For over 50 years now, the United Nations has consolidated nearly all its power in one organization, the UN Security Council, and its five “permanent” members, the US, Russia, China, France, and the UK. In addition to holding permanent status on the powerful board, they also hold the often-abused “veto” to remove any resolution that threatens their interests. The UN Security Council must remove its permanent member status and remove the veto from all its members if it is to be respected as a world organization.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council all represent the victorious powers of WWII; it’s no coincidence that Germany and Japan are absent. The fact that the permanent members happened to be on the winners’ side is an unfair and unjust criterion for deciding who gets such a great power. In addition, the veto power gives these five nations humongous power and influence. Many resolutions that question evil actions are often shot-down because criticism would be counter to the permanent member nation’s interests.
A prime example of this is Israel. Despite the fact that it has committed abuses to the Palestinians and its own citizens, it continues to get away with its crimes no doubt due to the influence the US has on the UN Security Council. Indeed, since 1990, the US has made more vetoes than all of the other permanent member nations, many of these involving Israel. Such abuse and misuse of power can only be removed by the removal of said power itself.
The UN professes to be an international organization set up to defend the interests of all nations. But the UN Security Council, with its permanent members and the veto, is clearly at odds with its professed “ideals.” Only reform of the UN Security Council will enable the UN to pursue its noble and praiseworthy goals.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Winning Isn't Everything, Especially For Cartoon Characters
What do Tom Cat, the Trix rabbit, Chip the Wolf, and Plankton all have in common? They’re all “perennial losers,” destined by the hands of fate to be pitted in a losing war. But while this may seem all fun and games, deeper analysis into this phenomenon reveals a darker picture. If you don’t believe me, then perhaps an inside scoop might change your opinion.
First, because these guys can’t get the upper hand, we are starving four innocent souls to death. It should be noted there is another common theme to these characters; they all desire food. How can we talk about feeding children in Africa when we fail to address dietary needs in our own nation? This isn’t just hypocritical; it’s downright cruel and inhumane.
Second, think of the damage to their self-esteem. The fact that these characters continuously fail at life means that society is imposing a great psychological burden on them. Their tales of persistence and fortitude are beautiful lessons that should be admired and reflected upon to prevent others from suffering a similar fate.
Third, what becomes of the “perennial winners” when they always succeed? They become a bunch of nasty scumbags of course! Jerry Mouse, Mr. Krabs, and the seemingly “innocent” kids of Cereal and Yogurt Land epitomize the spirit of insensitive braggarts. By allowing this behavior to go unnoticed, we not only cause undue injustice on others, we also encourage future generations to believe that winning is everything.
What I have stated before you is the true fate of “perennial losers”. My views and others of the like have long been suppressed by those who attempt to portray a twisted picture of characters “who started it” and “deserve what happens to them.” But together, we can make a difference to insure that the perennial losers may be tormented no more.
First, because these guys can’t get the upper hand, we are starving four innocent souls to death. It should be noted there is another common theme to these characters; they all desire food. How can we talk about feeding children in Africa when we fail to address dietary needs in our own nation? This isn’t just hypocritical; it’s downright cruel and inhumane.
Second, think of the damage to their self-esteem. The fact that these characters continuously fail at life means that society is imposing a great psychological burden on them. Their tales of persistence and fortitude are beautiful lessons that should be admired and reflected upon to prevent others from suffering a similar fate.
Third, what becomes of the “perennial winners” when they always succeed? They become a bunch of nasty scumbags of course! Jerry Mouse, Mr. Krabs, and the seemingly “innocent” kids of Cereal and Yogurt Land epitomize the spirit of insensitive braggarts. By allowing this behavior to go unnoticed, we not only cause undue injustice on others, we also encourage future generations to believe that winning is everything.
What I have stated before you is the true fate of “perennial losers”. My views and others of the like have long been suppressed by those who attempt to portray a twisted picture of characters “who started it” and “deserve what happens to them.” But together, we can make a difference to insure that the perennial losers may be tormented no more.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
One "Inner Ring" to Rule Them All
I just read C.S. Lewis' lecture "The Inner Ring" this week, and I was very impressed at both the message and literary techniques Lewis made and utilized. It seems that the guy can do more than write fantasy books after all! But jokes notwithstanding, I respect the claim Lewis was trying to get across, "Be with others for the sake of enjoyment and fulfillment, not to be 'in'". It is a lesson I find applicable in all eras, from Lewis' to our own.
In terms of actual writing, what I found to be the most helpful was Lewis' frankness and bluntness. His lecture was very straightforward and to the point in terms of tone, and he clearly showed this in his interactions with the audience. Which leads me to my second point; Lewis was very involved with his audience. He constantly referenced them, discussed their possible fates, and spoke very casually to them. His first line was "May I read you a few lines from Tolstoy's War and Peace?" almost as if he actually needed their approval before proceeding. Such techniques, along with simple but clever diction choices and the usage of allusions contemporary to his time, helped to make the piece both intellectual and enjoyable to read.
As I have already mentioned, Lewis' main claim was this, "Be with others for the sake of enjoyment and fulfillment, not to be 'in'". Throughout the piece, Lewis uses his essay's title, "The Inner Ring", as a metaphor for inclusion and belonging. And while he makes the point that the rings are necessary, and sometimes actually good, he also makes the distinction that "the desire which draws us into Inner Rings is another matter. A thing may be morally neutral and yet the desire for that thing may be dangerous." Near the end of the piece, Lewis reemphasizes this when he describes a fictional scenario about joining a musical quartet. While he argues that there's nothing wrong for participating if it's for the sake of "some wholesome reason", he does claim that "if all you want is to be in the know, your pleasure will be short lived...By the very act of admitting you it has lost its magic."
I found "The Inner Ring" to be both quite enlightening and fun. I can only wonder if his audience at King's College in 1944 felt the same. Regardless, I believe that Lewis' message is one for all ages, all societies, and all times. "The quest of the Inner Ring will break your hearts unless you break it. But if you break it, a surprising result will follow." Well said Mr. Lewis.
In terms of actual writing, what I found to be the most helpful was Lewis' frankness and bluntness. His lecture was very straightforward and to the point in terms of tone, and he clearly showed this in his interactions with the audience. Which leads me to my second point; Lewis was very involved with his audience. He constantly referenced them, discussed their possible fates, and spoke very casually to them. His first line was "May I read you a few lines from Tolstoy's War and Peace?" almost as if he actually needed their approval before proceeding. Such techniques, along with simple but clever diction choices and the usage of allusions contemporary to his time, helped to make the piece both intellectual and enjoyable to read.
As I have already mentioned, Lewis' main claim was this, "Be with others for the sake of enjoyment and fulfillment, not to be 'in'". Throughout the piece, Lewis uses his essay's title, "The Inner Ring", as a metaphor for inclusion and belonging. And while he makes the point that the rings are necessary, and sometimes actually good, he also makes the distinction that "the desire which draws us into Inner Rings is another matter. A thing may be morally neutral and yet the desire for that thing may be dangerous." Near the end of the piece, Lewis reemphasizes this when he describes a fictional scenario about joining a musical quartet. While he argues that there's nothing wrong for participating if it's for the sake of "some wholesome reason", he does claim that "if all you want is to be in the know, your pleasure will be short lived...By the very act of admitting you it has lost its magic."
I found "The Inner Ring" to be both quite enlightening and fun. I can only wonder if his audience at King's College in 1944 felt the same. Regardless, I believe that Lewis' message is one for all ages, all societies, and all times. "The quest of the Inner Ring will break your hearts unless you break it. But if you break it, a surprising result will follow." Well said Mr. Lewis.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Transcendentalism: Its Meaning, Aspects, and Significance
Transcendentalism:
Also called transcendental philosophy, any philosophy based upon the doctrine that the principles of reality are to be discovered by the study of the processes of thought, or a philosophy emphasizing the intuitive and spiritual above the empirical: in the U.S., associated with Emerson.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transcendentalism)
Transcendentalism was one of the most influential and powerful philosophical movements in the history of the young US. It was espoused by many this country's great movers and shakers, like Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, and more. Like its inspiration Romanticism, Transcendentalism was a counter-movement against the logic and empiricism of the Enlightenment, emphasizing heart over mind with an American twist. But most of all, it gave future generations like ours beautiful treasures like "Self Reliance", "Walden", and others, beauties that classes and scholars alike continue to read today.
Even if this movement is nearly two hundred years old and lays dormant at best, its tenants are needed now more than ever before. People all over not just the US but the world have become heavily preoccupied with work and making fortunes, all at the expense of family, society, and tradition. We blindly follow parties and groups when discussing the big issues of the day, and these parties in turn stoop to pandering to the lowest common denominator to gain more support. True, one shouldn't just refuse modernity and stare stubbornly towards the past, and one shouldn't refuse to work with others to achieve a similar goal; that would lead to even worse problems. But one always needs to promote a balance in thinking, keeping one foot perched forward and the other grounded in morals, culture, and etiquette. Transcendentalism as a philosophy and a way of life just might be the cure that we as a society need.
"... the doctrine that the principles of reality are to be discovered by the study of the processes of thought"
Much of Transcendentalist thought may be considered by society today as "mystical" or "abstract". Indeed, many writers, like Emerson, emphasized religion and divinity in their works, while others like Thoreau actually wrote works away from society in cabins like a secluded monk. The Transcendentalists liked to pry deep into what humanity actually did, and then proceed to describe what humanity should do, very much like sociologists, psychologists, and philosophers do today. "Reality" was never what it showed itself to be; it was filled with layer upon layer of secrets and deceptions waiting to be uncovered. Only by "transcending" the mundane world of materialism and complication could one hope to discover the truth; only by "Simplifying, simplifying, simplifying" could one feel happy and content.
"... a philosophy emphasizing the intuitive and spiritual above the empirical"
But if transcending was the door to discovering the mysteries of the universe and obtaining joy, rejecting facts, custom, and dogmas was its key. The Transcendentalists expressly showed disdain for being a follower, always emphasizing man's dignity, self-worth, and individuality, and berating those who refused to exercise this and become slaves to ideology. They believed in the power of feeling and emotion over the "cold logic" of the Enlightenment, always equating them with divinity and nature. Even their style of writing expresses this; their writing was very flowery, poetic, elaborate, and ornate, more often than not ambiguous and hard to decipher. After all, if life was a maze, so was to be their writing; long, winding, but always leading to one final point.
Many people today might find Transcendentalism to be a philosophy of the elite, too fancy and confusing in an age where we applaud logic, science, reason, and human progress. Such things are to be admired and enjoyed, for without them humanity would be condemned to stagnation and unoriginality. But we must make sure that we aren't consumed by these principles; in our quest to become greater and smarter, we mustn't shove our humanity aside as a sacrifice. We must retain true to morals and higher laws, laws that still allow us to be ingenuous while protecting us from our own demons. I believe that Transcendentalism may be the key to such a goal. When Thoreau talked about reading newspapers in "Where I Lived, and What I Lived For", he didn't say don't read newspapers, but rather don't read them excessively. When he talked about railroads, he warned us about not letting them "ride on our backs" rather than saying we should destroy them all in one stroke. Life is filled with opportunities and bountiful treasures, but in our sojourns to find and take them, we mustn't stoop to the level of beasts and demons. We must always remember to preserve our innate goodness and stay true to our humanity, lest we suffer the consequences.
Also called transcendental philosophy, any philosophy based upon the doctrine that the principles of reality are to be discovered by the study of the processes of thought, or a philosophy emphasizing the intuitive and spiritual above the empirical: in the U.S., associated with Emerson.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transcendentalism)
Transcendentalism was one of the most influential and powerful philosophical movements in the history of the young US. It was espoused by many this country's great movers and shakers, like Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, and more. Like its inspiration Romanticism, Transcendentalism was a counter-movement against the logic and empiricism of the Enlightenment, emphasizing heart over mind with an American twist. But most of all, it gave future generations like ours beautiful treasures like "Self Reliance", "Walden", and others, beauties that classes and scholars alike continue to read today.
Even if this movement is nearly two hundred years old and lays dormant at best, its tenants are needed now more than ever before. People all over not just the US but the world have become heavily preoccupied with work and making fortunes, all at the expense of family, society, and tradition. We blindly follow parties and groups when discussing the big issues of the day, and these parties in turn stoop to pandering to the lowest common denominator to gain more support. True, one shouldn't just refuse modernity and stare stubbornly towards the past, and one shouldn't refuse to work with others to achieve a similar goal; that would lead to even worse problems. But one always needs to promote a balance in thinking, keeping one foot perched forward and the other grounded in morals, culture, and etiquette. Transcendentalism as a philosophy and a way of life just might be the cure that we as a society need.
"... the doctrine that the principles of reality are to be discovered by the study of the processes of thought"
Much of Transcendentalist thought may be considered by society today as "mystical" or "abstract". Indeed, many writers, like Emerson, emphasized religion and divinity in their works, while others like Thoreau actually wrote works away from society in cabins like a secluded monk. The Transcendentalists liked to pry deep into what humanity actually did, and then proceed to describe what humanity should do, very much like sociologists, psychologists, and philosophers do today. "Reality" was never what it showed itself to be; it was filled with layer upon layer of secrets and deceptions waiting to be uncovered. Only by "transcending" the mundane world of materialism and complication could one hope to discover the truth; only by "Simplifying, simplifying, simplifying" could one feel happy and content.
"... a philosophy emphasizing the intuitive and spiritual above the empirical"
But if transcending was the door to discovering the mysteries of the universe and obtaining joy, rejecting facts, custom, and dogmas was its key. The Transcendentalists expressly showed disdain for being a follower, always emphasizing man's dignity, self-worth, and individuality, and berating those who refused to exercise this and become slaves to ideology. They believed in the power of feeling and emotion over the "cold logic" of the Enlightenment, always equating them with divinity and nature. Even their style of writing expresses this; their writing was very flowery, poetic, elaborate, and ornate, more often than not ambiguous and hard to decipher. After all, if life was a maze, so was to be their writing; long, winding, but always leading to one final point.
Many people today might find Transcendentalism to be a philosophy of the elite, too fancy and confusing in an age where we applaud logic, science, reason, and human progress. Such things are to be admired and enjoyed, for without them humanity would be condemned to stagnation and unoriginality. But we must make sure that we aren't consumed by these principles; in our quest to become greater and smarter, we mustn't shove our humanity aside as a sacrifice. We must retain true to morals and higher laws, laws that still allow us to be ingenuous while protecting us from our own demons. I believe that Transcendentalism may be the key to such a goal. When Thoreau talked about reading newspapers in "Where I Lived, and What I Lived For", he didn't say don't read newspapers, but rather don't read them excessively. When he talked about railroads, he warned us about not letting them "ride on our backs" rather than saying we should destroy them all in one stroke. Life is filled with opportunities and bountiful treasures, but in our sojourns to find and take them, we mustn't stoop to the level of beasts and demons. We must always remember to preserve our innate goodness and stay true to our humanity, lest we suffer the consequences.
The End
Friday, December 4, 2009
Afghanistan, Obama's Vietnam
I would personally call myself a Democrat in a more relaxed sense of the term. There are in fact many things that I side with the Republican Party on, mostly relating to social issues like homosexuality and abortion, while at the same time I admire the party of the donkey for its more welfare-oriented and, yes I'll say it, socialist approach to politics, epitomized in the recent health-care debates. The same thing can be said for President Obama. While I knew that he wouldn't be a perfect chief executive (no President will ever be, quite honestly), at least he wasn't McCain, Bush, or Cheney, and eight years of neo-Conservatism in the White House was enough for me. But, to put it bluntly, Obama's recent troop surge of 30,000 soldiers in Afghanistan is extremely reminiscent of former President Bush's "active" foreign policy approach. I can't convey enough how disappointed I am with the President's decision.
No one ever said getting out of Afghanistan would be easy. No one said that it wouldn't be met with opposition regarding how and when to do it. I will concede that, at the very least, Obama seems to be making steps towards getting out of Iraq, his other war theater inherited from Bush, and that he specifically stated that troop withdrawals would begin sometime in the next 18 months (I just hope that he honors that commitment when the time comes), both of which are two very crucial decisions that never crossed Bush's mind. But let's face it folks, this war has been dragging on for about eight years. There is absolutely no sign of real "success" in the near and far future (and there's still no sign of what success actually is). Thousands of unnecessary lives are being wasted away as we speak, and even more money is being burned away into the furnace of warfare (hey, here's an idea to lower the deficit, stop pumping money across the Atlantic for starters). Somehow I find this situation to be very familiar. Deja vu, perhaps?
OK, so maybe a 16 going on 17 year old king's opinion may not suffice as "educated" or "sophisticated", but what about those of war families? While some have decided to dutifully prepare themselves for the call of war, many families, plagued with absent members serving up to three or four tours in Iraq, might now have to add more to their plate with tours in Afghanistan. For many, these sacrifices are making huge burdens on family cohesiveness, and, of course, every tour increases the chance of becoming another number in the news.
Getting out of both Iraq and Afghanistan have been and will continue to be very thorny issues in the coming months, and while I commend President Barack Obama's efforts to "execute this transition responsibly", I believe that his methods are far from the proper way to go. A good lawmaker, a pragmatic strategist, and a clear-headed leader must know when it is and isn't the time to end a war. President Obama, the time is now. End this war for the sake of the Afghan people. End this war for the sake of the American soldiers and their families. End this war for the sake of rebuilding our economy by removing one more expense. Don't give me fancy language or beat around the bush. President Obama, please end this war.
No one ever said getting out of Afghanistan would be easy. No one said that it wouldn't be met with opposition regarding how and when to do it. I will concede that, at the very least, Obama seems to be making steps towards getting out of Iraq, his other war theater inherited from Bush, and that he specifically stated that troop withdrawals would begin sometime in the next 18 months (I just hope that he honors that commitment when the time comes), both of which are two very crucial decisions that never crossed Bush's mind. But let's face it folks, this war has been dragging on for about eight years. There is absolutely no sign of real "success" in the near and far future (and there's still no sign of what success actually is). Thousands of unnecessary lives are being wasted away as we speak, and even more money is being burned away into the furnace of warfare (hey, here's an idea to lower the deficit, stop pumping money across the Atlantic for starters). Somehow I find this situation to be very familiar. Deja vu, perhaps?
OK, so maybe a 16 going on 17 year old king's opinion may not suffice as "educated" or "sophisticated", but what about those of war families? While some have decided to dutifully prepare themselves for the call of war, many families, plagued with absent members serving up to three or four tours in Iraq, might now have to add more to their plate with tours in Afghanistan. For many, these sacrifices are making huge burdens on family cohesiveness, and, of course, every tour increases the chance of becoming another number in the news.
Getting out of both Iraq and Afghanistan have been and will continue to be very thorny issues in the coming months, and while I commend President Barack Obama's efforts to "execute this transition responsibly", I believe that his methods are far from the proper way to go. A good lawmaker, a pragmatic strategist, and a clear-headed leader must know when it is and isn't the time to end a war. President Obama, the time is now. End this war for the sake of the Afghan people. End this war for the sake of the American soldiers and their families. End this war for the sake of rebuilding our economy by removing one more expense. Don't give me fancy language or beat around the bush. President Obama, please end this war.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
