Opinion Log, Summer 2006
I respect people who are willing to change their opinions. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is a good example. He established himself as a famous young follower of Bertrand Russell with the hyperactively rational “Tractacus Logico-Philosophicus”. He then realized everything he’d argued was wrong, and argued that the entire foundation of logic and rationality lacked concrete meaning. Some contemporary academics favor the conclusions of the early Wittgenstein, some favor the later Wittgenstein, and there is nothing they all agree on. I think this is the sign of a great philosopher.
What is an opinion, and why do we cling so tightly to our own? I think it’s a sign of intellectual maturity to stand up in public and declare: “I said this, I thought some more about it, I listened to your responses, and I now realize I was wrong.” How rarely this happens! More often, a person who loses an argument will put his head down and duke it out forever, undeterred by logic or evidence.
I try to never do that, and I am determined to make it my method and my practice, as I operate this blog, to always admit my mistakes when I make them. I hope I don’t make too many. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I’d like to log where I stand on some of the topics we’ll be covering here, so that if any of my beliefs ever change I’ll be able to mark the occasion.
First, let me introduce myself. I’m a New York Jew (though my own religion skews to Buddhism), and I’m generally a liberal moderate, though I sometimes find myself on a conservative side in an argument. Of course, any Jew will choose political philosophies with a sense of irony, since we tend to get fucked over by extremists of any belief. This fact is extra ironic because Jews also tend to be the extremists of many beliefs, and if you think too much about this whole thing your head starts to spin. What conclusions can you draw about my political heritage when my ancestors include both Karl Marx and Henry Kissinger?
I don’t have a great deal of respect for the way the Jewish religion is currently practiced (nor the way the Christian or Muslim religions are currently practiced), but I do take a lot of pride in my ethnic background. I’m pretty sure the greatest Jew of all time was Jesus of Nazareth, and I’m also pretty sure that Bob Dylan and Groucho Marx are tied for close second.
Economically, I’m a middle class 2nd and 3rd generation American, and I work hard (as a website developer and writer) so I can support myself and my three kids and still have enough left over to take my girlfriend on a date. I’ve been broke and I’ve been (dot-com) wealthy. Now I’m still basically broke but I’ve learned how to cook my own meals.
Enough about me. Please meet my opinions. I’m going to list eight issues that will probably be discussed within this site in the future, and I’m going to try to keep this punchy and short:
1. The Arab-Israeli Conflict
In 2002 I created a fake organization called The Committee to Give Jerusalem to Tibet, and that pretty much sums up how I feel today. I want the fighting to stop, and I have no patience for the idea that compromise is impossible; it is possible because it must be possible. There is an incredible amount of propaganda, cheap mythology and dubious history on both sides of this debate, and I would like to improve the quality of the discussion and find the moral center that seems, at this moment, to be completely lost.
Okay, that was neither punchy nor short. I’ll try harder with the next few:
2. George W. Bush and the War in Iraq
Terrible. I hate the destruction this has caused, and I do not believe the victory over Saddam has made the world more stable or secure. In strategic terms, I really think George W. Bush proved himself to be a bad poker player, since only an amateur overplays a big hand. We fell into a classic trap. Osama bin Laden’s best month wasn’t September 2001 … it was March 2003. I do believe in international activism to overthrow dangerous or genocidal governments, but the case must be made in international debate and there must be a much greater consensus.
Even less short and punchy. Okay, I’m doing the next six in one sentence each.
3. Is the U.S.A. a positive or negative force in the world?
Spotty record, but I’d give us a B- overall, which is better than a C+.
4. Is religion a positive or negative force in the world?
Positive.
5. What can prosperous peoples do about famine, poverty and economic injustice around the world?
Most people I know would like to do more but don’t believe that anything they can do will make a difference.
6. Should the nations of the world intervene to prevent genocide in Africa and other similar atrocities?
Yes, and I believe the United Nations should and can play a much bigger role than it currently does.
7. Should the U.S.A. have stronger gun control laws?
I would look for a compromise solution here — I have spent enough time in “red states” to know that it’s a waste of time and effort to try to separate a stubborn homeowner in Indiana from his private stash of rifles and pistols, so gun-control advocates should relax the rhetoric, try to find an effective middle path and get some useful laws pushed through.
8. Should the U.S.A. Supreme Court outlaw abortion?
I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I believe it would be a humanitarian disaster to deny pregnant women the right to make choices about their own bodies — I believe a woman’s right to choose is the most basic right here.
That’s about it … please feel free to start telling me where you completely disagree.
July 24th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Wars are always the headline grabbers, and are always preventable and/or stoppable. I firmly believe that Hezbollah and others use the “eradication of Israel” as a bargaining chip. Which is to say, they could happily live alongside their Jewish brothers if we would force them to.
You’ve said there was nothing sinister about the Nixon administration, but I firmly believe that people like Karl Rove figure that continuous war is the only thing this moron president has going for him. When you give a stupid little dweeb like Bush, the title “Commander in Chief” it’s the same as Goebbels saying “Germany is Hitler, Hitler is Germany.”
Orwell predicted continuous warfare as an essential element of a fascist state, e.g., GOP America. The wars may be disasterous for the people, but they are big business for the corporations, and that’s not a mistake. The Carlyle Group has a website - you can check it out. And they’ve a job waiting for Tony Blair once he leaves politics.
July 25th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Well, I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I will play devil’s advocate for a moment.
You said, “I have no patience for the idea that compromise is impossible; it is possible because it must be possible.”
Of course, this has to be true, but what if some powers don’t want the conflict to end for some reason. It seems like something is going on that we can’t grasp. Let me illustrate. In the movie, The Grapes of Wrath, speaking of the depression and the dust bowl and everyone losing their homes, Tom Joad says, and I paraphrase, “I don’t know what it is, but something’s going on. I’ve got to keep searching until I find out what it is.”
What was going on was simply this (someone please correct me if I get any of this wrong): Rich people from other parts of the country were waiting for the draught to ruin everybody’s crops so they could go in and buy the land cheap. A big corporation could afford irrigation. The government could have helped the farmers irrigate, but they didn’t. FDR’s programs finally helped a lot of people, but only after many farmers were ruined. Then, the government finally started helping farmers, but that included the big, fat-cat farmers as well.
So I think some big fat-cat world leaders are propagatin’ this here war, too, brother.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:46 am
To say “I firmly believe” or “I am sure that…” are not good arguments. So let me add some historical facts. There was little or no violence in the Middle East during the 90’s when Clinton, Barak, Arrafat, and others were constantly negotiating for a permanent peace. Then Bush and Sharon came to power.
The media (which shapes public opinion) presented this as - Palestinians reject peaceful settlement, so Israelis elect a hardliner who will teach them a lesson. The Palestinian response was to elect Hamas - thus we meet fire with fire - war with war.
Bush’s position has always been - the region isn’t ready for “Clintonian peace” i.e., the US won’t broker an even-handed settlement that is fair to all sides - we’ll just sit back and watch more people die.
Those are the historical facts as I know them. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Religion is primarily evil; it is so evil, I am surprised that people do not readily recognize it. But we are indoctrinated from birth to be religious, thus we continuously associate religion with the joys of childhood. It is in many ways a nostalgic childish concept.
Apologists for religion are wrong on several fronts. They will argue that it is a civilizing force in a chaotic environment. Wrong - nature is not chaotic; it is unsympathetic to human dominance, but it is not chaotic. Quite the opposite, nature (absent humanity) is in itself entirely harmonious.
Religion is responsible for the genocide, eradication, or destruction of natural civilizations in north and south America, Australia, and Africa. (Have you seen the movie “Rabbit Proof Fence”?) European Kings and Popes sent armies to kill and conquer everything in the name of Christ. The Iquisition is a direct precursor to Hitler.
History (as we are taught it) largely ignores the Iquisition; and considers European global conquest as “the advancement of civilization.” But there is no intrinsic superiority of the modern civilized religionized man, over the natural hunter-gatherer of which examples still exist in tiny remote regions. We wouldn’t survive a week in the Amazon jungle where naked native children play (in harmony with nature).
Even the upside to religion’s effort to “tame the savage beast” is inheirently false. As a moral force, religion purports to distinguish right from wrong. But in failing to achieve this through reason or logic, religion jumps at the irrefutable proof that their moral authority is based on God’s law. Thus it doesn’t have to be proven or reasonable, it only has to be adamantly adhered to in fear of social castigation or isolation. That is - you’ll be kicked out of society if you don’t believe what we tell you to.
Religion deliberately blurs the obvious distinction between spirituality and heirarchal organization. Everyone enjoys the feeling of “holiness” of being all alone in a dark quiet church, of being together in a crowded church singing Christmas-Nativity songs, of being part of a Hassidic community where everything is ordered, peaceful, and traditional; or of being alone with nature and feeling a connectedness to everything. This holy feeling, or spirituality has nothing to do with organized religion, nothing whatsoever, but religions steal this spiritual feeling from us and claim it as their own.
It is the “being in tune with innate” as David Palmer called it, or the “oneness with the universe” that hippies and others throughout history have described. It is a natural existential sense (a sixth sense, if you will) that is in all things - re-Spinoza, the Bhagavad Gita, L. Ron Hubbard, Tony Roberts, et. al. Religions should never be allowed to steal this feeling and use it to their own subterfuge.
Finally, the essential evil that is religion, is the God-given authority to deny people the right to think for themselves. The first commandment of every religion is - don’t think, believe. Or as every con-man begins his spiel -”trust me.” Reasoning is the essential human talent. Religion, to exist, has to negate that; has to assert that it can think for you. That is a very comforting denial of our own responsibility. But look around, see where it has brought us. Think for yourself, as John Lennon said.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Stokely — I agree with your first post. I think it’s pretty obvious that I favor Bill Clinton’s approach to diplomacy to George Bush’s, and I was also disgusted at Ariel Sharon’s attitude towards Palestinian relations.
On your second post, what can I possibly say? Obviously we disagree about this, but I think it’s too big a subject to be handled in the comments area following a blog post. I think this is a subject I’m going to be covering a lot here in the future.
August 6th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
I believe the true purpose of religion is to fulfill our spiritual needs. Too bad it got hijacked. I suppose I have to become a cathedral of my own.