not that one). Anyone who lives in Carlisle knows about the college and therefore would know not to drive on the street. Furthermore, most truckers who drive through Carlisle do so on a regular basis and so would also know about that street. Thirdly, anyone not from Carlisle who is visiting must not have anything important to do (reference the fact that they're in Carlisle), so can't be in that much of a hurry. Furthermore, if they're not from here, there's a good chance they're here related to the college, so wouldn't be offended by crosswalks.
To summarize:
1) You live here. You know that street has a crosswalk. You'd be stupid to drive here.
2) You're a trucker. You're here a lot. Ditto.
3) You don't live here. You can't have anything important to do.
4) You don't live here. You're probably here on college business anyway.
So Dickinsonians, dont' feel guilty.
As it turns out, there really isn't any reason to feel guilty for holding up traffic as you cross the street (at least not that one). Anyone who lives in Carlisle knows about the college and therefore would know not to drive on the street. Furthermore, most truckers who drive through Carlisle do so on a regular basis and so would also know about that street. Thirdly, anyone not from Carlisle who is visiting must not have anything important to do (reference the fact that they're in Carlisle), so can't be in that much of a hurry. Furthermore, if they're not from here, there's a good chance they're here related to the college, so wouldn't be offended by crosswalks.
To summarize:
1) You live here. You know that street has a crosswalk. You'd be stupid to drive here.
2) You're a trucker. You're here a lot. Ditto.
3) You don't live here. You can't have anything important to do.
4) You don't live here. You're probably here on college business anyway.
So Dickinsonians, dont' feel guilty.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Cadel Evans' Genius
Tour de France runner-up two years in a row Cadel Evans, a cyclist not reknowned for his personality has come up with another stunning insightful soundbite this week. "On paper at the moment, they (Astana) are the team to beat, that's without a doubt." Really? Really? NO SHIT! Astana boast six riders who have finished in the top 10 in the Tour de France before: Lance Armstrong and Alberto Contador have 8 wins between them while Levi Leipheimer, Andreas Kloden, Haimar Zubeldia, and Yaroslav Popovych have all also finished in the top 10 before (Kloden and Leipheimer on the podium). So Evans has said that Astana are the team to beat. Everyone knew they were the team to beat before they brought back Armstrong and signed Zubeldia and Popovych, the latter from Evans' team. They were the team to beat last year, and they weren't even allowed to participate because of doping allegations the year before.
Some people like Cadel Evans. Maybe if you're Australian, he seems like a good guy to you. He did punch a police officer riding with the Tour de France last year because apparently the police officer got in his way. He's also made his fair share of complaints regarding everything in professional cycling. Furthermore, he's just an ass-hole to all the other riders. It puts me in a difficult spot. I can't really respect Team Astana that much after all the doping allegations, although I do believe Leipheimer is clean. He's the only one I'd put my money on for being clean though. And I can't root for Evans, because he's just an asshole. I guess I'll be rooting for Sastre or the Schleck brothers this year, as they seem to be the only other viable contenders. Perhaps Deni Menchov can do something!
Some people like Cadel Evans. Maybe if you're Australian, he seems like a good guy to you. He did punch a police officer riding with the Tour de France last year because apparently the police officer got in his way. He's also made his fair share of complaints regarding everything in professional cycling. Furthermore, he's just an ass-hole to all the other riders. It puts me in a difficult spot. I can't really respect Team Astana that much after all the doping allegations, although I do believe Leipheimer is clean. He's the only one I'd put my money on for being clean though. And I can't root for Evans, because he's just an asshole. I guess I'll be rooting for Sastre or the Schleck brothers this year, as they seem to be the only other viable contenders. Perhaps Deni Menchov can do something!
Sunday Morning Football, Vol. 1
To give you a little flavor of my Sunday mornings, I thought I'd write a brief post. I'm always sitting here at my computer between 11 and 1 because there are always 6 La Liga (that's the top football league in Spain) games going on then. It seems that every week something out of the ordinary happens, and hopefully I will be able to illuminate some of the more interesting things that go on through this weekly column.
I'll first begin by talking about the Getafe - Gijon game. Getafe have been consistently good in La Liga over the course of the last few years, qualifying for European competition at least once or twice, making it to the finals of the domestic cup and boasting a solid defense. In contrast, Gijon were promoted last year. Yet they have surpassed many people's expectations, lying in 11th going into this weekend, largely due to the fact that they haven't drawn a game in 19 outings this season.
That was probably more background information than you wanted, but you'll have to live with it. So what was so fascinating about this game, you ask? Well, a rather young forward by the name of Roberto Soldado came on for Getafe to replace Manu in the 13th minute because Manu picked up an injury. He promptly scored two minutes later. Wow, quick return. Well he wasn't done. He scored again in the 57th minute and again in the 72nd minute. The substitute grabs himself a hat-trick. Hat-tricks are rare to begin with, but to see one from a substitute is especially uncommon. Unfortunately, I don't work for ESPN so I don't have 15 computer guys running around in the back getting me the statistics on the last time it happened! Anyway, maybe the coach will think of starting him next time.
Additionally, I wanted to highlight one player from the Bilbao - Almeria game. Bilbao started a central defender named Aldekoaotalora Ustaritz. Bilbao traditionally recruits all the best Basque players. If they were judged on the unpronounceability of their names, Aldekoaotalora Ustaritz would undoubtedly be one of their stars.
The games just ended and Málaga have ensured themselves of being within 2 points of Champions League football at the end of the weekend! That would be a lovely surprise next year. And to think that at the beginning of the season, I was just hoping they'd stay in the top division!
Until next week...
I'll first begin by talking about the Getafe - Gijon game. Getafe have been consistently good in La Liga over the course of the last few years, qualifying for European competition at least once or twice, making it to the finals of the domestic cup and boasting a solid defense. In contrast, Gijon were promoted last year. Yet they have surpassed many people's expectations, lying in 11th going into this weekend, largely due to the fact that they haven't drawn a game in 19 outings this season.
That was probably more background information than you wanted, but you'll have to live with it. So what was so fascinating about this game, you ask? Well, a rather young forward by the name of Roberto Soldado came on for Getafe to replace Manu in the 13th minute because Manu picked up an injury. He promptly scored two minutes later. Wow, quick return. Well he wasn't done. He scored again in the 57th minute and again in the 72nd minute. The substitute grabs himself a hat-trick. Hat-tricks are rare to begin with, but to see one from a substitute is especially uncommon. Unfortunately, I don't work for ESPN so I don't have 15 computer guys running around in the back getting me the statistics on the last time it happened! Anyway, maybe the coach will think of starting him next time.
Additionally, I wanted to highlight one player from the Bilbao - Almeria game. Bilbao started a central defender named Aldekoaotalora Ustaritz. Bilbao traditionally recruits all the best Basque players. If they were judged on the unpronounceability of their names, Aldekoaotalora Ustaritz would undoubtedly be one of their stars.
The games just ended and Málaga have ensured themselves of being within 2 points of Champions League football at the end of the weekend! That would be a lovely surprise next year. And to think that at the beginning of the season, I was just hoping they'd stay in the top division!
Until next week...
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Me-First Generation
That's how I refer to us, the generation of students growing up in Post-Cold-War America, especially during the period of unparalleled economic growth in the 1990s. The goal of this blog post, however, is not to convince you that the Me-First Generation is bad for society, but rather to raise the question of whether it represents continued progress or a setback for our society. I will simply begin by laying out a few observations (with certain anecdotal evidence) to suggest that we are in fact Me-Firsters.
Last year, I had the opportunity to read a speech by Dickinson President William Durden. Two of the major themes addressed were self-esteem and accountability. Our generation was brought up in an environment which forebade blunt criticism. Teachers were told to avoid phrases such as "that's wrong" and "incorrect". Furthermore, they were instructed not to grade in red pen. We were told that everyone's opinion was just as valuable as anyone else's. Because of this self-esteem boosting, our generation, myself included, has become resistant to criticism.
At my high school, one of the courses which separates the best students from the rest of the students is AP US History, henceforth known as APUSH (this is not to say that if you don't take APUSH, you're not smart, merely that this is one course which has traditionally been an indication of overall academic performance). One of the key components of this course is a year-long research paper about some topic of 20th century American history. Last year, the students, frustrated with the amount of work, protested having to write the research paper. They used terms such as "unfair", "too hard", "unrealistic expectations", etc. This protest occurred concurrently with my reading of Dr. Durden's speech, and the result was a profound alteration in my opinions of our generation.
That these students had the audacity to suggest such things aroused disappointment, frustration, and even some anger in me. How could it be that a task I had performed, albeit amidst a certain amount of grumbling, two years earlier, had suddenly become "too hard" for the current students? Doesn't this reveal the Me-First nature of our generation - to be so concerned with the here and now that we would overlook the benefits gained from tackling such a difficult project?
Now I have sounded very critical of our generation. Yet our generation is still in an age of adolescence. It would be foolish of me to project into the future that the immaturity we have heretofore displayed will continue into the future. We are, after all, in our prime years of immaturity, sophomoricism, and overconfidence. One possible outcome from this resistance to criticism is that we will become great innovators because when people tell us "no" we simply don't listen. This is an optimistic scenario. On the other hand, our resistance to criticism could lead to a less-cooperative society - one in which we are only concerned with our interests. Donations to charities could be reduced, community service, in which many people partook in their younger years as a means to an end (getting into college), may become diminished with our progression into adulthood. Yet perhaps a self-centered generation would be a good thing. In liberal economics, each individual working in her self-interest is the most efficient way for an economy to be structured.
The question then, is whether our Me-First generation represents continued progress or a setback in our society. My first reaction was very negative. "How could these students be so petulant?” It took some time for my initial aggravation at their insolence and the problems I initially saw with the self-esteem boosting to acquiesce to a more academic and reasoned approach to the question.
I was fortunate enough to have been required to read “An American Scholar”, the speech by Ralph Waldo Emerson for my American Philosophy class (reference my post on Life’s Messages). This essay was written at a critical time in our nation’s history – its adolescence. 61 years after the Declaration of Independence, and only 22 years after the end of the War of 1812 (it went until 1815 and was the last inter-state war fought on US soil, excluding the attack on Pearl Harbor), the United States was still in a somewhat vulnerable position. But what was Emerson’s main theme?
Emerson’s point remains salient today, if not for the same reasons as it was then, as a reminder of what our position was then. Emerson’s message to the Phi Beta Kappa Society at Harvard was to break with traditional thinking, to think original thoughts. It was extraordinarily progress-oriented. Not only did Emerson encourage students to think their own thoughts because it was necessary for the independent intellectual foundations of the United States, but also because by becoming Man Thinking (his term), these American scholars would benefit the collective knowledge of Man.
The relevance to today is clear. We must act as Man Thinking so as to develop Man’s knowledge. We have been encouraged throughout our adolescence, and as many say, we have the most potential of any generation ever to inhabit the earth. We must direct our individualistic tendencies towards original thinking. We must control our sense of entitlement. We must learn how to use the criticisms we do receive constructively, for Emerson surely would have wanted us to listen to the thoughts of others. We must grab the bull of our individualism by the horns and wrestle with it, not acquiesce to our selfish tendencies. We must not accept as true the knowledge of the past, but challenge it in a way only we know how. Yet we must also be cognizant of not allowing ourselves to recognize authorities when present while also knowing when to challenge them where appropriate.
We must win in this war against ourselves, for the consequences are clear if we don’t. We inhabit a geo-politically unstable world. War threatens or rages in three continents on the globe. Nuclear weapons remain capable of destroying the earth 1000s of times over. And global warming teeters on the brink of irreversible consequences. “Can we?” you ask. Yes we can.
Last year, I had the opportunity to read a speech by Dickinson President William Durden. Two of the major themes addressed were self-esteem and accountability. Our generation was brought up in an environment which forebade blunt criticism. Teachers were told to avoid phrases such as "that's wrong" and "incorrect". Furthermore, they were instructed not to grade in red pen. We were told that everyone's opinion was just as valuable as anyone else's. Because of this self-esteem boosting, our generation, myself included, has become resistant to criticism.
At my high school, one of the courses which separates the best students from the rest of the students is AP US History, henceforth known as APUSH (this is not to say that if you don't take APUSH, you're not smart, merely that this is one course which has traditionally been an indication of overall academic performance). One of the key components of this course is a year-long research paper about some topic of 20th century American history. Last year, the students, frustrated with the amount of work, protested having to write the research paper. They used terms such as "unfair", "too hard", "unrealistic expectations", etc. This protest occurred concurrently with my reading of Dr. Durden's speech, and the result was a profound alteration in my opinions of our generation.
That these students had the audacity to suggest such things aroused disappointment, frustration, and even some anger in me. How could it be that a task I had performed, albeit amidst a certain amount of grumbling, two years earlier, had suddenly become "too hard" for the current students? Doesn't this reveal the Me-First nature of our generation - to be so concerned with the here and now that we would overlook the benefits gained from tackling such a difficult project?
Now I have sounded very critical of our generation. Yet our generation is still in an age of adolescence. It would be foolish of me to project into the future that the immaturity we have heretofore displayed will continue into the future. We are, after all, in our prime years of immaturity, sophomoricism, and overconfidence. One possible outcome from this resistance to criticism is that we will become great innovators because when people tell us "no" we simply don't listen. This is an optimistic scenario. On the other hand, our resistance to criticism could lead to a less-cooperative society - one in which we are only concerned with our interests. Donations to charities could be reduced, community service, in which many people partook in their younger years as a means to an end (getting into college), may become diminished with our progression into adulthood. Yet perhaps a self-centered generation would be a good thing. In liberal economics, each individual working in her self-interest is the most efficient way for an economy to be structured.
The question then, is whether our Me-First generation represents continued progress or a setback in our society. My first reaction was very negative. "How could these students be so petulant?” It took some time for my initial aggravation at their insolence and the problems I initially saw with the self-esteem boosting to acquiesce to a more academic and reasoned approach to the question.
I was fortunate enough to have been required to read “An American Scholar”, the speech by Ralph Waldo Emerson for my American Philosophy class (reference my post on Life’s Messages). This essay was written at a critical time in our nation’s history – its adolescence. 61 years after the Declaration of Independence, and only 22 years after the end of the War of 1812 (it went until 1815 and was the last inter-state war fought on US soil, excluding the attack on Pearl Harbor), the United States was still in a somewhat vulnerable position. But what was Emerson’s main theme?
Emerson’s point remains salient today, if not for the same reasons as it was then, as a reminder of what our position was then. Emerson’s message to the Phi Beta Kappa Society at Harvard was to break with traditional thinking, to think original thoughts. It was extraordinarily progress-oriented. Not only did Emerson encourage students to think their own thoughts because it was necessary for the independent intellectual foundations of the United States, but also because by becoming Man Thinking (his term), these American scholars would benefit the collective knowledge of Man.
The relevance to today is clear. We must act as Man Thinking so as to develop Man’s knowledge. We have been encouraged throughout our adolescence, and as many say, we have the most potential of any generation ever to inhabit the earth. We must direct our individualistic tendencies towards original thinking. We must control our sense of entitlement. We must learn how to use the criticisms we do receive constructively, for Emerson surely would have wanted us to listen to the thoughts of others. We must grab the bull of our individualism by the horns and wrestle with it, not acquiesce to our selfish tendencies. We must not accept as true the knowledge of the past, but challenge it in a way only we know how. Yet we must also be cognizant of not allowing ourselves to recognize authorities when present while also knowing when to challenge them where appropriate.
We must win in this war against ourselves, for the consequences are clear if we don’t. We inhabit a geo-politically unstable world. War threatens or rages in three continents on the globe. Nuclear weapons remain capable of destroying the earth 1000s of times over. And global warming teeters on the brink of irreversible consequences. “Can we?” you ask. Yes we can.
Logic vs. Emotion... I
I feel bad because I didn't get a post in on Friday, so I felt obligated to write one tonight before I went to bed. The conundrum I address tonight is one that has faced intellectuals for years, and one which I hope the plethera of philosophy courses in which I am enrolled this semester will help me answer. The topic of conversation is logic.
We think of logic as a means. It is a tool of solving a problem. A way of thinking. Logic's power boils down to mathematical calculation more or less. Math problems are solved using logic, but more complex problems can be solved via cost-benefit analysis, which is essentially breaking down the various consequences of an action into positive and negative and approximate values. For example, "Do I want to walk to the store now to get some fresh fruit, or would I rather make this easymac?" When you ask yourself this question, the answer follows something like, "easymac is faster, but although it doesn't taste as good, nor is it as healthy, the time it would take me to go the store is more important, and so I'll just make it anyway."
There is a certain amount of foresight in that statement. You are predicting that you will be better off in the long run because of the time you save by making easymac. The alternative to logical thinking lies in what, for the sake of argument, we will call emotion. To answer the question illogically takes some ideological dogma. For example, "My religion commands me to eat fresh fruit every Saturday at 2 in the morning, so I must go get some fresh fruit to fulfill this obligation." Some might argue that this too, represents a logical conclusion, however, I would be inclined to disagree. There are some people who take religion very seriously and question its teachings. Yet even those people eventually develop some complacency in terms of everyday things. Devout Christians question why they go to church on Sundays only very infrequently. There is some type of implicit assumption then that religion is right for whatever reason, and so I should always follow it.
If you are uncomfortable with a religious example, I suggest a more political one, although this may generate some discomfort as well. Let's take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The logician, wanting to reach a logical conclusion about which side is "righter," would look at the history of the conflict and study the various events over time, looking at each good thing, and each evil thing both sides have done, and weigh in that either the Jews or the Muslims (or perhaps the Christians who carved out Israel) are most at fault for the conflict in the Middle East. The emotional American might simply say, "What America does is right, and America supports Israel. Israel must then be right."
Those very astute among you will now cry out, "But Alex, you have backed yourself into a corner, for these are logical claims!" Yes, they are logical, but they are founded upon something illogical, an ideological attachment to something - religion in the first example, a nation in the second. The question I pose to you, my readers, is whether or not it is a bad thing to act arguments which rest upon illogical foundations. Opinions would be most welcome.
We think of logic as a means. It is a tool of solving a problem. A way of thinking. Logic's power boils down to mathematical calculation more or less. Math problems are solved using logic, but more complex problems can be solved via cost-benefit analysis, which is essentially breaking down the various consequences of an action into positive and negative and approximate values. For example, "Do I want to walk to the store now to get some fresh fruit, or would I rather make this easymac?" When you ask yourself this question, the answer follows something like, "easymac is faster, but although it doesn't taste as good, nor is it as healthy, the time it would take me to go the store is more important, and so I'll just make it anyway."
There is a certain amount of foresight in that statement. You are predicting that you will be better off in the long run because of the time you save by making easymac. The alternative to logical thinking lies in what, for the sake of argument, we will call emotion. To answer the question illogically takes some ideological dogma. For example, "My religion commands me to eat fresh fruit every Saturday at 2 in the morning, so I must go get some fresh fruit to fulfill this obligation." Some might argue that this too, represents a logical conclusion, however, I would be inclined to disagree. There are some people who take religion very seriously and question its teachings. Yet even those people eventually develop some complacency in terms of everyday things. Devout Christians question why they go to church on Sundays only very infrequently. There is some type of implicit assumption then that religion is right for whatever reason, and so I should always follow it.
If you are uncomfortable with a religious example, I suggest a more political one, although this may generate some discomfort as well. Let's take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The logician, wanting to reach a logical conclusion about which side is "righter," would look at the history of the conflict and study the various events over time, looking at each good thing, and each evil thing both sides have done, and weigh in that either the Jews or the Muslims (or perhaps the Christians who carved out Israel) are most at fault for the conflict in the Middle East. The emotional American might simply say, "What America does is right, and America supports Israel. Israel must then be right."
Those very astute among you will now cry out, "But Alex, you have backed yourself into a corner, for these are logical claims!" Yes, they are logical, but they are founded upon something illogical, an ideological attachment to something - religion in the first example, a nation in the second. The question I pose to you, my readers, is whether or not it is a bad thing to act arguments which rest upon illogical foundations. Opinions would be most welcome.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Life's Messages
I am not a religious fanatic. To be perfectly honest, I'm not really religious at all. I'm reluctant to say that however, because it implies that I'm not spiritual, which I am. One of the things about which I am spiritual is that I believe every so often, life's forces come together to try and tell us things. I sometimes am fortunate enough to see certain connections which I interpret, however absurdly, as life's little encouragements.
Thist past week for me has been one such week. I have been consistently reminded of another of my semi-spiritual beliefs, which is in the electric chain of humanity. But I must start from the beginning. Something must be changed, and it is important to understand the previous state before one can understand the significance of the change. Therefore, let me begin in the past.
Over the course of the last year, I have been turning increasingly inwards. I have limited myself socially, partly due to fear, partly due to my unreasonably high expectations of others, and partly due to my completely unjustified self-love. In having my crusade for intellectualism serve as my only purpose in life, I lost sight of too much. Impatient, withdrawn, eltist, and dedicated only to intellectualism. Yet the last week has reaffirmed changes I had already sensed beginning in myself.
On Sunday, I attended the informal memorial service for Nate Kirkland. I did not know Nate well, but I felt it appropriate to go, especially as a sign of support for so many of my friends who did know Nate well. What I heard was inspirational. Friend after friend got up and talked about how Nate loved everyone, and how he engaged everyone. He was the definition of a humanitarian. Always smiling, always interacting with everyone.
On Tuesday, I read an article by William McNeill, the Canadian historian in which he advocated for global history on the grounds that it was the historian's duty to unify mankind if possible. His argument - that telling the histories of individual countries and regions serves to divide the world, and that historians should additionally emphasize the commonalities present among all mankind.
And today:
First I had lunch with a friend of mine who argued more effectively than I had imagined that everyone's opinions are equally valuable if your goal is to understand humanity. A somewhat remarkable argument, that if I had chosen my cynnical best could most likely have argued against, but I had already made a conscious decision to return to a more humanitarian Alex, and so I found myself accepting this argument (I gladly await the criticisms of my logically oriented philosophical colleagues). That each person offers valuable insight into his/her own way of thinking is totological. Obviously, one could offer the contextualized argument suggesting that each interaction produces more or less advancement in knowledge. I thought of that for a while, and it makes sense, but I am looking at a larger picture, and in my larger picture, equality is essential.
Secondly, I read Ralph Waldo Emerson's An American Scholar, in which he explicitly references the concept I would call the electric chain of humanity, emphasizing, like McNeill, the commonalities present in man. His main point, that each scholar should work to be a Thinking Man because in doing so he enhances Man, the collective, follows along a similar line.
Finally, tonight, I watched one of my five favorites movies (coincidentally Robert Redford had something to do with three of them), Diarios de Motocicleta. I had the pleasure of seeing this movie in the fall of 2007. Watching it again a year and a half later, I still remembered so much of it. I have thought of this movie almost weekly in that time period. The story of Che Guevara's development into the man he became is a fascinating one, and the imagery in the movie is out of this world. Guevara's goal of unifying the people's of Latin America is congruous to these other indications I’ve had over the past week.
The idea that man’s humanity is more important than his country or his ethnicity has been coming up again and again. Yet it is four words from Guevara’s diary said in a voiceover at the end which I find to be the most prescient to this column: “Ya no soy yo.” I’m not me anymore. I hope that this is the case for me. I hope I have been able to transcend my impatience in my solitary question for intellectual elitism. I love being an intellectual, but I have overlooked the human component to my education for too long.
To my friends here, I offer my apologies for being so cold for so long. To my friends from home, your overly idealistically humanitarian colleague has returned. Ya no soy yo.
Thist past week for me has been one such week. I have been consistently reminded of another of my semi-spiritual beliefs, which is in the electric chain of humanity. But I must start from the beginning. Something must be changed, and it is important to understand the previous state before one can understand the significance of the change. Therefore, let me begin in the past.
Over the course of the last year, I have been turning increasingly inwards. I have limited myself socially, partly due to fear, partly due to my unreasonably high expectations of others, and partly due to my completely unjustified self-love. In having my crusade for intellectualism serve as my only purpose in life, I lost sight of too much. Impatient, withdrawn, eltist, and dedicated only to intellectualism. Yet the last week has reaffirmed changes I had already sensed beginning in myself.
On Sunday, I attended the informal memorial service for Nate Kirkland. I did not know Nate well, but I felt it appropriate to go, especially as a sign of support for so many of my friends who did know Nate well. What I heard was inspirational. Friend after friend got up and talked about how Nate loved everyone, and how he engaged everyone. He was the definition of a humanitarian. Always smiling, always interacting with everyone.
On Tuesday, I read an article by William McNeill, the Canadian historian in which he advocated for global history on the grounds that it was the historian's duty to unify mankind if possible. His argument - that telling the histories of individual countries and regions serves to divide the world, and that historians should additionally emphasize the commonalities present among all mankind.
And today:
First I had lunch with a friend of mine who argued more effectively than I had imagined that everyone's opinions are equally valuable if your goal is to understand humanity. A somewhat remarkable argument, that if I had chosen my cynnical best could most likely have argued against, but I had already made a conscious decision to return to a more humanitarian Alex, and so I found myself accepting this argument (I gladly await the criticisms of my logically oriented philosophical colleagues). That each person offers valuable insight into his/her own way of thinking is totological. Obviously, one could offer the contextualized argument suggesting that each interaction produces more or less advancement in knowledge. I thought of that for a while, and it makes sense, but I am looking at a larger picture, and in my larger picture, equality is essential.
Secondly, I read Ralph Waldo Emerson's An American Scholar, in which he explicitly references the concept I would call the electric chain of humanity, emphasizing, like McNeill, the commonalities present in man. His main point, that each scholar should work to be a Thinking Man because in doing so he enhances Man, the collective, follows along a similar line.
Finally, tonight, I watched one of my five favorites movies (coincidentally Robert Redford had something to do with three of them), Diarios de Motocicleta. I had the pleasure of seeing this movie in the fall of 2007. Watching it again a year and a half later, I still remembered so much of it. I have thought of this movie almost weekly in that time period. The story of Che Guevara's development into the man he became is a fascinating one, and the imagery in the movie is out of this world. Guevara's goal of unifying the people's of Latin America is congruous to these other indications I’ve had over the past week.
The idea that man’s humanity is more important than his country or his ethnicity has been coming up again and again. Yet it is four words from Guevara’s diary said in a voiceover at the end which I find to be the most prescient to this column: “Ya no soy yo.” I’m not me anymore. I hope that this is the case for me. I hope I have been able to transcend my impatience in my solitary question for intellectual elitism. I love being an intellectual, but I have overlooked the human component to my education for too long.
To my friends here, I offer my apologies for being so cold for so long. To my friends from home, your overly idealistically humanitarian colleague has returned. Ya no soy yo.
Stupid English, Vol. 1
When I was learning how to write more sophisticated sentences (the kind with lists of things), I was always told to place a comma after each item in the list. For example: I like BMWs, Audis, Ferraris, and Jaguars. To me, this makes a lot of sense grammatically. It is clear exactly what the pieces of the list are: BMWs Audis Ferraris Jaguars. Consider this following usage: I like BMWs, Audis, Ferraris and Jaguars. There seems in imbalance here - that Ferraris and Jaguars together are like Audis and BMWs individually. Yet this second construction is the "correct" usage in modern English.
Now imagine you were talking about law firms. I like Frederick and Sons, George Brothers, LeRoy and Claude and Smith and Jones. Excuse me??? Which of the last four go together? If you sit down and analyze the sentence, knowing the rules, you can ascertain that LeRoy and Claude must be a pair and that Smith and Jones work together, but should it take that much work? Wouldn't a comma after Claude assist tremendously in clarifying that point? Or imagine you have some more complex phrase within the list. I like horses, cats and dogs, pigs, giraffes or capybaras. If you're reading that quickly, and can't see where the sentence is going, you are likely to stumble over the end of it, putting the emphases in the wrong places in your head. It simply doesn't make sense not to separate each entity of the list. I simply cannot see the upside to leaving out the comma after the penultimate item in the list.
I can promise further abuse directed towards the stupidity of the English language.
Now imagine you were talking about law firms. I like Frederick and Sons, George Brothers, LeRoy and Claude and Smith and Jones. Excuse me??? Which of the last four go together? If you sit down and analyze the sentence, knowing the rules, you can ascertain that LeRoy and Claude must be a pair and that Smith and Jones work together, but should it take that much work? Wouldn't a comma after Claude assist tremendously in clarifying that point? Or imagine you have some more complex phrase within the list. I like horses, cats and dogs, pigs, giraffes or capybaras. If you're reading that quickly, and can't see where the sentence is going, you are likely to stumble over the end of it, putting the emphases in the wrong places in your head. It simply doesn't make sense not to separate each entity of the list. I simply cannot see the upside to leaving out the comma after the penultimate item in the list.
I can promise further abuse directed towards the stupidity of the English language.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Is Switzerland really better at everything?
When you think about Switzerland, it's hard not to be impressed. I have had the fortune of having my aunt uncle and cousin living in Switzerland for some time now, and this has given me the opportunity to get to know the country better. Sitting here sipping on some Swiss hot chocolate (yes, of course it's better than the American kind) I find it difficult not to wonder at all the ways in which the Swiss put us to shame. In this post I will undertake an utterly serious analysis of the five reasons which veritably prove why Swtizerland is better than the United States.
5) In Switzerland you can't mow your lawn on Sundays. I know what you're thinking - "We finally got over blue laws in the United States (not rural PA for those of you wondering about good 'ol Carlisle) and they still have some ridiculous law like that in Switzerland about when you're allowed to mow your lawn!" But seriously, imagine a Sunday when you could grill out, and you didn't have to worry about your next door neighbor firing up the lawn mower and ruining your barbeque. And yes - they do have barbeques in Switzerland despite what all the flag-waving, liberty-loving, "true" patriots might have you think. All around, a good idea, despite my uncle's persistent grumblings.
4) Public transportation. They have it. We don't. Enough said.
3) Roger Federer. The man's incredible. He spent 4 1/2 years as the world's number one player. Americans have turned out some great tennis players, but the fact that the Swiss can dominate the sport for 4 1/2 years is absolutely incredible.
2) You can't flush the toilet in an apartment building after 10 pm in Switzerland. So you've gotta take a late night shit and you don't want to leave it there all night. What're you supposed to do? Don't you see? The entire system is encouraged to regulate your body. If you train your body not to have go at night, at least not that way, you may actually generate healthier habits. Gotta go before bed... - the perfect opportunity for teeth-brushing. Not so subtle manipulation of daily habits by the government - quality.
1) Winning the America's Cup. Even for those of you who don't know what it is, the Swiss winning the America's Cup should be shocking. The America's Cup - not the European's Cup or the Asian's Cup. The America's Cup. But wait. It's a sailing competition. So the Swiss have a few good sailors. WHERE'D THEY LEARN HOW TO SAIL??? THE NATION'S LANDLOCKED!!! If that's not proof, I don't know what else it is.
Honorable mentions:
chocolate
4 national languages
public transportation again
legalized perscription heroin
banks
nationalized healthcare
watches
chocolate again
public transportation for the third time
CERN
the Alps
Let's all try to be more like Switzerland from now on.
5) In Switzerland you can't mow your lawn on Sundays. I know what you're thinking - "We finally got over blue laws in the United States (not rural PA for those of you wondering about good 'ol Carlisle) and they still have some ridiculous law like that in Switzerland about when you're allowed to mow your lawn!" But seriously, imagine a Sunday when you could grill out, and you didn't have to worry about your next door neighbor firing up the lawn mower and ruining your barbeque. And yes - they do have barbeques in Switzerland despite what all the flag-waving, liberty-loving, "true" patriots might have you think. All around, a good idea, despite my uncle's persistent grumblings.
4) Public transportation. They have it. We don't. Enough said.
3) Roger Federer. The man's incredible. He spent 4 1/2 years as the world's number one player. Americans have turned out some great tennis players, but the fact that the Swiss can dominate the sport for 4 1/2 years is absolutely incredible.
2) You can't flush the toilet in an apartment building after 10 pm in Switzerland. So you've gotta take a late night shit and you don't want to leave it there all night. What're you supposed to do? Don't you see? The entire system is encouraged to regulate your body. If you train your body not to have go at night, at least not that way, you may actually generate healthier habits. Gotta go before bed... - the perfect opportunity for teeth-brushing. Not so subtle manipulation of daily habits by the government - quality.
1) Winning the America's Cup. Even for those of you who don't know what it is, the Swiss winning the America's Cup should be shocking. The America's Cup - not the European's Cup or the Asian's Cup. The America's Cup. But wait. It's a sailing competition. So the Swiss have a few good sailors. WHERE'D THEY LEARN HOW TO SAIL??? THE NATION'S LANDLOCKED!!! If that's not proof, I don't know what else it is.
Honorable mentions:
chocolate
4 national languages
public transportation again
legalized perscription heroin
banks
nationalized healthcare
watches
chocolate again
public transportation for the third time
CERN
the Alps
Let's all try to be more like Switzerland from now on.
The Bigger Ass-Hole, Vol. 1
I'm blogging from the library again - there's something very relaxing about it (unless someone's yappin' on the cell phone right next to you). Today, I thought I'd give a little bit of consideration to two of the more famous celebrations in football. The debate: who is more of an ass-hole, Eric Cantona or Ruud Van Nistelrooy?
Here is the Cantona goal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt3eLY9JApg
Well, it is a fantastic goal, there's no doubting that. A wonderful turn to beat the first defender, some great pace to take it up the field, and a lovely one-two with his teammate followed by an unbelievable shot. The question is whether he simply couldn't believe he had scored, or whether he knew that he had scored a fantastic goal and wasn't celebrating deliberately to make a point about just how fantastic it was. Given Cantona's somewhat aggressive personality (reference him kicking a fan), I'm inclined to think the latter the more likely scenario.
Here is the Van Nistelrooy goal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTtBzu5lF8k (pay attention to the defender's reaction after he misses the penalty).
In one sense, the celebration is legitimate. The defender taunted him after the penalty miss, so he taunted him back after the goal. The fact that the Netherlands were already winning 3-0 when he scored the goal and the fact that Dick Cheney could have scored that from his wheelchair somehow detract from his legitimacy in celebrating the goal so much. I mean, honestly, I kind of feel bad for Andorra. How are they supposed to compete with the Netherlands in football? Come on. The marking was just so atrocious on the goal. I mean there are four attacking players in the box with one defender. For the record, even if the one clueless defender had played the offsides trap with everyone else, the attackers would still have been onsides (Yes, I spent five minutes pausing the video in just the right spot to figure that out).
Anyway, I'll let you be the judge. Let me know, Who's the bigger ass-hole, Van Nistelrooy or Cantona?
For further watching, here's when Cantona kicked the fan in the face: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovYWY4Pf9_M&feature=related
Sorry about the quality on the videos - it's the best I could find.
More to come on "Who's the bigger ass-hole"
Here is the Cantona goal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt3eLY9JApg
Well, it is a fantastic goal, there's no doubting that. A wonderful turn to beat the first defender, some great pace to take it up the field, and a lovely one-two with his teammate followed by an unbelievable shot. The question is whether he simply couldn't believe he had scored, or whether he knew that he had scored a fantastic goal and wasn't celebrating deliberately to make a point about just how fantastic it was. Given Cantona's somewhat aggressive personality (reference him kicking a fan), I'm inclined to think the latter the more likely scenario.
Here is the Van Nistelrooy goal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTtBzu5lF8k (pay attention to the defender's reaction after he misses the penalty).
In one sense, the celebration is legitimate. The defender taunted him after the penalty miss, so he taunted him back after the goal. The fact that the Netherlands were already winning 3-0 when he scored the goal and the fact that Dick Cheney could have scored that from his wheelchair somehow detract from his legitimacy in celebrating the goal so much. I mean, honestly, I kind of feel bad for Andorra. How are they supposed to compete with the Netherlands in football? Come on. The marking was just so atrocious on the goal. I mean there are four attacking players in the box with one defender. For the record, even if the one clueless defender had played the offsides trap with everyone else, the attackers would still have been onsides (Yes, I spent five minutes pausing the video in just the right spot to figure that out).
Anyway, I'll let you be the judge. Let me know, Who's the bigger ass-hole, Van Nistelrooy or Cantona?
For further watching, here's when Cantona kicked the fan in the face: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovYWY4Pf9_M&feature=related
Sorry about the quality on the videos - it's the best I could find.
More to come on "Who's the bigger ass-hole"
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Annoying library-goers
I know what you're thinking: "It's 1:00 on inauguration day, Barack Obama just got sworn in, you said you were going to talk about politics in your blog, and this, of all entries, is about something as insignificant as annoying library-goers!" Of course I watched the inauguration, and of course I will talk about politics, but I decided to give BO (no, that's not body odor) a one day grace period before I dismantle his ineffective policies. So Mr. Obama, today's your lucky day. (I am a liberal, but I'm not going to hold back in my criticisms of Mr. Obama.)
I came to the library after the inauguration - didn't feel like going back to the dorm for 45 minutes before class. I simply intended to check my e-mail, catch up on any other news that had happened this morning, and do that philosophy assignment I talked about in my last entry, yet I was rudely interrupted. I sat down next to a friend of mine, and we're both there working on our computers when this girl comes in and sits down at the computer across from me. There are plenty of open computer stations, but I don't fault her for picking that one - it was the most convenient to the entrance, and obviously, she isn't the type of person to be inconvenienced.
Most people carry their cell-phones on vibrate these days. You acn usually hear it in addition to feeling it, and that way it doesn't disturb others. Even more people, who don't normally have their phones on this setting, change it to vibrate upon entering a quiet place like, say, the LIBRARY! So her phone goes off, loudly, with an annoying ringtone, some pop song that's obviously too cool for people like me. At least she answered it quickly, but rather than saying, "Hey, I'm in the library, I'll call you later," she proceeds to have a five minute conversation.
Now we all get annoyed by these things with, according to some people, far too much frequency, yet I would argue that we have every right to be annoyed anytime something like this happens. What she is really saying is, "This phone conversation is more important than the ease with which the six people around me complete their work." I am more important than they are. Now some people are more important than six other people - say Barack Obama. If he wanted to chat on his cell-phone and disrupt my library time while solving America's problems, I would have no issues with that. But to talk about what you got for lunch!!! Come on. I had a turkey sandwich, but I don't know everyone in the library to know about it. (It was a good one, too, in case you cared, which you don't, but I'm subjecting you, my voluntary readers, to the same type of annoyance.)
Ironically, this young woman just left, allowing me to see, on the wall behind where she was sitting, a "no cell phones please" sign. No joke.
I came to the library after the inauguration - didn't feel like going back to the dorm for 45 minutes before class. I simply intended to check my e-mail, catch up on any other news that had happened this morning, and do that philosophy assignment I talked about in my last entry, yet I was rudely interrupted. I sat down next to a friend of mine, and we're both there working on our computers when this girl comes in and sits down at the computer across from me. There are plenty of open computer stations, but I don't fault her for picking that one - it was the most convenient to the entrance, and obviously, she isn't the type of person to be inconvenienced.
Most people carry their cell-phones on vibrate these days. You acn usually hear it in addition to feeling it, and that way it doesn't disturb others. Even more people, who don't normally have their phones on this setting, change it to vibrate upon entering a quiet place like, say, the LIBRARY! So her phone goes off, loudly, with an annoying ringtone, some pop song that's obviously too cool for people like me. At least she answered it quickly, but rather than saying, "Hey, I'm in the library, I'll call you later," she proceeds to have a five minute conversation.
Now we all get annoyed by these things with, according to some people, far too much frequency, yet I would argue that we have every right to be annoyed anytime something like this happens. What she is really saying is, "This phone conversation is more important than the ease with which the six people around me complete their work." I am more important than they are. Now some people are more important than six other people - say Barack Obama. If he wanted to chat on his cell-phone and disrupt my library time while solving America's problems, I would have no issues with that. But to talk about what you got for lunch!!! Come on. I had a turkey sandwich, but I don't know everyone in the library to know about it. (It was a good one, too, in case you cared, which you don't, but I'm subjecting you, my voluntary readers, to the same type of annoyance.)
Ironically, this young woman just left, allowing me to see, on the wall behind where she was sitting, a "no cell phones please" sign. No joke.
Mrs. Locke
I was reminded yesterday of those standardized tests we all had to take back in high school. You know, sit in a room for 4 hours pouring out mindless bullshit about some mind-numbingly boring short story we had to read, or answering math questions that were either so easy as to be done with our eyes closed or too hard to be answered by anyone taking the test. But my recollection yesterday had to do with the writing section. I don't know if any of you remember the way the writing section was evaluated but I remember being struck by the extremely strange scoring system. There was at least one test (maybe it was even the SAT, I'm not sure) that was graded on a scale of 0-6. While this seven point scale seems a little odd at first, upon closer analysis it makes even less sense. Why seven numbers? Wouldn't 0-5 make for a better numbering system? What I'd really love to know though, is how many people got 0's. It was damn near impossible to get a zero. Not only did your reply have to be totally off-topic, it also had to be vulgar or degrading. For example, if given the question "Explain a time in your life in which you have felt marginalized by the society around you and the ways in which you have attempted to overcome that," (a typically absurd question - yeah, I'm just going to pour out my life's story to some masochistic maniac sitting in a hospital-white room in the middle of NJ grading these things), and you responded, "I like the color red," that would be enough to earn you a 1.
So you are wondering, what triggered this memory of mine? As many of my friends from high school will attest, I was always suggesting doing ridiculous things, but never actually doing them - like going into that absurdly named clothing store "Anthropologie" and telling the manager that the store's name was spelled incorrectly. Anyway, yesterday, we got a new type of assignment for my philosophy class. We now have to respond to (and sometimes create) discussion questions about the reading material online prior to class. As soon as my professor discussed the assignment, I couldn't help but think about what it would take to get a 0 on one of these assignments given the scale of those standardized tests. Would, "Hume confueses the hell out of me," be enough, or would I have to try something stronger like, "God damn Spinoza - that crazy sonofabitch?" Here's what I finally settled on: "I wonder what John Locke's wife looked like. Was she hot? I mean, John Locke was really freaking smart. He could probably get a hot wife right? I wonder if she was as good-looking as David Hume's. But Hume was from Scotland - that doesn't bode well. But what about Voltaire? That sly dog surely had to have a hot wife, that is if he ever bothered with a wife or just slept around a whole bunch. Ahhhhh ze French womaaan." I'm pretty sure that would have been enough to get me a zero.
Here's to standardized testing! That we may have something to make fun of throughout our lives!
So you are wondering, what triggered this memory of mine? As many of my friends from high school will attest, I was always suggesting doing ridiculous things, but never actually doing them - like going into that absurdly named clothing store "Anthropologie" and telling the manager that the store's name was spelled incorrectly. Anyway, yesterday, we got a new type of assignment for my philosophy class. We now have to respond to (and sometimes create) discussion questions about the reading material online prior to class. As soon as my professor discussed the assignment, I couldn't help but think about what it would take to get a 0 on one of these assignments given the scale of those standardized tests. Would, "Hume confueses the hell out of me," be enough, or would I have to try something stronger like, "God damn Spinoza - that crazy sonofabitch?" Here's what I finally settled on: "I wonder what John Locke's wife looked like. Was she hot? I mean, John Locke was really freaking smart. He could probably get a hot wife right? I wonder if she was as good-looking as David Hume's. But Hume was from Scotland - that doesn't bode well. But what about Voltaire? That sly dog surely had to have a hot wife, that is if he ever bothered with a wife or just slept around a whole bunch. Ahhhhh ze French womaaan." I'm pretty sure that would have been enough to get me a zero.
Here's to standardized testing! That we may have something to make fun of throughout our lives!
Monday, January 19, 2009
Liverpool's Romanticization
In a week which saw Rafa Benitez fight with the Liverpool board over his new contract, and open a stream of fire against an unsuspecting Sir Alex Ferguson, Liverpool's on-pitch performance was not enough to quiet the critics. Having gone up 1-0 following a beautiful Gerrard missile, the Reds succumbed to a late Tim Cahill equaliser 3 minutes from time.
For those of you Americans who don't follow professional football (it's not soccer) abroad, it might be difficult to understand Liverpool. The best comparisson I can make is to say, the Los Angeles Dodgers. The Dodgers are a storied franchise with a number of World Series titles and substantial, although not superior, financial resources. Yet the Dodgers have underperformed consistently in recent years and it seems there is now a certain pessimism about the franchise. The same can be said for Liverpool. Liverpool are the winningest team in English football history, yet since England went to the Premier League format in the '91-'92 season, Liverpool have yet to win a title. How this is possible is anyone's guess.
Liverpool fans have become like Dodgers fans I think. It seems that as soon as the season starts to go downhill, Liverpool fans know that once again, this is not their year. Such is the mentality surrounding Merseyside now. Liverpool have the same number of points as league leaders Manchester United, but have played one more game. At worst, they could be considered three points off the league lead. Yet the game this weekend against local rivals Everton was considered by the fans a "must-win." The doom and gloom has returned.
I have wondered if the feelings about the club have been influenced by the significant Spanish presence at the club now. With Benitez, Reina, Arbeloa, Alonso, Riera, and Torres, the club boasts quite an accomplished Spanish contingent integral to its success. Reading Phil Ball's columns on Spanish football over the past several years, along with my other knowledge of Spain and Spanish football have helped me realize the significant "romanticization" that takes place in Spanish culture in general, and especially regarding their football. The idea that by being a potential three points off the title race, Liverpool's season is over is preposterous, yet it represents the Romantic thinking so ubiquitous in Spanish football.
May the Reds escape the illogical bounds of Romanticization and come back down to the logical world of mathematical calucations - At the end of next week, they could be top of the table again.
For those of you Americans who don't follow professional football (it's not soccer) abroad, it might be difficult to understand Liverpool. The best comparisson I can make is to say, the Los Angeles Dodgers. The Dodgers are a storied franchise with a number of World Series titles and substantial, although not superior, financial resources. Yet the Dodgers have underperformed consistently in recent years and it seems there is now a certain pessimism about the franchise. The same can be said for Liverpool. Liverpool are the winningest team in English football history, yet since England went to the Premier League format in the '91-'92 season, Liverpool have yet to win a title. How this is possible is anyone's guess.
Liverpool fans have become like Dodgers fans I think. It seems that as soon as the season starts to go downhill, Liverpool fans know that once again, this is not their year. Such is the mentality surrounding Merseyside now. Liverpool have the same number of points as league leaders Manchester United, but have played one more game. At worst, they could be considered three points off the league lead. Yet the game this weekend against local rivals Everton was considered by the fans a "must-win." The doom and gloom has returned.
I have wondered if the feelings about the club have been influenced by the significant Spanish presence at the club now. With Benitez, Reina, Arbeloa, Alonso, Riera, and Torres, the club boasts quite an accomplished Spanish contingent integral to its success. Reading Phil Ball's columns on Spanish football over the past several years, along with my other knowledge of Spain and Spanish football have helped me realize the significant "romanticization" that takes place in Spanish culture in general, and especially regarding their football. The idea that by being a potential three points off the title race, Liverpool's season is over is preposterous, yet it represents the Romantic thinking so ubiquitous in Spanish football.
May the Reds escape the illogical bounds of Romanticization and come back down to the logical world of mathematical calucations - At the end of next week, they could be top of the table again.
Welcome
Hello friends, family, weirdos, and other blogreaders (those were not mutually exclusive. In fact, I certainly expect most people to be in two or more of those categories). I am new to the world of internet blogging, and therefore, if you find my writing, boring, dull, stupid, idiotic, elementary, or even as good as mildly uninteresting, please feel free to hurl your insults and unconstructive criticism in my direction. What I write here may or may not be what I actually believe, but my hope is that it will enhance my writing abilities, and allow me to think where other people can read it and tell me how ridiculous my thoughts are.
For my first post, I wish to share with you an unedited piece I wrote for "RA diversity retraining." Although I planned on my blog having a bit of humor, this is a more serious piece relating to individual search for identity.
For my first post, I wish to share with you an unedited piece I wrote for "RA diversity retraining." Although I planned on my blog having a bit of humor, this is a more serious piece relating to individual search for identity.
Am I Jewish?
I was too young to remember but when I was one year old and my father took me to my first baseball game, a man came up to him asked, "Are you Jewish?" My dad, being Jewish, responded that he was, but this curious stranger was not finished. "Is your son Jewish?" I don't know how my father responded, nor do I particularly care to, but regardless, I am still faced with the same question today.
I've never been to temple, and I've been to church on every Christmas Eve, but I certainly wouldn't characterize myself as Christian. I believe in neither God, in the Christian sense, nor Jesus being his son. But my disbelief in God excludes me from being religioiusly jewish as well.
It is clear then, that my Jewish identity is something cultural. So what does that make me? A cheap, bagel-loving, money-making individual? Well, I do like bagels and I am cheap, but does that really define me? I would rather define myself as a humanitarian, as a liberal, and as an intellectual.
Recently, however, I feel unable to separate myself from being Jewish. I somehow feel guilty about "my people's" actions against the Palestinians in Gaza. Why should I feel guilty? What do my Jewisheness and theirs have in common? Only the fact that we have been "the others" for so long that we must band together. Israel's actions in Gaza have made me reconsider whether I must continue to identify as Jewish and reevlauate whether or not I am Jewish.
Quote for the day:
"The unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates in The Apology
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)